- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Libel & the 1st Amendment
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:52 PM 2/1/97 -0500, Mark M. wrote: >On Sat, 1 Feb 1997, Peter J. Capelli wrote: > >> You mean to say, rich people can overcrowd the courts as much as they >> like, while others are restricted by contigency-only lawyers ( Call >> 1-800-AMBULANCE! ) ... and what of the case of a rich person trying to >> control >> a poor one with many frivolous lawsuits ... while they can afford to file >> lawsuit after lawsuit, the poor person cannot defend himself. > >What, exactly, would be the point of suing a poor person? To quiet him from political dissent, presumably. I think the term coined a few years ago was "SLAPP", something akin to "Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Policy," or similar. For example, "Company A" wants to build a mine or factory or something similar at a location. Citizens object, causing political problems. Company sues the individuals for damages, which costs the individuals a great deal of money to defend against even if they never lose the suit. The real problem is actually a series of mistakes: 1. Individual should not be able to cause political problems for company. 2. "Government" should not be able to impact company activities short of actual harm. 3. Company should not be able to impact individual by suing except for actual harm done by that individual. Naturally, the source of these problems is that by each of their existence, lawyers make more money. As usual, I have a solution to that problem. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Free & Open Society & toleration
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, It has been asserted that I am claiming that a free and open society should not abide any and all actions in contrast to Jim Bell's assertion that a free and open society must tolerate any action. This is not my case at all. I hold that a DEMOCRATIC society with a HEALTHY ECONOMIC system must have some minimum standards on what is allowed. By no means do I hold that the ONLY means of a free and open society is a democracy. It is quite possible to have an anarchy which would also be a free and open society and by DEFINITION would tolerate any action by its members acting individualy or in concert. I hold that for a democratic society to retain concepts of freedom and equity under the law as well as be economicaly viable, especialy in an environment where 'reputation' is critical such as a network over which economic transactions can take place with nothing more than a email order and a EFT, must not provide ex post facto AND carte blanche protection of the speech of the citizens. For such a system to operate requires a 'reputation' system to be in place. For such a system to be viable it MUST protect those reputations otherwise the concept of a 'contract' is worthless. I DO hold that this system MUST provide a priori protection of all speech. I further hold that any distinction between the 'government' and the people of a nation is a false and misleading distinction which is not in the best interest of the society because it by DEFINITION promotes a class society which is by definition contrary to the goal of equity under a democracy. It further provides a mechanism by which the representatives of the 'state' may claim immunity from the very standards they are charged with enforcing. This is because the charter of such a society is itself simply a contract between any arbitrary individual of that society and the sum total of the remaining citizenry (ie the 'state'). I further hold that one of the current legal practices based on precidence which MUST be replaced is our system dealing with defamation. I further hold that our current system of legal representation is inherently flawed and prevents equal representation under the law. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

4 3

Re: "Secret" Postal Device stolen
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bill Stewart wrote: > >>>Postal Service offers $25,000 reward for stolen . . . something > I was also guessing keys - truck keys are a less subtle target than > box storage keys, and telling every thug in the country that > mail trucks are an easy target, just take the keys from the carrier, > seems almost worth sounding really stupid in public to avoid. > They did say that it wasn't something they carried in their pockets, > but do mail carriers hang their keys on their belts? Mail carriers in some areas carry keys for buildings with security doors (sometimes Master keys). Or perhaps they've taken over the CIA's crack distribution route. Is anyone on the list willing to 'knock off' a couple of mail carriers and get back to us with a definitive answer on this? (Doesn't this kind of thing fall under the moderator's job description?) Toto

3 2

Re: "Secret" Postal Device stolen
by David Lesher 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Robert Rothenburg 'Walking-Owl' sez: > > > > Mail Storage Box keys? > > I think they use combination locks, actually. Supposedly it's the same > combination nationally too. > > There was an article in 2600 Magazine about that. The locks are > actually 'insecure' and you can test every possible combo in about > 10-20 minutes. I think you are confusing USPS and FedEx. USPS uses key locks seemingly designed by Ben Franklin himself. Look at them someday. FedEx boxes used to have Simplex 926 5 pushbutton ""locks"" if you stretch the point. I'm guessing what they lost was a reloader for postage meters. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz(a)nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

