December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Internet knuckle-dragging from the New York Times
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 22:03:20 -0400 From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship-announce(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: FC: Internet knuckle-dragging from the New York Times Wired's Todd Lappin started the flamefest last Friday. A bit uncharacteristic, perhaps, since Todd is generally mild-mannered both online and offline -- but then again, he had a good point and a juicy target. It was the New York Times, which had front-paged a scaremongering above-the-fold article by Christopher Wren: http://www.nytimes.com/library/cyber/week/062097drug.html Todd posted on fight-censorship: The article, headlined "Seductive Drug Subculture Flourishes on the Internet," notes that the Net has become "a virtual do-it-yourself guide to drug use, at a time when adolescents' experimenting is on the rise." Our intrepid reporter then goes on to assert that "partly owing to free-speech protection, the Internet lacks a quality control mechanism to separate fact from hyperbole or from outright falsehood." Indeed, it is also because of those nettlesome free-speech protections that the New York Times is able to publish such drivel -- replete with it's schoolmarm fearmongering, silly correlations, and ankle-deep analysis. Then the Boston Globe's technology reporter, Hiawatha Bray, leaped in... -Declan *********** Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 15:44:55 -0400 From: Hiawatha Bray <wathab(a)tiac.net> Awright. The lurking is over. What IS your problem? Can you point to any inaccuracies in Mr. Wren's story? If not, tough luck. I'm tired of listening to so-called "free speech advocates" going ballistic when they don't like what someone has to say. Every time a journalist writes a story about the seamier side of the Net, somebody complains that this will give outsiders the wrong idea. Nonsense. I think what really worries you is that such stories give people the RIGHT idea--that there are sex fiends, dope smokers and would-be Unabombers on-line. Well, there are. And as long as there are, journalists will write about the fact. Don't like it? Too bad. Deal with it. Hiawatha Bray 617-929-3115 voice Technology Reporter 617-929-3183 fax Boston Globe wathab(a)tiac.net P.O. Box 2378 Boston, MA, 02107 http://members.tripod.com/~krothering/index.html ********** Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 15:18:34 -0500 From: Jon Lebkowsky <jonl(a)onr.com> Subject: RE: Internet Knuckle-dragging from the NYTimes At 03:44 PM 6/20/97 -0400, Hiawatha Bray wrote: >Awright. The lurking is over. > >What IS your problem? Can you point to any inaccuracies in Mr. Wren's >story? If not, tough luck. > >I'm tired of listening to so-called "free speech advocates" going ballistic >when they don't like what someone has to say. Every time a journalist >writes a story about the seamier side of the Net, somebody complains that >this will give outsiders the wrong idea. Nonsense. I think what really >worries you is that such stories give people the RIGHT idea--that there are >sex fiends, dope smokers and would-be Unabombers on-line. Well, there >are. And as long as there are, journalists will write about the fact. > Don't like it? Too bad. Deal with it. > You missed the point. We all know that there are sex fiends, dope smokers, and would-be Unabombers in this world, on the net and elsewhere. What we're saying is that they have free speech rights, just like you. This isn't about blowing people up. This isn't about molesting children. This isn't about doing drugs. You don't *do* any of those things online. But you may talk about them. This is about SPEECH. *********** Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 13:28:27 -0800 To: Hiawatha Bray <wathab(a)tiac.net>, <Fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu> From: "--Todd Lappin-->" <telstar(a)wired.com> At 11:44 AM -0800 6/20/97, Hiawatha >What IS your problem? Can you point to any inaccuracies in Mr. Wren's >story? If not, tough luck. > >I'm tired of listening to so-called "free speech advocates" going ballistic >when they don't like what someone has to say. Every time a journalist >writes a story about the seamier side of the Net, somebody complains that >this will give outsiders the wrong idea. Nonsense. I think what really >worries you is that such stories give people the RIGHT idea--that there are >sex fiends, dope smokers and would-be Unabombers on-line. Well, there >are. And as long as there are, journalists will write about the fact. > Don't like it? Too bad. Deal with it. This is complete and utter bullshit. I didn't say Wren's article was inaccurate... I said it is a load of sensationalist crap, laden with half-baked innuendo and unsubstantiated correlations. Don't pull the "so-called 'free speech advocate'" horsepucky with me either. I'm not calling for censorship of the Times... I'm simply saying that their story was garbage. Of course, they have a right to print garbage... but I also think they have an obligation to recount the facts accurately, and in proper context. This article failed to to that. Instead, it implies that Websites use cartoons to tempt the young (as if cartoons are only for the young), and that the availability of drug info online somehow ties in to the fact that "adolescents' [drug] experimenting is on the