- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

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

17 Dec '03

At 03:22 AM 1/29/97 -0800, Greg Broiles wrote: >At 10:42 PM 1/28/97 -0600, Jim Choate wrote: > >>It has been asserted by at least one member that the 1st Amendment protects >>libelous or other defamatory speech. > >Defamation is not protected by the First Amendment; but the First Amendment >limits the application of defamation law in many circumstances. For >example, the First Amendment requires plaintiffs to prove "actual malice" >if they are a public official, public figure, or a private person seeking >punitive damages. What you ought to explain to us laymen is that the terminology "actual malice" dates from the case New York Times vs. Sullivan, and it used a definition of "malice" that was not in any dictionary at the time. My recollection: Sullivan was a local hero in a particular area in the south in the last 50's (?), gave a speech to a crowd of (?) people who were probably in sympathy with segregation. They proceeded to march. Later, the New York Times claimed (as I vaguely recall it, although it's been years since I read a description) that he had instigated a riot. Sullivan sued, claiming his reputation had been damaged. Arguably, it had, although it's probably equally arguable that Sullivan had done something that would have been looked upon somewhat unsympathetically by non-Southerners. The local (southern, of course) jury found NYT guilty of libel, and awarded Sullivan some huge judgment. (Had the jury been made up of northern people, presumably Sullivan would have lost.) The problem here is that two long-honored principles collided: One, the "free speech" issue, generally tries to guarantee organizations like NY Times the right to print the news and the leeway to do so. The second principle that people should be able to sue for libel in a local court, and be awarded whatever amount of money the jury declares. The problem with this was obvious, after the verdict: It, in effect, allowed essentially any burg in the country, no matter how backwards, potentially to bankrupt any targeted organ of the national news media. Something had to give. Unfortunately, the SC screwed up, as usual. The proper thing for them to do would have been to abandon libel law entirely, recognizing that it did more harm than good. But they blew it: They invented the "actual malice" standard out of whole cloth, raising the standard for libel suits by "public figures," which is really a rather arbitrary standard. Don't go to any ordinary English dictionary for this "malice" definition; it didn't exist before the Sullivan decision, not even in lawbooks. It was really just a rabbit pulled from a hat to try to avoid the collision I mentioned above. Side note: I think that the SC should be unable to re-define ordinary English words. But they try anyway. Basically, it became harder to sue well-known persons. However, what really happened is that they SC had merely put off the problem for another day, because the DEFINITION of a "public figure" was at least as malleable as Jell-O. And oddly, it was eventually revealed that you could be a "public figure" with respect to one subject, but NOT a "public figure" on another. Etc. Ironically, now that Richard Jewell (incorrectly identified as Atlanta bombing suspect) has sued some newspapers (and his former employer) for libel, it seems likely that at least some of those defendants will try to argue that merely being named by the government as a criminal suspect makes him "a public figure." BTW, I think that pressing the Richard Jewell incident would be an excellent way to derail any sort of claim that the government can obey the law. Apparently, they got a number of search warrants based on, essentially, nothing, and to rub this in the government's nose would show that the so-called "probable-cause" standard for warrants is not followed in practice. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

RE: Fighting the cybercensor
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

