Biochemterror, anti-drugs, "both sides" of political spectrum

[Declan McCullagh]

today...

DEFENSE
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
News conference to introduce a plan to address defending the U.S. homeland.
Participants: Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., chairman, Select
 Committee on Ethics; Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa.;
 Joseph Collins, project director, CSIS; Dan
 Goure, deputy director, CSIS International
 Security Program and Frank Cilluffo, deputy
 director, CSIS Global organized Crime
Location: 106 Dirksen Senate Office Building. 10:30 a.m.
Contact: 202-775-3186


FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAD)
Special session to consider and adopt 1999-2000 national and hemispheric
reports on anti-drug efforts progress throughout the Americas, December
11-15. Highlights:  9 a.m. - Closed session  1 p.m. - Closing session,
open to media  2 p.m. - News conference
Location: Organization of American States (OAS), 17th
 St. and Constitution Ave., NW, Hall of the
 Americas. 9 a.m.
Contact: Janelle Conaway, 202-458-6841



SOCIAL ISSUES
Heritage Foundation
Annual Heritage/Talkers Forum, featuring radio talk show hosts from
both sides of the political spectrum on "Setting the Agenda for the
New Administration."
Location: Heritage Foundation, 214 Massachusetts Ave.,
 NE, Lehrman Auditorium. 12 noon
Contact: 202-608-6143, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
 or http://www.heritage.org

Biowomdterror today in DC

[Declan McCullagh]

FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Washington Foreign Press Center (WFPC)
Background briefing on a new phase for the "Rewards for Justice" program,
an initiative to prevent international terrorist acts. Foreign media
only please
Location: WFPC, Room 898, National Press Building, 14th
 and F St., NW. 2:15 p.m.
Contact: Andy Dryden, 202-661-8963
**NEW**

FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAD)
Special session to consider and adopt 1999-2000 national and hemispheric
reports on anti-drug efforts progress throughout the Americas, December
11-15. All sessions closed
Location: Organization of American States (OAS), 17th
 St. and Constitution Ave., NW, Hall of the
 Americas. 9 a.m.
Contact: Janelle Conaway, 202-458-6841
**NEW**


SOCIAL ISSUES
National Press Club Morning Newsmaker Program
Release of findings on U.S. terrorism preparedness to be sent to Congress
and the president.
Participants: Gov. Jim Gilmore, R-Va., chairman, Advisory
 Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities
 for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction
Location: National Press Club, 14th and F Sts., NW. 10 a.m.
Contact: 202-662-7593

Re: CDR:Re: The US mis-election - an oportunity for e-voting..

[Declan McCullagh]

Different standards aren't necessarily bad either. Local jurisdictions
have a substantial amount of leeway in ballot design in Florida,
which, Democratic partisan protests notwithstanding, is probably a
reasonable thing.

In other areas of the law, they have the opportunity to craft laws and
rules that are more suitable to their area of the country. Local
control and competition among different standards set by different
local communities generally is a good thing. If nothing else, it's the
way the U.S. political system was set up to work.

-Declan


On Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 11:17:15PM -0500, Robert Guerra wrote:
> In article <001c01c062e0$5db95fc0$0100a8c0@golem>, "Me" 
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > is there any benefit to the 'canadian system' above it's lack of
> > lawyers?
> 
> Having a plethora of different standards sure doesn't help..
> In Canada, and other countries there is a uniform ballot across the 
> country..something that hopefully will be introduced into the USA real 
> soon. 
> 
> > i dont see why any of these methods are inherently
> > better/safer/more accurate than those used in florida.
> 
> Counting a "X"'s I would think is easier than counting chads on punch 
> card ballots
> 
> > speaking of canadian elections, its too bad the canadian alliance
> > didnt get elected and revoke bill c-68 g, eh?
> 
> Polls before the election were correct and the alliance didn't win. If 
> somone wants to revoke bill c-68 they will have to wait 5 years until 
> the next elecion.
> 
> BTW. Many thanks to those of you who have replied to my earlier messages 
> on this topic. I hope to answer you within a day or so.
> 
> regards
> 
> robert
> -- 
> Robert Guerra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Fax: +1(303) 484-0302 
> WWW Page 
> PGPKeys  
> 

Insult Islam online, go to jail

[Declan McCullagh]

Malaysia Takes Action On Anti-Islam Internet Surfers

By Steve Gold, Newsbytes
KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA,
12 Dec 2000, 7:48 AM CST
Insulting Islam on the Internet in Malaysia could prove costly from now on, 
as the government has warned that offenders face fines of up to $1,300 
and/or three years in prison.

This draconian warning came from Abdul Hamid Othman, a minister in the 
Malaysian Prime Minister's Department Monday, when he said that any Muslim 
world Internet surfers who insult the Prophet Mohammed and the Koran, the 
Muslim equivalent of the bible, on the Internet, face dire consequences.

The legal action, he said, will be taken under Syariah criminal law - the 
Law of Mohammed - which all Muslim states adopt.

Othman's comments are likely to attract condemnation from Western Internet 
users and experts, many of whom, say Islamic proponents, do not understand 
the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed.

...

Re: Digital Economy Jargon Generator

[Declan McCullagh]

At 14:02 12/12/2000 -0800, Alan Olsen wrote:
>Better yet -- John Young. ]:>

Modern computer science has not advanced sufficiently to accomplish such a 
feat. :)

-Declan

Re: Digital Economy Jargon Generator

[Declan McCullagh]

I've got an idea! How about one that would make text look like it was 
spoken by a Canadian!?!

-Declan


At 16:25 12/12/2000 -0500, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
>At 4:04 PM -0500 on 12/12/00, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>
>
> > http://www.mccullagh.org/cgi-bin/jargonizer.cgi
>
>Great.
>
>Now all we need is one of those translators, like the one that turns text
>into something the Muppet's Swedish Chef would say...
>
>:-).
>
>Cheers,
>RAH
>--
>-
>R. A. Hettinga 
>The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/>
>44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
>"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
>[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
>experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

Re: Digital Economy Jargon Generator

[Declan McCullagh]

Here you go:

http://www.mccullagh.org/cgi-bin/jargonizer.cgi

-Declan


At 10:08 12/12/2000 -0800, Tim May wrote:

>With all of the talk recently of recursively-settled agoric market spaces, 
>multidimensional geodesic actor systems, and other jargon-heavy 
>marketbuzz, I've made up a little table of recommended names.
>
>Someone could make a little Perl or Python script to let the computers do 
>all the work.
>
>The idea is to take a couple of sexy terms from Columns 1 and 2 and apply 
>them to a noun from Column 3. Care should be taken to use terms which 
>evoke images from relativity, quantum mechanics, artificial life, and 
>other trendy areas. Anything that triggers images from "Star Trek" is good.
>
>Here it goes:
>
>
>Column 1Column 2  Column 3
>
>Distributed Fractal   Market
>
>GeodesicCoaseian  Ecosystem
>
>Holographic Geodesic  Space
>
>Multiply-connected  Biometric Ecology
>
>Least ActionParameterized Continuum
>
>Recursively-settled Holographic   Cyberspace
>
>Fractal Multidimensional  Bazaar
>
>BionomicDistributed   Hyperspace
>
>Agoric  Auction   Topology
>
>Best of breed   MetricMetaverse
>
>Dark Fiber  Anarchic  Arena
>
>Open-system Quantized Manifold
>
>Anarcho-topological Hayekian  Actor system
>
>
>Examples of usage:
>
>"Digital Datawhack is premised on the principle of creating distributed 
>biometric agoric arenas."
>
>"The Von Mises Corporation is the dominant player in deploying 
>recursively-settled holographic actor systems. It is our goal to make 
>agoric, open-system market topologies the bionomic norm."
>
>"Fractalbucks are the unit of currency in the Hayekworld bazaar-type open 
>Coaseian system. We believe it to be best of breed in the dark fiber 
>geodesic market space."
>
>Glad to be of help.
>
>
>--Tim May, Aptical Foddering Marketspace V.P.
>
>
>
>--
>(This .sig file has not been significantly changed since 1992. As the
>election debacle unfolds, it is time to prepare a new one. Stay tuned.)
>

Yet Another Survey: Americans have become privacy pragmatists

[Declan McCullagh]

[Originally sent to politech at politechbot.com. --DBM]

---

[I believe Americans care a lot about privacy invasions _when they don't 
have a choice_ -- such as cops sniffing your house for illegal drugs with 
airborne drones or Thermovision 210s. But when Americans _get to choose_ 
whether to give up their privacy in exchange for something of value, they 
often do. Just look at Safeway discount cards (and, in DC, Fresh Fields 
discount cards). Obviously not all choices -- health insurance comes to 
mind -- are as clear. But I don't think Americans will pay a lot extra to 
protect their privacy. How many Internet consumer-privacy firms have 
succeeded? --Declan]

***

From: Sonia Arrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: another privacy survey
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 16:41:15 -0800

"Ranks of Privacy 'Pragmatists' Are Growing"

Most Americans support the dissemination of data contained in public 
records, but they also say that there must be a legitimate legal or social 
reason for the extraction of this data, according to a recent survey 
conducted by Privacy and American Business and ORC International. As long 
as the information is not abused, most Americans support the use of 
personal data on the Internet for commercial purposes. This support 
includes the use of home or work addresses by law enforcement, potential 
employers, or consumer credit companies. Those surveyed believe it is less 
acceptable to allow private investigators or ordinary citizens to access 
the information. The 1,000 people surveyed in the report also say that they 
object to the government posting personally identifiable public information 
on the Internet unless there are safeguards. These safeguards include the 
government requiring the consent of the individual before personal 
information is displayed on public record, and requesting a specific 
purpose for such information to be displayed on the Internet. Privacy and 
American Business President Alan Westin says that more Americans now fall 
into the category of "privacy pragmatist" rather than "privacy 
fundamentalist." Ron Plesser of Piper Marbury Rudnick & Wolf says that the 
Internet industry must determine how to properly use Social Security 
numbers. "Regulating the purchase and sale of Social Security numbers over 
the Internet won't come overnight," Plesser says.

http://www.acm.org/technews/articles/2000-2/1211m.html#item6 

Re: The US mis-election - an oportunity for e-voting..

[Declan McCullagh]

Robert,
With respect, you're joking, right?

The current system is flawed, true, but an Internet voting system
would likely suffer from far more serious security, authentication,
and fraud problems. This is a recurring topic of discussion in
cryptographic and computer-risks circles. Do some web searches.

-Declan


On Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 10:23:17AM -0500, Robert Guerra wrote:
> Hey if there's a good side of the US mis-election this year.. it is that 
> finally there will be an attempt to improve and modernize the process.
> 
> One of the technologies to improve the voting process is secure 
> e-voting..Can anyone enlighten me as to who is working in the field.. Looks 
> like it will be the only tech stocks that will do well in 2001 !
> 
> regards
> 
> robert
> 

Re:

[Declan McCullagh]

On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 03:00:47AM -0800, Jonathan Wienke wrote:
> Hasn't any seen the movie 6th Day? Who needs a password when you can borrow
> the necessary biometric token from its owner if you have a hatchet or decent
> knife?

I taped a CSPAN show about two years ago before a bunch of high
school kids who were in DC for the week.

The subject of fingerprint access to bank ATMs came up and I mentioned
the lop-off-one-digit scenario. They were appropriately horrified, and
I don't think the moderator enjoyed it much either...

-Declan

Re: Ranks Of Privacy 'Pragmatists' Are Growing

[Declan McCullagh]

On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 01:00:25AM -0500, Daniel Orr wrote:
> Ronald Plesser, quoted at the end of the article, is an attorney for the
> Individual Reference Services group. You may remember the group as among the
> most vocal defenders of Lexis-Nexis when LN was going to sell social
> security numbers via it PTRAK service. Lexis is one of their members. 

Ron is far more than that: He's also out of house counsel for DMA. 

> Westin, the academic who ran the survey, is less than loved among many
> privacy advocates. I don't know the guy. He's probably on this listserv
> somewhere.

I do; I was even at his 70th (I think) birthday party. I think the
odds that he's on this list are phenomenally low. Privacy leftists
(what you really mean when you're saying privacy advocates) don't like
him because they think that after some seminal work he did, he sold
out and now supports the idea that there are some valid reasons for
corporate data exchange, etc. Heresy!

> Also, note the total absence of response from any actual privacy group such
> as EPIC or Junkbusters, something a balanced piece wouldn't omit.

You mean "privacy leftists," don't you?

-Declan

My short writeup of the NymIP effort

[Declan McCullagh]

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,40582,00.html

Devising Invisible Ink
by Declan McCullagh ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
2:00 a.m. Dec. 9, 2000 PST

WASHINGTON -- An ambitious effort to protect online anonymity will
kick off this weekend.

A working group of about a dozen technologists, called NymIP, is
gathering before the Internet Engineering Task Force's meeting to take
the very first steps toward devising a standard that will foster
untraceable communications and Web browsing for Internet users.

Currently, commercial products such as Anonymizer.com and Zero
Knowledge's Freedom client permit anonymous or pseudonymous
Net-surfing. The NymIP effort aims to create standard protocols that
would be more widely adopted and not tied to one company's product or
service.

Zero Knowledge, a Montreal firm, began the project last month, but the
working group is now headed by Harvard University's Scott Bradner, an
IETF veteran. Quips Zero Knowledge engineer John Bashinski: "I've been
heard enough as it is, and am trying to moderate my natural
big-mouthed tendencies and let others speak for a while."

One probable topic of discussion: The tradeoffs between bandwidth and
security. Absolute security requires scads of cover traffic to mask
the communications that a user wants to conceal, but it also eats up
bandwidth.

"Scalability isn't too bad if you're looking at scaling the number of
users," writes Bashinski in a post to the NymIP mailing list. "Where
scaling seems to bite you is with the size of the anonymity group,
defined as the set of users that, given the information the recipient
or an eavesdropper has, could have sent a given message. In
high-security systems, more or less those with meaningful resistance
to traffic analysis, scaling in the anonymity group size seems to be
superlinear, maybe even N^2."

Translation: That's enough to clog a lot of T-3 lines.

[...]



http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,40583,00.html

New Film 'Dungeons' Drags On
by Declan McCullagh ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

7:00 p.m. Dec. 8, 2000 PST
Too many films based on a tale with origins far from Hollywood suffer
from that irksome flaw of not being true to the original, leaving fans
to gnash their teeth and moan like an orc with gastritis.

Not so Dungeons & Dragons, which is afflicted with the related but
equally vexing ailment of hewing too closely to the awesomely popular
role-playing game that gave it life.

To wit: The 100-minute flick from New Line Cinema is less a story of
love and adventure than a convenient vehicle for some
occasionally-phenomenal light shows in dungeons and hordes of swooping
dragons flapping around the Empire of Izmer looking like nothing so
much as oversized pterodactyls equipped with +5 fireballs and terribly
bad attitudes.

But successful real-life D&D games require far more -- well-drawn
heroes and convincing antagonists are not at all optional. And in
devising this wide screen adaptation that opened Friday,
director-grand-poobah Courtney Solomon has failed repeated saving
throws against the chaotic-evil forces of blandness and blah.

By itself, the story shows promise.

A vaguely medieval society is sharply divided between the Mages -- an
elite and somewhat stuffy breed of magic users who skulk around their
towering stone fortress -- and everyone else.

Izmer's teen empress (an unremarkable Thora Birch) wants everyone to
be "equal," a vague but unobjectionable idea, while the evil Mage
Profion (Jeremy Irons) has successfully convinced the legislature
otherwise. A power struggle ensues that makes the Florida election look
like an endearing display of bonhomie, and the winner is the side
that can find the fabled Rod of Savrille and thus command the mighty
red dragons.

Enter two thieves, Ridley (Justin Whalin) and Snails (Marlon Wayans),
who join a cute young female mage, a grumpy dwarf, and an aloof elf --
your classic D&D traveling companions -- to trounce the bad guy, help
the good one, and perhaps encounter a love interest or two along the
way.

It's a good start, but not much more. The director, Solomon, can't
seem to decide whether to take the film seriously or allow it to spoof
itself -- and neither can the actors.

The performance by Academy Award-winning Irons is remarkable only in
how lackluster it is, and Wayans' inner-city slang is as out of place
as he would be in any believable Thieves' Guild.

Note to Solomon: Thieves should be lithe and sneaky, not bumbling
trolls. (At least -- spoiler alert -- this Jar Jar Binks stand-in is
slaughtered halfway through the movie.)

[...] 

Hypenated-Americans: For Tim

[Declan McCullagh]

About the American Hyphen Society

The American Hyphen Society is a community-based, not-for-profit,
grass-roots conciousness-raising/education-research alliance that seeks
to help effectuate the across-the-board self-empowerment of wide-ranging
culture-, nationality-, ethnicity-, creed-, gender-, and
sexual-orientation-defined identity groups by excising all
multiculturally-less-than-sensitive terminology from the English
language, and replacing it with counter-hegemonic, cruelty-, gender-,
bias-, and, if necessary, content-free speech. The society's motto is
"It became necessary to destroy the language in order to save it". Its
headquarters are in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.

US: Democracy or Republic?

[Declan McCullagh]

>Reply-To: "Kent Snyder-The Liberty Committee" 
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: "Kent Snyder-The Liberty Committee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "Declan McCullagh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Release:  Democracy or Republic?
>Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 13:57:19 -0500
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
>
>The Liberty Committee
>701 W. Broad Street, Fifth Floor
>Falls Church, VA  22046
>
>
>FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
>Thursday, December 07, 2000
>Contact:  Kent Snyder, 703-241-1003
>E-mail:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Web site:  http://www.thelibertycommittee.org
>
>THE UNITED STATES IS NOT A DEMOCRACY.  IT IS A REPUBLIC.  THE ELECTORAL
>COLLEGE SYSTEM SHOULD NOT BE CHANGED.
>
>House Concurrent Resolution (H.C.R.) 443 was submitted Monday, December
>4, 2000 by Representatives Ron Paul (TX), Jack Metcalf (WA), Bob Stump
>(AZ), and Mark Sanford (SC) expressing the sense of Congress in
>reaffirming the United States of America as a republic.  H.C. R. 443
>also reaffirms the electoral college system.
>
>"I call upon every member of the U.S. House of Representatives to
>cosponsor House Concurrent Resolution 443 and ask every citizen to see
>that they do," stated Kent Snyder executive director of The Liberty
>Committee.  He added, "The U.S. is a republic.  Our present system of
>selecting a president and vice president should remain so our republic
>of independent and sovereign states will remain."
>
>The Liberty Committee is a nationwide, grassroots organization of over
>45,000 Americans who are determined to restore the national government
>of the United States to its constitutional limitations in order for
>liberty to prevail.
>
>-30-
>
>

Report on 50-country cyber crime survey

[Declan McCullagh]

Today...

COMMERCE
The Johns Hopkins University Paul Nitze School of Advanced International 
Studies
+(SAIS)
"Global Cyber Crime: Weak Laws Threaten E-Commerce: But Does Euroopean
Remedy Go Too Far?" including release of a 50-country survey showing
patchwork of outdated and inconsistent laws shielding cyber criminals.
Participants: Bruce McConnell, president, McConnell International
 LLC; Henric Kaspersen, Council of Europ; Jeffrey
 Pryce, Steptoe & Johnson LLP; and James Dempsey,
 Center for Democracy and Technology
Location: SAIS, Nitze Building, 1740 Massachusetts Ave.,
 NW, Kenney Auditorium. 10:30 a.m.
Contact: Felisa Neuringer, 202-663-5626; e-mail, [EMAIL PROTECTED];
 or http://www.sais-jhu.edu

Re: My plan to deal with subpoenas to testify

[Declan McCullagh]

On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 01:08:13PM -0800, Tim May wrote:
> Actually, I remember someone saying during the Parker case that a 
> government travel office would make  all travel and lodging 
> arrangements.

