December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

We Won! Injunction granted against CDA
by bobpal＠cdt.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Text of the decision is available at http://www.cdt.org/ciec/. ----- Bob Palacios, Online Organizer/Sysop Center for Democracy and Technology <bobpal(a)cdt.org> 1634 Eye Street, NW Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20006 http://www.cdt.org (v) +1 202 637 9800 http://www.cdt.org/homes/bobpal/ (f) +1 202 637 0968 FIGHT INTERNET CENSORSHIP! Visit http://www.cdt.org/ciec

1 0

Fight-Censorship Dispatch #14: CDA VICTORY!!!
by declan＠well.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fight-Censorship Dispatch #14 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- CDA VICTORY!!! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- By Declan McCullagh / declan(a)well.com / Redistribute freely ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- In this dispatch: Philly judges deal death blow to CDA, 3-0 decision Press confererences and rallies June 12, 1996 WASHINGTON, DC -- It's finally over, and it's about fucking time. Our lawsuit seeking to overturn the ill-begotten Communications Decency Act has succeeded in its first phase, two years after Sen. Jim Exon (D-NE) first introduced the act. The three-judge panel struck down both sections of the CDA in a unanimous decision. Even Judge Ronald A. Buckwalter got a clue in the end. The ACLU will have the text of its decision online at its web site by 11 am today. HotWired is putting together an extensive special report that will go live this evening, including interviews with attorneys and advocates on both sides of the issue. Justice Department lawyers, unfortunately, declined to be interviewed for it. Why? Let's just say they're not breaking out the champagne over at DoJ headquarters over on tenth street. And now, on to the Supreme Court... +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ PRESS CONFERENCES AND RALLIES +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ ACLU attorneys will hold a press conference at 11 am today at the group's headquarters: 132 West 43rd Street, 5th floor, NYC. Contact Emily Whitfield at 212-944-9800 x426, emilyaclu(a)aol.com. ACLU and ALA plaintiffs will attend. At noon today, CIEC representatives including Bruce Ennis (Jenner & Block), Jerry Berman (CDT), and Bill Burrington (AOL) will hold a press conference at Jenner & Block, 601 13th St. NW, Washington, DC. Contact Sydney Rubin at 202-828-8829. There's a New York City rally in Silicon Alley at 6:30 pm today at 626 Broadway, Suite 3-A. Contact: Shabbir Safdar (VTW) at 718-596-7234, shabbir(a)vtw.org. Pittsburghers will rally in defense of free speech online at 4 pm today on the steps of the Oakland Branch of the Carnegie Library, on Forbes Avenue adjacent to the campus of the University of Pittsburgh. Contact: Josh Knauer at 412-683-6400, josh(a)envirolink.org. HotWired is holding a live WiredSide chat with ALA/CIEC attorney Bruce Ennis this evening. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- COPYRIGHT UPDATE: The House markup of HR2441 tentatively scheduled for June 13 has been postponed indefinitely. My sources tell me that this probably means the bill's dead this session. HotWired's live WiredSide chat with ALA/CIEC attorney Bruce Ennis: http://www.hotwired.com/wiredside/ Relevant web sites: <http://www.aclu.org/> <http://www.vtw.org/> <http://www.epic.org/> <http://www.eff.org/> <http://www.ala.org/> <http://www.cpsr.org> <http://www.cdt.org/> This document and previous Fight-Censorship Dispatches are archived at: <http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/top/> To subscribe to future Fight-Censorship Dispatches and related announcements, send "subscribe fight-censorship-announce" in the body of a message addressed to: majordomo(a)vorlon.mit.edu -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

What constitutes a remailer?
by Sean Walberg 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

