--
James A. Donald:
> > And regardless of what made him Fuhrer, it was not a
> > revolution.
Jim Choate:
> It wasn't? They passed a law moving all the presidents power to
> Hitler against the constitution.
"They passed a law" is not a revolution, even if the law was
unconstitutional, and it
On Sat, 1 Sep 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> And regardless of what made him Fuhrer, it was not a revolution.
It wasn't? They passed a law moving all the presidents power to Hitler
against the constitution. Then they got the military to swear an oath to
Hitler, not Germany. In other words in
James A. Donald:--
James A. Donald:
> > Hitler won an election. Elections are not revolutions.
Jim Choate
> The election alone didn't make him Fuhrer
The fact that a majority voted for totalitarianism and plurality
voted for Hitler did make him fuhrer.
And regardless of what made him Fuhre
Having read Tim's reply already, I'll confine myself to a point he
didn't address.
On 1 Sep 2001, at 22:30, Nomen Nescio wrote:
> It's true that this does not directly impact the design. But we can't
> ignore the question, is this a market we want to pursue. For example,
> there are any num
On 31 Aug 2001, at 12:13, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 31 Aug 2001, at 19:50, Nomen Nescio wrote:
> > This means that the operators
> > choose to whom they will market and sell their services.
>
> Here I disagree completely. I think in a properly designed
> anonymity system the users will be, w
On Fri, 31 Aug 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> When Hitler authorized Krystalnacht, that was a revolution?
No, that was the consequence of one that had already worked. They were
just cleaning up the left overs. Had Hitler not already won the power then
it wouldn't have been necessary.
--
> There are *no* tools which are useful *only* for powering down
> government.
Well, there are some *biased* tools.
Anuthing that builds real or virtual walls impedes the spread of monocultural
fungal infection (aka the government). The more power an entity has, the less
walls it needs. So wall-
On 31 Aug 2001, at 19:50, Nomen Nescio wrote:
> But the more sophisticated technologies are not self-contained tools.
> They require a supported and maintained infrastructure to operate.
> Anonymous posters are painfully aware of how inadequate the current
> remailer system is. A truly reliable
Mark Leighton Fisher writes:
> Tim's point, which many seem to have missed, is that by design a tool that
> enforces the privacy, anonymity, and pseudonymity of a women striving for
> equal rights in Afghanistan can also be used by the Taliban in their quest
> to track down and kill Afghans who c
On Fri, 31 Aug 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> A revolution involves mass participation, and widespread
> spontaneous defiance of state authority.
A revolution is when one part of a populace takes up arms against another
part of the populace. The argument is over who gets the final say. It's
wo
--
James A. Donald:
> > (the Russian communist revolution was not a revolution, but
> > merely a coup by a little conspiracy. Same for the
> > Sandinista revolution).
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I'm curious how you draw the line? I.e., what defines a
> genuine revolution as opposed to a "mere" coup
Is it necessary to send this message to cypherpunks twice?
-Declan
---
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 08:21:45 -0500 (CDT)
Nomen Nescio replied to Tim May:
[...]
> You need to read your own posting more carefully:
>
> > Draw this graph I outlined. Think about where the markets are for tools
> > for privacy and untraceability. Realize that many of the "far out' sweet
> > spot applications are not necessarily immoral
Title: RE: Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot
>When you were asked where were all the supposed wealthy freedom fighters
>in communist controlled regimes, you came back with Osama bin Laden.
Tim's point, which many seem to have missed, is that by design a tool that e
>When you were asked where were all the supposed wealthy freedom fighters
>in communist controlled regimes, you came back with Osama bin Laden.
Tim's point, which many seem to have missed, is that by design a tool that
enforces the privacy, anonymity, and pseudonymity of a women striving for
equa
At 09:12 PM 8/30/01 -0500, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
Tim May writes:
> And in both of these examples I gave, "Nomen Nescio" took a literal
> reading of the examples. "But Ireland is not a communist regime!" "But
> they are not Jews!"
>
> Examples, like the half dozen I gave, are designed to convey to the
> reader the range of uses, needs, and jus
--
On 28 Aug 2001, at 23:00, Nomen Nescio wrote:
> The objection was raised, yes, it is moral, but is it
> profitable? There are not many communist-opposed freedom
> fighters around today, not much money to be made there.
Most regimes on President Bush's shit list have an insurrection
going a
On Thu, 30 Aug 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> (the Russian communist revolution was not a
> revolution, but merely a coup by a little conspiracy. Same for
> the Sandinista revolution).
I'm curious how you draw the line? I.e., what defines a genuine
revolution as opposed to a "mere" coup?
