from:"Stephen D. Williams"


On 3/26/19 5:05 PM, coderman wrote:


What are you talking about?  Do you assume often?  If you would have read any of my last 30 years of writing on the Internet, you 
would know that I am diametrically opposed to the Catholic mindset, in the sense you are ascribing.  Do your research.



ok.
then tell me: what is this decentralized wrong committed by every human?


I didn't say that there is a decentralized wrong being committed by every human.  You were seemingly arguing against any centralized 
system, that only decentralized systems were valid and workable, or at least were far better.  I disagree, depending on what you 
mean by centralized / decentralized in each sense.


We need, and have, a mostly centralized system of government underpinning, agreed upon law system, economics (largely), science, 
knowledge, etc.  Generally, that allows us to operate very autonomously and in a decentralized way already.  I seldom see, visit, or 
interact with the Federal, State, or even local government.  I usually interact with regulations only as constraints on my decisions 
and others.  Besides paying taxes and benefiting from fixed roads, limits to hazards, etc., I feel very decentralized and 
self-controlled most of the time.  You're arguing that disassembling that centralized / decentralized system into something more 
purely decentralized would be better.  I don't see it.






Pick one or more aspects of your identity, profession, family, etc. Imagine when everyone decides they hate that about you and 
everyone like you.  They do every single thing that centralized laws now almost completely prevent.



give me an example. prove to me that some harm is prevented only in the 
centralized model?


Efficiency.  Trying to create, maintain, and evolve many, many decentralized systems at the pace our centralized legal / information 
/ economic / medicine / scientific / safety / defense system operates would be far less efficient than the system we have now.





i continue to assert this is a cop out - there is nothing fundamentally unique to centralized control which an enlightened public 
cannot achieve (in a more robust manner - this is the argument re: centralization vs. decentralization)


Efficiency.  The most rapid evolution.  It is well-known that society evolves fastest in cities, i.e. centralization of the 
population to create more turns at all interactions which moves things along faster.





You do realize that we've lived through periods like this already, right?  Do you want to be living in the Little House on the 
Prairie when the rustlers happen by, too far for anyone to hear your screams to get help before it is too late?  What do you 
think all of those Western's were about?



we've never lived in a modern decentralized existence. communication is the key.


Our Internet-driven society is the most decentralized that has ever existed, because of good communication.  And we can do much 
better.  Some of what I've been thinking about and working on.





best regards,



sdw

Re: centralized corrections


On 3/26/19 4:48 PM, Kurt Buff - GSEC, GCIH wrote:

On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 4:35 PM coderman  wrote:

Or the global cost of decentralized abuses.  Which could be, and used to be, 
worse.  Name your abuse of choice: it's worse when it's being done everywhere 
to / by everyone.

let's play a game: centralized power to redress cultural wrongs.

assuming that Stephen is speaking of social concerns; a centralized action 
designed to redress cultural norms could be righteous, right?

who can say "Brown v. Board of Education" was not the arc of history?

these are the seductions of centralization - when they accomplish easily what 
is hard fought directly.

to think that centralized power is only utilized for righteous ends is to 
succumb to the fallacy.

no, decentralized malicious actions are not as bad as centralized ones. they 
are, by definition, limited. e.g. within the realm of direct intervention.



Each may seem limited, but in aggregate, their available bandwidth exceeds the 
restricted bandwidth of centralized failures.

Debugging is much easier in your scalable Docker app stack running in AWS then a million individual IoT programs running 
autonomously distributed and uncoordinated.






best regards,

Three quotes from a man of wisdom, which seem apropos here:

The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every
class is unfit to govern. - Lord Acton

It is bad to be oppressed by a minority, but it is worse to be
oppressed by a majority. For there is a reserve of latent power in the
masses which, if it is called into play, the minority can seldom
resist. But from the absolute will of an entire people there is no
appeal, no redemption, no refuge but treason. - Lord Acton

There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of
it. - Lord Acton


+1



Kurt



sdw

Re: Decentralization as Imperatice [was: The Libertarian As Conservative]

On 3/26/19 4:25 PM, coderman wrote:

hello Steven!

you may not want to provoke here, but i welcome your input. in discussions of
personal responsibility you come up lacking.

Really? How is that? What's your proof?

Or the global cost of decentralized abuses. Which could be, and used to be, worse. Name your abuse of choice: it's worse when
it's being done everywhere to / by everyone.

i assume this implies a "native sin". this is Catholic mindset. the idea that
we are born flawed and sinful.

What are you talking about? Do you assume often? If you would have read any of my last 30 years of writing on the Internet, you
would know that I am diametrically opposed to the Catholic mindset, in the sense you are ascribing. Do your research.

i reject this assertion.

we are who we make ourselves to be, through our speech and actions.

Pick one or more aspects of your identity, profession, family, etc. Imagine when everyone decides they hate that about you and
everyone like you. They do every single thing that centralized laws now almost completely prevent. Without anyone to complain to,
all you get to do is complain to your buddies, waiving your guns at many more people waiving their guns back at you.

You do realize that we've lived through periods like this already, right? Do you want to be living in the Little House on the
Prairie when the rustlers happen by, too far for anyone to hear your screams to get help before it is too late? What do you think
all of those Western's were about?

best regards,

Stephen

Re: Decentralization as Imperatice [was: The Libertarian As Conservative]

On 3/26/19 3:40 PM, coderman wrote:

When I first realized that I was already a libertarian, and always had been, in about 1975, it was always quite clear that
Liberals, Leftists, and fellow-travellers hated (or at least strongly disliked) libertarianism. For reasons that are clear
studying the Nolan Chart https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Chart and the World's Smallest Political Quiz.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_Smallest_Political_Quiz

The Right opposed libertarianism because libertarians promoted both personal and economic freedom, while the Right seemed to like
only the latter.
The Left opposed libertarianism because libertarians promoted both personal and economic freedom, while the Left seemed to like
only the former.

That made 'sense', so to speak. Not that the liberals and conservatives
actually made sense.

it is actually more fundamental!

consider that both Right and Left promote the idea of an infallible strong
center, which conveys the laws upon mankind.

Libertarianism is by definition decentralized; delegating decisions to the edge.

given that power corrupts; and absolute centralized power corrupts absolutely, it is clear that both Right and Left are deceptions
by Centralized Power to maintain itself.

the political question at core is this:

centralization? (and abuse of power)
- or -
decentralization (and individual responsibility)

the absurdity of humanity is that our cognitive bias sees only the direct cost of personal responsibility, yet ignores the global
cost of centralized abuses.

Or the global cost of decentralized abuses. Which could be, and used to be, worse. Name your abuse of choice: it's worse when it's
being done everywhere to / by everyone.

best regards,

sdw

Re: Geek captcha

2018-07-16 Thread Stephen D. Williams


Cool!  Good move.

While I have often shared many ideas and improvements online and IRL, I would have been much better off had I shared every idea I 
had early and often.  I try to be much more parsimonious about the things that I save back.  At Collision 2018 in New Orleans 
recently, I made possibly valuable suggestions for improvements and new directions to several startup founders who were all very 
appreciative for things they hadn't thought of or been aware of. Doesn't pay the bills, but it's fun.  My queue is always too long 
anyway.


Stephen

On 7/16/18 1:54 PM, Steven Schear wrote:
I guess I was lucky I got credited, by mentioning online, early concepts for the Warrant Canary and (what became known as) The 
Street Performer Protocol before others.


On Mon, Jul 16, 2018, 1:36 PM Stephen D. Williams mailto:s...@lig.net>> wrote:

Cool! That's a good idea.  I may implement it and similar things soon.  
Just for posterity, I independently invented CAPTCHA,
I think a year before the CMU kids thought of it.  I even began filing a 
patent while at my startup in the late 1990's, but we
ran out of money.  I should have continued, although the situation was 
murky.  Imagine my surprise a couple years later at the
IJCAI AI conferences in Acapulco when the CMU team presented CAPTCHA at an 
extra presentation at the end of the conference.  I
went on a lark because the point of the presentation wasn't clear until I 
was sitting in it.  Just one of the many things I've
thought of / invented that I didn't capitalize on, or give away in a timely 
fashion.  Par for the course; many people will
have similar ideas at similar points in time.

sdw

On 7/14/18 4:50 PM, Steven Schear wrote:

Re: Geek captcha

2018-07-16 Thread Stephen D. Williams

Cool!  That's a good idea.  I may implement it and similar things soon.  Just for posterity, I independently invented CAPTCHA, I 
think a year before the CMU kids thought of it.  I even began filing a patent while at my startup in the late 1990's, but we ran out 
of money.  I should have continued, although the situation was murky.  Imagine my surprise a couple years later at the IJCAI AI 
conferences in Acapulco when the CMU team presented CAPTCHA at an extra presentation at the end of the conference.  I went on a lark 
because the point of the presentation wasn't clear until I was sitting in it.  Just one of the many things I've thought of / 
invented that I didn't capitalize on, or give away in a timely fashion.  Par for the course; many people will have similar ideas at 
similar points in time.


sdw

On 7/14/18 4:50 PM, Steven Schear wrote:

Re: [i...@fsf.org: He invented the Web. Would he give up on free standards?]

On 11/11/16 12:54 PM, Cecilia Tanaka wrote:
>
> On Nov 11, 2016 5:41 PM, "Stephen D. Williams" <s...@lig.net 
> <mailto:s...@lig.net>> wrote:
> >>
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schmuck_(pejorative) 
> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schmuck_%28pejorative%29>
> >
> > As with other words, it can be used endearingly to mostly flip the meaning: 
> > Have a beer, you poor schmuck.
>
> Thanks Stephen!  :)
>

You're welcome.

> When I was a child, I wanted to pet a Schmoo and when Razer wrote 'Schmuck', 
> I thought it would be cute to have a Schmoo named
> Schmuck, hihi!  ;)
>
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shmoo
>
> 'Schmuck Sandwich' sounded pretty yummy until I discover the word's meaning, 
> haha!!  ;D
>
> I always wanted to walking around with a fox since I read "The Little Prince" 
> too.  Now it's possible!  :D
>
> http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-10/fyi-domesticated-foxes
>
> I just need to wait for unicorns, dragons and nyan cats now, hihi!  ;)
>

Just yesterday I read a note from someone who said that they assumed narwhals 
weren't real for 28 years, just realizing that they
were mistaken.

sdw

Re: [i...@fsf.org: He invented the Web. Would he give up on free standards?]

On 11/11/16 12:36 PM, Cecilia Tanaka wrote:
>
> The most bizarre 'benefit' of CypherPunk list to foreign people like me is 
> learning new bad words and adjetives almost all the
> weeks...  :P
>
> Already knowed 'obtuse' because its writting and sound remembers a lot 
> 'obtuso' in Portuguese.  The word is used the same way here.
>
> It's a pity to learn that 'Schmuck' is a bad word.  It's a cute word, sounds 
> pretty good and it would be a great name to some food
> or my future pet.  Meh!  :(
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schmuck_(pejorative) 
> 
>

As with other words, it can be used endearingly to mostly flip the meaning: 
Have a beer, you poor schmuck.

sdw

Re: [i...@fsf.org: He invented the Web. Would he give up on free standards?]

On 11/11/16 12:16 PM, Razer wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/11/2016 12:08 PM, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
>> On 11/11/16 12:05 PM, Razer wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/11/2016 11:12 AM, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
>>>> Specific and well-known historical record is obtuse?  I don't think you 
>>>> know what that word means.
>>>>
>>>> sdw
>>>
>>> Yes I do. It means tangential... surrounded by blather...
>>>
>>> Go look it up. You bury grams of information in pounds of trash talk.
>>
>> No, it doesn't:
>> http://www.dictionary.com/browse/obtuse
>>
>>> adjective
>>>
>>> 1.
>>> not quick or alert in perception, feeling, or intellect; not sensitive or 
>>> observant; dull.
>>
>> sdw
>>
>
>
> Obtuse in a KIND OF ANGLE, STUPID.

Thanks for emphatically clarifying that you didn't know the relevant meaning.  
I would offer to use small words next time, but it is
already a small word.  Btw, even as a math term, it is used "adjectively".

sdw

>
> No wonder you don't make any sense most of the time an our eys all glaze over 
> when you post. Your idiocy in using it adjectively,
> despite the fact that almost NO ONE uses it that way, to fend of criticism of 
> your blather, IS A PRIME EXAMPLE of your Obtuseness,
> adjectively.

>
> Rr
>
>>>
>>> Rr
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 11/11/16 10:54 AM, Razer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dude! You EXEMPLIFY "Obtuse".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/11/2016 10:30 AM, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/11/16 10:19 AM, Razer wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/11/2016 09:33 AM, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Did a Torvalds"?  Are you now saying that Linus didn't contribute 
>>>>>>>> anything significant either?  Oh my.  You are so clueless.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I said or implied nothing of the sort. The implication is he took code 
>>>>>>> he owned and open-sourced it. I think that's pretty
>>>>>>> fucking obvious troll.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You said:
>>>>>>> This is exactly what I mean... CERF DID NOT DEVELOP TCPIP ALONE, hence 
>>>>>>> all sorts of offshoots like TP-K inos, jnos etc b/c a
>>>>>>> ham radio operator who was on the tcipip dev team 'did a Torvalds'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I interpreted that as:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> CERF DID NOT DEVELOP TCPIP ALONE ... [some implied connection] a ham 
>>>>>> radio operator who was on the tcipip dev team 'did a
>>>>>> Torvalds'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I couldn't tell if you were referring to later implementations and use 
>>>>>> of things like KA9Q as somehow affecting the fact that
>>>>>> he designed the protocol a decade or more earlier, or if you were saying 
>>>>>> that he was a ham radio operator on some team who
>>>>>> took all the credit for a team effort as Linus (quite fairly) has.  
>>>>>> Since none of it seems very logical, and the former is
>>>>>> ridiculous, I took my best guess at meaning.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Misunderstanding your poor communication is not trolling.  Being obtuse 
>>>>>> then calling misunderstandings trolling is trolling.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rr
>>>>>>
>>>>>> sdw
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> VC never said he developed TCP/IP alone, which is why I said 
>>>>>>>> co-invented.  Of course there were previous tries at solving
>>>>>>>> networking problems that were learned from, but they were flawed and 
>>>>>>>> we no longer use any of them.  Similarly, every patent
>>>>>>>> depends on the existence of prior ideas, but is recognized as being a 
>>>>>>>> significant leap forward.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vint_Cerf
>>>>>>>>> After rece

Re: [i...@fsf.org: He invented the Web. Would he give up on free standards?]

On 11/11/16 12:05 PM, Razer wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/11/2016 11:12 AM, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
>> Specific and well-known historical record is obtuse?  I don't think you know 
>> what that word means.
>>
>> sdw
>
> Yes I do. It means tangential... surrounded by blather...
>
> Go look it up. You bury grams of information in pounds of trash talk.

