December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Free & Open Society & toleration
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, It has been asserted that I am claiming that a free and open society should not abide any and all actions in contrast to Jim Bell's assertion that a free and open society must tolerate any action. This is not my case at all. I hold that a DEMOCRATIC society with a HEALTHY ECONOMIC system must have some minimum standards on what is allowed. By no means do I hold that the ONLY means of a free and open society is a democracy. It is quite possible to have an anarchy which would also be a free and open society and by DEFINITION would tolerate any action by its members acting individualy or in concert. I hold that for a democratic society to retain concepts of freedom and equity under the law as well as be economicaly viable, especialy in an environment where 'reputation' is critical such as a network over which economic transactions can take place with nothing more than a email order and a EFT, must not provide ex post facto AND carte blanche protection of the speech of the citizens. For such a system to operate requires a 'reputation' system to be in place. For such a system to be viable it MUST protect those reputations otherwise the concept of a 'contract' is worthless. I DO hold that this system MUST provide a priori protection of all speech. I further hold that any distinction between the 'government' and the people of a nation is a false and misleading distinction which is not in the best interest of the society because it by DEFINITION promotes a class society which is by definition contrary to the goal of equity under a democracy. It further provides a mechanism by which the representatives of the 'state' may claim immunity from the very standards they are charged with enforcing. This is because the charter of such a society is itself simply a contract between any arbitrary individual of that society and the sum total of the remaining citizenry (ie the 'state'). I further hold that one of the current legal practices based on precidence which MUST be replaced is our system dealing with defamation. I further hold that our current system of legal representation is inherently flawed and prevents equal representation under the law. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

2 1

[IMPORTANT] Mondex
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Deceptive Vilest K[rud]OfTheMoment will fuck anything that moves, but he'd rather be fucking his own mother's dead body. /\_./o__ Dr.Deceptive Vilest K[rud]OfTheMoment (/^/(_^^' ._.(_.)_

1 0

Re: "Strong" crypto and export rule changes.
by Steve Schear 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> What the US government will allow to be exported is not "strong >encryption." It is encryption only slightly too strong to be broken >by an amateur effort. For the right investment in custom hardware, it >falls quickly. (500,000 $US = 3.5 hour avg break). > Considering Ian's feat you certainly seem to have had your crystal ball in hand. --Steve

1 0

Re: Libel, Times v. Sullivan
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

jim bell wrote: > Your last paragraph looks like an exercise of the silly game the TV show "60 > minutes" producers often play when they read the letters from the audience > about a previous report on a controversial subject. They first read a > letter from an outraged viewer who claims that the TV show's producers must > have been biased in one direction, and then they read another letter from a > different viewer who alleges they showed a bias in the opposite direction. > The show is trying to leave you with the impression that they MUST have been > unbiased, because they are being accused of diametrically opposite leanings. Sounds suspiciously like Sandy's approach to 'fair' moderation, to me. > All they are really showing is that given the hundreds and probably > thousands of letters they receive on each show weekly (which are, by > definition, written by self-motivated people) they can get at least one on > each end of the spectrum for whatever subject they've just covered. Perhaps they author these 'letters' themselves: "I agree wholeheartedly with the position espoused by '60 Minutes'. and, "I don't not think maybe dat dese guys are write, nohow." > A clue is present in the likely fact that the origins of defamation laws > were primarily to keep the king and the upper-crust free of printed and > verbal attack directed by the lower-classes, even given the presence of > whatever nominal "free-speech" guarantees were present. Next thing you know, saying, "The king is fucking the queen.", is libel and defamation. Go figure... Toto

1 0

Re: Cyphernomicon by Tim May
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

blanc wrote: > Toto, I'm surprised at how seriously you take the underlying anarchist > philosophy of the list; you identify so closely with it, and have responded > to its moderation as though it really would be "the end of freedom", even > though you seem to have appeared, or else come out of lurking, only > recently. Is this because you value anarchy, or free speech, or the > existence of the Cypherpunks as a unique group of stray cats [ :>) ]? I value Reason (big 'R'), humor (small 'h'), and A/ambiguity (take your pick). Anarchy is only a pause between dictators. Fascism is necessary to remind us not to take freedom for granted. One should call for 'order' during the rein of anarchy and for 'freedom during times of Fascism. I have 'appeared' and/or 'come out of lurking' on the CypherPunks list at various times since it's inception, under various personas. Few have noticed, and fewer, still, have ever accurately described, as you have, what I truly value about the CypherPunks--"a unique group of stray cats." The CypherPunks have, over the years, weathered varying sorts of 'problems' in the development of the list, as a result of various 'voices of Reason' prevailing in the setting the list's direction--even when those 'voices' were diametrically opposed in their beliefs. What currently threatens the list, in my opinion, is not the dissension, but the rise of a cliquish sheep-mentality and the resulting dismissal of the opinions of people of Reason (and the opinions of 'anyone', in general, whom 'I' perceive as being on the 'other side' of an issue). If the day comes when I am able to file away the CypherPunks list under this-or-that category, then I will put a tombstone in the file, as well, and put flowers in it once a year. Toto > Side note: > Since Tim isn't on the list and hasn't been for a month, I've been > wondering if it had anything to do with the moderation experiment, although > it is unlike him to have left without either an argument or at least some > kind of statement about it. > > .. > Blanc

