December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: Matthew James Gering <mgering(a)ecosystems.net> > Subject: RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd) > Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 15:15:18 -0700 > Show me an example of an unregulated coercive monopoly whose source of > monopoly power is not ultimately the government. The Mafia. The handful of world-class coke dealers. Your local church. ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

3 2

Re: Is the .to (Tonga) domain completely rogue and should beremoved?
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 15:57:48 -0400 Reply-To: egullich(a)tonic.to Originator: com-priv(a)lists.psi.com Sender: com-priv(a)lists.psi.com Precedence: bulk From: egullich(a)tonic.to (Eric Gullichsen) To: Multiple recipients of list <com-priv(a)lists.psi.com> Subject: Re: Is the .to (Tonga) domain completely rogue and should be removed? X-Comment: Commercialization and Privatization of the Internet This is an official reply to Barry Shein <bzs(a)world.std.com> who recently cross-posted to inet-access(a)earth.com, nanog(a)merit.edu, domain-policy(a)lists.internic.net, and com-priv(a)psi.com under the Subject heading: Is the .to (Tonga) domain completely rogue and should be removed? As TLD admin for the .TO ccTLD, I thought Mr. Shein's posting deserved a reply. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Shein: I am the hostmaster and Administrative, Technical and Zone Contact at Tonic, the top level domain name registration authority for the .TO country code (http://rs.internic.net/cgi-bin/whois?to5-dom) Since June 1997, our automated domain name registry at http://www.tonic.to has been facilitating the registration of .TO names as a service to the global Internet community. Neither Tonic nor IANA policy requires the registered owner of a .TO name to be physically situated in the Kingdom of Tonga. >We've been having increasing problems with one or more porn sites in the >.to domain promoting itself by massive spamming of >AOL customers using one of our domains in their From: header thus causing >both complaints to us and thousands of bounces >from AOL due to bad AOL addresses in their spam lists. We are sorry to hear that you have been having problem with SPAM involving a .TO domain, and wish to draw your attention to the fact that .TO is the *only* top level domain we know of with an explicit antispam policy. We at Tonic feel strongly about spam, and believe it to be theft of service, and a very bad thing for the net in general. It is our policy to terminate the registration of a domain name involved in spam, after warning the domain name holder to cease unsolicited bulk mailings that involve a .TO name. >From our FAQ (at http://www.tonic.to/faq.htm) Q: I'm a spammer. Is a .TO domain something I should use? Tonic feels very strongly that the sending of unsolicited bulk email ("spamming") constitutes theft of service, and we do not condone the use of .TO domain names for this purpose. If we receive complaints that a .TO domain name has been used for this purpose, we will advise the domain owner of the complaint and request that they desist from this activity. Tonic reserves the right to remove any .TO name registration if a name is used as a source of spam, or an address to which to reply to such bulk mail solicitations. We have had to delete a number of .TO domains for egregious SPAM and will continue to do so in the cases where a stern warning fails to solve the problem. Please send a copy of any SPAM involving a .TO domain name to: hostmaster(a)tonic.to and we will warn the spammer and/or terminate the domain name registration. >Looking at the .to domain I can't help but notice it's heavily laden with >what appear to be porn sites (sexonline.to, come.to, >xxxhardcore.to, etc.) The .COM domain is no less "heavily laden" with porn sites. You will note that sexonline.com and xxxhardcore.com are names registered with the InterNIC. The come.to site is a free web redirection site supporting more than 100,000 customers. Furthermore, Tonic is a domain name registry, not a content censor. >In support of this assertion I want to show you an SMTP conversation with >what claims to be the Consulate of the >Government of Tonga in San Francisco (This San Francisco office is listed >as an official Tongan contact point for visas etc by >the US State Dept): > >world% telnet sfconsulate.gov.to 25 > >Trying 209.24.51.169... >Connected to sfconsulate.gov.to. >Escape character is '^]'. >220 colo.to SMTP ready, Who are you gonna pretend to be today? VRFY postmaster >500 Bloody Amateur! Proper forging of mail requires recognizable SMTP >commands! The primary nameserver for .TO is physically located at the Consulate of Tonga in San Francisco. On all our machines, we run the Obtuse smtpd/smtpfwdd SMTP store and forward proxy (http://www.obtuse.com/smtpd.html) to secure our port 25 and thereby prevent 3rd party mail relaying. Your reasoning as to why its responses to incorrect SMTP commands constitutes evidence that the .TO domain is "negligent", "mismanaged" and "an attractive resource for criminal activities" is ironically incorrect. In fact, having an *unsecured* port 25 open to mail relaying would be negligent. Best regards, - Eric Gullichsen Tonic Corporation Kingdom of Tonga Network Information Center http://www.tonic.to Email: egullich(a)tonic.to --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

