December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

No Kidding
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

E. Conclusion Cutting through the acronyms and argot that littered the hearing testimony, the Internet may fairly be regarded as a never-ending worldwide conversation. The Government may not, through the CDA, interrupt that conversation. As the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed, the Internet deserves the highest protection from governmental intrusion. True it is that many find some of the speech on the Internet to be offensive, and amid the din of cyberspace many hear discordant voices that they regard as indecent. The absence of governmental regulation of Internet content has unquestionably produced a kind of chaos, but as one of plaintiffs' experts put it with such resonance at the hearing: What achieved success was the very chaos that the Internet is. The strength of the Internet is that chaos.[23] Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony of the unfettered speech the First Amendment protects. For these reasons, I without hesitation hold that the CDA is unconstitutional on its face. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, : CIVIL ACTION et al. : : v. : : JANET RENO, Attorney General of : the United States : NO. 96-963 ________________________________________________________________ AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOC., : CIVIL ACTION INC., et al. : : v. : : UNITED STATES DEP'T OF : JUSTICE, et al. : NO. 96-1458 ORDER AND NOW, this 11th day of June, 1996, upon consideration of plaintiffs' motions for preliminary injunction, and the memoranda of the parties and amici curiae in support and opposition thereto, and after hearing, and upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the accompanying Adjudication, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The motions are GRANTED; 2. Defendant Attorney General Janet Reno, and all acting under her direction and control, are PRELIMINARILY ENJOINED from enforcing, prosecuting, investigating or reviewing any matter premised upon: (a) Sections 223(a)(1)(B) and 223(a)(2) of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 ("the CDA"), Pub. L. No. 104- 104, § 502, 110 Stat. 133, 133-36, to the extent such enforcement, prosecution, investigation, or review are based upon allegations other than obscenity or child pornography; and (b) Sections 223(d)(1) and 223(d)(2) of the CDA; 3. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c), plaintiffs need not post a bond for this injunction, see Temple Univ. v. White, 941 F.2d 201, 220 (3d Cir. 1991), cert. denied sub nom. Snider v. Temple Univ., 502 U.S. 1032 (1992); and 4. The parties shall advise the Court, in writing, as to their views regarding the need for further proceedings on the later of (a) thirty days from the date of this Order, or (b) ten days after final appellate review of this Order. BY THE COURT: ______________________________ Dolores K. Sloviter, C.J. U.S. Court of Appeals For the Third Circuit ______________________________ Ronald L. Buckwalter, J. ______________________________ Stewart Dalzell, J.

1 0

Kaos vs Control
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

With apologies to Maxwell Smart... Note the most important part of the decision. The embrace of chaos by the Chief Judge of the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals: "Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony of the unfettered speech the First Amendment protects. For these reasons, I without hesitation hold that the CDA is unconstitutional on its face." Chaos wins again. DCF

1 0

CDA Decision Online
by minow＠apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://www.aclu.org/court/cdadec.html (250 KBytes) Martin.

1 0

[Tiny bit o noise] was Re: Terrorism Hysteria on the net
by Scott Schryvers 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:12 PM 6/11/96 -0700, you wrote: > >snow wrote: > >>>Give me 15 well trained soldiers(near special forces level) and >>>I can do it in less than 60 days. Without touching a computer. > >Gary Howland <gary(a)systemics.com> adds: >>Give me 10 well trained biological warfare scientists and I'll do >>it in 30 ... > >>Anymore bids? :-) > >Yeah, Give me one really sick monkey ..... > >Brian One final bid... Give me one nanotech manufacturing facility and I can screw the Universe. :) PGP encrypted mail preferred. E-Mail me for my key. Scott J. Schryvers <schryver(a)radiks.net>

