July 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: DNA of relative indicts man, cuckolding ignored
by Major Variola (ret) 07 Jul '03

07 Jul '03

At 08:36 PM 7/7/03 -0400, Stormwalker wrote: > >> What's wrong with voluntary eugenics? The invention of agriculture >> started a policy of negative eugenics that culminates with the >> industrial welfare state paying stupids to breed, while others chose >> birth control. And banning somatic or germ line fixes to diseases, if >> you can do them, is as compassionate as banning insulin. Which isn't >> even a fix, just a workaround. > > I was thinking of eugenics where something was forced upon others, > which I do not think is desirable. Hey, I oppose *anything* which is forced upon others, even if *I* deem it as "good". > The invention of agriculture has not yet culminated. It gave/gives > people time to do other things. Yeah, like raise armies, feed bureaucraps, etc. Still, I don't hold it against the farmers. Besides, the dominant cultures are descendants of farmers. See the writings of Jared Diamond. > Good luck banning germ lines :) > >> If a germ line fix has an unintended side effect, you either undo it >> (revert back to being inclined towards diabetes, if this is preferable >> to the side effect, say) or you debug or patch it. Current & historical >> medicine is filled with such things for mere *temporary* meds that >> don't cure anything. > > Reverting may or not be possible. The products of some germ line > may like what they are and wil lnot revert, no matter what other > folks think. Well, if they *like* it, only violent coercion would cause reversion. I was thinking something like, the diabetes-fix package causes premature death or something bothersome like that. Obviously the "service pack 6 nasal spray" needs to refuse to install on folks without the proper prior install. Also it needs to avoid spurious installation on folks who don't want it ---maybe you have to take a snort of some antibiotic combo at the same time to activate it, which is a current technique used for turning on inserted genes. Later

1 0

Re: Idea: The ultimate CD/DVD auditing tool
by Major Variola (ret) 07 Jul '03

07 Jul '03

At 08:45 AM 7/7/03 -0700, alan wrote: >But the real issue is that all of these DRM methods rely on "security by >obscurity". Such methods eventually fail. Either the actual method is >discovered and published or the DRM method fails in the marketplace and is >never heard from again. Hilary R and Jack V are *far* more fucked than mere security-by-obscurity. Any human-consumable (analogue) input is readily recordable with a single, one-time ADC, and thereafter is toast. DRM is a fraud perpetrated by engineers on Hollywood suits. Good for employment though.

1 0

Re: Denver Post article on mattd/proffr/AP/Jim Bell/cypherpunks
by Tyler Durden 07 Jul '03

07 Jul '03

>"The posts made by Professor Rat fall under a relatively new category of >crime known >as "cyberstalking," >said Jim Doyle, a retired New York City >police sergeant who now works as a >cybercrimes consultant for a > >Connecticut company called Internet Crimes. >The statements made by Professor Rat constitute prosecutable offenses, he >said. >"The bottom line is what the victim feels," he said. "Is the victim >threatened? Is the victim alarmed? >Hey, that's a crime." Interesting logic here. Someone writes something not-so-nice about somebody on a list and now that person is being "cyberstalked" even though they're not a subscriber. And now, the stalk-ee is a victim of a crime. And now the person who said something "not-so-nice" has committed a crime. And this guy's a consultant? To whom, I wonder... Funny enough, I don't rmember seeing any of Prof Rat's posts, and I've never even killfiled him. -TD >From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> >To: cypherpunks(a)lne.com >Subject: Denver Post article on mattd/proffr/AP/Jim Bell/cypherpunks >Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:03:54 -0400 > >http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~53~1497971,00.html > >... > >The development of digital money, and encryption software restricting >government's ability to monitor Internet activity, are common goals among >the online anarchists and libertarians known as "cypherpunks." > >The ultimate purpose of Assassination Politics is to deter people from >working for government agencies, corporate media outlets or institutions >"beholden to the violence of the state," Taylor said. > >Professor Rat also has threatened a University of Ottawa law professor, a >columnist for The Boston Globe and a Cincinnati police officer. > >... > >The Post is withholding the names of the subjects of posts by Professor Rat >to avoid promoting any specific threats. > >... > >Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California-Los Angeles >and a First Amendment specialist, said the threats were probably criminal, >given Taylor's description of the purpose of Assassination Politics. > >... _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