rise. That's both absurd and factually unsubstantiated. I have no problem discussing the darker side of the Net... I do so regularly and openly. But I'm fed up with the "Internet Did It" genre of newspaper reporting. It's shoddy, and worse, it's dangerous -- because it promotes public hysteria through techno-fearmongering. Deal with it. --Todd--> PS: Jon Lebkowsky's last point was excellent. ************ Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 13:35:46 -0700 (PDT) From: baby-X <baby-x(a)millennium-cafe.com> On Fri, 20 Jun 1997, Hiawatha Bray wrote: > I'm tired of listening to so-called "free speech advocates" going ballistic > when they don't like what someone has to say. Every time a journalist > writes a story about the seamier side of the Net, somebody complains that > this will give outsiders the wrong idea. Nonsense. I think what really > worries you is that such stories give people the RIGHT idea--that there are > sex fiends, dope smokers and would-be Unabombers on-line. Well, there > are. And as long as there are, journalists will write about the fact. > Don't like it? Too bad. Deal with it. Either educate yourself about the fact that what these stories portray as some virulent epidemic of "bad" information is never anywhere near as severe as the hysteria said stories try to foster (for example, go spend this weekend reading all of Jon Katz over at the Netizen), or go back to lurking. ************ Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 16:57:49 -0400 From: freematt(a)coil.com (Matthew Gaylor) >Awright. The lurking is over. > >What IS your problem? Can you point to any inaccuracies in Mr. Wren's >story? If not, tough luck. > >I'm tired of listening to so-called "free speech advocates" going ballistic >when they don't like what someone has to say. Every time a journalist >writes a story about the seamier side of the Net, somebody complains that >this will give outsiders the wrong idea. Nonsense. I think what really >worries you is that such stories give people the RIGHT idea--that there are >sex fiends, dope smokers and would-be Unabombers on-line. Well, there >are. And as long as there are, journalists will write about the fact. > Don't like it? Too bad. Deal with it. Rather than write sensationalist stories on rather rare crimes in tabloid fashion- [Not that you are guility of this.] I'd personally rather see journalists mention that in comparison to kids swimming, riding a bike, or even playing a game of summer baseball- The chances of harm to children surfing the net is infinitesimal. Regards, Matt- ******** From: Hiawatha Bray <wathab(a)tiac.net> To: "Fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu" <Fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu> Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 17:07:08 -0400 Hmmm...how can I put this? The quality of the responses to my previous message was, well...lame. I don't do flame, so I'm trying to be courteous about this. But folks--you need to grow up. ******** Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 14:05:31 -0700 To: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu From: Lizard <lizard(a)dnai.com> At 03:44 PM 6/20/97 -0400, you wrote: >Awright. The lurking is over. > >What IS your problem? Can you point to any inaccuracies in Mr. Wren's >story? If not, tough luck. > If every week, all you saw in the papers were stories of journalists who beat their wives, jounalists who were arrested on drunk driving charges, journalists who falsified facts, and journalists who were late on their child-support payments, would you simply be content to know that all the stories were accurate? Or would you beging to think that maybe, just maybe, there was a slant? What you choose to report on is as important as the accuracy of the report. What makes this story newsworthy? Why the snide reminder that it's that darn ol' Free Speech thing that keeps these sites from being shut down? Why the emphasis on how 'anyone' can post stuff to the net, since there's no business interest to keep them controlled? It's 100% pure propaganda, designed to stir up calls for a law to prevent distributing 'drug information' to minors, what with the pending (we hope -- well, *I* hope -- you probably don't) collapse of the CDA. You know it is, too. why are you defending it? *********** Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 14:15:31 -0700 (PDT) From: baby-X <baby-x(a)millennium-cafe.com> To: "Fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu" <Fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu> Subject: RE: Internet Knuckle-dragging from the NYTimes On Fri, 20 Jun 1997, Hiawatha Bray wrote: The following is an example of why we don't hold your opinions to be of very much worth: > At no point does Mr. Wren say that Internet use among the young causes > increased drug abuse. He merely notes that a communications medium very > popular with young people is laden with messages that encourage drug use, Laden? Here is the definition of laden from the Hypertext Webster Gateway: Definition for Laden from database web1913 (web1913) Laden \Lad"en\, p. & a. Loaded; freighted; burdened; as, a laden vessel; a laden heart. Loaded? Freighted? Burdened? It's the use of this sort of hysteria-tinted language that causes so many problems in establishment media ocverage of cyberspace. We know, from use of words like this one, what YOUR bias is in these cases. We're just trying to keep