December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

SF RALLY Against Internet Censorship, Thursday or Friday
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Looks like the CDA decision is going to happen soon... ----- Begin Included Message ----- From: Stanton McCandlish <mech(a)eff.org> Subject: SF RALLY Against Internet Censorship Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 15:02:21 -0700 (PDT) X-URL: http://www.eff.org/~mech To: bayff(a)eff.org (bayff mailing list) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 14:05:16 -0800 From: "--Todd Lappin-->" <telstar(a)wired.com> To: telstar(a)wired.com Subject: SF RALLY Against Internet Censorship Please help spread the word in the Bay Area! --Todd Lappin--> Section Editor WIRED Magazine -- Please forward until June 26, 1997 -- ___________________________________________________________________________ *** RALLY AGAINST INTERNET CENSORSHIP *** ** Supreme Court Decision on CDA Expected Wednesday or Thursday ** AMENDMENT I: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble." *** RALLY AGAINST INTERNET CENSORSHIP *** ** South Park, San Francisco, California -- 1 PM ** ___________________________________________________________________________ In February 1996, President Clinton made Internet censorship the law of the land by signing the Communications Decency Act. The CDA -- a blatant affront to free speech -- has since become a symbol of the ignorance and contempt the American political establishment reserves for Internet users and their constitutional rights. Now, more than one year later, the United States Supreme Court is poised to decide the fate of free speech for the 21st century. On Wednesday or Thursday of this week, the Supreme Court will issue a decision in the landmark case of ACLU vs. Reno. On the day the decision comes down, The Electronic Frontier Foundation, Wired Ventures, and the Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition invite you to join us for a RALLY to show your support for free speech online. PLEASE JOIN US to discuss the free speech implications of this ruling with plaintiffs and organizers of the legal challenge. ___________________________________________________________________________ WHEN: On the day the Supreme Court issues its decision. EITHER.... Wednesday June 25, 1997 *OR* Thursday June 26, 1997 at 1 PM For up-to-the-minute information on the status of the decision, please visit http://www.ciec.org WHERE: South Park (between 2nd and 3rd, Bryant St. and Brannan St.) San Francisco. SPEAKERS (Tentative List): Bruce Ennis, the lead attorney who argued this case before the Supremes Mike Godwin, Electronic Freedom Foundation Judith Krug, American Library Association Sameer Parekh, C2Net Todd Lappin - Wired Magazine BRING: Attention-grabbing posters, signs, and banners that demonstrate your committment to free speech and expression, and your feelings about Congress. ___________________________________________________________________________ FOR UPDATED INFORMATION ON THIS RALLY: http://www.ciec.org/events/sf FOR BACKGROUND INFORMATION ABOUT THE CDA: http://www.ciec.org http://wwww.hotwired.com/special/indecent/ http://www.eff.org/blueribbon.html ___________________________________________________________________________ (NOTE: We are *actively* seeking participation and support from ALL members of the Bay Area media, online, Internet, new media, and telecommunications communities. Please forward this message to anyone you think should attend, and to all relevant mailing lists and newsgroups.) MEDIA CONTACT: Lessley Anderson, Wired Magazine, 415-276-5162, lessley(a)wired.com -- Stanton McCandlish mech(a)eff.org Electronic Frontier Foundation Program Director http://www.eff.org/~mech +1 415 436 9333 x105 (v), +1 415 436 9333 (f) Are YOU an EFF member? http://www.eff.org/join ----- End Included Message ----- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list or news, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

2 1

Secure Public Networks Act of the U.S
by David Downey 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This little gem is extremely scarey, most specifically Title II Sec 207 and Title III Sec 307 most of all!! I have been on the phone with Congressman Jack Quin of NY, Senator D'Almato of NY, my local Common Counselman, and the U.S Attorny's Office (They will be the ones tasked with prosecuting offenders under this Bill.). It seems that not one of them knows anything about it. And they are currently IN Washington!!! I was even told by Congressman Quin's Office that no such bills as the ProCODE, ProCODE II, or the McCain/ Kerrey Bills have been presented to Congress! Talk about your basic denial! I have provided a copy of the original HTML version of the SPNA as proposed by McCain and Kerrey. This was pulled directly from Senator Kerrey's website. --------------------------------------------------------- Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ---------------------------------------------------------

