- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Cybercrime LE: a future of privatization, vigilantism & corporate rule?
by Aimee Farr 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

"Just as settlers in the old west couldn't necessarily always rely upon the local sheriff to provide good crime control, it may be in fact the case that Internet users may have to rely upon private parties, and third party concerns, for preventing crime, and enforcing certain criminal norms." <snip> "And in fact, these sorts of folks, whether its the software vendor, the hardware vendor, the Internet Service Provider, or the phone company, can in fact sometimes be in the best position to monitor the activities of their clients online, ...." [jump link for context] - March 16 Federalist Society Address by Michael O'Neill http://www.techlawjournal.com/security/20010316.asp Private protection rackets, rights management, and corporate enforcers abound for control and investigation functions....but self-defensive aggressive acts and vigilantism theories are often viewed askance. Any thoughts on how cybercrime and cybermaleficence will be addressed in the future? Support your argument with reason, selected quotes, prose or bardic lyre. ~Aimee Then a lawyer said, "But what of our Laws, master?" -- Kahlil Gibran, The Prophet, On Laws http://www.columbia.edu/~gm84/gibran13.html

1 0

innocent get 5th too
by Blank Frank 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

John Young, you get the 5th too.... Mar 19, 2001 - 11:49 AM Court Says Innocent Can Refuse to Testify By Anne Gearan Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - "Taking the Fifth" is an option open to the innocent as well as the guilty, the Supreme Court ruled Monday. The unanimous decision stems from the conviction of an Ohio man in the "shaken baby" death of his infant son. The Supreme Court affirmed the right of the family baby sitter to claim Fifth Amendment protection from self-incrimination even if prosecutors did not accuse her of wrongdoing. Matthew Reiner claimed the baby sitter harmed 10-week-old Alex in 1995, but Toledo prosecutors instead focused on him and planned to call the baby sitter to testify against him. They did not intend to prosecute Susan Batt, but she nevertheless refused to testify unless given a promise of immunity. Otherwise, she would exercise her Fifth Amendment right not to testify, she told prosecutors. When she testified, Batt denied ever harming Alex or his twin brother, who suffered broken bones. Reiner was convicted in 1996 and sentenced to probation. The Ohio Supreme Court ultimately threw out the conviction on grounds that Batt's protected testimony unfairly undermined Reiner's defense. Ohio prosecutors appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which issued a short, unsigned opinion Monday without hearing oral arguments. "That tells us it was so clear the Ohio Supreme Court was wrong in its analysis of the facts and the law," Toledo prosecutor J. Christopher Anderson said. Monday's decision apparently reinstates Reiner's conviction, Anderson said. Even if Batt had nothing to do with Alex's death, she had a reasonable fear that testifying "might tend to incriminate her," the justices wrote. "Batt spent extended periods of time alone with Alex and his brother in the weeks immediately preceding discovery of their injuries. She was with Alex within the potential timeframe of the fatal trauma," the justices wrote. Hence, Batt was free to assert her Fifth Amendment rights, the justices said. Previous Supreme Court decisions set a precedent that the Fifth Amendment "protects the innocent as well as the guilty," the court said. The case is Ohio v. Reiner, 00-1028.

1 0

Choke, Choate
by John Young 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

Jesus Kristmas, Jim, look at the stinking garbage you send with a single subject line of information. Have you no shame, or do you not smell your own farts? And this is with babble turned off. Sys yr msg. [Quote]

1 0

Spread Spectrum
by mmotyka＠lsil.com 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

> > Jim Choate wrote: > > > > 900MHz packet (<$100/site) coupled with Plan 9 is the base you want to > > start from using current tech. > > > Microwave networking providers price vary considerably, and a number of > ISPs are reluctant to unroll this stuff due to implementation pricing. > > Can anyone recommend good nice, and inexpensive packet radio LAN > technology ? I've heard that breezecom is pretty nice, what do you guys > think ? > > How secure are the spread spectrum modulation schemes on these things > anyway ? > I had one brief go at the FCC site but didn't find a what I was looking for. However, I think that for surveillance reasons the channel hopping sequences are canned. I'm *kinda* sure that a private pseudorandom walk is not allowed. Mike

1 0

flatbed scanner free
by steve 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

Future Tech Marketing, the leaders in online promotion, want to give you a free flatbed scanner. Quantities are limited. Contact us for details at 877-798-9331 x 401. ---------------------------------------------- To be removed from our database, please reply to this email with the subject "REMOVE".

1 0

Don't Delete - A MUST READ!
by Hannah 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

Dear Fellow Entrepreneur: Don't knock it until you at least read this. For the first time I have ever received a piece of email that actually delivered more than just empty promises. I assure you, you will earn money each month, at home in your spare time, and without sending cash in the mail for recipes. Normally, I use my account to work from home and I don't play around, but after recieving what I assumed was the same old email I finally read it because of the Catchy subject line. It was so REAL it gave me goose pimples! I had to do this! I promise you, if you set aside a little time each day on this program, you will MAKE MONEY. This will produce results, but you can make a dime with this....until you get started yourself! If you would like the details on this explosive new money making opportunity send a BLANK email to: to hh139(a)excite.com with Entrepreneur in the subject line. You will be forwarded the information immediately with "Entrepreneur" in the subject line. So, be on the lookout.

