December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Need a "warning" graphic of some kind for CDA
by Lynne L. Harrison 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:26 AM 2/10/96 -0600, Sten Drescher wrote: > > Then why didn't the Prez announce that he was ordering the >Justice Department to not defend the CDA provisions, like he did the >AIDS expulsion provision in the military spending bill? Because it's an election year and, IMO, the topics he discussed in his State of the Union address gave a clear message that he was going to sign this bill. ******************************************************* Lynne L. Harrison, Esq. | "The key to life: Poughkeepsie, New York | - Get up; E-mail: | - Survive; lharrison(a)mhv.net | - Go to bed." *******************************************************

2 1

WEB: Heterodoxy Bashes MIT and Internet
by Damaged Justice 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Very little cpunk relevance. I bash Heterodoxy for bashing MIT and the Internet at http://yakko.cs.wmich.edu/~frogfarm/hetrant1.html Also available at alt.wired and talk.politics.libertarian. -- http://yakko.cs.wmich.edu/~frogfarm ...for the best in unapproved information Tell your friends 'n neighbors you read this on the evil pornographic Internet "Where one burns books, one will also burn people eventually." -Heinrich Heine People and books aren't for burning. No more Alexandrias, Auschwitzs or Wacos.

1 0

Re: Req. for soundbites
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>A local TV station has asked me for an interview, after I sent a graphic >of a mono-digital hand gesture with the phrase "censor this!" to the Prez, >Veep, and the area congresscritters (cc'd to 2 TV stations and a radio >station), accompanied by a 'confession' and demand for swift prosecution. > >Anyone got any nifty sound bites I can try to toss in? "Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties." "Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously, by licensing and prohibiting, to misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter?" Both are John Milton, Areopagitica (1644) And theis .sig: Arun Mehta, B-69 Lajpat Nagar-I, New Delhi-24, India. Phone 6841172,6849103 amehta(a)doe.ernet.in a.mehta(a)axcess.net.in amehta(a)cerf.net http://mahavir.doe.ernet.in/~pinaward/arun.htm "I do not want my house to be walled in on all sides and my windows to be stuffed. I want the cultures of all the lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any."--Gandhi Bill

1 0

[silly] Re: OK, how *do* you spell it?
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:58 AM 2/10/96 -0500, Robert Hettinga wrote: >I got a spelling ping this morning. > >I'd never really thought about it, before. > >Is it infocalypse or infoclypse? It is Infocalypso. Infocalypso is a new dance involving laptops. It is similar to clog dancing, except the laptops are hit together in a rhythmic fashion while a lively beat is played on magnetic drums. It is usually found in countrys which have alot of spare laptops. It was made popular during certain MIT social gatherings and EFF meetings. The dance has gotten more and more violent as the speed of laptops have increased. --- Alan Olsen -- alano(a)teleport.com -- Contract Web Design & Instruction `finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ "We had to destroy the Internet in order to save it." - Sen. Exon "I, Caligula Clinton... In the name of the Senate and the people of Rome!" - Bill Clinton signing the CDA with the First Amendment bent over.

