- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Clinton Administration against Internet Phone regulation
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Of course, there's the question of whether they'd have the same opinion on services routing stuff from the Internet to phones & vice-versa. Still, it's nice to see them having a bit of sense. -Allen >White House: No Need To Regulate Voice software > WASHINGTON - The Clinton administration has recommended that the > Federal Communications Commission not regulate firms that sell > software that enables voice communications by users of the Internet. > The Commerce Department letter to FCC Chairman Reed Hundt was in [...] > Larry Irving, head of the department's National Telecommunications and > Information Administration, argued that the software companies that > are the object of ACTA's petition provide no communications services, > but merely offer goods that enable individuals to engage in voice > communications. > Irving said those companies "are no more providing > telecommunications services than are the vendors of the telephone > handsets, fax machines and other customer premises equipment that make > communications possible." > Copyright, Reuters Ltd. All rights reserved

1 0

C'punks on c|net
by corey＠hedgehog.mcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I haven't been able to plow through the C'punks mail in a while, so I don't know if the small news broke that I mentioned this list on TV. For what it's worth, here's what happened: At the c|net Awards for Internet Excellence last week, Netscape won for best server. David Pann (marketing), Mike McCool (engineering), and I (documentation/user interface) accepted on behalf of the company. We each got a chance to make acceptance speeches. (It was tres Academy Awards.) My speech was as follows: "I'll keep this short. I'd like to thank the Cypherpunks for their eternal vigilance." Which was received by the audience with a collective gasp. The live event was simulcast on the Web, and the TV version was shown over the weekend on the TV show "c|net Central." Corey Bridges Netscape Communications Corporation http://home.netscape.com/people/corey 415-937-2978 (New number!)

1 0

Re: Remailer in a box
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've been able to locate the following on the Web in regards to fax and voicemail to Internet. The first is the one you were thinking of; the third was mailed to me by a helpful individual (thanks). http://www.faxweb.net/ Allows 1/4 size web page looking, then download full via special software for Windows. Not sure why demands special software to do the web page - should be able to download normally then auto-delete (or charge more for memory space usage). Email used for notification. Requires a credit card. http://www.jfax.net/ Emails you with a compressed file containing the fax. JFAX software for Windows or Mac used to decompress it. Requires a credit card. http://www.vix.com/hylafax/ Software to enable fax reception and translation either into PostScript or TIFF/S (sp?). This may be the most practical for anonymous use; can TIFF/S and Postscript be easily translated into a jpg or gif file? Those are the easiest viewers to locate. -Allen

1 0

Re: Why I Pay Too Much in Taxes
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"frissell(a)panix.com" "Duncan Frissell" 10-MAY-1996 19:11:58.23 >Such a list could be published openly in any case since discussing >techniques of tax fraud is legal. Even advocay would be legal in almost all >cases. (Since tax fraud is a non-violent crime, you don't have any of these >'agitating an angry mob' scenarios.) As long as you avoided conspiring with >anyone, you can discuss techniques all you like. Some *participants* might >like to subscribe anonymously however. There are, however, some possible difficulties with this. A. If the Feds know about some scheme, they are more likely to be able to thwart it. The extent to which this is true, of course, depends on the method(s) being used. B. Sting operations. These are arguments for the list being closed in format, with some form of security check. The major problem with this is that the security check will break the anonymnity of participants... you may not want to trust whoever is doing the checking, even if they're public (as they should be for this). -Allen

3 2

Re: SEVERE undercapacity, we need more remailer servers FAS
by Jean-Francois Avon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 20 May 96 at 9:53, jamesd(a)echeque.com wrote: > The Australian law is (or was) based on the idea that if you charged > someone $2500 for eating the flesh of christ, it then becomes > legitimate for the government to check out whether or not the > customer was getting actual flesh of Christ. Well, although it makes for an expensive steak, it is still quite cheap considering that in the days of JC, they did not have refregirators. Must have gone to great pains to preserve the stuff! Or did I misunderstood a few things? JFA Le mur est jaune, la banane est jaune, donc la banane est mure!

