- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

IP: New Law Requires ISPs to Register & Rat
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Delivered-To: ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com X-Sender: believer(a)telepath.com Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 08:11:11 -0600 To: believer(a)telepath.com From: believer(a)telepath.com Subject: IP: New Law Requires ISPs to Register & Rat Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com Precedence: list Reply-To: believer(a)telepath.com Source: http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,28357,00.html?st.ne.1.head Law enlists ISPs in piracy fight By John Borland Staff Writer, CNET News.com November 4, 1998, 5:30 p.m. PT A new set of federal regulations requires Internet service providers to register immediately with the U.S. government, lest they be held legally liable for pirated material that flows through their servers. The new rules, which went into effect yesterday, flow from the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which was signed by President Clinton last week. The law shields ISPs from being sued for copyright infringement based on their subscribers' postings, so long as they register with the U.S. Copyright Office. The provision is the product of negotiations over the original copyright law, and was accepted reluctantly by service provider industry representatives. "This isn't what we would have wanted. It's a Washington approach to a simple kind of problem," said Dave McClure, executive director of the Association of Online Professionals, a trade group that represents ISPs. Copyright holders had complained that some ISPs were not responding to warnings about pirated material located on their servers, or were claiming ignorance even after being notified. "Copyright holders pushed for a requirement that a person actually be physically designated to receive information about infringement," McClure said. The new law fills a legal gap left by the passage of the Communications Decency Act in 1996. Under that law, ISPs cannot be held liable for slanderous or libelous material that is posted on their services. That provision, which has been tested several times in court already, specifically excludes copyright issues. The new regulations require each ISP to designate a point-person to receive complaints about copyright infringement, and to send that information to the federal copyright office along with a $20 filing fee. The person's name and contact information also must be displayed prominently on the ISP's Web site. The rules went into effect November 3. Any unregistered ISP can legally be held liable for pirated material on its site from now on. The Copyright Office rules are only an interim step in the new law's implementation. Regulators will draft permanent rules and host a public comment period later this year or early next year. ----------------------- 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 **************************************************** --- end forwarded text ----------------- 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'

