December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

clambake
by Jon Lebkowsky 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Electronic Frontiers Forum, Thursday, May 9 Join Jerod Pore, keeper of the electronic Factsheet Five and way informed observer of the Church of Scientology's Internet bucket brigade, for an informal clambake around the virtual campfire. Those waves keep rollin' in... you can hear the ocean roar... *** Access info: Chats are at 7PM PDT Each Thursday Electronic Frontiers Forum at Club Wired, HotWired http://www.hotwired.com/eff Access to the Electronic Frontiers Forum in Club Wired at HotWired is by telnet to chat.wired.com:2428, or you can go to http://www.hotwired.com/club and click on "Enter Club Wired." The Electronic Frontiers Forum is on channel 03 (Cafe Wired). A login is required, but free and easy to get (go to http://www.hotwired.com/reception/form.html) -- Jon Lebkowsky <jonl(a)wired.com> http://www.well.com/~jonl Electronic Frontiers Forum, 7PM PST Thursdays <http://www.hotwired.com/eff>

1 0

remailer@utopia.hacktic.nl down
by Alex de Joode 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Release date: Wednesdag, May 8, 1996 Amsterdam, The Netherlands General announcement, Due to recent events the Hacktic Foundation has decided to discontinue its remailing operations, the remailer that is operated by the Hacktic Foundation will cease to exist May 20th. Please update your reply blocks if you use the above mentioned remailer <remailer(a)utopia.hacktic.nl> for your nym reply block. bEST Regards, -AJ- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2i iQCVAwUBMZCdsVnfdBSNVpE9AQF85wQAuDfE3icuDCzA99biqd9qk6VK8zUEFvEp OgZvqfGD8OxG8ElnFMQk2VMHskUK8QxidO+zKPUZrJNd4eBSiFSNIK7BAox1xMQm hUGTzLEBBGc3Hxg4pYc3Y2A7PDhU7GJusCZmk89zPUI4ouN+CHYQnZ4PMggB1Hmo coambU0vmD4= =ZdIS -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

5 7

Re: The FBI/NSA's new escrow argument, DC crypto panel
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:46 PM 5/6/96 -0400, Declan B. McCullagh wrote: >I just came back from the Online Services Industry conference held today >in Washington, DC at the Georgetown Four Seasons. It was very much a DC >thing, organized by Congressmen Jack Fields and Rick White (of the >Internet Caucus). > >The fourth panel was "Law Enforcement and Encryption in Cyberspace," >with this set of characters: > > * Edward Allen, supervisory special agent/section chief, FBI > * Clinton Brooks, advisor to the director, NSA > * Dorothy Denning, professor, Georgetown University > * Bruce Heiman, attorney, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds > * Jim Lucier, director of economic research, Americans for Tax Reform > * Marc Rotenberg, director, EPIC >The FBI's Allen said: "We have talked to our foreign law enforcement >counterparts who are concerned with exporting strong crypto. Crime is >increasing internationally... There is not an international free market >for crypto. To a great degree, other nations have been relying on U.S. >export controls to maintain stasis. What bothers me about efforts being >proposed legally is that we're moving forward without understanding what >we're getting into... The efforts can go to order or chaos. We're in a >period where it could go to chaos." Maybe there's a sort of backhanded solution to this. I recall the story that, in the early 1970's, it was sport in MIT's AI Labs to try to crash the Unix computer. More and more protections were added, which eventually were worked around with more failures. Eventually, they found a beautiful solution: Add a command to the operating system, "Crash the computer!" which did exactly this. Suddenly, this goal became devalued, and nobody wanted to crash the computer anymore. Okay, what if a foreign distributor (very tiny, perhaps) was set up that loudly proclaimed that it would sell any crypto only legally available in the US, but had been smuggled out by people unknown and sent to it anonymously. (It would verify the genuineness by sending it back into the US, for verification, etc.) It announces that it is pleased to sell to everybody ESPECIALLY "terrorists, child-pornographers, drug smugglers, and other criminals." To keep from angering the software writers themselves, it would pay appropriate royalties to those whose works they had sold, but obviously they wouldn't ask permission to do this. At that point, any argument against the export of such software will fail, because the software already has a willing supplier overseas. Yes, this is the way it already it, sorta, but the difference is that there is nobody who enthusiastically claims that this is exactly what they're doing. Representatives of such a distributor can be called upon to appear at any debates, hearings, or other activities in order to spoil the arguments of Denning et al. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Georgia Internet Police
by Joseph M. Reagle Jr. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