2 1

Anonymous remailers mentioned in CDA decision
by Raph Levien 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Here's a paragraph from the findings in this morning's CDA decision. I'm happy to see that we're considered an integral part of the Internet, rather than as a fringe cyber-terrorism threat. Overall, I found the decision to be balanced, well written, and extremely thoughtful. Raph [ excerpted from http://www.vtw.org/speech/decision.html ] [ from the undisputed findings of fact ] Obstacles to Age Verification on the Internet 90. There is no effective way to determine the identity or the age of a user who is accessing material through e-mail, mail exploders, newsgroups or chat rooms. An e-mail address provides no authoritative information about the addressee, who may use an e-mail "alias" or an anonymous remailer. There is also no universal or reliable listing of e- mail addresses and corresponding names or telephone numbers, and any such listing would be or rapidly become incomplete. For these reasons, there is no reliable way in many instances for a sender to know if the e-mail recipient is an adult or a minor. The difficulty of e-mail age verification is compounded for mail exploders such as listservs, which automatically send information to all e-mail addresses on a sender's list. Government expert Dr. Olsen agreed that no current technology could give a speaker assurance that only adults were listed in a particular mail exploder's mailing list. [ ... ] Anonymity 121. Anonymity is important to Internet users who seek to access sensitive information, such as users of the Critical Path AIDS Project's Web site, the users, particularly gay youth, of Queer Resources Directory, and users of Stop Prisoner Rape (SPR). Many members of SPR's mailing list have asked to remain anonymous due to the stigma of prisoner rape. [ from views submitted by the parties in response to Order dated March 13, 1996 ] 22. Arguably, a valid CDA would create an incentive for overseas pornographers not to label their speech. If we upheld the CDA, foreign pornographers could reap the benefit of unfettered access to American audiences. A valid CDA might also encourage American pornographers to relocate in foreign countries or at least use anonymous remailers from foreign servers.

1 0

Re: Slander of Catholic Church
by Ryan Russell/SYBASE 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Thanks, Attila. I think Paul Penrod and the Archangel Moroni missed my main >point. I was not singling out Mormonism for special criticism, just using >it as an example of a "cult" or "religion" which is in many ways even more >"outre" to many of us than Scientology is. Belief that a body rotting in >the ground can be baptized into one's church is at least as odd as >believing that Mankind is descended from the survivors of spaceships >fleeing an evil overlord. A point of clarification: It's not the bodies that are baptized, but the spirits, by proxy. You don't think we dig 'em up do you? The point being that even if you've never heard of Christ (a billion people in China for example) you've still got a shot. Most christian religions don't allow for that. I mention this in case any of the folks who are being subjected to this discussion on this list were wondering what the heck you were talking about. We are a missionary church, after all. As far as the COS goes...Well, a lot of info that the Mormon church would prefer to keep secret has been published, but I don't think the First Presidency has been running around suing everyone. Ryan

1 0

Re: Kaos vs Control
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:08 PM 6/12/96, Duncan Frissell wrote: >With apologies to Maxwell Smart... (And to SMERSCH, "Death to Censors") >Note the most important part of the decision. The embrace of chaos by the >Chief Judge of the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals: > >"Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of >our liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony of the >unfettered speech the First Amendment protects. > For these reasons, I without hesitation hold that the >CDA is unconstitutional on its face." > >Chaos wins again. See, all you doubters, "anarchy" is not so bad after all. (Politically aware people of various stripes fully understood the precise meaning of "anarchy," and anarchy of various types (anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-syndicalism, etc.) is well-known. The _popular_ impression of anarchy-- images of bomb-throwing Russians or Bloods and Crips street battles--is less charitable. I see little chance that people who don't understand anarchy derives from "an-archy," "no top/leader/highest level," will become educated.) Kevin Kelly's "Out of Control" makes the chaos/anarchy/self-organization points in a different way, as do the works of Hayek, D. Friedman, and many others. Good to see the courts reaffirming that "chaos" and lack of control by authorities is a core part of the U.S. system. Maybe the control freaks of Europe and Asia who have been charting their own authoritarian courses will give more thought to ensuring liberty even if it more "chaos." Today is a good day. --Tim 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

