- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

I've DELETED 100 of these, or more....
by Glenn 24 Mar '01

24 Mar '01

1 0

The Register - Zimmerman and the PGP flaw
by Jim Choate 24 Mar '01

24 Mar '01

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/8/17808.html -- ____________________________________________________________________ If the law is based on precedence, why is the Constitution not the final precedence since it's the primary authority? The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

8 year old arrested for paper gun, words
by Blank Frank 24 Mar '01

24 Mar '01

Irvington Pupils Face Charges for Playing With Paper Gun. March 22, 2001 IRVINGTON, N.J. (AP) _ Two second-graders playing cops and robbers with a paper gun were charged with making terrorist threats. The boys' parents said the situation should have been resolved in the principal's office, but Police Chief Steven Palamara on Wednesday defended school officials and the district's zero-tolerance policy. ``It may appear to some as though we went a little overboard because it was a paper gun, but what would those same people say if this incident was ignored and in a day, week or month the same student came to school with a firearm?'' Palamara asked. Authorities said that 8-year-old Hamadi Alston stood up at his desk at Augusta Street School last Thursday, pointed paper folded to look like a gun at his classmates and said, ``I'm going to kill you all.'' Hamadi said he was imitating what his friend, Jaquill Shelton, had done earlier that day. The police chief said Jaquill had given Hamadi the paper gun in the bathroom. The two boys were suspended and, under the district's zero-tolerance policy, school officials notified police, who charged the boys. ``Although the paper handgun posed no immediate threat to the students in the class, the words spoken certainly and appropriately were recognized by school officials and police as warning signs to cause concern,'' Palamara said. The court can now determine whether either boy needs counseling or just a stern warning, he said. The parents, as well as the Essex County prosecutor's office, were involved immediately, he said. The prosecutor's office did not immediately return a message seeking comment on Wednesday. ``This is just stupid, stupid, stupid,'' Ron Alston, Hamadi's father, told The Star-Ledger of Newark. ``How can you take two boys to the police precinct over a paper gun? This is very bad judgment.'' Superintendent Ernest Smith said he believes the boys meant no harm, but district policy requires that police be notified of such incidents. ``I thought this was unfortunate,'' Smith said. ``But, being that kids are being shot in schools across the country, children have to be taught they can't say certain words in public.''

6 5

[declan@well.com: Rep. Bob Goodlatte wants to make this email message illegal]
by Declan McCullagh 24 Mar '01

24 Mar '01

----- Forwarded message from Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> ----- http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,42599,00.html Use a Spam, Go to Prison by Declan McCullagh (declan(a)wired.com) 2:00 a.m. Mar. 24, 2001 PST WASHINGTON -- Rep. Bob Goodlatte does not want you to read this article. The conservative Virginia Republican, who is co-chairman of the Congressional Internet Caucus, hopes to punish the publication or redistribution of columns such as this with a $15,000 fine and up to one year in federal prison. Why? Because I've included a short Perl program that could be used to spam -- and it seems certain to be banned under a bill that Goodlatte has recently introduced. Goodlatte's Anti-Spamming Act of 2001 allows the Secret Service to police software that "is designed or produced primarily for the purpose of concealing the source or routing information of bulk unsolicited electronic mail messages." It's part of a knee-jerk reaction against unsolicited e-mail on Capitol Hill, and it follows in the footsteps of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which movie studios have used in an unsuccessful bid to rid the Net of a DVD-descrambling program. Goodlatte -- who is chairman of the House Republican High Technology Working Group -- has spent years lobbying to make it easier to export encryption products, but also was a vocal supporter of the DMCA and the Communications Decency Act. This time around, instead of making it a crime to spam, Goodlatte has decided to amend existing law to ban spamware, but since the bill is worded so broadly, it might imperil other programmers instead. That's not a surprise: Software is flexible stuff, and it's tricky to ban some applications without going too far. Other potential problems include that Goodlatte's bill can't remove spamware hosted overseas and could run afoul of the First Amendment. A second section of his anti-spam measure says it's illegal to distribute software that "has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to conceal such source or routing information." That could cover utilities like the Perl script below. It's been slightly altered, but it was originally written as a legitimate autoresponder CGI script that worked by forging the From: line of an e-mail message: #!/usr/bin/perl open (MAIL,"| /usr/lib/sendmail -t -oi"); print MAIL <<END; To: newsfeedback\(a)wired.com From: spammer\(a)spammer.com Subject: MAKE MONEY FAST! $1000 a Week, a FREE Car, and FREE Leads!!! Rule #1 PUT YOUR FRIENDS ON HOLD... do not sell to people you know until you are making money... I will give you more FREE leads than you can CALL... END close MAIL; ----- End forwarded message -----

