December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Webpage picketing...
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, I was just reviewing the various emails on this topic trying to create a cogent whole, or at least the start of it. Anyway, I realize that at least one cpunk out there seems to seriously think that I brought this subject up with regards to the 'criminal libel' issue and wanting to send some sort of message to others. Hardly. That started yesterday, way after I was already looking at the issue. Furthermore, I no more want to slap more spin doctor output in front of others than to have to look at it myself. I was mainly trying to make a prediction about the future and then seeing, if reasonable, how long it took. Perhaps a little explanation is in order. I was going to the grocery store the other day and the perennial grape picketers were out there. It occured to me that some comparison between a public sidewalk and a public backbone could be made. I began to draw comparisons and it became clear that something was up here. It occurs to me that somebody with the right motivation might want to claim that they have a right to put a box on such a backbone (ie stand on the sidewalk in front of the store) and scrape for particular addresses (ie the business they want to picket). Now the picketers can't stop anyone from going in the store (ie packets going down the pipe) by they can attempt to talk to them as well as wave large lettered signs in their face (ie put a short banner page on their screen). A webpage could do this by putting up a single page with a continue button (ie a path to the door of the store). You could no more stop them from searching packets than you could stop somebody from standing or walking beside you down a public street. _______________________________________________________________________ | | | Speak the truth, but leave immediately after. | | | | Slovenian Proverb | | | | Jim Choate ravage(a)ssz.com | | The Armadillo Group www.ssz.com | | Austin, Texas, USA 512-451-7087 | |_______________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Update on Wine Politics
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- A few weeks ago there was a thread about Florida's proposal to ban direct shipments of wine into the state, making it a _felony_ for anybody except a state-licensed wholesaler to import alcohol. The weekend I was up in the California wine country, and one of the local papers had an article on other states limiting direct shipments. Apparently about 24 states ban them, though only one makes it a felony; the rest treat it as commercial business, either civil or criminal. [That's evil also, but at least it's not an outrageous penalty...] While mail-order wine has been a possibility for a while, the Internet has changed the marketing economics enough to be interesting, and some of the Internet wine businesses have been fined by a few states, with typical penalties of $7-35K. At least one of them has taken a Frissellian approach to the problem - $7000 isn't a big fine, and it'll cost the government more than that to collect, so they're ignoring it and trusting the economics and uncatchability to encourage the government to ignore it also. Bill -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 5.0 beta Charset: noconv iQBVAwUBM5TNjvthU5e7emAFAQGwZwH/U3wu9z4KTjfDHka6Xu3ev80qf/N/urTW s9s8RbkdOjaZn355ygKJtTGjlekgAQ/aNLNyZorFDWRfzMjIne1h4g== =NL7B -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list or news, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

