December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Microsoft and DoJ: which one has guns?
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A long-sounded theme at least on cpunks... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 12:51:19 -0800 (PST) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: politech(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: FC: More on Don Boudreaux "Calm Down" letter on Microsoft My article on the politics of antitrust: http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/opinion/0,1042,1678,00.html -Declan ******** Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 14:35:48 -0500 From: James Love <love(a)cptech.org> To: declan(a)well.com Subject: Re: FC: "Calm down!" -- Don Boudreaux letter to NYT on Microsoft Calm down Don Bx, If Microsoft really has great software, it doesn't need to use these heavy handed tactics. jl -- James Love Consumer Project on Technology P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036 love(a)cptech.org | http://www.cptech.org 202.387.8030, fax 202.234.5176 ********** Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 15:09:14 -0500 From: Don Bx <dboudreaux(a)fee.org> To: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> Subject: Re: FC: "Calm down!" -- Don Boudreaux letter to NYT on Microsoft (fwd) Sincere thanks to all who wrote in response to my letter to the NY Times. One point: Vigorous competition and clever marketing are NOT anticompetitive. Yes, Microsoft owes much of its success to hard bargaining; yes, Microsoft is a wiz at marketing; and yes, Microsoft's products are not as good (in an engineering or technical sense) as are some products produced by rivals. But antitrust law is meant neither to outlaw hard bargaining and marketing, nor to ensure that only the technologically best products survive on the market. Too many computer experts wrongfully infer from the fact that MS's products aren't the best available to the conclusion that, therefore, MS's success is illegitimate. Such a conclusion would be like saying that General Motors's success is illegitimate in light of the fact that Lexus and Porshe make better automobiles. Bill Gates may be an ass; I don't know and I don't care. I never met the man. But I do know that antitrust law has done great damage to this nation's economy during the past 100+ years. The DOJ has guns; Bill Gates doesn't. When DOJ enters the picture, it literally threatens to shoot consumers and businesses who refuse to do as it says; Bill Gates makes no such threats. For that reason alone I'm all for keeping Bill Gates free of government interference. Don Boudreaux -------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology To subscribe: send a message to majordomo(a)vorlon.mit.edu with this text: subscribe politech More information is at http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Swinestein for Senate!
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - Sen. Dianne Feinstein ruled out a race for the Democratic nomination for governor Tuesday, saying she didn't want to enter "a very debilitating campaign environment." Feinstein's decision came less than two weeks after President Clinton personally urged her to enter the race. That call followed pleas by Democratic members of Congress and the state Legislature to run. "I made the decision definitely last week," she told reporters in a telephone conference. "It was like a huge weight that came off my shoulders." "It's a long story. There probably has been no decision in my life ... that I have put more thought and energy into. There also has been none that has caused me more angst," Feinstein said. "The decision moment came in a way ... in the conversation with the president ... I thought if any call were to push me over the brink, it would be a call from the president of the United States." Feinstein said it was during that conversation that "I realized my ambivalence," she said. Feinstein, who had been weighing a race for the Democratic nomination for months, said she could serve the people of California better in the U.S. Senate. Gov. Pete Wilson, a Republican, can't run again this year because of term limits. The leading Republican candidate is Attorney General Dan Lungren. Other Democrats considering running are Lt. Gov. Gray Davis, businessman Al Checchi and state Senator John Vasconcellos. Feinstein, 64, lost a close race for governor in 1990 to Wilson. She was elected to the remaining two years of Wilson's Senate term in 1992, defeating his appointed successor, and ran again in 1994 to win a full six-year term.

