- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

INFO-RUSS: Action alert: A. Nikitin (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: >From INFO-RUSS-request(a)smarty.ece.jhu.edu Wed Nov 12 18:39:46 1997 Message-Id: <9711121841.AA10833(a)smarty.ece.jhu.edu> Errors-To: INFO-RUSS-request(a)smarty.ece.jhu.edu Sender: INFO-RUSS-request(a)smarty.ece.jhu.edu Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 12:53:13 -0500 To: info-russ(a)smarty.ece.jhu.edu From: Union of Councils <ucsj(a)ucsj.com> Subject: INFO-RUSS: Action alert: A. Nikitin --------------------------------------------------------------------- This is INFO-RUSS broadcast (1200+ subscribers). Home page, information, and archives: http://psi.ece.jhu.edu/~kaplan/IRUSS/inforuss.html To post, or to subscribe/unsubscribe, mail to info-russ(a)smarty.ece.jhu.edu INFO-RUSS assumes no responsibility for the information/views of its users. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Sen. Bingaman and Rep. Skaggs Appeal to Colleagues to Urge Review of Nikitin Case UCSJ encourages human rights supporters to call their Senators and Representatives and act on Nikitin's behalf Below is a "Dear Colleague" letter from Congressman David Skaggs (D-CO) on the case of Alexander Nikitin. Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) is circulating a similar letter in the Senate. Please call your Senators and Representatives and ask them to sign these crucial letters. Maximum pressure and publicity is needed to help convince the Russian authorities to drop this case. It is essential that Nikitin's rights are protected and that the Russian security apparatus not be permitted to win this power struggle. (For more on the Nikitin case, please email Jason Silberberg at jsilb(a)ucsj.com.) Union of Councils ucsj(a)ucsj.com November 4, 1997 RUSSIAN ENVIRONMENTALIST CHARGED WITH TREASON FOR WARNING OF NUCLEAR WASTE DISASTER Dear Colleague, I am writing to bring to your attention new developments in the case of Alexander Nikitin, a case that has broad repercussions for the future of democracy, free speech, and due process in Russia. I ask you to join me in sending the attached letter to Russian President Boris Yeltsin. Alexander Nikitin, a Russian environmentalist who co-authored a report that revealed a nuclear waste disaster in the making, has been charged with treason by the Russian Federal Security Service (the former KGB), which completed its investigation on September 19. The Russian Procurator, Yuri Skuratov, who was appointed by President Boris Yeltsin, will now have to decide whether to move to trial in this case. Nikitin co-authored a report published by the Norwegian environmental group, Bellona, that revealed that unprotected nuclear waste is stored at bases and shipyards near Murmansk, and that retired nuclear-powered submarines docked in the Arctic Circle still contain highly radioactive spent fuel. Despite the fact that all the information used for the report was taken from open sources, Nikitin was charged with having released state secrets. Nikitin had been charged with violating secret Defense Ministry decrees -- even though the Russian constitution prohibits such charges. He has now been charged with violating a Defense Ministry decree that was issued seven months after Nikitin was arrested -- even though the Russian constitution prohibits ex post facto prosecution. Federal Security Services investigators have changed their determination five times regarding the choice of decrees on which to base their investigation. This case is critical, not only for Russian environmental policy, but for the future of Russian democracy. It is disturbing if Russia is unable to face up to these enormous environmental problems without prosecuting the citizen that exposed them. It raises questions about whether free speech and the publication of reports critical of the government will be permitted. The grave issues of due process in the Nikitin case cause doubt about whether Russia has truly put Soviet-style justice behind it. Please join me in sending the attached letter to Russian President Boris Yeltsin, asking him to seek a thorough review before any decision is made to take this case to trial. If you would like to cosign the letter, or if you have further questions, please call Sue Hardesty of my staff at 52161. Sincerely yours, David E. Skaggs -------------------------------------------------------------------- His Excellency Boris Yeltsin President of Russia Moscow, Russian Federation Dear Mr. President: We are writing to bring to your attention the case of Alexander Nikitin. We understand that the Federal Security Service has completed its investigation, and the Procurator General must now decide whether to take the case to trial. We applaud the enormous strides Russia has taken since the end of the Soviet era to establish a rule of law, and end the old Soviet-style approach to criminal prosecution. That is why we are very concerned that this case, if pursued, would mark a serious setback for the rule of law in Russia. Alexander Nikitin co-authored a report published by Bellona, a Norwegian environmental organization. The report revealed that unprotected nuclear waste is stored at bases and shipyards near Murmansk, and that retired nuclear-powered submarines docked in the Arctic Circle still contain highly radioactive spent fuel. Despite the fact that all the information used for the report was taken from open sources, Nikitin was charged with having released state secrets. Nikitin had been charged with espionage for violating secret Defense Ministry decrees -- even though the Russian constitution prohibits such charges. He has now been charged with violating a Defense Ministry decree that was issued seven months after he was arrested -- even though the Russian constitution prohibits ex post facto prosecution. Federal Security Services investigators have changed their determination five times regarding their choice of decrees on which to base their investigation. It appears that the rule of law as embodied in the Russian constitution has not been followed in this case. We urge you to ask your government's Procurator General to order a thorough review. We believe that such an unbiased review of the case would lead to a dismissal of the charges against Alexander Nikitin, and ask that you take steps to see that such a review is conducted. We see this case as extremely significant. Thank you for your consideration of our views.

