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 01:36:56 -0400 (EDT) > From: Alan Horowitz <alanh(a)infi.net> > Subject: Re: "adjust your attitude with their billy club" > > "Given the loss of privacy tolerated by 99.9999% of American citizens in > the past twenty years, no one has a right to complain about the > government taking new powers for itself." > > You cannot have it both ways. If you are free to define what is or is not > a public nuisance when you do it; likewise am I. To the first comment, numerical superiority is not sufficient reason in a democracy to justify actions by that democracy. One of the basic ideas behind democracy is that certain aspects of individuals are inherent and uncontrollable by that democracy (ie rights). To my mind democracy is the only form of government which recognizes a priori that everyone is not alike and therefore will want different things. This can be said of no other form of government which treats persons as identical cogs in a government machine. In short, democracy is not mob rule however much the majority might like that idea. I would say that the first comment above can be said another way, "If you have been raped once then you should not complain any about subsequent rapes." Clearly utter bullshit. This is pure and simple victim-speak. As to the second, you are not free to define public nuisance, only nuisances to yourself. The burden of proof rests on the individual to prove that such actions by a third party are a public nuisance. For something to be a public nuisance its effects MUST extend to property or persons other than the instigator AND it must be shown that damage occurs without prior permission. Simply because they do something that irks you does not make it public let alone a nuisance. Jim Choate

2 1

Dole does Bush-speak [Was:Re: A Libertine Question]
by liberty＠gate.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Vinnie Moscaritolo <vinnie(a)webstuff.apple.com> wrote: >I think Bob Dole understands the needs for privacy rights for animals.. > >the following verbatim account of a segment of a Bob Dole appearance a week >or so ago at a cotton cooperative in Bakersfield, California [Verbatim Account elided.] Is anyone else wondering if Dole's handlers are dosing him with that "Halcyon" stuff that (partially) caused Bush to be such an easy mark for David Letterman et al.? We have a *severe* drug problem in this country... P.S. I tell you...one little mishap involving a little bit too much sugar, and now I'll _never_ get to live it down...:) Those wishing to attend my "Pennies For Perot" Party at Hooters in Cocowalk, at 6:00PM, on Saturday, August 3rd please e-mail me. P.P.S. Idea: Wiretap citizen-unit Ray for 47 hours and 59 minutes, give him one minute of non-surveilance (more than he deserves, actually) and then repeat process, with no pesky judges. Citizen-unit Ray is known to enjoy firearms, and has said "It's easier to make a bomb than it is to make a lasagna" in the past. He's also a known cardcarrying member of the Libertarian Party. JMR -- Who privately defends Mr. Sternlight's (or anyone's) right to cypherpunks list _membership_, while alternately being offended and amazed by the tone/number of his trolls. Try to imagine if _I_ posted that often...This kind of misunderstanding of Libertarians is usually caused by a subscription to Time, etc. -- rather than a careful listening to Libertarians themselves, but believe whatever you want. Regards, Jim Ray -- DNRC Minister of Encryption Advocacy [The Ministry is An equal opportunistic encryptor.] "Big business never pays a nickel in taxes, according to Ralph Nader, who represents a big consumer organization that never pays a nickel in taxes." -- Dave Barry Defeat the Duopoly! Vote "NOTA," not Slick/Dull in November. Harry Browne for President. Jo Jorgensen for Vice-president. http://www.HarryBrowne96.org/ ___________________________________________________________________ PGP id.E9BD6D35 51 5D A2 C3 92 2C 56 BE 53 2D 9C A1 B3 50 C9 C8 <mailto:liberty@gate.net> http://www.shopmiami.com/prs/jimray Coming soon, the "Pennies For Perot" page. Keep billionaires off welfare! ___________________________________________________________________ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Freedom isn't Freeh. iQCVAwUBMgH2k21lp8bpvW01AQHhnQQAlip0PV1m4Th0fJIlAog0TZOhyPghJ0qd q0mJ9SFG2XInX8CcgWX18s3ZXJtna6nRRcyqZHZEczffMs0jbA6pdzmqDvZTm3HW ToIcDgFb7MxV56chzLykGDwF4wdykGQNkLZH6xpk+2+1NjljjYObmsJO30S6XMp3 YQV1C3udlJY= =MKCK -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: fbi, crypto, and defcon
by pjb＠ny.ubs.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

