Trying again...[jsimmons@transvirtual.com: [OT] DMCA loop hole]
ok, let me try this again... sorry about that. --gabe - Forwarded message from James Simmons [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 21:14:41 -0700 (PDT) From: James Simmons [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Linux Kernel Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [OT] DMCA loop hole Sorry this is off topic but this was way to good :-) Virus writers can use the DMCA in a perverse way. Because computer viruses are programs, they can be copyrighted just like a book, song, or movie. If a virus writer were to use encryption to hide the code of a virus, an anti-virus company could be forbidden by the DMCA to see how the virus works without first getting the permission of the virus writer. If they didn't, a virus writer could sue the anti-virus company under the DMCA! - Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessary a good idea. [ Alexander Viro on linux-kernel ] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ - End forwarded message - -- It's not brave, if you're not scared.
Re: Spoilation, escrows, courts, pigs.
At 10:19 PM -0700 7/31/01, Black Unicorn wrote: Show me exactly which law I am breaking by placing some of my documents or files in a place even I cannot turn over all copies from. I have never heard of such a law. If you know you've committed some kind of weapons violations or some such and you have reason to believe you have come to the attention of the authorities, burning the record of those bulk AK-74 purchases might be a bad idea- if you got caught. Show me the cites. I commit felonies on a weekly, even daily, basis. I've seen more of this in the white collar world, where billing records, transaction records and such were destroyed but the principal holds. IBM instructed employees to destroy records. At Intel, we destroyed records--I did so as part of the Crush program (to drive several competitors out of business). So long as we were not being ordered to turn over evidence, not any kind of crime. A bookstore is not spoliating for failing to keep records of who bought which books. Cop: We have a court order requiring you to turn over all records concerning who bought the book Applied Cryptography. Store: We don't keep records. Cop: Why not? Store: None of your business. (Interjection by Black Unicorn: The court is not amused.) Cop: We could charge you with spoliation! Store: Go right ahead. (Interjection by Black Unicorn: It's not nice to fool with Mr. Happy Fun Court.) Still, based on what you seem to have read me as saying we probably lost a good deal of the context of the discussion. The original question, as I understood it, was what an individual who was faced with a clearly pending court action (or an existing court order) could to do frustrate that order and prevent certain materials from being distributed- _without consequences_. My discussion was limited to that context, though I did not probably clarify that sufficiently. The discussion included claims that those who use remailers, or who run remailers, may be guilty of spoliation. And it included comments that using offshore/unreachable methods if one ever expects to be charged is spoliation. I say this is bullshit. By your vague (no plausible cites, just some 1L literatlisms), whispering is spoliation. Failure to archive tape recordings of conversations is spoliation. Use of encryption is spoliation. Drawing the curtains is spoliation. I can cite some case law if you really want or if there is some legitimate need for more clarification, but we are a bit far afield of the original discussion now, and that was not intended to allege anything close to the kind of prohibition you seem to be talking about. But you said, more than once, If it looks like you knew it was going to be a court issue and you put it on freenet for that purpose, you're in trouble. And why would it be a crime for John Gotti to make his communications inaccessible or irretrievable or unrecallable? How aboutL If it looks like you knew it was going to be a court issue and you whispered so that the FBI could not understand your words , you're in trouble.? Isn't this spoliation by your broad standards? Cites? I don't have any. This was my theory. Hence my language: It almost sounds tantamount... Hence my cite of the definition of spoliation below, for comparison. Hence my discussion of a prosecutor's likely tactic in making the argument. Encrypting to an irrecoverable key certainly comes close to if not outright meets the technical definition of spoliation in Black's Law Dictionary. What irrecoverable means will depend on the judge probably. But, Black Unicorn, you're the one who chose to lecture all the children here. I have asked for a cite that shows that higher courts, up to the Supreme Court, have held that using Freenet or encryption would constitute spoliation, which you brought into the discussion as a reason why Cypherpunks had better not count on using encryption, or offshore storage, or any other means that might cause the court to not be amused. They didn't get John Gotti for whispering, so I doubt spoliation is nearly the tool you and Aimee Farr seem to think it is. Remember, the hypo involves placing material in irrecoverable forms prior to any actual court case. Well, that's not the hypo I remember but in any event the case doesn't need to have been called, the defendant merely needed to know or should have known that the material in question was likely to be the subject of a legal proceeding or material evidence to same. John Gotti knew or should have known that prosecutors would have loved to have had his tape-recorded conversations. Was he then obligated by spoliation standards to have neatly archived them or could he re-use his answering machine tapes the way everyone else does/ (Again, he is not in Marion for spoliation.) And so on. I could give a dozen examples off-hand of cases where records were not kept, where whispering or coded messages were used. No
You Won The First Round! claim# 2522 31058
You Have Won The First Round! Claim Your Entry Now! Collect The Prize Of The Week! Click Here To Collect! We apologize for any email you may have inadvertently received. Please CLICK HERE to be removed from future mailings.
Re: Spoliation, escrows, courts, pigs.
At 10:22 PM -0700 7/31/01, Black Unicorn wrote: - Original Message - From: Tim May [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 7:52 PM Subject: RE: Spoliation, escrows, courts, pigs. Seeing all you high-power lawyers here humbles me. Even when your grumpy, Mr. May, sometimes you just make me smile despite myself. I'm not grumpy. I rankle at seeing you in this princely lecturing mode, telling all the children what a fine lawyer you are and how foolish we all are. --Tim -- 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: DMCA loop hole
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Somebody seriously needs to make a test case out of this idea. I can just see the headline: EvilHackerTerrorist sues Symantec over unlawful circumvention of the content protection scheme used by his copyrighted ScrewTheDMCA virus! - - Forwarded message from James Simmons [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 21:14:41 -0700 (PDT) From: James Simmons [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Linux Kernel Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [OT] DMCA loop hole Sorry this is off topic but this was way to good :-) Virus writers can use the DMCA in a perverse way. Because computer viruses are programs, they can be copyrighted just like a book, song, or movie. If a virus writer were to use encryption to hide the code of a virus, an anti-virus company could be forbidden by the DMCA to see how the virus works without first getting the permission of the virus writer. If they didn't, a virus writer could sue the anti-virus company under the DMCA! [snip] - - End forwarded message - -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use http://www.pgp.com iQA/AwUBO2e1qxj6oMyeDxZoEQISbACeNXywQ+K5UGwSRjW9IK54HmQ+meoAnRs4 a115/sRQP86IFDbGQjDN1udu =8ZUs -END PGP SIGNATURE-
RE: locks
DEAR SIR OUR FACTORY (JINYUN LOCKS FACTORY) ARE SPECILIZING IN THE PRODUCING OF THE MANY KINDS OF IRON AND BRASS PADLOCKS. NOW, WE MAINLY CAN SUPPLY THE A88; AA88; TRI-NINE; PANDA AND SO ON BRANDS PADLOCKS. WE ALSO CAN SUPPLY THE PADLOCKS ACCORDING TO YOUR DRAWING AND BRAND NAMES. ABOUT OUR PADLOCKS, AS THEIR GOOD QUALITY AND COMPETITIVE PRICES, THEY HAVE BEEN WELCOMED ALL OVER THE WORLD. AT PRESENT, WE WANT TO INTRODUCE OUR NEW BRAND NAME PADLOCKS TO YOU. THE BRAND ARE A88 AND AA88. THE TWO BRANDS OF IRON PADLOCKS ARE PRODUCED BY US ON LAST YEARS, AND THEY HAVE BEEN WELCOMED VERY MUCH IN INDIAN MARKET. SO WE WANT TO KNOW IF YOU HAVE THE GENERAL IDEA TO THE A88 AND AA88 BRAND IRON PADLOCKS. HOPE YOU CAN LEARN ABOUT THEM. THANK YOU. WE ARE LOOKING FORWARD YOUR PROMPT REPLY. BEST REGARD. MR.ZHU JIAN-JIN E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Http: WWW.CHINA-PADLOCK.COM
Fast And Easy Weight Loss!!!!!! 14424
"I would like to share something with you. First let me say, I'm not trying to sell you anything (I don't like it when people do that). But, I do like it when people share with me what "works" in their life. Well,.. I have found something that "WORKS". Young and old, male and female, if you think success was achieved through strict diets and hours upon hours of aerobic exercise... IT IS NOT. I've Lost So Many Inches I'm Almost Embarrassed To Say! I'm wearing clothes I haven't touched since high school! I've dropped a tremendous amount of fat and "toned up REAL nice"... says my husband George!" I personally didn't think it was possible. Especially after trying just about every kind of diet plan and exercise program invented. I gave up all hope of ever being thin again. Depressed and angry, I began to throw out the many boxes, bottles, and books of failed diets that promised me I would lose the weight that was destroying my life. That's when I noticed an unopened bottle of a product called BerryTrim Plus I had purchased a few months prior. Just like that voice said in that baseball movie, "If you build it , they will come" something told me to "Try It, and it will work" sounds crazy, but I did, and.. I was amazed at what my scale told me! Not only did it work but, I Swear I Woke Up One Week Later and I Was A Dress Size Smaller! following the simple directions that fit into everyday lifestyles. I've Lost 60 pounds of fat All in my first 6 months! I'm kicking myself in the butt for it. I've had the answer to my prayers in my cabinet for months and I waited much too long to do this. I have dropped nearly a half a foot off my waistline. I eat what I want and only work out twice a week. (Sometimes, less than that). I've become sold on this miracle product called BerryTrim Plus. I Feel Absolutely Terrific! My energy is through the roof! But even better than that, the intimacy in my marriage has improved tremendously. (I wasn't feeling very Sexy before I started BerrryTrim Plus.) Now, after losing several inches of blubber, we're just like Newlyweds! I love BerryTrim Plus! Finally! I feel comfortable when I go out about the way I look in clothes. I used to run from the mirror after getting out of the shower, Now, I dance around naked in the bathroom mirror. And I feel tough too. Nothing like having strength! My pants are fitting loosely, my stomach's flatter, my arms and legs look leaner. Seems like Overnight. "Poof!" They told me exactly what to expect and day by day, like clockwork, They were right on the money! To top it all off, I seem to be literally repelling body fat as I get leaner and leaner by the moment! I weigh the same at my second reunion as I did when I was in High School! Not bad? Right? My friends didn't recognize me from the last time they saw me! They said, "You look marvelous!" BerryTrim Plus works because it allows your body to do what it does best. It's like tossing wood on a fire. Solid logs keep the metabolism going. Just check it out for yourself. You have nothing to lose but the weight. I can assure you, I would not put my reputation on the line by telling you a lie. BerryTrim Plus really worked for me, I believe it can work for you. Just click on the link below and read for yourself CLICK HERE Thank you for letting me tell you about my incredible happiness. God Bless, Mary Kennedy This message is brought to you by BerryTrim Affiliate. We apologize for any email you may have inadvertently received. Please CLICK HERE to be removed from future mailings.
