December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: CCTV Cameras in Britain (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 10:17:49 +0200 (MET DST) > Subject: Re: CCTV Cameras in Britain > From: nobody(a)REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) > Since an ounce of good marijuana costs $300.00 instead of merely > $3.00, it is profitable to not abide by the law. Don't know where you live but your street prices are about 300% too high... > TruthMonger ____________________________________________________________________ | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http:// www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

2 1

adults only
by candy＠mail2.24hrplaymates.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

TRY US OUT FOR FREE!!! See and talk to a live person on your computer screen. Not a video! Not prerecorded! This is live!!! Our models will obay your every cummand, we're willing to prove it by giving you a free 5 minute preview. Give it a try, it's free! - CLICK HERE xxxx

1 0

White House "kinder, gentler"-CDA/censor empowerment meeting (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 08:03:06 -0700 (PDT) > From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> > Subject: White House "kinder, gentler"-CDA/censor empowerment meeting > Below we see an excellent example of the naivete inherent in > Net-libertarian and cypherpunk writing. > Obviously the writer does not understand the complexities and challenges > of Washington politics ... a process that results in the compromises > so vital in a healthy democracy. I would like to see your proof that a healthy democracy requires compromise. This is truly the pot calling the kettle black in regards to mis-understanding the fundamental dynamics of 'healthy' democracies. > I can only conclude that because Mr. Finkelstein does not live inside the > Beltway, we cannot expect him to realize that it is always necessary to > remain players in the game -- even if it means giving up fundamental > liberties in the process. Declan, you are truly an idiot if you believe that you can obtain any sort of democracy, let along a healthy one, by giving up fundamental liberties. With friends like you we don't need enemies, we don't have to worry about them taking anything you are more than willing to give it away. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http:// www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Microsoft will NOT ship browser with RSACi on by default
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 19:30:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Microsoft will NOT ship browser with RSACi on by default Microsoft called me a few hours ago and told me that -- despite reports to the contrary -- the company definitely will *not* ship the next version of Internet Explorer configured to block unlabeled sites out of the box. "The product is going to ship with Content Advisor off by default," said Mark Murray (mmurray(a)microsoft.com) My article at http://netlynews.com today had said: The next version of IE will default to displaying only properly labeled web pages, according to Ken Wasch, the president of the Software Publishers Association. This comes after previous reports that RSACi might be default-on: http://pathfinder.com/netly/editorial/0,1012,476,00.html http://pathfinder.com/netly/editorial/0,1012,740,00.html Kudos to Microsoft for doing the right thing. -Declan

9 14

Cookie that help you lose wieght!!!
by 01093775＠03416.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

<HTML><PRE><BODY BGCOLOR="#000000"><FONT COLOR="#00FFFF" SIZE=3> COOKIES THAT HELP YOU LOSE WEIGHT!!! Dear Friend, No, there isn't a misprint on the subject line. There is a cookie out there which actually helps you lose weight. I have found this amazing product and I'm willing to share this miracle with everyone. Do you like cookies? I'm sure there are many of you out there who love cookies. But aren't you concerned about the Fat, Cholesterol and Calories that get digested by you body as you enjoy a delicious cookie? How about those Fat free, Cholesterol free cookies? Sure, they don't have the fat and cholesterol which you don't want, but it still has the calories which can add up. So let me introduce to you a cookie which can actually help you LOSE WEIGHT! You can use this cookie as a healthy snack or as a weight lost program. The cookie company creates the only FAT BURNING COOKIE in the world by mixing a 5000 year old Chinese herb with a delicious tasting cookie. This thermogenic herb helps rev up your metabolism to help you BURN FAT and CONTROL YOUR APPETITE. The Chinese have been using this herb on it's own for thousands of years as a diet aid, and now you too can take advantage of this amazing herb in a HIGH FIBER, 100% ALL NATURAL COOKIE. This cookie also TASTE GREAT! It's actually moist and flavorful. You can have this cookie as a great tasting healthy snack, with the added all natural benefits of weight lose, or you can use it by itself as a diet program. The cookie company guarantees, no matter how many diets have failed you before, you are guaranteed not to fail this time. The cookies are 100% guaranteed to succeed in your WEIGHT LOST program, or your money would be gladly refund. Why don't you find out yourself about this AMAZING product? You really have NOTHING TO LOSE BUT FAT. ACT NOW and find out how ONE COOKIE A DAY CAN GIVE YOU THE BODY YOU'VE ALWAYS DREAMED OF! To receive more information about this amazing cookie, and the cookie diet, please send three ($3) dollars cash along with your name and address to:- Cookie Dept. # 23918 PO BOX 180 Cypress, CA 90630 Sincerely yours, your friend The Cookieman </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3>

