December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Spam laws threaten remailers?
by nobody＠hidden.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

See http://www.senate.gov/~murkowski/commercialemail/ My bill merely provides a means for Internet users to filter out e-mails that they do not wish to receive by requiring that senders of unsolicited e-mails to include Advertisement as the first word of the subject line and that the real street address, e-mail address and a telephone number be contained within the body of the message. Routing information that accompanies the message must also be accurate. Could this be the end of remailers?

2 1

Re: "You have the right to remain silent" (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 15:08:27 -0400 > To: "Willaim H. Geiger III" <whgiii(a)amaranth.com>, cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: Re: "You have the right to remain silent" > they can't order you to talk to them. They can arrest you with probable > cause > and detain you briefly for purposes of investigation. They can arrest you at will w/ or w/o probable cause. If they can't produce probable cause at your hearing then a writ of habeas corpus comes into play. They can't CHARGE you without probable cause, minor but important distinction. As I understand it, the charges that are recorded when you first go to the police station are not 'official' until your hearing and a judge signs the paperwork. The police can even arrest you as a witness or for 'protective custody' and then even the habeas corpus gets murky because no charges are filed. If they can convince a judge to go along they can even hold you in communicado. > They can ask you for > your name and you may have to supply it, According to the 5th(?) Federal District you don't even have to do that unless you are driving a vehicle or otherwise operating under a public license. > Since cops are not judges, This particular point if kept in mind changes the interpretation of the Constitution considerably. It also puts such actions as making it illegal for citizens to own assault weapons but the police can questionable since the constitution does not draw a distinction between law enforcement and the citizenry, as it does with the judicial, legistlative and executive bodies. It therefore follows that if I as Joe Citizen can't do it then a police officer can't either since they have no constitutional rights that I don't and the 10th Amendment prohibits expansion of federal power (and by extension of the 14th, states) by anything other than that proscribed in the constitution. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Use a cipher, go to jail
by Michael Wilson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Follow the link: http://www.nando.net/newsroom/ntn/info/052297/info24_9595.html --------------------------------------------------------------------------- FBI says hacker sold 100,000 credit card numbers --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright ) 1997 Nando.net Copyright ) 1997 The Associated Press SAN FRANCISCO (May 22, 1997 9:13 p.m. EDT) -- A clever hacker slipped into a major Internet provider and gathered 100,000 credit card numbers along with enough information to use them, the FBI said Thursday. Carlos Felipe Salgado, Jr., 36, who used the online name "Smak," allegedly inserted a program that gathered the credit information from a dozen companies selling products over the Internet, said FBI spokesman George Grotz. ---- Said hacker used a sniffer to gather the numbers, and as part of the process, he encrypted the database he sold to an undercover agent. Anyone care to take any bets on whether he shows up as a case for the 'use a cipher to commit a crime' argument?

1 0

Re: "You have the right to remain silent" (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, Forwarded message: > From: "Willaim H. Geiger III" <whgiii(a)amaranth.com> > Date: Thu, 22 May 97 08:46:56 -0500 > Subject: Re: "You have the right to remain silent" > 1) Under the 5th Amendment one is not required to give any assistance to > the police in a criminal investegation. Not exactly true. The police can take various body samples and other 'physical characteristics' (eg hand writing) for determination of issues involved in a case without you being able to refuse under the 5th. Also, if you are not being accussed of any crime then the 5th can't protect you, unless you want to admit tacit involvment in some criminal activity. Which I am sure to some mindsets is sufficient probable cause. In many states, such as Texas, citizenry are required by law to report any commission of a felony. Not doing so can itself be a felony. Most swords cut both ways... An interesting aspect of the 5th and physical sample taking is the way the line is drawn between what is permitted and what isn't. Historicaly it has been just fine for a cop to shove his finger down your throat to grab that black molly but verboten to pump your stomach. It is generaly felt that pumping your stomach is 'too' invasive. What I would like to know is what is the record since that ruling of the farthest down somebodies throat evidence has been legaly removed from and beyond which its legitimacy is consistently denied. Interesting issue regarding fingerprints for drivers license and the 5th that has to my research remained untested is that the fingerprints were taken while under no suggestion of wrongdoing and with no Miranda. Yet these can be used as evidence in criminal cases even at the federal level. Now it might be argued that if not explicitly stated there is an implicit contract with the state government and the individual regarding the use in criminal proceedings. But since the 14th does not work in reverse there can not be any implicit federal contract. Can the interstate commerce clause be extended to this? > 2) That the Ramsey's were prime suspects after 48hrs and no suspect was > found. They were prime suspects the moment the operator answered the 911 line. > 3) That this was SOP for the LEA's to go after family members/friends of a > murder victim even though, on average, 1/3 of murders in the US are > commited by strangers and this figure is incresing. Meaning that 66% of the time they will get the culprit. Sounds like a good strategy to me for clearing 66% of the cases quickly. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

