December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

No Subject
by Bovine Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The only `culture' Timothy `C' May possesses is that cultivated from his foreskin scrapings. o o o o o /~> <><><> <> Timothy `C' May o...(\ |||||| ||

1 0

Re: overview.htm (fwd)
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Nurdane Oksas wrote: > California is know for very beautiful girls ... wrong. - Igor.

1 0

Re: overview.htm (fwd)
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dale Thorn wrote: > > BTW, if y'all can't stay away, I have a list of So. Cal. nude beaches, > approx. 3 years old. > would appreciate - Igor.

1 0

RE: overview.htm (fwd)
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On or About 26 Jan 97 at 2:19, blanc wrote: > >Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > >>>Jim Choate wrote: > >>>>>Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > >>>>>>>irrelevant(a)nowhere.com wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>Dale Thorn wrote: > > It can be said 100,000 times, but it still comes out the same: > Just as in "The only cure for bad speech is more speech", "the only > cure for 'list-focus-drift' is more on-focus postings". THE PRICE OF FREE SPEECH IS TOLERANCE OF IDEAS THAT WE MAY OBJECT TO. =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906

1 0

Re: overview.htm (fwd)
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Nurdane Oksas wrote: > On Sun, 26 Jan 1997, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > Nurdane Oksas wrote: > > > i think it's good also to exercise outdoors as well as your > > > indoor nordictrack machines..sun and air is esp. necessary; > > but remember, tanning will kill ya. > Yes it will; Not a fan of tanning myself...it also causes lots > of skin problems, have seen women age too soon tanning; > we don't go outside naked here in NorthEast...do remember; The real babes in So. Cal. go to tanning salons. That way the evenly- distributed tan looks best with, say, a pure white bikini. You can go to the beach, of course, and hang out with the hoi polloi, but it's mostly kids with pimples and stuff. BTW, if y'all can't stay away, I have a list of So. Cal. nude beaches, approx. 3 years old.

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor
by Nurdane Oksas 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Sun, 26 Jan 1997, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: [...] > Examples of use: Suppose I do not like The Right Reverend Colin James III, > cjames(a)cec-services.com. I have a lot of money, but do not know how to > mailbomb. I set some nym address as my return address (for refunds if > CJ3 is not mailbombed within half a year). > > I place a bet with $1000 worth of money and phrase "domain cec-services.com > disabled". The date would be open which means that I will always be the > loser. I also post a message (anonymously) saying that anyone who wants > to mailbomb TRRCJ3 can be rewarded through your assassination bot. > > Someone with more knowledge of computers, a T1 link and no money will > be lured, submit a bet for, say, Feb 1, and on the 1st will start fierce > mailbombing of cec-services.com. The return address will, of course, be > a nym. That's my birthday... have a great week ahead everyone!

