December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Flag Burning...
by David Downey 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 22:29:56 -0700 >To: "David Downey" <digital_matrix(a)hotmail.com>, nicol(a)highway1.com.au >From: Bill Frantz <frantz(a)netcom.com> >Subject: Re: Flag Burning... > >Yet she's only as rich as the poorest of the poor, >Only as free as a padlocked prison door, >Only as strong as our love for this land, >Only as tall as we stand. > > - Phil Ochs > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Bill Frantz | The Internet was designed | Periwinkle -- Consulting >(408)356-8506 | to protect the free world | 16345 Englewood Ave. >frantz(a)netcom.com | from hostile governments. | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA > > > As we say in the army, "Damn Skippy!" =========================================================== Though referenced by it's government, a country is defined by it's people. For it is not it's government that makes a country, but it's people. The government is just a place to put the useless. :-) God does have a sense of humor.... He forgave our sins, and gave us government for penance! ----------------------------------------------------------- Type Bits/KeyID Date User ID pub 2048/1D9A78C1 1997/06/11 Case(a)EarthCorp.com -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.3ia mQENAjOey8AAAAEIAMEeGm4eYssbREAQZbAgRSIXPKwNAG9KSb7PZAUfLk0jBcez rQqE19DQKVMGBlK7OR5JxImHTU1bUrX5oUax8yWzsE2uFra+wxiyLHJjCkqPkF6h jAmJBQVeeAfJqOldHsebhUEg+sEUOJ3IRNggA9Fj2dUKmYFWlcSqqe5ijsU4rFEX keR/TAjhr2wXqBMYdCllIUn4+HpnxpQWhY5YkyJ/trjCLdGVdcFisChBKmQ+TxMx V1BnNn2mqdi/dNFrVc7IPX3JDj6YhhGoRGmwFu8GFT0FZMuA8mtdRur25VaXQcxM XtFs02WxpZ20ZAUBibBxLNmgpRLUYs/9Rx2aeMEABRG0EkNhc2VARWFydGhDb3Jw LmNvbYkBFQIFEDOey8Biz/1HHZp4wQEBVtIH/jF1qU05oIxL6CSAQeSy7ERIhcUz Xb4E+S/pnpawUk8qZ4XXvyL1kKScKB+qFCsM80XIC5XuOJRxUR8raWiXyyuqBjF/ RR+91LFs02qQ9Cn3zNOW0XA+Yk/ShgFn2l0I9MW32/HX9pcH7ycMm3TUsHSjkAon wbcGkFQK2X2yWD3xEFKN4X+FqNS6iZE/HTapUFfRbCevANvChOo9stAv0bxc3mmi j7TJJemU5GW17Ji/IN9NUZCsfo3Rddiu5gHFhkphtKHgiXdbEzHrYWidH3w8SVGh yo3sIrIXxI/3LCVaWGM42+IXI0mFauuO0nyqaHRGyMERVSSwVl2zINGU1TM= =urPi -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- --------------------------------------------------------- Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ---------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Rep. Lofgren on McCain/Kerrey (good. long.)
by David Downey 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: geeman(a)best.com >Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 23:33:27 -0700 >To: cypherpunks(a)algebra.com >Subject: Rep. Lofgren on McCain/Kerrey (good. long.) > >Check our new domain names! >http://www.netforward.com >v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v > Earlier this week, Mr. Dan Gillmore, columnist for the San Jose >Mercury News discussed the problems with S. 909 and strongly urged a >rejection of the McCain-Kerrey approach. I submit his column into the >Congressional Record. > > [From the San Jose Mercury News, June 23, 1997] > > Encryption Bill: Federal Exercise in Self-Deception > > (By Dan Gillmor) > > As a bill bearing his name zipped last week through the > Senate Commerce Committee he heads, Arizona Republican John > McCain said, ``This bill carefully seeks to balance the > concerns of law enforcement with individual privacy > concerns.'' > The legislation, co-sponsored by Nebraska Democrat Bob > Kerrey and two other Democrats, was the latest futile attempt > in Congress to achieve the impossible: compromise on an issue > that fundamentally has no middle ground. > The issue is encryption, the scrambling of digital > information. Try as they