March 2001 - cypherpunks-legacy

Screwing Jim Bell 6
by John Young 29 Mar '01

29 Mar '01

We've added 60 pages of Jim Bell's filings to an updated docket and filings: http://crytpome.org/jdb032801.htm This supercedes the file of 23 March 2001. It appears that these sixty pages were deliberately omitted from the TIFF images once offered on the WWA web site; some filings were represented only by a first page, others not offered at all. They vividly describe alleged collusion by Jim's PD, Robert Leen, AUSA Robb London and Judge Jack Tanner to deny Jim a fair trial. Really chickenshit behavior by the pack and their rats. Read and puke. Watch your back. One of Jim's motion asks for sanctions and fines against the troika, to be paid to him until the three are recused: For Leen, $5,000 per day. For London, $10,000 per day. For Tanner, $5,000 per day.

1 0

how to screw a teenager from the other side of the world
by Blank Frank 29 Mar '01

29 Mar '01

Pitzer kept chatting to the teenager, while her mother contacted the local police officer, Constable John Rei, who came to the house. "I just got her to keep chatting in the chat room," Rei said. "We eventually got his real name, his e-mail address, the city he lived in and the name of his high school." Rei then passed that information onto Interpol who called the FBI. The FBI then got in touch with the police in North Huntington, the boy's hometown. According to a report in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, North Huntington's police chief, Charles Henaghan, went to the boy's high school and the teen was suspended the same day. http://wired.com/news/business/0,1367,42699,00.html

1 0

BOUNCE cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com: Admin request of type /\b u ns\w*b/i at line 4 (fwd)
by Jim Choate 29 Mar '01

29 Mar '01

Bad Perl regex! ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 11:40:14 -0600 (CST) From: Jim Choate <ravage(a)ssz.com> To: TASIA <tasia51(a)webtv.net> cc: cypherpunks(a)einstein.ssz.com Subject: Re: CDR: Re: your mail In-Reply-To: <21624-3AC36E21-415(a)storefull-215.iap.bryant.webtv.net> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.1010329113750.14587y-100000(a)einstein.ssz.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Good luck. For u ns ubscription information please see, http://einstein.ssz.com/cdr or http://einstein.ssz.com/mailhelp.html On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, TASIA wrote: > remove my name from cypherpunks mailing list i keep gettingmail from you > and others on their list, i am filing harassment charges against > cypherpunks with the local police ____________________________________________________________________ If the law is based on precedence, why is the Constitution not the final precedence since it's the primary authority? The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Ninth Circuit ruling re webpage threats
by keyser-soze＠hushmail.com 29 Mar '01

29 Mar '01

At 08:46 AM 3/29/01 -0800, Ray Dillinger <bear(a)sonic.net>wrote: On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 keyser-soze(a)hushmail.com wrote: >>I think Judge Kozinski's ruling can also be easily read in support of free >>speech by operator and participants in anonymous betting pools with political >>interests. >I think you are wrong. The neuremberg files website didn't *create* >a motive for killing. Assassination Politics would. That is a key >difference. You're right AP might not be protected. But suppose the activity is different. Suppose its publically stated purpose is some uncontroversial legit activity, such as psychic prediction contests. Shouldn't the same sorts of protections should apply as in the ruling? The fact that terrorists unknown to the psychics might use the contests for illegal purpose (maybe specifically prohibited by the contest organizers) should cover the majority participants. ks Free, encrypted, secure Web-based email at www.hushmail.com

2 1

biochemwomdterror in dc
by Declan McCullagh 29 Mar '01

29 Mar '01

today DEFENSE National Press Club Newsmaker Luncheon Program on "New Challenges to U.S. National Security." Participants: Former Senator Sam Nunn, D-Ga. Location: National Press Club, 14th and F Sts., NW, Ballroom. 12:30 p.m. Contact: 202-662-7500 DEFENSE Georgetown University Program featuring Gen. James Jones, Marine Corps Commandant, discussion the "Investment for National Security". Location: Georgetown University, 37th and O Sts., NW, Gaston Hall, 3rd Floor Healy Building. 6 p.m. Contact: 202-687-4328 **NEW**

1 0

Re: It's 2001, so it must be time for A Modest Filtering Proposal
by aluger＠hushmail.com 29 Mar '01

29 Mar '01

At Wed, 28 Mar 2001 20:48:48 -0800, Tim May <tcmay(a)got.net> wrote: >Eric Murray took my proposal and ran with it, quickly implementing it >as the "cypherpunks(a)lne.com" address. > >He has said that he is manually "including" various remailers, and >probably other addresses. > >It might be enough for him to include the names outside of the >address boxes. E.g., "Declan McCullagh," regardless of the >"declan(a)well.com" or "agentdeclan(a)kremvax.org" or whatever. Now if only he would filter out Jim Choate... Free, encrypted, secure Web-based email at www.hushmail.com

