December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: whitehouse web incident, viva la web revolution
by Bruce Baugh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:17 PM 6/5/96 -0400, Hallam-Baker wrote: >rather than reasoned argument. His dislike for the Clinton is >well known - he recently accused the administration of being >fascist. I know of no evidence that the Clinton administration >has a genocide policy, it is an insult to the 10 million civilians >murdered by Hitler to use the term facist simply as a term of abuse, >especialy if it is being used as a substitute for an argument. Fascism has no intrinsic link to genocide. It is a theory of economics, basically, in which the state has ultimate authority over production and distribution without (as in socialism) actually _owning_ the means of production or distribution. This is generally accomplished through cartelization, the creatin of industry-wide councils in which the representatives of the most powerful firms set policy in conjunction with the representatives of the government. The US has been at least moderately fascist since the 1920s (Hoover was a big fan of cartelization, and pushed it actively). While the mechanisms of the modern regulatory state aren't those of classic fascist theory, in practice most strongly regulated industries in this country operate _exactly_ the way fascist theory says they should. And various of Clinton's policies have, in fact, been fascist in this sense. The man has no doctrinal commitment to fascism (under that name or any other), but in practical terms virtually all modern Western politics are either fascist or socialist. None of this is secret lore, by the way. -- Bruce Baugh bruce(a)aracnet.com http://www.aracnet.com/~bruce

3 2

"Fascism is corporatism"
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 6:18 PM 6/6/96, Rich Graves wrote: >On Wed, 5 Jun 1996, Bruce Baugh, who usually knows better, wrote: > >> Fascism has no intrinsic link to genocide. It is a theory of economics, >> basically, in which the state has ultimate authority over production and >> distribution without (as in socialism) actually _owning_ the means of >> production or distribution. This is generally accomplished through >> cartelization, the creatin of industry-wide councils in which the >> representatives of the most powerful firms set policy in conjunction with >> the representatives of the government. ... >Yes, I'm afraid these ahistorical myths are widespread. What _do_ they teach >in these schools? > >Pick up anything by Renzo De Felice to gain a basic historical understanding >of what fascism was about, from someone who was sympathetic to them. Rich, I don't think it nearly so clear as you are claiming. The definition of fascism, that is. Without resorting to the usual ploy of quoting Webster's (a ploy I usually am not impressed by), let me cite an "anti-fascist" radio personality, Dave Emory, who I have been listening to nearly every week for several years. Dave is undeniably anti-fascist, an unusual mixture of left-leaning views and National Rifle Association sympathies, and he often quotes Mussolini's famous "Fascism is corporatism" line. That is, a view more similar to Bruce Baugh's point that fascism is primarily an economic theory, about the organization and ownership of production systems, than about hatred of any particular ethnic group. It is certainly true that Italian and German fascism (and the important variant of "national socialism") become intertwined with certain forms of racism, with which we are all familiar, but I don't think Bruce is at all wrong in his definition of fascism. That Hitler and his group combined fascist economic theories with occultist views of racial superiority does not mean the two viewpoints are identical. ("Fascism is corporatism" is of course not an overall indictment of all corporations. "Corporatism" is basically a view that government should identify key industries and corporations and then pick the winners and support them while suppressing their competitors. This oversimplifies what Mussolini, Emory, myself, etc. mean by "corporatism," but I hope this gives at least a glimpse. And we could get off into discussions of "state capitalism" and how the Soviet and Chinese forms of government were essentially examples of "state capitalism," but this would be a long and involved debate.) >I'd also recommend a biography of the very influential and gifted American >modernist poet Ezra Pound, who led the Italian fascist propaganda effort >from 1941 to 1943 and spent six months in an American POW camp, followed by >some time in mental hospitals as his rants against jewish conspiracies under >every bed became increasingly incoherent, for his trouble. Like Orwell's >very complicated views towards socialism and Stalinism (see Homage to >Catalonia), e. e. cummings' anti-government pacifism, Whitman's queerness, >and Byron's essential kookiness, this is something your high school english >teacher probably failed to mention. My high school teachers failed to mention much of anything, but this was hardly surprising to me--I never expected them to. Fortunately, I knew how to read, and so I learned all of these things. (Except for Pound, whom I didn't encounter until my first year in college.) --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1

