December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Feds reading this list, Jim Bell, and threats (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 16:36:54 -0800 > From: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay(a)got.net> > Subject: Re: Feds reading this list, Jim Bell, and threats > of people through AP--I don't find it at all surprising that an > investigation, involving search warrants, happened. > > Whether he gets charged, let alone convicted, and his conviction is upheld, > is a different set of issues. I have a problem with this process, it denies due process to the accussed. This should be the issue of concern with Jim Bell, mainly the fact that his property was taken on a warrant issued on oath of probable cause. If you have enough evidence ("I think he is dangerous judge" is not evidence except to a fool) to produce a search warrant then you should have to explain the results of that warrant to a judge and that means the accussed has a right to be there and have a say. Since his property was taken for public use, protection of public officials, then those agencies should pay him for the property and the relative worth of the work on it OR do what Constitutionaly is correct. This is mainly at the point of delivering the search warrant a notice of appearance before a court should be presented to answer those charges. He has a right to face his accusers FROM THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE CASE as well as legal council by public appointment if required. Under the current conditions Jim Bell is being forced to testify against himself (some argue that this is not so, if that is true why then are we 'secure in our property and papers'?) and has been denied the right to legal council, as well as facing his accusers in a court. If this sort of check and balance is not in place then we get law enforcement confiscating property without charges being filed and hence no legal issues for the accussed to defend. This could be used to shutdown a newspaper (for example) because of articles that it printed. It nearly put Steve Jackson out of business. This is what you should be pissed off about. Jim Bell, as we all do, carry our own crosses. The issue is not whether Jim Bell committed a crime but rather did the law enforcement agencies follow the Constitution they swore to uphold. Let's see, I believe the courts say that a 72 hour stay in jail without charges being filed is the limit for habeas corpus. How about the accussed has to appear before the judge along with the police within 72 hours. At that point charges could be filed, charges dropped, payment for property, or return of property could be handled. If the defendant doesn't appear then a bench warrant can be issued on the premise that an attempt to flea is in process. If the police don't show or can't produce a good enough argument the charges get dropped and property returned along with reimbursment for any damages to the property or losses incurred by its confiscation (the money should come from the polic budget). If the police refuse to act then a Writ of Habeas Corpus could be issues demanding the return of the property to the possession of the court or face criminal action. Police in a democracy should be conservative in action. Bet you EFF don't do this one for free. "Oh my god, an ex-drug dealer..." instead of "Oh my god, a poor game publisher...". Fucking hypocrites. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Bell's Phone Number
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Correction for Jim Bell's telephone number: 1-360-696-3911 It's available via Information, assisted by the original story: "James D. Bell, who reportedly lives with his elderly parents at the home at 7214 Corregidor Road Vancouver, WA."

1 0

NDA98 URL
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The correct URL for the National Defense Authorization for FY1998 is: http://jya.com/nda98.htm (176K)

1 0

Jim Bell warrant, affidavit, return
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This is the way to get copies of court filings in far-away places: Call the court. Tell the person who answers the phone that you want to get a copy of pleadings (or whatever it is you want a copy of) filed in a particular case, giving them as much information as you have about the case. When you're looking for a search warrant, that information will usually be the address of the property searched and the date/time that the search began. In other cases, it's the case number/file number, (or, more annoying for the clerk, the name of the plaintiff and/or defendant). If the clerk can find the file based on the information you had, and the contents aren't sealed, they'll give you the name/phone number of a messenger service or copy service who will pick up copies from the court and then FAX or mail them to you. They usually charge somewhere in the neighborhood of $1 per page plus costs (like postage or phone) for this service. In Jim's case, the copy service's phone number is 206-383-1791. I received FAX copies of the search warrant, supporting affidavit, and return/inventory today. They're billing me for the charges incurred, which I expect will be in the neighborhood of $25. I'm planning to scan them tonight and make them available via the web, modulo personal information which I will black out. Comments about a good way to balance public interest/privacy when making the docs available are welcome. Have thought about publishing the documents as images (not text) to foil indexing, about eliminating "personal" info like SS numbers, address, and serial number(s) of seized items. I think the text of the affidavit is especially useful and instructive in terms of the understanding it provides into the law enforcement view of cpunks/anonymity/Internet issues. [Also received the Wassenaar Arrangement in response to my FOIA request, along with the Secret Service's response ("no records") and a denial of my appeal from the SF FBI office's "no records" response. Am planning to scan those, too.] -- Greg Broiles gbroiles(a)c2.net 510-986-8779 voice 510-986-8777 fax

