- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

WebWorld 29
by Bubba Rom Dos 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1 0

Re: Black box attacks (was Re: Crypto-Dongel)
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:35 PM 4/9/97 -0400, Cynthia H. Brown wrote: >If you're trying to destroy a standard IC, why don't you just hook up the >power and ground pins to a 120V AC outlet? You are unlikely to have AC in a system by the time the tamper detector senses an intrusion. Similar problems apply to arcs and anything based on discharging a large capacitor. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." Mahatma Gandhi

3 2

Re: NSA Intercepts Sent to Democratic National Committee
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Timothy C. May" <tcmay(a)got.net> writes: > Reports that the White House fed NSA phone intercepts to the Democratic > National Committee (DNC), for political purposes. > > The calls were between a New York businessman and a Latvian national. This reminds me how some stupid cunt on Usenet thought I was latvian and posted hundreds of kilobytes of flames about how stupid latvians were using me as an example. Of course, I am NOT latvian in any way. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

EVENT REMINDER! Rep. Rick White on democracy.net tonight! (4/10/1997)
by Shabbir Safdar 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

========================================================================= _ _ __| | ___ _ __ ___ ___ ___ _ __ __ _ ___ _ _ _ __ ___| |_ / _` |/ _ \ '_ ` _ \ / _ \ / __| '__/ _` |/ __| | | | | '_ \ / _ \ __| | (_| | __/ | | | | | (_) | (__| | | (_| | (__| |_| |_| | | | __/ |_ \__,_|\___|_| |_| |_|\___/ \___|_| \__,_|\___|\__, (_)_| |_|\___|\__| |___/ Government Without Walls _________________________________________________________________________ Update No.4 http:/www.democracy.net/ April 9 1997 _________________________________________________________________________ Table of Contents - REMINDER - Town Hall Meeting with Rep. Rick White (R-WA) THURS April 10. - Upcoming Events - About democracy.net _________________________________________________________________________ REPRESENTATIVE RICK WHITE BRINGS TOWN HALL MEETING TO CYBERSPACE Just a reminder that Rep. Rick White (R-WA) will be live online at democracy.net on Thursday April 10. We hope you will stop by, ask a few questions, and join Rep. White and Wired Magazine's Todd Lappin as we kick off the democracy.net Virtual Town Hall meeting project. Date: Thursday April 10, 1997 Time: 8:30 pm ET (5:30 pm Pacific) Event will last approx. 45 min Location: http://www.democracy.net You will need RealAudio and a telnet application (available free at http://www.democracy.net/software) Rep. White is the co-founder of the Congressional Internet Caucus, an opponent of the CDA, and a leading voice in Congress on Internet policy issues. White will discuss current Internet issues and respond to your questions. You can submit questions for Rep. White in advance by visiting http://www.democracy.net ___________________________________________________________________________ UPCOMING EVENTS Wednesday April 16 - 8:30 pm ET (5:30 pm Pacific) Representative Anna Eshoo (D-CA) Eshoo, who represents California's Silicon Valley, is co-sponsor of the SAFE bill to ease government controls on encryption technologies and has recently set up the first interactive "Virtual District Office" in the Congress. Join Representative Eshoo and democracy.net live online. Details are available at http://www.democracy.net/ ___________________________________________________________________________ ABOUT DEMOCRACY.NET democracy.net is a joint project of the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) and the Voters Telecommunications Watch (VTW) to explore ways of enhancing citizen participation in the democratic process via the Internet. To this end, democracy.net will host live, interactive cybercasts of Congressional Hearings and online town hall meetings with key policy makers. democracy.net is made possible through the generous support of WebActive, Public Access Networks, the Democracy Network, and DIGEX Internet. More information about the project and its sponsors can be found at http://www.democracy.net/about/ To receive democracy.net announcements automatically, please visit our signup form at http://www.democracy.net/ __________________________________________________________________________ end update no.4 04/09/97 ===========================================================================

