- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report
by Declan McCullagh 15 Aug '01

15 Aug '01

On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 12:09:18AM +0300, Sampo Syreeni wrote: > Americans naturally know far better than I ever will), one does have some > reason to believe the "speech" in 1A is mostly targeted at political speech, > even if the meaning is implied. That's a common argument with which many Americans would probably agree. Eric Freedman at Hofstra law school has written a nice piece refuting it. It may even be available online. > >(The landmark Supreme Court cases on obscenity, like Miller, have to do > >with fairly gross obscenity. Not that I agree they were justified, but the > >"online decency" issue is a long way from what the Supremes have said may > >be banned.) > > So how about the "prevailing community standard" part? The prevailing community standards of online communities like xxx sites seem to be pretty liberal. :) > Agreed. But I do think self-labelling is a nice gesture, and may even afford > one a direct means of targeting a site specifically for the kind of people Perhaps, but nice gestures lead to slippery slopes, IMHO. -Declan

1 0

Re: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report
by georgemw＠speakeasy.net 15 Aug '01

15 Aug '01

On 16 Aug 2001, at 0:09, Sampo Syreeni wrote: > And I think if you look at the history of the Bill of Rights (which > Americans naturally know far better than I ever will), one does have some > reason to believe the "speech" in 1A is mostly targeted at political speech, > even if the meaning is implied. > I really don't think so. It's possible some people were more concerned with political speech in the sense that the idea that Congress might try to ban "dirty books" wouldn't have ocurred to them in the first place, whereas the idea that it might try to ban "subversive" or "heretical" speech seemed a more likely threat, but the idea that political speech is somehow more deserving of protection (as opposed to more in need) would have been as alien to the founding fathers as it is to me. I'll take that a step further; the only people who will assert that political speech is somehow more important than any other kind are people who have spent too much of their lives heavily involved in politics. I think the same concept is true for the BoR in general. The 4th amendment prohibition against unreasonable serach and seizure isn't there to give criiminals (political or otherwise) a sporting chance, it's that your life is essentially your own, and if society wants to invade your home they'd better have a damn good reason. The reason there isn't an amendment in the BoR protecting your right to eat, drink, and smoke what you choose is that the glutinous pothead drunkards who wrote the Constitution never conceived of such abusive laws in the first place, which in turn is because the bush-league tyrant George III never even considered trying to inflict such laws on the populace. > >(The landmark Supreme Court cases on obscenity, like Miller, have to do > >with fairly gross obscenity. Not that I agree they were justified, but the > >"online decency" issue is a long way from what the Supremes have said may > >be banned.) > > So how about the "prevailing community standard" part? > Well, that's just something the Supremes made up, but, to be fair, the idea that the 14th extends the protection of most but not quite all of the BoR from Congress to the states is more or less something the Supremes made up also. > >"For the children!" is no more a reason to trump the First for Web sites > >than it would be to trump the First for bookstores, for example, by > >requiring that "Lolita" be kept in an adult's only section. > > The question is, are there enough sensible people around to stop precisely > that from happening? > How many does it take? I suspect the vast majority don't care much one way or the other. They don't read, they don't care what or if other people read, hell, I haven't even read Lolita myself, saw the Kubrik film though. > >Nor is "self labelling" acceptable under the First. My words are my > >words, my pages are my pages. I don't have to "rate" them for how a > >Muslim might feel about them, or how Donna Rice might react, or whether > >I included material "offensive" to Creationists. > > Agreed. But I do think self-labelling is a nice gesture, and may even afford > one a direct means of targeting a site specifically for the kind of people > most vocal about banning online speech. > Self-label if you choose. But don't be too surprised when others choose otherwise. More to the point, don't be too surprised when others self label and rate their content in a way radically different to the way you would. George > Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy, mailto:decoy@iki.fi, gsm: +358-50-5756111 > student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front

2 1

Re: Affects of the balkanization of mail blacklisting
by measl＠mfn.org 15 Aug '01