X-within-URL: http://www.clark.net/pub/rothman/ga.htm [IMAGE] Needed: a first-rate lawyer who'll fight the Internet Police law in court. Click below on the "How We Can Educate" link for more info on constructive actions. Return to NetWorld! Book | Other Musing on Intellectual Property How We Can Educate Pols, Olympic Boosters and Other Georgians | Links of Interest Contest: Write the Best "Night the Lights Went Out in Georgia" Parody The Internet Police Law: The Day the Sites Went Out in Georgia? David H. Rothman | rothman(a)clark.net Linking your Web site to anyone else's without permission? Be glad you're not in Georgia--or be worried if you are. Gov. Zell Miller on the morning of April 18 signed into a law a piece of imbecility that the Marietta Daily Journal had dubbed the Internet Police bill. House Bill 1630 may prevent Webfolk from linking from their homepages against the wishes of the linkees--at least if the other guys' names or logos are used. Is 1630 a belated April Fool's joke? I've heard of Net-dumb pols, but Georgia has out-Exoned Exon--and maybe even out-Doled Dole. Shari Steele, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, wrote Gov. Miller before the signing: "The language of the bill would make it illegal to create a button on our web site with Wired's 'trade name' or 'logo' without first obtaining 'permission or authorization' from Wired magazine." Whoops: oh, please, Wired--don't sue me. Actually that would be the state's job; you see, the law would let Georgia throw your posterior in jail for up to a year. Live out of state? As of this writing it was unclear how much of a danger extradition would pose--maybe none, given the lunacy of the law. Then again, there are rumors that California and other states may replicate Georgia's stupidity. The morning the Guv signed the bill, I dropped by the State of Georgia Home Page. Under "Search Engines and other Web Services" I saw a link to Yahoo. I'm glad the Georgia folks can use Yahoo from down there, rather than having to start their own. Imagine Yahoo needing permission for every link with a trademarked name. And what about a page displaying the results of a Lycos search? Now that would be fun. Can you imagine the Lycos computer e-mailing every site brought up--asking permission--before it listed Web addresses? I visited Zell Miller's Web area. Without the least irony, a headline read: "Governor Miller's Technology Initiatives Thrive." The page bragged about computers in classrooms. Just don't let the little brats grow up to start Yahoo Kudzu. According to the EFF, the same law might make it illegal even to mention a company's name on the Web without permission. True? Just imagine what this could mean to an online newspaper reviewing another publication's Web site. Already a software company outside Georgia has used existing intellectual property law to bully a reviewer. I've said it once, and I'll say it again: The media are damned fools if they support intellectual property zealotry of the kind we've seen out of Capitol Hill recently. Goodbye, First Amendment. These are national issues, alas, not just problems with the Georgia drinking water. If nothing else, I suspect that the good folks at the AT&T Business Network--the ones who run LeadStory.com, a collection of the day's hottest stories from online newspapers--may have some thoughts on the Georgia bill. To add to the fun, when I dropped by Cox Newspapers' big Web site for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, I saw a "Surf Less. Know More" ad from LeadStory.com. At the Atlanta site's Net News I just happened to read a report on a trademark infringement suit that BellSouth had filed against the an Internet directory called the Real InterNet Pages. Hmmm. Any connections here with the new law? And simply because BellSouth's print directories use the trademarked phrase "The Real Yellow Pages," is the company entitled to www.realpages.com--the smaller company's existing Web address? The Real InterNet Pages, after all, isn't saying, "www.realyellowpages.com." In any event one would hardly confuse the Real InterNet Pages with BellSouth; the pigmy tells visitors to its home page: "Not Affiliated, Associated or Connected with BellSouth or any BellSouth-related company." Coincidentally or not, the Internet Police bill was introduced by Don Parsons, a Net-innocent employee of BellSouth. According to the Conservative Policy Caucus in the Georgia House: "During floor debate, Rep. Parsons could not explain the concept of a link on a home page. It was clear to many that he had no idea of what the Internet was all about. Supposedly, his desire was to prevent 'misrepresentation' on the Internet. Parsons admitted that he had never been on the Internet, except looking over a colleague's shoulder at work." One can understand, then, why many Netfolks wonder if Parsons' employer has encouraged him to squelch competition at a time when the Baby Bells envision a Web full of Yellow Pages. Bell South vehemently denies a connection between it and the Parsons bill. Whatever the case, however, the legislation would help the Parsons' employer. Oh, I've read Parsons' stated reasons for his law. But in guarding against fraud and protecting intellectual property rights, do we really want to toss out the First Amendment? Jeff Kuester, a Net-hip attorney of intellectual property in Atlanta, says: "We should certainly strive for effective protection of intellectual property on the