1 0

If You Build It, They Will Con (fwd)
by Ray Arachelian 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 11:09:05 -0400 From: "Anthony F. Navarro" <anavarro(a)inch.com> Subject: If You Build It, They Will Con >From the Netly News -Anthony July 15, 1997 If You Build It, They Will Con by Declan McCullagh Perhaps the thinking behind DefCon went something like this: Lure hundreds of hackers to Las Vegas in the middle of the summer, ply them with cheap beer, talk about packet sniffing, and observe. Last year the result was self-organizing chaos, capped by an event where the hired strippers were upstaged by a band of exhibitionist conferencegoers. "The pimp was like, 'Oh my God,'" says Dark Tangent, DefCon's organizer. Last weekend's fifth annual DefCon may have been a little less raucous, but it was no less important as a place where hackers from around the world gather to socialize, gamble -- and glance around furtively trying to spot the government agents who infiltrate the convention. (Bonus: If you guess correctly, you can take a prized "I Spotted the Fed" T-shirt home with you.) Naturally, DefCon has always been populated with a slew of specialized talks on "Hacking Novell Netware" and uses of "embedded microcontroller applications." But this year, speakers such as Richard Thieme spoke of finer points: For instance, how hackers should avoid merely imitating their predecessors' exploits. Instead, they should learn the intricacies of computer systems themselves. "This is really functioning as a call to excellence," Thieme says. Then there was Carolyn Meinel, who maintains the "Happy Hacker" mailing list. "You don't need to break the law to be a hacker," she told me. Maybe not, but the DefCon crowd -- mostly teenagers and twentysomethings -- wasn't listening. Some tried to pass counterfeit $20 bills when registering. ("We'll beat your ass," Dark Tangent warned afterward.) Others tried to snatch the DefCon banner from the convention hall. By the time the conference began, the hotel's antiquated phone system had been penetrated and instructions distributed on how to call long distance for free. The hotel's radio frequencies quickly appeared on the DefCon mailing list. On Friday evening, security guards booted two revelers after a hallway skirmish led to blows. And someone was carrying around a door to a GTE truck -- I never found out why. All of which might explain Las Vegas's growing reluctance to host the event. Dark Tangent says the convention has become virtually blackballed. "You're dicked. There's no place to go," he says. This year, Dark Tangent had to rename the convention "DC Communications" and take out $1 million in liability insurance. He also moved the conference to the Aladdin, a ramshackle hotel -- complete with faded purple carpets and cheesy lounge singers -- that seems the only venue now willing to risk hosting DefCon. Still, the Aladdin seemed a choice venue for Winn Schwartau, the "InfoWar" crooner whom many hackers love to hate. He showed up to host two rounds of Hacker Jeopardy. Teams of digerati took turns heckling Schwartau and competing in categories such as National Security for $300: "A: The two possible meanings of DOS. Q: What are Denial of Service or Disk Operating System?" Or, "A: The assistant director of the FBI who handled the TWA investigation and was behind the Clipper Chip. Q: Who is James Kallstrom?" Bruce Schneier, author of "Applied Cryptography" (and the star of his Hacker Jeopardy team), spoke on Saturday about "Why Cryptography Is Harder Than It Looks." He warned of overconfidence when designing a cryptosystem: "The math is perfect. The computers are bad. The networks hideous. The people worse." Says Schneier, "We need to recognize the limits of the possible." Sameer Parekh, president of C2Net, spoke the next day about offshore crypto-development: "We export jobs, not crypto." Jobs seemed to be what many in the crowd were looking for. As one generation of hackers gives way to another, a new batch of self-anointed "security consultants" appears on the scene. Of course, there are never enough scouts in attendance to hire them all. Dejected, and unable to hack more than the hotel PBX, some found solace in the seamier side of Las Vegas. I saw a note inviting everyone to a "StripperCon" that was being held down the street at the Tropicana Hotel on Saturday night. I went gambling instead. Short $75, I wondered whether next year's DefCon would be worth attending -- that is, if it happens at all. But surely there will be a DefCon 6, and since Internet Underground has gone to pasture, who else will there be to cover it? So I poured another shot, dialed 9# on the wall phone and placed a long distance call to the editor. On the house. | The Netly News | Afternoon Line | Bootcamp | This Old PC | Walter Miller | Alt.Culture | Digital Sandbox | Archive |

1 0

Re: The Censorware Summit: A Preview, from The Netly News
by Antonomasia 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/opinion/0,1042,1173,00.html > >The Netly News Network (http://netlynews.com) >July 16, 1997 > >The Censorware Summit >by Declan McCullagh (declan(a)well.com) > Today, Friedland and more than a score of industry and nonprofit > groups are visiting the White House to promote technical means of > stopping Junior from visiting playboy.com. President Clinton is > expected to endorse such measures over attempts to revive broad > criminal laws like the ill-fated Communications Decency Act, which he > supported. But this new approach suffers from all sorts of problems. A UK computer vendor (I forget which) deals in its catalogue with the possible concerns of parents at internet content in this way. It suggests that the computer is in a family room where parents can readily see what Junior is up to. Common sense or what ? Bubba can keep his nose out. > Rep. Bob Goodlatte > (R-Va.), a staunch CDA supporter who will be at today's summit. "They > said we can't go that route. I'm certainly interested in developing > other options. I want to put the burden on pornographers. One of the > ways to do that is to have Congress pass legislation that would make > it difficult for people to misrate their web site." And I (poor ignorant thing) thought that pornmasters wanted their sites recognised for what they are to attract visitors. -- ############################################################### # Antonomasia ant(a)notatla.demon.co.uk # # See http://www.notatla.demon.co.uk/ # ###############################################################

1 0

"The Failure to Do Your Job" amendment (was Re: White House ...)
by John Deters 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Please forgive me for following up to my own posting, but I just realized how close I was to a solution: A Constitutional amendment that would call for the impeachment of the President for failing to veto any three bills that are overturned by the Supreme Court on Constitutional grounds. Call it "The Failure to Do Your Job" amendment, or the "For Violating Your Oath" amendment. Maybe include a clause that stipulates the ex-President must also return any salary earned during his or her tenure. John -- J. Deters "Don't think of Windows programs as spaghetti code. Think of them as 'Long sticky pasta objects in OLE sauce'." +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ | NET: mailto:jad@dsddhc.com (work) mailto:jad@pclink.com (home) | | PSTN: 1 612 375 3116 (work) 1 612 894 8507 (home) | | ICBM: 44^58'36"N by 93^16'27"W Elev. ~=290m (work) | | For my public key, send mail with the exact subject line of: | | Subject: get pgp key | +--------------------------------------------------------------------+

