CRYPTIC SEDUCTION
Cypherpunks, Because of CRYPTIC SEDUCTION's Cypherpunk connection, I thought it would be appropriate to present you with a unique opportunity. The adult film market has been flat for some period of time and I see no signs of an upturn any time soon. I'm tired of waiting for the right market and so are some of my shareholders. So we've decided to bring this chapter to a close--even at a loss--rather than drag it on any longer. So have decided to sell off the movie and dissolve the company as soon as possible. To that end, I am soliciting bids for the purchase of all the assets of Desdaemona--the remaining rights, documentation and inventory of CRYPTIC SEDUCTION. To insure a quick sale, I am setting a deadline for bids of noon PST, March 20, 2002. I think it's only fair that Cypherpunks--the inspiration for CRYPTIC SEDUCTION--should get a "bite at the apple." Attached, is a Word document you may use to bid on CRYPTIC SEDUCTION. Who knows? If you are the winning bidder, you may end up owning CRYPTIC SEDUCTION for a fraction of the $30,000 it cost to produce it. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me by e-mail or phone (510-839-3441). Remember, the deadline is noon, one week from today. S a n d y P.S. If the list chokes on the Word attachment, here it is in text form. ___ DESDÆMONA FILM PRODUCTION TRUST March 13, 2002 Dear Cypherpunk: Thank you for your interest in bidding on all rights (less TV rights), documentation and inventory for the adult feature, CRYPTIC SEDUCTION. In order to participate in the bidding, you will need to fill out the bid form at the bottom of this letter, sign it and mail or fax it to us at the address/number, below. To quality for consideration, it must be received by noon PST, Wednesday March 20, 2002. If yours is the highest bid, you will be notified at that time. To complete the purchase of CRYPTIC SEDUCTION you must immediately remit payment to us via wire transfer, cashiers check or the equivalent. If full payment is not received by noon PST, Friday March 22, 2002, we reserve the right to void the sale. Sincerely, Sandy Sandfort, Trustee I hereby bid $___, as per the terms listed above, for the adult motion picture, CRYPTIC SEDUCTION. Name: Address: Phone/fax: E-mail: 123 BAY PLACE, SUITE 301 OAKLAND, CA 94610 PHONE: 510-839-3441 FAX: 858-630-4116 Signature __ Date __ Bid--Cypherpunks.doc Description: MS-Word document
RE: Drivers License as ID Card
Inchoate backpedaled:
> Why would Congress/President not invoke a
> National ID card themselves while allowing
> the states to do it with their permission?
> Why would Congress/President hand power
> over to the states they didn't want to
> exercise themselves?
>
> Answer: They won't.
Correct answer: They would. Given that the House and Executive branch are
in Republican hands. And given that Republicans tend to support "states
rights," using the states as a cat's paw to introduce a national ID via the
back door makes perfect sense. (Unless you only have inchoate sense.)
S a n d y
http://www.dictionary.com/wordoftheday/archive/1999/10/26.html
Word of the Day for Tuesday October 26, 1999:
inchoate \in-KOH-it\, adjective:
1. Recently, or just, begun; beginning.
2. Partially but not fully in existence or operation; existing in its
elements; incomplete; imperfectly formed; as, "a vague inchoate idea".
Writers basically work by instinct - I think you have only an inchoate sense
of what you're doing.
--John Gregory Dunne, quoted in "How John Gregory Dunne Puts Himself Into
Books," New York Times, May 3, 1982
You take on a project because of the feeling, perhaps inchoate, that it may
in some way contribute to your deeper understanding of the larger-scale
research program you have chosen as your life's work.
--Christopher Scholz, Fieldwork: A Geologist's Memoir of the Kalahari
Still, if I'm honest, the most thrilling moments all came early, in the
Fifties and Sixties, when the music was a primary focus of my energy,
shaping my desires, coloring my memory, and producing the wild fantasy,
widely shared, that my generation was, in some inchoate way, through the
simple pleasure we all took in rock and roll, part of a new world dawning.
--James Miller, Flowers in the Dustbin: The Rise of Rock and Roll, 1947-1977
Inchoate is from Latin inchoatus ("only begun, not finished, incomplete"),
past participle of inchoo, inchoare, which is an alteration of incoho,
incohare, to begin.
RE: SURRENDER DOROTHY!
Jimbo really stretched on this one: > As my original statement (which I thank > you for providing) specifically says > 'between themselves'. But states DO make compacts 'BETWEEN THEMSELVES,' which is what Jimbo said was unconstitutional. The fact that they have congressional approval, does not alter the nature of the agreement nor of the parties. The "remedial reading" ball is demonstrably and forcefully served back to Jimbo's court. I await his next cowardly volley with amusement. But unless he says something a bit meatier than his foregoing thin gruel, I doubt I'll be motivated to respond. It's just no fun anymore; he's too easy. :'D S a n d y
RE: why market to Joe Sixpack?
David wrote: > Declan's comment on operating a physical > remailer for suitably valuable cargo, > plus some of Tim's recent comments about > integration, made me think of the > question in the subject line. So far >I see at least three possible answers. > > 1) Make lots of money. > > 2) Spread awareness (that "funny feeling in the stomach" recently > discussed) and save our fellow man. Make the world safe for privacy. > > 3) Ensure that cryptography and privacy-enhancing technologies have uses > besides "Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse," so that they aren't banned. > > anything else? Yes, a corollary to 2) is that by saving our fellow man, we are saving ourselves as well. The elitist idea that it doesn't make any difference what happens to the little people is wrong-headed. Because the world is set up to make cars affordable for the little people, you and I can have personal automotive transportation at a fraction of the cost if we were to try and assemble them up in Galt's Gulch. If crypto gets wide-spread use by the little people, our use will be lost in the noise. S a n d y
RE: Pricing Mojo, Integrating PGP, TAZ, and D.C. Cypherpunks
Someone wrote: > Unfortunately U.S. postal regulations > require identification when you rent a > mail box, public or private > > It won't do much good to chain them if > each one in the chain has your ID on file. > Granted you can use fake ID but that would > be breaking the law, raising the costs > considerably. US postal regs end at the US border. The rest of the world is full of mail drops, accommodation addresses and mail forwarding services. S a n d y
RE: Nuclear Pipe Bombs
Ken Brown quoted Tim May (I think) saying: > > A way too expensive way to spread mere > > radiological terror, which could be done > > much more cheaply and easily by taking > > spent fuel rods and blowing them up, or > > just by grinding up spent fuel rods or > > other nuclear waste and then dumping it > > out of a plane over a city.) Won't work on Berkeley, though. The City Council declared Berkeley a "Nuclear Free Zone." Guess that leaves only conventional weapons. S a n d y
RE: The Crypto Winter
alphabeta121 asked, > what does C-A-C-L stand for? Nothing really. It's Inchoate's blanket term for the several loosely related free market theories/movements. It's an intellectually bankrupt grouping. It's sort of like saying "commie" instead of differentiating between communism, Fabian socialism, liberalism, populism, the left, progressives, etc. You can safely ignore it. S a n d y
RE: Monkeywrenching airport security
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Subject: Monkeywrenching airport security > > Walk into an airport in baggy pants with > powdered expolosives in a leg bag which > can slowly be dispersed as you walk... Airport chemical "sniffers" apparently look for the signature of nitrogen compounds, not "explosives," per se. I've often wondered how many weekend gardeners have gotten hassled and delayed because of trace amounts of ammonia-based fertilizers on their person and effects. If you plan to fly, be sure to wash your hands thoroughly before heading out for the airport if you have been shoot, gardening or house cleaning. S a n d y
RE: Crypto Terrorists to be Tried in Military Tribunal
Somebody wrote: > > At 9:07 PM -0500 11/14/01, Andrew C. > > Greenberg wrote: > > >I saw the part in article III about > > >one supreme court and subsidiary > > >courts. Sorry, where, exactly, does > > >it say that military tribunals have > > >jurisdiction over civilians? > > Read the fucking order at cryptome: > >Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War >Against Terrorism > > See that? "Non-Citizens", you stupid fucks! What a barrel of retards > we've got around here. Civilians /= citizen. Non-citizens are civilians (unless they are also soldiers), so Andrew's question still obtains. S a n d y
POORLY SOCIALIZED VS POLITICALLY INCORRECT
C'punks, For those of you, like Reese, who were unsure or mistaken as to the meaning of "socialized" when I wrote that Reese was "poorly socialized," I refer you to definition #2 of "socialize" from dictionary.com: so7cial7ize (s sh -l z) v. so7cial7ized, so7cial7iz7ing, so7cial7iz7es v. tr. 1. To place under government or group ownership or control. 2. To make fit for companionship with others; make sociable. 3. To convert or adapt to the needs of society. Please compare that to either definition of "politically correct," also from dictionary.com: politically correct adj. Abbr. PC 1. Of, relating to, or supporting broad social, political, and educational change, especially to redress historical injustices in matters such as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation. 2. Being or perceived as being overconcerned with such change, often to the exclusion of other matters. So for future reference, if I should use the term "socialized" in reference to a person, I mean definition #2. If I use it in reference to a practice, organization, market segment, etc. I mean definition #1 or #3. Clear enough? S a n d y
RE: Business 'rights' and free markets
Reese wrote: > At 04:42 PM 11/7/01 -0800, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > >Jim, you pompous ass, > > Why not just call him a dumb cunt? Reese might have a point here. When Reese uses a derogatory term for women, he demeans all women. By calling Jimbo a pompous ass, I am demeaning all donkeys. S a n d y
RE: Business 'rights' and free markets
Butthead, You wrote: > It's interesting that in lambasting me for > 'knowing what Hayek would say' is EXACTLY > what you're doing. At least I back my > hubris with quotes from Hayeks works. Watch your attribution bonehead. I've not participated in the Hayek discussion at all except to point out your stupid attempt to PREDICT what Hayek WOULD HAVE SAID. Show us your Hyek "denying service to whomever" quotes. Can't, can you? Surrender, Dorothy. S a n d y _ If the law of gravity is fundamental, why can't it be changed by Constitutional amendment since it's the primary authority? W W \*\ /*/ The Road Kill Group |*| |*| /*|*\ |\- (|\((x)\ -==-||---:> (|/((x)/ \*|*/ |/- |*| |*| /*/ \*\ M M
RE: Business 'rights' and free markets
Jim, you pompous ass, You wrote: > On Wed, 7 Nov 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > > > Let me get this right. Jimbo is > > CHANNELING Hayek? Yeah, right. > > Not at all, > > http://www.mises.org/hayekbio.asp > > you should read the books instead of just > trusting other peoples interpretation... > he was decidedly against central or > control economices (ie fascism or > socialism). Of course I've read the books and of course I know he was against centrally planned economies. So what? Read your own stupid post again, moron. Your pretending to know what Hayek would say in your stupid hypothetical about denying service to Jews or whomever, is the height of hubris, you pitiful ignoramus. Have a nice day, S a n d y
FW: Damn ! I wish I'd though ot fhis myself
C'punks, Friend of mine sent me this. I like the poetic justice of it. S a n d y > A Good Idea! > > All of the rubble from New York ... all the huge blocks of > concrete and steel, the old busted up computers, refrigerators, > hot water heaters, air conditioners, fire trucks, broken glass, > etc., should be shoveled into C130's and C5A's, flown over > Iraq and Afghanistan and dropped from 32,000 feet. > > A Frigidaire can do a heck of a lot of damage from 5 miles up. > With each assault, we can drop pamphlets: > "Greetings, from the 110th floor of the World Trade Center!" > > The next day it would read, "...from the 109th floor..." > > Then the 108th, etc., etc. > > After 110 days of this, I can't imagine there would be much > left standing on the ground. Can't you just see the headlines: > > "WORLD TRADE CENTER STRIKES BACK!" > > What wonderful irony this would be, and think how much money > we wouldn't have to spend on new bombs or missiles! Not to > mention the 100-million tons diverted from the New York City > landfill.