that bias from infecting too much media coverage. baby-X <baby-x(a)millennium-cafe.com> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- BitBurn Access - CyberPOLIS - Millennium Cafe - Sluggish Canine ----------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.millennium-cafe.com/~baby-x/ ************* Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 17:19:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Rebecca Daugherty <rebeccad(a)CapAccess.org> To: Hiawatha Bray <wathab(a)tiac.net> I think it's at least philosophically inaccurate to blame the net for the action. It's like killing the messenger, cursing the pen. And it's too sure 'n easy a spin -- bad ole technology has done this too us. um.um.um. There are changes to note -- there are new kinds of technologically proficient pedophiles and they merit some ink so they can be combatted. But the net is the same old net and a benign one with no seamy side at all in my thinking. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rebecca Daugherty <rebeccad(a)capaccess.org> Director, FOI Service Center, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press Visit our web site for media law information: http://www.rcfp.org/rcfp/ ************** Subject: Re: Internet Knuckle-dragging from the NYTimes Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 18:07:19 -0400 From: Thomas Grant Edwards <tedwards(a)isr.umd.edu> In fairness, I don't see many stories in the media about guns except in consideration of their use for murder or suicide. Infact, the Net gets off much easier than guns! -Thomas ************** Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 15:54:47 -0700 To: Hiawatha Bray <wathab(a)tiac.net> From: Lizard <lizard(a)dnai.com> Subject: RE: Internet Knuckle-dragging from the NYTimes Cc: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu At 06:22 PM 6/20/97 -0400, Hiawatha Bray wrote: >I gotta admit, I find your reply irresistible! Much too much fun to argue >with. Okay. You win. You get to be Lizard. > >But you're still talking nonsense about the Times story. Just because it >makes you nervous to read nastiness about the Net, doesn't make it wrong >for journalists to write the truth. Besides, have you ever kept count of >how many pro-Net stories there are? If anything, we reporters have been >guilty of shamelessly hyping the Internet. I could probably show you 10 >positive stories about the Internet for every negative one. Trust me--I >end up reading nearly all of them...it's the cross I must bear! > Very few 'pro internet' stories deal with the REAL benefits of the Internet -- the breakup of the media monopoly, the 'everyone is a reader, everyone is a writer' concept, the building of communities of interest rather than coincidence. We all know about children meeting Evil Predators on the net -- why not stories about children meeting mentors, teachers, or counselors? Rather than "My wife left me for her cyberlover!", why not "I met my wife thanks to our shared interest in barbed-wire collecting"? Let's look at that drug story. Why not write it like this? ==================================================== "After decades of getting only one side of the story from teachers, government, and a lapdog media, teenagers are now able to easily access both pro- and anti- drug information on the Internet, and chat with each other about their drug experiences in secure anonymity, permitting them to make up their own minds on this complex issue. Because Internet access is so inexpensive, people do not need the support of advertisers or subscribers to post any information they wish -- so views outside the mainstream, which would never be aired in traditional forums, can reach anyone with a modem, anywhere in the world. Further, the interactive nature of the net makes it easy for people on all sides of a debate to fire off points and counterpoints, so that the audience (who can become participants at will) can make up their own minds, ask questions, and raise issues that neither side might choose to raise on their own. "It's wonderful for kids", says Mr. Fictional, teacher at Utopia Public School. "We don't want them to 'Say No to Drugs' out of fear or ignorance, but out of a reasoned understanding of the harm drugs can do to them -- and that means they need to get the facts, not a lot of scare tactics. The government would never let us teach the 'straight dope', if you will, but we can turn kids on to the net and let them learn for themselves." ==================================================== There. There's all the "facts" -- but a very different spin, no? ************ Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 16:53:29 -0500 From: Jon Lebkowsky <jonl(a)onr.com> Subject: RE: Internet Knuckle-dragging from the NYTimes >Very nice. But so what? Mr. Wren simply reported what's going on. He >never called for censorship of the Internet. Were you reading the same >article I was, or what? Yeah, the article that said "partly owing to free-speech protection, the Internet lacks a quality control mechanism to separate fact from hyperbole or from outright falsehood." While not exactly a call for censorship, this is certainly dismissive of free speech. ************ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is public. To join fight-censorship-announce, send "subscribe fight-censorship-announce" to majordomo(a)vorlon.mit.edu. More information is at http://www.eff.org/~declan/fc/

