December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

cc.317.html
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

VERDICTS IN CASES OF DEFAMATORY LIBEL. 317. Where, on the trial of an indictment for publishing a defamatory libel, a plea of not guilty is pleaded, the jury that is sworn to try the issue may give a general verdict of guilty or not guilty on the whole matter put in issue on the indictment, and shall not be required or directed by the judge to find the defendant guilty merely on proof of publication by the defendant of the alleged defamatory libel, and of the sense ascribed thereto in the indictment, but the judge may, in his discretion, give a direction or opinion to the jury on the matter in issue as in other criminal proceedings, and the jury may, on the issue, find a special verdict. [R.S., c.C-34, s.281.] _________________________________________________________________ Next, Section 318 ...

1 0

PublicF_j385.html
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Libel Plaintiffs - Public or Private Person Status Recent Examples PUBLIC OFFICIALS: * High School Teacher, Elstrom v. Independent Sch. District (Minn. 1995) * Elementary School Principal, 20 MLR 1640 (VT.) * Former County Employee w/ Financial Responsiblity, 20 MLR 2159 (Tenn.) * Police Officer, 21 MLR 1588 (Az.) * Federal Strike Force Attorney, 20 MLR 1649 (Az.) * TVA Official, 20 MLR 1873 (6th) * Athletic Director/Football Coach, 21 MLR 1746 (Tx.) * Special-Agent-In-Charge of President Ford's Secret Service Detail, 21 MLR 1842 (D.D.C.) * Mississippi Public Defender, 22 MLR 1413 (DC S. Miss. 1994) * Former Deputy Sheriff, 22 MLR 2013 (Fla CirCt. 1994) * Commissioned National Guard Officers, 22 MLR 2046 (Ga. SuperCt 1994) * Police Lieutenant, 22 MLR 2129 (NJ SupCt 1994) * President of State Troopers' association, 22 MLR (NY SupCt AppDiv. 1993) NOT PUBLIC OFFICIALS: High School Principal, 20 MLR 2095 (GA.) Deputy Public Defender, 21 MLR 1624 (CA) Street & Traffic Supervisor, LeDoux v. Northstar Pub., 521 N.W. 2d (Mn. 1994) LIMITED PUBLIC FIGURES: * Charity seeking donations and organizer, 21 MLR 1449 (4th Cir.) * Attorney in private practice representing several school districts, 20 MLR 1992 (NJ) * Physician who sought media attention for practice and technique, 20 MLR 1613 (NY) * Star Witness in Jim Garrison case who "sought limelight", 20 MLR 2113 (La.) * Lawn Mower Repair Co., 22 MLR 1461 (NJ SuperCt. AppDiv. 1994)* * Police Officer/Subject of Book, 22 MLR 1385 (5th Cir. 1994)* * Paycologists/authors, 22 MLR 1852 (7th Cir. 1994) * Convicted Murderer, 22 MLR 2239 (DC Sind. 1994)* * Actress/Model, 22 MLR 2147 (DC E Wis. 1994) * * Appointed tax collector who never took office, 22 MLR 2157 (Ariz SuperCt 1994) * Brother who "voluntarily thrust himself" into controversy surrounding his brothers arrest, 22 MLR 1434 (Ca Ct App 1994) *Note: It is not clear that these individuals would be limited public figures in Oregon. NOT PUBLIC FIGURES: * Host of a loud party, 21 MLR 1378 (Pa.) * Woman at home where MLK had dinner night before shot who was alledged to have had extramarital affair with King, 21 MLR 1353 (S.D.N.Y) * Person accused of of sexual misconduct, 22 MLR 2353 (4th Cir. 1994) Return to J385 Home page

1 0

1a_c7p6.html
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[IMAGE] Chapter VII: Libel Fault _________________________________________________________________ The Supreme Court has recognized different standards for different types of libel plaintiffs, with public officials and public figures required to show a high degree of fault. Celebrities and others with power in a community are usually considered public figures. Politicians and high-ranking government personnel are public officials. Courts generally consider public officials to include public employees who have substantial responsibility for or control over the conduct of governmental affairs. Some courts have found that public school teachers and police officers are public officials. But determining if other people are private or public figures is not always easy. In some instances, there may be overlapping in the private and public category. For example, a businessperson who has high visibility because of fundraising efforts in a community may or may not be a public figure for all purposes. A plaintiff who is considered a public figure or official must prove that the publisher or broadcaster acted with "actual malice" in reporting derogatory information. "Actual malice" does not mean ill will or intent to harm. Instead, the term applies to whether the defendant knew that the challenged statements were false or acted with reckless disregard of the truth. Courts may examine reporting procedures in testing for actual malice. While carelessness is not usually considered reckless disregard, ignoring obvious ways of substantiating allegations could be considered reckless. In Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton, the Supreme Court held that even an extreme deviation from professional standards, or the publication of a story to increase circulation, do not in themselves prove actual malice. The Court also said that while failure to investigate facts does not necessarily prove actual malice, a "purposeful avoidance of the truth" may. Use of quotations that are not literally accurate will not necessarily be considered proof of actual malice as long as the altered quotes do not materially change the meaning of the words the speaker used. In Masson v. The New Yorker Magazine, the Supreme Court acknowledged that some editing of quotations is often necessary, but refused to extend protection to all edits that are at least a "rational interpretation" of what the speaker said. If the plaintiff is a private litigant, he or she must at least prove that the publisher or broadcaster was negligent in failing to ascertain that the statement was false and defamatory. Some states may impose a higher burden on private-figure litigants, especially if the story in question concerns a matter of public importance. _________________________________________________________________ [INLINE] Back to Table of Contents [INLINE] Jump to next section in this chapter

1 0

1a_c7p7.html
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[IMAGE] Chapter VII: Libel Defenses _________________________________________________________________ Truth is generally a complete bar to recovery by any plaintiff who sues for libel. Making sure that any potentially libelous material can be proven true can avoid needless litigation. Fair Report. Libelous statements made by others in certain settings are often conditionally privileged if the reporter, in good faith, accurately reports information of public interest. This privilege usually applies to official meetings such as judicial proceedings, legislative hearings and grand jury deliberations. Opinion is still protected speech under the First Amendment, although the Supreme Court limited the formerly broad reach of opinion protection in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal. The court ruled that there is no separate opinion privilege, but because factual truth is a defense to a libel claim an opinion with no "provably false factual connotation" is still protected. As a result of this decision, courts will examine statements of opinion to see if they are based on or presume underlying facts. If these facts are false or defamatory, the "opinion" statements will not be protected. Consent. If a person gives permission for the publication of the information, that person cannot later sue for libel. However, denial, refusal to answer or silence concerning the statement do not constitute consent. The statute of limitations for bringing libel suits varies from state to state. Generally the time limit for filing a libel lawsuit starts at the time of the first publication of the alleged defamation. If the plaintiff does not sue within the statutory time period, the litigation can be barred. Although a retraction is not usually considered a defense to a libel claim, it may reduce the damages a defendant must pay if found liable for defamation. Before agreeing to publish a retraction, consult an attorney. _________________________________________________________________ [INLINE] Back to Table of Contents [INLINE] Jump to next section in this chapter

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

On Sun, 26 Jan 1997, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > Nurdane Oksas wrote: > > California is know for very beautiful girls ... > > wrong. well, seems D. Thorn agrees with the song: 'california girls'

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

2 1

Re: Happy birthday to Oksas
by Nurdane Oksas 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thank you Dr. Vulis ! :) oksas

1 0

Fantasy quotes & libel
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, After review of the material I forwarded by request it is clear that 'fantasy' quotes are libel provided: * the person being quoted is not a public figure. On a 'private' mailing list like the cypherpunks this is a given unless similar statements can be found in the public records. * the section added to the original quote is not clearly seperated or otherwise dilineated such that a reader will be able to tell what the original quote was and the extrapolation by the 'editor' is. * there is clear intent to effect the perception of the original authors reputation in a negative or otherwise harmful manner. * the 'fantasy' quote is not clearly marked as the opinion of the editor. While quoting persons with editing is allowed under the 1st Amendment as understood by the courts the attributation of extrapolations by a third party (meaning a party other than the original author and the reader) as 'true' quotes of the original author is not. 'Truth' is usually ascribed as protection against libel, however, opinions are not 'true', they are opinions not facts as accepted by a court. With the current 'editorial control' as provided by the cypherpunks mailing list the mailing list operator/censor may also be held in some situations accountable as well. This occurs because the relationship between list operator and the quoter is similar to that of editor and reporter in a newspaper. For the quoter to get his quote distributed the list operator must ok it. The reasoning used is that the editor 'should have known' the boundaries and applied them. Not only is ignorance not an excuse but neither is negligence. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

2 1

re: fighting the cybercensor
by Howard Campbell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A recent publication "The Sovereign Individual"('97) discusses many of the issues discussed on Cypherpunks. The authors, James Dale Davidson and Lord William Rees-Mogg, sketch the likely totalitarian scenarios that will emerge in the coming years. Just as we see every day in the media, they predict that we ain't seen nothing yet when it comes to the attempts to regulate cyberspace, cryptography, and the content of online information. Portraying cellular phone triangulation as a public health concern, etc., are just the beginning. The authors also paint a bleak picture for blanc's 'True Believer' types. They will continue to be milked "as a farmer milks his cows" while those with techno-savvy and 'extranational' savoir faire will grow wings and take their wealth and marketable skills to other jurisdictions where predatory taxmen and arbitrary civil forfeiture laws don't exist. The book is sort of Toffleresque, but written better and full of historical parallels that help the reader to understand social upheavals of the past and how the demise of failing contemporary institutions are likely to affect Joe windowz95. Example: chapter 4- "The Last Days of Politics: Parallels Betwen the Senile Decline of the Holy Mother Church and the Nanny State". aloha, wc

1 0

Re: overview.htm (fwd)
by Toto 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. I don't go in for that sick, perverted stuff, myself, but I have a friend...