1 0

Identification and Privacy are not Antinomies
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Delivered-To: DIGSIG(a)LISTSERV.TEMPLE.EDU MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 12:39:53 -0200 Reply-To: Digital Signature discussion <DIGSIG(a)LISTSERV.TEMPLE.EDU> Sender: Digital Signature discussion <DIGSIG(a)LISTSERV.TEMPLE.EDU> From: Ed Gerck <egerck(a)LASER.CPS.SOFTEX.BR> Subject: Identification and Privacy are not Antinomies To: DIGSIG(a)LISTSERV.TEMPLE.EDU Identification and Privacy are not Antinomies This is a comment to the article "Not for Identification Purposes" by Richard Sobel, of 8/12/98, and a reply by Jorge Cortell-Albert, all referenced at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/filter/101598/letters.html >From the inherent conflict seen in these articles, it is quite apparent that one could profit from a new perspective when dealing with identification issues today. Not only because of historical examples of misuse or because the Clinton administration is proposing a national ID card that may compromise privacy, but because we need to harmonize needs with tools. Clearly, there is an escalating need to identify -- likewise, there is an increasingly easy access to information and massive cross-checking of data based on global indexes. Biometrics, contrary to expressed opinion such as Cortell-Albert's, is not self-secure and cannot protect what it forthrightly denies: privacy. One does not even have to recall the proverbial truck that hits the subject, in order to realize that biometrics is also perishable. In fact, biometrics just highlights the basic paradox of privacy versus security -- where one is asked to forfeit privacy in a rather permanent way in order to gain some transient level of security. Are identification and privacy antinomies, like freedom and slavery? Is there an unresolvable conflict between both security and privacy? Current expressed opinion, such as Sobel's and Cortell-Albert's, says "yes" to both questions. As we have no real solution within the current level of understanding, one needs a fresh look into identification and identity. To exercise the solution, Internet protocols can provide a good practical arena accessible to all and truly international -- thus, I will use it in this exposition as an example. However, it will be clear that I could likewise use anything else -- even the US Government's current proposal for a national ID card. Identification is often understood as an act of identifying, or of establishing an identity. Identity is usually defined as "the distinguishing character or personality of an individual" [1]. Of course, such definitions cannot be applied on the Internet. Any mention to "identity" or "identity authentication" on the Internet is a mere tag for something else, such as an individual's purported attribute. Certainly, without any physical contact with an individual or even without any way to directly verify it. It is simply not possible to speak of "identity" or "identification" as a dictionary defines it, over the Internet. All legal and technical studies that call for or depend on such equivalence are misleading. Any such "identity" or "identification" can be faked, repudiated or are specifically unwarranted (e.g. by commercial CAs) to relying-parties over the Internet. That the US INS accepts UK birth (naming) certificates in order to certify immigration status for its own policy of regulation, does not mean that the INS is acting to "confirm" the legitimacy of the name, or organise the UK namespace. So, the first conclusion is that acceptance of an identity by a recipient does not make that identification more veritable to others ... though it is often interpreted so, especially when a third document is issued by the recipient and publicly known. Sure, there is a bar on the standard of the {UK,...} authorities who the INS respects sufficiently for its own activities. But INS confirmation (or rather "use") confers no status on the original document unless the INS policy wished to make such representation explicit. Which would involve legal responsibilities that escalate like those that would derive from a blank signed cheque. Thus, this is also an unsolved problem in the 3D-world, outside the Internet. On 15th April 1997, The Daily Telegraph, a UK quality newspaper, reported on Alan Reeve [2] -- a convicted criminal and triple killer who was described as "friendly, caring, dependable and loving" by his fiancÈe when he was arrested under false identity in Ireland. Clearly, the indeterminacy of "identity" on the 3D-world is itself a reason to doubt any extension of such credentials to the Internet [3,4]. Which is made worse by the often neglected fact that the certificate user (e.g., "relying-party") is not privy to the contract between the CA and the certificate subscriber [3]. Further, CAs effectively contradict any possible public rights that relying-parties might claim, by declaring in the CA's CPS (the governing law) that a certificate has no warranted content to relying-parties [3]. Moreover, on the Internet, we also need to identify hosts, routing, software, etc. -- not just humans. Thus, the basic Net disconnect is that the Internet is essentially that wire that goes to your computer! Anything else that you imagine is just this -- you imagine. Even if you receive a message that looks like mine, from my address, should you believe 100% it is mine? "Doubt until you have proof". Of course, the degree of proof required depends on what is at stake and what is your cost -- however, the best proof is to be considered the one that leaves the concerned parties with no doubts [cf. 2]. Of course, the law may require a higher degree of proof (eg, when buying firearms you cannot just do it over e-mail -- you need to present a legal identity, a legal connection to yourself and perhaps also an address as a further legal connection). The same disconnect happens in the 3D world, because who is to affirm that the presented ID card is the "right one"? Or, that the person depicted in the card is the "right one"? Who is Alan Reeve? However, as given in [5,6], there is an answer to the privacy/security paradox. And, practical tools that may help the Clinton administration (or, any government, company or individual) to decrease costs without resorting to privacy burdens over the puported beneficiaries. The answer begins by a question: What is "to identify"? The study shows that "to identify" is to look for connections. Thus, in identification we look for logical or natural connections -- we look for coherence. The work shows that not identity but coherence is the general metric for identification and deduces more than 64 basic types of identification. More coherence and more identification types mean stronger identification, even if anonymous. Identification can thus be understood not only in the sense of an "identity" connection, but in the wider sense of "any" connection. Which one to use is just a matter of protocol expression, need, cost and (very importantly) privacy concerns. A further benefit is that it allows clear definitions for a large number of new anonymous identification types, sorely needed on the Internet, for e-commerce and to decrease costs inccurred with fraud, in general, but without compromising one's privacy just to tank the car or buy a lunch. I note that even though motivated by the Internet, as a practical arena, the concepts reported in [5,6] can be applied to improve any identification method -- including the present proposal by the US Government. Cheers, Ed Gerck ============================================ References: [1] Merriam-Webster Dictionary, http:www.m-w.com [2] http://www.mcg.org.br/auth_b1.htm [3] http://www.mcg.org.br/certover.pdf [4] http://www.mcg.org.br/cert.htm [5] http://www.mcg.org.br/coherence.txt [6] http://www.mcg.org.br/coherence2.txt ______________________________________________________________________ Dr.rer.nat. E. Gerck egerck(a)novaware.cps.softex.br http://novaware.cps.softex.br --- end forwarded text ----------------- 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'

