December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Assasination Politics
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 02:03 PM 2/12/96 EDT, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: >From: IN%"jimbell(a)pacifier.com" "jim bell" 12-FEB-1996 04:18:43.34 > >>>How much weight is Lotus going to give the opinions of a bunch of >>>unbalanced sociopaths when they're thinking about making deal to gak those >>>extra 24 bits? Not much, I'll bet. > >>If "AsPol" actually WORKS, Lotus won't have to "deal" to get "those extra 24 >>bits." > >>Lotus should announce that they have heard of this new idea on CP, called >>"Assassination Politics," and have assigned a couple dozen programmers to >>implement it by July 1996. They'd back (guarantee) the prizes for the first >>such organization, and they'd sell the software to others. At that point, I >>think the resignations from government office would skyrocket. > > It seems likely that any overt organization operating an Assasination >Politics scheme will be outlawed... even though the most logical reading of >current laws says that it isn't illegal (except for the gambling part). An >anonymously constructed one seems a lot more likely - which Lotus could then >anonymously patronize. Even if operation of such a system is "outlawed," the government would still have to TRY to enforce the law, which would be mighty difficult. Remember, the whole system is based on anonymity, which means it'd be hard to get witnesses to any overt act. And we have 1st amendment issues to consider: If this system were operated from overseas, it would be difficult or impossible to restrict communication with the main organization, etc. I believe that the enthusiastic support by some well-known software company (even if they didn't intend to actually run or assist in the running of the operation itself) would make the politicians shit bricks, leading to a cathartic national debate that we sorely need. > I do have some ideas for making such possible, but I'm >waiting on a defense of three points before I'll release them. These points >are: > > A. My previously mentioned problem with a limited but non-libertarian >organization. I don't deny that such an organization might spring up. (Anti-abortion activists are the group which come most immediately to my mind, BTW. I'm not in sympathy with them; quite the opposite.) I've never claimed that this system is totally immune to such abuse, in the same way that the seller of a gun can certify that it will never be used to commit a crime. > B. I don't trust the average person to look ahead enough to make this >(or other Anarcho-Capitalist) schemes work. Fortunately, "Assassination Politics" will achieve this "crypto anarchy" even if only a tiny fraction of the population participate and use it. The reason is that the number of decision-maker government employees is comparatively small and most will resign before being "terminated." (with extreme prejudice.) The total cost to bring down the US government will probably be substantially less than $100 million. > In other words, the average person >has to be able to see that a non-limited organization is a danger to them, >etcetera. I realize that this takes a bit of thinking to recognize. I've thought about this whole thing for nearly a year, now, and it is still a fascinating and yet a bit terrifying subject. > Moreover, Jim Bell is ignoring the other sources of propaganda than >government in convincing the average person that someone is doing something >wrong (when, by my ethics at least, they aren't) - such as religion and >various organizations like the PFDA. Again, only a tiny fraction of the population needs to participate... > Admittedly, as I've stated before, the >requirement for some money would help, at least to the degree that our economy >is meritocratic. (A growing tendency, fortunately.) If most people are on a >subsistence wage (the result of free trade & automation with varying human >abilities), they can't afford enough money for Assasination Politics. (Yes, >I'm an intellectual Elitist. Deal with it.) I've been asked what I think would be the average payoff for a medium-level government official "kill" would be. Naturally, that would be market-driven, but it is reasonable to assume that most of the payment for a CURRENT contract killing is based on the risk; not merely the risk of doing the job and/or getting caught, but also the risk of dealing with (and trusting, etc) the other guy. I suspect that the vast majority of convictions for contract killings occur not because the killer was caught in the act, but because of these relationships associated with it. Since "Assassination Politics" promises essentially perfect anonymity to the donors as well as the "predictors", the majority of the "risk" associated with having such a job done would be far lower than currently. I estimate, therefore, that you could get "action" for around $10,000. Since "Assassination Politics" is based on a combined-donation system, even people on a subsistence wage could contribute; a quarter here, a dollar there, pretty soon it turns into real money. > C. While I may not like dealing with the average person very much (see >above), I don't want to see them starving in the streets. I can see >governmental welfare as being necessary for this, although the private form >is definitely preferable. (And yes, I can justify this as being a libertarian - >if not Libertarian Party - viewpoint. If I recall correctly, I had a debate >with Perry on this on Libernet, in which he tried to dismiss me as "just a >Democrat." I was posting under the name ALLENS(a)YANG.EARLHAM.EDU at the time). > -Allen I understand your concern. I wish there was some simple argument I could give which would assuage your fears. However, I look at it this way: The Federal government (and all other governments, around the world) are curently parasites on the rest of the population. Now "parasite theory" is that the parasite has some sort of optimum "parasite level" above which he cannot go. Once the cost for such parasitism is removed, there will be an economic boom for those "hosts" of the parasite. Naturally, the parasite will be in trouble, but that's only justice. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMSDdJfqHVDBboB2dAQEvrAP8DBlD+6eDoUGNBHo+VjfjWHoCv17zuxaE ZpRek0qYw1hyLH/BtDbhdF9WWX+epcxN2FHEMgC/LOlndUmyx2GsVX2usfetT7bd CBDG99nOg7aU1ZPavmEJDsp9rd2kycdjDA2WkLWLj4FeiwT3kiT2Yieh1aVweXff U3VB1cYCefc= =3LY3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Reasons in support of crypto-anarchy WAS Re: Why am I (fwd)
by lunaslide＠loop.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

