December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Kansas City.
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A new scheme to broadcast the names and faces of people arrested for trying to buy and sell sex could mushroom into a full-fledged challenge to U.S. constitutional law. Starting Thursday, a local government access cable television channel will broadcast the names and faces of people arrested for prostitution-related crimes. The first half-hour installment will feature mugshots of alleged purveyors of sex and the customers who offered to pay for it. Supporters of the plan hope that such public humiliation will help efforts to crack down on prostitution. But opponents say it violates the principle of ``innocent until proven guilty,'' a key tenet of U.S. criminal law. ``The city is setting out to punish with ridicule people who have not been convicted of anything,'' said Dick Kurtenbach, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Kansas and western Missouri. ``The presumption of innocence is really turned on its head with this scheme.'' Both supporters and opponents say that although U.S. media groups regularly publish the names of people arrested and charged with crimes, this may be the first time a government entity broadcasts the identities of alleged wrongdoers. ``As far as we can tell, this is the first jurisdiction that's putting on TV names of people arrested. This is a fairly novel approach,'' Kurtenbach said. The plan was the brainchild of City Councilwoman Teresa Loar, who said she hopes it will deter prostitution and the social ills -- drug use, assault and robbery -- that commonly accompany it. ``I'm not here to persecute people. I just want them to know that they run the risk of having their picture on the access channel if they try to hire a prostitute,'' Loar said. Loar said she is aware of ACLU's criticisms, but she counters by saying that arrests are a matter of public record. She noted that a disclaimer will say that those people pictured are innocent until found guilty in a court of law. When asked why the city does not air the names of people actually convicted of prostitution, Loar explained that few arrests in prostitution sting operations actually lead to convictions. ``Showing convictions wouldn't work -- because we don't get any. They (the accused prostitutes and would-be customers) plead their way down and pay a fine,'' Loar said. Loar said she understands the idea of constitutional rights but feels her constituents' rights are more pressing. ``As far as victims' rights go, my concern is my constituents' rights to quality of life. Their rights are being violated every day with this crime,'' Loar said. Constitutional law experts acknowledged that those people whose names and faces wind up on television could sue the city but would probably lose any claims alleging defamation or invasion of privacy. But Doug Linder, law professor at University of Missouri-Kansas City, said it may be possible to claim that the broadcast constitutes a form of punishment, which legally has to be meted out through due process of law. Plaintiffs could sue on the grounds that they were not given due process to defend themselves, Linder said. ``One could argue that it is a form of punishment if the police department or the city is providing their pictures,'' Linder said. ``These people should have the opportunity to prove their innocence. I think there might be a real constitutional claim there.''

1 0

Re: Reporting threshold for NY money transfers lowered
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:30 PM 5/15/97 -0700, Steve Schear wrote: >Smaller operators >could deposit the funds in their demand deposit accounts or sell to >Aggregators who would offer to take any CTR related heat. I believe the term is "smurfing". -- 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

2 1

Re: SAFE vote and cutting crypto-deals, report from House Judiciary
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 19:51:28 -0700 From: Lee Tien <tien(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Re: SAFE vote and cutting crypto-deals, report from House Judiciary Thanks to Barry Steinhardt for his comments, especially his saying that: >The language was an improvement , but it doesn't belong in the bill and we >are still lobbying to have the criminalization provision removed. > >All of us in the cyber liberties community need to watch this legislation >very carefully. It could easily get much worse as a "compromise" is reached >with the Administration. In the end,the bill could be laden with amendments >on issues like key recovery that defeat our purpose of making strong and >secure encryption generally available. > >At some point, we may need to say that no bill is better than a bad bill. This is a crucial point. This isn't an exercise in back-patting, in doling out kudos. This struggle engages a stubborn and devious foe. I also thought Michael Sims was on target in pointing out that Safdar's criticism of Declan were basically arguments from authority. Speaking only for myself, it's not enough to look at who's for and who's against. The Administration likes to say, trust us, we know what's best. We should say the emperor has no clothes if it's true. Some supporters of these bills seem to respond to substantive criticisms with comments about loyalty or solidarity. What's wrong with robust, open debate about substance? I don't assume that those on the "inside" have better knowledge or understanding of the law. If they're going to defend the bills on the merits, they should explain the merits. I don't assume that everyone agrees on what the bills should say. Some might think that some "willful use of encryption" provision is consistent with civil liberties. (Personally, I don't and I'm glad to see Barry feels the same way.) But my point is, let's be clear whether we're disagreeing about values or political tactics. Is a compromise acceptable because, all things considered, it's the best we can do, or because we actually agree on the merits? Finally, I do believe that the insiders better understand the political need for compromise. But I'd like to be educated about it. In particular, I'd like to understand why the President wouldn't veto any bill he doesn't completely agree with. Unless there's something veto-proof out there, or some other bargaining chip, why wouldn't he veto it? Lee

