Re: Fact checking

[Justin]

Thomas Shaddack (2004-04-28 18:32Z) wrote:

> What won't hurt could be making them liable for their promises, as they
> can be considered to be a contract with the voters. With specific
> penalties for not delivering the results in the specified timeframe.

Presidents don't pass laws.  Presidential campaigns would be reduced to
issues that are mutable (vulnerable?) to executive orders.

Individual candidates for federal office can't pass laws either.  You
want to hold a Senator liable when his compatriots (even if they form
the majority) don't support everything your senator supports?

Nobody who understands the basics of U.S. government construction could
possibly believe that a candidate's "promise" is a guarantee.  It is
merely a statement of ideology.

What then, consequences for not "attempting" to effect promises?  Who's
to judge?

-- 
"Not your decision to make."
"Yes.  But it's the right decision, and I made it for my daughter."
 - Bill and Beatrix

Re: Fact checking

[Justin]

Damian Gerow (2004-04-29 02:07Z) wrote:

> Thus spake Justin [28/04/04 15:41]:
> : Requiring that adults vote is a terrible idea.  While being deathly ill...
> 
> Proxy vote.  I did it for two 'invalid' relatives this year.

I hadn't looked it up before, but it seems most countries with
compulsory voting have exemptions for debilitating conditions.  Assuming
that's the sort of scheme you're proposing, proxy voting is unnecessary.

> Besides, this isn't requiring them to vote.

Semantics.  If you're thrown in jail for failing to vote, is that a
voting requirement?  If you're threatened by a gangster with a machine
gun, is that a requirement?  Very few countries throw people in jail for
failing to vote.  Most states either fine violators or revoke their
suffrage.  IDEA.int considers that "compulsory" voting.  You don't.

http://www.idea.int/voter_turnout/Compulsory_Voting.htm

> : The above proposal only requires 33% turnout among current non-voters.
> : While that's certainly an "improvement" (by your metric), it doesn't
> : resolve the core issues.
> 
> Not in the first year, no.  And not in the second year, nor in the third.
> But in the fourth, you'll see a drastic drop in the number of apathetic
> voters -- the ones who don't care.

Your plan would split current rare- or non-voters into two categories,
the ones who are banned from voting due to apathy, and a second group
whose members want to preserve future voting ability.  I would guess
that the latter would end up voting in Presidential elections, and would
only care about the presidential candidates.  That might make things
worse, since such idiotic, uninformed voters might vote along party
lines in other races on the same ballot.  We have enough party-line
voters at the moment.  We don't need any more.

> Australia has mandatory voting.  I think that's what you're arguing against

I'm arguing against any sort of coercion - whether it's a loss of
rights, being stuffed in a prison, or being beaten with a stick.  You
consider voting in Australia to be mandatory?  The punishment is a fine,
different from loss of suffrage but not necessarily more serious.

> : > Make sure there's a handy "abstain" option for those who want to get
> : > the point across about lack of choice, and maybe a space to say why,
> : > too.  Then stick the (anonymous) reasons up in a publicly-viewable
> : > space and eh, instant feedback.

This was apparently a set-up.  Most places have abstention options of
one sort or another.  It doesn't matter that much how you abstain,
whether you can tell them to keep the ballot, whether you can feed blank
ballots into the machines, or whether you have to mark something.


What do you gain by forcing people to go to the polls to mark "abstain",
eat their ballots, or otherwise effectively abstain after showing up?

It would be a lot more logical to require voting if abstention wasn't an
option, though there are still serious problems with mandatory voting.

You seem intent on allowing people to express disinterest in who wins,
but for some unknown reason you want their disinterest to be expressed
within an arbitrarily-designed framework rather than allowing them the
flexibility to vote, show up and abstain, or stay home.


I suspect there's much disagreement as to whether abstention is included
in the concept of "voting".

-- 
"Not your decision to make."
"Yes.  But it's the right decision, and I made it for my daughter."
 - Bill, Beatrix

Re: Can Skype be wiretapped by the authorities? (fwd from em@em.no-ip.com)

[Justin]

John Young (2004-05-11 00:09Z) wrote:

> Brian Dunbar wrote:
> >> Like it matters. Do you really think that the government would really 
> >> allow Intel and AMD to sell CPUs that didn't have tiny transmitters in
> them? 
> >> Your CPU is actually transmitting every instruction it executes to the 
> >> satellites.
> >
> >That's a subtle bit of humor, right?
> 
> Whenever this truth is repeated, first revealed here in 1992 by a person
> who worked at Intel in its early days when it was desperate for government
> contracts, it is taken to be humorous. 
> ...
> What remains of this story on the Internet is a bowderlized version of 
> the original truth, sometimes commingled with Tempest apochryphia -- 

Truth like this?


Forwarded
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Wed Dec 17 23:17:14 2003
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Timothy C. May)
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 10:50:25 PST
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Trapdoors
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

>How do we know the proposed legislation wasn't just a smoke
>screen?  Isn't it possible that the Feds have already compromised
>Intel or MicroSoft?  Is there some way to be sure that the new
>486 chip running your computer isn't recording each PGP or RSA
>private key you generate?

Sandy has discovered the deep dark secret of crypto! I worked for Intel
from 1974 to 1986 and can confirm this to be the case.

Every crypto key is secretly recorded by Intel microprocessors. Motorola
processors do not yet record keys, which I why use a Macintosh. The
specific instruction is the so-called "NSA instruction" which John Gilmore
identified some time ago. 

Sun Microsystems was ordered by the NSA to redesign their chips to capture
keys, which is why the SPARC processor was introduced. SPARC stands for
"Sun Processor Allowing Remote Capture."

Once the keys have been captured and stored on the user's hard disk (notice
how the drives occasionally turn on a night?), they are forwarded to the
NSA and National Surveillance Organization by "screen saver" programs, like
"After Dark," which were actually written by the Berkeley Microsystems
cut-out operation of the NSO. Real hackers don't use cutesy screen saver
programs.

This new automated system is much more convenient than the previous system,
where the FBI and NSO had to break into homes and offices in order to
retrieve the keys the Intel processors had recorded.

End

-- 
"Not your decision to make."
"Yes.  But it's the right decision, and I made it for my daughter."
 - Bill, Beatrix; Kill Bill Vol. 2

Re: Fact checking

[Justin]

Graham Lally (2004-04-28 14:47Z) wrote:

> Damian Gerow wrote:
> >I don't see any way to educate the mass public.
> 
> Indeed, why bother? How about a system that removes your right to vote
> if you haven't exercised it in the last 3 elections?

Requiring that adults vote is a terrible idea.  While being deathly ill
or otherwise unable to vote for three consecutive federal elections is
extremely unlikely, the fact remains that failure to vote is not
indicative of lack of desire to vote.

The above proposal only requires 33% turnout among current non-voters.
While that's certainly an "improvement" (by your metric), it doesn't
resolve the core issues.

If not voting is the sin you seek to prevent, why settle for 33 percent?
If it is dumb voters you're trying to eliminate, requiring them to drive
their dumb asses to the polls isn't going to make then any smarter or
more informed.  It might even increase stupid voting patterns by
encouraging dumb people to form cliques.  They won't want to appear dumb
to their friends as a result of voting for the "wrong person," and
groupthink is bad for elections.

> Make sure there's a handy "abstain" option for those who want to get
> the point across about lack of choice, and maybe a space to say why,
> too.  Then stick the (anonymous) reasons up in a publicly-viewable
> space and eh, instant feedback.

There is an abstention option.  The poll administrator checks off your
name when you show up, so someone knows that you "voted."  You don't
have to choose anyone on your ballot.  You can either toss it in the
garbage on your way out, or draw pictographs derogatory to politicians
on non-critical areas of the ballot before feeding it to the
fiber-starved voting machine.

-- 
"Not your decision to make."
"Yes.  But it's the right decision, and I made it for my daughter."
 - Bill and Beatrix

Iraq developments

[Justin]

Politics in action... acting president of the Iraqi council is
assassinated; coalition finds "small amounts of" sarin released from an
exploding shell in Iraq.

What's next, we steal all their remaining chemical weapons and bring
them and our military home?

-- 
"Not your decision to make."
"Yes.  But it's the right decision, and I made it for my daughter."
 - Bill, Beatrix; Kill Bill Vol. 2

Re: Swindle these guys?

[Justin]

On 2004-06-09T12:39:31-0400, Tyler Durden wrote:
> Since an important theme in Cypherpunks is anonymous transactions, I'm 
> wondering if there isn't some way we can't reverse-swindle folks like this, 
> perhaps by getting them to wire into an egold account or something. 
> Supposedly, they perform an ACH into an account, get you to withdraw the 
> funds, give them their cut, and then they reverse the ACH causing your bank 
> to try to collect from you.

Is that what they do?  I've been under the impression that they never
transfer you any money, that they just request incidental expenses which
gullible idiots view as an investment against their cut of the X million
promised.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ach
I can't believe an ODFI would allow you to withdraw that much money before
the RDFI is no longer able to perform a return.

A few times, I've tried requesting several thousand dollars expenses to
investigate setting up the necessary account.  Nobody's so much as replied
to that proposition.

-- 
"Not your decision to make."
"Yes.  But it's the right decision, and I made it for my daughter."
 - Bill, Beatrix; Kill Bill Vol. 2

Re: Reverse Scamming 419ers

[Justin]

On 2004-06-11T20:22:33-0400, Tyler Durden wrote:
> 
> Well, burn down my unabomber shack! Have we smoked out Tim May? As much as 
> his one-sided thinking pisses me off sometimes I miss the sheer "fuck you" 
> of it.
> 
> >From: Tim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

If so, it's quite a clever disguise.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 
Netscape/7.1 (ax)

-- 
"Not your decision to make."
"Yes.  But it's the right decision, and I made it for my daughter."
 - Bill, Beatrix; Kill Bill Vol. 2

Re: War ain't beanbag....What the Fuck?

[Justin]

On 2004-06-13T17:50:43-0400, Tyler Durden wrote:
> 
> RAH wrote...
> 
> >>I'd like to hear how children who werent old enough to pronounce the
> >>colour were 'reds' who were rightly tortured (apparently) in your
> >>view, as well as the many women raped and tortured at the hands of
> >>SOA graduates.
> 
> >Funny how "liberals" always do the debits and not the credits in
> >these grotesque calculations. Shall we count the
> >several-orders-of-magnitude number of starved (*and* butchered)
> >children in various Marxist "paradises" around the world, too? I
> >thought not. It wouldn't be "fair".
> 
> Holy shit, Hettinga. Most of the time you make some sense. This ain't one 
> of 'em. So, in other words, if Salvador Allende is democractically elected 
> in a foreign country, then it's OK for the US to send agents and train 
> torturers and then assasinate their leader? This is a complete nonsequitur 

He's pro-free-market, not pro-democracy.  What Mr. Free Market doesn't
want to state outright is that a pure free market economy is anarchy,
because every law will impact the way businesses do business.

> logically. The fact that "The Marxists would have killed even more" is 
> irrelevant. As someone who seems to espouse a more or less deterministic 
> viewpoint vis economics and crypto-anarchy, you yourself should support a 
> notion of letting them figure things out on their own.

A majority screwing up a country is not "letting them figure things out on
their own".  Maybe we should have let the Japanese figure things out by
themselves once they surrendered?  Germany?  No funds to rebuild France.
Oh, I want to live in *that* world, where we may not have won the cold
war.

> More than this, this is the exact thinking that has caused us all sorts of 
> problem. The best (and most obvious) examples are Vietnam and China. Both 
> of these countries repeatedly kicked our ass in several theaters and then 
> went through a brief socliaist period. In both cases, socialism is 
> practically gone. Had we instead been smart with Mao and China (who we sent 

I haven't lived in China, but my impression of the country leads me to
believe otherwise.  If it's not *quite* socialist, it's fascist.

> In the end, China ended up being a major capitalist country, and our 

As above, this doesn't seem right.  Hong Kong might be a major capitalist
center of operations, but Hong Kong is not really China, socioeconomically
speaking.

> involvement against the Chicoms only slowed this process down. We're making 
> a similar mistake in Iraq, and we New Yorkers will probably pay for it 
> again (if Tyler Durden stops posting after WTC#2 comes tumbling down, 
> you'll know what happened. I'll try to post one more time from under the 
> rubble if I can sniff a WiFi hotspot.)

God damned idiots, both the designers/builders and anyone who would work
in it without taking precautions.  Anyone in WTC2 who cares about living
should buy a dozen real climbing ropes or go learn to skydive and then how
to BASE jump.  And pray 5 times a day that the plane crashes into some
*other* floor.

I'd imagine it'd be a bit tricky to get a descender past the knots in a
chain of ropes, and air currents around buildings make a safe landing
improbable for any but the most experienced BASE jumpers.

Accordingly, there was some whining in Oct '01 on dropzone.com about how
morons would jump with an "executive parachute" whenever they smell burnt
toast, but I think that's a great way to clean the pool.  Maybe some
clever person could change the WTC2 mains frequency to 70 or 80 herz to
facilitate that (as well as overheating Tyler's computer to let him know
that the End is near).


ciel bleu!

-- 
"Not your decision to make."
"Yes.  But it's the right decision, and I made it for my daughter."
 - Bill, Beatrix; Kill Bill Vol. 2

(fwd) The Merits in Newdow

[Justin]

Christ.  The U.S. is now officially a Christian nation.

- Forwarded message from Marty Lederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -

Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 11:56:31 -0400
To: Conlawprof List; Law & Religion issues for Law Academics List
Subject: The Merits in Newdow

The collection of concurrences on the merits are quite interesting.  The Chief's 
opinion adopts the SG's argument -- darn-near-preposterous, IMHO (and that of Justice 
Thomas!) -- that the Pledge is OK in schools because "under God" is "not endorsement 
of any religion," but instead "a simple recognition of the fact [that] '[f]rom the 
time of our earliest history our peoples and our institutions have reflected the 
traditional concept that our Nation was founded on a fundamental belief in God.'"  

Justice O'Connor joins the Chief's opinion, but writes separately to suggest that the 
Pledge in schools is ok only because of a confluence of "four factors" that will 
virtually never again appear in combination in any other case.  This result derives 
directly from pages 24-29 of the amicus brief that Doug Laycock wrote:  
http://goldsteinhowe.com/blog/files/newdow.laycock.pdf.

Justice Thomas concludes -- correctly, in my view, see 
http://www.goldsteinhowe.com/blog/files/Newdow%20Final%20Brief.pdf -- that if Lee v. 
Weisman was correctly decided, then public schools may not lead students in daily 
recitation of the words "under God."  Thomas, however, would overrule Lee.

> http://supct.law.cornell.edu:8080/supct/html/02-1624.ZS.html

- End forwarded message -

Re: [IP] When police ask your name, you must give it, Supreme Court says (fwd from dave@farber.net)

[Justin]

On 2004-06-22T02:52:15-0400, Gabriel Rocha wrote:
> 
>   On Jun 21 2004, Steve Schear wrote:
> | Not a problem.  Its legal to use any name you wish, including those that 
> | use gyphs and sounds which cannot be represented by standard Roman and 
> | non-Roman alphabets (as is common in some African tribes).  So, those that 
> | wish to avoid this data base nightmare can legally adopt name which does 
> | not conform.
> 
> Well, in principle this is a nice "screw you" method. But in practice...
> well, if you have to write down your name because the sound doesn't
> exist or can't be pronounced, you're that much more singled out eh...
> And for those of us who wish to travel, well, passports become difficult
> to manage I suspect. I am quite surprised with this ruling actually (I
> haven't yet read the specifics) but the first impression of it says that
> this does not bode well for opponents of the "War on Terrorism" (tm) or
> for anyone who doesn't like the great big database in the sky...

Yes, we're screwed, but not because of the name requirement.  Soon we will
have to recite our citizenship number whenever a police officer, I mean
pig, is "investigating an investigation" and asks us to identify
ourselves.  The supreme court will uphold that requirement for the same
reason they just upheld the NV law.  The number itself is not
incriminating, and the State has a substantial interest in knowing who you
are -- you may need medicating, or you may owe the government money, or
you may have violated any number of illegitimate laws and therefore need
reeducating in a federal prison.

-- 
"Once you knew, you'd claim her, and I didn't want that."
"Not your decision to make."
"Yes, but it's the right decision, and I made it for my daughter."
 - Beatrix; Bill  ...Kill Bill Vol. 2

Re: [IP] When police ask your name, you must give it, Supreme Court says (fwd from dave@farber.net)

[Justin]

On 2004-06-21T22:38:01-0700, Steve Schear wrote:
> Not a problem.  Its legal to use any name you wish, including those that 
> use gyphs and sounds which cannot be represented by standard Roman and 
> non-Roman alphabets (as is common in some African tribes).  So, those that 
> wish to avoid this data base nightmare can legally adopt name which does 
> not conform.

Don't citizens have to have an english-alphabet transliteration of their
name to use for legal purposes (birth certificate, green card, social
security record)?

Everyone should change their legal names to Agent Smith.

Is there a list of the other 20 states with stop-and-identify laws?

The DMV differentiates same-name people by SSN, right?  Is it very
far-fetched to imagine that state courts and federal appeals courts will
uphold state laws requiring SSN disclosure for identification purposes?
After all, the Supreme Court didn't rule this way for fun; they ruled this
way because they think that citizen have a duty to reveal their identity
to police.  If a name isn't enough to do so, I would think a SSN would be
required.

