December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Further costs of war (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Subject: Re: Further costs of war (fwd) > From: dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) > Date: Wed, 26 Nov 97 22:40:54 EST > This has little crypto relevance (unless someone drags in the fact that > some of the important ww2 naval battles were won by the us because they > broke jap codes). WARNING: blipvert mentality > In 1904/5 (what's a couple of years between punks) the japs beat the shit out > of the tzar, not Stalin, because of the tzarist army's supreme incompetence, > and also because of severe internal unrest in Russia (general strikes and > uprisings everywhere). It was still Russia. The claims of incompetence and internal unrest apply to both regimes. Is there some point you wish to review regarding this point? > Prior to that, the japs effectively beat Russia in 1875(?). Actualy, the Russians never beat the Japanese prior to Khalkal Gol. [deleted material, relevance unclear] > At lake Khasan (near the short Soviet-Korean border) the Japs demanded > (July/August, 1938) that the Soviets turn over some strategic hills, which > would have made a future attack on Vladivostok easier. Then the japs > just sent some troops to occupy the hills; it took the Soviets almost 2 > weeks to re-take them, which can be explained both by their incompetence > and by Blyukher working for the japs. Jap casualties were 650 dead and > 2500 woulnded. This was the battle of Chankufeng Hill (1938). My sources indicate the casualties were approx. 10,000 on each side. > Jap casualties were much higher at Khalkhin Gol. Strategically, the Japs were > trying to occupy a chunk of Mongolia that would allow them to cut off the > only railroad linking the Soviet far east with the rest of Siberia (which > passes right next to the Chinese border). The japs were bombarding the > disputed area of Mongolia in January-April 1939; invaded in May, and were > kicked out by the Soviet troops, led by Zhukov (note the correct spelling) > in late August. Their casualties were 55K, 25K of which were killed. But(!), the relevant point of this conflict is one simple point. The Russians didn't re-inforce *or* launch their counter-attack until *after* Sorge had assured the Russians that the Japanese would *not* re-inforce themselves (which they didn't). Further, it is important to note that Zhukov employed a massively superior force, including weapons, the likes of which had never been employeed by the Russians before. In addition, Zhukov is notable not for his strategic sense but his tenacity, he didn't care about casualties and did not withdraw once forces were committed. Even though it was clear that the Japanese would have withdrawn because of lack of reinforcements. It was a show battle from the military perspective. [deleted material, relevance unclear] > They recognized that they could have occupied Vladivostok in 1938 if > they had really tried; but eventually Russian reinforcements would > come and there would be hell to pay. Stalin demonstrated that unlike the > tzars he was willing to put up a fight over this relatively worthless > real estate. Only after he was shure that the Japanese wouldn't contest it. > Technically speaking, Moscow did fall. :-) Militarily speaking Moscow didn't fall. :-) There was no battle. The course taken by the Tzars in dealing with Moscow was a political move that would actualy provide them with more return than an actual battle. Remember, Moscow was the fort (ala Kremli), the capital was St. Petersburg. This strategy was discussed and discarded by Stalin as being politicaly unworkable. > By Oct 16, 1941, everyone and > everything were evacuated from Moscow, down to Lenin's mummy, and the Germans > could have walked in if they wanted to. Actualy they did walk in. Napolean spent six weeks at the Kremli before realizing the folly of his misunderstanding. He was waiting on the Tzarist forces fro St. Petersburg. By that time 3/4 of Moscow had been burned to the ground. > The Germans chose not to march in > because they feared mines and booby traps they encountered earlier in Kiev > (probably correct, too). While they waffled, Russian reinforcements arrived > from Siberia and drove them off. The Cossacks didn't arrive until shortly *after* the French began moving their van out of Moscow. > Mussolini's bloody invasion of Ethiopia was mostly a revenge for the > previous invasion by Italy which ended in a humiliating defeat. But it's irrelevant to this discussion. > I'd venture to say that other Hitler allies (Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria) > viewed him as a lesser eveil and didn't like him at all. Irrelevant to this discussion as well. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | | | We built your fort. We will not have it used against us. | | | | John Wayne - Allegheny Uprising | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

