December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

multiple messages
by Laszlo Vecsey 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is it possible to have a single cyphertext decrypted into two valid plaintexts? If two can be done (yielding 50% compression right there) perhaps more can as well.

2 1

Free the Mice!
by B. Gates 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1 0

Time Zone Change?
by Bubba Rom Dos 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Excerpt from Vancouver Sun: > <snip> > If Ottawa goes ahead with the proposal, Newfoundland would no longer > have their own special time zone, which is 30 minutes ahead of the > standard Atlantic Time Zone used by their neighbors to the West. > > Newfoundlanders, however, are expected to raise a great outcry over > loss of their historical half-hour time zone, regardless of Ottawa's > concerns over what they consider excessive cost for the benefits > gained by Newfoundland's citizens. -- Toto "The Xenix Chainsaw Massacre" http://bureau42.base.org/public/xenix/xenbody.html

1 0

No Subject
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: jim bell <jimbell(a)pacifier.com> >Subject: Definition of AP? >Reply-To: jim bell <jimbell(a)pacifier.com> >To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com >>Anonymous wrote: >> Can you give me a definition/description of AP in a few concise lines? >Probably. > >Ideally, it would capture the theory/purpose/methodology in terms that >those unfamiliar with the concept could immediately understand. > >AP, considered generically, is a system which allows individuals and groups >of people to anonymously defend themselves from all types of agression, most >peculiarly including agression tolerated or even done by governments. Dear Mr. Bell: We have been both pleased and relieved to note that over the past several months you have used the troublesome initials "AP" much less frequently than has been your habit. This measurable improvement in your attitude has considerably reduced the influx of damaging materials into your files. Today, however, it has been brought to our attention that you took the opportunity to launch into an explanation (relatively controlled, we hasten to say) of the basic theory you have been propounding regarding AP. More troublesome is the evidence that you, yourself, posted the supposedly anonymous question to which you responded. We sincerely hope that such felonious manipulation of e-mail traffic and information does not indicate a return to your previous unacceptable outbursts. Knowing you have been attempting to "moderate" your posts, we are certain you will accept our offer of 5 sessions of Deep Tissue--Relaxation Therapy at the therapist of your choice -- with whom we have been in contact. Always hoping for the best, we remain, The Bell Team secserv(a)whitehouse.gov

1 0

Re: Definition of AP?
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: jim bell <jimbell(a)pacifier.com> >Subject: Definition of AP? >Reply-To: jim bell <jimbell(a)pacifier.com> >To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com >>Anonymous wrote: >> Can you give me a definition/description of AP in a few concise lines? >Probably. > >Ideally, it would capture the theory/purpose/methodology in terms that >those unfamiliar with the concept could immediately understand. > >AP, considered generically, is a system which allows individuals and groups >of people to anonymously defend themselves from all types of agression, most >peculiarly including agression tolerated or even done by governments. Dear Mr. Bell: We have been both pleased and relieved to note that over the past several months you have used the troublesome initials "AP" much less frequently than has been your habit. This measurable improvement in your attitude has considerably reduced the influx of damaging materials into your files. Today, however, it has been brought to our attention that you took the opportunity to launch into an explanation (relatively controlled, we hasten to say) of the basic theory you have been propounding regarding AP. More troublesome is the evidence that you, yourself, posted the supposedly anonymous question to which you responded. We sincerely hope that such felonious manipulation of e-mail traffic and information does not indicate a return to your previous unacceptable outbursts. Knowing you have been attempting to "moderate" your posts, we are certain you will accept our offer of 5 sessions of Deep Tissue--Relaxation Therapy at the therapist of your choice -- with whom we have been in contact. Always hoping for the best, we remain, The Bell Team secserv(a)whitehouse.gov

