December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Anonymity (re: the Esther Dyson issue)
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The latest debate about "anonymity" and its hazards is bringing up charges that we Cypherpunks are not taking Esther Dysomn's concerns seriously enough. I strongly disagree. The various downsides of anonymity, pseudonymity/pseudoanonymity, lack of accountability, etc., have been hashed out in literally *thousands* of posts over the past four years! Many of us have written long articles dealing with these issues, and referring in great detail to mechanisms for dealing with "obnoxious speech," "defamatory speech," "anonymous mailbombs," "anonymous threats," etc. Rather than dredge up my own articles, or those of the many others who have addressed most or all of the concerns most often raised, I'll post here one of the subsections from my Cyphernomicon. This is just one of the subsections in the entire _chapter_ devoted to issues of anonymity, mixes, and remailers. (For those not familiar with the style of my Cyphernomicon, I used a powerful outline processor (MORE) to build a skeleton, attach threads and ideas, move things around, clone headings in more than one place, etc. For a large writing project of this sort, an outline processor is almost a necessity. At least for me. The points are often short and are sometimes incomplete; fleshing the whole thing out into well-written expository prose would've taken an additional several months of full-time effort. This form gets the points across.) (A few subsubsections are deleted, to save space.) Cyphernomicon 8.3 Anonymity, Digital Mixes, and Remailers: Anonymity and Digital Pseudonyms 8.3.1. Why is anonymity so important? - It allows escape from past, an often-essential element of straighening out (an important function of the Western frontier, the French Foreign Legion, etc., and something we are losing as the dossiers travel with us wherever we go) - It allows new and diverse types of opinions, as noted below - More basically, anonymity is important because identity is not as important as has been made out in our dossier society. To wit, if Alice wishes to remain anonymous or pseudonymous to Bob, Bob cannot "demand" that she provide here "real" name. It's a matter of negotiation between them. (Identity is not free...it is a credential like any other and cannot be demanded, only negotiated.) - Voting, reading habits, personal behavior...all are examples where privacy (= anonymity, effectively) are critical. The next section gives a long list of reasons for anonymity. 8.3.2. What's the difference between anonymity and pseudonymity? + Not much, at one level...we often use the term "digital pseudonym" in a strong sense, in which the actual identity cannot be deduced easily - this is "anonymity" in a certain sense - But at another level, a pseudonym carries reputations, credentials, etc., and is _not_ "anonymous" - people use pseudonyms sometimes for whimsical reasons (e.g., "From spaceman.spiff(a)calvin.hobbes.org Sep 6, 94 06:10:30"), sometimes to keep different mailing lists separate (different personnas for different groups), etc. 8.3.3. Downsides of anonymity - libel and other similar dangers to reputations + hit-and-runs actions (mostly on the Net) + on the other hand, such rantings can be ignored (KILL file) - positive reputations - accountability based on physical threats and tracking is lost + Practical issue. On the Cypherpunks list, I often take "anonymous" messages less seriously. - They're often more bizarre and inflammatory than ordinary posts, perhaps for good reason, and they're certainly harder to take seriously and respond to. This is to be expected. (I should note that some pseudonyms, such as Black Unicorn and Pr0duct Cypher, have established reputable digital personnas and are well worth replying to.) - repudiation of debts and obligations + infantile flames and run-amok postings - racism, sexism, etc. - like "Rumormonger" at Apple? - but these are reasons for pseudonym to be used, where the reputation of a pseudonym is important + Crimes...murders, bribery, etc. - These are dealt with in more detail in the section on crypto anarchy, as this is a major concern (anonymous markets for such services) 8.3.4. "How will privacy and anonymity be attacked?" - the downsides just listed are often cited as a reason we can't have "anonymity" - like so many other "computer hacker" items, as a tool for the "Four Horsemen": drug-dealers, money-launderers, terrorists, and pedophiles. - as a haven for illegal practices, e.g., espionage, weapons trading, illegal markets, etc. + tax evasion ("We can't tax it if we can't see it.") - same system that makes the IRS a "silent partner" in business transactions and that gives the IRS access to-- and requires--business records + "discrimination" - that it enables discrimination (this _used_ to be OK) - exclusionary communities, old boy networks 8.3.5. "How will random accusations and wild rumors be controlled in anonymous forums?" - First off, random accusations and hearsay statements are the norm in modern life; gossip, tabloids, rumors, etc. We don't worry obsessively about what to do to stop all such hearsay and even false comments. (A disturbing trend has been the tendency to sue, or threaten suits. And increasingly the attitude is that one can express _opinions_, but not make statements "unless they can be proved." That's not what free speech is all about!) - Second, reputations matter. We base our trust in statements on a variety of things, including: past history, what others say about veracity, external facts in our possession, and motives. 8.3.6. "What are the legal views on anonymity?" + Reports that Supreme Court struck down a Southern law requiring pamphlet distributors to identify themselves. 9I don't have a cite on this.) - However, Greg Broiles provided this quote, from _Talley v. State of California_, 362 U.S. 60, 64-65, 80 S.Ct. 536, 538-539 (1960) : "Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all." Greg adds: "It later says "Even the Federalist Papers, written in favor of the adoption of our Constitution, were published under fictitious names. It is plain that anonymity has sometimes been assumed for the most constructive purposes." [Greg Broiles, 1994-04-12] + And certainly many writers, journalists, and others use pseudonyms, and have faced no legal action. - Provided they don't use it to evade taxes, evade legal judgments, commit fraud, etc. - I have heard (no cites) that "going masked for the purpose of going masked" is illegal in many jurisdictions. Hard to believe, as many other disguises are just as effective and are presumably not outlawed (wigs, mustaches, makeup, etc.). I assume the law has to do with people wearning ski masks and such in "inappropriate" places. Bad law, if real. 8.3.7. Some Other Uses for Anonymous Systems: + Groupware and Anonymous Brainstorming and Voting - systems based on Lotus Notes and designed to encourage wild ideas, comments from the shy or overly polite, etc. - these systems could initially start in meeting and then be extended to remote sites, and eventually to nationwide and international forums - the NSA may have a heart attack over these trends... + "Democracy Wall" for encrypted messages - possibly using time-delayed keys (where even the public key, for reading the plaintext, is not distributed for some time) - under the cover of an electronic newspaper, with all of the constitutional protections that entails: letters to the editor can be anonymous, ads need not be screened for validity, advertising claims are not the responsibility of the paper, etc. + Anonymous reviews and hypertext (for new types of journals) + the advantages - honesty - increased "temperature" of discourse + disadvantages - increased flames - intentional misinformation + Store-and-forward nodes - used to facillitate the anonymous voting and anonymous inquiry (or reading) systems - Chaum's "mix" + telephone forwarding systems, using digital money to pay for the service - and TRMs? ... We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I 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

