April 2001 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Re: Pleading the 5th
by David Honig 10 Apr '01

10 Apr '01

At 09:10 AM 4/7/01 -0500, Jim Choate wrote: > >Napster has a problem because they're distributing work that belongs to >somebody else. > They're not distributing anything but their software, and running an index-server.

2 1

TannerWatch: Jack don't need no body language
by Norm DePlume 10 Apr '01

10 Apr '01

Law And Justice by Irv Benzion When I think of Law and Justice my thoughts are directed to the film "Judgment at Nuremberg." I picture Spencer Tracy in his portrayal of the "Presiding Judge," sifting through mountains of evidence and contradictory testimony with only one objective in mind... to search for the truth. This editorial is for me the most difficult article I have yet written!!! You are probably unaware as was I that it is illegal to criticize a federal judge or his/her actions or to cause "disrespect" to the federal court system. A federal judge may if in his/her opinion such an occurrence arises, issue a warrant, have you arrested and send you to jail without trial, appeal or parole. A citizen of this country may criticize the President Of The United States but not a federal court judge. Using the First Amendment as a defense for an alleged criticism is not acceptable. And for that reason you will see no criticism of a federal judge in any newspaper. I feel that the shooting community owes a debt to Tacoma's _The News Tribune's_ management and reporter Russell Carollo for his unbiased and even-handed reporting of Al Woodbridge's trial. Al's tribulations could easily have been turned into a forum to bash gun owners and gun ownership. The _Trib_, not known to be a friend to the gun owner in this instance displayed the highest standards and ideals of journalism, for which they truly deserve our thanks. It is not my intention to argue at this time Woodbridge's guilt or innocence; as you already know he was found guilty as charged. I was in attendance tat the pre-trial motion hearing and the second day of the trial so I witnessed the major portion of the trial. I must admit that I am not a lawyer nor have I personally had any legal training, so it would be impossible for me to ascertain the correctness or incorrectness of "points of law" or what constitutes "admissible evidence." All I have is the common sense that the Almighty gave me. I have always believed that the Law was in most part founded on common sense and a search for the truth... perhaps, I am too naive. Based on the above we shall be using the following three articles from the _Tribune_ to inform you of what transpired at Al's trial. After which I would like to explore with you what I think the implications of the verdict are as it impacts Washington gun owners. And in conclusion, we will look at what is the aftermath of Woodbridge's trial and what you can do to help. Woodbridge, a licensed firearms dealer, has strong ties to pro- gun groups. He is a former president of the Washington National Firearms Act Association, a machine-gun owners group. He won first in 1989 and second place in 1990 in the submachine gun division of the Oregon state machine-gun championship. Since the legal battle began, Woodbridge has become a high-profile spokesman and lobbyist for Washington gun owners. As a registered lobbyist for the Gun Owners Action League of Washington, Woodbridge gained a reputation during the past year as a moderate voice within the gun lobby. He became the gun lobbyist most sought by lawmakers. "If he gave his word, he was willing to go back to his members and say, 'I gave my word and that's what we're living with," said Rep. Marlin Appelwick, a Seattle Democrat who chairs the House Judiciary Committee. Just last week, he testified before Appelwick's committee about proposed gun legislation, assuring lawmakers that gun owners would not oppose efforts to keep handguns away from juveniles. During the last session, his approval was vital to passage of a controversial law allowing police to destroy seized handguns. Gun advocates supported the former method of disposal: auctioning the weapons to licensed firearms dealers. Woodbridge personally inspected weapons in a Seattle storage room and found that most of them were of little value to collectors or dealers. His endorsement, legislators said, convinced lawmakers to vote for the change. Woodbridge also was well-known among police agencies, according to his attorneys. A court document says the clientele at Big