December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

NetNanny's Gordon Ross on "Censorship and the Internet"
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

================= From: gordonr(a)netnanny.com (GordonR) Reply-To: "gordonR(a)netnanny.com" <gordonR(a)netnanny.com> To: "'Declan McCullagh'" Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 10:46:19 -0800 Organization: Net Nanny Software International Inc. Censorship and the Internet Written by: Gordon A. Ross CEO/President Net nanny Software International Inc. The Internet today provides a total open communication facility for all societies on this planet to communicate with one another. Depending on your political and value judgments, this could be good, bad, allowed or disallowed. I am a firm believer in absolute freedom of speech. However, there are numerous organizations, societies, governments, and countries that determine what freedom of speech is according to their own rules. We are capable of developing technology to allow the individual to determine what information is appropriate or inappropriate according to their own value sets - not mine or those of any single government. But in order for this type of technology to work on a global basis, we must set standards, much like the way early telephone networks had to be set up. Back then, if there weren't certain "signaling" standards set within the telecommunication community, people had to go through time-consuming avenues in order to communicate with different foreign groups. It is logical that the Internet will also evolve with a set of standards, and some of them are already in place, such as TCP/IP, HTML, and PICS (Platform for Internet Content Selection). Because each unique group has a different value set, we must develop a standard that all countries can accept and use that does not infringe on their right to govern according to their own constitutions or laws. PICS is such a standard. It allows for self-imposed ratings according to the standards of the individual, organization or country. If ratings are desired, PICS defines how and where a rating label should appear. Browsers and filtering software can read these standards and make decisions as defined by the owner of these software applications. Personally, I do not believe rating should be forced on any single individual or WEB site, much in the same way I do not believe that I should be told when I can use my telephone if it is my telephone. However, I do have concerns about third-party rating systems. There are so many important questions we have to ask: Who is doing the rating? What are their qualifications? Who determines the criteria? How does the system get implemented? With the Internet's massive daily changes, how is content validated? And, more importantly, who validates the content? How would rating work, if it could work at all? There are 60 million-plus pages on the WEB and it takes about one minute per page to rate. To rate every existing WEB page today, it would take about 60 million minutes - or one million hours - or over 114 years. Using 114 people working 24 hours a day, the job would take a full year. But the bad news is that as soon as everything was rated, the process would have to start all over again, because within a year the WEB would change drastically. Even day-to-day changes would be difficult to track. That's why a self-rating system would be the most cost-effective solution - as well as the most politically correct. I would be very concerned if mandatory rating is enforced. We are fortunate to live in a society that allows us the civil liberties that we currently enjoy. No single jurisdiction can - or should - govern the Internet. And technology will always evolve in order to get around this type of government control. There is simply too much content for any single entity to monitor at this time. Many people feel there should be no rating or controls legislated for the Internet. Legislation already exists to enforce proper conduct within a country's Internet access. Technology developed by industry will allow individuals the control they want according to their own personal values. The masses should be educated as to emerging technologies that will offer them choices - and how these technologies can be used safely. Once people understand how the technology can prevent problems, the divisive issues currently facing us will become moot. Today, we function in a global community, and we can no longer isolate ourselves thinking we can "go it alone." The Internet opens up worldwide communications channels. We can discover or share any information at any time from any source, if we so choose. We must strive to preserve the open communication and the free exchange of ideas, while at the same time protect our children when we as individuals feel it is necessary. Technology companies can and will provide the tools for us to accomplish both free speech on the Internet - and protection for our families. The Internet can be a truly wonderful resource for the entire world to share. Approximately 95% of it is, in fact, good. Up until now, we have done a great job of informing the general population of the negatives inherent in a tool like the WEB. But now it's time to educate people about the positive aspects of the Internet, especially as it becomes their major communication facility in the future. What it comes down to is, a simple matter of choice. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- Gordon Ross CEO/President Net Nanny Software International Inc. Suite 108 - 525 Seymour Street Vancouver, B.C. V6B 3H7 Tel: (604) 662-8522 E-mail: gordonR(a)netnanny.com