Web, but not by destroying this crucial part of the information superhighway. These links let people move seamlessly from Web site to Web site. They're as crucial to the Web as bridges are to our nation's system of concrete-and-asphalt roads. If nothing else, we should avoid denying Netizens the free speech guaranteed outside cyberspace." While Parsons has denied that his law would make unauthorized links illegal, its wording would suggest otherwise. Criticizing Parsons' work, the Conservative Policy Caucus quotes the essence of HB1630 as it could affect links, and I'll pass on a rough extract with some tweaks of my own for the sake of clarity and precision: "It shall be unlawful for any person...knowingly to transmit any data through a computer network...if such data uses any individual name, trade name, registered trademark, logo, legal or official seal or copyrighted symbol to falsely state or imply that such person...has permission or is legally authorized to use such trade name, registered trademark..." Granted, some might say that you could assume implied consent if any material is up on an open medium like the Web and you want to link to it with appropriate identification by name. But the law is still a big threat, given the new legal liabilities it creates for journalists, publishers, activists and many others. Suppose your story online won't read like a puff piece. Will you need your target's goodwill before you can link to the site of a polluter or other recipient of negative publicity? And what about linking privately? Suppose you're on a local area network in the newsroom and want to share information with colleagues by way of an internal Web page. Will you require at least your target's tacit consent before you can do so? Exactly what does HB1630 mean by "a computer network," just the external variety? Not in my extract above was this additional language: "for the purpose of setting up, maintaining, operating, or exchanging data with an electronic mailbox, home page, or any other electronic information storage bank or point of access to electronic information." Sounds as if the Internet Police law won't delight the Society for Professional Journalists, Investigative Reporters and Editors or the Reporter's Committee for Freedom of the Press. Bill 1630 also contains other goodies, according to the valuable April 17 issue of EFFector Online and the EFF's Steele. For example, Ms. Steele says the bill could criminalize the use of pseudonyms; I'd suspect that's of interest to, say, American Online or to safety-minded parents who want their children to log on with fake names. Besides, just what's a "false" name? Ms. Steele writes of someone with the user name of "elvis" and says: "Even my own user ID, which is ssteele, does not clearly distinguish me from others with the last name of Steele and the first initial 'S.'" I myself am another good example of the identity issues that arise on a global computer network. My publisher insisted on calling my book NetWorld!, and it was logical for me to set up a NetWorld! Web site but guess what? If you do an Alta Vista search, you'll also find thousands of "NetWorld" mentions from unrelated "NetWorld" sites and the rest of the Web. Among the others are Peter's Networld from Peter Heneback, a Swedish foreign exchange student at West Anchorage High School in Alaska; NETWorld Market Place; NetWorld Publishing; NetWorld Systems; Networld +Interop, which, yes, has been known to hold expos down in Atlanta; and NetWorld Limited, a Hong Kong consulting company. And I'm to worry about other "NetWorlds" and "Networlds" from Alaska to Atlanta and Asia? While trademark law has its place, we need to allow for reasonable interpretations. I asked Prima Publishing to consult an attorney before it used NetWorld! on pulped wood. No problem, I heard. But what happens to my book's online version if I'm in Georgia and trademark fanatics prevail in court? There and elsewhere, politicians keep babbling that they'll get government off our backs. What bilge. If Georgia politicans respect citizens' rights, why is the high-tech community talking of a lawsuit against the Internet Police law? Alas, the Georgia state legislature won't meet again until next year, but meanwhile Zell Miller might speak out against his baby before it frightens away millions of dollars of high-tech business. Perhaps he can at least promise to ask his attorney general not to enforce the Internet Police law. As long as the law is still alive, I myself will do everything I can to warn Netfolks that Georgia is a risky place for them to do business right now. Meanwhile, I suspect that the Internet Police law will be like Jim Exon's Communications Decency Act. Many people will just ignore it, furthering breaking down the respect of Generation Net for politicians and bureaucrats in general. Return to Top of Page [IMAGE] HOW TO PROTEST THE SILLINESS _______________________________________________________________ The Internet Police bill--effective July 1, 1996--passed at least partly because politicians kowtowed to Big Bucks. Tell them they were wrong, that the bill will cost Georgia, that it's about as good for the state as Sherman's March was, that you'll tell your high-tech employer to stay the hell out of Georgia to avoid net.stupid regulations, that you'll think twice about attending the Olympics or buying goods that carry the Olympic logo. Let Georgia pols know that most Web sites thrive because