December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks maiing list
by Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Rabid Wombat <wombat(a)mcfeely.bsfs.org> writes: > Regardless of which side you take on this matter, remember that the issue > was forced by the actions of an extremely small segment of the list > "population." The list "population" (readers) is a couple of thousand people, almost all of whom are lurkers. All posters are an extremely small segment of the readership. It's true on most Internet forums. > The decision of that small segment to excercise its rights "in extreme" > passed the tolerance thresholds of increasing numbers of list members, > and the end result was a "restriction" adopted/elected/forced-on (colour > it however you chose) on the entire "population." > > "Rights" are derived from social responsibility; its either that, or the > "law of the jungle." V.I.Lenin said: "liberty is a recognized necessity". (I'll let Igor correct my translation is it's wrong.) --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Xerox is watching you
by Martin Minow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

You'll find an article worth a visit to the dentist in the January 1997 issue of Popular Science. It tells a story from the 1960's cold war era. It seems that the only American who could get into the Soviet Embassy was the Xerox repairman. So the CIA and Xerox built a camera that took a picture of every copy that could be installed inside the 914 cabinet (where it would be invisble). Once a month, the repairman came by to do the ordinary cleaning and repair (those things broke down a lot). Part of the repair process exchanged the camera for a fresh load. The CIA could then read everything that was copied. The article suggests that other Xerox models had their own cameras. My back of the envelope (literally) computation suggests that one roll of 8-millimeter film would hold about 30,000 images. Martin Minow minow(a)apple.com

1 0

Assination
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> writes: > > > Given how fast online gambling is growing, how soon do we have to wait for > > > a web site for taking bets on deaths of politicians and other prominents? > > > Why not set one up, using "funny money" not convertible to anything? > > > > If AP could really work, and AP is enabled by strong p-k crypto, > > that fact alone would justify the Washington boys doing *everything* > > in their power to stop *real* crypto (i.e., no back doors). > > But they can't; and their efforts (ITAR, EAR, et al) are totally irrelevant > and ineffective and not worth the time people spend fighting them. > > A prototype AP betting server, first limited to very innocent events (like > usenet postings containing certain regexps) and using "funny money" for bets, > would be a good demo. I have a feeling that you are missing the point. The point of AP is not to bet on whether a certain event will occur or not. The point is that only a person who really makes it happen (assassinates someone) will know enough to get the money. All other betters who do NOT intend to bring the event about will expect to lose money, because they will not be able to make a sufficiently good prediction. It is not a bookie system, it is a collective anonymous hire-a-hitman scheme. Yuor suggestion about trying a demo about homophobic posts is good, BUT what needs to be added to make it a good demo is a danger for the poster to lose an account. I.e., the requirement to such a homophobic post should be that 1) it should be PGP signed by a real person and 2) it should have a correct return address. Any fool can send an anonymous message, and that would have no educational value and no value for the AP demo. - Igor.

1 0

Re: Jim Choate Speaks Out on My Part of the Net (fwd)
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate wrote: > > > Forwarded message: > > > Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 20:07:57 -0800 > > From: Toto <toto(a)sk.sympatico.ca> > > Subject: Jim Choate Speaks Out on My Part of the Net > > > > Jim Choate wrote: > > > > If you really and truly believe that the net belongs to everyone and nobody > > > has a right to limit or otherwise control the hardware and software along > > > with the associated comm links they own and pay for then you obviously don't > > > understand what is going on. > > > > For instance, since Toto pays for the hardware and software that comprises > > > his part of the net, he is free to limit, control, and edit for content, > > > anything that passes through his part of the net. > > > Although I sometimes disagree with Toto because of my limited ability to > > > understand things on a conceptual level, his rugged good looks, charm, > > > and superior intelligence show that he should be allowed to control his > > > own privately owned part of the net and anything that passes through it. > > > > > Jim Choate > > > CyberTects > > > ravage(a)ssz.com > > > > Jim, > > Thank you for your support in my efforts to exert supreme control over > > the part of the net that I have paid for. > > I am sure that you will continue to fight for the right of myself and > > the government of Singapore to use that control for whatever purpose > > they choose. > > As you can see above, I have enhanced your posting so that it more > > closely conforms to the beliefs that my paid-for part of the net was > > set up to espouse. > > Are you aware that attributing statements in print to a party when that > party did not write them is a crime? cite the statute - Igor.

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor
by Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Toto <toto(a)sk.sympatico.ca> writes: > Dale Thorn wrote: > > > How does one country get on top and terrorize the whole world? By > > following Tom Wolfe's intimation concerning the pirates: "The people > > on the East coast were constantly victimized because they couldn't > > comprehend just how vicious and ruthless the pirates really were" > > (quote approximate). > > Dale, > When I read posts like this, I wonder how any rationally thinking > person can possibly believe that socio/politico concerns have no > place in the discussion of crypto. > It is my belief that many of the more atrocious acts being performed > against the citizens by various governments are made possible by the > fact that there are so few people who recognize a 'pirate' when they > see one. > While I appreciate that there are those who may be furthering the > cause of crypto, privacy and freedom through official channels, the > controlled media, and such, there needs to be a forum in which > people are free to use what they consider to be the 'correct' > terminology to refer to those who have usurped democracy in order > to control the citizens for their own personal profit. > i.e. 'Pirates' Right now, you can still say anything you like in "cypherpunks-unedited". Anyone subscribed to the moderated cypherpunks list is free to resubscribe. If the masses of lurkers choose not to do it, it's their loss, and not your or my responsibility. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Jim Choate Speaks Out on My Part of the Net (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 20:07:57 -0800 > From: Toto <toto(a)sk.sympatico.ca> > Subject: Jim Choate Speaks Out on My Part of the Net > > Jim Choate wrote: > > If you really and truly believe that the net belongs to everyone and nobody > > has a right to limit or otherwise control the hardware and software along > > with the associated comm links they own and pay for then you obviously don't > > understand what is going on. > > For instance, since Toto pays for the hardware and software that comprises > > his part of the net, he is free to limit, control, and edit for content, > > anything that passes through his part of the net. > > Although I sometimes disagree with Toto because of my limited ability to > > understand things on a conceptual level, his rugged good looks, charm, > > and superior intelligence show that he should be allowed to control his > > own privately owned part of the net and anything that passes through it. > > > Jim Choate > > CyberTects > > ravage(a)ssz.com > > Jim, > Thank you for your support in my efforts to exert supreme control over > the part of the net that I have paid for. > I am sure that you will continue to fight for the right of myself and > the government of Singapore to use that control for whatever purpose > they choose. > As you can see above, I have enhanced your posting so that it more > closely conforms to the beliefs that my paid-for part of the net was > set up to espouse. Are you aware that attributing statements in print to a party when that party did not write them is a crime? Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

