--
On 6 Jul 2001, at 18:54, Trei, Peter wrote:
> Moore made his remarks in Geneva, in an appeal for citizens
> groups (NGOs) to distance themselves from "masked
> stone-throwers who claim to want more transparency,
> anti-globalization dot.com-types who trot out slogans that
> are trite, shall
--
> > > > there are plenty of SDS and
> > > > Black Panthers running around today, the vast majority never
> > > > went to jail.
Faustine:
> >> Of course they didn't. The bottom line is that their
> >> organizations were torn apart by operations conducted against
> >> them,
James A. Do
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > If those radicals were being murdered by the feds, the radical
> > left would have been eager to have them investigated, instead of
> > closing their eyes and looking the other way, and suddenly
> > dropping vanished radicals down the memory hatch.
On 15 Jul 2001, at
--
On 16 Jul 2001, at 15:52, wrote: James A. Donald:
> > > > The black panthers were torn apart because they murdered
> > > > dissidents
Faustine
> My point was the feds didn't have to murder anybody--play them off
> each other and they do it to themselves.
If they were the kind of people
--
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> #
> #The blank panthers and the rest were opposed to the
> #bourgeois democratic process.
On 16 Jul 2001, at 12:06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Is that some sort of excuse for the treatment I listed?
It is a response to the claim was that the Panther's
--
Faustine
> Still, if you read the documentation, COINTELPRO was quite a
> formidable program.
According to the FBI documents, a major objective of the
COINTELPRO program was to detect when the Panthers did bad
things, and use those bad things to generate adverse publicity for
the panthe
--
On 18 Jul 2001, at 0:55, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
> On a more general level, is US law to be construed as granting
> personal jurisdiction over anyone on the US soil, regardless of
> where the actual crime was committed? I.e., if I do something
> wrong according to the Code,
> I'd better stay t
--
> > I find it much more plausible that commies did bad things, things
> > characteristic of commies, because they were bad people.
Faustine
> True: but then there's always the gray area of exactly what's done in the
> name of "what bad people deserve" that keeps me uneasy about the whole
--
> > > Yes, it does work in the world of building reputations
> > > associated with (anonymous or claimed-not-anonymous) keys, but
> > > not when you need meatspace credit --give the meat named "Prof
> > > Joe" tenure credit for work X.
James A. Donald:
> > It is common for real world autho
--
On 24 Jul 2001, at 1:20, Petro wrote:
> And what is the primary responsibility of a soldier? Well, in
> Basic Training I was informed that my basic task was to seek
> out the enemy and destroy him.
>
> Whch is why using Soldiers in peace keeping missions is a
> really, really boneheaded mo
--
On 24 Jul 2001, at 0:14, Andrew Woods wrote:
> If you look at the Reuters image of Carlo holding the fire extinguisher,
> he's holding it below head-level. In my opinion, that leaves three options:
> Carlo was going to chuck the extinguisher underhand (and sideways to the
> vehicle, so it w
--
> In addition the fact that a previous protestor had put a board through the
> window only goes to demonstrate the high level of emotional disruption
> these officers were exposed to. Panicking is not justification for making
> a wrong decision.
>
> Deadly force was not in any way justified
--
On 27 Jul 2001, at 8:26, Ray Dillinger wrote:
> This guy holding up the fire extinguisher two handed, on the other
> hand, looks like he was intent on using it for a battering ram --
> to push in someone's face with it or something.
There is a photograph of the fire extinguisher flying thr
--
On 26 Jul 2001, at 13:54, Ray Dillinger wrote:
> The problem with Plan D, if implemented over the current Internet,
> is that the low levels of the internet are a tree rather than a
> proper network. There are choke points and listening points at
> which all of a particular person's traffi
--
On 27 Jul 2001, at 8:26, Ray Dillinger wrote:
> > > This guy holding up the fire extinguisher two handed, on
> > > the other hand, looks like he was intent on using it for a
> > > battering ram -- to push in someone's face with it or
> > > something.
