December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Growth of actions definded as crime. Which math formula?
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

With every session of Congress, previously legal acts become illegal. Has anyone worked out a function of this growth (number of crimes in the books vs. time)? I am not looking at the numbers of laws passed, but at individual acts that are defined to be illegal. If this has been studied, what is the formula? If anyone with access to more appropriate lists could please give me a pointer/forward the post there, I'd be grateful. TIA, -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred.

2 1

None
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate wrote: > I suspect that there is a certain level of misrepresentation of what > went on during the Whiskey Rebellion (which I was aware of before > your elucidation). Near as I can tell Washington acted responsibly > within the bounds of the intent and word of the Constitution. Here's a broad outline from memory. Some details may be in error: During the Revolution, many people lent their money to the Continental Congress so it could prosecute the war. During and after the Revolution, the credit rating of the Continental Congress dropped. Many of these people, such as those in Western Pennsylvania, sold their claim on the Continental Congress for nickels on the dollar, mostly to members of the better connected financial community in New York. Enter the Federal Government. After it was established, Hamilton, a well connected member of the financial community in New York, announced that the new Government would honor the debt of the Continental Congress. The people in Western Pennsylvania were not happy to have sold their debt. Where was the Federal government to get the money? Why, by taxing their whisky! As many of these people had fought and seen their friends and relatives die over the question of taxes and freedom, they were less than delighted with this new development. The financial community in New York was widely suspected of being sympathetic to the British, which made the new policies more upsetting. What you would expect to happen, happened. There was a substantial movement opposed to the Constitution. The Bill of Rights originated as a sweetener to appease this movement. It is fair to say everybody's fears have been realized. It may not have been the worst deal ever, though. While it caused the Civil War, it also prevented the Europeans from playing divide-and-conquer games with the States and made possible the most successful foreign policy in the history of the world. For the point of view of the skeptics see: Storing, Herbert J. Ed. "The Anti-Federalists" Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1985 (ISBN 0-226-77565-8) Just Another Cypherpunk

1 0

Re: SUMMARY: Not-so-volatile volatile memory
by alt＠iquest.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:54 AM 9/5/95 +0200, Anonymous wrote: > >Is this a new discovery? When I used to work with DOD classified >data, not so long ago, disk drives had to be declassified using an >approved program, such as Norton Utilities' "WIPEINFO". (That was >approved up through the SECRET/SAR level, anyway. I don't know >about TS/SCI/SI.) But those same regulations said that RAM was >considered declassified within a certain time (30 seconds, I think) >after power was removed. (That time figure was UNclassified, BTW.) >I think it was just to allow time for the voltage to bleed off of >the power supply's filter capacitors, and not related to the >relative volatility of DRAM. I worked at a DoD contractor for a while, and there was a DoD-approved method of disposing of hard drives, which was expensive, laborious, and rather silly. We just had two witnesses watch as we smashed it to smithereens (technical term) with a sledge hammer, and then handed the parts over to an approved disposal person (trash man). It's JUST that easy.

1 0

Re: Stealth Helicopters
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

DisgustedMonger wrote: > I was watching a 'crop' in Humbold County, CA, in the early 80's >and was standing near the top of a hill one day when I heard a >slight "whoosh, whoosh" for about three seconds before a helicopter >came over the hill, scaring the living shit out of me. > I imagine that in the 15 or so years since then, the govt has >managed to make them invisible, as well. The GAO reports that the B-2 stealth bomber cannot fly in the rain, which transforms stealth technology into junk. Moreover, the fragile machine needs strict atmospheric control in the hangar or its skin rots and delicate innards peter out, and because there are none of the luxurious digs overseas, the plane cannot be deployed closer to targets, thereby limiting its threat. The problem is apparently unsolvable for less than the cost of the plane itself, so they've got to be pickled and coddled indefinitely or thrown away. http://jya.com/nsiad-97-181.txt Once armaments, tactics and strategy were battle-tested by using them for war, now with high-price simulation being widely deployed to save money, it's pretty certain that the price of war games will eventually rise to cost exactly the same as an actual war, indeed will make war a cheaper alternative. What's a wonder is that GAO never finds serious fault with any of the government programs it judiciously investigates. Instead, after due research, request for comments from those investigated, and fair deliberation, the somewhat tawdry matters at hands merely require additional funding for fine tuning and keep the congressional sponsors happy to fund the programs, the watch-dogs and shrewdly voting taxpayers doing what needs to be done to complain and bank their cut, short 10% for all the world's sterling leaders. Jeez, is this a California dream of virtual reality war games forever or the bleeding edge of the future set in motion at the dawn of: making peace, making war, what's the diff so long as me and mine never get drafted, never take the actual hit, never wake up dead?

