December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Mon, 27 Jan 1997 paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote: > The list has been disentigrating for some time since the disgusting > incident when Dimitri was forcibly unsubscribed from the list. I'm curious about the gratuitous use of the word "forcibly" by Paul. Does this mean Gilmore took a fire axe to the computer or something? Dimitri was unsubscribed. It was done more or less against his will. ("More or less" because he in effect said to John, "bet you can't stop me.") What does "forcibly" add to this discussion besides melodrama? No force was required. John had the right and ability to pull the plug on Dimitri. "No animals were harmed in the making of this film." "Force," my ass. > have also been a number of postings from members of the list claiming > to understand anarchism who support censorship to "protect new > members of the list". There are various definitions of "censorship" and various flavors of anarchism. I'm a market anarchist, Paul is not. Paul claims to believe that any form of moderation is censorship. I think that enforcing standards of decorum on a private, voluntary list are not censorship. Reasonable minds may differ. I acknowledge that Paul's interpretations are not without some justification. (I just think they are incorrect in the instant case.) Paul, on the other hand, seems to be a True Believer. He brooks no view other than his own. (Curiously hypocritical under the circumstrances.) > So, there would be no intellectual dishonesty in a country claiming > to be a free and open society "trying out" fascism for a month or > two? - After all it`s a private country just as this is a private > list.... Paul's sophistry is showing. Nation-states are entities that exercise a monopoly on the use of force (real force, Paul) within (and often without) their boundries. Mail lists are far more like private homes, businesses or clubs. When you are a guest there, you are subject to their rules of behavior. > There is a clear trend easily observable on the list whereby certain > members postings are censored when their content is of a standard > that, if the moderation were objective and based on content alone, > would warrant their being sent to the censored list. Several substantive examples, please. True, nothing Bill Stewart has posted has been sent to CP-Flames. One guess why. Numerous posts by Dimitri have been posted to CP-Moderated, but many more have not made the cut. There are much more obvious reasons for this than Paul's biased analysis. > I can tell you one other thing for sure, even if the moderation > "experiment" were to end in a month as a last ditch attempt by John > Gilmore and Sandy Sandfort to recover some of their lost credibility > it would be a vain and entirely unsuccesful attempt. YMMV. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

3 2

Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by Dave Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dale Thorn writes: > I heard years ago that approximately 10% of the people on the street > are certifiably mentally unstable. This depends on your standads of "unstable". I'll bet genetic diversity is now much more of a factor then when those standards were written. > Multiply that by two at least for > Los Angeles (suburban L.A., actually, Hollywood for example is much > safer than Altadena or Westlake Village). I beg to differ. Which parts of Altadena and Hollywood are you referring to? ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet Call on God, but row away from the rocks.

2 1

Re: Fighting the cybercensor
by Phillip M. Hallam-Baker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

jim bell <jimbell(a)pacifier.com> wrote in article <5ch9f2$cuu(a)life.ai.mit.edu>... > Look, I've proposed what I consider to be a remarkably consistent method to > prevent the kind of political tyranny that you criticize, and I don't see > any recognition of this fact. Thats because its a whacko solution that has no credibility or consistency. If anyone tried to set up such a market and a price went out on any of the heads of state fantasized about Mr Bell would be dead as a doornail in a week. Phill

2 1

Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd)
by Phillip M. Hallam-Baker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Asgaard <asgaard(a)cor.sos.sll.se> wrote in article <5c92bo$lo9(a)life.ai.mit.edu>... > On Wed, 22 Jan 1997, Jim Choate wrote: > > >The Web does not equal the Internet, straw man argument. > Actually at CERN we considered the Web to be a superset of the Internet protocols and others such as DECNET which ran on private networks such as our HEPNET. Since most of those private networks are now obsolete I would consider Web==Internet to be a reasonable equivalence. We always considered email and news to be part of the Web (news:, mailto:). The narrow view that the Web was only HTTP and HTML was a piece of Andressen propaganda. Phill

1 0

Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by OKSAS 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, aga wrote: > On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > > Dale Thorn wrote: > > > > > > Kevin L Prigge wrote: > > > > paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk said: > > > > > > > > "cypherpunks will make the networks safe for censorship" > > > > > > > "Idiots will make the networks require censorship" > > > > > > The line above this one says it all, doesn't it? If I judge you to > > > be "an idiot", then, if I also have the power to shut you up, I can > > > not only shut off your "noise" from me, but also prevent anyone else > > > from hearing you as well. That's the real beauty of censorship - > > > if I have the power, I can make you a non-person by preventing most > > > people from hearing you at all. Oh, lovely, isn't it? > > > > > > > Don't you like power, Dale? > > > > - Igor. > > > > Power corrupts, in some instances. Instances where the power is concentratted to one individual or small group of individual....

