December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Making them eat their words... (while they watch!)
by Attila T. Hun 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A federal judge Friday told Microsoft > Corp. he easily uninstalled the company's Web browser > without breaking Windows 95 and ordered company officials to > explain why they could not do the same. "Windows 95 > functioned flawlessly" with Internet Explorer uninstalled, > U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson told Microsoft. > mistake #1: dont piss off a federal judge --let alone try to show that he is ignorant. > After the hearing, Brad Smith, associate general counsel of > Microsoft, was asked about news reports speculating that the > company might settle the case. > > "There's no discussion that I'm aware of," he said in a > telephone interview, adding that he probably would know > about such discussions. "The case is continuing." > this is my one big fear: the DOJ will accept a plea bargain like they did last time and it will be back to business as usual for M$ --and they will be back in court within a year having gained even more horizontal and vertical control of the entire communications and information industries --and claiming again that they are misunderstood --and complying with the order, etc. there is only one solution to organizations like M$ which are operated without ethics: treat them to the pleasures of not only the antitrust laws but the exquisite delights of RICO. M$ is a cancer; it has fully metasticized and is gorging itself at the banquet of the vanquished. if the legal juggernaut keeps building momentum at the current rate, there will hopefully be no alternative to carry the investigation to its culmination after the report of the special master in May. the appointment of the special master was a clear indication that the judge wishes to get at the bottom of the tank and examine the underpinnings and motivations of M$ total modus operandi --yes, and M$ is crying foul that the judge is going past the original complaint of the DOJ --but, despite M$' claims, the judge is giving M$ time to be heard --six months. seems to me Jackson inherited the case from Royce Lamberth who was overruled and removed by the appeal court when he refused to OK the DOJ settlement in question. Gary Reback had a hand in educating Lambert to the dangers of M$. Is Reback representing anyone in the case before Jackson as an intervener or in an amicus curiae brief? Lambert's at it again --taking the government head on over Hillary's obfuscation over her health care committee-- "The White House and lawyers defending first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton lied in an effort to keep internal working papers used to develop President Clinton's universal health care plan in 1993 secret, a federal judge said Thursday. "Using blunt language in a written order, U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth also accused administration officials at "the highest levels of government" of engaging in a "cover-up" and pressuring the Justice Department to defend its "dishonest" actions." anyway, just think where M$ would be with Royce today! Gate$ and Ballmer might be down at the local MCC for a few free 3 hots and a cot, all expenses paid, "enjoying" a well earned vacation from screwing all of us. Other than the usual ills of a monopoly, what really irks anyone with a modicum of intelligence is that Gate$ intends to migrate the entire package for the benefit of the couch potatoes; Gate$ intends to dictate not only what we use to view his trash, but that only his trash is splashed. > Smith also said that the uninstall mechanism described by > the judge actually left 97 percent of Internet Explorer > intact, removing little more than the "icon" on the screen > known as the "desktop." > so? M$ can fill any hard disk --the more powerful the computer, the more energy the pretty program loader on a boot sector virus base requires. what's a few spare bytes here and there? So, Mr. Smith, just tell us what files are useless and we'll delete them too. > He said that despite what Jackson said about the program > functioning flawlessly, the removal breaks a couple of > functions in Windows 95, such as the ability to easily > download other Web browsers. Smith said Windows 95 is a > technologicially complex product that is best left alone > by the government. "You simply can't slice and dice it > with a legal meat cleaver," Smith said. > well, maybe we can just "slice and dice it" right out the market place. his arguments are pure mumbo jumbo for the unwashed --or, more of Gate$' usual arrogance. > well, of course, you can not pull a web download if you remove the browser... but you can get it with ftp, rz, or standard mail via your ISP (if Netscape wants to make it available that way). more blowing of smoke as usual. M$ would like us to believe that removing Explorer means that PPP, etc. plus basic net utilities must be removed as well. the browser is not the only program that uses the PPP or wired connection. whether or not the judge just removed the icon or not becomes irrelevant rather quickly... the point is that he took the trouble to look at the issue after the DOJ came in complaining that M$ was giving him the freeway salute (both hands off the wheel, too). Secondly, a judge is not prohibited from reading news analysis of the technical issues involved --particularly since the news articles are reflecting the complaints of the competition which has been injured by M$' actions, and the user groups who are complaining about all of M$' competition being literally expunged from the marketplace by M$' predatory actions. all of the news material is clearly relevant in an antitrust action. Even the NYTimes stated in an editorial M$ was defying the judges order and mocking the whole process. > The Justice Department, however, is beefing up its legal > team. It has retained David Boies, a highly regarded New > York lawyer, to help try the case against Microsoft. > yes, I would say they are serious, and paying close to $300 per hour for his time --but only half his usual rate. keep in mind that his fee is just the tip of the iceberg --consider the enormous staff the man will require just to paw through and analyze the mountains of information on both sides plus the obvious tactic of burying the case in even more mounds of paperwork from M$' legal flunkies, which probably number between 200 and 500 full blown lawyers culled from most of the prestigious firms in the US. then add support staff, researchers, clerks, etc.... I doubt Boies will use that many DOJ staff attorneys --lack of performance as the good ones leave after the initial intern experience for the extra bucks in private firms on the other side of the table. only the lazy and incompetent hang around the DOJ for a career. > After the hearing Friday, Christine Varney, a former Federal > Trade Commissioner now representing Netscape, was jubilant. > "I think the judge has understood the seriousness of the > issue," she said. > she had every reason to be jubilant --so far. even if the judge did not fully understand the technological bullshit M$ was trying to slide on by, the judge fully understands that M$ was trying to blind pitch him --and insulting him to boot. M$' freeway saluting of the judge may have changed the destiny of M$ by that very action. Gate$ pulled his usual arrogance out of his ass and slapped it on the table presuming everybody knew he was the smartest kid on the block --and his shit did not stink. > Microsoft stock closed at $128.69, down $2.19 on NASDAQ, > where it was among the most active issues. > yes, down almost 20 points since their fiasco with the DOJ started. before it's over, I hope to see M$ listed with the junk bonds and issues --in the penny stocks. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQBVAwUBNJt2FbR8UA6T6u61AQHtVAH/ZuVzmKu+we/vRObBClOVAtqYmLPQmykh 9CzsID7+HETw6/2bkYCL5JXNy12JoyenB19XvYai6WtMt24dCLh0fQ== =sf18 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2

Hee Haw! DOJ hires big bad dog for M$ kill!
