- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

The slippery slope
by Steve Schear 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Justice Brennan and the slippery slope by Joseph Sobran The legacy of William Brennan, who died last week at 91, is summed up in the phrase "judicial activism." In an editorial eulogy, The New York Times praised him for his belief that "the Constitution was a living document that could and should be interpreted aggressively," as opposed to "the narrow, static doctrine of original intent, the notion that the Constitution can best be interpreted through the eyes of the Framers." Brennan himself attacked the idea of seeking the Framers' original intent as "arrogance in the cloak of humility." Apparently his own notion of humility was satisfied by giving the Constitution meanings nobody had ever suspected it of containing. Or, as he put it, the "genius" of the Constitution lay in the adaptability of its great principles to cope with current problems and needs." In plain language, Brennan imposed his own liberal agenda and said it was the Constitution speaking. He was ofton able to muster majorities on the Supreme Court to join him in this judicial ventriloquism. But even when his goals were worthy, his methods were despotic. In landmark opinions, Brennan held that the Constitution forbids the states to apportion their legislatures in their own ways, to define libel as they see fit, to cut off welfare benefits without a hearing, to ban the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried people, and to require public schools to balance the teaching of evolution with the teaching of theistic doctrines of creation; he also concurred in rulings forbidding the states to ban abortion and to execute criminals. Maybe Brennan knew how the states should have been governed better than the people of the states did. His various positions can be argued as matters of policy. But it was dishonest for him and his admirers to pretend that these positions were constitutional imperatives. And that pretense has done serious damage to the rule of law. Ideologically predictable, Brennan made the law itself unpredictable. In pursuit of his own agenda, he overturned settled understandings and ignored the clear language of the Constitution. His most important rulings usurped the powers constitutionally reserved to the states and the people thereby enlarging - unconstitutionally - the powers of the federal judiciary. Interpreting the Constitution, Brennan once said, "demands of judges more than proficiency in logical analysis." Maybe so, but it does demand such proficiency above all other things, and to disparage reason is to abandon the quest for stable law. Under jurists like Brennan, we are back where we started: subject to the arbitrary will of men rather than the irnpersonal rule of law. True, the states are often badly governed. On many specific issues they might have been better ruled by a William Brennan armed with dictatorial powers than they were hy their own legislatures, if results are everything and procedure doesn't matter. But there can be no shortcuts through the Constitution. The individual rights Brennan cherished are often abused. Is that an argument for ignoring them even when they are enshrined in law? Liberals insist that banning pornography is a slippery slope to thought control. But allowing a government to claim powere never granted to it, a habit now virtually synonymous with liberalism, is far more surely a slippery slope to tyranny. After all, every totalitarian state says it is merely trying to "cope with current problems and needs" when it dispenses with the inconvenience of the rule of law. The test of an honest jurist is whether he is willing to rule against his own preferences, deferring, however reluctantly, to what the law requires in the case at hand. The law may be wrong the legislature may be derelict, the people may be corrupt; but still, the law is the law and it must be honored. But Brennan's rulings were the triumph of preference over deference. He ruled without the normal regrets of a justice who sometimes feels compelled to put the law ahead of his personal desires. For him, as for many of his generation, the office of Supreme Court justice was an irresistible opportunity to wield power in the guise of interpreting the law.

