December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Fw: AOL crashes and burns
by Charley Sparks 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Date: Thu Aug 08 21:28:04 1996 - -----Begin Included Message ----- I thought things were a bit faster there for a while.. They had just rolled out AOL 3.0 in time for Mac World ( county ??) when it burned.... Seems some new server software gagged it <GRIN> Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 15:16:38 -0500 From: Warrior <warrior(a)tateonline.com> To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Cc: Great news, eh? - ---- End of forwarded message ---- Charles E. Sparks<sparks(a)bah.com> In God we trust, all others we encrypt ! http:/www.clark.net/pub/charley/index.htm Public Key At http://www.clark.net/pub/charley/cp_1.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCXAwUBMgqUJeJ+JZd/Y4yVAQGXpQQMC4HvZJDaHYOeSF/2nw4LEdSt6g+h5eZU NYo594LK9VTogbOLG/XgLol3aZ/GtQLyWs3gzbHFUwgByzZzjdDq+UEwbj4wV7jb XE3D1EJ5zCg3k7+Pbj4LKqag4VngD/0yd38bx7Okcvi3pfuwaPjIjNy/IStxZjV8 L6tHPzdlbwwa2g== =CG8R -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Why should we trust the system?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

When supporting plans like GAK ("key escrow") and wiretaps, you will frequently see the Denning-types justify them by claiming that there's protection from a requirement that a judge issue a search warrant. It should be instructive, then, to present the Richard Jewell case as an excellent counter-example. Richard Jewell, as you should all be aware, is the poor soul who happened to first see that pipe bomb at the Atlanta Olympics. However, hours after it was publicly revealed that the Atlanta 911 center screwed up, wasting 10 minutes looking up the address of "Centennial park," officialdom suddenly discovered they needed news to divert attention from their buffoonery. They found it, as if on cue. Tonight, I saw a national network news show say how Jewell is apparently quite innocent, and that the news media was quite willingly "used" by the government to convict Jewell in the press. Great mea culpa, but that still leaves some serious questions. Presumably, the government got warrants to search Jewell's apartment, correct? Okay, what evidence did they use to support the granting of those warrants? What, EXACTLY, did they tell the judge that ostensibly convinced him to grant a warrant? Remember, police aren't supposed to get a warrant simply if they can't prove that a person is NOT a bomber. The standard is suppose to work the other way around: The police should get a warrant only if the amount of evidence of guilt (or, evidence of evidence) is sufficiently detailed to rise to a certain level of authority, known as "probable cause." Evidence doesn't evaporate. More precisely, the police had a responsibility to collect enough evidence together, POSITIVELY, to be able to show probable cause to believe that a crime had occurred, and that Jewell was guilty. Some of that evidence might, hypothetically, have initially appeared to show guilt and was later clarified, but that early evidence must still exist, to at least show the public that the cops didn't entirely fabricate the justifications they used to get the warrants. So I ask again, did the police/FBI EVER have enough evidence to convince anyone by that "probable cause" standard? Well, if they say they had it in the case of Richard Jewell, that isn't very reassuring. Okay, I'll admit that I _never_ believed that judges actually follow the standards they claim to. But many other people of those who are more establishmentarian than I (I guess that group includes just about everybody, huh?) at least pretend to believe this, or hope this, and maybe a few suckers actually do. It should be their responsibity, then, to show that the granting of a search warrant occurs only when justified. In Jewell's case, that was not the case. If we allow this fiasco to die without a full analysis, particularly in light of the government's repeated assurances with regards to search warrants, we will be as incompetent as the police were. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

driver license info, loss of liberty, etc.
by Pete Loshin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The furor over the Oregon DMV database seems a bit misplaced: this type of information is considered to be in the public domain. You can buy it on tape/whatever for business purposes direct from the state. There are lots of people who I don't want to have any information about me who can get what's on file down at the Mass Registry of Motor Vehicles. That's the way it works. Now, there's lots of times when it would have been nice to have access to that information myself. Use your imagination. Why should the public be denied the right to access this information when businesses have had that privilege for some time? I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it to be taken away from businesses, either, though I suppose the states will now pass laws prohibiting the public dissemination of this data. BTW, has anyone heard about the Post Office now requiring that all airmail packages over 1 lb must now be posted in person (no mail drop boxes)? Someone told me this, and it sounds just stupid and pointless enough to be true. I won't have a chance to go to the PO until Monday, so I'd appreciate any updates. regards, -pl

