- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Costs of the Surveillance State
by Mises Daily Article 05 Jul '18

05 Jul '18

<http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1300>http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1300 Costs of the Surveillance State by Erich Mattei [Posted August 27, 2003] Police departments around the nation have begun utilizing high-tech video surveillance in their fight against crime, as the private sector has for many years. Officials in New Orleans recently announced that by October the city plans to have installed 100 of these surveillance cameras within its limits. The plan, which will eventually see the installation of 1,000 cameras throughout the city, is part of an effort to further combat crime in certain "hot spots."<http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1300#_ftn1>[1] New Orleans Police Department spokesman Sgt. Paul Accardo said that in July alone suspects in two separate slayings were captured thanks to the footage caught on surveillance. The city is now one of more than a dozen cities around the nation that are using surveillance to deter crime and identify criminals. The implementation of public video surveillance is a direct result of the inefficiencies of state law enforcement. As a result, instead of loosening regulations and allowing individuals to purchase protection for themselves from private agencies, the state is attempting to account for its own incompetence. (This issue has followed the same path as the evolution of the housing crisis of past decades, whereby state imposed rent control and standards created a shortage of affordable housing, which the state attempted to account for with the creation of subsidized housing.<http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1300#_ftn2>[2]) Of the many absurd features of the adoption of public video surveillance, there are three notable injustices that will arise. First, how will government decide where the cameras will be placed? Obviously the purpose of the tactic is to aid the ineffectual law enforcement in high crime areas, but whose property will be in the eye of the lens? Clearly, this is just another instance of subsidization, some benefit at the expense of others. Secondly, which of the state's personnel will view the footage and judge how such footage can be used? Further, who is to determine the legitimacy or conclusiveness of evidence caught on tape? Could someone smoking a cigarette be accused of smoking dope, or could someone sipping a milkshake in their car be accused of drinking and driving? Finally, who or what will set limits on the usage of the cameras? When will usage go too far? What ludicrous, illegitimate new laws condemning victimless crimes will be passed for individuals to uphold once personal activities on private property have been publicized? These chief issues surrounding the implementation of public surveillance merely scratch the surface into what such measures would certainly bring about. Although it is difficult for many to admit, public law enforcement is characterized by the same traits that are exhibited in all government provided goods and services. Likewise, the recent trend within the sector provides a perfect example of the injustices and inefficiencies of such programs. Analysis of the current crime situation plaguing cities around the nation reveals the irony of state-run defense. By monopolizing law enforcement, the state has taken up the responsibility of protecting everyone within its borders, and the certain failures guaranteed by such measures have manifested themselves. A primary reason for these shortcomings is the shortage of law enforcement services. In providing a "free" service<http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1300#_ftn3>[3] such as police and courts, the state has essentially fixed the price of protection below the market price thus setting the demand for such services far beyond supply. Additionally, in regulating private police and security agencies to the point where an array of justified measures have been simply outlawed, the state is the only source of legal defense. Being