- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

The Cartoon Decency Act? from the Netly News
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 08:05:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship-announce(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: The Cartoon Decency Act? from the Netly News *********** http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/opinion/0,1042,1055,00.html The Netly News Network June 13, 1997 The Cartoon Decency Act? by Declan McCullagh (declan(a)well.com) We all know what threats confront our children today: War. Hunger. Poverty. Ignorance. But animated cartoon characters on the Net? Actually, the Center for Media Education and its allies ignored the others and just zeroed in on the looming menace of Net-toons yesterday during the Federal Trade Commission's interminable privacy hearings. CME's Shelley Pasnik warned, "Animated product spokescharacters are coming into our childrens' computers... Parents are deeply troubled by the intrusive nature of the online [world] coming into our homes." Hadn't she read Kurt Anderson's editorial in The New Yorker this week, that the onslaught of 'toons signals a cultural renaissance in the U.S.? Doh! The Center for Media's alarums sound familiar. Supporters of the notorious Communications Decency Act cried that "pornography is coming into our home computers" and used the same excuse of "protecting children" to justify passing the law. [...]

1 0

Responses to "there's no general right to privacy"
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

************** Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 19:27:45 -0400 From: Barney Wolff <barney(a)databus.com> > Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 18:58:25 -0400 > From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)pathfinder.com> > > ... But in truth, privacy is not a > right but a preference: Some people want more of it > than others. Free speech is not a right but a preference. Some people want more of it than others. Because your job would be easier if there were less privacy, we all should suffer? Consider yourself flamed. Barney Wolff <barney(a)databus.com> ************** Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 22:43:59 -0400 From: Mike Godwin <mnemonic(a)well.com> To: declan(a)well.com, fight-censorship-announce(a)vorlon.mit.edu At 6:58 PM -0400 6/12/97, Declan McCullagh wrote: >************** > >http://pathfinder.com/netly/editorial/0,1012,1050,00.html > >The Netly News >June 12, 1997 > >Privacy? What Privacy? >by Declan McCullagh (declan(a)well.com) > > I have a confession to make: Unlike many of my >civil libertarian colleagues, I believe you have no >general right to privacy online. I endorse Declan's comments here, and most of what he says about privacy -- in particular that there is no general (read "universally applicable") right to privacy. There are, however, some particular rights to privacy in the United States that are worth maintaining and protecting into the next century. As against the government, these include (but are not limited to) one's 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment rights that limit what the government can do to violate your privacy. As against other individuals and private entities, these include (but are not limited to) the rights protected under the invasion-of-privacy torts, and the restrictions on private companies' secondary use of transactional data. These carveouts from the general presumption articulated by Declan are generally supported by the American public, and have been reasonably well harmonized with First Amendment law. And they've stood the test of time. Most privacy advocates I know, when they're talking about privacy, are talking about these carveouts -- both as they exist now and as they will need to evolve in the decades to come. It should be noted that efforts like the EFF-originated ETrust program (now called Trust-E thanks to a trademark dispute) are not based on "rights," but on the creation of incentives to inform the public about the use of their personal information. As such, they sidestep the "right to privacy" discussion altogether. Which is probably just as well, given the quasi-theological taste such legal discussions tend to have. --Mike ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 'Indeed, the Government's asserted "failure" of the Internet rests on the implicit premise that too much speech occurs in that medium, and that speech there is too available to the participants. This is exactly the benefit of Internet communication, however. The Government, therefore, implicitly asks this court to limit both the amount of speech on the Internet and the availability of that speech. This argument is profoundly repugnant to First Amendment principles.' --Judge Stewart Dalzell, ACLU v. Reno. Mike Godwin, EFF Staff Counsel, can be reached at mnemonic(a)eff.org or at his office, 510-548-3290. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Impact of Netscape kernel hole
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Huge Cajones wrote: >Tim's post (although refuted by Marc) raises some serious issues since I >suspect that Joe Public has his secret key sitting in c:\pgp\secring.pgp Isn't it widely known that the secret key is not to be stored in the box, as the PGP manual and security pubs emphasize? Still, it would be good to know if a Netscape snooper could snarf a key while it is being used by PGP to decrypt, that is, whether the hole allows snooping on dynamic ops or just on stored info. Does anyone know if the the hole finders are discussing this on the Net, and if so, where? What are the folks at Netscape saying? Tom, Jeff?

5 5

Anonymous proxies & ITAR question
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Background] I wanted to grab a copy of the 128 bit version of MSIE, but my ISP hasn't enabled reverse DNS lookup, so I decided to try running through an anonymous proxy server to scoop it and lo-and-behold, aside from being brutally slow, it worked like a charm. I may have the opportunity in the near future to set up a proxy server, but this concerns me... Under ITAR regs, if a "foreign national" was to use the server to get access to "munitions" (sure, software kills, didn't cha know?), could I be held in violation? Even if all they had was circumstantial evidence, I'd really like to avoid being indicted - puts a real kink in one's social schedule. Your thoughts on this would be appreciated.

2 1

Impact of Netscape kernel hole Impact of Netscape kernel hole
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It'd be nice to have more specifics about the whole situation, but regardless - any preliminary threat assessments? Exactly how widely exploited do you think this has been? Tim's post (although refuted by Marc) raises some serious issues since I suspect that Joe Public has his secret key sitting in c:\pgp\secring.pgp Some coherent input on the possible impact of this would be appreciated.

