At 9:18 AM -0700 8/1/01, jamesd@echeque.com wrote:

-- On 31 Jul 2001, at 11:53, Black Unicorn wrote:

...

I wanted to make sure to correct the common misconception among cypherpunks that you can just thumb your nose at a court with impunity.

And I would like to correct the common misconception spread by lawyers that there are magic legal formulas that will stop the state from using its power as it damn well pleases.

The basic formula for avoiding inconvenient legislation is "ignore, do not confront"

Cryptography will do what no legal incantation can ever do: Stop the state from getting what it wants.

The basic problem with any legal incantation is that at some point you must explain to the authorities: "My actions were legal for this reason and that reason", explaining in inconveniently great detail what you are doing, and their response your complicated and highly informative explanation will almost certainly be to hit a few times, and then lock you up. With cryptography they have a mysterious block of unexplained and useless bits.

Exactly so. This list, like so many other lists, is gradually moving toward "public politics" and "the law" as the focus of many members. The "public politics" part is obvious: discussions of boycotts of Adobe, letter-writing campaigns to Washington, complaining about Ashcroft and Feinstein and all of the other vermin, and hand-wringing about the need for different laws. The "law" part is about the above, and exhortations by the lawyers here (5, by my count) about what one mustn't do, how courts will react, the need to be scrupulously legal in all of one's actions, etc. "Laws of mathematics, not men." We risk becoming just a pale--a very, very pale!--imitation of the Cyberia-L list. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay@got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns

At 10:17 AM -0700 8/1/01, Sandy Sandfort wrote:

It is on this second point that I had a very disappointing interaction with Tim at a physical Cypherpunks meeting some years ago. Tim was carrying a concealed knife that did not comply with California's concealed carry laws. I mentioned this to him, and he immediately interrupted my explanation by saying, "I don't care what the law is, I'll do what I want." (This from a guy who slavishly insures and registers his car. I guess some laws are more equal than others.)

It is utterly irresponsible for you to discuss this on a list frequented by narcs and informants and even prosecutors.

Now here's the funny part. In California, (with some specific exceptions) carrying a concealed knife is a felony, while carrying a concealed pistol is a misdemeanor (for the first weapons offense). So given the relative severities of the laws, why in the world would you carry a knife instead of a gun? (Insert stupid joke here about an engineer bringing a knife to a gun fight.)

So, Sandy, turn me in. Oh, I guess in your mind you just did. Unbelievable behavior, narcing out a fellow list member. Sandy should be ashamed. The prosecutors who read this list must be chortling. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay@got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns

At 11:05 AM -0700 8/1/01, Sandy Sandfort wrote:

Tim May wrote:

...

It is utterly irresponsible for you to discuss this on a list frequented by narcs and informants and even prosecutors.

No Tim, what is utterly irresponsible is to make bellicose threats on this list about what your response will be if masked ninjas invade your home.

If you don't like my views, read only the items you approve of.

If they end up shooting you (and I think their is a significant likelihood that they will), it will be in large part because of your macho siege mentality.

Rage on.

I "narced out" your behavior of several years ago. If you are stupid enough to still be carrying a knife illegally (when there are plenty of legal options), then there is no helping you. On your head be it.

It wasn't illegal then, and not now. That knife was a) not concealed, b) not on a list of illegal knives (throwing stars, switchblades, sword canes, ballistic knives, gravity knives), c) was on Cygnus Support property.

More likely they are saying, "Ah fuck, I wish we'd known that before Sandfort wised Tim up. Now we'll just have to go with plan B and shoot him when we raid his house with a trumped up search warrant."

And like Vinnie told you, the ones they send after you will be a LOT better than he is.

Same old song. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay@got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns

It may well be irresponsible for Tim to talk about his probable responses to a situation when unidentified black ninjas invade his home. The reason it is arguably irresponsible is that Tim is endangering his safety. But he knows that. Talking about alleged victimless crimes allegedly committed by list members is irresponsible.* The reason it is arguably irresponsible is that you are endangering someone else's safety. Big difference. -Declan * = As differentiated from victumful crimes. For instance, if someone steals Sandy's car or Tim's motorcycle from a cypherpunks meeting, nobody would raise eyebrows if they call the cops. On Wed, Aug 01, 2001 at 11:05:41AM -0700, Sandy Sandfort wrote:

Tim May wrote:

...

