December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

John Brown
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Robert Hettinga wrote: >> And so on. Throughout history there have been those who spoke their >> mind. And others who told them to cool it, to not anger the local >> prince, to not rock the boat. > >No, Tim. Your analysis is too simple, here. My point is, all John >Brown & Co. did was get shot up one afternoon in Harper's Ferry. They >didn't help the cause of abolition one whit. "Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong" by James W. Loewen, pages 167 through 169: "After 1890 textbook authors inferred Brown's madness from his plan, which admittedly was farfetched. Never mind that John Brown himself presciently told Frederick Douglass that the venture would make a stunning impact even if it failed. Nor that his twenty-odd followers can hardly be considered crazed too. Rather, we must recognize that the insanity with which historians have charged John Brown was never psychological. It was ideological. Brown's actions made no sense to textbook writers between 1890 and about 1970. To make no sense is to be crazy. "Clearly, Brown's contemporaries did not consider him insane. Brown's ideological influence in the month before his hanging, and continuing after his death, was immense. He moved the boundary of acceptable thoughts and deeds regarding slavery. Before Harpers Ferry, to be an abolitionist was not quite acceptable, even in the North. Just talking about freeing slaves - advocating immediate emancipation - was behavior at the outer limit of the ideological continuum. By engaging in armed action, including murder, John Brown made mere verbal abolitionism seem much less radical. "After an initial shock wave of revulsion against Brown, in the North as well as in the South, Americans were fascinated to hear what he had to say. In his 1859 trial John Brown captured the attention of the nation like no other abolitionist or slaveowner before or since. He knew it: `My whole life before had not afforded me one half the opportunity to plead for the right.' In his speech to the court on November 2, just before the judge sentenced him to die, Brown argued, `Had I so interfered in behalf of the rich, the powerful, it would have been all right.' He referred to the Bible, which he saw in the courtroom, `which teaches me that all things whatsoever I would that men should do to me, I should do even so to them. It teaches me further, to remember them that are in bonds as bound with them. I endeavored to act up to that instruction.' Brown went on to claim the high moral ground: `I believe that to have interfered as I have done, as I have always freely admitted I have done, in behalf of His despised poor, I did no wrong but right.' Although he objected that his impending death penalty was unjust, he accepted it and pointed to graver injustices. `Now, if it is deemed necessary that I should forfeit my life for the furtherance of the ends of justice, and mingle my blood further with the blood of my children and with the blood of millions in this slave country whose rights are disregarded by wicked, cruel, and unjust enactments, I say, let it be done.' "Brown's willingness to go to the gallows for what he thought was right had a moral force of its own. `It seems as if no man had ever died in America before, for in order to die you must first have lived,' Henry David Thoreau observed in a eulogy in Boston. `These men, in teaching us how to die, have at the same time taught us how to live.' Thoreau went on to compare Brown with Jesus of Nazareth, who had faced a similar death at the hands of the state. "During the rest of November, Brown provided the nation graceful instruction in how to face death. In Larchmont, New York, George Templeton Strong wrote in his diary, `One's faith in anything is terribly shaken by anybody who is ready to go to the gallows condemning and denouncing it.' Brown's letters to his family and friends softened his image, showed his human side, and prompted an outpouring of sympathy for his children and soon-to-be widow, if not for Brown himself. His letters to supporters and remarks to journalists, widely circulated, formed a continuing indictment of slavery. We see his charisma in this letter from `a conservative Christian' - so the author signed it - written to Brown in jail: `While I cannot approve of all your acts, I stand in awe of your position since your capture, and dare not oppose you lest I be found fighting against God; for you speak as one having authority, and seem to be strengthened from on high.' When Virginia executed John Brown on December 2, making him the first American since the founding of the nation to be hanged as a traitor, church bells mourned in cities throughout the North. Louisa May Alcott, William Dean Howells, Herman Melville, John Greenleaf Whittier, and Walt Whitman were among the poets who responded to the event. `The gaze of Europe is fixed at this moment on America,' wrote Victor Hugo from France. Hanging Brown, Hugo predicted, `will open a latent fissure that will finally split the Union asunder. The punishment of John Brown may consolidate slavery in Virginia, but it will certainly shatter the American Democracy. You preserve your shame but kill your glory.' "Brown remained controversial after his death. Republican congressmen kept their distance from his felonious acts. Nevertheless, Southern slaveowners were appalled at the show of Northern sympathy for Brown and resolved to maintain slavery by any means necessary, including quitting the Union if they lost the next election. Brown's charisma in the North, meanwhile, was not spent but only increased due to what many came to view as his martyrdom. As the war came, as thousands of Americans found themselves making the same commitment to face death that John Brown had made, the force of his example took on new relevance. That's why soldiers marched into battle singing `John Brown's Body'. Two years later, church congregations sang Julia Ward Howe's new words to the song: `As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free' - and the identification of John Brown and Jesus Christ took another turn. The next year saw the 54th Massachusetts Colored Regiment parading through Boston to the tune, en route to its heroic destiny with death in South Carolina, while William Lloyd Garrison surveyed the cheering bystanders from a balcony, his hand resting on a bust of John Brown. In February 1865 another Massachusetts colored regiment marched to the tune through the streets of Charleston, South Carolina." -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNGpBnj7jyGKQlFZpAQEF5wf+Ld2UdeRWbtoYKqptJPbRArQX3xyP7r5t TQuLWdYqHfEmvO4RVbCnsk0qKqFYfRHN1hPRUeaj7Zf8Y3QRghUBn7QkrIPiP6bz TU8N/Jf0RLwMOJq+bl1/BgdT8Ax9FKTMYU/i5Ye6aC9cnMAGmXmx6XTGvrhFhhFM eoyj6dHm91vr5qSJBUMZto1hlXDeSee3RsrnfN8f24hagEEIppHsYFz8kKZQ/5I5 aHWewMZTYI4H6mSbmj51mXzTrhmGfxEK+qx8GIevh4zuF6uZ7/CvO2czERuIIMIO oJOICZQlDYsx8dgGHxGpmpGM/jkLeQjCngv7moQ0Kjd0KoVe84DDhw== =ESwB -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

4 3

RE: Bell vs. Woodward--ju
by harka＠nycmetro.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- -=> Quoting In:tcmay@got.net to Harka <=- In> As for Australia, your countrymen acted like sheep in giving In> up their guns. If they try that kind of shit here in this In> country, a *lot* of cops are going to get killed. Hmm, I somewhat doubt that. After all, restricting guns more and more has also been happening in the US for quite a while now and overall resistance has been rather minimal. While there may be a few, who'd actually take up guns "in the defense of liberty" the gross majority of Americans seems just as "sheepish" as people anywhere else. Too many hours of watching (the good) "Cops" has left an imprint in many minds... Granted, America does have a constitution establishing civil rights for it's citizens, but America is also the country (among others) of "But I have nothing to hide" and "If it just saves one child"... In> (Not necessarily by me, though I'll defend my property and my In> constitutional rights as best I can. But the militia and In> patriot and anti-New World Order movements are preparing for In> war.) "Defending my property" is probably one of the more clear situations, where it is fairly easy to make a judgement call, and I support having the choice over necessary actions to take, if your property gets forcefully invaded by whomever and your personal freedom is being threatened. But on a more general basis things tend to become more complicated, IMHO. What if it's somebody else's liberty being taken? How many people would then take up arms (see Waco, Ruby Ridge, Roby/Ill. etc.)? It is much harder then to decide, if it's time for action or not. Especially because of pre-filtered information, that make it hard to base such a decision on "available" facts. When Reuters reported about the Shirley Allen Siege, in the first line they mentioned her to be "mentally disturbed" (implying for many, that the police-action was justified and correct in order "to save her"). People not immediately within the vicinity will have a hard time to decide, if the media-information is correct and subsequently, if "the war has now begun". (In Shirley Allens case, her fellow neighbors _did_ protest the police-action because they _knew better_, but people further away had other information and thus no incentive to defend her in any way.) The same happened in Waco, Ruby Ridge etc.etc., even with Jim Bell to a degree. Thus the .gov is able to pick us off one by one and I doubt, that a lot of "cops are going to get killed" because of it. It'd be rather interesting to devise a "Cypherpunks-911" system, that immediately provides others all over the country/world with necessary information, if something happens, and more importantly, _what_ happens (before the media faithfully recites the police-stories of "what happened") Ciao Harka /*************************************************************/ /* E-mail: harka(at)nycmetro.com (PGP-encrypted mail pref'd) */ /* PGP public key available upon request. [KeyID: 04174301] */ /* F-print: FD E4 F8 6D C1 6A 44 F5 28 9C 40 6E B8 94 78 E8 */ /*<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>*/ /* May there be peace in this world, may all anger dissolve */ /* and may all living beings find the way to happiness... */ /*************************************************************/ ... "Use a Cipher - Be Free!" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAgUBNGiG/zltEBIEF0MBAQGlIQf9HfcmkDmcx2uSq1s97lGpWsqGycUYgZN6 qbUTG1NhxRiKTvnGgB+5L7ki2kVF3BR89V7I02pDKZYo3cAHakO5hKmp1bVsWcIU FQhnRINsdLERVTQOdOVvcxUg5iHnPuEl1FQtRPP93051AWZeals+CDW4UrIAOycD /RS7TRc/tn4TaFR2ZSIj9sDd2Q/51hUYuoFKMPhX121lCCYr8SjDYVb9fGRY92pb 9wUqO+gWtxqMl/lPPf2SFrfR3QOXFRe9dQ5IPsyC9SOQQMLxdUuBWwx9fKyK7JlQ BdIoFqHhxMDH3l9sDRqQVlyrAZ38dYe31i3+RwTJcyissbT+tGrdBQ== =3NTr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption...

