January 2005 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: [IP] The DNA round-up on Cape Cod (fwd from dave@farber.net
by Major Variola (ret) 12 Jan '05

12 Jan '05

The Beast doesn't know who licked the stamp. A fiducial sample is what they want. In Calif, they could merely arrest you for a bogus charge to have the "right" to sample your families DNA as carried by you. Schwarzenegger is not Austrian accidentally. GATTACA was optimistic. At 06:02 PM 1/10/05 +0100, Eugen Leitl wrote: >I live in the town of Truro on Cape Cod about 4 or 5 months out of the year. >This past week, the Truro has been on the national news because the local >police are attempting to obtain DNA samples of all men of the town in order >to solve a three-year old murder case. Here are a couple of the articles >that give the details of what is going on in this DNA round-up: > > To Try to Net Killer, Police Ask a Small Town's Men for DNA > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/10/national/10cape.html > > Truro abuzz over 'swab' DNA testing > http://www.capecodonline.com/cctimes/truroabuzz7.htm > >I am headed back to my Truro house later this week. If I am approached by >the police to provide a DNA sample for their round-up of Truro males, I am >planning to refuse. However, I just realized that I already gave a DNA >sample to the Town of Truro recently. I paid my property tax bill to the >Truro tax collectors office two weeks ago. My DNA is on the tax payment >envelope that I licked. > >Envelopes are apparently a good source of DNA material according to this >article: > > DNA on Envelope Reopens Decades-old Murder Case > http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/wabc_052103_dnaarrest.html > >Richard M. Smith >http://www.ComputerBytesMan.com > > > >------ End of Forwarded Message > > >------------------------------------- >You are subscribed as eugen(a)leitl.org >To manage your subscription, go to > http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip > >Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ > >----- End forwarded message ----- >-- >Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> >______________________________________________________________ >ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org >8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE >http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net > >[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]

1 0

Re: Google Exposes Web Surveillance Cams
by Major Variola (ret) 12 Jan '05

12 Jan '05

At 02:20 PM 1/9/05 -0600, Riad S. Wahby wrote: >I love how all of the coverage leaves out the actual search strings, as >if it's hard to discover what they are at this point. I'm similarly annoyed that articles omit the URLs of "terrorist web sites", being forced to check ogrish.com, even if I couldn't read the language. But government and its presses know best.

1 0

Re: Tasers for Cops Not You
by Major Variola (ret) 12 Jan '05

12 Jan '05

At 01:20 PM 1/8/05 -0800, John Young wrote: >However, Taser claims the civilian version is effective >only to 15 feet while the LE version will explose a heart >at 20 feet. And, Taser says "accidental deaths caused >by the shock would have happened to those sick persons >anyway." > >Well, yes, homicidal cops say the perps were begging for it, >learning such talk from the president and up to the one who >has fun with joy toy tsunamis. John: A taser is > 50 KV and microamps. Not fun but it doesn't cause fibrillation. (Incoherent cardiac muscle contraction -> no pulse.) I now work for a company that makes defibrillators. It takes a few 10s of Joules through the heart to fibrillate, typically 100-200 J for an adult, during a certain critical window during the sinus rhythm. Our gizmos discharge ~200 uF at up to 2 KV to defibrillate a fibrillating heart, which will also fibrillate if administered to a healthy heart at the wrong time, as I said. That's up to 40 amps. (Through the pads a chest is 20-200 ohms, typically 50.) Without a defibrillator the person is dead, CPR or not. That's the science. As far as pigs wanting slaves/peasants/citizens to be unarmed, well, agree. As far as choke holds on negroes, excessive force on cocaine-stimulated citizens, etc goes, I have nothing to bear on this. As far as banning lethal and nonlethal weapons for use by all but state minions, we agree. When tasers, mace, body armor, .50 cal or lesser rifles are outlawed, well, you know the rest. (Of course mace is best applied with q-tips to the eyes of sitting protesters. And the mercenaries in Iraq do fine with pillowcases and 12V batteries.) Though heavens fall, let justice be done.