1 0

Cato/Brookings conference on "Regulation in the Digital Age"
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 10:59:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Cato/Brookings conference on "Regulation in the Digital Age" [Robert Bork weighs in on the CDA -- who can pass that up? This promises to be a fabulous conference. --Declan] ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 05:35:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Solveig Bernstein <sberns(a)cato.org> To: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> Subject: Digital Regulation Conference Declan, would you please post this to fight-censorship with an invitation to repost freely. Cato and Brookings have a really interesting conference lined up for April 17/18 in DC. I'm particularly looking forward to seeing Bob Corn-Revere debating former Judge Bork on content controls. We've decided to waive the registration fee for students, professors, teachers, policymakers, and those in the public interest community. Feel free to join us--email Julie to rsvp at jbriggs(a)cato.org or call (202) 789-5296. REGISTRATION FEE HAS BEEN WAIVED FOR NONPROFITS, EDUCATORS, STUDENTS, AND POLICYMAKERS!!! **************************************************************** C A T O . B R O O K I N G S @ C A P I T A L_H I L T O N . A P R I L 1 7 / 1 8 / 1 9 9 7 Regulation in the Digital Age Schedule of Speakers THURSDAY, APRIL 17, 1997 8:00 - 8:30 a.m. Registration 8:30 - 8:45 a.m. Welcoming Remarks: Robert Litan, Director, Economic Studies Program, Brookings Institution, and William Niskanen, Cato Institute 8:45 - 10:15 a.m. Does the Digital Age Require a New Approach to Regulation (If So, What Is It)? Michael Katz, University of California, Berkeley Lawrence J. White, New York University Peter Pitsch, Pitsch Communications Richard E. Wiley, Wiley, Rein & Fielding 10:15 - 10:30 a.m. Break 10:30 - 12:00 a.m. Does the Digital Age Require a New Approach to Antitrust? Donald I. Baker, Baker & Miller Robert E. Hall, Stanford University Timothy F. Bresnahan, Stanford University Thomas Hazlett, University of California, Davis 11:30 - 1:00 p.m. Luncheon and Luncheon Address: "Implications of the Digital Age for Democratic Government: A Dialogue," Thomas E. Mann, The Brookings Institution, and William Niskanen, Cato Institute 2:00 a.m. - 3:45 p.m. Making Global Commerce Happen (including Intellectual Property, Encryption, Privacy, UCC Contracts, Anti-fraud, and Tax Issues) Anne Branscomb, Harvard University Dorthy E. Denning, Georgetown Computer Science David Post, Georgetown University Law School Kenneth W. Dam, University of Chicago Law School Whitfield Diffie, Sun Microsystems 3:45 - 4:00 p.m. Break 4:00 - 5:15 p.m. Professional Licensing Joel Hyatt, Hyatt Legal Services Robert Waters, Arent Fox Jay Sanders, American Telemedicine Association 5:45 - 6:15 Reception 6:15 - 8:00 p.m. Dinner and Dinner Address: "Regulation the Telecosm," George Gilder, The Discovery Institute FRIDAY, APRIL 18, 1997 8:30 - 9:30 a.m. Regulating Content (Culture, Pornography, and Libel) Robert Bork, American Enterprise Institute Patrick Vittet-Phillip, European Union Bob Corn-Revere, Hogan & Hartson Nadine Strossen, ACLU (invited) 9:30 - 10:30 a.m. Standards and Interoperability Cynthia Beltz, American Enterprise Institute Jeff Rohlfs, Strategic Policy Institute Daniel L. Brenner, National Cable Television Association 10:30-10:45 a.m. Break 10:45 - 11:45 a.m. Ensuring Access Robert W. Crandall, The Brookings Institution Jonathan Sallett, MCI Lawrence Gasman, Cato Institute Lawrence Strickling, Ameritech 11:45 - 1:15 p.m. Luncheon and Luncheon Address: "Birth of the Digital Nation," Louis Rossetto, Editor & Publisher of Wired. News media please email or call Robin Hulsey at (202) 789-5293. THE CAPITAL HILTON 16th & K STREETS, NW WASHINGTON, DC Click above for pricing and registration information Return to the Cato Home Page Solveig Bernstein, Esq. (202) 789-5274 (202) 842-3490 (fax) Assistant Director of Telecommunications & Technology Studies Cato Institute 1000 Mass. Ave. NW Washington, DC 20001

