December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Need a "warning" graphic of some kind for CDA
by Dave Farber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Posted-Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 21:09:19 -0500 X-Sender: farber(a)linc.cis.upenn.edu Date: Fri, 02 Feb 1996 21:09:19 -0500 From: Dave Farber <farber(a)central.cis.upenn.edu> Subject: IP: Blue Ribbon Campaign invite [ with a endorsement from me djf] To: interesting-people(a)eff.org (interesting-people mailing list) X-Proccessed-By: mail2list From: Dan Brown <brown(a)eff.org> Greetings from the Electronic Frontier! As you likely already know, on Feb. 1 1996 the United States House and Senate voted on and overwhelmingly passed the Telecommunications Act almost immediately after being reported out of committee, before the public was able to read, much less comment upon this bill. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), decries the forfeiture of free speech prescribed by the sweeping censorship provisions of the telecommunications "reform" legislation EFF is launching a campaign using a blue ribbon as a symbol to visually communicate support for free speech in the electronic world. As a provider of content on the Internet we invite you to join in this awareness campaign by displaying a link to our "Blue Ribbon" page where we will update what is happening in the effort to preserve free speech. Pictures, HTML anchors and information on the progress of the campaign are all available from http://www.eff.org/blueribbon.html. Don't wait in silence. Please join the fight against Internet Censorship!! ------------------------------------------------------ Dan Brown | System admin for the Electronic Frontier Foundation | brown(a)eff.org +1 415 436 9EFF Voice || +1 415 436 9993 Fax || +1 415 605 1481 Pager (Please leave area code _and_ phone number if you page me!)

2 1

Re: free speech and the government
by Stephan Mohr 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 16:02 03.02.1996 -0800, you wrote: >Stephan Mohr writes: >> >> Well, I feel that I agree with the people on the right of free speech for >> i.e. the neo-nazi stuff or other political, ideological and/or religious >> ideas. But there is still something that leaves me uneasy: imagine there >> would be a way to easily make a powerful poison, easily applicated to >> your town's water-reservoir, or a very easy way to build some strong >> explosive device. etc. Actually, I think that stuff like this does exist >> already. >> >> But the idea that one day I just put 'easy made deadly poison for millions' >> into my webcrawler and whoop there it is on my screen or on the screen of any >> other fool, doesn't sound to right to me. I would like things like this >> to be better put aside and locked up. > >You can't put the genie back into the bottle. >Once something is invented or described, the knowledge >is out there. Someone who wants to use that knowledge >for "wrong" purposes can find it. > >Maybe a lot of people around the world could agree that >the knowledge to make something really dangerous (say Sarin nerve gas) >should be suppressed. But where do we draw the line? If >we, or rather our government acting obstensibly in our interest, decides >to supress the information on how to make Sarin, not too many people >will complain. But the tendency of governments is to regulate and >restrict and tax more. What happens when governments suppress >knowledge on how to make gunpowder? Or printing presses? Or >encryption? > Actually, I am glad that the whole story started over some neo-nazi stuff and not a recipe to easily make a very potent poison. I wonder if there would have been as many 'poison-sites' as there are zundel-sites. And what 'poison-site'-maintainers would think after some fool would have used the poison to kill a bunch of kindergarten-kids by putting it into their food. And how some governments would react and what type of restriction on the net would not only be accepted, but even demanded by the people. Yeah, I know, the guy could have gotten the idea elsewhere as well, but you know how people think and how governments like to link unrelated stuff to gain power. And it is nice to see how much publicity you can give to something by prohibiting it. >Many people argue (rightly IHMO) that once started on the slippery slope >of suppressing knowledge there's no stopping until we're all >under the boot heel of the police state. > >[..] I think that you are right in saying that you can't put the genie back into the bottle. But I think it makes a big difference if you make it widely available to everyone and maybe even to people who do not want to have it. It would be nice to have some type of obstacle in the way to this type of information. It is like putting drugs, alcohol and other dangerous stuff out of the reach of children. Or putting a fence at some dangerous cliff to prevent people from falling over. The dangerous stuff will still be there and you just can't flatten every hill. But there is a responsibility that comes with information as well as with any other thing. So I do not want to outlaw some type of information, I agree that this is not feasible (I hope) nor desirable. But I think that there should be some possibility of control on a public medium. Not to control the content but to control the access. The idea is to give control to those in need of control without interfering with the free exchange of information of others. This could be done, for example, by giving them a choice of providers or browser software (jewish, catholic, anarchist, terrorist, gay, straight ... flavoured provider/browser). So you can say whatever you want, but everyone can decide whether he or she wants to listen to you or not (in a more sophisticated way, of course). And it is not just 'don't click on my page than'. Here encryption may play an important role: not only to protect your privacy, but also to protect others from having to read your stuff. Most or the governments will not accept the idea of free speech like this. And I am afraid, but I guess they could still tear down the whole net if they want to. So, wouldn't it be better that, if there should be some type of control technology, that it is conceived by the netizen and not by, say the german, chinese, or french government. Stephan

