- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: A Disservice to Mr. Bell
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:19 PM 11/13/96 -0500, Phillip M. Hallam-Baker wrote: >Jim Bell writes > >> There are, I think, two reasons that the equity court system (and their >> sleazy lawyers, both on and off the bench) are worried. First, what they >> have now is, effectively, a monopoly on "justice." The re-emergence of >> commonlaw courts would provide competition that has been long gone. >Think >> of it like any monopoly that suddenly has to accept competition. > >A bunch of self selected whackos running a kangeroo court does not mark a >return to "commonlaw courts". As for the "self-selected" issue: In almost all areas of human endeavor, things are (often? usually?) done by people who are "self-selected." I suggest that there is simply no reason that even "self-selected" courts cannot work. And for the "wacko" part: To a great extent, the people who would tend to oppose the re-emergence of commonlaw courts are those who are the ones who most benefit from the monopoly (oligopoly?) on justice which has developed over many decades. Judges, prosecutors, and lawyers of course profit directly. But psychologically, people wedded to a statist philosophy would have their precious worlds overturned. They're not happy. Also: The reason for an (apparent, implied) association with extremism is, simply, because the system has been suppressed (actively or passively) for so long that it tends to be the "extremists" which most notice the possibilities of a commonlaw court. This is quite analogous with the fact that the label "extremists" was almost certainly applied to the revolutionaries who proposed the American Revolution, the abolition of slavery, giving the vote to women, pushed civil rights in the US during the 50's and 60's, etc. By definition, people proposing a change in the status quo are "extremists," if they weren't they wouldn't be proposing a change, huh?!? And this goes back to the "self-selected" issue above as well. While the main work of commonlaw courts, today, is the reversal of the abuses of the equity court system, as the commonlaw courts become once again well accepted they will simply not need to stand out and look "extreme" as they may look to you, today. > Such courts do not exist within the constitution >of the United States. Unlike the UK the US has a written constitution, if >it isn't written down on paper then it does not exist. You're obviously confused. 1. Commonlaw courts predate the US Constitution by a few hundred years. The former does not depend on the latter for authority or credibility. 2. The US Constitution is, at most, a statement of the authority of the FEDERAL portion of government. It is, arguably, only a statement of the powers granted to the Feds by the people; it is most certainly not intended to be a statement of every right retained by the people. (In fact, the 9th and 10th amendments make it clear that non-enumerated rights exist.) No authority over commonlaw courts (such as appointing judges) was given to the Feds by the people. 3. The Federal Constitution only references states, and I don't think it references state Constitutions at all. Yet clearly state Constitutions exist. Clearly, it isn't correct to say "if it isn't written down on paper then it does not exist." For example, people are not "written down on paper," yet they exist... > The structure of the courts, You should have said, SOME courts. Not "the courts," implying ALL the courts. Notice that the US Federal Constitution (at least, to my recollection) does not describe or regulate state courts, or for that matter local courts. Just Federal, which is as was intended. Given this, there is no reason to assume that commonlaw courts need to be described, authorized, or regulated by the Feds. If your argument is, "if it isn't defined by the Federal Constitution it doesn't exist," then you'd just destroyed your own argument. >the legislature and such was the principle task of the constitution, >that is why the bill of rights is a set of ammendments - they were an >afterthought. This has absolutely nothing to do with the commonlaw court system. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Worrying...
by Benjamin Grosman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Isn't it worrying that so many people can happily devote their time to trying to annoy others?

1 0

Re: PGP3.0 & ElGamal
by Gary Howland 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> At 10:43 pm -0500 11/13/96, Lucky Green wrote: > >I agree. Support for soon to be patent free algrithms is a good thing. I > >hope that in version 4.0, after the users had time to migrate to > >DSS/ElGamal, PGP will fully move away from RSA. > > Speaking of patent-free, :-), can you do blind signatures without RSA? I think it is possible using the both Diffie-Hellman and the RPK algorithm (developed by the New Zealand chap quite recently), although patents probably apply to the latter algorithm. Don't forget that for ecash style systems, only the *client* needs to do the blinding, not the bank. Gary -- "Of course the US Constitution isn't perfect; but it's a lot better than what we have now." -- Unknown. pub 1024/C001D00D 1996/01/22 Gary Howland <gary(a)systemics.com> Key fingerprint = 0C FB 60 61 4D 3B 24 7D 1C 89 1D BE 1F EE 09 06

