May 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: changes at lne.com
by Eric Murray 19 May '03

19 May '03

On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 03:21:05PM -0400, Trei, Peter wrote: > I hope you whitelist known regular posters. I subscribe to > minder, but often post thru lne. I guess it's been a while since I set this up, so people have forgotten. There's a "whitelist" that has subscribers to all the CDRs, anonymous remailers, and anyone that has ever posted to any CDR (assuming we got the mail). It's not often that there is a non-spam post from a sender that isn't on the whitelist-- when there is, I forward it and put the sender on the list. The idea is to filter out the spam without requiring moderation. Eric

3 3

[Vehicular reverse panopticonning] FBI tails can't drive
by Major Variola (ret) 19 May '03

19 May '03

Shortly before 4:30 p.m., Hatfill's car pulled into a parking spot on the street and Hatfill got out with a camera to take photos of those trailing him. Hatfill told officers the driver of the green SUV "had been recording his movements all day when he decided to take a picture back," according to the police report. The driver of the green SUV then drove off, striking Hatfill, the reports said. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10736-2003May19.html

1 0

Exciting new information on Palladium
by Nomen Nescio 19 May '03

19 May '03

There's a huge amount of (relatively) new information available on Microsoft's NGSCB, aka Palladium. Start at http://www.microsoft.com/resources/ngscb/ and try the links at the left. I'll mention two very exciting points here. Clicking on the Newsgroup link led to some discussion of a proposal by famous security guru Ernie Brickell of Intel to use zero-knowledge proofs to demonstrate that you have a good Palladium key. The discussion implies that Intel is promoting this technology for use in Palladium. Apparently Brickell presented this at the RSA conference. I can't find an online paper but here is an abstract pointed to by the newsgroup discussion: We will present an efficient protocol for demonstrating that a public signature verification key corresponds to a private signature generation key that is contained in a certified hardware device, without identifying which certified hardware device contains the private signature generation key. Each hardware device contains a unique certified key, but neither the public, nor the private unique keys are ever known outside of the hardware device. The protocol provides a verifier with the ability to revoke a hardware device. The cryptographic assumptions required are an interval RSA assumption and a Bounded Decision Diffie Hellman (DDH) assumption. The proofs use the random oracle model. We will discuss the privacy issues with cryptographic keys associated with trusted computing, and motivate the privacy requirements that were met in this protocol. We will also discuss potential performance and capability enhancements to the protocol. We had some discussion of this idea last year, but we couldn't come up with an approach that would both protect privacy and allow revocation. Sounds like Brickell has cracked this nut! That's good news for privacy advocates. Hopefully someone can point to a copy of the paper, or perhaps summarize the idea if they have seen Brickell present it. For the next point, click on the Product Information link to get to several documents about Palladium. The best one to start with (after the Overview and the FAQ, if you didn't previously know anything about this technology) is the Security Model. But the TCB paper has probably got the most meat. One of the big issues about Palladium has been the issue of signed code. Hopefully, most people don't believe any more that only signed code will run, or that Microsoft or others will limit what applications you can run, as claimed by Lucky Green and Ross Anderson. The whole point of TC is to let "trusted" applications (now called NCAs, Nexus Computing Agents) run side by side with legacy apps. Virtually everything you can run today you will be able to run in the future. And so far it still appears that Microsoft will not limit the ability of developers to write their own NCAs and make use of the TC technology. Where the question about signed code comes into play is with regard to the question of what versions of software people will choose to trust. One of the main functions of TC is "attestation", by which the secure hardware can report to a remote system a cryptographic hash of the running code. Based on this hash, the remote system can decide to trust (or not) the code running on the local machine. So for this to work, the remote system has to either have a list of acceptable hash values or perhaps it would rely on a (non-centralized) certificate that it chooses to trust for this purpose. The issue also arises with sealed storage. Another of the TC features is the ability of trusted apps to encrypt code such that it is locked to their own identity. Other programs, or other versions of the same program, would not be able to decrypt it. So again the question arises, what exactly is hashed? What happens if there are different versions of the software? The TCB article sheds considerable light on this. What will be hashed is not the program code, but rather a Manifest. This is an XML format file which includes either the program hash, or A PUBLIC KEY! This means that a distributed, trusted app can base its trust not just on the relatively-brittle program hash, but if it chooses, on a signature public key which would be used specifically for the purpose of issuing new versions of the program. Any software signed by that key would be interchangeable for Palladlium trust purposes. In addition, the Manifest can define which "code modules" (libraries? DLLs?) can be loaded by the program. This is done by inclusion/exclusion lists, which can again be either hashes or public keys, so in other words your trusted app can say to use a certain version of a DLL, or to use any version signed by the DLL author. The Manifest also holds a DEBUG FLAG! This means that trusted code can be debugged - if the Manifest says so. And if it says not to, you can just edit the Manifest file to allow it - but the Palladium identity of the program will change, since that is based on a hash of the Manifest. In other words, code can be debugged, but it will not be trusted by other non-debugged versions of the code, and it will not be able to unlock data that was locked while it was undebugged. This approach seems to offer a good balance between flexibility and security. And the best part is that it makes these decisions in a completely decentralized fashion. Microsoft doesn't have to get involved at all. Each developer and user can decide for himself what policies to set, how to configure the Manifest, and thus what software to trust. Well, there's more good stuff here, and I'm still reading. This is all apparently the same information that was distributed at the recent WinHEC conference. I would encourage those who want to know more about the reality of this new technology, rather than the fantasies being promulgated by its opponents, to study these documents closely.

