December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

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

17 Dec '03

At 2:39 PM 8/2/96, Sandy Sandfort wrote: >I find it amusing that the law is supposedly so concerned with >food purity for the "homeless." Hang out near a fast-food place >sometime and watch the street people dumpster dive for the >half-eaten remains of other people's Big Macs. That is the true >alternative to volunteer feeding programs. (That, or getting a >job.) I thought the point you were about to make when you said "Hang out near a fast-food place..." is that a _lot_ of "roach coaches" are much filthier than any "Food Not Bombs" soup kettle I've ever seen. (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.) 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. >The truth is that local officials are perverting the health codes >to harass these operations, not to "protect the homeless." At >it's core, it is a hypocritical abuse of power, not unlike the >invocation of the Four Horseman to keep strong crypto out of the >hands of average Americans. 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. 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. (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.) As to Alan Horowitz's bizarre notion that "public streets" are not to be used for giving away food, 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." "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. (Were I a lawyer, and had the Food Not Bombs case come to trial, I would've collected evidence that a large number of other groups were not sanctioned for not having food preparation permits, and I would've argued it was a case of "selective enforcement" for political reasons.) --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."

3 2

No Subject
by root 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

reply to: sparks(a)bah.com Subject: an endorsement ( sort of ) In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960802100643.24257A-100000(a)psyche.the-wire.com> X-Mailer: Ishmail-demo 1.2.2-960711-linux <http://www.ishmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I just downloaded a copy of Ishmail ( http://www.ishmail.com) and I'm really impressed. I have a few things to tweek ( I installed it in the wrong directory so I have to be root for the moment ) but the interface to PGP is transparent.. smooth as a baby's a** !! I had a couple of questions, and they were answered very quickly. I found something I really like !! well worth the price for the UNIX / LINUX weenies (IMHO) Charley Sparks Charles E. Sparks <sparks(a)bah.com> In God We Trust, All Others we Encrypt Public Key at: http://www.clark.net/pub/charley/pc_1.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQCXAwUBMgJ6ZOJ+JZd/Y4yVAQFWXgQMD5LMIBHPa0lKJAT0zPXA4ykYSNTf5a0o rpnoDFLlby5m+VdyJWLAwaQ1o3JiFP6q20u/lVh+Ixsgg2Yf27GGzur36jYjxNv8 Ist7uiDug3UHdmDZy6SYG6TM1MG6MARaixCE4HfV0DCZYt9ZAIWYAQWgRAOh7+fp 3QLUKATFJyeGTg== =+Pyo -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: FPGAs and Heat (Re: Paranoid Musings)
by koontz＠netapp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>The current Thinking Machines is a software firm, and Daniel Hillis is no >longer amongst the top management. The name lives on, but the business >of designing, building, and selling exotic supercomputers is kaput. >Not an uncommon story in the computer business. Even Control Data >Corporation still exists in a transmogrified form, although their >mainframe business went up in smoke ages ago. MasPar still exists as a software company, they changed the name however.

1 0

Re: Corporate e-mail policy
by Rick Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

George Kuzmowycz wrote: : The company I work for has set up a committee to draft a security : policy involving, among other things, e-mail. Since I'm responsible : for our networking and e-mail, I'm part of this group. Unfortunately, : I'm outnumbered by legal, auditing and HR types who, basically, want : to have access to everything. First, figure out what *your* objective is. You can't achieve e-mail privacy by implementing some idealized policy that says "Our company won't snoop into e-mail." It is the obligation of corporate functionaries to act in the corporation's best interest, and if that includes violating the privacy policy (as opposed to civil or criminal statutes) then it's going to happen. If you write it into one policy, they'll just find a different one that they can apply to override it. As you pointed out, the courts agree with this interpretation. Let us focus on what we *can* fix. You can make things better if you write the policy to reduce the risk of abuse. Nip this nonsense about "access to everything" in the bud. For example, the policy could provide oversight by requiring approvals from affected people (the victim's manager if not the actual victim). Then, access is granted to the victim's files and not to all the files. Even if auditors want to do "random audit" of e-mail, they don't really need "access to everything" to achieve it. They can randomly select messages somehow and only get readable copies after the messages are selected. You'd probably find lots of support for a more measured policy like this. For example, mail from the CEO or the head of the Audit department shouldn't be an open book just because Joe Blow from Audit is "auditing e-mail today." Also, your policymakers might think about the issues raised by the recent skit, "FBI Files on Republicans Stored in the Democratic White House." If they demand unlimited access to e-mail files, they might be held responsible for making use of information contained therein simply because they *could* have read them. Rick. smith(a)sctc.com secure computing corporation