that individuals seeking defense have no other legal means of protection than the state, what incentive does the state have to operate efficiently? Since the service is already funded by the taxes, and individuals cannot patronize another defender, the state can thoughtlessly surf its monopoly wave. What, then, is the most efficient, just solution? As is the case with every good and service that constitute the economy, freedom. Unregulated markets are characterized by the tendency of resources to move toward their most efficient, most demanded uses; hence defense services would naturally shift to traditionally high-crime areas, creating competition and overall lower prices. Free market law enforcement would operate as insurance does, save for the current regulations on that industry. Individuals would purchase defense services, if they so desired, on a subscription basis paying premiums as stipulated in contract. Different levels of coverage would exist so as to best satisfy the demands of the consumer. Through competition, inefficient and corrupt bandit agencies, like some current police forces around the nation, would undoubtedly find themselves bankrupt as the proficient, just agencies best satisfy individuals' needs. It would be likely that group services would become widespread whereby individuals living in the same community would pool their funds to purchase defense for the group as a whole. Likewise, if individuals felt as though they could defend themselves, without aid, the option is theirs. No one can deny the fact that public law enforcement falls short of being a success. However, many believe that the solution is giving more entitlement to the state to allocate funds for improvements, such as the installation of surveillance cameras. Society has come to allow government too much clout, entrusting it with too many responsibilities, granting it an abundance of control. When individuals face tribulations or the status of the economy is in shambles, people see the state as the source of salvation instead of the source of the problem. Erich Mattei is an economics major at Loyola University of New Orleans. <mailto:ehmattei@loyno.edu>ehmattei(a)loyno.edu. <http://www.mises.org/articles.asp?mode=a&author=Mattei>See his archive. <http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1300#_ftnref1>[1] The Times-Picayune. Saturday, August 9, 2003. A1, A7. <http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1300#_ftnref2>[2] See Block, Walter, & Edgar Olsen. Rent Control: Myths and Realities. The Fraser Institute. Vancouver, British Columbia: 1981. <http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1300#_ftnref3>[3] Obviously these services are not free being that they are funded by plunder, i.e. taxes. See Rothbard, Murray. Power and Market. 2nd Edition. Sheed Andrews and McMeel, Inc. Kansas City: 1977. 1734. <http://www.mises.org//fullstory.asp?printFriendly=Yes&control=1300>[Print Friendly Page] <http://www.mises.org/blog.asp> <http://www.mises.org/elist.asp>Mises Email List Services <https://www.mises.org/donate.asp>Join the Mises Institute <http://www.mises.org/store>Mises.org Store <http://www.mises.org/>Home | <http://www.mises.org/about.asp>About | <http://www.mises.org/elist.asp>Email List | <http://www.google.com/u/Mises>Search | <http://www.mises.org/contact.asp>Contact Us | <http://www.mises.org/journals.asp>Periodicals | <http://www.mises.org/articles.asp>Articles | <http://www.mises.org/fun.asp>Games & Fun <http://www.mises.org/news.asp>News | <http://www.mises.org/scholar.asp>Resources | <http://www.mises.org/catalog.asp>Catalog | <https://www.mises.org/donate.asp>Contributions | <http://www.mises.org/calendar.asp>Freedom Calendar You are subscribed as: rahettinga(a)earthlink.net To unsubscribe, click here: <http://mises.biglist.com/unsub.php/article/rahettinga@earthlink.net> http://mises.biglist.com/unsub.php/article/rahettinga@earthlink.net or e-mail: <mailto:article-unsubscribe-rahettinga=earthlink.net@mises.biglist.com> article-unsubscribe-rahettinga=earthlink.net(a)mises.biglist.com --- end forwarded text -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

