Re: CDR: Re: I'm no "agent."
On Sat, 23 Mar 2002, Steve Furlong wrote: > Aimee Farr wrote: > > > > What happens if you break the laws of mathematics? > > You get a black hole. a/k/a Mattd... -- 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...
Re: I'm no "agent."
Aimee Farr wrote: > > What happens if you break the laws of mathematics? You get a black hole. -- Steve FurlongComputer Condottiere Have GNU, Will Travel The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
Re: I'm no "agent."
On Saturday, March 23, 2002, at 05:35 PM, Meyer Wolfsheim wrote: > On Sat, 23 Mar 2002, Declan McCullagh wrote: > >> If you are comfortable with your ability to publish code anonymously, >> and do this through the methods that have been oft-discussed here, >> including chained remailers, perhaps coupled with physical identity- >> shielding schemes, there is no need to consult a lawyer. >> >> In other words, if you think there is a near-zero risk of >> identification >> and subsequent legal action, why bother with an attorney? > > In fact, consulting a lawyer becomes dangerous in that situation. > Assuming > you are consulting a lawyer in meat-space, and he knows your true name, > you have just created a huge weakness in your plans to remain anonymous. > > (Assuming that your lawyer is On Your Side[tm], and respects the > Attorney-Client Privilege[tm], you still have to trust him to be > competent in concealing your identity from those who might not.) This was part of the whole point about not consulting a lawyer. Lawyers can't possibly insulate one from legal action if something is fundamentally illegal, and consulting a lawyer starts one down the wrong track. So why bother? Further, many states and jurisdictions have laws requiring lawyers to break alleged attorney-client privilege if they know that an illegal act is being planned. A cheap and entertaining way to get a basically accurate--say lawyer friends of mine, and even some prosecutors I have talked to--education is by watching shows like "Law and Order" and several others in the genre. Every tenth episode, I would guesstimate, has a plot involving lawyers being required in one way or another to narc out their clients, or _choosing_ to do so. (Particularly common on the sleazoid show "The Practice," where liberal simp-wimp defense attorneys get wind of "immoral" acts by their clients and choose to get rapped on the knuckles for narcing their clients out. Me, I'd say the right punishment is fire-bombing the offices of the law firm and kiling the entire nest of shysters in the firm which narced me out.) The bottom line is what I said before: two can keep a secret if one of them is dead. Even a small programming team is not acceptable, for obvious reasons. Maybe if the team is controlled by the Mob or the KGB, and there have been graphic demonstrations of traitors being tied to planks and then slowly fed into a furnace, but for most Americans and Europeans the temptation to "cut a deal" is too strong. Never trust colleagues to keep critical secrets, even if you know where they live and have a good plan for incinerating their family if they betray you. > If you know something is illegal, and choose to do it anyway, placing > your > trust in available anonymity systems to protect you from jail, torture, > or > public disdain, there is very little a lawyer can tell you that will be > of > any use. Exactly. In fact, a lawyer is obligated by virtue of being an officer of the court, to not help you commit illegal acts and to notify the court if he has knowledge of such actions. (Yeah, I know there are lawyers for the Mob. But this is the theory, and lawyers will generally not be very helpful in conspiring to break the law. --Tim May "Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound"
Re: Subject: CDR: RE: I'm no "agent."
On Sat, 23 Mar 2002, Faustine wrote: > >I don't see a marketplace opportunity in an espionage Black Net. > > I'll bet people in the business see it differently. Man, if anyone ever needed > proof you aren't an agent, there it is... ;) Fell for his innocent act I see... -- There is less in this than meets the eye. Tellulah Bankhead [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.open-forge.org
Subject: CDR: RE: I'm no "agent."