Maybe the 9th circuit will be safe from mandatory SSN disclosure during
Terry stops, but I doubt any other circuits will be.  The Supremes can't
want to hear another case of this sort in the near future.  They just
cranked up the temperature; if they crank it up again too soon the frogs
may notice they're about to boil.

-- 
"Once you knew, you'd claim her, and I didn't want that."
"Not your decision to make."
"Yes, but it's the right decision, and I made it for my daughter."
 - Beatrix; Bill  ...Kill Bill Vol. 2

Re: Shuffling to the sound of the Morlocks' dinner bell

[Justin]

On 2004-06-27T18:26:05-0500, J.A. Terranson wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jun 2004, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
> 
> >  All because you don't want to "throw away your vote" -- and register your
> > disapproval with that state of affairs -- by voting for a guy who would
> > make you feel decent and clean.
> 
> In *any* election other than the one we face this November, I would agree
> with this 100%.  But this time, I just can't.   I fear the re-appointment
> of Bush more than any other political event.  That the author of this is
> willing to overlook that he is knowingly helping to keep Bush in office,
> trampling those rights he claims to so cherish, totally negates his
> argument.

But your vote will never make a difference in a presidential election.  No
such election has ever turned on one vote in any state, and it's not
likely to.  Trying to convince everyone to vote for Kerry is your
prerogative, but if _you_ vote for Kerry in November while believing
Badnarik is the best choice, you are wasting your vote.

When it comes down to you and the ballot, vote your conscience.  There's
no quantum entanglement between your ballot and anyone else's.

Obviously you may already believe all that and you may be agitating for
Kerry precisely for those reasons.  However, I don't like either Kerry or
Bush so I have no problem explaining why you're stated position is wrong.

-- 
 "Once you knew, you'd claim her, and I didn't want that."
 "Not your decision to make."
 "Yes, but it's the right decision, and I made it for my daughter.  She
deserved to be born with a clean slate." - Beatrix; Bill; Kill Bill V.2

Re: Shuffling to the sound of the Morlocks' dinner bell

[Justin]

On 2004-06-27T17:53:05-0400, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
> 
> 
>  I will vote for a candidate who -- if he had his way -- would [...]
>  pull us out of the deadly, illegal and unconstitutional war in Iraq;
>  and put the U.S. military back to work tracking down the real culprits
>  of Sept.  11.

Just because it's a "deadly" (what war isn't?) and "illegal" (Bush's
lawyers would take issue with that) doesn't mean the proper course of
action is to leave.  Right or wrong, we created this mess.  We now bear
some responsibility for cleaning it up.  Once everything is cleaned up,
he's right: we should leave immediately.  Have we yet fixed the pipelines
that "terrorists" have blown up because of our presence in Iraq?

>  "At which point, if we can find them, you think it would be OK to just
> kill them?" I asked the candidate last week.
> 
>  "Sure," Badnarik said.
> 
>  Sounds about right to me.

For some strange value of "real culprits," perhaps.  19 of the "real
culprits" are already dead, and who knows how many with some knowledge of
the attacks are already in prison.  From what I've heard about the way the
cells operated, Atta had primary control over the details of the plan.
Osama just had to approve it.  Osama probably deserves to die for his role
in various attacks, but is he a "real culprit" of 9/11?

-- 
"Once you knew, you'd claim her, and I didn't want that."
"Not your decision to make."
"Yes, but it's the right decision, and I made it for my daughter."
 - Beatrix; Bill  ...Kill Bill Vol. 2

Re: UBL is George Washington

[Justin]

On 2004-07-05T21:32:16+0200, Anonymous wrote:
> Major Variola (ret) writes:
> > The yanks did not wear regular uniforms and did not march in
> > rows in open fields like Gentlemen.  Asymmetric warfare means not
> > playing by
> > *their* rules.
> 
> But asymm warfare has to accomplish its goal.  It's not being very
> successful.  The only people who are siding with al-qaeda are those whose
> brains are already mush -statist socialists, to be precise.  If al qaeda

Who cares who sides with Al Qaeda?  They're not keeping track of their
sympathizers.  It's foreign policy change, social change ("reform"
perhaps?), and volunteers for martyrdom they want, not rhetorical
support.

> bombed government buildings or targetted the private residences or offices
> of government officials, they might get more sympathy, from me at least.

The WTC and the pentagon were specific, well-thought-out targets.  The
plane that crashed in PA was headed to the Capitol.  If you're so eager
to see Al Qaeda blow up better targets, why not suggest a few?

> Destroying an pair of buildings and killing thousands of citizens -most of
> whom couldn't give an accurate account of U.S. forces distribution in the
> MidEast- is not a step forward.

As everyone else pointed out, Even though the 9/11 attacks may not have
garnered your support, it accomplished other objectives.

Re: UBL is George Washington

[Justin]

On 2004-07-06T11:28:41-0700, Eric Cordian wrote:
> Sunder wrote:
> > Right, WTC as a target doesn't make any strategic sense.

> Doesn't hitting a world financial center impede the funding of imperialism?

Empirically, I don't think so.  Since September 11th, funding to the
military and security industries have increased substantially through
DHS and military contracts.  It may be that the only way out is through,
and that the only way to be free from Western Imperialism is to cause it
to strangle itself.  In the short term, however, terrorists have not
succeeded in getting our imperialist policies changed.

9/11 with Dubya at the helm can have only one result.

> If you apply the same standards the US uses to classify dual use
> infrastructure, and organizations "linked to" the enemy, I think the
> WTC is pretty high on the target list. 

Yep.  Even ignoring specific entities that officed in the WTC, it was an
effective target.  When a government is in debt 70%+ of the GDP (2002 -
$10.4T), there's little distinction between private financial targets
and government targets.

> The US bombed water treatment plants, electrical facilities, and
> bridges in Iraq.  Certainly not military targets either.

Each democratic government likes to flood the logos with the notion that
it only attacks military targets; it convinces citizens that their
government is humane, and helps to pacify the non-interventionists.

In practice, intelligence is never accurate.  Hitting only military
targets, even if that were the goal which is clearly not the case -- is
not possible.

A stated policy of attacking only military targets encourages the use of
human shields by the enemy, which in turn drives up the "civilian
casualties" decried so strongly by the media.

-- 
 "Once you knew, you'd claim her, and I didn't want that."
 "Not your decision to make."
 "Yes, but it's the right decision, and I made it for my daughter.  She
deserved to be born with a clean slate." - Beatrix; Bill; Kill Bill V.2

U.S. forms mid-east terror group!

[Justin]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/07/06/iraq.main/index.html

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A previously unknown militant group in Iraq is
threatening to kill the most-wanted terror suspect in that country: Abu
Musab al-Zarqawi.

The Arabic-language TV network Al-Arabiya said it received a taped
statement from an organization that calls itself the Rescue Group
warning al-Zarqawi and his followers to leave Iraq or face the
consequences.

One masked militant read a statement denouncing the actions by
al-Zarqawi and his followers as hurtful to Iraq, particularly the
kidnapping of foreigners.

..

-- 
 "Once you knew, you'd claim her, and I didn't want that."
 "Not your decision to make."
 "Yes, but it's the right decision, and I made it for my daughter.  She
deserved to be born with a clean slate." - Beatrix; Bill; Kill Bill V.2

Re: Querying SSL/TLS capabilities of SMTP servers

[Justin]

On 2004-07-08T17:50:57+0200, Thomas Shaddack wrote:
> I cobbled up together a small bash shell script that does this. It lists 
> the MX records for a domain, and then tries to connect to each of them, 
> issue an EHLO command, disconnect, then list the output of the server, 
..

Or, in perl... though I wonder if there's a way to get capabilities with
Net::SMTP.  Might make this cleaner.


#!/usr/bin/perl

use IO::Socket;
use Net::DNS;

for ($i = 0; $i <= $#ARGV; $i++) {
my @mx = mx($ARGV[$i]);
foreach $record (@mx) {
my $hastls = 0;
my $mhost = IO::Socket::INET->new (
Proto => "tcp",
PeerAddr => $record->exchange,
PeerPort => "25",
Timeout => "10"
);
print $mhost "EHLO I-love-my-country.whitehouse.gov\n";
print $mhost "QUIT\n";
while (<$mhost>) {
if (/STARTTLS/) {
$hastls = 1;
last;
}
}
print "$ARGV[$i] " . $record->preference . " " . $record->exchange;
print $hastls ? " adv-tls\n" : " no-tls\n";
close $mhost;
}
}

Re: Querying SSL/TLS capabilities of SMTP servers

[Justin]

On 2004-07-09T01:46:26+0200, Thomas Shaddack wrote:
> 
> It fails on hotmail.com; my script has problems there as well (and with 
> couple others, the cure seems to be adding delays between the lines sent 
> to the server; it makes the program slow, but more reliable).

This should work much better, and has some additional keywords that help
to figure out what's going on.  This works on hotmail.

I noticed one host was hanging until I started using \r\n.

It might be worthwhile to ensure nagle is turned off between the EHLO
and the QUIT.


#!/usr/bin/perl

use IO::Socket;
use Net::DNS;

$dlevel = 0;

sub debug {
($str, $mlevel) = @_;
if ($mlevel <= $dlevel) {
print "DEBUG $str";
}
}

sub checkmailtls {
my ($domain, $mpri, $mrelay) = @_;
my $proto = "";
my $hastls = "no-tls";
my @special;

my $mhost = IO::Socket::INET->new (
Proto => "tcp",
PeerAddr => $mrelay,
PeerPort => "25",
Timeout => "5"
);
if (! defined $mhost) {
print "$domain $mpri $mrelay noconnect\n";
return;
}
debug("testing $mrelay $mpri\n", 1);
$greeting = <$mhost>;
if ($greeting =~ /\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*/) {
$proto = "smtp";
push (@special, "filtered");
}
if ($greeting =~ /(esmtp|postfix|sendmail)/i) {
$proto = "esmtp";
}
elsif ($greeting =~ /[^eE][sS][mM][tT][pP]/) {
$proto = "smtp";
}
else { $proto = "smtp"; }

print $mhost "EHLO I-love-my-country.whitehouse.gov\r\n";
print $mhost "QUIT\r\n";
while (<$mhost>) {
if (/^5[0-9]{2}/) {
if ($proto == "esmtp") {
push(@special, "lies");
$proto = "smtp";
}
$hastls = "no-tls";
last;
}
if (/STARTTLS/) {
if ($proto == "smtp") {
$proto = "esmtp";
push(@special, "stealth");
}
$hastls = "adv-tls";
last;
}
}
print "$domain $mpri $mrelay $proto $hastls @special\n";
close $mhost;
}


### begin 

debug("argc: $#ARGV\n", 1);

if ($#ARGV >= 0) {
  for ($i = 0; $i <= $#ARGV; $i++) {
push (@ipstack, $ARGV[$i]);
  }
} else {
  while (<>) {
chomp;
push (@ipstack, $_);
  }
}

while ($domain = shift(@ipstack)) {
# $res = Net::DNS::Resolver->new();
# @mx = mx($res, $domain);
my @mx = mx($domain);
if ($#mx == -1) {
print "no MX!\n";
}
foreach $record (@mx) {
my $mrelay = $record->exchange ;
my $mpri = $record->preference ;
checkmailtls($domain, $mpri, $mrelay);
}
}

Re: Querying SSL/TLS capabilities of SMTP servers

[Justin]

This one should work better.  The last one had string comparison
problems.


#!/usr/bin/perl

use IO::Select;
use IO::Socket;
use Net::DNS;

$ehloname = "mail.senate.gov";
$timeout = 15;
$dlevel = 0;

sub debug {
(my $str, my $mlevel) = @_;
if ($mlevel <= $dlevel) { print "DEBUG $str"; }
}

sub checkmailtls {
my ($domain, $mpri, $mrelay) = @_;
my $proto = "smtp";
my $hastls = "no-tls";
my @flags;

my $mhost = IO::Socket::INET->new (
Proto => "tcp", PeerAddr => $mrelay,
PeerPort => "25", Timeout => "10"
);
if (! defined $mhost) {
print "$domain $mpri $mrelay noconnect\n";
return;
}

debug("opened connection to $mrelay\n", 1);

$sel = IO::Select->new($mhost);
@readable = $sel->can_read($timeout);   # magic number
if ($#readable == -1) {
print "$domain $mpri $mrelay timeout-a\n";
goto OUT;
}
$greeting .= <$mhost>; # there's only one handle; we know which it is.

debug("greeting: $greeting", 2);
if ($greeting =~ /[\\*]{8}/) {
$proto = "smtp";
push (@flags, "filtered");
}
if ($greeting =~ /\b(esmtp|postfix|exim|sendmail)\b/i) {
debug("setting esmtp (greet)!\n", 1);
$proto = "esmtp";
debug("found esmtp-indicator in greeting\n", 1);
}

print $mhost "EHLO $ehloname\r\n";
print $mhost "QUIT\r\n";

if (! (@readable = $sel->can_read($timeout))) {
print "$domain $mpri $mrelay timeout-b\n";
goto OUT;
}
while (<$mhost>) { #$sel->can_read(0)) {
chomp;
debug("loop-recv: $_\n", 2);
if (/^5[0-9]{2}/) {
if ($proto =~ /^esmtp/) {
push(@flags, "lies");
$proto = "smtp";
}
$hastls = "no-tls";
last;
}
if (/STARTTLS/) {
if ($proto =~ /^smtp/) {
debug("setting esmtp (stls)!\n", 1);
$proto = "esmtp";
push(@flags, "nobproto");
}
$hastls = "adv-tls";
last;
}
}
print "$domain $mpri $mrelay $proto $hastls @flags\n";

# try again just in case the remote host didn't notice the first one
print $mhost "QUIT\r\n";
OUT:
close $mhost;
debug("closed connection to $mrelay\n", 1);
}

### begin 
if ($#ARGV >= 0) {
for ($i = 0; $i <= $#ARGV; $i++) { push (@hostfifo, $ARGV[$i]); }
} else {
while (<>) { chomp; push (@hostfifo, $_); }
}

while ($domain = shift(@hostfifo)) {
my @mx = mx($domain);
if ($#mx == -1) {
checkmailtls($domain, "A", $domain);
} else {
foreach $record (@mx) {
my $mrelay = $record->exchange;
my $mpri = $record->preference;
checkmailtls($domain, $mpri, $mrelay);
}
}
}

Texas oil refineries, a White Van, and Al Qaeda

[Justin]

http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/415877|top|07-19-2004::15:07|reuters.html

Jul 19, 2:57 PM (ET)

HOUSTON (Reuters) - Law enforcement officials said on Monday they are
looking for a man seen taking pictures of two refineries in Texas City,
Texas.

Texas City, located on the Texas Gulf coast about 30 miles south of
Houston, has three refineries including the largest U.S. plant operated
by BP Plc., which is the third-largest U.S. refinery, processing 470,000
barrels of crude oil per day.

The man, described as white with dark hair, was seen taking pictures
outside the refineries, all located on the same highway, at about 5 p.m.
CDT on Saturday, said Bruce Clawson, emergency management and homeland
security director for Texas City.

While it is not illegal to take pictures of a refinery from a highway or
street, officials would like to talk to the man to find out his reason
for taking the photographs.

"This is based on the idea that al Qaeda does its homework," Clawson
said. "That's not to say we don't have enough home-grown idiots already
who might want to do something."

The man was seen driving a white van.

Valero Energy Corp. operates a 243,000 barrel per day (bpd) refinery in
Texas City. Marathon Ashland Petroleum LLC, a joint venture between
Marathon Oil Corp., and Ashland Inc., operates a 76,000 bpd refinery in
Texas City.

The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation has repeatedly warned refiners
that they are possible targets for would-be terrorists. U.S. refinery
security officials say their security guards regularly report people
observing or taking pictures of refineries.

During the Independence Day holiday, ExxonMobil Corp. tightened security
at the largest U.S. refinery, the 538,000 bpd plant in Baytown, Texas,
30 miles east of Houston, because of general warnings about possible
terrorist activity.


-- 
"When in our age we hear these words: It will be judged by the result--then we
know at once with whom we have the honor of speaking.  Those who talk this way
are a numerous type whom I shall designate under the common name of assistant
professors."  -- Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling (Wong tr.), III, 112

Re: Texas oil refineries, a White Van, and Al Qaeda

[Justin]

On 2004-07-20T21:47:31+0200, Thomas Shaddack wrote:
> 
> The person in question was just somebody with a weakness for industrial 
> architecture.

You're missing the big picture: A light-skinned person with dark hair, a
camera, a white van and an oil refinery, all in Shrub's home state.
That's a bona fide threat to national security if I've ever heard one,
yet people like you are suggesting we let it slide!

Viper!  Getteth thee back to the deserts of the middle east where you
belong.

The DHS has done a lot to make me ashamed of being an American.  I can't
believe how stupid my new guardians are.

It was probably some photo-journalist working on an expose of Shrub's
crooked/failed oil dealings.