No, it doesn't:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/obtuse

> adjective
>
> 1.
> not quick or alert in perception, feeling, or intellect; not sensitive or 
> observant; dull.

sdw

>
> Rr
>
>
>>
>> On 11/11/16 10:54 AM, Razer wrote:
>>>
>>> Dude! You EXEMPLIFY "Obtuse".
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/11/2016 10:30 AM, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
>>>> On 11/11/16 10:19 AM, Razer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/11/2016 09:33 AM, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Did a Torvalds"?  Are you now saying that Linus didn't contribute 
>>>>>> anything significant either?  Oh my.  You are so clueless.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I said or implied nothing of the sort. The implication is he took code he 
>>>>> owned and open-sourced it. I think that's pretty
>>>>> fucking obvious troll.
>>>>
>>>> You said:
>>>>> This is exactly what I mean... CERF DID NOT DEVELOP TCPIP ALONE, hence 
>>>>> all sorts of offshoots like TP-K inos, jnos etc b/c a
>>>>> ham radio operator who was on the tcipip dev team 'did a Torvalds'.
>>>>
>>>> I interpreted that as:
>>>>
>>>> CERF DID NOT DEVELOP TCPIP ALONE ... [some implied connection] a ham radio 
>>>> operator who was on the tcipip dev team 'did a
>>>> Torvalds'.
>>>>
>>>> I couldn't tell if you were referring to later implementations and use of 
>>>> things like KA9Q as somehow affecting the fact that
>>>> he designed the protocol a decade or more earlier, or if you were saying 
>>>> that he was a ham radio operator on some team who took
>>>> all the credit for a team effort as Linus (quite fairly) has.  Since none 
>>>> of it seems very logical, and the former is
>>>> ridiculous, I took my best guess at meaning.
>>>>
>>>> Misunderstanding your poor communication is not trolling.  Being obtuse 
>>>> then calling misunderstandings trolling is trolling.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Rr
>>>>
>>>> sdw
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> VC never said he developed TCP/IP alone, which is why I said 
>>>>>> co-invented.  Of course there were previous tries at solving
>>>>>> networking problems that were learned from, but they were flawed and we 
>>>>>> no longer use any of them.  Similarly, every patent
>>>>>> depends on the existence of prior ideas, but is recognized as being a 
>>>>>> significant leap forward.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vint_Cerf
>>>>>>> After receiving his doctorate, Cerf became an assistant professor
>>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor#Assistant_professor> at 
>>>>>>> Stanford University from 1972–1976, where he conducted
>>>>>>> research on packet network interconnection protocols and co-designed 
>>>>>>> the DoD TCP/IP protocol suite with Kahn.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TCP/IP solved, to a large extent, every core network protocol problem 
>>>>>> that needed to be solved to build a working Internet. 
>>>>>> It is amazing that very few changes were made since the first released 
>>>>>> version.  We all know what we mean by "Vint Cerf
>>>>>> invented the Internet."  We know there was more to it, but what he did 
>>>>>> enabled everything else with an elegant solution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Did a Torvalds"?  Are you now saying that Linus didn't contribute 
>>>>>> anything significant either?  Oh my.  You are so clueless.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're ideology is strange and not very useful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We all wish we could have contributed as centrally to the Internet and 
>>>>>> related

Re: [i...@fsf.org: He invented the Web. Would he give up on free standards?]

Specific and well-known historical record is obtuse?  I don't think you know 
what that word means.

sdw

On 11/11/16 10:54 AM, Razer wrote:
>
> Dude! You EXEMPLIFY "Obtuse".
>
>
> On 11/11/2016 10:30 AM, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
>> On 11/11/16 10:19 AM, Razer wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/11/2016 09:33 AM, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Did a Torvalds"?  Are you now saying that Linus didn't contribute 
>>>> anything significant either?  Oh my.  You are so clueless.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I said or implied nothing of the sort. The implication is he took code he 
>>> owned and open-sourced it. I think that's pretty
>>> fucking obvious troll.
>>
>> You said:
>>> This is exactly what I mean... CERF DID NOT DEVELOP TCPIP ALONE, hence all 
>>> sorts of offshoots like TP-K inos, jnos etc b/c a ham
>>> radio operator who was on the tcipip dev team 'did a Torvalds'.
>>
>> I interpreted that as:
>>
>> CERF DID NOT DEVELOP TCPIP ALONE ... [some implied connection] a ham radio 
>> operator who was on the tcipip dev team 'did a Torvalds'.
>>
>> I couldn't tell if you were referring to later implementations and use of 
>> things like KA9Q as somehow affecting the fact that he
>> designed the protocol a decade or more earlier, or if you were saying that 
>> he was a ham radio operator on some team who took all
>> the credit for a team effort as Linus (quite fairly) has.  Since none of it 
>> seems very logical, and the former is ridiculous, I
>> took my best guess at meaning.
>>
>> Misunderstanding your poor communication is not trolling.  Being obtuse then 
>> calling misunderstandings trolling is trolling.
>>
>>>
>>> Rr
>>
>> sdw
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> VC never said he developed TCP/IP alone, which is why I said co-invented.  
>>>> Of course there were previous tries at solving
>>>> networking problems that were learned from, but they were flawed and we no 
>>>> longer use any of them.  Similarly, every patent
>>>> depends on the existence of prior ideas, but is recognized as being a 
>>>> significant leap forward.
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vint_Cerf
>>>>> After receiving his doctorate, Cerf became an assistant professor
>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor#Assistant_professor> at Stanford 
>>>>> University from 1972–1976, where he conducted
>>>>> research on packet network interconnection protocols and co-designed the 
>>>>> DoD TCP/IP protocol suite with Kahn.
>>>>
>>>> TCP/IP solved, to a large extent, every core network protocol problem that 
>>>> needed to be solved to build a working Internet.  It
>>>> is amazing that very few changes were made since the first released 
>>>> version.  We all know what we mean by "Vint Cerf invented
>>>> the Internet."  We know there was more to it, but what he did enabled 
>>>> everything else with an elegant solution.
>>>>
>>>> "Did a Torvalds"?  Are you now saying that Linus didn't contribute 
>>>> anything significant either?  Oh my.  You are so clueless.
>>>>
>>>> You're ideology is strange and not very useful.
>>>>
>>>> We all wish we could have contributed as centrally to the Internet and 
>>>> related advances.  But that doesn't mean we don't value
>>>> and appreciate those who did.  It could have been much worse in many ways. 
>>>>  We could be paying packet charges to national
>>>> telecoms with only centralized "security", for instance.  We are very very 
>>>> lucky, and not in an anthropic principle way.
>>>>
>>>> sdw
>>>>
>>>> On 11/11/16 9:00 AM, Razer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> This is exactly what I mean... CERF DID NOT DEVELOP TCPIP ALONE, hence 
>>>>> all sorts of offshoots like TP-K inos, jnos etc b/c a
>>>>> ham radio operator who was on the tcipip dev team 'did a Torvalds'.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's like saying Wozniak and Gates developed personal computers. It's 
>>>>> literally idiotic and historically vacant. A stupid-ing
>>>>> down of the history of the internet.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/10/2016 09:03 PM, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
>>>>>>

Re: [i...@fsf.org: He invented the Web. Would he give up on free standards?]

On 11/11/16 10:19 AM, Razer wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/11/2016 09:33 AM, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
>
>> "Did a Torvalds"?  Are you now saying that Linus didn't contribute anything 
>> significant either?  Oh my.  You are so clueless.
>>
>
> I said or implied nothing of the sort. The implication is he took code he 
> owned and open-sourced it. I think that's pretty fucking
> obvious troll.

You said:
> This is exactly what I mean... CERF DID NOT DEVELOP TCPIP ALONE, hence all 
> sorts of offshoots like TP-K inos, jnos etc b/c a ham
> radio operator who was on the tcipip dev team 'did a Torvalds'.

I interpreted that as:

CERF DID NOT DEVELOP TCPIP ALONE ... [some implied connection] a ham radio 
operator who was on the tcipip dev team 'did a Torvalds'.

I couldn't tell if you were referring to later implementations and use of 
things like KA9Q as somehow affecting the fact that he
designed the protocol a decade or more earlier, or if you were saying that he 
was a ham radio operator on some team who took all the
credit for a team effort as Linus (quite fairly) has.  Since none of it seems 
very logical, and the former is ridiculous, I took my
best guess at meaning.

Misunderstanding your poor communication is not trolling.  Being obtuse then 
calling misunderstandings trolling is trolling.

>
> Rr

sdw

>
>
>
>> VC never said he developed TCP/IP alone, which is why I said co-invented.  
>> Of course there were previous tries at solving
>> networking problems that were learned from, but they were flawed and we no 
>> longer use any of them.  Similarly, every patent
>> depends on the existence of prior ideas, but is recognized as being a 
>> significant leap forward.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vint_Cerf
>>> After receiving his doctorate, Cerf became an assistant professor 
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor#Assistant_professor>
>>> at Stanford University from 1972–1976, where he conducted research on 
>>> packet network interconnection protocols and co-designed
>>> the DoD TCP/IP protocol suite with Kahn.
>>
>> TCP/IP solved, to a large extent, every core network protocol problem that 
>> needed to be solved to build a working Internet.  It
>> is amazing that very few changes were made since the first released version. 
>>  We all know what we mean by "Vint Cerf invented the
>> Internet."  We know there was more to it, but what he did enabled everything 
>> else with an elegant solution.
>>
>> "Did a Torvalds"?  Are you now saying that Linus didn't contribute anything 
>> significant either?  Oh my.  You are so clueless.
>>
>> You're ideology is strange and not very useful.
>>
>> We all wish we could have contributed as centrally to the Internet and 
>> related advances.  But that doesn't mean we don't value
>> and appreciate those who did.  It could have been much worse in many ways.  
>> We could be paying packet charges to national
>> telecoms with only centralized "security", for instance.  We are very very 
>> lucky, and not in an anthropic principle way.
>>
>> sdw
>>
>> On 11/11/16 9:00 AM, Razer wrote:
>>>
>>> This is exactly what I mean... CERF DID NOT DEVELOP TCPIP ALONE, hence all 
>>> sorts of offshoots like TP-K inos, jnos etc b/c a ham
>>> radio operator who was on the tcipip dev team 'did a Torvalds'.
>>>
>>> It's like saying Wozniak and Gates developed personal computers. It's 
>>> literally idiotic and historically vacant. A stupid-ing
>>> down of the history of the internet.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/10/2016 09:03 PM, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
>>>> On 11/10/16 7:39 PM, Razer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/10/2016 03:14 PM, Mr Harkness quoted some schmuck:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Twenty-five years ago, Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've seen this claim about a number of different people and you know? 
>>>>> It's about as ignorant a thing to say as I can imagine.
>>>>> One person inventing the WWW... ROTF!
>>>>>
>>>>> MAYBE the TERM "WWW".
>>>>>
>>>>> Rr
>>>>
>>>> There are a number of well-known cases of specific individuals inventing 
>>>> or co-inventing specific components of the Internet
>>>> and protocols on it.  TBL invented the World Wide Web in a core and 
>>>> well-known specific sense.  Most of us have read all about
>>>> it and a few of us were experiencing it real-time, switching from FTP, 
>>>> telnet, and Archie to Mosaic w/ web pages.  Vint Cerf
>>>> co-invented TCP/IP, commonly summarized as "invented the Internet".  I 
>>>> don't know of anyone else who is said to have "invented
>>>> the World Wide Web".  There were people who earlier suggested some kind of 
>>>> linked shared information, like Ted Nelson.
>>>>
>>>> http://webfoundation.org/about/vision/history-of-the-web/
>>>>
>>>> sdw
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: Countervail: 'Progressive-liberal Fascism Rears It's Ugly Head In The "Sharing Economy"'

Nice, thanks.  I'm from a small (11,000 then, 10,000 now) town in Ohio which, 
probably now and definitely when I grew up there, was
>99.9% white: there was a single black family in the whole town.  No Asians, no 
>Hispanics.

sdw

On 11/11/16 10:16 AM, Razer wrote:
> That post on twitter got all sorts of RTs by Trump's HitCrew attacking 
> GrubHub.
> Some of the accounts exist solely to attack GrubHub. Those are reported as 
> Spam.
>
>
> I send this to the accounts that seem to be personally manned, and then block.
>
> #Trumpism Roots: "My high school had more convicted sex predator teachers 
> than minority teachers"
>  
>
>> I’m from the rural Midwest. I now live in Washington, D.C. All of this talk 
>> about coastal elites needing to understand more of
>> America has it backward.
>>
>> My home county in Ohio is 97 percent white. It, like a lot of other very 
>> unrepresentative counties, went heavily for Donald Trump.
>>
>> My high school had about 950 students. Two were Asian. One was Hispanic. 
>> Zero were Muslim. All the teachers were white.
>>
>> My high school had more convicted sexual predator teachers than minority 
>> teachers. That’s a rural American story.
>>
>> In many of these areas, the only Muslims you see are in movies like 
>> “American Sniper.” (I knew zero Muslims before going to
>> college in another state.) You never see gay couples or even interracial 
>> ones. Much of rural and exurban American is a time
>> capsule to America’s past.
>>
>> And on Tuesday, Nov. 8, 2016, they dug it up.
>>
>> The first gay person I knew personally was my college roommate — a great man 
>> who made me a better person. But that’s an
>> experience I would have never had if I didn’t go to college and instead 
>> decided to live the rest of my life in my hometown.
>>
>> That was when I realized that not supporting gay marriage meant to actively 
>> deny rights to someone I knew personally. I wouldn’t
>> be denying marriage rights to other people; I would be denying marriage 
>> rights to Dave. I would have to look Dave in the eye and
>> say, “Dave, you deserve fewer rights than me. You deserve a lesser human 
>> experience.”
>>
>> When you grow up in rural America, denying rights to people is an abstract 
>> concept. Denying marriage rights to gay people isn’t
>> that much different than denying boarding rights to Klingons.
>
>
> http://www.rollcall.com/news/opinion/im-a-coastal-elite-from-the-midwest-the-real-bubble-is-rural-america

Re: [i...@fsf.org: He invented the Web. Would he give up on free standards?]

VC never said he developed TCP/IP alone, which is why I said co-invented.  Of 
course there were previous tries at solving networking
problems that were learned from, but they were flawed and we no longer use any 
of them.  Similarly, every patent depends on the
existence of prior ideas, but is recognized as being a significant leap forward.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vint_Cerf
> After receiving his doctorate, Cerf became an assistant professor 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor#Assistant_professor> at
> Stanford University from 1972–1976, where he conducted research on packet 
> network interconnection protocols and co-designed the
> DoD TCP/IP protocol suite with Kahn.

TCP/IP solved, to a large extent, every core network protocol problem that 
needed to be solved to build a working Internet.  It is
amazing that very few changes were made since the first released version.  We 
all know what we mean by "Vint Cerf invented the
Internet."  We know there was more to it, but what he did enabled everything 
else with an elegant solution.

"Did a Torvalds"?  Are you now saying that Linus didn't contribute anything 
significant either?  Oh my.  You are so clueless.

You're ideology is strange and not very useful.

