- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Advertisement $99 Web Hosting
by 46224097＠compwebtech.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Check it out! 25 megs for only $99 per year with no set up fees. Free registration or change of domain at: www.compwebtech.com If you would like to be removed from our mailing list, please e-mail us to have yourself removed for the list. Thank You, Larry(a)compwebtech.com

1 0

Forwarded mail...
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 16:52:18 +0200 > From: Anonymous <nobody(a)replay.com> > "Anything not Permitted, is Forbidden." ARTICLE IX. The enumeration of the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. ____________________________________________________________________ To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: so, what did Toto *do*, exactly to get locked up? (Re: rules of en (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 12:40:02 +0200 (CEST) > From: DOOM Anonymous Untraceable User <nobody(a)seclab.com> > Subject: Re: so, what did Toto *do*, exactly to get locked up? (Re: rules of en > We also have people who *have* kept their noses clean being harassed. It's an > excuse to put some pressure on CDRs. It even had the effect of shaking loose > a lot of the Austin cypherpunks in a nice little divide and conquer action. That's not exactly correct. The Austin Cypherpunks have always had a problem with cohesion. There were issues that were leading me toward dropping my personal support because of lack of committment from other parties in the Austin Cypherpunks. This certainly hastened the event, it did not cause it. We were already divided in our goals and interest and unable to agree on agenda or purpose. We, as a group, couldn't even decide to spend the few dollars to put the 3-line RSA in the local paper. The last effective action we took was the speaking engagement at the last RoboFest here in Austin 3 years ago. That sort of "I want to participate, but won't do anything" attitude raises the hackles on my neck. Life is way too short to be wasting major effort on a lost cause. There wasn't much to divide and the spoils going to the conquerer are/were nil. > And it's likely they have subpoenaed more people than we've heard from. > I just hope they don't subpoena Bill Payne, or we'll receive a copy of it > every week for years to come. Yep, with those silly/strange capitalizations and sentence structures of his which look suspicously like some form of stego. You'd think somebody who claims to be that educated would have at least learned basic grammer (unless it was intentional). > The John Gilmore subpoena was focussed exclusively on cypherpunk email. > Jim Choate confirmed his is much the same. Other than dates and signatures it's identical. The focus was on any archives that I kept of cpunks or personal traffic (part c) that involved CJ in my interview. > So the focus is on what we've > all seen posted here. Personally, I found them a lot milder than Reeza!'s > projection of his suicide fantasies, for instance. I would also agree that the Cypherpunks have garnered a notoriety with LEA's such that it could/should be taken as a given that continous surviellance is occurring. Random dumpster diving in our trash, etc. should not be unexpected. This does raise an interesting point about freedom of speech and the duties of LEA's. In a democratic society what are the ethical implications of LEA's archiving publicly available documents as a matter of course, not for inclusion in ongoing investigations but rather as a base for future investigations. In addition, while the remailer operators do seem to be protected by ECPA (I was advised that I fell into this category via SSZ) what about the public archive operators? Are they covered under this umbrella? ____________________________________________________________________ To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Child-Molesting Forger's Chilling Confession!!!1!
by bob＠derwentside.org.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

