December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Civil liberties of employees (Re: FYB_oss)
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"froomkin(a)law.miami.edu" "Michael Froomkin" 14-MAY-1996 03:24:06.58 >On Sun, 12 May 1996, Timothy C. May wrote: >> Actually, one _does_ check one's Constitutional rights "at the door" (of an >> employer), and the confusion over this issue is pervasively destroying real >> Constitutional rights. >Yes and no...and kinda no. Umm... you would appear to be discussing the current legal situation, whereas TCMay was discussing what the situation _should_ be. In the limits you discuss, the civil liberties of the _employer_ are being seriously trampled upon. -Allen

1 0

Re: Mandatory Voluntary Self-Ratings
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"jamesd(a)echeque.com" 13-MAY-1996 23:52:07.00 At 03:45 AM 5/13/96 EDT, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: >> the conservatives won't let people just rate >> "objectionable" material in order to keep it from them. They want it off the >> net/world whether or not it's rated. >In the course of channel surfing, I have once or twice come across >the Christians ranting about pornography. They have both legitimate >and illegimate complaints, but mainly they emphasize the legitimate >complaint. PICS addresses this legitimate complaint. I've never heard a fundamentalist (there are other Christians than fundamentalists, BTW) ranting about how they can be exposed to pornography; it's always others they claim to be upset about. I was raised a Southern Baptist, so I suspect I'm familiar with fundys. -Allen