by Attila T. Hun 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hee Haw! DOJ hires big bad dog for M$ kill! http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/content/reut/1219/265045.html "The Justice Department has hired New York superlawyer David Boies to help the government win its antitrust case against Microsoft Corp, "...the government's decision to hire Boies signaled its determination to win its case...." Reuters December 19, 1997 7:30 AM PS Sic 'Em. Rover! now that is fair use! [double your bubble, too] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQBVAwUBNJqmwLR8UA6T6u61AQFPPAH9GQO2WadcPR+QHS2AQew0jzfM+qBbNG22 B94sIsMfoptfKoiGNavXKT6C9vIe6p499SWtTxz1FggydiKZBwS7tg== =8Mmz -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

fuckin' M$ blowing smoke blown
by Attila T. Hun 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

this is more than fair use, but worth the read --and I am too lazy and short of time this morning to condense it. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> fuckin' M$ blowing smoke blown Microsoft claim debunked! By Michael Caton December 18, 1997 5:54 PM PST PC Week Online When Ronald Reagan's facts were in contradiction with reality, he would later claim that he "misspoke." Microsoft Corp. misspoke this week when it asserted that Internet Explorer cannot be removed from Windows 95. In a letter to the U.S. Department of Justice and in press releases issued this week, Microsoft officials said IE 3.0 is an integrated component of the Windows 95 operating system, as shipped in OSR (OEM Service Release) version 2. They further asserted that the removal of certain IE DLLs from OSR 2 would render the operating system unbootable. PC Week Labs' tests have shown that this is not the case. Using copies of OSR 2 CDs provided with OEM PCs, we merely modified four lines in one of the Windows 95 setup files to prevent IE 3.0 from installing. This modification had no impact on the operating system's capabilities or performance. Instead of the install script overwriting Windows 95 DLLs with files from IE 3.0, the original Windows 95 DLLs remained intact. Moreover, significant OSR 2 features, like the FAT32 file system, remained intact using our modified install program. Microsoft would likely disagree, but our experience with Windows 95 and recent tests of Windows 98 show that the operating systems are much better suited for corporate deployment without the browser. Removing IE 4.0 from Windows 98 in particular eliminates the very features that will incur the most costs in a corporate setting: Active Desktop, channels and the Web-based Windows System Update. The Active Desktop user interface, for example, differs significantly from Windows 95 and will require considerable user retraining. If Microsoft prevails and includes IE 4.0 with the shipping version of Windows 98, it is easy enough to disable Active Desktop using either administration tools or by modifying the user interface directly. The end result will be the same user interface as Windows 95. With their current focus on entertainment, the channels feature afforded by IE 4.0 in Windows 98 likewise is not ready for corporate prime time. System Update--which uses ActiveX controls to scan a Windows 98 system to determine if it has out-of-date software and drivers-is compelling in consumer applications but will be a poor match in a corporate setting. A better solution than users upgrading their own systems when they see fit would be to push the updates to all applicable clients at once, so that software versions are consistent across large numbers of clients. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQBVAwUBNJqjhbR8UA6T6u61AQEGPgH/Wljd7RZBMqeq0PjdHJSHKvh5EHb3a/JI 7m41g58jHJTDh0N3HW3sFUqXfPaj4zxabdVXNXE8adcm6AwRxCAJig== =qg6e -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

true in the near term: "Why M$ has won" (I@week)
by Attila T. Hun 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> this echos my feelings on what actions Gates will take in the near term. frankly, the sooner he does it, the better off we will be --this needs to be done before the special master makes his recommendations in May and Gate$' actions will hopefully incense enough people that they will ask for his head on a platter. --the issue in my mind is that the wheels of justice turn too slowly. Why Bill Gates won By Tom Steinert-Threlkeld December 12, 1997 5:11 PM PST Inter@ctive Week Online Netscape Communications Corp.'s stock finished up 6 percent Friday and Microsoft Corp.'s fell 1.7 percent. While still early in the game, it may be that Netscape's shareholders are applauding U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson too soon. In the meantime, Microsoft's owners may be the ones that should be shaking his hand. Best as these eyes can tell, nothing in the 19-page ruling issued late Thursday says Microsoft can't bundle its Internet Explorer browser with its Windows operating system. Nor does anything in the ruling say Microsoft can't integrate its browser into its operating system. Instead, it says it can't use licensing tactics to achieve a dominance in browsers. "Whether or not the government has correctly defined Microsoft's intentions, the probability that Microsoft will not only continue to reinforce its operating system monopoly by its licensing practices, but might also acquire yet another monopoly in the Internet browser market, is simply too great to tolerate indefinitely until the issue is finally resolved." So, it can't coerce computer makers to license the IE browser as a condition of licensing the Windows operating system, forcing them to install both onto the machines they sell to the public. If "licensing practices'' turns out to be the crux of all this, big deal. That simply gives Jim Barksdale and his jubilant troops a few months in which to try and work new deals with computer makers before Microsoft gets really aggressive. After all, what Judge Jackson has done is given Microsoft a better view of the playing field before it. It clearly will not be able to argue effectively that a product that it also sells as a stand-alone product to PC users can be considered an "integral element'' of the machine's operating system. Duh. So, now, if you're in Bill Gates' typically ultra-aggressive shoes, does this slow you down? No, it could speed you up. You simply come out with your fully integrated