Al's includes "several police agencies." Various other pro-gun groups have agreed to help pay legal expenses, said Paul Williams, executive director of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, a lobby group. Williams said the groups were grateful 'for all the work he's done for firearms groups in the state.' I think people are inclined to pay him back when he needs it." State and federal prosecutors have pursued the state's top pro-gun spokesman on weapons charges since 1989. But in Allen Woodbridge's federal court trial Tuesday in Tacoma, his defense took about 30 minutes, the time it took for a single witness to testify. The defense had hoped to call several other witnesses to convince jury that the guns confiscated from Woodbridge in 1989 were not machine guns. But the federal judge hearing the case, Judge Jack E. Tanner, wouldn't let the witnesses testify. The witnesses, Tanner said, offered no specific defense to the allegations against Woodbridge. "That'll be denied," Tanner told defense attorney Richard DeJean of Sumner, prompting DeJean to shift his body from side to side. Tanner added: "And I don't need any body language." Woodbridge's only remaining witness was Don Manning, a Yakima gunsmith who testified that some of weapons parts confiscated from Woodbridge were made from legal semi-automatic weapons. The trial began Monday, when a jury of seven men and five women was selected. Woodbridge, a high-profile lobbyist for the Washington Arms Collectors club, is charged with 12 counts of federal weapons violations, including possession of machine guns. Much of the case against Woodbridge is based on his ownership of AR-15s, usually legal so long as they fire only semi- automatically --- one shot per pull of the trigger. It is illegal, however, to equip the guns with parts enable them to fire automatically --- more than one shot per trigger pull. Monday, Doug Craze, a firearms examiner for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms in Washington, D.C., testified that the AR-15s taken from Woodbridge apparently had been modified to fire automatically. During a hearing Friday DeJean argued that Woodbridge, who had no criminal record, has a federal firearms license permitting him to own automatic weapons. He also said the guns taken in the search were not automatic weapons, and the suspect parts in them were legally installed by the manufacturer before laws were changed. A federal court jury was still deliberating the fate of Sumner gun dealer Allen Woodbridge on Wednesday, but U.S. District Judge Jack Tanner already had made up his mind. "There is no question in this court's mind... that you are --- guilty as charged," Tanner told Woodbridge, a high-profile gun lobbyist charged with owning illegal machine guns. Veteran attorneys said it is highly unusual for a judge to comment on a defendant's guilt or innocence before a verdict. The court reporter said he had requests for transcripts of the judge's comments. The jury began deliberating Wednesday afternoon but was sent home for the day after only about two hours. The jury foreman indicated to Tanner that members were not close to reaching a decision. After sending the jury off to deliberate, Tanner spoke to the defendant. "Mr. Woodbridge, there is nothing in the law that prevents me from commenting on the evidence," Tanner said. "I haven't done it in front of the Jury, but I could. "And what I have heard in this case outrages me," Tanner said. "There is only one reason, sir, for a machine gun. It's not a collector's item. It's to kill people, and kill them quickly, and kill more than one at a time." As you know Al Woodbridge was found guilty under federal law of 12 counts of machine gun possession. The majority of the counts for which he was convicted were for Thompson and Sten parts kits that some of you may currently own. The Thompson kits contained not only all the necessary parts to build a machine gun but also cut up pieces of different Thompson receivers. The receiver parts were not matching i.e. they were pieces of receivers from different guns. If the pieces of the receiver were held together the ensuing gap between them would be anywhere from an eighth to a quarter of an inch since they were not cut from the same firearm. In Woodbridge's trail the BATF weapons expert used strapping tape to hold the receiver pieces together. Although there were gaps in the receiver of approximately a quarter of an inch, the guns were shot twice, each time firing a two-shot burst. The second