1 0

politics of topology (was On the LAM--Local Area Mixes)
by Rishab Aiyer Ghosh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

m k gandhi used to say that it was good india was colonised by the _british_ - the poor fools were vulnerable to non-violent rational argument and (relatively) concerned about such oddities as human rights. one problem with tim may's idea for local area mixes is just that: relying on US stickliness on wimpy rules for search/interception is all very well, but wouldn't fly in china. i won't get into the argument over how awful the US state is here, but if all cypherpunk technology can fight is the "tyrannical" democracies of the west, it's not much good, IMNSHO. besides, if such technology becomes widespread in, say, the US, then it's inevitable that the authorities will tend towards more _real_ tyrannical behaviour, diluting search/seizure protections and taking you closer to china. a weak vaccine _strengthens_ the microbe it is supposed to kill. today your tech may let you plan stink-bomb attacks on the IRS in peace; tomorrow it may not be sufficient to let you publish articles critical of the goverment. i always thought the cypherpunk idea ("write code" etc) was to develop tech that is _independent_ of political protections. technology will not undermine the power of governments, if it is based on (incorrect) assumptions that governments will continue to restrain themselves (e.g. search & seizure) when faced by increasing use of such tech. i should think that LAMs would be excellent test-beds for larger-scale systems, but it is larger-scale systems, where you don't assume the government's _not_ snooping because it's squeamish, that matter more. best, -rishab First Monday - The Peer-Reviewed Journal on the Internet http://www.firstmonday.dk/ Munksgaard International Publishers, Copenhagen Intl & Managing Editor - Rishab Aiyer Ghosh (ghosh(a)firstmonday.dk) Mobile +91 98110 14574; Fax +91 11 2209608; Tel +91 11 2454717 A4/204 Ekta Apts., 9 Indraprastha Extn, New Delhi 110092 INDIA

1 0

Revenge on the Nerds -Maureen on a rampage
by Attila T. Hun 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- and everyone thought I have been blowing smoke over the few years over the need to dismember Micro$haft. More aye-sayers than naysayers have joined the fray, some even eloquently. even the opinion polls are against BadBillyG: bubba is more trusted! as is the government... Mickey$lop no longer generates terror in the hearts of everyone --just the OEMs who can not afford to even testify for fear of retaliation --and it is a real fear. keep your fire extinguisher handy. Maureen is really smoking! January 21, 1998 NYTimes OpEd Columnist LIBERTIES / By MAUREEN DOWD Revenge on the Nerds WASHINGTON -- I figured things were way out of perspective in the Other Washington when I heard that Bill Gates had put an inscription from "The Great Gatsby" around the domed ceiling of the library in his new $100 million pad: "He had come a long way to this blue lawn and his dream must have seemed so close that he could hardly fail to grasp it." Bill Gates was obviously unaware of the magnitude of the truth that he had unwittingly admitted. When he read about the blue lawn, he must have imagined computers with glowing blue screens stretching to infinity. And he must certainly have liked the proximity of the words "dream" and "grasp." With a judge who is likely soon to hold Microsoft in contempt for petulantly defying an order designed to give its rivals any