2 1

Re: DNA of relative indicts man, cuckolding ignored
by Tim May 07 Jul '03

07 Jul '03

On Monday, July 7, 2003, at 10:15 AM, Stormwalker wrote: > On Mon, 7 Jul 2003, Major Variola (ret) wrote: > >> Insurance companies are private entities, so IMHO its moral for >> them to gather intel (eg, checking blood for nicotine metabolites), >> or give discounts for folks who've had certain inherited diseases >> fixed >> in the future. Or eat better, drive safer, exchange fluids less >> promiscuously, whatever. > > I have to disagree here. Medical insurance is not the same as life > or car insurance. It was all supposed to be a big pool that we would > draw on when needed. By skimmimng the cream, infant mortality rates > rise, along with a host of other problems. No, it was NOT "all supposed to be a big pool that we would draw on when needed." You seem to be confusing medical insurance with nationalized social medicine. Do I really need to explain this concept here, to subscribers here? Medical insurance is a risk arbitrage betting scheme just like all other insurance: the actor selling a policy (a contract) is making the bet that he will make more money than he pays out. If he finds out something that alters the expectation of some illness or disease or hazardous activity, then he adjusts the policy premiums accordingly (or even refuses to sell a policy at any price, for understandable reasons). By the way, any scheme to force everyone into the same insurance pool for the same premiums is profoundly antiliberty and is unconstitutional (violates all sorts of rights). "Opting out" of coverage is always fair. If I know I am not a rock climber, why would I pay for coverage for rock climbing falls? And if I know I am not engaging in queer sex or IV drug use, why would I pay for AIDS coverage/ (There are interesting scenarios for private testing for various genes or proclivities, followed by opting-out for the diseases one is highly unlikely to contract. This kind of "not paying for what you don't use" is a form of cherry-picking which only a total state could outlaw. Think about it.) --Tim May

3 2

Re: DNA of relative indicts man, cuckolding ignored
by Major Variola (ret) 07 Jul '03

07 Jul '03

At 01:15 PM 7/7/03 -0400, Stormwalker wrote: >On Mon, 7 Jul 2003, Major Variola (ret) wrote: >> Interesting, thanks. Even a brother's daughter could be refused. > > The BRCA genes are only transmitted through the mother, but > there are many others that go through both lines. Could you explain how this could be? Any gene has a chance of continuing unless its on the father's Y he has only daughters. (Patrilineal surnames behave like this. I believe there's a "Cohen"-surname related gene set.) (Mitochondrial chromos of course are matrilineal always. For clones they come from the surrogate.) Males can always keep any maternal gene going, even if its not expressed. > Unintended side effects are all but guaranteed :( The tinkering > will resemble eugenics at the building block level. Eliminating genetic > diseases will be great, but introducing other things might not be, just > as eliminating some things might be bad. What's wrong with voluntary eugenics? The invention of agriculture started a policy of negative eugenics that culminates with the industrial welfare state paying stupids to breed, while others chose birth control. And banning somatic or germ line fixes to diseases, if you can do them, is as compassionate as banning insulin. Which isn't even a fix, just a workaround. If a germ line fix has an unintended side effect, you either undo it (revert back to being inclined towards diabetes, if this is preferable to the side effect, say) or you debug or patch it. Current & historical medicine is filled with such things for mere *temporary* meds that don't cure anything. "This nasal spray contains a vector with Service Pack 6 for the germ-line diabetes package installed by your grandfather" :-)

2 1

Re: Idea: The ultimate CD/DVD auditing tool
by Tyler Durden 07 Jul '03

07 Jul '03

Do you have a reference? I don't remember reading that SACD was encrypted. What I DO remember is that the reason there's no standard SACD or DVD-A digital interface is because the Industry wants that digital interface to be encrypted. -TD >From: Nomen Nescio <nobody(a)dizum.com> >To: cypherpunks(a)lne.com >Subject: Re: Idea: The ultimate CD/DVD auditing tool >Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 07:30:05 +0200 (CEST) > >Thomas Shaddup writes: > > As a welcomed side effect, not only we'd get a device for circumvention >of > > just about any contemporary (and possibly a good deal of the future >ones) > > optical media "protections" > >This is only for the minimal forms of "protection" which are designed to >work with existing CD/DVD players. If you look at the new audio formats >like SACD, they use encrypted data. All your lasers won't do you any >good unless you can pry a key (and the algorithm!) out of a consumer >player, which won't be easy assuming it is in a tamper-resistant unit. >And you can bet the industry won't make the mistake again of allowing >software-based players, as they did with the DeCSS affair. > >In short, you're fighting yesterday's war. Try looking ahead a bit to >see where the battlegrounds of the future will be contested. _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

2 1

Re: Idea: The ultimate CD/DVD auditing tool
by Nomen Nescio 07 Jul '03

07 Jul '03

Thomas Shaddup writes: > As a welcomed side effect, not only we'd get a device for circumvention of > just about any contemporary (and possibly a good deal of the future ones) > optical media "protections" This is only for the minimal forms of "protection" which are designed to work with existing CD/DVD players. If you look at the new audio formats like SACD, they use encrypted data. All your lasers won't do you any good unless you can pry a key (and the algorithm!) out of a consumer player, which won't be easy assuming it is in a tamper-resistant unit. And you can bet the industry won't make the mistake again of allowing software-based players, as they did with the DeCSS affair. In short, you're fighting yesterday's war. Try looking ahead a bit to see where the battlegrounds of the future will be contested.

