At 07:21 PM 6/8/00 -0400, Tim May wrote:
>Every state/jurisdiction has its thoughtcrimes...child porn,
>anti-Islamic literature, Nazi memorabilia and screeds, snuff films,
>money laundering, amphetamine recipes, libel, and so on. The list is
>long.
But crypto makes it all invisible. The only thing traffic analysis reveals
is that you talk to S'land. Well shoot, your broker works virtually
out of there, that's not enough to indict.
>The United States bans many of these, regardless of the First
>Amendment. (And the Supreme Court has of course upheld some of these
>bans. Obscenity laws, for example. The upcoming ban on bomb
>instructions, methamphetamine recipes, drug advocacy, pace Feinstein,
>Hatch, et. al., have not yet been tested in the courts.)
That's why Freenet et al were invented.. on the road to your Blacknet..
>Most European countries ban some of this material. Ditto for Canada,
>which has onerous laws about hate speech. Canada also practices prior
>restraint on news, pace the Homolka/Teale case. (Canada is an
>interesting case to consider because of the single point of failure,
>as currently set up, for ZKS's Freedom Network.)
Yes most English speakers don't appreciate having constitutionally protected
freedom of speech. Including those that have them.
>
>It's hopeless to expect any kind of "hands off" policy.
>
The system should be designed (physically and informationally) such
that 'policy', cruise missiles, and other judicial/exec flatulation are as
irrelevent as possible.
>Any data haven with an identifiable nexus of control, financial or
>physical, will face the wrath of one or more governments.
In particular, how does S'land launder *its* income?
>
>Muslims who planned to kill Salman Rushdie may react with more than
>just legal challenges were a site to go beyond "The Satanic Verses,"
>for example. Those same hit teams that Britain guarded Rushdie
>against will be deployed to stop underwater saboteurs of Sealand?
>Doubtful.
Problem is England won't take to mining the Estuary too well...
>(So, the question as always for those who act as "hosts," with
>identifiable nexuses or nexi of control is this: What will they
>allow? Morphed images of the Prophet Muhammed screwing a goat?
While eating a ham sandwich..
>Digitized sound files of Jew dying in the showers? EZ instructions
>on how to derail trains?
For R41L KlDDl3Z?
>Underwater demolition teams are another matter.
As a gedankeninvestor, I'd like to gedankensee the arch. plans.
>Sorry to be blunt, Joe, but this is a terribly naive line of
>thinking. We used to debate this a number of years ago, but the
>notion of a "Declaration of Independence for Cyberspace" is just
>plain naive.
>
>Authority coming out of the barrel of a gun and all. A country can
>fight a war for independence and then, with some effort and good
>geography, keep its independence.
Its Gilmore who has the (c) on "trust math & physics, not law", right?
>Is there any hope? Yes, but not by "sitting ducks" declaring
>themselves to be "independent nations" or "data havens."
>
>Trust in the laws of mathematics, not the laws of men.
Even more concise than above. More: Trust math, not men. Bumpersticker
rights GPL'd.
>The concept has been around for a long, long time, too.
Yes, but here's folks now actually giving it a few years of their lives..
Its like DESCrack. Sure, *we* know it was possible years before,
therefore, why
do it? But a lot of folks didn't notice until Paul & John et al
actually did it.
There is a joke about a mathematician, scientist, and engineer in
a room with a fire and an extinguisher...
People are so concrete..