2 1

Protecting America's Infrastructures
by TruthMonger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> 25 November 1997 > Source: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > [Federal Register: November 25, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 227)] > ======================================================================= > Critical Foundations: Protecting America's Infrastructures > AGENCY: Department of Commerce. > ACTION: Notice of availability and request for comments. > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > A Statement of the Problem > > Certain national infrastructures are so vital that their incapacity > or destruction would have a debilitating impact on the defense or > economic security of the United States. What are the names of the public officials and employees who are stepping forward to accept responsibility for allowing the defense of the United States' physical and economic security to become vulnerable to destruction and debilitation? Will there be mass resignations, as a result of those in authority allowing this problem to develop? > These critical infrastructures > include telecommunications, electrical power systems, gas and oil > storage and transportation, banking and finance, transportation, water > supply systems, emergency services (including medical, police, fire, > and rescue), and continuity of government services. It sounds like fascist elements within the government have defined the problem in a manner which will justify oppressive government and corporate control of everything that its citizens need in order to survive. > Threats to these > critical infrastructures fall into two categories: physical threats to > tangible property (``physical threats''), and threats of electronic, > radio-frequency, or computer-based attacks on the information or > communications > components that control critical infrastructures (``cyber threats''). There are many more threats which seem to be self-servingly going unmentioned. Compromise of strong security by government interference. Government mandating of a 'single point of failure' in electronic techno-systems, in the rush to legislate and regulate the power of the government to monitor and control all human communications and interactions on the face of the earth. Government promotion of funneling everybody's electronic future into the same sticky web as the government's future, with the aim of forced march to Electronic Battan. (i.e. - putting Electronic day-care centers in government Electronic buildings.) > Because many of these critical infrastructures are owned and operated > by the private sector, it is essential that the government and private > sector work together to develop a strategy for protecting them and > assuring their continued operation. No it is not! It is not particularly essential unless the goal is to work toward a fascist wedding of corporate and government interests. Does this "strategy for protecting them" involve corporations being armed similarly to government armed forces, or are the plans already in place designed to increase the armed government presence within corporations? > Mission > > ... recommend a comprehensive national policy and > implementation strategy for protecting critical infrastructures and > assuring their continued operation; and propose any statutory or > regulatory changes necessary to effect its recommendations. So the basic plan was to develop critical infrastructures which would be accessible to teeNintendoage hackers and adults who enjoy sex, and then criminalize their behavior as a national threat? Did nobody notice if the rocket scientists promoting this scheme of Electronic Reality were all wearing Swastikas? > Overview of the Report's Findings > > 1. New Thinking is Required in Cyberspace. It is not surprising > that infrastructures have always been attractive targets for those who > would do us harm. In the past we have been protected from hostile > attacks on the infrastructures by broad oceans and friendly neighbors. > Today, the evolution of cyber threats has changed the situation > dramatically. In cyberspace, national borders are no longer relevant. Is this why the government is so desperate in its headlong rush to *make* its citizens physical and financial security dependent on government control of cyberspace? > Formulas that carefully divide responsibility between foreign > defense and domestic law enforcement no longer apply as clearly as they > used to and, in some instances, you may have to solve the crime before > you can decide who has the authority to investigate it. Or to shoot the Electronic goat-herding children. > 2. We Should Act Now to Protect our Future. The Commission has not > discovered an imminent attack or a credible threat sufficient to > warrant a sense of immediate national crisis. However, the Commission > found that our vulnerabilities are increasing steadily while the costs > associated with an effective attack continue to drop. The investments > required to improve the situation are still relatively modest, but will > rise if we procrastinate. Is the Commission naming the names of government officials and the government employees who are responsible for the defense of the United States falling into such a dismal state of vulnerability? Is the solution to replace all of the government officials, employees and regulators who allowed this situation to develop? > 3. Infrastructure Assurance is a Shared Responsibility. National > security requires much more than military strength. While no nation > state is likely to invade