December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: How to solve the tax problem w/o anarchy or force
by Reeza! 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:11 PM 11/9/98 GMT, Adam Back wrote: > >Vladimir writes: >> what we really need is a government which can personalize its >> services, and people pay for what they use. > >yes, agree. In other words we need freedom for business to compete in >provision of all services currently monopolised by government. I think a distinction needs to be made between what they (the Sheeple{tm}) NEED and what they "Request for Convenience". Wrongfull lawsuits and welfare careerists in mind, I think this is an important distinction. --snip-- >If you can opt out of literally any goverment service, I suspect >government revenues would nearly disappear. Everything they "supply" >can be supplied more cheaply by business. So what government remained >would have to compete on a fair basis with private industry. Not so fast, Kimosabe- what business would rule against itself a la the Supreme Court against Congress, when a business decision was spiritually and/or lawfully in violation of the constitution and legitimately passed laws enacted since its inception??? >> the big quandary is people who can't pay for what they use >> like social security. ultimately the question is how much >> money the state has the authority to collect for this kind of >> thing, and the political answer has varied every year, but it >> has gone up every year in the 20th century generally. > >I think the state should have no authority to collect anything. >Charity at the point of a gun is not charity. The state is an >extremely inefficient distributor of charitable funds anyway. This goes back to the "what they NEED vs. what they request for convenience (theirs)" argument. >> the big problem imho is fraud/waste/corruption in govt though. I definitely a problem. Should AP politics apply??? What would be the method of redress for infractions that were so heinous that the perpetrator was deemed untrustworthy and removal from office the only recourse? Who would "remove" the heinous individual for incarceration in an appropriate facility??? Who would decide that such action was warranted??? >> think if a lot of it were eliminated we would be flabbergasted at >> how little a personal contribution it takes to take care of people >> who need it. bureaucracies are the most expensive thing on the >> planet. here's hoping that cyberspace will cut through the >> *ultimate* middleman: govt. > >Amen to that. > >Adam Perhaps we should view the internet as a wedge, not as the fulcrum, lever and force. I think it would be intuitive, instructive, and demonstrative to operate on that premise rather than the "here is the internet, my trump card, I rest my case" style of argument. Reeza! If you see a man approaching you with the obvious intention of doing you good, you should run for your life. -stolen from a cypherpunk sig

1 0

"Pulpit Confessions: Exposing The Black Church"
by Exodus.Books 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

CALL TODAY TO ORDER THIS BOOK - (800) 830-2047 "What nobody had the nerve to tell you until now." "Real evidence of what you only suspected." "The Black Church as you've never known it before." Pulpit Confessions: Exposing The Black Church by N. Moore $16.00 ISBN: 0-9658299-2-8 _____________________________ Pulpit Confessions: Exposing The Black Church is an honest, behind the scenes look at the African-American church. The author spent a decade as a preacher and pastor in the black church and is actually betraying an unofficial code of silence by writing this book. The author began ministry in his teens and was pastoring by his early twenties. He speaks frankly about his and other ministers' odysseys from sincere, well intentioned prodigies to cynical, sinful, showman. He soon discovered that things in the church were not as they seemed. In this ground-breaking book, he describes a secular and often profane ministerial community that is often shrouded in pseudo holiness. He exposes the thoughts and motivations of both ministers and congregations and their degenerate power struggles which often turn violent. He pulls no punches when he untangles the myths, unravels the mystique and reveals the secrets of the Black Church. _____________________________ Chapter Titles "The Call" "The Process" "Mentors" "Let's Talk About Preaching" "Landing A Church" "Show Me The Money" "Learning To Play Hard Ball" "Dr. Jekyll and Rev. Hyde" "Where Do We Go From Here?" _____________________________ ORDERING INFORMATION Pulpit Confessions: Exposing The Black Church by N. Moore $16.00 ISBN: 0-9658299-2-8 $3.00 Shipping and Handling _____________________________ Order By Phone 800-830-2047 --------------------------- Exodus Books 5411 E. State Street #348 Rockford, IL 61108

