December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

RE: Feds reading this list, Jim Bell, and threats
by Phillip M. Hallam-Baker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk pissed off Hallam-Baker to the >extent that gave up all pretense hiding his support for >a New World Order, and wrote: Yeah, like I wrote in "The Laird of the new world order". ... They said they worked for freedom but they had another plan. The only new world order is, obey your Uncle Sam. Must be in deep, deep cover. >> I have degrees in Nuclear Physics, Electronic Engineering, I have >> been offered a contract for my book on the philosophy of >> communication. > ...so the rest of us are just dirt under your feet? I was pointing out that the attempt to claim that the rest of us poor slobs didn't see Jim Bell as a shining Messiah was not because we were too stupid to understand him as claimed. >> I don't believe that people >> are fit judges of their own cause as Bell and you do. > So we should only fight for other people's causes, and not >our own? Or not fight at all? I think that before you murder someone because you think they are wrong you need to at the very least put the matter to an impartial arbitrator. Phill

2 1

Re: Feds reading this list, Jim Bell, and threats
by Phillip M. Hallam-Baker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timothy C. May <tcmay(a)got.net> wrote in article <5i3tpu$86h(a)life.ai.mit.edu>... > At 1:51 PM -0600 4/4/97, null(a)myemail.net wrote: > > > Horseshit. Anybody here ever hear of the Boston Tea Party? How > >about the American Revolution? War of Independece? French Revolution? > > You know, people who said "Fuck this shit, I've had enough." People > >who acted in concert to fight injustice and oppression. If you care to read the history of the times from unbiased sources you will find that the Boston patriots main gripe with Britain was not the tax on tea but the insistence of the British authorities on negotiating with the Sioux nation amongst others. It was the fear that the British would sign a peace treaty with the Indians recognising them as a sovereign nation that was the spark to the flame. Try reading "Lies my teacher told me" sometime. Given that the American revolution institutionalised slavery and lead to the theft of Indian land, and the French revolution the murder of about quarter of a million people they cannot be said to be entirely laudatory events. The national myths of the countries concerned nothwithstanding. People are not fit judges of their own cause. The civil war was started by the South who believed that the North might infringe their "right" to own others as property. > Note that I've never called for a witch hunt, nor have I called for his > posts to be censored out of the list. I chose a long time ago to filter > Jim's stuff into my appropriate folder for such stuff, and occasionally > took him out of the filter when he seemed (from occasional checks on what I > was filtering), to be discussing things other than his "Klaatu Narada > Nictoo" (or whatever) Final Solution. Same for me. I objected to Bell's AP proposal but not to his _right_ to post it. It was the tedious length at which he bored the rest of us with it that I objected to. Last I heard the Feds were concerned that he might have been putting AP into effect. Collecting the names and addresses of IRS officials, setting up a kangeroo court to try them, sending them demands, those sound like actions Bell would have serious difficulty in doing without giving someone reasonable cause to believe they were being targetted for murder. Phill

2 1

Re: Feds reading this list, Jim Bell, and threats
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk writes: > > > Jim is hardly the ideal poster boy for a free speech cause, but we should > > not distance ourselves from him when he runs into problems directly > > related to his advocacy of anonymous markets. That cuts too closely > > for comfort. We should defend Jim's right to discuss AP and any other > > institutions which may arise as a natural consequence of the capabilities > > engendered by cryptography. That is one of the main things this list is > > for. If they can silence Jim, it's going to be just a matter of time befor > > they go after someone else. > > I really cannot understand the posts I have been reading to the > effect that Jim Bell is a "loon" or a "terrorist" etc... > If we do not protect the freedom of expression of the loons, fuckups, > terrorists and Bells of this world it will be our freedom that is > threatened next. As far as I know, anyway, Jim`s AP essay (the > original plan overview) was perfectly sane and discussed the problems > of people using it to commit crime by killing an innocent person as > well as the advantagest of the plan. > I will allow that some of his subsequent posts have been a little > "loon" like but I have never considered him to be a foaming at the > mouth madman as some do. Someone said: "popular speech does not need protection". --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Re: Hallam-Baker is willing to testify
by Phillip M. Hallam-Baker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

null(a)myemail.net wrote in article <5i3vrt$aad(a)life.ai.mit.edu>... > > Hallam-Baker, pissing all over his own train of logic, wrote: > > I will not only refuse to support Bell, I'll testify against him in > > court if asked. > > What are you going to testify to? He sent me a considerable amount of material in private email. Anonynous insults do not impress me. > To Bell's scheme not being a threat to anybody because it would > never work? That it is nothing more than a theoretical exercise > which does not present a danger to a single soul? I don't think it was a theoretical exercise. I think Jim scrambled his brain with a dodgy dose of amphetamines or similar. His posts sounded to me like the work of someone with a personality disorder who was working his way up to psychopath. >That it is > preposterous of the government to prosecute someone on the basis > of a pie-in-the-sky, preposterous idea? It may sound loony to you but I have no doubt that Jim believed what he wrote and intended others to act on it. I'm not sure that he acted on it himself but I would not be at all suprised. Phill