1 0

SWAT: A Growth Industry
by Dan Veeneman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

US News & World Report 11/17/97 Everyone gets into the terrorism game Too many SWAT teams spells confusion BY DAVID E. KAPLAN In 1995, Bill Clinton signed a presidential directive stating that the nation has "no higher priority" than stopping terrorists who have weapons of mass destruction. Congress responded with new laws and allocated more than a billion dollars in support. The result has been an extraordinary proliferation of counterterrorism programs, making this one of the few areas of rapid growth in the federal budget. But in the rush to respond, say critics, government agencies have failed to coordinate their efforts, and no one is even tracking how much taxpayer money is being spent. According to a September report by the General Accounting Office, more than 40 federal agencies have roles in combating terrorism. All of them appear eager to gobble up the new funding. Among the big winners is the Pentagon, which is getting $52 million to train local officials to cope with chemical, nuclear, and biological attacks. Other agencies have set up units inspired by NEST, the U.S. Department of Energy's Nuclear Emergency Search Team, begun in the 1970s to thwart nuclear extortionists. The FBI has added DEST, its new Domestic Emergency Support Team, and the State Department now runs FEST, the Foreign Emergency Support Team. The Public Health Service is busily planning MMSTs, or Metropolitan Medical Strike Teams, for 100 cities. And on Energy Department drawing boards are plans for BEST, a Biological Emergency Search Team, and CEST, its chemical counterpart. (Critics contend that the Energy Department lacks both expertise and a mandate to deal with biological and chemical weapons, but that has not stopped it from seeking funds.) And if an emergency is big enough, one can always call in the Marines, who have formed their own $10 million Chemical Biological Incident Response Force. Among the biggest beneficiaries is the FBI, which has seen its counterterrorism budget nearly triple to $243 million since 1994. Bureau officials vow to "double the shoe leather" of agents working on chemical and biological terrorism and are outfitting their elite Hostage Rescue Team with $3.3 million worth of gas masks and protection suits. The bureau also wants to build a multimillion-dollar Level 3 biolab, a tightly sealed facility that would permit work with many of the world's deadliest pathogens. Some experts note that the Army and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention already have more than a dozen Level 3 labs; the bureau says it can best conduct forensic investigations in its own facility. The private sector is cashing in as well. Contractors are arranging much of the Pentagon's $52 million local training program, while millions more are available for research and development. "It's the latest gravy train for consultants," says Larry Johnson, a terrorism consultant. Even the toughest critics acknowledge that many of the new programs are needed. For example, they agree that the training of local emergency workers to deal with a chemical or biological attack is long overdue. The problem, they say, is that the various programs have grown so quickly that coordination and oversight have yet to catch up. A classified study this year for the CIA and Energy Department calls for a national response program to deal with terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, directed by the White House. "The system is not well organized at all," says former CIA head James Woolsey, one of the study group's co-chairs. One sign of the lack of oversight can be seen at the Office of Management and Budget, the White House agency charged with managing the federal budget. An OMB guide lists over 600 areas of specialization by the agency's staff, including entries for Micronesia and marine mammals. Yet nowhere is there an analyst tracking the budget for counterterrorism, a national security priority. "It's not something we have a hard number for," says an OMB analyst. The rapid expansion of programs--likely to cost billions of dollars overall--has left some observers dismayed. "It was not our intent to create this thing," says John Sopko, who as deputy chief counsel to Sen. Sam Nunn played a key role in drafting legislation to respond to the new terrorism. "We did not want a massive entitlement program for counterterrorism." -- cypherp(a)decode.com (Dan Veeneman) Cryptography, Security, Privacy BBS +1 410 730 6734 Data/FAX

1 0

Mad as Hell
by Tim May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Several swirling themes here.... * More versions of the CDA...which the Supreme Court may let stand. (Cf. my comments about "death by a thousand cuts" and the Constitution, which is being "exceptioned" and "reinterpreted" into oblivion.) * Crypto legislation is far from dead...it is just dormant right now. * Game theoretically, Congress and the other bureaucrats win by expanding the number and scope of laws. There is little constituency for lessening the number and scope of laws, despite public opinion. * Anti-militia rhetoric continues, with politicians saying militias must be reigned in. (See misc.activism.militia for many examples.) * The U.N. is trying to get the U.S. to "ban racism." Meaning, ban free choice in whom one hires (already the case with Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act, despite what this means for freedom of association). Meaning, place even more limits on free speech. Meaning, pass laws against certain organizations. (If Paladin is upheld, expect more use of the civil law system to put various clubs and organizations out of business.) * And so it goes. More laws, more prisons, more pressure points on us all. But the public is getting fed up. Here in my state of California we decisively shot down the use of hiring quotas and admissions quotas based on race. And the courts have upheld this. The free ride for unqualified minorities and "people of color" is over, at least here in California. (And a dozen or so other states are considering similar moves.) Right-wing talk show hosts are more popular than ever. Here's just the latest example, in the article below. The article makes some good points. Note especially the part about the murder of Donald Scott, the guy murdered in his bedroom by BATFag agents. No doubt Bob Hettinga thinks my mention of this case is dangerous, that good little bunny rabbits don't make Big Brother angry. Well, I will say what I said before: the BATF and LA County Sheriffs responsible and involved in this case should be tried in a criminal court, should be convicted (based on what I have seen), and they should then be sentenced to die in the gas chamber at San Quentin. This is, after all, what they do to gang bangers who shoot up liquor stores. Cops should face execution. In this case, a mass execution of the dozen raiding officers would send a strong message to other cops.) Here's the item: Hollywood Producer Says "Enough Is Enough! AARON RUSSO IS MAD AS HELL Aaron Russo, the Hollywood producer who produced The Rose with Bette Midler and Trading Places with Eddie Murphy is now on a crusade to wake up Americans to the wholesale assault on their liberties being launched by governments at every level. "America is becoming a totalitarian police state!" thunders Aaron Russo as he paces back and forth across the stage of the colorful "Mad As Hell" TV talk show set. He's not at all happy with the sinister turn that America has taken in recent years and, like the name of the new show, he is "Mad as Hell." But he's determined to do something about it and that is what "Mad As Hell" is all about. A pilot for the show, including the above scene, is being aggressively marketed to the networks and cable channels. Preview showings of the show have drawn full houses in Las Vegas and Los Angeles and Russo's angry outbreaks have provoked wild, enthusiastic response wherever he goes. It appears that Russo isn't the only one who's "Mad as Hell." The theme of the first pilot, which was sent to ISIL staff for evaluation, featured interviews and vignettes with Frances Plante Scott; Brenda Grantland president of FEAR (Forfeiture Endangers Americans' Rights), and Judy Osburn, herself a victim of civil forfeiture and author of the book Spectre of Forfeiture. Frances Plante Scott told of her chilling ordeal with Park Service officials attempting to seize their ranch and of the SWAT team raid in which her husband, Donald Scott, was shot to death by trigger-happy police. Ventura and Los Angeles County Sheriffs, D.E.A. and the Park Service were all vying to get a piece of the action and seize the valuable property using trumped up marijuana charges (there was no marijuana as if it mattered). Following this event, Ms. Scott's ranch house was burned in the Malibu firestorm and later was subjected to punitive harassment by the IRS. Colorado state Senator Charles Duke, also in the studio audience, spoke about the 10th Amendment Sovereignty Resolution, a modern version of Magna Carta designed to force a constitutional showdown with the federal government. At this point in time 22 states have emulated Duke by passing the resolution in their states. Duke, incidentally, is scheduled as a speaker at the ISIL world conference this August (see our conference web page). The video ends with an eloquent statement on modern slavery by Rod Taylor. In mid-June, ISIL pres. Vince Miller, Exec. VP Jim Elwood, and Board Member Jarret Wollstein had a meeting with Aaron Russo to discuss the terrible dangers facing America today. We all agreed that a majority of people have been kept almost completely in the dark regarding the massive abuses of police power in this country. I remembered the joke about how the govenment must think we are all mushrooms because they seem to enjoy keeping us in the dark and feeding us horseshit. "How could they know," I exclaimed. "The national media is as controlled as Pravda in the old Soviet Union." Any real news is scrupulously excised from national news sources and the waves of government propaganda are so pervasive that even some of our own members believe the government line in spite of themselves and think we have lost our marbles. We agreed that there must be a vehicle for a wake-up-call and Russo's new program could be the ticket. Russo also talked of establishing, with the assistance of ISIL, a massive early-warning fax network to warn citizens of dangerous legislation about to be passed. He has also created an action manual with the phone and fax numbers of Members of Congress so that you will know at whom to vent your wrath With ISIL's world wide communications network computer, fax, phone plus a network of correspondents we will be able to feed the data and expose abuses of power before they get off the ground. A merchandise line with caps, t-shirts with the blazing "Mad As Hell" logo is also planned. Stay tuned for more developments in fuure issues of the FNN. FREEDOM NETWORK NEWS International Society for Individual Liberty - The World's Foremost Liberty Network Editor: Vincent H. Miller * Assistant Editors: James R. Elwood * Tim Starr * Anton Sherwood * Mark Valverde * June/July 1996