chance, Mr. Gates's dream may at last have exceeded his grasp. The Justice Department never came down on Gatsby. This Washington has disabused that Washington of its arrogant presumption that what's good for Microsoft is good for America. This Washington has stripped that Washington of its image as warm, tender, flannel-and-soyburger pioneers of the new economy, and properly pegged Microsoft as an egomaniacal, dangerous giant that has cut off the air supply of competitors in a bid to control cyberspace. "The only thing the robber barons did that Bill Gates hasn't done is use dynamite against their competitors," Gary Reback, a Silicon Valley antitrust lawyer, told John Heilemann of The New Yorker. The disheveled college dropout who used to get adoring headlines like "A Regular Guy Who's a Legend: Bill Gates Puts a New Face on the American Dream" now looks like a spoiled rich brat. When they treated the Justice Department and the judge with the same contempt with which they treat competitors, the masters of the virtual universe got hit with a grim truth: People hate Microsoft even more than they hate the Government. Mr. Gates has gone from Horatio Alger similes to virus similes. Frederick Warren-Boulton, another antitrust expert, told The New Yorker: "Gates is like smallpox. You have to go in there and you have to nail it. If you leave it lying around, it will just come back." When asked who they thought had done more good for the future of America, Bill Gates or Bill Clinton, more Americans chose Mr. Clinton. (Even though portfolio-obsessed Americans would still rather have their children grow up to be more like Mr. Gates than Mr. Clinton, by 47 to 24 percent.) As Jacob Weisberg plaintively wrote in Slate, Microsoft's on-line magazine: "A few months ago, everyone I met seemed to think that working for Microsoft was a pretty cool thing to do. Now, strangers treat us like we work for Philip Morris." The Times's Timothy Egan explored the angst that has gripped the Redmond campus since Microsoft lost its sheen. Some fret that the fate of the entire Pacific Northwest is at stake. All the instant millionaires in thermal shirts, droopy drawers and sandals with wool socks are suddenly Wondering If It's All Worth It. They have staggered out of the Seattle fog long enough to listen to their inner browsers. This has been a rude shock to them because they honestly believed that our Washington was full of anti-business, careerist bureaucrats, and their Washington was full of imaginative idealists and entrepreneurs who buy and sell to the beat of a different drum. They didn't reckon smokestack laws could apply to high technology. As Mr. Gates's lawyer, William Neukom, told Steve Lohr of The Times, "We sincerely believe that we are a force for good in the economy." Actually, Microsoft has been a force for greed in the economy, more brilliant at marketing and purloining and crushing than it has been at innovating. The company saw the fight with the Justice Department as a defense of its way of life. And that way was hardball on software; anything it decided was a core threat to Microsoft was sucked into the operating system. These are Darwinian nerds. Besides, Microsoft couldn't even save the universe in "Independence Day." It took an Apple to do that. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQBVAwUBNMZSQ7R8UA6T6u61AQH2fgH+OQT3p1cE1lRxSzMvhyt9AvvH2N3jFUmO UZzpqRbrn9pB1VPxZLKG2lgBwOW4hPIlpFRWg8Fp+Uu6KoL6kKObuw== =n+/c -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

