December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

No Subject
by mkj＠world.std.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Has anyone here seen the so-called Lehman Panel report? It is available by ftp from ftp.uspto.gov, in the directory /pub/nii-ip. It is offered there in several formats. The deadline for comments is September 7th. (Sorry about the short notice, but I've only just recently discovered the report myself.) The Lehman Panel is more officially known as the "Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights", a subcommittee of President Clinton's "Information Infrastructure Task Force". The Lehman Panel report makes a number of recommendations concerning changes to current intellectual property law, in light of challenges presented by the National Information Infrastructure (NII) project. This appears to me to be quite an important report, which could play a major role in shaping vital aspects of our near-future society. I find the whole approach taken by the panel disturbing, though perhaps not surprising. Very briefly, my general concerns are these: There appears to be a natural tension between current intellectual property law and the widespread deployment of computer networking. (John Barlow has put it more simply: "Copyright is dead".) The Lehman panel's report, rather than trying to accomodate and adapt to the inevitable effects of the NII, instead recommends tightening up existing laws, and expanding their scope, in an attempt to preserve the status quo and protect established interests. It seems to me that this approach would dramatically undercut the potential of the NII, making many of its most natural uses and benefits illegal. Worse, I believe this approach would create a body of law which will make speed limits look well-respected by comparison, and any attempt to enforce these laws is likely to be destructive and unpleasant for all of us. There are numerous other, more specific things in this report which make me unhappy, too -- such as the presumption that the NII should be little more than a new marketplace for old businesses; the creation of gratuitous new rights for major record labels which would hurt artists, and would enable the record companies to control the digital audio server industry; and most frightening of all, the shameless suggestion that the public schools should be used to pound these new rules into the heads of children as early as Kindergarten. I've obviously considered firing off a letter of comment myself, but after I calmed down I realized how little impact that would be likely to have. So I decided the most constructive thing I could do would be to post this "alert" here, in the hope that someone with better qualifications and resources than myself might pick up the ball. Thanks for your attention. --- mkj

1 0

Re: Why Doesn't Wired.....
by jimp＠wired.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In article <v4cAlOwscUg6077yn(a)io.org>, werewolf(a)io.org (Mark Terka) wrote: > .....if it is sooooooo hooked in the online culture have a PGP public key > that 'net users could use to send in their credit card numbers for > subscriptions? Here it is. We're just implementing it. Send us a message (send to talk2subs(a)wired.com) -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.7 mQCOAy8EM1EAAAEEANqhOZTAwWI/99ZZ7t77VHH02n+xM4CQEk2DJe2zZhpjKP8v EHndzBPr3dIsHOZUJABi7ztk5NiQhNVR5EBE7Tqz/7HhGFUE2ErVjAS3OQckcmvW BrCgNXfe0G4tlX1paXFGHsoVT3UgE2IKjttwmZA1WtOH1lbgLCGi/5f257vHAA9A AbQnV2lyZWQgQ2lyY3VsYXRpb24gPHRhbGsyc3Vic0B3aXJlZC5jb20+ =xdqc -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- -- Jim Petersen Argue for your limitations.... jimp(a)wired.com And they are yours.

1 0

No Subject
by david＠arch.ping.dk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

