- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Infastructure Protection and Paranoia
by John Kelsey 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- [ To: cypherpunks ## Date: 10/30/97 ## Subject: Re: Infastructure Protection and Paranoia ] >Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 23:35:41 -0800 >From: Bill Stewart <stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com> >Subject: Re: Infastructure Protection and Paranoia >At this year's CFP one evening we were playing the game of >"You want to cause maximum disruption to the US >infrastructure, and you've got 100 small explosive devices. >Where do you put them?" Much creativity was displayed and >substantial amounts of testosterone reveled in, and the >overall conclusion was that we'd be in deep trouble if >anybody even vaguely competent wanted to monkeywrench the >system. I agree. This has always been my reaction to the infowar folks--anyone who understands how to attack a system can look around and find hundreds of fairly easy targets. Some of these targets just *can't* be protected in a cost-effective way. (Note the way the IRA and various Palestinian terrorists still manage to find soft targets, despite the fact that their intended victims have spent years and millions of dollars hardening the obvious soft points.) >After that, we played the Russell-Brand-like game of >"Destruction is easy. What would you do if you wanted to >create the most joy in the world instead." That was harder >:-) Of course. Any moron with a hammer can ruin a car engine; it takes a skilled mechanic to fix one. The same applies almost everywhere--destroying something takes a fraction of the skill of building or maintaining it. > Thanks! > Bill >Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com >Regular Key PGP Fingerprint > D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639 --John Kelsey, Counterpane Systems, kelsey(a)counterpane.com PGP 2.6 fingerprint = 4FE2 F421 100F BB0A 03D1 FE06 A435 7E36 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBNFje30Hx57Ag8goBAQFORgQAtfPNvbzHvsVQXTO8OY7VmKwmyqxWB5By w+WPU4YCMWq8DWG6OywWsK9VoPGePPTZSUhtVd/PXV0lZs/jSbJZoFUYNVM7kscR SA581vMenUYM74Uryut2gTAgUORjvrSLtfM1cm5/sIVGfNefTvmo5VMQzye7gh7d 89SW0QFzo/o= =YmO9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --John Kelsey, Counterpane Systems, kelsey(a)counterpane.com PGP 2.6 fingerprint = 4FE2 F421 100F BB0A 03D1 FE06 A435 7E36

1 0

Copyright commerce and the street musician protocol
by John Kelsey 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- [ To: Perry's Crypto List, Cypherpunks ## Date: 11/01/97 ## Subject: Copyright commerce and the street musician protocol ] I've been working on various copyright protection schemes from time to time over the last three years. The general goal is (naturally enough) to make some digital data hard to copy without some kind of permission or payment or record being made. Thus, a user may have a book (mostly text, perhaps with some illustrations) he is reading on his computer, and the publisher wants to make sure that that user can't give copies of the book to all his friends, or post it to the net, or whatever. I'm convinced that there will never be a secure solution to this problem. (I can't imagine that this is news to anyone on these two lists.) I have somewhat mixed feelings about this--I'd hate to see my favorite authors and musicians either waiting tables for a living, or having to insert references to their sponsors' products in their stories. (``And then he bought her a Coke, and her eyes lit up.'') On the other hand, a widespread copyright commerce system that really works is most of the infrastructure for a massive censorship mechanism. (Reset the price of books you don't like to a billion dollars US per copy made.) Suppose I want to get paid for the next chapter of my thrilling novel. A whole bunch of people want to see me publish my next chapter. So, I make some statement like ``When I get $1,000 in donations, I will publish the next chapter in this novel.'' Readers can go to my website, see how much further there is to go, and donate money to the cause of getting my novel out. Note that I, the author, don't care *who* pays to get the next chapter out; nor do I care about free riders. Instead, I just care that my $1,000 pot gets filled. When it does, I publish the next chapter. There are basically three things that can go wrong here: a. I set my price too high, and never reach my amount. (It might be possible to decrease the total amount required later, though it would be a little questionable to do this