1 0

Re: Internet, Countries, Nationalism, etc.
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate wrote: > You can take a horse to water, you can't make him drink. You can drown him > however. Then you are walking, not riding. Thanks for clearing this up for us, Jim. I know that a lot of CypherPunks have been wondering about this, and many others as well. Hopefully, it will be posted on many conferences to enlighted others, as well. Toto

1 0

cc.300.html
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

PUNISHMENT OF LIBEL KNOWN TO BE FALSE. 300. Every one who publishes a defamatory libel that he knows is false is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. [R.S., c.C-34, s.264.] _________________________________________________________________ Next, Section 301 ...

1 0

cc.317.html
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

VERDICTS IN CASES OF DEFAMATORY LIBEL. 317. Where, on the trial of an indictment for publishing a defamatory libel, a plea of not guilty is pleaded, the jury that is sworn to try the issue may give a general verdict of guilty or not guilty on the whole matter put in issue on the indictment, and shall not be required or directed by the judge to find the defendant guilty merely on proof of publication by the defendant of the alleged defamatory libel, and of the sense ascribed thereto in the indictment, but the judge may, in his discretion, give a direction or opinion to the jury on the matter in issue as in other criminal proceedings, and the jury may, on the issue, find a special verdict. [R.S., c.C-34, s.281.] _________________________________________________________________ Next, Section 318 ...

1 0

libsln.htm
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Landskroner, LTD. [INLINE] Libel / Slander Libel / Slander is an area that involves defamatory oral or written statements containing false and misleading material which causes damage or injury to reputation and/or monetary loss. We provide a quick review of their success stories , some media and newspaper articles about what they've been able to do for their clients, and published articles about this topic. Please e-mail us with questions about our service! Landskroner and Phillips [INLINE] Nationally Recognized Consumer Trial Advocates. Over 100 Years combined experience in both State and Federal Courts. 55 Public Square, Tenth Floor, Cleveland Ohio 44113-1904 Phone: (216) 241-7000 Fax: (216) 241-3135 Toll Free: (888) 241-7001 [INLINE]

1 0

1a_c7p4.html
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[IMAGE] Chapter VII: Libel Identification _________________________________________________________________ A plaintiff must prove that the alleged defamatory publication refers to him or her. Relatives cannot sue on behalf of a deceased person. Governmental entities cannot bring libel claims, nor can members of large groups (usually 25 or more). However, if the statement can be interpreted as referring to a particular person in a group, that person can sue. Also, if the offending information pertains to a majority of the members of a small group, any member of the group has standing to sue. A corporation may bring a libel claim if the alleged defamatory statement raises doubts about the honesty, credit, efficiency or prestige of that business. However, if the statements refer only to corporate officers, the corporation cannot litigate on their behalf. _________________________________________________________________ [INLINE] Back to Table of Contents [INLINE] Jump to next section in this chapter

1 0

1a_c7p7.html
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[IMAGE] Chapter VII: Libel Defenses _________________________________________________________________ Truth is generally a complete bar to recovery by any plaintiff who sues for libel. Making sure that any potentially libelous material can be proven true can avoid needless litigation. Fair Report. Libelous statements made by others in certain settings are often conditionally privileged if the reporter, in good faith, accurately reports information of public interest. This privilege usually applies to official meetings such as judicial proceedings, legislative hearings and grand jury deliberations. Opinion is still protected speech under the First Amendment, although the Supreme Court limited the formerly broad reach of opinion protection in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal. The court ruled that there is no separate opinion privilege, but because factual truth is a defense to a libel claim an opinion with no "provably false factual connotation" is still protected. As a result of this decision, courts will examine statements of opinion to see if they are based on or presume underlying facts. If these facts are false or defamatory, the "opinion" statements will not be protected. Consent. If a person gives permission for the publication of the information, that person cannot later sue for libel. However, denial, refusal to answer or silence concerning the statement do not constitute consent. The statute of limitations for bringing libel suits varies from state to state. Generally the time limit for filing a libel lawsuit starts at the time of the first publication of the alleged defamation. If the plaintiff does not sue within the statutory time period, the litigation can be barred. Although a retraction is not usually considered a defense to a libel claim, it may reduce the damages a defendant must pay if found liable for defamation. Before agreeing to publish a retraction, consult an attorney. _________________________________________________________________ [INLINE] Back to Table of Contents [INLINE] Jump to next section in this chapter

1 0

PublicF_j385.html
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Libel Plaintiffs - Public or Private Person Status Recent Examples PUBLIC OFFICIALS: * High School Teacher, Elstrom v. Independent Sch. District (Minn. 1995) * Elementary School Principal, 20 MLR 1640 (VT.) * Former County Employee w/ Financial Responsiblity, 20 MLR 2159 (Tenn.) * Police Officer, 21 MLR 1588 (Az.) * Federal Strike Force Attorney, 20 MLR 1649 (Az.) * TVA Official, 20 MLR 1873 (6th) * Athletic Director/Football Coach, 21 MLR 1746 (Tx.) * Special-Agent-In-Charge of President Ford's Secret Service Detail, 21 MLR 1842 (D.D.C.) * Mississippi Public Defender, 22 MLR 1413 (DC S. Miss. 1994) * Former Deputy Sheriff, 22 MLR 2013 (Fla CirCt. 1994) * Commissioned National Guard Officers, 22 MLR 2046 (Ga. SuperCt 1994) * Police Lieutenant, 22 MLR 2129 (NJ SupCt 1994) * President of State Troopers' association, 22 MLR (NY SupCt AppDiv. 1993) NOT PUBLIC OFFICIALS: High School Principal, 20 MLR 2095 (GA.) Deputy Public Defender, 21 MLR 1624 (CA) Street & Traffic Supervisor, LeDoux v. Northstar Pub., 521 N.W. 2d (Mn. 1994) LIMITED PUBLIC FIGURES: * Charity seeking donations and organizer, 21 MLR 1449 (4th Cir.) * Attorney in private practice representing several school districts, 20 MLR 1992 (NJ) * Physician who sought media attention for practice and technique, 20 MLR 1613 (NY) * Star Witness in Jim Garrison case who "sought limelight", 20 MLR 2113 (La.) * Lawn Mower Repair Co., 22 MLR 1461 (NJ SuperCt. AppDiv. 1994)* * Police Officer/Subject of Book, 22 MLR 1385 (5th Cir. 1994)* * Paycologists/authors, 22 MLR 1852 (7th Cir. 1994) * Convicted Murderer, 22 MLR 2239 (DC Sind. 1994)* * Actress/Model, 22 MLR 2147 (DC E Wis. 1994) * * Appointed tax collector who never took office, 22 MLR 2157 (Ariz SuperCt 1994) * Brother who "voluntarily thrust himself" into controversy surrounding his brothers arrest, 22 MLR 1434 (Ca Ct App 1994) *Note: It is not clear that these individuals would be limited public figures in Oregon. NOT PUBLIC FIGURES: * Host of a loud party, 21 MLR 1378 (Pa.) * Woman at home where MLK had dinner night before shot who was alledged to have had extramarital affair with King, 21 MLR 1353 (S.D.N.Y) * Person accused of of sexual misconduct, 22 MLR 2353 (4th Cir. 1994) Return to J385 Home page

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

1a_c7p6.html
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[IMAGE] Chapter VII: Libel Fault _________________________________________________________________ The Supreme Court has recognized different standards for different types of libel plaintiffs, with public officials and public figures required to show a high degree of fault. Celebrities and others with power in a community are usually considered public figures. Politicians and high-ranking government personnel are public officials. Courts generally consider public officials to include public employees who have substantial responsibility for or control over the conduct of governmental affairs. Some courts have found that public school teachers and police officers are public officials. But determining if other people are private or public figures is not always easy. In some instances, there may be overlapping in the private and public category. For example, a businessperson who has high visibility because of fundraising efforts in a community may or may not be a public figure for all purposes. A plaintiff who is considered a public figure or official must prove that the publisher or broadcaster acted with "actual malice" in reporting derogatory information. "Actual malice" does not mean ill will or intent to harm. Instead, the term applies to whether the defendant knew that the challenged statements were false or acted with reckless disregard of the truth. Courts may examine reporting procedures in testing for actual malice. While carelessness is not usually considered reckless disregard, ignoring obvious ways of substantiating allegations could be considered reckless. In Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton, the Supreme Court held that even an extreme deviation from professional standards, or the publication of a story to increase circulation, do not in themselves prove actual malice. The Court also said that while failure to investigate facts does not necessarily prove actual malice, a "purposeful avoidance of the truth" may. Use of quotations that are not literally accurate will not necessarily be considered proof of actual malice as long as the altered quotes do not materially change the meaning of the words the speaker used. In Masson v. The New Yorker Magazine, the Supreme Court acknowledged that some editing of quotations is often necessary, but refused to extend protection to all edits that are at least a "rational interpretation" of what the speaker said. If the plaintiff is a private litigant, he or she must at least prove that the publisher or broadcaster was negligent in failing to ascertain that the statement was false and defamatory. Some states may impose a higher burden on private-figure litigants, especially if the story in question concerns a matter of public importance. _________________________________________________________________ [INLINE] Back to Table of Contents [INLINE] Jump to next section in this chapter

