- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: IP rerouters (was Re: Remailers: The Next Generation)
by jerry＠terminus.dell.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In article <2hunvn$71u(a)uudell.us.dell.com> you write: >From: Matthew J Ghio <mg5n+(a)andrew.cmu.edu> >Subject: IP rerouters (was Re: Remailers: The Next Generation) >In-Reply-To: <199401230709.XAA26564(a)servo.qualcomm.com> >References: <199401230709.XAA26564(a)servo.qualcomm.com> > >Phil Karn <karn(a)qualcomm.com> wrote: >> While you guys are thinking about where to take this stuff at the >> application level, how about giving some thought to how you >> might do it at the IP level? >> >Well, it would make tracing FTP difficult, altho, at least intially, >some FTP maintainers might try to block known IP rerouters. Of course, >if such rerouters became commonplace, it would eliminate that problem. ... >Does anyone how much it costs to get a continuous 56K internet >connection? What about a T1? How easy is it to get and set up? Yes anonymous IP would quickly get block by control freak sys admins. Costs for internet connections vary, but plan to spend about 20K/year. Plus about 10K in startup costs, plus equipment costs. Depending on a lot of factors prices can vary up to 50%. Unless you are on the internet it is very hard to get connected. Most of the companies that sell internet access do business through email. -- Jeremy Porter ----------------- Systems Enginneering ---- Dell Computer Corp. --- jerry(a)terminus.us.dell.com -------- ------------------------------------------------------------ Support your Second Amendment rights to encryption technology.

1 0

Re: clipper pin-compatible chip
by drzaphod＠brewmeister.xstablu.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Remember folx.. ya heard it here first.. Lesse.. was quite a while ago.. the day/or after that it was announced I believe. when ideas come full circle I can't help but think we missed one go-around and this is another reminder to do it. Let's plan ahead so we don't get trapped without an escape. TTFN. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- - DrZaphod #Don't Come Any Closer Or I'll Encrypt! - - [AC/DC] / [DnA][HP] #Xcitement thru Technology and Creativity - - [drzaphod(a)brewmeister.xstablu.com] [MindPolice Censored This Bit] - - 50 19 1C F3 5F 34 53 B7 B9 BB 7A 40 37 67 09 5B - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

