December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Mad as Hell
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:23 am -0500 on 11/13/97, Tim May wrote: > >:-). Actually, Tim, I don't think it's dangerous, at least to me > >personally, and to anyone else on this list, for that matter. What I said > >was, you're counterproductive to your own cause (you could become a poster > >for statism, as I said before), and, if you continued to directly threaten > >the lives of people who had the power to hurt you, in public, with direct > > You have now repeated this "Tim has directly threatened the life of a > federal judge" charge several times. > > This is false. Well, I certainly used two forms of the word 'direct', right there in black and white, didn't I? And, having just watched Nat Hentoff say on TV that a threat would be something where you specified the time and place of some kind of violence against a person, maybe your saying something like, > But in many ways, this is good news. The war is coming faster than I > thought. > > The judge in this case has committed a capital crime. was *not* a threat against a judge? Right, Tim, if you say so. I expect that, in the legal, Hentoff sense, it's not a threat. After all, you didn't specify a date and time, and you didn't even say you, personally, were going to do anything at all. However, it's probably more than enough reason for someone with too may kevlar coats back in the office closet to trump something up and force a confrontation with you, just like they did with Bell. Well, no. Bell's arrest was just a byproduct of his car's siezure, like they said in the papers, wasn't it? Nonetheless, it's well within conception that, since everyone's breaking the law somehow, that something you're doing or have done would be used to cause a percipitating event, which you yourself say you would respond to with force. Astoundingly, it also seems like you're *trying* to create a confrontation. You seem to dare to them to do something so that you can meet them at the door, Mossberg in hand. "Please don't throw me in that briar patch", in other words. For instance, just last night, you said, > And the rumors are mounting about a series of possible raids around the > holidays this Thanksgiving Day. The FBI has acknowledge the fax sent out as > legitimate. > > While militia members and Cypherpunks may not be able to withstand a full > out war for very long, the mere willingness to defend oneself can itself > act as a deterrent. This is basic game theory, basic strategy. It sounds an awful lot like Fort Apache, Corrolitos, to me, Tim. > You claim I am doing "the cause" a disservice. Well, your "cause", whatever it is, certainly. I'm not sure, for instance, that holing yourself up behind a steel-reinforced door with lots of fun firepower is doing much for the spread of strong cryptography, I'll grant you that... > I claim you are spreading > misinformation and trumping up a charge which you must hope is being read > by the Feds. Right. And when Thanksgiving day comes, Tim, and the no-knock doesn't happen, or, even more interesting, nothing happens anywhere on Thanksgiving day, what are you going to say about my "misinformation" attack, then? That it "failed"? Remarkable. You win no matter what, right? Prove to me that there is no conspiracy? Or flying saucers, or whatever else? :-). Frankly, Tim, I don't think the Feds really care about you, or anything you've done, to date. Or at least they wouldn't, if you weren't, like the forest knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, daring them to hack off another limb all the time. It seems to me that, before this little interchange we've been in, where someone finally stood up and said that the emperor had no clothes (at least as far as kevlar outerware and the global conspiracy to destroy the American Way is concerned) you would have continued to try to bait the federales, imaginary or not, with inflamatory trolls like those above, apparently in the hope that you could force a showdown with them. Hell, maybe you'll actually make it happen, someday. I guess I won't be surprised when it does. Or particularly care, even, given your vitriolic reception the mirror in your face. > You sicken me. Um, well... Take a pill, maybe? Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/ Ask me about FC98 in Anguilla!: <http://www.fc98.ai/>

4 4

[OB: CRYTO] Re: about RC4
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ryan Anderson wrote: > > (And they wonder why we kicked Japan's butt.) > Because they couldn't speak a non-native language perfectly? No...because they couldn't speak a 'Native' language perfectly. Cherokee! WagonBurner

2 1

Microsoft World 1.0 from the Netly News (and a funny response)
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