1 0

[i2p] weekly status notes [jan 11] (fwd from jrandom@i2p.net)
by Eugen Leitl 11 Jan '05

11 Jan '05

----- Forwarded message from jrandom <jrandom(a)i2p.net> -----

1 0

The Secret Lives of Just About Everybody
by R.A. Hettinga 11 Jan '05

11 Jan '05

<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/11/health/psychology/11secr.html?pagewanted=…> The New York Times January 11, 2005 The Secret Lives of Just About Everybody By BENEDICT CAREY One mislaid credit card bill or a single dangling e-mail message on the home computer would have ended everything: the marriage, the big-time career, the reputation for decency he had built over a lifetime. So for more than 10 years, he ruthlessly kept his two identities apart: one lived in a Westchester hamlet and worked in a New York office, and the other operated mainly in clubs, airport bars and brothels. One warmly greeted clients and waved to neighbors, sometimes only hours after the other had stumbled back from a "work" meeting with prostitutes or cocaine dealers. In the end, it was a harmless computer pop-up advertisement for security software, claiming that his online life was being "continually monitored," that sent this New York real estate developer into a panic and to a therapist. The man's double life is an extreme example of how mental anguish can cleave an identity into pieces, said his psychiatrist, Dr. Jay S. Kwawer, director of clinical education at the William Alanson White Institute in New York, who discussed the case at a recent conference. But psychologists say that most normal adults are well equipped to start a secret life, if not to sustain it. The ability to hold a secret is fundamental to healthy social development, they say, and the desire to sample other identities - to reinvent oneself, to pretend - can last well into adulthood. And in recent years researchers have found that some of the same psychological skills that help many people avoid mental distress can also put them at heightened risk for prolonging covert activities. "In a very deep sense, you don't have a self unless you have a secret, and we all have moments throughout our lives when we feel we're losing ourselves in our social group, or work or marriage, and it feels good to grab for a secret, or some subterfuge, to reassert our identity as somebody apart," said Dr. Daniel M. Wegner, a professor of psychology at Harvard. He added, "And we are now learning that some people are better at doing this than others." Although the best-known covert lives are the most spectacular - the architect Louis Kahn had three lives; Charles Lindbergh reportedly had two - these are exaggerated examples of a far more common and various behavior, psychologists say. Some people gamble on the sly, or sample drugs. Others try music lessons. Still others join a religious group. They keep mum for different reasons. And there are thousands of people - gay men and women who stay in heterosexual marriages, for example - whose shame over or denial of their elemental needs has set them up for secretive excursions into other worlds. Whether a secret life is ultimately destructive, experts find, depends both on the nature of the secret and on the psychological makeup of the individual. Psychologists have long considered the ability to keep secrets as central to healthy development. Children as young as 6 or 7 learn to stay quiet about their mother's birthday present. In adolescence and adulthood, a fluency with small social lies is associated with good mental health. And researchers have confirmed that secrecy can enhance attraction, or as Oscar Wilde put it, "The commonest thing is delightful if only one hides it." In one study, men and women living in Texas reported that the past relationships they continued to think about were most often secret ones. In another, psychologists at Harvard found that they could increase the attraction between male and female strangers simply by encouraging them to play footsie as part of a lab experiment. The urge to act out an entirely different persona is widely shared across cultures as well, social scientists say, and may be motivated by curiosity, mischief or earnest soul-searching. Certainly, it is a familiar tug in the breast of almost anyone who has stepped out of his or her daily life for a time, whether for vacation, for business or to live in another country. "It used to be you'd go away for the summer and be someone else, go away to camp and be someone else, or maybe to Europe and be someone else" in a spirit of healthy experimentation, said Dr. Sherry Turkle, a sociologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Now, she said, people regularly assume several aliases on the Internet, without ever leaving their armchair: the clerk next door might sign on as bill(a)aol.com but also cruise chat rooms as Armaniguy, Cool Breeze and Thunderboy. Most recently, Dr. Turkle has studied the use of online interactive games like Sims Online, where people set up families and communities. She has conducted detailed interviews with some 200 regular or occasional players, and says many people use the games as a way to set up families they wish they had, or at least play out alternative versions of their own lives. One 16-year-old girl who lives with an abusive father has simulated her relationship to him in Sims Online by changing herself, variously, into a 16-year-old boy, a bigger, stronger girl and a more assertive personality, among other identities. It was as a more forceful daughter, Dr. Turkle said, that the girl discovered she could forgive her father, if not change him. "I think what people are doing on the Internet now," she said, "has deep psychological meaning in terms of how they're using identities to express problems and potentially solve them in what is a relatively consequence-free