December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Libel, Times v. Sullivan
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Someone (Igor?) suggested I said that libel can't be criminalized. I don't think that's correct, but I may have been unclear. I haven't researched the question and can't call to mind a case directly on point, but my hunch is that states may criminalize libel, but a conviction would require that the state prove, beyond a reasonable doubt (because it's a criminal case), and that the defendant acted with actual malice (because the state is seeking to punish speech, and punitive damages in civil cases require proving actual malice). "Actual malice" means that the defendant said something s/he knew was untrue or recklessly disregarded the truth of what s/he said. (This excludes, for example, an "honest mistake" about what's true.) _Times v. Sullivan_, the case which introduced the actual malice standard, discussed Alabama's criminal libel statute - so the Supreme Court, in the mid 60's, didn't seem to have a problem with criminalizing libel. I can't seem to find a criminal libel statute in California; and if I remember correctly the Oregon Legislature contemplated but did not pass one during its last legislative session. Also, people interested in _Times v. Sullivan_ and the interplay between defamation and the First Amendment might find "Make No Law: The Sullivan Case and the First Amendment" by Anthony Lewis (ISBN 0-697-73939-4) of interest. The decision itself is online at <http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=376&invol =254> - the factual summary of the Sullivan case posted here was not correct, and the first few pages of the opinion provide a description of the underlying facts. Since we've now got Jim Bell arguing that it's obvious that a free and open society must tolerate anything which might be defamatory, and Jim Choate arguing that it's obvious that a free and open society cannot tolerate anything which might be defamatory, I think I'm going to wander away from this discussion confident that the answer is, at least, nonobvious. :) -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles(a)netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. |

1 0

Re: "Secret" Postal Device stolen
by Robert Rothenburg 'Walking-Owl' 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On 1 Feb 97 at 9:39, Duncan Frissell wrote: > Mail Storage Box keys? I think they use combination locks, actually. Supposedly it's the same combination nationally too. There was an article in 2600 Magazine about that. The locks are actually 'insecure' and you can test every possible combo in about 10-20 minutes. - --Rob -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAgUBMvPFpgTNlSxdPy6ZAQF7QAf+IFPhGavlD7p5WFsmhESHi+PKd9msqYhN pxl8ZdUZMDJg61F6nLF4Oa7rfoCmzDXqP4w0WU1pk8MkkwwVb9oTTJg2k4hY4AKr IixesiAcDlGc9+11314Nao+PuU6epJYmLddGSIc0Ra3FKrqamyueW6qunsJQT1Z6 5E/BiqpEGAiEGqog9J/xXtSra4q9g1SzrMCGcR5z077gCzb5ONxIgWzQ6zlL0leb X1Y9pzABnm1iJbq7Q2HRAVAQVBiPC/vg+hW8COfao4XHGqsqVg2UBcZWT8TdbV4N cwqVw5fDpoZXPyQtzRynmq55xH4OIJWZ2HnNNK3KHdRcyS+JW24MBQ== =oAVd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ----- "The word to kill ain't dirty | Robert Rothenburg (WlkngOwl(a)unix.asb.com) I used it in the last line | http://www.asb.com/usr/wlkngowl/ but use a short word for lovin' | Se habla PGP: Reply with the subject and dad you wind up doin' time." | 'send pgp-key' for my public key.

2 1

Re: Crypto in New Zealand - an update
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:03 AM 2/2/97, pgut001(a)cs.auckland.ac.nz wrote: [...] >The following week Andrew Mayo wrote a letter to the editor of the NBR >containing an eloquent defense of the use of encryption to protect personal >privacy. MFAT replied to say that they were only following orders, and were >required by the Wassenaar agreement to restrict crypto exports: [...] Just for clarification, it is the Wassenaar *arrangement* (somehow the term is more fitting anyway...) and it does *not* require the signatory countries to implement crypto export controls. Not that this will make any difference, since it would be the first time that a government would allow facts to stand in the way of politics. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." Mahatma Gandhi

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

> I'm still waiting for you to explain what you believe to be the "problem" > for which we are searching a solution. The problem is that you are a crushing bore. You peddle your crackpot scheme long after it has been made plain nobody is interested. Yet another reason to believe you are an FBI agent provocateur. Phill

