December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Secrecy?
by Peter Nicol - VRL / BroomStick Productions 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hmmmm . . . After following this list for a while I offer the following observation: "Would it be better to DEMAND the full disclosure of the governments secrets rather than scramble around trying to keep ours." I am prepared to allow governments full access to my communications when they allow me full access to theirs. But then again, why be governed in the first place? Peter Nicol Global Media Magnet nicol(a)iap.net.au 019 111 943 "Nonlinear models differ form linear ones in a number of ways. Rather than trying to figure out all the chains of causality, the modeler looks for nodes where feedback loops join and tries to capture as many of the important loops as possible in the system's "picture." Rather than shaping the model to make a forecast about future events or to exercise some central control, the nonlinear modeller is content to perturb the model, trying out different variations in order to learn about the system's critical points and its homeostasis (resitance to change). The modeler is not seeking to control the complex system by quantifying it and mastering its causality; she wants to increase her "intuitions" about how the system works so she can interact with it more harmoniously."

2 2

SSA Privacy Forum 6.16.97
by Dave Banisar 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Social Security Administration Forum Privacy and Customer Service in the Electronic Age Monday, June 16, 1997 Georgetown U. Law Center Moot Court Room 600 New Jersey Ave. NW Washington D.C. 20001 Agenda: WELCOME 12-12:15 pm Welcome by Marc Rotenberg, Director, Electronic Privacy Information Center and Professor, Georgetown Law University Introduction of Dr. John J. Callahan, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration PANEL #1 PRIVACY EXPERTS AND CONSUMER ADVOCATES 12:15-1:15 pm Leslie Byrne, Special Assistant to the President, and Director, U.S. Office of Consumer Affairs Harry Hammitt, Editor and Publisher, Access Report Newsletter Evan Hendricks, Editor and Publisher, Privacy Times and Chairman, U.S. Privacy Council Sally Katzen, Director, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget Deirdre Mulligan, Staff Counsel, Center for Democracy and Technology PANEL #2 COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY EXPERTS 1:30-2:15 pm Edward G. Amoroso, Technical Manager, AT&T Laboratories Michael Angelo, Principal Member, Technology Staff, Compaq Corporation Dorothy E. Denning, Professor of Computer Science, Georgetown University David P. Jablon, Software Engineer and Cryptographic Specialist, Integrity Sciences, Inc. George Spix, Chief Architect Consumer Platforms Division, Microsoft Corporation PANEL #3 INTERNET COMMERCE, BANKING AND FINANCIAL PLANNING EXPERTS 2:30-3:15 pm Mark Greene, Vice President, Electronic Payments and Certification, IBM Internet Division Russ Housely, Chief Scientist, Spyrus, Inc. Charles Merrill, Partner, McCarter & English Law Firm Jahan Moreh, Chief Security Architect, Open Horizon, Inc. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD - 3:15 pm Members of public who have registered may speak for 4 minutes. The panel may ask questions following each individual's testimony, if desired. CLOSING REMARKS - 4:30 pm For more information and directions, see: http://www.ssa.gov/forums/washingtondc.htm More information on EPIC is available at http://www.epic.org/

1 0

There's no general right to privacy -- get over it, from Netly
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

************** http://pathfinder.com/netly/editorial/0,1012,1050,00.html The Netly News June 12, 1997 Privacy? What Privacy? by Declan McCullagh (declan(a)well.com) I have a confession to make: Unlike many of my civil libertarian colleagues, I believe you have no general right to privacy online. Sure, you have the right to protect your personal data, but you shouldn't be able to stop someone else from passing along that information if you let it leave your computer. That's your responsibility. So you can imagine my dismay when I learned I'd be sitting through four full days of Federal Trade Commission hearings this week on Internet privacy. The commission's goal? To define "privacy rights" for the Net -- and to be perhaps the first federal agency to regulate it. The commissioners are being spurred on by consumer groups that want the government to bar firms from collecting information about your online wanderings. Businesses say that such a rule would stifle Internet advertising and commerce and have recently released a flurry of self-regulatory proposals. [...] Which is one reason why I think there is no general right to privacy -- at least as the consumer groups and privacy advocates describe it. Rotenberg likes to say "Privacy is not an absolute right, but a fundamental right." But in truth, privacy is not a right but a preference: Some people want more of it than others. Of course there's an essential right to privacy from the government. (Beware government databases: Nazis used census data in Germany and Holland to track down and eliminate undesirables.) You also have a right to privacy from Peeping Toms. But -- no matter how much big-government fetishists want this to be true -- you don't own information about yourself. After all, journalists are able to investigate someone's private life and publish an article -- even if it contains embarrassing personal details. This is a good thing: Any restrictions would weaken the First Amendment. Then there's gossip, which is a time-honored way of trading in others' personal information. "The reindeer-herding Lapps, for whom theft of livestock is easy and common, gossip about who has stolen which animal and where they are," sociologist Sally Engle Merry writes. [...] ------------------------- Declan McCullagh Time Inc. The Netly News Network Washington Correspondent http://netlynews.com/