6 5

HISTORY - pre-CDA, "compromise", untrue civil-liberties groups (fwd)
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 16:44:12 -0400 From: Seth Finkelstein <sethf(a)mit.edu> To: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Cc: jseiger(a)cdt.org, jberman(a)cdt.org Subject: HISTORY - pre-CDA, "compromise", untrue civil-liberties groups I finally went back digging through my archives, to confirm my memory that we had gone through almost exactly this sort of argument in the run-up to the CDA. All the elements were there - the "compromise" in terms of attempts to use labeling, the defensiveness from EFF, CDT, compared to opposition from the ACLU, and so on. Not a whole lot has changed. Mike Godwin was just as snide and snotty then as he is now :-). The idea then was the infamous White proposal, lower the standard a little, have "good faith" defenses (what evolved into censorware and ratings). Basically, have businesses running the system, don't let the Religious-Right go wild. Well, that lost out narrowly, and so we fought the CDA battle. But after that was won, those interested in content regulation didn't just pack up and go away. They went back to the earlier proposals. Which is an excellent argument that nothing will be gained by any sort of "compromise" here. ================ Seth Finkelstein sethf(a)mit.edu Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 21:11:50 -0500 Message-Id: <951202211149_42309455(a)emout05.mail.aol.com> To: declan+(a)cmu.edu, fight-censorship+(a)andrew.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Reuters/AP: Civil Lib Groups Will Accept Cyberporn Compromise Let me make it clear that the ACLU does not support this compromise and that no true civil liberties organization, which represents the interests of internet users and content providers does. Barry Steinhardt ACLU Message-Id: <QkkAOHO00WCQNEcLgN(a)andrew.cmu.edu> Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 16:35:15 -0500 (EST) From: "Declan B. McCullagh" <declan+(a)CMU.EDU> To: Fight Censorship Mailing List <fight-censorship+(a)andrew.cmu.edu> Subject: Reuters/AP: Civil Lib Groups Will Accept Cyberporn Compromise NEW YORK (Reuter) - A group of commercial online services and civil liberties groups have agreed to accept restrictions on sexual material being sent on the Internet, the New York Times reported in Saturday editions. The compromise, drafted by Washington state Republican Rick White, would create provisions for a Senate bill that would impose fines and prison sentences on people who transmit pornography, the newspaper said. It said the compromise, circulating as a draft on Capitol Hill, made no distinction between commercial and nonprofit service providers. It said the restrictions would presumably apply to all, including Internet access nodes run by academic institutions. The Times said the agreement was being made known days before a joint Senate-House committee is expected to debate a measure that would impose fines of up to $100,000 and jail terms on people who knowingly transmit pornography or material deemed ``filthy'', ``lewd'' or ``indecent''. The compromise would weaken the Senate bill's prohibitions against making indecent material available to children by changing the prohibition to material that is considered ''harmful to children'', the Times reported. The compromise would also offer added protection to online services or information providers who make a good faith effort to keep sex material away from children, the newspaper said. --- NEW YORK (AP) -- There reportedly is agreement on legislation limiting pornography on the Internet. The New York Times reported Saturday that a coalition of commercial on-line providers and some civil liberties groups have reversed course and signed on to a compromise drafted by Rep. Rick White, R-Wash. The move comes just a few days before a House-Senate conference committee takes up a measure that would impose prison sentences and fines on people who knowingly transmit pornography or material deemed ``filthy'' or ``lewd.'' But White's proposal would offer added protection to on-line services that make good-faith efforts to keep pornography away from children. The Times report says the coalition has agreed to the compromise as the lesser evil of other more restrictive proposals. From: Mike Godwin <mnemonic(a)well.com> Message-Id: <199512030242.SAA13684(a)well.com> Subject: Re: Reuters/AP: Civil Lib Groups Will Accept Cyberporn Compromise To: BSACLU(a)aol.com Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 18:42:24 -0800 (PST) Cc: declan+(a)cmu.edu, fight-censorship+(a)andrew.cmu.edu In-Reply-To: <951202211149_42309455(a)emout05.mail.aol.com> from "BSACLU(a)aol.com" at Dec 2, 95 09:11:50 pm Barry Steinhardt writes: > Let me make it clear that the ACLU does not support this compromise and that > no true civil