According to rules recently adopted, Judges-L FAQ ver. 2.1, one must register before being subscribed to the List. The Registration Form is at the end of the Judges-L FAQ below. Please read the Cancel Messages FAQ first, if you have not already done so. It has been posted to news.admin.policy. Judges-L Registrar, dss ============================================================ Welcome to Judges-L The following Frequently Asked Questions with answers are designed to assist you in interacting with other subscribers to the Judges' List and thereby assist users of the NetNews system in dealing with certain types of abusive messages. Please do not post to the List until you have been a subscriber for a couple of weeks, so you can avoid the most common mistakes made by new subscribers. Alternatively you can review the activities of the List by retrieving archives of recent discussions. You can retrieve the list of archives by sending "INDEX Judge-L" (not including quotation marks) to LISTSERV(a)UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU (or LISTSERV(a)UBVM.BITNET) You can then order these files with a "GET Judge-L LOGxxxx". For example, to get the first month's archive, send the command "GET JUDGES-L LOG9409" to retrieve the archive for September of 1994. You can unsubscribe by sending the command "UNSUB JUDGES-L" in the body of a message to LISTSERV(a)UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU (or LISTSERV(a)UBVM.BITNET) Please retain this message for future reference. ------------------------------------------------- Judges-L: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) ver. 2.1 What is the Judges-L? The Judges' List (Judges-L(a)UBVM.cc.buffalo.edu or JUDGES- L(a)UBVM.BITNET) is a LISTSERV mail distribution list. Messages for distribution must be sent to one of these addresses. Subscription and other LISTSERV commands must be sent to LISTSERV(a)UBVM.cc.buffalo.edu or LISTSERV(a)UBVM.BITNET. How does the Judges' List work? The List distributes messages to a panel of Judges who cancel multiple posts to NetNews immediately. The List is used to help Judges organize themselves, finalize policy, and set procedures to enforce rules. It is primarily directed to those who issue cancels. Secondarily, to those who survey cancels issued, in order to ensure that the cancel facility is not being abused. It is not the intention of the Judges to regulate the content of articles posted. The protection of the NetNews system from overload by posts to multiple newsgroups is the focus of the activity. Widespread posting of off-topic material and overloads of individual newsgroups is a secondary focus of discussion. Mechanisms for the control of automatic posting software or automatic cancellation software is within the scope of discussion. Security mechanisms to facilitate the cancellation of abusive posts is also within the scope of the List. Certain activities, such as voting, are restricted to registered Judges. A Judge registers by supplying verifiable identity information to the Registrar. This information must be traceable to a primary identification document, such as a birth certificate. Supplied information is used only for the registration of a Judge. A digital signature, signed by a recognized certification authority can satisfy this requirement. The Registrar will acknowledge that registration has succeeded. Another option is transmission of a verifiable name, address, and telephone number (including best times to telephone). Any finger, X.500 directory, or Network Information Center entries, should also be supplied, in order to reduce the need for telephonic contact (use the form at the end of this post). Random checks may be undertaken from time to time to confirm the integrity of registration information. The List Registrar is currently David S. Stodolsky at address: david(a)arch.ping.dk. How are decisions made? There are two types of messages distributed via the List. The first type is an informational message. The second type is an action message, which notifies readers that an official response is requested or pending. A response to a previous message must begin with the characters "Re: " (note the trailing space). A message that starts a new discussion must not start with these characters. Action messages must be indicated by a message subject that starts with all capital letters. Current message subject precursors are: :"COMPLAINT: " - a complaint about a message that someone wants cancelled :"CANCEL: " - a complaint about an inappropriate cancel message :"DRAFT: " - a request for preliminary input on a proposed action :"OPINION: " - a proposed action not directly related to a complaint :"ACCEPTED: " - an accepted action Decisions are preferably reached by consensus. The consensus is indicated by at least one week passing after an action message, or the last comment on an action message, has been distributed. Thus, if an OPINION message is posted and no comments are made in response to it for a week, it is considered to have achieved a consensus. The message will then be redistributed in exactly the same form, but with the ACCEPTED message precursor. If no objections are registered within a week, then this opinion becomes valid. (Objections at this stage can only be procedural, such as failure to incorporate corrections or not allowing adequate time for comments.) If comments are received, they must be answered or incorporated into the accepted message. In the case of extensive revision, the message should be distributed again with an OPINION message precursor. Accepted messages are transferred to the