type of "machine gun" the BATF produced as evidence was Sten guns kits and some hollow tubes with cuts in them. To have a functioning Sten gun the barrel retaining ring and the buttstock attaching ring must be welded on to the receiver tube. Both of these rings were not, repeat not, attached to the tubes. Still it was determined that these were also machine guns. I have yet to figure out how this arm could have been fired --- was the shooter supposed to hold the barrel on with his fingers? The BATF agent did not fire any of the Sten gun kits. Therefore from Woodbridge's conviction it might be safe to assume that Sten gun kits and hollow tubes now constitute a machine gun. According to the BATF's published "red book" of regulations, machine gun parts kits are legal to possess, buy or sell under federal law and can be purchased without an FFL by mail order. With this conviction it appears that the definition of what constitutes a machine gun has been expanded to include parts kits. >From these two instances it might be wise if you own or are contemplating purchasing machine gun parts kits to ... JUST FORGET IT. Further, if you own an AR15 or clone you should examine it or have it inspected by a knowledgeable gunsmith for M16 parts. It is common knowledge that over the years the federal government has sold as surplus millions of M16 firing system parts, i.e. bolts, bolt carriers, and hammers. Those parts were purchased by rifle manufacturers and used in AR15 style rifles that were sold on the civilian market. I am also under the impression that in the early days of manufacture, Colt used over-run M16 parts in their rifles too. The ownership of those parts, although previously not illegal could now be determined to change your rifle into a machine gun. They do not even have to be in the firearm and the firearm does not have to fire automatically. The BATF has in the past issued clearly defined definitions as to what constituted a fully automatic firearm and what does not. It is therefore suggested that if you own any machine gun parts kits, or anything that could be remotely construed by the federal government as a machine gun, that you save yourself a lot of trouble an dispose of them. Washington State Law Understand that according to Washington State law the ownership of machine gun parts has been and is now illegal. In reality this statute is seldom enforced unless a person has those specific parts to turn a firearm into a machine gun. One might question then why is the machine gun parts law not normally enforced? The answer is because its language is too broad since many non-fully automatic firearms use parts that are interchangeable with those used in fully automatic firearms. For example a wooden stock or a sling swivel for a M1 Carbine will also fit the M2 Carbine, a select fire weapon. To the layman it is apparent that the spirit of the law is to prohibit ownership of those specific parts from which a complete machine gun can be made but from now on no one can be sure!!! Woodbridge's Future Shortly after his conviction Al resigned his club office and membership, his connection with the State R&P and his position as our lobbyist. Al also withdrew his name as a candidate for the NRA Board of Directors. Woodbridge is facing a maximum sentence of 120 hears in prison --- 10 years for each count. He is in the process of filing an appeal. Woodbridge was not granted bail by Judge Tanner and as far as can be determined will remain in prison until the appeal is heard, but that could be up to three years in the future. As most of you know Lori and Al Woodbridge are not wealthy. The cost of the appeal could run to well over $100,000. There are two ways you can help Al. First, you can patronize Big Al's Guns in Auburn. Lori intends to keep the store running as it is their main source of income. Secondly, the Club will accept donations to the "W.A.C. Legal Defense Fund" earmarked for Al Woodbridge. Dennis asks that you make separate checks out to the "Defense Fund" --- do not include your dues or table rent in one check. Please send your donation made out to the W.A.C. Legal Defense Fund to P.O. 7335, Tacoma, WA 98407 or give it to Betty Budil on the secretary's dais at one of our meetings. A great person who did more to defend our continued firearm ownership in this state than anyone else in recent history and my friend now sits in jail. I'm not asking for $2 any more --- I'm asking for $20s. Main Index BATF Abuses Incidents http://www.hamnet.net/~n4zhg/wood.html