1 0

More Supreme Court CDA predictions (fwd)
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 21:04:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: More Supreme Court CDA predictions [Probably the Supreme Court's last free speech decision before the CDA came down today in Glickman v. Wileman Brothers. I'm still reading through the opinion, but as I understand the case, U.S. Agriculture Department regulations required nectarine and peach growers in California to contribute to generic pro-nectarine/peach advertising. The Ninth Circuit struck down the regs, saying the "First Amendment right of freedom of speech includes a right not to be compelled to render financial support for others' speech." But today the Supreme Court reversed, ruling that "Respondents are not required themselves to speak but are merely required to make contributions for advertising." Souter, Rhenquist, Scalia, and Thomas dissented. This is hardly a decision that bodes well for the First Amendment. --Declan] ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 25 Jun 97 19:15:00 DST From: "Halpert, James - DC" <jhalpert(a)pipermar.com> Declan, One never knows until the opinions are issued, but there is a good deal of objective evidence contradicting Prof. Volokh's hunch. At oral argument, Rhenquist, Scalia and Thomas all asked hostile questions of Bruce Ennis, and Rhenquist and Scalia stepped in to help out Seth Waxman, the Government's oralist, when he was having trouble answering tough questions. I'm not sure that Rhenquist and Thomas have ever voted to strike down an indecency restriction. Although Scalia has been taken somewhat more libertarian stands on speech restrictions than the other two, he said flat out at oral argument that he thought the government should win. As for the dissenting opinion they all joined Denver Consortium decision last term, it may have drawn a clearer line than did the plurality opinion, but would have upheld a requirement that cable subscribers OPT-IN IN WRITING thirty days in advance of being able to receive indecent programming. If you like that, you may well like the CDA .. . . We'll see soon enough.

1 0

future history of remailers
by landon_dyer＠wayfarer.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

i just picked up greg bear's new SF novel _Slant_. it's set in mid- next-century. i'm only twenty pages into it, so i can't honestly give it a recommendation yet, but the following is from one of the "chapter intro" quotes, and it has some cypherpunk-topical stuff in the author's 'techie gobbledygook' in the 2nd paragraph [note: possibly offensive ... but if you're on this list, why am i bothering to warn you? :-) ] >From: Anonymous Remailer >To: Pope Alexander VII >Date: December 24 2043 > >"You're just a Catholic Dickhead, you know that? Come to my town >(wouldnt you like to know you shit) sometime and I'll show you a >GOOD TIME. Let you bodiguards know that I'm about seven feet tall and >dressed like the Demons in NUKEY NOOKY which I bet you've plaid too >you asswipe hippocrit!!!!! Have a nice day!!!!!" > >EMAIL Archive (ref Security Inv, Re: Thread = Encyclical 2043 Vatican >Library> Cultural Tracking STAFF /INDA 332; reverse track through >Finland> ANONYM REMAIL Code REROUTE> SWITZERLAND/ZIMBABWE> ACCT HDFinster> >Harrison D. Finster ADDRESS 245 W. Blessoe Street Apt 3-H Greensboro NC >USA PROFILE> 27 years of age at time of message, >CONCLUSION: FLAME >PROFILE No action necessary. ref Vatican Internal Investigator >comments: "Young, shit for brains.") imagine that, the vatican cracking remailers.... "Democracy is government by the people and for the people, on the theory that the people should get the kind of government they deserve, good and hard." -- Robert Frezza, _The VMR Theory_

1 0

Re: LOSE MONEY FAST!!
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Gosh, this sounds a lot like Detweiler: lots of EXCLAMATIONS and vague, circulating references to unrecognizeable entities, full of recriminating psychological accusations intended to elicit a sense of underlying guilt for some kind of immoral attitude. Think he'd make a good lawyer. .. Blanc

1 0

Re: The Grand Compromise is Coming
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:01 AM 6/25/97 -0700, Tim May wrote: >We need to get beyond the sentimentality of concentrating on the >"innocents" and instead coldly analyze what needs to be done, and then do >it. ................................................................ After having done what needs to be done, would you then be open to letting any of the remaining, surviving innocents be apprised of who it was almost done them in? .. Blanc

1 0

Re: The Grand Compromise is Coming
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:01 AM 6/25/97 -0700, Tim May wrote: >We need to get beyond the sentimentality of concentrating on the >"innocents" and instead coldly analyze what needs to be done, and then do >it. ................................................................ After having done what needs to be done, would you then be open to letting any of the remaining, surviving innocents be apprised of who it was almost done them in? .. Blanc

1 0

Re: LOSE MONEY FAST!!
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Gosh, this sounds a lot like Detweiler: lots of EXCLAMATIONS and vague, circulating references to unrecognizeable entities, full of recriminating psychological accusations intended to elicit a sense of underlying guilt for some kind of immoral attitude. Think he'd make a good lawyer. .. Blanc

1 0

SAFE: Intl Relations Committee
by geeman＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- fyi --- does anyone know for sure what the amendments are/were? SECURITY AND FREEDOM THROUGH ENCRYPTION (SAFE) ACT Committee on International Relations: Subcommittee on International Economic Policy and Trade approved for full Committee action amended H.R. 695, Security and Freedom Through Encryption (SAFE) Act. anyone know what happened in the Senate Judiciary today?

