- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

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

<nettime> The War on David Nelson
by R. A. Hettinga 17 May '03

17 May '03

--- begin forwarded text

3 2

Pharmaceutical companies inventing disorders (was: Asperger)
by Thomas Shaddack 17 May '03

17 May '03

General anxiety disorder. Bah. People are stressed out, that's all - it's unlikely there is any organic cause that would have to be treated by drugs. So instead of trying to figure out how to make the society more human-friendly, just label the symptoms as a "disorder" and drug the affected humans back to the required level of happiness and productivity. And drug their unruly kids (for whom they don't have enough time because they have to make their current owners^H^H^H^H^H^Hemployers richer) back to the required level of obedience. Pharm-corps 2, humans 0, the game continues, the show must go on. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 17 May 2003 14:55:11 -0700 Subject: Censored Alerts From: Peter Phillips <peter.phillips(a)SONOMA.EDU> To: project-censored-L(a)SONOMA.EDU, prime(a)freespeech.org, dansc(a)yahoogroups.com Cc: censored2(a)SONOMA.EDU, censored(a)SONOMA.EDU Project Censored: An Inside Look at Independent News Edited by Katie Sims <SNIP> Inventing Disorders Pharmaceutical companies are on a quest to find a mental illness, sponsor public awareness campaigns for the disease, and to sell the drug to cure it, according to investigative journalist Brendan Koerner. Such a quest required precise strategies to seek FDA approval of a drug for new uses while increasing the profile of a hidden epidemic named general anxiety disorder. Though marketing disease rather than selling a drug is not a recent development, Koerner argues that "for pharmaceutical companies, marketing existing drugs for new uses makes perfect sense" and that GlaxoSmithKline, manufacturer of the antidepressant Paxil, had executed covert maneuvers in inventing illnesses to boost revenue sales of their drug. The article suggests that the chronology of events is no accident. Paxil was approved for use around the time the Cohn & Wolf GAD ad campaign hit the streets. The Cohn & Wolf campaign put the disease in the public spotlight. Famous doctors and academics in the mental illness field were bribed to acknowledge the wide spread hidden epidemic. Popular press assisted in promoting the effectiveness of the drug. The success of the Cohn & Wolfe campaign is traced to the creation of supporting alliances and coalitions. They connect disease experts and researches on mental illnesses to journalists, effectively to aid the flow of disease awareness and validity of the ad campaigns. Synopsis: Daryl Khoo Source: Mother Jones, July/August 2002, "Disorders Made to Order" by Brendan I. Koerner <SNIP>

