December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Censored news topic censored ...
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Would any of the NPR staff or Mr. Suarez would like > to explain just what happened here? I'll take a stab: milk spills, people trip, shit happens. They probably didn't mean it. But who knows. -- Spy King Communications spyking(a)hotmail.com ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

1 0

Re: Censored news topic censored ...
by Ernest Hua 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mr. Suarez, Ah ... I see where the misunderstandings are ... I am listening to the program on "The Budget Deal", which is the hour most likely to have any mention of the roving wiretap provision. On-the-air transcripts or not, however, I think you still miss the central point. The issue is that most major news outlets did NOT report on HOW this provision was rammed through Congress. I did not specifically accuse YOU of not reporting, which is probably why you are so defensive. Certainly, the Market Place show reported this, and so did the San Jose Mercury, but not New York Times. ABCNEWS only said that something was passed to help law enforcement, as if anything passed to help law enforcement is necessarily a good thing. The issue is not whether the issue of roving wire taps got any light of day. The issue is that the process of the roving wire taps being rammed through Congress did NOT get the light of day, specifically because the FBI lobbyists did this at the last minute to get it hidden in all the noise of the frantic 11th hour budget deals ... which is why I thought the topic was most appropriate to the discussion of relevant news today. I did not claim to have a solution to the problem of too much noise to valuable news ratio. However, some insight from someone like you, Ray, could have been a good discussion and education for all of us concerned with the FBI's legislative tricks. I would have also brought up the lack of reporting on the EU's concerns about US/UK mass wire tapping. It's clear that the NSA does not want this topic discussed, and in fact, had pressured the EU to not bring up the topic. Wired magazine reported this within the last week, but S J Mercury had nothing on it, nor the N Y Times, etc ... Ray, please do not think I am accusing YOU of censoring the wire tap topic. What I am concerned about is the news media's role in not shining a bright lights on these topics, and that is a very serious issue. Ern -----Original Message----- From: Mark Hedges <hedges(a)infonex.com> Date: Thursday, October 22, 1998 3:29 PM Subject: Re: Censored news topic censored ... >Interesting. Back to you, Ernest. >>From: TOTNMAIL(a)npr.org >>Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 18:24:54 -0400 >>To: HEDGES(a)INFOPEACE.COM >>Your "evidence" of NPR collusion and stifling of the news would be most >>disturbing, except for the fact that I have discussed roving wiretaps on the >>air, explained the manner in which they were being rammed through with little >>debate, and talked about how it was a departure from years of precedence >>regarding warrants and court permission. I have the on-air transcript, you >>have >>the hearsay of a caller who is disappointed because he didn't get on the air. >> >>Ray Suarez > >>This is most distressing. I was one of the very first >>callers to your Talk of the Nation show today whose >>topic was relevant news reporting in the US. My topic >>was the lack of reporting on the FBI's last minute >>sneak of the roving wire tap proposal into the >>intelligence budget bill. I wanted Ray to talk about >>the editorial process and how these things get dropped >>on the floor as this item is extremely important to >>our democracy because it is an agency charged with >>protecting our Constitutional rights (the FBI) who is >>deliberately circumventing the democratic legislative >>process to pass a law which was sounded defeated two >>years ago in open debate. >> >>Ironically, my topic was censored, and I waited an >>hour, while other people wanted to discuss things >>like how they can vent about their divorce >>difficulties through the Monica Lewinsky scandal, only >>to be dropped in the end. >> >>Would any of the NPR staff or Mr. Suarez would like >>to explain just what happened here? >> >>Ern

2 1

100S OF FREE PICS'N'LINKS EVERY DAY!
by STUFFED FRI OCT 23 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

+ 30 SUPERB, HI-RES, HOT PHOTOS + 5 SUPER SEXY STORIES + SWEBABES + FREE PORN 4 ALL + OUTRACK STEAKHOUSE + EBONYPORN + BABE ACCESS + FREE HARDCORE PORN + EACH STROKE COUNTS + AFTER DARK CLUB + PORN PRINCE + ULTRA FREE XXX + BONUS PIC 1 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/13486.htm + BONUS PIC 2 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/21866.htm + BONUS PIC 3 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/7963.htm + BONUS PIC 4 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/9787.htm + BONUS PIC 5 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/9974.htm + MUCH, MUCH MORE! ----> http://stuffed.net/home/ <---- If you haven't visited STUFFED in the last few days, you're in for a real treat. It's faster than ever before and now, as a subscriber, you get 35 FREE new pics every day, plus over 100 more at carefully selected FREE sites we link to. This email is never sent unsolicited. Stuffed is the supplement for the Eureka newsletter you subscribed to. Full instructions on unsubscribing are in every issue of Eureka! ----> http://stuffed.net/home/ <----