1 0

Re: Hacker Links page
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi Duffy, First, let me say it has been quite pleasant dealing with you on this issue. I appreciate your even-headed approach. > My most sincere apologies for any personal inconvenience to you in this > matter. The sole purpose of the request was just to ask you to delete a > link to a site. We didn't intend or foresee any problems with the > request, but there were and I believe a more detailed explanation is in > order. Agreed. > We here at Telecode were notified by Mr. Lancaster several weeks ago > that he wished that the link(s) we had given to his site be removed. No > reason was given, and of course, none was required. Unfortunately in this case my policy was diametricaly opposed to yours. Unless somebody is a paying customer or has legal justification I don't comply with a great many external requests, I try to make as few as possible as well. I support a wide range of users and they specificaly request that I keep them up to date with what is going on in a variety of technology areas. Not only do I send a copius amount of forwards from various mailing lists, print sources, etc. but I also keep a webpage with some critical links to resources they have inquired about. Don's was one of them. [Deleted chronology] > I also remarked that I would do my best to contact and ask that the link > be removed. I did this because it "appeared" to Mr. Lancaster that the > both yours and our site were somehow "connected". Of which, there are > not. We do not claim that there is any copyright infringement on you > part and we also state openly that your are the "true and rightful owner > of that page". We believe, because of the similarity of the pages, that > we had a "responsibility" at least to ask that you remove the link. So, > we did. A sign of an honorable business. > Again, I apologize for any inconvenience in this matter. Not a problem. Sounds like you have been the one inconvenienced by this the most. _______________________________________________________________________ | | | Speak the truth, but leave immediately after. | | | | Slovenian Proverb | | | | Jim Choate ravage(a)ssz.com | | The Armadillo Group www.ssz.com | | Austin, Texas, USA 512-451-7087 | |_______________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Anonymity should be banned for speakers and vendors
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Ray, a recent DC law school grad and anti-spam activist, is a good guy but is IMHO sadly mistaken here. Thought this might be interesting. --Declan] ---------- Forwarded message ---------- X-FC-URL: Fight-Censorship is at http://www.eff.org/~declan/fc/ X-FC-URL: To join send "subscribe" to fight-censorship-request(a)vorlon.mit.edu Date: Wed, 4 Jun 97 17:25:36 -0400 From: Ray Everett-Church <ray(a)everett.org> Sender: owner-fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu To: sameer <sameer(a)c2.net>, tbetz(a)pobox.com Cc: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Re: Spam costs and questions On 6/4/97 4:52 PM, sameer (sameer(a)c2.net) wrote: >> If Wallace were up against criminal and civil penalties if he continued to >> hide his customers' real identities, he'd give them up in a hot second. Of >> course, as soon as there was a chance of that happening, he'd get out of the >> business entirely. > > So how do criminal and civial penalties for not revealing a >customer's name protect anonymity on the internet? > Anonymity on the internet must be preserved. If you could come >up with a way to make spam illegal and preserve anonymity, I would be >very glad. Until then, I will have to oppose making spam illegal. As stated before, I have heard no convincing argument that it is in the consumers best interest to have an anonymous *vendor*. Sure it's vital that *consumers* be allowed to remain anonymous, but if you're selling a product or service, there's no legitimate reason why a business needs to remain anonymous given issues of warranties, product liability, sales taxes, etc. And in the case above, since the remailer in question is simply acting as an agent for the business, there's no question of legitimate anonymity implicated. Indeed, perpetuating anonymity for the business often times facilitates activites that constitute a breach of contract and sometimes even fraud. The whole reason to use a pro-spam anon remailer is so that you can violate your ISP usage agreement without being traceable or accountable. And if you've entered into that contractual relationship with the ISP with the *intent* to breach that contract, it's fraud. Anonymity for consumers, Yes! Anonymity for vendors, NO! -Ray <everett(a)cauce.org> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ray Everett-Church, Esq. <ray(a)everett.org> www.everett.org/~everett This mail isn't legal advice. Opinion(RE-C) != Opinion(clients(RE-C)) (C)1997 Ray Everett-Church ** Help outlaw "spam"=> http://www.cauce.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Webpage picketing (fwd)
by Peter Trei 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim writes: [Jim wants to be able to 'cyber-picket' - force people to read his opinions before they can browse sites he does not like. He is attempting to claim that the net backbones corrospond to public spaces, where his local government permits him to picket.] > Declan writes: >> And I think that we should be very careful about calling the Net a public >> forum. Sure, places like Usenet resemble a public forum in some ways, but >> it's not the same. > > But I am not calling the net a public forum. I am specificaly talking about > a special case that might arise if we are not aware of the consequences. In > short it is a statement that it MIGHT be possible to use publicly funded > network backbones to seriously impede communication using the system against > itself. >> I think Greg has it right: you want to forcibly intervene in a >> communication between two consenting parties. What you want is >> similar to the right to come into my home and prevent me from >> speaking freely to my friend or lover. 'Publically funded network backbones'? Can you name one (in the US)? NSFnet and ARPAnet are long dead. Back when they were active, there was considerable debate about the legality of commercial speech on the net, and earlier, doubts about the legality of any traffic (including private email) which was not in support of government funded research. (the first big mailing list, the SF-Lovers Digest, had a quasi-underground existence for many years due to this worry). Jim also writes: >Lack of public space may be the saving grace, unfortunately there is >quite a bit of involvment planned by Uncle Sam if I am not >mistaken...Internet II... V-II Chip... GAK... ITAR... That >supercomputer science network thingy... None of which have the slightest relevance - Internet II is a proposed (and still vaporware) project for an academic-research-only network - it's future existence has no impact on those of us using the private backbone system of today. Ditto that 'supercomputer science network thingy' you mention, which I suspect is the same thing. As for "V-II Chip... GAK... ITAR": The fact that some people in government propose unconstitutional regulations, unworkable technologies, and policies which work against the public interest is not a basis to propose further undesirable policies. Question: if you get the ability to put up your 'cyber-picket' frame, how about cyber-counter-pickets? Cant the picketee put a page in front of yours? Who gets priority? Where does it stop? Jim, your idea is roadkill on that horribly imprecise analogy, the 'information superhighway' (spit). It can't be resuscitated by asking for 'information super-sidewalks' or claiming the existance of 'information super-public-spaces'. The underlying metaphor is fatally flawed. Peter Trei trei(a)process.com Disclaimer: These are my own opinions only.

