- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Family Research Council on CDA decision (fwd)
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 13:59:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Family Research Council on CDA decision FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 26, 1997 CONTACT: Kristin Hansen, (202) 393-2100 COURT REAFFIRMS GOVERNMENT^RS INTEREST IN PROTECTING CHILDREN FROM PORN, BUT STRIKES CDA AS TOO BROAD WASHINGTON, D.C. -- "Today^Rs ruling means that pornographers can open their doors to children on the Internet. But pornographers beware: this will not be the last word on protecting children from your corrupting influence," Family Research Council Legal Policy Director Cathy Cleaver said Thursday. "While Reno v. ACLU said that the specific provisions of the CDA are too broad, the Court also said that more narrowly tailored provisions could be upheld." Cleaver made her comments as the Supreme Court issued its ruling striking down the Communications Decency Act (CDA). Cleaver continued, "Parents still have no legal recourse to protect their children from being sent a Penthouse centerfold. This is not good news for the thousands of families who discover every day that their children have accessed offensive and disgusting material on the internet. "At the same time, the Court has opened the door to new legislation protection children. Americans should urge Congress to take another look at the issue and draft a more narrowly defined statute. "But now, the flood gates remain open to purveyors of smut. With no legal liability for those who pursue children with graphic images and language on the internet, we need to act fast and firmly to ensure that our country does not give pornographers special rights." FOR MORE INFORMATION OR INTERVIEWS, CONTACT THE FRC PRESS OFFICE. - END -

1 0

Supreme's decisions...
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

CDA...Yeah! Assissted suicide...Boo! ____________________________________________________________________ | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http:// www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

ATMs a better target (was: breaking RSA in hardware)
by Steve Schear 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:51 PM +0100 6/26/97, Adam Back wrote: >Peter Trei <trei(a)process.com> writes: >> > [DES breaking] >> >> [useful stats] >Perhaps it would be interesting to look at the economics of a well >funded attacker breaking a 512 bit RSA key. If we asume that they >would do it in software, and had to buy the machines, would you be >better to buy fewer workstations with 128Mb or lots with 16Mb. Factor >of 17 speed up using GNFS acording to your estimates of DES, and >Lenstra's for GNFS RSA. > >So perhaps we're looking at motherboard $100, cpu $100, PSU+case $100 >+ 16Mb RAM $100 = $400. The same, but with 128Mb $1100. > >So that's a 1100 / 400 = 2.75 ratio. Clearly buying the larger memory >PCs is the way to go. > >Overall GNFS is 6x cheaper it would appear. > >However, really the interesting question is how much would it cost to >break RSA in hardware. How expensive would it be to build a custom >hardware machine to break RSA. What building blocks would be needed. >How much memory. What would be the most efficient approach. > Seems that unless future crypto breaks compromise something everybody can appreciate, they be little lasting PR value. Colin Plumb, colin(a)nyx.net, said >I don't know if everyone is aware, but all of the ATM cards floating aroud use DES to protect the PIN. With ine key sealed in tamper-proof. Wouldn't *that* be a fun key to have? >The details are published somehwere. Basically, you encrypt some card info to get a 16-character hex string. Some 4 nybbles of that, reduced mod 10 (so 0-5 are more likely than 6-9) are the "master PIN". >An offset from this (added per-digit, mod 10) is stored in clear on the card to allow programmable PINs. But most cards ship with the offset set to 0 and the default PIN is the master PIN. >You just need a few people with closed accounts to volunteer their ATM cards to mag stripe readers. The work would be somewhat greater since you need to do multiple decryptions to get a full validation; you'd need to do weed out the impossible in stages. >I'm not sure if the fraud possibilities (it lets you recover the PINs from stolen ATM cards) are worth it, but it would sure raise a ruckus... -- > -Colin The crack project should publish all schematics and source prior to the project start and the key server should definitely be offshore, since US regulatory agencies might step in to prevent the experiment from reaching its conclusion. I think one of the list's lawyers should investigate the legal risks to the participants. I have an account I'm willing to donate for the experiment. --Steve PGP mail preferred Fingerprint: FE 90 1A 95 9D EA 8D 61 81 2E CC A9 A4 4A FB A9 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Schear | tel: (702) 658-2654 CEO | fax: (702) 658-2673 First ECache Corporation | 7075 West Gowan Road | Suite 2148 | Las Vegas, NV 89129 | Internet: azur(a)netcom.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- I know not what instruments others may use, but as for me, give me Ecache or give me debt. SHOW ME THE DIGITS!