1 0

Virginia law bans anonymous remailers
by Declan McCullagh 29 Mar '01

29 Mar '01

See also: http://www.politechbot.com/p-01862.html http://www.spamlaws.com/state/va.html § 18.2-152.4. Computer trespass; penalty. B. It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to sell, give or otherwise distribute or possess with the intent to sell, give or distribute software which (i) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of facilitating or enabling the falsification of electronic mail transmission information or other routing information; (ii) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to facilitate or enable the falsification of electronic mail transmission information or other routing information; or (iii) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in facilitating or enabling the falsification of electronic mail transmission information or other routing information.

2 2

Re: Speaking of free speech... (fwd)
by Jim Choate 29 Mar '01

29 Mar '01

One reason they may not want to rule is they realize the consequences. And by letting it die a quite death they lose nothing and hold future options open. This of course would be predicated upon the vast majority of the SC wanting to rule in favor of IR searches but recognizing there isn't a realistic constitutional argument to support such action. It would effectively squash the current action and give them about 2 years of breathing room. While this scenario is not probable it is clearly not completely unlikely either. In addition it raises the interesting question of what would say a 2 year delay gain? A very different bench? How many are likely to retire in the next two years? ____________________________________________________________________ If the law is based on precedence, why is the Constitution not the final precedence since it's the primary authority? The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 10:40:35 -0500 From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: Jim Choate <ravage(a)EINSTEIN.ssz.com> Cc: cypherpunks(a)EINSTEIN.ssz.com, The Club Inferno <hell(a)EINSTEIN.ssz.com> Subject: Re: CDR: Speaking of free speech... On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 12:48:07AM -0600, Jim Choate wrote: > > Has anyone seen anything on the Supreme Court and the IR/4th Amendment > Search issue? It seems like a vacuum. > > If the SC doesn't rule and let it just sit there won't this be the same as > agreeing that the search is legal without having to face the actual > constitutional test of issuing a ruling? What happens if they let it sit > until the court retires (Oct.?) for the year? Are they required to > re-visit when they rejoin? They're not required to do anything. But I don't see any reason why they won't rule by the end of the term. A "vacuum?" There's been a lot of news coverage, sheesh. Hand-waving, as usual, mixed with a bit of conspiracy theorizing. -Declan Case could define privacy Feb. 22, 2001 14:31 ET www.dallasnews.com/national/291863_1ascotus_20nat.html Privacy Vs. Technology in High Court Case Feb. 20, 2001 14:25 ET abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/scotus_thermal010220.html Supreme Court to consider whether privacy, high-tech snooping are at odds Feb. 20, 2001 04:51 ET seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/SeattleTimes.woa/wa/gotoArticl…... High-tech search at issue in pot case Feb. 10, 2001 05:45 ET www.nationalpost.com/news/world/story.html?f=/stories/20010209/470055.html Privacy a Victim of the Drug War Dec. 11, 2000 02:00 ET www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,40532,00.html

1 0

Required- Direct e-mail(Bulk) service
by Ganesh Acharya 29 Mar '01

29 Mar '01

Hi, We are looking forward to conduct a Bulk e-mail (HTML) campaign targeting the SMEs and hence a bulk e-mail service provider. In this concern I would like to know a few details: 1) Do you mail HTML mails? 2) In the context of the campaign can you host our micro site as until the campaign gets over? 3) Do you provide targeted e-mail addresses targeting the SMEs? I would appreciate if you can mail me the cost involved and any additional service you provide in the domain of targeted bulk e-mail campaigns, ASAP. Thanks. Ganesh Acharya Marketing Analyst - Web Icode Inc Ph: (703) 934 4700 Ext - 294 Fx: (703) 934 4708 mail: ganesha(a)icode.com www.icode.com

2 1

Speaking of free speech...
by Jim Choate 29 Mar '01

29 Mar '01

Has anyone seen anything on the Supreme Court and the IR/4th Amendment Search issue? It seems like a vacuum. If the SC doesn't rule and let it just sit there won't this be the same as agreeing that the search is legal without having to face the actual constitutional test of issuing a ruling? What happens if they let it sit until the court retires (Oct.?) for the year? Are they required to re-visit when they rejoin? ____________________________________________________________________ If the law is based on precedence, why is the Constitution not the final precedence since it's the primary authority? The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1