We all wish we could have contributed as centrally to the Internet and related 
advances.  But that doesn't mean we don't value and
appreciate those who did.  It could have been much worse in many ways.  We 
could be paying packet charges to national telecoms with
only centralized "security", for instance.  We are very very lucky, and not in 
an anthropic principle way.

sdw

On 11/11/16 9:00 AM, Razer wrote:
>
> This is exactly what I mean... CERF DID NOT DEVELOP TCPIP ALONE, hence all 
> sorts of offshoots like TP-K inos, jnos etc b/c a ham
> radio operator who was on the tcipip dev team 'did a Torvalds'.
>
> It's like saying Wozniak and Gates developed personal computers. It's 
> literally idiotic and historically vacant. A stupid-ing down
> of the history of the internet.
>
>
> On 11/10/2016 09:03 PM, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
>> On 11/10/16 7:39 PM, Razer wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/10/2016 03:14 PM, Mr Harkness quoted some schmuck:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Twenty-five years ago, Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web.
>>>
>>> I've seen this claim about a number of different people and you know? It's 
>>> about as ignorant a thing to say as I can imagine.
>>> One person inventing the WWW... ROTF!
>>>
>>> MAYBE the TERM "WWW".
>>>
>>> Rr
>>
>> There are a number of well-known cases of specific individuals inventing or 
>> co-inventing specific components of the Internet and
>> protocols on it.  TBL invented the World Wide Web in a core and well-known 
>> specific sense.  Most of us have read all about it and
>> a few of us were experiencing it real-time, switching from FTP, telnet, and 
>> Archie to Mosaic w/ web pages.  Vint Cerf co-invented
>> TCP/IP, commonly summarized as "invented the Internet".  I don't know of 
>> anyone else who is said to have "invented the World Wide
>> Web".  There were people who earlier suggested some kind of linked shared 
>> information, like Ted Nelson.
>>
>> http://webfoundation.org/about/vision/history-of-the-web/
>>
>> sdw
>>
>

Re: [i...@fsf.org: He invented the Web. Would he give up on free standards?]

2016-11-10 Thread Stephen D. Williams

On 11/10/16 7:39 PM, Razer wrote:
>
> On 11/10/2016 03:14 PM, Mr Harkness quoted some schmuck:
>
>
>> Twenty-five years ago, Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web.
>
> I've seen this claim about a number of different people and you know? It's 
> about as ignorant a thing to say as I can imagine. One
> person inventing the WWW... ROTF!
>
> MAYBE the TERM "WWW".
>
> Rr

There are a number of well-known cases of specific individuals inventing or 
co-inventing specific components of the Internet and
protocols on it.  TBL invented the World Wide Web in a core and well-known 
specific sense.  Most of us have read all about it and a
few of us were experiencing it real-time, switching from FTP, telnet, and 
Archie to Mosaic w/ web pages.  Vint Cerf co-invented
TCP/IP, commonly summarized as "invented the Internet".  I don't know of anyone 
else who is said to have "invented the World Wide
Web".  There were people who earlier suggested some kind of linked shared 
information, like Ted Nelson.

http://webfoundation.org/about/vision/history-of-the-web/

sdw

Re: Jake and Tor article

2016-10-12 Thread Stephen D. Williams

Thanks, cool!

On 10/12/16 11:15 AM, Cecilia Tanaka wrote:
>
> On Oct 12, 2016 12:21 PM, "Razer"  > wrote:
> >
> > HAHAHAHAHAHJHHA! ((espanol) JAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA!
>
> Now rooty will create a new conspiracy theory with the subject  "Razer = 
> juan" and the dramatic advertency "You have been warned",
> aff...  :(
>
> *  Bonus Hahaha!!  -  
> http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/12/5-or-how-to-laugh-online-in-other-languages/266175/
>
> *  Bonus Subversive Unicorn:  -  
> https://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-image-pooping-unicorn-smiling-rainbow-sky-image39768836
>

Re: email catch all domains - was Re: [WAR] Leaked recording proves John Kerry pushed for massive war in Syria, while Saudi Arabia and Turkey funded Al Qaeda

2016-10-03 Thread Stephen D. Williams

Yes, I've always done this.  The other downside is that the anti-spam laws were 
not designed to protect people in this mode: You can
only unsub one address at a time, not a whole domain.  Automation can help 
that, but it is a pain.

Email clients are spotty on multiple identity support.  Thunderbird supports 
many accounts and identities, but it can get a little
confused sometimes.  The biggest bug gotcha is that when you resume a draft, it 
will often choose a random from identity.  I've
accidentally mixed up realms in ways I seriously did not intend.  I try to 
address check every message.  I've been meaning to dig
into Thunderbird to fix it, but low on my priority list.

sdw

On 10/3/16 2:59 PM, z...@freedbms.net wrote:
> For those not yet familiar with the convenience and utility of email
> catch-all domains, they provides very convenient "canary" flagging of
> who sold your email address to a third party marketer.
>
> I.e., when you make a purchase at ebaysmells.com, and your email address
> is for example ebaysmells@myfunkydomain.me, then when, some months
> later you receive an email from Zhing Wha Good Electronics $2 sale, and
> that email is sent to ebaysmells@myfunkydomain.me, you can have a
> fair idea that either ebaysmells.com, or the shop/person you made your
> original purchase from, is attempting to make opportunistic use of your
> email address.
>
> There are a couple issues with this feature however, which are mostly
> evident to anyone who uses them:
>
> - When you are legimitely emailed from the web shop, news media provider
>   or other, then one wants or often enough actually needs, to reply to
>   the sender using as a From address, the To address they used to email
>   you. Not doing so can easily mean no response as your normal email
>   address gets completely lost and not tracked in their CRM system.
>
> - As one solution, some email clients can be configured to always reply
>   From the same address To which the email was sent.
>
> - This gives rise to the next problem which I keep slipping up on since
>   I changed my MUA config, that my canary email addresses are being used
>   as the From address when I forward emaisl, rather than just when I
>   reply which is what I thought I'd configured. This may not be
>   configurable, which would mean remembering to manually change the From
>   address every time I forward an email.
>
>
> I send this in the expectation that some may like to be aware of this
> feature of domain management, when you own/ control your own domain.
> Being able to rattle off a random (to the other person) but traceable
> (by you) email address at conferences, to business people etc, is quite
> a handy thing to be able to do.
>
> Enjoy,
> Zenaan
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 10:31:10AM -0700, Sean Lynch wrote:
>> I see Zenaan has dropped the pretense of not working for Russia Insider!
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 5:55 PM, justa 
>> wrote:


sdw

America is an Idea

2016-09-28 Thread Stephen D. Williams

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfuOOwJxsdU

So, to make this on topic, how are these best embodied, supported, protected, 
and/or extended by code, algorithms, policy, and
various types of security?

1. You and me are created equal - an economic recession need not become an 
equality recession
2. The idea that life is not meant to be endured, but to be enjoyed.
3. The idea that if we have dignity, have justice, then leave it to us, we'll 
do the rest.

sdw

Re:

2016-09-26 Thread Stephen D. Williams

On 9/26/16 12:38 PM, Sean Lynch wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 12:27 PM, Stephen D. Williams <s...@lig.net 
> <mailto:s...@lig.net>> wrote:
>
> On 9/26/16 11:35 AM, Sean Lynch wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Xer0Dynamite 
>> <dreamingforw...@gmail.com <mailto:dreamingforw...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Like Lessig's "Code is Law".   LAW is also CODE:  it's the Operating
>> System for your Government.  Presently:  bloated and with a few 
>> design
>> flaws.   Fortunately, it's Open Source.  Muhahhhwhahaaa
>>
>>
>> This is almost worthy of being called THE "Geek Fallacy." It is why 
>> people who seem otherwise smart are so often statists.
>> They love systems and they make the mistake of thinking government is 
>> just a machine and that all it needs is better code.
>> But that's totally false. Human organizations are NOT MACHINES, at least 
>> nothing nearly so simple as a computer. They are run
>> not by code but by people responding to incentives. If you want to see 
>> what their programming is, look not at the laws but at
>> the incentives people are responding to. "Programming" such a beast 
>> looks far more like biological evolution than it does
>> like programming a computer.
>>
>> This, by the way, is why our legislation is so complex. You cannot tell 
>> the goal of a piece of legislation by reading it. You
>> can watch it in operation and see what happens, and you can try to 
>> understand the incentives of the people who wrote it and
>> voted on it, but that's it. For the most part, if a law gets passed and 
>> then doesn't get changed, in all probability the
>> intent of the law is precisely what its effect is.
>
> All of that is still programming.  Parenting is programming.  Culture is 
> programming.  A speech is programming.  Up to a
> certain age / experience / introspectiveness it is hard to see various 
> things as programming people, but eventually it becomes
> obvious how much that is true.  Certain people are naturally (or through 
> happenstance become advanced) in understanding and
> manipulating others, or at least being able to if and when the need or 
> desire to.  Many use this sparingly and for the good of
> those people; others take advantage of others.  The skill and related 
> contexts are real.  The TV series "The Mentalist" is
> completely about this.
>
> I generally agree about intent of laws, although some percentage of time 
> unintended consequences, good or bad from various
> points of view, can lock in a law that ended up much different than the 
> original intent.  Some very good laws were partly
> passed after key provisions were added that were expected to be 
> outlandish enough to kill it, but passed anyway.
>
>
> My problem with viewing any of this as programming is that you can look at a 
> computer's code and predict what it will do. You
> cannot do that with any of the other things you're calling "programming" 
> there. The closest analogy might be trying to program a
> broken computer built by an insane genius in a language you don't actually 
> understand but that looks like English. You know what
> the words mean but you have no idea what will happen when they're actually 
> run. Oh, and by the way, there's a bunch of extra
> firmware there you have no access to and that's changing all the time.

Sounds like Windows programming to me...  But, more to the point: Just because 
it is fuzzy, probabilistic, competitive influence
programming doesn't mean it isn't programming.  It's not simple, easy, shallow 
programming, but that's half the fun.

This is also programming, somewhat analogously:

http://deeplearning.net/

sdw

Re: Little Brother, Re: Switching gears

2016-09-21 Thread Stephen D. Williams

On 9/21/16 10:59 AM, xorc...@sigaint.org wrote:
>> That's called "Little Brother"; we (for various forms of "we") have talked
>> about it a lot.
> Heh. Kinda funny. I called it "Little Sister" when I mentioned it to my
> buddy.

I like that.  Perhaps the well-designed incarnation should be "Little Sister" 
to be more opposite and less threatening than "Big
Brother".

>
> Yeah, those are good points you make. A voting system that could
> downvote/purge irrelevant/private clips would be good. It should be motion
> captured, to preserve storage/bandwidth.
>
> Of course you're right that there are implications for misuse. I'm not
> sure thats a deal-breaker for me, exactly, criminal types will use their
> own tech to case a joint anyhow. Sure, maybe it lowers the bar, but there
> seem to be adequate payoffs.
>
> My main concern is the privacy implications, and the social implications,
> of people who get accustomed to always being on cam. I see it evolving to
> a type of super-amped up example of the Japanese concepts of honne (true
> sound)/ tatemae (facade). Honne being "how one truly is" and tatemae "how
> one presents themself in society." All cultures have such concepts, but
> for the Japanese, they were, and are, very deeply ingrained and felt,
> including nuance for different levels, and things one never says even to
> their closest associates.

In the US, we've essentially decided that a wide range of things that used to 
be private are more or less fine to be public. 
Generally, at least in certain areas, it isn't a negative and can even be 
positive in some ways sometimes.  The fact that some laws
are changing and the broader public is becoming more sophisticated helps a lot. 
 A few obvious examples: sexuality (now legal), soft
drugs (more legal), not being religious, 50 Shades et al, porn, nudity, sex 
tapes.  All of those required strict privacy and
partitioning in the past.

> I don't know that those are trades I'm willing to make.
>
> The black bloc tactic of smashing cameras isn't bad, except like most of
> their tactics, it just won't scale. It's great for young adults with
> plenty of piss and vinegar in their veins, but its not going to attract
> the masses. I'm not worried about attracting the anarchist kids willing to
> get facial ink to make sure they can't get a proper job and "sell out" or
> willing to do a stint in the clink. They're going to be alright.
>
> I'm more concerned with getting to the critical mass of mainstream folks.
> Your points about providing a free type of security monitoring solution
> for their homes might help attract them, with the side-benefits being that
> it can undermine a state monopoly on surveillance.
>
> Still.. the social costs scare me. But those costs may very well get paid
> whether an open system exists, or not.
>
>

sdw

Re: Switching gears

2016-09-21 Thread Stephen D. Williams

I can identify with that view somewhat.  What used to be the case was that 
people would heavily scrutinize, gossip, report, etc.
what others were doing.  That was a tyranny of sorts too.  By having more 
photos, video, and social sharing of all kinds, a much
wider range of life was exposed as being normal, harmless, tolerated, etc.  
That trend is only going to continue.

The privacy laws in Europe seem good-hearted.  Hopefully they will turn out 
well.  Not sure that could work in the US, except by
convention.

I've been a bit of a photographer for a long time.  There is a lot of 
psychology about things, and it has been evolving.  And there
have been some funny missteps: Google Glass created a backlash while nobody 
cares at all if you have a GoPro running.  There is
etiquette about taking someone's picture, with reactions varying widely.  One 
interesting detail is that if you aren't looking at
someone, they generally don't care if you take their picture.  I have a few 
spherical cameras that I use as a tourist or in races.

On 9/21/16 10:42 AM, Tom wrote:
> I disagree.
>
> One cannot fight a tyranny (let's face it: a surveillance state is
> indeed a tyranny) this way. For example, in the EU this kind of stuff is
> just forbidden. And with whatever you might come up with, they'll criminalize
> it, 0.1% of the "offenders" will be punished and the rest of the
> populace will surrender.
>
> Therefore, the one and only effective way to get back freedom is to
> shutdown the tyranny. Maybe weapons are required, like in the US
> independence war, maybe a massive amount of people is required, like we
> east germans did in 1989.
>
> Anything else are illusions.
>
>
>
> Tom

sdw

Re: Legal vs lawful vs moral; legally sanctioned yet immoral

On 9/15/16 2:23 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 01:36:18AM -0700, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
>> On 9/15/16 1:12 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 11:20:31PM -0700, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
>>>> On 9/14/16 8:34 PM, grarpamp wrote:
>>>>> Leaking paper is one thing, disassembling the quiet
>>>>> handshakes and luncheons of conspiracy is another.
>>>> Much of what corporations do is legal, whether you like it or not.
>>> Legal, as in compliant with their statutory right to financially pillage
>>> and legally bully their way around arbitrary "privilege" monopolies,
>>> yes.
>>>
>>> Lawful, as in compliant with the common man's sense of right and wrong
>>> (the "common law" or "community law"),
>>> no!
>> I think common law could be defined more precisely.  There has always
>> been a gap between what was considered illegal and what seemed unfair
>> to someone.
> Very willing to hear your draft of clarification on these terms!
>
> Give a shot, and then perhaps others can tweak your draft.

This is my current favorite summary of law for a few purposes.  I was just 
clearing up confusion about the legal jargon "controlling
legal authorities" which consistently confuses non-legal-geeks.