1 0

prof_960318.html
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

LIBEL CONCERNS ARE A REALITY FOR SCIENTISTS WHO SPEAK OUT IN PUBLIC Author: Robert Finn (The Scientist, Vol:10, #6, p. 15, March 18, 1996) In today's increasingly litigious society, anyone can become the target of a lawsuit. A potential libel action, for example, should not only be the concern of publishers and journalists. The threat of a libel suit is now a reality for anyone, including scientists who choose to speak out publicly-or even write letters to the editor-on controversial issues. A libel suit can come without warning when an ordinary scientist is engaged in ordinary scientific activities. For example, Arnold S. Relman, editor emeritus of the New England Journal of Medicine, was quoted in a newspaper article criticizing the advertising practices of a for-profit hospital. Victor J. Stenger, a professor of physics at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, incorrectly described Israeli psychic Uri Geller's legal history in a book debunking paranormal phenomena. And Jan Moor-Jankowski, as editor of the Journal of Medical Primatology, merely printed a letter from an animal activist opposing a pharmaceutical company's experiments. Each of these scientists soon found himself faced with the dreaded prospect of defending himself in a libel suit. All three eventually prevailed in court, or the charges ended up being dropped. But defending themselves was a painful, distracting, and often expensive process. The lessons they learned are instructive to all scientists who write or make public statements. Arnol Relman CASE DISMISSED: "I think they knew they had no case," says Arnold Relman of the suit files against him by a for-profit cancer-treatment center. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides powerful-but not impregnable-protection to anyone who speaks on controversial topics. "Libel is a civil action, a tort action that you can bring against somebody claiming that a statement, either written or oral, is false and defamatory and caused you injury," explains Charles S. Sims, a noted libel attorney and partner at Proskauer Rose Goetz and Mendelsohn, a New York law firm. (This firm handles libel matters for The Scientist.) Sims notes that legal bills for a libel defense can quickly mount up. Even if the case is dismissed quickly, one can easily run up $20,000 to $60,000 in costs, and if a case drags on, it can go into the millions. Libel insurance can cost publishers thousands of dollars per year, and is an additional factor in today's high cost of publishing. Victor Stenger ERRATUM SHEET INSERTED: Victor Stenger took measures to correct his text but was sued nonetheless. "If you are sued, you need to check with your employer or your institution or your professional group-anybody who might consider themselves morally bound to come to your aid," advises Sims. "And you also need to look at your home insurance policy. An astonishing number of home insurance policies have clauses which turn out to be usable to force an insurance company to pay for a defense." Landmark Case The legal axiom goes, "Truth is an absolute defense against libel," and indeed no true statement of fact can ever be libelous, and neither can statements of judgment or opinion, which are neither true nor false. Both these principles were put to the test in the landmark case that Immuno AG (a pharmaceutical company based in Austria) brought against Moor-Jankowski. The former editor of the Journal of Medical Primatology was then director of New York University's Laboratory for Experimental Medicine and Surgery in Primates. He has recently founded the Center for Academic Freedom, based in New York City. As chronicled in the book The Monkey Wars by Deborah Blum (Oxford University Press, 1994) and in interviews with Moor-Jankowski and his attorney Philip Byler (now at the New York firm Layton, Brooks and Hecht), it all started in January 1983, when Shirley McGreal wrote a letter to the Journal of Medical Primatology objecting to some experiments proposed by Immuno AG. McGreal is an animal activist and founder of the Charleston, S.C.-based International Primate Protection League. She learned that Immuno planned a study of non-A/non-B hepatitis in African chimpanzees, at a research station in Sierra Leone. Based on what she learned about the experiments, and the conclusions she drew from these facts, she had several objections. Among them were that the experimenters would be using wild-caught chimpanzees, whose numbers are dwindling; that they would release them after experimentally infecting them with hepatitis; and that the released chimps might transmit the disease to other animals. With McGreal's letter to the editor in hand, Moor-Jankowski tried to elicit a rebuttal from Immuno's research director. Instead, he soon received a letter from Immuno's lawyers asserting that McGreal's statements were inaccurate and reckless. It read, in part: "We would also like to advise you that our review of Dr. McGreal's letter indicated that it is not a fair comment regarding our client's activities, and should you proceed with publication, without giving us the opportunity for a meaningful response, we shall be compelled to take whatever actions we deem necessary to redress our client's rights." But though Moor-Jankowski waited until December 1983 before publishing McGreal's letter (S. McGreal, J. Med. Primatol., 12:280, 1983), Immuno never offered a substantive response to her charges. During that time Moor-Jankowski himself came to be critical of Immuno's planned experiments, and he was quoted to that effect in New Scientist (N. Heneson, 100:165, 1983). Immuno then brought suit against a number of institutions and individuals, including McGreal, Moor-Jankowski, the Journal of Medical Primatology, New Scientist, the distributors of both publications, and NYU. Although Immuno ultimately dropped plans for the experiments, it continued pursuing its libel cases. In response, almost all the defendants or their insurance companies chose to settle rather than fight. The exception was Moor-Jankowski. Born in Poland, he explains his decision to persist by saying, "As a very young boy I fought the Germans for freedom. I didn't want to stand up for muzzling." It cost him seven years and about $2 million in legal fees ($200,000 of which Moor-Jankowski paid himself), and it generated an eight-volume legal record as the case cycled among the New York County Supreme Court, the New York State Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court. In the end, Moor-Jankowski was vindicated. The Court of Appeals ruled that the letter was a combination of truthful factual statements and opinion, both of which are protected by the First Amendment. Jan Moor-Jankowski HE CHOSE TO FIGHT: Jan Moor-Jankowski did not settle his libel case out of court because "I didn't want to stand up for muzzling." "When you're talking about a letter to the editor, you're talking about what the Court of Appeals in New York correctly viewed as a forum to air grievances and views on the part of the public," says Philip Byler, Moor-Jankowski's attorney. "It's a precedent because it's a . . . decision which adhered to a broad constitutional protection of opinion." Byler maintains that the decision makes clear that "you do have a right to express views that are not orthodox. You do have a right to express viewpoints which over the course of time will be shown to be wrong-minded. A letter to the editor is a forum for opinion, and quite frankly people should feel the leeway to express themselves without the fear that sometime in the future, in the libel courtroom, where money damages are at stake, they will be shown to be wrong. That doesn't say that you have a right to make false, defamatory statements that are really hurtful to somebody." Byler's advice to authors of letters to the editor: Clearly separate factual statements from statements of opinion. "To the extent you are making a statement that's based on inference or speculation or conjecture, use words that indicate that." Byler believes that as editor of the journal, Moor-Jankowski more than fulfilled his obligations by deliberating a considerable time before publication, all the while soliciting a substantive response from the criticized party. Public Figures For a statement to be libelous, the offended party must suffer actual damage, notes Sims. "It's got to be really harmful, not just something that offends somebody's sensibilities, but something that harms their reputation." This principle came into play in Cornell University astronomer Carl Sagan's suit against Apple Computer Inc. of Cupertino, Calif. Apple had been using "Carl Sagan" as its internal name for a new computer. Sagan got wind of this, and his lawyers sent Apple a letter instructing the company to cease and desist. In response, a project manager changed the computer's name to BHA, an acronym for Butt-Head Astronomer. Sagan sued Apple in the Central District of California for, among other things, libel, infliction of emotional distress, and improperly using his name. Judge Lourdes G. Baird dismissed the libel portion of the suit, holding that "one does not seriously attack the expertise of a scientist using the undefined phrase 'butt-head,' and that a reader aware of the context would understand the project manager was retaliating in a humorous and satirical way." Sagan, who declined to be interviewed for this article, later reached a settlement with Apple on the other aspects of the suit. But even when a statement is both false and harmful it still may not be libel, says Sims. "If it criticizes one particular event, in many states it's immune from prosecution under the single-instance rule. If you say that a doctor screwed up an operation, that's not libelous. If you say that he's a terrible surgeon, it might be. Similarly, if you're writing a review of a scientific article and say that scientist miscalculated the numbers... that's not going to be actionable. If you said, on the other hand, that somebody's research was fraudulent, it certainly would be." For individuals judged to be public figures, a statement must not only be false but also must be made with malice or with "reckless disregard for the truth." Explains Sims: "All 'reckless disregard' means is that you actually,subjectively entertained doubts and went ahead and published anyway. If you believe what you are saying, as a matter of law you cannot-if the jury or the judge believes you-lose a libel case." This would likely have been a factor had Uri Geller's suit against Victor Stenger not been dismissed before it ever got to trial. In his book Physics and Psychics: The Search for a World Beyond the Sensesm (Buffalo, N.Y., Prometheus Books, 1990), Stenger stated of Geller that "... he was once arrested for claiming his feats were performed with psychic power." In fact, Stenger had drawn an incorrect conclusion from some of his research material. The accounts Stenger relied upon mentioned that Geller had been "brought to court," but it had been in a civil case, and he had never been arrested. Once Stenger realized his error, he and his publisher voluntarily inserted an erratum sheet and changed the wording in later printings of the book. Nevertheless, Geller sued Stenger for libel in Florida, London, and Hawaii. Stenger is convinced that despite his error he would have prevailed had the case come to trial. "You can say something that is incorrect if at the time it was to the best of your knowledge correct," he explains. "That never came up, because as often happens in legal cases, you get out on technicalities before the merits are really discussed." Geller's Florida and Hawaii cases were dismissed because he brought them after those states' statutes of limitations had expired. And his case against Stenger in London was dropped as part of a global settlement of several related cases between Geller and the Amherst, N.Y.-based Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. New Sources Of Trouble Typically, libel law says that only a corporation or a living person can be disparaged. But in 12 states (Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Texas) it has recently become possible to libel a fruit or vegetable. Farmers in those states can now sue those who make false claims about agricultural products. These "agricultural disparagement" laws were apparently inspired by a 1989 report from the New York City-based Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) linking the apple additive Alar to cancer. Growers turned to state legislators in an effort to fend off criticism by NRDC and other watchdog organizations. Lawrie Mott, senior scientist at NRDC's San Francisco office, calls them "veggie hate-crimes laws," and says of the states that have passed them, "They're attempting to silence those people who have raised questions about the food supply. "It's not clear that these laws are constitutional," Mott continues. "If it's based on 'reliable scientific fact,' it's not considered disparagement under the law. That's a very vague term, and one that's primed for litigation. But the ultimate advice I would have [for scientists] is: If what you say is accurate, stick to your guns. If you have scientific concerns about the safety of the food supply, don't be silenced by people with obvious interests in keeping it quiet." Lawrie Mott LETTUCE LIBELED? Lawrie Mott describes the "agricultural disparagement" laws as "veggie hate-crimes laws". Additionally, new modes of scientific communication-E-mail, Usenet newsgroups, and the World Wide Web-have become further sources of libel-related worries. As Dan L. Burk, an assistant professor at Seton Hall University's School of Law, writes: "For the first time in history, global computer networks have in essence made everyone a publisher-with a few keystrokes, ordinary citizens can make their opinions known to thousands of others... This is an exciting development for individual freedom of expression, but there is a dark side to this unprecedented opportunity: Such computer-mediated communication may also expose ordinary citizens to liability on an unprecedented scale" (D.L. Burk, The Scientist, April 3, 1995, page 12). One thing is certain: Legal liability issues in electronic communication are in a highly unsettled state. For example, there is no agreement on the critical issue of whether service providers such as CompuServe and America Online should be thought of as publishers, and hence at least partially responsible for the content of their service, or "common carriers" and thus no more responsible than is the phone company for conversations over its wires. Another recently developed legal scheme for silencing criticism of corporate practices has come to be called the "SLAPP suit." SLAPP stands for Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation. The law has long allowed just about anyone to sue anyone else for anything, and a SLAPP suit often takes the form of an unwinnable libel suit that is intended to harass and deplete the resources of critics. Arnold Relman, a longtime critic of what he calls the "medical-industrial complex," found himself the target of a what he considered a harassing libel suit after a reporter for the Dallas Morning News asked for his comment on some newspaper and radio ads placed by a for-profit cancer-treatment center, the Zion, Ill.-based Cancer Treatment Centers of America. (This is not technically a SLAPP suit because Relman's statement was quoted in a newspaper account and not made in the course of a public proceeding.) According to Relman, the ads implied that the center was able to help people with advanced cancer who had failed to respond to conventional medical treatments. "I said [to the reporter] I didn't know anything about the company, hadn't heard of it before, but on the face of what he read me those ads were misleading and they were unethical. . . . I said that . . . it was unfortunate that they would hold out this kind of hope to people with advanced metastatic cancer," recalls Relman. The center sued Relman and several other physicians quoted in the article (J. Weiss, Dallas Morning News, June 21, 1992, page 1A). A Texas court issued a subpoena to Relman requiring that he give a deposition at a lawyer's offices in Boston. But Relman's lawyers successfully argued that the Texas court had no jurisdiction in Massachusetts, and the case was ultimately dropped. "I think they knew they had no case," comments Relman. "I was expressing an opinion, and what I said as an opinion was true. I didn't say it with malicious intention. I didn't even know the company. I had nothing personal against them. I was just talking on a matter of public policy and medical ethics. "It seems to me that honest and well-intentioned scientific disputes ought to be off limits to litigation," continues Relman. "Many scientific advances are made by the resolution of disputes, the correction of well-intentioned or honest error by better data, new information... It ought to be possible for scientists to express honest disagreements, to make honest mistakes... without involving them in litigation.... I think it would be a terrible damage to the scientific process if lawyers began to get involved in scientific debates." Robert Finn, a freelance science writer based in Long Beach, Calif., is online at finn(a)nasw.org. [home] [top] [search] [previous] [next] _________________________________________________________________ (The Scientist, Vol:10, #6, pg.15-16 , March 18, 1996) (Copyright ) The Scientist, Inc.) WE WELCOME YOUR OPINION. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS STORY, PLEASE WRITE TO US AT EITHER ONE OF THE FOLLOWING ADDRESSES: 71764.2561(a)compuserve.com or The Scientist, 3600 Market Street, Suite 450, Philadelphia, PA 19104, U.S.A.

