April 2001 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Cypherpunks, Feds, and Pudgyfaced Voyeurism
by Dr_Strangelove 12 Apr '01

12 Apr '01

Unindictedcoconspiritors? Tentaclenet? Targetzone? Shootmeplease? -- DS "Y'know, if the earth were flat, all the Chinese would fall off..." -- Firesign Theatre

1 0

the supply of kiddie prawns, culture, and american pinhead arrogance
by Publius Q. Citizen 12 Apr '01

12 Apr '01

You're both correct, but you don't mention one point which you both surely know: the net spans all kinds of cultures. Including those where erotic pictures of post-pubescent (but under the US's age of consent) people are legal. And those (admittedly exotic and 'primitive', but existant) cultures that totally fuck with US norms, e.g., the grandfather teaches his granddaughter about sex by doing it, and women get married at 15. So even if you have a police camera in every room in America (BTW, a reasonable definition of 'police state') you can't do much about the rest of the world. (Cruise missiles are so much more expensive than digital cameras) The major issue is that bits (even bits recording a true crime) should not be considered actionable ---whether kiddie porn, nazi songs, recipes for fun, stories of veillless women voting & driving cars by themselves, whatever. In my lil' noggin (not speaking for the Movement (tm)), one cypherpunk (tm) ethic is that sticks and stones (and the occasional govt informer) will break your bones, but bits will never hurt you. A post-internet corollary is that somewhere someone will offend you, and you need to get used to it. (Those of us who have allowed ourselves to review popular media are already used to the chronic offense.) Sorry to state the obvious, its for our federal observers. At 12:17 AM 4/12/01 +0300, Sampo Syreeni wrote: >On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Eric Cordian wrote: > >>If anyone thinks the dissemination and viewing of zero-cost child porn >>made possible by digital photography and the Internet involves only >>"pedophiles", each of whom is slowing working their way up to victim >>number 300, they need to unplug the Sex Abuse Agenda from their sphincter, >>and grab a clue. > >Especially so since, in the absence of law enforcement interference, a >limited online supply can serve a huge body of viewers. This makes the >problem impossible to solve on the demand side. The rational response would >be to go back to plain old police work for those few producers that actually >harm kids, treat the cases without explicit regard for the sexual nature of >the deeds (if there is physical violence, that's punishable quite without >specialized KP statutes), and let the images stay online to satisfy what >demand there is. In fact it might not be a bad idea to saturate the market >by putting the stuff in the public domain and allocating some of the >considerable law enforcement anti-KP budgets to run the servers. At least >th

5 4

Re: Janet Reno speaking at UC Berkeley Graduation, 9 May 01.
by iang＠paip.net 12 Apr '01

12 Apr '01

In article <5.0.2.1.1.20010411182803.00ac1be0(a)idiom.com>, Bill Stewart <bill.stewart(a)pobox.com> wrote: >The San Francisco Chronicle reports that the University of >California at Berkeley has selected Janet Reno to speak at graduation. >The ceremony will be held at the Greek Theater on 9 May, >and is only open to graduating students and their families (oh, well :-) Oddly enough, I *am* a graduating student at UCB, but I'm not going to the (unviersity-wide) ceremony on the 9th (I won't even be in the US at the time). I guess I'll have to miss it. Darn the luck. - Ian

