December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Matters of Law
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>It is often claimed (here, too) that "anyone may sue." This is true. Just >pay a filing fee, etc., and anyone can sue. Alice can sue Bob because he is >reading "War and Peace." I can sue Suzie because I didn't like the color of >the dress she wore. And so on, so the theory goes. YMMV, depending on locality. Some places require a lawyer to certify that the lawsuit has (in hir opinion) at least a reasonable chance of succeeding. That may not apply in small claims court, tho. >(And the courts have even taken steps against those who have filed many >frivolous lawsuits with the apparent intent of harassment. ) They can go after the aforementioned lawyers for this, too. One of Scientology's lawyers, Helena ("The Kobra") Kobrin, has been sanctioned for filing frivolous lawsuits on behalf of that cult.

1 0

1st Ammendment Tossed in Paladin Case
by Eric Cordian 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) -- Ruling that the right to a free press doesn't cover a how-to-kill book, a federal appeals panel said the families of a hired killer's victims may sue the publisher of a book that he consulted. A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied First Amendment protection to ``Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors,'' saying publisher Paladin Press knew it would be used by murderers. ``The Supreme Court has never protected as abstract advocacy speech so explicit in its palpable entreaties to violent crime,'' the panel said in its ruling Monday. The book was sold to James Edward Perry, who was convicted of killing Mildred Horn; her disabled 8-year-old son, Trevor; and the son's nurse, Janice Saunders, in Silver Spring, Md., in 1993. The women were shot between the eyes and the boy's respirator was unplugged. Perry is on death row for the murders, and Lawrence T. Horn, Mrs. Horn's former husband, was sentenced to life in prison for hiring Perry. Horn's motive was to collect $1.7 million from a malpractice settlement that his son Trevor won from a hospital after the accident that left him a quadriplegic. Paladin has never challenged Perry's claim that he followed some of the 130-page paperback's advice. ``This decision says that if you're in the business of helping instruct murderers on how to slaughter innocent women and children, you aren't going to find any shelter in the First Amendment,'' said Howard Siegel, an attorney for the families. Paladin Press, based in Boulder, Colo., plans to ask the full 4th Circuit to review the panel's decision and will seek a Supreme Court review if necessary, said Lee Levine, the publisher's attorney. The appeals court ''did not sufficiently take into account the First Amendment implications of holding the publisher of a book legally responsible for actions of someone reading the book,'' Levine said. The lawsuit was supported by victim rights groups, while The Washington Post Co., The New York Times Co. and other media organizations filed briefs supporting Paladin's position. In 1996, U.S. District Judge Alexander Williams ruled that the victims' families could not hold Paladin liable because of the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. The appeals panel sent the case back to Williams for trial. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

11 16

No Subject
by Mix 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

John Young wrote: WSJ reports today on the increasing conservatism of the military and disputes about the pretense of civilian control, with some officers calling for responsible action to compensate for societal breakdown. It cites several examples of military members preparing for war at home, as mentioned here earlier by Attila and others, with two Marine writers claiming that the next Somolia will be here. This, coupled with reports on LEA inheritance of military equipment and lavish civilian funding to fight terrorism, portends more than Jim Bell (Tim May?) -type sniper takeouts. Free fire zones may be in the offing, or surgical wasting of underground bunkers and germmakers (troublemakers). Wrathful Mars sees no innocents, so preaches the terrorist freedom warfighters pursuing a dream of winner take all, so sorry constitutional fundies, we're the warmonger biz. ----end quote Evidently they assume a one sided strategy. Wrathful Mars has little memory of recent history.

