December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: More on digital postage
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:31 AM 2/14/97 -0800, John C. Randolph wrote: > >Tim may says: > >>By the way, I think the "junk fax" and "junk phone call" laws are clearcut >>violations of the First Amendment. I understand why the herd _wants_ these >>laws, as it reduces the costs involved in replacing fax paper, running to >>the telephone only to find someone trying to sell something, etc., but it >>is quite clearly a prior restraint on speech, however well-intentioned. > >I have to disagree here. The junk fax law is a restraint on unauthorised >use of property, i.e. *my* fax machine, *my* phone, etc. However, you connect that fax machine to a phone line, when you know full well that should it be enabled to do so, it will automatically pick up the phone when it "hears" a ring, and will print out a fax based on information provided. It isn't clear why sending a fax is any "wronger" than mailing junk mail, or making a (voice) phone call to somebody. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:12 AM 2/13/97 -0500, Pete Capelli wrote: >jim bell wrote: >> >> At 03:25 PM 2/12/97 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: > ><Some deleted> > >> even more happy to pay, say, 10 cents to each recipient. At that rate, an average >> person would probably receive enough "spam" to pay for his Internet >> account, quite analogous to the way advertiser-supported TV is presented to >> the public for no explicit charge. > > Yes, but why does monetary compensation make it then O.K.? What, exactly, is your definition of "O.K."? I didn't say that would make it "O.K." Rather, the inclusion of the money makes the spam somewhat more tolerable of an intrusion than it would otherwise be. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:05 AM 2/14/97 -0600, snow wrote: >Pete: >> Yes, but why does monetary compensation make it then O.K.? I'd rather >> pay for my Internet access, then be bombarded by spam, no matter what >> they paid me! I think the best soln. is the one that is currently in >> place for phone calls - they can call once, but if I tell them not to >> call me again and they do, I can then begin legal action against them. >> I pay more per month for my phone service than my Internet service ( >> although in NY, *everything* is more expensive. ), and junk phone calls >> are way more intrusive then spam. > > I figure if this scheme comes to fruition, I'll just set up a seperate >account (or procmail) to filter out the spam, deposit the coin, and go on >about my business. That's fine...that's EXACTLY the way the system would work! Intentionally so! The purpose of the payment is not because the sender feels some sort of legal obligation to pay; rather it's analogous to a tip to a waiter. The sender makes the payment based on however much he _wants_ you to pay attention to his message, but fully aware that there is no guarantee that you'll do so. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

4 5

Re: pgp encrypted messages
by Scott Auge 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Scott A. Hommel wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Is it legal or illegal to send a > PGP encrypted message from the US to someone in another country? > Suppose it depends on what ya put IN the message.... -- How has the government interfered in your life today?