-- 
"When in our age we hear these words: It will be judged by the result--then we
know at once with whom we have the honor of speaking.  Those who talk this way
are a numerous type whom I shall designate under the common name of assistant
professors."  -- Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling (Wong tr.), III, 112

Re: Mexico Atty. General gets microchipped (fwd)

[Justin]

On 2004-07-25T13:44:39-0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 10:20:44PM -0700, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
> > "No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens,
> > nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under
> > God." -GW Bush
> 
> Do you have a good cite for that? One source attributes it to George
> Bush I, not Bush II.

I've seen it more than once identified as a quote by Bush I (GHWB, #41).

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm

The quote was (allegedly) reported by Robert I. Sherman of the American
Atheist News Journal, at an informal outdoor news conference at O'Hare
on August 27, 1987.

-- 
"When in our age we hear these words: It will be judged by the result--then we
know at once with whom we have the honor of speaking.  Those who talk this way
are a numerous type whom I shall designate under the common name of assistant
professors."  -- Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling (Wong tr.), III, 112

Re: Another John Young Sighting

[Justin]

On 2004-08-25T10:28:34-0400, Sunder wrote:
> 
> All Hail Cthulhu!  Why worship the lesser evil?  
> Vote for Cthulhu!   Why vote for the lesser evil?

You're saying Cthulhu is a greater evil than Bush?

Mr. Three Purple Hearts is fairly evil as well.  I don't know whether he
surpasses Cthulhu though.

-- 
"When in our age we hear these words: It will be judged by the result--then we
know at once with whom we have the honor of speaking.  Those who talk this way
are a numerous type whom I shall designate under the common name of assistant
professors."  -- Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling (Wong tr.), III, 112

Re: Tilting at the Ballot Box

[Justin]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 2004-08-25T11:25:09-0700, Steve Schear wrote:
> At 09:18 AM 8/25/2004, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
> >
> >Business 2.0 - Magazine Article - Printable Version -
> >
> >Tilting at the Ballot Box
> >Entrepreneur David Chaum's e-money venture flopped. Now he wants to fix
> >electronic voting. For once, is the brilliant inventor right on time?
> >By John Heilemann, September 2004 Issue
> 
> Like a shoemaker who only has hammers in his toolkit, Chaum is trying to 
> fix the wrong problem.  The problems with voting in the U.S. aren't current 
> or even potential fraud at the ballot box its a complete lack of 
> proportional representation.

Is this solvable?  Chaum is solving a problem that evidently can be
solved.  Perhaps once those problems are solved it will be easier to
direct public attention at other more fundamental problems with our
representative democracy.

> Hey Dude, Where's My Rep?
> The rallying cry of American Colonists was "No Taxation Without 
> Representation".  Although U.S politicians frequently present their 
> political system as some paragon of representative democracy, I am unaware 
> of any country since the Civil War adopting this winner-take-all, 
> gerrymandered, model.  Almost all opted for a parliamentary system with 
> proportional representation.  Today, unless you vote either Republican or 
> Democrat you are effectively denied representation.  Almost no independent 
> candidates are ever elected to U.S. state, not alone federal office, even 
> though in other democracies some would surely have gotten members of their 
> party seated.  If one accepts that the American Colonists were right to 
> refuse to pay taxes to the British Crown until they received representation 
> then why should today's independent voters pay state and federal taxes?

You have a strange notion of what the Colonists meant by that phrase.

You do have representation.  The fact that your representatives are not
the ones you wanted is irrelevant.

Presidential elections are a mess, though.  Most states' selection of
electors for presidential selection may violate the intent of the
Constitution's writers; the electors for most states were originally
selected by legislators.

The winning-party-take-all system in most states does seem to violate
the intent of election mechanics.  Notably, there is a difference
between having 3 electors and having 1 elector with 3/538 of a say in
president selection.  The current system may be too much like the
latter.

IMO, your complaint about gerrymandering is valid.  There are a variety
of formulaic ways to ensure voting district compactness.  See e.g.
http://www.hmdc.harvard.edu/micah_altman/disab.shtml

Nevertheless, there is a fundamental inconsistency between two
requirements that everyone seems to want:
1) coherent voting districts
2) equal-population voting districts.

No matter what criteria are used for creating equal-population voting
districts, there are always going to be multiple ways to choose them, so
someone will always complain.

It's the same sort of thing as voting procedure itself; there are
multiple ways to conduct a democratic election.  The fact that most of
the population is unaware of the alternatives (in the case that no
option gets a majority: 1st/2nd/3rd choices, run-offs, no run-offs,
etc.) doesn't mean they're any less serious.  Perfectly democratic
elections run by different rules have different results.  It's amazing
anyone even bothers to complain about the y2k election when there are
issues like this lurking under the bridge.


Clearly, no matter what you do, there are problems.  If the district
size is 1 million, there's a city of 499k and a city of 1501k, what
then?  The city of 499k is screwed unless there's a nearby population
center with similar culture.  Even then, the numbers won't be equitable,
and someone, somewhere will whine about "lack of representation."

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBLxcunH0ZJUVoUkMRAoOkAKCTrRtElXZa6lR6lGV1u3rQ6xSh9ACgms0X
A//TbqG+hh5pGMLNuKrTlkI=
=e/Cp
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Tilting at the Ballot Box

[Justin]

On 2004-08-27T13:14:47-0700, Steve Schear wrote:
> At 04:12 AM 8/27/2004, you wrote:
> 
> >On 2004-08-25T11:25:09-0700, Steve Schear wrote:
> >> Like a shoemaker who only has hammers in his toolkit, Chaum is trying to
> >> fix the wrong problem.  The problems with voting in the U.S. aren't 
> >current
> >> or even potential fraud at the ballot box its a complete lack of
> >> proportional representation.
> >
> >Is this solvable?  Chaum is solving a problem that evidently can be
> >solved.  Perhaps once those problems are solved it will be easier to
> >direct public attention at other more fundamental problems with our
> >representative democracy.
> 
> Why would u guess this?  These problems have been around since almost the 
> founding of the republic.

What?  I just said that without the distraction of outright voting
fraud, voters may become more aware of the more subtle and more serious
issues with democratic voting systems.

> >You have a strange notion of what the Colonists meant by that phrase.
> >
> >You do have representation.  The fact that your representatives are not
> >the ones you wanted is irrelevant.
> 
> The Colonists had representatives too, its just that they were chosen by 
> King George :)

As I understand it (I wasn't there, but perhaps you were), their
complaint was that their "representatives" weren't from the region they
claimed to represent, and that they weren't chosen democratically.  You
and I have no such claim.  I can't claim lack of representation just
because my fellow citizens are idiots who subscribe to the Libertarian
or Socialist or Zoroastrian platform yet vote for a Republican or
Democrat.

> The fact that 'my' representatives are not the ones I wanted nor any
> of the independent independent party voters wanted is paramount.

What you or I want has nothing to do with it.  I don't get to redefine
election procedure whenever my preferred candidate doesn't win an
election.

I'm not voting for either Bush or Kerry.  Neither represents my views.
No matter who wins, the winner is my president and my representative.  I
can't claim otherwise.  The best I can do is blame all the idiot voters
who cling to party-ID as if it were their only hope of survival.

> Representation is about interests and ideology.  If a 
> significant segment of voters don't get anyone to represent these interests 
> and ideologies bad things can happen (e.g., they can become 
> radicalized).  Representation can be an important outlet for these 
> disenfranchised voters.

Well, one district in TX managed to elect someone who's decent - Ron
Paul.  It's possible.  The fact that libertarians or fascists everywhere
don't get their candidates elected has more to do with the fact that
they vote Republican or Democrat "because a vote for a third party is a
wasted vote."  Blame the morons in the electorate for not electing
representatives that mirror their views.  That's where the blame lies.

What do you want?  Do you want everyone to vote Democrat, Libertarian or
Republican, then apportion the House of Representatives and the Senate
appropriately?  Who picks the representatives?

The reason we don't have any socialists or libertarians or fascists in
Congress is that not a single district votes for one.  The U.S. has this
fixation on voting for one of the two major parties.  Other countries do
not; that's why some of them have multi-(3+)-party representation in
their parliaments.

Incidentally, some northeastern state allows each congressional district
to pick one elector, and the State as a whole picks two.  (Electors =
Senators + House Reps).  If you're complaining about presidential
elector selection, that blame lies with the States; the States dictate
how their electors are chosen.

> >IMO, your complaint about gerrymandering is valid.  There are a variety
> >of formulaic ways to ensure voting district compactness.  See e.g.
> >http://www.hmdc.harvard.edu/micah_altman/disab.shtml
> 
> >Clearly, no matter what you do, there are problems.  If the district
> >size is 1 million, there's a city of 499k and a city of 1501k, what
> >then?  The city of 499k is screwed unless there's a nearby population
> >center with similar culture.  Even then, the numbers won't be equitable,
> >and someone, somewhere will whine about "lack of representation."
> 
> The problem is that use of voting districts seems to have always resulted 
> in gerrymandering in our political system.  A proportional system can 
> eliminate these geopolitical distortions.

State and Federal House of Reps.  are proportional.  (Yeah, I know
Nebraska is unicameral, excuse the generalization).  What part of the
System isn't proportional other than most States' selection of
presidential electors?

-- 
"When in our age we hear these words: It will be judged by the result--then we
know at once with whom we have the honor of speaking.  Those who talk this way
are a numerous type whom I shall designate under the common name of assistant
professors."  -- Kie

Re: Tilting at the Ballot Box

[Justin]

On 2004-08-30T17:40:25-0700, Steve Schear wrote:
> At 05:23 AM 8/30/2004, Justin wrote:
> >Are States "geopolitical distortions" as well?  Are countries?
> >
> >If you're going to propose an alternate system, please clearly identify
> >1) the voting pool, and 2) what they're voting for.  If the pool is
> >voting for a party instead of individuals, how does a winning party pick
> >representatives?  Is that selection method fair?
> 
> While this is certainly a value judgement, almost every other nation thinks 
> so.

Even if we used it here, the fate of legislation would still be
determined by the dominant party in the Senate, which would still rarely
if ever admit 3rd parties, and by the president's veto.

I assume you're criticizing only House election procedures because
that's the only thing that can be attacked without completely
restructuring the federal legislature.  If it were possible, would you
prefer to see nation-wide proportional representation if it included
mandatory geographical distribution requirements like those you
described?

-- 
"When in our age we hear these words: It will be judged by the result--then we
know at once with whom we have the honor of speaking.  Those who talk this way
are a numerous type whom I shall designate under the common name of assistant
professors."  -- Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling (Wong tr.), III, 112

Re: Vote for nobody

[Justin]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 2004-09-06T06:22:29-0700, Sarad AV wrote:
> 
> the election commision of india had a proposal to the
> govt. that the voter should be able to vote for 'none
> of the above'. Though one can predict that such a
> proposal will never be approved by the government, it
> makes a lot of sense. Is any other democratic country
> seriously thinking of implementing such an option?


If someone would vote for "none of the above" rather than write in
his/her ideal candidate, that someone is a lazy oaf.  Everyone who
writes in a candidate is voting "none of the above."

The 50% of the U.S. population which doesn't vote is also voting "none
of the above" in a way.  There's a difference in that some non-voters
may slightly prefer one candidate over another, but _assuming that
everyone has an ideal candidate_ they'd be willing to go to the polls
for, not voting is the same as saying all the candidates are
significantly less than the ideal.

- -- 
"When in our age we hear these words: It will be judged by the result--then we
know at once with whom we have the honor of speaking.  Those who talk this way
are a numerous type whom I shall designate under the common name of assistant
professors."  -- Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling (Wong tr.), III, 112

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBPJbunH0ZJUVoUkMRAgGkAJ4k4tdjeAQ99GfccGpFWaxSNJlhHACgnjFp
xvPFAlzIQeMLmRQ7/PfSZiE=
=jcfW
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Flying with Libertarian Hawks

[Justin]

On 2004-09-10T12:02:12-0400, Tyler Durden wrote:
> 
> Damn right. 'Conservative' means agreeing with the most vocal proponents of 
> the current right wing apparatchiks. It seems to have little or no 
> relationship to fiscally conservative ideas.

Aren't the most vocal proponents of right-wing policies the Republican
apparatchiks themselves?  I think "the most vocal proponents of" is
redundant.

> "Left wing" now refers to anyone who disagrees with the
> 'Conservatives', even if said left wing policies are practically
> identical to those of the 'right'.

The notion of right-wing and left-wing as an axis/dimension is garbage.
I think anyone who votes Republican is right-wing and anyone who votes
Democrat is left-wing.  There is no remotely accurate one-dimensional
political scale, and left-wing or right-wing voting doesn't imply
anything about a person's views on the two-dimensional (personal vs
economic liberty) scale that seems to be "in" these days.

Re: potential new IETF WG on anonymous IPSec

[Justin]

On 2004-09-16T20:11:56-0700, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
> 
> At 02:17 PM 9/16/04 -0700, Joe Touch wrote:
> >Except that certs need to be signed by authorities that are trusted.
> 
> Name one.

Oh, come on.  Nothing can be absolutely trusted.  How much security is
enough?

Aren't the DOD CAs trusted enough for your tastes?  Of course, 'tis
problematic for civilians to get certs from there.

Re: potential new IETF WG on anonymous IPSec

[Justin]

On 2004-09-17T19:27:09-0700, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
> 
> At 06:20 AM 9/17/04 +, Justin wrote:
> >On 2004-09-16T20:11:56-0700, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
> >> At 02:17 PM 9/16/04 -0700, Joe Touch wrote:
> >> >Except that certs need to be signed by authorities that are trusted.
> 
> >> Name one.
> >
> >Oh, come on.  Nothing can be absolutely trusted.  How much security is
> >enough?
> >
> >Aren't the DOD CAs trusted enough for your tastes?  Of course, 'tis
> >problematic for civilians to get certs from there.
> 
> DoD certs are good enough for DoD slaves.  Hospital certs are good
> enough for their employees.  Joe's Bait Und Tackle certs are good enough
> 
> for Joe's employees.  Do you think that Verislime is good enough for
> you?

No, verislime is not good enough for me, for ethical reasons, not
security reasons.

What's good enough for most businesses is anything that keeps customers
from seeing self-signed cert warnings.  Given the choice, I'd pick
geotrust over no-thawte or verislime.

The only reason they're in business is because of browser warnings.  It
has nothing to do with "physical security" offered by the CA, or threat
models, or anything of that sort.

For e-commerce, nobody needs high security.  Anyone using a
high-credit-limit account online without a liability limit in case of
account theft is a moron.

-- 
The old must give way to the new, falsehood must become exposed by truth,
and truth, though fought, always in the end prevails.  -- L. Ron Hubbard 

Re: Foreign Travelers Face Fingerprints and Jet Lag

[Justin]

On 2004-10-03T13:32:36-0500, J.A. Terranson wrote:
> 
> The US *is* the Fourth Reich.

Personally, I will take what comes.

-- 
The old must give way to the new, falsehood must become exposed by truth,
and truth, though fought, always in the end prevails.  -- L. Ron Hubbard 

Re: Airport insanity

[Justin]

On 2004-10-16T22:12:52-0400, Sunder wrote:
> There is still of course the matter of the unexploded bombs in that 
> building that were dug out, and that the ATF received a "Don't come in to 
> work" page on their beepers, and the seize and classification of all 
> surveilance video tapes from things like ATM's across the street.

Sources?

-- 
The old must give way to the new, falsehood must become exposed by truth,
and truth, though fought, always in the end prevails.  -- L. Ron Hubbard 

Interventionism

[Justin]

On 2004-10-22T14:59:26-0400, John Kelsey wrote:
> 
> >From: Tyler Durden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Sent: Oct 19, 2004 10:23 AM
> >Subject: US Retardation of Free Markets (was Airport insanity)
> 
> >More than that, some of the countries we've been kicked out or prevented 
> >from influencing have been modernizing rapidly, the most obvious example is 
> >China and Vietnam. Bolivia is interesting to watch.
> 
> So, Taiwan and South Korea seem like rather obvious counterexamples.
> 
> (Not a fan of interventionist foreign policy, FWIW)

I'm torn on Interventionism, and I suppose everyone is in some way.  I
believe that no matter how "oppressed" someone is, they can still
accomplish great things.  Based on that alone, there is little reason to
intervene in other countries' societies even if their governments are
perpetuating discrimination.

I also think it's a mistake to say that the U.S. has been so successful
because it's a democratic republic.  Wasn't it the spirit of those who
rebelled against British rule, rather than the particular form of
government they established, that was critical in establishing the U.S.
as a progress-oriented nation?

A semi-free society that has fewer economic regulations will have more
companies, and more capital that can be directed to pay people to do
research or to fund development of abstract ideas into usable
technologies.  However, even though economic deregulation aides
progress, is that a justification for rebellion or for war?


Consider Saudi Arabia.  Ignore the House of Saud's ties with the Bush
family, for a moment.  I hope everyone will agree that Saudi society and
government discriminates significantly in its treatment of men vs women.

Hopefully everyone will also agree that there are some, though certainly
a minority, of both men and women in Saudi Arabia who do not like their
rights under sharia and under the monarchy.  They want some guarantee of
equal rights, at least equal treatment by government (in matters of
divorce, voting, women's travel w/o closest-male-relative's permission,
etc.).  Ignore the "dress code" -- abaya and all that -- of Islamic law.
I'm interested in more substantive rights, rather than purely social
(non-government-enforced) discrimination.

1) Do individuals in that minority have a right to equal treatment by
government?

