RE: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot
"Aimee Farr" <aimee.farr@pobox.com> wrote :
GH wrote:
Nomen Nescio wrote: [snip]
The answers it gives depends on the questions you ask. If your questions are simple enough (untraceability good?) then your chart will answer them. If your questions are more interesting (what technologies can be practically implemented and make a positive difference in the world) then you need a better chart.
You (and Aimee) make the mistake of assuming that all of us believe that we are living in the best of all possible worlds.
*sigh*
Am I wrong or is there a latent idea here that the list members are in a position to choose whether or not these ( yes, Virginia, they're morality neutral ) privacy enhancing technolgies come to be? While the participants here may represent a large portion of those interested and capable of producing PETs they aren't the whole club. If there is a privacy and untraceability sweet spot why suppose that it is not already exploited by those with large financial gains to be made from it? Were a major drug cartel ( or a large corporation ) to decide that developing communications systems was a key factor in their continuing success it seems to me that the resources to do so would be easy to come by. Hell, they were making a pretty decent sized submarine not so long ago. I think a SW/HW product effort would be far easier to hide. There's probably a shop full of busy Russian engineers somehwere in SA right now. I don't believe that a whole battalion of Gordons could ever stop them. All that you can choose is whether you participate in creating PETs or not. <chop>
So, now, it's...
"BlackNet; Case History of a Practically Untraceable System for Buying and Selling Corporate and National Secrets.... to foreign adversaries, and to spur the collapse of governments."
Just out of curiosity, how many of you would sign on to a project like that? Would you please post a statement of interest, and detail how you would contribute to such a project?
~Aimee
Have the GRU list-watchers ( your handlers! ) demonstrated their power adequately by shtomping a few punk heads? Has speech here been sufficiently chilled that nobody will answer? Or is it just a dumb question? Create a real project with real rewards ( both financial and idealogical but mostly financial ) and see what kind of response you get. Why should anyone answer a dishonest question for free? Mike
Mike:
Just out of curiosity, how many of you would sign on to a project like that? Would you please post a statement of interest, and detail how you would contribute to such a project?
~Aimee
Have the GRU list-watchers ( your handlers! ) demonstrated their power adequately by shtomping a few punk heads?
Has speech here been sufficiently chilled that nobody will answer?
Or is it just a dumb question?
Create a real project with real rewards ( both financial and idealogical but mostly financial ) and see what kind of response you get. Why should anyone answer a dishonest question for free?
Mike
It wasn't serious, Mike! ~Aimee
On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Aimee Farr wrote:
It wasn't serious, Mike!
Yes. It is serious. It is, in fact, dead serious. Starting with the "Sweet spot" discussion, and well into the pissing contest that you and Tim seem to have started over it, we've been seeing nothing but absolutely dead serious opportunities to get roped in on some thought- crime charge or other, a couple of months or a couple of years or a decade from now. I've composed a dozen responses, considered the subpeona and the trial that could result from posting each, and wiped them. There's your "chilling effect on political discussion" if you're interested. This one, I'm going to post, so I'm being very careful what I say. For most of the list participants, a simple, direct word: The focus of the US intel community is shifting, at the current time, to "domestic terrorism". That makes political speech of the kind which has in past years been entirely normal on this list orders of magnitude more dangerous to the participants than it was at that time. Taking part in this discussion in a style "traditional" for this list could be very dangerous. Remember, one out of every fifty Americans is in jail, and if you think you're in the most radical two percent of the population, there are implications, aren't there? For Tim: Why are you attempting to provoke public discussion about things that could get people jailed or worse for discussing them? It's interesting to see you post your "sweet spot" message and then call someone *else* an agent provocateur. For Aimee, a message couched in her own style of bafflegab: I both read, and Read, your more oblique communications. Nice work, and fun, but not useful on this list. You are playing a game where the white chips count for houses, and the red chips count for lifetimes. Don't ask directly about the blue chips, because you run the risk that someone will answer you just as directly. And *especially* don't ask about the markers; you don't have time. The only way to win this game is to be the dealer. Oh, you may go a ways as the dealer's moll, but I'm talking about winning, not just amusing yourself. Look out for confusing mirrors; some of the players may have looked into your hand and seen their own. Be careful not to make the same mistake. Now, I shan't be participating in the rest of this thread, I don't think. Instead, I shall spend my time writing code. Code which I do not intend to release in a form traceable back to me. I encourage those who can, to do the same. Bear
I've composed a dozen responses, considered the subpeona and the trial that could result from posting each, and wiped them. There's your "chilling effect on political discussion" if you're interested. This one, I'm going to post, so I'm being very careful what I say.