6 6

Time Online chat at 8 pm: Does the Net need a Nanny?
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'll be participating in a Time Online chat this evening at 8 pm EST. Our guests will be Chris Hansen from the ACLU and Bruce Taylor, a longtime CDA supporter and head of the National Law Center for Children and Families. We'll be talking about the White House censorware summit, self-rating of news sites, and free speech online in general. Join us at: http://pathfinder.com/time/community/newsforum.html You can participate in the chat as long as your browser supports frames, but the Ichat client software is more stable: http://www.ichat.com/download/ -Declan

1 0

Attorneys: RSA patent invalid
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a just published article in CyberLaw, patent attorneys Patrick Flinn and James Jordan rise serious questions about the validity of the RSA patent in the US. The authors conclude: > Due largely to luck, bluster, and the naiveti of potential competitors, the owner of United States Patent No. 4,405,829 has enjoyed a virtual monopoly on all uses of the RSA Algorithm. However, a careful scrutiny of the RSA Patent claims, and other details of its disclosure and prosecution, reveal both significant limits to the scope of the patent and material questions regarding its validity. The full article can be found at http://www.cyberlaw.com/rsa.html -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred

1 0

Time Online chat at 8 pm: Does the Net need a Nanny?
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We're having a Time Online chat this evening at 8 pm EST to discuss Net-censorship. I'll be joining Chris Hansen from the ACLU and Bruce Taylor, a longtime CDA supporter and head of the National Law Center for Children and Families. We'll be talking about the White House censorware summit, self-rating of web sites, and free speech online in general. Join us at: http://pathfinder.com/time/community/newsforum.html You can participate in the chat as long as your browser supports frames, but the Ichat client software is more stable: http://www.ichat.com/download/ -Declan

1 0

Re: The Real Plan: Making the Net Safe for Censorship
by Lizard 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:42 PM 7/16/97 -0700, Ross Wright wrote: >On or About 16 Jul 97 at 18:12, Lizard wrote: > >> At 04:47 PM 7/16/97 -0700, Ross Wright wrote: >> >Marc: >> > >> >What a bunch of crap! Keep out of the internet, you government >> >flunky. Let business, commerce and freedom of speech remain in >> >it's new home, Cyberspace. And save your regulations for someone >> >who needs them. >> >> You will get a lot more respect on the net once you learn how to >> read messages. I'll leave it you to figure out what you got wrong. > >Umm, I think I understood the message, and Mr. Rotenberg's >involvement in the politics of censorship, as it relates to the >Internet. > No, you do not. >> Sheesh. And I retreated to mailing lists to get away from this kind >> of stuff on USENET. > >What? I just feel that there should be no laws or resolutions or >promises made or kept by the United States Government about the >internet. > That's not the kind of stuff I'm referring to. >On or About 16 Jul 97 at 14:42, Declan McCullagh wrote, about >something that Marc Rotenberg <rotenberg(a)epic.org> wrote: > >>On the other hand, without a proper law, > >See, when they say "without" that means they think we need one. > >>parents can purchase and >>activate measures to protect their children from adult material and >>still not feel secure in their homes from unwanted material. > >Ohhhh, so scary. Not safe in the home! Imagine that. Sigh. While occasionally I am prone to fits of charity and altruism, today is not one of those days. I shall leave it to someone more merciful than I (such as, perhaps, the Marquis de Sade, or Attila the Hun) to explain your error to you. Perhaps Marc himself will enlighten you, though, frankly, I hope he doesn't, as this could provide much amusement over time.

1 0

Censorware empowerment meeting (was satire)
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Since I seem to have been misunderstood on at least two lists now, let me forward this. --Declan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 12:45:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: Lizard <lizard(a)dnai.com> Cc: Glenn Hauman <hauman(a)bb.com>, Seth Finkelstein <sethf(a)MIT.EDU>, jseiger(a)cdt.org, jberman(a)cdt.org, fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Re: White House "kinder, gentler"-CDA/censor empowerment meeting Lizard has it right. My post was meant to be satire. I should have been more clear. In fact, a good friend of mine sent me this message: > Declan, remember how I promised you I'd let you know as soon as I > thought you'd been in Washington too long, so that you wouldn't turn > into a beltway hack? > > This is the red flag. Get out. Apologies to all. In the future I will label all satiric posts as -L18, meaning those who are under 18 will probably not get the joke. By labeling my posts in this manner, I can ensure that they will be indexed up by search engines that will in the future only index properly-labeled pages. I can also ensure that users of Internet Explorer will remain able to read my scribbings, since the next version of IE is going to ship with RSACi turned on as a default. I will thus do my part to ensure a childsafe cyberspace, free from inappropriate material and bad jokes of all kinds. -Declan On Wed, 16 Jul 1997, Lizard wrote: > Um...I think Declan was being humorously sarcastic. (What was that thread a > few days ago about how irony doesn't work?) What's frightening is that his > sarcasm comes perilously close -- some might say overlaps -- posts made in > all apparent sincerity by others.

