Re: OT: consequences for bad laws
Tim May wrote: > Fact is, hundreds of thousands of government types have already > earned sanctioning. here's a shocker: given that everyone and his dog seems to know better, but politics is still a desaster, may it be possible that what we see is the ... optimal solution given current circumstances? geez, that would be a bad karma for the rest of society.
Re: CDR: Carnivore diversionary tactics ...
> Ernest Hua wrote: > 1. Every time the FBI walks into an ISP with a box > labelled "CARNIVORE - FBI USE ONLY", no one really > knows what kind of software is being used. After > all, it is suppose to just sniff packets passively. > No one gets to review each USE of this box. This > comes down to the, "You can sue us if you find us > in violation, but there is a law that says you may > not know what we are doing ..." Official Secrets > Act, take two. Congratulations: I see you've finally removed your head from your ass. Thank you! -- --Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--- + ^ + :Surveillance cameras|Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\ \|/ :aren't security. A |share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\ <--*-->:camera won't stop a |monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/ /|\ :masked killer, but |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/ + v + :will violate privacy|site, and you must change them very often. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sunder.net
Re: AOL and "hate speech"
At 12:56 PM 8/11/00 -0400, Jim Burnes wrote: > >While I agree with Tom that AOL sucks rocks etc etc, you paper analogy >isn't quite correct -- or at least its incomplete. If I sell you paper >and find out your printing racist drivel with it, it's perfectly >within my rights to stop selling you paper. > >Of course you could always buy paper from someone else or make >your own. > >jim Quite right, AS LONG AS no papermaker has any government-granted monopoly. If only AOL paper delivery trucks are allowed on public roads, something is wrong. Note that the folks at the other ends of your wires --telcos, elec-cos, and cablecos, ALL have violence-backed monopolies UNLESS they permit others to connect. The telcos and recently the electrics (in Ca) now allow open access. The cable-modem situation still festers.
Re: DCSB: Hapgood and Johansson; Post-Napster Models for
At 10:52 AM 8/11/00 -0400, R. A. Hettinga wrote: > > Fred Hapgood > and > Eric Johansson > >presenting > > "Post-Napster Business Models for Digital Commerce" Apparently no relation to the Johansson of DeCSS fame, but the irony is amusing...
Welcome to LA, bring your gas mask!
It would be nice if someone got a copy of the Police-Only version of the city's flyer and say forwarded it to cryptome.. City Employee Booklets Draw Criticism Security: Officials decry lists of delegates' hotels and casual instructions on dealing with tear gas. By TINA DAUNT, Times Staff Writer Local law enforcement officials coordinating security for the Democratic National Convention issued booklets to Los Angeles city employees this week listing all the hotels where hundreds of delegates are staying and tidbits on how to deal with such issues as bomb threats, suspicious packages and tear gas exposure. "Our role in the DNC 2000 is to ensure a safe and orderly environment for this historic event," Mayor Richard Riordan wrote to employees in one version of the pamphlet. "This challenge provides us with the opportunity to demonstrate our professionalism while excelling at all levels." But some City Hall insiders said they were alarmed to find that tear gas exposure was casually mentioned, along with common health hazards like sunburns and heat cramps. For weeks, city officials have expressed concern that police and protesters will engage in violent clashes during the convention. "It's like, 'Welcome to L.A., bring your gas mask,' " said one official. Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas also questioned the wisdom of listing the delegates' hotels. "Why on one hand do you give instructions about tear gas and on the other hand you blatantly publicize where delegates will be housed?" Ridley-Thomas said. "It doesn't really demonstrate a sophistication with respect to a security plan, does it?" The Democratic National Convention Planning Group--headed by the Los Angeles Police Department--handed out two versions of the booklet, one for sworn officers and the other for civilians. The police version includes a section on the problems the "anarchists" caused during the 1999 World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle and an overview of mass arrest procedures. Officers are also urged to bring an extra uniform "in case of extended deployment to a DNC-related incident." LAPD Cmdr. David Kalish, a department spokesman, said the booklets were intended as "informational material for concerned representatives" of the city. "If people get asked questions by delegates or visitors, they will have the information," Kalish said. "They'll also have the information that is relative to their
Re: AOL and "hate speech"
At 1:22 PM -0400 8/11/00, David Honig wrote: >At 12:56 PM 8/11/00 -0400, Jim Burnes wrote: >> >>While I agree with Tom that AOL sucks rocks etc etc, you paper analogy >>isn't quite correct -- or at least its incomplete. If I sell you paper >>and find out your printing racist drivel with it, it's perfectly >>within my rights to stop selling you paper. >> >>Of course you could always buy paper from someone else or make >>your own. >> >>jim > >Quite right, AS LONG AS no papermaker has any government-granted >monopoly. If only AOL paper delivery trucks are allowed on public roads, >something is wrong. > >Note that the folks at the other ends of your wires --telcos, elec-cos, >and cablecos, ALL have violence-backed monopolies UNLESS they permit >others to connect. The telcos and recently the electrics (in Ca) >now allow open access. The cable-modem situation still festers. And don't let the anonymous rants of Anonymous let the discussion be sidetracked by the straw man of saying some of us wish to intervene to stop private ISPs from doing as they wish with their property. There is the issue that many universities have elected to subcontract out their student Internet access. Most of the University of California did this several years ago by contracting with Netcom, now owned by Earthlink. (I don't know if this is still the case, as I don't follow this subindustry closely.) Earthlink is one of the ISPs blathering about having zero tolerance for politically incorrect speech. This raises First Amendment issues, due to the university role (oft-discussed in connection with university speech codes). In any case, I never suggested that MenWithGuns should force AOL to modify its hate speech policy. Modulo the issues above, they can do as they please. And we can point at them and laugh. Aside from law, though, there is the issue of a broader interepretation of what it means to be in a liberal society (liberal in the classical, not modern, sense). Is it _wise_ for AOL to impose speech constraints? This echoes the issue we went through several years ago when the owners of the Cypherpunks list host machine decided to begin filtering messages based on content, including messages critical of the filtering. --Tim May -- -:-:-:-:-:-:-: Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
Re: AOL and "hate speech"
X-Loop: openpgp.net From: "Tim May" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > In any case, I never suggested that MenWithGuns should force AOL to > modify its hate speech policy. It could have been easily interpreted as such (and it has been). Now, couldn't you have posted this message in the first place? Apparently, the "two Tim" phenomena we see here from time to time are the result of the same Tim (or at least the libertarian one knows what the authoritarian one says), with some behavioral differences. Too much coffee? Mark
Fw: Socialism: an American export?
