December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Recreational pharmaceuticals by genetic engineering (fwd)
by Ray Arachelian 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 18:09:27 -0400 (EDT) From: "Eileen Tronolone (Pathfinder)" <eileent(a)pathfinder.com> To: Ray Arachelian <sunder(a)brainlink.com> Subject: Re: Recreational pharmaceuticals by genetic engineering (fwd) Also Sprach Ray Arachelian: > Psilocibe mushrooms usually cause vomiting. Most Amanita species > have an lethal dosage which is uncomfortably close to the > effective dosage, not a good thing in a drug. Amanita muscaria > however was used by the vikings to help induce their 'berserker' > state for battle. Actually - and you can forward this to relevant parties - woad, the infamous herb used by the Celtic warrior in the form of blue body paint, when mixed with urine (which is how they applied it to their bodies) causes a reaction very similar to cocaine and most amphetamines. The reduction in pain that is felt from wounds and the ecstacy brought on can easily be confused with a typical beserker reaction. The term beserk originates from "bare sark" - the beserkers wore little if no armor and the Celts are particularily famous for going into battle "in the altogether" except for the blue war-paint. The feeling of invulnerability that comes from the woad "high" led to this custom. Other semi-legal although dangerous "highs" can result from the ingestion of too much nutmeg or jasmine, both hallucenogens. -- Eileen Tronolone | eileent(a)pathfinder.com | Do not CD c System Administrator | redsonja(a)giti.com | taunt --------P===\==/ Commerce Team | gotagun(a)liii.com | happy fun /_\__ Time Inc. New Media | 212-522-9121 | fencer! _\ \

1 0

Re: The Recent Trend in "Collective Contracts"
by Peter Swire 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:29 AM 7/10/97 -0700, Tim May wrote: >I'm not a lawyer, but I am interested in the various ramifications--and the >constitutionality--of recent "sweeping contracts" between vendors, >lawmakers, consumers, etc. > >Two recent example: > >1. The "tobacco agreement." Supposedly a deal involving the transfer of >$360 billion from some number of tobacco companies in exchange for dropping >of liability suits, immunity from future claims, voluntary restrictions (!) >on advertising, etc. (And the "etc." is especially complicated in this huge >case.) So far as I know, the agreement has no legal effect until and unless a bill is enacted in Congress. Once a bill is enacted, there can obviously be far-reaching ramifications. For instance, an individual's right to sue in tort can be cut off. Punitive damages can be abolished for the defined class of suits, etc. If such a bill is enacted, various groups would likely sue on the basis that it is unconstitutional. That's what happened with CDA -- the indecency provisions first became law, and then were overturned in the courts. > >2. The "voluntary ratings" agreement being announced today by Al Gore and >some of the television networks. (Earlier "voluntary agreements" were >implemented, but, according to supporters of censorship, "failed." Hence >the new push for newer voluntary restrictions.) The big legal fight on ratings is whether any "state action" takes place. The First Amendment governs efforts by a federal or state government to restrict speech. If private companies "voluntarily" agree to do something, the First Amendment simply does not apply. But if the coercive power of the state forces them to do the same thing, then the courts can get involved under the First Amendment. Here, if the government is too explicit that it will ban certain speech unless the networks ban it, then a court might find that the government in fact is involved in an impermissible way. >The issue, it seems to me, is that ordinary concepts of illegality and >civil liability are being swept aside in favor of these huge "deals" to >reduce liability in exchange for various actions. Well, who is bound by >these deals? > >If "Tim's Tobacco Company" starts up next year, after this deal is >"signed," is his company bound by this deal? If Tim the Smoker develops >lung cancer, is he blocked from suing? > The basic concepts are pretty clear. A contract among various parties binds that group of parties. A statute of general applicability can regulate everyone in the jurisdiction. The existing tobacco companies can't bind "Tim's Tobacco Company" in their contract. However, if they support a bill in Congress, and the statute is enacted, then their actions might indeed play a role in restricting your actions later on. Peter Prof. Peter Swire Ohio State University College of Law mailto:swire.1@osu.edu web: http://www.osu.edu/units/law/swire.htm (in early stages of construction)

