December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Webpage picketing (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii(a)amaranth.com> > Date: Wed, 04 Jun 97 23:46:16 -0500 > Subject: Re: Webpage picketing (fwd) > Well this is why I had wanted to set the analogies aside. There are some > real diferences between cyberspace and your metaspace analogy of the > picket line. In cyberspace there is no sidewalk for your picket to stand > and for me to pay as little or as much attention as I wish. But there is, the publicly funded routers on the publicly funded network which are handling public traffic sitting in nice little queues just waiting to be processed. Perhaps a slightly more complicated setup might make it clearer. Consider that we have some length of fiber laying from Chicago to Salt Lake City. That fiber is fully owned/funded by the federal government. The two routers on the end of the cable are also fully owned. Now from those routers extends another network cable that goes to fully privately owned networks. Now in Salt Lake City there is a young 14 year old girl that just took an at home pregnancy test. It turned up positive and she has pretty much lost it. Now in Chicago there is a webpage for an abortion clinic. Her sister lives in Chicago. The girl gets on her trusty little bit-pusher and proceeds to contact that page from a lookup done in Yahoo. Now at this point her parents still think that what you don't know can't hurt you and her sister has a vistor for a few days that summer. Now ask yourself, does a anti-abortion group have any claim to providing that young girl alternate information that is not pro-abortion? Perhaps this will better exemplify the demarcation I am making. I admit it is a thin line, but that is all it takes. > A more closer analogy between cyberspace and metaspace is that your > picketors are not standing off to the side but are blocking the door and > the only way I can enter is to read their signs first. This is the point > where your picketors have oversteped the bounds of their 1st Amendment > rights. While the have the right to picket infront of the store they > cannot interfere with the comming and goings of the customers. The has > been well tested in the courts. The problem with extending the picket > analogy to cyberspace is there are no sidewalks. It's all or nothing. > Either you are blocking the door or you are not Not at all, blocking implies a stoppage NOT a delay. I suggest you sit outside an abortion clinic when the picketers are there. I assure you they are up close and personal. The old ruling of 15ft. seperation was over-turned just this year I believe. It is true that they may not block you but they are allowed to delay your journey slightly with civil coverage. I further belive the court would look at the nature of the Internet and the structure of the web and determine that a single page at the very beginning or perhaps a small splash screen first would not be an unwarranted imposition. I want to make it clear, I am a strict Constitutionalist. I don't see the government having the delegated authority to spend any public money on the Internet, human cloning, BATF, DEA, etc. I believe strongly that such enterprises are best left fully in the state and individuals care. I most definitely believe that were the 9th and 10th Amendment interpreted and used actively we would see a massive decline in government intervention and as a consequence lower taxes. _______________________________________________________________________ | | | Speak the truth, but leave immediately after. | | | | Slovenian Proverb | | | | Jim Choate ravage(a)ssz.com | | The Armadillo Group www.ssz.com | | Austin, Texas, USA 512-451-7087 | |_______________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Re: Webpage picketing (fwd)
by William H. Geiger III 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <199706060440.XAA08064(a)einstein.ssz.com>, on 06/05/97 at 11:40 PM, Jim Choate <ravage(a)EINSTEIN.ssz.com> said: >Forwarded message: >> From: "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii(a)amaranth.com> >> Date: Wed, 04 Jun 97 23:46:16 -0500 >> Subject: Re: Webpage picketing (fwd) >> Well this is why I had wanted to set the analogies aside. There are some >> real diferences between cyberspace and your metaspace analogy of the >> picket line. In cyberspace there is no sidewalk for your picket to stand >> and for me to pay as little or as much attention as I wish. >But there is, the publicly funded routers on the publicly funded network >which are handling public traffic sitting in nice little queues just >waiting to be processed. >Perhaps a slightly more complicated setup might make it clearer. Consider >that we have some length of fiber laying from Chicago to Salt Lake City. >That fiber is fully owned/funded by the