1 0

Re: Minor Language Note
by nobody＠neva.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Tim May wrote: >>> While it was not Tim's intention to make Jim look like a criminal, >>> the use of a defendent's full name is often used to connote >>> criminality. >>> >>> Lee Harvey Oswald, John Wilkes Booth, John Wayne Gacy, Richard >>> Milhous Nixon, William Jefferson Clinton... there are many >>> examples. > >George Washington Carver, James Fennimore Cooper, Richard Dean >Anderson, Clare Booth Luce, Robert Anton Wilson, Francis Scott Key,..... We don't usually think of these people as defendants. >(Sometimes people have three names, sometimes two names, popularly >used. Criminality has little to do with it. For example, Richard >Speck, Charles Manson, John Walker, Aldrich Ames, Ted Kaczynski, >Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols. Most of them presumably have middle >names.) I did not say that the use of middle names was required for defendants. >Oh, and as to divining what Tim's "intention" was, this mindreading >and psychoanalysis shtick is getting old. My opening sentence was intended to be friendly. It was supposed make clear that it was not suggested that you thought Jim Bell was a criminal. Certainly that was obvious, but a little redundancy never hurts. It looks like the meaning didn't convey properly, so I'm sorry if I seemed to be psychoanalyzing you. It's generally considered courteous to call people by the name they wish to be called. Jim Bell seems to go by the name "Jim Bell". (This would not hold if somebody makes an inappropriate request such as asking to be addressed as "James Dalton Bell, Defender of the Faith, God of Vengeance, and Lord of the Universe.") Back to the original point, I believe that it's hard to find instances in which two-named people are involuntarily converted to three-named people when they are not charged with a crime. Lee Oswald became "Lee Harvey Oswald" after the Kennedy Assassination, for example. I've also noticed that Wardens have a marked tendency to refer to inmates on death row by their first name, even when speaking publicly. As in, "Don's death was very upsetting as it was obviously very painful." (Paraphrased from a real example.) I believe the wardens are expressing a few things with this name choice. One is that they have complete power over the inmate. Teachers call children by their first names, and it seems to me that there is an element of that here. (Admittedly, this is a troubling image.) Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNGpi1JaWtjSmRH/5AQEsLwf9H4ZmvsVVkQgh9WU/HOUZYdet7+9p9nBf frvYBTgRNoOPiM0pl7Yusl/GhAK6nhCpEb0dCUaWjFLW889I5CyvrbqkzWoA6tj0 k5ULieQs390JEzGAn1LEkvzUCjlEBn5WFgpzJCFYzWpAMaQPT6qcczRIXqoCPG7l R822+EBuL9eikWruy+8V6Bt45mQyB/aHemhmIa/V4YKCn7mc8FmfZ/qQHknaPdFP wJz3cXmw1im4Br/0UkLv9bD2CfZCqcq74VpbujMvUFnsAOmbrWJVqlSV+Gs1MDXf Zli7VCarhzAU9j4sPU9gbTBYsuApRYd8IrJtvOfQcDDMw0dEd9/tjA== =Az6E -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Br'er Tim and the Bug Hole
by nobody＠neva.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Robert Hettinga wrote: >I mean, Tim, I have to admit I'm just as nervous as the next guy >about being next to soft targets these days, but I almost find myself >agreeing with other people, people you would respect otherwise, who >are saying that you're making yourself the greatest friend that Reno >and Freeh ever had. A vertiable poster boy for statism if there ever >was one. And so on. As Michel Foucault used to say, "The only guarantee of freedom is freedom itself." Put another way, "rights which are not exercised are lost." We don't see Freeh and Reno backing off so they don't become poster children for cryptoanarchy, do we? Just because free speech is a right guaranteed under the Constitution does not mean that is necessarily a safe right to exercise. Let us hope that Tim does not come to harm. But, let us also give him the credit he deserves for having the courage to speak his mind. I've been reading about a newspaper called the "Aurora" which operated in the 1790s from Philadelphia. It made itself very unpopular with Washington by claiming he was not the "Father of the Country". It made itself doubly unpopular with Adams for other less than respectful, but astute, observations. People said exactly the same things that Hettinga is saying here. If they would only behave (i.e., go along with anything), then they wouldn't have to be censored. Even though the editors were attacked and beaten, imprisoned, and charged with Federal crimes, they persevered. It would not be unreasonable to say that Jefferson owed his Presidency to their efforts. Indeed, it would not be too much to say that the Constitution (which failed to protect them) might not have survived without their efforts. A few courageous people doing the right thing at the right time make a big difference. This does not happen by kowtowing to whichever malfeasant tyrant happens to be in power. When you are asked to wear a yellow star, you can be pretty sure that doing so will not save you. Also, let us not pretend that Tim's gun collection is much protection. It may delay capture or raise the price of execution of a no-knock warrant, but if the Powers That Be don't want Tim around, then he's gone. It could be a "lone nut" with a sniper rifle, it could be a "heart attack", it could be a rock star's plane "accidently" hitting the house: there are many ways to take care of troublemakers. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNGkzI5aWtjSmRH/5AQHGfwf+P5L2fuDEA5FypnvZn7sfvvFgOwXaAfDn jhfpryY4agB/a8GhAOy0fle4sr7tz913C9tMI9bUVSX0QPygCPayiKg8aa7CDOZn nN9NXcCok6x7+03W8MFeFKSOyTeSboNY2/DRBatoJyQFmCbOSLfnPQBnZUBbxtML JKckdceiTY1S1gAJIkL1CM7eY+Zf/BxG9abyr9gYsj0Fejnv3ajau6544dlJFOH5 Anclg+UgXPR8cyO0G21DMzLoPRywOaDogxAZYXDkc8ehfF7Osa7AvEQqeBbOKOT+ PGv41+bDAgONXa8WCHi3/Ri2dRVTn8mvlSw1ezWwj/7MohTM6V7fUQ== =hCO1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

