- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Letter Re: Kahn Supporting GAK
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:16 AM 2/5/97 +0000, Robert Rothenburg 'Walking-Owl' wrote: >My letter to Long Island Newsday regarding David Kahn's pro-GAK >editorial was published today. You can read it at > > http://www.newsday.com/mainnews/rnmi052u.htm > >What's odd (?) is how they editied it. I directed my comments toward >Mr. Kahn's views, which they changed to "Newsday" (odd, since I've >never seen them print an editorial one way or another on GAK; does >this mean they are taking a stand? -- Kahn is an editor at Newsday). > >I wrote "The greatest flaw in the argument is it's very reason, >'criminals... are increasingly using encryption to conceal their plans >and activities'" which they changed to "It reports...". I never >considered an op-ed piece as "reporting", even if it states a fact. But which "criminals," exactly, are "increasingly using encryption to conceal their plans and activities"? Let's not concede this unless it's really true. It would be far more accurate to say that it's likely that many people who are politically hostile to their government are using encryption in anticipation of persecution by the government, persecution that could easily come in the form of criminal charges. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Letter Re: Kahn Supporting GAK
by Robert Rothenburg 'Walking-Owl' 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Good point: but I've seen a few refs from LEAs about "Drug Dealer X who we can't talk about" or "Child Pornographer Y who we can't talk about" (in lieu of cases being digested by the court system) so I didn't harp on that point. A point I did leave out was that if they already knew these people were criminals and were building cases against them, monitoring them enough to know they used crypto, then do they really need to bother with listening in to the exact message? I wanted to emphasize the phallacy of the sacrifical lamb of rights in the name of the god of security. Also, they mungled the letter enough, so it's better for LI Newsday (which caters to a reading level of the average 12-year-old) submissions to be kept short and sweet. I'm quite surprised that mine is the only letter they printed. Certainly they would have gotten more than one submission on a controversial subject? --Rob On 5 Feb 97 at 18:22, jim bell wrote: > But which "criminals," exactly, are "increasingly using encryption to > conceal their plans and activities"? Let's not concede this unless it's > really true. > > It would be far more accurate to say that it's likely that many people who > are politically hostile to their government are using encryption in > anticipation of persecution by the government, persecution that could easily > come in the form of criminal charges. > > > Jim Bell > jimbell(a)pacifier.com > > ----- "The word to kill ain't dirty | Robert Rothenburg (WlkngOwl(a)unix.asb.com) I used it in the last line | http://www.asb.com/usr/wlkngowl/ but use a short word for lovin' | Se habla PGP: Reply with the subject and dad you wind up doin' time." | 'send pgp-key' for my public key.

1 0

Re: Deloitte-Touche?
by Bruce M. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, Marshall Clow wrote: > Mr. Murray gave a long, impassioned speech. > > He was very emphatic about not trusting anything > that the government says, and that once they got > their "foot in the door", that they would seek to > expand their abilities to regulate, etc, etc. > > He advocated deployment of strong crypto. He > insisted that there was no way the government > could stop the export of strong crypto. He exhorted > people to refuse to obey the ITAR/EAR regulations, > and to lobby their congresscritters to get the > PRO-CODE bill passed. > > It wasn't really what he said that amazed me, because > I had heard most of it (in bits and pieces) before. It > was presenting it all in a package, in an emotional > manner, by an elderly, conseratively dressed > accountant who was representing a large > corporation whose job it is to help people obey the > government. I was in attendance at an ISSA conference earlier this year where Mr. Murray gave the "keynote" speech on Electronic Commerce. While he did strongly advocate the adoption of strong crypto and various methods of security, he never stepped into the more radical mode of encouraging people to break the law. That was a different audience though. As he is also an ex-25 year IBM veteran it amazes me that he would make such a public outcry against govt. regulations (okay, so it's a stereotype). Deloitte & Touche must really have a big stake in the pro-crypto market or else he actually cares a lot. ____________________________________________________ [ Bruce M. - bkmarsh(a)feist.com - Feist Systems, Inc. ] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "We don't want to get our butts kicked by a bunch of long-haired 26-year-olds with earrings." -- General John Sheehan on their reasons for InfoWar involvement

