December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Black Unicorn exposed?
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sarah v. Bernhardt will be thrillingly laid bare in Beantown. Swiss cheese, she flashed, foxily fluttering the lie-machine. That "no cameras, please" is spooky-spooky tease, no dirty-looky pix of the Wonder Bare *ookie. Pseudo-Actors for hire. Harvard-bred, breeding lot of the B&B beaners. Dirty laundrying of tropical hula-moola, you betcha your rubber check, get there early, to admire the hall sweepers. Keep your eye peeled for the one-eyed one-horn in overalls using infra-red.

1 0

Re: Who owns cypherpunks [RANT] (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Jim Ray wrote: > > > I'm sure John's quaking in his boots. Reread my campground analogy, and try > > to refute it. You can't. Go start your own list with no moderation. Go start > > a more moderated list than John's, like Perry's will be. Do whatever, but > > this moronic thread must end! I run several lists and have for quite a few years. In that time I have never censored any member. I have had similar instances as to Vulis and my responce has been and will continue to be. "This is your problem, I have no authority to prohibit membership or submissions of members of the list. If you wish to not see such submissions from some party then it is your responsibility to deal with it. In short, either unsubscribe or filter." > Ironic, isn't it? Jim says "this moronic thread *must* end", and yet, this very list > that is John's *private* property is filling up with rants about censorship. Tsk tsk. I never said any such thing. Please quit attributing comments to me which are untrue. > Maybe next time they'll make it more apparent at subscription time that there's no > assurance of free speech here! The fact that it is 'private property' is irrelevant to this issue. Most 'presses' are private property. Trying to change the subject won't work. As to making it clear at subscription time what the actual operating rules are is my EXACT point. In fact you are agreeing with my position. At the current time there are no indications at log on that this list is considered private property, that the operator reserves the right to edit or refuse submissions, etc. which is what makes it a 'public' list and what makes him legaly liable for the cencorship he has enacted without warning. I have been on this list for several years and at no point in that time have I agreed to anything which gives the operator of the list my permission to modify or refuse my original submissions. If he or a third party wishes to refer to them in part or in toto in their own submissions is fine. That is the whole point of the list. Jim Choate

1 0

Re: New Linux-IPSEC mailing list for the S/WAN project
by stewarts＠ix.netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:29 AM 11/9/96 -0800, John Gilmore <gnu(a)toad.com> wrote: >I'm sending you this message because you might be interested in >helping to build or test or document, or teach about, my S/WAN project >to secure 5% of the net by Christmas. > >There is now a public mailing list which you can join to find out >what's happening in the project, get the latest software for testing, >ask questions, etc. To join the list, send mail to: > linux-ipsec-REQUEST(a)clinet.fi >The email should contain a single line that just says: > subscribe Actually, it needs to say subscribe linux-ipsec # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk

3 2

Re: FW: Dr. Vulis is not on cypherpunks any more [RANT] (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: "networks(a)vir.com" <networks(a)vir.com> > Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 15:15:38 -0500 > > It seems that, like a bookstore, the cypherpunks mailing list has the > right to choose the content it distributes and who it distributes the content > to. Actualy bookstores distribute the books they are under contract to distribute via the publishers they have contracts with. An easy way to tell if a bookstore is a reasonable distributor and one with some level of ethics is to ask if they participate in the yearly banned books week. If they don't I would suggest you go elsewhere. Businesses in general are not allowed to prohibit patrons based on their belief, speech, or action unless it can be shown to pose some threat to the operation of the business or they post said policy in a public place where patrons can see it. An example may be in order. Here in Austin, TX. we have a problem with bums and kids who are homeless. They urinate on the walls and commit various other acts that are not acceptable to the community at large. In order to do anything about these people on public property the city HAD to pass two laws. These two laws are that it is now unlawful to camp overnite on public property. In effect you cannot reside on public property in Austin, TX between midnite and 6am. The other law was that it is now a crime in Austin, TX to emit a 'objectionable odor in public'. Strictly interpreted if you are in a city park at 12:01AM or before 6:00AM you can be arrested. Also, if you were to emit a fart outside your personal property you can be arrested. (Note that these laws have not resolved the indigent problems we have here) In short without this law (ie contract) it was not possible for the city or private businesses to do anything about this. > Bookstores are free to select what titles they offer for sale, and can > even refuse to sell a book to a particularly annoying customer if they > so choose (my legal knowledge is lacking, but I think this is correct). Irrelevant. The point is that bookstores are not legaly responsible for the contents of those books except in very special cases. The distributors or publishers are responsible. This list qualifies as a publisher so long as it retains editorial control of content of submissions prior to distribution. If they have no editorial control then they are in the situation of a bookstore which is protected from legal action on the contents of the books they carry except under special conditions. The action taken by the list operator explicity acts as an example of that editorial control. > To extend the analogy, what has happened in this particular case > is that Dr. Vulis is now forced to buy all his books by mail order :) What has happened here is that a member of a community has been expunged based on their beliefs. Not on any particular action they took which posed any sort of threat to that community. Jim Choate