2 1

Digital Signatures
by patrick van eecke 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The Interdisciplinary Centre for Law and Information Technology from the University of Leuven is currently carrying out a study on the legal aspects of Digital Signatures. The current and draft legislation, policies and practices of the European Member States as well as the EC's most important trading partners is being investigated and analysed. Final aim of the study is to provide tools for a common European legal instrument regarding Digital Signatures. More information about the project and important links you can find on the website: http://www.law.kuleuven.ac.be/icri/

1 0

Another shoe drops
by Brad Dolan 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Raids Against 'Interim' Autonomist Zine In Berlin On June 12, 1997, more than 500 police in Berlin carried out a series of raids aimed at criminalizing the weekly autonomist publication 'Interim'. State agents searched several houses in the Berlin districts of Friedrichshain, Neukolln, and Kreuzberg. Several individuals were charged with various felonies including "rewarding or supporting illegal actions". Police also raided several printing presses. A successful criminalization of the Interim would, in practical terms, be much more of a blow to the German radical-left than the recent state campaign against the underground publication Radikal, because whereas Radikal has only been sporadically published over the past few years, Interim has appeared *every week* since the late 1980s. Published as a forum for discussion for Berlin's radical-left autonome scene, the magazine has political relevance all across Germany, as it provides an anonymous forum for publishing communiques from militant action groups, mobilizations for demonstrations, and debates on politics and strategy. The following is a translation of a statement issued by Interim following the recent raids. --- "You Can't Ban A Concept" Statement From Interim Magazine - June 12, 1997 Interim has been published weekly for nine years. State surveillance, repression, and investigations have not stopped it from appearing. The 1995 Verfassungsschutzbericht' [annual report from Germany's Office to Protect the Constitution] stated that "a high degree of trust and discipline among the makers of the magazine" have prevented the authorities from being able to close it down. But now the powers that be feel they can do just that. Therefore, we'd like to say the following: 1. There is no permanent Interim editorial group, nor a fixed publishing location. The magazine is continually made and put together by different people. 2. If any papers were found anywhere during the police raids which also appeared in the Interim, that doesn't mean a thing. The Interim has a public mailing address, anyone can send us papers or documents, and as far as we know, it's not a crime to receive mail. 3. The cops dismantled printing presses, confiscated computers and files, filed charges against individuals. It's ridiculous to think that this will stop the Interim. Because the Interim is a communications CONCEPT: uncensored, according to the law, published according to its own rules in the interest of an anonymous exchange about theory and praxis of undogmatic left-radical politics. As long as the ruling powers are bent on destroying society, a radical resistance movement will be necessary, and it's not possible for a discussion of this necessity to take place within the boundaries of the laws of the powers that be. If Schonbohm [former General, now Interior Minister in Berlin] tries to stop our communication exchange by confiscations and arrests, he might just as well try to handcuff a mountain stream. If forced to operate entirely outside of legal boundaries, that's what we'll do, and there will always be people willing to make this communications concept possible and who can run it and diversify it. 4. We view the raids against part of the Interim's structures at this point in time as a flanking maneuver in the war which Schonbohm and Ladowski have declared. At a time when resistance to their cleansing policies is increasing - inner-city actions, university congresses, mobilizations by squatters, the homeless, and immigrants - the state wants to eliminate the forum by which all these forms of resistance can be linked together. Even if we aren't able to continue the discussion about our politics (our politicians??), one thing is clear: Schonbohm has declared war, and we will react. Repression breeds revolts. We promise that the next issue of the Interim will be published on time, with the theme of how we can go on the offensive against those who want to cleanse the city [before it becomes Germany's capital again]. All those who wish to participate in this discussion will find ways of getting their texts to the Interim. Interim - Weekly Berlin Info --- Interim On The Internet In order to do something about the criminalization of the Interim, Trend Online in Berlin has set up a Solidarity Homepage for the publication with news about the recent raids, and we at Arm The Spirit have set up a mirrorsite. This is to be seen as an expansion of the publication, not a substitute for it. Interim is a weekly hardcopy publication and plans to stay that way. Trend Online's Interim Solidarity Page: http://www.berlinet.de/trend/interim/ Arm The Spirit's Interim Mirror Site: http://burn.ucsd.edu/~ats/INTERIM/index.htm ----------------------------------------------------------------- Arm The Spirit is an autonomist/anti-imperialist information collective based in Toronto, Canada. Our focus includes a wide variety of material, including political prisoners, national liberation struggles, armed communist resistance, anti-fascism, the fight against patriarchy, and more. We regularly publish our writings, research, and translation materials on our listserv called ATS-L. For more information, contact: Arm The Spirit P.O. Box 6326, Stn. A Toronto, Ontario M5W 1P7 Canada E-mail: ats(a)etext.org WWW: http://burn.ucsd.edu/~ats ATS-L Archives: http://burn.ucsd.edu/archives/ats-l MRTA Solidarity Page: http://burn.ucsd.edu/~ats/mrta.htm FTP: ftp.etext.org --> /pub/Politics/Arm.The.Spirit

