July 2018 - cypherpunks-legacy

[>Htech] Montague: Synthetic Biology: A Darker Bioweapons Future
by Hughes, James J. 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

http://www.counterpunch.org/montague12312005.html December 31 / January 1, 2005/6 Synthetic Biology: A Darker Bioweapons Future By PETER MONTAGUE One of the top developments of 2005 is a kind of genetic engineering on steroids -- a new field called "synthetic biology" in which scientists are setting out to create new forms of life that have never existed before. In "genetic engineering," natural genes from one species are inserted by force into a different species, hoping to transfer the properties or characteristics of one species into another. Trout can live in cold water, so maybe a trout gene blasted into a tomato will help tomatoes withstand cold weather. The limitation on this system is the characteristics that nature has built into the genes of species. Now scientists have overcome that limitation. They are learning to develop entirely new species, new forms of life. Awareness of this new scientific specialty -- called "synthetic biology" -- began to appear in the press in 2005. The construction of living things from raw chemicals was first demonstrated in 2002 when scientists created a polio virus from scratch. They found the polio virus genome on the internet, and within 2 years had created a virus from raw chemicals. The synthetic virus could reproduce and, when injected into mice, paralyzed them just as a natural polio virus would do. They said they chose the polio virus to demonstrate what a bioterrorist could accomplish. "It is a little sobering to see that folks in the chemistry laboratory can basically create a virus from scratch," James LeDuc of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, said at the time. A year later, in 2003 Craig Venter and colleagues at the Institute for Biological Energy Alternatives in Rockville, Md., took only 3 weeks to create a virus from scratch. Later that same year the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) published a short paper called "The Darker Bioweapons Future," reporting the conclusions of a panel of life science experts convened by the National Academy of Sciences. The CIA paper said, in part, "The effects of some of these engineered biological agents could be worse than any disease known to man." And the CIA said, "The same science that may cure some of our worst diseases could be used to create the world's most frightening weapons." The CIA offered one example: "For example, one panelist cited the possibility of a stealth virus attack that could cripple a large portion of people in their forties with severe arthritis, concealing its hostile origin and leaving a country with massive health and economic problems." Nature magazine -- England's most prestigious science journal -- said in 2004 that synthetic biology "carries potential dangers that could eclipse the concerns already raised about genetic engineering and nanotechnology." Last month, the British journal New Scientist said in an editorial, "Let us hope that tomorrow's terrorists don't include people with PhDs in molecular genetics." The editorial went on to explain why the technology cannot regulated: "The underlying technology has already proliferated worldwide, and some gene-synthesis companies that are ostensibly based in the west are thought to manufacture their DNA in China and other countries in the far east where skilled labour is cheap." The editorial was written in response to an investigation conducted by the editors of New Scientist. They wondered if they could special- order DNA over the internet and have it shipped to them by mail (which the Brits call "post," not mail). Their report is titled, "The bioweapon is in the post," and they concluded that it would be doable, and that commerce in such things would be difficult -- or impossible -- to control. "But with gene synthesis firms springing up all over the world, and the underlying technology becoming cheaper and more widely available, it is unclear whether regulations enacted in any one country will be enough." "It's going to be virtually impossible to control," predicts David Magnus of the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics. The New Scientist editorial ends by saying, "If there ever was a case for scientists around the world to engage in sensible self-regulation before a nightmare becomes reality, this is it." Unfortunately, scientists are ill-equipped by their training to grapple with the ethical and moral dimensions of their work. Scientists have no equivalent of the Hippocratic Oath -- "First do no harm" -- that guides the behavior of physicians. The Hippocratic oath counsels restraint, humility, and caution. In science, on the other hand, wherever your curiosity takes you is the right place to go, even if it takes you into "a darker bioweapons future." Small wonder that so many people have lost faith in science, scientific progress, and the promise of America. As the editors of Nature said in 2004, "Controversies over genetically engineered crops and embryo research are leading people to question how carefully scientists consider the possible consequences of their work before barreling ahead. This is no small concern for science, as it has already led to restrictions." But of course it isn't just scientists who are responsible for speeding the deployment of ill-considered technologies onto the world market. The underlying engine for all this reckless behavior is an economic system that requires economic growth year after year. Our society has grown dependent upon economic growth for achieving "liberty and justice for all." You say your slice of the pie is unacceptably small and you're having to sleep under a bridge? Don't worry -- economic growth will make the whole pie larger, so your tiny slice will grow too. Thus domestic tranquility, justice, fairness, and fulfilling the promise of America are all dependent upon economic growth. We don't have any other widely-approved way to distribute the benefits of the economy, except through economic growth. We have forgotten the alternative, which is sharing. But decade after decade since World War II, economic growth rates have been stagnant or declining, not just in the U.S. but throughout the "developed" world. Slow growth derives from at least two sources -- productive capacity exceeds consumer demand and we have a glut of capital, so it is getting harder to find good investments. These two features of the modern economy force investors to constantly search for "the next big thing" -- in hopes of returning to historical rates of return on investment. As a consequence, corporations (which have limited liability, by law) engage in reckless behavior -- including behavior that may threaten the well being of everyone. They create new biotech crops and deploy them across the nation's agricultural landscape before thorough tests have been completed. They put nano particles into baby lotion before they have any idea whether the nano particles can penetrate a baby's skin, and before they have asked where those nano particle will go after they are thrown out with the bath water. So now we have synthetic biology -- the "next big thing" -- genetic engineering on steroids -- the manufacture of living organisms unlike any that have appeared on earth before. Investors are lining up to support new firms that are willing to sell the building blocks of new forms of life to anyone who can come up with a few hundred thousand dollars. This may in fact produce the next big thing, but it may not be quite the thing investors are hoping for. Until we devise a steady-state economy that does not require perpetual growth, investors will keep us on this awful "next big thing" merry- go-round, our quality of life continually threatened anew by the ill- considered products and unanticipated by-products of feral science. Peter Montague is editor of the indispensable Rachel's Health and Democracy, where this essay originally appeared. He can be reached at: peter(a)rachel.org Post message: transhumantech(a)yahoogroups.com Subscribe: transhumantech-subscribe(a)yahoogroups.com Unsubscribe: transhumantech-unsubscribe(a)yahoogroups.com List owner: transhumantech-owner(a)yahoogroups.com List home: http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/transhumantech/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/transhumantech/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: transhumantech-unsubscribe(a)yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]