1 0

"Thank you for not smoking" and other euphemisms
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Not to pick on Alan, but I clipped out 8 (eight) separate cc: copies besides the main address! People, take a minute to trim the ever-accumulating cc: list. If someone is subscribed to CP, they don't need a separate copy. And so on.] At 1:11 AM 8/9/96, Alan Horowitz wrote: >Nrth Carolina Jury instructions also mention that petite jurors are >"discouraged" from asking questions of the witness. I guess that means >they are not forbidden to do so. "Petite jurors" Is this a typo, or a special term of art in North Carolina? But your "discouraged" point is well-taken, an all too common. Other examples are: "Thank you for not smoking" (Suggesting they'll thank me if I don't smoke, but not actually forbid me from smoking. Of course, this euphemism means "Smoking forbidden.") "Donations suggested." This usually for leftist events, e.g., a speech by a Nicaraguan freedom fighter. Of course, what they really mean is "admission fee mandatory," but they call it a "suggested donation." I doubt one will be arrested for barging through the door without paying the "suggested donation," but this is a possibility, as they may deny admission. (And then there's the "sliding scale donation suggested," say, from $5 to $15. Presumably this is the embodiment of pure Marxist theory, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Be interesting to see their reaction if one declined to make any donation.) --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

4 4

subscribing
by Doug Mortimer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Please add my name to your list. Thanks. D. Mortimer djmortim(a)sprynet.com

1 0

Re: Internal Passports
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"declan(a)eff.org" "Declan McCullagh" 7-AUG-1996 10:15:54.28 >The Hatch simulated "child porn" bill was reported out of the Senate >judiciary committee favorably, with the addition of language making it a >felony to *attempt* to view child porn. This wording is aimed at the Net: > "Click Here to see Young Girls in Lust." One wonders if someone could dig up pictures taken by some senators or reps of their grandkids bathing in a pool... could be a nice publicity stunt. -Allen

1 0

Re: Talking about Crypto Anarchy
by Arun Mehta 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 20:12 06/08/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: >6. I've given up on discussing crypto anarchy in short talks because nearly >nobody in the audiences I've done it for has the foggiest notions of what >I'm talking about, and I've found no short, sweet, simple methods of >getting across the implications. .. >(I've also seen David Chaum struggle to just get the basic idea of >"credentials without identity" across to a tecnical audience...even when he >concentrates on only getting a single facet of his ideas across, the light >bulbs just don't go off in the heads of the audience members... I appreciate what you are saying, and I'm sure we all have felt this frustration at some time or another. I've had lots of people, particularly social scientists, aghast at the thought that I could have spent 4 years on a PhD trying to get a crane to reach its destination 2 seconds sooner -- after a while, you just get tired, and reach for your beer. However, policy that affects us is framed by people with little idea, and *someone* with a clue has to educate them (as well as, maybe, educate their constituents to bring the right kind of public pressure). Perhaps people like Tim, who seem to be tired of this, could further the cause best by "training the trainers." Which, I suppose, is what he is doing on this list... In closing, a short, simple story that's worth thinking about: When Buddha attained enlightenment, the gods asked him to go forth and spread his knowledge to the world. "Why should I?" he asked, "Those that know won't need it, those that need it won't listen." "Can you rule out," asked the gods, "that there might be people in between? Those that with your teaching might learn, who otherwise wouldn't?" Beware of binary thinking... Arun Mehta Phone +91-11-6841172, 6849103 amehta(a)cpsr.org http://www.cerfnet.com/~amehta/ finger amehta(a)cerfnet.com for public key