15 Aug '01

On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, Jared Mauch wrote: > > No, I'm not talking about the spammers who were caught in maps, I'm > > referring to the INNOCENTS who were caught in MAPS. If the LEO community > > acted like MAPS does, there would have been armed revolution in the > > streets *years ago*. > > > > MAPS never gave a shit about facts, they cared only about their agenda - > > no matter who got hurt in the way. > > > > Fuckem. Vixie is a netnazi who would do us all a favor if he just blew > > what little brains he has left out of his left ear. > > I think you are confused and talking about ORBS. the MAPS people > have not acted with any agenda that I've ever seen. I assure you I am not confused. ORBS was intolerably worse, but MAPS is still not something I am looking forward to seeing survive. > I'm not saying that I agree with all the things that MAPS > or Vixie has done during their lifetimes but I think they provide > a valuable service. Then of course, you are free to subscribe. > With the orbs, maps changes recently i've seen > the volume of spam increase by several orders of magnitude. Agreed. > I wish there was a clean way to filter it out. There are plenty, but most of us are too goddamn lazy to do it ourselves, and ask for an ORBS or MAPS like service to do it for us. We have NEVER had a spam problem (we've been here since 1994) going out - not a single incident (not that we probably won't haqve one *someday*, but still, it's a hell of a good track record). The SPAM problem goes up and down to be sure, but you know what? PROCMAIL is your friend. All you need to look for are the basics (ADV, Make Money, etc) and you can instatly filter 90 percent of this trash into the bitbucket. At work (not mfn.org) I get several orders of magnitude more mail (usually obnoxious at that) from the "gentle anti-spammers" than the poor "victims" get themselves! Lets get my position straight: I think spam is annoying as heel, and should not be done. I don't think that SPAM is going to cause any major social upheavals. I also disagree that all people want to be spared from SPAM, and with thaqt in mind, I believe everyone should defend themselves to the best of their interest, and leave the next guy alone: he or she probably has *way* more important things to worry about. > - Jared -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin(a)mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------

4 3

Mob Software
by Jim Choate 15 Aug '01

15 Aug '01

http://www.dreamsongs.com/MobSoftware.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

Register to win your Dream Vacation .
by michael3341＠hotmail.com 15 Aug '01

15 Aug '01

You have been specially selected to qualify for the following: Premium Vacation Package and Pentium PC Giveaway To review the details of the please click on the link with the confirmation number below: http://www.1xin.net/wintrip Confirmation Number#Lh340 Please confirm your entry within 24 hours of receipt of this confirmation. Wishing you a fun filled vacation! If you should have any additional questions or cann't connect to the site do not hesitate to contact me direct: mailto:vacation@btamail.net.cn?subject=Help!

1 0

Re: food fo thought
by mmotyka＠lsil.com 15 Aug '01

15 Aug '01

georgemw(a)speakeasy.net wrote : >On 14 Aug 2001, at 17:34, Gabriel Rocha wrote: >> Taming the Web >> By Charles C. Mann September 2001 >> >> "Information wants to be free." "The Internet can't be controlled." >> We've heard it so often that we sometimes take for granted that it's >> true. But THE INTERNET CAN BE CONTROLLED, and those who argue otherwise >> are hastening the day when it will be controlled too much, by the wrong >> people, and for the wrong reasons. >> >I think we've all seen this type of argument before. >Interestingly enough, the article offers no support whatsoever for >any part of this other than the "the internet can be controlled" part. >What dire consequences will come from circumventing bad laws >is never addressed in this type of article, at least not in >any that I've read. And with good reason: congress has already >conclusively demenostrated that they do not have the wisdom and >knowledge to make good laws for cyberspace, no way, no how. > >So let's just take a look at the arguments for the assertion that >"the internet can be controlled". > >The form argument >seems to be listing "myths" followed by "refutation by anecdote". I >find this a particularly unpersuasive form of argument. I'll go into a >little more dtail, probably more than is actually merited. > >"Myth #1: The internet is too international to be controlled". >Refuting anecdote: Swapnet is allegedly based in St. Kitts and >Nevis, non-signatories to the WIPO. However, because of limited >bandwidth going to the carribean island, their big servers are >actually situated in Virginia. > >I'm unimpressed. as the article points out, access to the islands is >being upgraded, and besides, even a relatively slow connection to >an uncensorable site can be extremely useful. For example, you >could have your legally secure slow connection have pointers >to the location of files rather than the files themselves. > >"Myth #2: The Net is too Interconnected to Control" >Refuting Anectdote: Gnutella doesn't scale well, with Bearshare >the "peers" aren't really equal, and Freenet is unsearchable. > >The "point" here is that the majority of lusers still have dialup >connections, and are in no position to offer useful services, >even if they were willing to. > >First off, the number of people with persistent, higher speed >connections is rapidly increasing and second, this ain't a >democracy. It may be true that you would "only" have to shut >down 5-10% or so of Bearshare's clients to make the remaining >network virtually useless, but I think that's still an enormous >number of machines. > >"Myth #3: The net is too filled with Hackers to control" >Refuting Assertion: You can build controls into the hardware, >and that can't be hacked. > >Well, maybe, but that requires people to go out and buy >their own straightjackets. > >Also, it's importnat to remember that information isn't hardware, >it's bits. It just takes one person to post a "cracked" file >somewhere, >and then it doesn't matter whether the attempts to restrict >copying are implemented in hardware or software, because the >file is no longer recognized as being copy protected. > >I could rant on, but all this is really only addressing what I >consider to be the minor assertion, which is that "you'e going >to lose sooner or later, so you might as well give up." > >The more important assertiion (IMO) is that "the sooner you give >up, the better it'll go for you". I haven't seen any support at all >offered for this position, and I think the only appropriate reply >to it is, "Bullshit". > >George > One mistake the author makes is that he seems to think that there are only anarchist hackers out there who should forget the hacking thing and become lobbyists. There are already people doing that work who are probably better at it than 99/100 hackers. There may be a need for more people and resources to lobby for rational laws but the space is not empty. Another mistake is in lumping the private uses of the net in with the commercial. I doubt that the personal uses can ever be fully subjugated to commercial needs. However, I think it's pretty clear that a great deal more could be controlled and punished than is currently. It'll be like the drug war : the first 2% or so costs USD25B to get off the streets. What will the last 2% cost? USD25B? Not likely. Draw the $ vs. %control curve. The entire US GNP is not enough. Is the article Total Bullshit? No, but I'd put on my Wellies. Mike Anyone have any strong opinions on laptops as far as reliability and Linux-friendliness? I like HP and Toshiba at this point.