2 1

Re: Yeah, Yeah But what are we gonna do!
by avatar＠mindspring.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:17 PM 2/10/96 -0500, you wrote: >Spam beget filters. > >Most congresscritters delete email from people other than their >constituents already. > >Adam > Untrue most of them have responded to my correspondence. For example, I live in Atlanta Ga. and Senator Bradley is a representative of New Jersey. Here is his letter. By the way I have many more from many other members of both House and Senate. Thank you for contacting me to express your views concerning the Communications Decency Act of 1995, which was recently passed as part of S. 652, the Telecommunications Act of 1995. I greatly appreciated the opportunity to review your thoughts on this issue. Although the advances being made in our nation's information and communications network are revolutionary and welcome, they also provide openings for individuals to transmit obscene materials to children and to lure children. Throughout my career in the U.S. Senate, I have consistently encouraged the recording industry and the television industry to limit explicit violence and sex on television. Given the widespread growth of information networks, I supported the Communications Decency Act as a means to curtail children's exposure to offensive materials and to give parents some control over the things their children see and hear. While I supported this amendment because I believe there is a need for some safeguards against obscenity, I do have some concerns about the implementation of this provision, if it becomes law. There should be a distinction between indecent and obscene material, as there is in other relevant laws. Furthermore, this particular amendment does not adequately reflect the unique nature of the Internet, in which information crosses many computers and access points before reaching the user. Finally, I was disappointed that the Senate did not have an opportunity to consider an alternative proposal suggested by Senator Leahy. This measure would have provided more safeguards to ensure that First Amendment rights were preserved, but still would have accomplished the overall objective of the adopted version. Determining who should be held responsible for disseminating obscene material may be difficult. I am concerned that this could lead to an overall chilling effect on online communication as users fear that they may be held responsible for material they did not originate. Please be assured that I will keep your views in mind as the joint House-Senate conference committee attempts to reconcile the differences between the two versions of the Telecommunications Act of 1995. Again, thank you for contacting me to share your views. I hope to hear from you again in the near future. Best wishes. Senator Bill Bradley Washington, DC 20510 (202)224-3224 > Charles Donald Smith Jr. ||The government is my shepherd I need not work. It alloweth me to lie down on a good job. It leadeth me beside stilled factories. It destroyeth my initiative. It leadeth me in the path of a parasite for politics sake. YEA, though I walk through the valley of laziness and deficet spending I shall fear no evil, for the government is with me. It prepareth an economic utopia for me by appropriating the earnings of my grandchildren. It filleth my head with false security. My inefficiency runeth over. Surely, the government should care for me all the days of my life, and I will dwell in a fools paradise forever.................AMEN! || nuke'm if ya got'em||

1 0

This is not "This-is-not-punks" either
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 6:11 PM 2/10/96, Mixmaster wrote: >Lemeur Alexanderpunks, or perryrants vs. perryisanasspunks, >or CDAisdumbpunks, it's CYPHERpunks. Could everyone please >get closer to back on topic, there is work to do. Rant at >congress, not here! >XYZ Is anyone stopping you or anyone else from talking about quadratic residues, or Fiat-Shamir protocols, or the IETF proceedings? I didn't think so. People talk about what is on their mind. This week it's the CDA, a while back it was Jim Clark, and at various times we have talked about a truly vast number of subjects. Sometimes we talk about C code (not often), often we repeat ancient conversations about random numbers and steganography, and very occasionally we get into a new topic. This is not surprising, echoing as it does the patterns of conversations in real life. The scolding by people who think things are "off-topic" is not constructive. If they think people should be talking about some topic they consider more appropriate, let them start talking about it. Crypto is a hard subject, the technical part of it. If the list confined itself to this subject, very little discussion would take place. A Wei Dai might announce a new package every few months, someone might ask whether IDEA is better than Blowfish every couple of weeks, and maybe a Hal Finney would note that his analysis of RC4 is complete. Not much discussion, given the "depth" of these subjects. (And isn't sci.crypt a much better place for these discussions anyway? Why have the Cypherpunks mailing list at all if the only "appropriate" topics are those that duplicate what is already going on in sci.crypt?) Finally, I am always struck by how the most consistently scolding folks here ("Can't we get back to crypto?") are also the ones most prone to going off on their own rants when the mood hits them. Perhaps this is what they fear--the fear that someone else will say something that *must be rebutted* and thus cause them to go off on their own rant! Instead of ignoring the words that bother them, they declare that a topic is not suitable. Worse, they even engage in what psychologists call "magical thinking": they confuse cause and effect and claim that the actions of others will "cause" bad things to happen. We see this is the stupid comments along the lines of "I hope you're happy when the NSA wins, all because you made the list talk about Vince Foster instead of DES!!!!" People will talk about what they want to talk about. The way to shift the focus to what you think should be talked about is to write interesting and persuasive posts, not decry the topics others think important. The best way not to have the list "sidetracked" is to not respond to things you think are off-topic. Another version of this plaintive wail about topicality is the repetition of that comforting mantra "Cypherpunks write code." Overused in the extreme (though based on good ideas, that actually implementing systems is more interesting and more world-changing than merely discussing theory), this is used by people who wish others would shut up about some subject. As a way to have the last word. Sort of like writing, "As I've just finished explaining to you dullards in this 5-page post about why the Jacobins were actually proto-Libertarians, I must repeat that "Cypherpunks write code." So I now ask must ask you to accept what I have written on the French attitude toward libertarianism and get back to what this list is really about. If you continue to argue with me, you will be doing the NSA's work for them." (There's that magical thinking again.) (Why anyone would want others to shut up is beyond me...this is what filters are for. Anyone who can't filter out messages, either directly or by deleting them quickly, probably isn't in a position to "write code" anyway, so what's the issue? No, what I really think the issue is for these "control freaks" (to use the accepted term) is that it simply grates on them that other people are not more like themselves, are not interested in the same things they are at the same time they are. And they think that by scolding others they can force them to change their ways. Guess what? It doesn't work.) I was recently accused in private mail, and maybe public mail as well, by someone of "diverting" the list into a discussion of the Hiroshima bomb and its moral implications. I disagree. When Rich Graves asked originally, "Who holds up the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as great victories against tyranny?" I said "Since you ask, I do. A land invasion of Japan would've likely cost half a million American lives, and perhaps a million or more Japanese citizen lives, according to comprehensive studies I think are on the mark." This simple response--admittedly not related to DES or IETF or even Netscape--elicited flames, charges of racism, counter-arguments, and such. So? While I chose to sit out most of that flame war, you didn't hear me wailing "Can't we just get back to talking about Diffie-Hellman?" This is what filters are for. And what ignoring threads is for. I repeat, if you want others to spend more time talking about the things that you think need talking about, then set an example and begin the conversation. Don't just childishly wail about what others are talking about isn't "on charter." --Tim May, who will continue to write about what he wishes to write about Boycott espionage-enabled software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 - 1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1

