December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Redmond to Judge [Expletive Deleted]
by Attila T. Hun 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- http://www.wired.com/news/news/business/story/9178.html hot off the wire an hour ago! Redmond to Judge - [Expletive Deleted] well, I would expect nothing less than "Fuck You" from Micro$lop --they consider themselves above the law. give Jackson credit for realizing the greater scope of the problem, and for appointing the special master. M$' attitude in and of itself is prima facie evidence of theit market intent --including tossing out the option that OEMs will still be able to but the _original_ version of W95 if they elect not to take IE4. damn white of them boys up there... Analysis: Redmond to Judge - [Expletive Deleted] by Kaitlin Quistgaard and Dan Brekke 4:20pm 15.Dec.97.PST It took two of Microsoft's biggest guns more than 60 minutes to utter a reply to US District Court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson that most of us sum up in two hard syllables. The second of which is "you." For daring to draw a line last week and forbidding the company to cross for the time being, Jackson was treated to a marathon rebuke from Brad Chase, Microsoft's vice president of Internet marketing, and William Neukom, senior vice president for law and corporate affairs. ... Chase made it clear that neither Jackson nor anyone else would keep Microsoft from readying its planned spring release of Windows 98 - in which Internet Explorer 4.0 and the Windows desktop are inextricably bound. ... Neukom did mention one other alternative that actually merits the name, and one that government the company finds itself at war with might actually recognize as viable: Manufacturers could, he said, install a Netscape browser on their Windows/IE machines. >>> what a fuckin' joke. proves their intent to be a monopoly and fuck the public interest --it's my way, or no way! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQBVAwUBNJXd/LR8UA6T6u61AQG9bQH/fkE3TKRYOmc+y9RZTsLJYjuISYDYqB47 +G0axtsdcumv7Q09bTYOf8b3K36+ik8/RFdngce6HWXDGrrlmtbd4g== =UuqU -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: wilkenrules.html
by geeman＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This entire issue speaks to whether we neeed government or not. The power of the judiciary is part and parcel of the power of Government, and in many cases -this is an excellent example- is all that stands between The Oligarchy and Freedom. Imagine if there _were_ no government per-se, and it was the Disney, or Westinghouse, or GE, or whoever the fuck, corporate security forces taking action on their own against FRB. At 09:08 AM 12/14/97 -0600, Jim Choate wrote: > > JUDGE WILKEN DENIES FCC MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT!!! > > Press Release Follows. To Go Directly To The Full Text Of Judge Wilken's > Decision, Click Here > > > >National Lawyers Guild Committee on Democratic Communications > > 558 Capp Street, San Francisco 94110 > > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE > > > COURT REJECTS FCC'S CONSTITUTIONAL CATCH 22 > > United States District Court Judge Claudia Wilken has rejected > another attempt by the Federal Communications Commission to silence > Berkeley Micro Radio Broadcaster Stephen Dunifer, founder of Free > Radio Berkeley. > > In a 13 page opinion released on November 12, 1997, Judge Wilken > once again rejected the government's motion for an injunction to > silence micro radio broadcasts by local radio pioneer Stephen > Dunifer. > > In 1995, Judge Wilken rejected the government's first motion for a > preliminary injunction against Dunifer's broadcasts. At that time > the Court found merit in Dunifer's argument that the FCC's ban on > low power, affordable FM broadcasting was a violation of the First > Amendment's guarantee of free speech to all in the United States. > > In a blatant attempt to avoid facing its First Amendment obligations > the FCC then urged Wilken to permanently enjoin Dunifer from > Broadcasting and at the same time argued that she could not even > consider the issue of whether its rules, which prevent him from > getting a license, are unconstitutional. In a Kafkaesqe argument, > the Commission argued that Wilken had jurisdiction to issue an > injunction, but no jurisdiction to hear Dunifer's constitutional > arguments. The government claimed that only the higher federal > courts could consider the constitutional question. > > In her November 12 decision rejecting the Government's position, > Judge Wilken pointed to the fact that the FCC had taken exactly the > opposite position in the 1994 case of Dougan vs FCC. In that case, > an Arizona micro radio broadcaster had appealed an FCC fine (for > broadcasting without a license) to the 9th Circuit Federal Court of > Appeal, and the FCC had argued that the Court of Appeal had no > jurisdiction over the case, and that it had to be heard by the > District Court. The Court of Appeals agreed with the FCC and sent > the case back to the District Court. > > Judge Wilken noted that the Arizona broadcaster had raised the same > constitutional arguments in the Court of Appeals that