Save the Howitzers (was Re: The Esther Dyson Flap)
by declan＠well.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

TCM wrote: >And please spare us the "save the howitzers" comment. We talk about what >concerns us. As it happens, our political opponents don't read our words, >whereas a bunch of EFF board members apparently do, and so our criticisms >here may cause EFF to actually confront the issue of anonymity and decide >where they actually stand. I think Tim's comments are generally on-point. EFF board members are paying attention to discussions on the cypherpunks list and the organization would appear to be moving in a direction that will result in a solid pro-anonymity policy. For reference, EPIC's position is: "Our position is that we strongly support anonymity both for speech and for transactions. The right to anonymous speech is a constitutionally protected right (Tally v. California, McIntrye v Ohio) and we believe that it equally applies in cyberspace. Anonymous transactions are a key way (and perhaps the only way that really works) to provide privacy on the net." CDT's current position is: "CDT believes that anonymous political speech is protected under the first amendment and would oppose any effort to restrict or curtail it on the Net." -Declan

1 0

Re: What is the EFF doing exactly?
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:17 PM 9/3/96 -0700, Jon Lebkowsky wrote: > Not necessarily. The character of the anonymous speech is decisive. If you > use anonymity to cloak harassment, for instance, the anonymity (which > removes accountability) is a problem. The accountability issue is real and > should be addressed, not evaded. No: The harassment is the problem, not the anonymity that makes it possible. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

