July 2001 - cypherpunks-legacy

mailing list
by cygne2＠mindspring.com 16 Jul '01

16 Jul '01

Please add me to your mailing list. Thanks. FAC

1 0

Information You Requested from Microsoft.com
by 1support＠microsoft.com 16 Jul '01

16 Jul '01

NOTE: PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND DIRECTLY TO THIS E-MAIL. THIS E-MAIL IS NOT MONITORED. Welcome to Microsoft Online ID secure Internet environment! Below is your membership information. Please keep this confirmation mail as a record of your password. Consider this information confidential and treat accordingly. Your Microsoft Online ID Password is: cypherpunks A Microsoft Online ID provides access to various Microsoft secured programs. Please check the Frequently Asked Questions and/or Help page of the program you are accessing for questions. Sincerely, Microsoft Online ID Administrator

1 0

SSL Proxy
by xbcxbc 16 Jul '01

16 Jul '01

------------------------------- ÇÀ×¢ÉÌÎñÓÊ£¬ÊÖ»úµœÎÒÊÖ http://enterprise.21cn.com/game/

1 0

Re: Meatspace,
by Faustine 15 Jul '01

15 Jul '01

Faustine wrote: > > >Um, you should review the 60's groups like the SDS and such. > > Exactly: those weren't the groups that made the real impact when it > actually came to getting down to business and changing policy. Blame > MKULTRA or whatever you want, but the bottom line is that they fell apart > (and had their members killed or put in jail) whereas groups who didn't > espouse violence continue to this day. > > What? You are really a bit ignorant -- there are plenty of SDS and >Black Panthers running around today, the vast majority never went to jail. Of course they didn't. The bottom line is that their organizations were torn apart by operations conducted against them, I'm sure I don't need to give you a lecture about all that. Maybe the Panther party is making a comeback, but you can't deny they're a long way from where they were before the intel community went to work on them. Look what's happening to the radical environmentalists today, they're up for exactly the same kind of treatment. You declare open war on the state, and the state is going to declare open war on YOU as "a threat to public safety." > And while > >Ghandi certainly didn't believe in violence the same can't be said for the > >rest of the Indian freedom movement (not all hailed to Ghandi). > > Without Ghandi, British policy would have taken a far different turn. >Ghandi was also pissed because the Brits had confiscated all the privately >owned firearms, and spoke out against this -- and from the sounds of it, >would have advocated using those arm to fight the Brits. Maybe, maybe not, but it's a side issue when youre talking about what made his tactics a success. > Violence hasn't exactly been a stunning success for the IRA, has it. > Who do you think it was that kicked the Brits out of the most of >Ireland, with a *lot* of violence? If it weren't for Irish picking up the >gun, the whole country would still be a Brit colony. And they will succeed >in driving the Brits out of the rest, and hopefully their progeny, the >"Protestants" along with them. Of course!! Proof that violence only works when it's more than symbolic. I should have been more clear about what I meant: if they really engaged in an all-out prolonged conflict (the way the original Irish Republican Army did)it would have been a totally different issue than a march here, a bomb there etc. The government never just "gives in" out of the goodness of its heart in recognition of superior "spirits" or something vague like that. And at the very least, you have to admit they aren't relying on bloc noirs, vinegar hankies and catapults. > Not Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Susan B. Anthony, Bobby Kennedy and and the > vast majority of the people who espoused the causes you mentioned above. > The ones who made the real difference--the ones who immediately come to > mind every time we think of their cause--didn't espouse violence. If you > want to talk about Che and Mao and Chairman Gonzalo, that's another story. > God, what bullshit. MLK preached civil disobedience, not just >"nonviolence" -- if he were doing this in today's repressive political >climate, he would be getting exactly the same treatment as the WTO >protesters. But he wasn't an anarchist. My point is if you're out to overthrow the state (as opposed to fighting for your rights within the system like the causes above) you better have more than turtle suits and golf balls. >What stopped the war was explicity the growing violence (SDS's Bring the >War Home campaign) and the fact that returning combat vets were joining the >protests in throngs, and new draftees were fragging and shooting their >officers and NCOs in Nam. I still think it's too complex to boil it down to a single element like that. Have you heard the newest batch of Nixon tapes? The Kissinger transcripts from the National Archives? Worth a listen. >What does Bobby Kennedy have to do with it? I can't believe you don't think he had an impact... >He and his brother were just another couple of politrixians who got what they deserved. How can you even talk about civil rights (or rights at all) when you think something like that. > >The reality is, your example of the 'troops in the street willing to gun > >'em down' (a paraphrase) is apt. The only thing stopping them is knowing > >that the majority of people don't believe it. They still believe in the > The thing stopping them is knowing that they are vastly outnumbered, > and if they escalate into using deadly force against the protesters, > there aremore than enough people who would come back with guns the next >day and wipe them out. Dream on. This isnt the 60's anymore...read about preparations for urban operations (keyword MOUT) and see what you're in for. It's a whole new ball game. >If Kent State had happened, for instance, at Berkley or Madison, >there is no question of what would have happened next, and probably that >very same day. But it didn't. These days, people get a little pepper spray in the face and the next thing you know they're on TV gasping and whining about those nasty old cops. What the hell did they expect? Some revolution, when they think it's worth crying around about the terrible injustice of getting non- vegitarian baloney sandwiches in jail. Ten years from now, those weakminded fuckers are probably going to sell out just like their pothead stock- options smug yuppie parents did. Everybody pats themselves on the back about how great the 60s were, but things didn't fundamentally change all that much. If they were so successful, than why is the state more bloated, more repressive and more intrusive than ever? We got out of Vietnam, but turned right around and sent the same special ops people into Central America and a hundred other places we don't even know much about. And so it goes. Committing violence in the US isn't the answer, working within the system to change it from the inside is. What came out of the Church Committee in terms of congressional oversight, the creation of the Freedom of Information Act, writing PGP and developing other privacy enhancing technologies--they all made a difference. Wouldn't you rather look back and know you spent your time on something real? > Geez, just look at the what those Pakistani kids are doing to the cops >in England. And they have no access to guns. Not only is there a big difference between the US and the UK, there's a difference between local and federal approaches to handling conflict. And given the huge push toward federalizing law enforcement, there's nothing at all to rest easy about. ~Faustine.

