- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone(fwd)
by Soren 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

2 1

NPR is at it again...
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Some commie law professor broad :-) is talking about how there oughtta be a law against anonymous remailers, deja news, and various forms of "illegal" email... The ganglia twitch... Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.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'

5 6

Re: fuck copyright (Re: Advertising Creepiness) (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi Mr. or Ms. support(a)xroads.com, I'd like to advise you of abuse of your system and the resultant spam that I am receiving as a result. I've checked my subscription list and it contains NO xroads.com subscribers at all. You are apparently having legitimite, non-commercial traffic forwarded to your site in order to cause excessive work and potential denial of services (to your customers). Please police your own house before you go around threatening $500 leins and prosecution on others. Have a nice day. ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Forwarded message: > From root(a)dogbert.xroads.com Tue Nov 10 07:52:20 1998 > Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 06:52:46 -0700 (MST) > Message-Id: <199811101352.GAA09138(a)dogbert.xroads.com> > To: owner-cypherpunks(a)einstein.ssz.com > Subject: Re: fuck copyright (Re: Advertising Creepiness) (fwd) > References: <199811101343.HAA17689(a)einstein.ssz.com> > In-Reply-To: <199811101343.HAA17689(a)einstein.ssz.com> > From: abuse(a)xroads.com > X-Loop: noloop(a)noloop.nlp > > >Forwarded message: > > >> Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 13:24:23 +0000 > >> From: "Frank O'Dwyer" <fod(a)brd.ie> > >> Subject: Re: fuck copyright (Re: Advertising Creepiness) (fwd) > > >> Jim Choate wrote: > >> > > You can make money from information provision by charging extra for > >> > > up-to-date news, or by charging so little that the cost from the > >> > > original provider is so low that it's not worth anyones time to > >> > > redistribute it, > >> > > >> > That's true now, why don't we see these effects... > >> > >> We do. News inherently has a 'sell-by' date. The most obvious example is > >> stock quotes where delayed quotes are provided for free whereas > >> real-time quotes are heavily charged for. The recipients of such > >> information care very much about latency, since it's possible to trade > >> on any differences that may exist. There's even some research on attacks > >> that simply delay packets in such networks. > > >Ah, true but I was addressing the last sentence about the cost being so low > >nobody will charge for it.....sounds like the nuclear industry marketing > >speal of the 50's.... > > >Sorry for the confusion, I guess I should have edited the first part out > >since it wasn't relevant. > > > > ____________________________________________________________________ > > > > Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want > > the right answers. > > > Scully (X-Files) > > > The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate > > Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com > > www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 > > -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > This is apparently at least the second unsolicited commercial email from your > address. If you feel you have received this email in error, please contact > support(a)xroads.com > > Senders of unsolicited commercial email will be charged $500 for each instance > of unsolicited commerical email on Crossroads network systems, and are > subject to prosecution under the following Federal statute, and other > applicable federal and local laws. > > > * UNITED STATES CODE > > + TITLE 47 - TELEGRAPHS, TELEPHONES, AND RADIOTELEGRAPHS > > o CHAPTER 5 - WIRE OR RADIO COMMUNICATION > > # SUBCHAPTER II - COMMON CARRIERS > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > § 227. Restrictions on use of telephone equipment > * (a) Definitions > > As used in this section - > + (1) The term ''automatic telephone dialing system'' means > equipment which has the capacity - > o (A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, > using a random or sequential number generator; and > o (B) to dial such numbers. > + (2) The term ''telephone facsimile machine'' means equipment > which has the capacity (A) to transcribe text or images, or > both, from paper into an electronic signal and to transmit > that signal over a regular telephone line, or (B) to > transcribe text or images (or both) from an electronic signal > received over a regular telephone line onto paper. > + (3) The term ''telephone solicitation'' means the initiation > of a telephone call or message for the purpose of encouraging > the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, > or services, which is transmitted to any person, but such > term does not include a call or message (A) to any person > with that person's prior express invitation or permission, > (B) to any person with whom the caller has an established > business relationship, or (C) by a tax exempt nonprofit > organization. > + (4) The term ''unsolicited advertisement'' means any material > advertising the commercial availability or quality of any > property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any > person without that person's prior express invitation or > permission. > * (b) Restrictions on use of automated telephone equipment > + (1) Prohibitions > > It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States > - > o (A) to make any call (other than a call made for > emergency purposes or made with the prior express > consent of the called party) using any automatic > telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded > voice - > # (i) to any emergency telephone line (including any > ''911'' line and any emergency line of a hospital, > medical physician or service office, health care > facility, poison control center, or fire protection > or law enforcement agency); > # (ii) to the telephone line of any guest room or > patient room of a hospital, health care facility, > elderly home, or similar establishment; or > # (iii) to any telephone number assigned to a paging > service, cellular telephone service, specialized > mobile radio service, or other radio common carrier > service, or any service for which the called party > is charged for the call; > o (B) to initiate any telephone call to any residential > telephone line using an artificial or prerecorded voice > to deliver a message without the prior express consent > of the called party, unless the call is initiated for > emergency purposes or is exempted by rule or order by > the Commission under paragraph (2)(B); > o (C) to use any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or > other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a > telephone facsimile machine; or > o (D) to use an automatic telephone dialing system in such > a way that two or more telephone lines of a multi-line > business are engaged simultaneously. > + (2) Regulations; exemptions and other provisions > > The Commission shall prescribe regulations to implement the > requirements of this subsection. In implementing the > requirements of this subsection, the Commission - > o (A) shall consider prescribing regulations to allow > businesses to avoid receiving calls made using an > artificial or prerecorded voice to which they have not > given their prior express consent; > o (B) may, by rule or order, exempt from the requirements > of paragraph (1)(B) of this subsection, subject to such > conditions as the Commission may prescribe - > # (i) calls that are not made for a commercial > purpose; and > # (ii) such classes or categories of calls made for > commercial purposes as the Commission determines - > @ (I) will not adversely affect the privacy > rights that this section is intended to > protect; and > @ (II) do not include the transmission of any > unsolicited advertisement; and > o (C) may, by rule or order, exempt from the requirements > of paragraphs (FOOTNOTE 1) (1)(A)(iii) of this > subsection calls to a telephone number assigned to a > cellular telephone service that are not charged