often.) b. I set my price too low, and get lots less than I could have gotten. (This is self-correcting.) c. I get my amount filled, but still don't publish the next chapter of my novel. The trust issues, especially with (c), are worth considering. The obvious (clunky) way to solve this is to have a trusted third party handle the whole transaction. We will call him the Publisher. Now, I submit my novel, or parts of it, to the Publisher. He has his editors review it to see if it's worth trying to sell (like any publisher, albeit with rather low printing/binding costs). If so, he and I agree on a price and split. For unknown authors, the first several chapters, or even the first few books, may be freely available, in hopes of drawing in customers. For known authors, perhaps the first chapter or two is free, and the rest go through the payment mechanism. He has my whole novel, and on his web site, he makes available, say, chapters 1-3 for free, and chapter 4 will become available when $1000 is donated to the cause of getting it out, or on January 1, 1998. If enough readers want to hurry up and see the next chapter, they can make a payment. The publisher needs no identification for this, so anonymous payment systems work quite well. The Publisher holds the payments in escrow until the chapter is released, and then sends me my cut. I think I can build a similar protocol without the Publisher taking anything but a backup role--he gets the money transfers and holds them in escrow, and if the chpater isn't released, either he can release it or he can return the money, or donate it to some charity, or whatever. (The whatever has to be spelled out beforehand, and the money mustn't go to the author, directly or indirectly.) This is obviously not a complete solution. The neat thing is, it can be used with other systems. (Thus, if you want to include a shareware/guiltware message on each copy, or try to use some kind of software or hardware protection for the chapters once they're published, then this system doesn't alter that much--the donors simply get prepurchased copies of the book, released on the normal release date.) Similar ideas may work in other areas. In software, I suspect it would be a way of getting a feel from the market for what new features are wanted. In music, perhaps this could be used for individual songs, or maybe it would work better for whole albums. Television and movie serials could work this way (it works for PBS, doesn't it?). Some books, music, and movies would be *awful* to release this way, though. I wish I had a more useful general solution, but maybe this will help a little. Comments? This is clearly not all that new, but I've never seen it in a crypto context from anyone but me. --John Kelsey, Counterpane Systems, kelsey(a)counterpane.com PGP 2.6 fingerprint = 4FE2 F421 100F BB0A 03D1 FE06 A435 7E36 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBNFt4jEHx57Ag8goBAQHQewQA5ri7HOr/z1vlLhIfvagK2Gmcp/BX9fTk FE3NI/L6sg0S5HvGYre6/Pql+zOvbkN6pq/I5C4kepW/K0Y4tQNYiycbzFaQ3htH EA+3ZZPzuj5Ka7ob/AHSnsKpCVJQaMFgZhLJMZPXG9jWjzSG3k8pVKqJklAlu7Tk x6dpqhE1jZ8= =qjO0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --John Kelsey, Counterpane Systems, kelsey(a)counterpane.com PGP 2.6 fingerprint = 4FE2 F421 100F BB0A 03D1 FE06 A435 7E36

12 12

Kyl's internet gambling bill
by John Kelsey 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- [ To: cypherpunks ## Date: 10/30/97 ## Subject: Kyl's internet gambling bill ] >Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 13:31:21 -0800 >From: Steve Schear <azur(a)netcom.com> >Subject: Re: Kyl S-474 Anti-Gambling Bill passes committee [Stuff about Kyl's anti-internet gambling bill.] >Prediction: this bill will be about as effective as >outlawing spring. >About 20% of gamblers are 'problem' types who now regularly >game illegally and could careless about the penalties. Once >all on-line casinos offer real and 'play-money' wagering and >strong crypto it will be neigh impossible for the Feds to >know or prove which players are wagering real money and >therefore gambling. Once Onion and Crowds routers are >operational and widespread the Feds won't even be able to >find the casinos, and even if they do they may not be able >to shut them down (especially if they are built in a >distributed fasion). I always find these laws entertaining. In Missouri, we have state-run gambling in the lottery system, and state-licenced gambling on the riverboat casinos. Our Attorney General has been very vocal about shutting down internet casinos, to protect Missouri's citizens from being