Re: Laws of mathematics, not of men
On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, David Honig wrote: > 8 years ago the number who had a net-clue was small, and they were > a more tolerant bunch. Now you have every ditz in Tennessee trying > to shape the net to her liking, and getting men with guns to help. Which is that 'freedom' thing, that is a good thing all in all. You don't want others making your decisions or forcing you to behave a particular way. Why should they, simply to assuage your hurt feelings because you don't get it your way?... -- 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 --'-
The Register - Congress tears Media Giant's hearts out
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/20839.html -- -- 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 --'-
Oh, the CDR isn't...
the WWW either. -- 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 --'-
Copyright Licenses and Assignments (BitLaw)
Some specific info on 'implied' copyright. http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/license.html The best that Declan can hope for is a 'non-exclusive' copyright, but even that would require an exchange (ie a meeting of minds) between the two parties. However, that won't fly since, as an operator of at least one of the nodes, the policy is that you as the original author release no rights by participating in the CDR itself, implied or otherwise - which I've stated many times (check the archives). So the 'implied' contract perspective falls down because one of the parties involved has EXPLICITLY made known the conditions of use. That over-rides ANY implied anything. Further, by the other nodes agreeing not to modify backbone traffic they have explicitly agreed to this for all parties NOT SUBSCRIBED TO THEIR NODE. What we do have is a EXPRESS LICENSE between node operators. And then a (potentialy) implied (unless they print a policy on a webpage like SSZ does) contract between subscriber and node operator. The CDR is NOT(!!) Usenet, even if we are distributed over several 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 --'- Title: Copyright Licenses and Assignments (BitLaw) Copyright Licenses and Assignments One of the primary values of owning copyright rights is the ability to transfer some or all of those rights to third parties. These transfers can be for all of the copyright rights in a work (which is generally referred to as an outright assignment), or can be for a limited portion of the rights provided by the Copyright Act (which usually take the form of copyright licenses). The BitLaw discussion of assignments and licenses is divided into the following four sections: transfers in general; implied licenses; termination of transfers; and recordation of transfers. Transfers in General: Copyright is a personal property right, and it is subject to various state laws and regulations that govern the ownership, inheritance, or transfer of personal property. It is probably best to view copyright as a bundle of rights. The rights included in that bundle are the rights granted by the U.S. Copyright Act, as described in the BitLaw discussion on the scope of copyright protection. Any or all of these rights, or any subdivision of those rights, may be transferred. A transfer of one of these rights may be made on an exclusive or nonexclusive basis. The transfer of exclusive rights is not valid unless that transfer is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed. Transfer of a right on a nonexclusive basis does not require a written agreement. For example, the author of a novel, as the original copyright owner of the novel, could transfer to a publisher the exclusive right to copy and distribute a novel (under the right of reproduction and distribution), and also grant a screen play writer the nonexclusive right to create a movie script based on that novel (under the right to create derivative works). The author's agreement with the publisher would have to be in writing to be valid. However, the agreement with the screen play writer could be oral and still be enforceable. A transfer of copyright rights is usually either an assignment or a license. An assignment of copyright rights is like the sale of personal property. The original owner sells its rights to a third party, and can no longer exercise control over how the third party uses those rights. A license (or more properly "an express license") is an agreement where the copyright owner maintains its ownership of the rights involved, but allows a third party to exercise some or all of those rights without fear of a copyright infringement suit. A license will be preferred over an assignment of rights where the copyright holder wishes to maintain some ownership over the rights, or wishes to exercise continuing control over how the third party uses the copyright holder's rights. A typical software license agreement is a copyright license agreement. The owner of the copyright in the software wishes to grant the end-user the right to utilize the software in a restricted manner. In return, the end-user may agree to limit its use of the software in a variety of ways and to pay a license fee payment to the copyright owner. Implied Licenses: An implied copyright license is a license created by law in the absence of an actual agreement between th
What You Don't Know Will Kill You
Hans Mark, a septugenarian DoD official in a seminar at Harvard on "Intelligence, Command and Control," in Spring 2000 said: "It is as bad to have too much information as it is not to have any. Both contribute to Clausewitzs fog of war. It is not good to have a completely transparent communications system. The private does not need to know what the general knows. In fact, if the private knew what the general knows, he might not want to go over the next hill." Mark says he believes in unquestioned command authority as the most essential quality of the military, over weapons, strategy, tactics and intelligence. He acknowledged that commanders made mistakes but that history has shown the validity of supreme command authority. Elsewhere one reads that commanders are taught that casualties are inevitable in war and that the resolute commander will not hesitate to order an action that will certainly cause death. Corollary of Mark's moral: be a commander never a follower or, best, avoid heirarchies of rank and their promugators. Better than best is to destroy heirarchies. For getting followers to obey commands requires bountiful deception and betrayal. That is called morale building, esprit de corps, patriotism, putting the nation, the unit, your comrades above your self-preservation. Believers in heirarchies get really pissed when you question their authority, and will kill you to show who is boss, or more likely order an underling commander to order a blind faith warrior to do it with a stand-off weaponry created for cowards. Check out the NY Times Magazine's featured piece tomorrow on the US plan to command the world through space weaponry. All doomsday gadgets commanded from Earth by e-generals pushing Linux sysadmins' buttons with dreams of generalship for all just over the hill. Why is command-authority IBM, Oracle and Sun getting so deeply in bed with the Linux mavericks under cover of combating Microsoft?
Re: Oh, the CDR isn't...
--- Jim Choate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > the WWW either. What the fuck is this? Aren't you a bit email happy? I suggest you slow down your emails... seriously... 79 emails a day is a bit much to one list. Tom __ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
Re: About lawyers and spoliation
On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 01:03:59AM -0500, Aimee Farr wrote, quoting Tim. > YOU are calling ME an Internet rant generator? Hahahahahaha. > > mention the anonymous authorship of the Federalist Papers. Not to > > mention many related issues. This is a more plausible attack on > > U.S.-based remailers than is something based on IP addresses. Left as > > an exercise for you.) > > Indeed, what I was trying to get at might have been "somewhat related." > > I agree with you in sentiment, but direct your attention to the CMRA > (commercial mail drop) requirements for domestic mail agency in the United > States in the USPS Domestic Mail Manual. I know you are aware of it. I'm not sure if much can be gained by comparing anonymous remailers to commercial mail drops. USPS is a strange and weird beast, and guards its territory ferociously. Activities that happen in its sphere are logically and legally distinct from those happening online. -Declan
Re: Laws of mathematics, not of men
At 08:39 AM 8/4/01 -0500, Jim Choate wrote: >On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, David Honig wrote: > >> 8 years ago the number who had a net-clue was small, and they were >> a more tolerant bunch. Now you have every ditz in Tennessee trying >> to shape the net to her liking, and getting men with guns to help. > >Which is that 'freedom' thing, that is a good thing all in all. > Its freedom until she convinces the men with guns
Re: Copyright Licenses and Assignments (BitLaw)
Nobody ever said the CDR was Usenet. Choate is tilting at windmills again, a crazed smile on a manical face as he bounces around his padded room. Nevertheless it is similar in one or two respects. People posting to cypherpunks offer an implied license for people to archive and redistribute for the purposes of transmission and redistribute on an archive site their copyrighted works. This is not the same as giving up copyright (I'm sure I've sold some articles that I've posted in preliminary draft form to cypherpunks at one point or another). I vaguely recall that this is one of Choate's pet topics, worms have burrowed deep into his skull and preclude even the usual state of gibbering nonsense. So I doubt I'll say anything more here. -Declan On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 08:58:23AM -0500, Jim Choate wrote: > Some specific info on 'implied' copyright. > > http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/license.html > > The best that Declan can hope for is a 'non-exclusive' copyright, but even > that would require an exchange (ie a meeting of minds) between the two > parties. However, that won't fly since, as an operator of at least one of > the nodes, the policy is that you as the original author release no rights > by participating in the CDR itself, implied or otherwise - which I've stated > many times (check the archives). So the 'implied' contract perspective falls > down because one of the parties involved has EXPLICITLY made known the > conditions of use. That over-rides ANY implied anything. Further, by the > other nodes agreeing not to modify backbone traffic they have explicitly > agreed to this for all parties NOT SUBSCRIBED TO THEIR NODE. > > What we do have is a EXPRESS LICENSE between node operators. And then a > (potentialy) implied (unless they print a policy on a webpage like SSZ does) > contract between subscriber and node operator. > > The CDR is NOT(!!) Usenet, even if we are distributed over several > 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: Copyright Licenses and Assignments (BitLaw)
On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote: > Nobody ever said the CDR was Usenet. You have used that comparison numerous time. Check the archives. In fact it is the fundamental cornerstone of your 'implied contract' argument. Once we differentiate the two your assertion has nothing to stand on. The CDR is not a public service nor is it a 'universal' service like USENET. It IS(!!!) a mailign list operated by private individuals which is participated in by private individuals who must individual subscribe (which is a big distinction itself with the way USENET operates). -- 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: Laws of mathematics, not of men
On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, David Honig wrote: > At 08:39 AM 8/4/01 -0500, Jim Choate wrote: > >On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, David Honig wrote: > > > >> 8 years ago the number who had a net-clue was small, and they were > >> a more tolerant bunch. Now you have every ditz in Tennessee trying > >> to shape the net to her liking, and getting men with guns to help. > > > >Which is that 'freedom' thing, that is a good thing all in all. > > > > Its freedom until she convinces the men with guns Really? If I were under assault I'd certainly not hesitate to use whatever force was required to protect myself. This goes right back to 'freedom', you have the freedom to do whatever you want until it inerferes with somebody else. Then you must(!) cease the interference. If you don't then guns, at least in some cases, are an acceptable responce. -- 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: CDR: What You Don't Know Will Kill You
On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, John Young wrote: > Hans Mark, a septugenarian DoD official in a seminar at Harvard > on "Intelligence, Command and Control," in Spring 2000 said: > > "It is as bad to have too much information as it is not to have any. > Both contribute to Clausewitzs fog of war. Bullshit, the problem with 'fog of war' and too much intel is not having a system that can rate and manage that intel. It's not the information, it's the manipulator who is failing here and generating the fog of war. > It is not good to have a > completely transparent communications system. The private does > not need to know what the general knows. In fact, if the private knew > what the general knows, he might not want to go over the next hill." Pashendale, Ypers, Hurtgen Forest, Vietnam... Sometimes the general is an ass and shouldn't be followed. > Mark says he believes in unquestioned command authority as the > most essential quality of the military, over weapons, strategy, > tactics and intelligence. All socialist/fascist do, otherwise they'd be out of a job. -- 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 --'-
(certificate-less) digital signatures can secure ATM card payments on the internet (fwd)
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 08:51:41 -0700
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: (certificate-less) digital signatures can secure ATM card payments on the
internet
press release ("digital signatures can secure ATM card payments on the
Internet")
http://www.nacha.org/news/news/pressreleases/2001/PR072301/pr072301.htm
results
http://internetcouncil.nacha.org/Projects/ISAP_Results/isap_results.htm
the report
http://internetcouncil.nacha.org/Projects/ISAP_Results/ISAPresultsDocument-Final-2.PDF
includes the following from the above ...
The "real-world" viability of the proposed ANSI X9.59 standard concept for
electronic payments using public/private key pairs, which is also known as
Account Authority Digital Signature (AADS), was validated by the ISAP Pilot
results. These results demonstrate the feasibility of using PKI without
digital certificates, thereby minimizing infrastructure requirements and
costs for utilizing the ISAP process.
The rfi for the above:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/nacharfi.htm
additional information on x9.59 and AADS
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn
nacha web site
http://www.nacha.org/
nacha organization
Welcome to NACHA
Welcome to the web site of NACHA - The Electronic Payments Association.
Here you will find the latest information on the innovative and dynamic
world of electronic payments.
