- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Justice Department Opposes 'Sneak and Peek' Ban
by R. A. Hettinga 25 Jul '03

25 Jul '03

Looks like they're dusting off their black bags again. Rubber hoses are next, I suppose. Cheers, RAH ------- <http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A47236-2003Jul25?language=printer> washingtonpost.com Justice Department Opposes 'Sneak and Peek' Ban Reuters Friday, July 25, 2003; 5:48 PM WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department on Friday opposed a bid to ban the government from conducting secret "sneak and peek" searches of private property. The legislation, overwhelmingly approved by the U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday, would roll back a key provision of the anti-terrorism law adopted after the Sept. 11 attacks. If it became law, the legislation, "would have a devastating effect on the United States' ongoing efforts to detect and prevent terrorism, as well as to combat other serious crimes," Assistant Attorney General William Moschella said. In a letter to House Speaker Dennis Hastert, he said the legislation "could result in the intimidation of witnesses, destruction of evidence, flight from prosecution, physical injury and even death." On Tuesday, the House voted 309-118 to attach the amendment to a $37.9 billion bill funding the departments of Commerce, State and Justice. It would be the first change in the USA Patriot Act since its adoption in October, 2001. The amendment, sponsored by Idaho Republican Rep. C.L. "Butch" Otter, would block the Justice Department from using any funds to take advantage of the section of the law that allows it to secretly search the homes of suspects and only inform them later that a warrant had been issued to do so. The Patriot Act granted broad new powers to U.S. law enforcement officials to eavesdrop and detain immigrants. It was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush six weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Moschella said the law was needed to prevent terror attacks and added that the Justice Department shared the commitment of the House "to preserving American liberties while we seek to protect American lives." He urged the House to "reconsider its action." -- ----------------- 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

Cartoon in Times Prompts Inquiry by Secret Service
by Steve Schear 25 Jul '03

25 Jul '03

What fun, now they are eating their young.... Ramirez is a conservative Bush supporter. http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/showcase/la-me-ramirez22jul22.story steve "Il dulce far niente" The sweetness of doing nothing My unemployment motto

1 0

Son of Napster
by Steve Schear 25 Jul '03

25 Jul '03

Tech pundit/gadfly Robert Cringely has come up with a pretty damn good idea for creating a RIAA-crushing music file-sharing system. Instead of concentrating on technical issues, he has tackled the problem using existing legal structures for corporations. There's probably more than a few problems with his idea, especially the legality of applying divided interests in a mutual fund-like vehicle without limits to the benefit tied to that divided interest, but it's an interesting read nonetheless. http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20030724.html steve "When you come to the fork in the road, take it" - L.P. Berra

1 0

FYI: paper on privacy and price discrimination
by R. A. Hettinga 25 Jul '03

25 Jul '03

--- begin forwarded text

1 0

RE: Fisk articles
by Cooper, Carlo 25 Jul '03

25 Jul '03

> -----Original Message----- > From: Harmon Seaver [mailto:hseaver@cybershamanix.com] > Sent: Tuesday, 22 July 2003 7:17 AM > To: cypherpunks(a)lne.com > Subject: Fisk articles > > > Does anyone have access to the fulltext articles by Robert > Fisk like this one > on alleged torture in US internment camps in Iraq: > http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/story.jsp?story=42652 0 that the Independant offers on a subscription basis? I think this is the same story @ counterpunch.org http://www.counterpunch.org/fisk07242003.html cya carlo.

1 0

Re: A 'Funky A.T.M.' Lets You Pay for Purchases Made Online
by Tyler Durden 25 Jul '03