1 0

ISPs now responsible for Pirated Material
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text X-Authentication-Warning: lpma.la-ma.org: majordom set sender to owner-general(a)la-ma.org using -f X-Sender: dkrick(a)pobox3.bbn.com Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 07:29:38 -0500 To: general(a)la-ma.org From: Doug Krick <dkrick(a)bbnplanet.com> Subject: ISPs now responsible for Pirated Material Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-general(a)la-ma.org Precedence: bulk http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,28357,00.html?st.ne.fd.mdh Summary: IF a local ISP doesn't register with the goverment, per a new law Clinton signed this week, the ISP can be held legally responsible for any pirated material that may be on their site. Doug --- end forwarded text ----------------- 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'

3 2

ADV: Hot-Stock Discovers Emerging Entertainment Company
by info＠hot-stock.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

To be removed from our mailing list, simply reply with "Remove" in the subject line. J.P. Morgan, the world famous banker at the American Bankers Convention in 1903 was asked what was the secret of his success. He replied "Opportunity passed me every single second of my life, but I was perceptive enough to take advantage of these opportunities." The time is always now! Companies providing live streaming video content such as Broadcast.Com have had valuations as high as one billion dollars. Alternative Entertainment is a live streaming video content provider for Adult related Internet sites. Adult related sites on the Internet are not only profitable but represent the largest segment of E-Commerce and generate 1.2 billion in annual revenues. Visit http://www.hot-stock.com for full details. Alternative Entertainment (OTC BB : BOYS) Shares Outstanding 3,013,790 Shares Public Float 980,000 Number Shareholders 790 Approved by NASD for Trading October 7, 1998 Visit http://www.hot-stock.com for full details. COMPANY OVERVIEW Alternative Entertainment, Inc. (the "Company") is engaged in the Adult Media and Entertainment Industry. Specifically, the acquisition, development and operation of Upscale Gentlemens Clubs and advanced on-line media for E-Commerce on Internet Sites. The Company plans a national chain of Upscale Gentlemen's Clubs with the focus on business and professional male patrons. The main floor, which caters to patrons 25 to 39 years of age, will incorporate an evolving theme concept conducive to a "party atmosphere" and will operate under the trade name BOYS TOYS. Private club facilities of the Boardroom Restaurant will target individuals ages 40 to 65 and offer full service dining, an extensive cigar lounge and a vast selection of premium wines and liquor. The clubs will enable the Company to facilitate onsite film production and live video streaming of the female entertainers as content to the on-line community. Initially the live content will provide revenues via E-Commerce on Company owned Web Sites. Such content will later be repackaged and distributed through Webmasters and individual owners of the 45,000 established Adult Sites on the Internet. The Company has an extremely strong management team comprised of several key executives, including the president, of the leading management company within the Gentlemens Club Industry. The management team has over 100 years of combined knowledge of the Industry. INDUSTRY HIGHLIGHTS $4 Billion a year Gentlemen's Club Industry - 25% pretax margins 3,618,000 average yearly revenue per upscale club - $488 sales per sq. ft. 36% of all businessmen entertain their clientele at Gentlemens Clubs $1.2 Billion a year Internet Adult Sites - 70% pretax margins Media content providers are basically non-existent Consolidation play exists for both segments of the industry SELECTIVE FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS The Company has internally raised $2,000,000 to date through a combination of equity and convertible debt. The Company has a San Francisco property (15,000 sq. ft.) under construction and an option to purchase two additional clubs. Once again visit http://www.hot-stock.com for full details. --- Disclaimer --- This material is being provided by Hot-Stock, an electronic newsletter paid by the issuer for publishing the information contained in this report. Alternative Entertainment, Inc. has paid a consideration of 5,000 shares of common stock of Alternative Entertainment, Inc. to Hot-Stock as payment for the publication of the information contained in this report. Hot-Stock and its affiliates have agreed not to sell the common stock received as payment for its services until November 1, 1998, which date is 15 days from the initial dissemination of this report. After such date, Hot-Stock may sell such shares. Because Hot-Stock is paid for its services, there is an inherent conflict of interest in Hot-Stocks statements and opinions and such statements and opinions cannot be considered independent. The information contained in this publication is for informational purposes only, and not to be construed as an offer to sell or solicitation of an offer to buy any security. Hot-Stock makes no representation or warrant relating to the validity of the facts presented nor does Hot-Stock represent or warrant that all material facts necessary to make an investment decision are presented above. All statements of opinions are those of Hot-Stock. Hot-Stock relies exclusively on information gathered from public filings on featured companies, as well as, in certain circumstances, interviews conducted by Hot-Stock of management of featured companies. Investors should not rely solely on the information contained in this publication. Rather, investors should use the information contained in this publication as a starting point for conducting additional research on the featured companies in order to allow the investor to form his or her own opinion regarding the featured companies. Factual statements contained in this publication are made as of the date stated and they are subject to change without notice. Hot-Stock is not a registered investment adviser, broker or a dealer. Investment in the companies reviewed is speculative and extremely high-risk and may result in the loss of some or all of any investment made in Alternative Entertainment, Inc. This publication contains forward-looking statements that are subject to risk and uncertainties that could cause results to differ materially from those set forth in the forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements represent the judgment of Alternative Entertainment, Inc. as of the date of this publication. The Company disclaims any intent or obligation to update these forward-looking statements.

