- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Moral Crypto
by Declan McCullagh 05 Sep '01

05 Sep '01

Your analogy is wrong. You should compare the number of meatspace publishers and their political clout to the number of anonymous remailer operators and their political clout. -Declan On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 01:21:03PM -0500, Fisher Mark wrote: > > Killing remailers will be a by-product of regulating the net. > > Regulating the net to this extent would be a huge undertaking. Trying to > regulate dead-tree publishers to this level would be a large undertaking, a > task not likely to be accomplished without a lot of debate in Congress -- > and there are many fewer dead-tree publishers than net publishers. > > The only way this could be done would be to attack at the large ISP level, > which then brings up First Amendment issues along with common carrier > issues. It could be done, but it would likely take a covert operation so > large that: > * It could only be funded by a government or other large body; and > * Which would likely come to light relatively quickly ("three can keep a > secret, if two are dead"). > > (Covert operation in the sense of staging many events that use the net in > the process of harming people, as in using remailers for staging > terrorist-like attacks for the express purpose of scaring the American > public into abrogating their First Amendments rights unilaterally on the > net.) > =============================================== > Mark Leighton Fisher fisherm(a)tce.com > Thomson multimedia, Inc. Indianapolis IN > The Illuminati are not dead -- > they're just pining for the fnords...

1 0

Re: speech + action
by mmotyka＠lsil.com 05 Sep '01

05 Sep '01

Tim May <tcmay(a)got.net> wrote : >On Tuesday, September 4, 2001, at 10:59 AM, mmotyka(a)lsil.com wrote: > >> Declan McCullagh wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 10:59:54AM -0700, mmotyka(a)lsil.com wrote: >>>> Sure, I mention it because despite its being non-functional and >>>> unpunishable it seemed to have been brought into the courtroom with >>>> the >>>> purpose of spicing up the case. >>> >>> Sure. If you commit unacceptable-to-the-gvt *actions* and also spend a >>> lot of time talking about how government officials should be >>> assassinated, you may reasonably expect those statements to be used >>> against you during your trial. >>> I think the speech, irrelevant as it was, was used to increase the perceived severity of the actions. Isn't this in effect being punished for speech+action? >>> But that is a far cry from your earlier government-has-this-power >>> position, from which you're now backtracking. >>> >>> -Declan >>> >> Not so much backtracking as thinking out loud. Just musing on how the >> letter of the law, its constitutionality, enforcement and even the >> reasoning behind its creation are not always lined up so well. >> >> 18 U.S.C. 23 1 contains the seeds of the speech+action idea. >> > >Please explain. You made the first assertion of this, then "backslid" as >people poked holes in your argument, now you appear to be swinging back >in the other direction merely by asserting something about "seeds." > Really little to explain. Obviously laws cover speech + action. It's just a question of where the boundaries are in their application. I don't know too much about those finer points. [CITE: 18USC371] TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I--CRIMES CHAPTER 19--CONSPIRACY Sec. 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. <snip> Could this be applied to software development? I suppose that depends on whether the software in design is prohibited or not. Until the DMCA is altered or deleted there's already a class of SW that is illegal. It doesn't seem so far-fetched that a discussion of content piracy followed by an active coding project could be attacked. Why not a discussion of tax evasion methods followed by a development project? And don't forget that it's still possible to run afoul of the crypto export regulations. Are our visionary legislators capable of outlawing new classes of software? It's a sure bet. I'll leave it to the lawyers to argue over how specific the speech and actions need to be. Want to test it? Start a project with the stated goals of providing a neat open source project with the stated purpose of cracking and exchanging e-books and start posting code. If you were to start YAPPFSP ( yet another peer to peer file sharing project ) would you state its purpose as "to share pirated music data?" >Could you give a cite for any prosecutions, or are you just speculating >that "Happy Fun Court" will not be "amused" by free speech? > I'm sure there are plenty of conspiracy cases involving the more blatant crimes like kidnapping etc... Are there any militia cases? Like you said, try and find one. The law as written does seem to outlaw speech. The anti-militia laws are interesting in that the least popular are likely to suffer first from "creative" legislation. If an approach is successful against the unpopular then it can always be expanded to include new groups. I offer the bomz and drug speech legislation as further attempts along the same lines. Successful, no, not yet, but they'll keep trying. If they are eventually successful it will cost somebody a bundle to get it overturned. That's a market problem : it's cheaper to make bad law than it is to unmake it. As for the fictional Happy Fun Court's inquisitorial wet dreams, it can go spoliate its head in a bucket. >Comment: It seems to me we are seeing way too many people hitting the >panic button, speculating about some of us getting shot by agents of >happy fun courts, claiming that merely using secrecy methods is >spoliation, arguing that speech is being criminalized, and that, in >essence, we'd all better just slink away from these free speech and >crypto thoughtcrimes. > Speculating yes, panic button, no. It can be instructive to pursue an idea to an extreme. >Fuck that. Don't let the wuss ninnies scare you off. > >--TIm May > Ah, the dreaded wuss-ninnies. I'm not losing any sleep over the Happy Fun Court or its cackling brigade of wuss-ninnies. I'm more concerned that all of the cat5 wires I pulled through the smurf tubes this past weekend are not damaged so I don't have to crawl around my fucking attic anymore. If there's anything I dislike more than wuss-ninnies it's blown-in fiberglass. Mike Question : is steganography code export restricted or is it not even described under the current set of rules?