1 0

No Subject
by hs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1 0

Rep. Lofgren on McCain/Kerrey (good. long.)
by geeman＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Congressional Record: June 25, 1997 (Extensions)] [Page E1320] >From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:cr25jn97-18] ENCRYPTION BILL: AN EXERCISE IN DECEPTION ______ HON. ZOE LOFGREN of california in the house of representatives Wednesday, June 25, 1997 Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, last week the Senate Commerce Committee reported a bill, S. 909, sponsored by Senators McCain and Kerrey, which largely embodies the latest administration proposals to deal with encryption technology. This misguided legislation (S. 909) would be a great leap backward in the effort to reform current American export restrictions on encryption and remove serious impediments to the competitiveness of our Nation's high-tech industry. In addition, by proposing unprecedented domestic controls on the use of encryption, the McCain-Kerrey bill also poses serious threats to fundamental civil liberties and privacy rights. I believe that the Senate effort is propelled largely by a lack of understanding of both the worldwide prevalence of strong encryption and the technical challenges posed by the massive key recovery-escrow infrastructure envisioned in the bill. Earlier this week, Mr. Dan Gillmore, columnist for the San Jose Mercury News discussed the problems with S. 909 and strongly urged a rejection of the McCain-Kerrey approach. I submit his column into the Congressional Record. [From the San Jose Mercury News, June 23, 1997] Encryption Bill: Federal Exercise in Self-Deception (By Dan Gillmor) As a bill bearing his name zipped last week through the Senate Commerce Committee he heads, Arizona Republican John McCain said, ``This bill carefully seeks to balance the concerns of law enforcement with individual privacy concerns.'' The legislation, co-sponsored by Nebraska Democrat Bob Kerrey and two other Democrats, was the latest futile attempt in Congress to achieve the impossible: compromise on an issue that fundamentally has no middle ground. The issue is encryption, the scrambling of digital information. Try as they might, lawmakers must eventually understand the reality. When it comes to the privacy of personal information in the digital age, we have two simple choices. Either we allow people to encrypt their messages, using scrambling and unscrambling ``keys'' to which only they have access, or we do not. Governments are certain that bad people will use encryption to help achieve bad ends. They're right. But their cure would shred our basic liberties. So the Clinton administration and its allies--the McCain- Kerrey legislation is widely viewed as an administration- approved plan--are pushing a policy that would force us to put descrambling keys in the hands of third parties. Then, when law enforcement people wanted to see our communications, they'd simply get the keys from that third party. The McCain-Kerrey bill pretends to stop short of that. It would force government agencies to use only electronic hardware and software that included this key-recovery scheme. It would also require the same system for anyone using a network that is funded in any way by federal funds, including virtually all university networks. While one section calls the system ``voluntary'' for private individuals, the rest of the legislation would make it all but impossible to resist. Hardware and software companies, which so far have resisted the government's moves, will be much more likely to simply give in and build this key-recovery method into all of their products if they have to build it into ones bought by the government. Consumers need options, not monolithic products. Another section of the bill would, in effect, require even private citizens to use such software--and therefore give their keys to the third parties--if they want to buy anything online. People tend to use what they have in front of them. There's nothing wrong with the idea of letting a third party hold onto a descrambling key in certain cases. As former White House official Jock Gill noted recently on an Internet mailing list, all government communications should use such a system so the public can keep an eye on what the government is doing in our name and with our money. We'll need to create a system, of course, where such oversight doesn't end up forcing the public to use exactly the same technology for its own encryption needs--or at least keep private keys out of the hands of centralized third parties. Companies, meanwhile, will need to hold onto the business- related keys of employees, so that vital records won't be lost when someone leaves or dies. But I can't think of many companies that will be happy about giving the vault keys to third parties they can't control. Private citizens also should consider giving their keys to trusted third parties, just as they give their house keys to neighbors when on vacation trips. I intend to do just that-- but it's none of the government's business who gets my personal encryption key. I need strong encryption, as the digital age arrives, because more and more of my life will exist on these public networks. The practical difficulties of setting up a centralized key- recovery system are immense. Even if it could be done, I would never trust such a government-run system to be even remotely secure from corruption. I remember the Social Security employees who sold personal information to outsiders. I've also seen too much evidence that governments tend to abuse liberties when they have too much power--and the McCain-Kerrey bill would allow virtually anyone at any level of law enforcement to have access to private information on the flimsiest pretext, not even requiring a court order. Kerrey's participation in this latest travesty is sad. He needs no lessons in courage. He lost part of a leg in Vietnam. Later, as he stood up to the know-nothings who would ban flag-burning, he noted that our strength comes partly from our ability to express ourselves even in ways that offend many others. Now, however, Kerrey is aligning himself with a much more dangerous crowd of know-nothings: those who'd ban our right to keep private information private. He may believe this is about finding common ground; if so, someone has fed him falsehoods. His proposal, if enacted, would create the worst invasion of our fundamental liberty in many decades. If you care even slightly about your privacy in the future, pick up a pen today and write your Senators and member of the House of Representatives. Tell them to reject the Clinton- McCain-Kerrey approach. Tell them you value your privacy and won't give it up without a fight. And remind them that you vote. ____________________