exploited. His concern for the welfare of problem gamblers in our state is touching. Odd that he isn't worried about those same citizens being taken advantage of by the in-state operations. Of course, the real issue here isn't about protecting citizens from themselves, or even about keeping citizens from being cheated by the electronic equivalent of weighted dice. It's about protecting the financial interests of those who now benefit from having local gambling monopolies. The state gets quite a bit of money from the lottery, and the companies that have invested in building riverboat casinos here are surely concerned about potential competition via the internet. The cities that have riverboat casinos typically get some part of the money made from them, which nicely brings those city governments into line. Presumably, something similar is happening with various states' Indian Reservations opening casinos. It's an interesting side-point that really anonymous communications and payment systems applied to gambling systems mean not only that *governments* can't shut down competing gambling schemes, but also that organized crime can't shut them down, whether through influencing corrupt governments to try to shut them down, or through direct action. Ob Crypto: There are cryptographic gambling protocols that can be verified (given some set of assumptions about underlying operations) to be fair. Thus, it's possible for a gambling operation to make their client software freely available in source, and allow people to see what it does and review it for fairness. If you find a reviewer or two you trust, you can ask them to digitially sign the executable they got when they compiled the code, and refuse to use any other code. This gives you a level of certainty that you're not being cheated by weighted dice that you simply can't get in physical casinos. (Sure, government agencies inspect those casinos, but the inspectors aren't incorruptible, and they can't be everywhere at once.) For a simple example, consider a situation where Alice and Bob need to agree on a shared seed. Assume they already have established a secure (encrypted and authenticated) session. They can easily generate a new shared seed by doing something like this: 1. Alice generates random R_0 and sends hash(R_0) to Bob. 2. Bob generates random R_1 and sends hash(R_1) to Alice. 3. Alice sends R_0 to Bob. 4. Bob sends R_1 to Alice. 5. Alice and Bob each generate their shared seed, R_0 XOR R_1. If the hash function doesn't leak information about its inputs, and if it is collision-resistant, then this protocol should work. If either party generates a random number, then the resulting seed is random, regardless of the other party's input. (You still have to work out administrative issues, like what happens when communications fail conveniently just after Alice sends Bob R_0, but these are easy enough to solve.) >--Steve --John Kelsey, Counterpane Systems, kelsey(a)counterpane.com PGP 2.6 fingerprint = 4FE2 F421 100F BB0A 03D1 FE06 A435 7E36 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBNFje6UHx57Ag8goBAQEsZQP/TWqpL70gThhETuqDlrTJsCCy5PeTMNte t0tzg8fwPFK3cESSN+5ndRAjUXmdS8dmNZW1U8RcDFpH8YRd1uAfJ4CdmMrK8zgk OGcegYoSDgwtdLw43Zslx88nl7OgkfvyQqzZZmDkWwyXn0g1RMLcTVt8nyccm6O+ WPH3VLc+7Ho= =H+YB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --John Kelsey, Counterpane Systems, kelsey(a)counterpane.com PGP 2.6 fingerprint = 4FE2 F421 100F BB0A 03D1 FE06 A435 7E36

1 0

Re: Clinton's Bigger Gun Ban
by Brian B. Riley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 11/2/97 11:14 AM, Tim May (tcmay(a)got.net) passed this wisdom: [snip] >Some in the gun community are vilifying Olyarms for introducing this OA-93 >"assault pistol" (the name often applied to politically incorrect pistols >like this). As if Olyarms should have been cowed into not introducing a >product out of fear that Clinton would abuse his authority to ban Chinese >ammo. I would not villify them, but I would wonder if they considered that aspect when they decided to market the weapon. >> One thing though, 7.62x39 really could not be compared to the 5.56 >>NATO, its really more potent out to 2-300 meters; it is still a .30 >>cal vs 5.56 NATOs .223, but its far less potent than 7.62 NATO >>(7.62x54). The 7.62x39 was the standard caliber of ComBloc weapons for >>several decades, most specifically the AK-47, AKM-44 (sniper weapon), >>and SKS carbine. I think the Dragunov sniper system used a more potent >>cartridge. > >I've never owned anything in 7.62x39. I hear the SKS rifles are pretty good >for $150, or