Re: Denver Judge rules Cops can seize bookstore records
- Original Message - From: Declan McCullagh [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Denver Judge rules Cops can seize bookstore records Two thoughts: * It is possible that "ordinary discovery" has gone too far in the U.S. Shielded areas, such as bookstores protected by this view of the 1A, might be a good thing. It's about as "possible" as the "possibility" of the sun coming up over the horizon tomorrow morning. We all know that the system really doesn't work the way it is supposed to. The standard is SUPPOSED to be "probable cause" which should arguably mean that "the policeman knows that a crime has been committed and that there is at least a 51% probability that evidence of that crime is at the place in question." But in fact logic is totally ignored. We already know that the only evidence likely at the book store is that which points to the identity of the person who bought the book on the subject of drugs. Buying that book was not, in itself, a crime. And, in fact, the purchase of the book may have occurred before the drug-lab-manufacturing "crime." Thus, it is obvious that there is virtually certain to be no evidence at the book store of the crime for which the police are investigating. In fact, what the police are looking for might best be called "non-crime evidence." Information tending to prove or disprove acts which were NOT crimes. Iinterestingly enough, as far as I know the "justice system" (yucch!) doesn't have a separate term for "evidence that is not the evidence of a crime." It's just called "evidence." There's a problem with this, as I learned firsthand: Authorities drop by, take lots of stuff, and then tell the news media that "evidence was collected and removed." Problem is, neither at the time it was taken nor later was it actually "evidence" of some sort of crime. What they actually should have said was that "non-evidence was taken" but expecting them to be that honest is futile. If anybody is aware of a commonly (or, even, uncommonly) used term for "non-evidence-evidence" I' like to hear it. * Richard Epstein has a nice piece in the May 2000 Stanford Law Review (I was reading it last night). Epstein argues against "First Amendment exceptionalism," which grants speech more protection than the common law would afford. He says that creates weird side effects that prohibit things like trespass to obtain private information but say (if such info is leaked to a newspaper) that info can be published without, generally, any recourse by the aggrieved party. All of this may not be relevant once anonymous publishing -- or shall I say consequence-less publishing? -- becomes more widespread. -Declan In this case, I'd say the issue is more like "consequenceless book-buying," not publishing. Nobody is talking about charging the book store with any crime. I think that businesses (including bookstores) should be entitled to do business with customers, giving binding promises to not share information about those transactions with anybody including police and courts, perhaps unless the transaction itself was criminal. Anybody ever heard of "impairment of contract"? Jim Bell
paycash payment system ver. 1.xx
--- begin forwarded text From: "Victor Dostov" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: paycash payment system ver. 1.xx Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 13:54:36 +0400 Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: "Victor Dostov" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Paycash, digital cash payment system, released production version 1.xx. It can be downloaded at English section of www.paycash.ru. Current pilot version has about 10,000 users what is about 1-2% of active Russian internet users. Concerning current growth rate it is expected that in the next 6 month this number will increase five times. To the moment the system has operating representative companies in Russia, Latvia, Ukraine and USA. For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" with one line of text: "help". --- end forwarded text -- - R. A. Hettinga mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation http://www.ibuc.com/ 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
Parties
Scott and I have been discussing (from a theoretical standpoint) the possibility of a third party that focuses on privacy and personal freedom, and the difficulties in gaining creedence for this third party, as opposed to the difficulties associated with influencing existing major parties (either of them) to take a stronger stance on these issues. Assuming that you could reconcile your differences with either Democrats or Republicans in order to gain a strong Washington D.C. presence on a few key issues, would that approach be easier than creating a viable "third" party? What percentage of the voters do you think are holding on to a very few key issues from their party of choice, and would be willing to vote for another party that could give them equally strong representation on those issues? ok, Rush Carskadden -Original Message-From: Scott Schram [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2000 4:14 PMTo: Carskadden, RushSubject: RE: BachusHi Rush,I mentioned the "third party", inspired by my frustration with the two leading parties, and their apparent lack of understanding about technology, and privacy issues.Some thoughts about the current parties: Al Gore's populist rhetoric about drug companies which completely overlooks the fact that we're on the eve of incredible discoveries and it costs lots of money to research and bring new drugs to market. Despite what Gore has indicated, big pharma spends about 4 times as much on research as they do on advertising.George W. Bush's hints at dropping the Microsoft suit (and the tobacco suit for that matter.) The recent Republican (I think) proposals to link Social Security information to IRS information.Our government is (probably justifiably) paranoid about attacks from external and internal terrorists. It is easier for terrorists to cause problems than it is for the government to prevent them. Each time an incident happens, people call for more preventative measures, thus we have: Secret searches (and bugging) of homes, no-knock entries, the Carnivore IP monitoring system, etc. Did you see the recent HBO special about extremist groups and their use of the internet to encourage action by "lone wolf" sociopaths? Nobody wants to appear soft on this kind of crime.Libertarians have some cool ideas (at least they sound cool), but I can't imagine withdrawing all of our military force from the world and limit ourselves to defending our borders. Our enemies would have a field day. Further, while I'm pro-business, I'm all for them playing "in bounds" and only a strong referee can keep some of them from dumping PCBs at the local playground.The Reform Party is basically an old-time circus freak show, and I mean no disrespect to circus freaks.A number of issues are no longer "Right" or "Left".So, back to your question:The third party route would probably be very difficult. It's not clear whether it would actually dilute efforts to influence the major parties. I offer this hypothesis: The way the system works now, with third parties being excluded from debates, often excluded from matching funds, the electoral college that makes for artificial "landslide" elections for the major candidates... all of these things tend to squash the life out of any third party.I