1 0

LaMacchia's Revenge, from The Netly News (fwd)
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 05:47:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: LaMacchia's Revenge, from The Netly News http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/opinion/0,1042,1107,00.html The Netly News Network June 25, 1997 LaMacchia's Revenge by Declan McCullagh (declan(a)well.com) David LaMacchia's pirate warez site once hummed quietly along on a DECstation 5000 just down the hall from the study lounge on the top floor of MIT's Stratton Student Center. LaMacchia claims its original purpose was to let visiting netizens exchange software. But soon -- either inevitably or intentionally, depending on whom you believe -- more and more copyrighted programs began to appear. This was enough to prompt the federal government to charge the MIT undergraduate in April 1994 with the crime of wire fraud. The indictment argued that his FTP-like site permitted "on an international scale, the illegal copying and distribution of copyrighted software, without payment of software licensing fees." Yet a federal judge dismissed the case that December, ruling that while LaMacchia was wrong -- and could be sued in civil court -- the aspiring computer scientist was not guilty as charged. Judge Richard Stearns said, "It is not clear that making criminals of a large number of consumers of computer software is a result that even the software industry would consider desirable." Guess again. A group of software companies, including Microsoft and Adobe, yesterday requested new laws to eliminate what they termed the "LaMacchia decision" problem. When a warez site operates for free -- as most do -- companies currently must sue for damages in a civil court. In other words, giving that copy of Quake to your dad is not -- yet -- a federal felony. [...]

1 0

CDA Overturned
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

06/26/1997 10:07 EST Court Nixes Internet Smut Provision WASHINGTON (AP) -- Congress violated free-speech rights when it tried to curb smut on the Internet, the Supreme Court ruled today. In its first venture into cyberspace law, the court invalidated a key provision of the 1996 Communications Decency Act.

1 0

CDA Overturned - AP Write through 9-0
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

9-0 I called it. 06/26/1997 10:16 EST Court Nixes Internet Smut Provision WASHINGTON (AP) -- Congress violated free-speech rights when it tried to curb smut on the Internet, the Supreme Court ruled today. In its first venture into cyberspace law, the court invalidated a key provision of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. Congress' effort to protect children from sexually explicit material goes too far because it also would keep such material from adults who have a right to see it, the justices unanimously said. The law made it a crime to put adult-oriented material online where children can find it. The measure has never taken effect because it was blocked last year by a three-judge court in Philadelphia. ``We agree with the three-judge district court that the statute abridges the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment,'' Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court. ``The (Communications Decency Act) is a content-based regulation of speech,'' he wrote. ``The vagueness of such a regulation raises special First Amendment concerns because of its obvious chilling effect on free speech.'' ``As a matter of constitutional tradition ... we presume that governmental regulation of the content of speech is more likely to interfere with the free exchange of ideas than to encourage it,'' Stevens wrote. Sexually explicit words and pictures are protected by the Constitution's First Amendment if they are deemed indecent but not obscene.

1 0

NEWS.COM - Rumor Mill
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

No Freeh lunch? http://www.news.com/Rumors/0,29,,00.html At the end of the article... While hackers were getting busy, the crypto honchos were getting dissed in D.C. Apparently, a group of bigwigs, including Louis Freeh of the FBI, William Crowell of NSA, Peter Neumann of SRI, and Ray Ozzie of Lotus, flew all the way out to the nation's capital for a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on cryptography, only to be informed 20 minutes before the meeting that it had been canceled. Grumbling ensued as the various participants stormed back to Dulles airport. The meeting may pick up after the July 4 recess.

