[OT] Note to new-ish subscribers: you joined a mailing list, not a "group". (fwd)
Resent to the new "cypherpunks@cpunks.org" address, as the old address is experiencing some kind of random delivery issue - my apologies if the copies sent to the old address show up [much] delayed, as seems to happen about half the time... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2014 02:25:27 -0600 (CST) From: J.A. Terranson <measl@mfn.org> To: cypherpunks@al-qaeda.net Subject: [OT] Note to new-ish subscribers: you joined a mailing list, not a "group". In response to several off-list emails, I believe that the Millenials Amongst Us (tm) may have a slightly off-kilter view of "What are CP's"? "cypherpunks are "doctors, lawyers, mathematicians, felons, druggies, anti-druggies, anarchists, libertarians, right-wing fanatics, left-wing fanatics, teachers, housewives, househusbands, students, cops and criminals,"[1] What I was [unsuccessfully] trying to point out to this Idjit was that the CP mailing list is *just* a mailing list: you have not joined "A Group", a "Political Party", or any other kind of organized "thing". You simply subscribed to a mailing list - that's it. There is only *one* universal position, or philosophy if you will: CP is a bunch of otherwise unconnected and likely opposite people (cops/criminals. felons/druggies & right wingers/left wingers, etc), who share a central concern over privacy and privacy enabling tools. Privacy is the ONLY thing that everyone here shares [in theory anyway]. There is NO GROUP. There is NO LEADER. There is NO RIGHT or WRONG "WAY"! Except for flat out trolling, there is ONLY one thing that binds all CP subscribers together: concern over privacy (digital or analog). From that concern for privacy flows a desire to contribute: some people write code, some people host code (remailers, TOR exit nodes, etc), but we all *use* code created and/or nursed along here, whether you realize it or not, so contribute some brain cells ;-) Play nice with others. Or don't - doesn't really matter, right? Yes, that was rhetorical. Grr... Got a little sidetracked there with the contribute some brain cells crap... Back to the point I was poorly making in the middle of the night (on 2 days with no sleep, waaaay too much caffiene, and, and ...). The *instant* you start believing that you have "joined a group" or some such nonsense, you'll find yourself in shackles: no bullshit, do your homework. *************************************************************************** * * * This list has a long history (day 2 pretty much) of both covert and * * overt monitoring by the Real Deal in Federal "Service": from Attorney's * * General [federal and state], to FBI to IRS and all the way down the * * alphabet - they all watch this list. So be aware of what you say, and * * how you say it. More than one list subscriber has done *serious* * * prison time for things they posted to this list: * * * * Think BEFORE you post. * * [2] * *************************************************************************** Last, but not least: Trolls.... Consider carefully whether a troll might not be a provocateur: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur It would not be the first time an Agent of the Federal Oligarchy has posted something here hoping to get a reaction that could be [and was] prosecuted using whatever Law-Of-The-Day was available for stretching that day. Look at my .sig. Go ahead - I'll wait till you get back. ... ... Pretty tame, right? Not so. I got "An Interview [3]" for it. Seriously. Don't fuck around unless you're willing to let them come for you. And they will: with delight and vengeance turned up to maximum. They will break their own laws, if necessary, when they come for you ("Hi Dennis!"). They don't exactly get written up for bending a law into a shape that nobody - including your Jury - can recognize ("Hi Tom!"). If your jury can't recognize it they WILL do what's expected of them: Convict. You will NOT get a fair trial, and you will NOT get a fair appeal, and nobody will get hurt except *you*. So for fucks sake, be *careful*. If you just can't be careful ("Hi ***"!), at least phrase it in such a way as to have Plausible Deniability[4]. If you can't control that either, at least avoid phrasing things in any way that would point at anyone else as a possible "co-conspirator": if you want to be a fuck up, you alone should be the recipient of your own lazyness. Hrmmmm... I already claimed to have written the "last" paragraph, but I forgot something else: Don't write to people directly (I break this rule a lot for those of you getting ready to say "huh? He just said *what*? Fuck me - we all have our issues), unless they specifically ask you to, or unless you have something to say that is truly private. A lot of people will get *really* Bent Out Of Shape(tm) over this one: it will often break reply-chains, although some people get bent for no reason I can identify - they're just plain fucking crazy. The Crazy Train makes very regular stops to both pickup and deliver to CPs. Get used to it ;-) //Alif -- [1] http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2002/09/55114 [2] People using proportional fonts probably see garbage here: GIGO ;-) [3] They don't call it "Interrogation" anymore. Now you are "Interviewed" into submission. [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability Those who make peaceful change impossible, make violent revolution inevitable. An American Spring is coming: one way or another.