1 0

Re: Grounding (fwd)
by Michael Motyka 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

OMYGAWD! I can see that I'll have to give up soon. > The solutions to the wave equation inside the cavity have a real part ~0 > in the exponent. *** It's not a question of a Schroedingers Wave Equation, it's a question of Maxwell's Equations. *** Yeah I've got my old copy of Jackson. MTW too, for all the good it did me. Maxwell's equations can be used to form a wave equation too. I only bring up the Schroedinger equation because the solutions to simple particle-in-a-box examples are easy to generate and easy to visualize. Anyone who even began a decent Physics program should have done many of these. The probability function for the Quantum example *looks like* the amplitude for the EM example...analogy is a good tool. > The boundary condition at the inside surface of the > copper box splices together the solutions in the cavity and inside the > conductor. *** What conductor? The shell is equipotential unless you're trying to play head games with me so there follows there can be no current flow through it except radialy to the outside of the sphere. *** DC, Yes. AC, things are happening. To solve the diffeq's for an EM wave incident on a conducting surface you have to make the solutions !inside! the conductor match the solutions outside the conductor. Only if the conductor is *perfect* does your assumption of nothing going on inside the conductor make sense. BTW - the skin depth for Cu at 100MHz is about 0.00026". The skin depth is proportional to f^(-0.5). In brief, here's what happens to the wave incident on a copper sheet: Wave is incident on surface Most of the wave is reflected the better the conductor, the more is reflected the portion that is not reflected is attenuated in the conductor ( loss ) any amplitude on the other surface of the sheet radiates energy. It should be obvious that, if the conductor is good, there will be very little amplititude inside the conductor, low loss reflection. Further, that 4 mils of Cu should provide ~80 dB loss in even the tiny amount that is not reflected at the inner surface. At 100MHz. I haven't solved this system for many years and I'm not inclined to go back to it now. Take my word for it : a little RF can get through a copper sheet but only a *very* little. It's the finite conductivity that alters the simple scenario. *** Let's walk through it using your model.... The spark gap generates sparks and that builds up free electrons in the space inside the sphere (whether it is gas filled or a vacuum is irrelevant). As that charge builds up it will be all of one type, electrons. Now the electrons repel each other and therefor move in a circular motion with the spark gap as the center. They strike the surface of the sphere and tunnel through to the outside surface where they reside. The amount of charge at any one point is related to the curvature of the surface at that point. Since a sphere is constant curvature the charge will be evenly distributed. It will continue to build up so long as you supply power to the spark gap. In an ideal world it will get bigger and bigger. In the real world at some point insulation breaks down and normal current flow takes place. *** Wild! Forget all this, this patchwork of pieces doesn't hold together as a description of the physical problem. If it helps, forget about the spark gap. Waves waves waves. Start with a wave packet in the box. Don't worry about how it got there. Worry about keeping it there. Best regards Jim, Mike

