December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

NDA98 URL
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The correct URL for the National Defense Authorization for FY1998 is: http://jya.com/nda98.htm (176K)

1 0

Jim Bell warrant, affidavit, return
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This is the way to get copies of court filings in far-away places: Call the court. Tell the person who answers the phone that you want to get a copy of pleadings (or whatever it is you want a copy of) filed in a particular case, giving them as much information as you have about the case. When you're looking for a search warrant, that information will usually be the address of the property searched and the date/time that the search began. In other cases, it's the case number/file number, (or, more annoying for the clerk, the name of the plaintiff and/or defendant). If the clerk can find the file based on the information you had, and the contents aren't sealed, they'll give you the name/phone number of a messenger service or copy service who will pick up copies from the court and then FAX or mail them to you. They usually charge somewhere in the neighborhood of $1 per page plus costs (like postage or phone) for this service. In Jim's case, the copy service's phone number is 206-383-1791. I received FAX copies of the search warrant, supporting affidavit, and return/inventory today. They're billing me for the charges incurred, which I expect will be in the neighborhood of $25. I'm planning to scan them tonight and make them available via the web, modulo personal information which I will black out. Comments about a good way to balance public interest/privacy when making the docs available are welcome. Have thought about publishing the documents as images (not text) to foil indexing, about eliminating "personal" info like SS numbers, address, and serial number(s) of seized items. I think the text of the affidavit is especially useful and instructive in terms of the understanding it provides into the law enforcement view of cpunks/anonymity/Internet issues. [Also received the Wassenaar Arrangement in response to my FOIA request, along with the Secret Service's response ("no records") and a denial of my appeal from the SF FBI office's "no records" response. Am planning to scan those, too.] -- Greg Broiles gbroiles(a)c2.net 510-986-8779 voice 510-986-8777 fax

1 0

Re: Feds reading this list, Jim Bell, and threats
by Phillip M. Hallam-Baker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timothy C. May <tcmay(a)got.net> wrote in article <5i3tpu$86h(a)life.ai.mit.edu>... > At 1:51 PM -0600 4/4/97, null(a)myemail.net wrote: > > > Horseshit. Anybody here ever hear of the Boston Tea Party? How > >about the American Revolution? War of Independece? French Revolution? > > You know, people who said "Fuck this shit, I've had enough." People > >who acted in concert to fight injustice and oppression. If you care to read the history of the times from unbiased sources you will find that the Boston patriots main gripe with Britain was not the tax on tea but the insistence of the British authorities on negotiating with the Sioux nation amongst others. It was the fear that the British would sign a peace treaty with the Indians recognising them as a sovereign nation that was the spark to the flame. Try reading "Lies my teacher told me" sometime. Given that the American revolution institutionalised slavery and lead to the theft of Indian land, and the French revolution the murder of about quarter of a million people they cannot be said to be entirely laudatory events. The national myths of the countries concerned nothwithstanding. People are not fit judges of their own cause. The civil war was started by the South who believed that the North might infringe their "right" to own others as property. > Note that I've never called for a witch hunt, nor have I called for his > posts to be censored out of the list. I chose a long time ago to filter > Jim's stuff into my appropriate folder for such stuff, and occasionally > took him out of the filter when he seemed (from occasional checks on what I > was filtering), to be discussing things other than his "Klaatu Narada > Nictoo" (or whatever) Final Solution. Same for me. I objected to Bell's AP proposal but not to his _right_ to post it. It was the tedious length at which he bored the rest of us with it that I objected to. Last I heard the Feds were concerned that he might have been putting AP into effect. Collecting the names and addresses of IRS officials, setting up a kangeroo court to try them, sending them demands, those sound like actions Bell would have serious difficulty in doing without giving someone reasonable cause to believe they were being targetted for murder. Phill