25 Jul '03

"So it's best to ignore the "unwashed masses" and their inability to understand untraceable money." That's precisely the wrong conclusion, assuming everything else you wrote in this post is correct. If one accepts that most young people don't understand the notion or implications of truely digital "cash", then one's tactics must change considerably. If de-empowering some aspects of the State is your goal, a new constrant is that your methods must not rely on anyone giving a crap about your goals, or possibly of digital cash. This does not mean that these ideas are destined to flounder, but instead it may mean that for them to have life they must find it somewhere where people can understand their usefulness. For instance, I can easily see some notions of untraceable digital cash finding applications over certain kinds of P2P networks. But if you continue to discuss the issue in the abstract, or purely in the context of de-stating the state, the youngins won't pay attention long enough for them to recognize why this may be useful to them. Eventually, however, they'll find the need for these ideas and do their homework. -TD >From: Tim May <timcmay(a)got.net> >To: cypherpunks(a)lne.com >Subject: Re: A 'Funky A.T.M.' Lets You Pay for Purchases Made Online >Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 00:46:09 -0700 > >On Thursday, July 24, 2003, at 07:12 PM, Steve Furlong wrote: > >>On Thursday 24 July 2003 15:50, Tim May wrote: >> >>>In fact, "digicash" strongly suggests David Chaum's "Digicash," >> >>That assumes the reader or listener has heard of Digicash, or of Chaum. >>Not an assumption I'd be comfortable making. > >Agreed, making the assumption that readers here have heard of Chaum or >understand the basic idea of blinded transactions (or dining >cryptographers, or oblivious transfer, or any of the other building blocks) >is no longer warranted. I expect many of the persyns of peircing now >spewing on the list are, like, thinking "that's, like, _so_ nineties." > >As for thinking very general readers or listeners, those not even on the >list, are capable of understanding Chaum or Digicash, that's a fool's >errand. The average nontechnical person knows nothing about how crypto >works, and attempting to explain a DC-Net or a blinded transfer is no more >useful to them than just telling them the currency is based on "magic >beans." > >The point is not that laymen need to understand Digicash, but that calling >things like ATM cards and Visa cards "digicash" does a disservice to the >important ideas of why Chaum's and Brands' and similar systems worked. > >Hey, maybe it's actually the case that some of the people here who are >referring to electronic debit cards as "digicash" just don't have a clue >about what blinding is and why it makes for truly untraceable tokens. > > >>I tend to use "electronic money" when discussing coin- or account-based >>systems, anonymous or not, with the unwashed masses. It conveys the >>meaning well enough to serve as an opening wedge to a better >>description, and it's general enough that it shouldn't offend the >>sensibilities of those few people who do understand the subject in >>depth. And it hasn't been gobbled up by any company, so far as I know. > >I stopped any efforts to explain the true importance of electronic/digital >money/cash a long time ago. A waste of time. Not too surprising, as getting >even the basic idea requires some passing familiarity with things like how >RSA works. When I read Chaum's 1985 CACM paper I already knew about RSA and >"hard" directions for problems (trapdoor functions), and yet I still had to >read and reread the paper and draw little pictures for myself. > >Thinking someone can absorb the gist via a purely verbal description is >just not plausible. I have seen David Chaum attempt to do this with an >audience of computer professionals....my impression from the later >questions from the audience is that his explanation simply didn't get them >over the "hump" to the stage of realizing the key concept. No more so than >popularizations of relativity actually ever got the masses to understand >relativity. > >There is much that could be said about whether this difficulty is why we >don't have untraceable, Chaum-style forms of money (I don't think this is >the reason). Regardless, wishing won't make it so, and so wishing that >people would "grok" the importance of blinding without having spent at >least a few hours brushing up on RSA and exponentiation and all that and >then following an explanation very, very closely....well, wishing won't >make it so. > >So it's best to ignore the "unwashed masses" and their inability to >understand untraceable money. > >More troubling is that so many _here_ don't seem to "get it." > >--Tim May _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