1 0

Why Not to use PGP 5.0
by Damaged Justice 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://www.shub-internet.org/why_not_pgp_5.html

3 3

gephardt slams crypto regs
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

------- Forwarded Message Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 00:57:05 -0700 From: "J. Orlin Grabbe" <kalliste(a)aci.net> Subject: [Fwd: Encryption is vital to the Net BY RICHARD A. GEPHARDT] - -> SearchNet's SNETNEWS Mailing List Path: news.alt.net!news1.alt.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-pull.sprintlink.net!news-in-east.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!198.240.78.6!news.us.net!not-for-mail From: softwar(a)us.net (SOFTWAR) Newsgroups: talk.politics.crypto,alt.wired,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.whitehous.gov,alt.politics.org.cia,alt.politics.org.nsa,alt.politics.org.fbi Subject: Encryption is vital to the Net BY RICHARD A. GEPHARDT Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 22:22:02 GMT Organization: SOFTWAR Message-ID: <5tkhs3$fun$1(a)news.us.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: host46.richmond.us.net X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82 Xref: news.alt.net talk.politics.crypto:17311 alt.wired:55794 alt.politics.democrats.d:270387 alt.politics.usa.republican:490233 alt.politics.clinton:344303 alt.president.clinton:129822 talk.politics.misc:571350 alt.politics.usa.misc:167063 alt.politics.usa.congress:129082 alt.politics.org.cia:23221 alt.politics.org.nsa:9829 alt.politics.org.fbi:12348 Encryption is vital to the Net BY RICHARD A. GEPHARDT THE Clinton administration's recent call for a ``non-regulatory, market-oriented'' approach to promoting Internet commerce includes many constructive initiatives. However, if we are to realize the full potential of the Internet, we must also end the outdated restrictions on U.S. exports of encryption products. Encryption, which encodes electronic messages so that only a recipient with the ability to decode the message can read it, is vital to the future of Internet commerce. It prevents crime by keeping hackers from reading your e-mail or stooling your credit card numbers. It helps companies protect trade secrets. As more information flows over the open networks that constitute the Internet, people increasingly need encryption to keep their information secure. Because encryption is not restricted domestically, you would think American companies would be global leaders in world markets. But often they aren't allowed to compete. Fearing the availability of encryption abroad could make it more difficult for the U.S. government to intercept the communications of criminals and gather intelligence, the current and past Administrations have chosen to maintain strict export controls on encryption. The level of encryption U.S. companies are permitted to export is now so weak that a college hacker can break it in less than four hours. If export controls could keep encryption from criminals, controls would make sense. But U.S. self-restraint has simply encouraged foreign producers of strong encryption, who are not covered by export limits, to fill the vacuum. Hundreds of strong encryption products, many developed in countries like Canada, Ireland, Germany and Russia, are increasingly available abroad. And as foreign competitors use their advantage in encryption to win more high-tech sales, we lose jobs. The National Research Council's blue-ribbon panel on encryption policy recently warned that ``foreign competition could emerge at a level significant enough to damage the present U.S. world leadership'' in the software industry. Such damage could jeopardize hundreds of thousands of high-paying jobs. It could also undermine our national security, according to the Council, by making it harder for the U.S. government to keep abreast of evolving encryption technology in the future. The Council endorsed a relaxation of export controls in order to maintain the U.S. lead in this vital sector. The Administration has proposed a ``key recovery'' system to require users to make available to governments the ``keys''' to decode their private communications. But giving governments worldwide ready access to individuals' private information and to corporate secrets raises difficult issues. Will U.S. firms operating in China be forced to trust that government with the keys to their trade secrets? Will human rights groups abroad, where U.S. constitutional protections do not apply, be forced to give authoritarian governments the keys to their membership lists? Can we really expect criminals to give up their keys so that they may be made available to the government? Key recovery won't work unless the many countries that produce encryption adopt it. Otherwise criminals could still obtain encryption from non-complying countries. But countries like Germany have refused to support key recovery. Indeed, they have a strong economic incentive to resist. As long as the international disagreements persist and we hog-tie our industry, their's will enjoy an advantage in world markets. The National Research Council urged a balanced approach to this problem: improve security on the Internet and prevent crime by relaxing exports controls and allowing U.S. exporters to meet the competition. Maintain robust controls against rogue nations. Impose penalties for misusing encryption to commit crime. And invest in additional technical capabilities to help our intelligence agencies adjust to the information age. Led by Members like Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, more than 250 Democrats and Republicans in the House of Representatives -- myself included -- have joined in support of the Security and Freedom through Encryption (SAFE) bill to relax export controls and advance many of the recommendations of the National Research Council. With growing support, the SAFE bill makes it clear that the Congress will not tolerate the continued shackling of our high-tech sector. We are willing to work with all sides to develop a consensus on a workable, market-oriented approach that can advance our law enforcement interests and win international acceptance. But we aren't willing to simply watch the current stalemate continue and keep U.S. industry on the sidelines. It is time to move forward and modernize our export policies for the information age. Rep. Richard A. Gephardt, D-Mo., is the House Democratic leader. Published Thursday, August 21, 1997, in the San Jose Mercury News - -> Send "subscribe snetnews " to majordomo(a)world.std.com - -> Posted by: "J. Orlin Grabbe" <kalliste(a)aci.net> ------- End of Forwarded Message

