- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

"The Failure to Do Your Job" amendment (was Re: White House ...)
by John Deters 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Please forgive me for following up to my own posting, but I just realized how close I was to a solution: A Constitutional amendment that would call for the impeachment of the President for failing to veto any three bills that are overturned by the Supreme Court on Constitutional grounds. Call it "The Failure to Do Your Job" amendment, or the "For Violating Your Oath" amendment. Maybe include a clause that stipulates the ex-President must also return any salary earned during his or her tenure. John -- J. Deters "Don't think of Windows programs as spaghetti code. Think of them as 'Long sticky pasta objects in OLE sauce'." +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ | NET: mailto:jad@dsddhc.com (work) mailto:jad@pclink.com (home) | | PSTN: 1 612 375 3116 (work) 1 612 894 8507 (home) | | ICBM: 44^58'36"N by 93^16'27"W Elev. ~=290m (work) | | For my public key, send mail with the exact subject line of: | | Subject: get pgp key | +--------------------------------------------------------------------+

6 6

Time Online chat at 8 pm: Does the Net need a Nanny?
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'll be participating in a Time Online chat this evening at 8 pm EST. Our guests will be Chris Hansen from the ACLU and Bruce Taylor, a longtime CDA supporter and head of the National Law Center for Children and Families. We'll be talking about the White House censorware summit, self-rating of news sites, and free speech online in general. Join us at: http://pathfinder.com/time/community/newsforum.html You can participate in the chat as long as your browser supports frames, but the Ichat client software is more stable: http://www.ichat.com/download/ -Declan

1 0

Attorneys: RSA patent invalid
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a just published article in CyberLaw, patent attorneys Patrick Flinn and James Jordan rise serious questions about the validity of the RSA patent in the US. The authors conclude: > Due largely to luck, bluster, and the naiveti of potential competitors, the owner of United States Patent No. 4,405,829 has enjoyed a virtual monopoly on all uses of the RSA Algorithm. However, a careful scrutiny of the RSA Patent claims, and other details of its disclosure and prosecution, reveal both significant limits to the scope of the patent and material questions regarding its validity. The full article can be found at http://www.cyberlaw.com/rsa.html -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred

1 0

Time Online chat at 8 pm: Does the Net need a Nanny?
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We're having a Time Online chat this evening at 8 pm EST to discuss Net-censorship. I'll be joining Chris Hansen from the ACLU and Bruce Taylor, a longtime CDA supporter and head of the National Law Center for Children and Families. We'll be talking about the White House censorware summit, self-rating of web sites, and free speech online in general. Join us at: http://pathfinder.com/time/community/newsforum.html You can participate in the chat as long as your browser supports frames, but the Ichat client software is more stable: http://www.ichat.com/download/ -Declan

1 0

Re: The Real Plan: Making the Net Safe for Censorship
by Lizard 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:42 PM 7/16/97 -0700, Ross Wright wrote: >On or About 16 Jul 97 at 18:12, Lizard wrote: > >> At 04:47 PM 7/16/97 -0700, Ross Wright wrote: >> >Marc: >> > >> >What a bunch of crap! Keep out of the internet, you government >> >flunky. Let business, commerce and freedom of speech remain in >> >it's new home, Cyberspace. And save your regulations for someone >> >who needs them. >> >> You will get a lot more respect on the net once you learn how to >> read messages. I'll leave it you to figure out what you got wrong. > >Umm, I think I understood the message, and Mr. Rotenberg's >involvement in the politics of censorship, as it relates to the >Internet. > No, you do not. >> Sheesh. And I retreated to mailing lists to get away from this kind >> of stuff on USENET. > >What? I just feel that there should be no laws or resolutions or >promises made or kept by the United States Government about the >internet. > That's not the kind of stuff I'm referring to. >On or About 16 Jul 97 at 14:42, Declan McCullagh wrote, about >something that Marc Rotenberg <rotenberg(a)epic.org> wrote: > >>On the other hand, without a proper law, > >See, when they say "without" that means they think we need one. > >>parents can purchase and >>activate measures to protect their children from adult material and >>still not feel secure in their homes from unwanted material. > >Ohhhh, so scary. Not safe in the home! Imagine that. Sigh. While occasionally I am prone to fits of charity and altruism, today is not one of those days. I shall leave it to someone more merciful than I (such as, perhaps, the Marquis de Sade, or Attila the Hun) to explain your error to you. Perhaps Marc himself will enlighten you, though, frankly, I hope he doesn't, as this could provide much amusement over time.