1 0

RE: Fighting the cybercensor
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:35 PM 2/5/97 -0800, Sean Roach wrote: >At 09:09 PM 2/4/97 -0800, jim bell wrote: >>However, fortunately I don't think it would make any difference in the >>overall effects. While AP would eliminate the taxation which is commonly >>thought of as the main way a "rich person" loses assets, in practice it >>would also shut down the well-hidden systems that allow some people to get >>rich (or, merely live off somebody else) "unfairly." Government agents >>come to mind, of course. >> >The money doesn't necessarily come from taxation, the owner of a business >takes a cut of whatever money is made even if that person is unproductive. >The tyrant would be the owner of the industry. The kind of effects I'm thinking of are primarily the "military spending" situations, where: 1. Large numbers of potentially competent and useful people get put into useless jobs: "Army, Navy, and Marines, and Air Force" spring to mind. (Those people who still think military spending is really necessary obviously haven't read AP.) 2. Large amounts of money are spent on military hardware, money which goes to fund people who would otherwise develop useful products in the non-government private sector. 3. The patent system decreases competition, increases profits and prices in the marketplace due to government actions to allow and enforce monopolies. 4. Government employees are paid more for their activities than they would receive in the private sector. Ironically, in this case an "apples-to-apples" comparison is misleading: It would be wrong to compare a middle level government manager to his counterpart in private industry, because to postulate there is such a government-job assumes that the private-sector would do it post-AP. >If you are right then governments would effectively lose the ability to tax, >with or without representation, as most people do not agree on everything, >like how their money is spent. However, even now, as pointed out in some >recent posts, our tax money is used to foreward the goals of a few, these >few want to eliminate guns, crypto, free speech, ect. Although we are in >oppostition, our money is still used to foreward the goals. Yes, the main effect of AP is the elimination of the ability to tax. Now, nothing would prevents individuals from continuing to fund an organization called a "government" so that it could do those (non-coercive) things that individual wants to see done. But I think it'll be amazing how many of those heretofore-funded-by-govt projects (previously promoted as being wanted by a large fraction of the citizenry) that evaporate when the public is given the option to continue to fund them voluntarily. Let's suppose, hypothetically and for vast simplification, the government engages in two activities, "A" and "B." Further suppose government taxes from two groups, let's call them "Alphas" and "Betas." It is traditionally thought that Alphas like spending on "A", but hate spending on "B". Likewise, it is figured that Betas like spending on "B", don't like spending on "A". Post-AP, one might innocently suspect that maybe the "Alphas" would simply fund only "A", while Betas" would donate money for activity "B". Assuming the amount of funding for those activities was equal, you might think that things could go on as they already do. But no. The reality is that "Alphas" merely like spending on "A" _more_ than they do "B", and they will tolerate their own money being used for both only because the "Betas" are similarly forced. Add volunteerism to the whole mix, and not only would these two groups only fund just what they really wanted, they would soon discover they don't even want the level of spending they previously argued for, pre-AP. In practice, those services people like will continue, but it is highly unlikely that they will be supply by organizations which evolve from those currently called "governments." Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: John's: In anarchy -everyone responsible
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:41 PM 2/5/97 +0000, Attila T. Hun wrote: > >+Put simply, "anarchy is not the lack of order. It is the lack of >+_orders_." > > disagree. pure anarchy is not the lack of "orders" --pure anarchy > implies that everyone is imbued with that perfect sense of > responsibility. >From which hat do you pull this rabbit? > >+> anarchy is only possible in an ideal world where _everyone_ >+> assumes not only responsibility for themselves, but for the common >+> good. no malice, no greed, no need for assassination politics.... > >+No, that's traditional thinking and that's wrong. See AP part 8. >+Freud believed (as "everyone" else believed, even myself, before AP) >+that anarchy was inherently unstable. But it ISN'T, if the tools of >+AP are used to stabilize it. And no, no