James A. Donald:
> > There is a photogr
--
Dark Unicorn:
> > Not a particularly useful answer and not necessarily justifiable on the
> > part of the court. I think eventually a better answer would have to be
> > produced, one that justified the censorship. We're back to what
> > originally struck me as odd, and wrong, about this ite
--
On 31 Jul 2001, at 11:53, Black Unicorn wrote:
> I wanted to make sure to correct the common misconception among
> cypherpunks that you can just thumb your nose at a court with
> impunity.
And I would like to correct the common misconception spread by lawyers that there are
magic legal f
--
On 31 Jul 2001, at 12:22, Black Unicorn wrote:
> Not being intimately familiar with the spec of freenet I can't
> really comment on that aspect or what a court will consider
> "impossible." What will not amuse a court is the appearance of
> an ex ante concealment or disclosure in anticipat
--
> > I have never heard of such a law.
Black Unicorn:
> If you know you've committed some kind of weapons violations or some such and
> you have reason to believe you have come to the attention of the authorities,
> burning the record of those bulk AK-74 purchases might be a bad idea- if y
--
Tim Starr:
> > > Show me exactly which law I am breaking by placing some of
> > > my documents or files in a place even I cannot "turn over
> > > all copies from."
> > >
> > > I have never heard of such a law.
Black Unicorn:
> > If you know you've committed some kind of weapons violati
--
"Trei, Peter
> > Cleansing disks and memory of keys and plaintext isn't done
> > to prevent some hypothetical court from looking at evidence;
> > there are good, legally unremarkable reasons to do so, which
> > are regarded as good hygiene and 'best practice' in the
> > industry.
Black Uni
--
On 1 Aug 2001, at 14:33, Trei, Peter wrote:
> No, Adobe did not use ROT13. They were quite a bit better than that
Not significantly better. Same basic algorithm and weakness as
ROT13
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
n1bw14u4EICH
--
On 1 Aug 2001, at 14:54, John Young wrote:
> The time for confidences is over. Lawyers are considering
> a change in their ethics about ratting on clients (see NY Times
> today); priests are ratting about criminal confessions; reporters
> are ratting on interviewees, psychiatrists are ratti
--
On 2 Aug 2001, at 19:22, Black Unicorn wrote:
> I'm not sure where you have been over the last 48 hours but
> clearly you've not been paying attention.
>
> Courts _clearly_ have the ability to demand the production of
> all copies and originals of a document. They have merely to
> order it
On 2 --
On 2 Aug 2001, at 19:01, Aimee Farr wrote:
[...]
(under ' 1503, documents destroyed do not have to
> be under subpoena; it is sufficient if the defendant is aware that the grand
> jury will likely seek the documents in its investigation);
\All these citations obviously refer to situ
--
On 2 Aug 2001, at 21:04, Ray Dillinger wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Petro wrote:
> >
> >> SBOE: We'd like to see your sales records for 1997-1999.
> >> STORE: "Sorry, can't do that, see there was this *really* weird fire on my
> >> desk last n
--
On 4 Aug 2001, at 1:03, Aimee Farr wrote:
> I wasn't speaking of "security through obscurity," I was speaking of
> "security through First Amendment law suit." Nobody could argue "objective
> chill" in here, that's a legal conceptbut clearly, you aren't
> interested.
With the DCMA and
On 3 Aug 2001, at 6:03, Aimee Farr wrote:
> All we lawyer-types are saying is to engage the law in your problem-solving,
> it's in your threat model. Many of your "solutions" are 100%
> conflict-avoidance, or even ...conflict-ignorance. A strategic error. Where
> there is a corpus, there is a law
--
On 3 Aug 2001, at 0:09, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> C'punks,
>
> So by my count it looks as though we are now up to at least THREE village
> idiots. Each convinced that he knows the law (not in theory, but as
> practiced in reality) better than the lawyers.
I know that for the past several hu
--
On 3 Aug 2001, at 7:35, Ray Dillinger wrote:
> You are wrong. I went and looked up the Caterpillar cite he gave.