1 0

Censorware Summit Take II, from The Netly News
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

*********** http://pathfinder.com/netly/opinion/0,1042,1173,00.html The Netly News (http://netlynews.com) July 16, 1997 At The Censorware Summit by Declan McCullagh (declan(a)well.com) If you host a web page or publish online, be warned: soon your site might become invisible. Search engines won't index it and web browsers won't show it. Unless, that is, you agree to attach special labels to your web pages identifying how violent, sexually explicit, or inappropriate for kids your site is. This was the thrust of today's White House censorware summit, where President Clinton sat down with high tech firms and non-profit groups in a private meeting to talk about pressuring the Net community to make cyberspace childsafe through labels. "We need to encourage every Internet site, whether or not it has material harmful to minors, to rate its contents," Clinton said after the meeting. Vice President Gore was there, too, giving a quick demonstration of how labeling works. Spooked by the threat of a revised Communications Decency Act, high tech firms are seriously backing labels for the first time. Joining Clinton in coercing Internet users and businesses to label all their web pages were Yahoo, Excite, and Lycos. "I threw a gauntlet to other search engines in today's meeting saying that collectively we should require a rating before we index pages," Robert Davis, the president of Lycos, told me. Translation: if you don't play ball, and label your site, search engines will ignore you. As will future users of Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser. The next version of IE will default to displaying only properly labeled web pages, according to Ken Wasch, the president of the Software Publishers Association. Since many users won't turn off that feature to reach unrated sites, many large web sites now are facing hefty pressure to self-label. Other high tech firms rushed to join the presidential limelight. Netscape promised to join Microsoft and include label-reading software in the next version of its browser. America Online's Steve Case thanked Clinton for "backing industry's efforts to make cyberspace a safer place." IBM announced a $100,000 grant to RSACi, a PICS-based rating standard originally designed for video games but adapted for the Web. The industry giant also pledges to incorporate RSACi into future products. [...]

4 3

Re: White House "kinder, gentler"-CDA
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Declan McCullagh wrote: > Subject: Re: White House "kinder, gentler"-CDA/censor empowerment meeting > > Below we see an excellent example of the naivete inherent in > Net-libertarian and cypherpunk writing. Obviously the writer does not > understand the complexities and challenges of Washington politics. In many > ways, it is like sausage being made: disgusting to watch, but a process > that results in the compromises so vital in a healthy democracy. I don't see Cypherpunks being naieve about the need to compromise in order for people to live together, but I think Cypherpunks recognize the difference between things which are inviolate and those which are not. e.g. - A group of people in a liferaft with food and poison. Debate over how much each of us can eat from a pool of food held in common may be open to compromise, but debate over whether any individual can-or-cannot-or-*must* eat poison to end suffering or "for the good of the collective" should *not* be open to compromise of the individual's right to self-determination. The problem is that the "solution" to every "problem," in the eyes of LEA's and the legislature, is to compromise rights and freedoms that are guaranteed by the Constitution. The problem is that many of the purported "problems" involve people passing judgement on the interests and actions of others and their "solution" is to criminalize other's actions on the basis of their own sense of guilt and shame. The problem is that those promoting "compromise" often have an agenda that is based on a series of compromises leading to complete abrogation of the other's position. {A prime example is the "compromise" of making already-legal crypto "legal" in return for agreeing to criminalizing other currently legal actions.) > Which is why it is inappropriate to criticize the White House's position > on the CDA. If you speak your mind aloud, you run the risk of being > marginalized like the ACLU. How can you serve your constituents then? If you are taking a reasonable, rational stance on issues and are marginalized or cut out of the loop in order for the government to disenfranchise your constituents, then you can serve your constituents by taking up arms against the criminals who are subverting the will of the people. > I can only conclude that because Mr. Finkelstein does not live inside the > Beltway, we cannot expect him to realize that it is always necessary to > remain players in the game -- even if it means giving up fundamental > liberties in the process. Duh... I certainly hope you are talking about giving up your *own* fundamental liberties to remain in "the game" (which you have every right to do). However, if you are indeed representing constituents (or readers), then you are also giving up their liberties, as well, to a certain extent. I think you need to do some serious thinking about the difference between compromising in order to defend a position and compromising in order to "remain a player in the game." If you are not strong enough to defend a position of principle and survive, then you should not be the one "in the game" defending that position. The ACLU and the NRA "marginalize" and "compromise" themselves, it is not the government, the public, or their members "doing it *to*" them. As far as I am concerned, what compromises you make in order to remain in a position to report on the beltway is your own decision to make. I just hope you have the wit and wisdom to walk with the Devil only as far as the bridge, because he always burns it behind him, and few make it back. TruthMonger