2) Does the fact that they are not numerous enough to foment a rebellion
mean they don't have that right?

3) Is there something inherently different about
equal-treatment-by-government, vs a discriminatory system under sharia,
that makes aiding a rebellion "good" or at least "neutral" in an
absolute moral sense?  Can intervention be justified?

4) If (3), can secondary considerations (oil access, "friendly
democracies" in the middle east, etc.) nullify any moral right to
intervene on behalf of an oppressed minority?

5) If (3), do a people with the means to displace discriminatory
governments have a _duty_ to do so?  (whether the U.S. has the means,
given that any military operation will increase government debt, is
debatable.)


If the U.S. has a right to invade other countries based on
government-enforced discrimination, do they have a right to invade the
U.S. based on democracies' tendency to produce a population rendered
brain-dead by the media and by demagogues?  How does the U.S. tendency
to create world-leading corporations mitigate the fact that many of its
citizens are vegetables?

Do I have a right not to live in a society where people are brainwashed
by the educational system, by media, and by government?  Because in such
a society, there is really no democracy.

-- 
The old must give way to the new, falsehood must become exposed by truth,
and truth, though fought, always in the end prevails.  -- L. Ron Hubbard 

Re: Doubt

[Justin]

On 2004-10-25T10:00:46-0400, Tyler Durden wrote:
> 
> Peter Capelli wrote...
> 
> >Yet what of your blindness, which doubts *everything* the current
> >administration does?
> 
> 1. Abu Ghraib
> 2. WMD in Iraq
> 3. Patriot Act
> 4. Countless ties between this administration and the major contract 
> winners in Iraq
5. Campaign Finance Reform
6. Abortion
7. Faith-based initiatives
8. Bush, Ashcroft, and most others in the administration are prudish

-- 
The old must give way to the new, falsehood must become exposed by truth,
and truth, though fought, always in the end prevails.  -- L. Ron Hubbard 

Re: Donald's Job Description

[Justin]

On 2004-10-25T22:32:48+0200, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 03:20:28PM -0400, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
> 
> > *Nobody* was a counterbalance to Tim, me or anyone else. Simple fact, no
> > matter how much he pissed on my shoes, or anyone else's.
> 
> What's he up to these days? It seems he got tired of of USENET, too

Maybe an assassin got past his home defense network?

Re: The Values-Vote Myth

[Justin]

On 2004-11-06T16:39:41+0100, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 08:46:17AM -0500, Tyler Durden wrote:
> 
> > So: A 'moral values' question for Cypherpunks. Does this election indict 
> > the American people as being complicit in the crime known as "Operation 
> 
> Of course. What kind of question is that? Regardless of voting fraud, about
> half of US has voted for four more years of the same. Guilty.

Not true.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/03/voter.turnout.ap/

"[Curtis] Gans puts the total turnout at nearly 120 million people.
That represents just under 60% of eligible voters..."

120m * 100%/60% = 200 million eligible voters  (The U.S. population
according to census.gov was 290,809,777 as of 2003-07-01

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/
"Bush Vote: 59,459,765"
Let's generously round that up to 65 million.

65m/200m = 32.5% of eligible voters voted for Bush
65m/290.8m = 22.4% of the U.S. population voted for Bush

I can't find an accurate number of registered voters, but one article
suggests 15% of registered voters don't vote.  That means there are
probably around 141m registered voters.  Bush didn't even win majority
support from /those/.

65m/141m = 46% of registered voters voted for Bush


-- 
The old must give way to the new, falsehood must become exposed by truth,
and truth, though fought, always in the end prevails.  -- L. Ron Hubbard 

Supreme Court Issues

[Justin]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/07/politics/07court.html?partner=ALTAVISTA1&pagewanted=print

We're going to get some extremist anti-abortion, pro-internment,
anti-1A, anti-4A, anti-5A, anti-14A, right-wing wacko.

Imagine Ashcroft as Chief Justice.

I really hope I'm wrong.

What happens when the Chief Justice is dead?  Can someone close to him
(like his secretary) pull the strings on his corpose and "send in" his
votes indefinitely, without his being in attendance during the
conferences, receiving case briefs from his law clerks, or attending
oral arguments?

> In the two weeks that Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, 80, has been
> treated for a serious form of thyroid cancer, life at the court has
> proceeded without a sense of crisis. The judicial function is shared
> by eight other people, with Justice John Paul Stevens, the senior
> associate justice, presiding over courtroom sessions and the justices'
> private conferences. The administrative tasks are carried out, as they
> usually are under the chief justice's direction, by his administrative
> assistant, Sally M. Rider, a former federal prosecutor and State
> Department lawyer.
> 
> These arrangements can continue almost indefinitely. Nonetheless, as it
> has become evident that Chief Justice Rehnquist will not be returning
> soon, a sense of sadness and uncertainty has spread throughout the court
> and into the wider community of federal judges who have received no more
> information than the general public about the chief justice's condition
> and prospects.
> 
> Judges have refrained from calling either Chief Justice Rehnquist or Ms.
> Rider. "I don't have the nerve," one judge who has worked closely with
> the chief justice said Friday. "The vibes I get just aren't good."
> 
> A judge who did call the chief justice's chambers in anticipation of a
> visit to Washington was steered away from visiting his home in
> Arlington, Va. The justices have sent notes, but it is not clear whether
> any have seen or even talked to him.
> 
> Information from official channels has been minimal. The court's press
> office would not say whether the chief justice was present for the
> justices' regular Friday morning conference, at which they review new
> cases and decide which to grant. (He was not.) Nor would the press
> office say whether, if he did not attend, he sent in his votes. (He
> did.)

> The chief justice, it appears, has functioned as his own press
> officer. Surely a professional would have cautioned him, on the day it
> was announced that he had just undergone a tracheotomy, against making
> a public promise to be back at work in a week. Every cancer specialist
> whom reporters consulted after the announcement found that prediction
> highly implausible.
> 
> And when the chief justice found on Monday that he could not fulfill the
> promise, he subtly but unmistakably indicated that the error had been
> his own and not his doctors': "According to my doctors, my plan to
> return to the office today was too optimistic."
> 
> Chief Justice Rehnquist's statement on Monday said that he was receiving
> radiation and chemotherapy on an outpatient basis. Both the aggressive
> treatment and the observations of those who have seen him in recent
> weeks suggest that the disease is advanced and rapidly progressing.
> 
> A judge who attended a meeting with him in late September said the chief
> justice looked well and spoke without the hoarseness that was apparent
> by the time the court's new term began Oct. 4; a spreading thyroid tumor
> can impinge on the nerves that control the vocal cords. By mid-October,
> one court employee who saw the chief justice in his street clothes was
> struck by his frailty. "That robe can hide a lot," this employee said.
> 
> The court will hear arguments in this coming week and then again in the
> two weeks following the Thanksgiving weekend. It will then go on recess
> until Jan. 10. During that substantial interval, people at the court now
> appear to think, the chief justice will have a chance to assess his
> situation and decide whether to retire.
> 
> Although there seems to be widespread public confusion on this point -
> memories have faded in the 18 years since Chief Justice Rehnquist's
> contentious confirmation hearing - a chief justice must be separately
> nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, even if the
> person is already sitting on the Supreme Court. If the president wants
> to choose a sitting justice, he can pick any of them, without regard to
> seniority.
> 
> Historically, promotion from within has been the exception; only 5 of
> the 16 chief justices previously served as associate justices,
> including Chief Justice Rehnquist, who spent his first 14 years on
> the court as an associate before President Ronald Reagan offered him
> a promotion in 1986.
> 
> The timing of his illness, more than two months before the start of the
> 109th Congress, raises another prospect: that of a recess app

Re: Collateral damage?

[Justin]

On 2004-11-08T20:42:33-0800, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
> 
> >How does this change if I'm a child whose trust fund contains the
> >stock?  Or if I hold a >mutual fund I inherited with a little Exxon
> >stock
> 
> What part of "collateral damage" don't you understand?

Yep.  When we shoot at people we think are terrorists and they turn out
to be an innocent Iraqis, we're acting maliciously and we want to turn
Iraq in to an American empire.  When radial islamists attack us and hit
U.S. citizens many of whose only connection to the government is voting
biennially, it's collateral damage.

-- 
The old must give way to the new, falsehood must become exposed by truth,
and truth, though fought, always in the end prevails.  -- L. Ron Hubbard 

Re: The Values-Vote Myth

[Justin]

On 2004-11-08T10:09:41-0500, John Kelsey wrote:
> Kerry spent essentially no time talking about the creepy implications
> of the Jose Padilla case (isn't he still being held incommunicado,
> pending filing in the right district?), or the US government's use of
> torture in the war on terror despite treaties and the basic
> obligations of civilized people not to do that crap.

Padilla is still in the naval brig in SC, I suppose.  The media seems to
think he's still there, or at least thought so as of mid-September.

They might be trying to do to him what they did to Hamdi, who's in Saudi
Arabia as of a month ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaser_Hamdi#Release
http://www.mail-archive.com/conlawprof@lists.ucla.edu/thrd2.html
(search for Hamdi, there are 8-10 messages about it)

I don't know if Padilla has dual citizenship, so there may not be
another country that would take him.  Apparent citizen-less individuals
(mostly citizens of other countries who won't re-accept them when the
U.S. tries to deport them) end up being incarcerated indefinitely by the
INS.

-- 
The old must give way to the new, falsehood must become exposed by truth,
and truth, though fought, always in the end prevails.  -- L. Ron Hubbard 

Re: Tin Foil Passports?

[Justin]

On 2004-11-27T06:36:24-0800, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
> At 09:13 AM 11/27/04 +0100, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> >Link: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/27/0026222
> >Posted by: michael, on 2004-11-27 05:05:00
> >   low-cost solution: '[I]incorporate a layer of metal foil into the
> >   cover of the passport so it could be read only when opened.' Don't
> >   they know that the whole tinfoil hat thing is supposed to be a
> >   joke?"
> 
> What is most poignant about this post is the lack of education of /.
> authors.  Don't they teach Maxwell any more?  Is Faraday just the guy
> who said ...

Standardized education. We can't have anyone teaching to the 50th
percentile, even assuming the median teen-citizen can handle basic
calculus and E&M.  Teachers must teach one or two sigmas below that
level, and anyone who gets hyperactive in such an inane educational
environment is malfunctioning and requires medication.

There has always been an uneducated class. These days, its members can
be found in gangs, sitting at home watching TV and drinking beer, or
hanging out on slashdot writing open-source software.

-- 
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of
thought which they seldom use."  --Kierkegaard, Either/Or, Diapsalmata

Re: Anti-RFID outfit deflates Mexican VeriChip hype

[Justin]

On 2004-12-01T10:27:59-0500, R.A. Hettinga wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> In a 19 July, 2004 press release, Albrecht made a clear mention of the
> imaginary 160:
> 
> "Promoting implanted RFID devices as a security measure is downright
> 'loco,'" says Katherine Albrecht. "Advertising you've got a chip in your
> arm that opens important doors is an invitation to kidnapping and
> mutilation."

But maybe the officials have a real (locating) transmitter implanted in
their leg.  The corrupt cops kidnap the official to get the fake
implant, and in the process the kidnappers expose their own operation?

Re: primes as far as the eye can see, discrete continua

[Justin]

On 2004-12-08T11:10:28-0500, Roy M. Silvernail wrote:
> 
> Tyler Durden wrote:
> 
> >What about where N=1?
> >
> >I don't understand. You can only have an infinite number (or number of 
> >progressions) where the number of numbers in a number is inifinite.
> 
> differing by 2.  The _Science_ article is behind their paid-subscription 
> wall, so I can't look at the source, but 

I'm not sure if this is the right paper, but it's what I was looking at:

http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/math.NT/0404188

(linked from http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~bjg23/preprints.html)

Re: primes as far as the eye can see, discrete continua

[Justin]

On 2004-12-08T10:30:22-0500, Tyler Durden wrote:
> >From: "Major Variola (ret)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >Saw in a recent _Science_ that Ben Green of Cambridge proved
> >that for any N, there are an infinite number of evenly spaced
> >progressions
> >of primes that are N numbers long.   He got a prize for that.
> 
> What about where N=1?
> 
> I don't understand. You can only have an infinite number (or number of 
> progressions) where the number of numbers in a number is inifinite.

True for N=1 trivially, because it's easily proven that there are
infinitely many primes.  (For a set of primes S, find the product of
them all and add 1.  The result is obviously not divisible by any prime
in S, so it's either a prime or a composite that factors into at least
two smaller primes not in S.  Either way, add the new prime(s) to S, and
repeat.)

I looked at B. Green's paper, but got lost around page 10 (of 50).

He apparently proves that there are arbitrarily long progressions of
primes.  From that, you can cut some such arbitrarily long progression
of primes into k-length progressions, and as N->infinity, you end up
approaching an infinite number of k-length progressions.

It's even easier (conceptually) if you accept two different progressions
that have different spacing.  for instance, when N=3,

5,11,17
17,23,29
31,37,43
would be a set of equal-spacing progressions.

5,11,17
17,53,89
would be a set of unequal-spacing progressions.  Different progressions
have different spacings.

The paper was giving me a headache so I don't want to try to figure out
which he meant.  Clearly, the former is stronger.

Re: Insurrectionist covers

[Justin]

On 2004-12-10T15:50:22-0500, Steve Thompson wrote:
> 
>  --- "R.W. (Bob) Erickson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
> > Steve Thompson wrote:
> > 
> > > --- "R.W. (Bob) Erickson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
> > > [Colouring outside the lines]
> > >
> > Yes, you have a point there.I guess a better cover would be as local 
> > coordinator of Neighborhood Watch
> 
> c.f. "Take back the night", et. cetera.  (And put it where?)
> 
> Anyhow, isn't insurrection illegal or something?  ISTR reading about the
> natural right of the corrupt state to exist unconditionally, and it's
> obligation to crush any question of change for any reason.
> 
> The structure of the state in fact defines its identity as a 'person'; and
> since changeing the state structure could be viewed as the murder of the
> state's personality, the state has the right, nay, obligation to preserve
> its identity unchanged.  (Isn't this pretty much polysci 101 material?)

Not typically.  The idea that the state has its own identity is obvious,
because it has a name -- the "state".  It is clearly an atomic entity,
in the same sense as a beehive or ant colony (to borrow unapologetically
from R. Dawkins).  However, discussion of the state as an singular
entity that acts to preserve itself is typically delayed until study of
Leviathan.  Then it's expanded when studying Kant's theory of
International Relations.

Those are typically 2nd-year courses, at a minimum.  IR is typically 3rd
or 4th year, but Leviathan is discussed in any number of classes, just
not polysci 101.

Re: Mixmaster is dead, long live wardriving

[Justin]

On 2004-12-11T06:48:41-0800, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
> 
> At 09:47 PM 12/10/04 -0800, Joseph Ashwood wrote:
> >Now we're back to the MixMaster argument. Mixmaster was meant to be a
> >"Napster-level popular app" for emailing, but people just don't care
> >about anonymity.
> 
> Mixmaster is the most godawful complex thing to use, much less
> administer, around.  Even Jack B Nymble is complex.  It needs a simple
> luser interface and something to piggyback servers on.

Not necessarily.  Mixmaster is trivial to use with Mutt.

1. Compile Mixmaster
2. Put the binary in some directory somewhere.
3. Configure Mutt with --with-mixmaster  (sadly not enabled by default)
4. add the line 'set mixmaster="/location/to/bin/mixmaster"' to .muttrc
5. mkdir ~user/Mix/
6. Add a script to crontab that does:

  cd ~user/Mix/
  mv -f mlist.txt mlist.txt.old
  wget -q http://stats.melontraffickers.com/mlist.txt
  mv -f rlist.txt rlist.txt.old
  wget -q http://stats.melontraffickers.com/rlist.txt
  mv -f pubring.mix pubring.mix.old
  wget -q http://stats.melontraffickers.com/pubring.mix
  mv -f type2.list type2.list.old
  wget -q http://stats.melontraffickers.com/type2.list
  mv -f pubring.asc pubring.asc.old
  wget -q http://stats.melontraffickers.com/pgp-all.asc
  mv -f pgp-all.asc pubring.asc

6.5.  And run it once for good measure.
7. When sending email, at the summary page just before sending, hit 'M'.

Re: Do 'Ocean's Twelve'-Style Heists Really Happen?

[Justin]

On 2004-12-15T10:14:14-0500, R.A. Hettinga wrote:
> 
> This popped up in my "bearer" filter this morning...
> 
> Cheers,
> RAH
> ---
> 
> 
> 
> MTV.com - Movies - News
>   12.14.2004 9:03 PM EST
> 
> Reel To Real: Do 'Ocean's Twelve'-Style Heists Really Happen?
> Sometimes, but the real-life criminals can't possibly be as hot as George
> Clooney and Brad Pitt.

http://home.earthlink.net/~kinnopio/news/news040922.htm
(it's gone, but google still has it cached)

"The Bank Job will have Statham playing a real-life bank robber. The
plot is based on the true story of Britain's biggest bank robbery ever:
In 1971 the Baker Street bank in London was robbed, no arrests were ever
made, and none of the money was ever found.  It's a story that hasn't
been told in 30 years because of a government-issued gag order."