Note the pedigree: Thurgood Marshall Law Library Guide to Legal Research – 2016 
- 2017
https://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/researchguides/tmllguide/chapter1.pdf
> RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STATUTORY LAW AND CASE LAW
> Legal systems in Great Britain and the United States were originally centered 
> around case law, or judge-made law. The term common
> law refers to judge-made law that is found in judicial opinions. Judges hear 
> cases involving particular parties, then issue
> decisions based on available precedent and on their own initiative in the 
> absence of prior decisions. The notion that a common law
> existed that reflected the generally accepted values and practices of a 
> society, and upon which judges drew to decide individual
> disputes, was behind this reliance on judge-made law.
> The law in some subject areas still consists primarily of common law. In 
> recent years, however, legislatures and administrative
> agencies have become much more active in the law-making process. Present-day 
> legislatures adopt statutes affecting a broad range
> of activities. Some of these statutes may preempt earlier court decisions, 
> either as a result of a deliberate action on the part
> of a legislature or inadvertently. For example, if the legislature disagrees 
> with a court interpretation, the legislature can
> amend an existing
> statute, or enact a new statute, clarifying the particular issue upon which 
> there is disagreement.
> Administrative agencies, created and empowered by statute to carry out 
> mandates, have also become extremely active in promulgating
> regulations that carry the force of law. Most such agencies also have the 
> authority to issue rulings and interpretations of
> regulations, and to conduct hearings adjudicating disputes under their 
> jurisdiction. 
> Under the balance of power inherent in our system, courts can declare 
> statutes and regulations to be unconstitutional if they
> exceed constitutional authority or if they conflict with constitutional 
> provisions. Thus the universe of potential authority for
> conducting research on a specific problem has broadened considerably from the 
> days when case law comprised the bulk of legal
> authority. Even so, judicial opinions, whether they draw upon earlier common 
> law precedent or apply or interpret statutes or
> regulations, are still a major source of law for the researcher. The complete 
> picture can only be gained by reading the applicable
> statutes and regulations in conjunction with relevant cases. 

So, commonly, "common law" is case law, i.e. based on explicit decisions of 
judges.  They may base their decisions on a more general
sense of common law, but only judges can do this with any meaning.  Non-judges 
may think there is some principle that amounts to a
concept in "common law", but it carries no weight unless a judge specifically 
agrees in a context that applies to you and trumps
other legal authorities, a "common law" "controlling legal authority" in other 
words.  If you read a bit more there, they clarify
primary legal authority, both mandatory and persuasive, and secondary legal 
authority, opinions which are less weighty persuasive
legal authority.

So, an appeal to "common law" that has any usefulness must cite some legal 
authority, ideally a mandatory controlling legal authority.

You may or may not have noti

Re: Legal vs lawful vs moral; legally sanctioned yet immoral

On 9/15/16 1:12 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 11:20:31PM -0700, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
>> On 9/14/16 8:34 PM, grarpamp wrote:
>>> Leaking paper is one thing, disassembling the quiet
>>> handshakes and luncheons of conspiracy is another.
>> Much of what corporations do is legal, whether you like it or not.
> Legal, as in compliant with their statutory right to financially pillage
> and legally bully their way around arbitrary "privilege" monopolies,
> yes.
>
> Lawful, as in compliant with the common man's sense of right and wrong
> (the "common law" or "community law"),
> no!

I think common law could be defined more precisely.  There has always been a 
gap between what was considered illegal and what seemed
unfair to someone.

>
>
>> Actual conspiracies are seldom needed
> A fluffy and largely useless statement.
>
> Actual conspiracies are every day occurrences, widespread to the point
> of being universal.
>
>From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48
>[gcide]:
>Conspire \Con*spire"\, v. t.
>   To plot; to plan; to combine for.
>   [1913 Webster]
> Angry clouds conspire your overthrow.--Bp. Hall.
>   [1913 Webster]

In this context, I took that to mean 'illegal conspiracy', which has a much 
more specific meaning.  Using the general meaning to
justify the statement when that statement will be taken as indicating criminal 
conspiracies is misleading.

>
>> and usually not worth the
>> risk.
> People talk and plot in private, including corporate "leaders".
And usually there is nothing wrong with that.

>
> --Especially-- corporate leaders.
>
> Talking and plotting -is- conspiring.
But not necessarily illegal conspiracy.

>
>
> Example:
>To conspire with other self interested corporate executives, to
>combine bribery capacity (lobbying), to cause -unlawful- laws to be
>passed by parliament, which institute 10 years jail time punishments
>for sharing a file by bittorrent;
>
>Such punishment being thereafter deemed as "legal" punishment, even
>though such punishment is not, and would never be, lawful by the
>moral standards of the community (cruel and unusual punishment,
>punishment which does not fit the crime, punishment not comparable to
>punishment for other crimes e.g. rape, murder, tanking the economy
>("white collar" crime)).

I can see that, although it seems weak.  And it is rebuttable by the right 
campaign.

>
>
> Stephen, you are brainwashed, and purveying your brainwashing upon
> others.
>
> The part of that which I personally, vehemently, object to, is that you
> do so with an endless air of authority.

I claim familiarity with certain things, and demand clarity, logic, and 
specifics in any argument.  I make little or no claims of
authority beyond certain first hand knowledge, experience, and conclusions 
after reading authoritative sources.  More solidly
grounded specifics will always have an air of authority over vague hand waving 
and ad hominem attacks.  I can't really help that.

>
> And with seemingly endless pro-statist views.

I'm not all that pro-statist, but I also don't ignore what is working or 
blindly denigrate systems that should and could work
better.  Often things somewhat broken can be fixed rather than tearing down 
everything that is working out of spite and blind rage. 
Alternatives to everything should be considered, but alternatives aren't better 
simply because they are alternative; there has to be
some reasoning and proof of some kind.

>> Many abuses have come to light, usually with a pretty good downside
>> for the corporation.  Harder to get away with really bad stuff than it
>> used to be.
> It's getting easier and easier for corporations to do bad stuff legally.
> They lobby, they get their pet "laws" (unlawful though they are) passed,
> and thereafter their crimes falling under those laws are "legal", even
> though they remain as crimes, and remain immoral.

Plenty of this has just been exposed in the last few years.  Some of that will 
no longer work.  There are some cases of this still.

>
>
>>>> Ioerror.
>>>> Institutional assassination
>>> Precisely. And it's disgusting.
>> What are the worst things that corporate heads and politicians are
>> getting away with?
> Endless encroachment upon our individual sovereign rights with "laws",
> making their immoral activities and enforcements against our individual
> sovereign rights, legal.

OK.
>> What's your proposed solution?  What's your proposed cypherpunkian
>> solution?
> Well, there ar

Re: UK: Censors, Tracks and Balkanizes Its Internet; 10yrs for Pirates

On 9/14/16 11:11 PM, oshwm wrote:
> The UK Gov has spent two generations indoctrinating people right from birth 
> that privacy is only for bad people, big corporations
> will look after them, gov dependency is a good thing, debt is a good thing, 
> politics is of no interest and too complicated for
> them etc etc
>
> Only subversive types would think otherwise and so any of you opposing their 
> plans are quite simply extremists and terrorists.

Did the movie V for Vendetta play in the UK much?

We do hear surprising things, like self defense being practically outlawed.

We've gone mostly the other way.  We're chock full of subversives and 
subversive preparation in case it is needed.  This takes a
number of forms, including guns, stand your ground laws, etc.  Just the other 
day someone was showing me his handgun, complete with
silencer.  Legal and licensed for concealed carry in that state, including the 
silencer.

The worst problems, in places like Chicago and parts of Oakland, are that whole 
areas have gone somewhat subversive and rogue, at
least at certain times.  This could be thought of as undirected subversiveness. 
 Google 'sideshows Oakland' for some interesting videos.

>
> Unless the peoples minds can be 'reprogrammed' then those of us subversive 
> types who have somehow avoided being brainwashed will
> become criminals according to the state.

American TV and movies don't help?  ;-)

>
> So, Brits on the list, expect a bumpy ride.
>
>
> On 15 September 2016 00:07:44 GMT+01:00, grarpamp  wrote:
>
> The 90's was simple existance, not the depth of mass application. If 
> people
> think the 90's was the last fight, or a big fight, or some kind of
> defining success,
> it's suggested they're terribly mistaken. The application is causing 
> govt's and
> useless legacy power structures worldwide to lose some control in certain 
> areas,
> and they're approaching panic mode. When an animal is panicked, it
> gets ugly, fast.
> You don't want that. Yet you can't turn back. So you need to push the 
> envelope
> harder, faster... so as to make panic mode but a forgone blink in time, 
> rebuffed
> by the legion of myriad pressure against them... and push them
> straight into a feeble
> state of shock, then kill them before they can regain composure and
> enact vengeance.
>
> Keep yer sails full, keels wet, and cannon hot.
>

sdw

Re: Coalition Seeks Obama to Pardon Snowden

On 9/14/16 8:34 PM, grarpamp wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Stephen D. Williams <s...@lig.net> wrote:
>> If that is ever found to be true, Americans would freak out.  Government
>> only has authority to the extent that they follow the rule of law.  It's
>> already the stuff of conspiracy theories.  Any solid proof of unchecked
>> ongoing abuse not explained away sufficiently, which would inevitably leak
>> eventually for anything happening consistently
> The rise and consumption of alternative media like Alex Jones, RT,
> Al Jazeera, etc is proof that things are not being sufficiently explained.
> With a Government and Corporation of secrets (engaging in things
> like say unchecked Gitmo abuse, ahem) there will always be much
> more to discover and cover. Deepweb indeed.

Somewhat important, but mostly details that don't change much.
>
>> would cause gigantic
>> backlash.
>>  The ultra-right gun lobby and the liberal sophisticates and
>> others would unite and squash anyone responsible.
> There was a firefight...
Which one?
>
>>  Now that we have
>> instances of clear video proof to actually get at the truth
> No we don't... there are no body cams on your politicians,
> your corporate exectuives, no feeds from their backrooms,
> no audio from their limos.

Politicians are watched pretty thoroughly.  There's some room, but most of what 
they accomplish is fairly public, sooner or later. 
The worst abuses, in Western countries anyway, seem to be grossly misleading 
voters just before a vote.

One pattern seems to be: Stay vague and high level while building your team / 
tribe.  Then gradually pump up half truths and attacks
by spinning outrage.  Then, once your team / tribe has bought in and has a 
habit of repeating your talking points, graduate to full
on lies and obvious mistruths that the team/tribe will parrot even more loudly 
as they try to drown out the other team / tribe.  Use
confirmation bias, in-group / out-group membership, and every other trick to 
get others to further your attacks and cheerleading. 
Spin any opposition statements or attempts at clarification as blatant attacks 
on your team / tribe.  With an apparent ownership
interest in the results, people will ignore all facts and please for reason to 
win and resolve their angst.

It is a tried and true pattern, never more honed, applied, and amplified in 
such a contest so starkly divorced from reality, logic,
and reason.  Very instructive.

>
> Leaking paper is one thing, disassembling the quiet
> handshakes and luncheons of conspiracy is another.

Much of what corporations do is legal, whether you like it or not.  Actual 
conspiracies are seldom needed and usually not worth the
risk.  Many abuses have come to light, usually with a pretty good downside for 
the corporation.  Harder to get away with really bad
stuff than it used to be.

>> Ioerror.
>> Institutional assassination
> Precisely. And it's disgusting.

What are the worst things that corporate heads and politicians are getting away 
with?
What's your proposed solution?  What's your proposed cypherpunkian solution?

sdw

Re: Coalition Seeks Obama to Pardon Snowden

2016-09-14 Thread Stephen D. Williams

On 9/14/16 6:05 PM, Razer wrote:
>
> On 09/14/2016 05:27 PM, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
>
>> but inevitably toward less abuse and more transparency.
> You don't get out much do you?

All the time.  Do you?  What are you implying that you have observed?

I run, bike, or skate hundreds of miles on the road every year.  In high 
school, I ran 3000 miles a year.  I get out a lot, at least
in some sense.

In the last or two year, I've been in multiple cities in Virginia, DC, NY / 
NYC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Chicago, Ohio, Indiana,
Nevada, California, Oregon, Hawaii, and Florida.  Not long after the big 
protests in Baltimore last year, I talked to locals in
Baltimore, NYC, DC, Oakland, LA, etc. about local protests, police interaction, 
etc.  A self-professed gang member in Baltimore
wanted to take selfies with my skate group at a 7-11, specifically to inspire 
young kids that follow him.

Multiple times, I've taken things to court pro-se, including police and police 
departments.  I have appealed both civil and traffic
cases (won, lost).  I have about a 50% lifetime win rate, which isn't bad for 
pro-se.  I've taken pictures of many police officers,
although I've never witnessed them doing anything wrong, other than a few minor 
dangerous abuses on the highway here and there. 
Most of the problem with police comes from what they are encouraged to do, 
ticket quotas etc.  Although often that's minor stuff,
that's all I've seen.  The serious problems are in areas and with police I 
never see.

A speeding ticket in California is often a fine > $500 now.  Although I haven't 
had a ticket for a while, at that level of fine, my
policy is to always take everything to court.  I might as well get my money's 
worth and a little entertainment, plus a chance I will
prevail.  I won on the last one, with good reason.  I have a thing for police 
that cause dangerous conditions so that they can
garner a few tickets.  I called the highway patrol once a few years ago to ask 
about making a citizen's arrest after observing very
dangerous behavior by an officer while everyone was driving safely down the 
highway.  They told me I should have stopped behind the
officer to positively identify him!  While police stonewall those things when 
they can, I imagine the officer gets a talking to
anyway.  I have a traffic camera in my vehicle now.

>
> Rr
>
>> On 9/14/16 5:13 PM, Razer wrote:
>>> On 09/14/2016 12:55 PM, Sean Lynch wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 7:23 AM, Razer <ray...@riseup.net
>>>> <mailto:ray...@riseup.net>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>> So he returns home to a hero's welcome and a year later he's been
>>>> involved in a fatal car wreck, or airplane crash, or, as a cover story
>>>> when he's found dead in a ditch on a back road in Florida, tortured and
>>>> beaten to an unrecognizable pulp, "the Russians did it".
>>>>
>>>> I think there's a serious underestimation here of just how murderous 
>>>> the
>>>> US government is if someone betrays them... Hell! You don't even have 
>>>> to
>>>> betray them. Just annoy the wrong people.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry Edward Snowden is in Exile for life whether he likes it or not, 
>>>> if
>>>> he wants to stay alive.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree that if I were Snowden I wouldn't ever trust the USG, but I
>>>> don't see how it serves the government's purposes to have him die in any
>>>> way where would-be whistleblowers don't at least strongly suspect is
>>>> connected to his leaks. They want to make an example of him, because
>>>> leaks are the thing the USG is by far the most vulnerable to.
>>>
>>> I was talking in terms of a pardon or commutation received. OFC they'd
>>> try him if he simply returned.
>>>
>>> Rr
>>>
>>> Ps. They don't care how obvious it is that they killed him if they did
>>> as long as there's plausible deniability. It has the added bonus of
>>> terrorizing other whistlebowers and dissuading new ones no matter how
>>> blatant the assassination. Aamof, the more blatant the better from the
>>> terrorism perspective. I'm REALLY surprised they haven't already begun
>>> doing it to his friends and rela... Oh WAIT!
>> If that is ever found to be true, Americans would freak out.  Government
>> only has authority to the extent that they follow the rule of law.  It's
>> already the stuff of conspiracy theories.  Any solid proof of unchecked
>> ongoing abuse not explained away sufficiently, which would inevitably
>> leak eventually for anything happening consistently, would cause
>> gigantic backlash.  The ultra-right gun lobby and the liberal
>> sophisticates and others would unite and squash anyone responsible.  Now
>> that we have instances of clear video proof to actually get at the truth
>> more consistently, look at the reform cycle happening with police. 
>> Messy, slow, annoying, but inevitably toward less abuse and more
>> transparency.
>>
>>> Ioerror.
>>>
>>> Institutional assassination
>>>
>>> Rr
>> sdw
>>
sdw

Re: Coalition Seeks Obama to Pardon Snowden

2016-09-14 Thread Stephen D. Williams

On 9/14/16 5:13 PM, Razer wrote:
>
> On 09/14/2016 12:55 PM, Sean Lynch wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 7:23 AM, Razer > > wrote:
>>
>> ...
>> So he returns home to a hero's welcome and a year later he's been
>> involved in a fatal car wreck, or airplane crash, or, as a cover story
>> when he's found dead in a ditch on a back road in Florida, tortured and
>> beaten to an unrecognizable pulp, "the Russians did it".
>>
>> I think there's a serious underestimation here of just how murderous the
>> US government is if someone betrays them... Hell! You don't even have to
>> betray them. Just annoy the wrong people.
>>
>> Sorry Edward Snowden is in Exile for life whether he likes it or not, if
>> he wants to stay alive.
>>
>>
>> I agree that if I were Snowden I wouldn't ever trust the USG, but I
>> don't see how it serves the government's purposes to have him die in any
>> way where would-be whistleblowers don't at least strongly suspect is
>> connected to his leaks. They want to make an example of him, because
>> leaks are the thing the USG is by far the most vulnerable to.
>
>
> I was talking in terms of a pardon or commutation received. OFC they'd
> try him if he simply returned.
>
> Rr
>
> Ps. They don't care how obvious it is that they killed him if they did
> as long as there's plausible deniability. It has the added bonus of
> terrorizing other whistlebowers and dissuading new ones no matter how
> blatant the assassination. Aamof, the more blatant the better from the
> terrorism perspective. I'm REALLY surprised they haven't already begun
> doing it to his friends and rela... Oh WAIT!

