- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Imprisoned for Not Having a Gun?
by morgan＠keilin.helsinki.fi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From Tim May's posting: > > At 6:57 AM 8/9/96, The Deviant wrote: > > >I agree with you. I don't have anything against guns, but either > >requiring them or disallowing them is just plain dumb. It should be > >noted that the Supreme Court's interpretaion of "Congress shall make no > >law" is basicly "no lawmaking body that holds any jurisdiction shall make > >no law"... > > On this last point, I used to think so, too. However, one of the law > professors on one of these lists gave various examples purporting to show > that this is not so, that local jurisdictions can and do pass laws which > Congress is not permitted to pass. [I'm not a lawyer, and I can't answer Tim's question per se, but...] As I understand it, the Bill of Rights itself was conceived strictly as a set of limitations on the -federal- government, but that the 14th ammendment has been interpreted to apply the Bill of Rights to limit state and local governments. (When and with what scope, I'm not sure.) Section 1 of the 14th Ammendment: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction therof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which -------------------------------------------- shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United -------------------------------------------------------------------- States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or ------ property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (emphasis mine) -- ===================================================================== Joel.Morgan(a)Helsinki.FI http://blues.helsinki.fi/~morgan "Over the mountains there are mountains." -- Chang-rae Lee =====================================================================

1 0

Cybergangs?
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"educom(a)educom.unc.edu" 8-AUG-1996 22:27:27.58 To: IN%"edupage(a)elanor.oit.unc.edu" "EDUCOM Edupage Mailing List" >***************************************************************** >Edupage, 8 August 1996. Edupage, a summary of news about information >technology, is provided three times a week as a service by Educom, >a Washington, D.C.-based consortium of leading colleges and universities >seeking to transform education through the use of information technology. >***************************************************************** >CYBERGANGS >The head of the gang task force for the Arizona Department of Public Safety >reports that a Web site established in Detroit offers a how-to guide for >gangster wannabes and is urging gang members everywhere to unite under its >umbrella to form the first cyberspace gang. The official says: "Now it's >in your home, your living room, your den... Unfortunately, these guys can >talk about anything they want and there's nothing law enforcement can do >about it." (Atlanta Journal-Constitution 8 Aug 96 F3) Umm... yes, it's called free speech. While organizational ability might be a matter for concern, somehow I doubt that having them on the net will do any real damage... being on a computer that mine is connected to hardly puts them "in [my] home," even if my computer at home were connected to a phone line. Bloody law enforcement paranoids... -Allen >Edupage is written by John Gehl <gehl(a)educom.edu> & Suzanne Douglas ><douglas(a)educom.edu>. Voice: 404-371-1853, Fax: 404-371-8057. >Technical support is provided by Information Technology Services at the >University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. >*************************************************************** >Edupage ... is what you've just finished reading. To subscribe to Edupage: >send mail to: listproc(a)educom.unc.edu with the message: subscribe edupage >Abraham Lincoln (if your name is Abraham Lincoln; otherwise, substitute >your own name). ... To cancel, send a message to: listproc(a)educom.unc.edu >with the message: unsubscribe edupage. (If you have subscription problems, >send mail to manager(a)educom.unc.edu.)

2 1

Re: Boom!
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:58 PM 8/8/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: >At 10:43 PM 8/8/96, Duncan Frissell wrote: >>So, if it turns out that TWA 800 was an accidental wing tank explosion, will >>they give us our civil liberties back? If not, why not? >> > >You must be kidding. Civil rights (the real ones, not the affirmative >action/antidiscrimination bullshit kind) only get constricted. > >The government only tightens the noose, it never loosens it. I've got a...oh, never mind. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Going Postal (Was: Boom!)
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:50 AM 8/9/96, Mike Duvos wrote: > >The Post Office has now jumped on the terrorist bandwagon by >announcing that it will no longer be legal to drop any package >weighing over 16 ounces into a collection box. Actually, CNN was reporting that this is for _airmail_ only. Which makes a certain kind of sense, given the situation with bomb technology. >Larger packages will have to be presented in person at the >Post Office, and I wouldn't be surprised if several forms of >ID were required. The usual alternatives of UPS (cheaper) and FedEx (not so cheap) should still be viable. This could actually boost their business. I just had some Evil Smokeless Powder delivered to me via UPS. (The Post Office people will not handle this stuff...it either violates their union contracts or management is afraid the employees will use it to go postal with.) --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1