1 0

Tor-ramdisk 20100125 is out.
by basile 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Hi everyone I want to announce to the list that a new rlease of tor-ramdisk is out. Tor-ramdisk is a uClibc-based micro Linux distribution whose only purpose is to host a Tor server in an environment that maximizes security and privacy. Security is enhenced by hardening the kernel and binaries, and privacy is enhanced by forcing logging to be off at all levels so that even the Tor operator only has access to minimal information. Finally, since everything runs in ephemeral memory, no information survives a reboot, except for the Tor configuration file and the private RSA key, which may be exported/imported by FTP. Changelog: This release incorporates an important security fix from upstream following a breach of some Tor project servers. Only tor was bumped to version 0.2.1.22 while everything else remain the same as the 20100115 release. The change was made to the i686, MIPS, and x86_64 images. i686: Homepage: http://opensource.dyc.edu/tor-ramdisk Download: http://opensource.dyc.edu/tor-ramdisk-downloads x86_64: Homepage: http://opensource.dyc.edu/tor-x86_64-ramdisk Download: http://opensource.dyc.edu/tor-x86_64-ramdisk-downloads MIPS: Homepage: http://opensource.dyc.edu/tor-mips-ramdisk Download: http://opensource.dyc.edu/tor-mips-ramdisk-downloads -- Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. Chair of Information Technology D'Youville College Buffalo, NY 14201 USA (716) 829-8197 ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

[tahoe-announce] statement on backdoors
by Zooko O'Whielacronx 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Statement on Backdoors October 5, 2010 The New York Times has recently reported that the current U.S. administration is proposing a bill that would apparently, if passed, require communication systems to facilitate government wiretapping and access to encrypted data: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/us/27wiretap.html (login required; username/password pairs available at http://www.bugmenot.com/view/nytimes.com) Commentary by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/09/government-seeks ), Peter Suderman / Reason (http://reason.com/blog/2010/09/27/obama-administration-frustrate ), Julian Sanchez / Cato Institute (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/designing-an-insecure-internet/ ). The core Tahoe developers promise never to change Tahoe-LAFS to facilitate government access to data stored or transmitted by it. Even if it were desirable to facilitate such accessbwhich it is notbwe believe it would not be technically feasible to do so without severely compromising Tahoe-LAFS' security against other attackers. There have been many examples in which backdoors intended for use by government have introduced vulnerabilities exploitable by other parties (a notable example being the Greek cellphone eavesdropping scandal in 2004/5). RFCs 1984 and 2804 elaborate on the security case against such backdoors. Note that since Tahoe-LAFS is open-source software, forks by people other than the current core developers are possible. In that event, we would try to persuade any such forks to adopt a similar policy. The following Tahoe-LAFS developers agree with this statement: David-Sarah Hopwood Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn Brian Warner Kevan Carstensen FrC)dC)ric Marti Jack Lloyd FranC'ois Deppierraz Yu Xue Marc Tooley _______________________________________________ tahoe-announce mailing list tahoe-announce(a)tahoe-lafs.org http://tahoe-lafs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-announce ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

Tor-ramdisk 20100125 is out.
by basile 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Hi everyone I want to announce to the list that a new rlease of tor-ramdisk is out. Tor-ramdisk is a uClibc-based micro Linux distribution whose only purpose is to host a Tor server in an environment that maximizes security and privacy. Security is enhenced by hardening the kernel and binaries, and privacy is enhanced by forcing logging to be off at all levels so that even the Tor operator only has access to minimal information. Finally, since everything runs in ephemeral memory, no information survives a reboot, except for the Tor configuration file and the private RSA key, which may be exported/imported by FTP. Changelog: This release incorporates an important security fix from upstream following a breach of some Tor project servers. Only tor was bumped to version 0.2.1.22 while everything else remain the same as the 20100115 release. The change was made to the i686, MIPS, and x86_64 images. i686: Homepage: http://opensource.dyc.edu/tor-ramdisk Download: http://opensource.dyc.edu/tor-ramdisk-downloads x86_64: Homepage: http://opensource.dyc.edu/tor-x86_64-ramdisk Download: http://opensource.dyc.edu/tor-x86_64-ramdisk-downloads MIPS: Homepage: http://opensource.dyc.edu/tor-mips-ramdisk Download: http://opensource.dyc.edu/tor-mips-ramdisk-downloads -- Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. Chair of Information Technology D'Youville College Buffalo, NY 14201 USA (716) 829-8197 ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

[tahoe-announce] statement on backdoors
by Zooko O'Whielacronx 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Statement on Backdoors October 5, 2010 The New York Times has recently reported that the current U.S. administration is proposing a bill that would apparently, if passed, require communication systems to facilitate government wiretapping and access to encrypted data: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/us/27wiretap.html (login required; username/password pairs available at http://www.bugmenot.com/view/nytimes.com) Commentary by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/09/government-seeks ), Peter Suderman / Reason (http://reason.com/blog/2010/09/27/obama-administration-frustrate ), Julian Sanchez / Cato Institute (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/designing-an-insecure-internet/ ). The core Tahoe developers promise never to change Tahoe-LAFS to facilitate government access to data stored or transmitted by it. Even if it were desirable to facilitate such accessbwhich it is notbwe believe it would not be technically feasible to do so without severely compromising Tahoe-LAFS' security against other attackers. There have been many examples in which backdoors intended for use by government have introduced vulnerabilities exploitable by other parties (a notable example being the Greek cellphone eavesdropping scandal in 2004/5). RFCs 1984 and 2804 elaborate on the security case against such backdoors. Note that since Tahoe-LAFS is open-source software, forks by people other than the current core developers are possible. In that event, we would try to persuade any such forks to adopt a similar policy. The following Tahoe-LAFS developers agree with this statement: David-Sarah Hopwood Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn Brian Warner Kevan Carstensen FrC)dC)ric Marti Jack Lloyd FranC'ois Deppierraz Yu Xue Marc Tooley _______________________________________________ tahoe-announce mailing list tahoe-announce(a)tahoe-lafs.org http://tahoe-lafs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-announce ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