file area for permanent storage. Accepted opinions are also posted to USENET with "Judges" as their sender. In the case that a consensus is not reached within three weeks after the final posting of an action message, the author of the message can call for a vote. After the call, the List Registrar will post the email addresses of registered voters. A voter is registered if s/he supplied registration information to the Registrar prior to the first presentation of the action item. Votes are directed to the author, or other designated vote counter, and may include a statement. After a week, all votes and comments are posted. If a complaint achieves majority support, it can be reposted as ACCEPTED. Contributed statements must be included. Opinions require two-thirds support to achieve acceptance. If you reply to a message, but change the subject or address a side issue, change the subject line of the post using the "was" construction [i. e., New subject (was: Old subject)]. This is particularly important with action items, which can be delayed otherwise. Do I have to wait a week before acting on a complaint? No. Any Judge can act on a complaint at any time. The List and the person who submitted the complaint must be notified immediately. If a complaint receives no response, it is assumed to be invalid. A week after the final comment on a complaint, it may be reposted, including all comments, with an "ACCEPTED: " subject precursor. This is normally done by the Judge who initially responded to the complaint. Unless there are objections, it is transferred to the file area one week later. A Judge must not be the first respondent to a complaint submitted on her/his behalf. A Judge should only respond to a complaint if confident that the response is appropriate. New Judges can develop their reputations by closely monitoring the List. This permits routine abuse to handled promptly by new Judges. More experienced Judges can then concentrate on handling complicated complaints or on incorrect responses made by novices. What is the correct style for a message? Messages to the List must follow USENET guidelines. See "Guidelines for posting on Usenet" and "Hints on writing style for Usenet" in the newsgroup "news.announce.newusers". Specifically, spell check your message and review it for accuracy. If you are irritated or upset, put it aside for a day, and then read both the message you are replying to and your response again. All messages to the List are archived and permanently available to subscribers. What should I do about inappropriate messages? Faulty or inappropriate messages should be ignored. You may notify the sender directly by email that there is a problem with such a message. Since action items cannot be ignored, inappropriate messages of this type may result in censure of the sender. When in doubt as to the type of a message you are sending, do not use an action precursor. If it definitely is an action message, post it using the "DRAFT: " message precursor first, and allow at least a week for feedback. Draft messages should be used in all cases except where time is of the essence. Posting of a draft message immediately fixes the registered voters on the item, but reduces the risk of repeated updates while in the "OPINION: " phase. Since opinion messages require responses within a week, it is more likely that the feedback to them will be negative and will be less complete than feedback to a draft. Can a message that has appeared on the Judges-L be reposted? Only your own words can be reposted and only by you. Authors retain a non-exclusive non-transferable copyright on their own writing sent to the List. "Fair use" is limited to single words. The non-exclusive transfer of copyright to the List Registrar ensures that the author can continue to use the words they have sent to the List, while at the same time those words can be used in a well controlled manner, for example, in an opinion issued by Judges-L. This is essential to the function of the List, since a participant in a dispute might try to block publication of an opinion by asserting copyright over crucial writing, if not pleased with the decision. The non-transferability of the copyright retained by the author makes it impossible for List policy to be circumvented by a (legal) person who collects copyrights from various authors. It also ensures that only persons bound by the List policy can use material sent to the List in other contexts. This could also be crucial in stopping misuse of writing sent to the List. "Fair use" is limited to single words. Copying of more than a single word violates fair use, since repeatedly copying pairs of words would permit the transfer of collective works from the List. That is, if pairs of words from a message were transferred repeatedly under "fair use", the original message could easily be assembled from the machine readable fragments: "Copying shall not be used to create or to replace or substitute for anthologies, compilations, or collective works..." {From the guidelines developed by the Ad Hoc Committee on Copyright Revision, the Author-Publisher Group, and the Association of American Publishers. COPYRIGHT LAW AND MULTIMEDIA DEVELOPMENT IN EDUCATION [DRAFT VERSION] in a document assembled by the Academic Computing Technologies Group, Johnson County Community College, Overland Park, KS 66210 (in Mich Kabay <75300.3232(a)compuserve.com>. [27 December 1994]. RISKS of guessing at Fair Use. RISKS DIGEST 16.68. [URL: http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/16.68.html]} Any subscriber posting messages to the Judges-L is bound by