zone." Yet out in the world, a consequence-rich zone, studies find that most people find it mentally exhausting to hold onto inflammatory secrets - much less lives - for long. The very act of trying to suppress the information creates a kind of rebound effect, causing thoughts of an affair, late-night excursions or an undisclosed debt to flood the consciousness, especially when a person who would be harmed by disclosure of the secret is nearby. Like a television set in a crowded bar, the concealed episode seems to play on in the mind, attracting attention despite conscious efforts to turn away. The suppressed thoughts even recur in dreams, according to a study published last summer. The strength of this effect undoubtedly varies from person to person, psychiatrists say. In rare cases, when people are pathologically remorseless, they do not care about or even perceive the potential impact of a secret on others, and therefore do not feel the tension of keeping it. And those who are paid to live secret lives, like intelligence agents, at least know what they have signed up for and have clear guidelines to tell them how much they can reveal to whom. But in a series of experiments over the past decade, psychologists have identified a larger group they call repressors, an estimated 10 to 15 percent of the population, who are adept at ignoring or suppressing information that is embarrassing to them and thus well equipped to keep secrets, some psychologists say. Repressors score low on questionnaires that measure anxiety and defensiveness - reporting, for example, that they are rarely resentful, worried about money, or troubled by nightmares and headaches. They think well of themselves and don't sweat the small stuff. Although little is known about the mental development of such people, some psychologists believe they have learned to block distressing thoughts by distracting themselves with good memories. Over time - with practice, in effect - this may become habitual, blunting their access to potentially humiliating or threatening memories and secrets. "This talent is likely to serve them well in the daily struggle to avoid unwanted thoughts of all kinds, including unwanted thoughts that arise from attempts to suppress secrets in the presence of others," Dr. Wegner, of Harvard, said in an e-mail message. The easier it is to silence those thoughts and the longer the covert activity can go on, the harder it may be to confess later on. In some cases, far stronger forces are at work in shaping secret lives. Many gay men and some lesbians marry heterosexual partners before working out their sexual identity, or in defiance of it. The aim is to please parents, to cover their own shame or to become more acceptable to themselves and society at large, said Dr. Richard A. Isay, a psychiatrist at Cornell University who has provided therapy to many closeted gay men. Very often, he said, these men struggle not to act on their desires, and they begin secret lives in desperation. This eventually forces agonizing decisions about how to live with, or separate from, families they love. "I know that I did not pursue the orientation that I have, and know that I have always been as I am now," one man wrote in a letter published in Dr. Isay's book "Becoming Gay." "I know that it becomes more difficult to live in the lonely shell that I do now, but can see no way out of it." When exposure of a secret life will destroy or forever poison the public one, people must either come clean and choose, or risk mental breakdown, many therapists say. Dr. Seth M. Aronson, an assistant professor of psychiatry at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, has treated a pediatrician with a small child and a wife at home who was sneaking off at night to bars, visiting prostitutes and even fighting with some of the women's pimps. At one session, the man was so drunk he passed out; at another, he brought a prostitute with him. "It was one of those classic splits, where the wife was perfect and wonderful but he was demeaning these other women," and the two lives could not coexist for long, Dr. Aronson said. In a famous paper on the subject of double lives, published in 1960, the English analyst Dr. Donald W. Winnicott argued that a false self emerged in particular households where children are raised to be so exquisitely tuned to the expectations of others that they become deaf to their own longings and needs. "In effect, they bury a part of themselves alive," said Dr. Kwawer of the White Institute. The pediatrician treated by Dr. Aronson, for example, grew up in a fundamentalist Christian household in which his mother frequently and disapprovingly compared him to his uncle, who was a rogue and a drinker. Dr. Kwawer's patient, the real estate developer, had parents who frowned on almost any expression of appetite, and imprinted their son with a strong sense of upholding the family image. He married young, in part to please his parents. Both men are still getting psychotherapy but now live one life apiece, their therapists say. The pediatrician has curtailed his extracurricular activities, returned home mentally and confessed some of his troubles to his wife. The real estate developer has separated from his wife, but lives close by and helps with the children. The break caused a period of depression for everyone involved, Dr. Kwawer said, but the man now has renewed energy at work, and has reconnected with friends and his children. The secret trysts have stopped, as has the drug use, and he feels he has his life back. "Contrary to what many people assume," Dr. Kwawer said, "quite often a secret life can bring a more lively, more intimate, more energized part of themselves out of the dark." -- ----------------- 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