Re: Criminalizing crypto criticism
At 12:00 AM 07/31/2001 -0700, Alan wrote: I guess we *do* have the best government money can buy. We just were not the ones writing the checks... Naahhh... You ought to be able to buy a much better government than that. :-) That actually is part of the problem - governments writing laws about things they don't really understand. It's most obvious in high-tech areas, but even something as potentially simple as the tax code confuses them, because there are thousands of pages of special cases designed mostly independently to attempt to achieve various social goals or help various special interests, too many for anyone to keep track of when trying to band-aid the code to achieve the next social or political objective. And the special interests who are successful in getting them to do things generally aren't much more competent about it, and the unexpected consequences may or may not help them.
Re: Spoilation, escrows, courts, pigs.
This is truely humorous. As BU said earlier You overestimate the average contextual awareness level of the typical cypherpunk reader I think. He's right. At 11:19 PM -0700 7/31/01, Tim May wrote: At 10:19 PM -0700 7/31/01, Black Unicorn wrote: I've seen more of this in the white collar world, where billing records, transaction records and such were destroyed but the principal holds. IBM instructed employees to destroy records. At Intel, we destroyed records--I did so as part of the Crush program (to drive several competitors out of business). So long as we were not being ordered to turn over evidence, not any kind of crime. Were these destructions ordered because investigations were *known to be* imminent, or because someone was looking ahead and figured that someday someone might start an investigation, and it would be better if that stuff was already gone. Context. In one case you have a reasonable assumption that someone *is* going to look for that stuff. In the other, you don't have that assumption. It's not whether you commit the crime, it's whether you assume you're going to get investigated for it. A bookstore is not spoliating for failing to keep records of who bought which books. Cop: We have a court order requiring you to turn over all records concerning who bought the book Applied Cryptography. Store: We don't keep records. Cop: Why not? Store: None of your business. (Interjection by Black Unicorn: The court is not amused.) Cop: We could charge you with spoliation! Store: Go right ahead. (Interjection by Black Unicorn: It's not nice to fool with Mr. Happy Fun Court.) That's not what he said at all. A book store owner has no expectation of being investigated for a selling a perfectly legal book, and no obligation to track the purchasers of it. However, if that conversation was between the State Board of Equalization (for those outside California this is the department that deals with state sales tax apparently): SBOE: We'd like to see your sales records for 1997-1999. STORE: Sorry, can't do that, see there was this *really* weird fire on my desk last night, and wouldn't you know, all those records are gone. You're going to be talking to a judge about this, and no, they won't be happy. Still, based on what you seem to have read me as saying we probably lost a good deal of the context of the discussion. The original question, as I understood it, was what an individual who was faced with a clearly pending court action (or an existing court order) could to do frustrate that order and prevent certain materials from being distributed- _without consequences_. My discussion was limited to that context, though I did not probably clarify that sufficiently. The discussion included claims that those who use remailers, or who run remailers, may be guilty of spoliation. And it included comments that using offshore/unreachable methods if one ever expects to be charged is spoliation. No, that is not what Unicorn said. It is not if one ever expects to be charged although it could be argued that be suspecting that you were going to be charged you knew you were committing a crime, but I suspect that is tangental. I say this is bullshit. By your vague (no plausible cites, just some 1L literatlisms), whispering is spoliation. Failure to archive tape recordings of conversations is spoliation. Use of encryption is spoliation. Drawing the curtains is spoliation. No, but destroying audio tapes, or blanking over bits of them *is*. They didn't get John Gotti for whispering, so I doubt spoliation is nearly the tool you and Aimee Farr seem to think it is. There is a singnificant difference between Gotti and your bog-standard CP. Gotti could afford *really* good lawyers, and was making *real* money doing what he did. Most of us here aren't making anywhere near what Gotti did. If the Feds come after one of us, it's either for harassment--in which case a spoliation charge is as good as any (it doesn't matter whether they win or lose, they've raised the cost of whatever joe CP is doing enough that he's going to take up a cheap hobby like Golf or Sailing instead), or it's for something in which they already have a good amount of evidence, and the spoliation will be a bargaining chip in the proceedings (cop to x and we'll drop a-v).
Re: Criminalizing crypto criticism
Alan wrote: On Friday 27 July 2001 11:13, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Declan McCullagh writes: One of those -- and you can thank groups like ACM for this, if my legislative memory is correct -- explicitly permits encryption research. You can argue fairly persuasively that it's not broad enough, and certainly 2600 found in the DeCSS case that the judge wasn't convinced by their arguments, but at least it's a shield of sorts. See below. It's certainly not broad enough -- it protects encryption research, and the definition of encryption in the law is meant to cover just that, not cryptography. And the good-faith effort to get permission is really an invitation to harrassment, since you don't have to actually get permission, merely seek it. Even worse is if the encryption is in bad faith to begin with. (i.e. They know it is broken and/or worthless, but don't want the general public to find out.) Imagine some of the usual snake-oil cryto-schemes applied to copyrighted material. Then imagine that they use the same bunch of lawyers as the Scientologists. This could work out to be a great money-making scam! Invent a bogus copy protection scheme. Con a bunch of suckers to buy it for their products. Sue anyone who breaks it or tries to expose you as a fraud for damages. I mean if they can go after people for breaking things that use ROT-13 (eBooks) and 22 bit encryption (or whatever CSS actually uses), then you can go after just about anyone who threatens your business model. I guess we *do* have the best government money can buy. We just were not the ones writing the checks... The fundamental problem is that crypto for rights protection doesn't work in general, and certainly can't work where the decryption technology has to be in the hands of the person you are trying to protect it from. Criticising the DMCA because it protects weak crypto seems to me to be the wrong angle - it doesn't matter whether the crypto is weak or strong, it can be broken. The important thing is that we should continue to be able to demonstrate that fact. Rights management can only be done by legal and social means, not technological ones. Cheers, Ben. -- http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit. - Robert Woodruff
Re: Ashcroft Targets U.S. Cybercrime
Black Unicorn wrote: 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 Yes, yes, and the claim that a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich, are what makes the United States a nation of laws less abided, less understood, less respected. Tim May's daily law-breaking is normal. Even lawyers do it. All believing they will never be targeted. But with 1 out of 8 US persons working in the law industry, and 1 out of 100 incarcerated, most of the population will one day will suffer forfeiture, do community service, make restitution, be on probation, wear tracking devices, be snooped on, hairy-eyeballed at a weekly upcoming case schedule, or just grouped into a conspiracy for being churned throught the justice system as a re-education in responsible citizenship. If you think you can avoid this re-education then you probably consider yourself above or outside the law, under the radar, unnoticeable, not worth the effort of authorities, never done anything illegal except a few things nobody knows about, or, best of all, a member of a privileged caste which is protected by a higher law for law enforcers-- like, a journalist, or a priest, or a doctor, or a TLA herding pre-defined miscreants toward the chute. That spooked miscreants stampede or mavericks hook a gut, well, that's just in guns and ammo. Watch what those dozen new CHIP units spook in the course of trying to keep up with runaway technology. Indictments for trailing edge tech is what is meant by the kind of shoes you're wearing. Herding miscreants, avoiding the hard crimes committed at justice HQs, in order to not offend Boss, Congress, Stockholders, Voters. Mueller is likely to be worse than Freeh in the sense that he will favor what he thinks are his strengths and ignore his weaknesses -- hoping to mollify those above him doing the same, that is, never ever investigate the overseers, whisper secrets and provide perks to those who watch the watchers.
Re: Forced disclosures, document seizures, Right and Wrong.
Black Unicorn wrote: A legal education is the ultimate dose of practical cynicism. It quickly becomes apparent not that the law isn't perfect, but that it is often pretty damn screwed up. American jurisprudence is about _fairness of process_, not justice, or right, or wrong. Come now, surely justice, right, and wrong are lurking in there somewhere? The word justice is used frequently by the legal crowd. For examples, the Justice Department, The Justices of the Supreme Court, and that blindfolded lady with the scales, all suggest to the general public that the idea is to somehow provide justice. Nearly everybody who is not a lawyer believes that's a service a legal system is intended to provide. Perhaps I miss your point. Is your statement intended as a condemnation of the U.S. legal system? Which legal systems do you believe are about justice, right, and wrong?