Dunifer is > raising. The Court ruled that in sending all of the issues in the > Arizona case to the District Court, the Appeals Court recognized > that the District Court had jurisdiction over all aspects of the > case. > > In denying the Government's motion for an injunction "without > prejudice," Judge Wilken ordered the Government to file a further > brief on the question of whether the unconstitutionality of the > FCC's ban on micro radio is a valid legal defense to an injunction > against broadcasting at low power without a license. Dunifer's > attorneys, Louis Hiken and Allen Hopper of San Francisco, will have > an opportunity to rebut the government's arguments on this point. > > In response to pressure from the commercial broadcaster's lobby, the > National Association of Broadcasters (N.A.B.), the FCC has in recent > months been stepping up its campaign of harassment against the > thousands of micro radio stations now on the air in this country. > Hiken commented "The broadcast industry is clearly afraid of these > little community stations which are speaking truth to its power. In > trying to do the N.A.B.'s bidding, the FCC demonstrates that it is > nothing but an enforcement arm of the commercial broadcast industry > and the multi-national corporations which own it." > > The National Lawyers Guild's Committee on Democratic Communications > has represented the Lawyers Guild, San Francisco's Media Alliance, > and the Women's International News Gathering Services as a "Friend > of the Court" (Amicus) in this case. In its Friend of the Court > brief the Lawyers Guild pointed out that FCC regulations make it > impossible for all but the very wealthy to even apply for a > broadcast license. This, they told the Court, is the equivalent of > saying anyone could speak from a soap box in the park, but the box > had to be made of gold. Guild attorney Peter Franck commented "In an > era when Disney owns ABC, the world's largest defense contractor > owns NBC and CNN merges with Time which merges with Warner, and when > 'public' broadcasting is told to get its money from corporations, > micro radio may be our last best hope for democracy on the air > ways." He continued "Judge Wilken's decision is a courageous > rejection of the Government's attempt to use a legal Catch-22 to > avoid facing the fact that its ban on micro radio flies in the face > of the Constitution." > > The legal team representing Dunifer and the Amicae are very pleased > with Judge Wilken's reasoned and thorough decision denying the FCC's > motion to have the case resolved without a trial on the merits. For > almost 70 years, the FCC has catered solely to the interests of > commercial corporate giants, through their mouthpiece, the National > Association of Broadcasters. These are the pirates, who have stolen > the airwaves from the American people, and who represent corporate > interests valued at more than 60 billion dollars. Only the Pentagon, > the Silicon Valley and the transportation industries possess the > financial wallop represented by the NAB and its constituents. > > Judge Wilken's decision represents a vision of what it would be like > for the American people to be given back their own voice. The > decision suggests the likely unconstitutionality of the entire > regulatory structure underlying the FCC's ban on low power radio. It > forewarns of the total failure of that agency to carry out its > statutory obligation to regulate the airwaves in the public interest > -- that is, in the interest of the American people, rather than the > media monopolies that control our airwaves. > > The legal team welcomes the opportunity to have a court identify the > real pirates of the airwaves -- not the thousands of microradio > broadcasters who seek to communicate with the people of their > communities, but rather the billionaire commercial interests that > control the airwaves as if they own them. Is it General Electric, > Westinghouse and the Disney Corporation that have the right to > control local community radio, or is that a right that belongs to > all of the American people, regardless of economic status? > > FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT: > > Peter Franck, Counsel for Amicus > 415-415-995-5055 > pfranck(a)hbmvr.com (days) > pfranck(a)a.crl.com(evs, wknds) > http://www.368Hayes.com/nlg.cdc.html > > Alan Korn, Counsel for Amicus > 415-362-5700 > aakorn(a)igc.org > > Stephen Dunifer, Free Radio Berkeley > 415-644-3779 > frbspd(a)crl.com > http://www.freeradio.org > > Louis Hiken > Counsel for Stephen Dunifer > 415-575-3220 > hiken(a)igc.org > http://www.368Hayes.com > > Allen Hopper > Counsel for Stephen Dunifer > 415-575-3222 > lazlo(a)igc.org > http://www.368Hayes.com > > >SEE THE FULL TEXT OF JUDGE WILKEN'S DECISION > > TO STEPHEN DUNIFER/FREE RADIO BERKELEY INFORMATION PAGE > > TO FREE RADIO BERKELEY LEGAL BATTLE PAGE > > TO NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD INFORMATION PAGE > > TO THE OFFICIAL NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD WEB SITE > > TO NLG COMMITTEE ON DEMOCRATIC COMMUNICATIONS PAGE > > TO FREE RADIO BERKELEY WEB SITE > >BACK TO LAW OFFICES AT 368 HAYES STREET > > >