1 0

UK Government unveils crypto escrow legislation
by John Gilmore 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 15:38:10 +0100 From: Malcolm Hutty <cacib(a)liberty.org.uk> To: declan(a)well.com Subject: UK Government unveils crypto escrow legislation The UK government has announced legislation designed to force escrow of confidentiality keys on UK netizens. They are planning a licenced system of Certificate Authorities in an attempt to force key escrow down the throats of British computer users. This could be a model for other governments. The idea is that digital signatures get preferential legal treatment if certified by a licenced CA, but to get a licence you must escrow confidentiality keys. The licensing authority will be OFTEL, the telecoms regulator. You may want to check out this link for full details http://omnisite.liberty.org.uk/cacib/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Campaign Against Censorship Tel: 0171 589 4500 of the Internet in Britain Say NO Fax: 0171 589 4522 60 Albert Court to censorship! Prince Consort Road cacib(a)liberty.org.uk London SW7 2BE http://www.liberty.org.uk/cacib/

2 1

Offering 50,000 African American Email Addresses . .
by The BSB Publishing Comp. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Email up to 50,000 African-American Consumers CALL TOLL FREE TO ORDER - (800)305-1458 Also . . . Email 4,000 Black business owners and entrepreneurs simultaneously. Generate web traffic and sales by exchanging links and banners with other African- American Entrepreneurs. Do you have a product or service of interest to African-Americans on the Internet? Would you like to effortlessly expand your customer base by up to 50,000 African-Americans for under $100? If you answered yes to either of these questions, then our email marketing lists are what you need. We have a database of well over 50,000 email addresses of African-Americans who may be interested in your products and services. We also offer a email list of 4,000 African American entreprenuers and businesses who do business on the internet. These contacts could lead to a mutually profitible business relationship including banner and link exchanges. These pre-screened email addresses are compiled on 3.5" diskettes in standard "DBASE IV" and "TEXT" format which are universally compatible with email merge programs like CyberMailer Pro and word processing programs. All you need to do is import the list into an email merge program which will automatically email everyone on the list. It couldn't be easier or more efficient. Email up to 50,000 African-Americans immediately! 50,000 AA Email Addresses - $99.95 10,000 AA Email Addresses - $49.95 4,000 AA Entreprenuers - $39.95 ***Special Limited time offer*** Order 50,000 African American Email Addresses and receive 4,000 African American Entreprenuers for FREE. ($39.95 value) CALL TOLL FREE TO ORDER - (800)305-1458 BSB Publishing Co. 151 First Avenue - #225 New York, NY 10003 All orders are shipped C.O.D. $10.00 - Priority Mail Shipping $12.00 - Overnight Shipping