1 0

CDA Struck Down
by Dave Banisar 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

P R E S S R E L E A S E FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CONTACT: Thursday, June 26, 1997 David L. Sobel (sobel(a)epic.org) 10:45 a.m., ET 202-544-9240 EPIC HAILS SUPREME COURT INTERNET "INDECENCY" DECISION: OPINION "PRESERVES BOTH FREE SPEECH AND PERSONAL PRIVACY" WASHINGTON, DC -- The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) today hailed the Supreme Court's Internet speech decision as "the first landmark decision of the 21st Century." In its first opinion involving cyberspace, the Court, by a 7-2 vote, struck down the online censorship provisions of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) (Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice O'Connor concurred in part and dissented in part). EPIC participated in the litigation as both plaintiff and co-counsel. "Today's opinion defines the First Amendment for the next century," according to EPIC Legal Counsel David Sobel, who served as co-counsel in Reno v. ACLU. "The Court has written on a clean slate and established the fundamental principles that will govern free speech issues for the electronic age." Sobel said that today's landmark decision "preserves both free speech and personal privacy in this rapidly growing medium." Throughout the litigation of the case, EPIC has stressed that the CDA not only infringed on Americans' free speech rights, but also posed a grave threat to personal privacy. By requiring "speakers" on the Internet to verify the age and identity of all potential recipients of "indecent" material, the law would have destroyed the anonymity that is a hallmark of online communications. EPIC noted that a good deal of sensitive information -- dealing with AIDS prevention, teenage pregnancy, and other critical social issues -- would not be sought out if recipients were required to identify themselves. EPIC joined with the American Civil Liberties Union and 18 other plaintiffs in challenging the law on February 8, 1996, the day it was signed by President Clinton. A three-judge federal court panel in Philadelphia unanimously ruled on June 11, 1996, that the Internet "indecency" provisions violated the First Amendment's free speech protections. That decision was today affirmed by the United States Supreme Court. A copy of the Court's decision is available at: http://www2.epic.org/cda/cda_decision.html EPIC is a non-profit research organization established in 1994 to examine civil liberties and privacy issues arising in new electronic media. - 30 -

1 0

Re: new money systems
by William H. Geiger III 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <97Jun26.113748edt.32257(a)brickwall.ceddec.com>, on 06/26/97 at 11:37 AM, tzeruch(a)ceddec.com said: >Yes, but each currency would then have to be exchanged (at a discount!) >and that almost every time any transaction occured. Unless you are >willing to exchange any amount of currency without making any profit on >it, not even to cover expenses or fluctuations in value, this won't work >- >it is trivial to convert currency, but it is not without cost. I don't want to get to deep into this curency issue but from my experiance not all exchanges are done at a cost. This is directly related to the stability of the curency being exchanged. If I am exchanging US $ with a low inflation rate (say 4%) for IT lira with a high inflation rate (say 250%) it is to the advantage of the person holding the lira to give me a good rate of exchange for my stable dollars. Also if I may not actually need to make the exchange at all as many Italin merchants would prefer to be paid in US $ rather than IT lira and will discount his services on the simple fact that I am paying him in stable curency. From my travels I have found whole cities where there is an underground economy all in US $ because the local curency is worthless. These areas tend to have a thriving barder system also for the same reasons (a loaf of bread is still worth a loaf of bread regardless what the pinheads in the government do to screw up the economy). Where I see the cost of exchange is when dealing with curencies that are of relativly the same stablilty US $ (4%) Japan Yen (6%). Then there is not the overwhelming advantage to the person holding the Yens to exchange for the US $. There are exceptions to this also. Say you have Widgets Inc (USA) & Cogs LTD. (Japan) who do a large amount of business in each others countries and between each other. It may be to their advantage to accept purchaces in each others currencies as to avoid the cost & hassels of going through exchanges. Just some food for thought. :) PS: the inflation rates were just given as examples I have no ideal what the current inflation rates are in the above mentioned countries. - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: cp850 Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 iQCVAwUBM7KYyY9Co1n+aLhhAQFLsAQAlZKt47lhcbDbnAjNzN6awy8t25JkYGmz n8TtzJqHX/4soTeiK1OGiz32lBiHz4N2X5odp0/Dm0AW8NTXJqkjRs8T19aZyowi Mz08YyQqR9MSGXySGbXMc+0Jq1J03doZGQzny6VxuUIvopGvsfuXsODLjRCdzpFW 7iwhLLdXQ1E= =1uhw -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Web Site reporting
by Casey Moss 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Something your web site cannot do without. http://www.genesisnetwork.net/report/report.htm Comprehensive web site reporting