********* http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/opinion/0,1042,1576,00.html The Netly News (http://netlynews.com/) November 13, 1997 Microsoft World 1.0 by Declan McCullagh (declan(a)well.com) If you're Bill Gates, the last place on earth you want to be today is 2500 Calvert St., Washington, D.C. That's the address of the "Appraising Microsoft" conference, where politicos and high tech leaders from around the country are teaming up to take a big swing at the richest man in America. It would be a slugfest -- if only Gates were around to defend himself. Ralph Nader, the conference's organizer, invited him, but Gates declined through his lawyers. "It appears that your conference will provide a forum for anti-Microsoft pundits and business competitors to raise their litany of tired allegations in an attempt to manipulate public opinion against our company," wrote attorney William Neukom, who is defending Microsoft from antitrust allegations. Which is only natural. Everyone Microsoft has ever pissed off (and Microsoft has pissed off a lot of people) seems to be here today. Who would pass up a chance to flame the Boy Billionaire -- especially when there's safety in numbers? [...] *********** Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 14:27:41 -0500 To: declan(a)pathfinder.com From: Steve Kremer <steve(a)jokewallpaper.com> Subject: Ralph Nader's Computer? I enjoyed your story about the conference. When I first heard about it I had a question to ask Ralph for my monthly humor newsletter...So I called his office. Here's the item.. Have Fun, Steve Kremer JAMES SPADER, DARTH VADER, RALPH NADER. WHICH OF THESE THREE OWN A COMPUTER?? In the month of November you will be hearing a lot about a media event called the "Appraising Microsoft Conference" held in Washington, D.C. and hosted by consumer gadfly Ralph Nader. If you visit their Web site at: http://www.essential.org/appraising/microsoft/ you can read about their plans to discuss Microsoft. They profess high intentions of seriously discussing Microsoft's influence on the future, but it looks to me like a "trash Microsoft festival". Not that Microsoft doesn't deserve to be trashed, but I thought the Nader folks and their "conference" was utterly transparent. I began to wonder...just how much does Ralph Nader know about computers and the World Wide Web. On their Web site they list their phone number and the name of their media contact Caroline Jonah. Armed with my trusty Sony integrated phone/recorder I gave her a call. Below is a transcript of a portion of our conversation. Steve Kremer: "Do you happen to know what computer system Ralph Nader uses. Is he a Windows or Mac guy?" Caroline Jonah: "Umm, I don't think, let me think, he doesn't even have a computer in his office to tell you the truth." Steve Kremer: "Oh really, he isn't one of those laptop toting people? Caroline Jonah: "In our office we have both, we use both, yeah." Steve Kremer: "O.K., so Mr. Nader doesn't even have a computer?" Caroline Jonah: "We have both in our office, so he can use either one, so. But in his office, I don't think he even has one in his office." I asked if she had actually ever seen Ralph using a computer and she said I would have to talk to him directly. She promised that she would have Mr. Nader give me a call later that day. He never called. So when you read the inevitable story coming out of Washington D.C. in the middle of the month about Consumer Crusader Ralph Nader taking Microsoft to task, remember it's being headlined by someone who has probably never had their hand on a mouse except maybe to take a dead one out of an OSHA approved trap.

3 2

Re: Tim May's offensive racism (was: about RC4)
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:42 PM 11/14/97 +0900, Joichi Ito wrote: >Oh and by the way: > >Article 21 of the Constitution of Japan > >Freedom of assembly and association as well as speech, press >and all other forms of expression are guaranteed. >2) No censorship shall be maintained, nor shall the secrecy of >any means of communication be violated. > >"nya nya na nya nya..." Is that Japanese for "Wassenaar"?

