James A. Donald:--
James A. Donald:
Hitler won an election. Elections are not revolutions.
Jim Choate
The election alone didn't make him Fuhrer
The fact that a majority voted for totalitarianism and plurality
voted for Hitler did make him fuhrer.
And regardless of what made him Fuhrer,
On Sat, 1 Sep 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And regardless of what made him Fuhrer, it was not a revolution.
It wasn't? They passed a law moving all the presidents power to Hitler
against the constitution. Then they got the military to swear an oath to
Hitler, not Germany. In other words in
--
James A. Donald:
And regardless of what made him Fuhrer, it was not a
revolution.
Jim Choate:
It wasn't? They passed a law moving all the presidents power to
Hitler against the constitution.
They passed a law is not a revolution, even if the law was
unconstitutional, and it was far
On Fri, 31 Aug 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When Hitler authorized Krystalnacht, that was a revolution?
No, that was the consequence of one that had already worked. They were
just cleaning up the left overs. Had Hitler not already won the power then
it wouldn't have been necessary.
--
Having read Tim's reply already, I'll confine myself to a point he
didn't address.
On 1 Sep 2001, at 22:30, Nomen Nescio wrote:
It's true that this does not directly impact the design. But we can't
ignore the question, is this a market we want to pursue. For example,
there are any
--
On 28 Aug 2001, at 7:13, Jim Choate wrote:
What makes you think that new regime who used your tool to take
over won't then shoot you and take 'your profits'. By
participating you may in fact be signing your own death
warrant.
All the liberty that there is in the world today results
--
Many people however believe that we [read: our government(s)]
are in a downward spiral that is converging on
police-and-welfare-state. In the US for example, we long ago
abandoned our constitution. We still give it much lip
service and we still have one of the more free
On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 09:12:50PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
much true stuff snipped
But
even given the tattered First Amendment, there is still a difference
between speech and
On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 09:12:50PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
much true stuff snipped
But
even given the tattered First Amendment, there is still a difference
between speech and action.
Complete and utter bullshit.
Measl sometimes
--
On 28 Aug 2001, at 23:00, Nomen Nescio wrote:
The objection was raised, yes, it is moral, but is it
profitable? There are not many communist-opposed freedom
fighters around today, not much money to be made there.
Most regimes on President Bush's shit list have an insurrection
going
Tim May writes:
And in both of these examples I gave, Nomen Nescio took a literal
reading of the examples. But Ireland is not a communist regime! But
they are not Jews!
Examples, like the half dozen I gave, are designed to convey to the
reader the range of uses, needs, and
At 09:12 PM 8/30/01 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But
even given the tattered First Amendment, there is still a difference
between speech and action.
Complete and utter bullshit.
And complete and utter loss of reputation capital on your part. It disagrees
100% with my interactions with law
When you were asked where were all the supposed wealthy freedom fighters
in communist controlled regimes, you came back with Osama bin Laden.
Tim's point, which many seem to have missed, is that by design a tool that
enforces the privacy, anonymity, and pseudonymity of a women striving for
equal
Nomen Nescio replied to Tim May:
[...]
You need to read your own posting more carefully:
Draw this graph I outlined. Think about where the markets are for tools
for privacy and untraceability. Realize that many of the far out' sweet
spot applications are not necessarily immoral: think
Is it necessary to send this message to cypherpunks twice?
-Declan
---
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 08:21:45 -0500 (CDT)
--
James A. Donald:
(the Russian communist revolution was not a revolution, but
merely a coup by a little conspiracy. Same for the
Sandinista revolution).
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm curious how you draw the line? I.e., what defines a
genuine revolution as opposed to a mere coup?
A
On Fri, 31 Aug 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A revolution involves mass participation, and widespread
spontaneous defiance of state authority.