federal government. The two >routers on the end of the cable are also fully owned. Now from those >routers extends another network cable that goes to fully privately owned >networks. Now in Salt Lake City there is a young 14 year old girl that >just took an at home pregnancy test. It turned up positive and she has >pretty much lost it. Now in Chicago there is a webpage for an abortion >clinic. Her sister lives in Chicago. The girl gets on her trusty little >bit-pusher and proceeds to contact that page from a lookup done in Yahoo. >Now at this point her parents still think that what you don't know can't >hurt you and her sister has a vistor for a few days that summer. >Now ask yourself, does a anti-abortion group have any claim to providing >that young girl alternate information that is not pro-abortion? Well yes & no. :) Yes they have the same free speech right as anyone else. Do they have the right to force anyone to listen to their speech or force them to distribute it no. They can put up there own web page and if yahoo choses to they can provide links to it (thouhg yahoo is not required to do so). Anyone intrested in listening to what they have to say is free to go to their web site just as anyone is free to go to the abortion site and read that info. The anti-abortion group should not be required to present the views of their opposition and the same for the abortion group. >Perhaps this will better exemplify the demarcation I am making. I admit >it is a thin line, but that is all it takes. >> A more closer analogy between cyberspace and metaspace is that your >> picketors are not standing off to the side but are blocking the door and >> the only way I can enter is to read their signs first. This is the point >> where your picketors have oversteped the bounds of their 1st Amendment >> rights. While the have the right to picket infront of the store they >> cannot interfere with the comming and goings of the customers. The has >> been well tested in the courts. The problem with extending the picket >> analogy to cyberspace is there are no sidewalks. It's all or nothing. >> Either you are blocking the door or you are not >Not at all, blocking implies a stoppage NOT a delay. I suggest you sit >outside an abortion clinic when the picketers are there. I assure you >they are up close and personal. The old ruling of 15ft. seperation was >over-turned just this year I believe. It is true that they may not block >you but they are allowed to delay your journey slightly with civil >coverage. I further belive the court would look at the nature of the >Internet and the structure of the web and determine that a single page at >the very beginning or perhaps a small splash screen first would not be an >unwarranted imposition. Well down here in Pensacola where we like to shoot abortion doctors I beleive that there is a 50' seperation (other side of the street). I don't know how the courts would rule but from past rulling against picketors interfering with the customers of a business I would tend to dissagree. To be honest I am not up on which way the wind is blowing in the courts on this issue. I do feel that the delay is unconstutional. It is where the fine line between your and my 1st amendment rights cross. The size and amount of delay is irrelevant from a constitutional standpoint (can't be a little bit pregnet can't be a little bit unconstitional). This is where are disagreement over the picket analogy rest. Inoreder for the picket analogy to be extended to cyberspace it requires me to download someone's elses speech before I can download the speech that I want to hear. In metaspace there is a sidewalk for the picketers to stand and I can pass them by without slowing down never hearing what they have to say. Here localy I have them well trained, when they see my vette they know not to block the driveway as I will not slow down for them (actually the sound of the 427 is enought to get them moving off to the side). >I want to make it clear, I am a strict Constitutionalist. I don't see the >government having the delegated authority to spend any public money on >the Internet, human cloning, BATF, DEA, etc. I believe strongly that such >enterprises are best left fully in the state and individuals care. I most >definitely believe that were the 9th and 10th Amendment interpreted and >used actively we would see a massive decline in government intervention >and as a consequence lower taxes. Never questioned it. :) - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: cp850 Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 iQCVAwUBM5elpY9Co1n+aLhhAQHj2wQAxcypN4AERgmHy1X5aDZI9/vMxKfXiQrG REgPV2inTnatWf05u6QWTyG8FjQecIQCSFyNa3OCjDU17u1vqjN91lvo+K3jtotV f88jkE4OSNzEZVKCZ0FjpWVECvFk1cpKgqQKtH4UFUmf04NDxgQ8nNFXu0cESA16 YchbsjWz7js= =Krwo -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