1 0

Gilmore Subpoena
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Source: Fax from John Gilmore [Form] AO 110 (Rev. 12/89) Subpoena to Testify Before Grand Jury _______________________________________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON _______________________________________________________________________ To: John Gilmore SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY 210 Clayton Street BEFORE GRAND JURY San Francisco, CA 94117 SUBPOENA FOR: [X] PERSON [X] DOCUMENT(S) OBJECT(S) YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear before the Grand Jury of the United States District Court at the place, date and time specified below. _______________________________________________________________________ PLACE | COURTROOM | United States Courthouse | Room 311 5th and Madison |_________________________ Seattle, WA 98104 | DATE AND TIME | | November 10, 1998 | 1:15 P.M. _____________________________________________|_________________________ YOU ARE ALSO COMMANDED to bring with you the following document(s) or object(s):* Please provide any and all of the following: a. All electronic mail messages received, stored or otherwise obtained from or regarding the "Cypherpunks;" b. Any and all Cypherpunk archives obtained, stored, or controlled by you; and c. Any an all messages, correspondence, or e-mail, received from or involving CARL JOHNSON, C.J. PARKER, TOTO, TRUTHMONGER, A FIEND, to specifically include correspondence received from CARL JOHNSON while he was in Federal custody. [ ] Please see additional information on reverse This subpoena shall remain in effect until you are granted leave to depart by the court or by an officer acting on behalf of the court. _______________________________________________________________________ CLERK | DATE BRUCE RIFKIN Issued in Blank | Oct 6, 1998 _____________________________________________________| 1998R00917 (BY) DEPUTY CLERK | GJ 98-1 [Signature of Patricia McCabe] | S/N #19917 _____________________________________________________|_________________ | NAME ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF This subpoena is issued on | ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY application of the United States | of America | ROBB LONDON, AUSA | UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE | 800 5TH AVENUE, SUITE #3600 | SEATTLE, WA 98104 206/553-7970 _____________________________________|_________________________________ * If not applicable enter "none" [End subpoena] JG Note: Preliminary advice from an attorney is that it is likely the Electronic Communications Privacy Act covers this request for stored electronic communications, therefore requiring a real warrant (not a subpoena), reimbursement for the expenses of complying, etc. Others (if any) who have received similar subpoenas should consult with their attorneys, and are encouraged to publish (to the list and the JYA.COM web site) anything they receive from the government. Having more information is usually a good thing; currently the prosecutor knows what he's doing, so to speak, but we don't. ---------- This is archived at: http://jya.com/cej-wwa-jg.htm

2 1

CDA II and Tax Issues
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text X-Sender: johnmuller(a)mail.earthlink.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 18:39:13 -0700 Reply-To: Law & Policy of Computer Communications <CYBERIA-L(a)LISTSERV.AOL.COM> Sender: Law & Policy of Computer Communications <CYBERIA-L(a)LISTSERV.AOL.COM> From: John Muller <johnmuller(a)EARTHLINK.NET> Subject: CDA II and Tax Issues To: CYBERIA-L(a)LISTSERV.AOL.COM Some questions for the eminent Constitutional litigators on this list: As noted in the Freedom Forum article posted by David Burt, the newly-adopted Internet Tax Freedom Act contains a provision which makes harmful-to-minor-ographers ineligible for the moratorium on Internet taxes. Specifically, any person or entity that knowingly makes a communication for commercial purposes by means of the Web which includes material harmful to minors does not get the benefits of the moratorium, unless the person or entity has restricted access to the material in specified ways. (BTW, the Web is defined to include FTP and "other similar protocols"). See http://cox.house.gov/nettax/itfafinal.pdf (1 MB+ download). Is it possible to challenge the Constitutionality of this provision even before any state has rushed to tax on-line peddlers of harmful-to-minor materials? If so, why aren't the ACLU/EFF/EPIC challenging this bill? Is the Constitutional challenge significantly harder to maintain than CDA II? After all, it's singling out a particular type of speech, and as they say the power to tax is the power to destroy, even if uncertainty about being taxed is not likely to chill speech as much as uncertainty about going to jail. John Muller johnmuller(a)earthlink.net "Things are not as they seem, neither are they otherwise" --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> 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'