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor
by Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ichudov(a)algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) writes: > > Jim, why don't you stop bullshitting and write a real assassination > bot. [as a beta, it can be a mailbombing bot] This bot would: I think this would be a very good demo project, but mailbombing may not be the best choice... > 1) Accept bets as combinations of > a) Some amount of cybercash Be careful about violating Chaumian patents... How about using funny money in the prototype? Or, look at some of the micropayment schemes. > b) A string that identifies an event that should happen > such as "domain X is mailbombed" Not a good idea (see below). > c) [optional] date of that event (no date means that you always > lose) I think the date must always be specified, and the event must occur (or not occur) on or before that date. > d) Return address (possibly a nym address) to send > all cash from UNSUCCESSSFUL bets for the event in > question. > e) [optional] time limit after which the cash will be refunded. > > Note that for simplicity, the bot should identify the event as > a unique string, without any understanding of any semantics of that > string. I think we should think about the kinds of events that a 'bot can verify. > 2) Store these bets in a database. > > 3) Have a trusted party (someone really honest, like myself) report to > the bot the signed strings that, in the opinion of the trusted party, > are "true". Why not start with a less destructive event... For example, "on or before <date> a Usenet article will appear in newsgroup X saying Y". That's something the 'bot can verify and anyone with access to dejanews and the like can confirm. Eliminating the need for a trusted human is always desirable. > 4) Upon receipt of such event notifications, the bot will find all bets > and forward them to the better whose date prediction was the closest. > If several betters predicted the same date, the money is split between > them in proportion to the amount of moneys submitted. Have you ever dealt with a bookie? I think there need to be two distinct operations: 1. A user can create a new kind of event. For a fixed fee F, one can enter a new event into the table of events that can be bet on. (In a more generalized system, the creator might also specify the third party that determines whether or not the event took place.) A human bookie decides which events can be bet on (based mostly on the tradition and supply/demand). Here we let users bet on anything they want as long as they're willing to may be bookiebot for keeping track of who bet how much $ that the event will or will not happen. In fact, when creating an event, the user must immediately bet an amount >$F and the house enters an opposing bet for $F (or slightly less). 2. A user can bet $B that an existing event will/will not happen. Bookiebot accepts the $B and promises to pay back an amount that's a function of $B and the current amounts bet so far on yes and no (or escrows the winning with a 3rd party). I'll let Jim et al figure out how to compute the odds when there are offsetting bets for the same event at two different times. E.g. E1:"Saddam Hussen will die before April 1" and E2:"ditto June 1"; if the first one occurs, then the second one occurs too. If a lot of money is bet on E1, it should somehow affect E2 odds too. Also the bookiebot should never lose money no matter what the outcome; all the winnings should come from the losers' bets. > Examples of use: Suppose I do not like The Right Reverend Colin James III, > cjames(a)cec-services.com. I have a lot of money, but do not know how to > mailbomb. I set some nym address as my return address (for refunds if > CJ3 is not mailbombed within half a year). > > I place a bet with $1000 worth of money and phrase "domain cec-services.com > disabled". The date would be open which means that I will always be the > loser. I also post a message (anonymously) saying that anyone who wants > to mailbomb TRRCJ3 can be rewarded through your assassination bot. Here's an improved scenario. Say I pay the bot $10 to create the event "a homophobic article will appear in soc.motss by April 1". Then I bet $1000 that the event will NOT occur to skew the odds. > Someone with more knowledge of computers, a T1 link and no money will > be lured, submit a bet for, say, Feb 1, and on the 1st will start fierce > mailbombing of cec-services.com. The return address will, of course, be > a nym. Someone looking to make a quick buck browses through the list of events and odds in the bookiebot and sees the very skewed odds for a homophobic article on soc.motss. He bets a small amount that the article will appear, so he gets really good odds. Then he posts an article that's recognized as the event, and collects a winning much larger than his bet. But if this doesn't happen, I get almost all of my $1000 investment back. In either event the bookiebot made a small profit for its owner. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

2 1

Re: Fighting the cybercensor
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > jim bell <jimbell(a)pacifier.com> writes: > > Look, I've proposed what I consider to be a remarkably consistent method to > > prevent the kind of political tyranny that you criticize, and I don't see > > any recognition of this fact. > I said many times that I find AP a very interesting notion, worthy of study. > Given how fast online gambling is growing, how soon do we have to wait for > a web site for taking bets on deaths of politicians and other prominents? > Why not set one up, using "funny money" not convertible to anything? If AP could really work, and AP is enabled by strong p-k crypto, that fact alone would justify the Washington boys doing *everything* in their power to stop *real* crypto (i.e., no back doors).

1 0

Re: (Fwd) Just Say No to Telcom "Reform"
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ross Wright forwarded: > President Clinton and Congress promised the American people that > enactment of the Telecommunications Reform Act would lead to a > cornucopia of technological innovations that would change the nation's > cultural frontiers, expand our choices, dazzle our eyes, and inform > our minds. Instead, we've been censored in cyberspace, subjected to > TV ratings systems, and prevented from experiencing the benefits of a > truly competitive marketplace by the emergence of "cartels" created by > mega-mergers in the telecommunications and media industries. Surprise, surprise! > This is not reform! And it's not too late to demand that our decision > makers deliver on what they promised us on February 8, 1996: Yes it is. Nobody in politics gives up the ground they've gained. The fact that they were able to hose the citizens the first time around only reinforces their certainty that they can continue to do so. While people are still fighting the earlier, lost battles, they are preparing for the next one. I fully support anyone who wants to continue to fight past battles, present battles, and future battles, on the level of surface politics. But I think that their efforts are most effective if they add the tools and weapons developed by the underground to their battles. Let them know that if they want to censor you, they will have to censor your 'strong' crypto. Even if you choose to fight by showing up with your gun on your hip, at high-noon, it still doesn't hurt to have one tucked in your boot, as well. Toto