1 0

Re: remailer spam throttle
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Adam Back <aba(a)dcs.ex.ac.uk> writes: > Dimitri Vulis <dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com> writes: > > Adam Back <aba(a)dcs.ex.ac.uk> writes: > > > [encrypt the message and send the recipient the key, discard the > > > key, when they request the message they supply the key] > > > > That's a good idea, but it'll take up a lot of disk space at the > > machine running the remailer. Right now, remailers that provide > > latency don't keep an e-mail for more than about 12 hours. Once > > you start keeping them around for a few days (a reasonable grace > > period for a first-time user), it's a lot more disk space. > > "Disk is cheap." I just bought a 3.8Gb quantum for $300. That's 4 > times cheaper Gb/$ ratio than last disk I bought a year ago. I paid over $700 for a 2GB disk about 18 mos ago. Yes, disk prices are falling through floor - giving the lie to the scum that tries to control Usenet "spam" - but is it really worth it to have to maintain a huge spool space to support a remailer? If you really think you can afford a few GB of extra disk storage, start up a Usenet site of virtue. > 1Gb encrypted message pool? No problem. > > Don't have the resources for the 1Gb disk? Your ISP will be charging > you many times that for your leased line. > > If it's an issue charge postage to cover your storage and transmission > costs. > > However, I suppose if you're using an ISP shell account, and have no > leased line, you may have more space restrictions. It should be possible to run a remailer on an average $19.95/mo shell account. Most of them come with a disk quota of a couple of megabytes. I do think that keeping a lot of mail in the queue (more than is kept by the remailers that use latency now) would make such accounts unsuitable for remailers. > A better idea, (for both ISP shell account and leased line version) > would to send the recipient the encrypted data, you keep the key :-) > > (View it as a secret split where the parts happen to be different > size, you keep the small one). > > They send you the data and you decrypt, send it back and discard the > key. You could store 16 million keys on your 1Gb remailer spool > partition. That 16 million keys would represent 16 Gb of delivered > encrypted email. > > You could still cope with a fair number of messages in 1Mb remailer > key spool in your home file space on an ISP based shell account. > > I think this solves remailer resource objections. yes, this sort of solves the storage problem. Thinking how this might work... Alice's remailer gets an e-mail for Bob. Alice's remailer generates 2 pseudo-random numbers, K and L, and uses K to encrypt the message with a symmetric cryptoscheme. Alice's remailer sends the encrypted message and L to Bob with the following note: if you want to receive the key to decrypt this message, send back L and acknowledge the disclaimer. Alice's remailer retains the triple (K,L,Bob). Because it's small, it can be kept for a long time. If Bob sends back L, the remailer sends Bob K so he can read his message. I see a few problems with this. I'm sure it can be improved. 1. What if Bob is another remailer, unknown to Alice? 2. What if Bob doesn't have the program to decode his message? (It's fair to assume that everyone can fine PGP. It's not fair to assume that everyone can find e.g. triple DES.) 3. What if the LEA's decide that the collection of triples on Alice's computer is worth looking at, for instance, for the list of addresses. (OK, they could be encrypted probably.) 4. What if the LEA's decide to find out how K, L are generated? > You still have the problem of saturation of your network bandwidth. > You can probably encrypt (it's symmetric key, say IDEA) fast enough > for encryption overhead to be less of a problem than the saturation of > the bandwidth of your leased line. I think IDEA or triple DES would be fast enough for this. > Your other problem is user acceptance -- your average user may still > object to receiving Mb's of junk which while the contents don't offend > him (he can't read it), the sheer volume may annoy him. Given how some people react very negatively to what they consider "unsolicited e-mail", I think it might be a bad idea to send them large encrypted messages w/o confirming that they want them. But it's also a bad idea to keep an unknown's e-mail on the remailer. The only way out, IMO, is to *discard* an unknown's e-mail and to tell him what positive action he can take so future e-mails don't get discarded. And by the way: a remailer should probably keep a list of people who have been told about the need for a positive action, so they won't get duplicate notices more than every week or so. If X sends Y 10 e-mails and the remailer sends Y 10 identical notifications with the instructions how to enable receipt, Y might get justifiable upset. When Alice's remailer gets an e-mail for Bob, it should do something like: try to fetch Bob's public key from a well-run key server / \ success failure | | encrypt the e-mail discard the with bob's key and e-mail! pass it to Bob | was the form letter sent to Bob in the last 7 days? \ / no yes \ / exit send bob the form letter Wow, isn't that a perry flow chart. :-) ... > > Suppose a LEA wants to search the computer hosting the remailer. > > They come across a bunch of encrypted files. > > The operator has to convince the LEA that they don't have the means > > to decrypt the e-mails or even to figure out who they're from. > > Well you can't can you? It may be hard to prove a negative to a LEO who doesn't know what the hell you're talking about. You have a file in your spool that was encrypted with a key that your program generated, but now you no longer have the key? Well, tell us how the key was generated. ... > I agree with what you're saying that technological aptitude can > provide some metric of cluefullness. And that cluefullness usually > correlates with good net citizenly behaviour (eg understanding what a > remailer is, and not legally threatening, or setting the Feds on to > the human owner of a bot. > > However there exist quite a few counter examples: cluefull people who > do not use PGP, or consider it to be too much hassle (quite a lot of > them hang out on cypherpunks, and will actually object if you send > them encrypted email, even though spending most of their time on > cpunks arguing about the usefulness and essentiality of these tools > for privacy). Well - if generating and publishing a PGP key were a requirement to be able to receive anonymous e-mail, I'm sure they'd do it. Some people (like Dale) legitimately question certain uses of PGP, but I think in this case it's worth encouraging its use. > Also some journalists are pretty clueful (or useful to be able to send > information too, shall we say, journalists as a group having a bad > rep), and not many can handle PGP. Hmm - I'm sure John Markoff and even Declan can handle PGP. If, for example, Jon Schwartz can't handle PGP (and I don't know whether he can :-), then he doesn't deserve any anonymous tips. Free market in action. Later - thanks a lot for the extensive comments. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

