- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

RE: Fighting the cybercensor
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Dr.Dimitri Vulis However U.S.G. is able to say that people of Iraq or Lybia or Cuba should not be permitted on the 'net. It also bombs Iraq and murders their civilians in retaliation for something their governments supposedly did. ................................................................ The U.S.G. has many more resources than most of us to do these things, including equipment, cooperative troops, money, and recognition from other governments. If other nations disagree with the U.S.G. they have the resources to discuss, bargain, negotiate, criticize, form alliances, take their chances and retaliate, etc. These things are done on a level not accessible to the most of us. All that we individuals have are access to telephone lines, computers, and modems. Yet even as we speak the world is being "wired" with cables to further make this singular communication possible and open up avenues to non-government organized activities: international corporations are se tting up offices, services, and correspondence wherever in the world they can find markets. All this is happening even while the governments are complaining to each other about what their citizens are posting (tch, tch) and threatening to deprive each other of that privilege. While governments and their True Believer citizens are dealing with each other on one level, the rest of the world is reorganizing itself into a different order of living and doing business. They are sharing ideas and examining their concepts and beliefs, they are conducting a lot of their disagreements on the net (instead of physically against each other on the ground), opening up to a broader view of relationships between individuals, or to governments, or to religions, sexuality, etc. The situation hasn't completely changed yet, but it is in process. .. Blanc

1 0

[Humor] Crypto in Traveller (a game)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, I thought I would pass this along to demonstrate that all uses of crypto are not 'real world'... Hope you enjoy. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com Forwarded message: > To: traveller(a)MPGN.COM > Subject: Re: Aperture Synthesis, Aegis > Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 21:40:18 +0000 > > At 08:15 AM 1/26/97 +0000, you wrote: > <snip> > >For example, at 5 ls, you have ship A sending data to ship B, which has > >to know "exactly" how long it took for the data to cross the gap, as > >that's one of the parameters in the calculations. > > > >If it's "exactly" 5 seconds, then each ship "combines" the data it > >receives directly with the data received 5 seconds later from the other > >ship. The combining involves various things like trig and other messy > >stuff. But it all boils down to "A saw X1 from direction Y1 at time Z1, B > >saw X2 from Y2 at Z2". You combine the info and triangulate. > > > >So at 5 ls, you have a "data lag" of the 5 seconds it takes the signal > >to cross the distance *plus* the processing time. > > > >And since the distance *will* vary, even if only by a little bit, that > >changes the point in the your datastream that you are comparing with > >the datastream from the other ship. > > > > Could we presume that vessels operating together would have some type of > synchronized timekeeping, such as an atomic clock, in each ship, with each > message between ships being time & velocity stamped so that each receiver > could adjust the data for integration to local data? > > We should also assume a really good (and closely gaurded) encryption on the > interchanges, or enemy intercepts would be right dangerous. > > Adventure possiblity: trying to obtain a given unit's encryption code or > seeking to recover said code.

1 0

RE: Internet, Countries, Nationalism, etc.
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Jim Choate blanc has put forth an interesting assertion relating to nationalism and the Internet. If he is correct then we will have a one world government (ie technocracy) whether we like it or not. ................................................................... When your little company grows up to become a big World Leader in robotics, will you then be a member of this technocracy, participating in a one-world government, whether we like it or not? Will you sit on the Board of Honchos making important decisions about net access for all, perhaps active in the Chamber of Borgs? :>) .. Blanc p.s. I be femme

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 03:28:53 -0800 > From: Bill Stewart <stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com> > Subject: Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd) > > At 12:11 AM 1/22/97 -0600, Jim Choate wrote: > >> Singapore and China are blocking certain net groups. I think > >> this is a bad thing, question is how can we stop it? > > > >'We' shouldn't, it is their own country and it is up to their populace to > >stop it. Do you really want Singapore or China having a say in how we run > >our web? I certainly don't, and won't support any move to force any > > Nonsense - the net doesn't "belong" to "Singapore or China" - The part of it that comes out of their pocketbook does. Just like the part of 'the net' that I pay for belongs to me. The net is a bunch of computers, running software, hooked together over cables and other links. Each and EVERY ONE of these require installation, upkeep, repair, and utility support. This costs money. He who pays the money owns the net, everybody else is along for the ride. If we take your argument to its logical conclusion then once a box goes on the net it belongs to nobody/everybody. Clearly utter nonsense. If you really and truly believe that the net belongs to everyone and nobody has a right to limit or otherwise control the hardware and software along with the associated comm links they own and pay for then you obviously don't understand what is going on. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com ps I also support France's current attempt at forcing the Georgia university web site on French soil to use French.

