December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

RE: Is Knuth's _AoCP_ still the authority on PRNG?
by geeman＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

check out "On the Efficient Generation of Cryptographic Confusion and Diffusion Sequences" I may have gotten the title less than perfect. AltaVista will find it for you if you try. Excellent piece. ---------- From: eli+@gs160.sp.cs.cmu.edu[SMTP:eli+@gs160.sp.cs.cmu.edu] Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 1996 7:54 PM To: coderpunks(a)toad.com Subject: Re: Is Knuth's _AoCP_ still the authority on PRNG? Bryce writes: >I'm reading Knuth chapter 3 on "random numbers". Have there >been any major advances since the publication of the second >edition of _The Art of Computer Programming, Volume 2_ in 1981? A much-referenced article: Marsaglia, G. (1985). "A current view of random number generation". In L. Billard (ed.), _Computer Science and Statistics: The Interface_. A more recent survey, which I haven't read: L'Ecuyer, P. (1990). "Random numbers for simulation". CACM 87, no. 10, 85-97. I read the resulting _NYT_ blurb, but not the paper: Ferrenberg et al. (1992). "Monte Carlo simulations: Hidden errors from `good' random number generators". Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 3382-4. This is from the "simulation" angle, which is where Knuth is coming from. For crypto you may be interested in the complexity-theoretic approach (things like Blum-Blum-Shub), which is a whole different field. >Are any of the ideas advocated in chapter 3 now considered >inadvisable? I think the Marsaglia paper sank Knuth's recommended generator. "Sank" is a relative term, of course. -- Eli Brandt eli+(a)cs.cmu.edu

1 0

Re: What is the EFF doing exactly?
by Jon Lebkowsky 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:56 PM 9/3/96 -0800, jim bell wrote: >"Addressed", maybe, but that doesn't necessarily mean, "solved." For many >decades, people have been able to walk up to a pay telephone at 3:00 AM and >make a harassing phone call to somebody, a "problem" which still exists and >no solution is being implemented for. > >I think it's reasonable to come to the conclusion that there is no solution >to the anonymity "problem" that isn't worse than the underlying anonymity. >And, BTW, I don't consider a pro-anonymity position to be an extremist one. Yeah, the main point re. anonymity, IMO, is that you can't pretend that it's all pro, no con. You have to acknowledge and think through the negatives...and, as Tim May pointed out, that's already been done. I don't think you oughtta ream somebody for pointing to the down side. That you raise an issue should never be taken to imply that you've taken a position, and it's vital to remain open to discussion and entertain sentiments that oppose your own thinking. -- Jon Lebkowsky <jonl(a)hotwired.com> FAX (512)444-2693 http://www.well.com/~jonl Electronic Frontiers Forum, 6PM PDT Thursdays <http://www.hotwired.com/eff> "No politician can sit on a hot issue if you make it hot enough."--Saul Alinsky

1 0

Re: What is the EFF doing exactly?
by Jon Lebkowsky 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:04 PM 9/3/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: >The reason this is such a hot button for Cypherpunks is that "responsible >freedom" and "accountability" are often code words for controlling some >very basic freedoms. Placing limits on anonymous speech would involve some >very fundamental restrictions on freedoms of various sorts. Even if >"safeguards" are built-in, the effect would almost certainly be to >illegalize remailers (unless they had "escrow" features!). And a wide array >of other freedoms, too numerous for me to write about here. The terms "responsibility" and "accountability" are misused, which is unfortunate, since I think we'd all argue in favor of taking responsibility for our speech/actions in a positive sense. The negative is in asking me to sacrifice my freedom because some few behave irresponsibly. This is like setting an illogical default, assuming that it's a preventive, but it prevents nothing. Getting beyond this discussion of EFF, has any global entity discussed making remailers illegal? jonl -- Jon Lebkowsky <jonl(a)hotwired.com> FAX (512)444-2693 http://www.well.com/~jonl Electronic Frontiers Forum, 6PM PDT Thursdays <http://www.hotwired.com/eff> "No politician can sit on a hot issue if you make it hot enough."--Saul Alinsky