4 4

Mad as Hell
by Tim May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Several swirling themes here.... * More versions of the CDA...which the Supreme Court may let stand. (Cf. my comments about "death by a thousand cuts" and the Constitution, which is being "exceptioned" and "reinterpreted" into oblivion.) * Crypto legislation is far from dead...it is just dormant right now. * Game theoretically, Congress and the other bureaucrats win by expanding the number and scope of laws. There is little constituency for lessening the number and scope of laws, despite public opinion. * Anti-militia rhetoric continues, with politicians saying militias must be reigned in. (See misc.activism.militia for many examples.) * The U.N. is trying to get the U.S. to "ban racism." Meaning, ban free choice in whom one hires (already the case with Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act, despite what this means for freedom of association). Meaning, place even more limits on free speech. Meaning, pass laws against certain organizations. (If Paladin is upheld, expect more use of the civil law system to put various clubs and organizations out of business.) * And so it goes. More laws, more prisons, more pressure points on us all. But the public is getting fed up. Here in my state of California we decisively shot down the use of hiring quotas and admissions quotas based on race. And the courts have upheld this. The free ride for unqualified minorities and "people of color" is over, at least here in California. (And a dozen or so other states are considering similar moves.) Right-wing talk show hosts are more popular than ever. Here's just the latest example, in the article below. The article makes some good points. Note especially the part about the murder of Donald Scott, the guy murdered in his bedroom by BATFag agents. No doubt Bob Hettinga thinks my mention of this case is dangerous, that good little bunny rabbits don't make Big Brother angry. Well, I will say what I said before: the BATF and LA County Sheriffs responsible and involved in this case should be tried in a criminal court, should be convicted (based on what I have seen), and they should then be sentenced to die in the gas chamber at San Quentin. This is, after all, what they do to gang bangers who shoot up liquor stores. Cops should face execution. In this case, a mass execution of the dozen raiding officers would send a strong message to other cops.) Here's the item: Hollywood Producer Says "Enough Is Enough! AARON RUSSO IS MAD AS HELL Aaron Russo, the Hollywood producer who produced The Rose with Bette Midler and Trading Places with Eddie Murphy is now on a crusade to wake up Americans to the wholesale assault on their liberties being launched by governments at every level. "America is becoming a totalitarian police state!" thunders Aaron Russo as he paces back and forth across the stage of the colorful "Mad As Hell" TV talk show set. He's not at all happy with the sinister turn that America has taken in recent years and, like the name of the new show, he is "Mad as Hell." But he's determined to do something about it and that is what "Mad As Hell" is all about. A pilot for the show, including the above scene, is being aggressively marketed to the networks and cable channels. Preview showings of the show have drawn full houses in Las Vegas and Los Angeles and Russo's angry outbreaks have provoked wild, enthusiastic response wherever he goes. It appears that Russo isn't the only one who's "Mad as Hell." The theme of the first pilot, which was sent to ISIL staff for evaluation, featured interviews and vignettes with Frances Plante Scott; Brenda Grantland president of FEAR (Forfeiture Endangers Americans' Rights), and Judy Osburn, herself a victim of civil forfeiture and author of the book Spectre of Forfeiture. Frances Plante Scott told of her chilling ordeal with Park Service officials attempting to seize their ranch and of the SWAT team raid in which her husband, Donald Scott, was shot to death by trigger-happy police. Ventura and Los Angeles County Sheriffs, D.E.A. and the Park Service were all vying to get a piece of the action and seize the valuable property using trumped up marijuana charges (there was no marijuana as if it mattered). Following this event, Ms. Scott's ranch house was burned in the Malibu firestorm and later was subjected to punitive harassment by the IRS. Colorado state Senator Charles Duke, also in the studio audience, spoke about the 10th Amendment Sovereignty Resolution, a modern version of Magna Carta designed to force a constitutional showdown with the federal government. At this point in time 22 states have emulated Duke by passing the resolution in their states. Duke, incidentally, is scheduled as a speaker at the ISIL world conference this August (see our conference web page). The video ends with an eloquent statement on modern slavery by Rod Taylor. In mid-June, ISIL pres. Vince Miller, Exec. VP Jim Elwood, and Board Member Jarret Wollstein had a meeting with Aaron Russo to discuss the terrible dangers facing America today. We all agreed that a majority of people have been kept almost completely in the dark regarding the massive abuses of police power in this country. I remembered the joke about how the govenment must think we are all mushrooms because they seem to enjoy keeping us in the dark and feeding us horseshit. "How could they know," I exclaimed. "The national media is as controlled as Pravda in the old Soviet Union." Any real news is scrupulously excised from national news sources and the waves of government propaganda are so pervasive that even some of our own members believe the government line in spite of themselves and think we have lost our marbles. We agreed that there must be a vehicle for a wake-up-call and Russo's new program could be the ticket. Russo also talked of establishing, with the assistance of ISIL, a massive early-warning fax network to warn citizens of dangerous legislation about to be passed. He has also created an action manual with the phone and fax numbers of Members of Congress so that you will know at whom to vent your wrath With ISIL's world wide communications network computer, fax, phone plus a network of correspondents we will be able to feed the data and expose abuses of power before they get off the ground. A merchandise line with caps, t-shirts with the blazing "Mad As Hell" logo is also planned. Stay tuned for more developments in fuure issues of the FNN. FREEDOM NETWORK NEWS International Society for Individual Liberty - The World's Foremost Liberty Network Editor: Vincent H. Miller * Assistant Editors: James R. Elwood * Tim Starr * Anton Sherwood * Mark Valverde * June/July 1996

