March 2004 - cypherpunks-legacy

Air-drop them on the Rat Islands
by R. A. Hettinga 25 Mar '04

25 Mar '04

<http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2004/Mar-21-Sun-2004/opinion/2331515…> Sunday, March 21, 2004 Las Vegas Review-Journal VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: Part II: Air-drop them on the Rat Islands Last time, we were answering Michael's e-mail inquiry: "I would like to know what alternative you propose when saying we should do away with prisons." We started by suggesting the retroactive repeal of every law enacted since 1912. Was murder illegal by 1912? Of course. Rape? Of course. Kidnapping, armed robbery, bunko fraud? All serious criminal behaviors had been outlawed by 1912. So why have the number of lawbooks on the shelf multiplied tenfold in the past 92 years? Release everyone jailed on a drug law (unknown before 1916), for income tax evasion (impossible before 1913), for any kind of illegal possession of or commerce in firearms (laws unimagined a century ago), or for violating any kind of regulatory scheme or edict erected since 1912, and the federal prisons would be virtually empty, while even the state pens would probably see their populations cut in half. Of course, repealing all those laws enacted since 1912 would have another huge benefit: In the process, we'd eliminate the welfare state. Stop subsidizing drunkenness and sloth, and the darndest thing happens: People have to go to work. And people busy working to support themselves have far less time to commit crimes. (Don't tell me no jobs would be available. By repealing all laws enacted since 1912, we'd be repealing virtually all the ordinances that currently outlaw many jobs, including the minimum wage laws, the laws which make it illegal for strong young men of 15 to help support their families, OSHA, and the EEOC ... just for starters.) Get rid of the welfare state, and most unmarried women would no longer be able to afford to raise their children. They'd have to marry someone who could help support them. Why, they might even have to (feminists may now squint their eyes closed really hard) make some kind of unsavory deal with such a man, in which they would agree to raise and school the kids, cook some meals, and explicitly negotiate such other arrangements as were anciently considered appropriate to "marriage." (No one is proposing this be made mandatory. Child-bearing is now optional. We're just tired of being taxed to support other people's brats without being in on the negotiations. Also note that with the end of the taxes that now support the welfare state -- including the mandatory government youth propaganda camps, cynically dubbed "public schools" -- a second income would no longer be necessary to support a family. One spouse could stay home to tutor the kids -- which spouse would be nobody else's business.) And guess what? Members of stable married families tend to commit a lot fewer crimes, especially if adult supervision is pretty much constant. By now our prison population has probably dropped by three-quarters. (What was the incarceration rate before 1912?) To reduce it beyond that, we might have to apply an optional death penalty to a lot more crimes, including serious property crimes. What's an optional death penalty? The ancient Greeks knew. Either we're going to execute you this weekend, or you can leave the country. For good. Send them to any land that would take them. If there are no takers, give them a permanent tattoo (remember, they do have another option) -- a red-white-and-blue target might work. Evacuate as far east as Dutch Harbor, give them a 50-pound bag of beans and a book of matches, and air-drop them into the Aleutian islands. The only catch is, if they ever come back, any citizen who shoots and kills the bearer of one of those tattoos will receive that $30,000 reward we were discussing last week. There are people willing to risk their lives to get into this country. Doesn't it make sense to use exile from this country as a punishment for sociopathic predators -- admitting some worthy Cuban or Romanian or Sri Lankan in their place? I somehow suspect word would get back to their street buddies that a life of crime in New Guinea or the Congo or the cold and fogbound Rat Islands is nowhere near as pleasant. No cable TV. No 7-Elevens to knock over. Prison seems to hold few terrors for our growing professional criminal class. So on top of being vastly expensive and not terribly humane, there's not even much evidence that our prison system really "works." But it's a measure of the terminal decadence of our society that "responsible people" simply bite their nails and simper, "Oh, woe is us. What can we do but loot ever more money from the paychecks of the shrinking productive class to lock up this ever-growing population of angry, illiterate losers? Where on earth do you think they're coming from? We didn't have this problem back before the government ran all the schools!" But anyone who proposes anything dramatically different from this status quo is accused of being either a) an unsuccessful comedian, or b) nuts. Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Review-Journal and author of the books "Send in the Waco Killers" and "The Ballad of Carl Drega." His Web site is www.privacyalert.us. -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