might, lawmakers must eventually > understand the reality. When it comes to the privacy of > personal information in the digital age, we have two simple > choices. Either we allow people to encrypt their messages, > using scrambling and unscrambling ``keys'' to which only they > have access, or we do not. > Governments are certain that bad people will use encryption > to help achieve bad ends. They're right. But their cure would > shred our basic liberties. Do ya really think the powers that be really care? Let's hope they do! > So the Clinton administration and its allies--the McCain- > Kerrey legislation is widely viewed as an administration- > approved plan--are pushing a policy that would force us to > put descrambling keys in the hands of third parties. Then, > when law enforcement people wanted to see our communications, > they'd simply get the keys from that third party. > The McCain-Kerrey bill pretends to stop short of that. It > would force government agencies to use only electronic > hardware and software that included this key-recovery scheme. > It would also require the same system for anyone using a > network that is funded in any way by federal funds, including > virtually all university networks. Seems inherently dangerous to me, everything about you is on a system or systems somewhere, and most of them have used federal funds in their startup and continue to use them. Doesn't that grant the governments almost total access to your past present and future? I KNOW I don't want ANYONE having THAT much access to my life. What I don't understand is what makes them tjink we'll just roll over and accept this without a fight? > While one section calls the system ``voluntary'' for > private individuals, the rest of the legislation would make > it all but impossible to resist. Hardware and software > companies, which so far have resisted the government's moves, > will be much more likely to simply give in and build this > key-recovery method into all of their products if they have > to build it into ones bought by the government. Consumers > need options, not monolithic products. Seems to me that that is EXACTLY what the government wants. If they can't pass it legally, they figure they'll use economical pressure. Hell, they've been doing it to China, Vietnam, Russia and a host of others for years! Why shouldn't they apply the concept locally? > Another section of the bill would, in effect, require even > private citizens to use such software--and therefore give > their keys to the third parties--if they want to buy anything > online. People tend to use what they have in front of them. Isn't control of the economy too powerful of a tool for the government? Can anyone hear the whistling? It's the sound of the government sword slicing through our pocketbooks and into our liberties and rights. > There's nothing wrong with the idea of letting a third > party hold onto a descrambling key in certain cases. As > former White House official Jock Gill noted recently on an > Internet mailing list, all government communications should > use such a system so the public can keep an eye on what the > government is doing in our name and with our money. We'll > need to create a system, of course, where such oversight > doesn't end up forcing the public to use exactly the same > technology for its own encryption needs--or at least keep > private keys out of the hands of centralized third parties. > Companies, meanwhile, will need to hold onto the business- > related keys of employees, so that vital records won't be > lost when someone leaves or dies. But I can't think of many > companies that will be happy about giving the vault keys to > third parties they