"J.A. Terranson" <measl@mfn.org> wrote:
experiencing some kind of random delivery issue
@al-qaeda.net is deprecated. Apologies: I should have announced this on-list before I made the related configuration changes. In case anyone suspects censorship, chilling effects, et cetera, the explanation is actually much more innocuous: I'm trying to cut down the amount of spam my poor little VPS has to handle, and as you might imagine the amount that goes to @al-qaeda.net is *staggering*. (More to the point, after running the list @al-qaeda.net for more than ten years, this small gesture isn't going to somehow erase the internet's long memory.) -=rsw
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014, Riad S. Wahby wrote:
@al-qaeda.net is deprecated. Apologies: I should have announced this on-list before I made the related configuration changes.
Since you have done so now, it shouldn't be an issue: thanks - that was driving me *wild*!
In case anyone suspects censorship, chilling effects, et cetera, the explanation is actually much more innocuous: I'm trying to cut down the amount of spam my poor little VPS has to handle, and as you might imagine the amount that goes to @al-qaeda.net is *staggering*.
Well.... We (you personally) and I (me personally) have slightly different listrunner philosophies (I like reply-to to point to list, I like to see [C-Punks] headers for sorting, etc.), why don't we re-setup the distributed nodes? I have actual hardware, and a 100mb coloed rack of gear (read: lots of free cycles and bandwidth), so if you'd like, I can run the @aq over there ? Or I can set up a secondary @ of my own, doesn't matter: either way, I'd like to distribute again - game?
(More to the point, after running the list @al-qaeda.net for more than ten years, this small gesture isn't going to somehow erase the internet's long memory.)
Ah, yeah.... right.... Have fun with that! //Alif -- Those who make peaceful change impossible, make violent revolution inevitable. An American Spring is coming: one way or another.
Too bad al-qaeda is deprecated. Very good that it will take years, maybe forever, to recognize the tatoo is indelible. What happened to cypherpunks.org? Who owns it? It's registration is hidden behind GoDaddy. Listed Servers: Name Server:NS.CYPHERPUNKS.TO Name Server:ASTERIA.DEBIAN.OR.AT http://www.cypherpunks.to/ list familiar people.
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014, at 02:45 PM, John Young wrote:
What happened to cypherpunks.org? Who owns it? It's registration is hidden behind GoDaddy. Listed Servers:
Name Server:NS.CYPHERPUNKS.TO Name Server:ASTERIA.DEBIAN.OR.AT
http://www.cypherpunks.to/ list familiar people.
The "webmaster" mailbox at the domain appears to work, so maybe just asking them will give you useful info. -- Shawn K. Quinn skquinn@rushpost.com
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 12:45 PM, John Young <jya@pipeline.com> wrote:
... What happened to cypherpunks.org?
i think we can all agree 2014 is the year for cypherpunks.biz! (it may be our business is padding private prison revenues?) on a serious note, second the notion of more cpunk nodes....
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 01:15:07PM -0500, Riad S. Wahby wrote:
"J.A. Terranson" <measl@mfn.org> wrote:
experiencing some kind of random delivery issue
@al-qaeda.net is deprecated. Apologies: I should have announced this on-list before I made the related configuration changes.
In case anyone suspects censorship, chilling effects, et cetera, the explanation is actually much more innocuous: I'm trying to cut down the amount of spam my poor little VPS has to handle, and as you might imagine the amount that goes to @al-qaeda.net is *staggering*.
(More to the point, after running the list @al-qaeda.net for more than ten years, this small gesture isn't going to somehow erase the internet's long memory.)
-=rsw
I was struggling with spamassassin and attemping to implement reject- -at-smtp time filtering, and reading about this 'hashcash' idea, several years ago and thinking maybe it would be nice if someone would *pay* me to read their email. We have lots of privacyscam hash-cash code running around these days, so what are the chances of just advertising you only accept mail that includes a *coin payment to the recipient? (Granted, it's low because most *coiners don't seem to understand what mail is given they can't even figure out how to install mailman, but the hope remains) -- Troy
We have lots of privacyscam hash-cash code running around these days, so what are the chances of just advertising you only accept mail that includes a *coin payment to the recipient?