What you're presented (included in its entirety below) is what I've come to call an "AP story problem." I've worked through many of those myself; their main problem is that they don't carefully describe why _each_ person in the "play" you've described would be motivated to do what it's claim he does, and why he DOES NOT do other things to fix the situation he's in. Remember, I'm not merely talking about the main character, but also the ones who are (apparently?) incidental. For just one example, you said: "conventional bodyguards could be included, ones with no real pay but with the fore knowledgethat they will be buried with the tyrant." What motivates these people? Are they hostages? If they're hostages, then presumably that means they're motivated to seek the death of anyone who is holding them. What about their relatives; don't they have any sympathy for those who are taken? Why don't they donate to AP to see the lead guy dead? Etc. Etc. At 04:36 PM 1/29/97 -0800, Sean Roach wrote: >This may be true, but the example was to show how easy a defensive line >could be thrown up around the powerful. For example, conventional body >guards could be included, ones with no real pay but with the fore knowledge >that they will be buried with the tyrant. These body guards could be ten >children out of each local village. Merely a human shield. In an attack, >they would scatter, but the parents would know that the children would die >if a successful action were taken against the tyrant. Also, the tyrant >could put an open bounty on anyone caught trying to harm him. Just bring >the decapitated head of the assassin along with a VHS cassette of the >attempted action for a big reward. > >By layering the defenses, it becomes increasingly difficult for anyone to >get through. > >Obviously the castles walls are the first line of defense, so a reward is >given for anyone caught using any entrance to the fortress except those that >are provided. > >The household is told that their participation will result in the >extermination of their families. They are then told that if they know of an >impending action and fail to report it or attempt to stop it, they are >considered party it those actions. > >A human shield of innocents is "given the privaledge to live in the fortress >with our great leader" so that actions by concerned parties is limited further. >A standing bounty is placed on the head of the assassin, who so ever brings >in the head of the assassin and all children parented by that person after >the assination will be given a reward of some set sum. Probably 110%. > >A bounty is set on security breaches, this bounty would probably be 110% of >the death mark on the tyrant. > >A series of more conventional boobytraps are layed in normally inaccessable >areas, the layers of these either being prisoners who have unknowningly been >condemned to die, the tyrant himself, or some other disposable or trustable >deployment device. The most common of these would probably be a mine field >between the two outer most walls of the fortress, and maybe a funnel-gun >parimeter inside of that. > >An inner sanctum with self contained air, water, and food is maintained for >the tyrant and h[is/er] closest relatives/advisors. This sanctum would be >accessed by biometrics and only used in a percieved emergency. > >All dissent is declared illegal with capitol punishment for the mere >discussion of the impending death of the tyrant, exceptions to this would be >persons in the direct company of the tyrant with the tyrants full awareness, >and permission. > > > > Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Security alert!!!
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

WARNING: There's a rogue trojan horse out there on the internet known as the "stronghold web server". It's actually a hacked-up version of Apache with a backdoor, which allows hackers (or whoever knows the backdoor) to steal credit card numbers and other confidentil information on the Internet. Be careful! Always use encryption. Do not send confidential information 9such as passwords and credit card numbers) to any site running the trojan horse "stronghold". In general, beware of "snake oil" security products and hacked-up versions of free software. Please repost this warning to all relevant computer security forums. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Re: [PICS] Financial Cryptography
by Secret Squirrel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Dopehead Vulgar K{arcinogen} Of The Moment has been fired for stealing blow jobs. |\_/| (0_0) Dr.Dopehead Vulgar K{arcinogen} Of The Moment ==(Y)== ---(u)---(u)---

1 0

Re: [GSM] ElGamal
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dumbbell Vasectomy's abysmal grammer, atrocious spelling and feeble responses clearly identify him as a product of the American education system. _.._ _.._ ,','"_:./\/\,'_ `.`. /_:--:_ ( oo ) _:--:_\ Dumbbell Vasectomy /' `'`vv'`' `\

1 0

Re: [FWD] Elliptic curves
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Dimitri Vagina K[ondom] Of The Moment has been fired for anally raping officemates. _ O O _ \-|-\_/-|-/ Dr.Dimitri Vagina K[ondom] Of The Moment /^\ /^\ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^

1 0

RE: Fighting the cybercensor
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