GADSDEN
C'punks, The Gadsden flag is the only American flag I have any interest in flying. Laissez Faire Books is offering a stylized, anarcho-capitalist (gold on black) version of the Gadsden design on a t-shirt. I'll be picking up mine tomorrow. Check it out: http://laissezfairebooks.com/product.cfm?op=view&pid=ET8568 If you are interested in the history of the Gadsden flag or in buying one, check out: http://www.interesting.com/gifts/gadsden/ http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/us-ratt.html http://www.usflag.org/gadsden.html http://www.vexillum.com/ http://www.usahistorystore.com/ http://www.americastore.com/gadsdenflag.html S a n d y
RE: Maine National Guard bars Green Party leader from flying
Reese wrote: > At 10:30 AM 11/4/01 -0800, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > ... > >I'd say it's protected speech. If the > >cop can't handle that, can't live up > >to his oath to uphold the law of the > >land, than he shouldn't be a cop. > > Meanwhile, in real life,,, Meanwhile, in real life, Reese will play the role of apologist for bully-boy cops when the "cunt" brings it herself. Of course, in the "real world" some of us don't take it laying down. S a n d y Rapists, ask Reese to be your character witness in your next court appearance.
RE: Maine National Guard bars Green Party leader from flying
Reese wrote: > Would you say greeting every police officer > you meet by calling them "useless pigs" > would be begging for victimhood? I'd say it's protected speech. If the cop can't handle that, can't live up to his oath to uphold the law of the land, than he shouldn't be a cop. S a n d y
RE: Maine National Guard bars Green Party leader from flying
James A. Donald wrote: > Let us imagine the following scenario. > You are going to board a plane. > Someone who is known to be, or plausibly > alleged to be, a supporter of the > terrorist movements the US is currently > at war with, also wants to board the same > plane. In that situation, your views on > their right to travel by plane will > probably undergo a sudden change. Even in James' wildly exaggerated scenario, I see no reason to stop them from traveling after they had been shown not to be a threat (as was the case with this woman). Nope, political BELIEFS are sacrosanct. Show me a tangible physical threat or leave the lady alone. > The enemies of freedom, which this woman > certainly is... Decaf, James, decaf. S a n d y
RE: Maine National Guard bars Green Party leader from flying
Reese wrote: > At 12:32 AM 11/4/01 -0800, S a n d y wrote: > >Reese wrote: > > > >> You didn't really read the interview, > >> did you? > >> > >> The dumb cunt brought it on herself. > > > >Yeah, just like all those other rape victims... > > Read the article/interview. Did. I don't care if she were singles out or not. NOBODY deserves the treatment she got. Period. Reese illustrates one of the less advertised benefits of free speech. Because Reese is free to way and write what he thinks, we all get to learn just what a misogynistic apologist for the initiation of force he is. Thanks for the warning, Reese. S a n d y
RE: Maine National Guard bars Green Party leader from flying
Reese wrote: > You didn't really read the interview, > did you? > > The dumb cunt brought it on herself. Yeah, just like all those other rape victims... S a n d y
RE: JOHN EDWARD
J.A. Terranson wrote: > On Sat, 27 Oct 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > > > Nope, not in the least. I HATE people > > who take advantage of the suffering > > of others. > > Wait a sec here: aren't you a lawyer? Don't practice. Besides, the practice of law no more necessarily takes advantage of the suffering of others than does the practice of medicine. If you do your job right, you help people who need it. John Edward helps no one. S a n d y
RE: JOHN EDWARD
John Young wrote: > The begrieved are actors. Is that speculation or do you really have proof of that statement? To the extent I've watched the show, it's obvious to me that the people are real. > Are ye not soap acting verily in this > exchange. Nope, not in the least. I HATE people who take advantage of the suffering of others. > What's the real skinny on Rush's going deaf? I haven't listened to nor spoken to Rush for some time. I hadn't heard about the deafness. S a n d y
RE: JOHN EDWARD
John Young wrote: > Wait, Sandy, John Edward does sci-fi comedy. > Like Penn and Teller catching bullets with > teeth, David Caine levitating. Dr. Spin on > Fox, Dr. Germ in Iraq. It ain't funny if you are exploiting somebody's loss and misery. Have you ever lost someone? > Join in the tomfoolery, isn't that what > Penn and Teller dare us. No, it isn't. Didn't you read what Penn wrote? Penn & Teller are honest magicians, they tell you they are conning you. S a n d y
JOHN EDWARD
C'punks, If you ever watch the SciFi Channel, you've probably seen John Edward. He supposedly conveys messages from dead people to their grieving friends and family. I can't watch it more than a couple of minutes without getting really angry. Penn Jillette--following in Houdini's footsteps about such matters--has expressed similar outrage. Recently, Penn wrote: If you want [a] number to call John Edward and tell him how wrong what he's doing is, I got through on this one 631-574-6043. If you have an opinion to share with John Edward, you might wish to give him a call. S a n d y P.S. What was the *SCI*Fi Channel thinking?
BOOKS FOR PRISONERS
C'punks, I heard back from my friend who was recently released from federal prison. She wrote: > The libraries in federal prisons are > hideously inadequate largely because > of the policy governing donations to > federal prisons...State prisons, > however, are a horse of a different > colorFunny, but we [Laissez Faire > Books] just offered 200+ unsellable > books to Books For Prisoners and Long > Haul in Berekely today...I'm working > with an ex-con who is active with the > LP in Cal to offer books to prisoners > at a larger discount... So, if you'd like to get some books into the prison system, you might talk to your local Libertarian Party office or contact the Long Haul in Berkeley. S a n d y
RE: Where The Torture Never Stops...
Duncan Frissell wrote: > Besides, "Prison is not punishment to the literate." 'Course being buggered by your cellmate is. Also, jail/prison libraries are woefully lacking in the sort of books you REALLY need. S a n d y
RE: Where The Torture Never Stops...
"Onin wal-a bin Hakkin" wrote: > but in all candor, dont ya think > that if a guy is there who SHOULDNT > be there, he wouldnt be there > after a decent timeframe of investigation? If you were innocent of any crime and were thrown in the slammer with bad people and given no opportunity to contact friends or lawyers, what would you consider "a decent timeframe of investigation" before they cut you loose? If/when they did cut you loose would you say, "Hey, no hard feeling, I know you have a job to do," or would you seek some sort of compensation? S a n d y
RE: Need help hacking /root/pwd to constitution
A. Melon wrote: > any suggestions? Yes, take a remedial reading course and then read Flesch's WRITING PLAIN ENGLISH. S a n d y > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of A. Melon > Sent: 25 October, 2001 14:45 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Need help hacking /root/pwd to constitution > > > take me to UR leader, i need his > permission 2 ask the list a question > > need password in order to own/root > constitution so i can slip in > /bin/laden/findme.pl > > if U can do this 4 me it would B 3l33t > > any suggestions?