application/www-form-urlencoded

1 0

IP: [FP] Money withheld for national ID cards
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Delivered-To: ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com From: "ScanThisNews" <mcdonalds(a)airnet.net> To: ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com Subject: IP: [FP] Money withheld for national ID cards Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 20:34:02 -0500 Sender: owner-ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com Precedence: list Reply-To: "ScanThisNews" <mcdonalds(a)airnet.net> SCAN THIS NEWS FRIDAY OCTOBER 23, 1998 Money withheld for national ID cards Spending bill provides moratorium on implementation http://www.worldnetdaily.com/exclusiv/981023_money_withheld_nat.shtml Copyright 1998, WorldNetDaily.com http://www.worldnetdaily.com/ By David M. Bresnahan david(a)talkusa.com The recently passed Omnibus Appropriations Bill included funding for $520 billion of spending, but it purposely excluded funds for the national ID card or the medical ID program. A review of the bill, which had over 4,000 pages and is 16 inches thick, revealed that the opponents of the effort to make state driver's licences into a national ID card succeeded in getting a moratorium on the implementation of the law enacted in 1996 by Congress. Both the national ID and the medical ID have already been made law. The moratorium delays implementation from occurring on schedule while repeal legislation is debated by Congress. The national ID became law in 1996 and will go in effect October 1, 2000, unless Congress repeals Section 656 (b) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. If the law is not changed, every state must meet certain unfunded federal mandates requiring the use of Social Security numbers, fingerprints, DNA, retina scans, and other "biometric" identifying information on all driver's licences. Another federal mandate is the medical ID, which will be a new unique number for every American intended to keep a detailed medical history in a government computer. It will be implemented unless Congress acts to repeal Section 1173 (b) of the Social Security Act. The moratorium was first included in a transportation appropriations bill, but Rep. Lamar Smith, R-TX, convinced Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-GA, to remove it before passage, according to House Transportation Committee sources. Rep. Frank Wolf, R-VA, chairman of the House Appropriations Transportation Subcommittee included the ban in the omnibus bill, according to a committee staff member. However, Smith was reported to be pushing to have that removed as well. Those efforts failed, largely because of thousands of calls placed to Gingrich's office by the public, according to congressional staffers who preferred not to be identified. Patrick Poole of the "Free Congress Foundation," a non-partisan group, sent thousands of e-mails to supporters who then called Gingrich to encourage him to keep the moratorium despite the efforts of Smith. WorldNetDaily.com reported Monday that Smith was trying to remove the ban. "Many of the callers either faxed copies of stories from WorldNetDaily, or they mentioned it when they called," the source said. "There was no way the speaker could support Smith's efforts with that kind of public awareness." The actual language found in the Omnibus Bill states: "National Identifiers: "None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be used to issue a final standard under docket No. NHTSA 98-3945 (relating to section 656(b) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act of 1996). "National Health Identifiers: None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to promulgate or adopt any final standard under section 1173(b) of the Social Security Act (42 USC 1320-d-2(b)) providing for, or providing for the assignment of, a unique health identifier for an individual (except in an individual's capacity as an employer or a health care provider), until legislation is enacted specifically approving the standard." The moratorium, now in place, will provide needed time for opponents to draft legislation to repeal both the National ID and the Medical ID. The process is expected to bring major debate over the issue. Smith and others have used illegal immigration problems as their primary justification for the need to give every American both identifying numbers. House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-TX, Rep. Ron Paul, R-TX, and Rep. Bob Barr, R-GA, are reported to be planning repeal legislation next year. None of their offices were able to be reached for comment on the success of the moratorium in the Omnibus Bill. It had been reported previously that all three had urged Gingrich to allow the moratorium to stand. Responsibility for the design and implementation of the cards has been given to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of the Department of Transportation. That agency has recently published the proposed "Driver's License/SSN/National Identification Document," which contains the guidelines which must be in force by Oct. 1, 2000. The "Notice of Proposed Rule Making" sets out the standards for each state to follow in the design of "identification documents." The DOT solicited public comments on their plans for implementation of Section 656 (b) of the act earlier this year. The public comment period has just closed and many thousands of letters in opposition were received, according to a spokesman. Five states also expressed opposition to the plan, and only a "small number" of letters supporting the plan were known to the spokesman, who spoke on condition that his name would not be published. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators also wrote to the DOT and recommended repeal of the law, even though they had once been in favor of such legislation. "Over the past 10 years, the AAMVA has vigorously pushed Congress and the various state motor vehicle directors to implement policies to require the submission of social security numbers as a condition for issuance of driver's licenses. This resounding defeat may spell the end of their ill-fated quest," said Scott McDonald, a grass-roots activist who operates the "Fight the Fingerprint" website. He is able to mobilize thousands of activists on a national basis using his e-mail notification system. "There is no satisfactory condition under which Social Security Numbers may be required as a condition for travel," said McDonald. "The victory's definitely not yet won. During these lull periods there's an opportunity for proponents of these issues to let opposition die down and all of a sudden, pop, it goes through without anyone even aware of it. "I don't see how the Department of Transportation could go forth with implementing the regulation with all that strong opposition to it. Even five states wrote letters of strong opposition to requiring Social Security numbers," said McDonald. Although he was in favor of the moratorium, McDonald expressed concerns about the difficulty in getting complete repeal of the law. He said many activists may now regard the issue as being resolved, when the toughest part of the battle is still ahead. "For a year we're safe," said Lisa Dean of the Coalition for Constitutional Liberties, another organization that has been actively campaigning against the provisions of Section 656 (b). She agreed that the toughest part of her organization's challenge is in front of her. Now that a moratorium is in place for a year, Dean expects repeal efforts will also include finding alternative ways to resolve the concerns about illegal immigrants, although no recommendations are in place as yet. ======================================================================= Don't believe anything you read on the Net unless: 1) you can confirm it with another source, and/or 2) it is consistent with what you already know to be true. ======================================================================= Reply to: <fingerprint(a)networkusa.org> ======================================================================= To subscribe to the free Scan This News newsletter, send a message to <majordomo(a)efga.org> and type "subscribe scan" in the BODY. Or, to be removed type "unsubscribe scan" in the message BODY. For additional instructions see www.efga.org/about/maillist.html ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "Scan This News" is Sponsored by S.C.A.N. Host of the "FIGHT THE FINGERPRINT!" web page: www.networkusa.org/fingerprint.shtml ======================================================================= **************************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address or (un)subscribe ignition-point-digest email@address **************************************************** www.telepath.com/believer **************************************************** --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.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'