1 0

Re: Good things gro-o-o-o-w, in Ontario-o-o-o...
by Anonymous 18 May '03

18 May '03

Tyler thought: > but 15 grams is enough stock for a petty dealer > to keep on hand, no?) Not likely. Most people I know buy pot by the quarter or half oz. Some by the oz. Fifteen grams is pretty small amount, just growing one plant will give you a few ounces, even a pound. OTOH, being able to walk around with 15 grams in your pocket and smoke it openly, more or less, would be fantastic.

2 1

Cypherpunks List Info
by cpunk＠lne.com 18 May '03

18 May '03

Cypherpunks Mailing List Information Last updated: Sep 12, 2002 This message is also available at http://www.lne.com/cpunk Instructions on unsubscribing from the list can be found below. 0. Introduction The Cypherpunks mailing list is a mailing list for discussing cryptography and its effect on society. It is not a moderated list (but see exceptions below) and the list operators are not responsible for the list content. Cypherpunks is a distributed mailing list. A subscriber can subscribe to one node of the list and thereby participate on the full list. Each node (called a "Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer", although they are not related to anonymous remailers) exchanges messages with the other nodes in addition to sending messages to its subscribers. A message posted to one node will be received by the list subscribers on the other nodes, and vice-versa. 1. Filtering The various CDRs follow different policies on filtering spam and to a lesser extent on modifying messages that go to/from their subscribers. Filtering is done, on nodes that do it, to reduce the huge amount of spam that the cypherpunks list is subjected to. There are three basic flavors of filtering CDRs: "raw", which send all messages to their subscribers. "cooked" CDRs try to eliminate the spam on that's on the regular list by automatically sending only messages that are from cypherpunks list subscribers (on any CDR) or people who are replying to list messages. Finally there are moderated lists, where a human moderator decides which messages from the raw list to pass on to subscribers. 2. Message Modification Message modification policy indicates what modifications, if any, beyond what is needed to operate the CDR are done (most CDRs add a tracking X-loop header on mail posted to their subscribers to prevent mail loops). Message modification usually happens on mail going in or out to each CDR's subscribers. CDRs should not modify mail that they pass from one CDR to the next, but some of them do, and others undo those modifications. 3. Privacy Privacy policy indicates if the list will allow anyone ("open"), or only list members, or no one ("private") , to retrieve the subscribers list. Note that if you post, being on a "private" list doesn't mean much, since your address is now out there. It's really only useful for keeping spammers from harvesting addresses from the list software. Digest mode indicates that the CDR supports digest mode, which is where the posts are batched up into a few large emails. Nodes that support only digest mode are noted. 4. Anonymous posting Cypherpunks encourages anonymous posting. You can use an anonymous remailer: http://www.andrebacard.com/remail.html http://anon.efga.org/Remailers http://www.gilc.org/speech/anonymous/remailer.html or you can send posts to the list via cpunks_anon(a)einstein.ssz.com and your mail's headers will be stripped before posting. Note that this doesn't provide complete anonymity since the receiving site will still have log file entries showing the source of the mail (or you have to trust that they delete them). You also will be 'sharing' a reputation with the other entities that post through this alias, and some of them are spammers, so some subscribers will have this alias filtered. 5. Unsubscribing Unsubscribing from the cypherpunks list: Since the list is run from a number of different CDRs, you have to figure out which CDR you are subscribed to. If you don't remember and can't figure it out from the mail headers (hint: the top Received: line should tell you), the easiest way to unsubscribe is to send unsubscribe messages to all the CDRs listed below. How to figure out which CDR you are subscribed to: Get your mail client to show all the headers (Microsoft calls this "internet headers"). Look for the Sender or X-loop headers. The Sender will say something like "Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)lne.com". The X-loop line will say something like "X-Loop: cypherpunks(a)lne.com". Both of these inticate that you are subscribed to the lne.com CDR. If you were subscribed to the algebra CDR, they would have algebra.com in them. Once you have figured out which CDR you're subscribed to, look in the table below to find that CDRs unsubscribe instructions. 6. Lunatics, spammers and nut-cases "I'm subscribed to a filtering CDR yet I still see lots of junk postings". At this writing there are a few sociopaths on the cypherpunks list who are abusing the lists openness by dumping reams of propaganda on the list. The distinction between a spammer and a subscriber is nearly always very clear, but the dictinction between a subscriber who is abusing the list by posting reams of propaganda and a subscriber who is making lots of controversial posts is not clear. Therefore, we tolerate the crap. Subscribers with a low crap tolerance should check out mail filters. Procmail is a good one, although it works on Unix and Unix-like systems only. Eudora also has a capacity for filtering mail, as do many other mail readers. An example procmail recipie is below, you will of course want to make your own decisions on which (ab)users to filter. # mailing lists: # filter all cypherpunks mail into its own cypherspool folder, discarding # mail from loons. All CDRs set their From: line to 'owner-cypherpunks'. # /dev/null is unix for the trash can. :0 * ^From.