If that is ever found to be true, Americans would freak out.  Government only 
has authority to the extent that they follow the rule
of law.  It's already the stuff of conspiracy theories.  Any solid proof of 
unchecked ongoing abuse not explained away sufficiently,
which would inevitably leak eventually for anything happening consistently, 
would cause gigantic backlash.  The ultra-right gun
lobby and the liberal sophisticates and others would unite and squash anyone 
responsible.  Now that we have instances of clear video
proof to actually get at the truth more consistently, look at the reform cycle 
happening with police.  Messy, slow, annoying, but
inevitably toward less abuse and more transparency.

> Ioerror.
>
> Institutional assassination
>
> Rr

sdw

Re: UK: Censors, Tracks and Balkanizes Its Internet; 10yrs for Pirates

2016-09-14 Thread Stephen D. Williams

Although they can work to coopt and compromise in various ways, there are legal 
limits to control of crypto and security in the US. 
That's what all the fights in the 90's were about.  We've seen that ATT and 
Microsoft seem to easily turn over, or enable to be
turned over, access to everyone's data.  And now there are some avenues to 
combat this in court and public opinion.  Others aren't
so cooperative.  Individuals and new companies can only be convinced on a case 
by case basis.  The Internet is democratic in the
sense that new attempts at perfect security and independence can always be 
synthesized and tried.  Not perfect, but close enough. 
We did not go with the needs-approval-first paradigm which is the diametric 
opposite of freedom and democracy.

Various levels of illegal activity would seem to act as canaries on 
communications systems: If they continue unmolested, then the
venue may be secure.  On the other hand, allowing illegal but uninteresting 
dealings, occasionally spinning up parallel construction
when someone just can't wait, would provide cover for plausible security.  That 
then acts as a honeypot of sorts for target traffic.

There are some obvious ways to combat this.  I wonder if they will be outlawed 
successfully.  I was somewhat surprised to learn of
the widespread illegality of wearing masks in public, notwithstanding cold 
weather and Halloween apparently.  The legal grounding
there seems an overreach; lucky it wasn't successfully applied to online 
personas.

Governments are, variously imperfectly, proxies for their citizens.  What 
communications system would be secure, reliable, and free,
while enabling the right portion of the population to break security when 
appropriate?  If there are terrorists, especially after
the fact but ideally before, how could their activity be exposed reliably while 
also reliably preventing any other traffic from
being exposed?

One answer is to make exposure the equivalent of a noop.  In the past 10 years, 
we've caused this to be true in many ways. 
Oversharing on Facebook is no big deal.  Being silly or stupid is not rare or 
fatal to your long-term persona because we know that
many people do those things.

At a more serious level, we want commercial or government agents to be like 
doctors and priests, holding and generally forgetting
our almost completely mundane secrets when the have to run across them.  That 
requires both strict training and ethics, but also
management, oversight, and some outlets to sense and respond to overstep.  
Failure of the government to police itself well enough or
in murky ways tends to lead to leaks eventually.

Elements of governments have previously had some terrible ideas that they 
pursued using both public and invasion of privacy level of
information.  Some of this still happens, although the gap between reasonable 
ideals and actual persecutions is continually getting
smaller, at least in the US.  There is a long way to go in certain areas on 
drugs, sex, violence, fraud, etc., but we've come a long
long way.  In some ways, I suspect that the need to focus on anti-terrorism has 
caused relaxation and some abandonment of pursuing
some gray areas.

Some people really don't trust that government will consistently converge to a 
reasonable ideal in these areas, although it seems to
be steadily going that way in the US.  Other countries seem generally behind on 
that path, or for various reasons off on some other
random and less effective path.

What do you propose as an alternative that meets many of modern societies 
important goals?  Anti-terrorism is a good example
problem.  Fair and lucid election campaigns are another.  Open commerce that 
has modern controls on the market that we know are
needed for a healthy system is another.

Another thing to consider is whether some crowd-controlled but somehow tyranny 
of the masses avoiding system might also be an avenue
for possibly dynamic jury nullification-like judgment.

sdw

On 9/14/16 12:46 PM, Sean Lynch wrote:
> One step closer to everyone ceasing to pretend the Internet is in any way 
> free or democratic. It was a nice fantasy while it
> lasted. Even where ISPs are nominally private, you can't be a licensed user 
> of the airwaves or have fiber along government
> right-of-ways and expect not to have the government impose its own interests 
> on you. I wonder how long it'll be before they outlaw
> any kind of overlay network they can't snoop on? I guess that's what the 
> attempts to outlaw useful crypto are all about. I bet
> we'll eventually see warrants to decrypt legal, escrowed crypto envelopes 
> entirely on suspicion that the user is using a layer of
> unescrowed crypto inside. Which will accomplish exactly what the content 
> cartels want by forcing those who care about privacy into
> low-bandwidth covert channels while doing nothing to make it more difficult 
> for genuine criminals to communicate privately. Maybe
> it'll be harder to

Re: Mail, please.

2016-09-12 Thread Stephen D. Williams

On 9/12/16 4:54 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 11:29:09PM -, Liam E. wrote:
>> What is the most minimal setup for command-line mail on a system like Debian?
> "MUA and POP retriever."
>
> For ultra lightweight, use bsd-mailx
>
> For features, use alpine or mutt
>
> For retriever, getmail or mpop. Fetchmail is way too slow.

I always use imap, for many reasons, including using multiple client machines 
simultaneously while keeping the authoritative version
on the server.  Use an imap backup to mbox files, which does efficient delta 
updates, then a local client on those.

sdw

Re: Free speech - front lines in Australia - [perso...@bernardgaynor.com.au: Update: battle for free speech]

2016-09-12 Thread Stephen D. Williams

On 9/11/16 10:59 PM, Nadine Earnshaw wrote:
>
>
> "True free speech demands that you allow horrible small minded idiots the 
> right to say vile things in public so that all unpopular
> but valid opinions can be debated and society can grow." 
>
> No I don't agree with you. Sorry but you dont get to define what free speech 
> is.

It is already well defined and extremely well argued:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions
http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does

A reasonable history of free speech:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2006/feb/05/religion.news

>
> In 18c we arent talking about what is unpopular but what is public 
> vilification. There is a difference between debate and personal
> attacks.
> Personal attacks whether physical or verbal are not acceptable and are 
> criminal in civilized society.

How would you know whether people have outgrown their prejudices if it is 
illegal for them to illustrate them?  You would rather
that they stew and scheme (in the American meaning) in private?

>
> Free speech like guns can hurt when in the wrong hands, it is not something 
> that hatefull fwits can hide behind.

Some hurts should be confronted rather than outlawed.


sdw

Re: Free speech - front lines in Australia - [perso...@bernardgaynor.com.au: Update: battle for free speech]

2016-09-11 Thread Stephen D. Williams

On 9/11/16 10:21 PM, Mirimir wrote:
> On 09/11/2016 11:15 PM, oshwm wrote:
>> The bottom line is that you DO NOT believe in freespeech but are trying to 
>> convince yourself and others that you do.
>>
>> People like you who try to pass off controlled or restricted speech as free 
>> speech are trying to redefine the term because you are too afraid to accept 
>> the fact that you want to restrict others rights to suit your own purposes.
>>
>> True free speech demands that you allow horrible small minded idiots the 
>> right to say vile things in public so that all unpopular but valid opinions 
>> can be debated and society can grow.
> Tht seems pretty obvious to me :)

In a free and open society, even the invalid opinions have to be allowed.  
Fools should be allowed to make fools of themselves in
public.  And other fools should be allowed to ridicule them.

sdw

Re: Big Dataz Isn’t Just Watching You—It’s Designed To Make You Poorer

2016-09-10 Thread Stephen D. Williams

Good to monitor and correct but not necessarily bad overall.  Wall Street and 
others have always used questionable data at many
levels.  In a neighborhood that I lived in for a long time, it was very obvious 
that once-every-10-years census data was almost
completely controlling development.  The existing credit laws should force 
companies to expose what factors they used in making a
decision.  That should either expose or limit the use of new types of big data.

One thing we need more of is communities comparing themselves to others in 
comprehensive ways to realize that they have problems
that they should address.  The open data movement, open government data 
especially, is extremely helpful for this.  This is a really
good example:

http://data.cityofpaloalto.org/home

One good result of open data and democratized big data processing might be that 
we become more efficient in good ways.  For
instance, it would be good if we could become more effective at meritocratic 
commerce and innovation while drastically lowering the
amounts skimmed by the Wall Street-driven finance industry.  There are too many 
cases where Finance absorbs much if not all of the
profit generated by some companies and industries.  I don't mind them getting 
paid for their value, but often they take it all and
then some.  Leveraged buyouts and pension raiding are the prime examples of 
this, but there are others.

sdw

On 9/10/16 8:20 AM, Razer wrote:
> There's are a number of reasons why 'teh gubmint wants ur dataz', and
> it's not ONLY about killing 'terrorists' or suppressing potential
> insurrection. It's about ripping you off for every penny they and their
> corporate BFFs can shake out of you.
>
> Rr
>
> Big Data Isn’t Just Watching You—It’s Making You Poorer
>
> Cathy O’Neil’s new book, Weapons of Math Destruction, shows mathematical
> models aren’t free of ideology.
>
> BY Pankaj Mehta, In These Times, Sept 6 2016
>
> By some estimates, humanity now produces 2.5 quintillion bytes of data
> every day—more than a hundred times the amount of data in the entire
> Library of Congress. This data ranges from Facebook posts to
> military-grade satellite photos. Increasingly, this data is analyzed by
> complex mathematical models that determine more and more aspects of our
> lives, from the advertisements we see to whether we have access to
> private insurance. Yet despite their growing importance, these models
> often remain hidden.
>
> Advocates of such mathematical modeling, in both the public and private
> sectors, portray it as a neutral and efficient alternative to fallible
> and biased human decision-making. Mathematician, data scientist and
> popular blogger Cathy O’Neil, author of Weapons of Math Destruction: How
> Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy, doesn’t agree.
> She argues that many mathematical models are ideological tools that
> exacerbate oppression and inequality. Her examples range from the crime
> models used by police departments to determine which neighborhoods to
> patrol, to the recidivism models used by judges to hand out prison
> sentences.
>
> O’Neil is passionate about exposing the harmful effects of Big
> Data–driven mathematical models (what she calls WMDs), and she’s
> uniquely qualified for the task. She earned a Ph.D. in math from Harvard
> and landed a tenure-track at Barnard. But she became bored with the pace
> and insularity of academia, and left to work as a quantitative analyst
> at the hedge fund D.E. Shaw. There, she had a front-row seat for the
> 2008 financial crisis.
>
> This experience fundamentally changed O’Neil’s relationship to
> mathematics. She realized that far from being a neutral object of study,
> mathematics was not only “deeply entangled in the world’s problems but
> also fueling many of them.” People in power were “deliberately
> [wielding] formulas to impress rather than clarify.” This
> disillusionment led O’Neil to get involved with Occupy Wall Street and
> start educating the public about the dangers of WMDs through her blog,
> MathBabe.
>
> She is careful to point out that there is nothing inherently destructive
> about mathematical modeling. Sophisticated data modeling enables much of
> modern technology, from wireless communication to drug discovery. How
> can one distinguish a destructive math model from an ordinary, or even
> helpful, one? O’Neil identifies three key features of WMDs: lack of
> transparency, lack of fairness and, most importantly, operation on a
> massive scale.
>
> O’Neil grounds her argument in case studies of WMDs in a variety of
> settings: finance, higher education, the criminal justice system, online
> advertising, employment decisions and scheduling, and credit and
> insurance provision. The “value-added” model for teacher evaluation,
> which looks at improvements in individual students’ test scores—a
> favorite of the so-called “educational reform” movement—is touted as an
> objective measure of a teacher’s worth. Yet

Re: Cypherpunks Charter

On 9/9/16 7:42 AM, Razer wrote:
>
> On 09/08/2016 11:42 PM, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
>> And why do you think it was unfair?
>
> Simply? Because you don't have the vaguest fucking idea where I've been
> or what I know. Troll.

None of that matters if you can't have a civil and coherent conversation.  
You're the troll.  Let's recap:
> On 9/5/16 12:44 PM, Razer wrote:
> - hide quoted text -
>> On 09/05/2016 12:21 PM, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
>>> Regardless of what Tim may or may not have wanted to happen in some or
>>> all cases, it doesn't say it in his signature, or in the manifesto.
>> He's saying it with his LIFE dude. Maybe you need to get one too?
>
> Do you think that you are clearly communicating?

Well, do you?  What does "He's saying it with his LIFE dude." mean?

>
> Do you suffer from some version of, as my friend used to say, "post 1960's 
> perception disorder"?

Seems like a valid question at this point especially given the other half:

> Ps. I've met Tim in passing over my 40 year residence in the area. Never
> even knew of his significance you know?
>
> I don't know if you've ever been to Corralitos, so I'll tell you EXACTLY
> WHY he's "gone all hermit with a gun". When he moved up there it was
> outlaw land in Santa Cruz County. Gravel roads, NO BEEMERS, they didn't
> want to chip their car's paint and gravel is rough on suspension parts
> et al. Pot growers everywhere. Last Chance Road, north of Santa Cruz was
> another such place. Above Boulder Creek ditto. The office crowd didn't
> want to live up some slightly improved logging road.
>
> Fast forward 2 or 3 decades of unchecked gentrification in the Santa
> Cruz mountains. Now he's surrounded... by people just... like... you.
> That's why he owns a gun.

You say you are going to 'tell you EXACTLY WHY he's "gone all hermit with a 
gun"' and then ... you don't.  You say it has something
to do with gentrification.  That's not a why unless you've already established 
why someone should be deathly afraid and clutching
their gun because soccer moms are invading next door.