My memory is hazy, but I believe this is correct. The form was for
incidentals like cab fare, meals,etc. 

-Declan

Re: Knowing your customer

[Declan McCullagh]

Oh, and the proposed KYC rules would have required banks to go further than 
requiring ID (other current rules, as you say, require that) and try to 
determine source of funds, etc.

-Declan

>You're thinking of something slightly different. The Fed-Treasury-FDIC 
>action that caused so much fuss would have made "suggested" KYC rules that 
>apply to banks mandatory. Here's the federal register notice abandoning 
>the propsed KYC regs:
>http://www.politechbot.com/p-00315.html
>
>-Declan

Re: Knowing your customer

[Declan McCullagh]

At 09:04 12/6/2000 -0800, Greg Broiles wrote:
>I'm not a banking law geek, but I believe that there are federal
>regs in place known as "know your customer" rules which apply to
>depository institutions like banks, credit unions, etc - the
>regs which were withdrawn would have required NBFI's (non-bank
>financial institutions) to comply with similar rules, as they're
>sometimes used instead of banks to avoid the KYC rules.
>
>Or am I thinking of something else?

You're thinking of something slightly different. The Fed-Treasury-FDIC 
action that caused so much fuss would have made "suggested" KYC rules that 
apply to banks mandatory. Here's the federal register notice abandoning the 
propsed KYC regs:
http://www.politechbot.com/p-00315.html

-Declan

Re: Knowing your customer

[Declan McCullagh]

A minor clarification: The formal proposal known as "Know Your
Customer" was withdrawn (see my back articles on that topic). But
other regulations in the same vein require banks to require ID. 

-Declan


On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 11:18:53AM -0800, Greg Broiles wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 06:40:08PM -, lcs Mixmaster Remailer wrote:
> > Payee traceability had nothing to do with it.  Every customer of MTB,
> > whether an end user or a merchant, had to fully identify himself to the
> > bank, including SSN and for merchants, type of business, etc.  This is
> > SOP for other payment systems like credit cards.
> > 
> > It was on this basis that MTB was able to screen their merchants.
> > No payee tracing was necessary.  A fully untraceable cash system would
> > have been equally amenable to merchant screening.  Any vendor has the
> > right to control whom it does business with, and MTB chose to exercise
> > its discretion in this way.
> 
> I don't know if MTB had a lot of discretion - banks are subject to the
> federal "know your customer" regulations. You can't get depositor
> anonymity from a bank chartered in the US, at least not without at least
> one level of corporate indirection (e.g., the bank "knows its customer"
> who is a domestic or foreign closely-held corp, who does the bidding of
> its unidentified-to-the-bank-and-FINCEN shareholders). 
> 
> > The Texas couple in the news recently made a different choice and
> > decided to provide payment services for child pornographers, as James
> > Donald recommends.  Now MTB is still in business (after merging with
> > MTL and then FSR) and the Texans are in jail.  Which made a better choice?
> 
> Sounds like the Texans knew too much about their customers - if they
> operated a content-neutral service which had many, many customers,
> one of whom happened to be a child-porn service, they'd be doing fine,
> especially if they shut off the child porn people if/when notified by
> law enforcement of the activity. Does the FBI shut down AOL and Earthlink
> when their subscribers traffic in child porn? 
> 
> --
> Greg Broiles [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> PO Box 897
> Oakland CA 94604
> 

Re: IBM Uses Keystroke-monitoring in NJ Mob Case (was Re: BNA's Internet Law News (ILN) - 12/5/00)

[Declan McCullagh]

On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 09:04:03AM -0500, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
> > KEYSTROKE MONITORING AND THE SOPRANOS
> > A federal gambling case against the son of a New Jersey mob
> > boss may provide the courts with the opportunity to weigh in

A copy of the indictment is here:
http://www.cluebot.com/article.pl?sid=00/12/06/0138246

Nicodemo S. Scarfo, the defendant in this case, is the son of the
former head of the Philadelphia-Atlantic City mob (who has been in
jail himself since 1991); Nicodemo is currently out on bail and
awaiting trial. His attorney was going to file a pretrial motion on
the crypto issue, but was replaced today  (conflict of interest rules)
with a new attorney, with whom I have not yet spoken.

So if you don't like this kind of FBI black bag job, you'll want to
root for Mr. Scarfo. :)

-Declan

PS: Some background on FBI black bag jobs and crypto:
  http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,33779,00.html

Scenes from the Supreme Court protests today

[Declan McCullagh]

http://www.mccullagh.org/theme/supreme-court-bush-gore-arguments.html

Re: Jim Bell

[Declan McCullagh]

At 01:06 11/28/2000 -0500, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
>Hmmm...
>
>Maybe it was Toto's ersatz-AP web page I was remembering, now that I think
>about it, which, of course, Toto *didn't* plead to...

Ah, I think you're right. I don't remember a whole lot of substance backing 
that allegation (it didn't help that it was most certainly baseless), but I 
do remember that being part of the complaint against the other 
"crypto-criminal."

-Declan

Cato study on biochemterror

[Declan McCullagh]

- Forwarded message from Patricia Mohr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -

From: "Patricia Mohr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Cato study: U.S. government leaves public unprepared for terrorism
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 10:45:44 -0500
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0

Cato Institute News Release

November 27, 2000

U.S. Government Leaves Public Unprepared For Terrorism
Preparation for nuclear, biological and chemical attacks is deeply flawed,
study says

WASHINGTON -- Many experts agree that the United States is likely to
experience a terrorist attack using a weapon of mass destruction, probably
within the next decade. But how prepared is America for a nuclear,
biological or chemical (NBC) attack on the homeland? Not very, according to
a new study from the Cato Institute. Despite spending tens of billions of
dollars annually on preparation programs, the federal government has failed
to take advantage of existing emergency management structures and to educate
the public about how to react to an attack, argues Eric. R. Taylor, a
chemistry professor and former officer in the Nuclear, Biological and
Chemical branch of the U.S. Army.

In "Are We Prepared for Terrorism Using Weapons of Mass Destruction?" Taylor
exposes the flaws in the federal Domestic Preparedness Program (DPP), which
was set up in 1997 and directs various federal agencies to train state and
local governments to deal with NBC terrorism. When the federal government
decided who should be trained, it targeted only cities, and then only
halfway, leaving "personnel in more than 50 percent of the major U.S.
population centers ... unprepared for such an attack," he says. But since
NBC contamination spreads quickly, it's not just cities that need to know
how to respond, Taylor argues.

State and regional structures such as the State Emergency Management
Agencies and National Guard units have been largely bypassed by the DPP,
Taylor says. Those agencies already have experience in coordinating
responses to terrorism and hazardous material disasters. Furthermore, they
could have been passing on acquired knowledge to subordinate groups while
the federal government moved on to other states, Taylor argues. The "pyramid
effect" has been reduced by focusing on cities in isolation, he says.

Even if the training programs were better targeted, Taylor argues, they are
useless without public involvement. "The lack of any organized program to
actively educate the public in matters of NBC awareness and preparedness is
the Achilles' heel of the entire national plan," he writes. Without
education, the government "will have two foes to combat during an attack:
the NBC agent and rampant civil panic," he says.

"The concepts and principles of NBC taught to the private first class
soldier can be understood by Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Public," Taylor says. But
they must be taught in advance. "Any official who thinks he can adequately
inform the public during an NBC incident will be preaching to the morgue,"
he says.

Policy Analysis no. 387 (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-387es.html)

Contact:Eric R. Taylor, associate professor of chemistry, University of
Louisiana, 337-482-6738
Ivan Eland, director of defense policy studies, 202-218-4630
Randy Clerihue, director of public affairs, 202-789-5266

The Cato Institute is a nonpartisan public policy research foundation
dedicated to broadening policy debate consistent with the traditional
American principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets,
and peace.



- End forwarded message -

Re: Schneier: Why Digital Signatures are not Signatures (was Re: CRYPTO-GRAM, November 15, 2000)

[Declan McCullagh]

Bruce's article is well-written, but it covers ground already
well-trodden by others. Moreover, most, if not all, of his points
apply to data-scrambling encryption applications on the same computer.

Still, maybe it'll raise the visibility of this problem.

-Declan


On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 10:51:06PM -0500, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
> At 5:58 PM -0600 on 11/15/00, Bruce Schneier wrote:
> 
> 
> > Why Digital Signatures Are Not Signatures
> >
> >
> >
> > When first invented in the 1970s, digital signatures made an amazing
> > promise: better than a handwritten signature -- unforgeable and uncopyable
> > -- on a document.  Today, they are a fundamental component of business in
> > cyberspace.  And numerous laws, state and now federal, have codified
> > digital signatures into law.
> >
> > These laws are a mistake.  Digital signatures are not signatures, and they
> > can't fulfill their promise.  Understanding why requires understanding how
> > they work.
> >
> > The math is complex, but the mechanics are simple.  Alice knows a secret,
> > called a private key.  When she wants to "sign" a document (or a message,
> > or any bucket of bits), she performs a mathematical calculation using the
> > document and her private key; then she appends the results of that
> > calculation -- called the "signature" -- to the document.  Anyone can
> > "verify" the signature by performing a different calculation with the
> > message and Alice's public key, which is publicly available.  If the
> > verification calculation checks out then Alice must have signed the
> > document, because only she knows her own private key.
> >
> > Mathematically, it works beautifully.  Semantically, it fails
> > miserably.  There's nothing in the description above that constitutes
> > signing.  In fact, calling whatever Alice creates a "digital signature" was
> > probably the most unfortunate nomenclature mistake in the history of
> > cryptography.
> >
> > In law, a signature serves to indicate agreement to, or at least
> > acknowledgment of, the document signed.  When a judge sees a paper document
> > signed by Alice, he knows that Alice held the document in her hands, and
> > has reason to believe that Alice read and agreed to the words on the
> > document.  The signature provides evidence of Alice's intentions.  (This is
> > a simplification.  With a few exceptions, you can't take a signed document
> > into court and argue that Alice signed it.  You have to get Alice to
> > testify that she signed it, or bring handwriting experts in and then it's
> > your word against hers.  That's why notarized signatures are used in many
> > circumstances.)
> >
> > When the same judge sees a digital signature, he doesn't know anything
> > about Alice's intentions.  He doesn't know if Alice agreed to the document,
> > or even if she ever saw it.
> >
> > The problem is that while a digital signature authenticates the document up
> > to the point of the signing computer, it doesn't authenticate the link
> > between that computer and Alice.  This is a subtle point.  For years, I
> > would explain the mathematics of digital signatures with sentences like:
> > "The signer computes a digital signature of message m by computing m^e mod
> > n."  This is complete nonsense.  I have digitally signed thousands of
> > electronic documents, and I have never computed m^e mod n in my entire
> > life.  My computer makes that calculation.  I am not signing anything; my
> > computer is.
> >
> > PGP is a good example.  This e-mail security program lets me digitally sign
> > my messages.  The user interface is simple: when I want to sign a message I
> > select the appropriate menu item, enter my passphrase into a dialog box,
> > and click "OK."  The program decrypts the private key with the passphrase,
> > and then calculates the digital signature and appends it to my
> > e-mail.  Whether I like it or not, it is a complete article of faith on my
> > part that PGP calculates a valid digital signature.  It is an article of
> > faith that PGP signs the message I intend it to.  It is an article of faith
> > that PGP doesn't ship a copy of my private key to someone else, who can
> > then sign whatever he wants in my name.
> >
> > I don't mean to malign PGP.  It's a good program, and if it is working
> > properly it will indeed sign what I intended to sign.  But someone could
> > easily write a rogue version of the program that displays one message on
> > the screen and signs another.  Someone could write a Back Orifice plug-in
> > that captures my private key and signs documents without my consent or
> > knowledge.  We've already seen one computer virus that attempts to steal
> > PGP private keys; nastier variants are certainly possible.
> >
> > The mathematics of cryptography, no matter how strong, cannot bridge the
> > gap between me and my computer.  Because the computer is not trusted, I
> > cannot rely on it to show me what it is doing or do what I tell it
> > to.  Checking the 

Re: Florida Electorial defection threat!

[Declan McCullagh]

The story is cited on perpetualelection.com. --Declan

On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 04:12:35AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> A Florida Electoral delegate for Dubya, (an unknown
> number of electoral votes), is threatening to vote
> for Gore. Apparently she is free to do so.
> 
> Her name is approximately Berta Morajelo, sounded
> Spanish or Cuban. Reported on MSNBC TV, who's WWW
> sucks rotten toads, so I don't visit it anymore.
> 

RE: Florida Electoral defection threat!

[Declan McCullagh]

Whoops. You're right: I meant to type "Oregon." If it went to the House, it 
would be a ~25-19 vote for Bush, per my Wired article on Sat. --Declan


At 12:45 11/15/2000 -0500, Trei, Peter wrote:
>You're correct on the 271, but I'm *sure* you didn't mean to
>type 'Utah'.
>
>Ok, two faithless electors would throw it to the house, and
>three would make it Gore, as I said on the 8th.
>
>Peter
>
> > --
> > From: Declan McCullagh[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 12:37 PM
> > To:   Trei, Peter
> > Cc:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> > Subject:  Re: Florida Electoral defection threat!
> >
> > No, if Bush won Florida but not Utah, he'd have
> > 246+25=271, not 270 e.v.
> >
> > If one elector defected, Bush would win, if two electors defected,
> > Bush would win (in House), if three electors defected, Gore would win.
> >
> > -Declan
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 11:16:38AM -0500, Trei, Peter wrote:
> > > Do the numbers:
> > >
> > > The electoral college standings are currently:
> > >
> > > Bush: 246
> > > Gore: 255
> > >
> > > Undecided states:
> > > Florida 25
> > > New Mexico 5
> > > Oregon 7
> > >
> > > Total 538
> > >
> > > If Bush gets Florida, but not OR & NM, he gets 270 votes,
> > > and Gore gets 268.
> > >
> > > One Bush elector defecting puts both at 269, a dead heat.
> > >
> > > Peter Trei
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >

Re: Florida Electoral defection threat!

[Declan McCullagh]

No, if Bush won Florida but not Utah, he'd have
246+25=271, not 270 e.v. 

If one elector defected, Bush would win, if two electors defected,
Bush would win (in House), if three electors defected, Gore would win.

-Declan

On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 11:16:38AM -0500, Trei, Peter wrote:
> Do the numbers:
> 
> The electoral college standings are currently:
> 
> Bush: 246
> Gore: 255
> 
> Undecided states:
> Florida 25
> New Mexico 5
> Oregon 7
> 
> Total 538
> 
> If Bush gets Florida, but not OR & NM, he gets 270 votes,
> and Gore gets 268. 
> 
> One Bush elector defecting puts both at 269, a dead heat.
> 
> Peter Trei
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: A secure voting protocol

[Declan McCullagh]

On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 02:41:14PM -0800, Tim May wrote:
> At 5:53 PM -0500 11/13/00, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> >On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 11:08:01AM -0800, Tim May wrote:
> >>  A "vote at home" protocol is vulnerable to all sorts of mischief that
> >>  has nothing to do with hackers intercepting the vote, blah blah.
> >
> >Righto. Absentee ballots require a witness, usually an officer (if
> >you're in the military) or a notary-type, to reduct in par tthe
> >intimidation problem.
> 
> 
> California absentee ballots require no such thing. My parents, as I 
> said, voted absentee California for many years. They simply filled 
> out their absentee ballots and dropped them in the mailbox.

Ah, I was talking about Florida law. To wit:

a.  One witness, who is a registered voter in the state, must affix
his or her signature, printed name, address, voter identification
number, and county of registration on the voter's certificate. Each
witness is limited to witnessing five ballots per election unless
certified as an absentee ballot coordinator. A candidate may not serve
as an attesting witness.

b.  Any notary or other officer entitled to administer oaths or any
Florida supervisor of elections or deputy supervisor of elections,
other than a candidate, may serve as an attesting witness.

-Declan

Re: A secure voting protocol

[Declan McCullagh]

On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 03:07:40PM -0800, Tim May wrote:
> 
> I did some more digging on various Florida sites which discuss 
> absentee ballots.
> 
> It looks like Florida makes a clear distinction between what I'll 
> call "ordinary absentee ballots" and what I'll call "military 
> absentee ballots."

Yes. Except the military absentee ballot category, under federal law,
include U.S. citizens living abroad permanent-wise. I posted the
language over the weekend.

Here it is again:

http://www.military.com/Content/MoreContent1/?file=vote_uocava
(5) "overseas voter" means --

(A) an absent uniformed services voter who, by reason of active duty
or service is absent from the United States on the date of the
election involved;

(B) a person who resides outside the United States and is qualified to
vote in the last place in which the person was domiciled before
leaving the United States; or

(C) a person who resides outside the United States and (but for such
residence) would be qualified to vote in the last place in which the
person was domiciled before leaving the United States.

-Declan

Re: what hell

[Declan McCullagh]

Yes.

On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 08:30:14PM +, ernesto leonardo soberanes rendon wrote:
> AM IN THIS PAGE AND I DONT GET IT WHAT ITS ALL ABOUT SO PLEASE TELL ME WHAT 
> CAND I DO WITH THIS INFORMATION I CAN LEARN FROM THIS OR WHAT I CAN TALK 
> WITH SOMEBODY AM CONFUSE I WAS READING A FEW EMAILS FROM PEOPLE I NEVER MEET 
> BEFORE SO THIS IS LEGAL I APRECIATE YOU CAN ANSWER THIS MAIL THANKS.
> 
> ERNESTO.
> _
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
> 
> Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at 
> http://profiles.msn.com.
> 

Re: A secure voting protocol

[Declan McCullagh]

On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 11:08:01AM -0800, Tim May wrote:
> A "vote at home" protocol is vulnerable to all sorts of mischief that 
> has nothing to do with hackers intercepting the vote, blah blah.

Righto. Absentee ballots require a witness, usually an officer (if
you're in the military) or a notary-type, to reduct in par tthe
intimidation problem.

-Declan

Re: Wired article on Jim Bell, links to search warrant and photo

[Declan McCullagh]

BTW I tried to get a copy of Bell's case file (including the search
warrant affidavit that Jeff Gordon & co would have had to swear out)
but as of midweek it was still sealed.

-Declan

Re: Declan on Bell

[Declan McCullagh]

On Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 11:54:44AM -0800, Eric Cordian wrote:
> So I repeat my question.  Does Jim Bell, aside from signing a statement
> prepared for him by the government, in order to avoid a much longer
> sentence, acknowlege annoying the IRS with unpleasant-smelling chemical
> substances?  A "yes" or "no" will suffice.

Eric, I'm not sure, and I don't feel like wasting my Saturday
afternoon doing research with little benefit. If you'd actually like
to find out the answer instead of wrangling here, you might want to
look at the documents that are online.

Or ask Jim yourself.