Simple snoop-proof email launched
by R.A. Hettinga 11 Jan '05

11 Jan '05

<http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6865&print=true> New Scientist Simple snoop-proof email launched 16:04 11 January 2005 NewScientist.com news service Will Knight Software that aims to make encrypted email communications simple enough for even computer novices to use was released on Tuesday. Encryption is the science of securing communications against eavesdropping by converting the content of a message into a code, or cipher, which can only be unlocked using a secret "key". But modern cryptography often involves using complex mathematical algorithms and convoluted key exchanges to protect messages against skilled code-crackers. Ciphire, developed by Ciphire Labs in Munich, Germany, uses a technique called "public key cryptography" to sign and encrypt email messages. Once loaded on to a computer hard drive the software performs all of the complex tasks involved behind the scenes. Ciphire also works with almost any email software client - like Microsoft Outlook, for example - without requiring prior configuration. "The real benefit is the ease of use," says Laird Brown, chief strategist at Ciphire. "Everything is automated, so it's much like a virus scanner. It just sits quietly in the background." Brown told New Scientist the security of the system has also undergone rigorous testing. "From a security perspective, we've taken it as far as we can," he says. The program is being offered free for non-commercial use and can be used by companies for a licence fee. Virtual invisibility Once installed on a PC, Ciphire runs in the background in conjunction with an email client program. It intercepts email after the "send" button is pressed but before the email leaves the computer, and intercepts incoming email before it is formally received by the email program, making it virtually invisible to the user. The program automatically manages the creation of a set of public and private cryptographic keys, simply prompting the user for a password from which the keys are generated. The public key is sent to Ciphire's servers and the private one is stored safely on the user's machine. The two keys are mathematically linked in such a way that two independent parties can communicate securely without first exchanging secret keys. A private key can be combined with another person's public key to create an encrypted message that can be deciphered using the corresponding public and private pair. Each time a message is sent Ciphire checks with its servers to see if the recipient already has their own public key. If they do, the program uses this to encrypt the message. At the other end of the exchange, the recipient's version of the program should automatically retrieve the sender's public key and perform the necessary decryption. If the recipient does not have a key pair the program simply "signs" a message - this key allows the recipient to confirm an email's authenticity but does not protect it from eavesdroppers. Unique signatures The keys kept on Ciphire's servers are also utilised to generate coded signatures unique to the content of each email message sent using the system. If the content of a message is intercepted and altered somewhere between being sent and received - this signature will not be the same, alerting users to the tampering. Brown says this makes it virtually impossible for anyone - including Ciphire itself - to change keys without users becoming aware. Ciphire had several independent cryptography experts audit the software and made modifications based on their recommendations. Russ Housley, of US company Vigil Security, who performed a study of the software, says that it stood up to scrutiny. "The security provided by Ciphire is very robust," he told New Scientist. "In every situation, the designers have chosen the strongest possible cryptographic algorithms and the longest possible key sizes." Housley notes that Ciphire combines several encryption algorithms. This means messages should remain secure even if a fundamental flaw should emerge in one of the algorithms. "This is like holding your pants up with both a belt and suspenders," he says. "If one fails, your pants still stay up." But Housley adds that the main advantage of the software is its simplicity. "If it is difficult to use, then it will not be used," he says. "Transparency is vital for acceptance by users." -- ----------------- 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: Ready, Aim, ID Check: In Wrong Hands, Gun Won't Fire
by Trei, Peter 11 Jan '05

11 Jan '05

Justin wrote: > On 2005-01-11T10:07:22-0500, Trei, Peter wrote: >> Justin wrote: >>> >>> I don't believe the article when it says that smart guns >>> are useless if stolen. What do they have, a tamper-proof >>> memory chip storing a 128-bit reprogramming authorization >>> key that must be input via computer before allowing a new >>> person to be authorized? And what's to stop a criminal from >>> ripping out all the circuitry and the safety it engages? >> >> The 'stolen gun' problems most of the so-called 'smart gun' >> proposals are trying to address are the situation when a >> cop's own gun is taken from him and immediately used against >> him, or a kid finding one in a drawer. A determined and >> resourceful person can, given time, defeat them all. > > from the article: > "Guns taken from a home during a robbery would be rendered > useless, too." That statement, in the OA, is not a quote - it's either something the author dreamed up, or (in context) BS fed her by a NJ cop So, we've established that a NYT journalist, writing on a subject she probably knows nothing about, will regurgitate any naively plausible bullshit she's fed. What else is new? My statement that there are a significant number of cops killed by their own guns, and a small but tragic number of people killed accidentally playing with improperly stored guns they find, remains true. These 'smart guns' could reduce that problem, but making them mandatory is a threat to freedom. >>> The South African Smart gun... >> http://www.wmsa.net/other/thumb_gun.htm > Totally useless. Failure modes and various other complaints: I laughed when I saw this (my first thought was "How could anyone practice enough to maintain proficiency?") I was later appalled when I found a colleague using it as an example in a presentation on biometrics. I also strongly expect that Mr. van Zyl does not have a functioning device - this is vaporware of some kind. Peter Trei

