- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

[dewayne@warpspeed.com: [Dewayne-Net] No one on the planet will choose this voluntarily]
by Eugen Leitl 18 May '06

18 May '06

"self-destruct code for Blue-ray players"? Are they fucking nuts? ----- Forwarded message from Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne(a)warpspeed.com> -----

4 3

[dave@farber.net: [IP] Workshop on Data Surveillance at Harvard on June 3rd]
by Eugen Leitl 18 May '06

18 May '06

----- Forwarded message from David Farber <dave(a)farber.net> -----

1 0

Your account #7294245315
by Mamie Flynn 18 May '06

18 May '06

1 0

dare counterproductive produce
by Carol Carlisle 18 May '06

18 May '06

1 0

Fwd: [Clips] Re: [CYBERIA] Pres. Orders and Securities Act liability (strongly verging OT)
by coderman 18 May '06

18 May '06

thanks RAH, you save me much resource discovery time. exposed shareholders indeed. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: R.A. Hettinga <rah(a)shipwright.com> Date: May 17, 2006 6:36 PM Subject: [Clips] Re: [CYBERIA] Pres. Orders and Securities Act liability (strongly verging OT) To: Philodox Clips List <clips(a)philodox.com> --- begin forwarded text Delivered-To: rah(a)shipwright.com Thread-Topic: Pres. Orders and Securities Act liability (strongly verging OT) Thread-Index: AcZ6A/JBF/buiOcZTWGMnGJvY6GkYQAFYwFF Priority: normal Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 21:22:13 -0400 Reply-To: Law & Policy of Computer Communications <CYBERIA-L(a)LISTSERV.AOL.COM> Sender: Law & Policy of Computer Communications <CYBERIA-L(a)LISTSERV.AOL.COM> From: Chris Savage <chris.savage(a)CRBLAW.COM> Subject: Re: [CYBERIA] Pres. Orders and Securities Act liability (strongly verging OT) To: CYBERIA-L(a)LISTSERV.AOL.COM ________________________________ From: Law & Policy of Computer Communications on behalf of Ethan Ackerman Sent: Wed 5/17/2006 6:29 PM To: CYBERIA-L(a)LISTSERV.AOL.COM Subject: Re: Pres. Orders and Securities Act liability (strongly verging OT) <snip> >>>>Second, I'm thinking that there's a problem here regarding consistency. If I have a material expenditure or liability (or, I suppose, revenue or income or investment) that may appropriately be kept secret under Section 78m(b)(3), then doesn't it follow logically that I will also exclude it from the financials I file with my 10Ks and 8Ks, etc.? Otherwise there will be a material mismatch between two publicly filed financial statements by the same company for the same period.<<<< >>-The exemption covers those documents too. Section 78m(b)(3) excuses non-compliance only with Section 78m(b)(2) - BUT that is itself the statutory authority for MOST of the SEC-required filings - including 10-Ks, 10-Qs, annual reports, Sarbanes-Oxley certification requirements, etc. -- I should have made that more clear. Most all of the '34 Act (which covers publicly traded companies) rules are from 17 CFR Part 240 - and 78m(b)2 is the authority for most of those rules.<< So: Bottom line: If AT&T (or Verizon) got paid $1 billion from the spooks to do something, but got the right directive, they could simply not disclose that revenue on any SEC filing. Or, if they did something that exposed them to liability -- like violating relevant customer privacy requirements, and their normal obligation would be to disclose the liability and make a reserve for it, they just don't have to. If that's right, at the moment it seems to me that the shareholders of those companies are awfully exposed, aren't they....? Chris S. ************************************************************************ This electronic mail transmission may contain confidential or privileged information. If you believe that you have received the message in error, please notify the sender by reply transmission and delete the message without copying or disclosing it. ************************************************************************ ********************************************************************** For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request(a)listserv.aol.com ********************************************************************** --- end forwarded text -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' _______________________________________________ Clips mailing list Clips(a)philodox.com http://www.philodox.com/mailman/listinfo/clips

1 0

The biggest news in sex toys since the vibrator!
by Paige Mobley 18 May '06

18 May '06

it, also will make it easier for us to create useful listings for these large collections in more automated and distributed program has this feature, or change the To: line of your reply to the list's posting address (which is included at the bottom

1 0

look new
by Antonia Mead 17 May '06

17 May '06

1 0

Check out for HOT NEWS!!!
by Meredith Clifford 17 May '06

17 May '06

1 0

Mortagge ratee approvedd
by Michelle Vang 17 May '06

17 May '06

1 0

Judge denies AT&T request for closed hearing
by coderman 17 May '06

17 May '06

wow, perhaps the attempted DoJ dismissal is going to get rejected as well... http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-6073480.html """ A federal judge rejected a request from AT&T on Wednesday to kick the public out of a hearing in a lawsuit alleging the telecommunications company illegally cooperated with the National Security Agency. AT&T had asked U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker to bar everyone but attorneys from the courtroom, arguing that trade secrets about the inner workings of its network could be divulged. "We have intellectual property rights in that information," said David Anderson, an attorney at Pillsbury Winthrop who is representing AT&T. "We submit that the hearing itself be held 'in camera,'" a legal term meaning in private. But Walker rejected the request, saying that carefully dealing with questions about trade secrets in an open courtroom "is not unprecedented." CNET Networks (publisher of CNET News.com) Wired News and the California First Amendment Coalition sent an attorney to the hearing on Wednesday to argue that the public should not be prevented from attending the proceedings. A letter written by Roger Myers at Holme, Roberts & Owen submitted early in the day said the hearing should remain open because "the surveillance at the heart of the case presents issues of enormous public interest and importance." The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights group in San Francisco, filed the class action lawsuit in January that claims AT&T illegally cooperated with the Bush administration's secret eavesdropping program. EFF has obtained documents from a former AT&T employee that it believes buttresses its case, but which the telecommunications company says contain trade secrets and proprietary business information. Both sides have been quarreling over what to do with the documents provided by former AT&T technician Mark Klein and filed under seal with the court, with EFF saying they should be made entirely public and AT&T arguing they should be returned because they contain confidential information. Walker on Wednesday effectively split the difference, saying that he would maintain the current state of affairs for now. He also ordered EFF's attorneys not to "disclose these documents to any party," and rejected AT&T's request that Klein be muzzled, saying the company could sue him directly if it chose. Based on the information that's been made public so far, the 100 pages or so of information in Klein's documents appear to describe a secret room established in AT&T's main switching centers through which a tremendous amount of Internet and voice traffic flows. Those secret rooms, according to Klein's attorney, give the NSA full access to the company's networks and can be found in switching centers in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle and San Jose, Calif. """

1 0