RE: Conman, quantum entaglement and no cat
Lucky wrote: > It would have been more impressive had > Copperfield revealed the numbers he > predicted an hour /before/ the drawing... Yes, but that would have required REAL magic (or time travel). Incidentally, Penn sent a further reading suggestion on the subject of "mentalism." The book is called, Self-Working Mental Magic by Karl Fulves. S a n d y
DUNNINGER
C'punks, Penn suggests reading Joseph Dunniger if you want to know how magic works. One of Dunninger's books listed on Amazon.com is, Dunninger's Complete Encyclopedia of Magic. S a n d y
RE: Conman, quantum entaglement and no cat
C'punks, Penn says Copperfield's trick is "Right out of the books." He goes on to say that it's just a matter of presentation. But we all knew that, right? S a n d y
RE: Retribution not enough
Harmon Seaver wrote: > Sure [with regard to periodic starvation], > but for the most part, they did alright, > else we would not be here. Tell that to the 7th kine. In reality, subsistence (this word means something) farmers were mostly chronically malnourished--even in the good times--and died in droves whenever the sun didn't shine or the rain didn't fall. I don't consider that doing "alright." > > Only modern "factory farms" seem immune > > that this cycle. > > > > Not so -- only because of corporate welfare. Can you be more specific? "Corporate welfare" such as making the rain fall or what? > That's the point I was trying to make -- > they aren't being "starved" out. And, as > I pointed out previously with the Amish, > it isn't that they are not mechanized > enough, or not big enough. So why are > they losing their land and moving to the > city to become wageslaves for some megacorp? You tell me. It would appear that either you are wrong about the economic viability of their farms or they are somehow acting against their own best interest. Subsistence farmers are going to the cities because they (correctly) understand that to do so increases their standard of living. Period. > In Latin America we see them primarily > being kicked off their land by > "paramilitarys" usually in the pay of > big ranchers and/or megacorp argribiz, > and sometimes by the army. Maybe kicked > off is too strong -- frightened off by > all the rapes and murders and beatings, > or, with the army, "relocated" to make > them "safe" from the guerillas (and to > stop them from feeding the guerillas). Even assuming, arguendo, that this is true (evidence, please), this is not a failure of the market or the fault of the "sweat shop" operators. In fact, the "sweat shop" operators are the only heroes in this scenario. They are at least providing something better than the dislocated farmers would have had otherwise. Good for them. S a n d y
RE: Retribution not enough
Harmon Seaver wrote: > Of course you're ignoring the fact that > sometimes the reason that they are > "starving on their own retched little > plots of land." is because of NAFTA and > huge multinational corporations importing > so much US factory farmed corn and other > ag products into that country that they > can't compete. Ooo, there's a crime. :'D > Peasant farmers have been making an > adequate living on "their own retched > little plots of land." for at least > since before any recorded history, and, > for that matter, can still do so. No, actually history records a succession of starvations. (Remember that part about Moses interpreting pharaohs dream about 6 fat and 1 skinny kine?) Only modern "factory farms" seem immune that this cycle. Also, your argument makes no economic sense. Against whom are these peasants competing? Surely they can eat what they grow no matter how cheaply the "rapacious" factory farmers price their wares. S a n d y
RE: Retribution Time
J.A. Terranson wrote: > And the inevitable outcome of a _moderated_ > list is that free expression (loon-like or > not) is sacrificed. Nonsense. You don't understand the marketplace of ideas. Free expression is "sacrificed" only if other outlet for expression are silenced. I cannot and would not shut down [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], etc. I will invite like-minder C'punks into my virtual living room and encourage them to speak, but not to shouting. You don't want to go there, fine. Stay with the crowd that makes you feel comfortable, but don't talk nonsense about censorship. S a n d y
RE: New kind of FUD :-)
Now HERE is where you need that microwave. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer > Sent: 20 October, 2001 13:16 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: New kind of FUD :-) > > > Got this junk mail: > > > Subject: CASH COPS PATROL AIRPORTS: for terrorism or tax collector? > > > NEW MICROCHIP CAN TRACK CASH! > A tiny new chip called "MEW", from Hitachi can be > woven into paper money, and used for identification > and surveillance tracking. The chip measures just > 0.4 millimeters on a side, and stores security codes. > Airport police, called CASH COPS, already in > force, look forward to using the new technology. > > TURN IN "OLD CASH" FOR "NEW CASH?" > Several governments have already been testing this > technology and will probably be printing new money > very soon. Most likely people will have to change > the old currency for new currency. After that the > old money will probably be illegal to even possess. > Governments will say it is a "State of Emergency" > for controlling terrorists, and it will probably > happen literally overnight. > > PROTECT YOUR PRIVACY AND ASSETS > > SWISS STYLE BANKING > SWISS TRUST MANAGING > IN THE NEW SWITZERLAND > > NO PERSONAL or COMPANY NAME > on Coded Bank Account or ATM card. > Your name stays off computer tracking. > > ANONYMOUS CODED ATM CARDS > Unlimited instant daily cash withdrawal at over > 500,000 ATMs worldwide.Total privacy. > > ANONYMOUS CODED BANK ACCOUNT > No name will appear on any bank wire transfer > No tax ID, credit checks, or references required. > > (pointers to spammer deleted)
RE: Retribution not enough
I don't blaim [sic] the government; I blame the economic system. Free markets are good; any form of collectivism is bad. In mixed economies, the freer the better. QED. No amount of Inchoate hand waving alters that basic economic reality. Sounds like Jimbo is in need of remedial reading, spelling AND economics courses. S a n d y > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of Jim Choate > Sent: 20 October, 2001 16:07 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Retribution not enough > > > On Sat, 20 Oct 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > > > More Inchoate reasoning. Jimbo wrote: > > > > > The reality is that these sweatshops do > > > exist, that they do exploit the workers... > > > > Gee, I wonder why these workers chose to be exploited instead > of taking a > > job somewhere else in their benighted non-capitalist countries where the > > opportunities were better. Maybe they aren't as smart as Jimbo > and need to > > be told they are being exploited. :'D > > Because there isn't any other jobs to be had. They take what they can get. > > The fact (that escapes the CACL crowd among others) is that their choices > are being manipulated and aren't free. Now you can blaim that on 'big > business' or 'government' or whatever convenient fantasy you like. > > The final irrevocable fact is that PEOPLE DO IT TO PEOPLE. The 'how' isn't > the real issue. CACL handwaving that its the 'government' is nothing more > than spin doctor bullshit in their attempt to be 'the man'. Why else would > they on one hand blaim the 'government' and then turn around and blaim the > 'individuals'. It's odd they call 'the people' sheep while at the same > time stating that they are the best ones (ie do away with government, go > free market) to make their own decisions. Hypocrisy, until you realize > they just want to be the one to do the exploiting. > > > -- > > > The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion. > > Edmund Burke (1784) > >The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate >Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] >www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 >-~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- >
RE: Retribution not enough
More Inchoate reasoning. Jimbo wrote: > The reality is that these sweatshops do > exist, that they do exploit the workers... Gee, I wonder why these workers chose to be exploited instead of taking a job somewhere else in their benighted non-capitalist countries where the opportunities were better. Maybe they aren't as smart as Jimbo and need to be told they are being exploited. :'D S a n d y
RE: Retribution Time
Hear, hear. This sort of crap is the inevitable outcome of an unmoderated list. All the loons come out to play because there are no real negative consequences for being a loon. And filtering does not do anything besides bury one's head in the sand. I have an solution... (no, it's not AP). :'D I promise, when I get my new business going and have the time/money to devote to it, I will offer Cypherpunks a real solution. (Anybody who has time/money and wants to discuss it now, please contact me offline.) We now return you to the freak show, already in progress. S a n d y > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of Jon Beets > Sent: 20 October, 2001 08:03 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Retribution Time > > > Ooookay.. > > The really sad part is you either think your really cool typing > this crap or > you lack any real social skills... Probably both > > Jon Beets > > > - Original Message - > From: "Nomen Nescio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 9:30 PM > Subject: Retribution Time > > > > De time be almost here, good peoples. Time to get yours. > > You know what I and I be talkin about -- no more fuckin > > around about it. All dem pigs and feds jes be sooo busy > > wid dem bin Ladens, dey got no time for us simple folks. > >Time be for I and I to git what we bin waitin for. Git > > dem muthafuckas dat bin fuckin wid us all dis time. Git > > dem pigs, git dem judges, git dem bill collectors, git dem > > banks and take all dat money. Git em all, let God sort dem > > out. Fuck shit up, any way you ken think of. Git dem assholes > > what done you wrong, git dem assholes doin everbody wrong. > > But above all, git you some money! > > > >I and I be talkin somemore bout dis shit pretty soon, hey! > > > > Bo Strange
RE: Kill Killfile
Ken Brown wrote: > I think I'm coming to believe the canard > about Americans having no sense of irony. Perhaps MY use of irony is too subtle for someone raised on Monty Python to detect and appreciate. Perhaps this will help: When it comes to florid writing, that John Young is a real goer, hey? (Wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more, say no more.) :'D S a n d y
RE: Detainees, Personal Libertarianism, and Vengeance
C'punks, Tim May wrote: > Both of you [Declan McCullagh and "Nomen > Nescio"] are using my comments out of > context... He further wrote: > However, I continue to be amused that > Sandy, Seth, John, and poor Nomen are > all predicting that I'm about to be > arrested. As long as we are setting the record straight, I have to correct Tim's comments made out of context. I have never predicted that he was about to be arrested. S a n d y
RE: WTC Photos
"John Doe Number Two" wrote: > John shouldn't have been walking inside > the crime scene. Why not? > The cops treated him better than they > should have. How should they have treated him? S a n d y
RE: Nifty secret bank system
C'punks, I ran into a western version of "hawala" about 15 years ago. It was a "blocked currency" service offered by a financial group. Here's how it worked: If you live in a currency-blocked country (South African was one, I think it still might be) you couldn't legally move more than a certain amount out money out of the country. To get around this, you would be asked to tear a small denomination piece of paper money (e.g., a 1 rand note) in half. You would keep one half and the financial group would get the other half. Both halves of the bill would have the same serial number, of course. Later, you would get a call telling you where to take the cash you wished to move out of the country. At the appointed time and place an agent of the financial group would meet you. To prove he was the right guy, he would present the group's half of the bill. You would give him the money and the next day an equivalent amount would be on deposit in an account in your name in whatever country (and currency) you specified. The fee for this was usually just the normal money changer's exchange rate. Of course, the original cash never left South Africa, just as the cash in the hawala system never leaves the countries in question either. One more aside. For a brief period when New Zealand was heavily socialist, the government wanted to stop people from traveling (and spending money) abroad. Instead of banning travel, which would have caused a shit storm of controversy, thy just limited the amount of cash that could be taken out of the country to something like a few hundred bucks. Of course, resourceful Kiwis just used their credit cards... S a n d y
PUBLIC VS. PRIVATE SECTOR
C'punks, Fox News had a retired general on to discuss the purported billion dollar bounty on Bin Laden. His take was predictable. He was afraid that mercenaries would get in the way of government efforts to get OBL. Of course, he never consider that the government efforts might get in the way of the mercenaries nor that the two might have a community of interest in working together. I have been saying for 15 years that the solution to hijackings/kidnappings is bounty insurance. (A relatively small premium pays for a $10,000,000--or more--bounty on the heads of those who kidnap and kill an insured person.) Any insurance/entrepreneurial types out there who want to step up to the plate and put together such a policy? S a n d y P.S. Bounties are NOT "assassination politics." Those who believe they are the same are unclear on one or both concepts.
RE: Smallpox?
Doh! > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 26 September, 2001 12:53 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Smallpox? > > > On 26 Sep 2001, at 9:09, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > > > > Sounds like a market opportunity for some enterprising Cypherpunk. So > > Doctor, where do I get cowpox? > > > > > > S a n d y > > > Obviously, from a cow! > > George
RE: Smallpox?