3 3

Re: FC: CDA: The Sequel -- introduced in the U.S. Senate
by Marc Rotenberg 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Danny - Since you have associated EPIC's position on the White "compromise" with CDT's, I feel some obligation to correct the record. We did not, as you recall, support that bill which included the harmful to minor standard because we believed it was contrary to generally accepted First Amendment standards. CDT supported the White measure and went to great pains to blame the members of the conference committee who did not endorse it. (I'd be happy to dig out the news reports on this point if there is any question). The Court's opinion in Reno v. ACLU seems to support our position. I do not think the White bill that you supported would have survived a Constitutional challenge. I wish to make a second point also. You accused Declan of mischaracterizing CDT's position on the White legislation. I'm still not clear exactly what he got wrong. But you have surely mischaracterized Larry Lessig's position in suggesting that he supports passage of new legislation. The O'Connor opinion, which by the way is a concurrence and not a dissent, relies on an article by Lessig in which he observes that restrictions have been upheld where procedures are established to segregate (zone) adult content. Thus the so-called Ginsburg statute. I read Larry's analysis and his subsequent commentary more as a warning than a recommendation. Establish such zones and content-based controls become permissible. Thus O'Connor's opinion seems to suggest that labels used to distinguish content based not on traditional library classifications (history, literature, etc) but on whether such information is suitable for minors would make it easier to permit regulation. I am not particularly interested in a lengthy back and forth on this topic. I do think it is important to set the record straight on EPIC and CDTs views on the White bill. We did not agree then. You cannot change that now. I also think you should think a little more carefully about whether the rating systems you promote will make it easier for a CDA II to survive a Constitutional challenge. Regards, Marc. At 12:05 AM -0000 11/13/97, Daniel J. Weitzner wrote: >Declan, > >It's kind of you to get the word out about this new Coats bill, but you >have managed to seriously mischaracterize CDT's position on the White >legislation of 1995. We did not believe that Congress should have passed >the White Compromise, and certaily never "embraced" it, as you write. >Based on my initial reading of the Coats bill, we will certainly oppose it. > >The Coats bill, with it's emphasis on age verification as a means to >"protect" kids and provide online publishers with liability limitation, is >actually a direct result of Justice O'Connor's dissenting opinion in the >CDA case and her desire to try to "zone" cyberspace. Following Larry >Lessig, she suggests that instead of relying on individually-controlled >blocking and filtering software, it is better for the government to require >that certain content be placed behind age verification firewalls. Prof. >Lessig prefers this zoning to what you have characterized as "censorware." >I hope that you, as an opponent of user empowerment filtering tools like >Larry, do not prefer this O'Connor/Lessig approach too? > >I can't remember whether you were actually around in 1995, either as >journalist or activist, so let me remind you of what we and other civil >liberties advocates like Marc Rotenberg of EPIC said. > >In the New York Times (12/2/95, p.A1) > > "While it does embody much of the original Exon proposal, it does so in >a way >that tries to embody a constitutionally recognized standard," said Jerry >Berman, director of the Center of Democracy and Technology, a nonprofit group >that focuses on civil rights and technology issues. > >and Jerry went on to say: > >"I don't think we need any legislation at all." > >Marc seemed to take a similar position: > >"It is preferable to the Exon bill, but ultimately this issue will be >resolved in the courts, which is where it should be resolved," said Marc >Rotenberg.... > >Both CDT and EPIC recognized that as a plain matter of constitional law, >the "harmful to minor" standard is more broadly accepted by courts around >the country, but that the legislation was still an unwise infringement on >Internet speech. > >We still believe that. > >We can certainly have a discussion about the various legislative strategies >employed during the final days of the CDA debate and House-Senate >conference, but frankly I think there's more important work to do. > >I hope that future discussions on this list can focus on how to defeat >misguided efforts like the Coats bill, instead of misleading >characterization of the past. > >Finally, Declan, I would suggest that when you want to characterize CDT >positions you talk to someone at CDT, or at least find some documentation >of your assertions. I know that you recognize you have an obligation as a >journalist to check facts and sources with some care. That sort of care >would also help in discussions among activists. I'm never exactly sure >whether you think of yourself as a journalist or activist when writing to >FC, but whichever it is, I hope you'll try to avoid this confusion in the >future by talking to us. > >At 5:01 PM -0500 11/12/97, Declan McCullagh wrote: >>Just when you thought the Internet was safe from government >>censorship, Sen. Dan Coats has introduced a sequel to the >>notorious Communications Decency Act. >> >>The bill punishes commercial distributors of material >>that's "harmful to minors" with six months in jail and a >>$50,000 fine. Unlike the original CDA, it applies only to >>web sites -- not to chatrooms, newsgroups, or email. >> >>Like the original CDA, it's certain to be controversial. >>Sen. Coats (R-Indiana), chief GOP sponsor of the original >>CDA, said his bill takes into account the Supreme Court's >>unanimous vote in June that struck down his first try. "I >>have studied the opinion of the Court and come before my >>colleagues today to introduce legislation that reflects the >>parameters laid out by the Court's opinion," he said on the >>Senate floor. >> (ftp://ftp.loc.gov/pub/thomas/c105/s1482.is.txt) >> >>Coats' brainchild is strikingly similar to (and in fact not >>as broad as) an ill-fated version of the first CDA that >>Rep. Rick White (R-Wash.) and the Center for Democracy and >>Technology embraced as a "compromise" in December 1995. >>Like Coats' bill, the White-CDT measure restricted material >>that was "harmful to minors." >> (http://www.epic.org/cda/hyde_letter.html) >> >>A Coats staffer said the measure requires adult >>pornographers to place images behind a firewall. "If you're >>involved in the commercial distribution of material that's >>harmful to minors, you have to take the bad stuff and put >>it on the other side of a credit card or PIN number," David >>Crane said. >> >>But the bill applies to more than just visual pornography. >>Its definition of material that could hurt minors includes >>any offensive sexual "communication" or "writing" without >>redeeming value. It applies to text-only web pages -- or >>bookstores that place sample chapters on the web. >> >>Since it covers anyone who "through the World Wide Web is >>engaged in the business of the commercial distribution of >>material that is harmful to minors," it could apply to >>Internet providers and online services as well. >> >>The FCC and the Department of Justice would be required to >>publish on their web sites "such information as is >>necessary to inform the public of the meaning of the term >>`material that is harmful to minors.'" Solveig Singleton, a >>lawyer at the Cato Institute, says: "The Supreme Court >>struggled for years to come up with a national defintion of >>obscenity. They failed. Harmful to minors is >>obscenity-lite. The FCC and Department of Justice won't >>have any luck coming up with a definition of >>obscenity-lite." >> >>Not a problem, predicts former porn-prosecutor Bruce >>Taylor, now the head of the National Law Center for >>Children and Families. "This bill will ensure that the >>hardcore pornographers don't get off the hook," he says. >> >>Next step for Coats is to attract co-sponsors and to forward >>his bill to the Senate Commerce committee. Some judges >>criticized Congress for holding no hearings on the original >>CDA; Coats isn't going to make that mistake again. "There >>will be a concerted effort to build a substantial >>legislative history," says David Crane. >> >>This bill won't be the end of Congressional interest in >>cyberporn. "You'll probably see other legislation come >>forward. Introducing this is not abandoning our other >>concerns," Crane says. >> >>-Declan >> >> >>-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>This list is public. To join fight-censorship-announce, send >>"subscribe fight-censorship-announce" to majordomo(a)vorlon.mit.edu. >>More information is at http://www.eff.org/~declan/fc/ > > >============================================================================ >* Value Your Privacy? The Government Doesn't. Say 'No' to Key Escrow! * > Adopt Your Legislator - http://www.crypto.com/adopt > > ------------- > >Daniel J. Weitzner, Deputy Director <djw(a)cdt.org> >Center for Democracy and Technology 202.637.9800 (v) >1634 Eye St., NW Suite 1100 202-637.0968 (f) >Washington, DC 20006 http://www.cdt.org/ > ================================================================== Marc Rotenberg, director * +1 202 544 9240 (tel) Electronic Privacy Information Center * +1 202 547 5482 (fax) 666 Pennsylvania Ave., SE Suite 301 * rotenberg(a)epic.org Washington, DC 20003 USA + http://www.epic.org ==================================================================

1 0

Re: CDA: The Sequel -- introduced in the U.S. Senate
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Danny, Trying to deny that CDT supported the White harmful to minors "compromise" is a sad attempt at history revisionism. As Marc Rotenberg said, "CDT supported the White measure and went to great pains to blame the members of the conference committee who did not endorse it." Which is of course true. After the vote you lost on the harmful to minors "compromise": -- Comm Daily reported: Jerry Berman, exec. dir. of Center for Democracy & Technology, which had tried to forge compromise on issue, said he had been betrayed "by liberal Democrats, who are supposed to be protectors of the Constitution. -- IISR reported: Jerry Berman, executive director of the Center for Democracy and Technology, called the [vote on the] White proposal "a significant defeat for civil liberties in cyberspace. -- EETimes reported: "The House came within an inch of getting it right," says Jerry Berman, Center for Democracy and Technology. Either the world's population of journalists are in a vast clandestine conspiracy to misrepresent your organization's position or ... CDT (gasp!) did in fact embrace the HTM so-called compromise. You must remember, after all, that CDT declined to sign a December 5, 1995 coalition letter that told Congress to "to reject *all* proposals to impose new government censorship regulations on cyberspace." Why didn't you sign it? (http://www.epic.org/cda/hyde_letter.html) Instead, as I recall, CDT was up on stage with the anti-porn advocates to unveil the "compromise." (I admit my memory's fuzzy on this point. I'm sure you'll clarify.) Where was I then? When the news of the "compromise" broke in December 1995, I was in Cambridge having brunch with Harvey Silverglate (who's now defending the Au Pair case) and other local free-speech advocates. As I wrote in a post to f-c at the time, all of us were astonished to see the headline in the New York Times: "Civil liberties groups accept compromise." Of course it was CDT that accepted it. ACLU said at the time here on f-c that "no true civil liberties group" would ever agree to supporting that kind of censorship. Also, contrary to what you claim, I'm not an "opponent" of filtering software. Parents have the right to use it with their children. I believe, however, that public institutions must abide by the First Amendment when installing it. I'm glad you provided this opportunity to clarify these issues. Now perhaps we can move on to discussing the Coats bill. -Declan On Wed, 12 Nov 1997, Daniel J. Weitzner wrote: > Declan, > > It's kind of you to get the word out about this new Coats bill, but you > have managed to seriously mischaracterize CDT's position on the White > legislation of 1995. We did not believe that Congress should have passed > the White Compromise, and certaily never "embraced" it, as you write. > Based on my initial reading of the Coats bill, we will certainly oppose it. > > The Coats bill, with it's emphasis on age verification as a means to > "protect" kids and provide online publishers with liability limitation, is > actually a direct result of Justice O'Connor's dissenting opinion in the > CDA case and her desire to try to "zone" cyberspace. Following Larry > Lessig, she suggests that instead of relying on individually-controlled > blocking and filtering software, it is better for the government to require > that certain content be placed behind age verification firewalls. Prof. > Lessig prefers this zoning to what you have characterized as "censorware." > I hope that you, as an opponent of user empowerment filtering tools like > Larry, do not prefer this O'Connor/Lessig approach too? > > I can't remember whether you were actually around in 1995, either as > journalist or activist, so let me remind you of what we and other civil > liberties advocates like Marc Rotenberg of EPIC said. > > In the New York Times (12/2/95, p.A1) > > "While it does embody much of the original Exon proposal, it does so in > a way > that tries to embody a constitutionally recognized standard," said Jerry > Berman, director of the Center of Democracy and Technology, a nonprofit group > that focuses on civil rights and technology issues. > > and Jerry went on to say: > > "I don't think we need any legislation at all." > > Marc seemed to take a similar position: > > "It is preferable to the Exon bill, but ultimately this issue will be > resolved in the courts, which is where it should be resolved," said Marc > Rotenberg.... > > Both CDT and EPIC recognized that as a plain matter of constitional law, > the "harmful to minor" standard is more broadly accepted by courts around > the country, but that the legislation was still an unwise infringement on > Internet speech. > > We still believe that. > > We can certainly have a discussion about the various legislative strategies > employed during the final days of the CDA debate and House-Senate > conference, but frankly I think there's more important work to do. > > I hope that future discussions on this list can focus on how to defeat > misguided efforts like the Coats bill, instead of misleading > characterization of the past. > > Finally, Declan, I would suggest that when you want to characterize CDT > positions you talk to someone at CDT, or at least find some documentation > of your assertions. I know that you recognize you have an obligation as a > journalist to check facts and sources with some care. That sort of care > would also help in discussions among activists. I'm never exactly sure > whether you think of yourself as a journalist or activist when writing to > FC, but whichever it is, I hope you'll try to avoid this confusion in the > future by talking to us.