1 0

Copyright law - potential limits on encryption?
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I thought the following from CPSR had some relevance, insofar as part of what the proposed law is trying to outlaw are "devices needed for making use of encrypted information." The accusations of corporate benefit are irrelevant, of course. -Allen From: akrause(a)Sunnyside.COM (Audrie Krause) Subject: Action Alert: Copyright Cyber-rights moderator Andy Oram and online activist Jim Warren have forwarded alerts regarding pending Congressional action on copyright legislation. At this late date, the best course of action is a phone call or fax. You can reach all members of Congress through the capitol switchboard: (202) 224-3121. Email messages to Congress are *not* particularly effective. Detailed information follows from both Jim and Andy. Audrie ---------------------------- >From Jim Warren: Check out the examples, below, of how your net access to *any* information will soon be repressed, prohibited and/or criminalized for corporate benefit. THIS REALLY IS AS BAD AS IT SOUNDS. Although this happens to come from the Americal Library Association and is thus focused on library concerns with the Beltway ripoff-artists' pervasive copy-suppression legislation that is being rammed through Congress, *everyone* online and on computers needs to be aware of this impending repression. I donno who Clinton's Copyright Office and Gingrich-Dole's Congress are representing, but they sure as hell aren't representing the *public's* interests. Howl now to your(?) "representatives" ... or bend over for the corporate hustlers, henceforth. --jim, a disloyal subject of the Washington Royalty Jim Warren, GovAccess list-owner/editor, advocate & columnist (jwarren(a)well.com) 345 Swett Rd., Woodside CA 94062; voice/415-851-7075; fax/<# upon request> ------------------------ >Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 17:58:00 -0400 >Sender: owner-ala-wo(a)ala1.ala.org >From: ALAWASH E-MAIL (ALAWASH E-MAIL) <alawash(a)ALAWASH.ORG> >To: ala-wo(a)ala.org >Subject: ALAWON, Vol. 5, No. 24 - ACTION ITEM (220 lines) > > >ALAWON Volume 5, Number 24 >ISSN 1069-7799 May 10, 1996 > American Library Association Washington Office Newsline > > > URGENT: IMMINENT CONGRESSIONAL ACTION ON NII COPYRIGHT >LEGISLATION THREATENS TO LEAVE LIBRARIES AND SCHOOLS IN THE LURCH > >IMMEDIATE ACTION NEEDED: Your immediate faxes and calls to key >House Committee Members critical. > >BACKGROUND: >The House is rushing the "NII Copyright Protection Act" bill to >"mark up" in the House Courts and Intellectual Property >Subcommittee on Wednesday of next week, May 15! The House >completed its hearings in February on this bill. (Earlier >ALAWON's have described in detail the "NII Copyright Protection >Act" taken from the Administration's "White Paper" and introduced >in Congress last September.) > >Worse yet, the Courts and Intellectual Property Subcommittee is >also considering wrapping the Copyright Term Extension Act (which >would lengthen the term of copyright protection by 20 years) into >the "NII Copyright" package on May 15. That action could short-circuit >negotiations between ALA and copyright owners that began >last October to craft an exemption from the term extension for >libraries, archives and non-profit educational institutions. If >approved in its current form, the bill would: > >*** make it a copyright violation to simply browse the Net >without a license from copyright owners; > >*** subject computer system operators -- such as on-line services >and networks at schools and libraries -- to potentially crippling >liability for the copyright violations of their users, even if >the operator; > >*** cripple "distance education" efforts especially vital to >rural communities and the disabled; and > >*** make it illegal to manufacture, import or distribute devices >and software (including computers and VCRs) needed by industry, >schools and libraries to make "fair use" of encrypted information >by overruling long-standing Supreme Court precedent. > >The Senate is moving deliberately on this tremendously imbalanced >package and has indicated that changes in it need to be made to >protect libraries and schools. The Senate Judiciary Committee, >which just held the first of its own (non-joint) hearings on this >bill on May 7, and is taking a far more deliberate approach to >these complicated issues. > >In fact, Chairman Hatch appeared open at the hearing to many of >the proposals backed by libraries and educational groups put >forward by Prof. Robert Oakley (of AALL) on behalf of the Digital >Future Coalition, in which ALA has been very active. (The DFC >was given one of only five total witness slots at this important >hearing held coincidentally on ALA's annual Legislative Day.) >Sen. Hatch also indicated that he would hold at least one >additional hearing which is likely to include a "library" >witness. > >ACTION NEEDED NOW: >Please immediately fax a letter to AND CALL all Members of the >House Intellectual Property Subcommittee listed below who >represent you or an institution with which you are affiliated. >These contacts must be made NO LATER THAN Tuesday, May 14 and >preferably sooner. Contact info and a sample letter follow. > >For more information about the bill, the dangers it poses and the >constructive solutions offered, please see the DIGITAL FUTURE >COALITION WEBSITE at http://www.ari.net/dfc > >*************************************************************** >Using appropriate style for addressing Congress, please address >all letters to Members, as listed below e.g., "2346 RHOB" for >"Rayburn House Office Building", LHOB=Longworth and CHOB=Cannon) >+ Washington, DC 20515. > >Info appears as: > >Member and Home City >Address Phone Fax > >Carlos Moorhead Glendale, CA >2346 RHOB 225-4176 226-1279 > >F. James Sensenbrenner Brookfield, WI >2332 RHOB 225-5101 225-3190 > >George Gekas Harrisburg, PA >2410 RHOB 225-4315 225-8440 > >Howard Coble Asheboro, NC >403 CHOB 225-3065 225-8611 >Elton Gallegly Oxnard, CA >2441 RHOB 225-5811 225-1100 > >Charles Canady Lakeland, FL >1222 LHOB 225-1252 225-2279 > >Bob Goodlatte Roanoke, NC >123 CHOB 225-5431 225-9681 > >Martin Hoke Fairview Park, OH >212 CHOB 225-5871 226-0994 > >Sonny Bono Palm Springs, CA >512 CHOB 225-5330 225-2961 > >John Conyers, Jr. Detroit, MI >2426 RHOB 225-5126 225-0072 > >Patricia Schroeder Denver, CO >2307 RHOB 225-4431 225-5842 > >Howard Berman Mission Hills, CA >2231 RHOB 225-4695 225-5279 > >Rick Boucher Abingdon, VA >2245 RHOB 225-3861 225-0442 > >Jerry Nadler New York, NY >109 CHOB 225-5635 225-6923 > >Xavier Becerra Los Angeles, CA >1119 LHOB 225-6235 225-2202 > >Xavier Becerra Los Angeles, CA >1119 LHOB 225-6235 225-2202 > > SAMPLE LETTER > **************************************************************** > > [DATE] > >[Hon. ____________________ >United States House of Representatives] >__# __ ____ Office Building >Washington, D.C. 20515 > >Dear Representative__________: > > As a member of the American Library Association and an >active {your connection to libraries and their work, e.g., >librarian, trustee, volunteer, etc.}, I am writing today to ask >that you do everything in your power to assure that two bills now >pending before the House Courts and Intellectual Property Subcom- >mittee are not voted out of Committee unless and until they are >amended to help libraries serve the public in the following ways. > > First, the "NII Copyright Protection Act of 1995" (H.R. >2441) must be changed to permit libraries to use the latest >technologies to preserve crumbling older works and to have >sufficient copies of those works on hand to guarantee their >survival. Provisions that will continue to foster "distance >education" also are critically important. More broadly, balance >must be restored to the legislation by adopting a series of >amendments proposed by the Digital Future Coalition (DFC), many >of which are based on a strong commitment to the Fair Use >Doctrine. I share that commitment. If Congress is to update >copyright law for the digital age, the rights of copyright owners >and the needs of information users must both be fully respected >and advanced. I support the DFC's package of amendments to the >Copyright Act, particularly those related to Sections 106, 107 >and 108. > > Second, and just as critically, the "Copyright Term >Extension Act"(H.R. 989) must also be rebalanced to protect and >foster library