altruism is necessary for AP >+to work as well; no individuals are being asked to sacrifice >+themselves for the common good. Rather, they are given the >+opportunity to work to achieve a reward offered, cumulatively, by a >+number of citizens. > > aah, but that is the difference between a _pure_ anarchy and a > _popular_ anarchy. A pure _anarchy_ is sufficiently idealistic in > that _noone_ lacks the necessary resonsibility to keep society > moving, each individual in their own niche. Why, exactly, is it "necessary" to "keep society moving"? Isn't that somewhat of a contradiction in terms? (particularly when you are discussing the subject, "anarchy." It seems you don't really understand what the word "anarchy" means. Sigh. > As long as there is > perfect responsibility in a perfect anarchy, then there is no need > for AP. Are you saying that for a world that has ALREADY achieved anarchy, and we presume "perfect responsibility," AP is not necessary to maintain this state? Well, that's a rather limited assertion; some would argue it's practically meaningless. Isn't that somewhat like saying, "A perfectly-balanced inverted pendulum needs no mechanism to keep it pointing straight up."? True, perhaps, but how do you get that "perfectly-balanced" part right? > AP is a negative, or _punative_, influence; I might liken it to the > Catholic Church which is a religion of fear, and an instrument of > political control. Actually, it's quite the opposite: AP is the absolute prohibition on and/or destruction of any "instrument of political control." Now, to a person who thinks that the natural state of the world is a condition of political control (and it wouldn't be hard to understand why a person could come to this conclusion, given the bulk of history), the ABSENSE of political control "looks like" political control. This is, obviously, akin to the optical illusion where you stare intently at a pattern of color on a page (the American flag is often used) for a minute or two, and then you suddenly glance towards a white sheet of paper on which, as I recall, immediately appears a complementary flag of green and black stripes, and black stars on a yellow field. AP destroys the mechanisms that societies use for much political control. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: mail-to-news fun
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:18 AM 2/6/97 -0000, you wrote: >Unfortunately, you don't really have a choice about what kind of >speech you are supporting if you run a remailer. Don't fall into the >trap of saying, "I want to give people complete freedom of anonymous >speech... EXCEPT...." As abhorrent as we may find the homophobic >hatemongers from the "freedom-knights" list, I guarantee a lot of >politicians would object more strongly to the "Help, I might be gay >and my parents will kill me" post. Once you set up a system for >content-based censorship, don't think you can stay in control of it. The problem isn't homophobic hatemongers who use their own names or nyms or no name, or even get my remailer's name associated with that - I can reply to complaints or file them in the handy bit bucket. The problem is forgers signing _other_ people's names to their hatemonger postings, causing the innocent third party to catch all the flames that the forger was trying to generate. Stewart wrote: >> On the other hand, I don't want to support postings titled >> "ALL FAGS MUST DIE" with a forged signature and email at the bottom, >> and I especially don't want to post that from my remailer without >> indicating that anything posted by a remailer might be forged. >> That's why I shut down my previous remailer - the forger only >> posted one forged message; the person whose name got forged >> got flamed severely by dozens of people who objected to "her" posts. >> Blocking the gay newsgroups cuts down on that kind of trolling, >> but also cuts out the "Help, I might be gay and my parents will kill me" >> traffic that remailers are supposed to help with. Guess I should have been more clear.... >As for forgery, I do add > X-Warning: Sender address is unverified and may not be authentic. >to every article that goest through my mail2news gateway. Does anybody read X-Warning: headers? Not all newsreaders even show all the headers. It's a good start, and that's clearly the place in the system to insert it. >Additionally, I have a fast source-blocking system set up, so anyone >in whose name articles are being forged can immediately stop it by >mailing <srcblk-request(a)nym.alias.net>. (This doesn't source-block >them from the remailers, just the non-anonymizing mail2news gateway.) That helps, at least if the spammer is doing a lot of it (or if the spam is from a broken gateway program or whatever.) But for the troll that killed my remailer, one message was enough. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