1 0

Re: Censored news topic censored ...
by Ernest Hua 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ray & Mark, Well, I found the show, so Mr. Suarez get the bonus credit for having actually talked about this topic on air. Ray did talk about the item because a caller brought it up. He did allude to the fact that these items might not be given much attention. However, my point was that this was passed deliberately passed at a point when the FBI knew too much other noise would drown this item out of most mainstream media outlets. This subtle calculation of the media response is the topic I am concerned about. Any PARTICULAR media outlet, such as TOTN, may not necessarily be guilty of censorship in the deliberate sense, but lots of stories drop on the proverbial cutting room floor, and the Wag The Dog effect where the embarassing stuff was manipulated into page 23 of NY Times while bogus news items were fed for front page is the effect I wanted to discuss with Ray. Again, Ray, I am not saying YOU deliberately censored anything, nor am I saying ANY news outlet deliberately censored this story. I am accusing the FBI of counting on a particular behavior on the part of Congress, news outlets, and the American people at a time when lots of budget items are flying by to slip their agenda in, and this is particularly bad behavior for a agency charged with protecting the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens. Ern -----Original Message----- From: Ernest Hua <hua(a)teralogic-inc.com> To: TOTNMAIL(a)npr.org <TOTNMAIL(a)npr.org> Cc: cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net <cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net>; letters(a)nytimes.com <letters(a)nytimes.com>; HEDGES(a)infopeace.com <HEDGES(a)infopeace.com> Date: Thursday, October 22, 1998 4:51 PM Subject: Re: Censored news topic censored ... >Mr. Suarez, > >Ah ... I see where the misunderstandings are ... > >I am listening to the program on "The Budget Deal", >which is the hour most likely to have any mention >of the roving wiretap provision. > >On-the-air transcripts or not, however, I think you >still miss the central point. The issue is that >most major news outlets did NOT report on HOW this >provision was rammed through Congress. I did not >specifically accuse YOU of not reporting, which is >probably why you are so defensive. Certainly, the >Market Place show reported this, and so did the San >Jose Mercury, but not New York Times. ABCNEWS only >said that something was passed to help law >enforcement, as if anything passed to help law >enforcement is necessarily a good thing. > >The issue is not whether the issue of roving wire >taps got any light of day. The issue is that the >process of the roving wire taps being rammed >through Congress did NOT get the light of day, >specifically because the FBI lobbyists did this at >the last minute to get it hidden in all the noise >of the frantic 11th hour budget deals ... which is >why I thought the topic was most appropriate to the >discussion of relevant news today. > >I did not claim to have a solution to the problem >of too much noise to valuable news ratio. However, >some insight from someone like you, Ray, could have >been a good discussion and education for all of us >concerned with the FBI's legislative tricks. > >I would have also brought up the lack of reporting >on the EU's concerns about US/UK mass wire tapping. >It's clear that the NSA does not want this topic >discussed, and in fact, had pressured the EU to not >bring up the topic. Wired magazine reported this >within the last week, but S J Mercury had nothing >on it, nor the N Y Times, etc ... > >Ray, please do not think I am accusing YOU of >censoring the wire tap topic. What I am concerned >about is the news media's role in not shining a >bright lights on these topics, and that is a very >serious issue. > >Ern > >-----Original Message----- >From: Mark Hedges <hedges(a)infonex.com> >Date: Thursday, October 22, 1998 3:29 PM >Subject: Re: Censored news topic censored ... > > >>Interesting. Back to you, Ernest. >>>From: TOTNMAIL(a)npr.org >>>Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 18:24:54 -0400 >>>To: HEDGES(a)INFOPEACE.COM >>>Your "evidence" of NPR collusion and stifling of the news would be most >>>disturbing, except for the fact that I have discussed roving wiretaps on >the >>>air, explained the manner in which they were being rammed through with >little >>>debate, and talked about how it was a departure from years of precedence >>>regarding warrants and court permission. I have the on-air transcript, you >>>have >>>the hearsay of a caller who is disappointed because he didn't get on the >air. >>> >>>Ray Suarez >> >>>This is most distressing. I was one of the very first >>>callers to your Talk of the Nation show today whose >>>topic was relevant news reporting in the US. My topic >>>was the lack of reporting on the FBI's last minute >>>sneak of the roving wire tap proposal into the >>>intelligence budget bill. I wanted Ray to talk about >>>the editorial process and how these things get dropped >>>on the floor as this item is extremely important to >>>our democracy because it is an agency charged with >>>protecting our Constitutional rights (the FBI) who is >>>deliberately circumventing the democratic legislative >>>process to pass a law which was sounded defeated two >>>years ago in open debate. >>> >>>Ironically, my topic was censored, and I waited an >>>hour, while other people wanted to discuss things >>>like how they can vent about their divorce >>>difficulties through the Monica Lewinsky scandal, only >>>to be dropped in the end. >>> >>>Would any of the NPR staff or Mr. Suarez would like >>>to explain just what happened here?

