- cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

Judge Mayer provides a strong case against software patents in Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec
by Zenaan Harkness 18 Oct '16

18 Oct '16

Good moves happening in the software patents in America situation. ----- Forwarded message from "Donald Robertson, III, FSF" <info(a)fsf.org> ----- Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 17:39:27 -0400 From: "Donald Robertson, III, FSF" <info(a)fsf.org> Read online: <https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/judge-mayer-provides-a-strong-case-agai…> The Free Software Foundation (FSF) has argued for years via its [End Software Patents][0] campaign that software patents are a threat to computer users everywhere and need to be abolished. In 2010, the FSF even funded a documentary, ["Patent Absurdity: how software patents broke the system,"][1] laying out the history of this destructive force. More recently, FSF, the Open Source Initiative, and the Software Freedom Law Center filed an [amicus curae][2] in the United State's Supreme Court case of *Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l* (*Alice*). There, we explained the dangers of software patents and [argued][3] that "not only do software idea patents fail established tests for patentability; they also violate the First Amendment." It appears that someone on the Federal Circuit (the court that hears appeals on cases involving patents in the U.S.) took note. [0]: http://endsoftpatents.org/ [1]: https://www.fsf.org/news/new-documentary-film-patent-absurdity [2]: https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2014/alice_v_cls-sflc_amicus.html [3]: https://www.fsf.org/news/fsf-joins-forces-with-software-freedom-law-center-… That someone is Judge Haldane Robert Mayer, who in a stunning concurrence in [*Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec* (links to a PDF)][4] outlined the case against software patents. The argument will be familiar to those who have read the FSF's Amicus in *Alice*: software patents fail basic tests for patentability and violate the First Amendment. And while the fact that it is only a concurrence (and not the main opinion of the court) means that it is not settled law, it is a huge step forward in protecting computer users from the dangers of software patents. [4]: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1769.Op… Mayer lays out the First Amendment argument against patentability of certain subjects, noting that limits on the subject matter of patents are meant to protect free expression. Under U.S. law, 35 U.S.C § 101 (section 101) lays out the scope of patentable subject matter. In analysing this section, courts have carved out certain subjects as being outside the scope of patentability so as to protect freedom of expression. In particular, abstract ideas and mental process have been found too threatening to the free exchange of ideas to permit them to be locked up in patents. After outlining the basics, Mayer goes on to state that "Most of the First Amendment concerns associated with patent protection could be avoided if this court were willing to acknowledge that **Alice sounded the death knell for software patents.**" This is a really significant statement, offering clear guidance in the right direction as to how the Supreme Court case should be viewed. Mayer notes that the Supreme Court in *Alice* "... explained that the 'mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.' ... Accordingly, '[t]he fact that a computer necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm is beside the point'..." Mayer explains that "Software lies in the antechamber of patentable invention. Because generically-implemented software is an 'idea' insufficiently linked to any defining physical structure other than a standard computer, it is a precursor to technology rather than technology itself." Mayer continues the line of thought to its practical conclusion: "Given that an 'idea' is not patentable ... and a generic computer is 'beside the point' in the eligibility analysis ... **all software implemented on a standard computer should be deemed categorically outside the bounds of section 101.**" Mayer even points out that the existence of free software itself is a strong argument against the granting of software patents. That the free software community has flourished for decades without the use of patents "suggests that innovation can flourish in software absent patent" restrictions. This opinion is exactly the sort of thing we've been fighting for all these years. If only the rest of the court in *Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec* had joined in with Mayer in recognizing that software should never be subject to patents. While it is a great victory to see this analysis produced by a judge here in the U.S., there's obviously more that needs to be done before the 'death knell' truly sounds for software patents all around the world. Here's what you can do to help bring about that victory even faster: * Keep up to date on the fight against software patents by joining the campaign to [End Software Patents][0] * Support our work in fighting software patents by making a [donation][5] or joining as an [FSF Associate member][6] [0]: http://endsoftpatents.org/ [5]: https://donate.fsf.org [6]: https://www.fsf.org/join Sincerely, Donald Robertson, III Copyright & Licensing Associate