1 0

ADV: RE: High Quality Web hosting $6.95 per month - NO GIMMICKS!
by billycartin＠gopbi.com 05 Sep '01

05 Sep '01

1 0

Re: Official Anonymizing
by Faustine 05 Sep '01

05 Sep '01

Greg wrote At 04:33 PM 9/4/2001 -0700, John Young wrote: >Look, I'll accept that we will all succumb to the power of the market, >so limit my proposal for full disclosure to those over 30. After that >age one should know there is no way to be truly open-minded. >And, in the spirit of full disclosure, I'll mention that at C2Net we did >sell our software to the government/intelligence agencies who wanted it - >they paid the same prices as any other customers, signed the same sales >contracts (we'd negotiate some on warranty terms for big purchases), and >otherwise got what everyone else got - not more, not less. Your honesty is admirable--and unlike certain other cases, I don't have any real reason to doubt what you say. But are you sure you have adequate security and counter-economic espionage measures in place? Have you had anyone do penetration testing lately? How much do you trust the people you work with? Wish I had a nickel for every time some young (or not-so-young)turk at a security conference or elsewhere started blabbing about things they shouldn't have out of nothing more than a desire to seem big and impress me. Feds and hackers alike, same old song and dance. I never even try to elicit information, either: I don't know, maybe it's some kind of sexist thing to assume a sweet-faced polite young woman could ever be a security threat. The sick thing is, if I were really evil I could have made a lot more than a nickel... Depressing. Wake up and shut up, dumbasses. Back to the insider problem: It's not exclusively a moral issue--whether you think you have more to fear from Uncle Sam, China, or the competitor down the street, everyone can agree that employees who sell out your technology to those out to compromise it are bad news. And frankly, the very people who wouldn't deal with China in a million years might be the ones most willing to listen to agents peddling the old "in the interests of national security" line. And whereas government agencies have always had a strong "culture of paranoia" that at least gets the issues on the table, private companies are at a disadvantage because they never even saw it coming. With a lot of young tech companies having spent the last few years feeling fat, happy, and oh-so-much smarter than those fusty old feds, you've got a potentially massive disaster in the making. Oh well, here's hoping you never get stung by the insider problem personally. ~Faustine.

1 0

Re: Official Anonymizing
by A. Melon 05 Sep '01

05 Sep '01

John Young takes a courageous stand: > I propose that all anonymizers adopt a code of practice that > any sale to officials of anonymizers or their use be disclosed > to the public (I suggested this to ZKS early on when first > meetings with the feds to explain the technology were being > sometimes disclosed). That seems to be a reasonable response > to officially-secret prowling and investigating cyberspace. Absolutely appropriate, given cypherpunk goals. It may be difficult to apply in every case but the intention is laudable. Here is an example of the principle put into practice, from the anonymous web proxy service at http://proxy.magusnet.com/proxy.html: : If you are accessing this proxy from a *.mil or *.gov address : it will not work. As a taxpaying United States Citizen[TM], : Business Owner, and Desert Storm Veteran, I do not want my : tax dollars being used by agencies I pay for to gawk(1) : at WWW pages and hide your origination point at my expense. : Now, get back to work!