The obvious problem is that not everyone will pay, so you'll end up in a filter bubble of people who think their speech is so important it's worth tacking money on to make you read it, and people who think *you listening to them* is so important it requires money. One option to fix this is to revive mail priority levels, and set things up so that you can only have your mail regarded by recipients as "high priority" if it comes with cash. Another option is to have a pseudocurrency within mail; not a real thing, though perhaps exchangeable in bulk for real money, but just a way to measure roughly speaking the sending-to-receiving ratio of the *sender*. That is, when I set up my account, a well-respected server mints me 10 tokens for sending email. Recipients will weigh my mail in higher favour if I include a token, so by default I spend one per email. Recipients get to keep my tokens, in a bitcoinish transactional fashion. If I run out of tokens, people are more likely to ditch or ignore my mail, and I may have to mint some more by doing something free but time consuming like hard-proof-of-work (think hashcash in advance) or paying real money. So, if I'm running a normal email account, I'll send and receive my mail in a certain ratio, and that'll lead to a certain rate of coin accumulation or loss, but it'll be manageable. I might have to do hashcash now and again to replenish if I send more than I receive, or I might be swimming in 'coin if I receive lots and send little. But if I'm a spammer, I'll run out immediately, and have to buy more or spend a lot of time minting; same principal as hashcash, prohibitively expensive for something that requires huge volumes to catch the occasional idiot. This is a bastard combination of hashcash (which would have and would still work well if implemented, I feel) and the current white/blacklisting system for servers that impose a moderation responsibility on SMTP servers. But I think it mixes them in good ratio. Servers who are trusted can arbitrarily mint, but the usage of coins makes abuse self-limiting, so there's less load on the servers to moderate and invade privacy. On 20/01/14 05:13, Troy Benjegerdes wrote:
I was struggling with spamassassin and attemping to implement reject- -at-smtp time filtering, and reading about this 'hashcash' idea, several years ago and thinking maybe it would be nice if someone would *pay* me to read their email.
We have lots of privacyscam hash-cash code running around these days, so what are the chances of just advertising you only accept mail that includes a *coin payment to the recipient?
(Granted, it's low because most *coiners don't seem to understand what mail is given they can't even figure out how to install mailman, but the hope remains)
-- Troy
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014, Troy Benjegerdes wrote:
I was struggling with spamassassin and attemping to implement reject-
Duck S/A: learn to run a real mailserver: that's where the action is!
-at-smtp time filtering, and reading about this 'hashcash' idea, several years ago and thinking maybe it would be nice if someone would *pay* me to read their email.
We have lots of privacyscam hash-cash code running around these days, so what are the chances of just advertising you only accept mail that includes a *coin payment to the recipient?
Been examined at lenght, in detail, in the mid-90s. Remember that things have value even if they are not tied to a money system: cpu cycles have a value which is relative to each user/cpu. The idea of "charging" to read mail (as an antispam system), by reshifting the costs of delivering spam back to the sender through the tying up of the senders CPU cycles ("stamps") has been exhaustively examined. I would refer you to the Archive, but im not certain that any meaningful (pre-2003ish) archives still exist that would have all the mail from any 1 CDT, let alone all of them...
(Granted, it's low because most *coiners don't seem to understand what mail is given they can't even figure out how to install mailman, but the hope remains)
Don't fixate on coin (money). A common antispam measure is tarpitting (look it up), where known spammers are bogged down by resource depletion: unfortunately, theres no way at this point to superimpose stamping across the zillions of already installed SMTP systems (computers, printers, appliances, etc.). As you think about this, make sure you look both macroscopically as well as microscopically. //Alif -- Those who make peaceful change impossible, make violent revolution inevitable. An American Spring is coming: one way or another.
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 6:31 PM, J.A. Terranson <measl@mfn.org> wrote:
Last, but not least: Trolls....
Consider carefully whether a troll might not be a provocateur:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur
It would not be the first time an Agent of the Federal Oligarchy has posted something here hoping to get a reaction that could be [and was] prosecuted using whatever Law-Of-The-Day was available for stretching that day.