18 23

Two Turntables and a Clipper Chip
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Two turntables and a Clipper chip By Skinny DuBaud January 15, 1998 SAN FRANCISCO--In what certainly was not a hacker's delight, RSA Data Security CEO Jim Bidzos stunned the crowd at his company's annual conference this week as he joined old-school rappers The Sugar Hill Gang for a detourned version of da Gang's classic, "Rapper's Delight." Well aware that he's no Kool Moe Dee, Bidzos hip-hopped his way through the modified lyrics, which contained such sparkling couplets as... "They once proposed a thing called Clipper Now there's something new that ain't much hipper Key recovery won't work, so the experts say But the government wants to push it on us anyway" and "I like hip hip hop I like to online shop I trust RSA To keep the hackers at bay" ...then promised never to pull such a stunt again. The RSA conference audience of crypto-math geeks, cyberlibertarians, and snoop-dogs cheered, of course. They'd throw their hands in the air (and wave them like they just don't care) for a wet sponge if it smelled antiauthoritarian, but many breathed a sigh of relief. Despite the awkward moments, Bidzos, who's made quite a name for himself as a public enemy of the federal government's restrictions on the export of encryption software, looked mahvelous sporting a fresh Van Dyke facial-hair arrangement on his prizefighter's mug. He apparently grew the ensemble to match the Sugar Hill Gang--in appearance at least, if not in dope MC talent. Always the suave host, Jim will be back among his tribe at the end-of-conference gala, for which the company has rented out the California Academy of Sciences in Golden Gate Park. The Skintelligentsia certainly will be there looking out for any representatives of Pretty Good Privacy, the crypto company enmeshed in legal battles with RSA. The PGP-brains don't have a booth at the RSA conference this year, but in celebration of their merger with Network Associates--the newly formed utility software company, that is, not the PR agency--they managed to throw a soiree last night at the Marky-Mark Hopkins Hotel, right across the street from the RSA proceedings at the equally fly Fairmont. Speaking of snubs, crypto rivals VeriSign and GTE, whose booths at the Fairmont were practically alongside one another, have been playing a bit of one-upmanship recently. Certificate authority (CA) VeriSign uses hardware storage from BBN to safeguard software encryption keys at its Silicon Valley offices. The hardware--which looks like small blue boxes about the size of a desktop telephone set--is the crypto equivalent of a strong box, ostensibly impervious to hackers. But BBN was recently bought by GTE, which owns rival CA Cybertrust Solutions, and all of a sudden, VeriSign isn't satisfied with the "performance" of those little blue boxes. The company has started looking elsewhere for its strong-box solutions, according to a Skinside source. How will users of encryption trust the "trusted third parties" if the trusted third parties don't trust each other? Staying in Baghdad by the Bay, the conspiracy birds are clacking their beaks over the latest public transportation developments. S.F.'s Municipal Railway (or "Muni," as the local posse calls it) has just opened an extension from the end of Market Street down to Willie Mays Plaza, now just a gaping pit where the new baseball stadium will spring up by the year 2000. The shorthand for the new rail spur? "MMX," short for Muni Metro Extension. Sure, the project's gone over budget, but I swear it fixed that floating-point problem years ago... Speaking of Big Willie Style, San Fran's mayor Willie Brown--who looks great in a fedora, I must say--may be second only to Bill Gates when it comes to haughty treatment of minions, but do Willie's employees sit on Thai temples and proclaim their divinity? That's apparently what happened to a Microsoft programmer on vacation. According to email making the rounds among MSN and WebTV employees, the young fellow (who didn't answer his Redmond phone when my agents rang him up) overheated his circuits, perched himself atop an ancient Thai temple for 10 hours, and told the authorities he was God. It took scaffolding and a special police neck-hold to bring him down, according to the report. Brutal, Juice, brutal! Whether the item is true or not, it produced some amusing comments as it made its way through the outer provinces of Lawrence Lessig's favorite evil empire. "So, um, how closely are we supposed to try to blend into the Microsoft culture?" mused one WebTV employee as the tidbit made its way around the company. "I'm sure that each of us, at one time or another, has had the experience of waking up in some God-forsaken tropical paradise and feeling that horrible falling sensation that comes from being separated from your desk and workstation," wrote another Webhead.