1 0

Q.E.D |= Montgolfiering + Inbongis + Fermented Pear Juice
by wichita＠cyberstation.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Fermented Pear Juice == Supercilious Pap There they go again, the imperium, or so they think, of cryptographic shamans are trying to bamboozle list readers into believing their warped cryptographic gimcrackery. They do not need Zadoc to anoint themselves the Solomons of the cryptographic world. They think that they are perfectly capable of doing it to themselves. Have they ever cracked a single meaningful cryptographic system? Have they ever implemented a significant cryptographic system? Of course, I am not speaking of Dr. Ron Rivest and other rightfully honored members, but rather of that ragtag group of cryptographic medicine men that think they have all the answers to all the questions, that is, the small cypherlunks subset of cypherpunks/coderpunks. Despite their trifling anomalous performances, they have Napoleonically crowned themselves as the aristocracy of cryptography. They are not "au fait" august, aureate practitioners, rather "au fond", they are narcistic harlequins, "fons et origino" of their own and claque homologated mirages of autistic cryptographic fantasies. Remember, how that self appointed College of Cryptographic Cardinals cannonaded me, and you, with a fusillade of self serving avowals such as, "we do not do it for money, we do it for the public good", "it is our duty to expose snake oil salesmen", "I feel a snake oil attack coming on", "it is a public service", "we owe it to the public, to protect them against charlatans," and on and on "ad nauseam," with their silly putty rodomontades. Now that their pusillanimity has been exposed for all to see clearly, they have apparently adopted the opportune, timorous motto of "sauve qui puet." They have proved themselves to be an alliance of fainaiguers that change their tunes when called to task. How many of them want to do it for the public good, now ? How many want to expose the snake oil salesman, now? How many of them want to protect the public, now? Not one. Show me, us, one of them that is not intellectually tremulous. They leaped into the contest when they sensed blood, but now they realize that it is their blood to be spilled, they shirk from their intellectual responsibilities. All of the Sir Galihads and Sir Lancelots of yesterday, have proved themselves to be Sir Coward Chickens now, as everyone can plainly discern. Most of them have chosen the exeunt course and are now hiding their heads in the sand, hoping that no one will take note of them. Where are all those chivalrous cryptographic knights now? I am sure that if asked, most would reply to the effect that they are "otherwise engaged," which parses to "nonpossumus," and only the most naive could fail to recognize that. What has become of their chivalry? Quite simply, the impersonate knights have become loathly benighted. The cypherlunks, riffraff, were quick to engage in jousting over OTP logomachy because they thought that all they had to do was beat their fingers on the keyboard and cite Shannon. The neologizing of the term "Software OTP," drove them into an uncontrolled frenzy of attacks. Alas, to do so, did not tax their notional mental facilities. On the other hand, when challenged to demonstrate their cryptanalytical skills, the cypherlunks became panic stricken and in mass hysteria took flight in frightened awe of the IPG algorithm. Their knightly bravado and braggadocio were hastily jettisoned in their wild flight away and superseded by their otiose nihility. That flock of cryptographic turkeys, a.k.a. cypherlunks, flew off to their clangorous roosts. There, though the more intelligent became quiescent as circumstances dictated, the court jesters started wildly flapping their wings and gobbling out their gobbledygook in order to becloud and confuse people about the proffer of the heretic. Those clowns were, and are, trying to create the illusion that their incondite cryptographic skills are irrefutable because they say it is so, and that makes it so. I think that those cypherlunk fabulists should adopt the apropos motto, "Talk very loudly and carry a tiny turkey feather duster." Their quixotic sallies into cryptanalytics are quintessential asininities. They are not subduing great crypto dragons, or giants, or even midgets, not even windmills; they, even more than Quixote, are merely fantasizing their efficaciousness. Their only significant cryptographic artifices are locked forever within the confines of their convoluted individual and collective minds. The cypherlunk's nympholeptic calliope of reciprocal "inbongis" is indicative proof of their total capitulation in the face of the impregnable IPG algorithm. Their clannish drum beating, high fiving, and back slapping of each other is reactionary declamatory histrionics. What a tragic waste. If there was only some way to channel and divert that energy atrophy into productive causes. For example, illimitable outrage against the dissonant alliance of Freeh and Saddam Hussein in trying to prevent their citizenry from having unbreakable encryption technologies. Gore and Rashanjanti are also advocating similar polices with respect to encryption restrictions. We must recognize that Gore, Reno, Freeh, Exon, and others similarly situated believe they are doing what is right. The fact though is, that by so doing they are becoming welcome allies of Hussein, Qadaffi, Rashanjanti, Castro and other human rights oppressors. That is a red flag if there was ever one. It raises the irreconcilable question of how can both groups in such an unseemly alliance be right. Obviously they cannot. Accordingly, that existential incongruence succinctly points out the dichotomous character of the question of whether or not unbreakable encryption technologies should be made openly available to everyone. In reality, the question though is not even close. While granted that there may be some criminals and terrorists who will pervert the use of encrypted communications, the number is extremely small because most such malefactors are far too ignorant and in too much of a hurry. If we spent a fraction of the saved money on openly bribing accomplices, far better emanations would be forthcoming. Furthermore, even if unbreakable encryption systems were allowed, law enforcement would still have an immense arsenal, existing and developing, of far more efficacious technological weapons available to them. Cryptanalytics has become the tiny tail that continues to wag the immense dog of intelligence gathering. A few powerful oligarchs are screaming "the sky is falling, the sky is falling," in order to protect their "Hillistic" empires. Wake up, the sky is not falling, and it is not going to fall anytime soon. Oh, those all powerful empire builders think they are doing what is proper and prudent for our country and its people, but they are absolutely wrong. The good far outweighs the bad on the balance scales. We desperately need unbreakable encryption technologies to aid and abet freedom fighters against tyranny around the world, and that is the reason that Hussein, Castro, Rashanjanti, and others of that persuasion are opposed to unbreakable encryption systems. We also need it in order to make it possible for individuals to protect their privacy in the onrushing information age. We also need it to so that businesses can protect their proprietary and other vital interests when essentially everything goes online. Unbreakable encryption will also insure for all people that governments do not wantonly intrude into their lives. To paraphrase FDR, "the only thing that we have to fear about unbreakable encryption systems, is the misplaced fear that it will do more harm than good." If the Internet and the Information Age are to achieve their potential to build us a better world, then unbreakable encryption technologies must be one of the irreplaceable cornerstones on which such a future can be built. We, who favor the advancement of the view that I am advocating, will not win by adhering to reactionary defensive tactics. We must go on the offensive. We need to bombard our Representatives and Senators with e-mail questioning why Castro, Freeh, Gore, Hussein, Qadaffi, Rashanjanti, Reno, Sung, Jr. and others that disagree about almost everything else are allies with respect to denying the public the use of unbreakable encryption technologies. Also, ask them, how are we ever going to be able to address the privacy issues in the information age without such encryption systems. Additionally, tell them about how we are handing over a multi-billion dollar market to foreign competitors because of the ITAR export ban, billions of dollars a year now and growing. We can win this affray because we are obviously in the right but we must become much more proactive by making everyone aware of all of the good things that will accrue to our human species by doing what we are advocating, That is the only real way to effectively combat those who mistakenly are taking the myopic view that we should not do it because it will help the criminals and terrorists. Guns and explosives help maleficence elements too, but we do not outlaw them because they serve other very useful purposes, and the same thing is obviously true with with respect to unbreakable encryption technologies. Back to the IPG system, we believe that you would like to know that commencing this date, IPG is advertising as follows: "In addition to posting the algorithm(s) at our web site: http://www.netprivacy.com IPG has also posted the algorithm(s) to a number of other sites, including Universities in the United States and Canada, as well as the famed Cypherpunks and Coderpunks lists. Since the IPG algorithm is impregnable, obviously no individual, or collection of individuals, from said Universities, the Cypherpunks, or the Coderpunks has been able to crack the system. Of course, this inability to do the impossible applies not only to the present but for all time, for all eternity." Of course what we are saying is obviously true, and we thought you might want to know. Thanks so very much, Don Wood