FYI now they make laws that are retroactive to indict - i know of a case (or 5 actually) where the law was made to indict and convict 2 years after the "crime" yup ppl went to fed prison for years ... seems the breech of the rule of law by the US has come more out of the shadows -- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet> Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.
On 20 Jan 2014, at 21:38 , Cari Machet <carimachet@gmail.com> wrote:
FYI now they make laws that are retroactive to indict - i know of a case (or 5 actually) where the law was made to indict and convict 2 years after the "crime" yup ppl went to fed prison for years ... seems the breech of the rule of law by the US has come more out of the shadows
Do you have a citation for those cases? I’m not doubting you, but the legal sophistry to argue that an ex post facto law was constitutional despite the explicit prohibition would be interesting. I’ve heard of cases where higher penalties were applied than existed at the time (which IIRC is banned by the ECHR and possibly the CCPR, although is allowed in the USA and elsewhere), or where statutes of limitations were extended, but a blatant ex post facto law seems surprising.
On Tue, 21 Jan 2014, Philip Shaw wrote:
On 20 Jan 2014, at 21:38 , Cari Machet <carimachet@gmail.com> wrote:
FYI now they make laws that are retroactive to indict - i know of a case (or 5 actually) where the law was made to indict and convict 2 years after the "crime" yup ppl went to fed prison for years ... seems the breech of the rule of law by the US has come more out of the shadows
Do you have a citation for those cases? I?m not doubting you, but the legal sophistry to argue that an ex post facto law was constitutional despite the explicit prohibition would be interesting. I?ve heard of cases where higher penalties were applied than existed at the time (which IIRC is banned by the ECHR and possibly the CCPR, although is allowed in the USA and elsewhere), or where statutes of limitations were extended, but a blatant ex post facto law seems surprising.
Telecom/NSA/*retroactive immunity* ring a bell? //Alif -- Those who make peaceful change impossible, make violent revolution inevitable. An American Spring is coming: one way or another.
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 9:17 PM, J.A. Terranson <measl@mfn.org> wrote:
FYI now they make laws that are retroactive to indict - i know of a Do you have a citation for those cases? I?m not doubting you, but the Telecom/NSA/*retroactive immunity* ring a bell?
That is effectively retroactive acquittal, not indictment.
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, grarpamp wrote:
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 22:34:12 -0500 From: grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> To: cpunks <cypherpunks@cpunks.org> Subject: Re: [OT] Note to new-ish subscribers: you joined a mailing list, not a "group". (fwd)
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 9:17 PM, J.A. Terranson <measl@mfn.org> wrote:
FYI now they make laws that are retroactive to indict - i know of a Do you have a citation for those cases? I?m not doubting you, but the Telecom/NSA/*retroactive immunity* ring a bell?
That is effectively retroactive acquittal, not indictment.
The constitution speaks of ex-post facto LAW, not aquittal law nor indictment law. That aside, I was personally found guilty of breaking a law that was not on the books at the time I was supposed to have committed the "crime", although it *was* on the books by the time I went to trial. Yes, I could have beat it on appeal, but it would have been so costly as to make it unworthy of the effort since I was "sententenced" to an "SIS" - something that may just be a local thing (since I've not heard the term anywhere else), or maybe it was just coming into use at the time (~1985). "SIS" ("Suspended Imposition of Sentence") - pay the fine, and don't get rearrested in the following six months, and the arrest, charge, and "conviction" gets vacated and "expunged"[1]. //Alif [1] "Expunged" it turns out is not used in the standard English way we all assume it is: the incident shows up as a "sealed criminal record", which can be (and has on more than one occasion since then) opened during any subsequent criminal proceeding and used against you for "showing a pattern of criminal behaviour" as well as for sentencing "points". "Expunged" my ass! Had this been explained to me by my so-called lawyer, I would have gone ahead with the [outrageously expensive] appeal of my $1,500 fine. -- Those who make peaceful change impossible, make violent revolution inevitable. An American Spring is coming: one way or another.