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? i have no use at all for microsoft, and, being a unix person i don't even use their stuff, but, i wonder how many people use word, excel, powerpoint, etc that they ripped-off from someone else, without paying microsoft what they are due for having developed the products. in general, i suspect that the rip-off is going the other way. after all, no one forces anyone buy from microsoft, AT&T, etc., but people do steal from them, whenever they have the opportunity. not everyone, of course, but certainly some do. these companies provide products and/or services that you are free to purchase or not, as you see fit or can afford. -paul > From cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com Thu Aug 1 18:31:50 1996 > X-Sender: ceridwyn(a)gonzo.wolfenet.com > X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type> : > text/plain> ; > charset="us-ascii"> > Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 22:13:56 -0700 > To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > From: Cerridwyn Llewyellyn <ceridwyn(a)wolfenet.com> > Subject: Re: fbi, crypto, and defcon > Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Content-Length: 1579 > > > >> Okay, so their boss is part of the law making process, subject to the checks > >> and balances that exist between the three branches of US government. They > >> are in a position to supply their boss with data and I am personally > >> impressed with their grasp of some of that data (it sounds to me like they > >> are telling their boss that hackers like the ones at Defcon are not the > >> problem). > > It was interesting how the Agent made the point that the FBI was there to > enforce laws, not make policy. Then his Boss's role in the law making process > was brought up, the Agent said "but any of you can do the same thing, you > all have a voice" etc etc. Then he refused to answer political questions > based on the fact that he was there as a representative of the FBI, failing > to see that his Boss is also a representative of the FBI when recommending > legislation. (Again, I realize he was "under orders" not to discuss it, I > wish he wouldn't try to justify it with obviously faulty logic.) > > > I think what they are really saying is that they would love to > >bust most hackers, but since they can't they might as well use some of > >them to catch the bigger fish. If they truly did believe in the laws they > >are supposed to uphold they wouldn't associate with hackers (who commit > >computer crimes) at all. > > A more cynical view is that they are there to protect some of the biggest > institutions of "organized crime" (ie: Congress, At&t, Microsoft, etc) who > are ripping people off on a daily basis from the other organizations who > refuse to play by their rules. > > //cerridwyn// > > >

1 0

Re: Jim Bell, stay out of Georgia....
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:35 PM 8/1/96 EDT, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: >>Anarchist charged with advocating government overthrow > >> JONESBORO, Ga. -- An 18-year-old self-styled anarchist who allegedly >> distributed a free, homemade pamphlet with anti-government rhetoric >> has been charged with advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government. Boy some people have all the luck. It is really rough to get the authorities to arrest you in circumstances where you can make them look absolutely ridiculous. They usually refuse to play. I suppose they busted this guy because they thought they could in the current atmosphere and they figured he's a schlubb who wouldn't give them any grief. It would not be a pleasant experience for the geheime staats polizei to try an arrest like this of someone who was capable of mounting a verbal and legal defense. "We Shall Overcome," "You copraphageous cretins," "Haven't you <anglo-saxonism> idiots read Cohen vs. California," "I think if you mental defectives read the Supremes in the Smith Act cases you'd find that I can advocate blowing you <anglo-saxonism> up all I like as long as I am not part of an immediate conspiracy to do so." Do you *like* carrying 300-pound people around? Why should I assist in my own oppression by walking? You Nazis are always trying to get the Jews to *walk* into the gas chambers." "You know you're going to have to let me loose sooner or later so why not make it sooner. It will be easier on everyone." "You know the DA is going to dismiss. This dog don't hunt. Won't you look like right fools." "It's going to be super fun to have you on the witness stand in the false arrest suit. It's going to be great to get the chance to cross-x you in public." "Boy, finally a chance to build up some prison time for my memoirs." "Great, I've really needed some quality time to catch up on my reading. I've still got 13 Aubrey/Maturin novels to finish." Repeat endlessly in a loud voice. Brian -- why do the cops do busts like this where they know they will be thrown out? DCF