1 0

CDA II and Tax Issues (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 21:46:08 -0400 > From: Robert Hettinga <rah(a)shipwright.com> > Subject: CDA II and Tax Issues > Some questions for the eminent Constitutional litigators on this list: As > noted in the Freedom Forum article posted by David Burt, the newly-adopted > Internet Tax Freedom Act contains a provision which makes > harmful-to-minor-ographers ineligible for the moratorium on Internet taxes. > Is it possible to challenge the Constitutionality of this provision even > before any state has rushed to tax on-line peddlers of harmful-to-minor > materials? If so, why aren't the ACLU/EFF/EPIC challenging this bill? Is Hm, wasn't there a ruling in a similar vein respecting tax on illegal drugs just recently? It was my understanding it was found to be unconstitutional. ____________________________________________________________________ To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Is Your Web Site A Secret?
by launch＠launchmaster.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is your web site the best kept secret on the Internet? We'll promote it to 50 search engines and indexes for $85 and complete the job in 2 business days. Satisfaction is guaranteed! If you have a great product, but are not getting many inquiries from your Web site, you may not be adequately listed on the Web's search engines and indexes. Millions of viewers daily use these facilities to find the products and services they are looking for. But if your site is not listed, no one will see it. Listings on most of these services are free. However, locating and filling out the forms required to get a listing can take several days, and most people just don't have the time to do it. That is why we offer a web site promotion service. WHAT'S THE DEAL? We will submit your site to 50 indexes and search engines for $85. We will accept the return of this E-mail, with the form below filled out, as an order. We will bill you upon completion of the promotion. Our terms are net 15 days from date of invoice. Satisfaction guaranteed! HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE? Generally, we complete the submissions within 48 hours of receiving your order. It can take any individual search engine or index up to three weeks to process your submission, although most are much faster. WHAT SEARCH ENGINES AND INDEXES ARE INCLUDED IN THE PROMOTION? The list changes from time to time. This is our current list: Alta Vista, Anzwers, AOL Netfind, BizCardz Business Directory, Bizlink, BizWeb, Black Widow Search, Excite, Galaxy, HotBot, Infomak, Infoseek, InfoSpace, InterBis, Jayde Online Directory, Jumpcity, Jumper Hot Links, JumpLink, LinkMonster, Lycos, MangaSeeker, Manufacturers Information Network, Net Happenings, Net Announce, New Page List, New Riders WWW Yellow Pages, Northern Light, One World Plaza, PeekABoo, Planet Search, Power Crawler, QuestFinder, Scrub The Web, Seven Wonders, SiteFinder, SiteShack, Super Snooper, The YellowPages.com, TurnPike, Unlock: The Information Exchange, WebCrawler, WebVenture Hotlist, WhatUSeek, Where2Go, WhoWhere, World Announce Archive, Wow! Web Wonders!, YeeHaa!, Yellow Pages Superhighway, YelloWWWeb, Your Webscout, ZenFinder. HOW WILL I KNOW THAT YOU HAVE PROMOTED MY SITE? When we have completed the promotion, we will send you an HTML file as an attachment to your E-mail bill. Save this file to your disk, and view it through your Web browser. It provides links to the search engine we submitted your site to, plus any comments we received from them when we did it. ARE THERE ANY GUARANTEES? We do not require prepayment. Your satisfaction is guaranteed or you don't pay the bill. WHO IS LAUNCHMASTER? We are a web site promotion company located at: LaunchMaster, Inc. 12 Godfrey Place Wilton CT 06897 Phone: (877) 278-0875 Fax: (800) 321-6966 Email: launch(a)launchmaster.com HOW DO I ORDER? The easiest way to order is by e-mail. Just hit the REPLY button on your e-mail program and fill out the following information. (This information will be posted to the search engines/indexes): Your name: Company Name: Address: City: State/Prov: Zip/Postal Code: Telephone: Fax: Email address: URL: http:// Site Title: Description (about 25 words): Key words (maximum of 25, in descending order of importance): Contact (in case we have questions): If billing a different address, please complete the following: Addressee: Company Name: Address: City: State/Prov: Zip/Postal Code: Telephone: Fax: Email address: We will bill via Email. (A9 10/22/98) Terms: By returning this document via Email, you agree as follows: You have the authority to purchase this service on behalf of your company. Terms are net 15 days. Accounts sent to collections will be liable for collection costs. You agree to protect and indemnify LaunchMaster, Inc. in any claim for libel, copyright violations, plagiarism, or privacy and other suits or claims based on the content or subject matter of your site. WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? When we receive your order, we will acknowledge it via return email. We will then input your information into our system. When completed, we will run your promotion, capturing any comments from search engines as we go. We will incorporate these into an HTML-formatted report to you, which we will attach to your bill. ======================Web Site Promotions====================== Launchmaster, Inc. 12 Godfrey Place Wilton CT 06897 Ph: (877) 278-0875 Fx: (800) 321-6966 E-mail: launch(a)launchmaster.com

1 0