date:20010730


On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, Subcommander Bob wrote:

> Damnit, Alan, if you had prompted Leitl to say that you could have had
> the retort:
> "Careful with that axe, Eugene."

I will. (Hey, it's my favourite).

Re: On the turning away of hackers


On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, Subcommander Bob wrote:

> Damnit, Alan, if you had prompted Leitl to say that you could have had
> the retort:
> "Careful with that axe, Eugene."

I will. (Hey, it's my favourite).

RE: General Ashcroft make his move

2001-07-30 Thread Jonathan Wienke

Title: RE: General Ashcroft make his move





-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1


I get the NRA's American Rifleman magazine. The July issue also has
an article about Ashcroft's letter, which does not quote the rather
lengthy footnote. However, it does contain a legible image of BOTH
pages of the letter, including the ENTIRE text of the footnote. This
is hardly the action of an organization bent on distorting Ashcroft's
view on the Second Amendment. Stupid editing on the part of the
America's First Freedom team, perhaps, but not an organization-wide
conspiracy.


Jonathan Wienke


- -Original Message-
From: Matthew Gaylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 12:01 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: General Ashcroft make his move



[Note from Matthew Gaylor:  Richard Stevens is author of the recent 
book "Dial 911 and Die" published by the Jews for the Preservation of
Firearms Ownership.   http://www.jpfo.org ]


Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 16:00:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Richard Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Matt -- we must protest when "our side" errs
To: Matthew Gaylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


Dear Colleagues,


The July 2001 Issue of NRA's America's First Freedom
magazine featured a cover picture of John Ashcroft and
highlighted the story of Ashcroft's letter indicating
that "the Constitution protects the private ownership
of firearms for lawful purposes."  The magazine (at
pp. 35-37) exults in the reversal of Justice
Department policy on the Second Amendment.


That's great.  On page 37, the NRA reprints Ashcroft's
letter -- as though it were *in full* -- but omits the
footnote that exists in Ashcroft's actual letter.


As you know, Ashcroft also said in that footnote in
his letter that the Constitution "does not prohibit
Congress from enacting laws restricting firearms
ownership for compelling state interests, such as
prohibiting firearms ownership by convicted felons."


The NRA omitted a key element of Ashcroft's position
- -- and then published the letter as though it were
complete.


That omission is a terrible distortion -- and
seriously damages NRA's credibility with those of us
who know the whole truth.  What else might the NRA
choose to omit, where the omission serves a PR
purpose?  Are their reports from the UN correct?
Their reports about lobbying efforts and the positions
taken by NRA-backed candidates?


I wonder who at the NRA thought it was a good idea to
distort the facts, and conceal the somewhat negative
truth, just to advance the appearance of NRA success?
That's the conduct we came to expect from HCI & Co.
... now it has infected the NRA.


Members like me should demand the NRA publish an
accounting of this mistake, fire the person who made
the mistake, apologize and repent from such conduct.


- --Richard Stevens
(my personal views only)


**

Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words subscribe
FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per
week)
Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722  ICQ: 106212065   Archived at 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/
**



-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use 


iQA/AwUBO2VEUBj6oMyeDxZoEQKwzACgtgENpYvs3Oz6LEf2b04MDO6LMGUAmgPm
FTy4IcWnLsgciXWgV25+IeDS
=NOgR
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Criminalizing crypto criticism

On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Unless I'm mistaken a node keeps a reference ( even if only temorarily
> ) to the originating node when data is added. So if I publish
> sooper-infringer.tar.gz and the neighboring node that gets it is a
> narc I'm screwed. Identify your dissidents and put in informants as

Aye, that's the rub. Even if you're acting as a relay, even if you're just
serving out a sliver of the content, even if it's sitting there encrypted
on your hard drive, even if it's ephemeral -- if you serve a packet (while
not spoofing your IP), and legislation makes that prosecutable, yer goose
is cooked ("Your Honour, he's a part of a global terrorist network!").

I'm not sure how you can prevent that, apart from the spoofing or
legislation changing business. Oh, and only making links into legal
compartments guaranteeing maximum persecution friction. So, if your
traffic is unfilterable (it looks like a SSL session), and it comes from
Cuba, the guilty party seems to be more or less immune.

> neighbors. Admittedly I didn't read everything yet. What did I miss?

Re: Criminalizing crypto criticism

On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Unless I'm mistaken a node keeps a reference ( even if only temorarily
> ) to the originating node when data is added. So if I publish
> sooper-infringer.tar.gz and the neighboring node that gets it is a
> narc I'm screwed. Identify your dissidents and put in informants as

Aye, that's the rub. Even if you're acting as a relay, even if you're just
serving out a sliver of the content, even if it's sitting there encrypted
on your hard drive, even if it's ephemeral -- if you serve a packet (while
not spoofing your IP), and legislation makes that prosecutable, yer goose
is cooked ("Your Honour, he's a part of a global terrorist network!").

I'm not sure how you can prevent that, apart from the spoofing or
legislation changing business. Oh, and only making links into legal
compartments guaranteeing maximum persecution friction. So, if your
traffic is unfilterable (it looks like a SSL session), and it comes from
Cuba, the guilty party seems to be more or less immune.

> neighbors. Admittedly I didn't read everything yet. What did I miss?