5 6

Better DES challenge update
by Matt Blaze 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

------- Blind-Carbon-Copy To: challenge(a)crypto.com Subject: Better DES challenge update Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 18:01:53 -0400 From: Matt Blaze <mab(a)tpc.crypto.com> The prize for solving the ``better DES challenge'' has grown to almost $500 and continues to rise daily. Here's the list of prize pledges I have as of June 27; the current pot stands at 3984 bits (US $498.00). I hope to have a web page up sometime next week (on www.crypto.com) with the latest challenge status. (This will be the last update via email, unless someone solves the challenge or pledges some huge prize or some such). DATE Name Email Bits Pledged ============================================================================ 6/22/97 Matt Blaze mab(a)crypto.com 56 bits 6/23 AT&T Labs (via mab) mab(a)research.att.com 56 6/24 Steve Gibbons steve(a)wyrm.AZTech.Net 56 6/24 Bill Stewart stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com 112 6/24 Peter Trei trei(a)process.com 288 6/24 Jim Thompson jim(a)hosaka.SmallWorks.COM 512 6/25 Adam Shostack adam(a)homeport.org 512 6/25 Eric Blossom eb(a)comsec.com 1024 6/26 Jamie Lawrence jal(a)acm.org 56 6/26 Bill Frantz frantz(a)netcom.com 512 6/27 Jon Leonard jleonard(a)divcom.umop-ap.com 800 ========= GRAND TOTAL (Bits) 3984 GRAND TOTAL (USD) $498.00 Tell your friends! Note that the pot seems to be growing roughly exponentially. If this keeps up, I may join the search myself... [Unfortunately, due to singularly inexcusable incompetence on the part of my soon-to-be-former ISP (PSINet), mail to me was bouncing last week so I may have missed some of the ``Better DES Challenge'' pledge mail. If you pledged a prize and aren't on the list above, please resend.] Official rules attached below for reference. - -matt N.B. The ``bit'' is an archaic unit of currency equal to 1/8 of a US dollar (hence, ``pieces of eight,'' ``two bits,'', etc.). It seems an appropriate measure for prizes in key-cracking contests. ============================ From: Matt Blaze <mab(a)research.att.com> Subject: A better DES challenge Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 16:04:25 -0400 I'm not a big fan of these ``challenges'' in which a prize is awarded to the first person who discovers the key that produces some plaintext/ciphertext pair. The effort required to produce a solution tends to grossly overstate the actual difficulty of searching the keyspace, since invariably the winner uses the idle time on general-purpose computers, which are poorly-optimized for use as keysearch engines. Another problem with challenges is that even when they are broken they don't really provide convincing proof that the keyspace was actually searched. For example, in the recent 56-bit RSA DES challenge, RSA has no way to prove that it didn't ``leak'' some hint about the solution to the winner. (I hasten to point out that I'm not suggesting that anything like this actually happened, only that a skeptic might raise the possibility, against which RSA has no real way to defend itself). A better challenge, then, would be one in which even the challenger doesn't know the solution in advance (or would have had to itself search the keyspace or otherwise cryptanalyze the cipher in order to find it). For example, a challenge for a one-way collision-intractable hash function could simply ask for an example of a collision, or could ask for the inversion of some well-structured output (such as all zeros). We can do the same thing for encryption functions. I propose an alternative DES challenge that can be solved only by searching a large fraction of the keyspace or by cryptanalyzing the cipher. The structure of the challenge is such that most people would agree that either I don't know the solution myself or that I've already searched the keyspace or otherwise cryptanalyzed DES in some way. In other words, the only way I could covertly ``help'' the challenge winner is if I've already done what the challenge is supposed to establish is possible in the first place. Recall that there are 2^56 DES keys that each select a different permutation of the 2^64 codebook entries. We expect that there's about a 1/2^8 chance that there exists a DES key that converts any given plaintext block to any given ciphertext block. My challenge is to find a key such that a ciphertext block of the form <XXXXXXXX> decrypts to a plaintext block of the form <YYYYYYYY>, where X and Y represent any fixed eight-bit byte value repeated across each of the eight bytes of the block. Observe that I'm actually posing 2^16 different challenge plaintext/ciphertext pairs, each with about 1/2^8 probability of having a solution, where groups of 2^8 challenges can be searched for simultaneously. Each challenge may have no solution key, exactly one solution key, or more than one solution key, but it is very likely that there is at least one solution key to at least one of them (in fact, one could expect to find about 2^8 solutions overall, assuming DES produces good pseudorandom permutations). The most obvious way to find a solution is try, for each properly-formed ciphertext block, every key in the DES keyspace until a plaintext block of the proper form is found. Special-purpose hardware, based on FPGAs or ASICs, would obviously be helpful for this purpose. (One might first consider the eight weak / semi-weak DES keys that have 2^32 fixed points, on the chance that one of the blocks of this form is a fixed point for one of them. Unfortunately however, none are.) I will award a grand prize of fifty six bits ($7 US dollars) to the first person to provide a solution key. (The challenge ends when first key is found). While the prize money is admittedly trivial (this is out of my own pocket, after all), I hope it will serve as ``seed money'' that encourages others to add their own prizes to a growing pot. Of course, I cannot be completely sure whether there exist any solutions at all. In the (unlikely) event that there is no winner by August 1, 1999, I will award the 56 bit prize to the person who submits the key that produces the most ``interesting'' plaintext block from the all-zero ciphertext block. I will be the final judge of what constitutes interesting. This prize will be announced at the rump session of CRYPTO'99. Void where prohibited by law, etc. Comments, questions and solutions should be submitted by email, to <challenge(a)crypto.com>. If others wish to pledge additional prizes, please also let me know at that address and I'll keep track of who is offering what, etc.. - -matt ------- End of Blind-Carbon-Copy