1 0

RE: Is Knuth's _AoCP_ still the authority on PRNG?
by geeman＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

check out "On the Efficient Generation of Cryptographic Confusion and Diffusion Sequences" I may have gotten the title less than perfect. AltaVista will find it for you if you try. Excellent piece. ---------- From: eli+@gs160.sp.cs.cmu.edu[SMTP:eli+@gs160.sp.cs.cmu.edu] Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 1996 7:54 PM To: coderpunks(a)toad.com Subject: Re: Is Knuth's _AoCP_ still the authority on PRNG? Bryce writes: >I'm reading Knuth chapter 3 on "random numbers". Have there >been any major advances since the publication of the second >edition of _The Art of Computer Programming, Volume 2_ in 1981? A much-referenced article: Marsaglia, G. (1985). "A current view of random number generation". In L. Billard (ed.), _Computer Science and Statistics: The Interface_. A more recent survey, which I haven't read: L'Ecuyer, P. (1990). "Random numbers for simulation". CACM 87, no. 10, 85-97. I read the resulting _NYT_ blurb, but not the paper: Ferrenberg et al. (1992). "Monte Carlo simulations: Hidden errors from `good' random number generators". Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 3382-4. This is from the "simulation" angle, which is where Knuth is coming from. For crypto you may be interested in the complexity-theoretic approach (things like Blum-Blum-Shub), which is a whole different field. >Are any of the ideas advocated in chapter 3 now considered >inadvisable? I think the Marsaglia paper sank Knuth's recommended generator. "Sank" is a relative term, of course. -- Eli Brandt eli+(a)cs.cmu.edu

1 0

Re: What is the EFF doing exactly?
by Jon Lebkowsky 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:56 PM 9/3/96 -0800, jim bell wrote: >"Addressed", maybe, but that doesn't necessarily mean, "solved." For many >decades, people have been able to walk up to a pay telephone at 3:00 AM and >make a harassing phone call to somebody, a "problem" which still exists and >no solution is being implemented for. > >I think it's reasonable to come to the conclusion that there is no solution >to the anonymity "problem" that isn't worse than the underlying anonymity. >And, BTW, I don't consider a pro-anonymity position to be an extremist one. Yeah, the main point re. anonymity, IMO, is that you can't pretend that it's all pro, no con. You have to acknowledge and think through the negatives...and, as Tim May pointed out, that's already been done. I don't think you oughtta ream somebody for pointing to the down side. That you raise an issue should never be taken to imply that you've taken a position, and it's vital to remain open to discussion and entertain sentiments that oppose your own thinking. -- Jon Lebkowsky <jonl(a)hotwired.com> FAX (512)444-2693 http://www.well.com/~jonl Electronic Frontiers Forum, 6PM PDT Thursdays <http://www.hotwired.com/eff> "No politician can sit on a hot issue if you make it hot enough."--Saul Alinsky

1 0

Re: What is the EFF doing exactly?
by Jon Lebkowsky 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:04 PM 9/3/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: >The reason this is such a hot button for Cypherpunks is that "responsible >freedom" and "accountability" are often code words for controlling some >very basic freedoms. Placing limits on anonymous speech would involve some >very fundamental restrictions on freedoms of various sorts. Even if >"safeguards" are built-in, the effect would almost certainly be to >illegalize remailers (unless they had "escrow" features!). And a wide array >of other freedoms, too numerous for me to write about here. The terms "responsibility" and "accountability" are misused, which is unfortunate, since I think we'd all argue in favor of taking responsibility for our speech/actions in a positive sense. The negative is in asking me to sacrifice my freedom because some few behave irresponsibly. This is like setting an illogical default, assuming that it's a preventive, but it prevents nothing. Getting beyond this discussion of EFF, has any global entity discussed making remailers illegal? jonl -- Jon Lebkowsky <jonl(a)hotwired.com> FAX (512)444-2693 http://www.well.com/~jonl Electronic Frontiers Forum, 6PM PDT Thursdays <http://www.hotwired.com/eff> "No politician can sit on a hot issue if you make it hot enough."--Saul Alinsky

2 1

Anonymity
by Dave Banisar 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Speaking of anonymous transactions, a fair trading office in London found that mondex is not truly anonymous (they were claiming it for a while until the complaint was filed by PI director Simon Davies). A couple of docs are available at http://www.privacy.org/pi/activities/mondex/ Dave _________________________________________________________________________ Subject: Anonymity _________________________________________________________________________ David Banisar (Banisar(a)epic.org) * 202-544-9240 (tel) Electronic Privacy Information Center * 202-547-5482 (fax) 666 Pennsylvania Ave, SE, Suite 301 * HTTP://www.epic.org Washington, DC 20003 * ftp/gopher/wais cpsr.org

