September 2001 - cypherpunks-legacy

Linux.com :: Opinion :: Articles - on copyright
by Jim Choate 07 Sep '01

07 Sep '01

http://linux.com/opinion/newsitem.phtml?sid=1&aid=12516 -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ 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

Quantum Crypto to the Rescue
by Jim Choate 07 Sep '01

07 Sep '01

http://www.wired.com/news/infostructure/0,1377,46610,00.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

Re: Naughty Journal Author Denied Plea Change
by keyser-soze＠hushmail.com 07 Sep '01

07 Sep '01

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I was referring to the raft of federal firearms regulations and prosecutions which ignore the clear interpretation of Miller v. U.S.: that the right to keep and bear arms with obvious military use shall not be regulated. I was referring to the raft of federal firearms regulations and prosecutions which ignore the clear interpretation of Miller v. U.S.: that the right to keep and bear arms with obvious military use shall not be regulated. The opinion didn't exactly say this because Jack Miller, a bank robber and moonshiner, could not afford representation before the SC and in fact died of apparent self-inflicted wounds before the hearing date. His co-defendent Frank Layton apparently decided he wasn't interested in defending our rights under the 2nd and took four years probation. But despite the lack of defendent representation the opinion, written by Justice James Clark McReynolds, was notable in that it did not completely cave in to the government demands. The case was returned to the lower court where Miller, if living, could have made further arguments on his own behalf. He could have easily and correctly argued that short-barreled shotguns had been popular military weapons in the trenches of the First World War. It was lucky for the federal government that he was dead. The courts and Congress have turned this opinion on its head to suit their own purposes and because many/most in power see such citizen empowerment as nothing short of a Constitutional suicide pact and refuse to accept it. They can't remove the Second but they can try and interpret it away. At 10:58 PM 9/6/2001 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote: >I'm confused about "Fedgov" references. This was a state law and a state prosecution and a state judge. Doesn't make it right, but it has little to do with "Fedgov." -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Hush 2.0 wmAEARECACAFAjuYPvcZHGtleXNlci1zb3plQGh1c2htYWlsLmNvbQAKCRAg4ui5IoBV n13iAKCAFPkG13VnAYTUPNQPE7uIA9sJ6ACffDhWmo5ELSDMa5FIVuMJqD2RwnI= =QmLS -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: Naughty Journal Author Denied Plea Change
by pablo-escobar＠hushmail.com 07 Sep '01

07 Sep '01

At 05:30 PM 9/6/2001 -0700, keyser-soze(a)hushmail.com wrote: At 06:15 PM 9/6/2001 -0500, amp wrote: >>This case could well have unintended consequences if people finally understand that Fedgov doesn't give a rat's ass about any alleged 'right to privacy'. Americans allegedly have right to 'keep and bear arms' as well, spelled out on paper (currently being used as toilet paper in government offices across the land), but there are thousands of laws regulating against same. >This may continue until JDF types with nothing to lose (e.g., diagnosed with a terminal illness) put selected DOJ, FBI and Congressional targets in their sights. Yes! Its the hour to make a charter member of the Society of Timothy McVeigh. Choose a target and squeeze. Make an infamous exit. I know when I am in the door of the death that I will gladly join.

1 0

Friday, 9/7 - International Day of Action Against Video Surveillance
by Bill Stewart 07 Sep '01

