December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Pronto Secure - second call for beta testers
by geoff＠commtouch.co.il 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Date: Sun May 05 18:17:49 1996 As the release date for Pronto Secure approaches, Commtouch has decided to increase the number of beta testers reviewing the product. We believe that scrutiny of the product by members of this list will help us to release a safe and secure E-mail client. Pronto Secure is an Internet E-Mail client for Windows, which uses external security providers to enhance e-mail with cryptographic security features. The current version relies on the proven security facilities of PGP to provide encryption, authentication, integrity and key management features. Product requirements: - - MS-Windows 3.1 / Windows for Workgroups 3.11 / Windows 95 / Windows NT - - Winsock 3.11 compliant environment (TCP/IP stack) - - Installed version of PGP. We plan to make the next beta of Pronto Secure available via FTP by the end of this week. Parties interested in joining the beta-test program are invited to send me pgp-signed e-mail requesting download instructions. Beta-testers who provide us with feed-back will be eligible to receive a free final release version of the product. - ----------------------------------------------------------------- Geoff Klein email: geoff(a)commtouch.co.il Product Manager - Pronto Secure http: //www.commtouch.com - ----------------------------------------------------------------- CommTouch SW Inc, U.S CommTouch, Israel 298 S. Sunnyvale Avenue #209 10 Technology Ave Sunnyvale, CA. 94086 Ein Vered, 40696 Tel: (408) 245-8682 Tel: 972(9)963445 Fax: 972(9)961053 - ----------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBMYy4jkLv5OMYFK1FAQEN+QQArOQs8TLNdexZ2TmYDl2ZvA+mowEC0w11 YtZCjXVQmu3TO+81uqH8bkLm2kX9K82s/p/KSDt+uNyO8NnafQHUPW+55zmPo93D g+jlJ5oZVoctoqAxSWW/6TEJLcruF0C3wLneXUVhvym5Rnbgs3HjIjxc+FdXGPs8 9cXFLxdb+dc= =j18d -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Religious Wars Considered OK
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I think the "religious war" involving Java, C++, applets, security models, Unix, and Netscape is _fine_ for this list. A heretical view, perhaps, to applaud a religious war, but the topics are certainly germane to this list. Some may argue that "comp.lang.java.advocacy" or "comp.lang.flames" are better places to have this debate, but I think not. Here on this list we have Netscape represented, users of major tools to develop crypto applications, and many with concerns about security. That Victor Boyko wrote such a concise summary of his objections to Java vis-a-vis C++, and that Wei Dai was planning to write such a summary until he saw Victor's summary, says that debate is robust. So long as the "religious war" does not devolve to mere invocations of deities, we're OK. In fact, to tell the truth, call this debate a "religious war" is probably incorrect. Few debates are more important than this one. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" 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, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: Money Laundering Conference with Government Types
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:26 PM 5/4/96 EDT, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: > I thought people might find interesting the following conference >that I located at http://www.oceanlaw.com/20/conf/ml.htm. Know thine enemy, >and all that. It has a section on Digital Cash (note the title includes >"Cyberpayments"). > -Allen > > An Invitation from Fletcher N. Baldwin, Jr., Professor of Law and > Director of the Centre for International Financial Crimes Studies, and > Robert J. Munro, Program Coordinator and Co-Director of the Centre for > International Financial Crimes Studies. > > _It's not enough to BE clean -- You must also LOOK clean._ > > Money Laundering and Asset Forfeiture are critical consequences for > the banks, attorneys, securities dealers and corporations, both > domestic and international, who may be inadvertently in > non-compliance. _Our program will give you:_ I wonder how long it's going to take before these "money-launderers" learn that by taking, say, 10% of the amount of money they launder in one year, they can eliminate the people trying to stop them. Forever. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.comJim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: CryptoAnarchy: What's wrong with this picture?
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:54 AM 5/4/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote: > Actually, I disagree with Mr. Sandfort on this one. > > Taxation of International Income is a tremendously complicated field. > (You can get an LL.M. in international taxation alone for example). I do not believe the IRS particularly cares what all those tons of tax legislation books say, and I am sure they do not know. Unicorn seems to be thinking in terms of constructing magic pieces of paper that will protect you from the bad boys, whereas Sandy is thinking in terms of making sure the bad boys cannot find your money. While doubtless magic bits of paper are useful to some extent if you are a genuinely multinational corporation, if the bad boys see smaller fry carefully concocting magic paper they will say "ah, tax haven", jump on you like a ton of bricks, extort information from anyone in their jurisdiction as to where your money is (which is why Sandy recommends a lawyer who works OUTSIDE the jurisdiction) and confiscate all your assets and not give them back until you can prove you have paid taxes on everything you might possibly have earned and some things you could not possibly have earned. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