9 25

Re: Br'er Tim and the Bug Hole
by nobody＠neva.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Robert Hettinga wrote: >At 7:45 pm -0500 on 11/11/97, Monty wrote: >> As Michel Foucault used to say, "The only guarantee of freedom is >> freedom itself." > >The world's foremost pseudomystical relativist cited to support an >absolutist position. The logic escapes me. But then, logic, much less >independent thinking, was never Foucault's strong point. Physician heal thyself! Much of your discussion consists of ad hominem attacks with little content such as the paragraph quoted above. The Foucault discussion quoted is worth reading. Unfortunately, it's been a long time and I cannot provide a reference. At any rate, the upshot of his argument was that there are often attempts to ensure freedom, but in reality it can only be assured through its exercise. He gave the example of a building in France which was designed to make people feel free. Instead of winding little corridors and small rooms where people would be locked away, it had a large open courtyard and it was designed so that when you entered the building, everybody could see you and you could see them. Foucault argued that in the context of people who are free, this building would have the intended effect. In the context of a fearful and oppressive society, the effect would be quite the opposite. Everybody would feel that they were being watched all the time. >> Put another way, "rights which are not exercised are lost." > >True enough, but it doesn't follow from your Foucault quote very >much. Besides, I'd rather say "because it can be done, it will be >done." Especially if it's better. If Tim believes that a judge has committed a capital crime, I want to hear about it. If Tim and others fail to exercise their right to say what they believe, then it is likely those rights will be suspended in due time. >So, by the same token, I would also say that if you're going to >threaten a federal judge with death on a public email list, it might >behoove you to use a nym and a remailer. Like you do, Monty. Using a >nym and a remailer, I mean, not threatening a federal judge. :-). It seems to me that Tim said "The judge in the Paladin case committed a capital crime" and not "The judge in the Paladin case committed a capital crime and should be gunned down in the streets like a dog." Tim is a good writer. If he meant the latter I am sure he would have written the latter. If anything, the term "capital crime" suggests a legal proceeding. Personally, I don't consider violation of oath of office a capital crime. But, the judge should be fired. He clearly isn't taking the Constitution very seriously. >> Just because free speech is a right guaranteed under the Constitution >> does not mean that is necessarily a safe right to exercise. Let us >> hope that Tim does not come to harm. But, let us also give him the >> credit he deserves for having the courage to speak his mind. > >Yes. Fine. Tim has courage. God bless him. Hope he enjoys his >firefight. I don't understand why you keep insulting Tim. Your first post was insulting and comments like these are likewise insulting. >> I've been reading about a newspaper called the "Aurora" which >> operated in the 1790s from Philadelphia. > >Yes. I read it too, when it came out. Franklin was my favorite >patriot. Aurora was founded by his grandson(?), if I remember. The >one who went with Franklin to Paris, as a kid, right? The book I am reading is called "The Aurora: A Democratic-Republican Returns" by Richard N. Rosenfeld. >> It made itself very unpopular with >> Washington by claiming he was not the "Father of the Country". It >> made itself doubly unpopular with Adams for other less than >> respectful, but astute, observations. > >Right. And then Adams passed the Alien and Sedition laws. And then >the Supreme court took him out. Game over. We must be reading different books. The Supreme Court did nothing while the Executive Branch ran rampant. My guess is that the members of the Court identified with the political faction represented by the Adams administration. Incidentally, it has only been during the 20th century that the Court has protected the Bill of Rights in any significant way. After the editor of "The Aurora" was publicly beaten by Federal troops, citizens of Philadelphia formed an armed militia and stood guard outside the offices of the newspaper. That's why it wasn't suppressed. Here's an example of what was going on (pp: 526-527): > In the midst of this campaign [for the House of Representatives], > the federal government indicted Matthew Lyon for sedition (October > 5), arrested him (October 6), tried him without legal representation > (October 8), fined him $1,000, and sentenced him to four months in > prison (starting October 9). His "seditious libel" was the claim > that President John Adams has demonstrated "a continual grasp for > power" and an "unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp, foolish > adulation, or selfish avarice," &c. Today, Vermont Congressional > Congressman Matthew Lyon is in jail." The Alien and Sedition Acts had a built in expiration period at the end of Adams's term so that they couldn't be used against the party that passed them. They also did not apply to speech against the Vice President, Thomas Jefferson, who did not belong to the Adams faction. When Jefferson was elected he pardoned everybody who was tried under these acts. Abigail Adams apparently wrote him about these pardonings. She had been quite enthused about the suppression of free speech in the United States and was upset that people who insulted her husband, in her view, would be allowed to go unpunished. Jefferson's reply (page 902): > I discharged every person under punishment or prosecution under the > Sedition law, because I considered and now consider that law to be a > nullity as absolute and as palpable as if Congress had ordered us to > fall down and worship a golden image... [The discharge] was > accordingly done in every instance without asking what the offenders > had done or against whom they had offended but whether the pains > they were suffering were inflicted under the pretended sedition law. > It was certainly possible that my motives... might have been to > protect, encourage, and reward slander; but they may also have > been... to protect the Constitution violated by an unauthorized act > of Congress. Which of these were my motives must be decided by a > regard to the general tenor of my life. On this I am not afraid to > appeal to the nation at large, to posterity, and still less to that > Being who sees himself our motives, who will judge us from his own > knowledge of them, and not on the testimony of Porcupine or Fenno. The Constitutional mechanisms to preserve liberty all failed, except for the election of 1800. >> If they would only behave (i.e., go along with anything), then they >> wouldn't have to be censored. > >Hogwash. What the conventional wisdom held, back in the 1790's, was a >bunch of neoaristocratic justifications for the devine rights of the >state, reminiscent of the devine rights of kings, and that George >Washington, as the victor of the revolutionary war, deserved as much >power as he wanted. Abigail Adams (page 84): > Bache [editor of the "Aurora"] has the malice & falsehood of > Satin... But the wretched will provoke to measures which will > silence them e'er long. An abused and insulted publick cannot > tollerate them much longer. In short they are so criminal that they > ought to be Presented by the grand jurors. >Fortunately, a certain "nym" named Publius advocated the separation >of powers in the constitution, which created a supreme court, which >used Jefferson's Bill of Rights to shut all that crap down before it >went too far, modulo a little jail time for those who crash-tested >the idea. 1. Publius was John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison. Jay and Hamilton were leaders of the party attempting to subvert the Constitution. 2. The Federalist version of the Constitution was intended to have aristocratic elements - the Senate and the President. Adams even suggested privately that the Senators should have life long terms and that Senate seats should be hereditary. 3. The separation of powers failed completely during the Adams administration. The Federalists had control of the Congress, the Executive Branch, and, I suspect, the Supreme Court. 4. The rights and freedoms of Americans were protected only by the fact that the voters threw the bastards out. Something to keep in mind when people tell us that the voters are less trustworthy than career politicans. 5. The Supreme Court did nothing. 6. Jefferson did not write the Bill of Rights. He was in France at the time and was pleased to hear these amendments had been added to the Constitution. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNGtV2ZaWtjSmRH/5AQHeZQf/UiD0ctd+xy8CUE8ednsENDNNCrVWXvTy UxYuRm2KtRCYVZ4Yg7C5kPEqpHU3xAWgifB4ZYKHb22rmgYa1cz3U2ZDBluMl74h mgAgZU2Rry+tDRs2TtHJWFFgQfscgRjFBG7rRxWdD0n9G5KwBcR3ne60wU5KzPbs kR0FpXjh+Q0PFSKWJOfY65xs33Wn6auUBUXKZTUI4fPowt4DmQKaWPtsSzv4ojxE LOXEhvngMQl5Y729ZOmfIW1uQtGp3EUbDOheC1wb6szzFEgfr1TsZntHRnkiTqyJ ssOAvq7XzeDROEehhVlsXUfYCmCcNIq1UakDKSpouUAMhBrwYVCK9A== =MUMa -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2