07 Sep '01

Perform for a video camera today! Or alternatively, go buy a cheap webcam and surveil somebody who's already performing (oh, wait, that wasn't what they meant :-) The EFF announced the following: --------- Friday, September 7 - International Day of Action Against Video Surveillance Join privacy-minded citizens in raising awareness of public video surveillance Electronic Frontier Foundation ACTION ALERT (Issued: Friday, August 31, 2001 / Deadline: Friday, September 7, 2001) Introduction: On Friday, 7 September 2001, a variety of groups from around the world will be collaborating on an international day of autonomous protests against the constant, indiscriminate and technologically sophisticated video surveillance of public places by both businesses and law enforcement agencies, and in favor of the right to privacy, which is a fundamental human right. The protests will take the form of short skits and plays, the majority of which will take place in front of "webcams," so that people all over the world can watch them via the Internet. What YOU Can Do: * If you are concerned about surveillance cameras in your area, and would like to get involved in the protests, then see New York's Surveillance Camera Players' (SCP) "How to Stage Your Own 'Surveillance Camera Theater' in 10 Easy-to-Follow Steps!" at: http://www.notbored.org/scp-how-to.html * To add your group to the confirmed list of activists, email SCP at: notbored(a)panix.com * Contact your legislators about online privacy issues. For information on how to contact your legislators and other government officials, see EFF's "Contacting Congress and Other Policymakers" guide at: http://www.eff.org/congress.html * Join EFF! For membership information see: http://www.eff.org/support/ Privacy Campaign: This drive to contact the Judiciary bureaucracy about their invasive policies is part of a larger campaign to highlight how extensively companies and governmental agencies subject us to surveillance and share and use personal information online, and what you can do about it. Check the EFF Privacy Now! Campaign website regularly for additional alerts and news: http://www.eff.org/privnow/ Background: The proposal reads as follows: We propose -- 1. that an international day of action against video surveillance -- specifically: the constant, indiscriminate and technologically sophisticated video surveillance of public places by both businesses and and law enforcement agencies -- take place on Friday, 7 September 2001; 2. that people who wish to intensify the struggle to protect and strengthen the right to privacy (a fundamental human right) should undertake autonomous actions at the local level and in a completely de-centralized fashion; 3. that, if and when possible, at least some of these actions should be undertaken in front of webcams that have already been installed in public places by private companies that are insensitive or even hostile to privacy concerns (in addition to disrupting "business as usual" for these companies, the use of webcams will allow the entire world to see 7s01 anti-videosurveillance actions as they take place); 4. that all individuals and groups participating in the 7s01 day of action keep in touch with at least one of the groups listed below and/or each other; 5. that at least one Web site links to or actually displays images from these actions as they take place; 6. that this proposal should be posted on-line and sent to as many people as possible and as soon as possible; and 7. that this proposal be translated into as many foreign languages as possible, but especially French, German, and Italian, for it is in France, Belgium, Germany and Italy that the anti-videosurveillance struggle is the most visible at the moment. List of participating groups: http://www.notbored.org/7s01.html EFF's action alert: http://www.eff.org/alerts/20010831_surveil_cam_alert.html Contacts: Bill Brown, Surveillance Camera Players notbored(a)panix.com +1 212-561-0106 http://www.surveillancecameraplayers.org/ Will Doherty, EFF Online Activist / Media Relations wild(a)eff.org +1 415 436 9333 x111 - end -

2 1

Re: Cypherpunks 9/8/01 - GOLDEN GATE PARK - EFF Music Share-In
by Seth David Schoen 07 Sep '01

07 Sep '01

I'm going to be working at the Share-in, and I'd additionally like to invite everybody to celebrate a billion seconds of Unix with me immediately following the event. The 1,000,000,000th second after the Unix epoch is Sat Sep 8 18:46:40 PDT 2001 which closely follows this weekend's concert. I intend to have a celebratory dinner in honor of Unix history as soon as the concert clean-up is finished. -- Seth David Schoen <schoen(a)loyalty.org> | Its really terrible when FBI arrested Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | hacker, who visited USA with peacefull down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | mission -- to share his knowledge with http://www.freesklyarov.org/ | american nation. (Ilya V. Vasilyev)

1 0

Slashdot | Hosting Provider Shut Down By FBI
by Jim Choate 07 Sep '01

07 Sep '01

http://slashdot.org/yro/01/09/07/0048215.shtml -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ 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 --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

CNN.com - Could your job go to China? - September 6, 2001
by Jim Choate 07 Sep '01

07 Sep '01

http://www.cnn.com/2001/CAREER/trends/09/06/china.trade.jobs/index.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