A revolution is when one part of a populace takes up arms against another
part of the populace. The argument is over who gets the final say. It's
Mark Leighton Fisher writes:
Tim's point, which many seem to have missed, is that by design a tool that
enforces the privacy, anonymity, and pseudonymity of a women striving for
equal rights in Afghanistan can also be used by the Taliban in their quest
to track down and kill Afghans who
On 31 Aug 2001, at 19:50, Nomen Nescio wrote:
But the more sophisticated technologies are not self-contained tools.
They require a supported and maintained infrastructure to operate.
Anonymous posters are painfully aware of how inadequate the current
remailer system is. A truly reliable
There are *no* tools which are useful *only* for powering down
government.
Well, there are some *biased* tools.
Anuthing that builds real or virtual walls impedes the spread of monocultural
fungal infection (aka the government). The more power an entity has, the less
walls it needs. So
Anonymous wrote:
The cypherpunk world replaces coercion with cooperation. It
provides the shield of anonymity against those who would offer
violence and aggression. As we move into the information age,
control of information is control of the individual. Thus, privacy,
control of
--
Reese
You [Aimee Farr]are entirely too smug and happy, at the
thought of these various mechanisms useful for preserving
privacy and anonymity going the way of the dodo.
Aimee Farr
That is not my attitude at all, Reese.
It is your attitude. You keep telling us privacy is
--
On 27 Aug 2001, at 16:00, Aimee Farr wrote:
Your idea does seem to offer promise as a vehicle for treason,
espionage, trade secrets, malicious mischief, piracy, bribery
of public officials, concealment of assets, transmission of
wagering information, murder for hire, threatening or
--
On 26 Aug 2001, at 10:46, Tim May wrote:
Anyway, it is not easy to create a public company, a public
nexus of attack, and then deploy systems which target that
high-value sweet spot. The real bankers and the regulators
won't allow such things into the official banking system. (Why
do
On Thursday, August 30, 2001, at 06:39 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Duncan Frissell wrote:
Is Tom Clancy going to spend much time in stir for machine gunning the
US
Congress at the end of Debt of Honor?
Possibly: see the campaign to put away John Ross, author of
--
On 27 Aug 2001, at 21:40, Nomen Nescio wrote:
Freedom fighters in communist-controlled regimes. How much
money do they have? More importantly, how much are they
willing and able to spend on anonymity/privacy/black-market
technologies? These guys aren't rolling in dough.
Freedom
--
On 27 Aug 2001, at 23:22, Aimee Farr wrote:
Considering the incredibly bad timing of this discussion in
light of world events, I don't see how you could call ME a
provocateur. My jibe was good-natured. You keep posting the
equivalent of classified ads. I know who wants this shit
Declan McCullagh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote :
On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 05:28:24PM -0700, Ray Dillinger wrote:
For Tim:
Why are you attempting to provoke public discussion about things
that could get people jailed or worse for discussing them? It's
interesting to see you post your sweet spot
On Thursday, August 30, 2001, at 12:42 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bear may not be as far off the mark as you think. Remember back when the
hot news of the day was militia groups how advocating the violent
overthrow of the government and playing soldier in the woods could
constitute intent?
On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
much true stuff snipped
But
even given the tattered First Amendment, there is still a difference
between speech and action.
Complete and utter bullshit.
-Declan
--
Yours,
J.A. Terranson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If Governments really want us to
Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 12:42:24PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bear may not be as far off the mark as you think. Remember back when the
hot news of the day was militia groups how advocating the violent
overthrow of the government and playing soldier in the
Ray Dillinger writes:
I've composed a dozen responses, considered the subpeona and the trial
that could result from posting each, and wiped them. There's your
chilling effect on political discussion if you're interested. This
one, I'm going to post, so I'm being very careful what I say.
On Tuesday, August 28, 2001, at 05:52 PM, Aimee Farr wrote:
Didn't you already sign on? Surely through your careful study of the
archives you know that one of the founding documents for this list is
Tim's Crypto Anarchist Manifesto. It's practically the charter.