1 0

Re: [NTSEC] GOOD GRIEF! re:Hack' punches hole in Microsoft NT s (fwd)
by Ray Arachelian 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

=====================================Kaos=Keraunos=Kybernetos============== .+.^.+.| Ray Arachelian | "If you're gonna die, die with your|./|\. ..\|/..|sunder(a)sundernet.com|boots on; If you're gonna try, just |/\|/\ <--*-->| ------------------ |stick around; Gonna cry? Just move along|\/|\/ ../|\..| "A toast to Odin, |you're gonna die, you're gonna die!" |.\|/. .+.v.+.|God of screwdrivers"| --Iron Maiden "Die With Your Boots on"|..... ======================== http://www.sundernet.com ========================= For with those which eternal lie, with strange eons even death may die. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 18:10:04 +0000 From: Alan C. Ramsbottom <acr(a)als.co.uk> To: Jos Visser <josv(a)osp.nl> Cc: ntsecurity(a)iss.net Subject: Re: [NTSEC] GOOD GRIEF! re:Hack' punches hole in Microsoft NT s > I am currently reviewing the write-up to include the newest > relevant information.I had considered the possibility that you could > brute-force attack the password space. However, the possible number > of passwords is quite bi. Let us assume that the average password > contains about 40 bits of information, the entie plausible passowrd > space then is 2^40 = 1099511627776 possible passwords. Suppose you > could hash and store 1,000,000 passwords each secondthe brute-force > approach takes more then 12 days to calculate and requires about > 16 GB diskspace to store the results (uncompressed). > > Could you please point me the errors in my calculations so I can fix > the article asap? Certainly.. Theoretically, for a "complete" brute-force attack on the DES hashes we need to consider a 56 bit ( 7 chars x 8 bits) password space. This space is the maximum we have to worry about because of the 14 char password to two independent 7 char DES keys split. The timing overheads of checking both the 8 char hashes during a brute-force attack are relatively trivial. Now the crunch. Theory is fine, but in the real world there are constraints on the password space - in reality it gets much smaller e.g. 1) chars below 0x20 can't be entered in the password dialogue box 2) alphas are uppercased prior to being used as DES keys so you can also ignore 0x61 to 0x7A. Correcting the case of any alphas after finding a LanMan password is a quick and relatively trivial task using MD4. That much is guaranteed even if you (reasonably in 99.99% of cases) start throwing away characters that are difficult to quickly enter on a keyboard e.g. anything that needs an ALT-0-nnn sequence to enter (more or less everything above 0x80 subject to country). Finally 3-4Gb disks are now relatively inexpensive so the amount of diskspace required for a precomputed attack is not much of an obstacle. It has been also been suggested that if you are short of diskspace you could always keep sequentially sorted sections of the precomputed file on a backup tape. Then, as you mention above there is compression. My main point is that you don't need an exceptionally fast machine or impossible amount of disk space. If I can write code to do this then you can guarantee that other people have, and that theirs is both cleverer and runs faster ;-) "Greater password complexity" is a good idea for many reasons but not much help in this specific case. The LanMan hashes are simply far too easy to attack and you should concentrate your defences in preventing access to them. Finally, we need to put this in proper perspective - this attack and the associated IE 3.0 SMB and NTLM problems can EASILY BE AVOIDED with a few simple network administration policies. --Alan-- acr(a)als.co.uk PS. Haven't seen my original message turn up on NTSecurity yet so I don't suppose this will.

