August 2001 - cypherpunks-legacy

Denial and the Ravaging of Cyberspace
by Jim Choate 30 Aug '01

30 Aug '01

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0824-10.htm -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot
by Nomen Nescio 30 Aug '01

30 Aug '01

Tim May writes: > Draw this graph I outlined. Think about where the markets are for tools > for privacy and untraceability. Realize that many of the "far out' sweet > spot applications are not necessarily immoral: think of freedom fighters > in communist-controlled regimes, think of distribution of birth control > information in Islamic countries, think of Jews hiding their assets in > Swiss bank accounts, think of revolutionaries overthrowing bad > governments, think of people avoiding unfair or confiscatory taxes, > think of people selling their expertise when some guild says they are > forbidden to. It is good to see some frank discussion of morality here. Too often cypherpunks seem to assume that anything that can be done, should be done. However on closer examination it's not clear that many of the examples above satisfy both financial and moral constraints. "Freedom fighters in communist-controlled regimes." How much money do they have? More importantly, how much are they willing and able to spend on anonymity/privacy/black-market technologies? These guys aren't rolling in dough. "Revolutionaries overthrowing bad governments." The main revolutionaries who will be willing to pay money are those who expect to get rich from their revolution. These are the ones who want to throw out the tyrants so they can set themselves up as new tyrants. It is people like this who would be the best customers of cypherpunk technology. You're not making the world a better place by giving them tools. "Distribution of birth control information in Islamic countries." Again, selling to Planned Parenthood is not a business plan which will make anyone rich. "Jews hiding their assets in Swiss bank accounts." Financial privacy is in fact potentially big business, but let's face it, most of the customers today are not Jews fearing confiscation by anti-semitic governments. That's not in the cards. Most of the money will be tainted, and even if it is largely drug money and you don't think drugs should be illegal, much drug money is dirty even by libertarian standards. It is used for bribes, for coercion, even for murder. Facilitating such activities does not help to make drugs legal, it just gives murdering drug lords more wealth and power and provides justification for increasing military funding to fight the drug war. "People avoiding unfair or confiscatory taxes." This is a good one, lots of customers, plenty of money, few moral problems. Even if you support some government programs, it will take a long time before enough people adopt privacy protection tools that it could have a significant impact on government tax revenues. The big problem here is coming up with the a technology that can do the job. "People selling their expertise when some guild says they are forbidden to." Morally this one seems OK. In a net already filled with bogus medical and legal advice it can't make things much worse. On the other hand it's not clear that the existing prohibitions are hurting anyone's bottom line. How much can you really expect to make by selling forbidden advice? It's not clear that there is much of a market for this technology but possibly someone could find a killer app here. The conclusion is that you need to add a third axis to Tim's graph: morality, in addition to value and cost. Many of the most lucrative potential uses of anonymity technologies are morally questionable. If you add this additional filter you are forced to focus on just a few application areas (with the additional complication that few people will agree on morality, and that morality and legality often have little overlap).

