December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

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

17 Dec '03

Tim May wrote: >No, the revolution, when it comes, will likely be different from anything >quite like we've seen to date. .................................................... In the revolution against the British, the U.S. was a small colony sitting on a vast "new" land, with the Natives but a minor obstacle to expansion. Presently there is no such unoccupied place which could be claimed for the cause of liberty, and revolutionaries are sitting in the middle of the enemy camp, surrounded everywhere by people who "just want to save lives". You could temporarily send a political message and get your names in the news, but then totally lose the war from being outnumbered and overwhelmed by non-sympathizers. A long time ago it was possible, given the distance of water and land between peoples, to make a break with them physically. The enemy could be driven out, sent "home", and the winners could develop their new living arrangements in the new setting. But there is no new setting to go to, there is nowhere to send the infidels. The life of a new libertarian "society" would have to be created as a virtual one, existing among or in-between the others. Of course the basis of the original setup is still mentioned every once in a while, and so it is still in the minds of everyone, even if only as a dim reference, so it could be said that the most a current revolution could accomplish would be the return of the original ideal to the minds of the population. But I think that it would take much more than a few skirmishes to accomplish that, as it doesn't appear that it carries all that much support. It would be like getting a kid to take down some medicine; many don't really want to live so independently, nor feel the need to identify what kind of life would be the more ideal (i.e. they don't identify precisely the difference between a socialist atmosphere and a libertarian one, nor concern themselves with why they should spend any time worrying about the difference it makes.) An intentional revolution, I fear, would just look like an attempt to make people think. And therefore not taken too seriously. (And if the revolutionaires lose? tough luck. Oh, well. Gotta go to work in the morning.) .. Blanc

1 0

Re: North CA cops skip preliminaries, get straight to torture
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May wrote: > > At 9:14 PM -0700 10/30/97, Anonymous wrote: > > > This non-violent demonstrators were willing to accept the agreed > >upon punishment/cost of their actions in protest of the actions > >of their public servants. Their public servants, as usual, chose > >to to act in the manner of savages who are incapable of holding > >to the rule of law which they use to justify their confiscation > >of the citizen's right to bear arms in the face of tyranny. > > Excuse me, but this modern notion that protestors get to "make a deal" > about the fines they'll eventually pay is bogus. If they're trespassing, > they're trespassing. They don't get to take over Intel's factory, chain > themselves to the Evil Factory doors, and then make a deal to pay some > token fine. Perhaps I was unclear, but I was refering to the _ancient_ notion that once one has crawled out of the primeval swamp and begun to walk upright, that they should work on controlling their animal passions to the extent that they abide by the agreements they have sworn to uphold, regardless of whether the people they are being paid to serve have pissed them off. Am I mistaken in my impression that they did not take over Intel's factory? How is your mind holding up, Tim? Can you remember details of your life that don't have to do with Intel? {Not that I haven't sunken in to remeniscing about my life during several posts today. I suppose it is only a matter of time until we are all Grouchy Old Cypherpunks inundating the list with posts about who died, who has prostrate cancer, and who broke their hip trying to close that darned new-fangled nuclear suitcase.} > Like the AIDS protestors who "arrange" a deal whereby they'll shut down the > Golden Gate Bridge for several hours and then pay their arranged $50 > tickets. Do you know about some 'deal' of which I am not aware in this situation or shall we discuss the _real_ events which took place in Humboldt? > Well, what's wrong with me driving up to the head of the sit-down protest > and saying to the cops standing idly by, "Hey, there are some queers in the > middle of the road, blocking my trip to Marin. If you're just gonna let em > sit there for hours, putting my business and plans at risk, I'm just gonna > gun my engine and drive right over their fairy asses." To tell the truth, I really don't have any problem with _you_ doing so. I _would_ have a problem with the cops doing so, however, which is a point I am trying to make. It may be the policeman's job and/or duty to arrest and imprison the people involved, but it is in no way their duty or right to _punish_ the people by invoking a level of violence which is not necessary to accomplish the job. I don't really care if it is _difficult_ for the policemen to deal with the physical details of imprisoning the people. And I don't have a lot of sympathy for the protesters if they get bumped and bruised in the process of the police honestly doing their job. However, it is unconscienable for officers to inflict pain and suffering on the protesters for no other reason than to punish them for making the policeman's job difficult and defying authority. > Crimes are crimes, not "guerilla theater." Not "performance art." Such as dumping tea in Boston harbor to protest oppressive taxation? > > Twenty years or so ago, after seeing pictures of mothers and > >children in chains at a Livermore Labs protest, I wrote a song > >called "Don't Blame Me, I Voted For The Monkey." > > I had a much better idea back then. Leave the mothers and childrens chained > to the fences and gates. > > Pull back from them, erect a cordon around them, and block anyone from > approaching. They wanted to be chained to the fence, sans keys, so let > them have their wish. Fucking eh! I wish you had been in charge back then. I thought it was ridiculous for LEA's to play to protesters desires by escalating situations beyond what was really needed because of some perceived threat to their authority. > Others could show up to throw stuff at them, and place bets on who would be > the last to die. > > And, as the flesh dripped off and the bones whitened, it might be a nice > object lesson for the others. Say, that's not a 'red bandana' on your neck, is it? WhiteSocksAndBlueRibbonBeerMonger