1 0

Re: Japan & bombing the US (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 18:20:17 -0700 > From: Tim May <tcmay(a)got.net> > Subject: Re: Japan & bombing the US > No, this is incorrectly paraphrasing what I wrote. What I said, very > precisely, was "as there has been no credible threat of attack or invasion > of the states in America in at least 170 years." I was careful to say > "states in America." Distinction noted. I suppose the fact that American laws govern these areas, and they pay taxes, and can be drafted into our military, get citizenship at birth, etc. are totaly and completely irrelevant and completely unrelated to issues such as these. Thinking like yours is why McArthur got such support when he promised to return to the Phillipines when even his bosses were ready to write it off. It's why the Japanese have such a high regard for him respecting his tenure as military dictator of Japan during their rebuild. If you haven't read it you might consider reading his biography American Ceaser for its insight into the politics of these two periods. > And I also limited my comments to the events leading up to wars...my > context was clear: that had the U.S. not chosen to enter wars, no states > would have been attacked even later. That the U.S. has entered wars and had > states attacked hardly disputes my point. The US didn't choose to enter the war however, that is the issue not your nit-picking over some irrelevant boundary distinction. One thing is clear to anyone who lived in that period as an adult or studies it carefuly, the distinctions that Tim is claiming to be relevant were not important to the people living at the time. When it came to shooting 'Americans' (not Americans in a state, or not on vacation, etc. noise) it was the shooting of Americans that was at issue and not whether Alaska or Hawaii really would become a state in 1959. It is not reasonable to expect the United States of America could have 'sat out' the war. It was and is clear that American MUST enter the war at some point. The British were down to their last $750M in a S. African bank that went walkaround on an American transport to pay outstanding bills. Because of the economic and social ties between American and Britian any thesis claiming America could (let alone should) have remained neutral is pure meta-history. Consider the unrestricted German submarine warfare occuring as close as 30 miles from the Eastern seaboard. How long would people put up with bodies washing up on their beaches regularly? What would have been the impact of doing business with Europe under the German helm in the US (which couldn't exist at anything close to todays tech/social level without strong economic markets)? The Germans and Russians managed to arrive at a commen goal in the invasion of Poland. Without the drain of the African and Cicilian campaigns (which required the support of the US on a military footing to succeed) it is just possible that Russia could sue for peace with Germany causing at least a temporary breathing spell for the marshalling of forces. It is also clear at this point that Germany had a much larger technology lead over the Russians (research where the tubes for Russian radios came from) and such weapons as the ME-262, V1, V2, etc. Under this light it is clear that given a breathing space Germany allied with Japan (assuming the successful invasion of Australia, with no Britian and no US how long would they last?) would pose a real threat to the US, including the direct assault on the continental US. If we can do it in Europe and Africa what in the world makes you think somebody else can't do it? Without US intervention in the war Italy would own Africa now. Those folks were predators, they didn't back down. The Japanese would have gone for the west coast. The Russians would look at the Alaskan peninsula (bought from Russia in the 1800's) and lick their chops. The South American continent would have been Germanic/Japanese without US intervention. The influx of Germans into Argentina and Japanese to Peru started in the 20's and not the 50's. Germany was building a bomber to hit New York and long range fast transport subs, their intent was clear. Why the United States entered WWII can't be attributed to ANY single simplistic thesis such as this. It is also clear that the Japanese and German decision making processes were not motived this simply either. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http:// www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________| ps legaly US military bases are US soil in the same class as DC, clearly a part of the United States. An attack upon such is treated legaly as an attack upon one of the 48 states.