"Dr. Evil" wrote: > One interesting point is that you could > make your own [smallpox] vaccine in > various ways. One is to infect yourself > with cowpox, a related disease which is > not harmful to humans, but which confers > immunity... Sounds like a market opportunity for some enterprising Cypherpunk. So Doctor, where do I get cowpox? S a n d y
No Regrets About Developing PGP
C'punks, Phil Zimmermann asked me to post this. He would like it freely disseminated, so feel free to post it wherever you wish. S a n d y -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 No Regrets About Developing PGP The Friday September 21st Washington Post carried an article by Ariana Cha that I feel misrepresents my views on the role of PGP encryption software in the September 11th terrorist attacks. She interviewed me on Monday September 17th, and we talked about how I felt about the possibility that the terrorists might have used PGP in planning their attack. The article states that as the inventor of PGP, I was "overwhelmed with feelings of guilt". I never implied that in the interview, and specifically went out of my way to emphasize to her that that was not the case, and made her repeat back to me this point so that she would not get it wrong in the article. This misrepresentation is serious, because it implies that under the duress of terrorism I have changed my principles on the importance of cryptography for protecting privacy and civil liberties in the information age. Because of the political sensitivity of how my views were to be expressed, Ms. Cha read to me most of the article by phone before she submitted it to her editors, and the article had no such statement or implication when she read it to me. The article that appeared in the Post was significantly shorter than the original, and had the abovementioned crucial change in wording. I can only speculate that her editors must have taken some inappropriate liberties in abbreviating my feelings to such an inaccurate soundbite. In the interview six days after the attack, we talked about the fact that I had cried over the heartbreaking tragedy, as everyone else did. But the tears were not because of guilt over the fact that I developed PGP, they were over the human tragedy of it all. I also told her about some hate mail I received that blamed me for developing a technology that could be used by terrorists. I told her that I felt bad about the possibility of terrorists using PGP, but that I also felt that this was outweighed by the fact that PGP was a tool for human rights around the world, which was my original intent in developing it ten years ago. It appears that this nuance of reasoning was lost on someone at the Washington Post. I imagine this may be caused by this newspaper's staff being stretched to their limits last week. In these emotional times, we in the crypto community find ourselves having to defend our technology from well-intentioned but misguided efforts by politicians to impose new regulations on the use of strong cryptography. I do not want to give ammunition to these efforts by appearing to cave in on my principles. I think the article correctly showed that I'm not an ideologue when faced with a tragedy of this magnitude. Did I re-examine my principles in the wake of this tragedy? Of course I did. But the outcome of this re-examination was the same as it was during the years of public debate, that strong cryptography does more good for a democratic society than harm, even if it can be used by terrorists. Read my lips: I have no regrets about developing PGP. The question of whether strong cryptography should be restricted by the government was debated all through the 1990's. This debate had the participation of the White House, the NSA, the FBI, the courts, the Congress, the computer industry, civilian academia, and the press. This debate fully took into account the question of terrorists using strong crypto, and in fact, that was one of the core issues of the debate. Nonetheless, society's collective decision (over the FBI's objections) was that on the whole, we would be better off with strong crypto, unencumbered with government back doors. The export controls were lifted and no domestic controls were imposed. I feel this was a good decision, because we took the time and had such broad expert participation. Under the present emotional pressure, if we make a rash decision to reverse such a careful decision, it will only lead to terrible mistakes that will not only hurt our democracy, but will also increase the vulnerability of our national information infrastructure. PGP users should rest assured that I would still not acquiesce to any back doors in PGP. It is noteworthy that I had only received a single piece of hate mail on this subject. Because of all the press interviews I was dealing with, I did not have time to quietly compose a carefully worded reply to the hate mail, so I did not send a reply at all. After the article appeared, I received hundreds of supportive emails, flooding in at two or three per minute on the day of the article. I have always enjoyed good relations with the press over the past decade, especially with the Washington Post. I'm sure they will get it right next time. The article in question appears at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1234-2001S
RE: Zimmermann's guilty shame... what a farce.
Spineless "Anonymous" or "lain" or whomever wrote: > Grow a spine, Phil, you jellyfish. a) Anonymous fell for the oldest trick in book, he uncritically believed what he read in the newspaper. Missed my forwarded message from Phil, did you? b) Anyone who knows anything about what Phil has done in the face of the threats against him, has no right to call him a jellyfish. On the other hand, anyone who knows anything about Anonymous...oh, that's right, no one knows anything about Anonymous because he hides behind a pseudonym. > None of you spineless dilettantes deserve > privacy or freedom... Everyone deserves privacy and freedom, even you, Mr. jellyfish. > Zimmermann should have hit the lecture > circuit... Anonymous, please let us know where and when you will be lecturing next. I'm sure we would all like attend one of your inspiring talks so that we can learn how to be free by your example. Give me a break. S a n d y
RE: Zimmermann's shameful display...
Anonymous lain wrote: > I have three talks in New York and one in > Washington in the next 90 days. Ha, ha, ha. > I'm sure you would like to, but I doubt you > have gotten an invitation to any of the three > invitation only events. Yes, it is difficult to get invitations to anonymous lectures. Especially those that are only figments of some big talkers imagination. Film at 11...not. S a n d y
PHIL ZIMMERMANN
C'punks, I just wrote Phil about the Washington Post interview. The following is his response: > The journalist slightly misinterpreted my remarks, and missed the > shades of grey in some of what I said. I did *not* say that I > was overwhelmed with guilt over PGP. I told her about my crying, > just as everyone else I knew had cried over what had happened. I > also told her about the hate mail, and that I "felt bad" that the > terrorists may have used PGP. Indeed I do feel bad about that. > But feeling bad about them using it is not the same as feeling > that PGP was a mistake, or that I have changed my principles > about human rights and crypto. I thought I had also made it > clear that I had no regrets about developing PGP. She did not > report any individual facts incorrectly in her article. But I > think she connected the dots in a slightly different way, and > seemed to conclude that I was wallowing in guilt over PGP. I'm > sure she meant no harm. > > I am still very much aware that PGP was a good thing, and that > strong crypto helps more than hurts. I have been saying that to > the press all week. I just said it again in two more interviews > I had before breakfast this morning, and will continue to say it. > It seems I have to say it more forcefully. > > I will prepare a statement on this later today. In the meantime, > feel free to let our colleagues know that I have not gone soft on > civil liberties. > > Regards, > Phil
RE: What might have happened on Sept. 11...
Inchoate simpered: > These people aren't afraid to die. Nonsense. Just because they are willing to die for their cause in no way speaks to their inner state. Also, while they seem willing to die for something that advances their cause (e.g., a SUCCESSFUL mission), this does not mean that they are willing to throw their lives away attempting a mission with an extremely low probability of success. Cost/benefit analysis, look into it. > If they knew everyone on the plane was armed > they'd get in various place, throw smoke > grenades, and then fire a couple of rounds > and duck, all the trigger happy cowboys > would blow each other away in the confusion. IF they knew... IF they could count on there being "trigger happy cowboys" on board (what nonsense)... IF they could rely on the "trigger happy cowboys" panicking AND being good shots (what utter nonsense)... S a n d y
RE: SYMBOL
Tim wrote: > * Let the builders pay _all_ costs for a structure; taxpayers should not > "bail out" either the insurance industry or the builders (or the > airlines, on a different note) Of course, that should go without saying. Having said that, though, they will be built. > * I think the notion of a "symbol" is silly. Reasonable minds may differ. > * Using any coerced funding (taxes, bailouts, subsidies) to rebuld a > gaudy and dangerous bauble, one that employees don't even feel > comfortable working in, is not rational. Who has suggested otherwise? > In any case, let the insurers and builders do it if they want. Now you've got it. > Antheaps are for ants. Ants do not build cloud piercing towers of adamantine steel and glass, the mind of man does. YMMV. S a n d y
RE: SYMBOL
John Young wrote: > Yes, Sandy, how do you do that? Sincerely, > I'm not being a wiseass... High rise > engineers now admittedly design to the limits > of failure under economic pressure and > aesthetic ambition. Granted, but they will be built. My only hope is that safety is a high priority and that clever architects find ways to meet that priority. S a n d y
RE: SYMBOL
John Young wrote: > High rises taller than about about 70 > stories for office buildings and 50 > stories for housing are extremely > dangerous. As were buildings above 5 stories in ancient Rome. Technology moves on. The question is not, "Can 250-story buildings be made safe?" The only question is "How can they be made safe?" S a n d y
RE: Freedom of speech is for "Cypherpunk critics" too
"Nomen Nescio" wrote: > Tim May writes: > > Funny, I notice how many of the critics of Cypherpunks and > supporters of > > this express train approach to repealing the Bill of Rights are > > themselves hiding behind Cypherpunks remailers, Hushmail aliases, and > > Ziplip nyms. > > If you're upset that "critics of the Cypherpunks" are able to speak > freely then you shouldn't have supported the technologies that enable > them to do so. Free speech is for everyone, not just those who toe your > line of violence and blood revenge. Yeah, isn't that what Tim just wrote? S a n d y
SYMBOL
C'punks, I haven't had much luck in researching something. Several years back, Donald Trump proposed a high-rise complex for New York City that would feature a kilometer-high skyscraper. Does anyone have a URL about that plan? I'd love to see the WTC replaced with a building over twice as tall as the twin towers, the irrefutable tallest building in the world. Something like Trump's kilometer tower would be a great symbol of recovery and transcendence. S a n d y
RE: Crypto-anonymity greases HUMINT intelligence flows