On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 09:12:50PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>
>
>
> > But
> > even given the tattered First Amendment, there is still a difference
> > between speech and action.
>
> Complete and utter bullshit.
"Measl" sometimes posts wort
On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 09:12:50PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > But
> > > even given the tattered First Amendment, there is still a difference
> > > between speech and action.
--
> > Many people however believe that we [read: our government(s)]
> > are in a downward spiral that is converging on
> > police-and-welfare-state. In the US for example, we long ago
> > abandoned our constitution. We still give it much lip
> > service and we still have one of the "more fr
--
On 28 Aug 2001, at 7:13, Jim Choate wrote:
> What makes you think that new regime who used your tool to take
> over won't then shoot you and take 'your profits'. By
> participating you may in fact be signing your own death
> warrant.
All the liberty that there is in the world today resu
On Thu, 30 Aug 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I think the safest convenient path to development is to develop
> untraceable cash in the US with restrictions on any large
> transfers.
Absolutely unacceptable: (1) Define "large"; (2) Define a (sane) rationale
to justify this type of intrusion -
On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> 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
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If Governments really want us to behave like civilized
Declan McCullagh wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 12:42:24PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Bear may not be as far off the mark as you think. Remember back when the
> > hot news of the day was militia groups how advocating the violent
> > overthrow of the government and playing soldier in
On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 12:42:24PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Bear may not be as far off the mark as you think. Remember back when the
> hot news of the day was militia groups how advocating the violent
> overthrow of the government and playing soldier in the woods could
> constitute intent
On Thursday, August 30, 2001, at 12:42 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Bear may not be as far off the mark as you think. Remember back when the
> hot news of the day was militia groups how advocating the violent
> overthrow of the government and playing soldier in the woods could
> constitute inte
Declan McCullagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote :
>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 "s
--
On 27 Aug 2001, at 23:22, Aimee Farr wrote:
> Considering the incredibly bad timing of this discussion in
> light of world events, I don't see how you could call ME a
> provocateur. My jibe was good-natured. You keep posting the
> equivalent of classified ads. I know who wants this shit
--
On 27 Aug 2001, at 21:40, Nomen Nescio wrote:
> "Freedom fighters in communist-controlled regimes." How much
> money do they have? More importantly, how much are they
> willing and able to spend on anonymity/privacy/black-market
> technologies? These guys aren't rolling in dough.
Freedo
On Thursday, August 30, 2001, at 06:39 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Duncan Frissell wrote:
>
>> Is Tom Clancy going to spend much time in stir for machine gunning the
>> US
>> Congress at the end of Debt of Honor?
>
> Possibly: see the campaign to put away John Ross, autho
--
On 26 Aug 2001, at 10:46, Tim May wrote:
> Anyway, it is not easy to create a public company, a public
> nexus of attack, and then deploy systems which target that
> high-value sweet spot. The real bankers and the regulators
> won't allow such things into the official banking system. (Why
>
--
On 27 Aug 2001, at 16:00, Aimee Farr wrote:
> Your idea does seem to offer promise as a vehicle for treason,
> espionage, trade secrets, malicious mischief, piracy, bribery
> of public officials, concealment of assets, transmission of
> wagering information, murder for hire, threatening or
--
Reese
> > You [Aimee Farr]are entirely too smug and happy, at the
> > thought of these various mechanisms useful for preserving
> > privacy and anonymity going the way of the dodo.
Aimee Farr
> That is not my attitude at all, Reese.
It is your attitude. You keep telling us privacy is i
On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Duncan Frissell wrote:
> Is Tom Clancy going to spend much time in stir for machine gunning the US
> Congress at the end of Debt of Honor?
Possibly: see the campaign to put away John Ross, author of "Unintended
Consequences".
www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39696d3b3c
Anonymous wrote:
> The cypherpunk world replaces coercion with cooperation. It
> provides the shield of anonymity against those who would offer
> violence and aggression. As we move into the information age,
> control of information is control of the individual. Thus, privacy,
> control of info
At 10:10 PM 8/28/01 +0200, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>Apparently ability to spell "crypto" does not imply political sapiense beyond
One should not attempt spelling flames -- almost always in poor taste,
anyway --- if one does not know how to spell.
Hint to NN: "Sapience."
-Declan
On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 08:20:12AM +0200, Nomen Nescio wrote:
> be able to use the same tools against them. The problem is, we're
> doing this for profit, right? We won't give the tools away once
> the first generation uses them to take over. We should sell them to
> the highest bidder.
