December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

re: Speech as co-conspiring? I don't think so.
by nobody＠neva.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Tim May wrote: >According to the dubious logic of that episode, no doubt they would >say they were innocent because they had not _met_ me on any >occasions. If, however, the prosecution could produce a witness >saying she had seen me in the company of the writer, director, >producer, etc., then their bacon would be cooked. By the logic of >their episode, of course. That's what their smart alecky lawyer will claim, anyway. I am confident that a jury made up of good red blooded Americans will see through this sham. The producers of the show certainly know that there are terrorist elements and psychopaths who would be watching. They know that these people will be turned on by the imagery of a BATF agent being brutally murdered. They could have told the same story using different imagery. Instead of using graphic violence, they could have expressed the idea of the BATF agent getting killed with a heartrending scene of his wife getting the phone call. That certainly would not have been inflammatory. But they didn't. The opted to go with a glorification of the act. Why? Incompetence won't wash - anybody getting to national TV has spent years in the business and is a total pro. They know what effect they are having. They glorified this act of violence to encourage others to do the same. Where is the FBI? Why isn't anybody doing anything? If the life of only one BATF agent is spared, it will be worthwhile! Think of his poor wife and kids. >>(*) Tim seems too wiley to be crazy. Instead, he seems to be playing >>The Most Dangerous Game: Fed baiting. >> > >It used to be called "free speech." > >Nowadays, admitting that one has guns is fed baiting. Admitting that >one will defend one's self is fed baiting. Admtting that one has read >certain books is fed baiting. And using unbreakable crypto is fed >baiting. > >Ah, what has the world come to? Remailers? ;-) 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 iQEVAwUBNFznlZaWtjSmRH/5AQHXxAf9H3MKpSwCCDl0HHjH8eKQ+k6p+knULe0y L4VHlx0ZHO45De3zIAkp/j4RMQtAxrC7tsWWbVe+FDeLUTJpOzZPauH43xAfcEsL nJZUkgIgMFv9CiUC5ybhjJdzyfTeuxeqo1juTVSQlOkUzqUb78EgawhsqebFeOlp /Qni+kVdjMeMiwoJR6wDL7bntVg5ojmiBH1CEdSth0hLm7fF7pn3kzJPlod0SXzJ NWanQa7TZwEpqkWFJ0n4ompYb/Hu6E407MhmushDQFT0W1/ayBP8pa3m65PmCSpf B/+Y49KK49b7GLUyHaoqJ8KB39+uVAbFZ4ZlX03/nXpUFUarGrV/tw== =NKOt -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: PGP compatibility
by nobody＠neva.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Lucky Green wrote: >On Sun, 2 Nov 1997, Robert A. Costner wrote: >> My copy of PGP 5.0 seems to be completely compatible with 2.6 versions. This >> message is signed, and my key is included within the message for those of you >> who have software that discards the non signed portion. (If you don't know >> how to extract my key, copy it and fix the broken dashed line, or use a >> keyserver) > >Of course your copy of PGP 5.0 is compatible with prior versions. I know >this, you know this, and the anonymous author claiming otherwise knows >this. He simply hopes that there are some people that don't know this. The >idea behind the original post and others like it over the last few days is >to spread FUD about PGP 5.0 after other attacks failed for lack of merrit. >If you repeat a lie often enough, eventually some people will believe you. >PSYOPS 101. Let's not fall for it. Actually, the cry of "Infowar!" itself could be used as a disruptive technique. It undermines dialogue. It breeds suspicion and paranoia. It encourages people to think of those who disagree with them as The Enemy. It can be used by a mole for cover. Gee, come to think of it, isn't Lucky the one