4 4

Lawyers, Guns, and Money
by Tim May 30 Aug '01

30 Aug '01

Since none of the former, current, or larval lawyers have weighed in on the issue, I'll give my two bits. The question is this: is it a good idea for list members to go to law school? Issues of accredited vs. unaccredited, reputable vs. correspondence vs. diploma mills, etc. First, there are obviously already a huge number of lawyers in the U.S. I can't speak for Europe, where the "Eurorights" person is presumably from, but it's crystal-clear that there are many, many lawyers in the U.S. And a lot of kids in law school. And yet lawyers are working as low-paid paralegals, doing clerical work processing wills and divorces, and joining "law factories" where they probably make less money than engineers. Second, most of these lawyers won't be doing "interesting" work. See above. Certainly most won't be doing crypto or EFF-type work..unless they go to work for EFF, EPIC, etc. Those with a history of incisive comments on mailing lists and in crypto-related fora may find it possible to get in with these kinds of outfits. (But why bother? The D.C. groups are mostly lobbying groups...and my strong impression is that they are mainly oriented around their founders and chief mouthpieces. A junior lawyer would mainly be a water carrier for one of the luminaries.) Third, "pro bono" Cypherpunks-related work is not very remunerative, by definition, and also not very common. Even if one thinks of the Parker and Bell cases as "Cypherpunks-related," which I don't, there are not many of these cases. The recent cases of Dmitry/Adobe and West/Oklahoma are more related, but these are likely to be taken over by high-profile experts if they go to trial. What I'm saying is that a few lawyers will end up in interesting areas. The vast majority will be off in Skokie and Boise and L.A., processing immigration requests, meeting with DWI clients, and processing OSHA forms for Fortune 500 companies. I base this on statistics, on talking to some lawyer friends, and on experiences my brother in L.A. tells me about: he has some lawyer friends who went to UCLA Law School, some even studying under such luminaries in the online world as Eugene Volokh, and it's "slim pickings" these days for many of them. They simply don't have the luxury of picking cases to work on...they're grubbing to make ends meet, to pay off loans, and to maybe, just maybe, get a nominally permanent job at an acceptably prestigious law firm. A friend of mine is now a senior IP lawyer at a leading Silicon Valley law firm, so it _does_ happen. However, he left Intel in the mid-70s and went to Stanford Law School, so he beat the rush and he had the street credentials from his Intel work. Getting into law this late in the game is not for the faint of heart. Fourth, much too much is being made of the role of law in pushing or enhancing Cypherpunks-type themes. This goes back to Lessig's custom-law-technology analysis again. Fighting a few cases where some hacker is busted for being stupid is all well and good, but these cases are NOT altering the landscape in ways that certain technologies are. I suspect a lot of people these days (more than the several on the list who have spoken up) are talking about law school is that it's a way to change a career. Seen most cynically, it's a nebulous "in several years I'll be doing something different!" sort of shift. A lot easier to make plans to go to law school than to write a new software application, if one doesn't have the inspiration, that is. Fifth, consider that I can think of at least two vocal people on this list who went to law school and got J.D.s One or both may have passed bar exams. Neither are practicing anything related to law at this time. (Though their "legal training" may be slightly useful in their careers...that's not for me to say.) A third lawyer I'm not sure about...he was at a software company, but doing law-related stuff. There's a fourth lawyer, who may be a professor, but he's very quiet these days. Another former list member is definitely a lawyer, and has been active in crypto and ICANN issues. I just don't see spending 3-4 years in law school as being very exciting. And I don't mean my personal opinion of whether I'd go to law school or not: I mean that not much exciting work is being done by lawyers. Most are tucked-away in cubicles, in government offices, in small one-person offices scattered hither and yon. Processing wills. Forwarding escrow documents. Reviewing divorce papers. Ugh. But people should do what really drives them. Anyone going into law this late in the boom just to make money is probably going to be in for a rude awakening. Ditto for anyone going into it in order to do pro bono work on Cypherpunks issues. For the relatively few people--you know who you are--who have a sharp mind and are laying the groundwork for working in the "cyberlaw" industry, my analysis may not apply. My two bits. --Tim May

11 51

BATF, AP, Unintended Consequences author harassment
by Subcommander Bob 30 Aug '01

30 Aug '01

At 08:39 AM 8/30/01 -0500, measl(a)mfn.org wrote: >> Is Tom Clancy going to spend much time in stir for machine gunning the US >> Congress at the end of Debt of Honor? >Possibly: see the campaign to put away John Ross, author of "Unintended >Consequences". > www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39696d3b3c7b.htm Wherein it says: For example, in 1997 the book's publisher became aware that individuals purporting to be BATF agents had threatened vendors of the book in at least three different states with "problems" if they did not cease their sales of the book. A full-page ad in Shotgun News offering a $10,000 reward for the identity of these individuals put a stop to that particular business. Wouldn't this be evidence supporting AP?

1 0

RE: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot
by Duncan Frissell 30 Aug '01

