December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Not necessarily crypto but scary anyway...
by droelke＠spirit.aud.alcatel.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > On Wed, 8 Feb 1995, Ben wrote: > > > On Wed, 8 Feb 1995, root wrote: > > > > A friend advises me that today House Bill 666 passed. This supposedly would > > > allow police officers to use evidence collected illegaly if they 'believed' > > > that it was collected in good faith. > > > This sounds like a spoof. Look at the number. > > Unfortunately, it is not. World Wide Web yourself over to > http://thomas.loc.gov/ and search for hr 666...you will find it. > > "A Bill to control crime by exclusionary rule reform..." maybe if > "control" means "aiding and abetting" > > -Thomas > I haven't looked it up yet, but I did hear about the bill on news last night, so I would say it is legit. The number of the devil indeed. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dan Oelke Alcatel Network Systems droelke(a)aud.alcatel.com Richardson, TX http://spirit.aud.alcatel.com:8081/~droelke/

1 0

Vernor Vinge info...
by jmueller＠gac.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This may or may not have been already mentioned, but I've noticed that Vernor Vinge will be the Guest of Honor at this year's Minicon Science Fiction convention in Minneapolis, MN over easter weekend. I'm planning on going, and was just wondering if anyone here had anything in particular they'd like me to ask him, should I get the chance to talk to him (considering that I know quite well the chairman of last year's Minicon, this is distinctly possible). If anyone would like to attend, memberships are $25 until February 14, then $55 after that and at the door. Contact me for further info if you're interested. -- Joel Mueller - "Here lies one whose name is writ in water." -Keats Check my .plan for my PGP Public Key. PGP encrypted mail is very welcome! This must be Thursday. I never could get the hang of Thursdays. -Dent

1 0

Re: Judges-L FAQ
by Michael Sattler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 17:40 2/8/95, James A. Donald wrote: >But I repeat, I think that the judges list is necessary >and desirable, so long as they remember they are self >appointed and do not start to imagine that they are >the "official" judges. By choosing that name they've shown (to my satisfaction) that they have the subtlety and self-importance of a lynch mob. The goofiness about a copyrighted FAQ only adds to my feelings of them being a dangerous keystone kops net-alike. -----------------------------------------------------------------------+ Michael Sattler <msattler(a)jungle.com> San Francisco, California | Digital Jungle Consulting Services http://www.jungle.com/msattler/ | | You couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season in | a field full of horny clues if you smeared your body with clue musk | and did the clue mating dance. - Edward Flaherty |

1 0

Re: Not necessarily crypto but scary anyway...
by jrochkin＠cs.oberlin.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 9:50 PM 02/08/95, Black Unicorn wrote: >As I understand the bill,(Though I didn't know it was up for passge...) > this is merely a restatement of the current judicial doctrine which >prevents officers acting in good faith from being hindered by an >illegally issued warrant. In essence the concept is that the 4th >ammendment is intended to deter police misconduct by kicking out evidence >gathered illegally. Once a judge issues a warrant, and assuming it is >issued illegally, but with no knowledge by the officers who execute the >search, there is no longer any deterant value in supressing the evidence >and as such it would be "counterproductive" to bar it from presentment. Right, just what we want to do. Encourage police officers to remain as ignorant as humanly possible about constitutional law and citizens' rights. If the police officers can manage to remain so ignorant of con law that they have absolutely no idea that sometimes they aren't supposed to search citizens' property, appearantly all the evidence they aquire will be admissible in court. Well, I feel safer knowing that we encourage a police force that won't let a little knowledge of the bill of rights interfere with there ability to apprehend drug dealers, terrorists, and pedophiles. But if it's already current practice, it's already current practice. Of course, it would be nice if our legislators took time to write law which _increased_ our rights, or which more strictly defined rights that previous legislation and constitution as interpreted by the courts defined loosely. Instead, we seem to to expect congress to constantly try to get laws by the supreme court that are completely totalitarian, and feel lucky when they merely reinforce preexisting undesirable court decisions. sigh. Jefferson _and_ Hamilton are both spinning in their graves.

1 0

Re: Effects of S.314 (Communications Decency Act)
by dmandl＠panix.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:02 AM 2/8/95, strick(a)techwood.org wrote: >Right now there is a "safe harbor" from around 10pm (or is it 9pm?) >thru 6am, but this changes regularly, usually as a result of "case law" >(someone being prosecuted under next month's rules, not this month's) Yup, this stuff is subject to change about every week--so much so that at WFMU, our station manager simply imposed one set of fairly "conservative" restrictions on "obscene" language at _all_ hours, set it down on paper, and left it at that. Can't blame him, as the guidelines were changing literally every few months and at one point it was very easy to be operating based on last month's rules. "Safe harbor" loopholes, disclaimers, etc., are history right now as far as I know, but of course it may have changed. I think the important thing is for the program director to have some "responsible" codified policy to show to the FCC if they hassle you. They mainly want to know that s/he's keeping an eye on things and has some coherent house rules. This sucks, of course, but probably makes life easier in the long run. I have occasionally let a naughty word on a record slip by (accidentally, of course), and no one's going to make a big deal about it. For a while, we were all convinced that the FCC left all these rules impossibly vague on purpose, just so that you didn't even know how to obey the law if you wanted to. Everyone a potential criminal. --Dave. -- Dave Mandl dmandl(a)panix.com

