December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Report on UN conference on Internet and racism (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 09:45:35 -0500 (EST) > From: Jon Galt <jongalt(a)pinn.net> > Subject: Re: Report on UN conference on Internet and racism > being committed. (Of course there is another definition of crime.) How about an act which harms a person or their property without their prior permission? ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Re: Further costs of war
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Robert Hettinga wrote: >Of course, all the pseudoconstitutionalist claptrap about the 16th >being unconstitutional is, of course, that. The constitution's what >the Supreme Court says it is, unfortunately. Personally, I do not believe in the infallibility of the Supreme Court. The people on the Court are just people. They can make mistakes. They can have ulterior motives. They can be corrupt. The Constitution is understood by many people to be something like a charter in which the people of the United States granted the government certain powers, reserving all others to themselves. The Constitution has meaning. The Supreme Court may not amend this meaning, it may only interpret it. When the Court makes a decision which is obviously not consistent with the meaning of the Constitution it is reasonable to say that the Court is in error. In an extreme situation many people would say that it is reasonable for the people of the United States to revoke the Charter granted to this government. Consider this scenario: Chief Justice Rehnquist appears in Court wearing a tutu. He declares that the Court has just decided that in emergency situations it is proper and Constitutional for the Supreme Court to take control of the government to protect democracy. Would it be reasonable to say that the Constitution had changed or would it be reasonable to put the Chief Justice in the loony bin? Let's take an example from history. The United States decides to enter World War I. People who are opposed to this war and to the draft make speeches opposing both policies. A law is passed forbidding this activity. The Chief Justice declares that speech may be controlled if it is akin to "yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded movie house." Following this logic, the government jails people who speak against the War and the draft. One of these people, Eugene Debs, campaigns from jail for the Presidency and gets about a million votes. Would it be proper to conclude that speaking against the War may be punished Constitutionally or that the Court had failed to carry out its duties? 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 iQEVAwUBNHm/SZaWtjSmRH/5AQEifgf/U1n6bFaEy66IyuezGhSG0AbDPCKBfwWd iMuqhy5ZoHqJR/v0RHw2Wupp3ACuYe/CgUrrftN0bzr8WaWThMr8H2kxsnxNoHX4 0cowJfnRxnJkSNoFKYa+t3y/otjYW+YRWBfoyKktvwiK30r7H2jisKPAoOCir8NP W5P10QhzKAvCp/16sCEpqYbzbXDnaiY9D55E6Ew7mLEECeGm+raATUvayksA+BT/ RNhZXQTYMYk7AfeqKxp7fuikQegTRbwC8d4G0jT6kduFOWvI4YaQIKam+eR8Dec9 jzDO5ckcPLaB80p6jQEc0nob4ltBz4mbDqqnc2YBfsAvTSKBIGKKCQ== =IzrC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: Report on UN conference on Internet and racism (fwd)
by Jim Burnes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 22:19:18 -0600 From: TruthMonger <tm(a)dev.null> Reply-To: 6ualdv8(a)sk.sympatico.ca To: Jim Burnes <jim.burnes(a)ssds.com> Subject: Re: Report on UN conference on Internet and racism Jim Burnes wrote: > (ahem...now back to your regularly scheduled silliness) Jim, Did you get enough drugs to share with *everybody*? Actually I'm fresh out. I think I'll go back to the coffee pot and brew some more... ;-)

1 0

Gov May Tighten Crypto Exports
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Markoff reports today on a plan to tighten crypto exports for non-bank financial companies and reactions from industry trying to loosen them: http://www.nytimes.com Mirrored: http://jya.com/tighten.txt