1 0

RE: New York court hears challenge to state
by ARTURO GRAPA YSUNZA 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Remember that the Internet is an international playground and while the U.S. Government may say "Rate your site or go to jail" or worse yet filter traffic that is not rated (blind censorship), the rest of the world may go on its merry way and not even flinch (crypto is a good example). Sounds like a state-run New York Times. The phrase "harmful to children" also means different things in different countries. Maybe the idea is that countries and/or sites that do not rate their content will be blocked from accessing U.S. sites (immigration law on the net). Other countries could do the same in retaliation. That would mean the loss of access to a lot of information for all sides. "Excuse me sir, I can't let your packet pass unless I've seen your Net passport and visa". And what happens to all those international sites hosted on U.S. territory? If they were to move out it would mean a loss of $$ for U.S. companies (again). Also, don't forget that state laws would impede interstate commerce (loss of revenue for the state). I see the word "boycott" in my future. Somebody please slap the person who said the Cold War was over. I'm glad that somebody has finally discovered time travel. Unforunately its in back in time not forward! Art Grapa agrapa(a)banamex.com ---------- From: Declan McCullagh To: ARTURO GRAPA YSUNZA; cypherpunks(a)toad.com Subject: New York court hears challenge to state Date: Wednesday, April 09, 1997 7:33PM Microsoft Mail v3.0 IPM.Microsoft Mail.Note De: Declan McCullagh Para: ARTURO GRAPA YSUNZA cypherpunks(a)toad.com Asunto: New York court hears challenge to state Fecha: 1997-04-09 19:33 Prioridad: 3 Ident. del mensaje: 9E367DA622B0D011AF8D006097838CEB ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- -- ********** Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 17:50:08 -0400 To: fight-censorship-announce(a)vorlon.mit.edu From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> Subject: FC: New York court hears challenge to state Net-censorship law Sender: owner-fight-censorship-announce(a)vorlon.mit.edu Reply-To: declan(a)well.com X-FC-URL: Fight-Censorship is at http://www.eff.org/~declan/fc/ ************** http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/editorial/0,1012,811,00.html The Netly News Network April 8, 1997 The Bad Apple by Declan McCullagh (declan(a)well.com) To those of us who follow such events, it's a common enough scene: a squad of civil liberties attorneys troops into a federal courtroom to do righteous battle with an unconstitutional law. It happened this week in New York City, before a judge who finished hearing testimony yesterday in a case the ACLU brought against yet another state Net-censorship statute. The outcome in this lawsuit, however, will reverberate not just in the Empire State but also along the marble corridors of the U.S. Capitol. If the Supreme Court rules that the Communications Decency Act indeed violates the First Amendment, Congress hopes the New York case will guide it in revising the law so it passes constitutional muster. And given how the New York case is shaping up for the forces of unbridled free speech, that could be ugly. A group of 15 plaintiffs challenging the New York statute filed suit in January, arguing that that the law unconstitutionally stifles online speech and unduly interferes with interstate commerce on the Net. The measure, which took effect last November, amends the penal code by making it a crime to distribute online pictures or text "which is harmful to minors." Attorneys for the New York attorney general's office, who are defending the law, say that the "harmful to minors" legal standard isn't as heinous as the CDA's "indecency" ban -- it covers only sexually explicit pictures, not textual conversations. They also argue that filtering software could be used to help online purveyors of adult-only stuff comply with the state statute. Of course, as always, academics, librarians and artists point out that these attempts to limit online communications are overly broad and ill-defined. What I consider