our territory or attack our armed forces, we > are inevitably the target of ill will and hostility from some quarters. > Disruption of the services on which our economy and well-being depend > could have significant effects, and if repeated frequently, could > seriously harm public confidence. This sounds like it makes a good case for the formation of an Electronic security version of our armed forces to monitor and control all of CyberSpace. > Because our military and private > infrastructures are becoming less and less separate, because it is > getting harder to differentiate threats from local criminals from those > from foreign powers, and because the techniques of protection, > mitigation, and restoration are largely the same, we conclude that > responsibility for infrastructure protection and assurance can no > longer be delegated on the basis of who the attacker is or where the > attack originates. Rather, the responsibility should be shared > cooperatively among all of the players. This sounds like a good case for treating all criminals, local and global, with the same iron hand of the military that we would use to counter threats from foreign powers. Does this mean that Jim Bell and Kevin Mitnick will be hung for treason? Will this 'sharing of responsibility' among "all of the players" involve restructuring governments and societies into a...how shall I put this...NEW WORLD ORDER? > Overview of the Report's Recommendations > > 1. A Broad Program of Education and Awareness. Spread Fear/Uncertainty/Disinformation? Send me a job application! > 2. Infrastructure Protection through Industry Cooperation and > Information Sharing. Sector-by-sector cooperation and information > sharing would take place in the context of partnerships between owners > and operators and government. Send Mussolini a job application! > These partnerships would identify and > share best practices. The National Institute of Standards and > Technology, the National Security Agency, and the Department of > Energy's National Laboratories would provide technical skills and > expertise required to identify and evaluate vulnerabilities in the > associated information networks and control systems. These are the fucking idiots who were supposed to already be doing these things, and they are the ones who got the nation into this current state which you are claiming is so dismal and dangerous. If these dweebs haven't been able to access the ClueServer up to now, it is unlikely they will be able to do so in the future. > 3. Reconsideration of Laws Related to Infrastructure Protection. > Some laws capable of promoting infrastructure assurance efforts are not > as clear or effective as they could be. Others operate in ways that may > be unfriendly to security concerns. Sorting them all out will be a > lengthy and complex undertaking, involving efforts at local, state, > federal, and international levels. The report identifies specific > existing laws that could be modified to support infrastructure > protection. The mountains of laws that have criminalized the majority of our citizens have not been effective in preventing our society from becoming a dangerous place, but additional laws, criminalizing even more citizens and their activities will? Right... How many more laws will be required to compensate for the bad and useless laws? > 4. A Revised Program of Research and Development. More government. > 5. A National Organization Structure MORE GOVERNMENT! > Office of National Infrastructure Assurance MORE GOVERNMENT! > Infrastructure Assurance Support Office MORE GOVERNMENT! > Information Sharing and Analysis Center MORE GOVERNMENT! > National Infrastructure Assurance Council MORE GOVERNMENT! > Lead Agencies MORE GOVERNMENT! > Sector Coordinators MORE GOVERNMENT! > Warning Center MORE GOVERNMENT! > William Reinsch, > Under Secretary of Commerce, Bureau of Export Administration. \ Reinsch...that's 'German', isn't it? {;>)========< / Why don't you all save a lot of trees and electricity and just declare martial law right now, instead of wasting everybody's time and energy attempting to justify a fascist future? You've got all the guns. You've got the press in your pocket. You can't even be bothered with telling *good* lies, anymore. What the fuck is the point of some lame game of InfoWar designed to provide some imaginary justification for turning the whole world into one large prison complex? Why don't the world leaders all get together and count up their weapons and then just distribute the citizens according to the results? Your spin-doctors can promote it as an act of mercy toward the citizens who will no longer have to die defending their imaginary freedom. The Truth? "We the people" already know that our predestined future is to serve in slavery under a fascist New World Order run by our government and corporate rulers. We're just pretending we don't know where society is headed, in order to trick you into moving more slowly. Pretty ironic, eh? But what the hell... If it saves the life of that single child everyone seems to be so worried about... (Personally, I think we should just 'whack' the little fucker.) TruthMonger ~~~~~~~~~~~ "The Xenix Chainsaw Massacre" http://bureau42.base.org/public/xenix "WebWorld & the Mythical Circle of Eunuchs" http://bureau42.base.org/public/webworld "InfoWar" http://bureau42.base.org/public/infowar3 "The Final Frontier" http://www3.sk.sympatico.ca/carljohn "The CypherPunks Secret Conspiracy to Overthrow All World Governments" http://www3.sk.sympatico.ca/carljohn/AP1-6.htm http://www3.sk.sympatico.ca/carljohn/AP7-10.htm