1 0

Re: What is the EFF doing exactly?
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:41 AM 9/4/96, Jon Lebkowsky wrote: >The terms "responsibility" and "accountability" are misused, which is >unfortunate, since I think we'd all argue in favor of taking responsibility >for our speech/actions in a positive sense. The negative is in asking me to >sacrifice my freedom because some few behave irresponsibly. This is like >setting an illogical default, assuming that it's a preventive, but it >prevents nothing. Well, I've written a lot (or forwarded a lot) on various aspects of this issue. Both terms are _overloaded_, probably to the point of not even being useful terms for this debate. Everyone comes in to the debate with their notions of what "responsible" speech is, what "accountability" entails, etc. Having said this, and not knowing how your (or anyone else's) definitions relate to mine, I simply don't agree that I have to take responsibility for all of my speech/actions. I can think of many cases where I have elected to use untraceable anonymity, as many others have, so those are direct counterexamples to your point, thus disproving your "I think we'd all argue in favor of taking responsibility" point. (A vast number of other points worthy of discussion. I am happy to hear from at least two EFF "insiders" that this issue is being discussed within EFF as we speak. It's about time. Anonymity is a whole lot more than just about "anonymous posts" from "Mr. Anonymous." The issue hits on issues of True Names, speech licenses, escrow, legality of remailers, business vs. personal speech, etc.) >Getting beyond this discussion of EFF, has any global entity discussed >making remailers illegal? > By "global entity" do you mean the U.N., or the Borg? The G7 issued a typically vague statement about cracking down on terrorist communications...this could be construed as the beginnings of an assault on Cypherpunkish sorts of things. Too soon to tell. The Church of Scientology (the same group which favorable quotes Esther Dyson's concerns about anonymity and dangerous speech) has of course been targetting remailers for a long time. Not in getting them outlawed, but in getting them to to divulge names and logs. This has the effect of harassing remailers, and causing some to discontinue them...probably a desired effect. Julf's shutdown of Penet they probably are dancing a jig over (but the last laugh will be when users transition to a world-wide, distributed, robust network of Cypherpunks-style remailers). Within the U.S. there are few ways remailers could be shut down, in terms of legal action. The various Supreme Court cases have been discussed many times. I suspect the Digital Telephony Act could be invoked to demand that ISPs make their systems wiretappable: then, if the presence of a remailer defeats this wire-tappability, the ISP could force the remailer off. (I'm not an expert, but I believe DT doesn't apply to computer bulletin boards and ISPs, only to phone systems. But as Internet telephony spreads, and any ISP may also be a de facto phone system, couldn't the language of DT be extended to cover ISPs? This is something I worried about at the time the EFF helped give us Digital Telephony.) If legislation passes that makes carrying and producing identification mandatory (and this could happen by either the immigration or anti-terrorism route, or both), and if the Postal Service succeeds in getting accepted their scheme to require positive identification of all letter and package senders, then the same sorts of laws could be used to require that all e-mail messages have a True Name attached. Poof, there go the remailers. --Tim May We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I 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