The Constitution & Gun Rights
by Jim Choate 07 Sep '01

07 Sep '01

http://www.ssz.com/cdr/guns.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

Re: Naughty Journal Author Denied Plea Change
by keyser-soze＠hushmail.com 07 Sep '01

07 Sep '01

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Declan, Adding just a bit to my previous tome. Beginning with Cases v. United States in 1942, the court system conducted a steady degradation of the Second Amendment that was often based on misinterpretations of the Miller case. Each time the Miller opinion was distorted by a lower court, the new opinion became part of case law and made it easier for the next case to further erode Second Amendment protections. Law schools ignored the Second Amendment, because it was not politically correct. Students were told that it was not worthy of study, as it applied only to the obsolete right of states to form militias. The few idealistic lawyers who challenged the prevailing view quickly discovered that this was not a smart career move. It was not until the 1990's that legal scholars began to conduct serious research into the intent of the Second Amendment. The overwhelming majority has concluded that it does indeed guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms. >From Cases v. U.S. http://www.2ndlawlib.org/court/fed/131f2d916.html [Notice how the court decides that a literal interpretation of the 2nd is abhorent to federal hegemony and therefore the framers could not (and in speaking for them we will not say) that they meant this despite considerable evidence to the contrary.] ==================================== The Federal Firearms Act undoubtedly curtails to some extent the right of individuals to keep and bear arms but it does not follow from this as a necessary consequence that it is bad under the Second Amendment which reads "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The right to keep and bear arms is not a right conferred upon the people by the federal constitution. Whatever rights in this respect the people may have depend upon local legislation; the only function of the Second Amendment being to prevent the federal government and the federal government only from infringing that right. <snip> <references to the Miller decision> "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense." Apparently, then, under the Second Amendment, the federal government can limit the keeping and bearing of arms by a single individual as well as by a group of individuals, but it cannot prohibit the possession or use of any weapon which has any reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia. However, we do not feel that the Supreme Court in this case was attempting to formulate a general rule applicable to all cases. <Of course not, for then our hands would be tied> The rule which it laid down was adequate to dispose of the case before it and that we think was as far as the Supreme Court intended to go. At any rate the rule of the Miller case, if intended to be comprehensive and complete would seem to be already outdated, in spite of the fact that it was formulated only three and a half years ago, because of the well known fact that in the so called "Commando Units" some sort of military use seems to have been found for almost any modern lethal weapon. <Exactly> In view of this, if the rule of the Miller case is general and complete, the result would follow that, under present day conditions, the federal government would be empowered only to regulate the possession or use of weapons such as a flintlock musket or a matchlock harquebus. But to hold that the Second Amendment limits the federal government to regulations concerning only weapons which can be classed as antiques or curiosities,--almost any other might bear some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia unit of the present day,--is in effect to hold that the limitation of the Second Amendment is absolute. <Now we are talking> Another objection to the rule of the Miller case as a full and general statement is that according to it Congress would be prevented by the Second Amendment from regulating the possession or use by private persons not present or prospective members of any military unit, of distinctly military arms, such as machine guns, trench mortars, anti-tank or anti-aircraft guns, even though under the circumstances surrounding such possession or use it would be inconceivable that a private person could have any legitimate reason for having such a weapon. <Except to overthrow the government should it become necessary> It seems to us unlikely that the framers of the Amendment intended any such result. <i.e., we don't like the direction a plain reading is leading us> Considering the many variable factors bearing upon the question it seems to us impossible to formulate any general test by which to determine the limits imposed by the Second Amendment but that each case under it, like cases under the due process clause, must be decided on its own facts and the line between what is and what is not a valid federal restriction pricked out by decided cases falling on one side or the other of the line. ======================================================= -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Hush 2.0 wmAEARECACAFAjuYRXIZHGtleXNlci1zb3plQGh1c2htYWlsLmNvbQAKCRAg4ui5IoBV n6vWAKCv2Fz8bve4Ju39dIu7MFzstyUuxACdGYWlr0oSGj+2ksHERRb95hBRC+I= =ESVT -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0