Privacy Without Tears
by Bruce A. Baugh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Since it wouldn't do me any good to write code (I've _seen_ my code, it's not pretty), I'm writing in English instead. :-) I've started work on what I currently call Privacy Without Tears, a guide to PGP and related programs pitched specifically at a novice audience. I would appreciate comments, particularly in the fact-checking line (more on this in a moment). I'd also appreciate anyone who feels like it passing the URL I'll give in a moment on to crypto newbies and seeing if they can follow the instructions and get good results. So far, I've only written an intro and a section on PGP. Now I'm working on a section on DOS and Windows front ends. I'm only discussing software I can actually use on my own system, so explaining to me about the merits of tools for other OSes won't do any good. But if you have useful information about such, I'd be happy to link to your pages. Likewise, I'm deliberately not getting in a number of technicalities up front - only in the last section, for instance, will I explain about IDEA's role in PGP keys. This is for _novices_, the people who have as much need to protect their privacy as any of us but fewer clues. One thing I could really use is a short - paragraph-length - discussion of probable times to crack keys of various lengths. The URL (for the moment): http://www.aracnet.com/~bruce/privacy/privacy.html Thanks in advance for constructive comments! Bruce Baugh bruce(a)aracnet.com http://www.aracnet.com/~bruce -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEQAwUBMR0Phn3AXR8sjiylAQGkMgfRAcH5qowi9wG/4o2cYR0qwlNXZM92TLJJ G8Klpk//5Hd3q5PAdz6QOL3ct7QYhlpjlT/UYrJ/dhjpIxWX6jmgxM0jTDdDr1q8 qXcWwzNMz5d1V0z+95NkD7hCOV7inP5ycqFRRPtAgF4LCiT4V0GrbaTLaqKbi7G+ 1YXo6ginBOjQ8WABRtpwIgGbxmJPQmTue5SqTX6zuGhTGrounCGShYZKT8ViLqtl swtD6sG6TPCAOpAgeV8TOPnJEKdbd9ASHAFdEN63DnTHNgjUWLo2bO3VcblRHVjf 1fi+UkeEF/yYXD4nryhhA8E95GUqBdIasN2E8J214Wp4Qoo= =5fO2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