1 0

Censorware empowerment meeting (was satire)
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Since I seem to have been misunderstood on at least two lists now, let me forward this. --Declan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 12:45:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: Lizard <lizard(a)dnai.com> Cc: Glenn Hauman <hauman(a)bb.com>, Seth Finkelstein <sethf(a)MIT.EDU>, jseiger(a)cdt.org, jberman(a)cdt.org, fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Re: White House "kinder, gentler"-CDA/censor empowerment meeting Lizard has it right. My post was meant to be satire. I should have been more clear. In fact, a good friend of mine sent me this message: > Declan, remember how I promised you I'd let you know as soon as I > thought you'd been in Washington too long, so that you wouldn't turn > into a beltway hack? > > This is the red flag. Get out. Apologies to all. In the future I will label all satiric posts as -L18, meaning those who are under 18 will probably not get the joke. By labeling my posts in this manner, I can ensure that they will be indexed up by search engines that will in the future only index properly-labeled pages. I can also ensure that users of Internet Explorer will remain able to read my scribbings, since the next version of IE is going to ship with RSACi turned on as a default. I will thus do my part to ensure a childsafe cyberspace, free from inappropriate material and bad jokes of all kinds. -Declan On Wed, 16 Jul 1997, Lizard wrote: > Um...I think Declan was being humorously sarcastic. (What was that thread a > few days ago about how irony doesn't work?) What's frightening is that his > sarcasm comes perilously close -- some might say overlaps -- posts made in > all apparent sincerity by others.

1 0

Censorware Summit Take II, from The Netly News
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

*********** http://pathfinder.com/netly/opinion/0,1042,1173,00.html The Netly News (http://netlynews.com) July 16, 1997 At The Censorware Summit by Declan McCullagh (declan(a)well.com) If you host a web page or publish online, be warned: soon your site might become invisible. Search engines won't index it and web browsers won't show it. Unless, that is, you agree to attach special labels to your web pages identifying how violent, sexually explicit, or inappropriate for kids your site is. This was the thrust of today's White House censorware summit, where President Clinton sat down with high tech firms and non-profit groups in a private meeting to talk about pressuring the Net community to make cyberspace childsafe through labels. "We need to encourage every Internet site, whether or not it has material harmful to minors, to rate its contents," Clinton said after the meeting. Vice President Gore was there, too, giving a quick demonstration of how labeling works. Spooked by the threat of a revised Communications Decency Act, high tech firms are seriously backing labels for the first time. Joining Clinton in coercing Internet users and businesses to label all their web pages were Yahoo, Excite, and Lycos. "I threw a gauntlet to other search engines in today's meeting saying that collectively we should require a rating before we index pages," Robert Davis, the president of Lycos, told me. Translation: if you don't play ball, and label your site, search engines will ignore you. As will future users of Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser. The next version of IE will default to displaying only properly labeled web pages, according to Ken Wasch, the president of the Software Publishers Association. Since many users won't turn off that feature to reach unrated sites, many large web sites now are facing hefty pressure to self-label. Other high tech firms rushed to join the presidential limelight. Netscape promised to join Microsoft and include label-reading software in the next version of its browser. America Online's Steve Case thanked Clinton for "backing industry's efforts to make cyberspace a safer place." IBM announced a $100,000 grant to RSACi, a PICS-based rating standard originally designed for video games but adapted for the Web. The industry giant also pledges to incorporate RSACi into future products. [...]