2 1

Re: Further costs of war (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Subject: Re: Further costs of war (fwd) > From: dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) > Date: Mon, 24 Nov 97 00:46:22 EST > While I have no love for the japs, I mus point out in all fairness that > FDR was attacking them on all fronts for years: 1) stopping the japs > from immigrating into the us, 2) cutting off their supplies of raw > materials (and therefore pushing the japs to conquer the territories > that would assure the supply). In particular, right before the japs > attacked pearl harbor, the US embargoed oil shipments to the japs. > The japs had said previously that they'd consider such an embargo > as a declaration of war. In particular, their line about p.h. was > that it wasn't a "sulplise attack", and that the US had previously > declared war on the japs by imposing the embargo. The Japanese joined the Tri-partite on Sept. 27, 1940. 5 days later it began its first attacks in Indo-china, 13 months prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor. America was shocked by these acts and interpreted them as openly hostile and tended to strengthen Chian Kai-shek's claims as the legitimate Chinese authority. Prior to this signing Japanese forces had advanced up the Kowloon Peninsula to glair through the wire at Hong Kong. Tokyo demanded the British close the Burma Road and cease all war material trade with China. The British requested the Americans invoke a general embargo as well as moving naval forces to the western Pacific. The Americans rejected all these suggestions. They had moved the Pacific Fleet from the West Coast to Pearl Harbor. Because of the upcoming election it was felt that such actions would be interpreted as support for the British colonialism which was politicaly unacceptable to much of America. The British responded by offering to close the Burma Road for 3 months (during the monsoon season when there was little traffic to interrupt). Only in July of 1940, 2 months before Japan signed the act, did Roosevelt finaly put an embargo in place which covered aviation fuel, lubricants, and certain scrap iron and steel. In September the regulations were tightened. Only in Nov. after being re-elected did he include copper, zinc, brass, oil-drilling equipment, and other strategic materials. It's important to note that as early as January 1941 the Emporer had ordered Yamamoto to review the attack on Hawaii. Presumably because he felt uncomfortable with the entire thing. So the time line is something like this: 15 months prior to Pearl Harbor the US places an embargo on Japan presumably because of their aggressive policies. 13 months prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor the Japanese sign the Tri-partite Act. 12 months prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor the Emporer gets cold feet and orders a review of the plan. > My recollection is that Hitler's generla staff was busily designing the > plans for invading the US, to be implemented after he was done with > the GB and the USSR. They involved invading via his latin american > allies (notably mexico) and possibly canada. However there was no > way to sell the war against germany to the american public, except > as part of a package deal with the war on japs. Actualy at the time, German invasion through Mexico was felt to be a real possibility. There was significant build-up of both covert agents in Mexico as well as military forces along the border during this time. Note, I would appreciate any references to the regulation of Japanese nationals transiting through or applying for residence in the US during this period. Can't say that I've ever seen this issue in anything I've read. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

2 1

No Subject
by bureau42 Anonymous Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timmy Maypole studied yoga back-streching exercises for five years so he could blow himself (nobody else will). _ {~} ( V-) Timmy Maypole '|Y|' _|||_

2 1

Re: Further costs of war
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 00:02:01 +0100 (MET) > From: nobody(a)REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) > Subject: Further Costs of War Hi Monty, I have a couple of questions... > A few more comments on World War II. > > Had World War II been prevented, along with deaths of 50 million or so > people, we would also have been spared (in the United States) income > tax withholding. Previously the only people paying income tax were > fairly wealthy and there was no withholding. Any particular methodology you might care to share on stopping WWII? Being an avid amateur historian concerning WWII I am very much interested in any insight you might have. As to taxation and withholding: ARTICLE XVI. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. [25 February 1913.] Notice the date of implimentation, considerably before WWII, it is in fact the year before the US became involved in WWI. Perhaps you meant WWI instead of WWII? Citizens of the US have been paying taxes since 1914. > I doubt very much that income tax withholding would have been accepted > if the War were not used to justify it. ("You don't want to pay > taxes? What are you, a traitor?") What war? The taxes came about because of issues other than fighting a war which hadn't even happened yet. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

