RE: Moral Crypto isn't wuss-ninnie.

[Aimee Farr]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Eric Cordian
> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 6:05 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Moral Crypto isn't wuss-ninnie.
> 
> 
> Aimee writes:
> 
> > I realize Tim's position, and I respect his right to express 
> his political
> > opinions and ideas, even though I don't agree with them, and 
> think he is a
> > self-identifying flamboyant jackass. I understand that many of 
> you have the
> > same opinions, and likewise
> 
> Guess not all Lying Feminist Cunts troll Sex Abuse exclusively.  
> 
> -- 
> Eric Michael Cordian 0+
> O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division
> "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"


I am not a Feminist. 

~Aimee 

Re: Moral Crypto

[Declan McCullagh]

Anonymity allows people to evade laws. Governments don't like that.
Read the archives.

-Declan

On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 05:47:33PM -0700, A. Melon wrote:
> What makes you think remailers are such a threat that the federal
> government would attempt to license them?  How exactly will they help
> criminals and terrorists in the time frame of the next five years?
> They're not being used for much today, other than annoying people.
> It doesn't seem like criminals use them.  What's the killer app (so
> to speak)?

Re: Moral Crypto

[A. Melon]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Anonymity allows people to evade laws. Governments don't like that.
> Read the archives.

It would be nice to see at least one example of something nasty that
could be done with an anonymous remailer in the next few years where
you couldn't get the same effect at the corner phone booth or dropping a
letter in a public mailbox.  So far there have been no prohibitions on
sending information anonymously via those mechanisms.  Why would email
be singled out?

Re: Moral Crypto isn't wuss-ninnie.

[Eric Cordian]

Aimee writes:

> I realize Tim's position, and I respect his right to express his political
> opinions and ideas, even though I don't agree with them, and think he is a
> self-identifying flamboyant jackass. I understand that many of you have the
> same opinions, and likewise

Guess not all Lying Feminist Cunts troll Sex Abuse exclusively.  

-- 
Eric Michael Cordian 0+
O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division
"Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

Naughty Journal Author Denied Plea Change

[Eric Cordian]

Not unsurprisingly, the judge has refused to permit a man sentenced to 10
years in prison for textual depictions of child sex in a private journal
to withdraw his guilty plea and get a trial.

As F. Lee Bailey once said, the major flaw in the American justice system
is that appeals focus only on procedural errors, and ones guilt or
innocence is never again an issue after the original trial, even if that
trial reached the wrong result.

Having concluded that all the i's were dotted and the t's crossed in the
screwing of Mr. Dalton by the state of Ohio, justice proceeds merrily
onward.

-

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- A man sentenced to prison for writing fantasies in his
personal journal about torturing and molesting children cannot change his
guilty plea, a judge ruled Tuesday.

Franklin County Judge Nodine Miller said Brian Dalton did not demonstrate
a "manifest injustice" had taken place.

Dalton, 22, had asked to withdraw his guilty plea, saying it was not made
knowingly or intelligently, and that he was expecting to be sentenced to
treatment, not 10 years in prison.

The case alarmed experts in First Amendment and obscenity law, who believe
Dalton is the first person in the country successfully prosecuted for
simply writing what was judged to be child pornography. "Definitely this
is a matter of grave constitutional concerns," said attorney Benson
Wolman, a former executive director of the American Civil Liberties
Union's Ohio chapter. He said he will ask the court to set aside Dalton's
conviction, or file a delayed appeal.

...

-- 
Eric Michael Cordian 0+
O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division
"Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

Re: Moral Crypto isn't wuss-ninnie.

[Tim May]

On Tuesday, September 4, 2001, at 05:26 PM, Aimee Farr wrote:

> "A potential balance between national security and science may lie in an
> agreement to include in the peer review process (prior to the start of
> research and prior to the publication) the question of potential harm 
> to the
> nation I believe it is necessary before significant harm does occur
> which could well prompt the federal government to overreact." -- Inman, 
> '82.
>
> ---
> It is not wuss-ninnie to spark debate, or to examine characterizations 
> and
> motives. Many say, "technology is neutral." It's not. Technology is
> CONTEXTUAL. Somebody is going to use it for something, and that's 
> usually
> somebody and something in particular.
>
> Most of you would agree that surveillance researchers failed to 
> consider and
> address the moral and societal implications of surveillance 
> technologies.
> That, too many said, was somebody else's problem. Now, it's *our* 
> problem.
> Had they looked into motivations and societal factors, we would have had
> more lead time to deal with improper surveillance and secondary use 
> issues.
> We are in this position today because they were "wuss-ninnies."

Nonsense. None of the current "moral and societal implications of 
surveillance technologies" are either new or unexplored. From Bentham to 
Huxley to Orwell to Donner ("The Age of Surveillance," 1980) to Brin 
("The Transparent Society," c. 1996), the implications have been 
explored in gory detail.

The notion that these implications would be avoided or handled by 
submitting all research proposals to Inman's oversight board is naive in 
the extreme.

Inman's board, had the Constitution even allowed such "oversight" of 
private actor activities, would have killed RSA in the womb, would have 
blocked PGP, and would have put the kibosh on remailersbut would 
have endorsed surveillance cams in football stadiums.



>
> If the benefits outweigh the costs, then fine -- but show me that you
> thought about it, and considered what other people might have to say, 
> even
> if you might not agree with them (or me). I'm glad you have political 
> ideas
> and theories of how it's going to all work outbut it often doesn't 
> work
> out the way you think, or want it to.

I've been reading and thinking about these issues since I was a kid. All 
of the above authors I've read, plus a whole shelf full (Declan and 
Lucky can attest to this) of other such books. Laqueur. Kwitny, 
Richelson, Bamford, Wise, Kahn, and dozens of other works touching on 
surveillance, secrecy, terror states, espionage, and on and on.

But we don't have to justify to _you_ that we have read "academic works" 
or thought about the issues to then press for there being no Inman-style 
reviews of research, no Lincoln-style suspensions of habeas corpus, not 
statist-style restrictions on liberty in the name of fighting our 
"endless enemies."

> I realize Tim's position, and I respect his right to express his 
> political
> opinions and ideas, even though I don't agree with them, and think he 
> is a
> self-identifying flamboyant jackass. I understand that many of you have 
> the
> same opinions, and likewise


Agent Farr, you need a new gig.


--Tim May

Re: Motives

[Bill Stewart]

At 08:00 PM 08/19/2001 -1000, Reese wrote:
>We assume the lamerz posting "h3lp m3 m4k3 b0mZ" queries are LEA's
>trolling, but are they?  Is posting bomb recipes a violation of
>some applicable law?  If so, what law?  If not, why do we assume
>those to be LEA trolls, and not some hopeless wank or kook who
>needs to get in touch with HisOrHer inner child and beat it up?

Our esteemed Senator Diane Feinstein from California,
occasionally along with other people such as Joe Biden from my
home state of Delaware, occasionally proposes laws against disseminating
information on the internet, particularly about bombs and such.
(By contrast, an elementary-school education in Delaware includes
a trip to the duPont gunpowder-making mills, learning about
local history, colonial industry, and safe explosives-making.)
So some of the bomb ranting is about her disrespect for the First Amendment.

Some of it's pretty clearly from people who troll for the fun of trolling.
Some of it might even be lam3r k1ddi3z trying to look k3wl.

Some if it, especially post-Columbine and post-J*m B*ll,
does appear to be from people trolling usual suspects on the net
hoping to find some of them who are scary or stupid enough to entrap
into some witch-hunt, a political speech, a newspaper story,
a criminal conviction, whatever floats their boat.
There actually are laws against blowing stuff up or
possessing tools to do so, at least in some circumstances,
or conspiring to do Bad Things, or corrupting minors into doing so,
and for many purposes an accusation is really more useful than a conviction.

Most of it's actually produced by the service* that the Cypherpunks Cabal
Central Conspiracy Committee hires to make the list appear to be
Mostly Harmless by posting a flood of decoy material and
other slanderous and evil material so that the few genuinely dangerous
messages can be dismissed as "oh, yeah, kooks troll us with stuff
like this all the time" or "Oh, yeah, and last week they claimed we were
conspiring with hizbollah.org and the Bilderbergers."

[*Plausible Deniability Inc.]

New Worms Seek And Destroy Code Red

[keyser-soze]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-

New Worms Seek And Destroy Code Red
Amid a debate over the ethics of fighting a virus with a virus, security researchers 
have separately released two programs that hunt down and patch computers infected with 
Code Red II.
http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/169707.html

Since ICANN is somewhat of a virus itself, after they clean up Code Red I think a new 
virus expanding MS client access to alternate DNS roots would be in order.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: Hush 2.0

wmAEARECACAFAjuV2uYZHGtleXNlci1zb3plQGh1c2htYWlsLmNvbQAKCRAg4ui5IoBV
n3K0AJ9+agLjR36r4if7rK/HCNaEBA6NMwCfYwQWGbclgTr36orj8WE3L5aBVYs=
=3+XH
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Official Anonymizing

[Nomen Nescio]

On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, John Young wrote:

> Nobody has yet seen an fbi.gov in the logs, or nsa.mil/gov,
> though a few ucia.gov and nro.gov crop up, and the ubiquitous
> nscs.mil.

fbi.gov = .usdoj.gov, as far as web logs go.

Re: Official Anonymizing

[Greg Broiles]

At 09:40 AM 9/5/2001 -0700, A. Melon wrote:
>Here is an example of the principle put into practice, from the
>anonymous web proxy service at http://proxy.magusnet.com/proxy.html:
>
>: If you are accessing this proxy from a *.mil or *.gov address
>: it will not work. As a taxpaying United States Citizen[TM],
>: Business Owner, and Desert Storm Veteran, I do not want my
>: tax dollars being used by agencies I pay for to gawk(1)
>: at WWW pages and hide your origination point at my expense.
>: Now, get back to work!

