December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Libel, Times v. Sullivan
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:52 PM 2/1/97 -0800, Greg Broiles wrote: >Also, people interested in _Times v. Sullivan_ and the interplay between >defamation and the First Amendment might find "Make No Law: The Sullivan >Case and the First Amendment" by Anthony Lewis (ISBN 0-697-73939-4) of >interest. The decision itself is online at ><http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=376&invol >=254> - the factual summary of the Sullivan case posted here was not >correct, and the first few pages of the opinion provide a description of >the underlying facts. > >Since we've now got Jim Bell arguing that it's obvious that a free and open >society must tolerate anything which might be defamatory, and Jim Choate >arguing that it's obvious that a free and open society cannot tolerate >anything which might be defamatory, I think I'm going to wander away from >this discussion confident that the answer is, at least, nonobvious. :) Your last paragraph looks like an exercise of the silly game the TV show "60 minutes" producers often play when they read the letters from the audience about a previous report on a controversial subject. They first read a letter from an outraged viewer who claims that the TV show's producers must have been biased in one direction, and then they read another letter from a different viewer who alleges they showed a bias in the opposite direction. The show is trying to leave you with the impression that they MUST have been unbiased, because they are being accused of diametrically opposite leanings. All they are really showing is that given the hundreds and probably thousands of letters they receive on each show weekly (which are, by definition, written by self-motivated people) they can get at least one on each end of the spectrum for whatever subject they've just covered. Not surprising. (If anything, I'd be surprised if they ever DON'T recieve at least two such letters which could be misused in this way...) So before you "wander away," perhaps you ought to explain why we NEED defamation laws? The sun would still rise tomorrow morning absent them. A few feelings might be hurt, that's true, but on the other hand the implied endorsement of The State ("If that statement wasn't true, he couldn't print it!") has a, cumulatively, far greater impact on all of us. A clue is present in the likely fact that the origins of defamation laws were primarily to keep the king and the upper-crust free of printed and verbal attack directed by the lower-classes, even given the presence of whatever nominal "free-speech" guarantees were present. Explain, for example, that while it is now universally recognized by the truth is a defense for libel accusations, it was NOT true when William Penn went on trial for libel in the late 1600's. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Free & Open Society & toleration
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate wrote: > It has been asserted that I am claiming that a free and open society should > not abide any and all actions in contrast to Jim Bell's assertion that a > free and open society must tolerate any action. > This is not my case at all. I hold that a DEMOCRATIC society with a HEALTHY > ECONOMIC system must have some minimum standards on what is allowed. By no > means do I hold that the ONLY means of a free and open society is a democracy. > It is quite possible to have an anarchy which would also be a free and open > society and by DEFINITION would tolerate any action by its members acting > individualy or in concert. [snip] Nobody has a problem with your ideals, it's just that Jim Bell is trying to say (correct me and forgive me if I'm wrong) that: 1. Society will never subscribe to your ideals. 2. Society is not static, i.e., instead of remaining at a constant level of corruption, the officials will keep demanding more, until there's a sudden, catastrophic break. 3. The AP solution has the potential to stabilize the level of corruption, which should make violent revolutions and genocide unnecessary.

1 0

Re: "Strong" crypto and export rule changes.
by azur＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> What the US government will allow to be exported is not "strong >encryption." It is encryption only slightly too strong to be broken >by an amateur effort. For the right investment in custom hardware, it >falls quickly. (500,000 $US = 3.5 hour avg break). > Considering Ian's feat you certainly seem to have had your crystal ball in hand. --Steve