For most of the list participants, a simple, direct word:
The focus of the US intel community is shifting, at the current time, to "domestic terrorism". That makes political speech of the kind
So you are suggesting that, because of the fear for one's life and rented property, posters shut the fuck up and don't make waves ? Isn't that the *goal* and raison d'etre of TLAs ? So, to join fingerpointing on this e-mail list (like in "not a movement"), it seems that you, JYA and others cautioning about imminent arrests are furthering the cause of TLAs, and therefore probably are their contractors, no ? ===== end (of original message) Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows: Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
On Tuesday, August 28, 2001, at 05:28 PM, Ray Dillinger wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Aimee Farr wrote:
It wasn't serious, Mike!
Yes. It is serious. It is, in fact, dead serious. Starting with the "Sweet spot" discussion, and well into the pissing contest that you and Tim seem to have started over it,
Nonsense. I wrote a very long essay. Aimee twittered about her "prime rib" SS contacts, muttered about going out to "talk to the snails," and gibbered about how my mention of BlackNet could expose me to "suicide" and was a generally scary idea.
I've composed a dozen responses, considered the subpeona and the trial that could result from posting each, and wiped them. There's your "chilling effect on political discussion" if you're interested. This one, I'm going to post, so I'm being very careful what I say.
You're being overly paranoid. I was stopped by the SS a few years ago and accused of planting a bomb to kill the First Criminal, his traitorous wife, and their (mostly innocent, insipidly so) daughter Chelsea. When they couldn't make their charges stick, they had to let me go. (This is why I take bomb-making discussions pretty seriously.)
For Tim: Why are you attempting to provoke public discussion about things that could get people jailed or worse for discussing them? It's interesting to see you post your "sweet spot" message and then call someone *else* an agent provocateur.
Get an education. Do some reading. These ideas have been discussed many times. Aimee's all atwitter over being exposed to ideas that were old even in 1992, and you, the "sensitive male" (so I gather from you airy-fairy, probably polyamoristic, twit site), are enabling her fluttering by saying "Tim, you should not even mention such dangerous ideas!" Fuck that. Read what we were talking about 10 years ago. Not talking about things doesn't make them disappear. You're a disgrace to this list. At lease Aimee has the excuse of being a confused chick. --Tim May
Bear wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Aimee Farr wrote:
It wasn't serious, Mike!
Yes. It is serious. It is, in fact, dead serious. Starting with the "Sweet spot" discussion, and well into the pissing contest that you and Tim seem to have started over it, we've been seeing nothing but absolutely dead serious opportunities to get roped in on some thought- crime charge or other, a couple of months or a couple of years or a decade from now.
Yep.
I've composed a dozen responses, considered the subpeona and the trial that could result from posting each, and wiped them. There's your "chilling effect on political discussion" if you're interested. This one, I'm going to post, so I'm being very careful what I say.
For most of the list participants, a simple, direct word:
The focus of the US intel community is shifting, at the current time, to "domestic terrorism". That makes political speech of the kind which has in past years been entirely normal on this list orders of magnitude more dangerous to the participants than it was at that time. Taking part in this discussion in a style "traditional" for this list could be very dangerous. Remember, one out of every fifty Americans is in jail, and if you think you're in the most radical two percent of the population, there are implications, aren't there?