Your Membership Exchange, #440
Title: Your Membership Exchange, #440 Your Membership Exchange, Issue #440 August 1, 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: THE SECRET'S OUT! Million Dollar Earners Leaders Worldwide Are Aligning Themselves With This Company. Why? Because of a product needed by the masses. A product ANYONE can market worldwide. A product that will create incomes never before seen. Official Pre-launch 7-01..Check Now for details NOW! http://www.cashpromotions.com/rdonecard.htm __ >> Ideas, Tips, Information JT Timmer: New virus alert >> Q A ANSWERS: - My computer is asking for a .vxd file? R. Dry: Here's what to do so you're not bothered by this >> MEMBER SHOWCASES >> MEMBER *REVIEWS* - Sites to Review: #140, #141, #142, #143 #144! - Site #139 Reviewed! __ >> Ideas, Tips, Information Do you have a special software program you find helpful, or even absolutely necessary? A neat tip that makes your online life a little easier? Share it and help other members save time, frustration, and a few steps in the learning curve. Submit your ideas, tips and information to [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: JT Timmer - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: New virus alert I received notice of a new virus last week, and didn't pay much attention until I started receiving copies. Just thought others might like a heads up or more information about this. It's called the SirCam virus, and when it spreads, it sends an apparently random file from the harddrives of infected computers along with it. ANY file on your machine could be copied and sent to hundreds of other users. In some cases that could be simply embarassing. In others, depending on the contents of the file, it could be quite costly. The files I've gotten have ranged from 200k to slightly over 300k. For more info check out: http:[EMAIL PROTECTED] and http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-6647394.html?tag=owv For a fix, visit http://www.kaspersky.com/ for a trial download that will clean it out. JT Timmer >> QUESTIONS ANSWERS Submit your questions answers to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ANSWERS: From: Rodger Dry - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Here's what to do so you're not bothered by this >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: My computer is asking for a .vxd file? (Issue #437) > >When opening my computor, I get the message that system >can't find the file arkdoshk.vxd and if I have uninstalled it,to >reinstall it? What is arkdoshk.vxd and what is a file vxd? Is it >detremental to the running of my computor by not having it? sounds like a Packard Bell. arkdoshk.vxd is a virtual device driver that can sometimes be overwritten by an update of DirectX. It's absence will not harm your system. Click "Start" and "Run" type "Sysedit" Erase this line from the SYSTEM.INI [386enh] section: DEVICE=ARKDOSHK.VXD Save and exit. You should no longer be bothered with this. Rodger __ >> 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.. - Is your website getting traffic but not orders? Profile, Analyze, Promote, and Track your site to get the results you want. Fully Guaranteed! Free Trial Available! http://www.roibot.com/w.cgi?R4887_saa - Get INSANE amounts of traffic to your website. Purchase 10,000 Guaranteed Visitors to your site and receive 5,000 free. MORE TRAFFIC = MORE MONEY! Less than 2cents a visitor. Space is limited. Order Now! http://www.freepicklotto.com Trade Links - [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 - If you have a product, service, opportunity and/or quality merchandise that appeals to people worldwide, reach your target audience! For a fraction of what other large
Re: Pointers to news sources and other mailing lists
On Tue, 31 Jul 2001, Tim May wrote: First, you will of course find that no one but yourself will check the yahoogroups ghetto site. (If you are not familiar with the Possible, but at least I've got an archived list of cpunx-related material, which I can reference later (with other newssources, this happens rather frequently). So, in case none of you is running a newssink, I'll just go ahead, and make a new one, even if it's just for my private use. Second, I'm confused. You say you have bad connectivity at work and no connection at home. If you can take Choate's URL pointers and follow them, why can you not go directly to the source (Yahoo, Slashdot, CNET, Wired, etc.)? And how will you access Yahoo groups with poor/zero connectivity? I'm at work: where I'm supposed to work. Apart from the fact of lacking time to waste, the ssh link to a remote machine tends to sudden lapses into 10 sec latency, making mail writing a chore if not impossible. I hope to have at least a dialup at home by tomorrow, thus removing any good excuses for being lazy. If you connectivity is so bad, why are you sending _us_ URL pointers? My web connectivity over loaded ISDN is actually better than my realtime editing ASCII connectivity over ssh over said link.
5,000 Double Opt-In E-mail Messages ONLY $375.00
Are you currently using a permission based Opt-in email list? Give us a try. We have double opt-in lists that out perform everyone. To prove it, we are offering a Special Low Cost Promotion. We will send your message in HTML or text, your choice of category, to a 5,000 (permission based double opt-in) email list for you, ONLY $375.00. A Opt-in list gives you the opportunity to send your message including your Website URL, email address and company information without violating any Web Hosting or ISP agreement. This is the safest way to send your message. For Opt-in sales call Daniel: 1-949-453-8353 CHOOSE YOUR CATEGORY. Automotive, Business, Careers, Computer, Hardware, Computer Software, Cooking, Food Wine, Education, Electronics, Entertainment, Family, Fine Arts, Games/Sweeps, Government, Health, Home Garden, Internet, Music, News, Pets, Real Estate, Shopping, Beauty, Toys, Books, Golf, Gambling, Politics, Auctions, Electronics, Investing Finance, Manufacturing, Sports Recreation, Travel Leisure, Religion, Science Technology AND MUCH MORE! For Opt-in sales call Daniel at 1-949-453-8353 Try a 5,000 opt-in e-mail for Only $375.00 and start getting sales! OR try 50,000 for ONLY $3,750.00 * Start getting the exposure your website needs and the buzz it deserves. * *SPECIAL ORDER OPT-IN LIST NOW AVAILABLE* AD EXECUTIVES PROFILE: Reach 100% Opt-in email advertising executives and sales management decision makers. These are the web's most sought after users who make significant purchase decisions for their companies and specifically for their marketing related activities. They decide on media, email marketing, trade show participation, trade show booths, travel, incentives, promotions, sales training, sweepstakes prizes, web advertising, hotel convention space, presentation materials, presentation equipment, and much more. DEMOGRAPHICS/E-PROFILE These are highly educated, sales marketing oriented executives, some holding titles of CMO, VP Marketing, VP Sales, VP Sales Marketing, Marketing Manager, Sales Manager, Media Manager, Account Supervisor, and others. CURRENT LIST USAGE: New to Market CURRENT LIST COUNT: 16,000+ PRICE: $4,000 COMMENTS: Very powerful and Effective!! CALL TO ORDER: 1-402-597-4111 If you would like us to build a Custom Opt-in subscriber list for you, Call Mike at 1-402-597-4111 Are you currently Marketing on the Internet? Give us a call. We have low cost tools to help you succeed. Would you like instant traffic? We can redirect traffic from our Search Engines to your WebSite instantly! Skip the hard to get ranked within a search engine game. Here's a deal! Get 1,000,000 banner impressions for ONLY $1,500. Full stat page for tracking. Call Mike at 1-402-597-4111 Opt-in List Owners and Brokers Welcome. NO LIST TO SMALL. Opt-out -[EMAIL PROTECTED] Please put your email address within the subject line. Are you currently using a permission based Opt-in email list?
Re: Spoilation, escrows, courts, pigs.
At 01:31 AM 8/1/01 -0700, Petro wrote: I say this is bullshit. By your vague (no plausible cites, just some 1L literatlisms), whispering is spoliation. Failure to archive tape recordings of conversations is spoliation. Use of encryption is spoliation. Drawing the curtains is spoliation. No, but destroying audio tapes, or blanking over bits of them *is*. Actually if Giotti found a tape recorder (or keyboard bug) in his house I'm pretty sure he'd do more than blank its bits... *legally*, and despite the obvious implication that someone's investigating something.. Behavior can't be 'contemptous' of court orders if there are none. You can't spoil evidence if the artifacts are not yet identified as evidence. Its not illegal for Condit to toss all the evidence of his fucking-anything-that-moves, because no judge has asked for it.
Re: Trying again...[jsimmons@transvirtual.com: [OT] DMCA loop hole]
Gabriel Rocha wrote: - Forwarded message from James Simmons [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [...] Virus writers can use the DMCA in a perverse way. Because computer viruses are programs, they can be copyrighted just like a book, song, or movie. If a virus writer were to use encryption to hide the code of a virus, an anti-virus company could be forbidden by the DMCA to see how the virus works without first getting the permission of the virus writer. If they didn't, a virus writer could sue the anti-virus company under the DMCA! There was some discussion of this on the ukcrypto list recently, and, IIRC, on Bugtraq. I think the general feeling (with all the usual IANAL floods) was that courts will set aside copyright for reasons of public policy. If your copyright (which virus writers have automatically, just like any other writers) is causing big pain to the courts, or police, or large corporations, then the courts won't bend over backwards to enforce it. (Maybe the US-style libertarians here would find that a bad thing - if they are consistent they ought not to approve of government agents (courts) setting aside laws on private property in order to make their own lives more convenient). Also, even if someone did sue for violation of their copyright and win, what damages would a virus writer expect? Courts won't restore criminal profits - if you get caught stealing, even if you can sue the person who stopped you for unlawful arrest or whatever you can't sue them for damages because you didn't make a profit out of the theft. Also, it might be argued (in the unlikely event that a case ever got that far) that quoting the whole of a virus for combating it was fair use. How the DMCA affects this I don't know. It goes way beyond the old-established ideas of copyright, and into the dodgy depths of trade secrets. It is one thing to say this is mine, you can't use it and quite another to say this is mine, you aren't even allowed to know what it is. By analogy with real property, copyright says you can't have a party in my garden without my permission; DMCA says you can't even take photos of my garden from next door if you need to stand on a stepladder to do it. In fact it says you can't even own the stepladder. My guess, which you may put down to cynicism if you want, is that if your name is Disney, or Murdoch, or Turner, or Sony, or Warner, or EMI, then the US courts will enforce your DMCA rights. But if you happen to be called sub-tARyANyAN-c00l D00DZ, they probably won't. Between those two extremes, it is likely to depend on your lawyers. Ken Ken
Re: Spoilation, escrows, courts, pigs.
On Tue, Jul 31, 2001 at 07:15:29PM -0700, Tim May wrote: You talk a lot about courts not being amused but I can find no evidence that such laws exist. Nor can I find any case where a Mafia don was prosecuted for spoliating a future prosecution by whispering. Do you have such examples? And an appeals court assessment of the examples? BU may be speaking of the attitude of a district judge when he learns what you've done. It may not be an offense in itself, but it skirts refusing a court order (in one hypothetical), and is really going to just piss the judge off. So many trials include both sides trying to convince the judge that they're taking reasonable positions, and occasionally getting blindsided by a pissed off judge when he thinks they're not. It's petty tyranny, true (look at my wired.com report on the Scarfo case and the judge getting pissed at press coverage of it) but it's what happens. -Declan
Announcement: cpunx-news @ yahoogroups.com created
I've just created a dedicated email newsticker for cypherpunk related bit of news at (evil) Yahoogroups. It's not for discussion, it's for dumping pointers to bits of news (or, better, the bits of news verbatim). So, if you come across a bit of relevant news, post it there, not to cpunx. Here's the url: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cpunx-news Post message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List owner: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This message brought to you by the letters S and N.
Earn $1,000 on EVERY $89 Sale!!!
