December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Copyrights and Wrongs, from The Netly News
by Mikhael Frieden 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:46 AM 11/23/97 -0700, Tim May wrote: >At 5:32 AM -0700 11/23/97, Mikhael Frieden wrote: > >> It is interesting that while almost the entire body of copyright >>law deals with materials other then what is to be covered, the industry has >>enough clout to get their's singled out for the first criminal penalties >>for violation. >> >> This leaves the bulk of copyrighted material, printed material, >>photographs and the like open to being stolen as does nizkor for example. > >I mentioned this point back when I was on the Cyberia-l list a few years ago. > >Some of the law professors on the list were complaining that their >copyright rights were being violated by the quoting or forwarding of >articles. > >And the major newspapers were sending out threatening letters, which were >generally heeded by the "offenders." > >Well, what about _my_ stuff? (More generally, anybody's stuff.) > >Why does Professor Joe Shmoe or "The New Attleboro Times" have a greater >claim to "copyright violations" than Fred Nobody? > >This is a semi-rhetorical question, as it mostly involves who is willing to >hire a lawyer to enforce such property claims. But, as M. Frieden notes, >the deck is stacked in favor of large newspapers, publishers, and even >professional authors, and is stacked against private individuals and lesser >authors gaining access to the courts. >"Some copyrights are more equal than others." >(Personally, I don't really believe in copyrights.) Perhaps but there is something particularly obnoxious to the rule of law when scum like McVay being able to say to the effect, 'I know I am stealing from you. Sue me.' It is most clearly a mockery of the law to find his pack of drooling toadies such as McC using the theft as a juvenile taunt, that some may set themselves above the law solely upon the grounds of the cost of civil action. That is something simply not done in civilized society. -=-=- The 2nd guarantees all the rest.

