December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Censorware empowerment meeting (was satire)
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Since I seem to have been misunderstood on at least two lists now, let me forward this. --Declan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 12:45:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: Lizard <lizard(a)dnai.com> Cc: Glenn Hauman <hauman(a)bb.com>, Seth Finkelstein <sethf(a)MIT.EDU>, jseiger(a)cdt.org, jberman(a)cdt.org, fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Re: White House "kinder, gentler"-CDA/censor empowerment meeting Lizard has it right. My post was meant to be satire. I should have been more clear. In fact, a good friend of mine sent me this message: > Declan, remember how I promised you I'd let you know as soon as I > thought you'd been in Washington too long, so that you wouldn't turn > into a beltway hack? > > This is the red flag. Get out. Apologies to all. In the future I will label all satiric posts as -L18, meaning those who are under 18 will probably not get the joke. By labeling my posts in this manner, I can ensure that they will be indexed up by search engines that will in the future only index properly-labeled pages. I can also ensure that users of Internet Explorer will remain able to read my scribbings, since the next version of IE is going to ship with RSACi turned on as a default. I will thus do my part to ensure a childsafe cyberspace, free from inappropriate material and bad jokes of all kinds. -Declan On Wed, 16 Jul 1997, Lizard wrote: > Um...I think Declan was being humorously sarcastic. (What was that thread a > few days ago about how irony doesn't work?) What's frightening is that his > sarcasm comes perilously close -- some might say overlaps -- posts made in > all apparent sincerity by others.

1 0

Censorware Summit Take II, from The Netly News
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

*********** http://pathfinder.com/netly/opinion/0,1042,1173,00.html The Netly News (http://netlynews.com) July 16, 1997 At The Censorware Summit by Declan McCullagh (declan(a)well.com) If you host a web page or publish online, be warned: soon your site might become invisible. Search engines won't index it and web browsers won't show it. Unless, that is, you agree to attach special labels to your web pages identifying how violent, sexually explicit, or inappropriate for kids your site is. This was the thrust of today's White House censorware summit, where President Clinton sat down with high tech firms and non-profit groups in a private meeting to talk about pressuring the Net community to make cyberspace childsafe through labels. "We need to encourage every Internet site, whether or not it has material harmful to minors, to rate its contents," Clinton said after the meeting. Vice President Gore was there, too, giving a quick demonstration of how labeling works. Spooked by the threat of a revised Communications Decency Act, high tech firms are seriously backing labels for the first time. Joining Clinton in coercing Internet users and businesses to label all their web pages were Yahoo, Excite, and Lycos. "I threw a gauntlet to other search engines in today's meeting saying that collectively we should require a rating before we index pages," Robert Davis, the president of Lycos, told me. Translation: if you don't play ball, and label your site, search engines will ignore you. As will future users of Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser. The next version of IE will default to displaying only properly labeled web pages, according to Ken Wasch, the president of the Software Publishers Association. Since many users won't turn off that feature to reach unrated sites, many large web sites now are facing hefty pressure to self-label. Other high tech firms rushed to join the presidential limelight. Netscape promised to join Microsoft and include label-reading software in the next version of its browser. America Online's Steve Case thanked Clinton for "backing industry's efforts to make cyberspace a safer place." IBM announced a $100,000 grant to RSACi, a PICS-based rating standard originally designed for video games but adapted for the Web. The industry giant also pledges to incorporate RSACi into future products. [...]