1 0

FREE Report: 14 Stocks with Solid Fundamentals
by Multex Investor 12 Apr '01

12 Apr '01

********************************************************************* As a registered Multex Investor member, we will occasionally contact you with special opportunities. To unsubscribe to this or any other exclusive offers, please see the bottom of this message. ********************************************************************* Dear Multex Investor Member, As a valued member of the Multex community, you can get a FREE copy of "14 Stocks with Solid Fundamentals"; an explosive report by Alvin Toral, editor of the top-rated newsletter: The Pure Fundamentalist. With superior earnings, consistent profits and robust sales, these 14 solid stocks represent the market's best buying opportunities! This explosive report is yours absolutely FREE when you activate your FREE 30-Day subscription to Wall Street's #1-rated advisory: The Pure Fundamentalist. Click the link below for this FREE report, or continue reading for more information: http://www.investools.com/c/ro/PFUN/MTEX-pfundedt?s=S601-S700 Rated by The Hulbert Digest as Wall Street's #1 Financial Newsletter in the nation, The Pure Fundamentalist uncovers rock-solid stocks with strong fundamentals -- like earnings, profits and sales. For the last 5 years, The Pure Fundamentalist has conquered the market, including its benchmark, the S&P 500: TPF's Five-Year Returns: 1995 +88% (vs. S&P +38%) 1996 +44% (vs. S&P +23%) 1997 +38% (vs. S&P +33%) 1998 +126% (vs. S&P +29%) 1999 +62% (vs. S&P +17%) So it's no wonder why The Pure Fundamentalist has dominated the Hulbert Financial Digest Rankings for the last five years, earning: #1 in 5-year Total Performance #1 in 3-year Total Performance #1 for 1998 With your FREE 30-Day trial to The Pure Fundamentalist you'll discover quality businesses with sound fundamentals and effective management -- giving you a better chance of turning your money into real wealth. Take advantage of this free offer today. There's zero risk. You can cancel your FREE trial at any time. Click below for your FREE Report and your FREE 30-Day Subscription to The Pure Fundamentalist: http://www.investools.com/c/ro/PFUN/MTEX-pfundedt?s=S601-S700 =================================================================== (c) 2001 INVESTools.com, Inc. All rights reserved. =================================================================== If you'd like to learn more about Multex Investor, please visit: http://www.multexinvestor.com/welcome.asp If you can't remember your Multex Investor password and/or your user name, click here: http://www.multexinvestor.com/lostinfo.asp If you want to update your email address, please click on the URL below: http://www.multexinvestor.com/edituinfo.asp =================================================================== To remove yourself from the mailing list for Special Promotions, please REPLY to THIS email message with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject line. You may also unsubscribe on the account update page at: http://www.multexinvestor.com/edituinfo.asp =================================================================== Please email advertising inquiries to us at mailto:advertise@multex.com. For information on becoming an affiliate click here: http://www.multexinvestor.com/Affiliates/home.asp

1 0

Janet Reno speaking at UC Berkeley Graduation, 9 May 01.
by Bill Stewart 12 Apr '01

12 Apr '01

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that the University of California at Berkeley has selected Janet Reno to speak at graduation. The ceremony will be held at the Greek Theater on 9 May, and is only open to graduating students and their families (oh, well :-) The San Francisco Cacophany Society reports late-breaking news that a draft of her speech has been leaked to the public. "Welcome to the Class of 2001 graduation. "You have the right to remain silent......"

2 1

Tannering (Re: Cypherpunks, Feds, and Pudgyfaced Voyeurism)
by Public <Anonymous_Account> 12 Apr '01

12 Apr '01

>The "secret-admirers" list strips all headers (except the Subject:) from >submissions and is gatewayed to/from alt.anonymous.messages. The list Being subscribed makes one a member of the illegal Cypherpunk Movement, especially when the prosecution explains that the member explicitly and willfully sent the "subscribe" request. To anonymize posts, send through remailers. From an internet cafe*. To anonymize reading, go to the internet cafe*. Everything else is an illusion of safety. * gloves and disguise is recommended. I have already seen several customers with Groucho masks. BUT, On the other hand, a public 802.11 would be nice. Suppose that you can drive close to this building, connect with a laptop from the safety of friend's car, and the only thing that LAN allows you is to (a) send mail to one specified address and (b) browse one specific web site (inet-one). Then you drive away. The building is conveniently marked with small, hard-to-notice label "TANNER" on nearby objects. The visits shall be known as "tannering". Etiquette will require that you pretend not to notice others with laptops in the vicinity. For FBI trainees: start on pushing for new crimes: - driving with a loaded laptop - gathering in public place with laptops with intent to connect. - providing an open 802.11 node (ooops .. they are *all* open) For the FBI instructor: your mother is a whore.