}jim bell writes: }> If Perry is REALLY sincere about objecting to the NON-crypto part of AsPol, }> he should demonstrate this by writing notes which are focussing on the }> crypto aspects, rather than just complaining. } }Frankly, Jim, the only reason I haven't torn apart all the utterly }ennervated simulacra of arguments you have posted to support your }"concepts" is that they are *all* off topic and I do not participated }in the discussion of off topic postings. Frankly perry, you're a fucking child and I can't remember reading anything intelegent from you in this list at all. Jim Bell at least contributes ideas. You generate garbage. I'm a patient man, but you've finally done it. PLONK! Jeff lunaslide "Prohibition... goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes... A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." - -- Abraham Lincoln On the meridian of time there is no injustice, only the poetry of motion creating the illusion of truth and drama. Henry Miller ________________________________________________________________ -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQCPAzEX3QEAAAEEAOGQjhnqGH29pO1WDaXs5GFOVPhCBWyYEk9XEwRmscjveWzH AhA6DeOA480zWNqQURyqE2yPmR8WzT+OXYqmeiQiycKyFA41Vs/Ruf+gXXxe7uXS L5BK3K8oKbfoH0D5/TAkMT4r6BprXFQz4pFc3gY2SSaSPElpMjKHaKBsRsyRABEB AAG0HUplZmYgQ29ubiA8bHVuYXNsaWRlQGxvb3AuY29tiQCVAwUQMRffHzKHaKBs RsyRAQGNhwP9E9xEZ9/LCKnhgtnrqgD7pDoXG2pCy8FoyfFjoImGkG+jF1wELXmB Z0mf8F8CgYkys0mif1XeGDMelr1gzlZAm6LgQt4kcvztMW/aRLn18QP+iwltVT/L p8D37mitOjvuk46sWgAChIaPPPIeg/EaYQjQkmlpWKsEYIoTRy+E8mU= =4Gku -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