2 1

MACKERALS / Re: MIRICLES EVERYWHERE!!!
by bureau42 Anonymous Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

BBblue(a)delphi.com wrote: > > Financial Healings. This is actually from list forger, Robert Hettinga, who was trying to write a post called 'Financial Dealings' when he was seized by a fit of Platypus-Downey Syndrome. Originally a government-generated hereditary Trojan virus developed by allegedly reptilian Nazis, agraphia was introduced to the cypherpunks mailing list, becoming commonly known as Platyagraphia, as it spread quickly throughout the list. By a curious penalty-stroke of fate, the Christian hordes descending on the list as the outbreak of Platyagraphia spread, were inflected, and the resulting inflection turned them into Christian 'whores,' at which time Platyagraphia became uncommonly known as Platypus-Downey Syndrome. > Enclose a self stamped and self addressed envelope with one dollar in it to each of the people below. > COME ON! What are you going to loose? 6 WHOLE DOLLARS! NO WAY CAN YOU POSSIBLY LOSE. Hettinga, once a respected member of the financial crypto community, has been turned into pathetic figure by Platypus-Downey Syndrome, which has aggragated the Money Fever that he had been successful in controlling up to this point. Now he has been reduced to spamming the Internet with MLM Prayer-List chain mail, in a desperate attempt to "Make Money La$t" at a dollar-a-pop. Once a secular figure known as the Father of eCa$h, Hettinga is now a quasi-religious Cyhperpunk Cult of One leader known as the Dollar Llama. > Remember to have a copy of Your favorite healing prayer to stuff in envlopes as they send you $1.00. > If you don't have one you may use mine. In his own defence, Hettinga, making a veiled reference to the "lack of evolutionary pressures" thread currently raging on the list, said, "I'm providing a service to both the Christan community and the financial eugenics movement, by confiscating financial munitions from those too stupid to pray without my help, one dollar at a time. MackeralMonger

