- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

RE: Compelled speech was: CDT and the Threat of Gov't Intervention
by jay holovacs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

========================== >From: Tim May <tcmay(a)got.net> >To: David Honig <honig(a)otc.net>; Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> >Cc: "Michael Sims" <jellicle(a)inch.com>; fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu;cypherpunks@toad.com >Subject: Re: CDT and the Threat of Gov't Intervention >Date: Wed, Dec 3, 1997 2:56 PM >And even if truth can be determined, truth is not a requirement for free >speech. (Truth in courtrooms and in contract situations are of course >different situations than ordinary free speech, in speaking, writing, >publishing, and broadcasting.) > >(Yes, I am opposed to FDA and SEC rules on truthful speech, unless >contracts are involved. If Joe wants to advertise his Magic Elixir, let >him. Reputations and ratings services (truly free ones, that is) are the >key to bad speech.) This sounds superficially equivalent, but FDA labelling requirements are quite different from web labelling. Firstly, unlike religion and politics, which are by nature subjective, effectiveness and safety of a drug can be reasonably determined by objective double blind testing. The room for error can come mainly from invalid protocols or fraud, both of which can be investigated by outside parties. Secondly, looking at a mislabelled web site cannot harm you. Taking a worthless drug can cost your health or your life. Unlike many consumer products, where the market can be allowed to rise or fall on reputation, it is not possible to determine the effectiveness or side effects of drugs from reputation. Only rigorous cohort selection and peer reviewed statistical analysis will suffice. Additionally requiring verifiably truthful statements on drugs really does qualify as a "narrowly tailored" action. OTOH I don't see any reason to prohibit people from taking "unapproved" drugs if they do so with full knowledge. Jay

1 0

Fidelity Fires Nine Employees For Violating Company Policy
by ichudov＠Algebra.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Fidelity Fires Nine Employees For Violating Company Policy By JAMES S. HIRSCH Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL Fidelity Investments has fired nine employees and disciplined 16 others for violating various company policies, including participating in on-site betting pools for football and basketball games. Fidelity, the nation's largest mutual-fund firm, said the employees also misused company e-mail and spent "excessive" amounts of time using the Internet for nonwork activities. The discoveries by Fidelity sent alarms through the Boston company, which has about $600 billion in assets under management and has relied on a reputation for integrity to attract and retain customers. On Tuesday, David Weinstein, Fidelity's senior vice president of administration, sent electronic memos to all employees that said the company wouldn't condone the use of company e-mail for sports pools, and reiterated many company policies, including prohibition of employees from gambling on company time. "I trust a word to the wise is sufficient," Mr. Weinstein wrote. Fidelity spokeswoman Anne Crowley said the company took action three weeks ago, and the employees who were either fired or disciplined didn't include any mutual-fund managers. She declined to identify the employee positions or their business units, but said the affected employees worked in more than one city. She said that no customer accounts or funds were involved. Fidelity has 24,300 employees. Like many companies, Fidelity regularly monitors employees' use of e-mail and Internet and Intranet services, and Fidelity notifies employees that they will be monitored. Ms. Crowley declined to describe how Fidelity learned about the sports betting pools or to specify how much money was involved. Employees also bet on baseball and golf games, she said, and the betting pools occurred over a number of months. "Small bets were typically found," Ms. Crowley said. She also declined to comment on what nonwork activities the employees were engaged in. But several insiders said the infractions had to have been very serious to merit dismissals instead of warnings. Ms. Crowley said the 16 employees who were disciplined didn't have to pay any fines, but said "corrective actions" could involve verbal or written warnings, suspensions or probations. --Karen Hube contributed to this article.