Methin
Gil Hamilton (great nym!) wrote:
> Didn't you already sign on? Surely through your careful study of the
> archives you know that one of the founding documents for this list is
> Tim's "Crypto Anarchist Manifesto". It's practically the charter.
> See, for example,
> http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Cry
Gil Hamilton wrote:
> Idiot bimbo writes:
>
>> [GH writes:]
>> > Didn't you already sign on? Surely through your careful study of the
>> > archives you know that one of the founding documents for this list is
>> > Tim's "Crypto Anarchist Manifesto". It's practically the charter.
>> > See, for e
Idiot bimbo writes:
>[GH writes:]
> > Didn't you already sign on? Surely through your careful study of the
> > archives you know that one of the founding documents for this list is
> > Tim's "Crypto Anarchist Manifesto". It's practically the charter.
> > See, for example,
> > http://www.eff.org/
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
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 h
Tim:
> On Tuesday, August 28, 2001, at 05:52 PM, Aimee Farr wrote:
>
> >> Didn't you already sign on? Surely through your careful study of the
> >> archives you know that one of the founding documents for this list is
> >> Tim's "Crypto Anarchist Manifesto". It's practically the charter.
> >>
On Tuesday, August 28, 2001, at 05:52 PM, Aimee Farr wrote:
>> Didn't you already sign on? Surely through your careful study of the
>> archives you know that one of the founding documents for this list is
>> Tim's "Crypto Anarchist Manifesto". It's practically the charter.
>> See, for example,
Ray Dillinger writes:
> 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
On Tuesday, August 28, 2001, at 02:37 PM, Duncan Frissell wrote:
>> It remains a challenge to identify groups that are both (A) wealthy,
>> (B)
>> in need of anonymity technologies, and (C) morally acceptable to
>> support.
>> Freedom fighters don't fit all that well, in today's world.
>
> Jews
Nomen says:
> bin Laden and the IRA have plenty of money, but will many cypherpunks
agree with their politics? It's hard to believe that anyone thinks that
if the IRA or bin Laden were to succeed in their goals, that they would
put in place a kindler and gentler state.
It remains a challenge to
> 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
> Didn't you already sign on? Surely through your careful study of the
> archives you know that one of the founding documents for this list is
> Tim's "Crypto Anarchist Manifesto". It's practically the charter.
> See, for example,
> http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Crypto_misc/cryptoanarchist.manifest
> It remains a challenge to identify groups that are both (A) wealthy, (B)
> in need of anonymity technologies, and (C) morally acceptable to support.
> Freedom fighters don't fit all that well, in today's world.
Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hutus, Tutsis, Vietnamese, Chinese, Russians,
Commodities
On Tuesday, August 28, 2001, at 8:04 AM, Tim May wrote:
> On Monday, August 27, 2001, at 11:20 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote:
> > On Monday, August 27, 2001, at 12:56 PM, Tim May wrote:
> >> On Monday, August 27, 2001, at 12:40 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote:
> >>> "Freedom fighters in communist-controlled regim
>Members of the IRA are not freedom fighters in a communist-controlled
>country. bin Laden did fall under that definition when he was fighting
The naivety of poster is appaling. I hope that "freedom fighters" in a
"communist-controlled country" is used as a placeholder for "something good as
p
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
> ad
"Aimee Farr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 (wh
At 01:02 AM 8/28/01 -0500, Aimee Farr wrote:
>That is not my attitude at all, Reese. I obviously like Tim's Blacknet.
>However, I don't like it being characterized as a subversive tool, and damn
>sure not in terms that might indicate a criminal conspiracy for shopping out
>secrets to Libya.
The p
At 09:40 PM 8/27/01 +0200, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>"People selling their expertise when some guild says they are forbidden
>to." Morally this one seems OK. In a net already filled with bogus
>medical and legal advice it can't make things much worse. On the other
>hand it's not clear that the exist
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 differen
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 m
On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Nomen Nescio wrote:
> The point is that those who will pay large sums to acquire access to
> these technologies, even for the purpose of overthrowing an evil regime,
> are not doing it out of altruism. They're not good-guy libertarians
> who only want to set up a John Galt
On Monday, August 27, 2001, at 12:56 PM, Tim May wrote:
> On Monday, August 27, 2001, at 12:40 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote:
> > "Freedom fighters in communist-controlled regimes." How much money
> > do they have? More importantly, how much are they willing and able to
> > spend on anonymity/privacy/b
Reese wrote:
> >This is not legal advice. It's an obituary. :)
>
> Owning a vehicle that will exceed the speed limit is not a crime.