9 14

Airlines to start profiling, bag matching
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washdc/ncs17.htm 07/10/97 - 08:26 AM ET Airlines to start profiling, bag matching New security measures for domestic flights, combining limited bag matching with a controversial computerized profiling system, will be operating by Dec. 31, Federal Aviation Administration officials said Wednesday. But the proposal, scaled down from what a presidential commission recommended in September, immediately drew fire from airline safety and civil rights proponents. The FAA will require that "first, passengers are profiled and selected bags are searched or matched," said Bruce Butterworth, director of civil aviation security operations, in an interview with USA TODAY. Airlines are expected to match bags with about 5% of fliers. A computerized profiling system will identify those who might pose a security risk. Example: passengers who buy tickets with cash. If someone matches the profile, their bags would not be stowed until they actually board the plane. Total bag matching is routine on international flights. But American Airlines executive vice president Robert Baker says he doubts that the Dec. 31 deadline will be met because airlines are still developing a profiling system. "We'll be lucky to have this in place by next year," he says. The FAA says it was encouraged that a test of bag matching in May at 12 U.S. airports didn't cause massive delays. Proponents of 100% bag matching say the FAA caved into the airlines' demands. "This weakens the whole idea of bag matching. It's about time the FAA decides whether it's on the side of profits for the airlines or on the side of safety," says Susan Cohen, whose daughter was killed by the terrorist bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988. The presidential commission had proposed that every passenger be matched with every bag on all domestic flights. But after the airlines objected, fearing massive delays, it agreed to a combination of profiling and limited matching. Others say profiling may discriminate against some ethnic groups. "Passengers should not have to give up essential liberties just to get on planes," says the ACLU's Gregory Nojeim. By Donna Rosato, USA TODAY

4 3

[NEWS] Computer Coding Could Cripple Cops, FBI Warns
by Dave Del Torto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Computer Coding Could Cripple Cops, FBI Warns By Aaron Pressman WASHINGTON, July 9 (Reuter) - FBI Director Louis Freeh on Wednesday issued his sternest warning yet that widespread use of computer encoding technology could wreak havoc on crime-fighting efforts. But computer industry participants warned that U.S. restrictions on encryption products, which scramble information and render it unreadable without a password or software "key," would merely boost sales by foreign companies. Freeh urged Congress to promote the use of a type of encryption that allows law enforcement agents to crack the codes by getting access to the software keys. "Law enforcement is in unanimous agreement that the widespread use of robust non-key recovery encryption ultimately will devastate our ability to fight crime and prevent terrorism," the FBI director testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Freeh has spoken out numerous times against the unrestricted export of strong encryption products, but his remarks Wednesday focused mainly on the threat to law enforcement efforts within the United States. Current laws impose tight controls on encryption exports but domestic use is completely unregulated and some scholars believe restrictions on U.S. citizens might be unconstitutional. Much of Wednesday's hearing rehashed well-worn arguments in the encryption debate. The software industry has backed legislation to relax export controls and promote the use of encryption as a means of securing electronic commerce and global communications over the Internet. Freeh and other members of the Clinton administration oppose those policies. Sen. Patrick Leahy, who is co-sponsor of a bill to dramatically relax export controls, argued that use of encryption could help prevent crimes. "Taking affirmative steps to use strong encryption can aid law enforcement and protect national security by limiting the threat of industrial espionage and foreign spying, and reducing the vulnerability of electronic information to online snoops and breaches of privacy," the Vermont Democrat said. Raymond Ozzie, author of the popular Lotus Notes messaging software, said the private sector's experience with key recovery schemes revealed significant problems. "All key management systems are inherently subject to failure of one sort or another," Ozzie, chairman of IBM Corp. <IBM.N> subsidiary Iris Associates, testified. "Mandated key management and key recovery methods remove diversity and centralize our vulnerabilities," he said. "This is likely to increase crime," Ozzie said. In addition to the Leahy measure, the Senate is also considering a bill sponsored by Sen. John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and Sen. Bob Kerrey, Democrat of Nebraska. That measure would continue to strictly limit export of encryption without key recovery and require all computer networks used by the federal government or funded in part by the government to include key recovery. The Kerrey-McCain bill faces substantial opposition in the Senate, said Marc Rotenberg, director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a Washington-based cyber civil rights group. "I don't think it has clear sailing on the Senate side," he said. An industry-backed bill in the House similiar to the Leahy approach has strong support and is expected to be approved by the International Relations Committee there soon, Rotenberg added. Wednesday, 9 July 1997 17:45:40 RTRS [nN09285032]

1 0

A cheery note from USA Today
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://www.usatoday.com/usafront.htm This from their little happy factiod section... "Since FDA approval of Prozac in 1987, the number of Americans taking the anti-depressant has grown to 20 million." And considering the side-effects of Prozac, it is any wonder we live in a sexually frustrated nation?