1 0

Fwd: How true this is
by John C 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

it's rare that i do this... >>Perfect Days >> >> >>The Perfect Day For HER >> >>8:15 Wakeup to hugs & kisses >>8:30 Weigh in 5lb lighter than yesterday >>8:45 Breakfast in bed, fresh squeezed orange juice & croissants >>9:15 Soothing hot bath with fragrant lilac bath oil >>10:00 Light work out at club with handsome, funny personal trainer >>10:30 Facial, manicure, shampoo & comb out >>12:00 Lunch with best friend at outdoor cafe >>12:45 Notice ex-boyfriends wife, she has gained 30lbs >>13:00 Shopping with friends, unlimited credit >>15:00 Nap >>16:00 3 dozen roses delivered by florist, card is from secret admirer >>16:15 Light work out at club, followed by gentle massage >>17:30 Pick out outfit for dinner, primp before mirror >>19:30 Candlelight dinner for two followed by dancing >>22:00 Hot shower (alone) >>22:30 Make love >>23:00 Pillow talk, light touching & cuddling >>23:15 Fall asleep in his big strong arms >> >> >>The perfect day for HIM >> >>6:00 Alarm >>6:15 Blowjob >>6:30 Massive shit, while reading sports section of paper >>7:00 Breakfast, Fillet mignon & eggs, toast & coffee >>7:30 Limo arrives >>7:45 Vodka Bloody Mary en route to airport >>8:15 Private Jet to Augusta, Georgia (en route Coffee, Cigar & Wall >>St Journal) >>9:30 Limo to Augusta National Golf Club >>9:45 Front nine holes at Augusta (2 under par) >>11:45 Lunch, 2 dozen oysters on the half shell, 3 Hienekens >>12:15 Blowjob >>12:30 Back nine holes at Augusta (4 under par) >>14:15 Limo back to airport (Vodka Martini) >>14:30 Private Jet, Augusta to Nassau, Bahamas (nap) >>15:15 Late afternoon fishing excursion with all female (topless) crew >>16:30 Land world record light tackle Marlin (1249lbs) >>17:00 Jet back home, massage & hand job en route by naked Elle >>Macpherson >>18:45 Shit, shave & shower >>19:00 Watch CNN newsflash: Clinton resigns, Hillary and Al Gore farm >>animal sex video released. >>19:30 Dinner, Lobster appetizers, Dom Perignon (1963), 20oz New York >>Steak >>21:00 Wild Turkey & Cuban cigar >>21:30 Sex with three women >>23:00 Massage & Jacuzzi >>23:45 Bed (alone) >>23:50 12 second, 4 note fart, dog leaves room >>23:55 Sleep ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

