- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

BATF, AP, Unintended Consequences author harassment
by Subcommander Bob 30 Aug '01

30 Aug '01

At 08:39 AM 8/30/01 -0500, measl(a)mfn.org wrote: >> Is Tom Clancy going to spend much time in stir for machine gunning the US >> Congress at the end of Debt of Honor? >Possibly: see the campaign to put away John Ross, author of "Unintended >Consequences". > www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39696d3b3c7b.htm Wherein it says: For example, in 1997 the book's publisher became aware that individuals purporting to be BATF agents had threatened vendors of the book in at least three different states with "problems" if they did not cease their sales of the book. A full-page ad in Shotgun News offering a $10,000 reward for the identity of these individuals put a stop to that particular business. Wouldn't this be evidence supporting AP?

1 0

RE: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot
by Duncan Frissell 30 Aug '01

30 Aug '01

At 05:28 PM 8/28/01 -0700, Ray Dillinger wrote: >The focus of the US intel community is shifting, at the current time, >to "domestic terrorism". That makes political speech of the kind >which has in past years been entirely normal on this list orders >of magnitude more dangerous to the participants than it was at that >time. Taking part in this discussion in a style "traditional" for >this list could be very dangerous. Remember, one out of every >fifty Americans is in jail, and if you think you're in the most >radical two percent of the population, there are implications, >aren't there? I'm not involved in the retail pharmaceutical trade like most of those poor political prisoners. I wouldn't worry about discussing drug laws or the retail pharmaceutical trade, however. Do you have any evidence of a greater risk of imprisonment for discussions of the effect of technology in weakening national states? Is Tom Clancy going to spend much time in stir for machine gunning the US Congress at the end of Debt of Honor? I know that there has been an increase in punishments levied on the institutionalized populations of our many local institutions for the mentally challenged, but any parent who turns his children's body and brain over to a bureaucracy for training deserves what they get (though the children/victims do not). And since most of these punishments consist of removing the child from the institution in question, it's hard to see to see them as genuine punishments. They're actually helpful to the poor tykes. There hasn't been a statistically significant increase in imprisonment of adults (or non-institutionalized children) for thought crime. You might have argued the case in '92 and '93 when the Feds were investing various "compounds" of thought criminals around the country but the Fibbies got burned so bad that they snatched their hands back. Note that Weaver, Harris, and the Waco 11 were all acquitted of murder in the killing of federal agents. Real slap in the face to Main Justice. >For Tim: >Why are you attempting to provoke public discussion about things >that could get people jailed or worse for discussing them? It's >interesting to see you post your "sweet spot" message and then call >someone *else* an agent provocateur. What's the "or worse"? The Ninth Circuit where Jeff would put Tim or whoever on trial has been very protective of the First. Note the Nuremberg Files case. That Court of Appeals has the most libertarian Appeals Court Judge (Kozinski) and there is loads circuit precedent for political speech protection. And all of the agitation and possible targeting of this list as well as the Libertarian Party of Washington would give anyone with half a brain yet another defense - selective prosecution. We have quite a bit of evidence of punishment for participating in a public forum. There's 9th circuit precedent for that defense too from back when the Hawaii US attorney prosecuted the Hawaii 4 for census resistance in 1970 after census resistance was advocated on KTRG radio. See US v. Watamull. CJ & JB are partially responsible for their problems. Unlike JB, for example, I'll never volunteer to the commission of a federal felony on the witness stand (mail tampering) that the Feds didn't even know about. There's such a thing as a special kind of stupid. JB plead out in his first case which didn't gain him anything except more trouble. Better not to plead in political cases. And CJ waived a jury. Most 1A defenses work only on appeal so the jury isn't that important but it can help. Both needed good appeal lawyers. Most of the rest of the possible targets will have good lawyers (or be good enough ones). I do think that there has been a bit too much cooperation with the Feds by members of this list. Two members have talked to Fibbies who showed up at their doors. They should have told them to get lost (as one always should). Think about it folks. The more time you spend in the presence of peace officers, the more information you give them for free whether by word, body language, or opportunities for visual inspection of your surroundings. Don't interact. You don't have to. And the several list members who have been subpoenaed could have done a little more to resist. When one receives a subpoena, the first thing you should do is throw it away. You can always wimp out later if you want but if you ignore the initial contact, they may go away. Make them do a little heavy lifting. Then if you are free to move, you should arrange to vacation overseas. If you have a job (reporter) that can be performed by Net and telephone, you should go to Canada where you can continue to work easily. If you can't move, you should at least wait for a second communication of some sort from the government. If you receive a second contact, you should point out that you will be a hostile witness and do nothing but verbally abuse them from the stand. You can prove your facility at this by verbally abusing them over the phone. If you are on the Right Coast and the court venue is on the Left Coast, you should immediately bundle up all your "government issued picture IDs" and burn them so you can't fly. Less easily, you could also try and weight 320 pounds so that carrying you will prove difficult for US Marshals. You might also try to be suffering from a potentially fatal disease so that threats from the Feds can be placed in the proper perspective. [Since, for now, we all *do* suffer from a potentially fatal disease (life), threats from the Feds should already be placed in a proper perspective.] Lastly, if you develop studious habits, you will discover that "prison is no punishment for the literate." Make *them* oppress you! Don't do it to yourself. They can't force you to speak. You have control of your voluntary muscles. Show a little backbone. DCF ---- "I brought up blankets, towels, toilet paper, Kleenex, aspirin, a bottle of rum and the .38" -- What my grandmother Louise Porter Frissell took to the evacuation assembly point at Schofield Barracks, Oahu, Territory of Hawaii, on December 7th 1941.