1 0

Re: Fairy Gold
by Magus Mixmaster Anonymous Remailer Service 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Monty Cantsin wrote: >Anonymous <anon(a)anon.efga.org> wrote: >>Persistent identities suck. Ideas stand or fall on their own. >>Reputation capital is fairy gold, evaporating with the morning dew. If this were really true, you would have posted your message under your real name (a.k.a., your persistent identity). The fact that you chose to make your statement anonymously only proves the inverse of what you say. >I do not believe this to be true. Of course, concepts are valid >regardless of their source. It would be unwise to take the statements >even of established identities on faith. > >The advantage of persistent identity is that it allows the exploration >of more complicated ideas. Use of the persistent identity places a >particular post in a greater context. > >There is only so much that can be done in a single post. It is the >mailing list equivalent of a sound bite. We should remember that -- at least here in America and the rest of the so-called first world -- we live in the age of the sound bite where the "medium is the message." Public opinion is manipulated by the puppetmasters who pull the emotional strings of John and Jane Q. Public sitting in front of the TV each night. Witness how anyone who has watched a video on Waco is quickly being lumped into the category of an anti-government extremist (Terry Nichols had two copies of "Waco Under Siege" in his house). The underlying message is, "don't consider any of the facts that the video viewer presents to you, just realize he/she is an extremist." Frankly, I wasn't there at Waco so I don't know what happened. However, as Monty pointed out in another post, the fact that the FBI/BATF/etc. administered the gas into the Davidian home (notice how I fail to use the media-sanctioned term "compound") is clearly an aggressive act on the part of the U.S. gov't. Regardless of what the spinmeisters say (both on the left and the right) no human being with a conscience can take note of this fact and say that the feds were justified in their actions. Gassing children? Come on. A single sound bite on its own will do nothing, but a persistent group of sound bites presented over time with a recurring message can create a great amount of influence. This is how public opinion is formed through mass media channels. But think about this: who is the author of these mass media sound bites? Can you name the person? It's easy to say that it's the feds, the ZOG, the NWO crew...but you can't name an individual can you? Why is that? Seriously, think about this question. It has a lot to do with a major cypherpunk theme: anonymity. But in this case, with hardly any conscious responsibility. Nerthus P.S. Notice how my response becomes "negated" by Monty's previous response when you read the first 6 lines of text in order: " >>Persistent identities suck. Ideas stand or fall on their own. >>Reputation capital is fairy gold, evaporating with the morning dew. If that were really true, you would have posted your message under your real name (a.k.a., your persistent identity). The fact that you chose to make your statement anonymously only proves the inverse of what you say. >I do not believe this to be true. " Think how easily Monty's "response" could be used against me if the quoted text marks (>) were removed. Truths are easily twisted into lies by those who seek advantage from such actions. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBNHJoHOFWwZe05jcJAQG60gf9Gkn96xtwHQ6CP3gcXGTTjgb42GMWXG6G YvlDlu+MehW61hR+i8NeqM6Y/z1nFJuFZhOJmAVlps2ud6r6PoGBqFF0HOiNQjyz 3pwuB5v2y31rxHKJDLloWjv+fLrX8sapQbOwELbmR3DxwiYxiZJfhNHz8T+gQOw5 4Ri550IzqMpGCHLeU03GdnZOiCu17QRUOHuP2qnNHSUAcTp28fQbUBUdivVPsr+1 PZ1XfwCLKhSdQjDCIhRNukM9+ep675+l5FtEZGjx6UOsBRlpZmXz/6I2Z/S9c0Tr nrmOhPBSS1MQDDe2vCkOhiNmcBT2LbAa5cSEL07sswLU0/lFMRj6Jw== =uO0B -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Forwarded mail...
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 20:20:27 -0700 > From: Magus Mixmaster Anonymous Remailer Service <mix(a)magusnet.com> > Subject: Re: Fairy Gold > Monty Cantsin wrote: > >Anonymous <anon(a)anon.efga.org> wrote: > >>Persistent identities suck. Ideas stand or fall on their own. > >>Reputation capital is fairy gold, evaporating with the morning dew. > > If this were really true, you would have posted your message under your real > name (a.k.a., your persistent identity). The fact that you chose to make > your statement anonymously only proves the inverse of what you say. No, it only proves Monty doesn't believe what he says. > Frankly, I wasn't there at Waco so I don't know what happened. However, as > Monty pointed out in another post, the fact that the FBI/BATF/etc. > administered the gas into the Davidian home (notice how I fail to use the > media-sanctioned term "compound") is clearly an aggressive act on the part of > the U.S. gov't. Regardless of what the spinmeisters say (both on the left > and the right) no human being with a conscience can take note