4 3

Re: White House "kinder, gentler"-CDA
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Declan McCullagh wrote: > Subject: Re: White House "kinder, gentler"-CDA/censor empowerment meeting > > Below we see an excellent example of the naivete inherent in > Net-libertarian and cypherpunk writing. Obviously the writer does not > understand the complexities and challenges of Washington politics. In many > ways, it is like sausage being made: disgusting to watch, but a process > that results in the compromises so vital in a healthy democracy. I don't see Cypherpunks being naieve about the need to compromise in order for people to live together, but I think Cypherpunks recognize the difference between things which are inviolate and those which are not. e.g. - A group of people in a liferaft with food and poison. Debate over how much each of us can eat from a pool of food held in common may be open to compromise, but debate over whether any individual can-or-cannot-or-*must* eat poison to end suffering or "for the good of the collective" should *not* be open to compromise of the individual's right to self-determination. The problem is that the "solution" to every "problem," in the eyes of LEA's and the legislature, is to compromise rights and freedoms that are guaranteed by the Constitution. The problem is that many of the purported "problems" involve people passing judgement on the interests and actions of others and their "solution" is to criminalize other's actions on the basis of their own sense of guilt and shame. The problem is that those promoting "compromise" often have an agenda that is based on a series of compromises leading to complete abrogation of the other's position. {A prime example is the "compromise" of making already-legal crypto "legal" in return for agreeing to criminalizing other currently legal actions.) > Which is why it is inappropriate to criticize the White House's position > on the CDA. If you speak your mind aloud, you run the risk of being > marginalized like the ACLU. How can you serve your constituents then? If you are taking a reasonable, rational stance on issues and are marginalized or cut out of the loop in order for the government to disenfranchise your constituents, then you can serve your constituents by taking up arms against the criminals who are subverting the will of the people. > I can only conclude that because Mr. Finkelstein does not live inside the > Beltway, we cannot expect him to realize that it is always necessary to > remain players in the game -- even if it means giving up fundamental > liberties in the process. Duh... I certainly hope you are talking about giving up your *own* fundamental liberties to remain in "the game" (which you have every right to do). However, if you are indeed representing constituents (or readers), then you are also giving up their liberties, as well, to a certain extent. I think you need to do some serious thinking about the difference between compromising in order to defend a position and compromising in order to "remain a player in the game." If you are not strong enough to defend a position of principle and survive, then you should not be the one "in the game" defending that position. The ACLU and the NRA "marginalize" and "compromise" themselves, it is not the government, the public, or their members "doing it *to*" them. As far as I am concerned, what compromises you make in order to remain in a position to report on the beltway is your own decision to make. I just hope you have the wit and wisdom to walk with the Devil only as far as the bridge, because he always burns it behind him, and few make it back. TruthMonger

