Re: Italy finally holds USA to the world standard!
On 6/24/05, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.masnet.org/news.asp?id=2560 Italian Judge Orders 13 CIA Agents Arrested Over Kidnapping John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it. -- There are no bad teachers, only defective children.
Re: Italy finally holds USA to the world standard!
On 6/24/05, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.masnet.org/news.asp?id=2560 Italian Judge Orders 13 CIA Agents Arrested Over Kidnapping John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it. -- There are no bad teachers, only defective children.
Re: Finally, the Killer PKI Application
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- R.A. Hettinga [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: http://sys-con.com/story/print.cfm?storyid=47592 But SSL's greatest weakness is that it is oriented toward synchronous transactions, requiring a direct connection between participants. Yep. Makes it difficult to thwart traffic analysis. Security in the Message The solution to this problem, as put forth in standards by OASIS and the W3C, is to absorb security into the message itself. That is, provide a means of authentication, integrity, and confidentiality that is integral to the message, and completely decoupled from transport channels. .. the way encrypted email has always been. The Trend Away from Channel-Level Security ... Furthermore, everyone is building systems predicated to have key pairs on both sides of a transaction: at the message producer (client), and the message consumer (server). ... SSL is sufficient for Web-like, client/server application, but large enterprise computing is built on asynchronous messaging; This is welcome news also for pseudonymous p2p commerce. So PKI is back. Maybe a work-around can be devised. Scott Morrison D. Popkin -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: noconv iQBVAwUBQdDl3PPsjZpmLV0BAQGyVAIAu5Zc+PFv8CuKkzFv3hmnkIlZ/bXVmMNQ zg2o1rG/4omH5RFn9B4VXJsCxespviw+Ysnpa31XgQ8f9LdxYCIz4w== =MbdB -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Finally, the Killer PKI Application
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- R.A. Hettinga [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: http://sys-con.com/story/print.cfm?storyid=47592 But SSL's greatest weakness is that it is oriented toward synchronous transactions, requiring a direct connection between participants. Yep. Makes it difficult to thwart traffic analysis. Security in the Message The solution to this problem, as put forth in standards by OASIS and the W3C, is to absorb security into the message itself. That is, provide a means of authentication, integrity, and confidentiality that is integral to the message, and completely decoupled from transport channels. ... the way encrypted email has always been. The Trend Away from Channel-Level Security ... Furthermore, everyone is building systems predicated to have key pairs on both sides of a transaction: at the message producer (client), and the message consumer (server). ... SSL is sufficient for Web-like, client/server application, but large enterprise computing is built on asynchronous messaging; This is welcome news also for pseudonymous p2p commerce. So PKI is back. Maybe a work-around can be devised. Scott Morrison D. Popkin -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: noconv iQBVAwUBQdDl3PPsjZpmLV0BAQGyVAIAu5Zc+PFv8CuKkzFv3hmnkIlZ/bXVmMNQ zg2o1rG/4omH5RFn9B4VXJsCxespviw+Ysnpa31XgQ8f9LdxYCIz4w== =MbdB -END PGP SIGNATURE-
[IP] Cell phones for eavesdropping - finally some public chatter (fwd from dave@farber.net)
- Forwarded message from David Farber [EMAIL PROTECTED] - From: David Farber [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 16:11:00 -0500 To: Ip ip@v2.listbox.com Subject: [IP] Cell phones for eavesdropping - finally some public chatter User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.1.0.040913 Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Forwarded Message From: RISKS List Owner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 11:49:56 -0800 (PST) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [RISKS] Risks Digest 23.64 Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 20:39:48 +0200 From: Gadi Evron [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Cell phones for eavesdropping - finally some public chatter /Pun intended on the subject line!/ Okay, so, we have all known cell phones are dangerous. Stepping out of the cellular protocols security and vendor-side systems, and forgetting for a second about interception of transmissions through the air, Trojan horses/worms that may install themselves on the cell phone and even bluetooth risks, there is the long talked of risk of operating a regular un-tampered cell phone from a far and the risk of modified devices. Sorry for stating the obvious, but cell phones are transmitters. For years now paranoid people and organizations claim that eavesdropping through a cell phone is a very valid risk. Much like somebody pressing send by mistake during a sensitive meeting is a very valid yet different risk. Some of the stricter organizations ask you to do anything from (top to bottom) storing the cell phone in a safe, through shutting it off or removing the battery, and all the way to *only* don't have that around here while we are in a meeting. Then again.. *most* haven't even heard of this risk. Forgetting even this risk, many of us even ignore the obvious. I usually ask people who talk to me while I'm on the phone even if the NSA (for example) is not interested in what I have to say or not capable of intercepting it and even that I don't care if they heard my conversations... Should the person I talk to hear our conversation? Lately there seems to be some more awareness about the dangers of cell phones. Knowing which risk is more of a threat than the other is another issue. It seems to me that other than in the protocols, where there has been a serious learning curve (and GPRS seems very promising), cellular companies keep doing the same mistakes, and we can see the security problems of the PC world reappearing in cell phones, much like those of the main frames re-appeared in PC's (to a level). History repeated. Heck, I can't even disable Java or the web browser in most cellular computers (we really should refer to them as computers now). Here are some URL's on the subject: Here is one about modified cell phones, which also mentions the risk of eavesdropping through a cell phone as mentioned above: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200206/msg0003 1.html Here is a product for sale, a cellular phone BUILT for eavesdropping: http://wirelessimports.com/ProductDetail.asp?ProductID=347 Also, check out the IEEE Pervasive article that mentions this problem area, although discusses more the issue of malware: http://csdl.computer.org/comp/mags/pc/2004/04/b4011abs.htm Or Google for symbian +virus, for example. Thanks go to David Dagon for the links. -- End of Forwarded Message - You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED] To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ - End forwarded message - -- Eugen* Leitl a href=http://leitl.org;leitl/a __ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net pgppBdP4JDwel.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Finally, the Killer PKI Application
-- http://sys-con.com/story/print.cfm?storyid=47592 (SYS-CON)(Printview) Finally, the Killer PKI Application Web Services as an application - and a challenge December 22, 2004 Summary Enterprise PKI has a bad name. Complex, costly, difficult to deploy and maintain - all these criticisms have dogged this technology since it first appeared. Because PKI sucks. To the dismay of so many CIOs, few applications have stepped up to make effective use of PKI. Because PKI sucks. A Role for PKI WSS goes to great lengths to remain flexible and not to specify a particular encryption/signing technology. Or in other words, due to the fact that PKI sucks, they have left the door open for a replacement. now the investment may finally be realized. I don't think so. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG wBk2DrWHeXk89xcxEqBeSgid7cCLVSNvu1z47YJW 4VzhTnreELC1p4yrs3eDjP2/svE8kzr6HxxP9ToWm