4 4

Re: Further costs of war
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Robert Hettinga wrote: >Of course, all the pseudoconstitutionalist claptrap about the 16th >being unconstitutional is, of course, that. The constitution's what >the Supreme Court says it is, unfortunately. Personally, I do not believe in the infallibility of the Supreme Court. The people on the Court are just people. They can make mistakes. They can have ulterior motives. They can be corrupt. The Constitution is understood by many people to be something like a charter in which the people of the United States granted the government certain powers, reserving all others to themselves. The Constitution has meaning. The Supreme Court may not amend this meaning, it may only interpret it. When the Court makes a decision which is obviously not consistent with the meaning of the Constitution it is reasonable to say that the Court is in error. In an extreme situation many people would say that it is reasonable for the people of the United States to revoke the Charter granted to this government. Consider this scenario: Chief Justice Rehnquist appears in Court wearing a tutu. He declares that the Court has just decided that in emergency situations it is proper and Constitutional for the Supreme Court to take control of the government to protect democracy. Would it be reasonable to say that the Constitution had changed or would it be reasonable to put the Chief Justice in the loony bin? Let's take an example from history. The United States decides to enter World War I. People who are opposed to this war and to the draft make speeches opposing both policies. A law is passed forbidding this activity. The Chief Justice declares that speech may be controlled if it is akin to "yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded movie house." Following this logic, the government jails people who speak against the War and the draft. One of these people, Eugene Debs, campaigns from jail for the Presidency and gets about a million votes. Would it be proper to conclude that speaking against the War may be punished Constitutionally or that the Court had failed to carry out its duties? 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 iQEVAwUBNHm/SZaWtjSmRH/5AQEifgf/U1n6bFaEy66IyuezGhSG0AbDPCKBfwWd iMuqhy5ZoHqJR/v0RHw2Wupp3ACuYe/CgUrrftN0bzr8WaWThMr8H2kxsnxNoHX4 0cowJfnRxnJkSNoFKYa+t3y/otjYW+YRWBfoyKktvwiK30r7H2jisKPAoOCir8NP W5P10QhzKAvCp/16sCEpqYbzbXDnaiY9D55E6Ew7mLEECeGm+raATUvayksA+BT/ RNhZXQTYMYk7AfeqKxp7fuikQegTRbwC8d4G0jT6kduFOWvI4YaQIKam+eR8Dec9 jzDO5ckcPLaB80p6jQEc0nob4ltBz4mbDqqnc2YBfsAvTSKBIGKKCQ== =IzrC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Mondex help needed
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I just received one of the Chase Manhattan Mondex cards. Since I've been doing a bit of work with smartcards lately <https://www.cypherpunks.to/scard/>, I'd like to take an extended look at this card. The task would be much easier if I had one or several of the following: o Mondex card Programer Reference Manual. Somebody on this list must have access to one. o Protocol specifications. Even partial specs would be helpful. o Any PC software that talks RS-232 to a reader that is meant to hold a Mondex card. And of course the reader. If the reader work with non-Mondex cards, all the better, because that probably means that the reader is generic and the commands can be reverse engineered and emulated. o An RS-232 adapter to the PCMCIA sized reader that came with my Chase Mondex card and associated PC software. The reader has a tiny connector on the side meant to connect to a serial port adapter. Since this is a Mondex-only reader, I am not sure how much of the intelligence resides in the reader. Listening to the communication between the PC software and this particular reader may not provide much information. Your help is much appreciated. Anonymous donations are accepted and encouraged. Thanks, -- Lucky Green <shamrock(a)cypherpunks.to> PGP v5 encrypted email preferred. "Tonga? Where the hell is Tonga? They have Cypherpunks there?"

