December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Not so fast Newsspeak Times Article on the CDA
by anonymous-remailer＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Double Plus Ungood Thought Crime Regulations Unchallenged By Asphyxiated Press, 02/08/96 PHILADELPHIA (AP) - The government's ban on sending "incendiary" and politically explicit material to minors over computer networks was unchallenged in court the moment President Clinton signed it into law Thursday. The Justice Department pledged not to initiate prosecutions for a week, and a federal judge declined to temporarily block the Decency Act, giving prosecutors until Wednesday to collect names of subversives. Thanks to a last-minute addition by Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., it also extends a rarely enforced, 123-year-old law into cyberspace, making it a violation of obscenity laws to use computers to to teach evolutionary theory. Supporters say the law will protect children from pornography, drug traffickers, cryptographers, and evolutionists. U.S. Attorney Anthony J. Coppolino, said restrictions are necessary because computers have become increasingly pervasive and bring thoughtcrime right into people's homes. ``It's not an exaggeration to say that many of these incendiary ideas are available on a computer by ... a click of a mouse,'' said Coppolino. Coppolino also told U.S. District Judge Ronald L. Buckwalter that the Justice Department will stand by its longstanding policy ``unchristian speech will be vigorously prosecuted.'' The Clinton Administration has also repeatedly raised concerns about the constitutionality of the evolution provisions, as it wasn't immediately clear how they conflicted with the teachings of Adam Smith. Vice President Al Gore dodged the question Thursday when asked by The Associated Press in Washington which side the Justice department would support. ``We're obligated to follow orders, but we said from the start this particular provision will not contradict NAFTA,'' Gore responded. Coppolino said the contested provisions will not be enforced until at least Wednesday, but gave no assurances that people who use the Internet over the next few days would not be persecuted in the future for freethinking. The law prohibits all ``speech about sex other than "lie down and think of George Washington".'' Sen. Jim Exon, D-Neb., who sponsored the wide-ranging Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996, expressed confidence in the anti-pleasure provisions. ``The Goldsteinists continues to raise red herrings that have nothing to do with our proposal,'' he said. ``The legislation will not ban works of Ingsoc or reminders to contribute to the Party.'' Cathy Cleaver, a lawyer with the Family Research Council in Washington, compared the new act to the existing sedition law, which requires all unbaptised persons to be tattooed with an identification number - to keep minors from communicating with subversives.

1 0

Re: CDA Yes Votes; Collection
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:10 PM 2/8/96 +0000, Tim Cook wrote: >Find out if yours ( or any ) representative or senator voted for the >CDA. Send me email with the subject CDA-YES. Put their name and >where they are from in the body. I'll compile the list and post it. >When this is over they'll wish they realized how powerful the >internet REALLY is. Most of those voting against the Telecoms Bill did so because they were against the dereg provisions not the CDA. Most of those who voted for it favored the general technical provisions. Most who thought about the CDA and still voted for the bill decided to let the courts handle the unconstitutional provisions because "federal judges don't have to stand for election." Political retaliation is useless in the face of a 90% yes vote. If you are deeply upset by the high-handed manner in which the legislature has screwed around with your life, welcome to the club. Every bill they pass and every regulation upsets someone just as badly as you are upset. That is why some of us want less legislation and less regulation to minimize just this sort of human suffering. Maybe next time those of you who are into "proactive" government will think before you crush other people's lives. DCF "Par Example -- I hate the Pure Food and Drug Act and the FDA just as much as I hate the CDA. Both are utterly evil."