of this fact > and say that the feds were justified in their actions. Gassing children? > Come on. To hell with gassing them, the issue is the bar-b-que that occurred after. Something like 18 children were murdered and the US government and the then Texas (bitch) govenor Ann Richards were complicent in the nefarious deed. Someday she and every agent that participated will stand before a jury, unfortunately the odds are it will be the jury of history and not their peers. Why were those kids deprived of the modern conveniences? Clearly the answer "David and his followers wouldn't surrender" doesn't hold water. Those kids deserve NO punishment for actions others *may* have committed, they were a victim - whether of David or the actions of the gov. reps. is irrellevant. Those people were given a public trust, they not only abused it but failed miserably in its resolution. They must pay the price. Saying "I was following orders" has no place in a democratic society anywhere; the individual MUST be held accountable for their actions and they should not be able to shirk that responsibility nor pass it off to some 3rd party. Further, irrispective of their job or position in society or the government the responsibilities AND rights of the individual must not be infringed AND must take predidence over all other duties or responsibilties. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | 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 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Censorware Summit agenda (December 1-3)
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Note civil liberties and journalism groups are absent from the list of organizations represented. --Declan] =========== FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Wednesday, November 19, 1997 Sydney Rubin, 301/654-5991 Malena Hougen, 202/828-9730 INTERNET/ONLINE SUMMIT: FOCUS ON CHILDREN RELEASES AGENDA FOR MEETING, DECEMBER 1-3 WASHINGTON, D.C. - Organizers of the Internet/Online Summit: Focus on Children today released an agenda for the historic three-day meeting of public interest and family advocates, educators, industry leaders and law enforcement officials joining forces to find ways to enhance the safety and education of children in cyberspace. The meeting is the first time so many diverse organizations have come together to address safety and content issues related to children and the new mass medium. The Summit is the first in a series of discussions on issues affecting children in cyberspace, including advertising, access, privacy, and marketing and content. The first meeting will focus on content and safety. The December 1-3 Summit will include speakers, panels, announcements of initiatives taken by the Summit and its participants, and a small exhibition of technological tools and educational resources available to help parents manage children's time on-line. Panelists will be announced prior to the Summit. The Summit Agenda, which is subject to change, follows: MONDAY, DECEMBER 1, 5 p.m. - 8:30 p.m. Registration and Opening Reception adjacent to technological tools kiosks TUESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 7:30 a.m. - 6 p.m. Breakfast Call to Order Speaker (Vice President Al Gore invited to speak) Presentation on Good Content with the Public Broadcasting System and others Framing the Issues: speaker Lois Jean White, President of the National PTA Panel in Framing the Issues Panel in "Safety" Luncheon Speakers: Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, Secretary of Commerce William M. Daley Presentation on Law Enforcement On-Line: Attorney General Janet Reno and panelists Presentation on Public Education: Secretary Richard W. Riley and panelists Presentation on the Technology Tool Kit Panel on Filtering and Ratings WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 8:30 a.m. - noon Breakfast Review of Previous Day: Christine Varney, Chairperson of the Summit Congressional Roundtable with Summit Participants Kids Panel Moderated by Linda Ellerbee Conclusion All activities will take place at the Renaissance Washington, D.C. Hotel at 999 Ninth Street, N.W. Registration to attend the Summit must be done through the Summit's Web site: www.kidsonline.org. Separate registration forms are available at the site for journalists and the public, as well as other information as it become available. A partial list of the organizations sponsoring the Summit includes: AT&T America Online American Library Association Center for Democracy and Technology Center for Media Education Children Now The Children's Partnership CompuServe The Direct Marketing Association Disney Online Digital Equipment/Alta Vista Enough is Enough Family Education Company IBM Interactive Services Association The Learning Company/Cyber Patrol Microsoft Corporation MCI Communication Corporation NETCOM Net Nanny National Association of Secondary School Principals National Center for Missing & Exploited Children National Consumers League National Education Association National Law Center Surfwatch Time Warner # # #

