December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Libel/slander & crypto relevancy
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, I have received several private emails inquiring into what possible crypto relevance the recent exchange over libel/slander and the law. It is clear that even in democratic countries like Canada (not know as a freedom of speech protectorate) slander/libel is covered under criminal codes. While it is true that currently these statutes are not heavily used, if at all, this will change as businesses and special interest groups move even further onto electronic networks. Consider the zealous use of the law by the CoS. Ask Julf if the ramifications are not 'real world'. Consider a trial where a person is purported to have altered a transmission by some party. It is not in the juries best interest to rule in the favor of anyone other than the person claiming the damage. Why you might ask? Simply because they are going to see themselves in that same situation and will want to know that they are protected both in spirit as well as actuality. What company will want to use an environment where their contracts and other exchanges can not only be viewed by unknown third parties but are subject to a man in the middle attack, potentialy ruining a company. Consider the ramifications in a political venue. Now some will quickly point out that they can encrypt the entire document, hardly suitable for web pages and other forms of advertisment. I predict that within the next five years these slander/libel laws will be used by some organization to prosecute defamation of their Internet presence (eg web page graffitti). Within 10 years this area will be one of the hotest areas of the new communications law. Now some have held that list operators and such will be protected, most probably not in reality. Consider, we live in a time where a person can get drunk and kill somebody with their automobile and the bar or store they bought the drink(s) from can be charged. There is a current trend in the legal industry to find the person that is easiest to prosecute in the chain of events and it has nothing to do with personal responsibility or other quaint but possibly naive views. I want to thank Toto for acting as the unknowing and unwilling dupe in my taking advantage of his emotional outburst and its results, it wasn't personal I was simply trying to create a suitable environment to make my point. It was a happenstance occurance I could not resist taking advantage of. It is clear that here we have a lawyer in Canada who is not even aware that there is a little used criminal statute in the country he practices in which could be used by citizens sufficiently motivated and having suitable quantities of cash at hand to pursue the matter. This is not a unique occurance by any means, consider the outburst from some list members, supposed legal experts, over some of the references that I forwarded (not what I would call a consistent understanding of the law by any stretch of the imagination). The reality is that the legal industry (after all the main motivation for the legal profession is money) has a serious lacking in trained individuals. This should be a warning sign to everyone in any society which has hopes of embracing communications technology. Lawyers don't make law, they survive by taking their views of the law and convincing juries of from 6 to 12 (YMMV) persons that this is the way to protect 'society' and its best interests. If they don't understand the technology (eg forwarding private email to publicly accessible lists by accident) how in the world are they going to understand what is best, let along convince anyone else? Is this the kind of self-interest you want to trust your criminal communications case, let alone your liberty, to? It has been proposed by at least one party that a district attorney or other public prosecutor would not act on such events. This is also naive. The ramifications for their political opponents to use this 'insensitive and clearly self-interested' refusal to act as a perfect example of how that prosecutor is interested in their own political career and not in the interest of the people they are charged with protecting as well as a good demonstration of their technological ignorance. It would be very difficult to get re-elected in such an environment. Now the crypto relevancy, one of the methods to help reduce if not completely abort such attempts is digital signatures. Recently a couple of co-workers for Tivoli-IBM went to the Usenix conference and while there did some key signings. However, after discussion upon their return it was clear that having had their keys signed and signing others there was no clearly useful way to apply those keys in commen communications. Last year the Austin Cypherpunks did a short term experiment with a system (kourier.ssz.com) which was involved in encrypted file systems, encrypted transfers, traffic analysis, and heterogenous key-ring management. This also made it clear that the legal ramifications, economic issues (eg who pays) as well as the technical hurdles have not been studied sufficiently to call this technology mature. All that I ask is that instead of jumping the gun and saying 'it ain't so' you simply consider the ramifications from 'their' perspective. It truly is amazing what one can learn by walking a mile in another mans shoes. For if there is one truth to be learned it is that this discussion is not about how it is, but rather how it will be and how it should be. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