5 7

about RC4
by Nobuki Nakatuji 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is inhabit RC4 sourcecode same RC4 developed RSADSI perfectly ? ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

1 0

INFO-RUSS: Action alert: A. Nikitin (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: >From INFO-RUSS-request(a)smarty.ece.jhu.edu Wed Nov 12 18:39:46 1997 Message-Id: <9711121841.AA10833(a)smarty.ece.jhu.edu> Errors-To: INFO-RUSS-request(a)smarty.ece.jhu.edu Sender: INFO-RUSS-request(a)smarty.ece.jhu.edu Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 12:53:13 -0500 To: info-russ(a)smarty.ece.jhu.edu From: Union of Councils <ucsj(a)ucsj.com> Subject: INFO-RUSS: Action alert: A. Nikitin --------------------------------------------------------------------- This is INFO-RUSS broadcast (1200+ subscribers). Home page, information, and archives: http://psi.ece.jhu.edu/~kaplan/IRUSS/inforuss.html To post, or to subscribe/unsubscribe, mail to info-russ(a)smarty.ece.jhu.edu INFO-RUSS assumes no responsibility for the information/views of its users. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Sen. Bingaman and Rep. Skaggs Appeal to Colleagues to Urge Review of Nikitin Case UCSJ encourages human rights supporters to call their Senators and Representatives and act on Nikitin's behalf Below is a "Dear Colleague" letter from Congressman David Skaggs (D-CO) on the case of Alexander Nikitin. Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) is circulating a similar letter in the Senate. Please call your Senators and Representatives and ask them to sign these crucial letters. Maximum pressure and publicity is needed to help convince the Russian authorities to drop this case. It is essential that Nikitin's rights are protected and that the Russian security apparatus not be permitted to win this power struggle. (For more on the Nikitin case, please email Jason Silberberg at jsilb(a)ucsj.com.) Union of Councils ucsj(a)ucsj.com November 4, 1997 RUSSIAN ENVIRONMENTALIST CHARGED WITH TREASON FOR WARNING OF NUCLEAR WASTE DISASTER Dear Colleague, I am writing to bring to your attention new developments in the case of Alexander Nikitin, a case that has broad repercussions for the future of democracy, free speech, and due process in Russia. I ask you to join me in sending the attached letter to Russian President Boris Yeltsin. Alexander Nikitin, a Russian environmentalist who co-authored a report that revealed a nuclear waste disaster in the making, has been charged with treason by the Russian Federal Security Service (the former KGB), which completed its investigation on September 19. The Russian Procurator, Yuri Skuratov, who was appointed by President Boris Yeltsin, will now have to decide whether to move to trial in this case. Nikitin co-authored a report published by the Norwegian environmental group, Bellona, that revealed that unprotected nuclear waste is stored at bases and shipyards near Murmansk, and that retired nuclear-powered submarines docked in the Arctic Circle still contain highly radioactive spent fuel. Despite the fact that all the information used for the report was taken from open sources, Nikitin was charged with having released state secrets. Nikitin had been charged with violating secret Defense Ministry decrees -- even though the Russian constitution prohibits such charges. He has now been charged with violating a Defense Ministry decree that was issued seven months after Nikitin was arrested -- even though the Russian constitution prohibits ex post facto prosecution. Federal Security Services investigators have changed their determination five times regarding the choice of decrees on which to base their investigation. This case is critical, not only for Russian environmental policy, but for the future of Russian democracy. It is disturbing if Russia is unable to face up to these enormous environmental problems without prosecuting the citizen that exposed them. It raises questions about whether free speech and the publication of reports critical of the government will be permitted. The grave issues of due process in the Nikitin case cause doubt about whether Russia has truly put Soviet-style justice behind it. Please join me in sending the attached letter to Russian President Boris Yeltsin, asking him to seek a thorough review before any decision is made to take this case to trial. If you would like to cosign the letter, or if you have further questions, please call Sue Hardesty of my staff at 52161. Sincerely yours, David E. Skaggs -------------------------------------------------------------------- His Excellency Boris Yeltsin President of Russia Moscow, Russian Federation Dear Mr. President: We are writing to bring to your attention the case of Alexander Nikitin. We understand that the Federal Security Service has completed its investigation, and the Procurator General must now decide whether to take the case to trial. We applaud the enormous strides Russia has taken since the end of the Soviet era to establish a rule of law, and end the old Soviet-style approach to criminal prosecution. That is why we are very concerned that this case, if pursued, would mark a serious setback for the rule of law in Russia. Alexander Nikitin co-authored a report published by Bellona, a Norwegian environmental organization. The report revealed that unprotected nuclear waste is stored at bases and shipyards near Murmansk, and that retired nuclear-powered submarines docked in the Arctic Circle still contain highly radioactive spent fuel. Despite the fact that all the information used for the report was taken from open sources, Nikitin was charged with having released state secrets. Nikitin had been charged with espionage for violating secret Defense Ministry decrees -- even though the Russian constitution prohibits such charges. He has now been charged with violating a Defense Ministry decree that was issued seven months after he was arrested -- even though the Russian constitution prohibits ex post facto prosecution. Federal Security Services investigators have changed their determination five times regarding their choice of decrees on which to base their investigation. It appears that the rule of law as embodied in the Russian constitution has not been followed in this case. We urge you to ask your government's Procurator General to order a thorough review. We believe that such an unbiased review of the case would lead to a dismissal of the charges against Alexander Nikitin, and ask that you take steps to see that such a review is conducted. We see this case as extremely significant. Thank you for your consideration of our views.

1 0

Re: Minor Language Note
by nobody＠neva.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Tim May wrote: >>> While it was not Tim's intention to make Jim look like a criminal, >>> the use of a defendent's full name is often used to connote >>> criminality. >>> >>> Lee Harvey Oswald, John Wilkes Booth, John Wayne Gacy, Richard >>> Milhous Nixon, William Jefferson Clinton... there are many >>> examples. > >George Washington Carver, James Fennimore Cooper, Richard Dean >Anderson, Clare Booth Luce, Robert Anton Wilson, Francis Scott Key,..... We don't usually think of these people as defendants. >(Sometimes people have three names, sometimes two names, popularly >used. Criminality has little to do with it. For example, Richard >Speck, Charles Manson, John Walker, Aldrich Ames, Ted Kaczynski, >Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols. Most of them presumably have middle >names.) I did not say that the use of middle names was required for defendants. >Oh, and as to divining what Tim's "intention" was, this mindreading >and psychoanalysis shtick is getting old. My opening sentence was intended to be friendly. It was supposed make clear that it was not suggested that you thought Jim Bell was a criminal. Certainly that was obvious, but a little redundancy never hurts. It looks like the meaning didn't convey properly, so I'm sorry if I seemed to be psychoanalyzing you. It's generally considered courteous to call people by the name they wish to be called. Jim Bell seems to go by the name "Jim Bell". (This would not hold if somebody makes an inappropriate request such as asking to be addressed as "James Dalton Bell, Defender of the Faith, God of Vengeance, and Lord of the Universe.") Back to the original point, I believe that it's hard to find instances in which two-named people are involuntarily converted to three-named people when they are not charged with a crime. Lee Oswald became "Lee Harvey Oswald" after the Kennedy Assassination, for example. I've also noticed that Wardens have a marked tendency to refer to inmates on death row by their first name, even when speaking publicly. As in, "Don's death was very upsetting as it was obviously very painful." (Paraphrased from a real example.) I believe the wardens are expressing a few things with this name choice. One is that they have complete power over the inmate. Teachers call children by their first names, and it seems to me that there is an element of that here. (Admittedly, this is a troubling image.) Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNGpi1JaWtjSmRH/5AQEsLwf9H4ZmvsVVkQgh9WU/HOUZYdet7+9p9nBf frvYBTgRNoOPiM0pl7Yusl/GhAK6nhCpEb0dCUaWjFLW889I5CyvrbqkzWoA6tj0 k5ULieQs390JEzGAn1LEkvzUCjlEBn5WFgpzJCFYzWpAMaQPT6qcczRIXqoCPG7l R822+EBuL9eikWruy+8V6Bt45mQyB/aHemhmIa/V4YKCn7mc8FmfZ/qQHknaPdFP wJz3cXmw1im4Br/0UkLv9bD2CfZCqcq74VpbujMvUFnsAOmbrWJVqlSV+Gs1MDXf Zli7VCarhzAU9j4sPU9gbTBYsuApRYd8IrJtvOfQcDDMw0dEd9/tjA== =Az6E -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Mad as Hell
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May wrote: >Colorado state Senator Charles Duke, also in the studio audience, >spoke about the 10th Amendment Sovereignty Resolution, a modern >version of Magna Carta designed to force a constitutional showdown >with the federal government. This sounds interesting! This is what I had in mind, in that other thread about "What Will Revolution Look Like" >[...]A merchandise ine with caps, t-shirts with the blazing >l "Mad As Hell" logo is also planned. However, this is unfortunate. Trinkets like these may bring in useful and needed funds, but they take away from the seriousness of the effort, from the respect the cause deserves. They make the wearers look like weenies playing a child's game, rather than serious individuals in their rights minds with the concentration and commitment to do important work for the purpose at hand. (In a silly mood, I could see a gathering of such supporters in a large, crowded courtroom, all wearing T-shirts saying, "It's *ShowTime* !!!" ) .. Blanc

1 0

Re: Tim May's offensive racism (was: about RC4)
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anonymous of EFGA wrote: >This illustrates what a liability the poster has become to the cypherpunks. >The group is becoming just another militia front, identified with racism >and white supremacy, applauding violent murder of government agents, >one step from applauding the Oklahoma killings. Its original purpose >all but forgotten, the list has died, poisoned by the hatred flowing from >its leader. Wait a minute, that list is way too short. This list is far more diversely mean-spirited, and venomously hilarious, than that. It offers a lot more hatred and humor than you give credit for, or maybe can enjoy. All praise to Tim, beloved mad as hell assassin, he's one of the sharpest killer humorists-satirists here, call's the jokes and the buffoons as he sees them, insults hot shot leaders and fawning beggars indiscriminately. Hate and love on both Glocks. Check the anarchives: Tim's no leader, says it often, proves it more so by destroying anyone who pretends to be, scares off anyone who tries to suck up to him for protection, and promises to kill (filter) the bloodsuckers if they send PGPed tips. Kill them with ridicule for not thinking for themselves, paying their own way, lapping others' blood and brains. If that doesn't work he tells a public joke about their overtures. Then the anon shits fly. Is he not these very days razzing the big iron folks, taunting the tank in Tienamen Square? We'll yet see some anon turds for this, too, maybe yours is one. Some have weird sense of playfulness, cut your throat to see you flop. Call you a leader, a bullseye target. Hettinga, helluva beloved Bob, another bleeding edge satirist, self-flagellator for philo-fun and E$, this is adose of clap also for your exemplary rant of a schtick of a buffoonery of a calling them as you deadeyedly see them miraging the desert of Maine.

1 0

Re: CDA: The Sequel -- introduced in the U.S. Senate
by Mikhael Frieden 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:01 PM 11/12/97 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote: >Just when you thought the Internet was safe from government >censorship, Sen. Dan Coats has introduced a sequel to the >notorious Communications Decency Act. >The bill punishes commercial distributors of material >that's "harmful to minors" with six months in jail and a >$50,000 fine. Unlike the original CDA, it applies only to >web sites -- not to chatrooms, newsgroups, or email. On the legal side this narrowing has a modest merit in that the government has established (rightly or wrongly) the power to control publishers. It is difficult to find a reference to a website that does not make a reference to publishing. Thus it falls under a reasonable interpretation of existing law and precident (and distinguished from, the internet is a telephone as the frozen brains would have it.) The critical problem is obvious, harmful to minors. Tooth decay is harmful to minors, all product advertising that can be construed as increasing the incidence of tooth decay is harmful to children. It also brings up the German "I can trump your arguement and invent a new one" excuse for banning Zundelsite, that it was "ethically disorienting to children." If one presumes ethical disorientation is a harm then one has to hold all forms of education that promote independent thinking are harmful to children. It would therefore make huge numbers of academic sites criminal including the Gutenberg Project for carrying materials that resulted in the prosecution of Socrates for essentially the same crime. It is not a viable concept without a definition of harm to children. Given current events, any mention of air bags is not merely harmful to children but lethal to children. -=-=- I have contacted the owner with a problem. It still sends to me but does not receive. Until the mailing list problem is corrected I will try to continue participation this way. Let me know if you have a problem with this method.