What really constitutes a remailer (pseudo-anonymous vs anonymous arguments aside)? For example, the other day I received a message from 66west.com saying that I had a greeting card waiting, I was to go to a certain URL and enter a simple password to retreive my "greeting card". Now this card had no return address, no name. Could this constitute a remailer? A while back there was a thread on how to take some of the responsibility off of the remailer operators (the last one in the chain more so), could this be a viable alternative? (Actually, I believe it was discussed). As for tracking, I'm sure the server logs are rotated often, and are not kept forever (our student page server here rotates daily and logs are kept for 4 days AFAIK), so perhaps this may even be less traceable. Using these greeting cards, what prohibits me from sending a letter instead of "happy birthday"? Will the anti-remailer people crack down on this also? I can just see the law "Thou shalt not send greeting cards via email without photoID" :-) Sean ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sean Walberg umwalber(a)cc.umanitoba.ca The Web Guy http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~umwalber UNIX Group, U. of Manitoba PGP Key Available from Servers

1 0

ALERT: We win! Court rules 3-0 for free speech!
by Voters Telecommunications Watch 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

============================================================================ __ _________ __ \ \ / /_ _\ \ / / FREE SPEECH WINS IN COURT! \ \ / / | | \ \ /\ / / THE COURT DISSES THE CDA 3-0 \ V / | | \ V V / \_/ |_| \_/\_/ NETIZENS CELEBRATE WITH FIREWORKS Redistribute this intact until June 15, 1996 URL:http://www.vtw.org/speech/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table of Contents News How can I help spread the word? Rally information for NYC and Pittsburgh Press information ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- NEWS WE WIN! After 18 months of work, netizens finally got the justice they so richly deserve. The three-judge panel in Philadelphia issued a ruling today saying that they had examined the Communications Decency Act, learned about the Internet as a medium, and concluded that the law is an inappropriate method of regulating cyberspace. This decision establishes an overwhelmingly positive precedent for the final decision by the Supreme Court, expected early next year. The famed "Question Mark" icon that had started popping up all over the WWW changed simultaneously at 9:09am from a question mark to fireworks, as thousands of Netizens began the mad rush to obtain a copy of the court decision celebrating their victory. You can read a copy of the decision or obtain a copy of the icon yourself at http://www.vtw.org/speech/ Senator Feingold (D-WI) said today, "This is welcome news for all of us who not only support free speech, but who also want to see this new dynamic communications technology develop safe from the threat of censorship." Feingold continued, "This issue is larger than so-called 'adult' expression or communications. It is about whether the government will decide what we see, hear, and write." Join millions of other netizens as they read the decision, rally, celebrate, and thank the court for taking the time to do what some members in Congress and the President would not do: apply the First Amendment. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- HOW CAN I HELP SPREAD THE WORD It's crucial that people turn out for the rallies, as well as spread the word about the decision. You can help in a number of ways outlined below. 1. ATTEND THE NYC/PITTSBURGH RALLIES If you are anywhere close to the locations of the Pittsburgh or New York City rallies, please attend and brings lots of friends! If you are an Internet provider in New York, please place the following message in your message of the day: THE COURT ISSUED A RULING TODAY IN THE INTERNET FREE SPEECH CASE ON THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT. A RALLY IS BEING HELD IN NYC AT OUTERNET (BWAY.NET) @ 626 BROADWAY AT 6:30PM. FOR MORE INFORMATION SEE http://www.vtw.org/speech/ OR CALL OUTERNET AT 212-982-9800. If you are an Internet provider in the Pittsburgh area, please place the following message in your message of the day: THE COURT ISSUED A RULING TODAY IN THE INTERNET FREE SPEECH CASE ON THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT. A RALLY IS BEING HELD ON THE STEPS OF THE OAKLAND BRANCH OF THE CARNEGIE LIBRARY AT 4PM. FOR MORE INFORMATION SEE http://www.envirolink.org/ OR CALL 412-683-6400. 2. LINK TO THE TEXT OF THE COURT'S DECISION The text of the decision will be posted at http://www.vtw.org/speech#decision Link to it from your page and help spread the word about th case that will decide so much of the future of free speech online. THE COURT ISSUED A RULING TODAY IN THE INTERNET FREE SPEECH CASE ON THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT. WHILE NETIZENS RALLY IN NEW YORK AND PITTSBURGH, YOU CAN READ THE DECISION ONLINE AT http://www.vtw.org/speech/index.html#decision ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RALLY INFORMATION FOR NYC AND PITTSBURGH NEW YORK RALLY WHERE: Outernet, Inc. (bway.net) @ 626 Broadway, Suite 3-A (third floor) (Very close to the Broadway/Lafayette stop on the F train) WHO: You and your friends! Show up, bring friends, and come find out how net free speech fared in court. Here is the current speaker list (subject to time, travel, and availability) U.S. Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) Barry Steinhardt, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Danny Weitzner, Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) David Sobel, Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) Molly Ker, Echo Communications (echonyc.com) Jonathan D. Wallace, author, "Sex, Laws, and Cyberspace" Alexis Rosen, Public Access Networks (panix.com) Ian Stevelman, Outernet (bway.net) WHEN: 6:30pm, Wed June 12th, 1996. Bring yourself, lots of friends, and whistles, drums, anything to make a lot of noise with. MORE INFO:Check http://www.vtw.org/speech or http://www.bway.net/ Press inquiries should go to Shabbir @ 917 978 8430. Outernet's phone number is 212-982-9800. PITTSBURGH RALLY WHERE: Steps of the Oakland branch of the Carnegie Library WHO: You and your friends! Show up, bring friends, and come find out how net free speech fared in court. WHEN: 4pm, Wed June 12th, 1996. Bring yourself, lots of friends, and whistles, drums, anything to make a lot of noise with. MORE INFO:Check http://www.envirolink.org/. Press inquiries should go to 412-683-6400. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRESS INFORMATION Press inquiries about the New York rally should be directed to Shabbir J. Safdar (VTW) at 718-596-2851. To find out about outlets and electricity for the rally, or to setup cameras ahead of time, contact Ian @ Outernet at 212-982-9800. ============================================================================