2 1

Information Producers Initiative
by Seth Johnson 12 Apr '01

12 Apr '01

I thought you folks would be interested in the following initiative: I am starting a project called the Information Producers Initiative. I have pasted a draft of a basic position paper below. I would like very much if I could obtain comments on it, perhaps through this list and/or other public fora. It is a very general foundation on which specific policy positions are meant to be based. I am presently considering developing commentaries on HIPAA (a federal law addressing medical records privacy) and the Tasini and Napster cases. I am specifically interested in obtaining any information regarding other initiatives that might be similar to this, and what's been tried and what happened to these initiatives. I have set up a list for people who are interested in these matters. Subscription is by sending an email saying "subscribe C-FIT_Community" to ListServ(a)realmeasures.dyndns.org. Forward this message freely as you wish. The text below is also available at: http://RealMeasures.dyndns.org/C-FIT Thanks for your help, Seth Johnson Committee for Independent Technology seth.johnson(a)realmeasures.dyndns.org The Information Producers Initiative A Project of the Committee for Independent Technology The Committee for Independent Technology holds that a proper consideration of information-related public policy must focus on what the state of technology means for all citizens. We believe that a well-founded understanding of the condition in which citizens presently find themselves as a result of information technology, should focus on one fundamental principle. This principle is that information is used to produce new information. To put another cast on the same point, information that is accessible in whatever form has never merely served the purpose of consumption. This may seem to be an obvious point, but when it is considered in light of the new modes of public access that have developed, and the flexible means of using information that are now at hand, one sees that this principle is more important now than it may ever have seemed to be before. In the past, only specific groups of people, engaged in specific types of activities, had their interests assessed in terms of their capacity as information producers. The public at large has been treated as mere consumers of information in many areas, with public policy reflecting this tendency. Now, however, we all have the capacity to participate in the development of human knowledge, on a reasonably equal footing with all other citizens, because of the forms of access to the public sphere that are now available, and to the forms of information that may be found there, by means of public communications networks such as the Internet. This puts us all in an entirely new position with respect to our abilities to access, manipulate and produce information. We may now manipulate information in a profoundly flexible way. We may quickly access any work that is available electronically on public communications networks. We may, with great facility, decompose any digitized work into component parts. We may manipulate, analyze, synthesize, select and combine the conclusions, observations, discrete facts, ideas, images, musical passages, binary bits and other elements of any information in digital form. We may efficiently produce useful, meaningful and creative expressive works on the basis of this flexible access to information. But perhaps the most far-reaching way in which information technology affects our condition as citizens, is in the fact that we may all now distribute our information products to the public at large in a powerful and convenient manner that obviates the need to rely on publishers and other intermediaries who have traditionally provided public access to information producers. We must no longer allow our rights in the area of the access to and use of information and information technology, to be regarded merely as rights of consumption. All citizens must assure that policy makers no longer treat their interests in information merely with respect to their capacity as consumers. We must advocate for and guard our broader interests as information producers in equal standing in the public sphere, possessing essential powers and rights in the access, use and communication of information. The Committee for Independent Technology seeks to assure that the rights and capabilities of all citizens are not undermined through public policies that restrict the ordinary exercise of their rights to access and produce information by flexible means.