1 0

CDA STRUCK DOWN BY SUPREME COURT, from the Netly News
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 09:40:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship-announce(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: CDA STRUCK DOWN BY SUPREME COURT, from the Netly News [Check out netlynews.com for updates throughout the day. --Declan] --- http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/opinion/0,1042,1110,00.html The Netly News CDA STRUCK DOWN! June 26, 1997, 11:30 am by Declan McCullagh (declan(a)well.com) The U.S. Supreme Court, in a landmark decision that firmly establishes unbridled free speech in cyberspace, struck down the Communications Decency Act. In a 40-page majority opinion opinion handed down this morning, the Justices determined that the act is unconstitutional. The court also resoundingly rejected the argument that broadcast standards should apply to the Internet. The Justices unanimously ruled that the so-called "display provision" -- which would effectively render the Net "child safe" -- was patently unconstitutional. "The interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship," wrote Justice John Paul Stevens. In a 7-to-2 decision, the court also struck down the other half of the CDA, which banned "indecent transmission" to a minor. The minority argued that such a limitation would not interfere "with the First Amendment rights of adults." Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and William Rehnquist were the lone dissenters on that point in a 13-page minority opinion. "This is the landmark decision that many of us anticipated," said David Sobel, staff counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center and co-counsel on the case. Phil Gutis of the American Civil Liberties Union -- the lead plaintiff in Reno v. ACLU -- said the decision left no wriggle room for CDA supporters: "It's going to be very hard for Congress to go back and say the court left us this opening. They didn't." Yet CDA supporters promised to keep up the fight. Against the backdrop of a dozen anti-porn activists, Cathy Cleaver, the director of legal policy for the Family Research Council, proclaimed that, "today we're going to see the floodgates of pornography open on the internet. This is not a good time to be a child. We're not going to give up the fight to protect children online." In spite of such perceived dangers, the court apparently realized the unique nature of the Internet and appreciated the fact that it is a new and developing medium. "Neither before nor after the enactment of the CDA have the vast democratic fora of the Internet been subject to the type of government supervision and regulation that has attended the broadcast industry. Moreover, the Internet is not as 'invasive' as radio or television," the majority wrote. The CDA "threatens to torch a large segment of the Internet community." The chief congressional opponent of the CDA applauded the court's recognition that the Internet is wholly unlike broadcast media. "Giving full force to the first amendment online is a victory for the first amendment, for american technology, and for democracy," said Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) in a statement. "The CDA was misguided and unworkable. It reflected a fundamental misunderstanding of the technology of the Internet." ###

1 0

Re: The Grand Compromise is Coming
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bill Stewart wrote: > > >> This is why I think the "use of a special language or > >> whispering in furtherance of a crime" provisions of SAFE will probably be > >> struck down by the Supremes, unless they, too, have forgotten what the > >> Constitution is all about.) > Back when marijuana was illegal in Oklahoma, during the anti-war years > when everybody was paranoid that their phones were tapped by the FBI, > a friend of mine would occasionally have phone conversations like > "Hey, Steve, I just got some .... Beer. Want to come over?" > "Yeah, Joe, I'd really like some .... Beer. I'll be there > in about an hour. Should I bring some .... Pizza?" The FBI was involved in the war on cryptography during the LBJ administration, according to my guitar player at the time. He was staying at the Lady Bird Ranch and called his roomate to tell him he would be out to pick up his "shit" later in the day. When he got there, the FBI was tearing apart his amp and speakers. They asked him where his "shit" was and he told them they were tearing it apart. I wonder if Timothy McVeigh phoned Bill Stewart to tell him, "I'm going to deliver the...Pizza...to the Federal Building."? (That's an extra five years, right there.) PizzaMonger