1 0

For whom the Bell is sentenced...
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have come to believe that "assassination politics" is a political Rorschach (ink-blot) test: What you think of it is strongly related to your political philosophy. ~ Jim Bell, "Assassination Politics" It's a shame that Bell wasn't prosecuted and judged by people with a clearer conscience and more a more democratic political philosophy. Why are people invariably under the impression that it is someone other than themself that is putting them on The List (TM)?

1 0

Unique Wedding Mementos: Advertisement
by Steve Nelson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

To remove yourself from this list respond with the word REMOVE in the "subject" line. We appologize if you received this letter in error. Hello: Please consider Dandybars as your wedding memento. Dandybars are Hershey's Milk Chocolate Bars with colorful wrappers (using your wedding colors). The Front of the bar includes the Bride's & Groom's Names and the Date of the Wedding. The back of the bar includes the names of the entire "Wedding Party" as INGREDIENTS. Please check them out by double clicking on: http://www.dandybars.com Thank you for your time and consideration. Steve Nelson salesinfo(a)dandybars.com

1 0

"Kids summit" -- CNNfn interview with SurfWatch president
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[I'd still like to hear more on the inner workings of next week's "kids on the Net" summit from our friends at CDT who are sponsoring it. The lineup of speakers includes Janet Reno, Al Gore, and the secretaries of commerce and education. All joining together to Protect the Children! --Declan] ---- CNNFN SHOW: DIGITAL JAM 19:30 pm ET November 26, 1997; Wednesday 7:51 pm Eastern Time TYPE: INTERVIEW SECTION: Business LENGTH: 913 words HEADLINE: Kids & Cyberspace GUESTS: Michael Sears BYLINE: John Defterios BODY: JOHN DEFTERIOS, CNNfn ANCHOR, DIGITAL JAM: Next week family advocates, educators and industry leaders are coming together to discuss ways to keep children safe in cyberspace. One of the sponsors of the Internet Online Summit is Surfwatch a company that makes blocking software to help parents and teachers filter out objectionable content. Joining me now from Stanford, California to discuss the goals of the summit is Michael Sears. He is the president of Surfwatch. Michael it's great to have you on DIGITAL JAM. Welcome to you. MICHAEL SEARS, PRESIDENT, SURFWATCH: Thank you, a pleasure to be here. DEFTERIOS: First of all, let's discuss how this summit came about. Was it a building movement that finally crescendo. SEARS: I think it is. It's actually the outgrowth of what we did last June with President Clinton and Vice President Gore. In fact June and July time frame the CDA was overturned. The White House decided to take the initiative and asked the industry to get together to see what we can do to actually empower kids and enable kids Online. DEFTERIOS OK. What is the happy medium here, Michael because that's what everybody is really looking for because the Communications Decency Act did stumble and we had people on both side of the debate wanting to stake out their territory. What is , in your view, is the center ground? SEARS: Well, the debate will continue, but the center ground really is that it's all about kids. What we're talking about doing here is bringing together industry and law enforcement and public policy people and talking about to empower kids Online and give them effective tools. Effective tools that are also very easy to use. The idea behind that is how can kids actually get on the net, learn, research, discover, play and do it in a really enriching environment. But also we realize that there are a lot of safety concerns Online. That's probably what we're going to talk about primarily. DEFTERIOS: How about the ACLU, they were raising concerns about being blocked out here or filtration or censorship on the extreme. How do you deal with that side of - the people on that side of the debate? SEARS: It's a slippery slope. The idea here is do we block, companies like Surfwatch, do we block content Online. The idea once again is we target your typical 12 year old in the US. If that 12 year old should see a site or if that 12 years old needs to discover something we try to make sure that we have all of our technology, all of our processes in place to insure that information comes forward. Such as, we don't block the idea of breast, for instance, because breast could be talking about a chicken recipe. It could be talk about breast cancer. However, it it's a sexually explicit depiction or expression of that word that's where you come in and use filtering software to block. DEFTERIOS: There's another side to this, of course, that kids are often much more computer savvy than their parents. How do you over that hurtle? SEARS: That's a major hurdle. In fact we're talking about empowering kids with effective tools, but those tools have to be very easy to use and the ease of use isn't really for the kids because the kids know how to do this stuff. They know what's Online. They know what's out there and they know how to get there. What we really provide are the easy to use tools for mom and dad. So mom and dad pointing and clicking and turning switches on and off very easily can really control the family's environment. DEFTERIOS: As you know, this is a political hot potato for President Clinton because he didn't want to seem extreme on both side and he would like industry to work it out. When it is all said and done, Michael, what is the solution here? SEARS: Well, the solution that this market is all about is called parental control. Surfwatch started the market about three years ago and the word parental control itself was important not only because it's the software in the technology, but it because of those first two words, parental control. Mom and dad have to be involved. Mom and dad have to engage not only to help the kids Online, but also make sure that in chat rooms or with e-mail or with explicit pictures they can really sit down and talk to the kids and moderate what their kids are doing. We're just a tool. DEFTERIOS: This is not a government. Not to interrupt you, but we're almost out of time here. But this is, you're saying, not government intervention then. SEARS: Absolutely. DEFTERIOS: The technology is out there to let the families tackle this on their own. SEARS: That on and off switch should be in the hands of moms and dads not the government. DEFTERIOS: OK, great. How about your market share before we let you go tonight? How are you faring against your competition? SEARS: I think we're doing very well. All the buzz that's been happening over the last couple of months has helped our shares as well as our competitors. We've shipped millions of copies, 7.2 last July. We haven't done the survey lately, but we're clearly in the tens of millions right now. DEFTERIOS: OK. It's great to have you. SEARS: Great to be here. Thanks very much. DEFTERIOS: And have a nice Thanksgiving holiday. SEARS: Same to you. Take care. DEFTERIOS: My pleasure. Michael Sears, president of Surfwatch, joining us from Stanford, California.

