December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

The Emotional Killer (or out of the frying pan and into the electric chair?)
by tallpaul＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I want to write on the theme posted to the list in the message below where J. Bell wrote "It is their ACTIONS that I feel violate my rights; that is what justifies my seeking their deaths, should I choose to do so." First, one thing that marks the sane adult from the child and the floridly psychotic adult is the sane adult's knowledge that "feelings" and "facts" are two different things. It is one thing to "feel," as J. Bell or all of us might, that our rights have been violated. It is another thing to maintain, as J. Bell uniquely appears to do, that the "feeling" gives him the right to seek another person's death. This and other posts by J. Bell and other lib'bers lead me to believe that their claimed interest in human freedom for everyone is little more than a cover for a set of authoritarian expectations that they can do whatever they want, free from any control, responsibility, or accountability. The argued centrality of J. Bell's "feelings" over other people's lives is something that puts him in the god category. (Thankfully J. Bell is not one of the dreaded tax collectors or "socialist statists.") Should J. Bell act on his "feelings" as he seems to think he has the right to do, he may find that his "right" is little more than another "feeling" not reflective of reality. He might also "feel" his rights are violated when a dreaded tax-collecting socialist-statist called a cop detains him, another dreaded lawyer called a prosecutor says nasty things about him in a court, a jury says "guilty," and another dreaded socialist-statist chowing-down-on-tax-money figure called a judge says "death." This is also likely to produce an even greater "feeling" that rights are violated immediately before another figure living on tax money called an executioner pulls the switch. Death is sometimes Nature's way of telling us that our "feelings" were out of sync with reality. But by then it is too late to do much about it. --tallpaul On Feb 10, 1996 17:41:30, 'jim bell <jimbell(a)pacifier.com>' wrote: > >At 08:13 PM 2/6/96 -0600, Jim Choate wrote: >> >>Forwarded message: > >>> A few months ago, I had a truly and quite literally "revolutionary" >>> idea, and I jokingly called it "Assassination Politics": I speculated on >>> the question of whether an organization could be set up to _legally_ >>> announce either that it would be awarding a cash prize to somebody who >>> correctly "predicted" the death of one of a list of violators of >>> rights, usually either government employees, officeholders, or >>> appointees. It could ask for anonymous contributions from the public, >>> and individuals would be able send those contributions using digital >>> cash. >>> >> >>If the intent is to motivate others to kill or otherwise harm others simply >>because you don't agree with them or their actions is reprehensible and >>moraly or ethicaly undefensible. > >That's a misleading statement: You said, "simply because..." As should >be abundantly clear from my other arguments, I wouldn't wish to see anyone >killed "simply because" of the fact I "don't agree with them." It is their >ACTIONS that I feel violate my rights; that is what justifies my seeking >their deaths, should I choose to do so. > > >>> On the contrary; my speculation assumed that the "victim" is a >>> government employee, presumably one who is not merely taking a paycheck >>> of stolen tax dollars, but also is guilty of extra violations of rights >>> beyond this. (Government agents responsible for the Ruby Ridge incident >>> and Waco come to mind.) In receiving such money and in his various >>> acts, he violates the "Non-aggression Principle" (NAP) and thus, >>> presumably, any acts against him are not the initiation of force under >>> libertarian principles. >>> >> >>Every citizen of this country is a 'government employee' in one sense or >>another. > >That's about the weakest argument I've heard in a long time. I'm amazed >that you weren't too embarrassed to post it to the list. While I don't know >precisely what your definition of the phrase "government employee" really >is, I "every citizen" is a "governement employee" then you must have a >REALLY weird definition of that. > >Somehow, I think that this is where your argument fails, and it fails >miserably. > > >>By resorting to violence you are no better than the ones you proport to >>protect us against. > >Sorry, I disagree. Now, I am certainly aware of the classic "Gandhi-type" >total non-violence principle, but it turns out that very few people actually >believe in that. Most people seem to think that they are entitled to >protect themselves from violations of rights. The fact that these >violations of rights may be done by "government employees" is at most >irrelevant, in that this doesn't justify it. Anybody who feels entitled to >use violence against a burglar, rapist, or murderer is correct; attempting >to deny me the right to protect my property from GOVERNMENT people is, in >itself, a violation of my rights. > >Are you a statist? > >