1 0

Re: White House "kinder, gentler"-CDA/censor empowerment meeting
by John Deters 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This message was also To: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com>, but apparently algebra.com eats messages with more than one To: recipient. From: John Deters <jad> Subject: Re: White House "kinder, gentler"-CDA/censor empowerment meeting In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970716080230.15247L-100000(a)well.com> At 08:03 AM 7/16/97 -0700, you [Declan McCullagh] wrote: >I can only conclude that because Mr. Finkelstein does not live inside the >Beltway, we cannot expect him to realize that it is always necessary to >remain players in the game -- even if it means giving up fundamental >liberties in the process. Declan, I think you made a phrasing error here. Perhaps you meant to say that you think it, "prudent to hold your tongue when speaking to the White House if you want a gold-engraved invitation back." To some people, it read like you were saying "give up fundamental liberties to free speech in order to 'protect the children.'" Either way, there's not much difference there: political speech MUST remain the 'most protected of all', and if someone is afraid of speaking their mind during a debate, then we've all lost. However, I think you've missed the ACLU point of NOT "playing the game". They're not trying to get on (or stay on) the short invitation list to whatever dog-n-pony show the White House trots out next. Their concern is for the Constitution, that it be followed BY EVERYONE, and that it doesn't get trampled completely by bad laws written by ignorant lawmakers. When the ACLU was not "invited" to a meeting where the entire purpose seems be that of passing another bad law to circumvent the first amendment without pissing off the same ACLU, don't you agree that perhaps the White House made a tactical error? IMHO, the ACLU should be a part of the lawmaking *process*. Rather than passing bad laws and checking for their constitutionality on the back end by people desperate enough to gamble on the outcome of a long, expensive legal process, I think we'd all be a lot better off checking for constituonal laws before we pass them at all. According to the Constitution, that's the President's job (it's what he said when he took the oath), but we all know that he only sees his job to be that of "the biggest congressman of all, gotta follow the polls of the whole nation." Perhaps the "three strikes and you're out" rule could apply to Congress: if you vote for three laws that are overturned by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional, you go to jail for 25 years to life, no parole. Debate the new laws all you want, but when it comes down to casting your vote, you'd better be certain you're not violating the Constitution. We need more accountability on the front end of the legal process, because the average among us can't afford to gamble on the back end. John -- J. Deters "Don't think of Windows programs as spaghetti code. Think of them as 'Long sticky pasta objects in OLE sauce'." +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ | NET: mailto:jad@dsddhc.com (work) mailto:jad@pclink.com (home) | | PSTN: 1 612 375 3116 (work) 1 612 894 8507 (home) | | ICBM: 44^58'36"N by 93^16'27"W Elev. ~=290m (work) | | For my public key, send mail with the exact subject line of: | | Subject: get pgp key | +--------------------------------------------------------------------+

1 0

Rep. Rick White on White House censorware summit (fwd)
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 14:32:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Rep. Rick White on White House censorware summit FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Connie Correll July 16, 1997 (202) 225-1201 (O)/ (202) 237-2136 (H) e-mail: connie.correll(a)mail.house.gov WHITE ATTENDS WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE QUESTIONS GOVERNMENT SOLUTION (Washington, D.C.) -- Congressman Rick White (R-First District) today made clear his desire to protect kids who use the Internet but expressed concern that the federal government can solve the problem. White's remarks were made during his participation in a closed meeting at the White House that focused on making the Internet family friendly. "I have four children who love to use the Net and there is no question we need to protect our kids from harmful material on the Internet. Today's meeting was a step in the right direction," said White. "But as we evaluate the next step we need to make sure we don't lure ourselves into a false sense of security. No matter what we do in the United States it won't affect sites developed in Amsterdam or Bangkok. That's why I'm skeptical that the federal government can solve this problem. The real solution will come from the smart people in the private sector." White today praised representatives of the software community, the Administration as well as family and civil liberty groups for their efforts to develop a comprehensive solution for a family friendly Internet. He encouraged the development of filtering software but expressed concern that a government based solution would be too restrictive and regulatory. White has long been a leader in keeping the Internet free from federal regulation. As a member of the select committee that developed the final telecommunications reform bill last year, White offered a compromise proposal to the CDA that would protect kids. The compromise included a proposal, defeated by one vote, to replace the "indecency" standard with the "harmful to minors" standard. Other provisions of White's compromise became part of the final bill. Those provisions included: 1) developing strong, effective laws that target wrongdoers; 2) using parental empowerment software to screen material; and 3) providing incentives for industry to develop new screening technologies. In March of 1996 White formed the Congressional Internet Caucus (IC) to help educate Members of Congress about the Internet. White believes through the work of the Internet Caucus and with the help of the Internet community, Capitol Hill has gained a better understanding of the Internet.

2 1