- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: libsln.htm -- Is Libel a Crime?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:20 AM 1/29/97 -0500, aga wrote: >On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, jim bell wrote: >> One obvious problem with the LACK of a criminal libel statute, from the >> standpoint of the "government-controlling-class," or "the bigshots," is that >> it's impossible to sue (and collect from) a (comparatively) poor person for >> defaming him...but it's still possible to put him in jail. Civil libel is, >> therefore, essentially useless to a government agent as a means of keeping >> the masses in line. >> >> >> Myself, I believe that libel should be eliminated as a cause of action in >> civil cases as well as it has, de facto, in the criminal area. If anything, >> the ability to sue for libel makes things worse: There is an illusion that >> this is easy and straightforward, if not economical. It is neither. The >> result is that people are actually MORE likely to believe a printed >> falsehood because they incorrectly assume that if it wasn't true, it >> couldn't be printed. >Interesting analysis here, but remember; libel is just one kind of >"defamation" and an action for defamation will always be actionable. Sure about that?!? >The constitution gives us the right to call the President a >motherfucker any time we want to, yes... >and it also gives the motherfucker >the right to sue. While admittedly it has been a long time since I've read the entire US Constitution, I am not under the impression that it does what you claim. Could you be more specific about the particular section which does this? > Sueing is better than fighting in the streets. For the LAWYERS, who are paid regardless of the outcome, that certainly appears to be the case. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

At 10:41 AM 1/29/97 -0800, Sean Roach wrote: >At 09:40 PM 1/27/97 -0500, Phillip M. Hallam-Baker wrote: >>Thats because its a whacko solution that has no credibility >>or consistency. >> >>If anyone tried to set up such a market and a price went out >>on any of the heads of state fantasized about Mr Bell would be >>dead as a doornail in a week. >> >So you're saying that the system would work. Mr. bell would be targeted, a >price on his head, for starting that very system. Mr. Bell would be a >martyr, his system being proven by his own death. It would be some varient >of his idea that would be used to kill him, a bounty. Exactly correct. I will be killed by AP, my own invention. (however, I will be killed for merely DESCRIBING it, not only if I started the first instance of it.) Before I'd published the first part of AP, I knew and accepted what was going to happen. See AP part 7, at the end, quoted here: "Awe, that a system could be produced by a handful of people that would rid the world of the scourge of war, nuclear weapons, governments, and taxes. Astonishment, at my realization that once started, it would cover the entire globe inexorably, erasing dictatorships both fascistic and communistic, monarchies, and even so-called "democracies," which as a general rule today are really just the facade of government by the special interests. Joy, that it would eliminate all war, and force the dismantling not only of all nuclear weapons, but also all militaries, making them not merely redundant but also considered universally dangerous, leaving their "owners" no choice but to dismantle them, and in fact no reason to KEEP them!" "Terror, too, because this system may just change almost EVERYTHING how we think about our current society, and even more for myself personally, the knowledge that there may some day be a large body of wealthy people who are thrown off their current positions of control of the world's governments, and the very-real possibility that they may look for a "villain" to blame for their downfall. They will find one, in me, and at that time they will have the money and (thanks to me, at least partially) the means to see their revenge. But I would not have published this essay if I had been unwilling to accept the risk." Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

No Subject
by sales 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1 0

RE: Internet, Countries, Nationalism, etc.
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: P.J. Westerhof >Franconics... Or Lesbonics of course, ................................................................. le femme fatale .. Blanc

1 0

Re: RC5-12/32/5 contest solved
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:37 PM 1/28/97 -0800, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com wrote: >Any bets on whether the $5000 RC5-12/32/6 contest will be solved >before the www.rsa.com contest status web page is updated? :-) > >Or how long before someone in the government starts talking about >how 56 bits takes 65,000 times as long to solve as 40 bits, >which is 26 years for a whole building full of computers, >and even 48 bits ought to take a month and a half for a whole >building full of computers (or supercomputers, if they hype it up....)? This, as I pointed out long ago, is why I didn't think a "crack the DES key" contest is necessarily a good idea, at least if it's ordinary Von-Neumann-type computers doing the searching. It makes DES look artificially good. Assuming it's possible to build a chip which tests solutions in a massively-pipelined mode, the 400,000 or so solutions per second tried (for what is probably a $2000 machine) would probably increase to 100 million per second per chip (at a cost of maybe $100 per chip, if implemented in parallel). That's 5000 times more economical, which would translate to a find in 2-3 days if the same dollars in hardware were invested. _THAT_ is the break we should hope the media publicizes, not the one that will eventually happen when accomplished by PCs or Suns, etc. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

A comment on the censorship policy
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I cannot understand how some of my (accurate) criticisms of Sandfort's censorhip polices---some in direct response to his own self-serving posts declaring himself not to be a flamer himself---are not making it to the "New and Improved Censored List," while inane posts from Toto, Thorn, and someone named "Nurdane Oksas" are appearing. (Oksas has the especially annoying habit of quoting entire posts and then appending a one-line piece of completely list-irrelevant fluff. Also, engaging in lovey-dovey posts with Vulis, who writes messages about how he longs to see Oksas naked.) This whole process is showing the worst of Sandfort's censorship policy. (If this is dumped into the "Not suitable for Cypherpunks to read" list, I urge those of you who see it to pass it on to the main list.) END --

4 4

The Politics of Export Restrictions
by Rick Hornbeck 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is it possible the unreasonable crypto export restrictions are simply being imposed at this time for the purpose of making Al Gore look good when he runs for President in 2000? In other words, his campaign could include promises to retract existing crypto export restrictions established by his predecessor. The campaign would be accompanied by slogans and rhetoric such as "export crypto, not jobs" and the crypto/high-tech community would support Gore and the Democratic party in droves.

1 0

Re: Passphrase security
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Deadwood Vilest K"arcinogen"OfTheMonth is so vile because rancid semen is dripping from all of his orifices. ^ ^ (o o) Deadwood Vilest K"arcinogen"OfTheMonth ( ) \___/ !_!

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

jim bell wrote: > Exactly correct. I will be killed by AP, my own invention. (however, I > will be killed for merely DESCRIBING it, not only if I started the first > instance of it.) Before I'd published the first part of AP, I knew and > accepted what was going to happen. See AP part 7, at the end, quoted here: > See, Phill, I was right. igor

1 0

A comment on the censorship policy
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I cannot understand how some of my (accurate) criticisms of Sandfort's censorhip polices---some in direct response to his own self-serving posts declaring himself not to be a flamer himself---are not making it to the "New and Improved Censored List," while inane posts from Toto, Thorn, and someone named "Nurdane Oksas" are appearing. (Oksas has the especially annoying habit of quoting entire posts and then appending a one-line piece of completely list-irrelevant fluff. Also, engaging in lovey-dovey posts with Vulis, who writes messages about how he longs to see Oksas naked.) This whole process is showing the worst of Sandfort's censorship policy. (If this is dumped into the "Not suitable for Cypherpunks to read" list, I urge those of you who see it to pass it on to the main list.) END --

1 0