1 0

Tygar cracks SET (was Re: Freeware SET?)
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 2:11 pm -0500 on 11/9/97, Donald E. Eastlake 3rd wrote: > The SET reference implementation was written only with a concern for protocol > correctness and essentially no concern for operational usability. It is not > clear to me that a product could be based on it without a lot of additonal > work. But I suppose it might be useful for hacking... At Doug Tygar's talk at Harvard last week, he claimed to have found a way to crack it. I, um, forgot to press him on this. Has anyone heard about this, or what it might be? Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/ Ask me about FC98 in Anguilla!: <http://www.fc98.ai/>

1 0

No Subject
by bureau42 Anonymous Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

nospam-seesignature(a)ceddec.com writes: > I believe in separation of church and state. The state must get out of > things like education and welfare (charity) and other things that are not > their responsibility. > > The mistake was when the courts ruled that prayer could not occur in > public (government) schools. The very next day, every government school > should have been closed down (this would also have shown the court that it > should be careful with its rulings). And society would not have > experienced as much decay as it has. Amen! I remember when as a young teacher I used to lead my third grade class in our daily devotional to Ba'al and Ishtar. It got everyone off to a good start and kept us grounded in proper moral values throughout the school day. (Of course every year there was some small group of malcontent parents pissing and moaning about this and wanting me to lead the class in Christian prayers! Can you imagine?) Society just hasn't been the same since. Everything's going to hell in a hand basket. -- Ba'al-Boy

1 0

(Fwd) Gotta love the Supreme Court
by Jim Burnes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Whew.. Well I hope we don't have to depend on the Supreme Court for further privacy decisions..... > >U.S. High Court Denies Strip-Search Appeal > > By James Vicini > > WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court let stand Monday a ruling > that public school officials did not violate clearly established > constitutional privacy rights by twice strip-searching two girls in > the second grade. > > The justices left intact a U.S. appeals court ruling that the > officials may be guilty of "questionable judgment," but could not be > held liable for money damages for an unconstitutional search of the > 8-year-old girls. > > The case began May 1, 1992, when a teacher and a school counselor in > Talladega, Ala., conducted the strip-searches after a classmate > reported $7 missing from her purse. > > Another classmate accused one of the girls, Cassandra Jenkins, of > stealing the money and putting it in the backpack of the other girl, > Oneika McKenzie. No money was found in the backpack. > > The two girls were taken to a restroom and told by music teacher > Susannah Herring to remove their clothes. They were told to come out > of the toilet stalls with their underpants down to their ankles, which > they did. > > No money was found on the girls or in their clothing. After a trip to > the principal's office, the girls were taken by Herring and guidance > counselor Melba Simon back to the restroom for another, unsuccessful > strip-search. > > The parents of the two girls sued for damages under the civil rights > laws, alleging violations of their constitutional right to be free > from unreasonable searches. > > A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit. A divided appeals court in > June upheld the decision, ruling that the teacher and counselor enjoyed > partial immunity from the constitutional claim. > > The appeals court said that in 1992 the law involving searches of > students at school had not been sufficiently developed to place the > educators on notice that their conduct was constitutionally > impermissible. > > The Supreme Court in a 1985 ruling gave school administrators greater > flexibility to search students, but said they still have a legitimate > right to privacy and added that the search cannot be "excessively > intrusive." > > Attorneys for the two girls appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing > that the appeals court decision conflicted with the 1985 precedent. > They said the appeals court decision sent the wrong message to > "school officials nationwide." > > They said school authorities may strip-search students to prevent > imminent danger from the possession of weapons or illegal drugs, but > they may not use intrusive searches for "the most minor suspected > infractions." > > The attorneys said Supreme Court guidance was urgently needed on the > extent of constitutional constraints on strip-searches in schools. > > Attorneys for the teacher and the counselor urged that the appeal be > denied, saying the appeals court correctly decided the case. The > Supreme Court turned down the appeal without any comment or dissent. > "THE BILL OF RIGHTS: Void where prohibited by law." jim