1 0

Re: fbi, crypto, and defcon
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:50 AM 8/2/96 EDT, 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". I don't know about Microsoft but certainly AT&T long benefitted from local telephone monopolies that resulted in increased prices and slower innovation than would otherwise have been delivered. Even today, long distance carriers are licensed and there are substantial regulatory barriers to entry. International calls still are made under the control of an international cartel of governments that keep prices way above competitive levels. This benefits AT&T and the rest. Since it costs 2 cents a minute to *produce* a call to London from New York the 45 cents to $1 a minute charged represent an excessive price protected by the government regulated cartel status of telecoms even in the Age of Deregulation. AT&T should get honest work as should the others. Maybe when I get a 10 (25?) mbps cable connection to the nets, I'll start offering my neighbors net connections and LD phone service. I could make a pretty penny even savagely cutting the telco's markup. Lots of challenges ther but doable. DCF

1 0

Re: More evidence that democracy is bunk
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 1 Aug 96 at 15:34, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: > And some people think democracies secure civil liberties... > -Allen And some people think polls are an accurate representation of anything. Chances are it's really a poll of people with telephones who just finished watching news reports about increased threats of terrorism. Depends on the exact questions that were asked of them, too... [..] > > As an antidote, 80 percent believe the federal government should have > > more power to investigate terrorists, but just 52 percent believe > > wiretaps should be expanded. Note that 'more power to investigate terrorists' is vague. Very vague, especially if the actual question was "should the federal government be given a greater ability to investigate terrorists?" (which is not the same as 'more power'... greater ability could be more funds or manpower, for instance.) Often time pollsters will introduce the question with a short paragraph or statistics explaining the situation... often these will cue someone in to be more likely to answer a certain way. If the pollster says "with the increase in terrorist activisties in the United States and new communications technologies, should the federal government..." a respondant will be more likely to agree that the gov't should have more power. > > Three out of five said they still favor giving the government more > > power even if that meant groups unrelated to terrorism were > > investigated, too. That's vague too. What was the question: "...even if it meant a charity that was exploited by a terrorist group was investigated" or a "political group which a suspected terrorist belonged too" etc.? > > Even if it cost more, nearly nine out of 10 people surveyed want > > more security checkpoints, guards and metal detectors -- and > > they'd be willing to wait longer in lines -- at public events. 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? Rob --- No-frills sig. Befriend my mail filter by sending a message with the subject "send help" Key-ID: 5D3F2E99 1996/04/22 wlkngowl(a)unix.asb.com (root@magneto) Send a message with the subject "send pgp-key" for a copy of my key.

1 0

Re: Tolerance
by David Lesher 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 14:46 8/1/96, Chris Adams wrote: >Just a comment to all of the 'true libertarians' out there, especially >the "defend to the death" types: How many of you defended Mr. >Sternlight's recent membership? Why should I? Was his membership under attack by the body? I merely predicted how he would act. In the words of Click&Clack, that's not rocket science. Almost anyone who has spent anytime on Usenet knows, for example, that SternFUD will keep dragging sci.crypt back in, and he will engage in personal slams, while claiming he is above same. In the words of a net attorney I respect, SternFud is an intellectual fraud. [BTW, if you caught my post on same, he seems to regarded as a buffoon & joke even within the inner circles of the Intelligence Community...] But I AM glad he left. Now, I do not have to feel quezyness over agreeing (even on but one issue...) with Perry. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz(a)nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

1 0

Keeping America safe from Soy Milk
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 1 Aug 96 at 14:35, E. ALLEN SMITH forwarded: > > JONESBORO, Ga. -- An 18-year-old self-styled anarchist who allegedly > > distributed a free, homemade pamphlet with anti-government rhetoric > > has been charged with advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government. > [...] > > The pamphlet was laced with with anti-police cartoons, obscenities, > > and anarchist slogans. The one overt reference to violence was an > > illustration of a "Molotov cocktail" on the same sheet with a recipe > > for "soy milk" made from water-soaked soybeans, sugar and vanilla and > > strained through a T-shirt. Nuff said. Rob --- No-frills sig. Befriend my mail filter by sending a message with the subject "send help" Key-ID: 5D3F2E99 1996/04/22 wlkngowl(a)unix.asb.com (root@magneto) Send a message with the subject "send pgp-key" for a copy of my key.

