On Sun, 19 Jan 2014, Riad S. Wahby wrote:

@al-qaeda.net is deprecated. Apologies: I should have announced this on-list before I made the related configuration changes.

Since you have done so now, it shouldn't be an issue: thanks - that was driving me *wild*!

In case anyone suspects censorship, chilling effects, et cetera, the explanation is actually much more innocuous: I'm trying to cut down the amount of spam my poor little VPS has to handle, and as you might imagine the amount that goes to @al-qaeda.net is *staggering*.

Well.... We (you personally) and I (me personally) have slightly different listrunner philosophies (I like reply-to to point to list, I like to see [C-Punks] headers for sorting, etc.), why don't we re-setup the distributed nodes? I have actual hardware, and a 100mb coloed rack of gear (read: lots of free cycles and bandwidth), so if you'd like, I can run the @aq over there ? Or I can set up a secondary @ of my own, doesn't matter: either way, I'd like to distribute again - game?

(More to the point, after running the list @al-qaeda.net for more than ten years, this small gesture isn't going to somehow erase the internet's long memory.)

Ah, yeah.... right.... Have fun with that! //Alif -- Those who make peaceful change impossible, make violent revolution inevitable. An American Spring is coming: one way or another.

On Sun, Jan 19, 2014, at 02:45 PM, John Young wrote:

What happened to cypherpunks.org? Who owns it? It's registration is hidden behind GoDaddy. Listed Servers:

Name Server:NS.CYPHERPUNKS.TO Name Server:ASTERIA.DEBIAN.OR.AT

http://www.cypherpunks.to/ list familiar people.

The "webmaster" mailbox at the domain appears to work, so maybe just asking them will give you useful info. -- Shawn K. Quinn skquinn@rushpost.com

On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 01:15:07PM -0500, Riad S. Wahby wrote:

"J.A. Terranson" wrote:

...

experiencing some kind of random delivery issue

@al-qaeda.net is deprecated. Apologies: I should have announced this on-list before I made the related configuration changes.

In case anyone suspects censorship, chilling effects, et cetera, the explanation is actually much more innocuous: I'm trying to cut down the amount of spam my poor little VPS has to handle, and as you might imagine the amount that goes to @al-qaeda.net is *staggering*.

(More to the point, after running the list @al-qaeda.net for more than ten years, this small gesture isn't going to somehow erase the internet's long memory.)

-=rsw

I was struggling with spamassassin and attemping to implement reject- -at-smtp time filtering, and reading about this 'hashcash' idea, several years ago and thinking maybe it would be nice if someone would *pay* me to read their email. We have lots of privacyscam hash-cash code running around these days, so what are the chances of just advertising you only accept mail that includes a *coin payment to the recipient? (Granted, it's low because most *coiners don't seem to understand what mail is given they can't even figure out how to install mailman, but the hope remains) -- Troy

On Sun, 19 Jan 2014, Troy Benjegerdes wrote:

I was struggling with spamassassin and attemping to implement reject-

Duck S/A: learn to run a real mailserver: that's where the action is!

-at-smtp time filtering, and reading about this 'hashcash' idea, several years ago and thinking maybe it would be nice if someone would *pay* me to read their email.

We have lots of privacyscam hash-cash code running around these days, so what are the chances of just advertising you only accept mail that includes a *coin payment to the recipient?

Been examined at lenght, in detail, in the mid-90s. Remember that things have value even if they are not tied to a money system: cpu cycles have a value which is relative to each user/cpu. The idea of "charging" to read mail (as an antispam system), by reshifting the costs of delivering spam back to the sender through the tying up of the senders CPU cycles ("stamps") has been exhaustively examined. I would refer you to the Archive, but im not certain that any meaningful (pre-2003ish) archives still exist that would have all the mail from any 1 CDT, let alone all of them...

(Granted, it's low because most *coiners don't seem to understand what mail is given they can't even figure out how to install mailman, but the hope remains)

Don't fixate on coin (money). A common antispam measure is tarpitting (look it up), where known spammers are bogged down by resource depletion: unfortunately, theres no way at this point to superimpose stamping across the zillions of already installed SMTP systems (computers, printers, appliances, etc.). As you think about this, make sure you look both macroscopically as well as microscopically. //Alif -- Those who make peaceful change impossible, make violent revolution inevitable. An American Spring is coming: one way or another.

