December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: "adjust your attitude with their billy club" (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 12:01:41 -0400 (EDT) > From: Alan Horowitz <alanh(a)infi.net> > Subject: Re: "adjust your attitude with their billy club" (fwd) > > > to yourself. The burden of proof rests on the individual to prove that such > > actions by a third party are a public nuisance. > > Bzzt, wrong anser. Thanks for playing. A state and it's political > subdivisions does have the power to enact an ordinance DEFINING what > constitutes a public nuisance. They need merely protect > constitutionally-protected rights. States don't enact ordinances, they enact laws. An ordinance is a regulation which applies in a local municipality regulated by a charter. Laws are enacted by a state or federal government regulated by a constitution. A trivial distinction I agree. I would be willing to accept the premise that in practice such terms are equivalent. They have the right to enact such ordinances if their charter permits. No community, state, or federal government in the US is given carte blanche in regards to the creation of laws, regulation, and ordinances. If you live in a state which permits the state government to enact such laws then you have my sympathy. At least here in Texas the state government is not given that job. It is left to the individual municipalities to define public nuisance. Here in Austin the homeless were allowed to sleep at the capitol because it is public property. Sad to say, that day is dead. I oppose those changes as well. I believe it would be a good thing if more of our public representatives had to face the homeless and other unpleasantries in modern life on a personal and daily basis. They might be motivated to get off their asses and serve the people instead of their campaign contributors. Which constitution? The Federal government is tasked with upholding the Constitution, not the states. The states are tasked with upholding their individual Constitution provided they don't conflict with federal laws. Municipalities are tasked with upholding their charters unless at odds with the state or federal constitutions. You make it sound like my local city council person is responsible for the Constitution, they are not any more than I am. > The City of Seattle may not define the act of disseminating anonymous > pamphlets as a nuisance. They may define the act of dissemination by > throwing them out the window of a moving vehicle, as a nuisance. I would call it littering. There is litte reason to expect people to pick up pamphlets from the middle of the street. As to handing them out, that is protected. If the person you hand it to throws it down on the ground then they are littering. It is called personal responsibility and respect for oneself. From this springs respect for others. > YOu are disconnected from reality. I am not going to waste further > keystrokes on this topic. My side already controls the electoral college > on this one. It's not my problem. I may be disconnected from your reality, but reality is observer dependant. But it is your problem because 'your' side is aging and my generation is just now coming into power (ie eligable to run for president and such). With a little luck we might be able to make a difference. All those people out there you look down upon living in the streets with mohawks and rings through their clits listening to Pigface and Skinny Puppy get to make the decisions now. My suggestion to those who support the status quo is to run, run very fast. We are the ones your mother warned you about. Were pissed off enough that we aren't going to use violence and such, we intend to use your own system of rules against you. Ravage Black Leather Monster

3 2

Re: SOUP KITCHENS (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 21:33:20 -0700 > From: shamrock(a)netcom.com (Lucky Green) > Subject: Re: SOUP KITCHENS (fwd) > > >In my experience they don't get hassled because they get the requisite > >permits and act in good faith. Many of these small businesses and street > >vendors are 'hassled' because they are unwilling or unable to meet basic > >commen sense standards of conduct and go out of there way to circumvent > >regulations and in some cases commen sense. > > I was there when Food Not Bombs got busted in San Francisco. They tried to > get a permit from the Health Department, but the HD refused to even process > the application. FNB finally won the case. I guess next time the HD will be > smarter, process the application and deny it. At present, SF has a > hands-off policy in regards to Food Not Bombs. What exactly was the reason for the refusal to process the form? At that point the FNB folks should have started a suite against the city and not gone to the park. If they did they should have been very careful about advertising the HD's refusal and making it clear that their presence and actions there were a form of political disobedience. There are good ways to tweak a nose and there are bad ways. Sounds like these folks chose a bad way to begin with. I am glad to hear that justice won out in the end. I bet next time the HD just processes the form. Is the person in charge of the HD elected or appointed? If appointed than start a suite against them as well as the department. > The feeding was never the real issue. The heavy political indoctrination > that came with it was. Patrick McHenry handed out the food, screaming in a > mike, in front of the Federal Building (without interfering with > pedestrians in any way) as the Feds came out on their lunch hour, having to > listen to him complain about President Bush's CIA background, calling Bush > a drug dealer, and demanding to know why there was no money for food when > there was plenty of money for nukes. I would have gone back the next day w/ a larger amp. > Now can we please let this thread (at least on the list) die? Certainly. Jim Choate