Meyer Wolfsheim wrote: > My point is that such an attack could occur > with nothing more than economic factors as > motivation. Of course, but I don't see how that advances any discussion of what ACTUALLY happened on the 11th. I don't think there is any reason to engage in a theoretical discussion when we have such a concrete event to examine. I'll certainly concede your point that evil can be done for pecuniary profit as well as ideology. So may we dispense with this irrelevant thread now? S a n d y
RE: Crypto-anonymity greases HUMINT intelligence flows
Incognito Innominatus wrote: > Sandy Sandfort wrote: > > Nonsense. Targeting innocents is evil according to EVERY human culture. > > The fact that people do it, does not make it "relative." It > just makes them > > evil. Period. > > Not according to Tim May. He was the one who wrote that he was becoming > convinced that Tim McVeigh had done the right thing. "Some innocents > died, but hey, war is hell. Broken eggs and all that." Those are his > exact words, May 9, 1997. He's also the one that has called for the > burning of millions of innocents by nuclear fire. > > If targeting innocents is evil, what can we say about those who applaud > such actions? Doesn't Tim May, by his own words, show himself to be > evil by the standards of every civilized human culture? Apples and oranges. There is a world of difference between targeting innocents (the focus of my post) and targeting military targets with resultant innocent casualties. If a gunman grabs a human shield and starts shooting at me, I will (regrettably) return fire. Hopefully, I'll hit the bad guy and not the innocent human shield, but if I do hit the hostage, the moral responsibility is on bad guy, not me. S a n d y
RE: Crypto-anonymity greases HUMINT intelligence flows
Nomen Nescio wrote: > Sandfort: > > > I have NO IDEA what this strange post has to do with the > original question. > > I'm a libertarian. As such, I see no problem in doing well by > doing good. > > Just because I would jump at $5 million (plus Witness > Relocation) to finger > > Bin Laden does not mean I would do something evil for that > amount or more. > > And fingering bin Laden wouldn't be just as evil? > It would be for one of his followers, now wouldn't it? > Evil is relative. Nonsense. Targeting innocents is evil according to EVERY human culture. The fact that people do it, does not make it "relative." It just makes them evil. Period. When generals close to Hitler saw the writing on the wall, their basic humanity drove them to try to blow him up. Had they succeeded they would have ended a great evil and prevented ALL the evil excesses of the WWII--from the holocaust to Dresden to Hiroshima. What they did was not evil, but moral. Unfortunately, they failed. > Would you become Judas Iscariot -- > for how many shekels? And if you say > that as someone close to bin Laden, > you would rat on him for money, how > about us, how about your friends and > family here in the US? What's the price > for them? Did you even read what I wrote? Please do so before asking such asinine questions. S a n d y
RE: Crypto-anonymity greases HUMINT intelligence flows
Huh? Meyer Wolfsheim wrote: > Assume that you could nearly guarantee a > profit of $5mil or more by shorting your > stocks before a terrorist attack on the > World Trade Center. > > Would you perpetrate such a crime, and > frame the "sand-niggers"? > > What's the cost/benefit here? > > How much potential profit would be > necessary for a crime like this to > occur with profit as the only motive? I have NO IDEA what this strange post has to do with the original question. I'm a libertarian. As such, I see no problem in doing well by doing good. Just because I would jump at $5 million (plus Witness Relocation) to finger Bin Laden does not mean I would do something evil for that amount or more. Remember, the original question was, would a $5 million reward plus a new identity under the Witness Relocation Program be enticing enough to get someone to roll over on Bin Laden. My best guess is 'yes' and I merely used myself as an example. Look, I don't CARE about the purity of the motives of someone who would give up Bin Laden. The only question in my mind is whether or not there is somebody who would do it for the stipulated inducement. That was--and is--the question. S a n d y
RE: Crypto-anonymity greases HUMINT intelligence flows
Meyer Wolfsheim wrote: > Would you trust the Witness Protection > Program with your life? In this case, yes. When the program failed in the past it was usually due to putting formally high rollers into dull middle class new lives. They were the ones who ended up outing themselves. In contrast, giving some poor wretch and his family $5 million would put them in the lap of luxury. > Whoever opts to collect that $5,000,000 will forever live in fear. Cost/benefit, you do the math. I'd opt for it in a heartbeat. > No, any tips that directly lead to the apprehension of Bin Laden must be > done under total anonymity. All the more reason for remailers to remain > operational. Anonymity does not require remailers much less untraceable digital cash. I'm for both of those, but they are overkill for someone who turns in Bin Laden. S a n d y
RE: Cypherpunks and terrorism
"Nomen Nescio" wrote: > It is at exactly this time that soul > searching is most appropriate. Now is > when you should ask yourself: Am I > doing the right thing? Am I making the > world a better place? > > You don't have to convince some devil's > advocate. Just convince yourself. "Nomen" assumes facts not in evidence. Those of us who have been on Cypherpunks for years--including Greg--have already done that appropriate "soul searching." It is because we have come to the conclusion that we are making the world a better place, that we support strong crypto. "Nomen's" moral uncertainty sounds like a personal problem to me. S a n d y
FW: "Attack on America" - a Personal Response
C'punks, Here's a thoughtful piece I received from Sean Hastings: > From: Sean Hastings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 12 September, 2001 20:22 > Subject: FW: "Attack on America" - a Personal Response > > > > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >"Attack on America" - a Personal Response >by Sean Hastings > >My wife Jo, my dog Wasabi, and myself were all in New York City at the >time of the attack on the World Trade Center. Thankfully we are all >alive and unharmed. > >Although we were just a few miles from the site of the crashes, we were >alerted to what was going on by a friend's phone call and turned on the >news to watch. Safely insulated from it all by the magic of television, >we saw the Twin Towers burn and collapse knowing that tens of thousands >of people were probably still inside. Later, as we were able to get >through on a somewhat overloaded telephone network, we called our >friends and family around the world to assure them that we were safe, >and we called our New York friends to make sure that they too were ok. > >Some friends I talked to personally witnessed the second jet strike the >tower and saw people leaping to their deaths to escape the flames. One >told me the story of a London office connected to its New York > branch in >the World Trade Center by a live video link. Their trapped co-workers >told them that they were unable to leave the building, and that they >knew they were all going to die, then the screen went blank at the same >time as the TV news showed one of the towers collapse. > >Communications technology has brought this tragedy to all of us more >closely than was ever before possible. An entire nation, and perhaps >most of the world was able to watch these events unfold in real time. >Feedback of reactions from around the world was also available in real >time. Most people were shocked and horrified, but I also saw > reports of >people in some countries cheering and celebrating this attack on the >US. My first reaction was very emotional - I found myself thinking >"Bomb them back into the stone age" - and this shocked me. I consider >myself to be an individualist to the core, but I now know that a blind >loyalty to the group does exists somewhere deep inside me. At that >moment, I would have been willing to unthinkingly follow anyone >claiming to know how to justly avenge these acts, and prevent any more >such in the future. > >Then I saw the start of the political rhetoric - various politicians >declaring that this was a time for supporting our leaders, and not >questioning or second-guessing their actions - law enforcement >officials saying that this was precisely why they all needed greater >powers over my life. Before the fires were even out - while people >were still burning and being crushed to death under tons of rubble - >there were already people trying to use my emotional reaction to >increase their power over my life and further their careers. > >It was then that I realized that I was witnessing a very real threat to >our nation and our way of life. Not from the kind of disturbed people >who crash airplanes into buildings, but from people who would use such >an event to further erode our freedoms - those masters of demagoguery >who, while claiming to be the good guys, and in the name of defending >our country, our freedom, and our way of life, will try to take away >everything this country is supposed to be about. Even those with only >the best of intentions may severely jeopardize our liberty at a time >like this if they are not careful to give the freedom we tend to take >for granted the highest priority in considering any course of action. > >So I know that a hoard of voices will now be crying out for your >attention, trying to use this event to convince you that we should >take whatever course of action most benefits their own position. I >know that my voice is just a small one in this cacophony, and unless >you agree with my message and forward it far and wide, I will scarcely >be noticed. But I will speak my advice anyway, and hope it does some >good. All I have to say to you is this: > >Do not let your natural reactions of fear or anger help ANYONE to >further their short term political goals, or impose any "temporary" >measures. These are frightening and enraging times indeed, but it is >important to keep this simple truth firmly in mind: You cannot defend >freedom by reducing freedom. The people who try to tell you otherwise >are the ones who should frighten and anger you most. > >We all want security and justice, but we must to be careful about the >price we are willing to pay. If we allow these tragic events to lead >to a reduction of our freedom,
RE: Wuss-ninnies object to discussions on the list
Heck, I was at Burning Man and just got back. Tim wrote: > Then we had Sandy Sandfort weighing in with > his comment that some Cypherpunks are going > to be in deep trouble with The Man. I think > Sandy even forecast my death in a shootout. Well, I was dead-bang right-on about Jim Bell, wasn't I? Perhaps Tim is confusing advocacy with prediction. I don't advocate the shooting of Tim May, but I think there is a substantial chance (10-20%?), that it will happen. I wouldn't want to risk those odds, but TMMV. S a n d y
FW: WHERE'S DILDO? [was: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report]