1 0

CNN.com - U.S. Supreme Court allows school T-shirt ban - March 19, 2001
by Jim Choate 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/03/19/scotus.shirt.ap/index.html -- The Laws of Serendipity: 1. In order to discover anything, you must be looking for something. 2. If you wish to make an improved product, you must first be engaged in making an inferior one. Tivoli Certification Group, OSCT James Choate jchoate(a)tivoli.com Senior Engineer 512-436-1062

1 0

germans .mil punts US software for security reasons
by Blank Frank 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/17679.html German armed forces ban MS software, citing NSA snooping By: John Lettice Posted: 17/03/2001 at 18:59 GMT The German foreign office and Bundeswehr are pulling the plugs on Microsoft software, citing security concerns, according to the German news magazine Der Spiegel. Spiegel claims that German security authorities suspect that the US National Security Agency (NSA) has 'back door' access to Microsoft source code, and can therefore easily read the Federal Republic's deepest secrets. The Bundeswehr will no longer use American software (we surmise this includes Larry and Scott as well) on computers used in sensitive areas. The German foreign office has meanwhile put plans for videoconferencing with its overseas embassies on hold, for similar reasons. Under secretary of state Gunter Pleuger is said by Spiegel to have discovered that "for technical reasons" the satellite service that was to be used was routed via Denver, Colorado. According to a colleague of Pleuger's this meant that the German foreign services "might as well hold our conferences directly in Langley." We're not entirely sure whose interesting video conferencing via satellite service has a vital groundstation in Denver, but we note that Pleuger seems to have gleaned this information from a presentation held earlier this month in Berlin by, er, Deutsche Telekom. Which just happens, along with Siemens, to have picked up the gig. The two companies have supplanted Microsoft (and anything else American) and will be producing a secure, home-grown system that the German military can be confident in. Related link: Spiegel story (in German)

1 0

RE: Did you notice [UK vs US crime rates]
by Trei, Peter 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

> From: Reese[SMTP:reeza@flex.com] > At 05:45 PM 3/16/01 -0600, Jim Choate wrote: > > > >In the FBI stats that came out the majority of police officers killed > are > >killed with their own gun? They'd probably been better served by a > >stun-vest... > > > >Perhaps we should take guns away from them, then those fine officers > would > >probably have lived longer. > > > >If you can't trust a weapon to a individual, how can you trust it to a > >group of individuals? > > England serves as a fine example here; > With an armed populace and a disarmed police force :: low crime rate > With a disarmed populace and an armed police force :: high crime rate. > > Read'em & weep, Phill. > > Reese > A recent article in the Economist points this out: http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=513031 % of people who were victim of a crime, once or more, in 1999: Violent crime: England & Wales: 3.5% US: 1.9% Car theft England & Wales: 2.6% US: 0.5% Burglery (including attempts) England & Wales: 5% US: 3.8% The article opens: BRITAIN may have slipped down many world league tables over the past few decades, but it beats all other rich countries except Australia in one activity: crime. According to a new victimisation survey of industrialised nations, people in England and Wales are at greater risk than anywhere else of having a car stolen. And apart from Australia, people who live in England and Wales are at greater risk of being assaulted, robbed, sexually attacked and having their homes burgled than are people in any other rich country. [end quote] Now, the murder rate in the US *is* substantially higher than Britain's, but your overall chances of getting through the day safely are probably higher in the US. Peter Trei

1 0

judges needing organ harvesting -school censorship
by Blank Frank 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

School's Ban of Manson T-Shirt OK By Laurie Asseo Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - A former high school student says he had a free-speech right to wear Marilyn Manson T-shirts to class. But school officials banned them as offensive, and on Monday the student lost a Supreme Court appeal. The court, without comment, turned down the Ohio student's argument that school officials could not keep him from wearing T-shirts depicting Manson, a "shock rock" star who took his stage name from Marilyn Monroe and mass killer Charles Manson. Nicholas J. Boroff was a senior when he arrived at Van Wert High School in Van Wert, Ohio, in August 1997 wearing a Marilyn Manson T-shirt. Manson's real name is Brian Warner, and his group also is named Marilyn Manson. The front of the shirt depicted a three-faced Jesus and the back of the shirt said "believe" with the letters "lie" highlighted. A school administrator told Boroff the shirt was offensive and told him to either turn it inside out, go home and change, or leave and be considered truant. Boroff left, and returned each of the next four school days wearing other Marilyn Manson T-shirts. Each time he was told he could not attend class wearing the shirt. Boroff sued, saying school officials violated his constitutional rights to free speech and due process. A federal judge ruled for the school district, and the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed. School officials could ban the shirts because they were determined to be "vulgar, offensive and contrary to the educational mission of the school," the appeals court said, noting that school officials submitted evidence of the group's "pro-drug persona." Public schools can prohibit students from wearing shirts that are offensive, even if they are not obscene and have not caused a substantial disruption of the school program, the appeals court said. In the appeal acted on Monday, Boroff's lawyers said that while there was evidence that Manson had promoted drug use and Satanism, that did not mean school officials could ban students from wearing his name and picture. Lawyers for the school district said the group's song lyrics had racial epithets, obscene language and "exhortations to suicide and violence." The case is Boroff v. Van Wert City Board of Education, 00-1020. --- On the Net: For the appeals court ruling: http://www.uscourts.gov/links.html and click on 6th Circuit. AP-ES-03-19-01 1008EST © Copyright 2001 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Brought to you by the Tampa Bay Online Network

1 0