can't control. > Private citizens also should consider giving their keys to > trusted third parties, just as they give their house keys to > neighbors when on vacation trips. I intend to do just that-- > but it's none of the government's business who gets my > personal encryption key. I need strong encryption, as the > digital age arrives, because more and more of my life will > exist on these public networks. Yeah, and how many of them does the government have pull with? Quite a few considering that they back most corporate companies with tax dollars and schools with federal grants. > The practical difficulties of setting up a centralized key- > recovery system are immense. Even if it could be done, I > would never trust such a government-run system to be even > remotely secure from corruption. I remember the Social > Security employees who sold personal information to > outsiders. I've also seen too much evidence that governments > tend to abuse liberties when they have too much power--and > the McCain-Kerrey bill would allow virtually anyone at any > level of law enforcement to have access to private > information on the flimsiest pretext, not even requiring a > court order. This is starting to sound like the beginnings of a Martial State. Slowly control the population in every aspect of their lives and when you have enough control, who's gonna fight you when you really start cracking the whip? If you control everything that affects their lives, NO ONE! Control their economy, their privacy, their children, and you control them. Even better, get them to help you in the names of their children, their rights, and make them feel like thy are in greatr danger that they actually are and they'll just hand you the reins! Hmmmmmm... doesn't this sound like our current situation?? > Kerrey's participation in this latest travesty is sad. He > needs no lessons in courage. He lost part of a leg in > Vietnam. Later, as he stood up to the know-nothings who would > ban flag-burning, he noted that our strength comes partly > from our ability to express ourselves even in ways that > offend many others. Now, however, Kerrey is aligning himself > with a much more dangerous crowd of know-nothings: those who'd > > ban our right to keep private information private. He may believe > this is about finding common ground; if so, someone has fed him > falsehoods. His proposal, if enacted, would create the worst > invasion of our fundamental liberty in many decades. How many times have we watched the better part of valiant, couragous, and honorable men and women be seduced by power, greed, corruption, and just plain old not thinking straight? > If you care even slightly about your privacy in the future, > pick up a pen today and write your Senators and member of the > House of Representatives. Tell them to reject the Clinton- > McCain-Kerrey approach. Tell them you value your privacy and > won't give it up without a fight. And remind them that you > vote. Yes, we vote. Yes, we care. Yes, WE WILL FIGHT!!! =========================================================== Though referenced by it's government, a country is defined by it's people. For it is not it's government that makes a country, but it's people. The government is just a place to put the useless. :-) God does have a sense of humor.... He forgave our sins, and gave us government for penance! ----------------------------------------------------------- Type Bits/KeyID Date User ID pub 2048/1D9A78C1 1997/06/11 Case(a)EarthCorp.com -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.3ia mQENAjOey8AAAAEIAMEeGm4eYssbREAQZbAgRSIXPKwNAG9KSb7PZAUfLk0jBcez rQqE19DQKVMGBlK7OR5JxImHTU1bUrX5oUax8yWzsE2uFra+wxiyLHJjCkqPkF6h