1 0

Re: Grounding (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 09:26:05 -0800 > From: Michael Motyka <mmotyka(a)lsil.com> > Subject: Re: Grounding (fwd) > Yeah I've got my old copy of Jackson. MTW too, for all the good it did > me. Maxwell's equations can be used to form a wave equation too. I only > bring up the Schroedinger equation because the solutions to simple > particle-in-a-box examples are easy to generate and easy to visualize. The problem is we're not discussing a particle in a box. We're discussing the statistical mechanical behaviour of a group of particles. Apples and oranges. One, you're scale of distance between the two is off by orders of magnitude. Secondly, you're considering an electron carrying a photon as a single wavicle, it ain't. It's a superposition of several wavicles (3 quarks and a lepton to be exact under the standard model). Thirdly, you're trying to model a group of particles as a single instance of Schroedengers Wave equation, a big no no. Fourthly, you're failing to take into account the interactions between the particles and those consequences because of mass charge, which after all is the engine that drives this model. In reference to your particle-in-a-box model, the point you seem to miss is that the scale of the box is on the order of a few Planck distances. That behaviour is grossly different than a ball 10 in. in diameter filled with a gas of electrons (and potentialy protons if it's not a vacuum) all carrying short-wavelength photons around. > DC, Yes. AC, things are happening. Where did the AC come from? We're talking about a spark gap that is only going to emit electrons *and* is run by a battery (it's your baby). Where the hell do I buy an AC battery pray tell? Where? Under your example there is no mass charge flow because ground is irrelevant. So we're left with only the gas like behaviours. Now it's clear that the individual particle paths are going to be modelled via a drunkards walk. So, where does this coherent flow come from? If there is a flow it implies, because of the behaviour of like/dislike charges, that there is a difference in charge. > To solve the diffeq's for an EM wave incident on a conducting surface > you have to make the solutions !inside! the conductor match the > solutions outside the conductor. Only if the conductor is *perfect* does > your assumption of nothing going on inside the conductor make sense. What the hell are you talking about?.... Here's what we're discussing: A generator emits electrons which carry a negative charge. These electrons each also carry a photon of some quantity. Like charges repel. When a photon strikes an atom it will be absorbed if it's wavelength matches one of the Bohr radii. This may cause one or more secondary photons to be emitted as a result. The assumption was the spark gap is in the center of the ball. Because the spark gaps emission of electrons is random the resultant cloud of particles can be modelled as a gas that is expanding from a point source. The expansion is driven by the repelling effect of the charges. This causes the the particles at time tau to, on average - remember we're talking statistical mechanics here, expand at an equal rate, in effect forming a bubble of particles coherent with tau. That rate is usualy related to k * sqrt ( s ). As the charges expand some will emit photons. Some of the atoms in the shell will emit photons. Some of each will absorb photons. At some point (tau + delta) the charge impacts the shell. This will in effect increase the charge of the shell by 1 -e. Now, by Gauss's Law, this charge in the gas will induce an opposite charge on the inside surface of the globe. Unlike charges attract. Therefore the gas of electrons are attracted to the inside surface. Now since the globe is neutral it must follow by conservation of charge that there is a negative charge equal to the charge held in the gas on the *OUTSIDE* of the ball. This is in addition to the charge that steadily builds up in the shell as the electrons accrete over time. This can be modelled with an integral of the flow rate of the current in the battery (it after all is Coulombs/s). It's not too hard (k * I). (I'm not going to go into what happens as the charge on the shell builds up as we're discussing here the applicability of wave equations as a reliable model). So what do you get? A hell of a charge that will go bang at some point when some insulation give way. See: Physics J. Orear ISBN 0-02-389460-1 pp. 304 "Electrical Induction" He uses your exact model except for the tether. It's a classic in Freshman Physics and science museums. > BTW - the skin depth for Cu at 100MHz is about 0.00026". The skin depth > is proportional to f^(-0.5). So what if the electron gives it's photon up to another which causes it to bounce around through the Cu lattice till it gets to the other side knocking an electron free (conservation of momentum) or emitting a free photon (which is what we're *REALLY* talking about reducing with TEMPEST - you could think of it as cooling the laptop at rf frequencies if you like, you could model it with a spin-glass based cellular automaton). It's called charge migration and there are also effects at high voltage which is called charge tunneling. If you examine the literature of Japanese hi-v researchers they have become adept at causing ball lightening to tunnel through insulators. It's pretty interesting. There are also quite a few cases where the inducement fails and the result is a broken ceramic plate because of the heating effects. [rest deleted] ____________________________________________________________________ To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

RE: Quick, Dear -- Beat Me
by Albert P. Franco, II 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: "Lynne L. Harrison" <lharrison(a)dueprocess.com> >Subject: RE: Quick, Dear -- Beat Me >At 10:47 AM 11/5/98 -0500, Petro wrote: >>At 12:08 AM -0500 11/5/98, Blanc wrote: >>>From Duncan Frissell: >>> >>>I just went to the bank I do business with this week to open a new account. >>>They wanted my social security number, (which they actually already have on >>>record), and during a search on her handy database, the Customer Assistance >>>clerk informed me that there was another person in Florida using the same >>>number. Long list of problems which could result from someone using your SSN snipped... >All in all, you should seriously reconsider your decision of not reporting >the problem. > > So much for the SSN "never" becoming a national ID number! Since your SS account and pension can be negatively impacted, this tends to reinforce the idea that your SSN should be a secret. But how can we keep it a secret if they keep putting it on public documents such as drivers licenses? Seems to me that when they are all done making the SSN the official National ID number they will need to give us a NEW SSN that is secret, kind of like a PIN to unlock and validate our National ID and SS accounts. ...and latter a PIN to protect the PIN... APF