1 0

Re: White House "kinder, gentler"-CDA/censor empowerment meeting
by John Deters 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This message was also To: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com>, but apparently algebra.com eats messages with more than one To: recipient. From: John Deters <jad> Subject: Re: White House "kinder, gentler"-CDA/censor empowerment meeting In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970716080230.15247L-100000(a)well.com> At 08:03 AM 7/16/97 -0700, you [Declan McCullagh] wrote: >I can only conclude that because Mr. Finkelstein does not live inside the >Beltway, we cannot expect him to realize that it is always necessary to >remain players in the game -- even if it means giving up fundamental >liberties in the process. Declan, I think you made a phrasing error here. Perhaps you meant to say that you think it, "prudent to hold your tongue when speaking to the White House if you want a gold-engraved invitation back." To some people, it read like you were saying "give up fundamental liberties to free speech in order to 'protect the children.'" Either way, there's not much difference there: political speech MUST remain the 'most protected of all', and if someone is afraid of speaking their mind during a debate, then we've all lost. However, I think you've missed the ACLU point of NOT "playing the game". They're not trying to get on (or stay on) the short invitation list to whatever dog-n-pony show the White House trots out next. Their concern is for the Constitution, that it be followed BY EVERYONE, and that it doesn't get trampled completely by bad laws written by ignorant lawmakers. When the ACLU was not "invited" to a meeting where the entire purpose seems be that of passing another bad law to circumvent the first amendment without pissing off the same ACLU, don't you agree that perhaps the White House made a tactical error? IMHO, the ACLU should be a part of the lawmaking *process*. Rather than passing bad laws and checking for their constitutionality on the back end by people desperate enough to gamble on the outcome of a long, expensive legal process, I think we'd all be a lot better off checking for constituonal laws before we pass them at all. According to the Constitution, that's the President's job (it's what he said when he took the oath), but we all know that he only sees his job to be that of "the biggest congressman of all, gotta follow the polls of the whole nation." Perhaps the "three strikes and you're out" rule could apply to Congress: if you vote for three laws that are overturned by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional, you go to jail for 25 years to life, no parole. Debate the new laws all you want, but when it comes down to casting your vote, you'd better be certain you're not violating the Constitution. We need more accountability on the front end of the legal process, because the average among us can't afford to gamble on the back end. John -- J. Deters "Don't think of Windows programs as spaghetti code. Think of them as 'Long sticky pasta objects in OLE sauce'." +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ | NET: mailto:jad@dsddhc.com (work) mailto:jad@pclink.com (home) | | PSTN: 1 612 375 3116 (work) 1 612 894 8507 (home) | | ICBM: 44^58'36"N by 93^16'27"W Elev. ~=290m (work) | | For my public key, send mail with the exact subject line of: | | Subject: get pgp key | +--------------------------------------------------------------------+

1 0

Rep. Rick White on White House censorware summit (fwd)
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 14:32:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Rep. Rick White on White House censorware summit FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Connie Correll July 16, 1997 (202) 225-1201 (O)/ (202) 237-2136 (H) e-mail: connie.correll(a)mail.house.gov WHITE ATTENDS WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE QUESTIONS GOVERNMENT SOLUTION (Washington, D.C.) -- Congressman Rick White (R-First District) today made clear his desire to protect kids who use the Internet but expressed concern that the federal government can solve the problem. White's remarks were made during his participation in a closed meeting at the White House that focused on making the Internet family friendly. "I have four children who love to use the Net and there is no question we need to protect our kids from harmful material on the Internet. Today's meeting was a step in the right direction," said White. "But as we evaluate the next step we need to make sure we don't lure ourselves into a false sense of security. No matter what we do in the United States it won't affect sites developed in Amsterdam or Bangkok. That's why I'm skeptical that the federal government can solve this problem. The real solution will come from the smart people in the private sector." White today praised representatives of the software community, the Administration as well as family and civil liberty groups for their efforts to develop a comprehensive solution for a family friendly Internet. He encouraged the development of filtering software but expressed concern that a government based solution would be too restrictive and regulatory. White has long been a leader in keeping the Internet free from federal regulation. As a member of the select committee that developed the final telecommunications reform bill last year, White offered a compromise proposal to the CDA that would protect kids. The compromise included a proposal, defeated by one vote, to replace the "indecency" standard with the "harmful to minors" standard. Other provisions of White's compromise became part of the final bill. Those provisions included: 1) developing strong, effective laws that target wrongdoers; 2) using parental empowerment software to screen material; and 3) providing incentives for industry to develop new screening technologies. In March of 1996 White formed the Congressional Internet Caucus (IC) to help educate Members of Congress about the Internet. White believes through the work of the Internet Caucus and with the help of the Internet community, Capitol Hill has gained a better understanding of the Internet.