1 0

Re: AT&T Research "Crowds" -- Perl web anonymity proxy -- needs users
by Avi Rubin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Yeah, that license agreement was forced on us. We were grateful they let us give away all the source code. > From gnu(a)toad.com Wed Nov 19 00:32:10 1997 > Delivery-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 00:32:11 -0500 > Return-Path: gnu(a)toad.com > Received: from research.att.com (research-clone.research.att.com [135.207.30.100]) > by amontillado.research.att.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id AAA27270 > for <rubin(a)issr.research.att.com>; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 00:32:09 -0500 (EST) > Received: from toad.com ([140.174.2.1]) by research-clone; Wed Nov 19 00:30:14 EST 1997 > Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id VAA02158; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 21:30:06 -0800 (PST) > Message-Id: <199711190530.VAA02158(a)toad.com> > X-Authentication-Warning: toad.com: Host localhost [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol > To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com, rubin(a)research.att.com, gnu(a)toad.com > Subject: AT&T Research "Crowds" -- Perl web anonymity proxy -- needs users > Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 21:30:05 -0800 > From: John Gilmore <gnu(a)toad.com> > Status: R > > It has a screwy "non-commercial use only, AT&T gets everything, you > get nothing" license, but otherwise it looks interesting. > > John > > From: Avi Rubin <rubin(a)research.att.com> > > John, > > You may remember that at Crypto, I described the Crowds system to you. > The system is now robust and up and running, and we have ported it to > windows and unix platforms, so just about anyone should be able to use > it. In fact, if there is such a thing as Perl for macintosh, I'm sure > it would work on that platform too. > > We are very interested in getting more users of our system. As it is > intended to provide privacy to web users, I thought that perhaps it is > something that you and EFF would be interested in. Do you think you > could put a link to the Crowds page on the EFF web site? Anything > else you can do to help increase the usage would be great, because our > system has the property that the more poeple use it, the more secure > it is. Let me know if you have any questions. > > The Crowds page is: http://www.research.att.com/projects/crowds > > Thanks, > Avi > > -- > > ********************************************************************* > Aviel D. Rubin rubin(a)research.att.com > Secure Systems Research Dept. Adjunct Professor at NYU > AT&T Labs - Research > 180 Park Avenue http://www.research.att.com/~rubin/ > Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971 Voice: +1 973 360-8356 > USA FAX: +1 973 360-8809 > > --> Check out http://www.clark.net/pub/mjr/websec/ for a new > book on web security (The Web Security Sourcebook). > ********************************************************************* >