1 0

Re: Flag Burning...
by David Downey 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 22:29:56 -0700 >To: "David Downey" <digital_matrix(a)hotmail.com>, nicol(a)highway1.com.au >From: Bill Frantz <frantz(a)netcom.com> >Subject: Re: Flag Burning... > >Yet she's only as rich as the poorest of the poor, >Only as free as a padlocked prison door, >Only as strong as our love for this land, >Only as tall as we stand. > > - Phil Ochs > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Bill Frantz | The Internet was designed | Periwinkle -- Consulting >(408)356-8506 | to protect the free world | 16345 Englewood Ave. >frantz(a)netcom.com | from hostile governments. | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA > > > As we say in the army, "Damn Skippy!" =========================================================== Though referenced by it's government, a country is defined by it's people. For it is not it's government that makes a country, but it's people. The government is just a place to put the useless. :-) God does have a sense of humor.... He forgave our sins, and gave us government for penance! ----------------------------------------------------------- Type Bits/KeyID Date User ID pub 2048/1D9A78C1 1997/06/11 Case(a)EarthCorp.com -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.3ia mQENAjOey8AAAAEIAMEeGm4eYssbREAQZbAgRSIXPKwNAG9KSb7PZAUfLk0jBcez rQqE19DQKVMGBlK7OR5JxImHTU1bUrX5oUax8yWzsE2uFra+wxiyLHJjCkqPkF6h jAmJBQVeeAfJqOldHsebhUEg+sEUOJ3IRNggA9Fj2dUKmYFWlcSqqe5ijsU4rFEX keR/TAjhr2wXqBMYdCllIUn4+HpnxpQWhY5YkyJ/trjCLdGVdcFisChBKmQ+TxMx V1BnNn2mqdi/dNFrVc7IPX3JDj6YhhGoRGmwFu8GFT0FZMuA8mtdRur25VaXQcxM XtFs02WxpZ20ZAUBibBxLNmgpRLUYs/9Rx2aeMEABRG0EkNhc2VARWFydGhDb3Jw LmNvbYkBFQIFEDOey8Biz/1HHZp4wQEBVtIH/jF1qU05oIxL6CSAQeSy7ERIhcUz Xb4E+S/pnpawUk8qZ4XXvyL1kKScKB+qFCsM80XIC5XuOJRxUR8raWiXyyuqBjF/ RR+91LFs02qQ9Cn3zNOW0XA+Yk/ShgFn2l0I9MW32/HX9pcH7ycMm3TUsHSjkAon wbcGkFQK2X2yWD3xEFKN4X+FqNS6iZE/HTapUFfRbCevANvChOo9stAv0bxc3mmi j7TJJemU5GW17Ji/IN9NUZCsfo3Rddiu5gHFhkphtKHgiXdbEzHrYWidH3w8SVGh yo3sIrIXxI/3LCVaWGM42+IXI0mFauuO0nyqaHRGyMERVSSwVl2zINGU1TM= =urPi -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- --------------------------------------------------------- Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ---------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Rep. Lofgren on McCain/Kerrey (good. long.)
by David Downey 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: geeman(a)best.com >Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 23:33:27 -0700 >To: cypherpunks(a)algebra.com >Subject: Rep. Lofgren on McCain/Kerrey (good. long.) > >Check our new domain names! >http://www.netforward.com >v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v > Earlier this week, Mr. Dan Gillmore, columnist for the San Jose >Mercury News discussed the problems with S. 909 and strongly urged a >rejection of the McCain-Kerrey approach. I submit his column into the >Congressional Record. > > [From the San Jose Mercury News, June 23, 1997] > > Encryption Bill: Federal Exercise in Self-Deception > > (By Dan Gillmor) > > As a bill bearing his name zipped last week through the > Senate Commerce Committee he heads, Arizona Republican John > McCain said, ``This bill carefully seeks to balance the > concerns of law enforcement with individual privacy > concerns.'' > The legislation, co-sponsored by Nebraska Democrat Bob > Kerrey and two other Democrats, was the latest futile attempt > in Congress to achieve the impossible: compromise on an issue > that fundamentally has no middle ground. > The issue is encryption, the scrambling of digital > information. Try as they might, lawmakers must eventually > understand