December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: What Will Revolution Look Like?
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Warmaking is ever changing in response to the last wins and losses. However, winners are less likely to change than losers, for why change a successful formula, publish it, or a well-spun dissimulation. As ever, unknown forms of war are in gestation, being tested and debriefed, in military institutions and wargames, in business, in education, in the amorphous culture at large through legal competition and crime and their variable gray areas where fair and unfair, civilized rules and their breaking, are ever in grim and vicious dispute. While there are piles of studies on organized and guerilla wars of the past, the most provocative are those that attempt to describe what's coming, how to recognize its early warnings and what can be done to head it off or, more likely, advance it. The highest warmaking art is winning without physical fighting, to outfox the enemy by demoralizing, by demonstrating that attack is futle, that there is no chance of defeating a superior force. That's why military exhibitionism and psy war is reputed among military and political leaders to be as vital as that of brute force, as best exemplified by the Cold War 50-year stalemate and psychological "win-win" to a status of Cool War. To get a handle on what's in store, imagine that completely unbelievable methods of warfare, overt and covert, are being concocted now, composed of strategies, tactics, warfighters and armaments never before used -- and will not be revealed and understood until too late for defense. Try to forget everything you know about warfighting, crime fighting, conflict resolution, rules of engagement, black operations, guerilla tactics, hiding among the people. Assume the enemy knows everything you know and more, is better armed and smarter than you, has more spies among your supporters and in your most intimate circle. Imagine that your toilet, your bed, your fridge, your car, your is triggered to explode by radio or your computer by your password. Consider that there will be no time to reflect and reconsider when things go catastrophically wrong and the enemy is unrelenting attacking with inhuman viciousness, when you're defenses are crumbling and weapons failing, when mates are squealing, dead or run away, when you can't stop shitting yourself, when your legs are buckling, when your minds racing out of control, when you're begging god and mom for mercy and the upraised axe is descending, the barrel back of head is firing. Remember that who the enemy is is no secret to either side, on whichever side you're on, and presume that the emeny is more ready and able to cook your goose than you are theirs. What actual war carnage teaches, what the current civil war in the US is showing, is what the TV-sofa war does not: nobody wins, ever, except the mindfuckers who've never gone berzerk in combat or in the jobplace, killed friend and foe to save own asses. You only win wars by never having to fight them, those started by weakling cowards unable to steal, cheat and lie well enough to satisfy their demonic lusts. Best to outsmart the enemy in war, work and love, so that what you're up to is revealed only years later if ever. For the best won wars are never known at the time, no parades, no medals, no glory, no war stories, no memorial cemeteries and monuments, no veteran hospitals filled with carrion, just peace and tranquility shooting deer, harpooning dolpins, rip-tearing the landscape for profligate cowboy wargames riding homicidal freeways. We're all gonna lose our civil war in market place killings and road rage, thanks to today's warfighting lesson in free fire criminal enterprise by those who've never been shot and shot and shot, and lost for good -- the vainglorious winners, the losers desperate to regain glory days.

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Tim May wrote: >Since when is broadcasting a radio or television show or writing an >essay evidence of complicity in a murder, even when it "pushes >someone over the line"? The producers of the show had better hope that it is not evidence of complicity in a murder. Let's say Tim is crazy.(*) He told us how much he enjoyed seeing the BATF agent take one in the face. If this were to inspire him to try the same thing in real life, how would the producers of the show be less guilty than the talk show host? After all, the most intense and graphic aspect of the episode was the scene where the BATF agent was killed. The people who made the show obviously intended this to have the most impact. It must be the actual point of the show. (It's well known that television watchers are far more responsive to imagery than boring dialogue.) The rest was obviously a cynical attempt to undermine the machinery of justice by appearing to be on the side of law enforcement. Bad People try this trick all the time. Fortunately, the jury usually isn't fooled. I'm looking forward to the miscreants getting the justice they so richly deserve, aren't you? (*) Tim seems too wiley to be crazy. Instead, he seems to be playing The Most Dangerous Game: Fed baiting. 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 iQEVAwUBNFwn1JaWtjSmRH/5AQEuYwf8DRGHHp1C2uaecJ87tVjE8gSQJNJJUJMA Z0uX+xjse7RSvlcszCZ1/tU0R9IY5iw1uXV9GqDK3JY/mSEKznd994cTo0PfO5PP sgOIJq42ynz9q7eguqsE1I591hhNdhKE1mitPMirvm5Rh2Rwic1veiJMEc3uaHP+ SEiit3LcmqoV9xZ57oxuMRhHr63KQ24HaKDZkSnIIxC6c+8RiJ0pDy94hL15e/GQ O3Yw/M5vZ/CfKYDgQbMzfavbV9QPszgSYg944HinBgWIuo+JbV13eypmLXDw7yxI WlA8Zxt5NNba4sQCe17m0Drxf9e99fX+inIVYKONK3kH2oCF564Hag== =49tL -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2