Electronic payments of all kinds are used frequently by people, companies,
and government agencies as a safe, reliable and convenient way to conduct
business. Direct Deposit is used for payroll, travel and expense
reimbursements, annuities and pensions, dividends, and government payments
such as Social Security and Veterans benefits. Other types of electronic
payments are frequently used for bill payments, retail purchases, Internet
purchases, corporate payments and treasury management, and for the
provision of food stamps and other government cash assistance.
NACHA is a not-for-profit trade association that develops operating rules
and business practices for the Automated Clearing House (ACH) Network and
for other areas of electronic payments. NACHA activities and initiatives
facilitate the adoption of electronic payments in the areas of Internet
commerce, electronic bill payment and presentment (EBPP), financial
electronic data interchange (EDI), international payments, electronic
checks, electronic benefits transfer (EBT) and student lending. We also
promote the use of electronic payment products and services, such as Direct
Deposit and Direct Payment.
NACHA represents more than 12,000 financial institutions through our
network of regional ACH associations. We have over 600 members in our
seven industry councils and corporate Affiliate Membership program.
I hope you will find this web site to be a valuable resource. Please come
again!
-
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The real enemies of the poor
On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Faustine wrote: > >The point I'm making is that demeanor and attitude (for example) are > >inextricably linked. > > Sure, but for me both are almost entirely separable from my personal > evaluation of someone's scholarship and competence. See a comment #1 below... > None of this has the slightest bearing on the fact that he's one of the > most brilliant, knowledgeable and incisive people I've ever met: his social > skills deficit is just an unfortunate by-product. You're very description argues against your own assertion. > Why do you think concepts need to be orthagonal to be useful? Comment #1: I don't. I'm simply stating that you're trying to seperate out concepts that are not seperable. You are treating 'components' of a characteristic as seperable and individual from the characteristic itself. This is a false distinction when talking about human psychology (which is what we're talking about when you get right down to it). > No, I realize that I'm probably a little more sensitized to (and upset by) > the way Dr. Alphachimp treats the people around him because I have a > tendency to the same sort of failings myself. Bravo! I salute you. That I can respect. > head unnoticed. You sure can learn a lot about yourself by stepping back > and noticing how you react when interacting with other people... Agreed. It's also worth noting that at some point you have to ignore what other people think or want as well. At some point you have to say "I don't care". A good example is that many people will critize actions because they hurt other peoples feelings. Not realizing that by complying your own feelings get hurt. It's a conflict of viewpoint, the belief of an absolute when no such exists. > >As to 'know enough to be worth listening to', out of the mouths of babes. > >Sometimes the last person who needs to be talking about a problem is > >somebody that 'knows all about it'. There are other shades of tinted > >glasses besides rose. > > It's important not to shut yourself off from new ideas, but you have to > have a way to decide at what point you're wasting your effort. I put this a different way, It's good to have an open mind, just not so open your brains slosh out on the floor. > Oh not really, it's fine as long as at least one person is able to maintain > the veneer of civility. As long as Dr. Alphachimp never figures out what I > really think of him, it'll be an awesome opportunity to keep learning from > him. I see more of the "genteel patronizing condescension" side anyway, > which helps a lot. Or at least that's the way it feels, ha. Ah, he wants a date...;) > >>If you say so. I've found them to be rather confused myself. > > Not orthagonal enough..? No, confused. It's not the dataset and their manipulation but rather their axioms I find distasteful, the goal they are looking to reach and the base assumptions they leave unsaid (eg almost w/o exception we have mind/body duality as well as human beings somehow 'above' or 'seperate' from the cosmos - raging, rampant, anthropocentracism). This harks back to the comment I made about Newton and pebbles on a beach. Newton once made a comment that when he went in to solve a problem he had no pre-concieved notion of the end result. He simply played (that's a very strong paraphrase). It's a rare view that just looks at what is there and doesn't try to prove/resolve some aspect of themselves in the process. > >They all seem to be trying to get around basic fundamental facts they > >don't want to face. > > Oh yeah? Schopenhauer is about as honest and real as they come. In many ways I agree. However even he has a fundamental problem with respect to his base philosophy. He was an atheist yet was understanding of Christianity and other relgions (eg his exploration into Vedic philosophy). This represents a mind/body duality problem though, which seriously undermines the applicability of his views. Why? He fails to recognize that being an atheist, christian, whatever is nothing more than anthropocentricism. His fundamental assumption isn't that humanity somehow stands on a divide but is that divide. He took a stand to resolve conflicts as a result of his world view, not recognizing that the world view WAS the problem. He didn't step out of his humanity (in fact this is the failure of all Utopian sojourns). The ONLY exception to this failing in philosophy that I've found is Pantheism, which is very rare. Only a handful of non-antropocentric philosophers have written (and no I don't even agree with all of them, Spinoza for example was of the belief that 'rights' were an extension of society and that irrespective of social harm one should submit - then compare this to his life ling running from persecution, he was excommunicated from the Jewish religion as a result). Both Schopenhauer and Spinoza almost got there. > That's a pretty heavy dose of Platonism, no? No. Socrates. > ...whole lotta reification g
Re: CodeRed Fix ~ Logistics
Valid points, though I open for discussion the following logistic issues: Though the various new policies of various political bodies may have fluctuated recently, historicly there has been a loophole for which an attacked entity can respond with due intent to cease the attack via appropriate means. In this case, I see random IIS servers "attacking" my server, as do others. With this being the case, and their initiation of transaction, it should be appropriate to cease their inappropriate activities. This would dictate a mechanism capable of ceasing the origin of the attack, in this case, defective code in the IIS servers. My impression, is that direct isolation of an attacking facility for disabling purposes only, with intent to maintain the stability of the attacked host/subnet is well within historic legal bounds. Inversely, has there been any alteration of this policy recently? What is the current situation? ... On the other hand, I wouldnt be contrary to the development of a breach-utilizing derivative of the TSADBot systems and their fed-protected recon capabilities and transparent m$ security, combined with various inlet portals in typical security faults, and capable of directed and automated "Cleaning" of dysfunctional machines. Basicly, the ultimate breach system with intent of eliminating future braches. (We've done this for high security networks, server arrays, etc,) however a mass implementation with intent to fix or replace defective product code would be highly effective. What say the world to doing things right for once? "Baaah." Oh well. Again, response regarding policy issues would be appreciated. -Wilfred [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 12:11 AM 8/4/2001 -0500, you wrote: >On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Wilfred L. Guerin wrote: >> With eeye and others releaseing codeRed src almost a month ago, has anyone >> bothered to modify the worm and bother distributing (by force) the file >> checked by the current worm which will suppress its operation? > >Not that I am aware of. > >> This is such an obvious fix, however noone seems to have yet had a clue to >> do it? > >This is due to the possible illegality. Your "vaccine" would certainly >get investigated by any clued-in admin who noticed it. You would possibly >get attention from some LEAs, regardless of your intentions. > >> If that many can be infected by using a psuedo-random sequence, this could >> be easily traced or more effectively a far more effective sequencing >> pattern for the disbersal could be utilized... > >A revised version of Code Red (called Code Red v2 or CRv2) was released >shortly after eEye discovered the original Code Red. CRv2 had a much >better PRNG than the original Code Red worm, and did not attack the same >sequence of hosts. > >> Moreso, if noone is competant to have yet done this, can anyone provide an >> EXTREMELY stable high-load capacity box which can accept reporting of >> infected hosts? -- This would be highly useful in the target analysis of >> the worm's progress... > >The [EMAIL PROTECTED] list is probably tracking Code Red >infections and coordinating some soft of response to affected sites. > >> Granted, this is a distributed infiltration mechanism, however, I somehow >> doubt the stateside feds and other morons would be contradicting of ceasing >> a distributed attack, even if we do not bother to stop the wh.gov >> targeting... > >Ask Max Vision of whitehats.com what happened to him when he created a >program to patch vulnerable Internet software (bind, I think it was). Oh >wait, he's in prison at the moment. This probably had something to do >with him planting a backdoor along with the fix, but I wouldn't risk it. > >John Schultz >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >
RE: About lawyers and spoliation
Declan wrote: > On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 01:03:59AM -0500, Aimee Farr wrote, quoting Tim. > > YOU are calling ME an Internet rant generator? > > Hahahahahaha. That's the damn truth, isn't it? > > > mention the anonymous authorship of the Federalist Papers. Not to > > > mention many related issues. This is a more plausible attack on > > > U.S.-based remailers than is something based on IP addresses. Left as > > > an exercise for you.) > > > > Indeed, what I was trying to get at might have been "somewhat related." > > > > I agree with you in sentiment, but direct your attention to the CMRA > > (commercial mail drop) requirements for domestic mail agency in > the United > > States in the USPS Domestic Mail Manual. I know you are aware of it. > > I'm not sure if much can be gained by comparing anonymous remailers > to commercial mail drops. USPS is a strange and weird beast, and guards > its territory ferociously. Activities that happen in its sphere are > logically and legally distinct from those happening online. > > -Declan Yeah, I know. I'm was just sitting here fuming over the proposed amendments to the commercial office suites. This is just silly. USPS is a giant bitch in need of a leash. (...We are speaking of the private mail agency rules requiring PMB or # address designation, IDs, record-keeping, reporting, etc.) ~Aimee
Re: Security Against Compelled Disclosure
On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 08:29:55AM -0500, Jim Choate wrote: > Actually they should ONLY be removing attachments to their subscribers, if > they are removing attachments in general then they are breaking the > contract. Contract?