2 2

Assassination Politics (was Re: Feds reading this list, Jim Bell, and threats)
by winsock＠rigel.cyberpass.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Fri, 4 Apr 1997, Phillip M. Hallam-Baker wrote: >Timothy C. May wrote: >> >> Political advocacy is one thing, but making threats, even veiled ones, is >> another matter. > >Absolutely, that is why I was keen for people to oppose Bell's views. >If his ramblings had gone unchallenged he would now be being >presented as a representative of Cypherpunk/ pro-crypto views. Likewise, we wouldn't want your ramblings to go unchallenged, as you might be presented as a representative of Cypherpunk/pro-crypto views. >Besides anything else Bell was like the party bore with a >hobby horse he just has to talk about. I'm somewhat more >sensitive than most to advocates of murdering government >officials, some of my relatives are in government and have >had well publicised assassination attempts against them. Maybe they deserved them. Making politics more risky may have the benificial effect of thinning out the ranks of politicians to truely dedicated ones, instead of the fat parasitic beurocrats we have now. >I think that Bell's posts were entirely different from Tim's or >for that matter almost every other person on the list. Tim >demonstrated that a covert information sales organisation was >possible with Blacknet but he never advocated setting it up. >Indeed part of the point was the ethical responsibilities. Bell >on the other hand was likely to respond to any post with his >AP piece. I have throughout considered these to be incitement to >murder. Given certain political views contrary to your own, the government not only incites but commits murder daily, on a much greater scale. Is it so wrong try to put an end to this by a little strategic assassination? >paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote: > >> Not at all, Jim advocates the use of necessary force against an >> initiator of violence, as you would see if you have read Jims AP >> overview essay he does not advocate the use of AP to kill innocent >> people, indeed he does not intend it to kill anyone at all, Rather to >> act as a deterrent to government which would violate the NAP. > >Who decides what "innocent" was? Certainly not the government. >In Jim's world it was very clear that he decided who was innocent, >he decided what his rights were, he decided who he could murder. > >He limited the justifiable targets of AP to be those he thought should >be targets. His argument with the IRS appears to have included the >claim that they infringed his rights which under Bell's manifesto >gives him the right to murder them. You're completely off the mark. Have you read his essay at - http://www.prairienet.org/bureau42/public/apfull.txt He cited government officials involved in Waco, Ruby Ridge, and the IRS as examples. But, he clearly stated that: "It would be impossible, for example, to set up some sort of "Assassination Politics Dictator," who decides who will live and who will die, because competition in the system will always rise to supply every demand, albeit at possibly a very high price. And if you believe the maxim that "absolute power corrupts absolutely," you wouldn't want to accept any form of centralized control (even, perhaps, that of your own!), because any such control would eventually be corrupted. Most rational people recognize this, and I do too. I would not have invented a system where "Jim Bell" gets to make "all the decisions." Quite the contrary, the system I've described absolutely prevents such centralization. That, quite frankly, is the novelty and dare I say it, the beauty of this idea. I believe that it simply cannot be hijacked by centralized political control. As I pointed out in the essay, if _I_ were running one of the organizations accepting those donations and offering those prizes, I would selectively list only those targets who I am genuinely satisfied are guilty of the violation of the "non-agression principle." But as a practical matter, there is no way that I could stop a DIFFERENT organization from being set up and operating under DIFFERENT moral and ethical principles, especially if it operated anonymously, as I antipate the "Assassination Politics"-type systems will be. Thus, I'm forced to accept the reality that I can't dictate a "strongly limited" system that would "guarantee" no "unjustified" deaths: I can merely control my little piece of the earth and not assist in the abuse of others." >> Also, an inevitable consequence of anonymity and untraceable ecash is >> that assasination pools will become a feature of the political >> landscape. > >No, it is not. If it were then Digital cash would never be possible. >Society simply would not allow it and they would be right not to >do so. > >It is because Bell's scheme is entirely preposterous that Digital >cash is possible. There is simply no way an AP contract could be >enforced. The betting pool is simply one of a long line of failed >attempts to prop up the scheme. If this is so impossible, then why do you later claim that: "I have plenty to worry about, Bells plan would lead to murder of innocent people."