1 0

RE: Ready, Aim, ID Check: In Wrong Hands, Gun Won't Fire
by Trei, Peter 11 Jan '05

11 Jan '05

Justin wrote: > > I don't believe the article when it says that smart guns are > useless if > stolen. What do they have, a tamper-proof memory chip > storing a 128-bit > reprogramming authorization key that must be input via computer before > allowing a new person to be authorized? And what's to stop a criminal > from ripping out all the circuitry and the safety it engages? The 'stolen gun' problems most of the so-called 'smart gun' proposals are trying to address are the situation when a cop's own gun is taken from him and immediately used against him, or a kid finding one in a drawer. A determined and resourceful person can, given time, defeat them all. After all, a 'determined and resourceful person can build a gun from scratch with a small machine shop, and many do (its not automatically illegal). I link below to an absolutely bizarre proposal - apparently real and claimed to be existing in prototype - by an South African inventor to make an unstealable gun. Amongst other weirdness, it fires the specially manufactured cartridges by firing a laser into the glass-backed primer. As a result removing the electronics would make it unusable. You'd have to hack it instead. http://www.wmsa.net/other/thumb_gun.htm This is a typical example of what I meant when I said that 'smart gun' proposals all come from people with zero knowledge of how guns are used. I strongly suspect that the gun in the picture is a non-working prop. Peter Trei