1 0

One-Click Treason
by R. A. Hettinga 24 Jul '03

24 Jul '03

<http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/printer.jsp?CID=1051-072403A> TCS: Tech Central Station - Where Free Markets Meet Technology One-Click Treason By Tom W. Bell 07/24/2003 Accusations of treason fly when a nation goes to war. Sometimes, those claims stick. After World War II, the U.S. punished several of its citizens for having served as paid Axis propagandists. Recent terrorist attacks on the U.S. have triggered new cries of "Treason!" Could successful prosecutions follow? As the Constitution defines it, treason includes "adhering to" enemies of the U.S. and "giving them Aid and Comfort." Courts have already told us that paid propagandists meet the test. An American serving as a paid propagandist of the al-Qaida network would thus run a high risk of punishment for treason. The same would likely hold true of anyone who, owing allegiance to the U.S. , spoke on behalf of and in the pay of an anti-U.S. terrorist organization. The War on Terrorists will probably not generate any treason prosecutions of paid propagandists, however. Contemporary terrorist networks favor less formal -- we might say "packet-switched" -- operations. Terrorist enemies of the U.S. thus tend to distribute their propaganda via volunteers from the press, in the street, or on the internet. Could such volunteer propagandists suffer punishment for treason? Here, the law of treason hides a treacherous hole. Courts have not said whether volunteer propagandists for enemies of the U.S. commit treason against it. The volume of volunteer pro-terrorist propaganda alone makes that legal uncertainty worrisome. The growing ease of adding to that flood of speech makes the legal gap dangerous. Advances in telecommunications have made it astonishingly easy to publish unpaid, volunteer, freelance propaganda. Because she relied on short-wave radio signals sent from powerful transmitters overseas, Axis Sally needed Nazi help to broadcast to the U.S. Today, in contrast, a domestic "al-Qaida Al" could, with a single click on his weblog interface, bombard the world with anti-U.S. polemic. Does that mean that every domestic blogger who criticizes U.S. foreign policy thereby commits treason? Of course not. The Constitution requires treasonous speakers to "adhere to" U.S. enemies. Most critics of their country want to help it. As the Supreme Court explained in Cramer v. United States , a treasonous speaker must "intellectually or emotionally favor the enemy and harbor sympathies or convictions disloyal to this country's policy or interest . . .." A domestic blogger like al-Qaida Al might easily qualify on that count. The Constitution also requires that a treasonous act give "Aid and Comfort" to enemies of the U.S. Can mere speech do that? Here, again, Cramer v. U.S. offers guidance. The Supreme Court included "making a speech critical of the government or opposing its measures" among the acts that could aid and comfort an enemy. Again, al-Qaida Al might do that; bloggers already do. Suppose, then, that our imagined blogger owes allegiance to the U.S. , sympathizes with al-Qaida, harbors convictions disloyal to the U.S. , and uses his blog to express those views. Does he thereby commit treason? Although language from Cramer v. U.S. suggests that he does, that case speaks only to the prosecution of a paid propagandist. It thus does not control the hypothetical case of U.S. v. al-Qaida Al. And, as other courts have observed, al-Qaida Al has a free speech right to express his opinion. Treason law has not yet bridged the gap between paid and independent propagandists. If al-Qaida Al blogs as a paid agent of the al-Qaida conspiracy, he probably commits treason. If he speaks in complete independence of al-Qaida direction, he almost certainly enjoys immunity from prosecution. Between those solid edges fall a number of cases, including directed but unpaid propaganda, undirected but coordinated propaganda, and sympathetically republished propaganda. How should we decide whether those types of propaganda qualify as "treasonous speech" or "free speech"? One rule leaps to the fore: Require evidence of a binding obligation between a supposed traitor and a U.S. enemy. Their obligation would not have to be in writing, involve money, or make the accused an agent. At the least, though, al-Qaida Al's prosecutors would have to show that he had promised aid and comfort to a U.S. enemy. Free speech rights would win greater protection if prosecutors also had to show that defendant Al had gained something in the exchange. It would not have to be money; a promise of almost anything would suffice as consideration for the deal. Perhaps as little as Osama bin Laden's (allegedly) personal "thank you" would do, or a hypertext link on the (alleged) al-Qaida homepage. It would not do, though, to prove only that al-Qaida Al had emailed a promise of help to reliance(a)al-qaida.net . Prosecutors would have to show that Al got a reply and reached a deal. Courts may soon face the chasm-splitting treason law. They will then have to walk the legal tightrope between paid and independent propaganda, balancing the power to prosecute treason against the right to speak freely. To give that distinction a solid footing, to protect our liberties from a terrible fall, courts should follow contract law. Tom Bell is a professor at Chapman University School of Law and adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. -- ----------------- 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