Boom!
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

So, if it turns out that TWA 800 was an accidental wing tank explosion, will they give us our civil liberties back? If not, why not? DCF "'It Takes a Village to Raise a Child' -- an unemployed hausfrau living in public housing in Washington, D.C."

2 1

Re: Going Postal (Was: Boom!)
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 17:50 8/8/96, Mike Duvos wrote: >The Post Office has now jumped on the terrorist bandwagon by >announcing that it will no longer be legal to drop any package >weighing over 16 ounces into a collection box. > >Larger packages will have to be presented in person at the >Post Office, and I wouldn't be surprised if several forms of >ID were required. We'll see the day. >Should wreak havoc with the mail order video tape rental business, >with those handy pre-paid 4th class labels you just slap on the >tapes before dropping in the nearest mailbox. A video tape weighs less than a pound. >I suspect one could do a lot of damage to a mailbox with under 16 >ounces of the proper explosive. Perhaps one of our resident >Cypherpunks bomb experts could expand on this subject. Sixteen ounces of C4 will do you right. It was only 12 ounces that brought down the Pan Am flight over Scotland. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred. Defeat the Demopublican Unity Party. Vote no on Clinton/Dole in November. Vote Harry Browne for President.

2 1

Re: Going Postal (Was: Boom!)
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 19:22 8/8/96, Timothy C. May wrote: >I just had some Evil Smokeless Powder delivered to me via UPS. (The Post >Office people will not handle this stuff...it either violates their union >contracts or management is afraid the employees will use it to go postal >with.) A while back, I ordered some "I love Explosives" bumper stickers from an explosives dealer in New Mexico. They also ship black powder via UPS to anyone. Twenty pounds maximum. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred. Defeat the Demopublican Unity Party. Vote no on Clinton/Dole in November. Vote Harry Browne for President.

1 0

anarchy cookbook???
by Michael Cortes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

cypherpunks Ok this is what happend.I was looking around on the www. And came across the jolly roger "anarchy cookbook" and i was wondering.Any one know what happend to jolly roger? -Zac ps: Oh and sorry for like all fucken up on my last letter heh

3 2

Re: Oregon License Plate Site in the News Tonight!
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:25 AM 8/8/96 -0700, Alan wrote: > It will be interesting to see the state come out on the side of all those > anonymous drivers. The state wants people to be anonymous from each other, but not anonymous from the state. This ensures that we are dependent on the state for the maintenance of civilized behavior. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

1 0

Re: PRACTICAL USES FOR DMV RECORDS
by jfricker＠vertexgroup.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:47 AM 8/9/96 -0700, you wrote: >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > SANDY SANDFORT > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > >C'punks, > >On Thu, 8 Aug 1996, jim bell wrote: > >> The Oregon DMV database needs a new home. I've seen a few >> mentions of willing volunteers,... > >It probably needs a whole new domain. How 'bout: > > burglary.org > >That way, when burglars see an Oregon car loaded with a family >heading south into California on vacation, they can just go on >line and get those folks' address from the database. > >Afterwards, a thank you note to Oregon's DMV would be in order. > > Currently they can stop in at the DMV, say something to the effect "this car hit my dog", pay $4 cash and never even have to take off the ski mask. The DMV has no ID requirements for giving out this information. It has without a doubt already been bought and sold many times to marketing companies ("Hey this guys got an old Toyota"), insurance companies, private investigators, thieves and mobsters, and at least one person on our side. Until there is such a thing as the "anonymous citizen" public data might as well be as public as it gets. This "for those who know" policy is pervasive and must end. --j Oregonian and in that database

1 0