2 1

Re: Free & Open Society & toleration (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Nobody has a problem with your ideals, it's just that Jim Bell is > trying to say (correct me and forgive me if I'm wrong) that: > > 1. Society will never subscribe to your ideals. But other than two points they already do. The two points being, 1. Libel is a recognized legal concept now, the difference is one of degree. That degree of difference being how much money there is available for the lawyer and their willingness to enforce the concepts of justice in the society based upon their perceived ability to profit by it. 2. The extension of acceptance of reasonable legal representation by lot from not only the defence but also the prosecution. My solutions to these two issues are: 1. Removal of the lawyer from the ultimate choice of whether the case should be pursued. 2. The minimalization of the defendants and plaintiffs monetary resources by removing them from the legal system by choosing the legal representation of both parties by lot. 3. By moving the responsibility of police to provide evidence from the prosecution to the court we equalize the impact of irregularities in evidence selection as well as minimizing the sorts of evidence disputes which so impact some trials (ie OJ Simpson). 4. By the implimentation of a bond proviso on the part of the plaintiff the system provides a check and balance reducing nuisance cases as well as reducing the taxation load on the citizenry. > 2. Society is not static, i.e., instead of remaining at a constant > level of corruption, the officials will keep demanding more, > until there's a sudden, catastrophic break. Absolutely, that is one of the reasons I refuse to seperate those who represent the social contract (eg the Constitution) and those who are impacted by it, which includes even those who represent it and enforce its various responsibilities. AP relies on this distinction as axiomatic. This axiomatic view is ultimately based in a jealous greed for what others have (ie power, percieved or real) and the implicit belief that all people are NOT created equal. > 3. The AP solution has the potential to stabilize the level of > corruption, which should make violent revolutions and genocide > unnecessary. But it doesn't. What it does is provide a mechanism for de-stabalization. Just look at the Middle East and the history of assassination. Assassinations have never stabalized that region or any other. There is nothging in our current understanding of human psychology and social interactions that leads to the conclusion that threats of violence will necessarily force people to comply. If it did the government (as perceived by AP) would not have to deal with real opposition. Simply threaten the opposition and it melts away for the same reason that supposedly the government would cease to oppose radicalism (ie changes in the status quo forced by small groups upon the masses). If anything every real world example of AP demonstrates an increase in corruption (eg. Beirut). The closest analog in history to AP is the "Flowery Wars" as practiced by the Aztecs. However, these were motivated by a belief in religous homogeneity and not one of politics. Also, implicit in this was the axiomatic acceptance of a real class seperation between those who ruled and those who were ruled. By no means could one accept the premise that this caused the Aztec rulers to be more sensitive to corruption or the continued existance of their system. Another good example is assassination in ancient Rome, it is clear that such activities in no way reduced corruption. If anything AP provides a rationale (ie self-defence) to impose even harsher a priori conditions on sections of a society by another part of that society. Hardly what I would consider a stabalizing condition let alone democratic. What is required for stability is for each group to feel unthreatened and secure in expressing their beliefs without fear of reprisals and at the same time recognizing they must provide room for others beliefs. There must also be the realization that refusal to abide by these precepts will be met with immediate consequences. Something AP can't do, as it explicitly promotes threats and the carrying out thereof. On another issue, it was asked what purpose there is in suing a poor person. Simple lack of monetary wealth should be no more reason to exempt a party from justice than having large quantities. A citizen should face the consequences of their actions, how rich or poor they are is an irrelevant issue. Concepts required for a true working democracy: Liberty Justice Equality Fraternity Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

2 1

Re: Fighting the cybercensor
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:02 PM 2/1/97 -0800, Toto wrote: >Phillip M Hallam-Baker wrote: >> The problem is that you are a crushing bore. You peddle your crackpot >> scheme long after it has been made plain nobody is interested. > > I also thing that the other list members involved in this thread are >'nobodies', but I was too polite to say anything. It's odd that you would say this. I get that impression ("nobodies") about practically EVERY subject discussed here. Why name this particular one, as if it were somehow special? Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Keystroke sniffer question
by Scott 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