1 0

Availability of high-speed DES chips.
by Mark Aldrich 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've got a networking application upon which I'm working that requires high-speed DES capability that can be clocked up to around 20 megabytes/second. We're going to have to do circuit board level design, so I can't plug a stand-alone box on the ass-end of the network device - it's got to be planted into our network controller. This thing is going to provide ATM/SONET communications. Does anyone know of any chip sets that can run at this speed? Input regarding either commercial or R&D sources would be appreciated. I know that two years ago at the Internet Security meeting in San Diego we saw a parallel processor configuration of DES chips, but I can't remember which University in North Carolina was working on this. If anyone knows if this research went anywhere, I'd appreciate hearing about that as well. Thanks for the help! ------------------------------------------------------------------------- |So, I went walking through the street. |Mark Aldrich | |I saw you strung up in a tree. |GRCI INFOSEC Engineering | |A woman knelt there, said to me, |maldrich(a)grci.com | |Hold your tongue, man, hold your tongue. |MAldrich(a)dockmaster.ncsc.mil | |_______________________________________________________________________| |The author is PGP Empowered. Public key at: finger maldrich(a)grci.com | | The opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the author | | and my employer gets no credit for them whatsoever. | -------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

RE: Encryption software
by Pete Loshin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Medea writes: > I was telling a friend that I was going to buy a program similar to PC Anywhere to be able to >communicate between my computer at home and the one at the office. He suggested trying to find a >similar program which includes encryption. > Anyone know of such a program? Norton pcANYWHERE and Stac ReachOut both claim to use encryption though I don't have any details of what that encryption is. However, if you use a direct telephone link to communicate, your need for encryption would mostly be in the event that your telephone lines were being tapped (though these products can also be used over most network protocols including IP and IPX). btw: In general, when I speak with PC software vendors (product managers) they almost always talk about how secure their products are but never have the details (either, "oh, that's proprietary" or else "I'm not sure, I'll have to get back to you on that...") -Pete Loshin pete(a)loshin.com

1 0

Firewall USA to Firewall China
by sophi＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At the meeting on saturday the idea of a Firewall USA was discussed. Here's a quote from Jim Clark CEO of Netscape on the idea of a Firewall China, just for comparison. Q: The Chinese government has declared its intention to filter out what it considers to be objectionable material from the Internet. If you were a consultant for the Chinese government, what technology would you recommend that they use to do that? A: A lot of people think that's not possible. It's difficult to enforce, but it's certainly possible. A corporation has a so-called fire wall -- a single point of entry into the corporate net. You can have a country that has a single point of entry into its "country net." It's doable. All you need, though, is one breach of security, and there's a leak. A fire wall is a filter -- it filters and doesn't let certain people come in. You can only come in if you have the right permission. So you could easily set that up so that it would filter out your objectionable material. this is a temp .sig

2 1

V-chips
by A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bill rote: >One thing the V-Chip gives us is the argument: Now that parents have the >ability to control what their children watch, the government should turn >responsibility over to them and butt out. Hmmm, thought - network TV is declining badly (I like AMC & Discovery channel myself). FCC rules are somewhat limiting and 5-year-old mentalities rarely have much disposable income. Cable is taking off because FCC restrictions do not apply. Would the V-chip free the networks to allow *more* S&V^H^H^H"adult content" ? Where is the lobbying/money coming from ? Warmly, Padgett ps still suspect that both the V-chip and CC are simple chip design changes that do not need to add any cost.