2 1

Re: Kid Gloves or Megaphones
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>>It is true that the issuer is unable to discover that double blinding is >>being used. The real problem with the protocol is that it requires >>payor/payee collusion, which may make it difficult to execute. At 07:58 PM 5/4/96 EDT, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: > Can the payee discover that the payor isn't colluding before the bank >can figure out who the payee is? If the payor is not colluding, then the payee will immediately discover he has not been paid, because the checksums are wrong, and his software says "bad payment" If the payor is colluding, then no matter what he reveals to the bank, the bank cannot discover the payee. Note that with payee anonymity, the payee does not have to promptly check in his money, so the bank has no hope of narrowing the search by coincidence in time. But if the payee is colluding, then the payor can be detected by coincidence in time. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

2 1

Do You Like What You See In The Mirror ?
by 18205549＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

<HTML><PRE><BODY BGCOLOR="#00ffff"> DO YOU LIKE WHAT YOU SEE IN THE MIRROR? HAVE THINGS GONE SOUTH? DO YOU HAVE SAGGING SKIN? IS GRAVITY TAKING IT'S TOLL? INTRODUCING CALORAD(R) Now available in the U.S. for the first time! It Literally Melts Fat and Rebuilds Connective Tissue WHILE YOU SLEEP! NO KIDDING!! 10 Year Proven Track Record - 86% Success Rate Medical Test Results are coming in from all over the Country Health Practitioners are endorsing this product by the thousands! Cholestrol Levels are down! Triglycerides down! Blood Pressure down! Pain is leaving! Muscle is rebuilding while bodies are RESHAPING! Body Builders, Athletes, World Champions and Professional Trainers are endorsing this product! INCHES AND WEIGHT MELT OFF WHILE YOU SLEEP! 100% SAFE - 100% NATURAL Absolutely no SIDE EFFECTS, STIMULANTS OR DRUGS! Good for teenagers and adults alike! (No pregnant or lactating women) INCREDIBLE $$$$$$$$$ OPPORTUNITY AVAILABLE! Exclusive International Marketing Rights! England & Australia opening soon! My upline is ordering 52,000 bottles each week! We will help build your unlimited downline! Not MLM! You can reduplicate yourself up to 99 times! Many are earning $1750+ first week! (possible up to 99x!!!) Company has only been officially launched since April 1997 Unprecedented $6.1 million in 1st month! Follow These $imple $teps To $uccess: For More info: E~mail Assistance or Call : 941 - 923 - 8085 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Remove Here ! Put "Remove" in Subject ! </PRE></HTML>

1 0

Economics Quest
by Andrew＠mail.demon.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, My name is Andrew, I'm 15, I live in the UK and I'm studing economics at standard grade level. Can you please spare a few minutes of your valuable time to answer my questionaire @ http://www.alexanderhomes.demon.co.uk/economics/personal.html I have constructed it as part of my standard grade course work, so I'm relying on your co-operation! ;-) thanks in advance Andrew

1 0

Re: CryptoAnarchy: What's wrong with this picture?
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:53 AM 5/4/96 -0700, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > What Black Unicorn writes is quite > correct IF ONE IS CONCERNED WITH LEGAL CORRECTNESS. And if the IRS is concerned with legal correctness. I note that a number of ingenious and popular tax minimization gimmicks have in the end failed to benefit anyone other than their promoters. When you need a pallet and a forklift truck to carry the tax code, it does not matter much what the books say. The more bits of paper you send the IRS, the more they know about you. The more they know about you, the more they can shake you down. Sending ingenious and unusual bits of paper crafted by a clever lawyer merely alerts them to the smell of money. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

