August 2001 - cypherpunks-legacy

Confirmation for subscribe meetingpunks
by meetingpunks-request＠majordomo.cryptorights.org 10 Aug '01

10 Aug '01

-- Someone (possibly you) has requested that your email address be added to or deleted from the mailing list "meetingpunks(a)majordomo.cryptorights.org". If you really want this action to be taken, please send the following commands (exactly as shown) back to "meetingpunks-request(a)majordomo.cryptorights.org": auth edf4b3da subscribe meetingpunks cypherpunks(a)minder.net If you do not want this action to be taken, simply ignore this message and the request will be disregarded. If your mailer will not allow you to send the entire command as a single line, you may split it using backslashes, like so: auth edf4b3da subscribe meetingpunks \ cypherpunks(a)minder.net If you have any questions about the policy of the list owner, please contact "meetingpunks-owner(a)majordomo.cryptorights.org". Thanks! meetingpunks-request(a)majordomo.cryptorights.org

1 0

RE: [Pigdog] Child Porn - The Lies of Ashcroft (fwd)
by Eric Cordian 10 Aug '01

10 Aug '01

Eugene Leitl <Eugene.Leitl(a)lrz.uni-muenchen.de> writes: > A somewhat dissenting opinion, and from a lawyer, no less. The we won't tell the joke about the bus going over the cliff with one empty seat. :) > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Philip Kingston <pkingston(a)beenelawrence.com> > Uhh...Mr. Reedy admitted in interrogation that he knew that 40% of his > business was child porn, I've always regarded liability for content as a binary situation. Either one is or one isn't. The reading and viewing preferences of ones customers are hardly something under ones control. Does a library acquire liability when 40% of its customers look at the most controversial books? Does an ISP suddenly become liable for the contents of its news spool, if 40% of its customers should decide to investigate the naked children newsgroups? I think putting people in jail for knowing about content they have no control over is a very bad idea. Most adult sites located in more lax jurisdictions carry a variety of material, only some of which is in violation of US laws. Since not one of the Reedys' customers was charged with downloading any specific illegal image at the two foreign sites, and the 100 arrests were produced by an entirely separate entrapment scheme targeting the Reedys' customer base, it seems unlikely that evidence linking specific customers to specific images exists. At most we can say that the two sites containing some illegal (in the US) material reached an embarrassingly high level of popularity, and were visited by numerous people, some of whom may have looked at stuff the US Government forbids. Or may not have, for that matter. > he had a link on HIS site that said "Click here for child porn," Of course, this is one BIG problem with child porn laws. No one can look at the site to see if what is being said about it is the truth. The claim that the Landslide Web site had a clickable link with the actual text "Click here for child porn" was made by an investigator who looked at the site, and was widely repeated in the press. I have been unable to independently coroborate this, and quite frankly, it's real hard to believe, especially since the site was supposedly operating according to well-clued legal advice. Anyone who could put up a mirror of the site stripped of potentially illegal images and artwork would be doing everyone who wants to verify amazing allegations like this a big favor. I'll go on record as being skeptical "Click here for child porn" was prominently displayed. > and two counts he was convicted on were for his personal library of > child porn. Again, that Mr. Ready may have downloaded images that were illegal in the US is not a crime meriting life in prison, and orthogonal to the entire age verification/liability for content question. > I can see a continuum of behavior that runs between innocently providing > access to illegal material and active child exploitation, and I'll be > the first to admit that I don't really know where to draw the line. I would argue that if one does not have liability for content, whether one is aware the content is illegal is immaterial. > However, this case doesn't get near that line; it's just about child > porn. It's about whether the government should be able to jail people child pornographers purchase goods and services from, when they are unable to get their hands on the child pornographers, who aren't breaking any major laws in their own jurisdiction. It's also about the Feebs getting their hands on the Reedys' not insignificant assets. Could Kodak executives be "child pornographers" if 40% of the images taken with some inexpensive digital camera they manufacture were demonstrated to be of tumescent child genitalia? Would this change if they were aware of this use? -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