1 0

Re: Strange Sounds of Silence
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"tallpaul(a)pipeline.com" 12-FEB-1996 00:47:35.36 >But I do not dismiss people as "lib'bers;" I merely call them that. I have >noticed that a large number of libertarians are fans of Rush Limbaugh and >chuckle a lot when Rush refers to women like Andrea Dworkin and her >supporters as lib'bers. I also find that the people opposed to Drowkin & >Co. are upset at her use of demagogic language, private dictionaries, and >the like. So am I, and started long before Rush got his TV shows. I am, >however, equally (if not more upset) by what I perceive as similar >demagogic etc. behavior by many libertarians. Large number of libertarians are fans of Rush Limbaugh? The last time I checked, Rush Limbaugh was basically a conservative populist like Pat Buchanan. While we may appreciate his comments re Andrea Dworkin (and others who want to restrict free speech on ridiculous grounds, and who believe nonsensical things like an inability to consent to sex), that doesn't mean we're fans of his. I like some of what Jefferson said, too, but that doesn't mean I agree with him on slave-holding (or on agrarianism). >Do they really have a right not to be styled "lib'bers?" No, I do not think >they have that right. Call us whatever you like. My problem with the term is that it's confusing. I doubt, for instance, that Rush Limbaugh is using it as an abbreviation for libertarian, although I'm not sure for what, if anything, it's a contraction. >I do not believe that all lib'bers are in league with the Christian right; >I am distrubed, however, by the large numbers of lib'bers who strangely >never mention the existence of the fundamentalists in the >ultra-conservative ultra-private-property camp. Yes, the fundys are in there. Politics makes strange bedfellows; work with whoever you can on whatever you can agree on. It's sort of like both our and CPSR's opposition to the CDA - CPSR has entirely too many desires to regulate private property (free net access et al), but we can still work with them on what we agree on. >I am equally concerned with some leftists who consider every example of >authoritarian behavior as "fascism" as I am with 'ib'bers who lump everyone >who argues for social responsibility as a "socialst statist." One >difference I see is that I am willing to criticize both groups while many >(but not all) lib'bers are again strangely silent at least the "statist" >side of the equation. Well, about 25% or so of libertarians are anarcho-capitalists, so far as I can tell. So of course they're going to find anyone who's advocating state control a "statist." They've agreed to disagree with people like me who aren't anarchists, but that's because we've got most other things in common. -Allen

2 1

Subject lines?
by olbon＠dynetics.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ok, has everyone forgotten to use a subject line today, or is there a problem with toad.com? Every message I received today that was dated 14 Feb (except one - from "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH(a)ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>) had no subject and no from line (other than cypherpunks). This includes messages from Perry and Jim Bell. Clay --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Clay Olbon II | olbon(a)dynetics.com Systems Engineer | ph: (810) 589-9930 fax 9934 Dynetics, Inc., Ste 302 | http://www.msen.com/~olbon/olbon.html 550 Stephenson Hwy | PGP262 public key: finger olbon(a)mgr.dynetics.com Troy, MI 48083-1109 | pgp print: B97397AD50233C77523FD058BD1BB7C0 "To escape the evil curse, you must quote a bible verse; thou shalt not ... Doooh" - Homer (Simpson, not the other one) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3 2

SEX_hex
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

2-14-96. NYT Page One: "Compuserve Halts Restriction on Sex Material. To Offer Blocking Software." Citing a desire to leave Internet censorship to individual tastes rather than government decree, Compuserve said yesterday that it would restore worldwide access to most of the 200 sex-related computer data bases it had recently blocked under pressure from German prosecutors. "By this action, Compuserve is intentionally providing obscene material to its subscribers, and they do so at their peril," said the Family Research Council. "We will encourage the Justice Department to prosecute Compuserve for violating CDA." The Justice Department has agreed not to prosecute anyone under the new law at least until tomorrow. SEX_hex

1 0

Linux on the Mac
by olbon＠dynetics.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In the latest PowerPC news it is reported that OSF is porting Linux to the Mac with the support of Apple. Apple has a web site - www.mklinux.apple.com that discusses this and has a link to the OSF site. In my book, this is a GoodThing(tm). Of course, being a huge fan of both the Mac and unix might put me in the minority ;-) Clay --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Clay Olbon II | olbon(a)dynetics.com Systems Engineer | ph: (810) 589-9930 fax 9934 Dynetics, Inc., Ste 302 | http://www.msen.com/~olbon/olbon.html 550 Stephenson Hwy | PGP262 public key: finger olbon(a)mgr.dynetics.com Troy, MI 48083-1109 | pgp print: B97397AD50233C77523FD058BD1BB7C0 "To escape the evil curse, you must quote a bible verse; thou shalt not ... Doooh" - Homer (Simpson, not the other one) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5 4

No Subject
by owner-cypherpunks＠toad.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jean-Francois Avon (JFA Technologies, QC, Canada) writes: > Q3: how to make that connexion [from mid ocean] *secure*? Ah, that part is easy. End to end encryption. IPsec or things like it. I hope I don't sound like a preacher, but IPsec is a good thing(TM). Perry