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Aimee wrote: >What happens if you break the laws of mathematics? Do fractions with guns >chase you? Do you get put in a random number prison? Well for one, If I broke the laws of mathematics I'd lose time, waste an incalculable number of other people's man-hours, lose face, lose my job, and and whatever we happen to be trying to get done do would fail miserably-- and I'd be held entirely accountable for it. Next question... >I don't see a marketplace opportunity in an espionage Black Net. I'll bet people in the business see it differently. Man, if anyone ever needed proof you aren't an agent, there it is... ;) >In high-tempo complex event streams with changing decision-makers, shifting >goal-setting, interveners, variable resources, etc. -- the advantage to be >gained by competitors (of any sort) more truly lies elsewhere. Mere secrets >no longer offer the edge, because they offer a short half-life of >decision-relevance. I couldn't disagree more. If what you say is correct, why are so many businesses setting up corporate intel divisions? Have a look at the SCIP website, it's a growth industry. In fact, I'd be more surprised if something like BlackNet isn't already fully operational. As if any of the involved parties would have the slightest interest in publicizing it! Won't happen, ever. I have a hunch the real impact of BlackNet-like system(s) will start to be felt be in the next couple of decades. If we aren't already feeling them now. >Now, 3 days to 3 months, and it grows shorter. Few >competitors have decision-utility in terms of capability and readiness to >take advantage of "secrets." Most of the information you need is open >source, or can be gained by acumen with low-risk. But "secrets" aren't just unprocessed information; it's precicely this value- added acumen (admittedly in short supply all around) which turns raw information into finished analysis that's priceless. For more on this, you could hardly do better than to read Greg Treverton's "Reshaping Intelligence for an Age of Information". He's a friend of Robert Steele, spoke at the OSS conference last year, was on the Church Committee and used to be the top analyst at the National Intelligence Council. I'm pretty sure I put a link to this here before; check the archives if you're interested. >Add in the traitor element and the "go to jail" consideration, and it looks >like a no-go to me. Of course it seems that way to you, given your assumptions and motivations. Others have always come to a different conclusion, and always will. e.g. who can ever know what was going in Bob Hanssen's skull--the fact remains that he did a hell of a lot of damage. >(Espionage is more traditionally called treason, BTW. It's even in the >Constitution.) Actually, I remember my jaw almost hitting the floor when a someone I know once observed that technically speaking "espionage" as such isn't covered by international law. "International economic espionage isn't illegal" is a bit hard to swallow, but apparently the way it is. As if the people practicing it-- government patriots, spies, traitors, double agents, merceanries, freedom fighters, and assorted shitheels of all persuasions-- care about illegality one way or the other. For good or bad, for all of them it really does come back to the laws of mathematics. The only way to counter math is with better math, like it or not. ~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPJ0F2vg5Tuca7bfvEQI5FQCgvnSGNqV1NXb9syEJ266mLQkRNq8AnAuO ApjZK5t4og4wGvX+wBVobxjM =AhhJ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
RE: I'm no "agent."
On 24 Mar 2002 at 0:46, matthew X wrote: Morlock >>...one does not turn to bacteria for help in fighting infection. One uses antibiotics. ..<< Also just cause the body politic is dead,doesnt mean it doesnt need more free radicals. And the intellectuals still argue [about] whether Amerika is a fascist country.." George Jackson, Blood in My Eye. ___ There is less in this than meets the eye. Tellulah Bankhead [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.open-forge.org
RE: I'm no "agent."
Morlock >>...one does not turn to bacteria for help in fighting infection. One uses antibiotics. ..<< Also just cause the body politic is dead,doesnt mean it doesnt need more free radicals. And the intellectuals still argue [about] whether Amerika is a fascist country.." George Jackson, Blood in My Eye.
RE: I'm no "agent."