13 45

There's no general right to privacy -- get over it, from Netly (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 18:58:37 -0400 > From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> > Subject: There's no general right to privacy -- get over it, from Netly > likes to say "Privacy is not an absolute right, but a > fundamental right." But in truth, privacy is not a > right but a preference: Some people want more of it > than others. A right is not a question of popularity or amplitude, it is a question of existance. It is or it isn't. Some people want more guns than others (obvious even to you) so you seriously hold that there is no fundamental Constitutional right to own firearms? Or speech, we don't all want to use it to the same amount, we therefore don't have a right to free speech? Or (oh my god!) crypto, we don't all want to use it to the same degree therefore we don't have a right to use crypto? Serious boo-boo. I hope it ain't gone to print yet... ____________________________________________________________________ | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http:// www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

9 10

Jim Bell 5
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I spoke briefly this afternoon with Kelly Miller, the clerk of the district court handling Jim's case. She said that the USA, Jim and Jim's attorney agreed to waive (extend) the deadline for speedy indictment so that additional material could be assembled by all parties. And that no action will be taken until on or about June 30; Jim will remain in jail until then. Jim's attorney, Peter Avenia, confirmed this but would not comment further except in answer to my question about getting in touch with Jim said that he had advised Jim not to make statements to anyone. ----- Kelly Miller: 1-253-593-6754 Peter Avenia: 1-253-593-6710

1 0

Democratic Assassination
by Pilgrim 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Instead of putting child pornographers in prison we will put >cryptographers and remailer operators in prison. Instead of >confiscating the assets of drug czars will confiscate the assets >of people who have a kid who smokes a joint once a week. Instead >of censoring legislation which limits our freedom and privacy >we will censor literature which proposes democratic assassination >of those who oppress us. Whoa there bud! I have a nagging feeling that democratic assassination is a large can of worms than we realize. There is something fundamentally wrong with a society that is built upon the notion that those people who do and say unpopular things deserve death. Yet that is exactly what a system of "democratic" assassinations would do, enable a large group of people to intimidate and subvert a smaller group of people. So, for the sake of argument, let this system of anonymous democratic assassination come to pass...then what? Utopia? Maybe.... But let's say that someone comes along later, proposing a way of living that is radically different from the norm. Exhibiting a nasty characteristic that has been inherent in the human races for eons....even before the rise of large sprawling governments....the majority of people decide that they don't like this troublemaker....through the process of democratic assassination...this person is now dead. Forget even the shade of a possibility that this person may have been right...that his way of living ***may*** have been better than the norm. Right and wrong don't matter. Popularity and the "mood of the crowd" do...this person said somethig unpopular, and is dead because of it. Freedom of speech? Let's say that a group of people suddenly become unpopular. Perhaps times are tough and the majority need a scapegoat. Maybe this group of people have been long oppressed and are finally fighting back. Through a system of democratized assassination....their leaders are dead....with no one willing to take their place (out of fear)....maybe a few other random people are killed just to really get these people quaking in their boots. Or let's take it one step further. If democratic assassination is good, why not democratic genocide. Let the people take a vote, and if the scale tips the right way, an entire group of people need killed. Is this good? Let's take a step further. Going back to my first example, let's say that someone comes along proposing a new way to live, and many people take to it and follow this person. Unfortunately, this person has just happened to make a few powerful enemies. Through a system of "democratic" assassination, this person is now dead...and there is no way to catch his/her killers. Is this even democratic? Even if digital cash, anonymous remailers and strong encryption could enable us to set up a democratic system of assassination (which it couldn't)...I still wouldn't want to live in a society where killing is democratized...I do not want to live in a society where people can abitrarily take a vote on whether I should live or die.... Just because a majority of people like an idea, does that make the idea any more right or any less wrong? I (and I would wager you) do not want to live in a society where it is dangerous...even life threatening to be unpopular, and to go against the flow. I know that I hold fast to ideas and beliefs which are hardly considered popular....the only reason I'm not socially scorned, right now, is because I'm very diplomatic about them.... You wrote a lot about "The Machine," as if it was some real, intelligent, calculating conscience. It is not. While I do not doubt that "The Machine" exists, it is not something that is tangible....it is a system...a way of doing things...a set of entrenched powers...it is not a person. "The Machine" won't be defeated by killing. Its weakness is far more subtle..and takes a lot longer to exploit....but that's another story...for another listserv. That IRS guy that you want to kill? Sure, he might work for "The Machine," but killing him won't solve anything. Hating him won't solve anything. It might be a short term fix, but there will be others. And perhaps, if you stop and look at that IRS guy whom you hate so much...you might find that 1) He has parents, maybe even a wife and children, all of whom love him 2) He gets tired and night, and has to use the bathroom 3) He gets happy, sad, lonely, depressed, He's another human being....just like yourself...indeed, the only difference between himself and yourself is how he makes a living. And maybe...just maybe...he is just as big a victim of "The Machine" as you are. Of course, I'm not accusing anyone of wanting to kill anyone...or hating anyone. I'm just throw this out because it is food for thought. You write so much about "The Machine" causing division and hatred between people. Perhaps "The Machine" has manipulated you more than you realize. Justice rarely comes out of hatred. Regards, Pilgrim Regards, Pilgrim