operating system, where the features of the browser are built-in essentials. You dissipate demand for the browser as a separate product. Of course, this puts, as SoftLetter publisher Jeffrey Tarter puts it, "tremendous pressure on them [Microsoft] to integrate the products fully, so there's no question that IE is not a separate product.'' But, if you're Mr. Bill with a 90 percent share of the desktop operating system market, isn't that the goal anyway? As soon as you release Windows 98, you simply stop selling IE as an independent product. Cede, for a while anyway, the Unix and Mac markets to Netscape. And then see whether the market does marginalize the market for an independent product called a browser - where there already are no margins today. Then, to keep up with Netscape's "high-performance'' browser (which you start to call a "utility"), you simply update your operating system more often. Windows June, perhaps? Microsoft simply achieves, over a longer period of time, the dominance it sought anyway. Only the clock starts ticking sooner than if it had left IE as an independent product. Computer makers are not going to stop providing their customers with an operating system. The Department of Justice and Microsoft's Silicon Valley opponents, of course, will try to push the point that browsers must stay separate. But it's unclear how strong the legal lineage is behind the idea that once a product is an independent product, it always must stay an independent product. If you're Bill Gates, do you sit back and wait to see how this issue resolves itself in court? Or do you push down the pedal in the marketplace. You'd have to believe he's shown his inclination many times in the past. And his shareholders count themselves the beneficiaries. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQBVAwUBNJfkD7R8UA6T6u61AQFTTAH9Fh/Mp/QluofgTSebYMRTz+t5eie3KEu6 3xM7nC7SPAUZPA0z4mlrWkdnKm+IPwRGqWbCDo/cAO0bnFipdDFr6Q== =0Xyp -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: "The Right to Read" by Richard Stallman
by Attila T. Hun 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- unfortunately, Stallman's "The Right to Read" is no longer science fiction. Clinton signed the revised copyright law, with the abridgement of fair use, punishable by rather draconian fines, the 16th. technically, it is quite feasible to force the use of the "thin client" which can contain unmodifiable firmware identification and authentication. add an LCD minicam to the CPU coded monitor and retinal identification can be employed. Dan and Lissa joined the Luna revolution when they were unable to read the research papers after their student grants expired and the thin client workstations banned their own writings without a captive association. MicroSoft refused to store their data without a government license, and paper copies were banned. Dan and Lissa were aboard the last passenger capsule before the government initiated non-consenual innoculation with a temperature variation powered data ID microchip under the skin of your right wrist. notes: 1. _if_ history is written accurately (even if it is slanted to be Clinton correct), it will show that FDR changed the American government and financial management, and Clinton destroyed the freedom of information. inevitable, I suppose, since Hillary communes with Eleanor. 2. Microsoft actually has a proposal out to major companies to provide massive data farm banks... just adding another chink in Billy's drive to control information --the ultimate aphrodisiac. - - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 02:41:21 -0500 From: Richard Stallman <rms(a)gnu.ai.mit.edu> To: declan(a)well.com Subject: Re: Feb CACM Here is my CACM story. It is my first published work of science fiction. Copyright (C) 1996 Richard Stallman Verbatim copying is permitted provided this notice is preserved. This article appeared in the February 1997 issue of Communications of the ACM (Volume 40, Number 2). The Right to Read by Richard Stallman (from "The Road To Tycho", a collection of articles about the antecedents of the Lunarian Revolution, published in Luna City in 2096) For Dan Halbert, the road to Tycho began in college--when Lissa Lenz asked to borrow his computer. Hers had broken down, and unless she could borrow another, she would fail her midterm project. There was no one she dared ask, except Dan. This put Dan in a dilemma. He had to help her--but if he lent her his computer, she might read his books. Aside from the fact that you could go to prison for many years for letting someone else read your books, the very idea shocked him at first. Like everyone, he had been taught since elementary school that sharing books was nasty and wrong--something that only pirates would do. And there wasn't much chance that the SPA--the Software Protection Authority--would fail to catch him. In his software class, Dan had learned that each book had a copyright monitor that reported when and where it was read, and by whom, to Central Licensing. (They used this information to catch reading pirates, but also to sell personal interest profiles to retailers.) The next time his computer was networked, Central Licensing would find out. He, as computer owner, would receive the harshest punishment--for not taking pains to prevent the crime. Of course, Lissa did not necessarily intend to read his books. She might want the computer only to write her midterm. But Dan knew she came from a middle-class family and could hardly afford the tuition, let alone her reading fees. Reading his books might be the only way she could graduate. He understood this situation; he himself had had to borrow to pay for all the research papers he read. (10% of those fees went to the researchers who wrote the papers; since Dan aimed for an academic career, he could hope that his own research papers, if frequently referenced, would bring in enough to repay this loan.) Later on, Dan would learn there was a time when anyone could go to the library and read journal articles, and even books, without having to pay. There were independent scholars who read thousands of pages without government library grants. But in the 1990s, both commercial and nonprofit journal publishers had begun charging fees for access. By 2047, libraries offering free public access to scholarly literature were a dim memory. There were ways, of course, to get around the SPA and Central