the reality. When it comes to the privacy of > personal information in the digital age, we have two simple > choices. Either we allow people to encrypt their messages, > using scrambling and unscrambling ``keys'' to which only they > have access, or we do not. > Governments are certain that bad people will use encryption > to help achieve bad ends. They're right. But their cure would > shred our basic liberties. Do ya really think the powers that be really care? Let's hope they do! > So the Clinton administration and its allies--the McCain- > Kerrey legislation is widely viewed as an administration- > approved plan--are pushing a policy that would force us to > put descrambling keys in the hands of third parties. Then, > when law enforcement people wanted to see our communications, > they'd simply get the keys from that third party. > The McCain-Kerrey bill pretends to stop short of that. It > would force government agencies to use only electronic > hardware and software that included this key-recovery scheme. > It would also require the same system for anyone using a > network that is funded in any way by federal funds, including > virtually all university networks. Seems inherently dangerous to me, everything about you is on a system or systems somewhere, and most of them have used federal funds in their startup and continue to use them. Doesn't that grant the governments almost total access to your past present and future? I KNOW I don't want ANYONE having THAT much access to my life. What I don't understand is what makes them tjink we'll just roll over and accept this without a fight? > While one section calls the system ``voluntary'' for > private individuals, the rest of the legislation would make > it all but impossible to resist. Hardware and software > companies, which so far have resisted the government's moves, > will be much more likely to simply give in and build this > key-recovery method into all of their products if they have > to build it into ones bought by the government. Consumers > need options, not monolithic products. Seems to me that that is EXACTLY what the government wants. If they can't pass it legally, they figure they'll use economical pressure. Hell, they've been doing it to China, Vietnam, Russia and a host of others for years! Why shouldn't they apply the concept locally? > Another section of the bill would, in effect, require even > private citizens to use such software--and therefore give > their keys to the third parties--if they want to buy anything > online. People tend to use what they have in front of them. Isn't control of the economy too powerful of a tool for the government? Can anyone hear the whistling? It's the sound of the government sword slicing through our pocketbooks and into our liberties and rights. > There's nothing wrong with the idea of letting a third > party hold onto a descrambling key in certain cases. As > former White House official Jock Gill noted recently on an > Internet mailing list, all government communications should > use such a system so the public can keep an eye on what the > government is doing in our name and with our money. We'll > need to create a system, of course, where such oversight > doesn't end up forcing the public to use exactly the same > technology for its own encryption needs--or at least keep > private keys out of the hands of centralized third parties. > Companies, meanwhile, will need to hold onto the business- > related keys of employees, so that vital records won't be > lost when someone leaves or dies. But I can't think of many > companies that will be happy about giving the vault keys to > third parties they can't control. > Private