"You have the right to remain silent" (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 19:03:11 -0800 > From: Tim May <tcmay(a)got.net> > Subject: "You have the right to remain silent" > >The 5th is meant to apply ONLY to persons being accussed of a crime, it is > >not nor was it ever meant to protect non-accussed persons from turning over > >evidence of criminal acts. > > So you are saying the police may compel any and all information from > someone just so long as that person has not been formally accused of a > crime? If they ask you questions regarding the commission of a crime the 5th will not protect you unless you were involved. The flip side to this that protects this 'hole' from being catastrophic is that you don't have to talk to the police at all unless accussed of a crime. They most certainly can take physical evidence from 3rd parties (ie hostile witnesses) which they believe are involved in some manner with the crime (ie entering your apartment to track the path of a bullet in the hopes of retrieving it). Refusing to answer the questions of the prosecutor while under oath has its own consequences. What really keeps it from getting out of hand is the cost of interviewing and calling all possible witnesses to some crime. Just imagine calling everyone on the floor of a murder as SOP. > The Miranda precedent ("you have the right to remain silent...") > establishes that someone under arrest may remain silent. And someone _not_ > under arrest is under no obligation to cooperate, unless subpoenaed, right? As I understand it that is correct. > The latest example being the Ramsey case in Boulder ("Home of PGP"). Much > is made of the fact that the Ramseys, not being under arrest, are not > required to *say anything* to the police. (Left unanswered is why innocent > parents whose daughter has been brutally murdered would choose to say > nothing to the police...even I, a skeptic about much that modern cops are > involved in, am suspicious of the Ramseys for their noncooperativeness.) If they are truly innocent, what could they possibly have to say other than "Please find the killer of our daughter" and "We didn't do it." Innocent people have little to say, the guilty need to convince us of their innocence. "Me thinks he protest too much." I have no idea Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Re: Spam laws threaten remailers?
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On or About 22 May 97 at 15:25, Greg Broiles wrote: > Both of the anti-spam bills that I've seen (CAUCE and Murkowski's) > are poorly drafted - they're both overbroad and underinclusive. I > don't think they're necessarily constitutionally "overbroad", but > they haven't been written by people with a good understanding of the > technical issues. > > As I read both bills, they'll prohibit behavior pretty universally > considered legitimate - e.g., including a link to a web site in your > .signature which happens to sell a product or service, for example. This is really going too far!!! I was told, when I first got on-line, that this was a "polite" way to get your product or service out there, without spamming. By posting on-topic replies to usenet and high traffic mailing lists, like this one... Shit, I hate this "one bad kid gets the rest of the class in trouble" mentality. I am really pissed at this whole issue and the goverment trying to get it's grubby paws on the net any way they can! I am also irked at the public's desire for this government intervention. > I think it'd make more sense to solve this problem technically, > and/or carefully think about the legal framework appropriate for > governing the flow of data between computers. (There are also sticky > First Amendment issues here.) You got that right. > Ugh. > Arrrrgh. Ross =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: (408) 259-2795

1 0

V-Chips for the Internet
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A White House press briefing today describes Clinton's plan for providing V-chips for parents to control childrens' access to the Internet. Technology is being developed for that purpose. http://jya.com/wh052297.txt Quote: MS. LEWIS: It's our understanding, and we just checked this with people at the White House who know much more about technology than all of us put together, that there is in fact technology being developed that would serve as the equivalent of a V-chip for the Internet, and we think that's what the President referred to. Q Clinton has talked before about giving parents ways to protect their children on the Internet, but has he ever before suggested the idea of a V-chip for the Internet? MS. LEWIS: Not that we know of, but we know -- as is clear, I think, from his wording, he is aware that the technology has been developing. End quote.

6 6

Police & military access
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, It occured to me that if the police have no civil liberties extending beyond that of a citizen and citizens are not legaly permitted access to military hardware then neither should the police. If this applied then it would not be legal for police to have access to any sort of communication or encryption technology that was not available to the normal citizen. If a police officer can buy body armor and automatic weapons for self defence then so can a citizen. If a police officer can search a suspect for weapons "to protect their person" and confiscate or otherwise remove them from the immediate vicinity then a normal citizen should require a police officer to do the same. In other words, once it is established that the suspect is not armed the police officer should be required to place their weapon in their vehicle or othewise secure it off their person. etc. etc. So, the question of the hour is: Do police have any civil rights not endowed to a individual citizen? Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