June 18th SF C'punks meeting: export controls on trial
by John Gilmore 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We're having yet another "Cypherpunks Dress-Up Day" on Wednesday, June 18th. Meet at the Federal Building in San Francisco, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, at 10:15AM, dressin' sharp 'n' actin' cool. There will also be a regular 2nd-Saturday c'punks meeting this month (I think it's at PGP, Inc.) The Bernstein case is moving toward a close. Both we and the government have asked the court to render its final judgement. We're asking her to declare both the State Department and Commerce Department crypto export control schemes unconstitutional, and to enjoin (order) the government to stop enforcing them. They're asking to keep the status quo, and keep full discretion to change it whenever they want. The two sides have exchanged their motions, declarations, and opposition briefs. The final salvos will occur on the morning of June 18th, as we do "oral argument" in front of Judge Marilyn Hall Patel. There she'll get to question us before she makes her decision. In this final round of hearings, we're exploring these issues: * Do the new Commerce Department export controls require people to get a government license before they can speak? * Do these controls impermissibly punish speech after the fact? * Are they too vague to constitutionally regulate speech? * Are they so broadly worded that they unconstitutionally limit speech protected by the First Amendment? * Can Prof. Bernstein challenge the law directly, as it applies to everyone, or only as it applies to him? * Does the President's declaration of an "international emergency" have any effect, when there is no emergency and the only issue is domestic and usual? * Can cryptographic assistance, technology, and software be regulated even though the law only applies to "foreign interest in property" and excludes "communications"? * Can these things be regulated even though the law precludes regulation of "informational materials"? * Should the judge void, or reaffirm, her previous decision against the State Dept. export controls? * Should the judge merely declare the Government's actions unconstitutional, or should she also explicitly order them to stop? * Should she stop the enforcement of the unconstitutional controls against everyone, or only against Prof. Bernstein? Watch the wheels of justice grind! Shake hands with the intrepid lawyers who are working hard to protect our rights! Banter with NSA representatives specially flown in for the occasion! Talk with journalists who cover crypto! Be quoted talking about crypto freedom! Finally meet our reclusive plaintiff, Professor Dan Bernstein! We will follow the hearing with a nearby press conference, then have lunch at Max's Opera Plaza, a block away at Van Ness Avenue and Golden Gate Avenue. (Alternative lunch ideas are welcome.) As background, Dan Bernstein, ex-grad-student from UC Berkeley, is suing the State Department, NSA, Commerce Department, Justice Department, and other agencies, with help from the EFF. These agencies restrained Dan's ability to publish a paper, as well as source code, for the crypto algorithm that he invented. We claim that their procedures, regulations, and laws are not only unconstitutional as applied to Dan, but in general. Full background and details on the case, including all of our legal papers (and many of the government's as well), are (or will soon be) in the EFF Web archives at: http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy/ITAR_export/Bernstein_case. Like Phil Karn's and Peter Junger's cases, this lawsuit really has the potential to outlaw the whole NSA crypto export scam. We intend to make your right to publish and export crypto software as well- protected by the courts as your right to publish and export books. It will probably take more years, and an eventual Supreme Court decision, to make it stick. At the last hearing, we convinced the judge that the State Department export control laws really are unconstitutional. Her order restoring our legal right to publish crypto source code was a wonderful Christmas present. The government stopped issuing State Department licenses, but two weeks later started requiring virtually identical Commerce Department licenses. We think Judge Patel will see through this sham, and we hope she'll explicitly order them to cease. Please make a positive impression on the judge. Don those mothball-scented conservative duds. Show her -- by showing up -- that this case matters to more people than just the plaintiff and defendant. Demonstrate that her decision will make a difference to society. That the public and the press are watching, and really do care that she handles the issue well. We'll have to be quiet and orderly while we're in the courthouse. There will be no questions from the audience (that's us), and no photography there, but the session will be tape-recorded and transcribed, and you can take notes if you like. The lobby guards will want to hold onto guns, "munitions", and even small pocketknives, before they'll let you go upstairs to the courtrooms. It's unlikely that Judge Patel will decide then-and-there. Instead, we will get some insights into how she is leaning, based on her questions and comments. Her written decision will come out some weeks or months later. Even if she decides in our favor and issues an injunction, this isn't the end of the work. The Government would almost certainly attempt to have the injunction stayed (stopped) while they appeal the case to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (also here in San Francisco). Then there's the appeal itself, in which we'll probably spend six months to a year defending Judge Patel's decision in front of a higher court. Followed by a potential appeal to the Supreme Court. The fat lady won't sing on June 18th, but the orchestra will be in full swing and she'll be waiting in the wings. Please join us on the dance floor, in your best regalia. John Gilmore PS: If you can't come, you can still contribute. Come to EFF's rock-and-roll fund-raiser at the Fillmore the following night, Thursday, June 19th, 7PM. $100/person, including a year of EFF membership. Current EFF members can buy two tickets at half price. There you really *will* get to dance! (If you're a musician, find a sponsor, and you can play at the Fillmore.) Reserve tickets at http://www.eff.org/fillmore/. See you there!