The incident is also discussed briefly here:
http://www.lukeford.net/profiles/profiles/ross_bell.htm

There is some doubt whether the heist was real... if it did happen, it's
been covered up for so long that finding any real proof would be
difficult.  It could be a scam just to make money off of a movie.

Re: pgp "global directory" bugged instructions

[Justin]

On 2004-12-16T05:50:22-0500, Adam Back wrote:
> 
> So PGP are now running a pgp key server which attempts to consolidate
> the inforamtion from the existing key servers, but screen it by
> ability to receive email at the address.
> ...
> So here's the problem: it does not mention anything about checking
> that this is your fingerprint.

What about the fact that they're tying key validity to valid email
addresses, when the two have nothing to do with each other?  A key does
not need to have an associated email address, or the latter could be
purposely incorrect.

If this is their idea of key verification, they're going to exclude
perfectly legitimate keys from this new database.

Re: Coffee, Tea, or Should We Feel Your Pregnant Wife's Breasts Before Throwing You in a Cell at the Airport and Then Lying About Why We Put You There?

[Justin]

On 2004-12-21T10:38:10-0600, J.A. Terranson wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, Tyler Durden wrote:
> 
> > put it this way it starts to make some sense. In other words, avoiding
> > travel whenever possible will (when added to sheeple starting to do the same
> > because of all the terible screening stories) eventually start putting some
> > squeeze on the airlines.
> 
> I expect that "eventually" in this context would == (hours to [one or two]
> days)

Academic.  Everyone will not boycott, so the time frame will increase.

> > (But then again, DC has plenty of our tax dollars ready to bail out an
> > incompetent set of airline managers.) It won't hurt at least.
> 
> Even DC can't bail out *all* the airlines.  That kind of boycott *would*
> hurt, and hurt badly.  And *fast*.

Never play chicken with the federal government.  They can bail out all
the airlines (minus one: they don't need to bail out Southwest
Airlines).  They'd just need to raise taxes or increase the debt,
neither of which is a major impediment.

> > 1) Phone it in
> > 2) Do some kind of lameass video conferencing
> > 3) Fly
> > 4) Get a job at McDonalds
> 
> First of all, this is a *great* example of why flying is an *option*, and
> not a "requirement".  That said, option number 4 is the obvious choice -
> however, our leggy bimbo's mileage may vary.

This is a bit misleading.  The leggy bimbo can choose option 4 if she's
not smart enough to do something else... like _local_ sales, or even
starting up a psychic reading shop and making lots of money from other
bimbos.

Re: California Bans a Large-Caliber Gun, and the Battle Is On

[Justin]

On 2005-01-08T12:54:25-0500, Tyler Durden wrote:
> >What else would the PATRIOT act do?  That's a particularly malicious

That was scarcasm.

> >psychological trick on the part of the miserable bastards who named it.
> >It doesn't so much matter that it's obvious.
> 
> Somehow, I don't think the bastards were hoping for the kind of 
> "Patriotism" I have in mind: Large caliber guns to protect our 
> constitutional freedoms, or at least to make it damn costly for individuals 
> to carry out orders trying to take them away.

It's the socially conservative public at large who have fallen prey to
the association between the PATRIOT act and patriotism.  I did not
intend to suggest that you or most other cypherpunks members have.

-- 
"War is the father and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as men; 
some he makes slaves, others free." -Heraclitus 53

Re: California Bans a Large-Caliber Gun, and the Battle Is On

[Justin]

On 2005-01-06T12:06:40-0500, Tyler Durden wrote:
> 
> Well, I used to be pro gun-control prior to the Patriot Act. Guess the 
> Patriot Act made me something of a Patriot.

What else would the PATRIOT act do?  That's a particularly malicious
psychological trick on the part of the miserable bastards who named it.
It doesn't so much matter that it's obvious.

I should like to take this opportunity to remind that it's an acronym,
and therefore is properly written in all caps.  The taboo against
YELLING should carry over to the acronym, making people subconsciously
dislike it.

-- 
"War is the father and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as men; 
some he makes slaves, others free." -Heraclitus 53

Re: Ready, Aim, ID Check: In Wrong Hands, Gun Won't Fire

[Justin]

On 2005-01-11T10:07:22-0500, Trei, Peter wrote:
> Justin wrote:
> > 
> > I don't believe the article when it says that smart guns are useless
> > if stolen.  What do they have, a tamper-proof memory chip storing a
> > 128-bit reprogramming authorization key that must be input via
> > computer before allowing a new person to be authorized?  And what's
> > to stop a criminal from ripping out all the circuitry and the safety
> > it engages?
> 
> The 'stolen gun' problems most of the so-called 'smart gun' proposals
> are trying to address are the situation when a cop's own gun is taken
> from him and immediately used against him, or a kid finding one in a
> drawer. A determined and resourceful person can, given time, defeat
> them all.

from the article:
"Guns taken from a home during a robbery would be rendered useless, too."


The South African Smart gun...
> http://www.wmsa.net/other/thumb_gun.htm

Totally useless.  Failure modes and various other complaints:

-cannot connect to cellular network
-cannot receive GPS signal
-out of batteries
-laser diode craps out
-fingerprint scanner takes more than 0 time to use.
-ammunition is more expensive
-"window" in ammunition can be dirty or fogged, causing failure
-any sort of case failure will probably destroy the electronics
-will never be as small as subcompact firearms
-if smartcard is stolen, gun won't fire (other "smart guns" use rings)
-all the electronic tracing capability requires gun/ammo registration

I'd almost rather have a taser.

What assurance do I have that the circuitry won't malfunction and fire
when I don't want it to?  What if a HERF gun can not only render the gun
useless, but make it fire as well?

-- 
"War is the father and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as men; 
some he makes slaves, others free." -Heraclitus 53

Re: Ready, Aim, ID Check: In Wrong Hands, Gun Won't Fire

[Justin]

On 2005-01-10T15:42:47-0500, Tyler Durden wrote:
> 
> And we'll probably have many years of non-Smart-Gun type accidents...eg, 
> Drunk guy at party put gun to his head and blew his own brains out, 
> assuming it was a smart gun, or, trailer park momma gives gun to toddler 
> assuming its a "safe" smart gun.

Some gun "accidents" are suicides reported as such to avoid
embarrassment to the family.  Similarly, I think a few of the gun
"accidents" involving real "children", which are extremely rare to begin
with, go like this...

"Son, why don't you take this gun and pretend to go shoot daddy?  It's
not loaded." Or, "Son, why don't you take the gun, put it to your head,
and pull the trigger?  It's not loaded."

I don't believe the article when it says that smart guns are useless if
stolen.  What do they have, a tamper-proof memory chip storing a 128-bit
reprogramming authorization key that must be input via computer before
allowing a new person to be authorized?  And what's to stop a criminal
from ripping out all the circuitry and the safety it engages?

-- 
"War is the father and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as men; 
some he makes slaves, others free." -Heraclitus 53

Re: Ready, Aim, ID Check: In Wrong Hands, Gun Won't Fire

[Justin]

On 2005-01-10T15:04:21-0500, Trei, Peter wrote:
> 
> John Kelsey
> 
> > >Ready, Aim, ID Check: In Wrong Hands, Gun Won't Fire
> > > By ANNE EISENBERG
> > 
> > I just wonder what the false negative rates are.  Seem like a 
> 
> A remarkable number of police deaths are 'own gun' 
> incidents, so the police do have a strong motivation 
> to use 'smart guns' if they are reliable.

The NJ law specifically exempts the police from the smart gun
requirement (which for civilians goes into effect in 2007 or 2008).
Regardless, the legislature doesn't need to get involved for law
enforcement to change their weapons policy and require "smart guns."

False positives may also present a problem.  If the only way to get an
acceptable identification rate (99%, for instance) is to create a 50%
false positive rate for unauthorized users, that's reduces utilitarian
benefit by half.

Batteries go dead.  Solder joints break.  Transistors and capacitors go
bad.  Pressure sensors jam.  This is not the kind of technology I want
in something that absolutely, positively has to go boom if I want it to.

For handguns, I'll stick with pure mechanical mechanisms, thanks.
"Smart guns" are a ploy to raise the cost of guns, make them require
more maintenance, annoy owners, and as a result decrease gun ownership.

-- 
"War is the father and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as men; 
some he makes slaves, others free." -Heraclitus 53

Re: Ridge Wants Fingerprints in Passports

[Justin]

On 2005-01-13T17:46:39-0800, Bill Stewart wrote:
> 
> He's smearing his sticky fingerprints all over everything else,
> and now he wants them in our passports?
> Oughtta learn to keep his hands to himself.

Fine with me if the first person to get a new biometric passport gets
Ridge's fingers as part of the deal -- to verify for the world that the
prints are valid.

-- 
"War is the father and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as men; 
some he makes slaves, others free." -Heraclitus 53

Re: Florida man faces bioweapon charge

[Justin]

On 2005-01-13T17:48:13-0800, Eric Cordian wrote:
> 
> RAH pastes:
> 
> > She said that on at least one occasion he showed her something he had
> > purchased via the Internet and expressed concern that if their cat
> > inadvertently ate enough of it, the cat would die, according to the
> > affidavit.
> 
> Obviously this news story is the grand prize winner in an innuendo 
> contest.

The article also neglects to mention FEDERAL AGENCIES' pet KILL ratio.
I'm not sure about cats specifically, but dog killing is quite popular.

> > The FBI is still investigating who sent two letters that contained ricin in
> > 2003 through the U.S. postal system. Those letters contained threats and
> > complaints about labor regulations in the trucking industry.

Evidently the kid was in possession of Envelopes of Mass Destruction as
well as castor beans, guns, and books.  Envelopes!  Everyone knows that
civilized people communicate via instant/text message or email (insofar
as they are distinct).  We have no need for these ENVELOPES, which as
well as being used to send toxins to KILL LAW-ABIDING TAXPAYERS also
cause untold annual economic damage from paper-cut-caused hospital
visits.

> > In 1978, Georgi Markov, a Bulgarian writer and journalist in London, died
> > after a man attacked him with an umbrella that had been rigged to inject a
> > ricin pellet under his skin.
> 
> And WTF does this have to do with the guy with the castor beans?

I spot the beginnings of yet another war.  Please excuse me while I go
bury my umbrellas.  PATRIOTS use hooded raincoats.  We have no NEED for
barbaric and dangerous implements like UMBRELLAS.

> Looks like "Ricin Theatre" has joined "Anthrax Theatre" in the armory of 
> Weapons of Mass Deception.

You forgot the guns!  The GUNS!  Those terrible and bloody implements of
death ARE totally unnecessary!  Never mind that they're PERFECTLY LEGAL
and they don't make ricin (excuse me, castor beans) any more deadly.  He
still had guns!

-- 
"War is the father and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as men; 
some he makes slaves, others free." -Heraclitus 53

Re: Police Worried About New Vest-Penetrating Gun

[Justin]

On 2005-01-15T09:38:23+, Justin wrote:
> On 2005-01-14T15:42:18-0800, Bill Stewart wrote:
> 
> > Seems like scare-mongering to me, not a practical concern.
> 
> Of course it's not a practical concern.  Criminals already have access
> to handguns that will defeat common soft body armor.  This media panic
> was instigated by a press release from the Violence Policy Center, which
> has evidently (for now) given up trying to pass a new assault weapon
> ban, and is instead finding new legislative targets.

I didn't remember which group it was, and I guessed wrong.  It wasn't
the VPC.  It was the Brady Campaign/MMM.
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=41691

-- 
"War is the father and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as men; 
some he makes slaves, others free." -Heraclitus 53

Re: Police Worried About New Vest-Penetrating Gun

[Justin]

On 2005-01-14T16:54:32-0500, R.A. Hettinga wrote:
> 
> 
> Police Worried About New Vest-Penetrating Gun

I care?  Well, perhaps I do... I should go pick one up before they're
banned.

>  The most shocking fact may be that the gun -- known as the "five-seven" --
> is being marketed to the public, and it's completely legal

The name is "Five-seveN."  It's made by Fabrique Nationale (FN).

Allegedly the U.S. secret service likes the Five-seveN, along with the
FN P90 (unavailable to civilians except title 2 firearms dealers because
it's only made in a select-fire version).  They both use the same 5.7mm
rounds, which makes logistics easier.  Of course, they also use MP5s and
9mm handguns...

Other guns with civilian-legal "armor-piercing" ammo include the CZ-52,
.223 pistols, and most all rifles.

> At a distance of 21 feet, Trumball police Sgt. Lenny Scinto fired the
> five-seven with the ammo sold legally to the public into a standard police
> vest. All three penetrated the vest.

The real ammo penetrates CRISAT/PAGST armor at 100m and 300m
respectively.  Level 2 or 3a armor is really rather pathetic.

> Back in Trumball, Scinto said his officers would have to rethink how to
> protect the public and protect themselves.

Police have no duty to protect the public.  Anyway, most of "the public"
doesn't walk around wearing vests, so protecting "the public" from these
is no different than protecting them from other firearms.  Protecting
the police from these is no different than protecting them from rifles.
Only trauma plates can stop pointy, high-velocity rounds.

> "This is going to add a whole new dimension to training and tactics. With
> the penetration of these rounds, you're going to have to find something
> considerably heavier than we normally use for cover and concealment to stop
> this round," Scinto said.

Cool, more LEOs instantly recognizable as beetles, having exoskeletons.
I recommend Kafka's Metamorphoses to them as sociological grounding for
what sort of reaction they can expect.

-- 
"War is the father and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as men; 
some he makes slaves, others free." -Heraclitus 53

Re: Police Worried About New Vest-Penetrating Gun

[Justin]

On 2005-01-14T15:42:18-0800, Bill Stewart wrote:
> 
> At 01:54 PM 1/14/2005, R.A. Hettinga wrote:
> 
> >
> >NEW YORK -- There is a nationwide alert to members of law enforcement
> >regarding a new kind of handgun which can render a bulletproof vest
> >useless, as first reported by NewsChannel 4's Scott Weinberger.
> >...
> >The weapon is light, easily concealable and can fire 20 rounds in seconds
> >without reloading.
> 
> A couple of questions to the gunpunks out there...
> I've heard that rifles easily penetrate bullet-proof vests,
> and that vests are really only useful against average-to-small handguns
> and against shotguns.  Is this accurate?

There are various levels of body armor specified by the NIJ.  In order
of effectiveness (lower to higher): Levels IIa, II, IIIa, III, and IV.
http://www.nlectc.org/txtfiles/BodyArmorStd/NIJSTD010103.html

Level IV typically takes the form of a trauma plate and is put into a
pouch in the front (and/or in the back) of soft body armor.  III and IV
are heavier, bulkier, and as a result aren't used as much.

The NIJ standards are based on stopping standard bullets up to certain
velocity limits (preventing them from going through the vest), _plus_
"backface deformation" limits.  They put the vests over geletin, and the
volume displaced by the vest when it absorbs the shot is measured and
must be less than a specified limit.  There is a lot of sentiment that
this testing method is crap, and all that should matter is whether the
bullet goes through the vest.  Or at least that backface deformation
should be less heavily emphasized.

Then there are other specifications outside of the NIJ scheme; for
instance, the there's "PAGST" and "CRISAT" body armor.  I don't recall
what they stand for.

> Any idea how much you can saw off a rifle
> and still have it penetrate typical cop vests?

A lot.  5.56mm pistols (based on the AR-15 and available from olympic
arms or bushmaster, among other manufacturers) are perfectly legal and
will shoot through IIIa vests.  The real jump up is between IIIa and
III; the former mainly stops handgun rounds, while the latter allegedly
stops standard .223 and .308 loads, but I'm not sure... before I looked
it up just now, I thought only level IV trauma plates stopped .308.
Cops typically wear level II or IIIa armor.

And even trauma plates will not stop repeated hits to the same area.  If
you expect to be shot at with a rifle, you do not want to be out in the
open where many hits are unavoidable.  Ceramic plates weaken through
chipping, and metal plates weaken through stress/deformation.

> (And I assume the "20 rounds in seconds" is just a scary way to say
> "it has a big magazine and you have to pull the trigger 20 times".)

Of course.  Otherwise it would be a machine gun, and new machine guns
are not available to civilians... and haven't been since the 1986
Firearm Owners Protection Act.

The anti-gun forces try hard to associate the assault weapons ban expiry
with the availability of machineguns.  They are lying.

> Also, the police expressed worry that criminals might hear about
> these guns and then the cops would be in big trouble.

This gun, the Five-seveN, has been available for years.  What hasn't
been available for years, I don't think, is the "practice" non-AP
ammunition.  And, of course, some FFLs (gun dealers) are unwilling to
sell the Five-seveN to private citizens.

> Sounds silly to me - while some criminals might buy a
> "cop-killer handgun" for bragging rights,
> random criminals presumably only buy weapons useful for the
> scenarios they imagine being in,

Other armor-piercing handguns include .223 pistols and the CZ 52; there
are also nasty rounds, though generally unavailable, for 9mm handguns
that will penetrate IIIa armor.  Ordinary rounds at +P+ pressures may
even do it.  