1 0

Re: Br'er Tim and the Bug Hole
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Robert Hettinga wrote: >So, my overall point is, Tim, that you shouldn't try so hard to be a crash >test dummy for the new world order. Throwing rocks at cop cars is great fun >when you're say, 12, but doing it when you're 40 can do bad things to your >permanent physical health in rather short order. Revolution is really a >young man's game. I mean, even the IRA guys want to retire... ..................................................... Not to cut into Tim's War here, but Bob - The Truth is everybody's "game". If a person is content with a lot of nonsenical static on their connection to Reality, it's their decision if they wish to tolerate it - and it's true they could leave it to someone else (younger? wiser? more courageous? better equipped?) to take up the cause of cleaning it up. It is also true that one can create around oneself a Reality full of monsters and tigers and bears (oh, my!), totally leaving out the rest of the functioning elements in the actual context of the given circumstance. A person could focus so exclusively on the evil which permeates the social atmosphere, that they miss out on the opportunities available for achieving improvements by normal, rational, peaceful means. (I read once that Steve Jobs, during his Eastern Mystic Religion phase and his trips to India and such, realized that the introduction of and advancement in certain innovative, industrial tools had done more for the cause of civilization than any other efforts - political, religious, or otherwise - to improve it. When he went home he kept this in his philosophical file as he went forth with his ideas on a computer which would "change the world". And he did have some very positive, revolutionary effects on artists everywhere. :>) ) Perhaps you mean that *violent* revolution is best left for the young. But you must acknowledge that the situation *could* get really bad, as bad as he imagines. It may not be wise to threaten the mad dogs into aggression, but there is value in publically identifying the fundamental poisoning of the intellectual air we are breathing; there is no reason to forfeit ground for the sake of the delicate sensibilities of predators in sheep's clothing. Tim being so fortified with guns & ammo, he may feel more free than anyone to speak fearlessly (carelessly?). Of course, it's easier to display courage when your defenses are established & strong (and he does sound like a hammer looking for a nail). .. Blanc

1 0

Re: 1st Ammendment Tossed in Paladin Case
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May wrote: > At 9:42 AM -0700 11/11/97, Eric Cordian wrote: > >A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied > >First Amendment protection to ``Hit Man: A Technical Manual for > >Independent Contractors,'' saying publisher Paladin Press knew it > >would be used by murderers. > > > >The book was sold to James Edward Perry, who was convicted of killing > >Mildred Horn; her disabled 8-year-old son, Trevor; and the son's > >nurse, Janice Saunders, in Silver Spring, Md., in 1993. The women were > >shot between the eyes and the boy's respirator was unplugged. > Having skimmed the "Hit Man" book, I can tell you it conveyed no unique > information about how to shoot someone between the eyes and unplug a > respirator. If I recall correctly, it suggests the back of the neck/head as the Miss Murderer proper point of entry for small projectiles. The instructions on how to build a silencer were very useful, but neglected to mention that being smart enough to follow the instructions didn't necessarily mean you were smart enough to use it properly. A word of advice...if you forget to take the steel rod used to align the silencer out of the barrel before you use it, it stings like a bitch when you shoot. > If this Paladin case is not overturned, it will mean the "death through > lawsuits" of nearly all publishers of even slightly controversial material. > Loompanics will go, Delta Press will go, etc. "Unintended Consequences" > will be withdrawn by the publisher and the author will be sued. "The Turner > Diaries" will become a contraband item. I wonder if any kids reading the Bible have murdered big guys by using a slingshot? Sounds like a case for censorship, to me. > And why not sue other publishers and bookstores? Maybe a book on abortions > helped a woman perform an illegal abortion. Maybe a book about fighting for > liberty provided "abstract advocacy speech so explicit in its palpable > entreaties to violent crime" (and so it is unprotected, according to the > courts). Perhaps the British could launch a class-action suit against the author of the Star-Spangled Banner, and have it banned. They could use Jimi Hendrix's Woodstock version to work the jury into an emotional frenzy against it as an anthem for drug-addicted freaks. > But in many ways, this is good news. The war is coming faster than I thought. <muffled explosions in the background> > The judge in this case has committed a capital crime. Better have our fearless leader, Jim Bell, convene a Melatonin People's Court, immediately. (The rest of you guys signed and returned the 'secret oath' that Jim sent last week, too, didn't you?) :: B o o t s