5 4

Re: Moral Crypto
by Fisher Mark 05 Sep '01

05 Sep '01

> Killing remailers will be a by-product of regulating the net. Regulating the net to this extent would be a huge undertaking. Trying to regulate dead-tree publishers to this level would be a large undertaking, a task not likely to be accomplished without a lot of debate in Congress -- and there are many fewer dead-tree publishers than net publishers. The only way this could be done would be to attack at the large ISP level, which then brings up First Amendment issues along with common carrier issues. It could be done, but it would likely take a covert operation so large that: * It could only be funded by a government or other large body; and * Which would likely come to light relatively quickly ("three can keep a secret, if two are dead"). (Covert operation in the sense of staging many events that use the net in the process of harming people, as in using remailers for staging terrorist-like attacks for the express purpose of scaring the American public into abrogating their First Amendments rights unilaterally on the net.) =============================================== Mark Leighton Fisher fisherm(a)tce.com Thomson multimedia, Inc. Indianapolis IN The Illuminati are not dead -- they're just pining for the fnords...

1 0

Re: Tim's Tips on Avoiding Prosecution
by Steve Furlong 05 Sep '01

05 Sep '01

Declan wrote: > ...I suspect that a "should be killed" line may be enough to garner > a conviction if you knew or should have known that folks would act on > what you say No, no, "he should be killed" is just shorthand for "he should be kill- filed". -- Steve Furlong Computer Condottiere Have GNU, Will Travel 617-670-3793 Don't sweat the petty things. But do pet the sweaty things.

1 0

Re: Moral Crypto
by Fisher Mark 05 Sep '01

05 Sep '01

> Compare this with the original claim: "in a properly designed > anonymity > system the users will be, well, anonymous, and it should be impossible > to tell any more about them than that they pay their bills on time." > These examples illustrate the falsehood of this claim. Much more > is learned about the customers as they enter the anonymous system. But how do you know they've entered the anonymous system? If you are already being pursued by your antagonist, *and* you have been personally identified, then you have trouble you can't solve by any current software-based security technology. If you have not been personally identified, then your antagonist must either personally identify you or monitor all possible remailer network entrances. Monitoring all remailer network entrances can be done, but it is not for the weak of wallet. Even large governments do not have unlimited resources -- they must pick and choose their targets, rather than trying to go after everyone. The Soviet government and its puppet states encouraged people to turn each other in just so they didn't have to pay for 50% of the population to watch the other 50%. Large resources != infinite resources. =============================================== Mark Leighton Fisher fisherm(a)tce.com Thomson multimedia, Inc. Indianapolis IN The Illuminati are not dead -- they're just pining for the fnords...

1 0

Re: Naughty Journal Author Denied Plea Change
by Nomen Nescio 05 Sep '01

05 Sep '01

J.A. Terranson writes: > This is the case I had in mind when I made my recent assertion that > thought==action in today's "court". How can anyone see this case, and not > conclude otherwise? This dude is going to spend a long time in stir, for > a *pure Thought Crime*. Gee, maybe he shouldn't have pleaded GUILTY then. How can you say that this proves that thought==action when the issue wasn't decided at trial? > On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Eric Cordian wrote: > > > Not unsurprisingly, the judge has refused to permit a man sentenced to 10 > > years in prison for textual depictions of child sex in a private journal > > to withdraw his guilty plea and get a trial.

1 0

Test Your Investment Strategy. Win Prizes.
by Multex Investor 05 Sep '01

05 Sep '01

********************************************************************* As a registered Multex Investor member, we will occasionally contact you with special opportunities. To unsubscribe to this or any other exclusive offers, please see the bottom of this message. ********************************************************************* Dear Multex Investor Member, Trading has begun in the fourth round of the Multex Investor Challenge. Don't miss out on your chance to win $25,000 and other great prizes by managing a $100,000 virtual portfolio. Register today at www.simvestsolutions.com/multexinvestor/challenge_details.asp?subsec=regist…. The Multex Investor Challenge allows you to experience online investing without the risk. It's fun. It's educational. It's free. - Registration runs from August 8, 2001 - October 3, 2001 - Trading runs from September 4, 2001 - October 26, 2001 Check out the Multex Investor Challenge at its new address: www.simvestsolutions.com/multexinvestor =================================================================== Please send your questions and comments to: mailto:multexsupport@simvesting.com If you'd like to learn more about Multex Investor, please visit: http://www.multexinvestor.com/welcome.asp If you can't remember your Multex Investor password and/or your user name, click here: http://www.multexinvestor.com/lostinfo.asp If you want to update your email address, please click on the URL below: http://www.multexinvestor.com/edituinfo.asp =================================================================== To remove yourself from the mailing list for Special Promotions, please REPLY to THIS email message with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject line. You may also unsubscribe on the account update page at: http://www.multexinvestor.com/edituinfo.asp =================================================================== Please email advertising inquiries to us at: mailto:advertise@multex.com.

1 0