this copyright policy. Material posted by others falls under a Judge-L compilation copyright. Writing by persons not posting to the List themselves is covered by a compilation copyright held by the sender and the List, and subject to the same restrictions, where ever applicable, as original writing. The terms "writing" and "words" are construed to include all forms of expression subject copyright, such as drawings, recorded sounds, and so on. External archives of Judges-L messages and opinions can only be maintained if explicit written permission is given. Subscribers may, however, maintain archives of messages they have received while subscribed to the List, but only for their own private use and only as long as they remain subscribers. Can I disclose information received from the List to third parties (persons not on the List)? No. Privacy of messages sent to the List is crucial for the List to be able to perform its conflict resolution functions. Privacy makes uninhibited expression more likely, thus aiding in fact finding and resolution of disputes. It also protects authors from having their words used out of context. Finally, it inhibits persons not satisfied with a List decision from taking their complaints to another forum. The ability to achieve a final resolution of conflict is one of the major advantages of a judicial ruling. What if I do not follow these guidelines? Any person who provides false registration information will be prohibited from any use of the List for a period of five years and their postmaster, employer, or service provider will be notified thereof. At the end of that period a new registration form may be submitted. The document must be signed under penalty of perjury and notarized. Any person misusing information from the List is subject to immediate unsubscription for a period of one year. A censure opinion must be submitted to the List immediately thereafter and copied to the person affected. All messages concerning the case must be copied to the concerned person, who may reply directly to the List. If the List has been set to automatically reject messages from the person as a result of abuse of the List, the person may select a representative to forward their replies. If the censure fails, the person will immediately be resubscribed. In any case of involuntary unsubscription or of censure that casts doubt upon the honesty of a Judge, resubmission of registration information signed under penalty of perjury and notarized is required. If you abuse the List by sending messages, you may be asked to stop sending for a period of six months, by issuance of an opinion. If you fail to honor this request, then your messages will be automatically rejected for a period of one year. An abuser may reapply after that time by sending a request to Dimitri Vulis (dlv(a)dm.com) In extreme cases, abusers will be unsubscribed from the List for a one-year period. Further problems will result in an abuser's postmaster being notified, or if the abuser is a postmaster, the notification will go to an employer or service provider. The Judges reserve the right to counter any continuing abuse of the List without further notice. Severe abuse can result in immediate action by a List Owner or Site Administrator. The Judges' List must be notified when any such action is taken. How do I request censure of a Judge? A Judge can submit an OPINION message to the List requesting that an abusive Judge cease, for example, sending to the List. Alternatively, the message can be directed to the Registrar, who will post it to the List, confirming that the message was submitted by a Judge, who wishes to remain anonymous. Other comments on the case may be directed to the Registrar, if authors wish to remain anonymous. In the case that a vote becomes necessary, the Registrar will randomly select nine Judges, if that many are available. They will be privately requested to deliver their votes to a designated Vote Counter. If three-fourths of the votes support the request, it will be posted as an ACCEPTED opinion by the Vote Counter. Dimitri Vulis (dlv(a)dm.com) receives such votes. How is conflict of interest avoided in censure cases? Any selected Judge directly involved in the dispute must notify the Registrar that they are not available to vote. In the case this withdrawal could affect the vote outcome, a new Judge will be randomly selected. The accused may advise the Registrar that certain Judges are directly involved and should not be selected. No more than one-third of Judges may be designated as unsuitable. Neither the Registrar nor the Vote Counter may serve as voters in censure cases. Why should I use this List instead of a newsgroup? Discussions of abusive practices also occur in the newsgroups, for example, news.admin.policy. That newsgroup has over 50,000 readers and over 50% of articles are crossposted. Each post, therefore, uses a minimum of 20 man- hours of readers' time, even if each reader spends only a second reading the subject line of an article. Examination of the post itself can lead to ten times that amount of time being used, or even more. It is suggested, therefore, that posts to newsgroups be limited to novel incidents, with the potential for generating a new policy consensus. Routine abuse can be handled in a much more economical manner, if it is referred to this List. Another advantage of using the List for cancel notifications is the almost immediate delivery of email. Newsgroup propagation is significantly slower, meaning that duplicate cancels may be issued. This can create problems and certainly means unnecessary work for