RE: About lawyers and spoliation
-- On 4 Aug 2001, at 1:03, Aimee Farr wrote: > I wasn't speaking of "security through obscurity," I was speaking of > "security through First Amendment law suit." Nobody could argue "objective > chill" in here, that's a legal conceptbut clearly, you aren't > interested. With the DCMA and "campaign finance reform" the first amendment has gone the way of the second. Non political speech is not protected because it is non political. Political speech is not protected because it might pressure politicians. We have no precedents that routine destruction of precedents counts as spoilage, but we have ample precedent that any speech can be silenced. In the nature of things, it is far easier to enforce a law against free spech that a law against "spoilage" undertaken long before any charges, thus as we move towards totalitarianism, free speech will go first, is going right now, and broad interpretations of "spoilage" will come last. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG vFwRyVw26bcmnTVAmHWVa4hpohmWpeoEFQGcSvra 4KXMRn8toy5+YK/de6MG3wrAYnSnWzP5hSNtQYTzS
Re: About lawyers and spoliation
On 3 Aug 2001, at 6:03, Aimee Farr wrote: > All we lawyer-types are saying is to engage the law in your problem-solving, > it's in your threat model. Many of your "solutions" are 100% > conflict-avoidance, or even ...conflict-ignorance. A strategic error. Where > there is a corpus, there is a law to get it. You always PLAN FOR CONFLICT. > Hence, we have _The Art Of War_ -- and not, _The Art Of Hiding_. > > Hiding or secrecy as a total strategy has historically been limited by the > Rule Of Secrets/Least Safe Principle, and the equally-important "well, > doesn't this look suspicious!" -- a rule of natural law and human > disposition. Crypto is not a person, object and asset invisibility machine. > Until such a marvel comes to pass, stick to traditional wargaming. > > THE SITUATION: > - > Controverted spies have brought you intelligence that the enemy has a new > long-range weapon. You learn that it works, but you think you lie outside > the current range. However, you learn that it is undergoing rapid > development and experimentation. > > SOME OF YOUR RESPONSES: > --- > "They're dumb, I hate them, and they can't hit us." > > "IF they've never hit us, THEN they can't." > > "They can't hit what they can't see." > > "We should insult and burn the spies at the stake for bringing us this > information." > > "Bitch. Bitch. Bitch." > > *** > > Within this particular range of hypotheticals, the courts are going to see a > problem and they might reach for spoliation. Arguing over the rightfulness > or wrongfulness of it is a futile exercise. When you learn your adversary is > using a new tactic or developing a new weapon, you examine your own tactics > and adjust them accordingly in ANTICIPATION OF CONFLICT. You assume they > will "get better" unless you do something about it. Given the nature of the > law, there is nothing to be done other than to prepare for advancement and > proliferation. The legal question is never what is - but what will be. In > this light, precedent is not "a rule," it is an aid for prediction. > > "To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the > opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself." -- Sun > Tzu. > > A most apt analogy for the law. Where it presents an obstacle, it presents > an opportunity. > > ~Aimee
Re: WHERE'S DILDO (AND FRIENDS)? was: Spoliation cites
-- On 3 Aug 2001, at 0:09, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > C'punks, > > So by my count it looks as though we are now up to at least THREE village > idiots. Each convinced that he knows the law (not in theory, but as > practiced in reality) better than the lawyers. I know that for the past several hundred years everyone has been engaging in what what you call "spoilage" (failing to retain potentially incriminating records, and publishing material that might at some later time be declared a thought crime.) Zero busts so far. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG vISX2lmgcvBsqRWcFoH5IZsLSeBoD5kb19QGVHcr 4clSYeboF+YuOn/ZXdd/dZFyUu5c00tSeisbetvSE
Re: Security Against Compelled Disclosure
On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Bill O'Hanlon wrote: > On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 08:29:55AM -0500, Jim Choate wrote: > > Actually they should ONLY be removing attachments to their subscribers, if > > they are removing attachments in general then they are breaking the > > contract. > > > Contract? Explicit written (ie email) contract at that. -- 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: About lawyers and spoliation
You may be right, JamesI fear. This just in from the criminal spoliation sector (realize the important distinctions - here, the government is destroying evidence...) United States v. Wright, No 00-5010 (6th Cir. August 03, 2001) http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01a0255p.06 ~Aimee > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2001 11:31 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Aimee Farr > Subject: RE: About lawyers and spoliation > > > -- > On 4 Aug 2001, at 1:03, Aimee Farr wrote: > > I wasn't speaking of "security through obscurity," I was speaking of > > "security through First Amendment law suit." Nobody could argue > "objective > > chill" in here, that's a legal conceptbut clearly, you aren't > > interested. > > With the DCMA and "campaign finance reform" the first amendment > has gone the way of the second. Non political speech is not > protected because it is non political. Political speech is not > protected because it might pressure politicians. > > We have no precedents that routine destruction of precedents > counts as spoilage, but we have ample precedent that any speech > can be silenced. > > In the nature of things, it is far easier to enforce a law > against free spech that a law against "spoilage" undertaken long > before any charges, thus as we move towards totalitarianism, free > speech will go first, is going right now, and broad > interpretations of "spoilage" will come last. > > --digsig > James A. Donald > 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG > vFwRyVw26bcmnTVAmHWVa4hpohmWpeoEFQGcSvra > 4KXMRn8toy5+YK/de6MG3wrAYnSnWzP5hSNtQYTzS
Slashdot | Roasting Sacred Cows
http://slashdot.org/articles/01/08/04/0228234.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 --'-
Opportunity Seekers Leads!
Start getting a response to your ad! == For the website, click below: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=EmailInfo10 -->Do you want to start getting REPLIES for your offer? -->Do you want those replies to be from someone who's actually interested in what you have to offer? **Visit our site to get the MOST responsive e-mail leads available!** For the website, click below: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=EmailInfo10 10,000 e-mails for only $10- NEW 7-31-01! 25,000 e-mails for only $20 50,000 e-mails for only $35 100,000 e-mails for only $50 250,000 e-mails for only $70 **Not an experienced direct mailer? We can send your ad for you! SEE SITE for more details and pricing! New Special~ FREE Stealth Mass Mailer with orders of 250,000! NEW::: Check our our Ulimate Marketing CD!:: E-mail for the site details! - SPECIALS! - **FREE with EVERY order: Demo of ListMan e-mail manager software **Orders of 50,000 or more: FREE copy Express Mail Server to send your messages! -This is not a demo but a permanent license for the software! **Orders of 100,000 or more: - Resale Rights for EMS! -->You keep 100% of the profits - InfoDisk with 1000+ Money Making Reports - CheckMAN software ___ To be removed from future mailings: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=Remove
Re: Gotti, evidence, case law, remailer practices, civil cases, civilit
-- On 3 Aug 2001, at 7:35, Ray Dillinger wrote: > You are wrong. I went and looked up the Caterpillar cite he gave. > It is real. I, and everyone else with half a brain, has long known that judges frequently say "Hey, we are about to seize a truckload of your documents looking for deep pockets^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hevidence, so don't start shredding. What we doubt is that it is compulsory to retain incriminating evidence, or to irretrievably publish material that might at some future time be declared a thought crime. We also doubt that anyone has been punished for such acts in recent centuries. The current state of the law is illustrated by the Nixon tapes, "The Wind Done Gone", and the DVD ripping code. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG Lv4Or/aRW1ltIKBgGuJ1ievWlkgxLUG7tyjWay9n 4eKkwOU4Gi6P27UMPbRdhhRkcSn+Ig9HJV9ynm5SA
Re: Slashdot | Roasting Sacred Cows
Jim, Some of the titles of URLs you offer appear interesting. Could you include a paragraph or two for each? Say, at least as much text as the skull clutter of your headers and sig.
RE: WHERE'S DILDO (AND FRIENDS)? was: Spoliation cites
James Donald (Village Idiot #2) wrote: > I know that for the past several > hundred years everyone has been > engaging in what what you call > "spoilage"... Pay attention James, I have never discussed "spoilage" (or spoliation, for that matter) on this list. In the future, please direct your ignorance towards the party with whom you have a dispute. S a n d y
Re: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages.
-- On 3 Aug 2001, at 12:07, Tim May wrote: > A distributed set of remailers in N > different jurisdictions is quite robust against prosecutorial fishing > expeditions As governments become more lawless, and laws become mere desires of the powerful, rather than any fixed set of rules, the state is increasing less one powerful entity, rather it becomes numerous entities each with their own conflicting desires. The danger is not that the US will turn into the Russia of the 1950s, but merely that it will turn into the Russia of the 1990s, a far less threatening prospect. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG qKJyYXYe2okyEhEp3rBXnrxcTNa1wfOGIuhA/0FY 4F/Y898UAwZpSU+bFjS1rygc8qLMNpT/4WDEJIc3w
Re: Security Against Compelled Disclosure
On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 11:54:35AM -0500, Jim Choate wrote: > On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Bill O'Hanlon wrote: > > > On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 08:29:55AM -0500, Jim Choate wrote: > > > Actually they should ONLY be removing attachments to their subscribers, if > > > they are removing attachments in general then they are breaking the > > > contract. > > > > > > Contract? > > Explicit written (ie email) contract at that. > Sure. And I could find such a thing...where? It would seem that I ought to at least read such a thing, if I've supposedly agreed to it. -- Bill O'Hanlon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Professional Network Services, Inc. 612-379-3958 http://www.pro-ns.net
Regulation of Mixes under Postal Laws?
(Title changed to reflect focus.)
At 10:47 AM -0400 8/4/01, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 01:03:59AM -0500, Aimee Farr wrote, quoting Tim.
...
>> > mention the anonymous authorship of the Federalist Papers. Not to
>> > mention many related issues. This is a more plausible attack on
>> > U.S.-based remailers than is something based on IP addresses. Left as
>> > an exercise for you.)
>>
>> Indeed, what I was trying to get at might have been "somewhat related."
>>
>> I agree with you in sentiment, but direct your attention to the CMRA
>> (commercial mail drop) requirements for domestic mail agency in the United
>> States in the USPS Domestic Mail Manual. I know you are aware of it.
>
>I'm not sure if much can be gained by comparing anonymous remailers
>to commercial mail drops. USPS is a strange and weird beast, and guards
>its territory ferociously. Activities that happen in its sphere are
>logically and legally distinct from those happening online.
A "remailer" uses the term "mail" in it because "e-mail" is the
obvious term we have been using for about 20 years now. Obviously
e-mail can consist of all sorts of messages, including "instant
messaging," messages picked up at POP sites, and Web-based messaging.
Their is no bright line between "e-mail" and "chat" and "voice
communications" and "article posts."
I am unaware of any solid legislation (tested in the courts)
attempting to regulate e-mail in the same way ordinary USPS and
international mail is regulated. Certainly there are no postage
requirements. Some yammer a bunch of years ago about the USPS
thinking it should "handle" all e-mail and collect a 29-cent fee on
each message...died unceremoniously, for many good practical,
technological, and constituent-anger reasons. The "anti-spam" rules
are close to telephone dialing and fax machine rules than they are to
USPS junk mail rules (such as they are).
A mix is not just a remailer: it can be viewed quite legitimately as
a _publisher_. A mix collects a bunch of submissions, pools them by
its own rules, and then distributes the published set in various
ways. If "e-mail" per se is ever regulated in the way Aimee thinks
may be coming, a small matter to switch from a mix that "looks like
mail" to one that is much more packet-based having no involvement
with POP types of protocols. Freedom, from ZKS, already looks like
packets, right?
In fact, message pools using Usenet have been around for about 8
years now. Any attempt to declare remailers to be illegal mail drops
would simply move the nexus of activity to Usenet and other Net
locations. Restricting what people can post to Usenet or some other
bulletin board or message site would be both tough to enforce
technologically and counter to nearly every tenet of U.S. rights.
(Not coincidentally did I use a graphic I made up of a "Democracy
Wall" to show how messages could be left untraceably and read
untraceably. This in 1990, BTW.)
The point being that the U.S. tends to stay out of regulating what a
publisher does, what his policies are, rather strongly.
It's not just a matter of "toilet plunger" and "The Court is not
amused" ("Please don't make Mr. Happy Fun Court angry!") sorts of
shut-downs. No judge in the land is going to order the shut down of
"Mix Publishing" just because he thinks the site is not amusing.
(Note that neither Paladin Press nor Loompanics Press were ever shut
down or enjoined from distributing the assassination manuals they
used to sell. A civil suit and damages caused the titles to be
pulled, but not a judge or regulatory body.)
If "The Progressive" is free from interference in how it chooses to
publish H-bomb secrets, does even Aimee think a site which collects
together submissions and publishes them is going to be regulated?
I hope Aimee takes a few hours to grok the essence of "digital
mixes." She will then see that there is no particular binding to
"e-mail" qua "mail" and no bright line between use of e-mail for the
mixes and use of other channels of communication for mixes.
And no lawyer would argue that Congressional regulation/ownership of
some aspects of paper mail delivery then grants Congressional control
of publishing, chat rooms, postings to Usenet and Web forums, and
machine-to-machine connections.