1 0

Re: fuck copyright (Re: Advertising Creepiness) (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 13:24:23 +0000 > From: "Frank O'Dwyer" <fod(a)brd.ie> > Subject: Re: fuck copyright (Re: Advertising Creepiness) (fwd) > Jim Choate wrote: > > > You can make money from information provision by charging extra for > > > up-to-date news, or by charging so little that the cost from the > > > original provider is so low that it's not worth anyones time to > > > redistribute it, > > > > That's true now, why don't we see these effects... > > We do. News inherently has a 'sell-by' date. The most obvious example is > stock quotes where delayed quotes are provided for free whereas > real-time quotes are heavily charged for. The recipients of such > information care very much about latency, since it's possible to trade > on any differences that may exist. There's even some research on attacks > that simply delay packets in such networks. Ah, true but I was addressing the last sentence about the cost being so low nobody will charge for it.....sounds like the nuclear industry marketing speal of the 50's.... Sorry for the confusion, I guess I should have edited the first part out since it wasn't relevant. ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Re: fuck copyright (Re: Advertising Creepiness) (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi Mr. or Ms. support(a)xroads.com, I'd like to advise you of abuse of your system and the resultant spam that I am receiving as a result. I've checked my subscription list and it contains NO xroads.com subscribers at all. You are apparently having legitimite, non-commercial traffic forwarded to your site in order to cause excessive work and potential denial of services (to your customers). Please police your own house before you go around threatening $500 leins and prosecution on others. Have a nice day. ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Forwarded message: > From root(a)dogbert.xroads.com Tue Nov 10 07:52:20 1998 > Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 06:52:46 -0700 (MST) > Message-Id: <199811101352.GAA09138(a)dogbert.xroads.com> > To: owner-cypherpunks(a)einstein.ssz.com > Subject: Re: fuck copyright (Re: Advertising Creepiness) (fwd) > References: <199811101343.HAA17689(a)einstein.ssz.com> > In-Reply-To: <199811101343.HAA17689(a)einstein.ssz.com> > From: abuse(a)xroads.com > X-Loop: noloop(a)noloop.nlp > > >Forwarded message: > > >> Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 13:24:23 +0000 > >> From: "Frank O'Dwyer" <fod(a)brd.ie> > >> Subject: Re: fuck copyright (Re: Advertising Creepiness) (fwd) > > >> Jim Choate wrote: > >> > > You can make money from information provision by charging extra for > >> > > up-to-date news, or by charging so little that the cost from the > >> > > original provider is so low that it's not worth anyones time to > >> > > redistribute it, > >> > > >> > That's true now, why don't we see these effects... > >> > >> We do. News inherently has a 'sell-by' date. The most obvious example is > >> stock quotes where delayed quotes are provided for free whereas > >> real-time quotes are heavily charged for. The recipients of such > >> information care very much about latency, since it's possible to trade > >> on any differences that may exist. There's even some research on attacks > >> that simply delay packets in such networks. > > >Ah, true but I was addressing the last sentence about the cost being so low > >nobody will charge for it.....sounds like the nuclear industry marketing > >speal of the 50's.... > > >Sorry for the confusion, I guess I should have edited the first part out > >since it wasn't relevant. > > > > ____________________________________________________________________ > > > > Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want > > the right answers. > > > Scully (X-Files) > > > The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate > > Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com > > www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 > > -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > This is apparently at least the second unsolicited commercial email from your > address. If you feel you have received this email in error, please contact > support(a)xroads.com > > Senders of unsolicited commercial email will be charged $500 for each instance > of unsolicited commerical email on Crossroads network systems, and are > subject to prosecution under the following Federal statute, and other > applicable federal and local laws. > > > * UNITED STATES CODE > > + TITLE 47 - TELEGRAPHS, TELEPHONES, AND RADIOTELEGRAPHS > > o CHAPTER 5 - WIRE OR RADIO COMMUNICATION > > # SUBCHAPTER II - COMMON CARRIERS > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > § 227. Restrictions on use of telephone equipment > * (a) Definitions > > As used in this section - > + (1) The term ''automatic telephone dialing system'' means > equipment which has the capacity - > o (A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, > using a random or sequential number generator; and > o (B) to dial such numbers. > + (2) The term ''telephone facsimile machine'' means equipment > which has the capacity (A) to transcribe text or images, or > both, from paper into an electronic signal and to transmit > that signal over a regular telephone line, or (B) to > transcribe text or images (or both) from an electronic signal > received over a regular telephone line onto paper. > + (3) The term ''telephone solicitation'' means the initiation > of a telephone call or message for the purpose of encouraging > the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, > or services, which is transmitted to any person, but such > term does not include a call or message (A) to any person > with that person's prior express invitation or permission, > (B) to any person with whom the caller has an established > business relationship, or (C) by a tax exempt nonprofit > organization. > + (4) The term ''unsolicited advertisement'' means any material > advertising the commercial availability or quality of any > property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any > person without that person's prior express invitation or > permission. > * (b) Restrictions on use of automated telephone equipment > + (1) Prohibitions > > It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States > - > o (A) to