Licensing. They were themselves illegal. Dan had had a classmate in software, Frank Martucci, who had obtained an illicit debugging tool, and used it to skip over the copyright monitor code when reading books. But he had told too many friends about it, and one of them turned him in to the SPA for a reward (students deep in debt were easily tempted into betrayal). In 2047, Frank was in prison, not for pirate reading, but for possessing a debugger. Dan would later learn that there was a time when anyone could have debugging tools. There were even free debugging tools available on CD or downloadable over the net. But ordinary users started using them to bypass copyright monitors, and eventually a judge ruled that this had become their principal use in actual practice. This meant they were illegal; the debuggers' developers were sent to prison. Programmers still needed debugging tools, of course, but debugger vendors in 2047 distributed numbered copies only, and only to officially licensed and bonded programmers. The debugger Dan used in software class was kept behind a special firewall so that it could be used only for class exercises. It was also possible to bypass the copyright monitors by installing a modified system kernel. Dan would eventually find out about the free kernels, even entire free operating systems, that had existed around the turn of the century. But not only were they illegal, like debuggers--you could not install one if you had one, without knowing your computer's root password. And neither the FBI nor Microsoft Support would tell you that. Dan concluded that he couldn't simply lend Lissa his computer. But he couldn't refuse to help her, because he loved her. Every chance to speak with her filled him with delight. And that she chose him to ask for help, that could mean she loved him too. Dan resolved the dilemma by doing something even more unthinkable--he lent her the computer, and told her his password. This way, if Lissa read his books, Central Licensing would think he was reading them. It was still a crime, but the SPA would not automatically find out about it. They would only find out if Lissa reported him. Of course, if the school ever found out that he had given Lissa his own password, it would be curtains for both of them as students, regardless of what she had used it for. School policy was that any interference with their means of monitoring students' computer use was grounds for disciplinary action. It didn't matter whether you did anything harmful--the offense was making it hard for the administrators to check on you. They assumed this meant you were doing something else forbidden, and they did not need to know what it was. Students were not usually expelled for this--not directly. Instead they were banned from the school computer systems, and would inevitably fail all their classes. Later, Dan would learn that this kind of university policy started only in the 1980s, when university students in large numbers began using computers. Previously, universities maintained a different approach to student discipline; they punished activities that were harmful, not those that merely raised suspicion. Lissa did not report Dan to the SPA. His decision to help her led to their marriage, and also led them to question what they had been taught about piracy as children. The couple began reading about the history of copyright, about the Soviet Union and its restrictions on copying, and even the original United States Constitution. They moved to Luna, where they found others who had likewise gravitated away from the long arm of the SPA. When the Tycho Uprising began in 2062, the universal right to read soon became one of its central aims. Author's Note: The right to read is a battle being fought today. Although it may take 50 years for our present way of life to fade into obscurity, most of the specific laws and practices described above have already been proposed--either by the Clinton Administration or by publishers. There is one exception: the idea that the FBI and Microsoft will keep the root passwords for personal computers. This is an extrapolation from the Clipper chip and similar Clinton Administration key-escrow proposals, together with a long-term trend: computer systems are increasingly set up to give absentee operators control over the people actually using the computer system. The SPA, which actually stands for Software Publisher's Association, is not today an official police force. Unofficially, it acts like one. It invites people to inform on their coworkers and friends; like the Clinton Administration, it advocates a policy of collective responsibility whereby computer owners must actively enforce copyright or be punished. The SPA is currently threatening small Internet service providers, demanding they permit the SPA to monitor all users. Most ISPs surrender when threatened, because they cannot afford to fight back in court. (Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 1 Oct 96, D3.) At least one ISP, Community ConneXion in Oakland CA, refused the demand and was actually sued (https://www.c2.net/ispdc/) The SPA is said to have dropped this suit recently, but they are sure to continue the campaign in various other ways. The university security policies described above are not imaginary. For example, a computer at one Chicago-area university prints this message when you log in (quotation marks are in the original): "This system is for the use of authorized users only. Individuals using this computer system without authority or in the excess of their authority are subject to having all their activities on this system monitored and recorded by system personnel. In the course of monitoring individuals improperly using this system or in the course of system maintenance, the activities of authorized user may also be monitored. Anyone using this system expressly consents to such monitoring and is advised that if such monitoring reveals possible evidence of illegal activity or violation of University regulations system personnel may provide the evidence of such monitoring to University authorities and/or law enforcement officials." This is an interesting approach to the Fourth Amendment: pressure most everyone to agree, in advance, to waive their rights under it. References: The administration's "White Paper": Information Infrastructure Task Force, Intellectual Property and the National Information Infrastructure: The Report of the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights (1995). An explanation of the White Paper: The Copyright Grab, Pamela Samuelson, Wired, Jan. 1996 (http://www.hotwired.com/wired 4.01/features/whitepaper.html). Sold Out, James Boyle, New York Times, 31 March 1996 (http://www.ese.ogi.edu/sold.out.html) Public Data or Private Data, Washington Post, 4 Nov 1996 (http://wp2.washingtonpost.com/cgi-bin/displaySearch?WPlate+33653+%28databas… geneva%29%3Adescription%26and%2619961102%3Cevent%5Fdate). Union for the Public Domain--a new organization which aims to resist and reverse the overextension of intellectual property powers. For more information, see http://www.public-domain.org/. Bio: Richard Stallman received the 1990 ACM Grace Murray Hopper award for developing GNU Emacs. He is also the author of the free symbolic debugger GDB, and founded the project to develop the free GNU operating system. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQBVAwUBNJ1Q1LR8UA6T6u61AQGpJwH+IZSj9oeAsjl3o9ikGH8a/BESVPNqew94 bHJkfS6+CA9n79GZhgZ6goej4z023gx/evuHHqqTL9UQDNroOWQFHA== =d7kR -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Completely anonymous communications ARE only for "Criminals"
by Charlie Comsec 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- gburnore(a)netcom.com (Gary L. Burnore) wrote: > :That's the whole point of using remailers -- so that some country that wants > :to be tyrranical can't hunt down someone in another country that does something > :it considers "politically incorrect". If something annoys you, then stop > :reading it. Killfile the author. Killfile all remailers if you like. Don't > :use dynamite (pun intended) to exterminate cockroaches. > > So what do you do in those instances where you're slandered continously in > USENet by someone posting anonymously. In the non-cyber world, the speaker > would be held responsible. Who's held responsible when it's commited in > USENet? I'm assuming that you really meant to refer to libel (written) rather than slander (verbal). I suspect that there is very little that can be done, and that holds true for non-anonymous posts as well. Just looking at some of the massive cross-posts with subject lines that say "So-and-so is a pedophile" (some of them with Netcom addresses who seem to be able to hang onto their accounts despite making such accusations), I'd say that usenet is a different ballgame from the print media where for-profit publishers have deeper pockets. The problem with tort laws is that to successfully sue for libel you have to prove damages as well as prove that what was said was false. Thus, you'd have to prove to a jury that someone made a defamatory statement about you that was false, that people believed it, and that your reputation has suffered measurably as a result. Identifying the person who posted the message is only a small part of the problem. Moreover, if the plaintiff has attained the status of a "public figure", he has to prove additionally that the defendant KNOWINGLY and MAILICIOUSLY published FALSE information. Thus, if you said that Clinton sexually harassed Paula Jones, it's unlikely that the President could sue you and win. He'd have to prove that you knew the accusation was false and made it anyway with malicious intent. The problem with libel via usenet is that in order to win you'd have to prove that you had an impeccable reputation until someone defamed you with a usenet post, people believed the post, and now your name is mud because of it. An anonymous post would be even more problematic, since you'd have to persuade a jury that people who'd previously believed you to be a fine upstanding netizen were convinced otherwise by a nameless accuser. Usually the people who will believe dirt about someone are those who already suspect he's a no-good-so-and-so, so it'd be hard to make a legal case for his reputation being diminished. > :Are you offering to donate the disk space? If you can convince Hotmail and > :other providers to do what you're suggesting, and provided they properly > :inform all new and existing users of this new policy far enough in advance > :to make other plans if they so desire, I would not object. > > Hotmail DOES know who signs up and uses their mail service (at least the > connection information such as IP and provider. That's probably reason enough for someone who truly needs anonymity to avoid such a service. The problem is that once it's known that the identifying information exists somewhere, the keeper of that information becomes a target for coercion, bribery, hacking, burglary, etc. > :And if the remailer stored no information to tempt litigious individuals, > :firms, and governments, then that problem would be solved altogether. > It's the same principle that stores > :use when they leave their cash registers EMPTY and UNLOCKED at night. A thief > :will often cause more damage to the cash register breaking into it than the > :amount of the money that it contains. What you're suggesting is that the > :person's privacy be violated BEFORE any law is broken, just in case he MIGHT > :break a law later. > > There's still no way to do something even if the law has already been broken. If someone has already been convicted of an offense that involved the internet, it might be possible to suggest that one condition of any probation or parole be to avoid using the internet, similar to what happens when one is convicted of drunk driving. Many jurisdictions allow victim input into the sentencing/parole process. (I'm not advocating this, merely pointing out that it's possible.) > :It's your choice. Go visit the list of remailers currently in operation and > :count how many there are. If it's too much trouble for you to send a single > :block request, CCed to a dozen or so addresses, then you probably don't have > :a strong enough case to go to court, obtain a warrant or subpoena, either. > :By the time you go through that process, you'll have invested far more time > :and effort than sending an e-mail or two to prevent the problem. > > He's saying someone's harassing him. (Sounds like in USENet and Email) > Blocking your address only helps the email part. Not USENet. No, actually he was saying that he wasn't worrying about someone doing it TO HIM, but he was worrying (vicariously) about other potential victims. Yes, usenet is a different story and by its