1 0

Why I Pay Too Much in Taxes
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:24 PM 5/4/96, Black Unicorn wrote: >An organization that is efficent at enforcing a immensely complex set of >regulations incomprehensible to joe sixpack is not a good thing. As if anybody didn't already know, the tax code is incomprehensible to more than just "Joe Sixpack." I find it imcomprehensible, with "carryback callback offshore allowances" and "alternative minimum taxes" and all that garbage. I started using "Macintax" many years ago, then decided to wing it manually for many years, but have recently gone back to the Intuit product (called Macintax, but a cross with TurboTax). I answer a bunch of questions it asks me, making educated guesses where I don't understand something, and then I do the process a _second_ time, usually with different results. I use the lower tax bill of the two and send that instance in. Sometimes the IRS and its partners (the Franchise Tax Board, where California taxes are approaching what Federal rates for most people were a scant decade or two ago) tells me I underpaid and must send in additional taxes, penalties, interest charges, etc. (They won't prosecute for such minor things, so long as the money is paid and there was no gross hiding of income.) I am gradually losing all track of what is going on, and I suspect I'm not alone (my friends who use tax preparers, human ones, report the same situation). It seems to me that Jordan was referring to the compliance rate and the cost of the overhead, not considering the overall tax burden. (Italy is a fascinating example. The country appears to be moderately poor, based on tax receipts, but spending is quite high...it is clear that a large fraction of Italy's overall income is unreported.) Not wanting to join in this bashing of taxes--my views are clear, as evidenced in the title of this thread--but I have to point out that I paid approximately 60% of everything I made last year to the tax collectors! This counts the Federal income tax (about 32%), the California income tax (about 11%), the "self-employment tax" (FICA) for some consulting I did (15%), property tax on my old residence ($2200), property tax on my new residence ($4200), sales tax on purchases (8.25%), gasoline taxes (about 30-40 cents per gallon), a special tax on my Ford Explorer ($300), and probably some miscellaneous other taxes I have neglected. And of course the corporations that pay me dividends and whose stock price shows gains have _already_ paid roughly 45% or so in taxes, depending on how clever they were at allocating costs to minimize taxes. This is the famous "double taxation" of corporate earnings one hears about. Intel, for example, pays 45% of its considerable income in taxes, sends some of the remaining profits to me in the form of capital gains and dividends, and I then pay another 40% or so in income taxes on this share. The math is pretty simple...there ain't much left over. (The much-derided Laffer Curve is actually quite important here...when overall tax rates get high enough, people choose to do less work. Some of us even retire early.) Considering that a growing fraction of the population is not working at all, and is living on "entitlements" that they essentially get from me, and considering that the American Revolution was at least partly in response to the perception that taxes collected by King George were a bit too high (at a _tiny fraction_ of the amount I cited above), the resentment many of us feel is understandable. One area where I mostly agree with Jordan Hayes and disagree with Sandy, Uni, and Duncan, is that I don't think it's as easy as they sometimes claim it is to avoid taxes by the offshore stratagems they espouse. Believe me, I looked into this a while back (it is never illegal to investigate ways to minimize tax burdens), and even considered moving out of the U.S. to a tax haven of some sort. It turns out, as it does for many people I know, that my assets are relatively traceable. Salaries and even consulting fees are reported assiduously. Stocks can certainly be moved offshore, but the IRS obviously knows where they are (the institutions that keep records of stock ownership will tell them, for one thing...this may take a few years for the records to catch up, but they ultimately will). Certainly I could liquidate one form of my assets (stocks, real estate, etc.) and simply move the money out of the country. Tax evasion is always an option. But the price paid if one gets caught tends to be rather high. (Despite what you hear anecdotally about the IRS "settling" for pennies on the dollar.) Call me a skeptic. I will do my best not to be drawn into a debate that has been held here several times before. If Sandy, Duncan, etc., believe it is so easy to avoid taxes--on the resources we are talking about, not sheltering small amounts--or if they claim that I am obviously not following their advice, I'll let them make these claims without any attempt to rebut them. I've been there and done that before. I have no doubt that "tax planning" works for some people, and I think certain people like Vince Cate may do well in places like Anguilla, essentially starting a business from scratch. I even have longterm hopes for tax havens, cyberspace tax havens, anonymous systems, etc. But this ain't happening soon. But I see no clear way that X shares of Apple, Y shares of Sun, Z shares of Intel, etc. can be converted into other forms without taxes being paid, or evaded. (Evaded, not avoided.) I recall Sandy claiming some scheme where I would use my shares as collateral and borrow tax-free against them. Sure, it's what I do everyday with my margin account. But to ultimately pay off a margin debt by selling assets involves taking capital gains (if there were any, of course--a safe bet in the last 10 years), and at this point the IRS and California Franchise Tax Board want their 40-45% cut. Not being prepared to risk imprisonment for tax evasion, and being desirous of living in the United States rather than on a coral atoll, I answer the questions that Macintax asks me, gulp when I see the final figure, and write out a check (which I then have to sell even more stock to cover...perpetuating the cycle). --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" 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, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

