- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

[RANT] Conservative Poll hard against National ID
by attila! 24 Sep '01

24 Sep '01

1 0

RE: Expectation of privacy in public?
by Aimee Farr 24 Sep '01

24 Sep '01

Under the California statute, a conversation in which the parties have no expectation that the discussion would not be disclosed to others is not confidential. Cal. Penal Code. Sect.632(a). "Confidentiality" has been construed in California to mean "a reasonable expectation that the content of the communication has been entrusted privately to the listener." Deteresa v. American Braodcasting Co. 121 F.3d 460, 464 (9th Cir. 1997, cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 1840 (1998). Oral Communication under Title I (of "Title III" or the ECPA) incorporates the Katz test. The Katz test is two-pronged: (1) the person challenging must exhibit an expectation of privacy [subjective] and (2) that person must also be justified in that expectation [objective]. If both prongs are not met, the conversation is not protected under the constitution against warrantless surveillance. Senate Report 1097: neither the speakers intention to talk in confidence nor the location of where the conversation happened controls the determination of whether or not he reasonably expected he could not or would not be overheard. The factors that might be considered in regard to the first prong are: precautions taken, content, purpose, etc. Therefore, words a person knowingly "puts to the public," possibly even in your home, can be outside of the Fourth Amendment and Title III. However, it's a very contextual determination. Often, the courts use the rationale that because you have no reason to believe your conversation is not being overheard, you have no reason to believe you are not being recorded. See In re Johen Doe Trader No. One, 894 F.2d 240, 243 (7th Cir. 1990)(recording on floor of commodities exchange). They could also make the analogy to a visitor of a bugged house, such as United States v. Flemmi, 225 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2000). However, the mere fact that the conversation is on government premises does not affect an expectation of privacy. United States v. Jackson, 588 F.2d 1046, 1052 (5th Cir. 1979)....and a bunch more after that. Blah, blah, more than you wanted to know. ~Aimee > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-cypherpunks(a)lne.com [mailto:owner-cypherpunks@lne.com]On > Behalf Of Trei, Peter > Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 12:25 PM > To: cypherpunks(a)lne.com > Subject: RE: Expectation of privacy in public? > > > > Anonymous[SMTP:nobody@remailer.privacy.at] > > > > > > For the lawyers and lawyer larvae out there... > > > > In an article in the San Francisco Bay Guardian this week, there is an > > article about MUNI's policy of making audio recordings of passengers. > > > > <quote> > > Nathan Ballard of the City Attorney's Office told the Bay Guardian that > > they were well aware of the policy and approved it. "There are no > > expectations of privacy in public," he said. Ballard asserted that the > > policy was constitutional and did not fall under any wiretapping laws. > > When asked if all of the vehicles that employ this surveillance policy > > post signs to inform passengers that their conversations are being > > recorded, he said, "This policy does not require signs." > > </quote> > > > > Frankly, if I'm sitting in the back of an empty bus, talking to > the person > > next to me, it's my opinion that there certainly is a > reasonable expection > > of privacy. Does anyone more qualified than I care to tell me why I'm > > right or wrong? > > > > Legal or not, I'm also curious to see what the EFF has to say about this > > wonderful incarnation of Big Brother. > > > > http://www.sfbg.com/SFLife/35/51/cult.html > > > MUNI is breaking the law. > http://www.rcfp.org/taping/ > Peter Trei > ---------------------------

1 0

Portal for Building Machinery
by BMC 24 Sep '01

24 Sep '01

1 0

ANWR
by mmotyka＠lsil.com 24 Sep '01

24 Sep '01

CDR: Re: Intercepts foretold of 'big attack' -- The Washington Times John Young <jya(a)pipeline.com> wrote : >Bill Gertz has received an extraordinary number of leaked >documents. Most of those occurred during the Clinton era >when national security mongerers opposed to Clinton's >policies leaked top secret stuff. Those kinds of leaks seemed >to have diminished now that those anti-Dems are in >power again. They continue to be opposed to carry overs >from the Clinton team like Tenet and others. There could >be more leaks or worse crimes against humanity to help >get rid of those remnants. > >However, ex-members of Clinton's administration are >now leaking natsec stuff as Bush's team increases >bashing of the Dem's policies, and counterterrorism claims >are sure to get leaked left and right once the pol's dipshit >backslapping and airkissing vanish. > >Congressional hearings on who knew what and when about >the 911 attacks may not be in the offing any time soon, but >they are needed to determine which war mongerers were >most in cahoots with their good buddy jihadists to foster >mineral exploitation in the target region and as a sideline >boost the need for strategic Alaskan oil. > What Bush and cronies want to do in ANWR is entirely unrelated to strategy - they want the right to go make money by drilling on public lands. If it goes through in the near future watch how much the government spends on roads and other support to get the drillers in there and how much is payed in return by the oil companies. Long-term energy strategy is more important than corporate greed. The most strategic thing to do with Alaskan oil would be to leave it right where it is. Dipping in to the reserves unnecessarily is moronic. NB : I'm not opposed to drilling Alaskan oil - after Kuwait runs dry... Mike