1 0

Re: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article)
by Phillip M. Hallam-Baker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>And her partner, Andrea Dworkin, belies the oft-quoted notion that someone >so far to the left comes out a libertarian rightist. No, this chick Dworkin >is so far left she's just plain _left_. So being right wing means being libertarian? I don't think so, the most right wing person I know is one M. Thatcher D Litt (failed). She is also one of the most authoritarian. I've always wondered whether she thought 'the road to serfdom' was a guide to managment of serfs. All the young libertarian types running round Smith square in sharp suits looking like Declan got purged one night. Dworkin and MacKinnon were dredged up by the right to front an authoritarian agenda being pushed by Bush in the guise of the Meese commission. MacKinnon would never debate feminists like Nadine Strossen because this gave the lie to her claim that she represented the whole of the feminist movement which in turn supported her. If we turn to an analysis of agenda denial we can see that MacKinnon was persuing such an agenda within the feminist community, refusing to engage in debate. The right was meanwhile using her as a tool to promote their own agenda of social control allowing them to present it in the context of 'protecting women' which was a recognized agenda rather than 'reactionary bigottry' which wasn't. Phill

1 0

Scientology war update
by Mark Hedges 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

An excellent, amazing movie called Schizopolis pokes fun at Scientology in ways L-RON never dreamed. It's perfect. Try to find it and watch. Mark Hedges JonWienk(a)ix.netcom.com wrote on Sat, 22 Nov 1997 08:12:14 -0800: >At 12:50 AM 11/22/97 -0600, Eric Cordian wrote: >>There was a hilarious parody of Scientology on tonight's episode >>of "Millenium." A Cult named "Selfosophy," created by a really bad >>writer named Onan Goopta, with a propensity to sue everyone, was >>featured. It had a large celebrity membership, and helped people >>overcome negative thoughts with a device called an "Onan-o-Graph." > >Onan is commonly (albeit incorrectly) credited with the invention of >masturbation. (See Genesis 38:6-10 in the Bible) I wonder what sort of >thoughts the Onan-o-graph induces? [snicker, snicker]