to the > called party, subject to such conditions as the > Commission may prescribe as necessary in the interest of > the privacy rights this section is intended to protect. > (FOOTNOTE 1) So in original. Probably should be > ''paragraph''. > + (3) Private right of action > > A person or entity may, if otherwise permitted by the laws or > rules of court of a State, bring in an appropriate court of > that State - > o (A) an action based on a violation of this subsection or > the regulations prescribed under this subsection to > enjoin such violation, > o (B) an action to recover for actual monetary loss from > such a violation, or to receive $500 in damages for each > such violation, whichever is greater, or > o (C) both such actions. If the court finds that the > defendant willfully or knowingly violated this > subsection or the regulations prescribed under this > subsection, the court may, in its discretion, increase > the amount of the award to an amount equal to not more > than 3 times the amount available under subparagraph (B) > of this paragraph. > * (c) Protection of subscriber privacy rights > + (1) Rulemaking proceeding required > > Within 120 days after December 20, 1991, the Commission shall > initiate a rulemaking proceeding concerning the need to > protect residential telephone subscribers' privacy rights to > avoid receiving telephone solicitations to which they object. > The proceeding shall - > o (A) compare and evaluate alternative methods and > procedures (including the use of electronic databases, > telephone network technologies, special directory > markings, industry-based or company-specific ''do not > call'' systems, and any other alternatives, individually > or in combination) for their effectiveness in protecting > such privacy rights, and in terms of their cost and > other advantages and disadvantages; > o (B) evaluate the categories of public and private > entities that would have the capacity to establish and > administer such methods and procedures; > o (C) consider whether different methods and procedures > may apply for local telephone solicitations, such as > local telephone solicitations of small businesses or > holders of second class mail permits; > o (D) consider whether there is a need for additional > Commission authority to further restrict telephone > solicitations, including those calls exempted under > subsection (a)(3) of this section, and, if such a > finding is made and supported by the record, propose > specific restrictions to the Congress; and > o (E) develop proposed regulations to implement the > methods and procedures that the Commission determines > are most effective and efficient to accomplish the > purposes of this section. > + (2) Regulations > > Not later than 9 months after December 20, 1991, the > Commission shall conclude the rulemaking proceeding initiated > under paragraph (1) and shall prescribe regulations to > implement methods and procedures for protecting the privacy > rights described in such paragraph in an efficient, > effective, and economic manner and without the imposition of > any additional charge to telephone subscribers. > + (3) Use of database permitted > > The regulations required by paragraph (2) may require the > establishment and operation of a single national database to > compile a list of telephone numbers of residential > subscribers who object to receiving telephone solicitations, > and to make that compiled list and parts thereof available > for purchase. If the Commission determines to require such a > database, such regulations shall - > o (A) specify a method by which the Commission will select > an entity to administer such database; > o (B) require each common carrier providing telephone > exchange service, in accordance with regulations > prescribed by the Commission, to inform subscribers for > telephone exchange service of the opportunity to provide > notification, in accordance with regulations established > under this paragraph, that such subscriber objects to > receiving telephone solicitations; > o (C) specify the methods by which each telephone > subscriber shall be informed, by the common carrier that > provides local exchange service to that subscriber, of > (i) the subscriber's right to give or revoke a > notification of an objection under subparagraph (A), and > (ii) the methods by which such right may be exercised by > the subscriber; > o (D) specify the methods by which such objections shall > be collected and added to the database; > o (E) prohibit any residential subscriber from being > charged for giving or revoking such notification or for > being included in a database compiled under this > section; > o (F) prohibit any person from making or transmitting a > telephone solicitation to the telephone number of any > subscriber included in such database; > o (G) specify (i) the methods by which any person desiring > to make or transmit telephone solicitations will obtain > access to the database, by area code or local exchange > prefix, as required to avoid calling the telephone > numbers of subscribers included in such database; and > (ii) the costs to be recovered from such persons; > o (H) specify the methods for recovering, from persons > accessing such database, the costs involved in > identifying, collecting, updating, disseminating, and > selling, and other activities relating to, the > operations of the database that are incurred by the > entities carrying out those activities; > o (I) specify the frequency with which such database will > be updated and specify the method by which such updating > will take effect for purposes of compliance with the > regulations prescribed under this subsection; > o (J) be designed to enable States to use the database > mechanism selected by the Commission for purposes of > administering or enforcing State law; > o (K) prohibit the use of such database for any purpose > other than compliance with the requirements of this > section and any such State law and specify methods for > protection of the privacy rights of persons whose > numbers are included in such database; and > o (L) require each common carrier providing services to > any person for the purpose of making telephone > solicitations to notify such person of the requirements > of this section and the regulations thereunder. > + (4) Considerations required for use of database method > > If the Commission determines to require the database > mechanism described in paragraph (3), the Commission shall - > o (A) in developing procedures for gaining access to the > database, consider the different needs of telemarketers > conducting business on a national, regional, State, or > local level; > o (B) develop a fee schedule or price structure for > recouping the cost of such database that recognizes such > differences and - > # (i) reflect the relative costs of providing a > national, regional, State, or local list of phone > numbers of subscribers who object to receiving > telephone solicitations; > # (ii) reflect the relative costs of providing such > lists on paper or electronic media; and > # (iii) not place an unreasonable financial burden on > small businesses; and > o (C) consider (i) whether the needs of telemarketers > operating on a local basis could be met through special > markings of area white pages directories, and (ii) if > such directories are needed as an adjunct to database > lists prepared by area code and local exchange prefix. > + (5) Private right of action > > A person who has received more than one telephone call within > any 12-month period by or on behalf of the same entity in > violation of the regulations prescribed under this subsection > may, if otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of court of > a State bring in an appropriate court of that State - > o (A) an action based on a violation of the regulations > prescribed under this subsection to enjoin such > violation, > o (B) an action to recover for actual monetary loss from > such a violation, or to receive up to $500 in damages > for each such violation, whichever is greater, or > o (C) both such actions. It shall be an affirmative > defense in any action brought under this paragraph that > the defendant has established and implemented, with due > care, reasonable