3 2

Re: Libel & the 1st Amendment
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:52 PM 2/1/97 -0500, Mark M. wrote: >On Sat, 1 Feb 1997, Peter J. Capelli wrote: > >> You mean to say, rich people can overcrowd the courts as much as they >> like, while others are restricted by contigency-only lawyers ( Call >> 1-800-AMBULANCE! ) ... and what of the case of a rich person trying to >> control >> a poor one with many frivolous lawsuits ... while they can afford to file >> lawsuit after lawsuit, the poor person cannot defend himself. > >What, exactly, would be the point of suing a poor person? To quiet him from political dissent, presumably. I think the term coined a few years ago was "SLAPP", something akin to "Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Policy," or similar. For example, "Company A" wants to build a mine or factory or something similar at a location. Citizens object, causing political problems. Company sues the individuals for damages, which costs the individuals a great deal of money to defend against even if they never lose the suit. The real problem is actually a series of mistakes: 1. Individual should not be able to cause political problems for company. 2. "Government" should not be able to impact company activities short of actual harm. 3. Company should not be able to impact individual by suing except for actual harm done by that individual. Naturally, the source of these problems is that by each of their existence, lawyers make more money. As usual, I have a solution to that problem. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Free & Open Society & toleration
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, It has been asserted that I am claiming that a free and open society should not abide any and all actions in contrast to Jim Bell's assertion that a free and open society must tolerate any action. This is not my case at all. I hold that a DEMOCRATIC society with a HEALTHY ECONOMIC system must have some minimum standards on what is allowed. By no means do I hold that the ONLY means of a free and open society is a democracy. It is quite possible to have an anarchy which would also be a free and open society and by DEFINITION would tolerate any action by its members acting individualy or in concert. I hold that for a democratic society to retain concepts of freedom and equity under the law as well as be economicaly viable, especialy in an environment where 'reputation' is critical such as a network over which economic transactions can take place with nothing more than a email order and a EFT, must not provide ex post facto AND carte blanche protection of the speech of the citizens. For such a system to operate requires a 'reputation' system to be in place. For such a system to be viable it MUST protect those reputations otherwise the concept of a 'contract' is worthless. I DO hold that this system MUST provide a priori protection of all speech. I further hold that any distinction between the 'government' and the people of a nation is a false and misleading distinction which is not in the best interest of the society because it by DEFINITION promotes a class society which is by definition contrary to the goal of equity under a democracy. It further provides a mechanism by which the representatives of the 'state' may claim immunity from the very standards they are charged with enforcing. This is because the charter of such a society is itself simply a contract between any arbitrary individual of that society and the sum total of the remaining citizenry (ie the 'state'). I further hold that one of the current legal practices based on precidence which MUST be replaced is our system dealing with defamation. I further hold that our current system of legal representation is inherently flawed and prevents equal representation under the law. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

4 3

Re: "Secret" Postal Device stolen
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bill Stewart wrote: > >>>Postal Service offers $25,000 reward for stolen . . . something > I was also guessing keys - truck keys are a less subtle target than > box storage keys, and telling every thug in the country that > mail trucks are an easy target, just take the keys from the carrier, > seems almost worth sounding really stupid in public to avoid. > They did say that it wasn't something they carried in their pockets, > but do mail carriers hang their keys on their belts? Mail carriers in some areas carry keys for buildings with security doors (sometimes Master keys). Or perhaps they've taken over the CIA's crack distribution route. Is anyone on the list willing to 'knock off' a couple of mail carriers and get back to us with a definitive answer on this? (Doesn't this kind of thing fall under the moderator's job description?) Toto

3 2

Re: "Secret" Postal Device stolen
by David Lesher 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Robert Rothenburg 'Walking-Owl' sez: > > > > Mail Storage Box keys? > > I think they use combination locks, actually. Supposedly it's the same > combination nationally too. > > There was an article in 2600 Magazine about that. The locks are > actually 'insecure' and you can test every possible combo in about > 10-20 minutes. I think you are confusing USPS and FedEx. USPS uses key locks seemingly designed by Ben Franklin himself. Look at them someday. FedEx boxes used to have Simplex 926 5 pushbutton ""locks"" if you stretch the point. I'm guessing what they lost was a reloader for postage meters. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz(a)nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

2 1

Re: Crypto in New Zealand - an update
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Lucky Green wrote: > At 06:03 AM 2/2/97, pgut001(a)cs.auckland.ac.nz wrote: > [...] > >The following week Andrew Mayo wrote a letter to the editor of the NBR > >containing an eloquent defense of the use of encryption to protect personal > >privacy. MFAT replied to say that they were only following orders, and were > >required by the Wassenaar agreement to restrict crypto exports: > [...] MFAT doesn't put crypto in the ovens, they just turn on the gas. > Just for clarification, it is the Wassenaar *arrangement* (somehow the term > is more fitting anyway...) and it does *not* require the signatory > countries to implement crypto export controls. > Not that this will make any difference, since it would be the first time > that a government would allow facts to stand in the way of politics. ...or allow 'citizens' to stand in the way of politics. Toto

1 0

Re: Libel & the 1st Amendment
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:52 PM 2/1/97 -0500, Mark M. wrote: >On Sat, 1 Feb 1997, Peter J. Capelli wrote: > >> You mean to say, rich people can overcrowd the courts as much as they >> like, while others are restricted by contigency-only lawyers ( Call >> 1-800-AMBULANCE! ) ... and what of the case of a rich person trying to >> control >> a poor one with many frivolous lawsuits ... while they can afford to file >> lawsuit after lawsuit, the poor person cannot defend himself. > >What, exactly, would be the point of suing a poor person? To quiet him from political dissent, presumably. I think the term coined a few years ago was "SLAPP", something akin to "Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Policy," or similar. For example, "Company A" wants to build a mine or factory or something similar at a location. Citizens object, causing political problems. Company sues the individuals for damages, which costs the individuals a great deal of money to defend against even if they never lose the suit. The real problem is actually a series of mistakes: 1. Individual should not be able to cause political problems for company. 2. "Government" should not be able to impact company activities short of actual harm. 3. Company should not be able to impact individual by suing except for actual harm done by that individual. Naturally, the source of these problems is that by each of their existence, lawyers make more money. As usual, I have a solution to that problem. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0