On Sunday, August 31, 2003, at 06:16 PM, Steve Furlong wrote:
On Sunday 31 August 2003 19:20, James A. Donald wrote:
Talk is cheap. ...
Indeed, the one may be
connected to the other -- the absence of stoolies may well be
connected to the presence of hot talk.
Dunno. I'm not sure that mere talk
On Sunday, August 31, 2003, at 04:20 PM, James A. Donald wrote:
--
Tim May is the perfect example why vigilante justice is
generally considered to be a bad thing -- stupid assholes
like Tim May spout off take action based on paranoia
instead of facts principles of anarchy instead of
Tim May:
If cops ask local neighborhood members to report any suspicious
activity, the folks know that any benefits they gain from acting as
informants tend to be a lot smaller than the danger of being beat up or
even killed by the Mafia.
When the cost of acting as an informant is zero,
On Sunday 31 August 2003 19:20, James A. Donald wrote:
Talk is cheap. ...
Indeed, the one may be
connected to the other -- the absence of stoolies may well be
connected to the presence of hot talk.
Dunno. I'm not sure that mere talk of killing a librarian would dissuade
the potential
I wasn't even going to answer the absurd hypothetical, but since it's now
in play...
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, Sunder wrote:
In that case, I would suspect the ISP itself would have incoming/outgoing
feeds from other ISP's.
Obviously, every ISP does.
If that single moral objector ISP refuses to
What Tim is (correctly) observing here is that a working challenge to the force
monopoly is a very effective way to modify behaviour.
Where Tim is wrong, though, is that he may have anything resembling a working
challenge.
=
end
(of original message)
Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this)
An Metet (2003-09-01 05:54Z) wrote:
Here's a clue. If and when crypto anarchy ever becomes a reality,
Tim May is going to be one of the first ones killed. He's pissed off
too many people. Once they can get retribution anonymously, his days
are numbered.
Are we talking about the tendency
In that case, I would suspect the ISP itself would have incoming/outgoing
feeds from other ISP's. If that single moral objector ISP refuses to
allow carnivores, the other, not quite as moral ISP's might be persuaded
to allow it, in which case the fedZ get what they want, just one
traceroute hop
At 12:02 PM 8/31/03 -0700, Tim May wrote:
He said: An ISP is free to say anyone requesting a tap is required to
pay a fee, just as any ISP is free to say that it will handle
installation of special Carnivore equipment for a certain fee.
A customer of the ISP is certainly _not_ the one requesting
At 01:54 AM 9/1/03 -0400, An Metet wrote:
Here's a clue. If and when crypto anarchy ever becomes a reality,
Tim May is going to be one of the first ones killed. He's pissed off
too many people. Once they can get retribution anonymously, his days
are numbered.
What, exactly, has Tim done that
At 08:06 PM 8/31/03 -0700, Tim May wrote:
The Mob doesn't actually have to kill too many stoolies for it to be
widely known that ratting can be a very dangerous business.
Ask David Kelly. Or his associates. Reputation is a tool.
Indeed. Despite all of Tim's rage, we're still just rats in a cage, and
despite Tim's urging of necklacing ISP owners, or other foam at the mouth
arm-chair solutions, Occam's razor still supplies the better, and cleaner
solutions:
If your MTA has it, turn on the START TLS option. If it doesn't,
by the
Feds and then go to prison for NOT fighting against the US (but clearly
thinking about it), then we are in deep trouble.
-TD
From: Tim May [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Responding to orders which include a secrecy requirement
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 18:01:52 -0700
At 11:00 PM -0500 8/29/03, J.A. Terranson wrote:
And the sheer expense may in and of
itself be a controlling factor in such orders.
Bingo.
You can't make a hierarchical network out of a geodesic one again.
To mangle Gilmore's words a bit, a geodesic network sees centralization as damage and
On Saturday, August 30, 2003, at 06:10 AM, Eric Murray wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 06:54:03PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
But when Big Brother commands that his Carnivore boxes be added, ISPs
are afraid to shoot his agents who trespass.
I think my solution may be best: take a few ISPs who have
At 06:54 PM 8/29/03 -0700, Tim May wrote:
On Friday, August 29, 2003, at 03:28 PM, Steve Schear wrote:
All covered in my previous postings. This approach should be
particularly applicable to ISPs as they generally have billing
arrangement and can add this on as an extra service fee for each
J.A. Terranson wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Tim May wrote:
But when Big Brother commands that his Carnivore boxes be added, ISPs
are afraid to shoot his agents who trespass.
Just for the record, as someone who is in a position to have first-hand
personal knowledge of this...
When the
On Saturday, August 30, 2003, at 01:02 AM, Tim wrote:
J.A. Terranson wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Tim May wrote:
But when Big Brother commands that his Carnivore boxes be added,
ISPs are afraid to shoot his agents who trespass.
Just for the record, as someone who is in a position to have
At 11:00 PM 8/29/2003 -0500, J.A. Terranson wrote:
I was *stunned* at how many ISPs told them to fuck off (including, I am happy
to say, the one I work at)..
When a court order is present - that is a whole new ball game: nobody will
refuse that.
Well maybe. What if a US ISP is incorporated with
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
This has been proposed for, but it fails for the usual reasons.
An ISP is free to say anyone requesting a tap is required to pay a
fee, just as any ISP is free to say that it will handle installation
of special Carnivore equipment for a
On Saturday, August 30, 2003, at 10:46 AM, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
At 06:54 PM 8/29/03 -0700, Tim May wrote:
On Friday, August 29, 2003, at 03:28 PM, Steve Schear wrote:
All covered in my previous postings. This approach should be
particularly applicable to ISPs as they generally have
. Anyway to make a
virus that will install fake/random name lists?
From: Tim May [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Responding to orders which include a secrecy requirement
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 09:10:48 -0700
On Saturday, August 30, 2003, at 06:10 AM, Eric Murray wrote
The Java Anonymous Proxy (JAP) service, your local library, and you, among
others need to develop a response should you be served with an order (court
or otherwise) to produce information which includes the requirement that
you keep the order secret.
There are a large number of responses one
At 01:54 PM 8/29/2003 -0700, you wrote:
Stopping your notification that the service is not monitored can be
forbidden by a strict enough secrecy order. It may be the least legally
risky of the options. The fact that you will stop notification should be
included in your terms of service.
All
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Tim May wrote:
But when Big Brother commands that his Carnivore boxes be added, ISPs
are afraid to shoot his agents who trespass.
Just for the record, as someone who is in a position to have first-hand
personal knowledge of this...
When the various plastic-id carrying
On Friday, August 29, 2003, at 03:28 PM, Steve Schear wrote:
At 01:54 PM 8/29/2003 -0700, you wrote:
Stopping your notification that the service is not monitored can be
forbidden by a strict enough secrecy order. It may be the least
legally
risky of the options. The fact that you will stop
26 matches
Mail list logo
