December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

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

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

"Beat The IRS & PAY-NO-MORE"
by BizMaster＠USA.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I apologize if this is unwanted E-mail. To be removed from this LIST please HIT (REPLY), type REMOVE in the (SUBJECT AREA) and HIT (SEND). Thank you. ****************************** PLEASE IGNORE THIS MESSAGE IF YOU LIVE OUTSIDE THE USA ------------------------------------------------------ BEAT-THE-IRS & PAY-NO-MORE -------------------------- Our PACKAGE, (Beat The IRS & PAY-NO-MORE) will teach you EXACTLY how to EASILY: STOP FEDERAL Income Tax Withholding, STOP April filing of 1040 Form, & STOP THE IRS EXTORTION PERMANENTLY ------------------------------------------------------- The IRS Federal Income System is based on VOLUNTARY COMPLIENCE.... We will teach you how to legally VOLUNTEER OUT OF THE SYSTEM! -------------------------------------------------------- - Your Success is ABSOLUTELY Unconditionally GUARANTEED! Our methods work every time for everybody. They are 100% legal, honest and ethical. We will pay anybody $1,000 if they can prove our method is ILLEGAL, DISHONEST or UNETHICAL!!! Our method has worked for every person who has ever bought this package without exception. NOBODY HAS EVER FAILED OR ASKED FOR A REFUND!!! - Our PACKAGE includes a LIFETIME, FREE, SIMPLE, Sizzling, RED Hot 50% PAY OUT Dealership, PLUS ALL the marketing material master copies you will ever need. YOUR PAYCHECKS WILL BE 10% TO 20% BIGGER EVERY WEEK, within 2 weeks of filing the proper forms and affidavit. WHY NOT GIVE YOURSELF A RAISE THIS YEAR BY EXERCISING AND ENJOYING MORE OF YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. SET YOURSELF FREE! ------------------------------------------------------------- Your package includes unlimited FREE phone consultations, a copy of the U.S. Constitution, The Bill of Rights, forms, affidavits, and much, much more! TO ORDER BY MAIL: Send this entire ad and a $35 Money Order to: LINKCO --Dept. #1, POB 66781 -- Phoenix, AZ 85082 To order by phone and Fax Check call our office at (602)267-9688 between the hours of 1 and 11pm Mountain Standard Time. You may also call just to ask questions. Thanks for reading this message! Dealer #00001 - (Unconditional Money Back Guarantee) - - Copyright 1996 Linkco -

1 0

Surveillance
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Chief Judge Royce Lamberth of the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court spoke yesterday at the ABA's National Security Law gathering. (On C-SPAN). Points of interest: Why the court is not involved in domestic surveillance with the rise of terrorism and militancy in the US: It was considered during the implementation of the recent Anti-Terrorism Act but a decision was made to leave that task to District Courts. Why the court has denied only a dozen out of 8,000 requests for surveillance: All are excellently prepared and the judges advise on the few applications that are not to make them approvable. He went on to say that numbers do not tell the real story, that there are a variety of ways orders are issued and continued to keep an investigation viable and as it evolves. He cited the differences in renewals between orders covering individuals and those covering organizations: the first must be renewed every 90 days, the latter every year. Moreover, there may be changes during an investigation, say, by targeting an individual within an org, with difference regs, or combining individuals into a group, with also different regs. So the numbers of orders do not actually reflect how things work. However, the Court makes and annual report to Congress. Judge Lamberth joked that he hoped the Court's decisions were "constitutional," and after the laughter, apologized and said he should not have said that. He said that positions on the court are avidly sought, that the work was the most "fun" he had ever had, that it was very exciting to be part of the select group that deals with the highest secrets of the land. He commented on how "Article 3" provisions to protect national security and related secrets conflict with the FOIA, by saying first things first. ----- A related note on Greg's fruitless FOIA requests to various agencies about cpunks: active investigations are protected from FOIA requests, indeed, it is not uncommon to keep an investigation "active" to keep the secrets, to redefine the targets, to redefine as the Courts helpfully advise. Be sure to laugh at the constitutional joke, it's fun to be an insider playing with vital national life and death decisions and amusing the audience on TV.

1 0