1 0

Re: overview.htm (fwd)
by Nurdane Oksas 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Sun, 26 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote: > Nurdane Oksas wrote: > > On Sun, 26 Jan 1997, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > > Nurdane Oksas wrote: > > > > i think it's good also to exercise outdoors as well as your > > > > indoor nordictrack machines..sun and air is esp. necessary; > > > > but remember, tanning will kill ya. > > > Yes it will; Not a fan of tanning myself...it also causes lots > > of skin problems, have seen women age too soon tanning; > > we don't go outside naked here in NorthEast...do remember; > > The real babes in So. Cal. go to tanning salons. That way the evenly- > distributed tan looks best with, say, a pure white bikini. You can > go to the beach, of course, and hang out with the hoi polloi, but > it's mostly kids with pimples and stuff. i don't see why she would wear a bikini if she already is tan. She just goes to show off right??? California is know for very beautiful girls ... I like the pale look :) > > BTW, if y'all can't stay away, I have a list of So. Cal. nude beaches, > approx. 3 years old. only if you join us .. ;)

1 0

Jim Choate Speaks Out on My Part of the Net (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 20:07:57 -0800 > From: Toto <toto(a)sk.sympatico.ca> > Subject: Jim Choate Speaks Out on My Part of the Net > > Jim Choate wrote: > > If you really and truly believe that the net belongs to everyone and nobody > > has a right to limit or otherwise control the hardware and software along > > with the associated comm links they own and pay for then you obviously don't > > understand what is going on. > > For instance, since Toto pays for the hardware and software that comprises > > his part of the net, he is free to limit, control, and edit for content, > > anything that passes through his part of the net. > > Although I sometimes disagree with Toto because of my limited ability to > > understand things on a conceptual level, his rugged good looks, charm, > > and superior intelligence show that he should be allowed to control his > > own privately owned part of the net and anything that passes through it. > > > Jim Choate > > CyberTects > > ravage(a)ssz.com > > Jim, > Thank you for your support in my efforts to exert supreme control over > the part of the net that I have paid for. > I am sure that you will continue to fight for the right of myself and > the government of Singapore to use that control for whatever purpose > they choose. > As you can see above, I have enhanced your posting so that it more > closely conforms to the beliefs that my paid-for part of the net was > set up to espouse. Are you aware that attributing statements in print to a party when that party did not write them is a crime? Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

