December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Stop the presses -- Anti-terrorism bill not that bad
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:48 AM 8/3/96, Declan McCullagh wrote: >Stop the presses -- the other shoe didn't drop. Despite a flurry of >last-minute hyperbole, the House passed an anti-terrorism bill this >afternoon without the ominous encryption or wiretap provisions. Now >the bill lies in the lap of the Senate, which probably will approve it >later today or tomorrow before they leave town for the August recess. I agree. And I think we should thank CDT, EFF, the ACLU, and (gasp) the NRA for ensuring that martial law provisions did not get slipped in during the rush to get out of Washington for the recess. (And maybe other groups...I don't follow all the politics.) I'm watching Rep. Bob Barr (R) on "Larry King Live," on CNN. He makes a lot of sense, and keeps coming back to civil liberties, the alliance between the ACLU and the NRA on this one, etc. His adversary, Rep. John Conyers (D) is calling for stronger measures, for the need to "do something." (I thought the Democrats nominally stood for certain types of civil liberties? Not that I ever was fooled by them, but this is the public personna they present.) >The Net owes its thanks to the House Republicans for stopping these >fool Dems in a fine backroom political maneuver late last night. By the way, my blasting of Sen. Dianne Feinstein as "Fineswine," "Swinestein," etc. (names not original with me, of course) is heartfelt. I don't mine dealing with opponents, even articulate enemies of freedom. But Feinstein is a halfwit and a hypocrite. A San Francisco society lady masquerading as a senator. She's proof that transmigration of souls is real, being the incarnation of Marie Antoinette. "Let them eat cake." --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."

1 0

Re: SOUP KITCHENS (fwd)
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 2:10 AM 8/3/96, Jim Choate wrote: >True enough, but not the whole story. If a dog or cat is kept well and fed >good quality food they live 10+ years. The average life of an animal on the >street is between 2-5 years. As to people, we now live around 75-80 years, >prior to all these rules and regulations on food and such the average was >20-25. If we go back to what you propose you would be dead a long time ago. Hardly a proved correlation. A lot of other factors come into play. But never mind. No point arguing. ... >I personaly find it reassuring that some bunch of knuckle-heads are unable >to start a chip making facility like you support. The thought of finding >flourine compounds in the local river (where I get my tap water) or simply >dumped in the air is a little unsettling. Just because some group of bozo's >want to start a business is not sufficient justification for that to be >allowed. A straw man. There is is no evidence that these startup companies are dumping stuff in rivers. Jeesh. The point is that large companies learn how to keep large staffs employed filling out paperwork, and they actually have come to see it is a good way to keep small companies from forming. >It seems to me that many of the folks who recognize downsized workers pleas >for their 'right to a job' as so much bunk are at the same time supporting a >businesses right to start up. A pretty humorous double standard. Not at all comparable. >I have never heard of anyone being arrested for giving away food, only >selling it without a license. I bet the Salvation Army soup kitchen would be >worried if this claim were true (they aren't and it ain't). Then you weren't reading the thread, which in several posts described this very situation. "Food Not Bombs" was giving away soup, chile, and other such stuff at a park in Santa Cruz (and maybe elsewhere, e.g., San Francisco). They were busted. Now do you understand the situation? --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."

2 1

FAA to require transponders on all aircraft passengers
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

According to KCBS, a local radio station, the FAA has closed a long anticipated deal with a manufacturer of transponder devices. The goal of the system to be deployed nationwide is to match aircraft passengers to their luggage and thereby identify unaccompanied luggage on board an aircraft. Transponders will be affixed to all items of luggage and all passengers. If the system discovers a transponder on the luggage in the cargo hold without the corresponding transponder on the passenger on board, an alarm will sound. I am not making this up. As many of you know, I have long predicted subcutaneous transponders to become widely deployed in the near future. First for child identification and monitoring of criminals, then, as the children grow up, as universal ID, driver license, proof of eligibility for employment, PIN substitute, etc. Today, we moved a step closer to this future. [Note that the transponders will have to be affixed to the passenger. An example would be a hospital style bracelet that stops working when removed. Why embedding the transponder in a hand carried item, such as a card, will not work is left as an exercise to the reader. Even an affixed device does not provide perfect security. You'd really have to embed the transponder in the body at an early age to make removal nearly impossible.] -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred. Defeat the Demopublican Unity Party. Vote no on Clinton/Dole in November. Vote Harry Browne for President.