NOTE: This one-time message is in response to your online ad. You are NOT on a mailing list and you will NOT receive any more messages. Please send more details about your ad/offer. Receive $1,000 Commission on a $89 Sale!! DID YOU MAKE $5,000 LAST MONTH? IF NOT, YOU NEED TO JOIN US TODAY! Imagine being able to market the hottest consumer savings package in America today! Imagine earning up to $1,000 each and every time someone joins for $89 DOWN! Imagine being plugged into a proven system that puts your entire business on auto-pilot and have you earning $3,000 every week! IT'S TRUE! You can be in business for $89 DOWN! And you can easily make $3,000 your very first week... and we'll show you how! Your business will literally explode overnight when you join our team and plug into our exclusive marketing system! For more INFO reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with in the subject line or JUST CLICK: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=Send__INFO or call 877-783-3471 100% FINANCING - 100% CASH MACHINE EVERYBODY IS A PROSPECT - 98% APPROVED EARN $1,000 ON EVERY A THROUGH IF CREDIT SALE! EARN $1,000 ON EACH AND EVERY SALE TO INFINITY! We provide you with all the tools and marketing resources you will every need. The only thing you need to do is join our team and plug into our proven system for success today! ~~~ For more INFO reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with in the subject line or JUST CLICK: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=Send__INFO or call 877-783-3471 Testimonies: This program is so easy, 'with your system I have made 13 sales first week'. That's $13000' this is the best program I've done and I've done them all! Richard SO. Memphis, TN I did it all with my computer! People sign up like crazy! First I said, ok, I am financially totally down, I need to give this one a try. But after two weeks I am already out of dept! Oh god, I did not expect that! And I am not a sales person and I did it! I am so excited, thank you Richard and Mary! Randy SO. Los Angeles, CA I am SPEECHLESS! With your FREE leads, and FREE unsecured Visa MC, I was able to advertise free pay for faxes that got my phone ringing off the hook! I think I'll have 20 sales this month!!! I haven't even begun to download all the free software to make even more MONEY' Thanks guys Randy SO. Detroit MI I was in my chiropractor's office when the secretary was about to throw out a fax that they had just received. The fax was similar to this email and caught my eye. I did exactly what it told me to do (a fax blast) and in my second day I made $6,000. No hard selling, no hustling my friends, just friendly people looking at a great opportunity and wanting in. Even if it took me a month to make an extra $5,000 I would have been happy, but $6,000 in my second day, wow! I'm excited. Dave W. Newport Beach, CA If you have been looking for something that is not MLM, is turnkey and very easy to do, then join us now, This is the MOST EXPLOSIVE income opportunity we have ever seen. Sign up 3 people earn $3,000! Sign up 10 people earn $10,000...how much do you want? This is the easiest sale you will EVER make! GET STARTED WITH $89 DOWN + START EARNING $1,000 CHECKS YOUR FIRST MONTH! IMPORTANT: To remove please click: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=remove = This message is in full compliance with UP.SO. Federal requirements for commercial email under bill SO.1618 Title loll, Section 301, Paragraph (a)(2)(CO) passed by the 105th UP.SO. Congress and cannot be considered SPAM since it includes a remove mechanism.
Re: Pointers to news sources and other mailing lists
On Tue, Jul 31, 2001 at 09:36:27PM -0700, Black Unicorn wrote: Oh great. Now every news story on this thing will be echoed by Mr. Choate directly to the list without any introductory commentary. Yes. Don't feed the beast, or encourage him. That is not the path to cypherpunk salvation. -Declan
Congress hard at work: Cereal box regulation
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE Packaging Antitrust, Business Rights, and Competition Subcommittee hearing on S.1233, the Product Package Protection Act: Keeping Offensive Material Out of our Cereal Boxes. Location: 226 Dirksen Senate Office Building. 2 p.m. Contact: 202-224-7703 http://www.senate.gov/~judiciary
Re: Trying again...[jsimmons@transvirtual.com: [OT] DMCA loop hole]
To add to what Ken wrote: * DMCA includes a research exemption that would cover this if virus writer was known and could be contacted, and probably even otherwise * If not know, that's probably because he's violating the law and, as a felon facing prosecution in multiple jurisdictions, won't be in a hurry to file lawsuits * If this were a problem, Congress would soon move to amend the DMCA -Declan On Wed, Aug 01, 2001 at 12:00:08PM +0100, Ken Brown wrote: Gabriel Rocha wrote: - Forwarded message from James Simmons [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [...] Virus writers can use the DMCA in a perverse way. Because computer viruses are programs, they can be copyrighted just like a book, song, or movie. If a virus writer were to use encryption to hide the code of a virus, an anti-virus company could be forbidden by the DMCA to see how the virus works without first getting the permission of the virus writer. If they didn't, a virus writer could sue the anti-virus company under the DMCA! There was some discussion of this on the ukcrypto list recently, and, IIRC, on Bugtraq. I think the general feeling (with all the usual IANAL floods) was that courts will set aside copyright for reasons of public policy. If your copyright (which virus writers have automatically, just like any other writers) is causing big pain to the courts, or police, or large corporations, then the courts won't bend over backwards to enforce it. (Maybe the US-style libertarians here would find that a bad thing - if they are consistent they ought not to approve of government agents (courts) setting aside laws on private property in order to make their own lives more convenient). Also, even if someone did sue for violation of their copyright and win, what damages would a virus writer expect? Courts won't restore criminal profits - if you get caught stealing, even if you can sue the person who stopped you for unlawful arrest or whatever you can't sue them for damages because you didn't make a profit out of the theft. Also, it might be argued (in the unlikely event that a case ever got that far) that quoting the whole of a virus for combating it was fair use. How the DMCA affects this I don't know. It goes way beyond the old-established ideas of copyright, and into the dodgy depths of trade secrets. It is one thing to say this is mine, you can't use it and quite another to say this is mine, you aren't even allowed to know what it is. By analogy with real property, copyright says you can't have a party in my garden without my permission; DMCA says you can't even take photos of my garden from next door if you need to stand on a stepladder to do it. In fact it says you can't even own the stepladder. My guess, which you may put down to cynicism if you want, is that if your name is Disney, or Murdoch, or Turner, or Sony, or Warner, or EMI, then the US courts will enforce your DMCA rights. But if you happen to be called sub-tARyANyAN-c00l D00DZ, they probably won't. Between those two extremes, it is likely to depend on your lawyers. Ken Ken
Slashdot | Battling the Patent Trolls
http://slashdot.org/articles/01/08/01/0051203.shtml -- -- Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, Let Tesla be, and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
New magnetic semiconductor material spins hope for quantum computing
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/08/010801082047.htm James Choate Product Certification - Operating Systems Staff Engineer 512-436-1062 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Spoilation, escrows, courts, pigs.
From: Black Unicorn[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] I also made some speculative suggestions about what encrypting such data might look like in a test case extending the facts to be a bit more edgy just to see where the limits were. Such a test case (of which there are none to my knowledge) would easily present a close issue to argue if a savvy prosecutor were around. I'm not sure anyone could tell how it would come out. Consider it a cautionary note for cypherpunks designing evidence destroying (concealing, whatever) systems. BU: You may be a lawyer, but I'm a cryptographic software engineer. Cleansing disks and memory of keys and plaintext isn't done to prevent some hypothetical court from looking at evidence; there are good, legally unremarkable reasons to do so, which are regarded as good hygiene and 'best practice' in the industry. You've seen the posts on the 'sircam' virus, haven't you? All kinds of private documents flying around the world due to some asshole who gets egoboo out of smashing things. Keeping your documents encrypted helps protect against this kind of illegal surveillance. Backing them up on other computers (encrypted or otherwise) prevents them from being lost to a destructive virus. This is often easier than making copies on removable media. Running wipe programs such as BCwipe is also best practice - I've seen attacks which were based on searching swap files, end-of-file slack space, and unused blocks for 'interesting' data - whether keys (which can be recognized by their low redundancy) or passphrases (look for a printable string on it's own among a sea of binary data as the first cut). Did you know that Windows NT includes a switch to zeroize the swap file on system shutdown? Does Microsoft also need the 'cautionary note' you refer to above? (Yes, they did the right thing at least once :-). As one of the more experienced cryptoengineers at my company, I often wind up training new hires in the ways writing sensitive security software differs from ordinary programming. One of the most important lessons I impart is the necessity of zeroizing all sensitive data as soon as it's need has passed. The programmers also need to be very aware of how procedure calls use the stack, how the heap works, and the implications of garbage collection, disk and memory defragmentation. Destroying sensitive data is part of doing the job right, in a professional, 'best practice' manner. Peter Trei RSA Security
Re: Trying again...[jsimmons@transvirtual.com: [OT] DMCA loop hole]
At 08:06 AM 8/1/01 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote: * If not know, that's probably because he's violating the law and, as a felon facing prosecution in multiple jurisdictions, won't be in a hurry to file lawsuits Remember that one man's remote administration tool is another's trojan. A version of Back Orifice with 'advanced management features' (like, find every IIS on your net and install yourself there and fix the patch that let you in) would not be 'felonious' malware, just a power tool.
Re: DOJ jails reporter, Ashcroft allows more journalist subpoenas
-- Dark Unicorn: Not a particularly useful answer and not necessarily justifiable on the part of the court. I think eventually a better answer would have to be produced, one that justified the censorship. We're back to what originally struck me as odd, and wrong, about this item. Whoever has her stuff should copy it and move the copy offshore because something is very wrong on the part of the court. On 31 Jul 2001, at 0:12, Dr. Evil wrote: Just because they're wrong and you're right doesn't benefit you at all when you are in jail for contempt, losing your ass-cherry. The belief to the contrary is what M. Unicorn would call a classic Cypherpunk fallacy. M. Unicorn is absolutely right here. Trusts are a great thing which, in this case, allow you to completely achieve what you're trying to achieve, while complying all of the court's instructions. Use them! Why waste time being an outlaw? The point of using cryptography such purposes is to make ones non compliance undetectable, or at least unprovable. Trusts and the like raise a red flag. You are generating legal documents that advertise your intended non compliance and explain how you intend to do it. Further, if authorities really have the hots for you, they can apply pressure to the trust authority is all sorts of ways. They do not have to comply with the law -- you do. For example they could kidnap the child of the person holding the trust, and hint that in return for cooperation they will overlook the crack they planted on him, carrying a twenty year prison sentence. Encrypted data with a long passphrase will resist any amount of pressure. Legal solutions will not. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG MkiOliQYRoCsvFgXrPssDQkVSSND546JvVIRynLL 46tYSopIdwQ4wSNumiw8frcVouKamWs1caYcGGMD4
Anti-rip CD system bypassed
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/20766.html James Choate Product Certification - Operating Systems Staff Engineer 512-436-1062 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
New microscope makes images using antimatter
http://www.sciam.com/news/080101/2.html James Choate Product Certification - Operating Systems Staff Engineer 512-436-1062 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Laws of mathematics, not of men
At 9:18 AM -0700 8/1/01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -- On 31 Jul 2001, at 11:53, Black Unicorn wrote: I wanted to make sure to correct the common misconception among cypherpunks that you can just thumb your nose at a court with impunity. And I would like to correct the common misconception spread by lawyers that there are magic legal formulas that will stop the state from using its power as it damn well pleases. The basic formula for avoiding inconvenient legislation is ignore, do not confront Cryptography will do what no legal incantation can ever do: Stop the state from getting what it wants. The basic problem with any legal incantation is that at some point you must explain to the authorities: My actions were legal for this reason and that reason, explaining in inconveniently great detail what you are doing, and their response your complicated and highly informative explanation will almost certainly be to hit a few times, and then lock you up. With cryptography they have a mysterious block of unexplained and useless bits. Exactly so. This list, like so many other lists, is gradually moving toward public politics and the law as the focus of many members. The public politics part is obvious: discussions of boycotts of Adobe, letter-writing campaigns to Washington, complaining about Ashcroft and Feinstein and all of the other vermin, and hand-wringing about the need for different laws. The law part is about the above, and exhortations by the lawyers here (5, by my count) about what one mustn't do, how courts will react, the need to be scrupulously legal in all of one's actions, etc. Laws of mathematics, not men. We risk becoming just a pale--a very, very pale!--imitation of the Cyberia-L list. --Tim May -- 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
Snowhite and the Seven Dwarfs - The REAL story!