1 0

COO_kie
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

2-12-96. FinTim: "This bug in your PC is a smart cookie." Netscape Navigator contains a little-known wrinkle that increases the power of companies to find out who their customers are and what they are up to. It allows companies to track which Web pages an individual looks at, when, for how long, and in what order. The information is stored on the customer's computer as "persistent client-state hypertext transfer protocol cookies". 2-12-96. WSJ: "Consumer Privacy on Internet Goes Public." The advertising industry's response to the volatile issue of consumer privacy is drawing howls of protest from consumer advocates. The battle is over what should marketers be allowed to do with personal information they gather from consumers visiting Web sites. Marketers "want to have dossiers on people with incredible detail so they can pick and choose what they send to you." "Invention Machine's Software Wins Orders for Picking Brains of Inventors." A software program is being snapped up by a growing number of America's biggest companies to provide inventing partners for their engineers. The program codifies the invention principles behind some two million international patents and the inventive techniques of some of the world's greatest inventors. Mr. Tsourikov said the product grew out of his early studies under Genrich Altshuller, who posited that invention isn't a random process but has a certain algorithm which drives it. COO_kie

2 1

Re: Unknown address
by Tim Cook 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> >The user this message was addressed to does not exist at this > site. Please > >verify the name and domain in the original message that > follows. > >Message was addressed to: SAMUEL.KAPLIN(a)warehouse.mn.org > > > > Anybody besides me getting these things? > Seems he does exist. I got one too. Another "Logical Conclusion" by: Tim Cook <twcook(a)cts.com> Support THE US Constitution... Vote Alexander in '96 and '00!

1 0

Re: V-chips, CC, and Motorcycle Helmets
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:18 PM 2/11/96 -0800, Alan Olsen wrote: ... >You have to remember that most of the people arguing for TV filters are >looking for a way to make the "offensive" stuff go away for good. Absolutely! But the technology that lets individuals make the choice weakens their argument that the government must take a hand. >The v-chip will be less than useful as a real filter tool for those of us >who have a different worldview than the censors. 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.) Bill

1 0

Re: Regulation of citizen-alien communications
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:21 AM 2/12/96 -0500, lmccarth(a)cs.umass.edu wrote: >Padgett writes: >> Gov does have the right (in fact the duty) to regulate communications >> between citizens and non-citizens/sites in other lands >[...and later...] >> "...provide for the common defense" >> "To regulate Commerce with foreign nations..." >> "...or in adhering to their enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." >> >> There are the bytes - try reading them in context. > >Familiar phrases indeed. Now, it seems to me that the Commerce Clause and >other Constitutional portions you cited could apply as well to >communications between two U.S. citizens inside the U.S. as they do to the >citizen-alien communications you mentioned. Yet if I read you correctly >earlier, you don't think the USG has the right to regulate those >communications. Why the distinction ? I suspect that Padgett's entire view of reality is built on quicksand.

1 0

Re: Attitudes toward the government...
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:43 PM 2/11/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >Jim Ray wrote: > >>"Americans hate the IRS, and if the only way they can get rid of it >> is to elect somebody who is communicating directly with the Planet >> Xorgon, then so be it." -- Dave Barry [on Steve Forbes]. 2/9/96 > >Not just this, but another data point about the current sentiment about >Washington: In a movie theater today there was a preview of the upcoming >movie "Independence Day," showing a flying saucer hovering over the White >House, then destroying it. The audience cheered and clapped. > >I'm not sure this would've happened in, say, the early 1950s. I have seen similar responses when watching Washington D.C. get partially destroyed in _Earth V.S. the Flying Saucers_. Watching Ray Harryhousen destroy the capitol and the washington monument is the best part of the movie. >(However, like the early 1950s, the producers of this upatriotic drivel may >have to answer to the House Un-American Activities Committee, to explain >their Indecent portrayal.) I expect it to be an "US V.S. Them" movie. Lots of patriotism and the like will be there. (The title says alot about the film.) It will hype the need to be prepared for a "menace". The message will be reinforced with a heavy dosage of special effects and jingoism. Standard hollywood fare. I doubt if we will see anything approching mild subversion form Hollywood anytime soon. >(P.S. "Broken Arrow" was a fun flick. Sort of like "Fail Safe " on "Speed.") Sounds like you spent your day doing the same thing i did... It was quite worthwhile. (But then, John Woo films usually are.) I also found _Hardboiled_ subtitled and letterboxed a few days ago. Another great Woo film. OBCypherpunks noise: I am amazed I have not yet seen a mention of the animated Spy V.S. Spy cartoons running on Mad TV. One of the best parts of the show. (Except for the Triple XXX files from the last episode.) --- 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