December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Fed Study on Identity Theft
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 18:59:00 -0500 (EST) To: Multiple Recipients of e$pam <e$pam(a)intertrader.com> From: e$pam(a)intertrader.com (e$pam) Reply-To: e$(a)thumper.vmeng.com X-Comment: To unsubscribe, send any email to e$pam-off(a)intertrader.com Precedence: Bulk Subject: Fed Study on Identity Theft X-orig-from: jmuller(a)brobeck.com (John D. Muller) X-e$pam-source: Various Forwarded by Robert Hettinga ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 12:00:09 -0800 From: jmuller(a)brobeck.com (John D. Muller) Subject: Fed Study on Identity Theft To: rah(a)shipwright.com I unsubscribed from e$pam over the holidays, so this item may already have been on, but if not it might be of interest: As required by legislation passed last year (partly in response to the P-TRAK fiasco), the Fed is required to study whether institutions that are not subject to the Fair Credit Reporting Act are making sensitive personal identifying information available to the public, whether such information creates undue potential for fraud and for risk of loss to banks, and whether legislation is needed to address the risk of fraud and loss. The Fed has recently published a request for comments on these issues. Comments are due by January 31. The Fed release is at http://www.bog.frb.fed.us/boarddocs/press/BoardActs/1996/19961223 Have a happy, prosperous and reputation-enhancing 1997. -------------------------------------------------- The e$ lists are brought to you by: Intertrader Ltd - SMART '96 Winners for a Java e$ product Visit <http://www.intertrader.com/> for details ... Where people, networks and money come together: Consult Hyperion http://www.hyperion.co.uk info(a)hyperion.co.uk Like e$pam? Help pay for it! See <http://www.atanda.com/rah.html> Or, for e$pam sponsorship, see <http://thumper.vmeng.com/pub/rah/> Thanks to the e$ e$lves: Of Counsel: Vinnie Moscaritolo <mailto:vinnie@webstuff.apple.com> (Majordomo)^2: Rachel Willmer<mailto:rachel@intertrader.com> Commermeister: Anthony Templer <mailto:anthony@atanda.com> Interturge: Rodney Thayer <mailto:rodney@sabletech.com> HTMLurgist: Cynthia Zwerling <mailto:czrider@@webstuff.apple.com> --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox, e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "The cost of anything is the foregone alternative" -- Walter Johnson The e$ Home Page: http://www.vmeng.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://offshore.com.ai/fc97/

1 0

Free Money!
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1 0

If guilty of a lesser crime, you can be sentenced for a greater
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 18:44:07 -0800 (PST) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: If guilty of a lesser crime, you can be sentenced for a greater The Supreme Court ruled on this sentencing case yesterday. Kennedy and Stevens -- hardly known as civil libertarians -- dissented. The Court reversed the 9th Circuit, ruling the lower court was wrong to say that such a practice "would make the jury's findings of fact pointless." The court declared: "Sentencing enhancements do not punish a defendant for crimes of which he was not convicted, but rather increase his sentence because of the manner in which he committed the crime of conviction." Double jeopardy? What's that? Of course it was a drug crime. The defendant, Vernon Watts, was convicted of cocaine possession with intent to distribute. To paraphrase another saying: "'Drug Trafficking Offense' is the root passphrase to the Constitution." -Declan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 17:41:35 -0800 From: Jim Warren <jwarren(a)well.com> Sender: owner-fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Did you read about the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision? Seems they decided it was acceptable for a judge to use crimes for which a jury has found a defendent *NOT guilty*, to justify imposing greater penalties than the judge could otherwise, for a lesser crime for which the jury found the defendent guilty. (It's quite common to prosecute someone for multiple crimes, and have the jury find them innocent of some charges, but guilty of others.) Now, all a judge has to do is opine that, in his or her unilateral opinion, there is a "preponderance of evidence" of guilt of the more serious crime -- in spite of the unanimous finding by every member of the jury, that the defendent is NOT guilty of that crime, beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme's *unsigned* 7-2 opinion says than a finding of NOT guilty, "does not prove that the defendent is innocent; it *merely* proves the esistence of a reasonable doubt as to his guilt." [I.e., all U.S. citizens now risk being penalized as theough they are guilty, unless they can PROVE they're innocent!] Much worse, the basis for *criminal* guilt and associated penalties -- charged, prosecuted and imposed using the massive powers and resources of the State -- has now functionally changed from proof "beyond a reasonable doubt," to the much lesser standard of, "preponderance of evidence," which used to be limited only to civil litigation prosecuted between private attorneys for feuding plaintiffs. Who says the practices of the Third Reich didn't survive!? --jim, Amerikan citizen Jim Warren (jwarren(a)well.com) GovAccess list-owner/editor, advocate & columnist (Govt.Technology, MicroTimes) 345 Swett Rd., Woodside CA 94062; voice/415-851-7075; fax-for-the-quaint/<ask> [Also blind-cc'ed to others.]