> It is real.
I, and everyone else with half a brain, has long known that judges frequently say
"Hey, we are about to seize a truckload of your documents looking for deep
poc
--
On 3 Aug 2001, at 12:07, Tim May wrote:
> A distributed set of remailers in N
> different jurisdictions is quite robust against prosecutorial fishing
> expeditions
As governments become more lawless, and laws become mere desires of the powerful,
rather than any fixed set of rules, the sta
--
On 3 Aug 2001, at 13:22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I consider it, as I said, monstrous that a judge
> can legally deprive me of all copies of my own work in order
> to enforce a gag order, but again, if that's the way it is,
> that's the way it is. But it goes well beyond the bizzare
--
On 3 Aug 2001, at 9:48, Greg Broiles wrote:
> Courts have relatively strong powers with respect to controlling the
> possession and disposition of physical things like notebooks or hard disks,
> but relatively weak powers with respect to limiting the dissemination of
> information not in th
--
On 3 Aug 2001, at 10:07, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> Apparently, James did not understand the thrust of Aimee's post at all. The
> important thing to understand about legal precedents is that they may show a
> TREND in the law. ]
There is a trend to making everything illegal. Your qualifica
On 3 Aug 2001, at 13:53, David Honig wrote:
> After MS was busted, it was widely publicized that it was thereafter
> official policy to destroy email after N days. As if Ollie et al. wasn't
> enough.
If Microsoft gets busted for "spoilation" in their current lawsuit, then
I will take Sandy and
--
On 3 Aug 2001, at 22:43, Aimee Farr wrote:
> Neither Uni nor I suggested that routine document destruction is
> inappropriate in the ordinary course of business.
I understood black unicorn, and Sandy, to be claiming it was inappropriate, and quite
dangerous.
You, while more cautious than
--
On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Ray Dillinger wrote:
> You cannot have encryption technologies advancing and leaving the law
> behind, so long as any vital part of the infrastructure you need is
> traceable and pulpable by the law.
Child porn still gets distributed through usenet. Silencing
"alt.ano
--
Harmon Seaver
> > As others have stated, if you don't keep logs, or throw away all
> > your reciepts, there's not jack they can do about it.
At 7:22 PM -0700 8/2/01, Black Unicorn wrote:
> Uh, no. And if you had been reading the many, many posts on this point
> you'd see that about every
--
James A. Donald:
> > There is a trend to making
> > everything illegal. Your
> > qualifications to read tea
> > leaves are no better than my own.
Sandy Sandfort
> Well James, you got it right once. My qualifications for reading tea leaves
> are no better than your own. However, my quali
On 4 Aug 2001, at 13:04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> My impression is that BU's response to me was based on a
> misundertanding of what I was saying.
My impression is that whatever his original position, in the course
of defending it, he made claims that were ever more unreasonable,
ever more f
--
On 4 Aug 2001, at 12:46, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> No James, as any first year law student could tell you, they way one makes
> educated assessments about how laws may be interpreted in the future are
> NECESSARILY based on understanding laws and court precedents.
And as any one can tell you
On 4 Aug 2001, at 18:29, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> Jimbo II has really gone off the deep end. I've asked him
repeatedly to
> quote me directly where I have said the things he alleges that
have said.'
You have asked me once, off list. I replied, off list.
Now I will repost that reply on the lis
--
On 4 Aug 2001, at 14:54, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> Jimbo II wrote:
>
> > You, and Black Unicorn, have taken that
> > extreme position. You were full of shit.
>
> Show me where I took that position. Put up or shut up, Jimbo II.
