April 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Mike Hawash
by Major Variola (ret) 02 May '03

02 May '03

At 03:10 PM 4/29/03 -0400, Tyler Durden wrote: >OK, aside from the obvious problems with being held without charge until >now, there are some other major issues here. > >Apparently, the guy is only being charged with traveling to China in an >attempt to enter Afghanistan and fight US forces. According to 1 "informant", who is getting *what* in return? Buying a parka and flying is not treason. Even trying to enter .af is not illegal. (And congress never did declare war there, did they?) Shooting off guns in a quarry is not illegal. Going to the same church as folks who pled is not illegal. Clearly, he was given a deal, while in illegal custody, cooperate or we file charges. He didn't, so they did. If they had charges to begin with, they needn't have held him illegally. Of course, he won't be tried in the justice system, so we'll never know the facts.. Maybe they'll go after his wife, if he still doesn't do as they dictate.

5 7

Re: Fake News for Big Brother
by Nomen Nescio 02 May '03

02 May '03

> On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely > nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a > major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict > in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox > Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented > to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is technically > not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort > the news on a television broadcast. It's significant that a United States Court of Appeals has a stronger commitment to the First Amendment than supposed arch-libertarian Tim May. Look at May's response when confronted with the idea that a newspaper has the right to print what it chooses: > But the journalist and his editors are still alive. > > When they have been necklaced and lit, we can rest easier. > > Burning down the entire newspaper office would maybe be overkill, but, > hey, what the hell. > > Fuck them dead. That's right: Tim May believes people should be tortured and killed for saying the wrong thing in their own newspaper. Apparently he believes that he has the right to set rules which everyone else must follow in what they say, under penalty of a horrific death. Needless to say, nothing could be further from the letter and spirit of the First Amendment. Thank God for the protection of anonymity. With people like Tim May throwing around death threats towards those who say the wrong thing, this may soon be the only way we can communicate without fear. Please join me in condemning this savage trampling on principles supported by all men of honor.

9 12

Re: Making Money in Digital Money
by Nomen Nescio 01 May '03

01 May '03

All this talk about digital payments is a real blast from the past. Not just because it's all been said before; but because of how it demonstrates that cypherpunks are still stuck in the early 1990s as far as their world view. Every one of these discussions might have been made five or even ten years ago (with the possible exception of the details of Brands technology, which isn't fundamental). Yet the internet world has changed enormously since then. Most of these changes have passed the cypherpunks by. All the P2P work, file sharing, Freenet, IIRC, weblogs, WiFi, open source, open spectrum; for the most part it's as if none of this exists, in the world of the cypherpunks. The problem with these discussions of digital payments is so fundamental that it's amazing that no one mentions it: anonymous payments are useless. The world hasn't evolved the way cypherpunks thought it might, ten years ago. Yet the reality doesn't sink in. Anonymous payments for physical goods are pointless because you can't deliver them anonymously. Everyone has recognized that from the beginning. So they always envisioned them being used for information goods. Well, here's a clue, folks: information goods are free today. You can't build a digital money system on paying for information goods, in a world where people expect to get their information goods for free. I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry when I read someone like James Donald claiming that MP3s are a micropayment market. Wake up, gramps! My God, nothing could make you sound more like a clueless refugee from the 90s than a statement like that. It's a perfect illustration of how irrelevant the cypherpunks have become. At one time, cypherpunks, with their libertarian and anarchocapitalist views, assumed that the online world was turning into Galt's Gulch, a world where people would constantly pay for exchanges of information. What they didn't foresee is that it turned instead into a communist utopia, where each supplies according to his abilities, and each takes according to his needs. And it works online, unlike in the physical world, because no matter how much each person takes, there's still plenty for everyone else. Information doesn't get used up. Unless cypherpunks open their eyes to the reality around them, instead of seeing what they want to see, they are going to continue to be part of the past rather than part of the future. Ironically, Tim May's racist prediction for "the colored race" has become the truth for the cypherpunks: they are "headed for the trash heap of history, courtesy of their own choices." And with views like those, cypherpunks are the ones truly deserving of his final comment: "Fuck 'em."