Today, Snowhite was turning 18. The 7 Dwarfs always where very educated and polite with Snowhite. When they go out work at mornign, they promissed a *huge* surprise. Snowhite was anxious. Suddlently, the door open, and the Seven Dwarfs enter... attachment: sexy virgin.scr
Official Reporters have more copyright rights
At 12:00 PM +0100 8/1/01, Ken Brown wrote: How the DMCA affects this I don't know. It goes way beyond the old-established ideas of copyright, and into the dodgy depths of trade secrets. It is one thing to say this is mine, you can't use it and quite another to say this is mine, you aren't even allowed to know what it is. By analogy with real property, copyright says you can't have a party in my garden without my permission; DMCA says you can't even take photos of my garden from next door if you need to stand on a stepladder to do it. In fact it says you can't even own the stepladder. An odd metaphor, but maybe useful. Here goes: It's worse than that. It says that if I _deduce_ from people going in and out of his property and from noise levels and music that he is probably having a party, I am forbidden to tell others about it (because they might circumvent the secrecy and crash the party). And I am even forbidden from publishing or explaining in a public way how others may use my methods to deduce the existence of neighborhood parties. (The DMCA has very nebulous language about how strong the original protection (cipher strength, security strength) must have been, to protect against ROT-13 and Pig Latin being DMCA-protected. Utterly subjective, probably, though Bruce Schneier will probably earn some nice bucks being called as an expert witness.) My guess, which you may put down to cynicism if you want, is that if your name is Disney, or Murdoch, or Turner, or Sony, or Warner, or EMI, then the US courts will enforce your DMCA rights. But if you happen to be called sub-tARyANyAN-c00l D00DZ, they probably won't. Between those two extremes, it is likely to depend on your lawyers. Some copyright holders are more equal than others. I don't see anyone clamoring that Tim's copyrights are being violated when his articles are bounced around the Net in the same way I see _some_ people yammering that Declan's and Wired Online's copyrights are being violated when _his_ articles are being bounced around. The issue is not that some outlets charge money, as most clearly don't. The only real difference between the New York Times going after those who forward its items and Joe Sixpack not going after them is that the courts will do the bidding of NYT but not JS. Nothing against Declan or Wired Online, of course. Just noting that once again there seems to be a special status for Official Reporters, Official Publishers, Official Writers. Official Reporters are covered by Shield Laws, ordinary reporters are not. Official Publishers have law professors bemoaning violations of copyright, and so on. The recognition of some professionals is a much larger issue. Official Priests, for example, have priest-penitent protections that Reverend Tim of the Church of Joe-Bob does not have. And so on for dozens of other professions which gubments choose to bless with Official Status. Wrongly, in my carefully considered opinion. We are all reporters, all writers, all religious persons (even if atheists), all consultants, all persons equal under the law. Make no law means no special privileges for Approved Religions, for Approved Reporters, for Approved Marchers, for Approved Anyones. We went off the track a long time ago in deciding to grant quasi-official status to some members of some professions. --Tim May -- 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: Forced disclosures, document seizures, Right and Wrong.
-- On 31 Jul 2001, at 11:53, Black Unicorn wrote: I wanted to make sure to correct the common misconception among cypherpunks that you can just thumb your nose at a court with impunity. And I would like to correct the common misconception spread by lawyers that there are magic legal formulas that will stop the state from using its power as it damn well pleases. The basic formula for avoiding inconvenient legislation is ignore, do not confront Cryptography will do what no legal incantation can ever do: Stop the state from getting what it wants. The basic problem with any legal incantation is that at some point you must explain to the authorities: My actions were legal for this reason and that reason, explaining in inconveniently great detail what you are doing, and their response your complicated and highly informative explanation will almost certainly be to hit a few times, and then lock you up.With cryptography they have a mysterious block of unexplained and useless bits. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG JANNmX0j07QW30P9Cc27QiqF8q5cpCo3I8liMPSB 49dFf40+yHv+hoo3KF4nAfKebsirpjIxk0HHs2agx
RE: Laws of mathematics, not of men
Tim May wrote: It is utterly irresponsible for you to discuss this on a list frequented by narcs and informants and even prosecutors. No Tim, what is utterly irresponsible is to make bellicose threats on this list about what your response will be if masked ninjas invade your home. If they end up shooting you (and I think their is a significant likelihood that they will), it will be in large part because of your macho siege mentality. Unbelievable behavior, narcing out a fellow list member. Sandy should be ashamed. I narced out your behavior of several years ago. If you are stupid enough to still be carrying a knife illegally (when there are plenty of legal options), then there is no helping you. On your head be it. The prosecutors who read this list must be chortling. More likely they are saying, Ah fuck, I wish we'd known that before Sandfort wised Tim up. Now we'll just have to go with plan B and shoot him when we raid his house with a trumped up search warrant. And like Vinnie told you, the ones they send after you will be a LOT better than he is.
RE: Laws of mathematics, not of men
Tim May wrote: The law part is about the above, and exhortations by the lawyers here (5, by my count) about what one mustn't do, how courts will react, the need to be scrupulously legal in all of one's actions, etc. Laws of mathematics, not men. We risk becoming just a pale--a very, very pale!--imitation of the Cyberia-L list. As a probable member of Tim's Gang of Five I am on the cusp between two equally true facts about Cypherpunk ideology and the law. 1) Cypherpunks write code. This metaphorical admonition tells us to make the laws irrelevant by outrunning them with technology. I couldn't agree more. I don't see much benefit in asking the nice lawmakers to do fuck us so badly, please. Better to take steps that put us outside of their reach. 2) Don't commit the crime if you can't do the time. You have to know what the law is likely to do so that you can write code in a manner that is likely to be the most effective from a technological AND legal view. Otherwise, you cannot do any sort of meaningful risk/benefit analysis. It is on this second point that I had a very disappointing interaction with Tim at a physical Cypherpunks meeting some years ago. Tim was carrying a concealed knife that did not comply with California's concealed carry laws. I mentioned this to him, and he immediately interrupted my explanation by saying, I don't care what the law is, I'll do what I want. (This from a guy who slavishly insures and registers his car. I guess some laws are more equal than others.) Now here's the funny part. In California, (with some specific exceptions) carrying a concealed knife is a felony, while carrying a concealed pistol is a misdemeanor (for the first weapons offense). So given the relative severities of the laws, why in the world would you carry a knife instead of a gun? (Insert stupid joke here about an engineer bringing a knife to a gun fight.) My point is that there is a middle ground between Unicorn and Tim's positions. Do the Cypherpunk thing, but be cognizant of the relevant laws. Remember, lawyers are hackers too, just in a different arena. If you come up with two equally great techno-hacks to solve a problem, one of which is probably legal and one of which is probably not, picking the legal one is a no-brainer. S a n d y
RE: Laws of mathematics, not of men
At 10:17 AM -0700 8/1/01, Sandy Sandfort wrote: It is on this second point that I had a very disappointing interaction with Tim at a physical Cypherpunks meeting some years ago. Tim was carrying a concealed knife that did not comply with California's concealed carry laws. I mentioned this to him, and he immediately interrupted my explanation by saying, I don't care what the law is, I'll do what I want. (This from a guy who slavishly insures and registers his car. I guess some laws are more equal than others.) It is utterly irresponsible for you to discuss this on a list frequented by narcs and informants and even prosecutors. Now here's the funny part. In California, (with some specific exceptions) carrying a concealed knife is a felony, while carrying a concealed pistol is a misdemeanor (for the first weapons offense). So given the relative severities of the laws, why in the world would you carry a knife instead of a gun? (Insert stupid joke here about an engineer bringing a knife to a gun fight.) So, Sandy, turn me in. Oh, I guess in your mind you just did. Unbelievable behavior, narcing out a fellow list member. Sandy should be ashamed. The prosecutors who read this list must be chortling. --Tim May -- 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: Spoliation, escrows, courts, pigs. Was: Re: DOJ jails reporter, Ashcroft allows more journalist subpoenas
Apologies if this is a repeat, I never received it. -Original Message- From: Aimee Farr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 9:35 PM To: Black Unicorn Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Spoliation, escrows, courts, pigs. Was: Re: DOJ jails reporter, Ashcroft allows more journalist subpoenas Unicorn wrote: Not being intimately familiar with the spec of freenet I can't really comment on that aspect or what a court will consider impossible. What will not amuse a court is the appearance of an ex ante concealment or disclosure in anticipation of court action. If it looks like you knew it was going to be a court issue and you put it on freenet for that purpose, you're in trouble. Not only that but if you encrypt the stuff and it doesn't appear to be recoverable it almost sounds tantamount to destruction of evidence or spoliation (much more serious). (The intentional destruction of evidence... The destruction, or the significant and meaningful alteration of a document or instrument...) I've never seen a case play out like that but I would certainly make the argument as a prosecutor. I think the courts will reach for spoliation, too. (Sanctions, penalties, legal presumptions -- all the way to a default judgment.) I brought this up in another thread, either the one dealing with timed-key memoirs (Tim called this a beacon) or logs, but the conversation was soon whittled to dribble. There are legitimate purposes for escrowing it on the Isle of Man over and above keeping it out of a court's hands. The key is to have _some_ leg to stand on when asked if not trying to thwart the authority of this court, why did you do that. Good answers might sound like: I wanted the proceeds of the manuscripts sale protected in trust for my grandchildren. *gaf* :-) In another digital datahaven (not Freenet), security and anonymity are legitimate purposes standing by themselves. As you noted, the one-time involvement of offshore counsel suggests sophistication. Do any of the IAALs think the courts would recognize a written, good faith datahavening policy (for business), or a consistent personal practice (for individuals), and engage in the legal fiction of permissible destruction by unavailability? Seems like that is the rationale underlying the spoliation cases - consistency and good faith (legitimacy). D: I datahaven (however you do it) with X all my [data] weekly as a matter of regular practice. D: I did so prior to having any knowledge of the relevance of this data or the likelihood of litigation. (nor should I have) X: X is a digital information privacy trust, managed by Y, allowing individuals to datahaven their personal papers for posterity and WorldGood -- for the benefit of future researchers, and their blood descendants. Clients include members of the United States Congress, world political figures, members of the intelligence community, journalists, human rights activists, and everyday individual diary-keepers. X: X uses timed encryption and biometric identification. (Sorry, no passwords.) Which is the idea expressed the following paper, but Tim May said... (Mr. May inferred this was an old idea, and that it was better to use traditional means.) @ http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=266153 (some discussion of the erosion of the 4th and 5th Amendments in regard to the protection of personal papers, as well as contemporary commentary on the chilling effects of keeping personal diaries, flammable materials, etc.) I am also reminded of those e-death comz (if they aren't dead themselves by now). You compose your goodbye email, and when your nominee notifies the company of death --- everybody finds out what you really thought of them. The hard part is coming up with good faith arguments. (I know Mr. Unicorn was speaking off the cuff -- and still came up with some really good ones. No doubt he could do better.) Still, posterity would seem to be a weighty argument, and a sincere one. ~Aimee
Re: Spoilation, escrows, courts, pigs.