jAmJBQVeeAfJqOldHsebhUEg+sEUOJ3IRNggA9Fj2dUKmYFWlcSqqe5ijsU4rFEX keR/TAjhr2wXqBMYdCllIUn4+HpnxpQWhY5YkyJ/trjCLdGVdcFisChBKmQ+TxMx V1BnNn2mqdi/dNFrVc7IPX3JDj6YhhGoRGmwFu8GFT0FZMuA8mtdRur25VaXQcxM XtFs02WxpZ20ZAUBibBxLNmgpRLUYs/9Rx2aeMEABRG0EkNhc2VARWFydGhDb3Jw LmNvbYkBFQIFEDOey8Biz/1HHZp4wQEBVtIH/jF1qU05oIxL6CSAQeSy7ERIhcUz Xb4E+S/pnpawUk8qZ4XXvyL1kKScKB+qFCsM80XIC5XuOJRxUR8raWiXyyuqBjF/ RR+91LFs02qQ9Cn3zNOW0XA+Yk/ShgFn2l0I9MW32/HX9pcH7ycMm3TUsHSjkAon wbcGkFQK2X2yWD3xEFKN4X+FqNS6iZE/HTapUFfRbCevANvChOo9stAv0bxc3mmi j7TJJemU5GW17Ji/IN9NUZCsfo3Rddiu5gHFhkphtKHgiXdbEzHrYWidH3w8SVGh yo3sIrIXxI/3LCVaWGM42+IXI0mFauuO0nyqaHRGyMERVSSwVl2zINGU1TM= =urPi -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- --------------------------------------------------------- Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ---------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Flag Burning...
by David Downey 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Obviously not. And >> before ya ask what that has to do with it, let me just say now... >> It's like riding a Harley, if we have to explain it to you, you wouldn't >> understand. > >That, my friend, is pissweak. "I understand, but you CANT because I >am better than you . . . " Get a life, learn to communicate >effectively. > > > > >Neter Picol >Global Media Magnet >godhead(a)vrl.com.au > >"Two daughters of a silk merchant live it Kyoto, >The elder is twenty, the younger, eighteen. >A soldier may kill with his sword, >But these girls slay men with their eyes." ================================================================= THAT, my friend, just ended ANY chance of coomunication between the two of us. When you start thinking you are better than someone else, you have stepped over the line. BTW, the spelling for dood is D U D E! Learn to spell before you start thinking you're better than anyone else. Baby steps, baby steps! And as to the imperialist comment. Give it a rest, folks have been saying that for years. Ever heard of dancing to your OWN beat. Give the badwagon some room. Too many on it as it is now. And as for me getting a life. I have one. I live in America! :-) =========================================================== Though referenced by it's government, a country is defined by it's people. For it is not it's government that makes a country, but it's people. The government is just a place to put the useless. :-) God does have a sense of humor.... He forgave our sins, and gave us government for penance! ----------------------------------------------------------- Type Bits/KeyID Date User ID pub 2048/1D9A78C1 1997/06/11 Case(a)EarthCorp.com -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.3ia mQENAjOey8AAAAEIAMEeGm4eYssbREAQZbAgRSIXPKwNAG9KSb7PZAUfLk0jBcez rQqE19DQKVMGBlK7OR5JxImHTU1bUrX5oUax8yWzsE2uFra+wxiyLHJjCkqPkF6h jAmJBQVeeAfJqOldHsebhUEg+sEUOJ3IRNggA9Fj2dUKmYFWlcSqqe5ijsU4rFEX keR/TAjhr2wXqBMYdCllIUn4+HpnxpQWhY5YkyJ/trjCLdGVdcFisChBKmQ+TxMx V1BnNn2mqdi/dNFrVc7IPX3JDj6YhhGoRGmwFu8GFT0FZMuA8mtdRur25VaXQcxM XtFs02WxpZ20ZAUBibBxLNmgpRLUYs/9Rx2aeMEABRG0EkNhc2VARWFydGhDb3Jw LmNvbYkBFQIFEDOey8Biz/1HHZp4wQEBVtIH/jF1qU05oIxL6CSAQeSy7ERIhcUz Xb4E+S/pnpawUk8qZ4XXvyL1kKScKB+qFCsM80XIC5XuOJRxUR8raWiXyyuqBjF/ RR+91LFs02qQ9Cn3zNOW0XA+Yk/ShgFn2l0I9MW32/HX9pcH7ycMm3TUsHSjkAon wbcGkFQK2X2yWD3xEFKN4X+FqNS6iZE/HTapUFfRbCevANvChOo9stAv0bxc3mmi j7TJJemU5GW17Ji/IN9NUZCsfo3Rddiu5gHFhkphtKHgiXdbEzHrYWidH3w8SVGh yo3sIrIXxI/3LCVaWGM42+IXI0mFauuO0nyqaHRGyMERVSSwVl2zINGU1TM= =urPi -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- --------------------------------------------------------- Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ---------------------------------------------------------