liberties organization, which represents the interests of > internet users and content providers does. > > Barry Steinhardt > ACLU I don't think Barry Steinhardt is in the position of defining, in this rather authoritarian manner, who qualifies as "true civil liberties organization, which represents the interests of internet users and content providers." EFF takes the position that no content-control legislation should be passed. At the same time, we acknowledge the value of efforts, such as that of Congressman White, to steer the Telecom Bill toward language that is congruent with the long-established Constitutional framework that limits what the government can do with regard to expression. (We do so even though we do not endorse any of the proposals that have been floated in the conference committee.) If this counts as "support" for this compromise -- that is, if Barry Steinhardt takes the position that "no true civil liberties organization" could conceivably take a principled position that does not parrot Steinhardt's own -- then perhaps he should say so now, since EFF had planned to work with ACLU on litigation challenging whatever content- control language emerges in the telecom bill. I had not thought, before now, that the only "true" civil liberties position is one that precisely parrots that of Steinhardt and the ACLU. Perhaps the DOJ's antitrust division should investigate the ACLU's monopoly on principled civil-liberties stances. It is a sad historical fact that, all too often, certain civil libertarians feel compelled to spend their energy in quarrelling with allies over relatively minor differences on strategic and tactical issues while the pro-censorship forces close ranks and present a united front. You'd have think we'd all have learned by now. I should hope, by the way, that my own credentials as a "true" civil libertarian are not in question. I'm willing to compare my track record on "cyber liberties" with anyone else's. Perhaps Barry could identify with some specificity those whom he, from his lofty perch, believes to be other than "true" civil libertarians. Alternatively, he may have some suggestions as to how we can all continue to work together without wasting any time pissing on each other. Yours for freedom of speech on the Net, --Mike Godwin Staff Counsel EFF To: fight-censorship+(a)andrew.cmu.edu From: kip(a)world.std.com (Bob Chatelle) Subject: Re: Reuters/AP: Civil Lib Groups Will Accept Cyberporn Compromise Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 22:30:05 EST Message-Id: <kip.1598.0013DAEC(a)world.std.com> In article Mike Godwin <mnemonic(a)well.com> writes: > >Barry Steinhardt writes: >> Let me make it clear that the ACLU does not support this compromise and that >> no true civil liberties organization, which represents the interests of >> internet users and content providers does. >> >> Barry Steinhardt >> ACLU >I don't think Barry Steinhardt is in the position of defining, in this >rather authoritarian manner, who qualifies as "true civil liberties >organization, which represents the interests of internet users and content >providers." >EFF takes the position that no content-control legislation should be >passed. At the same time, we acknowledge the value of efforts, such as >that of Congressman White, to steer the Telecom Bill toward language that >is congruent with the long-established Constitutional framework that >limits what the government can do with regard to expression. (We do so >even though we do not endorse any of the proposals that have been >floated in the conference committee.) I do not believe that Barry was criticizing EFF or any other civil-liberties group that has been opposing content-restrictive legislation. Barry was rightly taking issue with the NYT for claiming that civil-liberties groups were willing to accept compromise on restricting content. I think his statement, that no true civil-liberties group would support such a compromise is valid. Mike, in the above paragraph, explicitly states that EFF does not support such compromises. But we all knew that. I think this was a simple case of someone taking offense where no offense was meant. I do that myself more often than I care to admit. To get pissed off is human. Let's all keep working together. Cheers, Bob -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Chatelle kip(a)world.std.com National Writers Union Cambridge, Massachusetts UAW Local 1981, AFL-CIO Boston Coalition for Freedom of Expression Home Page: http://world.std.com/~kip/ PGP Public Key Available on Request "The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedom." --Justice William O. Douglas ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Message-Id: <wkkwz4W00YUt9Vcidz(a)andrew.cmu.edu> Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 23:51:16 -0500 (EST) From: "Declan