harmful to a kid might not be what you consider harmful, after all. Yesterday four witnesses testified for the plaintiffs, uniformly saying they felt threatened by the law. "I walk around with a healthy fear that every book in our collection would give someone the idea that we're giving harmful materials to minors," said Maurice Friedman, executive director of the Westchester Library System. Rudolf Kinsky, an artist from Poland, weighed in next: "I feel a chilling effect on my creativity. Someone could consider my art harmful to minors and could prosecute me. I came to this country [from Poland] looking for freedom of speech, not this." But yesterday's testimony seemed like the capper to an overwhelmingly poor showing the government made in its opening arguments last week. The government's case lasted a mere hour and was hardly persuasive. Among other gaffes, the state failed to slide a new legal standard -- "level of maturity" -- into the discussion; Judge Loretta Preska quickly rebuffed that attempt: "I don't read 'level of maturity' anywhere in the statute," she said, nettled. That wasn't the only time Preska pounced on the government. By the end of the three-day hearing, I was ready to bet good money on the ACLU winning yet another victory for the Net. But I have a confession to make. In January I claimed that "knocking down New York's law should be a virtual slam dunk," saying it suffers from all of the same problems as the CDA. But now, after reading a recent law review article by UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, I'm not as sure. Volokh points out that the government could rely on the ready existence of ratings schemes, such as RSACi and PICS, which give publishers the ability to keep their material out of the hands of minors. He writes: "Under the existing doctrine, it would be constitutional to criminalize the display of any harmful-to-minors material which does not carry a correct rating." In other words, rate your web pages with RSACi or go to jail. (I can't see Microsoft, the Software Publishers Association and other RSACi boosters probably opposing this. I can smell another Microsoft world-domination plot brewing already...) Indeed, Volokh told me yesterday that he thinks the New York attorney general may have a workable case. "I think the state has a decent defense. They could say look, this rating imposes a burden but not a very high burden. It's like that imposed on a bookseller. All you're required to do is put on this label." Certainly, Net rating systems played a big part in the New York trial. Last Friday a government attorney asked: "In general, what would be more burdensome as a whole: requiring millions of web sites to rate their contents or just requiring a percentage of web sites that contain graphical objectionable material to rate their web sites?" What the government was trying to point out was that rating systems like RSACi -- that let you assign values to web pages based on nudity or violence -- are increasingly commonplace. If they're commonplace, then netizens may be able to comply with the New York law. And if netizens can comply with the law, then it may be constitutional. [...] "Harmful to minors is something people will talk about again and it's an option, but I don't want to say we'll be out there trumpeting it," says Connie Correll, spokeswoman for Rep. Rick White, a Republican congressman from Washington State -- whose district includes Microsoft. (Coincidence, or another Microsoft attempt at world domination? While you're pondering the question, keep in mind that White championed "harmful to minors" language in December 1995, but Congress rejected it in favor of the CDA's broader "indecency" ban.) Correll adds: "People are watching the New York case. I think it's going to be a real good indication." So do I. ### ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- This list is public. To join fight-censorship-announce, send "subscribe fight-censorship-announce" to majordomo(a)vorlon.mit.edu. More information is at http://www.eff.org/~declan/fc/ ------------------------- Time Inc. The Netly News Network Washington Correspondent http://netlynews.com/