3 3

Re: CDA: The Sequel -- introduced in the U.S. Senate
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Danny, Trying to deny that CDT supported the White harmful to minors "compromise" is a sad attempt at history revisionism. As Marc Rotenberg said, "CDT supported the White measure and went to great pains to blame the members of the conference committee who did not endorse it." Which is of course true. After the vote you lost on the harmful to minors "compromise": -- Comm Daily reported: Jerry Berman, exec. dir. of Center for Democracy & Technology, which had tried to forge compromise on issue, said he had been betrayed "by liberal Democrats, who are supposed to be protectors of the Constitution. -- IISR reported: Jerry Berman, executive director of the Center for Democracy and Technology, called the [vote on the] White proposal "a significant defeat for civil liberties in cyberspace. -- EETimes reported: "The House came within an inch of getting it right," says Jerry Berman, Center for Democracy and Technology. Either the world's population of journalists are in a vast clandestine conspiracy to misrepresent your organization's position or ... CDT (gasp!) did in fact embrace the HTM so-called compromise. You must remember, after all, that CDT declined to sign a December 5, 1995 coalition letter that told Congress to "to reject *all* proposals to impose new government censorship regulations on cyberspace." Why didn't you sign it? (http://www.epic.org/cda/hyde_letter.html) Instead, as I recall, CDT was up on stage with the anti-porn advocates to unveil the "compromise." (I admit my memory's fuzzy on this point. I'm sure you'll clarify.) Where was I then? When the news of the "compromise" broke in December 1995, I was in Cambridge having brunch with Harvey Silverglate (who's now defending the Au Pair case) and other local free-speech advocates. As I wrote in a post to f-c at the time, all of us were astonished to see the headline in the New York Times: "Civil liberties groups accept compromise." Of course it was CDT that accepted it. ACLU said at the time here on f-c that "no true civil liberties group" would ever agree to supporting that kind of censorship. Also, contrary to what you claim, I'm not an "opponent" of filtering software. Parents have the right to use it with their children. I believe, however, that public institutions must abide by the First Amendment when installing it. I'm glad you provided this opportunity to clarify these issues. Now perhaps we can move on to discussing the Coats bill. -Declan On Wed, 12 Nov 1997, Daniel J. Weitzner wrote: > Declan, > > It's kind of you to get the word out about this new Coats bill, but you > have managed to seriously mischaracterize CDT's position on the White > legislation of 1995. We did not believe that Congress should have passed > the White Compromise, and certaily never "embraced" it, as you write. > Based on my initial reading of the Coats bill, we will certainly oppose it. > > The Coats bill, with it's emphasis on age verification as a means to > "protect" kids and provide online publishers with liability limitation, is > actually a direct result of Justice O'Connor's dissenting opinion in the > CDA case and her desire to try to "zone" cyberspace. Following Larry > Lessig, she suggests that instead of relying on individually-controlled > blocking and filtering software, it is better for the government to require > that certain content be placed behind age verification firewalls. Prof. > Lessig prefers this zoning to what you have characterized as "censorware." > I hope that you, as an opponent of user empowerment filtering tools like > Larry, do not prefer this O'Connor/Lessig approach too? > > I can't remember whether you were actually around in 1995, either as > journalist or activist, so let me remind you of what we and other civil > liberties advocates like Marc Rotenberg of EPIC said. > > In the New York Times (12/2/95, p.A1) > > "While it does embody much of the original Exon proposal, it does so in > a way > that tries to embody a constitutionally recognized standard," said Jerry > Berman, director of the Center of Democracy and Technology, a nonprofit group > that focuses on civil rights and technology issues. > > and Jerry went on to say: > > "I don't think we need any legislation at all." > > Marc seemed to take a similar position: > > "It is preferable to the Exon bill, but ultimately this issue will be > resolved in the courts, which is where it should be resolved," said Marc > Rotenberg.... > > Both CDT and EPIC recognized that as a plain matter of constitional law, > the "harmful to minor" standard is more broadly accepted by courts around > the country, but that the legislation was still an unwise infringement on > Internet speech. > > We still believe that. > > We can certainly have a discussion about the various legislative strategies > employed during the final days of the CDA debate and House-Senate > conference, but frankly I think there's more important work to do. > > I hope that future discussions on this list can focus on how to defeat > misguided efforts like the Coats bill, instead of misleading > characterization of the past. > > Finally, Declan, I would suggest that when you want to characterize CDT > positions you talk to someone at CDT, or at least find some documentation > of your assertions. I know that you recognize you have an obligation as a > journalist to check facts and sources with some care. That sort of care > would also help in discussions among activists. I'm never exactly sure > whether you think of yourself as a journalist or activist when writing to > FC, but whichever it is, I hope you'll try to avoid this confusion in the > future by talking to us.

5 7

Re: Tim May's offensive racism (was: about RC4)
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anonymous of EFGA wrote: >This illustrates what a liability the poster has become to the cypherpunks. >The group is becoming just another militia front, identified with racism >and white supremacy, applauding violent murder of government agents, >one step from applauding the Oklahoma killings. Its original purpose >all but forgotten, the list has died, poisoned by the hatred flowing from >its leader. Wait a minute, that list is way too short. This list is far more diversely mean-spirited, and venomously hilarious, than that. It offers a lot more hatred and humor than you give credit for, or maybe can enjoy. All praise to Tim, beloved mad as hell assassin, he's one of the sharpest killer humorists-satirists here, call's the jokes and the buffoons as he sees them, insults hot shot leaders and fawning beggars indiscriminately. Hate and love on both Glocks. Check the anarchives: Tim's no leader, says it often, proves it more so by destroying anyone who pretends to be, scares off anyone who tries to suck up to him for protection, and promises to kill (filter) the bloodsuckers if they send PGPed tips. Kill them with ridicule for not thinking for themselves, paying their own way, lapping others' blood and brains. If that doesn't work he tells a public joke about their overtures. Then the anon shits fly. Is he not these very days razzing the big iron folks, taunting the tank in Tienamen Square? We'll yet see some anon turds for this, too, maybe yours is one. Some have weird sense of playfulness, cut your throat to see you flop. Call you a leader, a bullseye target. Hettinga, helluva beloved Bob, another bleeding edge satirist, self-flagellator for philo-fun and E$, this is adose of clap also for your exemplary rant of a schtick of a buffoonery of a calling them as you deadeyedly see them miraging the desert of Maine.