*owner-cypherpunks@.* { :0: * (^From:.*ravage@ssz\.com.*|\ ^From:.*jchoate@dev.tivoli.com.*|\ ^From:.*mattd@useoz.com|\ ^From:.*proffr11@bigpond.com|\ ^From:.*jei@cc.hut.fi) /dev/null :0: cypherspool } 7. List of current CDRs All commands are sent in the body of mail unless otherwise noted. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Algebra: Operator: Subscription: "subscribe cypherpunks" to majordomo(a)algebra.com Unsubscription: "unsubscribe cypherpunks" to majordomo(a)algebra.com Help: "help cypherpunks" to majordomo(a)algebra.com Posting address: cypherpunks(a)algebra.com Filtering policy: raw Message Modification policy: no modification Privacy policy: ??? Info: ??? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CCC: Operator: drt(a)un.bewaff.net Subscription: "subscribe [password of your choice]" to cypherpunks-request(a)koeln.ccc.de Unsubscription: "unsubscribe <password>" to cypherpunks-request(a)koeln.ccc.de Help: "help" to to cypherpunks-request(a)koeln.ccc.de Web site: http://koeln.ccc.de/mailman/listinfo/cypherpunks Posting address: cypherpunks(a)koeln.ccc.de Filtering policy: This specific node drops messages bigger than 32k and every message with more than 17 recipients or just a line containing "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" in the subject. Digest mode: this node is digest-only NNTP: news://koeln.ccc.de/cbone.ml.cypherpunks Message Modification policy: no modification Privacy policy: ??? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Infonex: Subscription: "subscribe cypherpunks" to majordomo(a)infonex.com Unsubscription: "unsubscribe cypherpunks" to majordomo(a)infonex.com Help: "help cypherpunks" to majordomo(a)infonex.com Posting address: cypherpunks(a)infonex.com Filtering policy: raw Message Modification policy: no modification Privacy policy: ??? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lne: Subscription: "subscribe cypherpunks" to majordomo(a)lne.com Unsubscription: "unsubscribe cypherpunks" to majordomo(a)lne.com Help: "help cypherpunks" to majordomo(a)lne.com Posting address: cypherpunks(a)lne.com Filtering policy: cooked Posts from all CDR subscribers & replies to threads go to lne CDR subscribers. All posts from other CDRs are forwarded to other CDRs unmodified. Message Modification policy: 1. messages are demimed (MIME attachments removed) when posted through lne or received by lne CDR subscribers 2. leading "CDR:" in subject line removed 3. "Reply-to:" removed Privacy policy: private Info: http://www.lne.com/cpunk; "info cypherpunks" to majordomo(a)lne.com Archive: http://archives.abditum.com/cypherpunks/index.html (thanks to Steve Furlong and Len Sassaman) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minder: Subscription: "subscribe cypherpunks" to majordomo(a)minder.net Unsubscription: "unsubscribe cypherpunks" to majordomo(a)minder.net Help: "help" to majordomo(a)minder.net Posting address: cypherpunks(a)minder.net Filtering policy: raw Message Modification policy: no modification Privacy policy: private Info: send mail to cypherpunks-info(a)minder.net --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Openpgp: [openpgp seems to have dropped off the end of the world-- it doesn't return anything from sending help queries. Ericm, 8/7/01] Subscription: "subscribe cypherpunks" to listproc(a)openpgp.net Unsubscription: "unsubscribe cypherpunks" to listproc(a)openpgp.net Help: "help" to listproc(a)openpgp.net Posting address: cypherpunks(a)openpgp.net Filtering policy: raw Message Modification policy: no modification Privacy policy: ??? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ssz: Subscription: "subscribe cypherpunks" to majordomo(a)ssz.com Unsubscription: "unsubscribe cypherpunks" to majordomo(a)ssz.com Help: "help cypherpunks" to majordomo(a)ssz.com Posting address: cypherpunks(a)ssz.com Filtering policy: raw Message Modification policy: Subject line prepended with "CDR:" Reply-to cypherpunks(a)ssz.com added. Privacy policy: open Info: http://www.ssz.com/cdr/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sunder: Subscription: "subscribe" to sunder(a)sunder.net Unsubscription: "unsubscribe" to sunder(a)sunder.net Help: "help" to sunder(a)sunder.net Posting address: sunder(a)sunder.net Filtering policy: moderated Message Modification policy: ??? Privacy policy: ??? Info: ??? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pro-ns: Subscription: "subscribe cypherpunks" to majordomo(a)pro-ns.net Unsubscription: "unsubscribe cypherpunks" to majordomo(a)pro-ns.net Help: "help cypherpunks" to majordomo(a)pro-ns.net Posting address: cypherpunks(a)pro-ns.net Filtering policy: cooked Posts from all CDR subscribers & replies to threads go to local CDR subscribers. All posts from other CDRs are forwarded to other CDRs unmodified. Message Modification policy: 1. leading "CDR:" in subject line removed 2. "Reply-to:" removed Privacy policy: private Info: http://www.pro-ns.net/cpunk