[Politech] Google fixes the ban-beer-and-joke-site problem in China [fs]
by Declan McCullagh 05 Jul '18

05 Jul '18

Google has fixed the problem of buggy Chinese censorship: http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6032118.html Previous Politech message: http://www.politechbot.com/2006/01/26/google-censors-more/ Also, while we're on the topic, there's a Human Rights Caucus meeting on Wednesday. The caucus asked Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, and Cisco to show, but theyr'e not going to: http://news.com.com/2100-1030_3-6033064.html But they do plan to go to one on Feb. 15 organized by a House International Relations subcommittee. It's chaired by Rep. Chris Smith, R-NJ, who last week accused Google of "collaborating with their persecutors," a reference to China: http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/nj04_smith/printernetchina.html I'm sure the hearing will be entirely fair and balanced. -Declan _______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/) ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]

1 0

[tt] UK's first police drone takes to the skies
by Christian Weisgerber 05 Jul '18

05 Jul '18

http://www.merseyside.police.uk/html/news/news/may/cd21-05b-police.htm UK's first police drone takes to the skies Police in Merseyside are taking the fight against crime to new heights, with the launch of the UK's first police drone. The drone will take to Merseyside's skies in June and will support the Force's ongoing fight against crime and anti-social behaviour. The investment is part of Merseyside's Total Policing approach, with a focus on using technology to tackle criminals. The drone - which is being trialled by the Force - uses the same type of camera facilities as the Force's helicopter and high visibility CCTV vans on the roads. Assistant Chief Constable Simon Byrne explains how unmanned technology provides a new, cost effective way of capturing vital evidence on camera and putting more officers on the beat. The trial is being supported by the Home Office Crime and Drug Directorate. Support the Anti-Social Behaviour taskforce "We're always looking at ways of putting more officers on the streets, and maximising technology is a powerful way of achieving this. Our drone will be used primarily to support our anti-social behaviour taskforce AXIS, in gathering all important evidence to put offenders before the courts. "Other uses may include monitoring public disorder, crowd control during large scale events, and use during traffic congestion. We're also looking at its potential during firearm operations. For us, this is a cost-effective way of helping to catch criminals and supports similar technology we're already using in our vans and helicopter." The Force introduced high visibility CCTV vans in 2001 as a deterrent to crime. The Force's helicopter is also equipped with evidence gathering equipment, including the new spotterscope system, which enables officers to gather evidence from the skies. 'Reduce crime through the use of new technology' The Force's first drone is one metre in span and weighs less than a kilogram. It will be operational with the Force's AXIS team some time in June, and more drones could also be on the horizon in the future. ACC Byrne added: "We have spent the last six months working closely with the manufacturer MWPower to test its capability and safety. We're reassured that it meets all our expectations and are hoping to introduce more drones in the future." Deputy Director of the Police, Crime and Standards Directorate, Stephen Cahill, said: "We are pleased to support Merseyside Police in their efforts to reduce crime through the use of new technology. This trial is the first of its kind in the country and we're excited about its potential." date added: 21 May 2007 updated: n/a -- Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy(a)mips.inka.de _______________________________________________ tt mailing list tt(a)postbiota.org http://postbiota.org/mailman/listinfo/tt ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

[btns] Document Action: 'Problem and Applicability Statement for Better Than Nothing Security (BTNS)' to Informational RFC
by The IESG 05 Jul '18

05 Jul '18

The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Problem and Applicability Statement for Better Than Nothing Security (BTNS) ' <draft-ietf-btns-prob-and-applic-07.txt> as an Informational RFC This document is the product of the Better-Than-Nothing Security Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Tim Polk and Pasi Eronen. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-btns-prob-and-applic-07.txt Technical Summary The Internet network security protocol suite, IPsec, consisting of IKE, ESP, and AH, generally requires authentication of network layer entities to bootstrap security. This authentication can be based on mechanisms such as pre-shared symmetric keys, certificates and associated asymmetric keys, or the use of Kerberos. The need to deploy authentication information and its associated identities to network layer entities can be a significant obstacle to use of network security. This document explains the rationale for extending the Internet network security suite to enable use of IPsec security mechanisms without authentication. These extensions are intended to protect communication in a "better than nothing" (BTNS) fashion. The extensions may be used on their own (Stand Alone BTNS, or SAB), or may be useful in providing network layer security that can be authenticated by higher layers in the protocol stack, called Channel Bound BTNS (CBB). This document also explains situations in which use of SAB and CBB extensions are appropriate. Working Group Summary This document is a product of the Better Than Nothing Security (BTNS) working group. Document Quality This document was reviewed by Sam Hartman for the IESG. Personnel The Document Shepherd for this document is Julien Laganier (BTNS co-chair) and the Responsible Area Director is Tim Polk. _______________________________________________ btns mailing list btns(a)ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/btns ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