practices and procedures to effectively > prevent telephone solicitations in violation of the > regulations prescribed under this subsection. If the > court finds that the defendant willfully or knowingly > violated the regulations prescribed under this > subsection, the court may, in its discretion, increase > the amount of the award to an amount equal to not more > than 3 times the amount available under subparagraph (B) > of this paragraph. > + (6) Relation to subsection (b) > > The provisions of this subsection shall not be construed to > permit a communication prohibited by subsection (b) of this > section. > * (d) Technical and procedural standards > + (1) Prohibition > > It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States > - > o (A) to initiate any communication using a telephone > facsimile machine, or to make any telephone call using > any automatic telephone dialing system, that does not > comply with the technical and procedural standards > prescribed under this subsection, or to use any > telephone facsimile machine or automatic telephone > dialing system in a manner that does not comply with > such standards; or > o (B) to use a computer or other electronic device to send > any message via a telephone facsimile machine unless > such person clearly marks, in a margin at the top or > bottom of each transmitted page of the message or on the > first page of the transmission, the date and time it is > sent and an identification of the business, other > entity, or individual sending the message and the > telephone number of the sending machine or of such > business, other entity, or individual. > + (2) Telephone facsimile machines > > The Commission shall revise the regulations setting technical > and procedural standards for telephone facsimile machines to > require that any such machine which is manufactured after one > year after December 20, 1991, clearly marks, in a margin at > the top or bottom of each transmitted page or on the first > page of each transmission, the date and time sent, an > identification of the business, other entity, or individual > sending the message, and the telephone number of the sending > machine or of such business, other entity, or individual. > + (3) Artificial or prerecorded voice systems > > The Commission shall prescribe technical and procedural > standards for systems that are used to transmit any > artificial or prerecorded voice message via telephone. Such > standards shall require that - > o (A) all artificial or prerecorded telephone messages (i) > shall, at the beginning of the message, state clearly > the identity of the business, individual, or other > entity initiating the call, and (ii) shall, during or > after the message, state clearly the telephone number or > address of such business, other entity, or individual; > and > o (B) any such system will automatically release the > called party's line within 5 seconds of the time > notification is transmitted to the system that the > called party has hung up, to allow the called party's > line to be used to make or receive other calls. > * (e) Effect on State law > + (1) State law not preempted > > Except for the standards prescribed under subsection (d) of > this section and subject to paragraph (2) of this subsection, > nothing in this section or in the regulations prescribed > under this section shall preempt any State law that imposes > more restrictive intrastate requirements or regulations on, > or which prohibits - > o (A) the use of telephone facsimile machines or other > electronic devices to send unsolicited advertisements; > o (B) the use of automatic telephone dialing systems; > o (C) the use of artificial or prerecorded voice messages; > or > o (D) the making of telephone solicitations. > + (2) State use of databases > > If, pursuant to subsection (c)(3) of this section, the > Commission requires the establishment of a single national > database of telephone numbers of subscribers who object to > receiving telephone solicitations, a State or local authority > may not, in its regulation of telephone solicitations, > require the use of any database, list, or listing system that > does not include the part of such single national datebase > (FOOTNOTE 2) that relates to such State. > > (FOOTNOTE 2) So in original. Probably should be ''database''. > * (f) Actions by States > + (1) Authority of States > > Whenever the attorney general of a State, or an official or > agency designated by a State, has reason to believe that any > person has engaged or is engaging in a pattern or practice of > telephone calls or other transmissions to residents of that > State in violation of this section or the regulations > prescribed under this section, the State may bring a civil > action on behalf of its residents to enjoin such calls, an > action to recover for actual monetary loss or receive $500 in > damages for each violation, or both such actions. If the > court finds the defendant willfully or knowingly violated > such regulations, the court may, in its discretion, increase > the amount of the award to an amount equal to not more than 3 > times the amount available under the preceding sentence. > + (2) Exclusive jurisdiction of Federal courts > > The district courts of the United States, the United States > courts of any territory, and the District Court of the United > States for the District of Columbia shall have exclusive > jurisdiction over all civil actions brought under this > subsection. Upon proper application, such courts shall also > have jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, or orders > affording like relief, commanding the defendant to comply > with the provisions of this section or regulations prescribed > under this section, including the requirement that the > defendant take such action as is necessary to remove the > danger of such violation. Upon a proper showing, a permanent > or temporary injunction or restraining order shall be granted > without bond. > + (3) Rights of Commission > > The State shall serve prior written notice of any such civil > action upon the Commission and provide the Commission with a > copy of its complaint, except in any case where such prior > notice is not feasible, in which case the State shall serve > such notice immediately upon instituting such action. The > Commission shall have the right (A) to intervene in the > action, (B) upon so intervening, to be heard on all matters > arising therein, and (C) to file petitions for appeal. > + (4) Venue; service of process > > Any civil action brought under this subsection in a district > court of the United States may be brought in the district > wherein the defendant is found or is an inhabitant or > transacts business or wherein the violation occurred or is > occurring, and process in such cases may be served in any > district in which the defendant is an inhabitant or where the > defendant may be found. > + (5) Investigatory powers > > For purposes of bringing any civil action under this > subsection, nothing in this section shall prevent the > attorney general of a State, or an official or agency > designated by a State, from exercising the powers conferred > on the attorney general or such official by the laws of such > State to conduct investigations or to administer oaths or > affirmations or to compel the attendance of witnesses or the > production of documentary and other evidence. > + (6) Effect on State court proceedings > > Nothing contained in this subsection shall be construed to > prohibit an authorized State official from proceeding in > State court on the basis of an alleged violation of any > general civil or criminal statute of such State. > + (7) Limitation > > Whenever the Commission has instituted a civil action for > violation of regulations prescribed under this section, no > State may, during the pendency of such action instituted by > the Commission, subsequently institute a civil action against > any defendant named in the Commission's complaint for any > violation as alleged in the Commission's complaint. > + (8) ''Attorney general'' defined > > As used in this subsection, the term ''attorney general'' > means the chief legal officer of a State. > > > _________________________________________________________________ > >