make any call (other than a call made for > emergency purposes or made with the prior express > consent of the called party) using any automatic > telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded > voice - > # (i) to any emergency telephone line (including any > ''911'' line and any emergency line of a hospital, > medical physician or service office, health care > facility, poison control center, or fire protection > or law enforcement agency); > # (ii) to the telephone line of any guest room or > patient room of a hospital, health care facility, > elderly home, or similar establishment; or > # (iii) to any telephone number assigned to a paging > service, cellular telephone service, specialized > mobile radio service, or other radio common carrier > service, or any service for which the called party > is charged for the call; > o (B) to initiate any telephone call to any residential > telephone line using an artificial or prerecorded voice > to deliver a message without the prior express consent > of the called party, unless the call is initiated for > emergency purposes or is exempted by rule or order by > the Commission under paragraph (2)(B); > o (C) to use any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or > other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a > telephone facsimile machine; or > o (D) to use an automatic telephone dialing system in such > a way that two or more telephone lines of a multi-line > business are engaged simultaneously. > + (2) Regulations; exemptions and other provisions > > The Commission shall prescribe regulations to implement the > requirements of this subsection. In implementing the > requirements of this subsection, the Commission - > o (A) shall consider prescribing regulations to allow > businesses to avoid receiving calls made using an > artificial or prerecorded voice to which they have not > given their prior express consent; > o (B) may, by rule or order, exempt from the requirements > of paragraph (1)(B) of this subsection, subject to such > conditions as the Commission may prescribe - > # (i) calls that are not made for a commercial > purpose; and > # (ii) such classes or categories of calls made for > commercial purposes as the Commission determines - > @ (I) will not adversely affect the privacy > rights that this section is intended to > protect; and > @ (II) do not include the transmission of any > unsolicited advertisement; and > o (C) may, by rule or order, exempt from the requirements > of paragraphs (FOOTNOTE 1) (1)(A)(iii) of this > subsection calls to a telephone number assigned to a > cellular telephone service that are not charged to the > called party, subject to such conditions as the > Commission may prescribe as necessary in the interest of > the privacy rights this section is intended to protect. > (FOOTNOTE 1) So in original. Probably should be > ''paragraph''. > + (3) Private right of action > > A person or entity may, if otherwise permitted by the laws or > rules of court of a State, bring in an appropriate court of > that State - > o (A) an action based on a violation of this subsection or > the regulations prescribed under this subsection to > enjoin such violation, > o (B) an action to recover for actual monetary loss from > such a violation, or to receive $500 in damages for each > such violation, whichever is greater, or > o (C) both such actions. If the court finds that the > defendant willfully or knowingly violated this > subsection or the regulations prescribed under this > subsection, the court may, in its discretion, increase > the amount of the award to an amount equal to not more > than 3 times the amount available under subparagraph (B) > of this paragraph. > * (c) Protection of subscriber privacy rights > + (1) Rulemaking proceeding required > > Within 120 days after December 20, 1991, the Commission shall > initiate a rulemaking proceeding concerning the need to > protect residential telephone subscribers' privacy rights to > avoid receiving telephone solicitations to which they object. > The proceeding shall - > o (A) compare and evaluate alternative methods and > procedures (including the use of electronic databases, > telephone network technologies, special directory > markings, industry-based or company-specific ''do not > call'' systems, and any other alternatives, individually > or in combination) for their effectiveness in protecting > such privacy rights, and in terms of their cost and > other advantages and disadvantages; > o (B) evaluate the categories of public and private > entities that would have the capacity to establish and > administer such methods and procedures; > o (C) consider whether different methods and procedures > may apply for local telephone solicitations, such as > local telephone solicitations of small businesses or > holders of second class mail permits; > o (D) consider whether there is a need for additional > Commission authority to further restrict telephone > solicitations, including those calls exempted under > subsection (a)(3) of this section, and, if such a > finding is made and supported by the record, propose > specific restrictions to the Congress; and > o (E) develop proposed regulations to implement the > methods and procedures that the Commission determines > are most effective and efficient to accomplish the > purposes of this section. > + (2) Regulations > > Not later than 9 months after December 20, 1991, the > Commission shall conclude the rulemaking proceeding initiated > under paragraph (1) and shall prescribe regulations to > implement methods and procedures for protecting the privacy > rights described in such paragraph in an efficient, > effective, and economic manner and without the imposition of > any additional charge to telephone subscribers. > + (3) Use of database permitted > > The regulations required by paragraph (2) may require the > establishment and operation of a single national database to > compile a list of telephone numbers of residential > subscribers who object to receiving telephone solicitations, > and to make that compiled list and parts thereof available > for purchase. If the Commission determines to require such a > database, such regulations shall - > o (A) specify a method by which the Commission will select > an entity to administer such database; > o (B) require each common carrier providing telephone > exchange service, in