2 3

Libertarian links
by George＠Orwellian.Org 15 Jul '01

15 Jul '01

Mary Lou Seymour # Liberty Activists # http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/1797 Ooo, lots of interesting links, including Scott McDonald. I think I sent him $100 a couple years ago. Poor guy. Whups, the (second) link for "I am not a number" yields: http://www.laissezfairebooks.com/product.cfm?op=view&pid=cu7878&aid=LA # # Error Occurred While Processing Request # # Error Diagnostic Information # # ODBC Error Code = S1000 (General error) # # [INTERSOLV][ODBC dBase driver]Access to file denied # '/export/home81/lfb/htdocs/sql/new_Categories_Table.DBF'. # # Data Source = "lfb-odbc" # # SQL = "SELECT C.* FROM new_Categories_Table C # WHERE C.parent IN ('1','3','4','5') ORDER BY C.cid" # # The error occurred while processing an element with a # general identifier of (CFQUERY), occupying document # position (37:1) to (37:114). ---- A book on buying and selling gold? What did you do for the Y2K scare? ;-)

1 0

Mass. bumper sticker: "Police Surveillance System On Board"
by Aimee Farr 15 Jul '01

15 Jul '01

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld a motorist's conviction pursuant to their state electronic surveillance statute for the surreptitious audio recording of police officers during a "routine" traffic stop. I think the opinion speaks for itself. See especially FN 6 and 10. --- COMMONWEALTH vs. MICHAEL J. HYDE July 13, 2001 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ma&vol=sjcslip/8429&i nvol=1 GREANEY, J. ... The relevant facts are not in dispute. On October 26, 1998, just after 10:30 P.M., an Abington police officer stopped the defendant's white Porsche, because the automobile had an excessively loud exhaust system and an unlit rear registration plate light. Three other Abington police officers arrived shortly thereafter and the stop quickly became confrontational.(1) During the course of the stop, which lasted approximately fifteen to twenty minutes, the defendant and his passenger, Daniel Hartesty, were ordered out of the automobile, and Hartesty was pat frisked. One officer reached into the automobile, picked up a plastic shopping bag that lay on the floor by the passenger seat, and looked inside. (The bag contained compact discs.) At one point, the defendant stated that the stop was "a bunch of bullshit," and that he had been stopped because of his long hair. One officer responded, "Don't lay that shit on me." Later, another officer called the defendant "an asshole." The defendant was asked whether he had any "blow" (cocaine) in the car. At the conclusion of the stop, the defendant and Hartesty were allowed to leave. No traffic citation was issued to the defendant, and the defendant was not charged with any crime. According to the testimony of one police officer, the defendant was "almost out of control" and the stop "had gone so sour," that it was deemed in everyone's interest simply to give the defendant a verbal warning. Unbeknownst to the officers, however, the defendant had activated a hand-held tape recorder at the inception of the stop and had recorded the entire encounter. ... The judge (the same judge who had ordered that the complaint issue) rejected the defendant's argument and denied the motion to dismiss. The judge reasoned that the definition of "oral communication" under G. L. c. 272, ' 99 B 2 ("speech, except such speech as is transmitted over public air waves by radio or other similar device"), was clear, and, unlike the definition in the Federal electronic surveillance statute,(2) did not require an expectation of privacy by the speaker in order to make the statute applicable. He concluded that the Massachusetts statute prohibited the secret tape recording of the police officers' speech. The defendant was tried before a jury and convicted of four counts of violating G. L. c. 272, ' 99. ... The dissent reaches its conclusion by ignoring the unambiguous language and definitions of the statute and by relying on purported (and dubious) legislative history. The dissent suggests that the defendant's secret recording of the words of the police officers should be lawful, because such recording may tend to hold police officers accountable for improper behavior. Implicit in the dissent's position is the even broader suggestion that police officers routinely act illegally or abusively, to the degree that public policy strongly requires documentation of details of contacts between the police and members of the public to protect important rights. We doubt the validity of the dissent's major premise, and we are not convinced that the widespread clandestine recording of encounters between individuals and police officers would be desirable or even efficacious.