1 0

IPINFO: Re: IP: Clinton Wants Loophole In U.S. Free Speech Closed
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: believer(a)telepath.com Subject: IPINFO: Re: IP: Clinton Wants Loophole In U.S. Free Speech Closed Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 13:08:39 -0600 To: oldbat <bucsplace(a)cchat.com>, ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com NOTICE TO LISTEES: If you are forwarding materials to the IP list that include URLs, *PLEASE* check them for accuracy before posting. Regarding: -------------------------- >>Subject: IP: Clinton Wants Loophole In U.S. Free Speech Closed >>http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/ts/story.html?s=v/nm/19981107/ts/guns _3.html >> >> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Clinton directed his government Saturday to >> find a way to close a legal loophole that allows speakers/journalists to >> express their ideas at public places with no questions asked. -------------------------- The above "story" is either a spoof of satire, or else an incorrect URL was given to accompany the article. If you access the link above you DO NOT find a story about free speech, but rather, the material below. If materials you send are not factual but are humorous or satirical in nature, please note that for the readers so we don't have a bunch of unfounded rumors floating around about new draconian measures that were actually only jokes to begin with. If there is a real story about Clinton's opposition to free speech, someone please send the correct URL. Here is the REAL story that accompanies the link above: Saturday November 7 12:46 PM ET Clinton Wants Loophole In U.S. Gun Law Closed WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Clinton directed his government Saturday to find a way to close a legal loophole that allows dealers to sell guns at gun shows with no questions asked. In his weekly radio address, Clinton said a ``dangerous trend'' is emerging at gun shows because the Brady handgun control law permits some firearms to be sold without background checks at these shows. ``Some of these gun shows have become illegal arms bazaars for criminals and gun traffickers looking to buy and sell guns on a cash-and-carry, no-questions-asked basis,'' Clinton said. He directed Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and Attorney General Janet Reno to report back to him in 60 days with a plan to close the loophole and prohibit any gun sale without a background check. ``I believe this should be the law of the land: No background check, no gun, no exceptions,'' Clinton said. In a fact sheet, the White House said that every year about 5 million people attend an estimated 5,000 gun shows at convention centers, school gyms and on fairgrounds. The Brady law requires a five-day waiting period for gun purchasers in order for a background check. On Nov. 30, the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System is set to take effect to allow quicker checks and approve gun sales within minutes. In addition, on Nov. 30 the law will be strengthened in two ways: purchases of all firearms, not just handguns, will be subject to Brady background checks as will pawnshop redemptions, which are four times as likely to involve a prohibited purchase. Overall, the White House said, it is estimated that the number of background checks conducted nationally will increase from 4 million to between 10 and 12 million. Unregulated sales at gun shows were ``an open invitation to criminals,'' said Sarah Brady, who chairs Handgun Control Inc. The Brady law was named after her husband, James Brady, who was wounded in an attack on President Ronald Reagan in 1981. California and Maryland regulate ``flea market'' gun sales, said Brady. Florida voters passed a constitutional amendment Tuesday giving counties the power to require a waiting period and a background check for sales at gun shows and other public places. Copyright © 1998 Reuters Limited. ----------------------- NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ----------------------- **************************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address or (un)subscribe ignition-point-digest email@address **************************************************** www.telepath.com/believer ****************************************************