3 3

microcurrency proposal
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

recently James Donald wrote some well-thought-out/reasoned comments on digital currency and microcurrency. I've been talking about microcurrency for many years on this list, and am quite chagrined lately at how long it is taking to actually materialize. I would have thought it would be available, for web pages especially, by now. the new scaled-back goals of Digicash are disappointing, but a good reality check. musing over all this is leading me in the following direction. a few months ago or so I posted info about a company that was doing a plugin for netscape that allowed some small currency transactions. I don't know what happened to this company-- does anyone remember who it was, or their web site? but I think this is a very promising approach. a company can create a plugin that would support microcurrency charges for web page hits very easily. here's how: the plugin interacts with any site that has enabled it. it sends a code to the site using a protocol. the site returns pages only upon a valid transaction request. for regular browsers without the plugin, the message is, "sorry, this page costs $.01, please download so-and-so plugin". people are very willing to download plugins to look at pages. people download plugins just to look at animation boxes. surely they will be willing to download them to serve up entire pages/content. how would the cash charge work? when the person gets the plugin, they give the plugin company their credit card number. the company takes care of the problem of accruing micro charges, keeping track of transactions/bills, and billing the credit card in large amounts. contesting a charge would tend to happen very rarely (because of the small charges, it is barely worth the effort), but the system could still support this. the problem is trying to transfer money to various individuals if their microcharge accounts have a net positive value instead of negative (in which case they would be charged their credit card at the end of the month). how do you transfer this money? one possibility is sending a check at the end of every month, or quarter, somewhat similar to the Amazon associates program. another possibility is figuring a way to credit a credit card account. this can be done, but from what I understand it is "frowned upon" by the companies. I have always wondered if the "powers that be" have intentionally tried to enforce this so that credit cards cannot turn into a cash transfer mechanism. of course, I'm leaving the issue of taxes out of this, but the microcharge company could be a point of collection for them. notice that none of what I am proposing above requires any new infrastructure whatsoever, except a little programming into a plugin. the distribution of the plugin is partly solved in that plugins are already distributed all over the net and understood by end-users. such a plugin could rapidly become the standard for "microcurrency" and be a wedge that might be the creation of a whole new industry within an industry. i.e. microcurrency on the web, very much the way Netscape virtually singlehandedly created the entire industry of the web within the existing internet. the door is wide open. such a company could be a very lucrative endeavor if handled very delicately and carefully, navigating the minefield of glitches that are surely to be present (many of which have prevented it from happening to date) as I understand, the digicash software was not in fact in plugin form for a browser. this is a pretty serious handicap imho. the technique of turning it all into a browser plugin based on the existing credit card system seems to me to be the crucial element that could make it happen.