citizens also should consider giving their keys to > trusted third parties, just as they give their house keys to > neighbors when on vacation trips. I intend to do just that-- > but it's none of the government's business who gets my > personal encryption key. I need strong encryption, as the > digital age arrives, because more and more of my life will > exist on these public networks. Yeah, and how many of them does the government have pull with? Quite a few considering that they back most corporate companies with tax dollars and schools with federal grants. > The practical difficulties of setting up a centralized key- > recovery system are immense. Even if it could be done, I > would never trust such a government-run system to be even > remotely secure from corruption. I remember the Social > Security employees who sold personal information to > outsiders. I've also seen too much evidence that governments > tend to abuse liberties when they have too much power--and > the McCain-Kerrey bill would allow virtually anyone at any > level of law enforcement to have access to private > information on the flimsiest pretext, not even requiring a > court order. This is starting to sound like the beginnings of a Martial State. Slowly control the population in every aspect of their lives and when you have enough control, who's gonna fight you when you really start cracking the whip? If you control everything that affects their lives, NO ONE! Control their economy, their privacy, their children, and you control them. Even better, get them to help you in the names of their children, their rights, and make them feel like thy are in greatr danger that they actually are and they'll just hand you the reins! Hmmmmmm... doesn't this sound like our current situation?? > Kerrey's participation in this latest travesty is sad. He > needs no lessons in courage. He lost part of a leg in > Vietnam. Later, as he stood up to the know-nothings who would > ban flag-burning, he noted that our strength comes partly > from our ability to express ourselves even in ways that > offend many others. Now, however, Kerrey is aligning himself > with a much more dangerous crowd of know-nothings: those who'd > > ban our right to keep private information private. He may believe > this is about finding common ground; if so, someone has fed him > falsehoods. His proposal, if enacted, would create the worst > invasion of our fundamental liberty in many decades. How many times have we watched the better part of valiant, couragous, and honorable men and women be seduced by power, greed, corruption, and just plain old not thinking straight? > If you care even slightly about your privacy in the future, > pick up a pen today and write your Senators and member of the > House of Representatives. Tell them to reject the Clinton- > McCain-Kerrey approach. Tell them you value your privacy and > won't give it up without a fight. And remind them that you > vote. Yes, we vote. Yes, we care. Yes, WE WILL FIGHT!!! =========================================================== Though referenced by it's government, a country is defined by it's people. For it is not it's government that makes a country, but it's people. The government is just a place to put the useless. :-) God does have a sense of humor.... He forgave our sins, and gave us government for penance! ----------------------------------------------------------- Type Bits/KeyID Date User ID pub 2048/1D9A78C1 1997/06/11 Case(a)EarthCorp.com -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.3ia mQENAjOey8AAAAEIAMEeGm4eYssbREAQZbAgRSIXPKwNAG9KSb7PZAUfLk0jBcez rQqE19DQKVMGBlK7OR5JxImHTU1bUrX5oUax8yWzsE2uFra+wxiyLHJjCkqPkF6h