1 0

Surveillance: Perpetual Facials and Warrantless Chicago
by grarpamp 18 Oct '16

18 Oct '16

https://theintercept.com/2016/10/18/study-lack-of-face-recognition-oversigh… https://www.aclu.org/letter/coalition-letter-department-justice-civil-right… https://www.perpetuallineup.org/ http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-267 https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B-MxWJP0ZmePT0hna01PZ2FqTVE?usp=sha… https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/FilesPDFs/drawing_blank.pdf http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/bs-md-facial-recognition-20… https://epic.org/foia/fbi/ngi/#FOIA A broad coalition of over 50 civil liberties groups delivered a letter to the Justice Department’s civil rights division Tuesday calling for an investigation into the expanding use of face recognition technology by police. “Safeguards to ensure this technology is being used fairly and responsibly appear to be virtually nonexistent,” the letter stated. The routine unsupervised use of face recognition systems, according to the dozens of signatories, threatens the privacy and civil liberties of millions — especially those of immigrants and people of color. These civil rights groups were provided with advance copies of a watershed 150-page report detailing — in many cases for the first time — how local police departments across the country have been using facial recognition technology. Titled “The Perpetual Lineup,” the report, published Tuesday morning by the Georgetown Center on Privacy & Technology, reveals that police deploy face recognition technology in ways that are more widespread, advanced, and unregulated than anyone has previously reported. https://theintercept.com/2016/10/18/how-chicago-police-convinced-courts-to-… The Chicago Police Department has acquired and used several varieties of advanced cellphone trackers since at least 2005 to target suspects in robberies, murders, kidnappings, and drug investigations. In most instances, officers only lightly described the devices’ advanced technical surveillance capabilities to courts, which allowed the police to use them, often without a warrant. Now, after a lengthy legal battle waged by Freddy Martinez, a Chicago software technician, court orders and case notes were released, painting a more detailed picture of how the second-largest police precinct in the U.S. uses surveillance technology to track cellphones. Martinez, who leads the Lucy Parson Labs, a Chicago-based nonprofit that advocates digital rights and transparency, originally sued for records in September 2014. He provided the released documents to The Intercept. The Chicago Police Department did not respond to request for comment. “The use of Stingrays as a part of the war on drugs, which were purchased with civil asset forfeiture funds,” demonstrates how “militarized equipment” is disproportionately used

1 0

US Election Candidates 2016
by grarpamp 18 Oct '16

18 Oct '16

1 0

Matt Damon: Our Problem Is Civil Obediance
by grarpamp 18 Oct '16

18 Oct '16

Some clips from Hollywood... Matt Damon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XSNHATC3kQ Woody Harrelson http://www.infiniteflames.com/2016/10/the-entire-world-needs-to-hear-this.h… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB_onSRDA-Q John Voight https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDlO50aQmuI

1 0

The only problem in Guantanamo bay is that there is too many empty beds
by Ben Mezger 18 Oct '16

18 Oct '16

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIEJbCAK3qQ

1 1

Stats check - "Taking away guns gives control to governments."
by Zenaan Harkness 18 Oct '16

18 Oct '16

Having received this email doing the rounds, which appears to be from 2013, I've done just a little web searching to see if a) this has a canonical URL, and b) if something basic is being twisted (a lie) or missed (lie by oversight). So far, I've found these URLs: http://bergersbeat.com/gun-control-and-statistical-facts-collide/ (this link includes in the comments a "stat" that in an average year in America, 17,000 of these gun related deaths are of children, so something doesn't seem to add up) This link duplicates the same 'article': https://farmacyseeds.net/forums/showthread.php/26139-Guns-Gun-Control-Real-… This is where I've landed on this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States which appears to confirm the stats below. Of course we object to the statement "15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified" which is a blatantly lie, but notwithstanding, the stats seem to basically match up. Previously to today, I had assumed that the "pro-firearms"/ "guns are relatively safe" position was a twist on the facts by pro-gun fanatics (oneself comes to mind) where the slogan "guns don't kill people, people do" rules the conversation. In fact, it seems that reducing the number of double cheeseburgers one consumes in a week will drastically improve your life span, statistically speaking, whereas banning guns is close to immeasurable in this regard. That sounds pretty black and white. Am I missing anything here? Zenaan ----- Original Message ----- Guns and drugs. Drugs and guns. There is a connection folks!! Interesting Facts About Gun Control: There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. U.S. population 324,059,091 as of Wednesday, June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.000000925% of the population die from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death: • 65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws • 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified • 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – gun violence • 3% are accidental discharge deaths So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Well, first, how are those deaths spanned across the nation? • 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago • 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore • 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit • 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years) So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause. This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation - or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 - and Alabama had 1. Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, so it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equally, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths. Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault - all are done by criminals and thinking that criminals will obey laws is ludicrous. That's why they are criminals. But what about other deaths each year? • 40,000+ die from a drug overdose – THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT! • 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths • 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities (exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide) Now it gets good: • 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer in Chicago than when you are in a hospital! • 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If Obama and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides.... Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions! So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It's pretty simple. Taking away guns gives control to governments. The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace. Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs. So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force at the command of Congress can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power." Remember, when it comes to "gun control", the important word is "control," not "gun." Surprisingly, these are not the statistics you hear about from the media or from the White House…. ever wonder why?