1 0

Re: Spam IS Free Speech
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ross Wright wrote: > > Gander. Goose. > > Right. If I send you a gig, you send me a gig. If I send you a meg > you send me a meg. A few bytes for a few bytes. Are you following > what has upset me about this issue, yet? Like for Like, Goose, > Gander. You said it, but you don't mean it. Pardon me. Gander. Humongous fucking goose. > Right? You are saying if I send you one message, you have the right > to mail bomb me? There's no parity there. All's fair in love and Penis War. Your argument seems to center around the theme that those who dick everyone a little have no right to expect to be repaid in lump (pardon the pun) sum. You neglect to point out that those who use technology to send spam to millions of random addresses go to great pains to prevent those who receive their crapola from replying to the source of the spam. The fact is, anyone who chooses to return their crap in kind has my personal proxy to send them my share, as well. I am certain that if you take a poll on this you will find a few million others who will also give them this proxy. Penis Warrior

1 0

Re: Anonymous Remailers
by TruthMonger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May wrote: > Further, a clever little fix is to make one's own remailer site a link in > the chain. All a snooping subset of remailers can do is trace the message > back to your own remailers. Obviously, they can't know if the message was > merely _remailed_ through your site, or _originated_ there. Thus, including > oneself as a remailer also provides excellent plausible deniability.) This is a lame idea with no merit whatsoever. TruthMonger

1 0

Re: Response to "SAFE bill and cutting crypto-deals"
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Declan McCullagh wrote: > > Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 01:56:20 -0400 > From: Jason Gull <jgull(a)UMICH.EDU> > > We already have federal laws > which make the use of a telephone or the mails to commit a felony into an > additional offense, so this provision -- quite similar to obstruction of > evidence, from the look of it -- doesn't seem at odds with precedent. Precedent concerns citing the fact that the citizens are already getting fucked with a 2" Green Dildo, so therefore there is a precedent for them to get fucked with 2" Blue Dildos. > Granted, > there's the danger of the "slippery slope" -- that allowing any > restrictions on crypto will lead to a gradual encroachment of government > into other uses of cryptography. I've never seen a 2" Government Dildo that didn't grow in an expoential manner every time a Congressperson farted. > However, whether or not it is a good > idea or not, politics and previosu law seem to firmly support such a > provision. I'll rush right out and inform Che Guava and the Posse Comatose. When Dr. Roberts is done helping Kent get the stick out of his butt, perhaps he can do something about your cataracts. Del Do

1 0

Re: Just Say "No" to Congress
by TruthMonger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote: > anyone who disbelieves in the authority of the US government > yet sends them their tax money is a hypocrite. Horseshit. That's no different from saying that anyone who disbelieves in the authority of armed robbers yet gives them their wallet is a hypocrite. Do you actually put any thought into your posts? TruthMonger

2 1

Re: Anonymous Remailers
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Kent Crispin wrote: > Lucky, since I am considered contemptible by several c'punks, I worry > about them more than I would about foreign intelligence agents. Not contemptible, just an easy target to be used for sighting one's scope in preparation for attending to more sophisticated targets. I find many of your canned-brain arguments hilarious but they do seem useful for fodder for aspiring anarchists to use as a foil for their development. Anonymous Coward (Noel's older brother.)

2 1

PGPMail keets tabs on you!
by geeman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

... This is from the log file that pgp keeps on my machine, \WINDOWS\PGPWS_32.LOG. There appears to be a lot of interesting information here: -- I did not encrypt with IDEA only -- the recipients of the message I sent are shown along with the public key IDs -- The SIZE of the message! I have obfuscated some of the details from the actual log. The "?"s indicate removed details. =========== LOG: ============ Passphrase from caller = FALSE | if (SignIt && IDEAOnly && IDEAPassphrase && IDEAPassphrase[0] != '\0') | IDEA Passphrase from caller = FALSE | if (PublicKeyRingName && PublicKeyRingName[0] != '\0') | PublicKeyRingName string pointer is NULL or PublicKeyRingName is an empty string. Using default public keyring name. | if (PrivateKeyRingName && PrivateKeyRingName[0] != '\0') | PrivateKeyRingName string pointer is NULL or PrivateKeyRingName is an empty string. Using default private keyring name. | Recipient List: | Key ID: 0x???????? | PGP Options String eat | Encrypt Buffer Message | PGP Options Parm: eat | MyNameParm: | Keyring Name Parm: | File name for encrypt, sign, and/or armor: InputBufferLength = ?????? | Found without enough validating sigs:1 | Key for user ID:Remail <???(a)???.???> | Additional ID:Remailer <???(a)???.???> | bit size:1024 Key ID:????????created:12/13/1992 | Warning: Because this public key is not certified with a trusted signature, it is not known with high confidence that this public key actually belongs to:Remail <???(a)???.???> Are you sure you want to use this public key? | User Replied: Yes | Open Data Out; Output Buffer | OutputBufferLength = ?????? | OutputDataLength = ?????? | Transport armor file: | Kernel return value is: 0 |