of the ease of linking, not in spite of it. Time Magazine has zillions of links all over the Net. And without bureaucratic intervention, Netfolks already enjoy a wealth of phone- and Net-directories such as Yahoo's. Tell the Georgians that the Internet Police bill is a creature of special interests such as phone companies and, yes, politicians trying to crimp uppity rivals, including those in the Conservative Caucus. Some establishmentarians hated the idea of the conservatives' using the official Georgia seal on their Web site. This issue transcends ideology--my own politics are progressive. Protesting, you should avoid obscenity. Be angry in a rational and responsible way. Don't justify the anti-Net stereotypes that technophobes love. Georgia contacts [IMAGE] Gov. Zell Miller. I'd include an email address for Gov. Miller, but I couldn't find one--maybe I'm looking in the wrong locations on the Web, or perhaps in the wrong universe. His office phone number is 404-656-1776. Fax: 404-656-5948. Snail: Governor Zell Miller, State Capitol, Atlanta, Georgia 30334. It's just as well, actually, that you not use electronic mail since I doubt that the governor's office is that Net Aware. Otherwise why the Exon would he have signed this turkey? [IMAGE] Conservative Policy Caucus of the Georgia House of Representatives. You can email Georgia Representative Mitchell Kaye, the Webmaster, at webmaster(a)gahouse.com. Click here for Kaye's report on Parsons and the anti-Net law. Arm the Caucus with letters it can use to fight this atrocity. What the Net needs now, says Representative Kaye, is a court injunction against enforcement of the law. Anyone know a first-rate lawyer willing to work pro bono and make a name for himself or herself? If so, e-mail or phone Mitchell Kaye (770-998-2399), the legislator who so far has spent the most time and energy fighting the Internet Police law. Perhaps this case could be a natural for a group such as the American Civil Liberties Union or the Interactive Services Assocation, whose members include American Online, CompuServe and Prodigy, among others. One legislator has talked of corrective legislation, but according to Kaye's current thinking, a court challenge at this point would be more effective, since other politicians could water down a bill. At any rate, a bill couldn't be formally introduced until January 1996; and, says, Kaye, a court case could be the best approach. Stay tuned. Foes of the law are still sorting out their options as far as the best way to proceed. [IMAGE] E-mail addresses of members of the Georgia House, via the Conservative Policy Caucus. Remember, some of the people listed may be supporters of the Police Bill. [IMAGE] Names, addresses, home, office, and FAX numbers of state legislators. Click here and scroll down the list for contact information for Georgia House Speaker Thomas B. Murphy. Do not harass him--it'll just backfire. If you can manage, try instead to educate him; see if you can't save your anger for posts on the Net. [IMAGE] Don Parsons' phone number (770-728-8506) and FAX number (770-528-5754) and other contact info. Again, please avoid harassment! But do give him a piece of your mind; ideally you can fax Parsons, then email a cc: to Rep. Mitchell Kaye (mkaye(a)gahouse.com) a vehement critic of the Net Police law. First, read Don Parsons' defense of his baby. Among other things he writes that "Internet users - consumers, children, business people, clergy, etc., - have a right to expect that the Internet pages they visit are what they are presented to be." My response? Word on the Net circulates pretty quickly about frauds, and existing laws cover many situations. New, Internet-specific laws--against fraud or copyright violations--need to be much better crafted than HB1630 was. Above all, they must be infinitely more respectful of the First Amendment. [IMAGE] Georgia Attorney General Michael Bowers. His phone number is 404-656-4585; his fax number, 404-657-8733; and his snail address is: Judicial Building, Atlanta, Georgia 30334. [IMAGE] State of Georgia Home Page. Poke around. Look for pressure points--people associated with tourism and other business. See below. [IMAGE] Georgia Department of Industry, Trade & Tourism, "Georgia's official state agency for developing new jobs and creating capital investment." Sign the guest book; register your company's lack of interest in relocating there while the Internet Police bill is in effect. Use the "Description of Business" field and ask that the Webmaster forward your opinion to policymakers. [IMAGE] Yahoo listings for 1996 Olympic Games. Use the "mailto's" (where you click to start writing a letter) and sign the guest books with protests against Georgia's medieval information policies. [IMAGE] 1996 Olympic Games Home Page. Give 'em a piece of your mind on the feedback page. [IMAGE] BellSouth's Olympic links. Yes, BellSouth is an official sponsor. So if the Olympic folks take awhile to get the point, you'll know why. Of course you might try complaining to BellSouth itself--the president is Carl E. Swearington, telephone 770-391-2424; fax, 770-399-6355. [IMAGE] Cable News Network (CNN), whose Web site will be directly affected by the imbecility out of the state legislature. The feedback address is cnn.feedback(a)cnn.com. Give 'em permission to use your name and address on the feedback page. Oh, and while you're at it, you might ask CNN to forward your sentiments to Scott Woelfel, editor