A few posts back when I pointed out that most businesses engag
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > I consider it, as I said, monstrous that a judge can
> > > legally deprive me of all copies of my own work in order to
> > > enforce a gag order, but again, if that's the way it is,
> > > that's the way it is. But it goes well beyond the bizzare
> > > to
--
On 4 Aug 2001, at 16:08, Black Unicorn wrote:
>
> I am going to try and be as clear and as slow as possible-
> knowing full well that it probably will make no difference and
> that my words will be twisted, strawmaned, touted or defamed
> whatever I do. Regardless:
>
> [...] The trial cou
--
> > > Judges have never attempted such crap,
On 4 Aug 2001, at 23:03, Dr. Evil wrote:
> Please do a search for "Negativland" and "U2" on your favorite
> search engine. They were ordered to return to the court or
> U2's reccord label or whatever, all the copies they had of
> their U2 albu
--
On 5 Aug 2001, at 16:07, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
> AFAICS, it's likely a matter of priorities -- currently anonymity does not
> pose a significant threat to governments. If that changes, the heat will
> intensify, possibly to a point where means currently unimaginable could be
> employed (e.g.
--
On 5 Aug 2001, at 14:17, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
> "Conforming to international treaties" *is* the hip way to
circumvent the
> constitution.
As we recently saw in the money laundering treaties, different
nations have rather different interpretations of international treaties.
Some time bac
--
James A. Donald:
> > If one keeps records, and suddenly someone sues one, and THEN one
> > starts shredding, yes, then one can get into trouble. If
> > however, one shreds away indiscriminately, on a routine and
> > regular schedule, one is in the clear. As a remailer operator
> > said t
--
On 5 Aug 2001, at 5:07, Aimee Farr wrote:
> If you read any of those cites and shep'd them, you will see
> there are circumstances where defendants didn't know the
> documents were relevant to a specific lawsuit.
That summary of those cases seems misleading to me.
You yourself have acknow
--
James A. Donald:
> > You yourself have acknowledged that standard best practice legal
> > advice is to routinely purge all internal email after a few weeks.
Aimee Farr wrote:
> Yes. Unless it is of special relevance.
If one is operating a company, the guy who purges the email on the mail
--
On 7 Aug 2001, at 0:36, Aimee Farr wrote:
> You guys are acting like Uni said, "THOU SHALT NOT WRITE CODE."
That is what he did say: This thread started when someone
proposed publishing thought crimes into an irretrievable medium
such as freenet in order to render moot any future court or
--
Trei, Peter:
> > I'll concur that BU is overreaching himself.
Eric Murray
> I read him as suggesting that some ambitious prosecutors might
> possibly try to extend spoliation to that point, not that
> they're doing so now.
I read him as saying the prospect of prosecutors extending
spoilat
--
James A. Donald:
> > Black Unicorn's recent post, where he denounces almost the
> > entire cypherpunk program as illegal by current legal
> > standards and a manifestation of foolish ignorance of the law
> > and obstinate refusal to take his wise advice,
Aimee Farr:
> No, he didn't.
Every
--
> > > > ObSpoliationClaim: "Those who buy such machines are
> > > > obviously trying to hide evidence. Mr. Happy Fun Court is
> > > > "not amused.""
> > > That is very true. Someone trying to defeat a charge of
> > > being a boss in a drug gang would certainly not be helped
> > > if t
--
On 7 Aug 2001, at 7:38, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> Also, users won't immediately know about the new remailers or
> have any idea of their reliability. And while the Feds may be
> generally sluggish, when it comes to law enforcement (that is,
> remailer raids on anti-terrorism pretexts), I su
--
On 6 Aug 2001, at 10:13, Ray Dillinger wrote:
> Offhand, I'd estimate that if three US remops were taken down
> forcefully, and the federal law looked as though any other
> could be, all but two or three hardcases would cease operating
> remailers in the USA. That would wipe out well ov
--
On 15 Aug 2001, at 23:12, Seth Finkelstein wrote:
> I can't convey how ludicrous it seems to me. Declan is the
> Fed's best friend. That's not an insult, that's a fact.
Thats baloney.
Declan has been routinely harassed by the feds.
