- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Recipes galore on ParentsTalk
by news＠parents-talk.com 13 Apr '01

13 Apr '01

(This message is sent only to e-mail addresses provided by users in the registration process on ParentsTalk and KidsCom.) Dear Parent: Need an answer for the never-ending question "What's for dinner?" We've got quick-and-easy recipes, exotic recipes, kid-friendly recipes and more. Try typing in what you have in your cabinet and find a recipe that meets your needs. http://www.parents-talk.com/cgi-bin/redirects/massmail/worldrecipes ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ We're changing our look! We're busy working on a new site design that we plan to launch on April 23rd. Be sure to come back and check it out! ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Click here to register your child and sign them up to become a KidsCom Kid! It's free, it's safe and it's fun! http://www.parents-talk.com/cgi-bin/redirects/massmail/kidscom_reg ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ And, don't forget to bookmark www.parents-talk.com as one of your favorite places. ParentsTalk Staff +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ REMOVAL PROCESS This message was sent to e-mail address: cypherpunks(a)algebra.com If you do not want to receive future e-mail updates about new features and content on ParentsTalk , simply click here: http://www.parentstalk.com/cgi-bin/registration/autopt.pl?action=login&emai… +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ If you have questions or comments, do not reply to this e-mail. Instead, write to talkback(a)parents-talk.com. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

1 0

Re: Pleading the 5th
by Tim May 13 Apr '01

13 Apr '01

At 1:26 PM -0700 4/12/01, David Honig wrote: >At 02:21 PM 4/12/01 -0400, Sunder wrote: >> >>While he can't really enforce what people do with the emails that they >>receive from him, if he sees his posts printed in full in the next issue >>of WIRED, he could sue. >> > >Quite salient coming after Tim's post about the vulnerability of >centralized, publicized spaces/assets. Its precisely this that would make >it practical to sue a copyright infringing entity. > >Except when the centralized entity its a state selling your DMV records, of >course. "Sovereign immunity" is their salvation. Fact is, we as a nation have done several things to make it a great place for lawyers: -- nearly everything can be sued over. If Alice doesn't like a book that Borders sells, finding it "offensive" in some way, she sues. (It usually helps her case move through the system, generate publicity, collect contingency fee lawyers) if she claims the book in question belittles her aspirations as minority, or contains sexist terms, or caused her to suffer post-bookstore traumatic shock syndrome (PBTSS). -- deep pockets. Damages are not awarded based on objective standards (such as they are) but on how much money Borders, for example, might have in its coffers. McDonald's has a lot of money, so award an old lady a lot of money for trying to drive her car with a hot cup of coffee between her legs. The hospital is a Giant Corporation, thinks the jury, so award a woman a bunch of money when she says a CAT scan caused her to lose her psychic powers. -- a massively complicated legal system that requires expensive lawyers just to act as special scribes and priests who can interpret the Latinisms and complicated precedents. Those who act "pro se" (a la Parker, Henson, Bell, etc.) often find themselves chewed up and crushed by the machine. And those who rely on the "ditch diggers" of the legal industry, the court-paid shysters and hacks, find this is all part of the Plan. I once heard that a leading chip company was no longer pushing to reform the legal system, as they once had in the 1970s. Seems that by getting very big and having the resources to hire several hundred lawyers and entire floors of people to fill out required forms, permits, documentation, requests, etc., they were well-equipped to simply *outlast* the new chip companies which tried to be nimble--as Giant Chip Corp had once been--and to wait until the upstarts found themselves roadblocked by not having properly completed Permit Request 466-571 A, "Determination of Sufficient Burritos and Other Frozen Items in Company Break Rooms, pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act, Sub-part B, revised 11/99." In other words, legal red tape helped those who had invested earliest in lawyers and hurt those trying to innovate. (By "rules" and "forms" I included taxes and accounting rules as well. Giant Chip Corp had more accountants and CPAs filling out endless mounds of paper required by local towns, counties, Regional Water Districts, Southern District MUDs, states, Feds, and international agencies and jurisdictions than it had design engineers working on its chips. And it came to _like_ the welter of laws and forms, as it raised the bar for upstart competitors.) This is all part of the rent-seeking process. Thugs shaking down those they can. Transactions by coercion. I would not be willing to set up any kind of on-line business. I would know that busybodies would be suing, lawyers would be sniffing around looking for "rent-seeking" (shakedown) opportunities, and hundreds of state and federal regulators and watchdogs would be searching for ways to either make a name for themselves or to finagle a way to be guaranteed a lobbying job after leaving government service. And then there are the "aggrieved" groups, the Holocaust Lobby being only the most vocal at the present time. It seems that every time I see a press release from ZKS they have added to their payroll or Board more lobbyists, more ombudsmen, more former Canadian government "privacy experts." Sure looks like they're being shaken down. Doesn't seem likely to me that all of these privacy czars and Ottawa Privacy Commission guys are going to be pushing for FreedomNet to be used for liberating communications from all traceability and accountability, does it? --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay(a)got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns

1 0

Re: Pleading the 5th
by Jim Choate 13 Apr '01

13 Apr '01

On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Sunder wrote: > Um, yes, this is precisely what I've just said. > > 1. by posting to a CDR node, he implicitly consents to all duplication > caused by the CDR feeds, to search engines, individuals, archivers, other > CDR's, etc. No, neither I or you have consented to any such thing. What I have done is given permission to other CDR nodes to forward it to their subscribers. Nothing in that consent can be implied to make it 'public domain'. I haven't given them permission to archive it or otherwise use it outside of that. At no point have I or any subscriber through SSZ given the subscribers ANY permission to use it other than personal or educational use. If they wish to use it for commercial gain then all rights still revert to the original author. See Section 17, Chapter 2, Section 204. Where is your 'instrument'? The wording prevents 'implied' instruments since they can't have a 'signature'. Chapter 1, Section 111 and Chapter 5, Section 512 applies to the CDR operators themselves for example. There are other sections as well that apply. > 2. A book of all his posts would be clearly in violation of his copyright. > > I'm unsure if a single message quoted in its entirety would not be > in violation. I believe it would be in as much a copyright violation > as Choate's posting an entire article to the list as he did before he > started sending just urls. Depends on how long the message was. > The odds of him winning a lawsuit based on a single message posted in > its entirety is something for lawyers (and bookies? :) to debate. But > IMHO it would violate copyright. Nobody, other than Declan, you, and other reading inhibited, is claiming this. > Of course since he has previously posted entire stories, I'm sure he > could be countersued. Blah, blah, blah... > > I do find it interesting how he likes to call the kettle black when > he used to violate copyright on a regular basis... Actually not most likely. The articles were not meant in any sort of 'commercial use' and forwarded only for 'educational' purposes (ie 'fair use' to foster debate) as I only forwarded single articles and not entire source content from the originating sites. Had I known I could create even more bitching by forwarding just the URL's I would have been doing that long ago. ____________________________________________________________________ The ultimate authority...resides in the people alone. James Madison The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: The Theory of the corporation
by auto211076＠hushmail.com 13 Apr '01

13 Apr '01

> On Thu, Apr 12, 2001 at 07:25:33PM -0400, brainteaser wrote: > > Thats one thing I don't get about what (many) people post on this list. > > There is a lot of shit about the government did this and federal agents > > are doing that, but very little about what corporations do. Partly this > > is probably because of some sort of a "the market must be right" > > mentality, even though as I see it we are a long way from any sort of > > This is naive. Nobody here of any substance has argued "the market is > always right" or anything of the sort. Anyone remember the Edsel? The > dot com crash? It is, however, more likely to produce desirable > effects than state-provided goods and services are. > > The reason cypherpunkish types are more concerned about government > abuses than perceived corporate abuses is that one can switch grocery > stores if you don't like their privacy policy, but you don't have that > choice when dealing with the U.S. government. > > -Declan Or, as Steve Gilliard even more succinctly put it: ""...the reason that some of us are more concerned about government power than about corporate power is that Coca Cola very rarely strafes the villages of Pepsi drinkers." Free, encrypted, secure Web-based email at www.hushmail.com

1 0

Copyright Law
by Jim Choate 13 Apr '01

13 Apr '01

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/index.casc.html#BOTTOM -- ____________________________________________________________________ The ultimate authority...resides in the people alone. James Madison The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

justification for anonymous jury in circuit court
by Norm D'Plume 13 Apr '01

13 Apr '01

The key phrase is probably "extensive publicity that could enhance the possibility that jurors' names would become public and expose them to public intimidation or harassment. " Office of the Circuit Executive Ninth Circuit Jury Procedure Manual 2.9 Anonymous Juries The decision to use an anonymous jury is committed to the sound discretion of the judge. United States v. Thai, 29 F.3d 789, 800 (2d. Cir. 1994). Although the judge must find that there is a strong reason to believe that the jury needs protection, United States v. Sanchez, 74 F.3d 562, 565 (5th Cir. 1996), the judge need not conduct an evidentiary hearing on the subject. United States v. Edmond, 52 F.3d 1080, 1091 (D.C. Cir. 1994). There is a five-factor test to be employed to determine if the jury needs protection: (1) the defendant's involvement in organized crime; (2) the defendant's participation in a group with the capacity to harm jurors; (3) the defendant's past attempts to interfere with the judicial process; (4) the potential that, if convicted, the defendant will suffer lengthy incarceration and substantial monetary penalties; and (5) extensive publicity that could enhance the possibility that jurors' names would become public and expose them to public intimidation or harassment. Edmond, 52 F.3d at 1091. See also United States v. Salvatore, 110 F.3d 1131, 1143 (5th Cir. 1997); United States v. Saya, 980 F. Supp. 1152, 1154 (D. Haw. 1997). The court must take reasonable precautions to minimize any prejudicial effects on the defendant and to ensure that his fundamental rights are protected. To minimize prejudicial effects, the court should provide the jurors with an innocuous explanation for the use of the anonymous jury. See, e.g, Edmond, 52 F.2d at 1093 (approving instruction that use of an anonymous jury was "routine"). To ensure that the defendant's fundamental rights are protected, the court should provide defendant with adequate voir dire, sufficient to fully ascertain any possible bias without requesting information that would identify the jurors. See, e.g., United States v. Childress, 58 F.3d 693, 704 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (upholding anonymous jury where "court conducted a searching voir dire and gave jurors an extensive questionnaire"). http://207.41.19.15/web/sdocuments.nsf/47f862bfb567c599882567320065e132/cb9…

2 1

(no subject)
by TRidgwayJ＠aol.com 13 Apr '01

13 Apr '01

1 0

Book Of Jim
by Ace Cholinesterase 13 Apr '01

13 Apr '01

At 04:00 PM 4/12/01 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote: >Choate has given an implied consent for his posts to be redistributed >in certain ways. Much as Usenet participants do. He has probably >not given consent for all of his posts to be combined and sold by >Wired as a book (of course this is just a hypothetical, nobody would >buy it). Medical schools stock psychiatric casebooks; the Book of Jim would be rather monotonous after a while, but it might sell.

2 1

YOU'RE A WINNER
by Jeff 12 Apr '01

12 Apr '01

1 0

YOU'RE A WINNER
by Jeff 12 Apr '01

12 Apr '01

1 0