[serval-project-dev] Re: Serval Mesh
by Paul Wolstenholme 05 Jul '18

05 Jul '18

Congratulations to the team on all the good work done to date. Paul Gardner-Stephen wrote "we also have ideas about how to provide financial incentive for users to participate fully in the mesh, but I am not in a position to describe that fully right now." I have been musing about exactly that issue (encouraging fair participation in a mesh network) for some time. This therefore seems to be a good time to introduce myself to the group and offer an alternative point of view: My background is that of an electrical engineer involved in communications and control systems, including product design. Don't let this first posting fool you. I have no political leanings or agenda and don't believe my suggestions here would apply to human society - just to a 'society' of meshed nodes... When designing a communication protocol, it is convenient to draw from and adapt our existing experience. I prefer to think of how cooperative people might interact with each other as a model for how mesh nodes might interact cooperatively. The use of currency in our society is a very familiar concept and we understand how it can encourage a degree of fairness in how we interact. Paul G-S has already noted some of the difficulties in implementing a currency electronically. I would like to add my observation that the use of currency doesn't result in the fair sharing of resources anyway since it results in very rich and very poor people. Perhaps we should be looking for a better solution both in terms of ease of implementation and the ability to achieve the desired outcome. So what traits of cooperative people can be applied to mesh nodes? Some people like to give away a proportion of what they have or receive for the purpose of helping others. The open source community who give the fruits of their spare-time labours for all to use are certainly an example. Some believe that new arrivals from other places should be considered worthy recipients for such generosity. Indeed, the open source community is known for welcoming newcomers and investing time in helping them learn to cooperate within the community. If mesh network nodes behaved in the same sort of way, we start to think of nodes that roam to a new network as a guest to welcome rather than a foreigner who shouldn't participate until his currency is converted. If we accept the concept of mesh nodes giving some service to other nodes for free, we are free to look at payment for service in a different way. By giving service (such as relaying messages) without agreeing a price and demanding verifiable payment beforehand, I expect the protocol could be simplified. That is not to say there is no payment. It is fair that the recipient of service offer a similar amount of service in return. Users that do play fairly in all respects increase the trust that the service provider has in the service user. It would be fair for a node to save most of its resource (bandwidth or battery energy) to serve nodes it trusts. The resources a node gives away without being paid in return could be limited to a fraction of the available resource. So the next question is as to what should constitute payment. For communication within a mesh network, a promise to relay messages should be payment enough for messages relayed. But how long does the promise need to be valid for? Traditional currency holds its value indefinitely while slowly losing value through inflation - all of which is difficult to model electronically. Realistically, a node that promises to relay messages isn't necessarily capable of keeping such promises for longer than the charge in its battery. Perhaps all such promises should be time-limited and expire if not used. I believe the time limit will help with record keeping - although I'm not sure how long the time limit should be. The more enduring record, however, should be the level of trust that one node has for another following many successful transactions. If the nodes in our mesh network behaved in this way, it would encourage a system where high users of communication traffic (meaning nodes sending lots of messages or sending messages over many hops) need to provide high levels of service to others in order to be trusted enough to get the service they want. If trust is built slowly, greed would be discouraged in the long term. This would not stop a highly trusted node from successsfuly requesting high levels of service on the odd ocassion when it is required. I could go on with musings about sharing credit (or promises of service) with those that are highly trusted or giving it away before it expires, but these are just thoughts for now. Proper modelling and implementation are beyond what I can envisage so far. I've never claimed to be good at presenting my ideas but I would be interested in hearing the shortcomings in this concept - and how they might be overcome. Personally, I think using the concept of trust means we can get away with short-term promises of service rather than standardising a currency. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Serval Project Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to serval-project-developers(a)googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to serval-project-developers+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/serval-project-developers?hl=en. ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