1 0

exclusion/censorship and the law (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: Greg Broiles <gbroiles(a)netbox.com> > Subject: exclusion/censorship and the law > > never faced any extended scrutiny because the parties settled. Also, > Prodigy, the defendant in Stratton Oakmont, exercised much greater > editorial control over postings on that service, and had the ability to > remove postings, which is something John Gilmore can't do. He certainly can, this list runs under Majordomo which allows exactly this kind of control if desired. I use it on my own lists and am quite familiar with its operation. It is completely feasible for the operator to look at EVERY submission prior to re-distribution and set the time stamp in such a manner that there would be no evidence it ever occured. > So my impression is that you've got the tail end of a useful concept > (ability to control is frequently a factor used to determine liability) but > are making far too much out of it. One really big difference I see here is > that editorial control of the Cpunks list has occurred once (in 4? 5? years > of the list's existence), is on a per-person not a per-message basis, and > *does not function to restrict who can send messages but only limits Vulis' > ability to _receive_ them on his usual system(s)*. How often it occurs is irrelevant, this is like saying one rape is not a crime but two is. Utter hogwash. Vulis was removed from the list, this means he can't SUBMIT posts. This is censorship. The act was based on the content or personality of Vulis' submissions. It was not based on a limitation of the software, the Internet feed to the list, or the ability of the hardware to handle more traffic. In short it was an emotionaly based action. > You might take a look at Mike Godwin's article on net defamation at > <http://www.eff.org/pub/Legal/net_libel_godwin.article>; by now it's a > little old, but I don't think anything's happened since which would change > its reasoning. I have read it. I live in Austin, TX. and am quite familiar with the whole Steve Jackson event (I was involved in it peripheraly) as well as how it started EFF. I am currently peripheraly involved with the Austin EFF chapter through the Austin Cypherpunks mailing list (which I host). My first exposure to PGP was v1.0 from Adelante BBS, and I had been using and playing vith various crypto related programs for quite few years prior to that. > The problem with absolute statements like this is that they ignore > important distinctions about scale - e.g., I think that it's very important > that people, generally, be free to discuss whatever they want in private > homes. But I also think it's very important that I be able to tell other > people that they're not willing to discuss whatever they want in *my* home. An action is right or wrong, irrespective of scale. If one person does it doesn't make it any more wrong than if hundreds or millions do it. Right and wrong are NOT scalable. But this is not a private list. It has no warning about policies at subscription time. It has been advertised for years as a open forum for the discussion of crypto and speech related issues in clearly public venues. I run a couple of 'private' lists. It is not possible for you or any other party to become involved without agreeing before the fact to certain editorial policies. This does not occur here. Where the 'press' is located is irrelevant to this discussion. The point which seems to be missed is that it takes in a single submission and then distributes multiple copies (without editing) to ANYONE who wishes to subscribe. In point of fact, the various articles in Mondo 2000 (back when the list first started) and those since can be clearly interpreted as an invitation to join the list via clearly publicly distributed medium. In effect it would be like declaring your home an 'Open House' via the local newspaper. > Not because I'm especially excited about censorship, but because I enjoy my > privacy and my peace & quiet. So on the level of national rights, yes, > unrestricted speech is an excellent thing. But on the level of my living > room, unrestricted speech is a very bad thing. Then don't invite people to your house via magazines, newspapers, or Intenet. Unrestricted speech is a good thing. Speech without personal responsibility for the consequences is a bad thing. There were no consequences to Vulis' speech other than the emotional impact it apparently had on the list operator. Personaly, I use the same standards of speech that I apply to the public at large as I do to that small sector I explicity invite into my home. I don't have a double standard in this regards. > I don't think anyone who is arguing that it's fine to throw Vulis off the > list would make the argument that it would be acceptable for the