accordance with regulations > prescribed by the Commission, to inform subscribers for > telephone exchange service of the opportunity to provide > notification, in accordance with regulations established > under this paragraph, that such subscriber objects to > receiving telephone solicitations; > o (C) specify the methods by which each telephone > subscriber shall be informed, by the common carrier that > provides local exchange service to that subscriber, of > (i) the subscriber's right to give or revoke a > notification of an objection under subparagraph (A), and > (ii) the methods by which such right may be exercised by > the subscriber; > o (D) specify the methods by which such objections shall > be collected and added to the database; > o (E) prohibit any residential subscriber from being > charged for giving or revoking such notification or for > being included in a database compiled under this > section; > o (F) prohibit any person from making or transmitting a > telephone solicitation to the telephone number of any > subscriber included in such database; > o (G) specify (i) the methods by which any person desiring > to make or transmit telephone solicitations will obtain > access to the database, by area code or local exchange > prefix, as required to avoid calling the telephone > numbers of subscribers included in such database; and > (ii) the costs to be recovered from such persons; > o (H) specify the methods for recovering, from persons > accessing such database, the costs involved in > identifying, collecting, updating, disseminating, and > selling, and other activities relating to, the > operations of the database that are incurred by the > entities carrying out those activities; > o (I) specify the frequency with which such database will > be updated and specify the method by which such updating > will take effect for purposes of compliance with the > regulations prescribed under this subsection; > o (J) be designed to enable States to use the database > mechanism selected by the Commission for purposes of > administering or enforcing State law; > o (K) prohibit the use of such database for any purpose > other than compliance with the requirements of this > section and any such State law and specify methods for > protection of the privacy rights of persons whose > numbers are included in such database; and > o (L) require each common carrier providing services to > any person for the purpose of making telephone > solicitations to notify such person of the requirements > of this section and the regulations thereunder. > + (4) Considerations required for use of database method > > If the Commission determines to require the database > mechanism described in paragraph (3), the Commission shall - > o (A) in developing procedures for gaining access to the > database, consider the different needs of telemarketers > conducting business on a national, regional, State, or > local level; > o (B) develop a fee schedule or price structure for > recouping the cost of such database that recognizes such > differences and - > # (i) reflect the relative costs of providing a > national, regional, State, or local list of phone > numbers of subscribers who object to receiving > telephone solicitations; > # (ii) reflect the relative costs of providing such > lists on paper or electronic media; and > # (iii) not place an unreasonable financial burden on > small businesses; and > o (C) consider (i) whether the needs of telemarketers > operating on a local basis could be met through special > markings of area white pages directories, and (ii) if > such directories are needed as an adjunct to database > lists prepared by area code and local exchange prefix. > + (5) Private right of action > > A person who has received more than one telephone call within > any 12-month period by or on behalf of the same entity in > violation of the regulations prescribed under this subsection > may, if otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of court of > a State bring in an appropriate court of that State - > o (A) an action based on a violation of the regulations > prescribed under this subsection to enjoin such > violation, > o (B) an action to recover for actual monetary loss from > such a violation, or to receive up to $500 in damages > for each such violation, whichever is greater, or > o (C) both such actions. It shall be an affirmative > defense in any action brought under this paragraph that > the defendant has established and implemented, with due > care, reasonable practices and procedures to effectively > prevent telephone solicitations in violation of the > regulations prescribed under this subsection. If the > court finds that the defendant willfully or knowingly > violated the regulations prescribed under this > subsection, the court may, in its discretion, increase > the amount of the award to an amount equal to not more > than 3 times the amount available under subparagraph (B) > of this paragraph. > + (6) Relation to subsection (b) > > The provisions of this subsection shall not be construed to > permit a communication prohibited by subsection (b) of this > section. > * (d) Technical and procedural standards > + (1) Prohibition > > It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States > - > o (A) to initiate any communication using a telephone > facsimile machine, or to make any telephone call using > any automatic telephone dialing system, that does not > comply with the technical and procedural standards > prescribed under this subsection, or to use any > telephone facsimile machine or automatic telephone > dialing system in a manner that does not comply with > such standards; or > o (B) to use a computer or other electronic device to send > any message via a telephone facsimile machine unless > such person clearly marks, in a margin at the top or > bottom of each transmitted page of the message or on the > first page of the transmission, the date and time it is > sent and an identification of the business, other > entity, or individual sending the message and the > telephone number of the sending machine or of such > business, other entity, or individual. > + (2) Telephone facsimile machines > > The Commission shall revise the regulations setting technical > and procedural standards for telephone facsimile machines to > require that any such machine which is manufactured after one > year after December 