December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

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

17 Dec '03

"Declan B. McCullagh" <declan+(a)CMU.EDU> said: DBM> ObCrypto: Yes, Know Your Enemies and work with the natural DBM> enemies of the religious right, such as groups like the ACLU and DBM> the FEN. The theocratic push to outlaw nonescrowed crypto is DBM> next. As someone who would prolly be considered part of the 'religious right' (why don't we ever hear of the 'religious left', who are prolly just as much in support of banning porn?), I have to take exception to this. I'm appalled by the CDA, and, if you start pointing out to religious supporters of the CDA that it has already resulted in the King James version of the Bible being removed from (at least) one web site, I'm sure that some of them will be as well, especially the fundamentalists for whom the spread of the Gospel is, well, gospel. Be sure to point out that the same courts who the blame for 'removing prayer from our schools' would be ruling on the indency of the Bible. As for supporting GAK/banning non-GAK, I don't think that you would dispute that the 700 Club is strongly dominated by the religious right, and it came out firmly AGAINST the entire notion of GAK during the Clipper debate. -- #include <disclaimer.h> /* Sten Drescher */ Unsolicited email advertisements will be proofread for a US$100/page fee.

1 0

No Subject
by owner-cypherpunks＠toad.com 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). Neither Rush Limbaugh or Pat Buchanan are populists. Populists tend to believe in strong government with strict regulation of business, an actually progressive tax system, confiscation of businesses which break the rules, government enterprise in competition with the private sector, no secrecy in government of the type required in the private sector, bias toward small businesses and sole proprietors, etc. Letting business "do whatever they want", really doesn't qualify. FWIU, Buchanan's only claim is opposition to "free trade"(forcing the US to trade) AFWIU, Jefferson didn't like slavery, and later freed his slaves, but considered it necessary for business when he practiced it. Have you worked at a job you didn't approve of? > >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 >

1 0

I've just unsubscribed from cypherpunks
by Rich Salz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Normally, when people post notices proclaiming "Jim, I'm putting you in my killfile" or "I can't take it, you've ruined this list, I'm leaving!" I think it's among the worst kind of petty egotism. (To date myself, Chuq's old "goodbye" postings are still the pinnacle of this for me.) It makes me very uncomfortable to write the Subject line, but it is clear and to the point; it makes things easier for would-be readers to decide what to do. And who said writing is supposed to be asy, anyway? :) Pot, kettle, guilty as charged, I suppose. In my defense, however, I want to explain that I've had many public exchanges with people on this list, and this seems the most effective way to let them know that they will now have to send me email directly. In particular, if anyone has a rational reply to my MS CAPI export issue, please Cc me. Later, /r$

2 2

Re: Netscrape's Cookies
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I said: > >I'm curious if anyone knows which sites use/modify it. Dave replied: > AFAIK, the only site that uses it is *.netscape.com ...I'm also curious as to what the data on each line means... Rob. --- Send a blank message with the subject "send pgp-key" (not in quotes) to <WlkngOwl(a)unix.asb.com> for a copy of my PGP key.

1 0

Re: Req. for soundbites
by tallpaul＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Feb 13, 1996 01:17:19, 'cmca(a)alpha.c2.org (Chris McAuliffe)' wrote on the Anglo-Saxon vs. Norman-French issue on "bad words." In addition ot his correct historical analysis, you also tend to find that the "polite"/"politically correct" terms contain more words, more syllables, and more "educated" historical references than the taboo references. > >So, what is the French-derived word for Motherfucker? >And, being nice and long, why isn't it acceptable? > How about "Oedipal emulator?" The Greco-commedic impaired are cordially invited to engage in sollipsistic copulation. --tallpaul

1 0

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