Re: Finally, the Killer PKI Application
-- http://sys-con.com/story/print.cfm?storyid=47592 (SYS-CON)(Printview) Finally, the Killer PKI Application Web Services as an application - and a challenge December 22, 2004 Summary Enterprise PKI has a bad name. Complex, costly, difficult to deploy and maintain - all these criticisms have dogged this technology since it first appeared. Because PKI sucks. To the dismay of so many CIOs, few applications have stepped up to make effective use of PKI. Because PKI sucks. A Role for PKI WSS goes to great lengths to remain flexible and not to specify a particular encryption/signing technology. Or in other words, due to the fact that PKI sucks, they have left the door open for a replacement. now the investment may finally be realized. I don't think so. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG wBk2DrWHeXk89xcxEqBeSgid7cCLVSNvu1z47YJW 4VzhTnreELC1p4yrs3eDjP2/svE8kzr6HxxP9ToWm
Finally, the Killer PKI Application
http://sys-con.com/story/print.cfm?storyid=47592 (SYS-CON)(Printview) Finally, the Killer PKI Application Web Services as an application - and a challenge December 22, 2004 Summary Enterprise PKI has a bad name. Complex, costly, difficult to deploy and maintain - all these criticisms have dogged this technology since it first appeared. To the dismay of so many CIOs, few applications have stepped up to make effective use of PKI. But this may soon change: Web services promotes a security model that demands the flexibility that an enterprise PKI deployment can offer. By Scott Morrison Enterprise PKI has a bad name. Complex, costly, difficult to deploy and maintain - all these criticisms have dogged this technology since it first appeared. To the dismay of so many CIOs, few applications have stepped up to make effective use of PKI. But this may soon change: Web services promotes a security model that demands the flexibility that an enterprise PKI deployment can offer. The Trend Away from Channel-Level Security If you lumped all the existing, production-level Web services applications together, and categorized their security models, you would probably discover some interesting trends. First, an awful lot of these don't address security at all, which probably owes more to the relative immaturity of Web services technology than to a conscious choice on the part of developers. The bulk of the remainder will simply delegate security entirely to SSL - or in some cases, a VPN connection. SSL isn't a bad choice. It provides confidentiality and integrity. Automatic sequence numbering stands guard against replay attacks. Servers are always authenticated using a certificate that binds the server's DNS name to the Subject, a strategy to defeat man-in-the-middle and impersonation attacks. This does rely heavily on the integrity of the DNS system, but by and large it is viewed as an acceptable risk. SSL even offers optional client-side certificate authentication, which is powerful, though in practice rarely implemented. Probably the most unheralded quality of SSL is channel continuity. Once a session is set up - and once the client and server mutually authenticate (with the client using a certificate under SSL, through HTTP authentication, or an application-level means such as forms) - a level of trust is established on the open socket so that it is available for multiple transactions without repeating this lengthy process each time. There is great value in a transparently maintained security context, and it is easy to take for granted. Of course, one of the reasons behind SSL's success on the Web was that, although it utilizes public key cryptography, it doesn't need full-blown PKI. Most SSL-enabled Web servers use certs issued by the browser cartel, those CAs fortunate enough to have their root certificates automatically installed within the trust store of the most popular browsers. And with the exception of a few early consumer banking products - which have largely been abandoned - almost nobody steps up to the baroque logistics of client-side certificates on the Web. The ability to delegate PKI to a third party greatly simplified security on the Web; this was one of the reasons SSL became good enough for most online transactions, even when challenged in the early days by technically elegant, though complex, solutions like SET (Secure Electronic Transaction). But SSL's greatest weakness is that it is oriented toward synchronous transactions, requiring a direct connection between participants. It's like an encrypted telephone conversation, which is probably something alien to you and me, but I suppose that James Bond uses it regularly. Both parties need to be available, multiple passes are necessary to set up a secure context, and all of the information - the critical points alongside the mundane (how's the weather in London?) - is encrypted wholesale, which can be a costly processor burden. This is why SSL is an insufficient security model for Web services. Despite the name - an unfortunate one that is probably one of the great misnomers in the history of technology - Web services isn't really about the Web. In one realization, it does use existing Web infrastructure, including HTTP transport, Web application servers, etc. However, Web services is fundamentally a one-way messaging paradigm for computer communications, composed around a simple XML message structure with an extensible header model. Web service messages may not piggyback on HTTP at all. They might flow across a message-oriented middleware (MOM) such as IBM's MQSeries, or be carried asynchronously by that other ubiquitous infrastructure, SMTP. SOAP messages are designed to flow through a network of intermediates, not unlike IP packets being passed between routers. Intermediates may be required to view header information to make processing decisions based on application-level protocol. A channel-based security model, one that encrypts
Finally Stop the p@in, get vi^c0din now absentia
cayubaban z-man buyske amigarepair servbon-dist mz02 barjona athorities Tired of paying high for RX meds, waiting for the appointment with the doctor and driving to the pharmcy for RX filling? To relieve all the above w0rr\ies right here, Hit here http://pfizer.com.purerxinfo.com and never one work of art. But the vast mass of mankind are incapable of doing anything reasonably well, art among the rest. The worthless artist would not improbably have been a quite incompetent baker. And the artist, even if he does not amuse the public, amuses himself; so that there will always be to make a nightly tramp as far as to the nearest pond; and at last, when the hue and cry began to blow over, he might get gently on the train at some side station, work round by a series of junctions, and
Finally, a program with more money coming in than going out
Hi, I am excited! I have been trying to make money over the internet for a while, and have tried lots and lots of programs. Up until now every program I have tried has one thing in common: I wind up spending more than comes in. Now, finally, I have made more money than I have spent on a program. Finally, a profit! The greatest thing is that I originally joined this program in order to get all of the software and ebooks made available when you join. It is well worth many time the cost of joining and is well worth it. I originally figured this would be like every other program so at first I figured I got a great deal on the software and did not count at all on the oportunity. What a surprise it has become! If you would like to get some information about this program, just click on the following and then send: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If you do not want to receive email messages from me like this, than I am awfully sorry for bothering you. Please click on the following: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If you do this, I promise that you will never get another email message from me again. Thanks
;yes you finally foun,d us
Looking for extremely cheap high-quality software? We might have just what you need. Windows XP Professional 2002 . $50 Adobe Photoshop 7.0 . $60 Microsoft Office XP Professional 2002 ... $60 Corel Draw Graphics Suite 11 $60 and lots more...