IP: FBI gets cash to spend on anti-encryption research (fwd)




-- Eugen* Leitl http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204/";>leitl
__
ICBMTO  : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204
57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3

-- Forwarded message --
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 18:28:29 -0400
From: David Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: IP: FBI gets cash to spend on anti-encryption research


>
>Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 15:37:43 -0400
>From: Declan McCullagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Anyone want to speculate on what the quote in the first bullet
>point means?
>
>You can find a smidgen more info here (search for encryption),
>which is the report I was quoting from:
>   ftp://ftp.loc.gov/pub/thomas/cp107/sr042.txt
>
>-Declan
>
>
>http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,45632,00.html
>
> According to the report accompanying a spending bill that's awaiting a
> floor vote in the Senate:
>
>   * The FBI will receive an extra $7 million for technology to thwart
> encryption. The appropriations committee intends for it to be
> spent on: "(1) analysis/exploitation of systems to allow access to
> data pre-encryption, (2) recognition/decryption of data hidden in
> plain sight, and (3) decryption of encrypted data."
>   * Another $7 million goes to a plan to improve "intercept
> capabilities." The fed-speak for this is "developing broadband
> capabilities, and procuring prototypes capable of intercepting
> transmissions outside of the FBI's technical reach." Translation:
> Create better ways to eavesdrop on cable modems and DSL
> connections.
>   * Antitrust enforcement gets a boost. The division, best known
> recently for its dogged pursuit of Microsoft, receives $3.6
> million extra, but $10 million less than the Bush administration
> requested. The committee predicts a slew of mergers because of
> "the collapse of high technology stocks, and the resultant
> downward pressure on all stock prices."
>   * Las Vegas, St. Louis, Charleston and Kansas City will split $6
> million earmarked for gun surveillance technology. The plan is to
> spend it on acoustic sensors scattered around downtown areas so
> the location of a gunshot can be triangulated and located.
>
>
>
>-
>POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
>You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
>To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
>This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
>-
>
>
>- End forwarded message -
>
>
>
>-
>The Cryptography Mailing List
>Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/

IP: FBI gets cash to spend on anti-encryption research (fwd)


-- Eugen* Leitl http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204/";>leitl
__
ICBMTO  : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204
57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3

-- Forwarded message --
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 18:28:29 -0400
From: David Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: IP: FBI gets cash to spend on anti-encryption research


>
>Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 15:37:43 -0400
>From: Declan McCullagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Anyone want to speculate on what the quote in the first bullet
>point means?
>
>You can find a smidgen more info here (search for encryption),
>which is the report I was quoting from:
>   ftp://ftp.loc.gov/pub/thomas/cp107/sr042.txt
>
>-Declan
>
>
>http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,45632,00.html
>
> According to the report accompanying a spending bill that's awaiting a
> floor vote in the Senate:
>
>   * The FBI will receive an extra $7 million for technology to thwart
> encryption. The appropriations committee intends for it to be
> spent on: "(1) analysis/exploitation of systems to allow access to
> data pre-encryption, (2) recognition/decryption of data hidden in
> plain sight, and (3) decryption of encrypted data."
>   * Another $7 million goes to a plan to improve "intercept
> capabilities." The fed-speak for this is "developing broadband
> capabilities, and procuring prototypes capable of intercepting
> transmissions outside of the FBI's technical reach." Translation:
> Create better ways to eavesdrop on cable modems and DSL
> connections.
>   * Antitrust enforcement gets a boost. The division, best known
> recently for its dogged pursuit of Microsoft, receives $3.6
> million extra, but $10 million less than the Bush administration
> requested. The committee predicts a slew of mergers because of
> "the collapse of high technology stocks, and the resultant
> downward pressure on all stock prices."
>   * Las Vegas, St. Louis, Charleston and Kansas City will split $6
> million earmarked for gun surveillance technology. The plan is to
> spend it on acoustic sensors scattered around downtown areas so
> the location of a gunshot can be triangulated and located.
>
>
>
>-
>POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
>You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
>To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
>This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
>-
>
>
>- End forwarded message -
>
>
>
>-
>The Cryptography Mailing List
>Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/

New Singapore surveillance software can detect abnormal behaviour(fwd)




-- Eugen* Leitl http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204/";>leitl
__
ICBMTO  : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204
57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3

-- Forwarded message --
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 12:40:36 -0400
From: Matthew Gaylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: New Singapore surveillance software can detect abnormal behaviour

Surveillance software can detect abnormal behaviour

Friday July 27 7:38 AM ET

New Singapore Software Can Beef Up Surveillance

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010727/tc/tech_singapore_software_dc_1.html

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Singapore scientists have created new software which
may beef up surveillance efforts in the future by distinguishing between a
person's normal activities and suspicious behavior.

The software created by researchers at the Nanyang Technological University
can tell the difference between people walking, talking and acting normally,
and abnormal behavior such as a fight or someone collapsing.

The Singapore team recorded and classified 73 features of human movement,
such as speed, direction, shape and pattern.

The features were then used with existing ``neural network'' software, which
can learn and remember patterns, to create a new program.

``Each of the features is actually generated from a formula ...then the
learning software will be able to classify certain motion as normal or
abnormal,'' associate professor Maylor Leung told Reuters on Friday.

``It's something new. No one has tried (developing it) and so far we are
successful,'' he said.

Images fed to the software, such as from a surveillance camera, are analyzed
almost instantly and with 96 percent accuracy, Leung said.

The software can trigger an alarm when unusual movements are detected,
making it well suited for surveillance.

Creating the artificial intelligence needed to recognize complex human
motion has been a challenge, Leung said.

It is difficult for the human eye to accurately judge motion, such as speed,
and even harder for a software program to do so, he said.

Leung is looking for partners to commercialize the software. The research,
which took two and a half years, is pending publication in several technical
journals.

__
Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
---

**
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722  ICQ: 106212065   Archived at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/
**

New Singapore surveillance software can detect abnormal behaviour(fwd)

-- Eugen* Leitl http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204/";>leitl
__
ICBMTO  : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204
57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3

-- Forwarded message --
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 12:40:36 -0400
From: Matthew Gaylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: New Singapore surveillance software can detect abnormal behaviour

Surveillance software can detect abnormal behaviour

Friday July 27 7:38 AM ET

New Singapore Software Can Beef Up Surveillance

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010727/tc/tech_singapore_software_dc_1.html

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Singapore scientists have created new software which
may beef up surveillance efforts in the future by distinguishing between a
person's normal activities and suspicious behavior.

The software created by researchers at the Nanyang Technological University
can tell the difference between people walking, talking and acting normally,
and abnormal behavior such as a fight or someone collapsing.