> choice of law between the "laws of men," and "the laws of mathematics" smack > of some fallacy? > > Not hiring a single lawyer, not even _consulting_ (emphasis his) a lawyer, > more truly means you are a complete moron and disdain even calculated risk. It should be considered that Mr. May perhaps meant to say that one does not turn to bacteria for help in fighting infection. One uses antibiotics. I can understand that from the fungal point of view the purpose of the world is to be sucked dry by the fungus. Advanced fungi, however, should be able to comprehend that this opinion is not shared by the victims. "Suckees" is probably the legal term. Once I saw a sticker (from shmoo, I think) that said: "If you are a part of solution, you are a part of the problem". Does this help ? = end (of original message) Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows: Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards. http://movies.yahoo.com/
RE: I'm no "agent." Sez the cretin agent.
At 08:33 PM 3/22/02 -0600, Aimee Farr wrote: >Tim wrote: >> Don't hire a single lawyer. As soon as even a single lawyer is hired, >> you're lost. Because it means you're thinking in terms of using the >> legal system, of striking business deals with those whose products you >> napster, and with working within the system. >> >> Not hiring a single lawyer, not even _consulting_ with a lawyer, means >> you are fully aware of how much you are relying on the laws of >> mathematics rather than the laws of men. > >"I find your lack of faith disturbing." -- Darth Vader "Read the source, Luke" >What happens if you break the laws of mathematics? Jah gets *really* pissed. >Or, does couching a >choice of law between the "laws of men," and "the laws of mathematics" smack >of some fallacy? Been fellating a lot of legislative numerical illiterates recently, have we Aimee? >Not hiring a single lawyer, not even _consulting_ (emphasis his) a lawyer, >more truly means you are a complete moron and disdain even calculated risk. No, it means you're observant and have discounted the lawhores. >If you break the law by a significant act in that direction, you set your >own hook for co-option, especially in espionage. What if you do no wrong, but the RIAA/MPAA brings heavy artillery upon you? Naah, can't happen here, Suzy Creamcheese. >Most of the information you need is open >source, Dream on >or can be gained by acumen with low-risk. Add in the traitor element >and the "go to jail" consideration, and it looks like a no-go to me. We have some questions about the optimal voltage/flow rate used when electro-spraying CO2 & nutrient deprived anthrax cultures...
RE: I'm no "agent."
I meant to say "a" stale. But wait, that's not all Tim wrote: > Don't hire a single lawyer. As soon as even a single lawyer is hired, > you're lost. Because it means you're thinking in terms of using the > legal system, of striking business deals with those whose products you > napster, and with working within the system. > > Not hiring a single lawyer, not even _consulting_ with a lawyer, means > you are fully aware of how much you are relying on the laws of > mathematics rather than the laws of men. "I find your lack of faith disturbing." -- Darth Vader What happens if you break the laws of mathematics? Do fractions with guns chase you? Do you get put in a random number prison? Or, does couching a choice of law between the "laws of men," and "the laws of mathematics" smack of some fallacy? Not hiring a single lawyer, not even _consulting_ (emphasis his) a lawyer, more truly means you are a complete moron and disdain even calculated risk. If you break the law by a significant act in that direction, you set your own hook for co-option, especially in espionage. I don't see a marketplace opportunity in an espionage Black Net. In high-tempo complex event streams with changing decision-makers, shifting goal-setting, interveners, variable resources, etc. -- the advantage to be gained by competitors (of any sort) more truly lies elsewhere. Mere secrets no longer offer the edge, because they offer a short half-life of decision-relevance. Now, 3 days to 3 months, and it grows shorter. Few competitors have decision-utility in terms of capability and readiness to take advantage of "secrets." Most of the information you need is open source, or can be gained by acumen with low-risk. Add in the traitor element and the "go to jail" consideration, and it looks like a no-go to me. (Espionage is more traditionally called treason, BTW. It's even in the Constitution.) But, hey, a man should feel free to make his own decisions, just like Tim tells him to. ~Aimee --- > Tim, lay off the maskirovka will ya? > > I'm tired of the snitch-jacket, and it's an stale narrative. > > Besides, imaginative bias and perceptual predispositions can be > used to lead > a person, or a group, to form erroneous conclusions without resorting to > dezinformatsia.