2 1

Make Every Hire Count With RecruitDogs
by dogs＠recruitdogs.com 24 Mar '01

24 Mar '01

Hello, In the last 3 months, the recruiting landscape has changed 180 degrees. Last year, requisitions and budgets were flowing like water. Now they are as dry as a creek in summer. This year, you have some big problems: 1. Budgets have been slashed - and you have to be leaner, meaner and spend lots less money on recruiting. 2. Job boards are PACKED with laid off workers - and recruiters trying to get at them. Do you want to pay a lot of money to compete with a bunch of other recruiters for some other company's laid off workers? The days of hiring anyone who can fog a mirror are gone for a while - every hire counts - and you need to do it cheap! That's why you need RecruitDogs. www.recruitdogs.com We are a firm of e-cruiting professionals who have researched and tested the most compelling recruiting tools and services for the new realities of this year's economy. And best of all, our industry contacts and years of experience have allowed us to negotiate special deals and offers...that you just can't get anywhere else. These "doggone good deals" are the heart of our business. Great research. Great Products. Great Prices. Sound good? Here's our first special deal.... Even with the latest round of high profile layoffs, the need for top-shelf candidates has not disappeared. Your desk may be cluttered with a pile of resumes but workers with hottest skills are still the rarest commodity in the human capital market. That is...unless you use AIRS SearchStation. AIRS SearchStation is the only sourcing tool on the market that hits all your sourcing bases: resumes banks, resumes attached to home pages and the much sought after deep passive candidates found in Web-based employee directories, alumni rosters, membership directories, speakers lists and much more. It's your one stop peoplemart on the Web! And best of all, RecruitDogs can offer you this award-winning product (yep, it was voted one of the top ten new HR products of 2000 by HR Executive magazine) at a $250 discount. No one - not even AIRS - will sell you this product at the RecruitDogs price. But don't wait in the dog house on this offer. It only lasts until 3/31. Call now for your free trial and see if this dog hunts. Best, the dogs RecruitDogs 800-721-1107 dogs(a)recruitdogs.com www.recruitdogs.com

1 0

Censorware ("Filtering"): It's not just for kids anymore
by Matthew Gaylor 24 Mar '01

24 Mar '01

[Note from Matthew Gaylor: I asked an expert on censorware for a clarification- And here it is]

2 1

John Doe vs. John Doe: Virginia Court's Decision in Online 'John Doe' Case Hailed by Free-Speech Advocates
by Bill Stewart 24 Mar '01

24 Mar '01

-----Original Message----- From: David Farber [mailto:dave@farber.net] Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2001 4:18 AM To: ip-sub-1(a)majordomo.pobox.com Subject: IP: Virginia Court's Decision in Online 'John Doe' Case Hailed by Free-Speech Advocates CYBER LAW JOURNAL Virginia Court's Decision in Online 'John Doe' Case Hailed by Free-Speech Advocates By CARL KAPLAN Cyber Law Journal In what was apparently the first Internet defamation case to involve both an anonymous plaintiff and anonymous defendants, the Supreme Court of Virginia refused to grant an unidentified company access to America Online's confidential subscriber information unless the firm agreed to reveal its identity. The plaintiff in the case, named in court documents only as "Anonymous Publicly Traded Company," dropped its efforts to subpoena AOL after agreeing on Wednesday to the dismissal of a related case in Indiana. Douglas M. Palais, the lawyer for the plaintiff company, declined to explain why his client had dropped its case. While the litigation is no longer pending, the ruling handed down in Virginia could set a precedent for similar lawsuits across the country. In its decision, the Virginia court said that an anonymous plaintiff could be given subpoena power only if it would suffer exceptional harm, such as a social stigma or extraordinary economic retaliation, as a result of revealing its identity. <snip> http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/16/technology/16CYBERLAW.html For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/

