December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

FOIA, Clipper & NSC (National Security Council)
by Harry Shapiro Hawk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, THere was a wire service report over the weekend that the Clinton Administration, is moving to prevent any doc- ments, etc. created by the NSC (National Security Council) from being subject to FOIA. I wonder, vis-a-vis, Glimore's FOIA for Escrow keysd, if they will move to make NSC a Key holder. Anyway, i thought it was worth mentioning. /hawk Harry Shapiro Hawk Manager of Computer Services Warwick Baker & Fiore habs(a)uucp.warwick.com

2 1

Re: Very funny, Polyanna
by nobody＠soda.berkeley.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Why, Grahamy, thanks so much for that mail! I submitted my key to the key servers over a year ago and this is the first piece I received. And a juicy little message it was, too... you naughty boy! But I'm flattered, really. Oh, and sorry about putting that key up and ruining all your plans. But I'm sure it will all work out for the best. These things always do, you know! Polyanna -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQBFAgUBLZeHOxnRghhlmcunAQHtngGAtk3HsEY7MFMW6d8/IIJzupIXPwP4DMj7 cRofJq1FXd/2FgmU3OgKqko8jYNlvum+ =H/xe -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

RE: personal manifesto (comments appreciated)
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Extended Commentary: 1) While the most likely possibility is that the Net will simply mirror current society, a Net of this [mirror] structure would fail to realize its potential as an agent of social change. COMMENT: That is, supposing that the net was designed to be an "agent for social change". I have not read where it was designed to exist for that specific purpose. A social effect which is not intentioned is simply a by-product of the fact that many people have found an avenue or tool useful for the satisfaction of their own particular purposes. Since communication itself is a medium for the accomplishment of most purposes which involve others; it is not exceptional, therefore, that the net should have become such a popular tool, it being so easy to use compared to the other means available. The important thing which I see about the net is not that it serves "social purposes", but that it helps individuals to achieve their *own* purposes. This sounds like only a difference in wording, but the difference is in what is judged as a 'good' purpose, or which end of the telescope you are using to view the situation: why is the end of having a collective 'good' better than the activity of simply achieving one's own ideal (of goodness, happiness, propriety, etc.). What is so unsubstantial about the uncounted individual that only a large number of them can be considered worthy of consideration. 3) Current arguments for regulation of cryptography by government agencies depend on the argument [that] they are maintaining their current abilities in the brave new world of cyberspace. I argue that even if this were the case, we have a responsibility to do more than simply maintain the status quo. . . . . COMMENT: What responsibility? (Irresponsible Unit wants to know) If the government centralizes responsibility, there will be none for the rest of us to comprehend. 4) It is the responsibility of the information haves to spread their knowledge to the information have-nots. ......... Knowledge which is not of a personal nature should be freely accessible. COMMENT: The library is full of information which many people do not take advantage of, and it's "free". Many wise people have written much that they wished to share with others, yet many 'havenots' do not avail themselves of it (at least, not the ones who seem to need it). 1) how much intellectual support does everyone need, anyway; 2) access to information does not replace having the incentive to appreciate it or the ability to understand it; 3) where does all this information come from, anyway? How did it become "information"; what was it before it was converted into an abstract form (carbon-based or electronic)? If it is moral to have information, and immoral *not* to have it, then many people are guilty of criminal negligence for not using their faculties of observation & thought in regard of all the data which exists all around them in an immediately accessible form. 6) ... People cannot participate in a democratic society if they are not educated to a minimal level required for functioning in that society. This is the crux of our societal problems, as well as the crux of possible problems with the Net. COMMENT: They should all understand the purpose of "society". Is it to be social, or to be free to be themselves, or what. If the purpose is more clearly stated and understood (and communicated to its members) then they each can decide whether, or how much, they wish to participate in its "goals". Societies are complex mixtures of people with all sorts of motives. At least on the net, it is easy to leave when your motives are in conflict, especially if your subscription is up. 7) ... one human has an enormous capacity to injure and exploit another human. We must decide which ability we wish to empower, and judge which we actually do. COMMENT: If everyone were equally able to injure & exploit others, people would become sensitive to what kind of effect they intended to achieve (upon others), and become more acutely attuned to the possible consequences. But if everyone was much more respectable & honorable than they presently are, there would be fewer reasons to attempt to bring harm to them; admiration itself would serve to prevent thoughts of evil deeds against those whose qualities one valued. You could as easily say that those who wish to be treated kindly should cultivate noble qualities and character, so that others will not be easily inspired to hit them over the head. 8) . . . My hope is that this restructuring will create a better society than the one I know. COMMENT: It would be possible to make society better, if people were not always changing their mind, developing new ideas, learning new things about themselves and the world, attempting to adjust to changing circumstances, and generally getting in each other's way as they accomplish all of these things. Pehaps if there were more space between people (like on the net), where they could engage in these activities without easily affecting others, this in itself could "improve" "society". But they always seem to want to grow up in each other's company, instead of doing their homework in private. 9) My beliefs are [hopelessly] utopian. . This faith must not be confused with [certainty]. . We must be satisfied with [approximations]. . I have faith in democratic principles to [shape society] . . . . . It is impossible to [predict the shape] of the society . . . . A few risks are of the [tyranny of the majority], ...... . The will of the people is [impossible to define], ..... COMMENT: I re-arranged your paragraphs to associate the meanings which I saw in them, and they do appear to be in conflict. 10) All actions have moral implications. Ignoring these implications is irresponsible and, yes... immoral. COMMENT: Se la vie'. Therefore what. Final comment: "Society" is in the quality of the contact. Blanc