Finally eighteeen
Finally Eighteen Here at finally eighteen, we have one goal, to find the h0ttest teens about to have their 18th birthday. Then, once legal, we snatch them up and present them for our members to enjoy. Members have access to a huge collection of the swietest teens. All girls are wating you: http://sacred.butit.histories.dobegalsa.net/finallyeighteen/index.html Don't get e-mail: http://doubling.dress.pretended.dobegalsa.net/index.html boughs scratches weighed undaunted offer, climb swallow theyll, his helped had. [EMAIL PROTECTED] splendid relieved would lessonvbooks knave, me3 rougevpots. miserable sensibly spout driving shedding: http://www.delightplates.com/youll/index.html wriggling sung telescopes wasnt sick increased. brightness pity, fire pressing ago gift thingsvi? bye Dsends Fanyone
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
At 01:28 PM 1/13/04 -0800, Steve Schear wrote: It would seem that once GNURadio comes to fruition that many devices, including those the FCC would like to regulate, could be built from its generic, non-video, architecture. In that case, wouldn't FCC mandates applied to end-users (since end users will be the only ones who will configure the SW, FW and HW for an application the FCC would like to regulate, be a 3rd Amend. issue? The FCC could consider the GNUser to be a manufacturer, just like the ATF does if you change the sear on your semiauto rifle or trim the stock and barrel too much.. While they don't have the black flak jacket penache of the ATF thugs, the FCC does enforce things if you play on the wrong bands. Reception, of course, is a little harder to monitor :-)
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
At 11:23 PM 1/12/2004, Tim May wrote: During the Carnivore debate, I argued that mandatory placement of computer agents in systems was equivalent to quartering troops: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg03198.html The Third Amendment, about quartering troops, is seldom-applied. But if I own a computer and I rent out accounts to others and the FBI comes to me and says We are putting a Carnivore computer in your place, how else can this be interpreted _except_ as a violation of the Third? This was from July, 2000. I believe it also came up in earlier discussions, including in a panel I was on with Michael Froomkin at a CFP in 1995. I could assume this also applies to the the TCPS (if it is ever required) and FCC's new mandate that DTV video devices sold in the U.S. after December 31, 2004 include a 'cop' inside to enforce compliance with the broadcast flag. steve
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 12:55:18PM -0600, bgt wrote: This has probably been mentioned here before, but another interesting approach is what justicefiles.org used to do (I'm not sure what the status of the site is, it seems to be down now). I believe the fellow who put up the site took it down in the last year, according to his lawyer, saying the purpose was served. I'm guessing he was probably tired of dealing with all the threats from cops as well. -Declan
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
On Jan 13, 2004, at 8:41 AM, Steve Schear wrote: At 11:23 PM 1/12/2004, Tim May wrote: During the Carnivore debate, I argued that mandatory placement of computer agents in systems was equivalent to quartering troops: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg03198.html The Third Amendment, about quartering troops, is seldom-applied. But if I own a computer and I rent out accounts to others and the FBI comes to me and says We are putting a Carnivore computer in your place, how else can this be interpreted _except_ as a violation of the Third? This was from July, 2000. I believe it also came up in earlier discussions, including in a panel I was on with Michael Froomkin at a CFP in 1995. I could assume this also applies to the the TCPS (if it is ever required) and FCC's new mandate that DTV video devices sold in the U.S. after December 31, 2004 include a 'cop' inside to enforce compliance with the broadcast flag. In its purest form, I think not. If Alice is told that she must place some device in something she owns, which was the example with Carnivore, then the Third applies (she has been told to quarter troops, abstractly, in her home). If, however, Bob is told that in order to build television sets or VCRs he must include various noise suppression devices, as he must, or closed-captioning features, as he must, or the V-chip (as I believe he must, though I never hear of it being talked about, as we all figured would be the case), or the Macrovision devices (as may be the case), then this is a matter of regulation of those devices. Whether Alice then _chooses_ to buy such devices with troops already living in them, abstractly speaking, is her choice. Now the manufacturer may have a claim, but government regulation of manufacturers has been going on for a very long time, and unless a manufacturer can claim that the devices must be in his own home or operated in his premises, he cannot make a very strong case that _he_ is the one being affected by the quartering. The pure form of the Third (in this abstract sense) is when government knocks on one's door and says Here is something you must put inside your house. By the way, there have been a bunch of cases where residents of a neighborhood were ordered to leave so that SWAT teams could be in their houses to monitor a nearby house where a hostage situation had developed. (It is possible that in each house they occupied they received uncoerced permission to occupy the houses, but I don't think this was always the case; however, I can't cite a concrete case of this. Maybe Lexis has one.) If this takeover of houses to launch a raid is not a black letter law case of the government quartering troops in residences, nothing is. Exigent circumstance, perhaps, but so was King George's need to quarter his troops. --Tim May Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. --Patrick Henry
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
At 10:48 AM 1/13/2004, Tim May wrote: On Jan 13, 2004, at 8:41 AM, Steve Schear wrote: This was from July, 2000. I believe it also came up in earlier discussions, including in a panel I was on with Michael Froomkin at a CFP in 1995. I could assume this also applies to the the TCPS (if it is ever required) and FCC's new mandate that DTV video devices sold in the U.S. after December 31, 2004 include a 'cop' inside to enforce compliance with the broadcast flag. In its purest form, I think not. If Alice is told that she must place some device in something she owns, which was the example with Carnivore, then the Third applies (she has been told to quarter troops, abstractly, in her home). If, however, Bob is told that in order to build television sets or VCRs he must include various noise suppression devices, as he must, or closed-captioning features, as he must, or the V-chip (as I believe he must, though I never hear of it being talked about, as we all figured would be the case), or the Macrovision devices (as may be the case), then this is a matter of regulation of those devices. Whether Alice then _chooses_ to buy such devices with troops already living in them, abstractly speaking, is her choice. Now the manufacturer may have a claim, but government regulation of manufacturers has been going on for a very long time, and unless a manufacturer can claim that the devices must be in his own home or operated in his premises, he cannot make a very strong case that _he_ is the one being affected by the quartering. It would seem that once GNURadio comes to fruition that many devices, including those the FCC would like to regulate, could be built from its generic, non-video, architecture. In that case, wouldn't FCC mandates applied to end-users (since end users will be the only ones who will configure the SW, FW and HW for an application the FCC would like to regulate, be a 3rd Amend. issue? steve
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 15:48, Tim May wrote: (Though of course this is only the _theory_. The fact that all of the Bill of Rights, except perhaps the Third, have been violated by the Evildoers in government is well-known.) A few years ago I wrote a short paper looking at government-installed snoopware in terms of the 3rd A. Given that the other BoR amendments have been broadly interpreted in light of new technology, it's reasonable to view software as soldiers. In light of the Scarfo case (keyboard sniffer software installed in a black-bag operation, ca. 1990) I'd argue that the Fedz have violated the 3rd A. (My paper was before Scarfo, so I claim some prescience. Alas.) SRF
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
On Jan 12, 2004, at 7:46 PM, Steve Furlong wrote: On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 15:48, Tim May wrote: (Though of course this is only the _theory_. The fact that all of the Bill of Rights, except perhaps the Third, have been violated by the Evildoers in government is well-known.) A few years ago I wrote a short paper looking at government-installed snoopware in terms of the 3rd A. Given that the other BoR amendments have been broadly interpreted in light of new technology, it's reasonable to view software as soldiers. In light of the Scarfo case (keyboard sniffer software installed in a black-bag operation, ca. 1990) I'd argue that the Fedz have violated the 3rd A. (My paper was before Scarfo, so I claim some prescience. Alas.) During the Carnivore debate, I argued that mandatory placement of computer agents in systems was equivalent to quartering troops: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg03198.html The Third Amendment, about quartering troops, is seldom-applied. But if I own a computer and I rent out accounts to others and the FBI comes to me and says We are putting a Carnivore computer in your place, how else can this be interpreted _except_ as a violation of the Third? This was from July, 2000. I believe it also came up in earlier discussions, including in a panel I was on with Michael Froomkin at a CFP in 1995. --Tim May