3 2

Inferno: Fw: [nylug-announce] [nylug-talk] Tuesday 24 April 2001: Big Meeting on Privacy (fwd)
by Jim Choate 10 Apr '01

10 Apr '01

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:08:05 -0400 From: Any Mouse Reply-To: hell(a)ssz.com To: The Club Inferno <hell(a)einstein.ssz.com> Subject: Inferno: Fw: [nylug-announce] [nylug-talk] Tuesday 24 April 2001: Big Meeting on Privacy (fwd) ----- Original Message ----- To: <nylug-announce(a)nylug.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 9:37 AM Subject: [nylug-announce] [nylug-talk] Tuesday 24 April 2001: Big Meeting on Privacy (fwd) > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 01:04:40 -0400 (EDT) > To: nylug-talk(a)electriclichen.com > Cc: Jay Sulzberger <jays(a)panix.com> > Subject: [nylug-talk] Tuesday 24 April 2001: Big Meeting on Privacy > > > <blockquote > edit-level="light"> > > From: galil(a)news.cs.columbia.edu (Zvi Galil) > Newsgroups: cs.bboard,columbia.general.bboard,nyc.seminars > Subject: please mark your calendars > Date: 4 Apr 2001 13:33:27 -0400 > Organization: Columbia University Department of Computer Science > Reply-To: theory-group-request(a)cs.columbia.edu > > > 2001 Marconi Forum on Internet Privacy > Fu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Science > > Privacy Under Assault: Can Encryption Safeguard the Internet? > > Tuesday, April 24, 2001 > International Marconi Day > 4-6 p.m. > Reception to follow > Davis Auditorium of the Schapiro Center > for Engineering and Physcical Science Research > Columbia University > New York, N.Y. > > Web users want assurances that their communications or e-commerce will > remain private without having to worry that their ideas, or even their > identities, are stolen and every detail of their lives will be laid bare > while others profit from personal data collection. > > Digital threats arise from all quarters, including corporations and > marketing firms, potential employers and credit agencies, health and > government establishments, as well as outright snoopers and > opportunists. Can improved technologies protect privacy on the Internet > or is privacy a casualty of the digital age? > > The Marconi Forum brings together leading figures from technology, > government, journalism, business and law to examine how-- or whether-- > our right to privacy can be secured from digital incursions. > > Participants are : > > Zvi Galil, Moderator > Dean, Fu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Science > expert on encryption > > Whitfield Diffie > Distinguished Engineer, Sun Microsystems > co-inventor, public key cryptography > 2000 Marconi Fellow > > Michael Rabin > Professor of Computer Science > Harvard University > developed code based on "vanishing" key > > John Podesta > White House Chief of Staff > Clinton Administration > Visiting Professor of Law, Georgetown University > Law Center > > Steven Levy > Author, Crypto, Spring 2001 > Senior Editor, Technology, Newsweek > > Shari Steele > Excutive Director > Electronic Privacy Association > advocate for civil liberties in online world > > Eli Noam > Professor, Columbia Business School > Director, Columbia Institute for > for Tele-information > authority on telecommunications strategy > and policy > > Sponsored by the Marconi Foundation, The Fu Foundation > School of Engineering and Applied Science > Columbia University > > in collaboration with > The Center for New Media, Columbia Graduate School > of Journalism > > Columbia Institute for Tele-Information, > Columbia Business School > > </blockquote> > >

1 0

hooks in browsers?
by Ray Dillinger 10 Apr '01

10 Apr '01

Since Third voice was found floating belly up at the top of the fishtank the other day, I've been looking at their service. I think the idea is fundamentally good; subscribers should be able to see each other's commentary on websites. That's basic speech and reputation working on the internet and a channel that's at least potentially not biased by advertising revenues. However, they had two fundamental problems; 1) As a business, the idea is fundamentally bad, because there is no viable revenue model. Clients aren't going to pay for the service, advertisisers hated their guts, and the people who put up the web sites in the first place were going to fight tooth and nail against having ordinary people express their honest opinions about their companies. 2) The central-server model is another problem, because it created a central point at which the system could be shut down. However, this looks like an excellent application for freenet or something like it. If it's distributed, peer-to-peer, and run by the clients so there's nobody they need to pay, there's also nobody to yell at and no central server to shut down. It's probably do-able to write a little application that runs on the host machine -- and when the browser loads a website, the application consults freenet asking for commentary from other clients about that website. You could do this a couple of ways; you could watch the history file for new URL's to tell you what URL has just been loaded, or the cache for HTML pages to see what HTML has just been loaded. And that could be the cue for your little application. Are there any more direct hooks into browsers? Is there any "what URL is being displayed right now" API call for example? Bear