2 1

Happy birthday to Oksas
by Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Nurdane Oksas <oksas(a)asimov.montclair.edu> writes: > That's my birthday... Happy birthday to you, Happy birthday to you, Happy birthday dear Oksas, Happy birthday to you! > have a great week ahead everyone! Have a good year. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Re: (Fwd) Just Say No to Telcom "Reform"
by Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Toto <toto(a)sk.sympatico.ca> writes: > Let them know that if they want to censor you, they will have to > censor your 'strong' crypto. Even if you choose to fight by showing > up with your gun on your hip, at high-noon, it still doesn't hurt to > have one tucked in your boot, as well. Certain unnamed people believe that "strong" crypto, like free speech, is only for those who use it "responsibly". Privacy is for the elite; and they wish to join the elite, rather then extend the right to privacy and/or free speech to the "unwashed masses". --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Re: (Fwd) Just Say No to Telcom "Reform"
by Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Toto <toto(a)sk.sympatico.ca> writes: > Let them know that if they want to censor you, they will have to > censor your 'strong' crypto. Even if you choose to fight by showing > up with your gun on your hip, at high-noon, it still doesn't hurt to > have one tucked in your boot, as well. Certain unnamed people believe that "strong" crypto, like free speech, is only for those who use it "responsibly". Privacy is for the elite; and they wish to join the elite, rather then extend the right to privacy and/or free speech to the "unwashed masses". --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Censorship
by Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Ross Wright" <rwright(a)adnetsol.com> writes: > On or About 26 Jan 97 at 2:19, blanc wrote: > > > >Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > >>>Jim Choate wrote: > > >>>>>Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > >>>>>>>irrelevant(a)nowhere.com wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>Dale Thorn wrote: > > > > It can be said 100,000 times, but it still comes out the same: > > Just as in "The only cure for bad speech is more speech", "the only > > cure for 'list-focus-drift' is more on-focus postings". > > THE PRICE OF FREE SPEECH IS TOLERANCE OF IDEAS THAT WE MAY > OBJECT TO. Comversely, some people are willing to give up their own freedom of speech so as to silence others whose views they don't like. They hope that they'll be censored less than their "enemies". But a forum can't be "a little bit censored" just like a woman can't be "a little bit pregnant". --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor
by Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> writes: > Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > jim bell <jimbell(a)pacifier.com> writes: > > > Look, I've proposed what I consider to be a remarkably consistent method > > > prevent the kind of political tyranny that you criticize, and I don't see > > > any recognition of this fact. > > > I said many times that I find AP a very interesting notion, worthy of study > > Given how fast online gambling is growing, how soon do we have to wait for > > a web site for taking bets on deaths of politicians and other prominents? > > Why not set one up, using "funny money" not convertible to anything? > > If AP could really work, and AP is enabled by strong p-k crypto, > that fact alone would justify the Washington boys doing *everything* > in their power to stop *real* crypto (i.e., no back doors). But they can't; and their efforts (ITAR, EAR, et al) are totally irrelevant and ineffective and not worth the time people spend fighting them. A prototype AP betting server, first limited to very innocent events (like usenet postings containing certain regexps) and using "funny money" for bets, would be a good demo. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dale Thorn wrote: > How does one country get on top and terrorize the whole world? By > following Tom Wolfe's intimation concerning the pirates: "The people > on the East coast were constantly victimized because they couldn't > comprehend just how vicious and ruthless the pirates really were" > (quote approximate). Dale, When I read posts like this, I wonder how any rationally thinking person can possibly believe that socio/politico concerns have no place in the discussion of crypto. It is my belief that many of the more atrocious acts being performed against the citizens by various governments are made possible by the fact that there are so few people who recognize a 'pirate' when they see one. While I appreciate that there are those who may be furthering the cause of crypto, privacy and freedom through official channels, the controlled media, and such, there needs to be a forum in which people are free to use what they consider to be the 'correct' terminology to refer to those who have usurped democracy in order to control the citizens for their own personal profit. i.e. 'Pirates' Toto

1 0

Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks maiing list
by Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Rabid Wombat <wombat(a)mcfeely.bsfs.org> writes: > Regardless of which side you take on this matter, remember that the issue > was forced by the actions of an extremely small segment of the list > "population." The list "population" (readers) is a couple of thousand people, almost all of whom are lurkers. All posters are an extremely small segment of the readership. It's true on most Internet forums. > The decision of that small segment to excercise its rights "in extreme" > passed the tolerance thresholds of increasing numbers of list members, > and the end result was a "restriction" adopted/elected/forced-on (colour > it however you chose) on the entire "population." > > "Rights" are derived from social responsibility; its either that, or the > "law of the jungle." V.I.Lenin said: "liberty is a recognized necessity". (I'll let Igor correct my translation is it's wrong.) --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Xerox is watching you
by Martin Minow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

You'll find an article worth a visit to the dentist in the January 1997 issue of Popular Science. It tells a story from the 1960's cold war era. It seems that the only American who could get into the Soviet Embassy was the Xerox repairman. So the CIA and Xerox built a camera that took a picture of every copy that could be installed inside the 914 cabinet (where it would be invisble). Once a month, the repairman came by to do the ordinary cleaning and repair (those things broke down a lot). Part of the repair process exchanged the camera for a fresh load. The CIA could then read everything that was copied. The article suggests that other Xerox models had their own cameras. My back of the envelope (literally) computation suggests that one roll of 8-millimeter film would hold about 30,000 images. Martin Minow minow(a)apple.com