[osint] Missing uniforms revive 9/11 fears in Canada
by MARQUEZ Thierry 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1141489,00050001.htm Missing uniforms revive 9/11 fears in Canada Gurmukh Singh Vancouver, December 7 The 9/11 has cast its shadow over Canada as hundreds of uniforms, including badges, worn by screeners at 89 airports across Canada have gone missing, setting alarm bells ringing over air travel safety in North America. Numbering 1,127, the uniforms and badges have been stolen or gone missing over a period of nine months. Canadian and American aviation authorities fear the uniforms and badges might be used by terrorists to gain entry into airports and hijack planes. Hundreds of planes fly into the US every day from Canadian destinations. Transport minister Jean Lapierre sought a report from the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA), which looks after security at the nation's airports, on Saturday. The minister was booed in Parliament when he tried to assure the House that all possible steps were being taken to check the misuse of the uniforms. Airports had been alerted and the private firms conducting screening at airports asked to double-check the ID of all employees. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> $4.98 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Q7_YsB/neXJAA/yQLSAA/TySplB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> -------------------------- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, discuss-osint(a)yahoogroups.com. -------------------------- Brooks Isoldi, editor bisoldi(a)intellnet.org http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint(a)yahoogroups.com Subscribe: osint-subscribe(a)yahoogroups.com Unsubscribe: osint-unsubscribe(a)yahoogroups.com *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: osint-unsubscribe(a)yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ --- end forwarded text -- ----------------- 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

[>Htech] Montague: Synthetic Biology: A Darker Bioweapons Future
by Hughes, James J. 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

http://www.counterpunch.org/montague12312005.html December 31 / January 1, 2005/6 Synthetic Biology: A Darker Bioweapons Future By PETER MONTAGUE One of the top developments of 2005 is a kind of genetic engineering on steroids -- a new field called "synthetic biology" in which scientists are setting out to create new forms of life that have never existed before. In "genetic engineering," natural genes from one species are inserted by force into a different species, hoping to transfer the properties or characteristics of one species into another. Trout can live in cold water, so maybe a trout gene blasted into a tomato will help tomatoes withstand cold weather. The limitation on this system is the characteristics that nature has built into the genes of species. Now scientists have overcome that limitation. They are learning to develop entirely new species, new forms of life. Awareness of this new scientific specialty -- called "synthetic biology" -- began to appear in the press in 2005. The construction of living things from raw chemicals was first demonstrated in 2002 when scientists created a polio virus from scratch. They found the polio virus genome on the internet, and within 2 years had created a virus from raw chemicals. The synthetic virus could reproduce and, when injected into mice, paralyzed them just as a natural polio virus would do. They said they chose the polio virus to demonstrate what a bioterrorist could accomplish. "It is a little sobering to see that folks in the chemistry laboratory can basically create a virus from scratch," James LeDuc of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, said at the time. A year later, in 2003 Craig Venter and colleagues at the Institute for Biological Energy Alternatives in Rockville, Md., took only 3 weeks to create a virus from scratch. Later that same year the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) published a short paper called "The Darker Bioweapons Future," reporting the conclusions of a panel of life science experts convened by the National Academy of Sciences. The CIA paper said, in part, "The effects of some of these engineered biological agents could be worse than any disease known to man." And the CIA said, "The same science that may cure some of our worst diseases could be used to create the world's most frightening weapons." The CIA offered one example: "For example, one panelist cited the possibility of a stealth virus attack that could cripple a large portion of people in their forties with severe arthritis, concealing its hostile origin and leaving a country with massive health and economic problems." Nature magazine -- England's most prestigious science journal -- said in 2004 that synthetic biology "carries potential dangers that could eclipse the concerns already raised about genetic engineering and nanotechnology." Last month, the British journal New Scientist said in an editorial, "Let us hope that tomorrow's terrorists don't include people with PhDs in molecular genetics." The editorial went on to explain why the technology cannot regulated: "The underlying technology has already proliferated worldwide, and some gene-synthesis companies that are ostensibly based in the west are thought to manufacture their DNA in China and other countries in the far east where skilled labour is cheap." The editorial was written in response to an investigation conducted by the editors of New Scientist. They wondered if they could special- order DNA over the internet and have it shipped to them by mail (which the Brits call "post," not mail). Their report is titled, "The bioweapon is in the post," and they concluded that it would be doable, and that commerce in such things would be difficult -- or impossible -- to control. "But with gene synthesis firms springing up all over the world, and the underlying technology becoming cheaper and more widely available, it is unclear whether regulations enacted in any one country will be enough." "It's going to be virtually impossible to control," predicts David Magnus of the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics. The New Scientist editorial ends by saying, "If there ever was a case for scientists around the world to engage in sensible self-regulation before a nightmare becomes reality, this is it." Unfortunately, scientists are ill-equipped by their training to grapple with the ethical and moral dimensions of their work. Scientists have no equivalent of the Hippocratic Oath -- "First do no harm" -- that guides the behavior of physicians. The Hippocratic oath counsels restraint, humility, and caution. In science, on the other hand, wherever your curiosity takes you is the right place to go, even if it takes you into "a darker bioweapons future." Small wonder that so many people have lost faith in science, scientific progress, and the promise of America. As the editors of Nature said in 2004, "Controversies over genetically engineered crops and embryo research are leading people to question how carefully scientists consider the possible consequences of their work before barreling ahead. This is no small concern for science, as it has already led to restrictions." But of course it isn't just scientists who are responsible for speeding the deployment of ill-considered technologies onto the world market. The underlying engine for all this reckless behavior is an economic system that requires economic growth year after year. Our society has grown dependent upon economic growth for achieving "liberty and justice for all." You say your slice of the pie is unacceptably small and you're having to sleep under a bridge? Don't worry -- economic growth will make the whole pie larger, so your tiny slice will grow too. Thus domestic tranquility, justice, fairness, and fulfilling the promise of America are all dependent upon economic growth. We don't have any other widely-approved way to distribute the benefits of the economy, except through economic growth. We have forgotten the alternative, which is sharing. But decade after decade since World War II, economic growth rates have been stagnant or declining, not just in the U.S. but throughout the "developed" world. Slow growth derives from at least two sources -- productive capacity exceeds consumer demand and we have a glut of capital, so it is getting harder to find good investments. These two features of the modern economy force investors to constantly search for "the next big thing" -- in hopes of returning to historical rates of return on investment. As a consequence, corporations (which have limited liability, by law) engage in reckless behavior -- including behavior that may threaten the well being of everyone. They create new biotech crops and deploy them across the nation's agricultural landscape before thorough tests have been completed. They put nano particles into baby lotion before they have any idea whether the nano particles can penetrate a baby's skin, and before they have asked where those nano particle will go after they are thrown out with the bath water. So now we have synthetic biology -- the "next big thing" -- genetic engineering on steroids -- the manufacture of living organisms unlike any that have appeared on earth before. Investors are lining up to support new firms that are willing to sell the building blocks of new forms of life to anyone who can come up with a few hundred thousand dollars. This may in fact produce the next big thing, but it may not be quite the thing investors are hoping for. Until we devise a steady-state economy that does not require perpetual growth, investors will keep us on this awful "next big thing" merry- go-round, our quality of life continually threatened anew by the ill- considered products and unanticipated by-products of feral science. Peter Montague is editor of the indispensable Rachel's Health and Democracy, where this essay originally appeared. He can be reached at: peter(a)rachel.org Post message: transhumantech(a)yahoogroups.com Subscribe: transhumantech-subscribe(a)yahoogroups.com Unsubscribe: transhumantech-unsubscribe(a)yahoogroups.com List owner: transhumantech-owner(a)yahoogroups.com List home: http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/transhumantech/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/transhumantech/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: transhumantech-unsubscribe(a)yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]