3 2

Re: Further costs of war (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 23:12:31 -0500 > From: Fabrice Planchon <fabrice(a)math.Princeton.EDU> > Subject: Re: Further costs of war (fwd) > I guess what Tim means is at some point a equilibrium is reached, such > as in this case 2 dominant players (Japan and USA) face each other and > rather coexist than fight, because trading is more beneficial to them > than war. The problem with such a theory is that it supposes both actors > are intelligent enough to figure out when war isn't the best > solution. In that particular case, I have little to no faith in the > japanese side... Considering the relationship between the Kwantung Army and the Emporer faith and the Japanese are a clearly mis-matched combination. > > Really? How so? Is your position that Germany would have benignly left the > > US alone once they had defeated Britian (I am assuming of course the US > > hadn't shipped resources such as oil and fuel to them)? Had the US not > > gotten into the war the resources available to Germany and Japan were such > > they could realisticaly have beaten the Russian. One of the reasons that > > Hum hum. I frankly doubt that. Japan beat the shit out of Russia in 1903. Had it not been for Richard Sorge's intelligence of the situation in 1938 around Chankufeng Hill at Vladivostok indicating the Japanese governments committment to keep the situation from becoming a declared war and Georgi Zukhov at Khalkin Gol in 1939 the Japs would have beaten them then as well. In both situations Stalin was up against the wall. In 1938 there are clear indications that instead of counter-attacking he might very well have sued for peace and in the process lost the port at Vladivostok. Had the Japanese re-inforced their army they could have beaten the Russian troops available. Considering the lack of roads and rail in that part of Russia it is unrealistic to expect reinforcements to have arrived from Russia in a meaningful time frame without recognizing the contribution Japans hesitancy in getting into a conflict with Russia and Richard Sorge's clandestine intelligence contributed. Had either one of those not been present then Russia would have been eaten in little gobbles from the east and west. > Somehow your ability to expand durably > depends on your ability to keep your new possessions. While occupying > France, using a satellite gouvernment, isn't that hard, occupying Russia > (for the germans) and China (for the japanese) is another, quite > impossible, task if you don't get the population support (or, at least, > indifference). So, if Hitler had known better, he would have stuck to > western europe... Had it not been for the oil, food, and weapons we shipped Britian he would have owned Europe in toto. It is clear from Hitlers earliest writings that he had full intention of taking Russia. Had Stalin not had Sorge's intelligence regarding the Japanese's intent not to attack Russia at that time he would not have been able to pull troops from that front. Had those troops not been pulled then both Moscow and Stalingrad *would* have fallen. If Moscow fell Stalin fell. The Japanese also had intentions of taking Russia but only if they could consolidate their hold in the western Pacific Rim *and* keep America out of the conflict. China was beaten at the time. The only thing keeping the Japanese from taking over the entire country was two things. Their interest in expanding southward and eastward in the Pacific to gain more oil and resource reserves (Manchuria's oil was critical but no sufficient) and the fact that they simply didn't have enough men to do both, expand north/west and south/east. The Japanese chose to go south/east because they figured that with no chance of Russia attacking with the Germans on their doorstep they could flesh out their co-prosperity sphere and then come back once they had sufficient troops and resources *and* by doing this in concert with the Germans there is little chance of Russia surviving. It was also clear to many in Japan that there was no way America could afford to stand by and watch the Pacific be taken by force. At the time America was involved in its own expansion (ala Philipines & Guam) and it is clear that both American and Japanese expansion in that area would not work. The only clear path was to eliminate the American naval threat in the Pacific. Should such a situation be achieved there was no way American could afford to reduce the naval strength in the Atlantic by much, the Germans were waging unrestricted submarine warfare sinking even American ships. > > That depends on where they stop their rolling. Is your position that if we > > had refused to support conflicts against Japan and Germany all would have > > been well? Are you proposing that Germany would not have advanced with their > > atomic research? Completed development on their jet-based New York Bomber? > > This is a better argument than the domino theory you were suggesting for > the Pacific front. But this is a domino theory as well...there is one thing that studying history and playing wargames teaches...all conflicts are a domino theory. > If countries like France, England (and Italy, as Mussolini wasn't particulary fond of Hitler in the beginning of the > 30's) had been smarter, Mussolini may not have been fond of Hitler but he certainly admired and respected the man, or at least that is what Ciano's diaries indicate. Mussolini's explorations in Africa were a result of an attempt on his part to gain respect in Hitlers eyes. Mussolini's attack on France was a gambit to buy a seat at the surrender equal to Hitler. Mussolini's invasion of Greece over Hitlers protests were a measure of his equality. Unfortunately for the Italians the French & Greeks were more than capable of beating the Italian forces. Note that the Italians were not poor forces (examine the history of the Ariete Division in N. Africa) but rather very poorly led and supplied. It's further of some interest to note that Japan was very diligantly trying to get Italy to declare war on the US as late as Dec. 3, 1941. > > > The last justifiable war the American states were involved in was, > > > arguably, the War of 1812. Every war since then has been unjustified. > > Justifiable as "we (the states of the Union) were invaded by the British > ?". Actually, don't you think you deserved that one as the same states > tried to invade (then british) Canada, hoping GB was to busy dealing > with Napoleon ? Or correct me if I am wrong ? if you take that path, the > last justifiable war is the independence one. > > > Justifiable war? How is the invasion of the US by British troops > > significantly different than the invasion by German or Japanese troops? > > Once again, if 1812 the invasion actually occured, when during WWII it > was merely a possibility. The Japanese were certainly not bashful about taking Guam, Philipines, Midway, the Aleutian Islands; all in their original plans. The Germans were sinking ships as close as 20 miles off the easter seaboard. Bodies were washing up on the beach on a regular basis all along the eastern US coast. Keep in mind that from the tip of Siberia to the tip of Alaska is only something like 90 miles. Now with that in mind and considering the state of mind of Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, etc. how realistic is it to expect them to have passed on such a plum? > You see it as certain, Absolutely, every indication is that Hitler and the Japanese had full intention of involving the US. Neither could afford to let the resources and peoples of north and south America sit untouched even if they hadn't planned to get the US involved. Consider where the only two locations for platinum are located and the impact of that metal on high-technology.* Further consider, had Germany and Japan worked in concert a little closer they could have had 90% of all the oil on the planet. You think the oil shortages of the 70's were a bitch. In such a world the US would not have been the first on the moon (I suspect we wouldn't even be in the running). We would not in all probability have developed the atom bomb in time; Germany would have inhereted all the work the British did and considering that at the time they had all the heavy water on the planet they would have had a definite advantage. Take that and put things such as the ME-262, the New York Blitz Bomber, the V2, the Tri-partite signatories expansionistic dreams, the picture becomes quite nasty. And if you think for one minute that the US could have stood against Europe, Asia, Africa, and Australia combined under some sort of combined assault with the technological edge going to the tri-partites you are sorely misinformed. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________| * Russia & S. Africa