(9) Nor do we think, as the dissent does, that police officers should be singled out for particular approbation to safeguard the integrity of the "Republic." Post at . Followed to its logical conclusion, the dissent would encourage drug manufacturers to mount hidden video cameras in their facilities so they can capture the moment of truth when the police execute a search warrant and would authorize drug dealers secretly to tape record conversations with suspected undercover officers or with informants in order to protect the dealers' rights against hypothetical police abuse. Numerous other examples exist. The point is an obvious one. Every police encounter would be available for secret recording; even meter maids would not be spared. The value of obtaining probative evidence of occasional official misconduct does not justify a failure to enforce the clear terms of the statute. See Commonwealth v. Blood, 400 Mass. 61, 74 (1987), and cases cited. ... Further, if the tape recording here is deemed proper on the ground that public officials are involved, then the door is opened even wider to electronic "bugging" or secret audio tape recording (both are prohibited by the statute and both are indistinguishable in the injury they inflict) of virtually every encounter or meeting between a person and a public official, whether the meeting or encounter is one that is stressful (like the one in this case or, perhaps, a session with a tax auditor) or nonstressful (like a routine meeting between a parent and a teacher in a public school to discuss a good student's progress). The door once opened would be hard to close, and the result would contravene the statute's broad purpose and the Legislature's clear prohibition of all secret interceptions and recordings by private citizens.... ... As discussed above, however, our Legislature chose not to follow those States whose statutes prohibit wiretapping or secret electronic recording based on privacy rights. See notes 5 and 6, supra. "If the Legislature had intended to [prohibit only secret recording where an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy], the statute would have been written in terms similar to those used in the California eavesdropping statute . . . . Rather, it is apparent from the Report of the Special Commission on Electronic Eavesdropping, 1968 Senate Doc. No. 1132, that the legislative intent was to impose more stringent restrictions on the use of electronic surveillance devices by private individuals than is done in other States." ... (5) Every State, with the exception of Vermont, has some type of eavesdropping or wiretapping statute. The majority contain language that, to some degree, prohibits only the surreptitious recording of another's words when spoken with a reasonable expectation of privacy. See, e.g., Ala. Code ' 42.20.300 (Michie 1996) (Alabama; "private communication"); Ga. Code Ann. ' 16-11-60 (Michie 1996) (Georgia; "in private place"); Mich. Comp. Laws ' 750.539a (1996) (Michigan; "private discourse of others"); N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. ' 570-A: 1 (1995) (New Hampshire; "uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation"). In addition, as recognized by the judge in his memorandum denying the defendant's motion to dismiss, the Federal electronic surveillance statute, see note 2, supra, similarly limits "oral communication" to the speech of a person who holds a justifiable expectation that it will not be subject to interception. For an extensive discussion of various State electronic surveillance statutes, see C. Bast, What's Bugging You? Inconsistencies and Irrationalities of the Law of Eavesdropping, 47 DePaul L. Rev. 837, 868-881 (1998). (6) The defendant cites State v. Flora, 68 Wash. App. 802, 806 (1992), in which the Court of Appeals of Washington held, on nearly identical facts, that an arrestee's attempt to use a tape recorder to record his arrest did not violate Washington's electronic surveillance statute, because the police officers had no reasonable expectation of privacy in their words. This case is inapposite, however, because the Washington electronic surveillance statute prohibits only the secret recording of private conversations, see Wash. Rev. Code Ann. ' 9.73.030 (1) (b) (2000). Accord Commonwealth v. Henlen, 522 Pa. 514, 517 (1989) (secret recording of interrogation by prison guard suspected of theft did not violate Pennsylvania's electronic surveillance statute, because interrogating officer had no justifiable expectation of privacy). See 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. ' 5702 (2000) (defining "oral communications" as "any oral communication uttered by a person possessing an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation"). Because our own statute broadly prohibits the interception of speech (except that which is transmitted over public air waves), see G. L. c. 272, ' 99 B 2, whether the police officers possessed privacy interests in their words spoken in the course of performing their public duties, or whether the encounter constituted a routine traffic stop