Re: [tor-talk] Forbes article: Tor and Bitcoin
by Gregory Maxwell 05 Jul '18

05 Jul '18

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 11:51 PM, grarpamp <grarpamp(a)gmail.com> wrote: > http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmatonis/2012/06/19/torwallet-sparks-trust-wi… A word to the wise: Perhaps this is an earnest effort, but it's impossible to tell. From appearances it is indistinguishable from a scam which will accrue a large amount of third party owned bitcoin and either vanish or get "hacked". Promotion on the Forbes.com site shouldn't be taken to signify any evidence of reputability. I've seen first hand that they do not do much research for this sort of thing, and articles there have previously plugged services operated by people known to have stolen from others. Anonymity can an important tool for social good, but it can also be misused people should take great caution in handing over control of valuable information to parties that operate under the veil of anonymity. Many people have been robbed under similar circumstances. The open source Bitcoin client software runs excellently over Tor. If you want to use Bitcoin anonymously its a good combination and you don't need services like this website. The next major release of the Bitcoin software will feature much better support for inbound connections in hidden services and automatic hidden service peer discovery, making it work even better. _______________________________________________ tor-talk mailing list tor-talk(a)lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

Re: [tor-talk] blocked exit node IP because of spam
by Gregory Maxwell 05 Jul '18

05 Jul '18

On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Sam Whited <sam(a)samwhited.com> wrote: > Tor is designed to keep people anonymous; this works for both the good > guys, and the bad. This isn't something the Tor Project needs to fix There are things the tor project and surrounding community could do to help here. For example, If I could anonymously donate $10 to a charity and in return receive a persistent nym which I could use to get around those kinds of blocks... I'd be hesitant to misbehave and get my nym blocked. (And forums should feel good about whatever small residual amount of spammers who do buy donation nyms, because even though they spam their need to keep buying nyms support the charities). But no practical software infrastructure exists for this sort of thing today. And until it does any education/advocacy will not go too far because it doesn't offer much in terms of real alternatives. "It's not really so bad." "Yes it is, or we wouldn't have bothered putting in the blocking in the first place" "er.." _______________________________________________ tor-talk mailing list tor-talk(a)lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