Re: corporate vs. state
by Major Variola (ret) 25 Mar '04

25 Mar '04

At 05:27 PM 3/25/04 -0500, mfidelman(a)ntcorp.com wrote: >On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, Harmon Seaver wrote: > >> Nonsense -- corporations are not humans, they have zero rights. > >Unfortunately, there are a whole slew of Supreme Court decisions that say >otherwise - mostly applying the 14th amendment (you know, freeing the >slaves) to grant free speech and other constitutional protections to >corporations. 1. The 14th says that anything Congress is prohibited from doing, states (and other local govs) are too. Slavery is merely a historical aside. (Were the 14th not there, California could ban speech, support religions, deny the right to keep and bear arms..) 2. Humans don't lose their rights when they form voluntary associations. That's all the corporate decisions are saying. Unfortunately, the *opposite* is practiced. I, as an individual, can choose not to hire <ethnic>, but a group of people together are threatened with violence should they care to choose similarly. Freedom isn't being able to do what you like, it's allowing someone else to do or say something you hate and supporting their right to do so. Marshall Clow

2 1

RE: no photography, no questions, no rights
by Major Variola (ret) 25 Mar '04

25 Mar '04

At 02:05 PM 3/25/04 -0500, Tyler Durden wrote: >"In the Brinworld of Phonecams this is a nice challenge for the >freelancer... >Fuck you, Anderson III" > >All he did was raise the prices of said photos, correct? Shit...I should get >on out there and make myself a fortune... In practice, because markets are robust, and anonymity not so hard, yes. :-) However this is a classic case of the State using *violence* to (wrongly) prohibit behavior which is in fact protected. You *don't* have a right to take pictures inside *my* walls if its prohibited, since its private property. In my house or store, I can call for the State's violence against you if you do things I don't consent to. But on public land, or from a private building in the area, no one (incl. the State's twerps like Anderson III) can prohibit such behavior, as there is no right to privacy in public. Excellent (and 'punkly) point about the market for information, though. PS: I'd say the Streisand vs. Coastal Photographer lawsuit was a good example of someone trying to abuse the State's violence by convincing it that the Photog was somehow doing a wrong. In that case the Judge correctly decided that Streisand was full of shit.

1 0

RE: corporate vs. state
by Major Variola (ret) 25 Mar '04

25 Mar '04

At 02:02 PM 3/25/04 -0500, Tyler Durden wrote: >Think I'm gonna have to disagree with ya' hear partner. >For one, in the old days Corporations regularly hired goons to mow down >striking coalminers and whatnot. You have no right to trespass simply because you once worked there. Neither does anyone have a right to unreasonable force. >OK, those days are all gone, right? Wrong. Halliburton and Bechtel have both >hired mercs for their Iraq operations. Who gives a rat's ass about what someone does in a foreign land? US law only applies in the US, despite the current US Regime's behavior to the contrary. And BTW, what is wrong with hired police ("mercs") esp. when the local police don't work? Do you have a problem with private security guards in the US, as long as they don't involve you in unconsensual transactions? Do you have a problem with weaponsbearing citizens, again, if they don't involve you in unconsensual transactions? Note that if some company makes enemies overseas, its not the US as a whole that has earned the airplane-in-the-skyscraper feedback. Its the official US regime behavior that Gen. Washington warned about: Trade with all, make treaties with none, and beware of foreign entanglements. >However, a corporation doesn't actually have to hire the goons these days in >order to get the job done, not when it's much cheaper to call upon the >publically-available pool of goons that function as a government in some >places. Anyone who abuses the power of the (gullible) State to coerce others deserves killing. The fact that some corporations may leverage existing thuggery to >get their job done doesn't make them any less complicit. But this is all >besides my main point... Its not thuggery to protect your own property or freedoms. If someone is guilty of true thuggery --ie coercion-- then the State is obligated to act to protect the thuggees. The State only gets involved when a transaction is not mutually consensual; if the State gets involved in mutually consensual transactions the State deserves killing -er, preemptive regime change.