1 0

Checkout the crypto in IE 4.0
by Phillip M. Hallam-Baker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Maybe people have already noticed but the pre-release IE 4.0 has S/MIME encryption and signatures built in. I'm trying to set it up as we speak. Unfortunately Outlook Express does not seem to pick up the Outlook '97 address book so I haven't been able to add the sig to this message :-) Phillip M. Hallam-Baker Visitng Scientist MIT Laboratory for Artificial Intelligence. hallam(a)ai.mit.edu http://www.ai.mit.edu/people/hallam/hallam.html

1 0

Internet security code said vulnerable to hackers
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Sender: e$(a)thumper.vmeng.com Reply-To: "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle(a)rpcp.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: Bulk Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 09:47:06 -0400 From: "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle(a)rpcp.mit.edu> To: Multiple recipients of <e$(a)thumper.vmeng.com> Subject: Internet security code said vulnerable to hackers This is one screwed up story. I don't know what they are actually trying to say, but the guy from MasterCard isn't helping. (I stick my two derisive comments into the story. <smile>) Forwarded Text ---- ATLANTA, April 9 (Reuter) - The new security protocol for safeguarding credit-card transactions on the Internet may have to change because the underlying cryptography is too easy to hack through and too difficult to upgrade, an expert said Wednesday. Steve Mott, senior vice president of electronic commerce and new ventures for MasterCard International, said it could take hackers as little as a year to break the industry's standard encryption code, which is supposed to render credit-card numbers unreadable to outsiders on the Internet's World Wide Web. For that reason, the consortium of technology companies and creditors that has spent two years years developing the Secure Electronic Transaction (SET) protocol may switch to a faster encryption system called Elliptic Curve, which is produced by Certicom Corp. The first complete version of SET, known as SET 1.0, will be available to software makers June 1 with core cryptography provided by RSA Data Security, a unit of Security Dynamics Technologies Inc. ``RSA is a very good starting point. But we suspect that in a year or two, the Kevin Mitnicks of the world will start to figure out ways to hack it,'' Mott said. Mitnick is one of the most notorious computer hackers. [This is stupid mixing "hackers" with key lengths. Kevin Mitnick doesn't have didley to do with encryption. He just grabbed a huge CC plain text file off of netcom file system. Should have said Ian Goldberg, or the folks at Ecole Polytechnique in Paris or MIT.] ``The only way you scale an RSA is to add a lot more bits. You add a lot more bits and it becomes more complex software in terms of the interaction of the transaction messages. That's part of what's taken SET so long to start with.'' [This is a hoot! Adding a longer key length makes the software more complex! And THIS is what has held up SET!!!?? <grin>] MasterCard has been helping put together merchants with its own member banks for SET pilot projects in Denmark, Japan, Taiwan, South Africa and the United States. Mott told a news conference at the Internet Commerce Expo that the Elliptic Curve encryption system would make a better encryption core. In fact, he said it would have been chosen in the first place if developers had been known about it. ``It will fit on a chip card. I think its 160 bits equals security to 1,024 bits of RSA,'' the credit industry executive said. ``We anticipate putting it into some SET 1.0 pilots in the very near future this year in the U.S.'' Far from being disturbed by the possibility of hackers getting through the current SET cryptography, Mott said SET's developers would ``give them an award and a ribbon and then embody whatever they did as part of the improvements'' in the next version of security standards. ``The current version for SET is as safe as anybody can make it,'' he said. End Forwarded Text ---- _______________________ Regards, A man's dreams are an index to his greatness. -Zadok Rabinwitz Joseph Reagle http://web.mit.edu/reagle/www/ reagle(a)mit.edu E0 D5 B2 05 B6 12 DA 65 BE 4D E3 C1 6A 66 25 4E ---------- The e$ lists are brought to you by: Intertrader Ltd: "Digital Money Online" <http://www.intertrader.com/library/DigitalMoneyOnline> Where people, networks and money come together: Consult Hyperion http://www.hyperion.co.uk info(a)hyperion.co.uk Like e$? Help pay for it! <http://www.shipwright.com/beg.html> For e$/e$pam sponsorship, mail Bob: <mailto:rah@shipwright.com> Thanks to the e$ e$lves: Of Counsel: Vinnie Moscaritolo <mailto:vinnie@webstuff.apple.com> (Majordomo)^2: Rachel Willmer<mailto:rachel@intertrader.com> Commermeister: Anthony Templer <mailto:anthony@atanda.com> Interturge: Rodney Thayer <mailto:rodney@sabletech.com> --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA Lesley Stahl: "You mean *anyone* can set up a web site and compete with the New York Times?" Andrew Kantor: "Yes." Stahl: "Isn't that dangerous?" The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/