believe that people interested in the new issues are growing, and we might find allies in unexpected places. For example, my southern baptist friends were not very happy with the long census form.I have used the following techniques with some success:Letter writing to congress still works. I have written to other representatives in the state if they happened to be the only one on a committee, or even representatives for other states. www.smokefree.org is an excellent example of publicizing issues and encouraging people to write letters.I don't think phone calls work quite as well, but I recall influencing an issue in this way. It was a niche issue, and I got some attention with a careful explanation. (The issue was: For a while, songwriters and authors were not able to deduct business expenses unless they were able to relate directly to the song or work that was produced with that expense.)One of my favorite things to do is write a short, punchy (often satirical) letter to the editor. Their paper starts out blank every day, and I have yet to get one rejected doing it this way. If it's a technology issue, you might be the only one writing in on that topic, and thus more likely to get in print.Give money, either to candidates or groups like EFF or whatever.There's some random thoughts for you Rush, and you can repost any of them if you see fit. Thanks for your questions! What do you think? What are the most important issues in your mind?Scotthttp://schram.netAt 09:41 AM 10/25/00, you wrote: Scott, Thank you for the link and the clarification of my info. I agree about your assertion that a "third" party may better see to
Re: Parties
On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 11:09:40AM -0500, Carskadden, Rush wrote: Scott and I have been discussing (from a theoretical standpoint) the possibility of a third party that focuses on privacy and personal freedom, There already is one. It's called the Libertarian party. www.lp.org. -- Eric Murray Consulting Security Architect SecureDesign LLC http://www.securedesignllc.comPGP keyid:E03F65E5
Re: Paranoid Encryption Standard (was Re: Rijndael Hitachi)
At 4:16 PM +1100 10/27/2000, Damien Miller wrote: On Thu, 26 Oct 2000, Arnold G. Reinhold wrote: simple way to combine the AES finalists and take advantage of all the testing that each has already undergone. And, IMHO, it is an interesting theoretical question as well. Even if the answer is "yes," I am not advocating that it be used in most common applications, e.g network security, because there are so many greater risks to be dealt with. But it might make sense in some narrow, high value, applications. What threat model do you propose that would require this? o Your opponent has the cryptologic capabilities of the a major world power o The content has very high value (multi-billion dollar deal, could bring down a government, could start a war) o Long term protection is required (30+ years) o You are in a position to properly secure the terminals at both ends 0 Efficiency is not a concern For example, a chief of state's personal diary, an opposition leader's communications, best and final bids on large projects, etc. I can't think of anything that isn't contrived and couldn't be served by using 3DES. In a way I see this question as how one should manage the transition from 3DES to AES. Does one keep using DES until the big day and then switch to AES? Or does a blended solution make sense in some cases? While I think there may be a use for something like a Paranoid Encryption Standard in very unusual situations, I don't wish to waste more of people's time arguing with those who say there's no need for it at all. I don't have any compelling evidence. It's pure speculation. I am really more interested in the theoretical "why not?" question, i.e. is there any real downside in combining ciphers in this way, besides efficiency? Conventional wisdom seems to be more cautious than I think is justified and I am trying to prove that. Arnold Reinhold
RE: Parties
Title: RE: Parties Eric, Yeah, there is the Libertarian party, and they get a lot of electoral votes. In fact, I think that our next president will be Harry Browne. Our work is done. Let's go get a drink. Seriously, what we are discussing here is the feasibility of establishing a credible power base for a third party. I don't think (and maybe you disagree with me here) that the Libertarian party has achieved this at all. I don't think that the current Libertarian party CAN establish this kind of voter confidence. The current presidential candidate for the Libertarian party, Harry Browne, has done little to gain voter enthusiasm with such bold and impractical claims as the statement that his first action in office would be granting executive pardon to drug offenders. I am familiar with the Libertarian party, to the extent that I was a member for the past several years, and have attended several state and national Libertarian party conventions, and spoken with Congress-people as a representative of Libertarian interests. The fact of the matter is, in a discussion of strong representation of issues within a viable Washington D.C. power movement, you can only be bringing up the Libertarian party as either an example of failure in the third party strategy or a recommendation for a third party to endorse. As for the possible assertion that the Libertarian party is an example of a failure to succeed at activism outside of the two-party arena, I think that any failure (perceived or real) may in fact be due to the outrageous demands of the LP (as an activist, I have been embarrassed by them many times), and the complete stubborn demand for overnight change without compromise. These facets of the party may be sexy to guys like you and I, but don't engender the public, or establish a foothold in Washington. As to the possible recommendation of the Libertarian party as a viable alternative to the two party system, I just don't see how that answers my question. Sure, the Libertarian party seems to be fairly interested in privacy and personal freedom. That still doesn't tell me whether you think it would be easier to get the Libertarian party enough power to actually protect our interests, or convince existing partisan powers to take up the cause. In short, thanks for the info, but you've answered nothing. ok, Rush Carskadden -Original Message- From: Eric Murray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 27, 2000 12:11 PM To: Carskadden, Rush Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: Re: Parties On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 11:09:40AM -0500, Carskadden, Rush wrote: Scott and I have been discussing (from a theoretical standpoint) the possibility of a third party that focuses on privacy and personal freedom, There already is one. It's called the Libertarian party. www.lp.org. -- Eric Murray Consulting Security Architect SecureDesign LLC http://www.securedesignllc.com PGP keyid:E03F65E5
Re: Parties