? You do have a point, though. The actual payment would be hard to enforce. This is just a technical difficulty that can be overcome with dedicated effort. The idea is sound in all other ways. >No country could allow such a betting pool to operate from its soil, >nor any other such cover. If an IRS agent was murdered as a result >of a contract placed in an Anguilla betting pool the marines would >be landing the next week. No country that is small enough not to be >threatened by AP has the necessary millitary strength to resist >invasion. The benmefits of hosting the AP pool are marginal if any >therefore no country would ever host it. Ever heard of "virtual corporations"? They may exist without heed to national borders. The technical means also exist for complete anonymity on the internet, so that even the location of servers may be concealed (via. Onion Routers, and their ilk). Besides, all interaction with the corporation could be conducted through email, for which a rather high degree of anonymity exists already. >>Of course there is nothing to stop someone betting that an >> innocent person should be killed, this is a great problem in the >> scheme, but if this did occur the friends and family of the victim >> would normally have a pretty good idea who placed the bet and could >> place a bet on their imminent death... > >There is everythingt to stop bets being placed period. This is debatable, as much as you fasion yourself the arbiter of what is possible. >Of course the main use of AP would be to murder familly members, >business rivals etc. AP is simply an unrestrained murder machine >with absolutely no safeguards. Assassination transactions against anyone can be carried out anonymously right as we speak. There are absolutely no safeguards against that. However, AP is different. AP calls for a large pool of money donated in generally small ammounts by large numbers of individuals. The incentive for killing officials who garner retribution from whole populations would be much greater than that of some random individual. >> Besides which you seem not to have read and understood AP as you have >> ignored Jims comments about the problems of innocent people being >> killed. > >This "not understood" conciet is bogus. I have read and fully >understood Bell's article. It is in my view an incitement to murder. > >I have degrees in Nuclear Physics, Electronic Engineering, I have >been offered a contract for my book on the philosophy of >communication. If Bell can't communicate his idea to me then that is >his fault, his responsibility. I am arguing against the plan >he describes. Do not try the patronising "you are not clever enough >to understand this" line. In this case it is bluster. H.L.Machen perceptively ts, merely suspected infringment. This may or may not be true. Some donations to AP organisations may have no basis in fact whatsoever. The public is verry malleable, I'll grant you. However, others, such as large scale repression, will have very real basis in fact. Imagine the will of the Black people being harnessed through AP organizations during American Slavery. >The state employees suspect Bell plots infringement of his rights. >Therefore under Bell's own theory they have the right to respond by >infringing his rights, without trial. Of course. However, the state employees are few. The subjects, or "beneficiaries" of the state are many. >AP does not contain a coherent normative ethical theory. Of course it does, I don't think you've read closely enough. Perhaps you should stick to Nuclear Physics and Electrical Engineering. Scientists are notorious for not "getting" ethics, or completely ignoring them in wanting to stick to "pure" science. at's no surprise. It would be surprising for the subjects of this state to wake up and pre-emtively protect themselves from the state. >> If I may make an analogy you are saying that were I to be attacked in >> the street, and I pulled a gun on the attacker he has a "moral" right >> to kill me to protect himself? > >He could well have that legal right in certain circumstances. You didn't answer his question. >> > However, I also think that there is a possibility that his statements, >> > either on cypherpunks or elsewhere, may have gone over the line in >> > terms of threatening behavior. It may be a moral weakness on my part, >> > but I am not too inclined to defend someone who advocates shooting me. >> >> Then you are of weak character and a closet statist. > >Good, now we have discovered that names like statist, liberal etc >are not insults even if bellowed by idiots at the top of their >lungs we can return to sanity. Ah, sanity. The Crusades seemed sgain, what do you have to worry about if, as you say, "Bell's scheme is entirely preposterous"? -=- A concerned citizen