1 0

Re: it aint REALLY successful until someone loses his temper <g>
by furballs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>In-Response-To: Atilla T. Hun <attila(a)primenet.com> Well, I see that you could'nt leave well enough alone... :-) Since Snow decided to jump into your face on this one, I might as well throw my $0.02 on the table as well. Funny how my trashcan stays very empty these days now that cypherpunks is in my bit bucket... Frankly, it does not surprise me that homosexuality is yet another pointless off-topic to be discussed on the list. My comments appear below in Snow's exchange... At 08:07 AM 1/26/97 +0000, Attila T. Hun wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > it aint successful until someone loses his temper <g> > > well, I do need to admit my slam was a bit hard; but > homosexuality is an abomination before God. > > ...but I did make one impression: Snow does not wish to be on > the "sharp" end of gun with me.... > > I think I sent you a copy of my original slam; if not, it's > worth reading and I will resend; > > scores of comments and sub topics have been generated, some > nitpicking over carrier #1, etc. --but this is the first flame > which surprises me on a list with so many known faggots --you tell > the boys from the girls in SF by grabbing their crotch. > > accutally, I thought my original post was rather 'sympathetic.' > > ------ > forwarded by Attila T. Hun <attila(a)primenet.com> > original sender was snow <snow(a)smoke.suba.com> > ------ > > Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 00:23:18 -0600 (CST) > From: snow <snow(a)smoke.suba.com> > To: "Attila T. Hun" <attila(a)primenet.com> > Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: Sort this directly to Flames, was Re: Homosexuals > Sender: owner-cypherpunks-unedited(a)toad.com > >> In <199701241414.GAA25350(a)toad.com>, on 01/24/97 >> at 07:17 AM, "Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM" <dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com> said: >> +Anything? My good friend TRRCJ3 reports from San Francisco that the >> +city is much nicer now that so many homosexuals are 6 feet under. >> +Thank God for AIDS. > > attila: >> when AIDS was relatively obscure, I always dismissed AIDS as >> God's response to homosexuality (and other crimes against nature); >> i.e. -settlement by a just God. > > I almost threw a dumb ass redneck of a ship in the middle of the ocean >for a comment like this. Everyone's entitled to an opinion. By stating the above, what he accuses you of, he is just as guilty of in reverse. Frankly, having grown up in a red neck crowd, and then coming to grips with the offbeat communities in So. Cal. was a real eye opener. One can choose to fight it outloud and create havoc whereever they go, or realize that what others do in the privacy of their own domain is their business and doesn't affect your manhood one way or another. This politically correct bullshit response is just symptomatic of someone who is uncomfortable with the position taken for expediency's sake and is trying to justify to himself the course taken. > > I've read a lot of your rantings on this list, and I agree with some of >them, but statements like this prove that you are a bigoted idiot. You may >have some areas where you know what you are talking about, and I wouldn't want >to be on the sharp end of a gun you were holding, but your head is definately >stuck firmly up your ass. Ok, we throw down the gauntlet here in true USENET style, and in keeping with that, have nothing of value to say (just name calling). > >> Unfortunately, some of these boy-girls could not keep it among >> themselves, and the closet queens brought it home. AIDS replicates > > Let's not forget the Hemophilliacs(spelling) and IV drug users. He does bring up a point, which does in some ways support your poistion here. > >> asexually, knowing no boundaries. > > It was purely by accident that HIV was first noticed in the Homosexual >population in this country. > Not true. Aids has been here for many years. They have historically traced it back to Africa where they have records delineating the disease amongst the Eurpoeans and those not indiginous to the area. Interesting that the WHO and other medical groups are studying tribes in Zaire and Congo right now that have a natural immunity to the bug. Considering they have lived in the areas for countless years, it would make sense that natural genetic selection would propogate those who would be resistent and live long enough to have children. Also of interest, is the fact that the living population under study does not practice homosexual behavoir, as it is by virtue of the practice, pointless to the continuance of the tribe. As to the "discovery" of AIDS in the gay population in the US. There was no discovery, as it was a health problem that started spinning out of control within the community. Ofcourse the Murdock press loved the setup as it introduced the proper shock value needed to sell subscriptions - much like the macabre sense of curiosity at viewing a terrible auto accident. Human nature... it never changes. > Viruses don't know anything about a persons sexual preference, and any >so called "god" that would use such a non-selective weapon is not a god >intelligent people should worship. Such a god would be a blind ignorant god. Now Snow is dictating his view of God onto yours. Bad form. No justifiable position to defend. but we do it with vim and vigor... :-) > >> I would not wish the disease upon anyone, but if you play, you >> just might pay --as in "...reap what thy hath sown." > > Tell that to some 1 month old whose mother infected him/her. Tell that >to a 5 year old who got it from a blood transfusion. Someone ought to teach him about the difference between agency and responsibility - nah, he'd use his agency to deny it anyay... :-) > >> To be strongly opposed to homosexuality has nothing to do with >> bigotry, political correctness, or aberrationist apologists; it is >> an exposition of the natural order among the species. > > Answer me 2 questions: > > 1) If homosexuality is a "choice", why would anyone choose that lifestyle >where the averge life expectancy is in the 40's, that causes so much pain >among ones family, and so much conflict with the rest of society. > > 2) If it is not a choice, why would "god" punish those who had no choice? > These two points deny the existence of agency in it's basic form, and deny God by denying his omniscience, and omnipoitence; two basic characteristics of the office. If God were fallable, or human (fallable), then logic would dictate a being of higher plane and that our explict trust in him would be subject to condition, thus invalidating the purpose and scope of religion from a immutable definite to a maybe. Again, a position impossible to defend. Purely opinion. >> and for those who deny God, read Darwin as to the relative >> rate of survival for deviant and/or abnormal species. > > Then how do you explain homosexual behavior in several other species >that seem to be doing quite well? > Donald Woomer answered that question, by pointing out that in the Ag business, it has been observed that ~10% of livestock of many breeds exhibit homosexual tendencies. It doesn't matter the sex of the animal, it's genes do not get passed on to the next generation as it refuses to propogate with the opposite sex in many instances. This does not mean the livestock population is threatened in toto. Infact, the population will continue to thrive. It is when a large percentage of a given herd shows this tendency that the herd declines, dissolves or is taken over by a healthy herd to promulgate the species. The instict for self-preservation is strong, and it is falacious to assume that we has humans can attribute human attributes to such as cattle or sheep. Given the the above claim by Snow, does this mean that man kind is nothing more than livestock? Again, this denies agency and denies the greater intellect that humans enjoy. To wit: when was the last time you saw a cow expressing a global concern about politics on USENET? :-) > The answer is you can't. You adopt a knee-jerk position that reinforces >your deliberate isolationism. Anything that may cause you to question your >worldview gets sorted to /dev/evil and you plow ahead like some pig ignorant >dough boy killing as ordered for king and country. Who's the ignorant one here? The name caller or the recipient. My vote goes to the name caller, as he assumes this to be a debate of fact, when in essence he's expressed only his opinion on the matter and not bothered to show teacher his homework (the dog ate it - so give me an "A" anyway 'cause I deserve it). ;-> ...Paul