The Singapore team recorded and classified 73 features of human movement,
such as speed, direction, shape and pattern.

The features were then used with existing ``neural network'' software, which
can learn and remember patterns, to create a new program.

``Each of the features is actually generated from a formula ...then the
learning software will be able to classify certain motion as normal or
abnormal,'' associate professor Maylor Leung told Reuters on Friday.

``It's something new. No one has tried (developing it) and so far we are
successful,'' he said.

Images fed to the software, such as from a surveillance camera, are analyzed
almost instantly and with 96 percent accuracy, Leung said.

The software can trigger an alarm when unusual movements are detected,
making it well suited for surveillance.

Creating the artificial intelligence needed to recognize complex human
motion has been a challenge, Leung said.

It is difficult for the human eye to accurately judge motion, such as speed,
and even harder for a software program to do so, he said.

Leung is looking for partners to commercialize the software. The research,
which took two and a half years, is pending publication in several technical
journals.

__
Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
---

**
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722  ICQ: 106212065   Archived at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/
**

Russians test new missile (re Anti-ICBM Laser Aircraft)


http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20010730-13752166.htm


James Choate
Product Certification - Operating Systems
Staff Engineer
512-436-1062
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Mr. Wienke, help me out on this -- Re: FW: General Ashcroft make his move

2001-07-30 Thread Richard Stevens

--- Jonathan Wienke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> I get the NRA's American Rifleman magazine. The July
> issue also has
> an article about Ashcroft's letter, which does not
> quote the rather
> lengthy footnote. However, it does contain a legible
> image of BOTH
> pages of the letter, including the ENTIRE text of
> the footnote. This
> is hardly the action of an organization bent on
> distorting Ashcroft's
> view on the Second Amendment. Stupid editing on the
> part of the
> America's First Freedom team, perhaps, but not an
> organization-wide
> conspiracy.
> 
> Jonathan Wienke
> 

Mr. Wienke, 

I paged through the entire July 2001 issue of American
Rifleman, and maybe I'm just blind as the proverbial
bat, but I don't see the article to which you refer
that quotes the entire Ashcroft letter.  On what page
is it?

The July 2001 issue of First Freedom is the one
featuring the Ashcroft letter -- that I have received
thus far.

On the point you raise:  maybe it was merely a bad
editorial decision for the one magazine.  Fine, and we
can forgive that.  But, ask this question:  in what
kind of workplace environment could this kind of
editing decision be made?  

Remember that more than one editor had to approve the
final copy. This is not just a typo.  More than one
person had to consciously decide to omit relevant
material without telling the reader.  

I have to wonder if other sorts of "editing decisions"
that massage the facts and distort the truth are being
made ... and we readers don't know it.  

Maybe it was entirely innocent.  Then NRA should
promptly apologize, correct it and publish the full
text in the following issue.  Let's see if they do.  

--Richard Stevens

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/

The decline of our nation and the pinnacle of our arrogance


http://www.Kuro5hin.org/story/2001/7/29/19223/2566

James Choate
Product Certification - Operating Systems
Staff Engineer
512-436-1062
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Defending the net with sarcasm


http://www.Kuro5hin.org/story/2001/7/27/221046/624

James Choate
Product Certification - Operating Systems
Staff Engineer
512-436-1062
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Criminalizing crypto criticism + 802.11b access

2001-07-30 Thread Ray Dillinger

On Sat, 28 Jul 2001, David Honig wrote:

>>Not a problem -- as long as what you're making available to the 
>>public at DefCon is not a program that script kiddies can download 
>>and use to break stuff.
>
>What's a 'program' in the above sentence?   Is source a program?  Source
>without the main() and #includes?  Source with an intentionally missing ';'?
>Precise english description of an algorithm?  Math?  What exactly 
>are the limits of a 'script kiddie'?

Oh, please, let's not get into specious crap. I'm totally familiar 
with the concept that "source code" is considered by some to be a 
gray area.  

To me, the distinction is relatively clear.  Source code is what 
enables someone to do X whether or not they understand X.  You don't 
have to understand the weaknesses in a cryptosystem to correct a 
few syntax errors, figure out what standard libraries to include, 
or do a conversion between different forms of the source with a 
perl script.  I mean, the code could *help* you understand it, if 
you were inclined to read it for content -- but if you can get it 
working without understanding what it does, it probably violates 
the law.

Communication, on the other hand, is what enables someone to 
*understand* X.   And yes, a lot of people, myself included, can 
and do use source code to communicate ideas.  Does it piss me off 
that this mode of communication is made unavailable by this law? 
Yes.  Am I stupid enough to not figure out what the law means?  
No.

>>Bear in mind that these people are not dealing from a position of 
>>strength, as long as their crypto is actually broken.  
>
>Tell that to Dmitri. :-<

Dmitri released an executable *before* he had the excuse of 
being required to produce it as evidence.  Plus he's a foreign 
national on US soil, whose government is willing to be anally 
raped with a two-by-four if they think it will get them more US 
financial aid.  They have evidently left him twisting in the 
wind.  That is not a position of strength.

Bear

red-light camera backlash brings city efforts to a halt


http://www.latimes.com/news/local/communities/la-61757jul29.story

James Choate
Product Certification - Operating Systems
Staff Engineer
512-436-1062
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Re: Ashcroft Targets U.S. Cybercrime

2001-07-30 Thread Petro

At 7:20 AM -0500 7/26/01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Petro wrote:
>
>> 
>> >a great majority of an LEO's "education" time is spent instructing them on
>> >how to determine [decide] what is and is not constitutionally protected
>> >{speech, action}.  If they did not use this "ability", they would have to
>> >arrest *everyone*, and let the courts sort out the mess.
>> 
>>  KNo, they would have to arrest everyone they witnessed (or
>knew) committed an act that violated the law. 
>
>You are confusing "civilians" and LEOs.  Only civilians are held to the
>personal knowledge standard.  Leos are held to profoundly lower probablity
>models.