a chat w/ Paul Strassman about his remailer article
by tbyfield＠panix.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Now I have a firmer grasp on the dynamics of escalation. ;) A couple of notes. (1) The people Mr. Strassman CCed in his first response remained CCed throughout; one of them is his co-author, William Marlow (Senior Vice President, Science Applications International Corporation [SAIC]). (2) He hasn't responded to my last mail, and probably won't, at least in private; obviously, he's free to respond to it on Cypherpunks. (3) I find his claims to understand and properly represent the arguments for remailers to be, er, lacking: claims like "remailing capabilities are operated [...] as a public service, almost always at no charge because it costs so little to set one up," the absence of the standard penet-type arguments--about support-group discussion re sexual abuse etc.--speak for themselves, imo. Anyway: >To: paul(a)strassmann.com (Paul A. Strassmann) >From: tbyfield(a)panix.com (t byfield) >Subject: Re: your article on remailers > >Greetings. > Your article on remailers <http://www.strassmann.com/pubs/ >anon-remail.html> was fascinating. > The "connection" you draw between disease and techniques of >anonymity is arbitrary and tendentious: in place of a careful, sustained >analysis of anonymous remailers _as such_, your article relies on a >bizarre rhetorical substitution of disease for anonymity--"Information >terrorism poses a threat; anonymity prevents punishment; the fact that >legislative and policy bodies aren't dealing with the issue reminds me of >the history of public medicine; therefore anonymity is a disease like >AIDS; Russian criminals are using remailers; this is how remailers >work..." This isn't an argument--it's a hodgepodge of free-associations >and very peculiar allegations. What evidence is there that "the Russian >(ex-KGB) criminal element" (whatever that is) constitutes a *statistically >significant* segment of remailer-users? If they aren't statisticaly >significant, why mention them? In the absence of any specific evidence, I >can only assume that this claim is pure fantasy--like the confusing >association between "AIDS" and "terrorism." Certainly, both are bad for >society, but so are many other things--littering, starvation, and poor >workmanship. > If you plan to develop your work on remailers further and present >it to governmental agencies and NGOs, please take the time to *understand* >the arguments of remailer advocates, rather than merely quoting them at >length. You'll be doing yourself a favor--because, really, the only >sections of your article that seem to make much sense are the quotations >from people who develop and maintain remailers. > >Ted Byfield <address> ----------------------------- >X-Sender: pas(a)pop.connix.com >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 10:31:10 -0500 >To: tbyfield(a)panix.com (t byfield) >From: paul(a)strassmann.com (Paul A. Strassmann) >Subject: Re: your article on remailers >Cc: "William Marlow" <William_Marlow(a)cpqm.saic.com>, > "Tim Leshan" <LESHAN(a)ksgrsch.harvard.edu>, > BRIAN KAHIN <KAHIN(a)HULAW1.HARVARD.EDU> > > Dear Mr. Byfield: > >Thanks for your comments about our remailer paper. I believe a few points >are in order in response to your observations: > >1. It does not seem that you have finished reading the paper. There is a >long section in the end captioned <Why Remailers?> which summarizes a wide >spectrum of opinions and beliefs of those who develop and offer remailer >services. I am satisfied that I have represented fairly the views of those >who see in remailers the defense of privacy and civil liberties. I also >conclude that remailers are here to stay. > >2. With regard to the evidence of that remailers are used by the criminal >element, and particularly by the Russian (ex-KGB), I am satisfied with the >evidence I have seen so far. As court proceedings become unsealed, everyone >will have an opportunity to examine that evidence. Meanwhile, you may wish >to browse for recent stories with the keywords <Citicorp> and <Cybercrime> >for such disclosures. > >3. In your letter you employ a technique which is not appropriate for the >conduct of a civilized discourse. You start by attributing to me >statements which I did not make. Then, you proceed to debunk them. Let me >illustrate: > >I did not use the expression "statistically significant" in describing the >use of remailers by the criminal element. Therefore, your argument "...if >they aren't statistically significant why mention them?" is both false as >well as logically inconsistent. > >Your debating style shows similar flaws by avoiding facts and arguing your >own constructs of what you attribute as my views. It is only because of the >importance of this subject matter that I have decided to respond to your >"flame". > >Sincerely, > >Paul Strassmann <full quote of my email omitted> --------------------------------------------- >To: paul(a)strassmann.com (Paul A. Strassmann) >From: tbyfield(a)panix.com (t byfield) >Subject: Re: your article on remailers > >At 10:31 AM 2/7/96, Paul A. Strassmann wrote: > >Mr. Strassmann-- > Since you may not wish to pursue any further discussion with >someone you don't know, I'll cut to the chase: may I submit your response >(unabridged) to the Cypherpunks mailing list? I notice that you've CCed my >mail to three people unknown to me without my permission. (Hi, >everyone...) > Here are a few further remarks, if you're interested; I hope you are. >I've reproduced your remarks out of their original order for purposes of >brevity. > >>3. In your letter you employ a technique which is not appropriate for the >>conduct of a civilized discourse. You start by attributing to me >>statements which I did not make. Then, you proceed to debunk them. Let me >>illustrate: > > You are, I trust, familiar with