1 0

None
by Cari Machet 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

>Law mother fucking suit ... i will contact my lawyer friends - see if anyo= ne thinks you have standing =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Don't bother. =C2=A0It was somewhat of a joke for me to menti= on the "story royalty" line. =C2=A0 Since having spent thousands of hours i= n Federal prison law libraries, I studied many different areas of law, far = beyond criminal law and appeals, including copyright law. =C2=A0I am not aw= are that copyright law would protect such an idea. =C2=A0If I had written a= play or a script for a movie, THAT would be my own under copyright law. = =C2=A0But not merely the underlying idea. =C2=A0Now, nothing would prevent = one of these studios from giving me some sort of credit on a line at the en= d of the show, but they wouldn't owe me money legally. =C2=A0I am much more= upset that they took TWENTY FUCKING YEARS to steal the idea, than the fact= they 'stole' it. =C2=A0 =C2=A0 I should also take the opportunity to point out that I wrote = my AP essay independently from, and completely unaware of, the previous dis= cussions by Tim May and Robin Hanson. =C2=A0(I didn't even have Internet ac= cess, except as a portal, until mid-1995, and was entirely unaware of the C= ypherpunks list; =C2=A0AP part one was actually published here by somebody = else.). =C2=A0 =C2=A0 The major differences included: =C2=A0Tim May and Robin Hanso= n both referred to the idea, the one that would one day be seen as "assassi= nation markets", as being "abhorrent markets". =C2=A0See Cyphernomicon 16.1= 6.4. That they were repelled by the idea, presumably, is one reason they di= dn't rhetorically follow the concept out to its ultimate, logical outcome. = =C2=A0I, on the other hand, and totally unaware of their work, thought that= assassination markets would actually be a truly wonderful idea, precisely = because of their capability to destroy governments, make militaries unneces= sary and indeed impossible to maintain (critically, including nuclear weapo= ns), and completely replace the current 'criminal justice system' with a fa= r-fairer alternative. =C2=A0THEY merely stuck their big toes into the cold = pool, whereas I did a belly-flop. =C2=A0(With the accompanying pain, <sigh>= ). =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 They probably started out by thinking something like, "If per= son A can anonymously hire person B to kill person C, that could lead to mi= schief." =C2=A0Sure it could. =C2=A0But I approached the problem differentl= y: =C2=A0I saw that very few people would want to pay, say, $10,000 to buy = someone else's death. =C2=A0But I immediately also saw that 10,000 people m= ight want to pay $1 each for that outcome. =C2=A0That amounts to a crowdsou= rced decision, with its accompanying advantages and benefits. =C2=A0And I a= lso saw that such a functioning system would deter virtually everything whi= ch we call wrong in today's society. =C2=A0Anybody who is trying to argue a= gainst an AP-type system is inherently attempting to defend the hugely flaw= ed status quo, even if they don't realize that. =C2=A0 =C2=A0 I also solved David Friedman's "Hard problem", see his book, = "The Machinery of Freedom", =C2=A0the previously-assumed difficulty or impo= ssibility of providing for the defense of a fully libertarian or anarchisti= c society. =C2=A0Perhaps my big advantage was that I didn't know Friedman's= "Hard Problem" even existed, at least under that label, until long after I= 'd already solved it.=C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Jim Bell ------=_Part_259692_252577611.1446314995160 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html><head></head><body><div style=3D"color:#000; background-color:#fff; f= ont-family:HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, = sans-serif;font-size:13px"><div></div><div style=3D"font-family: HelveticaN= eue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size= : 13px;" id=3D"yui_3_16_0_1_1446229456410_56527"><div style=3D"font-family:= HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif= ; font-size: 16px;" id=3D"yui_3_16_0_1_1446229456410_56526"><div dir=3D"ltr= " id=3D"yui_3_16_0_1_1446229456410_56525"><font size=3D"2" face=3D"Arial" i= d=3D"yui_3_16_0_1_1446229456410_56524"><b><span style=3D"font-weight:bold;"= >From:</span></b> Cari Machet <carimachet(a)gmail.com><br> <b><span sty= le=3D"font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> coderman <coderman(a)gmail.com&gt= ; <br><b><span style=3D"font-weight: bold;">Cc:</span></b> cpunks <cyphe= rpunks(a)cpunks.org>; jim bell <jdb10987(a)yahoo.com> <br> <b id=3D"yu= i_3_16_0_1_1446229456410_56921"><span style=3D"font-weight: bold;" id=3D"yu= i_3_16_0_1_1446229456410_56920">Sent:</span></b> Friday, October 30, 2015 8= :03 PM<br> <b id=3D"yui_3_16_0_1_1446229456410_56923"><span style=3D"font-w= eight: bold;" id=3D"yui_3_16_0_1_1446229456410_56922">Subject:</span></b> R= e: The Black List<br> </font> </div> <div class=3D"y_msg_container" id=3D"y= ui_3_16_0_1_1446229456410_56548"><br><div id=3D"yiv2095771975"><div id=3D"y= ui_3_16_0_1_1446229456410_56547"><div dir=3D"ltr" id=3D"yui_3_16_0_1_144622= 9456410_56549">>Law mother fucking suit ... i will contact my lawyer fri= ends - see if anyone thinks you have standing</div><div dir=3D"ltr" id=3D"y= ui_3_16_0_1_1446229456410_56549"><br></div><div dir=3D"ltr" id=3D"yui_3_16_= 0_1_1446229456410_56549">    Don't bother.  It was somewhat = of a joke for me to mention the "story royalty" line.   Since having s= pent thousands of hours in Federal prison law libraries, I studied many dif= ferent areas of law, far beyond criminal law and appeals, including copyrig= ht law.  I am not aware that copyright law would protect such an idea.=  If I had written a play or a script for a movie, THAT would be my ow= n under copyright law.  But not merely the underlying idea.  Now,= nothing would prevent one of these studios from giving me some sort of cre= dit on a line at the end of the show, but they wouldn't owe me money legall= y.  I am much more upset that they took TWENTY FUCKING YEARS to steal = the idea, than the fact they 'stole' it.</div><div dir=3D"ltr" id=3D"yui_3_= 16_0_1_1446229456410_56549"><br></div><div dir=3D"ltr" id=3D"yui_3_16_0_1_1= 446229456410_56549">    I should also take the opportunity to poi= nt out that I wrote my AP essay independently from, and completely unaware = of, the previous discussions by Tim May and Robin Hanson.  (I didn't e= ven have Internet access, except as a portal, until mid-1995, and was entir= ely unaware of the Cypherpunks list;  AP part one was actually publish= ed here by somebody else.).</div><div dir=3D"ltr" id=3D"yui_3_16_0_1_144622= 9456410_56549"><br></div><div dir=3D"ltr" id=3D"yui_3_16_0_1_1446229456410_= 56549">    The major differences included:  Tim May and Robi= n Hanson both referred to the idea, the one that would one day be seen as "= assassination markets", as being "abhorrent markets".  See Cyphernomic= on 16.16.4. That they were repelled by the idea, presumably, is one reason = they didn't rhetorically follow the concept out to its ultimate, logical ou= tcome.  I, on the other hand, and totally unaware of their work, thoug= ht that assassination markets would actually be a truly wonderful idea, pre= cisely because of their capability to destroy governments, make militaries = unnecessary and indeed impossible to maintain (critically, including nuclea= r weapons), and completely replace the current 'criminal justice system' wi= th a far-fairer alternative.  THEY merely stuck their big toes into th= e cold pool, whereas I did a belly-flop.  (With the accompanying pain,= <sigh>).  </div><div dir=3D"ltr" id=3D"yui_3_16_0_1_14462294564= 10_56549"><br></div><div dir=3D"ltr" id=3D"yui_3_16_0_1_1446229456410_56549= ">    They probably started out by thinking something like, "If p= erson A can anonymously hire person B to kill person C, that could lead to = mischief."  Sure it could.  But I approached the problem differen= tly:  I saw that very few people would want to pay, say, $10,000 to bu= y someone else's death.  But I immediately also saw that 10,000 people= might want to pay $1 each for that outcome.  That amounts to a crowds= ourced decision, with its accompanying advantages and benefits.  And I= also saw that such a functioning system would deter virtually everything w= hich we call wrong in today's society.  Anybody who is trying to argue= against an AP-type system is inherently attempting to defend the hugely fl= awed status quo, even if they don't realize that.</div><div dir=3D"ltr" id= =3D"yui_3_16_0_1_1446229456410_56549"><br></div><div dir=3D"ltr" id=3D"yui_= 3_16_0_1_1446229456410_56549">    I also solved David Friedman's = "Hard problem", see his book, "The Machinery of Freedom",  the previou= sly-assumed difficulty or impossibility of providing for the defense of a f= ully libertarian or anarchistic society.  Perhaps my big advantage was= that I didn't know Friedman's "Hard Problem" even existed, at least under = that label, until long after I'd already solved it. </div><div dir=3D"= ltr" id=3D"yui_3_16_0_1_1446229456410_56549">     <br></div>= <div dir=3D"ltr" id=3D"yui_3_16_0_1_1446229456410_56549">    &nbs= p;            Jim Bell</div><div dir=3D"ltr" = id=3D"yui_3_16_0_1_1446229456410_56549"><br></div> <div class=3D"qtdSeparateBR"><br><br></div><div class=3D"yiv2095771975yqt31= 85438982" id=3D"yiv2095771975yqt43260"><div class=3D"yiv2095771975gmail_quo= te" id=3D"yui_3_16_0_1_1446229456410_56546"><br></div></div></div></div></d= iv> </div> </div> </div></body></html> ------=_Part_259692_252577611.1446314995160--