2 1

Anonymity
by Dave Banisar 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Speaking of anonymous transactions, a fair trading office in London found that mondex is not truly anonymous (they were claiming it for a while until the complaint was filed by PI director Simon Davies). A couple of docs are available at http://www.privacy.org/pi/activities/mondex/ Dave _________________________________________________________________________ Subject: Anonymity _________________________________________________________________________ David Banisar (Banisar(a)epic.org) * 202-544-9240 (tel) Electronic Privacy Information Center * 202-547-5482 (fax) 666 Pennsylvania Ave, SE, Suite 301 * HTTP://www.epic.org Washington, DC 20003 * ftp/gopher/wais cpsr.org

1 0

Re: What is the EFF doing exactly?
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:41 AM 9/4/96, Jon Lebkowsky wrote: >The terms "responsibility" and "accountability" are misused, which is >unfortunate, since I think we'd all argue in favor of taking responsibility >for our speech/actions in a positive sense. The negative is in asking me to >sacrifice my freedom because some few behave irresponsibly. This is like >setting an illogical default, assuming that it's a preventive, but it >prevents nothing. Well, I've written a lot (or forwarded a lot) on various aspects of this issue. Both terms are _overloaded_, probably to the point of not even being useful terms for this debate. Everyone comes in to the debate with their notions of what "responsible" speech is, what "accountability" entails, etc. Having said this, and not knowing how your (or anyone else's) definitions relate to mine, I simply don't agree that I have to take responsibility for all of my speech/actions. I can think of many cases where I have elected to use untraceable anonymity, as many others have, so those are direct counterexamples to your point, thus disproving your "I think we'd all argue in favor of taking responsibility" point. (A vast number of other points worthy of discussion. I am happy to hear from at least two EFF "insiders" that this issue is being discussed within EFF as we speak. It's about time. Anonymity is a whole lot more than just about "anonymous posts" from "Mr. Anonymous." The issue hits on issues of True Names, speech licenses, escrow, legality of remailers, business vs. personal speech, etc.) >Getting beyond this discussion of EFF, has any global entity discussed >making remailers illegal? > By "global entity" do you mean the U.N., or the Borg? The G7 issued a typically vague statement about cracking down on terrorist communications...this could be construed as the beginnings of an assault on Cypherpunkish sorts of things. Too soon to tell. The Church of Scientology (the same group which favorable quotes Esther Dyson's concerns about anonymity and dangerous speech) has of course been targetting remailers for a long time. Not in getting them outlawed, but in getting them to to divulge names and logs. This has the effect of harassing remailers, and causing some to discontinue them...probably a desired effect. Julf's shutdown of Penet they probably are dancing a jig over (but the last laugh will be when users transition to a world-wide, distributed, robust network of Cypherpunks-style remailers). Within the U.S. there are few ways remailers could be shut down, in terms of legal action. The various Supreme Court cases have been discussed many times. I suspect the Digital Telephony Act could be invoked to demand that ISPs make their systems wiretappable: then, if the presence of a remailer defeats this wire-tappability, the ISP could force the remailer off. (I'm not an expert, but I believe DT doesn't apply to computer bulletin boards and ISPs, only to phone systems. But as Internet telephony spreads, and any ISP may also be a de facto phone system, couldn't the language of DT be extended to cover ISPs? This is something I worried about at the time the EFF helped give us Digital Telephony.) If legislation passes that makes carrying and producing identification mandatory (and this could happen by either the immigration or anti-terrorism route, or both), and if the Postal Service succeeds in getting accepted their scheme to require positive identification of all letter and package senders, then the same sorts of laws could be used to require that all e-mail messages have a True Name attached. Poof, there go the remailers. --Tim May We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I 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