5 5

Germany Passes Sweeping Cyberspace Legislation 01/06/97 (fwd)
by wb8foz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

BONN, GERMANY, 1997 JAN 6 (NB) -- By Sylvia Dennis. The German government passed a major round of legislation in the runup to Christmas that aims at regulating the Internet and protecting user privacy. No surprise there.... {} The law also prohibits the use of "cookies," software applets that trace a user's path across the Internet and recording the data they view. This is, to me! -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz(a)nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

2 1

RE: The FAGGOT list
by Brett Carswell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Aga Wrote: > >That is another FAGGOT coming out of the woodwork! >> > Just how many KNOWN faggots are on this list? [snippo] > >Most of the above men are apparently FAGGOTS, since they >conspire to censor Freedom Of Speech on the InterNet, under >the guise of "spam elimination." Actually, is all a front >for censorship by homosexuals on the InterNet. >[more snippo] >> > All of these who are faggots must be labeled >> > and watched, as we know that faggots are the worst censors. Could someone please forward me the URL of the FAGGOT (are the caps manditory?) detecting software for mailing lists. I feel pretty left out as almost everyone else know who the FAGGOTS are. Is this the same software that detects Cocksuckers or does Dr Dimitri have something of his own. Maybe we could all band together and come up with something that detects Nazi moderators as well. Brett

2 1

Re: Moderation
by Bovine Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim C. May's sexual life is not the business of the cypherpunks mailing list. o)__ (_ _`\ Tim C. May z/z\__)

1 0

re: Free Money!
by anonymous＠miron.vip.best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thanks for the dough! I just love cyber technology. Will spend it wisely.

1 0

[STATS] Cypherpunks subscriptions on and off
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The following table shows cypherpunks subscription activity for the period 12 Oct 1996 thru 07 January 1996. Date ~Days #Subs Gain Loss Gain / day Loss / day ----- ----- ----- ---- ---- ---------- ---------- 10/12 n/a 1361 n/a n/a n/a n/a 11/04 23 1353 211 219 9.2 9.5 11/30 26 1299 173 227 6.7 8.7 12/18 18 1262 120 157 6.7 8.7 01/07 20 1291 151 122 7.6 6.1 ----- ----- ---- ---- ---------- ---------- Totals: 87 655 725 7.5 8.3 Interpretation: Unless the reversal of gain/loss in the 5th data row is permanent, c-punks are losing 0.8 bodies per day, or 294 subscribers per year. Actually, the constant high turnover suggests something else: Many people join the list and get back off again due to the high volume and their own personal time constraints. Unless Sandy can cut *way* back on the number of posts to the list, i.e. excise a *lot* more postings than just the blatant Spam and "Timmy is a....." posts, it won't make any difference to those people who come and go. In effect, Sandy is going to have to cut the number of daily posts (to the moderated list) from, say, 100 per day down to, say, 20 or 25 per day. This would certainly be a goal of his, since most of the subscriber comments I've heard indicate that even 50 posts per day of "relevant political/social commentary" is way too high for them. As to the net loss in subscribers, the moderation of the list could have a substantial effect on the number of subscribers short-term, but whatever trend we have here will continue regardless, since the real value and character of the list is not determined by the posts which are removed (unless it were that some of the character and value is going to be removed), but by long-term factors which are to be expected when the principals get older, less involved, and less contentious (like Sandy, wanting to avoid conflict).

4 6

Copyright loophole?
by azur＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

While doing research at a law library, I came across what appears to be a legal loop-hole in the copyright law. It seems a famous author's publisher had a substantial number of unbound and unsold copies of his works sitting around. Another publisher purchased them from his publisher, without the author's knowledge, and printed an anthology which included an index which was not part of the purchased (copyrighted) items. In Kipling vs. G.P. Putnam & Sons (1903, CA2 NY) 120 F 631, the 2nd circuit found that (from 17 USCS § 501) "Publication of an index to accompany copyrighted volume of author's work although containing words and phrases found in text, does not constitute infringement." From the original opinion: "They were also at liberty to make and publish an index contained in their volumes even though the index, as necessary must, contain words and phrases found in the text." Q1: Could this decision (which has stood since 1903) support the creation, storage and distribution of "standalone" on-line indicies to copyrighted works without infringement? (I could not find a direct reference to "fair-use" in the portion of the opinion referencing the index nor a related ruling, using the 1976 Copyright Act, which overturned the "index' provision.) Q2: How much content can an index contain and still not infringe? Q3: What would be the legal standing of these indicies, or several unrelated "indexes", if they can jointly (but not separately) be used to reconstitute the original copyright work by a private citizen? (Anonymous index posting, especially via a Ross Anderson style Eternity Service, might "practically" circumvent government enforcement.) -- Steve

1 0

What about postscript?
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

What if somebody wanted to publish the source code of an encryption program in book form, but make the book dowloadable freely from an ftp site using postscript or PDF format. Surely, the government will be hard pressed to argue the difference between paper media and electronic media here, since the files downloaded cannot be used to encrypt or decrypt data, without somebody first typing in the source. Maybe MIT or PGP should convert at least part of the PGP book into postscript and then request Commerce Department clearance to make it publically available. That should make for a nice court battle. If somebody argues that sophisticated programs can extract the text out of postscript files, what about providing JPEG images of pages of the book?

1 0