1 0

Fw: slow network behavior with Linux kernel 2.0.x
by Dave Ross 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Can any of you help us with this mess? Linux is not my strong suit. Thanks! My engineer is pulling his hair out. I would appreciate any suggestions anyone could make. -dave ross davros(a)raf.com ---------- > From: Bruce Thompson <bt(a)raf.com> > To: davros@fred > Subject: Fw: slow network behavior with kernel 2.0.x > Date: Tuesday, August 12, 1997 12:18 AM > > > > ---------- > | From: Bruce Thompson <bt(a)raf.com> > | To: linux-kernel(a)vger.rutgers.edu > | Cc: linux-net(a)vger.rutgers.edu > | Subject: slow network behavior with kernel 2.0.x > | Date: Thursday, July 31, 1997 4:40 PM > | > | > | My company developes a psuedo real-time client-server system that runs on > | linux connected through TCP sockets. I have been noticing it has been > | taking the data packets quite a while to reach the clients from the > server. > | After trying several different ethernet cards and speeds (TP vs > thinnet,10 > | vs 100), I have determined that the slow down only occures when the > server > | is running with a linux 2.0.x kernel (I have not tried 2.1.x). Any > system > | running up to 1.3.89 runs fine at full speed. I have not yet tested any > | kernel between 1.3.89 and 2.0.0 > | > | From looking at tcpdumps, it appears that packets are not getting acked > in > | a timely way. I have turned off the 'delayed ack' feature of TCP and > have > | not seen any improvement. Here are some tcpdumps > | > | > | Example of what I would expect to be normal. > | 10:42:17.70 server > client: . 1:1461(1460) ack 98 win 31744 (DF) > | 10:42:17.70 server > client: . 1461:2921(1460) ack 98 win 31744 (DF) > | 10:42:17.71 client > server: . ack 2921 win 31744 (DF) > | 10:42:17.71 server > client: . 2921:4381(1460) ack 98 win 31744 > | 10:42:17.71 server > client: . 4381:5841(1460) ack 98 win 31744 > | 10:42:17.71 server > client: . 5841:7301(1460) ack 98 win 31744 > | 10:42:17.72 client > server: . ack 7301 win 31744 (DF) > | 10:42:17.72 server > client: P 7301:8760(1459) ack 98 win 31744 (DF) > | 10:42:17.74 client > server: . ack 8760 win 31744 (DF) > | > | Example of time lost with no ack of the first packet causing a 200ms > delay, > | and two acks that cause waits of 40ms and 70ms. > | > | 10:42:22.17 server > client: . 8760:10220(1460) ack 1222 win 31744 (DF) > | 10:42:22.37 server > client: . 8760:10220(1460) ack 1222 win 31744 (DF) > | 10:42:22.37 client > server: . ack 10220 win 31744 (DF) > | 10:42:22.37 server > client: . 10220:11680(1460) ack 1222 win 31744 > | 10:42:22.51 client > server: . ack 11680 win 31744 (DF) > | 10:42:22.51 server > client: . 11680:13140(1460) ack 1222 win 31744 > | 10:42:22.51 server > client: . 13140:14600(1460) ack 1222 win 31744 > | 10:42:22.52 client > server: . ack 14600 win 31744 (DF) > | 10:42:22.52 server > client: . 14600:16060(1460) ack 1222 win 31744 > | 10:42:22.59 client > server: . ack 16060 win 31744 (DF) > | 10:42:22.59 server > client: P 16060:17519(1459) ack 1222 win 31744 (DF) > | 10:42:22.61 client > server: . ack 17519 win 31744 (DF) > | > | Here is a particularly bad example where the same 8760 byte file took 1.7 > | seconds to be transfered. > | > | 10:17:14.95 server > client: . 1:1461(1460) ack 98 win 31744 (DF) > | 10:17:15.14 client > server: . ack 1461 win 31744 (DF) > | 10:17:15.14 server > client: . 1461:2921(1460) ack 98 win 31744 > | 10:17:15.14 server > client: . 2921:4381(1460) ack 98 win 31744 > | 10:17:15.44 client > server: . ack 2921 win 31744 (DF) > | 10:17:15.44 server > client: . 4381:5841(1460) ack 98 win 31744 > | 10:17:15.45 client > server: . ack 2921 win 31744 (DF) > | 10:17:15.64 client > server: . ack 2921 win 31744 (DF) > | 10:17:16.08 server > client: . 2921:4381(1460) ack 98 win 31744 > | 10:17:16.27 client > server: . ack 5841 win 31744 (DF) > | 10:17:16.27 server > client: . 5841:7301(1460) ack 98 win 31744 > | 10:17:16.57 client > server: . ack 7301 win 31744 (DF) > | 10:17:16.57 server > client: P 7301:8760(1459) ack 98 win 31744 (DF) > | 10:17:16.59 client > server: . ack 8760 win 31744 (DF) > | > | In general, the system just seems to be slow in responding to this > network > | traffic. This is a private network for these systems so there should be > | now problem with other traffic affecting these timings. With 1.3.x I see > | total transit times on the order of 30ms on the 10Mbps network. > | > | The same hardware that runs slowly with 2.0.x will run quickly with only > | the kernel changed. > | > | Any ideas as to what could be causing this? > | > | > | Thanks, > | ------------------------- > | Bruce Thompson > | RAF Technology > | (206) 867-0700 > | > |