1 0

Re: Hacker cracks ESPN
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Lynn Harrison wrote: >Starwave is warning customers about an "intruder" who took credit card >numbers from the ESPN and NBA Web sites and then sent messages to the card >owners about the alleged security flaws. Will the security breach on the >popular sports sites affect emerging e-commerce efforts? Is this the same story as the one in The Wall Street Journal today about Phiber Optic's "accidentally" sending worldwide a security test that automatically returns passwords stored on supposedly secure systems? Phiber claims he did not know the test would generate a flood of passwords to his e-mail address: from corps, mils, and govs. Says he's so sorry, especially because he's still doing community service. Phiber's employer refused to name the computer corp that installed the secure system Phiber was testing. However, experts interviewed said the password snarf feature is, ahem, well-known to experts, and that the only security worth trusting is the one you build and run yourself and test frequently and still makes you lay awake at night shivering in doubt fear and uncertainty -- like guilty-parental senators, TLA directors, and all the world's bearers of the public trust and such fundy druggies.

4 3

Re: Acclivity - A global web of change management
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At , Marc Fourny wrote: >7 finally, we train the change team to innovate, install and implement new structures and systems. In addition we develop a new project management capability which is particularly key to success when radical change is involved. > >I would welcome the opportunity therefore of discussing with you your own tranformation programme to see how we might be able to add value to your own resources. ............................................................ Well, we could use some help with the Revolution. We need a crack team of precision go-getters who will lead the way towards the new anarcho-capitalist utopia, overcoming all the obvious & sundry obstacles in the way, particularly over by D.C. way. Or, how about another way to have an alternative internet which develops the way it originally grew and became so popular, before commercial organizations and spamming gold-diggers noticed it and got this idea that they could syphon advantages from it if only they could just control it, shaping it in their image, turning it in their direction. That would do it, for me. <g> .. Blanc

1 0

Re: Cast of Characters for Crypto Politics (Judiciary Hearing)
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:15 PM 7/10/97 +0200, Anonymous wrote: > Does anyone know what color Blanc wears? ....................................................... White. .. Blanc

1 0

Subject: Re: The Recent Trend in "Collective Contracts"
by Peter Swire 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:12 PM 7/10/97 -0700, Marshall Clow wrote: >> <snip from previous posts> >> The big legal fight on ratings is whether any "state action" takes >>place. The First Amendment governs efforts by a federal or state government >>to restrict speech. If private companies "voluntarily" agree to do >>something, the First Amendment simply does not apply. But if the coercive >>power of the state forces them to do the same thing, then the courts can get >>involved under the First Amendment. >> Here, if the government is too explicit that it will ban certain >>speech unless the networks ban it, then a court might find that the >>government in fact is involved in an impermissible way. >> >What is the (legal) downside to a network (or producer) >saying "No, I won't rate my shows."? >Personally, I'd love to see Disney do this. Today's papers are filled with the new "voluntary" rating system that most of the networks agreed to. One of the threats, for whoever didn't join, would be a *ban* on violent programming before 10 p.m. Networks that did join would do the rating, and so would not be subject to the ban. So, the analysis really takes two steps: (1) If "voluntary" and "private", the courts don't get involved under the first amendment, because no state action. Yesterday, Camel announced that it "voluntarily" had decided to stop using Joe Camel. (2) If "involuntary" and "state action", then it's like the CDA case. The Court looks at the size of the burden on protected speech, and then looks to see if their is a less restrictive alternative. For instance, the "no violence before 10 p.m." rule would be scrutinized like the "indecency" provision in the CDA. Then you go to Vegas and bet on what the courts will say. :) Peter Prof. Peter Swire Ohio State University College of Law mailto:swire.1@osu.edu web: http://www.osu.edu/units/law/swire.htm (in early stages of construction)

1 0

Re: NEWS: Freedom of Movement Could Cripple Cops, FBI Warns
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Fri, 11 Jul 1997, Tim May wrote: > No comment needed. > > >Freedom of Movement Could Cripple Cops, FBI Warns > > > > By Klaus Prime > > > >WASHINGTON, July 9 (Reuter) - FBI Director Louis Freeh on Wednesday issued > >his sternest warning yet that freedom of movement by citizen units could > >wreak havoc on crime-fighting efforts. This is proof that Freeh has finally learnt to read, and has completed (we hope) "1984" and is applying it to his own world. Perhaps Freeh wasn't allowed to become a Big Brother, for the group of the same name. On Fri, 11 Jul 1997, Tim May wrote: > No comment needed. > > >Freedom of Movement Could Cripple Cops, FBI Warns > > > > By Klaus Prime > > > >WASHINGTON, July 9 (Reuter) - FBI Director Louis Freeh on Wednesday issued > >his sternest warning yet that freedom of movement by citizen units could > >wreak havoc on crime-fighting efforts. This is proof that Freeh has finally learnt to read, and has completed (we hope) "1984" and is applying it to his own world. Perhaps Freeh wasn't allowed to become a Big Brother, for the group of the same name.

1 0