4 3

index.html
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

CNN logo US navbar Infoseek/Big Yellow Pathfinder/Warner Bros Main banner Samsung. Meeting the challenge. rule WOMAN TRIES TO SELL KIDNEY TO PAY BILL sparrow May 22, 1997 Web posted at: 10:59 a.m. EDT (1459 GMT) ST. PETERSBURG, Florida (CNN) -- Faced with a $25,000 bill for gall bladder surgery, a Florida woman placed an ad in a local newspaper to sell her kidney to cover the surgery. But there's a big problem with her plan: It's illegal. "KIDNEY Runs good, Taking offers. $30,000/obo," read the advertisement in this week's St. Petersburg Times. Ruth Sparrow isn't joking either. She has been drinking buckets of water for more than two months to clean out the organ, prepping it for donation. "I'm not doing it for a profit," she told CNN-affiliate WTVT in Tampa. "You're trading a damn kidney for a gall bladder." icon (85K/6 sec. AIFF or WAV sound) Sparrow, a 55-year-old nurse, said she told doctors before the surgery that she would be unable to pay the bill and offered to pay the bill by donating her kidney. The offer was refused, she said. movie icon (331K/28 sec. QuickTime movie) Federal and state laws prohibit anyone from offering buy or sell a human organ or tissue. In Florida, the offense is a second-degree felony. medical.center Jean Layne of Lifelink of Florida, a tissue recovery organization, explained that the reason for the law is "not to disadvantage families who do not have a lot of money, allowing everyone equal access to transplantation." Bayfront Medical Center, where the gall bladder surgery was performed, was stunned when notified of the ad. It said Sparrow owes about $17,000 on the bill and that the medical center is "trying to get her qualified for some type of assistance." Sparrow dropped her medical insurance four years ago because she could not afford the $4,000-a-year premium. She said it's unfair that taxpayers pick up the tab for criminals' medical expenses, while she could get punished for her tactic. icon (145K/12 sec. AIFF or WAV sound) She also emphasized that she did not know it was illegal to run the ad. "I just want to live in my own little hovel and pay my bills like everybody else," she said. "I don't want to owe anybody." From CNN-affiliate WTVT Reporter Stan Jayson rule CNN Plus * Consumer News - Fitness and Health Related story: * Florida man offers to 'lease' a kidney - April 2, 1997 Related sites: Note: Pages will open in a new browser window * The St. Petersburg Times * Bayfront Medical Center * United Network for Organ Sharing Transplantation Information Site * American Share Foundation - organ donation and transplantation information External sites are not endorsed by CNN Interactive. rule Message Boards Sound off on our message boards Tell us what you think! You said it... [INLINE] Samsung. Meeting the challenge. rule To the top © 1997 Cable News Network, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms under which this service is provided to you.

1 0

More stories from the Bell jar...
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- This story is from the Oregonian May 22, 1997 Page D3: Arrest solves mystery of law office stink bomb A federal investigation that led to the arrest of James Dalton Bell of Vancouver appears to have solved a longtime mystery regarding a stink bomb attack in a downtown Portland law office. In late April 1984, someone broke into law offices at 1123 S. W. Yamhill St. and poured a liquid on a hallway run that was so odorous it made at least one of the lawyers who smelled it vomit twice. At the time, Nick Albrecht, who still practices law there, said the skunklike scent, called mercaptan, was so overpowering that he had to go home because he could not stop gagging. The target of the stink bomb attack was lawyer C. Douglas Oliver, who now lives in Southern California and won't discuss the incident. Bell was arrested Friday on a federal complaint charging him with obstructing and impeding the Internal Revenue Service and the use of false Social Security numbers. The complaint said that documents found on Bell's computer boasted of the mercaptan attack on the office of a Portland lawyer who had sued him. The lawyer was Oliver. Albrecht said Oliver had suspected that Bell might have been behind the mercaptan attack, but could never prove it. The federal complaint also charged Bell with the March 16 mercaptan attack on the IRS offices in the federal office building in Vancouver. On the following day, when employees returned to work after the weekend, several of them had to be placed on leave because the smell was so powerful, the complaint said. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 5.0 beta Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBM4USfeQCP3v30CeZAQGNJgf+O8L65Bc6ce1jhUtUpjQS1kas2WU3TlNm l/wxZt+kNhRV58VnCLYg1JWsUhoifM6JK+v2QU727SVHmAy+ktlovL43oKsgK7EE Vg4WAj9A0rMqKIzNU/0PjNyjPtdsUEbxaZisIbWPONdm/sx1x9hhbDbA5T7sayyW 6HLms5v8n4OQ9URQsnNNpPme6cKTiMFnOk0qw2+0mQUska4q6fLgoEn+vxOYsDAP WPQHaF7EEWHr/8eDRYZP+GgaOtI2pLJvuLGXeebf/0+BEAmTNS6AUuAwt2ogmxCx TPGni0IRhODol5swhZlKAklK7si548Unm90o2o+Lg3JvFqg0SQs/Vg== =7KT2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --- | "Bill Clinton - Bringing back the sixties one Nixon at a time." | |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | |`finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.ctrl-alt-del.com/~alan/ |alan(a)ctrl-alt-del.com|

7 8