1 0

AP / Mr. W. Remailer speaks out.
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mr. WinSock Remailer shot holes in Tim May's highly questionable claim-- "I support anonymous remailers for various purposes, but debate is rarely enhanced in such cases." --by producing an insightful post which actually quotes Jim Bell's own words, instead of blathering on endlessly about his or her own skewed interpretation of Bell's AP system, by writing: > On Fri, 4 Apr 1997, Phillip M. Hallam-Baker wrote: > > >Timothy C. May wrote: > >> > >> Political advocacy is one thing, but making threats, even veiled ones, is > >> another matter. > > > >Absolutely, that is why I was keen for people to oppose Bell's views. > >If his ramblings had gone unchallenged he would now be being > >presented as a representative of Cypherpunk/ pro-crypto views. > > Likewise, we wouldn't want your ramblings to go unchallenged, as you > might be presented as a representative of Cypherpunk/pro-crypto views. > > >Besides anything else Bell was like the party bore with a > >hobby horse he just has to talk about. I'm somewhat more > >sensitive than most to advocates of murdering government > >officials, some of my relatives are in government and have > >had well publicised assassination attempts against them. > > Maybe they deserved them. Making politics more risky may have the > benificial effect of thinning out the ranks of politicians to truely > dedicated ones, instead of the fat parasitic beurocrats we have now. > > >I think that Bell's posts were entirely different from Tim's or > >for that matter almost every other person on the list. Tim > >demonstrated that a covert information sales organisation was > >possible with Blacknet but he never advocated setting it up. > >Indeed part of the point was the ethical responsibilities. Bell > >on the other hand was likely to respond to any post with his > >AP piece. I have throughout considered these to be incitement to > >murder. > > Given certain political views contrary to your own, the government > not only incites but commits murder daily, on a much greater scale. > Is it so wrong try to put an end to this by a little strategic > assassination? > > >paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote: > > > >> Not at all, Jim advocates the use of necessary force against an > >> initiator of violence, as you would see if you have read Jims AP > >> overview essay he does not advocate the use of AP to kill innocent > >> people, indeed he does not intend it to kill anyone at all, Rather to > >> act as a deterrent to government which would violate the NAP. > > > >Who decides what "innocent" was? > > Certainly not the government. > > >In Jim's world it was very clear that he decided who was innocent, > >he decided what his rights were, he decided who he could murder. > > > >He limited the justifiable targets of AP to be those he thought should > >be targets. His argument with the IRS appears to have included the > >claim that they infringed his rights which under Bell's manifesto > >gives him the right to murder them. > > You're completely off the mark. Have you read his essay at - > http://www.prairienet.org/bureau42/public/apfull.txt > > He cited government officials involved in Waco, Ruby Ridge, and the IRS > as examples. But, he clearly stated that: > > "It would be impossible, for example, to set up some sort of > "Assassination Politics Dictator," who decides who will live and who will > die, because competition in the system will always rise to supply every > demand, albeit at possibly a very high price. And if you believe the maxim > that "absolute power corrupts absolutely," you wouldn't want to accept any > form of centralized control (even, perhaps, that of your own!), because any > such control would eventually be corrupted. Most rational people recognize > this, and I do too. I would not have invented a system where "Jim > Bell" gets to make "all the decisions." Quite the contrary, the system I've > described absolutely prevents such centralization. That, quite frankly, is > the novelty and dare I say it, the beauty of this idea. I believe that it > simply cannot be hijacked by centralized political control. > > As I pointed out in the essay, if _I_ were running one of the organizations > accepting those donations and offering those prizes, I would selectively > list only those targets who I am genuinely satisfied are guilty of the > violation of the "non-agression principle." But as a practical matter, > there is no way that I could stop a DIFFERENT organization from being set up > and operating under DIFFERENT moral and ethical principles, especially if it operated > anonymously, as I antipate the "Assassination Politics"-type systems will > be. Thus, I'm forced to accept the reality that I can't dictate a > "strongly limited" system that would "guarantee" no "unjustified" deaths: I > can merely control my little piece of the earth and not assist in the abuse > of others." > > >> Also, an inevitable consequence of anonymity and untraceable ecash is > >> that assasination pools will become a feature of the political > >> landscape. > > > >No, it is not. If it were then Digital cash would never be possible. > >Society simply would not allow it and they would be right not to > >do so. > > > >It is because Bell's scheme is entirely preposterous that Digital > >cash is possible. There is simply no way an AP contract could be > >enforced. The betting pool is simply one of a long line of failed > >attempts to prop up the scheme. > > If this is so impossible, then why do you later claim that: > "I have plenty to worry about, Bells plan would lead to murder of > innocent people."