See, for example,
Tim:
On Tuesday, August 28, 2001, at 05:52 PM, Aimee Farr wrote:
Didn't you already sign on? Surely through your careful study of the
archives you know that one of the founding documents for this list is
Tim's Crypto Anarchist Manifesto. It's practically the charter.
See, for
On Tuesday, August 28, 2001, at 05:28 PM, Ray Dillinger wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Aimee Farr wrote:
It wasn't serious, Mike!
Yes. It is serious. It is, in fact, dead serious. Starting with the
Sweet spot discussion, and well into the pissing contest that you
and Tim seem to have
Bear wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Aimee Farr wrote:
It wasn't serious, Mike!
Yes. It is serious. It is, in fact, dead serious. Starting with the
Sweet spot discussion, and well into the pissing contest that you
and Tim seem to have started over it, we've been seeing nothing but
Idiot bimbo writes:
[GH writes:]
Didn't you already sign on? Surely through your careful study of the
archives you know that one of the founding documents for this list is
Tim's Crypto Anarchist Manifesto. It's practically the charter.
See, for example,
Gil Hamilton (great nym!) wrote:
Didn't you already sign on? Surely through your careful study of the
archives you know that one of the founding documents for this list is
Tim's Crypto Anarchist Manifesto. It's practically the charter.
See, for example,
At 10:10 PM 8/28/01 +0200, Nomen Nescio wrote:
Apparently ability to spell crypto does not imply political sapiense beyond
One should not attempt spelling flames -- almost always in poor taste,
anyway --- if one does not know how to spell.
Hint to NN: Sapience.
-Declan
On Monday, August 27, 2001, at 12:56 PM, Tim May wrote:
On Monday, August 27, 2001, at 12:40 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote:
Freedom fighters in communist-controlled regimes. How much money
do they have? More importantly, how much are they willing and able to
spend on
On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Nomen Nescio wrote:
The point is that those who will pay large sums to acquire access to
these technologies, even for the purpose of overthrowing an evil regime,
are not doing it out of altruism. They're not good-guy libertarians
who only want to set up a John Galt
GH wrote:
Nomen Nescio wrote:
[snip]
The answers it gives depends on the questions you ask. If your questions
are simple enough (untraceability good?) then your chart will answer
them. If your questions are more interesting (what technologies can
be practically implemented and make a
At 09:40 PM 8/27/01 +0200, Nomen Nescio wrote:
People selling their expertise when some guild says they are forbidden
to. Morally this one seems OK. In a net already filled with bogus
medical and legal advice it can't make things much worse. On the other
hand it's not clear that the existing
At 01:02 AM 8/28/01 -0500, Aimee Farr wrote:
That is not my attitude at all, Reese. I obviously like Tim's Blacknet.
However, I don't like it being characterized as a subversive tool, and damn
sure not in terms that might indicate a criminal conspiracy for shopping out
secrets to Libya.
The
Members of the IRA are not freedom fighters in a communist-controlled
country. bin Laden did fall under that definition when he was fighting
The naivety of poster is appaling. I hope that freedom fighters in a
communist-controlled country is used as a placeholder for something good as
On Tuesday, August 28, 2001, at 8:04 AM, Tim May wrote:
On Monday, August 27, 2001, at 11:20 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote:
On Monday, August 27, 2001, at 12:56 PM, Tim May wrote:
On Monday, August 27, 2001, at 12:40 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote:
Freedom fighters in communist-controlled regimes. How
It remains a challenge to identify groups that are both (A) wealthy, (B)
in need of anonymity technologies, and (C) morally acceptable to support.
Freedom fighters don't fit all that well, in today's world.
Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hutus, Tutsis, Vietnamese, Chinese, Russians,
Commodities
Didn't you already sign on? Surely through your careful study of the
archives you know that one of the founding documents for this list is
Tim's Crypto Anarchist Manifesto. It's practically the charter.
See, for example,
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Crypto_misc/cryptoanarchist.manifesto
-
Nomen says:
bin Laden and the IRA have plenty of money, but will many cypherpunks
agree with their politics? It's hard to believe that anyone thinks that
if the IRA or bin Laden were to succeed in their goals, that they would
put in place a kindler and gentler state.