For Tim: Why are you attempting to provoke public discussion about things that could get people jailed or worse for discussing them? It's interesting to see you post your "sweet spot" message and then call someone *else* an agent provocateur.
For Aimee, a message couched in her own style of bafflegab:
:)
I both read, and Read, your more oblique communications. Nice work, and fun, but not useful on this list. You are playing a game where the white chips count for houses, and the red chips count for lifetimes. Don't ask directly about the blue chips, because you run the risk that someone will answer you just as directly. And *especially* don't ask about the markers; you don't have time. The only way to win this game is to be the dealer. Oh, you may go a ways as the dealer's moll, but I'm talking about winning, not just amusing yourself. Look out for confusing mirrors; some of the players may have looked into your hand and seen their own. Be careful not to make the same mistake.
You have good eyes, Bear. I'll be a good girl from now on. I just watched Hannibal: the brain scene. "Quid pro quo, Clarice...quid pro quo....." *shiver* ....reminds me of somebody in here.
Now, I shan't be participating in the rest of this thread, I don't think. Instead, I shall spend my time writing code. Code which I do not intend to release in a form traceable back to me. I encourage those who can, to do the same.
Bear
I support strong crypto. Again, I find Steele's arguments persuasive and legitimate. ~Aimee
On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 05:28:24PM -0700, Ray Dillinger wrote:
For Tim: Why are you attempting to provoke public discussion about things that could get people jailed or worse for discussing them? It's interesting to see you post your "sweet spot" message and then call someone *else* an agent provocateur.
I suspect Bear has good intentions and may even honestly believe this, but it is nevertheless misleading. Talking about the political implications of technologies -- and taking no actions! -- is protected by the full force of the First Amendment. Johnson got in trouble for allegedly making direct threats of physical violence. Bell is in jail for most of the next decade because he crossed state lines and showing up at homes of current or former federal agents. It is true that the Feds are monitoring cypherpunks closely, and it is also probably true that without the stalking charges, they may have found other charges to levy against Bell. It is also true that if you embrace AP-type concepts, they may pay closer attention to you. But even given the tattered First Amendment, there is still a difference between speech and action. -Declan
On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote: <much true stuff snipped>
But even given the tattered First Amendment, there is still a difference between speech and action.
Complete and utter bullshit.
-Declan
-- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------
At 09:12 PM 8/30/01 -0500, <measl@mfn.org> wrote:
But even given the tattered First Amendment, there is still a difference between speech and action.
Complete and utter bullshit.
And complete and utter loss of reputation capital on your part. It disagrees 100% with my interactions with law enforcement. If you wish to make point, at least make it believable. /pbp
On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 09:12:50PM -0500, measl@mfn.org wrote:
On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
<much true stuff snipped>
But even given the tattered First Amendment, there is still a difference between speech and action.
Complete and utter bullshit.
"Measl" sometimes posts worthy stuff, so instead of flaming him, I'll just say that much of First Amendment jurisprudence is based on the distinctions between speech and action. It is not an absolute line, of course, speech ("give me your money or else", falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater, fighting words) can be suppressed, but it is a useful distinction nonetheless. -Declan
On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 09:12:50PM -0500, measl@mfn.org wrote:
On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
<much true stuff snipped>
But even given the tattered First Amendment, there is still a difference between speech and action.
Complete and utter bullshit.
"Measl" sometimes posts worthy stuff,
Today must be "my day"! I get a "tahnk you for the cite" from Tim, and a semi-nod from Declan. Shit, a guy could have a heart attack this way <giggle>!
so instead of flaming him, I'll just say that much of First Amendment jurisprudence is based on the distinctions between speech and action. It is not an absolute line, of course, speech ("give me your money or else", falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater, fighting words) can be suppressed, but it is a useful distinction nonetheless.