very nature it can never be totally offense-free. The best remedy there is to use a killfile, or even avoid some NGs altogether, especially unmoderated ones, where one is likely to be offended by what he reads. The problem is that devising workable solutions to problems that don't yet exist is much more difficult that resolving problems that do already exist. And that's doubly true if the person refuses to implement the preventive measures already suggested. It's sort of like saying, "Why should I be careful with that hot coffee? I'll just wait until it spills and injures me, then I can sue someone!" > :If it's not serious enough for you to request that your e-mail address > :be blocked, then why should the authorities think it's serious enough to > :devote the resources to hunt down your harasser? > > Blocking all remailers means you get _NO_ anonymous posts. Pretty serious when > you've only a problem with one abuser, no? It wasn't intended as universal advice. But since his premise was that 'Completely anonymous communications ARE only for "Criminals"', it seemed a wise precaution FOR HIM to take if he wanted to prevent any of those "criminals" from bothering him. > :If the only purpose of anonymous e-mail is to break the law, then why > :WOULDN'T you want to block it? Do you have some reason you'd want to hear > :from people you consider lawbreakers? > > I still think he's mistaken by thinking that all who post anonymously are > lawbreakers. I do too. But his premise was used to support his suggested remedy. If an anonymous user is NOT presumed to be a criminal, then you can't justify treating him like one. > It's like anything else in life, a few assholes ruining things > for everyone. So true ... of remailers, of Netcom and AOL accounts, usenet, and the internet in general. But they'll only ruin it if you let them. Trolls and flaming predate the internet itself and go back to Fidonet and BBSes in general. (I wouldn't doubt that people were lamenting the misuse of free speech back in ancient Greece.) It's sort of like cable TV. There's enough bandwidth (excluding outright spammers for the moment) that you can choose the "channels" with what you perceive to have a sufficient signal to noise ratio, and avoid the rest. Everyone has his own threshold. That's why many NGs come in both moderated and unmoderated flavors. > :> If someone really wants to send me email, there > :> is no way I can prevent it short of not allowing any untrusted > :> accounts to email me. And that's reducing my lifestyle. It's giving > :> in. > : > :That's your choice. The solution exists if you choose to use it. > > It's a lousy solution that only cures part of the problem. In an imperfect world, you often have to settle for the best you can get, being careful that you don't enact a cure that's worse than the disease. > :> Only within a single country. With an international network like this > :> one, it is ridiculously easy to get around the laws of any one > :> country. Getting around the laws of EVERY country on the net is a lot > :> harder, and should rightly be so. > : > :So if somebody in Argentina decides to harrass someone in England, how would > :what you're proposing solve that problem? > > If they weren't posting anonymously, there'd be things that could be done. > But if they're posting anonymously, how wouyld you know they were in > Argentina? You wouldn't. But if you'd jumped through all the hoops to hunt down the anonymous annoyance and the trail led to Argentina, then the spirit of non-cooperation between the Brits and the Argentines might well mean that the trail ends right there. Or take it a step further. Suppose the Argentine remailer cooperated, and told the authorities that the message in question was chained through a remailer in Germany. And so on... Politas' solution is conditioned on an ideal world where everyone cooperated with everyone else. What he cited as the protection an anonymous poster would have against an oppresive regime is also why his scheme would not work. Very little in the way of abuse goes on on the Internet that would be universally recognized as criminal by EVERY country. Not all countries deem copyright violations, posting kiddie porn, libel, blasphemy, sedition, posting birth control information, or even bomb-making recipes as actionable offenses worthy of governmental intervention to identify and prosecute the culprit. Take "libel", for example. Let's suppose a law were enacted today to make defaming the President of the United States a criminal offense. How much success do you think you'd have in forcing a remailer in Libya or Iraq to aid in hunting down such an offender? - --- Finger <comsec(a)nym.alias.net> for PGP public key (Key ID=19BE8B0D) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBNJ1P1wbp0h8ZvosNAQFaRAf+NfkhWJpic1Ha6d7V5qmf5OmJ3GFTcTdw FFfaC+fIG2SD2I/lJ7Oe1zDengWLFCdr+N25TT5H0zUhjm22NUDc9A1JVH0J4Xes haSNeA8XhON2f2SF9XS8EQebfXyIAj0m7c8f2HeecRVZC+MBCR1uXqotL5l8J4bA 1WXG/GCIId9JLMC0oi5W26XHwefu1UP3uYd13Z1AFOVfi7lTFh15YOOTfwlRjgl2 Aion64yujcjq6z7voNuidaz3HQVQmgwmeZKGeYJ935HzpA0XTYu/xr9L5p+gbmE3 S33fzHwgljymm6joJzUK8x/u3rrChp5a6O7qL07U5ZmgotQv7I0YDw== =tkvg -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Why I Support Microsoft
by Tim May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Over the years I've sometimes joined in on the jokes about Microsoft and Bill Gates...the jokes about the Borg, assimilation, and the habits of Gates. And I've lately really enjoyed the "Saturday Night Live" skits involving Bill Gates interrupting the Pope to announce that Microsoft has merged with Christmas, and so on. As a longtime Macintosh user, and only occasional user of MS products, it's mostly of entertainment value to me to see what MS is doing. (Caveat: I used Microsoft Basic on Intel MDS systems (8080-based), circa 1977-78, bought a PC in the early 80s, bought "Microsoft Word" Version 1.00 when most people were buying Samna Word, Wordstar, and other such vanished products, and even bought the execrable, terrible, crufty, horrible "Windows 1.0" when it first came out, circa 1984. And for my Macintosh, I bought Microsoft Word 1.05 and used it for many years in various versions. I currently use no Microsoft products on a daily basis.) Anyway, the recent government actions against Microsoft are reprehensible to any person who values liberty. Microsoft is being punished for its