1 0

IP: New ExecOrd: Computer Software Piracy
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Delivered-To: ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com X-Sender: believer(a)telepath.com Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1998 15:50:05 -0500 To: believer(a)telepath.com From: believer(a)telepath.com Subject: IP: New ExecOrd: Computer Software Piracy Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com Precedence: list Reply-To: believer(a)telepath.com Source: US Newswire http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/Current_Releases/1001-125.txt Clinton Issues Executive Order on Computer Software Piracy U.S. Newswire 1 Oct 14:10 Clinton Issues Executive Order on Computer Software Piracy To: National Desk, Technology Writer Contact: White House Press Office, 202-456-2100 WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The following was released today by the White House: EXECUTIVE ORDER - - - - - - - COMPUTER SOFTWARE PIRACY The United States Government is the world's largest purchaser of computer-related services and equipment, purchasing more than $20 billion annually. At a time when a critical component in discussions with our international trading partners concerns their efforts to combat piracy of computer software and other intellectual property, it is incumbent on the United States to ensure that its own practices as a purchaser and user of computer software are beyond reproach. Accordingly, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. Policy. It shall be the policy of the United States Government that each executive agency shall work diligently to prevent and combat computer software piracy in order to give effect to copyrights associated with computer software by observing the relevant provisions of international agreements in effect in the United States, including applicable provisions of the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, and relevant provisions of Federal law, including the Copyright Act. (a) Each agency shall adopt procedures to ensure that the agency does not acquire, reproduce, distribute, or transmit computer software in violation of applicable copyright laws. (b) Each agency shall establish procedures to ensure that the agency has present on its computers and uses only computer software not in violation of applicable copyright laws. These procedures may include: (1) preparing agency inventories of the software present on its computers; (2) determining what computer software the agency has the authorization to use; and (3) developing and maintaining adequate recordkeeping systems. (c) Contractors and recipients of Federal financial assistance, including recipients of grants and loan guarantee assistance, should have appropriate systems and controls in place to ensure that Federal funds are not used to acquire, operate, or maintain computer software in violation of applicable copyright laws. If agencies become aware that contractors or recipients are using Federal funds to acquire, operate, or maintain computer software in violation of copyright laws and determine that such actions of the contractors or recipients may affect the integrity of the agency's contracting and Federal financial assistance processes, agencies shall take such measures, including the use of certifications or written assurances, as the agency head deems appropriate and consistent with the requirements of law. (d) Executive agencies shall cooperate fully in implementing this order and shall share information as appro-priate that may be useful in combating the use of computer software in violation of applicable copyright laws. Sec. 2. Responsibilities of Agency Heads. In connection with the acquisition and use of computer software, the head of each executive agency shall: (a) ensure agency compliance with copyright laws protecting computer software and with the provisions of this order to ensure that only authorized computer software is acquired for and used on the agency's computers; (b) utilize performance measures as recommended by the Chief Information Officers Council pursuant to section 3 of this order to assess the agency's compliance with this order; (c) educate appropriate agency personnel regarding copyrights protecting computer software and the policies and procedures adopted by the agency to honor them; and (d) ensure that the policies, procedures, and practices of the agency related to copyrights protecting computer software are adequate and fully implement the policies set forth in this order. Sec. 3. Chief Information Officers Council. The Chief Information Officers Council ("Council") established by section 3 of Executive Order No. 13011 of July 16, 1996, shall be the principal interagency forum to improve executive agency practices regarding the acquisition and use of computer software, and monitoring and combating the use of unauthorized computer software. The Council shall provide advice and make recommendations to executive agencies and to the Office of Management and Budget regarding appropriate government-wide measures to carry out this order. The Council shall issue its initial recommendations within 6 months of the date of this order. Sec. 4. Office of Management and Budget. The Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in carrying out responsibilities under the Clinger-Cohen Act, shall utilize appropriate oversight mechanisms to foster agency compliance with the policies set forth in this order. In carrying out these responsibilities, the Director shall consider any recommendations made by the Council under section 3 of this order regarding practices and policies to be instituted on a government-wide basis to carry out this order. Sec. 5. Definition. "Executive agency" and "agency" have the meaning given to that term in section 4(1) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403(1)). Sec. 6. National Security. In the interest of national security, nothing in this order shall be construed to require the disclosure of intelligence sources or methods or to otherwise impair the authority of those agencies listed at 50 U.S. 401a(4) to carry out intelligence activities. Sec. 7. Law Enforcement Activities. Nothing in this order shall be construed to require the disclosure of law enforcement investigative sources or methods or to prohibit or otherwise impair any lawful investigative or protective activity undertaken for or by any officer, agent, or employee of the United States or any person acting pursuant to a contract or other agreement with such entities. Sec. 8. Scope. Nothing in this order shall be construed to limit or otherwise affect the interpretation, application, or operation of 28 U.S.C. 1498. Sec. 9. Judicial Review. This Executive order is intended only to improve the internal management of the executive branch and does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, at law or equity by a party against the United States, its agencies or instrumentalities, its officers or employees, or any other person. WILLIAM J. CLINTON THE WHITE HOUSE, September 30, 1998. -0- /U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/ 10/01 14:10 Copyright 1998, U.S. Newswire ----------------------- NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ----------------------- ********************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address ********************************************** www.telepath.com/believer ********************************************** --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