1 0

Another blast from the past
by Tim May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Another "blast from the past." Here Bob talks about showing up in Denver for the visit by several heads of state, to stage some "street theater." Odd that he suddenly gets so offended when I say a judge has committed a capital crime. Perhaps he's just more scared now than before. Or perhaps he's having second thoughts about things. Or maybe he's had his visit. The simplest solution is the likeliest: OTR. --Tim May At 7:40 AM -0700 6/6/97, Robert Hettinga wrote: >At 8:19 am -0400 on 6/6/97, John Young wrote: > > >> Recall a previous report that Kohl and other heads of state are >> to meet in Denver on June 20-22 to plan a global attack >> on "cyber-terrorism," including the spread of encryption: >> >> http://jya.com/denver.htm > >Wow. What an opportunity for street theater *that* might be... > >Anyone up for a little road-trip? > >Yeah, I know. Everyone *else* has a *job*, or something... :-). No, I don't have a job. But there's no way in hell I'm going to expose myself to imprisonment in a German jail to make some metaphorical point about the resurgence of fascism in Germany. --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."

2 1

index.html
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

CNN logo Navigation Infoseek/Big Yellow Pathfinder/Warner Bros Barnes and Noble Main banner rule POLL: YOUNG ADULTS WANT BETTER GOVERNMENT graphic November 19, 1997 Web posted at: 10:57 p.m. EST (0357 GMT) WASHINGTON (AP) -- Most young adults don't necessarily want to reduce government's role in America but want it to do a better job, according to a new poll. As for themselves, however, they see their future not in government work but in private business. The survey by pollsters Peter Hart and Robert Teeter was released Wednesday at the kickoff of a project by corporations and nonprofit groups to increase public trust in government. In the poll, 40 percent of respondents said government can help them achieve their goals in life, compared with the 48 percent who said government programs and policies are a hindrance. But a large majority, 71 percent, answered that government could help with better leadership and management, and 60 percent would prefer improving the government over simply reducing its size and power. On working in government themselves, 66 percent said a career in the private sector is more appealing. The telephone survey of 505 Americans between the ages of 18 and 34 was conducted October 29 and 30. The margin of error is plus or minus 4.5 percentage points. Copyright 1997 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. rule Related site: Note: Pages will open in a new browser window * Council for Excellence in Government homepage External sites are not endorsed by CNN Interactive. _________________________________________________________________ Infoseek search ____________________ ____ ____ _________________________________________________________________ rule Message Boards Sound off on our message boards You said it... [INLINE] rule To the top © 1997 Cable News Network, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms under which this service is provided to you.