1 0

Re: [CONTROVERSIAL]: A Defense of Terrorism
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > Consider, for example, a Black child in the United States who dies of > a trivial curable disease because of the lack of health care. The attempts of Hallam-Baker II Esquire Jr. Knight of the Realm, etc., to separate the world into supporters of "good" child murderers and supporters of "bad" child murderers, reflects the attitudes that lead to those who feel disenfranchised by the government and society to decide that they have little to lose by striking out at the system in one way or another. Dimitri raises a deeply valid issue here which goes to the heart of defining what separates a "bean counter" from a "child-murdering monster." We can't save everyone dying of an incurable disease and provide health care for everyone, except at great cost. We can't put in place airline safety measures or monitor the activities of law enforcement agencies for free. The government officially puts the price of a human life at 2.5 million dollars. When a safety problem is found with an aircraft, for example, that is the figure used to calculate whether the problem will be fixed or allowed to take X number of human lives. The same concept applies to government and corporate decisions regarding worker safety (or death), public safety (or death), health care (or death), and a multitude of other issues. The same thing applies to warfare and self-defence, as well. Society, government, corporations and individuals all "count the cost" of the various options available to settle a conflict. A person who might kill another to prevent them from stealing their family's life savings would probably not kill another to prevent them from stealing their lunch box. And a person who would kill another to prevent them from stealing their family's life savings might not kill another to prevent them from stealing *your* life savings. > Joe Stalin himself took part in several spectacular terrorist acts in > his youth, which resulted in deaths of dozens of "innocent bystanders". Who is the murdering monster--Stalin, Reagan, or McVeigh? It depends on whether you ask Newt Gingrich, Saddam Hussein or Joe Oklahoma. Are the government and corporate bean-counters who decide not to fix known safety problems murdering monsters? What if they placed the value of a human life at *ten* dollars? A *million* dollars? Americans aren't outraged over the loss of life, they are merely self- servingly objecting to the fact that they are being personally presented with the bill that is coming due for their government's actions. Even some of those objecting are merely arguing over the "cost" of the bill. (i.e. - death count, age of victims) If McVeigh had whacked out 168 Iranians to free one American hostage, he would be an American hero. If he had whacked out 168 Americans to free the U.S. from a Stalinist takeover, he would be a hero. Well, he whacked out 168 Americans to free our minds from the belief that we will bear no personal cost for the aggression and oppression that the government perpetrates in our name, and to some he is a hero. Hallam-Baker would have us believe that anyone who does not roundly condemn McVeigh is in favor of the death of children. Like Truman, Churchill and Roosevelt were in favor of the death of children? Unless Hallam-Baker wants to propose that everyone who has ever supported conflict in support of a cause is in favor of the death of children, then he is just a horse's ass who uses smear tactics where logic fails. > What I'm driving at is: someone said earlier that Cypherpunks don't make > bombs, Cypherpunks write code. Well, my response is, if you write code > for anonymous electronic commerce that seriously challenges the gubmint, > in a free market environment, then the gubmint will first try to regulate > it out of existence, and if it fails, it will use whatever force is > necessary, including jailing and shooting people, to fight for it survival. "I didn't put them in the ovens, I just wrote the code that releases the gas. What kind of monster would bomb a Weapons Laboratory that has a day-care center in it?" The question mainstream America is asking, is: "What kind of monster would break *my* eggs to make an omlette?" What kind of monster would write code that allows someone to send email containing child pornography anonymously? What kind of monster would write code that can be used to hide drug transactions? What kind of monster would write code that can be used by terrorists who break *my* omlettes to avoid discovery? Hallam-Baker and his ilk want the government to serve them their omlette at the dinner table so that they can deny their knowledge of and complicity in other people's eggs being broken in the kitchen. Then they can climb on their high horse and complain loudly when the victims of the government's fraud and abuse decide to break a few eggs themself. I'm not in favor of the death of children in Waco, Oklahoma City, Dublin, Jerusalem, Dresden, or Hiroshima. For Hallam-Baker to suggest that I and others on the list are is the height of slanderous hypocrisy. It is a reality of life that there is a cost associated with freedom and with life itself. It is up to each of us to make our own decision as to whether we will take part in determining who pays, and how much, or whether we delegate those decisions to others and try to distance ourself from them. We can applaud the L.A. police when they tell "white" lies on the witness stand about "little" things like not considering the husband of a murder victim a suspect when they climb over his fence, but then we will end up complaining when someone we think is a murderer remains unconvicted because the jury can't determine where the lying stops and the truth begins. We can justify an armed government assault on "cultists" who are in possession of fewer guns than many mainstream Christians, but then we will end up complaining when someone else who is "outside" the mainstream decides that what is good for the gander is good for the goose. The issue of Waco versus OKC is not one of "good" guys and "bad" guys. It is a difference of opinion over the cost of freedom and the value of human life. 168 people at 2.5 million/life comes to about one and three- quarter billion dollars that we paid for the tragedy at Waco. Americans seem to be more than willing for citizens of other countries to bear the cost of freedom when we decide to invade and attack them in order to protect democracy, etc. Perhaps McVeigh should have bombed the Iranians to protest Waco--then he might be an American hero...maybe even the next President--a white Colin Powell. If Americans want to cry out in dismay over the "wrong" people being held accountable for the tragedy in Waco, then they might want to think about demanding that the "right" people be held accountable in the face of future government atrocities. Perhaps the real anger over the OKC bombing is that the American people thought that we had managed to skip out on the bill for our government's actions at Waco, only to be tracked down and made to pay at home. TruthMonger