3 2

Systolix DSP
by Gareth Jones 10 Apr '01

10 Apr '01

Dear Sir, I am writing to you either as a registered user of one of Systolix free DSP design tools (FilterExpress, FilterSim, FilterWizard), or because you have expressed an interest in our products. As part of our development activities we occasionally survey our software users for feedback on their ongoing DSP and software requirements. We are currently developing our next generation of DSP processors and tools, and would be grateful if you could take a minute to answer 4 simple questions. Your answers will help to ensure our future products meet your requirements. This information is purely for marketing purposes, no sales approaches will be made as a result of your response. To complete the survey, simply reply to this message with your answers typed below the question. 1. What single feature would you most like to see included in future releases of FilterExpress, FilterSim or FilterWizard? 2. What are your current DSP requirements for filtering application (Sample Rates, Datawidth, Filter Type, Number of taps/Order)? 3. Have you considered using Analog Devices AD7725 converter in your application? 4. What hardware solution do you currently use for digital signal conditioning functions and what is your target cost? Many thanks for your cooperation. For more information on Systolix and it's product please visit our web site at www.systolix.com. FilterExpress, our filter synthesis tool is currently undergoing a major update, look out for an announcement soon. Regards Gareth Jones Marketing Director - Systolix Limited

1 0

Screwing Jim Bell and Cypherpunks
by John Young 10 Apr '01

10 Apr '01

Declan offers his motion to quash the feds subpoena: http://www.mccullagh.org/subpoena/motion.032901.html Worth reading not for the customary hoary press privilege, but for the protection requested to avoid what Jim Bell allegedly wants to use McCullagh for, and for Declan's affirmation that he covers the " 'cypherpunk' movement," gathering and archiving information for future use. Did you write this yourself Declan or your mouthpiece working alone without privileged sources about what you intend for the "cypherpunk movement?" WTF movement, by the way is being alleged and what is the evidence being concocted? Smells like the feds are feeding the evidentiaries all around the legal and press privileged pigtroughs, jesus fucking christ.

12 14

Re: FC: More on public documents, jury lists, and baiting a judge
by Norm D'Plume 10 Apr '01

10 Apr '01

At 08:21 AM 4/10/01 -0700, Declan McCullagh wrote: >For bookmarking purposes, I've put links to the series of articles I wrote >about Jim Bell from his raid to his trial here: >http://www.cluebot.com/search.pl?topic=ap-politics > Thanks. I've added that link and one to cryptome. The latest working page has a light yellow background. http://www.geocities.com/judgetanner

1 0

http://www.geocities.com/judgetanner/ -repaired
by Norm D'Plume 10 Apr '01

10 Apr '01

>On Sat, 7 Apr 2001, Norm D'Plume wrote: > >> http://www.geocities.com/judgetanner/ >> >> A TannerWatch Publication >> for citizen students of the legal process > >Most of the links on that page are screwed up. (File:// URLs mostly.) Fixed. Also expanded, with more biographical/career/bias notes. ....... "Tanner recommends two ways lawyers can attain more 'mother wit.' First, he says, litigators would be wise to conduct as much of the discovery work on their own as they can."

1 0

Slashdot | Hyperreality: The U.S-China Standoff
by Jim Choate 10 Apr '01

10 Apr '01

http://slashdot.org/features/01/04/09/1723253.shtml -- Adapt, Adopt, Improvise! - Anonymous Venimus, Vidimus, Delevimus - 1st Linux Motto, Anonymous Tivoli Certification Group, OSCT James Choate jchoate(a)tivoli.com Senior Engineer 512-436-1062

1 0

Seth Finkelstein, reluctant cypherpunk?
by Declan McCullagh 10 Apr '01

10 Apr '01

It's important for cypherpunks to understand why Seth Finkelstein has (apparently) recently subscribed to the list. Seth is essentially an anti-cypherpunk, someone who violently disagrees with free-market points of view and has spent (a conservative estimate) hundreds of hours arguing against them. Seth's claim to fame is that he popularized the "Libertarianism Makes You Stupid" saying, popular among a small clutch of Net-leftists. An article he wrote: http://www.spectacle.org/897/finkel.html Obviously there are going to be some points of agreement. Seth is a liberal and a programmer who is going to like strong crypto, free speech (only the types the ACLU approves of, naturally), and so on. But on cases involving free trade, commercial speech, critiques of government regulation, Seth is an aggressive anti-cypherpunk and proud of it. (This is not to say that all cypherpunks are libertarians, of course. The DC cpunx are mostly Finkelsteinian leftists, as far as I can tell. But the problem is that modern leftism runs up against cypherpunkly thinking -- to the extent there is such a consensus -- pretty quickly.) -Declan

15 28