"George A. Gleason" <gg@well.sf.ca.us> writes:

...

And did you read Hugh's posting about the 7pm to 8am coin curfew in Czechago? ... Wake up, how much evidence do you need that it's a simple matter of bigotry and classism?

Hm. Perhaps it is. On the other hand, it could also be a combination of a little bit of greed for power with a bit of genuine fear and despair. You see, if the Chicago Tribune can be believed, there are actual citizens' groups lobbying for the removal of pay phones from certain areas of the city. Groups of citizens who *live* in those same areas.

These folk claim that public pay phones attract drug dealers, presumably because of the semi-anonymity they provide. I don't know personally how true this claim is, but I can understand the advantages that a pay phone might offer to a drug dealer. Sure, the "big time" dealers might not use anything as plebian as a public pay phone, but drugs are a big booming business, and clearly there are far more small-time dealers than big-time ones.

They further claim that drug dealers attract violence. I don't know myself if this is true, but I do know from reading the paper that an absurdly large number of people are killed in Chicago by stray bullets shot by drug dealers in conflicts with each other. And, of course, still more folks who *are* drug dealers are killed directly, each year.

Finally, they claim that merchants in certain areas are pandering to the drug-dealer market for pay phones by installing far more than one would otherwise think necessary. I haven't seen this myself, but the article I read did mention what seemed like unusually large clusters (street corners with 7-10 pay phones).

That's the fear and despair bit. It could be bigotry, it could be classism-- but stray bullets are damn good motivators too, and here in Chicago we have a lot of them.

As for greed: this could be a factor, it might not. At least one alderman has made it illegal to install new pay phones in his ward without his explicit permission. Clearly this adds to his power. The same fellow has made much of his public name in recent campaigning against these public pay phones, and threatening to take an axe to them himself if some of them weren't removed. Make of this what you will.

How much more evidence do I need that it's a simple matter of bigotry and classism? Well, a bit more than I've seen so far.

Cypherpunk content? This is a damn good illustration of the problems that can crop up with an anonymous service. Though services on the net have the advantage of not being tied to a physical location, like pay phones are; so they probably won't serve to attract a "bad element" to any particular place. On the other hand, any sort of public terminal service offering encrypted email, might very well.

-David

I admit, I was shocked when I read this post. For two reasons. One - that that abominable phantasm, "The War on Drugs", still seems to take a significant place in the American political debate. Two - that a politician would campaign on the promise of REMOVING (not ADDING) public phones. I'm probably coming across as very naive, but as someone who's lived in Australia for the last 13 years, I can only guess at what's going on over THERE. Most of my information comes, not only through periodicals and TV, but also through this post. I have to thank David in part for his contribution. Talk about a bucket of cold water over the extremities...:-< Now, being a regular reader of the list, I have come upon many a quote from those government types (FBI, NSA, etc.) who are looking for ways to weasel themselves into the home, business, and even the Internet. One obvious example of this weaselling in the Clipper chip. Many of these quotes contain oblique references to "The War on Drugs" (oh, no! not that phrase again! :-) ) and "Fighting Drug Dealers". Again, from David's post, I've noticed that the three reasons for limiting Public Phones all involve drug dealers. Now, these arguments seemed to have some evidence to support their assertions. Still, it was worrying all the same. Us Australians have had a topsy-turvy attitude to the drug debate. On one hand, South Australia has decriminalized Marijuana. On the other hand, Queensland's Drug Misuse Act, which puts the onus of proof on the defendant (e.g., you have to prove that THAT spoon was not used for shooting up HEROIN). This, of course, is inimical to the Americal and Australian judicial system. Of course, this act has been a failure (marijuana is still Queensland's 2nd largest cash crop), and the National party government who introduced the bill were kicked out in 1989 for widespread evidence of corruption, involving prostitution, bookkeeping, and (surprise! surprise!) drugs. Now that there has been a government enquiry into marijuana, hopefully the mood will change in favour of legalization. I think that one of the biggest crutches that the NSA and others use to infringe YOUR privacy is "The War on Drugs". It should be stopped, and now! Not only is it unsuccessful, not only is it hypocritical (I wince when I see those "Winners don't use drugs!" messages on video games), but it has also blinded a lot of people into supporting attacks on YOUR privacy. If it is stopped, then perhaps the government agencies won't be as likely to do silly proposals like the Clipper chip. Perhaps..., but only if the public keeps a watchful eye on what they are doing. Of course, the libertarians in the list would want many of the drugs decriminalized, and from what I've read about in other countries, not only does the drug use stay the same, the criminals are not as likely to get involve in drug dealing. Sorry, I had to get this off my chest. Peter. P.S. Is there any truth in the rumour that Canada is going to lighten it's encryption restrictions? I wouldn't mind getting my hands on RSAREF.... -- ============================================================================= Peter Murphy - Department of Electrical Engineering,|Phone: 61 - 7 - 300 3452. University of Queensland: murphy@s2.elec.uq.oz.au .|------------------------ "Contrary to popular belief, the wings of demons are|Please do not put any the same as the wings of angels, although they're |Heinlein quotes in your often better groomed." - Terry Pratchett. |.sig - they're old. =============================================================================

"Sent from the cyberdeck of: Timothy C. May"

Anyway, I have long wanted to get a t-shirt or sweatshirt silk-screened with "D.A.R.E." on it, as so many phony parents are now parent (I think the kiddies get gold stars if they sell one of these shirts to their parents). But *my* shirt would go something like this:

"D. rugs A. re R. eality E. nhancers"

I figure this'd shake a few folks up! (I wonder which states such a shirt is now illegal in?)

P.S. Speaking of t-shirts...maybe we ought to think about some Cypherpunks shirts?

ONE UP: make the shirts and/or stickers to look EXACTLY like "real thing" *except* for these subtle mods.. Are they gonna sue? Sue who?

I've got a recently good idea for a shirt I've been working on for a bit, but my funding fell through. Anyone want to bank an initial run? fyI, on my recent return from Boston I sat across from a guy wearing a Secret Service logo'd polo shirt with the acronym 'C.A.T.' on it. Anyone know what it stands for? He went to sleep before I could bother him. -eric

Eric writes:

fyI, on my recent return from Boston I sat across from a guy wearing a Secret Service logo'd polo shirt with the acronym 'C.A.T.' on it. Anyone know what it stands for? He went to sleep before I could bother him.

Odds are that the "A.T." stands for "Attack Team." --Mike