In order to arrest someone they have to have some sort of evidence that not 
only was a crime committed, but that the person they arrested has some reasonable 
probability of actually having committed that crime. 

Maybe "know" is a little strong, "suspect" is probably a better way of putting 
it. 

>>  Other than said 4th amendment issues, street cops *rarely* get
>> involved in constitutional issues.
>
>If you honestly believe this, then someone needs to beat the shit out of
>you with a clueclub.  By definition, LEOs are [daily] involved in all
>issues, from 1-ad to no-ad...

Nonsense. In a LARGE percentage of the stuff a police officer deals with, 
there are no constitutional issues (other than the 4th). Robbery, murder, drunk 
driving, and the vast majority of traffic violations there aren't many constitutional 
issues involved in the laws the enforce, there may be some issues in *how* they 
enforce them (4th, 5th, and 6th) but little on what they enforce. 

Rarely will you find a street cop, on his on initiative, making arrests in 
questionable areas (1st and 2nd). 

>> >And if you are at all familiar with the history of 2A case law, you
>> >will understand why the SCOTUS has been so meticulous in avoiding a
>> >ruling.  Of course, our friends [hrmmm... Never thought I'd say THAT] in
>> >Texas may well put an end to the charade soon.
>> 
>>  Still waiting to hear about the Emerson case (and the 5th is in
>> New Orleans IIRC).

Interesting "rumor" on this front. Don Kates spoke to a group of us on 
Thursday. He wrote an amicus brief for the Emerson case, and I asked him what if he'd 
heard anything about what was going on. According to him, rumor has it that one of the 
judges in that case is writing a long (150 pages was mentioned) decision. 

>> >>   Well, no. See, the same constitution also grants Congress the 
>> >> power to regulate interstate trade, so as long as they don't "infringe"
>> >> on the right, they have a wide latitude to set standards etc. Or do they?
>> >> What are the limits of that particular clause? 
>> >
>> >Virtually the entire 2A ablating federal infrastructure is based on a
>> >truly scary "finding" that *any* firearm is the product of Intertate
>> >Commerce, regardless if it has been out of the state in which it was
>> 
>>  Well, no. Only about 1/2 of the ablating. The other half is
>> Congresses power to tax. (At the federal level a good number of
>> firearms cases are on charges of failing to file and or pay the class
>> 2 or 3 weapons tax stamp).
>
>Please document this assertion.  1/2 is just plain *wrong*.  The tax
>issues are restrictive, but not ablating, i.e., if you can afford the tax,
>then, *in theory*, you have no problem.   I am talking about totally [2A]
>destructive laws, such as felons losing their RIGHT to ownership of
>firearms, civilians losing their RIGHT to own "assault
>weapons" (interesting note: it is still legal to collect missiles, but not
>certain types of rifles - the idiocy continues).

Here's how it works (and there is a case going on right now about this). The 
government says "you have to have a tax stamp to own ". Then doesn't provide you 
any mechanism to actually *get* that stamp. 

A portion (and I don't have the percentages, this comes from discussions with 
a local attorney active in Firearms Rights) of the firearms cases prosecuted at the 
federal level are prosecuted as tax violations. It is (allegedly) done this way to 
avoid second amendment issues. Since the Government has the constitutional power to 
tax, there is no problem. 

It may not be 1/2 of all cases, but it's 1/2 of all justifications, and a 
signigificant number of cases. 

>
>
> > > > > >>Further
>more, what is *constitutionally* an infringement? > >
>> >Als at the risk of going Choation, what part of "Shall not be
>> >infringed" don't you understand?
>> 
>>  I understand "shall not", it's the "infringed" I'm asking about. 
>> 
>>  Is it *really* an infringement on your rights to require
>> firearms manufacturers to meet reasonable standards of functioning?
>
>Yes.  Period.

Now who's being Choatian? 

>
>>  Whether the free market can provide this or not is orthagonal to
>> the question.
>
>No it is not: it is

RE: POLL: Ohio "Thought Crime?"

2001-07-30 Thread Matthew Gaylor


At 7:56 AM -0400 7/30/01, Paul McMasters wrote:
>From: Paul McMasters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "'Matthew Gaylor'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: POLL: Ohio "Thought Crime?"
>Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 07:56:58 -0400
>
>Brian Dalton, as I understand it, was convicted of pandering child
>pornography. I don't believe he was a child molester, as the poll question
>indicates.
>
>-pkm
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Matthew Gaylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 12:46 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: POLL: Ohio "Thought Crime?"
>
>
>From: JPFO Alerts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: ALERT: New CCOPS Poll -- your opinion needed
>
>July 29, 2001
>
>ALERT: New CCOPS Poll -- your opinion needed
>
>CCOPS:  Concerned Citizens Opposed to Police States has a new poll
>with the following question:
>
>An Ohio man, a convicted child molester, has been sent to prison for
>seven years for writing fantasies of torturing children in his
>personal journal. By all accounts, these writings were repulsive.
>Should people be sent to prison for recording private thoughts in the
>privacy of their own home, when the activities described are illegal
>and/or violent, but there is no indication the person intended to act
>on them?
>
>You can vote yes or no.
>
>CCOPS has a new poll: "Thought Crime?"
>Express your opinion, go to:
>
>   http://www.ccops.org/
>
>and tell us YOUR opinion on this complex issue.
>
>NOTE: This poll will be up for 10 days. Give your opinion now
>and check back soon to view poll results and comments.


**
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722  ICQ: 106212065   Archived at 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/
**

Pointers to news sources and other mailing lists

2001-07-30 Thread Tim May


I've noticed that about 90% of traffic to the Cypherpunks list, at 
least the slightly-filtered list at lne.com, is now one-line pointers 
to news on Yahoo, CNN, ABC, LA Times, and to articles on Slashdot, 
Politech, Extropians, Cryptography, and other such Net outlets.