in chief of CNN Interactive. Tell him it's ok to link to this page, and suggest that the video part of CNN just might want to warn the world about the Internet Police bill. [IMAGE] E-mail, fax and snail addresses and phone numbers for the Georgia media--including the Atlanta papers and the Associated Press down there. From the Conservative Caucus. [IMAGE] Georgia Media List from Harden Political InfoSystems. Newspapers, magazines and broadcasters. Looks extremely comprehensive. [IMAGE] Thinking Right, a reader comment area of the Atlanta Journal. Speak up! Let Atlanta know that Georgia's on your mind! The "Piney Pete Sez" column of April 20 says of the Internet Police bill: "What prompted this action was not widespread abuse. It was one little gadfly, Rep. Mitchell Kaye, who's been using the great seal of Georgia on his conservative Website. Needless to say, Kaye is a Republican and consequently shut out of any highway largess, concrete or electronic." Return to Top of Page [IMAGE] MORE LINKS _______________________________________________________________ [IMAGE] Full text of the Internet Police bill. [IMAGE] Electronic Frontier Foundation. [IMAGE] April 17 EFF newsletter with details on the Internet Police bill. [IMAGE] Bell South Denies Lobbying for the Police Law. Rep. Don Parsons, sponsor of House Bill 1630, works for BellSouth; but the company wrote attorney Jeff Kuester a letter saying Parsons does not serve as a lobbyist--and that the actual lobbyists were "totally unaware" of the company's suit against the Real InterNet Pages. The letter said, "Bell South did not draft, sponsor, promote or lobby for 1630. Bell South took no position on the legislation whatsoever other than, when it was brought to our attention, to recommend an exemption from liability for telephone companies and Internet access providers who provide transmission services for their customers." BellSouth did say that "it is probably probably overkill and unduly complicating to make the act of trademark infringement, misrepresentation and passing off on the Internet a crime under state law." The company also offered observations on the law's effects on links--thoughts with which the Electronic Frontier Foundation would undoubtedly disagree. [IMAGE] The Prize-winning Web Page of Jeff Kuester, the Net-hip intellectual property attorney mentioned earlier, who also has an engineering background and is active in groups such as IEEE. You can bet that like Kuester, scads of other Georgians love the Net and are just as surprised and disappointed by the Internet Police law as the rest of us were. He has a page with relevant links about the law. Kuester (kuester(a)kuesterlaw.com) is working to bring state pols up to speed on Net law and technology, and he would like to expand his efforts at the national level. Send him a note if you're interested in helping out. A good cause! Note, too, the existence of a Congressional Internet Caucus. Education of policymakers is the best protection against Net-stupid legislation like HB1630. Perhaps even Parsons will see the light someday. Meanwhile, if you want to check out some first-class resources on the Net and intellectual property law, drop on by Kuester's site! [IMAGE] The Real InterNet Pages, the Net directory that the $18-billion BellSouth conglomerate is suing for alleged trademark infringement. BellSouth holds a trademark on the phrase "The Real Yellow Pages," but does that automatically entitle the company to "realpages.com" on the Net? Read why a BellSouth triumph could hurt you. The boys at realpages.com have put together a nice Web page with a yellow background ("we don't think they own the color yellow either"). E-mail your support to Don Madey at dmadey(a)realpages.com. Any lawyers out there willing to do pro bono? Publicity from such a case could be an excellent career-enhancer. [IMAGE] c|net News Article on the Police Law. [IMAGE] Georgia Cyberphobes, the Augusta Chronicle's editorial against the Net police bill--written just before Gov. Miller signed it. The Chronicle didn't see the HR1630's trademark-related language as a threat but objected to the attack on online anonymity. It called for Miller to vero the bill. [IMAGE] Editor and Publisher. He explains how links help electronic newspapers. Note: The just-supplied link will soon disappear, but when that happens, you might be able to find the column in his archives. Return to Top of Page [IMAGE] YOUR OWN "NIGHT THE LIGHTS WENT OUT" PARODY? I'M LOOKING FOR THE RIGHT ONE _______________________________________________________________ Who can come up with the best "Night the Lights Went Out in Georgia" parody-in the spirit of this site? Give it a shot. May 18 is the contest deadline, and I may extend it if Netfolks are too angry to concentrate long enough come up with a quotable parody. No prizes, just some exquisite notoriety. Please do not enter, of course, if you mind having scads of other Web sites link to your words. -David H. Rothman, rothman(a)clark.net _______________________________________________________________ Top of Page | Return to NetWorld! [IMAGE] Linking Encouraged. No Permission Needed from Me, Especially if You're in Georgia! _______________________ Regards, Men govern nothing with more difficulty than their tongues, and can moderate their desires more than their words. -Spinoza Joseph Reagle http://farnsworth.mit.edu/~reagle/home.html reagle(a)mit.edu E0 D5 B2 05 B6 12 DA 65 BE 4D E3 C1 6A 66 25 4E