Republican Revolution?
by lroth＠ios.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Now that Internet Kaos!!! has been legalized, I guess it's OK to post this. To paraphrase Lazarus Long "Avoid strong drink. It might make you shoot at tax collectors outside of New York State." Love those soft and squishy judges. >From the NY Post, Wednesday, June 12, 1996. CONVICTION OF TAX MAN'S KILLER GETS TOSSED OUT By Gregg Birnbaum Post Correspondent ALBANY --- The state's top court yesterday threw out the murder conviction of a Republica Party activist who gunned down the first IRS agent to die in the line of duty. The court of Appeals overturned the 1983 conviction of James Bradley, who asked IRS collection agent Michael Dillon, "Mike are you prepared to meet your maker?" --- then fired an M-1 rifle at him twice. Bradley then knelt down to take Dillon's pulse and shot him a third time before driving to a friend's house to present him with the weapon as a "souvenir." Dillon 61, had gone to Bradley's house near Buffalo in September 1983 to collect the last $332 of a $2,000 lien imposed by the IRS. When Bradley wouldn't pay up right away, Dillon threatened to seize one of his cars. Bradley got his rifle, returned to the kitchen, where Dillon was sitting and started firing. In a unanimous unsigned ruling, the Court of Appeals said the trial judge undermined Bradley's insanity defense by improperly allowing the jury to also consider a first-degree manslaughter conviction. That's the charge on which Bradley was convicted. He was acquitted of second-degree murder. At his sentencing, Bradley predicted Dillon wouldn't be the last IRS agent to die at the hands of an irate taxpayer and said, "I was just helping President Bonzo get government off our backs," an apparent reference to then-President Reagan. The Erie County district attorney said he expected to resubmit the case to a grand jury. If Bradley is tried again, he will face a first-degree manslaughter charge or lesser, his lawyer said. Before the shooting, Bradley, 76, had long been known as a Republican campaign worker in the Buffalo area. He is now in the Mohawk Correctional Facility in Rome and is said to be ill. ###

1 0

Re:Anonymous remailers mentioned in CDA decision
by mccoy＠communities.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Raph quotes a few bits of the CDA decision: [..] > 22. Arguably, a valid CDA would create an incentive for overseas > pornographers not to label their speech. If we upheld the CDA, > foreign pornographers could reap the benefit of unfettered access > to American audiences. A valid CDA might also encourage American > pornographers to relocate in foreign countries or at least use > anonymous remailers from foreign servers. It about jobs, that's it... Let's keep America a major power in the pornography industry (I can just imagine the commercial :) jim

1 0

Re: Britain to control crypto - official (fwd from Usenet)
by Hallam-Baker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Robert Hettinga wrote: > > > The British government quietly announced yesterday that it will > > legislate to restrict crypto. This could be a problem. The government is pretty burned out having run out of ideas a long time ago. Interferring with areas the people understand little of is a way to avoid making worse mistakes. Given that we have the worst Home Secretary this century there is little hope that civil liberties will play any part in any legislation. For those that don't follow UK politics the government has been methodically extinguishing civil rights such as the right to demonstrate in public and the right of a defendant to premptory challenge agains jurors (the prosecution retains the right). The key question is how urgently the govt intends to press the point. If they attach a provision to pre-election criminal justice bill then expect a really half baked clause. If they go for public comment gathering proceedures then the govt. is likely to be out of office before anything happens. With less than half the public support of the opposition Bob Dole stands more chance of election than the British Tories. > Does anyone here have any idea what this does to british-affiliated states > like Anguilla, or the Caymans? Nothing in the case of most dependent territories. Most territories are either entirely self governing or have some body which "assists" the govenor. Given that we have yet to unify English and Scottish law the process of making laws is quite complex. Presumably the govt intend to pass laws covering the whole of the UK, what mechanism they choose for this we will have to wait to find out. I would expect the Caymans to act to protect their tax-haven business. This could mean that they are pro crypto (increase effectiveness) or may mean that they go anti to avoid being seen as money laundering havens and invite Cuba style sanctions acts. Phill

1 0