-Declan

Re: A successful lawsuit means Gore wins!

[Declan McCullagh]

On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 10:39:31PM -0800, Bill Stewart wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 05:58:11PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> I vote you are hereby ex-communicated from the Cypherpunks club,
> >> joining Dimitry Vulis.
> 
> At 07:05 PM 11/9/00 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> >Huh? Tim has been posting such articles for years. You weren't around
> >for the Y2K discussions.
> 
> George, you've got to remember not to mess with Winston Smith.
> Unlike some people who need killing, yer just gonna get unpersoned

Besides, George seems to have an unusual fixation on Vulis...

-Declan

Re: Looking for statistically-unlikely surges in absentee ballots

[Declan McCullagh]

At 11:36 11/11/2000 -0800, Tim May wrote:
>So, yes, I would say that there must obviously be other language on this. 
>If not, then you could have the journalistic scoop of the century, er, for 
>a few

Not this time. Some additional research says that the federal "Uniformed 
and Overseas Citizens Voting Act" requires states to take special 
procedures for voters who are in the military overseas or:

>a person who resides outside the United States and is qualified to vote in 
>the last place in which the person was domiciled before leaving the United 
>States; or
>a person who resides outside the United States and (but for such 
>residence) would be qualified to vote in the last place in which the 
>person was domiciled before leaving the United States.

Tourists abroad during that time need not apply.

Further, state law anticipates this:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0101/SEC62.HTM&Title=->2000->Ch0101->Section%2062
As soon as the remainder of the absentee ballots are printed, the 
supervisor shall provide an absentee ballot to each elector by whom a 
request for that ballot has been made by one of the following means:... By 
forwardable mail to voters who are entitled to vote by absentee ballot 
under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Voting Act.

-Declan

Re: Response to false statements about Zero-Knowledge

[Declan McCullagh]

Austin,

Thanks for your note. I respect what you're trying to do at ZKS. I think 
that if ZKS succeeds, the world will be a better place. Further, I have a 
tremendous deal of respect for some of the very excellent people you have 
hired.

But wishing something to be true does not make it so. My statement about 
ZKS' sluggish Freedom sales is based on extensive conversations over the 
last year with folks in this industry, web searches to see how many ZKS 
nyms appear to be in use, ancedotal information, and conversations with 
other ZKS employees.

As Greg says below, I was writing an article with 
less-than-perfectly-complete information, but information that I have and 
had every reason to believe is accurate. You did nothing to refute that 
belief, and saying "[we are] pleased with our results for Freedom" is an 
analytically and semantically null statement. The Subject: line of your 
message complains about "false statements," but you offer nothing by way of 
identification and refutation.

As you say, you did send a note to my Wired editor demanding a retraction. 
You received a response yesterday saying that Wired identified no errors of 
fact in my article and you were welcome to submit a letter to the editor. I 
hope you will, and I wish you luck at ZKS.

Yours,
Declan


At 15:10 11/10/2000 -0800, Greg Broiles wrote:
>On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 02:56:03PM -0500, Austin Hill wrote:
> >
> > First to set the record straight, Declan's claim that our software sales
> > have been poor is completely baseless. He has reported this as fact when
> > during my interview with him I clearly stated that we are pleased with our
> > results for Freedom and are seeing substantial growth, so much that we are
> > still hiring more engineers (adding to the already 100 we have working on
> > it) and adding more features and improvements to our consumer privacy
> > product.
>
>This is a non sequitur - the facts that "ZKS is happy with its sales" and
>"ZKS is hiring more engineers" are unrelated to Declan's evaluation of
>the available evidence regarding ZKS' sales. In the absence of numbers
>from ZKS - which would be the best source of that information, if it
>were available - people wanting to evaluate ZKS and its business must
>look at less helpful information, which will likely include anecdotal
>accounts which you dismiss.
>
>Now, if the question before us were "Are the shareholders and employees
>of ZKS happy with their sales?" or "Are ZKS' sales reasonably within
>the projections in their business plan?" or "Is ZKS close to
>bankruptcy?", then the facts and feelings you mention above would be
>responsive. Those are not, however, the questions raised about ZKS,
>so your remarks don't seem to be responsive.
>
>It doesn't seem reasonable for you to complain about Declan writing
>an article based on incomplete information, but to refuse to provide
>that information so that the article could be based on better data.
>I get the impression that you would prefer the article not appear
>at all - which is a reasonable thing to wish for, but not a reasonable
>thing to expect. If ZKS wants press, it will have to take the bad
>(or the inconvenient) along with the good.
>
> > Because we as a private company refuse to provide Declan with actual 
> sales &
> > revenue numbers he has persisted in reporting that this is because of poor
> > software sales, based on what he described as anecdotal evidence that 
> he has
> > observed in the cypherpunk community.
> >
> > Declan fails to mention that Freedom was never targeted toward Cypherpunks;
> > our goal was to incorporate Cypherpunk-level cryptography and philosophies
> > into a privacy tool that would empower the average Internet user to manage
> > their privacy online. Cypherpunks can build privacy tools for themselves;
> > our target market for Freedom is consumers who are concerned with their
> > privacy.
>
>Sure - cypherpunks are a very small market, so it would be very difficult for
>even a small business to survive on cypherpunk sales alone.
>
>However, that doesn't mean that cypherpunk purchases and evaluations are
>unimportant, or can be dismissed.
>
>High tech marketing people discuss a "technology adoption life cycle" -
>Geoffrey Moore writes about this (in _Crossing the Chasm_, et al) but
>I don't know if he was the first person to do so.
>
>Briefly, this model suggests that new products or technology are adopted
>at a rate which describes a bell curve - at the left edge, there's a
>initially small adoption rate which represents the activity of
>"innovators", people who actively seek out new technologies and products,
>and who frequently provide valuable unofficial marketing and support
>for new products. Moving to the right, we find the "early adopters",
>who are not technologists themselves (versus the innovators, who are)
>but are willing to risk adoption of a technology or product not proven
>on a wide scale if they see a strong benefit. Moving further to the
>righ

Re: Greetins from ZOG-occupied Palestine

[Declan McCullagh]

On Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 09:05:54AM -0800, Tim May wrote:
> Hilarious. Things are falling apart better and with more acrimony 
> than I'd hoped.
[...snip...]
> And so it goes, with recounts, judicial adjustments, do overs, and 
> other such things requested in dozens, then hundreds, then thousands 
> of counties.

As much as I'd appreciate, purely from the perspective of continued
amusement, this perpetual election to continue, I suspect it won't.

At least some Dems are publicly telling Al to back down:
http://www.perpetualelection.com/article.pl?sid=00/11/11/090229

If Al's stated litigiousness becomes perceived as a liability, we
might see a kind of trip from Capitol Hill to the Naval Observatory to
tell Al enough is enough. The irony is that one of the senators most
tempermentally likely to do so is, of course, the Dem VP candidate.

-Declan

Re: Declan on Bell

[Declan McCullagh]

Eric,

I invite folks to read the full article at:
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,40102,00.html
http://www.cluebot.com/article.pl?sid=00/11/11/101218&mode=nested

I'm not taking a position on Bell's case. I do need to tell my readers
why was locked up earlier, and that seemed a reasonable way to do it.
Bell was not coerced into taking the plea agreement; if anything, he
seems to have more mental resources to fight the system than other
defendants I have interviewed.

-Declan

On Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 09:40:34AM -0800, Eric Cordian wrote:
> In a Wired News article, Declan reports:
> 
> "In Bell's 1997, plea agreement, he admitted to owning chemicals that
>  could be used to produce Sarin gas and to stink-bombing the carpet
>  outside an IRS office."
> 
> Yeah, and I own chemicals for making chlorine gas.  Sodium hypochlorite
> solution, and sodium bisulphate.  I use these "dangerous" chemicals when I
> do my laundry, and when I clean my bathroom.
> 
> I think "chemicals that could be used to produce..." is pretty sleezy
> journalism, which could describe virtually anything.  I think using the
> word "admitted" in describing a plea bargain taken in lieu of a much
> longer prison sentence is also pretty sleezy journalism.
> 
> What were the chemicals in question?  Does Bell, outside of documents the
> government makes him sign, claim to have made the IRS doormat smell bad?
> 
> Does anyone with a clue think nitric acid is a ominous chemical for a
> chemist to own?
> 
> I'm really getting tired of Jim Bell articles whose tone suggests that
> despite the egregious mistreatment of Mr. Bell, the government apprehended
> him just in the nick of time, before he killed millions with homemade
> weapons of mass destruction.
> 
> Bell's Common Law Court was political theatre, his Assassination Politics
> essays satirical commentary on political accountability, and his
> documentation of smart-assed IRS employees consumer activism.  Aside from
> not giving his government-issued Social Security number to an employer, 
> the entire compendium of alleged Jim Bell crimes is little more than 
> one of IRS Agent Jeff Gordon's more extreme masturbation fantasies.
> 
> --  
> Eric Michael Cordian 0+
> O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division
> "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

Re: Looking for statistically-unlikely surges in absentee ballots

[Declan McCullagh]

On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 12:47:45PM -0800, Tim May wrote:
> I just heard Karen Hughes of the Bush Campaign express concern about 
> the status of absentee ballots being mailed AFTER the outcome of the 
> election was shown to be so close. In particular, after the legal 
> cut-off date.

Here's a link to the Florida law on absentee ballots:

---
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0101/SEC67.HTM&Title=->2000->Ch0101->Section%2067

(1) The supervisor of elections shall safely keep in his or her office
any envelopes received containing marked ballots of absent electors,
and he or she shall, before the canvassing of the election returns,
deliver the envelopes to the county canvassing board along with his or
her file or list kept regarding said ballots.

(2) All marked absent electors' ballots to be counted must be received
by the supervisor by 7 p.m. the day of the election. All ballots
received thereafter shall be marked with the time and date of receipt
and filed in the supervisor's office.
---

I must be missing something. Sure looks like the deadline was Tuesday,
with perhaps an exemption for overseas ballots elsewhere in the law?

-Declan

Re: Paper re privacy law, wiretaps

[Declan McCullagh]

Also see:

http://www.cluebot.com/article.pl?sid=00/11/10/0028217&mode=nested

On this topic.

-Declan

On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 11:52:49AM -0800, Greg Broiles wrote:
> An ISP trade organization has commissioned a paper detailing the
> legal basis (or lack thereof) for law enforcement requests to service
> providers for access to users' communications. The paper is 
> available online at ; I wasn't
> able to find a text/html version.
> 
> --
> Greg Broiles [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> PO Box 897
> Oakland CA 94604
> 

Bush campaign responds to Florida county controversy

[Declan McCullagh]

On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 04:22:21PM -0800, Tim May wrote:
> At 7:05 PM -0500 11/9/00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >James "too damn bad about the 19,000" Baker
> >ain't no piece of cake either, FYI.
> 
> He's right about the "19,000 spoiled ballots." Four years ago there 
> were 16,000 spoiled ballots in the same district, and that was with 
> lower overall turnout.

Right. See below.

-Declan


 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Ari Fleischer, Mindy
> November 9, 2000 Tucker
> or Dan Bartlett
> 
> Statement by Bush/Cheney Spokesman Ari Fleischer on Palm Beach County:
> 
> "New information has come to our attention that puts in perspective the
> results of the vote in Palm Beach County.   Palm Beach County is a Pat
> Buchanan stronghold and that's why Pat Buchanan received 3407 votes
> there. 
> 
> According to the Florida Department of State, 16,695 voters in Palm
> Beach County are registered to the Independent Party, the Reform Party,
> or the American Reform Party, an increase of 110% since the 1996
> presidential election.  Throughout the rest of Florida, the registration
> increase for these parties was roughly 38%.  In contrast, in neighboring
> Broward County, only 476 voters are registered to these parties.
> 
> In addition, in the 1996 presidential election, 14,872 ballots were
> invalidated for double counting in Palm Beach County, a figure
> comparable to the number of ballots dismissed this year, considering
> this year's higher turn out.
> 
> Given these facts, what happened on Election Night in Palm Beach County
> - a county whose elections are run by a Democrat - is an understandable
> event.  The Democrats who are politicizing and distorting these routine
> and predictable events risk doing our democracy a disservice.  
> 
> Throughout this process, it's important that no party to this election
> act in a precipitous manner or distort an existing voting pattern in an
> effort to misinform the public.  Our nation will be best served by a
> responsible approach to this recount.  This recount will be watched
> around the world.  Its outcome should not only serve as a testament to
> the strength of our democracy, but also a reflection of how each
> candidate deals with a matter of the utmost national importance.  
> 
> We remain confident that Governor Bush will win Florida and become the
> elected President of the United States."
> 
> Paid for by Bush-Cheney 2000, Inc.

Re: Democrats are arguing for "statistical sampling voting"

[Declan McCullagh]

I suggest that we find one county for each state that we believe to be
representative, let them vote, and then extrapolate from their results
and assign electors accordingly.

Or perhaps one household per state. I volunteer Tim and his cats to to
represent California. I know the way Nietzsche would vote, at least.

-Declan


On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 04:26:21PM -0800, Tim May wrote:
> 
> Democrat spinners are now talking up the idea of using "statistical 
> sampling" to assign some fraction of the spoiled ballots to Al Gore.
> 
> Not a surprise, given that it was the Democrats who wanted to augment 
> the "direct count" of the U.S. Census with "statistical fudge 
> factors."
> 
> I never thought I'd hear this bizarre notion extended to the vote, though!
> 
> 
> 
> --Tim May
> 
> -- 
> -:-:-:-:-:-:-:
> Timothy C. May  | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
> ComSec 3DES:   831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
> W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
> "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
> 

Re: Reporting weirdness: Hagelin vs. Browne

[Declan McCullagh]

On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 11:40:10AM -0800, Alan Olsen wrote:
> Browne was the un-canidate in this election.  The press went out of their
> way to avoid mentioning or reporting on him in any way, shape or form.

Yes, and no. We profiled him at Wired; I mentioned him in about seven
articles. LA Times did a front-page story. Etc. A better question
might be was his coverage (what there was) fair or biased?

-Declan

Re: A successful lawsuit means Gore wins!

[Declan McCullagh]

Huh? Tim has been posting such articles for years. You weren't around
for the Y2K discussions.

-Declan


On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 05:58:11PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Spooky Cypherpunk Niggar Tim May Moroned:
> #When I hear Jesse Jackson saying that unless the Palm Beach voters
> #are given the chance to have a new vote there will be a race war, I
> #rejoice.
> #
> #I was just reading in misc.survivalism that some folks in Florida are
> #saying that if Al Gore and his Voters of Color succeed in twisting
> #the courts into stealing the election, that white folks will start
> #killing.
> #
> #Music to my ears. The fuse is burning on the powder keg.
> 
> Holy shit!
> 
> I vote you are hereby ex-communicated from the Cypherpunks club,
> joining Dimitry Vulis.
> 

Re: A successful lawsuit means Gore wins!

[Declan McCullagh]

Warren Christopher, the arbiter of truth? Right...

-Declan


On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 05:24:53PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Jim Burnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> #I could stomach 'might be illegal', but illegal?
> 
> Warren Christopher was just on TV, calling the ballot illegal.
> Let's leave it at that until a court decides.
> 
> 
> 
> Spooky Cypherpunk Niggar Tim May Moroned:
> #And, of course, Palm County will _not_ be given a
> #second chance to vote in this election. I guarantee it.
> 
> It's either that or the choice you liked even less.
> 
> Protest crowds are growing. Bush can't take office
> when half the country thinks people were screwed
> out of their vote to have that happen.
> 
> Not in America, buddy.
> 
> And your hallucinatory Truck O' Dynamite will never change that.
> 
> 
> 
> Declan, King of the Wired, wrote:
> #Amusing. But that's a suggested ballot, and not one
> #that's legally required. Which was my point.
> 
> But the _directions_ were not "sample" directions.
> 
> 
> 
> Florida is now saying it won't be until Nov 17th
> until they can certify the vote. Bush's lead is
> now only 359.
> 
> Federal investigators are looking into U.S.P.O. funny business
> at one unnamed office.
> 

Re: A successful lawsuit means Gore wins!

[Declan McCullagh]

Amusing. But that's a suggested ballot, and not one that's legally
required. Which was my point.

At the very least, the law is not as clear as the Dems want to claim.

-Declan

On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 11:42:42AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Declan, King of the Wired, wrote:
> #TO VOTE for a candidate whose name is printed on the ballot, 
> #mark a cross (X) in the blank space at the RIGHT of the name 
> #of the candidate for whom you desire to vote. To vote for a 
> #candidate whose name is not printed on the ballot, write the 
> #candidate's name in the blank space provided for that purpose.
> 
> Yep: that was clear.
> 
> Declan, King of the Wired, wrote:
> #(As a followup, I should say I see "RIGHT" in the sample ballot, 
> 
> You're so cute! C'mere...coootchi-coootchie-coo!!!
> 

Re: A successful lawsuit means Gore wins!

[Declan McCullagh]

It would be simpler, and probably fairer (in a general sense) to discard
those ballots that are suspect. Elections such as this should not be
re-run.

Take it down to its most general form. Gore and Bush are tied. My
ballot was mangled during processing and is unreadable; I successfully
sue for a rerun of the election, just for my ballot alone.  Is this a
good thing?

-Declan


On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 09:28:29PM -0800, Tim May wrote:
> At 8:57 PM -0800 11/8/00, Ernest Hua wrote:
> >  > There cannot be a re-vote of the County, or even of the entire State,
> >>  as this would distort the forces acting on the electorate in a way
> >>  never seen before. The Palm County voters would know _they_ would be
> >>  electing the next president. Billions of dollars would be spent
> >>  trying to buy each and every voter.
> >
> >"distort the forces ..."   Lord!  No!  Don't let them do that!
> >
> >Geez, Tim.  What happened to personal responsibility?  Who gives two
> >bits what "forces" will be upon them.  They will ultimately still
> >have to cast a vote which they were casting just days earlier.  Who
> >cares if idiots spend billions to sway a few thousand votes.  That's
> >THEIR problem.  It's free speech, as you have claimed in the past.
> 
> You're a complete idiot if you don't understand this point.
> 
> I made my points, briefly, above. This would not be a matter of the 
> same voters simply recasting their same ballots. Think about it.
> 
> (I'm not convinced you can, Ernest. In reading hundreds of your posts 
> I have concluded that you're just part of Vinge's "Slow Zone.")
> 
> 
> --Tim May
> -- 
> -:-:-:-:-:-:-:
> Timothy C. May  | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
> ComSec 3DES:   831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
> W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
> "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
> 

Re: A successful lawsuit means Gore wins!

[Declan McCullagh]

I haven't found such a requirement in Florida law. See below.

-Declan

...

 In counties where paper ballots are used, each elector shall be given a ballot by the 
inspector. Before delivering the ballot to the elector, one of the inspectors shall 
write his or her initials or name on the stub attached to the ballot; then the elector 
shall, without leaving the polling place, retire alone to a booth or compartment 
provided, and place an "X" mark after the name of the candidate of his or her choice 
for each office to be filled, and likewise mark an "X" after the answer he or she 
desires in case of a constitutional amendment or other question submitted to a vote. 

...