2 1

Re: (Fwd) Just Say No to Telcom "Reform"
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ross Wright forwarded: > President Clinton and Congress promised the American people that > enactment of the Telecommunications Reform Act would lead to a > cornucopia of technological innovations that would change the nation's > cultural frontiers, expand our choices, dazzle our eyes, and inform > our minds. Instead, we've been censored in cyberspace, subjected to > TV ratings systems, and prevented from experiencing the benefits of a > truly competitive marketplace by the emergence of "cartels" created by > mega-mergers in the telecommunications and media industries. Surprise, surprise! > This is not reform! And it's not too late to demand that our decision > makers deliver on what they promised us on February 8, 1996: Yes it is. Nobody in politics gives up the ground they've gained. The fact that they were able to hose the citizens the first time around only reinforces their certainty that they can continue to do so. While people are still fighting the earlier, lost battles, they are preparing for the next one. I fully support anyone who wants to continue to fight past battles, present battles, and future battles, on the level of surface politics. But I think that their efforts are most effective if they add the tools and weapons developed by the underground to their battles. Let them know that if they want to censor you, they will have to censor your 'strong' crypto. Even if you choose to fight by showing up with your gun on your hip, at high-noon, it still doesn't hurt to have one tucked in your boot, as well. Toto

1 0

Re: (Fwd) Just Say No to Telcom "Reform"
by Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Toto <toto(a)sk.sympatico.ca> writes: > Let them know that if they want to censor you, they will have to > censor your 'strong' crypto. Even if you choose to fight by showing > up with your gun on your hip, at high-noon, it still doesn't hurt to > have one tucked in your boot, as well. Certain unnamed people believe that "strong" crypto, like free speech, is only for those who use it "responsibly". Privacy is for the elite; and they wish to join the elite, rather then extend the right to privacy and/or free speech to the "unwashed masses". --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Censorship
by Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Ross Wright" <rwright(a)adnetsol.com> writes: > On or About 26 Jan 97 at 2:19, blanc wrote: > > > >Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > >>>Jim Choate wrote: > > >>>>>Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > >>>>>>>irrelevant(a)nowhere.com wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>Dale Thorn wrote: > > > > It can be said 100,000 times, but it still comes out the same: > > Just as in "The only cure for bad speech is more speech", "the only > > cure for 'list-focus-drift' is more on-focus postings". > > THE PRICE OF FREE SPEECH IS TOLERANCE OF IDEAS THAT WE MAY > OBJECT TO. Comversely, some people are willing to give up their own freedom of speech so as to silence others whose views they don't like. They hope that they'll be censored less than their "enemies". But a forum can't be "a little bit censored" just like a woman can't be "a little bit pregnant". --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor
by Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Toto <toto(a)sk.sympatico.ca> writes: > Dale Thorn wrote: > > > How does one country get on top and terrorize the whole world? By > > following Tom Wolfe's intimation concerning the pirates: "The people > > on the East coast were constantly victimized because they couldn't > > comprehend just how vicious and ruthless the pirates really were" > > (quote approximate). > > Dale, > When I read posts like this, I wonder how any rationally thinking > person can possibly believe that socio/politico concerns have no > place in the discussion of crypto. > It is my belief that many of the more atrocious acts being performed > against the citizens by various governments are made possible by the > fact that there are so few people who recognize a 'pirate' when they > see one. > While I appreciate that there are those who may be furthering the > cause of crypto, privacy and freedom through official channels, the > controlled media, and such, there needs to be a forum in which > people are free to use what they consider to be the 'correct' > terminology to refer to those who have usurped democracy in order > to control the citizens for their own personal profit. > i.e. 'Pirates' Right now, you can still say anything you like in "cypherpunks-unedited". Anyone subscribed to the moderated cypherpunks list is free to resubscribe. If the masses of lurkers choose not to do it, it's their loss, and not your or my responsibility. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