Sure, that's an understandable sentiment, but isn't this also isolating the 
good (or teachable) people inside government who might be open-minded about 
freedom or crypto or whatever, such that they can't learn from us, and such 
that (in the case of anonymizing tools) they can't leak information?

I think there's an argument that it's useful to provide pipes into 
secretive organizations which allow insiders to release information with 
reduced fear of internal retaliation - sure, they may be used for 
provocation and disinformation, but they also may be used for and by decent 
people.

(Like, for example, Fred Whitehurst, a supervisory special agent in the 
FBI's crime lab, who revealed systematic dishonesty, incompetence, perjury, 
and contamination in the agency's high-profile analytic & forensic 
operations - see  or 
.)

I don't think this question is as easy as it sounds at first.


--
Greg Broiles
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"We have found and closed the thing you watch us with." -- New Delhi street kids

RE: Official Anonymizing

[Phillip H. Zakas]

> A. Melon writes:
> John Young takes a courageous stand:
>
> > I propose that all anonymizers adopt a code of practice that
> > any sale to officials of anonymizers or their use be disclosed
> > to the public (I suggested this to ZKS early on when first
> > meetings with the feds to explain the technology were being
> > sometimes disclosed). That seems to be a reasonable response
> > to officially-secret prowling and investigating cyberspace.
>
> Absolutely appropriate, given cypherpunk goals.  It may be difficult
> to apply in every case but the intention is laudable.
>
> Here is an example of the principle put into practice, from the
> anonymous web proxy service at http://proxy.magusnet.com/proxy.html:
>
> : If you are accessing this proxy from a *.mil or *.gov address
> : it will not work.

Given the amount of federal research conducted at the poles you might end up
blocking santa claus (which would piss him and his gang of elves off.)

It's impossible to determine the ultimate end-user.  For example, what if a
university performs secure computing research via a federal grant or
directly for an agency?  Are you going to block *.edu?  What if an
agency/contractor/employee/grantee uses comcast business internet access?
Or speakeasy sdsl service? What about using a qwest cybercenter and peering
with dozens of tier-one providers?  are you going to block the ones that do
business with the government?  What about international carriers?  Will you
block Deutsche Telekom just because the german govt. uses DT?  The world is
too complex for simple rules such as the above regardless of the intent of
the rules.

phillip

Re: Naughty Journal Author Denied Plea Change

[Declan McCullagh]

On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 09:49:12AM -0700, John Young wrote:
> Isn't what is new here is that the man did not publish this material
> as was the material of Joyce, Miller, et al? Nobody saw it except
> him and the cop who discovered it. It was the Man who published,
> converted private scribblings into illegal material, not the man.

No, this isn't new. You didn't read my earlier message carefully.
Mere possession (not creation) of visual depictions of child
pornography has been a federal felony for at least a decade.
Someone who's a "collector" who did not publish the material would
be a felon.

Note I'm not defending the law, and there are plenty of problems with
the Ohio prosecution, but it is not something that folks here should
be particularly surprised about.

-Declan

Re: Official Anonymizing

[Greg Broiles]

At 07:34 AM 9/5/2001 -0700, John Young wrote:

>Thanks for the cites of Gatti.
>
>Greg's disclosure of C2Net's sales is appreciated. Perhaps not
>surprising. What would be surprising, maybe, would be disclosure
>as ZKS did in its earliest days, of reporting on meetings C2Net was
>having with law enforcement officials about its technology.

Didn't happen - at least not within my knowledge. I don't think we'd have 
been willing to have one, given our crypto export control stance (and 
paranoia about law enforcement) at that point. Given the state of the law 
at that time (lots of this was before Patel's rulings in _Bernstein_, 
during the ITAR period before BXA took over crypto regs, and way before the 
export liberalization), we weren't at all sure we weren't going to be 
arrested and made examples of, cf. Dmitry Sklyarov.

Law enforcement never asked for a meeting, probably because of (a) 
ignorance of or disinterest in the technology, or (b) if they did 
understand it, they also understood that we were essentially selling 
Apache-SSL (from a technical standpoint), so if they wanted a copy to beat 
up on, they could build it themselves - they didn't need an RSA license to 
legitimize their internal/research copies.

We did get a moderate amount of interest in the remailers/anonymizers which 
ran at C2 in the early days, and later were run somewhere else but whose 
domain name was held by C2; callers on that topic generally got a nice long 
explanation of how remailers work, how we didn't know the identity of the 
person running the remailer nor its physical location, why we supported 
remailers as free speech tools, and how as a provider of DNS lookups we 
never had any logs of activity in the first place to disclose, whether or 
not we had wanted to, court order or not. Complainers pretty much went away 
after getting the explanation, save for one publisher of avant-garde fonts 
who never did give up trying to cajole or scare us into giving out the 
information we didn't have, and/or shutting down DNS to the privacy stuff.

I think ZKS' technology is more interesting and more threatening to law 
enforcement than our web crypto tools were - there's still not a lot of 
evil or disorder that goes on related to, literally, the web - I get the 
impression that law enforcement is a lot more interested in IRC, email, and 
other communications which are either more personal and immediate, or much 
less personal and immediate (like Usenet). Web sites are still relatively 
static, which means their providers are pretty easily identified, which 
means not so much bad stuff happens there.


--
Greg Broiles
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"We have found and closed the thing you watch us with." -- New Delhi street kids

Re: Naughty Journal Author Denied Plea Change

[David Honig]

At 09:49 AM 9/5/01 -0700, John Young wrote:
>Isn't what is new here is that the man did not publish this material
>as was the material of Joyce, Miller, et al? Nobody saw it except
>him and the cop who discovered it. 

Wasn't it his *parents* who read his journal and turned him in, hoping for
'treatment'
instead of jail?  Shades of David & Ted Kaczynski...

Re: Errata - Re: Cypherpunks List Info

[Eric Murray]

On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 12:40:22PM -0700, Bill Stewart wrote:
> Infonex.com is the same system as cyberpass, so it's presumably dead now.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] will let me subscribe to cypherpunks, so
it might still be alive.

I'm CCing [EMAIL PROTECTED], perhaps they
can fill us in on their status.


> The information on UNsubscribing still should be there,
> since some people may need to do that,
> but subscriptions don't need to be.
> 
> At 08:00 PM 09/02/2001 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Cypherpunks Distributed Remailers list info.
> >
> >Last updated: 8/22/01
> >
> >This message is also available at http://www.lne.com/cpunk
> >
> >---
> >Infonex:
> >
> >Subscription: "subscribe cypherpunks" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Unsubscription:   "unsubscribe cypherpunks" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Help: "help cypherpunks" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Posting address:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Filtering policy: raw
> >Message Modification policy:  no modification
> >Privacy policy: ???
> >
> >---

Re: Naughty Journal Author Denied Plea Change

[Duncan Frissell]

On Wed, 5 Sep 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> This is the case I had in mind when I made my recent assertion that
> thought==action in today's "court".  How can anyone see this case, and not
> conclude otherwise?  This dude is going to spend a long time in stir, for
> a *pure Thought Crime*.
>
>
> Yours,
>
> J.A. Terranson
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>


To which the mentally retarded twit plead guilty.  If you plead guilty
(like Michael Milken or Jim Bell 1) you don't get to challange the
prosecution.

People who plead guilty in political cases like these get more time (on
average) than those who contest them.

Kipling had some advice for these sorts of cases:

Dane-Geld

A.D. 980-1016

It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
  To call upon a neighbour and to say:--
"We invaded you last night--we are quite prepared to fight,
  Unless you pay us cash to go away."

And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
  And the people who ask it explain
That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld
  And then  you'll get rid of the Dane!

It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
  To puff and look important and to say:--
"Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the
  time to meet you.
  We will therefore pay you cash to go away."

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
  But we've  proved it again and  again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
  You never get rid of the Dane.

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
  For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
  You will find it better policy to say:--

"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
  No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
  And the nation that pays it is lost!"

DCF

Re: Naughty Journal Author Denied Plea Change

[John Young]

Declan, you condescending prig, I did read your message and 
was trying to askance your clubfingeredness about "possession," 
which isn't as monolithic as you vaunt and which smacked 
overmuch of LEAs' agressive erasure of distinctions.

Hector me not, for the failure to look behind heavy-handed
law enforcement, dementia, concerning kiddie porn can
be interpreted as complicity, or worse, distancing from the
obligation to relook, rethink, and re-examine one's own
proclivities to avoid the worst dispute in the country.

The pathology of kiddie porn is probably the vilest plague
upon the land, and that is due to bravehearts running scared
of the infected nuts who may, if they have their way, beat
out abortion and guns and vile government as pointless
no-brainers.

Come back, Smokey, tell me something new about what's
wrong with "possession" in this particular case, not what
is in the read the fucking manual before I waste my time
wasting mine.

Coda:

I'm trying a new pseudo-comprehensible writing style, so 
fuck off. No vanity sig just yet but it will come.

Re: Tim's Tips on Avoiding Prosecution

[Steve Furlong]

Declan wrote:

> ...I suspect that a "should be killed" line may be enough to garner
> a conviction if you knew or should have known that folks would act on
> what you say

No, no, "he should be killed" is just shorthand for "he should be kill-
filed".

-- 
Steve FurlongComputer Condottiere   Have GNU, Will Travel
  617-670-3793

Don't sweat the petty things. But do pet the sweaty things.

Re: Naughty Journal Author Denied Plea Change

[Nomen Nescio]

J.A. Terranson writes:
> This is the case I had in mind when I made my recent assertion that
> thought==action in today's "court".  How can anyone see this case, and not
> conclude otherwise?  This dude is going to spend a long time in stir, for
> a *pure Thought Crime*.

Gee, maybe he shouldn't have pleaded GUILTY then.  How can you say that
this proves that thought==action when the issue wasn't decided at trial?


> On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Eric Cordian wrote:
>
> > Not unsurprisingly, the judge has refused to permit a man sentenced to 10
> > years in prison for textual depictions of child sex in a private journal
> > to withdraw his guilty plea and get a trial.

