- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

None
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Declan McCullagh writes: > The FBI will continue to stand behind Lon Horiuchi, an FBI > sharpshooter charged last month by local authorities with involuntary > manslaughter for the shooting death of Vicky Weaver, wife of white > supremacist Randy Weaver, during a deadly standoff in Idaho, Freeh said. > "We fully support him," Freeh said. "It was a horrible tragedy. It > was a mistake on his part, but we believe he was acting as he was trained > to do. He was within the scope of his authority. ... He reasonably > believed at the time that what he was doing was proper." It's amazing that Freeh would admit that shooting an unarmed woman holding an infant is what "he was trained to do" and was "within the scope of his authority" and that he "reasonably believed [it] was proper" to do so. What are they teaching at FBI school nowadays? Horiuchi's defense is really no different than Timothy McVeigh's: "yes, it was a mistake but he felt it was justified and reasonably believed at the time that what he was doing was proper..." Too bad McVeigh didn't have a badge saying FBI on it.

1 0

Dear Scott Adams: I hear you need a fresh target...
by Zooko Journeyman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

You could do the world a favor by making fun of recent GAK (Government Accesst to Keys) proposals which are currently circulating in the organs of power under newspeak names like "key escrow" and "key recovery". Also, it's an easy target, and a big issue with a lot of your techie readers. Have some leader on television announce that henceforth all e-mail will be scanned by federal investigatory gremlins in the name of public safety, but never fear!! For your privacy will be PERSONALLY GUARANTEED by the new Privacy Czar... <camera pans...> Catbert! Or Dogbert. Or Ratbert, heck. Or Bob! Lots of your characters make good government leaders. :-) Thanks! Zooko, Journeyman Wizard P.S. I think I'll Cc: this to the cypherpunks. No doubt they will hack your account and send you death threats and make me regret it, but heck, maybe you can get some good mileage out of making fun of THEM, too.

1 0

Re: House Intel Committee Approves Sweeping New Crypto Restrictions... (fwd)
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 15:19:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)pathfinder.com> To: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Re: House Intel Committee Approves Sweeping New Crypto Restrictions... The House Commerce Committee markup was postponed. -Declan On Thu, 11 Sep 1997, Jonah Seiger wrote: > PS - we are also awaiting word from the House Commerce Committee -- expect > more soon. >

1 0

Taxless society concerns
by Warpy 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've been reading some of the various "manifesto's" and "rants" lately advocating societies free of government, taxes, etc. Whilst I agree in principal with some of the subjects/proposals raised, there are still a few things that have not been (i feel) adequately answered. First off. In such a society, who cares for the old, the sick, and the infirm? How is such care going to be payed for? How will basic services be maintained without the necessary taxes required to pay for them? Now before you start yelling at me and calling me a government sympathiser, let me say that i am disgusted at the amount of money spent by governments around the world on military equipment and personnel. If such a taxless society were to eventuate there would be *hopefully* that much more money floating around to help those who need it most. But the question remains. In such a taxless society, and little or no government, how are those less fortunate than us going to be cared for? Warpy --------------------------------------------------------------------- | http://suburbia.com.au/~warpy | | Key Fingerprint: 85 17 4A E3 0C C5 BB 24 36 22 BB A6 E8 41 D5 95 | | Email: warpy(a)sekurity.org | ---------------------------------------------------------------------

4 3

Re: Keepers of the keys
by Lizard 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:10 PM 7/18/97 -0700, Tim May wrote: >All of this brainstorming about who might be the best choice to hold >"escrowed" keys, a la the reporter stooge Shea, or about requiring the Feds >to use the same escrow system, misses this basic point. And plays into >their hands. > >Kill the key grabbers and all those who support them. Isn't it exactly what >Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, and the others would have argued? > Sure. And that is, of course, the bottom line. But even if I was a rabid national security freak, I'd *still* oppose key escrow, because it makes the nation *less* secure. It's a loser on both liberty *and* security grounds, and, since the liberty issue has already been conceded, the (political) battleground is security. The "key escrow exposes us to spies" meme has the capability to graft into the same mental reception points that the "key escrow will save us from terrorists" meme is currently attached to, much as 'blocker' viruses can prevent other viruses from infecting cells. If I were heading the NSA/CIA/FBI/etc, I'd be putting my budget into getting ringers onto every BBS, every IRC channel, every 'warez' group, every mailing list, everywhere, not wasting time on 'key escrow' when the people I'd be most interested in tracking would never ever in a million years turn their key over to the government. I'd be infiltrating, subjerting, and getting keys the old fashined way -- by tricking people into giving them to me. A key can be a gigabit in length and still be cracked just by watching what someone types in to decode a message, and the technology to do *that* is decades old, as are, sadly, the wiretap laws to permit it. The "legitimate needs of law enforcement" are already far too well served by existing holes shot in the Constitution -- there is no need to make more, and doing so will defeat the putative aims of the hawks, as well.

