December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Webpage picketing (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 23:57:47 -0400 (EDT) > From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)pathfinder.com> > Subject: Re: Webpage picketing > Pickets arise from a peculiar set of circumstances that arise in > meatspace, including public streets. Sure, you can picket The Gap at the > store up the block from my office on Connecticut Avenue. But try to wave > those signs outside The Gap in the Pentagon City mall not far away, and > you'll be chased off by the security guards. It's a private space; > different rules apply. Pickets arise from people getting pissed off about some aspect of their economic life and using their right to free speech to express it. Absolutely, but I can most definitely picket the mall and the store at that point with complete impunity from the sidewalk. And please correct me if my geometry/geography is wrong, but in order to get into the private parking spot at the private mall you do have to drive off the public street ACROSS the public sidewalk where all those picketers are standing. After all, if the mall won't let me express my opinions then I have an economic right as a consumer to express my displeasure and try to warn other consumers of the danger. It is irrelevant to my goal as a economic consumer whether I picket the store inside the mall or outside. What IS important is that I have legal access to ALL the customers using that business(es). > And I think that we should be very careful about calling the Net a public > forum. Sure, places like Usenet resemble a public forum in some ways, but > it's not the same. But I am not calling the net a public forum. I am specificaly talking about a special case that might arise if we are not aware of the consequences. In short it is a statement that it MIGHT be possible to use publicly funded network backbones to seriously impede communication using the system against itself. > I think Greg has it right: you want to forcibly intervene in a > communication between two consenting parties. What you want is similar to > the right to come into my home and prevent me from speaking freely to my > friend or lover. Not at all, unless you are implying the same expectation of privacy on a public street (or backbone) that you would get in your home (or intranet). I am stating the status quo, the level of expectant privacy on a public street (internet) is in no way nearly as comprehensive as in your home (intranet). Should you doubt this, walk around your living room with the blinds drawn butt-naked and then try that again in the middle of downtown at 5pm. If you want to go to store A and it is covered in picketers, you WILL hear and see them even if you don't want to. Their right to speech is such that if you want to use that business you must submit to an exposure of their views however brief. My thesis is that it may be possible to extend this legaly supportable model to a backbone which derives some or all of its income from public funds. This could be a BAD thing, is it and why?. If it is acceptable use of publicly funded resources in meatspace why should publicy funded resources in bitspace be exempted? No more, no less. _______________________________________________________________________ | | | Speak the truth, but leave immediately after. | | | | Slovenian Proverb | | | | Jim Choate ravage(a)ssz.com | | The Armadillo Group www.ssz.com | | Austin, Texas, USA 512-451-7087 | |_______________________________________________________________________|

3 2

Re: okc trial
by Kirk Fort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > You do not question McVeighs guilt? I do not question McVeighs guilt. I do question that it was a solo act. I am also not convinced it wasn't a government sting operation gone bad. > Also, I believe he was tried in Denver, Collorado? - Don`t they use > lethal injection? oh well, not quite as good, but it works none the less. Anyone know the url to the "means of execution" list? Kirk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBM5Su21igvzmuAps5AQFxCgMAxEb+R5sw/6+MkzAt41mGQWG8Hy/h0dmM 1T13jW+IoUD6vnKzNBweyIAYpdrgeC6qy1JaGZN2n4G0eTRNcHykxjLcM0CDpjeG zrmWZZV5sLeOv5zIcnxp/QNe08rGcKAw =M6H+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: McVeigh
by winsock＠rigel.cyberpass.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Lucky Green <shamrock(a)netcom.com> wrote: >At 08:41 PM 6/2/97 -0400, Hallam-Baker wrote: >>Appologists for McVeigh should consider that his actions did not >>advance the militia cause an iota, it destroyed it and along with >>it much of the right wing fringe. > >"Follow the money" is usually sound advice. More general, ask "who >benefits". Clearly, the constitutional militias and civil libertarians are >the losers of the Oklahoma bombing. The sole benefactors are the statists >and numerous government agencies. > >'Nuff said, Amen, Lucky. Perhaps it hasn't been pointed out often enough here, but this man spent YEARS in the US military, including a very brutal (if short) war. From all accounts, he attended exactly ONE Michigan militia meeting, and they kicked him out when they heard his violent rantings before the meeting was even over. There are no reports of him attending ANY other militia meetings. Is it only me, or could the phenomenon of militias being painted into (alleged) responsibility for this terrorist act not have happened in the absence of virulent anti-second-amendment-rights bias in the media? I thought so. me