1 0

Cycling For Freedom!
by David E. Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Bureau 42 Remailer (remailer(a)bureau42.ml.org) is proud to announce "Cycling for Freedom." Basically, this is a chance to help crack RC5/64 and support the remailer system, and all the good it stands for. Get the RC5/64 client from www.distributed.net, and follow the easy instructions to configure it for your favorite computer. Crack a few blocks, send 'em back to the server so that your personal address shows up in the stats. On the stats page, you can ask the rc5 server to send you a password that will allow you to join a team. Get that, and then ask to join the team "rc5(a)bureau42.ml.org" (it's listed as team number 1626). In the event this team finds the winning key, the money will be used for upgrades and maintenance on the computer housing the bureau42 remailer. (Specifically, a faster processor would be nice. After that, the rest of the money will be put away and used to buy/maintain a dedicated connection for that computer.) Thanks in advance for helping to support the remailer, and (more importantly) helping crack RC5/64. dave (bureau42 remailer administrator) - -- Today's pseudorandom quote: "My country is the world, and my religion is to do good" -- Thomas Paine David E. Smith, P O Box 324, Cape Girardeau MO USA 63702 Keywords: SciFi bureau42 Wicca Pez Linux PGP single! ;-) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNIdE2a6m0j5YvamrEQLJHACg1LiCRZwFxPRDG0VPjOa08bVvOeoAoIla UVfwEiiTgsmPgNAco3KRGKp7 =2dpS -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Radio-Free Europe
by Stewart_William_C＠bns.att.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Fortunately, the net is harder to jam than radio. Esther Dyson's new book has a good line about how the Net is a breeding-ground for conspiracies, but television is better-suited for propaganda. ======================================================================= Copyright 1997 Times Mirror Company Los Angeles Times December 3, 1997, Wednesday, Home Edition Part A; Page 5; National Desk INTERNATIONAL OUTLOOK; NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE; U.N. Hate-Radio Jamming Would Send Wrong Signal JIM MANN WASHINGTON -- In foreign policy, sometimes the noblest of intentions leads to lousy ideas. That's certainly the case with the recent curious proposal for a special United Nations "jam squad"--a special U.N. team that could be hurriedly dispatched to crisis points around the world carrying equipment to jam, or block, harmful radio and TV broadcasts. Writing in the current issue of "Foreign Affairs" magazine, Jamie M. Metzl, a former United Nations human rights officer, proposes the creation of what would officially be called an "independent information intervention unit" at the U.N. Its goal, he writes, would be "countering dangerous messages that incite people to violence." A U.N. unit could monitor local news media to see where crises might erupt, air its own messages of peace and, where necessary, prevent other radio or TV broadcasts from being heard. The idea for the U.N. jam squad originated in the genocidal horrors of Rwanda. In 1994, the country's main radio station, the Radio-Television Libre des Milles Collines, then controlled by Hutu extremists, began broadcasting hate messages targeting members of the rival tribe, the Tutsis, and moderate Hutus. The Rwanda station even broadcast lists of enemies to be hunted down. "Take your spears, clubs, guns, swords, stones, everything, sharpen them, jack them, those enemies, those cockroaches," the station urged listeners. The result was one of the world's worst blood baths, in which more than 500,000 unarmed Tutsis and moderate Hutus were slaughtered. This was, certainly, as compelling a case for jamming as you can get. And Metzl has one cogent argument on behalf of his proposal: When there's an ethnic conflict in a place like Rwanda, sending in a United Nations jamming team would be considerably easier and less costly than sending in troops. "I think it's a worthy idea," says Rep. Edward R. Royce (R-Fullerton), chairman of the House International Relations subcommittee on Africa. "I'm sure we would try to go out and jam in Rwanda if those circumstances came up again." Indeed, the United States and its allies are conducting a somewhat similar operation in Bosnia. Two months ago, NATO troops seized and effectively shut down a station run by hard-line Bosnian Serb forces after the station broadcast inflammatory attacks on NATO forces trying to keep the peace there. But it's a long step to go from these situations to the creation of a permanent, formal unit run by the United Nations and scouring the world in search of radio broadcasts to jam. Who would determine exactly what kinds of radio programs should be blocked and which programs could be aired? What would ensure that the jamming decisions were not motivated by politics? Wouldn't the creation of such a United Nations operation strengthen the hand of governments that want to jam radio transmissions for much less noble reasons? "This opens up a Pandora's box, really," says Richard Richter, the director of Radio Free Asia, the federally funded station that broadcasts into Asian countries with repressive governments. "You'd have China claiming that we American broadcasts should be jammed by the United Nations." Ultimately, a U.N. jamming squad would give official sanction to restrictions on the free flow of information. Metzl's article has a response to this problem, but it's a weak one. "During the Cold War, when the United States faced a Soviet adversary intent on jamming the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe . . . , it made sense for the United States to promote an absolute standard for the free flow of information," he wrote. "Now, a more nuanced view should be possible." But that's precisely backward: The free flow of information wasn't merely a temporary means to winning the Cold War, but one of the goals of the endeavor. Although the problem of hate-filled radio broadcasts is a serious one, there are ways of dealing with it that don't involve creating some huge, supranational censorship unit. One alternative is simply to provide other, competing radio broadcasts. In Rwanda, for example, the United Nations set up its own radio stations, both in the capital of Kigali and in radio camps. Royce's subcommittee has been exploring the possibility of creating a Radio Free Africa, similar to Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia and Radio Marti, which broadcasts to Cuba. There are serious questions about whether such a new organization is necessary, when VOA, the official U.S. government station, already broadcasts intensively into Africa. But the underlying idea makes sense: to transmit better, more accurate information to Africa, rather than focusing on jamming or censorship. There are other ways of combating hate radio too. Those who directly incite violence over the airwaves can be brought to justice. At the moment, a war-crimes tribunal, set up under U.N. auspices, is prosecuting those responsible for the massacres in Rwanda. Among the suspects in custody are some of those responsible for the Milles Collines radio broadcasts. But a worldwide, U.N.-run jamming team? As a Hollywood script, maybe the idea has possibilities. As foreign policy, it's a loser. Jim Mann's column appears in this space every Wednesday. PHOTO: U.S. member of NATO peace force guards television transmitter in Udrigovo, Bosnia. PHOTOGRAPHER: Associated Press -- ======================================================================== = ************************************************** "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin, ~1784 ************************************************** Received: from speedy1.bns.att.com by casnfc01.bns.att.com with ESMTP (1.40.112.8/16.3) id AA273649564; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 15:52:44 -0800 Received: from attrh2.attrh.att.com (attrh2.attrh.att.com [135.38.12.15]) by speedy1.bns.att.com (8.7.3/2.5) with SMTP id SAA01642 for <Stewart_William_C(a)bns.att.com>; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 18:58:44 -0500 (EST) Received: by attrh2.attrh.att.com (SMI-8.6/EMS-1.2 sol2) id SAA21574 for Stewart_William_C(a)bns.att.com; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 18:53:29 -0500 Received: from kcig2.att.att.com by attrh2.attrh.att.com (SMI-8.6/EMS-1.2 sol2) id SAA21547 for <billstewart(a)att.com>; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 18:53:26 -0500 Received: (from nuucp@localhost) by kcig2.att.att.com (AT&T/GW-1.0) id RAA25810 for att.com!billstewart; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 17:43:55 -0600 (CST) >Received: by kcgw2.att.com; Thu Dec 4 17:38 CST 1997 Received: by kcgw2.att.com; Thu Dec 4 17:38 CST 1997 Received: (qmail 850 invoked by alias); 4 Dec 1997 23:47:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 818 invoked by uid 516); 4 Dec 1997 23:47:49 -0000 Delivered-To: ip-sub-1-outgoing(a)majordomo.pobox.com Message-Id: <199712042347.SAA23465(a)home.seas.upenn.edu> X-Sender: farber(a)linc.cis.upenn.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Release Candidate 3 Date: Thu, 04 Dec 1997 18:47:09 -0500 To: ip-sub-1(a)majordomo.pobox.com Subject: IP: U.N. Hate-Radio Jamming Would Send Wrong Signal Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-ip-sub-1(a)majordomo.pobox.com Precedence: list Reply-To: farber(a)cis.upenn.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