Workers of the Web, UNITE!
by declan＠well.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tired: Libertarian cypherpunks Wired: Crypto-socialists "Whether they be fast-food workers, word processors, or micro-chip assemblers, today's non-union wage workers need the IWW's brand of no-compromise unionism even more than their predecessors." :) -Declan http://iww.org/tandv.html > THE WOBBLIES: > > Tactics and Vision for a New Workers' Movement > > An Introduction to the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) > > ISN'T THE IWW JUST FOR FACTORY WORKERS? > > Every worker is an "industrial" worker - whether they work in health > care, tourism, education, or publishing. The relatively recent > association between the word "industry" and heavy manufacturing is > misleading, and was never intended to be by the founders of the IWW. > If you earn your living by working with your hands or your mind, > then you're welcome in the IWW. Only bosses (defined as those with > direct power to hire and fire) are excluded from IWW membership. > > The Wobblies (as members of the IWW are known) have historically > focused on helping organize those workers that the American > Federation of Labor (AFL) shunned. In the early 1900s that meant > African-Americans, immigrants, women, and unskilled laborers. Today > that means curbside recyclers, non-profit staffers, temp workers, > sex-industry workers, co-op employees -- in short, any worker in any > workplace regardless of size or structure. > > CAN THE IWW HELP ME TO IMPROVE THE WAGES OR WORKING CONDITIONS AT MY > CURRENT JOB? > > That largely depends on you. The IWW is a "do-it-yourself" union, > and does not provide an all-knowing leadership or hefty treasury to > fight your battles for you. But if you're willing to organize at > your job-site by talking with your co-workers about the issues that > matter to them, then you can count on your fellow workers in the IWW > to lend their full support to your struggle. > > Individual workers can accomplish little by themselves, and are > liable to be fired if they raise their voice in protest. But by > joining together in a union such as the IWW, workers are far more > powerful when confronting their boss about workplace injustices. Our > union can provide tangible, community-based resources such as > low-cost printing, speakers, legal advise, and how-to manuals, as > well as bodies on a picket line. You won't get bureaucrats in suits > and ties telling you how to run your strike, just friends lending a > hand where they can. > > THE IWW AND MAINSTREAM LABOR > > For almost a century, the leadership of the AFL-CIO has worked hand > in hand with the capitalists to squelch rank and file militancy. > Their overriding concern has been "industrial harmony," not economic > and social justice, and so they fail to question the most basic > assumptions of capitalist production. While union bosses play golf > with the titans of industry, real wages and safety conditions have > continued to worsen these last thirty years or so. > > Regular AFL trade unions split workers up into their respective > skills, allowing one craft union to cross the picket line of > another. The IWW believes in "industrial unionism," organizing all > workers in a given industry into the same union (thus our name). At > a construction site, for instance, the carpenters should be able to > count on the unswerving support of the plumbers, laborers, > electricians, and hod carriers in the event of a strike. This is > much simpler when all these workers are in the same industrial > union, rather than separate, even competing, trade unions. > > Some Wobblies find themselves in jobs where they are represented by > these more conservative trade unions. These "two- card" Wobs often > bring their IWW principles to the union hall with them, agitating > for rank and file democracy, more militant "direct action" tactics, > and class solidarity. The IWW does not believe in signing away the > right to strike ( the so-called "no strike" clause), nor does it > condone the "dues check-off," in which management deducts union dues > directly from the paycheck. While the IWW often does strike support > for other unions when necessary, we also try to keep our sights on > the bigger prize ahead. > > DIDN'T THE IWW DIE OUT? ARE ITS IDEAS STILL RELEVANT? > > The IWW was nearly crushed in the early 1920's by some of the > fiercest repression ever unleashed by big business and the U.S. > government. Because the IWW had strongholds in industries that were > critical to the First World War effort, and because they refused to > do their patriotic bit by signing no-strike pledges for the duration > of the war, the Wobblies were branded "pro-German" and relentlessly > persecuted. > > The world economy has changed a lot since the days when the IWW > controlled great sections of the logging, mining, and agricultural > industries. Yet despite tremendous technological advances and the > structural reorganization of capital, industrial unionism remains a > fundamentally sound basis for workers' self- organization. Today, > while mainstream labor tries desperately to hold its ground against > the anti-worker policies of the ruling political parties, vast new > sectors of the economy have opened up that the AFL-CIO would never > dream of organizing. > > Whether they be fast-food workers, word processors, or micro- chip > assemblers, today's non-union wage workers need the IWW's brand of > no-compromise unionism even more than their predecessors. Winning > the eight-hour day was