1 0

Re: The Grand Compromise is Coming (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 20:56:33 -0500 (CDT) > From: Mac Norton <mnorton(a)cavern.uark.edu> > Subject: Re: The Grand Compromise is Coming > OK, Tim, I'll try: > The use of communication in furtherance of a crime shall add five years . > . .etc. > > The use of any device to enhance the speed of communication in furtherance > of a crime shall . . . etc. > > The use of any device to disguise a voice in furtherance of . . . etc. > > The use of any cryptographic means of communication in furtherance . . . > > Now, if two and three above are constitutional, why aren't one and four? The use of any printing press in the .... The use of speech in the ... Per the 1st, 9th & 10th; "The use of <blah> in the ...." is un-Constitutional. Now, I can see committing a crime using some facility or special skill might exacerbate the verdict, is that the intent? We could just do away with the preamble and go with exacerbating the verdict if a special skill or facility is required. If nothing else it eliminates any pretense of spontinaity, in effect pre-meditation or aggravation. From that perspective I don't see a Constitutional issue except regarding the punishment phase. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http:// www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Freeware Helps Keep Your Cruising Confidential
by Lou Zirko 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I thought I would pass this along. Just downloaded it and am looking at it. Interesting application for Win 95/NT users. The download page starts at http://www.luckman.com/anoncookie/anoncookie.html Lou Zirko >Freeware Helps Keep Your Cruising Confidential > > > >by Brian McWilliams, PC World NewsRadio > >June 24, 1997 >Concerns about Internet privacy are running hot since the recent privacy >hearings sponsored by the Federal Trade Commission. New laws as well as >technology standards may soon come to the assistance of Net users. In the >meantime, a California company is releasing a freeware tool to help users >gain some control over their online privacy. > >Luckman Interactive today posted a utility for Windows 95 and NT called >Luckman's Anonymous Cookie for Internet Privacy. > >According to chief technology officer Marco Papa, the beta software works >with browsers from Microsoft and Netscape. It installs in your Win 95 >system tray and enables you to switch in and out of "anonymizer mode," >that is, controlling whether or not a Web site can write to and read your >browser's cookie file. This file is used by some sites to personalize >their content and in some cases to track your activities online. > >"We save all your cookie files and replace them with either an empty >folder or a file that can't be overwritten," explains Papa. "When you turn >cookies back on, you actually replace whatever may have changed with your >original cookie files." > >Luckman's Anonymous Cookie program is actually technology that was >developed for the company's WebSweep utility, which is scheduled for >commercial release later this summer. But Papa says the firm decided to >pull the cookie piece out now to give users some much-needed control over >online privacy. > >Dierdre Mulligan of the Center for Democracy and Technology says cookie >files are at the heart of many privacy problems on the Net. Her group is >especially critical of companies like DoubleClick, which she says violates >the spirit of the cookie concept by passing user information on to third >parties. She welcomes tools like Luckman's, but she notes that add-ons >don't help protect the millions of less experienced Net users. > >"If you really want people to have an easy-to-use way to protect >information or to control what their kids are going to see on the Net, >build it into the browser. Everybody has one, and they don't have to go >buy an extra program or figure out how to install it," Mulligan said. > >Brent Luckman, chairman of Luckman Interactive, said that's a great idea, >but he doesn't see much impetus for browser makers to give up access to >valuable marketing information. > >If you're a privacy guerrilla, you can grab your free copy of the >Anonymous Cookie program from Luckman's Web site. > > Lou Zirko Key fingerprint =46 F8 6A 89 F1 4A 74 AB 2F 60 21 E3 FB 21 E4 E4 "Were all bozos on this bus", Nick Danger, Third Eye

