March 2001 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: semi-anon test from a throwaway account part deux
by Trei, Peter 29 Mar '01

29 Mar '01

> Jim Choate[SMTP:ravage@EINSTEIN.ssz.com] wrote: > You're one to talk. > > Money order sales are recorded on video camera. Each money order has a > time stamp with vendor ID. I can't speak for youk, but it would take me as > a LEA about 5 minutes to take a money order, find the vendor, and get > subpeona on the video surveillance. At that point I have your face. From > there I run it through the FBI files, if you've ever had a state issued > photo ID it'll take about 3 days to nail you. > Yes Jim, I am one to talk. In my (small) town, there are no video cameras in the PO. I've looked for them, carefully and repeatedly. (The notion that my town PO would have concealed cameras while big city POs expose them is for the clinically paranoid) Traceback is limited by the memory of the two overworked (at least on Saturday morning) ladies who woman the front desk. Of course, if I was worried I would just send cash. [...] > The only way to pay in cash is two either send it through the mail (you do > know about the cash sniffing dogs used at the UPS and airports don't you?) > or stop by in person. Which means that they'll have a receipt and at least > on person who has seen your face. Now I suppose you could send the letter > with no return address and no internal note, but then how are they going > to know it was YOU paying the bill for that particular account? They're > not. > Well, if you're not going to include a note, of course you're screwed. But why wouldn't you? Set up an account (U=armadillo, P=roadkill), then put some cash in a privacy envelope along with a note saying 'This is for armadillo's account'. (Now Jim, don't raise the spectre of handwriting or typewriter recognition - I think that's too silly even for you - can you cite a single case where a (B&W) laser or inkjet printed document was identified as coming from a particular well-maintained printer, as opposed to a typewriter? (I didn't think so)). If you're still worried, get a trusted friend (if you have any) to write the address. What receipt? Sending cash to anonymizer.com relies on something called trust (which I realize is a foreign concept to you). If they scam you, you won't send them cash again. Cash goes through the mail all the time, especially around Christmas. While a few 'cash sniffing dogs' do exist, the notion that domestic first class mail is routinely checked for small quantities of perfectly legal cash is another sign of clinical paranoia (or of someone who realizes he's backed into a corner and is resorting to heroic measures rather than admit defeat in an argument). [...] > On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Trei, Peter wrote: > [anonymizer.com allows payment by cash or money order] Peter Trei #include <std.disclaimer>

2 1

Encouraging Terrorists is Legal
by Eric Cordian 29 Mar '01

29 Mar '01

A US Federal Appeals Court has tossed out the $109 million verdict against anti-abortion activists who ran a website called "The Nuremberg Files", which listed the personal information of abortion doctors, and cheered whenever one of them was killed. The Judge opined that as long as the defendants didn't threaten to commit violent acts, working alone or with others, that their conduct constituted protected First Amendment Free Speech. Specifically, speech which only "encourages unrelated terrorists" is First Amendment protected. Now what was it Jim Bell threatened to do with those pigfucker names and addresses again? -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

2 1

Re: Re: Screwing Jim Bell 5
by John Young 29 Mar '01

29 Mar '01

Fuck Jim's CDR. The WWA images were available only through the PACER subscription service, so they are not likely to be archived on the Web unless somebody else did it. We downloaded many, but not all of them, and not all provided full copies of filings; some offered only the first page. Happily, the stuff Jim sent by snail the other day provides the missing pages of the truncated docs and several other filings that were not on the WWA site. They'll be up tonight or tomorrow. The docket through today shows that subpoenas are going out for Jim's witnesses, er, his accusers, ratfinks and alleged victims, posted here yesterday. That's if Jack doesn't deny Jim his licks as customary of blind justice WWA. This mad rush to trial may be interrupted in order to deny Jim his perfect appeal grounds that he was prevented from required time for defense preparation -- and running down witnesses fleeing subpoenas and while praying for 60 Minutes to answer the chalk mark.

2 1

CHOATE, etal: Unsubscribe Rob@nihilist.com
by Trei, Peter 29 Mar '01

29 Mar '01

[Apologies in advance for the multiple posting; this had to get to everyone -pt] Jim (and other cypherpunk node operators): The spate of "Mail Delivery Failure" messages we've been seeing for the last few days are due to messages sent to a user "rob(a)nihilist.com", apparently a very temporary (and now dead) web mail address at www.another.com. I've exchanged mail with the postmaster (richard(a)uk.another.com) and he clearly regards this as Someone Elses Problem, and has no intention of ceasing to send the bounce notices. I strongly advise everyone running a cpunk node to check for, and delete rob(a)nihilist.com. It's not like he/she/it can't resubscribe if they want to. Sigh.... Yet Another Attack now exists against the cypherpunks S/N ratio. Peter Trei

8 9

Screwing Jim Bell 5
by John Young 28 Mar '01

28 Mar '01

Now the Western Washington District Court has removed all TIFF images of court filings. Whether that is due to Judge Jack's expanding his order forbidding public disclosure of discovery materials after we put a bunch of Jim's filings on the Net, or another counterterrorist ploy to censor Jim and his terrifying accusations, who knows. No call back from Leen on my inquiry about being a witness for Bell. Fuck him, bedwetting with the feds. Remember, do not e-mail, telephone or visit me or you're subject to subpoena. Same for tarred Declan, or anybody else pissants Choate and Leen are eager to CDR.

4 5

Wow! Online trading with online training. You must see this!
by TradePMR 28 Mar '01

28 Mar '01

1 0

Ninth Circuit ruling re webpage threats
by axlotl＠hushmail.com 28 Mar '01

28 Mar '01

Participants and spectators in Jim Bell's trial next week in Seattle might be interested in this case, released by the Ninth Circuit today, concerning the use of a web page to publish addresses of third parties, and whether or not such publication is protected by the First Amendment where it's foreseeable that unknown persons could make use of the addresses to cause injury or embarassment - <http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/9th/9935320.html> As the Ninth Circuit writes - Political speech may not be punished just because it makes it more likely that someone will be harmed at some unknown time in the future by an unrelated third party. In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) (per curiam), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects speech that encourages others to commit violence, unless the speech is capable of "producing imminent lawless action. " Id. at 447. It doesn't matter if the speech makes future violence more likely; advocating "illegal action at some indefinite future time" is protected. Hess v. Indiana , 414 U.S. 105, 108 (1973) (per curiam). If the First Amendment protects speech advocat- ing violence, then it must also protect speech that does not advocate violence but still makes it more likely. The Ninth Circuit held that, where the web page publisher(s) themselves did not communicate a threat to harm the persons mentioned on the web page, the publication of the addresses was protected by the First Amendment. Free, encrypted, secure Web-based email at www.hushmail.com

1 0

Worried about rf snooping and bugs? (Home made plasma balls in your microwave :)
by Jim Choate 28 Mar '01

28 Mar '01

http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/jlnlabs/html/oa_plasmoid.htm -- ____________________________________________________________________ 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

Cash sniffing dogs
by Jim Choate 28 Mar '01

28 Mar '01

Go to google.com & use 'cash sniffing dogs' Enjoy the extensive reading. ____________________________________________________________________ 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

Feds Take Aim at Cash Smuggling
by Jim Choate 28 Mar '01

28 Mar '01

http://www.apbonline.com/newscenter/breakingnews/2000/12/29/customs_seize12… -- ____________________________________________________________________ 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