> Driving a vehicle that will exceed the speed limit is not a crime.
> Exceeding the speed limit is a crime and is a ticketable offense,
> at the least.
>
> Mechan
> You complained a few weeks ago about the timing of the "help me make
> bombz" posts...as if we have any choice about when AOL-accounted narcs
> post such requests.
I don't think I complained about their timing, I think I complained about
their very existence.
> And now, bizarrely, you think th
> Not so bright, though. And you've outed yourself by not-so-subtle hints
> about the SS "prime rib."
When I said "prime rib," I meant PRIME RIB. Our little hamburger joint has
taken on greater culinary responsibility.
~Aimee
On Monday, August 27, 2001, at 07:53 PM, Aimee Farr wrote:
> The EEA wasn't passed until 96. I failed to mention Title 18 United
> States
> Code, Section(s) 794(c).
>
> "Agents kick crypto ass."
> http://www.fas.org/irp/ops/ci/regan_complaint.html'
> That wouldn't be what has your little m
On Monday, August 27, 2001, at 09:22 PM, Aimee Farr wrote:
>> Your role as an agent provocateur here is noted.
>
> Your role as a son-uv-a-bitch to me is noted.
>
> Trying to keep people out of trouble is a "provocateur?" Gee, sorry to
> dampen your conspiracy.
>
> I posted Regan because it was d
> Your role as an agent provocateur here is noted.
Your role as a son-uv-a-bitch to me is noted.
Trying to keep people out of trouble is a "provocateur?" Gee, sorry to
dampen your conspiracy.
I posted Regan because it was directly relevant to this discussion, and it
makes a couple of points --
Tim May:
> So I guess my candidate submission for the P.E.T. workshop might not be
> well-received: "BlackNet; Case History of a Practically Untraceable
> System for Buying and Selling Corporate and National Secrets.
No, you want E.E.T. -- "Espionage-enhancing Technologies."
Some of you need a
On Monday, August 27, 2001, at 12:40 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote:
> Tim May writes:
>> Draw this graph I outlined. Think about where the markets are for tools
>> for privacy and untraceability. Realize that many of the "far out'
>> sweet
>> spot applications are not necessarily immoral: think of free
> Despite frequently urging newcomers to "read the archives--or at least
> use some search engines!," nitwits like Aimee are only just now figuring
> out what was crystal clear in 1992-3.
The EEA wasn't passed until 96. I failed to mention Title 18 United States
Code, Section(s) 794(c).
"Agents
On Monday, August 27, 2001, at 02:00 PM, Aimee Farr wrote:
> Tim May:
>
>> So I guess my candidate submission for the P.E.T. workshop might not be
>> well-received: "BlackNet; Case History of a Practically Untraceable
>> System for Buying and Selling Corporate and National Secrets.
>
> No, you wa
Tim May writes:
> Draw this graph I outlined. Think about where the markets are for tools
> for privacy and untraceability. Realize that many of the "far out' sweet
> spot applications are not necessarily immoral: think of freedom fighters
> in communist-controlled regimes, think of distributio
At 10:46 AM 8/26/2001 -0700, Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sunday, August 26, 2001, at 09:13 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Right on target. There is one aspect to this loss of nerve not
>> mentioned: the correlation between those with the means and interest to
>>pursue these avenues
On Sunday, August 26, 2001, at 09:13 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Right on target. There is one aspect to this loss of nerve not
> mentioned: the correlation between those with the means and interest to
> pursue these avenues and those with merely the interest.
There are a couple of points
At 09:56 PM 8/25/2001 -0700, Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
some really great stuff deleted
>CONCLUSION:
>
>To really do something about untraceability you need to be untraceable.
>
>Draw this graph I outlined. Think about where the markets are for tools
for privacy and untraceability.
On Sat, 25 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote:
> RATIONAL ACTORS
>
> The obvious point is that rational actors never pay more for
> untraceability than they get back in perceived benefits. Someone will
> not pay $1000 for privacy/untraceability technology or tools that only
> nets them $500 in perceive
On Sat, 25 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote:
> At the June meeting I drew a graph which makes the point clearly. A pity
> I can't draw it here. (Yeah, there are ways. My new Web page should have
> some drawings soon. But this list is about ASCII.)
>
> Plot "Value of Being Untraceable in a Transaction"
I'm writing a lot today. These last several days, actually. Maybe I got
enough sleep, maybe the debate about how CFP has been taken over by the
droids is inspiring me, maybe it's because I can't wait until I can get
these drawings (talked about later) up on my soon-to-appear "virtual
whiteboar
79 matches
Mail list logo
