Re: Remailers/PayPhones and Today's NYT

"George A. Gleason" <gg@well.sf.ca.us> writes:

>And did you read Hugh's posting about the 7pm to 8am coin
>curfew in Czechago?
...
>Wake up, how much evidence do you need that it's a simple matter of bigotry
>and classism?

Hm.  Perhaps it is.  On the other hand, it could also be a combination
of a little bit of greed for power with a bit of genuine fear and despair.
You see, if the Chicago Tribune can be believed, there are actual citizens'
groups lobbying for the removal of pay phones from certain areas of the
city.  Groups of citizens who *live* in those same areas.

These folk claim that public pay phones attract drug dealers, presumably
because of the semi-anonymity they provide.  I don't know personally how
true this claim is, but I can understand the advantages that a pay phone
might offer to a drug dealer.  Sure, the "big time" dealers might not
use anything as plebian as a public pay phone, but drugs are a big booming
business, and clearly there are far more small-time dealers than big-time
ones.

They further claim that drug dealers attract violence.  I don't know myself
if this is true, but I do know from reading the paper that an absurdly large
number of people are killed in Chicago by stray bullets shot by drug dealers
in conflicts with each other.  And, of course, still more folks who *are*
drug dealers are killed directly, each year.

Finally, they claim that merchants in certain areas are pandering to the
drug-dealer market for pay phones by installing far more than one would
otherwise think necessary.  I haven't seen this myself, but the article I
read did mention what seemed like unusually large clusters (street corners
with 7-10 pay phones).

That's the fear and despair bit.  It could be bigotry, it could be classism--
but stray bullets are damn good motivators too, and here in Chicago we have
a lot of them.

As for greed: this could be a factor, it might not.  At least one alderman
has made it illegal to install new pay phones in his ward without his explicit
permission.  Clearly this adds to his power.  The same fellow has made much
of his public name in recent campaigning against these public pay phones,
and threatening to take an axe to them himself if some of them weren't
removed.  Make of this what you will.

How much more evidence do I need that it's a simple matter of bigotry
and classism?  Well, a bit more than I've seen so far.

Cypherpunk content?  This is a damn good illustration of the problems that
can crop up with an anonymous service.  Though services on the net have the
advantage of not being tied to a physical location, like pay phones are;
so they probably won't serve to attract a "bad element" to any particular
place.  On the other hand, any sort of public terminal service offering 
encrypted email, might very well.

                            -David

> 
> "George A. Gleason" <gg@well.sf.ca.us> writes:
> 
> >And did you read Hugh's posting about the 7pm to 8am coin
> >curfew in Czechago?
> ...
> >Wake up, how much evidence do you need that it's a simple matter of bigotry
> >and classism?
> 
> Hm.  Perhaps it is.  On the other hand, it could also be a combination
> of a little bit of greed for power with a bit of genuine fear and despair.
> You see, if the Chicago Tribune can be believed, there are actual citizens'
> groups lobbying for the removal of pay phones from certain areas of the
> city.  Groups of citizens who *live* in those same areas.
> 
> These folk claim that public pay phones attract drug dealers, presumably
> because of the semi-anonymity they provide.  I don't know personally how
> true this claim is, but I can understand the advantages that a pay phone
> might offer to a drug dealer.  Sure, the "big time" dealers might not
> use anything as plebian as a public pay phone, but drugs are a big booming
> business, and clearly there are far more small-time dealers than big-time
> ones.
> 
> They further claim that drug dealers attract violence.  I don't know myself
> if this is true, but I do know from reading the paper that an absurdly large
> number of people are killed in Chicago by stray bullets shot by drug dealers
> in conflicts with each other.  And, of course, still more folks who *are*
> drug dealers are killed directly, each year.
> 
> Finally, they claim that merchants in certain areas are pandering to the
> drug-dealer market for pay phones by installing far more than one would
> otherwise think necessary.  I haven't seen this myself, but the article I
> read did mention what seemed like unusually large clusters (street corners
> with 7-10 pay phones).
> 
> That's the fear and despair bit.  It could be bigotry, it could be classism--
> but stray bullets are damn good motivators too, and here in Chicago we have
> a lot of them.
> 
> As for greed: this could be a factor, it might not.  At least one alderman
> has made it illegal to install new pay phones in his ward without his explicit
> permission.  Clearly this adds to his power.  The same fellow has made much
> of his public name in recent campaigning against these public pay phones,
> and threatening to take an axe to them himself if some of them weren't
> removed.  Make of this what you will.
> 
> How much more evidence do I need that it's a simple matter of bigotry
> and classism?  Well, a bit more than I've seen so far.
> 
> Cypherpunk content?  This is a damn good illustration of the problems that
> can crop up with an anonymous service.  Though services on the net have the
> advantage of not being tied to a physical location, like pay phones are;
> so they probably won't serve to attract a "bad element" to any particular
> place.  On the other hand, any sort of public terminal service offering 
> encrypted email, might very well.
> 
>                             -David
> 