No Subject
by Georg Josef Uphoff 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1 0

Re: Br'er Tim and the Bug Hole
by nobody＠neva.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Robert Hettinga wrote: >At 7:45 pm -0500 on 11/11/97, Monty wrote: >> As Michel Foucault used to say, "The only guarantee of freedom is >> freedom itself." > >The world's foremost pseudomystical relativist cited to support an >absolutist position. The logic escapes me. But then, logic, much less >independent thinking, was never Foucault's strong point. Physician heal thyself! Much of your discussion consists of ad hominem attacks with little content such as the paragraph quoted above. The Foucault discussion quoted is worth reading. Unfortunately, it's been a long time and I cannot provide a reference. At any rate, the upshot of his argument was that there are often attempts to ensure freedom, but in reality it can only be assured through its exercise. He gave the example of a building in France which was designed to make people feel free. Instead of winding little corridors and small rooms where people would be locked away, it had a large open courtyard and it was designed so that when you entered the building, everybody could see you and you could see them. Foucault argued that in the context of people who are free, this building would have the intended effect. In the context of a fearful and oppressive society, the effect would be quite the opposite. Everybody would feel that they were being watched all the time. >> Put another way, "rights which are not exercised are lost." > >True enough, but it doesn't follow from your Foucault quote very >much. Besides, I'd rather say "because it can be done, it will be >done." Especially if it's better. If Tim believes that a judge has committed a capital crime, I want to hear about it. If Tim and others fail to exercise their right to say what they believe, then it is likely those rights will be suspended in due time. >So, by the same token, I would also say that if you're going to >threaten a federal judge with death on a public email list, it might >behoove you to use a nym and a remailer. Like you do, Monty. Using a >nym and a remailer, I mean, not threatening a federal judge. :-). It seems to me that Tim said "The judge in the Paladin case committed a capital crime" and not "The judge in the Paladin case committed a capital crime and should be gunned down in the streets like a dog." Tim is a good writer. If he meant the latter I am sure he would have written the latter. If anything, the term "capital crime" suggests a legal proceeding. Personally, I don't consider violation of oath of office a capital crime. But, the judge should be fired. He clearly isn't taking the Constitution very seriously. >> Just because free speech is a right guaranteed under the Constitution >> does not mean that is necessarily a safe right to exercise. Let us >> hope that Tim does not come to harm. But, let us also give him the >> credit he deserves for having the courage to speak his mind. > >Yes. Fine. Tim has courage. God bless him. Hope he enjoys his >firefight. I don't understand why you keep insulting Tim. Your first post was insulting and comments like these are likewise insulting. >> I've been reading about a newspaper called the "Aurora" which >> operated in the 1790s from Philadelphia. > >Yes. I read it too, when it came out. Franklin was my favorite >patriot. Aurora was founded by his grandson(?), if I remember. The >one who went with Franklin to Paris, as a kid, right? The book I am reading is called "The Aurora: A Democratic-Republican Returns" by Richard N. Rosenfeld. >> It made itself very unpopular with >> Washington by claiming he was not the "Father of the Country". It >> made itself doubly unpopular with Adams for other less than >> respectful, but astute, observations. > >Right. And then Adams passed the Alien and Sedition laws. And then >the Supreme court took him out. Game over. We must be reading different books. The Supreme Court did nothing while the Executive Branch ran rampant. My guess is that the members of the Court identified with the political faction represented by the Adams administration. Incidentally, it has only been during the 20th century that the Court has protected the Bill of Rights in any significant way. After the editor of "The Aurora" was publicly beaten by Federal troops, citizens of Philadelphia formed an armed militia and stood guard outside the offices of the newspaper. That's why it wasn't suppressed. Here's an example of what was going on (pp: 526-527): > In the midst of this campaign [for the House of Representatives], > the federal government indicted Matthew Lyon for sedition (October > 5), arrested him (October 6), tried him without legal representation > (October 8), fined him $1,000, and sentenced him to four months in > prison (starting October 9). His "seditious libel" was the claim > that President John Adams has demonstrated "a continual grasp for > power" and an "unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp, foolish > adulation, or selfish avarice," &c. Today, Vermont Congressional > Congressman Matthew Lyon is in jail." The Alien and Sedition Acts had a built in expiration period at the end of Adams's term so that they couldn't be used against the party that passed them. They also did not apply to speech against the Vice President, Thomas Jefferson, who did not belong to the Adams faction. When Jefferson was elected he pardoned everybody who was tried under these acts. Abigail Adams apparently wrote him about these pardonings. She had been quite enthused about the suppression of free speech in the United States and was upset that people who insulted her husband, in her view, would be allowed to go unpunished. Jefferson's reply (page 902): > I discharged every person under punishment or prosecution under the > Sedition law, because I considered and now consider that law to be a > nullity as absolute and as palpable as if Congress had ordered us to > fall down and worship a golden image... [The discharge] was > accordingly done in every instance without asking what the offenders > had done or against whom they had offended but whether the pains > they were suffering were inflicted under the pretended sedition law. > It was certainly possible that my motives... might have been to > protect, encourage, and reward slander; but they may also have > been... to protect the Constitution violated by an unauthorized act > of Congress. Which of these were my motives must be decided by a > regard to the general tenor of my life. On this I am not afraid to > appeal to the nation at large, to posterity, and still less to that > Being who sees himself our motives, who will judge us from his own > knowledge of them, and not on the testimony of Porcupine or Fenno. The Constitutional mechanisms to preserve liberty all failed, except for the election of 1800. >> If they would only behave (i.e., go along with anything), then they >> wouldn't have to be censored. > >Hogwash. What the conventional wisdom held, back in the 1790's, was a >bunch of neoaristocratic justifications for the devine rights of the >state, reminiscent of the devine rights of kings, and that George >Washington, as the victor of the revolutionary war, deserved as much >power as he wanted. Abigail Adams (page 84): > Bache [editor of the "Aurora"] has the malice & falsehood of > Satin... But the wretched will provoke to measures which will > silence them e'er long. An abused and insulted publick cannot > tollerate them much longer. In short they are so criminal that they > ought to be Presented by the grand jurors. >Fortunately, a certain "nym" named Publius advocated the separation >of powers in the constitution, which created a supreme court, which >used Jefferson's Bill of Rights to shut all that crap down before it >went too far, modulo a little jail time for those who crash-tested >the idea. 1. Publius was John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison. Jay and Hamilton were leaders of the party attempting to subvert the Constitution. 2. The Federalist version of the Constitution was intended to have aristocratic elements - the Senate and the President. Adams even suggested privately that the Senators should have life long terms and that Senate seats should be hereditary. 3. The separation of powers failed completely during the Adams administration. The Federalists had control of the Congress, the Executive Branch, and, I suspect, the Supreme Court. 4. The rights and freedoms of Americans were protected only by the fact that the voters threw the bastards out. Something to keep in mind when people tell us that the voters are less trustworthy than career politicans. 5. The Supreme Court did nothing. 6. Jefferson did not write the Bill of Rights. He was in France at the time and was pleased to hear these amendments had been added to the Constitution. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNGtV2ZaWtjSmRH/5AQHeZQf/UiD0ctd+xy8CUE8ednsENDNNCrVWXvTy UxYuRm2KtRCYVZ4Yg7C5kPEqpHU3xAWgifB4ZYKHb22rmgYa1cz3U2ZDBluMl74h mgAgZU2Rry+tDRs2TtHJWFFgQfscgRjFBG7rRxWdD0n9G5KwBcR3ne60wU5KzPbs kR0FpXjh+Q0PFSKWJOfY65xs33Wn6auUBUXKZTUI4fPowt4DmQKaWPtsSzv4ojxE LOXEhvngMQl5Y729ZOmfIW1uQtGp3EUbDOheC1wb6szzFEgfr1TsZntHRnkiTqyJ ssOAvq7XzeDROEehhVlsXUfYCmCcNIq1UakDKSpouUAMhBrwYVCK9A== =MUMa -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