Dufus gasped: > > > No they are not. You can't make the picture > > > without commiting the act. > > > > A not-so-clever straw man. "Making" the picture is not the speech in > > question, Duh. Distributing the picture is. And you can distribute the > > picture, without committing the underlying act yourself. > > Absolutely the making is 'speech'. Oh it is? Well in that case, to be consistent, you'll have to tell us why the first amendment doesn't apply. Taking a picture is NOT free speech; showing/publishing the picture is. What a moron. > The distributing it is 'press'. Only a > lawyer would confuse the two. Only a non-lawyer would pull such a definition out of his ars. So, if I e-mail needle dick a picture, that's "press"? How so? Sounds like a speech activity to me. Oh wait, maybe Jimbo thinks that speech is to slander as press is to libel? Sorry, not so. Wearing a baseball cap that says, "Fuck Jim Choate" is freedom of speech, not freedom of the press (and mighty satisfying--the wearing not the fucking; nobody would actually want to do that). > We have a group of persons who commit an act > with a child. In the process a photograph is > taken. The photograph is distributed. > > Your (ie CACL) claim is that the picture is > not itself a crime, and in particular it is > protected as speech. Don't put words in my mouth, fat boy. What you have stated seems to be more your position. As I said, the taking of the picture is not speech, the distribution is. In either case, the sexual acts, the taking of pictures and the distribution ARE all crimes under current law. The position that a number of us on this list have taken is that the mere possession or distribution should not be a crime, per se, because of the rights guaranteed under the first amendment. > This assertion is wrong. Here's why. Well, it's your assertion (i.e, straw man). You should try to defeat arguments that your antagonists actually make. Nobody is fooled by the cheap shot of making up your own silly interpretations and "defeating" them. > (A bunch of self-serving nonsense predicated on a straw man, left out.) > So, can the child be 'consensual'? No. > Children for a variety of reasons are NOT... So, Jimbo is now telling us that someone who is 17 years and 364 days old does not have the "consensual abilities" of someone who is 18 years old? That must come as a shock to a lot of 16-year olds who consensually drive a car. > The picture is not protected speech by the > simple expedient that it was constrained or > forced upon at least one of the participants. Assuming /arguendo/ that there was force or at least no consent, the taking of the pictures may be illegal, immoral and fattening, but that doesn't mean the pictures are (protected) speech. > I guess that 97 percentile doesn't mean as > much as you thought. Anybody have any idea what dufus is trying to say here? > (this applies equaly to Declan's specious commentary as well) I'm sure it does, but of course, not in the way Jimbo means it. :'D So once again, folks, we meet the implacable Inchoate reasoning. I think I, and others, have said enough to support our position. Jimbo has offered nothing substantive in return and--if past experience is any teacher--is not going to do so. The smart people have already made up their minds. Therefore I rest my case and encourage Jimbo to mount his silly little soap box in our version of Hyde Park's Speakers' Corner, and rant until the cows come home. I'll only re-emerge when it's time to clarify the next issue Jimbo gets wrong. S a n d y
RE: WHERE'S DILDO? [was: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report]
Jimbo sputtered: > > > The desire to get the 'speech' is what drives > > > the act. > > > > Nonetheless, they are separate and separable. Outlawing the > act does not > > require outlawing the speech. > > No they are not. You can't make the picture > without commiting the act. A not-so-clever straw man. "Making" the picture is not the speech in question, Duh. Distributing the picture is. And you can distribute the picture, without committing the underlying act yourself. > If you could, it wouldn't be 'porno'... As I said (and Jimbo ignored), porn is not illegal, per se, only obscenity. Perhaps that is a distinction without a difference, but that's the way the laws work. S a n d y
WHERE'S DILDO? [was: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report]
Jimbo sniveled: > The desire to get the 'speech' is what drives > the act. Nonetheless, they are separate and separable. Outlawing the act does not require outlawing the speech. > The images should be taken as evidence of the > act and then destroyed. They should not in > and of themselves be left in circulation to > promote further acts. Actually, it is just as reasonable to think that the MORE kiddy porn there is out there, the LESS acting out there will be (think cathartic release). Also, by letting what already exists circulate, REDUCES the incentive to produce more and, thus, abusing more kids. > And no, this does not violate the 1st in > spirit or letter. Of course it does. What part of "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..." doesn't "Mr. Constitutional absolutist" understand? :'D > There is no mention of 'privacy' in the > Constitution. "Mr. Constitutional absolutist" should have another look at the Ninth. > Are we talking 'adult' or 'child'?...world of difference. > > The point being, sex between consenting > adults isn't 'porn'. It's sex between > consenting adults. No, but speech about sex between consenting adults is porn. Look it up, "pornography" literally means, "writings about prostitutes," but has been extended to encompass all writings (and other speech) about sexual conduct. By the way, "porn" is not illegal, per se. It's "obscenity" that's the legal bugaboo. Of course, "Mr. Constitutional absolutist" INAL (and never could be). S a n d y
RE: Secret Warrants and Black Bag Jobs--Questions
Black Unicorn wrote: > I didn't realize any states but Virginia > still held this old "burglary" definition. > Are you certain that's current law? No, but I'm about to leave town on business so I won't be looking it up. My recollection is that California law actually IMPROVED from the viewpoint of the defender. Prior to a few years ago, you had to make some showing of fear of great bodily harm or death before you could shoot an intruder. The law was changed to make it presumptive that someone in your house was there for those reasons. Having said that, I'm not sure if the night vs day distinction was in the new law or just what I recall from law school. :'D S a n d y
...THE GODS THEMSELVES...
C'punks, Coming up with the "canarypunks" concept, has really clarified my thinking. I'm taking the pledge and will no longer strive to protect the dumbest and most aggressively ignorant members of this list (the Three Stooges) from the error or their ways. I finally got it through my head that they don't WANT to deal with the truth, but are incapable of reaching beyond their own self-referential worldview. As Friedrich von Schiller put it, "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain." So, I'm going to do something far crueler than point out the inadequacies of the Three Stooges: I'm going to ignore those inadequacies and let reality provide the lesson. The folks on this list who are smart enough to understand that the "lawyerpunks" are on their side, will listen to their take on the law. The folks who think the lawyers are out to get them will go to the Three Stooges for legal advice. Reality will choose the winners and losers. Very Darwinian. S a n d y
RE: Sandfort is still an idiot (Was: Re: CDR: JIM DONALD IS A CANARYPUNK, was: Spoliation cites)
Good point J.A., I got my cowards mixed up. I stand corrected. It's you that sends his son to beat of folks for expressing opinions you don't like. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 04 August, 2001 18:47 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Sandfort is still an idiot (Was: Re: CDR: JIM DONALD IS A > CANARYPUNK, was: Spoliation cites) > > > On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > > > dishonesty and cowardice (next, I suppose, he'll be sending his > son--rolls > > of quarters clenched tightly in his little fists--to do his > dirty work), I > > That's me you're referring to you moron. If you are going to resort to ad > hominem, at least get your references straight... > > > S a n d y > > -- > Yours, > J.A. Terranson > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 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... >
JIM DONALD IS A CANARYPUNK, was: Spoliation cites
Jimbo II has really gone off the deep end. I've asked him repeatedly to quote me directly where I have said the things he alleges that I have said. His cowardice in failing to reproduce those requested passages (or even my requests for the requested passages) is manifest. Give his intellectual dishonesty and cowardice (next, I suppose, he'll be sending his son--rolls of quarters clenched tightly in his little fists--to do his dirty work), I see nothing to be gained from trying to teach this particular swine to learn how to sing. I graciously cede the last word (which he will undoubtedly squander) to my second-most favorite canarypunk. Rock on, dud. S a n d y > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 04 August, 2001 17:33 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sandy Sandfort > Subject: RE: Spoliation cites > > > -- > On 4 Aug 2001, at 12:46, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > > No James, as any first year law student could tell you, they > way one makes > > educated assessments about how laws may be interpreted in the future are > > NECESSARILY based on understanding laws and court precedents. > > And as any one can tell you predictions of how the interpretation > of laws will CHANGE cannot be based on existing laws and court precedents. > > In any case, you are backpeddling like mad. Having dug yourself > into a hole with improbable claims on mandatory record keeping, > you are now disowning with great confidence claims you previously > made with equal confidence, indicating your understanding of > existing laws and courts precedents is > none too hot. > > What was previously a claim about existing law, has mysteriously > mutated into a mere prophecy that future law might change into > something like your original claim. > > How about simply saying "I was wrong", instead of proclaiming > omnicience twice as loudly when you are caught with your head up your ass? > > --digsig > James A. Donald > 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG > oYQwaBShfigTeer8NiMlXddKCdSOWTS4O8e02M+i > 4E5drtnvUZpAn4ZvzKDgEPqKkBdbdXNEe/BBlTF86
RE: Demime & CDRs (was Re: Security Against Compelled Disclosure)
Jimbo I wrote: > On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > > > Unless it fails to contain all the elements required of a valid contract > > (you know those elements, don't you Jimbo?) > > 1. Capacity of the parties. > > 2. Mutual agreement (assent) or meeting of the minds (a valid offer and >acceptance) > > 3. Consideration (somethingof value given in exchange for a promise) > > 4. Legality of subject matter. > > > or it violates the Statute of Frauds or similar rules (you know > about the > > Statute of Frauds and similar rules, don't you Jimbo?) > > Yep, but do your own research. > > > or violates some public policy (you know about those public > policy concepts > > don't you Jimbo?). > > Yep, see above. > > > Any failure along these lines would render such a verbal "agreement" > > unenforceable in contract. > > And not a one applies here. Perhaps, though that was not my intent. Just wanted to see if you'd jump through the hoops after the fact and pretend you knew that stuff up front. As it is, I can only give you a "C." Not too bad, really, better than I would have guessed. S a n d y
RE: Demime & CDRs (was Re: Security Against Compelled Disclosure)
Malpractice Stooge wrote: > A verbal agreement between two > parties that dictate how they > will relate to each other is a > contract. Unless it fails to contain all the elements required of a valid contract (you know those elements, don't you Jimbo?) or it violates the Statute of Frauds or similar rules (you know about the Statute of Frauds and similar rules, don't you Jimbo?) or violates some public policy (you know about those public policy concepts don't you Jimbo?). Any failure along these lines would render such a verbal "agreement" unenforceable in contract. S a n d y
RE: Final Words from me about document production requirements and remailers.
