- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

CDR: DONT TELL ME WHAT TO DO!!!!!!!
by scott mckay 12 Sep '00

12 Sep '00

DONT TELL ME TOO LOOK IN A SEARCH ENGINE U RUDE PERSON AND FUCK TO U TO OKAY ----------------------------------------------------- Click here for Free Video!! http://www.gohip.com/freevideo/

2 1

CDR: Re: Abortion Assasination Politics likely going to Supremes
by Michael Motyka 12 Sep '00

12 Sep '00

> So when is APster coming out, which lets > you trade lists of deserving people? > It may actually be extremely difficult to create an APster. ... The violent anti-abortion movement's method for coping with coexistent conflicting thoughts and behaviors is a form of dysfunction not unlike that of a stroke patient who sees himself in a mirror and is unable to perceive his own paralysis or similar paralysis in others. A moribund arm can be perceived as functioning normally. A half-paralyzed face can be perceived as smiling left and right. Amazing. Pathetic. Or criminal. Were I a doctor I would consider the Nuremberg Files site a direct and credible threat. The jury decision was the correct one. Were the roles swapped and abortion completely outlawed why does it seem unlikely that the legalize abortion movement would be listing for termination or firebombing Fundamentalists? Which would you prefer as your next door neighbor? >Tuesday September 12 5:11 AM ET > Abortion Web Site Verdict Appealed > > By WILLIAM McCALL, Associated Press Writer > > PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) - Anti-abortion activists are > asking a federal appeals court to overturn a $109 million > verdict by a jury that decided a Web site and posters listing > the names of abortion doctors and clinics were threats that > went beyond free speech. > > ... > > At issue is a Web site called The Nuremberg Files that listed hundreds of abortion > doctors accused of committing crimes against humanity and invited readers to > send in doctors addresses, license plate numbers and even the names of their > children. > > ... > > Last year, the dozen anti-abortion activists argued the posters and Web site were > free speech protected under the First Amendment. Critics called it a hit list. > > The jury was told by U.S. District Judge Robert Jones to consider the history of > violence in the anti-abortion movement, including three doctors killed after their > names appeared on the lists. > > One was Dr. Barnett Slepian, who was gunned down by a sniper in October 1998 at > his home near Buffalo, N.Y. Slepians name was crossed out on The Nuremberg > Files Web site later that day. > > ... > > This is a case that is built on history, Kelly said. You have had years of arson, > shootings, death threats. How can that context be considered anything but a threat? > > The Georgia computer programmer who ran the Nuremberg Files was not a > defendant in the lawsuit. After the verdict, his Internet provider pulled the plug on > the site. > > Among the anti-abortion activists appealing the ruling is Michael Bray of Bowie, > Md., author of a book that justifies killing doctors to stop abortions. Bray served > time in federal prison from 1985 to 1989 for his role in arson attacks and bombings > of seven clinics. >

3 2

CDR: Re: USA.net proxy: heh-heh-heh
by A. Melon 12 Sep '00

12 Sep '00

>Previously I whined that USA.net was changing the URLs Who cares ? Stop whining and use encryption. Dont waste the bandwidth complaining about each and every sheeple xploiting event. Being outraged doesnt achieve shit.

1 0

CDR: Re: Abortion Assasination Politics likely going to Supremes
by Michael Motyka 12 Sep '00