1 0

RE: no photography, no questions, no rights
by Tyler Durden 25 Mar '04

25 Mar '04

"In the Brinworld of Phonecams this is a nice challenge for the freelancer... Fuck you, Anderson III" All he did was raise the prices of said photos, correct? Shit...I should get on out there and make myself a fortune... -TD >From: "Major Variola (ret.)" <mv(a)cdc.gov> >Reply-To: cypherpunks(a)lne.com >To: "cypherpunks(a)al-qaeda.net" <cypherpunks(a)al-qaeda.net> >Subject: no photography, no questions, no rights >Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 09:27:58 -0800 > >LOS ANGELES (AP) -- On the eve of grand jury proceedings in the Michael >Jackson molestation case, the presiding judge of the Santa Barbara >courts barred pictures or communication with any prospective or final >panelists, or grand jury witnesses. > >Superior Court Judge Clifford R. Anderson III did not mention Jackson's >name in his order Wednesday, but acknowledged a grand jury summoned this >week "has created significant media and public interest." > >The order threatens to hold in contempt anyone who communicates with a >juror, prospective grand juror or witness - or reveals secret testimony. >It also prohibits photography of jurors or prospective jurors entering >and exiting the courthouse and "any other facility or property utilized >by the grand jury." > >Media lawyers immediately protested, calling the order "overbroad and >unconstitutional prohibition of activity protected under the First >Amendment and California law." They said the courthouse and its environs >have long been recognized as a public forum. > >"I've not seen an order so broad and so sweeping," said attorney >Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., who represents several media organizations >including The Associated Press. > ><snip> >http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CA_MICHAEL_JACKSON_CAOL-?SITE=CA… > >----------- > >In the Brinworld of Phonecams this is a nice challenge for the >freelancer... >Fuck you, Anderson III > _________________________________________________________________ Free up your inbox with MSN Hotmail Extra Storage. Multiple plans available. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=hotmail/es2&ST=1/go/onm00200362ave…

1 0

Mac OS X XGrid, anyone?
by R. A. Hettinga 25 Mar '04

25 Mar '04

I downloaded XGrid yesterday, fired it up here, and noticed that, among other grid computing demo projects, it does factoring. :-). Anyone out there want to play around with this, just to see how it works? Contact me directly. MMMM, BreadPudding.... Cheers, RAH Cheers, RAH -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

no photography, no questions, no rights
by Major Variola (ret.) 25 Mar '04

25 Mar '04

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- On the eve of grand jury proceedings in the Michael Jackson molestation case, the presiding judge of the Santa Barbara courts barred pictures or communication with any prospective or final panelists, or grand jury witnesses. Superior Court Judge Clifford R. Anderson III did not mention Jackson's name in his order Wednesday, but acknowledged a grand jury summoned this week "has created significant media and public interest." The order threatens to hold in contempt anyone who communicates with a juror, prospective grand juror or witness - or reveals secret testimony. It also prohibits photography of jurors or prospective jurors entering and exiting the courthouse and "any other facility or property utilized by the grand jury." Media lawyers immediately protested, calling the order "overbroad and unconstitutional prohibition of activity protected under the First Amendment and California law." They said the courthouse and its environs have long been recognized as a public forum. "I've not seen an order so broad and so sweeping," said attorney Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., who represents several media organizations including The Associated Press. <snip> http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CA_MICHAEL_JACKSON_CAOL-?SITE=CA… ----------- In the Brinworld of Phonecams this is a nice challenge for the freelancer... Fuck you, Anderson III

1 0

corporate vs. state, TD's education
by Major Variola (ret) 25 Mar '04

25 Mar '04

At 10:26 AM 3/25/04 -0500, Tyler Durden wrote: >I also think that some cypherpunks mistake the Corporate State for what has >been described as Crypto-Anarchy. Get this through your head: a corporation can't initiate force against you. You may not like their product, practices, or price, but no one is coercing you at gunpoint. The state, on the other hand, is entirely based on coercion. If you can't appreciate this, you'll be hopelessly inconsistant. PS: you are a corporation, I am a corporation, together we could be a corporation, with 100K others we could be too. Doesn't matter; all have the same rights to act, and be left alone. >In fact, it's easy to argue that the >current Oil Crusade in Iraq is precisely for the purpose of protecting a set >of dinosaur industries in the US. That's not the kind of capitalism I think >most Cypherpunks espouse. The state can legitimately only use taxpayers' armies to defend citizens in the country, not other countries, not its perceived-by-some self-interest, not corporations. All the oil colonialism is illegitimate for that reason, as well as illegal as Congress has not declared war.