2 1

The Real Plan: Making the Net Safe for Censorship
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 14:16:47 -0500 From: Marc Rotenberg <rotenberg(a)epic.org> To: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: The Real Plan: Making the Net Safe for Censorship Here is an example of a proposal being presented at the White House today. The minds boggles at the number of unconstitutional provisions contained in such a brief text. Never has a freedom won in a Supreme Court decision been given up so quickly. Marc Rotenberg EPIC. ---------- http://www.safesurf.com/online.htm The Online Cooperative Publishing Act (SafeSurf's Proposal for a Safe Internet Without Censorship) Any law that seeks to regulate the Internet must first recognize the uniqueness of the medium. The Internet is not the print media or the broadcast industry. It is also not another form of phone conversation or a 900 number calling system. Instead, the Internet is the manifestation of humankind's quest for limitless two-way interaction with thought. The hyper-text layout allows us to change topics on a whim, travel to distance places, or gather world opinion on a subject in a matter of minutes. This distinctive nature of the Internet must be protected and even promoted by any legislation that claims to be fair to this medium. The interaction between the one receiving data and the one publishing it are where the core of the law should focus. Both sides have rights, the publisher has the First Amendment and the receiver has the right to be secure from harm in his home. Proper Internet law should encourage a cooperative transfer of ideas in the form of data. (It should be noted that it was the universal acceptance of basic rules of cooperation, rather than anarchy, that built the Internet. ) Any law that attempts to give one side or the other is given an unreasonable burden in conducting the transfer of data is doomed to failure. The CDA was too burdensome on the publisher. Its goal was to stop the flow of data, rather than to regulate it for the benefit of all parties. On the other hand, without a proper law, parents can purchase and activate measures to protect their children from adult material and still not feel secure in their homes from unwanted material. This is because negligent publishing of data eventually allows material that can harm the child to enter the home. Once this material is experienced by the child, its damage is done. There is no "oops" factor, no way to undo the unwanted intrusion into a child's innocence. Most importantly, any Internet law must not censor thought. It may regulate the labeling on the packaging but never the content. With the goal of achieving a greater spirit of cooperation between the publisher and the receiver of online data, we propose the Online Cooperative Publishing Act. It shall contain the following provisions: 1. The right to be able to identify the adult rating of online content before it enters one's home shall be established. This shall be a civil right giving the violated person or family the presumption in a suit against negligent publishers. 2. Negligent publishing of data shall be defined as placing adult oriented material on the Internet in such a way or in such a location that it prevents its rating from being known. 3. A rating shall be defined as a PICS compatible label that identifies degrees of adult content in a way that can be understood by computer filtering systems and is issued by a ratings service that has a minimum of 5,000 documented individuals using its system to mark their data. 4. A publisher is defined as anyone who places computer data where it can be accessed by the general public without the use of a credit card or other secure verified ID or password given out only to adults. Content that can be only be accessed by the use credit cards or other secure verified IDs is not subject to this law. 5. The code used to surround content published on the Internet shall be defined as packaging. All government identification requirements shall be limited to the code of the packaging. Nothing in this law shall be construed to require any altering or censorship of the content. 6. Three types of online publishing shall be defined: a) Publishers who accurately identify their data with a recognized labeling system. These publishers shall be considered to have satisfied the labeling requirement of the law. The right to publish shall be completely protected for those who accurately label their material. They shall be protected from all civil suits that argue negligent posting of data. Only grossly mislabeled material can be prosecuted. (Note: This is not a protection for obscene material. This law will offer no protection for obscene material.) b) Publishers who mislabel their data to the degree that it enables a minor using a label filtering system to gain access to harmful material. Data shall be considered to be mislabeled if it is posted in a newsgroup, directory or other joint area that has been labeled as free from material harmful to minors. Tampering with another's label shall be crime. These publishers may be criminally prosecuted for subverting a rating system to entice children to harmful material. The mislabeling must be to the extent that it is completely unreasonable to accept it as accurate. Only ratings that are too lenient can be prosecuted. Posting unlabeled adult material to an area that has declared itself safe for children or tampering with another's label shall be a severe criminal assault on the rights of the receiver. Sending unsolicited email to a minor that contains pornographic material or an invitation to a pornographic Web Site, shall be considered negligent enticement and may be criminally prosecuted. A bulk email service sending pornographic email must show that it took reasonable measures to insure that every recipient was an adult. (Example: The addresses used were from the membership list of Adult Check or other such adult verification services.) c) Publishers who do not label their data at all. Negligence in the absence of damages shall not be a criminal offense (but it may be a civil violation of the rights of the receivers of that data) unless the data is deemed to be harmful to minors. Then the publisher will be prosecuted for negligence. These publishers may be sued in civil court by any parent who feels their children were harmed by the data negligently presented. The parents shall be given presumption in all cases and do not have to prove the data actually produced harm to their child only that the material reasonably could be considered to have needed a label warning to protect children. 7. Internet Service Providers are considered publishers of only that material of which they directly control or gain revenue via a percentage of sales. Web Site designers may be held liable if they fail to attach ratings to Web sites, containing material harmful to minors, they design for a fee. They may, by written agreement, assign the task of rating to another legally responsible party. 8. Not every document is required to be labeled, only the default or index document of each directory. In the case of an entire web domain being of one rating, only its default top level document needs to be labeled with instructions to apply it to the entire site.

6 7

Re: HeavensGate Mirror incomplete/censored
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We decided to ditch the Pathfinder mirror site after a few weeks. The difference in the heavensgate.com and pathfinder.com sites was due, I remember, to the fact that we grabbed our copy from the heavensgatetoo.com site, which wasn't quite identical. -Declan At 03:28 +2037 3/31/5, Edgar W Swank wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >Mike Duvos recently posted here > > For complete information on the impending recycling of the planet > earth, and instructions for entering the Kingdom Level above > Human, try the mirror at... > > http://www.pathfinder.com/news/heavensgate > >I was able, finally, to get through to the original site > > http://www.heavensgate.com > >and I noticed the mirror site does not include two links present >in the original > > Earth Exit Statements by Students > > Exit Press Release: > "Away Team" Returns to Level Above Human > >which are perhaps the most interesting for "outsiders." The last >one starts > > RANCHO SANTA FE, CA -- By the time you receive this, we'll be gone -- > several dozen of us. ... > >And offers these instructions for stragglers ... > > During a brief window of time, some may wish to follow us. If > they do, it will not be easy. The requirement is to not only > believe who the Representatives are, but, to do as they and we > did. You must leave everything of your humanness behind. This > includes the ultimate sacrifice and demonstration of faith -- > that is, the shedding of your human body. If you should choose > to do this, logistically it is preferred that you make this > exit somewhere in the area of the West or Southwest of the > United States -- but if this is not possible -- it is not > required. You must call on the name of TI and DO to assist > you. In so doing, you will engage a communication of sorts, > alerting a spacecraft to your location where you will be picked > up after shedding your vehicle, and taken to another world -- > by members of the Kingdom of Heaven. > >Edgar W. Swank <EdgarSwank(a)Juno.com> > (preferred) >Edgar W. Swank <cryoprez(a)jps.net> > (for files/msgs >50K) >Home Page: http://members.tripod.com/~EdgarS/index.html > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >Version: 2.6.2 > >iQCVAwUBM0Ve8N4nNf3ah8DHAQHc0wP/SEC42UUnfke6+XhnTBjC52KqJEEo8df/ >3HctUa4eQqOBmQAIlk9YP/BpYjhSMyXaFTb9Af9AuzUbyKZIiBJcLTqaIv9MEo/q >EKYbXs3kNI2bP/txTyqNo0BVnXIW6h7infnEE5lJp+xc5d5ci5beIiMXVQxYinEl >o+VsLWmezC8= >=WsOo >-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------- Declan McCullagh Time Inc. The Netly News Network Washington Correspondent http://netlynews.com/