1 0

Re: Imminent Death of Usenet Predicted
by Alan Pugh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>What if looking at a JPEG were like buying beer? The default is >that a 12 year old isn't going to fool the guy at 7-11, but if >their parents buy a beer and give it to 'em, what the heck? >Consuming alcohol is not regulated; *purchasing* it is. > >Don't forget: the fact that "porno on the net" (for instance) is >an issue *at all* is a *failure* of technology. It would be a >non-issue if USENET wasn't essentially a technology vacuum. indeed. and Who is doing the most to make sure that the technology necessary (strong widespread crypto) to make porno on the net a non-issue? if the governments of the world weren't such a bunch of collective paranoid pricks, i believe we'd be in the process of implementing global encryption on the internet and private networks as well. the public needs to be informed that thus 'failure of technology' is completely unnecessary. one of the things that _really_ pisses me off is that the very same people who are restricting the access of crypto technology are the ones who are screaming that they need to restrict other fundamental freedoms because of the their own stupid policies. writing this, it is obvious that their policy is entirely reasonable and in fact necessary if it is your fundamental goal to restrict freedom. i believe this to be the case when considering governments in general, and the u.s. govt. in particular. amp

1 0

enquiry
by Sean Gabb 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is anyone out there able to give me the e-mail address of Smith Micro Software, Inc 51 Columbia Aliso Veijo California 92656 I need to ask about some software written by them. Any help would leave me very grateful. Sean Gabb.

1 0

Re: THE JEWS (ALL of them!) Try to kick Ernst Zundel off Usenet!!
by ErnstZundl＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> if he's out there convincing Neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers >> to go freeze to death at the South pole, as that really >> anti-semitic? DUH!! Nobody is going to freeze to death if they dress warmly. That is just a myth about Antarctica. It is really a tropical paradise, but THE JEWS don't want you to know that. Besides, we will all be going *inside* a VOLCANO! Even if somehow Antarctica were freezing cold, we will be plenty warm inside the volcano which leads to the Aryan Nazi UFO Base at the center of the Earth. I am not asking Nazis and Holocaust deniers to freeze to death! I am inviting them to jump into a volcano, you fool!

3 2

Re: THE JEWS (ALL of them!) Try to kick Ernst Zundel off Usenet!!
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:20 PM 2/4/96 +0000, Sean Gabb wrote: >What little I know about Mr Zundel convinces me that he's not the most >pleasant man to know. But really, these purported messages from him are >so grossly unlikely, they defeat their object. Why is it that so many people took those messages as _actually_ being from the real Mr. Zundel? The text is obviously a parody. I guess most of Usenet has been disconnected from any reliable clue server... 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/ Is the operating system half NT or half full?