1 0

LOSE MONEY FAST!!
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

not to encourage any paranoia or conspiracy theory, but this is an interesting warning I saw on another mailing list that I thought I'd pass on--- From: xxxxx Date: Tue Jun 24 21:49:18 PDT 1997 Subject: LOSE MONEY FAST!! I am writing this to WARN THE PUBLIC of a very DIABOLICAL SCHEME that is RIGHT NOW playing out in the market and ingeniously designed to separate GULLIBLE INVESTORS from their lawful returns. I cannot now reveal exactly the name of the company involved, but I will identify it by the initials "FRN". FRN directors are involved in a complex STOCK MANIPULATION SCHEME in which they are selling additional shares of the company beyond those in circulation, with only the hazy knowledge of the existing stockholders. This is being done IN COLLUSION WITH GOVERNMENT REGULATORS, who are receiving kickbacks from the operation! In other words, individual investors of FRN believe they own 1/n of the company, when in fact there are more shares in existence and they actually own far less than the fraction indicated on their certificates! The additional shares are owned by directors of the company who are secretly releasing the FRAUDULENT SHARES on the market with PRECISE TIMING, such that whenever the legitimate value of the company increases, they release new shares for sale at the current share price. The net effect is that market share prices creep up in value only marginally while the directors effectively INCREASE THEIR CONTROL of the corporation by STEALING FROM SMALLER SHAREHOLDERS. Some select shareholders are allowed to participate in the plan if they increase the profitability of the company, but in their BLIND GREED have not done the math and do not realize that they are in effect LOSING MONEY even though numerically their supposed shares are compounding regularly! In effect the corporation is COUNTERFEITING ITS OWN SHARES under the full knowledge and supervision of the topmost echelons, and the general ignorance of shareholders! This thievery is paid for courtesy of an ever-increasing percentage of the company's shareholders without their awareness! In fact, because so many shareholders are participating, the whole system can be thought of as a massive form of INVISIBLE SLAVERY! The energy of the shareholders that is successfully improving the company is being siphoned off by their "masters", while the masters insist that the company is not even breaking even! Perhaps you may scoff, but remember, THE PERFECT SLAVE IS THE ONE WHO DOESN'T REALIZE HE'S A SLAVE, and an even better one RIDICULES THE POSSIBILITY. And--some slaves THINK THEY ARE MASTERS when in fact they are really SLAVES. (Do you live in a "land of the free"? Are you sure?) FRN has been operating since 1913 and has sucked in huge masses of unsuspecting shareholders who do not realize that it is a massive pyramid scheme that must eventually collapse! Initially the effects were negligible but the disparities among shareholdings has been magnified exponentially over the years. Shareholders have not realized this EVIL TRICK because the company has been growing incredibly rapidly with massive profits that are never reaped by the DESIGNATED VICTIM SHAREHOLDERS but instead skimmed by the CONSPIRATOR'S ELITE. A sophisticated and well-funded PR Office of the company has hypnotized the shareholders into believing their shares are far more valuable than they really are, even in spite of OBVIOUS SIGNS OF DEPRECIATION! The grotesque nature of the beast is revealed in that eventually, with mathematical certainty, doing absolutely nothing, the SINGLE SHAREHOLDER who owned the greatest share at the beginning of this hoax will eventually OWN VIRTUALLY THE ENTIRE COMPANY, with all other shareholders owning virtually nothing! ("The rich get richer and the poor get