2 1

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

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 01:33:18 -0500 > From: Michael Hohensee <mah248(a)nyu.edu> > Subject: Re: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone (fwd) > No government can protect individual rights. That isn't a reasonable statement. There is nothing in the definition or application of 'government' or 'individual rights' that preclude this. The issue becomes in a practical sense how the practitioners of a government system respect individual rights. If they are willing to do away with them to protect them (as we seem to be moving toward in this country) then of course there are no individual rights. Of course, this implies there are no collective rights either. > The only way one could do > so would be if it: (a) could predict the future, and act to prevent > certain futures from happening; or (b) it controls every aspect and > motion of each individual's life, thereby ensuring that nobody steps out > of line. What has that to do with protecting individual rights? Clarify please. > All any state can do is threaten to "retaliate" against (why not just > say "attack") people who disobey its edicts. In order for this threat > to be credible, the state must wield sufficient power to kill any > individual (or group of individuals) who would stand against it. If it > does not have this power, it cannot govern. This is a quaint and completely artificial distinction. > citizens. As often seems the case today, for example. We also see quite a few situations where the opposite occurs as well. > The system you suggest, which I assume consists of a state with a > "minimal" amount of power, run by enlightened people, is in a state of Anyone who assumes noble oblige is an idiot. There are no enlightened people, intelligence and wealth no more prepare an individual for a position in government than they prepare them for anything else. Rich/intelligent people don't make less mistakes than those who aren't. > extremely unstable equilibrium (if it is indeed in equilibrium). If it If you're talking of Hayek's equilibrium, it's nothing more than a bastardization of a thermodynamics term to represent the status quo. Equilabrium in the economic sense simply means that people do today what they did yesterday. In general they do about as often as they don't. > wields just enough power to enforce its will, that power can be used by > evil men to increase its power. Evil? Where did religion come into this at? > Just look at what happened after the Constitutional coup took place in > the fledgling USA. Remember the Whiskey Rebellion? When we lost the > Articles of Confederation, we were taking the first steps down the road > to the tyranny of today. The anti-federalists predicted this, although > they sorely underestimated how far it would go --assuming that it would > be stopped by another revolution. There have been several since then. The Civil War and the civil rights movement in the 60's are two good examples (on the opposite end of the 'use-of-violence' scales). > The minimalist state has been tried. No, that was a non-federalist state where the individual states acted as individuals in a collective. Because of the collective nature of the state governments it didn't work. A minimalist state would be anarchy. > The only truly free system is one in which there is no body of people > calling itself a government which can enforce its will over the > individual. The only way people can seem to be free living under such a > body is entirely dependent upon the good will of their masters, and this > is a shaky assumption to make. No it isn't the only way. The only way is to clearly define the duties of each level of government and build a system of checks and balances that prohibit them from moving outside their domains. A good first attempt at this was the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (in particular 9 & 10). The problem is that there are individuals who don't want to be limited in their authority. It's a person problem not a government problem. > How about: Any action that involves the initiation of force against the > property of another person (the person belongs to himself, of course) is > immoral. Morality? Why do you keep bringing religion and individual beliefs into it? A person is, they don't belong to anyone. It should be: Any act that harms a person or their property without their prior permission is a crime. There are no exceptions other than immediate personal self defence, which terminates upon the application of minimal force to guarantee the threat will not reoccur (in many cases this means kill the attacker). This should apply to all individuals participating in a governmental role as well. > This neatly tidies up the obvious question of exactly what "individual > rights" are. There's a partial list of them in the bill of rights, but > it is not complete, by its own admission. By it's own admission they are protected from denial by the 9th and 10th so they don't need to be listed (unlike the 10th lists the duties of the government system). The problem is conservatives and liberals alike don't respect those boundaries. They want more. > Furthermore, the above > definition excludes such dubious rights as the "right to an education", > the "right to welfare", etc. Now you're doing exactly what you are complaining about. Your defining others rights when you don't want them defining yours. People may very well have a right to welfare and an education (I believe people have a civil right to medical and legal advice gratis - stems from the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness). The issue isn't that. The issue is *what are the duties of the government as defined in its charter*. If those duties are not in there (and they're not) then it shouldn't be doing it without an amendment from the charter. > All of the above involve the initiation (or threat of initiation) of > force. Hence they are immoral, and the victims and any bystanders would > be morally justified in using force against the initiators. Of