cc.317.html
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

VERDICTS IN CASES OF DEFAMATORY LIBEL. 317. Where, on the trial of an indictment for publishing a defamatory libel, a plea of not guilty is pleaded, the jury that is sworn to try the issue may give a general verdict of guilty or not guilty on the whole matter put in issue on the indictment, and shall not be required or directed by the judge to find the defendant guilty merely on proof of publication by the defendant of the alleged defamatory libel, and of the sense ascribed thereto in the indictment, but the judge may, in his discretion, give a direction or opinion to the jury on the matter in issue as in other criminal proceedings, and the jury may, on the issue, find a special verdict. [R.S., c.C-34, s.281.] _________________________________________________________________ Next, Section 318 ...

1 0

PublicF_j385.html
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Libel Plaintiffs - Public or Private Person Status Recent Examples PUBLIC OFFICIALS: * High School Teacher, Elstrom v. Independent Sch. District (Minn. 1995) * Elementary School Principal, 20 MLR 1640 (VT.) * Former County Employee w/ Financial Responsiblity, 20 MLR 2159 (Tenn.) * Police Officer, 21 MLR 1588 (Az.) * Federal Strike Force Attorney, 20 MLR 1649 (Az.) * TVA Official, 20 MLR 1873 (6th) * Athletic Director/Football Coach, 21 MLR 1746 (Tx.) * Special-Agent-In-Charge of President Ford's Secret Service Detail, 21 MLR 1842 (D.D.C.) * Mississippi Public Defender, 22 MLR 1413 (DC S. Miss. 1994) * Former Deputy Sheriff, 22 MLR 2013 (Fla CirCt. 1994) * Commissioned National Guard Officers, 22 MLR 2046 (Ga. SuperCt 1994) * Police Lieutenant, 22 MLR 2129 (NJ SupCt 1994) * President of State Troopers' association, 22 MLR (NY SupCt AppDiv. 1993) NOT PUBLIC OFFICIALS: High School Principal, 20 MLR 2095 (GA.) Deputy Public Defender, 21 MLR 1624 (CA) Street & Traffic Supervisor, LeDoux v. Northstar Pub., 521 N.W. 2d (Mn. 1994) LIMITED PUBLIC FIGURES: * Charity seeking donations and organizer, 21 MLR 1449 (4th Cir.) * Attorney in private practice representing several school districts, 20 MLR 1992 (NJ) * Physician who sought media attention for practice and technique, 20 MLR 1613 (NY) * Star Witness in Jim Garrison case who "sought limelight", 20 MLR 2113 (La.) * Lawn Mower Repair Co., 22 MLR 1461 (NJ SuperCt. AppDiv. 1994)* * Police Officer/Subject of Book, 22 MLR 1385 (5th Cir. 1994)* * Paycologists/authors, 22 MLR 1852 (7th Cir. 1994) * Convicted Murderer, 22 MLR 2239 (DC Sind. 1994)* * Actress/Model, 22 MLR 2147 (DC E Wis. 1994) * * Appointed tax collector who never took office, 22 MLR 2157 (Ariz SuperCt 1994) * Brother who "voluntarily thrust himself" into controversy surrounding his brothers arrest, 22 MLR 1434 (Ca Ct App 1994) *Note: It is not clear that these individuals would be limited public figures in Oregon. NOT PUBLIC FIGURES: * Host of a loud party, 21 MLR 1378 (Pa.) * Woman at home where MLK had dinner night before shot who was alledged to have had extramarital affair with King, 21 MLR 1353 (S.D.N.Y) * Person accused of of sexual misconduct, 22 MLR 2353 (4th Cir. 1994) Return to J385 Home page

1 0