2 1

Should Anarchists Take State Money?
by R.A. Hettinga 11 Jan '05

11 Jan '05

<http://www.mises.org/blog/archives/002945.asp> Mises Economics Blog January 10, 2005 Should Anarchists Take State Money? by Robert Murphy A discussion on a private email list brought up a familiar topic: When is it permissible for self-described anarchists (let's restrict ourselves here to anarcho-capitalists) to take government money? This is a tricky question, and I have yet to see someone offer a satisfactory list of necessary and sufficient conditions. Usually when an-caps argue about this, they end up shooting more and more refined analogies back and forth. For example, to me it's not enough to say that any money spent in the private sector is legitimate (vis-a-vis one's anarchism). I personally would not feel justified in working for a Halliburton. However, what about the guy who opens a Dunkin Donuts near a police station? Is he accepting "government money"? Does it matter if he's in a podunk town with a sheriff and a deputy, versus if he lives in LA and knows for a fact that several of his customers beat the #$#)($* out of suspects? A big problem in this area is education: Can anarcho-capitalist economists take teaching posts at State schools? After all, the State intervenes heavily in education, which is a perfectly laudable market institution. But surely there are more teaching posts because of the State than there otherwise would be. Does the an-cap professor have to estimate whether his or her post would actually exist in the absence of State intervention, or is that irrelevant? Personally, I have decided that I will never work for an official State school. If I really mean it when I refer (in LRC articles, for example) to the State as "a gang of killers and thieves," then how can I possibly associate with such people? Yes yes, there are millions of analogies and counterarguments, but for me there is a definite line to be drawn at actually being on the payroll. (I also wouldn't take welfare, for example, even though in previous years I have put in a lot to the tax system.) Before closing, I should say that in no way am I taking a holier than thou stance. For example, I applied for the Stafford (unsubsidized!) loan in grad school, even though the State technically coerced those lending institutions into offering me such low rates. And I know a guy who is so hard core about starving the beast, that he felt like a sellout when he took a job on the books and had some of his paycheck withheld. (I.e. when he worked under the table, then at least his money wasn't funding the State's wars etc.) But as far as State schools, I think there are a few other things that people often leave out of the discussion. First, why would I want to throw my talents into a State school? I would much rather work on the side of the underdog, and every time I publish a paper or give a talk, I want a private school to get the credit. (This also applies to whatever influence I have on students; I don't want to enhance a State school's reputation by churning out better-than-otherwise students, so long as I could do the same at a private school.) A second issue is a bit more subtle: When moderate Americans hear of an-cap professors berating the existence of the State, while they work for the State, I think two things happen. (A) They think, "What a hypocrite! These ivory tower academics need to get in the real world before redesigning society!" And (B), they think, "Our government is so open and tolerant! It even employs academics who call for its abolition! I'm so glad I live here and not under the Taliban." (Again, this is not meant as a criticism of those who choose to work at State schools. I'm just explaining my position.) Posted by Murphy at January 10, 2005 08:08 AM Comments You're very lucky that you have private colleges where you live. Many have no such choice. Then all one can do is firmly bite the hand that feeds. Posted by: Sudha Shenoy at January 10, 2005 08:40 AM Ayn Rand had an article that was instructive on this issue. She was asked whether it was moral for someone to take a government-backed student loan. She said it was, because the person receiving the loan had no moral duty to abstain from receiving a benefit the government was giving to others. Rand distinguished between such benefits and those who choose to work in the government at jobs that had no function other than to violate individual rights (I believe she cited the Federal Trade Commission as an example.) The difference was between using a service that *should* be provided by the public sector (i.e. the Postal Service) and those that could never exist in a free market (i.e. monopoly regulators). Of course, Rand was only addressing the ethical dilema; whether taking state money is practical towards advancing one's particular interests or ideology is a separate question. Posted by: Skip Oliva at January 10, 2005 08:43 AM Hans-Hoppe teaches at the University of Las Vegas, Nevada and Murray Rothbard taught there before him. I do not see this as being hypocritical. The main reason why is that if the government taxes and spends on universities, it inevitably pushes private institutions out of the market by charging artificially low tuition. Therefore, the number of available positions at private universities is diminished, reducing opportunities for non-public university professorships. The bottom line is that the state has created a system in which there is crime all around us. If we worried about "taking advantage" of this crime all the time we probably wouldn't even step outside our front doors in the morning, and we certainly wouldn't be driving on public roads. On the other hand, there would definately be something wrong with say becoming an IRS agent while claiming to be an anarcho-capitalist at the same time. Posted by: Steven Kane at January 10, 2005 08:44 AM Actually I thought Rand's best contribution was this: "There is, of course, a limitation on the moral right to take a government job: one must not accept any job that demands ideological services, i.e., any job that requires the use of one's mind to compose propaganda material in support of welfare statism -- or any job in a regulatory administrative agency enforcing improper, non-objective laws." (Objectivist, June 1966, sent by Roderick Long) Now, this is interesting. Many people think it might be a bad thing, for example, for a libertarian to work for the INS or the IRS or some such, but would be happy to take a