If I wanted to subscribed to Perrypunks, I'd do so. If I wanted to 
subscribe to Declanpunks, I'd do so. (In fact, I subscribe to one of 
Declan's lists, the Nym list. Alas, it seems to be mostly forwarded 
news items and pointers.) If I wanted to subscribe to Gaylorpunks, 
I'd do so. And I already see more Yahoo, ZDNet, CNET, and similar 
headlines and stories than the NSA has bits. Having dozens of other 
lists is all well and good, but there is no point in bouncing their 
stuff around. There are exceptions, as when some particularly urgent 
or clueful point is made. And even then it is best for the forwarder 
to at least take a few minutes to introduce the post and to comment 
on it. This shows that he's not just dumping pointers.

(And when one of my articles is "helpfully forwarded" to one of these 
other of the dozens of such lists, I tend to get strange personal 
mail from people asking me what it is I'm talking about. Sometimes I 
bounce them info on subscribing to the Cypherpunks list, sometimes I 
just give them a couple of lines of explanation. And often I don't 
reply at all.

I think most of the "pointers" are just symptoms of laziness. It 
looks like people just think "cross-pollinating" without analysis is 
the thing to do.

My solution is to add more and more of you who do this to my filter files.

When the average list traffic, minus advertising, spam, pointers to 
Yahoo, forwarded Politech items, etc. drops to less than 3 per day, 
then I can finally unsubscribe completely.

--Tim May

P.S. The worst situation is when N different lists are copied, many 
of them open for posting only to subscribers. Nothing worse than 
having an e-mail conversation spanning N different lists.


-- 
Timothy C. May [EMAIL PROTECTED]Corralitos, California
Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon
Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go
Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns

Re: Ashcroft Targets U.S. Cybercrime

- Original Message -
From: "Petro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 9:53 AM
Subject: Re: Ashcroft Targets U.S. Cybercrime

> At 7:20 AM -0500 7/26/01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Petro wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> >a great majority of an LEO's "education" time is spent instructing them
on
> >> >how to determine [decide] what is and is not constitutionally protected
> >> >{speech, action}.  If they did not use this "ability", they would have
to
> >> >arrest *everyone*, and let the courts sort out the mess.
> >>
> >> KNo, they would have to arrest everyone they witnessed (or
> >knew) committed an act that violated the law.
> >
> >You are confusing "civilians" and LEOs.  Only civilians are held to the
> >personal knowledge standard.  Leos are held to profoundly lower probablity
> >models.
>
> In order to arrest someone they have to have some sort of evidence that not
only was a crime committed, but that the person they arrested has some
reasonable probability of actually having committed that crime.

Uh, no.

If I were a duly appointed law enforcement official I could arrest you for the
kind of shoes you were wearing.  You'll have recourse eventually, but it will
be after a 24 hour (or so) stay in the pokey and posting bail and hiring an
attorney, and

> Maybe "know" is a little strong, "suspect" is probably a better way of
putting it.

You're reaching for the criteria by which the legitimacy of the arrest will be
judged ex post.  The terms you are grappling to find are "reasonable
suspicion" and "probable cause."  The point you are missing is that typically
the only downside for the officer in making an "illegal arrest" is that the
case will get tossed.  Big deal.

Probable cause to arrest exists where facts and circumstances within officers'
knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information are
sufficient in themselves to warrant a person of reasonable caution in the
belief that an offense has been or is being committed; it is not necessary
that the officer possess knowledge of acts sufficient to establish guilt, but
more than mere suspicion is required.

I suggest you attend 3 years of law school or otherwise educate yourself in
the matter before presenting yourself as an authority on the issue and
blathering off for paragraphs on end about nothing in particular.  Sheesh, at
least invest in a copy of black's law dictionary or something.  It's common
respect for the rest of the list members.

> >> Other than said 4th amendment issues, street cops *rarely* get
> >> involved in constitutional issues.
> >
> >If you honestly believe this, then someone needs to beat the shit out of
> >you with a clueclub.  By definition, LEOs are [daily] involved in all
> >issues, from 1-ad to no-ad...
>
> Nonsense. In a LARGE percentage of the stuff a police officer deals with,
there are no constitutional issues (other than the 4th). Robbery, murder,
drunk driving, and the vast majority of traffic violations there aren't many
constitutional issues involved in the laws the enforce, there may be some
issues in *how* they enforce them (4th, 5th, and 6th) but little on what they
enforce.

There are constitutional issues in every interaction with police and citizens.
The question is if they are raised or significant enough to be regarded in the
judicial system.  Probable cause to make an arrest is but one of the issues
that is triggered on every arrest or other police action.

> Rarely will you find a street cop, on his on initiative, making arrests in
questionable areas (1st and 2nd).

To you the only "questionable" areas are the 1st and 2nd amendments?
Interesting.

> >> >And if you are at all familiar with the history of 2A case law, you
> >> >will understand why the SCOTUS has been so meticulous in avoiding a
> >> >ruling.  Of course, our friends [hrmmm... Never thought I'd say THAT] in
> >> >Texas may well put an end to the charade soon.
> >>
> >> Still waiting to hear about the Emerson case (and the 5th is in
> >> New Orleans IIRC).
>
> Interesting "rumor" on this front. Don Kates spoke to a group of us on
Thursday. He wrote an amicus brief for the Emerson case, and I asked him what
if he'd heard anything about what was going on. According to him, rumor has it
that one of the judges in that case is writing a long (150 pages was
mentioned) decision.

[Firearms rights are being taken away by the power to tax... The power to tax
is the power to destroy... McCulloch v. Maryland blah blah blah]

> Here's how it works (and there is a case going on right now about this). The
government says "you have to have a tax stamp to own ". Then doesn't
provide you any mechanism to actually *get* that stamp.

Chicago does this.  It requires registration for all handguns.  No
registrations have been issued since the early 70s or so.  It's been
challenged over and over.  It stands.  And will.

The rest of this drivel dele

Your Membership Exchange, #438

2001-07-30 Thread Your Membership Newsletter

Title: Your Membership Exchange, #438









 
 



	
	 
	 



	 
	 Your Membership Exchange, Issue #438
	 




	 
	July 30, 2001 
	 



	


	 
	
	
	
	
		
		
		
		Your place to exchange ideas, ask questions, swap links, and share your skills!
		