1 0

Assination
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> writes: > > > Given how fast online gambling is growing, how soon do we have to wait for > > > a web site for taking bets on deaths of politicians and other prominents? > > > Why not set one up, using "funny money" not convertible to anything? > > > > If AP could really work, and AP is enabled by strong p-k crypto, > > that fact alone would justify the Washington boys doing *everything* > > in their power to stop *real* crypto (i.e., no back doors). > > But they can't; and their efforts (ITAR, EAR, et al) are totally irrelevant > and ineffective and not worth the time people spend fighting them. > > A prototype AP betting server, first limited to very innocent events (like > usenet postings containing certain regexps) and using "funny money" for bets, > would be a good demo. I have a feeling that you are missing the point. The point of AP is not to bet on whether a certain event will occur or not. The point is that only a person who really makes it happen (assassinates someone) will know enough to get the money. All other betters who do NOT intend to bring the event about will expect to lose money, because they will not be able to make a sufficiently good prediction. It is not a bookie system, it is a collective anonymous hire-a-hitman scheme. Yuor suggestion about trying a demo about homophobic posts is good, BUT what needs to be added to make it a good demo is a danger for the poster to lose an account. I.e., the requirement to such a homophobic post should be that 1) it should be PGP signed by a real person and 2) it should have a correct return address. Any fool can send an anonymous message, and that would have no educational value and no value for the AP demo. - Igor.

1 0

Re: Jim Choate Speaks Out on My Part of the Net (fwd)
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate wrote: > > > Forwarded message: > > > Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 20:07:57 -0800 > > From: Toto <toto(a)sk.sympatico.ca> > > Subject: Jim Choate Speaks Out on My Part of the Net > > > > Jim Choate wrote: > > > > If you really and truly believe that the net belongs to everyone and nobody > > > has a right to limit or otherwise control the hardware and software along > > > with the associated comm links they own and pay for then you obviously don't > > > understand what is going on. > > > > For instance, since Toto pays for the hardware and software that comprises > > > his part of the net, he is free to limit, control, and edit for content, > > > anything that passes through his part of the net. > > > Although I sometimes disagree with Toto because of my limited ability to > > > understand things on a conceptual level, his rugged good looks, charm, > > > and superior intelligence show that he should be allowed to control his > > > own privately owned part of the net and anything that passes through it. > > > > > Jim Choate > > > CyberTects > > > ravage(a)ssz.com > > > > Jim, > > Thank you for your support in my efforts to exert supreme control over > > the part of the net that I have paid for. > > I am sure that you will continue to fight for the right of myself and > > the government of Singapore to use that control for whatever purpose > > they choose. > > As you can see above, I have enhanced your posting so that it more > > closely conforms to the beliefs that my paid-for part of the net was > > set up to espouse. > > Are you aware that attributing statements in print to a party when that > party did not write them is a crime? cite the statute - Igor.

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor
by Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Toto <toto(a)sk.sympatico.ca> writes: > Dale Thorn wrote: > > > How does one country get on top and terrorize the whole world? By > > following Tom Wolfe's intimation concerning the pirates: "The people > > on the East coast were constantly victimized because they couldn't > > comprehend just how vicious and ruthless the pirates really were" > > (quote approximate). > > Dale, > When I read posts like this, I wonder how any rationally thinking > person can possibly believe that socio/politico concerns have no > place in the discussion of crypto. > It is my belief that many of the more atrocious acts being performed > against the citizens by various governments are made possible by the > fact that there are so few people who recognize a 'pirate' when they > see one. > While I appreciate that there are those who may be furthering the > cause of crypto, privacy and freedom through official channels, the > controlled media, and such, there needs to be a forum in which > people are free to use what they consider to be the 'correct' > terminology to refer to those who have usurped democracy in order > to control the citizens for their own personal profit. > i.e. 'Pirates' Right now, you can still say anything you like in "cypherpunks-unedited". Anyone subscribed to the moderated cypherpunks list is free to resubscribe. If the masses of lurkers choose not to do it, it's their loss, and not your or my responsibility. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Jim Choate Speaks Out on My Part of the Net (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 20:07:57 -0800 > From: Toto <toto(a)sk.sympatico.ca> > Subject: Jim Choate Speaks Out on My Part of the Net > > Jim Choate wrote: > > If you really and truly believe that the net belongs to everyone and nobody > > has a right to limit or otherwise control the hardware and software along > > with the associated comm links they own and pay for then you obviously don't > > understand what is going on. > > For instance, since Toto pays for the hardware and software that comprises > > his part of the net, he is free to limit, control, and edit for content, > > anything that passes through his part of the net. > > Although I sometimes disagree with Toto because of my limited ability to > > understand things on a conceptual level, his rugged good looks, charm, > > and superior intelligence show that he should be allowed to control his > > own privately owned part of the net and anything that passes through it. > > > Jim Choate > > CyberTects > > ravage(a)ssz.com > > Jim, > Thank you for your support in my efforts to exert supreme control over > the part of the net that I have paid for. > I am sure that you will continue to fight for the right of myself and > the government of Singapore to use that control for whatever purpose > they choose. > As you can see above, I have enhanced your posting so that it more > closely conforms to the beliefs that my paid-for part of the net was > set up to espouse. Are you aware that attributing statements in print to a party when that party did not write them is a crime? Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