job as a presidential speech writer. Somehow it is usually assumed to be ok to do intellectual work but not ok to actually rob and kill for the state. Rand seems to be saying that it is as bad or worse to offer one's intellectual talents for propaganda reasons. Posted by: Jeffrey at January 10, 2005 08:52 AM I recently struggled with this problem. Here in Detroit the automotive industry (most of the city) shuts down between Christmas and New Years (because of the UAW contracts). For most this is a paid vacation but I am currently a contract employee (The big three hire all new employees as contractors first to avoid all the messy federal laws restricting their right to fire people for being incompetent), so it was forced time off for me. The problem is so common though that every contract employee is given a small packet of information on how to solve the problem of losing wages over the vacation: apply for unemployment. I struggled for days, being an anarcho-capitalist, on whether or not it was ethical to accept the state's welfare money. Sure, I think welfare is robbery and wrong to the core but I am forced to pay in to it whether I like it or not - so why not reclaim some of that money? Ultimately I decided that it was ethical but I simply couldn't bring myself to do it. Ethical maybe, but it still felt immoral to me. Having just graduated from college and moved to a new place I could have really used the money - but I just felt dirty about taking it. Posted by: Adam H at January 10, 2005 10:15 AM Here is Rothbard's point of view on this question: "The ground on which we must stand, to be moral and rational in a state-run world is to: (1) work and agi-tate as best we can, in behalf of liberty; (2) while working in the matrix of our given world, to refuse to add to its sta-tism; and (3) to refuse absolutely to participate in State activities that are immoral and criminal per se." Posted by: Jeffrey at January 10, 2005 10:26 AM I worked for a small private startup at my last job. Even though we were "private", most of our money came from government agencies/projects. I think the public/private distinction can be misleading. What matters is what interests you are serving. Are you serving people's voluntary wants and needs or demand created by government regulation and taxes? I don't think there's a clear cut answer in most situations. Posted by: Danny Taggart at January 10, 2005 10:42 AM Sam Bostaph wrote, on the list: "Murphy raises several questions--and gives no answers to them. Then, he asserts personal preferences--with loose or no reasoning to support them. He might as well be discussing choices from menu." I agree with Sam. And as I wrote on the list: "Bottom line: the overwrought, over-agonized, over-thought attempts to justify one's way of living in this imperfect world are simply pointless. "First, libertarian employees of state universities might try to come up with any number of justifications for why their chosen career is "justified". But in the end, how many of them would quit if their little libertarian calculus came out the wrong way? I think it's clear the answer is near-zero. Clearly this is just make-weight argument; rationalization. Strunk and White say, if you don't know how to pronounce a word, say it loud! "Why compound ignorance with inaudibility?" Likewise, if you are going to enter the game of life--in this mixed-state world, where some careers one would choose in the free market are largely monopolized by the state; where one must participate in state-decreed institutions and rules in order to flourise, prosper, succeed, and survive--don't pussyfoot around about it. Don't be embarrassed by it. Don't, for God's sake, *apologize* for it. Remember Galt had the face without pain or fear or guilt. Those who opppose the current malicious order are not to blame for it. They are -- we are -- already victims. To insist that we victims -- *because* we are victims (those who respect rights) -- have to suffer even further damage, to restrict ourselves from career and business and life opportunities that, ironically, our fellow men who do not agonize over the morality of their choices, ... frankly, to my mind, it is ridiculous and obscene. "Libertarianism at its essence distinguishes between victim and aggressor. To whine and hand-wring about what one libertarianly can or cannot do in this world -- when our non-libertarian enemies, yes enemies, do not give a damn about it -- is, in my view, to equate victim with aggressor; to blame the victim for trying to make it in the the nonlibertarian world he has been thrust into; a world that is nonlibertarain specifically because of the beliefs and actions of his fellow non-libertarian citizens. To say he should have a higher standard of behavior than them is to add injury to injury." Murphy writes, "I personally would not feel justified in working for a Halliburton." I suppose there are a few die-hard types out there whose personal preferences would lead them to ever and ever greater personal sacrifices so they feel they are living by some kind of moral principles or something. But I find the entire notion that you *need*, in general, to "justify" where you work is just a bit silly. I agree w/ Bostaph that Murphy supplies no reasons for his assertions; why it's okay to set up a donut shop selling to police, but not to "be on the payroll". Surely Austrians are aware there is nothing economically special about the "employee" relationship; just as political borders are just political and not economically objective. I believe it is not hypocritical to live in the real world, as a general matter. What is hypocritical, in my view, is the pretense of some libertarians that they work at their present state-related jobs *only* because they have found a way to justify it. I would be a lot of money that 99% of these people would not quit their jobs, even if you could show them their little pet proofs "justifying" the morality of their position is flawed. So it's just a makeweight argument trotted out in a vain attempt to show that one's chosen career is "justified"; but the only reason to do this is the false notion that one's career *needs* justifying. Posted by: Stephan Kinsella at January 10, 2005 11:21 AM Jeffrey's quote from Rothbard (in particular, "(2) while working in the matrix of our given world, to refuse to add to its sta-tism"), I believe, answers the titular question perfectly. Even if it is the case that, by starting from scratch, a better system could