- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: FBI calls for mandatory key escrow; Denning on export ctrls (fwd)
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May wrote: >A much stronger basis for stopping the Freeh nonsense is to strongly assert >the First Amendment. Dictating the form that speech must take--escrow--is >unconstitutional. ....................................................... One would think that Freeh, Denning, et al, would know these things already. Or that one of their legal advisors would remind them of it. I also noticed in the news on TV tonight that there are Clinton & Supporters, Inc. proposals being prepared for ensuring that stores actually do require purchasers of cigarrettes to display an ID, so that minors are prevented from smoking. This is also contrary to the principles of being left alone, but who among our protectors is watching over the boundary lines, fighting back the infidels? Who cares about the Constitution any more?

2 1

on the social taboo/stigma
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

consider the recent events surrounding cigarettes. various laws were passed for many decades that made them more difficult to obtain and sell. regulations increased. yet they have not seen major effects in sales until relatively recently in history. why is this? because of the social taboo and stigma associated with them. this taboo and stigma only recently arose. and its efficacy is attested to by the figures on the sales of cigarettes, which have gone down considerably in the US. (yes I am aware of what is happening in foreign markets-- please stay with me for a minute). we have tobacco executives virtually being put on trial. their shame is palpable. what I would like to try to draw to your attention here to something very powerful. it is the social taboo or stigma, and in some ways it is the only long-lasting, enduring landmark of social consciousness. laws may come and go. people may obey or not follow laws. what is the difference? I think it is clear that it is not taboo to break some laws in the public's mind. (prohibition is one example). laws can be viewed as an attempt to create a social taboo or stigma via legislation. it is effective for the most part. but it can be unreasonable and public opinion can diverge from the laws. what is the cpunk relevance? well, I am trying to point out that taboos and stigmas are very powerful weapons. a government may have physical weapons, but not use them because of international stigma. the reaction of other countries might be so great that the "benefits" (a horrific term in this case) are not worth the loss of accommodations given by other countries, which would be retracted. social stigmas/tabboos are very important in gauging the psyche of a public. you can psychoanalyze the public at large by determining what they consider taboo or stigmas. mass social movements represent shifts in taboos and stigmas. consider the sexual revolution for example. in some ways, the taboo or stigma in a person's psyche are the root measure of their behavior, not laws. if someone perceives there is no taboo or stigma ("not getting caught" is related to this) there is no deterrent. === here's the application. if cpunks wish to achieve certain goals, one way is to try to create stigmas and taboos where none previously existed, or tear down those that already exist that are obstacles to the cpunk agenda. so, for example, a "stigma" about exporting unapproved cryptography could be turned into a badge of honor. likewise, we could create a "stigma" about working in the NSA. this is the main them I want to nail in this letter. many people are in jobs that some may consider ethically reprehensible. they believe they have no choice. consider the tens of thousands of very intelligent people (some of the most intelligent on the planet) that are *right*now* creating horrendous weapons of destruction in the name of "defense". they know in their hearts that these weapons are stretching the concept of defense to the "indefensible" so to speak. that is, they could only have offensive (in all senses of the word) applications. moreover, even if they have defensive capabilities, they have absolutely no way of ensuring their government would not misapply them. anyone who thinks otherwise is pathetically naive. there were famous scientists who developed the atom bomb who had major turns of thought after they saw how it was applied. but does anybody listen today? I encourage anyone working on their ingenious defense research to get the slightest historical clue about atom bomb development. how smart do you really think you are, if what you are developing can be misused, and you are merely a pawn in a big machine? I am writing this letter to all those people who are *right*now* channeling their own human energies into sinister applications. you might be working for the NSA. you might be working in the defense industry. whereever, whatever. you have pangs of conscience that you don't want to face. you can go a whole lifetime not thinking about it. your superiors and everything in your environment encourages you *not* to *think* about it. I am asking you to *think* about it. I am asking you to realize that governments cannot go in the direction that they are not supported. if tomorrow everyone who worked in the NSA said, "I am fed up, I don't have to take this job, they can intimidate me but this is a free country, I have skills that are valuable channelled elsewhere and not in constricting freedoms"-- the NSA would be dead. you don't need laws or to create revolutions or governments to get social change. in fact revolutions are typically intrinsically beyond laws, and new governments arise only when society's thoughts change. everything, *everything* that cpunks rail against is being held up by other *people*. these people are not evil, they merely think differently. many of them react to mass social pressure and stigma. can the public successfully create new, effective stigmas that pressure government to reform? it appears to me this is already happening. I suggest we focuse not on laws or institutions, but on the people holding them up, and their beliefs. I suspect there are people such as I am alluding to on the cypherpunk list. I think there are a lot of very talented programmers, for example, working on applications of highly questionable moral value (such as weapons of mass destruction). does anyone have any idea how much tax money goes into so-called "defense" projects? what evils have been perpetrated under the guise of "national security"? I believe that the value of the cpunk list is that it has successfully created some new taboos and stigmas (associated with spooks), and removed others (such as criticism of the government, etc.) I think that we need to create some new stigmas and nail them down emphatically. such as, "know that what you are working on is going toward a greater good" (i.e. a stigma or taboo associated with the lack of this), not "keep your mouth shut and don't ask any questions". consider a programmer union that had recommendations to its members such as these. "I will not work on code that can be misused for violence. I will not work on code that does not have adequate safeguards against its use" etc. do you know what all your friends and neighbors are doing? can we make it so that its really *uncool* to be supporting rotten institutions via one's labor, instead of having some kind of warped charisma associated with being a "rocket scientist"? to borrow an ominous phrase, I call on the oppressed workers of the world to unite. I call on you to discover your own power and conscience. I call on you to have a philosophy that you have thought out, and to adhere to it. consider what you are applying *your* energy to. and consider the possibility that even though you think you have no choice, that is the lie that keeps you as a secure brick in the wall of oppression. all the rotten structures of power would collapse in an instant if those who held them up stopped doing so. if nobody will work on his software, Big Brother cannot exist.