1 0

Gentlemen, Over 18? Read This...
by Studio＠64.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This is a one time only E-mail. Your name will be automatically deleted from our list after this message. If you are not interested in this offer, Studio 64 apologizes for this inconvenience. ************************************************************************************ GENTLEMEN, HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE MONEY PROVIDING INTIMATE SERVICES TO HOT, HORNY WOMEN ? More and more men are discovering that they can make $500 - $1000 weekly simply by giving lonely ladies the affection and companionship they so desperately desire. Do you like women ? Do you love sex ? Have a few free hours a week to devote to your own business ? Could you use the extra cash ? Part time or full time, at home or wherever, you can get started today with a few easy steps. Imagine your own private business, where you yourself are your own best asset, minimal investment, great returns, plus the undeniable pleasure of making love to dozens of lusty, horny women who want nothing more than to be pampered by an adoring stranger- no strings attached. Whether you like young, firm, fresh college girls or older sophisticated working women, petite or tall and leggy, or voluptuous, busty, full-lipped sex bombs, you can have them all or whichever ones please you - selecting specifically the ladies you'd like to see. Wine them, dine them, entertain and bed them. Get paid to make love to as many hot blondes and sultry brunnettes, lonely housewives and succulent sweeties as you can handle. You don't need above average looks or a $100,000 car. All you need is the know how, a healthy sexual appetite and a willingness to get hot and heavy with a woman until she's satisfied. WE'LL SHOW YOU HOW !! We'll give you specific tips for starting and running your own successful, male escort business. We'll supply you with the same killer ads that top male escorts use to attract and seduce willing ladies. You'll learn secret techniques that will have women passing your name and number on to every hot girlfriend they know. You'll get advice on where to find hundreds of beautiful women near you and how to get all of them to pay you what you want and deserve. Have you been dreaming of a job like this ? Dreaming is good, but why not make your dreams a reality ? Can you think of a better, more satisfying way to spend your spare time? ************************************************************ Information like this is selling for as much as $39.95. Our regular price is $24.95. But as a special, limited promotion, our simple easy-to-use booklet is only $19.95. That's right. For only $19.95 you can get started today. ************************************************************ Just imagine, you wake up saturday morning, cup of coffee in hand and bathrobe still on and already, there are a half - a - dozen calls for you from horny women wanting you to spend an hour or two with them. And you are free to see whichever ones you please, make love to them for as long as you like and best of all- leave their bedrooms with a pocketfull of crisp bills. Order today and you'll not only receive our special " How To Get Started As A Male Escort " booklet but you'll also receive one of our best selling companion booklets " How To Please A Woman In Bed " absolutely free. This super report includes advice on: How to Master Forplay, Learning Masturbation for Men and for Women, Advanced Oral Techniques and How To Keep A Woman Cumming Back Time and Time Again. ************************************************************ This report is for adults only and contains explicit sexual acts. ************************************************************Think about it. For the price of dinner you could get all the tools you need to get started today giving pleasure to beautiful ladies and getting paid for it. Gentlemen, there's no greater opportunity than the one offered here. Hurry. This special promotion ends July 20th. ************************************************************ For the easiest way to order, hit your print button now. ************************************************************ Because this information is of an adult nature, you must be over 18 years of age to order. Please enclose with the following a Check, Money Order or Cash in the amount of $19.95. Address to Studio 64, 1163 E. Ogden Ave, Suite 705-183, Naperville, Illinois, 60563. ( Please Print) Name__________________________________________________ Address_____________________________City, State_____________ E-Mail Address (optional)___________________________________ I am over 18 years of age (signature please)_______________ Please allow 2-3 weeks for delivery. Thank you.

1 0

Family Research Council on CDA decision (fwd)
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 13:59:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Family Research Council on CDA decision FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 26, 1997 CONTACT: Kristin Hansen, (202) 393-2100 COURT REAFFIRMS GOVERNMENT^RS INTEREST IN PROTECTING CHILDREN FROM PORN, BUT STRIKES CDA AS TOO BROAD WASHINGTON, D.C. -- "Today^Rs ruling means that pornographers can open their doors to children on the Internet. But pornographers beware: this will not be the last word on protecting children from your corrupting influence," Family Research Council Legal Policy Director Cathy Cleaver said Thursday. "While Reno v. ACLU said that the specific provisions of the CDA are too broad, the Court also said that more narrowly tailored provisions could be upheld." Cleaver made her comments as the Supreme Court issued its ruling striking down the Communications Decency Act (CDA). Cleaver continued, "Parents still have no legal recourse to protect their children from being sent a Penthouse centerfold. This is not good news for the thousands of families who discover every day that their children have accessed offensive and disgusting material on the internet. "At the same time, the Court has opened the door to new legislation protection children. Americans should urge Congress to take another look at the issue and draft a more narrowly defined statute. "But now, the flood gates remain open to purveyors of smut. With no legal liability for those who pursue children with graphic images and language on the internet, we need to act fast and firmly to ensure that our country does not give pornographers special rights." FOR MORE INFORMATION OR INTERVIEWS, CONTACT THE FRC PRESS OFFICE. - END -