--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 cites
VI2 wrote: > There is a trend to making > everything illegal. Your > qualifications to read tea > leaves are no better than my own. Well James, you got it right once. My qualifications for reading tea leaves are no better than your own. However, my qualifications for reading and understanding laws and court precedents are vastly superior to yours. (For what it's worth, I'm sure there must be something you are more qualified to do; I just don't know what it is.) > By the time "spoilation" reaches > the condition that you anticipate, > we will not be hiring lawyers for > their knowledge of the law, but > for their knowledge of connections. (a) Since I have not discussed the topic of "spoilation" (or even spoliation) on this list, you are obviously reaching. You have no idea what I anticipate. (b) You have just given a very good additional reason to hire lawyers in addition to their obvious superiority in understanding legal trends. With regard to (b), not a lot of mainstream lawyers are going to be sympathetic or versed in the sorts of things you and other people on this list are likely to run afoul of. It's interesting to me that you and the other two village idiots seem hell bent on antagonizing your most likely legal allies. But then, you are village idiots. S a n d y
Re: Spoliation cites
-- On 3 Aug 2001, at 13:22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I consider it, as I said, monstrous that a judge > can legally deprive me of all copies of my own work in order > to enforce a gag order, but again, if that's the way it is, > that's the way it is. But it goes well beyond the bizzare to > suggest that I should anticipate the possibility of a gag > order and preemptively gag myslef in case one might be issued > at a later date. Judges have never attempted such crap, and if they do, lawyers will irrelevant, and will have been irrelevant for a long time before the such anyone attempts such crap. These guys (Black Unicorn and his cheer squad) are loons, and I cannot imagine why they post such nonsense. The argument they seem to be making is that judges, legislators, and bureaucrats are becoming increasingly lawless, therefore we should treat lawyers with worshipful respect. But that argument is completely back to front. As governments become more lawless, laws and lawyers become less relevant, not more relevant. As government becomes more lawless, first one hires fixers in place of lawyers, then whores in place of fixers, then gunmen in place of whores. American business in general is moving towards fixers, biotech is already largely past fixers to whores, and in Russia it is gunmen. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG yaXRYjQRaqKdRfYIdQ2uzBW1hnXxeNFzod0WHqd2 420eZw9m6TUyezphE2Z2tbXIvV4/9aHVQJTHAeRJE
Re: Spoliation cites
-- On 3 Aug 2001, at 9:48, Greg Broiles wrote: > Courts have relatively strong powers with respect to controlling the > possession and disposition of physical things like notebooks or hard disks, > but relatively weak powers with respect to limiting the dissemination of > information not in the court's exclusive possession, so long as the > disseminator is not a party to a case before the court, nor an attorney for > a party. This, folks, accurately summarizes the state of the law, as illustrated by numerous recent high profile cases, and any pompous pontificating fool who claims to be a lawyer and says something different, is full of shit. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG dSV6sI6yQ2/jieC4fpBN7te3dg/Ah5VH2uFW0sKW 4BMa39ojsj5zW2GHC0CbxCCaUmgmRViBZ3F2MHnvP
Re: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages.
On Sat, 4 Aug 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > As governments become more lawless, and laws become mere desires of the > powerful, rather than any fixed set of rules, the state is increasing > less one powerful entity, rather it becomes numerous entities each with > their own conflicting desires. > > The danger is not that the US will turn into the Russia of the 1950s, but > merely that it will turn into the Russia of the 1990s, a far less > threatening prospect. Yowzer, we agree... The only significant long-term factor keeping this from happening even faster is the Chinese. It represents a consistent and 'universal' threat that motivates these splinter groups to unite in 'commen defence'. -- 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: Spoliation cites
-- On 3 Aug 2001, at 10:07, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > Apparently, James did not understand the thrust of Aimee's post at all. The > important thing to understand about legal precedents is that they may show a > TREND in the law. ] There is a trend to making everything illegal. Your qualifications to read tea leaves are no better than my own. By the time "spoilation" reaches the condition that you anticipate, we will not be hiring lawyers for their knowledge of the law, but for their knowledge of connections. As everything becomes illegal laws to cease to be laws. Increasingly legislation is not a rule, but merely a desire, rendering lawyers irrelevant. For example biotech companies usually do not hire lawyers to deal with the FDA, instead they provide FDA bureaucrats with girlfriends, "consultancy payments", and the like, because the FDA does not obey any fixed set of rules or principles in dealing with biotech companies. At the company I work for we have a big problem with a piece of legislation whose meaning is far from clear. Every few lines of this legislation there is reference to "children", or "the children".My interpretation of this legislation is "We care very much about children, and we feel so deeply we are going to bust some internet company for not caring as deeply as we do." Our company lawyer has no clear interpretation of this legislation, and suspect we would be a lot safer if we opened direct communications with the bureaucrats charged with intepreting and applying this legislation, rather than communicating through someone whose speciality and training is in finding and making trouble. We need someone whose speciality is being nice, making friends, and trading favors. Even better would be to do like the biotech companies, and open communication through a compliant woman, and throw in a few consultancy fees. In Mexico, lawyers are fixers, matchmakers that guide your bribes into the right pockets. The time is coming for American lawyers to stop pontificating about the law and make the same transition. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 6sCz2aeqtaUMwXK7XL2AZ9J8ZO0CqLdFbEfs0F3L 4qFdvH5dA/nEnrUvk+rZ5TD0tGcOO4gUjo8LTFTlE
Re: Security Against Compelled Disclosure
On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Bill O'Hanlon wrote: > Sure. And I could find such a thing...where? > > It would seem that I ought to at least read such a thing, if I've > supposedly agreed to it. Check the email you and I exchanged when pro-dns.net was put on the SSZ backbone feed. You agreed to not filter the backbone mail. If you want to change that policy feel free, I'll drop your feed and place a 'not a nice player' notice next to the pro-dns.net node on the SSZ homepage. -- 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: Slashdot | Roasting Sacred Cows
On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, John Young wrote: > Some of the titles of URLs you offer appear interesting. Could you > include a paragraph or two for each? Say, at least as much text > as the skull clutter of your headers and sig. I won't include text of the original articles, no. I no longer even include partial quotes in my discussion (and cut them out of anything I reply to usually). If I have something to say specific to their topics I include it. I try to make sure the titles give some clear description of what the article is about (I try to use the original titles but sometimes that doesn't work). Outside of that I'm sticking with the URL's themselves. I'll do my best to make sure they are topical and interesting, that's the best I can promise. Consider it 'minimalist performance art directed at political protest'. And yes, I understand it pisses some off. Imagine how pissed off I am at being reduced to this level of communications 'for the children'... -- 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 --'-
Your Turn 2 Profit!
Yes! It is your turn to profit from the power of the internet. Anyone and everyone can take advantage of this easy to use program. This is so easy, a 12 year old could do it! Many of our clients earn over $100,000 in just one month. How? Visit our site and find out! http://ebprofits.9roce55.com or : http://www.ebprofits.com/g.o/anything This message is brought to you by : The Process Web Directory http://9roce55.com Unsubscribe at any time by sending an email to : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Demime & CDRs (was Re: Security Against Compelled Disclosure)
On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 01:30:03AM -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote: > You fool. One of the cypherpunks nodes removed the attachment. > Sending attachments to the distributed cypherpunks list when at least > one node remove them is about as useful as, well, arguing with Choate. > > -Declan > > > On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 12:20:01AM -0500, Jim Choate wrote: > > On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote: > > > > > 1. Don't send attachments to cypherpunks > > > > > > 2. See below for the reason why > > > > > > 3. Reread rules 1 and 2 > > > > Actually there is no such policy on the CDR. Jim's correct- there is no such "policy" on the overall cypherpunks list. It's just one CDR (lne) that's demiming posts. Here's how demime works related to the lne CDR: Posts that are received (enter the CDR system) at lne and are forwarded to the other CDRs are demimed. Posts originating from another CDR are demimed on the way to lne CDR subscribers. Posts originating from another CDR and being forwarded to another CDR aren't demimed. The lne CDR welcome message, and the message I posted to cypherpunks when announcing the lne CDR, simply said: "Lne.com runs the input to its CDR list through demime (http://scifi.squawk.com/demime.html) which deletes MIME attachments from mail. Demime leaves a note in the attachments place, so that recipients know that there was some cruft there." I'll update the welcome message to reflect the details I posted above. Demiming posts that originate at lne and go to other CDRs is an artifact of how I set up the list. Since lne CDR subscribers see demimed posts, they're likely to be, um, trained to post non-MIME, and thus shouldn't be affected much by this setup. There's no CDR contract. At least I didn't sign one. There is an informal agreement, or a set of same. I've tried to announce ahead of time what I'm doing, and to stick with what I've announced, limited by the time I'm willing to put in to the project. As far as I'm concerned that's what's required. Having one CDR demime posts does unfortunately create a discrepency between what the lne CDR subscribers see vs. the other CDR subscribers... but there's already a pretty big discrepancy there, as the lne CDR subscribers aren't seeing the spam that's posted to cypherpunks. It doesn't seem to harm the discussion any. But Declan (and everyone else) should remember that not everyone sees the same list they do. > > Declan doesn't even run a member node so his opinions of what should > > happen with other peoples property is irrelevant. His opinion is important since he's both an active list member and a lne CDR subscriber. As always I'm open to reasoned non-inflamatory suggestions, especially from lne CDR subscribers. BTW, the other day I switched majordomo to delete the Received: lines in posts to the lne CDR recipients-- posts that go through a number of CDRs get a lot of Received lines added to them, and some subscriber's MTAs were rejecting mail because of too many Received lines. If this bothers you and you're an lne CDR subscriber let me know and when I get a chance I'll hack up something to nuke just some of the Received lines. I've also found the source of the wrapped Message-Ids and I'll be fixing it soon. Eric
Your Turn 2 Profit!
Yes! It is your turn to profit from the power of the internet. Anyone and everyone can take advantage of this easy to use program. This is so easy, a 12 year old could do it! Many of our clients earn over $100,000 in just one month. How? Visit our site and find out! http://ebprofits.9roce55.com or : http://www.ebprofits.com/g.o/anything This message is brought to you by : The Process Web Directory http://9roce55.com Unsubscribe at any time by sending an email to : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Safe Alternative to Viagra
EXPLODE YOUR SEX LIFE!! A Safe Natural Alternative To Viagra Same powerful results as Viagra without any harmful side effects! MEN it will give you a Rock Solid Erection Intensifying Sex Giving You Incredibly Powerful Long Lasting Orgasms! Men experience more powerful orgasms, strength, stamina, endurance, amplified sensations and RETURN POWER! For more info on how you can explode your sex life over night Click Here Now http://www.e-dialnhost.com/sensation or visit http://www.e-dialnhost.com/sensation
RE: Spoliation cites
On 3 Aug 2001, at 13:53, David Honig wrote: > After MS was busted, it was widely publicized that it was thereafter > official policy to destroy email after N days. As if Ollie et al. wasn't > enough. If Microsoft gets busted for "spoilation" in their current lawsuit, then I will take Sandy and Black Unicorn off my loon list. :-)
Your Turn 2 Profit!
Yes! It is your turn to profit from the power of the internet. Anyone and everyone can take advantage of this easy to use program. This is so easy, a 12 year old could do it! Many of our clients earn over $100,000 in just one month. How? Visit our site and find out! http://ebprofits.9roce55.com or : http://www.ebprofits.com/g.o/anything This message is brought to you by : The Process Web Directory http://9roce55.com Unsubscribe at any time by sending an email to : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Spoliation cites
-- On 3 Aug 2001, at 22:43, Aimee Farr wrote: > Neither Uni nor I suggested that routine document destruction is > inappropriate in the ordinary course of business. I understood black unicorn, and Sandy, to be claiming it was inappropriate, and quite dangerous. You, while more cautious than they, seemed to endorse their position, without being very clear as to what it was you were endorsing. Black Unicorn's argument seemed to be "Everything is forbidden, therefore you need to hire a lawyer who will issue the magic incantations to make it legal. This is nonsense on two counts: 1. Not everything is forbidden. 2. If everything is forbidden, then lawyers have no magic incantations. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG KVURnDrFjBLaIMUnrQF4jJ/6XGm6Fe56w0c6HDmO 4jkT6RK0+blfBnsJVbGhAe97M4AxK14w+URbO5ubE
Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages.