1 0

Re: Big Brother is watching
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Lucky Green wrote: > I read in this morning's paper that in the wake of Diana's death, bills are > being proposed to require licensing for the use of high powered telescopic > lenses such as those used by celebrity photographers. Ignoring for a moment > that such an act would make physical confrontation with said photographers > even more likely, I note the similarity in language used to describe camera > lenses to language used to describe certain firearms. Soon we will hear > about the dangers of "assault lenses". The sheeple will eat it up. For some reason this made me think of the thread containing light-bulb jokes, and some warped wit saying, "Sure, light bulb jokes are funny, until someone burns a retina..." Though I laughed my ass off, at the time, have things really begun to deteriorate so rapidly that I am justified in now wondering if there will be a "Light Bulb Joke Amendment" to the "Telescopic Lens Registration" legislation? TruthMonger

1 0

Smoking and IDs
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Lucky Green wrote: >As signs in any liquor store have been informing tobacco customers for >months, new FDA regulations require stores to check the ID of any tobacco >customer under 25. This despite the fact that you are legally allowed to >purchase tobacco products at age 18. If the store fails to check the ID of >a person legally permitted to conduct the purchase but is under age 25, the >store faces hefty fines. ........................................................ Thanks for providing more details on this, Lucky, I overlooked the fact that not everyone on the list will understand the situation was referring to. Another odd thing: I was talking to the clerk at a convenience store about the ID sign next to the register, and she said that on the other hand, there aren't any such requirements for the purchase of any of the cigars which were on display on the counter. Another odd thing is how popular cigars have become lately. Last month I bought a copy of "Cigar Aficionado" magazine to peruse, even though I don't smoke, because it was so pretty :>) and spent quite some time looking at their web site. It is a curious matter that when one "vice" is squelched, another grows in its place. This magazine really emphasizes living "the good life", and I discovered that there are places springing up all over the U.S. (and I expect elsewhere) which are smoking clubs - people can actually go there just to smoke their cigar, perhaps with a glass of after-dinner liquor. I thought this was a great idea, myself, because here these people can be with others who enjoy the same activity, and there's no one outside who can complain (not yet, anyway). I think sometimes it is not only a Truth, but a great & useful Means to an End, that "living well is the best revenge". Not sure how this will apply to transponder implants, though. A subject for late-night speculation.

3 2

Re: FBI calls for mandatory key escrow; Denning on export ctrls
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The on-line NYT's claim today that everyone except the administration is opposed to its crypto policy is daring hyperbole. What's your take on that? http://jya.com/crypto-tops.htm

6 5

U.S. Prison Labor
by bureau42 Anonymous Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Does anyone have pointers to information/details about U.S. prison inmates being used as slave labour for international corporations? Thanx

4 3

Re: Comparing encryption to airbags: both hurt the public
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

That Subject: line should have been, of course, that airbags and crypto controls both hurt the public. --Declan