1 0

Jim Bell Trial: Sixth Day
by auto211076＠hushmail.com 12 Apr '01

12 Apr '01

Sixth Day: Jim Bell Trial The judge started out by giving the jury a generally boilerplate set of instructions. Then London started his closing statement. He re-read the counts, and covered what the prosecution has to prove. He said that the government did not have to prove: 1. That the houses that Bell found were the correct houses for the people he was seeking. 2. That Bell had found the current home address of Gordon and McNall. 3. That Bell had gotten within a certain physical distance of Gordon and McNall. 4. That Bell was armed or actually dangerous. 5. That Bell intended to harm or had the physical ability to harm. 6. That the people that Bell checked out had to know that they were being pursued before being informed by Gordon. London spoke of Bell's propensity for records collection, calling it the "obsessive" activity of "a grown man of 43 living with his parents." London read count one again and encouraged the jurors to write down the numbers of the exhibits as he mentioned them. He first listed exhibit 134, send 11/4 from Bell's home in Vancouver. It had to be Bell's home, London said, because the email had Bell's IP address on it. London said that if Bell had problems with surveillance or Ryan Lund, he should have filed a law suit, and gone through the "regular process." London then tied more of the exhibits to the other counts. London argued that the government didn't have to prove that Bell's only purpose was to harass, that the jury only had to find that one of his purposes was to harass." London urged jurors to verify Bell's credibility and "what his intent was against his personal history over the last four or five years." London noted the conflict between the secrecy that Bell wanted in his communications with McNall and Gordon and his postings on the internet and efforts to get John Branton to publish information about his investigations. London then talked about the cypherpunks, "whose unifying belief is the encryption of email with keys or PGP. "Why couldn't Bell send agent Gordon or agent McNall an encrypted email so that they could communicate and share the code between them?" (At this point, it was clear that London has no idea how PGP works, to say nothing of the likelihood that agents McNall and Gordon have published their keys- if they even have them.) London brought in exhibits from 1996 that showed that Bell wanted to obtain and publish home address of IRS agents. Bell hadn't changed his ways since then, and that "he still intended to harass." Bell had failed to recant AP. As far as Bell's intention to picket Gordon's house? "What is the purpose? The office is the appropriate place to picket?. What is the purpose of picketing someone's house? Harassment. Purely harassment." London accused Bell of trying to set up plausible deniability, which he defined as always being able to mask true intent, always being able to come up with a believable explanation for what one is trying to hide. He said that Bell was not honest about his actions or intent, that he was engaging in plausible deniability, that Bell's research was to provide plausible deniability for harassment. London discounted Bell's credibility because he was less cooperative on cross-examination than he was in answering questions from his own attorney. London tagged AP as the basis for all episodes of harassment. He said that AP was really closer than ten or fifteen years, because Bell had claimed in 1997 that it was seven to 10 years away. (This was an interesting play on "if you kill the messenger, you kill the idea" theory, an interesting attempt since on the internet, everything stays up forever according to the prosecution.) At this point, Bell said, "You're lying." Tanner asked him if he wished to be removed?" Bell apologized. Tanner, miffed, said "Forget about apologies! Do you wish to remain?" Bell responded "I wish to address the jury." Tanner said that he didn't ask that, that he asked if Bell wished to stay. Bell meekly said that he wished to stay. The judge declared a 15 minute break. As Bell was being escorted by US marshalls from the courtroom, he tried to hand a document to McCullagh and was prevented by the marshalls from doing so. Bell protested, "You've allowed me to talk to him before, why can't I talk to him now?" When court reconvened, London tied up his closing statement. He pointed to Bell's mention of PCBs in an email on 10/24/2000, shortly before he took actions. London said that the evidence established Bell's intent not beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond any doubt. "Bell did not get the message because it came from people he does not trust- judges and law enforcement. Now he needs to hear it from people he does trust-12 ordinary citizens." London asked the jury to convict Bell on all five counts. Leen started his closing statement by calling his client a brilliant man with a brilliant mind, a disturbed mind. He told the jurors that they had to follow Tanner's instruction to follow the law as the judge gave it, that the jurors must not be influenced by likes or dislikes. Then he tore into London's last statement: "If a man is scary or poses a future danger, it's not your job to deliver the government's message to Mr. Bell." The jury was only there to decide if the defendant is guilty or not guilty only on the charges, and was not on trial for anything else. Mr. Bell was not on trial for common law court membership, for writing Assassination Politics, for writing "Operation Locate IRS," visits to Groener or the other Gordons. Certain things, Leen said, are not evidence. Attorney arguments are not evidence. Jurors decide what to believe based on common sense. Leen defined circumstantial evidence. In this case, jurors have to deal with circumstantial evidence. The jury was there to find guilt, "not to find that the defendant is wrong, bad, or scary." Then Leen went through each count, saying that the government had not proved Bell's intent. Leen called his client's mental state into question. He said that people feared someone like Bell "because they think normally? they don't think like Mr. Bell thinks." He asked the jury how they know intent. "Mr. Bell was trying to prove that the cause of the failure of his life was not his own but the government's." Bell's intent was to put the puzzle together and prove his case to people who would listen. Leen said that the government had to prove intent. Bell's thought processes were different than normal, and that the government's use of plausible deniability was a bald attempt to get the jury to believe that Bell was lying. But Bell was telling the truth as he knows the truth. The only decision that the jurors had was "Did Mr. Bell have a certain mental intent, and intent to harass?" Leen said that his client was difficult to interview for defense preparation, that Bell claimed that Leen threatened to kill him and his family. "I don't mock him, I pity him? Look to the evidence. Just because it's reasonable for Jeff Gordon to be afraid doesn't mean that Bell had an intent?. The government has failed to proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Bell's purpose was to harass, and that purpose was to expose, to prove that he was right." London got the last word in, according to Federal Court rules. He brought up two points: 1. Mr. Leen characterized Bell as having a flawed mind. This was not London's characterization. He said that Bell knew the difference between right and wrong. 2. "Mr. Bell's investigation to the extent that it took him to the doorsteps of people that he found was a form of harassment." Bell committed a crime just by entering onto private property. "Bell had to know that collecting addresses of IRS agents was itself harassment." Tanner then issued his last four instructions: 1. The jury had to decide what testimony to believe. In doing so, they were to consider a) was the witness able to see or hear the evidence that they testified to; b) was the witness accurately able to recall the evidence; c) what the witness' manner was; d) witness bias or prejudice; e) reasonableness of testimony; and f) whether the witness' testimony was contradicted by other evidence. 2. The weight of each side's case was not determined by the number of witnesses. 3. The jury cannot consider the punishment when deciding on a verdict. 4. The verdict must be unanimous. Two jurors were then excused. They both smiled and looked relieved. The jury went into the jury room at 1:30. At 3:30 they passed a note to the judge, saying that they wanted a definition of intent, and that they wanted a legal dictionary and the legal definition of intent. Dictionaries aren't allowed in the jury room. Leen moved that the court provide a definition of intent. London objected, saying that the definition was in the instructions as knowledge. Leen suggested to the judge that he define intent as "acting with object and purpose to commit a crime." London: "Tell them it's in the instructions." Tanner decided to tell the jurors that the definition is in the instructions. At 4:30 p.m., the jurors passed a note to the judge. Bell was brought back to the courtroom, and while waiting, he joked that he expected to be acquitted on some counts, that the jury "would split the baby down the middle." The judge re-entered the courtroom at 5 p.m., and read the note. The jurors had voted unanimously for a guilty verdict on counts 2 and 3, and were hung 11 to 1 on the remaining counts. Tanner sent the jury back to the jury room. Tanner brought up that there was a form issue in the note (which becomes part of the court record). Leen said that the note published the count of the juror's votes and moved for a mistrial. Denied. Tanner asked about the law on partial verdicts. He decided to call the jury back in and poll them on counts two and three and the form of the verdict, and have the jury fill out the proper form. The jury was polled and excused. None looked happy, and none had looked at Bell during either before, during, or after the polling. Tanner set sentencing for July 6. Leen moved for dismissal of counts 1, 4 and 5. London asked Tanner to dismiss without prejudice so that the government could refile the counts. Tanner dismissed without prejudice. Leen moved to dismiss counts 2 and 3 on the basis of jury prejudice. Denied. Tanner granted Leen 10 days to file for a new trial. London said that he wanted the court proceedings copy back from the defense. He moved to have Bell's notebook and other exhibits sealed. Tanner: "I don't think I have the authority to do that. Do I?" London: "I'm not sure." Tanner: "Order [to seal] goes [applies] to jurors, period." Free, encrypted, secure Web-based email at www.hushmail.com