1 0

Re: Linearized computations - was OCR
by Dr. Evil 10 Aug '01

10 Aug '01

> I think text is the wrong approach. Put up some pictures, > and a question - 'Click on the white bunny' 'Click on the > chipmunk' 'Click on the Russian icon'. 'Click on the clowns nose' > 'Click on the clown's right hand' > > Taking text, which is explicitly designed to be readable, and > trying to find a degree of distortion which is human (but not machine) > readable is probably a bad approach. Try something a 6 year old > can do, but which is still a PhD thesis problem for computers. Actually, I thought about that option. There are two problems with it: First, I need to find a bunch of non-copyright clip art which displays clearly on any different browser, and then map it, and then write a big database of questions. This isn't difficult, but it's time-consuming. I'm a big believer in "do something now, refine it later on". The second problem with that is that for one of my applications, it needs to be highly cross-cultural. Many of the users will be non-English-speaking, who might not know what the word "clown" means, and any non-abstract image has a potential for offending someone. If one of my images is a pig, maybe some Orthodox Jews will be annoyed. If one image is a woman with her face exposed, maybe some Moslems will be offended. If one image is a policeman, maybe some c'punks will be offended. Who knows. People are constantly seeking new ways of being offended as a way of telling other people what to do. People should have thicker skins, but they don't, and when it comes to making money, I want customers, not controversy. The last thing I want is for some rumor that my system is anti-something because some image of something-or-other is used. As an example, for years there have been rumors about Proctor and Gamble being run by Satanists, because they have stars in their logo. Not goats, or a head with horns, but plain old stars! A hundred-year-old well-established brand! In my effort to support the largest user-base possible, numbers are the way to go. (Oh wait, maybe I had better put a filter so it doesn't display 666 or 69 or 444 or 13...) I'll make improvements as I go.

1 0

RE: [Pigdog] Child Porn - The Lies of Ashcroft (fwd)
by Eric Cordian 10 Aug '01

10 Aug '01

Eugene Leitl <Eugene.Leitl(a)lrz.uni-muenchen.de> writes: > A somewhat dissenting opinion, and from a lawyer, no less. The we won't tell the joke about the bus going over the cliff with one empty seat. :) > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Philip Kingston <pkingston(a)beenelawrence.com> > Uhh...Mr. Reedy admitted in interrogation that he knew that 40% of his > business was child porn, I've always regarded liability for content as a binary situation. Either one is or one isn't. The reading and viewing preferences of ones customers are hardly something under ones control. Does a library acquire liability when 40% of its customers look at the most controversial books? Does an ISP suddenly become liable for the contents of its news spool, if 40% of its customers should decide to investigate the naked children newsgroups? I think putting people in jail for knowing about content they have no control over is a very bad idea. Most adult sites located in more lax jurisdictions carry a variety of material, only some of which is in violation of US laws. Since not one of the Reedys' customers was charged with downloading any specific illegal image at the two foreign sites, and the 100 arrests were produced by an entirely separate entrapment scheme targeting the Reedys' customer base, it seems unlikely that evidence linking specific customers to specific images exists. At most we can say that the two sites containing some illegal (in the US) material reached an embarrassingly high level of popularity, and were visited by numerous people, some of whom may have looked at stuff the US Government forbids. Or may not have, for that matter. > he had a link on HIS site that said "Click here for child porn," Of course, this is one BIG problem with child porn laws. No one can look at the site to see if what is being said about it is the truth. The claim that the Landslide Web site had a clickable link with the actual text "Click here for child porn" was made by an investigator who looked at the site, and was widely repeated in the press. I have been unable to independently coroborate this, and quite frankly, it's real hard to believe, especially since the site was supposedly operating according to well-clued legal advice. Anyone who could put up a mirror of the site stripped of potentially illegal images and artwork would be doing everyone who wants to verify amazing allegations like this a big favor. I'll go on record as being skeptical "Click here for child porn" was prominently displayed. > and two counts he was convicted on were for his personal library of > child porn. Again, that Mr. Ready may have downloaded images that were illegal in the US is not a crime meriting life in prison, and orthogonal to the entire age verification/liability for content question. > I can see a continuum of behavior that runs between innocently providing > access to illegal material and active child exploitation, and I'll be > the first to admit that I don't really know where to draw the line. I would argue that if one does not have liability for content, whether one is aware the content is illegal is immaterial. > However, this case doesn't get near that line; it's just about child > porn. It's about whether the government should be able to jail people child pornographers purchase goods and services from, when they are unable to get their hands on the child pornographers, who aren't breaking any major laws in their own jurisdiction. It's also about the Feebs getting their hands on the Reedys' not insignificant assets. Could Kodak executives be "child pornographers" if 40% of the images taken with some inexpensive digital camera they manufacture were demonstrated to be of tumescent child genitalia? Would this change if they were aware of this use? -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