success. The appearance of Ralph Nader, Jamie Love, and executives of Netscape (who are miffed that _their_ attempted monopoly is being threatened by MS!), in the (ironic) "Microsoft Bash," along with opportunistic actions by various states' attorney generals, and with judges imposing million dollar a day fines..... Well, it's all a familiar pattern. I hate to say it, but read parts of "Atlas Shrugged" to see this piling on, this "taking down the successful a few notches" behavior. Attila T. Hun is, for some reason, bashing MS a lot. I'll use one of his posts to make some specific points: At 10:15 AM -0700 12/21/97, Attila T. Hun wrote: >> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A federal judge Friday told Microsoft >> Corp. he easily uninstalled the company's Web browser >> without breaking Windows 95 and ordered company officials to >> explain why they could not do the same. "Windows 95 >> functioned flawlessly" with Internet Explorer uninstalled, >> U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson told Microsoft. >> > mistake #1: dont piss off a federal judge --let alone > try to show that he is ignorant. PC makers like Compaq, Dell, Gateway, etc., are in fact perfectly free to bundle Netscape Navigator (or whatever the Do Everything version is called) with their systems. Microsoft is then perfectly free, in a free society, to say "Fine, then don't put Windows on your machines." Right? Customers can then make their choices. Or can buy Windows in the nearest software store. The way it used to be done. Yielding to pressure from the court, MS is now allowing PC makers to also include Netscape Navigator. Well, none have yet elected to do so...quite probably because Netscape is _charging_ for this, and MS is not. (To Ralph Nader, and perhaps even to Attila, that MS is _giving_ away its browser, free for the download and free to the PC vendors, is itself a crime.) ... > this is my one big fear: the DOJ will accept a plea > bargain like they did last time and it will be back > to business as usual for M$ --and they will be back in > court within a year having gained even more horizontal > and vertical control of the entire communications > and information industries --and claiming again that > they are misunderstood --and complying with the order, > etc. Customers are voting with their pocketbooks. They like the MS offerings more than they like the competing offerings...of which there are still many. (Macintosh, Unix in several flavors (incl Linux), and loyal followings for older OSes. Sun and Oracle and others are pushing for Java-based systems to obsolete the MS products. This is a major struggle which analyses about Microsoft's "domination" seem to ignore.) > > there is only one solution to organizations like M$ > which are operated without ethics: treat them to the > pleasures of not only the antitrust laws but the > exquisite delights of RICO. I cannot understand how Attila can so enthusiastically support this. His "exquisite delights" even recalls Torquemada and the Inquistion. A suitable term for what is being to MS, in my view. > M$ is a cancer; it has fully metasticized and is gorging > itself at the banquet of the vanquished. Ralph Nader would probably be interested in hiring ATH as a speech writer. .... > anyway, just think where M$ would be with Royce today! > Gate$ and Ballmer might be down at the local MCC for a > few free 3 hots and a cot, all expenses paid, "enjoying" > a well earned vacation from screwing all of us. I take it that ATH means that because something like 20 or 30 million Americans chose to buy Windows 95 (and thus gain the benefits we Macintosh users have had for many years :-}) that this means "we" were screwed? > Other than the usual ills of a monopoly, what really > irks anyone with a modicum of intelligence is that Gate$ > intends to migrate the entire package for the benefit of > the couch potatoes; Gate$ intends to dictate not only > what we use to view his trash, but that only his trash > is splashed. Why not pick on Intel? Intel is, if anything, even more of a "monopoly" than MS is. While customers have some reasonable choices in OSes (Windows/NT, Unix, Linux, Macintosh, AmigaOS, Inferno, Java-based developments, etc.), the fact is that all of the surviving OSes are being ported to the Intel platform (pace recent announcements by Sun that Solaris will be on Merced at its rollout in 1999, and earlier announcements by H-P, DEC, and IBM along the same lines). But neither MS nor Intel are "monopolies." They are just the People's Choice. Which always tends to cluster...the big really do get bigger. For awhile, at least, until the paradigm shifts and the big can't adapt quickly enough. Of the 10 biggest chip makers in 1970, all are distant seconds to Intel, the world's largest producer of chips, in dollar amount. (And in total square meters of silicon output.) .... >> After the hearing Friday, Christine Varney, a former Federal >> Trade Commissioner now representing Netscape, was jubilant. >> "I think the judge has understood the seriousness of the >> issue," she said. >> > she had every reason to be jubilant --so far. even if > the judge did not fully understand the technological > bullshit M$ was trying to slide on by, the judge fully > understands that M$ was trying to blind pitch him --and > insulting him to boot. Of _course_ she's jubilant! Netscape wants its "rightfully-earned monopoly" back! Has anyone forgotten that in 1995 it was looking like Netscape would be on 95% of all desktops, Windows, Mac, and Unix, and that it was turning into the Big Bad Monopoly? Are memories really that short? Netscape has been using its legal manouvers to attempt to stop Microsoft from horning in on _its_ monopoly. (I hate using the term "monopoly," but if critics of MS are going to use it, hey, when in Rome....) >> Microsoft stock closed at $128.69, down $2.19 on NASDAQ, >> where it was among the most active issues. > yes, down almost 20 points since their fiasco with the > DOJ started. before it's over, I hope to see M$ listed > with the junk bonds and issues --in the penny stocks. > Yep, sort of the way Netscape stock went from its IPO price of around $25 (in today's shares) to $80 when it looked like Netscape Navigator and related products were going to be the Next Big Monopoly....and then plummeted down to the $30-40 range as it appeared this was not the way things were going to