whatever, and a lot of people have bought them. To me they >look a little crude. And since I can afford things out of the AR-15 line.... Having faced down the SKS carbine in Nam on a couple of occasions, I can say its a rugged built and seemingly idiot proof weapon of reasonable accuracy out to 2-300 meters tops. Many versions come equipped with a three-fluted bayonette thats considerably longer than what we used and its *most* impressive when some guy comes out of the brush with one in your direction ... I got a chance to examine the blade from a few inches when I deflected his thrust and delivered a blow of my own ... I would just a soon have remained in blissful ignorance of the details ... <sigh> >(Debate rages in rec.guns and elsewhere about the relative merits of the >cartridges. I certainly see more variants of the AR-15 here in America, >more use by tactical and law enforcement teams, and more accessories. But >maybe I'm not looking in the right places.) The 7.62x39 really isn't much of a cartridge, its not potent enough to justify its size, 7.62x54 is more potent and its not small enough to capitalize on its wimpiness, 5.56 NATO delivers as much oomph in much less size. It is relatively simple to appreciate the size difference. When the standard issue service rifle was the M-14 (7.62x54 NATA) the standard load for a soldier was six(6) magazines of twenty plus the seventh in the rifle. When the M-16 became the standard service rifle, the same ammo load weight permitted twenty (20) magazines of twenty plus a twenty-first in the rifle. 140 rounds versus 420 rounds - biiigggg difference >One of the more interesting images I ever saw was a photo in one of the gun >mags of a friendly meeting in the U.S. between Eugene Stoner, principal >designer of the AR-15 (the M-16 in its military version) and Mikhail >Kalashnikov, whose name needs no further explanation. > >I suppose tree-hugging peaceniks would be aghast at a meeting between these >two merchants of death. I, being an antigovernment type, was nevertheless >impressed. I too was quite impressed with that meeting, but not surprising. I brought a prisoner in once, an NVA regular, a major, and spent several days in the field with him before we could get lifted out. He spoke excellant English and wonderful education and a wry wit. I found I related better to him than I did to most of the upper ranks in the 1st MarDiv in DaNang ... almost had half a mind to say 'screw the suits' and let him go. Of course therein lies the problem of 'the suits' ... so long as they can get us to think of the enemy as 'gooks' or 'ragheads' or 'krauts' they can con us into killing them ... but as soon as you realize they have wives and kids and jobs and bills and neighbors and aunts and uncles and nephews, in short, are just like use save for the cut of their uniform ... its gets a lot harder to see just why you should kill them (unless of course they are pointing a gun at you!) Brian B. Riley --> http://www.macconnect.com/~brianbr For PGP Keys <mailto:brianbr@together.net?subject=Get%20PGP%20Key> "The strongest evidence of intelligent life on other planets is that they haven't come here yet.' -- from somewhere on The Net

1 0

$600 Worth of FREE Software!
by equit＠hotmail.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello, You don't want to trash this one! I "WILL" give you absolutely "Free" a New Software called "Freedom", that sells for $400. I WILL NOT ASK FOR ANY MONEY! Freedom software allows you to extract email addresses from the internet, classified ads, newsgroups, AOL subscribers, Etc. Freedom has many features, including easy extractions of the addresses you need to flag for removal. You can extract a "batch" of a few hundred, or a "catagory" of thousands at a time. BONUS!! Now I also provide you with a free Check software,"Checker", a $200.00 value that allows you to take checks by Fax, email, and phone! "FREE" Will your business "EXPLODE"? You bet it will! IT HAS TO !!!! You will become a part of a DOWNLINE THAT HAS THIS CAPABLITY! Along with "Freedom" and "Checker", I provide you with a "GREAT", "FREE BUSINESS", that you can promote on the internet and off. Additional BONUS - you will receive one of the cheapest long distance rates available today!! For quick and FREE details, just send an email with FREEDOM in the subject line to: <mailto:cmillerton@hotmail.com> and you will receive information about this exciting opportunity right away! I look forward to your response. You may email me at: cmillerton(a)hotmail.com for an immediate response for more info. Thanks,

1 0

Re: cute.