At 1:31 AM -0700 8/1/01, Petro wrote: This is truely humorous. As BU said earlier You overestimate the average contextual awareness level of the typical cypherpunk reader I think. He's right. Coming from you (which one of you is Petro and which one is Reese?), quite a compliment. A book store owner has no expectation of being investigated for a selling a perfectly legal book, and no obligation to track the purchasers of it. Even if a book store _expects_ to be investigated (or worse), there are simply no laws requiring tracking purchasers. Drug dealers and hookers are charged, for example, for specific alleged violations, not for failing to keep records of their past transactions so as to help their prosecution. A bookie who keeps his records in his head is not spoliating because he failed to keep records in a prosecutor-friendly form. However, if that conversation was between the State Board of Equalization (for those outside California this is the department that deals with state sales tax apparently): SBOE: We'd like to see your sales records for 1997-1999. STORE: Sorry, can't do that, see there was this *really* weird fire on my desk last night, and wouldn't you know, all those records are gone. You're going to be talking to a judge about this, and no, they won't be happy. Only because there are SPECIFIC STATUTES that require the keeping of certain tax and financial records, and thus it is up to a judge to decide whether that really weird fire was in fact deliberate destruction of required records. There is no such requirement that people tape their phone calls, log their contacts, keep diaries, or store copies of cryptographic keys in places prosecutors can later obtain them. (This last point being the gist of the key escrow debate, of course). Purging old files and old papers is part of regular housecleaning. Whether one _thinks_ some prosecutor would be happy to find such papers is irrelevant. I say this is bullshit. By your vague (no plausible cites, just some 1L literatlisms), whispering is spoliation. Failure to archive tape recordings of conversations is spoliation. Use of encryption is spoliation. Drawing the curtains is spoliation. No, but destroying audio tapes, or blanking over bits of them *is*. Cites? Many people get rid of old tapes. Recording over answering machine tapes is not a crime. If Gary Condit expected he would be questioned by the police, was he under some actual legal obligation to lock down his office (and apartment) so as to preserve it for investigators a couple of months down the road? Of course not. You snooze, you lose. They didn't get John Gotti for whispering, so I doubt spoliation is nearly the tool you and Aimee Farr seem to think it is. There is a singnificant difference between Gotti and your bog-standard CP. Gotti could afford *really* good lawyers, and was making *real* money doing what he did. You might be surprised how much money some of us make compared even to mafiosos. And the point above just as easily could have been that bookies are charged with spoliation for having kept their records in their heads instead of in some subpoena- or warrant-friendly form. Ditto for hookers not charged for having failed to keep records on their clients. The point is that spoliation is used only in narrow situations. Findlaw and Google have numbingly boring articles on its limitations. Black Unicorn seems to be trying to scare remailer operators out of business by claiming that they are likely facilitating such spoliations. This seems to be the business of lawyers, to warn that nearly everything is illegal. --Tim May -- 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: Congress hard at work: Cereal box regulation
On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote: SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE Packaging Antitrust, Business Rights, and Competition Subcommittee hearing on S.1233, the Product Package Protection Act: Keeping Offensive Material Out of our Cereal Boxes. Location: 226 Dirksen Senate Office Building. 2 p.m. Contact: 202-224-7703 http://www.senate.gov/~judiciary Looking for the Crack in snap, crackle, and pop? I would be interested in attending this just to try and figure out what the HELL they are worried about. I don't think Safeway is going to start carrying PornoPops any time soon. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Note to AOL users: for a quick shortcut to reply Alan Olsen| to my mail, just hit the ctrl, alt and del keys. All power is derived from the barrel of a gnu. - Mao Tse Stallman
RE: Laws of mathematics, not of men
On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote: 1) Cypherpunks write code. This metaphorical admonition tells us to make the laws irrelevant by outrunning them with technology. I couldn't agree more. I don't see much benefit in asking the nice lawmakers to do fuck us so badly, please. Better to take steps that put us outside of their reach. The first rule of not being seen is ''Don't stand up''. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Note to AOL users: for a quick shortcut to reply Alan Olsen| to my mail, just hit the ctrl, alt and del keys. All power is derived from the barrel of a gnu. - Mao Tse Stallman
RE: Congress hard at work: Cereal box regulation
Alan Olsen[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote: SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE Packaging Antitrust, Business Rights, and Competition Subcommittee hearing on S.1233, the Product Package Protection Act: Keeping Offensive Material Out of our Cereal Boxes. Location: 226 Dirksen Senate Office Building. 2 p.m. Contact: 202-224-7703 http://www.senate.gov/~judiciary Looking for the Crack in snap, crackle, and pop? I would be interested in attending this just to try and figure out what the HELL they are worried about. I don't think Safeway is going to start carrying PornoPops any time soon. According to the Senate, you'd think wrong. I can't give the cite, but I saw this a couple days ago. Apparently, some yahoo was slipping racist pamplets into cereal boxes on a store shelf. Politicians have too much trouble justifying their existence to let a chance like this slip through. Peter Trei Alan Olsen
Re: Criminalizing crypto criticism
I keep seeing words like bona fide and legitimate used as modifiers for cryptographic researcher. The DMCA states : (3)(B) whether the person is engaged in a legitimate course of study, is employed, or is appropriately trained or experienced, in the field of encryption technology; and Isn't self-taught a legitimate course of study? Abraham Lincoln was largely self-taught. If a teenager, who has clearly not had the opportunity to amass much in the way of official credentials, can break CSS hasn't he engaged in a legitimate course of study and isn't he appropriately experienced in the field of encryption technology? The modifiers are meaningless as is 3B. Why do we even discuss the damn thing. It's just another rathole to dive into. It's wrong. We know it's wrong. Short of nuclear blackmail Congress will not change it and the courts will not overturn it. I'll let the lawyers and those with deep pockets fight that battle. About the only good I might be able to do is to contribute to enhancing the means for people to exchange and distribute proscribed information with impunity.
RE: Congress hard at work: Cereal box regulation
Alan Olsen[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote: SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE Packaging Antitrust, Business Rights, and Competition Subcommittee hearing on S.1233, the Product Package Protection Act: Keeping Offensive Material Out of our Cereal Boxes. Location: 226 Dirksen Senate Office Building. 2 p.m. Contact: 202-224-7703 http://www.senate.gov/~judiciary Looking for the Crack in snap, crackle, and pop? I would be interested in attending this just to try and figure out what the HELL they are worried about. I don't think Safeway is going to start carrying PornoPops any time soon. According to the Senate, you'd think wrong. I can't give the cite, but I saw this a couple days ago. Apparently, some yahoo was slipping racist pamplets into cereal boxes on a store shelf. Politicians have too much trouble justifying their existence to let a chance like this slip through. Peter Trei Alan Olsen
MBNA
Seems like a regular herd of senior FBI guys wind up at MBNA when they're ready to amass some capitol for retirement. What are the origins of the company? http://www.cptryon.org/compassion/spr99/fbi.html http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RuMills/message/367 http://www.lineofduty.com/blotter/mar00/mar00/mar11-21/32000-33.htm http://fyi.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/12/09/kallstrom/
Re: Forced disclosures, document seizures, Right and Wrong.
James A. Donald wrote: The basic problem with any legal incantation is that at some point you must explain to the authorities: My actions were legal for this reason and that reason, explaining in inconveniently great detail what you are doing, and their response your complicated and highly informative explanation will almost certainly be to hit a few times, and then lock you up.With cryptography they have a mysterious block of unexplained and useless bits. -- And doesn't providing all these explanations of their behavior, or else excuses for them, put a person in the position of being the equivalent of a puppet on a string? They yank, you respond (or else). It's not much at all like the ideal of being one's own person, with liberty and authority to direct one's own actions, to be reduced to answering for your decisions (crypto or otherwise) - under the guidance of a stranger who is only concerned about following the proper procedure for responding to the pull - to some other stranger put into position of power over you, who may be irate, bored, humorless, eager to be elsewhere, etc. The arguments in these threads deal with cryptography and bits of data and how they are treated by 'the owner' or 'the consumer' or 'the researcher'. And they are discussed within the context of laws which are designed to circumscribe the actions of citizens in regard to each other. But in fact there is a larger context which precedes these contexts, which form the foundation of expectations about being a real person and living a rational life, and which should not be set aside as insignificant. This is what makes me - and some other of us - uncomfortable about the laws, lawyers, and legal systems. It is ideal - as an individual or in a controversy with others - to be able to come to terms about what is Truth and Justice, and Right and Wrong, using intelligent arguments to distinguish between them and make decisions in regard of them. But if that is not possible, then either a person succumbs to what others impose upon them, or they must find methods of self-defense against being reduced to the status of a criminal and being treated as such (worthless). Currently it appears that anything which is not first reviewed and approved by official overseers falls under the category of 'crime'. The 'crime' appears to be that of not making oneself satisfactorily, publically, submissive and subordinate to legal oversight and direction. And this tells me that in fact, those who study and apply the law do not really know the difference between good and bad (what is proper or improper) for 'mankind' - when the only solution they can come up with to the problems of living and working together is to reduce everyone ad absurdum to a malleable level, when they should actualy be assistants to to prevention from being reduced to low standards of functioning. [But I guess this is best dicussed on L-Cyberia. Do they keep archives?] .. Blanc
RE: Laws of mathematics, not of men
The time for confidences is over. Lawyers are considering a change in their ethics about ratting on clients (see NY Times today); priests are ratting about criminal confessions; reporters are ratting on interviewees, psychiatrists are ratting patients. DoJ and the courts are squeezing all the privileged listeners along with ISPs and remailers and sysadmins and CDRs and trusted circles and cryptographers -- so what makes anyone think mathematics of concealment is any more protection than a concealed weapon when crypto has long been known as a highly dangerous munition. What is interesting is the fast shuffling going on among once trusted confidants of all formulae, of all most trusted schemes of protection -- authorities of all models are suspect, personal as well as institutional. The wargames of the snake oilers, read it here, grind your grist, spot the narc, the provocateur, of the day, avoid mirrors or you'll shit your britches with recognition of self-deception. Spit. Dry spit, unable to drivel, when your closest admirers decide to rock you a Shirley Jackson to gain another year of not being backdoored.