1 0

Re: Underestimating long-term consequences of cryptoanarchy
by Major Variola (ret) 18 May '03

18 May '03

At 09:47 AM 5/17/03 -0700, Tim May wrote: >The general theme is purpose "the purpose of life." The purpose of any >lifeform, or at least the outcome after competition and selection, is >furtherance of life. Genes exist to copy genes; genes cooperate to this end. Growing metazoans such as ourselves is a means to that end. >Likewise, the purpose of Congress as a generalized lifeform is to >perpetuate itself, to grow, to become more dominant. ... >I hesitate to call this a "bionomic interpretation," especially as I >never really bothered to learn what "bionomics" was all about, but it's >a kind of biological interpretation. You mention Darwin but not Richard Dawkins author of _Selfish Gene_ and later meme theories. Memes are basically ideas. They can replicate, compete, cooperate, etc. Brains are the medium in which they grow. Memes like "believe me or believers kill you" are particularly cancerous. If you haven't read Dawkins, you should, and he's quite an enjoyable read. ---- Language is an RPC call. Sheeple give it root access.

5 4

Re: Good things gro-o-o-o-w, in Ontario-o-o-o...
by Tyler Durden 18 May '03

18 May '03

"15 grams or less of marijuana, the poll found" 15 Grams? Now I haven't smoked since about 84, but as I understand it 15 grams these days could get a whole housing project high. Can anyone confirm this? (OK, an exageration, but 15 grams is enough stock for a petty dealer to keep on hand, no?) Hey Canadians, don't bogart the bowl, eh? -TD >From: Tim Meehan <cypherpunks(a)salvagingelectrons.com> >To: cypherpunks(a)lne.com >Subject: Good things gro-o-o-o-w, in Ontario-o-o-o... >Date: Sun, 18 May 2003 11:00:59 -0400 > >http://www.globeandmail.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20030517/UMARIM/… > >No laws ban possession of marijuana, court rules >Landmark Ontario decision goes beyond the decriminalization proposed by >Ottawa > >By COLIN FREEZE AND KIM LUNMAN > >UPDATED AT 10:53 AM EDT >Saturday, May. 17, 2003 > >TORONTO and OTTAWA -- Canada has no laws prohibiting marijuana possession, >an >Ontario Superior Court judge said yesterday in a ruling that will be >binding on >judges in the province and may soon be picked up across the country. > >"For today, and for the Victoria Day weekend, it's a very pleasant state of >affairs for recreational pot smokers," said criminal lawyer Paul Burstein, >who >helped argue the case successfully. > >It was the second time that a Windsor teenager who was caught smoking pot >while >playing hooky in a park has been found not to have broken any law because, >the >courts ruled, there are effectively no longer any marijuana laws to break. > >Mr. Justice Steven Rogin upheld yesterday a lower-court decision, based on >complex arguments, that has already had far-reaching influence. > >The new ruling means that proposed federal legislation to decriminalize >possession of a small amount of marijuana would actually "recriminalize" >it, >defence lawyers said yesterday. > >While the new law would impose fines for pot possession, yesterday's ruling >effectively eliminated any sanctions for simple pot possession in Ontario, >they >said. > >The decision "has effectively erased the criminal prohibition on marijuana >possession from the law books in Ontario," said Brian McAllister, the >lawyer for >the accused teenager. > >Courts in Nova Scotia and PEI have already put prosecutions on hold pending >yesterday's ruling, he said, and lawyers in other provinces were similarly >watching for this decision. > >The initial ruling in favour of the Windsor teenager, identified only as J. >P., >had a significant spillover