1 0

Re: "adjust your attitude with their billy club" (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 01:13:14 -0400 (EDT) > From: Alan Horowitz <alanh(a)infi.net> > Subject: Re: "adjust your attitude with their billy club" (fwd) > > > But it is your problem because 'your' side is aging and my generation is just > > now coming into power (ie eligable to run for president and such). With a > > Why am I having these flashbacks to the Clinton Campaign promises of 1992 > about there existing a young man who is a "New Democrat", a white house > that will have the highest-ever level of ethics, etc, etc, etc. My first guess is that you were taking LSD back then but then I wasn't there. The second guess would be because you didn't read very carefuly. I said nothing about highest-ethics or any other such promises of behaviour or action. I think you are reading more into my statement than is there. I simply said that some of my generation plan on using the rules against the establishment. I consider that a subtle but important difference. Jim Choate

1 0

Re: A Libertine Question (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 01:03:43 -0400 (EDT) > From: Alan Horowitz <alanh(a)infi.net> > Subject: Re: A Libertine Question (fwd) > > Corporations are state-created persons [legal definition of "person", not > colloquial vernacular]. They have some privileges which have surface > resmblence to the rights of natural people. For example, they can "have > standing" in a court to initiate a legal proceeding - in their own name, > not that of an agent or employee or trustee. Exactly, 'surface resemblance'. The Constitution at no point mentions businesses in respect to the rights of the individual which is where all discussions must start from in this government. For example, some folks have claimed that corporations have rights that prevent warantless searches and such. I have to strongly disagree. I see no rational way to extend this to a corporation. If the police must use a warrant to search a business located other than in a persons home or on their property it is because the people who are present on that premisis have rights and those rights would be infringed by such searches. I am not even shure I accept the legal premise of corporations. The amendment say: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Jim Choate

2 1

Re: SOUP KITCHENS (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com Sat Aug 3 00:38:30 1996 > Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 01:06:55 -0400 (EDT) > From: Alan Horowitz <alanh(a)infi.net> > To: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay(a)got.net> > cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: Re: SOUP KITCHENS (fwd) > In-Reply-To: <ae28119a020210049840(a)[205.199.118.202]> > Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.91.960803010515.1359F-100000(a)larry.infi.net> > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Precedence: bulk > > We must always look at the legal definition of words. If I _give_ a > joint, I can be charged with sale of a controlled substance. That no > money changed hands is irrelevant. > Wrong, you can be charged with distribution, not sales. Jim Choate

1 0

Re: crypto CD source
by pgut001＠cs.auckland.ac.nz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Some time ago on the list there was some discussion of putting together a CD >full of cryptographic software and reference material. Nothing came of it, but >I think several people expressed an interest I have about 100MB (compressed) of crypto archives, papers, source code, etc etc, reasonably well organised with descriptions of each file. I've got a friend to put it on CD, but only for my own use. If there's someone who can get them done in bulk outside the US you could probably use this as a crypto CD (I don't think there's anyone in NZ who could do it, and I don't really want the hassle of organising the whole thing). Peter.

1 0

Why Fingerprints and Key-ID's
by Paul Wittry 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Cypherpunks, I understand PGP Open-Signed messages and why they are used. I've read all the FAQ's. I can't seem to figure out why some of us put our Fingerprints and/or Key-ID's at the end of messages. The answer to my question is probably in a FAQ somewhere and I'm missing it, I learn best by watching (visually) or by doing (experientially) so I'm having a little trouble learning from documentation. In any case, if someone would spend a little time to explain, or point me in the right direction, I would be grateful. Thanks, Paul -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMgLPl8498OZoTL5VAQFcrwP+JNK8K0cQFdU8+//GQQvj2Z3hn7gTgTeH SRHosvwj5xNmR5pB9h8FlQillZ+OQEeEF+/z75+fqyK9AD68i+F0c0bymj1vJ6zR zQnjUsIh/VBKLAvrmnmf08E4uWo2wdJrsjBtRkvShmMWHOBxsp5dReDrsVNPRHtK Pp1zqTLUBpk= =1kJ1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ___________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wittry, Visual Artist, Philosopher, Poet|"A poet is a dethroned king Internet:<ppw3(a)everett.com> <bi065(a)scn.org> |sitting among the ashes of Homepage:<http://www.everett.net/users/ppw3> |his palace trying to form an PGP Public Key=Finger:<ppw3(a)everett.com> |image from out of the ashes." Please, encrypt your messages!!!! |_______________Kalil Gibran__