public_law_other_650.html
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[ISMAP] [INLINE] Libel and Slander Tape #650 _________________________________________________________________ On this tape I will discuss libel and slander. It is for your general information only. It is not legal advice. It will give a general outline of the law on the subject as it applies in Ontario. If you have a legal problem, you should talk to a lawyer. We all have the right to have our reputation protected against false statements made against us. This protection is given to us by the law of defamation. On this tape I'll talk about defamation in both its forms - libel and slander. Libel can be a crime, but this section of the Criminal Code is rarely used, so I'll talk about libel and slander only in their civil context - the person defamed suing the defamer; asking for money as compensation for the injury to his reputation. Generally speaking, a defamatory statement is one which tends to lower a person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society. For example, if someone calls you a cheat in your business dealings, you probably have a lawsuit against him. That is, you do if he says it to someone other than you. It's not enough that the statement be made to the person it's about. It has to be communicated to another. What's the difference between libel and slander? Broadly speaking, if the defamatory statement is made in some permanent form, such as a newspaper or a letter, then it's libel. If it's in a transitory form, such as a hand gesture or the spoken word, then it's slander. But a defamatory statement that's broadcast on radio or television will be libel, not slander, even though it's spoken and not written. In the past, there was a good reason to know the difference between libel and slander. Today, if you can prove that you have been libelled, and there is no good defence, then the law will presume you have suffered damages and will fix an amount as compensation for your loss of reputation. In other words, you do not have to prove damages for actual financial loss. For many years, in cases of slander, you had to prove actual financial loss before you would be awarded damages under the law. In part, this was because slanderous statements were not considered permanent and therefore would not have as great an impact as libellous words, gestures or portrayals. Today, under the Ontario Libel and Slander Act, the requirement to prove damages in slander cases has been removed in certain situations. Mainly, these include cases where words are chosen to call into question the reputation of a person in relation to that persons office, profession, calling, trade or business. Therefore, if you could prove that Bill told John you were a cheat and then John refused to enter into a contract with you because of the statement, you would be compensated for the loss of contract and reputation. You would have to prove it was Bill's intention to attack your business reputation, but otherwise, damages would be awarded outright. Unfortunately, the Ontario Libel and Slander Act does not remove completely the requirement to prove damage, in all slander cases. Therefore, it is important to discuss your case with a lawyer to determine how yours would be treated under the law. We said earlier that the law protects a person's reputation. But obviously this protection can have the effect of restricting other rights, such as free speech. So the law tries to balance these competing interests. In certain circumstances, even though a defamatory statement may have been made and a person may have suffered injury to reputation, other interests are considered more important. In those cases, the law provides certain defences that can protect a defamer from liability. The most common defences are: truth (known in law as "justification"); absolute privilege; qualified privilege; and fair comment. The first is the easiest. A statement might well lower your reputation, but if it is the truth then anyone is free to say it. Additionally, if you consent to the statement being made, you cannot later argue you have been defamed. The second defence - that of absolute privilege - covers statements given in evidence at a trial, or made in Parliament, to give the two prime examples. And it extends to the fair and accurate reporting of those statements - the newspaper report of a trial, for instance. Our systems of justice and parliamentary democracy demand that in those situations participants must be free to speak candidly, without having to worry about risking a lawsuit for defamation. The defence of qualified privilege covers other situations. For instance - say a former employee of yours has given your name as a reference, so you get a call from someone who wants to hire him. He asks your opinion. You say: "Well, frankly, I always suspected he was stealing from me." That's an occasion of qualified privilege . You had a moral duty to give your honest opinion and the caller had a legitimate interest in hearing it. As long as you acted in good faith and said what you honestly believed you would have a valid defence to an action for defamation. Finally, there's the defence of fair comment. We are all free to comment freely - even harshly - on matters of legitimate public interest as long as our comments are made honestly, not maliciously, and are based on true facts. For example, say a columnist writes that an MP secretly holds shares in a company which has just got a large government contract. Then he comments that the MP is deceitful and should resign his seat. Well, if in fact the MP owns no shares in the company, then the columnist may be open to a lawsuit. But if the facts are true, that is the MP does own the shares, and the columnist honestly believes bases on those facts that the MP is deceitful and should resign, then he will have the defence of fair comment. If you intend to sue for a libel in a newspaper or a broadcast you must give notice to all those you intend to sue within six weeks of learning of the publication or broadcast, and you must specify in your notice the nature of your complaint, with specific reference to the actual words of which you complained. As well, you must commence your action within three months of learning of the publication or the broadcast. Failure to conform with either of these two steps will deprive you of any right to sue. In cases not involving newspapers or broadcasts, you must commence your action against the defaming party within 2 years of the words being spoken or written. Finally, there's the matter of apology. When a libel has been published in a newspaper or other periodical, or in a radio or television broadcast, the publisher or broadcaster can limit the amount of the damages the broadcaster may end up paying by publishing or broadcasting a full apology at the earliest opportunity. Not only newspapers and broadcasters can limit their damages by offering an apology before the action begins. Any defaming party can offer an apology in the hopes of having their damages reduced. The law of defamation protects your right to your good name. If a person makes a false statement to another to your discredit you can sue for damages. But because of other competing rights in our society, such as free speech and fair comment, there are cases where even the most defamatory statement will not give rise to an award of damages. If you think you have been defamed, you should talk to a lawyer. Home Search Feedback What's New Copyright & Disclaimer About This Site