1 0

Re: SWAT: A Growth Industry
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dan Veeneman wrote: > US News & World Report 11/17/97 > Everyone gets into the terrorism game > BY DAVID E. KAPLAN > >Congress...allocated more than a billion dollars in support ... > Even the toughest critics acknowledge that many of the new programs are > needed. For example, they agree that the training of local emergency > workers to deal with a chemical or biological attack is long overdue. Are these guys with the same government that ignores the fact that the development of antibiotic-resistant *natural* diseases due to the greed of the medical and pharmaceutical industries may well lead to more death and disaster than any terrorist threat?

1 0

(Fwd) Victory For Microbroadcasting!!!!
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 10:45:16 -0800 (PST) From: gregruggiero(a)earthlink.net (Greg Ruggiero) Subject: Victory For Microbroadcasting!!!! Friends, This should raise the hopes of all microbroadcasters. We, who oppose the barriers against free communications and the corporate takeover of our media institutions, need to do all we can to ensure that the airwaves really become free. Support your local alternative media. Howard Rosenfeld ---------------------------------------------- ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FREE RADIO BERKELEY & MICROPOWER BROADCASTING At 7 PM on Thursday, [ed: correction - Wednesday] November 12 attorneys for Stephen Dunifer & Free Radio Berkeley received a 14 page decision via fax from Federal District Court Judge Claudia Wilken announcing her ruling in favor of Stephen Dunifer and Free Radio Berkeley. Her ruling denies the FCC's motion for summary judgement for a permanent injunction, states that she has jurisdiction in this case and that the FCC's regulatory structure is unconstitutional. Further, she orders the FCC to submit within 14 days a brief on the constitutional issues raised. Essentially Judge Claudia Wilken affirms all the merits and arguments raised by the defense attorneys for Stephen Dunifer and Free Radio Berkeley. Stay tuned for further details. The full text of the decision will be posted ASAP. A victory party will take place on Saturday evening, November 15 in Berkeley. Place to be announced as soon as one is secured. Everyone is invited. Stephen Dunifer Free Radio Berkeley ******************************************************************* NEW YORK Media for Change <<< FREE MEDIA >>> Changing the Media ALLIANCE listserve: nyfreemedia(a)tao.ca voicemail: (212) 969-TOFM website: http://artcon.rutgers.edu/papertiger/nyfma ******************************************************************* =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://ross.adnetsol.com Voice: (408) 259-2795

3 3

Think Locally...Act Globally / Re: FTC, Canada, Mexico officials launch "health claim surf day"
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > ****************************************** > > FTC Launches North American Health Claim Surf Day > > ****************************************** > > by Michael Evers ... > > The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), its federal and state law > > enforcement partners, and public health and consumer protection > > agencies from Mexico and Canada are sending you (and hundreds of other > > Internet advertisers) this message based upon a review of the promotion > > you disseminated through the Internet. How about if you are selling something on your web site and giving pointers to information/advertisements located on a foreign website? Let me guess...hhmmm...disabled grandmothers who are selling their home-grown chamoemille tea will have their homes confiscated, and corporations with expensive lawyers will be approved for an exemption on some flimsy grounds. Anybody know of any Mexican laws I can break by putting something illegal there, but legal in Canada, on my web site? Any CypherSpics who would like to put up a "Canadian Hate" page that I could link to? CyhperCanuck

1 0

Re: Mad as Hell (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 20:02:38 -0800 > From: Blanc <blancw(a)cnw.com> > Subject: Re: Mad as Hell > Tim May wrote: > > >Colorado state Senator Charles Duke, also in the studio audience, > >spoke about the 10th Amendment Sovereignty Resolution, a modern > >version of Magna Carta designed to force a constitutional showdown > >with the federal government. > > This sounds interesting! This is what I had in mind, in that other thread > about "What Will Revolution Look Like" > > >[...]A merchandise ine with caps, t-shirts with the blazing > >l "Mad As Hell" logo is also planned. > > However, this is unfortunate. Trinkets like these may bring in useful and > needed funds, but they take away from the seriousness of the effort, from > the respect the cause deserves. They make the wearers look like weenies > playing a child's game, rather than serious individuals in their rights > minds with the concentration and commitment to do important work for the > purpose at hand. > > (In a silly mood, I could see a gathering of such supporters in a large, > crowded courtroom, all wearing T-shirts saying, "It's *ShowTime* !!!" ) A reasonable motto should be something like: 10th? I'm all for a political faction, they really don't have to be as organized as the Big Two & Little Third would like you to believe. Perhaps the concepts of multiple political parties with their own popularist views has become truly effective because of the impact of technology in particularly on concept expression, and communications. What needs to happen is a small group of suitably inspired whiz kids need to get together and form a complete plan for creating legal cases to decide the respective aspects of the 10th. ARTICLE X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. In some manner the question of whether the first sentence is an implicit limitation of *all* laws and regulations at the federal level needs to be tested. In other words, each and every law *must* trace its existance to a specific set of sentences in the Constitution. If it could be found to be so then each and every law and regulation at the federal would have to pass constitutional review at every stage of its existance within the federal government. Then a case needs to found of some situation say the founding of a church based on smoking marijuana was a illegal entity under the 1st where it is found that such organizations were illegal (rather trivial I suspect). At this point the wording of the 1st becomes *much* more specific. ARTICLE I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Under this light it becomes glaringly clear that not only is Congress not allowed to even discuss legislation respecting claims of religion. Per the 10th that would fall to the individual states to resolve under their individual constitutions. This would force many of the major social issues onto a regional basis where they could be dealt with in a plurality of ways. Issues regarding infringement of private ownership of weapons becomes glaringly clear in that light. It simply isn't a federal issue. Per the 10th it must be dealt with at the state level. Other issues such as no searches except under warrant issued with probable causes automaticaly prohibits various sorts of searches including samples of body tissue. The issue of the use of federal military troops for any sorts of operations except those respecting the operations of the defence of the US would be clearly decided. Such silliness as the Supreme Court finding that teachers have the Constitutional right to search kids because of supposed criminal wrong doing is clearly shown for what it is, an violation of an individuals civil rights. Warrants can only be issues on probably cause. Under these sorts of conditions the various consensual crimes our government now routinely practices would end. This is vary scary to the status quo crowd. And here lies the rub, the initial 10th test cast must be irrefusable concerning the 10th. The question then becomes, "What is the issue?". What law or aspect thereof is found so compelling that the Supreme Court *must* accept the case for ruling *and* must find in favor of Constitutional review. For maximum impact somebodies life must hang in the balance in such a manner that some fundamental question of legal lineage is brought forth. This reduces the issue to its most fundamental, "Is the right of the state more important than the life of the individual?" Why some lawyer has not used this basic question in the numerous murder trials is truly amazing. If he wins a legal precidence is set. If he looses and gets to appeal. Then walk that appeals train right up to the fundamental question of the 10th. Forcing the Supreme Court to either reject, stating clearly their answer in favor of the majority, or else to review and find that laws must pass Constitutional muster. Either way the question gets answered. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