1 0

Re: Procmail during the transition, anyone?
by omegam＠cmq.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ichudov(a)algebra.com writes: > subs-cri-be to the unedited list. Nope. I get duplicates with new ID's here, and I have duplicate ID removing recipe enabled. I am subscribed to the list as cyberpass.net now, and not on toad anymore, al least I shouldn't be. Should be resolved by the 20th ;). me -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Omegaman <mailto:omegam@cmq.com>|"When they kick out your front door, PGP Key fingerprint = | How are you gonna come? 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2 | With your hands upon your head, 59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 | Or on the trigger of your gun?" Send email with "get key" as the| -- The Clash, "Guns of Brixton" "Subject:" to get my public key | _London_Calling_ , 1980 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Good Bye Cypherpunks!
by omegam＠cmq.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Michael Froomkin writes: > Just for the record. I will not post to USENET given the spamming that > seems to go to IDs that appear there. > > If any of you reading this are interested in law&crypto topics, please > bookmark my homepage, and vist every so often. I suggest that you munge up your from line and possibly your reply-to address in Usenet postings. Folks who actually want to communicate with you can derive your address from your .sig. By the way, I have intentions of including your web page(s) as references in the cypherpunks-resources faq I am producing. Any objections to this? (I know it's in your .sig and you want to advertise it, but it just strikes me as _polite_ to ask.) me -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Omegaman <mailto:omegam@cmq.com>|"When they kick out your front door, PGP Key fingerprint = | How are you gonna come? 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2 | With your hands upon your head, 59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 | Or on the trigger of your gun?" Send email with "get key" as the| -- The Clash, "Guns of Brixton" "Subject:" to get my public key | _London_Calling_ , 1980 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Fuck UseNet (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 14:39:41 -0800 (PST) > From: Kent Crispin <kent(a)songbird.com> > But the distributed mailing list is by far the most interesting > solution. Contrary to what some have claimed, it really isn't the > same as usenet -- it allows for distributed control. There is no > doubt that the operator of a mail list host should have the freedom > to set his or her policies as they see fit -- it is their machine, > and their responsibility. And contrariwise, subscribers should have > the freedom to chose list hosts with compatible philosophies. Perhaps in addition to the X-foo structures we have discussed already we might consider adding, X-distrib-policy: foo Where foo might be, Public Domain All rights reserved, contact author for redistribution Distribution for non-commercial uses permitted Refer to authors header Copyleft etc. or whatever the policy might be for a given remailer. This would significantly aid folks in their shopping around. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Re: Cypherpunks afraid of spam?
by snow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> It seems very strange that the denziens of this list, reputed to be gutsy > enough to take on the FBI, NSA, CIA, and White House, would be scared > away from a discussion forum (Usenet) by uninvited email. > We'd better hope they never figure out Cypherpunks, Guardians of > Privacy and Defenders of Free Speech, are afraid of spam. It isn't the Once and a While Big Ass Knock Down Drag Outs that kick your ass, it is the mosquito's and the heat, the moldy bread and the drip drip drip of the constant rain. Even Solid rock gets worn away by the steady drip drip drip of the rain. I hate that drip.

1 0

Re: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 17:39:32 -0800 > From: Toto <toto(a)sk.sympatico.ca> > Subject: Re: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) (fwd) > Personally, I try to let people know that they may use even my > private email in any manner they see fit. I have no objection to > even those who disagree with me using it to attack me or misdirect > others, or whatever. > I agree with Jim's 'defacto public domain' idea, as long as it > does not conflict with the reality of the need for intellectual > property rights. > e.g. - copyright and patent law I am not preventing people from retaining their rights. I simply recognize that there are entirely too many different views of 'fair use' to create a blanket order. I also recognize that one responsibility in a democracy of all citizens is the protection of the results of human effort. The best way to protect and preserve information is to place it in the public domain. Of course the other option is to sell large 'collections' to groups like Microsoft who would end up charging you out the ya-ya for looking at 'their' pretty pictures. Wonder what DaVinci would have thought of the way we treat HIS paintings? But I digress. Given that people have many highly individualistic views about copyright of their expression and the need to preserve that expression we must ask ourselves how? One obvious answer is to place everything in the public domain, I am shure the information race we experience now would be nothing compared to that worlds output. However, this prevents truly gifted individuals from being able to spend the time (eg lifetimes) needed to truly master some forms of expression. We certainly don't want to support them on the public dole, so there must be some way for them to make a living off their work. So we recognize their originality or inherent worth in their expression. We also recognize that there can't be complete and total protection because most people would not find a buyer for their expression simply from lack of knowledge. So, lets find a middle ground, one where people can tell other people about things they experience as well as feel secure that their efforts have some inherent worth and also some failsafe to ensure that as much effort as possible gets archived. So let's require each person to include their prefered choice of copyright in their communications, otherwise it falls into the public domain. The only resolution of this approach is that everyone gets what they want. Not relevant in this forum, but I also believe that material being held in copyright should fall into the public domain when the copyright holder dies. > If you are having trouble understanding the concept I am dealing > with, here, then I suggest that you drink a bottle of Scotch and > read this post again. That's certainly one way to get in the correct attitude...;) Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Re: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: Kent Crispin <kent(a)songbird.com> > Subject: Re: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) (fwd) > Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 14:10:36 -0800 (PST) > Jim, if I put "Copyright (c) 1997 by Kent Crispin. All Rights > Reserved." in my .sig, would that constitute a "fair-use header"? As I understand it '(c)' is not considered acceptably close to the normal copyright symbol. What I have been advised is to always spell out 'copyright <date> <person>'. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0