Re: Moral Crypto isn't wuss-ninnie.

[Eric Cordian]

Aimee writes:

>> Guess not all Lying Feminist Cunts troll Sex Abuse exclusively.  

> I am not a Feminist. 

So I scored two out of three? :)

-- 
Eric Michael Cordian 0+
O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division
"Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

Piggybacking tools for deployment is the point (was Re: Moral Crypto)

[David Honig]

At 09:30 AM 9/5/01 +0200, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>On Sun, 2 Sep 2001, David Honig wrote:
>> At 12:34 PM 9/2/01 -0700, Tim May wrote:
>> >Then design such a system.
>> You did a few lines earlier:
>> >(Or if one is a remailer oneself.)
>
>Or, simply have a remailer client that randomly generates dummy traffic, 
>and be sure to chain through multiple remailers. You don't need to accept 
>incoming remailer traffic from other live people -- this is sufficient to 
>hide when, if ever, you are using the remailer network.

Yes, however my emphesis was on the *deployment* of
the tools by "piggybacking" on other very-popular p2p-ish tools.

>You still stick out as a remailer user, though. 

Not if the next versions of IE or Windows or Morpheus contains remailer
functionality
enabled by default!  That's the point.

If every copy of Windows(Chinese) came with 
then it would be hard to bust people for possession of the tools.  If every
copy of Windows(English) came with  enabled, it would be hard to
bust people for running a remailer.

>(A while ago, someone posted a physics question usnig a remailer, and Tim 
>mused that they were probably a troll, since they were using a remailer to 
>pose this question. I found that remark surprising, for precisely this 
>reason. Everyone should use remailers from time to time to ask innocent 
>questions, in case of being asked by The Authorities to provide an example 
>of one's correspondence using such technology.)

Yes; however its also possible the author didn't want their ignorance
associated
with a given nym.



...
"Perhaps this whole thing is just one person talking to himself, with
Tim listening in!" -Dr Evil

Re: Official Anonymizing

[Adam Shostack]

On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 10:12:25AM -0700, Greg Broiles wrote:

| I don't think this question is as easy as it sounds at first.

I do.  Privacy is a good, and should be available to all.

Adam

-- 
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
   -Hume

Re: Official Anonymizing

[John Young]

Let me jump in to say that I'm not advocating no access
to anonymizers by officials only that that access be disclosed.
It shouldn't be an embarrassment to reveal that federal agencies
have bought such products.

Disclosure as well of any features of the products sold to 
officials that are different from the standard product would 
be a big help in defending ourselves. 

Parity is all I'm asking for to combat the current disparity in 
features, as shit-marketers brag of their invasive products, 
"available only to law enforcement, letterhead needed."

A pipe dream, maybe, but smart marketers have been known 
to respond to those as well as threats and sweetheart
contracts. 

You ever see a DoD order for 40,000 copies of a program? 
That board of directors/Wall Street ecstacy is resistable 
only by cascading orders from the mass market. Here, I'm 
sympathetic to ZKS on how hard it is to compete with those 
who bear-hug government contracting officers as commanded 
by bankrollers everready to yank the plug.

Nice story in the New York Times today about this, the second
part of a three-parter on privacy issues of the Internet. To
go with congressional hearings on it.

Re: Moral Crypto

[Fisher Mark]

> Compare this with the original claim: "in a properly designed 
> anonymity
> system the users will be, well, anonymous, and it should be impossible
> to tell any more about them than that they pay their bills on time."
> These examples illustrate the falsehood of this claim.  Much more
> is learned about the customers as they enter the anonymous system.

But how do you know they've entered the anonymous system?  If you are
already being pursued by your antagonist, *and* you have been personally
identified, then you have trouble you can't solve by any current
software-based security technology.

If you have not been personally identified, then your antagonist must either
personally identify you or monitor all possible remailer network entrances.
Monitoring all remailer network entrances can be done, but it is not for the
weak of wallet.  Even large governments do not have unlimited resources --
they must pick and choose their targets, rather than trying to go after
everyone.  The Soviet government and its puppet states encouraged people to
turn each other in just so they didn't have to pay for 50% of the population
to watch the other 50%.  Large resources != infinite resources.
===
Mark Leighton Fisher[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thomson multimedia, Inc.Indianapolis IN
The Illuminati are not dead --
they're just pining for the fnords...

Re: Official Anonymizing

[Faustine]

Greg wrote
At 04:33 PM 9/4/2001 -0700, John Young wrote:
>Look, I'll accept that we will all succumb to the power of the market,
>so limit my proposal for full disclosure to those over 30. After that
>age one should know there is no way to be truly open-minded.

>And, in the spirit of full disclosure, I'll mention that at C2Net we did 
>sell our software to the government/intelligence agencies who wanted it - 
>they paid the same prices as any other customers, signed the same sales 
>contracts (we'd negotiate some on warranty terms for big purchases), and 
>otherwise got what everyone else got - not more, not less.


Your honesty is admirable--and unlike certain other cases, I don't have any 
real reason to doubt what you say. But are you sure you have adequate 
security and counter-economic espionage measures in place? Have you had 
anyone do penetration testing lately? How much do you trust the people you 
work with? 

Wish I had a nickel for every time some young (or not-so-young)turk at a 
security conference or elsewhere started blabbing about things they 
shouldn't have out of nothing more than a desire to seem big and impress 
me. Feds and hackers alike, same old song and dance. I never even try to 
elicit information, either: I don't know, maybe it's some kind of sexist 
thing to assume a sweet-faced polite young woman could ever be a security 
threat.  The sick thing is, if I were really evil I could have made a lot 
more than a nickel... Depressing. Wake up and shut up, dumbasses. 

Back to the insider problem: It's not exclusively a moral issue--whether 
you think you have more to fear from Uncle Sam, China, or the competitor 
down the street, everyone can agree that employees who sell out your 
technology to those out to compromise it are bad news. And frankly, the 
very people who wouldn't deal with China in a million years might be the 
ones most willing to listen to agents peddling the old "in the interests of 
national security" line.  

And whereas government agencies have always had a strong "culture of 
paranoia" that at least gets the issues on the table, private companies are 
at a disadvantage because they never even saw it coming. With a lot of 
young tech companies having spent the last few years feeling fat, happy, 
and oh-so-much smarter than those fusty old feds, you've got a potentially 
massive disaster in the making.

Oh well, here's hoping you never get stung by the insider problem 
personally.

~Faustine.

Re: Moral Crypto

[Fisher Mark]

> Killing remailers will be a by-product of regulating the net.

Regulating the net to this extent would be a huge undertaking.  Trying to
regulate dead-tree publishers to this level would be a large undertaking, a
task not likely to be accomplished without a lot of debate in Congress --
and there are many fewer dead-tree publishers than net publishers.

The only way this could be done would be to attack at the large ISP level,
which then brings up First Amendment issues along with common carrier
issues.  It could be done, but it would likely take a covert operation so
large that:
* It could only be funded by a government or other large body; and
* Which would likely come to light relatively quickly ("three can keep a
secret, if two are dead").

(Covert operation in the sense of staging many events that use the net in
the process of harming people, as in using remailers for staging
terrorist-like attacks for the express purpose of scaring the American
public into abrogating their First Amendments rights unilaterally on the
net.)
===
Mark Leighton Fisher[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thomson multimedia, Inc.Indianapolis IN
The Illuminati are not dead --
they're just pining for the fnords...

Re: Moral Crypto

[Declan McCullagh]

Your analogy is wrong. You should compare the number of meatspace
publishers and their political clout to the number of anonymous
remailer operators and their political clout.

-Declan


On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 01:21:03PM -0500, Fisher Mark wrote:
> > Killing remailers will be a by-product of regulating the net.
> 
> Regulating the net to this extent would be a huge undertaking.  Trying to
> regulate dead-tree publishers to this level would be a large undertaking, a
> task not likely to be accomplished without a lot of debate in Congress --
> and there are many fewer dead-tree publishers than net publishers.
> 
> The only way this could be done would be to attack at the large ISP level,
> which then brings up First Amendment issues along with common carrier
> issues.  It could be done, but it would likely take a covert operation so
> large that:
> * It could only be funded by a government or other large body; and
> * Which would likely come to light relatively quickly ("three can keep a
> secret, if two are dead").
> 
> (Covert operation in the sense of staging many events that use the net in
> the process of harming people, as in using remailers for staging
> terrorist-like attacks for the express purpose of scaring the American
> public into abrogating their First Amendments rights unilaterally on the
> net.)
> ===
> Mark Leighton Fisher[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Thomson multimedia, Inc.Indianapolis IN
> The Illuminati are not dead --
> they're just pining for the fnords...

Re: speech + action

[mmotyka]

Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  wrote :
>On Tuesday, September 4, 2001, at 10:59 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Declan McCullagh wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 10:59:54AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Sure, I mention it because despite its being non-functional and
 unpunishable it seemed to have been brought into the courtroom with 
 the
 purpose of spicing up the case.
>>>
>>> Sure. If you commit unacceptable-to-the-gvt *actions* and also spend a
>>> lot of time talking about how government officials should be
>>> assassinated, you may reasonably expect those statements to be used
>>> against you during your trial.
>>>
I think the speech, irrelevant as it was, was used to increase the
perceived severity of the actions. Isn't this in effect being punished
for speech+action?

>>> But that is a far cry from your earlier government-has-this-power
>>> position, from which you're now backtracking.
>>>
>>> -Declan
>>>
>> Not so much backtracking as thinking out loud. Just musing on how the
>> letter of the law, its constitutionality, enforcement and even the
>> reasoning behind its creation are not always lined up so well.
>>
>> 18 U.S.C. 23 1 contains the seeds of the speech+action idea.
>>
>
>Please explain. You made the first assertion of this, then "backslid" as 
>people poked holes in your argument, now you appear to be swinging back 
>in the other direction merely by asserting something about "seeds."
>
Really little to explain. Obviously laws cover speech + action. It's
just a question of where the boundaries are in their application. I
don't know too much about those finer points.