2 1

CDA: The Sequel -- introduced in the U.S. Senate
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Just when you thought the Internet was safe from government >censorship, Sen. Dan Coats has introduced a sequel to the >notorious Communications Decency Act. Oh joy. >The bill punishes commercial distributors of material >that's "harmful to minors" with six months in jail and a >$50,000 fine. Unlike the original CDA, it applies only to >web sites -- not to chatrooms, newsgroups, or email. ^^^^^^^^^ What defines a "web site?" "The World Wide Web" originally meant "material accessible using the HyperText Transfer Protocol." The media and Klintonkov distorted the term into something else, but that's what the term still means. USENET newsgroups do not become "Internet chat groups" just because the clueless sheeple start calling them that. Of course this is how the government thinks. If I make a posting to USENET did I post the material on a "web site?" If I make the material accessible via ftp is it posted on a "web site?" What if it's available using FSP? How about IRC? What about a Bob's Proprietary Pornography Transfer Protocol? How are they going to track this? What happens when I post this material on an Eternity server outside of the U.S.? What if I just keep posting my porn through the remailer network? What if the porn site is in Amsterdam? What if I just get tired of the totalitarians and double-blind the entire process using the remailer network and while I'm at it I accept anonymous payment? What if I bring my porn into a public computer lab and upload it somewhere without any identification or with a psuedonym? Is the P.Q.R.T. (Pornography Quick Response Team) going to bust through the door before I've done this, which takes all of about 30 seconds? What happens when people start posting such porn to sci.chem? What about sci.crypt or alt.christnet? What about misc.legal? comp.org.eff.talk? news.groups? >Like the original CDA, it's certain to be controversial. >Sen. Coats (R-Indiana), chief GOP sponsor of the original >CDA, said his bill takes into account the Supreme Court's >unanimous vote in June that struck down his first try. "I >have studied the opinion of the Court and come before my >colleagues today to introduce legislation that reflects the >parameters laid out by the Court's opinion," he said on the >Senate floor. > (ftp://ftp.loc.gov/pub/thomas/c105/s1482.is.txt) Is this bill available on the "World Wide Web?" I would argue that reading this bill is "harmful to minors" because it completely ignores the Constitution of the United States. Further, it encourages people to lie, cheat, violate oaths of office, and generally abuse power. Senator Coats, what an example for America's youth! >Coats' brainchild is strikingly similar to (and in fact not >as broad as) an ill-fated version of the first CDA that >Rep. Rick White (R-Wash.) and the Center for Democracy and >Technology embraced as a "compromise" in December 1995. >Like Coats' bill, the White-CDT measure restricted material >that was "harmful to minors." > (http://www.epic.org/cda/hyde_letter.html) >A Coats staffer said the measure requires adult >pornographers to place images behind a firewall. "If you're >involved in the commercial distribution of material that's >harmful to minors, you have to take the bad stuff and put >it on the other side of a credit card or PIN number," David >Crane said. What happens when they say "this material must be put behind a firewall?" Do I comply with the letter of the law if I firewall some random port like 49554? What if I firewall everything except port 80? What if I use a dedicated box as a network router and firewall? These things are all "firewalls." Who determines what is a "valid firewall?" Microsoft? A Coats staffer? A credit card company? What happens when these credit card numbers are sent all over the network in the clear? As it stands now you usually send a credit card number when you want to buy something. What they want here is for everybody to go send credit card numbers all over the net just to view free previews and get to text-based information. And, of course, since we have to protect society from the Four Horsemen, these credit card numbers will likely be sent in the clear or using encryption which can be cracked by a college student running a distributed cracker at idle priority on each of the several hundred machines in a lab. And getting even *one* credit card number is worth a lot. What prevents me from setting up a bogus site which asks for credit card numbers to view some nudie pictures I pulled off USENET or other sites and just storing the credit card numbers? How many of these people access just one porn site so it would be that easy to track? How can anybody prove that's what I did? Once handing credit card numbers out is as second nature as SSNs, all bets are off. And what happens when Little Johnny goes and gets Daddy's credit card and uses the number as ID? If they aren't charging, this probably won't be showing up on an invoice. And Little Johnny has plausible deniability anyway. What about stolen credit card numbers? Who determines what is "material harmful to minors?" Coats? The Supreme Court? Psychologists? Scientologists? Klitonkov? The United Nations? My hamster? Duncan McLeod of the Clan McLeod? Who? Well, I guess this outlaws any meaningful political discussions, discussions of abortions, any meaningful social discussions, any meaningful discussions about sex or romance, any discussions about the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, any discussions of firearms, any discussions of hand-to-hand combat, any discussions of self defense, any discussions of guerilla warfare, any discussions of pyrotechnics, any discussions about chemistry, lists like BUGTRAQ where exploits are posted, et cetera ad nauseum. All of those things might be considered "harmful to minors." Damn the Constitution and freedom! If it saves the life of one innocent yet incredibly stupid child then just forget about that pesky freedom thing. After all, that's only the domain of "far right-wing nazi gun nuts and radicals," right? >But the bill applies to more than just visual pornography. >Its definition of material that could hurt minors includes >any offensive sexual "communication" or "writing" without >redeeming value. It applies to text-only web pages -- or >bookstores that place sample chapters on the web. Yeah! Go Senate! Go ahead and ban any digital copies of books like 1984 (oh the irony!), digital versions of the Christian Bible, the Torah, et cetera ad nauseum. >Since it covers anyone who "through the World Wide Web is >engaged in the business of the commercial distribution of >material that is harmful to minors," it could apply to >Internet providers and online services as well. How are they going to enforce this one? Mandate that sites only serve "government certified safe" or "independantly certified safe" sites? Turn off all phone and network access, jam all radio and sattelite communications, and legislate that anybody caught with a laser capable of communications or floppy disks with files on them which might contain stegoed data will be summarily executed? >The FCC and the Department of Justice would be required to >publish on their web sites "such information as is >necessary to inform the public of the meaning of the term >`material that is harmful to minors.'" Solveig Singleton, a >lawyer at the Cato Institute, says: "The Supreme Court >struggled for years to come up with a national defintion of >obscenity. They failed. Harmful to minors is >obscenity-lite. The FCC and Department of Justice won't >have any luck coming up with a definition of >obscenity-lite." >Not a problem, predicts former porn-prosecutor Bruce >Taylor, now the head of the National Law Center for >Children and Families. "This bill will ensure that the >hardcore pornographers don't get off the hook," he says. "This bill will ensure that our freedoms are further eroded." >Next step for Coats is to attract co-sponsors and to forward >his bill to the Senate Commerce committee. Some judges >criticized Congress for holding no hearings on the original >CDA; Coats isn't going to make that mistake again. "There >will be a concerted effort to build a substantial >legislative history," says David Crane. >This bill won't be the end of Congressional interest in >cyberporn. "You'll probably see other legislation come >forward. Introducing this is not abandoning our other >concerns," Crane says. >-Declan My fellow Cypherpunks, what we have here is best explained by an analogy like this: The government decides that the youth of America is corrupting themselves and harming their health by drinking soft drinks. The Congress introduces legislation to outlaw softdrinks. Everyone except the National Law Center for Fruit and Vegetables and some other far flung totalitarians think that this legislation is rediculous and an unreasonable restriction of rights. It passes anyway. It goes to the Supreme Court and the Court shoots it down. Two years later Congress again tries to outlaw soft drinks. Since outlawing of soft drinks en masse was not allowed by the Supreme Court, they just outlaw Coke. This passes. People start drinking Mountain Dew and JOLT instead. The Justice Department brings charges against these drinkers, the people who manufactured it, the people who sold it to them, and the truck drivers who shipped it. It goes to court and the defendants claim that the law wasn't broken. The State says that the law was indeed broken because "everybody refers to soft drinks as Coke." This, of course, begs the question of why, if "Coke" is a synonym for "soft drinks" they passed a law after the Supreme Court clearly stated that they couldn't do such. If "Coke" is not a synonym for "soft drink" then they have no charge against these people. Welcome to the Land of the Freeh.

1 0

Re: Jim Bell sentencing delayed
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Greg Broiles wrote: >perhaps I'm just low on conspiracy juice this week, but I think that Kent's >suggestion that he's in the hospital is probably the best - his recent >letters/calls to Blanc mentioned a persistent staph infection. Ach! Greg, that was supposed to be a "secret", since Jim said he didn't want publicity over his case and I cheated by letting John post it on his web site. Although, it's not like most everyone suspected, hmh. But anyway, what do you mean by saying that John's books were returned to him? I sent a letter to Jim in the mail this past Saturday, encouraging him to call me again and update me on his situation and on the sentencing date. So I'll be waiting and will pass the info on to John. .. Blanc

1 0

Washington Times: "FCC wants to extend V chip to computers"
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Front page: "Not content to monitor the progrom on your television set, the FCC now wants to install a vchip in your personal computer -- a move that could extend the agency's reach into cyberspace... "Lawmakers said the vchip law was intended only for TV sets..." "Some question whether this will lead to FCC regulation of the Internet..." Dave Banisar, Rep. Tauzin, Ed Black make appearances. -Declan