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Preindicators to revolution and anti-revolution in US: World's highest disparity between poor and rich population. World's highest military expenditures. World's highest justice expenditures. World's largest percentage of population in prison. World's largets percentage of population in law enforcement. World's largest percentage of work force as private guards. World's largest number of guns in private hands. World's largest number of guns in law enforcement hands. World's greatest number of lawyers. World's greatest number of laws. World's greatest number of lawbreakers. World's highest violent crime rate. World's highest "postals." World's highest homicide rate against family members. World's highest homicide rate against authority members. World's greatest percentage of unwed mothers (and absent fathers). World's greatest percentage of men who do not pay child support. World's highest divorce rate. World's highest multiple marriage rate. World's largest number of institutionalized children. World's largest number of psychiatric patients. World's largest number of legal drugs consumers. World's largest number of illegal drugs consumers. World's largest number of protestors. World's largest number of anti-protestors. World's largest percentage of unresponsive population. World's largest percentage of blind faith population.

3 2

Re: PGP 5.5 available outside US
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Lucky Green wrote: > Let me state that I am not now, nor have I ever been, an employee of PGP. I knew that! I must have eaten too many of the yellow ones tonight to keep track of my Crayola lines. I'd better eat a couple more of the red ones to get myself back on track. > I simply noticed what I thought to be PGP 5.5 on a well known FTP site. > Sorry if it was a dud. Thanks for the pointer, just the same. > -- Lucky Green <shamrock(a)cypherpunks.to> PGP encrypted email preferred. > "Tonga? Where the hell is Tonga? They have Cypherpunks there?" Oh, I see my mistake! I had Caesar, wearing a 'Toga', connected to the anti-Christ with a red Crayola line, and mistook it for 'Tonga'. No problem, I'll just eat a couple of the brown Crayola's and throw three Hail Flutie's. Still Anonymous (except to Lucky)

1 0

Ashcroft on Crypto TV
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

News report: This weekend, Washington Watch, Court TVs public affairs program covering legal and judicial policy in the nations capital, will feature a discussion with Senator John Ashcroft (R-MO). The senator will discuss encryption, intellectual property on the internet, and his opposition to the nomination of Margaret Morrow, a Los Angeles business lawyer and former state bar association president selected by President Clinton for a federal judgeship.

1 0

Jim Bell sentencing delayed
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

According to PACER, Jim Bell's sentencing has been postponed yet again; the sentencing was originally scheduled for 9/17, which was continued to 10/31, which was continued (via an order on 10/24) until 11/21/97 at 9:00 AM. -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles(a)netbox.com | Export jobs, not crypto. http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | http://www.parrhesia.com

1 0

Crypto Biz
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Rep. Solomon hits SAFE and biz; BXA hits FBI and biz: http://jya.com/cn103197.txt

1 0

Re: Archives?
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anonymous wrote: > > Is there an archive of various papers concerning such things as Assassination > Politics, Eternity Servers, Reputation Capital, The Blowfish Cipher, CROWDS, > encryption of IP traffic, etc.? Anonymous, worried that answering himself might lead to being incarcerated against his will for a mental evaluation, replies: Tim C. May is a living archive of these issues and technologies, but it is a bad idea to show up on his doorstep, unannounced. However, it is sometimes possible to sneak into a website to be found at http://jya.com/ and get out alive with as much information as you are capable of stuffing into your CyberPockets during your sojourn into the bowels of Cryptocracy. If you enjoy browsing leisurely through odd piles of obscure posts on all of the above, and more, the Infinity website CPUNX archive can be found at http://infinigy.nus.sg/cypherpunks (Of particular classical value are the many [ADMINISTRAVIUM] posts which contain valuable graphical representations of some of the more arcane CPUNX traditions.) AlwaysHappyToHelpMonger

1 0

The reason we need to give up our rights...
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We are told that we must give up our right to privacy in order for the government to protect us from the horrors of child molesters, et al. Recently, a Canadian man was charged with 572 instances of having individual and group sex with pre-teenage boys. He was sentenced to a 'duece-less' (two years less a day), which is 'soft time' in Canada, and is served in a provincial jail instead of a federal institution. We are expected to give up our right to privacy so that the sores on our children's bums can be healed just in time for this guy to get out and have another go at them? Would it be ridiculous to suggest that the government *needs* this man back out on the streets in 16 months (if he does 'good time') because there is a shortage of child molesters to hold over our heads for their next attack on our rights and liberties? Hell, give Tim McVeigh a pardon, and then use it for an excuse to make use of compost in the commission of a crime a felony. Personal not to FedUpMonger: I'm just OldAndTiredMonger. I don't need this shit anymore.

1 0

The reason we need to give up our rights...
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We are told that we must give up our right to privacy in order for the government to protect us from the horrors of child molesters, et al. Recently, a Canadian man was charged with 572 instances of having individual and group sex with pre-teenage boys. He was sentenced to a 'duece-less' (two years less a day), which is 'soft time' in Canada, and is served in a provincial jail instead of a federal institution. We are expected to give up our right to privacy so that the sores on our children's bums can be healed just in time for this guy to get out and have another go at them? Would it be ridiculous to suggest that the government *needs* this man back out on the streets in 16 months (if he does 'good time') because there is a shortage of child molesters to hold over our heads for their next attack on our rights and liberties? Hell, give Tim McVeigh a pardon, and then use it for an excuse to make use of compost in the commission of a crime a felony. Personal not to FedUpMonger: I'm just OldAndTiredMonger. I don't need this shit anymore.

2 1