1 0

Re: Max's Lesson (was Re: [osint] Martha's lesson - don't talk to the FBI)
by Tyler Durden 25 Mar '04

25 Mar '04

Max wrote... "I mean, The Just-Us system's "only be for us peasants, right, massah?"." Nice little lick there. I also think that some cypherpunks mistake the Corporate State for what has been described as Crypto-Anarchy. If large corporations in the US and the wealthy happen to ultimately drive the current roundup of civil rights, then they've effectively become the state that some Cypherpunks some vehemently despise. Pointing this out (or at least making the case that this is the state of affairs) should not by any means be equated with socialism (unless of course you actually believe the socialists who maintain this is an inherent byproduct of capitalism). In fact, it's easy to argue that the current Oil Crusade in Iraq is precisely for the purpose of protecting a set of dinosaur industries in the US. That's not the kind of capitalism I think most Cypherpunks espouse. -TD >From: baudmax23(a)earthlink.net >To: cypherpunks(a)al-qaeda.net >Subject: Re: Max's Lesson (was Re: [osint] Martha's lesson - don't talk to >the FBI) >Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 21:30:17 -0500 > >[snide preposterous presumptions deleted to save space] > >In response to "R. A. Hettinga" <rah(a)shipwright.com>: > >I did not in any way or form, either explicitly much less implicitly, make >any claim for the expropriation of money from wealthy persons in any form, >much less by the state. Much as you'd like to presume that I am just some >"socialist" and rant on from there; Whatever you feel you must do to avoid >the point. > >The point was that there are a thousand other injustices, such as civil >asset forfeiture, which effect and have been effecting people of all >economic strata for over a decade now (and a lot of other governmental >connivances, such as RICO anti-racketeering, and drug prohibition, from >which it was spawned). Things that routinely effect not just the Martha >Stewarts, or the so-called investor class. Things from which spring forth >the presumptive powers which now also threaten the investor class, who had >not resisted earlier and deeper erosions of their civil liberties. Things >about which the wealthy (and politicians) don't give a rats ass about, >because they are a privileged class, by and large, and the laws generally >are not applied equally to them as to others. So why should they care? >Until one of them has to take a fairly minor fall, and then it's crocodile >tears, and poor Martha! Oh the injustice of it all! Screaming meamies, >that oh God, how dare they apply the same laws against the wealthy they >have been abusing the peasants and workers with all these years?! The >travesty of it! You see, people like you only have a problem when you >can't "buy your way out of trouble". I mean, The Just-Us system's "only be >for us peasants, right, massah?". > >Martha is just a token sacrifice for appearances sake, to appease the >masses and protect the status quo from any serious reform. So Martha goes >to Club Fed for a short stint, and business basically goes on as usual. Is >it Justice? Nah, Just-Us.. maybe, especially if it maintains the privilege >system intact and beyond serious scrutiny or reform. > >It is rather telling that you have completely sidestepped anything I >mentioned (aside from making false assumptions). > >At 05:49 PM 3/24/2004, , "R. A. Hettinga" <rah(a)shipwright.com> wrote: > >>So, Max, as a socialist, an unwitting user of such lies as >>"movement", or "(un)just state", as someone who believes that the >>*earned* property of "the rich" should be confiscated, or that > >There we go with nonsensical presumptions and stereotyping again. I could >pull out my own label for you my friend, but that would be really >pointless. I believe that earned property of ANY strata of society should >be safe from arbitrary seizure or confiscation. It is rather amusing how >you have put words in my mouth which are not there, and then spend all your >time kicking down your own non-existant straw man. > >You want to mock "justness" of the laws of the State...? Well then, what is >your beef about Martha then? If the state is inherently a manifestation of >unjust cronyism (as you seem to claim), does that become an argument that >somehow we should NOT strive to make the system MORE uniformly just and >therefore abuse of power less common and arbitrary? I mean, that's just >the way it is... but then, you shouldn't be whining about poor Martha. >That's just the way States are, you know. But I guess we come back to the >double standard, and as long as the "wealth exemption" comes into play, >then you really don't concern yourself with such an "inherently socialist" >(as you might say) concept as JUSTICE? > > >>"marketing" should be controlled by force, welcome to the other side >>of the looking glass. The *real* side of the looking glass, I might >>add, where the "justice" of the state is simply another not-so-polite >>fiction to keep power. > >Alas, you were so quick to falsely label me a socialist, that you did not >read what I wrote. Needless to say, I in no way called for any such >"forceful" control of "marketing" as you inventively and deceptively >implied. Not to worry, I try to buy as little meaningless shit as possible >from this disposable vacuous society. But at the same time, I encourage >people to see the emptiness for what it is. The things you own end up >owning you, and it can all blow away in a storm faster than you realize >(therefore, governments and insurance). Bread and circuses is a sure >signpost on the way down, we've seen it before. Avoid facing reality long >enough, and the head kick of reality will be that much more forceful when >it finally comes. Like chickens coming home to roost.. kind of like what >we are currently experiencing... but I digress... > >>Hanging out on this list is a sure cure for such mental delusions. It >>worked for me, anyway. :-). > >Worry not, that I have no delusions that this "System" in any way >represents me, much less has the slightest concerns about civil liberties >or any of the foundational concepts upon which this country was >philosophically based, much less the most basic sense of honesty or simple >humanitarianism. And by humanitarianism, you don't have to feed, clothe, >etc everybody at "taxpayer expense", however, a good start would be a much >better discretion about how our nation haphazardly flings around bombs and >destabilizes large swaths of the globe. Our congress, etc are bought and >paid for, and both (dictated-media-viable) sides at that. Corporate Clown >A (Bush) or Corporate Clown B (Kerry). Corporations that, by their >"perpetual" nature and concentrated wealth, have subverted our system by an >inappropriate and unjustified percentage of "representation", that violates >the conecpt of one man one vote, and perverts and distorts our government >into sheerly absurd tyranny. > >See, for all the hee-hawing of the investor thief classes about >presumptions of "worth" and "value" which is oftentimes claimed as earned, >but quite often is fraudulently swindled from the hard work of others, and >the bland assurances that "this is all good for us", yet our senses tell us >that things are in decline. We as a nation are less stable, less secure, >and most people are working much harder, for much less; courtesy >WorldCom/Enron/Tyco/Parmalat thievery. Outsourcing is an excellent example >of just such a swindle -- a devaluation of labor for short-term profits, >which will only lead to massive wage erosion, decline of the standard of >living in the west, and a subsequent economic decline as working people can >no longer afford housing and basic necessities. All and well and fine that >the corporates do not see the storm rising, from their outsourcing, and how >it will cost them very dearly in the coming future. The so-called "war on >terror", beyond being a perpetual war-profiteers wet dream, is the >smokescreen being used to raise up a militarist police state to suppress >the coming domestic instability which will inevitably arise from a massive >decline in the American standard of living. > >>You might, in the meantime, try Googling "crypto-anarchy" or >>"anarcho-capitalism" and/or "cypherpunks", or "Tim May" and >>"cryptonomicon" (no not *that* cryptonomicon, the *original* one...), >>which will probably, in the process, find you a currently working >>version of several archives of this list that have arisen over the >>last decade. I'd start at the beginning, around September 1992. > >Kind of busy reading more practical material, such as the intricacies of >smashing stacks and bypassing filters, or timely and relevant, such as "The >Sorrows of Empire" by Chalmers Johnson. > >>It's not that hard. You only need to read the first two months of the >>archives before things start to repeat themselves. ;-). > >If I want repetition, I can just watch CNN (or buy a parrot), thank you >very much! > > > >>Cheers, >>RAH > > >Max > > _________________________________________________________________ Get reliable access on MSN 9 Dial-up. 3 months for the price of 1! (Limited-time offer) http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup&pgmarket=en-us&ST=1/go/onm00200361ave…

1 0

how do you say "All your royalties are belong to us" in Navajo?
by Major Variola (ret.) 24 Mar '04

24 Mar '04

Appeals Court Lets Interior Computers Back Online, Despite Judge's Security Concerns By Robert Gehrke Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - The Interior Department will go back online after an appeals court Wednesday blocked a judge's ruling that ordered most of the department's computers disconnected from the Internet. It took the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit just three hours to grant the government's request to restore the Interior's Internet access. It had been shut down since March 15 to protect money owed to American Indians from computer hackers. The shutdown disrupted public's access to Interior Department Web pages, land managers' communications, disbursement of mineral royalties to states, and education of children in Bureau of Indian Affairs schools. Interior Secretary Gale Norton said she was pleased with the appeals court decision and will continue pushing for a permanent reversal of the Internet shutdown. "Meanwhile, tonight we have begun to restore our Internet connections across all impacted agencies of the department and will work quickly to restore them to pre-March 15 levels," she said. U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ordered the shutdown after the Interior Department failed to show it had fixed security problems that left vulnerable to Internet security breaches millions of dollars in royalties from oil, gas, timber and grazing activities on American Indian lands. <snip> http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGA1RPI38SD.html

1 0