101.191  Form of general election ballot.-- 

(1)  The general election ballot shall be in substantially the following form: 



OFFICIAL BALLOT GENERAL ELECTION

No. _ _ COUNTY, FLORIDA 

Precinct No. _


 (Date) 

(Signature of Voter) 
(Initials of Issuing Official)



Stub No. 1



OFFICIAL BALLOT GENERAL ELECTION

No. _ _ COUNTY, FLORIDA 

Precinct No. _


 (Date) 


(Initials of Issuing Official)



Stub No. 2



OFFICIAL BALLOT GENERAL ELECTION


_COUNTY, FLORIDA


Precinct No. _


 (Date) 
TO VOTE for a candidate whose name is printed on the ballot, mark a cross (X) in the 
blank space at the RIGHT of the name of the candidate for whom you desire to vote. To 
vote for a candidate whose name is not printed on the ballot, write the candidate's 
name in the blank space provided for that purpose. 



ELECTORS


For President


and


Vice President


(A vote for the candidates will actually be a vote for their electors) 
Vote for group 


DEMOCRATIC


(Name of Candidate) 
For President 

   [ ] 

(Name of Candidate) 

For Vice President 



REPUBLICAN


(Name of Candidate) 
For President 

   [ ] 

(Name of Candidate) 

For Vice President 



(NAME OF MINOR PARTY)


(Name of Candidate) 
For President 

   [ ] 

(Name of Candidate) 

For Vice President 



NO PARTY AFFILIATION


(Name of Candidate) 
For President 

   [ ] 

(Name of Candidate) 

For Vice President 



WRITE-IN


For President 

For Vice President 


CONGRESSIONAL

UNITED STATES SENATOR 
Vote for One 

(Name of Candidate) (Party abbreviation)  [ ] 

(Name of Candidate) (Party abbreviation)  [ ] 

(And thence other offices under this heading, followed by the headings and offices as 
prescribed in s. 101.151.) 



PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL


AMENDMENTS OR OTHER PUBLIC MEASURES

To vote on a constitutional amendment or other public measure, mark a cross (X) in the 
blank space next to either YES or NO. 


No. _


CONSTITUTIONAL


AMENDMENT


ARTICLE _, SECTION _



(Here the wording of the substance of the amendment shall be inserted.) 

YES for Approval   [ ] 

NO for Rejection   [ ] 

(2)  The general election ballot shall be arranged and printed so that the offices of 
President and Vice President are joined in a single voting space to allow each elector 
to cast a single vote for the joint candidacies for President and Vice President and 
so that the offices of Governor and Lieutenant Governor are joined in a single voting 
space to allow each elector to cast a single vote for the joint candidacies for 
Governor and Lieutenant Governor. 

Re: Jim Bell's House Being Searched

[Declan McCullagh]

Blanc,

The election is nigh, but I would still be interested in writing about
Jim Bell's apparent latest legal trouble if it escalates. (That is, if
it's related to his previous arrests, and I suspect it is.)

If Bell is unable to post, you or any other cpunk can reach me at 202
986 3455 or this email address. My PGP key is on the servers, and I
accept anonymous mail.

-Declan


On Mon, Nov 06, 2000 at 11:25:38AM -0800, Blanc Weber wrote:
> Just received word from Jim that there are some law enforcement types going
> through a search of his house, apparently with 'authorization'. He was
> downstairs when his mother let them in, so says he didn't know what their
> explanation was for their appearance, what they were looking for, or what
> his mother had to say to them or vice-versa.
> 
> If possible he will post info and details to cpunks later.
> 
>   ..
> Blanc
> 

Wired News Senate scorecard: Democrats beat Republicans

[Declan McCullagh]

Just in time for Tuesday's election, Wired News has compiled a tech 
scorecard for the U.S. Senate.

The list sorted by last name:
   http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,39923,00.html
Sorted by score:
   http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,39978,00.html
Info on House of Representatives scorecard from last month:
   http://www.politechbot.com/p-01445.html

Some interesting results: Democrats did well, nabbing the four top slots, 
and beating the Republicans 52 percent to 48 percent overall. But Joseph 
Lieberman, the Democratic VP hopeful, finished with just 38 percent, in the 
fifth-worst position.

Democrat Patrick Moyhihan did the best out of everyone, surprisingly. That 
was probably because he missed three votes -- on at least one he would 
probably have gone the wrong way -- but we scored on percentage of cast 
votes, not possible votes.

-Declan

#1: A vote to allow the use of electronic signatures. (Yes is 1)
#2: A vote for a juvenile crime bill that included Internet regulation
(No is 1)
#3: A vote for additional H-1B visas. (Yes is 1)
#4: A vote to require federal candidates to disclose contributions
online within 24 hours. (Yes is 1)
#5: A vote to require Internet providers to offer filtering software.
(No is 1)
#6: A vote to establish permanent trade relations with China. (Yes is
1)
#7: A vote to oppose special restrictions on online sales of firearms.
(Yes is 1)
#8: A vote to create an information-technology-training tax credit.
(Yes is 1)
#9: A vote to restrict online sales of alcohol. (No is 1)
#10: A vote to single out purportedly offensive content online and
offline and create a commission to study it. (No is 1) 

Re: Here's an interesting twist on gun control ...

[Declan McCullagh]

This is a somewhat interesting question. Presumably just as the right
to speak freely includes the right to keep one's silence, the right to
bear arms includes the right to remain weaponless (modulo conscription).

The 2A arguably goes further than the 1A; the first is a literal
prohibition on what Congress may do (at least in those pre-14th days),
while the second says the right "shall not be infringed." So if we
agree the right exists, by a strict originalist reading of the
Constitution, it's reasonable that it would be unconstitutional for
any government to require such.

-Declan


On Sun, Nov 05, 2000 at 07:35:33PM -0500, Peter Capelli/Raleigh/Contr/IBM wrote:
>  Yes, while it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to
> pass this law, how could it be unconstitutional as a local or state
> statute?  Something similar to requiring X number of smoke detectors per
> square foot.  Additionally, it does not mention a paperwork requirement for
> not owning a gun.
> 
>  While I admit it seems like a foolish law (akin to requiring a citizen
> to vote), I hardly see how it would require 'a killing'.  Also, given their
> views, killing them may not be as easy as others who are unarmed. ;-)
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> -p
> 
> "Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve
> neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin, 1759
> 
> 
> Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>@cyberpass.net on 11/05/2000 04:32:13 PM
> 
> Please respond to Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> Sent by:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> cc:
> Subject:  Re: Here's an interesting twist on gun control ...
> 
> 
> 
> At 3:37 PM -0500 11/5/00, Peter Capelli/Raleigh/Contr/IBM wrote:
> >http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/11/05/mandatory.guns.ap/index.html
> >
> >
> >
> >   Utah town requires all households to own gun
> >
> >   November 5, 2000
> >   Web posted at: 11:22 AM EST (1622 GMT)
> >
> >   VIRGIN, Utah (AP) -- This tiny southern Utah town
> >has enacted an ordinance
> >   requiring a gun and ammunition in every home for
> >residents' self-defense.
> >
> >   Most of Virgin's 350 residents already own
> >firearms, so the initiative has lots of
> >   support, Mayor Jay Lee said.
> >
> >   Residents had expressed fear that their Second
> >Amendment right to bear arms
> >   was under fire, so the town council modeled a
> >similar measure passed by a
> >   Georgia city about 12 years ago.
> >
> >   The mentally ill, convicted felons, conscientious
> >objectors and people who
> >   cannot afford to own a gun are exempt.
> 
> This has been done before. A town in Georgia, one in Ohio or
> Illinois, as I recall.
> 
> t is just as unconstitutional to _require_ a gun as it is to _ban_ guns.
> 
> The crap about "conscientious objector" is just that, crap. I shouldn't
> have to fill out some bullshit form to say I have conscientious
> objections to having a gun in my house.
> 
> Government may no more require a gun in a house than it may require a
> television, or a telephone, or a toothbrush.
> 
> Yes, I know the law is pure fluff, and hence is moot, a nullity, as
> they say. But the principle of _requiring_ a  gun is just as foolish
> as the notion of banning guns. Frankly, those who pass such laws need
> killing just as much as the tens of thousands who are banning guns
> need killing.
> 
> 
> --Tim May
> 
> --
> -:-:-:-:-:-:-:
> Timothy C. May  | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
> ComSec 3DES:   831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
> W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
> "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
> 
> 
> 

Re: Connie Chung fucks up & things are not as they seem.A good example of the tremen

[Declan McCullagh]

Source? TV show? Date? Transcript?

-Declan


On Sat, Nov 04, 2000 at 10:20:10PM -0600, Gary Jeffers wrote:
> My fellow Cypherpunks, The following is interesting.
> 
> 
> http://www.albany.net/~rwcecot/iraap/Quinn/phoenix1.htm
> 
> find string: Connie Chung
> 
> 
> A good example of the tremendous degree to which the major news media 
> organizations are called to heel is seen in the facts surrounding the two 
> year hiatus in the professional career of CBS broadcaster Connie Chung, who 
> had the misfortune to have ended up being paired with Dan Rather several 
> years ago.
> 
> On a live call-in TV talk show some two years ago, Ms. Chung responded with 
> a bit too much candor to a question as to what actually gets reported 
> publicly by the major news media, given the great number of stories and 
> items which come from the numerous sources of "raw" information. How are the 
> stories which get the attention of the media chosen and by whom?
> 
> Connie Chung replied to the effect that it wasn't too hard to decide what 
> stories get aired--they just checked with Washington D.C. to see what had 
> been cleared for publication by the government.
> 
> As a result of her being foolish enough to tell the truth in what was likely 
> just a naive, probably unintentional and inadvertent slip, within no more 
> than a few hours Ms. Chung was out of a job and remained blacklisted in the 
> industry for a good two years, only resurfacing in 1998 with a position at 
> ABC--sufficiently chastened, some no doubt believe, to allow her to grace 
> the public airwaves once again.
> 
> Yours Truly,
> Gary Jeffers
> 
> BEAT STATE!!!
> _
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
> 
> Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at 
> http://profiles.msn.com.
> 

Re: Minesweeper and defeating modern encryption technology

[Declan McCullagh]

It's been a long time since my computer science classes. But I'll give
it a shot.

The general name for this topic is complexity theory, the study of
how inherently difficult certain classes of problems are to solve.

Perhaps a not unreasonable summary would be problems in the class "P"
can be solved in deterministic polynomial time. Some of these would
include problems like simple sorting of strings that your OS does
whenever it displays files in a directory.

"NP" problems, on the other hand, are those that can be solved in
nondeterministic polynomial time (think only by guessing). NP
includes P.

Of relevance to our discussion is that factoring is a NP problem.
Much of modern cryptography relies on factoring being a "hard" problem.
If it is not, things will get interesting quickly. :)

Arnold Reinhold has another view here, saying P=NP is not relevant
to crypto:
http://world.std.com/~reinhold/p=np.txt

-Declan
 
(PS: don't use the toad.com address)


On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 07:40:51PM +0100, Olav wrote:
> Perhaps someone could explain this P vs. NP stuff to a normal
> not-yet-student?
> And, this program, what features are required to prove his theory?
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> Olav
> 
> 
> On Thu, 02 Nov 2000, you wrote:
> > >http://digitalmass.boston.com/news/daily/11/01/minesweeper.html
> > 
> > >from the article:
> > "Proving the conjecture false would mean that modern encryption technology,
> > the foundation of electronic commerce, would be open to easy attack."
> > 
> > Isn't that a little general? Possibly jumping to some hasty conclusions
> > about P versus NP as well?
> 

Re: The Market for Privacy

[Declan McCullagh]

And anonymous ways to pay for it/obtain it online...

-Declan


On Sat, Nov 04, 2000 at 03:04:10AM -0800, petro wrote:
> >Lucky Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>  It appears that ZKS is yet another company that fell prey to the DigiCash
> >>  "we know better than the market what the market wants" syndrome. What a
> >>  shame, really.
> >
> >What does the market want?
> 
>   SEX!!!
> -- 
> A quote from Petro's Archives:
> **
> "Despite almost every experience I've ever had with federal 
> authority, I keep imagining its competence."
> John Perry Barlow
> 

Re: core deletes vote-auction.com

[Declan McCullagh]

Some more details:
http://www.cluebot.com/article.pl?sid=00/11/03/1852255


On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 12:42:36PM +0100, Tom Vogt wrote:
> 
> it seems that core (i.e. the root servers) has deleted the entry for
> vote-auction.com - while the whois still works and their primary
> nameserver (in austria) still resolves, a regular lookup returns with
> "host unknown".
> 
> rumour has it that core carved in to demand by most possibly the feds.
> here in europe the sentiment today is that by doing so core has stopped
> being (if it ever was) an independent and purely technical instance and
> has entered the realm of politics. for example, no matter whether or not
> vote-auction.com is or is not illegal in the US, what business has a US
> court or lea in blocking the site for *me* (in germany) or, for that
> matter, the rest of the planet?
> 

Re: Nader

[Declan McCullagh]

On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 09:53:31AM -0800, Tim May wrote:
> Yep, I heard that he has a multimilllionaire position just in Cisco 
> alone. As you said, good for him. (Frankly, anyone who was in the 
> working force in the late 50s, early 60s, as Nader was, and who lived 
> parsimoniously in a rooming house for all those years had BETTER be a 
> multimillionaire!)

Nader lives in a Dupont Circle townhouse owned by his sister and
reportedly worth millions. (Given land prices in that area of DC, it
has to be worth at least $1 million.)

Ironically, Cisco has been targeted by the Feds for antitrust
violations. Somehow, Nader never got around to beating up on them
though he's happy to do it to nearly every other high tech firm.

-Declan

Zero Knowledge, after poor software sales, tries new gambit

[Declan McCullagh]

http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,39895,00.html

Privacy Firm Tries New Gambit
by Declan McCullagh ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
2:00 a.m. Nov. 1, 2000 PST

WASHINGTON -- Zero Knowledge Systems seems to have finally realized a
harsh truth: Internet users don't like to pay extra to protect their
privacy.

The Montreal-based firm won acclaim for its sophisticated
identity-cloaking techniques, but very few people appear to have paid
the $49.95 a year to shield their online activities from prying eyes.

That's not exactly a heartening prospect for a company with 250
employees to pay and $37 million in venture capital funds to justify
-- especially when already high-strung investors have become nervous
about Internet companies that have never made a profit.

Zero Knowledge's solution: A kind of privacy consulting service it
announced on Tuesday. Through it, the company hopes to capitalize on
the growing privacy concerns of both consumers and businesses -- and,
most importantly, finally enjoy some revenues.

"This is a new focus for Zero Knowledge: helping businesses build in
privacy technologies in how they deal with customer data flow," Austin
Hill, co-founder and chief executive, said in a telephone interview.

"As customer expectations have increased with privacy, and how
governments have started to regulate some privacy standards ... all of
a sudden, companies are having to think, 'Hold on, how do I build in
privacy?'" Hill said.

Hill and his staff of technologists -- including veterans like
cryptologists Stefan Brands and Ian Goldberg -- aren't alone in eyeing
the privacy-consulting business as a lucrative one.

Many of the established consulting businesses such as
PricewaterhouseCoopers and Ernst and Young offer privacy services. IBM
launched such a business in 1998, and an Andersen Consulting
representative says that privacy awareness is "a component of almost
anything we do."

[...]

Why Bill Joy is elitist, myopic, and wrong

[Declan McCullagh]

http://www.cluebot.com/article.pl?sid=00/10/30/2058257&mode=nested

Why Bill Joy is Elitist, Myopic, and Wrong
By Lizard
October 30, 2000

The smallpox vaccine will cause people to turn into cows. Trains
cannot be permitted to travel more than 20 miles per hour, or else
the passengers will asphyxiate. The atomic bomb will detonate the
entire atmosphere of Earth. The history of science is filled with
dire predictions of the consequences of technology, few of which
ever come true. (Granted, many of the more lofty hopes for
technology likewise fail to appear. Where's my personal helicopter
and laser gun, dammit?) But fear sells papers, which explains why
Bill Joy is given far more column-inches than he deserves. (Joy,
the cofounder of Sun Microsystems, spoke at a Camden
Technology conference over the weekend.)

The most distressing thing about his Luddite stand is the
undercurrent of elitism which flows by without criticism. The
common man must not be permitted access to the glorious fruits of
science, he says, because out there among the teeming masses
might be murderers and madmen. Well, we'd probably better make
sure they don't get their hands on fire and the wheel, too -- who
knows what might happen?

Joy is wrong on a wide range of levels, but his most egregious
error is that he has precisely the wrong solution to the alleged
problem. If he fears the misuse of biotech or nanotech, the last
thing that should be done is to turn these technologies into state
secrets, because that puts the knowledge right into the hands of
those with a history of using it for evil, namely, politicians.

If something can be done, it will be done, and all that suppressing
information will achieve is ensuring there is not ready access to
counter-measures to whatever devious plots Joy's hypothetical
supercriminals may devise. "Open sourcing" technology will all but
guarantee that for every uber-anthrax, there's an uber-vaccine; for
every bit of world-devouring grey-goo, there's something that will
eat it even faster. Locking technology away is no solution. If the
public knowledge base of the world has reached the point where
one scientist can make the next breakthrough, then there are
dozens of other scientists who can do likewise.

And, of course, who will watch the watchers? We've already seen
that secrets aren't: There are more leaks in the U.S. national
security apparatus than in a Russian space station. Better to
simply open it up and be done with it.

There is nothing dehumanizing about the probable merger of flesh
and silicon. It simply continues the path man began when the first
barely-erect hairy ape realized a fist holding a rock got you more
than a fist alone. From that moment on, we became defined by our
tools. There is no point and no purpose in trying to stop now.

Joy is fond of saying "the future doesn't need us." He is almost
completely wrong. The future needs most of us. It's just that the
future -- and the present -- doesn't need him.

To post your response or contact the author, visit:
   http://www.cluebot.com/article.pl?sid=00/10/30/2058257&mode=nested 

Libertarians and political parties

[Declan McCullagh]

Speaking of such, here are some actual facts. I wrote about Rasmussen in a 
recent Wired article. Here's what their polls say:

http://www.portraitofamerica.com/html/poll-1468.html
Earlier this year, Rasmussen Research conducted a survey
measuring the electorate along a scale favored by many
libertarians. This survey found 16% of American voters are
functionally libertarian. However, only 2% of voters claim
the title of libertarian to describe their own views.

-Declan

RE: Parties

[Declan McCullagh]

Rush,

You certainly are an earnest fellow, but that doesn't get you very far. It 
seems to me that folks like you, who are college sophomores with the 
unfortunate experience of one or two undergraduate political science 
classes, don't have much to contribute to cypherpunkly discussions. Your 
points, such as they are, might be better made on alt.politics.banal-ideas.

You:
* Don't seem to understand the nature of modern political parties
* Don't seem to understand the nature of checks and balances
* Don't seem to understand how Washington works, and the interplay between 
the legislative branch, executive branch, lobbyists, and advocacy groups
* Have not read the basic literature that would enable us to take you seriously

My participation in this sad discussion is now over, except that I will 
volunteer a reading list for you at some later point.