1 0

Re: CDA: The Sequel -- introduced in the U.S. Senate
by Mikhael Frieden 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:01 PM 11/12/97 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote: >Just when you thought the Internet was safe from government >censorship, Sen. Dan Coats has introduced a sequel to the >notorious Communications Decency Act. >The bill punishes commercial distributors of material >that's "harmful to minors" with six months in jail and a >$50,000 fine. Unlike the original CDA, it applies only to >web sites -- not to chatrooms, newsgroups, or email. On the legal side this narrowing has a modest merit in that the government has established (rightly or wrongly) the power to control publishers. It is difficult to find a reference to a website that does not make a reference to publishing. Thus it falls under a reasonable interpretation of existing law and precident (and distinguished from, the internet is a telephone as the frozen brains would have it.) The critical problem is obvious, harmful to minors. Tooth decay is harmful to minors, all product advertising that can be construed as increasing the incidence of tooth decay is harmful to children. It also brings up the German "I can trump your arguement and invent a new one" excuse for banning Zundelsite, that it was "ethically disorienting to children." If one presumes ethical disorientation is a harm then one has to hold all forms of education that promote independent thinking are harmful to children. It would therefore make huge numbers of academic sites criminal including the Gutenberg Project for carrying materials that resulted in the prosecution of Socrates for essentially the same crime. It is not a viable concept without a definition of harm to children. Given current events, any mention of air bags is not merely harmful to children but lethal to children. -=-=- I have contacted the owner with a problem. It still sends to me but does not receive. Until the mailing list problem is corrected I will try to continue participation this way. Let me know if you have a problem with this method.

1 0

Think Locally...Act Globally / Re: FTC, Canada, Mexico officials launch "health claim surf day"
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > ****************************************** > > FTC Launches North American Health Claim Surf Day > > ****************************************** > > by Michael Evers ... > > The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), its federal and state law > > enforcement partners, and public health and consumer protection > > agencies from Mexico and Canada are sending you (and hundreds of other > > Internet advertisers) this message based upon a review of the promotion > > you disseminated through the Internet. How about if you are selling something on your web site and giving pointers to information/advertisements located on a foreign website? Let me guess...hhmmm...disabled grandmothers who are selling their home-grown chamoemille tea will have their homes confiscated, and corporations with expensive lawyers will be approved for an exemption on some flimsy grounds. Anybody know of any Mexican laws I can break by putting something illegal there, but legal in Canada, on my web site? Any CypherSpics who would like to put up a "Canadian Hate" page that I could link to? CyhperCanuck