2 1

Re: Genetic engineering [was: RE: DNA of relative indicts man, cuckol ding ignored]
by Major Variola (ret) 07 Jul '03

07 Jul '03

At 03:59 PM 7/7/03 -0400, Trei, Peter wrote: >There are some things where nearly everyone will agree >a genetic fix is desirable - for example, suceptibility to >heart disease, cancer, dental caries, and myopia. Other >'vanity' fixes seem pretty harmless - being tall, busty, >or having a well-stuffed package. > >Its when we get to 'fixes' to behaviour and personality >that things start to get very hairy. Although your examples are important, anyone who has or has known someone with depression, schizophrenia, or ADD [1] will argue that *subjectively unpleasant* mental ills are as worth fixing as bad teeth. If not more so. I fear that those in >power will use genetic engineering as they have used >every other tool at their disposal - weapons, states, >laws, and governments - to maintain their position at >the expense of the overall welfare of the species, by >allowing improvements only to their own descendents, >while requiring changes to those out of power which >make it harder for them to change their status. Agreed, as with the rest of your post. There are real horrorshow future possibilities. One more point. What is "adaptive" depends on your environment. As I try to explain to my more pigmented wife (it comes up because my 3.8 year old is in the "why" phase) while I'd get skin cancer in tropical zones, she'd get rickets in more northerly areas. Extrapolate to personality properties like "inhibition" (recently shown to be persistant from 2 to 20 year olds ie genetic) "aggression", etc. [1] Please don't lets start the flame about chemical coercion in mandatory youth education camps. Real ADD fucks people up. Which is not to say that M.Y.E.C. are well designed nor that ADD treatments are abused.

1 0

Denver Post article on mattd/proffr/AP/Jim Bell/cypherpunks
by Declan McCullagh 07 Jul '03

07 Jul '03

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~53~1497971,00.html ... The development of digital money, and encryption software restricting government's ability to monitor Internet activity, are common goals among the online anarchists and libertarians known as "cypherpunks." The ultimate purpose of Assassination Politics is to deter people from working for government agencies, corporate media outlets or institutions "beholden to the violence of the state," Taylor said. Professor Rat also has threatened a University of Ottawa law professor, a columnist for The Boston Globe and a Cincinnati police officer. ... The Post is withholding the names of the subjects of posts by Professor Rat to avoid promoting any specific threats. ... Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California-Los Angeles and a First Amendment specialist, said the threats were probably criminal, given Taylor's description of the purpose of Assassination Politics. ...

1 0

Genetic engineering [was: RE: DNA of relative indicts man, cuckol ding ignored]
by Trei, Peter 07 Jul '03

07 Jul '03

> Major Variola (ret)[SMTP:mv@cdc.gov] writes: > > What's wrong with voluntary eugenics? The invention of > agriculture started a policy of negative eugenics that culminates > with the industrial welfare state paying stupids to breed, while > others chose birth control. And banning somatic or germ line > fixes to diseases, if you can do them, is as compassionate as > banning insulin. Which isn't even a fix, just a workaround. > > If a germ line fix has an unintended side effect, you either undo it > (revert back to being inclined towards diabetes, if this is preferable > to the side effect, say) or you debug or patch it. Current & historical > medicine is filled with such things for mere *temporary* meds that > don't cure anything. > > "This nasal spray contains a vector with Service Pack 6 for the > germ-line diabetes package installed by your grandfather" > > :-) > Once again, the main problem seems to be the 'thats icky' factor which most people have difficulty getting past. We're seeing it today in the hysteria over human cloning, we will see it in human genetic engineering. We saw it in the past in IVF reproduction, and in organ transplantation - for a while in Britain, cornea transplants were banned - the idea of 'looking through a dead mans eyes' was just too weird. Genetic engineering is a new area where man is seizing control from nature, and is now faced with choices which just didn't exist in the past. How individuals and societies should make these decisions is pretty much uncharted territory. For any proposed change, some people will think it's a bad idea, some people will think its great, and some people won't have an opinion. The proportions (and the reasons) will vary from decision to descision. There are some things where nearly everyone will agree a genetic fix is desirable - for example, suceptibility to heart disease, cancer, dental caries, and myopia. Other 'vanity' fixes seem pretty harmless - being tall, busty, or having a well-stuffed package. Its when we get to 'fixes' to behaviour and personality that things start to get very hairy. I fear that those in power will use genetic engineering as they have used every other tool at their disposal - weapons, states, laws, and governments - to maintain their position at the expense of the overall welfare of the species, by allowing improvements only to their own descendents, while requiring changes to those out of power which make it harder for them to change their status. One scenario: "Mr & Mrs Smith: The No Child Should Fear Act of 2015 requires that your proposed son have the 'bullying' gene deleted if he is to attend publicly funded schools. This is similar to the old requirements for vaccination - we don't want your son to endanger other children, do we? Of course, this also weakens any leadership ability he might have been able to exercise later in life, as well as his tendency to question authority, but if it saves one child from humiliation at the hands of a bully, its worth it. If you don't want to accept this change, you are of course free to send your child to private school, as do most leaders. If you can afford it, that is...." So, who gets to decide what changes are good, and for whom? I know what I want the answer to be, but I'm not certain that is the one that will come to pass. Peter Trei

1 0