1 0

Guy Polis
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

'punks, There's a crackpot by the name of Guy Polis (guy(a)panix.com, polis_guy@ jpmorgan.com) who posts a crackpot "cryptographic manifesto" and sounds like a bad troll intended to make the folks who promote the use of crypto look like, well, crackpots. Be warned. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

7 10

The Right to Bare Arms on "The slippery slope" of Capital Hill
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Steve Schear wrote: > Justice Brennan and the slippery slope > by Joseph Sobran > > The legacy of William Brennan, who died last week at 91, is summed up in > the phrase "judicial activism." When your "activism" is backed with guns, it's called tyranny. > Or, as he put it, the "genius" of the > Constitution lay in the adaptability of its great principles to cope with > current problems and needs." e.g. - The "Right to Bare Arms" means that we can charge Capital Hill with machete's and and cut those fuckers' arms off to keep their fucking hands out of the public till. The "Right to Free Speech" means that we can cut their fucking throats and free those "honest" words that have been trapped down there ever since they got to D.C. God, I love an Constitution with "adaptable principles." > In plain language, Brennan imposed his own liberal agenda and said it was > the Constitution speaking. > But even when his > goals were worthy, his methods were despotic. > Under jurists like Brennan, we are back where we > started: subject to the arbitrary will of men rather than ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > the impersonal rule of law. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Exactly. The right wing kills us with weapons and the left wing kills us with kindness. The Constitution has always suffered as much or more under the judicial influence of Democrats than it has under the influence of Republicans. The citizen's pocketbook, likewise--the Republicans want to spend others' money on weapons and the Democrats want to give it to "worthy" causes of "their" choosing. If one of their relatives needs a kidney, then the Republicans want to force drug-dealers and child-pornographers to give them one of theirs. The Democrats want to hold a lottery so that all of us are subject to giving them a kidney. Constitution!??!?? How _dare_ you suggest tht drug-dealers have rights? How _dare_ you suggest that someone with no kidneys doesn't have a right to receive your "spare" one from the government? > The test of an honest jurist is whether he is willing to rule against his > own preferences, deferring, however reluctantly, to what the law requires > in the case at hand. Like it or not, when two cops blatantly lie on the witness stand (i.e. - telling you that the husband of a murdered woman was not considered a "suspect" when they climbed over his fence) then their evidence should be thrown out. The majority of the nation (and an elected judge) just coughed and looked at their feet when that happened at the "guilty black man's trial," but the "honest" jurists who held a human life in their hands did not. Halfway through the O.J. trial, someone asked me what I thought the verdict should be. I glanced at the courtroom circus and said, "I think we should find them _all_ guilty!" I have come to the same conclusion regarding our legislators. If I were on the Supreme Court, I might take into consideration my need for fertilizer for my garden when deciding their fate. (Of course, being a strong Constitutionalist, I would only have their "Bare Arms," which the Constitution gives me the right to, cut off to feed my plants.) Timothy May points out that things have reached a point where we no longer need to decide on the "kind" of solution to our problem, but the "calibre" of the solution (or "megatonnage"). Robert Hettinga made a good point that, while we may be having a lot of fun with our discussions about the law and the Constitution, technology and the economy will likely influence most of the future direction of eCa$h (as well as privacy and freedom, etc.). Sadly, they are both more right than most of us would like to admit. I would like to think that Republicans and Democrats, the EFF and Freeh, the Government and the people, Rodney King and the L.A. cops, could "all just get along." The reason we can't? We have no longer have a Constitution to hold on to--to balance the stronger against the weaker, the larger against the smaller, the "little" rights and wrongs against the "big" rights and wrongs. > But Brennan's rulings were the triumph of preference over deference. > For him, as for many of his > generation, the office of Supreme Court justice was an irresistible > opportunity to wield power in the guise of interpreting the law. So we end up with legisltors who now have the power to give our money to the rich _or_ to the poor depending on who holds power, and they have the power to kill us with weapons _or_ with kindness when they hold the majority. We are governed by those who think that "The answer to blatantly unconstitutional laws, is _more_ unconstitutional laws." and "The Legislature interprets the Constitution as damage, and routes around it." "A Vote for TruthMonger is a Vote for Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt." Perhaps we need to start a FUD Party. Run a multi-user persona candidate, such as TruthMonger. (MayMonger, TreiMonger, SchearMonger, snowMonger, CrispinMonger). We can each gather our own brand of faithful under a common flag, telling each faction whatever kind of FUD they want to hear before they will vote for us, and become the next majority. Once we are in power...we restore the Constitution, throw out all other laws, and starch the flag (so that nobody can wrap themself in it). Then we quit. {Disclaimer: The fault in the idea espoused above lies in the fact that I (and proably many others) cannot hold it in my mind for more than a few seconds before I invariably start thinking about a few, small "improvements" I could make before resigning.} ("I have met the enemy, and he is _me_.") TruthMangler p.s. - Or, how about, "If elected, we promise to kill ourselves."?