1 0

RE: Fighting the cybercensor
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:35 PM 2/5/97 -0800, Sean Roach wrote: >At 09:09 PM 2/4/97 -0800, jim bell wrote: >>However, fortunately I don't think it would make any difference in the >>overall effects. While AP would eliminate the taxation which is commonly >>thought of as the main way a "rich person" loses assets, in practice it >>would also shut down the well-hidden systems that allow some people to get >>rich (or, merely live off somebody else) "unfairly." Government agents >>come to mind, of course. >> >The money doesn't necessarily come from taxation, the owner of a business >takes a cut of whatever money is made even if that person is unproductive. >The tyrant would be the owner of the industry. The kind of effects I'm thinking of are primarily the "military spending" situations, where: 1. Large numbers of potentially competent and useful people get put into useless jobs: "Army, Navy, and Marines, and Air Force" spring to mind. (Those people who still think military spending is really necessary obviously haven't read AP.) 2. Large amounts of money are spent on military hardware, money which goes to fund people who would otherwise develop useful products in the non-government private sector. 3. The patent system decreases competition, increases profits and prices in the marketplace due to government actions to allow and enforce monopolies. 4. Government employees are paid more for their activities than they would receive in the private sector. Ironically, in this case an "apples-to-apples" comparison is misleading: It would be wrong to compare a middle level government manager to his counterpart in private industry, because to postulate there is such a government-job assumes that the private-sector would do it post-AP. >If you are right then governments would effectively lose the ability to tax, >with or without representation, as most people do not agree on everything, >like how their money is spent. However, even now, as pointed out in some >recent posts, our tax money is used to foreward the goals of a few, these >few want to eliminate guns, crypto, free speech, ect. Although we are in >oppostition, our money is still used to foreward the goals. Yes, the main effect of AP is the elimination of the ability to tax. Now, nothing would prevents individuals from continuing to fund an organization called a "government" so that it could do those (non-coercive) things that individual wants to see done. But I think it'll be amazing how many of those heretofore-funded-by-govt projects (previously promoted as being wanted by a large fraction of the citizenry) that evaporate when the public is given the option to continue to fund them voluntarily. Let's suppose, hypothetically and for vast simplification, the government engages in two activities, "A" and "B." Further suppose government taxes from two groups, let's call them "Alphas" and "Betas." It is traditionally thought that Alphas like spending on "A", but hate spending on "B". Likewise, it is figured that Betas like spending on "B", don't like spending on "A". Post-AP, one might innocently suspect that maybe the "Alphas" would simply fund only "A", while Betas" would donate money for activity "B". Assuming the amount of funding for those activities was equal, you might think that things could go on as they already do. But no. The reality is that "Alphas" merely like spending on "A" _more_ than they do "B", and they will tolerate their own money being used for both only because the "Betas" are similarly forced. Add volunteerism to the whole mix, and not only would these two groups only fund just what they really wanted, they would soon discover they don't even want the level of spending they previously argued for, pre-AP. In practice, those services people like will continue, but it is highly unlikely that they will be supply by organizations which evolve from those currently called "governments." Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: your mail
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Heh. On the ISP-TV show that Brock Meeks and I co-host, two weeks ago we not only described how easy it was to modify a handheld radio, we had a guest who demo'd cell-snooping on the air. -Declan On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, Bovine Remailer wrote: > http://www.cnn.com > > Congressman demonstrates > ease of cell phone snooping > > > > >