[CITE: 18USC371]
TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I--CRIMES
CHAPTER 19--CONSPIRACY
 
Sec. 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against 
the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency 
thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such 
persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be 
fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.


Could this be applied to software development? I suppose that depends on
whether the software in design is prohibited or not. Until the DMCA is
altered or deleted there's already a class of SW that is illegal. It
doesn't seem so far-fetched that a discussion of content piracy followed
by an active coding project could be attacked. Why not a discussion of
tax evasion methods followed by a development project? And don't forget
that it's still possible to run afoul of the crypto export regulations.
Are our visionary legislators capable of outlawing new classes of
software? It's a sure bet. I'll leave it to the lawyers to argue over
how specific the speech and actions need to be.

Want to test it? Start a project with the stated goals of providing a
neat open source project with the stated purpose of cracking and
exchanging e-books and start posting code. If you were to start YAPPFSP
( yet another peer to peer file sharing project ) would you state its
purpose as "to share pirated music data?"

>Could you give a cite for any prosecutions, or are you just speculating 
>that "Happy Fun Court" will not be "amused" by free speech?
>
I'm sure there are plenty of conspiracy cases involving the more blatant
crimes like kidnapping etc...

Are there any militia cases? Like you said, try and find one. The law as
written does seem to outlaw speech. The anti-militia laws are
interesting in that the least popular are likely to suffer first from
"creative" legislation. If an approach is successful against the
unpopular then it can always be expanded to include new groups. I offer
the bomz and drug speech legislation as further attempts along the same
lines. Successful, no, not yet, but they'll keep trying.

If they are eventually successful it will cost somebody a bundle to get
it overturned. That's a market problem : it's cheaper to make bad law
than it is to unmake it.

As for the fictional Happy Fun Court's inquisitorial wet dreams, it can
go spoliate its head in a bucket.

>Comment: It seems to me we are seeing way too many people hitting the 
>panic button, speculating about some of us getting shot by agents of 
>happy fun courts, claiming that merely using secrecy methods is 
>spoliation, arguing that speech is being criminalized, and that, in 
>essence, we'd all better just slink away from these free speech and 
>crypto thoughtcrimes.
>
Speculating yes, panic button, no. It can be instructive to pursue an
idea to an extreme. 

>Fuck that. Don't let the wuss ninnies scare you off.
>
>--TIm May
>
Ah, the dreaded wuss-ninnies. I'm not losing any sleep over the Happy
Fun Court or its cackling brigade of wuss-ninnies. I'm more concerned
that all of the cat5 wires I pulled through the smurf tubes this past
weekend are not damaged so I don't have to crawl around my fucking attic
anymore. If there's

Re: Official Anonymizing

[Greg Broiles]

At 02:37 PM 9/5/2001 -0400, Faustine wrote:

> >And, in the spirit of full disclosure, I'll mention that at C2Net we did
> >sell our software to the government/intelligence agencies who wanted it -
> >they paid the same prices as any other customers, signed the same sales
> >contracts (we'd negotiate some on warranty terms for big purchases), and
> >otherwise got what everyone else got - not more, not less.
>
>Your honesty is admirable--and unlike certain other cases, I don't have any
>real reason to doubt what you say. But are you sure you have adequate
>security and counter-economic espionage measures in place? Have you had
>anyone do penetration testing lately? How much do you trust the people you
>work with?

Everything I've mentioned about C2Net is now several years old - I left the 
company in the last few months of 1998, and they've since been acquired and 
swallowed-up by Red Hat (RHAT), and (almost?) everyone who worked there 
when I was there has also left. If I weren't confident that I'm talking 
about history, not current events, I wouldn't be saying anything. (.. and 
there are some parts of the C2Net history which I'll likely never be in a 
position to disclose, ethically speaking, because of the nature of my 
relationship (general counsel) with the organization. Caveat emptor.)

We did take an active interest in the security of our systems and codebase 
- I don't think we were perfect, with respect to physical or electronic 
security, but we were pretty paranoid, perhaps at some cost to the personal 
lives of the principals involved.

But your points about insider risks are well taken - especially given that 
most security incidents have an inside, not outside, source. I believe that 
the software we published was free of intentional holes or errors, and was 
built as carefully as we knew how; that belief is based on my familiarity 
with the build environment, and my knowledge over several years of the 
people involved in the development process, and my impressions of their 
competence and integrity.

Still, people's expectations and faith in other people can be misplaced - 
c.f. Aldrich Ames, Robert Hanssen (a personal friend of James [Puzzle 
Palace, Body of Secrets] Bamford, who never suspected), and Brian Regan - I 
don't know of any method or practice which can prevent hidden betrayal, for 
love or money or boredom or personal animus. And Ken Thompson's 
"Reflections on Trusting Trust"  serves 
as a reminder of how subtle a betrayal or compromise can be, yet remain 
active and dangerous.

A big part of our counter-economic-coercion resistance was ideological - if 
people really believe that they're working to protect and defend freedom 
and privacy, it's hard to tempt them with money, at least not just a little 
money. On the other hand, it's easier to tempt them with ideological 
arguments, which are cheaper; or for them to become so entranced with each 
other's political correctness that they lose sight of basic personal 
integrity and decency. (We didn't have trouble with that at C2Net, but it's 
historically been a problem inside ideologically-motivated organizations or 
groups.)

>With a lot of
>young tech companies having spent the last few years feeling fat, happy,
>and oh-so-much smarter than those fusty old feds, you've got a potentially
>massive disaster in the making.

Pride goeth before destruction; and a haughty spirit before a fall.

--
Greg Broiles
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"We have found and closed the thing you watch us with." -- New Delhi street kids

Re: Naughty Journal Author Denied Plea Change

[mmotyka]

Well, I'm not totally retarded but I still don't always follow JYA that
well. I'll keep trying.

Did the OH guy have a lawyer? If so, did he follow the advice he was
given? 

While I would not myself send the guy to prison for his writings however
goofy or sick I may find them, a person who writes this stuff runs a
serious risk of my interpreting even the slightest action on his part as
intent and of getting himself gutted in the spot.

The thoughts color the interpretation of the actions.

Mike

Re: Moral Crypto

[Nomen Nescio]

On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Eric Murray wrote:

> Another way to kill remailers would be through anti-spam legislation
> that forbids "forging" email headers.  We're already seeing some of
> this.

Declan brought this up in a "sky-is-falling" article about remailers and 
anti-spam legislation. I do not believe this is a valid threat.

Mail from "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" does come from the 
melontraffickers.com server. It is not forged.

(Such legistion would protect against unfortunate instances like the 
flowers.com case.)

This *would* require some remailers, like frog2, to stop allowing "From:" 
line specification. But that's hardly a big issue.

> My guess is that the first or second is most likely.  It won't even be
> targeted at remailers, just at regular email.
>
> Killing remailers will be a by-product of regulating the net.

Unless the next Tim McVeigh ever uses a remailer in his life.

Mark my words: The next major act of domestic terrorism will somehow
involve either crypto or remailers, *according to the government 
investigators' reports.*

Insert appropriate fnords where necessary.

Re: Official Anonymizing

[Faustine]

Some poor simple soul behind a remailer wrote:

>Here is an example of the principle put into practice, from the
>anonymous web proxy service at http://proxy.magusnet.com/proxy.html:

: If you are accessing this proxy from a *.mil or *.gov address
: it will not work. As a taxpaying United States Citizen[TM],
: Business Owner, and Desert Storm Veteran, I do not want my 
: tax dollars being used by agencies I pay for to gawk(1) 
: at WWW pages and hide your origination point at my expense.
: Now, get back to work!


Patronizing claptrap, you wouldn't be blocking a thing. For example, the 
Google Archives has dozens of listings of a NSA researcher who openly 
participates in technical conferences, giving his full Ft. Meade address, 
office phone number--and AOL e-mail address. Before you dismiss this as 
just something another dumb fed might do, you might find it relevant that 
he's done a lot of work in IDS, GII security, reliable distributed systems, 
and deception. Who would ever expect anything interesting from an AOL user? 
That's precisely the point. 

That ought to be enough keywords: go dig for it yourself, and if you're 
really lucky, you'll find PDFs of his papers and start learning a little 
bit about why you haven't quite got the feds as outsmarted as you think you 
do.

~Faustine.

Re: Official Anonymizing

[Jim Choate]

On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:

> It seems to me that John is taking the first steps toward a general 
> argument: That police should not be allowed to do undercover work. His 
> argument, taken to its logical conclusion, would prevent police from 
> infiltrating criminal organizations in meatspace (let's assume, for the 
> moment, that we're talking about serious criminal acts against property and 
> person, not victimless crimes).

See Japan. They have some interesting features built into their WWII
constitution limiting some police behaviour. Such a view, perhaps to a
less extreme degree, is not without precedence or merit.


 --


natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato
summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks

Matsuo Basho

   The Armadillo Group   ,::;::-.  James Choate
   Austin, Tx   /:'/ ``::>/|/  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   www.ssz.com.',  `/( e\  512-451-7087
   -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-

RE: Moral Crypto isn't wuss-ninnie.

[Jim Choate]

On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Aimee Farr wrote:

> It is not wuss-ninnie to spark debate, or to examine characterizations and
> motives. Many say, "technology is neutral." It's not. Technology is
> CONTEXTUAL.

Ah, another convert. See, "The message is the medium" isn't right after
all...it takes message, medium, context. I hope Marshall's spinnin' in his
grave ;)


 --


natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato
summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks

Matsuo Basho

   The Armadillo Group   ,::;::-.  James Choate
   Austin, Tx   /:'/ ``::>/|/  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   www.ssz.com.',  `/( e\  512-451-7087
   -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-

Re: Melon traffickers --> Soul traffickers

[Declan McCullagh]

[I'm not saying I believe these arguments, of course.]