On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 12:54:39PM -0500, Carskadden, Rush wrote: Eric, Yeah, there is the Libertarian party, and they get a lot of electoral votes. In fact, I think that our next president will be Harry Browne. Our work is done. Let's go get a drink. Seriously, what we are discussing here is the feasibility of establishing a credible power base for a third party. I don't think (and maybe you disagree with me here) that the Libertarian party has achieved this at all. I don't think that the current Libertarian party CAN establish this kind of voter confidence. The current presidential candidate for the Libertarian party, Harry Browne, has done little to gain voter enthusiasm with such bold and impractical claims as the statement that his first action in office would be granting executive pardon to drug offenders. Well, that gets my vote! Why should I vote for someone who doesn't stand for what I beleive in just because the media says that they're "not electable"? That's the kind of loser attitude that's gotten us a contest that'll assuredly elect either an idiot (Bush) or a fool (Gore). Unfortunately Americans are more interested in voting for a "winner" than they are in voting their concious. A "Libertarian Lite" party wouldn't get the principled voters away from the Libertarian party and wouldn't get any more mainstream voters than any other third party gets. But if you really want to do it, go ahead. The cipherpunks list isn't a very good place to discuss it though, as most posters seem to think that the Libertarian party isn't radical enough, and besides, crypto anarchy will soon make governments obsolete. -- Eric Murray Consulting Security Architect SecureDesign LLC http://www.securedesignllc.comPGP keyid:E03F65E5
Net Privacy Bill Called 'Trojan Horse'
Net Privacy Bill Called 'Trojan Horse' By Robert O'Harrow Jr, Washington Post WASHINGTON, DC, U.S.A., 25 Oct 2000, 6:14 AM CST The legislation began as an effort to protect people like Amy Boyer, a New Hampshire woman who was slain by a man who tracked her down after buying her Social Security number on the Internet. In May, Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., proposed a law to sharply limit the sale of the identifying numbers, which often serve as hooks for electronic dossiers about the whereabouts, credit histories and lifestyles of millions of Americans. Then the information industry got involved. Now privacy advocates say Gregg's modified measure, part of an appropriations bill set to pass in the final days of Congress, is a "Trojan horse" that does more harm than good, because loopholes allow giant data brokers, banks, marketers and even private detectives to exchange or sell the numbers among themselves. That means such companies will be free to use the numbers to track down debtors or deadbeat parents, collect personal data, conduct fraud investigations, and build profiles about what people buy and do. The debate is the latest flare-up over one of the staples of the information age, a number that enables government agencies, marketers and information brokers to keep close tabs on a proliferation of data about individual Americans. Some privacy activists believe that Social Security numbers should be used only with individuals' permission. At the same time, information industries that rely on unfettered access to personal information fear losing control over a key to their business. "It is just the worst kind of legislation," said Edmund Mierzwinski, consumer advocate at the US Public Interest Research Group, who has worked with Consumers Union, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Clinton administration to oppose Gregg's proposal. "It is supposed to do something good, but it actually makes things worse." Tim Remsburg, Amy Boyer's stepfather, who originally asked Gregg to introduce the bill, is angry about how it evolved. "It sure isn't as effective as what I asked for at the beginning," he said in an interview. "They want to put Amy's name on this." A Gregg spokesman defended the legislation, saying it will make it illegal to sell Social Security numbers to individuals. But he acknowledged that the current legislation was crafted with help from the Individual Reference Services Group (IRSG), an industry association that includes some of the nation's largest data marketers. Members include such companies as Acxiom Corp., Equifax Inc. and Trans Union LLC, which have strongly opposed any efforts to curb access to personal data. IRSG representative Ronald Plesser, who worked with Gregg's office on the legislation, did not return repeated telephone calls. In a Sept. 28 letter to Gregg's office, Plesser blasted more stringent restrictions proposed by the Clinton administration. A letter from IRSG said, "Your bill strikes the right balance by providing strong privacy protections without undermining the range of important and socially beneficial activities by business and government that have developed based upon the use of SSNs." One exception also would permit state and local governments to continue selling records containing Social Security numbers. The provision is worded in such a way that, critics say, it would allow businesses buying those records to use Social Security numbers with no legal restraints. Remsburg's stepdaughter, Amy Boyer, 20, was fatally shot last year by a man who had been stalking her for some time. The man, who killed himself after killing Boyer, acknowledged at a Web site that he obtained details about Boyer from brokers on the Internet. "It's a significant restriction on the ability of individuals to get Social Security numbers," said Gregg spokesman Edmund
Congratulations on your $25 USD win!
You are a winner !!! Your email was randomly selected from our opt-in lists and you won $25.00 USD in real casino chips from A1-Casino. Why are they giving away money you ask? Simple...they want you to discover what 1,000's of other people just like you already know...online gambling at A1-Casino is fast-paced, interactive and a whole lot of fun. But that's not all, they are also giving away fabulous instaprizes and bonuses during the download. So don't wait. Click on the link below to collect your $25.00 prize now. http://www.click-collect.com If the link above doesn't work please print, fill in and fax this form to the fax number below. First Name Last Name Street Address City State/Province __ Country _ZIP/Postal Code _ E-Mail _ ## Send fax to: 1-775-766-2022 ## * Delivered by Segasolution to referrals and opt-ins only. All remove requests are honored. All players must be 18 years and over. Bonus dollars are only available to credit card depositors. A1-Casino guarantees minimum wins. Good luck! * Remove mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Parties
On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, Eric Murray wrote: Why should I vote for someone who doesn't stand for what I beleive in just because the media says that they're "not electable"? That's the kind of loser attitude that's gotten us a contest that'll assuredly elect either an idiot (Bush) or a fool (Gore). Unfortunately Americans are more interested in voting for a "winner" than they are in voting their concious. That's commendable idealism, but in most modern countries the electorial process is practically guaranteed - and in fact mostly designed - to in essence round out dissent. The fact that voting for the loser implies casting your vote for nothing, *even in matters which had nothing to do with the winner being elected*, simply means that there is absolutely no point in voting for someone who cannot win. It's a nasty side effect of the present implementation of democracy based on a mix of representative democracy, political parties, the relative voting system (dunno if you guys have this) and what have you. Sampo Syreeni [EMAIL PROTECTED], aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university
Test
Life is like a box of chocolates; except for spammers who should be killed.