-- On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Ray Dillinger wrote: > You cannot have encryption technologies advancing and leaving the law > behind, so long as any vital part of the infrastructure you need is > traceable and pulpable by the law. Child porn still gets distributed through usenet. Silencing "alt.anonymous.messages" would be even harder. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG D3mSaXUOKtpBwVa0yzglN3AvpL5bobypB96Q/AKi 4/iQQK3RkSE349+qsFPX3zwyPj3kjETgblPuQ1wFl
Re: Demime & CDRs (was Re: Security Against Compelled Disclosure)
On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 12:00:34PM -0700, Eric Murray wrote: > > I've also found the source of the wrapped Message-Ids and I'll > be fixing it soon. > > > Eric > That's good news. The duplicated messages were confusing. -Bill
RE: Spoliation cites
Poor stupid James wrote: > If you are making claims about > what the law might become in > future, your qualifications for > undestanding laws and court > precedents are irrelevant. No James, as any first year law student could tell you, they way one makes educated assessments about how laws may be interpreted in the future are NECESSARILY based on understanding laws and court precedents. You cannot identify a trend without examining history. This is not a touch concept; there is an almost exact analogy in studying mutations in diseases. (Insert Santayana quote here.) Are you just dull or simply afraid to back down when you are wrong? S a n d y
RE: Spoliation cites
-- Harmon Seaver > > As others have stated, if you don't keep logs, or throw away all > > your reciepts, there's not jack they can do about it. At 7:22 PM -0700 8/2/01, Black Unicorn wrote: > Uh, no. And if you had been reading the many, many posts on this point > you'd see that about every one of the 10-15 cases cited here say exactly the > opposite of what you claim above. A couple of posts ago Aimee confidently declared that none of the people presenting themselves as lawyers on this list had made the claim that you just made again. She is backpeddling, because it has become obvious your claim is nonsense, and the fact that you made it, (and perhaps she made it also before denying that she or anyone else had made it) shows you do not know shit from beans. So, unicorn, when are they going to bust microsoft for suddenly enforcing a policy of purging old email? --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG Au38iVX2zXvYvErjQyRaAVHpCKctxga5f/ey5tKo 4Kinm5mjm7cxjymJi84l4gZy3LNr3OG8A4zERWWaF
Book1
Hi! How are you? I send you this file in order to have your advice See you later. Thanks Book1.xls.com
Majordomo results
-- who cypherpunks Members of list 'cypherpunks': [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 100 subscribers
RE: Spoliation cites
VI2 wrote: > If Microsoft gets busted for > "spoilation" in their current > lawsuit, then I will take Sandy > and Black Unicorn off my loon > list. :-) If Microsoft gets busted for "spoilation" I'll buy James a new house. But if they get busted for spoliation I don't want to be taken off your loon list (and, I'm sure neither would Black Unicorn), it's too much of a good recommendation. By the by, who else is on your "loon list"? If Inchoate is there, I might want to rethink wanting to be there. :'D S a n d y
RE: Spoliation cites
-- James A. Donald: > > There is a trend to making > > everything illegal. Your > > qualifications to read tea > > leaves are no better than my own. Sandy Sandfort > Well James, you got it right once. My qualifications for reading tea leaves > are no better than your own. However, my qualifications for reading and > understanding laws and court precedents are vastly superior to yours. If the claims you are making are claims about existing law, your qualifications for reading and undestanding laws and court precedents are not what you claim them to be. If you are making claims about what the law might become in future, your qualifications for undestanding laws and court precedents are irrelevant. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG /JUhfzDVQCF/7NKP7QU1UGB738ENkVXkkgb3MUho 4r8gCfjL6dZ1G4PYIxS3LTIlIQ6LnjaS7n8qr81Lr
Re: Official Reporters have more copyright rights
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Official Reporters have more copyright rights Declan McCullagh wrote: > Why did I ever deprocmail Choate?... > I expect this will be my only response to Choate in the foreseeable > future. Sigh. I certainly hope so. Messages like this move you closer to my procmail file, even though you're often worth reading. You're as easy to deal with as Jim, if you persist on mixing your online persona with his.
The Curious Propsenity of Some Cypherpunks for (loud) Willful Ignorance. Was: Re: Spoliation cites
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2001 11:07 AM Subject: Re: Spoliation cites > On 3 Aug 2001, at 13:22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > I consider it, as I said, monstrous that a judge > > can legally deprive me of all copies of my own work in order > > to enforce a gag order, but again, if that's the way it is, > > that's the way it is. But it goes well beyond the bizzare to > > suggest that I should anticipate the possibility of a gag > > order and preemptively gag myslef in case one might be issued > > at a later date. [EMAIL PROTECTED] replies: > Judges have never attempted such crap, and if they do, lawyers will irrelevant, and will have been irrelevant for a long time before the such anyone attempts such crap. > > These guys (Black Unicorn and his cheer squad) are loons, and I cannot imagine why they post such nonsense. The only thing that is more surprising than your total willful ignorance (have you even bothered to look at the several cites I have posted that positively refute your statement above?) is the fact that you keep insisting on demonstrating it- loudly. (I have no clue where this pre-emptive self-gagging discussion came from. That does sound silly indeed). It's like being in the dark ages or something. Clearly presented evidence, ignored as heretical and the purveyors of it burned (flamed?) at the stake. It's a wonder anyone bothers to impart any knowledge of worth to the list at all. I have cited authority for the proposition that courts, and more often plaintiffs, routinely demand broad productions related to a given matter. Many here have attempted to assign sinister motives to these production orders (censorship, seizure of private property, etc.) In reality they are generally directed to the very legitimate aim, given you accept the court's authority in the first place- which is another discussion entirely better directed to your legislative representative, of preserving evidence so that the parties may reach "the truth" and resolve their dispute. (This is, incidentally, the same rationale that gave rise to "no-knock" searches- which should be a demonstration of how seriously the need to preserve evidence is taken among law enforcement and judiciary types). In my personal legal work some years ago I can think of several instances in which a copy of a record has increased or reduced the probative value of an original- and have used them to refute or support claims and allegations in cases myself. Courts defendants and plaintiffs know this also and that's why production orders are so broadly written- and enforced. I am hardly the only example. In a mere 90 minutes of work I found and I have cited at least 5 major cases (which in turn would lead even the first quartile legal researcher to dozens and dozens more) that show that the burden of these productions may- and does- fall on third parties and that malicious, or indeed even negligent, loss or destruction of these documents could result in anything from a stern lecture, to unfavorable jury instructions, to sanctions to jail time. We have had at least two remailer operators called to stand before "the man," despite the fact that they were not otherwise a party to a lawsuit of any kind. At least one who has disclosed his/her experience about it on the list. One defense "I don't keep logs and therefore don't have any to give you" was sufficient this time. Good. But those were copyright or libel issues before DMCA was the big deal it is now. The stakes are higher now, as certain anti-Adobe authors might tell you. It only takes a big drug case or a murder investigation and a third party remailer operator is probably going to be the subject of a lot more heat. Want to wait around for that hurricane before you take a few simple precautions? That's just dense. But be my guest. We might all just use DES because no cypherpunk has been arrested for an incident where DES was decrypted to obtain the evidence. (It hasn't happened yet, so what's the problem, right?) I prefer to use AES, thanks. I also don't buy land in flood prone areas without insurance. I have cited authorities. I have cited examples. I have given you the tools to find these and read them. Either demonstrate why these do not apply drawing directly from their text (it's freely available to anyone who would look) or no one here can take you seriously unless they have an ulterior motive for doing so. The fact that you don't think courts should exist in their current state, and that you proclaim so loudly and endlessly, is not going to help you when you are standing in court with U.S. Marshals or State Bailiffs at your side. (Ask Jim Bell about how well taunting a court works). The cure for your ignorance is simple. Just find any document production order at all. I can pretty much assure you the language will contain "all documents, copies, reprod
Car Bonus...House Bonus...Weekly Checks 28101
Reading this E-Mail Could Literally Change Your Life! -Are you being paid what you are worth? -Are you living the lifestyle you always dreamed about? -Want to spend more quality time with your loved ones? -Do you have more bills than income? -Have you ever wanted to FIRE YOUR BOSS and own your own business and work from home? A TEN Million Dollar Earner is seeking qualified individuals and professional marketers to fill TOP POSITIONS WHO BETTER to be in business with! Our professional team will help YOU EARN BIG CHECKS! Are you interested? Actual Ad In USA Today: $1000 weekly + Brand new Car in 120 days Work Our FREE Leads! Turn-Key Operation! Great Residual Upside Potential! You MUST Meet These Requirements: 1) you must promise NOT to recruit people you know 2) you must promise to only use the leads we give you for OUR program 3) you must promise to work 9 to 12 hours every week 4) you must promise to keep our leads confidential Have more time for the better things in life. Don't Dream to Live...Live The Dream! Take Action NOW! Vist our website now at the following link and submit your information so we may contact you regarding this incredible opportunity! http://www.market-watcher.com/lifestyle.htm (REMOVAL INSTRUCTIONS) This mailing is done by an independent marketing company. Please do not use the reply to this e-mail, an e-mail reply cannot be read! If you would like to be removed from our mailing list just click below and send us a remove request email. (To Be Removed) mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=RemoveNFLPlease
Re: The Curious Propsenity of Some Cypherpunks for (loud) Willful Ignorance. Was: Re: Spoliation cites
> > Judges have never attempted such crap, and if they do, lawyers will Please do a search for "Negativland" and "U2" on your favorite search engine. They were ordered to return to the court or U2's reccord label or whatever, all the copies they had of their U2 album. Every single copy. Interestingly, there was a distrinction between digital and analog copies; Negativland would distributed tapes at their shows, but never CDs. Anyway, U2 got quite embarassed by this, so they may have told their lawyers to back off, after the case was all over. But the point is, yes, definitely the judge can demand every single copy of a document, and this case clearly demonstrates it in action. Negativland weren't arrested, but they did go into bankruptcy because of this, and they had to go into hiding to escape creditors. Perhaps now they would just be arrested, I don't know.
Slashdot | Sklyarov Bail Hearing Monday
http://slashdot.org/yro/01/08/04/2150240.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 --'-
CANARYPUNKS
C'punks, I've just had a flash of insight into the purpose that Village Idiots I-III, and Jim Bell serve. (Tim May is a special care which I'll treat separately, below.) The are all coal mine canaries. When they succumb, the rest of us know it's time to get out of the mine (lower our profile) for a while. Of course, real mine canaries have no choice. Given a choice, I think they'd opt to stay top-side. OUR canarypunks, no matter what the miners say, loudly proclaim that the miners are full of shit about all this hypothetical hypoxia and poison gas as they march right into the adit. Those who were on the list at the time will remember how Jim Bell pooh-poohed every warning that I and others gave him. He knew the law better, he was smarter than the FBI, he had "a solution," the Constitution was on his side, etc. EVERYTHING I said came true, NOTHING he said did. Live and learn (or don't). Think of it as evolution in action. As I said, Tim May is a special case. Unlike Jim Bell (damn lot of "Jims," if you ask me) and the Three Stooges, Tim's ideas and opinions actually bring value (other than just canary value) to the list. Nevertheless, in the final analysis, Tim is also a canarypunk. For what it's worth, I think the chances of Tim's life ending in a hail of federales' bullets is less than 50%, but still significant. I'll miss his contributions if and when he commits blue suicide. So what does all this mean? Well, since a word to the wise is sufficient, I think I'll stop working so hard to get the Three Stooges to act in their own best interest. I'll make whatever warnings I think are appropriate so that the folks with a clue will have whatever benefit they wish to derive from it. If the Three Stooges choose to ignore good advice from me and others, well, so be it. I'm glad to have their voluntary contribution to the rest of us in their roles of canarypunks. S a n d y
RE: Spoliation cites
James wrote:-- > Black Unicorn's argument seemed to be "Everything is forbidden, > therefore you need to hire a lawyer who will issue the magic > incantations to make it legal. Sadly, that is A DAMN FACT. > This is nonsense on two counts: > > 1. Not everything is forbidden. While everything is not forbidden, there is always a way to work the forbidden into what is not forbidden, and clients usually find it. > 2. If everything is forbidden, then lawyers have no magic incantations. That is a DAMN LIE. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and all our other sources are nothing more than state-endorsed books of shadows. Furthermore, we have magic wands. It doesn't work unless you believe, you know ~Aimee
RE: Final Words from me about document production requirements and remailers.