1 0

Re: Arguments _against_ privacy, anyone?
by attila 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 15:58:03 -0700 (PDT) ***where do some of these people get off the bus? >From: Phil Agre <pagre(a)weber.ucsd.edu> Subject: Call for bad arguments against privacy * "We've lost so much of our privacy anyway." ***and that justifies stripping you of the rest, correct? * "Privacy is an obsolete Victorian hang-up." ***arrest that man for public nudity! * "Ideas about privacy are culturally specific and it is thus impossible to define privacy in the law without bias." ***let me ask you, boy, just what the fuck you mean? * "We have strong security on our data." ***yawn... * "National identity cards protect privacy by improving authentication and data security." ***you must like to mutilate your body when they insert the chip? * "Informational privacy can be protected by converting it into a property right." ***yes, if you not consider that the concept of property rights, i.e. title, must be defined byins contents? * "We have to balance privacy against industry concerns." ***what's good for General Motors is good for the country. * "Privacy paranoids want to turn back the technological clock." ***yes, number 4078956898346, your comment has been registered. * "Most people are privacy pragmatists who can be trusted to make intelligent trade-offs between functionality and privacy." ***yes, just like people are inherently good, unless the issue is money. * "Our lives will inevitably become visible to others, so the real issue is mutual visibility, achieving a balance of power by enabling us to watch the people who are watching us." ***yes, you do not throw stones at others who live in glass houses. * "Once you really analyze it, the concept of privacy is so nebulous that it provides no useful guidance for action." ***oh, it is better that government take no action??? * "People *want* these systems, as indicated by the percentage of them who sign up for them once they become available." ***dale carnegie: will you ever quit selling your ideas! * "Concern for privacy is anti-social and obstructs the building of a democratic society." ***aaaah, taxation by representation? * "Privacy regulation is just one more category of government interference in the market, which after all is much better at weighing individuals' relative preferences for privacy and everything else than bureaucratic rules could ever be." ***huuh? * "There's no privacy in public." ***no? try screaming 'rape' in NYC * "We favor limited access." ***to just the thought police? * "Privacy in these systems has not emerged as a national issue." -- Overseeing first-rate programmers is a managerial challenge roughly comparable to herding cats. cc: Cypherpunks <cypherpunks(a)toad.com> Phil Agre <pagre(a)weber.ucsd.edu>