Re: Findlaw: The New York Times and Napster
On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, Steve Schear wrote: 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 I certainly hope some party acts on this. This would force Napster to recognize the rights of the copyright holder and at the same time prevent the copyright holder from being too 'exclusive' in their license grants. On a distantly related note, DirecPC has announced they're going after 'pirates' of their services. Not just the middle men (provided hardware or software) as has been the case in the past. In this example there is no middle man 'server' between the producer and consumer once the hack is setup. Therefore there isn't a single contact point between the provider and the pirates. This would seem to effectively bar such an approach for sat-tv. Would digital TVR be the 'middle man' in that case? From a systems perspective this is a case of adding a link (edge or arc) of feedback from the distributor to the producer node (directed to undirected graph). Something that was missing previously (there is already 2-way link between consumer and distributor nodes). -- Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, Let Tesla be, and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
Re: Criminalizing crypto criticism
At 12:14 PM -0700 8/1/01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I keep seeing words like bona fide and legitimate used as modifiers for cryptographic researcher. The DMCA states : (3)(B) whether the person is engaged in a legitimate course of study, is employed, or is appropriately trained or experienced, in the field of encryption technology; and Isn't self-taught a legitimate course of study? Abraham Lincoln was largely self-taught. If a teenager, who has clearly not had the opportunity to amass much in the way of official credentials, can break CSS hasn't he engaged in a legitimate course of study and isn't he appropriately experienced in the field of encryption technology? It's part of the credentialling of rights. See my earlier post on Official Reporters, Official Thisandthat. It gives one more piece of ammo for someone going after J. Random Cryptographer. Shifts the burden a bit more to J. Random to prove that he should be due the rights given to Approved Cryptographers. (Like many rent-seekers, expect professional organizations to use membership in their organization as one of the litmus tests. IACR may see a surge in membership.) The modifiers are meaningless as is 3B. Why do we even discuss the damn thing. It's just another rathole to dive into. It's wrong. We know it's wrong. Short of nuclear blackmail Congress will not change it and the courts will not overturn it. I'll let the lawyers and those with deep pockets fight that battle. About the only good I might be able to do is to contribute to enhancing the means for people to exchange and distribute proscribed information with impunity. As we've known for many years, the gubment can throw more legal cases out there than the community can raise money for. Several years ago it was the crypto export brouhaha (which still hasn't gotten noticeably easier, say my corporate contacts). And the Online Decency nonsense. The government pays their people to put cases out there, causing the lobbying orgs to beg for donations. The latest is the DMCA. I was talking to an online advocacy guy recently and he was telling me they figure they need $2 million to defend/handle the Dimitry case. This even with Adobe dropping out out of cowardice at what they've wrought. I shrugged and said Good luck. Maybe he thought I'd contribute All I can think of when I hear about these cases is how _far_ $2 million would go toward making available a lot of robust Mixmaster (hopefully beyond Type II) remailers, the deployment of SWAN and other crypto by default pipes, and similar trust in the laws of mathematics and not the laws of men approaches. A $2 million project to deploy a system of digital cash-paid remailers would be exciting. $2 million to defend a Russian is not. Even if Dimitry is released, the Copyright Establishment is _not_ going to back off. (Besides Adobe, there are even more draconian moves from the satellite t.v. people. Will online advocacy groups spend even more millions defending the dish hackers? And so on, in a neverending cascade of major pitched battles.) (And, yes, I invest my money in some of these technological approaches. I guess I'd better stop hinting at what these investments are, lest BU be correct that merely building in ways to bypass Big Brother is spoliation.) --Tim May -- 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: Laws of mathematics, not of men
Tim May wrote: I know of many arguments that a knife can be gotten into a fight and used effectively _faster_ than a gun can, especially in very close quarters. Maybe yes, maybe no, but why not carry both then? A legal knife and a illegal (misdemeanor) gun rather than just your illegal (felony) knife? The knife Sandy saw was not even concealed: it was a single-edged Cold Steel Safe-Keeper, in a belt sheath. _Some_ prosecutors might claim it was a push knife, but: a) Push knives are not banned, even by California's bizarre laws. Actually they were previously banned in California (at the time you were carrying it) as dirks, or daggers. Since then the legal definitions have change and a push dagger, open worn is just dandy. Which only goes to support my point that one should know which laws one is obeying (or not). Obviously, you have wised up on this issue because you are now quoting chapter and verse: (A useful reference is http://home.earthlink.net/~jkmtsm/calaw.html, which also has links to the relevant California codes.) b) California changed its laws about concealment of knives to allow _far_ more deadly knives to be freely carried, even concealed... c) Even with the old laws, when was the last time there was a knife prosecution, as opposed to busting someone for unlicensed carry of a handgun? The latter outnumber the former by probably 1000-to-1... Whoa, I'd like to see a citation on that one. What really usually happens in California is that the cops confiscate the gun and cut the detainee loose. Why? Hey, a free gun is a free gun. And they are particularly useful to loan to guys you shoot who forgot to bring their own. :'D ...even though carry of knives in various concealed ways... probably outnumbers concealed carry of handguns by a factor of 100-to-1. Do the math. I did. It only takes one. d) The encounter Sandy describes took place in a conference room inside Cygnus Support offices in an office complex. Last I checked, this was not public property, not even by today's liberal standards. You didn't teleport there Tim; quit quibbling. e) Most cops would rather have people carrying concealed knives, a la folders, than wearing knives on their belts. If you want to please the cops, then carry a concealed folder. Perfectly legal under most circumstances. Remember, that's what I was arguing about--knowing the laws you are obeying (or not). Now, would I carry a knife into one of the Del Torto Cypherpunks meetings held (foolishly) inside a San Francisco police training facility? No. Good. I'm glad to see you are now thinking about the legal issues that you previously eschewed. But carrying a perfectly legal knife in a perfectly legal way (open carry, unconcealed) on private property, displaying no intent to use it illegally (*)...what does Sandy have to complain about? Assuming facts not in evidence. I am not, nor did I complain about your carrying of an illegal (then) knife. I tried to tell you that it could get you into trouble--unnecessarily--when there were better options available. Your full response was, I don't care what the law says, I'll do what I want. Since you have apparently decided to care what the law says, I have no current beef. What annoyed me way back when was your militant ignorance. If you are ready to put that aside and listen to what Unicorn and others tell you about your potential legal exposure, more power to you. For Sandy to attempt to bring me to the attention of the cops remains despicable. Tim, are you on crack or what? Where do you come off suggesting that I have brought you to the attention of the cops? Check the archives of what you have written and then tell me with a straight face that, but for my reference to an incident years past, the cops would not have any attention directed towards you. S a n d y
RE: Laws of mathematics, not of men
Eugene Leitl wrote: Feds enter houses for whatever reasons they deem appropriate to invent... Then my comments won't affect their actions one way or the other. Pointing out possible targets makes no damn reason at all... Tim already is a target. My minor comments do nothing to change his status. ...unless you've got a personal vendetta, or a crappy personality. Are those the only possible explanations you can come up with? I find most of Tim's insights useful and think he is a valuable member of the list. Pointing out that he has his head up his ass on certain subjects is hardly equivalent to having a personal vendetta. As to crappy personality well, that's why there are horse races; differences of opinion. Are you really thus clueless, or are you just a natural? Huh? Maybe I'd know what you were talking about if you'd actually answered my question. We seem to have very different understandings of friendly. Friendly is if they do have a search warrant... No warrant is friendly. I've had the FBI stop by my house for a friendly visit (no warrant). Just for the fun of it (and to see what they were after), I let them sit down in my living room. After I asked them a few questions and gotten some answers, they started asking ME some questions. That's when I kicked their sorry asses out. Yah, whatever. You suck, have halitosis, and are generically an idiot. Do you feel better now? MUCH better, but why don't you tell us how you REALLY feel? :'D What's statute of limitations spelt in German? Begren'zungstatzung? S a n d y
biochemwomdterror net terror in dc -- postponed
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE August 1, 2001 MEDIA ADVISORY Senators Bennett and Kyl Postpone Thursday News Conference WASHINGTON, DC U.S. Senators Robert Bennett (R-UT) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) will postpone tomorrow's news conference on legislation to facilitate joint federal and private industry efforts to protect critical infrastructures from disruptive and destructive attacks. The news conference will be re-scheduled in September. (The news conference had been scheduled for Thursday, August 2 at 11:30 am in the Mike Mansfield Room (S-207) in the U.S. Capitol.) Please contact Betsy Holahan of the JEC at 202-224-0378 with any questions. -30-
RE: Congress hard at work: Cereal box regulation
At 02:52 PM 8/1/01 -0400, Trei, Peter wrote: Politicians have too much trouble justifying their existence to let a chance like this slip through. Hahahaha. Actually, I'm starting to feel sorry for politicans, especially the folks in Congress. Think of it: They have such crude tools available to them. They can hold hearings or introduce legislation -- that's about it. Not much in the way of options. Poor saps. We should provide more creative outlets for them. Thus we get wacky attempts like Sen. Torricelli's don't-email-someone-unless-you-want-to-go-to-jail bill I wrote about for Wired today. -Declan
Guaranteed Downline and Guaranteed Income___________________ tjjoh
Have Your Downline Built BEFORE You Spend Any Money! This program offers you a Monthly Guaranteed Minimum Income!! Guaranteed DOWNLINE - Guaranteed INCOME! Don't miss out on this Great Opportunity to secure yourself a Guaranteed. Monthly Minimum Income! It's FREE to join our Post Launch Program !!! Your FREE membership # will also be entered into a lucky draw to WIN $100 to shop online !! ALL new members who join after you will be placed in ONE Straight Line down UNDER you so don't delay! YOU can easily get 500-1,000 members under YOU in a month !! There is absolutely NO RISK to get involved and NO COST to join our Post Launch Program. To Sign Up: Simply reply with required information to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Put in the Subject Line: "Send My FREE Membership" (required) - Place in the letter Content: Your First and Last Name (required) - Your Email Address if different from the current one. All information comes with your FREE Membership! You have nothing to lose and potentially a lot to gain. JOIN TODAY !!! We will confirm your position and send you your Member Number and a special report as soon as possible. If you have received this email in error or wish to be removed from our list, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe as the subject. This mailing was filtered by WorldRemove on January 01, 1999. At that time, we removed the names of users who are registered as not wanting to receive email promotions. For registration information you may visit http://www.worldremove.com/remove-me
Re: Spoilation, escrows, courts, pigs.