? > > You do have a point, though. The actual payment would be hard to > enforce. This is just a technical difficulty that can be overcome with > dedicated effort. The idea is sound in all other ways. > > >No country could allow such a betting pool to operate from its soil, > >nor any other such cover. If an IRS agent was murdered as a result > >of a contract placed in an Anguilla betting pool the marines would > >be landing the next week. No country that is small enough not to be > >threatened by AP has the necessary millitary strength to resist > >invasion. The benmefits of hosting the AP pool are marginal if any > >therefore no country would ever host it. > > Ever heard of "virtual corporations"? They may exist without heed > to national borders. The technical means also exist for complete > anonymity on the internet, so that even the location of servers > may be concealed (via. Onion Routers, and their ilk). Besides, > all interaction with the corporation could be conducted through > email, for which a rather high degree of anonymity exists already. > > >>Of course there is nothing to stop someone betting that an > >> innocent person should be killed, this is a great problem in the > >> scheme, but if this did occur the friends and family of the victim > >> would normally have a pretty good idea who placed the bet and could > >> place a bet on their imminent death... > > > >There is everythingt to stop bets being placed period. > > This is debatable, as much as you fasion yourself the arbiter of > what is possible. > > >Of course the main use of AP would be to murder familly members, > >business rivals etc. AP is simply an unrestrained murder machine > >with absolutely no safeguards. > > Assassination transactions against anyone can be carried out > anonymously right as we speak. There are absolutely no safeguards > against that. However, AP is different. > > AP calls for a large pool of money donated in generally small ammounts > by large numbers of individuals. The incentive for killing officials > who garner retribution from whole populations would be much greater > than that of some random individual. > > >> Besides which you seem not to have read and understood AP as you have > >> ignored Jims comments about the problems of innocent people being > >> killed. > > > >This "not understood" conciet is bogus. I have read and fully > >understood Bell's article. It is in my view an incitement to murder. > > > >I have degrees in Nuclear Physics, Electronic Engineering, I have > >been offered a contract for my book on the philosophy of > >communication. If Bell can't communicate his idea to me then that is > >his fault, his responsibility. I am arguing against the plan > >he describes. Do not try the patronising "you are not clever enough > >to understand this" line. In this case it is bluster. > > H.L.Machen perceptively ts, merely suspected infringment. > > This may or may not be true. Some donations to AP organisations may > have no basis in fact whatsoever. The public is verry malleable, I'll > grant you. However, others, such as large scale repression, will > have very real basis in fact. Imagine the will of the Black people > being harnessed through AP organizations during American Slavery. > > >The state employees suspect Bell plots infringement of his rights. > >Therefore under Bell's own theory they have the right to respond by > >infringing his rights, without trial. > > Of course. However, the state employees are few. The subjects, > or "beneficiaries" of the state are many. > > >AP does not contain a coherent normative ethical theory. > > Of course it does, I don't think you've read closely enough. Perhaps > you should stick to Nuclear Physics and Electrical Engineering. > Scientists are notorious for not "getting" ethics, or completely > ignoring them in wanting to stick to "pure" science. > > at's no surprise. It would be surprising > for the subjects of this state to wake up and pre-emtively protect > themselves from the state. > > >> If I may make an analogy you are saying that were I to be attacked in > >> the street, and I pulled a gun on the attacker he has a "moral" right > >> to kill me to protect himself? > > > >He could well have that legal right in certain circumstances. > > You didn't answer his question. > > >> > However, I also think that there is a possibility that his statements, > >> > either on cypherpunks or elsewhere, may have gone over the line in > >> > terms of threatening behavior. It may be a moral weakness on my part, > >> > but I am not too inclined to defend someone who advocates shooting me. > >> > >> Then you are of weak character and a closet statist. > > > >Good, now we have discovered that names like statist, liberal etc > >are not insults even if bellowed by idiots at the top of their > >lungs we can return to sanity. > > Ah, sanity. The Crusades seemed sgain, what do you have to worry about if, as you say, "Bell's scheme > is entirely preposterous"? > > -=- A concerned citizen So, please, let the potheads on the list (the silent majority) refrain from dismissing Bell's ideas due to his alleged use of the 'wrong' illegal drug. And let the drunkards (Toto) and former drunkards (you know who you are) refrain from embarrasing themselves by supporting every lunatic who has also destroyed the better part of their brain cells. I, on the other hand, am a licensed physician, and my use of narcotics is for legal medicinal purposes only. Dr. Roberts