by Secret Squirrel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- 0xa11a8a18bf6dbe8362926e9458a3616d/0x4d162bbe1 a.k.a Amad3us wrote: >> I'm not sure a timestamp matters that much for "authenticating" your >> key. After all, you don't own "Amad3us", you own key 0x4D162BBE1. > >Yes. Except for minor nit: 0x4D162BBE1 is susceptible to a >0xdeadbeef attack, anyone can generate another key with that keyID. >Even the fingerprint is spoofable. But the combination is truly hard >to spoof, and this I do own: >0xa11a8a18bf6dbe8362926e9458a3616d/0x4d162bbe1 (fingerprint/keyID). Uhhh... that's what I meant to say. (Although I can't think of a circumstance where the fingerprint matters if the reputation is bound to the key only.) While we're on the subject, why are key IDs used anyway? People don't really use them for anything. Software might as well use the complete description of the key internally. For that matter, I'm not sure the the e-mail address and user name are good things to associate with the key. The e-mail address changes all the time. The user name should be assigned by you as part of the authentication procedure, not by the person offering the key. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNFzktJaWtjSmRH/5AQHm8wf+Lkw/iHSwn/zEpttQws49R3pmDAjtSkrz Q8+6qI09JgfY4xnlljJkYMoeHpij9TEZ59SlBl5exSzCH6dQoStJXPACxm5UUQil J9YnDd3q4ehHMH9wQd8eXYpDNdRxqUGwqMZR8+eRlo1X2yGDvOY40+Ayd0/jnX8X AEhZ8io669eQ3+55n/25LkGT7Zc26zRLsiU+07pBWRIj2cwV7BiQF2gZqx9owf2E lrhKRJ7b7iDT7/Q+thrifzBHq1mUnugPlUXpYqv4SKPDzoK8zpGODIzLntv4M91b AllRO5ytCoSu1IFCTKJ4D3oT4OsftrjHy7MYNcsLNQDoKTbp7JewNA== =m1a1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

re: Speech as co-conspiring? I don't think so.
by nobody＠neva.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Tim May wrote: >According to the dubious logic of that episode, no doubt they would >say they were innocent because they had not _met_ me on any >occasions. If, however, the prosecution could produce a witness >saying she had seen me in the company of the writer, director, >producer, etc., then their bacon would be cooked. By the logic of >their episode, of course. That's what their smart alecky lawyer will claim, anyway. I am confident that a jury made up of good red blooded Americans will see through this sham. The producers of the show certainly know that there are terrorist elements and psychopaths who would be watching. They know that these people will be turned on by the imagery of a BATF agent being brutally murdered. They could have told the same story using different imagery. Instead of using graphic violence, they could have expressed the idea of the BATF agent getting killed with a heartrending scene of his wife getting the phone call. That certainly would not have been inflammatory. But they didn't. The opted to go with a glorification of the act. Why? Incompetence won't wash - anybody getting to national TV has spent years in the business and is a total pro. They know what effect they are having. They glorified this act of violence to encourage others to do the same. Where is the FBI? Why isn't anybody doing anything? If the life of only one BATF agent is spared, it will be worthwhile! Think of his poor wife and kids. >>(*) Tim seems too wiley to be crazy. Instead, he seems to be playing >>The Most Dangerous Game: Fed baiting. >> > >It used to be called "free speech." > >Nowadays, admitting that one has guns is fed baiting. Admitting that >one will defend one's self is fed baiting. Admtting that one has read >certain books is fed baiting. And using unbreakable crypto is fed >baiting. > >Ah, what has the world come to? Remailers? ;-) Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNFznlZaWtjSmRH/5AQHXxAf9H3MKpSwCCDl0HHjH8eKQ+k6p+knULe0y L4VHlx0ZHO45De3zIAkp/j4RMQtAxrC7tsWWbVe+FDeLUTJpOzZPauH43xAfcEsL nJZUkgIgMFv9CiUC5ybhjJdzyfTeuxeqo1juTVSQlOkUzqUb78EgawhsqebFeOlp /Qni+kVdjMeMiwoJR6wDL7bntVg5ojmiBH1CEdSth0hLm7fF7pn3kzJPlod0SXzJ NWanQa7TZwEpqkWFJ0n4ompYb/Hu6E407MhmushDQFT0W1/ayBP8pa3m65PmCSpf B/+Y49KK49b7GLUyHaoqJ8KB39+uVAbFZ4ZlX03/nXpUFUarGrV/tw== =NKOt -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: PGP compatibility