1 0

Jan. 23 column - Horiuchi
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 23:59:33 -0700 X-Sender: vin(a)dali.lvrj.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 23:00:37 -0800 To: cathy(a)engr.colostate.edu From: Vin_Suprynowicz(a)lvrj.com (Vin Suprynowicz) Subject: Jan. 23 column - Horiuchi Resent-From: vinsends(a)ezlink.com X-Mailing-List: <vinsends(a)ezlink.com> archive/latest/424 X-Loop: vinsends(a)ezlink.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vinsends-request(a)ezlink.com FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED JAN. 23, 1998 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz 'Protecting him, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders ...' What does the Declaration of Independence actually consist of? Sure, from our school days, we may remember that "these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent States." But that's only the last paragraph. Prior to that, Mr. Jefferson and his co-signers spent 29 paragraphs doing ... what? "Declaring their causes," of course! We did this -- anyone would have the right to do this -- because of a "long train of Abuses and Usurpations," remember? "He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their Substance." Remember? "He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures. "He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power. "He has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of Pretended Legislation: "For quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us: "For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States. ..." This is not just schoolboy stuff. A message etched in fire from our patrimony, these words tell us how Americans shall know when they are again justified in declaring themselves free of a parasitical tyrant. Fast forward 216 years, to the late summer of 1992. Part-time gunsmith Randy Weaver had failed to show up for a court date, after being entrapped by ATF agents hoping to turn him into a snitch, to spy on a nearby CHURCH. Federal marshals now trespass on the Weaver family's private Idaho property (the marshals carry no warrant this day and are not there to make an arrest), and open fire when they're spotted by the family dog, killing the dog, and also Weaver's 14-year-old son, Sammy. A federal marshal is also killed, either in self defense or by fratricidal fire. (The federals never release any shell casings or autopsy results for independent review -- but a jury acquits Weaver and family friend Kevin Harris in the death.) The federal government answers by flooding the property with hundreds more trespassers in full combat gear. FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi then shoots at Weaver and Harris as the pair races back to his front door, after paying their respects to young Sammy's body in an outbuilding. One of Horiuchi's shots passes through the window of the kitchen door, shooting away much of the brain of Weaver's wife Vicky, for whom there are no warrants outstanding. At the moment prior to her death (which comes after 30 seconds of blood-curdling screams), Vicki Weaver was holding her baby in her arms in her own kitchen, threatening no one. Unaware they have murdered Vicky Weaver, federal agents continue to shout taunting remarks at her dead body, in the full hearing of her children, for days. The federal government eventually pays Weaver -- acquitted of murder and all other major charges -- and his children $3.1 million in damages for these wrongful actions. After a year-long review, the U.S. Justice Department decides in 1994 not to charge sniper Lon Horiuchi with any crime. Like the Germans at Nuremberg, they declare he was "just following orders." But, just before the five-year statute of limitations is due to toll, in August of 1997, Boundary County (Idaho) Prosecutor Denise Woodbury bravely files a charge of involuntary manslaughter against this armed trooper, who has long been quartered among us as part of the 60,000-strong federal "standing army" of FBI, DEA, ATF and other Einsatzgruppen troopers. Here now is the vital test. Will this "king's officer" be allowed to stand trial on the evidence, before a randomly selected jury of Idahoans, in their own state court? Or will the new king "protect him, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which he has committed on the Inhabitants of these States"? Jan. 7, 1998: The Associated Press informs us: "BONNERS FERRY, Idaho (AP) -- A judge today ordered an FBI sharpshooter to stand trial on a state manslaughter charge for the death of white separatist Randy Weaver's wife in the 1992 siege at Ruby Ridge. ... "Magistrate Judge Quentin Harden ... scheduled a Feb. 13 arraignment before state Judge James Michaud." So far so good. But now the inevitable: Jan. 12, 1998: "BOISE, Idaho (AP) -- FBI sharpshooter Lon Horiuchi won his bid today to be tried in federal court on the state charge brought against him in the death of white separatist Randy Weaver's wife in the 1992 siege at Ruby Ridge. ... "Horiuchi, supported by the U.S. Justice Department, petitioned the federal court to take over the case on grounds that the transfer is allowed when federal agents are prosecuted for conduct in their official capacity. "U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge agreed. ... Neither murder nor manslaughter, of course, is a federal crime. State courts have sole jurisdiction to try such cases. Clearly, the federals want jurisdiction here so they can either dismiss the case, or (if a public outcry renders that unwise) so limit the evidence admitted that the question to be decided ends up nothing more than "Was Agent Horiuchi obeying what he believed was a lawful order at the time?" Sort of like letting Martin Borman set the ground rules for the Nuremberg trials. Modern federal judges -- like Judge Smith in the trial of the Waco survivors -- are famous for declaring "The United States government isn't going to be put on trial in my courtroom." As one of my e-mail correspondents puts it: "The test for whether one is living in a police state is that those who are charged with enforcing the law are allowed to break the laws with impunity." This -- along with Janet Reno and her Waco Killers still roaming free, of course -- is the great modern test of whether this Union can long endure. If Lon Horiuchi walks (or even if some untimely "accident" allows him to escape justice) while the surviving VICTIMS of the federal assault at Waco are still serving long prison terms, after being found INNOCENT of all major charges, then what shall we say to the patriot who advises: "If you see a federal agent committing a crime, don't bother turning him in, just shoot him down like a dog. Kill him on the spot, and walk away without giving it a moment's thought." Showing our respect for due process, do we continue to say: "Oh no, that would be wrong. Just turn him in to the proper authorities, and justice will be done"? Do we, really? Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at vin(a)lvrj.com. *** Vin Suprynowicz, vin(a)lvrj.com "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -- Samuel Adams --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 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' The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/ Ask me about FC98 in Anguilla!: <http://www.fc98.ai/>