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 07:59:05 -0700 (PDT) > From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort(a)crl.com> > Subject: Re: Tolerance (fwd) > Here I have to respectfully disagree, totally, with Jim. One > does not have to "reserve" one's rights. They are inherent and > my be exercised pretty much at will (I say "pretty much" because > there are situations where "implied contract" applies). Exactly! Stating a list is 'public' is an inherent contract between the list provider and the subscriber with certain expectations on both parties part. The list provider expects no illegal activity to take place such that they are placed in jeopardy and the subscriber expects to recieve access to a public (ie not regulated by a third party other than themselves and the members en toto) list. Claiming the right to throw somebody off for any reason other than illegal activity nullifies the claim of 'public'. > A restaurant or bookstore is a public place in that it is open > to the public. I know of no state in the union where a bookstore, restaurant, mall, etc. is considered public. In Texas such places make it clear that they are private places and that they reserve the right to refuse service and/or ask you to leave the premises. Legaly a public place is someplace which is operated using public monies. > Nevertheless, without first "reserving the right" > to do so, the owners may tell you to leave if they don't like > the way you sound, look or smell. Because they ain't any more public than my house is on Wednesday nites when I have it open to folks. I assure you that if somebody were to show up smelling or filthy they would be asked to leave and if they refused I would call a police officer and press trespass charges. > Criminal activity is not > required legally nor ethically. Your ejection may, in fact, be > totally arbitrary. I don't see a privately maintained, "public" > list as being philosophically any different. The only way a police officer can expell you from a public place other than for criminal behaviour is if the municipality passes ordinances regarding access (ie open from 7-10 for example in the case of city parks here in Austin) which must apply to ALL citizens equaly not just the vagabonds (I have been thrown out of parks on many occassions and I assure I don't look like a street bum even when I was living on the street in the early 80's - for grins I might add). Jim Choate

2 1

Re: [off-topic] roving wiretaps
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:52 8/2/96, David Wagner wrote: >I don't get it. Help me out here-- how can this possibly be constitutional? > >I'm reading the Fourth Amendment to our honored Constitution of the United >States, which proclaims > > [...] > 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. > >Are we just to strike out that emphasized phrase? What's going on here? >Someone tell me I'm not just having a bad nightmare. The Fourth Amendment has been abolished by the Supreme Court for all intends and purposes. It remains listed in the Constitution for historic reasons only. -- 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.

1 0

Re: fbi, crypto, and defc
by pjn＠nworks.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In> They said that every other time their comrades had come to defcon, In> they had tried to come incognito, and got caught every time. This In> time, they wore FBI t-shirts, and the only response was "Hey! Where'd In> ya get the T-Shirt?!?". They said "We hacked 'em from the FBI" and that In> was it, noone suspected... =) I would love to get my hands on "I spotted the Fed" and "I am a Fed" (or whatever they say) T-Shirts... P.J. pjn(a)nworks.com ... A man without a religion is like a fish without a bicycle. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 [NR]

1 0

Re: Bombs & bomb threats in LA
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:13 PM 8/2/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: >I also got my copy of "The Anarchist Cookbook" back around then. It was in >the news locally when the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's office attempted >to have it removed from the local bookstores....this removed it all right, >as the stacks of copies sold out as quickly as they could be received and >unpacked. > >(As others have noted over the years, much of the advice is probably bogus >and even dangerous. Not being an explosives dabbler, I wouldn't know.) There are a great number of errors in the book. (Details of many can be found at http://www.wam.umd.edu/~ctmunson/aol_cookbook_faq.html .) The one error I found in the book when I was in High School was the recipe for Nitrogen Triodide. (sp?) The Anarchist's Cookbook lists four steps for making it. The first two are correct. The second two (running alchhol and ether, if I remember correctly) dry the mixture out and probibly detonate it in the process. (The ether would make things much worse, as ether is pretty volitile in and of itself.) I found better formulas for simple explosives in "Lee's Priceless Recipes". (Which was published in 1912. Long before the Internet.) Ah, memories of High School chemistry classes... --- 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: Pipe bombs
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 9:26 PM 8/2/96, Lucky Green wrote: >At 21:02 8/1/96, Timothy C. May wrote: > >>Buy a section of metal water pipe 1/2 by 6 inches long, threaded on both ... >I do believe you forgot the fuse... Electrical ignition elements, such as >the ones used to launch model rockets should work just fine. Actually, all I did was copy the first couple of paragraphs from the very first set of instructions I found, found by using Alta Vista to search the Web on the string "pipe bomb". That's what turned up. (I guess I should've put quote marks around it and given a URL, but I was in a rush to generate my felonious alternate .sig. I'll correct it now.) --Tim HOW TO MAKE A PIPE BOMB: "Buy a section of metal water pipe 1/2 by 6 inches long, threaded on both ends. Buy two metal caps to fit. These are standard items in hardware stores. Drill a 1/16th hole in the center of the pipe. This is easy with a good drill bit. Hanson is a good brand to use. Screw a metal cap tightly on one end. Fill the pipe to within 1/2 inch of the top with black powder. Do not pack the powder. Don't even tap the bottom of the pipe to make it settle. You want the powder loose. For maximum explosive effect, you need dry, fine powder sitting loose in a very rigid container." (more information at http://sdcc13.ucsd.edu/~m1lopez/pipe.html, or by using search engines)

1 0

Re: [off-topic] roving wiretaps
by Cerridwyn Llewyellyn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:58 AM 8/2/96 +0000, you wrote: >>P.S. Do police really need a search warrant to wiretap cellular phones? > >It is my understanding that police need a warrant to tap *cellular* >phones, but not *wireless* phones. > >One should understand that monitoring cellular traffic is *much* more >difficult than tapping a conventional phone, because as the user >moves around in the service area the phone switches to different >repeaters, often several times during a conversation. I'd have to disagree on that point. Monitoring cellular traffic requires nothing more than a cellular phone, and some software which enables you to follow calls through the cells, for a total cost of about $500. This is exceptionally trivial with an Oki 900 and a ctek cable (which interfaces the fone with the computer). With this software you can monitor individual cells, choosing to "lock on" to a call made from a specific number, or to a specific number. You can follow calls, and record any dtmf digits. Also the caller will never be made aware that he/she is being listened to. A sophisticated land line wiretap that will not be detectable by the average citizen will cost well over $500, plus you have to install it without the target knowing, etc. //cerridwyn//

3 2