3 2

[Fwd: [cpj:265] COS] [cpj:265] COS
by TruthMonger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

3 2

Re: Pasting in From:
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

no(a)no.spam (®Old Crab®) wrote: > >Andy Dustman wrote on Sun, 30 Nov 1997 14:03:39 -0500: > > > >>So, I propose a compromise: What if I enable pasting of From:, but if a > >>From: header is pasted in, a short disclaimer is added to the beginning of > >>the body of the message. Would that mess anyone up? I think this would be > >>sufficient to avoid most problems with "forging". > > > >Can't put the disclaimer in a Comments: header? > > Why make a test ??? > Put the disclaimer *every_time*. > People who want to authenticate their nym account have the thing > signed by the nym-server... > That if you consider that it is not *obvious* to everybody > that the "From:" from a remailer might be fake... > That BTW *any* "From:", from remailer or from anywhere; > might be fake... > Only PGP or such allows to be easily sure of the sender..... That's absolutely correct. That disclaimer should be implicit with EVERY post. Attaching it to anonymous posts, while technically correct, gives the false implication that posts without such disclaimers should be presumed to be genuine. That's a dangerous assumption. Anyone who wants to post an article with a phony From: address can do it far easier with a throwaway ISP account and news posting software that can be configured with an arbitrary From: address than going to the trouble of doing it through a remailer. Could it be that the enemies of privacy and freedom, if they can't ban anonymous posting altogether (at least not right now), would like to make sure that anonymous posts are stigmatized with the cyber equivalent of a yellow star? If some control freaks are to be believed, the only people who post anonymously are either "abusers", "cowards", or otherwise have sinister motives for not promiscuously broadcasting their names and addresses worldwide with every post. My theory is that what really galls them is that the precursor to the U.S. Constitution which guarantees freedom of speech (including anonymous speech) was the ANONYMOUSLY PUBLISHED "Federalist Papers", and they want to make sure it doesn't happen again. <g> > That *everybody* knows that should be controlled > when one getting a Usenet licenceá :-)) Don't give the Usenet control freaks any ideas! <g>

1 0

Re: Pasting in From:
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

nobody(a)REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) wrote: > > From: Andy Dustman <andy(a)neptune.chem.uga.edu> > > Newsgroups: alt.privacy.anon-server > > Subject: Pasting in From: > > Date: Sunday, November 30, 1997 8:03 PM > > [ ... ] > > > So, I propose a compromise: What if I enable pasting of From:, but if a > > From: header is pasted in, a short disclaimer is added to the beginning > of > > the body of the message. Would that mess anyone up? I think this would be > > sufficient to avoid most problems with "forging". > > What are the advantages of pasting a From: above pasting a Reply-To: ? For one thing, many newsreaders list messages by From: and Subject: line. By putting in a distinctive From: line, your posts will be identifiable without readers having to download and read each message body. By pasting in a From: header, an anonymous poster can thus make his posts recognizeable. Pasting in a Reply-To doesn't accomplish the same thing. In essence, pasting enables one to adopt a non-replyable pseudonym. Why burden the 'nym servers if the poster doesn't want e-mail replies to his posts? The alternative suggestion of posting from a replyable 'nym address does not really address the issue. If one wants to post with a From: address of "santaclaus(a)northpole.gov", why should a remailer make that any more difficult than doing it from a non-anonymous ISP? (If "jolly ol' St. Nick" is worried about his e-mail address being forged, he can always request source blocking.)