2 1

Christmas greetings from Pauline Hanson
by Global Web Builders 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear Pauline Hanson's One Nation Supporter in NSW, 1997 has been an eventful year in Australian politics. 1997 will be remembered as the year when Australians at last said that they had had enough. Enough of the lies and deception churned out by the major political parties. 1997 will be remembered as the year that Pauline Hanson's One Nation grew from a fledgling party launched in April to a major political force with a branch network of over 200 branches. A quite remarkable achievement. An achievement which could not have been realised without the dedication and commitment of national director David Ettridge and his Manly office team. 1997 will be remembered as a year of intimidation. Intimidation by well-organised protesters with strong links to the Australian Labor Party. The violence of these protesters against the Australian way of life - giving everyone a 'fair-go' and the media's blatantly biased reporting against One Nation failed to destroy the will and desire of the people to support me. 1997 will be remembered as the year in which a few tried to cause a split in the One Nation party. They knew that the media would report anything negative about the party. And they did. No matter that in all cases it was just a handful of troublemakers who tried to hijack the party for their own political gain. They failed. Today One Nation is more than just a phenomenon it is a real living party. It is made up of people like you and me. It is part of the political fabric in Australia. Looking ahead we will face many challenges together. We must continue to fight for equality for all Australians. We must continue to fight to protect our country from becoming a slave to the multinationals and international bodies. During this Christmas break we all have the opportunity to look back and see what we have achieved and to look forward to see what has still got to be done in the coming years. I wish you and your family all the best over Christmas and the New Year. God bless and may all your dreams come true. Pauline Hanson

1 0

Pitney Bowes Sponsors World's Only Center for AppliedCryptographic Research
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text From: clairew(a)mediaone.net Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 21:09:22 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rah(a)shipwright.com Subject: Pitney Bowes Sponsors World's Only Center for Applied Cryptographic Research X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Pitney Bowes Sponsors World's Only Center for Applied Cryptographic Research STAMFORD, Conn.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dec. 15, 1997-- Messaging Leader Teams With The University of Waterloo, Certicom Corp. and The National Science Education and Research Council of Canada In an age of explosive growth of electronic commerce, effective protection of data storage and communications is vital. Pitney Bowes Inc. (NYSE:PBI), is supporting and funding critical research into protection of electronic commerce at one of the most highly acclaimed academic sources of cryptographic knowledge, the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada. Pitney Bowes is partnering with Certicom Corp. of Toronto, to found the Centre for Applied Cryptographic Research at the University of Waterloo. Both companies are joined by the National Science Education and Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and Communication and Information Technology Ontario (CITO) in the creation of two Industrial Research Chairs in Cryptography. Cryptographic research delves into the process of coding data for its protection and secure transfer. Cryptography, in all of its applications including data confidentiality, data integrity, and user authentication, is an extremely powerful tool for protecting information. Increasing research and knowledge of cryptography can ultimately increase the efficiency with which businesses operate and open up new business opportunities. Cryptography is one of the keys to doing business in the 21st century according to Dr. Joseph Wall, chief technology officer of Pitney Bowes Inc. "We are proud to help create this research center and anticipate significant advances in the technology and its understanding. We look forward to combining these advances with our understanding of business applications to deliver solutions which enhance confidentiality, security and integrity in the electronic marketplace. "Pitney Bowes has been researching and using cryptographic applications to help customers securely transmit data and funds since the 1960s. Cryptography will continue to be one of our technological cornerstones as we design solutions which help customers manage efficiently in their information-rich environment." Pitney Bowes is one of the largest users of applied cryptography in the world. For example, cryptographic technology is an important component in the system which Pitney Bowes used to securely download over $10 billion in postage revenues worldwide in 1996. Known commercially as Postage by Phone(R), Pitney Bowes developed and patented the system in the 1960s, received U.S. postal approval to introduce it to the marketplace in 1978, and expanded its usage to a variety of applications in 18 countries. The chair at the University of Waterloo will be established in association with the Natural Sciences Engineering Research Council (NSERC). The NSERC/Pitney Bowes chairholder will be Dr. Scott Vanstone, a faculty member at St. Jerome's College, University of Waterloo and Chief Cryptographer of Certicom Corp. Professor Vanstone will take up the chair on Jan. 1, 1998. He is one of the world's leading cryptographers and is co-author of the 1997 book Handbook of Applied Cryptography. The other chair at the University will be sponsored by Certicom Corp., which researches, develops and licenses advanced cryptographic technologies. The Certicom/NSERC chair will be Dr. Douglas Stinson, author of Cryptography: Theory and Practice. With regard to mathematical cryptography and combinatorics, the University of Waterloo is the leading university in Canada and with the establishment of the Centre for Applied Cryptographic Research, will be one of the top research and educational facilities in the world. Along with the core research group of Dr. Vanstone and Dr. Stinson, Dr. Leon Pintsov of Pitney Bowes will be a member of the scientific advisory board of the Centre. Pitney Bowes is a $3.9 billion provider of products and services that support the efficient management of messages and packages in physical and digital form. for more information about the company, visit the company's Web site at: http://www.pitneybowes.com . --30--CB/np* JS/np RG/KDB/ny CONTACT: Pitney Bowes, Stamford Sheryl Y. Battles, 203/351-6808 --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/ Ask me about FC98 in Anguilla!: <http://www.fc98.ai/>