be constructed, if our aim is the construction of that system, we must recognize that we do not have the luxury of erasing the influences of Marx, FDR, et al. Those who would change the system must necessarily work within it, and if that means using U.S. Mint-coined money, so be it. Posted by: Lowell at January 10, 2005 11:26 AM Stephan, Interesting points, although showing that something is moral or immoral, legal or illegal, does not in any way show that one would stop doing it. Everyone acts immorally numerous times each day. The fact that they know they're acting such doesn't stop them from doing such. Good people try to strive to be the best they can, presumeably. Ultimately, everyone has to live with what they do, and with how other people perceive what they do. A good person is someone who tries to do what he thinks is moral. Such people generally are engaged in careers they think moral. It will take a lot of argument to convince them otherwise. However, if they can be convinced of the immorality of their career, they will quit it (or cease being good people). An "evil" person is someone who does not bother to try doing what he thinks is moral. That is, the person who knows what is moral, yet does not abide by it. I would characterize Alan Greenspan as such a person. Posted by: David Heinrich at January 10, 2005 11:36 AM In an earlier post on this blog, I noted the example of Todd Zywicki, a law professor who recently finished a stint as planning director at the FTC. In his professorial role (at a state school, George Mason), Zywicki has portrayed himself as a free-market champion. Yet during his FTC service, he stood by and said nothing while the agency committed all sorts of individual rights violations. This is the type of person who needs to be condemned as evil--the man who poses as an ally of free markets, yet when put in a position of authority does nothing to advance the cause. Posted by: Skip Oliva at January 10, 2005 12:05 PM I wonder what Ayn Rand would have thought of the fact that one of her closest associates is now the person who is responsible for carrying out the biggest inflationist institution in the world-and also propagates for the usefullness of that institution. Posted by: Stefan Karlsson at January 10, 2005 01:49 PM Libertarians who work as speechwriters for the State do great damage. They enable the interventionists to disguise their destructiveness with positive-sounding rhetoric. Posted by: JS Henderson at January 10, 2005 01:49 PM Unless something great happens, the government is going to be stealing my money and violating my rights until the day I die. I have no problem getting some of that money back through subsidized loans and government scholarships. Although I do believe it is disrespectful for the government to sponsor a scholarship in Barry Goldwater's name, I am proud to be nominated for it. Posted by: Horatio at January 10, 2005 02:02 PM As the for the private/state school arguments, private schools subsidized by the state also. Kids complete the fafsa and receive pell grants, and loans to go the both schools. We support the state in so many ways because we enhance society and its members. I think you're justified if you work is agaisnt the government, but not against the people. Posted by: Andy D at January 10, 2005 03:50 PM Stephan, I agree w/ Bostaph that Murphy supplies no reasons for his assertions; why it's okay to set up a donut shop selling to police, but not to "be on the payroll". Just to clarify, I didn't say it was OK to set up a donut shop. I asked if it were (for those who think one can't work for Halliburton in good conscience). My point here is not to lay out the definitive answer, but rather to say that I think I could come up with particular examples that would cast doubt upon any hard-and-fast rule people on either side give. E.g. if an an-cap thinks there's no problem working for Halliburton, then we can ask about a military company that exclusively supplies stuff to the gov't. I agree with Bostaph that I didn't give any answers; that's my point. (But this implies of course that I didn't agree with the official positions both of you took. As I recall, Bostaph said something like, "They aren't fair with me, so I'm not going to worry about playing nice with them." That's not the issue; no one is saying you shouldn't work for the State because it might violate the rights of the tax man. Am I allowed to mug a guy walking down the street because the IRS took my money?) I didn't bring this up on the List because I thought this topic was getting beaten to a pulp, but since you posted your response from there, let me address something that concerned me: To insist that we victims -- *because* we are victims (those who respect rights) -- have to suffer even further damage, to restrict ourselves from career and business and life opportunities that, ironically, our fellow men who do not agonize over the morality of their choices, ... frankly, to my mind, it is ridiculous and obscene. Here you're just begging the question. Are you an innocent victim "(those who respect rights)" if you work for the government? No one is arguing that the victims of gov't abuse should hurt themselves even more so; the claim is that victims of government abuse aren't thereby given a green light to abuse third parties as compensation. And finally, I don't see why you're disgusted that "our side" is worried about choosing justified means. Isn't that what makes us libertarians, that we worry about violating side constraints? Posted by: RPM at January 10, 2005 04:04 PM -- ----------------- 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'

2 1

Google Exposes Web Surveillance Cams
by Eugen Leitl 11 Jan '05

11 Jan '05

Link: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/09/1411242 Posted by: CmdrTaco, on 2005-01-09 15:00:00 from the pick-a-password-people dept. An anonymous reader writes "Blogs and message forums buzzed this week with the discovery that a pair of simple Google searches permits [1]access to well over 1,000 unprotected surveillance cameras around the world - apparently without their owners' knowledge." Apparently many of the cams are even aimable. Oops! [2]Click Here References 1. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/08/web_surveillance_cams_open_to_all/ 2. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5717&alloc_id=12468&site_id=1&request_id=231150&… =click&page=%2farticle%2epl ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]

3 2