by nobody＠neva.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Lucky Green wrote: >On Sun, 2 Nov 1997, Robert A. Costner wrote: >> My copy of PGP 5.0 seems to be completely compatible with 2.6 versions. This >> message is signed, and my key is included within the message for those of you >> who have software that discards the non signed portion. (If you don't know >> how to extract my key, copy it and fix the broken dashed line, or use a >> keyserver) > >Of course your copy of PGP 5.0 is compatible with prior versions. I know >this, you know this, and the anonymous author claiming otherwise knows >this. He simply hopes that there are some people that don't know this. The >idea behind the original post and others like it over the last few days is >to spread FUD about PGP 5.0 after other attacks failed for lack of merrit. >If you repeat a lie often enough, eventually some people will believe you. >PSYOPS 101. Let's not fall for it. Actually, the cry of "Infowar!" itself could be used as a disruptive technique. It undermines dialogue. It breeds suspicion and paranoia. It encourages people to think of those who disagree with them as The Enemy. It can be used by a mole for cover. Gee, come to think of it, isn't Lucky the one who keeps trying to demoralize everyone by saying that Big Brother is inevitable? And, who was it that was waving around firearms at a Cypherpunks meeting? Isn't that a classic provocateur technique? (See the Earth First experience, for example.) Now, I think it's unlikely that Lucky is a mole. I'm just trying to show that once you start witch hunting, it turns out that the supply of witches tends to be highly responsive to demand. The Back Technique of fighting Infowar seems to be effective. Treat the claims of the suspected Infowarrior as if they are credible and carefully explain why there is an inaccuracy. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNFzh3ZaWtjSmRH/5AQH8FQf7BzzvEog2DpaqwcEaHC5uaxI8D5xE5m1l Vr1oToONAHmnXelol2vTDyNITymQAY/LpVP5liFGAI3sWUQuLJmPOnfYsLD4xCj0 ZG0dXjWoujkNbMWd/kDtCOmngeCO7c+nW7u1xrI0vJXKtPM3+ipkQNvmpo9mTSaW 2MGdFAsAdbsRoUUQYXcDqJ+A19O0pVhaCU9rlhuqcX/RlHgTrWXXZk8MRlEiPdq5 gJad0cWRHIWPgtSUmTQoRbwxyV6ZaUHlPpEUw0V9zdH7N9Cz4WS1c+ylUaY/L+OA lqEqWksZVDKTbW8Bwc/1Up5Eek/YXzj1kT/YMnxB2bbnASfIA19GtA== =E0Vy -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: effective GACK fighting (fwd)
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Blanc wrote: >Jim Choate wrote: >>But, why do we need a lawyer? We have the right to represent ourselves, why >>let somebody who has a intimate stake in the status quo represent us? > >Well, first of all I was being facetious, because of how people are always >saying we need Leadership (tm) and need to elect another President in order >to have a more Perfect Union. But I said we need a "good" lawyer - a >libertarian lawyer - because I expect that it would take someone who had >studied the legal system and made it their project to be well-educated and >articulate on these matters, to be able to successfully represent the >Consitutional values which we subscribe to. [snip] Fortunately some of these "good" lawyers already exist at the Institute for Justice. Basically, they are a libertarian version of the ACLU. They've accomplished some good things and deserve the support (read $$$) of freedom-minded individuals everywhere. (note: I'm not connected with them in any way; just letting the cypherpunk community know about an organization in sync with our views) "If you seek a courtroom champion for individual liberty, free market solutions, and limited government, look only as far as the Institute for Justice. When politicians pass sweepingly intrusive laws and bureaucrats build their empires of paperwork and power, only the Institute for Justice brings them to account in court." -- http://www.InstituteforJustice.org/ >>Has there ever been a law suite brought against the Supreme Court or >>Congress claiming their actions were unconstitutional? The amendment >>relating to taxation for a start, repeal individual taxation and return to >>the system originaly intended by the founding fathers. > >I don't know. But this is the sort of issue I was thinking of. Bill Benson has done some extensive research (his book is called The Law That Never Was) regarding the 16th Amendment (the so-called Income Tax Amendment) and how it was ratified. According to the information he has uncovered through exhaustive research in D.C. and all of the state capitals of the then 48 states, the 