Costs of the Surveillance State
by Mises Daily Article 05 Jul '18

05 Jul '18

<http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1300>http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1300 Costs of the Surveillance State by Erich Mattei [Posted August 27, 2003] Police departments around the nation have begun utilizing high-tech video surveillance in their fight against crime, as the private sector has for many years. Officials in New Orleans recently announced that by October the city plans to have installed 100 of these surveillance cameras within its limits. The plan, which will eventually see the installation of 1,000 cameras throughout the city, is part of an effort to further combat crime in certain "hot spots."<http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1300#_ftn1>[1] New Orleans Police Department spokesman Sgt. Paul Accardo said that in July alone suspects in two separate slayings were captured thanks to the footage caught on surveillance. The city is now one of more than a dozen cities around the nation that are using surveillance to deter crime and identify criminals. The implementation of public video surveillance is a direct result of the inefficiencies of state law enforcement. As a result, instead of loosening regulations and allowing individuals to purchase protection for themselves from private agencies, the state is attempting to account for its own incompetence. (This issue has followed the same path as the evolution of the housing crisis of past decades, whereby state imposed rent control and standards created a shortage of affordable housing, which the state attempted to account for with the creation of subsidized housing.<http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1300#_ftn2>[2]) Of the many absurd features of the adoption of public video surveillance, there are three notable injustices that will arise. First, how will government decide where the cameras will be placed? Obviously the purpose of the tactic is to aid the ineffectual law enforcement in high crime areas, but whose property will be in the eye of the lens? Clearly, this is just another instance of subsidization, some benefit at the expense of others. Secondly, which of the state's personnel will view the footage and judge how such footage can be used? Further, who is to determine the legitimacy or conclusiveness of evidence caught on tape? Could someone smoking a cigarette be accused of smoking dope, or could someone sipping a milkshake in their car be accused of drinking and driving? Finally, who or what will set limits on the usage of the cameras? When will usage go too far? What ludicrous, illegitimate new laws condemning victimless crimes will be passed for individuals to uphold once personal activities on private property have been publicized? These chief issues surrounding the implementation of public surveillance merely scratch the surface into what such measures would certainly bring about. Although it is difficult for many to admit, public law enforcement is characterized by the same traits that are exhibited in all government provided goods and services. Likewise, the recent trend within the sector provides a perfect example of the injustices and inefficiencies of such programs. Analysis of the current crime situation plaguing cities around the nation reveals the irony of state-run defense. By monopolizing law enforcement, the state has taken up the responsibility of protecting everyone within its borders, and the certain failures guaranteed by such measures have manifested themselves. A primary reason for these shortcomings is the shortage of law enforcement services. In providing a "free" service<http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1300#_ftn3>[3] such as police and courts, the state has essentially fixed the price of protection below the market price thus setting the demand for such services far beyond supply. Additionally, in regulating private police and security agencies to the point where an array of justified measures have been simply outlawed, the state is the only source of legal defense. Being that individuals seeking defense have no other legal means of protection than the state, what incentive does the state have to operate efficiently? Since the service is already funded by the taxes, and individuals cannot patronize another defender, the state can thoughtlessly surf its monopoly wave. What, then, is the most efficient, just solution? As is the case with every good and service that constitute the economy, freedom. Unregulated markets are characterized by the tendency of resources to move toward their most efficient, most demanded uses; hence defense services would naturally shift to traditionally high-crime areas, creating competition and overall lower prices. Free market law enforcement would operate as insurance does, save for the current regulations on that industry. Individuals would purchase defense services, if they so desired, on a subscription basis paying premiums as stipulated in contract. Different levels of coverage would exist so as to best satisfy the demands of the consumer. Through competition, inefficient and corrupt bandit agencies, like some current police forces around the nation, would undoubtedly find themselves bankrupt as the proficient, just agencies best satisfy individuals' needs. It would be likely that group services would become widespread whereby individuals living in the same community would pool their funds to purchase defense for the group as a whole. Likewise, if individuals felt as though they could defend themselves, without aid, the option is theirs. No one can deny the fact that public law enforcement falls short of being a success. However, many believe that the solution is giving more entitlement to the state to allocate funds for improvements, such as the installation of surveillance cameras. Society has come to allow government too much clout, entrusting it with too many responsibilities, granting it an abundance of control. When individuals face tribulations or the status of the economy is in shambles, people see the state as the source of salvation instead of the source of the problem. Erich Mattei is an economics major at Loyola University of New Orleans. <mailto:ehmattei@loyno.edu>ehmattei(a)loyno.edu. <http://www.mises.org/articles.asp?mode=a&author=Mattei>See his archive. <http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1300#_ftnref1>[1] The Times-Picayune. Saturday, August 9, 2003. A1, A7. <http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1300#_ftnref2>[2] See Block, Walter, & Edgar Olsen. Rent Control: Myths and Realities. The Fraser Institute. Vancouver, British Columbia: 1981. <http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1300#_ftnref3>[3] Obviously these services are not free being that they are funded by plunder, i.e. taxes. See Rothbard, Murray. Power and Market. 2nd Edition. Sheed Andrews and McMeel, Inc. Kansas City: 1977. 1734. <http://www.mises.org//fullstory.asp?printFriendly=Yes&control=1300>[Print Friendly Page] <http://www.mises.org/blog.asp> <http://www.mises.org/elist.asp>Mises Email List Services <https://www.mises.org/donate.asp>Join the Mises Institute <http://www.mises.org/store>Mises.org Store <http://www.mises.org/>Home | <http://www.mises.org/about.asp>About | <http://www.mises.org/elist.asp>Email List | <http://www.google.com/u/Mises>Search | <http://www.mises.org/contact.asp>Contact Us | <http://www.mises.org/journals.asp>Periodicals | <http://www.mises.org/articles.asp>Articles | <http://www.mises.org/fun.asp>Games & Fun <http://www.mises.org/news.asp>News | <http://www.mises.org/scholar.asp>Resources | <http://www.mises.org/catalog.asp>Catalog | <https://www.mises.org/donate.asp>Contributions | <http://www.mises.org/calendar.asp>Freedom Calendar You are subscribed as: rahettinga(a)earthlink.net To unsubscribe, click here: <http://mises.biglist.com/unsub.php/article/rahettinga@earthlink.net> http://mises.biglist.com/unsub.php/article/rahettinga@earthlink.net or e-mail: <mailto:article-unsubscribe-rahettinga=earthlink.net@mises.biglist.com> article-unsubscribe-rahettinga=earthlink.net(a)mises.biglist.com --- end forwarded text -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