20, 1991, clearly marks, in a margin at > the top or bottom of each transmitted page or on the first > page of each transmission, the date and time sent, an > identification of the business, other entity, or individual > sending the message, and the telephone number of the sending > machine or of such business, other entity, or individual. > + (3) Artificial or prerecorded voice systems > > The Commission shall prescribe technical and procedural > standards for systems that are used to transmit any > artificial or prerecorded voice message via telephone. Such > standards shall require that - > o (A) all artificial or prerecorded telephone messages (i) > shall, at the beginning of the message, state clearly > the identity of the business, individual, or other > entity initiating the call, and (ii) shall, during or > after the message, state clearly the telephone number or > address of such business, other entity, or individual; > and > o (B) any such system will automatically release the > called party's line within 5 seconds of the time > notification is transmitted to the system that the > called party has hung up, to allow the called party's > line to be used to make or receive other calls. > * (e) Effect on State law > + (1) State law not preempted > > Except for the standards prescribed under subsection (d) of > this section and subject to paragraph (2) of this subsection, > nothing in this section or in the regulations prescribed > under this section shall preempt any State law that imposes > more restrictive intrastate requirements or regulations on, > or which prohibits - > o (A) the use of telephone facsimile machines or other > electronic devices to send unsolicited advertisements; > o (B) the use of automatic telephone dialing systems; > o (C) the use of artificial or prerecorded voice messages; > or > o (D) the making of telephone solicitations. > + (2) State use of databases > > If, pursuant to subsection (c)(3) of this section, the > Commission requires the establishment of a single national > database of telephone numbers of subscribers who object to > receiving telephone solicitations, a State or local authority > may not, in its regulation of telephone solicitations, > require the use of any database, list, or listing system that > does not include the part of such single national datebase > (FOOTNOTE 2) that relates to such State. > > (FOOTNOTE 2) So in original. Probably should be ''database''. > * (f) Actions by States > + (1) Authority of States > > Whenever the attorney general of a State, or an official or > agency designated by a State, has reason to believe that any > person has engaged or is engaging in a pattern or practice of > telephone calls or other transmissions to residents of that > State in violation of this section or the regulations > prescribed under this section, the State may bring a civil > action on behalf of its residents to enjoin such calls, an > action to recover for actual monetary loss or receive $500 in > damages for each violation, or both such actions. If the > court finds the defendant willfully or knowingly violated > such regulations, the court may, in its discretion, increase > the amount of the award to an amount equal to not more than 3 > times the amount available under the preceding sentence. > + (2) Exclusive jurisdiction of Federal courts > > The district courts of the United States, the United States > courts of any territory, and the District Court of the United > States for the District of Columbia shall have exclusive > jurisdiction over all civil actions brought under this > subsection. Upon proper application, such courts shall also > have jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, or orders > affording like relief, commanding the defendant to comply > with the provisions of this section or regulations prescribed > under this section, including the requirement that the > defendant take such action as is necessary to remove the > danger of such violation. Upon a proper showing, a permanent > or temporary injunction or restraining order shall be granted > without bond. > + (3) Rights of Commission > > The State shall serve prior written notice of any such civil > action upon the Commission and provide the Commission with a > copy of its complaint, except in any case where such prior > notice is not feasible, in which case the State shall serve > such notice immediately upon instituting such action. The > Commission shall have the right (A) to intervene in the > action, (B) upon so intervening, to be heard on all matters > arising therein, and (C) to file petitions for appeal. > + (4) Venue; service of process > > Any civil action brought under this subsection in a district > court of the United States may be brought in the district > wherein the defendant is found or is an inhabitant or > transacts business or wherein the violation occurred or is > occurring, and process in such cases may be served in any > district in which the defendant is an inhabitant or where the > defendant may be found. > + (5) Investigatory powers > > For purposes of bringing any civil action under this > subsection, nothing in this section shall prevent the > attorney general of a State, or an official or agency > designated by a State, from exercising the powers conferred > on the attorney general or such official by the laws of such > State to conduct investigations or to administer oaths or > affirmations or to compel the attendance of witnesses or the > production of documentary and other evidence. > + (6) Effect on State court proceedings > > Nothing contained in this subsection shall be construed to > prohibit an authorized State official from proceeding in > State court on the basis of an alleged violation of any > general civil or criminal statute of such State. > + (7) Limitation > > Whenever the Commission has instituted a civil action for > violation of regulations prescribed under this section, no > State may, during the pendency of such action instituted by > the Commission, subsequently institute a civil action against > any defendant named in the Commission's complaint for any > violation as alleged in the Commission's complaint. > + (8) ''Attorney general'' defined > > As used in this subsection, the term ''attorney general'' > means the chief legal officer of a State. > > > _________________________________________________________________ > >