I admit, I was shocked when I read this post. For two reasons. One - that that
abominable phantasm, "The War on Drugs", still seems to take a significant
place in the American political debate. Two - that a politician would campaign
on the promise of REMOVING (not ADDING) public phones. I'm probably coming
across as very naive, but as someone who's lived in Australia for the last
13 years, I can only guess at what's going on over THERE. Most of my information
comes, not only through periodicals and TV, but also through this post. I have
to thank David in part for his contribution. Talk about a bucket of cold water
over the extremities...:-<

	Now, being a regular reader of the list, I have come upon many a quote
from those government types (FBI, NSA, etc.) who are looking for ways to
weasel themselves into the home, business, and even the Internet. One obvious
example of this weaselling in the Clipper chip. Many of these quotes contain
oblique references to "The War on Drugs" (oh, no! not that phrase again! :-) )
and "Fighting Drug Dealers". Again, from David's post, I've noticed that the
three reasons for limiting Public Phones all involve drug dealers. Now, these
arguments seemed to have some evidence to support their assertions. Still, it
was worrying all the same.

	Us Australians have had a topsy-turvy attitude to the drug debate. On 
one hand, South Australia has decriminalized Marijuana. On the other hand, 
Queensland's Drug Misuse Act, which puts the onus of proof on the defendant 
(e.g., you have to prove that THAT spoon was not used for shooting up HEROIN). 
This, of course, is inimical to the Americal and Australian judicial system.
Of course, this act has been a failure (marijuana is still Queensland's 2nd
largest cash crop), and the National party government who introduced the bill
were kicked out in 1989 for widespread evidence of corruption, involving
prostitution, bookkeeping, and (surprise! surprise!) drugs. Now that there
has been a government enquiry into marijuana, hopefully the mood will change
in favour of legalization.  

	I think that one of the biggest crutches that the NSA and others use
to infringe YOUR privacy is "The War on Drugs". It should be stopped, and
now! Not only is it unsuccessful, not only is it hypocritical (I wince when I
see those "Winners don't use drugs!" messages on video games), but it has
also blinded a lot of people into supporting attacks on YOUR privacy. If it is
stopped, then perhaps the government agencies won't be as likely to do
silly proposals like the Clipper chip. Perhaps..., but only if the public
keeps a watchful eye on what they are doing. Of course, the libertarians in
the list would want many of the drugs decriminalized, and from what I've
read about in other countries, not only does the drug use stay the same, the
criminals are not as likely to get involve in drug dealing.

Sorry, I had to get this off my chest.

Peter.

P.S. Is there any truth in the rumour that Canada is going to lighten it's
encryption restrictions? I wouldn't mind getting my hands on RSAREF....

-- 
=============================================================================
Peter Murphy - Department of Electrical Engineering,|Phone: 61 - 7 - 300 3452.
University of Queensland: murphy@s2.elec.uq.oz.au  .|------------------------
"Contrary to popular belief, the wings of demons are|Please do not put any 
the same as the wings of angels, although they're   |Heinlein quotes in your 
often better groomed." - Terry Pratchett.           |.sig - they're old.
=============================================================================

(Not much Cypherpunks content, but I'll make it brief)

Peter Murphy writes:
...much stuff elided...

> 	I think that one of the biggest crutches that the NSA and others use
> to infringe YOUR privacy is "The War on Drugs". It should be stopped, and
> now! Not only is it unsuccessful, not only is it hypocritical (I wince when I
> see those "Winners don't use drugs!" messages on video games), but it has
> also blinded a lot of people into supporting attacks on YOUR privacy. If it is

Here in Oceania (Orwell's name), the War on (Some) Drugs has caused
kids to be sent through a mandatory 12-week anti-drug brainwashing program
called "D.A.R.E.," for "Drug Abuse Resistance Education." The schools
administer this (my sister's stepson went through it in Kalifornia and
spouted anti-drug slogans for a few weeks....then he realized the
stupidity of it and is probably now more inclinded to try drugs just
as a counterreaction to the dweebs who gave the class).