1 0

Re: Further costs of war (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Subject: Re: Further costs of war (fwd) > From: dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) > Date: Thu, 27 Nov 97 11:22:32 EST > My point was that Russia might have negotiated a better peace at Portmouth, NH, > if it wasn't forced to stop fighting by the general strike. And just exactly what does that have to do with contributing to the US becoming involved in WWII? > Actually, the Russians forced the japs out of port arthur in 1895 and took > it for themselves. But most times their strategy was to avoid conflict and > to let the japs take whatever japs wanted, such as Hokkaido. The point to this is that at the same time the US was taking the Hawaii's, Guam, and conquered the Philippines (costing 20,000 Filipinos & 4,000 Americans). The US itself was making grabs into that same pie. > > This was the battle of Chankufeng Hill (1938). My sources indicate the > > casualties were approx. 10,000 on each side. > > Sigh. My (Russian) sources refer to the incident as lake Khasan, and to the > hills by their Russian names: (vysoty) Zaozernaya and Bezymyannaya. Your > attempts to refer to Russian hills by their Korean names are a sure sign > russophobia and racism. Actualy it stems from my being an American and the names that are chosen for whatever reason. Pretty weak ad hominim. [deleted material - weapons count - relevancy unclear] > As for the innovative use of tanks by Zhukov, Huh? Who said anything about Zhukov being innovative? His main claim to fame is his disregard for casualties. > Ahem. I was talking about Hitler in 1941, not Napoleon in 1812. (Both fucked > up the psyops and alienated the popuilation which could have viewed them as > their liberators, but that's a different thread altogether.) > > Militarily speaking, by oct 16 Moscow was evacuated and useless to the > Soviets. The issue in both cases wasn't military. In Napoleon's case the capital wasn't Moscow, it was St. Petersburg. Moscow was an outpost the French over estimated the worth of. By not fighting for it the peoples sacrifice created a great political environment and also further depleted the French who weren't prepared for the weather. In the WWII case, Stalin couldn't afford to be seen backing down. > Learn to read. I was talking about Hitler's troops in October 1941. The road > to Moscow was clear, but the Germans didn't walk in. The Germans only got to the outskirts. And the records that I have indicate that it wasn't a cake walk. To quote a report that Bock made to Brauchitsch just after arriving from viewing Moscow from a front-line bunker: "I have last night relieved a divisional commander who reported that the Russians had repulsed his men with hammers and shovels." > I'm talking about 1941! Stalin decided to assume that the japs wreen't going > to attack, so he brought in fresh troops from Siberia. There was no assumption. Stalin had Sorge to tell him what was up. > By the way I feel that > from the game theortic point of view, if he knew nothing about jap intentions > (i.e., no Richard Sorge), they the right strategy would have been to assume > that the japs were not going to attack; for if they did, he would have been > fucked anyway. With the assumptions that the japs wouldn't attack, he was able > to beat off the germans. Assuming he had no intelligence, send out scouts. I would probably look at some form of contested withdrawal (the hardest kind of operation technicaly) to a set of stop-lines. I would use those stop lines for re-supply & re-organization. This would allow me to remove troops from the front lines and compensate with improved logistics over my opponent, whose supply lines only get longer and longer. I would in addition increase my intelligence resources (eg traffic monitoring & analysis) on that front. I would furher increase my air forces ability to bomb in close support to about 100 miles behind the front lines. The lines would be about 30-60 miles apart depending on terrain. Never under-estimate your enemy (that 'no intelligence' will bite you in the ass *every* time) and have a clear goal. I would attempt to pull some troops from the eastern front because the Japanese supply lines would be long and external, while mine get shorter and are internal. This would allow me an edge on the typical 3:1 ratio. I would further recognize that while I had lots of natural resources in that area but few urban areas physical control for a short period while resolving the western front is acceptable. If something like the US entering were to occur I would then put a light covering screen and pull troops out because the Japanese don't have the resources to fight on that many fronts. > Possibly. I was responding to your (outright silly) claim that Mussolini > invaded Ethiopia to "impress" Hitler. No, I claim that *one* of the issues involved was to be able to appear at the bargaining table as Hitlers equal. Material refering to these motives are in Ciano's diary. Mussolini was wanting the entire episode to be seen as a grand adventure. He wanted Italy to be seen as an adventersome country with the cutting edge in political systems successfuly fulfilling its rightful place in history. In short, he wanted to be seen as the 'good guy'. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | | | We built your fort. We will not have it used against us. | | | | John Wayne - Allegheny Uprising | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Request for Jim Bell Update
by cvhd＠indyweb.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anyone have a pointer to a Jim Bell update page or source? Thanks