2 1

Prior Restraint on Publishers
by Tim May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I used to think things like this would be quickly declared unconstitutional, but not any longer. The New Order is making things like this all too predictable. I just hope Adam Shostack does not get in even more trouble for speaking out. --Winston Smith > >From the New Yerk Tomes cybertimes: > >Proposed U.S. Rules Would Place Prior Restraint on Publishers > >By PETER MAYNOR > >Under a proposed set of rules being circulated by the Commerce >Department, the Clinton Administration is considering regulating >Web servers that allow publishing of political tracts and other forms >of information. Among the sites that would be affected are those now >operated by organizations like Planned Parenthood, the National Rifle >Association, and Citizens for the Destruction of Washington, all of >which distribute publications over the Web. Under the proposed rules, >access to such sites would be more tightly controlled or could disappear >altogether in the future. > >The requirement for Federal approval of a Web server, however, is >buried inside the densely written, virtually impenetrable document, >and the change is not even noted in the executive summary at the >beginning. The new regulation would require that anyone setting up >a Web server offering published materials seek an "advisory opinion" >from the Bureau of Thoughtcrime Affairs. > >The opinions carry no weight in court and only serve as an indication >of the agency's view on the matter at a given moment. A company >could later be prosecuted for publishing materials despite receiving >permission in an advisory opinion, although the existence of the >opinion should offer some emotional support with the court. Failure to >seek >permission will likely be interpreted by courts as evidence of >criminal tendencies. > >The purpose of the rule is to force the Web server to take all prudent steps >to ensure that publications do not violate the laws of the United States. > >The proposed regulations do not set out any hard and fast guidelines >for an organization to meet. The new regulations hwould effectively force >>organzations to shut down their Web servers until the Ministry of Truth >could rule on the material -- a process that can take several months. > >Brewart Staker, a former general counsel for the Ministry of Truth who now >>practices at the Washington law firm Goldsgtein, Blair & Orwell, said >that the >difficulty the regulators face is that the regulations must >adapt to a quickly >changing Internet environment. > >"They're saying 'Here's the basic standard. Show us what you're trying to >do. If you're doing what we feel is a good faith effort, then we'll >approve it,'" >Staker said. "They don't quite say that, but I suspect >that's what's going on." > >To draw an analogy, he compared the action to a hand check in basketball, a >move by which a defensive player warns someone with a ball that they're >there by touching them. "Think of this as just as a friendly >warning from >Big >Brother, telling you he loves you and is looking out for your best >interests." > >Adam Shostack, a Boston-based Cypherpunk facing imprisonment for >belonging to a subversive organization, said that the current rules were >already making it difficult for his clients to publish their ideas. The >new >regulations, Shostack predicted, will just make matters worse. > >"We've never needed the permission of the government to publish >anything in this country," Shostack said. "I don't see where their >legal authority comes from." >

2 2

Glut of Doctors? (Oh Horror, Oh Horror!) / Re: index.html
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate wrote: > CNN > REPORT: U.S. TO PAY HOSPITALS NOT TO TRAIN DOCTORS > Doctor graphic August 24, 1997 > WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In an effort to reduce a glut of physicians in > the United States, the federal government will pay training > hospitals hundreds of millions of dollars not to train doctors, The > Washington Post reported Sunday. Thus protecting the citizens from the horrible spectre of reasonably priced health care. Sick people around the nation must be applauding this government effort. > Medicare underwrites residency training programs heavily. Taxpayers > spend $7 billion a year on the training, with each resident > translating into an average subsidy of $100,000 a year. I don't suppose that simply "dropping" the subsidy would have the same result of reducing the number of doctors, would it? (Hello! Is anybody home...?) > The payments are the government's first effort to constrict the > pipeline of people entering the medical profession, and one of the > few times the federal government has used subsidies as leverage to > shrink a particular work force. At the same time that the baby boom is turning into a geriatric boom which will increase the need for physicians. Sounds like the makings a future "HEALTH CARE CRISIS!!!!" which the government will have to address with new laws and a dramatic increase in government funding for subsidized residency training. Thank God that the government has had the foresight to increasingly arm a variety of government agencies so that they can step in to halt the old, sick sheeple from rushing the medical centers. > But the agreement drew fire from teaching hospitals in other areas > of the country who were cutting their residency rolls voluntarily > and absorbing the cost of the lost subsidies without federal > assistance. Oh, you mean like is regularly done in the "real" world? Is it "legal" to do that without government assistance? > Others wondered whether it was necessary. The number of doctors > training to become specialists in some fields has declined > dramatically despite the subsidy program, the Post article said, due > to well-publicized warnings that jobs for specialists were only > available in less populated areas. Oh Horror, Oh Horror! Reasonably priced health care, and physicians forced to endure the indignity of providing medical services to people in areas free of big-city smog. Better to heavily arm the big-city government agents to thwart the threat of all of those country bumpkins getting past the road-block identity checks and attempting to access the dwindling number of big-city physicians. Jim, did you make this post up? Are you a forger/spoofer? This post is so typical of government insanity that it seems like a National Lampoon parody. TruthMonger

1 0

Re: Child Porn
by Feanor 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Aug 24, 13:00, XAVIER243(a)aol.com wrote: } Subject: Child Porn > Got any info or sites 4 me??? > }-- End of excerpt from XAVIER243(a)aol.com Shouldn't his user-id be '4thHorseman(a)aol.com'? :-) BTW, does anyone have a good writeup on the 4 horsemen of the infocalypse concept? s

2 1