- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Key Recovery / The True Story
by Ernest Hua 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> And some government spook is going to break into a church's computer > to find out if they are secret terrorists because they oppose this > or that government policy. This is an interesting point on which very little serious debate is taking place: Is it EVER okay for spooks to break into a church's computer to find out if they are secret terrorists? I'm not sure the answer is clearly one way or another, and I am willing to bet that the tone of the answers will mostly be emotional appeals to some idealistic standard or pessimistic nightmares. A meta question is whether the answer to a question like this one above can be answer strictly through a "for all practical purposes it would never affect me so it does not matter" answer. Ern -- Ernest Hua, Software Sanitation Engineer/Chief Cut And Paste Officer Chromatic Research, 615 Tasman Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94089-1707 Phone: 408 752-9375, Fax: 408 752-9301, E-Mail: hua(a)chromatic.com -- Ernest Hua, Software Sanitation Engineer/Chief Cut And Paste Officer Chromatic Research, 615 Tasman Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94089-1707 Phone: 408 752-9375, Fax: 408 752-9301, E-Mail: hua(a)chromatic.com -- Ernest Hua, Software Sanitation Engineer/Chief Cut And Paste Officer Chromatic Research, 615 Tasman Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94089-1707 Phone: 408 752-9375, Fax: 408 752-9301, E-Mail: hua(a)chromatic.com

2 1

Jim Bell Complaint
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We offer the May 16 complaint against Jim Bell: http://jya.com/jimbell3.htm The complaint draws upon previous search warrants at Greg Broiles's site: http://www.parrhesia.com/jimbell/

8 7

Re: Jim Bell Complaint
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

William Geiger wrote: >After reading the complaint I have to say that with friends like that >who needs enemies? True, if that's what the friends actually said, and if they were not induced to do so by being fed lethal information: don't go down with Bell, protect yourself, spill your guts. Recall that John Painter spoke to one or more of them and they hedged the remarks of the complaint, but he, too, saw the makings of a deal in the affadavit's allegations. Turning friends against friends is pretty common in investigations, using threats and promises of relief from possible charges, even saying that your friend is squealing on you. I was struck by how similar some remarks attributed to Bell were to those attributed to McVeigh, not that they were not made, but that the investigators chose to select just those to indicate lethal intent. The possible link between the McVeigh trial and Jim Bell's bust could indicate how the feds are itching to attack every advocate of anti-gov mayhem (no pun Tim). The IRS searching the Internet for incriminating advocacy is a warning of what's to come, as often predicted here. Time to study and ponder the 1st Amend -- which, by the way, Matt Blaze did at the NYC crypto forum last night to challenge Charney and Denning. Matt pulled out a copy and cited it, which may be a good indication of what he knows that we don't about what's coming.

4 3

Re: Police & military access (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 23:23:31 -0700 > From: Kent Crispin <kent(a)songbird.com> > Subject: Re: Police & military access > > Do police have any civil rights not endowed to a individual citizen? > > No. But on the job, doing their state assigned duties, they have > access to instrumentalities not available to private citizens or > off-duty police. "On" and "off" duty may sometimes be a little fuzzy > in practice, but the principle is clear. It isn't a big deal, and > it's not a matter of civil rights. Which principle is clear? That police like to confuse the issue as much as possible to their advantage? Of course it is a matter of civil rights. The police are a representative of the CIVIL authorities, you have truly missed the entire point of the constitution. > A license to practice medicine > gives you the ability to prescribe morphine. A certain class of > drivers license lets you drive a school bus full of children. True, but there is NO law that can dictate which doctor I choose let alone if I choose one at all. At least there I have a choice, because of this the comparison you are trying to draw is broke. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Re: Police & military access (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 15:12:54 -0700 > From: Greg Broiles <gbroiles(a)netbox.com> > Subject: Re: Police & military access > >This would seem to support Jim Choate's general position. (Though I have my > >own skepticism that many jurisdictions think it is true.) > > Jim Choate's messages about cops and "civil rights" suggest that he's not > familiar with and/or interested in the basics of legal research. > Restrictions (and lack of restrictions) related to use of force, power to > arest, possession/use of weapons, etc., are mostly statutory. You can't > find them (or understand them) by starting with only the Constitution, and > then reasoning and deducing things from it. Absolutely, but those statutes MUST be referencable back to the Constitution. Something I freely admit is not the current case. If it were the current case this would be a very quite mailing list indeed. What a citizen can and can't do with a weapon is covered in the 2nd. It includes police. If I as a citizen can't have object x then a police officer can't have it, constitutionaly. > >From a moral or political perspective, (e.g., what *should* the > relationship between cops and citizens look like) what he writes is > perfectly reasonable. From a legal perspective (what is the law today?) > it's incomplete and thereby misleading. Absolutely, and if you are infering that I at any time in my life have EVER asserted that my speculation was the case then you need to take a reading comprehension course (as well as reflect on what the entire discussion on cypherpunks truly is at the core). What *should* be the case is the whole damn point. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