1 0

White House statement on CDA decision (fwd)
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 14:21:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship-announce(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: White House statement on CDA decision THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary June 26, 1996 STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT Today, the Supreme Court ruled that portions of the Communications Decency Act addressing indecency are not constitutional. We will study its opinion closely. The administration remains firmly committed to the provisions -- both in the CDA and elsewhere in the criminal code -- that prohibit the transmission of obscenity over the Internet and via other media. Similarly, we remain committed to vigorous enforcement of federal prohibitions against transmission of child pornography over the Internet, and another prohibition that makes criminal the use of the Internet by pedophiles to entice children to engage in sexual activity. The Internet is an incredibly powerful medium for freedom of speech and freedom of expression that should be protected. It is the biggest change in human communications since the printing press, and is being used to educate our children, promote electronic commerce, provide valuable health care information, and allow citizens to keep in touch with their government. But there is material on the Internet that is clearly inappropriate for children. As a parent, I understand the concerns that parents have about their children accessing inappropriate material. If we are to make the Internet a powerful resource for learning, we must give parents and teachers the tools they need to make the Internet safe for children. Therefore, in the coming days, I will convene industry leaders and groups representing teachers, parents and librarians. We can and must develop a solution for the Internet that is as powerful for the computer as the v-chip will be for the television, and that protects children in ways that are consistent with America's free speech values. With the right technology and rating systems - we can help ensure that our children don't end up in the red light districts of cyberspace.

1 0

Final Version of RealPlayer 4.0 with RealVideo Available for FREE Download
by RealAudio & RealVideo News 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear RealPlayer User, Thank you for using RealAudio and RealVideo. We are pleased to tell you that the final versions of RealPlayer and RealPlayer Plus 4.0 with RealVideo and RealAudio have been released. You can upgrade to version 4.0 by visiting: http://www.real.com/40/index.html RealPlayer 4.0 features better video quality over dialup connections, direct access to daily news and entertainment, and more. RealPlayer Plus 4.0 offers several enhancements to the free RealPlayer: - The Best Quality Audio and Video at 28.8 - One-button Scanning for the Best Live Audio and Video on the Web - Instant Access to Your Favorite RealAudio and RealVideo Content - Free Telephone Technical Support - 30-day Money Back Guarantee RealPlayer Plus 4.0 is available from: http://www.real.com/40/order.html We hope you enjoy RealPlayer and RealPlayer Plus 4.0! Rob Glaser Chairman & CEO Progressive Networks --------------------------------------------- For information about this e-mail including how to subscribe to or unsubscribe from future announcements, please visit: http://www.real.com/mailinglist/index.html

1 0

breaking RSA in hardware (was Re: Comparing Cryptographic Key Sizes II)
by Adam Back 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Peter Trei <trei(a)process.com> writes: > > [DES breaking] > > [useful stats] > > So, to summarize: > > Using GNFS, on clients with 128M of memory, you could factor a 512 > bit modulus in 28,000 MIPS years. With 500,000 MIPS years, you could > factor a 600 bit modulus. > > Using QS, in 500,000 MIPS years you could factor a 512 bit modulus on > machines with modest memory requirements. Remarkably close to my original figure :-) (same as DES I said, you estimate DES to be 475,000 MIPS). So, even though GNFS is faster, if we don't have the hardware, it'll be better to use QS because using GNFS whilst continually paging will be even worse. > The effects of memory speed and bandwidth would slow things down > somewhat. Yup. With DES software is not at all an efficient way to break DES, compared to a Wiener machine. Unfortunately the press releases have had very little to say about the true cost of breaking DES with hardware. Perhaps it would be interesting to look at the economics of a well funded attacker breaking a 512 bit RSA key. If we asume that they would do it in software, and had to buy the machines, would you be better to buy fewer workstations with 128Mb or lots with 16Mb. Factor of 17 speed up using GNFS acording to your estimates of DES, and Lenstra's for GNFS RSA. So perhaps we're looking at motherboard $100, cpu $100, PSU+case $100 + 16Mb RAM $100 = $400. The same, but with 128Mb $1100. So that's a 1100 / 400 = 2.75 ratio. Clearly buying the larger memory PCs is the way to go. Overall GNFS is 6x cheaper it would appear. However, really the interesting question is how much would it cost to break RSA in hardware. How expensive would it be to build a custom hardware machine to break RSA. What building blocks would be needed. How much memory. What would be the most efficient approach. Would it be cost effective to use NTTs RSA chip? What would be the most efficient way to distribute the memory. Adam -- Have *you* exported RSA today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/ print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`

1 0