Black Unicorn wrote: [masterful summation elided] > My only regret in pointing this > out is that I think Mr. Sandfort > might owe someone a house. (I > note he never put a dollar figure > on the house bet though). My offer (not enforceable under contract due to failure of consideration) was only valid if Microsoft got nicked for--in Jimbo II's words--"spoilation." There being no such legal concept, I feel confident that I won't be giving him a house any time soon. :'D S a n d y
CANARYPUNKS
C'punks, I've just had a flash of insight into the purpose that Village Idiots I-III, and Jim Bell serve. (Tim May is a special care which I'll treat separately, below.) The are all coal mine canaries. When they succumb, the rest of us know it's time to get out of the mine (lower our profile) for a while. Of course, real mine canaries have no choice. Given a choice, I think they'd opt to stay top-side. OUR canarypunks, no matter what the miners say, loudly proclaim that the miners are full of shit about all this hypothetical hypoxia and poison gas as they march right into the adit. Those who were on the list at the time will remember how Jim Bell pooh-poohed every warning that I and others gave him. He knew the law better, he was smarter than the FBI, he had "a solution," the Constitution was on his side, etc. EVERYTHING I said came true, NOTHING he said did. Live and learn (or don't). Think of it as evolution in action. As I said, Tim May is a special case. Unlike Jim Bell (damn lot of "Jims," if you ask me) and the Three Stooges, Tim's ideas and opinions actually bring value (other than just canary value) to the list. Nevertheless, in the final analysis, Tim is also a canarypunk. For what it's worth, I think the chances of Tim's life ending in a hail of federales' bullets is less than 50%, but still significant. I'll miss his contributions if and when he commits blue suicide. So what does all this mean? Well, since a word to the wise is sufficient, I think I'll stop working so hard to get the Three Stooges to act in their own best interest. I'll make whatever warnings I think are appropriate so that the folks with a clue will have whatever benefit they wish to derive from it. If the Three Stooges choose to ignore good advice from me and others, well, so be it. I'm glad to have their voluntary contribution to the rest of us in their roles of canarypunks. S a n d y
RE: Spoliation cites
VI2 wrote: > If Microsoft gets busted for > "spoilation" in their current > lawsuit, then I will take Sandy > and Black Unicorn off my loon > list. :-) If Microsoft gets busted for "spoilation" I'll buy James a new house. But if they get busted for spoliation I don't want to be taken off your loon list (and, I'm sure neither would Black Unicorn), it's too much of a good recommendation. By the by, who else is on your "loon list"? If Inchoate is there, I might want to rethink wanting to be there. :'D S a n d y
RE: Spoliation cites
Poor stupid James wrote: > If you are making claims about > what the law might become in > future, your qualifications for > undestanding laws and court > precedents are irrelevant. No James, as any first year law student could tell you, they way one makes educated assessments about how laws may be interpreted in the future are NECESSARILY based on understanding laws and court precedents. You cannot identify a trend without examining history. This is not a touch concept; there is an almost exact analogy in studying mutations in diseases. (Insert Santayana quote here.) Are you just dull or simply afraid to back down when you are wrong? S a n d y
RE: Spoliation cites
VI2 wrote: > There is a trend to making > everything illegal. Your > qualifications to read tea > leaves are no better than my own. Well James, you got it right once. My qualifications for reading tea leaves are no better than your own. However, my qualifications for reading and understanding laws and court precedents are vastly superior to yours. (For what it's worth, I'm sure there must be something you are more qualified to do; I just don't know what it is.) > By the time "spoilation" reaches > the condition that you anticipate, > we will not be hiring lawyers for > their knowledge of the law, but > for their knowledge of connections. (a) Since I have not discussed the topic of "spoilation" (or even spoliation) on this list, you are obviously reaching. You have no idea what I anticipate. (b) You have just given a very good additional reason to hire lawyers in addition to their obvious superiority in understanding legal trends. With regard to (b), not a lot of mainstream lawyers are going to be sympathetic or versed in the sorts of things you and other people on this list are likely to run afoul of. It's interesting to me that you and the other two village idiots seem hell bent on antagonizing your most likely legal allies. But then, you are village idiots. S a n d y
RE: WHERE'S DILDO (AND FRIENDS)? was: Spoliation cites
James Donald (Village Idiot #2) wrote: > I know that for the past several > hundred years everyone has been > engaging in what what you call > "spoilage"... Pay attention James, I have never discussed "spoilage" (or spoliation, for that matter) on this list. In the future, please direct your ignorance towards the party with whom you have a dispute. S a n d y
RE: Laws of mathematics, not of men
Declan McCullagh wrote: > 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. I don't follow your logic. (At least you admit my alleged irresponsibility is arguable.) Please tell me how you think referencing an alleged crime many years in the past somehow endangers anyone's safety today. I don't see. I've committed felonies, you've committed felonies, we've all committed felonies, over the years. So what? What difference can mentioning it make? Where is the danger to Tim's safety? Who represents that danger and how are my actions the proximate cause of such alleged danger? You're a smart and reasonable guy, Declan, and you may be right. I don't think so, but I'm open to your argument.
RE: WHERE'S DILDO (AND FRIENDS)? was: Spoliation cites
J.A. Terranson wrote: > On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > ... > > So by my count it looks as though > > we are now up to at least THREE > > village idiots. > > Four: You forgot to count yourself in. Not so, because I am not in arrogant denial of legal realities as are the three village idiots in question. At this point, I don't know your position on the underlying question so I don't know yet whether to elevate your status to that of the fourth village idiot. > Ease up on those testosterone > tablets Sandy... You are confused. I was asking Jimbo to increase his level of testicular fortitude and take the LSAT. There is nothing quite so sobering for a village idiot as to have his idiocy documented by an objective test of the skills in question. > ...you are looking more and more > like a fifth grade bully wannabe > every day. Some folks can only see what they want to see. My guess is that your personal animus towards me has merely caused you to "project" your own negative tendency onto me. That's fine by me; it gives me a good insight into where you're coming from. > You are the kind of asshole I > sent my kid to school with the > roll of quarters for... My goodness, living out your violent fantasies vicariously through your child. Have you sought counseling? ;'D S a n d y
RE: Gotti, evidence, case law, remailer practices, civil cases, civilit
Paul E. Robichaux wrote: > ...the fact remains that some > contributors to this list produce > more valuable material than others. > Uni, Tim, Peter Trei, JYA, Sandy, > and a number of other old-school > c'punks have been making this list > worth reading since 1993 or so... Thanks. It's a real honor to make your short list. > Having said that, I took about a > three-year hiatus from the list. > When I came back, Choate was still > choating, Tim & Sandy were still > sniping at each other, and Uni was > still funny. /Plus ca change, plus c'est la Mjme chose/ S a n d y
RE: Spoliation cites
James A. Donald wrote: > He has presented no such > punishment, therefore no such > case exists. > > Therefore remailer operators > and the rest of us can in perfect > comfort fail to keep logs, we can > circulate thought crimes into > irrecoverable systems, and so on > and so forth. Apparently, James did not understand the thrust of Aimee's post at all. The important thing to understand about legal precedents is that they may show a TREND in the law. The common law evolves over time. To say that no precedent DIRECTLY ON POINT exists means that you can operate "in perfect comfort" is asinine. The question is, what will a court say NEXT? S a n d y
RE: Spoilation, escrows, courts, pigs.
James A. Donald wrote: > In the case of Black Unicorn, it > appears to me he was a lawyer who > used to be in the business of > finding loopholes in laws. That's what ALL good lawyers do. Think of it as hacking the law. By the way, Tim May's secret identity is not "Tim Starr." S a n d y
RE: Laws of mathematics, not of men
Eugene Leitl wrote: > Feds enter houses for whatever > reasons they deem appropriate > to invent... Then my comments won't affect their actions one way or the other. > Pointing out possible targets > makes no damn reason at all... Tim already is a target. My minor comments do nothing to change his status. > ...unless you've got a personal > vendetta, or a crappy personality. Are those the only possible explanations you can come up with? I find most of Tim's insights useful and think he is a valuable member of the list. Pointing out that he has his head up his ass on certain subjects is hardly equivalent to having a "personal vendetta." As to "crappy personality" well, that's why there are horse races; differences of opinion. > Are you really thus clueless, > or are you just a natural? Huh? Maybe I'd know what you were talking about if you'd actually answered my question. > We seem to have very different > understandings of "friendly". > Friendly is if they do have a > search warrant... No warrant is friendly. I've had the FBI stop by my house for a friendly visit (no warrant). Just for the fun of it (and to see what they were after), I let them sit down in my living room. After I asked them a few questions and gotten some answers, they started asking ME some questions. That's when I kicked their sorry asses out. > Yah, whatever. You suck, have > halitosis, and are generically > an idiot. Do you feel better now? MUCH better, but why don't you tell us how you REALLY feel? :'D > What's "statute of limitations" spelt in > German? Begren'zungstatzung? S a n d y
RE: Laws of mathematics, not of men
Tim May wrote: > 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. Maybe yes, maybe no, but why not carry both then? A legal knife and a illegal (misdemeanor) gun rather than just your illegal (felony) knife? > 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. Actually they were previously banned in California (at the time you were carrying it) as dirks, or daggers. Since then the legal definitions have change and a push dagger, open worn is just dandy. Which only goes to support my point that one should know which laws one is obeying (or not). Obviously, you have wised up on this issue because you are now quoting chapter and verse: > (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... > 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... Whoa, I'd like to see a citation on that one. What really usually happens in California is that the cops "confiscate" the gun and cut the detainee loose. Why? Hey, a free gun is a free gun. And they are particularly useful to loan to guys you shoot who forgot to bring their own. :'D > ...even though carry of knives > in various "concealed" ways... > probably outnumbers concealed > carry of handguns by a factor > of 100-to-1. Do the math. I did. It only takes one. > 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. You didn't teleport there Tim; quit quibbling. > e) Most cops would rather have > people carrying concealed knives, > a la folders, than wearing knives > on their belts. If you want to please the cops, then carry a concealed folder. Perfectly legal under most circumstances. Remember, that's what I was arguing about--knowing the laws you are obeying (or not). > Now, would I carry a knife into > one of the Del Torto Cypherpunks > meetings held (foolishly) inside > a San Francisco police training > facility? No. Good. I'm glad to see you are now thinking about the legal issues that you previously eschewed. > 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? Assuming facts not in evidence. I am not, nor did I complain about your carrying of an illegal (then) knife. I tried to tell you that it could get you into trouble--unnecessarily--when there were better options available. Your full response was, "I don't care what the law says, I'll do what I want." Since you have apparently decided to care what the law says, I have no current beef. What annoyed me way back when was your militant ignorance. If you are ready to put that aside and listen to what Unicorn and others tell you about your potential legal exposure, more power to you. > For Sandy to attempt to bring me > to the attention of the cops > remains despicable. Tim, are you on crack or what? Where do you come off suggesting that I have brought you to the attention of the cops? Check the archives of what you have written and then tell me with a straight face that, but for my reference to an incident years past, the cops would not have any attention directed towards you. S a n d y
RE: Laws of mathematics, not of men
Tim May wrote: > 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. 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. 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. 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.) 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.) 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. If you come up with two equally great techno-hacks to solve a problem, one of which is probably legal and one of which is probably not, picking the legal one is a no-brainer. S a n d y
RE: Laws of mathematics, not of men
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.