administrators. Consensus rarely occurs in newsgroups, if there is even the slightest disagreement on an issue. In order to create an alternative to arbitrary cancellation, cancellation wars between posters and administrators, and so on, it is important to reach a consensus through a process that is open and fair. A list makes it more likely that every person sees the same material, which cannot be assured with people browsing newsgroups. Also, lists are less "public", so there is less incentive for people to defend positions, merely because they have taken them. This is a well know problem in international negotiations. These factors, when combined with the procedures suggested here, make reaching a consensus on the List much more likely than in a newsgroup. Another advantage of List operation is the privacy of the List archives. This makes it less likely that disputants seize upon details of statements made by Judges as indicating support for their position. The transfer of completed decisions to the publicly assessable file area, on the other hand, make them more likely to be used as guidance in dispute resolution. These completed decisions can also be used as a database of known offenders, in order to facilitate dealing with repeated abuse. This effect is even stronger in the case of accepted opinions, which are posted to USENET. Finally, there are some people who cannot understand that it is not OK to do anything that is not explicitly against some "law." These people need some "legal" decisions to abide by, because they will not stop abusive activities otherwise. They may also view cancellation of their articles as abridging their "free speech" or "restraining their trade" and take their complaint to a court. The Judges-L can be the court of first instance, thereby reducing the risk of interference by governmental authorities with activities on the Net. ----------------------------------------------------------- Judges-L Registration Form This form serves as a copyright agreement, non-disclosure agreement, and oath: I have read and understood the Cancel Messages Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) list and the Judges-L FAQ. I understand why archive privacy is required and the role confidentiality plays in dispute resolution. I agree to: a) respect the Judge-L copyright and report any violations thereof. b) avoid disclosing information received from the List to third parties (persons not on the List) and report any violations of this policy. c) store messages received from the List in a manner that prevents disclosure to third parties (at minimum, password protection on a publicly accessible system, or residential level physical security for unprotected files or messages that have been printed ). d) destroy all copies of messages from the List within 14 days of unsubscribing (this does not apply to setting an address to "no mail", which stops transmission of messages). e) follow the procedures accepted by the Judges (subscribers to Judges-L). f) tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, in messages sent to the List or directly to persons subscribed to the List. That is, I agree that deception is to be avoided, either through incorrect statements or omission of relevant facts. If statements made in good faith are later found to be incorrect, the correct information will be supplied without delay. Not withstanding the above, if another subscriber is mislead by my statement and makes an incorrect statement on the List as a result, I will correct that person in a message to the List. g) base any decision I make as a Judge only on messages to the List. If I receive communications concerning a matter under deliberation on Judges-L by other means (i. e., private mail, news, etc.), I will send a notice to the List. If I do not disclose the information, I will state why. Further, I will state whether I feel receipt of the information disqualifies me from further participation in the deliberation and why. h) attempt to influence a Judges-L decisions only through messages posted to the List under my registered name. I understand that if I violate this agreement I may be subject to censure and that an accepted censure opinion may be posted to the Judges-L public file area and published in appropriate USENET newsgroups. I agree to accept any such ruling as final. Replace underlines "____" completely (in relevant items) with your information and return to: david(a)arch.ping.dk Last name __________________________ Other names, initials, titles, etc. ________________________ Address __________________________ City, State, Country, ZIP, etc. __________________________ Telephone number (include country code) ____________________ Best times to Phone From _____ to _____ and _____ to _____ Work or other address __________________________ City, State, Country, ZIP, etc. __________________________ Telephone number (include country code) ____________________ Best times to Phone From _____ to _____ and _____ to _____ Finger entry _________________________ X.500 directory listing _________________________ Network information center entries _________________________ _________________________ Other directory entries _________________________ _________________________ _________________________ _________________________ ----------------------------------------------------------- =========================================================== David S. Stodolsky, PhD * Social * Internet: david(a)arch.ping.dk Tornskadestien 2, st. th. * Research * Tel.: + 45 38 33 03 30 DK-2400 Copenhagen NV, Denmark * Methods * Fax: + 45 38 33 88 80

