December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

URGENT: Surveillance Bill Gets New Life - House Vote lLikely TODAY!
by jseiger＠cdt.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

(please forward where appropriate) It's not over yet.... The House has scheduled a vote on "suspension" for a 'counter-terrorism' bill TODAY (Friday). Despite media reports that the negotiations had stalled out, house Republicans have apparently worked out their differences and are set to vote on the bill today. The Senate may or may not vote on the measure on Saturday. No one I've talked to knows for sure what's in the bill, though I have heard that there are no encryption provisions and that some of the wiretap proposals have been scaled back. I will post details as I get them. In the mean time, keep those calls coming into Congress. Jonah ** THE FIGHT FOR FREE SPEECH ONLINE CONTINUES TO THE SUPREME COURT ** It's not too late to be a part of history -- Join the Lawsuit <http://www.cdt.org/ciec> -- <ciec-info(a)cdt.org> -- Jonah Seiger, Policy Analyst Center for Democracy and Technology <jseiger(a)cdt.org> 1634 Eye Street NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20006 PGP Key via finger (v) +1.202.637.9800 http://www.cdt.org/ (f) +1.202.637.0968 http://www.cdt.org/homes/jseiger/

1 0

Licensing, Permits, and Freedom
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:23 PM 8/2/96, Cerridwyn Llewyellyn wrote: >Jim Choate <ravage(a)EINSTEIN.ssz.com> argued: > >>As long as they have a license to operate a food dispencing facility (in >>other words they are certifying they are aware of the correct processes for >>such operations) then nobody should have the right to interfere with their >>operation unless with probable cause (ie proof of danger such as bad weenies >>in their hot dogs). This would not apply to individuals or families making >>such food in the same place for their own and NOT public consumption. > >I believe the issue with Food Not Bombs is they didn't get the appropriate >permits, etc, or were denied them, or something. However, I disagree with >you on this point. I think they shouldn't be required to obtain a license, >but everyone whom they serve food to should know that they don't have such a >license. This would equal informed consent. Also, with Food Not Bombs, many >of the people that the food is being served to is also involved in cooking, >distributing food, and cleaning up. I've been told it's exactly like a big >picnic, except for anyone is invited to help and/or eat. It was in fact "Food Not Bombs" which I was referring to in my post a few days ago. My point to the City Council was one of inconsistency (picnic groups not similarly hassled). Also, the use of "permits" to harass/muzzle a group. "Permits" are often used to stop speech and acts which are not considered acceptable. Drawing on my own community for an example, Santa Cruz tried to regulate palm readers, astrologers, mystics, and seers. This eventually fell apart, possibly when the implications became clear to the bureaucrats (the future was already clear to the Cassandras, but nobody believed them). My "Licensed Ontologist" line in my .sig was added during one of the debates about the claimed need to license and regulate persons in various professions. (There are of course the usual other examples, where job unions and cartels stop "outsiders" from participating. Often for ostensibly good reasons, but "guilds" nonetheless. The implications of crypto anarchy for these guilds are left as exercises for the student.) --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: Freeh slimes again: Digital Telephony costs $2 billion now ...
by Dave Farber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

And I testified in front of the House that their estimate was grossly understated. I think it is more like 4-5 Billion . I called it the Software Full Employment Act of 94. (copy of testimony available). djf At 08:52 AM 8/2/96 -0700, Brock N. Meeks wrote: > >On Thu, 1 Aug 1996, Ernest Hua wrote: > >> Louis Freeh is now asking the Congress for $2 billion to fund >> Digital Telephony. Yes, that is FOUR TIMES what he said it >> would cost the taxpayers to give up their own privacy. Score >> one for the cynics who said $500 million was not enough. > >I broke the story about how much Digital Telephony would *really* cost in >CyberWire Dispatch more than two years ago. The price tag in my piece: >"... at least $2 billion..." In that Dispatch I wrote that the Clinton >White House had made the decision to support the bill based on a flawed >cost/benefit analysis study the FBI had done. > >--Brock > >

1 0

Re: [off-topic] roving wiretaps
by Brian T Hancher 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>P.S. Do police really need a search warrant to wiretap cellular phones? It is my understanding that police need a warrant to tap *cellular* phones, but not *wireless* phones. One should understand that monitoring cellular traffic is *much* more difficult than tapping a conventional phone, because as the user moves around in the service area the phone switches to different repeaters, often several times during a conversation. I am curious as to the language of the proposed law, as it is also my understanding that the government already has the (technical) means to monitor cellular traffic (but it requires a warrant, just like tapping a regular phone). Brian T. Hancher http://rio.atlantic.net/~briant briant(a)ocala.com briant(a)atlantic.net Brian.Hancher(a)lmi.fdles.state.fl.us