It remains a challenge to
On Tuesday, August 28, 2001, at 02:37 PM, Duncan Frissell wrote:
It remains a challenge to identify groups that are both (A) wealthy,
(B)
in need of anonymity technologies, and (C) morally acceptable to
support.
Freedom fighters don't fit all that well, in today's world.
Jews,
Tim May writes:
Draw this graph I outlined. Think about where the markets are for tools
for privacy and untraceability. Realize that many of the far out' sweet
spot applications are not necessarily immoral: think of freedom fighters
in communist-controlled regimes, think of distribution of
On Monday, August 27, 2001, at 02:00 PM, Aimee Farr wrote:
Tim May:
So I guess my candidate submission for the P.E.T. workshop might not be
well-received: BlackNet; Case History of a Practically Untraceable
System for Buying and Selling Corporate and National Secrets.
No, you want E.E.T.
Despite frequently urging newcomers to read the archives--or at least
use some search engines!, nitwits like Aimee are only just now figuring
out what was crystal clear in 1992-3.
The EEA wasn't passed until 96. I failed to mention Title 18 United States
Code, Section(s) 794(c).
Agents kick
On Monday, August 27, 2001, at 12:40 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote:
Tim May writes:
Draw this graph I outlined. Think about where the markets are for tools
for privacy and untraceability. Realize that many of the far out'
sweet
spot applications are not necessarily immoral: think of freedom
Tim May:
So I guess my candidate submission for the P.E.T. workshop might not be
well-received: BlackNet; Case History of a Practically Untraceable
System for Buying and Selling Corporate and National Secrets.
No, you want E.E.T. -- Espionage-enhancing Technologies.
Some of you need a
Your role as an agent provocateur here is noted.
Your role as a son-uv-a-bitch to me is noted.
Trying to keep people out of trouble is a provocateur? Gee, sorry to
dampen your conspiracy.
I posted Regan because it was directly relevant to this discussion, and it
makes a couple of points --
On Monday, August 27, 2001, at 09:22 PM, Aimee Farr wrote:
Your role as an agent provocateur here is noted.
Your role as a son-uv-a-bitch to me is noted.
Trying to keep people out of trouble is a provocateur? Gee, sorry to
dampen your conspiracy.
I posted Regan because it was directly
Reese wrote:
This is not legal advice. It's an obituary. :)
Owning a vehicle that will exceed the speed limit is not a crime.
Driving a vehicle that will exceed the speed limit is not a crime.
Exceeding the speed limit is a crime and is a ticketable offense,
at the least.
Mechanisms to
On Sat, 25 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote:
At the June meeting I drew a graph which makes the point clearly. A pity
I can't draw it here. (Yeah, there are ways. My new Web page should have
some drawings soon. But this list is about ASCII.)
Plot Value of Being Untraceable in a Transaction on
On Sat, 25 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote:
RATIONAL ACTORS
The obvious point is that rational actors never pay more for
untraceability than they get back in perceived benefits. Someone will
not pay $1000 for privacy/untraceability technology or tools that only
nets them $500 in perceived
At 09:56 PM 8/25/2001 -0700, Tim May [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
some really great stuff deleted
CONCLUSION:
To really do something about untraceability you need to be untraceable.
Draw this graph I outlined. Think about where the markets are for tools
for privacy and untraceability.
On Sunday, August 26, 2001, at 09:13 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Right on target. There is one aspect to this loss of nerve not
mentioned: the correlation between those with the means and interest to
pursue these avenues and those with merely the interest.
There are a couple of points to
I'm writing a lot today. These last several days, actually. Maybe I got
enough sleep, maybe the debate about how CFP has been taken over by the
droids is inspiring me, maybe it's because I can't wait until I can get
these drawings (talked about later) up on my soon-to-appear virtual
63 matches
Mail list logo