What you're presented (included in its entirety below) is what I've come to call an "AP story problem." I've worked through many of those myself; their main problem is that they don't carefully describe why _each_ person in the "play" you've described would be motivated to do what it's claim he does, and why he DOES NOT do other things to fix the situation he's in. Remember, I'm not merely talking about the main character, but also the ones who are (apparently?) incidental. For just one example, you said: "conventional bodyguards could be included, ones with no real pay but with the fore knowledgethat they will be buried with the tyrant." What motivates these people? Are they hostages? If they're hostages, then presumably that means they're motivated to seek the death of anyone who is holding them. What about their relatives; don't they have any sympathy for those who are taken? Why don't they donate to AP to see the lead guy dead? Etc. Etc. At 04:36 PM 1/29/97 -0800, Sean Roach wrote: >This may be true, but the example was to show how easy a defensive line >could be thrown up around the powerful. For example, conventional body >guards could be included, ones with no real pay but with the fore knowledge >that they will be buried with the tyrant. These body guards could be ten >children out of each local village. Merely a human shield. In an attack, >they would scatter, but the parents would know that the children would die >if a successful action were taken against the tyrant. Also, the tyrant >could put an open bounty on anyone caught trying to harm him. Just bring >the decapitated head of the assassin along with a VHS cassette of the >attempted action for a big reward. > >By layering the defenses, it becomes increasingly difficult for anyone to >get through. > >Obviously the castles walls are the first line of defense, so a reward is >given for anyone caught using any entrance to the fortress except those that >are provided. > >The household is told that their participation will result in the >extermination of their families. They are then told that if they know of an >impending action and fail to report it or attempt to stop it, they are >considered party it those actions. > >A human shield of innocents is "given the privaledge to live in the fortress >with our great leader" so that actions by concerned parties is limited further. >A standing bounty is placed on the head of the assassin, who so ever brings >in the head of the assassin and all children parented by that person after >the assination will be given a reward of some set sum. Probably 110%. > >A bounty is set on security breaches, this bounty would probably be 110% of >the death mark on the tyrant. > >A series of more conventional boobytraps are layed in normally inaccessable >areas, the layers of these either being prisoners who have unknowningly been >condemned to die, the tyrant himself, or some other disposable or trustable >deployment device. The most common of these would probably be a mine field >between the two outer most walls of the fortress, and maybe a funnel-gun >parimeter inside of that. > >An inner sanctum with self contained air, water, and food is maintained for >the tyrant and h[is/er] closest relatives/advisors. This sanctum would be >accessed by biometrics and only used in a percieved emergency. > >All dissent is declared illegal with capitol punishment for the mere >discussion of the impending death of the tyrant, exceptions to this would be >persons in the direct company of the tyrant with the tyrants full awareness, >and permission. > > > > Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: uae_1.html
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:26 AM 1/28/97 -0500, Lynx_User(a)linux.nycmetro.com wrote: > Reuters New Media > Monday January 27 9:50 AM EST > >UAE Launches Service To Censor Internet [deleted] > The proxy server will be pre-fed with Internet addresses where access > is blocked off, industry sources said. But the server will be unable > to block access if addresses of prohibited sites are changed, as > frequently happens. > > Etisalat says it will disconnect any customer who abused its Internet > services and violated "order and clear laws." > > "Singapore has succeeded to a great extent in its drive to control > harm done by the Internet," said another Etisalat official. "Why > cannot we?" I wonder what these people will think when organizations like Teledesic and Iridium start operating (low-earth-orbit satellites) to allow totally-wireless connectivity. It seems to me that there will be a market for services that allow anonymous browsing, perhaps with encrypted requests that return otherwise-unidentified data on a publicly-accessible airwaves. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

[IMPORTANT] Man in the Middle
by anonymous＠miron.vip.best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dense Venomous will fuck anything that moves, but he'd rather be fucking his own daughter's prepubescent body. |\_/| (0_0) Dense Venomous ==(Y)== ---(u)---(u)---

1 0

Re: Dr. Denning
by Bovine Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dogfucker L<ubricant> Vinegar K<ock>OfTheMoment is so vile because rancid semen is dripping from all of his orifices. /~~~\ {-O^O-} Dogfucker L<ubricant> Vinegar K<ock>OfTheMoment \ o / (-)

1 0