From: J.A. Terranson <measl@mfn.org> To: grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, grarpamp wrote:
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 22:34:12 -0500 From: grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> To: cpunks <cypherpunks@cpunks.org> Subject: Re: [OT] Note to new-ish subscribers: you joined a mailing list, not a "group". (fwd)
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 9:17 PM, J.A. Terranson <measl@mfn.org> wrote:
FYI now they make laws that are retroactive to indict - i know of a Do you have a citation for those cases? I?m not doubting you, but the Telecom/NSA/*retroactive immunity* ring a bell?
That is effectively retroactive acquittal, not indictment. [...]
[1] "Expunged" it turns out is not used in the standard English way we all assume it is: the incident shows up as a "sealed criminal record", which can be (and has on more than one occasion since then) opened during any subsequent criminal proceeding and used against you for "showing a pattern of criminal behaviour" as well as for sentencing "points". "Expunged" my ass! Had this been explained to me by my so-called lawyer, I would have gone ahead with the [outrageously expensive] appeal of my $1,500 fine.
In prison, there is a joke: "Suppose you find yourself on an elevator with your judge, your prosecutor, and your lawyer, and you have a gun with two bullets. What would you do? Answer, 'I'd shoot my lawyer TWICE to make sure the fucker is dead!!!'" Jim Bell
On 21 Jan 2014, at 12:47 , J.A. Terranson <measl@mfn.org> wrote:
Telecom/NSA/*retroactive immunity* ring a bell?
Retroactive acquittal is relatively OK - it is a good thing when applied to the people, for example people have been campaigning for a long time to get all British sodomy convictions quashed even though everyone has now been released, so we more or less have to accept that it *can* be used to clear government agents too, even if politically we shouldn’t approve (at least in specific cases). (For criminal matters, in many jurisdictions the government can simply refuse to prosecute cases against its agents and private prosecutions aren’t permitted in some places, so it doesn’t create any new danger to the public.) Retroactive indictment is the problem, and is far more dangerous.
From: Philip Shaw <wahspilihp@gmail.com> To: J.A. Terranson <measl@mfn.org> Cc: cpunks <cypherpunks@cpunks.org> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 8:28 PM Subject: Re: [OT] Note to new-ish subscribers: you joined a mailing list, not a "group". (fwd) On 21 Jan 2014, at 12:47 , J.A. Terranson <measl@mfn.org> wrote:
Telecom/NSA/*retroactive immunity* ring a bell? Retroactive acquittal is relatively OK - it is a good thing when applied to the people, for example people have been campaigning for a long time to get all British sodomy convictions >quashed even though everyone has now been released, so we more or less have to accept that it *can* be used to clear government agents too, even if politically we shouldn’t approve >(at least in specific cases). (For criminal matters, in many jurisdictions the government can simply refuse to prosecute cases against its agents and private prosecutions aren’t permitted >in some places, so it doesn’t create any new danger to the public.) Retroactive indictment is the problem, and is far more dangerous.
Au contraire! A good argument can be made that retroactive acquittal (more precisely, in this case, retroactive civil immunity of corporations) is a violation of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which says in relevant part: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;_nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws_. If people were supposed to be protected by the law in question, and once it was found out that the corporations were violating it (worse, doing that on behalf of the government!) then to give those corporations retroactive civil immunity amounts to denying the public that protection the law ostensibly was intended to provide. Jim Bell
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 12:06 AM, Jim Bell <jamesdbell8@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Philip Shaw <wahspilihp@gmail.com> On 21 Jan 2014, at 12:47 , J.A. Terranson <measl@mfn.org> wrote:
in specific cases). (For criminal matters, in many jurisdictions the government can simply refuse to prosecute cases against its agents and private prosecutions aren’t permitted in some places
Particularly regarding the US, in what places are such prosecutions or prosecutors permitted?
Telecom/NSA/*retroactive immunity* ring a bell? Retroactive acquittal is relatively OK - it is a good thing when applied to Retroactive indictment is the problem, and is far more dangerous.
Au contraire! A good argument can be made that retroactive acquittal (more precisely, in this case, retroactive civil immunity of corporations) is a violation of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which says in relevant part:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; _nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws_.
If people were supposed to be protected by the law in question, and once it was found out that the corporations were violating it (worse, doing that on behalf of the government!) then to give those corporations retroactive civil immunity amounts to denying the public that protection the law ostensibly was intended to provide.