In theory, the little junior Pavel Morozovs learn how to spot signs of
drug use in their parents, how to "Just Say No" to such dangerous
drugs as aspirin (illegal to have aspirin or Tylenol in most public
schools, even with note from parent), and how to dial a toll-free
number to call in the narcs and drug warriors.

Anyway, I have long wanted to get a t-shirt or sweatshirt
silk-screened with "D.A.R.E." on it, as so many phony parents are now
parent (I think the kiddies get gold stars if they sell one of these
shirts to their parents). But *my* shirt would go something like this:

"D. rugs
   A. re
     R. eality 
       E. nhancers"


I figure this'd shake a few folks up! (I wonder which states such a
shirt is now illegal in?)

I'm not really into drugs, but I hate this kind of sanctimonious
preaching (the DARE propaganda), and I'd love to see the reaction of
these phonies at the gym I go to.

The War on (Some) Drugs is clearly being used for no-knock searches,
deadly raids, seizure of property grossly out of proportion to the
alleged crimes (and sometime the property is simply forfeited and a
trial is never held--I can't understand how this is done, or upheld by
courts), and other such travesties.

As Phil Karn put it, "national security" is the root password of the
Constitution--invoke it and the Constitution is bypassed. To this we
can add "drug war," "money laundering," and "banned weapons." Maybe
even "unauthorized crypto."

-Tim

P.S. Speaking of t-shirts...maybe we ought to think about some
Cypherpunks shirts?


-- 
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
Note: I put time and money into writing this posting. I hope you enjoy it.

"Sent from the cyberdeck of: Timothy C. May"

> Anyway, I have long wanted to get a t-shirt or sweatshirt
> silk-screened with "D.A.R.E." on it, as so many phony parents are now
> parent (I think the kiddies get gold stars if they sell one of these
> shirts to their parents). But *my* shirt would go something like this:
> 
> "D. rugs
>    A. re
>      R. eality 
>        E. nhancers"
> 
> I figure this'd shake a few folks up! (I wonder which states such a
> shirt is now illegal in?)
> 
> P.S. Speaking of t-shirts...maybe we ought to think about some
> Cypherpunks shirts?

ONE UP: make the shirts and/or stickers to look EXACTLY like "real thing"
*except* for these subtle mods..  Are they gonna sue?  Sue who?

As we are now engaged in a battle of wits with the opposition
who being non compos mentis, are effectively composed of legions
of armed illiterate thugs spoting the words national security
May I suggest shirts from H+H Enterpises which are a copy of the
bill of rights on back and the US Constition on front...
Maybe the "cypherpunks t-shirt us version could
be a listing of the U.S. Patent numbers on PKC's in the US
with a red slash circle overlaid(the somewhat universal
symbol of negation) on front
 with specific excerpts from the ECPA on the back
 possibly the 1st, 4, 5 and 9th amendments could also
be fitted in
What do you think...
(hmm mabe a pen vs sword motif?)

    cheers
    kelly
p.s. the effect of the above could be to remind the Agent Tim Foleys
of the world that we DO indeed have rights...
--

I've got a recently good idea for a shirt I've been working on for
a bit, but my funding fell through.

Anyone want to bank an initial run?

fyI, on my recent return from Boston I sat across from a guy wearing a
Secret Service logo'd polo shirt with the acronym 'C.A.T.' on it.
Anyone know what it stands for?  He went to sleep before I could
bother him.

-eric

Eric writes:
 
> fyI, on my recent return from Boston I sat across from a guy wearing a
> Secret Service logo'd polo shirt with the acronym 'C.A.T.' on it.
> Anyone know what it stands for?  He went to sleep before I could
> bother him.

Odds are that the "A.T." stands for "Attack Team."


--Mike

Timothy C. May <tcmay@netcom.com> said:

> P.S. Speaking of t-shirts...maybe we ought to think about some
> Cypherpunks shirts?

I've been thinking for quite some time of getting a tee shirt made up with
nothing more than my pgp public key (in Radix-64 format) on the back.
However the cost for one (1) uniqe tee shirt is a little expensive. What
else could we put on them? I'd be happy to collect everybody's suggestions
and get a design drawn up, silkscreened, and printed, and then I could
take orders and ship 'em all off to anybody who wanted one. I might even
pay the postage <NOT!>  ;->

Happy Hunting, -Chris Odhner
<cdodhner@indirect.com>