12 Sep '00

Hmmm... I'll stipulate that the common citizen, when faced with a tirade about killing those who perform abortions and a list of names and addresses of offenders, would not immediately put 2 and 2 together to make 3 and start killing doctors. Now put yourself in the position of an average citizen who sees his own name in the list following a tirade about killing those who drive gasoline-guzzling, polluting, Corolla-crushing SUVs. I'm sure he would feel threatened. So the site in question is not the same as a site that simply expresses a political opinion or distributes instructions on how to create dangerous devices. It is more like a site that distributes this info and then list specific targets that should be considered as applications. The site owners took a concrete step towards carrying out a threat : they gathered and published personal information. I'm sure the appeal to the jury was along these lines. OTOH perhaps you're right that speech of all sorts should have the highest of protections regardless of how it is perceived by a vanishingly small number of persons in the audience be they potential agents or targets. In which case the choice of methods for dealing with threats would be left solely to the individuals who perceive them. I suppose there's a downside either way. Can't win. Best you can do is break even. And you can't even do that. >On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Michael Motyka wrote: > >> The violent anti-abortion movement's method for coping with coexistent >> conflicting thoughts and behaviors is a form of dysfunction not unlike >> that of a stroke patient who sees himself in a mirror and is unable to >> perceive his own paralysis or similar paralysis in others. A moribund >> arm can be perceived as functioning normally. A half-paralyzed face can >> be perceived as smiling left and right. Amazing. Pathetic. >> >> Or criminal. Were I a doctor I would consider the Nuremberg Files site a >> direct and credible threat. The jury decision was the correct one. >> > >More to the point. Would a supreme court ruling in this respect be a >good ruling. Trying to read someone's mind and trying him on his >supposed thoughts is a little like convicting a man via ESP. > >Despite the fact that the man running the site wrote that killing >abortion doctors would be justified, he did not explicitly state >that these people or their families should be harmed. Shunned >perhaps, protested against perhaps. But incitement to murder >should have an extremely high standard of evidence and equally >high protection of the supposed speech by the first amendment. > >The second point assumes that a common citizen would react >by killing the people on his web page. If a cypherpunk copied >his page and archived it on his website would it also be incitement >to murder? The implication is that guilt or innocence is dependent >upon the visitors to your web site. > >If the supreme upholds this it could set a precedent to go after >any web site that publishes controversial data. By the same >standard of evidence can we convict everyone that supplies >data regarding drugs, machine gun construction techniques, >bomb making info of 'knowing that someone would use it >to nefarious ends?' The jury in this case says that the >publisher of the information is responsible for the potential >use of the information. > >And that is one long slippery slope. Not that Congress >wouldn't be game. > >I think a more credible indictment would be charges of aiding >and abetting the killers. Of course you need evidence >for that. That takes real work from police detectives. >Gosh, couldn't have any of that. > >For the record, I am not anti-abortion. > >jim >

1 0

CDR: Test - No Reply - Testing for nested bounces
by Jim Choate 12 Sep '00

12 Sep '00

____________________________________________________________________ He is able who thinks he is able. Buddha The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

CDR: Re: GA-CAT-CA
by R. A. Hettinga 12 Sep '00

12 Sep '00

At 9:25 PM -0700 on 9/11/00, petro wrote: >>including subpoenas for, apparently now, Snowball's fur... >> > Funny you should mention Snowball... > > http://www.ornl.gov/hgmis/elsi/forensics.html Heh. That was my *point*, I think... :-). Cheers, RAH Who admits to listening to National People's Radio on occasion... -- ----------------- 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

CDR: Registration confirmation - Yahoo! Chat
by Yahoo! Member Services 12 Sep '00

12 Sep '00

Welcome to Yahoo! DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE. SEE BELOW FOR INSTRUCTIONS IF YOU DIDN'T REQUEST THIS ACCOUNT. This message confirms your new account with Yahoo!. Your Yahoo! ID is: flaming_perimeter Your email address: cypherpunks(a)toad.com We will use this address to contact you if you ever forget your Yahoo! ID or password. To learn how to change this address, read below. ********************************************************** WHAT CAN I DO WITH THIS ACCOUNT? You can use your Yahoo! ID and password for ALL of Yahoo's free, personalized services. My Yahoo - http://my.yahoo.com Yahoo Calendar - http://calendar.yahoo.com Yahoo Chat - http://chat.yahoo.com Yahoo Classifieds - http://classifieds.yahoo.com Yahoo Clubs - http://clubs.yahoo.com Yahoo Finance - http://quote.yahoo.com Yahoo Games - http://play.yahoo.com Yahoo GeoCities - http://geocities.yahoo.com Yahoo Mail - http://mail.yahoo.com Yahoo Message Boards - http://messages.yahoo.com Yahoo Messenger - http://messenger.yahoo.com Yahoo Travel - http://travel.yahoo.com To see a full list go to http://docs.yahoo.com/docs/family/more.html You can return to Yahoo! Chat by going to http://chat.yahoo.com/ ********************************************************** IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE THE EMAIL ADDRESS ON YOUR ACCOUNT Just go to any of Yahoo!'s Personalized Properties ( like http://my.yahoo.com ) and look for the Account Information link at the top of the page (sometimes it's under the options). The Account Information page will let you update your email address, password, home and work address and other personal information and preferences. ********************************************************** THANK YOU FOR SIGNING UP WITH YAHOO! If you have additional questions regarding other Yahoo! Services, we suggest Yahoo! Help Central at: http://help.yahoo.com/ ********************************************************** IF YOU DID NOT REQUEST THIS ACCOUNT, or no longer wish to use it, we encourage you to REMOVE it by visiting the following address: http://edit.yahoo.com/config/remove_user?k=IXtKYXtmen55YGh3YnV%2bemJzYnU4ji… If you are prompted for the deletion key when using the URL above, please use the following deletion key: IXtKYXtmen55YGh3YnV+emJzYnU4jiF5SmQyMnJ0eWBzdmV3dDIhdUpOMU8wTjYxNTchc0pkf2Zz Or, if you do not have internet access, please reply to this email (and make sure to copy this entire email in your reply) with REMOVE as the subject line. [216.116.34.30]