		
		
		__
You are a member in at least one of these programs
- You should be in them all!
BannersGoMLM.com
ProfitBanners.com
CashPromotions.com
MySiteInc.com
TimsHomeTownStories.com
FreeLinksNetwork.com
MyShoppingPlace.com
BannerCo-op.com
PutPEEL.com
PutPEEL.net
SELLinternetACCESS.com
Be-Your-Own-ISP.com
SeventhPower.com
__
Today's Special Announcement:
Get 1000 Visitors to Your Site - FREE!
"Discover how a 26 year old Philosophy Major earned over $70,000
Online last year.  And how *You Can, Too* - GUARANTEED!"
Finally, a system that's so refined, you're Guaranteed to make money,
or it's *100% FREE*!  There are only 3steps2profit on the Internet...
Learn them, and gain *Your Personal Freedom*.  Click below NOW:
http://www.3steps2profit.com/cgi-bin/profit.cgi?id=13023
__
		>> Q & A
   QUESTIONS:
    - Can I work on a website from 2 computers w/ the
same server?
   ANSWERS:
 - Can images be coded so they cannot be downloaded?
   Ed: Two
different ways to protect your images
>> MEMBER SHOWCASES
>> MEMBER *REVIEWS*
 - Sites to Review: #138, #139, #140 
& #141!
 - Site #137 Reviewed!
 - Thanks!
__
>> QUESTIONS & ANSWERS <<
Submit your questions & answers to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
QUESTIONS:
From:  bollow   - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:  Can I work on a website from 2 computers w/ the same
server?
Hi,
I have two computers, an old Windows 3.1  and new
Windows 98. (Both use Earthlink.) I built my website on
W3.1 with Navigator Gold (without HTML)-- what you see is
what you get and like working from there.
However in bringing up website on W98-- spacing is dif.  I
would like to put the Navigator Gold onto W98 and work on
the Website from there-- could download more pix etc. and
other machine is getting creaky. (Still not sure about
accessing the FTP from W98.)
Any problems you foresee-- or is it possible to work on the
website from TWO computers with same server?
Thanks for any helpful information.
Ludmilla Bollow  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
    http://home.earthlink.net/~bollow/
"I've always depended on the kindness of strangers..."
 
 
ANSWERS:
From:  Paradigm Web Design   - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:  Two different ways to protect your images
>From:  Peggy Halverson   - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject:  Can images be coded so they cannot be downloaded?
>
>I am ready to post a website live that has a famous picture on it.
>My client is wondering if it can be coded so that the images
>cannot be downloaded or copied from the website.
>Would you know what coding to use to do this?
Peggy,
 
There are two things you can do to protect your images.
I would utilize both.
 
The first way is to disable the right-click function with
JavaScript. Put the following code into the HEAD of your
HTML document. You can customize the alert message
to say whatever you want.
 


 

function click() {

if (event.button==2) {

alert('You are not authorized to right click this page! All images
and source code are copyright 2001

}

}

document.


 
 
The other way is to create a 1x1 pixel transparent gif and
use it over the top of your graphic by making your graphic
the background of a TABLE. Like this.
 
BORDER="0" CELLSPACING="0" CELLPADDING="0">
 

 
ReG@rds,
 
Ed
Paradigm Web Design
Because an effective website doesn't have to be costly.
http://ParadigmWebDesign.net
Subscribe to Web Sm@rts
http://paradigmwebdesign.net/subscribe.html
		__
>> WEBSITE SHOWCASES <<
Examine carefully - those with email addresses included WILL
trade links with you, you are encouraged to contact them. And,
there are many ways to build a successful business. Just look at
these successful sites/programs other members are involved in..
-
OVER 12 MILLION DOLLARS PAID OUT IN 3 MONTHS
TO MEMBERS!  The Worlds Best CASH generating opportunity.
EASY-Make $100,000 in a matter of months.  Join TODAY and
your dreams will come true.  For more info [EMAIL PROTECTED]
or
http://www.makecashonline.com 
SMILE you will get RICH!!
Trade Links - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
Discover how to get... Over 10,000 daily visitors to YOUR
web site within 48-hours! ... Discover products and services
with profit margins of 10,000% ... FREE one-on-one personalized
Internet marketing and business consultation! 100% Guaranteed!
http://www.marketingchallenge.com/cgi-bin/t.cgi/118135
-
I didn't MAKE MONEY

Re: Criminalizing crypto criticism

2001-07-30 Thread mmotyka

I'm really not completely clued-in to all of the publishing options but
my gut instinct says that the more rapid and widespread the dispersal
the better. The originator of proscribed information needs to be
anonymous but it seems that if the recipients are many and diverse then
the level of guilt associated with reception can be ameliorated. 

A mixmaster chain firing the info off into a whole shitload of lists
looks like a pretty good way to ensure that information is not made
extinct. 

If a DeCSS source+bin zip had been anonymously mailed to 40 million
people the terrain for the legal fight might have been different. I
think JQPublic hasn't yet grasped the absurdity of "illegal information"
and might react unpredictably if told that possessing or forwarding
certain e-mails was a crime. Non-techie people I've spoken with about
the state of affairs flat out didn't believe me.

Eugene Leitl wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> > Unless I'm mistaken a node keeps a reference ( even if only temorarily
> > ) to the originating node when data is added. So if I publish
> > sooper-infringer.tar.gz and the neighboring node that gets it is a
> > narc I'm screwed. Identify your dissidents and put in informants as
> 
> Aye, that's the rub. Even if you're acting as a relay, even if you're just
> serving out a sliver of the content, even if it's sitting there encrypted
> on your hard drive, even if it's ephemeral -- if you serve a packet (while
> not spoofing your IP), and legislation makes that prosecutable, yer goose
> is cooked ("Your Honour, he's a part of a global terrorist network!").
> 
> I'm not sure how you can prevent that, apart from the spoofing or
> legislation changing business. Oh, and only making links into legal
> compartments guaranteeing maximum persecution friction. So, if your
> traffic is unfilterable (it looks like a SSL session), and it comes from
> Cuba, the guilty party seems to be more or less immune.
> 
> > neighbors. Admittedly I didn't read everything yet. What did I miss?