IP: Europe's Echelon eavesdropping exposed
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: believer(a)telepath.com Subject: IP: Europe's Echelon eavesdropping exposed Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1998 10:18:09 -0500 To: believer(a)telepath.com Source: Wired http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/15295.html Eavesdropping on Europe by Niall McKay 4:00 a.m.30.Sep.98.PDT If the European Parliament has its way, the lid is about to come off what is reputedly one of the most powerful, secretive, and extensive spy networks in history -- if, in fact, it really exists. In October, Europe's governing body will commission a full report into the workings of Echelon, a global network of highly sensitive listening posts operated in part by America's most clandestine intelligence organization, the National Security Agency. "Frankly, the only people who have any doubt about the existence of Echelon are in the United States," said Glyn Ford, a British member of the European Parliament and a director of Scientific and Technical Options Assessment, or STOA, a technology advisory committee to the parliament. Echelon is reportedly able to intercept, record, and translate any electronic communication -- telephone, data, cellular, fax, email, telex -- sent anywhere in the world. The parliamentary report will focus on concerns that the system has expanded and is now zeroed in on the secrets of European companies and elected officials. The parliament is alarmed at reports of Echelon's impressive capabilities, and during a debate on 19 September, the European Union called for accountability. The parliament stressed that the NSA and the Government Communications Headquarters, which jointly operate Echelon, must adopt measures to guard against the system's abuse. International cooperation on law enforcement is important, Ford said, but there are limits. "We want to establish a code of conduct for the systems to protect EU citizens and governments." Across the Atlantic, Patrick Poole, deputy director for the Free Congress Foundation, a conservative Washington think tank, is preparing a report on Echelon to present to Republican members of Congress. "I believe it's time we start to bring this matter to our elected officials," he said. Poole and Ford have their work cut out for them: Neither Britain nor the United States will admit that Echelon even exists. The NSA declined any comment on a series of faxed questions for this story. Keyword: Bomb Over the years, enough information has leaked to suggest that the spy network is more than science fiction. Echelon came to the attention of the EU Parliament following a report commissioned by STOA last year. "Unlike many of the electronic spy systems developed during the Cold War, Echelon is designed for primarily non-military targets: governments, organizations, and businesses in virtually every country," the report said. According to the STOA report and stories in The New York Times, The Daily Telegraph, and The Guardian, Echelon consists of a network of listening posts, antenna fields, and radar stations. The system is backed by computers that use language translation, speech recognition, and keyword searching to automatically sift through telephone, email, fax, and telex traffic. The system is principally operated by the NSA and the GCHQ, but reportedly also relies on cooperation with "signals intelligence" operations in other countries, including the Communications Security Establishment of Canada, Australia's Defense Signals Directorate, and New Zealand's Government Communications Security Bureau. John Pike, a security analyst for the Federation of American Scientists, said each of the five government agencies takes responsibility for its own geographical region. Each agency reportedly maintains a glossary of keywords. If Echelon intercepts a transmission containing a word or phrase contained in the glossary -- bomb, for example -- the full conversation, email, or fax is recorded and shared among the agencies. "Echelon intercepts Internet traffic at the transport layer, such as the TCP/IP layer, so the system doesn't care too much what it is or where it came from," said Pike. "For analog traffic, such as telephone conversations, it uses automatic voice-recognition technology to scan the conversations." Abuses of Power? While the EU is aware that Echelon may be a useful tool for tracking down global terrorists, drug barons, and international criminals, Ford said the parliament is concerned that the system may also be used for espionage, spying on peaceful nations, or gaining unfair economic advantage over non-member nations. Indeed, there are many reported instances of the British and US intelligence agencies working together to gather information in a questionable manner. A 1993 BBC documentary about NSA's Menwith Hill facility in England revealed that peace protestors had broken into the installation and stolen part of this glossary, known as "the Dictionary." The documentary alleged that Menwith Hill -- a sprawling installation covering 560 acres and employing more than 1,200 people -- was Echelon's nerve center. Further evidence emerged last year, when British Telecom told a court that it provides high-bandwidth telecommunications into the Menwith Hill facility and from the facility to the United States, using a transatlantic fiber-optic network. "I believe that these five intelligence agencies are working from a single plan," said Pike. British investigative journalist Duncan Campbell was the first to report about Echelon in a 1988 article in The New Statesman. He believes that there is a very thin line between intelligence gathering and commercial espionage. Pike, of the Federation of American Scientists, believes the intelligence agencies operate in a gray area of international law. For example, there is no law prohibiting the NSA from intercepting telecommunications and data traffic in the United Kingdom and no law prohibiting GCHQ from doing the same thing in the United States. "The view by the NSA seems to be anything that can be intercepted is fair game," said Pike. "And it's very hard to find out what, if any, restraints can be employed." ----------------------- NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ----------------------- ********************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address ********************************************** www.telepath.com/believer **********************************************