1 0

Re: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone(fwd)
by Albert P. Franco, II 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:33 10/11/98 -0500, you wrote: >>>> Albert P. Franco, II wrote: I've been lurking on this thread for a while, and I am amazed by the level of utopist muck that is being spewed here by you. Without some government the Bad Guys will be the only ones with anything. It is only with the threat of losing their power that leaders do good. If they had no power which could be lost or taken they will always do what's best for them in the short term, which is usually to shit on the peons. Dictators (like Pinochet and Gates) do their dirty deeds because they feel no need to placate the masses. And the Bad Guys don't have everything already? Are they in any danger of losing their power? <<<< They don't have my car, my computers, or my house and other belongings. They not in as much danger as they should be, but they can be impeached and loose elections. >>>> This anarcho-capitalist spew is so much crap that the bullshit indicators are blaring at top volume. If the people can't control a constitutional government, known for having peacefully free elections for over two hundred years, then how the hell do think you can convince somebody that the people are going to be able to control warlords and monopolies. It's called, "You don't like it? Bang, Bang, you're dead!" And this differs from living in in a 1st world state, how? <<<< Where do you live? I know LA and some other big cities are pretty bad, but come on no one seriously believes that under "civilized" governments (1st World State) that this is ubiquitously the way it is. Under the anarcho-capilist system proposed it would be the ubiquitous state of affairs. >>>> Try to lift yourself out of the bullshit of your theory and give us at least one REAL example (current or historic) of a large scale, long lasting anarcho-capitalist society. Hippie communes are too small, and make sure it's capitalistic. If you can't think of one in the next year or so then come back and tell us. Is there some specific reason they need to be large scale or long lasting? By definition, anarcho-capitalism is constantly changing -- perhaps as much as between extreme individualism, to the current state of feudalism that has pervaded the world since the birth of agrarianism. <<<< Peace and prosperity require stability. If your system is ever changing then there will never be long term investments and thus no new technologies or products. Barbarism (anarcho-free market-etc. but never capitalism since capital investments are only made where a return can be guaranteed) will never serve as a basis for investment and development since there is no way to reasonably expect to be around long enough to get the pay back. If it isn't large scale it's just more bullshit on the already smoldering pile dumped on this list to date. Because it works for twelve people in an isolated environment in no way signifies that it will scale to level of a nation. Sorry, if ain't large scale and long lasting it ain't real. >>>> I agree with you that most utopianist ranting here carries a strong whiff of frustration and steam venting. To those anarcho-capitalists, I recommend the course of action I took 25 years ago. If you don't like the state you live in, don't patronize it. There are many save harbors in the world that better approach your ideals, and are more amenable to change, than the Union of Socialist Americans. "Educate, don't agitate". <<<< I left the good ol' USA too. I now live in a European country with a strong socialistic government and I actually find very little interference in my day to day life. In fact there seems to be a much higher awareness that each individual is responsible for his and her actions. At the very least there aren't as many lawyers claiming everyone is a victim of something or another (ie. too hot coffee, slippery floors, home owners that shot the poor intruder who didn't get a warning first, etc.) Ain't no where perfect, anarcho-whatever was done about 4000 years ago, I generally prefer to look forward... APF

1 0

Re: Off Topic But Truly Beautiful
by Michael Motyka 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I didn't think of this before but add together bees, wind and rampant tree sex and this stuff will definitely spread. It could even become a bit of a "problem". The people who have packets of seeds should distribute those quickly to friends before the buggerers get the mailing list and start confiscating seeds. BTW - I believe that citrus hybridize freely, rather like mentha in that respect. Wild and cool. I think he should do apples next. Then strawberries. Peaches. Beans. A whole fucking farmer's market.