libel.html
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[IMAGE] [IMAGE] Libel and Slander "Libel" involves the publishing of a falsehood that harms someone. Slander is the same doctrine applied to the spoken word. Collectively, they are referred to as "defamation". Both are a matter of state laws, which usually (not always) require that the falsehood be intentional. In New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment requires that, before a public official can recover damages for a defamatory statement, he must prove it was made with "actual malice", even if state laws otherwise allow recovery for negligent defamation. The Court has since expanded this to cover not only public officials but "public figures", including individuals who involve themselves in controversies.

1 0

libelfrm.htm
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

LIBEL CHECKLIST _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ Look for material that identifies a person or an entity. Keep in mind that it is possible to identify people or entities without actually using a name. If the material contains identifiable voices, likenesses, or descriptions, it could be a problem. ___ The material identifies a person or entity. STOP HERE if the material does not identify a person or entity. You can't have a libel without someone to complain about it! _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ Is any identified person dead? There is little reason to be concerned with statements or other material reflecting badly on dead persons because the law only protects "the memory of the dead," giving no cause of action to decedents. So long as the material concerns only the dead person, you need not answer the rest of the questions on this form. ___The person identified is dead. STOP HERE if the person identified is dead. _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ If material identifies a living person, is it: A private individual. ___A public person. ___A political person. _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ Would the material negatively influence a reasonable reader's opinion of the person or entity identified? ___a. It would reflect badly on the character of the person or entity. ___b. It could harm the reputation, diminish the esteem, respect or good will in which the person or entity's relevant community holds him, her or it. _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ If the material might reflect badly on character and/or harm reputation, would the harm be the result of: ___An explicit statement. ___An insinuation. ___A sarcastic statement. ___A parody or cartoon. ___An opinion that implies that there are unstated defamatory facts underlying it. ___Other. _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ There are several possible defenses to a claim of defamation, although none may apply in a particular case. Check one of the following defenses only if you are fairly certain it would apply. ___The statement or other material is true. ___The statement or other material is purely an expression of opinion and not an assertion of fact. ___The statement or other material constitutes a fair comment on a matter of public opinion, for example, the use of public money, disbarment of attorneys, management of public institutions and charities, management of private companies whose activities widely affect the public (pollution, delivery of medical services, common carriage, employment practices, discrimination, etc.) or the review of books, public entertainment, sports events or scientific discoveries. ___No one could reasonably interpret the statement or image to be an assertion of actual fact about the person or entity. ___The statement or image can be characterized as mere words of abuse, indicating dislike for the person or entity, but does not suggest any specific charge. ___The subject of the statement or image has given consent to or approved the material. _________________ __________ _________________________________________________________________ University Liability for the Wrongful Acts of Employee Publishers | Copyright Management Center Homepage | Intellectual Property Section Homepage _________________________________________________________________ 8 August 1995 University of Texas System Office of General Counsel Comments to gharper(a)utsystem.edu _________________________________________________________________

1 0