1 0

Re: PGP, Inc.
by timd＠consensus.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:48 PM 5/10/96, Dan Weinstein wrote: >On Fri, 10 May 1996 10:22:24 -0700, timd(a)consensus.com wrote: >> >>The only effort they make is that when using the email-based CA, it mails >>the certificate to the address within, so it's not trivial to get a cert >>for an address that you don't have access to. (I'm not saying it's >>impossible, or even hard, just that it requires some skill and effort). > >I don't believe this is correct. They send you information after you >have created the cert verifying that you set it up, but nothing >requires a response and the key is transfered via http. If you'll examine my message, you'll see I was referring to the email-based S/MIME class 1 CA. Best, - Tim Dierks Tim Dierks -- timd(a)consensus.com -- www.consensus.com Head of Thing-u-ma-jig Engineering, Consensus Development

1 0

Re: Dear friends,
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:02 AM 5/10/96 +0800, MOHAMED HABIB MOHAMED EUSOFF wrote: >I am searching for NETWORK SECURITY white paper, documents and hacking >uitlities. Maybe you guys/gals can >shed some light on this. Wietse Venema and Dan farmer recomended RFC1244 in their Security Auditing and Risk Analysis class. Available from ftp:ftp://munnari.oz.au/rfc/rfc1244.Z ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bill Frantz | The CDA means | Periwinkle -- Computer Consulting (408)356-8506 | lost jobs and | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | dead teenagers | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

S p a m H a i k u / [Repost]
by Spammer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

S p a m H a i k u : 1. Blue can of steel What promise do you hold? Salt flesh so ripe 2. Can of metal, slick Soft center, so cool, moistening I yearn for your salt 3. Twist, pull the sharp lid Jerks and cuts me deeply but Spam, aah, my poultice 4. Silent, former pig One communal awareness Myriad pink bricks 5. Clad in metal, proud No mere salt-curing for you You are not bacon 6 And who dares mock Spam? You? you? you are not worthy Of one rich pink fleck 7. Like some spongy rock A granite, my piece of Spam In sunlight on my plate 8. Little slab of meat In a wash of clear jelly Now I heat the pan 9. Oh tin of pink meat I ponder what you may be: Snout or ear or feet? 10. In the cool morning I fry up a slab of Spam A dog barks next door 11. Pink tender morsel Glistening with salty gel What the hell is it? 12. Ears, snouts and innards A homogeneous mass Pass another slice 13. Old man seeks doctor "I eat Spam daily", he says. Angioplasty 14. Highly unnatural The tortured shape of this "food" A small pink coffin 15. Pink beefy temptress I can no longer remain Vegetarian