1 0

Re: Oregon License Plate Site in the News Tonight!
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:50 AM 8/8/96 -0700, Rich Burroughs wrote: >On Thu, 8 Aug 1996, Declan McCullagh wrote: > >> Looks like we're a little late. However, we can still grab the tape from >> Oregon's DMV for $220. It would be an interesting excercise to try to get >> these tapes from each state with similar provisions and put them all >> online. > >This information has been available in Oregon for at least a couple of >years on CD. I've always been concerned about the privacy implications of >that service -- perhaps that's the upside of this story? That people do >give a rat's ass about their privacy? Actually, the lesson to be learned is that the news media is filled with a bunch of hypocrites. These people are supposed to be REPORTERS, for god's sake. Are they trying to tell us that they've never gone to the DMV and forked over $4 to find out the owner of a car? Can you say, "investigative reporting"? I think they're just carrying water for their friends who work for government. >I do think that the information should be able to be disseminated on the >Net as long as it's legal. While I think that the information should be disseminated on the net REGARDLESS of whether "it's legal" in any particular jurisdiction. Or, perhaps more accurately, I think that this information shouldn't be collected at all. Then it couldn't be abused. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Internal Passports
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:37 PM 8/5/96 -0700, you wrote: >Personally, I don't care. In fact, when employing gardeners and yard works >I prefer Mexicans. But the law says, these days, that I must verify the >legality of workers *if* they appear to be dark-skinned, Mexican, Latin, or >the like. I say "if" because there are no requirements in general for >white-skinned, Anglo workers....no work permits, no proofs of citizenship >(such a document is currently lacking in the American pantheon...I, a mixed >descendant of Mayflower colonist and Scandinavian immigrants, lack such >"proof"). If you're _employing_ Anglos, you're currently required to disrespect their honesty and demand proof that their papers are in order to fill out the I-9 form. There's a list of "one from column A or one from columns B and C" of acceptable papers, such as passports, birth certificates, driver's licenses, US Military ID, etc., which the government uses to determine whether they want to give you permission to hire them and give them permission to work. If you don't have these, you can join the Army, and they'll give you some papers. I hope you weren't Un-American enough to be born at home, though - without that government-issued birth certificate, the Army won't be able to verify your age. None of that is really proof of citizenship - after all, you could have renounced your US citizenship and become stateless or joined a foreign government. But President Buchanan's loyalty oath requirements should take care of that, as well as help with the problem of all these immigrant Brits and Irish and Canadians flooding our shores - I mean, look around you, they're everywhere. Y'all can't walk into a 7-11 these days without some clerk speaking funny-soundin' English at you. And the reason you can't legally just hire contractors and not have them count as employees has a lot to do with Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), who made a lot of money running ADP, a computer-services bodyshop, that wanted to preserve its advantages against more flexible competition. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> Defuse Authority!

6 6

Imprisoned for Not Having a Gun?
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:35 PM 8/8/96, talon57(a)well.com wrote: >Jonathon <grafolog(a)netcom.com> wrote: > >>Said ordinance being passed, as a protest against Elk Grove, IL >>passing an orinance, banning handguns. Anybody know when Elk >>Grove revoked their ordinance? Crime went down for six months >>there [ Elk Grove ] after the ban was passed, then it went up >>far surpassing previous crime levels, for all types of crime. > >Pardon me Jonathon, but I believe you are confusing Morton Grove >with Elk Grove. I do not have the statistics for the crime rates >there, but several friends who have moved from there insist the >crime rate has continued upwards as you mentioned. Also there are >a couple of other interesting facts. Regarding that town nearby that passed a _requirement_ that all households have a gun: "Ma'm, I'm Deputy Uptite, of the Dork's Grove Sheriff's Department. I'm here to check on reports that you haven't obtained a gun, as required by law. Could I come in and take a look around?" "But I don't like guns, and I don't want one in my house." "I'm sorry, ma'm, but it's the law. According to the People's Self-Protection Act of 1997, you _must_ have a gun. Now what I'm going to do is give you a break. Think of this as a "fix-it ticket." Take this down to my cousin's gun store, right off of Main and 10th, and he'll get you set up with a Glock 23 or maybe a nice little Beretta. Shouldn't cost you more than $400, and it'll save you a 6-month stretch at the work farm. Have a nice day. Oh, and be sure to spend at least an hour at the week at the range...that's part of the law, too." --- Pro-gun fascism is just as bad a anti-gun fascism. I do recall that the "you must have a gun" town had some exemptions for folks opposed to guns, blah blah, but it still is intensely revolting to me that any town could ever pass such a law. Much as I think being armed is useful and all that, allowing such a law to go unchallenged feeds into the same approach that tries to ban guns...if guns can be required, they can be banned. What part of the Second Amendment did they not understand? (Legal quibblers will perhaps say the Second applies to _Congress_ (as in "Congress shall make no law"), and not to states and communities. I disagree. Can a town restrict free speech just because it is not the Congress?) --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

6 5