1 0

[ANNOUNCE] Phil Zimmermann on recent FUD and PGP 5.0 plans
by Dave Del Torto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A message from our Fearless Leader... dave ................................. cut here ................................. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Last month, Pretty Good Privacy Inc went through a reorganization in its top management. We were spending too much money, too fast. Tom Steding was replaced by Phil Dunkelberger as the president of PGP, and I handed over the chairman title to Jonathan Seybold, who had been, with me, the original cofounder of the company. Jonathan is devoting his time to the business side of things, while I am focussing my attention on my role as chief technology officer. I have seen some speculation in some usenet newsgroups that these changes were in some way connected with the fact that PGP was recently sued by RSA Data Security over some dispute regarding royalties for use of the RSA patent, which PGP holds a license to. Let me set the record straight on this. There are sound business reasons why this shuffling of top management occurred at PGP, and these reasons are known to all of our employees. The RSA lawsuit against PGP is absolutely not one of the reasons, not even remotely. I don't think shuffling top management is a likely reaction for any company to take in response to a lawsuit, even if the lawsuit had merit, which this one does not. We fully expect the RSA matter to be resolved in arbitration proceedings, in our favor. I know that it is common practice for some companies to issue statements to "spin" the story about certain events, sometimes at the expense of truth. This makes a lot of people understandably skeptical about such explanations. I do have responsibilities toward my company, but no one could get me to deny a truth about the reasons for the restructuring. The truth is, the restructuring had absolutely nothing at all to do with the RSA lawsuit. I would now like to announce that we will be releasing PGP 5.0 in mid-June. It's in beta release right now on our web page (www.pgp.com) In keeping with my own dedication to personal freedom and privacy, we will be releasing a freeware version for noncommercial use through MIT's web site (web.mit.edu/pgp) just like in the old days before the company was formed. And we do plan to publish the full PGP source code for Mac, Windows 95, and Linux. There are a lot of new exciting features, including automatic key lookups from remote key servers on the Internet, which will likely result in the rapid growth of a ready-made nationwide PGP public-key infrastructure, on an unprecedented scale. We are also encouraging the migration to new public key algorithms in addition to RSA, namely the NIST Digital Signature Standard (DSS), as well as Diffie-Hellman (Elgamal) keys. We expect most of the new users to be using these new algorithms instead of RSA, in part because they offer new features, better performance, and better security for the same key sizes. I hope that you will all join me in this opportunity to move to these new algorithms, allowing everyone to finally enjoy the use of public key cryptography without the encumberances of patents. Philip Zimmermann Chief Technology Officer, PGP Inc. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBM5WoZWV5hLjHqWbdAQGaxgP/UM+i7Pz38x68zdWVOsTrQVepa+0FUndC NkvTi5iMTC9up7HJgleXMWuAB00qVB8XlC1/6oSx4Ot+gTecu0wXgNG/l8LXFBAo YYxlPhR497fvKfnWXATkJ3jQJAQbACHXzh7Wycc1MGq+46o6+CkECrUvUs8//KQT toJMdfVJEVA= =ywNo -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

NYT on German Net Police
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The New York Times reports on page one the German prosecution of a woman who linked her home page to Radikal. It reviews XS4ALL's role, describes Radikal and its mirror sites and links to them all: http://www.nytimes.com/library/cyber/week/060697germany.html It says that Kohl is determined to find a way to police the Net in spite of technical work-a-rounds. 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

5 5

Re: JIWAR Registration
by William Church 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Confirmed

1 0

Re: JIWAR Registration
by William Church 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Confirmed with username cypherpunk1

1 0

One more step...
by nexus＠eskimo.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I received this in the morning CNET news: HOW PRIVATE IS YOUR NET SURFING? FBI VS. CDT BATTLE WILL DECIDE http://www.news.com/Radio/index.html?nd At the FTC's online privacy hearings next week, the debate will turn on the FBI's right to "intercept" information on the Net. Listen to CNET Radio to see why the Center for Democracy and Technology wants the spooks to back off. So where does the FBI think they get their 'right' to intercept net traffic? Who knows, but I'm sure its already happening and will continue to happen no matter what the FTC rules. Brian -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 5.0 beta Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBM5geZKQxGtxXsXypAQFOeAP7BS9UAeFVxA2pokA7CSD/HwAgo3rGbFH6 Mm7ISfn7c4hK2sTVIcgCvCFJCDfXxXGPTuZOA7o9LEfE6b0TDw0JuJ1bbUkf9zqi JkpSpLipesJz56bzMi//jNiY7I1Da5rWpYPSXn5EsrZ1WdslXsGs7uiBTMQFixcL 4bMO5o1LPtA= =nD0+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brian C. Lane http://www.eskimo.com/~nexus KC7TYU ------------------ 96B9 C123 5C90 BECC 6A1F 7DC6 4F2B A26E --------------------

1 0

Re: Webpage picketing
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Fri, 06 Jun 97 00:24:59 -0500, "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii(a)amaranth.com> said: >Well down here in Pensacola where we like to shoot abortion doctors I >beleive that there is a 50' seperation (other side of the street). Actually, this law was lobbied for by Zeiss Optical. They're trying to increase sales of rifle scopes.

3 2