Re: FOR WHOM THE BELL TOLLS
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:54 PM 6/6/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: >However, recall that Senator Jesse Helms elliptically threatened President >Clinton by saying that Clinton had probably better be wearing a >bullet-proof vest if he ever visited Helms' part of the country. (Even the >Republicans were shocked by this, and, I surmise, cast Helms into the outer >darkness, as Helms has been keeping a low profile for the past 18 months.) However, Helms is a politician and he's supposed to be on his best behavior. (What Helms' "best behavior" is, is certainly debateable.) >* Third, while I am bored with Bell's "single note" point of view ("I have >a solution for this") Bored? You're bored? Maybe I'm going to have to figure out something to spice it up, huh? By the time everybody is as bored as you are today, then I will have won. >and while I feel his "assassination politics" is both naive "naive"? In what way? > and derivative, Technically, it wasn't derived from anything directly, or for that matter even indirectly. However, since there's nothing new under the sun, similarities exist...with your material as well. Consider this a bow to you, I suppose. > I don't think his advocacy of AP constitutes a direct threat to anyone. Even so, given how much noise we've been hearing out of DC on the subject of the Internet, digital cash, and good encryption, I'd say SOMEBODY is getting a bit worried. I haven't exactly been keeping this stuff a secret: What do you think their reaction has been, so far? When those government-types start considering various scary scenarios, what do you think they are imagining? >He is not actually setting up the betting markets which >would make AP more of a reality, Not quite yet, anyway. I'm very disappointed to have waited over a year for some slick lawyer to show me how I'd be violating some law or another to do so. >nor is he calling for the killing of any particilar persons. I generally don't feel the need to name specific people. I'm sure each reader has his own pet list to fall back on. >* Fourth, merely discussing alternative political systems is not enough to >trigger legal action, at least not today. Wait a year or two. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

3 2

Re: No Kidding
by Hal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> The absence > of governmental regulation of Internet content has unquestionably > produced a kind of chaos, but as one of plaintiffs' experts put > it with such resonance at the hearing: > What achieved success was the very > chaos that the Internet is. The > strength of the Internet is that > chaos.[23] > > Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of > our liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony of the > unfettered speech the First Amendment protects. This is beautifully eloquent. I hope it will be persuasive with the Supreme Court. Does anyone know which witness came up with the quote above? Obviously it resonated with the judges. Hal

2 1

Re: Anonymous remailers mentioned in CDA decision
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The right to anonymity on the Net got a big boost during the Q&A at the ACLU press conference here in NYC on the CDA win -- with a recitation of its distinguished history in assuring freedom of speech and political activity. As did the corollary right to strong encryption to assure protection from intruders of gov-biz-jealous-lovers of all stripes. The CDA decision is a wondrous read for its coverage of so many topics discussed here; each judge's opinion is separately admirable. And, based, on the remarks of panelists at the conference, it will surely advance privacy protection measures and support loosening of crypto controls. But still subject to the unpredictable Supremes, a Solomon cautioned, if DoJ elects to appeal.

5 6

Re: Britain to control crypto - official (fwd from Usenet)
by John Pettitt 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:07 PM 6/11/96 -0400, David Lesher wrote: >The British government quietly announced yesterday that it will >legislate to restrict crypto. The details are in the attached >Reuters and PA newswires. So I didn't see any move top 'restrict crypto' in the two wire stories. It looked like the return of clipper with escrow agents other than government which seems *almost* reasonable when I note that they are not mandating any of this stuff. Still given the close relationship between Cheltenham and Ft Mead one is left wondering what the real story is ... John Pettitt, jpp(a)software.net EVP, CyberSource Corporation, 415 473 3065 PGP Key available at: http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/htbin/pks-extract-key.pl?op=get&search=0xB7AA37…

1 0

Re: plugging in
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:05 PM 6/11/96 -0500, Alex Strasheim wrote: >Doing tech support at my ISP has made me very skeptical of anything that >requires a plug in. Most people aren't willing or able to download and >install them. I have installed, RealAudio as have many other people. Likewise Streamworks. I agree with your general point about general plugins but plugins for specific purposes will be deployed (at least until Netscape includes the capabilities). DCF