10 16

Censorial leftists (Was: Interesting article)
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This is nothing new. Honest (self-identified) leftists like my friend Bob Chatelle complain about the censors on the left almost as much as censors on the right. Other fave leftist censorship causes: -- MacKinnonite antiporn laws (she's a self-identified Marxist, I recall) -- "Hate speech" bans -- Sexual harassment "hostile environment" regulations (Give me a break. This is the justification for at least one library censorware installation.) -- Various FCC regulations aside from indecent stuff -- Advertising censorship (check out the Center for Media Education, a leftist group if I ever heard of one. In fact, as I pointed out in my Thanksgiving piece last week, CME's scaremongering Kids and the Net paper was cited by Enough is Enough as justification for the CDA) -- Labeling/compelled speech requirements (Jamie, are you out there?) >bottom line is that most any political orientation is likely to thrash free >speech when it appears to be a threat. Well, at least the libertarians in the audience are consistently opposed to government censorship. -Declan At 06:36 -0500 12/3/97, Jay Holovacs wrote: >Interesting article in Columbia Journalism Review, pointing out that the >political left is becoming more and more a cause censorship. I think the >bottom line is that most any political orientation is likely to thrash free >speech when it appears to be a threat. > >http://www.cjr.org/html/97-11-12-firstamend.html

18 43

Hubba hubba
by bureau42 Anonymous Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiing'in in the raaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn... The yellow raiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin from Vulis' pisssssssssssssssssssss...