On 20 Jan 2014, at 21:38 , Cari Machet wrote:

FYI now they make laws that are retroactive to indict - i know of a case (or 5 actually) where the law was made to indict and convict 2 years after the "crime" yup ppl went to fed prison for years ... seems the breech of the rule of law by the US has come more out of the shadows

Do you have a citation for those cases? I’m not doubting you, but the legal sophistry to argue that an ex post facto law was constitutional despite the explicit prohibition would be interesting. I’ve heard of cases where higher penalties were applied than existed at the time (which IIRC is banned by the ECHR and possibly the CCPR, although is allowed in the USA and elsewhere), or where statutes of limitations were extended, but a blatant ex post facto law seems surprising.

On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 9:17 PM, J.A. Terranson wrote:

...

...

FYI now they make laws that are retroactive to indict - i know of a Do you have a citation for those cases? I?m not doubting you, but the Telecom/NSA/*retroactive immunity* ring a bell?

That is effectively retroactive acquittal, not indictment.

From: J.A. Terranson To: grarpamp On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, grarpamp wrote:

...

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 22:34:12 -0500 From: grarpamp To: cpunks Subject: Re: [OT] Note to new-ish subscribers: you joined a mailing list,     not a "group". (fwd)

On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 9:17 PM, J.A. Terranson wrote:

...

...

...

FYI now they make laws that are retroactive to indict - i know of a Do you have a citation for those cases? I?m not doubting you, but the Telecom/NSA/*retroactive immunity* ring a bell?

That is effectively retroactive acquittal, not indictment. [...]

[1] "Expunged" it turns out is not used in the standard English way we all assume it is: the incident shows up as a "sealed criminal record", which can be (and has on more than one occasion since then) opened during any subsequent criminal proceeding and used against you for "showing a pattern of criminal behaviour" as well as for sentencing "points". "Expunged" my ass!  Had this been explained to me by my so-called lawyer, I would have gone ahead with the [outrageously expensive] appeal of my $1,500 fine.

In prison, there is a joke:    "Suppose you find yourself on an elevator with your judge, your prosecutor, and your lawyer, and you have a gun with two bullets.  What would you do?  Answer, 'I'd shoot my lawyer TWICE to make sure the fucker is dead!!!'"      Jim Bell

From: Philip Shaw To: J.A. Terranson Cc: cpunks Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 8:28 PM Subject: Re: [OT] Note to new-ish subscribers: you joined a mailing list, not a "group". (fwd) On 21 Jan 2014, at 12:47 , J.A. Terranson wrote:

...

Telecom/NSA/*retroactive immunity* ring a bell? Retroactive acquittal is relatively OK - it is a good thing when applied to the people, for example people have been campaigning for a long time to get all British sodomy convictions >quashed even though everyone has now been released, so we more or less have to accept that it *can* be used to clear government agents too, even if politically we shouldn’t approve >(at least in specific cases). (For criminal matters, in many jurisdictions the government can simply refuse to prosecute cases against its agents and private prosecutions aren’t permitted >in some places, so it doesn’t create any new danger to the public.) Retroactive indictment is the problem, and is far more dangerous.

Au contraire!  A good argument can be made that retroactive acquittal (more precisely, in this case, retroactive civil immunity of corporations) is a violation of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which says in relevant part:   Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;_nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws_. If people were supposed to be protected by the law in question, and once it was found out that the corporations were violating it (worse, doing that on behalf of the government!) then to give those corporations retroactive civil immunity amounts to denying the public that protection the law ostensibly was intended to provide.       Jim Bell

Dnia poniedziałek, 20 stycznia 2014 21:06:49 Jim Bell pisze:

From: Philip Shaw

To: J.A. Terranson Cc: cpunks Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 8:28 PM Subject: Re: [OT] Note to new-ish subscribers: you joined a mailing list, not a "group". (fwd) On 21 Jan 2014, at 12:47 , J.A. Terranson wrote:

...