7 6

F-C CDA Dispatch #9: Battle of the Briefs
by Declan B. McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fight-Censorship Dispatch #9 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- The CDA Challenge: Battle of the Briefs ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- By Declan McCullagh / declan(a)well.com / Redistribute freely ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- In this update: Anti-porn groups egg on the Justice Department Confusion in the ranks: What's indecent? Theocratic right cites Rimm study in pro-CDA journal article Broad coalition files pro-ACLU brief What's next? MAY 4, 1996 -- The CDA is a "work of art" that "is sensitive to the First Amendment," Bruce Taylor and Cathy Cleaver argue in an amicus brief supporting the DoJ filed in Philadelphia earlier this week. The two longtime anti-pornsters submitted this weighty 85-page legal document -- complete with over 100 pages of attachments including Jake Baker's notorious snuff story -- on Monday, the same day the ACLU, ALA, and the DoJ submitted their post-trial briefs, findings of fact, and proposed conclusions of law. I had asked Enough is Enough! to FedEx me the Taylor/Cleaver draft, but The Brucester himself showed up at my office with a copy the next afternoon, chipper and grinning and bouncing about. ("Hide your porn!" he yelled as he walked in.) Taylor was in town for smut-research and he clearly was proud of his completed legal object d'art. What else could it be, with such delectable oeuvres as this: Expecting children to locate hidden Easter eggs sounds reasonable and enjoyable, unless those who have hidden the eggs are aware that they are rotten. No reasonable person, who cares about the well-being of children, would leave it up to children to find and dispose of rotten eggs. In the world of online communications, parents will be left as children, hunting frantically for thousands upon thousands of rotten eggs in a cyberworld of indecency, scurrying to find all of them before children are contaminated. [p35] The arguments advanced in the brief -- a joint venture of Morality in Media, the National Law Center for Children and Families, the Family Research Council, Enough is Enough!, and the National Coalition for the Protection of Children and Families -- center around one concept: indecency means pornography. That idea stinks like, well, a rotten egg. Their argument, which mirrors the DoJ's, goes as follows: 1. The CDA merely "updates" and "amends" Federal obscenity statutes and dial-a-porn laws. 2. All the CDA does is require adults who use "patently offensive" sexual expression to "put electronic blinder racks" in front of their "pornography." 3. The test for "indecency" is not vague or overbroad and does not apply to "serious works of literature, art, science, and politics." 4. What is indecent "is well known to the public and the operators of mass communications media facilities." (If "indecency" is too vague, the CDA is unconstitutional.) 5. The court has an obligation "to interpret these sections narrowly." That is, the three-judge panel should *reinterpret* the CDA to affect only "prurient pornography." Taylor calls this "judicial narrowing," and when I spoke with him he insisted that it was what the court will do. Equating "indecency" with "pornography" is misleading, since courts have held that George Carlin's monologue and Allen Ginsberg's poetry can be regulated as indecent. As cyberlibertarian attorney Harvey Silverglate writes on the fight-censorship mailing list: My objection to the current debate is that they talk of "smut." My client, Allen Ginsberg, wants to broadcast some of the finest poetry written this century in this country. The "family values" brief concludes: Purely selfish motivations based on one's desire to rebel against the "government" and be free from society's code of conduct in "cyberspace" is NOT a legal justification that should be accepted by the courts... Criminal laws against distributing pornography to children have literally saved countless lives. These lives are needed not for any threat posed by men of good will, but rather by those who would exploit the vulnerable and impressionable for their personal gain... Senators Exon and Coats deserve thanks from every family in America and the CDA deserves to be upheld. Do I detect some pride of CDA authorship from Taylor and Cleaver? Though the Hon. Jim Exon *does* deserve our thanks -- for retiring. +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ CONFUSION IN THE RANKS: WHAT'S INDECENT? +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ The Justice Department and their anti-porn crusading allies can't even agree on who should be locked up under the CDA. On page 27 of his brief, Bruce Taylor cites the Amateur Action images and Jake Baker's explicit rape-and-murder story as examples of net.materials that are harmful to minors and that show "callous disregard for public decency." The EFF, a plaintiff in the ACLU coalition lawsuit, has Baker's story on its web site and has made it clear in an affidavit that they distribute such material online in the context of legal discussions. But the DoJ says in their post-trial brief filed on Monday: "It can be said that none of the plaintiffs' Web sites appear to engage in the type of speech which Congress has targeted in the CDA." So does Baker's story violate the CDA or not? Do you believe Taylor, a former Cleveland city prosecutor, a former senior trial attorney in the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section of the Criminal Division of the DoJ -- a guy who crows that he played "a central role in the development and passage" of the CDA? Or the DoJ attorneys, who are charged with