1 0

Re: Libel & the 1st Amendment
by Mark M. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Sat, 1 Feb 1997, jim bell wrote: > At 12:52 PM 2/1/97 -0500, Mark M. wrote: > >On Sat, 1 Feb 1997, Peter J. Capelli wrote: > > > >> You mean to say, rich people can overcrowd the courts as much as they > >> like, while others are restricted by contigency-only lawyers ( Call > >> 1-800-AMBULANCE! ) ... and what of the case of a rich person trying to > >> control > >> a poor one with many frivolous lawsuits ... while they can afford to file > >> lawsuit after lawsuit, the poor person cannot defend himself. > > > >What, exactly, would be the point of suing a poor person? > > To quiet him from political dissent, presumably. I think the term coined a > few years ago was "SLAPP", something akin to "Strategic Lawsuit Against > Public Policy," or similar. I should point out that in my previous post, I was refering to the specific instance of libel -- not any general lawsuit. I can think of very few instances where a rich person would sue someone without the resources to even defend himself for libel just to harass the defendant. I'm sure there are a few cases, but it wouldn't be worth the plaintiff's time or money. I would be interested if anyone knows of any specific examples of this. Mark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBMvQQAyzIPc7jvyFpAQFAfQgAp5qsAm9LZdXeR3+8s4LkUv5qH6Ju8Rda te3EJ90gjHxDcv/QRopQ3fRM5KzsHgr5JqPRWDFF0Zo3CxbRsB8x/CK3aIo2axpt xEAeA/TT3oBWOCXFs2fVR6dCy4XAMh4e/q58kNnDqqUnJNBgto5kr8Hp4op9Ypgi WO0G0Su6L8JuBwnui6Ni5XxHSBchBwu6Z0Jv0TFrG43lnS++K+UriX9cIYxR8JVH roUg/9SDCZysmuEvNh8VMLAd492wD2jhge4LiiYaSNWrpe5JD2jA/nJ9Olevpu3v 4+75YOpRIgHAugMyl/bbNZgTjStoLUicHATyt7PLEUtj/sbmPbakkQ== =qrVu -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Free & Open Society & toleration (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Nobody has a problem with your ideals, it's just that Jim Bell is > trying to say (correct me and forgive me if I'm wrong) that: > > 1. Society will never subscribe to your ideals. But other than two points they already do. The two points being, 1. Libel is a recognized legal concept now, the difference is one of degree. That degree of difference being how much money there is available for the lawyer and their willingness to enforce the concepts of justice in the society based upon their perceived ability to profit by it. 2. The extension of acceptance of reasonable legal representation by lot from not only the defence but also the prosecution. My solutions to these two issues are: 1. Removal of the lawyer from the ultimate choice of whether the case should be pursued. 2. The minimalization of the defendants and plaintiffs monetary resources by removing them from the legal system by choosing the legal representation of both parties by lot. 3. By moving the responsibility of police to provide evidence from the prosecution to the court we equalize the impact of irregularities in evidence selection as well as minimizing the sorts of evidence disputes which so impact some trials (ie OJ Simpson). 4. By the implimentation of a bond proviso on the part of the plaintiff the system provides a check and balance reducing nuisance cases as well as reducing the taxation load on the citizenry. > 2. Society is not static, i.e., instead of remaining at a constant > level of corruption, the officials will keep demanding more, > until there's a sudden, catastrophic break. Absolutely, that is one of the reasons I refuse to seperate those who represent the social contract (eg the Constitution) and those who are impacted by it, which includes even those who represent it and enforce its various responsibilities. AP relies on this distinction as axiomatic. This axiomatic view is ultimately based in a jealous greed for what others have (ie power, percieved or real) and the implicit belief that all people are NOT created equal. > 3. The AP solution has the potential to stabilize the level of > corruption, which should make violent revolutions and genocide > unnecessary. But it doesn't. What it does is provide a mechanism for de-stabalization. Just look at the Middle East and the history of assassination. Assassinations have never stabalized that region or any other. There is nothging in our current understanding of human psychology and social interactions that leads to the conclusion that threats of violence will necessarily force people to comply. If it did the government (as perceived by AP) would not have to deal with real opposition. Simply threaten the opposition and it melts away for the same reason that supposedly the government would cease to oppose radicalism (ie changes in the status quo forced by small groups upon the masses). If anything every real world example of AP demonstrates an increase in corruption (eg. Beirut). The closest analog in history to AP is the "Flowery Wars" as practiced by the Aztecs. However, these were motivated by a belief in religous homogeneity and not one of politics. Also, implicit in this was the axiomatic acceptance of a real class seperation between those who ruled and those who were ruled. By no means could one accept the premise that this caused the Aztec rulers to be more sensitive to corruption or the continued existance of their system. Another good example is assassination in ancient Rome, it is clear that such activities in no way reduced corruption. If anything AP provides a rationale (ie self-defence) to impose even harsher a priori conditions on sections of a society by another part of that society. Hardly what I would consider a stabalizing condition let alone democratic. What is required for stability is for each group to feel unthreatened and secure in expressing their beliefs without fear of reprisals and at the same time recognizing they must provide room for others beliefs. There must also be the realization that refusal to abide by these precepts will be met with immediate consequences. Something AP can't do, as it explicitly promotes threats and the carrying out thereof. On another issue, it was asked what purpose there is in suing a poor person. Simple lack of monetary wealth should be no more reason to exempt a party from justice than having large quantities. A citizen should face the consequences of their actions, how rich or poor they are is an irrelevant issue. Concepts required for a true working democracy: Liberty Justice Equality Fraternity Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Re: [GSM] Hardening mailing lists against spam attacks
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Huge Cajones Remailer wrote: > > __o > _ \<_ > (_)/(_) This guy keeps forgetting to add 'crypto-relevant' to his headings. No wonder they go to 'flames'.

1 0

New Member Registration
by coryt＠rain.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Requested Account Name: ashley Requested Password: eyez THIS MEMBER HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE UPDATE LIST

2 1

PGP 2.1
by lwjohnson＠grill.sk.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello, Can any;one tell me how to get a version of PGP 2.1? Thanks

1 0