10 17

patriotism considered evil
by Adam Back 01 May '03

01 May '03

Some observations on the nouns "Patriot", and "American" etc as they relate to current events. I'm not American. I'm dual-national British/Swiss, I've lived in Britain, Scotland, Canada and now the US. But I have not noticed anyone in Britain, or British press discussing "un-British" behavior, or putting down anyone attempting to ask questions as "un-patriotic". (Ditto for the other countries). Press coverage of Iraq is varyingly biased in those countries (ridiculously so in the US, somewhat in the UK due to their involvement). Opinion in the UK is split, but I don't see those on the pro-side of the fence arguing that those arguing against are unpatriotic or anything. They're just arguing too and fro about issues. Politicians were arguing on both sides and getting some air time. But in the US the issues are buried, it's difficult for detractors of the government line to be heard without getting shouted down as unpatriotic or unamerican. So I guess the American-way used to stand for something -- beliefs in freedoms etc., and that one symbol used historically to express support of those freedoms was the US flag. So I'm supposing this is the historic reason people fly flags, on their cars, houses, businesses etc. (A practice virtually non-existant in any other country I've lived in, or travelled to). But today it seems that the words Patriotic and American (in their negative forms un-American and un-patriotic as) have become sullied and perverted and essentially synonymous with: - unquestioning acceptance of the party line, of the military news-management - put down and outright aggression against anyone who dares to think for themselves, to ask critical questions, to express interest in the truth, or express any interest in hearing both sides of an argument In Britain the Union Jack flag to some extent got co-opted by racist political groups such as the National Front, British National Party. At least to the extent that wearing a t-shirt with a union jack on it might not convey the message you hoped -- particularly if you have a skin-head haircut. In a similar way to me at least the US flag is heading the same way with (different but negative) connotations of blind adherence to the party line. To me as a non-American all these flags fluttering as a symbol of the governmental and military groups who are currently eroding rights and freedoms in the US feels bizarre. The same rights and freedoms that apparently the same flag used to stand for. I guess there are some similarities with the negative cooption of the Union Jack symbol, but I'm wondering if in the US most of the flag flying population even noticed the switcheroo in connotation. Flag flying seems to be more popular than ever. Personally I'm somewhat on the fence about whether the US/British attack on Iraq will end up being a net positive or negative thing for world stability and safety. It was an illegal first strike action against a sovreign country, and it was a highly interventionist activity, but the outcome is less clearly bad though of course we don't know yet what the long term side-effects will be. Anyway I never liked patriotism. What's important in my book is thinking for yourself, thinking critically and forming your own opinions. The governments and prominent political parties in most western democracies are sleaze pits deserving only of contempt. And they are the entities most closely associated with and in control of the actions of a country on any large scale in the international arena. So to me patriotism was always synonymous with support for this system. A corrupt political system which needs to be replaced with anarcho-capitalism for things to get better. Adam