RE: Parties
Title: RE: Parties Eric, Glad to hear that all it takes to get your vote is a reckless executive pardon of criminals that is designed to utilize executive power to bypass the checks and balances system and negate the efforts of the legislative and judicial branches of government (known in some circles as saying 'fuck the constitution'). So to clarify (because I am completely baffled), you are saying it doesn't matter what the outcome of any legislative effort is at all? You seem to be saying that you are in favor of voting on your own concious (conscience?) regardless of outcome. So when they take every freedom you have, when your social security number is bought and sold amongst governments and big businesses, when every facet of your life is documented and displayed publicly, with any attempt at obfuscation deemed illegal, you will say that it is ok, because you voted with your conscience, and it didn't matter if your cause won. Of course it matters. At least to me it does. You may not agree, but I would like to see my privacy and personal freedoms protected by the government (in addition to my own strong efforts at defending them myself). That is not the case right now, and the Libertarian party has done fuck all to change it. So my question to you, posed for the third time, is whether you think it is easier to give a third party (you seem to think that it should be the Libertarian party, and I tend to agree with you) viability in Washington with our efforts (or rather MY efforts, as you are quite content to lose the fight), or whether it would be easier to convince an existing power to take up our cause. I am not currently trying to start a third party. I think I was very clear in my initial email about the third party talk being theoretical. I am in no position to be in the business of redefining political partisanship, and if I was, I would not have achieved that position by asking opinions of people who assert that crypto anarchy will make governments obsolete in the near future. In short, thank you again for your Andy Rooney moment, but you seem to have abandoned the question completely. ok, Rush Carskadden -Original Message- From: Eric Murray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 27, 2000 1:16 PM To: Carskadden, Rush Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Parties On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 12:54:39PM -0500, Carskadden, Rush wrote: Eric, Yeah, there is the Libertarian party, and they get a lot of electoral votes. In fact, I think that our next president will be Harry Browne. Our work is done. Let's go get a drink. Seriously, what we are discussing here is the feasibility of establishing a credible power base for a third party. I don't think (and maybe you disagree with me here) that the Libertarian party has achieved this at all. I don't think that the current Libertarian party CAN establish this kind of voter confidence. The current presidential candidate for the Libertarian party, Harry Browne, has done little to gain voter enthusiasm with such bold and impractical claims as the statement that his first action in office would be granting executive pardon to drug offenders. Well, that gets my vote! Why should I vote for someone who doesn't stand for what I beleive in just because the media says that they're not electable? That's the kind of loser attitude that's gotten us a contest that'll assuredly elect either an idiot (Bush) or a fool (Gore). Unfortunately Americans are more interested in voting for a winner than they are in voting their concious. A Libertarian Lite party wouldn't get the principled voters away from the Libertarian party and wouldn't get any more mainstream voters than any other third party gets. But if you really want to do it, go ahead. The cipherpunks list isn't a very good place to discuss it though, as most posters seem to think that the Libertarian party isn't radical enough, and besides, crypto anarchy will soon make governments obsolete. -- Eric Murray Consulting Security Architect SecureDesign LLC http://www.securedesignllc.com PGP keyid:E03F65E5
RE: Paranoid Encryption Standard (was Re: Rijndael Hitachi)
Title: RE: Paranoid Encryption Standard (was Re: Rijndael Hitachi) Cool. I have to think about this some more and see if I can provide you with a proof either way, but for now you're right. I am operating entirely on conventional wisdom. That is not sound. My assumption here (offered for your opinion) is that provided a working knowledge of the actual ciphers and a copy of the key (compromised through a weakness in one of the ciphers), that I could use that same key, along with the respective decryption algorithms, to completely unravel all of the encryption. Granted, step-by-step analysis would almost definitely not include plaintext related attacks (as deciphered text from one algorithm simply results in unobfuscated text resulting from the previously implemented cipher), but my knee-jerk reaction here is to think that if one could compromise the last cipher applied and derive the key, then the entire scheme would be blown. If this is the case, then the strength of the entire cipher is only as strong as it's weakest link. On the other hand, I would think that some chain of ciphers that all used different keys (preferably not derivative) would seem stronger to me. At any rate, please keep me posted on your thoughts. ok, Rush Carskadden -Original Message- From: Arnold G. Reinhold [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 27, 2000 3:20 PM To: Carskadden, Rush; Damien Miller Cc: John Kelsey; Bram Cohen; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Paranoid Encryption Standard (was Re: Rijndael Hitachi) At 1:00 PM -0500 10/27/2000, Carskadden, Rush wrote: Are you guys still talking about the feasibility of a cipher that implements each AES candidate in turn with the same key? I don't really get this idea. Provided you were actually using the same key with each stage of the encryption, then your system is only gong to be as secure as the key of the first algorithm. In fact, it seems that if the key is compromised at any one point, then the entire system is shot, given that you know the algorithm (Kerckhoff's principle IIRC). Maybe I am misunderstanding. That is the theoretical question that I am asking. What you say appears to be the conventional wisdom, and I am claiming that it is wrong. As long as there is some way to make sure that none of the ciphers in a chain are inverses of the others, or close to an inverse, in some sense, then I claim as long as one of the ciphers is strong, there is no way to get any information out about the keys from the other ciphers, even if they are all designed to reveal that information. As a practical matter, you may as well derive the sub keys from the master key using a one-way hash, but I am questioning the theoretical justification for doing that. Massey and Maurer base their paper on oracles that give you the key for all component ciphers but one. I am saying such oracles cannot exist if one of the ciphers is strong and inverses of the strong cipher are excluded. Arnold Reinhold
Re: Parties