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
At 11:23 PM 1/12/2004, Tim May wrote: During the Carnivore debate, I argued that mandatory placement of computer agents in systems was equivalent to quartering troops: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg03198.html The Third Amendment, about quartering troops, is seldom-applied. But if I own a computer and I rent out accounts to others and the FBI comes to me and says We are putting a Carnivore computer in your place, how else can this be interpreted _except_ as a violation of the Third? This was from July, 2000. I believe it also came up in earlier discussions, including in a panel I was on with Michael Froomkin at a CFP in 1995. I could assume this also applies to the the TCPS (if it is ever required) and FCC's new mandate that DTV video devices sold in the U.S. after December 31, 2004 include a 'cop' inside to enforce compliance with the broadcast flag. steve
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
On Jan 13, 2004, at 8:41 AM, Steve Schear wrote: At 11:23 PM 1/12/2004, Tim May wrote: During the Carnivore debate, I argued that mandatory placement of computer agents in systems was equivalent to quartering troops: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg03198.html The Third Amendment, about quartering troops, is seldom-applied. But if I own a computer and I rent out accounts to others and the FBI comes to me and says We are putting a Carnivore computer in your place, how else can this be interpreted _except_ as a violation of the Third? This was from July, 2000. I believe it also came up in earlier discussions, including in a panel I was on with Michael Froomkin at a CFP in 1995. I could assume this also applies to the the TCPS (if it is ever required) and FCC's new mandate that DTV video devices sold in the U.S. after December 31, 2004 include a 'cop' inside to enforce compliance with the broadcast flag. In its purest form, I think not. If Alice is told that she must place some device in something she owns, which was the example with Carnivore, then the Third applies (she has been told to quarter troops, abstractly, in her home). If, however, Bob is told that in order to build television sets or VCRs he must include various noise suppression devices, as he must, or closed-captioning features, as he must, or the V-chip (as I believe he must, though I never hear of it being talked about, as we all figured would be the case), or the Macrovision devices (as may be the case), then this is a matter of regulation of those devices. Whether Alice then _chooses_ to buy such devices with troops already living in them, abstractly speaking, is her choice. Now the manufacturer may have a claim, but government regulation of manufacturers has been going on for a very long time, and unless a manufacturer can claim that the devices must be in his own home or operated in his premises, he cannot make a very strong case that _he_ is the one being affected by the quartering. The pure form of the Third (in this abstract sense) is when government knocks on one's door and says Here is something you must put inside your house. By the way, there have been a bunch of cases where residents of a neighborhood were ordered to leave so that SWAT teams could be in their houses to monitor a nearby house where a hostage situation had developed. (It is possible that in each house they occupied they received uncoerced permission to occupy the houses, but I don't think this was always the case; however, I can't cite a concrete case of this. Maybe Lexis has one.) If this takeover of houses to launch a raid is not a black letter law case of the government quartering troops in residences, nothing is. Exigent circumstance, perhaps, but so was King George's need to quarter his troops. --Tim May Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. --Patrick Henry
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 12:55:18PM -0600, bgt wrote: This has probably been mentioned here before, but another interesting approach is what justicefiles.org used to do (I'm not sure what the status of the site is, it seems to be down now). I believe the fellow who put up the site took it down in the last year, according to his lawyer, saying the purpose was served. I'm guessing he was probably tired of dealing with all the threats from cops as well. -Declan
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
At 10:48 AM 1/13/2004, Tim May wrote: On Jan 13, 2004, at 8:41 AM, Steve Schear wrote: This was from July, 2000. I believe it also came up in earlier discussions, including in a panel I was on with Michael Froomkin at a CFP in 1995. I could assume this also applies to the the TCPS (if it is ever required) and FCC's new mandate that DTV video devices sold in the U.S. after December 31, 2004 include a 'cop' inside to enforce compliance with the broadcast flag. In its purest form, I think not. If Alice is told that she must place some device in something she owns, which was the example with Carnivore, then the Third applies (she has been told to quarter troops, abstractly, in her home). If, however, Bob is told that in order to build television sets or VCRs he must include various noise suppression devices, as he must, or closed-captioning features, as he must, or the V-chip (as I believe he must, though I never hear of it being talked about, as we all figured would be the case), or the Macrovision devices (as may be the case), then this is a matter of regulation of those devices. Whether Alice then _chooses_ to buy such devices with troops already living in them, abstractly speaking, is her choice. Now the manufacturer may have a claim, but government regulation of manufacturers has been going on for a very long time, and unless a manufacturer can claim that the devices must be in his own home or operated in his premises, he cannot make a very strong case that _he_ is the one being affected by the quartering. It would seem that once GNURadio comes to fruition that many devices, including those the FCC would like to regulate, could be built from its generic, non-video, architecture. In that case, wouldn't FCC mandates applied to end-users (since end users will be the only ones who will configure the SW, FW and HW for an application the FCC would like to regulate, be a 3rd Amend. issue? steve
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 02:07, Tim May wrote: Read up on the Lawson case in San Diego. Tim is referring to Edward Lawson, arrested repeatedly and convicted once in the late 1970s for walking around without ID. The appeal made it to the Supreme Court, as Kolender v Lawson, 461 US 352 (1983). Lawson's conviction was overturned on grounds that the identify yourself law was too vague. Not surprisingly, Justice Actual Innocence Rehnquist felt that the law was good and Lawson's conviction was righteous. The opinion, with some introductory material, can be found at http://usff.com/hldl/courtcases/kolendervlawson.html A web page discussing this case in relation to a national ID card is http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/dept/polsciwb/page5.htm
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
On Jan 11, 2004, at 2:12 PM, bgt wrote: On Sun, 2004-01-11 at 13:57, Tim May wrote: I don't know if he did, but of course there is no requirement in the U.S. that citizen-units either carry or present ID. Unless they are driving a car or operating a few selected classes of heavy machinery. Many states do have laws allowing the police to detain a person for a period of time (varies by state) to ascertain the identity of that person, if they have reasonable suspicion that they are involved in a a crime. Duh. Yes, arrests are allowed, and have been in all states and in all territories since the beginning of things. The alternative to what you say is that all would remain free until their actual conviction and sentencing. I'm not aware of any laws that specifically require a person to actually carry ID, but when I was stopped in NV several years ago, walking back to my home from a nearby grocery store at about 3am, supposedly because a 7-11 nearby had just been robbed, I was told that if I did not present a valid state ID I would be arrested, taken to the precinct HQ, fingerprinted, and held until I could be positively ID'd. There are driver's licenses, for driving. And there are passports, for entering the U.S. (and other countries, but we don't care about that issue here). Those neither driving nor attempting to enter the U.S. need carry no such pieces of documentation. There is no national ID, nor even state ID. Period. Read up on the Lawson case in San Diego. --Tim May As my father told me long ago, the objective is not to convince someone with your arguments but to provide the arguments with which he later convinces himself. -- David Friedman
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