-Declan





At 10:10 10/30/2000 -0600, Carskadden, Rush wrote:

>Comments below:
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Declan McCullagh [<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2000 5:17 PM
>To: Carskadden, Rush
>Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
>Subject: Re: Parties
>
>
> >Rush is clearly someone with too much time on his hands and too little
> >(demonstrated) ability to think things through. I apologize for being
> >uncharacteristically blunt, but the essay below is terribly
> >naive. You might as well try to draft C.J Parker for president.
>
>I appreciate your candid approach. I am admittedly pretty young and 
>uninformed compared to you, which is why I sought opinions anyway. It can 
>only lead to more information and access to varied points of view.
>
> >First, political parties are not single-issue parties, at least not
> >right now. Education and taxes and health care will likely continue to
> >be more important in most people's lives than technology policy for
> >the foreseeable future.
>
>Agreed.
>
> >Second, privacy is an amorphous issue. It's used by leftists to
> >regulate the private sector and outlaw transactions between consenting
> >adults. Liberals use it to talk about abortion. Conservatives link it
> >to everything from the FBI files under Clinton to Carnivore. What do
> >*you* mean? And why do you think everyone else is going to agree?
>
>By no means do I think that everyone will agree with me on my own personal 
>views. I started out by pointing out in the house voting record that the 
>actual rift between Democrats and Republicans in voting records (based on 
>scores that I believe you put together) in technology issues was not too 
>large. I then further hypothesized, based on this observation, that 
>partisan politics were not creating a strong stance regarding privacy and 
>technological freedom either way on either side. So, the conclusion I drew 
>was that if I were to have a strong view on technology (EITHER a 100 OR a 
>0 on your scale), then that strong view would not be fit to serve as a 
>factor that may align me in any reliable way with either party. A second, 
>personal, conclusion was that I was not content with the relatively 
>mediocre (according to your scores) standing on technology by both 
>parties. I do not feel I am being represented on this issue, though I do 
>feel I am represented strongly on other issues, such as education, taxes, 
>and health care. What I was looking for on this list was not agreement. I 
>was looking for some points of view on a question that this line of 
>reasoning left me with. If I want stronger representation in Washington on 
>technology issues (EITHER WAY), is it easier to try to influence an 
>existing party to take up my stance, or would it be easier to align myself 
>with a "third" party that already has a strong stance on the topic (EITHER 
>WAY) and try to maneuver it into a position where it could provide the 
>needed strong representation. I would have liked to be able to say to 
>myself, for instance, "Gee, certain vocal members of the cypherpunks list 
>seem to think that it would be easier to just try to gain partisan support 
>than to get a "third" party the strength it needs to represent me, and 
>here's why...", but I can't because my naive nature is so overpowering 
>that people would rather try to inform me of the Libertarian party, in 
>which I have been active for years, than answer my question.
>
> >Third, there already is (as others have suggested) a party that's
> >concerned about personal freedom: the LP. If you mirror their
> >positions -- or even a substantial subset -- you will be similarly
> >marginalized. If not, don't look for support -- I humbly suggest --
> >on the cpunx list.

White House and Congress: Hard at work

[Declan McCullagh]

On Saturday, October 28th, 2000, the White House has received:

H.J.Res. 118 - Continuing Resolution FY 2001, (Continuing Resolution # 8
thru October 29, 2000)
   *Note: H.J.Res. 118 - Received and Signed today 10/28/2000)
H.R. 2780 Kristen's Act
H.R. 2884 To Extend Energy conservation Programs under the Energy Policy
and Conservation Act
H.R. 4404 U.S. Park Police Medical Expenses
H.R. 4957 Black Patriots Memorial Extension Act
H.R. 5083 Los Angeles School District Lands Act
H.R. 5157 Freedmen's Bureau Records Preservation Act of 2000
H.R. 5314 Adoption of Retired Military retired Dogs
H.R. 5331 Frederick douglas Memorial and Gardens Act

Last Day for the President's Action - 11/9/2000

RE: Parties

[Declan McCullagh]

At 09:04 10/30/2000 -0600, Carskadden, Rush wrote:
>where he actually says this himself). Under no circumstances do I consider 
>it wise to fly in the face of checks and balances when your cause is 
>"right" but you do not have the majority power. There is a reason that 
>Congress makes laws, just as there is a reason that the Presidents can 
>veto, as there is a reason that the Judicial system interprets the law. 
>It's designed to create a balance that protects us from a loose cannon 
>government going off and acting recklessly.

Ah, but they already have. Your beloved "checks and balances" don't work.

-Declan

Re: Parties

[Declan McCullagh]

Rush is clearly someone with too much time on his hands and too little
(demonstrated) ability to think things through. I apologize for being
uncharacteristically blunt, but the essay below is terribly
naive. You might as well try to draft C.J Parker for president.

First, political parties are not single-issue parties, at least not
right now. Education and taxes and health care will likely continue to
be more important in most people's lives than technology policy for
the foreseeable future.

Second, privacy is an amorphous issue. It's used by leftists to
regulate the private sector and outlaw transactions between consenting
adults. Liberals use it to talk about abortion. Conservatives link it
to everything from the FBI files under Clinton to Carnivore. What do
*you* mean? And why do you think everyone else is going to agree?

Third, there already is (as others have suggested) a party that's
concerned about personal freedom: the LP. If you mirror their
positions -- or even a substantial subset -- you will be similarly
marginalized. If not, don't look for support -- I humbly suggest --
on the cpunx list.

Fourth, nowadays it seems that political parties can be formed (Ross
Perot, Ralph Nader) or popularized only by a strong and well-known
personality. It will help if they're a billionaire. May I suggest a
recruiting trip to the Redmond suburbs?

Fifth, and perhaps most importantly, technology issues are an
outgrowth of a canadidates' general stand on regulation. If they don't
like taxes, you can bet they'll be against Internet taxes. If they're
a national security hawk, they'll probably like encryption and
supercomputer export regs. Etc.

Sixth, you don't seem to need a political party but a thinktank or
similar creature. Why not try that instead? I was thinking of starting
a nonproit group devoted to a subset of cypherpunkly topics; perhaps I
still will.

-Declan













On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 11:09:40AM -0500, Carskadden, Rush wrote:
> Scott and I have been discussing (from a theoretical standpoint) the
> possibility of a third party that focuses on privacy and personal freedom,
> and the difficulties in gaining creedence for this third party, as opposed
> to the difficulties associated with influencing existing major parties
> (either of them) to take a stronger stance on these issues. Assuming that
> you could reconcile your differences with either Democrats or Republicans in
> order to gain a strong Washington D.C. presence on a few key issues, would
> that approach be easier than creating a viable "third" party? What
> percentage of the voters do you think are holding on to a very few key
> issues from their party of choice, and would be willing to vote for another
> party that could give them equally strong representation on those issues?
>  
> ok,
> Rush Carskadden
>  
>  
> -Original Message-
> From: Scott Schram [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2000 4:14 PM
> To: Carskadden, Rush
> Subject: RE: Bachus
> 
> 
> Hi Rush,
> 
> I mentioned the "third party", inspired by my frustration with the two
> leading parties, and their apparent lack of understanding about technology,
> and privacy issues.
> 
> Some thoughts about the current parties:  
> 
> Al Gore's populist rhetoric about drug companies which completely overlooks
> the fact that we're on the eve of incredible discoveries and it costs lots
> of money to research and bring new drugs to market.  Despite what Gore has
> indicated, big pharma spends about 4 times as much on research as they do on
> advertising.
> 
> George W. Bush's hints at dropping the Microsoft suit (and the tobacco suit
> for that matter.)  The recent Republican (I think) proposals to link Social
> Security information to IRS information.
> 
> Our government is (probably justifiably) paranoid about attacks from
> external and internal terrorists.  It is easier for terrorists to cause
> problems than it is for the government to prevent them.  Each time an
> incident happens, people call for more preventative measures, thus we have:
> Secret searches (and bugging) of homes, no-knock entries, the Carnivore IP
> monitoring system, etc.  Did you see the recent HBO special about extremist
> groups and their use of the internet to encourage action by "lone wolf"
> sociopaths?  Nobody wants to appear soft on this kind of crime.
> 
> Libertarians have some cool ideas (at least they sound cool), but I can't
> imagine withdrawing all of our military force from the world and limit
> ourselves to defending our borders.  Our enemies would have a field day.
> Further, while I'm pro-business, I'm all for them playing "in bounds" and
> only a strong referee can keep some of them from dumping PCBs at the local
> playground.
> 
> The Reform Party is basically an old-time circus freak show, and I mean no
> disrespect to circus freaks.
> 
> A number of issues are no longer "Right" or "Left".
> 
> So, back to your question:
> 
> The third party route would pro

Re: Parties

[Declan McCullagh]

On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 03:23:31PM -0500, Carskadden, Rush wrote:
> Eric,
>  Glad to hear that all it takes to "get your vote" is a reckless
> executive pardon of criminals that is designed to utilize executive power to
> bypass the checks and balances system and negate the efforts of the
> legislative and judicial branches of government (known in some circles as
> "saying 'fuck the constitution'"). So to clarify (because I am completely

This is amusing. If people were locked up for being gay, or black, or
somesuch, if there were such a law prohibiting those conditions on the
books, and a less statist president took office, you would presumably
oppose the pardoning of all such "criminals."

Oh, you wouldn't? Then you're not concerned about "checks and
balances," but you just don't like full drug legalization.

-Declan

Clinton signs executive order on workers & new economy

[Declan McCullagh]

   THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

___
For Immediate Release  October 27,
2000


 STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

  Today, I am pleased to sign an Executive Order creating a Commission
on Workers, Communities, and Economic Change in the New Economy.  I would
like to thank Representative Ken Bentsen for his leadership in helping
workers and communities adapt to the new economy and for working with my
Administration to form this Commission.

  International trade, technology, globalization, and the changing
nature of work present extraordinary new opportunities for Americans, but
can also create real disruptions for American workers and communities.
Vice President Gore and I have worked hard to empower workers and
communities to take advantage of the many opportunities in this new
economy, but there is still more we can do.  This Commission will undertake
a careful examination of the effectiveness of existing federal programs to
help workers and communities adjust to economic change, and will identify
the best practices of employers, communities, and public-private
partnerships that have responded successfully to economic dislocations.
The commission?s report, due next year, will help communities, employers,
and workers respond to and benefit from these changes in our economy.

  30-30-30

Re: Hard Shelled ISP?

[Declan McCullagh]

You might want to check out what Lance is doing with his dialup accounts.
Anyone can pay him a few dollars a month (cash, money order is fine)
and get an anonymous account. That account can be configured to reject
unencrypted email (procmail) or use HTTPS only, or whatnot.

I think this solution already exists. anonymizer.com.

-Declan


On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 11:59:51AM -0700, Ray Dillinger wrote:
> 
> Would there be a market for someone to create an encrypted-services 
> provider?  Would people do this?
> 
> Here is what I envision, at a cost of something like $10/month.
> 
> Email accounts that bounce anything not encrypted - either silently 
> or with a message that says "this account accepts only encrypted mail." 
> at the option of the account holder.  These accounts are restricted 
> in some way that makes them unattractive to spammers - probably they 
> are able to send no more than 3 or 4 unencrypted emails a day, maybe 
> they are unable to send *any* unencrypted email.
> 
> Web Hosting strictly via HTTPS.  Standard accounts get four or eight 
> kilobytes accessible by http (enough for a redirect), and 100 
> Megabytes or so of web space accessible by HTTPS. 
> 
> Anonymous accounts.  You send a message with a long random key and 
> a few dozen choices for your login name, and a password to use
> (send via a remailer or whatever) and the provider publishes a 
> webpage with listings mapping keys to login names to tell you 
> what login name you've gotten.  The provider holds the name for 
> a couple of weeks.  If during that time the provider recieves 
> payment for an account by that name with a that password (say, 
> by cash or bullion via mail or courier, or any of various ecash 
> systems) then the provider creates an account with login, that 
> balance and that password. 
> 
> The provider also publishes a page of login names in use, so you 
> can check to try to avoid collisions.
> 
> To renew your account, your payment must be sent with your login 
> name and the original payment key.
> 
> If it can be done legally, the service provider would get a debit 
> card for each account paid more than $200 in advance, and give the 
> card number to the account holder. Then, whatever amount had been 
> prepaid would be available for web purchases, etc. for web 
> merchants with POS stuff.  This is a sticking point, and could 
> cause a lot of trouble if any missteps are made.  In the worst 
> case, 30% of this money would have to be paid to the IRS - to 
> avoid charges of abetting tax evasion while maintaining client 
> anonymity. (technically, this ought to make the money paid for the 
> service tax deductible, but you could only claim it by revealing 
> your True Name along with proof that you'd paid it -- so clients 
> interested in real anonymity would have to bite the bullet and 
> pay taxes on that money twice). 
> 
> Nice anonymizing web proxy with whatever filters you like, returning 
> whatever CGI information you want it to return.  Cookie functioning 
> is selectable by host (so you can, eg, deal with your bank via the 
> proxy if you want).  Web proxy is available only via https -- ie, 
> the link between the proxy and the user is *required* to be encrypted. 
> 
> Anonymous encrypted FTP.  Two kinds -- one is FTP over SSL, the other 
> is FTP where the file being downloaded is encrypted to start with. 
> There are applications for both.  Paying clients could put up a 
> download directory; joe random could download stuff from it. No 
> unencrypted FTP would be available. 
> 
> NNTP over SSL.  Not that what's in usenet news is secret, but there's 
> no point in having your reading habits monitored. 
> 
> The basic idea is, there's no point in having *any* unencrypted 
> traffic on a server if you can help it.  It ought to be the case 
> that even if a 'carnivore' is installed, there is no unencrypted 
> traffic for it to sniff. 
> 
> I think this is, just barely, feasible. 
> What say you all?
> 
>   Bear
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: Denver Judge rules Cops can seize bookstore records

[Declan McCullagh]

On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 12:18:40PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
> And once again the "civil libertarians" have gotten the issues 
> confused. The First Amendment does not say that ordinary subpoenas, 
> discovery, and court orders for some reason do not apply to 
> bookstores!

Two thoughts:

* It is possible that "ordinary discovery" has gone too far in the
U.S. Shielded areas, such as bookstores protected by this view of the
1A, might be a good thing. 

* Richard Epstein has a nice piece in the May 2000 Stanford Law Review
(I was reading it last night). Epstein argues against "First Amendment
exceptionalism," which grants speech more protection than the common
law would afford. He says that creates weird side effects that prohibit
things like trespass to obtain private information but say (if such
info is leaked to a newspaper) that info can be published without,
generally, any recourse by the aggrieved party.

All of this may not be relevant once anonymous publishing -- or shall
I say consequence-less publishing? -- becomes more widespread.

-Declan

Re: Insurance: My Last Post

[Declan McCullagh]

On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 05:15:06PM -0700, Nathan Saper wrote, quoting me:
> > For instance, what are the economic effects? 
> 
> Again, it depends on the economic framework under which we are operating.

Nope. You don't get it. Economics is in part hte study of people
acting in their own rational self-interest, which can't be denied by
government fiat.

> > What are the
> > black markets that arise?  
> 
> I don't know, what black markets would arise?  If people were housed,
> clothed, fed, etc, then most would still have plenty of disposable
> income to buy what they wanted.

Are you clueless? You were talking in this hypothetical about a tax
rate of 95 percent. That's not a whole lot of disposable income to buy
widescreen TVs.

> I'm not sure.  However, if all housing and food was provided by the
> government, and not paying your appropriate level of taxes removed
> your entitlement to said housing and food, then I'd think most people
> would pay their taxes.

Have you ever looked at government housing? If I could escape it and
my tax obligations by the simple expedient of deciding not to pay, I
would. You've just made taxes voluntary, twit. 

-Declan

Privacy: Dems criticize GOP, Calif, Australia, and Carnivore

[Declan McCullagh]

*
More privacy stuff at: http://www.cluebot.com/search.pl?topic=privacy
*

http://www.cluebot.com/article.pl?sid=00/10/25/2351218&mode=nested

Democrats Criticize Census Data Sharing
posted by cicero on Wednesday October 25, @06:49PM
from the hypocritcal-congresscritters-so-what-else-is-new dept.

David Sobel of EPIC just sent us a letter that a pair of Democratic
legislators are circulating on Capitol Hill. Turns out they
want to stop a Republican plan to share some Census data with other
government agencies. The opposition from Carolyn Maloney and John
Dingell is certainly welcome, but it's important to realize that this
is a simple partisan manuevering. While they piously bleat that
"Congress should be protecting personal privacy," neither voted for
privacy-protective measures when they had the chance, according to a
Wired News scorecard.

The letter, dated October 25:
http://www.cluebot.com/article.pl?sid=00/10/25/2351218&mode=nested




http://www.cluebot.com/article.pl?sid=00/10/24/226242&mode=nested

CIX: E-mail Headers Aren't Legal Carnivore Fodder
posted by protozoa on Tuesday October 24, @04:38PM
from the slippery-slope-vs-vertical-slope dept.

The Commercial Internet Exchange Association has published this
white paper (PDF format) arguing that e-mail headers shouldn't legally
be considered the same thing as telephone numbers dialed. Why is that
important? Because according to the paper's introduction,"[t]hrough
programs like "Carnivore," the government seeks real-time access to
the e-mail addresses and other transactional elements of e-mail
communications under the low "pen register" standard used to trace the
digits dialed on a telephone,". It's a tricky legal distinction, but a
very important one -- such a finding in court could cut the FBI's net
surveillance plans off at the knees. I've included the paper's
introduction below.

The CIX introduction (in HTML):
http://www.cluebot.com/article.pl?sid=00/10/24/226242&mode=nested





http://www.cluebot.com/article.pl?sid=00/10/21/1517258&mode=nested

California Creates State Privacy Office
posted by protozoa on Saturday October 21, @09:58AM
from the you-said-what-to-who? dept.

According to this press release, California Governor Gray Davis
signed twenty bills yesterday tailored to protect privacy and
other consumer interests for state residents. Most noteworthy of these
bills is SB 129, which creates the first-ever statewide Office of
Privacy Protection under California's Department of Consumer Affairs.
Other new laws include and procedural assistance for identity theft
victims and new consumer "opt-out" reqirements for credit bureaus. Dan
Gillmor wrote a column about identity theft and privacy protection in
California back in March, expressing his support for two stronger and
more far-reaching bills in this arena. Neither of them were among
those passed.




http://www.cluebot.com/article.pl?sid=00/10/21/1421235&mode=nested

Australian Privacy Legislation Inches Forward
posted by protozoa on Saturday October 21, @09:07AM
from the privacy-privacy-oi-oi-oi dept.

An Australian Senate committee has produced a set of
recommendations (in PDF form) governing private corporations' data
collection practices. The bill is scheduled to be considered during
the coming session. The Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Bill 2000
aims to update regulations in light of the "dramatic developments in
information technology and data communication practices" since the
passage of the Privacy Act in 1988. The recommendations include an
exemption for small businesses (except in instances where medical
information is involved) and a strategy for accordance with the
European Data Directive. Electronic Frontiers Australia called the
bill "complex, unwieldy, ineffective and an insult to the citizens of
Australia" in its testimony in May, citing numerous loopholes and
inadequate enforcement provisions. Many of their concerns appear to
have been ignored. ABC (that's A for Australian) ran a brief piece on
Federal Attorney-General Daryl Williams' support of the bill. As it
says at the bottom of the box: Post your comments below. Can any
privacy legislation better than none? Is ineffectual privacy
legislation worse than none?

Re: Gort in granny-shades (was Re: Al Gore goes cypherpunk?)