1 0

Re: The Real Plan: Making the Net Safe for Censorship
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Marc: What a bunch of crap! Keep out of the internet, you government flunky. Let business, commerce and freedom of speech remain in it's new home, Cyberspace. And save your regulations for someone who needs them. On or About 16 Jul 97 at 14:42, Marc Rotenberg <rotenberg(a)epic.org> wrote: > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 14:16:47 -0500 > From: Marc Rotenberg <rotenberg(a)epic.org> > To: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu > Subject: The Real Plan: Making the Net Safe for Censorship > > > Here is an example of a proposal being presented > at the White House today. =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: (408) 259-2795

4 3

Justice is Done
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- From: "--Todd Lappin-->" <telstar(a)WIRED.COM> Wednesday July 16 4:10 PM EDT TV's 'Barney' Chokes in Filming Accident DALLAS (Reuter) - An actor playing "Barney," the purple dinosaur loved by millions of children, suffered smoke inhalation when a cooling fan inside the 60-pound suit shorted out during filming of the TV show, officials said Wednesday. There was no fire but the actor inhaled smoke as he tried to get out of the suit at a Dallas studio Tuesday, said Susan Elsner, a spokeswoman for Lyrick Studios and The Lyons Group, which created and produces the hugely popular children's show "Barney & Friends." She said the actor, who was not named, inhaled a "slight amount of smoke" but was released after a routine examination. Once the incident was reported on television, scores of anxious parents called to say their children were worried their favorite dinosaur had been burned or, worse still, was a fake. "It can be really devastating to a 3-year-old," Elsner said. "They love Barney and they think that something terrible has happened to him, or that it's not real." "Barney & Friends" airs on the U.S. Public Broadcasting System and is a top-ranking program for children under age 6. It appears in 30 countries across six continents. Elsner said Tuesday's incident came as the cast was filming shows for the fall season.

1 0

Re: FCPUNX:'The Failure to Do Your Job' amendment (was Re: White House
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:15 PM 7/16/97 -0500, John Deters wrote: > A Constitutional amendment that would call for the impeachment of the > President for failing to veto any three bills that are overturned by the > Supreme Court on Constitutional grounds. This however, presupposes that the supreme court is likely to veto unconstitutional bills, and refrain from vetoing constitutional bills. This does not appear to be the case. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

2 1

DefCon revisited -- other reports on the conference
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

My report on DefCon is at: http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9707/16/netly.news/index.html Attached are some followup notes from conference attendees. -Declan ********** Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 04:26:23 -0800 From: Szechuan Death <sdeath(a)ackphft.matsu.alaska.edu> Subject: Def Con 5 Summary God _DAMN_ that was fun!!! >;-> (Despite the fact that I lost a shoe running away from a security guard, and had to pitch the other one and my Rastafarian wig to satisfy my paranoia about getting caught, it was well worth it... besides, the barbed-wire gouges are healing nicely, and I'll be getting a tetanus shot tomorrow...) Let's see - my picks for Best of 'Con: Mudge, because he's damned good (even if he _does_ work with NT) Bruce Schneier, because he's - Bruce Schneier... Val, for the dress (I still think the boots were masochistic, tho) and Winn Schwartau for being such a good sport at Hacker Jeopardy, even if he _did_ sound eerily like Alex Trebek. Next year (if they have a Def Con next year) I'm coming back with a power drill, Security Hex drivers, and a set of black pajamas - one of those security cameras _will_ be mine... _Are_ they going to have a Def Con next year? Please say yes - Def Con 6 is something to look forward to through a bleak and cold Alaskan winter... >;-> ********** Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 01:57:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Fyodor <fyodor(a)dhp.com> Subject: DC5 Wow, the list sure is quiet. I imagine this is because everyone is recovering from last weekend! And probably reading their overflowing mailboxes. Or at least repeatedly pressing 'd'. So how did it go?? Us lamers who couldn't make it want to know. Speaking of which, did anyone get a video tape together? I'll buy it! What did Mudge talk about? Did he expose any gaping holes? He tends to do that sometimes. What about *Hobbit*? Did he give any new information, or was it mostly a rehash of his (excellent) CIFS paper? And how was the bitch? Did anyone go to her "discussion"? Did it go as "well" as her IRC chats (before she was canceled)?. [...] ********** Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 08:44:51 -0400 (EDT) From: krys <krystali(a)safari.net> Subject: Re: DC5 > Wow, the list sure is quiet. I imagine this is because everyone is > recovering from last weekend! And probably reading their overflowing > mailboxes. Or at least repeatedly pressing 'd'. I can't speak for the rest of the list, but I'm still walking around in a dazed state, and hearing the ching-ching of thousands of slot machines in my head. Apparently, it's going to take me a bit longer than anticipated to recover. > What did Mudge talk about? Did he expose any gaping holes? He tends to > do that sometimes. What about *Hobbit*? Did he give any new information, > or was it mostly a rehash of his (excellent) CIFS paper? Mudge and Hobbit ended up combining their talks, and they were both excellent, and quite informative. They spoke on various NT issues, including CIFS and SMB and Microsoft's rehashing of bad password schemes among other things. Unfortunately, I was still half asleep at the time. I hope someone got audio of this - I'd really like a copy. > And how was the bitch? Did anyone go to her "discussion"? Did it go as > "well" as her IRC chats (before she was canceled)?. The Happy Hacker Panel was a blast. Disorder did a great job of fielding questions, as did Matt. Jon and Bronc were a lot more quiet, but they answered some questions as well. Carolyn did a great job of making a fool of herself. We did learn a few things, though: 1. Carolyn hacks her toaster. 2. Carolyn thinks sending http commands to the ssh port is a good idea. 3. Carolyn doesn't mind asking stupid questions. (This one was a real shocker.) 4. Dis and 303 went to a lot of trouble to get Carolyn a copy of "Secrets of a Super Hacker", which they so kindly had everyone autograph. Alas, she already owned a copy. 5. One of Carolyn's favorite hacking methods is calling people and asking them for their root password. > Has anyone done a write-up of the highlights of the experience? I noticed > that Declan has a brief piece on the Netlynews today. He'll probably post > the first couple paragraphs here anyway, so I'll save him the trouble: The only thing I've seen so far, other than what you posted from NetlyNews, was a horrible AP piece, also posted here. > Well, hopefully others will enlighten us with their DC5 experience when > things calm down a bit. Other than the lack of a working T1, I thought most things went well. It's a shame se7en's speech was scheduled at the same time as the happy hacker panel, though. I would have liked to hear what he had to say. Uhm.. has anyone else heard rumor of the hotel's satellite dishes being piled up on the 26th floor? -krys ************ Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 13:58:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Xservo <servo(a)garbage.netrox.net> Subject: Re: DC5 26th floor? well i do know there the coax ended up (flea). yeah i saw someone running down the hall with a dish and thought 'oh we are going to have a satellite phone for demo' then i was told to "move, you didn't see anything" uhhh ok..... wtf! -xs ------------------------- Declan McCullagh Time Inc. The Netly News Network Washington Correspondent http://netlynews.com/