1 0

My crypto-export URL was in the wrong place
by Rich Salz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I typo'd on the URL. http://www.osf.org/~rsalz/crypto-export.html Sorry for any confusion.

1 0

Re: A Libertine Question
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:50 PM 7/30/96 -0700, Mike Duvos wrote: >Alan Horowitz writes: >> On Mon, 29 Jul 1996 jbugden(a)smtplink.alis.ca wrote: >> >> > Think of how many of our laws are being enacted that tacitly make being >> > poor or indigent a crime. >> >> Horseshit. This is a poorly-disguised re-tread of one of the standard >> lines of the Patrice Lumumba University brand of leftist agitprop. > >Here in Seattle, we have an city attorney who specializes in creating >ordinances to annoy and harrass the underclass, often paving new roads >over former civil liberties in the process. The process of regulatory torment of homeless folks is divisible into two methods: restriction of anonymous behavior (e.g., travel, public speech, business transactions), and restriction of behavior to property-owners (sleeping, eating, assembly, recreation). The former is or should be disturbing to crypto-anarchy friendly folks because it limits the ability of every person to travel or make purchases or otherwise engage in economic activity anonymously. The latter should be disturbing to crypto-anarchy friendly folks because of the relationship between physical presence and regulatory jurisdiction - a government which requires you to establish your relationship to something valuable within its jurisdiction (like a car or real estate) before allowing you to exercise human/economic rights effectively establishes its ability to regulate you by seizing or otherwise burdening your relationship with your possession. In practice, the no-anonymity requirement is frequently conflated with the latter, in that demonstrating your relationship to valuable property implies susceptibility to punishment (and/or sufficient socialization/indoctrination) and long-term presence for later enforcement, such that a request for identification (with corresponding dossier check for previous instances of "antisocial" behavior) is likely to be unnecessary or penologically nonproductive. Which is a long way to say that street cops don't usually torment people with nice cars and/or houses, so those folks don't need to be so concerned about making sure their "papers" are "in order". So the unconstitutional and oppressive character of the various laws Mike Duvos refers to is mitigated by their lack of evenhanded enforcement. If a cop can demand ID from someone who "looks like he doesn't belong here" he can demand it from you. (modulo driving, this isn't legal. But give Justice [sic] Rehnquist and Clinton and random congressional maniacs a few more years and see where things stand.) Both requirements are reducible to the notion that a person must be punishable before they may act - in the extreme case, a person must be punishable before they will be allowed to exist. I find it very difficult to harmonize this position with the idea that governments exist to serve people, not the other way around. But maybe I just don't have my head right. Because homelessness itself is not inherently problematic (or easily distinguishable from "legitimate" activity), it's difficult to define it as a crime beyond Mr. "strong libertarian [sic]" Horowitz' "threat to public order and decorum". Cities have learned to regulate everyday activities since those are the only ones they're certain homeless people will engage in. Police officers have, in general, the good sense to avoid applying these regulations to people who look like they don't present a threat to "public order and decorum". Today those laws are applied to people who may smell bad and don't want traditional jobs. Tomorrow they may be applied to people who won't use only government-approved crypto or who want to defend themselves with guns or other weapons. And just as some people "don't have a right to live in Seattle" if they won't toe the line, other people may find they "don't have a right to live in the United States." * (* Other people (apparently not "strong libertarians") buy into all of that suspicious crap about the Bill of Rights and people being allowed to be themselves even if other people find it upsetting or non-decorous. But they probably don't appreciate how difficult it is to be a policeman, so we'll just ignore them, they're probably leftists. If they don't like how things go here, they can just get the hell out, hmm? Banning T-shirts with crypto code printed on them - that's one thing. But banning ratty old T-shirts that haven't been washed is totally different.) The regulation of ordinary social and economic activity is not a "homelessness issue", it's a "freedom issue". If you admit that it can legitimately be regulated but reassure yourself with your trust in the discretion and good judgement of the regulators, your liberty is more a matter of grace than of right. Have a nice day. -- Greg Broiles |"Post-rotational nystagmus was the subject of gbroiles(a)netbox.com |an in-court demonstration by the People http://www.io.com/~gbroiles |wherein Sgt Page was spun around by Sgt |Studdard." People v. Quinn 580 NYS2d 818,825.

4 4