preservation efforts and education at all levels. >In its current form, this bill would extend the length of >copyright in published materials by 20 years. It would also >lengthen the term of copyright for unpublished works by 10 years. >In other words, the bill will impose a 10 or 20 year moratorium >on works entering the public domain. The costs of tracking down >the owners of these works (often 100 or more years old) imposes >costs on libraries better spent on serving the public. ALA's >representatives in Washington have been negotiating a suitable >amendment to this bill with major copyright industries since >December of last year. The Register of Copyrights is mediating >those talks. Please do everything that you can to allow that >process, which I am told is going well, to bear fruit. Premature >action on this bill would be disastrous for libraries and >schools. > > Thank you very much for helping libraries make the most of >new technology and the Internet to bring the benefits of >information technology to all Americans, and especially those in >[INSERT THE NAME OF YOUR STATE, CITY OR COUNTY REPRESENTED BY THE >MEMBER TO WHOM YOU'RE WRITING]. ALA's Washington Office staff >would be pleased to provide you or your office with more >information. They can be reached at 202-628-8410. > > Sincerely, > >_________________________________________________________________ >ALAWON is a free, irregular publication of the American Library >Association Washington Office. To subscribe, send the message >"subscribe ala-wo [your_firstname] [your_lastname]" to <listproc >@ala.org>. ALAWON archives gopher.ala.org; select Washington >Office Newsline. Web page HTTP://www.ala.org/alawashington.html. > >ALA Washington Office 202.628.8410 (V) >1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, #403 202.628.8419 (F) >Washington, DC 20004-1701 Lynne E. Bradley, Editor ><alawash(a)alawash.org> <leb(a)alawash.org> >Contributor to this issue: Adam M. Eisgrau > <ame(a)alawash.org> > >All materials subject to copyright by the American Library >Association may be reprinted or redistributed for noncommercial >purposes with appropriate credits. --------------- >From Andy Oram: (Introduction from moderator: the message below does not explain how all the awful consequences it predicts could stem from some extensions to copyright law. I think the worrisome section of the bill is the one prohibiting "any device, product, or component incorporated into a device" that can circumvent copyright. Despite language about its "primary purpose," such language could be used against legitimate computer and communications equipment.--Andy) Sender: John Whiting <100707.731(a)CompuServe.COM> ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- From: Labor Committee on the Middle East, INTERNET:melblcome@igc.apc.org TO: Democracy Now and Then, INTERNET:DEMOCRACY-NOW@IGC.APC.ORG Forum KPFA, INTERNET:FREEKPFA@COCO.CA.ROP.EDU (unknown), INTERNET:PACNEWS@AOL.COM (unknown), INTERNET:PNN@IGC.APC.ORG DATE: 12/05/96 02:35 RE: Action Needed on Intellectual Property Bill URGENT MESSAGE: Below is an alert regarding the May 15 Mark-up of HR 2441. Please post this text on your Web Sites and forward it to all interested parties. Specific efforts should be made to have people in the districts of members of the IP Subcommittee contact their representatives. A link to the DFC Web Site can be made by linking your Web Site to http://www.ari.net/dfc -- a thumbnail graphic for the link can be found at http://www.ari.net/tlogo.gif Suggested text for letters to Representatives will follow shortly. ************************************************************** YOUR IMMEDIATE FAXES AND CALLS TO CONGRESS NEEDED TO SLOW IMMINENT ACTION ON BADLY FLAWED CYBERSPACE COPYRIGHT BILL Congressional contacts urgently needed NO LATER THAN Tuesday, May 14.................. Next Wednesday, May 15, the House Judiciary Committee's Intellectual Property Subcommittee is scheduled to consider amendments to, and vote on approval of HR 2441, the "National Information Infrastructure Act of 1995." Such approval, if given, would give an important boost to passage of a legislative package heavily backed by -- and tilted in favor of -- the movie, recording, and publishing industries (and other large "content providers"). If passed in its current form, the bill would: *** make it a copyright violation to simply browse the Net without a license from copyright owners; *** subject computer system operators -- such as on-line services and networks at schools and libraries -- to potentially crippling liability for the copyright violations of their users, even if the operator; *** cripple "distance education" efforts especially vital to rural communities and the disabled; and *** make it illegal to manufacture, import or distribute devices and software (including computers and VCRs) needed by industry, schools and libraries to make "fair use" of encrypted information by overruling long-standing Supreme Court precedent. WRITE AND CALL MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY INTELLECTUAL SUBCOMMITTEE AND KEY FULL COMMITTEE MEMBERS NOW (list and information below)!!! Tell them that: ** These issues, and the healthy development of the Net are of critical concern to you, AND ** The May 15 meeting of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee is **too soon**. Congress should take the time needed to understand and adequately deal with **all ** of the complicated issues raised by HR 2441 before it takes action. For more information about the bill, the dangers it poses and the constructive solutions offered, please see the DIGITAL FUTURE COALITION Website at http://www.ari.net/dfc. Please get your faxes and calls to the following members of Congress, especially those Members who represent you, NO LATER THAN Tuesday, May 14: [DATE] The Honorable {name} United States House of Representative __#__ ____ Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Representative__________: I am writing today to ask that you do everything in your power to assure that no action is taken by the House Subcommittee on Intellectual Property on the "NII Copyright Protection Act of 1995" (HR 2441) until a broad consensus can be reached on how to resolve a number of issues of critical mportance to me and, in my view, the future of the Internet. As I understand it, this bill in its current form, would seriously undermine the ability of businesses, inventors, schools and librraies to make full use of the Internet's great potential. Specifically, H.R. 2441 would : * make it a copyright violation to simply browse the Net without a license from copyright owners; * subject computer system operators -- such as on-line services and networks at schools and libraries -- to potentially crippling liability for the copyright violations of their users, even if the operator has no knowledge of such violations; * thwart "distance education" efforts especially vital to rural communities and the disabled; and * make it illegal to manufacture, import or distribute devices and software (including computers and VCRs) needed by industry, schools and libraries to make "fair use" of encrypted information by overruling long- standing Supreme Court precedent. Please don't allow the fears of major copyright owning industries to cripple the Internet for the rest of America. I urge you and other members of the House Judiciary Committee to take the time necessary to understand and thoroughly debate all of the proposed amendments to H.R. 2441, including those proposed by the Digital Future Coalition. Thank you very much for helping make the most of new technology and the Internet to bring the benefits of information technology to all Americans, and especially those in [INSERT THE NAME OF THE DISTRICT/CITY]. Sincerely, ALERT (fwd) END ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ Posted by Andrew Oram - andyo(a)ora.com - Moderator: CYBER-RIGHTS (CPSR) Cyber-Rights: http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/ ftp://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/Library/ CyberJournal: (WWW or FTP) --> ftp://ftp.iol.ie/users/rkmoore Materials may be reposted in their _entirety_ for non-commercial use. ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ -- Audrie Krause CPSR Executive Director PO Box 717 * Palo Alto, CA * 94302 Phone: (415) 322-3778 * Fax: (415) 322-4748 * * E-mail: akrause(a)cpsr.org * * * Web Page: http://www.cpsr.org/home.html *