At 03:20 PM 1/11/2004, Jamie Lawrence wrote: A client/friend recently spent 9 hours in jail for failure to carry a wallet. He was doing something mildly suspicious, but not illegal. NYC has a very entrenched industry dealing with processing people the cops pick up. This has only gotten worse since Bloomberg and his quality of life racket. Breathing Without ID is essentially a crime that costs a day of your life, not less than ~$200, and a lot of humiliation. I thought the San Francisco cops were bad, before I moved here. (My friend was even told by the cops what to expect, and how best to optimize for getting out quickly. Kafka would have trouble doing better.) There was a mildly publicized incident in another part of Brooklyn recently where someone was ticketed after their child's balloon popped in public. A noise infraction. Quality of live, indeed. There are no quotas, but if you don't meet them, you're on report. This is one of the 'applications' for Zombie Patriots. Set up those practicing tyranny under color of the law for a quick trip to the coroner. Bring the fun of Hammas to New York. How we burned in the prison camps later thinking: What would things have been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive? --Alexander Solzhenitzyn, Gulag Archipelago
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 01:07, Tim May wrote: On Jan 11, 2004, at 2:12 PM, bgt wrote: On Sun, 2004-01-11 at 13:57, Tim May wrote: I don't know if he did, but of course there is no requirement in the U.S. that citizen-units either carry or present ID. Unless they are driving a car or operating a few selected classes of heavy machinery. Many states do have laws allowing the police to detain a person for a period of time (varies by state) to ascertain the identity of that person, if they have reasonable suspicion that they are involved in a a crime. Duh. Yes, arrests are allowed, and have been in all states and in all Perhaps I wasn't very clear. That is (in many states, probably not all), a cop may stop (detain) someone on reasonable suspicion, but it would still be illegal to arrest the person (since this would require probably cause). In these states, at this point the person is required by law to identify himself, and in some states even to provide proof of identification. If the person cannot or will not do this, it is legal in those states (though as we know, blatantly unconstitutional) to further detain or even arrest the person until their identity can be determined. Nevada's version of this has been ruled unconstitutional by the Ninth Circuit and the case is still pending in the US Supreme Court. need carry no such pieces of documentation. There is no national ID, nor even state ID. Period. You must mean /mandatory/ state ID. Every state I've lived in have State ID's that are (voluntarily) issued to residents that can't get or don't want a driver's license. All of these states grant their ID the same status as a driver's license for identification purposes (anywhere that accepts driver's license as valid ID must also accept the state ID). Read up on the Lawson case in San Diego. (Thanks Steve for the links). The Lawson case appears to be another example of the Supreme Court abdicating their responsibilities. There were no fourth amendment objections to CA's law in their decision. The Court said the law was unconstitutional because it was not specific enough, leaving too much discretion to the cop about what satisfies the identification requirement, when of course they should have ruled that the identification requirement itself is unconstitutional. There were no real objections to the principle behind the law, which is a damn shame. The closest I could find was in the dissent: Of course, if the statute on its face violates the Fourth or Fifth Amendment--and I express no views about that question--the Court would be justified in striking it down. But the majority apparently cannot bring itself to take this course. --bgt
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 01:26, Tim May wrote: Have you done this since 9/11? I know that in my [red]neck of the woods, I would without question be spending a few days in the system for this. That's what sniper rifles with low light scopes are for: kill one or both or all of the cops who arrested you in this way. Cops who abuse the criminal system and violate constitutional rights blatantly have earned killing. This has probably been mentioned here before, but another interesting approach is what justicefiles.org used to do (I'm not sure what the status of the site is, it seems to be down now). They collected the names of police officers (particularly ones known to be abusive of their authority) in King County, WA and published that + all public information they could find on them (including SSN's, addresses, phone numbers, etc). Of course the police tried to take the site down but the court upheld the site's right to publish any publicly available information about the cops (I believe they excepted the SSN's). --bgt
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
On Jan 12, 2004, at 10:40 AM, bgt wrote: On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 01:07, Tim May wrote: On Jan 11, 2004, at 2:12 PM, bgt wrote: On Sun, 2004-01-11 at 13:57, Tim May wrote: I don't know if he did, but of course there is no requirement in the U.S. that citizen-units either carry or present ID. Unless they are driving a car or operating a few selected classes of heavy machinery. Many states do have laws allowing the police to detain a person for a period of time (varies by state) to ascertain the identity of that person, if they have reasonable suspicion that they are involved in a a crime. Duh. Yes, arrests are allowed, and have been in all states and in all Perhaps I wasn't very clear. That is (in many states, probably not all), a cop may stop (detain) someone on reasonable suspicion, but it would still be illegal to arrest the person (since this would require probably cause). This has come up various times on the Net. I'm not a lawyer, but I take arrest to mean not free to move on. As in a state of arrest (cognate to rest), arrested motion, arrested development. Hence the common question: Am I under arrest?, with the follow-up: If not, then I'll be on my way. Arrest is not the same thing as being booked, of course. Many who are arrested are never booked. Arrest, to this nonlawyer, is when a cop tells me I am not free to move as I wish, that he will handcuff me or worse if I try to move away from him. I expect our millions of lawyers and hundreds of billions of court hours have produced a range of definitions, from the cop wants to know why you're reading a particular magazine, and will cuff you if you give him any lip to all black men within a 5 block radius are being detained for questioning, but are not under formal arrest to you're under arrest, put your hands behind your back to shooting first and Mirandizing the corpse. I am under arrest if I am in an arrested state of movement, that is, not free to move as I wish. In these states, at this point the person is required by law to identify himself, and in some states even to provide proof of identification. If the person cannot or will not do this, it is legal in those states (though as we know, blatantly unconstitutional) to further detain or even arrest the person until their identity can be determined. Again, people need to read up on the Lawson case. And absent an internal travel passport, there is no requirement to carry ID. That some states haven't heard about the Lawson case, or the Fourth Amendment, is no excuse. You must mean /mandatory/ state ID. Every state I've lived in have State ID's that are (voluntarily) issued to residents that can't get or don't want a driver's license. All of these states grant their ID the same status as a driver's license for identification purposes (anywhere that accepts driver's license as valid ID must also accept the state ID). As I said, there is no requirement to carry ID except when doing certain things (like driving). Whether some or most states will issue licenses to those who don't or can't drive is irrelevant: they are not REQUIRED to be carried, so not having one cannot possibly be a crime. Read up on the Lawson case in San Diego. (Thanks Steve for the links). I provided Lawson and San Diego. Plenty of stuff to find hundreds of discussions. I favor giving unique information sufficient in a Google search, not providing pre-digested search URLs. --Tim May We should not march into Baghdad. To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter- day Arab hero. Assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinable urban guerilla war, it could only plunge that part of the world into ever greater instability. --George H. W. Bush, A World Transformed, 1998
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
On Jan 12, 2004, at 10:55 AM, bgt wrote: On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 01:26, Tim May wrote: Have you done this since 9/11? I know that in my [red]neck of the woods, I would without question be spending a few days in the system for this. That's what sniper rifles with low light scopes are for: kill one or both or all of the cops who arrested you in this way. Cops who abuse the criminal system and violate constitutional rights blatantly have earned killing. This has probably been mentioned here before, but another interesting approach is what justicefiles.org used to do (I'm not sure what the status of the site is, it seems to be down now). They collected the names of police officers (particularly ones known to be abusive of their authority) in King County, WA and published that + all public information they could find on them (including SSN's, addresses, phone numbers, etc). Of course the police tried to take the site down but the court upheld the site's right to publish any publicly available information about the cops (I believe they excepted the SSN's). The First Amendment is quite clear about prior restraint and censorship. Not only is it legal for The Progressive to publish details of how to make a hydrogen bomb, and for the New York Times to publish the Pentagon Papers, but it is legal to publish SS numbers when they become available. Now civil actions are another can of worms, and Bill Gates, for example, may sue somebody for publishing his SS number. Or I may sue the U.S. Marshal's Service for illegally using my SS number as a legal ID (which my SS card, still in my possession from when I got it in 1969) says is to be used for tax and Social Security purposes ONLY and MAY NOT be used for identifcation) and letting it circulate over the Net. But such civil suits--by Gates, by cops, by me--are NOT the same as prior restraint on publishing words. (Though of course this is only the _theory_. The fact that all of the Bill of Rights, except perhaps the Third, have been violated by the Evildoers in government is well-known.) --Tim May