1 0

Re: Fair Credit Reporting Act and Privacy Act
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:04 PM 2/5/96 -0500, Tim Philp wrote: >On Mon, 5 Feb 1996, Duncan Frissell wrote: > >> Unfortunately, it would also: >> >> * Require government registration of computers and databases containing >> information about people (whether these computers are used by business or >> individuals). This eases regulation of computers and future confiscation. >> >I don't believe that this follows at all. All that would be required >would be a statutory obligation to comply with the legislation. Should a >breach occur, civil and criminal penalties would apply. No need for prior >restraint. Perhaps if you had read the British Privacy Protection Act (in force since 1984 or so) and similar Continental regs you would see that this sort of registration was a common method of enforcement. The PPA is on the WEB and the Data Protection Registrar (you know as in "registration") has a web page: http://www.open.gov.uk/dpr/dprhome.htm "What does the Act mean to computer users? Registration With few exceptions, if you hold or control personal data on computer, you must register with the Data Protection Registrar. Registration is normally for three years and one standard fee is payable to cover this period. Registration forms are available from the Registrar's office, including a special shortened registration form (DPR4) for those who process personal data only for payroll and bought/sales ledger purposes. Computer bureaux which process personal data for others or allow data users to process personal data on their computers must also register. Their register entries will contain only their name and address. Data users and computer bureaux who should register but do not, are committing a criminal offence, as are those operating outside the descriptions contained in their register entries. In these cases the Registrar regularly prosecutes. The penalty for non-registration can be a fine of up to £5,000 plus costs in the Magistrates Courts, or an unlimited fine in the Higher Courts." >It would not make it harder for buyers and sellers to get together, it >would simply increase the risk. It may lead to higher prices, but I am >prepared to pay something to protect my privacy. Then just pay the higher price personally by not giving other people information you want to keep private. Get an accommodation address, use secured credit cards (or none at all), get a voice mail phone number, lie when people ask you for info. >I agree that in the absolute sense, this is true. However, it is not >practical to do so in our modern society. If you are prepared to live >without credit or health insurance you can do this but the price is too >high for most people to consider. You can get health insurance without giving personal data by lying. You can get credit from friends and relatives (borrowed credit) or save money first and use secured credit cards (or bank debit VISA cards) to minimize reporting. Look, the reason we hate the CDA is because it restricts speech. Restrictions on credit agencies gossiping about you are also speech restrictions. If you are out in the world, people are going to talk about you. The credit agencies are much easier to handle and less intrusive than the women were who talked about you while beating cloth on the rocks in the stream back in the old village. DCF "Nice black pages on the Infoseek results screen. We are everywhere."

1 0

Re: Benefits of the V-Chip
by David Neal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 10:11:38 -0500 > To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > From: olbon(a)dynetics.com (Clay Olbon II) > Subject: Benefits of the V-Chip > > There is one potential side-benefit to the V-chip -- The inverse-V-chip > (the idea for which I stole from someone on this list, sorry I don't > remember who to credit). > > I am looking forward to a time when I will never, even accidentally, have my > TV tuned to "Full House" ;-) > > Clay > Or more to the point, a presidential address. Just kidding. You want to monitor 'the other side' in any situtation, just as The FBI and NSA must have people watching this group. David 'My V-Chip is set for extra-heaping helpings of the Beverly Hillbillies' Neal.

1 0

Thus it begins.
by anonymous-remailer＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/news/0205/o08paol.html

1 0

Rally against Internet Censorship in D.C. this Saturday!
by Thomas Edwards 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[ObCrypto: Crypto may be the only answer if the ACLU loses its court case...] ====================================================== = RALLY AGAINST THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT!!!! = = = = 12:00 Noon Saturday Feb. 10, 1996 = = Lafeyette Park, Washington, D.C. = = Next to the WHITE HOUSE = = = ====================================================== Congress has passed laws calling for sweeping censorship of computer networks, and the President is ready to sign it. Are YOU just going to sit back and take it? Join hundreds of D.C. Internet users in rallying against the Communications Decency Act and Internet Censorship. Find out about the ACLU court case to challenge the CDA. ...And tell the Congress to repeal the CDA!!!!!!!!! Confirmed Speakers include: o Jonathan Wallace (A plaintiff in the ACLU court case against the CDA, and Editor of The Ethical Spectacle) o Jonah Seiger (Policy Analyst, The Center for Democracy and Technology) o Kaz Vorpal (Owner of UltaPlex, a local Internet service provider) o Mark Mangan (co-author of "Sex, Laws, and Cyberspace") o William Winter (Communications Director, National Libertarian Party) o Plus open mike time to make your own views heard! Bring signs, banners, and tell your friends! For more information, send email to tedwards(a)wam.umd.edu. "With this act of Congress, the very same materials which are legally available today in book stores and libraries would be illegal if posted on World Wide Web sites or usenet newsgroups. If signed by President Clinton as expected, this bill will transform the Internet overnight from the freest communications medium to the most heavily regulated medium in the United States." - The Center for Democracy and Technology Policy Post 2:5.