1 0

Re: Fairy Gold
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Monty Cantsin wrote: >Anonymous <anon(a)anon.efga.org> wrote: >>Persistent identities suck. Ideas stand or fall on their own. >>Reputation capital is fairy gold, evaporating with the morning dew. If this were really true, you would have posted your message under your real name (a.k.a., your persistent identity). The fact that you chose to make your statement anonymously only proves the inverse of what you say. >I do not believe this to be true. Of course, concepts are valid >regardless of their source. It would be unwise to take the statements >even of established identities on faith. > >The advantage of persistent identity is that it allows the exploration >of more complicated ideas. Use of the persistent identity places a >particular post in a greater context. > >There is only so much that can be done in a single post. It is the >mailing list equivalent of a sound bite. We should remember that -- at least here in America and the rest of the so-called first world -- we live in the age of the sound bite where the "medium is the message." Public opinion is manipulated by the puppetmasters who pull the emotional strings of John and Jane Q. Public sitting in front of the TV each night. Witness how anyone who has watched a video on Waco is quickly being lumped into the category of an anti-government extremist (Terry Nichols had two copies of "Waco Under Siege" in his house). The underlying message is, "don't consider any of the facts that the video viewer presents to you, just realize he/she is an extremist." Frankly, I wasn't there at Waco so I don't know what happened. However, as Monty pointed out in another post, the fact that the FBI/BATF/etc. administered the gas into the Davidian home (notice how I fail to use the media-sanctioned term "compound") is clearly an aggressive act on the part of the U.S. gov't. Regardless of what the spinmeisters say (both on the left and the right) no human being with a conscience can take note of this fact and say that the feds were justified in their actions. Gassing children? Come on. A single sound bite on its own will do nothing, but a persistent group of sound bites presented over time with a recurring message can create a great amount of influence. This is how public opinion is formed through mass media channels. But think about this: who is the author of these mass media sound bites? Can you name the person? It's easy to say that it's the feds, the ZOG, the NWO crew...but you can't name an individual can you? Why is that? Seriously, think about this question. It has a lot to do with a major cypherpunk theme: anonymity. But in this case, with hardly any conscious responsibility. Nerthus P.S. Notice how my response becomes "negated" by Monty's previous response when you read the first 6 lines of text in order: " >>Persistent identities suck. Ideas stand or fall on their own. >>Reputation capital is fairy gold, evaporating with the morning dew. If that were really true, you would have posted your message under your real name (a.k.a., your persistent identity). The fact that you chose to make your statement anonymously only proves the inverse of what you say. >I do not believe this to be true. " Think how easily Monty's "response" could be used against me if the quoted text marks (>) were removed. Truths are easily twisted into lies by those who seek advantage from such actions. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBNHJoHOFWwZe05jcJAQG60gf9Gkn96xtwHQ6CP3gcXGTTjgb42GMWXG6G YvlDlu+MehW61hR+i8NeqM6Y/z1nFJuFZhOJmAVlps2ud6r6PoGBqFF0HOiNQjyz 3pwuB5v2y31rxHKJDLloWjv+fLrX8sapQbOwELbmR3DxwiYxiZJfhNHz8T+gQOw5 4Ri550IzqMpGCHLeU03GdnZOiCu17QRUOHuP2qnNHSUAcTp28fQbUBUdivVPsr+1 PZ1XfwCLKhSdQjDCIhRNukM9+ep675+l5FtEZGjx6UOsBRlpZmXz/6I2Z/S9c0Tr nrmOhPBSS1MQDDe2vCkOhiNmcBT2LbAa5cSEL07sswLU0/lFMRj6Jw== =uO0B -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Traffic Analysis Tip #3207
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

TRAFFIC ANALYSIS TIP #3207: Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD) When performing traffic analysis and/or stylometry for the purpose of discerning the sometimes subtle differences between genuine mental imbalance and affectation of the same by boilerplate government and/or corporate shills, one needs to take into account the possible role that 'Seasonal Affective Disorder,' (SAD), may play in emotive attacks on the target, be it a group or a particular subject. The onset of SAD can often be recognized by the correlation between increasingly emotional attacks and specifically monitorable elements of seasonal changes, such as the decreasing amount of light in the northern and southern climes as winter advances. Examples of this can be easily charted using posts originating from ISP's such as sympatico.ca. The data can then be compared to that garnered through an analysis of Hettinga's posts, showing that the latter are goal-oriented emotive attacks designed to provide identity- associated confirmation/support of the current round of anonymous posts aimed at denigrating the cypherpunks mailing list by associating it directly, in the minds of others, with one or two individuals/targets on the list. Note that although SAD can aggravate existing conditions, such as OCD (Obssesive-Compulsive Disorder), it does not change the basic traits of those conditions. The excessive diatribes of Choate, for instance, upon having a few lines of one of his posts changed/misquoted by Toto/TruthMonger, were shown by analysis to have been easily deflected by others into a more generalized attack/defense-of-his-position. While Hettinga's current attack might easily be confused with an identity-fixation focus of the same general form of OCD, closer analysis would show that his posts continually return to goal- oriented repetitive misstatements aimed toward linking the individual to a specifically designed mind-construct being advanced by the para//el anonymous posts. Likewise, the effect of Seasonal Affective Disorder on those afflicted with a wider variety of interconnected dysfuntionalities, such as the ADHD/Tourette/OCD/Schizoid tendencies of TruthMonger #1, is to merely increase the volatility of already existing conditions. Analysis of the known posts of #1, under a variety of personas and anonymous list offerings, shows the same wide set of dysfunctional anomalies working at cross-purposes on a broad spectrum of issues. One of the keys to differentiating these posts from those produced by boilerroom spook operations is recognizing the existence of multiple underlying signs of a broader range of diagnosic criterion than is present in a willful affectation of dysfunctional conditions designed to elicit para//el emotive reactions in other subscribers to the mailing list. The effect/influence of SAD has been shown in the past to be much greater during high levels of El Nino activity. TAT#3207/coe