16th Amendment was never ratified by 3/4ths of the states. (see http://www.trustclarks.com/theman.html for more info) Friends of mine have spoken to Mr. Benson about this, and he says that the courts won't touch it with a ten foot pole. He even sells a package (or at least he was selling it back in 1995) of legal information about the non-ratification of the 16th that can be used as a defense in an income tax case. According to Mr. Benson (in 1995), each of the cases was dropped when the defense made it clear they were going to argue their defense based on this point. I understand that folks in the "patriot" movement have tried to take this to the Supreme Court without success. The Court refused to hear it. Assuming Mr. Benson's research is accurate and legitimate, the 16th didn't even come close to being ratified and is truly a Law That Never Was. Think about that next April 15th...the IRS's "lawful" authority is based upon a legal fiction. That's why it's called >voluntary< compliance. Nerthus - -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 mQENAzRc0lEDFQEIALF2JX7RgDLC6nnSa7BmcczGumTRxhXx5mHoqPcGY95VGAVD 49iN/+59BBrHKxOU5JX5F9kWEsBG92KbOdB3XGCsub7AYmCl+iMrG+h+vJl9qCyc 134sq7WNfInA9TxiQ28/DldHj++gDeQJr9BvUU8Ez2Iu70uW5T7rlHFyBUWQBh3P 2dB/Q9A/dixhAzNTaeTuVH4TunoyDN6OrRrSTdZhsPs8dLVLLeqKC3qM28wLX5Mt qQCUb/pRb9TR9ygwaznAIdqSJ1qc/xqlQY6U0Vh6YVOaId+MQwzsq1ZRPlW0kYSS wgka2WXELH5ZpQLmCppM1pdkHhm54VbBl7TmNwkABRG0I05lcnRodXMgPGN5cGhl cnB1bmtzQGN5YmVycGFzcy5uZXQ+iQEVAwUQNFzSUeFWwZe05jcJAQFxVQf/WUSH ltCrUpoQwQ9oTGCJiRycTQqUzDuqaqR55xgyz8W5mARixBigd/sL63EoBlQmyHR3 NIgwIW3I8hcPfUlXi84hsZ+89/HVW3CoMk2g6692UEoKHUX6bMkeAi85hIfJVhFj EONhx3xFmdOZqkEbdFm81J/0JJIhtAe0Ut2DPu4B49yjO7NBTg97QWwO6ZymE09v BUv5esuvdxFbmn8qfPHdurs+MrvoKbhZIA8Xz03eTS1auT8pNvdEO4EDaac0njZ4 5wAbAeC79AqztS75GpT7cf0jZcYJPwtW8LPXj7SQCMimseZ7/2OxNPditI9e58CI EL/Dl0D9qn1NRPiVwA== =8W8j - -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBNFzU4eFWwZe05jcJAQEuEQf/cU+8VTsG7GRbP14eMtUIs2Hb9jKmCD8v +au46lGCy8NuuMl+3leRGT9tAARoe2+yVg6FJbwzCZvJMBNIR3YmEEm3WxEH9TZQ ghVk1nrCtZg0eLdKSHYIV8q061kcrNmgtn/J8zP4SH39NtcHBfTaqpqt6wwky0jd 7A096utO4p3ip870ss4V5P2LiW71riJh3L/pqCJnUMbQleLT5OK/+el7tnUZYX2g 8mNNA5qydHIleyoDB72Aj3u15Z1TLmCKXGt+Uj3fwzytjYDtwfs9d+7AI7Kk1kBQ RLw07pNou03Fr3M8SSeSiSkUGea4Hv0j8wJtSjIQoJ9on03zOsJAlw== =+v+X -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Vote CypherPunk!
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 20:24 -0500 10/31/97, TruthMonger wrote: >* In August, the Boston Globe profiled the Taiwan National >Assembly (which specializes in constitutional issues), where it is >fairly common for the minority New Party to filibuster by merely >grabbing the microphone and physically restraining majority-party >members so that they cannot call for votes. Fights break out, >sometimes bloody ones. Said a local political science professor, "It >may not be civilized, but it's efficient" because citizens respond by >re-electing the aggressive legislators. I'd probably have a lot more respect for Congresscritters if they cared enough about any issue to physically fight about it. Maybe we could issue them weapons, too; then term limits would become a moot point. (Who would win if Jesse Helms and Diane Feinstein had a fight to the death? The American citizens.) A suitable quote from Monty Python: We would like to apologize for the way politicians are represented in this programme. It was never our intention to imply that politicians are weak-kneed, political time-servers who are concerned more with their personal vendettas and private power struggles than the problems of government, nor to suggest at any point that they sacrifice their credibility by denying free debate on vital matters in the mistaken impression that party unity comes before the well-being of the people they supposedly represent, nor to imply at any stage that they are squabbling little toadies without an ounce of concern for the vital social problems of today. Nor indeed do we intend that viewers should consider them as crabby ulcerous self-seeking vermin with furry legs and an addiction to alcohol and certain explicit sexual practices which some people might find offensive. We are sorry if this impression has come across. In fact, they could run this at the top of every hour on C-SPAN. I'll call my cable company.

2 1