30 Aug '01

At 05:28 PM 8/28/01 -0700, Ray Dillinger wrote: >The focus of the US intel community is shifting, at the current time, >to "domestic terrorism". That makes political speech of the kind >which has in past years been entirely normal on this list orders >of magnitude more dangerous to the participants than it was at that >time. Taking part in this discussion in a style "traditional" for >this list could be very dangerous. Remember, one out of every >fifty Americans is in jail, and if you think you're in the most >radical two percent of the population, there are implications, >aren't there? I'm not involved in the retail pharmaceutical trade like most of those poor political prisoners. I wouldn't worry about discussing drug laws or the retail pharmaceutical trade, however. Do you have any evidence of a greater risk of imprisonment for discussions of the effect of technology in weakening national states? Is Tom Clancy going to spend much time in stir for machine gunning the US Congress at the end of Debt of Honor? I know that there has been an increase in punishments levied on the institutionalized populations of our many local institutions for the mentally challenged, but any parent who turns his children's body and brain over to a bureaucracy for training deserves what they get (though the children/victims do not). And since most of these punishments consist of removing the child from the institution in question, it's hard to see to see them as genuine punishments. They're actually helpful to the poor tykes. There hasn't been a statistically significant increase in imprisonment of adults (or non-institutionalized children) for thought crime. You might have argued the case in '92 and '93 when the Feds were investing various "compounds" of thought criminals around the country but the Fibbies got burned so bad that they snatched their hands back. Note that Weaver, Harris, and the Waco 11 were all acquitted of murder in the killing of federal agents. Real slap in the face to Main Justice. >For Tim: >Why are you attempting to provoke public discussion about things >that could get people jailed or worse for discussing them? It's >interesting to see you post your "sweet spot" message and then call >someone *else* an agent provocateur. What's the "or worse"? The Ninth Circuit where Jeff would put Tim or whoever on trial has been very protective of the First. Note the Nuremberg Files case. That Court of Appeals has the most libertarian Appeals Court Judge (Kozinski) and there is loads circuit precedent for political speech protection. And all of the agitation and possible targeting of this list as well as the Libertarian Party of Washington would give anyone with half a brain yet another defense - selective prosecution. We have quite a bit of evidence of punishment for participating in a public forum. There's 9th circuit precedent for that defense too from back when the Hawaii US attorney prosecuted the Hawaii 4 for census resistance in 1970 after census resistance was advocated on KTRG radio. See US v. Watamull. CJ & JB are partially responsible for their problems. Unlike JB, for example, I'll never volunteer to the commission of a federal felony on the witness stand (mail tampering) that the Feds didn't even know about. There's such a thing as a special kind of stupid. JB plead out in his first case which didn't gain him anything except more trouble. Better not to plead in political cases. And CJ waived a jury. Most 1A defenses work only on appeal so the jury isn't that important but it can help. Both needed good appeal lawyers. Most of the rest of the possible targets will have good lawyers (or be good enough ones). I do think that there has been a bit too much cooperation with the Feds by members of this list. Two members have talked to Fibbies who showed up at their doors. They should have told them to get lost (as one always should). Think about it folks. The more time you spend in the presence of peace officers, the more information you give them for free whether by word, body language, or opportunities for visual inspection of your surroundings. Don't interact. You don't have to. And the several list members who have been subpoenaed could have done a little more to resist. When one receives a subpoena, the first thing you should do is throw it away. You can always wimp out later if you want but if you ignore the initial contact, they may go away. Make them do a little heavy lifting. Then if you are free to move, you should arrange to vacation overseas. If you have a job (reporter) that can be performed by Net and telephone, you should go to Canada where you can continue to work easily. If you can't move, you should at least wait for a second communication of some sort from the government. If you receive a second contact, you should point out that you will be a hostile witness and do nothing but verbally abuse them from the stand. You can prove your facility at this by verbally abusing them over the phone. If you are on the Right Coast and the court venue is on the Left Coast, you should immediately bundle up all your "government issued picture IDs" and burn them so you can't fly. Less easily, you could also try and weight 320 pounds so that carrying you will prove difficult for US Marshals. You might also try to be suffering from a potentially fatal disease so that threats from the Feds can be placed in the proper perspective. [Since, for now, we all *do* suffer from a potentially fatal disease (life), threats from the Feds should already be placed in a proper perspective.] Lastly, if you develop studious habits, you will discover that "prison is no punishment for the literate." Make *them* oppress you! Don't do it to yourself. They can't force you to speak. You have control of your voluntary muscles. Show a little backbone. DCF ---- "I brought up blankets, towels, toilet paper, Kleenex, aspirin, a bottle of rum and the .38" -- What my grandmother Louise Porter Frissell took to the evacuation assembly point at Schofield Barracks, Oahu, Territory of Hawaii, on December 7th 1941.