6 7

VANGUARD: May Day (fwd)
by Jim Choate 01 May '03

01 May '03

Not sure why I got it....YMMV (mine certainly did). ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 19:18:49 -0700 From: Rod D. Martin <Rod.Martin(a)theVanguard.org> To: TheVanguard.org <Vanguard(a)theVanguard.org> Subject: VANGUARD: May Day Vanguard of the Revolution http://www.theVanguard.org MAY DAY by Rod D. Martin, 1 May 2003 You would have never heard of Karl Marx had it not been for V.I. Lenin. Marx was neither terribly successful nor terribly important in his own right, and had it not been for a revolution carried out three decades after his death, he would be a footnote at best. But on this May Day, the high holy day of Communism and Socialism, it is important that we remember. As a student, both in England and America, I often heard the refrain -- even from conservatives -- that "communism wouldn't have been so bad if it had been carried out like Marx suggested, without all that junk from Lenin and Stalin." It still amazes me the degree to which this leftist propaganda can be passed off as true. It shows that the speaker has never read much (if any) Marx or Lenin, and, usually, that he wants to sound "intellectual". It also shows that socialists, whether of the national socialist (Nazi) or of the international socialist (Communist/Socialist) stripe, have been very successful in employing Herr Goebbels' doctrine of "the big lie." In fact, Marx never produced a political program at all. The entirety of his plan for his new world order was contained in ten short points -- nothing more than slogans, really -- in his very first "book", the Communist Manifesto. He never defined them further. He never saw a need. Marx had grander work in mind. He was producing a religion. Marx, the anti-Semitic Jew, the hater of Christianity and all it stood for, created an entire atheology. It was, in the words of James Billington, "fire in the minds of men." Marx sought to turn the old order on its head, to regenerate mankind through chaos. He preached a dialectical view of history which seemed to derive from Fuerbach but really just represented ancient dualism. He propounded a materialism which he said "turned Hegel right-side up," and which said that no person was anything more than a mechanistically determined automaton, "matter in motion." He wedded to this a naively classical interpretation of the labor theory of value to produce his economics, and a utopian view of the state that said man, who was morally neutral and therefore perfectible, could be utterly re-made -- regenerated, or "saved" -- by a state or party which completely controlled and molded his environment. To all of this he added an eschatology of victory, a certainty of success which was raised to the level of first principle, of dogma, of prerequisite faith. It is eternally worth noting that Whittaker Chambers, even when he embraced freedom, believed without question that he was abandoning the winning side. The contagiousness of the Communist faith was such that virtually everyone at the time agreed. The tenor of the "worker's paradise" to come was already apparent in Marx's own leadership of the International Workingmen's Association, which was nothing if not dictatorial. Once in the hands of a state, however, Communist atheology became truly consistent with its presuppositions. Since the individual man was just a biological machine, he could be discarded at will. Since good and evil were entirely relative, they could be defined entirely by the party and therefore by the state. Since the state/party could and must regenerate man and build the paradise to come, it's power must be absolute and unquestioned. And since victory was inevitable, millions gave up their individuality, their families, even their lives, without a fight. Marx's atheology created the greatest idol of all, the idol of the omnipotent state. This idol appealed to men more than any other in history, because it made all morality relative and it gave ambitious men the means to become gods themselves. But it also appealed precisely because it was not an idol of stone or wood, but an idol of power: prayers to it could be answered, needs and greeds fulfilled. And because it indulged all of man's basest instincts while ever appealing to his noblest motives, it was exactly the sort of god man wanted to create, a god in his own image. Marx's work was nothing new -- it was the logical conclusion of left-wing Enlightenment humanism, and had roots as old as Pharaoh -- and it was left to others -- Lenin, Stalin, Mao -- to carry out his work. Yet Marx's idol was and remains in many ways the most successful false god of human history. In its heyday enslaving more than half the world (and nearly taking the rest), its presuppositions still remain the dominant faith of the ruling elites of most of the western world. That is itself a terrifying thought. Marxism in this century killed a hundred million people, and sent probably two billion to hell. It withered whatever it touched, and it frankly touched us all. If Lenin's minions were the "vanguard" of the old revolution, we must be the vanguard of the new. Nothing has taught us better than Marxism the danger of holding false theological presuppositions, even in the absence of a clear political program. Mankind may embrace the truth, or he may embrace a lie. The difference between the American Revolution and the Russian is the difference between worlds; and it is that better world -- indeed a better world even still -- which we must build. Copyright: Rod D. Martin, 1 May 2003. This column first appeared (with minor differences) on 1 May 1998. -- Rod D. Martin, Founder and Chairman of Vanguard PAC (http://www.theVanguard.org) is an attorney and writer from Little Rock, Arkansas. A former policy director to Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, he is the Center for Cultural Leadership's Senior Fellow in Public Policy and Political Affairs, and Special Counsel to PayPal.com Founder Peter Thiel. ================================================================ SEVEN GREAT CONSERVATIVE BOOKS! Don't miss these outstanding conservative book selections, ON SALE NOW by arrangement between the Vanguard Bookstore and Amazon.com. 1. "Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty Year Struggle And Final Triumph Over Communism", by Peter Schweizer http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385504713/vanguardoftherev/ 2. "Let Freedom Ring", by Sean Hannity http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060514558/vanguardoftherev/ 3. "Useful Idiots: How Liberals Got it Wrong in the Cold War and Still Blame America First", by Mona Charen http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0895261391/vanguardoftherev/ 4. "The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left's Assault on Our Culture and Values", by Tammy Bruce http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0761516638/vanguardoftherev/ 5. "Shooting Straight: Telling the Truth About Guns in America", by Wayne LaPierre, James Jay Baker and Charlton Heston http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0895261235/vanguardoftherev 6. "Why the Left Hates America: Exposing the Lies That Have Obscured Our Nation's Greatness", by Daniel J. Flynn http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/076156375X/vanguardoftherev 7. "What's So Great About America", by Dinesh D'Souza http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0895261537/vanguardoftherev TheVanguard Bookstore: America's Conservative Choice http://www.theVanguard.org/ ================================================================ ADVERTISEMENT FOR SALE: The Nel-Vic Tour Home Own a piece of history, and an impressive investment property, business or home! Located in one of the world's most beautiful settings -- overlooking the King's River, just six miles from magnificent Eureka Springs, Arkansas -- this tour home, museum, and coveted spot for Victorian weddings, is now for sale. A portion of the proceeds will support conservative causes through Vanguard PAC. For More Information: http://www.theVanguard.org/nelvictourhome/ VanguardPAC(a)theVanguard.org ================================================================ To subscribe to "Vanguard of the Revolution", send the message "Subscribe Vanguard", or the message "Unsubscribe Vanguard" to unsubscribe, to listadmin(a)theVanguard.org. Contact listowner(a)theVanguard.org if you have questions. ================================================================ http://www.theVanguard.org Vanguard(a)theVanguard.org Vanguard PAC P. O. Box 250038 Little Rock, AR 72225 The information contained herein may be disseminated for non- commercial purposes as long as attribution (including our Web address) is provided. ================================================================

