July 2018 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: FC: President Bush says military tribunals will try civilian cases
by PRGormley＠aol.com 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

It's simple, maybe unethical and way off the moral high ground we claim to be staking out but effective and legal under the US Constitution. Make sure you check for any text that says these protections apply to non-citizens. While I am unqualified to comment on the national security aspect of these issues, there certainly are security issues presented by them. I quote the US Constitution, 14th Amendment: Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Under this reading, the rights accorded under our federal constitution are not extended beyond US Citizens without regard to location of those citizens. I read this to require treatment by the US of US citizens abroad the same as in the US. - Paul Gormley criminal defense attorney in Massachusetts ---

1 0

Re: FC: President Bush says military tribunals will try civilian cases
by PRGormley＠aol.com 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

It's simple, maybe unethical and way off the moral high ground we claim to be staking out but effective and legal under the US Constitution. Make sure you check for any text that says these protections apply to non-citizens. While I am unqualified to comment on the national security aspect of these issues, there certainly are security issues presented by them. I quote the US Constitution, 14th Amendment: Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Under this reading, the rights accorded under our federal constitution are not extended beyond US Citizens without regard to location of those citizens. I read this to require treatment by the US of US citizens abroad the same as in the US. - Paul Gormley criminal defense attorney in Massachusetts ---

1 0

Re: FC: President Bush says military tribunals will try civilian cases
by PRGormley＠aol.com 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

It's simple, maybe unethical and way off the moral high ground we claim to be staking out but effective and legal under the US Constitution. Make sure you check for any text that says these protections apply to non-citizens. While I am unqualified to comment on the national security aspect of these issues, there certainly are security issues presented by them. I quote the US Constitution, 14th Amendment: Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Under this reading, the rights accorded under our federal constitution are not extended beyond US Citizens without regard to location of those citizens. I read this to require treatment by the US of US citizens abroad the same as in the US. - Paul Gormley criminal defense attorney in Massachusetts ---

1 0

Re: FC: President Bush says military tribunals will try civilian cases
by PRGormley＠aol.com 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

It's simple, maybe unethical and way off the moral high ground we claim to be staking out but effective and legal under the US Constitution. Make sure you check for any text that says these protections apply to non-citizens. While I am unqualified to comment on the national security aspect of these issues, there certainly are security issues presented by them. I quote the US Constitution, 14th Amendment: Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Under this reading, the rights accorded under our federal constitution are not extended beyond US Citizens without regard to location of those citizens. I read this to require treatment by the US of US citizens abroad the same as in the US. - Paul Gormley criminal defense attorney in Massachusetts ---

1 0

Re: FC: President Bush says military tribunals will try civilian cases
by PRGormley＠aol.com 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

It's simple, maybe unethical and way off the moral high ground we claim to be staking out but effective and legal under the US Constitution. Make sure you check for any text that says these protections apply to non-citizens. While I am unqualified to comment on the national security aspect of these issues, there certainly are security issues presented by them. I quote the US Constitution, 14th Amendment: Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Under this reading, the rights accorded under our federal constitution are not extended beyond US Citizens without regard to location of those citizens. I read this to require treatment by the US of US citizens abroad the same as in the US. - Paul Gormley criminal defense attorney in Massachusetts ---

1 0

None
by Mike Riddle 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

>President Bush has quietly signed an executive order allowing civilians to >be tried by military tribunals. This may be outrageous. > >I say "may be" because the degree to which we should be outraged depends on >the details of this not-yet-released executive order. Does the executive >order apply only to non-U.S. citizens, as some news reports say? Perhaps it >applies only abroad, to Al Qaeda saboteurs trying to blow up U.S. military >bases? Does it apply solely to illegal immigrants? If it applies to people >living in or visiting the U.S. legally, what happened to our Sixth >Amendment right "to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury?" Look up APPLICATION OF YAMASHITA, 327 U.S. 1 (1946), http://laws.findlaw.com/us/327/1.html <a href="http://laws.findlaw.com/us/327/1.html>Application of Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1 (1946)</a> Read it with an eye to due process and particularly look at the dissent. Not encouraging at all. --- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ************************************************************************** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt(a)coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week) Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/ **************************************************************************