poorer"-- with some of the poorer thinking they are getting richer!) But the system will collapse before then after enough shareholders FEEL THE SQUEEZE. Unfortunately, it is likely the shareholders will only realize they have been CHEATED and get ANGRY once the whole snake oil enterprise CRASHES! At that point, whoever will be left holding the bag will be mostly random! But what about the masters? Hopefully when the pyramid scheme FINALLY DOES CRASH, the shareholders will have learned their lesson, and go after those truly responsible instead of fighting among themselves, or at the very minimum STOP INVESTING IN PYRAMID SCHEMES! However, history has suggested that the current FRN owners have been using the same strategy in many prior shell games and escaped many previous company "bankruptcies" with their wealth unscathed, and are right now shrewdly planning their escape route by cashing out at precisely the right instant in their LATEST AND MOST GREATEST SKULLDUGGERY EPISODE as well! >From what I have heard, the plan is to then use the proceeds to erect the next, EVEN MORE CONSTRICTING WEALTH EXTRACTION AND SLAVERY SYSTEM. They have been doing this LIKE CLOCKWORK on a schedule of about every 60-70 years, which seems to be about the limit of the public's memory and the lifespan of the system. In fact, it has been going on so long the masters have convinced the population that it's a regular and unavoidable phenomenon! I don't know what will happen, but I am sending this warning to YOU PERSONALLY to check to see if you own shares in FRN, and if so, SELL THEM IMMEDIATELY and invest your hard-earned money into some LEGITIMATE ALTERNATIVE that doesn't steal from you merely by owning it. Also realize that TRADING FRN SHARES, while convenient, is PLAYING INTO THE SCAM! Quite insidiously, far more people own and trade shares in FRN than realize it due to indirect ownership! The MASS DELUSION is everywhere! Eventually the corruption in the government and greed in the population will have to be cleaned up so that companies such as FRN can never begin operating in the first place, and THE TEMPLE IS FOREVER RID OF THE MONEYCHANGERS. But your FIRST DEFENSE is your own intelligence. Remember, YOU CAN'T CHEAT AN HONEST PERSON! Part of the moral is to KNOW WHERE ALL THE SHARES ARE and to MAKE SURE THEY ADD UP TO 1! The TREACHEROUS HIGHWAY ROBBERS will invent elaborate, complicated, INCOMPREHENSIBLE reasons why they don't, such as talking about what paper the stock certificates are made out of, or how high government taxes are, or pointing at programs for share-trading among shareholders. But remember, this is all SMOKE AND MIRRORS--a certificate that says 1/n is a CONTRACT no matter what kind of paper it is printed on, the entire government recently became ANOTHER LOSING SHAREHOLDER, and the net result of the share-trades NEVER ESCAPES THE SHARE PARASITES! Please don't attack the losing shareholders! If you have problems identifying the thieves, remember, THEY'RE THE ONES WHO AUTHORIZED RELEASE OF THE FRAUDULENT CERTIFICATES in the first place, IN EXCESS OF FACE VALUE. And they'll likely be unscathed after the collapse, but keeping an extremely low profile! (But don't blame the printers! And don't believe it if the "authorizers" pretend to be the "printers"!) Take back your power and DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY, otherwise, you're just ANOTHER VICTIM FOR THE CON GAME! May God be with you--

2 1

Re: Bomb-making instructions....
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Paul Bradley wrote: > I personally know no chemistry at all, but what would be nice is if > someone who knows what they are doing wrote an "anarchists cookbook" type > set of files, but this time got them right so anyone attempting any of > the recipes wouldn`t be killed. People named "Lefty" need not apply...