5 5

Fwd: Whitehouse news flash!!!
by Iwar 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Subject: Whitehouse news flash!!! From: WhiteHouse(a)aol.com Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 20:02:19 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: twang38(a)aol.com <a href="http://free4you.hypermart.net/promo2.html">Click Here for more information!!</a>

1 0

Re: "Freedom Knights" are closet censors
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

What is "censoring other people's censorship?" Say I argue in favor of the CDA. Would you censor me then? Why not? Isn't this censoring others censorship? I wonder why the so-called "Freedom Knights" are so insecure in their beliefs that they will not tolerate a dissenting voice on their mailing list. (Let's forget for the moment that my point in subscribing was to disrupt it. That's not the point, is it? "More speech, more speech!") -Declan Founder, Boycott Freedom Knights society, Washington, DC chapter On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Dave Hayes wrote: > > The so-called "Freedom Knights" have censored me from their mailing list. > > Dave Hayes refuses to let me subscribe and read and contribute to the > > discussions there. Why? Simply because he doesn't like what I have to say. > > I might criticize him. Truly, censorship says more about the censor than > > the censored. > > Notice that I now have you arguing -my- side of the argument. Are you > so easily controlled? Have you asked yourself why you are that way? > > > John Gilmore, on the other hand, has been much more tolerant. He allows > > anyone to subscribe to cypherpunks and only kicked one person off after > > months of ranting and off-topic drivel. > > An ineffective move with symbolic complications that affect no one but > him. Why do you support this? > > > And I wonder why the Freedom Knights want to censor certain newsgroups. As > > in their FAQ, where they condemn speech they don't like on the alt.cancel > > and alt.nocem newsgroups and advise operators not to carry such > > groups. > > Ah, you finally got the newsgroups right. Good. > > I censor other people's censorship. That is what I do. Call me a > censor if you will, but if you were truly in support of free speech > you would understand. Since you don't, your cry of wolf demonstrates > the depth of your consideration of the subject matter. > > > I think it's time to lift the veil from this public Net-menace! > > Knock ya-self out. > > > Founder, Boycott Freedom Knights society, Washington, DC chapter > > You -do- realize, of course, that you have to organize the people > and create a large group of opposers to my cause. > > That is your destiny. Carry it out. > ------ > Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org > Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet > > Nasrudin arrived at an all-comers horse race mounted on the slowest of oxen. > Everyone laughed, an ox cannot run. > "But I have seen it, when it was only a calf, running faster than a horse.", > said Nasrudin. "So why should it not run faster, now that it is larger?" > > >