the phenomenon commonly called >"asking a question"? That is what I did when I asked you whether Russian >criminal elements constitute a statistically significant segment of >remailer users: I asked you a question. This process can sometimes be >confusing--for example, when the criteria that questioner and questionee >judge to be important differ. I feel that, in matters of public policy, >relative numbers are important: thus, if tens or hundreds of thousands of >people use remailers for benign purposes while only a handful of Russian >criminals do so for nefarious purposes, then public policy decisions on >remailers should not be founded primarily on the latter fact. By analogy, >it seems likely that someone, somewhere, has taught a monkey to drive a >car--there might even be a documented instance of it; should we then take >this into consideration in debating national automotive policy? After all, >if it weren't illegalized, the chaos that could be caused by pet >chimpanzees tooling around on public roads can't be understated... > Obviously, you're free to differ on the subject of relative >numbers and their bearing on policy, just as you're free to persevere >under the belief that a question can be "false." > I can't, however, resist pointing out that asking c[are]fully >worded questions that conform to established scientific criteria is >considered "appropriate for the conduct of a civilized discourse." Again, >you're free to disagree, of course. [brackets in 1st line = spelling >correction] > >>2. With regard to the evidence of that remailers are used by the criminal >>element, and particularly by the Russian (ex-KGB), I am satisfied with the >>evidence I have seen so far. As court proceedings become unsealed, everyone >>will have an opportunity to examine that evidence. Meanwhile, you may wish >>to browse for recent stories with the keywords <Citicorp> and <Cybercrime> >>for such disclosures. > > "If you knew what I knew" arguments have needlessly become a >staple of the national security establishment; but in all but the rarest >instances are they a valid basis for policy decisions. I understand full >well that the Russian "mafia" and former apparatchiks throughout the >former Soviet bloc are serious problems that we ignore only at our peril; >and, also, that invoking them increases one's chance of funding in the >security establishment. But I also understand that certain segments of the >USG would ultimately be better off distinguishing between its citizenry >and the Russian mob, rather than continually invoking the latter in >advocating legislation that pertains primarily to the former. > > In any case, I cannot wish you well in your endeavors in this >regard, since I disagree with most of what you say; I can, however, wish >you well in other regards, and I do. > Please take a moment to answer my original question regarding the >Cypherpunks mailing list. > >Regards, > >Ted Byfield <address> ----------------------------- >X-Sender: pas(a)pop.connix.com >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 22:00:05 -0500 >To: tbyfield(a)panix.com (t byfield) >From: paul(a)strassmann.com (Paul A. Strassmann) >Subject: Re: your article on remailers >Cc: "William Marlow" <William_Marlow(a)cpqm.saic.com>, > "Tim Leshan" <LESHAN(a)ksgrsch.harvard.edu>, > BRIAN KAHIN <KAHIN(a)HULAW1.HARVARD.EDU> > >I have no problem with your posting my messages. Thanks for asking except >you should do so only after you include the text of all messages, including >this one. > >You have totally misunderstood my response to your points about the >relevance of whether ex-KGB criminals ( or monkeys) are a statistically >significant number. The problem with your communications has been that you >have continued to disregard my conclusions where I stated that anonymous >remailers are here to stay for good reasons. Whether the number of abusers >is or is not statistically significant has therefore no bearing on our >exchanges. For that reason I did not read your text at all as "asking a >question", but as your own assertion. This makes it unacceptable as an >argument. > >I disagree with your assertion that you have "...asked a carefully worded > questions that conform to established scientific criteria." My experience > as editor of several scientific journals prevents me from acknowledging > your messages as conforming to any scientific criteria. You have > selectively picked arguments from the front of my paper, while totally > disregarding what I said at the end. What you have is not scientific, but > extractions to support your arguments. > >You are using inference (such as "chance of funding the security >establishment", "advocating legislation" etc.) for attributing to me what >you see as reprehensible views. You do that by saying that I have used the >"if you knew what I knew" arguments as a cover. Again, you are exhibiting a >debating technique where you assign to me a position I have not taken and >then proceed to argue against it. > >Let me repeat again, your allegation that I have not taken into >consideration the arguments of remailer advocates is not only false but >totally misleading. If you would bother to read the entire paper, you >would find that the views or remailer advocates are not only represented, >but found to be of sufficient weight and importance to warrant my >conclusion that anonymous remailers are here to stay. I also say that in a >democratic society it "...becomes politically unacceptable to designate >remailers as a potential source of criminal actions. Such absolute >prohibitions would never pass through a legislative process in a free >society." > >If you are looking for some totalitarian monster, you better look somewhere >else to vent your apprehensions. > >Paul <full quote of my second message omitted> ------------------------------------------ >To: paul(a)strassmann.com (Paul A. Strassmann) >From: tbyfield(a)panix.com (t byfield) >Subject: Re: your article on remailers > >>You have totally misunderstood my response to your points about the >>relevance of whether ex-KGB criminals ( or monkeys) are a statistically >>significant number. The problem with your communications has been that you >>have continued to disregard my conclusions where I stated that anonymous >>remailers are here to stay for good reasons. Whether the number of abusers >>is or is not statistically significant has therefore no bearing on our >>exchanges. For that reason I did not read your text at all as "asking a >>question", but as your own assertion. This makes it unacceptable as an >>argument. > > You seem quite adamant that your repeated assertion that >"remailers are here to stay" somehow serves to stave off any criticism (or >at least any criticism from your struly) of your article. I read your >article in its entirety and understood it quite well, and I agree with >*some* of it--for example, with your conclusion that remailers are here to >stay. I could just as easily read some lngthy tome full of rubbish whose >conclusion is that "stuff exists" and agree with its conclusion while >remaining skeptical about the bulk of the book. > I would submit to you that your article would be much improved if >you edited out this pathological-biological metaphor. > >>I disagree with your assertion that you have "...asked a carefully worded >> questions that conform to established scientific criteria." My experience >> as editor of several scientific journals prevents me from acknowledging >> your messages as conforming to any scientific criteria. You have >> selectively picked arguments from the front of my paper, while totally >> disregarding what I said at the end. What you have is not scientific, but >> extractions to support your arguments. > > Of course I've selectively picked arguments from your paper--I >even addressed some from the *middle*! (As for the end, see my remarks >above.) Unfortunately, try as you might, my remarks aren't really what's >at issue here. You published an article that made extensive use of dubious >metaphor and made unsubstantiated allegations that, even if they were >substantiated, are of doubtful significance; when I pointed out that this >method of argumentation is generally inappropriate for a democratic >society, you redouble your efforts to assess my reading comprehension as >low and my remarks as utterly without merit. > >>You are using inference (such as "chance of funding the security >>establishment", "advocating legislation" etc.) for attributing to me what >>you see as reprehensible views. You do that by saying that I have used the >>"if you knew what I knew" arguments as a cover. Again, you are exhibiting a >>debating technique where you assign to me a position I have not taken and >>then proceed to argue against it. > > I've said nothing of "reprehensible views," nor need I do so; I'm >quite content with merely _disagreeing_ with some of what you have >written. As for "assign[ing] to you a position [you] have not taken": (1) >in your article you mentioned that "the Russian (ex-KGB) element" uses >remailers; (2) I questioned the truth and noteworthiness of this claim; >(3) you responded... > >>2. With regard to the evidence of that remailers are used by the criminal >>element, and particularly by the Russian (ex-KGB), I am satisfied with the >>evidence I have seen so far. As court proceedings become unsealed, everyone >>will have an opportunity to examine that evidence. Meanwhile, you may wish >>to browse for recent stories with the keywords <Citicorp> and <Cybercrime> >>for such disclosures. > > ...very clearly asserting that you have seen evidence that is not >publicly availlable because it remains sealed: "if you knew what I knew," >in shorthand. (4) I said that, imo, by and large this is not a valid basis >for policy decisions. And now you tell me that I'm arguing against a >position you haven't taken? > >>Let me repeat again, your allegation that I have not taken into >>consideration the arguments of remailer advocates is not only false but >>totally misleading. If you would bother to read the entire paper, you >>would find that the views or remailer advocates are not only represented, >>but found to be of sufficient weight and importance to warrant my >>conclusion that anonymous remailers are here to stay. I also say that in a >>democratic society it "...becomes politically unacceptable to designate >>remailers as a potential source of criminal actions. Such absolute >>prohibitions would never pass through a legislative process in a free >>society." > > To be sure, you "represent" the views of remailer advocates, >though for the most part through extensive quotation--extensive enough, >indeed, that one of the authors quoted has publicly expressed misgivings >about the fact that you never sought permissions. Editor of several >scientific journals, you say? Perhaps your extensive experience with >classified documents, which of course quote material beyond fair use >without permission, has shaped your editorial sensibilities? > >>If you are looking for some totalitarian monster, you better look somewhere >>else to vent your apprehensions. > > I think maybe you've strayed a bit from the subject. This is, I >think, a strange way to respond to my closing: > >> In any case, I cannot wish you well in your endeavors in this regard, >>since I disagree with most of what you say; I can, however, wish you well in >>other regards, and I do. > > You're rather keen to pathologize things, aren't you? First it's >remailers, which "remind" you of diseases; and now you've doubly >pathologized me, as someone positively bent on finding "totalitarian >monsters" where there are none. Please rest assured that I don't think >you're anything of the sort. > >Cheers, >Ted