1 0

Re: Fingerprinting annoyance
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"tcmay(a)got.net" 14-MAY-1996 04:46:37.08 >Trying to convince a company that photo ID badges and fingerprints are Bad >Things is perhaps admirable, just realize that in a free society that >employer is under no obligation to hire someone who refuses to go along >with the company's security policies. (This relates to the "civil rights" >thread.) While in general I agree, he never said it was a company. If it was a government, for instance, I can see it as being ethical; the same for a government-caused requirement (like the drug war nonsense) or a government-supported company (like Airbus in Europe, or others supported by tarrifs.) Since he didn't say, I forbode to answer (mine would have been about like uni's one of superglue, although I haven't heard the needle idea before. -Allen

1 0

(legal) Re: CDA Dispatch #10: Last Day in Court
by Joseph M. Reagle Jr. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Regarding ACLU v. Reno] At 11:08 PM 5/13/96 -0400, Declan B. McCullagh wrote: > The Philadelphia court is expected to issue a decision by mid-June. > Both the plaintiffs and the Department of Justice have said they will > appeal to the Supreme Court, which may decide to hear the case after > it reconvenes in early October. Assuming the Justice Department loses, > will they really appeal to the Supreme Court? If so, I object to my > tax money being wasted on this crap. Perhaps someone with a better legal understanding of court cases could help me out. I understood from a law course I took that appeals could only be filed with respect to process rather than result. One cannot appeal a decision, rather one has to appeal the manner in which it was reached (if witnesses were biased, important evidence was suppressed, etc.) I was rather surprised by this, but obviously this doesn't prevent people from appealing willy-nilly because they just fabricate some reason why the process was corrupted. However, in a venue such as this, what basis can one appeal on? On the ACLU side I can actually see an appeal with respect to the constitutionality (but I'm not quite sure what) and on the Reno side I don't see what they could appeal. Was some evidence poorly presented? It isn't like there are any witnesses to lead. _______________________ Regards, Men govern nothing with more difficulty than their tongues, and can moderate their desires more than their words. -Spinoza Joseph Reagle http://farnsworth.mit.edu/~reagle/home.html reagle(a)mit.edu E0 D5 B2 05 B6 12 DA 65 BE 4D E3 C1 6A 66 25 4E