3 2

Censor John Gilmore -- EFF is a disgrace!
by aga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Declan McCullagh wrote: > Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 13:12:50 -0800 (PST) > From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> > Reply-To: freedom-knights(a)jetcafe.org > To: Dave Hayes <dave(a)kachina.jetcafe.org> > Cc: freedom-knights(a)jetcafe.org, cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News > > I am amused. I gave Dave Hayes about an 8.5 out of 10 on the scale of > meaningless political rants. > Jealousy rears it's ugly head. You just wish you had the credibility that Dave Hayes has. > I'll address some of his points. > Do it within his text as you are supposed to. > * "Political safety?" I stand by my record as a writer. Check out > http://www.eff.org/pub/Publications/Declan_McCullagh/ for some of my > recent articles. Political safety? Hardly. > This Declan_McCullagh is a long-time cabal.member, so his critique of a Freedom-Knight like Dave Hayes is to be given short shrift. > * Dave says "Notice that the net is compared to a home or private club." > Wrong. I never compared the Net to such. However, a mailing list run on a > computer in someone's home with his own cash is very similar to a private > club. There are private speech restrictions on the Net. Gated communities > exist. Try to join the "lawprofs" mailing list. You can't; you're not > (and quite obviously anything but) a law professor. Censorship? Not quite. > None of that analogy is applicable to the cyberpunks list. When a list gets as big as that, it it no longer to be considered a "mailing-list" but it is a _public_ forum. The whole problem here is the abuse of power by both the EFF and John Gilmore. > * Contrary to what you seem to be asserting, Gilmore hasn't blocked Vulis > from posting. > > * Dave warns us to consider "what would happen if one parent company owned > *all* communications media." Then we have problems. I've written about > this in an Internet Underground magazine column. However, this is not the > case now. Or are you arguing the government should get involved and force > Gilmore to allow Vulis on his list? > No, he is saying that people can use an e-mail filter and not listen to Vulis if they want to. It was a very simple thing; are you too uneducated to know how to use an e-mail filter? > By the way, if you haven't figured it out yet, Mr. "Freedom Knight of > Usenet," a private mailing list is NOT Usenet. Get a clue. > Wrong! The cyberpunks mailing list is PUBLIC property and should NOT be controlled by John Gilmore! This just goes to show the real facist censorship motives that the EFF has behind it. Time to kill the EFF, and let it rot in hell. They are disgrace to the entire InterNet community. I run 6 different mailing lists, and have NEVER puled the plug on anyone, even when they criticize me. The first time is the time when you lose all credibility, and there is never any forgiveness for a plug-puller. > -Declan > -aga.admin InterNet Freedom Council > > > > > > On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Dave Hayes wrote: > > > [This is a rebuttal to a misguided news article.] > > > > > Cypher-Censored > > > By Declan McCullagh (declan(a)well.com) > > > > Thank you for leaving your email address. It makes this easier. > > > > You people (read: the unaware and hypnotized masses, which includes > > reporters who's desire for attention and political safety holds them > > in line with the consensual illusion) keep missing the real issue, and > > substituting issues which only hold themselves in place. > > > > [Those of you who know, please excuse the mediaistic terms used in > > this rebuttal. One must use the symbols one is given to communicate > > at the level of understanding of those who use them.] > > > > > Thus began a debate over what the concept of censorship means in a > > > forum devoted to opposing it. Did Gilmore have the right to show Vulis > > > the virtual door? Or should he have let the ad hominem attacks > > > continue, encouraging people to set their filters accordingly? The > > > incident raises deeper questions about how a virtual community can > > > prevent one person from ruining the forum for all and whether only > > > government controls on expression can be called "censorship." > > > > "Cyberspace" is interacted with using tools under the control of the > > interactor. > > yes, and all you need is a simple mail filter. > > In person-to-person interaction, one's only real defense against what > > one decides to call "unwanted" is to remove oneself from the arena of > > interaction. It may not be possible to ignore or run away from certain > > sources of input. > > > > In cyberspace, however, it is not only possible but necessary and even > > desirable. Cyberspace allows one to interact with many more people > > then can fit in any given physical space. One simply -cannot- receive > > input from 2000 people and not employ some sort of filtering > > mechanism. Indeed, cyberspace has many buttons and switches (and even > > programmatic filters) which allow one to -completely- control whom one > > interacts with. > > > > Logically, we must conclude that those who frequently and repeatedly > > cry for the censorship or removal of any source of input from > > cyberspace are either: > > > > -quite clueless about the tools at their disposal > > -ideologically or personally opposed to the source of input > > or -in need of large amounts of attention from others > > > > Cluelessness can be overcome by appropriate