1 0

cr> ACLU v. RENO: Trial Update 5/10/96
by Craig A. Johnson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This just in from the ACLU! I was in Philly today folks, and I can tell you, the update below is an understatement; it was a rout! The ACLU and the ALA, with ample help from the judges and Government counsel, literally pulled the legs off the Government case! I'll be posting my own version on this by Monday. Suddenly, there is a new light in cyberspace! Craig @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ACLU V. RENO: TRIAL UPDATE AT CLOSING ARGUMENTS, ACLU CALLS ON COURT TO PROTECT FREE SPEECH IN CYBERSPACE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Emily Whitfield Friday, May 10, 1996 212-944 -9800, x426 emilyaclu(a)aol.com PHILADELPHIA-- A three-judge panel heard closing arguments today regarding a law that would criminalize free speech in cyberspace. Plaintiffs and defendants each had approximately two hours to make their case and answer questions from the judges. Much of the government's argument today hinged on a proposal requiring Internet users to identify so-called indecent or patently offensive words or images with an electronic"tag." But by the end of the day, government lawyers conceded -- under pointed questioning from the judges -- that it would be impossible to implement this scheme given the technology currently available. That concession alone, the ACLU said, could justify granting plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction against the censorship provisions of the Communications Decency Act, which criminalizes making available to minors "indecent" or "patently offensive" speech online. "It's about time that the government conceded what the cyberspace community has known all along -- that this is an unworkable law," said Christopher Hansen, who presented oral arguments for the ACLU. "And even if it were feasible, it is constitutionally unthinkable to give the government the power to restrict valuable speech, or to compel people to pejoratively label their speech." Government lawyers also acknowledged today that the law criminalizes speech of value -- e.g., artistic, literary or medical information -- not just "pornography" or other prurient words or images that aren't covered under existing obscenity laws. In fact, as Hansen pointed out to the Court, Congress made sure that the Communications Decency Act applied specifically to libraries and educational institutions, and rejected several opportunities to make any exceptions for valuable speech. Such an omission might have been a "legislative craftsmanship problem," suggested Anthony Coppolino, one of the lawyers appearing for the Department of Justice. But that argument was met with skepticism from the judges. "The government is basically saying eetrust me' when it comes to determining what kind of online words and images will be considered eeindecent' or eepatently offensive,'" said Marjorie Heins, a lawyer on the ACLU v. Reno team. "But they were not able to offer a coherent explanation as to what those terms mean." The risk involved to individuals in making such a determination is especially grave when criminal penalties are involved, the ACLU emphasized. The CDA provides for penalties of up to two years in jail and $250,000 in fines. Addressing this issue, Judge Stewart Dalzell asked the government how it would view an individual such as ACLU plaintiff Kiyoshi Kuromiya, who has vowed to maintain his website no matter what. Kuromiya has testified that his website, the Critical Path AIDS Project, provides "lifesaving" information on safer sex practices -- some of it necessary sexually explicit -- aimed at reaching teens around the world. Justice Department lawyer Jason Baron responded that if Mr. Kuromiya didn't want to comply, "he can take the consequences." Overall, the ACLU said, plaintiffs succeeded in making three essential points to the court: -- The Communications Decency Act is a criminal statute with criminal penalties. -- The law is aimed specifically at speech that is constitutionally protected. -- The government's tagging scheme would force every American to censor him/herself to avoid risk of criminal prosecution. Plaintiffs also reminded the Court that the censorship law applies not only to websites, but to newsgroups, chat rooms, mail exploders, and other fora that constitute a vital part of the Internet. The ACLU has asserted in its brief -- and the government largely conceded today -- that various schemes for self-censorship would be unworkable in these environments as well. At the conclusion of today's proceedings, Chief Judge Dolores K. Sloviter said that the Court would issue a ruling "in due course." Under expedited provisions, any appeal on rulings regarding the new censorship law will be made directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. ACLU v. Reno, which was filed the day the Communications Decency Act was signed into law, was consolidated on February 26 with a second case brought by the American Library Association and 26 co-plaintiffs, known as the Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition. Lawyers for the ACLU appearing before the judges are Christopher Hansen, Marjorie Heins, Ann Beeson, and Stefan Presser, legal director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania. Attorney Bruce J. Ennis presented oral arguments today on behalf of the ALA/CIEC coalition. -end- @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ~ CYBER-RIGHTS ~ ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Visit The Cyber-Rights Library, accessible via FTP or WWW at: ftp://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/Library/ http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/Library/ You are encouraged to forward and cross-post list traffic, pursuant to any contained copyright & redistribution restrictions. ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

1 0

Re: Why does the state still stand:
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"unicorn(a)schloss.li" "Black Unicorn" 15-MAY-1996 18:59:01.44 >For these a company running at a constant net operating loss could be >formed to purchase cars for resale (funny how no one ever buys them) and >manage property (which no one seems to ever lease). But won't such a company run into tax problems? In other words, the IRS is going to look with some suspicion on a company that keeps showing no profits (and thus no taxes) but keeps going anyway. They're going to think that the owners are making a profit anyway but concealing it - which is the case. I'm not sure how to handle this one, other than not owning major property (rental et al). -Allen

2 1