1 0

Re: Postal Inspection (was Common Carriers...)
by jdd＠aiki.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In message <9408082050.AA26145(a)smds.com> FutureNerd Steve Witham writes: > That reminds me. I once got a conference announcement from Europe > in the mail. Printed on the envelope was a little icon showing a > profile of the head of a guy wearing a hat (like a policeman or > mailman's hat), and an arrow pointing from about his eye level to a > picture of an open envelope. This looked like the original envelope, > untouched, and the icon seemed to have been there from the start. What was the conference about? (If the icon was printed on the envelope, I suspect that it represented the topic of the conference or the group sponsoring it.) -- Jim Dixon

1 0

Re: <null>
by merriman＠metronet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>In article <199408062304.AA24750(a)xs4all.hacktic.nl> you wrote: > >: The jurisdiction where this remailer could be located, preferably >: shouldn't care about pornografy. [Holland, Scandinavia ?] > >Pornografy isn't illegal in the Netherlands, but -contrary to popular >believe- child pornografy *IS* illegal in the Netherlands. > But what is the age of consent for such in the Netherlands? I believe I saw on an educational TV program here in the U.S. that the age of consent in the Netherlands was 14. If so, what affect does that have on what is considered "child pornography"? [before the flames start, I would like to point out that my question is 'scholarly' :-] Dave Merriman

2 1

Janet Reno talks crypto with Al Gore
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Said during Atty Gen Janet Reno's weekly media availability on September 5, 1997: Q Excuse me. Thank you. We started this morning with a reference to the unfortunate death of the princess of Wales. As you're aware, in the wake of that, there have been various calls - expressions of concern about the privacy of individuals, of celebrities, primarily, and various people discussing a possible need for laws to protect people. Do you see that as a realistic discussion? Is there any - as a law enforcement officer, can you see any way that individual celebrities can be protected legislatively, legally, or is this just something that has to be solved socially, culturally? ATTY GEN. RENO: I we're going to have to look at it and solve it in common-sense ways. I think it's very difficult to legislate something like that. But I think it is important for all of us, no matter what our role, to be respectful of other people's privacy. And I think this is an instance where it has given us all cause to look at it and to ponder how we can deal with this issue. Q Ms. Reno, how often do you speak with Vice President Gore on legal or law enforcement issues? And how would you characterize the relationship that you've had with him? ATTY GEN. RENO: I have spoken with him on encryption issues with regards to law enforcement. That is, I think, one of the principal issues that I have discussed with him - not recently. -Declan

1 0

Re: e$
by jdd＠aiki.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In message <9408072158.memo.40958(a)BIX.com> peace(a)bix.com writes: > I can recall that many years back the casinos in Las Vegas all > accepted the chips from the other ones and then had a great > exchange each day where the accounts were settled up. Even the > gift shops took chips in place of cash. The US Treasury put a stop > to this as it was considered to be a replacement for cash. > > Also I hear a lot about bearer bonds, but never in the US. OTOH > the NYC subways have started a cash card that they expect merchants > to accept in lieu of coins. It would be nice to know what the Feds > will or won't accept. BTW, does it matter if the e$ are US denominated? > Could e$ be presented as travelers checks? The possibilities here are > extremely interesting. There is a small point to be made here which I think is really a big point. The US government does not object to the use of financial instruments so long as they are backed by the US $ (or another accepted currency). Most of us use such financial instruments daily -- checks and credit cards, for examples. Most financial transactions involve no cash at all. If an e$ is backed by US $1.00, the government will not object. The government objects if you create an alternative currency. Barter systems based on scrip are an alternative currency, and therefore illegal. If you had $1,000,000 in the bank and wrote out and signed 1,000,000 checks for $1.00 each, I think that these could be traded without violating any laws. But if you issue $e carelessly, you will probably find that you are acting as a bank, and therefore violating several Federal laws. You also need to be concerned about Federal regulations covering the import and export of money. I think that at $5,000 or $10,000 you have to report the transaction. I believe that the forms issued on airplanes make it clear that checks and other financial instruments are included. The action taken to stop the exchange of tokens between casinos would seem to contradict this. It would be useful if someone were able to find more information on this. The legal point might be that the tokens simply had an amount written on them ("$100) with no currency specified and without the name of a bank directed to pay this amount -- having said this, I am reasonably sure that they would not allow banks to pay out against their tokens, and so therefore they would definitely represent an alternative currency, and not an IOU. -- Jim Dixon

3 2

Re: in defense of Lon Horiuchi
by Brian B. Riley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 9/11/97 3:43 PM, Chip Mefford (cmefford(a)avwashington.com) passed this wisdom: >Even dumb ole me, who ain't no crack shot, with one of those nifty >(off theshelf) Styer-Mannlicher countersniper rifles with the neato >Zeiss autoranging scope was able to punch a coke can 5 for 5 after >one ranging(cheater) shot at 600 meters. I'm told that the FBI has >much nicer rifles than that. And I ain't trained. > >(couldn't hit the Mountain Dew can, couldn't see it) Horiuchi shot Mrs Weaver at slightly over 200 meters .... not much o of a chnace he didn't hit what he was aiming at ... which begs the question of *wha* was he aiming at? The rules of engagement promulgated by Louis Freehs buddy Potts (I think) were nothing more than a death warrant and I have heard that most of the FBI marksmen balked at them ... but not good ole 'doin what I'm told to do' Lon ... yeah right! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNBiGFcdZgC62U/gIEQJyPgCgu0oNx/mVZ9fjtI6d7AYfXAT4nfcAoLX3 0nQZslJNDD1x8EG+YfCeqY9x =Rqj8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Brian B. Riley --> http://www.macconnect.com/~brianbr For PGP Keys - Send Email Subject "Get PGP Key" "Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path, and leave a trail" - Ralph Waldo Emerson

1 0