The quote refers to the States doing the making/enforcing of abridging, the depriving, and the denying regarding fed law, or other state's laws as applicable. I believe telecom/nsa immunity happened only at the federal level, eg: fed wiretap law. (ie: The would be equal blanket protection of fed law was duly wiped out at the fed level, leaving suing AT&T in state court under state wiretap law as your only remaining option.)
Dnia poniedziałek, 20 stycznia 2014 21:06:49 Jim Bell pisze:
From: Philip Shaw <wahspilihp@gmail.com>
To: J.A. Terranson <measl@mfn.org> Cc: cpunks <cypherpunks@cpunks.org> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 8:28 PM Subject: Re: [OT] Note to new-ish subscribers: you joined a mailing list, not a "group". (fwd) On 21 Jan 2014, at 12:47 , J.A. Terranson <measl@mfn.org> wrote:
Telecom/NSA/*retroactive immunity* ring a bell?
Retroactive acquittal is relatively OK - it is a good thing when applied to the people, for example people have been campaigning for a long time to get all British sodomy convictions >quashed even though everyone has now been released, so we more or less have to accept that it *can* be used to clear government agents too, even if politically we shouldn’t approve >(at least in specific cases). (For criminal matters, in many jurisdictions the government can simply refuse to prosecute cases against its agents and private prosecutions aren’t permitted >in some places, so it doesn’t create any new danger to the public.) Retroactive indictment is the problem, and is far more dangerous.
Au contraire! A good argument can be made that retroactive acquittal (more precisely, in this case, retroactive civil immunity of corporations)
So let's stick to either the general thing (that seems to be more or less okay) *or* the specific not-okay thing, and not use arguments against the latter against the former, shall we? Because I'm sure we can agree here that retroactive corporate acquittal is bullshit and should not happen, under any circumstances. And I think we can agree that in some cases *personal* retroactive acquittal is not a bad idea. -- Pozdr rysiek
On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 12:48:46 +0100 rysiek <rysiek@hackerspace.pl> wrote:
Because I'm sure we can agree here that retroactive corporate acquittal is bullshit and should not happen, under any circumstances.
And I think we can agree that in some cases *personal* retroactive acquittal is not a bad idea.
Sure the question is whether or not you agree with the conviction? It is possible, theoretically at least, for a corporation to be convicted under a law that is later decided to be unjust. -- Steve Jones <steve@secretvolcanobase.org> Key fingerprint: 3550 BFC8 D7BA 4286 0FBC 4272 2AC8 A680 7167 C896
Dnia wtorek, 21 stycznia 2014 12:32:17 Steve Jones pisze:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 12:48:46 +0100
rysiek <rysiek@hackerspace.pl> wrote:
Because I'm sure we can agree here that retroactive corporate acquittal is bullshit and should not happen, under any circumstances.
And I think we can agree that in some cases *personal* retroactive acquittal is not a bad idea.
Sure the question is whether or not you agree with the conviction? It is possible, theoretically at least, for a corporation to be convicted under a law that is later decided to be unjust.
Corporations are not people. I don't give a flying whatever about such a situation, and I do not see why I should. -- Pozdr rysiek
On the question of retroactivity of law: http://www.heritage.org/constitution/articles/1/essays/62/bill-of-attainder On the question of selective enforcement of existing law, Obama has turned it into an art form: http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/liberal-icon-urges-obama-impeachment --dan
i love when they make excuses like well its better than china hahhahaha .... umn rule of law long loooooong dead ... what can we do about that? On 1/23/14, dan@geer.org <dan@geer.org> wrote:
On the question of retroactivity of law:
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/articles/1/essays/62/bill-of-attainder
On the question of selective enforcement of existing law, Obama has turned it into an art form:
http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/liberal-icon-urges-obama-impeachment
--dan
-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet> Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.
On 1/24/14, Cari Machet <carimachet@gmail.com> wrote:
i love when they make excuses like well its better than china hahhahaha ....
umn rule of law long loooooong dead ... what can we do about that?
On 1/23/14, dan@geer.org <dan@geer.org> wrote:
On the question of retroactivity of law:
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/articles/1/essays/62/bill-of-attainder
On the question of selective enforcement of existing law, Obama has turned it into an art form:
http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/liberal-icon-urges-obama-impeachment
--dan
and you know how ppl go around thinking that they get a lawyer for free no matter what ? that its guaranteed ? legal aide ? as there was a big law passed that there is going to be representation well ... the lawmakers dont like the poor to have representation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_aid_in_the_United_States
-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet>
Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.