Workers of the Web, UNITE!
by declan＠well.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tired: Libertarian cypherpunks Wired: Crypto-socialists "Whether they be fast-food workers, word processors, or micro-chip assemblers, today's non-union wage workers need the IWW's brand of no-compromise unionism even more than their predecessors." :) -Declan http://iww.org/tandv.html > THE WOBBLIES: > > Tactics and Vision for a New Workers' Movement > > An Introduction to the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) > > ISN'T THE IWW JUST FOR FACTORY WORKERS? > > Every worker is an "industrial" worker - whether they work in health > care, tourism, education, or publishing. The relatively recent > association between the word "industry" and heavy manufacturing is > misleading, and was never intended to be by the founders of the IWW. > If you earn your living by working with your hands or your mind, > then you're welcome in the IWW. Only bosses (defined as those with > direct power to hire and fire) are excluded from IWW membership. > > The Wobblies (as members of the IWW are known) have historically > focused on helping organize those workers that the American > Federation of Labor (AFL) shunned. In the early 1900s that meant > African-Americans, immigrants, women, and unskilled laborers. Today > that means curbside recyclers, non-profit staffers, temp workers, > sex-industry workers, co-op employees -- in short, any worker in any > workplace regardless of size or structure. > > CAN THE IWW HELP ME TO IMPROVE THE WAGES OR WORKING CONDITIONS AT MY > CURRENT JOB? > > That largely depends on you. The IWW is a "do-it-yourself" union, > and does not provide an all-knowing leadership or hefty treasury to > fight your battles for you. But if you're willing to organize at > your job-site by talking with your co-workers about the issues that > matter to them, then you can count on your fellow workers in the IWW > to lend their full support to your struggle. > > Individual workers can accomplish little by themselves, and are > liable to be fired if they raise their voice in protest. But by > joining together in a union such as the IWW, workers are far more > powerful when confronting their boss about workplace injustices. Our > union can provide tangible, community-based resources such as > low-cost printing, speakers, legal advise, and how-to manuals, as > well as bodies on a picket line. You won't get bureaucrats in suits > and ties telling you how to run your strike, just friends lending a > hand where they can. > > THE IWW AND MAINSTREAM LABOR > > For almost a century, the leadership of the AFL-CIO has worked hand > in hand with the capitalists to squelch rank and file militancy. > Their overriding concern has been "industrial harmony," not economic > and social justice, and so they fail to question the most basic > assumptions of capitalist production. While union bosses play golf > with the titans of industry, real wages and safety conditions have > continued to worsen these last thirty years or so. > > Regular AFL trade unions split workers up into their respective > skills, allowing one craft union to cross the picket line of > another. The IWW believes in "industrial unionism," organizing all > workers in a given industry into the same union (thus our name). At > a construction site, for instance, the carpenters should be able to > count on the unswerving support of the plumbers, laborers, > electricians, and hod carriers in the event of a strike. This is > much simpler when all these workers are in the same industrial > union, rather than separate, even competing, trade unions. > > Some Wobblies find themselves in jobs where they are represented by > these more conservative trade unions. These "two- card" Wobs often > bring their IWW principles to the union hall with them, agitating > for rank and file democracy, more militant "direct action" tactics, > and class solidarity. The IWW does not believe in signing away the > right to strike ( the so-called "no strike" clause), nor does it > condone the "dues check-off," in which management deducts union dues > directly from the paycheck. While the IWW often does strike support > for other unions when necessary, we also try to keep our sights on > the bigger prize ahead. > > DIDN'T THE IWW DIE OUT? ARE ITS IDEAS STILL RELEVANT? > > The IWW was nearly crushed in the early 1920's by some of the > fiercest repression ever unleashed by big business and the U.S. > government. Because the IWW had strongholds in industries that were > critical to the First World War effort, and because they refused to > do their patriotic bit by signing no-strike pledges for the duration > of the war, the Wobblies were branded "pro-German" and relentlessly > persecuted. > > The world economy has changed a lot since the days when the IWW > controlled great sections of the logging, mining, and agricultural > industries. Yet despite tremendous technological advances and the > structural reorganization of capital, industrial unionism remains a > fundamentally sound basis for workers' self- organization. Today, > while mainstream labor tries desperately to hold its ground against > the anti-worker policies of the ruling political parties, vast new > sectors of the economy have opened up that the AFL-CIO would never > dream of organizing. > > Whether they be fast-food workers, word processors, or micro- chip > assemblers, today's non-union wage workers need the IWW's brand of > no-compromise unionism even more than their predecessors. Winning > the eight-hour day was not enough. We must redefine the very meaning > of work itself, and find ways to redistribute society's wealth for > the benefit of all. > > DOES THE IWW SUPPORT ANY POLITICAL PARTY? > > The IWW is a labor union, not a political party. We believe that > economic justice must be achieved through economic struggle, whether > that be with our boss or our landlord. The institutions of > government have always proven themselves to be the