1 0

Passphrase Online...
by harka＠nycmetro.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hi there, I have a question reg. passphrases: If I am connected to the Internet via a SLIP/PPP connection and I type my passphrase while being online (for example, in Private Idaho, after getting my mail), could that passphrase be compromised? If so, how would that be done? Also, if I am online, is it possible for somebody to access my hard drive? Thanks in advance for your help... Ciao Harka /*************************************************************/ /* This user supports FREE SPEECH ONLINE ...more info at */ /* and PRIVATE ONLINE COMMUNICATIONS! --> http://www.eff.org */ /* E-mail: harka(a)nycmetro.com (PGP-encrypted mail preferred) */ /* 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... */ /*************************************************************/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAgUBMucA7jltEBIEF0MBAQFdewf/Q74ATvi+OZzSCdyFrIRQ5aRjychCd6hO DbfM+/NQ6EcZseKp30JyjmV2VW4Y+HrxIYPtFKii4XzOJ8YCE2Cvtvn9gP8mAntY oIgsUZG36t+L4nmANpsiEHyzEIMlhjcgW7alKTr+hFbnRjlPwX8W0gdEIXAgIl2k 4uYEB+P+cfUhy1xPQgWfAk6VFspNIHIlFJ3mUqEIJTAOguV//UfIjyNFoGrZhiG7 ocy6YaQ2LiNpoh5xHBIvMf8YSz+FJORVLTucsmA0DYSHMKatNNutXGHoEI5kW1Ww 1O5YAoIuvCLyg/4AEgPBVeU2ClJjARmKrzBcw1bMZDp3wv/DkZdoEQ== =Xtu7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption...

1 0

RE: Fighting the cybercensor
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: jim bell (in response to Dimitri Vulis') 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. ........................................................ 1) Jim, why do you insist on discussing this on an forum for encryption? 2) Why do you suppose the Iraqis haven't already thought of doing this themselves? 3) The Mafia uses this method all the time - why then haven't they achieved a more rational society among themselves? 4) Weren't governments (like the U.S.) instituted to prevent this sort of thing (even if they don't work out as expected)? i.e., there were systems of courts and lawyers and such instituted to openly deal with "criminal" activity so that a) people could receive assistance against low-life degenerate killers, and b) it could be proven that the accused were indeed deserving of punishment. Humans being what they are, this hasn't worked like it's supposed to, but the point is that there is a reason why such ideas for systems of justice were introduced in the first place. That reason, as I eloquently read in a book, was "So That Reason May Live". That is, so that people who choose to live in a "society" may do so by the method of solving problems through the application of intelligence, rather than merely knocking each other off because a voting majority decides they don't like someone. Destructive people often ascend to positions of power not simply because they are ruthless, but because they have 1) many sycophantic followers and 2) many ignorant, vulnerable people unable to prevent it. You might be able to kill off one Saddam, but potentially many others would be waiting in the wings to take his place. The situation surrounding the existence of someone like Saddam is part of the contributing factors which keeps him there, not simply that one man himself. It was the same with Hitler and with so many others - they don't just have an excess of "power" concentrated within themselves which puts them in positions of control over others - there will have been many people who will have helped put them there, expecting to derive benefits from it. And what will be done about all those people who made this "power" possible? You don't just kill the one man and be done with it - you have to also "kill" the conditions which maintained him. .. Blanc

1 0

RE: Jim Choate Speaks Out on My Part of the Net
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Toto Jim Choate wrote: > 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. .......................................................... I believe it, Jim. .. Blanc

1 0

Fantasy quotes & libel
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, After review of the material I forwarded by request it is clear that 'fantasy' quotes are libel provided: * the person being quoted is not a public figure. On a 'private' mailing list like the cypherpunks this is a given unless similar statements can be found in the public records. * the section added to the original quote is not clearly seperated or otherwise dilineated such that a reader will be able to tell what the original quote was and the extrapolation by the 'editor' is. * there is clear intent to effect the perception of the original authors reputation in a negative or otherwise harmful manner. * the 'fantasy' quote is not clearly marked as the opinion of the editor. While quoting persons with editing is allowed under the 1st Amendment as understood by the courts the attributation of extrapolations by a third party (meaning a party other than the original author and the reader) as 'true' quotes of the original author is not. 'Truth' is usually ascribed as protection against libel, however, opinions are not 'true', they are opinions not facts as accepted by a court. With the current 'editorial control' as provided by the cypherpunks mailing list the mailing list operator/censor may also be held in some situations accountable as well. This occurs because the relationship between list operator and the quoter is similar to that of editor and reporter in a newspaper. For the quoter to get his quote distributed the list operator must ok it. The reasoning used is that the editor 'should have known' the boundaries and applied them. Not only is ignorance not an excuse but neither is negligence. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Passphrase Online...
by harka＠nycmetro.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hi there, I have a question reg. passphrases: If I am connected to the Internet via a SLIP/PPP connection and I type my passphrase while being online (for example, in Private Idaho, after getting my mail), could that passphrase be compromised? If so, how would that be done? Also, if I am online, is it possible for somebody to access my hard drive? Thanks in advance for your help... Ciao Harka /*************************************************************/ /* This user supports FREE SPEECH ONLINE ...more info at */ /* and PRIVATE ONLINE COMMUNICATIONS! --> http://www.eff.org */ /* E-mail: harka(a)nycmetro.com (PGP-encrypted mail preferred) */ /* 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... */ /*************************************************************/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAgUBMucA7jltEBIEF0MBAQFdewf/Q74ATvi+OZzSCdyFrIRQ5aRjychCd6hO DbfM+/NQ6EcZseKp30JyjmV2VW4Y+HrxIYPtFKii4XzOJ8YCE2Cvtvn9gP8mAntY oIgsUZG36t+L4nmANpsiEHyzEIMlhjcgW7alKTr+hFbnRjlPwX8W0gdEIXAgIl2k 4uYEB+P+cfUhy1xPQgWfAk6VFspNIHIlFJ3mUqEIJTAOguV//UfIjyNFoGrZhiG7 ocy6YaQ2LiNpoh5xHBIvMf8YSz+FJORVLTucsmA0DYSHMKatNNutXGHoEI5kW1Ww 1O5YAoIuvCLyg/4AEgPBVeU2ClJjARmKrzBcw1bMZDp3wv/DkZdoEQ== =Xtu7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption...

1 0

re: fighting the cybercensor
by Howard Campbell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A recent publication "The Sovereign Individual"('97) discusses many of the issues discussed on Cypherpunks. The authors, James Dale Davidson and Lord William Rees-Mogg, sketch the likely totalitarian scenarios that will emerge in the coming years. Just as we see every day in the media, they predict that we ain't seen nothing yet when it comes to the attempts to regulate cyberspace, cryptography, and the content of online information. Portraying cellular phone triangulation as a public health concern, etc., are just the beginning. The authors also paint a bleak picture for blanc's 'True Believer' types. They will continue to be milked "as a farmer milks his cows" while those with techno-savvy and 'extranational' savoir faire will grow wings and take their wealth and marketable skills to other jurisdictions where predatory taxmen and arbitrary civil forfeiture laws don't exist. The book is sort of Toffleresque, but written better and full of historical parallels that help the reader to understand social upheavals of the past and how the demise of failing contemporary institutions are likely to affect Joe windowz95. Example: chapter 4- "The Last Days of Politics: Parallels Betwen the Senile Decline of the Holy Mother Church and the Nanny State". aloha, wc

1 0

Austin Cypherpunks Feb. Meeting
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The Austin Cypherpunks (austin-cpunks(a)ssz.com) will be holding their next physical meeting on Saturday, February 18, 1997 at 6pm. It will be held at the Central Market HEB Restaurant, look for the red covered 'Applied Cryptography' book. In addition to the local cpunks the Experimental Science Instrumentation and Advanced Computer Experimentation groups have been invited. The meeting is open to all. If you have any questions or need further directions please send email to the Austin Cypherpunks. Hope to see you there.

1 0

Re: Passphrase Online...
by David E. Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >If I am connected to the Internet via a SLIP/PPP connection and I >type my passphrase while being online (for example, in Private >Idaho, after getting my mail), could that passphrase be compromised? >If so, how would that be done? It certainly _could_ but hopefully isn't. Let's say that Joel McNamara hadn't released the sources to Private Idaho. It's certainly possible that he hooked into the windows created when PI shells out to DOS, and left a snippet of code that mails your keyID and passphrase to some throwaway AOL account, or a nym address that bounces through a dozen remailers, or whatever. Anything you give to a program, especially one that you know accesses the Internet, is a potential security risk. (Special note to Joel, if he's still on this list: Yes, I know better. I've read through all of your released Private Idaho sources. You just seemed like a handy example :) Paranoid yet? Good. That's a healthy state to be in. Fortunately, most developers (like Joel) don't put any such evil hooks into their software. Having access to the source, to be able to read through it yourself, is IMO one of the better ways to be sure about such things. Reading the source and recompiling it yourself is probably the best. >Also, if I am online, is it possible for somebody to access my hard >drive? Depends on what kind of computer and software you're running. I'll assume a Windows-style machine. If we assume that Microsoft didn't leave any lurking backdoors in their implementation of wsock32.dll and winsock.dll, and all you run is your usual Web browser and mail client and you trust _those_ you are probably safe. However, if you're running any server daemons on your machine, such as the MS Personal Web Server or WFTPD or whatever, the possibilities go up _a_lot. Those programs were designed to let others access your hard drive, so there's a much higher chance that they'll let someone get something they're not supposed to. Again, if you trust the people that developed your software to not stab you in the back, you should be alright. Still paranoid? Excellent. dave -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAwUBMuxcVHEZTZHwCEpFAQEIKQf8CMV/7NmaJy50DUmiWV8Pg8iYPv8N3Xcl M+Fr0HRO08nxy9uRJ+C+aLhnwmXWYfiXyeSbsy9veHepZfTzsEBIYntlk4wOs7eZ Lk4mjRVI0bLNE60lxmd+8znL0E0QqzVaw5K7t3W0VEe2AMP7aN+ktZGLuIZ8epTg TSQz4u8Q908r+Od/Ojh2BkG13po63ORPu+wKOzMyLeLWgx5Nz252Xot345tHJSJF QqM9SQkDW3AZQgiz+we4qocXE8XQ1VbrMJ+qhTQ6GgsVjpfwJegvOqgIC7hgbpDd gj8lQuEKRqYIPxCqnbh3GbzIQvIwrr4PhvIOuxHX4RPaRacFjrE4iQ== =F/ib -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Passphrase Online...
by harka＠nycmetro.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >If I am connected to the Internet via a SLIP/PPP connection and I >type my passphrase while being online (for example, in Private >Idaho, after getting my mail), could that passphrase be compromised? >If so, how would that be done? :Paranoid yet? Good. That's a healthy state to be in. Fortunately, :most developers (like Joel) don't put any such evil hooks into :their software. Having access to the source, to be able to read :through it yourself, is IMO one of the better ways to be sure about :such things. Reading the source and recompiling it yourself is :probably the best. :Still paranoid? Excellent. Paranoia!! I love that word :)...What about somebody snooping on my phoneline, while I type the passphrase? :) Harka -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBMucbDzltEBIEF0MBAQH/Wwf8DeH6rBzczDPjc00sEAV649EHmZu3Fm5W QCIbtRT9+NWHb4jHmbB5jBkUpkswBDwbisQoZ/XKKhCKeMHbUKWApWiq9jPuvg9w aSsal+8uqVyHLnKEiq1xqjih7rurwRC3qsWWq6Mr7XDgICzfh4XonKgp7ln6LuQj HKk+ewTNND+7WDYGQFAz6VkGzELSjKuPgNRv614IwyC0VXDHH/DJRaEOnBUYa9e2 FfcHUyZANWuHVscHwDCPKIVy+tR8UzsYhhwrIOf1e2KZhTfRMLiP/Tqaaup/C0Nr r5Bjp76e5VPtQ4GsdhrzQT9wjaV2apWq4eDRvkLMq8fVSkV/+ZaTKg== =qEst -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