RE: WHERE IS DILDO? (was: The Martian Private-Socialist-Anarchist)
"Dr." [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > What is this pseudo-macho crap? It's an explanation of why I'm turning down the rhetoric. Where were you (and your pseudo-psychological crap) when I was turning UP the rhetoric? > You have some kind of serious > personality problem Sandfort. WHAT kind and HOW serious, oh wise one? Your clearly reasoned, diplomatically phrased and thoughtful missive has both touched and concerned me. :-( S a n d y /| |/ \ / \ \ / \ \ / \ \ /___\/ | | | | | o | | | | | | | | | | (.)~(x) | | | | O | | | | (_=_) | | | |_| | | | | | |WHERE IS | | | DILDO? | | |_|/
RE: WHERE IS DILDO? (was: The Martian Private-Socialist-Anarchist)
"Subcommander Bob" wrote: > >"Dr." [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >... > >> You have some kind of serious > >> personality problem Sandfort. > >... > Don't worry Sandy, he's not using > cypherpunks as the control > population... Yeah, around here, my quirks are lost in the background noise. :-D S a n d y /| |/ \ / \ \ / \ \ / \ \ /___\/ | | | | | o | | | | | | | | | | (.)~(x) | | | | O | | | | (_=_) | | | |_| | | | | | |WHERE IS | | | DILDO? | | |_|/
WHERE IS DILDO? (was: The Martian Private-Socialist-Anarchist)
WHERE IS DILDO? The AI suggests Mars. Maybe Dildo has gone there to escape the LSAT challenge. > http://www.marsanarchy.org/MarsPrivSocAnarch.htm /| |/ \ / \ \ / \ \ / \ \ /___\/ | | | | | o | | | | | | | | | | (.)~(x) | | | | O | | | | (_=_) | | | |_| | | | | | |WHERE IS | | | DILDO? | | |_|/
WHERE IS DILDO?
C'punks, I'm concerned that something terribly wrong has happened to Inchoate. Even though he has been offered hundreds of dollars to take, and get a good score on, the LSAT, he hasn't risen to the bai...uh... occasion. It would appear that Jimbo has been secretly replaced by a random nonsense generating AI. (Hey, artificial intelligence is better than no intelligence at all.) Was Jimbo abducted by aliens? Congressman Condit? The ASPCA? Please join me in the Search for Jimbo (soon to be a FOX Special Report). Until he has proven that he is back by agreeing to take the LSAT challenge, let's keep the heat on by shouting from the highest hills (or at least from e-mail), "Where is Dildo?" S a n d y /| |/ \ / \ \ / \ \ / \ \ /___\/ | | | | | o | | | | | | | | | | (.)~(x) | | | | O | | | | (_=_) | | | |_| | | | | | |WHERE IS | | | DILDO? | | |_|/
RE: Vengeance Against Adobe
Faustine wrote: > All free-market principles aside, > if you're just in it for the > paycheck, what's the point? I'd > rather do something I love that's > meaningful to me than just make a > pile. Even better not to have to > choose at all. (Not there yet, so > #1 it is...) Have faith. I think that you can have both in a manner analogous to the Robert Heinlein quote: "It may be better to be a live jackal then a dead lion, but it is better still to be a live lion. And usually easier." S a n d y
RE: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence
Declan McCullagh wrote: > On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 08:47:19AM -0700, > Sandy Sandfort wrote: > > It is educational (and it amuses me) > > to draw him out into parading his > > ignorance and intransigence for all > > to see. Of course, he won't admit he is > > Educational? Only in the study > of aberrant thinking. I disagree. I think by ignore Jimbo's intellectual dishonesty and poor reasoning skills, to some extents gives the appearance of some validity. Only by calling him on his sloppy thinking can we remove the petina of plausibility. > I confess I've baited Choate more > than I care to remember, but I'm > not sure going out of your way to > taunt him is particularly > educational or worthwhile. Okay. We disagree on this subject. I can live with that. :-D S a n d y
RE: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence
C'punks, Notice how reverently Inchoate argues the minutia of the "extinguisher" topic? The reason is obvious. That argument boils down to disputed facts and personal opinion. It's a lot more comfortable than confronting the objective LSAT challenge. Funny, how he can argue the relative impact of rockets and fire extinguishers ad nauseam, but is so uncharacteristically silent about the HUNDREDS of dollars he has been offered to show some nominal degree of verbal reasoning ability on an objective test. Gee, I'd have thought he would have jumped at the chance to humiliate his tormentors by acing that puppy. Well, I guess we all know why he won't take--or even really discuss--this true test of his thinking ability. S a n d y > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of Jim Choate > Sent: 23 July, 2001 21:12 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self > defence > > > On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Matt Beland wrote: > > > A "D based rocket" is no great amount of force. If it was light > enough to go > > as fast as you say, then it wouldn't go through plate glass, > much less a > > windshield. > > 20 N-s for a D. Figure a rocket that weighs about a pound. It's about > .2s after launch (it was launched horizontaly and about 30 ft. away). > > > -- > > > 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 /:'/ ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] >www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 >-~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- >
RE: Vengeance Against Adobe
J.A. Terranson wrote: > Do you *honestly* think they > [Federal Baby Incinerators] give > a shit? Are you really *that* > naive? Yeah, guess so. I think the Feebs really don't like to get called on the carpet. Their power and privilege are at stake. Of course they don't want that threatened. Do you *honestly* think they want to see their prerogatives reduced? I don't. S a n d y
RE: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence
Not-a-lawyer wrote: > Sorry, no backpedaling here... > I stand behind my previous > statements on this topic. Good idea. If you were to stand in front of it, you'd probably lose the other eye. > We're not talking about > 'self-defence' here... No, we're talking 'self-defense', this is the US, not the UK. > ...we're talking 'deadly force'. > Not 1-to-1. Nice strawman though. Jimbo, you ignorant slut, do you even know what a "straw man" argument is? DEADLY FORCE may be used in SELF-DEFENSE when one is in reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. That's black-letter law. (There are some refinements, such as "to oneself or another," but they are not germane to the instant hypothetical of someone trying to bash you with a fire extinguisher through your car window.) > Couldn't pay me to be a lawyer. Don't know about 'couldn't, but I certainly wouldn't. Your verbal reasoning skills suck. > I do know what sort of law I want > my country to have and... "...don't confuse me with the fact"? > I've really got better things to > do with my time than some silly > elementary school bully schtick > you're emotionally attached to. Yeah, we can see that by the quantity and quality of your posts. God, what a chicken shit way to turn tail. You've got all kinds of monetary offers to take the LSAT and you wimp out. > If you'll pay the bill and > somebody can identify the weight > of the extinguisher and the model > of the car... Cluck, cluck, cluck. The victim in the car doesn't get to know what sort of extinguisher the rioter will use. After take a long paragraph to blame the victim Jimbo asserts: > A broken arm or hand is not 'great > bodily harm' by any definition > (except a self-serving one perhaps). Actually, it would fall under the definition of "great bodily harm," whether you think so or not. This is not a self-serving definition, you idiot, just a legal one that you happen to disagree with. > Amateurs with no experience around > those sorts of environments really > should keep their mouths shut about > how that stuff works. Yup Jimbo, you're right about that. > No, the cops panicked... You really should become a lawyer or even a judge. You seem to already have figured this one out by ESP or something. Wow, I'm fucking impressed with your legal acumen. > And then there is the point that > at no time is the police officer > relieved of their sworn duty to > protect the citizens, including > the rioters. Is THAT what cops swear to? I'd like to see a citation on that piece of bullshit. There is established case law in the US that says the police have no specific duty to protect anyone. > Self-defence is NOT a sufficient > release (there is a term for this > policy but it escapes me, I know > where to find it though and I'll > share it tomorrow). How convenient. Now don't you forget to "share" that with us tomorrow Little Jimmie. > This is a perfect example of why > the standard police psych > requirement of 'likes to be in > charge'... Did you pull that out of your ass or someone else's? > A police officers primary > responsiblity is not to save > their own life but to spend > it to save another. This guy is a laugh riot. Where does he dig this stuff up? What a moron. S a n d y
RE: Vengeance Against Adobe
Declan McCullagh wrote: > Here's a prediction: This case will > never come close to generating the > same amount of publicity, by at > least two orders of magnitude. > > Folks on the Net have a bad habit > of overemphasizing how important > these cases are. This is not > important to the people in DC who > count. I couldn't agree with you more, nevertheless my point still stands that disincentives do exist and the Federal Baby Incinerators don't need yet another incrementally damaging error on their rap sheet. S a n d y
RE: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence
Wannabe lawyer Jimbo wrote: > Does throwing a fire extenguisher > at a auto window constitution [sic] > probable cause for lethal force in > self-defence? > > No. Because the fire extenguisher > won't go through the safety glass. Oh really? Try that experiment on your own car. Side windows shatter into a thousand pieces at the touch of a center punch. A fire extinguisher is decidedly overkill for the job. In any event, the test--at least in the US--for the use of deadly force includes the concepts of reasonable fear of death OR GREAT BODILY INJURY. Believe it or not, being blinded by a swarm of glass shards is considered great bodily injury. Please, Jimbo, take the LSAT so we can see how much smarter you are than your posts otherwise indicate. S a n d y P.S. Any Austin Cypherpunks have a fire extinguisher and know where Inchoate parks his car?
RE: Vengeance Against Adobe
Declan McCullagh wrote: > But the Feds won't back down as > readily as Adobe, I wager. They > don't have to worry about what > programmers think, they don't > have to worry about what Wall > Street thinks (at least DOJ > doesn't), they don't have to > worry about slipping revenue > in a soft economy and users > turning to non-Adobe tools. > In short, they have a different > incentive structure... True, it may be different, but it is an incentive structure (or, more accurately, a disincentive structure). For example, I don't thing the Federal Baby Incinerators really want to create another Wen Ho Lee or Richard Jewel fiasco. They already have enough egg on their face. S a n d y
RE:
Petro wrote: > Even if one assumes that the > G8 reps from this country are > directly appointed by elected > officials (and it's not a bet > I'd be willing to take), I'd > bet that most of the others > are not. Maybe yes, maybe no, but the G8 are all nominally democratic. Anything to back up your assumption? Anyway, democracy is just the dictatorship of the proletariat. I'm against ALL dictatorships. As I've been saying, having either of those sets of monkeys at Genoa having any power over me is not my ideal. > >No argument there, but I think > >the barbarians at the gate (the > >rioters) would be infinitely worse. > > Nah, most of them don't have guns. It was a hypothetical statement. If the rioters were in charge they WOULD have the guns, by definition. Were that the case, I think they would be infinitely worse. > >..."90% of EVERYTHING is crap." > > Oh, and optimist. Yeah, I thought so too. > The system, at least the part that > really bothers them, cannot be > changed. > > The laws of physics, as near a we > can tell are, outside of a black > hole, fairly impervious to change. So your beef is against physics? Man, and I thought those rioters were wishful thinkers. What's at the top of your list, gravity? Rock on. S a n d y