2 1

Re: Request for Jim Bell Update
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Anyone have a pointer to a Jim Bell update page or source? Here's recent Jim Bell material: http://jya.com/jimbell6.htm (news stories on Bell's sentencing) http://jya.com/next-wave.htm (US News on CB terrorism, stars JB) http://jya.com/jibell-dock4.htm (latest court dockets for USA v. Bell) For earlier info access backwards in each series: ../jimbell5, etc.; ../jimbell-dock3.htm, etc. Not aware of a source for the classified version but the public version of "Assassination Politics" is at: http://jya.com/ap.htm

1 0

Advertisement: Web Site Hosting
by info＠infowatch.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ If you wish to be excluded from any future mailings, type "remove" in subject header and hit reply. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.infowatch.net InfoWatch would like to introduce our complete Hosting and Promotional service. FOR ONLY $29.95 PER MONTH ! * 30 MB (megabytes) of disk space * 1000 MB = 1 GB (gigabyte) of data transfer per month * 8 E-mail accounts * INTERNATIONAL Hosting * Access to your account anytime via the Web Control Panel * MS Front Page * Unlimited FTP updates * Personal CGI directory for your own scripts (or use ours) * Advanced web statistics analyzer program * E-mail forwarding, auto responders, and vacation reply * Domain name registration (www.yourname.com) * Register your domain with over 250 search engines - FREE! * Friendly customer support * Inquire about our $24.95/month plan If for any reason you are not satisfied with InfoWatch's service after 30 days, we will transfer you back to your original host and pay any transfer fees. http://www.infowatch.net info(a)infowatch.net

1 0

Is Tim May guilty of illegally advocating revolution?
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

So I've been reading "Freedom and the Court" by Henry Abraham, and a passage in it made me think of Tim May and the cypherpunks list: "//Actual, overt// incitement of the overthrow of the government of the United States by force and violence, accompanied by the language of direct and imminent incitement, is not freedom of expression but a violation of Court-upheld legislative proscriptions; yet the //theoretical// advocacy of such overthrow, on the other hand, has been a judicially recognized protected freedom since 1957." [See Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957), particularly Mr. Justice Harlan's opinion for the 6:1 court.] (Emphasis in the original. --DM) Some civil liberties lawyers, incidentally, have told me that Internet messages almost by definition are probably not "direct and imminent incitement." Some excerpts from Yates v. United States: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=354&p… 9 The essential distinction [354 U.S. 298, 325] is that those to whom the advocacy is addressed must be urged to do something, now or in the future, rather than merely to believe in something. [...] Instances of speech that could be considered to amount to "advocacy of action" are so few and far between as to be almost completely overshadowed by the hundreds of instances in the record in which overthrow, if mentioned at all, occurs in the course of doctrinal disputation so remote from action as to be almost wholly lacking in probative value. Vague references to "revolutionary" or "militant" action of an unspecified character, which are found in the evidence, might in addition be given too great weight by the jury in the absence of more precise instructions. Particularly in light of this record, we must regard the trial court's charge in this respect as furnishing wholly inadequate guidance to the jury on this central point in the case. We cannot allow a conviction to stand on such "an equivocal direction to the jury on a basic issue." -Declan

4 3