3 2

Re: Wuss-ninnies object to discussions on the list
by Batman Svejk 30 Aug '01

30 Aug '01

[demime could not interpret encoding binary - treating as plain text] >Next, we started seeing sissies like Ray Dillinger, er, "Bear," some >sort of polyamoristic wuss-ninny from northern California, urging us to >change the subject, to talk about the nurturing and children-friendly >aspects of crypto. Fuck that. This is not some list for leftie greens >and wuss-ninnies. Not all of the leftie greens object to discussions on this list, but if this (your?) list is not for greens, maybe those with different political views than your own should go away? Unlikely, given the political importance of crypto and privacy, sorry. What is your intent with Ms. Farr? (If she really is a Ms. - "No one knows you're a dog on the Internet.") Out the fed? Or, to get her off the list? Maybe you'd like a law that makes it illegal to troll. Heh. -Svejk ------------------------------------------------------------ .

2 1

Re: Stealth Computing Abuses TCP Checksums
by Greg Broiles 30 Aug '01

30 Aug '01

At 07:00 AM 8/30/2001 -0500, Dean, James wrote: >Don't fall for this. After registering at www.nature.com (supplying >personal details), you find you'll have to pay to see the article. See <http://www.nd.edu/~parasite/>, including a .PDF of the article at <http://www.nd.edu/~parasite/nature.pdf>. -- Greg Broiles gbroiles(a)well.com "We have found and closed the thing you watch us with." -- New Delhi street kids

1 0

Legal Communication and Censorship....
by Jon Beets 30 Aug '01

30 Aug '01

I got a notice today from MOXON & KOBRIN Attorneys at Law representing the Church of Scientology International ("CSI") and Religious Technology Center ("RTC") stating infringement Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act for a web site I currently mirror at http://xenu.pacer.com. It appears that some of the infringements may be true ( I will have to look to be sure) but what really gets me is the part quoted below.. They are saying since "Scientology", "Dianetics", "Hubbard" and "NOTs" are registered trademarks they cannot be used in metatags in a webpage... The restriction in use of words in a web page is just flat out censorship.. Absolutely ridiculous... It would be one thing if someone used the words to represent a business.. But I would think metatags at the very least would fall under the "Fair Use" clause. Quoted from email ___________________________________________________________ Lastly, you have placed the following federally registered trademarks belonging to RTC as metatags on your web page: "Scientology" which is registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office under registration numbers: 1540928, 1342353,1329474, 1318717, 1036997, 0898018, 1755441; "Dianetics" which is registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office under registration numbers 1347651, 1366410, 1432039; "Hubbard" which is registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office under registration numbers 1318637, 1505349, 1546167, 1734728; and "NOTs" which is registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office under registration numbers 1372473, 1307552, 1305409 (NOTS). ____________________________________________________________________________ End Quote Jon Beets Pacer Communications

2 1

Bell Testimony Day 2
by John Young 30 Aug '01

30 Aug '01

Day 2: http://cryptome.org/jdb040901-2.htm Completion of direct questioning by Robert Leen, Jim's many-times-fired attorney, and cross-examination by Robb London. Two cpunks are mentioned by Jim by name, with glowingly admirable death kisses. But he also kisses Leen (says Leen threatened to kill him two days before), London, Tanner, cpunk Jeff, another J and wife B, CIA's Bend OR Phantom, a phantom Phantom, The Super-Dirty Narc, Innocent Victim Agent No. 2, the Laura Raider of his mother's fireplace ashes, a police-asslick Reporter, and ... what can be said of Jim that he can't yodel better on the stand. Tanner admonished London for leaving the podium during questioning to get docs. "Stop it." London apologized for asking Jim too many questions without waiting for answers. "I'll stop it." Leen asked to be relieved as defense attorney, Tanner: "Denied. Leen asked for a psycho exam of Jim, Tanner denied. Jim tried to invoke his 5th Amendment rights, Tanner denied: "answer the question." Jim asked for legal representation, crying IANAL, Tanner denied: "answer." Jim admitted he stole mail and opened it, and burned it in his mother's fireplace. Jim admitted he sent a fax across state lines, and went across state lines in pursuit of homebases of official pukes. London affirmed all Jim's prison phone calls were monitored, that cpuke Jeff monitors cpunks -- maybe it was Jim who said the latter when he testified that that posting to cpunks was how he notified the opukes what he intended. Etc.

1 0

Lawyer Lessig raps new copyright laws - Tech News - CNET.com
by Jim Choate 30 Aug '01

30 Aug '01

http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-7004860.html -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Stealth Computing Abuses TCP Checksums
by Dean, James 30 Aug '01

30 Aug '01

Don't fall for this. After registering at www.nature.com (supplying personal details), you find you'll have to pay to see the article.

1 0

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot
by Anonymous 30 Aug '01

30 Aug '01

Anonymous wrote: > The cypherpunk world replaces coercion with cooperation. It > provides the shield of anonymity against those who would offer > violence and aggression. As we move into the information age, > control of information is control of the individual. Thus, privacy, > control of information about one's self, is freedom. > > And as Eric Hughes points out, cypherpunk technologies are > ultimately based on social cooperation. By definition, anonymity is > meaningless unless it is attained as part of a group. "People must > come together and deploy these systems for the common good." Yes! The pacificism which underlies most cypherpunk ideas has always been attractive. It's cheaper to be hard to track than to have to defend yourself. (Maybe this is why so many animals use camouflage.) > "Any message posted to cypherpunks via an anonymous remailer gets an > automatic +2 on hit points, for it practices what it preaches." > -- Anonymous Sing it, brother, sing it!

1 0

[��] �� ִ� ��ι�۱� �߼�� Ѱ�� 帳�ϴ�.
by join＠sshow.co.kr 30 Aug '01

30 Aug '01

1 0