1 0

No Subject
by owner-cypherpunks＠toad.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:03 PM 2/13/96 -0500, Adam Shostack wrote: > IP addresses are a scarce resource today. Try getting a /16 >allocation (what used to be a class B). There are politics in the >process already. I know they are getting scarce. I just find the "let's sell IP addresses on the open market" do be a scary though. it will make them less available. > Addresses will not be easily 'transferable.' The IETF is >discussing a 'Best Current Practices' document that talks about >address portability. Basically, it can't happen, because the routers >only have so much memory, and the routers at the core of the internet >can't keep in memory how to reach every one; there needs to be >aggregation. The only feasible aggregation seems to be provider >based, ie, MCI, Alternet, and other large ISPs get blocks of >addresses. They give them to smaller companies, like got.net, which >gives them to customers. The result? The core routers have a few >more years. A good point. Having parts of subnet shifting around could be pretty painful from an admin point of view. > Lastly, 32 bit addressing is going away. IPv6 offers 128 bit >address space, and (hopefully) much more efficient allocation, as well >as such useful things as hooks for automatic renumbering of address space. I just hope that the AT&T scheme does not get put into place. Otherwise it will be just viewed like a stock split. ("Wow! We have more addresses to sell!") The AT&T plan as described sounds like something dreamed up by a marketing droid as a way to "Make Money Fast Off Of The Internet". What is the timeline for implementation of IPv6? --- Alan Olsen -- alano(a)teleport.com -- Contract Web Design & Instruction `finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ "We had to destroy the Internet in order to save it." - Sen. Exon "I, Caligula Clinton... In the name of the Senate and the people of Rome!" - Bill Clinton signing the CDA with the First Amendment bent over.

1 0

secure web page ideas
by Jon Lasser 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

For those people who have Netscape / an SSL-enabled web-browser, wouldn't it be useful to have secure web pages that did the following: (1) An anonymous remailer web page, like the current ones (this one has the obvious advantage that plaintext doesn't travel to the http server) (2) A pgp-sending web page (type in key id into field, send message to address given, encrypted) This isn't a bad idea for the same reason that (1) above is a much better idea. (3) Ultimately, a server that did (2), through (1). Being able to send PGP encrypted email to a recipient through anonymous remailers, over the web with a secure browser might be PGP's "killer app" in one way or another. How hard would this be to implement? Would it be worth waiting until the PGP 3.0 API is released? Jon ---------- Jon Lasser (410)494-3072 - Obscenity is a crutch for jlasser(a)rwd.goucher.edu inarticulate motherfuckers. http://www.goucher.edu/~jlasser/ Finger for PGP key (1024/EC001E4D) - Fuck the CDA.

2 1

Re: Assasination Politics
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have changed the subject header (despite its destroying threading with the way my mailreader works) so that Perry et al can more easily filter this out. I have concluded that Assasination Politics, since it is a possible development of true anonymnity, etcetera, is a proper discussion topic for cypherpunks - while not cryptography in and of itself, it is a possible result of cryptography. From: IN%"frantz(a)netcom.com" 12-FEB-1996 03:24:07.29 >Again, absolutely. Hell, I can't even devise a filter that will let me >filter out Jim Bell's rants while letting me see his reasoned arguments on >anonymous assassination. (I would love to have him address the Salman >Rushdie issue, a man who is still alive despite a considerable announced >price for his head. There appear to be limits to who can be subject to >assassination for pay.) Actually, that's an argument for non-misusage of Assasination Politics. If the person hides, there's not much one can do about it. But a hiding law enforcement agent can't be out violating people's rights. (I will mention that whether a right is violated or not is essentially a matter of the perceiver - under any system, whether governmental or not. All ethical arguments assume either some degree of common ground that can be argued from, or the finding of logical inconsistency). Those who do so via the net can be taken care of via the other mechanisms discussed here. It's just that the physical part is a possible net weakness. Moreover, just because _some_ rights-violaters (not that Rushdie was one) aren't killed doesn't mean that all of them wouldn't be. A system doesn't have to be 100% efficient to be effective. However, the Rushdie case does bring up one problem I have with Assasination Politics as currently constructed. While people are unlikely to patronize a general/non-discriminatory organization, a more particular but non-libertarian one is still possible. For instance, if the Christian Coalition put together an organization, anonymously, what would prevent them from offing everyone who was a major leader against them - such as a doctor researching new abortion techniques, or a geneticist (such as myself) doing gene therapy work they found offensive? The patrons would know that _they_ wouldn't be targeted after all... I would appreciate a response from Jim Bell on this subject. -Allen

1 0