On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 11:30:26PM +0300, Sampo A Syreeni wrote: On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, Eric Murray wrote: Why should I vote for someone who doesn't stand for what I beleive in just because the media says that they're "not electable"? That's the kind of loser attitude that's gotten us a contest that'll assuredly elect either an idiot (Bush) or a fool (Gore). Unfortunately Americans are more interested in voting for a "winner" than they are in voting their conscious. That's commendable idealism, but in most modern countries the electorial process is practically guaranteed - and in fact mostly designed - to in essence round out dissent. The fact that voting for the loser implies casting your vote for nothing, *even in matters which had nothing to do with the winner being elected*, simply means that there is absolutely no point in voting for someone who cannot win. Of course if everyone feels that way, then we'll elect only the candidates which have been pre-chosen for us. Which is pretty much what happens in the US, at least on a national level. I refuse to play along, especially in contests where I don't like the candidates from the two major parties. I prefer it to not voting at all. If voters don't vote, then the major parties see them as merely apathetic. They don't care how many people don't vote as long at they win. If voters do vote, but for a third party, then the major parties see them as voters who care, but not for them. Meaning that there's an issue or issues which they presumably voted for that the major parties can co-opt in order to try to get their vote the next time. So, while I agree with you that the system is rigged so that third parties never get appreciable power, I disagree that voting for one is a waste of one's vote. -- Eric Murray Consulting Security Architect SecureDesign LLC http://www.securedesignllc.comPGP keyid:E03F65E5
Re: Parties
Sampo writes: On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, Eric Murray wrote: Why should I vote for someone who doesn't stand for what I beleive in just because the media says that they're "not electable"? That's the kind of loser attitude that's gotten us a contest that'll assuredly elect either an idiot (Bush) or a fool (Gore). Unfortunately Americans are more interested in voting for a "winner" than they are in voting their concious. That's commendable idealism, but in most modern countries the electorial process is practically guaranteed - and in fact mostly designed - to in essence round out dissent. The fact that voting for the loser implies casting your vote for nothing, *even in matters which had nothing to do with the winner being elected*, simply means that there is absolutely no That's simply a result of the dim-bulb "first past the post" voting system that the US (and apparently you) endure. In countries with electorates that are expected to be able to count past 1 (eg Australia) they have preferential voting and you can express your preferences from 1 to N (the number of candidates). This allows you to express your preference for libertarian drug-taking pornographers and still have an equal impact on the outcome. Tim
Re: Parties
So, everybody's third choice gets elected, or they take turns holding the office, or what? Weighted voting can work for corporate directors or other committees, but for a chief executive? Even the electoral college sounds better. MacN On Sat, 28 Oct 2000, BENHAM TIMOTHY JAMES wrote: That's simply a result of the dim-bulb "first past the post" voting system that the US (and apparently you) endure. In countries with electorates that are expected to be able to count past 1 (eg Australia) they have preferential voting and you can express your preferences from 1 to N (the number of candidates). This allows you to express your preference for libertarian drug-taking pornographers and still have an equal impact on the outcome. Tim
Enjoy the ride!!!!!!
Do you like playing Blackjack, Video Poker, Slots or Roulette?? What if each game payed out more than 90% - Better than Las Vegas odds? Would you like to play for free?? CLICK HERE Play the BEST Java-games of your choice with the nicest 3D graphics in the internet! That means nothing to download. Play immediately!! This games are fun while easy to use. Plus they have the same rules as Vegas!!! CLICK HERE page - get $10 just for signing up! PLAY NOW by CLICKING HERE CLICK HERE - get $10 just for signing up! We have made contracts with 2 internet casinos that you will benefit from. With each Casino, we have given you $10 to play with just for signing up!!! CLICK HERE So stop on by NOW and check out the best Casino on the internet. NO obligation and we promise fun and excitement. CLICK HERE To be removed CLICK HERE
Re: Hard Shelled ISP?
At 4:37 PM -0400 10/26/00, R. A. Hettinga wrote: At 11:59 AM -0700 on 10/26/00, Ray Dillinger wrote: Here is what I envision, at a cost of something like $10/month. Go find the original archived web page for c2.net? When privacy costs more than no privacy, we have no privacy. Sad, but true. Oh? "When curtains over windows cost more than no curtains over windows, we have no curtains." "When locks on doors cost more than no locks on doors, we have no locks on doors." ...and so on, for a dozen other obvious examples where "privacy" of one form or another costs more than the alternative of no privacy and yet where some, even many, choose the privacy option. The issue with computers and networks is different for a number of reasons. For one thing, most people have poor understandings of what's happening in networks and systems. They assume someone else is doing something to secure them, or they assume the communications must be too difficult to untangle (that is, they don't understand about sniffers, filters, etc.), and they just don't bother to give it much thought. For another, most people have not themelves experience a security problem. While they understand how neighborhood thieves can break in and steal their stuff, they have no similar experience for their computer data. Unless and until this changes, they just won't care very much. Lastly, there's the insurance issue I've written about several times. As with actual physical safes, the motivation for better safes came from insurance companies. (For the obvious reason that insurance companies are conversant with risk, payoffs, and think in terms of unlikely-but-possible events. This means that Joe Merchant sees a "discounted present value" of buying the better Mossler safe.) Sloganeering is always dangerous. First articulated by Epimenides the Cretin (and Cretan). --Tim May -- -:-:-:-:-:-:-: Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
Re: Parties
At 11:16 AM -0700 10/27/00, Eric Murray wrote: On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 12:54:39PM -0500, Carskadden, Rush wrote: Eric, Yeah, there is the Libertarian party, and they get a lot of electoral votes. In fact, I think that our next president will be Harry Browne. Our work is done. Let's go get a drink. Seriously, what we are discussing here is the feasibility of establishing a credible power base for a third party. I don't think (and maybe you disagree with me here) that the Libertarian party has achieved this at all. I don't think that the current Libertarian party CAN establish this kind of voter confidence. The current presidential candidate for the Libertarian party, Harry Browne, has done little to gain voter enthusiasm with such bold and impractical claims as the statement that his first action in office would be granting executive pardon to drug offenders. Well, that gets my vote! Why should I vote for someone who doesn't stand for what I beleive in just because the media says that they're "not electable"? That's the kind of loser attitude that's gotten us a contest that'll assuredly elect either an idiot (Bush) or a fool (Gore). Unfortunately Americans are more interested in voting for a "winner" than they are in voting their concious. I assume you mean "conscience," though many voters are indeed close to unconscious. Anyway, where did you ever get the idea that voting is about "conscience"? A vote is a chance to minimize damage, financial or in terms of freedoms, as far as I'm concerned. Voting has never been about "voting for the best man." It's been about evaluating the alternatives, estimating the rewards, payoffs, costs, and then voting. Needless to say, any single person's vote is hardly worth spending 4 minutes evaluating the issues. (Beware the logical fallacy of "If _everyone_ thought that way..." What one person actually does in the voting booth will affect no other person. This is separable from what people may say on television that they plan to do, or say here, etc.) --Tim May -- -:-:-:-:-:-:-: Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