2 1

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

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 15:36:02 -0700 (PDT) > From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort(a)crl.com> > Subject: Re: SOUP KITCHENS > > A most distastful example is the complicit silence of gun stores > when the gun grabbers regulate "kitchen table" gun dealers out of > economic existance. Funny, one of my customers is involved in the Texas gun lobby and through him I am aware of literaly hundreds of people who are within a few miles of Austin who have FFL's and have no problem selling weapons off their kitchen table completely legal. Their prices in general are much lower than local stores such as McBrides (the best known in Austin). Jim Choate

1 0

Re: More evidence that democracy is bunk
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:11 8/2/96, Deranged Mutant wrote: >If they were asked if they minded random searches of their bags and >belongings or required to carry photo-ID wherever they went, to be >presented on demand, would they still be willing? You bet. I remember a war on drugs releated poll from a few years back in which a majority supported warrantless searches of their homes. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred. Defeat the Demopublican Unity Party. Vote no on Clinton/Dole in November. Vote Harry Browne for President.

3 2

Re: fbi, crypto, and defcon
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:50 8/2/96, Paul J. Bell wrote: >i, for one, and perhaps others on the list as well, would be interested in >hearing >what you mean when you say, "At&t, Microsoft, etc) who are ripping people >off on a >daily basis". > >for example, in what way is AT&T ripping people off? and what about >microsoft? Its up to you what you call it, but here is an interesting example: An international phone call costs about 2 cents/min to produce. The average rate paid for by the consumer is 62 cents. That's means the carriers mark up this particular product by an amazing 3000%. Can you name another business that has comparable mark-ups? -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred. Defeat the Demopublican Unity Party. Vote no on Clinton/Dole in November. Vote Harry Browne for President.

3 2

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

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 19:09:25 -0700 (PDT) > From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort(a)crl.com> > Subject: Re: A Libertine Question (fwd) > > > A reasonable person recognizes that such a business has two ways > > of fulfilling its responsiblities. They can either submit to > > regulation and quality control from the local municipality or > > else they can hang signs about their place of business declaring > > "Caveat Emptor: Our food may be tainted, eat at your own risk". > > Which do you think is the more reasonable? > > It would be nice if businesses were offered that choice. I would > choose the second, myself. Only my sign would say, "Our food is > guaranteed not tainted by the Acme insurance company, not some > corrupt government." The problem is, governments do not allow > businesses nor consumers to make that sort of choice. With them > it's, "my way or the highway" (or harassment and jail actually). 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. > Until Jim shows me a business that isn't owned and operated by > people, I'll have to respectfully disagree. Businesses are just > people acting alone or in concert. Actions are what count, not > whether the action is of a pecuniary nature or not. I own 2 businesses (CyberTects & Linux System Development Labs) and work for another (Tivoli - IBM), none are equivalent to my person. Businesses are a system of rules and procedures that one offers another person in exchange for some other commodity. Saying a business has the same rights as a person is equivalent to saying the Empire State Bldg. has civil rights because persons built it and occupy it. My dog has a better argument for civil rights than any business, it breaths and shits. Would you seriously give my dog a vote? I shure won't, and I won't support any business with rights. Jim Choate