casio dialer
by ja94a08＠tdi.itm.edu.my 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

anyone heard of casio .. phone dialer watch ? it's stated that user can phone for free using public phone .. anyone ?

1 0

Cyclic codes
by nobody＠zifi.genetics.utah.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timothy Mayonnaise's wee-wee is so tiny that only his mommy is allowed to touch it. __o _ \<_ Timothy Mayonnaise (_)/(_)

1 0

Cable Television Descrambler - Easy To Make !!!
by BradStevens＠ezin.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello {:-) !!! ======= > > > > Cable Television Descrambler - Easy To Make !!! Build your own Cable Television Descrambler with ONLY 7 parts from Radio Shack for UNDER $12.00. Required Supplies: 1 - Radio Shack mini-box (part #270-235) 1 - Œ watt resistor. 2.2k-2.4k ohm (part #271-1325) 1 - 75pf-100pf variable capacitor (special order) 2 - F61A chassis-type connectors (part #278-212) 12" - No. 12 solid copper wire 12" - RG59 coaxial cable Tools required: screwdriver & drill. Soldering gun & solder (optional). Get ALL the Premium Movie Channels, Pay per View and Adult Entertainment Channels for... FREE, FREE, FREE !!! Now, if I have your attention... let me tell you how this fantastic opportunity came about. My name is Brad. I live in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. I have season tickets to our citys hockey team. I invited a friend of mine to one of the games this last November. He said, "Id love to go if you can have me back home by 10:00 p.m." I told him that some games run just past 10:00 p.m. and would he mind we stay if the game was close. His response was, "No, tonight is the Mike Tyson - Evander Holyfield boxing match and I have it on pay per view" I said, "do you mind if I watch the fight with you"? He said, "sure, no problem". So we go watch this great fight on cable pay per view and we are the only two guys at my friends house. After the fight (since it was so good) I offered to pay half of the cost for the fight. My friends anwser was, "no, no, thats not necessary... I got the fight for FREE!". I said to him, "for free, dont those fights cost around $40.00 a pop?" He told me, "yes, they do, but I bought a cable descrambler box from an acquaintance of mine for $300.00". He further explained that this "little black box" gets ALL the pay per view events available! It also tunes in ALL the premium movie channels and ALL the adult entertainment channels. My response (without hesitation) was, "I gotta have one!" "$300.00, no problem where do I pay !!!" Im serious, I was excited. Lifetime premium movie channels, pay per view and adult entertainment all for a one-time fee of $300.00... no way!!! "No way" was right. The guy that sold my buddy the box was no where to be found. I was really disappointed. It was now time for desperate measures. I begged and pleaded with my friend until he agreed to let me take his box apart piece by piece to see how to make one for myself. Luckily it was very easy, if it wasnt simple I knew their was a slight chance it was not going back together so pretty. Now the rest is history... Ive got my own box which I built with my own two hands. Would you like to build one yourself ?!?! If so, would you pay $300.00. Maybe so, maybe not. Probably not, unless you saw one work first. But since that is not possible, I will sell you a complete set of instructions on how to build one yourself for a measly $12.00. However, at that price YOU MUST ALSO ENCLOSE A SELF ADDRESSED STAMPED ENVELOPE WITH 55 CENTS POSTAGE AFFIXED. You might ask, is this some type of rip-off scam deal. The answer is NO! Everything has specific mechanics of how and why they do what they do. We are just used to flipping a switch or pushing a button or moving the mouse across our computer pads. It all happens because of a certain set of processes. The cable television descrambler is no different. However, for legal purposes I must add to this letter that this offer and set of instructions shall be void where prohibited by law and the assembling of parts necessary to make this "little jewel" work is for educational purposes only. To order a set of the instructions send $12.00 by cash, check or money order payable to: Brad Stevens Elder. Send to: 10443 N. May Ave. #604, OKC, OK 73120 USA I will mail your order out within 24 hours of receiving it. Further, I will give you a refund upon written request if you are unsatisfied for any reason. Have a great 1997 !!! Sincerely, Brad Stevens Elder P.S.: The experimental use of this box if you choose to see if your creation works requires no alteration of your existing cable system. You simply screw it in, right behind your television. P.P.S.: Without the instructions its like figuring out how to set the clock on your VCR. With the instructions, you are guaranteed success.

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

On Sun, 26 Jan 1997, snow wrote: > > > getting this degenerate disease when they get older. Check out the > > > videos by Howard Lyman, who used to be a big-time "chemical" farmer. > > > One quote: "My soil after a few years was like asbestos". > > As far as I understand, 1) no one really understands why cancer rates > > are up so much and 2) since people live longer, they are more likely do > > have cancer. > > While I don't claim to to be a Medical Researcher, I think that 1) should > be reworded to be "No one is willing to _admit_ why cancer rates are up so > much". You (generic) can look at certain population groups where there is > low incidence(sp?) of cancer, and then look at our society and it becomes > pretty obvious. > > Breast Cancer is exteremely rare in japenese women living in Japan. Thes > same women <excuse me while I light a cigerate> move to the US, start living > like American start developing breast cancer at a rate very similar to that > of American born women. lack of olive oil intake?? i head that olive oil is esp. necessary for women, as well as milk. > > IMO the biggest reason that "no one really understands why cancer rates are > up..." is that "they" are looking for the single bullet when reality isn't > usually that simple. > > I would be willing to make a bet that if you could get a large population > group to do the following, you would see a large statistical reduction in the > incidence(sp?) of cancer. > > 1) Eat a lot of fruits, vegetables & breads and cerials. Stay away from > large quantities of meat. Try to reduce your fat intake to under 20 grams a > day (USDA recommends around 40) > > 2) Exercise regularly. Ride a bike or walk/run to work. i think it's good also to exercise outdoors as well as your indoor nordictrack machines..sun and air is esp. necessary; > 3) Avoid excess in all things. even chocolate? :) > > What you said is one of the hypotheses. I personally feel that > > environment and bad greasy food are other major contributors. > > The way they cook all these fries, with overheated grease, is very > > bad. > > BINGO!. EAt well, and smile too ;) > > Sorry, gotta go, it's dinner time and McD's is calling... a good laugh goes a long way ... ;)