Black Unicorn wrote: [masterful summation elided] > My only regret in pointing this > out is that I think Mr. Sandfort > might owe someone a house. (I > note he never put a dollar figure > on the house bet though). My offer (not enforceable under contract due to failure of consideration) was only valid if Microsoft got nicked for--in Jimbo II's words--"spoilation." There being no such legal concept, I feel confident that I won't be giving him a house any time soon. :'D S a n d y
Re: Final Words from me about document production requirements and remailers.
- Original Message - From: "Sandy Sandfort" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2001 4:44 PM Subject: RE: Final Words from me about document production requirements and remailers. > Black Unicorn wrote: > > [masterful summation elided] > > > My only regret in pointing this > > out is that I think Mr. Sandfort > > might owe someone a house. (I > > note he never put a dollar figure > > on the house bet though). > > My offer (not enforceable under contract due to failure of consideration) Not to mention the statute of frauds (as it was a transaction in real estate).
Re: Final Words from me about document production requirements and remailers.
- Original Message - From: "Black Unicorn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2001 4:08 PM Subject: Final Words from me about document production requirements and remailers. > The trial court > permits the plaintiffs to sue for spoliation, mostly on the basis of the > disposition of the car, not the papers or lack of records, although those are > mentioned, and orders sanctions (a fine and costs) against the plaintiffs. This should read: "against the defendants." Sorry.
RE: Demime & CDRs (was Re: Security Against Compelled Disclosure)
Malpractice Stooge wrote: > A verbal agreement between two > parties that dictate how they > will relate to each other is a > contract. Unless it fails to contain all the elements required of a valid contract (you know those elements, don't you Jimbo?) or it violates the Statute of Frauds or similar rules (you know about the Statute of Frauds and similar rules, don't you Jimbo?) or violates some public policy (you know about those public policy concepts don't you Jimbo?). Any failure along these lines would render such a verbal "agreement" unenforceable in contract. S a n d y
Re: Spoliation cites
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2001 12:05 PM Subject: RE: Spoliation cites > On 3 Aug 2001, at 13:53, David Honig wrote: > > After MS was busted, it was widely publicized that it was thereafter > > official policy to destroy email after N days. As if Ollie et al. wasn't > > enough. > > If Microsoft gets busted for "spoilation" in their current lawsuit, then > I will take Sandy and Black Unicorn off my loon list. :-) In keeping with my new theory about "Perfect Anti-Credibility" I prefer to stay on your loon list, thanks.
RE: Spoliation cites
James wrote: > Harmon Seaver > > > As others have stated, if you don't keep logs, or throw away all > > > your reciepts, there's not jack they can do about it. > > At 7:22 PM -0700 8/2/01, Black Unicorn wrote: > > Uh, no. And if you had been reading the many, many posts on this point > > you'd see that about every one of the 10-15 cases cited here > say exactly the > > opposite of what you claim above. > > A couple of posts ago Aimee confidently declared that none of the > people presenting themselves as lawyers on this list had made the > claim that you just made again. Read the definition of ordinary course of business - it implies good faith by nature. You seem to think ordinary course of business means "shred away!" Bzzt. Read Lewy. Lewy says you can't hide behind a policy and destroy documents you KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN might be relevant in future litigation - before you are served with suit or a preservation order. Yes, courts are likely to differ in their application based on the unique facts. However, if your ordinary course of business is to destroy or make unavailable of records in specific anticipation of a law suit or criminal complaint, you are probably not going to meet the good faith requirement. The court has some room to reach here, and they increasingly have the authority to do so. Whether they will be successful or not, I cannot say. > She is backpeddling, because it has become obvious your claim is > nonsense, and the fact that you made it, (and perhaps she made it > also before denying that she or anyone else had made it) shows > you do not know shit from beans. No, Sandfort, Unicorn and I are in agreement. > > So, unicorn, when are they going to bust microsoft for suddenly > enforcing a policy of purging old email? No, nobody has said that. It is pursuant to a written good faith retention policy. Looking behind the veil the courts will likely see bona-fide good faith. You see an all-or-none proposition, when we are looking at the finer points within a range of hypotheticals. Stop putting words in our mouths. ~Aimee
RE: Spoliation cites
On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Aimee Farr wrote: > Read the definition of ordinary course of business - it implies good faith > by nature. You seem to think ordinary course of business means "shred away!" > Bzzt. Read Lewy. Lewy says you can't hide behind a policy and destroy > documents you KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN might be relevant in future > litigation - before you are served with suit or a preservation order. Yes, > courts are likely to differ in their application based on the unique facts. > However, if your ordinary course of business is to destroy or make > unavailable of records in specific anticipation of a law suit or criminal > complaint, you are probably not going to meet the good faith requirement. You fail to see the distinction. Lewy speaks to SPECIFIC documents, not a general business process. One can have a general business process of shredding all documents, unless you believe they will be needed at some future time. That is a SUBJECTIVE call. It's that 'intent' in the cites that were so graciously provided. If you destroy all your documents (eg IBM puts a 90 archive period on ALL email, if it's needed for business purposes that is left up to the individual employee to make that call) as a matter of course and in the process documents are destroyed that are relevant to future litigation then the courts must demonstrate that you had some REASON TO SUSPECT they would be needed. In the case of both examples before neither party habitually got rid of documents (a doctor which destroys patient records isn't much of a doctor). Usually you draw a false distinction, in this case you are failing to make the distinction at all. -- 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 --'-
Voice crypto: the last crypto taboo
What's up with voice encryption? I'm ready to use it. I'm ready to pay money for it. However, this is only if it uses a real crypto algorithm (AES, 3DES, and not some "proprietary" crap) and if it has a published protocol, so we can verify that it is actually encrypting properly. Starium has had "demo" units out for almost two years now, but their web page has been static for a long time, and no one has answered the phone there for a long time. Any others? I know that voice encryption is the last great crypto taboo, and I'm waiting for it to fall. I am aware of quite a few other voice encryption units out there, but all that I have looked into have used a proprietary protocol, and even worse, some proprietary crypto algorithm. That seems pretty useless. If their alg is so fabulous why didn't they submit it to the AES competition? Ergo, their alg is not so fabulous.
Re: Demime & CDRs (was Re: Security Against Compelled Disclosure)
On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Eric Murray wrote: > There's no CDR contract. At least I didn't sign one. You don't have to sign it. You only have to agree to it verbally, or in this case email. A verbal agreement between two parties that dictate how they will relate to each other is a contract. If you don't want to abide by that 'informal' agreement then I'll gladly remove you from the SSZ CDR feed. It's your call. -- 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 --'-
ADV: RATES ARE DOWN -- FREE MORTGAGE RATE QUOTE fmvvk
*** Compliance: see notice at bottom of mail Are you wasting money EVERY SINGLE MONTH? Home Mortgage Rates have DROPPED! Simply fill out our FREE NO OBLIGATION form and find out how much you can save. It's That Easy! Visit our website: http://www.deal-makerz.com/ Compliance Notice: This mail is sent in compliance with all State and Federal laws. You are receiving this mail because your address was in a list of previous business contacts, or on a purchased list of opt-in, previous business contacts, or general internet addresses. Our most important list is our list of addresses who have expressed their desire to be removed from future mailings. All remove requests are automatically processed within 72 hours. Once your address is processed, you will NEVER receive marketing mail at that address from us again. To be removed, click below, and send: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=remove
Final Words from me about document production requirements and remailers.
I am going to try and be as clear and as slow as possible- knowing full well that it probably will make no difference and that my words will be twisted, strawmaned, touted or defamed whatever I do. Regardless: Hirsch v. General Motors, 628 A.2d 1108 (1993) effectively opens the door for third parties to be cited for spoliation of documents or evidence for actions, potentially and reasonably performed in good faith, before any proceeding or legal action begins or is even threatened. Again, this was a products liability case. Couple buys a car. The car catches fire. People are hurt. Car is resold to the dealer. The dealer refurbishes the car. The dealer sells the car to a third party in a cash or near cash transaction. Plaintiffs, much later, sue GM, the car's manufacturer, and the dealer. In a typical discovery order the dealer is ordered to produce the car and all records associated with it. The dealer insists it cannot. It has, it claims, in good faith, sold the refurbished car to a third party. Court demands records of the sale to identify the third party, seize the car, and use it as evidence. (Note that this harmless third party, who had nothing to do with this case, had they been identified, would have had their car seized and impounded for who knows how long, while it was evidence in this case, despite the fact that they had no idea the car would have been subject to suit, or any other action). Plaintiffs sue for spoliation of evidence, move for court sanctions against dealer and GM. Dealer protests that their standard business practice to refurbish and sell cars. Further dealer protests that they routinely have cash transactions with few or little identifying records of the end parties. (The "normal course of business defense"). Effectively, this isn't even "destroying" records, but not keeping them. The trial court permits the plaintiffs to sue for spoliation, mostly on the basis of the disposition of the car, not the papers or lack of records, although those are mentioned, and orders sanctions (a fine and costs) against the plaintiffs. Case goes to appeal where defendants make the argument that the papers, car and other evidence were not the subject of a suit or pending suit and that they were acting in the normal course of business. The ruling by trial court is upheld. Summarizing: 1. Third parties can expect that, good faith or total ignorance aside, their private property can be seized if it, through no conduct of their own, becomes the subject of a dispute. 2. The "normal course of business" is not an absolutely defense in a case of spoliation. 3. Actions which destroy or "lose" evidence and that are performed before any case, action, threat of action or summons can still constitute spoliation. Willard v. Caterpillar, Inc., 40 Cal.App.4th 892 (1995). In the normal course of business, consistent with policy and _under the advice of counsel_ defendant manufacturer destroys all internal records (along with other unrelated documents) on the design for a tractor. Some time later (years) one such tractor results in an injury and becomes the subject of a products liability suit. Plaintiffs request the production of all documents related to the tractor design. Defendant protests that these were destroyed a decade ago, on the advice of counsel. Plaintiff's move for sanctions and sue for spoliation of evidence. Trial court imposes sanctions, assesses costs to plaintiffs, turns court record over to plaintiffs in anticipation of their suit in tort for spoliation against defendant and refers the case to the local prosecutor with the recommendation that a case for criminal obstruction be brought. (Some notes in the trial record suggest that judge and defense counsel didn't exactly get along well). Hundreds of thousands of dollars and several years later in appeal the assignment of court costs are overturned on the basis that defendant was acting in something like good faith because they sought and followed advice of counsel on their document destruction policy and the destroyed records were thought for some reason to be of minimal value. Near as I can tell the record of criminal obstruction charge was sealed and doesn't seem to have been disposed of. The rest of the sanctions and fines stood. The case for spoliation was settled but some undisclosed payment was made to plaintiffs in that case. Summarizing: 1. Document destruction policies for a company which are instituted on the advice of legal counsel might get you out of court costs- after hundreds of thousands of dollars in appeals. Sanctions and suit in tort for spoliation will be permitted to go forward anyhow. 2. Pissing off the trial court judge (do not taunt happy-fun-court) is a bad idea when simultaneously telling the court you won't (can't) give them what they ask for, unless you like criminal sanctions. (Larry Flint would be another good example of the consequences of being an insufferable bastard or h