At 05:17 PM 9/4/01 -0700, Tim May wrote:
>And let me play Devil's Advocate to this DA position:
>
>Not to sound overly Choatian, but there is nothing in the First Amendment 
>which says anything about government getting to decide when "enough" 
>editorial processing has occurred so that First Amendment protections kick in.
>
>A publisher who published a publication consisting of _all submissions_ 
>would still be protected, even if he exercised _zero_ editorial 
>discretion. In fact, such things exist: they are called "vanity presses." 
>They publish for a fee, no differently than a paid remailer publishes for 
>a fee.

The flaw in your analogy is that there is human selection involved in even 
a vanity press. The publisher will weigh, among other factors, whether the 
work is libelous, whether it contains any trade secrets or other 
potentially illegal items that could get him in trouble, whether the work 
is too controversial ("The Misunderstood Hitler") to publish, whether the 
writer will pay on time, consult with the writer over fonts, cover art, and 
so on.

Since a remailer, on the other hand does not exercise any independent 
editorial judgment about the content of the work, the burden should 
properly be on you to argue that a law restricting it is unconstitutional.

A better analogy: Remailers are like a robotic Mailboxes Etc.-type service 
that opens a FedEx envelope and forwards the extracted contents to you at 
another address via FedEx. The robot arm, like a remailer, does not 
consider the content of the communication and acts like any other machine. 
Since this robot-mailer is by its very nature implicating interstate 
commerce and serves a compelling state interest of the highest order, the 
law is presumptively constitutional.

>(By they way, publishers of anonymous letters are not required to "know 
>their customers." Ditto for collectors of anonymous suggestions, radio 
>talk show
>  hosts accepting calls from anonymous dialers, etc. These publishers and 
> radio talk show hosts do _not_ have to "justify" their failure to collect 
> taceability information, nor do they have to meet any threshold test for how

But I know of no publisher who would publish a truly anonymous letter. 
Newspapers and magazine request truenames. If given someone's truename, a 
publisher may anonymize the letter, but a subpoena or other legal means 
should be able to extract the information after the fact. Also, publishers 
are legally liable for what they print, so they make content-based 
judgments about its quality -- again, unlike your remailer analogy.

I'm not as familiar with the rules governing radio, but I suspect that 
radio hosts are liable for slander and so on if they keep a 
defamation-spewing guest on the line. Your argument proves too much: Do you 
really want remailers to be treated the same way -- and held liable for 
what people say through them?

>If the government demands that remailer shut down, or somehow obtain 
>meatspace identities, confessionals and anonymous pschiatric/sex hotlines 
>will presumably also be shut down.

To the contrary, a smart staffer can write legislation that only applies to 
remailers. I'll leave the details to my hypothetical legislative counsel, 
but identity-escrow-for-12-hour restrictions could apply only to "a 
computer hardware and/or software device that receives an electronic mail 
message sent through SMTP or a similar protocol, decodes the contents 
through its private key, and forwards the decoded contents to a recipient." 
Adjust as broadly or narrowly as you like.

-Declan

Re: Naughty Journal Author Denied Plea Change

[Tim May]

On Wednesday, September 5, 2001, at 11:44 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Well, I'm not totally retarded but I still don't always follow JYA that
> well. I'll keep trying.
>
> Did the OH guy have a lawyer? If so, did he follow the advice he was
> given?
>
> While I would not myself send the guy to prison for his writings however
> goofy or sick I may find them, a person who writes this stuff runs a
> serious risk of my interpreting even the slightest action on his part as
> intent and of getting himself gutted in the spot.
>
> The thoughts color the interpretation of the actions.
>
> Mike
>
Sorry, Mike, but you're way too fixated on this "thought + actions" rut 
you've fallen into.

The guy in Ohio was not busted because of some "intent" charge, but 
because the possession of those writings alone.

Several articles a few months back...


--Tim May

Are you paying to much for inkjets???

[achmad45]

 We currently have the following specials on inkjet cartridges for Epson, Canon,
and HP printers:



 Go To   http://www.freewebco.net/ch5/ink/

   or use fax order form below

Current Specials!
  _

Epson Stylus Color 400/500/600 Black Ink Cartridge  [S020093C] $7.95 ea.
Epson Stylus Color 400/600/800/850/1520 Color Ink Cartridge [S020089C] $9.95 ea.
Epson Stylus Color 800/850/1520 Black Ink Cartridge [S020108C] $8.95 ea.
Epson Stylus Color 440/640/660/670 Black Ink Cartridge  [S020187C] $8.50 ea.
Epson Stylus Color 740/760/860 Black Ink Cartridge  [S020189C] $10.50 ea.
Epson Stylus Color 440/640/660/740/760/860 Color Ink Cart.  [S020191C] $11.50 ea.
Epson Stylus Color 700 Color Ink Cartridge  [S020110C] $13.95 ea.
Epson Stylus Color 750 Color Ink Cartridge  [S020193C] $14.95 ea.
Epson Stylus Color 900 Black Ink Cartridge  [T003011C] $14.95 ea.
Epson Stylus Color 900 Color Ink Cartridge  [T005011C] $17.95 ea.

Go To  http://www.freewebco.net/ch5/ink/

   or use fax order form below


Canon 2000/2100/4000/4100/4200 Black Ink Cartridge [BCI-21BKC] $5.25 ea.
Canon 2000/2100/4000/4100/4200 Black Ink Cartridge [BCI-21CLR] $7.95 ea.
Canon 600/610/620 4-Color Set B/C/M/Y Ink Cartridges[BJI-201C] $13.95 ea.

HP Deskjet/Deskjet 400/500 Series Black (Remanufactured) [51626AR] $17.95 ea.
HP Deskjet 600 Series Black (Remanufactured) [51629AR] $17.95 ea.
HP Deskjet 700/800/900 Series Black (Remanufactured) [51645AR] $17.95 ea.
HP Deskjet 700/870/890 Series Color (Remanufactured) [C1823AR] $23.95 ea.
HP Deskjet 600 Series Color (Remanufactured) [51649AR] $23.95 ea.
HP Deskjet 840/900 Series Black (Remanufactured) [C6578DR] $23.95 ea.

Go To   http://www.freewebco.net/ch5/ink/

   or use fax order form below


Lexmark 7000/7200 Black Cartridge (Remanufactured)  [12A1970R] $23.95 ea.
Lexmark 3200/5000/5700/7000 Color Cart. (Remanufactured)[12A1980R] $26.95 ea.
Lexmark Z42/Z51/Z52 Color Cartridge (Remanufactured)[15M0120R] $27.95 ea.
Lexmark 1000/1020/2030/3000 Black Cart. (Remanufactured)[13400HCR] $23.95 ea.
Lexmark 1000/1100/2030/2050/3000 Clr Cart.(Remanufactured)  [13619HCR] $24.95 ea.


-NEW!- Just Arrived!!!
  __

Epson Stylus Color 777 Black Ink Cartridge  [T017201C] $16.95 ea.
Epson Stylus Color 777 Color Ink Cartridge  [T018201C] $19.95 ea.
Epson Stylus Color 880/880i Black Ink Cartridge [T019201C] $9.95 ea.
Epson Stylus Color 880/880i Color Ink Cartridge [T020201C] $13.95 ea.
Epson Stylus Color 870/1270 Black Ink Cartridge [T007201C] $15.95 ea.
Epson Stylus Color 870 Color Cart. (1270 clr avail. soon!)  [T008201C] $18.95 ea.

HP Deskjet 700/800/900 Series Black (Remanufactured) [51645AR] $17.95 ea.
  
Lexmark Z12/Z22/Z32 Black Cartridge (Remanufactured)[17G0050R] $23.95 ea.


  
Go To   http://www.freewebco.net/ch5/ink/

   or use fax order form below



Shipping is $4.95 per order and takes 3-4 business days by USPS.
We accept MC, Visa and AMEX.
One year warranty on all products sold.

All Epson and Canon cartridges are new compatibles.

*
VISA/MC/AMEX ONLY

STEP 1:  Print out the below ORDER FORM
STEP 2:  Type or Print your order information into the form
STEP 3:  FAX Your order to us.

FAX TO: 305-278-4183 (Order with confidence.  This is a secure fax area.
Only our qualified sales team will have access to your order 
information)


 ORDER FORM(Print clearly with DARK pen)
**
Name:     

Address: * *BILLING ADDRESS ONLY

City, State, ZIP:     

Country:__   (International Orders)  

Phone Number:   __   (In case we can't make out your order) 


METHOD OF PAYMENT- CREDIT CARD ONLY
[   ]Visa   [   ]MasterCard[   ]AMEX

Credit Card #:  __

Exp Date: ___

Signature:  (Required)

E-Mail Address:  *(PRINT CLEARLY!!)
 
 
 
Cartridge type QuantityPrice Total
1)   X=
2)   X=
3)   X=
4)   X=
Sub-Total   =
 
Shipping & Handling   +  $4.95   
Total

*

Re: Official Anonymizing

[Jim Choate]

On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Greg Broiles wrote:

> I think this goes a little too far (though I'm also pretty skeptical about 
> the underlying proposal). True, it's very unlikely that cops will arrest 
> themselves for violating a mandatory disclosure law - expecting any group 
> to reliably self-police is unrealistic.

Speak for your self. The question isn't self-policing. The question is
that one person is making decisions for another. Clearly less than optimal
if you have any belief in 'free market' (which is a perfect example of
self-policing behaviour; where does the stability come from?).

Who'd know? Who'd care?

No, the observation is that people are strange. Not some people, not those
people, not weird people.

People are strange.

Any(!!!) time that one party is put in a position of authority over a
second party, a third party must be included. That third party must be
uninvolved with both parties and the market. That party must operate by
socially accepted (eg voting) rules that apply to ALL members of the
community equally. That third party MUST(!!!) report to the public at
large. The public at large have a right to know how they can expect to be
treated, and change it if it doesn't work to their satisfaction (which
after all is the 'community' the law is supposed to be respecting in a
democracy).