4 3

Re: White House "kinder, gentler"-CDA
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Declan McCullagh wrote: > Subject: Re: White House "kinder, gentler"-CDA/censor empowerment meeting > > Below we see an excellent example of the naivete inherent in > Net-libertarian and cypherpunk writing. Obviously the writer does not > understand the complexities and challenges of Washington politics. In many > ways, it is like sausage being made: disgusting to watch, but a process > that results in the compromises so vital in a healthy democracy. I don't see Cypherpunks being naieve about the need to compromise in order for people to live together, but I think Cypherpunks recognize the difference between things which are inviolate and those which are not. e.g. - A group of people in a liferaft with food and poison. Debate over how much each of us can eat from a pool of food held in common may be open to compromise, but debate over whether any individual can-or-cannot-or-*must* eat poison to end suffering or "for the good of the collective" should *not* be open to compromise of the individual's right to self-determination. The problem is that the "solution" to every "problem," in the eyes of LEA's and the legislature, is to compromise rights and freedoms that are guaranteed by the Constitution. The problem is that many of the purported "problems" involve people passing judgement on the interests and actions of others and their "solution" is to criminalize other's actions on the basis of their own sense of guilt and shame. The problem is that those promoting "compromise" often have an agenda that is based on a series of compromises leading to complete abrogation of the other's position. {A prime example is the "compromise" of making already-legal crypto "legal" in return for agreeing to criminalizing other currently legal actions.) > Which is why it is inappropriate to criticize the White House's position > on the CDA. If you speak your mind aloud, you run the risk of being > marginalized like the ACLU. How can you serve your constituents then? If you are taking a reasonable, rational stance on issues and are marginalized or cut out of the loop in order for the government to disenfranchise your constituents, then you can serve your constituents by taking up arms against the criminals who are subverting the will of the people. > I can only conclude that because Mr. Finkelstein does not live inside the > Beltway, we cannot expect him to realize that it is always necessary to > remain players in the game -- even if it means giving up fundamental > liberties in the process. Duh... I certainly hope you are talking about giving up your *own* fundamental liberties to remain in "the game" (which you have every right to do). However, if you are indeed representing constituents (or readers), then you are also giving up their liberties, as well, to a certain extent. I think you need to do some serious thinking about the difference between compromising in order to defend a position and compromising in order to "remain a player in the game." If you are not strong enough to defend a position of principle and survive, then you should not be the one "in the game" defending that position. The ACLU and the NRA "marginalize" and "compromise" themselves, it is not the government, the public, or their members "doing it *to*" them. As far as I am concerned, what compromises you make in order to remain in a position to report on the beltway is your own decision to make. I just hope you have the wit and wisdom to walk with the Devil only as far as the bridge, because he always burns it behind him, and few make it back. TruthMonger

1 0

Re: White House "kinder, gentler"-CDA/censor empowerment meeting
by John Deters 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This message was also To: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com>, but apparently algebra.com eats messages with more than one To: recipient. From: John Deters <jad> Subject: Re: White House "kinder, gentler"-CDA/censor empowerment meeting In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970716080230.15247L-100000(a)well.com> At 08:03 AM 7/16/97 -0700, you [Declan McCullagh] wrote: >I can only conclude that because Mr. Finkelstein does not live inside the >Beltway, we cannot expect him to realize that it is always necessary to >remain players in the game -- even if it means giving up fundamental >liberties in the process. Declan, I think you made a phrasing error here. Perhaps you meant to say that you think it, "prudent to hold your tongue when speaking to the White House if you want a gold-engraved invitation back." To some people, it read like you were saying "give up fundamental liberties to free speech in order to 'protect the children.'" Either way, there's not much difference there: political speech MUST remain the 'most protected of all', and if someone is afraid of speaking their mind during a debate, then we've all lost. However, I think you've missed the ACLU point of NOT "playing the game". They're not trying to get on (or stay on) the short invitation list to whatever dog-n-pony show the White House trots out next. Their concern is for the Constitution, that it be followed BY EVERYONE, and that it doesn't get trampled completely by bad laws written by ignorant lawmakers. When the ACLU was not "invited" to a meeting where the entire purpose seems be that of passing another bad law to circumvent the first amendment without pissing off the same ACLU, don't you agree that perhaps the White House made a tactical error? IMHO, the ACLU should be a part of the lawmaking *process*. Rather than passing bad laws and checking for their constitutionality on the back end by people desperate enough to gamble on the outcome of a long, expensive legal process, I think we'd all be a lot better off checking for constituonal laws before we pass them at all. According to the Constitution, that's the President's job (it's what he said when he took the oath), but we all know that he only sees his job to be that of "the biggest congressman of all, gotta follow the polls of the whole nation." Perhaps the "three strikes and you're out" rule could apply to Congress: if you vote for three laws that are overturned by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional, you go to jail for 25 years to life, no parole. Debate the new laws all you want, but when it comes down to casting your vote, you'd better be certain you're not violating the Constitution. We need more accountability on the front end of the legal process, because the average among us can't afford to gamble on the back end. John -- J. Deters "Don't think of Windows programs as spaghetti code. Think of them as 'Long sticky pasta objects in OLE sauce'." +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ | NET: mailto:jad@dsddhc.com (work) mailto:jad@pclink.com (home) | | PSTN: 1 612 375 3116 (work) 1 612 894 8507 (home) | | ICBM: 44^58'36"N by 93^16'27"W Elev. ~=290m (work) | | For my public key, send mail with the exact subject line of: | | Subject: get pgp key | +--------------------------------------------------------------------+