1 0

None
by Cari Machet 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

>Law mother fucking suit ... i will contact my lawyer friends - see if anyo= ne thinks you have standing =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Don't bother. =C2=A0It was somewhat of a joke for me to menti= on the "story royalty" line. =C2=A0 Since having spent thousands of hours i= n Federal prison law libraries, I studied many different areas of law, far = beyond criminal law and appeals, including copyright law. =C2=A0I am not aw= are that copyright law would protect such an idea. =C2=A0If I had written a= play or a script for a movie, THAT would be my own under copyright law. = =C2=A0But not merely the underlying idea. =C2=A0Now, nothing would prevent = one of these studios from giving me some sort of credit on a line at the en= d of the show, but they wouldn't owe me money legally. =C2=A0I am much more= upset that they took TWENTY FUCKING YEARS to steal the idea, than the fact= they 'stole' it. =C2=A0 =C2=A0 I should also take the opportunity to point out that I wrote = my AP essay independently from, and completely unaware of, the previous dis= cussions by Tim May and Robin Hanson. =C2=A0(I didn't even have Internet ac= cess, except as a portal, until mid-1995, and was entirely unaware of the C= ypherpunks list; =C2=A0AP part one was actually published here by somebody = else.). =C2=A0 =C2=A0 The major differences included: =C2=A0Tim May and Robin Hanso= n both referred to the idea, the one that would one day be seen as "assassi= nation markets", as being "abhorrent markets". =C2=A0See Cyphernomicon 16.1= 6.4. That they were repelled by the idea, presumably, is one reason they di= dn't rhetorically follow the concept out to its ultimate, logical outcome. = =C2=A0I, on the other hand, and totally unaware of their work, thought that= assassination markets would actually be a truly wonderful idea, precisely = because of their capability to destroy governments, make militaries unneces= sary and indeed impossible to maintain (critically, including nuclear weapo= ns), and completely replace the current 'criminal justice system' with a fa= r-fairer alternative. =C2=A0THEY merely stuck their big toes into the cold = pool, whereas I did a belly-flop. =C2=A0(With the accompanying pain, <sigh>= ). =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 They probably started out by thinking something like, "If per= son A can anonymously hire person B to kill person C, that could lead to mi= schief." =C2=A0Sure it could. =C2=A0But I approached the problem differentl= y: =C2=A0I saw that very few people would want to pay, say, $10,000 to buy = someone else's death. =C2=A0But I immediately also saw that 10,000 people m= ight want to pay $1 each for that outcome. =C2=A0That amounts to a crowdsou= rced decision, with its accompanying advantages and benefits. =C2=A0And I a= lso saw that such a functioning system would deter virtually everything whi= ch we call wrong in today's society. =C2=A0Anybody who is trying to argue a= gainst an AP-type system is inherently attempting to defend the hugely flaw= ed status quo, even if they don't realize that. =C2=A0 =C2=A0 I also solved David Friedman's "Hard problem", see his book, = "The Machinery of Freedom", =C2=A0the previously-assumed difficulty or impo= ssibility of providing for the defense of a fully libertarian or anarchisti= c society. =C2=A0Perhaps my big advantage was that I didn't know Friedman's= "Hard Problem" even existed, at least under that label, until long after I= 'd already solved it.=C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Jim Bell ------=_Part_259692_252577611.1446314995160 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html><head></head><body><div style=3D"color:#000; background-color:#fff; f= ont-family:HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, = sans-serif;font-size:13px"><div></div><div style=3D"font-family: HelveticaN= eue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size= : 13px;" id=3D"yui_3_16_0_1_1446229456410_56527"><div style=3D"font-family:= HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif= ; font-size: 16px;" id=3D"yui_3_16_0_1_1446229456410_56526"><div dir=3D"ltr= " id=3D"yui_3_16_0_1_1446229456410_56525"><font size=3D"2" face=3D"Arial" i= d=3D"yui_3_16_0_1_1446229456410_56524"><b><span style=3D"font-weight:bold;"= >From:</span></b> Cari Machet <carimachet(a)gmail.com><br> <b><span sty= le=3D"font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> coderman <coderman(a)gmail.com&gt= ; <br><b><span style=3D"font-weight: bold;">Cc:</span></b> cpunks <cyphe= rpunks(a)cpunks.org>; jim bell <jdb10987(a)yahoo.com> <br> <b id=3D"yu= i_3_16_0_1_1446229456410_56921"><span style=3D"font-weight: bold;" id=3D"yu= i_3_16_0_1_1446229456410_56920">Sent:</span></b> Friday, October 30, 2015 8= :03 PM<br> <b id=3D"yui_3_16_0_1_1446229456410_56923"><span style=3D"font-w= eight: bold;" id=3D"yui_3_16_0_1_1446229456410_56922">Subject:</span></b> R= e: The Black List<br> </font> </div> <div class=3D"y_msg_container" id=3D"y= ui_3_16_0_1_1446229456410_56548"><br><div id=3D"yiv2095771975"><div id=3D"y= ui_3_16_0_1_1446229456410_56547"><div dir=3D"ltr" id=3D"yui_3_16_0_1_144622= 9456410_56549">>Law mother fucking suit ... i will contact my lawyer fri= ends - see if anyone thinks you have standing</div><div dir=3D"ltr" id=3D"y= ui_3_16_0_1_1446229456410_56549"><br></div><div dir=3D"ltr" id=3D"yui_3_16_= 0_1_1446229456410_56549">    Don't bother.  