2 1

I'd _like_ to share my source code, but...
by nobody＠neva.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Peter Trei forged: > Does anyone remember what 5 + 7 is equal to? (Send the answer by > encrypted, private email. Secrecy is essential to my work.) For immediate employment contact <the_boss(a)dataETR.com>. Or, if you are merely working on a bid for the following, >USG published a solicitation today in the CBD for a >Public Key Infrastructure which outlines the system >requirements: then, 5 + 7 = 14 (Close enough for government work!)

3 2

Another Free Email Site with remailer possibilities
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Www.Iname.com is yet another free email site. Its business model is to offer free email forwarding from basic accounts (paid for by advertising attached to the bottom of the mail), with fancier-looking accounts and POP mailboxes for extra money. They have very explicit anti-spam policies, but I'm not sure if they really hunt down spammers, or if they just respond to complaints by shutting off accounts and keeping the $0 or $15. The policies would be no problem for a subscription-only exit remailer, presumably no problem for a entry-only or middleman remailer, and appear to ban non-subscription-based exit remailers. They may or may not have a problem with the type of remailer that sends a non-registered user a note saying "You've got anonymous mail; send this cookie if you want to receive it"; my guess is they probably drop free accounts after one complaint. The free accounts look like username(a)iname.com, or a few other lame domain names like cyberdude.com; one of them is "earthling.net", and I suspect the spammer who sent me mail from one of those accounts was trying to pretend to be from earthlink.net ; I've probably blocked both of them by now. You can only have one free account per destination address. The advertising attached to the bottom of the mail messages shouldn't be a problem for PGP-only remailers, assuming they use some tolerable format and don't try to package your mail in some MIME or HTML wrappers. I can't tell, because they say they won't start attaching ads until the extra-price-option ad-remover software is available RSN. The non-free accounts cost $15/year (first 60 days free) for wider collection of domain names (including mail.com, which is usable, and some pure spam-bait names including seductive.com and credit4u.com.) POP3 mailboxes cost $24/year. Their security is really spotty - they use SSL for things related to your bill, but not for passwords, at least for free accounts.... It's easy to set up an account that forwards mail to some third party; if you want to control the thing, you have to point it to yourself first, have it send you the password and confirmation, then go log in to the member page and change your mail forwarding destination. So it's unfortunately easy to spam the innocent with an account at innocent.com (they don't have guilty.com, though :-) I've set up remailer1(a)disposable.com to point to winsock(a)rigel.cyberpass.net , which is a PGP-only remailer. It'll expire in 60 days, unless someone wants to spend money, but that's why it's remailer1(a)disposable.com.... It's got one of the usual passwords. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list or news, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

2 1

Forged headers
by travel23＠juno.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Does anyone know of a URL where you can get information on how to forge headers and email addresses? The Traveler ----------------------------- "Sometimes you're the bug, sometimes you're the windshield."