1 0

Re: Reasons in support of crypto-anarchy WAS Re: Why am I wrong?
by lunaslide＠loop.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> I had been working on a series of questions/problems with the >Assasination Politics idea as initially presented, to be sent to Jim and to >people on the NWLIBERTARIANS list, as he requested, but you've kind of >preempted one of them. > >From: IN%"lunaslide(a)loop.com" 7-FEB-1996 06:57:58.30 <rm> >>Organization B would thrive, make no mistake. And the people who would be >getting in on all the action are the rich. All the politicians who oppose >their interests would be hit immediately. Anyone trying to change the >status quo would be eliminated. Why do you think we are still using >combustion engines in the last decade of the 20th century? We could have >had better alternatives 20 years ago, but the oil companies would loose out >so they have either bought out these ideas or had killed the inventors and >bought their patents and are sitting on them. A capitalist economy does >not always breed competition that brings out the best and most desireable >products because some advancements are bad for all the businesses involved >in that market. Big business and the rich would benifit the most from the >Assination Politics model. >------------------------ > Umm.... as much as it seems otherwise, this is not ConspiracyPunks. >Actually, the involvement of wealth instead of votes (the first can be lost, >the second cannot) is an argument in _favor_ of Assasination Politics. I >generally have the objection to most anarcho-capitalist systems that the >average person does not have enough foresight to do the kind of banding >together most of them require. This one has the advantage of increased power to >the wealthy, who have enough foresight to gain their wealth (or at least >keep it, in the case of inheritance). :-) That's exactly what I was afraid of (ConspiricyPunks). My point is not to drag out conspiricy arguments. I am trying to state that the balance of power would remain lopsided in the direction it has been, even with the new system; the power would remain with the rich. Are you saying that just because the average person is not rich, they do not deserve the same voting power as the rich? I must remind *you* that this is not alt.elitism either ;-) >>But what if OrgB stops taking donations for "predictions" for >"Non-Initiation Of Force Principle" (NIOFP) offenders? Some other >organization will crop up to take their place AND the people operating OrgB >could be hit for their "ethical" action. There is simply too much >opportunity offered by OrgB type organizations for people to pass up. They >will not let the higher prices stop them. > >If the answer to that problem is to regulate the lists of "victims", then >the next question is who are these people who are regulating and what >guidelines are they following? Who decides who gets to be the moderators? >Could there be exceptions to the (NIOFP)-offender standard? Who would they >be and why? Could the organizations be anonymous as well? How would the >money be transmitted to them in that case? How can we trust or redress >grivances with an organization? There are still many concerns regarding >the organizations. If the organizations fail, the whole system fails. >--------------------- > The organizations themselves can be perfectly anonymous, especially >with some improvements onto the basic system that I am considering (and >researching). One idea to keep things more honest would be a "deathstamping" >organization, which would be above-board and have the "legitimate" function of >ecash life insurance (I'll explain further later). That "deathstamping" organization would then become the new govt. and would be just as vunerable to corruption as any other govt, except that now we don't even know who the unjust leaders are! I await your further explainations. Respectfully, Jeff Conn lunaslide On the meridian of time there is no injustice, only the poetry of motion creating the illusion of truth and drama. Henry Miller -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQBvAzD3EHEAAAEDAMVwZzXozPjX18mCenA5fJsdWZXcrhJCxPR+SoVCmR7d4ZVU mwITzPTHo/GyLvJrWyk5YdhheczyY2VSawaMrCN/nWA7K9lwAylbKyPxqBhRYJ3C 2wi2uD5LY2wypNOQyQARAQABtB5KZWZmIENvbm4gPGx1bmFzbGlkZUBsb29wLmNv bT6JAHUDBRAw+1bqS2NsMqTTkMkBAQkTAwCersFbCyk8O0MbGlNcZDAe24CLEWQ0 0C5EHni33W76UsG1bybcLsuMH6HVwLF7IqZivnzc7wkujYPQvCqn8HEYYTld8V9V Cou4dOvA8kV7rHvAn/LuLx7DRruLFrRoPSk= =OIT9 -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