1 0

Re: Arguments _against_ privacy, anyone?
by attila 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 15:58:03 -0700 (PDT) ***where do some of these people get off the bus? >From: Phil Agre <pagre(a)weber.ucsd.edu> Subject: Call for bad arguments against privacy * "We've lost so much of our privacy anyway." ***and that justifies stripping you of the rest, correct? * "Privacy is an obsolete Victorian hang-up." ***arrest that man for public nudity! * "Ideas about privacy are culturally specific and it is thus impossible to define privacy in the law without bias." ***let me ask you, boy, just what the fuck you mean? * "We have strong security on our data." ***yawn... * "National identity cards protect privacy by improving authentication and data security." ***you must like to mutilate your body when they insert the chip? * "Informational privacy can be protected by converting it into a property right." ***yes, if you not consider that the concept of property rights, i.e. title, must be defined byins contents? * "We have to balance privacy against industry concerns." ***what's good for General Motors is good for the country. * "Privacy paranoids want to turn back the technological clock." ***yes, number 4078956898346, your comment has been registered. * "Most people are privacy pragmatists who can be trusted to make intelligent trade-offs between functionality and privacy." ***yes, just like people are inherently good, unless the issue is money. * "Our lives will inevitably become visible to others, so the real issue is mutual visibility, achieving a balance of power by enabling us to watch the people who are watching us." ***yes, you do not throw stones at others who live in glass houses. * "Once you really analyze it, the concept of privacy is so nebulous that it provides no useful guidance for action." ***oh, it is better that government take no action??? * "People *want* these systems, as indicated by the percentage of them who sign up for them once they become available." ***dale carnegie: will you ever quit selling your ideas! * "Concern for privacy is anti-social and obstructs the building of a democratic society." ***aaaah, taxation by representation? * "Privacy regulation is just one more category of government interference in the market, which after all is much better at weighing individuals' relative preferences for privacy and everything else than bureaucratic rules could ever be." ***huuh? * "There's no privacy in public." ***no? try screaming 'rape' in NYC * "We favor limited access." ***to just the thought police? * "Privacy in these systems has not emerged as a national issue." -- Overseeing first-rate programmers is a managerial challenge roughly comparable to herding cats. cc: Cypherpunks <cypherpunks(a)toad.com> Phil Agre <pagre(a)weber.ucsd.edu>

1 0

Re: Why Leahy is No Friend of Ours
by attila 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Addressed to: E. ALLEN SMITH <EALLENSMITH(a)ocelot.Rutgers.EDU> Cypherpunks <cypherpunks(a)toad.com> ** Reply to note from E. ALLEN SMITH <EALLENSMITH(a)ocelot.Rutgers.EDU> 05/06/96 8:47pm = To: attila(a)primenet.com = = From: IN%"attila(a)primenet.com" "attila" 5-MAY-1996 21:36:54.93 = = > how many _truly_ "populist" presidents have we elected? = = SMITH: = Given the numbers of times that a democracy has done more harm than = good to civil liberties (Prohibition, the election of Islamic Fundamentalists = in Algeria, etcetera), we don't _want_ a "populist"/demagogue president. We = want someone in charge (to whatever degree that someone has to be in charge) = who will respect civil liberties. The masses aren't going to elect such a = person; they prefer protection to liberty and always will. = = ATTILA: democracy is _never_ the ideal government. the difference in the American government is that it is a _republic_. the problem with a republic in the techno age is that the press and/or advertising creates the images --and can be bought, stolen, coerced, etc. my intent is to "lament" that the American voters do not influence the choice of candidates --who are vetted my money, or money's interests. most mat not wish to consider the hidden importance of the CFR and related groups --it is not a conspiracy; it is just another group with an agenda --except they have the money and influence to _buy_ the agenda over time --amd on their schedule. = > ATTILA: = > "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little = > temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." = > --Ben Franklin (Historical Review of PA -1759) = > = > and, the bottom line is: = > = > "It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen = > from falling into error; = > it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government = > from falling into error." = > --Robert H. Jackson (1892-1954), U.S. Judge = = Quite. = -Allen -- Overseeing first-rate programmers is a managerial challenge roughly comparable to herding cats.