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 15:48, Tim May wrote: (Though of course this is only the _theory_. The fact that all of the Bill of Rights, except perhaps the Third, have been violated by the Evildoers in government is well-known.) A few years ago I wrote a short paper looking at government-installed snoopware in terms of the 3rd A. Given that the other BoR amendments have been broadly interpreted in light of new technology, it's reasonable to view software as soldiers. In light of the Scarfo case (keyboard sniffer software installed in a black-bag operation, ca. 1990) I'd argue that the Fedz have violated the 3rd A. (My paper was before Scarfo, so I claim some prescience. Alas.) SRF
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 02:07, Tim May wrote: Read up on the Lawson case in San Diego. Tim is referring to Edward Lawson, arrested repeatedly and convicted once in the late 1970s for walking around without ID. The appeal made it to the Supreme Court, as Kolender v Lawson, 461 US 352 (1983). Lawson's conviction was overturned on grounds that the identify yourself law was too vague. Not surprisingly, Justice Actual Innocence Rehnquist felt that the law was good and Lawson's conviction was righteous. The opinion, with some introductory material, can be found at http://usff.com/hldl/courtcases/kolendervlawson.html A web page discussing this case in relation to a national ID card is http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/dept/polsciwb/page5.htm
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
At 03:20 PM 1/11/2004, Jamie Lawrence wrote: A client/friend recently spent 9 hours in jail for failure to carry a wallet. He was doing something mildly suspicious, but not illegal. NYC has a very entrenched industry dealing with processing people the cops pick up. This has only gotten worse since Bloomberg and his quality of life racket. Breathing Without ID is essentially a crime that costs a day of your life, not less than ~$200, and a lot of humiliation. I thought the San Francisco cops were bad, before I moved here. (My friend was even told by the cops what to expect, and how best to optimize for getting out quickly. Kafka would have trouble doing better.) There was a mildly publicized incident in another part of Brooklyn recently where someone was ticketed after their child's balloon popped in public. A noise infraction. Quality of live, indeed. There are no quotas, but if you don't meet them, you're on report. This is one of the 'applications' for Zombie Patriots. Set up those practicing tyranny under color of the law for a quick trip to the coroner. Bring the fun of Hammas to New York. How we burned in the prison camps later thinking: What would things have been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive? --Alexander Solzhenitzyn, Gulag Archipelago
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
On Jan 11, 2004, at 11:33 PM, Steve Furlong wrote: On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 02:07, Tim May wrote: Read up on the Lawson case in San Diego. Tim is referring to Edward Lawson, arrested repeatedly and convicted once in the late 1970s for walking around without ID. The appeal made it to the Supreme Court, as Kolender v Lawson, 461 US 352 (1983). Lawson's conviction was overturned on grounds that the identify yourself law was too vague. Not surprisingly, Justice Actual Innocence Rehnquist felt that the law was good and Lawson's conviction was righteous. The opinion, with some introductory material, can be found at http://usff.com/hldl/courtcases/kolendervlawson.html A web page discussing this case in relation to a national ID card is http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/dept/polsciwb/page5.htm And vast amounts of misinformation are constantly being spread by the popular press, and in popular television shows, and in movies. One of the most popular t.v. shows, the oxymoronically named Law and Order, almost weekly shows someone being told that if he doesn't help the police his restaurant will be shut down for a week while city health inspectors use a microscope on it. Another meme that is false is spread by NYPD Blue, Law and Order, and the Fox show that used to be on: Cops (not sure if it still is). Namely, that Fifth Amendment rights against compelled self-incrimination only apply after an actual arrest (You haven't been arrested yet, so let's not hear about how you can remain silent.), or after an attorney has arrived (He lawyered up.) The right not to be compelled to provide potentially incriminating evidence is a broad one, deeply enmeshed in our Bill of Rights. Even someone suspected of a crime, even a very serious crime, is under no compulsion to talk to the police, whether or not he has a lawyer present. There are regrettable exceptions, such as in our pre-constitutional (my view of it) grand jury system, where people can be told to tell all they know. Sometimes they get various types of immunity, often the claim is that their grand jury testimony will not be used to convict them (if they not ostensibly the principals in the crime!), and so on. But the fact is that grand jury testimony is often compelled self-incrimination. (And one of the ways the Feds have been getting people they can't get in other, more direct, ways is to interview parties in a case and then find some subtle contradiction. Then the charge is lying to a federal employee (or somesuch...maybe the language is lying in an official investigation, to distinguish it from lying to your neighbor the GS-12 midlevel employee at NASA). What I've done in several cases where I was stopped by cops is to SAY NOTHING. In the Stanford case, I told them I would not be giving them either my name or telling them what my business was that day at Stanford: it was not their business and I saw no reason to satisfy their curiosity. In a couple of cases in Santa Cruz, cops have asked me my name and asked why i was in a particular area. I told them I would be answering no questions. In none of these cases was I arrested, booked, or charged. I would, and have, answer questions if I knew there was no conceivable way I could become a person of interest in a case. I have answered police questions in some crimes I have had knowledge of (and wished to see the guilty parties dealt with...I would not lightly aid in a drug case, though. And if one is committing no crime, answering a nosy cop's questions is neither required by my reading of the Constitution nor is healthy. (In the Stanford case, had I given them my name and/or ID, my name would have appeared in a report about threats to the President, and our resolution of the case--the SS version of quotas for traffic tickets. (When one cop blurted out to me that he had seen me planting a bomb near the route Clinton would pass by, I _was_ tempted to say I demand a lawyer!, just so they'd arrest me, etc. But I didn't, which is probably good, as I might have spent a few nights in jail...and felt the requirement to stalk the arresting officers and use a sniper rifle on one or more of them.) We are certainly entering a police state era. Interesting that so many Jews are so strongly behind the fascist measures...Jews like Swinestein, Boxer, Lieberman, and hundreds of others. But, as in the ZOG state, the true heirs of the Third Reich are today's Jews...it would make a good Outer Limits episode, except the modern OL was thoroughly leftist, anti-gun, pro-ZOG, and had several episodes involving SS camp guards reincarnated as camp residents, and variations. So having the SS reincarnated in the ZOG state would not have fit their Zionist biases. What the Jews think of Goyim is covered in the quotes from the Talmud, below. --Tim May #1. Sanhedrin 59a: Murdering Goyim (Gentiles) is like killing a wild animal. #2. Aboda Sarah 37a: A Gentile girl who is three years old can be
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 01:26, Tim May wrote: Have you done this since 9/11? I know that in my [red]neck of the woods, I would without question be spending a few days in the system for this. That's what sniper rifles with low light scopes are for: kill one or both or all of the cops who arrested you in this way. Cops who abuse the criminal system and violate constitutional rights blatantly have earned killing. This has probably been mentioned here before, but another interesting approach is what justicefiles.org used to do (I'm not sure what the status of the site is, it seems to be down now). They collected the names of police officers (particularly ones known to be abusive of their authority) in King County, WA and published that + all public information they could find on them (including SSN's, addresses, phone numbers, etc). Of course the police tried to take the site down but the court upheld the site's right to publish any publicly available information about the cops (I believe they excepted the SSN's). --bgt
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