1 0

Re: Micropayments are Crap
by Clay Olbon II 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I apologize in advance for this overly long post, but Stephan had a number of arguments that I disagree with quite strongly. In general, I think micropayments are a good idea that should be tested where it counts, in the marketplace. Clay ---------- Stephan Vladimir Bugaj <stephan(a)studioarchetype.com> wrote: >Any cryptographic system has ways to circumvent it. Whether or not they >are practical is the issue. How is this an argument against micropayments? Lets just throw up our hands and say that all crypto is theoretically breakable, therefore we won't encrypt anything. >Because the time limit can be set ridiculously low, making the rates >artificially high from the viewpoint of the kind of time periods that >humans work in. Huh? >The action of going somewhere that charges a metered rate is initiated by >the >user, however to make this safe for the consumer it would have to be >required >that there be a 'front door' for every site that charged metered rates >announcing that if you proceed you'll be billed (and, at what rate). If you >let people charge as soon as you hit their URL, that's malarkey. Why is this malarkey? What is wrong with saying "If you want to see my page, it will cost you $.02? Why would a "front door" make it any safer for consumers? I set my browser so that I spend no more than $1/hour or $.02 on any one page without asking me. How difficult is this concept? >time, they should consider another payment system. Same thing with charging >micropayments for using software. If Adobe started charging me $5/hr to use >Photoshop instead of $500 for the package, I'd stop using photoshop. In two >weeks I'd have already exceeded the price of the whole package. Of course, there is lots of software that I only use once in a while, yet spend large $$ on to have sitting on my machine metaphorically gathering dust. Micropayments would be very useful for this software. On the other hand, there is some software that I may want to buy outright. This is not an exclusive system. BTW, any impression that you have that you are currently buying unmetered software is false. Don't you spend xx$/year to run Photoshop in the form of "product upgrades" - or are you still running version 1.0? >The potential for scams exists. Certainly even a priest in the church of >the >free market can see that. User education is poor, and consumer protection >laws >are weakening. This does not bode well fo r I tend to disagree with most arguments for "consumer protection", so this argument falls upon deaf ears. There are lots of scams with every form of money (cash, credit, even barter - if I trade you a lawnmower that only runs for an hour afterwards, I have scammed you), how does this make micropayments any more undesirable than any other form of payment? >>uh huh. what if over your lifetime it cost far less than you pay for >>a shinkwrapped package? >> >If that happened, I'd be very suprised. Name some software that you have used less than 10 times in the past year. If you use a computer much, you might be surprised to find that you have a long list. I know I do. >>what if you only needed a quick compilation on >>a system you don't normally use? I think you will begin to figure out >>some advantages if you use your imagination to find them (instead of the >>drawbacks) >> >That is a good advantage, you are correct in this. But there are a number >of >instances in which I'd still want software running on a real workstation. >If >people make software only available through micropayments, then that would >be >limiting to both the user and the vendor. What is to say that micropayments won't authorize an extended license for software you have on YOUR machine - i.e. I download some software, to use it for a day I pay $1 and get a 1-day license. The software is local. Of course, this doesn't preclude you from paying $1 to run it on a supercomputer that you wouldn't normally have access to ... >The payer could set a certain amount of money that is automatically deemed >acceptable to pay, like the $.02/time-unit example. This could get misused >by a vendor who chooses a unit small enough that a small per-unit charge >quickly >adds up. The payer essentially loses control of payment. Wrong. >But those of use who use certain packages heavily would get >shafted for our loyal support of a vendor if they decided to pander to the >skittish masses and charge a rate that was psychologically