Re: Pointers to news sources and other mailing lists


Maybe we should form [EMAIL PROTECTED] ?  [EMAIL PROTECTED]?


- Original Message - 
From: "Tim May" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 10:28 AM
Subject: Pointers to news sources and other mailing lists


> I've noticed that about 90% of traffic to the Cypherpunks list, at 
> least the slightly-filtered list at lne.com, is now one-line pointers 
> to news on Yahoo, CNN, ABC, LA Times, and to articles on Slashdot, 
> Politech, Extropians, Cryptography, and other such Net outlets.
> 
> If I wanted to subscribed to Perrypunks, I'd do so. If I wanted to 
> subscribe to Declanpunks, I'd do so. (In fact, I subscribe to one of 
> Declan's lists, the Nym list. Alas, it seems to be mostly forwarded 
> news items and pointers.) If I wanted to subscribe to Gaylorpunks, 
> I'd do so. And I already see more Yahoo, ZDNet, CNET, and similar 
> headlines and stories than the NSA has bits. Having dozens of other 
> lists is all well and good, but there is no point in bouncing their 
> stuff around. There are exceptions, as when some particularly urgent 
> or clueful point is made. And even then it is best for the forwarder 
> to at least take a few minutes to introduce the post and to comment 
> on it. This shows that he's not just dumping pointers.
> 
> (And when one of my articles is "helpfully forwarded" to one of these 
> other of the dozens of such lists, I tend to get strange personal 
> mail from people asking me what it is I'm talking about. Sometimes I 
> bounce them info on subscribing to the Cypherpunks list, sometimes I 
> just give them a couple of lines of explanation. And often I don't 
> reply at all.
> 
> I think most of the "pointers" are just symptoms of laziness. It 
> looks like people just think "cross-pollinating" without analysis is 
> the thing to do.
> 
> My solution is to add more and more of you who do this to my filter files.
> 
> When the average list traffic, minus advertising, spam, pointers to 
> Yahoo, forwarded Politech items, etc. drops to less than 3 per day, 
> then I can finally unsubscribe completely.
> 
> --Tim May
> 
> P.S. The worst situation is when N different lists are copied, many 
> of them open for posting only to subscribers. Nothing worse than 
> having an e-mail conversation spanning N different lists.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Timothy C. May [EMAIL PROTECTED]Corralitos, California
> Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon
> Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go
> Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
>

Findlaw: The New York Times and Napster


http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20010730_chander.html

James Choate
Product Certification - Operating Systems
Staff Engineer
512-436-1062
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Fwd: Re: [e-gold-list] Re: The CRISIS!!!

2001-07-30 Thread Steve Schear


>At 03:02 AM 7/31/2001 +1000, Ben Legume wrote:
>>These are strange days. Has anyone else noticed how the far left
>>(bomb-throwing anarchists, social activists etc) are now getting very
>>upset and demonstrating about the things the extreme right (the John
>>Birchers etc.) have been complaining about (globalism, multinational
>>banks etc.) for decades?

Validation of DURGA.GOD Domain

2001-07-30 Thread The dot.GOD Registry, Limited




Hello:

This email will confirm that we have processed your domain 
registration request for:

  DURGA.GOD.

Someone, hopefully you, has registered this domain with us.  
If not please let us know.

You must now visit our web site to validate your domain and 
enter your validation ticket number.

  TICKET: 9759f7bc399651198620

Please click on the following URL to activate your new domain
name now.

  https://secure.dot-god.com/god.nic/validate.cgi?durga=9759f7bc399651198620

Or if the above URL does not work (some email systems may 
crop the URL) then please visit:

  https://secure.dot-god.com/cgi-bin/validate.cgi

and enter the following information manually at the prompt:

  DOMAIN: durga
  TICKET: 9759f7bc399651198620


Regards

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.dot-god.com/

The dot.GOD Registry, Limited
Executive Plaza, Suite 908
150 West 51st Sreet
New York, New York, 10019 US

Re: Findlaw: The New York Times and Napster

2001-07-30 Thread Steve Schear


At 01:29 PM 7/30/2001 -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
>http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20010730_chander.html

It will be very interesting if Napster decides to take Mr. Chander's 
suggestion and ask the court to force copyright holder's back to the table 
and compel them to negotiate or face an arbitrated result based on New York 
Times v. Tasini

steve

Free 2-Week Trial of Fortucast Daily Market Timers

2001-07-30 Thread www.fortucast.com

Title:

Free
2-Week Trial of Fortucast Daily Market TimersPlus Free S & P Intraday
Hotline* thru Aug 3rd
Major stock market low into late
October? Find out where to get short from the market timing
perspective.We believe access to a reliable market timer can be a key
component in successful futures trading. That's why we are pleased to offer you
an extended FREE TRIAL of Barry Rosen's FORTUCAST DAILY MARKET TIMERS--one of
the best such products in the field. Fortucast has been serving futures traders
since 1987 and currently covers 20 major markets.Fortucast's Financial
or Agricultural Daily Timers are delivered nightly by e-mail for markets of the
next day. You can get these daily timers FREE every market day for TWO WEEKS
when you click on the "Order Free Trial Link" below.CLICK HERE
TO ORDER FORTUCAST FREE TRIALMORE ABOUT FORTUCAST: As the name
suggests, Fortucast specializes in market timing--knowing WHEN to execute a
trade. Accurate timing is difficult to come by because the volatility of today's
markets is creating false signals that wreak havoc with traditional timing
models. Fortucast combines Elliott wave and Gann with 5 types of cycle
analysis--including Barry Rosen's proprietary methods--to filter out ambiguous
chart patterns and conflicting technical signals.ABOUT FORTUCAST
PUBLISHER BARRY ROSEN: Barry Rosen's frequent timing for entries at critical
points in the market has been described as uncanny! For example in 1990 in
Trader's World, he predicted that the US stock market would trend higher into
1998. In 1998, he predicted an important market peak around July 21 at the top
of the market that year. By signing up for a free trial now, you can get Barry's
latest long-term thinking about the future of the stock market over the next 4
years.