1 0

Fwd: Confiscation is here, Make the most of it. (fwd)
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 10:06:17 -0800 To: Robert Hettinga <rah(a)shipwright.com> From: <snip> Subject: Fwd: Confiscation is here, Make the most of it. (fwd) Status: U >Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 07:45:01 -0800 (PST) >From: <snip><snip> >Subject: Confiscation is here, Make the most of it. (fwd) >Mime-Version: 1.0 >To: <snip> > >Daryl Davis, author of the letter forwarded by Schrader, is the range- >master for the Santa Clara County Corrections Department and <snip> > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 09:46:37 -0800 >From: Mike Schrader <bay2a(a)webnexus.com> >To: ca-firearms(a)lists.best.com >Subject: Confiscation is here, Make the most of it. > >The following text was written to be presented to our (Santa Clara >County's) Republican Central Committee, to wake up the moderates, that bad >laws have unintentended consequences. Feel free to use it to do similar >work. > > Also see the advice at the end, and add my own that now is the time to >turn the heat up on both Lungren the candidate and your local >representatives to the state houses that voting for more bad laws will >never get them reelected. Neither party will be safe from the backlash on >this one. Neither party can distance themselves from those consequences. > >Don't let them. > >Yours, >Mike Schrader > > > > >Confiscation Comes to California >Lungren fulfills Feinstein's fantasy > > >By Daryl N. Davis > > > They said it would never happen. Any suggestion that it would was >derided >as "NRA paranoia." They told us they only wanted "reasonable controls." > > Well, it has happened. Gun confiscation is now the law in California. >Thank you, Dan Lungren! > > In a letter dated November 24, 1997, The Man Who Would Be Governor >declared that SKS rifles with detachable magazines, unless the owners can >prove they acquired the rifles prior to June 1, 1989, are illegal "and must >be relinquished to a local police or sheriff's department." This is a >reversal of the opinion held by Mr. Lungren from the time he took office in >January 1991, and which has been conveyed in numerous training sessions for >peace officers, criminalists and prosecutors during the past four years. > >When the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act (AWCA) became law in >January 1989, it included "SKS with detachable magazine." At that time, >there were two distinct models-one with a fixed magazine (Type 56) and one >with a detachable, AK-47 magazine (Type 84). President Bush banned >importation of the Type 84 in 1990. Later that year, aftermarket detachable >magazines (which are not interchangeable with the AK-47 magazine) became >available for SKS rifles originally designed to use only a fixed magazine. > > Until September 1997, Mr. Lungren's position had been that only the >Type >84 was an "assault weapon." He allowed the sale of the aftermarket >detachable magazines and of SKS rifles equipped with them. He also allowed >the sale of the SKS Sporter, basically a Type 84 that, in compliance with >the import restrictions imposed by President Bush, had its bayonet lug >ground off and was fitted to a sporting stock rather than a military stock. > > In September 1996, the Attorney General's office asked the state >Supreme >Court to "on its own motion order review of the Court of Appeals >decision..." in the Dingman case. James Dingman had been convicted of >possession of an unregistered assault weapon (Type 56 with detachable >magazine) and his conviction was upheld by the Court of Appeals for the >Sixth District. Chief Deputy Attorney General (now candidate for Attorney >General) David Stirling wrote: > >"The impact of the court's opinion cannot be over stated because of the >millions of SKS rifles and after-market magazines currently in circulation. >Tens of thousands of California citizens may become criminals simply by >using a perfectly lawful rifle with a lawfully purchased magazine without >adequate notice that such activity brings them within the proscriptions of >the AWCA." > >In October 1996, in response to the "unprecedented" request by the Attorney >General, the Supreme Court granted review of the Dingman case. In February >1997, the Attorney General's office filed an amicus brief with the Supreme >Court in support of Dingman; they asked that the opinion of the Court of >Appeals be "reversed." > > In September 1997, in response to a series of blatantly biased and >aggressively uninformed hit pieces in the Los Angeles Times, Mr. Lungren >reversed himself. He withdrew his amicus brief in the Dingman case, stating >that it "inaccurately reflects the view of the Attorney General." Deputy >Attorney General Paul Bishop, who had worked on the AWCA project since >1989, was transferred. > > Thanks to Mr. Lungren, "tens of thousands of California citizens" must >either surrender their lawfully acquired property without compensation or >become felons. Gun dealers throughout the state face felony prosecution, on >individual counts, for each detachable magazine SKS they sold during the >six years Mr. Lungren assured them it was legal to do so. Furthermore, the >opinion does nothing to clarify what constitutes a "SKS with detachable >magazine." Must the magazine be affixed to the rifle? With the rifle? The >rifle in the owner's gun safe and the magazine buried somewhere in a box of >miscellaneous parts in his/her garage? > > On CBS's "60 Minutes" on February 5, 1995, Senator Dianne Feinstein >declared, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United >States for an outright [firearms] ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. >and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it." Thanks to Dan >Lungren, Feinstein's fantasy is well on its way to becoming reality. >Whether Mr. Lungren's fantasy of currying favor with the loony Left at the >Los Angeles Times becomes reality, remains to be seen. > > > > >What Should I Do? > >1. If a law enforcement officer attempts to confiscate your SKS, live to >fight another day. DO NOT RESIST! Do get a receipt, though. > >2. Contact Governor Wilson and firmly but politely express your outrage at >this situation. In addition to infringing the Second Amendment, the AG's >position creates a taking of private property without just compensation >(Fifth Amendment) and an ex post facto application of the Assault Weapons >Control Act (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 3). >Gov. Pete Wilson >State Capitol >Sacramento, CA 95814 >Phone: 916-445-2864 >FAX: 916-445-4633 > >3. Become active in your local NRA Members Council. You may call the >Silicon Valley Members Council at 408-235-9175, 24 hours a day, for up to >date legislative information or for information on contacting a Members >Council in your area. > <snip> --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/ Ask me about FC98 in Anguilla!: <http://www.fc98.ai/>