It was somewhat = of a joke for me to mention the "story royalty" line.   Since having s= pent thousands of hours in Federal prison law libraries, I studied many dif= ferent areas of law, far beyond criminal law and appeals, including copyrig= ht law.  I am not aware that copyright law would protect such an idea.=  If I had written a play or a script for a movie, THAT would be my ow= n under copyright law.  But not merely the underlying idea.  Now,= nothing would prevent one of these studios from giving me some sort of cre= dit on a line at the end of the show, but they wouldn't owe me money legall= y.  I am much more upset that they took TWENTY FUCKING YEARS to steal = the idea, than the fact they 'stole' it.</div><div dir=3D"ltr" id=3D"yui_3_= 16_0_1_1446229456410_56549"><br></div><div dir=3D"ltr" id=3D"yui_3_16_0_1_1= 446229456410_56549">    I should also take the opportunity to poi= nt out that I wrote my AP essay independently from, and completely unaware = of, the previous discussions by Tim May and Robin Hanson.  (I didn't e= ven have Internet access, except as a portal, until mid-1995, and was entir= ely unaware of the Cypherpunks list;  AP part one was actually publish= ed here by somebody else.).</div><div dir=3D"ltr" id=3D"yui_3_16_0_1_144622= 9456410_56549"><br></div><div dir=3D"ltr" id=3D"yui_3_16_0_1_1446229456410_= 56549">    The major differences included:  Tim May and Robi= n Hanson both referred to the idea, the one that would one day be seen as "= assassination markets", as being "abhorrent markets".  See Cyphernomic= on 16.16.4. That they were repelled by the idea, presumably, is one reason = they didn't rhetorically follow the concept out to its ultimate, logical ou= tcome.  I, on the other hand, and totally unaware of their work, thoug= ht that assassination markets would actually be a truly wonderful idea, pre= cisely because of their capability to destroy governments, make militaries = unnecessary and indeed impossible to maintain (critically, including nuclea= r weapons), and completely replace the current 'criminal justice system' wi= th a far-fairer alternative.  THEY merely stuck their big toes into th= e cold pool, whereas I did a belly-flop.  (With the accompanying pain,= <sigh>).  </div><div dir=3D"ltr" id=3D"yui_3_16_0_1_14462294564= 10_56549"><br></div><div dir=3D"ltr" id=3D"yui_3_16_0_1_1446229456410_56549= ">    They probably started out by thinking something like, "If p= erson A can anonymously hire person B to kill person C, that could lead to = mischief."  Sure it could.  But I approached the problem differen= tly:  I saw that very few people would want to pay, say, $10,000 to bu= y someone else's death.  But I immediately also saw that 10,000 people= might want to pay $1 each for that outcome.  That amounts to a crowds= ourced decision, with its accompanying advantages and benefits.  And I= also saw that such a functioning system would deter virtually everything w= hich we call wrong in today's society.  Anybody who is trying to argue= against an AP-type system is inherently attempting to defend the hugely fl= awed status quo, even if they don't realize that.</div><div dir=3D"ltr" id= =3D"yui_3_16_0_1_1446229456410_56549"><br></div><div dir=3D"ltr" id=3D"yui_= 3_16_0_1_1446229456410_56549">    I also solved David Friedman's = "Hard problem", see his book, "The Machinery of Freedom",  the previou= sly-assumed difficulty or impossibility of providing for the defense of a f= ully libertarian or anarchistic society.  Perhaps my big advantage was= that I didn't know Friedman's "Hard Problem" even existed, at least under = that label, until long after I'd already solved it. </div><div dir=3D"= ltr" id=3D"yui_3_16_0_1_1446229456410_56549">     <br></div>= <div dir=3D"ltr" id=3D"yui_3_16_0_1_1446229456410_56549">    &nbs= p;            Jim Bell</div><div dir=3D"ltr" = id=3D"yui_3_16_0_1_1446229456410_56549"><br></div> <div class=3D"qtdSeparateBR"><br><br></div><div class=3D"yiv2095771975yqt31= 85438982" id=3D"yiv2095771975yqt43260"><div class=3D"yiv2095771975gmail_quo= te" id=3D"yui_3_16_0_1_1446229456410_56546"><br></div></div></div></div></d= iv> </div> </div> </div></body></html> ------=_Part_259692_252577611.1446314995160--