1 0

[USA] Hillary re Trump: “If that f – – – ing bastard wins, we all hang from nooses!...” - was WG: NBC Crew Crooked Hillarys massive Meltdown at Sept 7th
by Mycg Info 18 Oct '16

18 Oct '16

The "fun" levels are rising - no wonder "they"re going after Julian Assange :) Was Subject: WG: NBC Crew Crooked Hillarys massive Meltdown at Sept 7th ----- I've watched Matt Lauer the NBC's Host on our tv here in Australia. Good on him if he dared to ask the question that many so called msm reporters would not ask.... Trace http://www.stage2omega.com/sr1271-nbc-crew-crooked-hillarys-massive-meltdow… “She screamed she’d get that f…..ing Lauer fired for this.” Referring to Donald Trump, Clinton said: “If that f – – – ing bastard wins, we all hang from nooses! Lauer’s finished…and if I lose it’s all on your heads for screwing this up.” If true, the elites genuinely fear a Trump victory.

1 0

Spying In Latin America
by grarpamp 18 Oct '16

18 Oct '16

https://necessaryandproportionate.org/americas-reports Who Can Spy On Us? A Visual Guide A map of the state of communications surveillance in Latin America. Comparative Analysis of Surveillance Laws and Practices in Latin America Unblinking eyes: A legal analysis of surveillance laws in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Peru, Paraguay, and Uruguay with recommendations for a way forward.

1 0

Clinton's NWO Agents Op and Sling Trash At Assange Via UN Compact, UK Court
by grarpamp 17 Oct '16

17 Oct '16

Not only are the NWO throwing its Media SJW's and random attention whores against Trump in their attempts to blow him out and deflect all the leaks regarding Clinton... But they now appear to have possibly run an anon cyber op on a few Canadians (who filed report to Bahamas police) through some perverse and dangerous scam dating site in Texas, thus convincing site to a) courier this seemingly "too stupid and unlikely to be true" pedo story against Assange via their former (now rightfully and immediately revoked and delisted) UN Global Compact association, and b) file same in UK Court under a pointless contract dispute. The ploys these asshole politicians may be resorting to in order to stay in power is ridiculous. Sunshine Be Upon Them! Such is one possible interpretation... it remains to be seen what the real story is here. Stay tuned. http://www.prweb.com/releases/united-nations-report/julian-assange-wikileak… http://archive.is/b5CNT https://www.toddandclare.com/datinglife/online-dating/united-nations-statem… http://archive.is/Cqt4q https://www.unglobalcompact.org/system/attachments/cop_2016/322211/original… https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ruXBSKQHQtYJ:https://… https://archive.is/dZfvD United Nations Report COP/RTCS/290/18 United Nations GC Member: T&C Network Solutions (ToddandClare.com) Member Level: Advanced October 4, 2016 Report 9403.02 Agenda: UN GC Principle 10 98-86970 (E) *9990518990* UK lawsuit (Ref #C9QZ4K3T) Statement of Support by United Nations GC Member Appendix 1.1: Summary of the plaintiff's summons in UK lawsuit (Ref #C9QZ4K3T) against Julian Assange by ToddandClare.com for breach of contract. [As disclosed in this report, the context of our UK court action against Mr Assange significantly relates to a criminal investigation by the Royal Bahamas Police Force (RBPF) into Mr Julian Assange's alleged procurement and internet grooming of an 8-year-old girl in Nassau, Bahamas, that was reported by the family of a ToddandClare.com female user.] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Blythwood&diff=prev&ol… https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Todd_and_Clare&action=history http://icelandmonitor.mbl.is/news/news/2015/08/28/wikileaks_hacker_pleads_g… http://www.wikileaks-forum.com/recent https://www.facebook.com/wikileaksforum/posts/1194896360603636

3 3

Fwd: [Cryptography] changing crypto policy
by grarpamp 17 Oct '16

17 Oct '16

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: L Jean Camp <ljcamp(a)indiana.edu> Date: Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 9:38 PM Subject: [Cryptography] changing crypto policy To: cryptography(a)metzdowd.com I have never and will not again send an email like this. But if you want to change crypto and surveillance policy, this is your race. I wanted to point out Deborah Ross, who was a full time staff lawyer for the ACLU. Her opponent Burr is Chair of Senate Intelligence oversight committee. He mocks privacy concerns. He is a hazard to privacy and security. Thanks for considering this link: https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/privacy4ross Seriously, if crypto is your issue, this is your race. Thanks for your time! Prof. L. Jean Camp http://www.ljean.com Human-Centered Security http://usablesecurity.net/ Make a Difference http://www.ieeeusa.org/policy/govfel/congfel.asp _______________________________________________ The cryptography mailing list cryptography(a)metzdowd.com http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography

1 0