who keeps trying to demoralize everyone by saying that Big Brother is inevitable? And, who was it that was waving around firearms at a Cypherpunks meeting? Isn't that a classic provocateur technique? (See the Earth First experience, for example.) Now, I think it's unlikely that Lucky is a mole. I'm just trying to show that once you start witch hunting, it turns out that the supply of witches tends to be highly responsive to demand. The Back Technique of fighting Infowar seems to be effective. Treat the claims of the suspected Infowarrior as if they are credible and carefully explain why there is an inaccuracy. 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 iQEVAwUBNFzh3ZaWtjSmRH/5AQH8FQf7BzzvEog2DpaqwcEaHC5uaxI8D5xE5m1l Vr1oToONAHmnXelol2vTDyNITymQAY/LpVP5liFGAI3sWUQuLJmPOnfYsLD4xCj0 ZG0dXjWoujkNbMWd/kDtCOmngeCO7c+nW7u1xrI0vJXKtPM3+ipkQNvmpo9mTSaW 2MGdFAsAdbsRoUUQYXcDqJ+A19O0pVhaCU9rlhuqcX/RlHgTrWXXZk8MRlEiPdq5 gJad0cWRHIWPgtSUmTQoRbwxyV6ZaUHlPpEUw0V9zdH7N9Cz4WS1c+ylUaY/L+OA lqEqWksZVDKTbW8Bwc/1Up5Eek/YXzj1kT/YMnxB2bbnASfIA19GtA== =E0Vy -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: effective GACK fighting (fwd)
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Blanc wrote: >Jim Choate wrote: >>But, why do we need a lawyer? We have the right to represent ourselves, why >>let somebody who has a intimate stake in the status quo represent us? > >Well, first of all I was being facetious, because of how people are always >saying we need Leadership (tm) and need to elect another President in order >to have a more Perfect Union. But I said we need a "good" lawyer - a >libertarian lawyer - because I expect that it would take someone who had >studied the legal system and made it their project to be well-educated and >articulate on these matters, to be able to successfully represent the >Consitutional values which we subscribe to. [snip] Fortunately some of these "good" lawyers already exist at the Institute for Justice. Basically, they are a libertarian version of the ACLU. They've accomplished some good things and deserve the support (read $$$) of freedom-minded individuals everywhere. (note: I'm not connected with them in any way; just letting the cypherpunk community know about an organization in sync with our views) "If you seek a courtroom champion for individual liberty, free market solutions, and limited government, look only as far as the Institute for Justice. When politicians pass sweepingly intrusive laws and bureaucrats build their empires of paperwork and power, only the Institute for Justice brings them to account in court." -- http://www.InstituteforJustice.org/ >>Has there ever been a law suite brought against the Supreme Court or >>Congress claiming their actions were unconstitutional? The amendment >>relating to taxation for a start, repeal individual taxation and return to >>the system originaly intended by the founding fathers. > >I don't know. But this is the sort of issue I was thinking of. Bill Benson has done some extensive research (his book is called The Law That Never Was) regarding the 16th Amendment (the so-called Income Tax Amendment) and how it was ratified. According to the information he has uncovered through exhaustive research in D.C. and all of the state capitals of the then 48 states, the 16th Amendment was never ratified by 3/4ths of the states. (see http://www.trustclarks.com/theman.html for more info) Friends of mine have spoken to Mr. Benson about this, and he says that the courts won't touch it with a ten foot pole. He even sells a package (or at least he was selling it back in 1995) of legal information about the non-ratification of the 16th that can be used as a defense in an income tax case. According to Mr. Benson (in 1995), each of the cases was dropped when the defense made it clear they