1 0

All Tomorrow's Parties -- CDA II -- from the Netly News
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 07:15:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: All Tomorrow's Parties -- CDA II -- from the Netly News http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/opinion/0,1042,1113,00.html The Netly News June 26, 1997 All Tomorrow's Parties by Team Netly (thenetlynews(a)pathfinder.com) The fun-loving "trolls" of Bianca's Smut Shack celebrated today's Communications Decency Act ruling by sleeping in. Christopher Miller and David Thau stumbled awake at 10:10 am today, just in time to read the decision that said it was legal to post "indecent" material on your web site -- something clearly important to the Biancanauts, who are travelling cross-country in a psychedelic RV commemorating the summer of love. "It's kind of weird to celebrate the overturning of something that's clearly unconstitutional, but of course we have something to celebrate because it's going to keep us from jail," said Thau. The celebration may be premature. The CDA II, after all, is expected to crawl out of the grave like a flesh-dripping zombie. But you'd never know it from the high-bandwidth rhetoric that flooded the Net today after the Supreme Court decision. The Electronic Privacy Information Center cried that "today's opinion defines the First Amendment for the next century." Histrionics also were flying furiously around San Francisco's South Park, where the faithful rallied. "The Internet freedom fighters are as strong as the students at Tiananmen Square," said the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Mike Godwin -- to a crowd composed almost entirely of journalists. "Today is the first day of the new American Revolution, the Digital Revolution.." (A phrase that happens to be trademarked by Wired, a sponsor of the rally.) The victorious shouts of the way-new stalwarts were matched by the angry screams of the censor-happy CDA supporters. "The safety net is gone," says Donna Rice-Hughes, communication director for Enough Is Enough. "There is no law against an adult sending a naked picture of himself to a child over the Internet or through e-mail." If Rice-Hughes has her way, the high court's decision to drive a stake through the heart of the much-reviled law will mean the threat to free speech online has expired only for a while. "Frankly, this ruling provides a road map on how to more specfically draft legislation," says Heidi Stirrup, director of government relations for the Christian Coalition. "Our beleaguered American family has been put on notice by the Court that it will do nothing to help the family even when the president and Congress work together against a problem that everyone says is bad -- providing indecent material to children." This isn't entirely true. The ruling -- which talked of "vast democratic fora" online -- does not mean that the Internet is now a free-speech zone where anything goes. After all, the CDA only restricted "indecent" materials, an undefined category that could include art, literature, even humor and sex ed. materials. Distributing obscenity -- sexual works without "redeeming value" -- will remain a crime. The Court noted this in its ruling today: "Transmitting obscenity and child pornography, whether via the Internet or other means, is already illegal under federal law for both adults and juveniles." President Clinton, who endorsed the act, also vowed not to give up. "We can and must develop a solution for the Internet that is as powerful for the computer as the v-chip will be for the television, and that protects children in ways that are consistent with America's free speech values," he said. "We're certainly going to support Congress' efforts to develop another bill to protect kids. They're not going to stop and we're going to help them to do it," says Bruce Taylor, president of the National Law Center for Children and Families. Taylor predicts that a CDA II might stress labelling all your web pages with PICS or RSACi if you want to stay out of jail: "Remember I told you nobody's going to do PICS? It's a monster nobody wants to feed. Who's going to rate 10 zillion web sites?" Well, nobody -- unless you force people to use it. Which is what some members of Congress are trying. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) is preparing to introduce a bill that will try to convince a dubious public to rate its pages with RSACi, a self-rating system backed by Microsoft. (A company which, just coincidentally, is headquartered in her state.) Nevermind that even MSNBC stopped ratings its pages with RSACi because the system proved unworkable for news sites. Murray's proposed bill, called the "Childsafe Internet Act of 1997," says someone who "includes a rating" on their site "may not be held liable" for "any material on the site that is unsuitable for minors." That's the carrot. Then the stick: you can't post material "unsuitable for minors" on a site that's rated for kids. "Whoever accesses a site on the Internet rated by the person establishing the site as having no material unsuitable for minors and knowingly makes available on or through the site any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other material unsuitable for minors, shall be imprisoned... for not more than two years," the bill says. The constitutionality of such legislation was affirmed in today's minority opinion of Justices O'Connor and Rehnquist, in which they talk of "zoning laws" for the Internet. Real world zoning laws are what keep children out of porno stores and require buildings to be wheelchair-accessible. These laws passed constitutional muster long ago, and the underlying intent of the CDA was largely to shield minors from indecent material. Trouble is, Internet technology isn't yet capable of ensuring the existence of adult-only zones. Yet. Thus argued O'Connor: "Until gateway technology is available throughout cyberspace, and it is not in 1997, a speaker cannot be reasonably assured that the speech he displays will reach only adults because it is impossible to confine speech to an 'adult zone.'" What all this means is Congressional attempts to pass another law to muzzle the Net won't need to be a flat ban on "indecency." Rather, they'll rely on PICS and RSACi. (Ironically, a technology designed to head off the CDA might be the linchpin of CDA II.) Next month President Clinton plans to meet with industry leaders in much the same way he met with broadcast executives last year and came up with a V-Chip. His goal this time: to do the same for the Net. Meanwhile, slap-happy netizens will probably still be partying down -- the D.C.-based CIEC folks are hanging out in the 18th Street Lounge right now -- basking in the high court's warm and fuzzy afterglow, and happily smoking a bowl of their own rhetoric. ###

5 6

Re: Bomb Making Info to be Illegal
by Secret Squirrel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Paul Bradley <paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk> wrote: >I think I >may, if I have some time in the next few days, put together a quick >website telling people the best fish to use etc. and inciting them to use >this as a method of assasinating MPs... Surely oranges would be a better choice for MPs? Hell, dress them up in stockings and suspenders first and they'd probably write it off as accidental death. OrangeMonger