Japan's Constitution and GAK (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: Adam Shostack <adam(a)homeport.org> > Subject: Japan's Constitution and GAK > Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 02:16:36 -0500 (EST) > Does someone have access to a verificable copy of Japan's > Constitution? Someone pointed me to one on the web, which would seem > to make difficult implemmenting international GAK systems. > > http://www.leftjustified.com/leftjust/lib/sc/ht/wtp/japan.html > > Article 21. Freedom of assembly and association as well as speech, > press and all other forms of expression are guaranteed. No censorship > shall be maintained, nor shall the secrecy of any means of > communication be violated. It also outlaws secret or under-cover police such as the Kempetei (or however you spell it, too lazy to look it up). ____________________________________________________________________ | | | 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?! (Re: Terrorism is a NON-THREAT (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: 2 Nov 1997 05:47:36 -0000 > From: Secret Squirrel <nobody(a)secret.squirrel.owl.de> > Subject: Re: democracy?! (Re: Terrorism is a NON-THREAT (fwd) > Adam Back wrote: > >[Ed Note: Jim Choate wrote:] > >> At the height of the range wars there were only 9 murders > >> associated with the conflict, not hundreds as the popular > >> entertainment media and spin-doctor culture would have you > >> believe. Get your fucking facts straight. > > > >I know, that was my point; recall that I said the murder rate was > >low. The point was there were way less laws, and few were telling > >their neighbours what they could think. > > It's not hard to believe that this was the case in some places and in > some times, but a term like the "Wild West" covers a lot of time and > territory. It was the case in all places. The Wild West simply wasn't that wild. > For example, in San Francisco in the early 1860s there was a very high > murder rate, something like 1000 people were killed in one year and > nobody was convicted. (Forgive minor factual errors as I haven't > studied this in awhile.) Damn, I have this book - but not here, at my shop apparently - that was written by a eastern newspaper report who was in California, to write the book, and he described San Francisco in the 1800's during the first gold rushes. He doesn't note significant violence. What really makes the book interesting is that the reporter took the 'long way' to California - across Panama via coastal steamers and such. Very interesting descriptions. I'll make note and get the book next time I'm out there and post to the list for review. Would you happen to remember your source? Nothing I have read has ever mentioned a 1000/year homicide count in San Francisco - ever. > I have also read reports of substantial > violence in the mining communities of Nevada and California with > minimal enforcement action taken. That's interesting since this is a specific and commen example of free market anarchy supporters, the low violence rates in the Cali. gold fields during the rush. In particular J.D. Davidson & Lord W. Rees-Mogg go to great lengths at a couple of places in their book "The Sovereign Individual" to hold it us as a 'model anarchy'. Me thinks something is going on here below the covers when both sides of the discussion use the same example (which is why I intentionaly don't use it but wait for others to bring it up). > It seems likely to me that the low > murder rate claim has some exceptions, even if we ignore the mutual > atrocities between various native groups, Americans, and Mexicans. If you read "My Life as a Indian" this might change your view of how it was in that period. "The Texas Rangers" also has quite a lot to say about what the Indian wars were like in Texas (not really since there really wasn't much). It is interesting to note that when the cattle drives started in the 1800's the people oppossed didn't pick up a gun and fight as a rule, they hired lawyers and sued the cattle owners for damages to their farms and ranches. This one was one of the primary forces behind the closing of the fronteir - putting up barbed wire - the cattle barons kept losing the cases. > I would also like to see how pervasive the temperance movement was in > the Wild West. By the late nineteenth century my impression is that > it was going strong in the Wild West although it possibly hadn't > grasped the levers of power yet. Let us know how your research goes. > >> Face off's at high-noon simply didn't happen and poeple didn't run > >> around having gun fights all the time. > > > >Right! > > I'm pretty sure there were gunfights, but that they happened a lot > more quickly and a lot less formally than we see on TV. But, I could > believe that overall they happened infrequently. Anybody have a > reference? See above books as well as the Time*Life series I mentioned in a previous submission. I would wager that from 1800 to 1900 there were less than a dozen face-to-face shoot-outs at high-noon, if any at all. There is also a very good book that covers the French and Spanish explorations of the southwest starting in the late 1500's up to the early 1800's when they were either forced out by political agreements or force. I believe the University of New Mexico puts it out. If I stumble across it (I'll keep an eye out for it) I'll get identifiying info. Very good book, but a mother to read. > I am told that knife fighting was a lot more common than is widely > known. A lot of poor runaways showed up to work in various mining > towns and they were unable to afford expensive toys like guns. Generaly people shot each other with rifles from a distance or back-shots. But the fact is that most, stats put it as high as 60%, of all homicides (accidental or intentional) were people shooting themselves with their own weapon by accident. These sorts of incidents were clearly much higher than Indians or homicide. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | 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: Clinton's Bigger Gun Ban
by Brian B. Riley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10/29/97 8:08 PM, Tim May (tcmay(a)got.net) passed this wisdom: >The Klinton Klan has already effectively banned imported SKS ammo >(7.62x29, as I recall, given that I don't have any rifles >chambering this popular round). > --- >Before you rush to correct me, I _meant_ to write "7.62x39" of >course. > >(A round used by the Chinese, Soviet, and East Bloc nations, and >roughly equivalent to the American M-16 round, known either as the >.223 or 5.56mm. The NATO "7.62" is in a longer case length. >7.62x54, as I recall. Known in America as .308. If I remember right they were able to do this because the only ammo available for 7.62x39 is from the Chinese and uses steel core projectiles not lead. Then when Olympic Arms came out with the cutdown weapon chambered for 7.62x39 it was able to be banned uder a regualtion banning "armor piercing ammo that could be used in a handgun." One thing though, 7.62x39 really could not be compared to the 5.56 NATO, its really more potent out to 2-300 meters; it is still a .30 cal vs 5.56 NATOs .223, but its far less potent than 7.62 NATO (7.62x54). The 7.62x39 was the standard caliber of ComBloc weapons for several decades, most specifically the AK-47, AKM-44 (sniper weapon), and SKS carbine. I think the Dragunov sniper system used a more potent cartridge. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNFyiGMdZgC62U/gIEQJ62gCfbBu3uY42gRThKwxyi1I/uDm6pAwAoMkl GuTW74QapGZbXo/kGN4KokYM =qkl4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Brian B. Riley --> http://www.macconnect.com/~brianbr For PGP Keys <mailto:brianbr@together.net?subject=Get%20PGP%20Key> "Bacon and eggs: A days work for a chicken; a lifetime commitment for a pig"