were going to argue their defense based on this point. I understand that folks in the "patriot" movement have tried to take this to the Supreme Court without success. The Court refused to hear it. Assuming Mr. Benson's research is accurate and legitimate, the 16th didn't even come close to being ratified and is truly a Law That Never Was. Think about that next April 15th...the IRS's "lawful" authority is based upon a legal fiction. That's why it's called >voluntary< compliance. Nerthus - -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 mQENAzRc0lEDFQEIALF2JX7RgDLC6nnSa7BmcczGumTRxhXx5mHoqPcGY95VGAVD 49iN/+59BBrHKxOU5JX5F9kWEsBG92KbOdB3XGCsub7AYmCl+iMrG+h+vJl9qCyc 134sq7WNfInA9TxiQ28/DldHj++gDeQJr9BvUU8Ez2Iu70uW5T7rlHFyBUWQBh3P 2dB/Q9A/dixhAzNTaeTuVH4TunoyDN6OrRrSTdZhsPs8dLVLLeqKC3qM28wLX5Mt qQCUb/pRb9TR9ygwaznAIdqSJ1qc/xqlQY6U0Vh6YVOaId+MQwzsq1ZRPlW0kYSS wgka2WXELH5ZpQLmCppM1pdkHhm54VbBl7TmNwkABRG0I05lcnRodXMgPGN5cGhl cnB1bmtzQGN5YmVycGFzcy5uZXQ+iQEVAwUQNFzSUeFWwZe05jcJAQFxVQf/WUSH ltCrUpoQwQ9oTGCJiRycTQqUzDuqaqR55xgyz8W5mARixBigd/sL63EoBlQmyHR3 NIgwIW3I8hcPfUlXi84hsZ+89/HVW3CoMk2g6692UEoKHUX6bMkeAi85hIfJVhFj EONhx3xFmdOZqkEbdFm81J/0JJIhtAe0Ut2DPu4B49yjO7NBTg97QWwO6ZymE09v BUv5esuvdxFbmn8qfPHdurs+MrvoKbhZIA8Xz03eTS1auT8pNvdEO4EDaac0njZ4 5wAbAeC79AqztS75GpT7cf0jZcYJPwtW8LPXj7SQCMimseZ7/2OxNPditI9e58CI EL/Dl0D9qn1NRPiVwA== =8W8j - -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBNFzU4eFWwZe05jcJAQEuEQf/cU+8VTsG7GRbP14eMtUIs2Hb9jKmCD8v +au46lGCy8NuuMl+3leRGT9tAARoe2+yVg6FJbwzCZvJMBNIR3YmEEm3WxEH9TZQ ghVk1nrCtZg0eLdKSHYIV8q061kcrNmgtn/J8zP4SH39NtcHBfTaqpqt6wwky0jd 7A096utO4p3ip870ss4V5P2LiW71riJh3L/pqCJnUMbQleLT5OK/+el7tnUZYX2g 8mNNA5qydHIleyoDB72Aj3u15Z1TLmCKXGt+Uj3fwzytjYDtwfs9d+7AI7Kk1kBQ RLw07pNou03Fr3M8SSeSiSkUGea4Hv0j8wJtSjIQoJ9on03zOsJAlw== =+v+X -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Vote CypherPunk!
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 20:24 -0500 10/31/97, TruthMonger wrote: >* In August, the Boston Globe profiled the Taiwan National >Assembly (which specializes in constitutional issues), where it is >fairly common for the minority New Party to filibuster by merely >grabbing the microphone and physically restraining majority-party >members so that they cannot call for votes. Fights break out, >sometimes bloody ones. Said a local political science professor, "It >may not be civilized, but it's efficient" because citizens respond by >re-electing the aggressive legislators. I'd probably have a lot more respect for Congresscritters if they cared enough about any issue to physically fight about it. Maybe we could issue them weapons, too; then term limits would become a moot point. (Who would win if Jesse Helms and Diane Feinstein had a fight to the death? The American citizens.) A suitable quote from Monty Python: We would like to apologize for the way politicians are represented in this programme. It was never our intention to imply that politicians are weak-kneed, political time-servers who are concerned more with their personal vendettas and private power struggles than the problems of government, nor to suggest at any point that they sacrifice their credibility by denying free debate on vital matters in the mistaken impression that party unity comes before the well-being of the people they supposedly represent, nor to imply at any stage that they are squabbling little toadies without an ounce of concern for the vital social problems of today. Nor indeed do we intend that viewers should consider them as crabby ulcerous self-seeking vermin with furry legs and an addiction to alcohol and certain explicit sexual practices which some people might find offensive. We are sorry if this impression has come across. In fact, they could run this at the top of every hour on C-SPAN. I'll call my cable company.