1 0

Rep. Rick White on White House censorware summit (fwd)
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 14:32:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Rep. Rick White on White House censorware summit FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Connie Correll July 16, 1997 (202) 225-1201 (O)/ (202) 237-2136 (H) e-mail: connie.correll(a)mail.house.gov WHITE ATTENDS WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE QUESTIONS GOVERNMENT SOLUTION (Washington, D.C.) -- Congressman Rick White (R-First District) today made clear his desire to protect kids who use the Internet but expressed concern that the federal government can solve the problem. White's remarks were made during his participation in a closed meeting at the White House that focused on making the Internet family friendly. "I have four children who love to use the Net and there is no question we need to protect our kids from harmful material on the Internet. Today's meeting was a step in the right direction," said White. "But as we evaluate the next step we need to make sure we don't lure ourselves into a false sense of security. No matter what we do in the United States it won't affect sites developed in Amsterdam or Bangkok. That's why I'm skeptical that the federal government can solve this problem. The real solution will come from the smart people in the private sector." White today praised representatives of the software community, the Administration as well as family and civil liberty groups for their efforts to develop a comprehensive solution for a family friendly Internet. He encouraged the development of filtering software but expressed concern that a government based solution would be too restrictive and regulatory. White has long been a leader in keeping the Internet free from federal regulation. As a member of the select committee that developed the final telecommunications reform bill last year, White offered a compromise proposal to the CDA that would protect kids. The compromise included a proposal, defeated by one vote, to replace the "indecency" standard with the "harmful to minors" standard. Other provisions of White's compromise became part of the final bill. Those provisions included: 1) developing strong, effective laws that target wrongdoers; 2) using parental empowerment software to screen material; and 3) providing incentives for industry to develop new screening technologies. In March of 1996 White formed the Congressional Internet Caucus (IC) to help educate Members of Congress about the Internet. White believes through the work of the Internet Caucus and with the help of the Internet community, Capitol Hill has gained a better understanding of the Internet.