2 1

Prior Restraint
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

As noted here on April 2, we've put on our Web site several of the docs of the Peter Junger suit against the Secretary of State: http://jya.com/pdj.htm One gives parts of Peter's article "Computers and the Law" which includes machine-readable code, code which is prohibited by the EAR from being placed on the Internet without a license (it is this "prior restraint" that Peter is challenging): http://jya.com/pdj003b.htm When Peter saw that I had put the article and code on my site, he telephoned immediately to say that the article should not have been sent to me along with the other material. He asked that it be removed because electronic publication could harm his case and put me at risk of prosecution. After discussion I declined to remove it, and thanked him for his advice. Yesterday, Richard Vasvari, one of Peter's three attorneys, called to politely ask that I remove the doc. And further explained how its electronic publication could harm the case and put me at risk. He said that he had notified Anthony Coppolino, DoJ, that the document was on the Web, as he was obliged to do by procedural rules. That they had discussed the ramifications. He did not say what DoJ intended to do. And, that he was obliged as an attorney to advise me to retain an attorney for my defense against prosecution for placing the doc on the Web. During this discussion with Mr. Vasvari I checked the access log for the prohibited doc and saw that DoJ had accessed it as well as several other files on me and my org. I told Mr. Vasvari this and he again advised me to remove the doc. Again, I declined. After chewing on this restraint of my publication by the attorneys, I decided to delete only the machine-readable code from Peter's article, leaving the text which explains why the electronic publication of the code is the crux of Peter's First Amendment case. On the assumption that his prior restraint claim is more important than mine. Take at look and let me know what you think. Should I have deleted the code or left it in the public domain where it belongs? Am I right to comply with the attorneys' first claim on prior restraint? Meanwhile, anyone worldwide who want the article with the code intact, send me an email for instructions on how to get it. Use the subject: Restraint

1 0

Re: Feds reading this list, Jim Bell, and threats
by azur＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Pardon me for beating my Hitler analogies to death, but when >Hitler was Fuhrer, the trains ran on time. I have no problem >with those who supported him for this reason. However, as his >administrative policies began to increasingly infringe on the >lives of others, it was up to each participant in his ruling >party to decide for themselves what was an acceptable level >of power/control over the citizens, and what was not. Unfortunately, by the time he really impacted personal liberties it was too late, as his power was consolidated and the citizenery disarmed (1935). --Steve >> I've never argued that those who get caught breaking a contract shouldn't >> face the consequences--providing others in the society honor the contract! > > This begs the question of who is to decide whether or not >society is honoring their part of the contract. > Arguing that society/civilization is doing a fairly decent job >"for the most part" does not negate the fact that if an individual >is taking it up the ass, he or she will not be inclined to take it >sitting down. Yes, much better to hang from the ceiling. > Native Americans are the prime example of a group who were >subjected to severe penalties for failing to "honor the contract" >while their oppressors felt free to dishonor the contract at >will by virtue of superior firepower. Hopefully, what goes around comes around. > > Individuals have the freedom to sabatoge systems which they >see as injust and oppressive. To suggest that the average person >will abuse that right, and thus has no conscience, is to suggest >that the average person has less right than corporations to decide >what is right and wrong. > It is my own belief that fears surrounding employees making >morally based decisions of this nature are a result of the >knowledge that many corporate entities fall short of meeting >even rudimentary standards of moral values. "I don't want to rock the boat... I want to sink it." Putney Swoope > >TruthMonger

1 0

Re: Feds reading this list, Jim Bell, and threats
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timothy C. May wrote: > > At 6:05 PM -0500 4/4/97, Mark M. wrote: > > > I don't know any anarchists who oppose > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >contract law or argue that anyone has this right. The cryptography employee > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >who releases trade secrets or sabotages products is violating the company's > >property rights; whether it is moral or not is irrelevant. Again, I don't > >think you will find any anarchists who would dispute this. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ * {* TCM's emphasis} > > Count me as one who thinks things are not this easy. Ultimately, all > decisions to obey or ignore or sabotage contractual relationships is a > personal one. I agree. Obviously Mark doesn't know enough anarchists. Pardon me for beating my Hitler analogies to death, but when Hitler was Fuhrer, the trains ran on time. I have no problem with those who supported him for this reason. However, as his administrative policies began to increasingly infringe on the lives of others, it was up to each participant in his ruling party to decide for themselves what was an acceptable level of power/control over the citizens, and what was not. My own rule of thumb is to consider whether I would consider laws or regulations affecting the behavior and rights of others to be an infringement if they were applied to my own behavior and rights. > This issue has come up before. One name for the debate is "lifeboat > ethics." Suppose Alice has a contract not to trespass against the property > of others in the marina she belongs to. One night she falls off her boat as > she's leaving the marina. She can either _honor_ her contract, and drown. > Or she can grab onto Bob's boat and pull herself to safety, even though > she's just without any doubt vioated her contract. > > As I mentioned a few days ago, there are _some_ anarchists, notably Murray > Rothbard, who argued that Alice must choose death over violation of a > contract. Most anarchists I know think him crazy. I fully support Rothbard's right to choose death, but do not consider him as having any say in Alice's decision. > >Cryptography professionals have the *ability* to follow their consciences, > >but that does not excuse them from punishment resulting in infringing on > >their employer's rights or violating the terms of their employment. > > I've never argued that those who get caught breaking a contract shouldn't > face the consequences--providing others in the society honor the contract! This begs the question of who is to decide whether or not society is honoring their part of the contract. Arguing that society/civilization is doing a fairly decent job "for the most part" does not negate the fact that if an individual is taking it up the ass, he or she will not be inclined to take it sitting down. Native Americans are the prime example of a group who were subjected to severe penalties for failing to "honor the contract" while their oppressors felt free to dishonor the contract at will by virtue of superior firepower. Individuals have the freedom to sabatoge systems which they see as injust and oppressive. To suggest that the average person will abuse that right, and thus has no conscience, is to suggest that the average person has less right than corporations to decide what is right and wrong. It is my own belief that fears surrounding employees making morally based decisions of this nature are a result of the knowledge that many corporate entities fall short of meeting even rudimentary standards of moral values. TruthMonger