On Jan 12, 2004, at 10:40 AM, bgt wrote: On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 01:07, Tim May wrote: On Jan 11, 2004, at 2:12 PM, bgt wrote: On Sun, 2004-01-11 at 13:57, Tim May wrote: I don't know if he did, but of course there is no requirement in the U.S. that citizen-units either carry or present ID. Unless they are driving a car or operating a few selected classes of heavy machinery. Many states do have laws allowing the police to detain a person for a period of time (varies by state) to ascertain the identity of that person, if they have reasonable suspicion that they are involved in a a crime. Duh. Yes, arrests are allowed, and have been in all states and in all Perhaps I wasn't very clear. That is (in many states, probably not all), a cop may stop (detain) someone on reasonable suspicion, but it would still be illegal to arrest the person (since this would require probably cause). This has come up various times on the Net. I'm not a lawyer, but I take arrest to mean not free to move on. As in a state of arrest (cognate to rest), arrested motion, arrested development. Hence the common question: Am I under arrest?, with the follow-up: If not, then I'll be on my way. Arrest is not the same thing as being booked, of course. Many who are arrested are never booked. Arrest, to this nonlawyer, is when a cop tells me I am not free to move as I wish, that he will handcuff me or worse if I try to move away from him. I expect our millions of lawyers and hundreds of billions of court hours have produced a range of definitions, from the cop wants to know why you're reading a particular magazine, and will cuff you if you give him any lip to all black men within a 5 block radius are being detained for questioning, but are not under formal arrest to you're under arrest, put your hands behind your back to shooting first and Mirandizing the corpse. I am under arrest if I am in an arrested state of movement, that is, not free to move as I wish. In these states, at this point the person is required by law to identify himself, and in some states even to provide proof of identification. If the person cannot or will not do this, it is legal in those states (though as we know, blatantly unconstitutional) to further detain or even arrest the person until their identity can be determined. Again, people need to read up on the Lawson case. And absent an internal travel passport, there is no requirement to carry ID. That some states haven't heard about the Lawson case, or the Fourth Amendment, is no excuse. You must mean /mandatory/ state ID. Every state I've lived in have State ID's that are (voluntarily) issued to residents that can't get or don't want a driver's license. All of these states grant their ID the same status as a driver's license for identification purposes (anywhere that accepts driver's license as valid ID must also accept the state ID). As I said, there is no requirement to carry ID except when doing certain things (like driving). Whether some or most states will issue licenses to those who don't or can't drive is irrelevant: they are not REQUIRED to be carried, so not having one cannot possibly be a crime. Read up on the Lawson case in San Diego. (Thanks Steve for the links). I provided Lawson and San Diego. Plenty of stuff to find hundreds of discussions. I favor giving unique information sufficient in a Google search, not providing pre-digested search URLs. --Tim May We should not march into Baghdad. To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter- day Arab hero. Assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinable urban guerilla war, it could only plunge that part of the world into ever greater instability. --George H. W. Bush, A World Transformed, 1998
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
At 06:53 PM 1/10/2004, Steve Furlong wrote: On Sat, 2004-01-10 at 19:02, J.A. Terranson wrote: What good is a Jury when the judge can pick and choose which arguments and evidence you can provide in support of your case? I've occasionally handed out pamphlets on jury nullification outside the local county courthouse. Never been arrested for it, but I've caught a raft of shit from cops. The cops were acting, presumably, under direction from the judges or maybe the DA. Those guys just hate jurors thinking for themselves, you know. Did you carry and present ID? steve
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004, Steve Furlong wrote: On Sun, 2004-01-11 at 14:18, Steve Schear wrote: Did you carry and present ID? No. Once it was requested (strongly requested, just short of a demand with threats), but when I demanded his justification he backed down. In NY, at least at the time, citizens were not required to carry or present ID, nor identify themselves on demand without cause. I believe that is no longer the case. Correct. A client/friend recently spent 9 hours in jail for failure to carry a wallet. He was doing something mildly suspicious, but not illegal. NYC has a very entrenched industry dealing with processing people the cops pick up. This has only gotten worse since Bloomberg and his quality of life racket. Breathing Without ID is essentially a crime that costs a day of your life, not less than ~$200, and a lot of humiliation. I thought the San Francisco cops were bad, before I moved here. (My friend was even told by the cops what to expect, and how best to optimize for getting out quickly. Kafka would have trouble doing better.) There was a mildly publicized incident in another part of Brooklyn recently where someone was ticketed after their child's balloon popped in public. A noise infraction. Quality of live, indeed. There are no quotas, but if you don't meet them, you're on report. I'd prefer a good old fashioned Mafia protection scheme. At least that would be straightforward. -j -- Jamie Lawrence[EMAIL PROTECTED] It it ain't broke, let me have a shot at it.
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
On Sun, 2004-01-11 at 14:18, Steve Schear wrote: Did you carry and present ID? No. Once it was requested (strongly requested, just short of a demand with threats), but when I demanded his justification he backed down. In NY, at least at the time, citizens were not required to carry or present ID, nor identify themselves on demand without cause. I believe that is no longer the case.
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
At 03:20 PM 1/11/2004, Jamie Lawrence wrote: A client/friend recently spent 9 hours in jail for failure to carry a wallet. He was doing something mildly suspicious, but not illegal. NYC has a very entrenched industry dealing with processing people the cops pick up. This has only gotten worse since Bloomberg and his quality of life racket. Breathing Without ID is essentially a crime that costs a day of your life, not less than ~$200, and a lot of humiliation. I thought the San Francisco cops were bad, before I moved here. (My friend was even told by the cops what to expect, and how best to optimize for getting out quickly. Kafka would have trouble doing better.) There was a mildly publicized incident in another part of Brooklyn recently where someone was ticketed after their child's balloon popped in public. A noise infraction. Quality of live, indeed. There are no quotas, but if you don't meet them, you're on report. This is one of the 'applications' for Zombie Patriots. Set up those practicing tyranny under color of the law for a quick trip to the coroner. Bring the fun of Hammas to New York. How we burned in the prison camps later thinking: What would things have been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive? --Alexander Solzhenitzyn, Gulag Archipelago
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004, Steve Furlong wrote: I've occasionally handed out pamphlets on jury nullification outside the local county courthouse. Never been arrested for it, but I've caught a raft of shit from cops. Have you done this since 9/11? I know that in my [red]neck of the woods, I would without question be spending a few days in the system for this. Interestingly, the first nullification pamphlet I ever received was from a cop I know: he was also handing these out at one time (a lnggg time ago). Not all LEAs are without clue, just the vast majority of them :-( -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unbridled nationalism, as distinguished from a sane and legitimate patriotism, must give way to a wider loyalty, to the love of humanity as a whole. Bah'u'llh's statement is: The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens. The Promise of World Peace http://www.us.bahai.org/interactive/pdaFiles/pwp.htm
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
On Jan 11, 2004, at 11:18 AM, Steve Schear wrote: At 06:53 PM 1/10/2004, Steve Furlong wrote: On Sat, 2004-01-10 at 19:02, J.A. Terranson wrote: What good is a Jury when the judge can pick and choose which arguments and evidence you can provide in support of your case? I've occasionally handed out pamphlets on jury nullification outside the local county courthouse. Never been arrested for it, but I've caught a raft of shit from cops. The cops were acting, presumably, under direction from the judges or maybe the DA. Those guys just hate jurors thinking for themselves, you know. Did you carry and present ID? steve I don't know if he did, but of course there is no requirement in the U.S. that citizen-units either carry or present ID. Unless they are driving a car or operating a few selected classes of heavy machinery. When I was surrounded by some cops who accused me of planting a bomb to blow up Reichsminister Clinton and his family, I refuse to show them some ID. I also refused to let them look in my bag. Despite their bluster, they had no grounds for their belief, no grounds for a Terry stop search of my papers, and no grounds to arrest me. So they neither searched my papers forcibly nor arrested me. They did, however, order me to leave the grounds of Stanford University, almost making me late for a talk before Margaret Rader's cyberspace law class, scheduled long, long before the First Fascist scheduled _his_ trip to Stanford. --Tim May