> He's provided
> important evidence that helped obtain
--
On 16 Aug 2001, at 13:17, Morlock Elloi wrote:
> Sorry to bother the audience with purely crypto issues, I just
wonder if anyone
> else evaluated this Ferguson's paper on apparent simplicity and
therefore
> insecurity of Rijndael:
>
> http://www.xs4all.nl/~vorpal/pubs/rdalgeq.html
"and
--
Reese
> > You [Aimee Farr]are entirely too smug and happy, at the
> > thought of these various mechanisms useful for preserving
> > privacy and anonymity going the way of the dodo.
Aimee Farr
> That is not my attitude at all, Reese.
It is your attitude. You keep telling us privacy is i
--
On 27 Aug 2001, at 16:00, Aimee Farr wrote:
> Your idea does seem to offer promise as a vehicle for treason,
> espionage, trade secrets, malicious mischief, piracy, bribery
> of public officials, concealment of assets, transmission of
> wagering information, murder for hire, threatening or
--
On 26 Aug 2001, at 10:46, Tim May wrote:
> Anyway, it is not easy to create a public company, a public
> nexus of attack, and then deploy systems which target that
> high-value sweet spot. The real bankers and the regulators
> won't allow such things into the official banking system. (Why
>
--
On 27 Aug 2001, at 21:40, Nomen Nescio wrote:
> "Freedom fighters in communist-controlled regimes." How much
> money do they have? More importantly, how much are they
> willing and able to spend on anonymity/privacy/black-market
> technologies? These guys aren't rolling in dough.
Freedo
--
On 27 Aug 2001, at 23:22, Aimee Farr wrote:
> Considering the incredibly bad timing of this discussion in
> light of world events, I don't see how you could call ME a
> provocateur. My jibe was good-natured. You keep posting the
> equivalent of classified ads. I know who wants this shit
--
On 28 Aug 2001, at 7:13, Jim Choate wrote:
> What makes you think that new regime who used your tool to take
> over won't then shoot you and take 'your profits'. By
> participating you may in fact be signing your own death
> warrant.
All the liberty that there is in the world today resu
--
> > Many people however believe that we [read: our government(s)]
> > are in a downward spiral that is converging on
> > police-and-welfare-state. In the US for example, we long ago
> > abandoned our constitution. We still give it much lip
> > service and we still have one of the "more fr
--
On 29 Aug 2001, at 14:25, Faustine wrote:
> Which reminds me, I don't know why people here seem to think
> that any sort of "deception operation" would come from people
> who show up using nyms to express unpopular opinions. (e.g.
> "you said something I don't want to hear; threfore its
--
On 28 Aug 2001, at 23:00, Nomen Nescio wrote:
> The objection was raised, yes, it is moral, but is it
> profitable? There are not many communist-opposed freedom
> fighters around today, not much money to be made there.
Most regimes on President Bush's shit list have an insurrection
going a
--
On 29 Aug 2001, at 16:40, Gary Jeffers wrote:
> My fellow Cypherpunks,
>
>Some time ago Tim May flamed me and I responded with the
>post:
> Tim May goes bush shooting.
> http://www.inet-one.com/cypherpunks/dir.2000.09.25-2000.10.01/m
> sg00388.html
>.
> Note: The 3rd reference
--
On 30 Aug 2001, at 14:52, Faustine wrote:
> And as long as you have companies like ZeroKnowledge who are
> willing/gullible/greedy/just plain fucking stupid enough to
> sell their betas to the NSA, you never will.
There is nothing wrong with selling betas to the NSA. I make my
crypto
--
On 30 Aug 2001, at 14:41, Faustine wrote:
> Of course it has a trap door, that's probably the whole point
> of getting it over there in the first place. And by the way, if
> you're going to question SafeWeb for cooperating with CIA, you
> might as well criticize ZeroKnowledge for selling
--
James A. Donald:
> > (the Russian communist revolution was not a revolution, but
> > merely a coup by a little conspiracy. Same for the
> > Sandinista revolution).