3 2

Cato Institute report on Clinton's sad constitutional record
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 16:57:56 -0400 >To: fight-censorship-announce(a)vorlon.mit.edu >From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> >Subject: Cato Institute report on Clinton's sad constitutional record >Cc: >Bcc: >X-Attachments: > >In yesterday's mail I found a copy of a Cato Institute policy analysis by >Tim Lynch called "Dereliction of Duty: The Constitutional Record of >President Clinton." It's damming. Lynch lays bare Clinton's two-faced, >arrogant, downright hostile attitude towards civil liberties and, in a >word, freedom. > >Lynch concludes: "If constitutional report cards were handed out to >presidents, Bill Clinton would certainly receive an F--an appalling grade >for any president--let alone a former professor of constitutional law." >I've attached a few excerpts below. > >Also, in today's mail came a new book put out by Cato, "The Future of >Money in the Information Age," edited by James Dorn. I haven't read it >yet, but it looks promising. > >-Declan > >----------------------------- > >http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-271es.html > >DERELICTION OF DUTY >The Constitutional Record of President Clinton > >by Timothy Lynch > >Timothy Lynch is assistant director of the Cato >Institute's Center for Constitutional Studies. > >********* > >Executive Summary > >President Clinton recently put his hand on the Bible >and swore an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the >Constitution of the United States." He took the same >oath in January 1993. As the president embarks on his >second term in office, it is an appropriate time to >review his record thus far to see how well he has >defended our Constitution. > >Although President Clinton has expressed support for >an "expansive" view of the Constitution and the Bill >of Rights, he has actually weakened a number of >fundamental guarantees, including those of free speech >and the right to trial by jury and that against double >jeopardy. He has also supported retroactive taxes, gun >control, and warrantless searches and seizures. The >president's legal team is constantly pushing for >judicial rulings that will sanction expansions of >federal power. The Clinton White House has, for >example, supported the federalization of health care, >crime fighting, environmental protection, and >education. Clinton also claims constitutional >authority to order military attacks against other >countries whenever he deems it appropriate. President >Clinton's record is, in a word, deplorable. If >constitutional report cards were handed out to >presidents, he would receive an F. > >It is to be hoped that President Clinton will resolve >to be more conscientious about his constitutional >responsibilities in his second term. But should his >dereliction of duty continue, Congress and the Supreme >Court should stand fast against any constitutional >transgression. In the present climate, it is vitally >important for all Americans to understand that the >Constitution is incapable of enforcing itself. That >task ultimately rests with the citizenry. If the >American people demand adherence to the Constitution, >government officials, including President Clinton, >will respect the limitations that were wisely placed >on their power. > >********* > > >The Free Speech Clause > >The free speech clause of the First Amendment is, >without a doubt, the most famous provision of the >American Constitution. Its simple, yet profound, >command provides: "Congress shall pass no law . . . >abridging the freedom of speech." The underlying >principle of the free speech clause is that "each >person should decide for him or herself the ideas and >beliefs deserving of expression, consideration, and >adherence." [9] That principle has been recognized as >"one of the preeminent rights of Western democratic >theory, the touchstone of individual liberty." [10] >The invocation of the free speech guarantee, however, >is often controversial because it requires the >government and the citizenry to tolerate the speech >and writings of unpopular, crude, ignorant, and >malicious people. Civil libertarians must often remind >government officials (and others) that if the First >Amendment only protected the expression of popular and >agreeable ideas, it would be totally unnecessary since >those ideas would never be threatened by our >democratic form of government. Our society's >commitment to free speech is tested when we encounter >the expression of ideas that are disagreeable--or even >offensive. > >One would think that President Clinton, a former >professor of constitutional law, would have a deep >appreciation for the principle of freedom of speech, >but his official actions in office show just the >opposite. The Clinton Justice Department has attempted >to censor (a) the rights of peaceful protesters; (b) >the views of priests and doctors; (c) radio, >television, and the Internet; and (d) truthful >advertisements for lawful products. > >[...] > >The Ex Post Facto Clause > >The Framers of the Constitution detested the idea of >retroactive legislation. The Constitution contains two >specific prohibitions against ex post facto laws: >Article I, section 9, addresses Congress: "No . . . ex >post facto Law shall be passed." Article I, section >10, addresses state officials: "No State shall pass >any ex post facto Law." The Constitution contains no >exception to either prohibition. As Professor William >Winslow Crosskey of the University of Chicago once >observed, it is evident that ex post facto laws "were >thoroughly disapproved by the framers of the >Constitution and intended by them to be completely >impossible under our system." [44] > >Not only has President Clinton failed to defend the >prohibition of ex post facto laws; he encouraged the >103rd Congress to violate the prohibition. In the >summer of 1993 he urged Congress to levy a retroactive >tax on the American people. Under the president's >initial budget plan, income, corporate, gift, and >estate taxes were to be increased retroactively to >January 1, 1993--20 days before the president assumed >office. Never before in American history had a tax >been made retroactive to the time of a prior >administration. > >[...] > >The Warrant