1 0

No Subject
by bureau42 Anonymous Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

(Special note: this new remailer is destination-blocked for the Cypherpunks list, in all known incarnations. It's noisy enough without this contribution :) Bureau 42 Enterprises is proud to announce a new remailer! remailer(a)bureau42.ml.org supports both Type-I and Mixmaster messages. $remailer{"bureau42"} = "<remailer(a)bureau42.ml.org>" cpunk pgp hash latent cut mix Be aware: The remailer is running on the slow end of a UUCP link. There _will_ be latency. Lots of it. Here's the keys. People in charge, please add these to the relevant lists. bureau42 remailer(a)bureau42.ml.org 684d5ea06f1d2a46c45e55eb9758cf61 2.0.3 -----Begin Mix Key----- 684d5ea06f1d2a46c45e55eb9758cf61 258 AAS8YXDO/ZtBIdeFfCbQBdXYJvzYXO1WkUgExMa+ brxMUiI6UC89ZF+zjSYbPsOHaSSD/ljIBde46Dg2 L076Klarxl28BP3VtIdHDfs64X+CfxulJjORWIhi FTG3NWa7gIs2OADgcUSzy4/UGN0FqhsAT0skFWUw DQ+SSfJbLrhz6QAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAB -----End Mix Key----- Here is the PGP Public Key for bureau42 Anonymous Remailer -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQCNAzNw0EkAAAEEAOdhlFnWook3MO3QoB2isVgJXMfauV2A5CKgfd09P7VGccP7 Z27HuI2LSMd23fcGe0uVLxYFMvOUCRgLoXYeqXLUEX6eHPIFtd7B3FkfR03Aj+GT PfmTupqp4Wc5cODDuXOe6Y0x30QffuX3BjNfSvEa2iniLer5ac5Daand9AJhAAUR tDZidXJlYXU0MiBBbm9ueW1vdXMgUmVtYWlsZXIgPHJlbWFpbGVyQGJ1cmVhdTQy Lm1sLm9yZz6JAJUDBRAzcNC2zkNpqd30AmEBAQw4A/9OFw6t3x2BhDSNEBLD78rl SfZsReDpF1yt0t+MQ0yNyaTciByDPtw+9tL9L+X9Gm0FAri6t+uelqaK4XR71POD 8VyCylWHkWHDfY8N53pJt8VV8LL4NcR3Go8tBVbo37BSuRDPbFyBAvy4EH3UbRI4 eYIKOcBsHlgSP2R7aFhCuw== =sN96 -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

1 0

"Tin Drum" Obscene in Oklahoma
by Mike Duvos 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It used to be that mainstream motion pictures were territory child porn hysterics didn't go near, for fear of losing high profile cases and creating case law detrimental to their cause. Yet, as the creeping definition of child porn has moved to include fully clothed children, and any simulated depiction of the sexuality of minors, it was inevitable that the child porn hysterics would finally feel powerful enough turn their crusade towards award winning motion pictures containing ideas that Bible thumpers and their ilk would rather not have available to the masses. It is therefore no huge surprise that an Ohlahoma Judge has ruled that the Oscar-winning film "Tin Drum" is obscene, and contains scenes that constitute child pornography. Police have seized videos of the movie from libraries and video stores, and have gone to the homes of people who rented the film to seize the tapes. The Oklahoma ACLU director has called the action "Gestapo-type tactics" and vows to fight the ruling in court. Should be Mapplethorpe all over again. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ enoch(a)zipcon.com $ via Finger $

1 0

Interesting Supreme Court decision on Brady Bill at http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZS.html
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZS.html A messy 5-4 decision, with two concurrences and three dissents. Overturns the part of the Brady Bill that forces local officials to perform some of the administrative functions. Lots of complex commentary.