2 1

Forwarded mail...
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 23:10:11 +0100 (MET) > To: cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net > From: nobody(a)REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) > Fortunately some of these "good" lawyers already exist at the Institute for > Justice. Basically, they are a libertarian version of the ACLU. They've > accomplished some good things and deserve the support (read $$$) of > freedom-minded individuals everywhere. (note: I'm not connected with them > in any way; just letting the cypherpunk community know about an organization > in sync with our views) > > "If you seek a courtroom champion for individual liberty, free market > solutions, and limited government, look only as far as the Institute > for Justice. When politicians pass sweepingly intrusive laws and > bureaucrats build their empires of paperwork and power, only the > Institute for Justice brings them to account in court." > -- http://www.InstituteforJustice.org/ Thanks, I'll check them out as I am unaware of their position. > >>Has there ever been a law suite brought against the Supreme Court or > >>Congress claiming their actions were unconstitutional? The amendment > >>relating to taxation for a start, repeal individual taxation and return to > >>the system originaly intended by the founding fathers. > > > >I don't know. But this is the sort of issue I was thinking of. > > Bill Benson has done some extensive research (his book is called The Law > That Never Was) regarding the 16th Amendment (the so-called Income Tax > Amendment) and how it was ratified. According to the information he has > uncovered through exhaustive research in D.C. and all of the state capitals > of the then 48 states, the 16th Amendment was never ratified by 3/4ths of > the states. (see http://www.trustclarks.com/theman.html for more info) > > Friends of mine have spoken to Mr. Benson about this, and he says that the > courts won't touch it with a ten foot pole. He even sells a package (or at > least he was selling it back in 1995) of legal information about the > non-ratification of the 16th that can be used as a defense in an income tax > case. According to Mr. Benson (in 1995), each of the cases was dropped when > the defense made it clear they were going to argue their defense based on > this point. > > I understand that folks in the "patriot" movement have tried to take this to > the Supreme Court without success. The Court refused to hear it. > > Assuming Mr. Benson's research is accurate and legitimate, the 16th didn't > even come close to being ratified and is truly a Law That Never Was. Think > about that next April 15th...the IRS's "lawful" authority is based upon a > legal fiction. That's why it's called >voluntary< compliance. Actualy, his research is one of the reasons that I am so interested in an actual lawsuit. What if somebody were to go for several years with no contact at all with the IRS, and no intention of making contact. Then when approached that person makes enough noise to guarantee that they will be going to court. What would it then take to bush-whack the beggars? What is the absolute last point that your defence must be revealed prior to your presenting your case to the jury? The reason I use the first person is because to me it seems critical that no lawyer is actualy used in the defence. As I understand it, and I ain't no lawyer, there are some actions that a defendent may do if representing themselves that lawyers are prohibited from doing. Among them is stating the obvious fact, if the jurors don't believe the law is just they may refuse to find for that reason. If the Constitution and the actual record of votes in concert with the general feeling of excess regarding this matter doesn't prove the case, what will? ____________________________________________________________________ | | | 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: democracy?! (fwd)
by nobody＠neva.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- [Long discussion about crypto-anarchy vs. democracy removed] I suggest reframing the argument. Right now, the discussion seems to be: "If we were Gods, how would we institute a just political system on these people." Unfortunately, only a few Gods are reading the cypherpunks list and they refuse to do our bidding. The real question is: what should we do? Our (oversimplified) choices: 1. Democracy: Participate in the political process by joining various organizations, lobbying, begging for money, voting, etc. etc. 2. Crypto-Anarchy: Write code, buy guns, make money, make more money, etc. etc. The second choice is clearly better in terms of protecting your own hide. What if we want to protect the hides of other people? I believe choice 2 is still the better one. In any event, this is the more interesting discussion. The problem with choice 1 is that even if you can convince yourself that a group of people and an institution are sound and reliable today, you do not know what it will be doing later on. Choice 2, on the other hand, is a low risk investment and brings you into contact with a better group of people. 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 iQEVAwUBNFzVSpaWtjSmRH/5AQG9LQf/WCepJirikSAU4DIVlRTqYQkfkahLDtxi H8E3a0HSoOYSJAJefx4h2Zl0yy2lYT6mdNjNYsjIR3lDbkDJh97DfgueLHAhmivE Ht4C9XzyzKB2CRGiLD5hlbGRzBYACUWU2sm5xNIxYJ44AuwyhHgpVp8vhQts7XRM xQzLtF4fDD+8Hc5AKq4vE4lTpJzwHUO7T2yANZlFMpx0clJDj7/pr+gSUTaWQcK4 pok4wAj+Hd9wrTtOLG40SqEQmmISi8owutvGStQgb3PSjDFsmpAQimxr4agMcylZ 7qxkNRc/sUzfdN5uc89n1cQ+E2fenocs5W6GJ7N8GRnfYP6127uveQ== =OuX5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