2 1

RE: Feds reading this list, Jim Bell, and threats
by Phillip M. Hallam-Baker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk pissed off Hallam-Baker to the >extent that gave up all pretense hiding his support for >a New World Order, and wrote: Yeah, like I wrote in "The Laird of the new world order". ... They said they worked for freedom but they had another plan. The only new world order is, obey your Uncle Sam. Must be in deep, deep cover. >> I have degrees in Nuclear Physics, Electronic Engineering, I have >> been offered a contract for my book on the philosophy of >> communication. > ...so the rest of us are just dirt under your feet? I was pointing out that the attempt to claim that the rest of us poor slobs didn't see Jim Bell as a shining Messiah was not because we were too stupid to understand him as claimed. >> I don't believe that people >> are fit judges of their own cause as Bell and you do. > So we should only fight for other people's causes, and not >our own? Or not fight at all? I think that before you murder someone because you think they are wrong you need to at the very least put the matter to an impartial arbitrator. Phill

2 1

CypherPunk Prophets / Voices Barfing In The Wilderness / ***CRYPTO RELATED---> Remailers <---CRYPTO RELATED***
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

rocket3(a)ibm.net wrote: > Hello! I wanted to share something very important. > The God of heaven sent his only Son to this earth > to let us have a way to be right with God, I hate (love!!!) to say, "I told you so.", but... I realize that Tim May is the CypherPunk Prophet, foretelling developments that actually have something remotely to do with crypto, whereas I, on the other hand, am just a Voice Barfing In The Wilderness, drunkenly rambling on about God-knows-what (which, incidentally, reminds me what I meant to say). During the height of the "XXX_Your Biased Term_Here XXX" experiment on the list, my shotgun delusions led me to claim that the "Big $$$" spams were just a forerunner of things to come, with the real fruitcakes coming out of the woodwork when they realized that they could spam us in the name of Jesus, or Free Willy, or their brother, Joe, who needs a new kidney. Sure enough, I got my first 'God and Hellfire' spam today, along with the usual 'Betty Big-Boobs XXX Pics' email. (So I forwarded 'Betty Big-Boobs' to him, in an attempt to slow him down by keeping at least one of his hands busy.) Then there is 'Computer Jesus', whose friends call him 'Mac'... > To: List-Abuse <list-abuse(a)clio.lyris.net> > Subject: Re: Puzzling Response from juno.com > several mailing lists whose sole > charters are evangelizing the Macintosh. Once a message like "Write to > Juno and tell them that they need to support the Mac!" is posted to one > of these lists, the flood of mail from evangelical Mac users can reach > quite a pitch. And I happen to know that Juno was recently targeted for > just such a campaign. I'm still waiting for the one that reads, "Make Big $$$ Using A 'Mac' To Tell People About Jesus's Big Boobs" and I know it is only a matter of time before lonely losers, not content to bother only the CypherPunks, as I do, will be sending out 250,000 missives informing everyone that they are having a "Bad Hair Day". I notice that some of the remailer threads on the list are taking note of the fact that there needs to to be provisions for a variety of remailers capable of doing something more than merely blocking source-specific abuse, which can open a can of worms leading to a remailer resembling CyberSitter. There need to be remailers capable of being easily customized to allow only mail 'to' specific sights, such as Crisis Hotlines, or Whistle Blowers Anonymous, or Send A Congressman To Jail. There is need for a remailer which those with individual needs can easily adapt to meet that need. Then they will be promoting the remailer in a way that works best for them. For instance, there are mental health mailing lists where many people lurk in the background, afraid to participate in discussions because they fear discrimination, etc., if the wrong people find out they are on the list. (I know of one case where an individual lost the security clearance she needed to keep her job, because she was on a mental health support list for her child's benefit, not her own.) This, to me, is a good example of the type of service that some remailer operators are eager to provide, but end up getting fed up or shut down over the bullshit, instead. The more options for instituting use of customized remailers, the more functional they will be to a wide range of people, and the more exposure/use they will get. Majordomo, for instance, provides for such things as disabling the 'who' command, to protect identities on medical related lists, etc., or only allowing subscribers to post. If a list operator can program a remailer to send only to their own list, then they can make it a subscriber and allow people who fear being discovered to post their concerns through it anonymously, and advertise its existence in places where those most likely to need it will find out about the service. A good way to promote remailer use is to allow them to be adapted to purposes that a wider range of people have a specific interest in. "Crisis Line Anonymous Remailer" is instantly recognizable to a certain segment of people as something that applies to them, as is "Government Abuse Anonymous Hotline Remailer". The current remailer threads on the list contain some excellent ideas about how to develop remailers that are something other than generic spammers. I hope that these threads result in new generations and varieties of remailers that will spread their use by virtue of being functional to those who really need them for addressing serious issues in their personal life and in society at large. -- Toto "The Xenix Chainsaw Massacre" http://bureau42.base.org/public/xenix/xenbody.html