1 0

Usual Computer Ban
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Pentagon Kids Kicked Off Grid >Reuters > >11:47 a.m. 6.Nov.98.PST Two California teenagers who mounted what the Pentagon >called one the most systematic attacks ever made against a US military computer >network were sentenced by a federal judge Thursday. > >US District Judge Maxine Chesney doled out the usual punishment for those convicted >of computer crimes: No more computers. The boys, aged 16 and 17, are barred from >using modems or computers without supervision during their three-year probation. > >The judge forbade the hackers from possessing or using a computer modem, acting as >computer consultants, or having any contact with computers out of sight of "a school >teacher, librarian, employer, or other person approved by the probation officer." Usual laugh. Not technically feasible to mount this sort of Denial of Service attack unless you actually imprison them. Computers and connections are a bit too ubiquitous. DCF

1 0

American Banker article on DigiCash bankruptcy
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: rah(a)pop.sneaker.net Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 07:36:45 -0500 To: Digital Bearer Settlement List <dbs(a)philodox.com> From: Robert Hettinga <rah(a)shipwright.com> Subject: American Banker article on DigiCash bankruptcy Sender: <dbs(a)philodox.com> Precedence: Bulk List-Subscribe: <mailto:requests@philodox.com?subject=subscribe%20dbs> X-Web-Archive: http://www.philodox.com/dbs-archive/ --- begin forwarded text Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 12:23:36 +0100 (MET) From: Somebody To: rah(a)shipwright.com Subject: American Banker article on DigiCash bankruptcy From: Somebody Else To: Somebody Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 05:41:36 -0500 <Somebody>, This is the American Banker article on the subject: Digital Frontiers Tuesday, November 10, 1998 Electronic Commerce: Bankrupt Digicash to Seek Financing, New Allies By Jeffrey Kutler & Carol Power Digicash Inc., which invented a virtual cash concept for the Internet, now must reinvent itself. With the announcement last week that it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, Digicash has embarked on yet another phase of a corporate saga that has won it acclaim and admiration in both the banking and Internet communities -- but precious little business. Shielded for the moment from creditor pressures, the Palo Alto, Calif., company will attempt to find the financing and forge the strategic relationships it needs to widen the appeal of its eCash product, said interim chief executive officer Scott Loftesness. The company also has a significant "intellectual property portfolio," he said, that could prove useful in other applications requiring privacy and anonymity, such as electronic voting. Mr. Loftesness indicated that Digicash has never exploited the full potential of its patents to generate licensing income, which now might help turn the operation around. Bankruptcy is but the latest of many turns for an eight-year-old venture created by David Chaum, a former University of California professor and expert on data encryption who was among the first to see a need for a cash-like payment mechanism on open networks. The design of eCash and its anonymity principles attracted widespread attention in 1994 and 1995 as banks and other corporations began exploring the Internet's commercial potential. Through a series of consulting projects and demonstrations, Digicash came close to assembling a network of banks to issue and manage the virtual currency. But the licensee group -- including Deutsche Bank, Den Norske Bank, Bank Austria, Advance Bank of Australia, and Mark Twain Bank of St. Louis -- never got beyond pilot stages. Things were looking up in 1997 when Digicash attracted venture capital interest from, among others, David Marquardt of August Capital, who was an early backer of Microsoft Corp. Digicash also reconstituted its board with Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Nicholas Negroponte as chairman, and hired "professional management" led by CEO Michael Nash, a former American Express Co. and Visa International executive. Mr. Chaum remained as chief technology officer. The headquarters was moved from Mr. Chaum's base in Amsterdam to Silicon Valley. Many in the banking technology world took positive note of the fact that in June 1998, former Wells Fargo & Co. president William Zuendt joined Mr. Negroponte, Mr. Marquardt, Mr. Chaum, Toon den Heijer of Gilde Investment Funds, and others on the board. This past August, Mr. Nash was succeeded by Mr. Loftesness, who also has Visa in his background. The part of the operation that remained in Amsterdam was closed, and the staff was cut significantly from its peak of about 50. Mr. Loftesness said last week that he intends to see the Chapter 11 process through. He described eCash as "important and inevitable" for the maturity of electronic commerce. Throughout its struggles to prove it was not too far ahead of its time, Digicash has been followed closely by analysts and treated seriously by competitors. Many were impressed by the technology's cash-like anonymity and an accountability system that prevents any of the virtual coins from being spent twice, yet without compromising personal privacy. "There is a great lesson in it," said Richard Crone, vice president of Cybercash Inc. and general manager of PayNow, its version of an electronic check. "You must match the payment type to the application that is being sold." He called Digicash "a payment type in search of an application, rather than an application in search of a payment." So far in Internet consumer payments, particularly in the United States, credit cards have won the day. "We've done such a good job deploying credit cards and reassuring consumers that the security is present," Mr. Crone said, that there is no compelling need for eCash. (Cybercash's cybercoin product ran up against the same reality, but the Reston, Va., company is active in several payment modes, including credit cards.) Cybercash's inroads in markets outside the United States with lower credit card penetration -- Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom -- were due to financial institution partners, Mr. Crone said. "Digicash did not have the support we did." David Stewart, vice president of Global Concepts Inc., Norcross, Ga., criticized Digicash for not bridging the physical and virtual worlds. He said as currently configured, eCash compares unfavorably with MasterCard International's Mondex venture, the Belgium-based Proton system, or Avant of Finland, which are smart cards with an Internet transmission component. Because eCash "needed on-line validation of tokens spent, clearing of the transactions required authorization like a credit card," Mr. Stewart said. Another strike against eCash, he said, was the lack of major financial institution support in the United States, where there are constituencies for Mondex, Visa International's Visa Cash, and Proton, which is part-owned by Visa and American Express Co. "Digicash needs to come up with an off-line electronic cash scheme and have the backing of a serious player in the payments world," Mr. Stewart said. The one U.S. participant, Mark Twain Bank, was acquired by Mercantile Bancorp. of St. Louis 20 months ago. Larry Kirschner, Mercantile Bank senior vice president of foreign exchange, said eCash "was not profitable from the moment we inherited it. "We tried to figure out how to make it profitable and for it to appeal to our corporate and retail customers, to very little success," he said. The bank ended its three-year experiment in September. It had 5,000 eCash customers, about 20% of them in Mercantile's eight-state Midwest territory and the rest on the two coasts. They held "significantly less" than $100,000 in eCash accounts, Mr. Kirschner said. "We didn't see a strategic fit for eCash," he said. "The revenue stream was not there, the demand was not there, and quite frankly, it wasn't going to be there." The banker said eCash suffered because the public "did not have any insecurity and did use their credit cards on the Internet." But Mr. Loftesness said Digicash's board and backers have not lost faith that "eCash is inevitable. The length of time and the amount of financing to get there remain the key open questions." --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