libel.html
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[IMAGE] [IMAGE] Libel and Slander "Libel" involves the publishing of a falsehood that harms someone. Slander is the same doctrine applied to the spoken word. Collectively, they are referred to as "defamation". Both are a matter of state laws, which usually (not always) require that the falsehood be intentional. In New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment requires that, before a public official can recover damages for a defamatory statement, he must prove it was made with "actual malice", even if state laws otherwise allow recovery for negligent defamation. The Court has since expanded this to cover not only public officials but "public figures", including individuals who involve themselves in controversies.

1 0

libelfrm.htm
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

LIBEL CHECKLIST _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ Look for material that identifies a person or an entity. Keep in mind that it is possible to identify people or entities without actually using a name. If the material contains identifiable voices, likenesses, or descriptions, it could be a problem. ___ The material identifies a person or entity. STOP HERE if the material does not identify a person or entity. You can't have a libel without someone to complain about it! _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ Is any identified person dead? There is little reason to be concerned with statements or other material reflecting badly on dead persons because the law only protects "the memory of the dead," giving no cause of action to decedents. So long as the material concerns only the dead person, you need not answer the rest of the questions on this form. ___The person identified is dead. STOP HERE if the person identified is dead. _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ If material identifies a living person, is it: A private individual. ___A public person. ___A political person. _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ Would the material negatively influence a reasonable reader's opinion of the person or entity identified? ___a. It would reflect badly on the character of the person or entity. ___b. It could harm the reputation, diminish the esteem, respect or good will in which the person or entity's relevant community holds him, her or it. _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ If the material might reflect badly on character and/or harm reputation, would the harm be the result of: ___An explicit statement. ___An insinuation. ___A sarcastic statement. ___A parody or cartoon. ___An opinion that implies that there are unstated defamatory facts underlying it. ___Other. _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ There are several possible defenses to a claim of defamation, although none may apply in a particular case. Check one of the following defenses only if you are fairly certain it would apply. ___The statement or other material is true. ___The statement or other material is purely an expression of opinion and not an assertion of fact. ___The statement or other material constitutes a fair comment on a matter of public opinion, for example, the use of public money, disbarment of attorneys, management of public institutions and charities, management of private companies whose activities widely affect the public (pollution, delivery of medical services, common carriage, employment practices, discrimination, etc.) or the review of books, public entertainment, sports events or scientific discoveries. ___No one could reasonably interpret the statement or image to be an assertion of actual fact about the person or entity. ___The statement or image can be characterized as mere words of abuse, indicating dislike for the person or entity, but does not suggest any specific charge. ___The subject of the statement or image has given consent to or approved the material. _________________ __________ _________________________________________________________________ University Liability for the Wrongful Acts of Employee Publishers | Copyright Management Center Homepage | Intellectual Property Section Homepage _________________________________________________________________ 8 August 1995 University of Texas System Office of General Counsel Comments to gharper(a)utsystem.edu _________________________________________________________________

1 0

1a_c7p4.html
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[IMAGE] Chapter VII: Libel Identification _________________________________________________________________ A plaintiff must prove that the alleged defamatory publication refers to him or her. Relatives cannot sue on behalf of a deceased person. Governmental entities cannot bring libel claims, nor can members of large groups (usually 25 or more). However, if the statement can be interpreted as referring to a particular person in a group, that person can sue. Also, if the offending information pertains to a majority of the members of a small group, any member of the group has standing to sue. A corporation may bring a libel claim if the alleged defamatory statement raises doubts about the honesty, credit, efficiency or prestige of that business. However, if the statements refer only to corporate officers, the corporation cannot litigate on their behalf. _________________________________________________________________ [INLINE] Back to Table of Contents [INLINE] Jump to next section in this chapter

1 0

libsln.htm
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Landskroner, LTD. [INLINE] Libel / Slander Libel / Slander is an area that involves defamatory oral or written statements containing false and misleading material which causes damage or injury to reputation and/or monetary loss. We provide a quick review of their success stories , some media and newspaper articles about what they've been able to do for their clients, and published articles about this topic. Please e-mail us with questions about our service! Landskroner and Phillips [INLINE] Nationally Recognized Consumer Trial Advocates. Over 100 Years combined experience in both State and Federal Courts. 55 Public Square, Tenth Floor, Cleveland Ohio 44113-1904 Phone: (216) 241-7000 Fax: (216) 241-3135 Toll Free: (888) 241-7001 [INLINE]

3 2