>
> Rr
>

sdw

Re: New list confirmation (Re: cpunks list relocation imminent

On 9/8/16 7:17 PM, Steve Kinney wrote:
> On 09/08/2016 10:03 PM, Mirimir wrote:
> > On 09/08/2016 07:39 PM, Steve Kinney wrote:
> >> On 09/05/2016 12:15 PM, Александр wrote:
>
>
> >> Well that's odd.  I wonder what it's about?  Splitting the list
> >> into what?  Two with different themes?  One Moderated and one
> >> Unmoderated?
>
> > There are many lists out there for stuff that Александр and Zenaan
> > are posting. It's not that cypherpunk is apolitical. Rather, it's
> > that stuff which simply bashes one side or the other, but has no
> > particular connection to crypto and its social/economic/political
> > role/potential is just plainly off-topic.
>
> Sounds right to me.
+1
>
> - From my own posting history it's clear that I don't mind pushing
> content that addresses the methods of practical politics, and some of
> the theory behind same.  The connection of this to crypto etc. is that
> it illustrates contexts in which crypto (and by extension pretty much
> all network security considerations) can be productively used to
> support political means and ends.  Hence relevant to threat models,
> product designs, education and support activities for crypto-centric
> applications.
>
> So far I'm not getting flamed for that.
+1
>
> >> If the latter, that's a perilous course.  One sees a lot of
> >> "twin" lists and such that are one sterile and stereotyped, the
> >> other totally overrun with tards.  Because once upon a time, half
> >> or more of the people on the original list who took an interest
> >> in keeping it alive /without/ censorship bailed, and those who
> >> stayed behind were gradually overwhelmed.
>
> > There's no need to do anything with the cypherpunks list. If
> > people object to off-topic crap, they can say so. If people object
> > to being criticized for posting off-topic crap, they can deal with
> > it or leave. That's just how unmoderated lists work.
>
> Also sounds right to me.  Don't let's pretend we can't do it - some of
> the subscribers on this list are veterans of USENET.

Yes, for years, especially early on before the Web.  I setup and ran uucp links 
for email too.  I even engineered a satellite
uplink/downlink over satellite channels normally used for fax transmission.  
LIG stands for "The Local Internet Gateway" company.

>
> "Cypherpunks of the world unite - You have nothing to lose but your
> barbed wire!"
>
> ;o)
>

sdw

Re: New list confirmation (Re: cpunks list relocation imminent (was: Re: moving on))

On 9/2/16 12:02 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 08:36:43PM -0400, grarpamp wrote:
>>> will work to sync up the archives so that the split brain we've been
>> Don't taint the provenance... just as your archive contains only yours,
>> this file should only contain messages from newby's server:
>> https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks.mbox/cypherpunks.mbox.gz
>>
>> You can host your own archives wherever, and people will pick them up
>> and re-host them wherever.
>>
>> You can blend the html index if you want, because it's just a human
>> interface, not a critical source archive.
>>
>> People...
>> Don't use procmail, it sucks. Maildrop is better.
>> Don't use mbox, it sucks. Maildir is better.

I still use procmail, a bit, but I don't have a strong opinion there.

I always use mbox format.  I find it very scalable, although I do roll over to 
new files every 200MB.  Dovecot indexes so well that
I'm pretty sure it is faster.  Plus, it is likely much faster for backups etc.

> It's all good. Thanks for the maildrop hint. I'll use Maildir when I'm
> up to speed with notmuch, but not before - Maildirs are too slow
> otherwise for me.
>
> Finally - can the new cpunks admin please add a standard
> subscribe/unsubscribe footer? I referred a friend and they got a
> rejection on subscription request, so I'm thinking they might have tried
> using the old domain. Sent them the new mailman url.

sdw

Re: Cypherpunks Charter

On 9/8/16 6:49 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> Stephen, a hint: when real men realise they have ridiculed someone
> unfairly, for example with shit like this:
>
>>> Do you suffer from some version of, as my friend used to say, "post
>>> 1960's perception disorder"?

You think that qualifies as ridicule?  I should introduce you to my ex-wife.  
You wouldn't last five minutes.

And why do you think it was unfair?

> they apologise.
>
> Power tripping pricks, CIA shills, wanna be list censors and trolls in
> general, strangely find doing so "really difficult".
>
> But the heart maketh the man as they say..
>

>
>
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 07:06:54PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 01:05:00PM -0700, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
>>> On 9/5/16 12:44 PM, Razer wrote:
>>>> On 09/05/2016 12:21 PM, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
>>>>> Regardless of what Tim may or may not have wanted to happen in some or
>>>>> all cases, it doesn't say it in his signature, or in the manifesto.
>>>> He's saying it with his LIFE dude. Maybe you need to get one too?
>>> Do you think that you are clearly communicating?
>>>
>>> Do you suffer from some version of, as my friend used to say, "post
>>> 1960's perception disorder"?
>> When widicule won't work, (attempt to) hibwow your opponent!
>>
>> Oh, wait, hah! that's just more widicule! Who woulda thunked it from
>> Stephen De Widicurler? :D
>>
>> May be one to add to the Troll Tools COINTELPRO list :)
>>
>>
>>>> Ps. I've met Tim in passing over my 40 year residence in the area. Never
>>>> even knew of his significance you know?
>>>>
>>>> I don't know if you've ever been to Corralitos, so I'll tell you EXACTLY
>>>> WHY he's "gone all hermit with a gun". When he moved up there it was
>>>> outlaw land in Santa Cruz County. Gravel roads, NO BEEMERS, they didn't
>>>> want to chip their car's paint and gravel is rough on suspension parts
>>>> et al. Pot growers everywhere. Last Chance Road, north of Santa Cruz was
>>>> another such place. Above Boulder Creek ditto. The office crowd didn't
>>>> want to live up some slightly improved logging road.
>>>>
>>>> Fast forward 2 or 3 decades of unchecked gentrification in the Santa
>>>> Cruz mountains. Now he's surrounded... by people just... like... you.
>>>> That's why he owns a gun.
>>> So, he's afraid of being taken down by gentrifying suburban development?  
>>> Soccer moms in expensive cars?  Surfers with nice
>>> driveways?  In Santa Cruz?
>>>
>>> I'm not sure I can take any more of this "EXACTLY WHY" "clear" 
>>> communication today.  I'd like to do something useful with my time.
>> Hmm, like overthrow your criminal government ... oh wait, that's wight,
>> you work for Da Man!
>>
>>
>> All praise! Stephen Dee Widdle!
>>
>>
>>>> Rr
>>> sdw

sdw

Re: Philosophokiddies

On 9/6/16 1:50 PM, PhiloKing wrote:

A king now?  You have an impressive grasp of cutting edge political systems.

>> Some wannabe philosopher:
>> philosophokiddies
> Reading philosophy doesn't make you a philosopher.
Clearly; that was my point.  But I didn't say anything about reading philosophy.

> Thinking does.
Just random thinking?  Hiding in your remote cabin imagining that you 
understand the world and how and why it is going all wrong? 
Mad that your magical fixes to everything are just not getting the attention 
they deserve?

There _are_ people talking about improvements and new models, including me.  In 
other more appropriate venues.  Those who are
serious and thoughtful usually have something better to say than...

> Fucker.

Well, yes.  But that's off topic.

sdw

Re: Political Cypherpunks Trumps Apolitical Cryptography

On 9/6/16 4:06 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 02:05:35PM -0700, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
>> On 9/5/16 2:07 PM, juan wrote:
>>> On Mon, 5 Sep 2016 11:39:12 -0700
>>> "Stephen D. Williams" <s...@lig.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What this does not include is promoting or bashing particular
>>>> political systems or plotting their demise 
>>> Cypherpunks archive 1992-->1998 
>>>
>>> I counted 4107 messages from Tim May, all containing the
>>> following signature
>>>
>>> "Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  anonymous
>>> networks, digital pseudonyms, zero knowledge, reputations,
>>> information markets, black markets, collapse of governments."
>>>
>>> Even after 4107 repetitions, the most dishonest retard should
>>> understand what crypyo ANARCHY is about.
>>>
>>> For the record :  collapse of governments
>> You are still failing to understand English.  And resorting to ad
>> hominem.  Lose lose lose.
> Hmm. Interesting. It sounds like you are alleging that Juan has failed
> to understand English.

Exactly.  He is saying that this:
> What this does not include is promoting or bashing particular
> political systems or plotting their demise 
is wrong because this:

"Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  anonymous
networks, digital pseudonyms, zero knowledge, reputations,
information markets, black markets, collapse of governments."

Means something like:

"We advocate and work toward all conceptions of 
Crypto Anarchy including all of these: encryption, digital money,  
anonymous
networks, digital pseudonyms, zero knowledge, reputations,
information markets, black markets, collapse of governments."

And I am pointing out that it does not say that.  Those words are in the form 
of a definition of 'Crypto Anarchy'.  They do not
state a charter of intent, preference, value, or anything else actionable.  He 
is insisting that meaning is there that isn't.

To loosely characterize what Juan seems to want, concluding that "being on this 
list means you should be supporting any and all
forms of anarchy over other forms of government and social systems" vs. "the 
availability of encryption, digital money, etc. might
cause collapse of governments" or "some bad forms of government hopefully won't 
survive an end-run around their oppressive systems"
is weakly supported.

> Let's unpack this shall we? "No!" I hear you say? OK, let's unpack it
> anyway...

Nice attempt at being funny, but it is all weak.
>
>
> 1)
>
> Firstly, you wrote this:
>
>>>> What this does not include is promoting or bashing particular
>>>> political systems or plotting their demise 
> Now I might be slow, but I do note the words [0-5, 13-15], which if I
> decode this masterful encoding which massively reduces the amount of
> space required in an email to reference specific words in another's
> quote, is actually the following sequence of words:
>
>> What this does not include is plotting their demise 
> Oh, and the nounal object of your quote is "political systems", so to
> flesh it out:
>
>> What this does not include is plotting the demise of political systems
>
> OK, got it. Since you tried to be subtle about it, with appeals to
> authority, cutting down some really vile straw men and establishing
> yourself as the "need"ed go to (when I say "go to" I mean "authority"),
> i.e. just sort of "slipping it in, hopefully sorta may be under the
> radar", we were, unfortunately, "need"ing to unpack your position.
>
>
> So, we got it, "Do NOT plot the DEMISE of Political Systems, of which I
> am closely associated."
>
> Because, you know, that would serious be offtopic for this list and a
> REAL violation of John Young and Tim May's foundations for what's on
> topic to be discussed on this list, and you gonna teach us all a real
> bad ass lesson if we violate those absolute, in stone, unviolable,
> rules.
>
> Got it. Anarchy bad. USA goverment good. SDW authority.
>
> Simple really. Escapes me why I never thunked of these simple truths
> before ... ?  ?  ???
>
> Silly me..
>
>
>
> 2)
>
> Now, secondly, Juan said this:
>
>>> Cypherpunks archive 1992-->1998 
>>>
>>> I counted 4107 messages from Tim May, all containing the
>>> following signature
>>>
>>> "Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  anonymous
>>> network

Re: "Too much netflix and youtube syndrome" affecting 'Merican children

With a good critical thinking base, it is fairly easy to avoid the 'evil' of 
technology and technology-enabled communications while
benefiting greatly from broad knowledge, understanding, and, ideally, 
beneficial connections.  If you are limited to or you choose
the path of ignorance, you may fall for anything.

Good critical thinking capability, along with a good awareness of scams, 
cognitive bias mistake patterns, and risk analysis, is a
multi-layered defense-in-depth system, with the penultimate safety of a 
cognitive-enabled application level firewall.  Lesser mental
architectures try to stop everything with a port-based firewalls or anti-virus, 
but they're wide open to easily constructed phishing
and zero-day attack.  Openness to memetic infection is like allowing anyone to 
run code as root at the host level rather than in a
throwaway Docker container.  The opposite problem is being so afraid of being 
taken again that you won't incorporate anything new
because you don't trust that you can discriminate.  That's a lot like refusing 
to update your software for fear of exploit but
leaving yourself open to now-known bugs and gaps that have been fixed.  Or you 
simply are used to your current pattern and dislike
change; to be safe, you may reject most input.

I left home at 15 and taught myself programming etc., so I have a bias toward 
self-sufficiency:  I didn't believe in sheltering my
children except at the extremes; they are thoroughly resistant to memetic 
infection.

sdw

On 9/6/16 10:55 AM, Peressim wrote:
> My neice now at age of 10 years old, spend hours on youtube, and I am not 
> concerned if she is catching bugs, or figuring out that
> the internet is slow, but instead I am concerned that the evil the 
> techonology is making to happen to our children, besides the
> evil that it is also doing to us. Technology must be avoided as much as we 
> can. The trully malware is not affecting our computers,
> but our minds. 
>
> Sent from ProtonMail , encrypted email based in 
> Switzerland.
>
>
>>  Original Message 
>> Subject: "Too much netflix and youtube syndrome" affecting 'Merican children
>> Local Time: 6 de Setembro de 2016 12:00 AM
>> UTC Time: 6 de Setembro de 2016 03:00
>> From: ray...@riseup.net
>> To: cypherpunks 
>>
>> A friend of mine about her four year old:
>>
>> "My daughter was doing a little song and dance this morning and was
>> really boogieing down. She paused for a second and said,"I'm buffering"
>>
>> Rr
>>
>
sdw

Re: ROTF! Techie Hipster Soirée invaded at BurnTheMan

On 9/5/16 7:19 PM, Razer wrote:
>
> On 09/05/2016 06:53 PM, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
>> Have you been to Burning Man?  Do you understand it?
> Yup. It was dead after the 3rd or 4th year like most events that occur
> annually. Mavericks surf contest did quite well for itself until it
> became a nationally known event. Now it's trash.  The Rainbow Gathering
> was probably the longest standing before it became decrepit. It still
> happens every year. There's NO ADMISSION FEE, and it is truly Anarchic.
> I know mostly the younger set that attends Burning Man. Mostly affluent
> college students... They leave their anarchy and 'gifting' onsite. It
> DOES NOT become part of their day to day ethic at all.

It evolves.  The 60+' yacht just kills me.  Can't wait to ride on the 747 if it 
is there next year.  They own land nearby now.  It
will be interesting to see how they evolve to deal with the attention.

>> On 9/5/16 6:27 PM, Razer wrote:
>>> "Response to raid on White Ocean zone split with some describing it as
>>> an attempt to reclaim event from the ‘parasite class’"
>> The "hooligans" are lucky that the purveyors of the camp did employ an
>> anarchistic response.
>>
> Why? was the other option for the techie hipsters to call in their GEO
> security teams with attack dogs? I wouldn't put it past them.

With unlimited funding, how many do you suppose had martial arts, boxing, 
wrestling, football, and/or military training?
And then there is the funding for professional security.

>>> Parasite Class... A good description Marx would smile at of someone
>>> making 60K a year to write apis or network engineer the lip syncing of
>>> executive conference calls.
>> How is a developer or other engineer part of the 'parasite class'?
> Not all. I named a couple of occupations that serve no useful purpose to
> humanity though. The Riseup birds aren't in that category, nor, in the
> larger sense than torproject, is ioerror and folks like him (Stewart
> Brand, not technically a coder but...). Not many  left now, and the end
> result? Not much innovation. Just polishing apples that have been on the
> shelf for years. flashier graphics, miniaturization, speed, but that's
> kind of it. It all came to a screeching halt after streaming video blew
> the marketing end of the internet wide open in a latter day "Gold Rush"
> for marketers. It was inevitable. Just like TV went from information
> tool to an entertainment medium, so went the intertubz for 99% of it's
> users today.
>
> People interested in money create money no matter what industry they're
> in and the product is just the vehicle to do that. Money is a lousy sole
> driving force for development and innovation.