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I'm curious how you draw the line? I.e., what defines a
> genuine revolution as opposed to a "mere" coup
--
> > Whether Aimee is a fed or not, her quite genuine ignorance
> > made her incapable of knowing what views sounded
> > cypherpunkish, and what views sounded violently anti
> > cypherpunkish. If she is a fed, she probably also goes
> > around buying crack and pretending to be a thirte
--
On 31 Aug 2001, at 11:59, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> First, you depend more than you think on government actions for
> essentials even though they have private brand labels.
>
> Second, why do you think that when someone is a government
> employee they are automatically inferior to everyon
--
On 2 Sep 2001, at 8:37, mattd wrote:
> cryptoanarchy aka cryptocapitalism seems to be in crisis.Should
> the hardcore libertarian individualist tap into a new source of
> fire?During the spanish civil war/revolution,in anarchist
> controlled areas,individuals were free to cultivate indiv
James A. Donald:--
James A. Donald:
> > Hitler won an election. Elections are not revolutions.
Jim Choate
> The election alone didn't make him Fuhrer
The fact that a majority voted for totalitarianism and plurality
voted for Hitler did make him fuhrer.
And regardless of what made him Fuhre
--
On 1 Sep 2001, at 16:12, Faustine wrote:
> All I'm saying is that if the feds are doing their job well,
> they won't stick out at all. Smells like a witch hunt.
Fortunately government employees seldom do their jobs well.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3
--
James A. Donald:
> > And regardless of what made him Fuhrer, it was not a
> > revolution.
Jim Choate:
> It wasn't? They passed a law moving all the presidents power to
> Hitler against the constitution.
"They passed a law" is not a revolution, even if the law was
unconstitutional, and it
--
On 9 Sep 2001, at 17:35, Matthew Gaylor wrote:
> If Brian Dalton hopes to have his conviction for pandering
> obscenity thrown out, his new attorneys will have to prove he
> received poor legal counsel. But the attorney who represented
> Dalton said that wasn't the case. "With all the fa
--
On 12 Sep 2001, at 14:59, Trei, Peter wrote:
> I sincerely hope that the remaining perpetrators of this
> atrocity are found and punished, but entertain no illusions
> that doing so will prevent future attacks. That can only come
> from a shift of US government attitude from "I've got th
--
On 12 Sep 2001, at 18:00, Nomen Nescio wrote:
> Maybe our own policies and beliefs have turned against us, to
> our detriment. There have been a number of reports that bin
> Laden uses cryptography and even steganography tools. This
> could still have a significant crypto connection.
Obv
--
Dr. Joe Baptista
> They are the symbols of a struggle that has been going on
> for many years. A struggle against oppression and planned
> genocide in which the United States has been a significant
> contributor and supporter. i.e. Israel's oppression of the
> palestinians, i.e. south
--
On 13 Sep 2001, at 20:26, Aimee Farr wrote:
> My post was not "bait." The reason we have anything left of
> the amendments so frequently talked about in here is due to
> the independence of the judiciary. While you can question
> aforesaid independence, threatening the judiciary is beyond
>
--
On 14 Sep 2001, at 0:27, Riad S. Wahby wrote:
> The labels "act of terrorism" and "act of war" are mutually
> exclusive. The former is by definition perpetrated by a
> non-governmental grou The claims by Dubya et al to the
> contrary are incoherent politibabble.
Nonsense. The words "te
--
On 13 Sep 2001, at 20:01, Alfred Qeada wrote:
> They're [Pakistan] also looking to curry favor, and
> distance India. They're nuclear; you have to give them
> respect
They were not getting any respect. Their nuclear status
could be reversed.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6
--
On 12 Sep 2001, at 19:24, Steve Schear wrote:
> The knife ban won't work against anyone with even a smidgen of
> metal detector knowledge. Anyone can purchase a razor sharp
> ceramic knife like this one
> http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:Rd6ExOvaDz8:www.smarthome.