How can you detect if there is a keystroke sniffer on your computer. Is there a file name to look for? Where do people get them? ======================================= Scott Bellavance scott-b(a)ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~scott-b/homepage.html ======================================= -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQCNAzAu56UAAAEEAL8pOdPu2pw5E91f99ByJWT+O1smtcOlIr6GL9TdCbdZ6I2U UPLl7RL5cV4e3Wv4nIIZiOIePMAUouM5fQZib4vnGpCKM/WxfGQBRGafsq2mlzvE IKLBrdYhQ5STl/qZIaCKI2+V4hdsvTPaI0PCqGzGoiDv9gbbZ40Gi3F38KqtAAUR tCtTY290dCBSLiBCZWxsYXZhbmNlIDxzY290dC1iQGl4Lm5ldGNvbS5jb20+ =Hfbk -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

2 1

RE: Libel, Times v. Sullivan
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Greg Broiles Since we've now got Jim Bell arguing that it's obvious that a free and open society must tolerate anything which might be defamatory, and Jim Choate arguing that it's obvious that a free and open society cannot tolerate anything which might be defamatory, I think I'm going to wander away from this discussion confident that the answer is, at least, nonobvious. :) .................................................................. Heh - Jim B. and Jim C.: the Yin & Yang of Society At Large. What could a discussion between them produce. .. Blanc

1 0

Re: Key Security Question
by wlkngowl＠unix.asb.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 31 Jan 1997 15:37:01 -0500, you wrote: >My computer went into the shop a few days ago, and I was unable to take >my PGP keys off it before it went in. What are the security risks here? >If the repairman chooses to snoop through the files, what would he be >able to do with my key pair? Will I need to revoke the key and make a >new one, or will I be relatively safe since he doesn't have my >passphrase? Depends how paranoid you are, how good your passphrase is, how much you trust the repairman not to snoop, etc. For the hell of it I'd revoke my key and issue a new one though. It's not a minor inconvenience, and when people use your old key you can still decrypt the message... just send 'em a note that you prefer they use you're current (unrevoked) key. --Rob

1 0

NOISE.SYS Home Page
by wlkngowl＠unix.asb.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I now have an under-construction home page for NOISE.SYS, in case you're interested: http://www.asb.com/usr/wlkngowl/software.htm#noise (NOISE.SYS is a crypto-RNG device for DOS boxes.) Rob ----- "The word to kill ain't dirty | Robert Rothenburg (WlkngOwl(a)unix.asb.com) I used it in the last line | http://www.asb.com/usr/wlkngowl/ but use a short word for lovin' | Se habla PGP: Reply with the subject and dad you wind up doin' time." | 'send pgp-key' for my public key.

1 0

RE: Cyphernomicon by Tim May
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Toto What currently threatens the list, in my opinion, is not the dissension, but the rise of a cliquish sheep-mentality and the resulting dismissal of the opinions of people of Reason (and the opinions of 'anyone', in general, whom 'I' perceive as being on the 'other side' of an issue). ........................................................................ Who are these sheep you're talking about? At the end of the trial period, anyone still on the list who doesn't like the moderation can at their leisure either protest vehemently its continuation, producing masterly works of eloquence in favor of continuing the free-for-all, or they can unsubscribe (sp?). They *don't* have to take it, or identify with the cpunks any longer. I think what threatens the list is the absence of really major issues to fire up everyone's sense of indignation & imagination, plus the fact that many of the long-timers are pretty sophisticated on all the political issues which have been discussed before (how many of Tim May's long treatises, engaging, thorough, and relevant as they may be, can one read yet again without recognizing the repetitive themes therein), plus a lack of interest in engaging in rhetorical arguments with people who find it difficult to think in a straight line. Sometimes the posts on the list come to resemble more attempts at educating the clueless than discussions among peers which could truly advance an understanding of between fine points of difference. Whom can one blame for what does not exist (on the list) - there is no mechanism for its production; only the attractions of the subject and the aim, are what bring in the participants who could provide substance and depth. Perhaps waxing lyrical on the features of Eudora and regular reminders on the benefits of mail filtering would be encouraging to "the timid"? .. Blanc

2 1