5 4

FC: CEI says Nader's anti-Microsoft campaign hurts consumers (fwd)
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 16:50:45 -0500 From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship-announce(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: FC: CEI says Nader's anti-Microsoft campaign hurts consumers [CEI (http://www.cei.org/) is a free-market nonpartisan think tank here in Washington, DC. --Declan] ******* Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 16:11:36 -0500 From: Emily McGee <emcgee(a)cei.org> To: "'declan(a)well.com'" <declan(a)well.com> Subject: Posting for fc Competitive Enterprise Institute For Immediate Release Contact: Wayne Crews CEI (202) 331-1010 Ralph Nader's Anti-Microsoft Campaign Hurts Consumers WASHINGTON, DC, November 12 , 1997 - The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) suspects that Ralph Nader does not speak for all consumers in his current crusade against Microsoft. Nader is hosting a November 13-14 conference in Washington, D.C entitled "Appraising Microsoft and Its Global Strategy." Designed to elicit public support for federal antitrust action against the company's expansion of computer services, "Appraising Microsoft" features speakers prominently drawn from the ranks of Microsoft's rivals. According to Nader and some competitors, Microsoft's offering of its web browser free with the Windows 95 operating system is only the latest in the company's long line of "offenses." Yet consumers consistently benefit when more and better features are added to computers. As noted in the Washington Post, the computing power of today's $2,800 "Wintel" would have required a multi-million-dollar Cray supercomputer a decade ago. Indeed, "voting" with their mouse button, consumers have voluntarily downloaded millions of copies of Microsoft's new web browser. "The Competitive Enterprise Institute hopes the media covering 'Appraising Microsoft' will maintain a healthy skepticism and explore who really gains if the government substitutes its will for the free choices of individuals in the marketplace," CEI fellow Wayne Crews noted. "Antitrust authorities must guard against Microsoft's rivals' efforts to 'compete' in court to achieve what they couldn't by consumers' voluntary consent. "Ralph Nader's brand of 'consumer advocacy' is confusing," Crews noted. "When outside crusaders and government forcibly limit consumers' free choices and slam the brakes on a torrent of low-cost features, they increase consumer prices and prop up less-efficient competitors." Crews continued, "This is not pro-consumer behavior, it is merely anti-Microsoft behavior." "Consumers have spoken, and there is nothing amiss in their having chosen an operating system standard that some happen to despise," Crews concluded. "Let's hope Ralph Nader hears consumers more than the complaints of competitive also-rans." To address some of the common complaints against Microsoft, CEI today also released the attached two-pager "Five Myths About Microsoft." CEI is a non-profit, non-partisan public policy group dedicated to free markets and limited government. For more information contact Wayne Crews at 202-331-1010. -30- The Competitive Enterprise Institute's Five Myths About Microsoft* (Note: The following "myths" apply to many of today's supposed examples of "lock-in" of allegedly inefficient technologies. Microsoft happens to be the most prominently cited example of the phenomenon.) Leveraging Windows to Dominate the Browser Market Represents Unfair Competition: A popular myth today is that a savvy company can routinely leverage a "monopoly" in one product to force on consumers a product that they do not want. Companies lack this ability. Microsoft was unable to sell consumers on its Microsoft Network rival to America Online -- even though MSN had been "bundled" with the Windows 95 operating system. Similarly, Microsoft Money still lags behind Quicken. And as Netscape learned the hard way by bundling its Navigator browser with its Communicator suite, and as Apple leaned by bundling its entire computer with its operating system, bundling products doesn't work unless consumers want the bundling. In any case, Netscape, not Microsoft, dominates today's browser market, and retains every opportunity to maintain dominance by satisfying customers. In a sense, browser competition could hardly be more perfect: Because downloading Netscape's Navigator or Microsoft's Internet Explorer is equally simple, either firm will have to win on the basis of superior features. Microsoft Illegitimately Dominates Operating System Software: Microsoft's rivals tend to imply that Microsoft's operating system is utterly impervious, seemingly as if it dropped out of the sky unbidden. Rather, rivalry among operating systems for desktop dominance has been and still is intense. Microsoft's operating system dominance was not pre-ordained. Nothing prevented Sun, whose UNIX operating system was developed ten years before MS-DOS, from transferring that technology to the early