1 0

None
by Cari Machet 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

>Law mother fucking suit ... i will contact my lawyer friends - see if anyo= ne thinks you have standing =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Don't bother. =C2=A0It was somewhat of a joke for me to menti= on the "story royalty" line. =C2=A0 Since having spent thousands of hours i= n Federal prison law libraries, I studied many different areas of law, far = beyond criminal law and appeals, including copyright law. =C2=A0I am not aw= are that copyright law would protect such an idea. =C2=A0If I had written a= play or a script for a movie, THAT would be my own under copyright law. = =C2=A0But not merely the underlying idea. =C2=A0Now, nothing would prevent = one of these studios from giving me some sort of credit on a line at the en= d of the show, but they wouldn't owe me money legally. =C2=A0I am much more= upset that they took TWENTY FUCKING YEARS to steal the idea, than the fact= they 'stole' it. =C2=A0 =C2=A0 I should also take the opportunity to point out that I wrote = my AP essay independently from, and completely unaware of, the previous dis= cussions by Tim May and Robin Hanson. =C2=A0(I didn't even have Internet ac= cess, except as a portal, until mid-1995, and was entirely unaware of the C= ypherpunks list; =C2=A0AP part one was actually published here by somebody = else.). =C2=A0 =C2=A0 The major differences included: =C2=A0Tim May and Robin Hanso= n both referred to the idea, the one that would one day be seen as "assassi= nation markets", as being "abhorrent markets". =C2=A0See Cyphernomicon 16.1= 6.4. That they were repelled by the idea, presumably, is one reason they di= dn't rhetorically follow the concept out to its ultimate, logical outcome. = =C2=A0I, on the other hand, and totally unaware of their work, thought that= assassination markets would actually be a truly wonderful idea, precisely = because of their capability to destroy governments, make militaries unneces= sary and indeed impossible to maintain (critically, including nuclear weapo= ns), and completely replace the current 'criminal justice system' with a fa= r-fairer alternative. =C2=A0THEY merely stuck their big toes into the cold = pool, whereas I did a belly-flop. =C2=A0(With the accompanying pain, <sigh>= ). =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 They probably started out by thinking something like, "If per= son A can anonymously hire person B to kill person C, that could lead to mi= schief." =C2=A0Sure it could. =C2=A0But I approached the problem differentl= y: =C2=A0I saw that very few people would want to pay, say, $10,000 to buy = someone else's death. =C2=A0But I immediately also saw that 10,000 people m= ight want to pay $1 each for that outcome. =C2=A0That amounts to a crowdsou= rced decision, with its accompanying advantages and benefits. =C2=A0And I a= lso saw that such a functioning system would deter virtually everything whi= ch we call wrong in today's society. =C2=A0Anybody who is trying to argue a= gainst an AP-type system is inherently attempting to defend the hugely flaw= ed status quo, even if they don't realize that. =C2=A0 =C2=A0 I also solved David Friedman's "Hard problem", see his book, = "The Machinery of Freedom", =C2=A0the previously-assumed difficulty or impo= ssibility of providing for the defense of a fully libertarian or anarchisti= c society. =C2=A0Perhaps my big advantage was that I didn't know Friedman's= "Hard Problem" even existed, at least under that label, until long after I= 'd already solved it.=C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Jim Bell ------=_Part_259692_252577611.1446314995160 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html><head></head><body><div style=3D"color:#000; background-color:#fff; f= ont-family:HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, = sans-serif;font-size:13px"><div></div><div style=3D"font-family: HelveticaN= eue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size= : 13px;" id=3D"yui_3_16_0_1_1446229456410_56527"><div style=3D"font-family:= HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif= ; font-size: 16px;" id=3D"yui_3_16_0_1_1446229456410_56526"><div dir=3D"ltr= " id=3D"yui_3_16_0_1_1446229456410_56525"><font size=3D"2" face=3D"Arial" i= d=3D"yui_3_16_0_1_1446229456410_56524"><b><span style=3D"font-weight:bold;"= >From:</span></b> Cari Machet <carimachet(a)gmail.com><br> <b><span sty= le=3D"font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> coderman <coderman(a)gmail.com&gt= ; <br><b><span style=3D"font-weight: bold;">Cc:</span></b> cpunks <cyphe= rpunks(a)cpunks.org>; jim bell <jdb10987(a)yahoo.com> <br> <b id=3D"yu= i_3_16_0_1_1446229456410_56921"><span style=3D"font-weight: bold;" id=3D"yu= i_3_16_0_1_1446229456410_56920">Sent:</span></b> Friday, October 30, 2015 8= :03 PM<br> <b id=3D"yui_3_16_0_1_1446229456410_56923"><span style=3D"font-w= eight: bold;" id=3D"yui_3_16_0_1_1446229456410_56922">Subject:</span></b> R= e: The Black List<br> </font> </div> <div class=3D"y_msg_container" id=3D"y= ui_3_16_0_1_1446229456410_56548"><br><div id=3D"yiv2095771975"><div id=3D"y= ui_3_16_0_1_1446229456410_56547"><div dir=3D"ltr" id=3D"yui_3_16_0_1_144622= 9456410_56549">>Law mother fucking suit ... i will contact my lawyer fri= ends - see if anyone thinks you have standing</div><div dir=3D"ltr" id=3D"y= ui_3_16_0_1_1446229456410_56549"><br></div><div dir=3D"ltr" id=3D"yui_3_16_= 0_1_1446229456410_56549">    Don't bother.  