2 1

IP: Clinton Wants Loophole In U.S. Free Speech Closed
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: oldbat <bucsplace(a)cchat.com> Subject: IP: Clinton Wants Loophole In U.S. Free Speech Closed Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 12:48:25 -0500 To: IP <ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com> http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/ts/story.html?s=v/nm/19981107/ts/guns_… > WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Clinton directed his government Saturday to > find a way to close a legal loophole that allows speakers/journalists to > express their ideas at public places with no questions asked. > In his weekly radio address, Clinton said a ``dangerous trend'' is emerging > at seminars and radio talk shows because the First Amendment permits people > to express their ideas without background checks. > ``Some of these talk shows have become a heaven for criminals and hate > speech mongers looking to sway people on a no-questions-asked basis,'' > Clinton said. > He directed Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and Attorney General Janet Reno > to report back to him in 60 days with a plan to close the loophole in the > Bill of Rights and to prohibit any free speech without a background check. > ``I believe this should be the law of the land: No background check, no free > speech, no exceptions,'' Clinton said. > In a fact sheet, the White House said that every week about 35 million > people regularly listen to an estimated 50 conservative radio personalities > such as Rush Limbaugh and G. Gordon Liddy. > On Nov. 30, 1999 the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System > is set to take effect to allow quicker checks and approve speech licenses > sales within minutes. > In addition, on Nov. 30, 1999 the law will be strengthened in two ways: > purchases of all speech licenses, not just political, will be subject to > Reno background checks as will Kinko's printing services, which are four > times as likely to involve a prohibited printed opinions. > Overall, the White House said, it is estimated that the number of background > checks conducted nationally will increase from 0 million to between 10 and > 12 million. > Unregulated speech are ``an open invitation to criminals and right wing > crazies,'' said Janet Reno, who chairs SpeechControl Inc. The Clinton law > was named after the President, who was wounded in verbal attacks first > launched by radio personality Rush Limbaugh in 1992. > California and Maryland regulate ``hate speech'', said Reno. Florida voters > passed a constitutional amendment Tuesday giving counties the power to > require a waiting period and a background check for speech at public places. **************************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address or (un)subscribe ignition-point-digest email@address **************************************************** www.telepath.com/believer ****************************************************

5 7

Off Topic But Truly Beautiful (fwd )
by Michael Motyka 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Clyde wrote: > > Long but fascinating... > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > 9 November 1998 > > DATELINE--Tallahassee, Fla. > Oranges that get you high > =========================== > > A Florida Biochemist designs a citrus tree with THC. > > In the summer of 1984, 10th-grader Irwin Nanofsky and a > friend were driving down the Apalachee Parkway on the way > home from baseball practice when they were pulled over by > a police officer for a minor traffic infraction. > > After Nanofsky produced his driver's license the police > officer asked permission to search the vehicle. In less > than two minutes, the officer found a homemade pipe > underneath the passenger's seat of the Ford Aerostar > belonging to the teenage driver's parents. The minivan > was seized, and the two youths were taken into custody on > suspicion of drug possession. > > Illegal possession of drug paraphernalia ranks second > only to open container violations on the crime blotter of > this Florida college town. And yet the routine arrest of > 16 year-old Nanofsky and the seizure of his family's > minivan would inspire one of the most controversial > drug-related scientific discoveries of the century. > > Meet Hugo Nanofsky, biochemist, Florida State University > tenured professor, and the parental authority who posted > bail for Irwin Nanofsky the night of July 8, 1984. The > elder Nanofsky wasn't pleased that his son had been > arrested for possession of drug paraphernalia, and he > became livid when Tallahassee police informed him that > the Aerostar minivan would be permanently remanded to > police custody. > > Over the course of the next three weeks, Nanofsky penned > dozens of irate letters to the local police chief, the > Tallahassee City Council, the State District Attorney > and, finally, even to area newspapers. But it was all to > no avail. > > Under advisement of the family lawyer, Irwin Nanofsky > pled guilty to possession of drug paraphernalia in order > to receive a suspended sentence and have his juvenile > court record sealed. But in doing so, the family minivan > became "an accessory to the crime." According to Florida > State law, it also became the property of the Tallahassee > Police Department Drug Task Force. In time, the adult > Nanofsky would learn that there was nothing he could do > legally to wrest the vehicle from the hands of the state. > > It was in the fall of 1984 that Biochem 101: How to > John Chapman Professor of design a > Biochemistry at Florida State Cannabis-equivalent > University, now driving to work citrus plant > behind the wheel of a used Pontiac > Bonneville, first set on a pet Step One: > project that he hoped would Biochemically > "dissolve irrational legislation isolate all the > with a solid dose of reason." required enzymes for > Nanofsky knew he would never get the production of > his family's car back, but he had THC. > plans to make sure that no one > else would be pulled through the Step Two: > gears of what he considers a Perform N-terminal > Kafka-esque drug enforcement sequencing on > bureaucracy. isolated enzymes, > design degenerate > "It's quite simple, really," PCR (polymerase > Nanofsky explains, "I wanted to chain reaction) > combine Citrus sinesis with Delta primers and amplify > 9-tetrahydrocannabinol." In the genes. > layman's terms, the respected > college professor proposed to grow Step Three: > oranges that would contain THC, Clone genes into an > the active ingredient in agrobacterial vector > marijuana. Fourteen years later, by introducing the > that project is complete, and desired piece of DNA > Nanofsky has succeeded where his into a plasmid containing > letter writing campaign of yore a transfer or T-DNA. > failed: he has the undivided The mixture is transformed > attention of the nation's top drug into Agrobacterium > enforcement agencies, political tumefaciens, a gram > figures, and media outlets. negative bacterium. > > The turning point in the Nanofsky Step Four: > saga came when the straight-laced Use the Agrobacterium > professor posted a message to tumefaciens to infect citrus > Internet newsgroups announcing plants after wounding. The > that he was offering transfer DNA will proceed > "cannabis-equivalent orange tree to host cells by a mechanism > seeds" at no cost via the U.S. similar to conjugation. > mail. Several weeks later, U.S. The DNA is randomly > Justice Department officials integrated into the > showed up at the mailing address host genome and will > used in the Internet announcement: be inherited. > a tiny office on the second floor > of the Dittmer Laboratory of > Chemistry building on the FSU campus. There they would wait > for another 40 minutes before Prof. Nanofsky finished > delivering a lecture to graduate students on his recent > research into the "cis-trans photoisomerization of olefins." > > "I knew it was only a matter of time before someone sent > me more than just a self-addressed stamped envelope," > Nanofsky quips, "but I was surprised to see Janet Reno's > special assistant at my door." After a series of closed > door discussions, Nanofsky agreed to cease distribution > of the THC-orange seeds until the legal status of the > possibly narcotic plant species is established. > > Much to the chagrin of authorities, the effort to > regulate Nanofsky's invention may be too little too late. > Several hundred packets containing 40 to 50 seeds each > have already been sent to those who've requested them, > and Nanofsky is not obliged to produce his mailing > records. Under current law, no crime has been committed > and it is unlikely that charges will be brought against > the fruit's inventor. > > Now it is federal authorities who must confront the > nation's unwieldy body of inconsistent drug laws. > According to a source at the Drug Enforcement Agency, it > may be months if not years before all the issues involved > are sorted out, leaving a gaping hole in U.S. drug policy > in the meantime. At the heart of the confusion is the > fact that THC now naturally occurs in a new species of > citrus fruit. > > As policy analysts and hemp advocates alike have been > quick to point out, the apparent legality (for now) of > Nanofsky's "pot orange" may render debates over the > legalization of marijuana moot. In fact, Florida's top > law enforcement officials admit that even if the > cultivation of Nanofsky's orange were to be outlawed, it > would be exceedingly difficult to identify the presence > of outlawed fruit among the state's largest agricultural > crop. > > Amidst all of the hubbub surrounding his father's > experiment, Irwin Nanofsky exudes calm indifference. Now > 30-years-old and a successful environmental photographer, > the younger Nanofsky can't understand what all of the > fuss is about. "My dad's a chemist. He makes polymers. I > doubt it ever crossed his mind that as a result of his > work tomorrow's kids will be able to get high off of half > an orange." > > Copyright 1994-98 San Francisco Bay Guardian.