1 0

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It is interesting that the situation is so symmetrical. Given collusion with the bank by the other party, with regular ecash we protect Alice's but not Bob's anonymity. With this "reverse ecash" we protect Bob but not Alice. (Alice is the payor, Bob the payee.) If people were allowed to exchange coins anonymously, either system will provide anonymity for both parties. (In the reverse ecash system Alice hands the the blinded proto-coins along with some regular coins to the bank and receives blinded new coins.) Earlier there was discussion of an ecash coin-exchanging service ("Charlie") designed to provide payee anonymity in the regular ecash system. Bob would send his newly-received coins to Charlie along with blinded proto-coins. Charlie would then exchange them at the bank and send the new (blinded) coins back to Bob. Charlie and Bob can be anonymous to each other, but Bob has to trust Charlie with his coins. A similar service would work for the reverse ecash system to protect Alice's anonymity. Bob blinds some proto-coins and sends them to Alice, who further blinds them and sends them to Charlie along with some regular coins of the same values. Charlie exchanges the regular coins for new coins using the doubly blinded proto-coins. He gives the blinded coins back to Alice, who unblinds them and gives them to Bob, who removes the last blinding to reveal the valid coins. It is Alice in this protocol who has to trust Charlie with her coins. Hal

1 0

Baltimore City Paper editorial on Jim Bell
by Joab Jackson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A Bridge Too Far? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- No doubt about it, Jim Bell disliked the government. As far as this Vancouver, Wash., resident was concerned, there isn't any problem with Congress that $60 worth of bullets couldn't solve. And he let his opinion be known in newsgroups, mailing lists, and, perhaps most notoriously, through an essay he wrote and promoted on the Internet called "Assassination Politics". But did Bell-who, federal authorities discovered, had an arsenal of deadly chemicals and firearms and the home addresses of more than 100 government workers-have a plan to murder public employees? "What was interesting is that the whole case was based on whether he'd be harmful in the future. He hadn't actually hurt anyone, but he was talking about some scary stuff," John Branton, a reporter who covered the Bell case for the southern Washington newspaper The Columbian (The Jim Bell Story), told me by phone. On Dec. 12, Bell, 39, was sentenced to 11 months in prison and three years of supervised probation after pleading guilty to using false Social Security numbers and setting a stink bomb off at a local Internal Revenue Service office. But authorities acknowledge those charges weren't what his arrest was really about. "We chose not to wait until he followed through on what we believe were plans to assassinate government employees," Jeffrey Gordon, an IRS inspector, told the Portland, Ore., daily The Oregonian. Gordon likened Bell to convicted Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh and Unabomber suspect Theodore Kaczynski. The federal government's court filing against Bell stated the belief that the defendant had a plan to "overthrow the U.S. government." Proof of his motivation, the government asserted, was found in Bell's Internet writings: "Bell has spelled out parts of his overall plan in his 'Assassination Politics' essay." Bell wasn't lacking for firepower. On April 1, 20 armed federal agents raided Bell's home, where he lived with his parents. According to U.S. News & World Report ("Terrorism's Next Wave") the feds found three semiautomatic assault rifles; a handgun; a copy of the book The Terrorist's Handbook; the home addresses of more than 100 government workers; and a garage full of potentially deadly chemicals. Authorities had long known that Bell was a spokesperson for a local libertarian militia and was involved in a so-called "common-law court" that planned "trials" of IRS employees. Given what the feds found at the house, in retrospect the raid seems prudent-as Leroy Loiselle of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency told U.S. News, "You don't need nitric acid to keep aphids off your flowers." It's easy to forget the troubling fact that the government's initial reason for raiding Bell's residence was "Assassination Politics," which they found in Bell's car when the IRS seized it back in February. (Bell owed some $30,000 in back taxes.) Will others who make public their wrath for government and owe some taxes to Uncle Sam be paid similar visits? What's perhaps more troubling still is the way the feds held up Bell's essay as evidence of his violent intent. Reading "Assassination Politics" makes clear that it is no more a workable blueprint for overthrowing the government than Frank Herbert's Dune is a realistic plan for urban renewal. For about two years prior to Bell's arrest, "Assassination Politics" floated around the Internet. Bell, for instance, sent this essay out on the cypherpunks mailing list, where scenarios for the future, based on new technology and libertarian principles, are frequently discussed. None of the cypherpunks took his "plan" seriously then. The core of "Assassination Politics" is a plan to establish an anonymous electronic market wherein people could "wager" money on when public individuals, be they world leaders or corrupt tax collectors, will die. A person (say, for instance, an assassin) who correctly "predicts" the day of a death could anonymously collect the "winnings." Far from being a direct call to arms, Bell's essay is largely hypothetical, at least until encryption, traceless digital cash, and mass homicidal hatred of world leaders becomes widespread. Ugly yes; realistic no. "I've told Jim Bell on any number of occasions that it would never work," Robert East, a friend of Bell's, tells me by e-mail. "If Jim had properly titled this as a fictional piece of literature he'd have been far more accurate." In April, when the Jim Bell story broke, both The Columbian and Time Warner's Netly News portrayed Bell as a victim whose free-speech rights were violated. But as evidence against Bell piled up, the sympathy muted considerably. U.S. News' recent cover story on domestic terrorism, "Terrorism's Next Wave," opened with the Bell case. Perhaps Bell was prosecuted for what he wrote rather than what he might do. (Both friends and family have repeatedly said Bell, though a big talker, isn't much of a doer. "Jim is a harmless academic [n]erd," East insists. "I've known him for years and he's harmless.") Perhaps the IRS was spooked by little more than idle speculation of its demise. But the evidence seems to have dealt the feds the better hand, and lends credence to the idea that, for all the protest of free-speech advocates, words are not always separable from actions. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------- The Baltimore City Paper: http://www.citypaper.com City Paper's Cyberpunk column: http://www.citypaper.com/columns/framecyb.htm Archives: http://www.charm.net/~joabj/ joabj(a)charm.net 410.356.6274 -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 5.0 mQBtAzJFsfEAAAEDAOtSe/7TU8y0ZYBFXp8c6hxwzDIdbIsDtTsvKx2X v5S65Mdc3vCEFhMuwxceatO4T5IKgBFWJ2r7s9fFKtsAIS4vKCESi+wY7j 5rEZ6oYbaeWlj1yfwjAjg8SUxCjuji1QAFEbQeSm9hYiBKYWNrc29uIDxqb2 FiakBjaGFybS5uZXQ+ =ttEP -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