The Five-seveN bullets have a muzzle velocity about half-way between
handgun bullet velocities and rifle bullet velocities.  Given the round
diameter (5.7mm) and the short barrel (compared to rifles) of the
Five-seveN, it's essentially a rifle round.  5.56mm pistols fire rounds
with nearly the same diameter, though they weigh more (5.7mm bullets are
~~30gr, standard 5.56mm is 55 or 62gr) and therefore require more powder
to achieve the same velocities.  Hence the longer cartridges for 5.56mm
(I use .223 and 5.56 interchangably; they're technically not the same
thing but close enough for government work).

Most .223 pistols are based on the AR-15, so their magazines attach
outside of the pistol grip and make them look scarier.  That also makes
them slightly less concealable, which is why they're not being attacked
by the anti-gun forces.  Perhaps the anti-gunners don't think they're
legal.

> which is Saturday Night Specials for most applications,
> or whatever currently fashionable Mac10/Uzi/etc.
> for druglord armies that expect to be shooting at each other,
> or rifles for distance work and dual-use picku

Re: panix.com hijacked

[Justin]

On 2005-01-16T09:46:28-0500, R.A. Hettinga wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 01:32:46 EST, Henry Yen said:
> > >
> > > . panix.net usable as panix.com (marcotte) Sat Jan 15 10:44:57 2005
> >
> > So let's see.. the users will see this when they log into shell.panix.net
> > (since shell.panix.com is borked). Somehow that doesn't seem to help much.
> 
> and the hijackers could be, potentially, running a box pretending to be
> shell.panix.com, gathering userids and passwds :(

Object lesson in why using replayable passwords is not a good idea.
Allah invented nonce-based password hashes and public key crypto for a
reason.

-- 
"War is the father and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as
men; some he makes slaves, others free." -Heraclitus Kahn.83/D-K.53

Re: Scientific American on Quantum Encryption

[Justin]

On 2005-01-20T12:16:34+0100, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> Scientific American has little clue, as usual (see their nanotechnology
> retraction).

How could they possibly get clue?  Scientists don't want to write
pop-sci articles for a living.  It's impossible to condense most current
research down to digestible kernels that the masses can understand.
SciAm should close down, requiring those who care about science to learn
enough about it to read science journals.

Professors who can teach a QM course well in a semester are rare enough.
I doubt any one of them could write a 5000 word article on quantum
entanglement that would be intelligible to the average cretinous
American who wants to seem smart by reading Sci-Am.  If they want to be
smart, they can start by picking up an undergrad-level book on QM.  But
that requires much effort to read, unlike a glossy 5000 word article.

Journalism should not be a college major.  Journalists in the main know
little about how to write and interview, and less about the topics they
write on.  They don't understand that being able to write (and in many
cases even that ability is in serious doubt) doesn't qualify them to
write on any topic they choose.  Many journalists aren't qualified to
write on anything, not even journalism.

-- 
"War is the father and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as
men; some he makes slaves, others free."  --Heraclitus (Kahn.83/D-K.53)

Re: MPAA files new film-swapping suits

[Justin]

> 
> 
> Hollywood studios filed a second round of lawsuits against online
> movie-swappers on Wednesday, stepping up legal pressure on the file-trading
> community.

As much as I'd like to be upset, they are driving innovation of p2p
software.

-- 
"War is the father and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as
men; some he makes slaves, others free."  --Heraclitus (Kahn.83/D-K.53) 

Re: Scientists Work on Software to Scan Arabic

[Justin]

On 2005-01-28T20:03:22-0500, R.A. Hettinga wrote:
> 
> The New York Times
> January 27, 2005
> Scientists Work on Software to Scan Arabic
>  By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
> 
> ``The whole Internet is skewed toward people who speak English,'' said Venu
> Govindaraju, director of the Center for Unified Biometrics and Sensors at
> the University at Buffalo, where the software is being developed.

Someone give that man a brain, and a cookie.  I don't live near NY.

The internet has nothing to do with scanning written/printed arabic
texts.

He obviously intended to squeeze a complaint about the internet into an
article about scanning printed/written documents.  The reason the
internet is "skewed" is because these idiots want others to "fix" the
internet to accommodate their languages.  As a result, much of the
non-western-language support in software is done by westerners, and so
doesn't work.

-- 
"War is the father and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as
men; some he makes slaves, others free."  --Heraclitus (Kahn.83/D-K.53) 

Re: Safeway Club Card Leads to Bogus Arson Arrest

[Justin]

On 2005-01-29T13:16:24+0100, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> Link: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/29/030223
> Posted by: michael, on 2005-01-29 11:03:00
> 
>from the if-you're-innocent-you-have-nothing-to-fear dept.
>[1]Richard M. Smith writes "Tukwila, Washington firefighter, Philip
>Scott Lyons found out the hard way that supermarket loyalty cards come
>with a huge price. Lyons was arrested last August and charged with

They do not verify the information you give them.  They take the sheet
of paper and give you a card.  Make up a name, address, and phone
number.  If they ever discover the fraud (not in a legal sense) and
disable the card, so what?  Get another one.

-- 
"War is the father and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as
men; some he makes slaves, others free."  --Heraclitus (Kahn.83/D-K.53) 

Re: Dell to Add Security Chip to PCs

[Justin]

On 2005-02-04T14:30:48-0500, Mark Allen Earnest wrote:
> The government was not able to get the Clipper chip passed and that was 
> backed with the horror stories of rampant pedophilia, terrorism, and 
> organized crime. Do you honestly believe they will be able to destroy 
> open source, linux, independent software development, and the like with 
> just the fear of movie piracy, mp3 sharing, and such? Do you really 
> think they are willing to piss off large sections of the voting 
> population, the tech segment of the economy, universities, small 
> businesses, and the rest of the world just because the MPAA and RIAA 
> don't like customers owning devices they do not control?

They managed with the HTDV broadcast flag mandate.

-- 
"War is the father and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as
men; some he makes slaves, others free."  --Heraclitus (Kahn.83/D-K.53) 

Re: Dell to Add Security Chip to PCs

[Justin]

On 2005-02-03T22:25:28+0100, Anonymous wrote:
> The only people endangered by this capability are those who want to be
> able to lie.  They want to agree to contracts and user agreements that,
> for example, require them to observe DRM restrictions and copyright
> laws, but then they want the power to go back on their word, to dishonor
> their commitment, and to lie about their promises.  An honest man is

No, I want the right to fair use of material I buy.  If someone sells
DRM-only material, I won't buy it at anything approaching non-DRM
prices.  In some cases, I won't buy it at all.

My fair use rights should not be held hostage by a stupid majority who
support a DRM-only market.

Maybe the market for music won't support DRM-only products, but I
suspect the market for DVDs and low-sales books will.  The result is
that I won't be able to rip a season's worth of DVDs so I can watch them
all without playing hot potato with the physical DVDs.  I won't be able
to avoid the 15-second copyright warnings, or the useless menu
animations.

Low-sales books may end up being DRM-only, and I _hate_ reading books on
a screen.  Since DRM-only rare books will satisfy some of the market,
there will be even less pressure on physical book publishers to
occasionally reprint them, thus forcing even more people to buy the
DRM'd ebooks.

I bought an ebook on amazon for $1.99 a couple months ago.  The printed
book was $20.  It was very nearly the worst purchase of my life.  I
won't buy a similarly DRM'd ebook every again, for any amount.  The
hassle plus the restrictions aren't worth the $18 savings.

-- 
"War is the father and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as
men; some he makes slaves, others free."  --Heraclitus (Kahn.83/D-K.53) 

Re: Dell to Add Security Chip to PCs

[Justin]

On 2005-02-04T23:28:56+0100, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 08:21:47PM +0000, Justin wrote:
> 
> > They managed with the HTDV broadcast flag mandate.
> 
> If I film off a HDTV screen with a HDTV camera (or just do single-frame
> with a good professional camera) will the flag be preserved?

I don't think so, I think the flag is in the bitstream and doesn't
affect visual output at all.  You still run into significant quality
loss trying to get around it that way.

The point is that HDTV is a popular consumer technology, and the MPAA
and TV networks alone managed to hijack it.

-- 
"War is the father and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as
men; some he makes slaves, others free."  --Heraclitus (Kahn.83/D-K.53) 

Re: What is a cypherpunk?

[Justin]

On 2005-02-09T22:38:05-0600, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-02-09 at 09:09 -0800, James A. Donald wrote:
> > --
> > There is nothing stopping you from writing your own operating
> > system, so Linus did.
> 
> Linus Torvalds didn't write the GNU OS. He wrote the Linux kernel, which
> when added to the rest of the existing GNU OS, written by Richard
> Stallman among others, allowed a completely free operating system.
> Please don't continue to spread the misconception that Linus Torvalds
> wrote the entire (GNU) operating system.

I think everyone who reads Cypherpunks knows what Linus did and did not
do, and that "operating system" in JAD's post means "kernel".

-- 
Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those
who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really
care for anything else thereafter. --Hemingway, Esquire Apr/1936

Re: Team Building?? WIMPS!!

[Justin]

On 2005-02-13T13:22:43+0100, Thomas Shaddack wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005, Tyler Durden wrote:
> 
> > Well, I didn't say it would be easy. We'd definitely need to split up into
> > teams...one to handle the alarm systems,
> 
> Teamwork is essential here.
> ...
> Optionally just add couple more mines and then wait.[4]

Why not wait for him to leave the house and then pick him off?  If
necessary, jam one of his video cameras or shoot it with a silenced
rifle from afar.  When he ventures forth to determine what's wrong with
it, shoot him in the head.

Once he's dead, frustrating the alarm company is even easier.  Then you
have all the time you want to disarm mines, ransack the compound, hold
an Iraqi/Libyan hooker party, and prank call the White House and the NSA
(just before closing time; no sense in being around when the feds show
up, though perhaps they'd give everyone a reward for eliminating TCM).

-- 
Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who
have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for
anything else thereafter.   --Hemingway, Esquire, April 1936

Re: What is a cypherpunk?

[Justin]

On 2005-02-15T21:40:34+, Justin wrote:
> On 2005-02-15T13:23:37-0500, Steve Thompson wrote:
> >  --- "James A. Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
> > [snip]
> > > As governments were created to smash property rights, they are 
> > > always everywhere necessarily the enemy of those with property, 
> > > and the greatest enemy of those with the most property.
> > 
> > Uh-huh.  Perhaps you are using the term 'government' in a way that is not
> > common to most writers of modern American English?
> 
> I think it's fair to say that governments initially formed to protect
> property rights (although we have no historical record of such a
> government because it must have been before recorded history began).
> They then developed into monarchies which were only really set up to
> protect property rights of the ruler(s).

It seems I've been brainwashed by classical political science.  What I
wrote above doesn't make any sense.  Judging from social dynamics and
civil advancement in the animal kingdom, monarchies developed first and
property rights were an afterthought.

-- 
Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who
have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for
anything else thereafter.   --Hemingway, Esquire, April 1936

Re: What is a cypherpunk?

[Justin]

On 2005-02-15T13:23:37-0500, Steve Thompson wrote:
>  --- "James A. Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
> [snip]
> > As governments were created to smash property rights, they are 
> > always everywhere necessarily the enemy of those with property, 
> > and the greatest enemy of those with the most property.
> 
> Uh-huh.  Perhaps you are using the term 'government' in a way that is not
> common to most writers of modern American English?

I think it's fair to say that governments initially formed to protect
property rights (although we have no historical record of such a
government because it must have been before recorded history began).
They then developed into monarchies which were only really set up to
protect property rights of the ruler(s).

With the advent of various quasi-democratic forms of government, the law
has been compromised insofar as it protects property rights.  You no
longer have a right to keep all your money (taxes), no longer have a
right to grow 5' weeds in your front yard if you live in a city, and no
longer have a right to own certain evil things at all, at least not
without special governmental permission.  There were analogous
compromises in democratic Athens and quasi-democratic Rome.

When democratic states inevitably fold into tyranny, some of those
restrictions remain.  Right now most states have a strange mix of
property rights protections (e.g. the Berne convention and the DMCA) and
property rights usurpations (e.g. no right to own certain weapons; equal
protection).

-- 
Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who
have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for
anything else thereafter.   --Hemingway, Esquire, April 1936

Re: What is a cypherpunk?

[Justin]

On 2005-02-16T13:31:14-0500, Steve Thompson wrote:
>  --- "R.A. Hettinga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
> [snip]
> > Property is like rights. We create it inherently, because we're human,
> > it
> > is not bestowed upon us by someone else. Particularly if that property
> > is
> > stolen from someone else at tax-time.
> 
> But as long as property rights are generally considered to be a tenet and
> characteristic of society, excuses for officiated theft, for instance,
> merely put a veneer of legitimacy over certain kinds of theft.  I doubt
> that RMS will ever be framed, arrested and thrown in to the gulag, his
> property confiscated; but for someone like myself, that is certainly an
> option, eh?  

Is there a difference between property rights in a society like a pride
of lions, and property rights that are respected independent of social
status?  Or are they essentially the same?  They seem to be different,
but I can't articulate why.  Obviously the latter needs enforcement,
possibly courts, etc., but I can't identify a more innate difference,
other than simply as I described it -- property rights depending on
social status, and property rights not depending on social status.

I don't think any society has ever managed to construct a pure property
rights system where nobody has any advantage.  Without government it's
the strong.  With government, government agents have an advantage, and
rich people have an advantage because they can hire smart lawyers to get
unfair court decisions.  So maybe this is just silly, in which case I
believe even more strongly that formal status-independent property
rights are not the basis of government.

-- 
Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who
have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for
anything else thereafter.   --Hemingway, Esquire, April 1936

Re: What is a cypherpunk?

[Justin]

On 2005-02-16T13:18:16-0500, Steve Thompson wrote:
>  --- Justin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
> > On 2005-02-15T13:23:37-0500, Steve Thompson wrote:
> > >  --- "James A. Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip]
> > > > As governments were created to smash property rights, they are
> > > > always everywhere necessarily the enemy of those with property,
> > > > and the greatest enemy of those with the most property.
> > > 
> > > Uh-huh.  Perhaps you are using the term 'government' in a way that
> > > is not common to most writers of modern American English?
> > 
> > I think it's fair to say that governments initially formed to
> > protect property rights (although we have no historical record of
> > such a government because it must have been before recorded history
> > began).

As I said, I think this is wrong.  Mammals other than primates recognize
property in a sense, but it depends entirely on social status.  There is
no recognition of property rights independent of social position.  If a
lion loses a fight, he loses all his property.

Chimp and gorilla communities have the beginnings of monarchy.  Yet they
don't care about religion, and their conception of property rights still
derives from their position in the social ladder.  If not primates, do
any animals besides humans recognize property rights independent of
social position?

> I think it's fair to say that governments were initially, and still
> largely remain today, the public formalisation of religious rule
> applied to the  civil sphere of existence.  It's more complicated than
> that, but generally speaking, somewhat disparate religious populations
> (protestant, catholic, jew, etc.) accepted the fiction of secular
> civil governance when in reality religious groups have tended to
> dominate the shape and direction of civil government, while professing
> to remain at arms-length.

I think it's fair to say that religion post-dates government, at least
informal government.  Maybe the first monarchs/oligarchs came up with
religious schemes to keep the peons in line, but I would think that was
incidental, as was the notion of property rights.  Both property rights
and religion depend heavily on the ability for communication, but
monarchy can be established without it.  All the monarch needs is a big
stick and an instinctual understanding of some of the principles much
later described by our good Italian friend Niccolo M.

> 'Fiction' is the operative term here, and I contend that nowhere is this
> more evident in the closed world of clandestine affairs -- civilian OR
> military.  Religion has always been about 'powerful' and educated in-sect
> sub-populations organising civil and intellectuall affairs in such a way

I think it's fair to say that religion may be more important than
property rights for keeping people in line.  But I think they're both
incidental.

> > When democratic states inevitably fold into tyranny, some of those
> > restrictions remain.  Right now most states have a strange mix of
> > property rights protections (e.g. the Berne convention and the DMCA) and
> > property rights usurpations (e.g. no right to own certain weapons; equal
> > protection).
> 
> Agreements and accords such as the Berne convention and the DCMA, to say
> nothing of human-rights legislation, are hobbled by the toothlessness of
> enforcement, pulic apathy to others' rights, and a load of convenient
> exceptions to such rules made for the agents of state.

Okay.  So it's fair to say, then, that we have compromises between
property rights protections and other (perceived yet imaginary?)
property rights protections.  Which is really what it boils down to.
There's no property rights usurpation without some motive behind it.
And motives generally stem from wanting to redistribute property or deny
it to another individual, group, or an entire nation.  Sometimes that
property is land (the excuse for such property redistribution or denial
of ownership is called "self determination"), sometimes it is
intellectual property (the excuse is "information wants to be free")...
sometimes it's explosives (they're TOO DANGEROUS, and only terrorists
have them... are you a terrorist?).

-- 
Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who
have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for
anything else thereafter.   --Hemingway, Esquire, April 1936

palm beach HIV

[Justin]

Given the release of Palm Beach HIV+ patient information via
"accidental" attachment to a widely-distributed email, should agencies
with access to confidential information implement mandatory access
control and role-based security so that, barring problems with the
RBAC/MAC software, confidential data cannot be accessed by roles that
have external network access?

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-paidslist21feb21,0,1753763.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines

I haven't found the list yet, but I found this:
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/content/opinion/epaper/2005/02/11/a20a_cramercol_0211.html
"In Palm Beach County, one of every 35 blacks is HIV-positive. That is
compared with one of every 492 whites."