not enough. We must redefine the very meaning > of work itself, and find ways to redistribute society's wealth for > the benefit of all. > > DOES THE IWW SUPPORT ANY POLITICAL PARTY? > > The IWW is a labor union, not a political party. We believe that > economic justice must be achieved through economic struggle, whether > that be with our boss or our landlord. The institutions of > government have always proven themselves to be the allies of > Capital, so we do not wait for politicians to free us from wage- > slavery. We believe our power lies in the workplace, not in "the > vote" - since it is our labor on which bosses are dependent. > > The IWW has successfully resisted attempts by various "left" parties > to make the union a mere tool of their political ambitions. Our > Constitution explicitly states "the IWW refuses all alliances, > direct and indirect, with existing parties and anti-political > sects." This policy has helped us avoid the sectarian feuding that > can easily destroy a group. > > True, our commitment to worker control and the abolition of > capitalism has not won us any friends among the ruling elites, and > our disavowal of all political party affiliation has not prevented > us from being red-baited. We address the root causes of this > society's problems, and that makes us "radical," but we have the > common sense to leave our electoral political views outside the > union hall where they belong. > > WHAT IS DIRECT ACTION? > > The labor movement has been most successful when it relied on the > direct intervention of the workers to obtain their demands. Rather > than allowing professional negotiators to speak for them, Wobblies > have engaged in those tactics which they could control themselves -- > strikes, slowdowns, monkey wrenching -- what we call sabotage. > > Sabotage in this context does not mean arson and dynamite. It's more > properly defined as "the conscious withdrawal of efficiency." > Staying at your workstation but reducing your production by half > will bring a boss to his knees quicker than a whole team of > negotiators. > > The IWW has never advocated violence. By fighting for justice with > non-violent tactics, the IWW has often won the support of an > initially mistrustful public. > > WHAT IS A GENERAL STRIKE? > > The General Strike has long been touted by militant unionists as the > ultimate expression of workers' power, and it still plays an > important role in the IWW's program for social change. Simply put, a > General strike is a massive work stoppage on a local, regional, or > national scale, and may involve people either staying home or > occupying their workplaces and refusing to work. > > A General Strike halts business as usual, and serves notice to those > in power that those of us doing the work have the ultimate say in > whether that work gets done or not. It debunks the myth that power > flows downward, and proves instead that all real power still resides > at the grassroots level, if we only choose to exercise it. > > The general Strike is a common tactic in many countries of the > world, yet most North American workers are unfamiliar with it. This > is largely the result of the conservative trade unions' reluctance > to flex their economic muscle and rock the boat. A great deal of > education and organization must take place before North American > workers are ready to wage a successful General Strike, and it's > toward this end that the IWW dedicates itself. > > THE IWW AND FEMINISM > > Women have been active in the IWW since its inception. Elizabeth > Gurley Flynn, one of the union's best know agitators, once said that > "the IWW has been accused of pushing women to the front. This is not > true. Rather, the women have not been kept in back, and so they have > naturally moved to the front." > > Much of the work that has traditionally been done by women was not > recognized as such by the male-run business unions. The IWW supports > the right of homemakers, sex-industry workers, and other women to > organize for better conditions and wages just like other workers. > > THE IWW AND MILITARISM > > Wars between nations have never benefitted the working class, and > they never will. The war profiteers, safe in their mansions and > boardrooms, never consider the human cost of their military > adventurism. Working people are mere cannon fodder for their > corporate and imperialist ambitions. > > Real working class solidarity does not recognize the artificial > borders erected between nation-states, but instead unites against a > common class enemy. Poor people, especially those of color, make up > a disproportionate part of the armed forces, simply because few > other economic options are available. > > To put an end to war, working people must lay down their arms and > refuse to fight for their masters. Unfortunately, many have been > brainwashed into thinking that their interests are the same as those > of the people in power, so this is easier said than done. > Nevertheless, the IWW is committed to fighting patriotic propaganda > by educating workers about where their real self-interest lies. > > THE IWW AND THE ENVIRONMENT > > Bhopal, Chernobyl, the Exxon Valdez oil spill... These are just a > few examples of how dangerous it can be to put profit before people. > Government regulation and public outcry can at best slow down the > destruction of our planet, not reverse it. > > Workers and their families suffer the worst effects of pollution. > The workplace continues to be a very dangerous environment, and > working class communities are