Bush Regime Bitch-Slapped By WTO

The World Trade Organization, in its first decision on an Internet-related dispute, has ignited a political, cultural and legal tinderbox by ruling that the United States policy prohibiting online gambling violates international trade law. The ruling, issued by a W.T.O. panel on Wednesday, is bein

Re: Anonymizing service employees rat out extortionist

At 08:16 AM 3/26/2004, Eric Tully wrote to the Cypherpunks list > From The Register: > > "To download the online picture, he used the anonymising Surfola service > > (and not Anonymiser.com as > we mistakenly wrote in our initial report - > > apologies to all concerned - Ed), believing the company'

Re: corporate vs. state

R. A. Hettinga (2004-03-26 12:41Z) wrote: > At 7:20 AM + 3/26/04, Justin wrote: > >Those "nasty latin words" are "ceteris paribus". > > Thank you. > > On a network full of experts the price of error is bandwidth. There's no reason to get all sarcastic. For all I knew you could have uninten

Re: Anonymizer employees need killing

On Mar 26, 2004, at 9:13, petard wrote: On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 01:32:43AM -0500, An Metet wrote: From http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/36485.html : "To download the online picture, he used the Anonymizer.com service, believing the companys privacy policy would protect him. Not so. Dutch Th

Re: expiring bearer documents

At 01:59 PM 3/26/04 -0500, R. A. Hettinga wrote: >At 10:14 AM -0800 3/26/04, Major Variola (ret) wrote: >>The point is that the asset (a performance) which the >>bearer-document (ticket) grants access to expires. I think that's >>actually orthogonal to the >>ticket itself expiring. > >Okay. The in

Anonymity of prepaid phone chip-cards

Local cops busted somebody who threatened to derail some trains if he won't get paid. That's a common news. Less common, and more important, detail that the TV news reported confirms the suspicion I had from the beginning of deployment of the prepaid cards technology for local payphones. Each pr

Re: expiring bearer documents

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 At 10:14 AM -0800 3/26/04, Major Variola (ret) wrote: >The point is that the asset (a performance) which the >bearer-document (ticket) grants access to expires. I think that's >actually orthogonal to the >ticket itself expiring. Okay. The inverse, ma

RE: the Black Bloc Corporation

At 12:17 PM -0600 3/26/04, Black Unicorn wrote: >respondeat superior He's back. Kewl... Cheers, RAH -- - R. A. Hettinga The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usef

Re: Blue-suited and Green-suited goons

At 10:48 AM 3/26/04 -0500, Tyler Durden wrote: >someone in Iraq (well, he >may be on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border!) is bound to notice that these >blue-suited Troops have clearly been directed (to some extent) by the same >entity that directs the Green-suited troops. Sounds like a good argument

RE: the Black Bloc Corporation

What you are asking about (at Tort in any event) is the legal doctrine of respondeat superior ("let the master answer") making the "master" liable for certain acts of the "servant." An employer is therefore typically liable for injury to person or property resulting from acts of an employee (See

Re: expiring bearer documents

At 08:10 AM 3/26/04 -0500, R. A. Hettinga wrote: >At 9:48 PM -0800 3/25/04, Major Variola (ret) wrote: >>This recently occurred to me. There is a type of bearer document >>which is exactly like cash (anonymous, finder's keepers/spenders) >>*except* >>that it expires. Its called a concert ticket.

the Black Bloc Corporation

At 12:28 AM 3/26/04 -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote: >On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 09:43:53PM -0800, Major Variola (ret) wrote: >> >If a member of a club, to which you belong, commits an act of violence, >> are you liable for that act? >> > > No, but if the "club", as an entity, does such, you should be.

Re: Max's Lesson (was Re: [osint] Martha's lesson - don't talk to the FBI)

At 9:30 PM -0500 3/24/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >JUSTICE? Yawn. Plonk... Cheers, RAH -- - R. A. Hettinga The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and a

Re: Anonymizer employees need killing

From The Register: "To download the online picture, he used the anonymising Surfola service (and not Anonymiser.com as we mistakenly wrote in our initial report - apologies to all concerned - Ed), believing the company’s privacy policy would protect him." So now I don't know what to believ

Welcome to the Fast Track

They didn't say where to, exactly, but we can guess... Cheers, RAH --- Forbes EZPass Welcome to the Fast Track Matthew Reed Baker, 03.29.04 Airport security can be traveler's hell. If you've been waiting for a quick pass, you may n

Re: corporate vs. state

On 26 Mar 2004, Frog wrote: > Harmon Seaver wrote: > > > If a "voluntary association" injures me, > > Associations - corporate or otherwise - are abstract, intangible > entities. They don't perform actions. People do. Corporations act as "legal persons" - they can enter into contracts, own

Re: corporate vs. state

Harmon Seaver wrote: > > >If a member of a club, to which you belong, commits an act of > > > violence, are you liable for that act? > >No, but if the "club", as an entity, does such, you should be. If > the corporation pollutes, all and sundry owners and employees should > be equally liable. O

Re: corporate vs. state

At 7:20 AM + 3/26/04, Justin wrote: >Those "nasty latin words" are "ceteris paribus". Thank you. On a network full of experts the price of error is bandwidth. Cheers, RAH -- - R. A. Hettinga The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation 44 Farquhar St

Re: Anonymizer employees need killing

On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 01:32:43AM -0500, An Metet wrote: > >From http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/36485.html : > > "To download the online picture, he used the Anonymizer.com service, > believing the companys privacy policy would protect him. Not so. Dutch The article got it wrong. He u

Re: corporate vs. state

R. A. Hettinga (2004-03-26 02:20Z) wrote: > blah blah (those nasty latin words ceterus paribus) blah blah Those "nasty latin words" are "ceteris paribus". -- That woman deserves her revenge... and... we deserve to die. -- Budd, "Kill Bill Vol. 1"

Blue-suited and Green-suited goons

Variola wrote... "And BTW, what is wrong with hired police ("mercs") esp. when the local police don't work? Do you have a problem with private security guards in the US, as long as they don't involve you in unconsensual transactions? Do you have a problem with weaponsbearing citizens, again, i

Re: expiring bearer documents

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 At 9:48 PM -0800 3/25/04, Major Variola (ret) wrote: >At 09:20 PM 3/25/04 -0500, R. A. Hettinga wrote: >>Fine. Make it cheaper. Moore's Law creates geodesic networks, so >>let's have geodesic internet bearer transactions. > >Yesss! Its only taken a mo

Re: corporate vs. state

At 11:44 AM + 3/26/04, Anonymous via panta wrote: > three rounds in the base of Bob Hettinga's geodesic skull Glock for the bed. AR for the Closet. Mossberg for the door? :-). Collective punishment, indeed... Cheers, RAH -- - R. A. Hettinga The Internet Bearer Underwritin

Anonymizer employees need killing

Anonymizer is working with the FBI on international blackmail cases - no subpoena required! >From http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/36485.html : "To download the online picture, he used the Anonymizer.com service, believing the companys privacy policy would protect him. Not so. Dutch pol

Re: corporate vs. state

On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 09:43:53PM -0800, Major Variola (ret) wrote: > > At 12:39 AM 3/26/04 -, Frog wrote: > >Harmon Seaver wrote: > >> each and every person involved in it should be liable. > > > >If a member of a club, to which you belong, commits an act of violence, > are you liable for t

Re: corporate vs. state, TD's education

This is what Major Variola (ret) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said about "corporate vs. state, TD's education" on 25 Mar 2004 at 9:16 > Get this through your head: a corporation can't initiate force against > you. You may not like their product, practices, or price, but no one > is coercing you at gunpoint