1 0

"For the children": DMV high-tech database and ID card for kids
by Faustine 15 Aug '01

15 Aug '01

How's this for a telling quote: "I think it ought to be mandatory," Lopez said. "I just think it ought to go nationally. . . . That database could be used for many things." D.C. Plans ID Card for Students Aim of DMV Database Is Missing Children The ID cards, issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles, could be used to track everything from children's welfare benefits to attendance at school functions. (D.C. Motor Vehicle Administration) By Robert O'Harrow Jr. Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, August 15, 2001; Page A01 District officials plan to begin taking digital photographs and fingerprints of schoolchildren this fall as part of a high-tech identification initiative designed to improve the search for missing children. Under a plan initiated by the administration of Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D), the information about the children would be collected at schools using laptop computers. It would be fed into a centralized computer system, and the children then would receive ID cards containing bar codes that can be scanned by authorities, officials said. Children from 2 to 14 initially would be eligible for the new IDs, and parents would have to give their approval before their children can participate. The IDs are to cost $5, although the city may subsidize the fee for low-income residents. The IDs would need to be renewed every two years. Several officials said they hope the program could be expanded to improve social services by closely tracking youths' involvement in schools and government benefit programs. Although local law enforcement agencies and private organizations have long snapped photos and taken fingerprints for parents to use in the event of a child's disappearance, the District's initiative is fundamentally different because the government is to maintain the information. "We want to take advantage of the latest digital technology to implement a process that will enable us to protect and assist the parents and children of the District of Columbia," Sherryl Hobbs Newman, director of the Department of Motor Vehicles, who is overseeing the plan, said in an interview. "We should use the technology we're developing to get that information to whomever needs it." It is not clear how much of a problem missing children are in the District. The mayor's office said police list 86 open cases of juveniles reported missing in the 17 months from January 2000 to the end of May. Nationally, more than 5,000 children are listed as missing at any one time, said a spokesman for a group that tracks the issue. Those numbers include runaways and children taken by estranged parents. Businesses, governments and military agencies everywhere are linking computers, digital photographs and biometric identifiers -- such as fingerprints and facial scans -- to improve security and better authenticate the identities of individuals. Many law enforcement agencies use such technology to electronically book prisoners. But the coupling of technology and biometric information has drawn intense criticism from privacy advocates. And some activists and officials expressed concern about the District's plan, saying the identifying information could be misused by authorities and hacked by outsiders. "I find it kind of scary," said Mary M. Levy, analyst and counsel for Parents United for the D.C. Public Schools, an advocacy group. She said many parentsmight not want police using the data for investigations. D.C. Council member Kevin P. Chavous (D-Ward 7), chairman of the council's Education Committee, said he shares Levy's concerns, but he supports the program. "Generally, I think it's a good idea," he said. "I am a little concerned about the Big Brother aspect." Council member Phil Mendelson (D), who is on the Education Committee, said he was unaware of the plan but is glad it is voluntary. He said the government nevertheless must act slowly because of the privacy issues involved. "We need to be very careful about . . . obtaining such detailed information," he said. At the request of the mayor, council Chairman Linda W. Cropp (D) introduced a resolution July 6 that would amend local regulations to allow for the child ID cards. There was no debate at the time, and no hearings have been scheduled. The resolution takes effect 45 working days after its introduction, unless the council votes against it, officials said. Newman said she is sensitive to privacy concerns. Although the system would greatly ease the collection of information about individual children, she said, it would also be configured to limit how much information officials could get. "I think people will eventually see the benefits," she said. "New things tend to scare people." The District's initiative would be the most sophisticated in the nation to focus primarily on children, according to officials at Polaroid ID Systems, who have worked with the DMV to create the program. The only similar program is in West Virginia, which began offering child IDs two years ago. The District plan differs from it in one key respect: District DMV officials intend to go into the schools with portable equipment to collect children's information. Only about 5,000 children have been photographed or fingerprinted in West Virginia, in part because officials there require parents to bring their children to motor vehicle offices, according to Mary Jane Lopez, a spokeswoman for the DMV there. District motor vehicle officials described the program as a chance to use their year-old digital driver-licensing system to help authorities find missing children by providing instant access, including over the Internet, to recent photos and other identifying details. Officials have also begun planning ways to expand the program to improve the delivery of social services for eligible children, "from day one of their lives," said to Sandra Villeneuve, a regional account manager at Polaroid ID Systems who has attended planning meetings in the mayor's office. Among other things, school officials might use the bar code on students' ID cards to monitor attendance in school and at events. Social services officials might use the card to track a child's benefits, officials said. Newman said that if the program unfolds as planned, the use of an ID card may become obligatory for some young people who receive social services and already provide much of the information to city officials. "What we're doing is actually making it more convenient . . . condensing it in one card," she said. Some parents expressed concern about how the DMV would control access to the system and limit uses of the data. Iris Toyer, the mother of a 9-year- old at Stanton Elementary School, said: "I find it invasive. I do not know who will have access to it. I do not know how it will be used, regardless of what they say." Privacy specialists also criticized the plan, saying the city's apparent aims for the program are too open-ended to justify the risks of gathering so much information about children in one place. "There are always benefits. There are also risks that tend to be understated," said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. "Now you're talking about kids." An official from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Childen also questioned the wisdom of the District's plan. Spokesman David Shapiro said there's no question that investigators searching for missing children need access to a current photo as quickly as possible. But, Shapiro said, authorities can usually get the information they need from parents. Oftentimes that includes a child's fingerprints. During the last decade, through community- and business-sponsored programs, the center has helped create 12 million children's "passports" containing photographs and information about individual children. Police agencies and other groups have done the same thing. "It's the national center's view that only parents should maintain this information," Shapiro said, adding that a major concern is that outsiders or officials might misuse information collected in a database. "There's always that potential. . . . Security is a major issue." As in the District, West Virginia officials envision a major expansion of the program in the coming years. Lopez said officials there are considering using the ID cards to improve security and track attendance at schools. They may also want to create IDs for children in foster care programs to ensure they get proper services, she said. "I think it ought to be mandatory," Lopez said. "I just think it ought to go nationally. . . . That database could be used for many things." Staff writer Sewell Chan contributed to this report.