often the site for toxic dumps, > incinerators, and the like. > > Workers' control of all industry is the only practical strategy for > assuring the practice of sustainable and environmentally sound forms > of production. For if the workers in all polluting industries were > to withdraw their labor, the poison factories could be shut down in > a matter of weeks. The workers themselves must decide whether or not > what they produce is socially useful. > > JOIN THE I.W.W. > > NO BUREAUCRATS - Aside from the modestly paid General > Secretary/Treasurer, the I.W.W. has no paid officers. The General > Executive Board is elected annually by the entire membership, and > its job is to oversee the running of union affairs, not to set > policy. All officers may be recalled at any time by referendum. > > REAL DEMOCRACY - All policy decisions are made by the members > themselves by referendum. All branches maintain full autonomy on > matters within their jurisdiction. Job branches (I.W.W. groups > composed of workers at a single job-site) set their own demands and > strategies in negotiations, free of meddling internaitonals or > sellout business agents. > > LOW DUES - Our dues are structured on a sliding scale basis. > Unemployed and low-income workers pay $5 a month; those making > between $800 and $1,700 per month pay $9; members making more than > $1,700 per month pay $12 monthly dues; and workers in extremely poor > financial situations may pay only $3 per month. Initiation fees > equal one month's dues; so a very low-income worker can join for as > little as $6. > > TO JOIN - Fill out the questions below and send a copy of this form > with your check or money order (in U.S. funds) to I.W.W., 103 W. > Michigan Ave., Ypsilanti, MI 48197, USA. > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > ___ I affirm that I am a common worker without direct power to hire > and fire. > > ___ I agree to abide by the constitution and regulations of this > organization. > > ___ I will study its principles and make myself acquainted with its > purposes. > > Name ____________________________________________________________ > > Occupation ______________________________________________________ > > Industry ________________________________________________________ > > Address _________________________________________________________ > > City ____________________________________________________________ > > State/Province __________________________________________________ > > Zip _____________________________________________________________ > > Phone ___________________________________________________________ > > Email ___________________________________________________________ > > Total amount enclosed $__________________________________________ > > Initiation $_____________________________________________________ > > Dues $ __________________________________________________________ > > When you join the I.W.W., you'll receive a free subscription to our > newspaper, the Industrial Worker, in addition to your membership > card, constitution, button, and the One Big Union pamphlet which > describes the structure and function of the I.W.W. in detail. You'll > also start to get a monthly publication for members only called the > General Organization Bulletin, which contains Board motions, > financial reports, and members' discussion of various internal > matters such as upcoming referenda. And if you have access to email, > you'll be invited to join a growing network of Wobblies engaging in > on-line communications. > > IWW PREAMBLE > > The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. > There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among > millions of working people; and the few, who make up the employing > class, have all the good things in life. > > Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of > the world organize as a class, take possession of the machinery of > production, abolish the wage system, and live in harmony with the > earth. > > We find that the centering of the management of industries into > fewer and fewer hands makes the trade unions unable to cope with the > ever growing power of the employing class. The trade unions foster a > state of affairs which allows one set of workers to be pitted > against another set of workers in the same industry, thereby helping > to defeat one another in wage wars. Moreover, the trade unions aid > the employing class to mislead the workers into the belief that the > working class has interests in common with its employers. > > These conditions can be changed and the interests of the working > class upheld only by an organization formed in such a way that all > its members in any one industry, or in all industries if necessary, > cease work whenever a strike or lockout is on in any department > thereof, thus making an injury to one an injury to all. > > Instead of the conservative motto, "A fair day's wage for a fair > day's work," we must inscribe on our banner the revolutionary > watchword, "Abolition of the wage system." > > It is the historic mission of the working class to do away with > capitalism. The army of production must be organized, not only for > the everyday struggle with capitalists, but also to carry on > production when capitalism shall have been overthrown. By organizing > industrially we are forming the structure of the new society within > the shell of the old. > > CONTACT THE IWW GENERAL HEADQUARTERS AT > 103 W. Michigan Ave. > Ypsilanti, MI 48197, USA > ph: 313-483-3548 > fax: 313-483-4050 > email: iww(a)igc.apc.org