effect and the higher-court decision is >expected to >be even more influential. > >The federal Department of Justice, which appealed the initial ruling, is >planning another appeal. > >The government still plans to introduce its marijuana-decriminalization >legislation later this month. > >Most Canadians are behind the idea, according to an Ipsos-Reid poll >released >yesterday. > >It found that 55 per cent of Canadians did not believe smoking marijuana >should >be a criminal offence, while 42 per cent thought it should be. > >More telling, 63 per cent of respondents supported Ottawa's plans to issue >tickets and fines similar to traffic violations to those caught with 15 >grams or >less of marijuana, the poll found. > >Justice Minister Martin Cauchon has said he is seeking the changes so that >people who are caught with small amounts will not clog up the court system, >potentially receiving criminal records. > >For the moment, however, marijuana possession remains the most frequently >laid >drug charge in Canada even though courts are becoming increasingly >resistant to >hearing those cases. > >Jim Leising of the federal Justice Department said in an interview that he >was >"disappointed" by yesterday's decision and will push to have the case heard >quickly in the Ontario Court of Appeal. > >"We are are still of the opinion that the law against marijuana is valid," >he >said. > >Mr. Leising said prosecutions will continue, although some may be put on >hold. > >But defence lawyers involved in J.P.'s case said Ontarians facing >possession >charges should fight Crown prosecutors' attempts to delay their cases until >the >law is clarified. > >Ontarians who are charged with marijuana possession after yesterday's >ruling >could consider suing police for wrongful arrest, they said. > >"Anybody who's got a charge before the court should definitely take >advantage of >this," Mr. Burstein said. > >Multiple court battles to strike down the marijuana laws are taking place, >he >said, leaving Ottawa besieged from many directions. > >"The courts keep firing big shots into the sides of the government's ship," >Mr. >Burstein said. > >"They're sinking lower and lower. They are bailing it out with a cup." > >The Ipsos-Reid poll -- of 1001 people, conducted between May 13 and May 15 >-- >found people still have some reservations about decriminalization. > >The poll results are considered to reflect accurately the feelings of the >entire >country to within 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

1 0

Re: <nettime> The War on David Nelson
by J.A. Terranson 18 May '03

18 May '03

On Sun, 18 May 2003, Dave Paris wrote: > On Saturday, May 17, 2003, at 21:48 US/Eastern, J.A. Terranson wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 16 May 2003, R. A. Hettinga wrote: > > [...] > > <snip> > > > >> ... people who want to see if their name is on either list or who > >> want to make a complaint, can call the agency's contact center at > >> 866-289-9673 or send an e-mail to TellTSA(a)tsa.dot.gov. > > > > Since this inquiry will no doubt result in a listing where none > > previously > > existed, I would suggest that everyone reading this make an inquiry - > > *especially* those of us with very common names. Let the system break > > under > > it's own weight. > > [...] > > Unfortunately, the burden will be borne by local governments and the > airport operators, not the TSA. I don't really care *who* is funding this - I just want it to stop. The fact is (as you correctly asserted) that the local governments are already hurting for cash due to 9/11 BS: making this program a financial elephant will speed it's demise. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin(a)mfn.org