5 19

Sharon / Re: Scott's Legal Problems
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sharon, While I don't have a lot of details regarding Scott's personal history, as such, I have a lifetime of experience with TS, the medical system, and the legal system, as well. I spent more than a little time in court and at seminars, as a counsellor, addressing the issues of physical and mental disabilities and the resulting behavior patterns that are engendered by them. I have found that both judges and prosecutors inherently understand the issues themselves, but that defendants rarely have anyone able to effectively speak for them in regard to these issues. The fact of the matter is, the legal system is geared toward 'punishment' as a means of impressing upon people that they need to modify their behavior in order to act within the boundaries required by society. In order for people with special needs to be afforded an opportunity to meet society's requirements, there is an onus upon them to be able to show reasonable cause to the judge as to why a 'generic' solution to the problem they present to society is neither feasible, nor just. As a result of being afflicted with Tourette Syndrome, your son has problems that I am very familiar with, since I have had to deal with the results of the affliction myself for almost a half-century, without proper diagnosis. So I will endeavor to explain some of the life-experiences that I have been through, personally, as a result of this disease's influence on my life. The fact is, I was unjustly charged and convicted of a minor drug offense at the age of 19, for the simple reason that I was 'different' from the other 'suspects', and thus was more suspicious. I was fortunate enough to recognize that I was, indeed, different from others, and that this would be something that would affect my life greatly in the future. The result was that I made an effort to fully understand the intricacies of the law and to take actions to protect myself in the future, no matter whether my actions were in line with societies dictates, or beyond the acceptable boundaries of society. When you are 'different', then you are subject to a much closer scrutiny than the rest of society, and to a much harsher punishment, as a rule. I have spent hours on end at the border crossing near my hometown while customs officials called down the drug dogs from the big city, because I couldn't explain to them why I was 'twitching'. I have spent many days in jail waiting to answer to charges that would later be dismissed because there was no substance to them. I have been subjected to personal debasement and humiliating libel because of various authorities deeming that the manifestations of my disability were signs of my lack of morality, or of evil intentions on my part. You say your son has problems over possessing pills that a friend gave him to try in order to help his TS? My father and mother have given me, over the years, various of their medications to try in order to see if it would help me. They did so because, for all of their care and concern, helping me as much as possible within the 'proper boundaries' of medical science, I was not getting what I needed in order to become a functional human being. My father and mother are respected business people and leading members of the community. They never had to fear getting 'busted' for stepping outside the bounds of society--but I did. I found a drug, amphetamine, that helped me to become a functional member of society, but I was subject to arrest and imprisonment if I got caught possessing it. After over three decades of occasional 'illegal' use of the drug, it is now prescribed for my by a doctor who is allowed to do so because it is now a 'recognized' treatment for TS. But, from a legal standpoint, I was supposed to forego use of the drug and lead a more dysfunctional life. DWI's? The most functional period of my life was spent self-medicating with alcohol and nicotine. I acted as president of a small computer company while smoking a carton of cigarettes a day and drinking a case (24) of beer a day. It made me functional. I put on 30-50,000 miles a year, accident free, and there were times that I would not drive if I didn't have my 'medicine/beer' because I didn't feel it was safe to do so. I had the foresight to buy my own breathalyzer so that I could guage my drinking according to the legal standard, but I did so only for legal reasons, not for reasons of safety. Public intoxication? I was recently 'forced' to show up in court in a state of legally defined 'public intoxication' in order not to be locked in a cage like an animal as a result of my disabilities. I missed a court appearance because the prescribed medications I was taking could not get me onto the 'day schedule' required by the legal system. Under threat of imprisonment for failing to show up at the next court date, I spent the previous night imbibing my 'old faithful' medication, Scotch. I had a friend drive me to court, and I drank Scotch and Coke while pleading my case (which I won). I had no desire to 'break the law'. I did not have an 'attitude problem'. I was not trying to 'flaunt the rules of society'. I was trying to survive. I was trying to keep from being locked in a cage for not being able to function according to society's wishes without performing actions which also went against society's wishes, but which would enable me to avoid 'punishment', nonetheless. I take it that Scott is 'hiding out' to avoid being locked in a cage for violating the rules of society. I have spent a great deal of my life 'hiding out' so that I would not have to come into contact with society and be punished for trying to survive while not fitting into the common mold. There have been times when I was forced to 'hide out' from showing up in court to answer this-or-that charge which I knew would be dismissed if I could hold out until I was functional enough to deal with the situation. I had the foresight and the knowledge to do so using the same 'techniques' as a lawyer who isn't ready to plead a case because he stayed up too late drinking the night before. I 'fudged' the truth, as lawyers do every day, but I did so in order to compensate for a dysfunctionality which was very real, but undiagnosed and therefore unrecognized by the legal system. I have been blessed enough in life to have 'escaped' many situations which could have turned out badly for me, by virtue of learning at a young age that I needed to institute my own methods of dealing with a dysfunctionality which I recognized, but which, in many ways, remained a mystery to me. I have also been blessed by having the extreme good fortune to have encountered a number of judges and prosecutors who were truly concerned about justice, and who had the ability to judge me as a human being, and take into account the fact that I was being honest with them about my attitude, intentions and circumstances, even when my outward actions or appearance did not correspond to what they were used to seeing in 'normal' people. And I have been blessed to be able to make a difference in the lives of others by pleading their case to those in authority over them, when they were unable to effectively do so themselves. During my years as a consellor and court-appointed advisor, I was only vaguely aware that I understood the circumstances of the people I was helping to defend because I shared their disabilities and their dysfunctionality. In regard to Scott, I don't know him personally, but the trials and tribulations that you have shared on the pov-twitch forum are not foreign to me, as they mirror my own life in many ways. What I would say to a judge and a prosecutor who are charged with the duty of protecting both society and the individual, is this: 1. Please have the compassion and the wisdom to take a close look at Scott as a human being, and seriously consider what special circumstances may be raised by the fact that he is afflicted with a medical condition that affects his life in ways that he has little control over. 2. Try to make a distinction between actions, behaviors and attitudes that are a result of a 'bad attitude' or a 'criminal intent', and the actions, behaviors and attitudes of an individual who is trying desperately to survive in a world in which he is ill-equipped to function as a result of his disabilities. 3. Please make an attempt to review his past history of involvement with the legal system with an eye toward recognizing that perhaps the judgements made about him, and the resulting legal decisions regarding the disposition of his cases, did not fully take into account his physical and mental disabilities and thus did not reflect the best course of resolution of his case for the greatest benefit of both society and the individual himself. (The Tourette-support forums regularly contain postings by loving and concerned parents who are horrified by the mistaken judgements--and resulting punishments-they made concerning their children before they came to realize that their child had physical and mental disabilities which required them to view his or her actions in a new light, and find unique solutions for the problems that these disabilities presented.) 4. Keep in mind the fact that resistance to authority and the tendency to 'flee' from the face of society are common traits among many who suffer from Tourette Syndrome and its accompanying afflictions. (I posted a message to pov-twitch in which I spoke of feeling like a "hunted animal" for much of my life, and I received a huge outpouring of responses from TS-adults which reflected the pain and fear that they still carried inside of themselves as a result of a lifetime of persecution for the 'small sin' of being different from those around them.) 5. Please realize that you are judging an individual, whose future lies in your hands, who has a genuine need for special understanding in order to bring his case to a resolution which will benefit society and the individual himself. It is easy to recognize the special circumstances and needs necessary to dispense true justice in the case of the 'obviously' and the 'acceptably' disabled. When one is confronted with a retarded individual, or a person in a wheel-chair, the special circumstances regarding the disposition of their case are obvious. When judging a person who is rambling on disjointedly about the voices in his or her head, and truly hears them, then the need to take this into consideration is equally obvious. It is much more difficult to put Tourette Syndrome-type behaviors and attitudes into proper perspective, and to judge the part they play in an individuals actions and behaviors. TS traits encompass ADHD and OCD (Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder), and a variety of 'borderline' dysfunctionalities which result in actions and behaviors which are easy to classify as 'willful', 'disrespectful', etc. (Children who won't sit still in their chairs; who utter obscenities; who perform impulsive actions based on irrational, illogical thought processes.) I recognize that there are certain instances in which society's interest is best served by locking up an individual so that they do not do irrepairable harm to others, but if this concept is extended to the point where it becomes the preferred method of dealing with psychological disabilities, out of convenience, then I feel that justice is no longer being served. Society, in return for abridging the rights of an individual to act in any manner that he or she pleases, also takes on the responsibility to ensure that the individual will not unduly suffer as a result of the dictates of society. If society chooses to judge Scott for stepping outside the boundaries of its rule of law, then society must ensure that Scott is afforded the opportunity to gain the medical assistance that he needs in order to deal with his disabilities within the bounds of society's laws. Imprisonment is hardly likely to be a solution that will result in changes to Scott's medical disabilities. If the legal system is not able to propose an alternative to imprisonment, then what hope is there, really, for anyone who is engaged in a daily battle to overcome the trials, tribulations and stigmatism associated with the affliction of Tourette Syndrome. I wish you and Scott all the best in dealing with his present situation, and I hope that you are blessed with a judge who understands that society is composed of individuals and that, in judging the individual, he or she is judging society itself. Love, Toto

1 0

Re: Fantasy quotes & libel
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:30 AM 1/27/97 -0600, Jim Choate wrote: >Hi, > >After review of the material I forwarded by request it is clear that >'fantasy' quotes are libel provided: [gibberish deleted] You're mixing up elements of a prima facie case for libel, defenses, and standards for liability and damages. You're missing some elements, and adding some extra (contradictory) elements. You're also ignoring at least two other potential causes of action where a quote is misattributed, as well as trying to simultaneously discuss criminal and civil actions. Your summary of defamation law is not an accurate one. Your original message suggested that misattribution could be criminal. While this may be true in some jurisdictions (modulo the First Amendment), no prosecutor is going to waste his or her time with this sort of silliness. Also, go watch _The People v. Larry Flynt_ and meditate on the reason why Jerry Falwell lost his libel claim in the trial court. -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles(a)netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. |

1 0

Cypher-Apology
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I seem to have posted one of my private emails to the conference by mistake. It was in regard to a lady whose son is going to court in the morning and has nothing to do with crypto. (unless I try to make a supremely long leap in relating Tourette Syndrome to the Timmy May 'cocksucker' postings) My first instinct was to blame Bill Gates for holding me hostage and forcing me to use Win95. My second instinct was to try to excuse my error by blaming the ingestion of large amounts of drugs and alcohol for my misdirection of my email. However, after consultation with the space aliens who speak to me through the mercury filling in my teeth, I have come to the realization that the error was the result of the fact that I am a fucking idiot. I imagine that my apology will not be received by those on the censored list, as I have just 'flamed' myself. I would apologize for this, as well, but I am still sober enough to realize that this could quite possibly result in an endless-apology-loop which would interfere with the rights of those on the cypherpunks-uncensored list to receive the "Make $$Money$$ Fast" postings that Sandy has been so kind to forward to those who oppose censorship of list subscribers. Toto

1 0

casio dialer
by iamme 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

anyone heard of casio .. phone dialer watch ? it's stated that user can phone for free using public phone .. anyone ?

1 0

RE: Jim Choate Speaks Out on My Part of the Net
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Toto Jim Choate wrote: > 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. .......................................................... I believe it, Jim. .. Blanc

1 0

Austin Cypherpunks Feb. Meeting
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The Austin Cypherpunks (austin-cpunks(a)ssz.com) will be holding their next physical meeting on Saturday, February 18, 1997 at 6pm. It will be held at the Central Market HEB Restaurant, look for the red covered 'Applied Cryptography' book. In addition to the local cpunks the Experimental Science Instrumentation and Advanced Computer Experimentation groups have been invited. The meeting is open to all. If you have any questions or need further directions please send email to the Austin Cypherpunks. Hope to see you there.

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor
by snow 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 Well, I have made a less destructive proposal along these lines. http://www.bounty.org Version .3 should be up in a day or two.