1 0

Comparing encryption to airbags: both hurt the public
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 07:38:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Comparing encryption to airbags: both hurt the public ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 09:48:53 -0400 From: Julie DeFalco <defalco(a)cei.org> To: declan(a)well.com Subject: Airbags Actually, the similarity between airbags and encryption is a good comparison. The public will be hurt by encryption controls, just as the public has been hurt by airbags. A few facts: Airbags were promoted by Joan Claybrook in the 1970s and 1980s as a wonderful technology which worked for everybody from large males to little children. She claimed that they would save thousands and thousands of lives each year, and that they would work for unbelted occupants. Claybrook even pressured the manufacturers to use the technologies which she now condemns today (don't get me started on Claybrook's mendacity on the airbag issue. She is a flat-out liar). Well, while airbags have indeed saved some people who otherwise would have died, they have not worked nearly as well as promised. They specifically hurt the weakest people in our society -- small children, short women, and the elderly. They add about six hundred dollars to the price of new cars, which encourages poorer people to keep older, possibly less safe cars longer. Now Claybrook even claims that airbags would work better if people weren't "out of position" -- i.e. if they were wearing seatbelts, even though the entire point of airbags was to provide "passive restraints" because people didn't wear seatbelts. Encryption controls will, like airbags, be far more dangerous to the public than currently promoted. And once given the power, it will be pretty difficult, if not impossible, to take it away from government agencies. Even with airbags documented as killing people, the government won't let us have the choice whether to have them in the car at all. The biggest concession the government will make is allowing car companies to include an on-off switch. This is why CEI will soon publish directions on our website on how to dismantle your own airbags (well, as soon as we square away the legal stuff). Ciao! Julie ________________________________ Julie DeFalco Policy Analyst Competitive Enterprise Institute 1001 Connecticut Ave., NW Suite 1250 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 331-1010 Fax: (202) 331-0640 http://www.cei.org

1 0

Re: Di Privacy, Die / Was: Death of Privacy
by bureau42 Anonymous Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- TruthMonger wrote: > Notice that the press reports that the two little princes want to > walk behind the casket. Is it a 'coincidence' that the two innocent > victims who are now under the thumb of the monarchist spin-doctors > are going to be front and center in the coverup of their mother's > murder? > Why are the thousands of death threats against Prince Charles if he > tries to use the funeral to redeem his image *not* news? It seems likely that Something Is Afoot. Let's not assume that it is centered on preserving Charles Windsor's shot at the throne. Most likely those Shadowy People who preserve social order have been concerned about the stability of the Monarchy and are now taking steps to preserve it. A commonly perceived problem with monarchy is the strict rules of inheritance. From time to time a person totally unsuited to the job pops up. Not all societies in all of history have found this problem insurmountable. (Examples: The Man in the Iron Mask, or the peculiar deaths of Queen Hatshepsut's older brothers, or the death of Peter the Great's only son, etc.) Diana, obviously, was unsuited to the job and did not seem to understand it. R.I.P. Diana, for all the trouble she caused, did manage to arouse interest in the Monarchy. Her death has caused millions of people in Britain and elsewhere to become deeply emotionally involved with the Monarchy. This emotional capital is far better than the lassitude which preceded her. While many perceptions of the Royal Family are not positive, this can be easily transformed into adulation of the Monarchy using the vehicle of Diana's sons. Charles is no prize. He's managed to muff an easy job. It is possible that the Monarchy would not survive his accession to the throne. Look for the death of Charles, probably before the Queen dies. An accident would do it, but a "suicide" would add some spice, arouse sympathy, and be less suspicious. (Two fatal accidents would be extremely unlikely, whereas the odds of a suicide under these circumstances cannot be calculated.) A "lone nut" with a gun would also do the trick, although it's getting old. This would pave the way for a smooth handoff of power from the well regarded Queen to one of Diana's well regarded sons. Order will have been restored. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.html "I AM a number! I am a free man!" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNA5l65aWtjSmRH/5AQHA+wf+L8wD2sO49jbwkdGDKaMT6V0NYxqS8v6e 6IQXBkVEdhtNBWbgFB647smJ9TOR0Z9TFxcMGi0MDYw4X8CZPKJOzh3Al78S53PA ViseV1nMMFpViOjqSALChK9NtOE2pemAKGBJaTvjGZBzzi0ItSkRhS+JBfaByz3C tzBCwMx99kMnQrUVNHW6aC5hjj47WFSbGLLbLP5g6VJnGVLP/jRl3I/173KoGote VXRXAByWd+EWjYvACe/WIOt4rYiCGCG4WJgDi4UETOfYJoYgjqrjdZ8ljIzw/bL6 Bg2nI7wg//PQXSN/TMq8rWlwauYRLQ9i9EMK4KvuOm3Qq1tMzHGh7A== =0xyT -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

One Smart Polack (Was: Students of Hitler)
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Vin Suprynowicz, vin(a)lvrj.com "A well-regulated population being necessary to the security of a police state, the right of the Government to keep and destroy arms shall not be infringed." http://www.nguworld.com/vindex/

1 0