Calling Tim May!  Calling Tim May!

-- 
Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who
have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for
anything else thereafter.   --Hemingway, Esquire, April 1936

MIME stripping

[Justin]

On 2005-02-21T22:40:03+0100, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> Yes, complain to the Al-Q. node maintainer. The same code which strips my
> digital signatures also wrap the lines.

Really?

http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=&start=0&scoring=d&enc_author=8NH-JhofCMh-TnQo0KXFjppET7C1dSi2gjvQCgNblIvwKtcqeQ&;



-- 
Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who
have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for
anything else thereafter.   --Hemingway, Esquire, April 1936


pgp8pg0P7TPy8.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: How to Stop Junk E-Mail: Charge for the Stamp

[Justin]

On 2005-03-03T11:52:59+, ken wrote:
> 
> >Chat is already higher volume (I read somewhere) in
> >raw quantity of messages sent than email.
> 
> I suspect you don't get much traffic. The beauty of a 
> non-real-time store-and-forward system like smtp (or SMS, or 
> oldstyle conferencing systems with off-line readers) is precisely 
> that  it can be automated. I don't have to see mail I don't want.

You don't have to see IMs you don't want, either.  You can refuse them
from people not on your buddy list.

> >A fate for email is that as spam grows to take over more
> >of the share of the shrinking pie, but consumes more of
> >the bandwidth
> 
> A higher proportion of the snail-mail I get is junk than the email.
> 
> A higher proportion of the landline phone calls I get are junk. At 
> least 4 out of 5 calls, maybe 9 out of 10. Email is doing quite well.

With 3 or 4 RBL blacklists, greylisting, and making sure senders don't
ehlo with my ip address, I don't even have to use dspam or Spamassassin
I get so little spam.

> A serious proportion of the rootkits and so on that have been plaguing
> us for the last few years involves chat & instant messaging & so on.
> I'd block it at the boundary firewall. People who use it should just
> learn how to use mail.  They'd get through more. Chat is for
> functional illiterates. Learn to read at adult speed and you'll prefer
> mail. Why should they put up with being limited to someone else's
> typing speed?

I don't think email will disappear either, but IM is good for 2-way
conversations.  Helping someone debug a problem via email gets tedious
very quickly.

Strangely enough, a good number of people I've talked to over the phone
have had their IQ drop by about 100 points when I start using a phonetic
alphabet to spell things.  I usually end up having to repeat the
phonetic spelling several times; it's really strange.  IM eliminates
that whole problem.  Unless communicating in a standard, often-spoken
language, phones lose their utility.

There's a place for both IM and email.  I agree, though, that IM may
suffer from a poor S/N ratio.

-- 
Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who
have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for
anything else thereafter.   --Hemingway, Esquire, April 1936

Re: End of a cypherpunk era?

[Justin]

On 2005-03-06T00:03:01+0100, Anonymous wrote:
> Ian Grigg writes at
> http://www.financialcryptography.com/mt/archives/000381.html:
> : Is this the end of an era, a defining cypherpunk moment?

It doesn't make much sense to renounce your U.S. citizenship if your
relatives, who you care about and who you want to visit, still live there.

What did Vince Cate expect?  He wants to be free to enter the U.S.
temporarily, but doesn't want to be a citizen of a country the U.S.
deems sufficiently similar to itself?  From the American State's
perspective, he is dangerous.  He is a near-anarchist, and individuals
with that kind of status threaten the existence of the U.S.

-- 
Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who
have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for
anything else thereafter.   --Hemingway, Esquire, April 1936

Re: What Will We Do With Innocent People's DNA?

[Justin]

On 2005-03-22T15:48:19+0100, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> Link: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/21/1937206
> Posted by: timothy, on 2005-03-21 23:11:00
> 
>from the if-you-have-nothing-to-hide dept.
>[1]NevDull writes "As creepy as it may be to deal with identity theft
>from corporate databases, [2]imagine being swabbed for DNA samples as

When they take DNA samples, they use a handful of restriction enzymes
and then blot the resulting dna chains.  How do they digitize that to
enable automated searching?  What kind of tolerances do they use?  Do
they shift the blots vertically and compress or expand one of them to
get the best match?  What kinds of error margins does the digitization
process introduce?

I think privacy advocates are going overboard.  I don't like DNA
collection either, but there's no way a criminal can use southern blot
profile data from a database to either compromise the individual's
privacy or plant evidence at another crime scene.

What's disturbing is that most entities that collect DNA keep the
original tissue samples in storage.  How long will it be until full DNA
sequencing becomes cheap enough that they use it in serious cases
(murder)?  Craig Venter still has a standing offer to sequence wealthy
individuals' DNA for $1 mil, doesn't he?  Or was it a few million... I
don't recall.  They'd only need to sequence one chromosome, too, which
should reduce costs.  What's the actual cost of sequencing, per kb or mb
(basepair, not bit)?

-- 
Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who
have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for
anything else thereafter.   --Hemingway, Esquire, April 1936

Re: AP For Starvation Judge

[Justin]

On 2005-03-26T22:35:23-0800, Eric Cordian wrote:
> Justin writes:
> 
> > Artificially feeding her against her wishes and/or the wishes of her 
> > husband (whose wishes have precedence over the wishes of her parents -- 
> > if you don't like that, get that law changed) is sick.
> 
> I think we have to divide things we do for disabled people into "care" and 
> "heroic medical measures."  I consider a feeding tube to fall into the 
> former category.

I like to think that "care" is doing what the patient wants.  If the
patient is uncommunicative (following a balloon with her eyes .5 times
out of 1000 doesn't qualify as "communication" imho), the legal
decision-maker can end any treatment.

> That which we may do to ourselves, if we are functioning, exceeds that 
> which we may require others to do to us if we are not.  I can deny myself 
> food, water, and air, for instance.  I cannot instruct others to deny me 
> those things if I am rendered incapable of making my own decisions.

Okay; I accept that.  We can assault ourselves, but we cannot waiver in
advance another's legal culpability if they assault us.

She is not functioning, however.  Her rights and the rights of her legal
representative are the same.  Anything that she could have requested in
a living will can be requested by her legal representative, her husband.

> There is no reason for the feeding tube to be removed at all.  It is not 

That depends on her condition.  If she is merely a brainstem attached to
a beating heart and a bunch of tissue, there are clear reasons for
ending this spectacle.

Utilitarian: she's using medical resources that could help people who
have a chance at recovery.

Utilitarian: the spectacle is diverting time and attention of citizens
who should be focusing on increasing their personal wealth, and by
extension the GDP.  Out of sight, out of mind.  Once she's dead, people
will quickly become less distracted as the media can only run stories in
her wake for so long.

Ethical: She wouldn't want to live like this (the court's accepted this,
but it's still disputed).

Ethical: We don't want to see her live like this (which morphs into "she
wouldn't want US to suffer like this").  I don't think this one's
disputed, though Michael may take that view for financial reasons.

> If Terri were able to be spoon fed by an attendant, would the judge have 
> then ordered "spoon and attendant withdrawal?"  Would the papers report 
> that "the spoon is keeping her alive artificially?"

Can she recover to sentience, or is she merely a braindead automaton
capable of swallowing?

> > If I have a living will (in writing or by the decision of a legal proxy)
> > that restricts certain kinds of treatment, you're more than happy to see
> > doctors violate that and keep me alive as long as someone on Earth is
> > willing to pay?
> 
> Well, I would argue that you do not have a legal right to demand others 
> restrict your air, food, and water, unless they need to be delivered in 
> invasive uncomfortable ways that reduce your human dignity.

So I don't get to define my own notion of "human dignity"?

> > That is not the way any sane legal or medical system should work.  I
> > suppose you don't believe in euthanasia either?
> 
> I think euthanasia is fine if the patient is suffering horribly, has all 
> their marbles, and has less than six months to linger from a terminal 
> illness.

Three arbitrary thresholds.  Two subjective: "horrible" suffering and
"all their marbles"; one of them objective: "6 months".

> Terri Schiavo meets none of these criteria.

Explain why your criteria matter and how the subjective ones are to be
applied, and I might care.

> I certainly don't support the right of an adulterous spouse who swore up 
> and down at the malpractice trial that he only wanted to care for his wife 
> for the rest of her natural life, and who didn't mention her "wish" to not 
> go on until 7 years after her brain injury, to have his brain-damaged wife 
> starved and dehydrated to death solely on his say-so, absent any written 
> indication of her wishes.

What, you've never changed your mind about anything?  She's been
effectively braindead for over a decade.  This could be a case of
"moving on" emotionally.

Terri's parents supported the adultery, based on news reports I've seen.

I'm not saying it's morally right for him to cheat on her, but I take a
very dim view of any State involvement in marriage.  As far as I'm
concerned, the marriage granted him the right to represent Terri in a
situation like this, just as if they executed a medical power o

Re: AP For Starvation Judge

[Justin]

On 2005-03-26T11:04:46-0800, Eric Cordian wrote:
> This just in from CNN:
> 
>  [FBI agents have arrested a North Carolina man on suspicion of soliciting 
>   offers over the Internet to kill Michael Schiavo and Judge Greer. 
>   Richard Alan Meywes of Fairview is accused of offering $250,000 for the 
>   killing of Schiavo and another $50,000 for the "the elimination of the 
>   judge who ruled against Terri."]
> 
> I wonder how much it is going to cost the taxpayers for the round the 
> clock army this judge is going to need to protect his sorry life for the 
> remainder of it.

If the judge's decision had been the opposite, there might be a bounty
on his head for that, too.

If you're saying that fundie Christians are more pathologically violent
than either the areligous or the more progressive religious, I'd agree
there.

-- 
Unable to correct the source of the indignity to the Negro, [the Phoenix,
AZ public accomodations law prohibiting racial discrimination] redresses
the situation by placing a separate indignity on the proprietor. ... The
unwanted customer and the disliked proprietor are left glowering at one
another across the lunch counter.  --William H. Rehnquist, 1964-06-15

Re: AP For Starvation Judge

[Justin]

On 2005-03-26T20:05:14-0800, Eric Cordian wrote:
> Justin writes:
> 
> > If the judge's decision had been the opposite, there might be a bounty
> > on his head for that, too.
> 
> Somehow letting someone who has lived 15 years with a significant brain 
> injury live out the rest of their normal life span just doesn't provoke 
> people the same way dehydrating and starving them does.

She is a corpse with a heartbeat.  Artificially feeding her against her
wishes and/or the wishes of her husband (whose wishes have precedence
over the wishes of her parents -- if you don't like that, get that law
changed) is sick.  She has become a doll for her parents, who are too
immature to grasp the concepts of "life," "death," and "dignity."
Presumably they're still stuck on "God" and "selfishness."

> > If you're saying that fundie Christians are more pathologically violent
> > than either the areligous or the more progressive religious, I'd agree
> > there.
> 
> I don't believe in the existence of a supernatural, but I certainly 
> wouldn't take water and food away from any human with a functioning brain 
> stem, particularly when there are people to whom that person's life has 
> meaning, and who are willing to provide them with care.

If I have a living will (in writing or by the decision of a legal proxy)
that restricts certain kinds of treatment, you're more than happy to see
doctors violate that and keep me alive as long as someone on Earth is
willing to pay?  (Even if Terry's parents weren't willing or able to pay
originally -- I don't know, and haven't investigated that aspect of the
case -- if they manage to keep her alive, they'll probably get enough
donations to keep her alive for millenia.)

That is not the way any sane legal or medical system should work.  I
suppose you don't believe in euthanasia either?  It would seem to be
inconsistent if you did.  How can someone choose to die if anyone else
can veto that choice?

> The interesting political lesson here is that one stubborn judge, and his 
> pals who band together to support him, can defy the will of the President 
> of the United States, the Governor of the State of Florida, and a majority 
> of both houses of Congress.

Thankfully, Neither Jeb nor George nor the U.S. Congress have any
jurisdiction over this whatsoever.  The courts do.

> Of the three equal branches of government, the unelected branch is more 
> equal than the other two.  Of course, we've known that since Marbury vs 
> Madison.

That is of course true, but not because of the decisions so far in this
case.  The law allows her spouse to decide what artificial means should
be used to keep her alive.  If you don't like it, again, lobby for a
change to the law.

The strong control the weak.  The majority controls the minority.  All
we have here is a governmental system originally set up by the majority
(maybe... at least no internal faction opposed it until 1860), where
some people managed to get into positions of influence within the
governmental machine despite having unpopular beliefs.

I find it amusing that the Republican-dominated national Congress wants
Terry kept alive, while Scalia has been quoted as saying, "Mere factual
innocent is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly
reached."  Republicans in general can't get anything right because their
belief system is less coherent than any other.  At least the supreme
court didn't reverse the decision... not yet, at least.  That's only
because some of the Republicans are not-so-conservative and they all
know the decision would be affirmed.  Taking the case would just waste
time.

-- 
Unable to correct the source of the indignity to the Negro, [the Phoenix,
AZ public accomodations law prohibiting racial discrimination] redresses
the situation by placing a separate indignity on the proprietor. ... The
unwanted customer and the disliked proprietor are left glowering at one
another across the lunch counter.  --William H. Rehnquist, 1964-06-15

Re: Email Certification?

[Justin]

On 2005-04-27T16:09:12-0400, Tyler Durden wrote:
> Oh...this post was connected to my previous one.
> 
> Is there some way to make it evident that someone has opened your email?

Hotmail could make this evident.

- Force deleted messages to remain in the Trash bin for a week after
  receipt of the message, and display all Trashed mail in the Inbox with
  red strikethrough.

- Record and display login ip addresses, dates, times, in the style of
  unix "last".

Each addresses different aspects of the problem.

> Right now, I can't think of anything you could do aside from suggesting 
> that hotmail (or whoever) offer some kind of encryption service.

If you're worried about unsophisticated attackers reading your mail, why
not use PGP or S/MIME?  That's one of the things encryption is for.  Of
course that wouldn't prevent an intruder from deleting all your mail,
but hopefully the sender would notice your lack of response and contact
you out-of-band.  Nobody should consider email a reliable communications
medium these days.

Re: [Politech] Thumbprinting visitors at the Statue of Liberty (fwd from declan@well.com)

[Justin]

On 2005-04-28T15:37:19-0700, cypherpunk wrote:
> > Matthew's snapshots: one
> > (http://www.boingboing.net/images/Liberty-Locker-Thumbs-2.jpg), two
> > (http://www.boingboing.net/images/Liberty-Locker-Thumbs1.jpg).
> 
> If this were really as much of a conspiracy as people are making it
> out to be, wouldn't it make sense to ask for THUMB prints? that's what
> the subject line says, and that's what the titles of the two jpeg
> files are. But if you look at the pictures, they plainly ask for the
> right index finger.

I doubt the machine cares which finger visitors use.  Since most people
in this country are functionally illiterate, the average visitor may
well present a thumb rather than an index finger.

Re: Stash Burn?

[Justin]

On 2005-05-02T10:13:50-0400, Tyler Durden wrote:
> yes, this reminded me of another brilliant idea.
> 
> Why don't some cars have a little tiny furnace for stash destruction?
> If you've got an on-board stash and some Alabama hillbilly with a badge 
> pulls you over, you just hit the button and have you're little stashed 
> incinerated. Who cares if the badge knows you USED TO have something on 
> board? Too late now if any trace of evidence is gone.
> 
> What's wrong with this idea?

That's rather complicated and unlikely to succeed.  A more practical
solution would be a pod that can be jettisoned.  Dark-colored or camo,
rock-like, and indestructable for later retrieval.  No cop would notice
such a thing fired directly forward after he's pulled in behind you and
lighted you up.

Add a radio beacon for easy location after the cop has departed.

Re: Zero knowledge( a>b )

[Justin]

On 2005-05-09T12:28:25-0400, Adam Back wrote:
> There is a simple protocol for this described in Schneier's Applied
> Crypto if you have one handy...
> 
> (If I recall the application he illustrates with is: it allows two
> people to securely compare salary (which is larger) without either
> party divulging their specific salary to each other or to a trusted
> intermediary).
> 
> Adam
> 
> On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 06:00:58AM -0700, Sarad AV wrote:
> > hi,
> > 
> > If user A has the integer a and user B has the integer
> > b, can a zero knowledge proof be developed to show
> > that a>b,a

Re: [IP] Real ID = National ID (fwd from dave@farber.net)

[Justin]

On 2005-05-09T19:55:26+, Justin wrote:
> What do we need "security" for?  We need security because a lot of
> people hate the U.S., and because we won't close our borders, and

Apparently I have not learned any lessons from the follies of a certain
California governor.

By close the borders, I mean secure the borders against illegal
immigration.  I have no interest in doing away with immigration.

Re: [IP] Real ID = National ID (fwd from dave@farber.net)

[Justin]

On 2005-05-09T12:22:22-0700, cypherpunk wrote:
> We already have de facto national ID in the form of our state driver's
> licenses. They are accepted at face value at all 50 states as well as
> by the federal government. Real ID would rationalize the issuing
> procedures and require a certain minimum of verification. Without it
> we have security that is only as strong as the weakest state's
> policies.

States should be free to regulate DRIVERS however they want.  The DL was
not meant to be an ID card, and if it was that intent was
unconstitutional.  The entire DL scheme may be unconstitutional anyway,
but oh well.