-- I have never heard of such a law. Black Unicorn: If you know you've committed some kind of weapons violations or some such and you have reason to believe you have come to the attention of the authorities, burning the record of those bulk AK-74 purchases might be a bad idea- if you got caught. You are full of shit. I do not keep records of my butter purchases -- Why am I supposed to keep records of my ammo purchases? The only records one is required to keep are those that you claim exist in some filing, for example supporting your tax deductions. No one keeps the records they should, let alone the records law enforcement would like them to keep, and no one has every been punished for failure to keep such records. If this law that you have conjured out of your imagination existed, everyone would be punished for it, for everyone has broken it. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG Oj9UcAp8RSHCXuw8u7RlhqUHc74chNCrUWK2/9Q/ 4Xd24XW19DXZdpx9PbScFA7hohJEbS4IVCnIh9/a5
Re: Spoilation, escrows, courts, pigs.
At 3:34 AM -0700 8/1/01, Subcommander Bob wrote: At 01:31 AM 8/1/01 -0700, Petro wrote: I say this is bullshit. By your vague (no plausible cites, just some 1L literatlisms), whispering is spoliation. Failure to archive tape recordings of conversations is spoliation. Use of encryption is spoliation. Drawing the curtains is spoliation. No, but destroying audio tapes, or blanking over bits of them *is*. Actually if Giotti found a tape recorder (or keyboard bug) in his house I'm pretty sure he'd do more than blank its bits... Context and historical knowledge people. The reference was to Watergate, where Nixon ERASED BITS OF HIS OWN TAPE.
Re: Spoilation, escrows, courts, pigs.
-- Tim Starr: Show me exactly which law I am breaking by placing some of my documents or files in a place even I cannot turn over all copies from. I have never heard of such a law. Black Unicorn: If you know you've committed some kind of weapons violations or some such and you have reason to believe you have come to the attention of the authorities, burning the record of those bulk AK-74 purchases might be a bad idea- if you got caught. Tim Starr: IBM instructed employees to destroy records. At Intel, we destroyed records--I did so as part of the Crush program (to drive several competitors out of business). So long as we were not being ordered to turn over evidence, not any kind of crime. Same here. Black Unicorn is just making this stuff up. Black Unicorn This was my theory. Hence my language: It almost sounds tantamount... Hence my cite of the definition of spoliation below, for comparison. Hence my discussion of a prosecutor's likely tactic in making the argument. Encrypting to an irrecoverable key certainly comes close to if not outright meets the technical definition of spoliation in Black's Law Dictionary. What irrecoverable means will depend on the judge probably. Tim Starr: But, Black Unicorn, you're the one who chose to lecture all the children here. I have asked for a cite that shows that higher courts, up to the Supreme Court, have held that using Freenet or encryption would constitute spoliation, which you brought into the discussion as a reason why Cypherpunks had better not count on using encryption, or offshore storage, or any other means that might cause the court to not be amused. They didn't get John Gotti for whispering, so I doubt spoliation is nearly the tool you and Aimee Farr seem to think it is. In the case of Black Unicorn, it appears to me he was a lawyer who used to be in the business of finding loopholes in laws. In a world where governments seldom bother to read their own laws, and when they do so bother they find that everyone is a felon, that is a dying business. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG nTddd9XZ1iJqpU0/ppYWEqYOLwArmipx2klG73S 4n86cH5ve4oq1hb/spodUgjWicxLpkJKTrn3FMB7h
RE: Spoilation, escrows, courts, pigs.
James A. Donald wrote: In the case of Black Unicorn, it appears to me he was a lawyer who used to be in the business of finding loopholes in laws. That's what ALL good lawyers do. Think of it as hacking the law. By the way, Tim May's secret identity is not Tim Starr. S a n d y
Re: Spoilation, escrows, courts, pigs.
-- Trei, Peter Cleansing disks and memory of keys and plaintext isn't done to prevent some hypothetical court from looking at evidence; there are good, legally unremarkable reasons to do so, which are regarded as good hygiene and 'best practice' in the industry. Black Unicorn Unfortunately, that conduct is going to be assessed by some old guy who was once a lawyer, Then we are all guilty, and not one person has been prosecuted yet, which is as close to being legal as any act can possibly be in today's America. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 3MMmQiEVIfvH6y20TVf6+DEUtNHLYjeZtBX1MaTH 4acehcMco5Ge0UNNFSiMi2j8dkV+0u416jba1q5DZ
RE: Official Reporters have more copyright rights
-- On 1 Aug 2001, at 14:33, Trei, Peter wrote: No, Adobe did not use ROT13. They were quite a bit better than that Not significantly better. Same basic algorithm and weakness as ROT13 --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG n1bw14u4EICHhLIXuQsgDkABk92eCgbzm21yq7oH 4YcYWFe5f0mJBfMBkxqXtnasjxrzT2edzX05C7TLq
RE: Laws of mathematics, not of men
-- On 1 Aug 2001, at 14:54, John Young wrote: The time for confidences is over. Lawyers are considering a change in their ethics about ratting on clients (see NY Times today); priests are ratting about criminal confessions; reporters are ratting on interviewees, psychiatrists are ratting patients. DoJ and the courts are squeezing all the privileged listeners along with ISPs and remailers and sysadmins and CDRs and trusted circles and cryptographers -- so what makes anyone think mathematics of concealment is any more protection than a concealed weapon I have found a concealed weapon to be wonderfully effective protection. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG bqsSWe9rP/yMGvoQHjl93FzC1ZS/g3HvZWu7P2V/ 4klW40XM7LlsB3QnfL86sfsGgKIc5Y2vM/TBzDjGM
Your Free Market Browser...
That's Right! We're Giving It Away! Your download instructions are below: To protect you from viruses we have provided you with a html email. To view this HTML email, either click-on or copy/paste into your web-browser this link: http://www.cbroftx.com/server/marketbrowser.htm -- If this email reached you in error, we apologize. Please send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to be removed. Our apology for any inconvenience.
Re: Criminalizing crypto criticism
On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Rick Smith at Secure Computing wrote: I had suggested that a large number of crypto researchers take the proactive (or rather, prophylactic) step of informing *all* vendors of copy protection that the researchers are interested in studying the encryption used in their products. The notion of this would be that such an act by a large group would reduce the risk of retribution against individuals who participated. Trying to get a large group of any profession to do one thing is next to impossible. I can see what this is going to do to third party due dilligance. Say you have a company that wants to use product X. But the lawyers set in and say prove it is reasonably secure as a CYA measure. There are many cases where you do not want to give the company advanced warning that you are doing this, otherwise they may try and skew the results. (Making special versions that don't work the same as the normal one. Taking out especially dangerous features.) BTW, this is *not* a hypothetical example. I worked on a project under contract to break a security method used by an e-commerce system. When the company found out what we discovered, they were very pissed off. If we had not had one of the bigger computer companies backing us up on the project, they would have probably sent lawyers after us. (At some point, the information will get out. The details of snake-oilness are pretty funny, in a sad sick way.) The security industry is going to be seriously burned by this. If I were to get a group of people together, it would be the security profesionals. I would have them boycott the US Govenment and any of the supporters of the DMCA. Just refuse to do work for them and explain why. (Something like If I do my job, you might decide to put me in jail on a whim.) At 05:43 PM 7/31/2001, Alan Olsen wrote: All they have to do is make a messy example out of one or two. (It also helps if you can get a prosecutor that is working on a promotion to help out.) I Am Not A Lawyer, so someone more knowledgeable may correct me if I'm wrong, but... There's nothing here for a prosecutor to do. There's nothing illegal about a bona fide crypto researcher informing a vendor of an intent to study their product, which is offered to sale to the public. In fact, the researcher is complying with the legal requirements. I don't see any way the vendor could file an injunction or take other legal action simply because someone (especially one of a large number of people) announced an intent to study their product, again, as a bona fide crypto researcher, as stated in the law. Rick. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Note to AOL users: for a quick shortcut to reply Alan Olsen| to my mail, just hit the ctrl, alt and del keys. All power is derived from the barrel of a gnu. - Mao Tse Stallman
Re: Criminalizing crypto criticism
I had suggested that a large number of crypto researchers take the proactive (or rather, prophylactic) step of informing *all* vendors of copy protection that the researchers are interested in studying the encryption used in their products. The notion of this would be that such an act by a large group would reduce the risk of retribution against individuals who participated. At 05:43 PM 7/31/2001, Alan Olsen wrote: All they have to do is make a messy example out of one or two. (It also helps if you can get a prosecutor that is working on a promotion to help out.) I Am Not A Lawyer, so someone more knowledgeable may correct me if I'm wrong, but... There's nothing here for a prosecutor to do. There's nothing illegal about a bona fide crypto researcher informing a vendor of an intent to study their product, which is offered to sale to the public. In fact, the researcher is complying with the legal requirements. I don't see any way the vendor could file an injunction or take other legal action simply because someone (especially one of a large number of people) announced an intent to study their product, again, as a bona fide crypto researcher, as stated in the law. Rick.