[Declan McCullagh]

At 15:43 10/25/2000 -0400, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
>As to sending it to lists which have subscriber-post-only, it is, as usual,
>a consequence of spam prevention and not malice aforethought. Kinda sucks,
>of course, because anonymous posters can't post. Hope they fix that in
>future versions of majordomo, but I bet it'll be a while.

The current version of majordomo allows for an authorized-poster file, 
which I use with one of my lists to let people who aren't on the list 
contribute. You could use a cron job to combine subscribers with add'l 
posters to allow some of the more-likely-to-respond cypherpunks to post.

-Declan

Re: Insurance: My Last Post

[Declan McCullagh]

It's a not entirely uninteresting approach, but one doesn't have
to resort to libertarian rights-theory to refute it (not that 
arguing about rights is going to resolve anything anyway).

Simple pragmatism can do the same. I mean, Nathan, have you ever
considered what happens when taxes are raised to 95 percent?

I know you were just speaking hypothetically, but to be realistic, a
hypo will have to includse the negative effects as well as the
positive. For instance, what are the economic effects? What are the
black markets that arise?  What punitive measures must nations adopt
to enforce tax collection?  What about revolt and the ensuing
bloodshed? What about public choice theory?

Think these things through, if you really want to be "pragmatic."

-Declan


On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 11:58:18PM -0700, Nathan Saper wrote:
>least pain."  I guess this is basically pragmatism.  For
>example, if raising taxes to 95% would feed everyone in the
>world (I'm just speaking hypothetically), then I would advocate

Re: Al Gore goes cypherpunk?

[Declan McCullagh]

Perhaps this is one reason why Ralph Nader is reportedly drawing
crowds of 5,000 at rallies. He's active: Bashing Gore, attacking
corporations, etc. No philosophical twaddle (oh, it might have its
place but not in politics) about landing on someone's balcony and
trespass righs.

-Declan

On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 10:44:18PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
> (No time to write a piece on this, but perhaps the whole Libertarian 
> Party effort is foundering precisely because it has picked the "safe 
> and boring" route. Murray Rothbard, for example, has his arcane 
> theory about how people may not even take action when someone is 
> attacking them...until the attack has actually resulted in injury. 
> Many exposed to this kind of thinking, and the "inside baseball" of 
> ultra-boring LP conventions, probably lose interest in Libertarian 
> issues. Part of human nature, driven by evolutionary pressures, seems 
> to be an inclination to act decisively.)

Legislative approaches to ID theft?

[Declan McCullagh]

Likely means new criminal laws... (today)

SOCIAL ISSUES
Social Security Administration (SSA) Office of the Inspector General
Identity Theft Prevention Workshop. Panels will discuss victims'views
on prevention, Internet issues, workplace ID theft, private industry
issues and legislative approaches to preventing ID theft
Location: Health and Human Services Department (HHS),
 330 Independence Ave., SW, Cohen Building,
 First Floor Auditorium. 9 a.m.
Contact: Rich Rhode, 410-966-1722

Who says there's gridlock in DC?

[Declan McCullagh]

bills that the prez signed today...

On Tuesday, October 24th, 2000, the President signed into law:

H.R. 1509 Disabled Veterans' LIFE Memorial Foundation
H.R. 3201 Carter G. Woodson Home National Historic Site Study Act of 2000
H.R. 3632 Golden Gate National Recreation Area Bountary Adjustment Act of
2000
H.R. 3676 Santa Rosa and Santa Jacinto Mountains National Monument Act
H.R. 4063 Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front National Historical
Park Establishment Act of 2000
H.R. 4275 Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area and Black Ridge
Canyons Wilderness Act of 2000
H.R. 4386 Breast and Cervical Cancer Prevention and Treatment Act of 2000
H.R. 4613 National Historic Lighthouse Preservation Act of 2000
H.R. 5036 Dayton Aviation Heritage preservation Amendment of 2000
S. 1849White Clay Creek Wild and Scenic Rivers System

RE: Wired News tech scorecard for U.S. House of Representatives

[Declan McCullagh]

---
>HR1501 | 97  | 189 |
>---
>HR10   | 116 | 12  |
>---
>HR1714 | 215 | 144 |
>---
>total  | 756 | 676 |
>---
>votes  | 1523| 1430|
>---
>
>  Again, it is entirely possible that my information is incorrect. I 
> do recommend that you do the research yourself, as relying too much on 
> these numbers means relying on numbers collected by a media source and in 
> turn sorted and re-calculated by some punk-ass on the cypherpunks mailing list.
>
>  To the best of my knowledge, however, this looks right. What alarms 
> me is that though there is a slight difference in the overall score 
> between Republicans and Democrats, neither party has a very strong 
> leaning one way or the other, which illustrates the frustrations that a 
> two-party system creates for those of us who would like to see a strong 
> stance (either way) on the issue of government regulation of technology. 
> I anxiously await any speculation that might take place on this list 
> regarding how Libertarian representatives might have voted had they been 
> in there, but the fact is that we live in a two-party system for the time 
> being, and if we feel strongly about these issues, we need to accept that 
> our representation may not be hearing us. Is it because we aren't 
> speaking loudly enough on these issues?
>
>ok,
>Rush Carskadden
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Declan McCullagh [<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 11:15 AM
>To: Cypherpunks Mailing List
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Wired News tech scorecard for U.S. House of Representatives
>
>At Wired News, we've compiled a list of the technology voting records of
>each member of the U.S. House of Representatives.
>
>That meant picking seven tech bills and grading all 435 legislators -- at
>least the ones who showed up those days -- on their floor votes. If they
>chose to take a hands-off approach, they got a "1", while regulatory votes
>got a "0." (If you disagree with us, flip the scale around.)
>
>Here's the list sorted by last name (scoll down to find your legislator):
> 
><http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,39637,00.html>http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,39637,00.html
> 
>
>Sorted by score, with the two California reps with 100 percent at the top:
> 
><http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,39636,00.html>http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,39636,00.html
> 
>
>
>And a summary of the results, with some methodology:
> 
><http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,39625,00.html>http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,39625,00.html
> 
>
>
>Some interesting results: Purported privacy advocates like Democrat Ed
>Markey didn't score well, getting a 33% of 100%, in part because of his
>opposition to financial privacy legislation. Republican Bob Goodlatte,
>Internet caucus co-chair, got just 43% because of his support for speech
>and gambling restrictions.
>
>-Declan
>
>
>The floor votes scored:
>
>HR2031: A vote to restrict online sales of alcohol. (No is 1)
>HR3615: A vote to create a new federal agency to spend $1.25 billion on
>rural TV service. (No is 1)
>HR3709: A vote to extend a temporary federal ban on Internet taxes. (Yes 
>is 1)
>HR3125: A vote to prohibit Internet gambling. (No is 1)
>HR1501: A vote on an amendment to restrict the sale of violent material
>such as videogames to anyone under the age of 18. (No is 1)
>HR10: A vote on an amendment to protect financial privacy by restricting
>government monitoring of bank accounts. (Yes is 1)
>HR1714: A vote to allow the use of electronic signatures. (Yes is 1)

Wired News tech scorecard for U.S. House of Representatives

[Declan McCullagh]

At Wired News, we've compiled a list of the technology voting records of 
each member of the U.S. House of Representatives.

That meant picking seven tech bills and grading all 435 legislators -- at 
least the ones who showed up those days -- on their floor votes. If they 
chose to take a hands-off approach, they got a "1", while regulatory votes 
got a "0." (If you disagree with us, flip the scale around.)

Here's the list sorted by last name (scoll down to find your legislator):
   http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,39637,00.html
Sorted by score, with the two California reps with 100 percent at the top:
   http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,39636,00.html

And a summary of the results, with some methodology:
   http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,39625,00.html

Some interesting results: Purported privacy advocates like Democrat Ed 
Markey didn't score well, getting a 33% of 100%, in part because of his 
opposition to financial privacy legislation. Republican Bob Goodlatte, 
Internet caucus co-chair, got just 43% because of his support for speech 
and gambling restrictions.

-Declan



The floor votes scored:

HR2031: A vote to restrict online sales of alcohol. (No is 1)
HR3615: A vote to create a new federal agency to spend $1.25 billion on 
rural TV service. (No is 1)
HR3709: A vote to extend a temporary federal ban on Internet taxes. (Yes is 1)
HR3125: A vote to prohibit Internet gambling. (No is 1)
HR1501: A vote on an amendment to restrict the sale of violent material 
such as videogames to anyone under the age of 18. (No is 1)
HR10: A vote on an amendment to protect financial privacy by restricting 
government monitoring of bank accounts. (Yes is 1)
HR1714: A vote to allow the use of electronic signatures. (Yes is 1)

Al Gore goes cypherpunk?

[Declan McCullagh]

http://www.rollingstone.com/sections/magazine/text/excerpt.asp?afl=rsn&lngF 
eatureID=120&lngStyleID

   What's in your top five from the past year?

   Being John Malkovich; East Is East; Shall We
   Dance? I liked Gladiator a lot - I thought that was
   an excellent movie. I loved The Matrix. I loved the
   metaphor. Somebody gigged me in the mainstream
   media for not liking too much violence in the movies
   but simultaneously liking that movie. Well, you
   know, it was rated for adults. It was very 
violent, but
   it was a terrific movie. And I can hardly wait 
for the
   sequel. 

Zero-Knowledge -- Open Source Initiative = Responsible Privacy

[Declan McCullagh]

>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>X-Lotus-FromDomain: WEBER
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 13:22:26 -0700
>Subject: Zero-Knowledge -- Open Source Initiative = Responsible Privacy
>
>
>
>Hi Declan,
>
>I wanted to let you know that Zero-Knowledge Systems today announced that 
>it has
>open-sourced its Freedom Linux client, the first step in its initiative to
>disseminate privacy protocols and encourage pervasive privacy standards by 
>open
>sourcing its entire Freedom network and software.
>
>Through its open source initiative, Zero-Knowledge is pioneering a movement
>toward responsible privacy by inviting software developers and 
>cryptographers to
>test and improve upon the Freedom code. Only by opening the math and
>cryptography behind privacy tools to industry examination can 
>Zero-Knowledge and
>other privacy companies truly prove the efficacy of their privacy solutions.
>I've included the announcement below for your information.
>
>If you would like further information or would like to speak with a
>Zero-Knowledge executive about the open source initiative, please call me at
>(503) 332-0204.
>
>Best regards,
>Kristy Cory
>for Zero-Knowledge
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>503-332-0204
>
>
>  FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
>
>  ZERO-KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS RELEASES SOURCE CODE OF ITS NEW LINUX FREEDOM 2.0
>  CLIENT; ANNOUNCES OPEN SOURCING OF FREEDOM PRIVACY SUITE
>
>  --Source release demonstrates Zero-Knowledge Systems
>' commitment to creating
>  open
>  standards and ubiquitous privacy technologies that benefit all Internet 
> users--
>
>  Montreal ? October 23, 2000 ? Zero-Knowledge® Systems Inc., the leading
>  developer of privacy solutions for consumers and companies, today 
> released the
>  source code of its next-generation Linux Freedom client. The company also
>  announced its commitment to open sourcing the entire award-winning Freedom®
>  privacy suite.
>
>  This open source initiative demonstrates the company's commitment to 
> creating
>  open standards and ubiquitous privacy technologies that benefit all Internet
>  users. Using Freedom code developed by Zero-Knowledge, developers,
>  cryptographers and standards bodies will be able to build new open protocols
>  and technologies for protecting privacy.
>
>  As the recognized privacy leader, Zero-Knowledge is fulfilling its 
> commitment
>  to deploy consumer products that are open and transparent in order to allow
>  anyone to verify how they perform. The release of source code provides the
>  software development and security communities the necessary proof that 
> Freedom
>  alone empowers consumers to trust only themselves with their data and 
> privacy.
>
>  "Responsible privacy begins with privacy providers being open and 
> transparent
>  with their users. Zero-Knowledge is demonstrating its leadership by 
> releasing
>  the source code to Freedom and facilitating the creation of necessary 
> privacy
>  standards," said Mike Shaver, Chief Software Officer of Zero-Knowledge 
> Systems.
>  "We encourage other privacy companies to do the same."
>
>  "Open source desktop users have a need for powerful privacy tools which
>  facilitate their use of network services. At Helix Code we are building a
>  world-class open source desktop environment that gives the user very 
> intimate
>  access to web services, and so privacy is especially important to our 
> users,"
>  said Nat Friedman, Chief Executive Officer of Helix Code, the leading open
>  source desktop software and services company. "Now that Zero-Knowledge 
> System's
>  Freedom privacy suite will be open sourced and available for Linux, this
>  important need is finally being addressed. This is a big win for the open
>  source community."
>
>  Freedom 2.0 for Windows (95/98, 2000, NT, Me) and Linux will be 
> available for
>  Internet users before Christmas 2000. The 2.0 version for Windows will 
> include
>  new features and performance enhancements requested by the Freedom user
>  community. A Macintosh version of Freedom is expected in 2001. Among other
>  accolades, Freedom was named 2000's "Most Promising Internet Newcomer" by PC
>  World and called "the Rolls-Royce of privacy software" by Yahoo! 
> Internet Life.
>
>  The entire source code to the Linux version of the Freedom privacy suite,
>  released under the Mozilla Public License 1.1 and other Open Source? 
> licenses,
>  is available for download at http://opensource.zeroknowledge.com.
>  Zero-Knowledge will next release the source code to the Windows client 
> and to
>  the server software that powers the Freedom Network, a globally-distributed
>  network of servers operated by service providers and independent 
> operators that
>  route Freedom traffic.
>
>  Freedom is the first commercial product that empowers Internet users to 
> fully
>  control their identities and personal information on the Internet without
>  having to trust their data to an ISP, privacy company or other third party.
>  Freedom transparently encrypts and 

Congressmen spar over police administrative subpoena-snooping bill

[Declan McCullagh]

[Also Rep. Bill McCollum, hardly a friend of privacy, has been defending it 
in the House. --Declan]


http://www.cluebot.com/article.pl?sid=00/10/20/2341243&mode=nested

Congressmen Duel Over Police Snooping Bill
posted by cicero on Friday October 20, @11:31PM
from the with-friends-like-these dept.

Privacy defenders and privacy invaders spent this week sparring
over a bill called the Presidential Threat Protection Act of
2000. Already approved by the Senate, it's set to be voted on by the
House shortly. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the wiretap-happy senator
who likes to pose as an occasional friend of civil liberties, is a
sponsor, as is Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican who's been trying to
buff his image among geeks. Rep. Bob Barr (R-Georgia) may be on a
campaign to ban abortion and indict Democrats, but at least he's
usually a reliable ally when limiting government surveillance; he
opposes the measure. The bill would allow police to obtain records on
you from third parties (think ISP, telephone company) without a search
warrant. It's designed to be used against violent criminals, but it
sets a dangerous precedent. See letters below.

Letters from Barr opposing and McCollum supporting:
http://www.cluebot.com/article.pl?sid=00/10/20/2341243&mode=nested

Re: Declan should hope Bush is elected!

[Declan McCullagh]

Bush also seemed to criticize the MS antitrust lawsuit yesterday:
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,39570,00.html

On Thu, Oct 19, 2000 at 12:13:53PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
> I know Declan is libertarian-leaning, but it seems to me he has good 
> reason to hope Bush wins. Look at Bush's latest stump speech:
[...]
> Seems to me that if Bush wins, Declan will be quite welcome in the 
> White House. He may even be able to influence Bush further in the 
> direction of "hands off" approaches, especially in censorship and 
> filtering.
> 
> If Gore wins, I expect Declan will face a chilly reception.

I can't say (personally) I'm a fan of either candidate. But even if
Gore were to win, I'd likely continue the working relationship with the
White House staff that I have now. Apart from ideology, they have an
incentive to do so: I write articles (such as one I'm doing today) in
which they'd like their positions represented.

-Declan

Re: Tim May's anti-semitic rants

[Declan McCullagh]

Right. While I feel some sense of moral obligation to feel compassion
for victims of genocide in Africa, the reality is that traffic in
downtown Washington affects me more.

To paraphrase:

One person dying is a tragedy
One million dying is a statistic
One billion lost in NASDAQ value is a serious bummer

-Declan


On Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 01:25:52PM +0200, Tom Vogt wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > 
> > Typical of May to wish that  those who he hates  be nuked, but please don'tt
> > let it  effect his portfolio.
> > 
> 
> so? in that respect he's a great relief from all the "houlier than thou"
> "for the chiiildren" pseudo-moralists.
> in the end, nobody cares if he's not affected. the effect may be
> emotional.
> 

House Passes Bipartisan Commercial Space Bill

[Declan McCullagh]

Committee on Science
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., CHAIRMAN
Ralph M. Hall, Texas, Ranking Democrat
www.house.gov/science/welcome.htm

October 18, 2000

Press Contacts:
Jeff Lungren ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Jeff Donald ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
(202) 225-4275


HOUSE PASSES BIPARTISAN
COMMERCIAL SPACE BILL

Bill Enhances U.S. Commercial Space Competitiveness
By Extending Launch Indemnification

WASHINGTON, D.C. - With broad bipartisan support, the House yesterday passed
H.R. 2607, the Commercial Space Transportation Competitiveness Act, by a
voice vote.  The bill now goes to the President for final approval.

H.R. 2607 extends launch indemnification to the U.S. commercial launch
industry for four more years, through the end of 2004.  The federal
government first decided to indemnify commercial launch companies against
catastrophic losses as a means of rebuilding a launch industry that was
critical for national security.  In addition, the bill authorizes funds for
the Offices of Advanced Space Transportation and Space Commerce in the
Departments of Transportation and Commerce.

The bill's sponsor, Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee Chairman Dana
Rohrabacher, (R-CA) said, "Passage of H.R. 2607 signals continued
congressional support of a highly competitive launch industry in today's
global market.  This legislation enables the U.S. Government to maintain a
stable business environment so that the private sector can become more
competitive.  Moreover, by directing the Administration to examine more
innovative legal approaches for indemnification, we begin a new chapter in
U.S. space development in the 21st Century."

House Science Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., (R-WI) added,
"By extending commercial launch indemnification, this bill helps build a
solid foundation for commercial launch companies.  This foundation enhances
our national security by encouraging private firms to invest in improving
U.S. space launch capabilities and maintaining U.S. competitiveness with
launchers from Europe, Russia, the Ukraine and China.  I hope the President
will quickly sign this important bipartisan legislation into law."

Science Committee Ranking Minority Member Ralph M. Hall, (D-TX) said, "The
Commercial Space Competitiveness Act was the top legislative priority for
the American space launch industry. It is in our Nation's interest that we
continue to be world leaders in the launch industry.  This bill provides the
framework of support and incentives the industry indicates they need to keep
their premier status. I am pleased that the Science Committee could play a
central role in moving this legislation to completion."

Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee Ranking Minority Member Bart Gordon,
(D-TN), also an original co-sponsor of the bill, noted, "The key achievement
of this bill is an extension of the commercial space indemnification
provisions.  Those provisions, first enacted in 1988, have provided a highly
effective risk-sharing system that has helped our launch industry compete
with the world.  Since their enactment 12 years ago, these provisions
haven't cost the taxpayer one dollar in claims."