allies of > Capital, so we do not wait for politicians to free us from wage- > slavery. We believe our power lies in the workplace, not in "the > vote" - since it is our labor on which bosses are dependent. > > The IWW has successfully resisted attempts by various "left" parties > to make the union a mere tool of their political ambitions. Our > Constitution explicitly states "the IWW refuses all alliances, > direct and indirect, with existing parties and anti-political > sects." This policy has helped us avoid the sectarian feuding that > can easily destroy a group. > > True, our commitment to worker control and the abolition of > capitalism has not won us any friends among the ruling elites, and > our disavowal of all political party affiliation has not prevented > us from being red-baited. We address the root causes of this > society's problems, and that makes us "radical," but we have the > common sense to leave our electoral political views outside the > union hall where they belong. > > WHAT IS DIRECT ACTION? > > The labor movement has been most successful when it relied on the > direct intervention of the workers to obtain their demands. Rather > than allowing professional negotiators to speak for them, Wobblies > have engaged in those tactics which they could control themselves -- > strikes, slowdowns, monkey wrenching -- what we call sabotage. > > Sabotage in this context does not mean arson and dynamite. It's more > properly defined as "the conscious withdrawal of efficiency." > Staying at your workstation but reducing your production by half > will bring a boss to his knees quicker than a whole team of > negotiators. > > The IWW has never advocated violence. By fighting for justice with > non-violent tactics, the IWW has often won the support of an > initially mistrustful public. > > WHAT IS A GENERAL STRIKE? > > The General Strike has long been touted by militant unionists as the > ultimate expression of workers' power, and it still plays an > important role in the IWW's program for social change. Simply put, a > General strike is a massive work stoppage on a local, regional, or > national scale, and may involve people either staying home or > occupying their workplaces and refusing to work. > > A General Strike halts business as usual, and serves notice to those > in power that those of us doing the work have the ultimate say in > whether that work gets done or not. It debunks the myth that power > flows downward, and proves instead that all real power still resides > at the grassroots level, if we only choose to exercise it. > > The general Strike is a common tactic in many countries of the > world, yet most North American workers are unfamiliar with it. This > is largely the result of the conservative trade unions' reluctance > to flex their economic muscle and rock the boat. A great deal of > education and organization must take place before North American > workers are ready to wage a successful General Strike, and it's > toward this end that the IWW dedicates itself. > > THE IWW AND FEMINISM > > Women have been active in the IWW since its inception. Elizabeth > Gurley Flynn, one of the union's best know agitators, once said that > "the IWW has been accused of pushing women to the front. This is not > true. Rather, the women have not been kept in back, and so they have > naturally moved to the front." > > Much of the work that has traditionally been done by women was not > recognized as such by the male-run business unions. The IWW supports > the right of homemakers, sex-industry workers, and other women to > organize for better conditions and wages just like other workers. > > THE IWW AND MILITARISM > > Wars between nations have never benefitted the working class, and > they never will. The war profiteers, safe in their mansions and > boardrooms, never consider the human cost of their military > adventurism. Working people are mere cannon fodder for their > corporate and imperialist ambitions. > > Real working class solidarity does not recognize the artificial > borders erected between nation-states, but instead unites against a > common class enemy. Poor people, especially those of color, make up > a disproportionate part of the armed forces, simply because few > other economic options are available. > > To put an end to war, working people must lay down their arms and > refuse to fight for their masters. Unfortunately, many have been > brainwashed into thinking that their interests are the same as those > of the people in power, so this is easier said than done. > Nevertheless, the IWW is committed to fighting patriotic propaganda > by educating workers about where their real self-interest lies. > > THE IWW AND THE ENVIRONMENT > > Bhopal, Chernobyl, the Exxon Valdez oil spill... These are just a > few examples of how dangerous it can be to put profit before people. > Government regulation and public outcry can at best slow down the > destruction of our planet, not reverse it. > > Workers and their families suffer the worst effects of pollution. > The workplace continues to be a very dangerous environment, and > working class communities are often the site for toxic dumps, > incinerators, and the like. > > Workers' control of all industry is the only practical strategy for > assuring the practice of sustainable and environmentally sound forms > of production. For if the workers in all polluting industries were > to withdraw their labor, the poison factories could be shut down in > a matter of weeks. The workers themselves must decide whether or not > what they produce is socially useful. > > JOIN THE I.W.W. > > NO BUREAUCRATS - Aside from the modestly paid General > Secretary/Treasurer, the I.W.W. has no paid officers. The General > Executive Board is elected annually by the entire membership, and > its job is to oversee the running of union affairs, not to set > policy. All officers may be recalled at any time by referendum. > > REAL DEMOCRACY - All policy decisions are made by the members > themselves by