3 2

auto signing messages Re: perl from Amad3us
by Antonomasia 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> #!/usr/local/bin/perl > $userID="cypherpunks\(a)algebra.com"; > $pgp="/usr/local/bin/pgp"; > $tmp="/tmp/.sig$$"; > undef($/); > $post = <STDIN>; > ($headers,@body) = split(/\n\n/,$post);$body = join("\n\n",@body); > open(PIPE,"|$pgp -satf +batchmode +verbose=0 -u $userID > $tmp"); Real paranoiacs don't put temporary files in world-writeable directories. If a hostile user symlinks your majordomo binary (or something) to /tmp/.sig999 you're going to overwrite it with garbage. A single purpose directory /tmp/mdsig writeable only by the list account 'majordom' would be my preference. (Correct owner and mode for this directory and parents could be checked by the perl script before it decides to write there.) -- ############################################################## # Antonomasia ant(a)notatla.demon.co.uk # # See http://www.notatla.demon.co.uk/ # ##############################################################

1 0

Re: democracy?! (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 19:55:02 -0800 > From: Steve Schear <azur(a)netcom.com> > Subject: Re: democracy?! (fwd) > >If it's so damn good how come it doesn't exist anymore? If it provided such > >a superior governmental system providing the maximum return on investment > >why did it go away? Why did they instead elect to go with a king? Futher, > >explain how such an anarchic system can be expanded without demonstrating > >the exact same sorts of scaling problems consensual democracies such as > >ancient Greek ran into? It's one thing to rule a few 10's of thousands of > >people who are related, share world-models and have limited resources and > >quite another to rule 4+ Billion people who speak hundreds if not thousands > >of languages and concommittent cultural beliefs? > > So, a solution is to encourage (e.g., through technological means) the > break-up of nation-states into smaller geo-political groupings. Technological, societal, political, religous, whatever non-confrontational (ie avoid the use of force unless physicaly attacked) mechanism that is present in human societies. Exactly! See that is the aspect of our democracy that so few people seem to understand. The relationship between the fed's and the states is supposed to be as equals. If the fed's want to do something they have to get a lot of the states to go along with it or else they don't get the resources. The states can't get too far out of line because of their ability to represent the other n-1 states. The problem now, fundamentaly to my view, is that the states are seen as chatels or sub-servient to the fed's. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | 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