Dealing with Spam from Esther Dyson
So, Esther Dyson, whom I have never corresponded with, is spamming me with this crap. Any suggestions from Cypherpunks on how to deal with this nuisance? I'm not sure she needs killing, despite her criminal acts with ICANN, but other suggestions are welcome. --Tim May At 10:55 AM -0400 10/27/00, Esther Dyson wrote: Dear Tim May, Intellectual Property on the Net (12/94), the implications of the Web on privacy in Labels and Disclosure, Part II: Privacy (2/97), The Open-Source Revolution (11/98), broadband open access in The Architecture of Internet 2.0 (2-99), new content models in The Web Goes into Syndication (7-8/99), peer-to-peer networking in Data Soup: The Client is the Server (4/00). If you were reading Release 1.0, you would have read about these topics early. That's the mission of Release 1.0, the monthly newsletter I produce with editor Kevin Werbach. We take pleasure not just in filtering the huge amount of news, announcements and products and services that this market produces, but in figuring out what emerging trends mean for you before your competitors do. Subscribe online today at http://www.release1-0.comwww.Release1-0.com and join the other industry leaders who stay ahead of the curve with an annual subscription to Release 1.0. For only $795 you will get: * 11 monthly issues, * a Release 1.0 binder in which to file them, * the PC Forum 2000 transcript (a $300 value), and * a FREE special-edition Release 1.0 baseball cap. Kevin and I fill Release 1.0 with insights on the latest technologies and the companies that are forging our future. For 15 years, we've consistently nailed the big ideas and big trends before they've become the vogue. Isn't it time you joined such industry leaders as John Doerr, Mary Meeker, Ray Ozzie, Marc Andreessen, Michael Dell, Jim Barksdale, Ann Winblad, Martin Nisenholtz, Eric Schmidt and Bill Joy as a Release 1.0 subscriber? Visit http://www.release1-0.comwww.Release1-0.com now and complete the online subscription form. Be sure to use 900ER1 as your personal marketing code to get this great offer. **Sign up before November 15 and get your PC Forum 2001 invitation with your November issue.** At Release 1.0, we will continue to lead the conversation and to keep it lively. I hope you ll join us. What we write about now will start to matter sooner than you think! Sincerely yours, Esther Dyson Editor-in-Chief, Release 1.0 P.S. If you would prefer not to receive any further information about EDventure's activities, please let Joanna (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]) in my office know and we will be sure to remove you from our list. -- -:-:-:-:-:-:-: Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
Re: Dealing with Spam from Esther Dyson
At 6:47 PM -0700 on 10/27/00, Tim May wrote: So, Esther Dyson, whom I have never corresponded with, is spamming me with this crap. Me too. Maybe her people just learned about the majordomo "who" command... Cheers, RAH Clueless is as, etc... -- - R. A. Hettinga mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation http://www.ibuc.com/ 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
more wild things
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/load1.html
Re: Oh Gawd, Tim May...
At 10:44 PM -0400 10/27/00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tim May just spammed the list with a message from Esther Dyson, as if asking for help. Tim May needs killing. Perhaps so. Though two can play your game. I think I have a very good idea who you are. The cool think is that you won't even hear the crack of the rifle shot... --Tim May -- -:-:-:-:-:-:-: Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
Re: Hard Shelled ISP?
At 10:38 PM -0400 10/27/00, R. A. Hettinga wrote: At 5:50 PM -0700 on 10/27/00, Tim May tits a tat or two, in detail...: When privacy costs more than no privacy, we have no privacy. Sad, but true. Oh? "When curtains over windows cost more than no curtains over windows, we have no curtains." "When locks on doors cost more than no locks on doors, we have no locks on doors." and so on... Mostly, when I tossed that one off, I was remembering arguments around here -- more than once -- that anonymity, particularly in anonymous transactions, will *always* cost more than non-anonymous ones. Something I dispute rather heatedly, of course, or I wouldn't be spending so much money, or working so hard, these days to prove otherwise... But then you are tilting at windmills, as no one who is reputable has made such a claim, that anonymity will always cost more than non-anonymity. Sometimes anonymyity costs something. Sometimes traceability (_non_anonymity) has certain benefits worth trading for. Sometimes security costs a lot, sometimes not so much, sometimes almost nothing. In general, these tradeoffs cannot be boiled down to a simple relationship of "anonymity costs more than nonanonymity." As with the lock example, a lock almost always costs more than no lock. But the costs of having no lock may be much higher. Things should not be reduced to simplicities. --Tim May -- -:-:-:-:-:-:-: Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
Dealing with Spam from Esther Dyson
By the way, a few minutes with Google turned up other instances of Esther Dyson's spamming. Here's just one such URL, along with the opening paragraphs: http://channel.nytimes.com/1998/03/28/technology/28dyson.html March 28, 1998 I Got Spammed by Esther Dyson: Release, the Old-Fashioned Way By LISA NAPOLI ecently, I got a note from the publisher of Release 1.0, the venerable newsletter put out by the venerable (and mythic) godmother of all things digital, Esther Dyson. It wasn't a casual e-mail. It wasn't a letter asking me to write for the newsletter. It wasn't even a personal note asking me to have lunch, or attend her annual conference (which took place this week in Tucson, where, for the first time, non-Release subscribers were permitted to attend.) The note was plain old-fashioned snail mail spam, asking me to fork over nearly 700 bucks for a subscription. Dear Lisa, Esther Dyson and Jerry Michalski believe that someone who's achieved your stature in our industry should be part of the Release 1.0 family. That's why they've suggested I write this letter to you. Stature? How did they measure that? Did Jerry Michalski remember sitting at the same table with me at a conference luncheon once? Did Esther ever read my now deceased column, Hyperwocky? Did some computer notice my name on all those mailing lists?
Re: Hard Shelled ISP?