1 0

Re: WinKrypt
by Gemini Thunder 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thus sprach Frank Willoughby <frankw(a)in.net>: >Out of curiosity, is anyone familiar with WinKrypt by Syncronsys? Syncronsys [sp?] Software is the maker of SoftRam95, a program that supposedly doubled your memory through memory compression and other quasi-magical means. It was later revealed that not only did it not work as advertised, but it actually did not do anything at all (except display graphs indicating non-existant improvements). IIRC, they lost a class action suit over this issue. I would trust an encryption program relased to the public by the NSA more than anything these charlatans released. [snip] >I was curious how it compares to McAfee's PC Crypto which uses >40-bit DES or 160-bit Blowfish (user-chooses) & other PC/laptop >encryption products. BTW, I would also appreciate your input >on any crypto products which you believe to be robust, easy-to-use >& secure. (I know I can only have 2 out of 3, but it's worth a try >anyway). 8^) I consider PGP to be robust, easy-to-use (with some front-end assistance), and secure. However, I am by no means an authority on crypto. __________ - 2[b]||!2[b] /* What's the question? It's a tautology! */ - 0x2B|!0x2B /* == FFFFFFFF */

1 0

Passphrase Online...
by harka＠nycmetro.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >If I am connected to the Internet via a SLIP/PPP connection and I >type my passphrase while being online (for example, in Private >Idaho, after getting my mail), could that passphrase be compromised? >If so, how would that be done? :Paranoid yet? Good. That's a healthy state to be in. Fortunately, :most developers (like Joel) don't put any such evil hooks into :their software. Having access to the source, to be able to read :through it yourself, is IMO one of the better ways to be sure about :such things. Reading the source and recompiling it yourself is :probably the best. :Still paranoid? Excellent. Paranoia!! I love that word :)...What about somebody snooping on my phoneline, while I type the passphrase? :) Harka -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBMucbDzltEBIEF0MBAQH/Wwf8DeH6rBzczDPjc00sEAV649EHmZu3Fm5W QCIbtRT9+NWHb4jHmbB5jBkUpkswBDwbisQoZ/XKKhCKeMHbUKWApWiq9jPuvg9w aSsal+8uqVyHLnKEiq1xqjih7rurwRC3qsWWq6Mr7XDgICzfh4XonKgp7ln6LuQj HKk+ewTNND+7WDYGQFAz6VkGzELSjKuPgNRv614IwyC0VXDHH/DJRaEOnBUYa9e2 FfcHUyZANWuHVscHwDCPKIVy+tR8UzsYhhwrIOf1e2KZhTfRMLiP/Tqaaup/C0Nr r5Bjp76e5VPtQ4GsdhrzQT9wjaV2apWq4eDRvkLMq8fVSkV/+ZaTKg== =qEst -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: libsln.htm -- Is Libel a Crime?
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Cc: to Dr. John Martin Grubor, Law Systems Institute, Medical-Cannabis Assn] Jim Choate wrote: > > > Landskroner, LTD. [INLINE] > > Libel / Slander I am not sure if you posted this information in response to my request to cite a statute that would prove that libel is a crime. Me> Jim Choate wrote: Me> > Me> > Me> > Me> > Are you aware that attributing statements in print to a party when that Me> > party did not write them is a crime? Me> Me> cite the statute These postings do not prove that libel is a crime. It is because libel is not a crime. Libel is a tort, and unlike with crime, the government cannot initiate a legal action against someone for libel. Only injured (libeled) individuals and not the government can sue in a libel case. I would appreciate if someone more knowledgeable about the law could comment on this. I may be mistaken. igor > Libel / Slander is an area that involves defamatory oral or written > statements containing false and misleading material which causes > damage or injury to reputation and/or monetary loss. > > We provide a quick review of their success stories , some media and > newspaper articles about what they've been able to do for their > clients, and published articles about this topic. > > Please e-mail us with questions about our service! Landskroner and > Phillips > [INLINE] > > Nationally Recognized Consumer Trial Advocates. > Over 100 Years combined experience in both State and Federal Courts. > > 55 Public Square, Tenth Floor, Cleveland Ohio 44113-1904 > Phone: (216) 241-7000 > Fax: (216) 241-3135 > Toll Free: (888) 241-7001 > [INLINE] > - Igor.

1 0

RE: Fighting the cybercensor
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: jim bell (in response to Dimitri Vulis') 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. ........................................................ 1) Jim, why do you insist on discussing this on an forum for encryption? 2) Why do you suppose the Iraqis haven't already thought of doing this themselves? 3) The Mafia uses this method all the time - why then haven't they achieved a more rational society among themselves? 4) Weren't governments (like the U.S.) instituted to prevent this sort of thing (even if they don't work out as expected)? i.e., there were systems of courts and lawyers and such instituted to openly deal with "criminal" activity so that a) people could receive assistance against low-life degenerate killers, and b) it could be proven that the accused were indeed deserving of punishment. Humans being what they are, this hasn't worked like it's supposed to, but the point is that there is a reason why such ideas for systems of justice were introduced in the first place. That reason, as I eloquently read in a book, was "So That Reason May Live". That is, so that people who choose to live in a "society" may do so by the method of solving problems through the application of intelligence, rather than merely knocking each other off because a voting majority decides they don't like someone. Destructive people often ascend to positions of power not simply because they are ruthless, but because they have 1) many sycophantic followers and 2) many ignorant, vulnerable people unable to prevent it. You might be able to kill off one Saddam, but potentially many others would be waiting in the wings to take his place. The situation surrounding the existence of someone like Saddam is part of the contributing factors which keeps him there, not simply that one man himself. It was the same with Hitler and with so many others - they don't just have an excess of "power" concentrated within themselves which puts them in positions of control over others - there will have been many people who will have helped put them there, expecting to derive benefits from it. And what will be done about all those people who made this "power" possible? You don't just kill the one man and be done with it - you have to also "kill" the conditions which maintained him. .. Blanc

2 1

Re: Passphrase Online...
by David E. Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >If I am connected to the Internet via a SLIP/PPP connection and I >type my passphrase while being online (for example, in Private >Idaho, after getting my mail), could that passphrase be compromised? >If so, how would that be done? It certainly _could_ but hopefully isn't. Let's say that Joel McNamara hadn't released the sources to Private Idaho. It's certainly possible that he hooked into the windows created when PI shells out to DOS, and left a snippet of code that mails your keyID and passphrase to some throwaway AOL account, or a nym address that bounces through a dozen remailers, or whatever. Anything you give to a program, especially one that you know accesses the Internet, is a potential security risk. (Special note to Joel, if he's still on this list: Yes, I know better. I've read through all of your released Private Idaho sources. You just seemed like a handy example :) Paranoid yet? Good. That's a healthy state to be in. Fortunately, most developers (like Joel) don't put any such evil hooks into their software. Having access to the source, to be able to read through it yourself, is IMO one of the better ways to be sure about such things. Reading the source and recompiling it yourself is probably the best. >Also, if I am online, is it possible for somebody to access my hard >drive? Depends on what kind of computer and software you're running. I'll assume a Windows-style machine. If we assume that Microsoft didn't leave any lurking backdoors in their implementation of wsock32.dll and winsock.dll, and all you run is your usual Web browser and mail client and you trust _those_ you are probably safe. However, if you're running any server daemons on your machine, such as the MS Personal Web Server or WFTPD or whatever, the possibilities go up _a_lot. Those programs were designed to let others access your hard drive, so there's a much higher chance that they'll let someone get something they're not supposed to. Again, if you trust the people that developed your software to not stab you in the back, you should be alright. Still paranoid? Excellent. dave -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAwUBMuxcVHEZTZHwCEpFAQEIKQf8CMV/7NmaJy50DUmiWV8Pg8iYPv8N3Xcl M+Fr0HRO08nxy9uRJ+C+aLhnwmXWYfiXyeSbsy9veHepZfTzsEBIYntlk4wOs7eZ Lk4mjRVI0bLNE60lxmd+8znL0E0QqzVaw5K7t3W0VEe2AMP7aN+ktZGLuIZ8epTg TSQz4u8Q908r+Od/Ojh2BkG13po63ORPu+wKOzMyLeLWgx5Nz252Xot345tHJSJF QqM9SQkDW3AZQgiz+we4qocXE8XQ1VbrMJ+qhTQ6GgsVjpfwJegvOqgIC7hgbpDd gj8lQuEKRqYIPxCqnbh3GbzIQvIwrr4PhvIOuxHX4RPaRacFjrE4iQ== =F/ib -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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: > > > California is know for very beautiful girls ... > > wrong. > well, seems D. Thorn agrees with the song: 'california girls' Depends on where you go, and what time of year. So. Cal. is no doubt a revolving door for the girl markets, especially on the beach board- walks, or on San Vicente where a lot of joggers run. Anywhere else and it's no different from Cleveland or Pittsburgh.

1 0

Re: Fantasy quotes & libel
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:30 AM 1/27/97 -0600, Jim Choate wrote: >Hi, > >After review of the material I forwarded by request it is clear that >'fantasy' quotes are libel provided: [gibberish deleted] You're mixing up elements of a prima facie case for libel, defenses, and standards for liability and damages. You're missing some elements, and adding some extra (contradictory) elements. You're also ignoring at least two other potential causes of action where a quote is misattributed, as well as trying to simultaneously discuss criminal and civil actions. Your summary of defamation law is not an accurate one. Your original message suggested that misattribution could be criminal. While this may be true in some jurisdictions (modulo the First Amendment), no prosecutor is going to waste his or her time with this sort of silliness. Also, go watch _The People v. Larry Flynt_ and meditate on the reason why Jerry Falwell lost his libel claim in the trial court. -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles(a)netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. |

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Nurdane Oksas wrote: > 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 :) There are two really major beaches in the L.A. area that I know of. One is Bolsa Chica, several miles long, north of Huntington Beach, which attracts most of the young'uns south of L.A., and Zuma in the northmost points of Malibu, which gets a lot of Valley people (fer sure). To quote the L.A. Weekly of a few years ago, in a "Best of L.A." review, "Why do all those hot young girls go to Zuma? Because that's where all the hot young boys are." But the real babes don't go there. They get skates and nifty little costumes and zip up and down the boardwalks in Santa Monica and Pacific Palisades mostly, in case some hot producer/director should happen along.

1 0