2 1

The Real Plan: Making the Net Safe for Censorship
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 14:16:47 -0500 From: Marc Rotenberg <rotenberg(a)epic.org> To: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: The Real Plan: Making the Net Safe for Censorship Here is an example of a proposal being presented at the White House today. The minds boggles at the number of unconstitutional provisions contained in such a brief text. Never has a freedom won in a Supreme Court decision been given up so quickly. Marc Rotenberg EPIC. ---------- http://www.safesurf.com/online.htm The Online Cooperative Publishing Act (SafeSurf's Proposal for a Safe Internet Without Censorship) Any law that seeks to regulate the Internet must first recognize the uniqueness of the medium. The Internet is not the print media or the broadcast industry. It is also not another form of phone conversation or a 900 number calling system. Instead, the Internet is the manifestation of humankind's quest for limitless two-way interaction with thought. The hyper-text layout allows us to change topics on a whim, travel to distance places, or gather world opinion on a subject in a matter of minutes. This distinctive nature of the Internet must be protected and even promoted by any legislation that claims to be fair to this medium. The interaction between the one receiving data and the one publishing it are where the core of the law should focus. Both sides have rights, the publisher has the First Amendment and the receiver has the right to be secure from harm in his home. Proper Internet law should encourage a cooperative transfer of ideas in the form of data. (It should be noted that it was the universal acceptance of basic rules of cooperation, rather than anarchy, that built the Internet. ) Any law that attempts to give one side or the other is given an unreasonable burden in conducting the transfer of data is doomed to failure. The CDA was too burdensome on the publisher. Its goal was to stop the flow of data, rather than to regulate it for the benefit of all parties. On the other hand, without a proper law, parents can purchase and activate measures to protect their children from adult material and still not feel secure in their homes from unwanted material. This is because negligent publishing of data eventually allows material that can harm the child to enter the home. Once this material is experienced by the child, its damage is done. There is no "oops" factor, no way to undo the unwanted intrusion into a child's innocence. Most importantly, any Internet law must not censor thought. It may regulate the labeling on the packaging but never the content. With the goal of achieving a greater spirit of cooperation between the publisher and the receiver of online data, we propose the Online Cooperative Publishing Act. It shall contain the following provisions: 1. The right to be able to identify the adult rating of online content before it enters one's home shall be established. This shall be a civil right giving the violated person or family the presumption in a suit against negligent publishers. 2. Negligent publishing of data shall be defined as placing adult oriented material on the Internet in such a way or in such a location that it prevents its rating from being known. 3. A rating shall be defined as a PICS compatible label that identifies degrees of adult content in a way that can be understood by computer filtering systems and is issued by a ratings service that has a minimum of 5,000 documented individuals using its system to mark their data. 4. A publisher is defined as anyone who places computer data where it can be accessed by the general public without the use of a credit card or other secure verified ID or password given out only to adults. Content that can be only be accessed by the use credit cards or other secure verified IDs is not subject to this law. 5. The code used to surround content published on the Internet shall be defined as packaging. All government identification requirements shall be limited to the code of the packaging. Nothing in this law shall be construed to require any altering or censorship of the content. 6. Three types of online publishing shall be defined: a) Publishers who accurately identify their data with a recognized labeling system. These publishers shall be considered to have satisfied the labeling requirement of the law. The right to publish shall be completely protected for those who accurately label their material. They shall be protected from all civil suits that argue negligent posting of data. Only grossly mislabeled material can be prosecuted. (Note: This is not a protection for obscene material. This law will offer no protection for obscene material.) b) Publishers who mislabel their data to the degree that it enables a minor using a label filtering system to gain access to harmful material. Data shall be considered to be mislabeled if it is posted in a newsgroup, directory or other joint area that has been labeled as free from material harmful to minors. Tampering with another's label shall be crime. These publishers may be criminally prosecuted for subverting a rating system to entice children to harmful material. The mislabeling must be to the extent that it is completely unreasonable to accept it as accurate. Only ratings that are too lenient can be prosecuted. Posting unlabeled adult material to an area that has declared itself safe for children or tampering with another's label shall be a severe criminal assault on the rights of the receiver. Sending unsolicited email to a minor that contains pornographic material or an invitation to a pornographic Web Site, shall be considered negligent enticement and may be criminally prosecuted. A bulk email service sending pornographic email must show that it took reasonable measures to insure that every recipient was an adult. (Example: The addresses used were from the membership list of Adult Check or other such adult verification services.) c) Publishers who do not label their data at all. Negligence in the absence of damages shall not be a criminal offense (but it may be a civil violation of the rights of the receivers of that data) unless the data is deemed to be harmful to minors. Then the publisher will be prosecuted for negligence. These publishers may be sued in civil court by any parent who feels their children were harmed by the data negligently presented. The parents shall be given presumption in all cases and do not have to prove the data actually produced harm to their child only that the material reasonably could be considered to have needed a label warning to protect children. 7. Internet Service Providers are considered publishers of only that material of which they directly control or gain revenue via a percentage of sales. Web Site designers may be held liable if they fail to attach ratings to Web sites, containing material harmful to minors, they design for a fee. They may, by written agreement, assign the task of rating to another legally responsible party. 8. Not every document is required to be labeled, only the default or index document of each directory. In the case of an entire web domain being of one rating, only its default top level document needs to be labeled with instructions to apply it to the entire site.