1 0

CDR: Re: [OT] California senator tries to mandate remote kill switches
by Tim May 12 Sep '00

12 Sep '00

At 1:48 PM -0400 9/12/00, Michael Motyka wrote: >This has been around for a couple of years. It was started by a >politician from San Jose who I think has some connection$ to a startup >that makes a product called Halt. Golly, he wouldn't be abusing the >public trust would he? A quick search didn't turn up either the SJMN >article or anything else but it's there somewhere. Anyway, these are >bad^H^H^H truly evil people^H^H^H^H^H^H scumbags. It's worth keeping an >eye on them and trying to create publicity when the bill mutates and >crawls out of the cesspool again. Which it will do annually until it is >passed. I would doubt that voters would approve a measure like this if >they knew enough about it. Generally it's limited publicity controlled >by the proposers that lets this sort of garbage bloom. > >Found something : http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a383094c56f00.htm > >OK background. Discussion board. All predictable stuff. > >When a bill is passed the sooner the system is hacked and the mfgrs are >in the liability courts the better. I can't really say what I want to >say about the company and the politicians...the sensors are everywhere. There was some talk on the Cypherpunks list some years back. May be findable in the archives with Google. The political scumdroids will of course write liability exemptions into the laws. (Don't think they can do that? It's done a lot, especially when "it's for the children!!" gets invoked.) As for what should be done with such scumdroids and the legal pieces of shit who support their actions, I'm not afraid to say what should be done with them: more freedom fighters like McVeigh need to park trucks filled with ANFO in front of their dens. That, or biological and nerve agents. Wiping out several hundred in one legislative session would send a message. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.

2 1

CDR: Sender: owner-cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com
by malou 12 Sep '00

12 Sep '00

could you give me some decoders which can decode the satellite like: sky One or others channels on astra or Hot Bird... And don't forget keys for the decrypting... I thank you. My configuration is a pII 233 with 64 megs of ram and a tuner card BT878. If you can give me english links about good vidéo-decrypting for satellite,and if you can find me keys in.VCK or .VCR, it will be very sympatic to contact me ...Thank you a lot... Nucléus and malou...We are french, excuse us for our bad prononciation...Marlyse is very bad in english(Joke) Marlyse(a)worldonline.fr

1 0

CDR: RE: Voluntary Mandatory Taxes
by Trei, Peter 12 Sep '00

12 Sep '00

Tim wrote > At 10:35 AM -0700 9/12/00, Marshall Clow wrote: > > Refinery: 17.2 [ I'm guessing this includes raw > >oil costs ] > > Retailer: 4.2 > > VAT: 12.64 > > Duty: 50.89 > > > > Total 84.9 [ this is the price at the pump ] > > > >that's 74.8% tax, folks. > > Which is of course what the original article was saying. > > A nit, but "74.8% tax" may be misleading to some. It suggests a tax > rate of "only" about 10 times the normal sales tax (normal in the > States, for ordinary goods). In fact, the 75% is of course 75% of the > final price. Or, roughly a 400% tax on the original commodity. > > For example, imagine a Jaguar XK8 costing $60K plus $240K in taxes. > 75% in taxes would suggest 60K plus 45K. The oil situation is 400% in > taxes. > A nit on a nit: This is ~300% tax, not ~400%. Consider: 10 pounds worth (to the refiner/dealer) of petrol yeilds s the British government about 30 pounds of taxes. ie, 300% of the cost of the item. It's still mind-boggling that a nominally free people will put up with this kind of organized theft. Peter > Welcome to statism. > > > --Tim May >

1 0