Depends on how money is spent.  It is, in some sense, voting for outcomes.  For 
a long time, marketing and branding could largely
control consumers.  It's not so deterministic anymore.  That could get better.  
And more recently, more people sometimes now invest
much more intelligently.  I make choices to try to push things in a positive 
direction.

> If those guys were making the same wage as a bagboy at a grocery store
> do you suppose they'd be coding? Coders used to make supermarket worker
> wages, never complained, worked themselves to literal exhaustion and
> burned their eyes out on Green-Black/Yellow-Black dot matrix monitors,
> and they loved it. Because it was about the code (hardware, whatever).
> Not the money.

Some would.

After buying my first computer with lawn mowing money, I was a bagboy at a 
grocery store.  Then, for a couple years, I worked for
$50/wk., which worked out to about $2/hr. or less, so that I could buy, sell, 
program, and fix computers.  And I was married with a
baby.  At the time, UPS drivers were starting at $15+/hr.

>
> Rr
>
>> And 60K/yr. is very low unless you are just out of college (or a few
>> years into skipping college), depending on location.
>>
>>>> Damien Gayle
>>>> @damiengayle
>>>>
>>>> Monday 5 September 2016 07.02 EDT
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The organisers of an exclusive camp at Nevada’s Burning Man festival have 
>>>> denounced “hooligans” whom they accuse of raiding their camp, stealing 
>>>> items, gluing trailer doors shut and cutting the power.
>>>>
>>>> Pershing County sheriff’s office was called to the festival to investigate 
>>>> after the night-time raid targeting the White Ocean camp as it hosted its 
>>>> “white party”, where ravers dress in white and dance all night to techno 
>>>> music.
>>>>
>>>> Its organisers wrote on Facebook: “Guys, I think what happened l

Re: Cypherpunks Charter

On 9/5/16 6:38 PM, Razer wrote:
>
> On 09/05/2016 01:05 PM, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
>> On 9/5/16 12:44 PM, Razer wrote:
>>> On 09/05/2016 12:21 PM, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
>>>> Regardless of what Tim may or may not have wanted to happen in some or
>>>> all cases, it doesn't say it in his signature, or in the manifesto.
>>> He's saying it with his LIFE dude. Maybe you need to get one too?
>> Do you think that you are clearly communicating?
>>
>> Do you suffer from some version of, as my friend used to say, "post
>> 1960's perception disorder"?
>>
> Does "Fuck off troll" mean anything to you? I think I communicated it
Nope, not a thing.  Not if you can't have a coherent, civil conversation.  You 
failed both here.

> pretty fucking clearly jack. Especially the part about Tim probably not
> liking you.

Way back in 1995, I was the 6th person to point out some minor misstatement 
that one day, and I happened to have firsthand knowledge
of the person in question.  So he responded with a bit of exasperation at my 
message.  Big deal.  Other than that, I don't recall. 
At that age, in that age, I was probably a bit annoying.  Does it matter?

>
> Rr
>
>>> Ps. I've met Tim in passing over my 40 year residence in the area. Never
>>> even knew of his significance you know?
>>>
>>> I don't know if you've ever been to Corralitos, so I'll tell you EXACTLY
>>> WHY he's "gone all hermit with a gun". When he moved up there it was
>>> outlaw land in Santa Cruz County. Gravel roads, NO BEEMERS, they didn't
>>> want to chip their car's paint and gravel is rough on suspension parts
>>> et al. Pot growers everywhere. Last Chance Road, north of Santa Cruz was
>>> another such place. Above Boulder Creek ditto. The office crowd didn't
>>> want to live up some slightly improved logging road.
>>>
>>> Fast forward 2 or 3 decades of unchecked gentrification in the Santa
>>> Cruz mountains. Now he's surrounded... by people just... like... you.
>>> That's why he owns a gun.
>> So, he's afraid of being taken down by gentrifying suburban
>> development?  Soccer moms in expensive cars?  Surfers with nice
>> driveways?  In Santa Cruz?
>>
>> I'm not sure I can take any more of this "EXACTLY WHY" "clear"
>> communication today.  I'd like to do something useful with my time.
>>
>>> Rr
>> sdw
>>

sdw

Re: ROTF! Techie Hipster Soirée invaded at BurnTheMan

Have you been to Burning Man?  Do you understand it?

On 9/5/16 6:27 PM, Razer wrote:
> "Response to raid on White Ocean zone split with some describing it as
> an attempt to reclaim event from the ‘parasite class’"

The "hooligans" are lucky that the purveyors of the camp did employ an 
anarchistic response.

> Parasite Class... A good description Marx would smile at of someone
> making 60K a year to write apis or network engineer the lip syncing of
> executive conference calls.

How is a developer or other engineer part of the 'parasite class'?

And 60K/yr. is very low unless you are just out of college (or a few years into 
skipping college), depending on location.

>
>>
>> Damien Gayle
>> @damiengayle
>>
>> Monday 5 September 2016 07.02 EDT
>>
>>
>> The organisers of an exclusive camp at Nevada’s Burning Man festival have 
>> denounced “hooligans” whom they accuse of raiding their camp, stealing 
>> items, gluing trailer doors shut and cutting the power.
>>
>> Pershing County sheriff’s office was called to the festival to investigate 
>> after the night-time raid targeting the White Ocean camp as it hosted its 
>> “white party”, where ravers dress in white and dance all night to techno 
>> music.
>>
>> Its organisers wrote on Facebook: “Guys, I think what happened last night 
>> should be known on social media … A band of hooligans raided our camp, stole 
>> from us, pulled and sliced all of our electrical lines leaving us with no 
>> refrigeration and wasting our food and glued our trailer doors shut, 
>> vandalised most of our camping infrastructure, dumped 200 gallons of potable 
>> water flooding our camp.”
>> Dust to dust: mourning the dead at Burning Man
>> Read more
>>
>> The response from festival regulars has been split, with sympathy towards 
>> the camp tempered by many who say that the “prank” on White Ocean, a closed 
>> zone funded by tech entrepreneurs, was “taking burning man back from the 
>> parasite class”.

Some or all areas of a number of camps are effectively closed except to members.

>>
>> In recent years, Burning Man has transformed from an anarcho-hippie fire 
>> ritual in San Francisco into a pricey end-of-summer romp in the Nevada 
>> desert for 65,000 people. But with growth has come controversy around the 
>> impact of big money.

All of those 65-70K people have been transformed?  That's sloppy writing.

>>
>> Participants at the three-decade old festival, which is based on an ethos of 
>> co-creation and mutual self-reliance, traditionally all pitch in to build 
>> the event. It is built around a radical “gifting” culture, where even 
>> strangers who wander into a camp are supposed to be served; in turn, they 
>> are expected to do the same for others.

Where strangers wander into a camp's public service area, when open, if they 
have one, and are often served as the camp is able and
willing.  They aren't 'supposed to be served'.

>>
>> But as Burning Man has become more popular, it has become seen as an annual 
>> fixture for global elites who pay others to build them exclusive camps 
>> called “plug and plays”, which allow them to swoop in, turn on and drop out 
>> for a few days before returning to corporate life. 

Controversial, but hard to see how it is a big deal.  It has some benefits too.

> More @Guardian UK:
> https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2016/sep/05/luxury-camp-at-burning-man-festival-targeted-by-hooligans

sdw

Re: Political Cypherpunks Trumps Apolitical Cryptography

On 9/5/16 2:07 PM, juan wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Sep 2016 11:39:12 -0700
> "Stephen D. Williams" <s...@lig.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>> What this does not include is promoting or bashing particular
>> political systems or plotting their demise 
>   Cypherpunks archive 1992-->1998 
>
>   I counted 4107 messages from Tim May, all containing the
>   following signature
>
>   "Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  anonymous
>   networks, digital pseudonyms, zero knowledge, reputations,
>   information markets, black markets, collapse of governments."
>
>   Even after 4107 repetitions, the most dishonest retard should
>   understand what crypyo ANARCHY is about.
>
>   For the record :  collapse of governments
>
You are still failing to understand English.  And resorting to ad hominem.  
Lose lose lose.

sdw

Re: Cypherpunks Charter

On 9/5/16 1:24 PM, John Young wrote:
> Also Eric Hughes: A Cypherpunk's Manifesto, 9 March 1993
>
> http://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/manifesto.html
Yes, I should have included that link.  Let's call it [EricCM].  I just reread 
it a day or two ago.  My short statement is an
attempt to condense that to its essence.

>
> Understanding distinction between privacy and secrecy is essential,
> for it is secrecy that corrupts in all its forms and is totally hostile to
> privacy, and true privacy totally hostile to secrecy. Privacy policies are
> fraudulent because they allow secretkeepers to violate privacy with
> "lawful" impunity. Which is why Snowden, Tor, media, corporations,
> NGOs, security experts, dual hatters, lawyers, privileged parties of
> all stripes, and many others are masterful bullshitters to urge
> "curation," censorship, withholding, redacting information by
> which secretkeepers empower themselves against the public by
> "self-regulated" access, that is self-serving.

That seems like a nuanced use of 'secrecy'.  This extends what is in [EricCM].  
If you want your own privacy but you want to deprive
others, whether individual or organization, of theirs, I think you need to be 
specific about what situations you are talking about.

>
> It is ridiculous to believe technical crypto by itself will not be subverted
> for political purposes, that mathematics will provide sufficient protection
> against wily opponents lawfully empowered to use any methods required
> to exploit vulnerabilities in people, technology, governance (standards
> setting, education, contracts, advisory boards, prizes, leaks, bribery,
> coercion -- partially listed in the troll tools, but far from all).

Where is the line between "used for efficient and safe functioning of 
government" and "subverted for political purposes"?  Debating
that line seems off topic.

>
> From day one and continuing, cypherpunks warned of the unavoidable
> corruption of the list by malevolent subscribers, as well as of the
> Internet and digital technology in general. This malevolence has
> come to pass worldwide, through a range of treacheries from
> anonymization to crypto to HTTPS to OTR to leak sites to universities,
> to whatever tool is funded and promoted as the hot shit latest means
> to defy authority. Authority always wins. As authority bullshits and
> honors and hires those too timid to exceed conventional cowardice.

Authority always wins because, in a healthy system, authority is us.  You have 
to first narrow your scope to 'abusers' or 'actually
corrupt politicians' or similar if you want to 'win' against them.  This is the 
same problem as treating all civilians as criminals
or thugs or whatever: If you aren't specific, you fail.

>
> Few cypherpunks have gone to jail for their convictions, many more have
> gone on to pretty good paying jobs, start-ups, buy-outs by IBM, MS, Cisco,
> Google, others in cahoots with authority. But some have seduced others to
> go to jail, crying ACLU-EFF-Greenwald grade crocodile tears at the injustice
> (advertising "donate to us" for the poor suckers). Blaming the victim of
> this seduction is rife as it is in deliberately faulty, highly monetized 
> comsec.
>
> If all goes well, cataclismic cyberwar will provide the doomsday climax to
> persistent cypherpunk screwing. Assange aims at just that having imbibed
> the cryptoanarchy joy juice here. Tim May will continue to ridicule the fool
> as he did Jim Bell and CJ. This is the cypherpunk secret charter for being
> a bullshitting "force for good."

Playing here and making good life choices are all about critical thinking.  If 
you have gaps there, they may be amplified here.

Assange may or may not have had an interesting point in certain past 
situations.  But, at a glance, his preoccupation with
Hillary-insanity-complex and doing anything to feed it seems terminal.  As 
noted in an article from the last couple days, Hillary's
problems really started when she decided to be private about Whitewater 
details.  That attempt at privacy caused everyone to flip
out.  Kind of ironic as Eric's Manifesto specifically encourages privacy.

>
>> [1] 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto-anarchism
>> [2] http://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/crypto-anarchy.html
>

sdw

Re: Politically Correct and Hypocrisy

On 9/5/16 1:12 PM, Cecilia Tanaka wrote:
>
> Sometimes, I have very strong suicidal tendencies, because this hypocrite 
> world, where everybody pretend being "politically
> correct" is _not_ the place where I want to live...  Aff...  :((
>
It's not so bad overall.  Don't let the jerks and the petty get you down.

This is a sad episode.  And example of:
https://medium.com/@nntaleb/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15

Hopefully people will step back from being so sensitive.

> 
>
> I can mention the promiscuity in IT events or inside the Tor Project only 
> because I am a poor Latin woman, a Nipo-Brazilian, an
> Oriental minority and female.  If I was a white man, I would be publicly 
> lynched and expulsed of all IT events. 
>
> Wow!  I want LGBTQ people and other minories feeling protected in IT events 
> and hacker/makerspaces, but it's becoming ridiculous. 
> Now, creating blogs and posts to destroy a reputation of a person instead 
> using transparency and honesty, a mere talk, is the
> usual pattern?  :-/
>
> I love the freedom of expression and miss this right all the days, even and 
> even more!  All the words, even heavy bad words, can
> be used, because they only exist for being used!  When do everybody become so 
> touchy and sensitive? 
>
> Hope the world becomes more rational and less hypocrite or, someday, I will 
> be considered pedophile when simply breastfeeding my
> babies.  You know, little children sucking breasts...  Very indecent this!  :P
>
> Aff...  I know I will receive a lot of kicks for this message, but we already 
> talked about how the moral judgements are being more
> unfair nowadays.  It's just another chapter, with another IT white man.
>
> Kisses and love for everybody, even knowing that 2/3 of you will think it's a 
> sin or not politically correct!  Muuuh!!!  :*  <3
>
> Ceci
> --
> "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to 
> say it."
>

sdw

Re: Cypherpunks Charter

On 9/5/16 12:44 PM, Razer wrote:
>
> On 09/05/2016 12:21 PM, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
>> Regardless of what Tim may or may not have wanted to happen in some or
>> all cases, it doesn't say it in his signature, or in the manifesto.
>
> He's saying it with his LIFE dude. Maybe you need to get one too?

Do you think that you are clearly communicating?

Do you suffer from some version of, as my friend used to say, "post 1960's 
perception disorder"?

>
> Ps. I've met Tim in passing over my 40 year residence in the area. Never
> even knew of his significance you know?
>
> I don't know if you've ever been to Corralitos, so I'll tell you EXACTLY
> WHY he's "gone all hermit with a gun". When he moved up there it was
> outlaw land in Santa Cruz County. Gravel roads, NO BEEMERS, they didn't
> want to chip their car's paint and gravel is rough on suspension parts
> et al. Pot growers everywhere. Last Chance Road, north of Santa Cruz was
> another such place. Above Boulder Creek ditto. The office crowd didn't
> want to live up some slightly improved logging road.
>
> Fast forward 2 or 3 decades of unchecked gentrification in the Santa
> Cruz mountains. Now he's surrounded... by people just... like... you.
> That's why he owns a gun.

So, he's afraid of being taken down by gentrifying suburban development?  
Soccer moms in expensive cars?  Surfers with nice
driveways?  In Santa Cruz?

I'm not sure I can take any more of this "EXACTLY WHY" "clear" communication 
today.  I'd like to do something useful with my time.