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Timothy C. May wrote: > > This kind of ad hominem is to be expected from someone hiding behind > anonymity. What a hypocrytical crock of shit. Are you concerned that your pal, Hallam-Baker, won't be able to "testify" against me when the Feds kick in my door as a supporter of Jim Bell? > This message is clear-signed as being > from "TruthMonger," but, in fact, it could be from anyone. TruthMonger is a multi-user Net persona, meant to be used for that very reason. It is handy for lessening the ability of others to refuse to deal with presented facts and logic, instead choosing to attempt refuting opinions through grand pronouncements as to the writer's position in an imaginary elitist reputation capital scheme. > If it is from > the entity TruthMonger, and he wishes to have a persistent net personna, he > ought to look into PGP-signing his remailed messages, or using a nym > account. I have a persistent net persona. It's in your killfile. > And as for my views causing the tanks to roll through Poland, etc., this is > "magical thinking" at its worst. * {* DisinfoTranslation Technique (c) Greg Broiles} Either get your head out of your butt and learn to accurately read and/or interpret the statements of others, or get a job at C2Net. > > So, Tim and Phill, which one of you wants to step up to the plate > >and be the first one to attempt to ostracize him so that his views > >about the need for anonymous communications will not be taken as > >representative of the cypherpunks views? > > Fatuous nonsense. I'm not sure what "TruthMonger" means by "ostracize." There seems to be a tendency by some on the list to dismiss the posts of others by labeling them a 'loon' or somesuch derogatory term, rather than addressing their logic and message, per se. The fact that Bell tends to beat the AP drum ceaselessly may make his repetiveness boring, but in no way makes his system less valid than more mainstream methodologies. There is hardly anyone on the list whose missives don't occassionally skip like a broken record, but they are not labeled lunatics as long as they stay in the middle of the road. (You might say that Bell has a "persistent net persona.") TruthMonger

1 0

The Laird
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Phillip M. Hallam-Baker wrote: > > >paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk pissed off Hallam-Baker to the > >extent that gave up all pretense hiding his support for > >a New World Order, and wrote: > > Yeah, like I wrote in "The Laird of the new world order". > ... > They said they worked for freedom but they had another plan. > The only new world order is, obey your Uncle Sam. I would like to see the complete work, if you have it available online. > Must be in deep, deep cover. I'm a conspiracy theorist. Any particular Crayola colour you would like me to use to draw the links between yourself and the Cabal? > I was pointing out that the attempt to claim that the rest of > us poor slobs didn't see Jim Bell as a shining Messiah was > not because we were too stupid to understand him as claimed. I once recorded a tune called, "He used to take acid, and now he's found God, but he's still got that look in his eye." I can't deny that Jim Bell seems to have "that look" in his eye. > >> I don't believe that people > >> are fit judges of their own cause as Bell and you do. > > > So we should only fight for other people's causes, and not > >our own? Or not fight at all? > > I think that before you murder someone because you think they > are wrong you need to at the very least put the matter to an impartial > arbitrator. I believe that the AP system pretty much spreads out the "arbitration" in much the same manner that the electoral system does. To me, it is similar to the inter-family dynamics that take place in Dr. Kevorkian's work, only on a more pervasive scale. I have always seen Jim Bell's work as a theoretical exercise that deserved a more serious analysis than he, himself, gave it. It pushed the envelope of issues that need to be dealt with, and did so in a manner that went beyond seemingly mundane matters wherein one could easily dismiss the long-term consequences of the train of logic involved. An analogy might be made to those who dismiss a little ass- grabbing as inconsequential when compared to rape, as opposed to those who view it as a precursor to rape. Despite my sometimes caustic, irreverent demeanor, I enjoy your posts, as they show a thoughtfulness which goes beyond some of the "Oh yeah! Sez who! Yo' mamma!" threads that sometimes prevail on various lists. So, don't change on my account, I hate you just the way you are. (Please note my aversion to adding little 'happy faces' to my posts. Humor be humor.) -- Toto "The Xenix Chainsaw Massacre" http://bureau42.base.org/public/xenix/xenbody.html

1 0

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