1 0

Prior Restraint
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

As noted here on April 2, we've put on our Web site several of the docs of the Peter Junger suit against the Secretary of State: http://jya.com/pdj.htm One gives parts of Peter's article "Computers and the Law" which includes machine-readable code, code which is prohibited by the EAR from being placed on the Internet without a license (it is this "prior restraint" that Peter is challenging): http://jya.com/pdj003b.htm When Peter saw that I had put the article and code on my site, he telephoned immediately to say that the article should not have been sent to me along with the other material. He asked that it be removed because electronic publication could harm his case and put me at risk of prosecution. After discussion I declined to remove it, and thanked him for his advice. Yesterday, Richard Vasvari, one of Peter's three attorneys, called to politely ask that I remove the doc. And further explained how its electronic publication could harm the case and put me at risk. He said that he had notified Anthony Coppolino, DoJ, that the document was on the Web, as he was obliged to do by procedural rules. That they had discussed the ramifications. He did not say what DoJ intended to do. And, that he was obliged as an attorney to advise me to retain an attorney for my defense against prosecution for placing the doc on the Web. During this discussion with Mr. Vasvari I checked the access log for the prohibited doc and saw that DoJ had accessed it as well as several other files on me and my org. I told Mr. Vasvari this and he again advised me to remove the doc. Again, I declined. After chewing on this restraint of my publication by the attorneys, I decided to delete only the machine-readable code from Peter's article, leaving the text which explains why the electronic publication of the code is the crux of Peter's First Amendment case. On the assumption that his prior restraint claim is more important than mine. Take at look and let me know what you think. Should I have deleted the code or left it in the public domain where it belongs? Am I right to comply with the attorneys' first claim on prior restraint? Meanwhile, anyone worldwide who want the article with the code intact, send me an email for instructions on how to get it. Use the subject: Restraint

1 0

Re: Feds reading this list, Jim Bell, and threats
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timothy C. May wrote: > > At 6:05 PM -0500 4/4/97, Mark M. wrote: > > > I don't know any anarchists who oppose > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >contract law or argue that anyone has this right. The cryptography employee > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >who releases trade secrets or sabotages products is violating the company's > >property rights; whether it is moral or not is irrelevant. Again, I don't > >think you will find any anarchists who would dispute this. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ * {* TCM's emphasis} > > Count me as one who thinks things are not this easy. Ultimately, all > decisions to obey or ignore or sabotage contractual relationships is a > personal one. I agree. Obviously Mark doesn't know enough anarchists. Pardon me for beating my Hitler analogies to death, but when Hitler was Fuhrer, the trains ran on time. I have no problem with those who supported him for this reason. However, as his administrative policies began to increasingly infringe on the lives of others, it was up to each participant in his ruling party to decide for themselves what was an acceptable level of power/control over the citizens, and what was not. My own rule of thumb is to consider whether I would consider laws or regulations affecting the behavior and rights of others to be an infringement if they were applied to my own behavior and rights. > This issue has come up before. One name for the debate is "lifeboat > ethics." Suppose Alice has a contract not to trespass against the property > of others in the marina she belongs to. One night she falls off her boat as > she's leaving the marina. She can either _honor_ her contract, and drown. > Or she can grab onto Bob's boat and pull herself to safety, even though > she's just without any doubt vioated her contract. > > As I mentioned a few days ago, there are _some_ anarchists, notably Murray > Rothbard, who argued that Alice must choose death over violation of a > contract. Most anarchists I know think him crazy. I fully support Rothbard's right to choose death, but do not consider him as having any say in Alice's decision. > >Cryptography professionals have the *ability* to follow their consciences, > >but that does not excuse them from punishment resulting in infringing on > >their employer's rights or violating the terms of their employment. > > I've never argued that those who get caught breaking a contract shouldn't > face the consequences--providing others in the society honor the contract! This begs the question of who is to decide whether or not society is honoring their part of the contract. Arguing that society/civilization is doing a fairly decent job "for the most part" does not negate the fact that if an individual is taking it up the ass, he or she will not be inclined to take it sitting down. Native Americans are the prime example of a group who were subjected to severe penalties for failing to "honor the contract" while their oppressors felt free to dishonor the contract at will by virtue of superior firepower. Individuals have the freedom to sabatoge systems which they see as injust and oppressive. To suggest that the average person will abuse that right, and thus has no conscience, is to suggest that the average person has less right than corporations to decide what is right and wrong. It is my own belief that fears surrounding employees making morally based decisions of this nature are a result of the knowledge that many corporate entities fall short of meeting even rudimentary standards of moral values. TruthMonger