For product samples and more information, visit fortucast.comContact Fortucast at 1-800-788-2796 "Reliable Market
Timing Since 1987"* Free
Hotline is Fortucast Commentary Line: 4 calls per day on S & P/NASDAQ thru
Aug 3rd, 2001.STATEMENT OF DISCLAIMER: Past performance is not indicative of future results. There is
substantial risk of loss in futures trading.
If you are on this list by accident and would like to be removed for this
list,
please reply back and put "Remove" in the message area. Thank
you.

Re: DOJ jails reporter, Ashcroft allows more journalist subpoenas

2001-07-30 Thread mmotyka


Declan,

The larger problem notwithstanding there's at least one little bit of
language in this piece that is odd :

  "He said the government is 
   seeking all of Leggett's 
   material, including all 
   originals and copies."

Even if we make the extreme assumption that there is some pressing and
justifiable need for federal prosecutors to have access to her materials
how do you explain the need to possess "all originals and copies?" It
doesn't make sense. Why should she not be allowed to keep a copy of her
work? How does the existence of an uncontrolled copy lower the value of
the original in the case of a recording? Or in the case of her own notes
why would a copy not suffice.

Looks like a reporter ( or anyone else for that matter ) should keep
well hidden backups of their notes and work so that they can comply with
Napolean complexes, fishing expeditions and spin control operations and
not lose their life's work.

Mike

Re: DOJ jails reporter, Ashcroft allows more journalist subpoenas



- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 1:23 PM
Subject: Re: DOJ jails reporter, Ashcroft allows more journalist subpoenas


> Declan,
>
> The larger problem notwithstanding there's at least one little bit of
> language in this piece that is odd :
>
>   "He said the government is
>seeking all of Leggett's
>material, including all
>originals and copies."
>
> Even if we make the extreme assumption that there is some pressing and
> justifiable need for federal prosecutors to have access to her materials
> how do you explain the need to possess "all originals and copies?" It
> doesn't make sense. Why should she not be allowed to keep a copy of her
> work? How does the existence of an uncontrolled copy lower the value of
> the original in the case of a recording? Or in the case of her own notes
> why would a copy not suffice.
>
> Looks like a reporter ( or anyone else for that matter ) should keep
> well hidden backups of their notes and work so that they can comply with
> Napolean complexes, fishing expeditions and spin control operations and
> not lose their life's work.

No.  Well hidden backups would put the reporter in a position of contempt,
committing obstruction of justice or perjury.  Better to escrow such documents
with an attorney in a jurisdiction not likely to cooperate with the United
States.  (I can suggest several to interested parties privately).

RE: DOJ jails reporter, Ashcroft allows more journalist subpoenas

2001-07-30 Thread Trei, Peter


> --
> From: Black Unicorn[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> > Declan,
> > The larger problem notwithstanding there's at least one little bit of
> > language in this piece that is odd :
> >
> >   "He said the government is
> >seeking all of Leggett's
> >material, including all
> >originals and copies."
[...]
> >
> > Looks like a reporter ( or anyone else for that matter ) should keep
> > well hidden backups of their notes and work so that they can comply with
> > Napolean complexes, fishing expeditions and spin control operations and
> > not lose their life's work.
> 
> No.  Well hidden backups would put the reporter in a position of contempt,
> committing obstruction of justice or perjury.  Better to escrow such
> documents
> with an attorney in a jurisdiction not likely to cooperate with the United
> States.  (I can suggest several to interested parties privately).
> 
I'm curious what the term 'copy' refers to when the Internet and encryption
gets involved. If  a reporter posted an encrypted copy of her notes 
to usenet on a regular basis, she could recover them anytime, 
anywhere, from etin.com,  dejanews, or any of the other news 
archiving services. 

However, if ordered to 'turn over all originals and copies', what can she 
do? Ask deja to dismount a drive and send it to the court? Ask the 
NSA to please gather up all their tapes which had copies and send 
them?

Isn't there an implied and anachronistic assumption here that a 
requested private document is physically seperable from other
private documents, and that to be private a document has to be
under the authors physical control? And that there is a meaningful
distinction between an 'original' and a 'copy'?

This comes of a the same problem we find with so much of the
IP arguement, that information exists only bound to some
physical object, and shares it's limitations. 

I can only assume that the court, for reasons which seem unclear
but which seem to amount to punishment, wish to deny her
access to her own work. If many copies exist which are
readable only by her, but not under her control, how can
she be so deprived? (I suppose the court could order her to
forget her passphrase :-)

[I'm not addressing the issue of forced exposure of keys, just
the information-theoretic notion of destroying or sequestering 
widely distributed information, and how that collides with the 
assumptions of ill-educated or maleific judges] 

Peter Trei

50 SEX Sites in ONE Affiliate Portal.................

2001-07-30 Thread Dolores



Ask yourself these questions:

Would a few thousand dollars extra each month make a difference?

Can you spare a few hours each week to earn the extra dollars?


If the answer is yes to these simple questions, and you have a PC with Internet 
access, then you can get involved with the 40 BILLION Dollar Adult Entertainment 
Industry.

*** FREE Hosted Web Site ***

*** FREE Help & Promotional programs ***

In fact - ALL you will EVER need to get involved in this business at the HIGHEST level 
IMMEDIATELY.

For more information click on the following link:

mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=More_Info

If you do not wish to receive further mailings, please do NOT reply to this message.

Re: DOJ jails reporter, Ashcroft allows more journalist subpoenas