1 0

Re: The Agincourt Project
by printing＠explicit.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Here is a thank you rant from the OCAF that I got in my mail today. William Knowles printing(a)explicit.com --(Fwd)-- >From Oklahomans for Children And Families (OCAF) ocaf(a)aol.com ocaf(a)telepath.com ----------------- Thank you for requesting our document "The Agincourt Project". We hope you have had time to read and digest it. And we very much hope you will join us in our fight to end illegal pornography and child pornography on the Internet. - If you are a concerned citizen, we hope you will follow the suggestions in our Action Plan. We need your help to get our document in the hands of law enforcement officials across America. This is a complicated issue, but we have found that once the police and prosecuting attorneys understand how an ISP operates, the criminal liability of the ISP becomes obvious. - If you are a law enforcement official or a prosecuting attorney responding to our notices of potential illegal activity in your jurisdiction, we are ready to answer any questions you or your staff may have. - If you are a representative of a media organization, we stand ready to answer any questions you may have and to make ourselves available for interviews. - And, finally, if your are an Internet Service Provider who is concerned about our activities, your concern is justified. We hope that you have already made the decision to remove illegal pornography and child pornography from your news server. And we sincerely thank you if you have done so. If you have not, please understand that we are receiving help from concerned citizens across the United States. Sooner or later, the police in your area will be contacted. Also understand that we do not intend to find one large ISP for a test case. We are encouraging law enforcement in every city to use existing laws to put an end to the illegal pornography and child pornography in newsgroups. Again, thank you for your interest in our work. --(End fwd)--