2 1

From the "pissing up a rope" file...
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Priority: normal Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 13:36:05 MET Reply-To: Law & Policy of Computer Communications <CYBERIA-L(a)LISTSERV.AOL.COM> Sender: Law & Policy of Computer Communications <CYBERIA-L(a)LISTSERV.AOL.COM> From: Stephan Bleisteiner <SBLEISTEINER(a)JURA.UNI-WUERZBURG.DE> Organization: Uni Wuerzburg - Jur. Fak. Subject: NBC Europe Question of the week Comments: To: FIGHT-CENSORSHIP(a)vorlon.mit.edu To: CYBERIA-L(a)LISTSERV.AOL.COM I thought some people on the list might feel very strongly about this issue and would like to cast their vote. The NBC Interactive Question of the Week: Should there be one international group that governs and controls web content? YES NO To cast your vote go to http://www.nbceurope.com Stephan --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA Lesley Stahl: "You mean *anyone* can set up a web site and compete with the New York Times?" Andrew Kantor: "Yes." Stahl: "Isn't that dangerous?" The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/

4 4

Re: Feds reading this list, Jim Bell, and threats
by azur＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Pardon me for beating my Hitler analogies to death, but when >Hitler was Fuhrer, the trains ran on time. I have no problem >with those who supported him for this reason. However, as his >administrative policies began to increasingly infringe on the >lives of others, it was up to each participant in his ruling >party to decide for themselves what was an acceptable level >of power/control over the citizens, and what was not. Unfortunately, by the time he really impacted personal liberties it was too late, as his power was consolidated and the citizenery disarmed (1935). --Steve >> I've never argued that those who get caught breaking a contract shouldn't >> face the consequences--providing others in the society honor the contract! > > This begs the question of who is to decide whether or not >society is honoring their part of the contract. > Arguing that society/civilization is doing a fairly decent job >"for the most part" does not negate the fact that if an individual >is taking it up the ass, he or she will not be inclined to take it >sitting down. Yes, much better to hang from the ceiling. > Native Americans are the prime example of a group who were >subjected to severe penalties for failing to "honor the contract" >while their oppressors felt free to dishonor the contract at >will by virtue of superior firepower. Hopefully, what goes around comes around. > > Individuals have the freedom to sabatoge systems which they >see as injust and oppressive. To suggest that the average person >will abuse that right, and thus has no conscience, is to suggest >that the average person has less right than corporations to decide >what is right and wrong. > It is my own belief that fears surrounding employees making >morally based decisions of this nature are a result of the >knowledge that many corporate entities fall short of meeting >even rudimentary standards of moral values. "I don't want to rock the boat... I want to sink it." Putney Swoope > >TruthMonger

1 0

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