Any society that violates this basic theme will be abusive.


 --


natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato
summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks

Matsuo Basho

   The Armadillo Group   ,::;::-.  James Choate
   Austin, Tx   /:'/ ``::>/|/  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   www.ssz.com.',  `/( e\  512-451-7087
   -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-

Re: Moral Crypto

[Jim Choate]

On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Fisher Mark wrote:

> But how do you know they've entered the anonymous system?  If you are
> already being pursued by your antagonist, *and* you have been personally
> identified, then you have trouble you can't solve by any current
> software-based security technology.

Bingo! The primary(!) distinction of current technology is to increase
revelation effort. To find...

If they're already on to you then it's too damn late to be hiding. You
should either give up or run like hell.


 --


natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato
summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks

Matsuo Basho

   The Armadillo Group   ,::;::-.  James Choate
   Austin, Tx   /:'/ ``::>/|/  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   www.ssz.com.',  `/( e\  512-451-7087
   -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-

Re: Naughty Journal Author Denied Plea Change

[Jim Choate]

On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Eric Cordian wrote:

> Not unsurprisingly, the judge has refused to permit a man sentenced to 10
> years in prison for textual depictions of child sex in a private journal
> to withdraw his guilty plea and get a trial.
> 
> As F. Lee Bailey once said, the major flaw in the American justice system
> is that appeals focus only on procedural errors, and ones guilt or
> innocence is never again an issue after the original trial, even if that
> trial reached the wrong result.

I hear the flapping of angels wings...

Only the jury can decide what is right/wrong. Only 'the poeple' have that
right in this country under the Constitution. All criminal proceedings
should be jury trials. Period, no exceptions. The moral obligations
outweigh the increased cost of operations (lack of moral recognition is
another lack of C-A-C-L theory). Once the jury decides then it should be
final. Note the first sentence in Amendment 7...'preserved'...

 Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in
cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual
service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for
the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be
compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be
deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor
shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy
and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the
crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously
ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have
compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the
Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty
dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by
a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States,
than according to the rules of the common law.


 --


natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato
summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks

Matsuo Basho

   The Armadillo Group   ,::;::-.  James Choate
   Austin, Tx   /:'/ ``::>/|/  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   www.ssz.com.',  `/( e\  512-451-7087
   -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-

Law: Free Legal Information - Common Carrier

[Jim Choate]

http://www.freeadvice.com/law/502us.htm
-- 

 --


natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato
summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks

Matsuo Basho

   The Armadillo Group   ,::;::-.  James Choate
   Austin, Tx   /:'/ ``::>/|/  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   www.ssz.com.',  `/( e\  512-451-7087
   -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-

Opt:Opt-In List Marketing For Your Company!

[puppyjoy]

Title: New Page 1






  
Create
  Your Own Opt-In E-mail List 
  Don't
  Buy Opt-in List!  CREATE YOUR OWN!

  

Advertising
your company, products or services on the Internet is a must.  Using Bulk
E-mail is an option you may have used or considered. This sort of advertising
has been proven to be
very effective in soliciting numerous products and or services for individuals,
large and small companies.
The question is, is it safe, ethical, moral and accepted? Unfortunately, there
are many that would reply to this question with NO
Through
careful e-marketing we can help your company generate an on-going compiling OPT-IN
new customer list complete with: (E-mail Address, Phone
Number
and Name). 
These
generated e-mail addresses with personal contact information will be from
potential clients interested specifically in your product, business or
service.  YOUR
COMPANY WILL HAVE ALL THE BENEFITS OF BULK E-MAILING, WITHOUT THE PROBLEMS OF
ANTI-BULK E-MAIL ACTIVITY.
Ask about our 25%
Discount In Price Or 25% Increase In Your Mail. Your Choice. For First
Time Clients Only. 

  
We
will create an OPT-IN
e-mail list for your company based on the products and services you provide.
The list will be your personal company list. (YOU
OWN IT!)
  
Don't
settle for used HIGHLY over priced so-called opt-in list that have been sold
over and over again. Create
your own!
  
One
e-mail campaign sent by our company could generate from 500
to 500,000+
BRAND NEW
OPT-IN
E-mail
Addresses. These
addresses can be used by your company to follow up with by sending all your
specials, updates or monthly newsletters too.
  
Your
personalized list will be related directly to your business, products or
services.
  
All
you have to do is watch your list grow everyday, week and even months after
we deliver one OPT-IN
campaign for your company. 
We can set you up with a daily, weekly or monthly mailing. The residual
effect is perpetual.


  
  

  
Contact
Us For More Information By Clicking Here  

  
  

When
your e-mail program opens please include your name, phone number and the best
time to contact you. We will contact you at your convenience. 
 Our
initial lists that we use to generate your opt-in list
can be
customized  according to demographic
categories. We will consult with you about your product and harvest addresses
from where your potential customers congregate. With us, you can  choose your
target audience  from a strategic prospective.

We also have the unique capability to target age groups, income ranges and
homeowners in any city, state, geographical region, or country. We
will then generate a personalized OPT-IN
list of e-mail addresses, names and phone numbers of authentic potential
customers that are specifically interested in your product or service.
We
will give your company a user name and password for an account to view
your Opt-In generation as it takes
place. 
As always, we will  over send  your order by
15%, to ensure a guaranteed  100% delivery rate.  Our lists
are verified
weekly to
eliminate non-deliverables and abandoned e-mail addresses.
As we stated,
we guarantee 100% deliverability.

  
  

  
Opt-In
List Generation
Pricing 
(Anytime) 500,000
 
emails delivered***
 $1,000
Order
Today And Get 25% Off. Your
Price$750
Or
Increase Your Mail Too:
625,000

(Anytime) 1 million
 
emails delivered***
 $1,500
Order
Today And Get 25% Off. Your
Price$1,125
Or
Increase Your Mail Too:
1,250,000

(Anytime) 10 million 
emails delivered***
 $7,500
Order
Today And Get 25% Off. Your
Price$5,625
Or
Increase Your Mail Too:
12,500,000

(Anytime) 20 million
emails
delivered  $ 12,000
Order
Today And Get 25% Off. Your
Price$9,000
Or
Increase Your Mail Too:
25,000,000
  

  
  

Opt-In Generation
Campaigns With More Than One Target Will Be Priced Upon Request.
Ask about our 25%
Discount In Price Or 25% Increase In Your Mail. Your Choice. For First
Time Clients Only. 
If
you are ready
to create a promising advertising future and destiny for your company in the
world of OPT-IN e-mail,
work with us, a firm that has years of experience!

  
  

  
Contact
Us For More Information By Clicking Here  

  
  

When
your e-mail program opens please include your name, phone number and the best
time to contact you. We will contact you at your convenience. 
*
Other e-mail messages may be stopped
by clicking
here: REMOVE ME. Simply
click send when your e-mail program opens. 
Do Not Reply to this message, Your e-mail address will not be de

Re: Melon traffickers --> Soul traffickers

[Eric Murray]

On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 05:26:43PM -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> [I'm not saying I believe these arguments, of course.]
> 
> At 05:17 PM 9/4/01 -0700, Tim May wrote:
> >And let me play Devil's Advocate to this DA position:
> >
> >Not to sound overly Choatian, but there is nothing in the First Amendment 
> >which says anything about government getting to decide when "enough" 
> >editorial processing has occurred so that First Amendment protections kick in.
> >
> >A publisher who published a publication consisting of _all submissions_ 
> >would still be protected, even if he exercised _zero_ editorial 
> >discretion. In fact, such things exist: they are called "vanity presses." 
> >They publish for a fee, no differently than a paid remailer publishes for 
> >a fee.
> 
> The flaw in your analogy is that there is human selection involved in even 
> a vanity press. The publisher will weigh, among other factors, whether the 
> work is libelous, whether it contains any trade secrets or other 
> potentially illegal items that could get him in trouble, whether the work 
> is too controversial ("The Misunderstood Hitler") to publish, whether the 
> writer will pay on time, consult with the writer over fonts, cover art, and 
> so on.
> 
> Since a remailer, on the other hand does not exercise any independent 
> editorial judgment about the content of the work, the burden should 
> properly be on you to argue that a law restricting it is unconstitutional.



This was discussed long ago on cypherpunks, in fact the cyphernomicon says:

8.9.7. Possible legal steps to limit the use of remailers and
anonymous systems
   - hold the remailer liable for content, i.e., no common
  carrier status
   - insert provisions into the various "anti-hacking" laws to
  criminalize anonymous posts
 
(all of 8.9 is worth re-reading for this discussion).

Tim, do you really mean to say that you now think that a remailer
is a publisher, not a common carrier?  Maybe I lost track in all
the devil's advocate indirection...


I think that being a publisher, while it gives many rights, is not nearly
as good as being a common carrier.  My understanding of "common carrrier"
in this context is that the common carrier is not held responsible
at all for the traffic that it carries.  It  can lose its common
carrier status by editing-- then it's acting like a publisher, and
is responsible for the material that it edits and publishes...

"Prodigy was found liable for defamation as a publisher of a defamatory
statement that had been posted on its bulletin board by an unknown
user. The basis of Prodigy's liability was that it was using software
to monitor and delete "offensive" messages and those in "bad taste." "
(http://www.radiation.com/ideas/liability/)

(follow the links inthat article to find that teh CDA gives some
safe harbor for "provider or user of an interactive computer
service" for editing content to get rid of obscene, etc. material.)


I'm not up on the current state of this.
Is it no longer possible to consider a remailer (or an ISP or
BBS) a common carrier and thus "publisher" is the best to hope for?
Or is it that "publisher", while carrying fewer rights, is much
less likely to be held invalid?