teaching and interest in > > learning (the latter issue we can safely assume users of popular but > > ineffectual windowing OSes are not able to overcome). Such > > cluelessness, however, is not and should never be a reason for > > censorship. > > > > A need for attention can be overcome by refraining from the denial > > that the need exists, followed by careful observation of that need. > > More can be said on this, but this is not the forum. Such a need > > is not and should never be a reason for censorship. > > > > Idelological opposition is another matter entirely. To understand this > > better, we'll need to observe this in action. Here is an example: > > > > > Vulis portrays himself as a victim, but as I posted to the list > > > last week, I disagree. Anyone who's spent any time on the > > > 100-plus-messages-a-day list can read for themselves the kind of nasty > > > daily messages that came from Vulis's keyboard. > > > > "Nasty" is, of course, by this reporter's standard of "nasty". Granted > > this standard may in fact be shared by Mr. Gilmore, however a shared > > standard is not necessarily an appropriate or correct standard. > > > > > The list is on Gilmore's machine and he can do what he wants with > > > it; he can moderate the postings, he can censor material, he can > > > shut the whole thing down. By kicking off an offending user, a > > > list owner merely exercises his property right. There's no > > > government involvement, so the First Amendment doesn't apply. And > > > the deleted, disgruntled user is free to start his own mailing > > > list with different rules. > > > > Notice how, once the opposition is admitted to, the rationalization > > begins. Suddenly this is not a matter of censorship, but of ownership. > > Just as suddenly, the classic anti-free-speech arguments of "if you > > don't like it, start yer own" begin to surface. (Anyone ever notice > > how this resembles the "love it or leave it" mentality of certain > > American patriotic organizations?) > > > > What would ideological opposition be without the attempt at analogy? > > Here we witness another example: > > > > > But then the question is whether Gilmore should have exercised > > > that right, especially in such an open forum. Again, I think Gilmore's > > > actions were justified. Consider inviting someone into your home or > > > private club. If your guest is a boor, you might ask him to leave. If > > > your guest is an slobbish drunk of a boor, you have a responsibility > > > to require him to leave before he ruins the evening of others. > > > > Notice that the net is compared to a home or private club. Actually > > the net is neither, however that would not serve the purposes of this > > analogy, so this fact is convienently forgotton. > > > > The net is a wonderful place. Any ideology, no matter who disagrees or > > agrees with it, can be expressed and discussed here...assuming those > > who oppose this ideology do not have their way with the source of > > expression. There is a more refined and deeper truth to be found > > in the very existence of the set of all human ideologies, which is > > just beginning to show itself to some netizens. Unfortunately, this > > truth can be ruined when people equate some notion of value to > > sources which ignore all but a tiny subset of the set of all ideologies: > > > > > Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA, runs a number of mailing > > > lists and has kicked people off to maintain better editorial control. > > > Volokh says that the most valuable publications are those that > > > exercise the highest degree of editorial control. > > > > Value to whom and for what? If the editorial control produces one > > small element of the set of all ideologies, then this is only of value > > to the people who support this ideology. Given that the set of > > people who support an issue is smaller than the set of people > > who support and oppose an issue, would the value not increase > > by allowing both sides of an issue equal speaking time? > > > > > For his part, Gilmore calls removing the Russian mathematician "an > > > act of leadership." He says: "It said we've all been putting up with > > > this guy and it's time to stop. You're not welcome here... It seemed > > > to me that a lot of the posts on cypherpunks were missing the mark. > > > They seemed to have an idea that their ability to speak through my > > > machine was guaranteed by the Constitution." > > > > It is sad to note that this is the leader of one of America's > > forerunning organizations of freedom who says these words. For all > > *his* ideology of free speech, this statement reveals the hypocrasy he > > lives with for all to see. The true litmus test of free speech is to > > encounter speech that you *want* to censor. > > > > Mr. Gilmore, and other like minded parties, might want to consider > > what would happen if one parent company owned *all* communications > > media. Would they they be so supportive of the ideology of ownership > > and communciation they espouse? Indeed. The EFF is a disgrace to the entire InterNet. The EFF is definitely a censorship organization, and it should never be trusted again. > > ------ > > Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org > > Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet > > > > Truth (n.) - the most deadly weapon ever discovered by humanity. Capable > > of destroying entire perceptual sets, cultures, and realities. Outlawed > > by all governments everywhere. Possession is normally punishable by death. > > > > >