1 0

Re: Arguments _against_ privacy, anyone?
by attila 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 15:58:03 -0700 (PDT) ***where do some of these people get off the bus? >From: Phil Agre <pagre(a)weber.ucsd.edu> Subject: Call for bad arguments against privacy * "We've lost so much of our privacy anyway." ***and that justifies stripping you of the rest, correct? * "Privacy is an obsolete Victorian hang-up." ***arrest that man for public nudity! * "Ideas about privacy are culturally specific and it is thus impossible to define privacy in the law without bias." ***let me ask you, boy, just what the fuck you mean? * "We have strong security on our data." ***yawn... * "National identity cards protect privacy by improving authentication and data security." ***you must like to mutilate your body when they insert the chip? * "Informational privacy can be protected by converting it into a property right." ***yes, if you not consider that the concept of property rights, i.e. title, must be defined byins contents? * "We have to balance privacy against industry concerns." ***what's good for General Motors is good for the country. * "Privacy paranoids want to turn back the technological clock." ***yes, number 4078956898346, your comment has been registered. * "Most people are privacy pragmatists who can be trusted to make intelligent trade-offs between functionality and privacy." ***yes, just like people are inherently good, unless the issue is money. * "Our lives will inevitably become visible to others, so the real issue is mutual visibility, achieving a balance of power by enabling us to watch the people who are watching us." ***yes, you do not throw stones at others who live in glass houses. * "Once you really analyze it, the concept of privacy is so nebulous that it provides no useful guidance for action." ***oh, it is better that government take no action??? * "People *want* these systems, as indicated by the percentage of them who sign up for them once they become available." ***dale carnegie: will you ever quit selling your ideas! * "Concern for privacy is anti-social and obstructs the building of a democratic society." ***aaaah, taxation by representation? * "Privacy regulation is just one more category of government interference in the market, which after all is much better at weighing individuals' relative preferences for privacy and everything else than bureaucratic rules could ever be." ***huuh? * "There's no privacy in public." ***no? try screaming 'rape' in NYC * "We favor limited access." ***to just the thought police? * "Privacy in these systems has not emerged as a national issue." -- Overseeing first-rate programmers is a managerial challenge roughly comparable to herding cats. cc: Cypherpunks <cypherpunks(a)toad.com> Phil Agre <pagre(a)weber.ucsd.edu>

1 0

Re: fixing netscape
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:49 PM 5/6/96 -0500, you wrote: >http://reality.sgi.com/grafica/framefree > >This doesn't have any direct crypto relevance -- it's a program >that improves navigator binaries by modifying them so they won't >understand frames. I'm a little surprised that we didn't think >of this when we were waiting for Jeff to allow us to turn off >javascript. Ouch - that's a slightly scary piece of code, though it should probably work ok if you get the details correct for your operating system. It patches the binary to xxxxxx out the strings "frameset" and "noframes"; I suppose you could do something similar to kill Java. I'd been expecting maybe a web proxy that would eat frame requests, which could be adapted to kill of Javascripts as well. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com, +1-415-442-2215 # goodtimes signature virus innoculation

1 0

Re: Arguments _against_ privacy, anyone?
by attila 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 15:58:03 -0700 (PDT) ***where do some of these people get off the bus? >From: Phil Agre <pagre(a)weber.ucsd.edu> Subject: Call for bad arguments against privacy * "We've lost so much of our privacy anyway." ***and that justifies stripping you of the rest, correct? * "Privacy is an obsolete Victorian hang-up." ***arrest that man for public nudity! * "Ideas about privacy are culturally specific and it is thus impossible to define privacy in the law without bias." ***let me ask you, boy, just what the fuck you mean? * "We have strong security on our data." ***yawn... * "National identity cards protect privacy by improving authentication and data security." ***you must like to mutilate your body when they insert the chip? * "Informational privacy can be protected by converting it into a property right." ***yes, if you not consider that the concept of property rights, i.e. title, must be defined byins contents? * "We have to balance privacy against industry concerns." ***what's good for General Motors is good for the country. * "Privacy paranoids want to turn back the technological clock." ***yes, number 4078956898346, your comment has been registered. * "Most people are privacy pragmatists who can be trusted to make intelligent trade-offs between functionality and privacy." ***yes, just like people are inherently good, unless the issue is money. * "Our lives will inevitably become visible to others, so the real issue is mutual visibility, achieving a balance of power by enabling us to watch the people who are watching us." ***yes, you do not throw stones at others who live in glass houses. * "Once you really analyze it, the concept of privacy is so nebulous that it provides no useful guidance for action." ***oh, it is better that government take no action??? * "People *want* these systems, as indicated by the percentage of them who sign up for them once they become available." ***dale carnegie: will you ever quit selling your ideas! * "Concern for privacy is anti-social and obstructs the building of a democratic society." ***aaaah, taxation by representation? * "Privacy regulation is just one more category of government interference in the market, which after all is much better at weighing individuals' relative preferences for privacy and everything else than bureaucratic rules could ever be." ***huuh? * "There's no privacy in public." ***no? try screaming 'rape' in NYC * "We favor limited access." ***to just the thought police? * "Privacy in these systems has not emerged as a national issue." -- Overseeing first-rate programmers is a managerial challenge roughly comparable to herding cats. cc: Cypherpunks <cypherpunks(a)toad.com> Phil Agre <pagre(a)weber.ucsd.edu>

1 0