2 1

Re: Crypto in New Zealand - an update
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Lucky Green wrote: > At 06:03 AM 2/2/97, pgut001(a)cs.auckland.ac.nz wrote: > [...] > >The following week Andrew Mayo wrote a letter to the editor of the NBR > >containing an eloquent defense of the use of encryption to protect personal > >privacy. MFAT replied to say that they were only following orders, and were > >required by the Wassenaar agreement to restrict crypto exports: > [...] MFAT doesn't put crypto in the ovens, they just turn on the gas. > Just for clarification, it is the Wassenaar *arrangement* (somehow the term > is more fitting anyway...) and it does *not* require the signatory > countries to implement crypto export controls. > Not that this will make any difference, since it would be the first time > that a government would allow facts to stand in the way of politics. ...or allow 'citizens' to stand in the way of politics. Toto

1 0

Re: Libel & the 1st Amendment
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:52 PM 2/1/97 -0500, Mark M. wrote: >On Sat, 1 Feb 1997, Peter J. Capelli wrote: > >> You mean to say, rich people can overcrowd the courts as much as they >> like, while others are restricted by contigency-only lawyers ( Call >> 1-800-AMBULANCE! ) ... and what of the case of a rich person trying to >> control >> a poor one with many frivolous lawsuits ... while they can afford to file >> lawsuit after lawsuit, the poor person cannot defend himself. > >What, exactly, would be the point of suing a poor person? To quiet him from political dissent, presumably. I think the term coined a few years ago was "SLAPP", something akin to "Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Policy," or similar. For example, "Company A" wants to build a mine or factory or something similar at a location. Citizens object, causing political problems. Company sues the individuals for damages, which costs the individuals a great deal of money to defend against even if they never lose the suit. The real problem is actually a series of mistakes: 1. Individual should not be able to cause political problems for company. 2. "Government" should not be able to impact company activities short of actual harm. 3. Company should not be able to impact individual by suing except for actual harm done by that individual. Naturally, the source of these problems is that by each of their existence, lawyers make more money. As usual, I have a solution to that problem. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Free & Open Society & toleration
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, It has been asserted that I am claiming that a free and open society should not abide any and all actions in contrast to Jim Bell's assertion that a free and open society must tolerate any action. This is not my case at all. I hold that a DEMOCRATIC society with a HEALTHY ECONOMIC system must have some minimum standards on what is allowed. By no means do I hold that the ONLY means of a free and open society is a democracy. It is quite possible to have an anarchy which would also be a free and open society and by DEFINITION would tolerate any action by its members acting individualy or in concert. I hold that for a democratic society to retain concepts of freedom and equity under the law as well as be economicaly viable, especialy in an environment where 'reputation' is critical such as a network over which economic transactions can take place with nothing more than a email order and a EFT, must not provide ex post facto AND carte blanche protection of the speech of the citizens. For such a system to operate requires a 'reputation' system to be in place. For such a system to be viable it MUST protect those reputations otherwise the concept of a 'contract' is worthless. I DO hold that this system MUST provide a priori protection of all speech. I further hold that any distinction between the 'government' and the people of a nation is a false and misleading distinction which is not in the best interest of the society because it by DEFINITION promotes a class society which is by definition contrary to the goal of equity under a democracy. It further provides a mechanism by which the representatives of the 'state' may claim immunity from the very standards they are charged with enforcing. This is because the charter of such a society is itself simply a contract between any arbitrary individual of that society and the sum total of the remaining citizenry (ie the 'state'). I further hold that one of the current legal practices based on precidence which MUST be replaced is our system dealing with defamation. I further hold that our current system of legal representation is inherently flawed and prevents equal representation under the law. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

2 1

Re: GSM technology
by Murray Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Mon, 20 Jan 1997 13:37:38 -0800, Lucky Green wrote: >At 09:43 AM 1/20/97 -0500, Nurdane Oksas wrote: >> Does anyone use ADSL lines? or are they still very expensive? > >I just had a very interesting talk with somebody from Northern Telecom (Canada's Phone Company). NorTel has apparently skipped ISDN and is now deploying ADSL. Some areas already have access to ADSL at, can you believe this, $60/month. > I'm not sure about Nortel but ADSL is availible in Calgary from CadVision. http://www.cadvision.ca It's not cheap. BCTel is yapping about offering it by the end of the year.