2 1

when the hash goes bad (aka Small Address Space Blues)
by An Metet 17 May '03

17 May '03

1 0

Re: <nettime> The War on David Nelson
by Tyler Durden 17 May '03

17 May '03

Just what I was afraid of. Even worse than the "Big Brother" scenario (where a giant, hyper-evil and hyper-intelligent KGB runs the place) is a sea of minimum wage incompetants now hyper-empowered with secret lists and locally infinite authority. This isn't the fascist utopia I thought I was buying into. Time for the meathooks... -TD >From: "R. A. Hettinga" <rah(a)shipwright.com> >To: Clippable <rah(a)shipwright.com> >CC: cypherpunks(a)lne.com, cryptography(a)metzdowd.com >Subject: <nettime> The War on David Nelson >Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 21:42:37 -0700 > >--- begin forwarded text > > >Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 12:40:30 -0500 >Subject: <nettime> The War on David Nelson >From: Bruce Sterling <bruces(a)well.com> >To: nettime-l(a)bbs.thing.net >Sender: nettime-l-request(a)bbs.thing.net > >*Imagine if these wretches had the even more >common name "Geert Lovink." Really, one shudders >to think -- bruces > > > >If your name is David Nelson you can expect to be hassled, delayed, >questioned and searched before being allowed to board aircraft anywhere in >the United States for the foreseeable future. > >Since the horrific attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, the federal Transportation >Security Administration has, without any public announcement, created a >two-tiered list of names "to protect our aviation system," says Nico >Melendez, the agency spokesman for the West Coast, who is based in Los >Angeles. > >The name David Nelson apparently is on one of those lists. > >"There is a 'no-fly' list," he says. "That's people who cannot fly, period, >" >because they've been determined to be or are suspected of being "a threat >to >civil aviation or to national security." > >Details about the list are "considered sensitive security information and >cannot be released to the public," Nico says, but the Wall Street Journal >suggests there are about 300 names on the "no-fly" list. > >There's another list that Nico calls the "selectees list." Might as well >call them "suspectees." This is a much larger list of names, accumulated, >Nico says, from information obtained from intelligence agencies and the >airlines. These folks may be allowed to fly but only after they're >intensely >scrutinized by airline, law enforcement and security personnel. > >People whose names are on the two lists undergo what is not a routine >security screening, in which you're asked to remove your shoes or empty >your >pockets. This week 18 men named David Nelson, all residents of Oregon, >confirmed they have been repeatedly delayed at airport counters and >security >checkpoints in the last year or so. > >Take the February experience of Dave Nelson of Salem, a lobbyist whose >largest client is the Oregon Seed Council. Dave often travels for business, >sometimes accompanying the governor on trade missions. "We were on our way >to a trade show in Atlanta," Dave says, "trying to use the auto-check-in >for >baggage. We punched in our information, and the computer wouldn't accept >it." > >Dave and his wife, Leah, stood in line until an agent was available at the >Delta counter. "We gave him our info, and he kept punching on his computer >for about 10 or 15 minutes. . . . Then he says, 'I have to go in the back >room.' He took off, and we stood there another 10 minutes. I asked L1 >another clerk to find out where he'd gone." > >After more waiting, they were told a supervisor was being sought. "Nobody >would tell us what was going on," Dave says. "It's been 30 or 35 minutes by >now. Finally the guy came out and said, 'You'll have to talk to the cop >behind you.' We turned around, and there's a security guy." Dave says the >officer told him there was a list of suspicious people, "and you're on the >list." > >Dave was asked for I.D. and turned over his driver's license. "They called >downtown and ran a criminal check, and I was clean. Then the counter clerk >had to call national Delta and get permission for me to go on the airplane. >We were now pretty close to takeoff time." Dave and his wife were issued >tickets, but again at the gate Dave was thoroughly frisked, searched and >identified. > >At the airport in Atlanta on the way back, the same thing happened. "The >woman punched in my name and said, 'Oh, no, Mr. Nelson . . .' " > >One after another, local David Nelsons tell the same story: At airports >their bags are put through bomb detectors; they are delayed, searched, >questioned. > >David Nelson of Gresham says he was searched and screened three times at >the >Portland airport, then again at the gates of Dallas and Atlanta airports >before arriving in Savannah, Ga., last month. "It's as if they think you've >been transformed into a terrorist en route. You'd think one screening was >enough, when you haven't left a secure area the entire trip." > >"What really concerned me," says David Nelson of Northwest Portland, who >recently was delayed trying to fly to Juneau, Alaska, to take care of his >mother, "was even when they determined I wasn't the one on the list, it's >like I had a label on my forehead that says, 'One must frisk this person at >every opportunity and go through his luggage.' It's as if I were a pariah. >" >David had no idea why he was being singled out; no one mentioned a list. >"My >son is a pilot for Continental; I thought maybe that had something to do >with it." > >Oregon state Sen. David Nelson, from Pendleton, also had no idea why he was >being delayed at airports. "Then we flew into the Medford airport on >Horizon, and one of the agents said, 'Your name is on the list. You're >going >to be checked every place you go.' That was a shock." > >As David Nelsons all over the country have learned, once your name is on >the >list, there's no way you can get it removed. Every time you go to an >airport, you're assumed to be guilty until you can prove yourself innocent. > >Dave Nelson, the Salem lobbyist, spent a lot of time making phone calls >after his trip to Atlanta, trying to learn how he could avoid the security >hassles. "I thought I'd seen something on the news that you could get a >pre-clearance, a photo I.D. We called the Port, and they knew nothing. I >called the FBI and went up the ranks, and there's nothing like that. You're >just stuck. I said, 'What if I used my full name, or just an initial?' They >said, 'None of that would make a difference. You're on the list.' " > >Somewhere in the world there's an actual terrorist suspect named David >Nelson who started all this mess. Several David Nelsons have been told by >security or airline personnel that he's from Nashville. > >But they're looking for him everywhere. Portland radiologist David Nelson >"never could figure out why I was constantly getting flagged. Our bags >would >always come back with tape around them, saying they had been searched." His >son and namesake, David Wesley Nelson, who's 27, thought he was always >stopped "because of my age." When he flew to Los Angeles recently, "they >gave me a big hassle because I didn't have a passport. I said, 'I don't >normally carry a passport when traveling within the U.S.' " > >Every single David Nelson interviewed understood the need for greater >security in a post Sept. 11 world. They realize there are trade-offs >between >liberty and security. But in today's world of high-tech wizardry, it's hard >to believe the Transportation Security Administration can't come up with a >computer software program that would create a "free-to-fly" list of people >whose I.D. has been checked and whose innocence already has been verified. > >The problem is not the "no-fly" list or the "selectees" list. The problem >is, once you're on the lists, you can't get off. It's one thing to know you >have to get to the airport three or four hours before every flight; the >David Nelsons might accept that as a sign of the times. But how would you >feel, knowing your name was on a government terrorist watch list? > >Linda Nelson of Tigard says her husband, David Nelson, has been hassled in >airports. "You're treated as a second-class citizen in your own country," >she says. > >David Nelson is a common name. "My dentist has a couple of them in his >practice," says David Nelson of Aloha, "and my boss is actually named David >Nelson. He's had the same thing happen to him." > >Nico Melendez of the Transportation Security Administration will not >confirm >that the name David Nelson is on the "no-fly" or "selectees" list. But he >does say that 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. > >But if your name is David Nelson, chances are you won't breeze through any >airports in the near future. Even if you're a celebrity. > >Remember Ozzie and Harriet's son, David Nelson? "I got stopped at the John >Wayne Airport" in Orange County, Calif., he said by phone from Los Angeles >this week. "Two police officers knew who I was and tried to explain to the >guy behind the security desk. It didn't faze him at all." Even as another >officer was saying he had once met David's mother, Harriet, David was being >instructed to remove his shoes, he says. "I asked, 'Does the guy on the >list >have a middle name of Ozzie?' He said, 'It just says David Nelson.' " > >http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/margie_boule/index.ssf?/base/living >/1051877124142830.xml > ># distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission ># <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, ># collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets ># more info: majordomo(a)bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body ># archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime(a)bbs.thing.net > >--- 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' _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