3 3

RE: FC: Oracle's Larry Ellison urges national ID card for America ns
by Jonathan Wienke 24 Sep '01

24 Sep '01

They can tattoo it right next to the "Exit Only" on my butt cheeks... -----Original Message----- From: Bill Stewart [mailto:bill.stewart@pobox.com] Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 1:06 AM To: politech(a)politechbot.com; cypherpunks(a)lne.com Subject: Re: FC: Oracle's Larry Ellison urges national ID card for Americans I hate to trigger Godwin's Law so soon (though somebody else already did it), but are there any Bay Area tattoo shops that want to volunteer to help with the National ID numbers?

1 0

ID cards+law history;
by citizenQ 24 Sep '01

24 Sep '01

The scholarly informed citations are useful and interesting. But haven't we been put on notice that "a rebalancing" is going to occur, "it's a new world" and we will "use every measure at our disposal to combat terrorism" ?? - I fear it is naive to imagine that case law and legal precedent can combat the legislative onslaught to come. > >The power to arrest--or otherwise to prolong a seizure until a suspect had >responded to the satisfaction of the police officers--would undoubtedly >elicit cooperation from a high percentage of even those very few >individuals not sufficiently coerced by a show >of authority, brief physicaldetention, >and a frisk. We have never claimed that expansion of the power of police >officers to act on reasonable suspicion alone, or even less, would further >>no law enforcement interests. See, e.g., Brown v. Texas , 443 U.S. 47, 52, >99 S.Ct. 2637, 2641, 61 L.Ed.2d 357 (1979). But the balance struck by the >Fourth Amendment between the public interest in effective law enforcement >and the equally public interest in safeguarding individual freedom and >>privacy from arbitrary governmental interference forbids such expansion. >See Dunaway v. New York, supra; United States v. >Brignoni-Ponce , 422 U.S., at 878, 95 S.Ct., at 2578-2579. >Detention beyond the limits of Terry without >probable cause would improve the effectiveness of legitimate police >investigations by only a small margin, but it would expose individual >members of the public to exponential increases in both the intrusiveness >of the encounter and the risk that police officers would abuse their >discretion for improper ends. Furthermore, regular expansion >of Terry encounters into more intrusive detentions, without >a clear connection to any specific >underlying crimes, is likely to exacerbate ongoing tensions, where they >exist, between the police and the public. See Report of the National >Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders 157-168 (1968). *

3 2

Fuel Developer Program Launch - Half Price NOW!
by Lara＠WirelessDeveloper.com 24 Sep '01

24 Sep '01

To see the html version of this email, go to http://www.pinpoint.com/mailers/wd/index.html For a limited time, Pinpoint, in partnership with WirelessDeveloper.com, is offering discounted memberships for the Pinpoint Fuel Developer Program to qualified developers. Join for 50% off the regular price. This offer is only available to registered WirelessDeveloper.com developers. Distribute your wireless applications through Pinpoint's Mobile Applications Platform, Fuel, on carrier networks like Verizon Wireless, Rogers AT&T, and Terra Lycos (a subsidiary of Telefonica.) Get distribution. Get paid. Fuel your application. Fuel Developer Program Benefits: - Distribution of your apps on the largest wireless carriers' networks - Opportunity for preferred deck placement - Ability to control the pricing of your premium applications - Marketing support and inclusion in Pinpoint's Partner & Applications Catalog presented to existing and potential carrier customers - Comprehensive Fuel Developer Kit and documentation - Dedicated and comprehensive member's-only developer site - Technical support including webboard, FAQ, email, & phone support Right now, it's even more affordable to join. Your membership cost is only $250 (regular price $495). Don�t miss out on this limited time opportunity! This offer is only available until October 5, 2001. So why wait? Join now at http://pinpoint.wirelessdeveloper.com or contact WirelessDeveloper.com at 866-702-8387 for more details. To join, register at http://pinpoint.WirelessDeveloper.com/ For questions, email: pinpoint(a)WirelessDeveloper.com What else is going on at WirelessDeveloper.com? 1. Become a Member of WirelessDeveloper.com and GET SERIOUS! and SAVE MONEY! Learn all about it at http://www.WirelessDeveloper.com 2. 15% Discount on the Bluetooth Solutions Forum, Oct 2-3, Troy, MI 3. 10% Discount on the XML One & Web Services One Conference, Sep 30-Oct 4, San Jose, CA 4. 10% Discount on the SIGS Conference for Java Development, Oct 28-31, San Jose, CA Conference details at http://www.WirelessDeveloper.com/events.htm 5. SAVE $50 on the AT&T Wireless Data Developer Program Membership! 6. SAVE $300 on your Compaq iPAQ Developer Program Membership! 7. SAVE $300 on your Compaq Tru64 Unix Developer Program Membership! 8. Save $150 on your StoneStreet One Bluetooth Developer Kit & Program Membership! 9. Save $200 on your Enfora Wireless Developer Program Membership! 10. Save $500 (1/2 price) on the NetPost Cream Developer Program and BETA SDK! 11. Save $200 on your Arch Wireless Developer Program Membership! and of course... 12. 1/2 price on the Pinpoint Fuel Developer Progam Membership. Can't beat that deal!!! You're one click away from WirelessDeveloper nirvana! http://www.WirelessDeveloper.com/store.htm ============================================= We sent this email to you at cypherpunks(a)toad.com. If you got more than one copy, just forward all copies to us and we'll remove the alias dups. If you're not interested in wireless data, wireless applictaion development, etc. -- what the heck are we bugging YOU for? Just reply with an UNSUBSCRIBE in your subject and we'll take you off our list forever (but we'll miss you!)