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: "Phillip M. Hallam-Baker" <hallam(a)ai.mit.edu> > Subject: Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd) > Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 21:36:13 -0500 > > I don't agree with your view of states. The inhabitants of a > geographical area are not mere chattels of the governing power. Exactly! By jove you got it! By demanding your liberty but demanding that 'we' go to Singapore or anywhere else and treat them as chattels we have clearly instituted a double-standard. Most parties in this discussion still haven't made that distinction. All we have done is replace their current tyrant with a new one, mainly us. > The right to rule rests on certain criteria which I believe neither > country meets. The harassment of opposition politicians in > obviously trumped up charges disqualifies any country from > calling itself a democracy. Exactly. And by applying pressure on Singapore we only help them keep that tyrany in place. The quickest way I know to make a social institution band together is self-preservation from an outside threat, real or perceived. > I am a cyber-revolutionary and the world has bought into > the chaos of our revolution. I never intended the Web to be a tool > for confirming the present social order which is manifestly > corrupt. ALL social orders are corrupt. The 3 laws of thermodynamics apply to everything including social institutions. 1. You can't get ahead 2. You can't break even 3. You can't quit the game Heinz Pagels (RIP) Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd)
by Phillip M. Hallam-Baker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate <ravage(a)einstein.ssz.com> wrote in article <5c5891$ah(a)life.ai.mit.edu>... > > Singapore and China are blocking certain net groups. I think > > this is a bad thing, question is how can we stop it? > > 'We' shouldn't, it is their own country and it is up to their populace to > stop it. Do you really want Singapore or China having a say in how we run > our web? I certainly don't, and won't support any move to force any > particular view on them. If Billy-Bob wants to shoot himself in the foot, > let him. Might be purty funny to watch. I don't agree with your view of states. The inhabitants of a geographical area are not mere chattels of the governing power. The right to rule rests on certain criteria which I believe neither country meets. The harassment of opposition politicians in obviously trumped up charges disqualifies any country from calling itself a democracy. > > The Web was conceived as offering despots and dictators a choice > > between remaining in the dark ages and allowing freedom of > > speech. Blocking and filtering schemes threaten this ideal. > > Bull, the web was conceived so physicist and other researchers could share > data in a easily digestible format. That was not all. We had a political Web site established during the '92 election. I was in contact with Clinton's people when we had fewer than 100 Web sites. I am a cyber-revolutionary and the world has bought into the chaos of our revolution. I never intended the Web to be a tool for confirming the present social order which is manifestly corrupt. Phill

3 2

Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by aga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote: > aga wrote: > > On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote: > > > Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > > > Dale Thorn wrote: > > > > But seriously, I was just telling the folks over the weekend, if I > > > had my hand on the button, a lot of people would die very quickly. > > > As in The Day The Earth Stood Still, a single act of aggression would > > > suffice to be immediately terminated. No trial, huh? The best place to begin, in > > > the USA at least, would be the public freeways. There you have the > > > most acts of aggression in a short space, and the best pickings for > > > liquidation. Give me the power, and I'll show you all those nifty > > > techno-ways of eliminating people that have been kept from the public > > > by our benevolent government ("sources and methods"). > > > > > > BTW, I don't give a damn about someone "cutting me off", since I'm > > > not aggressive enough (outside of my liquidation duties) to be bothered > > > by that in most cases. I'm primarily concerned with vehicles who get > > > too close behind, who pass with no safety margin, etc. I call these > > > people anal-compulsive (as opposed to anal-retentive). You've seen > > > the videos on PBS, the various animal species whose male members > > > perform occasional "mounting" of others to intimidate. There are a > > > large percentage of humans who try to do the same thing, demonstrating > > > that they (IMO) have no further need of their lives. > > > Boy, it is a fucking Bitch living in that L.A. traffic, huh? > > I heard years ago that approximately 10% of the people on the street > are certifiably mentally unstable. Multiply that by two at least for > Los Angeles (suburban L.A., actually, Hollywood for example is much > safer than Altadena or Westlake Village). > Just carry a gun all of the time when you go over there. > Quincy M.D. (the old TV show) did an excellent piece once on how a > person can more-or-less legally commit murder with a car, by passing > a deliberate act off as an "accident". It's one area of our law > enforcement where the law (or rules) as stated by the state and as > enforced by the state cops don't even agree. > Maybe it is best to travel only on the net any more. The highways are deathtraps.