1 0

V Chips in PCs -- comments filed with the FCC
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A bunch of other groups filed comments last week, generally opposing a requirement for Vchips in computers, but the ACLU's is the only one I have in electronic form. An excerpt: Any FCC efforts to restrict content online, directly or indirectly, through a forced rating scheme would violate the First Amendment. It would also have the effect of turning what the Supreme Court call the most participatory medium into a bland and homogenized medium that provides access to only self-rated or censored speech. More info: http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/opinion/0,1042,1528,00.html -Declan ================ Subject: Fwd: fcc comments v-chip Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 12:49:29 -0500 (EST) From: PRIVACLU(a)aol.com To: declan(a)well.com Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554 ________________________________ In the Matter of ET Docket No. 97-206 Technical Requirements to Enable Blocking of Video Programming Based on Program Ratings _______________________________ COMMENTS OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION Introduction The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a nonpartisan organization of more than 250,000 members nationwide dedicated to defending the principles of liberty and equality embodied in the Bill of Rights. For nearly a century, the ACLU has sought to preserve and strengthen the First Amendment as a bulwark against all forms of governmental censorship. The ACLU has previously submitted extensive comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in opposition to government-prescribed ratings systems for television programming that single out sex, violence, or other controversial subjects on television because we believe they infringe the fundamental principles of free expression. We adhere to our prior views. We respectfully submit these comments on the different issues raised by the FCC's proposal for emerging technology and urge the Commission to refrain from entering into the censorship business. In particular, the ACLU urges the Commission not to expand the application of the proposed rules to include any and all equipment capable of displaying or receiving video programming, including personal computers and Digital Television (DTV), Multi-point Distribution Systems, Direct Broadcasting Systems (DBS) and other emerging technologies. The ACLU believes that Congress has not directed the FCC to mandate the inclusion of the V-Chip in these emerging technologies. Furthermore, such an expansive reading of the Telecommunications Act would run afoul of the First Amendment protections accorded to speech on interactive media, such as the Internet, as a result of the landmark Supreme Court decision Reno v. ACLU. 117 S.Ct. 2329 (1997). Finally, we urge the FCC to abstain from prohibiting distribution services from deleting or modifying ratings information from television programming as a violation of the First Amendment. I. THE FCC IS NOT REQUIRED TO MANDATE INCLUSION OF BLOCKING TECHNOLOGY IN PERSONAL COMPUTERS CAPABLE OF RECEIVING VIDEO PROGRAMMING UNDER THE 1996 TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT. Section 551(c) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("the Act"), the Parental Choice in Television Programming, directs the FCC to "require in the case of an apparatus designed to receive television signals ... that have a picture screen 13 inches or greater in size (measured diagonally), that such apparatus be equipped with a feature designed to enable viewers to block display of all programs with a common rating...". Section 551 (e)(2) requires the Commission to consult with the television manufacturing industry to find an effective date for inclusion of the V-chip in televisions. In contrast, with regard to technologies like the Internet, Congress directed the FCC in section 552(d)(4)(A) of the Act to determine the availability of alternative blocking technology that enables parents to block programming based on identifying programs without ratings. Although the language of the Act addresses the need for traditional television manufacturers to comply with the provision at issue, the Commission's current Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) calls for expansion of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, to mandate inclusion of blocking devices in all technology capable of displaying broadcast video programming, even in apparatus that is not primarily designed for television viewing. Specifically, the NPRM includes a requirement for personal computer manufacturers to include V-chip technology. Paragraph 22 of the NPRM, states in pertinent part: "In addition, personal computer systems, which are not traditionally thought of as television receivers, are already being sold with the capability to view television and other video programming. Section 551(c) of the Telecommunications Act makes it clear that the program blocking requirements were intended to apply to any "apparatus designed to receive signals" that has a picture screen of 13 inches or larger. Accordingly, we believe that the program blocking requirements we are proposing should apply to any television receiver meeting the screen size requirements, regardless of whether it is designed to receive video programming that is distributed only through cable television systems, MDS, DBS, or by some other distribution system. These requirements would also apply to any computer that is sold with TV receiver capability and a monitor that has a viewable picture size of 13 inches or larger, as we currently do of closed captioning." (emphasis added) The NPRM broadly states that the rules should apply to any computer "regardless of whether it is designed to receive video programming that is distributed only through cable television systems, [satellite], or by some other distribution system." Under the broadest interpretation the rules could be extended to cover any video programming viewed using a computer. Despite this confusion, the FCC has not publicly offered clarification as to what types of personal computer technology would fall under the purview of the proposed rules. In addition, the NPRM statement that Section 551 (c) of the Act "makes it clear that program blocking requirements were intended to apply to any apparatus" capable of receiving television signals, is plainly contrary to the expressed view of Congress and a conclusion with which the ACLU strongly disagrees. Congress instead suggested in Section 551 (d) (4) et seq., that as new video technology is developed, the Commission determine the availability of less restrictive and more informative alternatives. Thus, Congress did not propose the mandatory inclusion of V-chip technology, but directed the Commission to determine whether other features could be used to provide greater user choice over content. We believe that the rush to embrace the V-chip for traditional televisions has been more damaging to the development of other user friendly tools that do not require the state imposition of a rating and blocking system. Previously submitted comments by the television manufacturing industry also make clear that the FCCs haste in establishing schedules for the inclusion of the V-chip in televisions may result in poorly adapted equipment that may quickly become obsolete. The expansion of V-chip technology into the computer realm makes even less sense. Interactive media is subject to even more rapid change than television and that change increasingly allows for more user choice and control. II. THE FCC MAY NOT REQUIRE COMPUTERS TO INCLUDE CENSORING TECHNOLOGY IF THEY ARE CAPABLE OF RECEIVING VIDEO PROGRAMMING VIA THE INTERNET OR BY OTHER MEANS: Currently, there are at least three ways to view video programming on personal computers. The first model is where video programming can be viewed on "PC-TVs," computers that include built-in television receivers or have an added plug-in circuit board to provided video reception capability. Second, a personal