I will grant that in my red-flag state (above), I was obviously not clear, so let me make my argument clearer. My point was that we have long since departed from the long line of "jurisprudence" to which you refer above. In real terms, in the USA today, there is no difference between speech and action (from the legal point of view). I am not talking here of the theoretical way that things "should be" (and that are taught in larvae school as the way things _are_), I am talking about how it really *is*, when you are actually in the courtrooms, at the mercy of the fascists who are to "judge" you. Remember Mr. London: "He has not recanted", and "Its still posted on the internet today"... *Perfect* example. Other interesting examples are most certainly familiar to many of the members of the list - certainly I cannot be the only one of us who has had personal visits from federal badge holders because of political views expressed here?
-Declan
-- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------
At 11:50 PM 8/30/01 -0500, measl@mfn.org wrote:
My point was that we have long since departed from the long line of "jurisprudence" to which you refer above. In real terms, in the USA today, there is no difference between speech and action (from the legal point of view). I am not talking here of the theoretical way that things "should be" (and that are taught in larvae school as the way things _are_), I am talking about how it really *is*, when you are actually in the courtrooms, at the mercy of the fascists who are to "judge" you.
So why the Nuremberg Files case? A *civil* case not even criminal. Jake Baker. The "nazis" driving a fair housing activist out of Pennsylvania (again no charges brought). the Cross Burning case. Etc. Any specifics? DCF ---- "Money is not speech." -- Campaign finance reform cliche. Money may not be speech but the First Amendment also protects freedom of the press; and presses have always cost money (Ben Franklin's print shop cost him more than 100 pounds). And freedom of the press belongs to everyone, not just the "official" media.
On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, Paul Pomes wrote:
At 09:12 PM 8/30/01 -0500, <measl@mfn.org> wrote:
But even given the tattered First Amendment, there is still a difference between speech and action.
Complete and utter bullshit.
And complete and utter loss of reputation capital on your part. It disagrees 100% with my interactions with law enforcement. If you wish to make point, at least make it believable.
It may well disagree 100% with YOUR interactions, however, that does not imply in any way that others have had the same experience. As for believeability, I don't give a rats ass if you, in the personal sense, believe me, Gloria Steinem, Matt Blaze, or any other asshole on the planet.
/pbp
-- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 11:50:53PM -0500, measl@mfn.org wrote:
today, there is no difference between speech and action (from the legal point of view). I am not talking here of the theoretical way that things "should be" (and that are taught in larvae school as the way things _are_), I am talking about how it really *is*, when you are actually in the courtrooms, at the mercy of the fascists who are to "judge" you.
It is reasonable to note the distinction between theory and practice.
Remember Mr. London: "He has not recanted", and "Its still posted on the internet today"
I'm aware of this; I mentioned it in a Politech message yesterday, which you may have seen: http://www.politechbot.com/p-02455.html
Other interesting examples are most certainly familiar to many of the members of the list - certainly I cannot be the only one of us who has had personal visits from federal badge holders because of political views expressed here?
But, as I've said before, both CJ and Bell crossed a visible line. I'm not saying that the location of that speech-vs-action line exists is good, but it is clear enough. Tim doesn't cross it and neither do just about all the rest of the posters here. If badge holders don't like what you write, well, Duncan has told you repeatedly not to answer their questions. Bell was just getting plain weird at the end: http://cryptome.org/jdb040901-2.htm A. I would like to precede my answer with a comment that yesterday Mr. Leen delivered a death threat to me on behalf of the federal government against myself and six other members of my family if I talked about certain things that happened in 1997 to me at Pierce County and Kitsap County Jail. -Declan
participants (9)
-
Aimee Farr -
Declan McCullagh -
Duncan Frissell -
measl＠mfn.org -
mmotyka＠lsil.com -
Morlock Elloi -
Paul Pomes -
Ray Dillinger -
Tim May