6 7

Re: HeavensGate Mirror incomplete/censored
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We decided to ditch the Pathfinder mirror site after a few weeks. The difference in the heavensgate.com and pathfinder.com sites was due, I remember, to the fact that we grabbed our copy from the heavensgatetoo.com site, which wasn't quite identical. -Declan At 03:28 +2037 3/31/5, Edgar W Swank wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >Mike Duvos recently posted here > > For complete information on the impending recycling of the planet > earth, and instructions for entering the Kingdom Level above > Human, try the mirror at... > > http://www.pathfinder.com/news/heavensgate > >I was able, finally, to get through to the original site > > http://www.heavensgate.com > >and I noticed the mirror site does not include two links present >in the original > > Earth Exit Statements by Students > > Exit Press Release: > "Away Team" Returns to Level Above Human > >which are perhaps the most interesting for "outsiders." The last >one starts > > RANCHO SANTA FE, CA -- By the time you receive this, we'll be gone -- > several dozen of us. ... > >And offers these instructions for stragglers ... > > During a brief window of time, some may wish to follow us. If > they do, it will not be easy. The requirement is to not only > believe who the Representatives are, but, to do as they and we > did. You must leave everything of your humanness behind. This > includes the ultimate sacrifice and demonstration of faith -- > that is, the shedding of your human body. If you should choose > to do this, logistically it is preferred that you make this > exit somewhere in the area of the West or Southwest of the > United States -- but if this is not possible -- it is not > required. You must call on the name of TI and DO to assist > you. In so doing, you will engage a communication of sorts, > alerting a spacecraft to your location where you will be picked > up after shedding your vehicle, and taken to another world -- > by members of the Kingdom of Heaven. > >Edgar W. Swank <EdgarSwank(a)Juno.com> > (preferred) >Edgar W. Swank <cryoprez(a)jps.net> > (for files/msgs >50K) >Home Page: http://members.tripod.com/~EdgarS/index.html > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >Version: 2.6.2 > >iQCVAwUBM0Ve8N4nNf3ah8DHAQHc0wP/SEC42UUnfke6+XhnTBjC52KqJEEo8df/ >3HctUa4eQqOBmQAIlk9YP/BpYjhSMyXaFTb9Af9AuzUbyKZIiBJcLTqaIv9MEo/q >EKYbXs3kNI2bP/txTyqNo0BVnXIW6h7infnEE5lJp+xc5d5ci5beIiMXVQxYinEl >o+VsLWmezC8= >=WsOo >-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------- Declan McCullagh Time Inc. The Netly News Network Washington Correspondent http://netlynews.com/

1 0

Re: The Real Plan: Making the Net Safe for Censorship
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Marc: What a bunch of crap! Keep out of the internet, you government flunky. Let business, commerce and freedom of speech remain in it's new home, Cyberspace. And save your regulations for someone who needs them. On or About 16 Jul 97 at 14:42, Marc Rotenberg <rotenberg(a)epic.org> wrote: > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 14:16:47 -0500 > From: Marc Rotenberg <rotenberg(a)epic.org> > To: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu > Subject: The Real Plan: Making the Net Safe for Censorship > > > Here is an example of a proposal being presented > at the White House today. =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: (408) 259-2795

4 3

Justice is Done
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- From: "--Todd Lappin-->" <telstar(a)WIRED.COM> Wednesday July 16 4:10 PM EDT TV's 'Barney' Chokes in Filming Accident DALLAS (Reuter) - An actor playing "Barney," the purple dinosaur loved by millions of children, suffered smoke inhalation when a cooling fan inside the 60-pound suit shorted out during filming of the TV show, officials said Wednesday. There was no fire but the actor inhaled smoke as he tried to get out of the suit at a Dallas studio Tuesday, said Susan Elsner, a spokeswoman for Lyrick Studios and The Lyons Group, which created and produces the hugely popular children's show "Barney & Friends." She said the actor, who was not named, inhaled a "slight amount of smoke" but was released after a routine examination. Once the incident was reported on television, scores of anxious parents called to say their children were worried their favorite dinosaur had been burned or, worse still, was a fake. "It can be really devastating to a 3-year-old," Elsner said. "They love Barney and they think that something terrible has happened to him, or that it's not real." "Barney & Friends" airs on the U.S. Public Broadcasting System and is a top-ranking program for children under age 6. It appears in 30 countries across six continents. Elsner said Tuesday's incident came as the cast was filming shows for the fall season.

1 0

Re: FCPUNX:'The Failure to Do Your Job' amendment (was Re: White House
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:15 PM 7/16/97 -0500, John Deters wrote: > A Constitutional amendment that would call for the impeachment of the > President for failing to veto any three bills that are overturned by the > Supreme Court on Constitutional grounds. This however, presupposes that the supreme court is likely to veto unconstitutional bills, and refrain from vetoing constitutional bills. This does not appear to be the case. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

2 1