1 0

Re: WARNING: Serious Pentium Bug
by bureau42 Anonymous Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ray Arachelian wrote: > On Sat, 8 Nov 1997, [iso-latin-de] Heinz-Jürgen Keller wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > The german Chaos Computer Club distributes a Dos/Win binary (f00fc7c8.com, > > 5 Bytes :-) ) and a linux version. > > Have a look at http://www.ccc.de . > So has anyone yet developed an ActiveX component of this? :) Heheheh... > come to my site and watch your pentium crash. Heheheheheh! Jeff Sandquist? > =====================================Kaos=Keraunos=Kybernetos============== > .+.^.+.| Ray Arachelian |Prying open my 3rd eye. So good to see |./|\. > ..\|/..|sunder(a)sundernet.com|you once again. I thought you were |/\|/\ > <--*-->| ------------------ |hiding, and you thought that I had run |\/|\/ > ../|\..| "A toast to Odin, |away chasing the tail of dogma. I opened|.\|/. > .+.v.+.|God of screwdrivers"|my eye and there we were.... |..... > ======================= http://www.sundernet.com ==========================

1 0

Washington Post on dangers of self-censorship for the Net
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[The Washington Post has it right. This is what many civil libertarians have been warning about for months: the industry and some advocacy groups (who should know better -- http://www.netparents.org/summit_part.html) are falling over themelves in a rush to label, sort, and filter. They hope to stave off a CDA II. But their frantic scurrying is "voluntary" only in the sense that "voluntary" is newspeak for the threat of government censorship. --Declan] ***************** The Washington Post November 10, 1997 EDITORIAL; Pg. A20 'Self-Regulation' and the Net CLOSE WATCHERSs of the long-running TV ratings fight could read it as a series of tussles over exactly how far the government can go in pushing the proprietors of an expressive medium -- such as TV -- to curb that expression through "voluntary" action. When do carrot-and-stick become just stick? That story isn't over yet: Congress, though antsy, has so far managed to stay on the safe side of the line that separates pressure from outright censorship, and the different responses of different networks is ironic proof that the policy isn't completely coercive. But those who want to see yet more variations on the theme can watch the whole pattern play out again in White House efforts to encourage self-regulation on the Internet. The administration, after coming to grief over its dogged support for the unconstitutional Communications Decency Act, now takes the position that it's up to software providers, parents and citizen groups to make the Internet safe for children, though the government has a beefed-up role to play in enforcing existing laws in cyberspace, for instance, those against child pornography, stalking or harassment. As an accompaniment, though, it is putting considerable public pressure on Internet players to develop a system of ratings and "taggings" for sites that would allow parents to sort Internet access by a few broadly agreed-upon categories. In a July announcement of steps taken by several large software companies to include "family-friendly" sorting features in their browsers, the president emphasized the importance of law enforcement and parental involvement alike in making sure "we do not allow pornographers and pedophiles to exploit a wonderful medium to abuse our children." The vice president, praising the various filters on the market, called them "safety belts for children traveling the Information Superhighway" -- though surely he's the only person who still calls it that. Last week, though, Ira Magaziner, the administration point-person on Net issues, took a different tone in a speech to Internet advertisers. The "tremendous economic benefits" of the Net won't work, he said, "if we don't get efficient industry self-regulation on issues like privacy and content. . . . If you fail, we will have to go the legislative route. That gets caught up in the political process and will be less rational and efficient." Well, yes -- and also less legal. Don't get us wrong: Self-restraint, in some of these cases, is a pretty good place for the providers of what's now called "content" to end up. But the line between urging self-restraint and threatening government censorship is a thin one. The White House, no less than Congress, needs to watch its step.

2 1