or a custodial interrogation, as argued by the defendant, are issues that we need not address. Consideration of such issues would only be warranted in a civil suit for damages under G. L. c. 272, ' 99 Q, which allows actual and punitive damages, as well as attorneys fees, for: "any aggrieved person whose oral or wire communications were intercepted, disclosed, or used except as permitted or authorized by this section or whose personal or property interests or privacy were violated by means of an interception except as permitted or authorized by this section shall have a civil cause of action against any person who so intercepts, discloses or uses such communications or who so violates his personal, property or privacy interest . . . ." (Emphasis added). ... (9) Although we have stated that the electronic recording by the police of interrogations is a good practice, see Commonwealth v. Diaz, 422 Mass. 269, 271-273 (1996), by no stretch of the imagination did we suggest that it is desirable for citizens to intercept or record electronically the speech of others, including police officers, without their knowledge. We presume that, when police interrogations are electronically recorded, the suspect is aware that the interrogation is being preserved. (10) Although not cited by the parties, in People v. Beardsley, 115 Ill. 2d 47 (1986), a defendant appealed from his conviction of eavesdropping when, having been arrested and placed in the rear seat of a squad car, he secretly tape recorded the conversation of two police officers who sat in the front seat. See id. at 49. The Supreme Court of Illinois reversed the defendant's conviction, holding that, although the plain language of the Illinois eavesdropping statute prohibited the recording of "all or any part of any conversation" without consent, Ill. Ann. Stat. c. 38, ' 14-2 (a) (1) (1983), the statute must have been intended to protect individuals only from the surreptitious monitoring of conversations of a private nature. See id. at 53 (reasoning that, because officers were aware that the defendant was in a position to overhear, their conversation was not private). The Illinois Legislature, however, subsequently amended the statute to define "conversation" as "any oral communication between 2 or more persons regardless of whether one or more of the parties intended their communication to be of a private nature." 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. ' 5/14-1(d) (West 1996). See People v. Nestrock, 316 Ill. App. 3d 1, 7 (2000). ======================================================== MARSHALL, C.J. (dissenting, with whom Cordy, J., joins). ======================================================== ... Many States have wiretapping statutes similar to the one enacted in 1968 in Massachusetts.(10) In only one reported decision has a State attempted to indict a citizen in circumstances similar to those in this case. The attempt was summarily rejected. In State v. Flora, 68 Wash. App. 802 (1992), the court overturned a conviction obtained in circumstances nearly identical to these and under a wiretapping statute similar to the one at issue here. The Flora court rejected as "wholly without merit" the view now adopted by this court. Id. at 806. The court "decline[d] the State's invitation" to transform its wiretapping statute "into a sword available for use against individuals by public officers acting in their official capacity." Id. at 808.(11) ... The court suggests, ante at , that a different reading would permit "untrammeled interception of communications" of government officials by everyone and anyone. That concern is misplaced. There is a difference in kind, well recognized in our jurisprudence, between police officers, who have the authority to command citizens, take them into custody, and to use physical force against them, and other public officials who do not possess such awesome powers.(14) We hold police officers to a higher standard of conduct than other public employees, and their privacy interests are concomitantly reduced. See, e.g., O'Connor v. Police Comm'r of Boston, 408 Mass. 324, 328-329 (1990) ("public confidence in the police is a social necessity and is enhanced by procedures that deter [unlawful police conduct]"); Broderick v. Police Comm'r of Boston, 368 Mass. 33, 42 (1975), quoting Gardner v. Broderick, 392 U.S. 273, 277-278 (1968) (police officer "is a trustee of the public interest, bearing the burden of great and total responsibility to his public employer"). We hold officers to this higher standard of conduct, fully confident that, in most cases, they will meet that standard, and there is no "implicit" suggestion to the contrary. Ante at . It is the recognition of the potential for abuse of power that has caused our society, and law enforcement leadership, to insist that citizens have the right to demand the most of those who hold such awesome powers.(15) [...] ~Aimee