1 0

Re: cfp '94 transcript
by lcottrell＠popmail.ucsd.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Also note that the Fifth Circuit recently discarded the "exculpatory no" >defense to Sec. 1001. See _United States v. Rodriguez-Rios_, No. 92- >8257 (5th Cir. 2/11/94) (Smith, J.). Reported at 54 CrimLRptr 1528. > >Now, in the Fifth Circuit, you can't even say "No, I never did/say/thought >that" without committing a crime! I think this needs more explanation. I am not sure I understand what you are saying. What exactly is it illegal for you to say? -------------------------------------------------- Lance Cottrell who does not speak for CASS/UCSD loki(a)nately.ucsd.edu PGP 2.3 key available by finger or server. "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra. Suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night the ice weasels come." --Nietzsche

1 0

test
by Foetus 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

im verrry soorry to waste this message but I have reason to suspect some recent system changes have bungled my mail kinda harsh, so I'm testing this list.

1 0

Unrelated
by Robert A. Hayden 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sorry that this isn't on topic, but I figure with all the net surfers here, it couldn't hurt to ask. Anyone happen to know of a site where I can get the most recent Jargon file in either postscript or dvi formats? I know I could a2ps the text version, but if there is already a nicely formatted version, I'd hate to duplicate efforts. thanks. ____ Robert A. Hayden <=> hayden(a)krypton.mankato.msus.edu \ /__ -=-=-=-=- <=> -=-=-=-=- \/ / Finger for Geek Code Info <=> Political Correctness is \/ Finger for PGP 2.3a Public Key <=> P.C. for "Thought Police" -=-=-=-=-=-=-=- (GEEK CODE 1.0.1) GAT d- -p+(---) c++(++++) l++ u++ e+/* m++(*)@ s-/++ n-(---) h+(*) f+ g+ w++ t++ r++ y+(*)

1 0

Re: cfp '94 transcript
by ag588＠cleveland.Freenet.Edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > >SINCLAIR DOUGLAS writes: > >> I'm not sure what the NSA policy is on this. However, at >> that same conference Jim Settle from the FBI told us >> plainly that he is allowed to lie, and that the courts have >> confirmed this right. I doubt Baker would have confessed >> to a back door even if one existed and the question was >> complete. > But wait! How do we know he's telling us the truth when he says he's allowed to lie? I mean, if he's telling the truth, then he might be lying, and if he's lying then either he's not allowed to lie or the courts have not confirmed this "right." On the other hand, if he's lying, then he might be telling the truth --- Aw, shit. You can't even trust the FBI anymore! ;) -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am an attorney, seeking a position in the area of Computer Law. If you know of such a position available, or of someone who may know of such a position, please send e-mail! Thanks.

1 0

Re: cfp '94 transcript
by Jack King 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, it is now a federal crime to state orally or in writing to any federal administrative or law enforcement officer, during the course of an official investigation that you don't know what they are talking about if in fact you do. So if, for instance, you are a user on an anonymous bulletin board and you are asked if you are "X" when in fact you *are* X and you deny it, you can get a couple of years for that, even if you are not the subject of the investigation or guilty of any criminal activity--in theory, at least. This also pertains to any other kind of investigation: tax, environmental, drugs, antitrust, armed carjacking, international weapons trafficking, or anything else coming under federal jurisdiction. Mike Godwin stated that the FBI agent said something like " "we can lie to you, but you can't lie to us." That has always been true under 18 U.S.C. 1001. But now you can't even answer one of their questions with a "no" if the truthful answer would be "yes." You should read up on this, it's scarier than Clipper and the digital telephony proposal combined.

2 1

Re: cfp '94 transcript
by werner＠mc.ab.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Date: Tue, 29 Mar 1994 05:52:22 -0800 >From: Jack King <gjk(a)well.sf.ca.us> > >In Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, it is now a federal crime to state >orally or in writing to any federal administrative or law enforcement >officer, during the course of an official investigation that you don't know >what they are talking about if in fact you do. How can something be a federal crime in only 3 states?

3 2

Re: Very funny, Polyanna [this one's deliberately encrypted]
by gtoal＠an-teallach.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1 0