Re: Seminars not to miss in July and August 2003
by Tyler Durden 24 Jul '03

24 Jul '03

Wow! This is either an identity sweep initiated by TSAs, or we're somehow on some interesting radar screens. Any truth to the rumor that 'Tim May' is actually a nym for bin Laden? -TD >From: "Settec" <settcltd(a)settecltd.com> >Reply-To: "Settec" <settec(a)link.net> >To: camera_lumina(a)hotmail.com >Subject: Seminars not to miss in July and August 2003 >Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 20:10:56 +0300 > >Dear Clients, > >Due to a technical problem with our web hosting, which allows only those >connecting from the free number of starnet in Egypt 07770666 to view our >web site, and due to the shortage of time, we are announcing in text mode >the following three coming up seminars in July and August of 2003: > >Seminar: Environmental Register (How to do it, The components, the >measurements) as per requirements of law number 4 for the year 1994 > GaSLa GaHmFm (c_fdGJe ! ^mGSGJe f_m]mI EZOGOe ) ]m VfA GaaGFMI GaJd]mPmI >a^Gdfd GaHmFI Q^c 4 aSdI 1994 fXQ^ J^mmc GaEdHZGKGJ Ga[GRmI cd GacUGOQ >GaKGHJI >Date: July 29 - 30, 2003 >City: Alexandria >Venue: Plaza Hotel >Web site: http://www.settecltd.com/en/2003/jul2930.htm > http://www.settecltd.com/ar/2003/jul2930.htm > > >Seminar: The Egyptian Customs Law number 66 for the year 1963 and the >latest amendments > ^Gdfd GaLcGQ_ Q^c 66 aSdI 1963 f]^G aGMOK GaJZOmaGJ >Date: July 29 - 30, 2003 >City: Cairo >Venue: Meridien Heliopolis >Web site: http://www.settecltd.com/en/2003/jul2930d.htm > http://www.settecltd.com/ar/2003/jul2930d.htm > > >Seminar: New Unified Labor Law # 12 for the year 2003 > ^Gdfd GaZca GacfMO GaLOmO Q^c 12 aSdI 2003 >Date: August 18 - 19, 2003 >City: Cairo >Venue: Meridien Heliopolis >Web site: http://www.settecltd.com/en/2003/aug1819.htm > http://www.settecltd.com/ar/2003/jul2930d.htm > >For full information on the seminars, prices, and available promotions, >please contact Mr. Essam Mahmoud at the below numbers. > >======================================================================================================== > >SETTEC > >Address: Agooza Police Tower, Nawal St., Agooza, Giza, Egypt > >Tel./Fax: +2 (02) 3387527 - 3362040 - 7614343 >Mobile: +2 (012) 3228395 >US Fax: +1 772 365 0405 >e-mail: settec(a)link.net >web page: www.settecltd.com > >======================================================================================================= > >To unsubscribe from Settec Newsletter send a blank message to >settec(a)starnet.com.eg with subject "Unsubscribe" >Your request will be performed within two business day > >======================================================================================================= > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

1 0

Re: Dead Body Theatre
by Tyler Durden 24 Jul '03

24 Jul '03

Oooh! A very amusing notion. I'm wondering, however, if in terms of analogies showing two of the -Sr- Bush's sons in the photos might be more appropo (ie, Jeb & Dubya)...though I admit showing the daughters has more sheer shock and "fuck-you" value. -TD >From: Eric Cordian <emc(a)artifact.psychedelic.net> >To: cypherpunks(a)minder.net >Subject: Dead Body Theatre >Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 09:16:30 -0700 (PDT) > >I just noticed all news channels on the boob tube are showing endless >repetitions of what the US alleges are the dead bodies of Saddam Hussein's >sons. > >We all know how easy it is to make realistic fake pictures now that >everything is digital, so I was thinking what a cool hack it would be to >Photoshop some similar pictures of the Bush daughters, and post them on >the Internet for everyone to enjoy. > >Now that the new standard for pre-emptive war is to murder the legitimate >leader of another sovereign nation and his entire family, an "artist's >rendering" of Shrub reaping what he sows would surely be an excellent >political statement. > >-- >Eric Michael Cordian 0+ >O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division >"Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law" _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

2 1

Re: Congresscritters want to be more... permanent
by Steve Furlong 24 Jul '03

24 Jul '03

On Thursday 24 July 2003 12:09, Sunder wrote: > Isn't that akin to when they vote themselves raises? :) What raises? That would be unconstitutional, and they'd never do that. What they get are cost of living adjustments. -- Steve Furlong Computer Condottiere Have GNU, Will Travel "If someone is so fearful that, that they're going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, makes me very nervous that these people have these weapons at all!" -- Rep. Henry Waxman

1 0