2 1

Re: Privacy Software
by Mix 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Adam Back wrote: >Monty Cantsin writes: >> The PGP source code is not the worst I've ever seen, but it's kind of >> odd. > >I had a go at doing something with it (I'll let you know when I get >it to work) -- I had the damnest job figuring out what was going on. >The problem I found with understanding it were all of the nested >functions called through vectors of functions and handler functions. >Makes it hard to inspect what will happen without running the code >under a debugger -- lots control flow is decided at run time. So in other words, even though we have the source code we don't really have confidence that we can tell what it is doing. Even though the source code is available, I don't think it has been studied all that carefully. For example, hardly anybody knew that the PGP 5.0 source had CAK features lurking in it. Or, remember that bug with the random number generator? As I recall (i.e., feel free to correct me), it was in Colin Plumb's code and he found it himself. This would imply that it got by whoever went over the code when it was released. Not reassuring. C is a big part of the problem. Also, PGP was originally designed to operate on some fairly slow machines and they tried very hard to optimize the hell out of it. Now, however, cycles are a lot cheaper. I think we should give up speed for clarity. Slow code that we can really trust is better. And, the PGP code does a bunch of careful things which complicate it like burning the stack all the time. In my judgement, this is misplaced. If you don't trust the platform you are using you can't fix it in your encryption code. >> We should consider a rewrite, which gives us the added benefit that >> it will be completely unencumbered. > >Sounds maybe worth doing. It's at least worth talking about. Hashing out the design is a good exercise and it can inspire other people when they are designing their own crypto systems. >> It also gives us the opportunity to write it in a language other than >> C, one which truly supports encapsulation. C code is hard to verify >> with great confidence because it is possible to obfuscate it and >> introduce security holes. This means that C requires one to trust the >> authors to a greater extent than is desirable. > >Some C programmers do have fun writing obfuscated chicken scratchings, >but you _can_ write C code optimised for readability. What's really bad is that any part of the code can betray the rest. Let's say you had somebody who was really very good who wanted to weaken things. All he or she has to do is have a little obfuscated code someplace that undermines the majority of nicely designed and implemented C code. A truly encapsulated language is a lot easier to verify because if none of the magic functions exist in the code (easy to check), you can be confident that when you have verified one piece of code that the other pieces can't interfere. >What language did you have in mind? modula-3? iso-pascal/borland >pascal? Hadn't thought of Modula-3, but that is an excellent idea. Java would be a candidate, although performance is an issue. There's been some good buzz around about Ada. It might perform well and it's here to stay. Is Modula-3 being used in any serious way by anybody? If it is, let's consider it. (I think there is a Modula-3 -> C compiler out there someplace, which means it's totally portable.) A good language choice would probably save a lot of time. >> The whole issue of compatibility is an interesting one. Would it be a >> good idea to have a cryptographic system which was completely >> incompatible with PGP, given the Big Brother risk? > >Theoretically perhaps, however I'm not sure a system will get very far >unless it can automatically interoperate with pgp2.x and 5.x. It would be nice to just shed the PGP baggage for the moment and think about how we would do a system from scratch for our own uses. Ultimately, this system could reside in an application which also speaks PGP. Or, it could just be its own thing. >You could build something which did the right thing automatically >based on public key types: > >hypothetical cpunks mail system (HCMS) We should use the acronym CMR. (Cypherpunk Message Remodel? Suggestions invited.) >HCMS -> pgp2.x use RSA/MD5/IDEA and pgp2.x message formats >HCMS -> pgp5.x use DSA/EG/3DES/SHA1 and pgp5.x message formats >HCMS -> HCMS use whatever goodies you want, stego, mixmaster, etc. CMR nee HCMS should be an independent system. The mail system you are using should decide whether to use it or some other system depending on the correspondent. While it may seem crazy to toss compatibility, it has some advantages. For instance, the only people who will use it are the hardcore types. I like the idea of an exclusive crypto system that only cool people who are fairly with it use. What do you think about mandating a key size? I like the idea that use of the protocol communicates "I am very serious about my privacy." It's also slightly cripple resistant. (And, were I to consider mass market concerns which I am not, I would say that it makes it easier for the user to make the right choice.) How about finding a way to eliminate indicators? It's nice not to leak any information at all. It also makes super-encryption stronger. If each encrypted layer looks like noise, the total key size is the sum of the bits of each layer. One way to eliminate indicators is through the prior agreement of the meaning of random bits. In effect, you can say "when you see 0x234B4D234F, it means, outside layer RSA/IDEA, middle layer 3DES/SHA1, and inner layer the Captain Crunch decoder ring." This information can be exchanged at the time of key authentication, securely, by telling your correspondent how you are encrypting everything. Later, you can send more random bits when the tank starts getting low. Super-encryption is something we should do more of. Let's say we believe, conservatively, that any particular cipher we are using has a 10% chance of falling in a particular year. In ten years, that's a 35% chance of compromise. But if three different ciphers are used, there is only a 4% chance that it will fall in a decade. Super-encryption has been unpopular because it takes too long. However, if you are using a modern OS, even if it takes five minutes running in the background it's just not a big deal. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to break out authentication from the communication protocol. Strictly speaking they are not the same thing. Both programs can be called by the same message composition program. This naturally leads to using separate communications and authentication keys. I am not fond of PGP's signature design. The "BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE" stuff clutters things up. How about a one line signature with a previous character count? Note that this wraps beautifully without modifying the message itself. It's unobtrusive. ASCII armor also sets off alarms with me, but I'm not sure exactly how to solve this problem. It seems right to define protocols in terms of full 8 bit bytes. Perhaps just uuencoding encrypted messages is the way to go? For authentication, it would probably be okay to define an ASCII mode. I think key management is good to think of as a separate application. The right way to do this isn't clear, yet. The Web of Trust is a neat idea, but I think the concept is flawed because you are unlikely to tell something sensitive to somebody you wouldn't (or couldn't) authenticate yourself. Ultimately it relies on things like driver's licenses issued by Big Brother, which is terrible. >> Something I've never liked about PGP is their approach to encrypting >> to multiple keys. For one thing, the PGP crowd seems overly >> conservative with bit expenditure, which is silly because bits are >> cheap. This means that creating entirely separate messages is >> completely economical. > >This is more secure I agree. The real kicker with this problem is >people who turn on encrypt to self -- I don't want messages with >encrypt to self (an extra door into the message) on them in my >mailbox, nor coming over the wire headed to me. > >You can see the reason for multiple recipient though -- it's too ease >integration into mailers -- you can process the message and give it >back to the mailer, and then it can still send the message To: x, y; >Cc: z. But this is just bad design if you care about security in a serious way. Even assuming you have to reveal who you are sending the message to, why reveal that three messages are related to each other? This is yet another mass market issue. If we were to do it the right way, all the mail header fields would be contained inside the encryption envelope. >Doing away with multiple crypto recipient risk is more an issue of MUA >integration than rabid conservation of bits. I'll buy that. >> So, perhaps a protocol which does not support anything more than one >> encryption key per message would be a good idea. > >You don't have to use it. I tend not to. I never use encrypt to >self, and I get annoyed with people who send me messages encrypt to >themselves, and very rarely do I use Cc on encrypted messages. If the protocol doesn't accept multiple keys for a message it is slightly CAK/GAK resistent. And, it's a nice statement of intent. It's also nice to have tools which help you to behave securely without carefully thinking about it when you are using them. >> And, I wonder if compression doesn't actually weaken security? Let's >> say I forward a known message with some commentary. Since the >> compression tables will be known, it seems like the increased size of >> the message could provide some interesting information about the >> preceding commentary. All by itself, this probably doesn't matter, >> but combined with other information it might result in a breach. In >> any event, that which is ambiguous should be eliminated. > >I don't understand this comment. Let's say it is known with high probability that I am forwarding a particular message with some unknown prefacing comments. It seems to me that (possibly) some information is be revealed by the size of the compressed encrypted text. That is, the known message will compress to a different size depending on your prefacing comments. For example, if I use lots of words that are in the known message, it will compress very well. The result will be significantly smaller than if I use words that never appear in the known message. This might not be a problem, but I don't like "mights". Also, I like things which are really orthogonal. There's no particular reason for the compression to be part of an encryption program, if you use it at all. >One thing that some people don't realise is that the plaintext gets >mixed into the random pool as an additional source of entropy. In >automated environments (lots of MUAs which set +batchmode), this is >all the entropy you'll get -- except for the original key presses to >generate the key, and a small bit of entropy from the system clock. > >It's fairly good normally because the way entropy is mixed in is a one >way function of the randseed.bin based on IDEA. To make use of this >an attacker would need a copy of your randseed.bin before you sent the >target message, and to have suspicions of what the message is. Even >after a few known messages it would still likely be possible to >attack, because the entropy added by the clock is partly predictable >from the message headers Date: field, and because it isn't that much >entropy each time. The randseed.bin file has always bothered me. What we really want is some good sources of entropy in which we have tremendous confidence. Also, if you signed the message the Date: field won't be needed. This is bad design, in my opinion. A signature and a time stamp are two different things. For instance, I would prefer not to time stamp my messages as it reveals the state of my clock and the transit time of the messages I send. >> It would also be nice if the messages were padded to predetermined >> sizes, say 10K, 20K, 40K, etc. (Once compression is eliminated this >> is less of an issue.) > >It would be nice to have a system where you send 100k and receive 100k >per day regardless. Say in 10 10k packets which get poured into a >mixmaster node. Yes, this would be good. Although, I would think of this as being on a higher level than the encryption program itself. Probably we want an entire communications management program which tracks everything you've sent and analyzes your activity for weaknesses. >> How about a one time pad mode? One time pads are more practical than >> widely believed. Many things we talk about we *do* want to keep quiet >> for the rest of our natural lives. > >Right. > >The problem with this is that you need random numbers. How do you >generate them? You only need to generate keys once in awhile. This means that you can go to some trouble when doing it. For instance, you might have some hardware which is not routinely connected to your machine. >If you use PGP's random pool, one suspects that if IDEA becomes >attackable at some point in the future the random pool will start to >look more like a predictable PRNG to the attacker. > >I wonder how good linux's /dev/urandom would be if MD5 becomes even >more suspect. Well, neither of these would be good for a one time pad, of course. It would be neat to have, say, three sources of hardware randomness and then XOR the result with the above pseudo random output. It's hard to recognize non-randomness, so some overkill is good practice. BTW, it would be nice if PGP or CMR/HCMS would let you supply bits of entropy by hand. It takes awhile to generate 128 bits by hand, but for some things it would be worth it. >> It's clear that going the corporate route has to be handled with some >> care. Given the political implications, investors have certain risks. >> >> Also, many people seem to switch into a different mode as soon as they >> have a company. Anything which they perceive as increasing their >> profits becomes good. PGP, Inc. has gone this way, we've seen First >> Virtual do some unsavory things, > >What did FV do? I know they don't use encryption, and Nathaniel >Borenstein wrote a few hype-hype articles about the _gasp_ newly >discovered security danger of "key board sniffers". The hype article was what I had in mind. I doubt very much that Borenstein would ever have been involved with such a thing outside a corporation. It seems to have a bad effect on some people. The problem is, you don't always know where that bad effect stops once you've noticed it. >> and even good old C2 has made a few people uncomfortable. > >Only thing slightly negative C2 did was to make a dubious decision in >handling of Mr Nemesis's fabricated claims about stronghold flaws. >C2 still rocks, though right? Comme ci, comme ca. The libel suit business was uncool. Also, there was a press release relating to one of the cracks which was somewhat misleading, I thought. C2 has shown some symptoms of institutional paranoia, which is bad. Sameer's comments along the lines of "this isn't some cypherpunk hobby" are also not reassuring. All of these things arise from being in a corporation. The problem is that I'm not tapping their phones. I don't really know what they are thinking or doing. When something happens that is troubling, it's hard to restore trust. I don't give C2 five stars. That said, C2 has done some very good things. People seem to like Stronghold a lot. It really is a secure product. They publish their source code. I do like what they have to say in many of their press releases and they are getting certain ideas into the mainstream. (The Forbes article, for instance.) Sameer's one line comment "sell code" had a lot of influence on me, too. >> It doesn't have to be this way, of course. Look at Comsec Partners. >> We don't see any "conversation recovery", lying press releases, or any >> other nonsense from them, just a beautiful product. > >Quite so. C2 hasn't got "web traffic recovery" either :-) No kidding. Yes, C2 is miles above PGP, Inc. in my book. But, Comsec gets the five stars. They have never done anything or said anything that gave me less than complete confidence. >> What I like about selling software is that you could actually make >> good living by doing the right thing. And, after all, if you've spent >> six months writing something, why shouldn't the users kick in a little >> money instead of freeloading? I would like to see more crypto users >> in the habit of paying for tools and in the habit starting security >> companies. > >New payment models will need to come in. How can you extract money >from a cryptoanarchist? Copyright? Patent? Hah, hah. The important thing is establishment of the custom. Most cryptoanarchists with class will pay. The way to do this is to make it clear from day one that it is not free software. If you want to run it, you should buy it. (The problem with share ware is that people get used to "borrowing" it.) This should work well. Cryptoanarchists, in my experience, have pretty high integrity. Some people will pirate, true, but that's life. Ironically, people who honestly discuss their skepticism of intellectual property laws are probably less likely to pirate. >If we get a real eternity service going (not the poor imitation perl >script up now where all traffic goes through a server unless you >install it locally) software copyright could become a thing of the >past :-) > >Trust might be one way to go, rely on good will. Or paying for >technical support. Or mixmaster, or DC net packet delivery postage >charges. These are good ideas. You know, it would be cool to define a software architecture for remailer software. Different remailers have different properties and different strategies. They may continue to differentiate. When you decided to trust a particular remailer, it could give you a module of code with a standard external interface which prepares messages for that particular remailer. Putting your idea another way, the code is "free" but the remailers cost money. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNF1+s5aWtjSmRH/5AQFvHQf+PFXqriw8FoMMcsflEf1Jo55Myl94Luj8 UxSQ9YCq6+dedih7j/FJ3RLL0LtCTa7Sn6E/kGmgqzwcAcfzcjavpl7joNdHU9Yo pS81mXeZ3kw34Nj1hbaX2j6Shx4+46uNUskfXThi6bz3lh1OM2hy7xF63blB2m1I MVt786tah76UfveYlWR/MXK+ZN2DwUvejiPX+bP7vNqaDsXRyrW5mX1vVUuKf6po 5PRZ5wSMKQF/ULm7tOb/g8otoj2w84iir8kckLJiiSs4Xm3hk6+QbDVIhz31aPD3 D2PXIDEXz+x+Vtr5xPIurvpfEo5GpgFdMv5Ox1y796yHr6jjJ8BJjQ== =rjFe -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