Fwd: Re: Fwd: William Louis ... Pol Pot speaks...
by Brian B. Riley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I forwarded a copy of the above article to my friend Roger who lives and works in Thailand and this was his response ... I thought it might be of interest to the list. ---------------- Begin Forwarded Message ---------------- Date: 11/02 9:13 AM Received: 11/02 10:39 AM From: Roger Adams, rogera(a)mozart.inet.co.th To: Brian B. Riley, brianbr(a)together.net >Brian B. Riley wrote: >>I came across this piece the other day and am rereading it for the >>fourth or fifth time. "Food for thought" doesn't even begin to >>describe it in my rarely very humble opinion. > (snip) >>Pol Pot Speaks >> >> On Oct. 16 Nate Thayer, an American correspondent for the weekly >>Far Eastern Economic Review, conducted the first known interview >>since 1979 with Cambodian Communist Pol Pot. The New York Times >>printed excerpts Oct. 23. >Brian, > >Nate is actually based in Bangkok and I have met him quite a few >times in one of my favourite watering holes. I was there last Friday >(31st Oct) and was told that he had gone back to Phnom Penh to >confront Hun Sen for calling him a liar and questioning the validity >of his interview with Pol Pot. Nate apparently got very upset at >this so he decided to sort it out. All of us who know him feel that >he is risking his life by going back to Cambodia at this time. The >situation there is very unstable and life is very cheap. We all >hope he makes it back safely. > >Just for some background information, Nate is a very intense and >proud fellow who takes his profession very seriously indeed. He is >the only journalist to have been able to get close enough to Pol >Pot (by close, I mean in very near proximity) to be able to watch >and film him being tried by his fellow commanders and to interview >him. A very facinating chap and very likeable. I am sure you came >across some of these types during the Vietnam War. > >Will keep you posted. > >Roger ----------------- End Forwarded Message ----------------- Brian B. Riley --> http://www.macconnect.com/~brianbr For PGP Keys <mailto:brianbr@together.net?subject=Get%20PGP%20Key> "Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men." -- Ayn Rand - The Fountainhead (1943)

1 0

Free Software
by 1gh9TbMi2＠gen.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We are giving away over $700.00 in promotional software that can increase your business by over 150%. How would you like to send your ad to thousands of people that have an interest in your product or service? Just imagine the results. We are giving away the software to do just that. With this limited time offer you can receive an email extraction program that will extract targeted addresses for you to send your advertisement to. You will also receive an email program for sending your advertisement. This software is yours FREE! when you purchase our CD Rom with over 37 million email addresses on it. This CD Rom is ready to use with your email program. If you can click a mouse, you can boost your sales by 150% or more overnight. This offer is for a limited time. As an added bonus, we will submit your web site to over 250 search engines for free when you place your order. All orders are taken by phone, so hurry and call (904) 908-5444 Please mention ID# 6682 when calling...

1 0

Re: Infastructure Protection and Paranoia
by John Kelsey 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- [ To: cypherpunks ## Date: 10/30/97 ## Subject: Re: Infastructure Protection and Paranoia ] >Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 23:35:41 -0800 >From: Bill Stewart <stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com> >Subject: Re: Infastructure Protection and Paranoia >At this year's CFP one evening we were playing the game of >"You want to cause maximum disruption to the US >infrastructure, and you've got 100 small explosive devices. >Where do you put them?" Much creativity was displayed and >substantial amounts of testosterone reveled in, and the >overall conclusion was that we'd be in deep trouble if >anybody even vaguely competent wanted to monkeywrench the >system. I agree. This has always been my reaction to the infowar folks--anyone who understands how to attack a system can look around and find hundreds of fairly easy targets. Some of these targets just *can't* be protected in a cost-effective way. (Note the way the IRA and various Palestinian terrorists still manage to find soft targets, despite the fact that their intended victims have spent years and millions of dollars hardening the obvious soft points.) >After that, we played the Russell-Brand-like game of >"Destruction is easy. What would you do if you wanted to >create the most joy in the world instead." That was harder >:-) Of course. Any moron with a hammer can ruin a car engine; it takes a skilled mechanic to fix one. The same applies almost everywhere--destroying something takes a fraction of the skill of building or maintaining it. > Thanks! > Bill >Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com >Regular Key PGP Fingerprint > D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639 --John Kelsey, Counterpane Systems, kelsey(a)counterpane.com PGP 2.6 fingerprint = 4FE2 F421 100F BB0A 03D1 FE06 A435 7E36 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBNFje30Hx57Ag8goBAQFORgQAtfPNvbzHvsVQXTO8OY7VmKwmyqxWB5By w+WPU4YCMWq8DWG6OywWsK9VoPGePPTZSUhtVd/PXV0lZs/jSbJZoFUYNVM7kscR SA581vMenUYM74Uryut2gTAgUORjvrSLtfM1cm5/sIVGfNefTvmo5VMQzye7gh7d 89SW0QFzo/o= =YmO9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --John Kelsey, Counterpane Systems, kelsey(a)counterpane.com PGP 2.6 fingerprint = 4FE2 F421 100F BB0A 03D1 FE06 A435 7E36

1 0