B. McCullagh" <declan+(a)CMU.EDU> To: Fight Censorship Mailing List <fight-censorship+(a)andrew.cmu.edu> Subject: CDT Funding and Cyberporn "Compromise" Cc: berman(a)cdt.org References: <199511230338.TAA00816(a)igc3.igc.apc.org> When I was in Boston over the weekend, I had brunch at a wonderful Harvard Square patisserie with Harvey Silverglate, Seth Finkelstein, and Bob Chatelle. Over coffee and baguettes we talked about the "cybersmut compromise" on the front page of the NYT that morning. The NYT was reporting that "some civil liberties groups" -- in particular the Center for Democracy and Technology -- had agreed to the "compromise:" "While it does embody much of the original Exon proposal, it does so in a way that tries to embody a constitutionally recognized standard." --Jerry Berman, director of the Center for Democracy and Technology We were confused. This is the same "compromise" that Barry Steinhardt from the ACLU said that "no true civil liberties organization" would support. (I recall that Barry is the associate executive director and the head of the ACLU's Civil Liberties in Cyberspace task force.) Today I ran across this message about the CDT. I'm copying this to Jerry Berman in case he'd like to respond. -Declan ---------- Forwarded message begins here ---------- Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 00:38:12 GMT From: "W. Curtiss Priest" <BMSLIB(a)mitvma.mit.edu> Subject: Corporate Crime and CDT Funding on behalf of so-called medical privacy There is a very interesting discussion on the Federal Medical Information bill on the med-privacy list, Curt ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- The following article appeared in the current issue of Corporate Crime Reporter (Volume 9, Number 44, November 20, 1995, page one). It is redisseminated on the Internet with the permission of CCR. SELF-PROCLAIMED "PUBLIC INTEREST" GROUP HEAVILY FUNDED BY COMPUTER, TELECOMMUNICATIONS, DATABANK CORPORATIONS THAT WOULD BENEFIT FROM "MEDICAL PRIVACY" LEGISLATION GROUP SUPPORTS -- EQUIFAX, TRW, DUNN & BRADSTREET IN THE MIX The Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT), a self- proclaimed "public interest organization," is in fact heavily funded by large private computer, telecommunications, and databank corporations. Funders of CDT, a two-year old Washington, D.C.-based advocacy organization, include Dunn & Bradstreet Corp., Equifax Inc., and TRW Information Services, three large databank corporations that stand to benefit from federal legislation CDT actively helped shaped and is shepherding through Congress. This year, CDT has received $699,643 from more than 30 large corporations, including $100,000 from Microsoft, $75,000 from AT&T, $60,000 from Bell Atlantic, $50,000 from Apple Computer, $25,000 from IBM, $10,000 from TRW Information Services, $10,000 from Dunn & Bradstreet, $5,000 from Direct Marketing Association, and $5,000 from Equifax Inc. (For a complete list of CDT's funders, see At A Glance, page 16) At a hearing before the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee last week, CDT deputy director Janlori Goldman said that CDT "strongly supports" legislation, S. 1360, sponsored by Senators Robert Bennett (R-Utah) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), because it represents "the most comprehensive and strong privacy bill the Congress has yet considered in this area." But opponents of the bill argue that the legislation is not a privacy statute at all, but instead is a vehicle that would legitimize the creation of large computerized databanks of personal medical information, thus benefitting those companies like TRW and Equifax that give financial support to CDT. The legislation would allow for broad, unauthorized searches of those databanks, opponents claim. In an interview, Goldman told Corporate Crime Reporter that all of CDT's corporate funding is earmarked for other projects and that none of the corporate funding is supporting her work on the medical privacy bill. "The corporate funding is not related at all, in any way shape or form to my work on this bill," Goldman said. "The reason we are doing this bill is that I've worked on privacy issues for a decade. The most important privacy issue to work on is the passage of the medical records privacy legislation. That is a very sincere issue for me." "None of the corporate support that CDT gets is related to my work on this bill," Goldman emphasized. "None. Zippo." CDT's executive director, Jerry Berman agreed. "We have no funding for the medical privacy project -- zero," Berman said. But critics of the CDT's position on the legislation were skeptical. "During the Senate hearing this week, Senator Bennett was angered at the suggestion that S. 1360 was an industry bill," said Jamie Love of Ralph Nader's Center for Study of Responsive Law. "He claimed that he had widely consulted