1 0

Re: mail-to-news fun
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:18 AM 2/6/97 -0000, you wrote: >Unfortunately, you don't really have a choice about what kind of >speech you are supporting if you run a remailer. Don't fall into the >trap of saying, "I want to give people complete freedom of anonymous >speech... EXCEPT...." As abhorrent as we may find the homophobic >hatemongers from the "freedom-knights" list, I guarantee a lot of >politicians would object more strongly to the "Help, I might be gay >and my parents will kill me" post. Once you set up a system for >content-based censorship, don't think you can stay in control of it. The problem isn't homophobic hatemongers who use their own names or nyms or no name, or even get my remailer's name associated with that - I can reply to complaints or file them in the handy bit bucket. The problem is forgers signing _other_ people's names to their hatemonger postings, causing the innocent third party to catch all the flames that the forger was trying to generate. Stewart wrote: >> On the other hand, I don't want to support postings titled >> "ALL FAGS MUST DIE" with a forged signature and email at the bottom, >> and I especially don't want to post that from my remailer without >> indicating that anything posted by a remailer might be forged. >> That's why I shut down my previous remailer - the forger only >> posted one forged message; the person whose name got forged >> got flamed severely by dozens of people who objected to "her" posts. >> Blocking the gay newsgroups cuts down on that kind of trolling, >> but also cuts out the "Help, I might be gay and my parents will kill me" >> traffic that remailers are supposed to help with. Guess I should have been more clear.... >As for forgery, I do add > X-Warning: Sender address is unverified and may not be authentic. >to every article that goest through my mail2news gateway. Does anybody read X-Warning: headers? Not all newsreaders even show all the headers. It's a good start, and that's clearly the place in the system to insert it. >Additionally, I have a fast source-blocking system set up, so anyone >in whose name articles are being forged can immediately stop it by >mailing <srcblk-request(a)nym.alias.net>. (This doesn't source-block >them from the remailers, just the non-anonymizing mail2news gateway.) That helps, at least if the spammer is doing a lot of it (or if the spam is from a broken gateway program or whatever.) But for the troll that killed my remailer, one message was enough. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

1 0

Re: John's: In anarchy -everyone responsible
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:41 PM 2/5/97 +0000, Attila T. Hun wrote: > >+Put simply, "anarchy is not the lack of order. It is the lack of >+_orders_." > > disagree. pure anarchy is not the lack of "orders" --pure anarchy > implies that everyone is imbued with that perfect sense of > responsibility. >From which hat do you pull this rabbit? > >+> anarchy is only possible in an ideal world where _everyone_ >+> assumes not only responsibility for themselves, but for the common >+> good. no malice, no greed, no need for assassination politics.... > >+No, that's traditional thinking and that's wrong. See AP part 8. >+Freud believed (as "everyone" else believed, even myself, before AP) >+that anarchy was inherently unstable. But it ISN'T, if the tools of >+AP are used to stabilize it. And no, no altruism is necessary for AP >+to work as well; no individuals are being asked to sacrifice >+themselves for the common good. Rather, they are given the >+opportunity to work to achieve a reward offered, cumulatively, by a >+number of citizens. > > aah, but that is the difference between a _pure_ anarchy and a > _popular_ anarchy. A pure _anarchy_ is sufficiently idealistic in > that _noone_ lacks the necessary resonsibility to keep society > moving, each individual in their own niche. Why, exactly, is it "necessary" to "keep society moving"? Isn't that somewhat of a contradiction in terms? (particularly when you are discussing the subject, "anarchy." It seems you don't really understand what the word "anarchy" means. Sigh. > As long as there is > perfect responsibility in a perfect anarchy, then there is no need > for AP. Are you saying that for a world that has ALREADY achieved anarchy, and we presume "perfect responsibility," AP is not necessary to maintain this state? Well, that's a rather limited assertion; some would argue it's practically meaningless. Isn't that somewhat like saying, "A perfectly-balanced inverted pendulum needs no mechanism to keep it pointing straight up."? True, perhaps, but how do you get that "perfectly-balanced" part right? > AP is a negative, or _punative_, influence; I might liken it to the > Catholic Church which is a religion of fear, and an instrument of > political control. Actually, it's quite the opposite: AP is the absolute prohibition on and/or destruction of any "instrument of political control." Now, to a person who thinks that the natural state of the world is a condition of political control (and it wouldn't be hard to understand why a person could come to this conclusion, given the bulk of history), the ABSENSE of political control "looks like" political control. This is, obviously, akin to the optical illusion where you stare intently at a pattern of color on a page (the American flag is often used) for a minute or two, and then you suddenly glance towards a white sheet of paper on which, as I recall, immediately appears a complementary flag of green and black stripes, and black stars on a yellow field. AP destroys the mechanisms that societies use for much political control. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0