2 1

Re: I Treat All My Enemies Equally
by TruthMonger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Blanc, taking on the million monkeys repeatedly typing, "Is too!"--"Is Not!", wrote: > I was thinking about those who have expressed a lack of concern for > the unfortunate mixture of the guilty & innocent in a close encounter with > a destructive device. I was thinking that people who aren't careful > about such differences make of themselves an enemy to all, because who can > tell what they're supporting and whose lives they really value, since > anyone at all could become their victim. What I see being expressed is not so much a lack of concern for those caught up unwittingly in the war between the government and its citizens as it is a debate over the comparative level of guilt or responsibility that the warring factions should bear for the end results of their actions. There has also been some debate as to the right of an individual to make decisions which will affect the lives of those who will be involved only by happenstance. Blanc brings up an excellent point; namely, that those who choose to take drastic action risk striking out randomly and maliciously at everybody if they do not consider the nature of their target and the amount of risk to peripheral participants in the event. From all accounts, McVeigh's actions were purposeful and directed at a target which he deemed suited to his purpose. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the perceived "innocent" body count will probably play a large amount in their support or non-support of his actions. > The fact of the matter is that those in the > middle must find a way to protect themselves from whatever weapon or > vehicle of destruction comes around, whatever its source. This is the way it is in all conflicts. Part of the current reason for the widespread disillusionment with government and the resulting animosity towards our rulers is the fact that those in the middle of the government's war on freedom and privacy don't see themselves as being involved in a war until it affects them personally. When those in the middle have their lives affected by those who take countermeasures against the government, then their view of his actions will be affected by whether or not they have had their car confiscated for possession of a single joint, or whether or not they are facing imprisonment for plugging a parking meter. Some of those who lost loved ones in the OKC bombing are involved in fighting the government to have a *real* investigation into what happened. No doubt some of them will come out of the whole process with much more disgust for the government than for McVeigh. > So, for instance, if Whitfield Diffie and PhilZ were walking into a Federal > building in OK City, and I saw some cypherpunk not too far away getting > ready to blow it up, well, I guess I'd have to kill him. (Dirty Harry > saying: "feel lucky today, cpunk?"). It's good to see that you've given this some thought. It is important to personalize one's thoughts and actions in order to keep from getting caught up in the mass-hysteria that surrounds such issues. History has recorded many instances of people who had to decide if they could attack a building that contained friends, compatriots, or loved ones in furtherance of their purpose. (Or make the decision to place themself inside an area targeted by their own cause.) While I would defend McVeigh from those who dismiss his actions out of hand, with no thought of the culpability of the government and the average citizen, I downloaded pictures of some of the children who were maimed by the OKC bombing and I use them to avoid forgetting that there is personal tragedy involved in such an action. The fact remains that the more the government violates the freedom and privacy of their citizens, then the more the citizens will strike back in their own chosen way. The final tragedy of the OKC bombing is the lack of reckoning demanded by the citizens of their government for the growing disdain of the rights of the citizens that has led to so many feeling disenfranchised by their rulers. Nobody is voting for disenfranchisement; nobody is voting to have their privacy invaded and their freedom violated; nobody is voting to have the government take their money and enrich those in power. Yet still, the onslaught of government control and intrusion into every area of our lives continues. Blanc makes some excellent points about the average citizen being caught in a ping-pong crossfire in the conflict between government and anti-government forces. However, as I said, this is in the nature of conflict and the citizen's best option may be to make a daily effort to resist the government oppression, no matter how small it may seem in any instance. To borrow an analogy from another thread, if the government spams enough cypherpunks with a few Kilobytes here and there, they will eventually raise the ire of a Rick Osborne enough that he will send them back a few Gigabytes in return. And if Ross Wright's computer gets caught in the crossfire... TruthMonger

2 1