1 0

Re: S/KEY (was: 2 Questions)
by Steven M Orrin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thanks to Bill and Peter for your help. Steveo

1 0

Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Kevin L Prigge wrote: >. The purpose of this list was > and should be discussion of cryptography and related issues. Your view seems to be contradictory to that of Sandy. Sandy has stated that s/he does not censor the list according to crypto- relevancy. Toto

1 0

RE: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:04 PM 1/27/97 -0800, Sandy Sandfort wrote: ... >Eric, would like to require a deposit ($20 was the example he >gave) from subscriber/posters. Non-subscribers would not be >allowed to post. Subscribers who voluntarily left the list, >would get their deposit back. Subscribers who flamed twice >(every dog gets one bite) would be kicked off the list and their >deposit would be forfeited (or perhaps turned over to the flame >victim). I know that this wasn't your idea, and am not critisizing you. This idea would be great if everyone had an equal access to funds. Persons willing to part with funds could flame people indiscriminately. Persons with more money, meaning no bills or very few in relation to capitol, would be more willing to part with funds. Suddendly, the rich control the press again, at least to the extent that they would be able to say anything. The rich would be more equal. The plan could be hacked. With several accounts, perhaps stolen, forged, etc. a person submits the $20, flames h[is/er] victim, unsubscribes, collects h[is/er] deposit, resubscribes under a new name, and repeats the cycle. Plus, as has been said before, the definition of a flame is subjective. It has been shown that children with more symettrical faces get along better with teachers. It has been shown that even uncorrupted babies know what physical beauty is. If there is any ability to pre-judge a persons character before reading the post, than the post is more likely to be judged accordingly. I hope that you will be fair in your determinations, and I assume that you will do your best. But I still worry, only because that you are human. And humans make mistakes. At least the current moderation doesn't cost any one twenty bucks.

1 0

Re: OTP security
by Rick Osborne 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Paul replied: >Depends on how that 16th bit is related to the other bits and whether >these predictable bits give any information about the other bits on >the disk. Yes, I had figured that if the bits depended on eachother, then it would blow the whole system. [Yet another case of my fingers lagging behind my brain.] What I was thinking was more along the lines of something like: 1.You've got 16 hardware devices that each generate random noise. 2.One of the devices fails (or is sabotaged) and emits a predictable stream (10101...) 3.The other 15 devices are just fine, and the stream generated by one device does not effect the stream of another. 4.You do not know of the (failure/sabotage) until *after* you've generated your encyrted documents and they are out of your hands. So the revamped question is: How secure are those documents now? _________ o s b o r n e @ g a t e w a y . g r u m m a n . c o m _________ Good evening... as a duly appointed representative of the city, county and state of New York, I order you to cease any and all supernatural activity and return forthwith to your place or origin, or to the nearest convenient parallel dimension.

1 0

Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list (fwd)
by Daniel Harter 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Sun, 26 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote: > Actually, it is a certifiable fact that the list subscribers can > jump to the unmoderated list whenever they want to. It is also a > certifiable fact that they (97% or so) have *not* done so. Has anyone compiled a summary of the difference of volume of posts to the lists? I'd be interested to find out. > Because of these facts, I must conclude that either: > > 1. The subscribers have spoken by staying put, or, > 2. The subscribers are so lazy and unaware of what's going on that > they've just left things as is. > > Now, in my opinion, we've come to this: Some people here will hold > the optimistic view of the bulk of the subscribers, and others will > hold the pessimistic view (the bulk will presumably be in-between). I just started subscribing to the list near the time it started, so I have not noticed a difference. If the unmoderated list is not much more (~10%) I think I'd prefer the unmoderated list. Regards, Dan Harter dharter(a)harter.pg.md.us