referendum. All branches maintain full autonomy on > matters within their jurisdiction. Job branches (I.W.W. groups > composed of workers at a single job-site) set their own demands and > strategies in negotiations, free of meddling internaitonals or > sellout business agents. > > LOW DUES - Our dues are structured on a sliding scale basis. > Unemployed and low-income workers pay $5 a month; those making > between $800 and $1,700 per month pay $9; members making more than > $1,700 per month pay $12 monthly dues; and workers in extremely poor > financial situations may pay only $3 per month. Initiation fees > equal one month's dues; so a very low-income worker can join for as > little as $6. > > TO JOIN - Fill out the questions below and send a copy of this form > with your check or money order (in U.S. funds) to I.W.W., 103 W. > Michigan Ave., Ypsilanti, MI 48197, USA. > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > ___ I affirm that I am a common worker without direct power to hire > and fire. > > ___ I agree to abide by the constitution and regulations of this > organization. > > ___ I will study its principles and make myself acquainted with its > purposes. > > Name ____________________________________________________________ > > Occupation ______________________________________________________ > > Industry ________________________________________________________ > > Address _________________________________________________________ > > City ____________________________________________________________ > > State/Province __________________________________________________ > > Zip _____________________________________________________________ > > Phone ___________________________________________________________ > > Email ___________________________________________________________ > > Total amount enclosed $__________________________________________ > > Initiation $_____________________________________________________ > > Dues $ __________________________________________________________ > > When you join the I.W.W., you'll receive a free subscription to our > newspaper, the Industrial Worker, in addition to your membership > card, constitution, button, and the One Big Union pamphlet which > describes the structure and function of the I.W.W. in detail. You'll > also start to get a monthly publication for members only called the > General Organization Bulletin, which contains Board motions, > financial reports, and members' discussion of various internal > matters such as upcoming referenda. And if you have access to email, > you'll be invited to join a growing network of Wobblies engaging in > on-line communications. > > IWW PREAMBLE > > The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. > There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among > millions of working people; and the few, who make up the employing > class, have all the good things in life. > > Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of > the world organize as a class, take possession of the machinery of > production, abolish the wage system, and live in harmony with the > earth. > > We find that the centering of the management of industries into > fewer and fewer hands makes the trade unions unable to cope with the > ever growing power of the employing class. The trade unions foster a > state of affairs which allows one set of workers to be pitted > against another set of workers in the same industry, thereby helping > to defeat one another in wage wars. Moreover, the trade unions aid > the employing class to mislead the workers into the belief that the > working class has interests in common with its employers. > > These conditions can be changed and the interests of the working > class upheld only by an organization formed in such a way that all > its members in any one industry, or in all industries if necessary, > cease work whenever a strike or lockout is on in any department > thereof, thus making an injury to one an injury to all. > > Instead of the conservative motto, "A fair day's wage for a fair > day's work," we must inscribe on our banner the revolutionary > watchword, "Abolition of the wage system." > > It is the historic mission of the working class to do away with > capitalism. The army of production must be organized, not only for > the everyday struggle with capitalists, but also to carry on > production when capitalism shall have been overthrown. By organizing > industrially we are forming the structure of the new society within > the shell of the old. > > CONTACT THE IWW GENERAL HEADQUARTERS AT > 103 W. Michigan Ave. > Ypsilanti, MI 48197, USA > ph: 313-483-3548 > fax: 313-483-4050 > email: iww(a)igc.apc.org

2 1

Re: What is the EFF doing exactly?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:41 PM 9/3/96 -0500, Jon Lebkowsky wrote: >The terms "responsibility" and "accountability" are misused, which is >unfortunate, since I think we'd all argue in favor of taking responsibility >for our speech/actions in a positive sense. The negative is in asking me to >sacrifice my freedom because some few behave irresponsibly. This is like >setting an illogical default, assuming that it's a preventive, but it >prevents nothing. > >Getting beyond this discussion of EFF, has any global entity discussed >making remailers illegal? The Leahy crypto bill introduced early this year made (paraphrasing) "the use of encryption to thwart a law-enforcement investigation illegal." I immediately pointed out that while this wouldn't make _encrypted_ remailers illegal, per se, effectively it would because the moment an investigation (even a phony or trumped-up one) is started and is "thwarted" by the encryption used, the remailer operator became guilty of a crime. True, the USG isn't quite a "global entity" (even though it has a nasty habit of behaving like it!), but along with Europe (which would presumably treaty with USG any such restrictions) it's the next closest thing. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0