1 0

Frog Gossip
by Nomen Nescio 10 Aug '01

10 Aug '01

J.A. Terranson wrote: > Same question for using the least trusted remailer [frog comes to > mind :-(]. Please elaborate.

1 0

It's DMCA, stupid (was Re: Child Porn - The Lies of Ashcroft)
by Anonymous 10 Aug '01

10 Aug '01

The US government is re-visiting the beaten path of behaviour control, by incriminating genital actions and instilling fear in its subjects - whenever you get an erection or get wet, you may be doing something illegal, so to cure the guilt after a nice orgasm pay taxes, turn in your neighbour and participate in polls. This works very well. Most sheeple will automagically condemn "child porn" (that is recording visible-light illuminated genitals of humans of various ages below government-sanctioned limit and displaying them.) US Government owns the copyright to penises and vaginas of all its subjects and will diligently pursue all infringements. No such thing as fair use here. The copyright is enforced by exploiting sex-guilt brainwashing deeply embedded into american sheeple and combining in with "for the children" scam that has developed nicely in recent decades. The only way to combat this is to refuse the premise. The moment you agree that "child porn is bad" you have co-opted into the scam. Until you are able to say and act on the premise that "child genital display and sex" is OK you will be fucked, and your progeny as well. Very few can do this, and the government knows it. And you will continue to be fucked. You deserve it. For a long time I thought that "stupid americans" is just another generalisation. But now I begin to suspect that there is something genetic about it. Something in the food or in the air.