more appealing >to >those who wouldn't otherwise use it. I only hope that vendors who choose to >use micropayments (since they're inevitable) take the small but loyal power >user segment into consideration when making the decision about whether or >not >to stop selling full packages altogether. Why would you be shafted? Do you think vendors would be willing to throw away your business? Look at your previous example of the ISPs, some individuals pay a metered rate, others a flat rate - why would software use be any different? >I'm quite tempted to cut up both my credit card and ATM card because of the >bullshit administrative fees involved with using them. Internet transaction >fees are even worse. Of course, now you can get credit cards thay pay you between 1% and 3% per transaction ... >Change doesn't bother *me* personally, I just wish more people would *think* >about whether or not changes are *appropriate* instead of just *possible*. Why should people think about this? Let the market decide - if people try it and fail, it will go away. If it suceeds, then it is obviously useful to some consumers. >That's not infeasable. I didn't say anything was infeasable, I just think >some of the current models of how things might work are bad ideas and >encourage >debate. Both consumers and resistant old-school vendors will have issues to >address, and ramming change down people's throats because it's inevitable or >'the market dictates it' is a crappy attitude which I don't encourage. >Also, >note for the record that I don't believe that "the market" is a one-to-one >mapping on to "the people" or even "the consumer". Well, the market works. Sorry you don't believe in reality. >Ha ha ha. Yeah, looking out for consumer interests is just doom saying and >negativism. The current education level of the general public about >computers >is low, and about transactional security is even lower. It can have >benefits, >but there are also serious issues which need to be considered. Another >thing >about the paying a micropayment instead of a macropayment and leaving if >you don't like it - a lot of companies offer free trial time with their >service, or a free consultation, etc. The effects of charging for these >trial offers is >unclear - how would that be good for the consumer? Those poor consumers, what would they do without you looking out for them? I personally could care less if someone gets scammed - let the buyer beware. >>imagine shareware authors getting cash for their programs based on their >>actual use. imagine artists and writers bypassing corporate monoliths >>and marketing their work to the public directly, bypassing the enormous >>scrape-off that these self-perpetuating bureacracies snarf. >> >This is a good idea. It could be a good boon for small businesses (unless >the transaction providers charge prohibitively large fees for their >services...). I hope you're right and I'm wrong. That would be much better >for all involved. If the fees are too large, NO ONE WILL BUY THEM! Basic economics. >Your argument works provided the consumer really maintains control. >You can lose that control. There do need to be safeguards in such a system >that ensure this control. $.02/nanosecond is, after all, $1.2 billion/ >minute. >If such a setting were allowed and people habitually allowed $.02/unit >metering as being automatically acceptable, that could clean out a number >of digital >wallets very quickly as unsuspecting customers entered the paid area and >instantly got dialogue boxes announcing that their wallets were empty. Do you really think people don't know the difference between $.02/minute and $.02/nanosecond? Do you think software cannot easily distinguish the difference? Let's argue from a basis in reality here! > >ttl >Stephan > > >------------------------------------------------------------------- >This signature has been kidnapped by space aliens. >If you find it you can call (415) 703-8748. >I work for Studio Archetype, and they don't find any of this funny. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Clay Olbon II | Clay.Olbon(a)dynetics.com Systems Engineer | ph: (810) 589-9930 fax 9934 Dynetics, Inc., Ste 302 | http://www.msen.com/~olbon/olbon.html 550 Stephenson Hwy | PGP262 public key: on web page Troy, MI 48083-1109 | pgp print: B97397AD50233C77523FD058BD1BB7C0 TANSTAAFL ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Full Text of CDA Decision is up
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://www.cdt.org/ciec/decision.txt