Re: Guy, anti-copyright hacker (Re: Advertising Creepiness)
by Information Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: Adam Back <aba(a)dcs.ex.ac.uk> > > Information Security <guy(a)panix.com> writes: > > Declan writes: > > > Willfully redistributing copyrighted material in violation of fair > > > use principles is, depending on the value, also a federal > > > crime. Redistributing a $1 article to thousands of people would be > > > a felony. (Note I don't endorse this law, but it's useful to know > > > what the law is.) > > > > I guess that qualifies as a request for more color. > > > > In the local Panix Usenet groups, I've reposted quite a few whole articles, > > often from the IP list. > > > > Finally, a couple people made a stink, and officially complained to Panix. > > > > [snip panix owner backing down and not interfering with Guy's posts of > > whole supposedly copyrighted material] > > Nice one Guy! > > The zen approach, it reminds me of a tactic to do with USENET cancel > forgeries used by a recentish poster to this list who you made much > a-do about being a terminator of. Ugh, um, ...but he was a nutter, unlike me. ;-) The other half of the reason I chose the IP list is because of my dislike of its owner, nutter Michele Moore. She is trying to profit from a book claiming various government agencies knew full well the OK Murrah building was going to be blown up, and purposely did nothing. Trying to profit from other's misery. (At least my nutter anti-ECHELON "Cryptography Manifesto" is free.) She also terminated my list subscription when I made a single post asking for people not to make homophobic posts. She was 100% unforgiving on this, even though I promised not to make such a post again. She described the homophobic posts as "Christian". (This was around the time Pat Robertson made comments about Florida's Disney being hit by God with hurricanes because of its "gay days" promotion.) It's also a very high-volume list, and I recently asked her about posting about car antennas... # From believer(a)telepath.com Fri Oct 30 06:47:36 1998 # To: Information Security <guy(a)panix.com> # Subject: Re: IP: New Radio Antennas May Cool Car Interior, Defrost Car Windows # # Dear Guy: # # Regarding: # >What does this have to do with IP's charter? # >---guy # # Once again, as you are a non-subscriber receiving posts by forwarding # (which is fine), it's none of your business. Enjoy the posts that you # receive, feel free to forward them wherever you wish, but please do not # contact me again for any reason. Bitch. > > Then, the Digital Copyright Massive Federal Interference Act... > > > > > Fair Use vs. Intellectual Property: The U.S. Congress > > > passed the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, a bill designed to > > > distinguish between fair use and protected intellectual property > > > in cyberspace. > > > > > > <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:s.01146:> > > > > I chose the IP list as the next-level test case... > > I'm curious ... how have you faired since the millenium copyright act > with panix? Any results? Or is this still on-going? I've been snipping down articles a bit since then. As far as I know, no one has complained about my posts relative to the new law. ---guy