with privacy groups and patient advocates. CDT's Janlori Goldman was the key person who decided who was in the loop, and who was not in the loop on this issue. Groups that were not receptive to the idea of massive database systems of personal medical records were excluded from deliberations." "To find out that CDT has been funded by companies such as Equifax, TRW, Dunn & Bradstreet, IBM and the telephone companies is remarkable, because these are among the groups who have the most at stake in legitimizing and preserving the current system of maintaining and managing medical records," Love said. "I think that Janlori Goldman should have mentioned in her Senate testimony that CDT was funded by corporations who have an interest in this issue." "If CDT were doing its job, TRW and Equifax wouldn't want to give it money," Love added. Harold Eist, president-elect of the American Psychiatric Association, said that "any datagathering and large computer company would clearly benefit from legislation that drives large amounts of individually identified data about American citizens into data banks without the knowledge and permission of those American citizens." "Selling that information would represent a gold mine for those companies," Eist said. "It is not surprising that an organization with a disingenuous name -- Center for Democracy & Technology -- would be supporting a bill with a disingenuous name -- The Medical Records Confidentiality Act," Eist said. "In fact, this bill represents an effort to give away the privacy of American citizens without their knowledge." "My understanding is that Janlori Goldman was involved in writing the bill," Eist said. "It seems to me that as a former civil libertarian, she should know very well that there are loopholes in that bill regarding protections to privacy that you could drive a Mack truck through." "Unless people can be assured that their privacy will be protected, there is little or no chance that they will reveal the kind of tormented and dark secrets that they have to reveal to recover from their illnesses," Eist said. "Confidentially is the sine qua non of medical treatment, and especially if it is psychiatric medical treatment." A driving force behind the effort to derail the Bennett/Leahy bill is Denise Nagel, a Boston physician who organized the Coalition for Patient Rights of New England "to restore confidentiality to the doctor-patient relationship." Nagel refused to comment on CDT's funding. At the Senate hearing last week, Nagel told the committee "I have no industry ties." Nagel charged that S. 1360 was written "to advance the interests of certain segments of the computer, telecommunications, data processing and health-care industries." "With this bill they would be able to careen full speed ahead to develop data networks that will give innumerable people access to our medical records legally and without our knowledge," Nagel said. "I am convinced that S. 1360 is not at all primarily concerned with the confidentiality of medical records," Nagel told the committee. "It is just the opposite. It talks about informed consent, but then authorizes the creation of databases without patient knowledge or consent. It talks about individual rights, and then allows police broad authority to search databases directly instead of obtaining a specific record from the patient's doctor. It talks about civil and criminal sanctions, and then pre-empts all common law and most existing and future state statutes. It talks about ensuring personal privacy with respect to medical records, and then sets a ceiling rather than a floor on medical confidentiality." AT A GLANCE: CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY FUNDING, 1994- 1995 American Advertising Federation 500.00 America Online, Inc. 25,000.00 Apple Computer Inc. 50,000.00 AT&T 75,000.00 Bell Atlantic 60,000.00 Business Software Alliance 6,000.00 Cellular Tellecomm Indust Assn 10,000.00 CompuServ 30,000.00 Delphi Internet Services Corp 10,000.00 Direct Marketing Association 5,000.00 Dunn & Bradstreet Corp 10,000.00 EMA 5,000.00 Equifax Inc. 5,000.00 John Gilmore 2,500.00 Hartford Foundation 153,000.00 IBM 25,000.00 Information Technology Industry 5,000.00 Interactive Digital Software 5,000.00 Lotus 6,250.00 MARC 80,000.00 MCI Telecommunications 15,000.00 Microsoft 100,000.00 National Cable Television Assn 15,000.00 Netscape Communications Corp 5,000.00 Newspaper Association of Am 5,000.00 Nynex Government Affairs 25,000.00 Pacific Telesis 25,000.00 Prodigy Service Company 10,000.00 Software Publishers Assn 10,000.00 Time Warner Inc 5,000.00 TRW Information Svcs 10,000.00 US Telephone Association 10,000.00 US West Inc 10,000.00 Total Funding 814,020.00 Received 1994 114,377.00 Received 1995 699,643.00 Total Funding 814,020.00 Russell Mokhiber russell(a)essential.org voice: 202/429-6928