1 0

<<Vitamin B>>(January 27, 1997) Affirmative Anonymity
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text To: DAILY DOSE <DAILY_DOSE(a)smtpgw.worldcom.com> From: VitaminB <VitaminB(a)maxager.com> Date: 27 Jan 97 15:44:12 Subject: <<Vitamin B>>(January 27, 1997) Affirmative Anonymity Mime-Version: 1.0 Vitamin B: Your Daily Dose of Bionomics January 27, 1997 Affirmative Anonymity In response to the January 24th Vitamin B ("Anonymity and Reputation"), Greg Waddell, Policy Coordinator for U.S. Senator Connie Mack (R-FL) and 1996 Bionomics Conference Speaker, made the following comments, which we'd like to share. "There are aspects of the anonymity paradigm that relate to a whole host of social issues that Machine Age liberals usually seek to remedy with strong and heavy hand of government. Namely, these are issues of discrimination by race, gender, disability, etc. etc. After the Joint Economic Committee's hearing on the 21st Century Economy, held in summer of 1995, I suddenly realized (better late than never!) that communicating via computer over the Internet forces each of us to deal with others without regard to physical attributes. Neither color, race, gender, disability, religion, nationality, nor any "class" markers are apparent over the Net. The Information Age economy, if left to evolve freely, could bring us closer to our American ideals of equality for all than any law, affirmative action program, diversity training, or anything else. I think that is the most compelling aspect of what we identify as the anonymity of the Net." --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "The cost of anything is the foregone alternative" -- Walter Johnson The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ "If *you* don't go to FC97, *I* don't go to FC97"

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor
by Phillip M. Hallam-Baker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> wrote in article <5ch8v4$co9(a)life.ai.mit.edu>... > blanc wrote: > > From: Dr.Dimitri Vulis > > However U.S.G. is able to say that people of Iraq or Lybia or Cuba should > > not be permitted on the 'net. It also bombs Iraq and murders their > > civilians > > in retaliation for something their governments supposedly did. > > > The U.S.G. has many more resources than most of us to do these things, > > including equipment, cooperative troops, money, and recognition from other > > governments. If other nations disagree with the U.S.G. they have the > > resources to discuss, bargain, negotiate, criticize, form alliances, take > > their chances and retaliate, etc. > > I wish this were true, at least of nations which would be friendly > to someone like me (white, Western, etc.). A bully on a school > playground can always be knocked down, no matter how big or how > vicious he is. Sadly, the U.S. bully cannot be knocked down. Bad > enough you get nuclear, chemical, and/or biological stuff waved at > you - if you get into a hot war like Desert Storm, your country is > carpet-bombed with fleets of B-52's until it is thoroughly debilitated. Actually the US is being remarkably ineffective in keeping Cuba etc off the Net. If you don't believe me just try the cuban home page. We had a Web server running in Sarajevo during the siege back in '93. There is no way that the US govt. can hope to control the Internet any more than it can control the phone system. What is astonishing is that the Cuban authorities are so keen to import a technology that breaks down their propaganda. The Cold War was not won by the arms race, it was won in Eastern Europe which was never a major participant. The main instrument that won it was West German TV which broadcast pictures of supermarkets with full shelves into the homes of East Germans every night. The viewers could see that it was not mere propaganda and their relatives confirmed the fact. As a result the East German guards on the Berlin wall simply decided to leave their posts one night. The East Germans couldn't stop the TV signals either. When Dresden started to become a ghost town because people wanted to move to a town which could recieve the broadcasts the East Germans ended up installing their own relay to keep the locals happy. Phill

1 0

Infinite Improbability Drive?
by Robert Rothenburg 'Walking-Owl' 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Am I reading this correctly, or will the 'infinite improbability drive' be invented real soon now? (An odd coincidence after the Tesla thread too...) --Rob > Edupage, 26 January 1997. Edupage, a summary of news about information > technology, is provided three times a week as a service by Educom, > a Washington, D.C.-based consortium of leading colleges and universities > seeking to transform education through the use of information technology. [..] > COMPUTER IN A COFFEE CUP > While a conventional computer stores its bits of information by assuming one > of two possible states (a 1 or a 0), a quantum computer theoretically could > store much more information by using all the potential states of anatom. > Scientists are now proposing a new way to harness the power of quantum > computing, using nuclear magnetic resonance devices to control the movement > of millions of atoms within an evenly heated volume of material. By > coordinating the nuclear spin of the particles, physicists could make them > act collectively as qubits (quantum bits). A liquid with the rightthermal > properties (such as coffee, which is known for its unusually evenheating > characteristics) could hold up to 10 qubits, but scientists are still > looking for ways to create a liquid computer that could hold up to 40 qubits > -- perhaps out of "a really expensive cup of structured coffee," says a > University of California, Santa Barbara researcher. (Science News 18 Jan 97 > p37)

1 0