1 0

Fun at Walmart, FAM for Gophers (Re: BOMB PLANS)
by Subcommander Bob 10 Aug '01

10 Aug '01

At 06:06 PM 8/10/01 +0200, Eugene Leitl wrote: >On 10 Aug 2001, Secret Squirrel wrote: > >> Why not nitroglycerin? The components are very easy to get -- nitric >> acid and glycerine. > >Easy to get? Haven't seen concentrated acids being sold at Walmart so far. 34% HCl sold by the gallon H2SO4 in plumbum batteries nitrate salts in the gardening area polyols in antifreeze, in the automotive section pyrex, heatplate, etc. in cookwares :-) >Hey, is ammonium nitrate fertilizer a watched substance yet? Yes, in prilled form. Wonder if its still used in those sports-injury instant-cold bags that I used to recrystallize it from in my youth... ........ Fuel-Air Munitions for Gophers http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAW894O4QC.html FARM SCENE: California Farmers Use Low-Tech Weaponry to Blast Furry Pests From Burrows - from Tampa Bay Online FRESNO, Calif. (AP) - Stalking the elusive pocket gopher and the brazen ground squirrel, farmer Mike Lagaluso is armed with the latest low-tech weaponry to blast the varmints from their underground lairs. In a scene being repeated in orchards and vineyards up and down the Central Valley, Lagaluso inserts an end of the Rodex 4000 into a hole in the ground, injects a combination of oxygen and propane, hits a switch and watches as the resulting explosion collapses a burrow several feet long. "This has just been a never-ending battle. Now, hopefully, within a year we can get the population down to a manageable level and reduce our labor costs for controlling these pests," said Lagaluso, who's using it on apple and peach orchards in San Luis Obispo County. Despite concerns about the product's effectiveness and safety - mostly voiced by university researchers - several farmers said they've had unparalleled success with the Rodex 4000. They like its portability - the oxygen and propane tanks can fit on the back of a small all-terrain vehicle - and its pyrotechnics, though the explosions are mostly concussive. To people who might think the Rodex 4000 is inhumane, its boosters say it's better than pesticides that can take longer to kill an animal. There's also minimal risk that farmers will blow up dogs, coyotes or birds, which all could be harmed by eating pests that have been poisoned. At about $1,400, the Rodex 4000 is a serious product that doesn't come in a big cartoon box stamped Acme on the side. And in an era of increasingly complex environmental regulations and mounting pressure from suburbanites to limit pesticide use near homes and schools, farmers are constantly on the lookout for alternative pest control methods, said Darren Schmall, who uses the product in his agricultural pest management business. "It sounds like just such a big boy's toy until you go out and see how the thing works," Schmall said. The Rodex 4000 doesn't blow gophers from their burrows or set them on fire. Its primary gas is oxygen, which is ignited by the propane and expands rapidly into 30 feet to 50 feet of tunnel. The critters inside are subjected to a massive concussive pressure that produces a deadly hemorrhage at the base of their brains. The gases also get into the creatures' lungs and when the oxygen expands, the lungs essentially explode, said Ed Meyer, vice president of sales for Midvale, Idaho-based Rodex Industries Inc. Still, researchers at the University of California and the Montana Department of Agriculture give the device mixed reviews. Montana officials found the device killed only about 30 percent to 40 percent of targeted ground squirrels and about 30 percent of the prairie dogs, said Monty Sullins, a vertebrate pest specialist. "They're very reproductive," Sullins said of the animals. "Unless you're getting 85 percent to 90 percent ... you're looking at repeat use. We just didn't have the numbers there to really recommend it as a major control tool." But farmers who are happy with it don't seem to mind going over the same ground a few times. Schmall said he gets a 95 percent kill ratio by making a second visit to the same place within a week. Farmers are eager to use anything that gives them an edge in the perennial battle against burrowing rodents, which destroy berms and irrigation systems and eat the roots of young plants. Desley Whisson, a vertebrate pests specialist with the University of California at Davis, studied a device similar to the Rodex several years ago. She worries about the fire risk when the Rodex 4000 is used in dry fields or orchards. Company officials concede the fire risk, but said if farmers use common sense and take precautions, wildfires won't be a problem. As for the risk to life and limb, Schmall said, "We've blasted easily 10,000 holes and I have yet to hand out even a Band-Aid to any of my guys."

1 0

RE: Linearized computations - was OCR
by Trei, Peter 10 Aug '01

10 Aug '01

> ---------- > From: Ray Dillinger[SMTP:bear@sonic.net] > Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 12:06 PM > To: Dr. Evil > Cc: cypherpunks(a)minder.net > Subject: Linearized computations - was OCR > > > > On 10 Aug 2001, Dr. Evil wrote: > > >blacked out. Cool! But I'm working on a different problem. > >Basically, I have a web site that lets you reserve domain names before > >you pay for them. I want to make sure that no loser out there decides > >to be cool and write a script which reserves every word in the > >dictionary, or every sequence of eight characters, or some moronic > >thing like that. So I will have the page display three characters, > >somewhat blurry, and say, "type these characters here!" If they don't > >match, you're not human! (Why didn't they think of this simple method > >in Terminator and Blade Runner?) This same moron could sit there and > >type domain names all day long, but that's enough punishment in > >itself. > I think text is the wrong approach. Put up some pictures, and a question - 'Click on the white bunny' 'Click on the chipmunk' 'Click on the Russian icon'. 'Click on the clowns nose' 'Click on the clown's right hand' Taking text, which is explicitly designed to be readable, and trying to find a degree of distortion which is human (but not machine) readable is probably a bad approach. Try something a 6 year old can do, but which is still a PhD thesis problem for computers. Peter

1 0

List Update - 08/09/01
by BeaverHome 10 Aug '01

10 Aug '01

1 0

List Update - 08/09/01
by BeaverHome 10 Aug '01

10 Aug '01

1 0