1 0

Heidegger on Cypherpunks -- give me a break
by Mark Hedges 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In previous thread "FCPUNX:Tim plans to kill a federal judge", Neva Remailer wrote: > >James Donald wrote: >>At 06:10 PM 11/14/97 -0700, Tim May wrote: >>> By the way, the same can be said about the work of Heidegger, a thinker who >>> has had some influence on me. Whenever I cite anything Heidegger ever said, >>> I can count on some numbskull to parrot the "Heidegger was a Nazi" shtick. >> >>Probably because Heidegger *was* a Nazi, who pranced around in full drag >>Nazi uniform and sent certain of his colleagues to the concentration camps. >> >>To very crudely oversimplify the relationship between Heideggers >>philosophy and Nazism, it goes like this. >> >>No objective, only the intersubjective, therefore the community >>defines reality, therefore truth is merely relative to the community. Introduction to Metaphysics and Sein und Zeit do concern the relationship between what is real (what exists) and subjective, perceptual reality, but Heidegger makes clear that although what we know is only perception, perception is not the essent of what is real and exists. Actions must rely on perception of reality, but he lends not absolute validity to the perceptions. Heidegger was on the right track, though quantum and cosmological physics and cognitive sciences reach beyond his philosophical circles of contra- diction and paradox inside a flawed and entirely limited language into an expanding and increasingly accurate scientific and mathematical system of discourse. His basic mistake was to admit that verbal and written language contains contradictions and then to draw what he supposed were valid conclusions -- from false premesis and a false universe of discourse. >(Although, if one were interested in Heideggar, his biography would >probably be interesting, too.) Yup. Mark Hedges Anonymizer, Inc.