3 2

Re: Wuss-ninnies object to discussions on the list
by Batman Svejk 30 Aug '01

30 Aug '01

[demime could not interpret encoding binary - treating as plain text] >Next, we started seeing sissies like Ray Dillinger, er, "Bear," some >sort of polyamoristic wuss-ninny from northern California, urging us to >change the subject, to talk about the nurturing and children-friendly >aspects of crypto. Fuck that. This is not some list for leftie greens >and wuss-ninnies. Not all of the leftie greens object to discussions on this list, but if this (your?) list is not for greens, maybe those with different political views than your own should go away? Unlikely, given the political importance of crypto and privacy, sorry. What is your intent with Ms. Farr? (If she really is a Ms. - "No one knows you're a dog on the Internet.") Out the fed? Or, to get her off the list? Maybe you'd like a law that makes it illegal to troll. Heh. -Svejk ------------------------------------------------------------ .

2 1

Re: Stealth Computing Abuses TCP Checksums
by Greg Broiles 30 Aug '01

30 Aug '01

At 07:00 AM 8/30/2001 -0500, Dean, James wrote: >Don't fall for this. After registering at www.nature.com (supplying >personal details), you find you'll have to pay to see the article. See <http://www.nd.edu/~parasite/>, including a .PDF of the article at <http://www.nd.edu/~parasite/nature.pdf>. -- Greg Broiles gbroiles(a)well.com "We have found and closed the thing you watch us with." -- New Delhi street kids

1 0

Legal Communication and Censorship....
by Jon Beets 30 Aug '01

30 Aug '01

I got a notice today from MOXON & KOBRIN Attorneys at Law representing the Church of Scientology International ("CSI") and Religious Technology Center ("RTC") stating infringement Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act for a web site I currently mirror at http://xenu.pacer.com. It appears that some of the infringements may be true ( I will have to look to be sure) but what really gets me is the part quoted below.. They are saying since "Scientology", "Dianetics", "Hubbard" and "NOTs" are registered trademarks they cannot be used in metatags in a webpage... The restriction in use of words in a web page is just flat out censorship.. Absolutely ridiculous... It would be one thing if someone used the words to represent a business.. But I would think metatags at the very least would fall under the "Fair Use" clause. Quoted from email ___________________________________________________________ Lastly, you have placed the following federally registered trademarks belonging to RTC as metatags on your web page: "Scientology" which is registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office under registration numbers: 1540928, 1342353,1329474, 1318717, 1036997, 0898018, 1755441; "Dianetics" which is registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office under registration numbers 1347651, 1366410, 1432039; "Hubbard" which is registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office under registration numbers 1318637, 1505349, 1546167, 1734728; and "NOTs" which is registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office under registration numbers 1372473, 1307552, 1305409 (NOTS). ____________________________________________________________________________ End Quote Jon Beets Pacer Communications

2 1

Bell Testimony Day 2
by John Young 30 Aug '01

30 Aug '01

Day 2: http://cryptome.org/jdb040901-2.htm Completion of direct questioning by Robert Leen, Jim's many-times-fired attorney, and cross-examination by Robb London. Two cpunks are mentioned by Jim by name, with glowingly admirable death kisses. But he also kisses Leen (says Leen threatened to kill him two days before), London, Tanner, cpunk Jeff, another J and wife B, CIA's Bend OR Phantom, a phantom Phantom, The Super-Dirty Narc, Innocent Victim Agent No. 2, the Laura Raider of his mother's fireplace ashes, a police-asslick Reporter, and ... what can be said of Jim that he can't yodel better on the stand. Tanner admonished London for leaving the podium during questioning to get docs. "Stop it." London apologized for asking Jim too many questions without waiting for answers. "I'll stop it." Leen asked to be relieved as defense attorney, Tanner: "Denied. Leen asked for a psycho exam of Jim, Tanner denied. Jim tried to invoke his 5th Amendment rights, Tanner denied: "answer the question." Jim asked for legal representation, crying IANAL, Tanner denied: "answer." Jim admitted he stole mail and opened it, and burned it in his mother's fireplace. Jim admitted he sent a fax across state lines, and went across state lines in pursuit of homebases of official pukes. London affirmed all Jim's prison phone calls were monitored, that cpuke Jeff monitors cpunks -- maybe it was Jim who said the latter when he testified that that posting to cpunks was how he notified the opukes what he intended. Etc.

1 0

Lawyer Lessig raps new copyright laws - Tech News - CNET.com
by Jim Choate 30 Aug '01

30 Aug '01

http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-7004860.html -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0