1 0

Computer Law Observer
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help(a)weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Date: 29 Jan 1996 18:01:16 -0500 From: Galkin(a)aol.com Subject: The Computer Law Observer #16 ===================================== GENERAL INFO: The Computer Law Observer is distributed (usually) weekly for free and is prepared by William S. Galkin, Esq. The Observer is designed specifically for the non-lawyer. To subscribe, send e-mail to wgalkin(a)earthlink.com. All information contained in The Computer Law Observer is for the benefit of the recipients, and should not be relied on or considered as legal advice. Copyright 1996 by William S. Galkin. ===================================== ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Mr. Galkin is an attorney in private practice in Owings Mills, Maryland (which is a suburb of Baltimore). He is an adjunct professor of Computer Law at the University of Maryland School of Law and has concentrated his private practice in the Computer Law area since 1986. He represents small startup, midsized and large companies, across the U.S. and internationally, dealing with a wide range of legal issues associated with computers and technology, such as developing, marketing and protecting software, purchasing and selling complex computer systems, and launching and operating a variety of online business ventures. He also enjoys writing about computer law issues! ===> Mr. Galkin is available for consultation with individuals and companies, wherever located, and can be reached as follows: E-MAIL: wgalkin(a)earthlink.com/TELEPHONE: 410-356-8853/FAX: 410-356-8804/MAIL: 10451 Mill Run Circle, Suite 400, Owings Mills, Maryland 21117. Articles in The Observer are available to be published as columns in both print and electronic publications. Please contact Mr. Galkin for the terms of such usage. *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+ ELECTRONIC PRIVACY RIGHTS AND POLICE POWER *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+ [This is the third of a series of articles discussing privacy rights in the digital age.] It's no secret. Law enforcement agents are closely monitoring traffic on the Internet. It is also no secret that crime is proliferating on the Internet at a frightening pace. Law enforcement agents are a bit unnerved as they watch their tried and true methods of law enforcement become antiquated. However, law enforcement on the Internet is starting to come of age. Here are some recent examples: (1) The Secret Service set up a bogus bulletin board system for the purpose of attracting people who want to sell stolen cellular phone codes. Thieves often get these codes by using scanners which pick up the code-embedded signals emitted from moving cars. The result: six arrests and seizure of 20 computer systems. (2) The Justice Department ended a two-year investigation into use of America Online (AOL) for the distribution of child pornography and perpetration of other sex-crimes. The result: 125 homes were searched, computer systems seized and numerous arrests made across the country. (3) Just this month, the Secret Service noticed that Virtual Visions (http://www.vv.com/~gilmore/head/heads.html) put up a new web page which shows the heads of public figures such as Bob Dole, Boris Yeltsin and Bill Gates, slowly exploding. Virtual Visions intended this to be political satire. The result: the developer of the web page received a visit from the Secret Service. The Fourth Amendment - The objectives of law enforcement and of personal privacy are on a collision course on the Information Highway. Law enforcement personnel desire access to as much information as possible to conduct their investigations. Individuals want to restrict access to personal information. It is necessary to achieve a balance between effective law enforcement and personal privacy. How the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is interpreted will play a crucial role in determining where this balance is reached. The 4th Amendment prohibits government agents from conducting unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court has defined a seizure of property as a "meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interest in that property." The concept of seizure of information differs dramatically from seizure of tangible property. Seizure of tangible property means that the owner has been deprived of the use and possession of the property. Whereas, when information is "seized" the owner may still have possession of the information. It is just that the information has been copied and is now also in the hands of someone else. It could be argued that under the Fourth Amendment no seizure occurs when digital information is merely copied. However, applying the analysis used to prohibit wiretapping (which has been defined as a seizure), seizure of information would also fall within the constitutional definition of seizure. In the information context, "seizure" should be interpreted as meaning being deprived of the ability to control the disclosure and dissemination of the information. This ability to control is the value of the possessory interest of information. The application of the term "search" in the digital environment is more complicated. An unlawful search requires as a prerequisite that (1) subjectively, the person in possession of the item searched had an actual expectation of privacy and (2) objectively, the person had an expectation of privacy. The subjective expectation of privacy element has been criticized, because in theory, it would be very easy for the government to eliminate any expectation of privacy by announcing that it will perform broad searches. However, in practice, the Supreme Court has focused on the objective requirement. On one end of the spectrum is data resident in a stand-alone computer. Here, there is certainly an objective expectation of privacy. On the other end of the spectrum lie the vast open areas of the Internet, such as web pages and newsgroups to which there can be no objective expectation of privacy. Accordingly, law enforcement agents are free to roam through these open areas, assemble records on who is participating in which groups, and what they are saying. For example, if the Secret Service wanted to assemble all the messages that you posted in newsgroups in the last year (the technology to perform this search available) in order to determine your political positions, this would not violate the Fourth Amendment. The middle ground is where the legal battles will be fought. This will primarily involve information that is in the possession of a third party, and is not readily accessible to the public. Under traditional constitutional analysis, where information is disclosed to a third party, the expectation of privacy is abandoned. For example, most state laws, and the federal Constitution, permit wiretapping if one party to the conversation consents. However, the scope of the abandonment will usually only apply to the amount of information needed by the recipient. For example, the telephone numbers you dial are disclosed to the phone company in order that the phone company can perform its service. Thereby, a person abandons the expectation regarding the number dialed. However, even though the content of telephone conversations is also given over to the phone company, this content is not needed for the phone company to perform its service. Therefore, the content of phone conversations retains the expectation of privacy. By analogy, this would also apply to e-mail messages maintained on a service provider's equipment. Information such as the senders' and recipients' addresses, the file sizes and times of transmissions are not private. But the content of the messages would be. In the workplace, an employer is not permitted to consent to a search of personal areas of an employee. For example, a desk draw that contains personal correspondence. By accepted convention, this is a private area. Private network directories which require a password to enter would probably also retain an expectation of privacy. However, in each case, a court will look at specific corporate policies to determine whether there is an objective expectation of privacy or whether the employee was informed that the employer may at any time without notice enter these pass-worded directories. Along these lines, since a court wants to determine the objective expectation of privacy, an agreement that an employer will not consent to a search would have no effect. What would be needed is an agreement that the employer will not access these private areas, which deprives the employer of the right to consent. When determining the objective expectation privacy, courts will have to balance the value of the particular privacy interest claimed against the level of the law enforcement interest. Only this month, America Online under subpoena turned over personal e-mail records relating to a criminal investigation where the murderer allegedly met the victim in an AOL chat room. AOL has been criticized for not challenging the subpoena. AOL's position is that if it receives a search warrant, it will comply. This case highlights the valid competing interests of both law enforcement and personal privacy.