Re: The Curious Propsenity of Some Cypherpunks for (loud) Willful Ignorance. Was: Re: Spoliation cites
On 4 Aug 2001, Dr. Evil wrote: > But the point is, yes, definitely the judge can demand every single > copy of a document, and this case clearly demonstrates it in action. But, in this case (as I've claimed in the past) EACH AND EVERY COPY represent harm to the plaintiff. Of course it makes sense to recover all copies where each of those copies will cause harm. The purpose of the court, and law in general, is to reduce 'harm'. That is NOT the same thing as demanding that an author of a work turn over each and every copy of same. Of course if there was a defamation issue then again it would make sense to recover each and every copy. In the case of something like the Pentagon Papers it makes sense to ATTEMPT to recover said documents. Since each copy represents harm. Bottem line, if the court orders all copies siezed there must be some indication of harm if ANY SINGLE copy remains unrecovered. Otherwise it's just a violation of the 1st. -- 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 --'-
Le interesara
1.8.2001.Publicidad/Enseñanza a Distancia Hola que tal: El motivo de la presente carta es informarte de la posibilidad de poder realizar algún curso a distancia de tu interés, cursos relacionados con tu trabajo inquietudes y ocio.ect.El conocimiento es el mayor patrimonio de que podemos disponer. Nos dedicamos desde 1996.a impartir cursos a distancia disponemos de una amplia variedad de cursos sencillos para poder seguirlos comodamente desde cualquier parte del mundo y a unos precios muy competitivos. NET Redes y Sistemas Sistemas Servers Diseño Web BUSSINES Gestion Comercial y Marketing Relaciones Publicas Recursos Humanos Comercio Exterior Direccion Comercial Gestión Medio Ambiental SALUD SUPERACION PERSONAL - Psicoterapia Psicologia Practica Nutrí terapia y Salud Monitor Yoga Tai-Chi Hipnoterapia Quiromasaje y Reflexoterapia Aromaterapia Cosmética Natural Hierbas Medicinales -- CURSOS BECADOS: Los cursos son de 200.horas lectivas el precio standar por curso es de 35.000.pts(Despues de beca)España a plazos.Iberoamerica 150.usa dolar aplazados.(Despues de beca) El Diploma: "Técnico Especialista" El tiempo aproximado por curso dependiendo de los conocimientos en areas similares de que se disponga,es entre 2-6.meses.aprox. Si desean que les ampliemos información pueden enviar un e-mail les contestaremos con la mayor brevedad y les indicaremos nuestro espacio web que se encuentra en reformas.No lo pienses mas y envia un e-mail y recibiras todo tipo de informes y detalles muy en breve. Envie e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sin otra que rogarte me envies un e-mail si estas interesado/a Te enviamos un saludo. Si desea no recibir mas e-mail. remove/mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jose Garceran COFOR Gestion Integral 1.SL C/Constitucion.34 03310-Alicante España --
RE: Demime & CDRs (was Re: Security Against Compelled Disclosure)
Jimbo I wrote: > On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > > > Unless it fails to contain all the elements required of a valid contract > > (you know those elements, don't you Jimbo?) > > 1. Capacity of the parties. > > 2. Mutual agreement (assent) or meeting of the minds (a valid offer and >acceptance) > > 3. Consideration (somethingof value given in exchange for a promise) > > 4. Legality of subject matter. > > > or it violates the Statute of Frauds or similar rules (you know > about the > > Statute of Frauds and similar rules, don't you Jimbo?) > > Yep, but do your own research. > > > or violates some public policy (you know about those public > policy concepts > > don't you Jimbo?). > > Yep, see above. > > > Any failure along these lines would render such a verbal "agreement" > > unenforceable in contract. > > And not a one applies here. Perhaps, though that was not my intent. Just wanted to see if you'd jump through the hoops after the fact and pretend you knew that stuff up front. As it is, I can only give you a "C." Not too bad, really, better than I would have guessed. S a n d y
Re: Spoliation cites
On 4 Aug 2001, at 13:04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > My impression is that BU's response to me was based on a > misundertanding of what I was saying. My impression is that whatever his original position, in the course of defending it, he made claims that were ever more unreasonable, ever more flagrantly wrong, and defended those ever more obviously erroneous claims by asserting the vast superiority of lawyers, and our vital need for lawyers, in an ever more condescending fashion. If judges behave as lawlessly as BU would up claiming they did, we have no need for lawyers at all. If judges are going to behave as lawlessly as Sandy now says he was predicting they will, we will have no need for lawyers at all. As for what Aimee is saying -- that was not very clear, and the more she says, the less clear it is.
RE: Demime & CDRs (was Re: Security Against Compelled Disclosure)
On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > Unless it fails to contain all the elements required of a valid contract > (you know those elements, don't you Jimbo?) 1. Capacity of the parties. 2. Mutual agreement (assent) or meeting of the minds (a valid offer and acceptance) 3. Consideration (somethingof value given in exchange for a promise) 4. Legality of subject matter. > or it violates the Statute of Frauds or similar rules (you know about the > Statute of Frauds and similar rules, don't you Jimbo?) Yep, but do your own research. > or violates some public policy (you know about those public policy concepts > don't you Jimbo?). Yep, see above. > Any failure along these lines would render such a verbal "agreement" > unenforceable in contract. And not a one applies here. -- 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 --'-
Governors Seeking Internet Tax
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010804/pl/tech_governors_tax_dc_1.html -- -- 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 --'-
Linux Today - MachineOfTheMonth: Audio conferencing with Linux [SSZ: incl. encryption they claim]
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-08-04-007-20-SC-HL-SW -- -- 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: Spoliation cites
-- On 4 Aug 2001, at 12:46, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > No James, as any first year law student could tell you, they way one makes > educated assessments about how laws may be interpreted in the future are > NECESSARILY based on understanding laws and court precedents. And as any one can tell you predictions of how the interpretation of laws will CHANGE cannot be based on existing laws and court precedents. In any case, you are backpeddling like mad. Having dug yourself into a hole with improbable claims on mandatory record keeping, you are now disowning with great confidence claims you previously made with equal confidence, indicating your understanding of existing laws and courts precedents is none too hot. What was previously a claim about existing law, has mysteriously mutated into a mere prophecy that future law might change into something like your original claim. How about simply saying "I was wrong", instead of proclaiming omnicience twice as loudly when you are caught with your head up your ass? --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG oYQwaBShfigTeer8NiMlXddKCdSOWTS4O8e02M+i 4E5drtnvUZpAn4ZvzKDgEPqKkBdbdXNEe/BBlTF86
Le interesara
1.8.2001.Publicidad/Enseñanza a Distancia Hola que tal: El motivo de la presente carta es informarte de la posibilidad de poder realizar algún curso a distancia de tu interés, cursos relacionados con tu trabajo inquietudes y ocio.ect.El conocimiento es el mayor patrimonio de que podemos disponer. Nos dedicamos desde 1996.a impartir cursos a distancia disponemos de una amplia variedad de cursos sencillos para poder seguirlos comodamente desde cualquier parte del mundo y a unos precios muy competitivos. NET Redes y Sistemas Sistemas Servers Diseño Web BUSSINES Gestion Comercial y Marketing Relaciones Publicas Recursos Humanos Comercio Exterior Direccion Comercial Gestión Medio Ambiental SALUD SUPERACION PERSONAL - Psicoterapia Psicologia Practica Nutrí terapia y Salud Monitor Yoga Tai-Chi Hipnoterapia Quiromasaje y Reflexoterapia Aromaterapia Cosmética Natural Hierbas Medicinales -- CURSOS BECADOS: Los cursos son de 200.horas lectivas el precio standar por curso es de 35.000.pts(Despues de beca)España a plazos.Iberoamerica 150.usa dolar aplazados.(Despues de beca) El Diploma: "Técnico Especialista" El tiempo aproximado por curso dependiendo de los conocimientos en areas similares de que se disponga,es entre 2-6.meses.aprox. Si desean que les ampliemos información pueden enviar un e-mail les contestaremos con la mayor brevedad y les indicaremos nuestro espacio web que se encuentra en reformas.No lo pienses mas y envia un e-mail y recibiras todo tipo de informes y detalles muy en breve. Envie e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sin otra que rogarte me envies un e-mail si estas interesado/a Te enviamos un saludo. Si desea no recibir mas e-mail. remove/mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jose Garceran COFOR Gestion Integral 1.SL C/Constitucion.34 03310-Alicante España --
Re: Security Against Compelled Disclosure
On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Bill O'Hanlon wrote: > I looked, and I can't find the mail we exchanged, though I do remember > exchanging mail at the time. Spoliation!! ;) I don't keep 'em either. > Spell out what it is that you think we've agreed to, and I'll report back > with how well I intend to comply, and you can decide what you want to put > on your homepage. Already did..what traffic you get from other CDR nodes you pass on unmodified. What happens between you and your subscribers is between you and your subscribers and doesn't commit other CDR nodes or their subscribers. Really simple, how the hell you could 'forget' is pretty convenient... (Sandy should consider selling copies of that fancy backpedaling bicycle he has, maybe he'll share some of those mail order drugs thought they don't seem to be helping a damn bit) ps You're already listed as a moderated hub. http://einstein.ssz.com/cdr -- 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: Final Words from me about document production requirements and remailers.
On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Black Unicorn wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "Sandy Sandfort" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2001 4:44 PM > Subject: RE: Final Words from me about document production requirements and > remailers. > > > > Black Unicorn wrote: > > > > [masterful summation elided] > > > > > My only regret in pointing this > > > out is that I think Mr. Sandfort > > > might owe someone a house. (I > > > note he never put a dollar figure > > > on the house bet though). > > > > My offer (not enforceable under contract due to failure of consideration) > > Not to mention the statute of frauds (as it was a transaction in real estate). The British Parliament, in 1677, in order to prevent fraud arising out of an oral agreement passed the Act for the Prevention of Frauds and Perjuries. It requires there be specific evidence in writing of the agreement (called a 'memorandum'). Email isn't verbal, it's written and therefore does qualify at least peripheraly. -- 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 --'-
MATT DRUDGE: 200 women to be impregnated with cloned embryos
Yip, yip, yahooo http://www.drudgereport.com/matt.htm -- -- 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 --'-
Spoliation of Evidence and the Line Firefighter
http://home.earthlink.net/~dliske/article1.html -- -- 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 --'-
Sandfort is still an idiot (Was: Re: CDR: JIM DONALD IS A CANARYPUNK, was: Spoliation cites)
On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > dishonesty and cowardice (next, I suppose, he'll be sending his son--rolls > of quarters clenched tightly in his little fists--to do his dirty work), I That's me you're referring to you moron. If you are going to resort to ad hominem, at least get your references straight... > S a n d y -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place...