SIGH Kent clueless again(was Re: spam is a good thing (was Re: Spam IS Free Speech)) (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii(a)amaranth.com> > Date: Fri, 23 May 97 08:29:59 -0500 > No not at all. Just because I am connected to the network I am under no > obligation to accept a single bit. I don't have to ever download any mail > or I can download all or I can pick and choose what I accept or what I > don't. Exactly, This is the whole point of a firewall after all. Simply connecting your cable to a publicly accessible source implies no more than having your driveway end in a public street. It is NOT an open invitation to stroll through your living room. > Obviously you have not ever entered into contract agreements with an > accesses provider. There is no obligation on my part to receive a single > bit. If I never run a sendmail daemon then I will never receive a single > e-mail message regardless of how many are aimed at my servers. This is the > same with any TCP/IP service. The only obligation I have with my upstream > provider is to pay my bill. If I choose to bounce everything that is > routed from Spamford it is my right to do so as it is *MY* equipment. This is certainly the exact case between myself and my provider for SSZ. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

2 1

Re: Jim Bell Complaint
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We missed deleting one cite of Jim's "true" SSN in the complaint, which has now been done. Those who got early copies, consider ***-ing the num. Thanks. 'Course, IRS may have faked it, too.

2 1

Re: Police & military access (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 00:53:43 -0700 > From: Tim May <tcmay(a)got.net> > Subject: Re: Police & military access > I have no problem with the notion that there is no weapon, no technology > which certain government officials or police may have but which civilians > are *not* allowed to have. I don't think the Founders envisioned any such > circumstances. They considered such a state instrumentality in the army, the precise reason they didn't want a standing army in the first place (ie 2yr. limit on ALL military spending, something flaunted openly). They clearly didn't want such instrumentalities used by peace time forces and considering the constitutional ban on using military forces inside the borders of the US it seems clear they didn't want them used against the citizenry, period. > The usual cited case is of private ownership of nuclear weapons. You should read "Dad's Nuke". > (The Founders didn't know about nuclear weapons and biological weapons, At this time Simon De' Laplace was forming his first writings regarding how the sun worked. It discussed gaseous compression and its 'lighting'. Just about everything else in the paper was wrong. Tell that to all the Indians they intentionaly killed with smallpox infected blankets and their commen cold. While they did't didn't have a clue to the actual process they were well aware of how to deal with the diseases. I would say my experience is that the relative cluelessness held by the users of their technology clearly matched those we now trust with it. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

carbon fibers
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Reading all the discussions about Jim Bell, I became interested in the carbon fibers that Jim allegedly planned to use to disrupt the work of compiters. I would appreciate if anyone explained me how these fibers work, how small and thin they are, and so on. I am also curious when and how this use of these fibers was invented. Thank you. igor

1 0

carbon fibers (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Subject: carbon fibers > Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 21:11:00 -0500 (CDT) > From: ichudov(a)algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) > Reading all the discussions about Jim Bell, I became interested in > the carbon fibers that Jim allegedly planned to use to disrupt the > work of compiters. > > I would appreciate if anyone explained me how these fibers work, how > small and thin they are, and so on. I am also curious when and how this > use of these fibers was invented. Carbon is commenly used in electronics because when compressed it generates a small voltage, ala your phone receiver. It can be both a insulator or a conductor depending on how one fills the outer valence band. Because its 'natural' state is -4 (it has 8 positions and only 4 are filled with electrons) it makes a fair conductor. Yet, it is not listed in most Activity Series for metals. I believe the idea is that since it is a reasonable conductor that when it falls across parallel lands on the pcb of a cpu it will short the lines. This would not only affect the reliability of the data because of current leakage but might in some cases cause an actual failure because of incorrect voltage or current. Some relevant physical data to consider: [1] Data from the Periodic Table: Carbon (C) 6/12.011 Valences +2, +4, -4 2.62 g/cm^3 @ STP M.P. 4100 B.P. 4470 Hexagonal crystal structure Electronegativity 2.55 (metal) (if anyone can find the conductivity I would appreciate it, it wasn't in [1] or the CRC that I have) [1] The Addison-Wesley Science Handbook: For scientists, writers, and science buffs G.J. Coleman, D. Dewar ISBN 0-201-76652-3 Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

3 2