...

Telecom/NSA/*retroactive immunity* ring a bell?

Retroactive acquittal is relatively OK - it is a good thing when applied to the people, for example people have been campaigning for a long time to get all British sodomy convictions >quashed even though everyone has now been released, so we more or less have to accept that it *can* be used to clear government agents too, even if politically we shouldn’t approve >(at least in specific cases). (For criminal matters, in many jurisdictions the government can simply refuse to prosecute cases against its agents and private prosecutions aren’t permitted >in some places, so it doesn’t create any new danger to the public.) Retroactive indictment is the problem, and is far more dangerous.

Au contraire! A good argument can be made that retroactive acquittal (more precisely, in this case, retroactive civil immunity of corporations)

So let's stick to either the general thing (that seems to be more or less okay) *or* the specific not-okay thing, and not use arguments against the latter against the former, shall we? Because I'm sure we can agree here that retroactive corporate acquittal is bullshit and should not happen, under any circumstances. And I think we can agree that in some cases *personal* retroactive acquittal is not a bad idea. -- Pozdr rysiek

Dnia wtorek, 21 stycznia 2014 12:32:17 Steve Jones pisze:

On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 12:48:46 +0100

rysiek wrote:

...

Because I'm sure we can agree here that retroactive corporate acquittal is bullshit and should not happen, under any circumstances.

And I think we can agree that in some cases *personal* retroactive acquittal is not a bad idea.

Sure the question is whether or not you agree with the conviction? It is possible, theoretically at least, for a corporation to be convicted under a law that is later decided to be unjust.

Corporations are not people. I don't give a flying whatever about such a situation, and I do not see why I should. -- Pozdr rysiek

i love when they make excuses like well its better than china hahhahaha .... umn rule of law long loooooong dead ... what can we do about that? On 1/23/14, dan@geer.org wrote:

On the question of retroactivity of law:

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/articles/1/essays/62/bill-of-attainder

On the question of selective enforcement of existing law, Obama has turned it into an art form:

http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/liberal-icon-urges-obama-impeachment

--dan

-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Twitter: @carimachet https://twitter.com/carimachet Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.

--On Friday, January 24, 2014 3:15 AM +0000 Cari Machet wrote:

i love when they make excuses like well its better than china hahhahaha ....

umn rule of law long loooooong dead ... what can we do about that?

What do you think 'rule of law' is, and when do you think it was 'alive'? Maybe when jefferson and accomplices founded their little slave republic?

On 1/23/14, dan@geer.org wrote:

...

On the question of retroactivity of law:

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/articles/1/essays/62/bill-of-attain der

On the question of selective enforcement of existing law, Obama has turned it into an art form:

http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/liberal-icon-urges-obama-impeachment

--dan

-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Twitter: @carimachet https://twitter.com/carimachet

Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.

On Jan 21, 2014, at 3:11 AM, Philip Shaw wrote:

On 20 Jan 2014, at 21:38 , Cari Machet wrote:

...

FYI now they make laws that are retroactive to indict - i know of a case (or 5 actually) where the law was made to indict and convict 2 years after the "crime" yup ppl went to fed prison for years ... seems the breech of the rule of law by the US has come more out of the shadows

Do you have a citation for those cases? I’m not doubting you, but the legal sophistry to argue that an ex post facto law was constitutional despite the explicit prohibition would be interesting. I’ve heard of cases where higher penalties were applied than existed at the time (which IIRC is banned by the ECHR and possibly the CCPR, although is allowed in the USA and elsewhere), or where statutes of limitations were extended, but a blatant ex post facto law seems surprising.

its the shac7 case there were convictions on stalking that were not illegal at the time of the incidents - thats my information from one of the defendants anyway and other laws were never utilized in such a way in order to convict activists or anyone - one law that was over 10 years old was used that had never been utilized in any case and even the name of the law was changed before the case was brought the problem with these kinds of cases is that they set precedent and no one knows about it AND the defendants rarely have the cash to properly fight the case so the system of law becomes flawed - broken