###
106-164


Jeff Donald
Deputy Communications Director
House Science Committee
2320 Rayburn House Office Building
202-225-4275 (phone)
202-226-3875 (fax)

Re: Protecting Our Children

[Declan McCullagh]

No, that's a temporary URL that will become invalid in a few minutes. You 
need to send out the link to the summary, which I did. Or include it below. :)

-Declan

At 12:38 10/17/2000 -0400, Peter Capelli/Raleigh/Contr/IBM wrote:
>Here is a link to the text:
>
>http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c106:1:./temp/~c106Eno3vf::
>
>Thanks!
>
>-p
>
>"Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve
>neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin, 1759
>
>
>Mac Norton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>@cyberpass.net on 10/16/2000 08:48:24
>PM
>
>Please respond to Mac Norton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Sent by:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>To:   Declan McCullagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>cc:   Cypherpunks Mailing List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject:  Re: Protecting Our Children
>
>
>
>Makes it a crime not to keep the cough medicine in the triple
>lock gun cabinet it also mandates?  Or just gives more money
>to the DEA to seek Peace With Honor in the War On Drugs?
>MacN
>
>On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>
> > To be voted on in the House tomorrow:
> > (9) H.R. 5312 - Protecting Our Children From Drugs Act of 2000
> >
> > It's not on Thomas, and I don't feel like dispatching my intern to get
>the
> > text, so your guess is as good as mine.
> >
> > -Declan
> >
> >
>
>

RE: Vanessa Lynch, still whining (an impressive feat)

[Declan McCullagh]

If you're not already removed from the list, you should look at the message 
headers and find the Sender: line. Take that domain name (ssz.com or 
cyberpass.net or algebra.com or something) and send mail with "help" in the 
body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or you could find the original message you received when you signed up, 
which is probably easier.

-Declan



At 11:55 10/17/2000 -0400, Vanessa Lynch wrote:
>Hi Yes it is me again and I won't stop until someone can stop being
>rude...The first emai I sent was very polite and a simple request to be
>taken off.  The response I received was very rude and thats why I responded
>the way I did.  My apologies if you are having a bad day or feel personally
>attacked by my responses, however I recieve numerous emails unsolicted and
>solicted and when I request to be taken off its never a problem.  This list
>is the only one that has responded in this manner.
>
>I hope you have a wonderful rest of the day and realize that this was not
>about you ... I just wanted off the list.
>
>Thanks so much!
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Declan
>McCullagh
>Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 12:09 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Cc: Cypherpunks Mailing List
>Subject: Vanessa Lynch, still whining (an impressive feat)
>
>
>Ah, Vanessa, it's you again.
>
>You've been clogging cypherpunks with drivel for days now, in an
>apparent failure to understand the most basic mechanisms of mailing
>lists, let alone any glimmering of netiquette. You've been rude and
>obnoxious, threatening to report the cypherpunks list to the
>authorities, whoever they are.
>
>A typical message: "i did NOT subscribe to this crap so u take me off
>or im reporting site!!"
>
>I apologize, of course -- for being overly polite.
>
>Let me be more blunt this time: Bugger off. Stop whining, stop
>frothing, and take your threats elsewhere.
>
>-Declan
>
>
>At 11:37 10/17/2000 -0400, Vanessa Lynch wrote:
>
>Below is an email I received when requesting to be unsubscribed from a
>specific list - It look like someone from your organization has sent the
>latest email - please  do whatever it takes to ensure I do not receive any
>futher emails.  Whoever this person is in dire of an ego check!  I simply
>requested to be taken off a list -  no need for the organization/person to
>take it personally & act like so childish.
>
>Thank you for your help!
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: declan
>Sent: Monday, October 16, 2000 10:33 PM
>To: Jim Choate
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: CDR: RE: take me off ur list thank you!
>
>
>Allow me to be more uncharacteristically succinct (it's been a long day):
>
>Ms. Lynch, get a clue. Stop frothing. Until then, spare us the venting.
>
>Yours truly,
>A friend

Re: Ralph Nader sends privacy survey to Bush and Gore campaigns

[Declan McCullagh]

I think communism has too many negative connotations to be used nowadays... 
So communitarian is a new word for the old philosophy. Kinda like 
progressive as a replacement for statist or whatnot.

-Declan

At 12:20 10/10/2000 -0500, Jim Burnes wrote:
>Could someone cogently explain the difference between communitarians
>and communists?
>
>I get the impression that communitarians were sort of a communist/fascist
>hybrid, but I'm sure someone has a more elegant explanation.

Events in DC: Gun control, McCaffrey on "Our Balanced Approach to Drug Policy is Working"

[Declan McCullagh]

(resend)

SOCIAL ISSUES
News conference to highlight the negligence of the House of Representatives
to act on sensible gun safety proposals.
Participants: Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn.; Rep. Nita Lowey,
 D-N.Y.; Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., and
 Nina Butts, Texans Against Gun Violence
Location: HC-5, U.S. Capitol. 1 p.m.
Contact: 202-225-3661

SOCIAL ISSUES
National Public Broadcasting/FRONTLINE and National Public Radio
Symposium on "U.S. Drug War Policy" for media and invited guests. Highlights:
  8:55 a.m. - Panel 1, "Treatment and Educations v. Prohibition and
Punishment"  10:10 a.m. - Panel 2, "Social Justice and the War on Drugs"
  11:45 a.m. - Barry McCaffrey, national drug czar, "Our Balanced Approach
to Drug Policy is Working"  2 p.m. - Panel 3, "The International War
on Drugs," broadcast live on NPR News' "Talk of the Nation"  3 p.m.
- Panel 4, "The Drug Business," broadcast live
Location: Georgetown University Law Center, New Jersey
 Ave., NW. 8:45 a.m.
Contact: To join broadcast discussions call 800-989-TALK;
 for information call Chris Kelly, 617-300-3375

HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Jeremy and Julia
Crime Subcommittee hearing on H.R.469, Jeremy and Julia's Law.
Location: 2237 Rayburn House Office Building. 1:30 p.m.
Contact: 202-225-3951 http://www.house.gov/judiciary

SOCIAL ISSUES
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)
National Youth Summit to Prevent Underage Drinking, September 29-October
4. Highlights:  9:45 a.m. - Party Group #6  11 a.m. Closing General
Session: "So Now What Do We Do?"
Location: National 4-H Center, 7100 Connecticut Ave.,
 Chevy Chase, MD. 9:45 a.m.
Contact: 214-744-6233, ext. 216, or http://www.madd.org

TECHNOLOGY
Wall St. Journal
Technology Summit 2000: The Next Economy - Business, Public Policy
and the Internet.
Location: Ronald Reagan Building, 1300 Pennsylvania
 Ave., NW.
Contact: 800-457-5766; http://www.tpsite.com/wsj_TS2000/program.html


TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Nortel Networks
Policy luncheon on the issue of "Exploring Broadband Possibilities."
Participants: Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore.; Clarence Chandran,
 COO, Nortel Networks and Elliot Maxwell, special
 adviser to the Secretary of Commerce for the
 digital economy
Location: 902 Hart Senate Office Building. 12 noon
Contact: Walter Kallaur, 202-508-3607 

Down with techno-egalitarinism, from a reluctant cpunk

[Declan McCullagh]

I spoke Thurs night at the University of Virginia 
(http://www.politechbot.com/p-01393.html). I talked a lot about 
cypherpunkly topics (added some stuff that I haven't seen here, and plan to 
turn into an article) and even gave the how-to-join address of the cpunx list.

Below is a response from one of the students, forwarded here with permission.

-Declan

**

>From: "Christopher Fazekas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Your speech last night.
>Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 14:23:41 -0400
>
>Dear Mr. McCullagh:
>
> I thank you for a wonderful presentation last evening. It is rare 
> that I am presented with a political subject that grabs my attention. 
> Though I participate actively in political forum, until your speech last 
> evening, it had begun to feel as though I was "going through the motions" 
> so to speak with the boring, redundant ideological pissing matches that 
> characterize University discussion. Thank you for the new subject matter 
> to tackle.
>
> However, what makes this topic interesting, bothers me as well. I was 
> the individual who asked the "prepayment" question concerning 
> intellectual property and proper remuneration thereof. Fantastic new 
> economic models would be forced to be created to describe this "market 
> response" to the dissolution of intellectual property rights. So, I will 
> not venture an opinion on such subject. Yet, I think it is important to 
> mention that there is a fine line between anarchism and libertarianism. 
> At least I find there to be one. Hence, when we talk about the overthrow 
> of the nation state, it sets off quite a few bells. I do not believe 
> judicial systems should be cast to the wayside in favor of 
> techno-egalitarianism, and I feel that the dissolution of intellectual 
> property would sincerely stress current social institutions which I do 
> not believe need to be overthrown, but strengthened as government power 
> is retracted. However, a case could be made that the two are intricately 
> connected to one another.
>
> I realize all this is speculation. So, I will leave it at that. 
> Suffice to say I'm not sure the world is intellectually or socially 
> prepared for anarchy, though I believe it to be our saving end. Once 
> again, thank you for a wonderful discussion and keep in touch.
>
> Please keep me in your list of contacts. As I will be entering law 
> school next fall, I hope to devote a great portion of my career to the 
> preservation of liberty, and make way for this great anonymous freedom.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Christopher Fazekas
>Chairman
>Classical Liberal Roundtable at the University
>2432 C-4 Arlington Blvd.
>Charlottesville, Virginia 22903

RE: CRYPTIC SEDUCTION -- CYPHERPUNK SPECIAL

[Declan McCullagh]

We ran a review of it at Wired, and I showed it at my CFP'99 event. It's 
worth buying, if just for the this-is-a-first-and-sort-of-strange value.

-Declan


At 17:16 9/24/2000 -0400, Templeton, Stuart wrote:

>here's something i dug up... at..
>
>http://www.techweek.com/articles/3-8-99/needle.htm
>
>
>
>it's down there
>
>=
>
>"McPherson says she gets excited by the drive-by shootings. "It takes me
>about a half hour afterwards to calm down," she says.
>
>Cryptic seduction
>
>Juicy Mango is one of thousands of porn sites on that geek-inspired
>communications platform known as the Internet. Now, the more traditional
>(video) porn industry is starting to take notice of geeks. "Cryptic
>Seduction" is the name of a geek-centered porn flick coming, perhaps, to a
>screen near you. The film was screened for a meeting of Cypherpunks in
>Oakland where it received raucous approval, according to Wired News.
>Cypherpunks is a group of privacy advocates and encryption developers who
>support a strong code to safeguard one's personal data on the Net.
>"
>
>
>=
>
>
>
>hey, guys, is this uhm, wasn't there a "Cryptic Seduction II" in '99 , i
>think i saw it in the archive???
>
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of jim bell
>Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2000 2:51 PM
>To: Sandy Sandfort; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: CRYPTIC SEDUCTION -- CYPHERPUNK SPECIAL
>
>
>
>So what's "Cryptic Seduction"?   Sorry, but I've been, uh, "away."
>
>Jim Bell
>
>- Original Message -
>From: Sandy Sandfort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2000 10:37 AM
>Subject: CRYPTIC SEDUCTION -- CYPHERPUNK SPECIAL
>
>
> > C'punks,
> >
> > Many of you have asked when CRYPTIC SEDUCTION would be available on video.
> > I have held off making copies available because I have been looking for a
> > good deal with a distributor.  I've decided not to wait any longer.  It
>will
> > soon be available through several sites on the Web.
> >
> > Because of the heavy Cypherpunk influence/involvement in the making of
> > CRYPTIC SEDUCTION, I've decided to make a special Cypherpunk offer.  If
>you
> > would like to get an advance copy of CRYPTIC SEDUCTION, send a check or
> > money order for $19.95 (plus appropriate sales tax if you are in
>California)
> > to:
> >
> > Desdaemona Film Production Trust
> > 123 Bay Place, #301
> > Oakland, CA 94610
> >
> > Your check or money order should be made out to "Desdaemona Film
>Production
> > Trust."  If you have any questions, e-mail me or call me at 510-839-3441.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> >  S a n d y
> >
> > P.S.  Many of you have seen the soft-core version of CRYPTIC SEDUCTION on
> > the Spice Channel.  The video version, however, is hard-core.
> >

Re: RISKS

[Declan McCullagh]

Carl is most certainly not an idiot. In fact, there might be a reasonable
argument for this: You're changing the defaults of a contract by specifying
what should be interpreted as reasonable authentication or not. Still,
I don't agree with it, and it's something that should be left up to the
courts, not Washingtonians and their lobbyists.

-Declan


On Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 01:02:35PM -0400, Marcel Popescu wrote:
> Another idiot who wants more laws:
> 
> Date: 17 Sep 2000 19:16:23 -0700
> X-Loop: openpgp.net
> From: "Carl Ellison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Identity theft (PGN, RISKS-21.04)
> 
> I used to try to keep my SSN private -- then I realized that that's blaming
> the victim (me).  It's not the SSN holder's fault that stores and other
> institutions use improper means for authenticating people.  It's the store's
> fault.
> 
> Any information held by a credit bureau is public.  So is any information
> held by any government agency, if I'm to believe the spam I get
> occasionally.
> 
> So, that information is not acceptable for authentication -- even in person,
> but especially online.  It's not merely unacceptable when dealing with the
> credit bureau.  The credit bureau poisons the information for everyone.
> 
> Now -- how do we get consumer protection laws that make it clear that a
> consumer is not liable for any debts incurred by someone claiming to be
> him/her unless there is irrefutable authentication during registration
> (e.g., videotape of the consumer signing up for the service).  This means
> killing all issuing of credit online, by mail, by phone, etc.
> 
> Maybe I'd stop getting all those credit-card applications in the mail
> 
> [This opens a technical challenge: how can we authenticate anyone, if we
> rule
> out information that an attacker can get?]
> 
>  - Carl
> 
> ---
> All inventions or works of authorship original to me,
> herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public
> domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose,
> without permission, attribution, or notification.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

And you thought Nazi agitprop was controversial?

[Declan McCullagh]

[A veteran free speech activist in Cambridge, Mass. sent me this. Any 
offers of mirroring should go to the list, where I assume they'll be duly 
forwarded. I wonder how long the HTML files in question here would last on 
a Geocities/etc account. --Declan]

---

Hi Declan,

I know you're aware of the case of Curley v. NAMBLA, which has very
serious First Amendment implications. Jeffrey Curley was a 10-year-old
who was murdered in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in October of 1997. The
parents are alleging that the murderers were driven by NAMBLA literature
in general and specifically by the contents of NAMBLA's web site. After
the suit was filed in May of this year, the current NAMBLA web site was
taken down.

Frisoli, the Curley lawyer, has been making very outrageous and false
statements about what was on the web site. Because the media has no
access to the site, no one can contradict him. A vicious media war is
now being waged against the ACLU and other free-expression advocates for
defending freedom of expression in this case. Few reporters seem even
interested in finding out the contents of NAMBLA literature or the
contents of the web site as of 10/97. But even if a fair-minded reporter
did have this interest, he or she would be out of luck. Printed material
from NAMBLA is difficult to find. Members of NAMBLA will speak to the
press only under conditions of strict anonymity because they fear for
their lives. And the web site is not accessible.

I am not a NAMBLA member, but I believe that the First Amendment applies
to them. I have obtained the web files as of 10/97. I don't wish to put
them up myself for a variety of reasons. First of all, my ISP might make
me take them down. Also, I am involved in another case which I don't
want tarred with the NAMBLA brush. There is no court injunction against
the publication of the materials. But a site outside the US might be
best in any case.

Anyway, if you can help me find someone to take the files and put them
up, please let me know.

Clinton administration takes on Napster in court case

[Declan McCullagh]

From: Declan McCullagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: FC: Clinton administration takes on Napster in court case
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 19:16:42 -0400
X-URL: http://www.mccullagh.org/
X-URL: Politech is at http://www.politechbot.com/
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.2i

The Clinton administration is siding with the entertainment industry
in its attempts to shut down Napster. It just filed a 37-page amicus
brief in the court case saying Napster can't use the Audio Home
Recording Act of 1992 (http://www.virtualrecordings.com/ahra.htm) as a
legal shield. The brief says "the activities of Napster's users do not
even arguably come within the terms of the statute" and the district
court's ruling should be upheld. The Justice Department, the Patent
and Trademark Office, and the Copyright Office signed the brief.  By
way of possible explanation, one of my colleagues has compiled
(http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,38528,00.html) a handy list
of entertainment industry contributions to Democrats. :)

-Declan



http://www.politechbot.com/docs/napster-amicus.html
http://www.politechbot.com/docs/napster-amicus.wpd


  NOS. 00-16401 & 00-16403
  
   IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
  
   FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
  

  
 A&M RECORDS, INC., et al.
  
   Plaintiffs-Appellants,
  
 v.
  
   NAPSTER, INC.,
  
Defendant-Appellant.
  

  
  JERRY LEIBER, individually and d/b/a JERRY LEIBER MUSIC, et al.,
  
   Plaintiffs-Appellants,
  
 v.
  
   NAPSTER, INC.,
  
Defendant-Appellant.
  

  
  ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
  
  FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
  

  
BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE
  

  
  
   DAVID O. CARSON DAVID W. OGDEN
   General Counsel Assistant Attorney General
   J. KENT DUNLAP MARK B. STERN
  
   SCOTT R. McINTOSH
  
   United States Copyright Office Attorneys, Appellate Staff
  
   Library of Congress
  
   101 Independence Ave. S.E. Civil Division, Department of Justice
  
   Washington, D.C. 20540 601 D Street N.W., Room 9550
  
   Washington, D.C. 20520
  
   ALBIN F. DROST
  
   Acting General Counsel Counsel for the United States
  
   JUSTIN HUGHES
  
   United States Patent and Trademark Office
  
   P.O. Box 15667
  
   Arlington, VA 22215
  
   Of Counsel
  

[...]
  
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
  
   Section 1008 of the Audio Home Recording Act does not protect Napster
   from the plaintiffs' claims of copyright infringement. Section 1008
   was adopted to address a very different phenomenon - the noncommercial
   consumer use of digital audio recording devices, such as DAT tape
   decks, to perform "home taping" of musical recordings. Napster's
   effort to bring itself within the ambit of Section 1008 flouts the
   terms of the statute and conflicts with the basic policies of the Act.
  
   1.
   Section 1008 prohibits actions for copyright infringement based on:
   (1) the manufacture, importation, or distribution of "a digital audio
   recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog
   recording device, or an analog recording medium"; or (2) "the
   noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making
   digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings." Although
   Napster insists that the activities of its users are protected by
   Section 1008, and that it therefore cannot be held accountable for
   contributory or vicarious infringement based on those activities,
   Napster's defense cannot possibly be squared with the actual terms of
   Section 1008.
  
   First, it is undisputed that Napster's users are not using any
   "device" or "medium" specified in Section 1008, and Section 1008
   applies only to consumer use of "such a device or medium." Second,
   when Napster's users create and store copies of music files on their
   computers' hard disks, they are not making "digital musical recordings
   or analog musical recordings" as those terms are defined in the Act.
   Third, Napster's users are engaged not only in copying musical
   recordings, but also in distributing such recordings to the public,
   and Section 1008 immunizes only noncommercial copying ("noncommercial
   use *

U.S. Justice Department, Leading Technology Association Launch Web Site...