1 0

Word choice
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Bee in the bonnet: A few days before CJ's arrest warrant was issued >the DoJ put out a study on the "Shared Traits of Potential Assassins:" >The traits: * To achieve notoriety or fame. * To bring attention to a personal or public problem. * To avenge a perceived wrong; to retaliate for a perceived injury. * To end personal pain; to be removed from society; to be killed. * To save the country or the world; to fix a world problem. * To develop a special relationship with the target. * To make money. * To bring about political change. How does this differ from the motives of your ordinary politician? Post-revolution, will there be caliber limitations when hunting them?

2 1

Re: Men can be raped
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Of course it's possible to rape a man. Just because he becomes erect >doesn't mean he desires sexual intercourse. People are more than the >instictive reactions their body produces. Someone who chooses not to >engage in sex, but is coerced into doing so, is raped, regardless of >his body's physical reactions. The key element is coercion. Erections >or other bodily responses have nothing to do with it. > >Consider a murderer who ties his victim to a chair and rigs a diabolical >device. A hammer strikes the victim's tendon below his knee, causing >his leg to reflexively kick and set off a bomb. The murdere is caught >but argues that the person committed suicide, since he kicked the bomb >switch himself. There's another spin to this too. Since men apparently aren't raped if they get an erection, then it follows that women aren't raped if they lubricate. You could take it one step farther, and say that neither sex can claim rape if the victim has an orgasm or if they get aroused in *any way*. Courts never cease to amaze me.