[Politech] Google fixes the ban-beer-and-joke-site problem in China [fs]
by Declan McCullagh 05 Jul '18

05 Jul '18

Google has fixed the problem of buggy Chinese censorship: http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6032118.html Previous Politech message: http://www.politechbot.com/2006/01/26/google-censors-more/ Also, while we're on the topic, there's a Human Rights Caucus meeting on Wednesday. The caucus asked Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, and Cisco to show, but theyr'e not going to: http://news.com.com/2100-1030_3-6033064.html But they do plan to go to one on Feb. 15 organized by a House International Relations subcommittee. It's chaired by Rep. Chris Smith, R-NJ, who last week accused Google of "collaborating with their persecutors," a reference to China: http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/nj04_smith/printernetchina.html I'm sure the hearing will be entirely fair and balanced. -Declan _______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/) ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]

1 0

[tt] UK's first police drone takes to the skies
by Christian Weisgerber 05 Jul '18

05 Jul '18

http://www.merseyside.police.uk/html/news/news/may/cd21-05b-police.htm UK's first police drone takes to the skies Police in Merseyside are taking the fight against crime to new heights, with the launch of the UK's first police drone. The drone will take to Merseyside's skies in June and will support the Force's ongoing fight against crime and anti-social behaviour. The investment is part of Merseyside's Total Policing approach, with a focus on using technology to tackle criminals. The drone - which is being trialled by the Force - uses the same type of camera facilities as the Force's helicopter and high visibility CCTV vans on the roads. Assistant Chief Constable Simon Byrne explains how unmanned technology provides a new, cost effective way of capturing vital evidence on camera and putting more officers on the beat. The trial is being supported by the Home Office Crime and Drug Directorate. Support the Anti-Social Behaviour taskforce "We're always looking at ways of putting more officers on the streets, and maximising technology is a powerful way of achieving this. Our drone will be used primarily to support our anti-social behaviour taskforce AXIS, in gathering all important evidence to put offenders before the courts. "Other uses may include monitoring public disorder, crowd control during large scale events, and use during traffic congestion. We're also looking at its potential during firearm operations. For us, this is a cost-effective way of helping to catch criminals and supports similar technology we're already using in our vans and helicopter." The Force introduced high visibility CCTV vans in 2001 as a deterrent to crime. The Force's helicopter is also equipped with evidence gathering equipment, including the new spotterscope system, which enables officers to gather evidence from the skies. 'Reduce crime through the use of new technology' The Force's first drone is one metre in span and weighs less than a kilogram. It will be operational with the Force's AXIS team some time in June, and more drones could also be on the horizon in the future. ACC Byrne added: "We have spent the last six months working closely with the manufacturer MWPower to test its capability and safety. We're reassured that it meets all our expectations and are hoping to introduce more drones in the future." Deputy Director of the Police, Crime and Standards Directorate, Stephen Cahill, said: "We are pleased to support Merseyside Police in their efforts to reduce crime through the use of new technology. This trial is the first of its kind in the country and we're excited about its potential." date added: 21 May 2007 updated: n/a -- Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy(a)mips.inka.de _______________________________________________ tt mailing list tt(a)postbiota.org http://postbiota.org/mailman/listinfo/tt ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0