1 0

V-Chip
by sasha1＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I assume that this chip works on some password scheme.. Here's a little excerpt from a letter sent by a Cybermind list member Robert A. Kezelis to Mr. President: >3) V-chip technology is cute, but ineffective. You realistically suggest >(with a straight face, no less) that a parent who probably has trouble >programing a VCR (which sits on the TV and suffers from a constant flashing >12:00am) can outfox and hide the proper command from a computer-literate, >intuitive, aggresive and creative teen? Surely you jest. Ask your >daughter and her schoolmates, not some older advisor whose experience with >teen hackers is limited. The V-chip is like telling a child, you can go >into the candy store, but don't open this jar when I walk to the other >side of the store! > Some kids also have friends. Friends whose parent are more permissive then theirs, and friends who are smarter than their parents. Kids whose V-Chip has 1-1-1 rating allowing them to watch nothing but selected episodes of Barney demoing new versions of V-Chip, may be embarrassed to invite anybody over. Kids with 5-5-5 rating will be the New Cool Guys. Now if your child wants to go over to Billy's, you may want to call Billy's mom and ask her what her V-Chip settings are. Do not forget to ask her when was the last time she beat Billy at any computer game... One restriction that I could possibly consider for my child, would be a 'crap' factor. I think it's a much more serious danger to the young americans; IMO, watching baseball and psychic idiocy is much less natural and a lot more harmful to a young mind than seeing a picture of a breast. This factor is the reason why I restrict *myself* from watching most of TV programs. ----------------------------------------------------------- | Alexander Chislenko | sasha1(a)netcom.com | Cambridge, MA | | Home page: http://www.lucifer.com/~sasha/home.html | -----------------------------------------------------------

1 0

V-Chip Settings Escrow
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 7:03 PM 2/9/96, Alexander Chislenko wrote: > Now if your child wants to go over to Billy's, you may want to call >Billy's mom and ask her what her V-Chip settings are. >Do not forget to ask her when was the last time she beat Billy at any computer >game... It seems to me that by the logic--and possibly the direct language--of the Communications Decency Act, parents who "expose" the children of others to higher levels of V-Chip ratings than they get at home would themselves be liable. Plus, how long will it be before Children's Protective Services interviews children at their schools to determine if parents have set their V-Chip levels too high? Will divorcing parents demand specific V-Chip settings when the kids are at the ex-spouse's place? Or use the V-Chip settings in custody battles? ("My ex-husband has a setting of 2-3-2, according to my son, and I find this completely unacceptable.") Maybe we'll see "V-Chip Settings Escrow." "Under this system, V-Chip settings must be voluntarily escrowed with Child Protective Services. Should an incident of abuse be alleged, the escrowed V-Chip settings can be examined by social service workers for evidence of deviant viewing behaviors." --Tim May 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."

1 0

Re: Benefits of the V-Chip
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:11 AM 2/9/96 -0500, Clay Olbon II wrote: > >There is one potential side-benefit to the V-chip -- The inverse-V-chip >(the idea for which I stole from someone on this list, sorry I don't >remember who to credit). > >I am looking forward to a time when I will never, even accidentally, have >my TV tuned to "Full House" ;-) The statements i have seen as to what the V-Chip (The V stands for "Verbage"), it will not be that selectable. You might be able get a version that will not show you anything with a sex rating less than x, but then the thought police will come and take you away. (Crimethink in the presence of minors is punishable by death.) You have to remember that such products are brought to you by "People Against Fun In Our Lifetime(tm)" and the "Hell On Earth Foundation". Any misuse of such products will be against Federal Law. (Similar to the laws on other household products.) --- 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.

1 0