7 27

Congratulations! You've Won!
by julie 23 Mar '01

23 Mar '01

This message has been sent with the specific understanding of the sender that you have requested information on Business Opportunities. If this is not correct please do NOT shoot the messenger!! Reply with "Remove" in the subject & I will inform the sellers of this list to remove you! ========================================================= Hello Fellow Netter Congratulations! You've won the opportunity to join our discount shopping club for FREE!! Make heaps of Savings on things you buy & use everyday (and you're probably now paying full price for!) Plus WE build your downline, with our Vertical Plan, where everyone who joins AFTER you joins UNDER you! Plus we give you the software and all the support you need to turn this into a residual income money-maker for the rest of your life!! Go to http://www.julievp.50megs.com and put in your details. I'll PERSONALLY send you the website address so you can look over all the information at your convenience. But that's not all! To learn the secrets to success on the Internet (the way the professionals get THEIR leads) read the FREE 32-page booklet that will give YOU the advantage. You'll find it at http://julievp.hypermart.net/InsideSecrets.html But you'd better bookmark it because once you start reading you won't be able to put it down! Don't forget your free id# at http://www.julievp.50megs.com Here's to your success!! Julie Get 200-500 email addresses in your inbox DAILY!! http://www.dailytargetedleads.com/members/index.cgi?julievp Get PAID to read email! http://www.zwallet.com/index.html?user=julievp Save time, money & energy with your own Autoresponder! http://www.getresponse.com/?35607 Check out this site! Free Lead Generator & MORE! http://www.replicate99.com/TALG/1583.shtml Get $5 to get a free email & for everyone who joins under you! http://julievp.zfee.com

1 0

Censorware ("Filtering"): It's not just for kids anymore
by Seth Finkelstein 23 Mar '01

23 Mar '01

I've seen much CIPA discussion which assumes that it's only for kids. The full text of the "Children's Internet Protection Act" can be found at http://www.cybertelecom.org/cda/cipatext.htm . It's worth reading. The name is Orwellian. It misleads people into thinking that the law only concerns children (defined in the law to be "minors", those less than 17 years old). In fact, that idea is quite false. Every section of the law which has a requirement for "minors" is followed by another requirement which is general or specifically to adults. In particular, censorware is mandated to apply to adults in libraries: ``(C) CERTIFICATION WITH RESPECT TO ADULTS.--A certification under this paragraph is a certification that the library-- ``(i) is enforcing a policy of Internet safety that includes the operation of a technology protection measure with respect to any of its computers with Internet access that protects against access through such computers to visual depictions that are- ``(I) obscene; or ``(II) child pornography; and ``(ii) is enforcing the operation of such technology protection measure during any use of such computers. Now, a reader might object, there is nothing wrong with banning such material. It's not protected by the First Amendment. However, the key point to understand is that the law does not say the banning *must* be restricted to that material. Rather, it very specifically disclaims elsewhere that it does not prohibit the blacklisting of "any content other than content covered by this title". The effect of this is to have government law behind censorware-makers, giving wide range to private, unaccountable, secret, blacklisting. Consider SmartFilter's category description: http://www.securecomputing.com/index.cfm?skey=86#ex Extreme/Obscence/Violence (ex) The extreme category includes URLs that may fall into other categories, but push the limits of acceptability. These URLs are typically extremely violent, gory, or horrific in nature and may be related to sex, bodily functions, obscenity, or perverse activities. ^^^^^^^^^ By having a category they claim contains "obscenity", but also has a vague, elastic definition ("push the limits of acceptability"), they have free reign here. In my SmartFilter report "I've Got A Little List" http://sethf.com/anticensorware/smartfilter/gotalist.php I called this "Mother rapers, father stabbers, littering, and creating a nuisance" Note also that obscenity must be determined by a court, and varies from place to place (sometimes dramatically, from e.g. San Fransciso to Memphis). It is difficult topic in law, and people argue about it all the time. Turning over that judicial decision to a private blacklister, who may then make it according to their own agenda (or by a computer program), should offend every principle of free speech and the First Amendment. But merely invoke the cry of "protect the children" (here, quite literally), and immediately all of the above is swept away in the reaction which flows from that rhetoric. __ Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer sethf(a)sethf.com http://sethf.com Anticensorware Investigations: http://sethf.com/anticensorware/ EFF Pioneer: http://www.eff.org/awards/20010305_pioneer_press_release.html ************************************************************************** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt(a)coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week) Matthew Gaylor, 2175 Bayfield Drive, Columbus, OH 43229 (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/ **************************************************************************