1 0

Webpage picketing
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, I want to thank everyone for their copius sharing of knowledge on this issue. Where I was originaly going with this was comparing a supermarket and the picketers on a public sidewalk and how the police must protect the picketers from interference and interfering with customer access. The thought that has been going around in my head for a few days was consider a site whose traffic does over a publicly funded backbone (ie sidewalk & customers). Now on this site is a webpage to which another group objects to. Under what conditions akin to sidewalk use might a provider or network provider be forced to provide any user requesting a link to the objectionable page with the page of the objecting group. What I see is a simple single screen page that immediatly takes you to the desired page. Something conceptualy akin to a picket sign. _______________________________________________________________________ | | | Speak the truth, but leave immediately after. | | | | Slovenian Proverb | | | | Jim Choate ravage(a)ssz.com | | The Armadillo Group www.ssz.com | | Austin, Texas, USA 512-451-7087 | |_______________________________________________________________________|

4 3

Re: Hacker Links page (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: >From telecode(a)primenet.com Tue Jun 3 16:51:58 1997 Message-ID: <33949461.5B(a)primenet.com> Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 15:02:09 -0700 From: Duffy <telecode(a)primenet.com> Reply-To: telecode(a)primenet.com Organization: Telecode (http://www.hackerscatalog.com) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: James Choate <ravage(a)einstein.ssz.com> Subject: Re: Hacker Links page References: <199706032115.QAA25185(a)corp.tivoli.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit James, My most sincere apologies for any personal inconvenience to you in this matter. The sole purpose of the request was just to ask you to delete a link to a site. We didn't intend or foresee any problems with the request, but there were and I believe a more detailed explanation is in order. We here at Telecode were notified by Mr. Lancaster several weeks ago that he wished that the link(s) we had given to his site be removed. No reason was given, and of course, none was required. We complied within 2 hours of the receipt of the e-mail and removed both links from our 2 site: http://www.hackerscatalog.com http://www.cinecam.com On Monday, Mr. Lancaster did a search at HOTBOT and found another link to what he "thought" to be a "Mirror" of our site, namely, your web page with the links. When we looked at the page, we determined that it did look like or was "close enough" to, our web page of Hackers Links at www.hackerscatalog.com/web.htm. We responded to him via e-mail that more than one person in the past has posted this page to their site without permission (not needed anyway) and that on several occasions our entire site has been lifted. We were not pointing to you specifically, but just speaking in "general terms" stating that's possibly how the linkage had occurred. I also remarked that I would do my best to contact and ask that the link be removed. I did this because it "appeared" to Mr. Lancaster that the both yours and our site were somehow "connected". Of which, there are not. We do not claim that there is any copyright infringement on you part and we also state openly that your are the "true and rightful owner of that page". We believe, because of the similarity of the pages, that we had a "responsibility" at least to ask that you remove the link. So, we did. Again, I apologize for any inconvenience in this matter. Duffy Office Manager, Telecode www.hackerscatalog.com > > Hi Duffy, > > > James, > > > > With regards to the page URL listed below: > > > > http://einstein.ssz.com/ravage/hacker.html > > > > The owner of the site of one the links listed has asked to have their > > URL removed from this page. Since the source of the page was "The > > Hackers Catalog", they contacted us. We removed their link promptly, > > however, a web search showed your URL still remaining on the page. They > > have asked us to remove all links back to them, so I am asking you to > > remove the link to the "Guru's Lair" as soon as possible. It's the first > > one on the top of the page. > > > > Thanks for helping... > > > > duffy > > telecode(a)primenet.com > > Please do not send further email to 'jchoate(a)tivoli.com' as this has > nothing to do with my business or the issue under discussion. ALL > correspondance should occur through 'ravage(a)ssz.com' or phone at > 512-451-7087 (8pm - 10pm CST only). Should I receive further email > at Tivoli - IBM's site I will inform them of the breach on your part. > > First, let's set the record straight. I was NEVER asked to do anything. > It was DEMANDED that I take the link down. When I explained that I would > not do that I received an email accussing me of criminal libel. Not what > I would call a request by any definition of that word. I don't like being > threatened and it makes me less than cooperative when it happens. > > Furthermore, why should I take it down? Does the owner plan on dropping > the site and therefore it is a dead link? Certainly I will take it down > because it reflects badly on me having dead links. > > As to where the html that I currently possess came from originaly, I > don't have a clue. I received it as a piece of email from somebody quite > a while ago (memory says over a year). If it really did come from The > Hackers Catalog and they are claiming copyright on it, I have no problem > removing their html, I would replace it with the same links using my own > text and html thereby removing the infringment. Is that what you are > requesting? > > The next question that needs asked is whether there is any copyrighted > material other than The Hackers Catalog claim. The link does not use > any text or graphics from the target site. It furthermore does not even > explicity identify the link. So it is clear that there is no copyrighted > material from Don or his site residing on my server. > > So, the remaining question is does Don have the legal right to limit who > may link to it. I do not believe that Don has any more right to decide > who can link or furthermore visit his sight than my own. This in effect > means none. > > I believe the only reasonable responce that I can have to this 'request' > is to decline on any other issue other than removing the The Hackers > Catalog and replacing it with my own file. > > So, are you representing The Hackers Catalog and requesting the removal > of their fragment of html? If so then I have no problem replacing the file > as soon as I receive a written notice from a legal representative detailing > the complaint and the time period I have to correct the situation. > > If you are instead representing Don and requesting that I remove that > specific link because of his disatisfaction with its location then I must > refuse. I furthermore would request, as I have of Don, to forward me the > name and number of the appropriate lawyer so that my legal council may > contact them and begin proceedings. > > Have a nice day. > > Jim Choate > The Armadillo Group > ravage(a)ssz.com > 512-451-7087