1 0

CDA: The Sequel -- introduced in the U.S. Senate
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Just when you thought the Internet was safe from government >censorship, Sen. Dan Coats has introduced a sequel to the >notorious Communications Decency Act. Oh joy. >The bill punishes commercial distributors of material >that's "harmful to minors" with six months in jail and a >$50,000 fine. Unlike the original CDA, it applies only to >web sites -- not to chatrooms, newsgroups, or email. ^^^^^^^^^ What defines a "web site?" "The World Wide Web" originally meant "material accessible using the HyperText Transfer Protocol." The media and Klintonkov distorted the term into something else, but that's what the term still means. USENET newsgroups do not become "Internet chat groups" just because the clueless sheeple start calling them that. Of course this is how the government thinks. If I make a posting to USENET did I post the material on a "web site?" If I make the material accessible via ftp is it posted on a "web site?" What if it's available using FSP? How about IRC? What about a Bob's Proprietary Pornography Transfer Protocol? How are they going to track this? What happens when I post this material on an Eternity server outside of the U.S.? What if I just keep posting my porn through the remailer network? What if the porn site is in Amsterdam? What if I just get tired of the totalitarians and double-blind the entire process using the remailer network and while I'm at it I accept anonymous payment? What if I bring my porn into a public computer lab and upload it somewhere without any identification or with a psuedonym? Is the P.Q.R.T. (Pornography Quick Response Team) going to bust through the door before I've done this, which takes all of about 30 seconds? What happens when people start posting such porn to sci.chem? What about sci.crypt or alt.christnet? What about misc.legal? comp.org.eff.talk? news.groups? >Like the original CDA, it's certain to be controversial. >Sen. Coats (R-Indiana), chief GOP sponsor of the original >CDA, said his bill takes into account the Supreme Court's >unanimous vote in June that struck down his first try. "I >have studied the opinion of the Court and come before my >colleagues today to introduce legislation that reflects the >parameters laid out by the Court's opinion," he said on the >Senate floor. > (ftp://ftp.loc.gov/pub/thomas/c105/s1482.is.txt) Is this bill available on the "World Wide Web?" I would argue that reading this bill is "harmful to minors" because it completely ignores the Constitution of the United States. Further, it encourages people to lie, cheat, violate oaths of office, and generally abuse power. Senator Coats, what an example for America's youth! >Coats' brainchild is strikingly similar to (and in fact not >as broad as) an ill-fated version of the first CDA that >Rep. Rick White (R-Wash.) and the Center for Democracy and >Technology embraced as a "compromise" in December 1995. >Like Coats' bill, the White-CDT measure restricted material >that was "harmful to minors." > (http://www.epic.org/cda/hyde_letter.html) >A Coats staffer said the measure requires adult >pornographers to place images behind a firewall. "If you're >involved in the commercial distribution of material that's >harmful to minors, you have to take the bad stuff and put >it on the other side of a credit card or PIN number," David >Crane said. What happens when they say "this material must be put behind a firewall?" Do I comply with the letter of the law if I firewall some random port like 49554? What if I firewall everything except port 80? What if I use a dedicated box as a network router and firewall? These things are all "firewalls." Who determines what is a "valid firewall?" Microsoft? A Coats staffer? A credit card company? What happens when these credit card numbers are sent all over the network in the clear? As it stands now you usually send a credit card number when you want to buy something. What they want here is for everybody to go send credit card numbers all over the net just to view free previews and get to text-based information. And, of course, since we have to protect society from the Four Horsemen, these credit card numbers will likely be sent in the clear or using encryption which can be cracked by a college student running a distributed cracker at idle priority on each of the several hundred machines in a lab. And getting even *one* credit card number is worth a lot. What prevents me from setting up a bogus site which asks for credit card numbers to view some nudie pictures I pulled off USENET or other sites and just storing the credit card numbers? How many of these people access just one porn site so it would be that easy to track? How can anybody prove that's what I did? Once handing credit card numbers out is as second nature as SSNs, all bets are off. And what happens when Little Johnny goes and gets Daddy's credit card and uses the