government > to throw Vulis off of the Internet. Who does the throwing is irrelevant. The point is that a policy of 'hands-off' was enacted over the years and it was changed with no warning or opportunity for other list members to become involved. This list is a community, it is not some individuals private property. In no way can you successfuly argue that my email address in the subscription list qualifies me in any way as 'property' of the list operator nor does it imply any agreement on my part to allow that party editorial control of my submission under the previous submission limitations (ie none). Another aspect is that the credibility of this list as an open forum for the discussion of crypto and speech related issues has been tarnished if not downright lost. As to the anarchy aspect, that has forever been lost. > The closest thing I can see to a First Amendment argument against Gilmore > is the "company town" argument, that the list is so much like a city or > town that it ought to be subject to the restrictions that the First > Amendment puts on municipalities and traditional public forums - but even > this (rather far-out) argument got shot down a few days ago when our > beloved Wallace of CyberPromo tried it in _Cyber Promotions v. America > Online_. The judge said "no way", and I think that argument's a lot more > plausible against American Online than against John Gilmore. It has nothing really to do with the First. It does have to do with the agreed upon contract between the operator of the list and its subscribers. By enacting this policy of censorship the original 'contract' (ie none) has been broken and a new contract put in place. Had everyone received a warning and then been unsubscribed and at the time of re-subscription a clearly worded explanation of new policy been made available I would have no problem. I do have a problem with arbitrary reprisals against individuals based upon their submission content. There but by the grace of God go I (or you). As a matter of fact, the issues raised in both the CompuServe and Prodigy cases did NOT revolve around the First but rather who held editorial control. This is EXACTLY the issue here. My previous referal to ;login is a pointer to a discussion of these two cases explicitly. > I don't think this makes any sense. "Public list" has no special meaning. public list = unmoderated and open to anyone > My impression is that you're trying to make an analogy to public places > which are privately owned like motels and lunch counters and amusement > parks, where the owners (despite being private actors) cannot discriminate > on the basis of race, gender, national origin, etc. (See, e.g., Civil > Rights Act of 1964, 42 USC 1981 et seq) Not at all. A 'public' list is a list which has no editorial policy and is open to any party for membership. It in effect has no qualification criteria. > But I don't think there's any especially credible allegation that Vulis was > discriminated against on the basis of protected class membership; nor is it > clear that the Civil Rights Act can be extended to the operation of mailing > lists. Can it be extended to my operation of a paper printing press in my garage through which I distribute pamphlets or flyers to any party which requests them by sending me their address? If so then it applies here. > If there's no prohibited discrimination (either because there's no > prohibition, or there was no "discrimination" within the terms of the > statute) then I don't see a cause of action. Wanting something you're not > getting isn't enough. Owners of "public places" like malls or stores or > restaurants are still free to exclude some people for non-prohibited > reasons (like not meeting the dress code, or having behaved poorly in the > past). But to do this they MUST post or publish those codes in a place where a patron can clearly see them. This was not done here. > I am pretty disappointed to see that none of the people who profess to be > shocked and wounded at Vulis' exclusion have bothered to set up your own > lists. In my mind, whatever moral outrage you claim to have looks awfully > small compared to the relatively small burden of doing something about what > you say is bothering you. I run several lists including two that are crypto related (Austin Cypherpunks and Advanced Computer Experimenters). > I think that "cypherpunks write code" can/should be understood as a > question, e.g., "what are you doing to change the things that bother you?" Among other things I am bitching about the arbitrary and unfair way this list is being run considering the environment it was supposed to foster. Jim Choate

2 1

Pyramid Schemes
by Benjamin Grosman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear Sir, Aren't these Pyramid Schemes Illegal? Yours Sincerely, Benjamin Grosman