2 1

Re: Fingerprinting annoyance
by Matthew Williams 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Date sent: Mon, 13 May 1996 23:19:12 -0400 (EDT) > From: Black Unicorn <unicorn(a)schloss.li> <...> > > I compare it to the ease with which one submits a fake social security > number rather than simply refuse to submit one at all. A fake one wont > raise any eyebrows, refusal will. Although knowingly providing a fake social security number when one has any expectation of gain is, I believe, a felony. 42 USC. sec. 408. Matt +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ Matthew Williams williams(a)mackinfo.com 215-884-8123 voice 215-886-5030 fax "The most obscene thing I have found on the Internet is the CDA." +--------------------------------------------------------------------+

1 0

FAC_ial
by jya＠nyc.pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

5-14-96. FiTi: Reports on "Photobook," a "visual intelligence" comp.sys for facial recognition designed by Alex Pentland at MIT's Media Lab to "identify people who use multiple identifications to commit fraud." BT, the US Army, Kodak and Sensormatic are nibbling and the White House is ogling it to "combat terrorism." Also: The program could help find missing children, verify indentification for electronic purchases and track down on-line pornographers. Although the Big Brother aspect may be troubling to some, to others it will provide comforting security. FAC_ial

1 0

Traffic analysis by FBI against Earth First
by Eric Hughes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Remember the phrase "social networks analysis". The FBI seems to use it as a term of art. I'm right now listening to Judy Bari on the pirate radio station in Berkeley (104.1 FM). She's being interviewed over the telephone and talking about her court case against the FBI relating to the coverup of the bombing that she's being charged for. (It was under her own car seat, for those of you who know nothing about this.) In any case, there have been depositions and discoveries in this case, and one of the revelations was that there was a document the FBI seized (under circumstances I'm not familiar with) with which they wanted to perform a social networks analysis upon. It was the interviewer's phone and addess book. Eric

1 0

Nature of Rights
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:09 AM 5/14/96, Allen Ethridge wrote: >And on another thread, if rights are simply restrictions on the >government and not attributes (inate, even) of the individual, then they >are meaningless. I presume you're speaking about my point.... This is generally not the place to have long debates about the nature of government and of civil rights, but it bears mentioning that the Constitution of the United States _is_ primarily about the delineation of the role of government, not of private entities, corporations, clubs, social groups, etc. Thus, "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion" refers to freedom from coercion by government about religion, and to separation of church and state. It has nothing to do with whether you or I feel our "rights" within the First Unified Temple of Baal are being properly respected. And so on for various other enumerated rights, including the right of free speech, the right to keep and bear arms, the right of free association, and so on. As nearly every argument in this area points out, your right to free speech does not mean you get to use my newspaper, nor my public address system, nor my computer service. The so-called innate or intrinsic rights ("life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness") are basically bromides. Philosophical arguing points for a view of government as being limited in scope. Converting a slogan like this to assume this means government will guarantee jobs for all, or will provide two cars in every driveway, or whatever, has been fraught with problems. Not the least of which are that such goals are inimical to the actual, enumerated rights. --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."

2 1

Re: Civil liberties of employees (Re: FYB_oss)
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 7:29 AM 5/14/96, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: >From: IN%"froomkin(a)law.miami.edu" "Michael Froomkin" 14-MAY-1996 03:24:06.58 >>Yes and no...and kinda no. > > Umm... you would appear to be discussing the current legal situation, >whereas TCMay was discussing what the situation _should_ be. In the limits >you discuss, the civil liberties of the _employer_ are being seriously >trampled upon. Exactly. As I described in another post last night, this is the point. I've mostly given up on trying to change the existing laws and political system...it is too far down the path de Tocqueville described a century and a half ago (roughly, "America's great experiment with democracy will last only until the populace discovers it can pick the pockets of others at the ballot box."). Strong cryptography at least returns "freedom of association" to us, albeit not with True Names, and may return other freedoms to us as well. By bypassing democracy, the true enemy of liberty. --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