1 0

<sigh>
by William H. Geiger III 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Due to a misbehaving mailing list I have lost some mail this morning. :( If you have sent any message to me between 00:00-13:00 GMT-0400 today please resend the message. Also could someone from the mailing list send me copies of the messages that I have missed. Thanks, - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 iQCVAwUBM85dN49Co1n+aLhhAQF3fAP8Db4z+7GLaSsst8ZkGVG151NO4lIt0wbR S5oRTbLWRQbuAGccvGvKJSLtu3QPzn1wwp3khVJiVvz6QvweMTXBd6IV7QNvhE5o An519HaatiAICAgkPcBC5/l1SkTfcRxX8GYk1SUWI8Ockw9zyLZtY9VsbgtgD3Yk QFqprV7VQrQ= =fiQQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
by Anonymous Sender 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Harmon Seaver wrote: > > This isn't a ski mask burglary. We KNOW Saddam ruled Iraq. > > We KNOW what crimes were committed. Simple syllogism. > > No we don't. We only know what the propaganda mills have told us. > Twenty years ago it was a different story. The propaganda mills were working for Saddam, not against him. http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/04/1599076.php "Over the last dozen years I made 13 trips to Baghdad to lobby the government to keep CNN's Baghdad bureau open and to arrange interviews with Iraqi leaders. Each time I visited, I became more distressed by what I saw and heard - awful things that could not be reported because doing so would have jeopardized the lives of Iraqis, particularly those on our Baghdad staff." http://www.techcentralstation.com/041103H.html "It appears there is another, more troubling, reason Jordan decided not to report these hideous crimes until the regime was safely out of the way: CNN didn't want to lose its on-the-ground access to a big story." Human Rights Watch, Amnesty, and countless Iraqi refugees all report similar stories of widespread torture and murder. Is it your position that these are all propagandists? Dismissing as "propaganda" any reports that oppose your argument, while accepting as truth any claim that supports it, is simple intellectual dishonesty.

1 0

U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-- On 16 Dec 2003 at 2:36, Anonymous wrote: > I saw several people commenting the issue of Geneva > convention on CNN during the day. Also I saw an expert on > this field from another country commenting on the issue > stating that it was a clear violation of the convention. In > either of these interviews were there any discussion on > whether it didn't apply to this specific case due to what > clothings he happened to wear or whattever. I got the > impression that it was clear that the U.S. treatment wasn't > fully appropriate. If you were watching the BBC, you would have thought most of the Iraqi population were outraged by his capture. I think you are suffering from New York Times syndrome "If even the New York Times admits that the kulaks are happy and prosperous under Stalin, that shows you how great the Soviet Union really must be when you discount all that capitalist propaganda." --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG Lh9C/c3J2U0bybWlK/P0f5hnnZT1z+2QEe1K9Ev2 4cVVWOLkCVsvYQG/u75vRB5xVrL2GjBeaEl+j6x07