1 0

RE: distance learning
by techteachers92010＠yahoo.com 12 Apr '01

12 Apr '01

Found a search page that has a lot of info for distance learning. I also came across a new site for people looking for educational related products and services. http://www.maplesearch.com/maplesearch/Top/Reference/Education/Distance_Lea… http://www.schoolbuyersonline.com/ -Erica Oeastro

1 0

Watercooler �4.95/week with unlimited water!
by info＠aforsale.co.uk 12 Apr '01

12 Apr '01

Yes it's true! We really can supply you with a mains fed hot and cold watercooler for just �4.95 per week! (+ VAT). This will give you unlimited chilled and filtered on tap in your workplace. These high specification units are manufactuin Korea and using the latest technology and environmentally friendly refrigerant. They come in a floor standing or a desk top model. Pressure Coolers Ltd (formerly Watercoolers Ltd) have been in this business for over 30 years and specialize in plumbed in watercoolers. The price includes delivery anywhere in England (call for prices rest of UK), installation by our own engineers (as long as we can find a main water supply within 3 metres), sanitization and filter changes every 6 months and maintenance. We use Everpure 0.5 micron filters. You will not have any other costs to pay. It is invoiced quarterly in advance. Minimum contract period 1 year. If you don't believe it, ask for a free trial and find out! For further details, check our website: www.pressurecoolers.co.uk We look forward to hearing from you. Pressure Coolers Ltd Unit 30 Bourne Industrial Park Bourne Road, Crayford, Kent DA1 4BZ Tel: 01322-528888 Fax:01322-521828 mailto:pressurecoolersltd@supanet.com Further transmissions to you by the sender of this email may be stopped if required at any time by just clicking on the link below and sending the eMail. To be Removed from this Mailing list click below and send eMail mailto:remove@aForSale.co.uk?subject=remove

1 0