1 0

SECURITY WARNING - D0 N0T D0WN0AD "New Clinton Administration Ping Policy"
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

WARNING! DO NOT DOWNLOAD THE E-MAIL MESSAGE LABELED "New Clinton Administration Ping Policy" IT C0NTAINS EVIDENCE 0F SECURITY VI0LATIONS IN THE HEADERS AND D0WNLOADING IT RISKS C0NTAMINATION 0F Y0UR MACHINE: > X-Authentication-Warning: server1.chromatic.com: hua owned process doing -bs > X-Authentication-Warning: server1.chromatic.com: Host hua@localhost didn't use HELO protocol > Return-Path: <cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com> FURTHERMORE, IT IS DISTRIBUTED BY THE THE CYPHERPUNKS-ERRORS LIST, AN 0RGANIZATION KN0WN T0 HAVE BR0KEN US EXP0RT-GRADE SECURITY AND APPARENTLY LED BY THE KN0WN FEL0N ``KLAUS'' AND AN ANARCHIST W00DW0RKER BRIEFLY SUSPECTED IN THE UNAB0MBER CASE. TRUST NO ONE!

1 0

Re: Bombs & bomb threats in LA
by Conrad Walton 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> >and everyplace else all the news.answers FAQs are stored. What, precisely, is >an acid bomb? Also note the standard blame-the-Internet (not, say, increased >irritation with government after the Republicans failed to reduce it) >rhetoric. i'm not exactly sure what an acid bomb is, but according to my book, The Anarchist Cookbook, that I bought in 1972 (was the internet around back then?), there is a compound called "picric acid" that is "more powerful than TNT, but has some disadvantages". if you'd like the recipe, I'll be more than happy to mail you it through the US Postal system. Wouldn't want to give the Internet any more of a bad name for distributing subversive materials. There is also instructions on using an inverted vial of sulpheric acid, that will then eat thu the stopper at the top (bottom) of the vial. when the acid makes it thru, then is mixes with Potassium Chloride and causes a small explosion which sets off the larger explosion in the dynomite packed around it. just thot you'd like to know. thanks, conrad __________I_N_D_U_S_T_R_I_A_L___A_R_T_W_O_R_K_S__________ Conrad Walton http://www.industrial-artworks.com/ POB 2815, El Segundo, CA 90245 1-310-640-3365 ---------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Information gathering by news servers
by Scott McGuire 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

How much information about what someone reads can be gathered by a news server? Is there an anonymous way to read a public news server, or would a server have to be set up intentionally to allow anonymous reading? Scott

2 1

Courtesy, Clubs and Clinton
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Excerpt from http://www.msnbc.com/news/21324.asp Clinton's golf war Teed-off clubbers grumble president plays too slow, disrupts things Congressional Country Club Secretary Tim May confirms that some members have complained about the president, but insists that "more members are delighted the president is playing at our club." _________ Is there something that Tim isn't telling us? ;-)

1 0

Re: [off-topic] roving wiretaps
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:52 AM 8/2/96, David Wagner wrote: >I don't get it. Help me out here-- how can this possibly be constitutional? > >I'm reading the Fourth Amendment to our honored Constitution of the United >States, which proclaims > > [...] > no warrants shall issue, > but upon probable cause, > supported by oath or affirmation, > and *particularly describing the place to be searched*, > and the persons or things to be seized. > >Are we just to strike out that emphasized phrase? What's going on here? >Someone tell me I'm not just having a bad nightmare. The same way the Second Amendment has been turned into a shadow of itself by creative lawyering. ("The Founders did not mean to include AR-15s and .45 Automatics as "guns," as these did not even exist in 1791. Likewise, cellular phones did not exist in 1791, so the Fourth Amendment could not possibly apply to them. Have a nice day.") --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: privacy is a SMOKESCREEN.
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

See. Right-wing nuts are good for something. >from eff: > >CNN reports: "Key members of the Senate blamed House conservatives for >the failure, saying they had insisted on linking proposed new >wiretapping authority for the FBI to an expansion of privacy laws." > >CNN quotes Rep. Charles Schumer (D-NY) as saying that House Republican >leaders "have come up with this smokescreen called privacy".

1 0