1 0

IP: Clear and present danger: FIGHT AGAINST NATIONAL ID CARD (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Subject: IP: Clear and present danger: FIGHT AGAINST NATIONAL ID CARD > Date: Thu, 01 Oct 98 16:50:32 -0700 > From: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri(a)netcom.com> > "Our Founding Fathers intended to create a system with > division of > power between three branches of government and between > the state and > federal governments in order to protect our rights. Three branches of government? Between the state and federal? I don't think so... There are *THREE* (3) EQUALY powered members in the government of the United States of America; federal, state, and the people. The federal level is split into three seperate branches, they as single entitities are NOT the federal government. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- We, the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. ARTICLE IX. The enumeration of the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. ARTICLE X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

DTRA, Terrorism, Digital Daily
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

DoD rolled out today the new Defense Threat Reduction Agency which combines several agencies -- Defense Special Weapons Agency, Defense Technology Security Administration, On-Site Inspection Agency and others -- into a new organization whose principle purpose will be to control the spread of technologies of mass destruction. See remarks made at the opening ceremony by Hamre and others: http://jya.com/dtra100198.htm And the new, informative DTRA Web site: http://www.dtra.mil The briefing remarks are of interest for what they disclose about military planning for combating domestic terrorism (parallel to what the FBI said about it yesterday), promises to speed export licensing and a passing reference by Hamre to "a recent ten month process of encryption policy review." Which may refer to the recent administration policy announcement or maybe another in the works. With the build-up of domestic terrorism fighting forces -- all the mil and gov agencies -- and noises about legislation being developed for more, it's worth pondering what is coming with a crackdown on domestic use of encryption. The Canadian duplicitous announcement today may offer a clue to what's being secretly agreed upon internationallly: state there will be no domestic controls (to assure privacy and secure commerce) coupled with promises to ease export limits (to assure commercial producers), then contradict that with a statement about new legislation to criminalize encryption use in the name of "public safety" and provision for access to encrypted data (to assure national security and law enforcement). Tell all parties what they want to hear in public, then arrange for what's really going to happen in secrecy among those responsible parties who know how to bear the terrible burden of keeping society safe and sound. Which brings up Time's new "Digital Daily" replacement for Netley News. News seems to have been eliminated in favor of entertaining fluff and product promo, even worse than "mainstream" Time itself. What's up Declan? Has the ghost of Luce come back to order Time online to shut up reporting unpleasant nefaria and get on with narcotizing the masses via Luce's incomparable coy language of insider duplicity?

1 0

RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd)
by Matthew James Gering 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I wrote: > > Show me an example of an unregulated coercive monopoly > > whose source of monopoly power is not ultimately the > > government. Jim Choate answered: > The Mafia. The handful of world-class coke dealers. Your local church. The church had a monopoly on religion. Not any more. When it had it was supported by the state or by its own use of force. The other two organizations use force to maintain their monopoly, and again both are supported indirectly (sometimes more directly than we like to think) by the state. The state prohibits free competition, it is a black market. When I talk of a free market I man Laissez Faire Capitalism, not Anarcho-Capitalism. The abolition of force is a requisite (and the only proper role of government). A large company can maintain a monopoly by force (more often than not the government is the instrument of force, the legalization of coercive monopoly power). Matt

1 0

RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: Matthew James Gering <mgering(a)ecosystems.net> > Subject: RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd) > Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 18:01:23 -0700 > I wrote: > > > Show me an example of an unregulated coercive monopoly > > > whose source of monopoly power is not ultimately the > > > government. > > Jim Choate answered: > > The Mafia. The handful of world-class coke dealers. Your local church. > > The church had a monopoly on religion. Churches monopolize faith (but let's not go there). > Not any more. Tell that to the Isreali's and the Arab's, the Serbs and the Slav's, The Hutu's and the whoever they are I can't think of at the moment, the Irish Protestants and Catholics, etc., etc., ad nausium... When it had it was > supported by the state or by its own use of force. The other two force is one form of coercion, faith can be another. > organizations use force to maintain their monopoly, and again both are > supported indirectly (sometimes more directly than we like to think) by > the state. The state prohibits free competition, it is a black market. A free-market is defined as consisting of the supplier and the consumer without a regulatory body. It doesn't prohibit a third group *wanting* to regulate that market. Or of either the producer or consumer using violence to prevent it. > When I talk of a free market I man Laissez Faire Capitalism, not > Anarcho-Capitalism. What's the specific difference? What is the fundamental litmus test between a Laisez Faire and a Anarcho? In one case there is no recognized arch to be had to regulate the market and in the other the third party simply opts out of participating. In what way are the resulting markets different from either the producers or consumers view? > The abolition of force is a requisite (and the only > proper role of government). Explain further what you mean by abolition of force is a prerequisite please. And what specificaly do you mean by proper role of government? ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