3 2

Re: Guilty!
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

TruthMonger sobered up and wrote: > The bottom line is that no matter what our position in life, no matter >what our beliefs, opinions and actions, there are a few billion other >entities sharing our world who are organized into camps which support or >oppose us today and may do the opposite tomorrow. .................................................................... In the end you have to be prepared to defend yourself from anyone; as anyone can become an enemy. The only true support is an active intelligence. .. Blanc

1 0

SPAMs across the border - regulatory arbitrage strikes again
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I got my first Canadian spam today - as US Congresscritters are planning to pave a few more blocks of the Information Superhighway with "good intentions", spammers are moving offshore (well, if Bedford NS is offshore, anyway...) outside their grasp. Of course, the SPAMMER's ISP is Spamford, but he could move to the Great White North as well. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list or news, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

1 0

Re: Webpage picketing
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Web page picketing is easy - there are a bunch of ways to do it, >with varying degrees of coverage. Here are some examples: >0) Hijack DNS or routers - sorry, no points for this. Foo. I forgot to add an obvious variant 0a) Creating a similar or parody domain name like micros0ft.com or microsquish.com sometimes gets you points, if done well. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list or news, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

1 0

Profanity, PCS phones, and FCC
by Jeremey Barrett 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Well I went and got a PCS phone (Ericsson), and was pilfering through the manual, and came across this amusing text in the "Operating procedures" section of the "Guidelines for Safe and Efficient Use": Portable PCS telephones are subject to the rules and regulations of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Following these rules will help eliminate confusion, ensure the most efficient use of the existing frequencies, and result in a functioning radio network. The following offenses are punishable by fine, imprisonment, or both: o Use of profane, indecent, or obscene language while using your phone. [a bunch more snipped but somewhat more sane regulations] Joy. More laws to break. Jeremey. -- Jeremey Barrett BlueMoney Software Corp. Crypto, Ecash, Commerce Systems http://www.bluemoney.com/ PGP key fingerprint = 3B 42 1E D4 4B 17 0D 80 DC 59 6F 59 04 C3 83 64

5 4

RE: McVeigh? Nimrods.....
by Chris DiBona 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

<rant> Okay folks...what the hell is wrong with you? First off, this whole McVeigh Crap is a bit off topic..but we all know this. The amazing thing about the string of posts has been that people have forgotten that He has been found guilty of murdering quite a few people. Guilty, Guilty, Guilty. Jury of his peers, dare I say, people like us all. Randomly selected. This is how our system works. Yes there are flaws in the system. Yes the US govt. has it's problems in the past, present and future. Yes people have died because schnooks in DC have had thier heads up thier ass. Or not. So whether or not you belive he did it.....how can anyone be _for_ what _happened_. People died senselessly, I can't believe that anyone (in this case Duncan Frissell frissell(a)panix.com, lets give credit where it is due) can be so callous and , frankly, sick , to say : <> As to the Children of OKC, people who turn the care of their children over to government employees or contractors do not place too high a value on those children. <> Are you serious? You should be ashamed that you think this way. Do you really think those children who died weren't cared for? You are a sick person who should seriously consider therapy. Anyone who read this and said "Yeah!" is on the same plane. To all the people who defend blowing shit and people up to get thier point across.... Okay..so the IRA does it, and HAMMAS does it, and the CIA does it. So does the PLFP the FARC and a zillion other terrorist groups. And it appears McVeigh did it. But that doesn't make blowing up children in freakin' day care all right. Do you understand this? There is no reason to blow up kids. It's wrong. For any reason. Bad. Duncan...looking over your past posts.. .I've got to wonder if you were on acid when you wrote this, many of your posts were fairly cozigent. But this? Do you have children? Any cousins who are children? A nephew or neice? Do these children who may be important to you have parents who "care" about them enough to scour the planet to find a good,safe day care that isn't withing the blast radius or shooting range of : A government office. A large corporations headquarters. A law firm. A post office. A town square. A restaurant. A bank. Anywhere some asshole might have a gun and go loopy. Anywhere some asshole might have a car be drunk and go loopy. Anywhere some asshole might have a gun and a car and be drunk and go loopy. If they even could, I'm someone somewhere will find a way to fuck up that safe place. You get the point, I could go on....but I won't. Perhaps you should think and read over your posts before you post again. The only good thing (and I mean ONLY) to come out of the whole Mcveigh thing being discussed here on cypherpunks, is that it has allowed me to add to my killfiles people who have for some reason, had a prefrontal. To all the dipshits who could possibly think otherwise. I should also mention it is an EQUALLY fucked up thing to blow up adults. Like my fellow Santa Clara County Resident Bill Frantz said : For cypherpunks this comes down to: Make code, not bombs. Chris DiBona </rant>

1 0