1 0

Report on UN conference on Internet and racism
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Forwarded with permission, first few grafs deleted by request. --Declan] Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 10:40:22 -0800 (PST) From: Margarita Lacabe <marga(a)derechos.org> Subject: UN Conference [The lineup from the conference] -Debra Guzman, a long-time american human rights activist, gave a general appreciation of hate sites online. She said that it was very difficult to find them and unlikely that one would stumble on them. -Teresa Peters, another american from the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development Information Computer and Communications Policy Committee talked about a study that her organization had made about regulating speech on the internet, and about the problems this lead to. I think the study is not public, and she did not go much beyond what the study concluded. I didn't take good notes on her speech, however :-( -Philip Reitinger, a prosecutor with the US DOJ, summarize US free speech legislation and made clear that hate web sites are protected under US law. He also addressed the likely constitutional protections of anonimity, but left open the question of whether the US could cooperate with other countries in investigating people who violate speech laws abroad. -Timothy Jenkins, who as far as I can tell is mostly a consultant and someone who is trying to get the black leadership interested in the internet, talked about how the real problem here was that internet access is disproportionatelly held by white (males?) in the US and Europe, and how the lack of access to computers might be a form of racial discrimination. He did not agree with censorship of web sites BUT he introduced the issue of anonimity, being for restricting anonimity so as to be able to tell who the authors of racist speech were (this was followed by a strong denunciation by the US delegate and yours truely) -ERic Lee, from the Commercial Internet eXchange, an association of ISPs talked about why ISPs shouldn't be held responsible for content and also gave a good explanation of how the internet works. -Agha Shahi, a member of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, gave a forceful opinion on how the Convention applies online and how countries must criminalize hate speech online. -Rudiger Dossow, from the Council of Europe, talked about what the Council has been thinking about the issue and warned about potential pitfalls. -Maya Sooka, from Sangonet in SA, questioned the code of conduct idea that had been proposed several times - Anthony M. Rutkowski, now from Magic, talked about how the internet works, how impossible it is to regulate it, and how it should not be regulated differently from other media. At some point there was a presentation by the Simon Wiesenthal center on hate sites online, and another by the ITU, which I did not quite understand, about how hundreds of satellites are being launched. In addition to the experts, the conference had representatives from some UN and Int'l bodies, including the department of public information, the OHCHR, the ITU, the Internet Society and others who remained mostly silent. There were representatives from several countries, including the US, Sweeden, Germany, France and Cuba. Most representatives were embassy people, but those from Sweeden, france and germany were from different ministries in their countries. These three representatives who were among the most vocal in the conference seemed to be the only ones who were actually aware of the legal issues concerned, as well as to what the internet is :-) The NGOs were badly represented, there was no one from the groups that watch hate speech online (except for the brief appearance of the guy from the simon Wiesenthal center). In addition to the three of us, article 19 - the free speech organization - in England was represented, there was a guy from the World Jewish Conference who was there half the time, a couple of people from this organization for adult education, a professor from the Universtiy of Geneva who spoke a few times, and some assorted people from Geneva based groups who were mostly silent. There was also a guy from Indigienous World Association who missunderstood pretty much everything said, but was very passionate. (to be continued) Margarita Lacabe - Derechos - marga(a)derechos.org - http://www.derechos.org ____________________________________________________________________________ The governors as well as the governed are bound by the law and by the established system of making, changing and interpreting the law AKA The Rule of Law

13 22