1 0

Re: CDR Anonymizer <cpunks_anon@einstein.ssz.com> ?
by Eric Murray 24 Sep '01

24 Sep '01

On Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 08:32:46PM -0700, CDR Anonymizer wrote: > The cypherpunks list received yet another copy of the > "Nigerian Corrupt Official's Bank Account" scam spam. > No surprise, though lne.com's filters usually block them. > The interesting thing was that this claims to be sent by the > CDR Anonymizer <cpunks_anon(a)einstein.ssz.com> > > This is the first time I've seen spam using an anonymizer - > any guesses whether the spammer understands how to use it, > or whether they just harvested the address from one of Choate's web pages? > I'm assuming it's probably the latter. I think so. There were a couple spams to the regular cpunks list at the same time containing the same content. It's not the first spam I've seen to cpunks_anon(a)einstein.ssz.com. Hey Jim, could you at least not make it a mailto: so it's not quite so easy to harvest? (note, I'm assuming that it's a mailto, I can't get to ssz.com to check). Eric

1 0

branding war:pentagon changing operation's codename
by pseudolicious 24 Sep '01

24 Sep '01

winston churchill once said: <"Operations in which large numbers of men may lose their lives ought not to be described by code words which imply a boastful or overconfident sentiment."> -------- GOVERNMENT TRIPPING OVER RELIGIOUS RHETORIC=BY SARAH LUBMAN SJMercury News For the second time in less than a week, the U.S. government had damage control to do because of its religion-infused rhetoric. The Pentagon on Thursday backed away from the code name for its anti-terrorist offensive, ``Operation Infinite Justice,'' for fear of offending Muslims. /.../ Objections to ``Infinite Justice'' came up at a Pentagon briefing on Thursday. A reporter told Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that several Islamic scholars took issue with the term, saying that infinite justice resides only with God, or Allah. /.../ The American military, following German practice, began naming its military operations during World War II. In 1942, the Joint Chiefs of Staff approved an index of code words that are randomly assigned for each operation. The first word refers to the operation's region -- e.g., ``desert'' for the Middle East -- and the second often connotes some kind of resolve. Winston Churchill was fascinated with code names and had his own thoughts on the matter, according to a 1995 article on the history of naming operations in Parameters, a U.S. Army War College quarterly. Churchill instructed that operation names shouldn't be silly: They should not ``enable some widow or mother to say that her son was killed in an operation called `Bunnyhug' or `Ballyhoo.' '' /.../ http://www0.mercurycenter.com/partners/docs/003925.htm Posted at 11:03 p.m. PDT Thursday, Sept. 20, 2001

1 0

TIM MAY FOR PREZ!
by f this 24 Sep '01

24 Sep '01

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tim May, All the way?.......4 prez that is Tim has good views and points to various events and i think he deserves some credit and should run for prez. TIM MAY for president in 2k4 nah....how about you just overthrow bush right now. Aimee - How good are the hours you work at Taco Bell? Are they flexible with your times, because Im thinking about working there. Not being a janitor/cashier like you, but where do you think I should start? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

1 0