number as ID? If they aren't charging, this probably won't be showing up on an invoice. And Little Johnny has plausible deniability anyway. What about stolen credit card numbers? Who determines what is "material harmful to minors?" Coats? The Supreme Court? Psychologists? Scientologists? Klitonkov? The United Nations? My hamster? Duncan McLeod of the Clan McLeod? Who? Well, I guess this outlaws any meaningful political discussions, discussions of abortions, any meaningful social discussions, any meaningful discussions about sex or romance, any discussions about the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, any discussions of firearms, any discussions of hand-to-hand combat, any discussions of self defense, any discussions of guerilla warfare, any discussions of pyrotechnics, any discussions about chemistry, lists like BUGTRAQ where exploits are posted, et cetera ad nauseum. All of those things might be considered "harmful to minors." Damn the Constitution and freedom! If it saves the life of one innocent yet incredibly stupid child then just forget about that pesky freedom thing. After all, that's only the domain of "far right-wing nazi gun nuts and radicals," right? >But the bill applies to more than just visual pornography. >Its definition of material that could hurt minors includes >any offensive sexual "communication" or "writing" without >redeeming value. It applies to text-only web pages -- or >bookstores that place sample chapters on the web. Yeah! Go Senate! Go ahead and ban any digital copies of books like 1984 (oh the irony!), digital versions of the Christian Bible, the Torah, et cetera ad nauseum. >Since it covers anyone who "through the World Wide Web is >engaged in the business of the commercial distribution of >material that is harmful to minors," it could apply to >Internet providers and online services as well. How are they going to enforce this one? Mandate that sites only serve "government certified safe" or "independantly certified safe" sites? Turn off all phone and network access, jam all radio and sattelite communications, and legislate that anybody caught with a laser capable of communications or floppy disks with files on them which might contain stegoed data will be summarily executed? >The FCC and the Department of Justice would be required to >publish on their web sites "such information as is >necessary to inform the public of the meaning of the term >`material that is harmful to minors.'" Solveig Singleton, a >lawyer at the Cato Institute, says: "The Supreme Court >struggled for years to come up with a national defintion of >obscenity. They failed. Harmful to minors is >obscenity-lite. The FCC and Department of Justice won't >have any luck coming up with a definition of >obscenity-lite." >Not a problem, predicts former porn-prosecutor Bruce >Taylor, now the head of the National Law Center for >Children and Families. "This bill will ensure that the >hardcore pornographers don't get off the hook," he says. "This bill will ensure that our freedoms are further eroded." >Next step for Coats is to attract co-sponsors and to forward >his bill to the Senate Commerce committee. Some judges >criticized Congress for holding no hearings on the original >CDA; Coats isn't going to make that mistake again. "There >will be a concerted effort to build a substantial >legislative history," says David Crane. >This bill won't be the end of Congressional interest in >cyberporn. "You'll probably see other legislation come >forward. Introducing this is not abandoning our other >concerns," Crane says. >-Declan My fellow Cypherpunks, what we have here is best explained by an analogy like this: The government decides that the youth of America is corrupting themselves and harming their health by drinking soft drinks. The Congress introduces legislation to outlaw softdrinks. Everyone except the National Law Center for Fruit and Vegetables and some other far flung totalitarians think that this legislation is rediculous and an unreasonable restriction of rights. It passes anyway. It goes to the Supreme Court and the Court shoots it down. Two years later Congress again tries to outlaw soft drinks. Since outlawing of soft drinks en masse was not allowed by the Supreme Court, they just outlaw Coke. This passes. People start drinking Mountain Dew and JOLT instead. The Justice Department brings charges against these drinkers, the people who manufactured it, the people who sold it to them, and the truck drivers who shipped it. It goes to court and the defendants claim that the law wasn't broken. The State says that the law was indeed broken because "everybody refers to soft drinks as Coke." This, of course, begs the question of why, if "Coke" is a synonym for "soft drinks" they passed a law after the Supreme Court clearly stated that they couldn't do such. If "Coke" is not a synonym for "soft drink" then they have no charge against these people. Welcome to the Land of the Freeh.