6 6

Re: Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)
by Michael Kalus 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 17-Dec-03, at 5:43 PM, Jim Dixon wrote: > >> According to the US Government though they are not soldiers. They are >> "unlawful enemy combattants". > > I can only interpret this as your saying that the US Government's > judgement in this issue is correct, and they are not POWs. > I only tell you what they are telling us. I do not agree with this assessment personally. >> >> The war in Afghanistan is over. This is were they were caught. Thus >> they >> should be released, no? > > Oh, we are back to their being POWs. Fine. In that case, the answer > to > your question is no. > > The war in question was begun by an attack on the United States, by the > murder of 3000 people in New York City. Is this war over? Not > according > to tapes attributed to al Qaeda. They still profess to be at war with > the United States. > Where the war begun is probably debatable. The US had (and has) their fingerprints over a lot of things that are happening. And all of these you could construe as an act of war. > Is the war in Afghanistan over? Not according to news reports. Osama > bin > Laden remains free. The Taliban remain active. But the regime has been replaced, thus the war is over, no? That was the case in Europe. Germany was defeated, a new government installed (with a lot of people from the old one) and you called it "done deal". Same in Japan. So what's different this time? > >> If they are terrorists and they have proof of >> this they should put them in front of a court (and I guess that should >> be a civil court, not a military tribunal as I don't quite see since >> when the US Army is performing law enforcement duties). > > Please make your mind up. Now they are terrorists again. > I am answering to your statements. We have already established that if they are POWs then they should be released because the war is over (see above). If they are not POWs but held because of terrorist charges, than they should be tried no? > Whose law requires that terrorists be treated in this fashion? > Our "enlightened" western society, led by the USofA who proclaims to know what right and wrong is (and who wants to teach it to all those "primitive" cultures in the middle east). > The US Army's responsibility is not to enforce the law. It is to > defend > the United States. They seem to be doing a good job at the moment. > Sure sure, nobody has flown another plane in a building. Is this because of the US Army and all those nifty security screenings at the airport (just last weekend I flew out of Dallas and saw more than enough ways to get something through security), or because nobody really wanted to do it right now? Guess we'll never know. But of course the Spinmeisters are going to say it's because of the war in Iraq and added security. I wonder who or what they are going to blame the next time someone gets blown up. > In the United States it is the responsibility of the police to enforce > the > law in their jurisdiction. There is no US police force with > responsiblities in Guantanamo. US law does not apply to Cuba. Nifty, isn't it? "Well people, we see your point. But you have to Understanding, even though we control Guantanamo Bay and even though Diego Garcia is a British Island which we just annexed, we can't really do anything to help those poor people. But don't fret, if they would be in an Afghani jail they would be off worse. Remember, we are the good guys, we only do what's in humanities best interrest." If they would be held in New York State they would have more rights. So let's just not even try that, we might actually HAVE to treat them according to the gospel that we preach. >> But they are not POWs by their own account. If they could be charged >> with any of these crimes above, then what takes two years to actually >> convict them? > > By your way of thinking, if I am taken prisoner in a war, I can decide > that I am not a POW and walk free. That's not what I said. What I DID say was that if they are not POWs and are not charged with a crime, they should be set free. > > In what war has this been common practice? See above. >> Some of them ARE US Citizens. Others are citizens of other states. >> International Law means that if I (holding a German passport) have to >> be >> allowed to contact MY government in order to receive any aid that I >> might require. This right has not been given. > > What "International Law" says that unlawful combatants get to contact > their governments in this manner? > The term "unlawful combatants" doesn't exist either. So the question is mute. Let's say "Human being" instead. > What if the government contacted, say Afghan or Pakistani, would prefer > that they not be contacted as you desire, or prefers that you be held > as > a prisoner indefinitely? Than you have a problem with your government. But neither British, nor Canadian nor French authorities were notified / could be contact OR, after they found out, were allowed to talk to their people. > >> Granted, I would not be protected under the rights of the US >> constitution, but I do have other rights and those are clearly >> violated >> as well. > > What's so clear about this? Do you actually have any knowledge at all > of customs and practices in countries in the region? Do you care at > all > about the opinions of local people, about their customary practices? I > think not. It is not only about people from Afghanistan, it is also about other countries, see my text above. >> >> Treason would need to be proofen. Considering that no charges have >> been >> brought forward after almost two years it is pretty clear (or at least >> appears to be) that there is no proof that any of these people did >> anything wrong. > > Do you know for a fact that there are US citizens held at Guantanamo? > If > so, who are they? > There have been several reports. What about John Walker? Whatever happened to him? >>> >> It doesn't. But if that would be the case than the captured Afghans >> should be returned to the Afghan authorities, why is this not >> happening? > > Perhaps the Afghan authorities don't want them back. > > Hello? > Perhaps you just look for the easy way out? Michael -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP+DwTmlCnxcrW2uuEQL6iwCeOK5U56u8xVB9aT1SAqj+yi7OULcAoOd0 bml/UV9L7YtJFFoAq77OCilk =aXZZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
by Michael Kalus 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 17-Dec-03, at 5:23 PM, Jim Dixon wrote: >>> Damn lucky, to be honest. >>> >> No I did not omit this little bit. This is not the question. > > Oh but it is. > Ah? Why? >> Guilt or not guilt is not (supposely) decided when captured but in a >> court of law. You remember, "Justice" the thing the US supposely is >> standing for? > > Are you saying that the United States has to be a light to the world, > that > it has an extraordinary responsibility to be morally correct, that its > actions should be judged by a different standard from those of other > countries? The US makes these claims on their own. If they are the "good guys" than they should act like it. Not only when it is convenient but also when it is not. Morale is not about the "best bang for the buck" but about integrity. The US Government clearly does not possess a lot of integrity when it comes to morale. > What are you, some kind of pro-American fanatic? Last time I checked I was a human being. > >> Whatever he did before, it does not matter at this point. At this very >> moment the people who have to abide are the victors and that means the >> US Government (and thus the US Military). >> >> Two wrongs still don't make a right. > > What exactly is wrong with inspecting a prisoner's teeth and giving him > a haircut? Televising this for propaganda purposes. > > Why exactly do you say that mass murder, invasion, genocide somehow > are outweighed in the scales of justice by a medical examination? > No, what I am saying is that no matter what he did, the US still has to play by international rules (or should at least). Using those images from Saddam as Propaganda clearly is wrong. Michael -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP+DxBGlCnxcrW2uuEQJqKQCgujw7xjSVAPdzXDcEW9abBkRyaF8AoNOL H+VuSTqSPFSTA834qQS2X36C =ULJm -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0