At 7:51 PM -0700 on 10/27/00, Tim May wrote: But then you are tilting at windmills, as no one who is reputable has made such a claim, that anonymity will always cost more than non-anonymity. Actually, Wei Dei, and others of reputation, used to say it here quite frequently... And, no, I don't think I tilt at windmills anymore than than the average cypherpunk. Finally, I think we're both saying the same thing, and you're the one arguing the rather distinctionless difference. viz, At 10:38 PM -0400 10/27/00, R. A. Hettinga wrote: So, to put it another way, when privacy is *cheaper*, on a risk adjusted basis, than we'll have privacy, and not much until then. I expect most of us would agree to that, if they thought about it enough. The "risk adjusted" bit is, of course, the most important one, as noted quite comprehensively, in the above response to a fairly simple, albeit catchy, observation. ...which you seem to have conveniently ignored seemingly to perpetuate the discussion, versus At 7:51 PM -0700 10/27/00, Tim May wrote: As with the lock example, a lock almost always costs more than no lock. But the costs of having no lock may be much higher. The cost of anything is the foregone alternative? Naww... Cheers, RAH -- - R. A. Hettinga mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation http://www.ibuc.com/ 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
Re: Dealing with Spam from Esther Dyson
At 7:45 PM -0700 on 10/27/00, Tim May wrote: You didn't copy her (or the droids who read her mail for her) on your reply. Actually, I did, but I accidently used the bcc field, in mis-copying same. Cheers, RAH -- - R. A. Hettinga mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation http://www.ibuc.com/ 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
Re: Parties
So, everybody's third choice gets elected, or they take turns holding the office, or what? Weighted voting can work for corporate directors or other committees, but for a chief executive? Even the electoral college sounds better. In single transferable vote systems the winner is almost always one of the two candidates with the most first preferences; the minor party candidates get progressively eliminated and the corresponding votes distributed to the next in preference order (instead of being thrown away). In US terms such a system might have got Bush senior over the line against Clinton because he would (I presume) have been preferred by most voters who voted for that fellow with big ears. In the coming election it might help Gore overcome Bush because Gore would be strongly preferred by most voters who are planning to waste their votes on Nadir. A system based on weights would, as you suggest, have an excessive (political) centrist tendency. Tim
Re: Dealing with Spam from Esther Dyson
On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 11:40:07PM -0400, R. A. Hettinga wrote: At 7:45 PM -0700 on 10/27/00, Tim May wrote: You didn't copy her (or the droids who read her mail for her) on your reply. Actually, I did, but I accidently used the bcc field, in mis-copying same. I think her real address is [EMAIL PROTECTED].
LOSE 30 POUNDS IN 30 DAYS, GUARANTEED!
*AMAZING MELT AWAY FAT ABSORBER CAPSULES* LOSE 30 POUNDS IN 30 DAYS... GUARANTEED!!! All Natural Weight-Loss Program, Speeds Up The Metabolism Safely Rated #1 In Both Categories of SAFETY EFFECTIVENESS In (THE USA TODAY) WE'LL HELP YOU GET THINNER IN WINTER!!! WE'RE GOING TO HELP YOU LOOK GOOD, FEEL GOOD AND TAKE CONTROL IN 2000 * Receive 1 Free Bottle Of Ultra Trim 2000 Your Bonus Supply, With Every Order Of 2 Or More Bottles. Offer Good Until November 12, 2000! * WE GLADLY SHIP TO ALL FOREIGN COUNTRIES! You will be losing by tomorrow! Don't Wait, visit our web page below, and join now! * http://weightlossworld.50megs.com/intro.html * This is the easiest, fastest, and most effective way to lose both pounds and inches permanently!!! This weight loss program is designed specifically to "boost" weight-loss efforts by assisting body metabolism, and helping the body's ability to manage weight. A powerful, safe, 30 Day Program. This is one program you won't feel starved on. Complete program for one amazing low price! Program includes: BONUS AMAZING FAT ABSORBER CAPSULES, 30 DAY - WEIGHT REDUCTION PLAN, PROGRESS REPORT, AND MUCH MORE!!! SPECIAL BONUS..."FAT ABSORBERS", AS SEEN ON TV With every order...AMAZING MELT AWAY FAT ABSORBER CAPSULES with directions (1 Month Supply, Absolutely Free ) ...With these capsules you can eat what you enjoy, without the worry of fat in your diet. 2 to 3 capsules 15 minutes before eating or snack, and the fat will be absorbed and passed through the body without the digestion of fat into the body. You will be losing by tomorrow! Don't Wait, visit our web page below, and join now! * http://weightlossworld.50megs.com/intro.html * ___1 Month Supply $32.95 plus $3.75 S H, 100 Amazing MegaTrim Capsules. ___2 Month Supply $47.95 plus $3.75 S H, 200 Amazing MegaTrim Capsules. (A $9.95 Savings, Free Bottle)! ___3 Month Supply $62.95, Plus $3.75 S H, 300 Amazing MegaTrim Capsules. (A $19.90 Savings, Free Bottle)! To Order by postal mail, please send to the below address. Make payable to MegaTrim. Ultra Trim 2000 4132 Pompton Ct. Dayton, Ohio 45405 (937) 567-9807 Order by 24 Hour Fax!!! (775) 414-7455 * Important Credit Card Information! Please Read Below! * Credit Card Address, City, State and Zip Code, must match billing address to be processed. CHECK MONEYORDER VISA MASTERCARD AmericanExpress___ Debt Card___ Name___ (As it appears on Check or Credit Card) Address (As it appears on Check or Credit Card) ___ City,State,Zip(As it appears on Check or Credit Card) ___ Country ___ (Credit Card Number) Expiration Month_ Year_ *IMPORTANT NOTE* If Shipping Address Is Different From The Billing Address Above, Please Fill Out Information Below. Shipping Name__ Shipping Address___ ___ Shipping City,State,Zip ___ Country ___ Email Address Phone Number(Please Write Neat)
Re: Insurance: My Last Post
At 21:56 -0700 10/25/00, Nathan Saper wrote: I don't think your Hitler example applies, because he could not prove that the Jews were causing pain. In any case, my formulation of act utilitarianism seems to suffer from those sorts of attacks less than the normal formulation, and I have yet to find a moral theory as coherant as utilitarianism. He had certainly managed to convince himself. And unfortunately if your using act utilitarianism, he's the only one who has to be convinced. I'm not sure your 10,000 screaming sadists was terribly likely either but I didn't whine about it... -- "As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air--however slight--lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness." -- Justice William O. Douglas Kevin "The Cubbie" Elliott mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ#23758827