1 0

ANNOUNCE: Mixmaster 2.0.4 beta available
by nobody＠replay.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This is to announce the release of Mixmaster 2.0.4 beta. Mixmaster is a new class of anonymous remailers. Inspired by the existing "cypherpunk" remailers and discussions on the Cypherpunk mailing list, Mixmaster is the next generation in the evolution of remailer technology. Mixmaster is available from: ftp://ftp.replay.com/pub/replay/pub/remailer/Mix-204b1.tar.gz What's new? - several bug fixes. - "middle only" remailer. - messages compression. - support for /dev/random. - rudimentary support for the list of reliable Mixmaster remailers. - new installation script. - can be compiled under DOS/Windows. Mixmaster is (C) by Lance Cottrell <loki(a)infonex.com>. This release was made by Ulf Möller <um(a)idril.shnet.org>.

1 0

Re: Webpage picketing (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dude, Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 19:46:55 -0700 > From: Greg Broiles <gbroiles(a)netbox.com> > Subject: Re: Webpage picketing > Why is this useful? I think it sounds like an awful idea. I suspect the visitors to abortion clinics would agree with you. I doubt the right-to-lifers or the judge would. Pleasure and good ideas are not necessarily one-to-one. > Who's going to keep track of all of this stuff? Are ISP's and backbone > providers supposed to give other people free hard disk space/connectivity > to do this? Or do you want the government to do it? What about blocking > software, which erases the picketing notices? Will that be allowed? One could argue that just as we must pave public sidewalks and roads as well as provide publicly accessible sewer pipes we might be required to provide webspace on the endpoint routers of the public sections of the backbone, and then we ALL get to pay for our daily aggravation ("push the button to torture the subject", subject pushes button and spasms in electric agony). Perhaps that is the real reason it would bite. > Conventional picketing works where private space is adjacent to public > space, such that people in the public space can limit access to the private > space, or do things in the public space which are visible to peole in the > private space. Adjacency isn't really meaningful in "cyberspace", because > it depends on arbitrary and changeable "locations" .. and there's very > little "public space" in cyberspace, at least in the way that there's > public space (like streets and roads and parks) in meatspace. Hmmm, I have NEVER seen einstein go anywhere nor the cables it is connected to. I can certainly say that I doubt the hundreds of machines in my work lab cavort around the shop when I am gone. No, I don't accept your premise that the connections in the Internet are that mobile. Lack of public space may be the saving grace, unfortunately there is quite a bit of involvment planned by Uncle Sam if I am not mistaken...Internet II... V-II Chip... GAK... ITAR... That supercomputer science network thingy... Get the picture? > Do you think we should adopt "bookspace picketing", whereby public > libraries are obligated to include hostile rants with books in their > collections, or even notations that "The Authoritarian League believes this > book is harmful, read _Why I Need Someone to Run My Life_ by Joe Schmo to > learn more"? Perhaps we should implement a program of "wordspace > picketing", whereby we're obligated to, before we orally discuss our own > opinions in a public place, mention the counterarguments made by critics. You can certainly stand in front of that store on the public street and offer to give said material away (remember to pick those up people throw down). And there ain't a damn thing you can do to make them leave. I would hope you would explain and address the counter-arguments of your critics. Otherwise your discussions might be a little one sides and hopefuly quite short. I personaly hate monotonic lunatic raves (unless there is a kick-ass band and pretty women). _______________________________________________________________________ | | | Speak the truth, but leave immediately after. | | | | Slovenian Proverb | | | | Jim Choate ravage(a)ssz.com | | The Armadillo Group www.ssz.com | | Austin, Texas, USA 512-451-7087 | |_______________________________________________________________________|