1 0

food fo thought
by Gabriel Rocha 15 Aug '01

15 Aug '01

I figure this list is as good a place as any if not better to discuss this one. It is off of /. today. Just thinking that these ethos do still apply, in my mind anyway. What needs to happen for them to be true is education of the general population (Yes, I know it is a naive idea.) Perhaps the day will come when a great enough (howvere small it may be) percentage of web users are in f act savvy and somewhat computer educated to manage to circumvent the bonds placed upon them, wether it will be legally or not, the times will decide. --gabe http://www.technologyreview.com/magazine/sep01/mann.asp Taming the Web By Charles C. Mann September 2001 "Information wants to be free." "The Internet can't be controlled." We've heard it so often that we sometimes take for granted that it's true. But THE INTERNET CAN BE CONTROLLED, and those who argue otherwise are hastening the day when it will be controlled too much, by the wrong people, and for the wrong reasons. -- "It's not brave, if you're not scared."

2 1

Open your e-mail and get 5 to 25 cents each to do so
by Rich 15 Aug '01

15 Aug '01

1 0

From Walter Bressert: New Trading Program.
by Walter Bressert 15 Aug '01

15 Aug '01

Learn how to enter a market with a $200 POINT RISK, or lower, with Walter's new 4-STEP TRADING MASTERY PROGRAM. THEORY TO ACTUAL TRADING This trading package not only gives you the tools to trade, but also real-time trading with Walter during live, interactive trading sessions, providing you with the opportunity to take what you have learned from theory to actual hands-on application with Walter as your trading coach. Whether you are new to cycle trading, or a previous customer that wants to remain current on Walter_s trading techniques, this is an unsurpassed opportunity to benefit from Walter_s latest cycle trading techniques that will improve your timing and lower your risk exposure. Find out if you can benefit, go to _ http://www.walterbressert.com/1234.htm NOTE: This is a time-sensitive special offer that includes over $1200 in DISCOUNTS & BONUSES that EXPIRES ON 8/22/01. Additional discounts may apply to previous customers. Regards, Teresa Bressert WALTER BRESSERT, INC. Voice: 312.893.0801 Mailto:teresa@walterbressert.com YOU CAN BUY BOTTOMS & SELL TOPS! Important Disclaimer http://www.walterbressert.com/disclaimer There is a loss in trading futures Removal Instructions: If you would like to be removed from our mailing list, click on the email link below. Be sure to provide your full name and email address as we have it on file. Mailto:Remove@walterbressert.com

1 0