computer user has her Web browser connected to an Internet Service Provider (ISP) with the appropriate enabling technology to permit a multimedia connection to the Internet. With this connection, a user who is on the Web can go to any number of sites to download or view video/audio objects. Until now, the slow speed of Internet dial-up connections has meant that it could take several minutes to view online video clips. However, with new high speed connections, large video files may be downloaded or viewable in a matter or seconds -- making it possible to view video programming online in real time, like television and radio. Webcasting offers access to a much greater number of speakers or content providers than traditional broadcasting. PC-TVs and webcasting have only recently become available, with new models and features being marketed forth daily. Both offer a much greater spectrum of data, including programming information, than is possible by traditional broadcasting and under the current ratings scheme. The potential to offer greater information means does not mean the FCC should expand the reach of its content restriction through the V-chip. Instead, these technologies could offer transmission of program reviews or other detailed information about individual programs. The Commission may not mandate blocking technology for computers with Internet software that provides the ability to view real-time video programs online. Unlike television, the Internet provides inexpensive, user controlled access and not government regulated or licensed access. Video programming displayed online may include traditional broadcast programming, but also includes a variety of authors and producers that have never before had the ability to gain wide distribution. Such an application of the proposed rules not only runs counter to the Telecommunications Act, but represents an assumption of authority by the government over content on the Internet that has already been rejected by the Supreme Court. In the landmark case Reno v. ACLU, the Supreme Court overturned provisions of the Federal Communication Decency Act (CDA) and declared that the Internet is entitled to the highest level of free speech protection. The Court explicitly analogized the Internet to the traditional print media, saying that unlike broadcast media, which has been traditionally considered a more intrusive means of speech that is available to a fewer number of speakers, the virtually unlimited access and potential for speech means that the government requires a compelling reason to restrict lawfully protected speech. As the lead attorneys and plaintiffs in the case, the ACLU successfully argued that the provisions of the CDA that would have made it a crime to communicate anything "indecent" online violated the First Amendment. The Court rejected the CDA because it was an overbroad means of addressing the government's asserted interest in protecting minors from inappropriate material -- the very same reason offered today by the Commission and Congress in enacting V-Chip regulations. Moreover, the Court explicitly rejected the notion that the government has the authority to regulate constitutionally protected speech online. The Court stated, "the growth of the Internet has been and continues to be phenomenal. As a matter of constitutional tradition, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we presume that governmental regulation of the content of speech is more likely to interfere with the free exchange of ideas than to encourage it. The interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship." Reno v. ACLU, 117 S.Ct. 2329, -- , (1997). Although the ACLU believes that the same First Amendment values apply to each media, the Court has repeatedly stated that any government regulation of broadcast television is justifiable only because of the intrusiveness of television coupled with the scarcity of the broadcasting transmission spectrum. As the high court stated in Reno v. ACLU, neither of those rationale applies to the Internet. Any FCC efforts to restrict content online, directly or indirectly, through a forced rating scheme would violate the First Amendment. It would also have the effect of turning what the Supreme Court call the most participatory medium into a bland and homogenized medium that provides access to only self-rated or censored speech. IV. THE FCC MAY NOT PROHIBIT OPERATORS THAT DISTRIBUTE VIDEO PROGRAMMING FROM DELETING OR MODIFYING PROGRAM RATINGS CARRIED ON LINE 21 OF VBI. The NPRM states that the FCC proposes to amend its rules to ensure that ratings information is not deleted or modified before transmission by distributors. Put plain, this means that the FCC is selecting which of the "speakers" -- from the programs writers, to its producers, network and local stations has the power to set a rating and requiring all the other speakers to agree with the given rating. But by removing the power for any of these parties to modify ratings, the government also removes any flexibility from its proposed scheme -- it is deciding that national broadcasters make that decision, for all of their writers, producers, directors, affiliates and stations. There is no room for disagreement and there is no choice but for distributors to agree with the designation. Ratings must, by definition be national. Leaving one that might appropriate in Mississippi but that is not in New York. Furthermore, there are serious First Amendment problems with compelling all program distributors from carrying ratings that they find objectionable or that they disagree with are critical. Government required ratings are a form of "forced speech" and diminish any discretion of programming distributors in determining the relevance or appropriateness of the proposed program rating. That is, mandating labels compels private individuals and companies to say things about their creative offerings that they have no wish to say and with which they may disagree. The Supreme Court has made clear that such compelled speech is as much a violation of First Amendment rights as enforced silence. See, e.g., Riley v. National Federation of the Blind, 487 U.S. 781, 797 (1988); Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Comm'n, 475 U.S. 1 (1986); Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 714 (1977). Ratings prescribed by the FCC pursuant to the Act can hardly be defended as an innocuous effort to empower parents by supplying them with neutral information. A truly non-coercive effort to inform parents, rather than censor what the government believes to be "negative" or dangerous ideas, would not rely on the minimal, inevitably misleading information conveyed by a letter or code that can be read by a computer chip. Parents are better served by fuller information (descriptions or reviews) that explains the context in which violent or sexual material is presented, and that enables them to make viewing decisions based on their own values and childrearing philosophies, and the personal maturity levels of their children. Conclusion The ACLU believes that the extension of the V-chip rules is unnecessary and unwise under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The ACLU believes that the FCC should not hastily embrace or extend plans to incorporate V-chip technology in emerging technologies. The FCC can and must exercise its discretion and consider alternatives such as media literacy, promotion of educational programming and episode reviews. We believe that there are alternatives that would not offend core First Amendment values and accomplish the same purpose. In the final analysis, violence and sex are dramatic, consistent themes in human life and history, and like other controversial subjects, need to be confronted and discussed rather than suppressed, whether through direct censorship laws or through more indirect, convoluted governmental ratings and information blocking systems. Respectfully submitted, _______________________________________ Barry Steinhardt ACLU Associate Director ____________________________________ A. Cassidy Sehgal William J. Brennan Fellow of the ACLU