1 0

Re: How to solve the tax problem w/o anarchy or force (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 10:28:10 -0500 > From: Soren <sorens(a)workmail.com> > Subject: Re: How to solve the tax problem w/o anarchy or force (fwd) > I used to be an anarcho-capitalist, but concluded I was far too selfish. In fact, if > you'd read the first line about the libertarian compromize, rather than looking for > hooks, you'd see that I was attempting rapprochement. Mostly I'm not at all > interested in being drawn into political wastings of energy, life is too short. I > made my choice 25 years ago, and have been (largely) free and untaxed for that time. > Harry Browne's "How I found freedom in an unfree world" came along at about the same > time I cut loose from the nation-state. You're speaking of federal taxes, or you don't own property in your own name. I suppose you wouldn't call the fire dept. if your house caught on fire since you don't pay taxes. You wouldn't call the police if there was a problem either. > Why the pejorative use of "anarcho-whatever" and the whole personal level at which you > pitch your responses? Is it your intent to stir up anger by using imflammatory > rhetoric? No, my intent in wording is to get at the core of what is being proposed. A characteristic of anarcho-whatever and lawyers is they never say what they mean. If they did very few would give them the attention they get now. > Or (more likely) is this an example of newspeak? Whatever, it comes across > as mean-spirited and sad. An indicator perhaps, of someone who loves to "go for the > jugular". A common "small man" trait. Are you a small man Jim? Do you need the power > of the state to make you feel big by proxy? IROFL. ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 01:25:02 +1000 > From: Reeza! <howree(a)cable.navy.mil> > Subject: RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the > Foregone (fwd) > I think there may be a finer distiction- it lies in corruption of the > enforcing body. Your right, let me spell it out. Free-markets as depicted by anarcho-whatever theories legitimize theft, physical violence, extortion, etc. They further a priori abandon any precept of social institution and leave it all on the shoulder of the individuals. Additionaly they abandon such concepts of justice, equity, etc. because they describe no mechanism to handle these issues. And finaly, they don't even attempt to recognize the international interactions and cultural differences that drive them. They make the same mistake as every other form of non-democratic system, they assume because it works for one it works for all. > This is the same sort of tactic imho as the war on drugs(tm). Big show, > little enforcement, extract money from the money holders. Money exchanges = > leniency. Not even hardly. At least citizens can change the laws under a democracy. Under an anarcho-whatever it is strictly lump it or like it unless you're willing to fund a bigger gun. > Aside from the comment on honesty, the rest of this reply is sophistry. > Petro was asserting a point, which Jim acknowledged, then procedes to > assassinate with particulars of questionable relevance. In a true anarchy, > who is to say that trade in human lives and stolen property must be stopped > in that "true free market"??? Ask the humans who are being traided or the peson the property was stolen from. I'm going to stop now, this particular vein of discussion is bereft of any and all positive attributes when one tries to justify slavery and theft. Like I said, at least your more honest than the rest of these wanna-be thieves. You might want to see doctor about that hole you shot in your foot while it was in your mouth. ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

5 4

100S OF FREE PICS'N'LINKS EVERY DAY!
by STUFFED WED NOV 11 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

+ 30 SUPERB, HI-RES, HOT PHOTOS + 5 SUPER SEXY STORIES + HOT PICS II + COLLEGE GIRLS IN HEAT + HENTAI ANIME + SKIN CENTRAL + 2 PERVERSE 4 U + PLAY SLUTS + HOT BABES + HOT HUNNYS HARDCORE + ORGY SEX + THE PORN PALACE + BONUS PIC 1 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/9229.htm + BONUS PIC 2 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/25519.htm + BONUS PIC 3 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/10897.htm + BONUS PIC 4 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/13263.htm + BONUS PIC 5 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/16616.htm + MUCH, MUCH MORE! ----> http://stuffed.net/home/ <---- This email is never sent unsolicited. Stuffed is the supplement for the Eureka newsletter you subscribed to. Full instructions on unsubscribing are in every issue of Eureka! ----> http://stuffed.net/home/ <----

1 0