2 1

Re: Da Judge-L FAQ -- We are not Amused
by Michael Sattler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 19:56 2/8/95, Timothy C. May wrote: >It has come to Our attention that Our FAQ, the Da Judge-L FAQ, is being >distributed amongst the rabble...Defense will be heard, and then the >guilty will be punished. Thank you, Sir. May I have another? -----------------------------------------------------------------------+ Michael Sattler <msattler(a)jungle.com> San Francisco, California | Digital Jungle Consulting Services http://www.jungle.com/msattler/ | | You couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season in | a field full of horny clues if you smeared your body with clue musk | and did the clue mating dance. - Edward Flaherty |

1 0

Wed 15 Feb, 730pm: BayFF's first monthly Bay Area EFF meeting
by gnu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

EFF is pleased to introduce a series of monthly `BayFF' meetings in the San Francisco Bay Area. All EFF members, guests, and the public are invited. The first meeting will be in San Francisco on February 15, 1995, at 7:30PM. The gracious donor of our first meeting place is: Wired Magazine 520 Third Street, Fourth Floor San Francisco, CA +1 415 222 6200 voice John Gilmore and Cindy Cohn will speak on the constitutional issues around export controls on cryptography. John is a co-founder of EFF and Chair of the EFF Board's Crypto Committee. Cindy is an attorney in private practice at McGlashen and Sarrail in San Mateo. These controls inhibit free speech, publication of software and papers, academic freedom of inquiry, and personal privacy, as well as having a strong negative impact on computer security. We'll explore some of the implications and prospects for change. Dave Farber will speak on "Living in the Global Information Infrastructure -- some concerns". Dave is an EFF Board member and has more years of experience in computers and networking than the total experience at many startup companies. Vice President Gore has proposed that the nations of the world undertake the building of a Global Information Infrastructure -- the GII. While most leaders agree with the sprit of the Gore proposal -- namely to provide a mechanism which could invigorate the world economy in the forthcoming information age, many disagree with his belief that it will bring democracy to the world. They interpret such statements as being another example of American colonialism. It is this basic lack of uniform global agreement on what terms mean, what rules apply to electronic commerce and what impact a GII will have on their nation that underlies the comments Dave will make. These raise questions about the universality of Cyberspace. He will seek to table a set of questions that may stimulate your thinking in this area. There will also be plenty of time for general and specific questions, issues, discussion, meeting people, and socializing with frontier- minded folks. We will schedule the second monthly meeting near the Computers, Freedom, and Privacy conference -- tentatively on Friday night, March 31. Watch this space for more information. We hope to see you on Wednesday! John Gilmore Jane Metcalfe Denise Caruso (Bay Area members of the EFF Board)

1 0

So, what's it all about?
by Eric Merth 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I went to a UNIX trade show yesterday, and the main speaker was a security type. He talked about "the cypherpunks" among other things. He said you are really scary and dangerous and ... But of course he had to also project this adress (cypherpunks(a)toad.com) on the screen. So are you really scary and dangerous? What are the cypherpunks? Just curious, -EWM

4 3

S314 and potential hell-raising
by silly＠beat.ugcs.caltech.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It seems that 314 is a VERY BIG potental problem, and we should probably be doing everything in our power to find out what it REALLY means and fight it tooth and nail. I think Usenet is the perfect place to take this fight, but I'm not sure what groups are best suited to a discussion. Any suggestions? We simply MUST isolate this bill and, if it even comes close to sounding like what I think it does (ending the near-absolute freedom of expression and content across the Internet), we must fight it in every way possible, enlisting the ACLU, the EFF, and any other group potentially willing to pour money into a legal battle. (me)

3 2

S.314 on Web
by Richard Martin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- The text of S.314 (the pi bill, as Doug pointed out to me earlier today -- why I didn't realise earlier...) is available at http://baldric.resnet.cornell.edu/frodo/s.314.txt.html with a rapidly hypertextified version of Slowdog's text on what the bill will do to American law at http://baldric.resnet.cornell.edu/frodo/s.314.changes.html If there are errors or omissions, please tell me. If the URLs are wrong, the failsafe is my homepage, http://baldric.resnet.cornell.edu/frodo/frodo.html which has links to both. (Really. They're there. There's some bumf about me. But the links are there.) This may be useful to some. I find it handier to have it there than in an odd text file lying around here. frodo =) Richard Martin ChemPhysCompSci 9T7+PEY = 9T8 g4frodo(a)cdf.toronto.edu Trinity College University of Toronto SVW92 martinrd(a)gpu.utcc.toronto.edu My opinions, when not poached. (or fried) frodo(a)uhura.trinity.toronto.edu -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.i iQCVAgUBLzqwH6+lG3+zwTCVAQEGfwP+MOSWEAB2kbbabdai/y3o6QIDIWNefRle UPTCVyqadfIIs7s8bJjymlJs/OCutm76Pdfst8U40Tpi4DcE6NGyuLe9TauHkQEf +wFtgOYrju35YV/pdiXvIBmdnv8etthbtLA+b0KcaRVEKXVYP2NsZ7+WBT/gAVV1 XPbBwe1UJXw= =kaQ8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0