13 22

Gentlemen, Over 18? Read This...
by Studio＠64.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This is a one time only E-mail. Your name will be automatically deleted from our list after this message. If you are not interested in this offer, Studio 64 apologizes for this inconvenience. ************************************************************************************ GENTLEMEN, HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE MONEY PROVIDING INTIMATE SERVICES TO HOT, HORNY WOMEN ? More and more men are discovering that they can make $500 - $1000 weekly simply by giving lonely ladies the affection and companionship they so desperately desire. Do you like women ? Do you love sex ? Have a few free hours a week to devote to your own business ? Could you use the extra cash ? Part time or full time, at home or wherever, you can get started today with a few easy steps. Imagine your own private business, where you yourself are your own best asset, minimal investment, great returns, plus the undeniable pleasure of making love to dozens of lusty, horny women who want nothing more than to be pampered by an adoring stranger- no strings attached. Whether you like young, firm, fresh college girls or older sophisticated working women, petite or tall and leggy, or voluptuous, busty, full-lipped sex bombs, you can have them all or whichever ones please you - selecting specifically the ladies you'd like to see. Wine them, dine them, entertain and bed them. Get paid to make love to as many hot blondes and sultry brunnettes, lonely housewives and succulent sweeties as you can handle. You don't need above average looks or a $100,000 car. All you need is the know how, a healthy sexual appetite and a willingness to get hot and heavy with a woman until she's satisfied. WE'LL SHOW YOU HOW !! We'll give you specific tips for starting and running your own successful, male escort business. We'll supply you with the same killer ads that top male escorts use to attract and seduce willing ladies. You'll learn secret techniques that will have women passing your name and number on to every hot girlfriend they know. You'll get advice on where to find hundreds of beautiful women near you and how to get all of them to pay you what you want and deserve. Have you been dreaming of a job like this ? Dreaming is good, but why not make your dreams a reality ? Can you think of a better, more satisfying way to spend your spare time? ************************************************************ Information like this is selling for as much as $39.95. Our regular price is $24.95. But as a special, limited promotion, our simple easy-to-use booklet is only $19.95. That's right. For only $19.95 you can get started today. ************************************************************ Just imagine, you wake up saturday morning, cup of coffee in hand and bathrobe still on and already, there are a half - a - dozen calls for you from horny women wanting you to spend an hour or two with them. And you are free to see whichever ones you please, make love to them for as long as you like and best of all- leave their bedrooms with a pocketfull of crisp bills. Order today and you'll not only receive our special " How To Get Started As A Male Escort " booklet but you'll also receive one of our best selling companion booklets " How To Please A Woman In Bed " absolutely free. This super report includes advice on: How to Master Forplay, Learning Masturbation for Men and for Women, Advanced Oral Techniques and How To Keep A Woman Cumming Back Time and Time Again. ************************************************************ This report is for adults only and contains explicit sexual acts. ************************************************************Think about it. For the price of dinner you could get all the tools you need to get started today giving pleasure to beautiful ladies and getting paid for it. Gentlemen, there's no greater opportunity than the one offered here. Hurry. This special promotion ends July 20th. ************************************************************ For the easiest way to order, hit your print button now. ************************************************************ Because this information is of an adult nature, you must be over 18 years of age to order. Please enclose with the following a Check, Money Order or Cash in the amount of $19.95. Address to Studio 64, 1163 E. Ogden Ave, Suite 705-183, Naperville, Illinois, 60563. ( Please Print) Name__________________________________________________ Address_____________________________City, State_____________ E-Mail Address (optional)___________________________________ I am over 18 years of age (signature please)_______________ Please allow 2-3 weeks for delivery. Thank you.