It was somewhat = of a joke for me to mention the "story royalty" line.   Since having s= pent thousands of hours in Federal prison law libraries, I studied many dif= ferent areas of law, far beyond criminal law and appeals, including copyrig= ht law.  I am not aware that copyright law would protect such an idea.=  If I had written a play or a script for a movie, THAT would be my ow= n under copyright law.  But not merely the underlying idea.  Now,= nothing would prevent one of these studios from giving me some sort of cre= dit on a line at the end of the show, but they wouldn't owe me money legall= y.  I am much more upset that they took TWENTY FUCKING YEARS to steal = the idea, than the fact they 'stole' it.</div><div dir=3D"ltr" id=3D"yui_3_= 16_0_1_1446229456410_56549"><br></div><div dir=3D"ltr" id=3D"yui_3_16_0_1_1= 446229456410_56549">    I should also take the opportunity to poi= nt out that I wrote my AP essay independently from, and completely unaware = of, the previous discussions by Tim May and Robin Hanson.  (I didn't e= ven have Internet access, except as a portal, until mid-1995, and was entir= ely unaware of the Cypherpunks list;  AP part one was actually publish= ed here by somebody else.).</div><div dir=3D"ltr" id=3D"yui_3_16_0_1_144622= 9456410_56549"><br></div><div dir=3D"ltr" id=3D"yui_3_16_0_1_1446229456410_= 56549">    The major differences included:  Tim May and Robi= n Hanson both referred to the idea, the one that would one day be seen as "= assassination markets", as being "abhorrent markets".  See Cyphernomic= on 16.16.4. That they were repelled by the idea, presumably, is one reason = they didn't rhetorically follow the concept out to its ultimate, logical ou= tcome.  I, on the other hand, and totally unaware of their work, thoug= ht that assassination markets would actually be a truly wonderful idea, pre= cisely because of their capability to destroy governments, make militaries = unnecessary and indeed impossible to maintain (critically, including nuclea= r weapons), and completely replace the current 'criminal justice system' wi= th a far-fairer alternative.  THEY merely stuck their big toes into th= e cold pool, whereas I did a belly-flop.  (With the accompanying pain,= <sigh>).  </div><div dir=3D"ltr" id=3D"yui_3_16_0_1_14462294564= 10_56549"><br></div><div dir=3D"ltr" id=3D"yui_3_16_0_1_1446229456410_56549= ">    They probably started out by thinking something like, "If p= erson A can anonymously hire person B to kill person C, that could lead to = mischief."  Sure it could.  But I approached the problem differen= tly:  I saw that very few people would want to pay, say, $10,000 to bu= y someone else's death.  But I immediately also saw that 10,000 people= might want to pay $1 each for that outcome.  That amounts to a crowds= ourced decision, with its accompanying advantages and benefits.  And I= also saw that such a functioning system would deter virtually everything w= hich we call wrong in today's society.  Anybody who is trying to argue= against an AP-type system is inherently attempting to defend the hugely fl= awed status quo, even if they don't realize that.</div><div dir=3D"ltr" id= =3D"yui_3_16_0_1_1446229456410_56549"><br></div><div dir=3D"ltr" id=3D"yui_= 3_16_0_1_1446229456410_56549">    I also solved David Friedman's = "Hard problem", see his book, "The Machinery of Freedom",  the previou= sly-assumed difficulty or impossibility of providing for the defense of a f= ully libertarian or anarchistic society.  Perhaps my big advantage was= that I didn't know Friedman's "Hard Problem" even existed, at least under = that label, until long after I'd already solved it. </div><div dir=3D"= ltr" id=3D"yui_3_16_0_1_1446229456410_56549">     <br></div>= <div dir=3D"ltr" id=3D"yui_3_16_0_1_1446229456410_56549">    &nbs= p;            Jim Bell</div><div dir=3D"ltr" = id=3D"yui_3_16_0_1_1446229456410_56549"><br></div> <div class=3D"qtdSeparateBR"><br><br></div><div class=3D"yiv2095771975yqt31= 85438982" id=3D"yiv2095771975yqt43260"><div class=3D"yiv2095771975gmail_quo= te" id=3D"yui_3_16_0_1_1446229456410_56546"><br></div></div></div></div></d= iv> </div> </div> </div></body></html> ------=_Part_259692_252577611.1446314995160--

1 0