-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet> Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.
--On Friday, January 24, 2014 3:15 AM +0000 Cari Machet <carimachet@gmail.com> wrote:
i love when they make excuses like well its better than china hahhahaha ....
umn rule of law long loooooong dead ... what can we do about that?
What do you think 'rule of law' is, and when do you think it was 'alive'? Maybe when jefferson and accomplices founded their little slave republic?
On 1/23/14, dan@geer.org <dan@geer.org> wrote:
On the question of retroactivity of law:
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/articles/1/essays/62/bill-of-attain der
On the question of selective enforcement of existing law, Obama has turned it into an art form:
http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/liberal-icon-urges-obama-impeachment
--dan
-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet>
Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.
From: Philip Shaw <wahspilihp@gmail.com> To: Cari Machet <carimachet@gmail.com> Cc: cpunks <cypherpunks@cpunks.org> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 6:11 PM Subject: Re: [OT] Note to new-ish subscribers: you joined a mailing list, not a "group". (fwd) On 20 Jan 2014, at 21:38 , Cari Machet <carimachet@gmail.com> wrote:
FYI now they make laws that are retroactive to indict - i know of a case (or 5 actually) where the law was made to indict and convict 2 years after the "crime" yup ppl went to fed prison for years ... seems the breech of the rule of law by the US has come more out of the shadows
Do you have a citation for those cases? I’m not doubting you, but the legal sophistry to argue that an ex post facto law was constitutional despite the explicit prohibition would be >interesting. I’ve heard of cases where higher penalties were applied than existed at the time (which IIRC is banned by the ECHR and possibly the CCPR, although is allowed in the USA >and elsewhere), or where statutes of limitations were extended, but a blatant ex post facto law seems surprising.
Yes, I too haven't seen any ex post facto law; however, as I recall ex post facto prohibition only works on criminal cases, not civil. I saw an indication of a criminal case where the limitations period was illegally extended. http://www.crimemagazine.com/firefighter-case-part-i I met two of these convicts while in prison, and I am absolutely convinced that they were falsely convicted. Worst, they were charged about 10 years after the crime, when the statute of limitations was about 5 years. There was no limitations period for crimes punishable by death, but the crime occurred during a time in which the Feds did not have a death penalty. Thus, the appeals court simply and deliberately violated the law. http://crimemagazine.com/analysis-8th-circuit-opinion-firefighters-case (However, on a skim I don't see reference to the statute of limitations issue here.) Jim Bell
On Jan 21, 2014, at 3:11 AM, Philip Shaw wrote:
On 20 Jan 2014, at 21:38 , Cari Machet <carimachet@gmail.com> wrote:
FYI now they make laws that are retroactive to indict - i know of a case (or 5 actually) where the law was made to indict and convict 2 years after the "crime" yup ppl went to fed prison for years ... seems the breech of the rule of law by the US has come more out of the shadows
Do you have a citation for those cases? I’m not doubting you, but the legal sophistry to argue that an ex post facto law was constitutional despite the explicit prohibition would be interesting. I’ve heard of cases where higher penalties were applied than existed at the time (which IIRC is banned by the ECHR and possibly the CCPR, although is allowed in the USA and elsewhere), or where statutes of limitations were extended, but a blatant ex post facto law seems surprising.
its the shac7 case there were convictions on stalking that were not illegal at the time of the incidents - thats my information from one of the defendants anyway and other laws were never utilized in such a way in order to convict activists or anyone - one law that was over 10 years old was used that had never been utilized in any case and even the name of the law was changed before the case was brought the problem with these kinds of cases is that they set precedent and no one knows about it AND the defendants rarely have the cash to properly fight the case so the system of law becomes flawed - broken
participants (16)
-
cari machet -
Cari Machet
-
Cathal Garvey -
coderman -
dan＠geer.org -
grarpamp -
J.A. Terranson -
Jim Bell -
John Young -
Juan Garofalo -
Philip Shaw -
Riad S. Wahby -
rysiek -
Shawn K. Quinn -
Steve Jones -
Troy Benjegerdes