PC marketplace. Nor did anyone force Sun to wait until 1991 to finally introduce a version for the Intel x86 platform. No one forced Apple back in 1984 to take the course it chose in not licensing its operating system to others as Microsoft did. There is nothing unseemly about one competitor winning out over the others and setting a standard. That was the purpose of the nearly 20 years of protracted battle, during which consumers made their choice. Microsoft is Illegitimately Monopolizing the Internet: Some claim Microsoft's proprietary knowledge and policies on sharing information about its operating system are oppressive and geared toward helping Microsoft dominate the Internet with its own software. But on the other hand, it would appear that, while application developers do depend upon Windows 95, Microsoft in turn has a stake in nurturing developers' success rather than in undermining them. But for the sake of argument, take the critics at their word: If such dissatisfaction with Microsoft is indeed universal, then the market is ripe for moving to a new platform - just as we moved rapidly from vinyl records to compact disks. There's no need for government to step in if a problem really exists: If Microsoft ($9 billion in 1996 revenues) were untrustworthy, nothing prevents the formation of consortia between developers and (for example) Compaq ($18 billion), Sun ($7 billion), and Apple ($8 billion) and others to offer consumers their allegedly superior hardware and software alternatives. Indeed, competitors by their own account already have another option. Given their glowing claims about the superiority of Sun's Java programming language -- which allows programs to execute in Netscape's browser on any operating system -- competitors should simply issue applications programs in Java format and be done with it. Otherwise, consumers retain the right to deal unobstructed with Microsoft to secure the services that competitors cannot yet provide. (Moreover, nothing precludes the future creation of rival "Javas" that work better.) Longer term, particle physicist Michio Kaku in his book Visions anticipates a future of 1-cent microprocessors as plentiful as scrap paper, a world where desktop computers will be only one among myriad devices connected to the Internet. Additionally, as engineers approach the physical limits of silicon chips, revolutions in quantum computing and DNA computing will change the competitive landscape. Microsoft has no obvious advantage in such a world, though it should be free to offer services there. The Consent Decree with the Justice Department Should Preclude Bundling a Web Browser With Windows: A technical legal debate exists over whether the bundling of Microsoft's browser is an allowed enhancement to the Windows operating system, or whether it is a disallowed "separate product." One problem with the claim that Internet Explorer is not allowed under the consent decree is that the browser was offered with Windows 95 at the outset. But most relevant, such arbitrary distinctions interest only those with a stake in using government force to overrule customers' free choices. In a free market, products must evolve and be "bundled" as consumer demand and convenience requires. Making artificial distinctions between the retrieval of data on the hard drive vs. on the Internet is counterproductive, unfair and anti-consumer. Prohibiting Microsoft's branching out into the Internet artificially cripples the company, just as did a former consent decree with Sears prevent it from anchoring stores in shopping malls. Microsoft Borrows and Doesn't Innovate: Subjective criticisms about whether a company is an innovator are hardly grounds for police action and completely irrelevant to an antitrust proceeding. What matters as far as free markets are concerned is the ability to meet needs and market one's offering. The history of innovative business is one in which enterprising businessmen and engineers take the scientists' inventions out of the laboratory and make them practical for consumers. Thus innovation need not equate with invention. For example, Microsoft indeed didn't invent MS-DOS -- its key operating system during its early history -- but it purchased and owns it. Apple's graphical user interface, typically regarded as having been copied by Microsoft, was actually "borrowed" from Xerox PARC by both companies. Neither "innovated," strictly speaking. Nonetheless, it is disingenuous to argue that any company's ability to anticipate consumer needs in positioning and improving its operating system, word processing and spreadsheet software reflects a lack of innovation. A better definition of innovation is one that includes a company's ability to deliver new services cheaply and efficiently to consumers. # # # -------------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is public. To join fight-censorship-announce, send "subscribe fight-censorship-announce" to majordomo(a)vorlon.mit.edu. More information is at http://www.eff.org/~declan/fc/