jAmJBQVeeAfJqOldHsebhUEg+sEUOJ3IRNggA9Fj2dUKmYFWlcSqqe5ijsU4rFEX keR/TAjhr2wXqBMYdCllIUn4+HpnxpQWhY5YkyJ/trjCLdGVdcFisChBKmQ+TxMx V1BnNn2mqdi/dNFrVc7IPX3JDj6YhhGoRGmwFu8GFT0FZMuA8mtdRur25VaXQcxM XtFs02WxpZ20ZAUBibBxLNmgpRLUYs/9Rx2aeMEABRG0EkNhc2VARWFydGhDb3Jw LmNvbYkBFQIFEDOey8Biz/1HHZp4wQEBVtIH/jF1qU05oIxL6CSAQeSy7ERIhcUz Xb4E+S/pnpawUk8qZ4XXvyL1kKScKB+qFCsM80XIC5XuOJRxUR8raWiXyyuqBjF/ RR+91LFs02qQ9Cn3zNOW0XA+Yk/ShgFn2l0I9MW32/HX9pcH7ycMm3TUsHSjkAon wbcGkFQK2X2yWD3xEFKN4X+FqNS6iZE/HTapUFfRbCevANvChOo9stAv0bxc3mmi j7TJJemU5GW17Ji/IN9NUZCsfo3Rddiu5gHFhkphtKHgiXdbEzHrYWidH3w8SVGh yo3sIrIXxI/3LCVaWGM42+IXI0mFauuO0nyqaHRGyMERVSSwVl2zINGU1TM= =urPi -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- --------------------------------------------------------- Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ---------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Flag Burning...
by David Downey 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Obviously not. And >> before ya ask what that has to do with it, let me just say now... >> It's like riding a Harley, if we have to explain it to you, you wouldn't >> understand. > >That, my friend, is pissweak. "I understand, but you CANT because I >am better than you . . . " Get a life, learn to communicate >effectively. > > > > >Neter Picol >Global Media Magnet >godhead(a)vrl.com.au > >"Two daughters of a silk merchant live it Kyoto, >The elder is twenty, the younger, eighteen. >A soldier may kill with his sword, >But these girls slay men with their eyes." ================================================================= THAT, my friend, just ended ANY chance of coomunication between the two of us. When you start thinking you are better than someone else, you have stepped over the line. BTW, the spelling for dood is D U D E! Learn to spell before you start thinking you're better than anyone else. Baby steps, baby steps! And as to the imperialist comment. Give it a rest, folks have been saying that for years. Ever heard of dancing to your OWN beat. Give the badwagon some room. Too many on it as it is now. And as for me getting a life. I have one. I live in America! :-) =========================================================== Though referenced by it's government, a country is defined by it's people. For it is not it's government that makes a country, but it's people. The government is just a place to put the useless. :-) God does have a sense of humor.... He forgave our sins, and gave us government for penance! ----------------------------------------------------------- Type Bits/KeyID Date User ID pub 2048/1D9A78C1 1997/06/11 Case(a)EarthCorp.com -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.3ia mQENAjOey8AAAAEIAMEeGm4eYssbREAQZbAgRSIXPKwNAG9KSb7PZAUfLk0jBcez rQqE19DQKVMGBlK7OR5JxImHTU1bUrX5oUax8yWzsE2uFra+wxiyLHJjCkqPkF6h jAmJBQVeeAfJqOldHsebhUEg+sEUOJ3IRNggA9Fj2dUKmYFWlcSqqe5ijsU4rFEX keR/TAjhr2wXqBMYdCllIUn4+HpnxpQWhY5YkyJ/trjCLdGVdcFisChBKmQ+TxMx V1BnNn2mqdi/dNFrVc7IPX3JDj6YhhGoRGmwFu8GFT0FZMuA8mtdRur25VaXQcxM XtFs02WxpZ20ZAUBibBxLNmgpRLUYs/9Rx2aeMEABRG0EkNhc2VARWFydGhDb3Jw LmNvbYkBFQIFEDOey8Biz/1HHZp4wQEBVtIH/jF1qU05oIxL6CSAQeSy7ERIhcUz Xb4E+S/pnpawUk8qZ4XXvyL1kKScKB+qFCsM80XIC5XuOJRxUR8raWiXyyuqBjF/ RR+91LFs02qQ9Cn3zNOW0XA+Yk/ShgFn2l0I9MW32/HX9pcH7ycMm3TUsHSjkAon wbcGkFQK2X2yWD3xEFKN4X+FqNS6iZE/HTapUFfRbCevANvChOo9stAv0bxc3mmi j7TJJemU5GW17Ji/IN9NUZCsfo3Rddiu5gHFhkphtKHgiXdbEzHrYWidH3w8SVGh yo3sIrIXxI/3LCVaWGM42+IXI0mFauuO0nyqaHRGyMERVSSwVl2zINGU1TM= =urPi -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- --------------------------------------------------------- Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ---------------------------------------------------------