1 0

Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

aga wrote: > On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote: > > Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > > Dale Thorn wrote: > > But seriously, I was just telling the folks over the weekend, if I > > had my hand on the button, a lot of people would die very quickly. > > As in The Day The Earth Stood Still, a single act of aggression would > > suffice to be immediately terminated. The best place to begin, in > > the USA at least, would be the public freeways. There you have the > > most acts of aggression in a short space, and the best pickings for > > liquidation. Give me the power, and I'll show you all those nifty > > techno-ways of eliminating people that have been kept from the public > > by our benevolent government ("sources and methods"). > > > > BTW, I don't give a damn about someone "cutting me off", since I'm > > not aggressive enough (outside of my liquidation duties) to be bothered > > by that in most cases. I'm primarily concerned with vehicles who get > > too close behind, who pass with no safety margin, etc. I call these > > people anal-compulsive (as opposed to anal-retentive). You've seen > > the videos on PBS, the various animal species whose male members > > perform occasional "mounting" of others to intimidate. There are a > > large percentage of humans who try to do the same thing, demonstrating > > that they (IMO) have no further need of their lives. > Boy, it is a fucking Bitch living in that L.A. traffic, huh? I heard years ago that approximately 10% of the people on the street are certifiably mentally unstable. Multiply that by two at least for Los Angeles (suburban L.A., actually, Hollywood for example is much safer than Altadena or Westlake Village). Quincy M.D. (the old TV show) did an excellent piece once on how a person can more-or-less legally commit murder with a car, by passing a deliberate act off as an "accident". It's one area of our law enforcement where the law (or rules) as stated by the state and as enforced by the state cops don't even agree.

1 0

RE: Fighting the cybercensor
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:47 PM 1/27/97 -0800, jim bell wrote: ... >You misunderstand AP, yet again. AP doesn't really take votes, it merely >totals donations. It is an essential element of the AP system that even a >tiny minority should be able to kill individuals who are seen as threats, as >long as this capability is universal. True, the smaller the minority the >more uneconomical such an action would be for them, but it would be well >within the ability of 1% of the population to avoid a another Holocaust by >getting rid of those pushing for it. > >In the current political system, in the US for instance, 51% of the >population is able to screw the remaining 49%, just as long as they can >maintain the majority. Or, perhaps even more accurately and ominously, a >tiny fraction of the population (the current leadership class) is able to >screw the 49%, as long as they have the un-thinking backing of the remaining >and relatively uninvolved 51%. > >AP disables this system. AP turns government into the moral equivalent of a >pick-up football game: Nobody is being forced to play, and everybody and >anybody can simply "get up and leave" whenever he wants to. The moment the >"rules of the game" to make an individual's continued participation >unsatisfying, he can leave. > ... In our society, which, if I remember correctly, 10% of the population control 90% of the wealth, AP would only lead to 10% of the population being able to screw the remaining 90%. At least as it is, it takes a simple majority. As for the murder of the rich, here is a scenerio. A collection of poor pool their capitol to have a tyrant killed. The tyrant assembles a counter-wager saying that anyone able to prove thier ability to kill him without harming him, and who can show they got through will get 110% of the poor's bid. The household is told that a standing bounty has been placed with a collection of individuals, on the head of the trigger man involved in the tyrants murder. The poor can not hope to match the tyrants bid as they only have 10% of the wealth, the household knows that thier participation in an attempt on the tyrant will get them killed. Even if the attempt was successful. The people from the outside who would benefit from the bounty benefit more by taking the tyrants offer and then trying again, i.e. tiger teams.

1 0