1 0

An amendment proposal...
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ARTICLE Preamble. This amendment to the Constitution of the United States is intended to address interpretational issues of the same. Should it not pass within seven (7) years from consideration then it shall be deemed removed. Section 1. We the people re-affirm our role as the sole fundamental authority in the United States of America. All other political, civil, criminal, and legislative authority derives from it. Re-affirming the integrity and respect due the 9th and 10th Amendments. And further clearly affirm the equality of the federal & state governmental bodies with that of the people. There is no heirarchy of authority between the three. We further clearly stipulate that any right of the people is to be fully and honorably respected to the individual. Section 2. We the people re-affirm the supreme authority of the Constitution over all courts and rulings thereof, including the Supreme Court of the United States of America. As directed by the 9th Amendment, no case brought before a judicial body may be based on whether a citizen has a right not described in the Constitution. And further, as required by the 10th Amendment, all legislative and regulatory rulings shall be delegated by at least one sentence in the Constitution, without exception. When making consideration of such Constitutional support the Constitution must be considered point by point and as a whole. Section 3. The exact nature of the 1st. Amendment and Congressional authority has been brought into consideration. The 1st Amendment coupled with the 9th and 10th Amendments clearly stipulate that these issues are resolved at the state or individual level. All current and future legislation must respect these, and other, prohibitions in the Constitution of the United States of America in full and without exception. Section 4. The exact nature of the 2nd. Amendment and Congressional authority has been brought into consideration. The 2nd Amendment prohibits any law, not just Congress as in the 1st, from prohibiting the ownership of firearms to the people. This does not mean that both private and public agents may not regulate the carrying and use of such weapons within their authoritative bounds. It is to be further clarified that no national requirement for registration or licensing is permitted. States may license within the bounds of their individual constitutions. Section 5. To clarify the reporting requirements of the national budget it is directed that such reports be made in full and in public every 20 years from the date of this amendment going into force. The original wording is not sufficiently clear to enforce the fiscal responsibilities of our elected officials. No federal agency or agent thereof is exempt from this reporting requirement. Section 6. The concept of individual privacy is hereby clearly recognized as being held by all peoples. No agency of any civil, legal, military, or executive authority may infringe this right without just cause. This right shall include all communications, writings, storage media, and other technologies used in the creation, execution, and storage. No authority within the United States of America may prohibit the publishing of any document or other media. The rights of ownership and copyright shall be respected to the legal holder. Section 7. While there is clearly a need for secrecy of governmental workings to protect the national interest, there is no need in a democracy to have this be carried indefinitely. It is to be directed that all materials held in any form or manner by the federal government or its agents shall be released in full to public scrutiny via the Library of Congress. These documents shall be required to be released 20 years after their initial creation. In some cases Congress may feel it necessary to extend this time limit. In whatever case Congress may not extend that lifetime in secrecy past 100 years from intial creation of the material. Section 8. A clarification of copyright. While it is clear that the author of a work should derive a period of just compensation from being a sole rights holder that requirement should not extend indefinitely. Congress is directed to decide on a just suitable time period for sole rights expression. At the end of that time all sole rights become public domain. The long term public good demands it. Section 9. Abortion is a social issue of which we recognize no clear solution without repressing some civil liberties. Since we are prohibited in principle and print from such actions we must decline authority in these issues. Per the 10th Amendment we recognize the supremacy of the state constitutions and legislative bodies in this matter. However the individual states may decide the issue the federal government will provide full support and protection to each from violent oppossition from within or without the individual states. Section 10. The federal government is required to guarantee representative governments in all states. This does not include requiring any particular form or function within those states representative governments, only that they be representative. The federal government may not withhold federal services or resources of which state derived tax dollars are involved even if a state is in direct violation of federal laws and regulations. Section 11. The use of military forces or its resources in and for civilian law enforcement operations within the borders of the United States of America, and its territories and protectorates is prohibited. This prohibition is specificly to include in times of war or civil unrest. The only permissible use of such forces is in disaster recovery and in those cases they are released to state control. The only Constitutionaly authorized force for insurrection and civil unrest is the Militia. It is permitted to transfer a unit from the regular military to the militia. Such a transfer requires all lines of authority and responsibility to derive from the militia. Such a move must be authorized by Congress except in times of war where such authorization is considered implicit. Section 12. Membership in the military, law enforcement, or other civil position is sufficient for the infringment of any civil liberties. Democracies don't give up democracy to protect democracy. Section 13. Public law enforcement agents are prohibited from unnecessarily putting the people in danger. This shall include actions or rulings which put the people in danger. We further stipulate that the police are to be held accountable for their actions which result in negligent or criminal consequences. The concept of civil or legal agents being exempt from consequences because of office are repudiated. The people who swear an oath to uphold the laws of this land are not exempt in any situation from those laws. ____________________________________________________________________ To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Feds Seize Houses for Illegal Downloading
by Eric Cordian 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Here's an interesting civil forfeiture story. Feds catch a guy downloading naughty child pictures in a multinational raid, and immediately file to seize his house. Guy commits suicide. Feds say that civil forfeiture of homes where improper downloading takes place is a wonderful new weapon in the WarOnSomeThoughts(tm), and that they plan to do a lot more of it in the future. http://www.dallasnews.com/national-nf/nat83.htm Some exerpts.... Kenneth Nighbert lived a block from the beach in Kennebunk, Maine. Two weeks ago, the retired Air Force pilot flew his American flag upside down from his second-floor sun deck, a universal cry for help. Then he went inside, tied a plastic bag around his head and died. ... People who think they're indulging in forbidden fantasies in the solitude of their homes, only to be interrupted by a firm knock on their doors in the dead of night. ... The suspects range from a high school teacher to a 15-year-old boy to a quadriplegic man. Three women also were caught in the sweep. ... On the night of the Sept. 3 raids, Kennebunk police and Customs authorities crept up to Mr. Nighbert's home and peered through a back window, said Sgt. David Gordon. ... Mr. Nighbert was charged with possession of child pornography, a felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison, and authorities simultaneously filed a civil action seeking forfeiture of the house, which was assessed at $168,000 and owned jointly with his sister. Mr. Nighbert was freed on $10,000 bond. "He was obviously extremely upset and nervous and, actually, crying at the time he appeared in court," said U.S. Attorney Jay McCloskey. Mr. Nighbert's lawyer, Rick Berne, said he believed his client was facing too harsh a penalty for someone who only downloaded pictures. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

2 1

An amendment proposal... (fwd) [one typo fixed]
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: Jim Choate <ravage(a)einstein.ssz.com> > Subject: An amendment proposal... > Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 12:50:30 -0500 (CDT) > Section 12. Membership in the military, law enforcement, or other civil > position is sufficient for the infringment of any civil ^ not > liberties. Democracies don't give up democracy to protect > democracy. ____________________________________________________________________ To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0