1 0

subpoenas of personal papers
by smb＠research.att.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I just saw a news story that bears on one of the perpetual questions on this newsgroup: can you be compelled to turn over your encryption key? In Doe vs. U.S. (93-523), the Supreme Court declined to rule on whether or not someone can be forced to turn over his personal appointment calendar. By doing so, they let stand an Appeals Court (2nd Circuit) that he could *not* invoke the Fifth Amendment. That court ruled that ``testimony'' was protected, but not personal papers. There was a Supreme Court ruling in 1886 protecting such papers, but that's been eroded over the years, and the Supreme Court has ruled several times that business records are not protected. And in a concurring opinion in 1986, O'Connor wrote ``The Fifth Amendment provides absolutely no protection for the contents of private papers of any kind''. --Steve Bellovin

4 3

archiving on inet
by Jim choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I want to thank everyone for their input on this topic, very enlightening... Seems to me that if a work is by simply being created has a copyright on it then every inet provider who stores material a hard drive could be prosecuted for copyright infringement. There has been some question raised as to why this is important to cpunks, it goes like this. If we are going to creat a workable system then some form of release has to be done so that work that goes over inet is public unless explicity noted as copyrighted and must include a fair use statement OR it must be in a form that prohibits casual access. What this last point means to me is that if it is copyrighted it should be encrypted. This encryptred file would have a address and public key attacked. To unlock the file you would contact the author and fulfill their requirements for fair use (ie pay money for a book). The author would then send a private key to the user who coul then unlock the file and use it. Anyone who had possession of a unlocked file without a private key and being on the authors list of authorized users would be committing a clear case of theft. Anyone who gave a third party a valid private key would be committing conspiracy. At this point I expect my home node to come online in a couple of weeks (we may have finaly solved the bugs that kept us down) and should start allowing public access a week or so after that. Each user who calls my system will need agree to a statement of something like the following: I, (username), agree that any material which I create on this system or one of its satellite systems is public domain. I also agree that this statement is binding to my physical person and not to a particular handle or name that I may choose to use or change. I further agree that any material of commercial or of a copyrighted nature MUST contain a fair use policy that prohibits ONLY commercial use AND will contain a real address by which any person may contact me for further interaction. I further agree that any file which is of a commercial or copyrighted nature and does not fulfill the above conditions MUST be encrypted and contain in plain-text a address whereby a person may contact me for access the un-encrypted material. I further agree that as long a the file is encrypted OR contains a fair use statement I wiwll not bring any legal proceeding against ANY provider or user in Internet or other electronic system this material may be transfered to for storage. Does anyone see any problems with such a proviso?

3 3

Re: NSA museum now open, if you can find it
by Hal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

That museum sounds fascinating. I got to visit the NSA's so-called "Friendship Annex" once on business. This is not at Fort Meade itself, but a few miles away, to keep the impure and unclean away from the holy temple itself. Whoever named this place had quite a sense of irony; the surveillance cameras, briefcase searches, constant escorts, and armed guards did not project a particularly "friendly" image. I was hoping to pick up some souvenirs, but when I asked about an employee gift shop they looked at me like I was crazy. One thing that really caught my eye was a poster which was displayed widely, apparently a security-reminder-of-the-month thing. This was the holiday season, and the poster showed Santa stopped at the gate submitting his bag to be searched. I'm surprised they didn't have the old boy being strip-searched. Anyway, I begged and begged but nobody would let me have one. I really think the government is missing an opportunity by not selling NSA sweatshirts and such. Recently the Los Angeles coroner's office started selling souvenirs and they were overwhelmed by the popular demand. Especially as cryptography becomes more popular, the NSA's sinister-but- glamorous image could be a marketer's dream. Hal

5 4

Re: subpoenas of personal papers
by rxt109＠psu.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>I just saw a news story that bears on one of the perpetual questions on >this newsgroup: can you be compelled to turn over your encryption >key? In Doe vs. U.S. (93-523), the Supreme Court declined to rule on Just thought that I'd throw in my somewhat unrelated $.02... Here at Penn State University, a hacker/crakcer/whatever was caught on one of our mainframes back in 89 or 90 and he had some files encrypted with DES on his minidisk. The authorities asked him for the passphrase and told him that if he refused that they'd crack it with a Cray in something like six hours. He ultimately gave in but I wonder if it would have been legal for the authorities to brute force a passphrase on the file...this is relatively unbroken legal ground. Of course, this is DES which was made weak enough to be breakable. PGP is a much different story. -- --**--**-- R X T 1 0 9 @ E M A I L . P S U . E D U --**--**-- Bob Torres Use an electronic envelope... plato(a)phantom.com Support the use of cryptography. PGP public key available..