1 0

Re: [p2p-hackers] SHA1 broken?
by Gordon Mohr (＠ Bitzi) 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Serguei Osokine wrote: >># * collisions in the the full SHA-1 in 2**69 hash operations, >># much less than the brute-force attack of 2**80 operations... > > > Okay, so the effective SHA-1 length is 138 bits instead of full > 160 - so what's the big deal? If the results hold up: SHA1 is not as strong as it was designed to be, and its effective strength is being sent in the wrong direction, rather than being confirmed, by new research. Even while maintaining that SHA1 was unbroken and likely to remain so just last week, NIST was still recommending that SHA1 be phased out of government use by 2010: http://www.fcw.com/fcw/articles/2005/0207/web-hash-02-07-05.asp One more paper from a group of precocious researchers anywhere in the world, or unpublished result exploited in secret, could topple SHA1 from practical use entirely. Of course, that's remotely possible with any hash, but the pattern of recent results suggest that a further break is now more likely with SHA1 (and related hashes) than others. So the big deal would be: don't rely on SHA1 in any applications you intend to have a long effective life. > It is still way more than, say, MD5 > length. And MD5 is still widely used for stuff like content id'ing > in various systems, because even 128 bits is quite a lot, never > mind 138 bits. Just because it's widely used doesn't mean it's a good idea. MD5 should not be used for content identification, given the ability to create content pairs with the same MD5, with one version being (and appearing and acquiring a reputation for being) innocuous, and the other version malicious. - Gordon @ Bitzi _______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list p2p-hackers(a)zgp.org http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers _______________________________________________ Here is a web page listing P2P Conferences: http://www.neurogrid.net/twiki/bin/view/Main/PeerToPeerConferences --- end forwarded text -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

[IP] Collecting of Details on Travelers Documented - washingtonpost.com
by David Farber 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

[1]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR2 007092102347.html?hpid=topnews Collecting of Details on Travelers Documented U.S. Effort More Extensive Than Previously Known By [2]Ellen Nakashima Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, September 22, 2007; Page A01 The U.S. government is collecting electronic records on the travel habits of millions of Americans who fly, drive or take cruises abroad, retaining data on the persons with whom they travel or plan to stay, the personal items they carry during their journeys, and even the books that travelers have carried, according to documents obtained by a group of civil liberties advocates and statements by government officials. The personal travel records are meant to be stored for as long as 15 years, as part of the [3]Department of Homeland Security's effort to assess the security threat posed by all travelers entering the country. Officials say the records, which are analyzed by the department's Automated Targeting System, help border officials distinguish potential terrorists from innocent people entering the country. <snip> _________________________________________________________________ [4]Archives [5][feed-icon-10x10.jpg] [6]Powered by Listbox References 1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR200709210… 2. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/ellen+nakashima/ 3. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/U.S.+Department+of+Homeland… 4. http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now 5. http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ 6. http://www.listbox.com/ ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

Re: FC: President Bush says military tribunals will try civilian cases
by PRGormley＠aol.com 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

It's simple, maybe unethical and way off the moral high ground we claim to be staking out but effective and legal under the US Constitution. Make sure you check for any text that says these protections apply to non-citizens. While I am unqualified to comment on the national security aspect of these issues, there certainly are security issues presented by them. I quote the US Constitution, 14th Amendment: Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Under this reading, the rights accorded under our federal constitution are not extended beyond US Citizens without regard to location of those citizens. I read this to require treatment by the US of US citizens abroad the same as in the US. - Paul Gormley criminal defense attorney in Massachusetts ---

1 0

None
by Mike Riddle 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

>President Bush has quietly signed an executive order allowing civilians to >be tried by military tribunals. This may be outrageous. > >I say "may be" because the degree to which we should be outraged depends on >the details of this not-yet-released executive order. Does the executive >order apply only to non-U.S. citizens, as some news reports say? Perhaps it >applies only abroad, to Al Qaeda saboteurs trying to blow up U.S. military >bases? Does it apply solely to illegal immigrants? If it applies to people >living in or visiting the U.S. legally, what happened to our Sixth >Amendment right "to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury?" Look up APPLICATION OF YAMASHITA, 327 U.S. 1 (1946), http://laws.findlaw.com/us/327/1.html <a href="http://laws.findlaw.com/us/327/1.html>Application of Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1 (1946)</a> Read it with an eye to due process and particularly look at the dissent. Not encouraging at all. --- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ************************************************************************** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt(a)coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week) Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/ **************************************************************************

1 0