2 1

Re: What is the EFF doing exactly?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:41 PM 9/3/96 -0500, Jon Lebkowsky wrote: >The terms "responsibility" and "accountability" are misused, which is >unfortunate, since I think we'd all argue in favor of taking responsibility >for our speech/actions in a positive sense. The negative is in asking me to >sacrifice my freedom because some few behave irresponsibly. This is like >setting an illogical default, assuming that it's a preventive, but it >prevents nothing. > >Getting beyond this discussion of EFF, has any global entity discussed >making remailers illegal? The Leahy crypto bill introduced early this year made (paraphrasing) "the use of encryption to thwart a law-enforcement investigation illegal." I immediately pointed out that while this wouldn't make _encrypted_ remailers illegal, per se, effectively it would because the moment an investigation (even a phony or trumped-up one) is started and is "thwarted" by the encryption used, the remailer operator became guilty of a crime. True, the USG isn't quite a "global entity" (even though it has a nasty habit of behaving like it!), but along with Europe (which would presumably treaty with USG any such restrictions) it's the next closest thing. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: What is the EFF doing exactly?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:02 PM 9/3/96 -0700, Stanton McCandlish wrote: >> But we do not want legislation, so we do not want to help write legislation. >> >> We want to delay legislation for as long as possible, for the longer the >> delay, the more the balance of power favors the net and disavors the pols. >> >> Therefore the correct strategy is simply to attack any politician who shows >> any interest in legislating on our issues. >> >> We have no friends on Capitol hill, and if we did have friends, it would >> still be necessary to denounce them as enemies. > >I agree with the general sentiment behind this, but I think it may go a >bit overboard. For example, it is worthwhile to support Pro-CODE and SAFE >(the two crypto bills now floating around in Congress). On the surface >they both appear to threaten the viability of the Bernstein, Karn and >Junger cases, but in reality neither of these bills have a chance in hell >of passage. Be careful, Leahy's bill sucked. I don't classify it as "pro-crypto" at all, although if you believed those organizations that initially supported it you'd come to that conclusion. So somebody following your analysis (blindly) might have inadvertently embraced a clunker, concluding that supporting SOMETHING was important for the reasons you listed. And while this may appear to be paranoia, I suspected that that the whole reason for the Leahy bill was to get the "criminalization of the use of encryption" section on the books, the one truly awful part of the bill. The funny thing is, it almost worked! Didn't it, EFF?!? Burns' bill seems to be at least moderately acceptable, in that it appears to remove most restrictions on crypto export. Further, I don't necessarily share your pessimism that these bills won't pass. Not this year, of course, but possibly next year. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

{Rich Graves Only} Enclosed
by qut＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.politics.white-power Subject: Re: Nomination: The Right Reverend Colin James III for Kook of the Month References: <gRqNTD2w165w(a)bwalk.dm.com> <50i362$71q(a)Networking.Stanford.EDU> In <50i362$71q(a)Networking.Stanford.EDU> llurch(a)stanford.edu (Rich Graves) writes: ! shlomo(a)bwalk.dm.com () writes: ! >The Right Reverend Colin James III got Andrew Mathis <fresh(a)jews4jesus.org> ! >fired from his second job in two months (at the Princeton Review, on Thursday). ! >I hereby nominate the dear bishop for both the Kook of the Month for September ! >1996 and for the Golden Killfile Award. Vote early and often! ! ! Vulis, you've already earned your Kook of the Month laurels. It's nap ! time. Since you know that is Dr. D, why did you blame the harassment of Ingrid on Rev. Ron?!????? It looks like you did it to pin it on the doctor, or more likely, you saw the opportunity to harass Rev. Ron, even after you feigned praise of him! It's the same damned header, IDJIT. Of course, I never saw the headers for the unidentified harasser to the Zgrams list, was that the same header, too? It looks like you did it or you know who did it and you want to compound harassment on to nswpp! How Gravesian! Is Dr. D your friend your talking about? Dr. D, defect, defect! He's a jerk, jerk! -- | | | | | | | | | | | | | | _|__|__|__|__ /--------------\ | | | 0 0 |--\ | * | | | \-------/ | | | \_____/ |__/ \______________/ Æ×õ áîšõä