JIM DONALD IS A CANARYPUNK, was: Spoliation cites
Jimbo II has really gone off the deep end. I've asked him repeatedly to quote me directly where I have said the things he alleges that I have said. His cowardice in failing to reproduce those requested passages (or even my requests for the requested passages) is manifest. Give his intellectual dishonesty and cowardice (next, I suppose, he'll be sending his son--rolls of quarters clenched tightly in his little fists--to do his dirty work), I see nothing to be gained from trying to teach this particular swine to learn how to sing. I graciously cede the last word (which he will undoubtedly squander) to my second-most favorite canarypunk. Rock on, dud. S a n d y > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 04 August, 2001 17:33 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sandy Sandfort > Subject: RE: Spoliation cites > > > -- > On 4 Aug 2001, at 12:46, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > > No James, as any first year law student could tell you, they > way one makes > > educated assessments about how laws may be interpreted in the future are > > NECESSARILY based on understanding laws and court precedents. > > And as any one can tell you predictions of how the interpretation > of laws will CHANGE cannot be based on existing laws and court precedents. > > In any case, you are backpeddling like mad. Having dug yourself > into a hole with improbable claims on mandatory record keeping, > you are now disowning with great confidence claims you previously > made with equal confidence, indicating your understanding of > existing laws and courts precedents is > none too hot. > > What was previously a claim about existing law, has mysteriously > mutated into a mere prophecy that future law might change into > something like your original claim. > > How about simply saying "I was wrong", instead of proclaiming > omnicience twice as loudly when you are caught with your head up your ass? > > --digsig > James A. Donald > 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG > oYQwaBShfigTeer8NiMlXddKCdSOWTS4O8e02M+i > 4E5drtnvUZpAn4ZvzKDgEPqKkBdbdXNEe/BBlTF86
RE: Sandfort is still an idiot (Was: Re: CDR: JIM DONALD IS A CANARYPUNK, was: Spoliation cites)
Good point J.A., I got my cowards mixed up. I stand corrected. It's you that sends his son to beat of folks for expressing opinions you don't like. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 04 August, 2001 18:47 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Sandfort is still an idiot (Was: Re: CDR: JIM DONALD IS A > CANARYPUNK, was: Spoliation cites) > > > On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > > > dishonesty and cowardice (next, I suppose, he'll be sending his > son--rolls > > of quarters clenched tightly in his little fists--to do his > dirty work), I > > That's me you're referring to you moron. If you are going to resort to ad > hominem, at least get your references straight... > > > S a n d y > > -- > Yours, > J.A. Terranson > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they > should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: > Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of > unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in > the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and > elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire > populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... > This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States > as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. > > The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, > associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of > those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the > first place... >
Re: JIM DONALD IS A CANARYPUNK, was: Spoliation cites
On 4 Aug 2001, at 18:29, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > Jimbo II has really gone off the deep end. I've asked him repeatedly to > quote me directly where I have said the things he alleges that have said.' You have asked me once, off list. I replied, off list. Now I will repost that reply on the list. -- On 4 Aug 2001, at 14:26, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > Show me where I took that position. A few posts back when I pointed out that most businesses engage in routine, regularly scheduled deletion of potentially inconvenient records, and none of them have got in trouble for it yet, you replied that a business that engages in that practice is like a man who has jumped from a tall building and boasts that he has not hit anything hard yet. Now, however, you deny ever taking that position, indicating that your previous position (the position that you proclaimed so pompously and patronizingly) was a load of old bananas, which in turn indicates that in this area of the law, you do not know shit from beans Whenever I ask our company lawyer a legal question, he usually answers "That is not my area of expertise". You should try that answer. It will keep you out of lots of trouble. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG L/TcMqBOExR0C26MZiO0EljjnWkcbyv8XYNyS2V1 4btCzzwGyuR3bJ/aMmwN9+Dycb01OHuOM4E4oXHm+ > His cowardice in failing to reproduce those requested passages (or even my > requests for the requested passages) is manifest. Give his intellectual > dishonesty and cowardice (next, I suppose, he'll be sending his son--rolls > of quarters clenched tightly in his little fists--to do his dirty work), I > see nothing to be gained from trying to teach this particular swine to learn > how to sing. > > I graciously cede the last word (which he will undoubtedly squander) to my > second-most favorite canarypunk. Rock on, dud. > > > S a n d y > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: 04 August, 2001 17:33 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sandy Sandfort > > Subject: RE: Spoliation cites > > > > > > -- > > On 4 Aug 2001, at 12:46, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > > > No James, as any first year law student could tell you, they > > way one makes > > > educated assessments about how laws may be interpreted in the future are > > > NECESSARILY based on understanding laws and court precedents. > > > > And as any one can tell you predictions of how the interpretation > > of laws will CHANGE cannot be based on existing laws and court precedents. > > > > In any case, you are backpeddling like mad. Having dug yourself > > into a hole with improbable claims on mandatory record keeping, > > you are now disowning with great confidence claims you previously > > made with equal confidence, indicating your understanding of > > existing laws and courts precedents is > > none too hot. > > > > What was previously a claim about existing law, has mysteriously > > mutated into a mere prophecy that future law might change into > > something like your original claim. > > > > How about simply saying "I was wrong", instead of proclaiming > > omnicience twice as loudly when you are caught with your head up your ass? > > > > --digsig > > James A. Donald > > 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG > > oYQwaBShfigTeer8NiMlXddKCdSOWTS4O8e02M+i > > 4E5drtnvUZpAn4ZvzKDgEPqKkBdbdXNEe/BBlTF86
RE: Spoliation cites
-- On 4 Aug 2001, at 14:54, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > Jimbo II wrote: > > > You, and Black Unicorn, have taken that > > extreme position. You were full of shit. > > Show me where I took that position. Put up or shut up, Jimbo II. A few posts back when I pointed out that most businesses engage in routine, regularly scheduled deletion of potentially inconvenient records, and none of them have got in trouble for it yet, you replied that a business that engages in that practice is like a man who has jumped from a tall building and boasts that he has not hit anything hard yet. Now, however, you deny ever taking that position, indicating that your previous position (the position that you proclaimed so pompously and patronizingly) was a load of old bananas, which in turn indicates that in this area of the law, you do not know shit from beans Whenever I ask our company lawyer a legal question, he usually answers "That is not my area of expertise". You should try that answer. It will keep you out of lots of trouble. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG mKrxv4usZ5hBIK0d2YohwCLJQIoHzWOPfiPEN/jd 4ey4eUt9h8r7iMn8KRlC29ieqEb7/l4Smn0KoyTx2
Re: Demime & CDRs (was Re: Security Against Compelled Disclosure)
On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 12:00:34PM -0700, Eric Murray wrote: > Posts that are received (enter the CDR system) at lne and are forwarded > to the other CDRs are demimed. > > Posts originating from another CDR are demimed on the way > to lne CDR subscribers. > > Posts originating from another CDR and being forwarded to > another CDR aren't demimed. I have no problem with demime-ing posts, and applaud Eric's work to maintain a readable cypherpunks node. My only point, addressed to the fellow who sent an attachment, is that sending such things to any cypherpunks node makes little sense. Many of the more frequent posters now use the lne.com node, so we'll never see your attachment. And, depending on where the message enters the system, others may not either. -Declan
Re: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages.
On Saturday, August 4, 2001, at 12:32 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> --
> On 3 Aug 2001, at 20:59, Ray Dillinger wrote:
>> the point is, that's enough. Both endpoints on such a packet's
>> route are participants, obviously. If they want to shut it
>> down, and they have seen such a packet, they have two people
>> they can shut down. Repeat ad nauseam, and the infrastructure
>> is destroyed.
>
> This assumes a unity and cohesion that lawless states are rarely
> capable of. If a government is so oppressive that it is doing that,
> government officials will have probably already stolen the wires for
> the copper, and will not have the technology to figure out what is
> going on over the ether.
Entrance and exit mixes can easily be set to be Usenet or other
Net-based public posting and reading places. Kind of hard for the U.S.G.
or the F.S.U. to shut down a newsgroup replicated across the world in
many places.
Also, "repeat ad nauseum" still carries costs. Even the lawyers in
Washington can't easily shut down publishers like "The Progressive" or
"The New York Times." It costs a lot of money to shut down a publisher.
I see no particular reason why it will suddenly become cheap ("repeat ad
nauseum") for lawyers to shut down tens of thousands of Web sites,
publishers, mailing lists, message pools, and Democracy Walls.
Especially, by the way, if those entry and exit sites are in other
countries.
--Tim May
Re: Demime & CDRs (was Re: Security Against Compelled Disclosure)
On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 06:20:13PM -0500, Jim Choate wrote: > A verbal agreement between two parties that dictate how they will relate > to each other is a contract. Could you provide some cites to the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and some recent articles on Slashdot to back up that point? Always looking to learn something new and novel, Declan
...THE GODS THEMSELVES...
C'punks, Coming up with the "canarypunks" concept, has really clarified my thinking. I'm taking the pledge and will no longer strive to protect the dumbest and most aggressively ignorant members of this list (the Three Stooges) from the error or their ways. I finally got it through my head that they don't WANT to deal with the truth, but are incapable of reaching beyond their own self-referential worldview. As Friedrich von Schiller put it, "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain." So, I'm going to do something far crueler than point out the inadequacies of the Three Stooges: I'm going to ignore those inadequacies and let reality provide the lesson. The folks on this list who are smart enough to understand that the "lawyerpunks" are on their side, will listen to their take on the law. The folks who think the lawyers are out to get them will go to the Three Stooges for legal advice. Reality will choose the winners and losers. Very Darwinian. S a n d y
Re: Official Reporters have more copyright rights
Unfortunately for your inbox, and fortunately, perhaps, for the continued viability of procmail, I have no intention of changing my interactions with Choate or others based on your personal preferences. -Declan On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 11:50:28PM +0200, Nomen Nescio wrote: > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Official Reporters have more copyright rights > > Declan McCullagh wrote: > > Why did I ever deprocmail Choate?... > > I expect this will be my only response to Choate in the foreseeable > > future. Sigh. > > I certainly hope so. Messages like this move you closer to my > procmail file, even though you're often worth reading. You're as easy > to deal with as Jim, if you persist on mixing your online persona with > his.
Re: The Curious Propsenity of Some Cypherpunks for (loud) Willful Ignorance. Was: Re: Spoliation cites
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > I consider it, as I said, monstrous that a judge can > > > legally deprive me of all copies of my own work in order to > > > enforce a gag order, but again, if that's the way it is, > > > that's the way it is. But it goes well beyond the bizzare > > > to suggest that I should anticipate the possibility of a > > > gag order and preemptively gag myself in case one might be > > > issued at a later date. James A. Donald: > > Judges have never attempted such crap, and if they do, > > lawyers will be irrelevant, and will have been irrelevant for > > a long time before the such anyone attempts such crap. > > > > These guys (Black Unicorn and his cheer squad) are loons, and > > I cannot imagine why they post such nonsense. Black Unicorn > The only thing that is more surprising than your total willful > ignorance (have you even bothered to look at the several cites > I have posted that positively refute your statement above? A few posts back one of your loudest supporters suddenly reversed course and proclaimed that neither he nor yourself ever took such an extreme position, (his typically polite method of issuing a retraction) yet here you are taking an extreme position once again. The only cite that could possibly refute my words above would be to cite someone being busted, since the behavior you claim is illegal, the behavior that George announces his intention to engage in, is routine in most well run companies. > I have cited authority for the proposition that courts, and more often > plaintiffs, routinely demand broad productions related to a given matter. To be relevant to the case I and George speak of above, you need to cite an actual bust of someone whose work is deemed a thought crime, and was punished for ensuring that it was distributed out of his control before it was declared a thought crime. No one doubts that courts have broad authority to demand pie in the sky. What people doubt is that courts have broad authority to punish those who have rendered pie in the sky unobtainable, well before the case began, to punish those that have rendered the demand for pie in the sky moot. As I posted earlier in response to your claim of broad authority: Glendower: "I can call spirits from the vasty deep." Hotspur: "Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you do call for them?" > I have cited authorities. I have cited examples. You have not cited relevant examples. We have actual legal precedents where a remailer operator was summoned before a court and said "Sorry, I do not keep logs." end of discussion. They cannot suddenly turn around and punish one for doing what one has legal precedent to believe is legal, and if we ever get to that point, you will have been unemployed for some considerable time. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG lZd4vAi2TTpp5GRW15mn1q+cyAFO0PJtAiYPT7GK 4aBAZQL08uKxJdCdzB6Qq5wZagEOir8ecDvv5GFYB
Re: Governors Seeking Internet Tax
At 08:50 PM 8/4/2001 -0500, you wrote: >http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010804/pl/tech_governors_tax_dc_1.html > >Governors Seeking Internet Tax >By Leslie Gevirtz >PROVIDENCE, R.I. (Reuters) - Wyoming Gov. Jim Geringer on Saturday urged >Congress to allow states to tax e-commerce to replenish state coffers. Perhaps some on the list can explain to me what the governors are asking from Congress. A plain reading of the Constitution supports and recent SC decisions have confirmed that the Commerce Clause prohibits states from taxing out-of-state corporations without an in-state nexus. Congress is also prohibited from delegating their taxation powers to the states, in the same way the SC ruled they may not delegate to the Pres the editing of bills via the line item veto, so what are they asking for? steve