1 0

NSA Material at the National Archives
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

For access to the 5,000 items declassified under NSA's OPENDOOR program (http://www.nsa.gov:8080/programs/opendoor) we got this answer from the National Archives: Dear Mr. Young: This is in response to your electronic mail inquiry of December 20, 1996, concerning National Security Agency records transferred to the National Archives. The material described on the NSA web site was transferred to the National Archives and made available in April 1996. We can supply you with electrostatic (paper) copies of select files for $0.25 per page. Please let us know which files you would like copied, and we will send you a reproduction price quote (please include your mailing address with all such requests). We ask that you limit each request to five files. Should you choose to come to Washington to do research, our records and microfilm publications are available for consultation without charge in our research room. The National Archives at College Park (Archives II), is located at 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, Maryland. If you do not have a research card, you must apply for one in the reception area. Research room hours (except legal holidays) are 8:45 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday and Wednesday; and 8:45 a.m. to 9 p.m., Tuesday, Thursday and Friday. Our subject matter specialists are not on duty after 5:15 p.m. The research rooms also are open on Saturday from 8:45 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., with a small research room staff present. Requests for records must be made before 3:30 p.m. Monday-Friday; no requests can be made on Saturday. The telephone number for the Archives II Reference Branch is 301-713-7250. Ken Schlessinger Archives II Textual Reference Branch National Archives at College Park 8601 Adelphi Rd College Park, MD 20740-6001 kenneth.schlessinger(a)ARCH2.NARA.GOV

1 0

Re: Libel, Times v. Sullivan
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:52 PM 2/1/97 -0800, Greg Broiles wrote: >Also, people interested in _Times v. Sullivan_ and the interplay between >defamation and the First Amendment might find "Make No Law: The Sullivan >Case and the First Amendment" by Anthony Lewis (ISBN 0-697-73939-4) of >interest. The decision itself is online at ><http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=376&invol >=254> - the factual summary of the Sullivan case posted here was not >correct, and the first few pages of the opinion provide a description of >the underlying facts. > >Since we've now got Jim Bell arguing that it's obvious that a free and open >society must tolerate anything which might be defamatory, and Jim Choate >arguing that it's obvious that a free and open society cannot tolerate >anything which might be defamatory, I think I'm going to wander away from >this discussion confident that the answer is, at least, nonobvious. :) Your last paragraph looks like an exercise of the silly game the TV show "60 minutes" producers often play when they read the letters from the audience about a previous report on a controversial subject. They first read a letter from an outraged viewer who claims that the TV show's producers must have been biased in one direction, and then they read another letter from a different viewer who alleges they showed a bias in the opposite direction. The show is trying to leave you with the impression that they MUST have been unbiased, because they are being accused of diametrically opposite leanings. All they are really showing is that given the hundreds and probably thousands of letters they receive on each show weekly (which are, by definition, written by self-motivated people) they can get at least one on each end of the spectrum for whatever subject they've just covered. Not surprising. (If anything, I'd be surprised if they ever DON'T recieve at least two such letters which could be misused in this way...) So before you "wander away," perhaps you ought to explain why we NEED defamation laws? The sun would still rise tomorrow morning absent them. A few feelings might be hurt, that's true, but on the other hand the implied endorsement of The State ("If that statement wasn't true, he couldn't print it!") has a, cumulatively, far greater impact on all of us. A clue is present in the likely fact that the origins of defamation laws were primarily to keep the king and the upper-crust free of printed and verbal attack directed by the lower-classes, even given the presence of whatever nominal "free-speech" guarantees were present. Explain, for example, that while it is now universally recognized by the truth is a defense for libel accusations, it was NOT true when William Penn went on trial for libel in the late 1600's. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1