1 0

Re: A Libertine Question (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 22:05:06 -0700 (PDT) > From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort(a)crl.com> > Subject: Re: A Libertine Question (fwd) > > > And any insurance company with a whit of sense would charge you rates so > > high that your much touted small vendors and many of the medium sized > > vendors currently in business would not exist. You think governments are > > bad? Wait till you see a bunch of bean counters racing a profit margin. In > > such a situation we wouldn't even have the opportunity for input into the > > system via constitutions, charters, and votes. Just imagine how much support > > a Japanese insurance company would provide its clients in regards to the > > current epidemic in Japan, absolutely none because it is better the little > > vendor go out of business than the insurance company. > > Apparently Jim does not understand that the "race for profit > margin" is what LOWERS the prices of goods and services. You > might check out HUMAN ACTION by von Mises. Anyway, as I said in > my previous post. Really? Then would you mind explaining why costs rise over time instead of going down? Compare the cost of almost anything over time and what happens? The price goes up. Insurance has become involved in the medical industry, what happened? The cost has gone through the roof. The airplane industry was deregulated in the late 70's, what happened? The price of a ticket went up and more and more airlines went out of business because of lagging sales. In many states (such as Texas) insurance was made mandatory, what happened? The cost of automobile insurance went up. The telephone companies were broken up and 'privatized' in the 80's and what happened? The cost of phone service has gone up and the rate of new service introduction has gone down. In almost any case you care to mention where a monopoly or near-monopoly market exists and is deregulated the cost of operation has gone up. > > > It would be nice if businesses were offered that choice > > I'm confident that the market solution would be far cheaper and > less violent they injecting the coercive state apparatus into a > volutary transactions between PEOPLE. If this is so then by your own argument, business are operated by people therefor they are people, the government should conform to this model since it is operated by people also (by your argument). Therefore governments have rights (clearly incorrect). Governments have duties and responsibilities, under our Constitution the government is given no right. As a matter of fact if there is a disagreement or unclear point the 10th says specificaly that the government does not get to resolve it but rather the states or the people. Clearly the founding fathers were drawing a distinction between the people operating a system and the system itself. > > I own 2 businesses...none are equivalent to my person. > > So? They are owned and operated by people. Yes, but they are not people any more than my ownership and operation of my motor vehicle makes it a person. Is your contention that because I own and operate a computer it should be given rights? This is sorta funny, I can see it now... "Your honor we would like to call Mr. Choate's 1985 Mustang to the stand to give testimony." "Mr. Choate's 1986 Mustang, you have been found guilty of speeding and reckless driving." Hey, come to think of it, this would make a great defence for many things. "But your honor, my automobile has rights and is considered a person, therefore you can't hold me responsible for running over those six nuns and two infants. I was simply along for the ride. The only reason that I was in the vehicle was that I was afraid to open the door and jump at 120 MPH." Yup, I definately like where this is going... I can see a cop reading my computer it's Miranda and waiting till Hell freezes over for a positive responce. Just think, all those dead cars...er persons...in the auto...er people-crusher... We should bring those monsters up on charges for killing people. Talk about mass murder. > > Businesses are a system of rules and procedures... > > Made and enforced by PEOPLE. Jim is begging the question. Which question would that be? "Should businesses be considered people with the same rights and priviliges?" If so then it is clearly a negative answer. The Constitution does not accept that premise and the law does not accept that premise. If a business is found guilty of wrong doing do they put it in jail? No, they put the persons involved in jail. Clearly the courts are drawing a distinction between a system and those who operate it. Does the constitution ever mention business or commercial enterprise in equality with persons? Does this equality mean that I need to go the courthouse and get a DBA in order to legaly exist in Texas as a business must? Consider my dog, Reef, she is owned and operated by a person (I feed her, walk her, clean up her messes, teach her tricks, even kill her if I choose - though I can't be cruel to her) does this mean she is a person? Sounds like the original proposition, that businesses should be awarded the same rights as people because they are owned and operated by people, is a reduction to absurtity. > > Would you seriously give my dog a vote? > > Gee, I don't know your dog. His understanding of economics > couldn't be much more rudimentary. (Okay, it was a cheap > shot, but it was a silly question.) If I may, I would like to use a quote from the Transformers movie, "You obviously don't understand the situation then." Tata. Jim Choate