4 4

Re: The Packwood Memorial Diary Server
by jim＠bilbo.suite.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

jdblair writes: > Now, this sounds like a perfect opportunity for the > digital stamps we talked about using with anonymous mail > servers. Stamps could be sold in different megabyte-day > values. Say I've got 500 megs of gifs I want to hide for a > month-- slap a 15000 m-d stamp on the file, and send it off. > The file could be retrieved using an id number from the > stamp. > Cool. Another paradigm is to think of the Document Server as an anonymous digital safe deposit box server. A user could purchase, via anonymous digital cash, X megs of space up front, and then fill it up with whatever bits they wish. However, done this way, management of the contents of the box would be left to the user. Perhaps the service would offer specialized boxes for different types of contents. Just random thoughts (well, not provably random thoughts, of course). Jim_Miller(a)suite.com

1 0

Tidbits from DOD
by jdwilson＠gold.chem.hawaii.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Things have been so serious lately, I hope you don't mind if I inject a little bit of humor for you from the paperboy, cause it seems that life on isolated duty may have taken a turn for the worse: > > No. > 008-M > MEMORANDUM FOR CORRESPONDENTS January 7, 1994 > > The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) has announced > debarments and suspensions involving the following companies and > individuals: > > SUSPENSIONS > > California Inflatables Company, Inc., Oceanside, CA, Mr. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Robert D. Sandquist, San Diego, CA, Mr. David M. Ross, City of > Temecula, CA, Mr. Ronald C. Gladnick Jr., San Diego, CA, Mr. > Donald V. Hitzfield, Mission Viejo, CA > I guess they just don't make those dolls like they used to <hehehe> ============================================================================= | Aloha from paradise! | | "Don't take life so seriously, 9 | | nobody gets out alive..." 9 | | 9 | | Jim Wilson, jdwilson(a)gold.chem.hawaii.edu 999 | | 9 | | /\ 11*11*11*11*11*11*11*11*11*11*11 _()_ 9 | | 9 | | OTO FRC ETC| |"The opinions expressed are my own, or one of my personalities, or one | |of my channelled guides. I'm not crazy, just rationally challenged" Riba | =============================================================================

1 0

Re: subpoenas of personal papers
by greg＠ideath.goldenbear.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Chris Knight <uunet!crl.com!cknight> writes: > [quoting Phil Karn] > > There was a flurry of laws during the 1970s that extended somewhat > > similar privileges to reporters and their sources, but they don't seem > > to have held up very well since the Big Lurch to the Right. > > As I mentioned in the second paragraph of my original letter (The one you > didn't quote in your reply), I stated that those cases didn't hold > against reporters because of constutional backing (i.e. Freedom of the > Press). A protection which we do not have, unless you happen to publish. That constitutional backing is of questionable value - Rik Scarce (author of the book "Ecowarriors") recently spent months in jail in Washington State for refusing to reveal, to a federal grand jury, the whereabouts of a person he interviewed for a book about animal rights activists. He was released because a federal appellate court was convinced that holding him longer wouldn't make him reveal the information sought. - -- Greg Broiles "Sometimes you're the windshield, greg(a)goldenbear.com sometimes you're the bug." -- Mark Knopfler -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.4 iQCVAgUBLUYrNn3YhjZY3fMNAQGoPAP/W9ScBEcSeIFQ+ZKljRIyYGS9pV/vghEe EVTIBdmx9PQSwDTTIZITcApcr8vwdyGP3gzLghXfWDfYQz5ZhWlt7W8bgzZlBb3x geUVnSovXwWGqse2ZwlFEZrc8t1YfJcjYYktarhOFSl7Ko/K8ETEEY8zPaOLuRaM /5KygvnmWRc= =m1yI -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0