Eric

Remailers as Common Carriers

[Jim Choate]

Unfortunately this isn't the answer either. Common Carrier status brings
with it a whole host of regulatory issues.

A far stronger position is to stand on the 1st as a 'speech' and 'press'
issue. That one you can win without ending up with a monkey on your back.


 --


natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato
summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks

Matsuo Basho

   The Armadillo Group   ,::;::-.  James Choate
   Austin, Tx   /:'/ ``::>/|/  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   www.ssz.com.',  `/( e\  512-451-7087
   -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-

Re: Melon traffickers --> Soul traffickers

[Tim May]

On Wednesday, September 5, 2001, at 05:08 PM, Eric Murray wrote:

>
> This was discussed long ago on cypherpunks, in fact the cyphernomicon 
> says:
>
> 8.9.7. Possible legal steps to limit the use of remailers and
> anonymous systems
>- hold the remailer liable for content, i.e., no common
>   carrier status
>- insert provisions into the various "anti-hacking" laws to
>   criminalize anonymous posts
>
> (all of 8.9 is worth re-reading for this discussion).
>

Thanks. I try not to quote my own ancient writings, but it's clear that 
a lot of the posters of the past couple of years are not familiar with 
the older writings (which is sort of excusable...) and have not thought 
deeply about the issues (which is not).

> Tim, do you really mean to say that you now think that a remailer
> is a publisher, not a common carrier?  Maybe I lost track in all
> the devil's advocate indirection...

I take no position one way or another. But "common carrier" status is 
not something that is automatically achieved. The telephone companies 
got it, to prevent phone companies from being shut down or from 
listening in on conversations. I'm not an expert in the history of 
"common carrier" legislation. (It may be described in Ithiel de sola 
Pool's seminal history of the telephone and liberty, though.)

My point was the claim some are making that government may "license all 
remailers" seems unlikely.

I often talk about "re-commenters" (hyphen added to emphasize the 
"commenter" part). If I get mail, or letters, or e-mail, and then pass 
it along to my friends or others, WHERE IN THE FIRST does it say I need 
permission from government?

Imagine someone sent to prison for the crime of passing along messages 
he received.

> I think that being a publisher, while it gives many rights, is not 
> nearly
> as good as being a common carrier.  My understanding of "common 
> carrrier"
> in this context is that the common carrier is not held responsible
> at all for the traffic that it carries.  It  can lose its common
> carrier status by editing-- then it's acting like a publisher, and
> is responsible for the material that it edits and publishes...

There may be an item in the Cyphernomicon about this misconception, that 
common carrier status is something people apply for. It used to be 
claimed by some (don't here it as much anymore) than even bookstores 
could be treated as common carriers "so long as they didn't screen the 
books they sold."

> (follow the links inthat article to find that teh CDA gives some
> safe harbor for "provider or user of an interactive computer
> service" for editing content to get rid of obscene, etc. material.)

The CDA did indeed give safe harbor...but what the CDA giveth, CDA II or 
the Children's Protection Act can taketh away.

>
>
> I'm not up on the current state of this.
> Is it no longer possible to consider a remailer (or an ISP or
> BBS) a common carrier and thus "publisher" is the best to hope for?
> Or is it that "publisher", while carrying fewer rights, is much
> less likely to be held invalid?

No significant precedents in this area that I have ever heard of.

--Tim May

Definition: common carrier

[Jim Choate]

http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/fs-1037/dir-008/_1101.htm
-- 

 --


natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato
summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks

Matsuo Basho

   The Armadillo Group   ,::;::-.  James Choate
   Austin, Tx   /:'/ ``::>/|/  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   www.ssz.com.',  `/( e\  512-451-7087
   -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-

Re: Moral Crypto

[Nomen Nescio]

On Sun, 2 Sep 2001, David Honig wrote:
> At 12:34 PM 9/2/01 -0700, Tim May wrote:
> >Someone else:
> >> The fact that you may be
> >> identifiable at the point of entry to an anonymity system is
> >> a weakness, not a desired feature, and if it can be avoided, it
> >> should be.
> >>
> >
> >Then design such a system.
>
>
> You did a few lines earlier:
>
> >(Or if one is a remailer oneself.)

Or, simply have a remailer client that randomly generates dummy traffic, 
and be sure to chain through multiple remailers. You don't need to accept 
incoming remailer traffic from other live people -- this is sufficient to 
hide when, if ever, you are using the remailer network.

You still stick out as a remailer user, though. 

(A while ago, someone posted a physics question usnig a remailer, and Tim 
mused that they were probably a troll, since they were using a remailer to 
pose this question. I found that remark surprising, for precisely this 
reason. Everyone should use remailers from time to time to ask innocent 
questions, in case of being asked by The Authorities to provide an example 
of one's correspondence using such technology.)

Re: Moral Crypto

[A. Melon]

Tim May writes:
> > It would be nice to see at least one example of something nasty that
> > could be done with an anonymous remailer in the next few years where
> > you couldn't get the same effect at the corner phone booth or dropping a
> > letter in a public mailbox.
>
> Are you dense, or just ignorant?
>
> Consider the broad class of two-way communications, whether for
> information buying and selling, extortion, espionage, arranging contract
> killings, etc. Are these sufficiently "nasty" for you?

Get real.  There's no way these are going to be serious problems in five
years.  For one thing, they all depend on an established anonymous cash
infrastructure for payoff off the crooks, buying the intelligence, etc.
There's very little chance that such a system will come into existence
soon (look at all the progress in the last five years), and even if it
did, any problems with criminal use will be blamed on the cash system,
not the email delivery.

> Now consider that both the "corner phone booth" and "dropping a letter
> in a public mailbox" are untraceable only in _one_ direction. Two-way
> communication is not untraceable.

Two way anonymous communications have been around for years.  Dead drops
are a commonly used technique, likewise public postings in classified
ads and similar places.  It's nothing new and there have been no laws
to ban this capability.

Re: Naughty Journal Author Denied Plea Change

[Declan McCullagh]

John, my ill-mannered, surly, and lovable friend, you may have
read it, but you sure didn't understand it.

My point, such as it is, is that the Ohio case is a natural expansion
and mild evolution of "child porn" laws in the U.S. If y'all are going
to get upset about the Ohio statute and prosecution, then you should
be looking critically at state and federal obscenity laws and child
porn laws as well. John, to his credit, seems to be doing that.

-Declan


On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 12:22:41PM -0700, John Young wrote:
> Declan, you condescending prig, I did read your message and 
> was trying to askance your clubfingeredness about "possession," 
> which isn't as monolithic as you vaunt and which smacked 
> overmuch of LEAs' agressive erasure of distinctions.
> 
> Hector me not, for the failure to look behind heavy-handed
> law enforcement, dementia, concerning kiddie porn can
> be interpreted as complicity, or worse, distancing from the
> obligation to relook, rethink, and re-examine one's own
> proclivities to avoid the worst dispute in the country.
> 
> The pathology of kiddie porn is probably the vilest plague
> upon the land, and that is due to bravehearts running scared
> of the infected nuts who may, if they have their way, beat
> out abortion and guns and vile government as pointless
> no-brainers.
> 
> Come back, Smokey, tell me something new about what's
> wrong with "possession" in this particular case, not what
> is in the read the fucking manual before I waste my time
> wasting mine.
> 
> Coda:
> 
> I'm trying a new pseudo-comprehensible writing style, so 
> fuck off. No vanity sig just yet but it will come.

Re: Official Anonymizing

[A. Melon]

John Young takes a courageous stand:

> I propose that all anonymizers adopt a code of practice that
> any sale to officials of anonymizers or their use be disclosed 
> to the public (I suggested this to ZKS early on when first 
> meetings with the feds to explain the technology were being 
> sometimes disclosed). That seems to be a reasonable response 
> to officially-secret prowling and investigating cyberspace.

Absolutely appropriate, given cypherpunk goals.  It may be difficult
to apply in every case but the intention is laudable.

Here is an example of the principle put into practice, from the
anonymous web proxy service at http://proxy.magusnet.com/proxy.html:

: If you are accessing this proxy from a *.mil or *.gov address
: it will not work. As a taxpaying United States Citizen[TM],
: Business Owner, and Desert Storm Veteran, I do not want my 
: tax dollars being used by agencies I pay for to gawk(1) 
: at WWW pages and hide your origination point at my expense.
: Now, get back to work!

Re: CDR: Re: Naughty Journal Author Denied Plea Change

[Eric Cordian]

Declan writes:

> What's new here? *Possession* of child porn has been illegal for at
> least a decade. Obscenity prosecutions for writing what people find
> objectionable have a long history: Joyce, Miller, etc.

The legal basis for criminalizing non-obscene erotic depictions of minors
is Ferber, which clearly states that such criminalization is
Constitutional only when it is necessary to prevent actual persons under
the age of 18 from experiencing the harmful workplace environment
associated with porn production.

Laws which criminalize synthetic visual depictions of the sexuality of
minors, as well as written material, which do not depict actual living
persons, are clearly unconstitutional under the standard created by
Ferber.

It is the hope of the Child Sex Hysterics, whose goal is not to protect
minors, but to purge from the continuum all counterexamples to their
religiously inspired doctrine on the asexuality of persons under 18, that
the Sheeple have now been sufficiently programed to react with horror to
all depictions of youthful sexuality.  This will place the Supreme Court
in the position where fabricating from whole cloth a legal justification
for criminalizing all such material will be the only alternative to mass
rioting in the streets the next time such a case appears before them.

I'd rather just shoot the rioters, and raise the average intelligence in
the sheep bin by epsilon.

If you can criminalize dirty stories, which depict non-obscene sexuality
on the part of fictional characters, then you can criminalize just about
anything else, including chemistry and cryptography textbooks, and Tom
Clancy novels.