4 3

Re: Anonymous proxies & ITAR question
by Rich Graves 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Also sprach nobody: >Under ITAR regs, if a "foreign national" was to use the server to get >access to "munitions" (sure, software kills, didn't cha know?), could I be >held in violation? > >Even if all they had was circumstantial evidence, I'd really like to avoid >being indicted - puts a real kink in one's social schedule. > >Your thoughts on this would be appreciated. This is why we need more remailers, and why it's good that you posted anonymously. The proper thing to do is to be "shocked, shocked!" that anything illegal is happening on your server, immediately shut it down (counting on the network to be self-healing with the help of an enhanced remailer list), and offer to cooperate fully. Unfortunately, you don't keep logs, so you wouldn't really be able to help (damn!). -rich http://www.stanford.edu/~llurch/

4 6

Cato forum on federal law enforcement
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 12:13:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Robin Hulsey <rhulsey(a)cato.org> Subject: No More Wacos: What's wrong with federal law enforcement and how to fix it NEWS MEDIA ALERT WHAT: Book Forum No more Wacos: What's wrong with federal law enforcement and how to fix it WHY: On April 19, 1993, federal agents conducted a deadly raid on the Branch Davidian compound at Waco, Texas. The Waco raid was the largest raid in the history of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; it was the largest federal armed entry ever of an American home; and it resulted in the largest number of deaths of law enforcement officers in a single operation as well as the largest number of civilian deaths in a law enforcement operation. In No More Wacos, Kopel and Blackman maintain that what happened at Waco was neither a conspiracy nor a fluke. The Waco tragedy instead represents the worst-case scenario of problems that still plague federal law enforcement, including lax procedures involving search warrant applications and the militarization of police tactics. The authors will discuss why such tragedies occur-and how future Wacos can be prevented. WHEN: 4-6 p.m., Thursday, June 19 WHERE: F.A. Hayek Auditorium Cato Institute 1000 Massachusetts Ave. NW Washington, DC WHO: David B. Kopel Independence Institute Paul H. Blackman National Rifle Association HOW: RSVP to Robin Hulsey, at 202-789-5293 or rhulsey(a)cato.org

1 0

Re: Ray Just doesn't get it.
by Rich Graves 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Ray Arachelian <sunder(a)brainlink.com> wrote: > Should detailed building plans be made available of all buildings so that > theives can look at them and break into banks more easily? Perhaps there > are reasons some of these things are available to the public. Perhaps > there are reasons why not all should be. Yeah. We'd better criminalize publishing computer security exploits, too. Some information is just too damn dangerous. If there is no public record of stuff like real estate, how are we supposed to know who owns what? Whoever's got the biggest gun? - -rich http://www.stanford.edu/~llurch/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQBVAwUBM6HeepNcNyVVy0jxAQH8hwIAwEO/XE6hTC2MzVkKOB8eAzyM+aI1lOAX ialQMD8VGLSEXQb3wEuLsLHrHqNBJFeYXFD7zhHc7yKLFYhwGk+l5A== =lvKR -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Life inside the Beltway
by Chip Mefford 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

New technology for the cops. It brings tears of joy to my eyes to think of all the children that this new technology will save. -------------begin included text-------------------------- Alexandria police have a new high-tech tool to help them catch fugitives and find missing people. Police officials last week unveiled new digital scanners and cellular transmitters that allow cruisers to transmit photographs in less than a minute. That means an officer can scan in a family photo of a lost child and send it to all active patrol cars nearly instantly. The technology also lets the police send photos to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which can then pass information on to other police departments. "In the search for a missing child, time is the enemy," said Ernie Allen, president of the Arlington-based center. "The more quickly we can provide a child's image, the greater the likelihood we can find the child." Alexandria and College Station, Tex., are the first two police departments in the country to get this image technology, officials said. Although the two departments use different computer systems, they are able to send pictures to each other via a computer center in Florida. At a demonstration last week, a College Station car sent a photo to an Alexandria cruiser in about 40 seconds, and a photo from the National Center took about the same time. It takes the same amount of time to send a photo to one car as to broadcast it to all of the cruisers, allowing the department to blanket an area with images immediately, officials said. The same technology will allow Alexandria to send photos to neighboring jurisdictions as soon as they get computers that receive digital images. Federal Highway Administration officials said they expect this kind of system to become widely available over the next two years. Alexandria is spending $800,000 to outfit its patrol cars with the new scanners and portable computers that can run criminal record checks. Adding the scanning technology "is an opportunity we just couldn't miss," said Lt. Michael Clancey, who commands the vice-narcotics division. Most of the money for the computers -- $500,000 -- comes from two federal grants and assets seized from criminals, officials said. The department is buying 82 computers, ensuring that most on-duty cars will have them. "Alexandria has been on the forefront of creative development in the use of technology," said Daniel Rosenblatt, director of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. © Copyright 1997 The Washington Post Company By Brooke A. Masters --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: FCPUNX:There's no general right to privacy -- get over it, from Netly
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:27 PM 6/13/97 -0400, tzeruch(a)ceddec.com wrote: > Today the Nazi's would simply pay Experian (was TRW) for their databases. > I think the IRS already does. I do not see private organizations bothering to collect data on racial identity, except where they are compelled to by the government. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

1 0