Pré-Lançamento de A Caverna
Title: giganetstore.com A Giganetstore.com tem o prazer de lhe apresentar a última obra do Escritor José Saramago Seja o primeiro a entrar em " A Caverna " Disponível a partir de 16 de Novembro Não hesite e Encomende Já ! Os primeiros 20 clientes a comprarem A Caverna de José Saramago, terão direito a 1 convite para o lançamento do livro, que contará com a presença do Nobel da Literatura. A Caverna José Saramago Uma Pequena Olaria, um centro comercial gigantesco. Um mundo em rápido processo de extinção, outro que cresce e se multiplica como um jogo de espelhos onde não parece haver limites para a ilusão enganosa. Este Romance fala de um modo de viver que vai sendo cada vez menos o nosso e assoma-se à entrada de um brave new world cujas consequências sobre a mentalidade humana são cada vez mais visíveis e ameaçadoras. Todos os dias se extinguem espécies animais e vegetatis, todos os dias há profissões que se tormam inúteis, idiomas que deixam de ter pessoas que os falem, tradições que perdem sentido, sentimentos que se convertem nos seus contrários. Fim de século, fim de milénio, fim de civilização.Uma família de oleiros compreende que deixou de ser necessária ao mundo. Como uma serpente que despe a pele para poder crescer noutra que mais adiante se há-de tornar pequena, o centro comercial diz à olaria : " Morre já não preciso de ti ". Em A Caverna José Saramago enfrenta-se ao processo acelerado de desumanização que estamos vivendo, com dois romances anteriores Ensaio Sobre a Cegueira e Todos os Nomes - este novo livro forma um tríptico em que o Autor deixou inscrita a sua visão do mundo actual, da sociedade humana tal como a vivemos. Não mudaremos de vida se não mudarmos a vida. O Autor Obras Publicadas Aproveitamos para o informar que estamos a ampliar o nosso catálogo na categoria de Livros, e que neste momento, também já contamos com a presença da Editora Caminho. Para retirar o seu email desta mailing list deverá entrar no nosso site http://www.giganetstore.com, ir à edição do seu registo e retirar a opção de receber informação acerca das nossas promoções e novos serviços.
Come back to pogo.com!
Title: Dear cypherpunk0, We've missed you! You signed up for our FREE games and prizes, but we haven't seen you on the site in a while. We're inviting you to come back to pogo.com and see all the fun you've been missing. To show how much we care, we'll give you 250 tokens AND a chance to win $500.00 in CASH just for coming back. Account name: cypherpunk0 Password: password Your Token Balance: 1000 Check out some of our newest and most popular games: Bank Buster Lotto(tm) - crack the safe combination and you could take home ONE MILLION DOLLARS! What more do we need to say - it's a chance to win ONE MILLION DOLLARS! Ali Baba Slots(tm) - chat with friends while you win tokens. Get 3 Genies and win the jackpot! This is one of our most popular games; over 500,000 people played in the first month! Buckaroo Blackjack(tm) - blackjack with a twist! Win tokens while you play. Get the Gold Ace and Jack and win the jackpot! This is another of our most popular games; over 300,000 people played in the first month! Jump to the games! To unsubscribe from all pogo.com e-mail, click here.
Re: Dealing with Spam from Esther Dyson
Tim - you have to understand that Esther is trying to remain relevant in a world that increasingly sees her as last years meat rack. Ester knowns me, in fact she spent most of her last trip to Cairo trying to convence lawyers that I should be sued for something. She blames me for scaring off president Mubarak from the ICANN show. The woman is unfortunately paranoid and suffers from persecution dementia. Someday someone may wright a comedy on the lady, I consider it more tragedy. I think Ester would of been happier in life being a common housewife - or dominatrix. Unfortunately she was born into the Dyson clan and as a result has always been pushed to excell. But that has not been the case. On a technological front she is all show - no substance. And that show started early in life. She herself can confirm that her schooling at harvard was for no other purpose then socialization. I think meeting the right people was her angle for attendance. I understand her venture capital positions have mainly failed, her chairmanship of ICANN has been an absolute disaster. She's being disposed as the chair this november - that does not mean ICANN will be a better place - just less blond. She's not a blond you know - but she certainly has disposition of one. But alas Tim - I like her. I think she's sexy in her own special way. Ol gals ya know have some of the softtest skin ;-) Joe On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, Tim May wrote: By the way, a few minutes with Google turned up other instances of Esther Dyson's spamming. Here's just one such URL, along with the opening paragraphs: http://channel.nytimes.com/1998/03/28/technology/28dyson.html March 28, 1998 I Got Spammed by Esther Dyson: Release, the Old-Fashioned Way By LISA NAPOLI ecently, I got a note from the publisher of Release 1.0, the venerable newsletter put out by the venerable (and mythic) godmother of all things digital, Esther Dyson. It wasn't a casual e-mail. It wasn't a letter asking me to write for the newsletter. It wasn't even a personal note asking me to have lunch, or attend her annual conference (which took place this week in Tucson, where, for the first time, non-Release subscribers were permitted to attend.) The note was plain old-fashioned snail mail spam, asking me to fork over nearly 700 bucks for a subscription. Dear Lisa, Esther Dyson and Jerry Michalski believe that someone who's achieved your stature in our industry should be part of the Release 1.0 family. That's why they've suggested I write this letter to you. Stature? How did they measure that? Did Jerry Michalski remember sitting at the same table with me at a conference luncheon once? Did Esther ever read my now deceased column, Hyperwocky? Did some computer notice my name on all those mailing lists? -- Joe Baptista http://www.dot.god/ dot.GOD Hostmaster +1 (805) 753-8697