enforcing it?? Even the DoJ's own witnesses can't come up with a good working definition, as the ACLU illustrates in their post-hearing brief: The responses offered by government witnesses Schmidt and Olsen to the Court's questions illustrated just how freewheeling the subjective, discretionary judgments of police and prosecutors would be... Dr. Olsen opined that any of "the seven dirty words" made famous by the Pacifica decision, or their synonyms, could be subject to [the CDA] and should therefore be "tagged," as should nudes even if displayed on a museum web site. +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ THEOCRATIC RIGHT CITES RIMM STUDY IN PRO-CDA JOURNAL ARTICLE +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ Thanks to the American Center for Law and Justice, Marty Rimm's bogus cyberporn study just won't die. The ACLJ is a legal advocacy group for the theocratic right -- Pat Robertson's response to the ACLU. Says Robertson: "Someone has got to stop the ACLU in court, and that's what we're going to do." They're trying -- the ACLJ submitted Yet Another amicus brief over a week ago supporting the Justice Department's defense of the CDA. In the latest issue of the Journal of Technology Law and Policy, the ACLJ defends the CDA and uncritically cites Rimm's discredited study. A clue to the quality, honesty, and integrity of the ACLJ's scholarship can be found in the way the group argues that Rimm's "research" and TIME magazine's cover story provide evidence of "smutty sex and scatologica" and justification for net-regulation: {17} On June 26, 1995, Senator Charles Grassley spoke in support of his legislation, the "Protection of Children from Computer Pornography Act of 1995. [20] Speaking to the motivation for his bill, which would have amended the federal criminal code, Senator Grassley warned the Senate of "the availability and the nature of cyberporn." He advised the Senate on a Carnegie Mellon University study of visual images available on the Internet... Note the ACLJ's convenient fiction of the "Carnegie Mellon Study." The group never reveals that Rimm was an undergraduate passing himself off as a faculty member, that his study has no credibility outside theocratic right lobby groups, that the study itself is fraudulent, and that CMU is investigating Rimm for ethical violations. Somehow I'm not surprised that the authors of the ACLJ article, Jay Alan Sekulow and James Matthew Henderson, overlooked those details. Sekulow did not respond to email inquiries. +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ BROAD COALITION FILES PRO-ACLU BRIEF +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ Last month a broad coalition of professional groups, academics, ISPs, and individuals opposed to the CDA submitted a Brief of Amici Curiae in support of the ACLU lawsuit and motion for a preliminary injunction. That brief is now online. Represented by the Philadelphia law firm of Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis, the coalition includes the Authors Guild, American Society of Journalists and Authors, Feminists for Free Expression, Palmer Museum of Art, Philadelphia Magazine, Psinet, Inc., and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Some of my favorite excerpts: It is not only speakers on the Internet who feel the chill posed by the CDA. The millions who access speech on the Internet feel it as well. [...] Recipients of speech are equally entitled to protection under the First Amendment. That protection is afforded "to the communication, to its source and to its recipients both." Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748, 756 (1976). Abuses involving "indecent" and "patently offensive" behavior also are perpetrated today, and the Internet is the quickest and most effective tool for exposing them. One wonders whether the disappearances or indeed the Holocaust would have occurred so brazenly if the Internet had been reporting on them twenty or sixty years ago. +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ WHAT'S NEXT? +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ The closing arguments for our case are scheduled for May 10, when the plaintiffs and the DoJ will present an expected four hours of closing arguments. The three-judge panel likely will issue a decision three or four weeks later, and appeals from either side go directly to the Supreme Court. What happens if we lose? The ACLU's Ann Beeson said on HotWired's Club Wired last week: Losing the facial challenge would not by any means end the matter -- that is, we could still argue that the CDA is unconstitutional "as applied" to particular defendants that DOJ decided to prosecute. Of course, in the meantime we'd still see a huge chill on protected speech... It is clear that we have the facts on our side -- the much harder question is the law itself, and unfortunately, it is a rare day that a federal court will overturn an Act of Congress. (But I remain cautiously optimistic.) If you're near Philly, stop by the Federal courthouse at 7th and Market Streets at 9:30 am on Friday. The courtroom will be packed. Stay tuned for more reports. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- We're back in court on May 10 for closing arguments. Mentioned in this CDA update: Excerpts from DoJ and anti-porn groups' CDA briefs: <http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/dl?num=2387> Transcript of Olsen's "-L18" description and other testimony: <http://www.cdt.org/ciec/transcripts/April_15_Olsen.html> More on ACLJ and Rimm study: <http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/dl?num=2328> Jake Baker story on EFF's web site: <http://www.eff.org/pub/Legal/Cases/Baker_UMich_case/baker.st

1 0