1 0

Good things gro-o-o-o-w, in Ontario-o-o-o...
by Tim Meehan 18 May '03

18 May '03

http://www.globeandmail.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20030517/UMARIM/… No laws ban possession of marijuana, court rules Landmark Ontario decision goes beyond the decriminalization proposed by Ottawa By COLIN FREEZE AND KIM LUNMAN UPDATED AT 10:53 AM EDT Saturday, May. 17, 2003 TORONTO and OTTAWA -- Canada has no laws prohibiting marijuana possession, an Ontario Superior Court judge said yesterday in a ruling that will be binding on judges in the province and may soon be picked up across the country. "For today, and for the Victoria Day weekend, it's a very pleasant state of affairs for recreational pot smokers," said criminal lawyer Paul Burstein, who helped argue the case successfully. It was the second time that a Windsor teenager who was caught smoking pot while playing hooky in a park has been found not to have broken any law because, the courts ruled, there are effectively no longer any marijuana laws to break. Mr. Justice Steven Rogin upheld yesterday a lower-court decision, based on complex arguments, that has already had far-reaching influence. The new ruling means that proposed federal legislation to decriminalize possession of a small amount of marijuana would actually "recriminalize" it, defence lawyers said yesterday. While the new law would impose fines for pot possession, yesterday's ruling effectively eliminated any sanctions for simple pot possession in Ontario, they said. The decision "has effectively erased the criminal prohibition on marijuana possession from the law books in Ontario," said Brian McAllister, the lawyer for the accused teenager. Courts in Nova Scotia and PEI have already put prosecutions on hold pending yesterday's ruling, he said, and lawyers in other provinces were similarly watching for this decision. The initial ruling in favour of the Windsor teenager, identified only as J. P., had a significant spillover effect and the higher-court decision is expected to be even more influential. The federal Department of Justice, which appealed the initial ruling, is planning another appeal. The government still plans to introduce its marijuana-decriminalization legislation later this month. Most Canadians are behind the idea, according to an Ipsos-Reid poll released yesterday. It found that 55 per cent of Canadians did not believe smoking marijuana should be a criminal offence, while 42 per cent thought it should be. More telling, 63 per cent of respondents supported Ottawa's plans to issue tickets and fines similar to traffic violations to those caught with 15 grams or less of marijuana, the poll found. Justice Minister Martin Cauchon has said he is seeking the changes so that people who are caught with small amounts will not clog up the court system, potentially receiving criminal records. For the moment, however, marijuana possession remains the most frequently laid drug charge in Canada even though courts are becoming increasingly resistant to hearing those cases. Jim Leising of the federal Justice Department said in an interview that he was "disappointed" by yesterday's decision and will push to have the case heard quickly in the Ontario Court of Appeal. "We are are still of the opinion that the law against marijuana is valid," he said. Mr. Leising said prosecutions will continue, although some may be put on hold. But defence lawyers involved in J.P.'s case said Ontarians facing possession charges should fight Crown prosecutors' attempts to delay their cases until the law is clarified. Ontarians who are charged with marijuana possession after yesterday's ruling could consider suing police for wrongful arrest, they said. "Anybody who's got a charge before the court should definitely take advantage of this," Mr. Burstein said. Multiple court battles to strike down the marijuana laws are taking place, he said, leaving Ottawa besieged from many directions. "The courts keep firing big shots into the sides of the government's ship," Mr. Burstein said. "They're sinking lower and lower. They are bailing it out with a cup." The Ipsos-Reid poll -- of 1001 people, conducted between May 13 and May 15 -- found people still have some reservations about decriminalization. The poll results are considered to reflect accurately the feelings of the entire country to within 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

1 0

Re: Pharmaceutical companies inventing disorders (was: Asperger)
by Major Variola (ret) 18 May '03

18 May '03

At 08:05 PM 5/17/03 -0700, Tim May wrote: >Darwinism is nothing without enough dead bodies. First you paraphrase Dawkins without attribution, now you're summarizing Malthus. :-)

2 1