2 1

Re: Freeh slimes again: Digital Telephony costs $2 billion now ...
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:11 PM 8/2/96 -0700, Lucky Green wrote: >At 18:29 8/1/96, Timothy C. May wrote: > >>(With the Internet Phone deals--even Intel is entering the market--why are >>there no widespread uses of PGP or S/MIME? Yes, I know about about PGPhone, >>and also the Nautilus product, but none seem to be used by anyone I know. >>Maybe we should spend some time talking about the practical realities of >>these tools.) > >The sound quality really isn't there, unless you have a fast machine or a >fat pipe. In addition, the vast majority of Intel based computers lack the >crucial (for user acceptance) full-duplex soundcard. Add to that the >physical impossibility of getting decent real time services over a >non-isochronous network, such as the Internet, I'net phones just don't >provide suffcient speech quality for business/serious personal use even >without the added overhead of crypto. Which reminds me... If there is any function Cypherpunks (and/or cyberpunks) should perform, it's one of using a "bully pulpit" to influence technical developments. Consider, for example, your observation that "the vast majority of Intel based computers lack the crucual full-duplex soundcard." When I first heard that this was true, I wondered what bunch of nincompoops were responsible for this outrage. There are many potential uses for soundcards which require full-duplex operation. Only the most stupid and basic functions don't. There was no good reason for this lack; Presumably if somebody had been at the right place at the right time, he could have reminded that shit-for-brains "engineer" of the obvious consequences of building a product with such an egregious bug designed into it. Anyway, that's water under the bridge. However, we're probably all in agreement that Internet telephone (non-encrypted as well as encrypted) is going to be a big product in just a few years. This will require (or desire) a few high-CPU-power functions: 1. A modem, obviously. 2. Good encryption, possibly. 3. Audio A/D and D/A, and associated compression functions. I propose that the better way of implementing it, rather than going through a sound card, is for modem manufacturers to built an new modem with an extra telephone connection (perhaps the same physical connector that's currently used for the telephone handset) which goes to an ordinary telephone and does the audio A/D and D/A conversion, as well as the data compression/data expansion function that will be necessary. The latter function would be done by an extra DSP on this modem/Internet telephone card. Briefly, you'd talk into an ordinary telephone on your desk, which would be connected to the modem/telephone card. That card would digitize your speech to whatever level of resolution is practical, and compress it into an appropriate data rate. This data would either be encrypted by the same DSP, or possibly presented to the host CPU for encryption. From there, it would be sent to the modem section and transmitted over the telephone line. I think this would be superior to the use of a sound card, for a number of reasons. First, obviously, is the reduction in cards in simple and/or portable systems. To require that you have both a modem and a sound card (as well as a cpu) to implement an Internet telephone is unreasonable. Secondly, using a sound card (which can't do any compression) requires that you implement both the compresssion and encryption function with the host processor, which might be impractical for a low-cost processor like a '486. Putting a substantial portion of this function into a dedicated DSP means that main-processor overhead becomes minimal. Third, implementing a "flow-through" telephone circuit allows you to interpose this encryptor into an existing telephone system, such as that of a house or office. The existing handsets can be used with no modification, presumably. This would also allow easy implementation of a computer-controlled answering machine-type, because the computer will be able to digitize/synthesize audio as well as record it. It could also implement fax and modem/bbs functions. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: [off-topic] roving wiretaps
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:52 AM 8/2/96 -0700, daw(a)cs.berkeley.edu (David Wagner) wrote: >> would dramatically change surveillance authority to include wiretaps of >> INDIVIDUALS instead of LOCATIONS. >I don't get it. Help me out here-- how can this possibly be constitutional? [CENSORED MATERIAL DELETED] You've been hanging out with those subversive Canadians again, haven't you? It's covered by the Terrorism Exception to the 4th Amendment.* >P.S. Do police really need a search warrant to wiretap cellular phones? Do you mean legally? :-) Some combination of laws and court decisions has established that cordless phones don't provide an expectation of privacy, but cellular phones do, so eavesdropping on cellular phones requires wiretapping authorization (whether a warrant, FISA permission, or whatever other procedures constitute Due Process.) ----------------------------------- * The Drug Exception to the 4th Amendment says ", except for drugs, of course." The Terrorism Exception says "Be afraid. Be very afraid." ----------------------------------- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> Defuse Authority!

1 0