turn out.... Netscape stock is currently at $27 3/4, just about where it began trading in '95. Even so, Navigator remains popular on many platforms. Microsoft Explorer is by no means a monopoly. And MS announced a long time ago, in '95 if I recall correctly, that the Web was such a big deal (let us not forget that some were saying Gates had missed the boat on the Web and MS would falter) that the URL addressing scheme would be _built in_ to future versions of its OS so as to make Web browsing and file browsing identical, and to facillitate intranets. "One big file system." Like this or not, it makes a certain amount of sense. Ah, but now we face the spectacle of a judge or panel of Nader-pandering bureaucrats telling Microsoft what features it will be allowed to include in its operating system. Perhaps the graphics chip companies facing extinction as Intel puts massive graphics capabilities into new chips can sue on antitrust grounds and get a "special master" to dictate to Intel what features it may put into chips? (Certainly the long-departed Weitek might have survived a few more years had Ralph Nader turned his unsafe at any speed attention to the floating point processing market and gotten an injunction against Intel putting onboard floating point instructions into the 486.) I cannot understand how any Cypherpunk can be advocating interference in the market the way Attila and a few others are doing. Making jokes about Bill Gates is one thing, just harmless fun. But advocating the Men with Guns (TM) seize control of the products he offers to uncoerced customers is simply wrong. --Tim May The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^2,976,221 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

8 12

Re: Automatic Translations
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

bureau42 wrote: >Just out of curiosity I ran a paragraph of one of Bob H's wordy >pieces through a few translations and, son of a bitch! if it didn't become clearer! Now this is truly helpful advice to get what's being miscommunicated by deranged brute-forcers spit and shined and pinstripped like truetext masterblasters. If some dingdong's spew comes through translation unchanged then it is the plain vanilla-est, the most unshaded, unnuanced, unbiased, untrickery, unimaginative, and thus the most omnipotent of all possible upchuckery aimed to infect the globe with toenail jam passing as troot juice. If these lies (aka blackheart pus-drip) remain unchanged by translation and unmangled by retranslation through all spitbucket languages and all Earth's cheese-bowels bent on misconstruance and prejudicial warp to fit preconceptions of perfectly slit-minded right to disembowel and deny life and liberty to those of opposing views, then it is the word of You Know Who, and your way-behind clan better believe it, and copy it, and bray-pray in it and bet your bed-watering, unwavering Clone Constitution Bible Koran Hit Man Browser on it. Seattle-shrouded in this Kelvar-asbestos cloak, napalm those east of the Rockies (and west) who question the Macrosoft Word, PR sizzle those who mock it, and Jesus-crowbar the infidels who mess with mismarketing PICS to the world's DoJs and 1st Amend lingo freedom-futzing bill-mauling mud-doggies. Sez Iggy, plain and simple.

1 0

Re: Making them eat their words... (while they watch!)
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:15 PM 12/21/1997 +0000, Attila T. Hun wrote: > there is only one solution to organizations like M$ > which are operated without ethics: treat them to the > pleasures of not only the antitrust laws but the > exquisite delights of RICO. Nonsense, and I'm surprised to hear this from you. Treat them to the pleasures of the free market - if you don't like them, start a Boycott M$ campaign, and see if people stop buying their lousy software. The direct democracy of the free market is far more appropriate than government here - it's $1/vote, and if enough people vote against M$ they'll get the hint, and it enough people vote _for_ M$, it's none of your business. It _is_ funny to see the Feds hiring a big corporate lawyer to run their case; I guess they don't think Federal Prosecutors are good enough. Surely if a low-level prosecutor can't hack it, they should use their boss, and on up the hierarchical chain. If Janet Reno can't do it either, they should replace her with someone who can :-) Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart(a)pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

1 0

Don't lie to the marketers or Feds! from ZDNET
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://www.zdnet.com/intweek/print/971215/264108.html >For Social Security Number, the EPIC page recommends using >a number, which won't be reprinted here, used on "sample" >cards decades ago. The figuring: "Most clerks probably >won't recognize it as a fake" and it won't interfere with >other Social Security numbers. > >For addresses, the EPIC page suggests using hometown parks, >city halls and police stations. It specifically suggests >the address of Comiskey Park in Chicago. Makes one wonder >how White Sox officials feel about the prospect of getting >extra junk mail and spam really destined for disciples of >EPIC's peculiar freedom of information act. What crime >against the common good did Jerry Reinsdorf commit except >to sign Albert Belle to an ungodly contract undermining >baseball owner solidity against rising salaries? > >For telephone numbers, the recommendation is >1-202-224-3121. That turns out to be the switchboard of the >U.S. Congress. If this is intended to send some sort of >message to solons about the loss of control of personal >information, it's likely to be wholly lost. The only people >it will punish are operators handling incoming calls at the >Capitol. They will only regard the extra calls as more >wrong number calls they have to handle. They will have no >way to figure out that this is some sort of subgrassroots >effort to gum up the works. And they will certainly have no >way to provide statistics to Congress on the result. > >The EPIC page is, in that last case, urging Americans to >waste taxpayer dollars, for no clear purpose. > >On a larger scale, the EPIC document only exacerbates the >issue it tries to solve. The answer to the loss of control >of personal information on the Internet is not to >contribute instead to a boom in unreliable data. >

2 1