-- 
Eric Michael Cordian 0+
O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division
"Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

Re: Melon traffickers --> Soul traffickers

[Tim May]

On Wednesday, September 5, 2001, at 06:06 PM, A. Melon wrote:

> Tim May writes:
>> I often talk about "re-commenters" (hyphen added to emphasize the
>> "commenter" part). If I get mail, or letters, or e-mail, and then pass
>> it along to my friends or others, WHERE IN THE FIRST does it say I need
>> permission from government?
>
> You're absolutely right, no law could stop you from being a 
> re-commenter.
> However, you would be liable for everything you said.  This would mean
> that you pay the penalty for any illegal message, any obscenity, any
> violation of copyright.
>
> In short being a re-commenter buys you absolutely nothing.  Any message
> so innocuous that it could be delivered by a re-commenter (like this 
> one,
> for example) does not really need anonymity.
>

Including this one?:

Hey, Nomen, I just got this message. Any idea what it means?

pQuusuSljjFEVQYWgG/YM+3V2K3+9lptlWVBr3axwLr3iHqmcDQzGEnTASI/k2oy
WSkeNUb2W2nNREAe0DhRMPJ5n44RTk+HOH6TLUtxCyez1UaAvtu7kdGUgk9/zSLZ
V/HXFANMv23abUS/VCBFSTQz2nLZC/BDy5KhkndAL/ugL9/eqgiPr3mMrWCBPXoi
GdG78lSIrFAzo0Gw5pzUOj3NJiew1a+Sjp2iJCuIJbXxhxeYZMqUNU9ZxEVLHtV5
fpljlUtrUE+AZfIwFZeW3RIYSuc5hgo8Rv/qzapU8NSlBkT0NH6riKV2dx66RvvJ
z44/EQrBX5FmbET4/YQKRQXaxgN0+e9ZXXwQg7B8y/b1RW4J9aslTOl8Emc6uokz
SqKlB8ACdu/I6LczYB2LBMr7bUsh0ty1oWUsv8vEouNhEYEbkBZL3vdvrw6dBg8e
hzFExtj9HgMvkVIE9E91CD0=
=EYfM

Re: Melon traffickers --> Soul traffickers

[Meyer Wolfsheim]

On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Tim May wrote:

> There may be an item in the Cyphernomicon about this misconception, that
> common carrier status is something people apply for. It used to be
> claimed by some (don't here it as much anymore) than even bookstores
> could be treated as common carriers "so long as they didn't screen the
> books they sold."


Interesting.

So what does this mean for remailers that do screen content? At the very
least, the mixmaster software comes with the ability for individuals to
block themselves (or other people -- it's not authenticated) from
receiving mail from the remailer.

So, in effect, the remailer is screening mail for that recipient, and
discarding it.

(And there are, or have been, remailers that screen messages for "bad
words." The messages are then dumped into a file for review.)

How does this affect "common carrier" status?


-MW-

Easy Home Based Business - Online

[uQe8T4UcK]

Hello, 

Are you looking for your first Internet business...or your last? 

If it's your first, I think you'd like it to be your last! Your last would be one that 
allows you to achieve an income that is stable and give you the lifestyle you desire. 

May I have your permission to send your FREE information of an exciting online 
business which is growing at a very rapid rate?  The products are good for you and the 
environment. 

You have: 
  - NO retailing (most people HATE selling) 
  - NO delivering or handling products 
  - NO big up-front investment 
  - and NO risk 

To receive your FREE information about this legitimate, 
automated home business that has a proven track 
record, click below and your information is on it's way! 

mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=Show_Me 

AOL members: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=Show_Me";>[Click_Here] 

Thank you and have a great day! 

Best Regards, 
Becky

This opportunity is presently available in North America. If you are not, disregard.
This is a one time mailing, no need to ask to be removed.

Common carriers

[Greg Broiles]

At 05:08 PM 9/5/2001 -0700, Eric Murray wrote:
>Is it no longer possible to consider a remailer (or an ISP or
>BBS) a common carrier and thus "publisher" is the best to hope for?
>Or is it that "publisher", while carrying fewer rights, is much
>less likely to be held invalid?

The "common carrier" argument never went anywhere - it was a reasonable 
early effort to discuss the liability rules which might be appropriate for 
online services; but that's not the way that the law has developed, and 
it's no longer considered a reasonable line of thinking. Even traditional 
common carriers (like phone companies) aren't likely to fit the definition 
of "common carrier" when they're operating as ISP's or other online service 
providers - e.g., pacbell.com, the company which provides local phone 
service as an SBC subsidiary, is still a common carrier for many purposes - 
but pacbell.net, the company which provides DSL connectivity, Usenet news, 
email, and web hosting for residential and business customers, is *not* a 
common carrier as that term has traditionally been used. That arm of the 
business is likely considered an "enhanced service provider", in FCC and 
PUC-speak, and doesn't get the benefit (or the burden) of traditional 
common carrier rules.

(Don't forget, common carriers usually have to publish rate schedules, 
stick to published rates for all subscribers, seek regulatory permission to 
change their rates, participate in administrative proceedings concerning 
their rates charged to customers and rates of return on capital, etc - it 
is absolutely not some magic badge of publisher freedom which one can 
assume and then wield as a shield against any form of regulation. It's more 
like a deal with the regulatory devil, whereby one gains some short-term 
exemptions in exchange for eternal obesiance to a byzantine regulatory 
apparatus with no hope of salvation.)

Even "publisher" is relatively outdated - the relevant definitions and 
liability rules are found in the Communications Decency Act (it wasn't all 
struck down; see 47 USC 230) and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (17 
USC 512), if you're talking about liability for online service providers.


--
Greg Broiles
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"We have found and closed the thing you watch us with." -- New Delhi street kids

Re: Melon traffickers --> Soul traffickers

[A. Melon]

Tim May writes:
> I often talk about "re-commenters" (hyphen added to emphasize the 
> "commenter" part). If I get mail, or letters, or e-mail, and then pass 
> it along to my friends or others, WHERE IN THE FIRST does it say I need 
> permission from government?

You're absolutely right, no law could stop you from being a re-commenter.
However, you would be liable for everything you said.  This would mean
that you pay the penalty for any illegal message, any obscenity, any
violation of copyright.

In short being a re-commenter buys you absolutely nothing.  Any message
so innocuous that it could be delivered by a re-commenter (like this one,
for example) does not really need anonymity.

Re: Melon traffickers --> Soul traffickers

[georgemw]

On 5 Sep 2001, at 17:26, Declan McCullagh wrote:

> [I'm not saying I believe these arguments, of course.]


> Since a remailer, on the other hand does not exercise any independent 
> editorial judgment about the content of the work, the burden should 
> properly be on you to argue that a law restricting it is unconstitutional.
> 

This is really crappy logic.  Any law that restricts speech or the 
press is presumably unconstitutional. 

> A better analogy: Remailers are like a robotic Mailboxes Etc.-type service 
> that opens a FedEx envelope and forwards the extracted contents to you at 
> another address via FedEx. 

Actually it's a really crappy analogy.  Arguing that "it's kind of like 
this hypothetical thing that doesn't exist and therefore ought to
be treated as I imagine this hypothetical thing would probably be 
treated if it did exist" is an incredibly poor use of the device of 
analogy.


> But I know of no publisher who would publish a truly anonymous letter. 

You're fucking kidding, right? Do you think "Ann Landers" and her 
ilk actually know the "true names" of all the morons who write
in to her? 

> Newspapers and magazine request truenames. If given someone's truename, a 
> publisher may anonymize the letter, but a subpoena or other legal means 
> should be able to extract the information after the fact. 

That's funny,  just a week or two ago you were saying any ethical
person in the journalistic profession should be willing to go to
jail rather than compromise the identity of his sources.
Someone who writes in a ltter is precluded from being a "source"? 

George

> 
> -Declan

Re: Melon traffickers --> Soul traffickers

[Meyer Wolfsheim]

On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Tim May wrote:

> There may be an item in the Cyphernomicon about this misconception, that
> common carrier status is something people apply for. It used to be
> claimed by some (don't here it as much anymore) than even bookstores
> could be treated as common carriers "so long as they didn't screen the
> books they sold."


Interesting.

So what does this mean for remailers that do screen content? At the very
least, the mixmaster software comes with the ability for individuals to
block themselves (or other people -- it's not authenticated) from
receiving mail from the remailer.

So, in effect, the remailer is screening mail for that recipient, and
discarding it.

(And there are, or have been, remailers that screen messages for "bad
words." The messages are then dumped into a file for review.)

How does this affect "common carrier" status?


-MW-

Re: Melon traffickers --> Soul traffickers

[Tim May]

On Wednesday, September 5, 2001, at 07:22 PM, Meyer Wolfsheim wrote:

> On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Tim May wrote:
>
>> There may be an item in the Cyphernomicon about this misconception, 
>> that
>> common carrier status is something people apply for. It used to be
>> claimed by some (don't here it as much anymore) than even bookstores
>> could be treated as common carriers "so long as they didn't screen the
>> books they sold."
>
>
> Interesting.
>
> So what does this mean for remailers that do screen content? At the very
> least, the mixmaster software comes with the ability for individuals to
> block themselves (or other people -- it's not authenticated) from
> receiving mail from the remailer.
>
> So, in effect, the remailer is screening mail for that recipient, and
> discarding it.
>
> (And there are, or have been, remailers that screen messages for "bad
> words." The messages are then dumped into a file for review.)
>
> How does this affect "common carrier" status?


See Greg Broiles' summary for a more accurate summary than I could do.

But not all is lost. I still believe the First is a bright line: the 
First does not provide for government regulation of those who are not 
using "the public airwaves" (cough cough). Newspapers don't need to seek 
licenses of any kind, for example. (A so-called "business license," not 
that I'm supporting such things, is basically just a fee to operate a 
money-making business in some location. There is no discretion for 
allowing some newspaper and disallowing others, nor for "regulating" 
newspapers.)

Any proposal to license those who use the Net will face a lot of First 
Amendment challenges.

I don't think the high court would ultimately find any such regulations 
constitutional.

--Tim May