2 3

Burn flag = unconstitutional
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > House Passes Constitutional Amendment On Flag Desecration > > By Darlene Superville > Associated Press Writer > > WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House voted overwhelmingly today for a proposed > constitutional amendment against flag desecration, an issue pushed by > conservatives since Republicans took over Congress in 1995. > > The House tally, held two days before Flag Day, was 310-114.

2 1

Internet - Good & Bad [CNN]
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > June 12, 1997: 4:28 p.m. ET > > Time NEW YORK (CNNfn) - New technologies for video transmission over > the Internet, such as digital video discs (DVDs), represent remarkable > potential but also pose an inherent threat to global intellectual > property rights, one of the most powerful media executives in the > nation said. > [INLINE] The Net represents "promise and penalty," Frank Biondi, > chairman and chief executive of MCA's Universal Studios, told the > audience of the third annual Price Waterhouse media conference here. > [INLINE] "At some time, we'll be able to transmit video real-time" > over the World Wide Web through the use of technology such as DVDs, > Biondi said. However, to succeed, media companies increasingly need to > address two principle challenges: protecting intellectual property and > promoting the "brand," he added. > [INLINE] "By and large, encryption can be broken. That's pretty > scary," Biondi said.

1 0

Crackdown on spam? [CNN]
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > FEDS TO CRACK DOWN ON JUNK E-MAIL FRAUD > > > > June 12, 1997 > Web posted at: 8:16 p.m. EDT (2016 GMT) > > WASHINGTON (AP) -- Federal regulators put the junk e-mailindustry on > notice Thursday that businesses will be punished ifthey put false > information in unsolicited mail they send tomillions of Internet > users. > > The Federal Trade Commission also asked the industry to come upwith > ways to stem the flood of commercial mail clogging theInternet and > creating bottlenecks that make it difficult to getonline. > > The FTC said it would ask industry groups to supply lists > ofjunk-mail senders to help in the new drive to detect > fraud.Penalties a junk mailer might face for breaking the fraud law > couldinclude an injunction to stop the illegal practice up to tens > ofthousands of dollars in fines for a repeat offender.

1 0

Major Netscape Bug [CNN]
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From Correspondent Steve Young > June 12, 1997: 6:58 p.m. ET > > Netscape unveils Netcaster - April 15, 1997 > > Princeton team finds third Netscape bug - May 20, 1996 > > Netscape NEW YORK (CNNfn) - A serious new flaw that affects all > versions of Netscape Communications Corp.'s popular Navigator Internet > browser software -- including the final test version of its > Communicator Suite released Wednesday -- has been uncovered by a > Danish software firm, CNNfn has learned. > > The bug was reported by Cabocomm, a software company located about 100 > miles west of Copenhagen, Denmark. The bug makes it possible for > Web-site operators to read anything stored on the hard drive of a PC > logged on to the Web site.

1 0