1 0

"Faulty Filters" report; anti-rating free speech alliance
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[From December 1 EPIC Alert --Declan] ======================================================================= [2] EPIC Report Slams Internet Content Filters ======================================================================= EPIC today released a report that finds that "family-friendly" search engines typically block access to 99 percent of the material on the Internet that would be appropriate for young people. The report was released just prior to a White House summit that will examine the use of content filters and rating systems for the Internet. EPIC's study was based on a side-by-side comparison of an unfiltered Internet search engine (AtltaVista) with a filtered search engine. According to Net Shepherd, Inc., its Family Search retrieval service screens out material that is "inappropriate and/or objectionable for average user families." EPIC tested both search engines using such search phrases as the "American Red Cross," the "National Aquarium," and "Thomas Edison." The study found that the filtered search engine typically blocked access to 99 percent of the documents containing those phrases when compared with results returned by AltaVista. The EPIC report, "Faulty Filters," includes a survey of 100 search phrases in four categories -- schools; charitable and political organizations; educational and artistic groups; and concepts that might be of interest to young people. Marc Rotenberg, Director of EPIC, said, "We found that as information on popular topics became more widely available on the Internet, the filtered search engine was likely to block an even higher percentage. We further found that the search engine did not seem to restrict sensitive topics for young people any more than it restricted matters of general interest. Even with the very severe blocking criteria employed, we noted that some material which parents might consider to be objectionable was still provided by the software." The report was released at a press conference held at the National Press Club. EPIC said that it was joining with several other organizations to establish the Internet Free Expression Alliance (IFEA) to address the free speech implications of Internet rating and filtering proposals (see item below). The text of the "Faulty Filters" Report is available at: http://www2.epic.org/reports/filter_report.html ======================================================================= [2] Groups Establish Internet Free Expression Alliance ======================================================================= EPIC today announced that it is joining with 20 other organizations to establish the Internet Free Expression Alliance (IFEA). The new coalition will address the free speech implications of Internet rating and filtering proposals and promote the open exchange of information on the Internet. The formation of IFEA comes one day before the opening of an Administration-sponsored summit on Internet issues. President Clinton is on record as supporting the widespread use of content ratings and filtering techniques to create a "family-friendly Internet." At an earlier summit meeting last July, the President said that it "must be our objective" to ensure that the labeling of Internet content "will become standard practice." As detailed in the report EPIC released today, such rating and filtering systems can block access to a vast amount of valuable information; according to the EPIC report, 99 percent of all online material is typically filtered out by a new "family-friendly" Internet search engine. In a statement released at IFEA's inaugural press conference at the National Press Club, EPIC Legal Counsel David Sobel said, "It is troubling that the White House has so readily embraced an approach that has the potential to destroy the Internet as an educational resource." EPIC was a plaintiff in the historic ACLU v. Reno litigation, which led to last summer's landmark Supreme Court decision striking down the Communications Decency Act (CDA). Many other organizations that joined the CDA challenge are involved in the creation of IFEA. Alliance members include the American Civil Liberties Union, American Society of Newspaper Editors, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the National Coalition Against Censorship, the National Writers Union and the Society of Professional Journalists. For information on IFEA can be found at: http://www.ifea.net [...]

3 2

Nuclear Physics Study Group
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Lucky Green <shamrock(a)cypherpunks.to>: > On a completely unrelated note, is there some interest in starting up a > "Cypherpunks Nuclear Physics Study Group"? I recently finished reading > "The Curve of Binding Energy". Fascinating book. Is this really unrelated or does it represent growing ambition by the cypherpunks shooting club ? Will you be asking for anonymous donations of SNM ? I could be interested, but not in the manner of the above 2 sentences. A Nym To Be Generated Later

2 1