1 0

The Idiot Chip
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The New York Times, February 10, 1996 The Idiot Chip By Frank Rich [Columnist] In the annals of dumb solutions to serious problems, history will have a ball with the V-chip, the antidote to trash TV that became the law of the land on Thursday when Bill Clinton signed the telecommunications bill. Far from making television safer for children, the V-chip will merely postpone and confuse the issue until well into the next century -- even as it provides politicians with convenient cover. By embracing the V-chip, Democrats and Republicans alike can posture as if they care about children without actually having to do anything to improve their cultural lot. Let Mr. V-chip do the job instead! The V-chip is a gimmick that has as much to do with ameliorating TV for kids as the Forbes flat tax has to do with serious tax reform. To see why, it's essential to realize that a cultural revolution took place in America this week. Contrary to the headlines and sound bites, the new telecommunications law is not just about cable rates and phone service, the explosion of new technologies and the unconstitutional effort to stamp out "indecency" and abortion information on the Internet. If you look at the bigger picture, this law is also about a mammoth expansion of mass culture -- more media, more outlets -- and a rapid expansion of power for the handful of mega-corporations that control it all, from TV, movies, music and publishing to both print and electronic news. It was perfectly symbolic that on the day Mr. Clinton signed the bill, Disney got its official Federal approval to swallow up ABC. Into this vast new universe of omnipotent media goliaths comes the tiny V-chip, designed to help parents block the coarse outpourings of an exploding digital universe. Common sense alone dooms this gizmo to failure. Who can rate some 600,000 hours of programming broadcast per year by even our current 70-channel cable systems? (Hollywood only has to rate roughly 550 movies -- 1,000 hours -- per year.) Should crime-sated local news be blocked? "MASH" reruns? Reports from a future gulf war? "E.R."? Pro football? "Schindler's List"? (If so, a network may be tempted to duck a V-chip block -- which would lower ratings and revenue -- by sanitizing the Holocaust.) Even if all the practical, political and legal questions raised by the V-chip could be miraculously resolved overnight, it is still pie-in-the-sky. The chips are only required on new TV sets, so it will be years before most households, especially multi-set households, will be in the V-chip's harness. Even then, parents with kids in different age groups will have to choose between their younger and older children as they decide whether to flick the switch each night. Weaker parents will take the same path of least resistance they do now. As the founder of Action for Children's Television, Peggy Charren has been fighting for kids decades longer than most politicians. She is not only skeptical that the V-chip will transform lax parents into concerned ones, but points out that the chip doesn't even address the Saturday morning blight of brainwashing commercials ("worse than the programming") for violent toys and junk food. Nor, Ms. Charren adds, is there any language in the telecommunications law to require networks to increase the quantity and quality of good children's TV that might offer an after-school alternative to "Jenny Jones." Mr. Clinton will press for better programming when he meets with Hollywood potentates -- some of whom are his campaign contributors -- at the White House on Feb. 29. A far tougher idea -- one adopted by the British Government last month -- is being promoted by the Media Access Project, a public-interest organization. It argues that the one gift the networks still want from Congress and didn't get in the telecommunications law -- more space on the public airwaves (so-called "spectrum") for additional channels -- be given only if they agree to cede some of it to public-service broadcasting, including top-notch children's TV. But the greedy media goliaths will fight any such proposal as vehemently as they oppose the V-chip. The politicians, hiding behind the V-chip, will let them get away with it. Delinquent parents, told that their children will soon be in the hands of an electronic nanny, will have a new excuse for doing nothing. And like each TV generation before it, today's children will grow up to fight this battle for their children on yet another day. [End]

1 0