4 3

AGAIN???DISINFO IN THE NY TIMES??? RESPOND!!!
by info＠pgmedia.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Again the NY Times is blatantly misleading the public! The following letter was sent to Jeri Clausing, a NY Times reporter bringing the disinformative article to her attention. Please read her article and then send her a "reminder" of her accountability to the public. Journalism requires thourough research and not just reliance on the press releases from NSI's IAHC's, of DoC's pr agencies. Wheather it's just pure laziness or wheather Ms. Clausing is following an agenda of some sort, it still adds up to dishonest and disinformative reporting. You can email to Jeri Clausing at jeri(a)nytimes.com. While you're at it, please cc it to her boss: cybertim(a)nytimes.com, rofixm(a)nytimes.com ----------full text of message follows--------- To: jeri(a)nytimes.com From: pgp(a)pgmedia.net (pgMedia) Subject: Disinfo In the NY Times---again? Cc: cybertim(a)nytimes.com, rofixm(a)nytimes.com Message-ID: <1340460904-6466563(a)MediaFilter.org> X-UIDL: 2ad5cdbc00a0fb68ba0a56b3fd2d9ae5 Dear Jeri Clausing, In your August 15 article in Cybertimes entitled "Public Jumps into the Domain Name Dispute" you failed to mention some key facts which are factors in the current Domain Name issue. First, the petition being widely endorsed in support of pgMedia, Inc.'s NAME.SPACE service, was not mentioned in your article, although it represents a significant percentage of the number of total replies received to date by the US Department of Commerce. The petition is located at http://petition.name.space.xs2.net Second, you failed to report the fact that pgMedia, Inc. is currently engaged in litigation against Network Solutions, Inc., a significant and influencing factor in this whole discussion. (http://name.space.xs2.net/law) These blatant omissions are patently misleading to the public and fail to give a fair overview of the entire situation. Wheather you are underinformed on this issue, or wheather you consciously choose to abridge the facts to suit your personal agenda or that of your employer, the New York Times, you are doing a disservice to the public by exercising such journalistic irresponsibility. I had higher expectations for those who write for the NY Times, and this opportunity to see how news is shaped and manufactured has been highly enlightening. Had I not been involved deeply and first-hand in this issue and had there not been so much reported about my comapny in the media, including the NY Times, concerning pgMedia/Name.Space's role in the changing domain name space, the Anti Trust Litigation against Network Solutions, and the US Department of Justice's involvement, I would have also been disinformed by your reporting. If you have any interest in informing yourself fully on the details absent in your reporting, please feel free to contact me at 212.677.4080. I will be happy to meet with you and demonstrate the name.space service and answer any qusetions you may have...and I'll forgive you if you really were unaware! Best regards, Paul Garrin president pgMedia, Inc./NAME.SPACE http://name.space http://name.space.xs2.net

1 0

Crypto Patents and PGP Lib 3.0?
by allan＠spamport.excite.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I haven't seen any mention lately of the mythical PGP Lib 3.0. The last I recall hearing was that it was waiting to be release this month when certain patents expired. Does anyone know which patents or algorithms those are? I know that D-H expired back in April, but what about RSA and any other "basic" algorithms? -- Allan Bailey Excite, Inc. (Austin)

1 0

HOPE and Wiretap News
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

NYT had a front page story yesterday on the HOPE meet. Featuring hack of NYC's Metrocard, with wry commentary on new adventures "underground." A quote: Bruce Schneier, a highly regarded cryptography expert who spoke at the conference, said experience bad taught him that hackers often understood computer systems better than the engineers who designed them. "Hackers just have a much more holistic view," he said. Mr. Schneier, who is a consultant to Cubic on the next-generation Metrocard, said he believes someone will inevitably figure out a hack. "I believe that, fundamentally, a system as complicated as the Metrocard cannot be absolutely secure," he said. --------- See full report at: http://jya.com/beyond-hope2.htm Aptly, with Bruce's emphasis at HOPE on the need for laws to punish computer criminals and to close the global jurisdictional gap so there's no refuge for outlaws, there's Markoff's report yesterday on a petition to the FCC opposing the FBI's digital wiretap plan: http://jya.com/tap-opp.htm

1 0