1 0

Assassination Politics (corrected repost)
by nobody＠hidden.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Explanation: I am reposting this because my original post seems to have been inadvertantly(?) mutilated after the fact. On Fri, 4 Apr 1997, Phillip M. Hallam-Baker wrote: >Timothy C. May wrote: >> >> Political advocacy is one thing, but making threats, even veiled ones, is >> another matter. > >Absolutely, that is why I was keen for people to oppose Bell's views. >If his ramblings had gone unchallenged he would now be being >presented as a representative of Cypherpunk/ pro-crypto views. Likewise, we wouldn't want your ramblings to go unchallenged, as you might be presented as a representative of Cypherpunk/pro-crypto views. >Besides anything else Bell was like the party bore with a >hobby horse he just has to talk about. I'm somewhat more >sensitive than most to advocates of murdering government >officials, some of my relatives are in government and have >had well publicised assassination attempts against them. Maybe they deserved them. Making politics more risky may have the benificial effect of thinning out the ranks of politicians to truely dedicated ones, instead of the fat parasitic beurocrats we have now. >I think that Bell's posts were entirely different from Tim's or >for that matter almost every other person on the list. Tim >demonstrated that a covert information sales organisation was >possible with Blacknet but he never advocated setting it up. >Indeed part of the point was the ethical responsibilities. Bell >on the other hand was likely to respond to any post with his >AP piece. I have throughout considered these to be incitement to >murder. Given certain political views contrary to your own, the government not only incites but commits murder daily, on a much greater scale. Is it so wrong try to put an end to this by a little strategic assassination? >paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote: > >> Not at all, Jim advocates the use of necessary force against an >> initiator of violence, as you would see if you have read Jims AP >> overview essay he does not advocate the use of AP to kill innocent >> people, indeed he does not intend it to kill anyone at all, Rather to >> act as a deterrent to government which would violate the NAP. > >Who decides what "innocent" was? Certainly not the government. >In Jim's world it was very clear that he decided who was innocent, >he decided what his rights were, he decided who he could murder. > >He limited the justifiable targets of AP to be those he thought should >be targets. His argument with the IRS appears to have included the >claim that they infringed his rights which under Bell's manifesto >gives him the right to murder them. You're completely off the mark. Have you read his essay at - http://www.prairienet.org/bureau42/public/apfull.txt He cited government officials involved in Waco, Ruby Ridge, and the IRS as examples. But, he clearly stated that: "It would be impossible, for example, to set up some sort of "Assassination Politics Dictator," who decides who will live and who will die, because competition in the system will always rise to supply every demand, albeit at possibly a very high price. And if you believe the maxim that "absolute power corrupts absolutely," you wouldn't want to accept any form of centralized control (even, perhaps, that of your own!), because any such control would eventually be corrupted. Most rational people recognize this, and I do too. I would not have invented a system where "Jim Bell" gets to make "all the decisions." Quite the contrary, the system I've described absolutely prevents such centralization. That, quite frankly, is the novelty and dare I say it, the beauty of this idea. I believe that it simply cannot be hijacked by centralized political control. As I pointed out in the essay, if _I_ were running one of the organizations accepting those donations and offering those prizes, I would selectively list only those targets who I am genuinely satisfied are guilty of the violation of the "non-agression principle." But as a practical matter, there is no way that I could stop a DIFFERENT organization from being set up and operating under DIFFERENT moral and ethical principles, especially if it operated anonymously, as I antipate the "Assassination Politics"-type systems will be. Thus, I'm forced to accept the reality that I can't dictate a "strongly limited" system that would "guarantee" no "unjustified" deaths: I can merely control my little piece of the earth and not assist in the abuse of others." >> Also, an inevitable consequence of anonymity and untraceable ecash is >> that assasination pools will become a feature of the political >> landscape. > >No, it is not. If it were then Digital cash would never be possible. >Society simply would not allow it and they would be right not to >do so. > >It is because Bell's scheme is entirely preposterous that Digital >cash is possible. There is simply no way an AP contract could be >enforced. The betting pool is simply one of a long line of failed >attempts to prop up the scheme. If this is so impossible, then why do you later claim that: "I have plenty to worry about, Bells plan would lead to murder of innocent people."? You do have a point, though. The actual payment would be hard to enforce. This is just a technical difficulty that can be overcome with dedicated effort. The idea is sound in all other ways. >No country could allow such a betting pool to operate from its soil, >nor any other such cover. If an IRS agent was murdered as a result >of a contract placed in an Anguilla betting pool the marines would >be landing the next week. No country that is small enough not to be >threatened by AP has the necessary millitary strength to resist >invasion. The benmefits of hosting the AP pool are marginal if any >therefore no country would ever host it. Ever heard of "virtual corporations"? They may exist without heed to national borders. The technical means also exist for complete anonymity on the internet, so that even the location of servers may be concealed (via. Onion Routers, and their ilk). Besides, all interaction with the corporation could be conducted through email, for which a rather high degree of anonymity exists already. >>Of course there is nothing to stop someone betting that an >> innocent person should be killed, this is a great problem in the >> scheme, but if this did occur the friends and family of the victim >> would normally have a pretty good idea who placed the bet and could >> place a bet on their imminent death... > >There is everythingt to stop bets being placed period. This is debatable, as much as you fasion yourself the arbiter of what is possible. >Of course the main use of AP would be to murder familly members, >business rivals etc. AP is simply an unrestrained murder machine >with absolutely no safeguards. Assassination transactions against anyone can be carried out anonymously right as we speak. There are absolutely no safeguards against that. However, AP is different. AP calls for a large pool of