2 1

Re: PGP3.0 & ElGamal
by Clay Olbon II 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:06 PM 11/14/96 -0800, you wrote: >> >> I'm still mildly curious as to why support for >128 bit keys is not >> available in any form I know of. > > What do you mean? 3DES ships with Stronghold, and will ship >with C2Net's other products as well. Yes, but I believe 3DES has an effective key length of only 112 bits. Of course, even this is more than sufficient for a long time to come. Clay > >-- >Sameer Parekh Voice: 510-986-8770 >President FAX: 510-986-8777 >C2Net >http://www.c2.net/ sameer(a)c2.net > > ******************************************************* Clay Olbon clay.olbon(a)dynetics.com engineer, programmer, statistitian, etc. Dynetics, Inc. **********************************************tanstaafl

2 1

Re: Babble about universal service
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:43 AM 8/8/96 -0700, Declan McCullagh wrote: >(My objections to universal service are perhaps not surprising. It >devolves more power into the hands of the DC bureaucrats such as the FCC, >and provides a slippery slope on which we can slide down towards more and >more government regulation. By concentrating regulatory authority in the >Federal government, it also makes decisions more subsceptible to >special-interest lobbying and political patronage. But I recall Ronda has >been arguing for universal service for some time now, including on the >netizens mailing list.) It also lets the Feds say, "You can't have something until everyone has it." Besides we have universal service right now (in America anyway). Much more universal service than the Feds would have provided with decades of bureaucratic futzing around. Anyone in the US who wants to get wired can do so for very little money. All it takes is desire. The government can't provide the desire. DCF

1 0

Output of your job "cypherpunks"
by L-Soft list server at CCI (1.8b) 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> ok Confirming: > SIGNOFF NEWSLETTER You have been removed from the NEWSLETTER list. Summary of resource utilization ------------------------------- CPU time: 0.200 sec Device I/O: 0 Overhead CPU: 0.000 sec Paging I/O: 0 CPU model: Pentium 90/100 (30M)

2 1