re: Speech as co-conspiring? I don't think so.
by Secret Squirrel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Monty Cantspell, Editor in Chief of Groan Magazine, wrote: >> There was a discussion a little while ago suggesting that toad.com had >> been compromised by people who were sowing dissension by partially >> distributing certain messages. Had toad signed all of its messages, >> it would be possible to obtain evidence supporting this hypothesis >> without relying entirely on the word of people we may not know. > >How do signed messages deal with the incompleat distribushun problem? >If legit signed messages are not sent to half the list, what does the >sig gain us? When Attila says "I have this message from the list" and it has a valid signature, it makes things considerably more interesting because we don't have to trust Attila very much. For instance, it may give the owner of the signing key incontrovertible proof that his machine was compromised. If we have several examples of messages which are slightly different from each other and are signed by the list key, we know that an attack was mounted, although we may not know by whom. >> Had somebody compromised toad, they would still have to correctly sign >> messages. > >But, depending on the compromise, this could be possible. I phrased that badly. What I meant to say was that the person who compromised the machine may be able to sign messages, but he or she will still have to sign all the messages going out. Which means that they can be compared later, which may show incontrovertible proof that Something Is Wrong And It Is Wrong In A Most Interesting Way. 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 iQEVAwUBNFzqp5aWtjSmRH/5AQFAsgf7B2F4xDdQZc4koltSO1exTkAGIzxH8nCP 7lh5r2P3vPhC1BfxkCMr3+kTIAuTcXPhvkmGxXNGjud+wqPOW/BYDPUfyjGDQ/rD TZOM23iqVYZIfiiyEdl3DbqmiIv7W0Zrs8b9yhlDnjWPXGnqmgu5QV8LM3QHEEKk nOhKz+qm3cv4UNI9wK87+PjmFKNN9JZCq3WsFCYPI9QSCJR9qgZ7YXnGAPGs7dbG CYRhRYRUMPYBha2RfROvkU5xWH32iRE0bdLQ/uxCjL0vZxoMSq5gDMAjm1Hu02+L 8qTsyCK/LeCRBwtNBCHTO70E71lsV2jD+03Xcxm3SzYHnNo5G6RUHQ== =x/pi -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

RE: Protocols for Insurance to Maintain Privacy
by Brian B. Riley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 10/31/97 12:46 PM, Tim May (tcmay(a)got.net) passed this wisdom: >I had an engineer working for me who cheerfully used the company medical >plan for all it was worth. If his kid had a cold, off to the doctor. If his >wife felt feverish, off to the doctor. If he had an upset stomache after >lunch (understandable considering the state of company food and >burrito-vending machines in 1980), off to the doctor. He may have paid $5 >per visit. Of course, he took off a lot of time to make these various treks >to have his kids, himself, and his wife "treated" (given aspirin, told to >drink plenty of fluids, whatever). A nice racket for the hospitals. This is one (of many) things my ex-wife and I used to disagree on ... she would want to haul the kid or herself off to the Emergency room everytime anything happened ... the idea of sleeping on it and seeing how it seemed in the morning was foreign to her; I can see that broken limbs getting sharp raps in head etc ... but every little sniffle ... of course premiums are up. For us, it was zero co-pay since between my retired military status and back then Raytheon medical coverage I never had to lay out a penny, when its that free eats easy to over-indulge ... and during those times I spent in the ER waiting room I saw many other doing the same thing. Brian B. Riley --> http://www.macconnect.com/~brianbr For PGP Keys <mailto:brianbr@together.net?subject=Get%20PGP%20Key> "Home is where your books are" -- Kitty O'Neal

1 0

Re: Bell sentencing timed to coincide with raids on militia members?
by Brian B. Riley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 10/31/97 3:01 PM, Tim May (tcmay(a)got.net) passed this wisdom: >Get ready, folks. By the way, I'll be at the gun show at the Cow Palace in >San Francisco on the weekend of November 8-9, probably Saturday, the 8th. >Seems I'm running low on certain types of ammo, and I may want to pick up a >couple more assault rifles before Swinestein succeeds in completely banning >them. I used to think that way ... but then I thought, why pay all that money and walk the line of whatever Swinesteen et al come up with. Instead I have my deer rifles and a shotgun or two and ammo for both. The way this all is working now, I have more combat experience than 90% of the active duty military and most cops, and every day goes by more and more are retiring. If it ever comes down to that, I'll take down one or two of them with my deer rifle and help myself to their weapons and ammo ... also kind of makes sure I haven't set myself up to depend on an obsolete caliber ... if I am not good enough to take some of them down and take their weapons, no 300 nor 30,000 rounds for my very own Armalite is going to make any difference. Brian B. Riley --> http://www.macconnect.com/~brianbr For PGP Keys <mailto:brianbr@together.net?subject=Get%20PGP%20Key> "Everyone who lives dies; but not everyone who dies has lived" -- back of a 'No Fear' t-shirt

1 0

S/MIME
by Nobuki Nakatuji 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is S/MIME secure than PGP ? ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

4 3