5 6

Re: Forwarded mail...
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Jim Choate wrote: >> Fortunately some of these "good" lawyers already exist at the Institute for >> Justice. Basically, they are a libertarian version of the ACLU. They've >> accomplished some good things and deserve the support (read $$$) of >> freedom-minded individuals everywhere. (note: I'm not connected with them >> in any way; just letting the cypherpunk community know about an organization >> in sync with our views) >> >> "If you seek a courtroom champion for individual liberty, free market >> solutions, and limited government, look only as far as the Institute >> for Justice. When politicians pass sweepingly intrusive laws and >> bureaucrats build their empires of paperwork and power, only the >> Institute for Justice brings them to account in court." >> -- http://www.InstituteforJustice.org/ > >Thanks, I'll check them out as I am unaware of their position. I should add that they haven't done anything in the field of cryptographic or technology issues, but have focused most of their efforts on protecting small entrepreneurs from overly zealous government agencies, particularly on the local level. One item I found of particular interest was a report they published in July 1996 about the restrictive barriers New York City has erected to prevent entrepreneurship (i.e., expensive/restrictive licensing fees, tough penalties for doing business without the required permits, etc.). An earlier post on this list referred to NYC as a cesspool of socialism. There is truth to this statement. Socialist politicians tend to punish those who help themselves, all for the public good of course. [snip] >> Bill Benson has done some extensive research (his book is called The Law >> That Never Was) regarding the 16th Amendment (the so-called Income Tax >> Amendment) and how it was ratified. According to the information he has >> uncovered through exhaustive research in D.C. and all of the state capitals >> of the then 48 states, the 16th Amendment was never ratified by 3/4ths of >> the states. (see http://www.trustclarks.com/theman.html for more info) >> >> Friends of mine have spoken to Mr. Benson about this, and he says that the >> courts won't touch it with a ten foot pole. He even sells a package (or at >> least he was selling it back in 1995) of legal information about the >> non-ratification of the 16th that can be used as a defense in an income tax >> case. According to Mr. Benson (in 1995), each of the cases was dropped when >> the defense made it clear they were going to argue their defense based on >> this point. >> >> I understand that folks in the "patriot" movement have tried to take this to >> the Supreme Court without success. The Court refused to hear it. >> >> Assuming Mr. Benson's research is accurate and legitimate, the 16th didn't >> even come close to being ratified and is truly a Law That Never Was. Think >> about that next April 15th...the IRS's "lawful" authority is based upon a >> legal fiction. That's why it's called >voluntary< compliance. > >Actualy, his research is one of the reasons that I am so interested in an >actual lawsuit. > >What if somebody were to go for several years with no contact at all with >the IRS, and no intention of making contact. Then when approached that >person makes enough noise to guarantee that they will be going to court. Funny you should mention this. A few folks have this very intention. :-) >What would it then take to bush-whack the beggars? What is the absolute last >point that your defence must be revealed prior to your presenting your case >to the jury? I'm not following the wording of this last question. Could you clarify? > The reason I use the first person is because to me it seems >critical that no lawyer is actualy used in the defence. As I understand it, >and I ain't no lawyer, there are some actions that a defendent may do if >representing themselves that lawyers are prohibited from doing. Among them >is stating the obvious fact, if the jurors don't believe the law is just >they may refuse to find for that reason. If the Constitution and the actual >record of votes in concert with the general feeling of excess regarding this >matter doesn't prove the case, what will? That's exactly the point. And that, I believe, is why the Supreme Court -- or any court for that matter -- will not go near this issue. It is the pivotal point that would collapse the whole house of cards that is the Income Tax. The feds have a huge vested interest in keeping the system going as long as they can (Y2K bugs and all) and this issue is a veritable hornets' nest. Nerthus p.s. For those of you keeping tabs on nyms, this is the last time I will include my public key in the body of my email. - -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 mQENAzRc0lEDFQEIALF2JX7RgDLC6nnSa7BmcczGumTRxhXx5mHoqPcGY95VGAVD 49iN/+59BBrHKxOU5JX5F9kWEsBG92KbOdB3XGCsub7AYmCl+iMrG+h+vJl9qCyc 134sq7WNfInA9TxiQ28/DldHj++gDeQJr9BvUU8Ez2Iu70uW5T7rlHFyBUWQBh3P 2dB/Q9A/dixhAzNTaeTuVH4TunoyDN6OrRrSTdZhsPs8dLVLLeqKC3qM28wLX5Mt qQCUb/pRb9TR9ygwaznAIdqSJ1qc/xqlQY6U0Vh6YVOaId+MQwzsq1ZRPlW0kYSS wgka2WXELH5ZpQLmCppM1pdkHhm54VbBl7TmNwkABRG0I05lcnRodXMgPGN5cGhl cnB1bmtzQGN5YmVycGFzcy5uZXQ+iQEVAwUQNFzSUeFWwZe05jcJAQFxVQf/WUSH ltCrUpoQwQ9oTGCJiRycTQqUzDuqaqR55xgyz8W5mARixBigd/sL63EoBlQmyHR3 NIgwIW3I8hcPfUlXi84hsZ+89/HVW3CoMk2g6692UEoKHUX6bMkeAi85hIfJVhFj EONhx3xFmdOZqkEbdFm81J/0JJIhtAe0Ut2DPu4B49yjO7NBTg97QWwO6ZymE09v BUv5esuvdxFbmn8qfPHdurs+MrvoKbhZIA8Xz03eTS1auT8pNvdEO4EDaac0njZ4 5wAbAeC79AqztS75GpT7cf0jZcYJPwtW8LPXj7SQCMimseZ7/2OxNPditI9e58CI EL/Dl0D9qn1NRPiVwA== =8W8j - -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBNF0knuFWwZe05jcJAQH8WAf/e/BA8ysXWf1xrxJKiNPP8oyEDHpeFxZQ LWgW/kgfDmh1Y/Tfjw0i5nnnImlXfEcX5nmL8H+HezxBxKMN2O33PftHAPYghHrI y0hSgZVmA2VOMy4Dtv0umT19RarennPVHrGDyCi2zmNF9+5v6b81CYWLEBNMYx9V kaVOBCEt0FRdDFug1FwNRHJ+gHQjbFCVCMRF2v/0AF5r9uDPzNtCo3JP6tnllcqX jSf6MKa3Kxw17c+Je+TuLwHgltvULt3KZBrweJqslKKbY24Qw/PSPPHczvL8ieI1 uknK9KTVl6OJLvaGyI6bpFFgFoPxTpF+JJkzUR1GnlLN5gUwuQ6NKw== =osod -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Business Loans For You
by loans＠xitau.de 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Do you need to increase profits in your business? Do you need venture capital to get you there? Are you frustrated with your bank turning you down for the capital your business needs to grow? Be frustrated no more. Zion Worldwide can put you in touch with hundreds of offshore investors waiting to invest in a viable business just like yours. What Is An Offshore Investor? An offshore investor may be an offshore bank or a group of offshore lenders looking to invest in and to lend money to viable business enterprises both in the United States and elsewhere around the world. Why Not My Own Bank? U.S. federal banking law permits American banks to tie up a lot of their money in overhead expenses and advertising costs. Which means that American banks have less money to lend out to their customers (the ones who gave the banks their money in the first place!). Offshore banks, on the other hand, are required by offshore banking rules and regulations to lend more of their customer's money to, you guessed it, their customers. And groups of offshore lenders (often referred to as 'conglomerates'), are not necessarily restricted to the number or type of businesses that they can invest in, as long as these businesses are viable and show potential for future growth and profit. How Do I Take Advantage Of These Offshore Lending Opportunities? Zion Worldwide works with literally dozens and dozens of offshore banks and conglomerates across the world to put American businesses in touch with reputable offshore lenders. By submitting an offshore loan application to Zion Worldwide, your businesss automatically becomes eligible for the following types of offshore funding: Venture Capital Loans, Signature Loans, Equipment Leasing, Cash Grants, Self Liquidating Loans and a $25,000 Line of Offshore Credit, as well as offshore corporate credit cards. How Do I Apply And How Much Does It Cost? To apply simply write to: Zion Worldwide 5015 W. Sahara Ave., Suite 125, Las Vegas, NV, 89102. ..and ask for an offshore loan application. There is a non-refundable application fee of $200US payable to Zion Worldwide via money order, cashier's check, Visa or Mastercard. Why The $200 Fee? When you make application for offshore lending opportunities, Zion Worldwide literally sends your company's loan application to several major funding institutions around the globe. The $200US application fee assists our organization to cover the costs of shipping your loan application documents around the world. How Does Zion Worldwide Make Its Money? When your company's loan application arrives back to our office, Zion Worldwide receives a brokerage fee from our offshore lenders for finding them viable businesses to invest in. Can I Apply? Any viable business in the US or abroad may make application to Zion Worldwide in order to receive serious consideration from Zion's offshore lenders. Is It Hard To Apply? Absolutely not. Simply prepare to provide your company's past earnings as well as future earnings potential, as well as some documented business plan and, of course, some basic business details (e.g. your company's name, address, phone, fax etc.) and you're set. In fact, we want you to succeed in securing your loan, because when you succeed, we succeed. Why Is Zion Worldwide Located In Las Vegas? Nevada is America's last haven for judgment proof corporations (better than Delaware, better than Wyoming). Zion Worldwide strives to take full advantage of all of the incorporation benefits that the State of Nevada provides. What's The Catch? Sometimes interest rates on offshore loans are higher than interests rates on similar loans in the United States. However, apply for an offshore loan, then immediately turn around and expand your business with it, and of course, enjoy the increased profits your business generates, repay your offshore loan early, and the interest charged to you on your offshore loan will total no more than the interest on a loan you can (or can't) get in the US. AnyThing Else? Nope, except 'Apply Today'

1 0

Testing headers, ignore
by Paul Bradley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Test sent at 3:45pm 3/11/97 from c12 Paul Bradley Paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

1 0

FUD Trivia -- Sex, Bells, 'a'nd... / [Fwd: Sampler: November 3] Sampler: November 3
by TruthMonger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1 0

Protocols for Insurance to Maintain Privacy
by John Kelsey 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- [ To: Cypherpunks ## Date: 11/01/97 ## Subject: Protocols for Insurance to Maintain Privacy ] >Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 09:24:39 -0700 >From: Tim May <tcmay(a)got.net> >Subject: Protocols for Insurance to Maintain Privacy >There are interesting protocols which can be used to skirt >statist laws about insurance. A la carte insurance, for >specific illnesses, is one of the best examples. Thus, a >heterosexual male who doesn't use IV needles can "opt out" >of coverage for AIDS-related treatments, thus transferring >the effective cost to those most worthy. I can see practical problems with this (like finding out that the fine print on page 248 of my insurance contract turns out not to cover dog bites that occur on Thursdays), but it's really just letting customers buy only what they want. >This has similarities to crypto protocols. And anonymity. To >wit, it is possible to arrange anonymous blood tests for >various conditions. So, Alice arranges a distributed set of >such tests, perhaps at multiple labs. When she finds she has >no preconditions or precursors for Diseases A, B, C, and D, >she opts out of being covered for these diseases. One problem with this is that, if it becomes widespread, nobody will ever buy insurance for these diseases unless they have it or probably will get it. This kind-of defeats the point of having insurance, which is to protect yourself from low probability high cost things happening. That is, before I've taken the test for genetic disease X, my best estimate of the probability that I will test positive is very low. Once I have taken it, I know the result. If I sign up for a-la-carte insurance for this disease, the insurance company effectively knows I must have tested positive for a predisposition to it, and so either won't give me insurance, or will give me insurance only at an extremely high rate (corresponding to a 1/10 chance of getting the disease, rather than a 1/1,000,000 chance). On the other hand, information isn't free--I have to spend some money for each of the hundreds of genetic tests available. There may be a profitable business in providing a battery of genetic tests for a large up-front fee, in a sort-of inverse-lottery scheme--if you get unlucky enough to have one or more of these disease precursors, we pay your insurance costs, or at least give you a big bundle of money to spend as you will. This is subject to various kinds of abuse (if you know you're predisposed to get some disease, you have a strong incentive to enter the ``lottery''), but it still might work. >--Tim May --John Kelsey, Counterpane Systems, kelsey(a)counterpane.com PGP 2.6 fingerprint = 4FE2 F421 100F BB0A 03D1 FE06 A435 7E36 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBNF1ZdEHx57Ag8goBAQFZsQQA7NGzgc39WbyB8eACZN71wrBwOdapExNn fvn1aEFeHoLWZnHIcLHwzSuCiJ22I9kGK8Co88fDfjDebb+kzHj9oO4xpfMecHLr pjvKWfEDOnv5th6hxCmzKrA6OpuMqYgtvX9USRuO1oLckjX4mTc6jvEp6ZBD96vB uWvXhj1bPUM= =Vc/C -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --John Kelsey, Counterpane Systems, kelsey(a)counterpane.com PGP 2.6 fingerprint = 4FE2 F421 100F BB0A 03D1 FE06 A435 7E36

2 1