What do we need "security" for?  We need security because a lot of
people hate the U.S., and because we won't close our borders, and
because society has become too diverse.  There is a significant
correlation between cultural diversity/proximity and social unrest.
That does not require people of different races; put white klansmen next
to white members of the Black Panthers and you have the same thing.

None of those three core problems will be solved by RealID.  Therefore,
while RealID may make some difference at the margins, it cannot be very
effective.

Re: Jesus Christ Meets "Your Papers Please" (fwd)

[Justin]

On 2005-05-10T08:53:31-0500, J.A. Terranson wrote:
> If you think this is stupid, just wait till the "Real ID Act" takes
> effect.

There is already a Jesus Christ living in D.C.  If it's legal for
someone named Jesus Christ to move to D.C., it should be legal for a
D.C. resident or no-longer resident to change his name to Jesus Christ.
It's not technically an equal protection issue, but it strikes me as
being some sort of discrimination.  That doesn't stop a lot of states
from passing discriminatory laws, though, as long as the particular
discrimination being sought isn't listed in the CRA.

Jesus Christ - (202) 543-9498 - , Washington, DC 20001

and other states:

Jesus Christ - (310) 458-9440 - 1328 Euclid St, Santa Monica, CA 90404
Jesus A Christ - (207) 374-2175 - 19 Harborview Ct, Blue Hill, ME 04614

This may be the Jesus Christ in question:
Jesus Christ - (304) 897-7727 - , Lost City, WV 26810


> http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/05/10/jesus.lawsuit.ap/index.html
> 
> Jesus Christ in legal battle to get license
> 
> Tuesday, May 10, 2005 Posted: 7:58 AM EDT (1158 GMT)
> 
> CHARLESTON, West Virginia (AP) -- Even Jesus Christ can't circumvent the
> rules for getting a driver's license in West Virginia.
> 
> ...
> Described by his attorney as a white-haired businessman in his mid-50s,
> Christ is moving to West Virginia to enjoy a slower lifestyle. He bought
> property near Lost River, about 100 miles west of Washington, and has a
> U.S. passport, Social Security card and Washington driver's license
> bearing the name Jesus Christ.
> 
> But he still falls short of West Virginia title and license transfer
> requirements because his Florida birth certificate has his original name
> on it and he has been unable to obtain an official name change in
> Washington.

I don't understand this.  Washington D.C. doesn't handle birth
certificates for people born in Florida.  All of his federal
documentation lists Jesus Christ as his name.  Why is the problem in
D.C.?  It seems to me to be a little late for the brainless in
Washington to try to put a lid on this.  They should have done that when
he got his SS card, passport, or driver's license.

I'm somewhat interested in how he got his SS card, passport, and drivers
license in a different name than was on his birth certificate.  If he's
only been using the name for 17 years, that puts both acquisitions at
1988 or later.  Maybe decades before that it would have been possible,
but how could he have gotten away with it so recently?

Re: Anonymous Site Registration

[Justin]

On 2005-05-26T13:17:38-0400, Tyler Durden wrote:
> OK, what's the best way to put up a website anonymously?

Tor?  It's not immune from traffic analysis, but it's nearly the best
you can do to hide the server's location/isp from clients.

> Let's assume that it has nothing to do with national security...the Feds 
> aren't interested.
> 
> BUT, let's assume that the existence and/or content of the website would 
> probably direct a decent amount of law-suits.

Hosting in a country that would laugh at lawsuits, like Sealand?

> Presumably there's no way to hide the ISP from the world, but one should 
> hopefully be able to hide oneself and make legal action basically useless.
> 
> Egold + fake address for registering agency seems a little problematic.

You can try, but good physical anonymity for commerce is difficult
unless you construct a fake identity good enough that you can use it to
open bank accounts... without leaving any compromising fingerprints that
your bank can turn over to the authorities.

> And there's the question of updating the site...

Tor+rsync?

-- 
Unable to correct the source of the indignity to the Negro, [the Phoenix,
AZ public accommodations law prohibiting racial discrimination] redresses
the situation by placing a separate indignity on the proprietor. ... The
unwanted customer and the disliked proprietor are left glowering at one
another across the lunch counter.  -William "Strom" Rehnquist, 1964-06-15

Re: /. [Intel Adds DRM to New Chips]

[Justin]

On 2005-05-28T21:53:52+0200, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> Link: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/28/1718200
> Posted by: Zonk, on 2005-05-28 17:37:00
> 
>from the get-you-where-you-live dept.
>Badluck writes "Microsoft and the entertainment industry's holy grail
>of controlling copyright through the motherboard has moved a step
>closer with Intel Corp. now embedding [1]digital rights management
>within in its latest dual-core processor Pentium D and accompanying
>945 chipset. Officially launched worldwide on the May 26, the new
>offerings come [2]DRM -enabled and will, at least in theory, allow
>copyright holders to prevent unauthorized copying and distribution of
>copyrighted materials from the motherboard rather than through the
>operating system as is currently the case..." [3]The Inquirer has the
>story as well.

Is slashdot really a news source?  How about posting one of the articles
cited instead.

-- 
Unable to correct the source of the indignity to the Negro, [the Phoenix,
AZ public accommodations law prohibiting racial discrimination] redresses
the situation by placing a separate indignity on the proprietor. ... The
unwanted customer and the disliked proprietor are left glowering at one
another across the lunch counter.  -William "Strom" Rehnquist, 1964-06-15

Re: /. [GPS-tracked Clothing]

[Justin]

On 2005-05-29T18:46:43+0200, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> Link: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/29/1547234
> Posted by: CmdrTaco, on 2005-05-29 16:07:00
> 
>from the finally-i-have-to-ask-why dept.
>[1]Anil Kandangath writes "A Japanese firm has shown off new
>technology that enables GPS units to be embedded [2]in clothing that
>will enable the wearer to be tracked continuously. The device is thin
>enough to be tacked on unobtrusively and is powered by a thin watch
>battery.

As opposed to a thick watch battery?

>It is also capable of taking biometric measurements and
>[3]transmitting them PCs and handheld devices.

Is that english?  I don't think the device transmits PCs and handheld
devices to biometric measurements.

>Though marketed as a device to enable people to keep track of
>spouses, how long before such technology becomes intrusive in our
>lives?" Like tracking your spouse is ok?. What a world!

I know that isn't english, and it's only marginally coherent.

I would much rather read a summary written by someone literate.

> References
> 
>1. http://www.ecogito.net/anil

I don't see it.

>2. http://forgetmenotpanties.contagiousmedia.org/
>3. http://forgetmenotpanties.contagiousmedia.org/sensatech.html

Uh huh.  This looks like a joke or a scam.  Even if it's not, I have a
hard time believing that a girlfriend/wife/daughter is not going to
notice that in her panties, and I doubt sufficiently miniaturized GPS
receivers could be made for so little money.

Perhaps that's why Anil seems to have removed the entry in his blog?

Do you now understand why I hate redistribution of slashdot stories?

-- 
Unable to correct the source of the indignity to the Negro, [the Phoenix,
AZ public accommodations law prohibiting racial discrimination] redresses
the situation by placing a separate indignity on the proprietor. ... The
unwanted customer and the disliked proprietor are left glowering at one
another across the lunch counter.  -William "Strom" Rehnquist, 1964-06-15

google maps and latitude, longitude

[Justin]

For anyone who doesn't already know, there are several ways to get
google maps to display a latitude/longitude.

You can enter them in the query box like so:

35.5N 115.5W
or
35.5,-115.5
(I think they added those within the last week or two.)

Or you can use the original method, a GET-style form (I don't know
whether POST works):

http://maps.google.com/maps"; method="get"
style="margin: 2px;">
  
  (lat,long )
  (span )
  (type )
  


which translates into
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=&ll=33.835%2C-116.99&spn=.001%2C.001&t=k

-- 
Unable to correct the source of the indignity to the Negro, [the Phoenix,
AZ public accommodations law prohibiting racial discrimination] redresses
the situation by placing a separate indignity on the proprietor. ... The
unwanted customer and the disliked proprietor are left glowering at one
another across the lunch counter.  -William "Strom" Rehnquist, 1964-06-15

Re: Wired on "Secrecy Power Sinks Patent Case"

[Justin]

On 2005-09-20T12:14:13-0400, Tyler Durden wrote:
> Very interesting CPunks reading, for a variety of reasons.
> 
> http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,68894,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1

I'm sick of this "mosaic theory" being used to justify preventing access
to unclassified information.

-- 
"War is the father of all and king of all, and some he shows as gods,
others as men; some he makes slaves, others free."  -Heraclitus DK-53

Re: [Politech] More on Barney lawyer yearning to hack copyright infringers' sites [ip]

[Justin]

On 2005-10-19T10:37:55-0700, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> Previous Politech message:
> http://www.politechbot.com/2005/10/17/barney-lawyer-recommends/

> Responses:
> http://www.politechbot.com/2005/10/19/more-on-barney/

Some of the first-round responses mentioned the iniquities involved in
attacking hosted sites, but what if the site that appears to be involved
in copyright infringement isn't?  There is no assurance that the suspect
IP address isn't forwarding illegal (outgoing) traffic from some other
machine, or that it doesn't forward incoming traffic to some other
machine.

Suppose someone has a wireless firewall appliance set up to forward a
number of common ports to an interior server.  Attacking a suspect IP
results in an attack on an uninvolved interior server.  The copyright
violation might be some unauthorized person connecting through a
wireless gateway, so the owner of the interior server might not be in
any way connected to the copyright violation.

Suppose someone is running a web proxy.  An attack on a suspect IP
address results in an attack on the machine running the web proxy.  An
open web proxy, while it may violate an ISP contract, is not illegal,
and by itself the proxy is not connected to any illegal activity (except
maybe in China, etc.).

Suppose someone is involved in copyright infringement, but forwards all
incoming connections on certain ports [while dropping traffic to the
rest...] to an IP address associated with the Chinese Embassy.  Is it
clear who's responsible when a copyright holder ends up attacking a
Chinese computer?  Even if the person who set up the port forwarding is
responsible for _connections_ to the Chinese Embassy made as a result,
does that make him responsible for willful attacks conducted by
copyright holders?

If copyright hackers get immunity as long as they attack the public IP
address that appears to be distributing copyrighted material, the
consequences will be much worse than those of DMCA take-down provisions.
ISPs everywhere would police their own networks with a vengeance to
mitigate the risk that some copyright holder would find something first,
attack the ISP, and cause major damage (not to mention subsequent loss
of customers).  At least with the DMCA, ISPs get notified and have a
chance to act before something bad happens, which generally means low
levels of in-house policing.

Re: Judy Miller needing killing

[Justin]

On 2005-10-19T19:59:18+, Gil Hamilton wrote:
> 
> Reporters should have no rights the rest of us don't have.  It's hard to 
> imagine the framers of the constitution approving an amendment that said 
> freedom of the press is granted to all those who first apply for and 
> receive permission from the government.

Blame the framers.  They separately enumerated freedom of speech and
freedom of the press, which suggests at least a little bit that freedom
of the press includes something extra.

-- 
Do you know what your sin is?

Re: [PracticalSecurity] Anonymity - great technology but hardly used

[Justin]

On 2005-10-26T08:21:08+0200, Stephan Neuhaus wrote:
> cyphrpunk wrote:
> > The main threat to
> > this illegal but widely practiced activity is legal action by
> > copyright holders against individual traders. The only effective
> > protection against these threats is the barrier that could be provided
> > by anonymity. An effective, anonymous file sharing network would see
> > rapid adoption and would be the number one driver for widespread use
> > of anonymity.
> 
> If I thought I was being ripped off by anonymous file sharing, I'd try 
> to push legislation that would mandate registering beforehand any 
> download volume exceeding x per month.  Downloaded more than x per month 
> but not registered?  Then you'll have to lay open your traffic, 
> including encryption keys.
> 
> The reasoning would be that most people won't have any legitimate 
> business downloading more than x per month.  By adjusting x, you can 
> make a strong case.  Once you get this enacted, you first get the ones 
> with huge download volumes; then you lower x and repeat until the number 
> of false positives gets too embarassing.

This legislation would also require mandatory reporting by ISPs of
subscribers' traffic patterns?

"Most people don't have any legitimate business writing for public
consumption on blogs."

"Most people don't have any legitimate business owning cars that can go
over 75MPH."

"Most people don't have any legitimate business for owning more
scary-looking black rifles."

If you tried to push this hypothetical legislation, you'd end up on some
cypherpunk's to-kill list.  Of course, those threats are all hot-air.
Has anyone who's life has been threatened on cypherpunks-l (since Jim
Bell) gotten so much as a scratch at the hands of a threatener?

-- 
This is not the grand arena.

Re: Multiple passports?

[Justin]

On 2005-10-29T21:17:25-0700, Gregory Hicks wrote:
> > Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 03:05:25 +
> > From: Justin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > 
> > If I apply for a new one now, and then apply for a another one once
> > the gov starts RFID-enabling them, will the first one be
> > invalidated?  Or can I have two passports, the one without RFID to
> > use, and the one with RFID to play with?
> 
> I am not a State Dept person, but my experiences in this are...
> 
> As for applying for one now, I think the deadline for the non-RFID
> passwords is about 3 days away (31 Oct 2005), but I could be wrong.
> (In other words, if your application is not in processing by 31 Oct,
> then you get the new, improved, RFID passport.)

"The Department intends to begin the electronic passport program in 
December 2005. The first stage will be a pilot program in which the 
electronic passports will be issued to U.S. Government employees who 
use Official or Diplomatic passports for government travel. This pilot 
program will permit a limited number of passports to be issued and 
field tested prior to the first issuance to the American traveling 
public, slated for early 2006. By October 2006, all U.S. passports, 
with the exception of a small number of emergency passports issued by 
U.S. embassies or consulates, will be electronic passports."

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/05-21284.htm (2005-10-25 Fed. Reg.)

It sounds like it's fairly safe to get a new passport after Halloween...
at least until January.

-- 
The six phases of a project:
I. Enthusiasm. IV. Search for the Guilty.
II. Disillusionment.   V. Punishment of the Innocent.
III. Panic.VI. Praise & Honor for the Nonparticipants.

Re: Blood, Bullets, Bombs and Bandwidth

[Justin]

On 2005-10-22T01:51:50-0400, R.A. Hettinga wrote:
> --- begin forwarded text
> 
>  Tyler and Jayme left Iraq in May 2005. The Arbil office failed; there
>  wasn't enough business in Kurdistan. They moved to London, where Tyler
>  still works for SSI. His time in Iraq has transformed him to the extent
>  that, like Ryan, he doesn't think he can ever move back to the USA. His
>  years of living hyperintensely, carrying a gun, building an organization
>  from scratch in a war zone, have distanced him from his home. His friends
>  seem to him to have stagnated. Their concerns seem trivial. And living with
>  real, known, tangible danger has bred contempt for what he calls America's
>  "culture of fear."

Tyler likes the high-speed lifestyle so much that he ditched it and
moved to London?  I doubt he's carrying a gun there.

-- 
The six phases of a project:
I. Enthusiasm. IV. Search for the Guilty.
II. Disillusionment.   V. Punishment of the Innocent.
III. Panic.VI. Praise & Honor for the Nonparticipants.

Multiple passports?

[Justin]

If I apply for a new one now, and then apply for a another one once the
gov starts RFID-enabling them, will the first one be invalidated?  Or
can I have two passports, the one without RFID to use, and the one with
RFID to play with?

-- 
The six phases of a project:
I. Enthusiasm. IV. Search for the Guilty.
II. Disillusionment.   V. Punishment of the Innocent.
III. Panic.VI. Praise & Honor for the Nonparticipants.

Re: CDR: paradoxes of randomness-errata

[Justin]

Sarad AV (2003-08-16 11:26Z) wrote:

> >it comes to such a question-
> 
> >I do a fair coin throwing experiment with 64 coins.
> 
> >To represent 64 coins,i need 5  bits of information.
> 
> To represnet 64 coins,i need 6 bits of infomation :)

To deal with 65 possibilites, you need 7 bits (well, 6.022)...

-- 
No man is clever enough to  Times are bad.  Children no longer
know all the evil he does.  obey their parents, and everyone
-Francois de la Rochefoucauld   is writing a book.  -Cicero

Re: CDR: Re: Slashdot | Florida Proposes Taxing Local LANs (fwd)

[Justin]

Bill Stewart (2003-08-27 07:06Z) wrote:

> At 08:54 AM 08/26/2003 -0500, Harmon Seaver wrote:
> >   I don't get it -- exactly what do they think they would be taxing?
> >9% of what? The bits and bytes that flow thru? 
> >The owners already paid a sales tax on the hardware, 
> >or is this like a yearly property tax?
> >Bizarre!
> 
> The standard joke about how you tell a computer salesman
> from a used car salesman is that the car salesman
> knows when he's lying.  These incompetents like taxing things,
> but if they don't know what they technology is about,
> they *really* *really* shouldn't propose special taxes 
> on it until they know how to count the objects they want to tax.

I got the impression they want to tax the yearly depriciation of the
networking equipment.  Just as silly as, and perhaps even more expensive
than, taxing the bits.

-- 
No man is clever enough to  Times are bad.  Children no longer
know all the evil he does.  obey their parents, and everyone
-Francois de la Rochefoucauld   is writing a book.  -Cicero