2 1

Web Hosting for your site
by David Lojovik 15 Jul '01

15 Jul '01

http://www.develophost.com :: Web Hosting starting from 3.95$ per month ... It doesn't matter if you're an skilled webmaster or you are just setting up your first website, DevelopHost will always help you. We provide superior support, answering your questions and dealing with your problems quickly and in a friendly manner. Our servers are located in a highly-secured Data Center that is monitored 24 hours, 7 days a week for any problems that may cause an interruption in service. If for any reason during your first 30 days of hosting you are unsatisfied with our service we will refund all your fees, no problems about it. http://www.develophost.com David Lojovik Email: support(a)develophost.com Experience the Power of Web Hosting Solutions - DevelopHost.com

1 0

You are Invited!
by Bernt Lovenberg 15 Jul '01

15 Jul '01

-------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- (This safeguard is not inserted when using the registered version) -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- (This safeguard is not inserted when using the registered version) -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

TRANSLATE
by Dauljio 15 Jul '01

15 Jul '01

could somebody translate this for me Promozione Informativa ex art. 10 della legge 675/96 sul trattamento dei dati personali. La dopshop ha raccolto il suo indirizzo e-mail da fonte pubblica per trattarlo a scopo promozionale,comunque nel rispetto della legge 675/96 e quindi nelle misure di sicurezza e riservatezza dalla stessa previste.Secondo quanto previsto dall'art. 13 della legge,potete richiederne la cancellazione rispondendo a questa e-mail con ogg. reccessione _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

2 1

Free Media Tool Kit for Anti-Drug Action
by Matthew Gaylor 15 Jul '01

15 Jul '01

[Note from Matthew Gaylor: I recently received my copy of this slickly produced kit. The Feds must have spent a fortune developing it. It includes a CD-Rom with a textbook quality notebook with all sorts of useful information on how to deal with the media and what makes effective advertising for children, families and adults. It even includes camera ready artwork and ads. I plan to use the resources offered in my reverse engineering program. How useful to fight the war on drugs using material developed to fight the war on drugs. I recommend that everyone who reads this order their free, postage paid copy. Remember it is better that the Feds waste their money on us rather then spending it to help some prohibitionist somewhere.] <*> OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY (ONDCP) * Media Tool Kit for Anti-Drug Action The Media Tool Kit for Anti-Drug Action has been developed to help community members and organizations participate in ONDCP's National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. This Tool Kit contains background information, ideas for engaging the community, materials for contacting the media, samples of handouts and camera-ready art, and many more resources to help build healthy, drug-free communities. "Media Tool Kit for Anti-Drug Action" (NCJ 182318) is available online at: http://www.mediacampaign.org/mediatoolkit/download.html. To request a copy of the Tool Kit, please call the ONDCP Clearinghouse at 800-666-3332. You can also order the Tool Kit online at: http://www.mediacampaign.org/order/webordertoolkit.asp. ************************************************************************** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt(a)coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week) Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/ **************************************************************************

1 0