course, > this would not be true in a governed society, where the state must hold > a monopoly on the use of force, if only to maintain its own position. > Much less efficient. Go read the Constitution, it's true here in our governemnt though many people don't want it to be so. As a result they find all kinds of childish and inane reasons to deny the obvious. Like it or not the federal governments panapoly of current powers are as vacous as the king is naked. It's like executive orders, unless you happen to work for the executive branch they aren't worth the paper they're written on. Why? Because at no point is the office of President given this authority over anyone other than executive branch employees. He has no more authority to dictate general behaviour via that mechanism than you or I do - zero. Per the 10th there is not one sentence in the Constitution that delegates that authority to the office. > We've all got our pet peeves. Would you like to live under mine? Would > I like to live under yours? Can I trust you to be tolerant? Can I > trust your successors, 20 years from now? Can my descendants trust > subsequent successors, 200 years later? Experience tends to show the > contrary. There is more at stake than toleration or trust. You paint with too narrow a brush. If you're saying we should have anarchy then you're as kooky as the people who don't literaly interpret the Constitution. > The anarcho-capitalist free market is not one where "everything goes," > and there is indeed a strong concept of individual rights. What is > moral and not moral is defined by society on an individual basis. The > first and only rule is: First, it is one of everything-goes because there is no mechanism that will stop anybody from doing anything. There are NO concepts of *rights* in such a system, let alone individual rights. If anything the only rights are who has the capitalist backing to stave off the anarchic forces. That's not justice, equality, or respect for rights. > No one has the right to initiate force against another or another's > property. Attack me with your body and property and watch it happen junior. > This is the fundamental and only "social contract" we make. Anyone who > disagrees with this is obviously antisocial, and nobody's going to want > to live with him (or allow him to continue living, if he attacks > someone). Oh bullshit. There is much more involved like not stealing which isn't the use of force and allowed by your anarcho-capatilism as well as your definition of valid use of force above. It's gibberish. > >From this, morality follows. If X does Y to Z, and if Y is perceived as > immoral, then X is not going to be very popular with Z or anyone else, > unless he can make amends. No one will want to trade with him, be near > him, etc. This is a very strong motive to avoid doing immoral things. Will you get religion the hell out of here please. Y is obviously popular with X or else they wouldn't have used it. It further follows that there are more than one X-type out there. So your premise falls down on its face in the dirt. > If Y is really nasty, such as the initiation of force, then X is going > to be in *deep* trouble. With who? In an anarcho-capitalist society as you paint it the optimal strategy is to allow others to reduce your competition opening up the market for you. Let's take an example. Imagine we live on a street and we notice a person going from house to house down the other side of the street. What is our optimal strategy? It isn't to call the cops (there aren't any) and it isn't to immediately kill the intruder (it isn't our property after all) since there is an opportunity to make a considerable gain here improving our status in the society as a whole. The optimal strategy is to wait and let this bozo kill our neighbors up to our house and *then* kill the intruder. At that point we have just inhereted an entire street of houses and its included properties. You put up a fence across each end of the street and wallah, your own little fifedom. If you're really lucky something similar will happen on the next street over and they won't be as lucky at killing the intruder. Then after they are all dead and the intruder has consolidated their gains (probably by fencing their street in) you can begin to scheme ways of taking that property since its obvious yours is next. > Z may well shoot him out of self defense, and > even if he survives his action, he'll have to pay a *lot* of restitution > before people will trust him again, if ever. Law enforcement by > ostracism --read L. Neil Smith's "The Probability Broach", for a more > detailed description. Wait a second, there is no law to enforce here outside of make money, obtain property, keep somebody else from taking it. > In summary, a free market is far from being an immoral market. In fact, > it is the most moral market there is, since there is no state which > holds the "right" to initiate force. In summary a free-market is a anarchy of kill or be killed, take or get taken. He with the most goodies wins until somebody with a better strategy comes along. There is nothing to moderate the use of force, especialy when its the optimal strategy to increase ones holdings. Your spouting gibberish. ____________________________________________________________________ To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

3 2

Re: A question about the new ISP ruling and email...
by Information Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: Jim Choate <ravage(a)EINSTEIN.ssz.com> > > Hi, > > I was pondering the draconian implications of the requirement to register > ISP's. Would an email only site be an ISP under these regulations? I dunno. But I've begun netcopping the Ignition-Point list on an ongoing basis (starting Friday), and they'll be an interesting test case of whether what they're doing is "fair use". Pobox.com/listbox.com is reluctantly assigning a person to receive (my) copyright complaints, and will register themselves with the FCO. I like to post whole articles myself. Anyway, for a test case, better them than me. ---guy ;-)

1 0