5 4

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

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 14:10:55 -0700 > From: tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May) > Subject: Re: SOUP KITCHENS > > (Fortunately, people survive all kinds of dirt and germs. If dogs and cats > can eat stuff off the floor, and our ancestors did before hot water, soap, > and autoclaves, then so can we. Not to mention children. But I digress.) True enough, but not the whole story. If a dog or cat is kept well and fed good quality food they live 10+ years. The average life of an animal on the street is between 2-5 years. As to people, we now live around 75-80 years, prior to all these rules and regulations on food and such the average was 20-25. If we go back to what you propose you would be dead a long time ago. > The use of zoning and health code ordnances to harass certain classes of > people is nothing new. Like I said, the Boy Scout Cookout and similar > "good" events are not bothered by City Inspectors descending on them to > shut them down. 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 have a friend who worked at a local strip club on N. Lamar (Yellow something...) up until a few weeks ago. Seems one of the workers there turned a freezer off and as a result some meat was tainted. Did they throw it out? Hell no, they went ahead and served it because to do othewise would effect their profit margin. My (and by extension your) life is not worth a few measly bucks. My friend complained bitterly and when they went ahead and did it he quit and filed a complaint with the local health dept. (I am completely unaware of the result but the club is still open). I once got food poisoning from a Vietnamese food vendor on the West Mall at UT Austin and complained and called the Health Dept. Last time I was down on The Drag (the popular name of the street) the same vendor was still in business and this was over 10 years later. And for the record I have bought food there, I have just become more careful about its taste and quality. > Further, in time past the operation of a "street food" service (hot dogs, > ice cream, various knoshing items, etc.) was a way for otherwise poor > persons to start a business. My own city, Santa Cruz, has no pushcart > vendors, and only one officially-approved sidewalk hotdog vendor. A loss > for us, a loss for would-be vendors, and with no gain in "food safety" that > I can plausible see. Why do they prohibit permits for these types of businesses? > I actually think this shows another side of the harassment of food > giveaways and low-cost vendors: it cuts down on competition with the > established food entities. While I tend to dismiss "corporate conspiracy" > theories about how Giant Corporations are repressing and suppressing the > Little Guys, there is little doubt that licensing, zoning, and other > governmental restrictions are often used by established entities to keep > out competition. Licenses get used for what economists call "rent-seeking" > behavior. You should be more careful about who you pick to represent you then when you vote. Here in Austin back in the 80's the big thing was to move the airport out of town. So many of the public officials rushed out and bought land near the little town outside Austin in the hopes that the airport would be moved there. It was so bad we had many elections where the citizenry voted not to move the airport and the city council went ahead with the actions anyway. Finaly a few years ago the feds closed Bergston the local airbase and the entire rationale for moving the airport fell through and now all those people have retired from local political actions because they are all broke. > (Examples abound in other areas, too, such as where large chip companies > like Intel actually relish the vast amounts of paperwork they are required > to fill out, becuase this overhead and legal burden can be handled by their > buildings full of paper pushers, but helps to keep small companies from > entering the market. Intel has actually insisted that small companies file > the same environmental impact reports, labor reports, etc., that they have > to fill out. Understandable at one level, but also an example of using "the > system" to put pressure on upstarts. Or, the rent-seeking of professional > guilds, well-known to all of us.) I personaly find it reassuring that some bunch of knuckle-heads are unable to start a chip making facility like you support. The thought of finding flourine compounds in the local river (where I get my tap water) or simply dumped in the air is a little unsettling. Just because some group of bozo's want to start a business is not sufficient justification for that to be allowed. It seems to me that many of the folks who recognize downsized workers pleas for their 'right to a job' as so much bunk are at the same time supporting a businesses right to start up. A pretty humorous double standard. Persons don't have a right to work and businesses do not have a right to start up unless they can meet reasonable levels of responsibility for their actions. People and by extension businesses do not have the right to harm others without their prior consent. As an extension of this, people have a right to limit the ways and means that a business may use in order to operate. > As to Alan Horowitz's bizarre notion that "public streets" are not to be > used for giving away food, I have never heard of anyone being arrested for giving away food, only selling it without a license. I bet the Salvation Army soup kitchen would be worried if this claim were true (they aren't and it ain't). > does he believe the same to be true of giving > away speech, giving away ideas, passing books to other people, etc.? "There > are bookstores for selling or buying books, and anyone who engages in this > sort of action on a public street will have his attitude adjusted with my > billy club." I am unaware of any municipality which prohibits giving away books, they regulate bookstores because they are a business and engaged in commerce. If you are aware of a municipality (or any list reader for that matter) I would appreciate being informed (ie mail me privately). > "Public" areas cause problems for analysis of rights, I will grant. The > "commons problem" is well known. But I think that the specific cases we've > been discussing, of whacking bums with nightsticks for the crime of not > maintaining "proper decorum," and of Food Not Bombs being shut down while > the Boy Scouts are not, are clear cases where the law is being misapplied. And your argument that a business should have the same rights and considerations as a human being is bogus. If that were true then by extensio governments would have rights, which they don't. Unless you breath and shit you don't have rights, only duties and responsibilities assigned by the persons who built the system. A structure is not equivalent by any stretch of the imagination as the person(s) who built it. Jim Choate

1 0

Re: fbi, crypto, and defcon
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:28 PM 8/2/96 -0700, you wrote: >Its up to you what you call it, but here is an interesting example: > >An international phone call costs about 2 cents/min to produce. The average >rate paid for by the consumer is 62 cents. That's means the carriers mark >up this particular product by an amazing 3000%. > >Can you name another business that has comparable mark-ups? Verisign? InterNic Domain name registration? Licence plates in Washington state? --- 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 "Microsoft -- Nothing but NT promises."

1 0

Re: fbi, crypto, and defcon
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:20 AM 8/1/96 -0800, jim bell <jimbell(a)pacifier.com> reminded us: >Also: Clipper was fabbed by VLSI Technology. A few pointed inquiries might >work wonders here. It was made by Mykotronx, using tamperproof programmable gate array chips from VLSI, though I don't remember whether they were entirely programmed at Mykotronx+NSA, or whether they were mostly mask-programmed at VLSI first. On the other hand, if you _want_ to make a DES-cracker, at the time Clipper came out, VLSI was making a 192Mbps DES chip, and they may have faster stuff now. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> Rescind Authority!

1 0