1 0

ITAR is back!
by David Miller 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Those of you who thought that ITAR was dead had better check this out -- http://www.itar-tass.com/ Aparently, ITAR has found a new home... :-) Note that they are running Sun / Elvis+. --David Miller middle rival devil rim lad

1 0

Privacy as Censorship -- Cato Institute policy analysis
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

If you care about electronic privacy, read this new report. It correctly says that many proposals to create new "privacy rights" become censorship by another name. The paper is at: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-295.html -Declan ******* http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-295es.html PRIVACY AS CENSORSHIP: A Skeptical View of Proposals to Regulate Privacy in the Private Sector by Solveig Singleton (solveig(a)cato.org) director of information studies at the Cato Institute. Executive Summary Some privacy advocates urge the adoption of a new legal regime for the transfer of information about consumers among private-sector databases. This "mandatory opt-in" regime would require private businesses to ask for a consumer's permission before trading information about that consumer, such as his buying habits or hobbies, to third parties. This would, in effect, create new privacy rights. These new rights would conflict with our tradition of free speech. >From light conversation, to journalism, to consumer credit reporting, we rely on being able to freely communicate details of one another's lives. Proposals to forbid businesses to communicate with one another about real events fly in the face of that tradition. New restrictions on speech about consumers could disproportionately hurt small businesses, new businesses, and nonprofits. Older, larger companies have less need for lists of potential customers, as they have already established a customer base. We have no good reason to create new privacy rights. Most private-sector firms that collect information about consumers do so only in order to sell more merchandise. That hardly constitutes a sinister motive. There is little reason to fear the growth of private-sector databases. What we should fear is the growth of government databases. Governments seek not merely to sell merchandise but to exercise police and defense functions. Because governments claim these unique and dangerous powers, we restrict governments' access to information in order to prevent abuses. Privacy advocates miss the target when they focus on the growth of private-sector databases. To view the entire document: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-295.html

1 0

Will bureaucrats turn the Net into TV? Note from FCC
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A note from an acquaintance formerly at the FCC. --Declan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Having spedt my years at the FCC doing pre-repeal Fairness Doctrine and Sec. 315 equal time matters, I think [deleted-dm]'s concerns, tho' justified politically [because most adminsitrations will leave no good technology unhobbled] are without substantial legal basis. The hook for the Fairness Doctrine obligation imposed on broadcasters as a corollary to their statutory 'public interest' obligations was as a licensee of scarce broadcast spectrum--a discrete frequency awarded on a putatively compettive basis. Those key elements[scarcity/license/obligation] are--for now--lacking in the on-line environment. And while no doubt this or another Administration, or wiley Congressional staffer could gin up a plausable nexus between the web and interstate commerce, sufficiient to sustain a new public interest obligation, I think we're two or three generations of bandwith scarcity away from that becoming a compelling element of a cyber-resource allocation scheme. Without that overarching allocation-based [license] compulsion (to force even facial compliance with an obligation, so that enforcement would become essential to compliance, thus creating a need for thousands of Web police to review commercial licensees sites and traffic--[what a nightmare] -) -the liklihood of developing a meaningful scheme of public interest obligation would be a an overdebated and overhyped PC exercise, quickly becoming comic--and then dangerous.

3 2