> Rr

sdw

Re: WaPo [CIA]: "Intelligence community investigating covert Russian influence operations in US"

On 9/5/16 9:17 AM, Razer wrote:
> Whose dinsinforming whom?
>> "U.S. intelligence officials described the covert influence campaign here as 
>> “ambitious”..." yet "The official cautioned that the intelligence community 
>> is not saying it has “definitive proof” of such tampering, or any Russian 
>> plans to do so."
>
> Blurb:
>> Agencies are probing whether the Kremlin intends to sow public distrust in 
>> the November elections through a cyber- and disinformation campaign. The 
>> agencies see a broad covert Russian operation at play in the United States, 
>> which incorporates cyber-tools to hack systems, enhancing Russia’s ability 
>> to spread disinformation.
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/intelligence-community-investigating-covert-russian-influence-operations-in-the-united-states/2016/09/04/aec27fa0-7156-11e6-8533-6b0b0ded0253_story.html

> Their comments came just before President Obama and Russian President 
> Vladimir Putin talked privately about cyberspying and other
> matters on the sidelines of the G-20 talks in China. After their meeting 
> Monday, Obama acknowledged tensions over digital
> espionage and said the United States had strong capability in this area. “Our 
> goal is not to suddenly, in the cyber arena,
> duplicate the cycle of escalation we saw when it comes to other arms races in 
> the past,” Obama said.

sdw

Cypherpunks Charter

(Apologies for rehashing this, but it seems a good time to make another pass at
consensus.)

This is how I always thought about the Cypherpunks charter:

Cypherpunks exists to promote free speech, establish that free speech includes
the freedom to have secure private speech, and to
explore how this can be accomplished. In support of this, to understand
implications of technology-enabled free speech and the
technical, commercial, and political moves needed to protect free speech.

While the Cypherpunk Manifesto focuses mainly on predicting how the then-new
ideas might play out, it is very thin on clarity of
what should happen and what roles those present should play. I think that was
intentional and strategic. It was also written at
the beginning of a period of serious conflicts about using encryption at all,
public knowledge of encryption and secure methods,
export, government access and control boundary exploration, etc.

What this does not include is promoting or bashing particular political systems
or plotting their demise or constantly going on
about insane nonsense.

What is your concise summary of Cypherpunks? Can you justify it? What does
the above get wrong and why?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto-anarchism
[2] http://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/crypto-anarchy.html

Recent commentary repeated for coherency, entertainment, and to forestall the
need for certain predictable responses:

Regardless of what Tim may or may not have wanted to happen in some or all
cases, it doesn't say it in his signature, or in the
manifesto.

Cypherpunks has always straddled a number of areas; exploring the implications
of crypto-anarchism is one of them. Even in May's
quotes in [1], it isn't necessarily the point to have a collapse of a system as
a goal, but to examine it as a possibility. I think
the attitude is that if you come to believe that encryption and other security
measures must be available, perhaps as an extension
of free speech, and those cause weak or broken systems to collapse, then so be
it.

Some discussion of "* anarchy" isn't really anarchy, it is just maybe anarchy
to someone fixated on a fixed definition of their
favorite system. Or a signal by someone suggesting such a departure. Any real
political anarchy has been a failure.

The philosophokiddie cypherpunks are thoroughly punked and parodied in Mr.
Robot:
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-creator-of-mr-robot-explains-its-hacktivist-and-cult-roots

sdw

Re: Fw: Political Cypherpunks Trumps Apolitical Cryptography

On 9/5/16 8:13 AM, Razer wrote:
> On 09/04/2016 10:30 PM, Zenaan Harkness quoted, I believe John Young:
>
>> That sounds like what cypherpunks was set up to combat, the withdrawal from 
>> politcial affairs into safe sanctuary of infallible mathematics...

My take on the Cypherpunks charter:

Cypherpunks exists to promote free speech, establish that free speech includes 
the freedom to have secure private speech, and to
explore how this can be accomplished.  In support of this, to understand 
implications of technology-enabled free speech and the
technical, commercial, and political moves needed to protect free speech.

What this does not include is promoting or bashing particular political systems 
or plotting their demise or constantly going on
about insane nonsense.  We've seen that train wreck before, Lance.

> That's how ALL the problems start. Cloistering and it's whorehouse,
> Academia.

Nearly all problems come from ignorance.  Celebrating ignorance is ignorant.  
Not seeing that problems almost universally are the
result of ignorance and then complaining about those who work to rise above 
ignorance is ignorant.  Sometimes well-studied people
make mistakes or are ignorant outside of their narrow focus.  Ignorant people 
constantly make profound mistakes and often breed more
ignorance.  There is nothing to celebrate there.

If you are ignorant, you are being manipulated.  You are essentially helpless, 
a pawn in somebody's plan.  It's cute how those who
are gradually becoming aware suddenly see how they are being controled and 
oppressed, but usually have a gaping understanding gap. 
Teenagers are sure that their parents are controlling and oppressing them.  
(And they often are, but often not in the way that a
teenager thinks.)  A college kid who first reads Rand is sure they completely 
understand how the world works in clear black and
white.  People reading conspiracy theories and bits of history think they 
completely understand the nefarious mechanics of the
world.  Plausible and possible become certainties, resistant to facts and 
first-hand knowledge and even common sense.  Tiresome
nonsense, endlessly repeated.  OFF TOPIC.

> Einstein said if he had known what they were going to do with his
> theoretical works he would have never cooperated.
>
> Don't be "Einstein".

Don't be the ignorant people he was complaining about.

>
> Rr
>

sdw

Re: Continual Violation of List Charter

2016-09-04 Thread Stephen D. Williams

On 9/3/16 11:32 PM, juan wrote:
>
>
>   Playing with the 92-98 archive...
>
>
> From: tc...@got.net (Timothy C. May)
> Date: Wed, 13 Sep 95 10:48:20 PDT
> To: cypherpu...@toad.com
> Subject: Re: CYPHERPUNK considered harmful.
>
>
>   "Similarly, there's the Libertarian Party, with similar themes
>   to our own..."
>
>
>   "Getting back to your suggestion that "we" change the name to
>   something more respectable. How could "we" do this, given that
>   "we" are an effective anarchy?" 

The group was "an effective anarchy".  So is hanging out with your friends.  
Corporations (and families for that matter) are,
classically, dictatorships.  Does that make the political and economic system 
they operate in dictatorships too?

>   "Form your own group, your own mailing list, with a catchy
>   name, something like "The Privacy Education Foundation," or
>   "The American Civil Liberties Union" (whoops, taken), or "The
>   Society for the Preservation of Cyberspatial Liberty."
> "
>   "Evolution in action. The market in action. A better approach
>   than trying to get the name and the charter changed."

A market in action...

> ps: messages from the great philosopher Stephen D. Williams? 77 in
> total, stopped posting in 1995 - messages are either content free or
> nerdy, useless, technical stuff.
>
And firewalls:
http://www.greatcircle.com/firewalls/archive/firewalls.199502

We were talking about crypographic and security related topics, like firewalls 
and protocols, time stamping services (which I
implemented a couple times for widely used services), etc.  I even found time 
to correct Tim May, who cried uncle sort of. ;-)  I
happened to have personal knowledge of that situation.

I wasn't mature enough to philosophize much then.

I lurked later, being extremely busy implementing things and other pursuits.

sdw

philosophokiddies: Re: Continual Violation of List Charter

On 9/3/16 5:00 PM, Razer wrote:
> On 09/03/2016 11:41 AM, grarpamp wrote:
>
>> "The Cypherpunks mailing list is a mailing list for discussing
>> cryptography and its effect on society."
> That's why I'm here. I'm on the 'society' end of that dyad.
>
> Just in case it REALLY matters to Juan (hereafter known as 'the troll')
> to know what my interest in the list is, and further, for 'the troll's
> information one of the personal influences I named, Herbert Marcuse,
> whose work precedes cryptography as social influence, would have fucking
> well discussed it. Further, the Marxists of his time, the political
> inclination 'the troll' accuses me of adhering to, rejected Marcuse. It
> was an Anarchist... Abbie Hoffman, who is the only person of the times
> afaict who understood WTF Marcuse (and McLuhan) was talking about and
> put it into effect in his activism.

An interesting Townshend quote relative to Abbie:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/28/opinions/bergen-1970s-terrorism/index.html
> Townshend shouted "Fuck off! Fuck off my stage!"
> Townshend later said that while he actually agreed with Hoffman on Sinclair's 
> imprisonment
> , he would have knocked him 
> offstage regardless of the content of his message, given
> that Hoffman had violated the "sanctity of the stage," i.e., the right of the 
> band to perform uninterrupted by distractions not
> relevant to the show. 

I like that: "right of the band to perform uninterrupted by distractions not 
relevant to the show."

I was just looking at this history of anarchism, terrorism, etc.: Seems a lot 
like what some of the philosophokiddies are spewing
toward.  But it's all been done before.  The points have been made, some 
adjustments were incorporated.  After a good hard neo-con
swing, swinging the other way quite a bit.  But a lot has been absorbed and 
learned, so not quite so simplistic.  Anyway, mostly off
topic.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/28/opinions/bergen-1970s-terrorism/index.html
http://rfrancocsp.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-terrorists-of-1970s.html
http://www.sbs.com.au/programs/Seventies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground
> In Weatherman theory "oppressed peoples" are the creators of the wealth of 
> empire, "and it is to them that it belongs." "The goal
> of revolutionary struggle must be the control and use of this wealth in the 
> interest of the oppressed peoples of the world." "The
> goal is the destruction of US imperialism and the achievement of a classless 
> world: world communism"

The philosophokiddie cyperpunks are thoroughly punked and parodied in Mr. Robot:

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-creator-of-mr-robot-explains-its-hacktivist-and-cult-roots

>
> Rr
>
>
>> On Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 4:38 AM, Zenaan Harkness  wrote:
>>> shit and get down to business on analysing political philosphies, to
>>> find practical approaches for our modern societies full of schooled
>> This list is *not* for that, and it's not a list to longtalk food recipes,
>> or anything else either. Lack of moderation is not license for people
>> to come here and setup their own offtopic shops, grossly, willfully
>> and continually disrespecting what it says on the tin and the history
>> of the list long before you [1], to the tune of many tens to hundreds
>> of messages per month, especially without tying it into that.
>> If you want to longtalk anything other than that to the point
>> that the charter would need a whole new section just for you,
>> GO FIND OR MAKE YOUR OWN FUCKING LIST FOR THAT.
>>
>> [1]
>> "The Cypherpunks mailing list is a mailing list for discussing
>> cryptography and its effect on society."
>> There are reasonable relateds within the realm of "cypherpunk" to include 
>> *its*
>> computing, tools, privacy, surveillance, law, news, literature / art / 
>> society,
>> hacking / making, organizations and projects, politics, tech, science,
>> solutions,
>> crime, etc, etc.
>>
>> The occaisional short lived foray under self regulation and restraint into
>> untied topics of possible interest to readerbase might be considered ok,
>> however NOT to the extent that it's been abused ongoing.
>>
>> If you're wondering why the "thousands" of people on the list
>> aren't "analysing political philosophies" with you, it's because
>> YOU'RE FUCKING OFFTOPIC, THEY DON'T WANT TO, and
>> they've BLOCKED YOUR ASS.
>>
>> But for new people hoping to find a real or even passable cypherpunk
>> list, and before even joining and blocking you, but just looking over
>> archives, your noise, and the angry abusive trolls, kills it for them.
>>
>> Have some respect for that.
>> The lot of you.
>> Or get off here.
>>

sdw

Re: FOR once and FOR ALL

On 9/3/16 4:21 PM, John wrote:
>
> On September 3, 2016 3:07:40 PM EDT, Xer0Dynamite  
> wrote:
 Read Hack the Law at hackerspaces wiki or New World Order, also at
 that site.  Either the future is made BY us, or it is destroyed by
>> US.
 Which is it?
>>> While this may be true, and human / civilization may or may not yet
>> be
>>> developed enough to be able to think or transcend any given thing,
>> Then let me tell you:  you didn't come from apes -- nobody did.  The
>> fact that there are "DNA" similarities are because there was a human
>> BEFORE mammals existed. 
> Had some recent LSD insights or what ?  I don't even want to ask where this 
> nonsense is coming from...

Let's just say that breaks with reality are off topic.

>
>
> John
>
sdw

Re: Continual Violation of List Charter

On 9/3/16 2:41 PM, juan wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Sep 2016 14:14:13 -0700
> "Stephen D. Williams" <s...@lig.net> wrote:
>
>> On 9/3/16 1:30 PM, juan wrote:
>>> On Sat, 3 Sep 2016 14:41:52 -0400
>>> grarpamp <grarp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>> "The Cypherpunks mailing list is a mailing list for discussing
>>>> cryptography and its effect on society."
>>> incomplete, and you didn't even provide a 'source' 
>>>
>>> plus, it's obvious that you haven't read the 1992 - ~1998
>>> archives of the list. 
>> Archives?  We read it in real time.
>   
>
>   Who - the fuck - is we. My message was addressed to grarpamp. I
>   bet he didn't read it in real time. 

The not (ignorant and immature) crowd.  That's we.

>> If it isn't directly about the access to or effects of cryptography
>> and related security practices, it is off topic.
>
>   Because an absurdist like you says so.

Your definition of absurd is absurd.

>> Early on, the list was largely about making sure that we had
>> unfettered access to encryption and reasoning about the consequences
>> of that.  This was important for ecommerce, the Internet in general,
>> the boundaries of the First Amendment, and as the baseline for the
>> rest of the world.  All kinds of power grabs were in play, directly
>> from the FBI and others.  A weak response might have left us in a
>> position difficult to unravel.  Most of that came out OK, 
>   Exactly what a US establishment puppet woud say. 
>
>   So let's see : 
>
>   1992 :
>
>   "Computer technology is on the verge of providing the ability
>   for individuals and groups to communicate and interact with
>   each other in a totally anonymous manner. " 
>
>   I wonder if Tim May is embarrased at having mande such a
>   blatantly wrong predicion.

He wasn't wrong.  Anonymous communication is fairly easy now.  But for most of 
us most of the time, there is no need.  That's the
real revolution, although off topic.  That we have options and methods is on 
topic.

>   " Interactions over networks will be untraceable, via extensive
>   re- routing of encrypted packets and tamper-proof boxes which
>   implement cryptographic protocols with nearly perfect assurance
>   against any tampering." 
>
>   Where are such networks operating?

Government networks work that way.  Others generally can use less intensive 
solutions to get a good enough result.  Do you think
that anyone savvy and not a target of anti-terrorism has trouble communicating 
securely?

We should keep examining theory, writing code, finding good solutions.  There 
are definitely interesting problems left.  My favorite
thought experiment:

Instead of weak centrally controlled communication systems that can be 
accessed, broken, leaked widely: A distributed system that is
secure from abuse, yet able to expose communication that some important subset 
vote to expose.  Instead of threatening violence,
threaten exposure within the rules of a self-regulating system.  That's on 
topic.

>   What we do have is completely sabotaged hardware courtesy of
>   Intel Inc, a criminal organization that May had something to
>   do, I believe.5but there
> are always ongoing concerns and implications.

Worry about whatever you want to worry about.

>   Oh...
>
>
>> Arguing whether the end of the world is coming or whose fault it is
>> or who is making political or military mistakes is all completely off
>> topic.
>
>   Sure. It's especially important that the political 'mistakes' of
>   the american nazis be completely 'ignored'.
>
Completely off topic.  And ignorant.  But especially off topic.
>   
>
>> sdw
>>
sdw

Re: Continual Violation of List Charter