1 0

Please Beta test my communications cryptography product.
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-- I have produced a program that, like PGP, provides digital signatures and communications encryption. http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/Kong.htm This is the first beta. Please beta test this product. The important difference between it and other products that provide digital signatures and encryption is that it is not certificate based. Instead it is signature based. This eliminates the steep initial learning and management curves of existing products. The user does not need use and manage specialized certificates except for specialized purposes The big complexity and user hostility in existing products is creating and managing certificates. Perhaps more importantly, it also eliminates the threat we saw in England, the threat of the government giving itself a monopoly in certificate distribution, potentially creating the Number-Of-The-Beast system, where you need a government certificate to log on to dirty picture sites, to buy, to sell, to put up web pages. The key feature of the proposed product is that any digitally signed document can be stored in the database, and itself performs the functions of a certificate, just as a normal handwritten signature does. The user usually does not need to check a document against a certificate to see if it was signed by the "real" John Doe. Instead he normally checks one document against another to see if they were both signed by the same John Doe. And similarly when he encrypts a document, he does not need to use a certificate to encrypt a message to the one real John Doe, he merely encrypts a message to the same John Doe who signed the letter he is replying to. At present people have to deal with certificate management problems regardless of whether they really need certificates. For example the most common usage of PGP is to check that two signatures that purport to be by the same person are in fact by the same person. Unfortunately you cannot check one signature against another directly using PGP or any of the other existing products. Instead you have to check both signatures against a public key certificate, even if the authentication information in that certificate is irrelevant to your purpose, which it usually is, which means that you have to download the certificate from somewhere, and the person signing it had to upload it somewhere. As PGP always checks a document against the certificate, rather than against any other document the user happens to feel is relevant to the question, the person signing the document needs to get his certificate properly signed by some widely trusted third party, which is too much trouble or too complicated for many people. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG z8/j/L3kF7oCmOp/iF2oh/pwgP/mATjOTUdv1uGy DlPh9Op11Z1CtFuByebVsk8yJo4WuUMuFk4S/TMp --------------------------------------------------------------------- We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the state. http://www.jim.com/jamesd/

6 5

Re: Superdistribution development/release
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text X-Sender: hutchinson(a)click.ncri.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 09:41:30 -0500 To: dcsb(a)ai.mit.edu From: hutchinson(a)ncri.com (Art Hutchinson) Subject: Re: Superdistribution development/release Cc: brian(a)smarter.than.nu Sender: bounce-dcsb(a)ai.mit.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: hutchinson(a)ncri.com (Art Hutchinson) >On Wed, 3 Dec 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote: > >> >> Here an incentive: if anyone breaks this, I'll write an article about it >> and another profiling the person who does. >> >> When you have this kind of "encryption" scheme running on untrusted >> hardware to which the user has access, it's doomed to fail. Even if it's >> custom hardware, it'll probably be broken, but it'll just take longer. To which Brian Buchanan replied: >Should be relatively trivial to break the encryption, since it can't be >over 40-bit (or 56-bit if the company joined the kiss-ass alliance). Uh, its a Canadian company. That John Candy movie about the U.S. invasion didn't really happen. ;-) - Art Art Hutchinson hutchinson(a)ncri.com Northeast Consulting Resources, Inc. phone: (617) 654-0635 One Liberty Square fax: (617) 654-0654 Boston, MA 02160 www.ncri.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Working at the intersection of business and IT strategy to help organizations embrace electronic commerce opportunities" For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to "dcsb-request(a)ai.mit.edu" with one line of text: "help". --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/ Ask me about FC98 in Anguilla!: <http://www.fc98.ai/>

1 0

Re: Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article)
by Steve Thompson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In local.lists.cypherpunks-moderated you write: >In <199712041316.IAA18769(a)Empire.Net>, on 12/04/97 > at 08:16 AM, tom <tom(a)Empire.Net> said: >>First define your terms. Then talk about murder. >Hmmmm well the safest answer to this is at the point of conception though >I would imagine that it is hard for most to consider a couple of cells >life. :=/ Abstinance is murder. Letting just _one_ egg miss fertilization denies that egg the chance to become a human being. I think that the felony charge should be manslaughter for this crime as it's not quite as bad as: Birth control Birth control is nothing more than premeditated murder, though I think that a plea-bargain in most cases should be offered: Drop the charge to manslaughter if the perp agrees to artificial insemination with the eggs of some woman who is unable to get pregnant due to some medical condition. However, I hope that medical research is improved to the point where the male can carry the child in such cases. Just think of all of the wonderful people who won't ever be born because some geek is wanking into a tissue, or some thirteen year old is kept from fucking by their prudish parents. Now _these_ people should be brought up on accessory charges... As for Gays and Lezbians, well, sorry but that's right out. Such unproductive behaviour cannot be tolerated. >William H. Geiger III http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii Regards, -- Steve Thompson Misanthrope System Administrator Spam: bogus(a)myofb.org --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Usenet II -- Because it's time for October. Who knows what the ostrich - Malcolm Ray in n.s.u. sees in the sand. Save the hermetic seals. - Samuel Beckett

3 2