1 0

Netly interviews Donna Rice-Hughes and Sen. Coats staffer
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[The day before the CDA decision came down, I interviewed David Crane from Sen. "CDA II Real Soon Now" Coats' office and Noah interviewed Donna Rice-Hughes. Recall Coats was the chief GOP sponsor of the original CDA. Here are excerpts. --Declan] *********** http://www.pathfinder.com/news/netdecency/rice.html Interview with Donna Rice-Hughes, Enough is Enough The Netly News June 26, 1997 [...] Q: WHY DO YOU SAY THERE IS SO MUCH MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT THE CDA IN THE INTERNET COMMUNITY? I think there's been a lot of misinformation about what this is all about and what the CDA would do if it is upheld. I think there have been some scare tactics, quite frankly, and that's why you have people concerned about speech. This is an area that the public hasn't had to understand the nuances of until now. You have a lot of people who have been using the Internet for years for the contructive purposes for which it was designed. Now it's becoming more commercial and you have pedophiles, pornographers and people who are just posting their private collections of pornography and polluting it, exploiting that technology. A few bad apples are spoiling it for everyone else. If it wasn't for that then we wouldn't be having this problem. Long before any of this it would have been great if the Internet community had said, "Hey, don't pollute this technology," and had imposed their own controls. But that didn't happen and it isn't happening. *********** http://www.pathfinder.com/news/netdecency/crane.html An Interview With David Crane, Legislative Assistant to CDA Cosponsor Dan Coats The Netly News June 26, 1997 [...] Q: WOULD YOU DO ANYTHING DIFFERENTLY? CHANGE THE WORDING OF THE CDA? I don't think so. One of the frustrations we experienced has been the tremendous amount of debate that has centered around the indecency standard -- and the portrayal of those who oppose it as a broadcast standard. The very federal statute we amended was a dial-a-porn statute. It was telephony, which is inherently an interactive method of communication. Despite representations to the contrary, there was a tremendous dialogue with representatives of the computer industry. We tried to strike the best balance we could. Q: YOU TOLD ME EARLIER THAT INTERNET USERS DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CDA REALLY IS ALL ABOUT. What Congress said was you're only held responsible for "knowing" violations. At that point you become responsible to solve that problem. You can't be held liable for unknowing violations. That's a distinction that's been lost in the politicking over this issue. And that's unfortunate. This is new technology and evolving technology. That's why Congress was careful not to codify a specific method of preventing access for children. What's effective today may not be effective tomorrow. We tried very much to have the CDA be flexible and be a living statute, one that would provide for advanced technologies and more restrictive technologies over time. Q:CAN YOU GIVE ME SOME EXAMPLES? A good example is PICS [a framework for Internet rating systems]. Look at the PC Week editorial. Q:THE ONE YOUR BOSS WAVED AROUND THE SENATE FLOOR? The industry has waved around PICS and said that's a solution. But what's the incentive -- for someone who's providing pornography on the Internet -- to subscribe to PICS? You're asking him to limit his potential marketplace in a voluntary way. That doesn't work. The need for the CDA is you want to say: Yes, apply technology, but you must restrict access to pornographic materials for children. If you don't do it, you'll be subject to prosecution. Q: WHAT WILL YOU DO IF THE SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN THE CDA? If the Supreme Court strikes down the CDA, we'll acknowledge that the current composition of the court is saying we don't have it right [to pass such a law] and we'll go back and operate on the precedent that was established and try again. The final verson of the CDA -- the compromise that was struck in the conference committee -- was passed overwhelmingly. There's precedent to this: the dial-a-porn law. It took several attempts before it was upheld by the Supreme Court. I think that everyone involved -- from the ACLU to a lot of the reporters on the Internet -- has misrepresented the CDA in many respects. Saying that it is a ban on indecency, that adults wouldn't be able to communicate with each other. That's patently wrong. Q: YOU SOUND LIKE YOU FEEL OUTGUNNED. The newspapers have a vested interest. Every major newspaper editorialized against the law during drafting and afterward. You're not going to be a darling of the media. The media likes to portray this as a free speech issue. This is part of the process. Q: SO NOW THE PRO-CDA FORCES ARE THE UNDERDOGS? One of the virtues of the Internet is the free flow of information. But only part of the information is being put out and that's unfortunate. This representation by opponents of the CDA that considerations of the unique nature of the Internet were not taken into account or that members and staff didn't understand the Internet or that somehow Congress didn't like the Internet or saw great danger beyond this issue -- all that is simply not true. There was consultation with the computer industry at every step of the way. We wanted to create a living law -- a flexible law -- that could grow as technologies evolved. ------------------------- Declan McCullagh Time Inc. The Netly News Network Washington Correspondent http://netlynews.com/

2 1