[From the Mises list] > Begin Forwarded Message > Date:8/11/2000 6:40 > Received:8/11/2000 8:54 > From:Loren Mark Swearingen, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > When I began making plans last year to move to New Zealand or Australia, a > few friends asked me a very perceptive question -- if I am in favor of > free > markets and opposed to high taxes, why would I move to a socialist country > with a government health care system that has even higher tax rates than > the > U.S.? > > That's a very good question, and -- although it didn't stop me from > moving -- > I have been pondering it for a while. > > I grew up with the notion that America was the country in the world with > the > greatest freedom, and that other countries were, to varying degrees, > socialist basket-cases. > > In the last year, however, I have begun to wonder whether that is really > an > accurate perception. After all, two of the ten government economic > policies > advocated by Karl Marx were a central bank and an income tax, and America > had > both of those before the 1917 Bolshevik revolution in Russia. > > Living in Australia has made me concious of how much America really is the > center of the world. American music, American magazines, American TV, > American movies, and even American politics all dominate the intellectual > life of other countries to an extent that I think very few Americans are > aware of. When Amy & I got to New Zealand, for example, we were > surprised to > find McDonald's and KFC's all over the place, decorated in 1950's American > style with pictures of Elvis, Marilyn Monroe, James Dean, 1950's > Cheverolets, > etc. I guess we thought other countries would have their own fast food > chains, their own movie stars, etc. > > Might it be possible, then, that other countries have copied America's > laws > and economic system? I have been thinking that I would like to do more > research about when various countries in the world adopted various > socialist > policies such as a central bank, an income tax, a welfare system, > tax-financed education, and so forth. The results of such a study could > be > quite surprising. > > Serendipitously, Fr. Vincent recently sent the web reference of the > following > article to his list, which compares the history of economic policy in > America > and Canada. The article confirms what I had already begun to suspect -- > that > America has been a leader and a teacher, not a follower, in socialist > ideology and practice. > > === Begin excerpts > == > > http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a399197565aba.htm > > THE SOCIALIST WIND FROM THE SOUTH > > by Martin Masse > > ... William Watson explains in "Globalization and the Meaning of Canadian > Life" ... that the Canadian identity based on interventionism and > protectionism is in fact a myth, and that we're certainly not > distinguishing > ourselves from the Americans by trying to become more socialist, since the > Americans were there before. In two chapters in particular entitled The > American "Governmental Habit" and The American Lead, he shows that new > interventionist and collectivist fads in various sectors of the economy > and > society have usually been tried first south of the border, and only later > brought in to Canada... > > Thus, in spite of our supposedly more interventionist traditions, the > allegedly anti-statist Americans had both an income tax and a central > bank, > two necessary accoutrements of modern big government, before we did. (p. > 92-93) ... > > Whatever its official ideology might ordain, the United States has always > had > an active -- and when necessary protectionist -- tariff policy. On July > 1789, > the very first economic act the new Congress undertook was to legislate > tariffs to both raise revenue and restrict imports... > > Of the two countries, Canada has been the most resistant to the socialist > wave sweeping the world in the first half of the 20th century, and had the > least activist government until the 1950s... > > It wasn't until a constitutional amendment in 1940 that Canada had > national > unemployment insurance, something the United States had put in place in > 1935. > Nor was the almost three-fold expansion of federal spending in the United > States during the 1930s, from $3.1 billion in 1928 to $8.8 billion in > 1939, > matched in Canada, where Ottawa's spending rose by only 70 per cent in the > same ten years, from $405 million to $681 million. (...) > > At the end of the 1930s, the United States was the more advanced welfare > state, Canada the backward northern neighbour... > > Public health care, government-run pension plans, social welfare, > unemployment insurance, etc., ... were first thought out by American (and > German and British) socialists, and were imported here rather late. > Pearson's > reforms and Trudeau
Re: AOL and "hate speech"
X-Loop: openpgp.net From: "T. Bankson Roach" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Now do you think we need it to be an absolute right > to express whatever rotten, nasty, clean, or loving thought we might > have made part of a new Constitution in case the idiots can't see this > is a already a right, or should be, provided us under our current > Constitution? You have the right, but not on someone else's expense. > I think the damn theater is on fire, and I'm about > to shout "Fire" in the theater. Is that OK? Yes. You have the right to shout fire even if you don't think it's true. > Does your company have a right to tell you what you can't say if you use > "their" phone at work? What if you bring your own phone from home? Yes. You're still talking on their money. > Do they have the right to monitor your phone calls? Yes. > If so, should this right be denied them? No. Why? > I think that "freedom of speech" is such an > important part of what makes the USA special, that these should be made > your absolute right under a "revised" Constitution. It is an absolute right. No need to revise the Constitution, especially since it doesn't create rights. Mark
Re: FBI gets new hacking tools - any ideas?