[Fwd: Fw: Court Strikes Down Federal Mandates Again]
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > While I have not found this case decision posted anywhere but in this > usenet posting, I have found some background info: > http://www.rcfp.org/NMU/961216b.html > Local Sovereignty Update > US Court Again Upholds State Sovereignty and Strikes Down Federal = > Mandate > This month we have another case in which the federal courts have = > recognized that the federal government has no authority to impose any = > mandate on state or local government. > Printz v. US ruled that '[t]he Federal Government may neither issue = > directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor = > command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, = > to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.' That across = > the board prohibition is simply being applied to various federal = > mandates one after the other.=20 > =20 > CONDON v US, Decided: September 3, 1998 =20 > > =20 > In 1994 Congress passed the Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), = > which tried to set federal standards governing how and when information = > in driving records could be released. The DPPA said that "Any State = > department of motor vehicles that has a policy or practice of = > substantial noncom- pliance . . . shall be subject to a civil penalty = > imposed by the Attorney General of not more than $5,000 a day."=20 > =20 > South Carolina, joined by several other states, refused to implement the = > Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), and sued the Federal government = > in US Court demanding that the law be recognized by the federal courts = > as a violation of the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments to the United States = > Constitution. > =20 > The Fourth Circuit Court struck down DPPA ruling that > > > "Under our system of dual sovereignty, "[t]he powers not delegated to = > the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the = > States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." U.S. = > Const. amend. X. Because Congress lacked the authority to enact the DPPA = > under either the Commerce Clause or Section 5 of the Fourteenth = > Amendment, we affirm the judgment of the district court." > > > The Court also stated plainly that: "Congress may not enact any law that = > would direct the functioning of the States' executives or legislatures." = > > > Citing the New York and Printz cases the court said that the Supreme = > Court's ruling with respect to federal mandates "has been a model of = > consistency."=20 > > Some of the more important quotes from the case follow: > > > In New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) the Supreme Court = > held that Congress could not "commandeer[ ] the legislative processes of = > the States by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal = > regulatory program." ... In Printz v. US the court held "that Congress = > cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State's officers = > directly." Id. at 2384. The Court went on to note that '[t]he Federal = > Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address = > particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their = > political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory = > program.' " > =20 > > "The Supreme Court, in both New York and Printz, has made it perfectly = > clear that the Federal Government may not require State officials to = > administer a federal regulatory program." > > > "Although Congress has regulated the disclosure of personal information = > by some private parties, the Constitution permits Congress to regulate = > the conduct of individuals. In contrast, Congress may not, as a general = > matter, regulate the conduct of the States. See New York, 505 U.S. at = > 166 ("[T]he Framers explicitly chose a Constitution that confers upon = > Congress the power to regulate individuals, not States." (quoted with = > approval in Printz, 117 S. Ct. at 2377)). " > > "The United States also contends that the DPPA was properly enacted = > pursuant to Congress's power under Section 5 of the Four- teenth = > Amendment. In light of the Supreme Court's landmark decision in City of = > Boerne v. Flores, 117 S. Ct. 2157 (1997), we are constrained to = > disagree." > > Congress's power to enact legislation under the Fourteenth Amendment is = > not unlimited, however. See, e.g. , City of Boerne v. Flores, 117 S. Ct. = > 2157, 2171 (1997) (holding that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is = > "a considerable congressional intrusion into the States' traditional = > prerogatives," and that Congress exceeded its power under the Fourteenth = > Amendment in enacting the statute); Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, = > 469 (1991) (stating that "the Four- teenth Amendment does not override = > all principles of federalism"); Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 128 = > (1970) (noting that "[a]s broad as the congressional enforcement power = > is, it is not unlimited"). For instance, Congress's power "extends only = > to enforc[ing] the provi- sions of the Fourteenth Amendment." City of = > Boerne, 117 S. Ct. at 2164 (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks = > omitted). Of perhaps equal importance, it is only a preventative or = > remedial power, not a substantive power. See id. at 2167. As a result, = > Congress does not possess "the power to determine what constitutes a = > constitutional violation." Id. at 2164.=20 > > > "neither the Supreme Court nor this Court has ever found a = > constitutional right to privacy with respect to the type of information = > found in motor vehicle records. Accordingly, Congress did not have the = > authority under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to enact the = > DPPA." ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0