2 1

Letter to the Observer [re: Internet paedophile]
by Martin Minow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded to me by a friend: Path: reboot.demon.co.uk!news.demon.co.uk!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon! muir-et2.staff.demon.net!SERVER!not-for-mail From: malcolm(a)muir-et2.staff.demon.net (Malcolm Muir) Newsgroups: demon.announce Subject: Letter to the Observer Followup-To: demon.service Date: 1 Sep 96 07:25:38 GMT Organization: Demon Internet Ltd. Lines: 188 Approved: Malcolm(a)demon.net Message-ID: <32293a72.0(a)muir-et2.staff.demon.net> Reply-To: pr(a)demon.net NNTP-Posting-Host: muir-et2.staff.demon.net X-NNTP-Posting-Host: muir-et2.staff.demon.net X-Newsreader: TIN [Windows/NT 1.3 950824BETA PL0] The following letters were delivered to the Editor of the Observer last week as a request to publish a retraction of their article relating to the Internet that appeared on Sunday 25th. August. Since a full retraction has not been published, we feel it is right to circulate copies of the letters to our customers. Copies of the letters may also be viewed on the World Wide Web at: http://www.demon.net/observer1.html (Solicitors Letter) and http://www.demon.net/observer2.html (Open letter from the Chairman) Malcolm Muir Demon Internet --------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey Green Russel Solicitors Apollo House 56 New Bond Street London W1Y 0SX 0171-499 7020 The Editor The Observer Newspaper Guardian Newspapers Limited 119 Farringdon Road London EC1R 3ER 30th August 1996 By Hand and Fax: 0171 713 4250 Our ref: DRJ/JHG/[c]423395/9403.047 Dear Sir, RE: Our Clients: Demon Internet Limited and Mr Clive Feather We act on behalf of Demon Internet Limited and Mr Clive Feather both of whom were the subject of articles which appeared on the front page and on page 19 of your newspaper in the edition of Sunday, 25th August. In the offending article you have represented that our clients are "Pedlars of child abuse" and are "Key links in the international paedophile chain". You have represented that both our clients actively support the supply of paedophile material. This allegation is entirely false and is a most serious and outrageous libel. Our clients are most distressed by the publication of the offending statements which are inaccurate and grossly defamatory of them and which will cause damage to their goodwill and reputation, professionally, commercially and socially. Both Mr Feather and Demon Internet Limited have been the subject of serious expressions of concern and outrage from various of the readers of your newspaper. The damage that you have done to our clients cannot, of course, be undone but it can be mitigated. We require that you mitigate the serious damage that has been done to our clients by publishing the enclosed letter from Mr A W Mudd, Chairman of Demon Internet Limited. You were well aware, when you decided to publish the false article in question, of the damage that would be caused to our clients which is already very considerable and which will form the basis of a claim for special damages. It is open to you to mitigate that substantial loss at the earliest possible time by publishing a full retraction and apology in this coming Sunday's edition of your newspaper. We shall, within the next week or so, issue a Writ and deliver a Statement of Claim. In the meantime, we reserve all our clients' rights in the matter and nothing contained in this letter or in the enclosed letter from Mr Mudd shall be regarded as a diminution or waiver of those rights. Yours faithfully, JEFFREY GREEN RUSSELL --------------------------------------------------------------------- Demon Internet Limited Gateway House 322 Regents Park Road London N3 2QQ 0181 371 1000 Our ref : AWM/SC/28-08 The Editor The Observer Newspaper Guardian Newspapers Limited 119 Farringdon Road London EC1R 3ER 30 August 1996 Dear Sir THE PEDLARS OF CHILD ABUSE Banner headline: Front page and Page 19 : Sunday 25th August 1996 I refer to your articles on the front page and page 19 of last Sundayís paper. I regard these as highly defamatory as well as a poor piece of journalism that sensationalises a serious issue and clouds fact with emotion. I am appalled and outraged that The Observer has printed such a misleading, abusive and inaccurate article - giving the impression to readers that Clive Feather and Demon Internet are the "Pedlars of child abuse". This libellous reporting, littered with malicious lies not only defames the good character and reputation of a valued employee, but also destroys the genuine efforts Demon Internet has been making in conjunction with the police and the DTI to deal effectively with the problem. The articles clearly aimed at sensationalism at any cost with the intention of misleading readers by stating that our employee is an "Internet abuser" immediately after using the word "paedophiles". As the UK's largest provider of Internet access, Demon has taken the lead in discussions with all relevant parties and is in the process of announcing restrictions to illegal material and processes to classify content, enabling users to monitor and report on what is viewed. Demon Internet is also the first European Internet Service Provider to deliver Microsoft's new browser software, 'Internet Explorer' which incorporates a classifications standard. Demon Internet has been taking action to ensure that the Internet in the UK has informed and appropriate legislation guarding the interests of users. This report not only confuses an extremely complex and sensitive issue but also smears the integrity of an honourable, family man. Demon Internet is committed to eliminating this scourge from this new and rapidly expanding market. The Internet is bringing great benefit to millions of users not least your own journalists. For you to pick on one aspect in total isolation and present it in such a lurid fashion, does not help the DTI, the police or ourselves who are genuinely striving to solve the issues. Would you please publish this letter in your edition of 1st September. Your unreserved apology and full retraction, to be given as great prominence as your original articles, would also be greatly appreciated Yours faithfully, A W Mudd Chairman -- Malcolm S. Muir Demon Internet Ltd. Sunderland 322 Regents Park Road England London N3 2QQ

1 0