5 5

Re: [rant] Re: Censorship on cypherpunks (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 20:42:46 -0500 (EST) > From: "Mark M." <markm(a)voicenet.com> > > This is why contracts are important. There is no contract, implied or > otherwise, to which John Gilmore is bound that forces him to protect everyone's > "right" to be subscribed to cpunks and post whatever they want to the list. The lack of an explicit contract detailing this is what makes it impossible for the operator of the list to enforce such actions. When I subscribed I gave the operator no permission to edit or otherwise control my submissions. I also gave no permission for such submissions to be considered property by any party other than myself. It is not possible to argue that my subscription implied such permission. When I subscribed to the cpunks list it was with the explicit intent of seeing a multiplicity of views, not those views which happen to be acceptable to the list operator. The fact that he chooses to host the list by paying its bills is irrelevant. If the operator wants to protect themselves legaly as well as ethicaly they should put a notice at time of subscription detailing exactly what editorial policies are active as well as sending a policy notification to all currently subscribed members. Jim Choate ps I never saw the post about the camp ground example. If the author would please forward me a copy I would be happy to critique it.

1 0

Re: A Disservice to Mr. Bell
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:18 PM 11/8/96 -0800, Peter Hendrickson wrote: >At 1:32 PM 11/8/1996, jim bell wrote: >>At 09:12 PM 11/7/96 -0800, Peter Hendrickson wrote: >>> ...His conviction was not reversed until 1983 in the court of one >>> Judge Patel... > >> However, the fact that it took 40 years to reverse (and didn't, presumably, >> reverse the convictions of others, and didn't compensate people for lost >> property) is yet another reason to take a few pieces out of the hide of the >> SC, as well as a few pounds of flesh nearest the heart. > >Many of us are guilty of a grave disservice to Mr. Bell. I'm sure >that just about every reader of this list can only cringe when >messages such as the one above cross our screens. ("He can't be >a paid provocateur - it would be too obvious!") > >Not only is Mr. Bell apparently calling for the murder of a judge, he >is apparently calling for the murder of every justice on the Supreme >Court of the United States! I'm glad to see that you seem to be catching on. (although you made the minor error of referring to the current roster of the SC, as opposed to the 1943 makeup. But that's a minor point; the 1996 group have their own set of offenses...) In any case, it's really very simple: Kidnapping used to be a capital offense in the US. What the US Government did to the Japanese Americans during WWII was, quite simply, kidnapping. Or, at least, it would have been called kidnapping if it had been done by non-governmental entities. True, it was done "under color of law," but ultimately it amounted to the same thing. Lawyers, who have brought hypocrisy and double-standards to a high art form, are taught to accept this. And they are also taught to fight (at least a bit) for their clients rights. But ultimately, they are taught to accept the decision of a court even if it's wrong. Sure, they may have appeal rights and will occasionally exercise them, but there's no court past the SC. It turns out, of course, that since we now all (?) accept the idea that those SC decisions were simply wrong, it isn't possible to use the "they said it was okay" excuse. The most of the relocations occurred before the decisions, which means the governmental actions were done without them. And I consider a temporary (even a 40-year) approval by a group of nine clowns to be no more definitive than a fresh conviction that hasn't yet been through its first appeal. Please note that if it were 1943 and somebody called for the death penalty for the perp of a kidnapping case, he'd probably be called a fine upstanding citizen. (Interestingly enough, one of the cornerstone objections a lawyer (or judge) might have to my "playing hardball" on this subject is their belief that judges should be immune from prosecution for their decisions. The strange part, however, is that judicial immunity seems to be an entirely fabricated concept: It appears nowhere in the US Constitution, for example.) However, it turns out that there is a solution to this problem, the recent re-emergence of the "Common-law courts." A truly fascinating subject. Having competed (with varying levels of disrespect on both sides) with so-called "Equity courts" in England since well before the 17th century, they frequently represented a bulwark against the misuse of royal authority. Competing court systems might be considered somewhat analogous to competing companies in the private sector: Monopolies breed abuse; competition results in better service. There is no reason to believe that this effect would be any less applicable in courts than other markets. They might merely be a historical curiousity in America, except that the American Revolution had the predictable effect (supported by US court decision, apparently) that as a consequence