2 1

Re: Fake News for Big Brother
by David Howe 01 May '03

01 May '03

at Tuesday, April 29, 2003 3:16 PM, Trei, Peter <ptrei(a)rsasecurity.com> was seen to say: > I'm not sure how I feel about this. Problems would arise if there > *were* a law against news media presenting false information. > The question becomes 'What is truth?', and > 'Who decides". Laws of this type are used in many tyrannies (recently, > Zimbabwe) to persecute reporters on the grounds that they > were 'libeling the government'. I think there is a distinction between truth as an absolute, the twisted wording required to avoid libel in the uk, and deliberately lieing to people who believe you are a source of truth about the world they can't see. The UK has some pretty strong rules in this area - for instance, a newsreader can't be seen to promote (advertise) a product, as a viewer could confuse marketing (which is always a bit suspect) with "news" (which is supposed to be unbiassed and as accurate as the broadcaster can make it) and in libel/slander cases, the burden of proof is on the defendant - not fun at all. > 'Truth in media' is a sword that cuts both ways. Indeed - but (at least in a free press) there is supposed to be a distinction between "marketing" "news" and "propaganda". Of course, freedom of the presses has only ever been available to those who own presses....

3 4

Re: Making Money in Digital Money
by zem 01 May '03

01 May '03

Anonymous writes: > Let me explain it so simply you can't miss it. This system does not > work, because by the time the content is in the hands of just a few > people, they will be bidding against each other to sell it on the net. > Such a state of competition will quickly drive the prices down to the > cost of reproduction, which is effectively zero. Therefore you can't > sell more than a dozen-odd copies of the software at a non-zero price. > > If most of the people buying this software are doing so with the > expectation of recouping their costs by re-selling, then no one will > buy after the first few, since they will not be able to make any money > selling at zero. But this means that even those first few buyers won't > be able to sell at non-zero, since these second-wave potential buyers > were their customers. You're assuming that resellers add zero value to the content. They can make a profit by providing some service over and above the content itself. Take file sharing networks as an example. Current networks are flooded with bogus, incomplete or poor quality files. A nym could build a reputation as a validating service - a critic, if you like. Perhaps something like this: Alice the music critic buys copies of new content at relatively high prices from the creator, or close sources. When Bob requests a copy of a particular file, Alice encrypts it to Bob's public key and signs the encrypted copy, selling him this 'reviewed' copy for reproduction cost + profit. Bob can verify he's received a good copy, but he can't redistribute Alice's reviewed version without revealing his secret key. (Yeah, Mallory can create a one-shot key pair with the intention of revealing it and redistributing Alice's reviewed file. Alice can reduce her losses by refusing to deal with unknown buyers, or by demanding pre-payment for 100 copies up front, or something like that.) -- mailto:zem@vigilant.tv F289 2BDB 1DA0 F4C4 DC87 EC36 B2E3 4E75 C853 FD93 http://vigilant.tv/ "..I'm invisible, I'm invisible, I'm invisible.."

2 1

Re: Quarantines may be justified
by Jim Choate 01 May '03

01 May '03

You know, I keep thinking you've said the stupidest thing ever. And then you say something else. On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, Sunder wrote: > Then, by extension, I find that when people say "libertarians" in quotes > like you said, but not like I said, is no different than having them > assult me with their fists. > > In fact, I find such behavior as direct threats against my life, and > instilling terror, so that makes you a terrorist, and possibly an Arab > because in my experience, people who put libertarians in menacing quotes > like you do were mostly Arabs who hate our freedoms, and that's why they > bombed the World Trade Center, and therefore must be harboring WMD's -- > and they probably got a huge stash of oil we can grab too - I mean, are > torturing their subjects and are anti-freedom, and hate the American Way > of Life (Wave Flag Here!) > > > Should we really be able to make up our own definitions and turn things > which merely annoy us into crimes? Think about it a bit longer before > you reply again. -- ____________________________________________________________________ We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. Criswell, "Plan 9 from Outer Space" ravage(a)ssz.com jchoate(a)open-forge.org www.ssz.com www.open-forge.org --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Re: Thanks for the living hell, and question about OpenSSL
by Patrick Chkoreff 01 May '03

01 May '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Tim May wrote: > Not meaning to sound too harsh, but you need to think deeply about what > cryptography is all about and why "trust me, I promise not to look" > systems are not desirable or interesting. I'm writing "(unblind (sign (blind X))) = (sign x)" on the board one hundred times. - -- Patrick http://fexl.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0 iQA/AwUBPqm3I1A7g7bodUwLEQLBtQCgxyXbUvKDtgfIM1yPdpy1CuynegMAnjWd NDt1h4fmiu1OBreIZdrc8CnV =deYX -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

11 15

text analysis
by Major Variola (ret) 01 May '03

01 May '03

FWIW: There's a paragraph in the current _Science_ that mentions "Winnow", a program by some .il researchers that guesses the sex of authors by their writing. They claim 80% accuracy on general lit and 74% accuracy on 30 science papers. (Of course that's over a baseline of 50%...)

5 4