1 0

Re: Identity, Persistence, Anonymity, and Accountability--Part I of II
by Brian B. Riley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 12/15/97 11:13 PM, Greg Broiles (gbroiles(a)netbox.com) passed this wisdom: >>>But note that there absolutely is no requirement in the United >>>States for ageneral form of identification. Non-drivers need not >>>have any form of I.D. And as we have seen in court cases, a la >>>Lawson v. Kolender (where a blackman in dreadlocks used to like to >>>walk the streets of San Diego...the copsstopped him many times and >>>jailed him for not having I.D. on him...the court ruled that people >>>don't have to present credentials issued by the state to walk the >>>public streets). >> >> In New Jersey there is a criminal offense called "failure to >>properly identify" ... I don't know if its ever been tested, or if it >>is still on the books, but as of ten years ago it was there. I think >>it was a misdemeanor (in NJ the term is "petty disorderly persons >>offense) I cannot imagine it as a felony. > >There's an important distinction between a requirement that you identify >yourself accurately, and a requirement that you carry a particular form of >identification. It is constitutional for the police to ask you what your >name is, under certain circumstances - and you can face criminal charges if >you lie. It is not, however, constitutional to require that you keep or >carry identity cards or documents. (Modulo, of course, participation in >activities like carrying a concealed weapon or driving. There are some >people who believe that carrying special credentials should not be required >when undertaking those activities, but very few or none of those people sit >as judges, so their beliefs are comforting or pleasing but also >insufficient to prevent conviction.) I guess I am curious about being required to identify yourself ... if the cops have no probable cause to arrest you then what right do they have to know who you are? ... and should they have probable cause, why should you have to help them know who you are. I could see circumstances where forcing you to identify yourself would come under self-incrimination. I am sure they have ways of dealing with this ... what legal precedents are there concerning this? Brian B. Riley --> http://members.macconnect.com/~brianbr For PGP Keys <mailto:brianbr@together.net?subject=Get%20PGP%20Key> "One of the deep mysteries to me is our logo, the symbol of lust and knowledge, bitten into, all crossed with in the colors of the rainbow in the wrong order. You couldn't dream of a more appropriate logo: lust, knowledge, hope, and anarchy." -- Gassee - Apple Logo