1 0

Censorware ("Filtering"): It's not just for kids anymore
by Seth Finkelstein 23 Mar '01

23 Mar '01

I've seen much CIPA discussion which assumes that it's only for kids. The full text of the "Children's Internet Protection Act" can be found at http://www.cybertelecom.org/cda/cipatext.htm . It's worth reading. The name is Orwellian. It misleads people into thinking that the law only concerns children (defined in the law to be "minors", those less than 17 years old). In fact, that idea is quite false. Every section of the law which has a requirement for "minors" is followed by another requirement which is general or specifically to adults. In particular, censorware is mandated to apply to adults in libraries: ``(C) CERTIFICATION WITH RESPECT TO ADULTS.--A certification under this paragraph is a certification that the library-- ``(i) is enforcing a policy of Internet safety that includes the operation of a technology protection measure with respect to any of its computers with Internet access that protects against access through such computers to visual depictions that are- ``(I) obscene; or ``(II) child pornography; and ``(ii) is enforcing the operation of such technology protection measure during any use of such computers. Now, a reader might object, there is nothing wrong with banning such material. It's not protected by the First Amendment. However, the key point to understand is that the law does not say the banning *must* be restricted to that material. Rather, it very specifically disclaims elsewhere that it does not prohibit the blacklisting of "any content other than content covered by this title". The effect of this is to have government law behind censorware-makers, giving wide range to private, unaccountable, secret, blacklisting. Consider SmartFilter's category description: http://www.securecomputing.com/index.cfm?skey=86#ex Extreme/Obscence/Violence (ex) The extreme category includes URLs that may fall into other categories, but push the limits of acceptability. These URLs are typically extremely violent, gory, or horrific in nature and may be related to sex, bodily functions, obscenity, or perverse activities. ^^^^^^^^^ By having a category they claim contains "obscenity", but also has a vague, elastic definition ("push the limits of acceptability"), they have free reign here. In my SmartFilter report "I've Got A Little List" http://sethf.com/anticensorware/smartfilter/gotalist.php I called this "Mother rapers, father stabbers, littering, and creating a nuisance" Note also that obscenity must be determined by a court, and varies from place to place (sometimes dramatically, from e.g. San Fransciso to Memphis). It is difficult topic in law, and people argue about it all the time. Turning over that judicial decision to a private blacklister, who may then make it according to their own agenda (or by a computer program), should offend every principle of free speech and the First Amendment. But merely invoke the cry of "protect the children" (here, quite literally), and immediately all of the above is swept away in the reaction which flows from that rhetoric. __ Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer sethf(a)sethf.com http://sethf.com Anticensorware Investigations: http://sethf.com/anticensorware/ EFF Pioneer: http://www.eff.org/awards/20010305_pioneer_press_release.html ************************************************************************** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt(a)coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week) Matthew Gaylor, 2175 Bayfield Drive, Columbus, OH 43229 (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/ **************************************************************************

1 0