1 0

No Subject
by nobody＠hidden.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

asgaard(a)cor.sos.sll.se writes: --- cuts --- > Laws against matching various 'public' registers for multiple entries > are also making life easier for tax evaders (who might be libertarian > heroes of course, but remember that for most salary-dependent people > of lesser income it works like this: the more the entrepreneurs evade > taxes, the more they have to pay to support the nomenclatura) --- cuts --- This assertion relies on the faulty assumptions that: A) Government expenditures (particularly at the state and federal level) are at all related to tax revenue. B) Government expenditures cannot be decreased.

1 0

Re: McVeigh
by Jim Burnes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Just thought I'd fire off a few comments re: the okc bombing > Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 18:43:10 +0000 ( ) > From: Paul Bradley <paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk> > To: Hallam-Baker <hallam(a)ai.mit.edu> > Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: Re: McVeigh > > > > Yes, poor Tim Mcveigh. If he's innocent then he is one more victim > > > of the OKC bomber. Its more like poor innocent workers and kids who are just more victims of the insanity initiated by the Scott, Weaver and Waco murders. Brought to you by the good government of holy statist religion. None of those criminals have been tried, much less convicted. My favorite quote from the Scott murder (I believe it was from the local prosecuting attorney). "...well they just lost their moral compass" And so did McVeigh. > > > > I'm surprised at the concern. After all I've not noticed militia > > supporters and appologists speaking out against the death penalty. > Irrelevant. > Tim McVeigh certainly acted for the right reasons. He acted for reasons that had nothing to do with murdering innocents. I guess this was his US Army training in the Gulf. I think it was an act of cowardice. If you have a grudge with some US officials and you think you will be the avenging angel it takes much more courage to attack them personally than to blow up a building. But if we're talking relative evils then at least his motives were not to plunder someone's land, to run live stormtrooper excercises against a church or to collect a paycheck for assasinating a mother (baby in arms) from a safe distance. > > Whether McVeigh himself did it or not is questionable, I believe he did, > this is just a gut feeling, no jury should have convicted him on the > pathetic collection of circumstantial evidence presented. The only thing I think he should have been convicted of is conspiracy. The rest of the so-called evidence is pretty flimsy and never actually locates him at the scene of the crime. Of course conspiracy in an act like that should probably get you life. ...misc rantings deleted.... HB states... > > McVeigh ripped the heart out of the militia movement, he demonstrated > > what it was really about. Ironically the Oaklahoma bombing may have > > had precisely the effect McVeigh desired but in a very different > > sense. It was a wake up call to defend the country from fascism > > but the fascist threat was McVeigh and the millitia movement. > Hmmm. Well just in case anyone has forgotten, McVeigh was ratted out by the Michigan Militia when he went to one (1) of their meetings. This happened because he tried to sell them the idea of blowing up federal buildings. The MM called the FBI, which admitted it. I guess the Feds thought..."oh, just another wacko wanting to blow up federal buildings. We'll get to him later. Right now we have more important things to attend to - like covering up Waco." > > recovered from the beer hall putsch. Alternatively they can > > loudly claim that McVeigh was "framed" in the same way that > > other neo-NAZIs on the net claim the holocaust a fake, i.e. > > so that nobody really believes it. I suspect that this script > Cool. Lets set up an excellent strawman to knock down. How come whenever HB (and other socialist/statists) talk about the opposite of statism they always talk about NAZI's. (remember National >Socialist's<). Oh, fascism is another favorite label. Fascism is from the Latin "fascia" - - to bind together. Politically fascism is the melding together of state and corporate interests until each serve each other well. Maybe we can identify fascism on the American scene. CNN lapdogs reporting Waco "news" directly from the FBI's on-site mouthpiece. Other big-time media keeping their respectful 3 miles from the Davidians' religious community. (not compound, not cult). Whatever happened to the reporter in the field from the Vietnam war days? What about AP filtering out the DEA siezure of a military cargo aircraft importing 1 ton of cocaine into Alameda naval airstation? What about 60 minutes' analysis of the infrared footage where the ATF was mowing down citizens fleeing the Waco barbecue? Their experts told them that murder was being committed. Nothing on TV. ...that's fascism. (sung to the tune of That's Entertainment) > The militias would be better to disown McVeigh and condemn his alleged > actions because he killed innocents. > See above. The MM rejected him, but the FBI thought he was harmless. End game. McVeigh guilty of whatever. They are probably right. What I'm more interested in is the nest of viper's behind the man. Since we're invoking WWII Nazi history, can anyone say, "burning of the Reichstaag" Jim Burnes Engineer, Western Security, SSDS Inc jim.burnes(a)ssds.com ---- Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. -Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural Addr