1 0

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: HACKERPUNKS MAILING LIST
by David Rosoff 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 10.12 AM 6/11/96 -0400, SINCLAIR DOUGLAS N wrote: >I don't have a C2 account, and don't really want to pay for one. >I trust someone will put the hackerpunks archives on the web so >the rest of us can read them. C2 nym accounts are free. =============================================================================== David Rosoff (nihongo o chiisaku dekimasu) -------------> drosoff(a)arc.unm.edu For PGP key 0xD37692F9, finger drosoff(a)acoma.arc.unm.edu or get from keyservers pub 1024/D37692F9 1995/07/01 David Rosoff <drosoff(a)arc.unm.edu> Key fingerprint = 25 7D AA 01 85 41 43 89 50 5A 33 76 F1 F1 99 67 I accept anonymous mail. If I didn't sign it, you don't know I wrote it. === "Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will / To strive, to seek, to find-- and not to yield." <---- "Ulysses", by Alfred, Lord Tennyson -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMb4A5xguzHDTdpL5AQGxLQP/YXH9uWmXC2xK/Pr/c4kdyopE213bsQpL +T3RD2qSK+qO234fHL3nJmQVBTS5Eyyw4YtMEmnV87vclpWbP9WIr+7RDvYpr/aM 1/6QBEux3f/K6SaPD5iBHfuoc8XkriqhfXgiiUnVK4IxbhHaLatPpSeKLQmX0o2Q 3fVXFjWuEGs= =sSf7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Information Age Intelligence
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Foreign Policy, Summer 1996: "Information Age Intelligence." by Bruce D. Berkowitz, a former CIA analyst and staff member for the Senate Intelllgence Committee. Excerpts of 14-page essay: During most of this century, the intelligence community led the world in developing information technology. Intelligence organizations were deeply involved in the development of telegraph and telephone networks, modern computers, and space-based communications and surveillance systems. The intelligence community also established new forms of analysis and areas of expertise. Yet several signs suggest that the intelligence community is no longer the leader in the information world, and it may have fallen behind significantly in some respects. The underlying problem is that the intelligence community has failed to keep up with changes in how modern society uses information and how information technology develops in modern society. As a result, our model for intelligence is out-of-date. This reality is what current efforts at intelligence reform are failing to recognize. The intelligence community needs to move as fast as information businesses do to capture markets, but the traditional organization is not up to the task. Today's model for intelligence -- how it is organized and how it operates -- is an artifact from an earlier age. Even the name "Central Intelligence Agency" is reminiscent of the New Deal era, when large, powerful, national bureaucracies were the accepted way of getting things done efficiently. It makes less sense in a world moving toward fluid, distributed, networked information organizations. As the capabilities of the private sector improve, the intelligence community will need to move on to the next frontier of technology or expertise that the private sector has yet to fill. While one challenge for intelligence reform is to keep up with these changes, fundamentally the greater challenge will be to establish an organization that can adapt with the times. One reason why the intelligence community cannot deal effectively with the Information Revolution is that intelligence requirements and the intelligence community's comparative advantage are both fluid, but the traditional intelligence bureaucracy remains static. In addition, organizations responsible for developing and applying technology, such as the National Reconnaissance Office (NRC)) and the National Security Agency (NSA), have created organizational dogma, and dogma always resist change. Once such organizations carve out a place for themselves (and their technologies) in the budget, they can be difficult to dislodge. The fact that these organizations often operate at a classified level further insulates them. As a result, the intelligence community often locks into specific technologies, even when new and possibly better ideas have come along. http://pwp.usa.pipeline.com/~jya/fpintel.htm ----- Our Web site was hosed clean today, so this article may not survive. If not there, send us e-mail with the subject: FPI_ntl

1 0

Re: Micropayments: myth?
by foodie＠localhost.netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Brian describes a UI metaphor for micropayments, with a gauge indicating the value of your micropayment purse and a cutoff for the maximum automatic per-unit payment: >Now, let's consider bridging this metaphor into the micropayments world. >Imagine that surfing the web is like driving a car - you'll dribble out >small amounts of money over a period of time, but as long as you watch >your speedometer (the rate at which you spend money) and the feul tank >levels (the amount of coinage in your wallet), you are in control of your >spending rates. Whether you approve every micropayment explicitly, or >you set a minimum level below which requests for payments are automagically >granted, is up to you. Me, I'd probably be alright with just about any >site I go to asking for less than $.02 for any action I take. Anything >above that, I want to be explicitly asked. My user interface has a gas >gauge and a speedometer in the upper-right-hand corner instead of a >throbbing "N". When my levels are low, I go visit my bank and "refill" >my wallet. Voila! That's fine so long as the majority of sites one visits all cost within, say, an order of magnitude or so. What happens if people skip around a lot? When I go from checking out Hagbard's Poetry Corner, which charges $.02 cents per page (and falls below the speedometer cutoff), and switch over to Belbo's Future's Tips Market, which charges a dollar a page, I'm going to get annoying alerts every click. If one allows customizing the cutoff for each page, the guage becomes meaningless (as much as if your car occasionally sucked half the gas tank at one stoplight). If you don't, it is annoying. Sure, $1.00 a page, perhaps, pushes the micropayment scale, but I'm sure there are plenty of folks who would set the cutoff in that range or higher. Perhaps a graphical relation-o-meter, comparing some user defined scale to the cost of the current page, so that users could get a relative feel for high rent districts (Web-rent control, anyone?), but I can see pitfalls to this appoach, too. I don't think this works unless the micropayments world standardizes on a very narrow price band, which isn't very likely, or people are found to stick pretty consistently to a given price when browsing, which I don't think is very likely either. >And yes, I am presuming a system involving transfers of digitally signed >tokens of some sort. I don't think this is a mistaken presumption. It strikes me as perhaps more useful for account-driven billing systems, where one has a contanst quanta of payment magnitude. -j -- The signal is the noise. ____________________________________________________________________ Jamie Lawrence mailto:jal@cyborganic.net mailto:foodie@netcom.com

1 0