2 1

IEEE and DMCA
by Mike Rosing 17 May '03

17 May '03

I don't know if anyone here is a member of the IEEE, but here's a couple of interesting comments that came in my mail box this morning. Seems like the IEEE isn't interested in crypto research? Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike --------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 08:36:54 -0400 To: pkilabs-announce(a)internet2.edu Subject: [PKILAB] chilling effect: ieee and dmca From: Sean Smith <sws(a)cs.dartmouth.edu> This morning, i noticed that the IEEE copyright form (that authors must sign when they publish papers with the IEEE), the signer must warrant that "publication or dissemination of the work" will not violate the DMCA. --Sean -- Sean W. Smith, Ph.D. sws(a)cs.dartmouth.edu http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~sws/ (has ssl link to pgp key) Department of Computer Science, Dartmouth College, Hanover NH USA ========================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 06:45:43 -0700 Message-ID: <200305161345.h4GDjhi14657(a)cayman-islands.isi.edu> From: Clifford Neuman <bcn(a)ISI.EDU> To: sws(a)cs.dartmouth.edu CC: pkilabs-announce(a)internet2.edu I suggest that we ask the IEEE to include with the form their definitive interpretation of the DMCA and spell out specifically what the signer is warranting. Without such a statement limiting the warranty to what the signer can reasonably interpret, I would certainly not feel confortable granting such a warranty. Cliff ------------------------------------------------------pkilabs-announce-+ For list utilities, archives, subscribe, unsubscribe, etc. please visit the ListProc web interface at http://archives.internet2.edu/ ------------------------------------------------------pkilabs-announce-- ==========================================================================

3 3

RIAA Honeypotting (tarpitting)
by Major Variola (ret) 17 May '03

17 May '03

Shamelessly excerpted from politech list: >From "Paul \"Evil Genius\" Music" Fri Jul 6 02:45:31 2018 From: "Paul \"Evil Genius\" Music" To: "DeClan" Date: Sat, 17 May 2003 00:24:49 -0500 http://www.kuro5hin.org/print/2003/5/16/163447/493 RIAA Pit of Confusion (Culture) By salimfadhley Fri May 16th, 2003 at 10:13:06 PM EST After reading about the RIAA threatening to sue yet another innocent archive operator, I decided to take some direct action: It occurred to me that the RIAA keep falsely accusing others of piracy because they put their faith in an unintelligent spider - a fact which can be simply exploited to make my servers into an RIAA no-go-zone... Whilst spidering is nothing to worry about (and only to be expected on a public site), the way the association fires off legal threats based on this spider results alone seems wrong. Since this spider does not actually look at the whole title of the file, or even it's content, I figured I could have some fun at their expense: What if I could write a `tarpit' script that could create a large number of interlinked automatically generated web sites. If their spider tried to scan my server it would be fooled into thinking that it had found a treasure trove of MP3 sites. Anybody who took the time to look at the site could see that the site contains no pirate content at all. How might the RIAA react to such a thing? <snip>

1 0