1 0

Re: fuck copyright (Re: Advertising Creepiness) (fwd)
by Information Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: Adam Back <aba(a)dcs.ex.ac.uk> > > Jim Choate writes: > > > > Ah, true but I was addressing the last sentence about the cost being so low > > nobody will charge for it.....sounds like the nuclear industry marketing > > speal of the 50's.... > > One barrier to such an enterprise is the domain name recognition, > people want wired, they type wired.com; what do they type if they want > the lower priced mirrors? Uno momento... http://www.altavista.com Ask AltaVistaTM a question. Example: "Where can I find information on bicycles?" Okay, let's give it a spin... Where can I find information on low priced mirrors? Results AltaVista found about 1,045,119 Web pages for you. 1. In this site you'll find low priced computer hardware including Pentium CPU 2. Pasadena Pins & Patches - Low Priced Jewelry - Die Struck Enamel 3. Pasadena Pins & Patches - Low Priced Jewelry - Photo-Etched 4. BUSINESS BOOK SALE! Excellent online, low-priced books here! 5. Low Priced Beanie Baby Link List Guide 6. Pentium Computer Systems and Low priced computer components 7. Inexpensive Software Cheap Software Low Priced Software 8. D&R Computer - Your source for great low priced home PCs and business systems. 9. THE UNDER $10 STOCK REPORT - Low Priced - High Yield Stocks 10. Spider Web Designs - low priced web-site design, development, hosting, and cre Hmmm, let me try that again. The "+" is a meta-search character, meaning required. Where can I find information on low priced +mirrors? 1. Miscellaneous Optical Suppliers. Polarizers. 2. The Bronze Face Mirror is a large (14 x 12 cm) mirror made out of clay. 3. The Eye Rings that have a diameter of 2cm are made from a special clay. 4. This Mermaid of Flower ? make up shelf (24 x 84cm) is made from wood. 5. This large (20 x 30 cm) Corset mirror is made from clay and wood. 6. The Large Space Ship Mirror is now made from wood (70 x 45 cm) 7. Gold-Leafed Oval Mirrors. Original designs, sophisticated finishes, and remarkable wholesale prices. [ DING DING DING DING! ] 8. These Wooden Lips are available in Red, Pink and Purple (76 x 53 cm). 9. The Little Devil is a large (14 x 16 cm) face mirror made out of clay. 10. Goderich Chrysler Plymouth Dodge Trucks, Goderich, Ontario, Canada, new and used vehicles Wow. Just like 4th-generation development languages put programmers out of business, these search engines will eliminate the need for any other form of advertising. ---guy