[Declan McCullagh]

>Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 17:27:04 -0400 (EDT)
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>X-JID: 602169
>Subject: U.S. Justice Department, Leading Technology Association Launch 
>Web Site...
>
>
>
>U.S. Justice Department, Leading Technology Association Launch Web Site
>   To Teach Children Responsible Computer Use
>
>   Offers Parents, Educators Back-To-School Tools To
> Teach Kids About Online Ethics
>
> ARLINGTON, Va., Sept. 5 /PRNewswire/ -- As America's children go back to
>school, The Cybercitizen Partnership, a joint effort by the U.S. Department of
>Justice and the Information Technology Association of America Foundation
>(ITAA), the nation's leading technology association, today launched a new Web
>site for parents and educators designed to teach kids the right ways to use
>the Internet.
> The new Web site -- http://www.cybercitizenship.org -- represents a major
>national effort to provide teachers, parents and their children with a new
>learning tool -- responsible computer use.  The Web site is initially focused
>on providing support for parents, and will expand to assist teachers and
>appeal to kids.
> "Young people are growing up in a society where the Internet is 
> central to
>everything from commerce to recreation," said U.S. Attorney General Janet
>Reno.  "Unfortunately, criminal activity exists online just as it does on the
>streets.  As children learn basic rules about right and wrong in the off-line
>world, they must also learn about acceptable behavior on the Internet."
> "This is a first-of-its kind government/private sector initiative to help
>kids realize that the rules of the road in the off-line world also apply in
>the online world," said ITAA President Harris N. Miller.  "As the Internet
>becomes more important to our daily lives, this initiative will help kids make
>informed decisions about online behavior."
> The Cybercitizen Partnership was formed last year to focus national
>attention on cyber social behavior and the importance of teaching young
>computer users to recognize that, in addition to protecting themselves from
>the more unsavory and potentially dangerous behavior found in parts of the
>Internet, they must understand that, when online, they are responsible for
>their own actions and that these actions have consequences both for themselves
>and others.  The same standards of ethics expected in the off-line world must
>be applied to the online world.  The Web site will provide parents with
>several tools including:
>
> *  Teachable Moments:  Tips to help parents use real-life events, news
>stories and examples to help them talk to their kids about the
>responsibilities they must accept when using the Internet;
>
> *  Links:  Relevant sites to connect parents to other programs and
>organizations offering helpful information;
>
> *  Logo:  A kid-friendly character, created specifically for The
>Cybercitizen Partnership, that reminds young computer users to "Surf Like A
>Hero, Not A Zero"
>
> *  Current Events: Useful news coverage on cyber ethics and cyber crimes
>and a calendar of events for educational programs;
>
> *  White Paper:  A situation analysis and call-to-action addressing the
>need to educate children about responsible cyber social behavior;
>
> *  Ask The Experts:  A list of experts on cyber ethics, who will be
>available to respond to email inquiries from visitors to the site.
>
> "Now that students have rapidly increasing access to the Internet at
>school and at home, the key is to excite them while teaching them the right
>way to use the new medium," said Van B. Honeycutt, president and CEO of
>Computer Sciences Corporation and chairman of The Cybercitizen Partnership.
>"Our children represent the future technology workforce, which is why it's so
>important for industry to play a major role in helping kids learn responsible
>cyber behavior."
> The Web site will evolve and eventually include:  a directory of
>educational initiatives across the country dedicated to integrating messages
>about responsible cyber social behavior; new links to valuable Web sites; and
>interactive tools for parents and teachers on cyber ethics.
> Announced in March of 1999 by the U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, The
>Cybercitizen Partnership serves as an umbrella organization to identify cyber
>social behavior initiatives and to help create a movement to address legal and
>ethical issues online.  Current supporters of the program include: Computer
>Sciences Corporation (www.csc.com ); Oracle (www.oracle.com );
>www.onehealthbank.com ; MERANT (www.merant.com ); Mirus Information Systems
>(www.mirusinfo.com ); Stanford Consulting Group, Cyveillance, Inc., iDefense
>(www.idefense.com ), the Recording Industry Association of America
>(www.RIAA.com ) and BITS, the Technology Group for the Financial Services
>sector (

Re: Breaking eggs

[Declan McCullagh]

Oh, I'm not equating the modern concept of damages with modern criminal 
law. I'm saying that in the venerable history of our legal system, it may 
not be trivial to separate them.

Put another way: If I attempt to kill someone and stumble, dropping my 
steak knife, that should be treated differently from a completed murder 
(for all the law knows, I unconsciously stumbled). And that should be 
treated differently from my slashing you in the arm, causing a minor cut 
but no permanent damage.

Ah, yes, that "damage" word again.

-Declan

At 11:49 8/23/2000 -0700, Ray Dillinger wrote:
>On Wed, 23 Aug 2000, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>
> >One reason to punish a crime (rather than an attempt) more seriously
> >is that there is usually some sort of damage, at least with traditional
> >crimes. Murder, rape, theft, etc.
>
>Right.  Damages, however, are Torts rather than Crimes.
>
>(translation -- damages are a matter for civil court,
>not criminal court.)
>
> Bear
>

Judge sides with Hollywood in DVD descrambling/DMCA case

[Declan McCullagh]

Decision is at:
http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/pdf/D02NYSC/00-08117.PDF

Final judgment and order:
http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/pdf/D02NYSC/00-08118.PDF



http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,38287,00.html

Studios Score DeCSS Victory
by Declan McCullagh ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

11:40 a.m. Aug. 17, 2000 PDT
LOS ANGELES -- A DVD-descrambling program is akin to a virulent
Internet epidemic that must be eradicated, a federal judge said
Thursday as he agreed with Hollywood that DVDs must be protected from
decryption and copying.

Comparing the DeCSS utility to a "common-source outbreak epidemic,"
U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan said "there is little room for
doubting that broad dissemination of DeCSS threatens ultimately to
injure or destroy plaintiffs' ability to distribute their copyrighted
products on DVDs, and, for that matter, undermine their ability to
sell their products to the home video market in other forms."

The lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in New York, and a
similar one pending in state court in California, are part of an
aggressive campaign by Hollywood to protect its content from illicit
distribution online. The Napster file-trading service has come under
attack, as have iCraveTV and Scour.net.

Kaplan's 93-page ruling against hacker-zine 2600 Magazine, which eight
movie studios sued after it posted DeCSS on its website, likely will
have far-reaching effects in the computer industry.

It prevents 2600 from not only distributing copies of DeCSS, but also
linking to Web pages or areas of a website where it resides. That
could affect other online news organizations, which have occasionally
linked to DeCSS as part of their coverage of the lawsuit.

"I'm very troubled by the implications of the analysis in this case,
particularly with regard to linking," said Stuart Biegel, a senior
lecturer at the UCLA School of Law. "The distinction set forth in this
opinion between different types of linking is a nebulous one."

The Motion Picture Association of America, which has backed the
lawsuit, applauded the ruling.

"Today's landmark decision nailed down an indispensable constitutional
and congressional truth: It's wrong to help others steal creative
works," MPAA president Jack Valenti said in a statement. "The court's
ruling is a victory for consumers and for legitimate technology."

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which has paid for the legal
defense of 2600 publisher Emmanuel Goldstein, said it would appeal the
ruling.

Kaplan's decision, if upheld on appeal, could endanger not just
websites distributing DeCSS -- and there seem to be thousands of them
-- but efforts by the Linux community to develop an open-source DVD
player.

The LiViD project, for instance, is attempting to build a modular
suite of software DVD players, and to do that, programmers
incorporated the same code used in DeCSS.

Kaplan's order said that anyone acting "in concert" with 2600 is
prohibited from distributing or linking to any program that
circumvents the DVD-protection algorithm called CSS.

"Now the MPAA has an avenue to go around bullying anyone offering the
LiViD project files, simply by making an argument that they're
operating in conjunction with 2600, and 2600 has been enjoined from
posting any CSS code, not just the infamous DeCSS.exe," wrote one
irate poster on an open-source-related mailing list.

[...]

Sen. Lieberman supports warrantless wiretaps, crypto-regs

[Declan McCullagh]

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,38207,00.html

Lieberman's Privacy 'Tap' Dance
by Declan McCullagh ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

7:53 a.m. Aug. 15, 2000 PDT
The Democratic Party platform that delegates will
adopt this week embraces personal privacy
despite the checkered voting record of their vice
presidential candidate.

During his 12 years in the Senate, Connecticut's
Joseph Lieberman has supported regulations on
medical data collection while at the same time
championing expanded surveillance powers for law
enforcement.

In 1995, for instance, Lieberman began a campaign
to let police perform short-term warrantless wiretaps
in some cases that involved potential "violent acts."

He attempted to offer his warrantless-wiretap
amendment to an anti-terrorism bill being considered
by the Senate in response to the Oklahoma City
bombing.

"I can imagine a number of situations where the
power granted by (this amendment) would provide
exactly the kinds of tools that could make a
difference in stopping terrorists before they strike,"
Lieberman said in a floor speech at the time.

He called "electronic surveillance, particularly in this
high-technology communication age" one of the most
powerful tools police have against criminals.

That anti-privacy stance seems to conflict with the
strong language in the 2000 Democratic Party
platform, which talks of the "right to choose whether
personal information is disclosed; the right to know
how, when, and how much of that information is
being used; the right to see it yourself; and the right
to know if it is accurate."

During this election season, electronic privacy
concerns have reached an all-time high, fueled by
concerns about systems such as Echelon and
Carnivore. In July, the European Parliament appointed
a committee to investigate Echelon, and last week
Attorney General Janet Reno said she would ask an
unnamed university to audit the FBI's Carnivore
software.

"One has to question where Lieberman stands on
privacy," says Sonia Arrison, director of technology
policy at the free-market Pacific Research Institute.
"On the one hand, it's terrifying to think that a
potential vice president would support wiretapping
without a warrant, but on the other hand he's been
eager to enforce privacy policies on government
websites. I think he needs to come clean on this
issue."

A spokesman for Lieberman who asked not to be
identified by name defended the Connecticut
Democrat's record: "He has a pro-Internet agenda.
And he is concerned and attentive to the privacy of
Internet users."

To be sure, Lieberman has taken stands that drew
praise from civil libertarians.

Months before he became Vice President Al Gore's
running mate, Lieberman requested that auditors at
the General Accounting Office investigate whether or
not federal agencies are complying with
government-wide privacy standards. A recent
investigation by Wired News showed that many
federal websites are violating White House rules
about using cookies.

Months before he became Vice President Al Gore's
running mate, Lieberman requested that auditors at
the General Accounting Office investigate whether or
not federal agencies are complying with
government-wide privacy standards. A recent
investigation by Wired News showed that many
federal websites are violating White House rules
about using cookies.

Lieberman also co-sponsored a medical-reform bill
that required companies participating in Medicare and
Medicaid programs to report additional information to
the federal government. Data submitted are
supposed to remain confidential.

But Lieberman, the former attorney general of
Connecticut, frequently appears to agree with law
enforcement and national security officials when they
argue for more eavesdropping abilities.

One criticism of Lieberman's warrantless-wiretapping
plan came from Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), the chair
of the Judiciary committee. Hatch opposed the
amendment, saying it would define activist groups as
potential "terrorists" and permit police to conduct
surveillance without a judge's approval.

Hatch, a conservative Mormon, said groups like
ACT-UP and environmental activists could be
targeted under Lieberman's plan. "This amendment
could thus permit the government to listen to the
conversations of such groups without obtaining a
court order. ... I am concerned that this provision, if
enacted, would unnecessarily broaden emergency
wiretap authority," Hatch said.

Lieberman's spokesman said the purpose of the
amendment was to update existing wiretap laws to
cover terrorist activity, and that if a judge eventually
nixed the wiretap, the information gathered could not
be used in court. U.S. law had already allowed for
temporary warrantless taps in other areas.

The Senate defeated Lieberman's amendment 52 to
28 by tabling it, but a related ame

Re: Whitehouse Porn Collection

[Declan McCullagh]

A fabrication? The White House has confirmed ththis story.

-Declan


On Fri, Aug 11, 2000 at 11:56:40PM -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> For this to turn into a circus the person making the
> allegations has to come forward. I doubt that is going
> to happen, both because the story told sounds to me like
> a fabrication and because if it were true the chap is
> not very likely to own up and become the next Linda Tripp.
> 
> 
>   Phill
> 
> PS: The 'gift' from Bill and Hilary consisted of a signed
> photograph and an Xmas card. I forgot to mention that I
> also recieved one from Socks.
> 
> PPS: Ever thought it a bit wierd that the NSA don't do
> the stuff like firewalls at the EOP?
> 

Another economist finds encryption

[Declan McCullagh]

THE LIGHTHOUSE
"Enlightening Ideas for Public Policy..."
VOL. 2, ISSUE 30
August 7, 2000

Welcome to The Lighthouse, the e-mail newsletter of The Independent
Institute, the non-partisan, public policy research organization
. We provide you with updates of the
Institute's current research, publications, events and media programs.

[...]

-

WILL THE INTERNET CURB GLOBAL REDISTRIBUTIONISM?

The recent Group of Eight summit in Okinawa didn't produce unanimity,
but it did give global redistributionists the opportunity to pledge
their taxpayers' commitment to end global poverty. (Other G-8
countries balked at a French proposal to increase foreign aid to poor
countries by 5 to 10 percent.) Significantly, however, Japan proposed
to spend $15 billion of its own taxpayers' money to build the
computer and Internet capabilities of developing countries.

Although the United States has been embroiled in debate over Internet
and e-mail privacy, it is important to keep in mind the overall
liberating effects of the new information technology. Rather than
abet government repression, à la Big Brother, individual liberty is
likely to be advanced by the new technology, especially with advances
in encryption, argues economist David R. Henderson. And although
freedom does not necessarily guarantee the emergence of prosperity,
one tends to reinforce the other -- another tendency likely to be
accelerated by encryption. If this scenario plays out, perhaps the
Japanese taxpayer (and taxpayers worldwide) will not have to labor
much longer under the politics of redistributionism, as it becomes
more apparent that the roads to freedom and prosperity are parallel.

"Does this story sound like science fiction?" asks Henderson. "It
certainly does. But, as my colleague Pat Parker put it recently, 'If
when you try to predict what may happen in ten years, your
predictions sound like science fiction, you may well be wrong. But if
your predictions ten years out *don't* sound like science fiction,
you are certain to be wrong.'"

See "Information Technology as a Universal Solvent for Removing State
Stains" by David R. Henderson (THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW, Spring 2000),
at http://www.independent.org/tii/lighthouse/LHLink2-30-8.html.

-

Re: Spam?

[Declan McCullagh]

Jon,

Greetings! Haven't heard from you in a while.

Briefly we want to be able to allow posts from anonymous and pseudonymous
accounts. Thus the list cannot accept posts only from its members, at
least easily. This has been discussed at length in (gasp) the archives.

-Declan



On Sun, Aug 06, 2000 at 04:25:11PM -0400, jon lebkowsky wrote:
> I'll say it again... I think the list should accept posts only from its
> members.
> 
> - Original Message -
> X-Loop: openpgp.net
> From: "Kurth Bemis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Multiple recipients of list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2000 1:52 PM
> Subject: Re: Spam?
> 
> 
> > At 12:31 PM 8/6/2000 -0700, Graeme Lord wrote:
> >
> > no i - who shows who is subscribed to the list...you can mail to those
> > users directlythe spammers just hit the listand the majordomo does
> > it job..
> >
> > a lot of shit is assholes subscribing us to mailing lists.you know who
> > you are
> >
> > ~k
> >
> > >could this irritation be eliminated by disabling majordomo's who command?
> > >
> > >
> > >Kurth Bemis wrote:
> > >
> > > > At 12:03 AM 8/7/2000 +1000, Bryan Nolen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > its been talked about and every time we say - that will not allow
> people to
> > > > post from anon re mailers.  its something that the cypherpunks believe
> and
> > > > it will probably stay that way.  its an open list...just filter
> out the
> > > > messages at your server or use your mail client to filter messages...
> > > >
> > > > ~k
> > > >
> > > > > > Shall we only allow messages from subscribed
> > > members?  Moderate?  Shut the
> > > > > > lists down?  Just deal?
> > > > >
> > > > >Definatly close the list to ONLY subscribers...
> > > > >
> > > > >-Bryan N.
> > > > >
> > > > >--
> > > > >Age and treachery will always overcome youth and skill.
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 

U.S. military poised to respond to attack on GOP convention

[Declan McCullagh]

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,37920,00.html

Army Battle-Ready for Convention
by Declan McCullagh ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

8:40 a.m. Aug. 1, 2000 PDT
PHILADELPHIA -- The U.S. Army is prepared to respond to
disruptions ranging from civil disobedience to nuclear
explosions at the Republican National Convention, a
confidential government document says.

The terrorism response plan includes flying giant C-5
Galaxy cargo planes loaded with military gear into Willow
Grove Naval Air Station, about 25 miles outside the city,
and assembling troops at three National Guard armories
near the downtown protest areas.

"Preparedness for nuclear, biological, chemical, and civil
disturbance events, as well as potential weather-related
disaster events, must be considered," says the Federal
Emergency Management Agency document, obtained by
Wired News from a source who asked to remain
anonymous.

A FEMA spokesman confirmed the authenticity of the
document, but said he did not have any information that a
terrorist attack was likely to happen during the GOP
convention.

"We try to plan for any event like this as we would plan
for a hurricane," said Ross Fredenburg, FEMA's regional
public information officer.

The 75-page operations manual, labeled on each page "For
Official Use Only," says: "There is a greater probability
that an act occurring during the RNC could result in
high-risk situations and possibly necessitate a tactical
response by the local, state, and federal governments."

Security is already at an all-time high for a convention,
with flight restrictions in place over central Philadelphia,
nearly all city police on duty, and guards equipped with
mirrors searching for bombs under vehicles that approach
the First Union Center.

The document, created by FEMA to supplement its usual
procedures, says that the U.S. First Army will, if
necessary, execute Operation Garden Plot to quell any
serious civil disturbances.

Operation Garden Plot has long been an object of
speculation by conspiracy theorists, but the watchdog
group Federation of American Scientists describes it as
the military's overall plan for "support related to domestic
civil disturbances" that was last used during the Los
Angeles riots in 1992.

Critics such as the American Civil Liberties Union have
protested the recent trend to use military troops for law
enforcement purposes.

The FEMA plan even goes so far as to spend 12 pages
listing hospitals and numbers of licensed beds -- including
places as far away as St. Luke's Hospital in Quakertown, a
40-mile drive.

[...]

Re: Carnivore - Matt Blaze testimony

[Declan McCullagh]

One industry's terrorism is another man's Napster.

True, there's little hope of being able to challenge all these laws in
court, and even if possible, the Supreme Court is not that likely to
see things through cpunx lenses.

(There's also a side issue of legitimizing groups that don't always
have cpunkly interests in mind -- for instance, when the ACLU argues
against government surveillance but for a right to welfare, does the
good of the former balance out the harm of the latter?)

-Declan


On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 06:03:56PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
> But there is no hope for legal and constitutional challenges. They 
> use _our_ money to proliferate new travesties faster than groups like 
> the ACLU and EFF and mount challenges, raise funds, and challenge 
> these unconstitutional acts. And if, by some slim chance, a court 
> strikes down one such law, they have a hundred slight variants on the 
> law ready to go in a thousand other jurisdictions.
> 
> It's hopeless. Only technology, and terrorism, will work.