10 14

GAH--Government Access to Humor
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From the News of the Weird: * Unclear on the Concept: In January, Bamrer Pong-insee, a spokesman for the Professional Comedians Association of Thailand, said its members will soon be prohibited by rule from being impolite on stage. Especially barred are obscene language, physical humor in which pain is implied, and being disrespectful to a colleague's parents. In reading the above, I realized that in order for the policy to work properly there will have to be penalties for audience members who laugh at inappropriate (illegal?) humor. A suitable agency will have to be formed to enforce these new regulations. Soon the Laughing Police will be no laughing matter. Politicians will be falling all over each other to show the voters that they are "hard on crime" and will eventually call for the death penalty for violators. (Sending them to the Laughing-Gas chamber.) SeriousMonger {I tried to make it in comedy, but everyone laughed at me.}

1 0

Re: The Grand Compromise is Coming
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>By the way, I have no heard no good counters to my point that the "use of >crypto in furtherance of a crime" is quite analogous to "freedom of >religion shall not be abridged, but saying a heathen prayer in furtherance >of a crime shall subject the heathen to an additional five years of >imprisonment." Two differences: Saying a prayer, heathen or not, does not make the commision of the crime easier. Using a gun, or using crypto, does. Saying a prayer can be done in complete privacy and silence, making it impossible to tell whether someone is doing it. Using crypto generally involves some outward evidence. It is not all in your head. If some form of prayer were invented which did not have these properties, then it might be forbidden. The Marinsha prayer, shouted with the appropriate intensity, paralyzes the hearer for several minutes. Robberies have become common using this method. Making the Marinsha prayer illegal in all circumstances is too broad, but criminalizing it for use in the commision of a crime would be a plausible response.

1 0

It ain't over till the fatman burns...
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Paul Bradley wrote: > > > I still am concerned about kids being subject to material that is > > inappropriate for their age group (what ever that may be). So how do I > > insure that my son/daugher does not get their hands on _THIS_ material? > > Supervision, plain and simple. However, if you honestly believe your > children are going to be harmed in some lasting way by any images they > might find there is clearly something wrong with the way you have brought > them up Good, strong beatings will also help to deter them from doing things that they find interesting or pleasurable. This will help to reinforce the concept that things which feel good lead to pain and punishment. Pictures of people burning in hell can be put in prominent places in the home, with constant verbal reminders that God will punish bad people who have different values than you. It is particularly important to impress on your daughter that she must keep her head covered at all times and never look a strange man in the eye or allow her ankles to show. Remind her that, as much as you love her, you will still be forced to join in stoning her to death if she choses to stray outside acceptable social standards. Impress upon your son that if he wants to have sex with teenage girls under the age of 18 he must move to a foreign country where he can receive millions of dollars in foreign aide while he does so. Explain that if he has sex with his teenage girlfriend in this country that he is an evil person and will be convicted as a sex offender (which will delay their wedding plans) and be marked for life as a child molester. Most important of all, carefully explain to your children that if their gaze ever happens to fall upon material which you find unacceptable that they will end up being murdering, drug-dealing pornographers because they are immoral dupes with no character or self-will. Use Paul and myself as examples of where libertarian thinking leads, in the end. After all, he is writing from DEMON.co.uk and I am writing from LUCIFER(a)dhp.com. If you are concerned about what your children may encounter on the internet that will expose their lack of character and morals, there is a program available that is even better than Cybersitter. It was sent to the list by fuck(a)yourself.up a few months ago. Check the archives for it or ask the cypherpunks list's on-call librarian, Tim C. May, how to find it. FlameMonger

2 1

Re: Comparing Cryptographic Key Sizes II
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>I can assure you >that in moving from a 1024 bit key to a 4096 bit key, the attackers >job is well in excess of 50x harder. Greatly in excess of a trillion >trillion times harder. First part true, second part false. See Schneier, p.160. Extrapolating using GNFS factoring indicates ratio of 1E21. If SNFS factoring becomes possible it is much worse, ratio less than one million.

2 1