1 0

Re: enquiry
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:11 PM 2/4/96, Sean Gabb wrote: >Is anyone out there able to give me the e-mail address of > > Smith Micro Software, Inc > 51 Columbia > Aliso Veijo > California 92656 > >I need to ask about some software written by them. Any help would leave >me very grateful. Use the Force, Luke! Smith Micro Software, Inc 51 Columbia Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 Phones: Main - (714) 362-5800, Sales - (800) 964-7674, Technical Support - (714) 362-2350, Fax - (714) 362-2300, Automated Fax-On-Demand - (714) 362-2396, BBS: (714) 362-5822 EMail: CompuServe - 74431,1044; Internet - sales(a)smithmicro.com --Tim [This Bible excerpt awaiting review under the Communications Decency Act] And then Lot said, "I have some mighty fine young virgin daughters. Why don't you boys just come on in and do em right here in my house - I'll just watch!"....Later, up in the mountains, the younger daughter said. "Dad's getting old. I say we should do him." So the two daughters got him drunk and did him all that night. Sure enough, Dad got em pregnant....Onan really hated the idea of doing his brother's wife and getting her pregnant while his brother got all the credit, so he whacked off first....Remember, it's not a good idea to have sex with your sister, your brother, your parents, your pet dog, or the farm animals. [excerpts from the Old Testament, Modern Vernacular Translation, TCM, 1996]

1 0

Re: Sometines ya just gotta nuke em-and nuke em again
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Since the only cryptographic relevance here is whether the US knew about Japan's current state, and that isn't actually relevant, I won't respond to the list further on this. I regard the dropping of the bomb as right because it saved American lives, no matter who you believe on how many. America was on the side of good in WWII, and the Japanese (as much as they fail to admit it publically, including to their schoolchildren) were on the evil one. This is the case for several reasons: First, the Japanese had allied themselves with the Nazis. Second, the Japanese had done definite wrongs in China and elsewhere. Third, the Japanese attacked the US first (and it doesn't matter whether the US knew about it beforehand). It also doesn't matter whether Truman et al were considering the effects on the Soviet Union. To use a current example, just because an ISP is paid doesn't mean that that ISP is wrong to keep on Neo-Nazi material. If you wish to continue this discussion; feel free to do so via private email. -Allen

1 0

Re: Our "New Order"
by wlkngowl＠unix.asb.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Sat, 3 Feb 1996 11:30:48 -0700, David M. Rose wrote: >In view of the fact that our government seems bent on abrogating its >citizens' rights to free speech, has anyone done a survey indicating which >foreign countries have the best Net connections to the U.S. (excepting, of >course, Germany and possibly France)? >It may be expedient for Planned Parenthood and others whose points of view >differ somewhat from those approved under our "New Order"* to explore >alternatives in order to reach their constituencies. The law makes anyone accessing material lable... even if you connect to a foreign site where it's legal there, if it's banned in the US, you can still get screwed (in theory). Methinks the time is right for a "PGPScape" web browser. Rob.

1 0