1 0

Re: The Real Plan: Making the Net Safe for Censorship
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On or About 16 Jul 97 at 18:12, Lizard wrote: > At 04:47 PM 7/16/97 -0700, Ross Wright wrote: > >Marc: > > > >What a bunch of crap! Keep out of the internet, you government > >flunky. Let business, commerce and freedom of speech remain in > >it's new home, Cyberspace. And save your regulations for someone > >who needs them. > > You will get a lot more respect on the net once you learn how to > read messages. I'll leave it you to figure out what you got wrong. Umm, I think I understood the message, and Mr. Rotenberg's involvement in the politics of censorship, as it relates to the Internet. > Sheesh. And I retreated to mailing lists to get away from this kind > of stuff on USENET. What? I just feel that there should be no laws or resolutions or promises made or kept by the United States Government about the internet. On or About 16 Jul 97 at 14:42, Declan McCullagh wrote, about something that Marc Rotenberg <rotenberg(a)epic.org> wrote: >On the other hand, without a proper law, See, when they say "without" that means they think we need one. >parents can purchase and >activate measures to protect their children from adult material and >still not feel secure in their homes from unwanted material. Ohhhh, so scary. Not safe in the home! Imagine that. >This is >because negligent publishing of data eventually allows material that >can harm the child to enter the home. Once this material is >experienced by the child, its damage is done. There is no "oops" >factor, no way to undo the unwanted intrusion into a child's >innocence. Parental supervision? What ever happened to that? >Most importantly, any Internet law must not censor thought. It may >regulate the labeling on the packaging but never the content. Most importantly, I don't want any Internet law. ANY. Just my opinion. >With the goal of achieving a greater spirit of cooperation between >the publisher and the receiver of online data, we propose the Online >Cooperative Publishing Act. I don't want ANY Act. Knock it off. Keep out. Stay away. Save your Acts for someone who needs them. Ross =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: (408) 259-2795

1 0

Fuck You Rating Systems, Inc.
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ANNOUNCEMENT: Fuck You Ratings Software Escapes Beta-Test! We are proud to announce that "Fuck You" ratings software has managed to escape our beta-test laboratory and is now available in tit bars and crack houses around the nation. Our software makes it easy and convenient to attach ratings labels to your web site which reflect your attitude toward the anal retentive assholes who are surfing for trouble. "Fuck You, you Christian asshole! All I have on this web site is *real* pussy, not *imaginary* saviors!" "Fuck You, you LEA prick! This web site is leased in the name of my dead grandmother, so don't bother getting a subpoena unless you're willing to do some digging." "Fuck You, mom and dad! Until you flush your dope down the toilet, I don't need to hear any of your moralistic crapola." "Fuck You" ratings software has the "Lenny Bruce Found-fucking-dation" Seal of Approval. What others have to say about "Fuck You" ratings software: "Fuck." - Tim May "Shit." - Declan McCullagh "Cocksucker." - Dr. Dimitri Vulis, KOTM "Am not." - John Gilmore "Are too." - Paul Bradley "Fuck." - Kent Crispin "If you check the archives, you'll find that I said 'Fuck' earlier in this post." - Tim May "Darn." - Dorothy Denning "Heck." - Senator Snatch (hee, hee) Order "Fuck You" ratings software before Dec. 32, 2299, and get a free copy of "Bite Me" autoresponder software. {Offer not valid in states where having sexual relations with animals is against local ordinances.}

1 0