Clause > >The warrant clause of the Fourth Amendment, specifying >the conditions that must be met before officials may >search a person's home or seize papers and effects, >provides: "no [search] Warrants shall issue, but upon >probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and >particularly describing the place to be searched, and >the person or things to be seized." The warrant clause >protects the citizenry from arbitrary searches by >requiring law enforcement personnel to obtain judicial >authorization before they demand entrance to any >person's home. The Supreme Court described the >constitutional importance of the warrant application >process in McDonald v. United States (1948). > >The presence of a search warrant serves a high >function. Absent some grave emergency, the Fourth >Amendment has interposed a magistrate between the >citizen and the police. This was done not to shield >criminals nor to make the home a safe haven for >illegal activities. It was done so that an objective >mind might weigh the need to invade that privacy in >order to enforce the law. The right of privacy was >deemed too precious to entrust to the discretion of >those whose job is the detection and the arrest of >criminals. Power is a heady thing; and history shows >that the police acting on their own cannot be trusted. >And so the Constitution requires a magistrate to pass >on the desires of the police before they violate the >privacy of the home. [50] > >The Clinton administration has repeatedly attempted to >play down the significance of the warrant clause. In >fact, President Clinton has asserted the power to >conduct warrantless searches, warrantless drug testing >of public school students, and warrantless >wiretapping. > >Warrantless "National Security" Searches > >The Clinton administration claims that it can bypass >the warrant clause for "national security" purposes. >In July 1994 Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick >told the House Select Committee on Intelligence that >the president "has inherent authority to conduct >warrantless searches for foreign intelligence >purposes." [51] According to Gorelick, the president >(or his attorney general) need only satisfy himself >that an American is working in conjunction with a >foreign power before a search can take place. > >[...] > >Constitutional Federalism > >President Clinton is the first president in American >history to deny that the Constitution limits the >powers of the federal government. The Clinton White >House has sought to federalize health care, crime >fighting, environmental protection, and education. It >has also tried to thwart any effort to downsize >federal agencies and programs. Although the Washington >press corps has dutifully scrutinized the fledgling >efforts of the 104th Congress to breathe life into the >Tenth Amendment of the Constitution, which affirms >that the federal government has only limited powers, >the president's efforts to expand federal power have >received scant attention from a Tenth Amendment >perspective. By his official conduct as president, >Clinton has made it clear that he believes there is no >area of human activity that is beyond the >redistributive or regulatory reach of the federal >government and that the state governments essentially >operate at the sufferance of the national government. >Such a view contravenes the text, history, and >structure of our Constitution. > >[...] > >Conclusion > >As his first term of office drew to a close, Bill >Clinton proclaimed, "One of my highest goals as >President has been . . . to protect and uphold the >Constitution." [161] In light of the evidence set >forth in this study, it seems obvious that that >statement was simply a platitudinous throwaway line >that was completely devoid of substance. > >Supporters of the Clinton White House can point with >pride to a handful of presidential actions in defense >of constitutional rights--such as the signing of the >Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Justice >Department's lawsuit against the Virginia Military >Institute on behalf of gender equality [162]--but >those acts were exceptions to the rule. Indeed, some >constitutionalists and civil liberties attorneys might >very well claim that this study does not go far enough >in its criticisms of the Clinton record. [163] >Although this study is not an exhaustive account of >every presidential action over the last four years, it >does present overwhelming evidence that Clinton has >been derelict in his duty to "protect and preserve" >our Constitution. If constitutional report cards were >handed out to presidents, Bill Clinton would certainly >receive an F--an appalling grade for any >president--let alone a former professor of >constitutional law. > >Perhaps Clinton will resolve to be more conscientious >about his constitutional responsibilities in his >second term. One can only hope that he will. But >should his dereliction of duty continue, Congress and >the Supreme Court should stand fast against any >constitutional transgression. > >All three branches of government--executive, >legislative, and judicial--should strive to be more >conscientious about meeting the responsibilities that >have been assigned to them under the Constitution. >Constitutional violations are frequently temporary, >isolated events. The most serious constitutional >violations occur when all three branches conspire to >expand the bounds of government power. When that >happens, it becomes very difficult to right the wrong. >Precedents are extremely important. That is why any >constitutional transgression by any branch is >alarming. > >The American people should jealously guard their >liberty and hold all government officials accountable >when they neglect or disregard the Constitution. Its >Framers were keenly aware that the ultimate source of >the Constitution's authority is the consent of the >people. If the American electorate demands adherence >to the Bill of Rights and the other provisions of our >Constitution, government officials will respect the >constitutional limitations on their power. But, as >Judge Learned Hand warned many years ago, "Liberty >lies in the hearts of men and women; [if] it dies >there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it." >[164] > >### > >

1 0