1 0

All Tomorrow's Parties -- CDA II -- from the Netly News
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 07:15:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: All Tomorrow's Parties -- CDA II -- from the Netly News http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/opinion/0,1042,1113,00.html The Netly News June 26, 1997 All Tomorrow's Parties by Team Netly (thenetlynews(a)pathfinder.com) The fun-loving "trolls" of Bianca's Smut Shack celebrated today's Communications Decency Act ruling by sleeping in. Christopher Miller and David Thau stumbled awake at 10:10 am today, just in time to read the decision that said it was legal to post "indecent" material on your web site -- something clearly important to the Biancanauts, who are travelling cross-country in a psychedelic RV commemorating the summer of love. "It's kind of weird to celebrate the overturning of something that's clearly unconstitutional, but of course we have something to celebrate because it's going to keep us from jail," said Thau. The celebration may be premature. The CDA II, after all, is expected to crawl out of the grave like a flesh-dripping zombie. But you'd never know it from the high-bandwidth rhetoric that flooded the Net today after the Supreme Court decision. The Electronic Privacy Information Center cried that "today's opinion defines the First Amendment for the next century." Histrionics also were flying furiously around San Francisco's South Park, where the faithful rallied. "The Internet freedom fighters are as strong as the students at Tiananmen Square," said the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Mike Godwin -- to a crowd composed almost entirely of journalists. "Today is the first day of the new American Revolution, the Digital Revolution.." (A phrase that happens to be trademarked by Wired, a sponsor of the rally.) The victorious shouts of the way-new stalwarts were matched by the angry screams of the censor-happy CDA supporters. "The safety net is gone," says Donna Rice-Hughes, communication director for Enough Is Enough. "There is no law against an adult sending a naked picture of himself to a child over the Internet or through e-mail." If Rice-Hughes has her way, the high court's decision to drive a stake through the heart of the much-reviled law will mean the threat to free speech online has expired only for a while. "Frankly, this ruling provides a road map on how to more specfically draft legislation," says Heidi Stirrup, director of government relations for the Christian Coalition. "Our beleaguered American family has been put on notice by the Court that it will do nothing to help the family even when the president and Congress work together against a problem that everyone says is bad -- providing indecent material to children." This isn't entirely true. The ruling -- which talked of "vast democratic fora" online -- does not mean that the Internet is now a free-speech zone where anything goes. After all, the CDA only restricted "indecent" materials, an undefined category that could include art, literature, even humor and sex ed. materials. Distributing obscenity -- sexual works without "redeeming value" -- will remain a crime. The Court noted this in its ruling today: "Transmitting obscenity and child pornography, whether via the Internet or other means, is already illegal under federal law for both adults and juveniles." President Clinton, who endorsed the act, also vowed not to give up. "We can and must develop a solution for the Internet that is as powerful for the computer as the v-chip will be for the television, and that protects children in ways that are consistent with America's free speech values," he said. "We're certainly going to support Congress' efforts to develop another bill to protect kids. They're not going to stop and we're going to help them to do it," says Bruce Taylor, president of the National Law Center for Children and Families. Taylor predicts that a CDA II might stress labelling all your web pages with PICS or RSACi if you want to stay out of jail: "Remember I told you nobody's going to do PICS? It's a monster nobody wants to feed. Who's going to rate 10 zillion web sites?" Well, nobody -- unless you force people to use it. Which is what some members of Congress are trying. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) is preparing to introduce a bill that will try to convince a dubious public to rate its pages with RSACi, a self-rating system backed by Microsoft. (A company which, just coincidentally, is headquartered in her state.) Nevermind that even MSNBC stopped ratings its pages with RSACi because the system proved unworkable for news sites. Murray's proposed bill, called the "Childsafe Internet Act of 1997," says someone who "includes a rating" on their site "may not be held liable" for "any material on the site that is unsuitable for minors." That's the carrot. Then the stick: you can't post material "unsuitable for minors" on a site that's rated for kids. "Whoever accesses a site on the Internet rated by the person establishing the site as having no material unsuitable for minors and knowingly makes available on or through the site any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other material unsuitable for minors, shall be imprisoned... for not more than two years," the bill says. The constitutionality of such legislation was affirmed in today's minority opinion of Justices O'Connor and Rehnquist, in which they talk of "zoning laws" for the Internet. Real world zoning laws are what keep children out of porno stores and require buildings to be wheelchair-accessible. These laws passed constitutional muster long ago, and the underlying intent of the CDA was largely to shield minors from indecent material. Trouble is, Internet technology isn't yet capable of ensuring the existence of adult-only zones. Yet. Thus argued O'Connor: "Until gateway technology is available throughout cyberspace, and it is not in 1997, a speaker cannot be reasonably assured that the speech he displays will reach only adults because it is impossible to confine speech to an 'adult zone.'" What all this means is Congressional attempts to pass another law to muzzle the Net won't need to be a flat ban on "indecency." Rather, they'll rely on PICS and RSACi. (Ironically, a technology designed to head off the CDA might be the linchpin of CDA II.) Next month President Clinton plans to meet with industry leaders in much the same way he met with broadcast executives last year and came up with a V-Chip. His goal this time: to do the same for the Net. Meanwhile, slap-happy netizens will probably still be partying down -- the D.C.-based CIEC folks are hanging out in the 18th Street Lounge right now -- basking in the high court's warm and fuzzy afterglow, and happily smoking a bowl of their own rhetoric. ###

5 6