1 0

Guilty!
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There are now laws against everything and everyone is guilty of something. The debate over McVeigh's guilt versus the government's guilt has as little meaning as the coming debate over McVeigh's right to take a life versus the government's right to take a life. The government can pass laws against the use of crypto or against the bombing of federal buildings and the debating teams can line up to rant about the justice or injustice being perpetrated by the individual or by the government. In the end, we are left with the body count, whether the body bags are filled with children or freedoms. Did McVeigh bomb the OKC building? Did Oswald kill Kennedy? Does it really matter? If the CIA wasn't involved in the killing of JFK, they could have been. If the BATF wasn't involved in the OKC bombing, they could have been. We all recognize the government's need/ability to interfere in the natural course of events in order to retain the power they have to "protect and defend" the country/government. What differs is our own perception of whether our interests are better served by the government or by those working in opposition to the government. When the government confiscates land to use for flood control, their actions are a threat to those who lose a homestead and a boon to those who will no longer be flooded. When the governement launches an assault on Branch Davidians their actions are a threat to those with unconvent- ional religious beliefs and a boon to those with mainstream religious beliefs who don't want their family members' minds "stolen" by some "cult." When someone bombs a Federal Building they are a threat to those who have a vested interest in the government maintaining business as usual and a boon to those who want the government to think twice before blatantly assaulting the citizenry. In the end, we are left with a body count and the bodies are either ours or those of others. In the end, we either look over our shoulder, or we don't, before we enter a federal building, or sign a search warrant, or reply to a post by Jim Bell. And, in the end, we will never know how many of the children who died at Waco would have grown up to bomb Federal Buildings. We will never know how many of the children who died in OKC would have grown up to be imprisoned for using crypto, or slaughtered by another government assault on an unorthodox religious congregation. In the end, every action we take will have a government assault team or a Timothy McVeigh waiting to support or oppose it. If we oppose both Waco and the OKC bombing, then we are a threat to both government and anti-government factions. If we support free speech then we are a threat to those who might be attacked and threatened by its use. If we support privacy we are a threat to those who are attacked by anonymous sources. If we support freedom, we are a threat to those who already have a place in the sun, a piece of the pie, a position to defend. In the end, we are trampled to death in the crowded theater in which someone has shouted "Fire!" or we end up in prison for shouting "Fire!" in an *empty* theater. (And Rottenberg defends his support of the original legislation which required at least ten people to be present in the theater before shouting "Fire!" became a felony.) The bottom line is that life is a crapshoot. We support legislation that requires us to register our religious faith so that the government can protect us from future religious discrimination and then we find out that "Lutherans" go to the death camps. We oppose the legislation and later lose our homes and jobs because we have no proof of our religious affiliation. The bottom line is that no matter what our position in life, no matter what our beliefs, opinions and actions, there are a few billion other entities sharing our world who are organized into camps which support or oppose us today and may do the opposite tomorrow. Even our actions in our own self-interests may work against us in the future, as the result of a chain of external events. For all of our positions and our posturing, we are, at best, pissing in the wind when we join in the various pissing contests in life. I once had a friend whose parting phrase was always, "Don't get any on you." I am beginning to understand what he meant. TruthMonger

1 0