3 3

Re: Further costs of war (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 13:04:13 -0500 > From: Fabrice Planchon <fabrice(a)math.Princeton.EDU> > Subject: Re: Further costs of war (fwd) > Reread what you quoted below, and you will see that I don't want to > debate over wether or not in a frontal clash between USSR and Japan the > japanese army wins or not. I will grant you they win the first > battle. The same way the germans won for a while... And even admittedly > if you destroy the organised forces from your enemy, it doesn't mean you > are done. You are only if you manage to get the population on your > side. Dimitri makes a very good point in his post, saying that the > germans fucked up in the west, as they could have taken great advantage > from being seen as liberators. As for "Moscow fall, Stalin fall", > remember Napoleon ? Napolean never took Moscow, he was stopped - just like Hitler - at the gates. The closest either French or German forces got was to look at the spires of the Kremlin. Beyond that similarity there are a wide range of differences between the situation. The fact remains that had Stalin *not* been able to withdraw troops from the Chinese border he would not have been able to keep Stalingrad or Moscow. Further, the *only* reason that Stalin could afford to do that was because Sorge indicated that the Japanese were interested in other goals at the time. Oh, regarding Napolean, the reason that he couldn't take Moscow was because troops, called Cossacks, were moved from the east to the west. > > Had it not been for the oil, food, and weapons we shipped Britian he would > > have owned Europe in toto. It is clear from Hitlers earliest writings that > > he had full intention of taking Russia. Had Stalin not had Sorge's > > Yeah, he was stupid. That's my point ;-) Hitler may have been a lot of things, stupid was not one of them. > Ultimatly this cost them the game. Not enough men. Had the situation > last a little longer, japanese occupation forces in China would have > faced some serious problems (they were already, actually). Such as? The situation in China at the time was that a variety of warlords were spending more time fighting each other than the Japanese. China at that time was not a cohesive entity. The reason that Japan lost WWII was that at no point did they have strategic supplies of oil for longer than 5-9 months *and* the US waged unrestricted submarine warfare in the Pacific destroying what merchant marine the Japanese had so they could not take advantage of the oil refineries in such nifty places as Palembang, Sumatra (whose taking in Feb. 1942 was the first use of Japanese paratroops, all 700 were wiped out). It was not because they didn't have the men. > Well, in 34 it wasn't yet the case: when there were serious rumors that > Hitler might be tempted to invade Austria, Mussolini moved troops close > to his autrian border. He was a close friend of the austrian prime > minister of the time (later to be killed...). How Mussolini changed his > mind is a mix of his internal situation in Italy, and his rejection by > the rest of Europe... In 1934 Mussolini invaded Abyssinia all on his own, Hitler took the opportunity to march into the Rhineland while the rest of the world stood aghast at the use of modern weapons against stone-age tribesmen. The next thing Mussolini did was send troops to help Franco, troops which fought right along side Germans troops. On Nov. 30, 1938 Ciano made a comment in the Fascist Chamber about 'natural aspiration' and the members stood yelling "Corsica, Tunis, Nice!". The talk of taking Nice obviously did nothing to settle the French's worries. In July, 1938 5 billion lire was asigned to modernize the Italian forces. The Abyssinian campaign cost 13 billion lire and tied up 300,000 Italian troops. The help in Spain cost hardware and involved another 50,000 troops who were still there. When the Spanish Civil War ended in 1939 he invaded Albania, which was an Italian protectorate. By this time Italy as allied strongly to Germany in the minds of just about everyone. Around 12 August, 1939 after Ciano discovered the intended invasion of Poland and passed this to Mussolini did there become a measure of doubt in Mussolini's mind that perhaps he had picked the wrong allies. > I think you are the one playing games, not me. Once again, I don't > disagree with you on the fact that the US made the right decision > anyway. But had they waited until Hitler was knocking on their door it > wouldn't probably have changed the issue by much. (I would be a native > german-speaker, perhaps...) If the US had waited until Hitler began dropping bombs on New York and firing V2's from submarines 20 miles off the coast while at the same time Japan was doing the same sorts of things, with a nice base at Pearl Harbor, *and* you claim the US could have stood the test then I can only say you are confused at best. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

2 1