3 2

Re: Fw: Jim Bell Sentenced (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 16:57:22 -0800 > From: Steve Schear <schear(a)lvdi.net> > Subject: Re: Fw: Jim Bell Sentenced (fwd) > > I think both you and Bell are in relatively good agreement on the problem,= > differing mainly on the means of a solution. Well that is the litmus test after all, not the goals but rather the means. > Although, like you I have= > never considerd engaging in acts of violence to right the wrongs in our= > legal structure, I wouldn't say that. I just can't justify them unless under direct physical attack. I am *not* a pacifist. > I also do not believe that the changes you wish can= > reasonably be expected to be achieved through legal and democratic means= > within our lifetimes. I hadn't really entertained the condition that the 'fight' necessarily has to end in my life time. It certainly didn't end in Thomas Jeffersons. I do know that if we don't try we have zero chance of gaining any of them, let alone all of them. And who knows what the future may bring. Personaly I give the US about 20 years before a general political - economic - societal breakdown occurs. I believe that it will be even less violent but just as radical a change as the fall of the CCCP. I further believe that movement will *demand* ethical and reasonably justifiable reference to the respective constitutional documents. I also believe that within about a period of 10 years there will be a significant increase in the number of federal amendments clarifying many of the very issues we discuss today. I believe many things will drive the change. Among them medical technology which will re-grow cloned organs to replace any damaged or diseased ones you may have. I suspect that instead of terra-forming people will clone themselves and geneticaly engineer the embryo to adapt to the relevant environemt (Hint: Dougal Dixon). I believe this technology will fine tune the legal issues we ponder today to a fine edge. I believe the 9th and 10th will be recognized for the defining tests of all federal, state, and individual jurisdictional issues. I believe that as a result of those changes individuals will benefit by being considered equaly with federal and state views. > Almost from the start of our nation, the actions of the Federal branches= > have proven that the Anti-Federalists were right, that the Constitution (as= > accepted) would not prevent their power grab. Wasn't it Article 2, Section= > 18 which was intended to prevent such abuse, and which was easily overcome= > by the SC's liberal interpretation in Maubery vs. Madison? =20 I believe that people will recognize the totality of the current issues as the exact same excesses. People will realize that the camp that demanded specific bills of rights have the right idea. As a result we will get through indipendant state action several amendments. Those movements will be very goal specific and short lived. They will further depend on the Internet for their existance. I believe they will start with individuals in specific points across the US getting in touch and defining a small and specific set of goals (ie Demonstrate constitutionaly that individuals have a right to doctor assisted suicide and that it is an invasion of individual privacy.). As those goals percolate via passive and active processes across the Internet a commen experience will grow. An important question to consider: How long must you hold a sufficient totality of state representation to consider and pass a constitutional amendment? > Little has changed, nor it it likely to, within the system. There's too= > much inertia and entrenched economic and political interest, including the= > electorate's acquiessence to limitations of their liberties in exchange for= > real or imagined protection from harm. I can think of no instance when= > changes, of the magnitude of which you speak, were made during a peaceful= > transition. Can you? No. However, that proves nothing. Simply because something has not happened is no guarantee it won't happen. In all of human history this is the first time that the Internet has existed, photon transportation didn't exist as a verifiable process until just recently, there is now a movement in the dog lovers camp to save clonable samples of favorite pets in the hopes of cloning their best loved pooch. Technology as succesful as ours breeds a technocracy if it doesn't kill us. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | | | We built your fort. We will not have it used against us. | | | | John Wayne - Allegheny Uprising | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Re: Radio Free Cypherpunks... (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 15:49:40 -0800 > From: Steve Schear <schear(a)lvdi.net> > Subject: Re: Radio Free Cypherpunks... (fwd) > > Over a year ago I started a heated thread on the Telecom Regulation list,= > "Basis of FCC jurisdiction," which posited that the Commerce Clause basis= > for FCC authority might not hold for very low power and tens of GHz= > transmissions. My argument, in short, was that if a transmission couldn't= > reasonably be expected to be detectable (using common receiver technology)= > across state lines then the FCC shouldn't have jurisdition. So, are you considering such a broadcast? What I envision is a text-to-speech and/or a digital format. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | | | We built your fort. We will not have it used against us. | | | | John Wayne - Allegheny Uprising | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

4 3

"where would you find"
by succuba97＠hotmail.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The latest virtual XXX entertainment that is as good...well ALMOST as good as the REAL THING? HERE http://www.succuba.com WARNING: 1. YOU MUST BE OVER 18 YEARS OF AGE 2. YOU MUST HAVE A STRONG HEART ;) 3. IT'S HOTTTTTTTT ;}

1 0

Re: Identity, Persistence, Anonymity, and Accountability--Part I of II (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Subject: Re: Identity, Persistence, Anonymity, and Accountability--Part I of II > Date: Mon, 15 Dec 97 23:47:07 -0500 > From: "Brian B. Riley" <brianbr(a)together.net> > >identification. It is constitutional for the police to ask you what your > >name is, under certain circumstances - and you can face criminal charges if > >you lie. Where in the Constitution is the relevant sentence(s)? There is no mention of police rights in the Constitution and therefor they have no more rights than you do. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | | | We built your fort. We will not have it used against us. | | | | John Wayne - Allegheny Uprising | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

A gauntlet thrown down by PC-Magic?
by Alex Woolfson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hey guys Just FYI here is the response I got from PC-Magic. -----Original Message----- From: Scott Chaney <scott(a)pc-magic.com> To: Alex Woolfson <abdiel(a)worldnet.att.net> Date: Monday, December 15, 1997 4:02 PM Subject: Re: Encrypted Magic Folders >Thanks for the feedback. We are considering an established standard. > >BTW, for all the "crap" we get from supposed crypto experts no one has >come close to breaking our method. It does make for humorous reading >tho. > >Scott > > Anyone care to take him up on his challenge? Please say yes. :-) Alex

3 2