"Kerry L. Bonin" wrote: > Assuming the body of child porn in circulation is of some reasonable size, > and grows far less rapidly than adult porn, it should be feasible to > construct a "fingerprint" style database by scanning the collections the > FBI (and some postmasters) are known to have in their posession. > > An automated tool could then conceivably be created in conjunction with a > statefull inspection firewall or statefull passive line tap to recognize > when significant quantities of registered porn are being transmitted. > > The obvious counter for this would be encryption or steganography, which > was also mentioned. I know little about the JPEG format, but wouldn't it be simple enough to switch colors 1 and 2 in the palette, then swap all references to those colors in the image? Or doesn't it work that way? Assuming it does work, there could be a dozen versions of the same image, visually identical but not bit-wise identical. Encryption would be the obvious counter to this. Even in societies where it's legal, though, the combination of tool inconvenience and big-brotherish suspicion of encryption where not provable necessary is preventing the widespread use. I don't see how stego would be of great use to a widespread network of kiddie pr0nners; any large group will let something slip, and once it's known there's a secret it's not that hard to find. I'm more interested in the extension of these tools to other information Big Brother would like to ban. The technical challenges of banning or protecting ASCII text files are different than those for binaries, so I don't know if the same tools would be used. Oh, and for the benefit of Big Brother, my ex-wife's attorneys, and future employers, I'm not especially interested in kiddie porn. I'm interested in the technical and social challenges here. -- Steve Furlong, Computer Condottiere Have GNU, will travel 518-374-4720 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FBI gets new hacking tools - any ideas?
At 08:00 PM 8/11/00 -0400, Steven Furlong wrote: >"Kerry L. Bonin" wrote: >> Assuming the body of child porn in circulation is of some reasonable size, >> and grows far less rapidly than adult porn, it should be feasible to >> construct a "fingerprint" style database by scanning the collections the >> FBI (and some postmasters) are known to have in their posession. >> >> An automated tool could then conceivably be created in conjunction with a >> statefull inspection firewall or statefull passive line tap to recognize >> when significant quantities of registered porn are being transmitted. >> >> The obvious counter for this would be encryption or steganography, which >> was also mentioned. > >I know little about the JPEG format, but wouldn't it be simple enough >to switch colors 1 and 2 in the palette, then swap all references to >those colors in the image? Or doesn't it work that way? Assuming it >does work, there could be a dozen versions of the same image, visually >identical but not bit-wise identical. This could qualify as a trivial form of steganography. JPEG is considerably more complex than that (GIF,BMP,ect. do meet that description), but the abstract principle holds. Simple mods (add color offsets to random pixels across image before retransmission, like a 'watermark') could be defeated by more comprehensive "fingerprinting" methods, but usual disclaimers about 'bullets' vs. 'armor', and you end up at crypto. >Encryption would be the obvious counter to this. Even in societies >where it's legal, though, the combination of tool inconvenience and >big-brotherish suspicion of encryption where not provable necessary >is preventing the widespread use. Agreed, although many people (including myself) are working hard to make crypto easier to use. >I'm more interested in the extension of these tools to other >information Big Brother would like to ban. The technical challenges of >banning or protecting ASCII text files are different than those for >binaries, so I don't know if the same tools would be used. Same here. I'm pretty much convinced that the only end-user means for privacy are VPN's and web-of-trust PKIs. I think the FBI is heading towards eventual "dragnet" style monitoring of the whole damn net, pretty much like the NSA and friends already have. >Oh, and for the benefit of Big Brother, my ex-wife's attorneys, and >future employers, I'm not especially interested in kiddie porn. I'm >interested in the technical and social challenges here. heh... I was wondering if/how I should qualify my own comments as well. I have kids, and my personal opinion on kiddie porn is minimum penalty of forced castration for creators of the images, if not death penalty. That said, I don't think its constitutional for the FBI to conduct "dragnet" sweeps for _any_ crime, which seems to the direction they are heading - 'two wrongs' and the like. The technical issues on both sides are interesting, and as I work in security and open source crypto, I'm painfully aware of my role on both sides of the fence.