3 3

From the "pissing up a rope" file...
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Priority: normal Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 13:36:05 MET Reply-To: Law & Policy of Computer Communications <CYBERIA-L(a)LISTSERV.AOL.COM> Sender: Law & Policy of Computer Communications <CYBERIA-L(a)LISTSERV.AOL.COM> From: Stephan Bleisteiner <SBLEISTEINER(a)JURA.UNI-WUERZBURG.DE> Organization: Uni Wuerzburg - Jur. Fak. Subject: NBC Europe Question of the week Comments: To: FIGHT-CENSORSHIP(a)vorlon.mit.edu To: CYBERIA-L(a)LISTSERV.AOL.COM I thought some people on the list might feel very strongly about this issue and would like to cast their vote. The NBC Interactive Question of the Week: Should there be one international group that governs and controls web content? YES NO To cast your vote go to http://www.nbceurope.com Stephan --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA Lesley Stahl: "You mean *anyone* can set up a web site and compete with the New York Times?" Andrew Kantor: "Yes." Stahl: "Isn't that dangerous?" The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/

4 4

Competitive Betrayal
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Weekend FiTi reports on "the enemy within" corporations and the growth of "competitive intelligence" as cold war spy tactics are adapted to big business. Excerpts: Nobody in the surveillance business really knows how much commercial spying goes on. A lot of the eavesdropping is done, perfectly legally, by managers listening in to their own staff. It is, of course, in the interest of equipment suppliers and corporate consultants to maximise the dangers that companies face. "All companies are paranoid about their own security," said the spokesman of one well-known British multinational. "They don't seem to mind paying consultants to tell them things they know already." Yet all agree that the field of "competitive intelligence", as it is politely termed, is an expanding one. The privatisation of whole economies, the deregulation of monopoly markets, the globalisation of business, the spread of foreign investment and contested takeovers, the proliferation of technology and the sheer volume of information - all have made companies more aggressive, and more vulnerable. A consultant called in to investigate a theft may find himself pitted against another. In order to sanitise the business, a professional association called the Society of Competitive Intelligence Professionals has been set up. Its 5,000 members are meant to follow a code which vaguely urges them to obey the law, identify themselves when asking questions, and avoid "unethical practices". SCIP is influenced by the Association of Former Intelligence Officers, a group described as "very powerful" by Andre Pienaar, a young manager at the corporate investigators Kroll Associates who has written a doctoral thesis on business and intelligence. "Company information has become very valuable," he said, "more valuable than physical assets." Protecting that information is becoming ever more difficult. It is not just the tappers, buggers and hackers who are the problem, however. The problem is the loyalty - or lack of it - of employees in a world of short contracts, rapid turnover and big inducements. Tony McStravick, former acting head of the Metropolitan police Fraud Squad in London, has worked for Kroll and is now at Control Risks Group. "It all comes down to management in the end," he said. "Companies have lost the hearts and minds of their employees because of performance pay, delayering, downsizing." "You have to have a culture of honesty, from the top down. You must find the balance between maximising profits and being fair and honest. A lot of the time, companies forget they are dealing with human beings." ----- For full article: http://jya.com/tew.txt

1 0