of George III's loss and our win, all powers previously vested in the King were returned to the American people. Some, but by no means all of them were delegated to the Federal government, as the 9th and 10th amendments show. The really interesting part is that the authority to form common-law courts was never delegated to the Federal government, and (perhaps not surprisingly, considering recent governmental abuses) a number of groups around the country have decided to form their own such commonlaw courts. To American ears this will probably sound a bit like "taking the law into your own hands," but those courts are quite real and I predict they will become a substantially more powerful force in the next few years. Since selection of judges is part of the powers originally owned by George III and lost by him, this means that ordinary people have the power to run those courts and staff them, as odd as this will feel to those of us who were brought up on Perry Mason et al. Naturally, you can expect numerous lawyers and judges (all who consider themselves part of the competing "equity court" system, BTW) to cry foul. The effect is somewhat akin to a child who initially shares a communal sandbox with a neighbor kid, who subsequently moves away and is replaced by a childless couple. After a few years of de-facto sole ownership, the feelings of monopoly ownership are quite real, even if in reality sharing must once again happen due to the arrival of new neighbors. Interestingly enough, the one thing the Commonlaw court system needs is an effective enforcement system. One likely method is the commercial lien process, but even that tends to be resisted by people who are far more used to dealing with equity court personnel. It turns out that my AP system seems to mesh almost perfectly with their needs, although obviously in practice it would only be used as a "last resort." Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: Black Unicorn exposed?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:45 AM 11/9/96 -0800, Peter Hendrickson wrote: >At 11:00 AM 11/9/1996, Robert Hettinga wrote: >> S. L. vonBernhardt, <mailto:unicorn@schloss.li>,... > >We are hardly operating in a hostile environment. Yet, somebody >who has apparently gone to some effort to have an anonymous >identity has been exposed. The implications of this are worth >considering. It seems obvious that this exposure was entirely intentional by him. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Pseudo-law on the list and libel (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 10:10:19 -0800 > From: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay(a)got.net> > > So, if a bookstore ejects a drunken lout who is disturbing the other > patrons, is the bookstore suddenly reclassfied as a book publisher? By your > logic, you seem to think so. Not at all. The drunk is not being ejected on the content of their expression (beliefs). Vulis posed no physical or economic danger to anyone, the operator simply could take no more of his POV. This is distinctly different than the example you are trying to equate. In short, another straw man. > So, if I have a party at my house and limit who I invite, or eject someone > who is misbehaving (insulting my other guests, barfing on the floor, > smoking when I tell him not to, whatever), you are saying that I "open > myself up for libel suits" by other guests who don't like the things they > hear from others at my party? Only if you advertise the party through a public forum as open to anyone and you are the one supplying the booze (as advertised in the ad). The operator of this list has NEVER implicity or explicity expressed any form of policy concerning who may subscribe to cpunks. > So, anyone who exercises ownership rights to his property suddenly becomes > legally responsible for the alleged misdeeds of anyone visiting his house? My subscription to this mailing list does not imply any ownership toward its operator. He owns the software and hardware, he does not own my thoughts or the fact that I use this forum to distribute them. The fact he pays the bills does not give him any right to edit or otherwise control my submissions without an explicit warning to me prior to his acceptance of my submission. > Could you cite some cases supporting your point of view? Try CompuServe and Prodigy. The logic that was used in both those cases is 1-to-1 applicable to this. For somebody who supposedly supports individual initiative, liberty, and anarchy you sure rely on precedence a lot. The whole point to crypto, Internet, and technology in general is to break the status quo not to promote it. > this outcome, strongly. However, it is far from establishing that a bar > which enforces certain rules ("no shirt, no service") and which has an > entire class of employees hired to _eject_ patrons has suddenly become > liable for slanderous comments made by customers. And so on.) Look at the recent 'Hooters' case involving women waitpersons. For a business establishment to impose 'no shirt, no shoes, no service" they MUST post such rules in a public place. This was NOT done EVER on cpunks. Again, you are trying to equate two distinctly different cases as equivalent, another straw man. Jim Choate

1 0