> com/9126.html+cera
--
On 14 Sep 2001, at 18:40, Nomen Nescio wrote:
> Chefren - On behalf of the civilized readers of the
> cypherpunks list, please accept our apology for the implied
> threats of violence against you by Tim May. He is by no
> means representative of the larger readership. He is alone
> in call
--
On 14 Sep 2001, at 10:57, !Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:
> James - I find your statements incredible. America is
> being attacked for being rich and free? I don't think so
>
> If these people are arabs - and i still don't have any
> proof of that - then we can assume they blew up the WTC in
> p
--
On 14 Sep 2001, at 11:10, Aimee Farr wrote:
> I don't know why Tim makes me out to be such a bitch. I'm
> pro-crypto and pro-privacy.
You are pretending, not very well, to be someone you are not.
As to whether the real you is a government provocateur, I
have no idea. But the real you is
--
On 14 Sep 2001, at 16:25, Trei, Peter wrote:
> I haven't paid enough attention to AF to be able to form an
> opinion as to whether she's threatened anyone.
She did not say "I am going to kill a judge". She did
however say that somone else was going to kill a judge. She
and Nomen are try
--
On 14 Sep 2001, at 20:58, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> War is the health of the State.
Terrorism is a good pretext for taking away our rights.
A war to destroy terrorist regimes is a less good pretext,
and if it succeeds, will remove one pretext. The end of the
war will also spark a dem
--
On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Nomen Nescio wrote:
> > Right, ninja troops carrying away bespectacled, nerdly remailer
> > operators. Here's a better fantasy. They'll hire $1000/night
> > superhookers and seduce the remailer operators into giving up their
> > keys. Both have about equal chances of
--
Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> > Nonsense. Targeting innocents is evil according to EVERY
> > human culture. The fact that people do it, does not make
> > it "relative." It just makes them evil. Period.
On 15 Sep 2001, at 15:04, Incognito Innominatus wrote:
> Not according to Tim May. He was
--
On 15 Sep 2001, at 13:13, Meyer Wolfsheim wrote:
> My point is that such an attack could occur with nothing
> more than economic factors as motivation.
But they do not.
Terrorism is a public good, hence cannot be provided
efficiently by the free market.
--digsig
James A. Do
--
On 14 Sep 2001, at 23:30, Anonymous wrote:
> > > Pictures of three of these bespectacled, nerdly
> > > remailer operators:
> > >
> > > http://www.melontraffickers.com/pics/DC8_Lucky_BDU_4.jpg
> > > http://www.melontraffickers.com/pics/rabbiGoneNuts.jpeg
> > > http://www.melontraffickers.c
--
On 17 Sep 2001, at 7:54, Dr. Evil wrote:
> Yes, there are no "sustainable" non-tracable remote payment
> systems in existence, and it's almost impossible for such a
> system to exist. Why? There are many reasons. One of the
> most obvious ones is that it would be so disruptive to the
> ac
--
On 17 Sep 2001, at 10:30, Ryan Lackey wrote:
> I'm not sure if I buy that remailers are even going to have
> serious problems in the future. I see two approaches:
>
> 1) The aforementioned ecash-based system. We don't have a
> problem getting people to smuggle drugs, because people in
> t
--
On Sun, 16 Sep 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> > As were buildings above 5 stories in ancient Rome.
> > Technology moves on. The question is not, "Can 250-story
> > buildings be made safe?" The only question is "How can
> > they be made safe?"
Eugene Leitl
> The question is: why should we b
--
On 16 Sep 2001, at 12:16, John Young wrote:
> Yes, Sandy, how do you do that? Sincerely, I'm not being a
> wiseass. Some building types have disappeared over time due
> to understanding that they don't work any more. Glorious
> buildings that once were once seen as absolutely the best
> eve
--
On 16 Sep 2001, at 11:16, Subcommander Bob wrote:
> Make religion illegal, lots of stupid problems disappear.
Been tried. Did not work.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
EjYu4fBSdOfM3Mc33gnLv0ovMhY/ZANvvh/O5GZX
4S9hEva9fQ2guA
1 - 100 of 249 matches
Mail list logo