It is utterly irresponsible for you to discuss this on a list frequented by narcs and informants and even prosecutors.

No Tim, what is utterly irresponsible is to make bellicose threats on this list about what your response will be if masked ninjas invade your home. If they end up shooting you (and I think their is a significant likelihood that they will), it will be in large part because of your macho siege mentality.

...

Unbelievable behavior, narcing out a fellow list member. Sandy should be ashamed.

I "narced out" your behavior of several years ago. If you are stupid enough to still be carrying a knife illegally (when there are plenty of legal options), then there is no helping you. On your head be it.

...

The prosecutors who read this list must be chortling.

More likely they are saying, "Ah fuck, I wish we'd known that before Sandfort wised Tim up. Now we'll just have to go with plan B and shoot him when we raid his house with a trumped up search warrant."

And like Vinnie told you, the ones they send after you will be a LOT better than he is.

On 2 Aug 2001, Dr. Evil wrote:

...

The prosecutors who read this list must be chortling.

Chortling is a form of laughter. Prosecutors, like Ukrainian customs agents, have had their sense of humor surgically removed, so I doubt they chortle very much.

unless it involves wounded kittens or battered small children. (Deep fried in a light tempura...) alan@ctrl-alt-del.com | Note to AOL users: for a quick shortcut to reply Alan Olsen | to my mail, just hit the ctrl, alt and del keys. "All power is derived from the barrel of a gnu." - Mao Tse Stallman

On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Alan Olsen wrote:

On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote:

...

1) "Cypherpunks write code." This metaphorical admonition tells us to make the laws irrelevant by outrunning them with technology. I couldn't agree more. I don't see much benefit in asking the nice lawmakers to do fuck us so badly, please. Better to take steps that put us outside of their reach.

"The first rule of not being seen is ''Don't stand up''."

That should be 'Don't stand out'. If everyone else is standing up you're toast. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

At 10:17 AM -0700 8/1/01, Sandy Sandfort wrote:

Now here's the funny part. In California, (with some specific exceptions) carrying a concealed knife is a felony, while carrying a concealed pistol is a misdemeanor (for the first weapons offense). So given the relative severities of the laws, why in the world would you carry a knife instead of a gun? (Insert stupid joke here about an engineer bringing a knife to a gun fight.)

Aside from the other issues, I'll address this point just on its own merits. I know of many arguments that a knife can be gotten into a fight and used effectively _faster_ than a gun can, especially in very close quarters. (Which is where a mugging is likely to occur.) This is much debated in places like misc.survivalism and martial arts groups, but views are heard on both sides. Cops of course carry guns, but then they are likely to engage targets from further distances than most of us can when suddenly attacked. I think it plausible that inside an arm's length radius, a man with a knife can incapacitate a man with a gun faster than vice versa. Some expert knife folks _claim_ (no opinion offered here) that they can close a 15-foot gap and incapacitate a man reaching for a gun faster than he can get go to the gun, aim, and fire (let alone hit on the first or Nth shot). Whatever. Knives are easier to carry in urban situations without causing ANY legal problems. Knives also have other uses; I use mine nearly everyday for some task or another. Next, the laws about knives, concealed or otherwise, are complicated...and are seldom-enforced even as written. The knife Sandy saw was not even concealed: it was a single-edged Cold Steel Safe-Keeper, in a belt sheath. _Some_ prosecutors might claim it was a "push knife," but: a) Push knives are not banned, even by California's bizarre laws. It's just not one of the "banned" forms (ballistic knives, shurikens, sword canes), and it sure ain't "concealed" if it's in a belt sheath. And the sharpening on only one edge is yet more evidence that it ain't a "dagger" (though I see plenty of SCA people blithely carrying sheathed daggers, even stuck in belt loops under robes and other clothing, and hence "concealed"--no cop in the land will bust someone in this situation). (A useful reference is http://home.earthlink.net/~jkmtsm/calaw.html, which also has links to the relevant California codes.) b) California changed its laws about concealment of knives to allow _far_ more deadly knives to be freely carried, even concealed.I usually carry a quick-opening (_very_ quick-opening) Benchmade folder. I carried the Cold Steel because it was open carry, hence no issue of concealment. And since it wasn't a banned form, even by the pre-'96 rewrite of the laws, it wasn't illegal. c) Even with the old laws, when was the last time there was a knife prosecution, as opposed to busting someone for unlicensed carry of a handgun? The latter outnumber the former by probably 1000-to-1, even though carry of knives in various "concealed" ways (in purses, under coats, in backpacks, in the tops of boots, etc.) probably outnumbers concealed carry of handguns by a factor of 100-to-1. Do the math. d) The encounter Sandy describes took place in a conference room inside Cygnus Support offices in an office complex. Last I checked, this was not public property, not even by today's liberal standards. In fact, no different from my demonstrating a Glock or SIG at a Cypherpunks meeting held at my house. Now if Cygnus Support had a problem, or the owner of the leased facilities had a problem, they could have told me to put the knife away (though this actually makes it even _more_ concealed, as anyone who follows the debate knows--it's the opinion of some that the only way to get a kitchen knife home from a department store without _technically_ violating the concealed carry laws is to have it in a locked box). e) Most cops would rather have people carrying concealed knives, a la folders, than wearing knives on their belts. Something about scaring the horses, even if open carry is legally the more "technically correct" thing (especially pre''96) to do. Now, would I carry a knife into one of the Del Torto Cypherpunks meetings held (foolishly) inside a San Francisco police training facility? No. Yet another reason I wouldn't go to such a CP meeting. A foolish meeting location, counter to nearly everything we once supported. But carrying a perfectly legal knife in a perfectly legal way (open carry, unconcealed) on private property, displaying no "intent" to use it illegally (*)...what does Sandy have to complain about? (* "Intent" shows up in a lot of the California, Colorado, and other cases involving knives taken from suspects during pat-downs. But since I was legal in all ways, I won't even open this can of worms.) My reply to Sandy at the time was what I generally say to anyone who lectures me on laws. I'm more aware than most of what the laws say. I don't need busybodies lecturing me on their opinion of what the law allows and doesn't allow. For Sandy to attempt to bring me to the attention of the cops remains despicable. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay@got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns

On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote:

As a probable member of Tim's "Gang of Five" I am on the cusp between two equally true facts about Cypherpunk "ideology" and the law.

1) "Cypherpunks write code." This metaphorical admonition tells us to make the laws irrelevant by outrunning them with technology. I couldn't agree more. I don't see much benefit in asking the nice lawmakers to do fuck us so badly, please. Better to take steps that put us outside of their reach.

Code is 'law', just a different kind.

2) "Don't commit the crime if you can't do the time." You have to know what the law is likely to do so that you can "write code" in a manner that is likely to be the most effective from a technological AND legal view. Otherwise, you cannot do any sort of meaningful risk/benefit analysis.

Know your enemies mind is one of Tszu's first admonitions.

My point is that there is a middle ground between Unicorn and Tim's positions. Do the Cypherpunk thing, but be cognizant of the relevant laws. Remember, lawyers are hackers too, just in a different arena.

Wanna be hackers considering the quality of their work. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

At 09:37 AM 8/1/01 -0700, Tim May wrote:

Exactly so. This list, like so many other lists, is gradually moving toward "public politics" and "the law" as the focus of many members.

More public policy than "public politics," but the general point is true. I'm not sure what the reason is. Perhaps a combination of more stuff happening by the Feds than, say, eight years ago. It's true we had SJG and CDA (well, starting in 1994-1995) and crypto restrictions and CALEA (starting in 1994) and Clipper. But that's a pretty short list compared to what DC is involved with today. Also many of the broader cypherpunkly themes have been well thought out and well-discussed. Some people have gone on to create companies around these ideas; most of those have failed, or at least have not been wildly profitable successes. Other cypherpunkly projects, like Freenet, have their own lists and networks of programmers, who may not even read cypherpunks. Some things have remained constant for the past four years or so: The number of remailers, to a first approximation, and the number of years before digital cash happens. :)

We risk becoming just a pale--a very, very pale!--imitation of the Cyberia-L list.

Nah. Cyberia's gone downhill. Folks there have fled to private law lists too (I'm on one). -Declan

On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, David Honig wrote:

8 years ago the number who had a net-clue was small, and they were a more tolerant bunch. Now you have every ditz in Tennessee trying to shape the net to her liking, and getting men with guns to help.

Which is that 'freedom' thing, that is a good thing all in all. You don't want others making your decisions or forcing you to behave a particular way. Why should they, simply to assuage your hurt feelings because you don't get it your way?... -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------