1 0

<noise> Terrorism Hysteria on the Net
by vin＠shore.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Oppps! Sorry Drew, I think I misrepresented you and incorrectly cited you in reference to snow's comment that the "potential for economic terrorism is not significantly larger given the existance of the Internet than it was before." Appologies to both of you. Vin McLellan +The Privacy Guild+ <vin(a)shore.net> 53 Nichols St., Chelsea, Ma. 02150 USA Tel: (617) 884-5548 <*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*>

1 0

No Kidding
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

E. Conclusion Cutting through the acronyms and argot that littered the hearing testimony, the Internet may fairly be regarded as a never-ending worldwide conversation. The Government may not, through the CDA, interrupt that conversation. As the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed, the Internet deserves the highest protection from governmental intrusion. True it is that many find some of the speech on the Internet to be offensive, and amid the din of cyberspace many hear discordant voices that they regard as indecent. The absence of governmental regulation of Internet content has unquestionably produced a kind of chaos, but as one of plaintiffs' experts put it with such resonance at the hearing: What achieved success was the very chaos that the Internet is. The strength of the Internet is that chaos.[23] Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony of the unfettered speech the First Amendment protects. For these reasons, I without hesitation hold that the CDA is unconstitutional on its face. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, : CIVIL ACTION et al. : : v. : : JANET RENO, Attorney General of : the United States : NO. 96-963 ________________________________________________________________ AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOC., : CIVIL ACTION INC., et al. : : v. : : UNITED STATES DEP'T OF : JUSTICE, et al. : NO. 96-1458 ORDER AND NOW, this 11th day of June, 1996, upon consideration of plaintiffs' motions for preliminary injunction, and the memoranda of the parties and amici curiae in support and opposition thereto, and after hearing, and upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the accompanying Adjudication, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The motions are GRANTED; 2. Defendant Attorney General Janet Reno, and all acting under her direction and control, are PRELIMINARILY ENJOINED from enforcing, prosecuting, investigating or reviewing any matter premised upon: (a) Sections 223(a)(1)(B) and 223(a)(2) of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 ("the CDA"), Pub. L. No. 104- 104, § 502, 110 Stat. 133, 133-36, to the extent such enforcement, prosecution, investigation, or review are based upon allegations other than obscenity or child pornography; and (b) Sections 223(d)(1) and 223(d)(2) of the CDA; 3. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c), plaintiffs need not post a bond for this injunction, see Temple Univ. v. White, 941 F.2d 201, 220 (3d Cir. 1991), cert. denied sub nom. Snider v. Temple Univ., 502 U.S. 1032 (1992); and 4. The parties shall advise the Court, in writing, as to their views regarding the need for further proceedings on the later of (a) thirty days from the date of this Order, or (b) ten days after final appellate review of this Order. BY THE COURT: ______________________________ Dolores K. Sloviter, C.J. U.S. Court of Appeals For the Third Circuit ______________________________ Ronald L. Buckwalter, J. ______________________________ Stewart Dalzell, J.

1 0

Kaos vs Control
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

With apologies to Maxwell Smart... Note the most important part of the decision. The embrace of chaos by the Chief Judge of the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals: "Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony of the unfettered speech the First Amendment protects. For these reasons, I without hesitation hold that the CDA is unconstitutional on its face." Chaos wins again. DCF

1 0

CDA Decision Online
by minow＠apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://www.aclu.org/court/cdadec.html (250 KBytes) Martin.

1 0