1 0

Re: How to solve the tax problem w/o anarchy or force (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 16:35:16 -0500 > From: Michael Hohensee <mah248(a)nyu.edu> > Subject: Re: How to solve the tax problem w/o anarchy or force (fwd) > No, the intent *is* to make the system better and more equitable. It's > just that we don't favor the socialist definition of "equitable". Taxation doesn't imply socialism, socialism is the state ownership of property. In case you didn't know it, Russians didn't pay taxes because they dind't have to. The Chinese still don't pay taxes (except for businesses that are licensed by the state). > We support voluntary systems, not coercive ones. The US is a voluntary system, you can always leave. > Except that it's personal improvement for *everyone* (except for tyrants > and other politicans, but we didn't like them much anyway). And those who are stolen from, killed in petty disputes, wronged in business deals gone bad with no legal recourse and no hope of future legal ramifications for the perps, starve to death because some asshole who values a dollar more than a human life won't give somebody a meal, those who can't start businesses because the existing markets have locked up the necessary resources, etc. > Our proposals do not leave things up to chance any more than the current > system does. In fact, it can be argued that our system leaves less up > to chance than yours does. Lets do a comparative analysis. It leave a lot up to chance, the chance of making a profit in the market with no regulations or other mechanism to stop abuse or other wrongs. The implication is that the vast majority of participants won't be the one making the profit and will as a consequence suffer because of it. > 1: Social Ill exists. > 2: Social Ill is identified by someone. > 3: That someone makes a lot of noise, and lobbies the state to supply > money to finance the correction of the Social Ill. This is done by > convincing a majority of voters in some election or other, which may not > take place for at least a year, that this Social Ill is very important > --more important than all the other Social Ills. No, it simply says that the current society has recognized a need, determined that it can be addressed and chooses to do so. > 4: Someone who wants the Social Ill corrected gets into power, and > proceeds to try to correct the Social Ill with a huge rumbling > centralized governmental machine. This often excacerbates the Social > Ill, rather than correcting it. Well actualy the huge rumbling centralized government is a result of the economic impact of business on government, not the folks who want to address social ills. The vast majority (well over half of each tax dollar) goes to military or military related issues, not social ills. This is a strawman. > The net result: The Social Ill is not likely to be corrected until the > next election, and will be paid for by taking more money away from > everyone else (since the state gets its money from taxpayers, and cannot > create value out of thin air). Even worse, the person lobbying for the > correction of the Social Ill may not get into power, since he may have > lost the election to someone who used lots of money to make him look > bad. Thus, the Social Ill may not get corrected for some time, if ever. > Under a truly free system: > > 1: Social Ill exists. And in spades. > 2: Social Ill is identified by someone. > 3: That someone makes a lot of noise, alerting everyone else to the > existance of this Social Ill. Those who agree with the first someone > will contribute time, money, and resources to correcting this Social > Ill. And what if that noise is contrary to the interest of a the business that is perpetrating it. Since there are no protections of speech and press under your system what keeps somebody from simply shooting the loud-mouthed trouble maker? Historicaly there is plenty of evidence for this sort of behaviour in un-regulated markets. Why would a business allow such a vociferous display? > 4: Social Ill is dealt with in the most effective manner possible, since > people will be free to try to correct it in any number of ways, and will > of course prefer to contribute their money to an effort that has the > best effect. The most effective manner is to never have it happen in the first place. While it's clear it isn't possible to legislate individual behaviour past a grossly crude point it is possible to put breaks on the sorts of laws that a given government can pass and enforce. At least with a bill of rights we have a guide that we can use to measure extant and future legislation against. This can occur now under the present system, why doesn't it happen more? There is absolutely no regulations that would prevent such activity; hell the currrent system will even allow you to be exempt from taxes and give you loans, will yours? But to address the point, given that there are no courts, laws, etc. How does one go about addressing the social ill? Buy the company out? How realistic is it to expect the human slave to have the resources to buy themselves out? Not very damn likely. > This is an improvement upon today's system. Only if you believe your smarter and faster on the draw than everyone who is alive and will be alive during your life. Ain't gonna happen, there is always a bigger fish, and they're hungry. We no longer need to have > the majority of voters approval to start correcting the Social Ill. All No, you simply need to have the majority of social participants (I don't think we should call them citizens) involved first person. The time drain alone of that is enough to guarantee that nothing will be done. > of the Social Ill. This makes the most sense, since we obviously don't > need to draw on *everyone'* resources to correct every Social Ill. (of > course, some rare Social Ills will be that large, but the larger the > Social Ill, the more people wil recognize it as such.) They will? Historicaly the majority of social ills have been recognized as such by a minority and were corrected by a political mechanism that recognizes things like civil liberties and limits on government purvue a priori. > Better yet, frivilous problems (i.e. those invented for the advancement > of some politician's career, or out of sheer stupidity) will not have > large amounts of resources wasted upon them. And what makes you think that under your system a silver tongued devil won't be able to garner the same sorts of support? People are social animals and will follow the leader they believe will get them to where they need to be. Whether that is government or a marketing puke is irrelevant. > So, is it now clear to you why your above statement was somewhat > premature? It is clear to me that you neither understand human psychology, politics, economics (macro or micro), or what freedom means. ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0