money donated in generally small ammounts by large numbers of individuals. The incentive for killing officials who garner retribution from whole populations would be much greater than that of some random individual. >> Besides which you seem not to have read and understood AP as you have >> ignored Jims comments about the problems of innocent people being >> killed. > >This "not understood" conciet is bogus. I have read and fully >understood Bell's article. It is in my view an incitement to murder. > >I have degrees in Nuclear Physics, Electronic Engineering, I have >been offered a contract for my book on the philosophy of >communication. If Bell can't communicate his idea to me then that is >his fault, his responsibility. I am arguing against the plan >he describes. Do not try the patronising "you are not clever enough >to understand this" line. In this case it is bluster. H.L.Machen perceptively noted, "It is a common fallacy of our time that a moron run through a university and decorated with a PHD will thereby cease to be a moron." So save your credentials for the tabloids. >> Question: Would you say the assassination of a statist who had badly >> violated the NAP (eg. A district attorney involved in prosecutions >> for drug dealing) was a crime? > >Absolutely for the simple reason that mob rule, lynch law is always >criminal. If there is no due process there is no justice. Ah, I see that you are in agreement with some of the framers of our great constitution in rejecting Direct Democracy, in favor of one or another flavor of elitism (Representative Democracy, lets say). Not that it's necessarily so bad, mind you, but at least you're showing your true colors. >Under AP rules the state has a perfect right to execute Bell. Bell >clearly intends the murder of government personel, therefore under >AP rules the government has the "right" to protect itself with AP >if it choses. If it decides on a less arbitrary sanction then >under AP principles that is a concession it is not required to make. The state has no rights. It is not a living individual. Only humans, and arguably animals, have rights. >AP eliminates process and with it proof. There are no steps proposed >by which an AP initiator should deterine whether his rights have indeed >been infringed. You're right. It is not the American Way of justice. However, that way is not itself above suspicion. The reliability of witnesses is suspect, even when they are sincere in trying to recall events. The judges are not above corruption, especially as they are in positions of power and power corrupts. Finally, the jury is not without its biases, even when its not also paid off, as can be seen from the controversial results of well publicised cases involving Rodney King and O.J.Simpson. >Therefore an instigator is not acting upon actual >infringement of rights, merely suspected infringment. This may or may not be true. Some donations to AP organisations may have no basis in fact whatsoever. The public is verry malleable, I'll grant you. However, others, such as large scale repression, will have very real basis in fact. Imagine the will of the Black people being harnessed through AP organizations during American Slavery. >The state employees suspect Bell plots infringement of his rights. >Therefore under Bell's own theory they have the right to respond by >infringing his rights, without trial. Of course. However, the state employees are few. The subjects, or "beneficiaries" of the state are many. >AP does not contain a coherent normative ethical theory. Of course it does, I don't think you've read closely enough. Perhaps you should stick to Nuclear Physics and Electrical Engineering. Scientists are notorious for not "getting" ethics, or completely ignoring them in wanting to stick to "pure" science. >> WRONG... The LEAs were the initiators of force and violators of the >> NAP, Jim Bell, were he to kill a member of the IRS, would not be >> commiting any crime, rather defending himself from a violation of his >> rights. > >He would empirically be guilty of a crime. The courts would consider >it murder and sentence him accordingly. Obviously, Paul is speaking of crime from Jim Bell's "ethical theory" perspective. Phil discounts the existence of that perspective, and answers from a "real world" perspective, completely missing Paul's point. >You may not consider him ethically to be guitly of something wrong. >I would disagree in that case. The LEAs have the right to initiate force >in accordance with the directions of a court order. They are pre-emtively >protecting their personal right to defend themselves and on behalf of >society pre-emptively protecting it. The state is self-perpetuating. Threats to the well being of members of it are taken seriously, that's no surprise. It would be surprising for the subjects of this state to wake up and pre-emtively protect themselves from the state. >> If I may make an analogy you are saying that were I to be attacked in >> the street, and I pulled a gun on the attacker he has a "moral" right >> to kill me to protect himself? > >He could well have that legal right in certain circumstances. You didn't answer his question. >> > However, I also think that there is a possibility that his statements, >> > either on cypherpunks or elsewhere, may have gone over the line in >> > terms of threatening behavior. It may be a moral weakness on my part, >> > but I am not too inclined to defend someone who advocates shooting me. >> >> Then you are of weak character and a closet statist. > >Good, now we have discovered that names like statist, liberal etc >are not insults even if bellowed by idiots at the top of their >lungs we can return to sanity. Ah, sanity. The Crusades seemed sane to the Christians. The Holocaust to the Nazis. Communism to the Russians. And now, a police state to the Americans. >I will not only refuse to support Bell, I'll testify against him in >court if asked. You're such a good patriot. >I don't believe that people are fit judges of their own cause as Bell >and you do. More elitism! Well, we're all lucky we have you, the agents at Waco and Ruby Ridge, and the IRS to protect us. Perhaps you'll do us all a favor and judge yourself superfluous and even harmful to "the people's cause" and put a contract on yourselves in an AP organization, when they come to be. I thought not. All we'll see are attempts are self perpetuation. >> Otherwise you have no more to worry about than you do now, AP simply >> allows people perfect (as near as possible) anonymity, You can have >> someone assasinated now without betting pools.... > >I have plenty to worry about, Bells plan would lead to murder of >innocent people. Again, what do you have to worry about if, as you say, "Bell's scheme is entirely preposterous"? -=- A concerned citizen

1 0

Re: Tim May badmouths anonymity.
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Fri, 4 Apr 1997, Huge Cajones Remailer wrote: Pill time TruthMonger. > TruthMonger is a multi-user Net persona, meant to be used > for that very reason. T r u t h M o n g e r N e t p e r s o n a # 2 3

1 0