1 0

Fight CDA 2...?
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Seems to me that the fundamental question that should be asked here is: Does the 10th require strict compliance with the wording of the Constitution per the first sentence of the 10th or explain specificaly what Constitutional sentences are being used to justify the 10th and by extension the entire Constitution itself being exempt of mandatory constitutional review at all stages of a laws life. This is perhaps the key question that needs to be asked in order to properly understand the language of the Constitution. Viewed in the light of strict compliance the wording of the Constitution becomes remarkably free of ambiguity. If the 10th is taken literaly it can only be interpreted as saying: - The federal government is required to justify all its rules, regulations, and offical actions within the explicit context of the text of the Constitution. - In situations where there is no clear ruling the issue is remanded to the states for resolution per their own individual constitutions. Or in cases where the state constitution would not apply to the people. - "to the people" needs to be interpreted as meaning to be left to individual discretion and therefore fundamentaly exempt from review at the state or federal level. - This is the level a behaviour or action becomes a Constitutionaly recognized right exempt from future regulation per the 9th. - The above interpretations are open to change per the methods described for Constitutional Amendments. - "Congress shall make no law..." & "shall not be infringed." become much clearer and less open to federal level inteference. Some of the results of this would be: - The entire 'Drug War' machine would grind to a halt - Many people in jail on solely drug possession and use charges with no other jailable charge would be released immediatly - NASA would require some sort of Constitutional amendment to continue to operate - The interaction and use between the US military and the state and local level regarding law enforcement would cease immediately - CDC would require Constitutional amendment funding - Issues of what is and what is not 'legal' speech would be resolved at the state level. - Confiscation of property without compensation would be completely abandoned. - The recognition that police have no fundamental rights under the Constitution because it in no way draws a distinction between polic & a non-police citizen. Laws can not draw distinction of this sort at the federal level. - Each and every search *must* be at the direct interaction of a magistrate *and* must explicity describe what is being searched for *and further* demonstrate probable cause within a much more precise environment. - The recognition that laws based on the distinction of 'victimless' and 'victim' crimes is a distinction that can't be drawn at the Constitutional level. - A action or behaviour is either protected or it isn't. This would create a set of states with quite a range of constitutional environments. I can just see the "Mormon State of Utah" where the official constitutional religion is Mormonism by amendment. -------------------------------------------------------------------- ARTICLE X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0