1 0

Re: Some IDIOT called CRYPTO CZAR INTERNATIONAL
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Please forward to this coward that have no balls to put his real email >address on his emails (I using you guys as he put CC to you guys in his >letter, but by no means does this reffer to you). Well, you don't like anonymity. No hope scoring points there. >Dear CRYPTO CZAR INTERNATIONAL Idiot, Well, that was an ad hominem attack against the poster of a bit of satire. >4) Try to keep your pathetic self away from the court room, as next time >around you will face legal steps for alleging "fraud". Learn to use message authentication. A company which claims to sell such strong algorithms but doesn't employ message authentication makes one wonder. >Maybe you really should try and develop some future encryption algorithm >instead of mumbling with envy showing your stupidity and ignorance, But on >the other hand you're probably not capable of - you're too narrow minded >and busy sticking your long nose where it does not belong. >Do us and you a favour, keep yourself in your pathetic hole and shut your >mouth up. Another ad hominem. You're on a roll. >Thanks and worst regards, No problem. Don't mention it.

1 0

Yeah, but you can do anything with statistics... / WAS: Troublemaking Bleeding Heart Liberals
by TruthMonger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

* In July, a group of lawyers and state legislators petitioned the Illinois Supreme Court to halt all executions immediately and appoint a commission to study why, in the 20 years since the state reinstituted the death penalty, more death row convicts have been subsequently been found innocent and freed (9) than have been executed (8). ~~~~~~~ To read these News of the Weird newspaper columns from the past six months, go to http://www.nine.org/notw/notw.html (That site contains no graphics, no photos, no video clips, no audio. Just text. Deal with it.)

1 0