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
On Sun, 2004-01-11 at 13:57, Tim May wrote: I don't know if he did, but of course there is no requirement in the U.S. that citizen-units either carry or present ID. Unless they are driving a car or operating a few selected classes of heavy machinery. Many states do have laws allowing the police to detain a person for a period of time (varies by state) to ascertain the identity of that person, if they have reasonable suspicion that they are involved in a a crime. I'm not aware of any laws that specifically require a person to actually carry ID, but when I was stopped in NV several years ago, walking back to my home from a nearby grocery store at about 3am, supposedly because a 7-11 nearby had just been robbed, I was told that if I did not present a valid state ID I would be arrested, taken to the precinct HQ, fingerprinted, and held until I could be positively ID'd. The constitutionality of these laws are being challenged. In Hiibel vs. NV, Hiibel refused 11 times to identify himself to police before he was arrested (illegal under NV statute). The NV Supreme Court has upheld the law, with a few dissents: The dissent then pointed out that the Ninth Circuit federal appeals court not only upholds the right to refuse to provide identification to an officer before arrest, but has specifically found Nev. Rev. Stat. B' 171.123(3) unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. The dissent opinion criticized the majority for reflexively reasoning that the public interest in police safety outweighs Hiibel's interest in refusing to identify himself, noting that no evidence exists that an officer is safer for knowing a person's identity. What the majority fails to recognize, the dissenting opinion continued, is that it is the observable conduct, not the identity, of a person, upon which an officer must legally rely when investigating crimes and enforcing the law. The US Supreme Court has agreed to review and is scheduled to hear arguments this year. http://www.epic.org/privacy/hiibel/default.html --bgt
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
At 03:20 PM 1/11/2004, Jamie Lawrence wrote: A client/friend recently spent 9 hours in jail for failure to carry a wallet. He was doing something mildly suspicious, but not illegal. NYC has a very entrenched industry dealing with processing people the cops pick up. This has only gotten worse since Bloomberg and his quality of life racket. Breathing Without ID is essentially a crime that costs a day of your life, not less than ~$200, and a lot of humiliation. I thought the San Francisco cops were bad, before I moved here. (My friend was even told by the cops what to expect, and how best to optimize for getting out quickly. Kafka would have trouble doing better.) There was a mildly publicized incident in another part of Brooklyn recently where someone was ticketed after their child's balloon popped in public. A noise infraction. Quality of live, indeed. There are no quotas, but if you don't meet them, you're on report. This is one of the 'applications' for Zombie Patriots. Set up those practicing tyranny under color of the law for a quick trip to the coroner. Bring the fun of Hammas to New York. How we burned in the prison camps later thinking: What would things have been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive? --Alexander Solzhenitzyn, Gulag Archipelago
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004, Steve Furlong wrote: I've occasionally handed out pamphlets on jury nullification outside the local county courthouse. Never been arrested for it, but I've caught a raft of shit from cops. Have you done this since 9/11? I know that in my [red]neck of the woods, I would without question be spending a few days in the system for this. Interestingly, the first nullification pamphlet I ever received was from a cop I know: he was also handing these out at one time (a lnggg time ago). Not all LEAs are without clue, just the vast majority of them :-( -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unbridled nationalism, as distinguished from a sane and legitimate patriotism, must give way to a wider loyalty, to the love of humanity as a whole. Bah'u'llh's statement is: The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens. The Promise of World Peace http://www.us.bahai.org/interactive/pdaFiles/pwp.htm
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
On Sun, 2004-01-11 at 14:18, Steve Schear wrote: Did you carry and present ID? No. Once it was requested (strongly requested, just short of a demand with threats), but when I demanded his justification he backed down. In NY, at least at the time, citizens were not required to carry or present ID, nor identify themselves on demand without cause. I believe that is no longer the case.
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
At 06:53 PM 1/10/2004, Steve Furlong wrote: On Sat, 2004-01-10 at 19:02, J.A. Terranson wrote: What good is a Jury when the judge can pick and choose which arguments and evidence you can provide in support of your case? I've occasionally handed out pamphlets on jury nullification outside the local county courthouse. Never been arrested for it, but I've caught a raft of shit from cops. The cops were acting, presumably, under direction from the judges or maybe the DA. Those guys just hate jurors thinking for themselves, you know. Did you carry and present ID? steve
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
On Jan 11, 2004, at 11:18 AM, Steve Schear wrote: At 06:53 PM 1/10/2004, Steve Furlong wrote: On Sat, 2004-01-10 at 19:02, J.A. Terranson wrote: What good is a Jury when the judge can pick and choose which arguments and evidence you can provide in support of your case? I've occasionally handed out pamphlets on jury nullification outside the local county courthouse. Never been arrested for it, but I've caught a raft of shit from cops. The cops were acting, presumably, under direction from the judges or maybe the DA. Those guys just hate jurors thinking for themselves, you know. Did you carry and present ID? steve I don't know if he did, but of course there is no requirement in the U.S. that citizen-units either carry or present ID. Unless they are driving a car or operating a few selected classes of heavy machinery. When I was surrounded by some cops who accused me of planting a bomb to blow up Reichsminister Clinton and his family, I refuse to show them some ID. I also refused to let them look in my bag. Despite their bluster, they had no grounds for their belief, no grounds for a Terry stop search of my papers, and no grounds to arrest me. So they neither searched my papers forcibly nor arrested me. They did, however, order me to leave the grounds of Stanford University, almost making me late for a talk before Margaret Rader's cyberspace law class, scheduled long, long before the First Fascist scheduled _his_ trip to Stanford. --Tim May
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
On Sun, 2004-01-11 at 13:57, Tim May wrote: I don't know if he did, but of course there is no requirement in the U.S. that citizen-units either carry or present ID. Unless they are driving a car or operating a few selected classes of heavy machinery. Many states do have laws allowing the police to detain a person for a period of time (varies by state) to ascertain the identity of that person, if they have reasonable suspicion that they are involved in a a crime. I'm not aware of any laws that specifically require a person to actually carry ID, but when I was stopped in NV several years ago, walking back to my home from a nearby grocery store at about 3am, supposedly because a 7-11 nearby had just been robbed, I was told that if I did not present a valid state ID I would be arrested, taken to the precinct HQ, fingerprinted, and held until I could be positively ID'd. The constitutionality of these laws are being challenged. In Hiibel vs. NV, Hiibel refused 11 times to identify himself to police before he was arrested (illegal under NV statute). The NV Supreme Court has upheld the law, with a few dissents: The dissent then pointed out that the Ninth Circuit federal appeals court not only upholds the right to refuse to provide identification to an officer before arrest, but has specifically found Nev. Rev. Stat. B' 171.123(3) unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. The dissent opinion criticized the majority for reflexively reasoning that the public interest in police safety outweighs Hiibel's interest in refusing to identify himself, noting that no evidence exists that an officer is safer for knowing a person's identity. What the majority fails to recognize, the dissenting opinion continued, is that it is the observable conduct, not the identity, of a person, upon which an officer must legally rely when investigating crimes and enforcing the law. The US Supreme Court has agreed to review and is scheduled to hear arguments this year. http://www.epic.org/privacy/hiibel/default.html --bgt
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
On Sat, 2004-01-10 at 00:22, bgt wrote: On Thu, 2004-01-08 at 10:59, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That made Silveira the law of the land, you see. That means that no American citizen, since December 1, 2003, has a fundamental right to possess a firearm. Only in the 9th circuit. I should've said: only in the 9th circuit, in states that don't have a state constitutional provision regarding right to keep and bear arms. I believe the only state that falls in that category is CA. Every other state in the 9th circuit has a constitutional provision that is usually even more explicit than the 2nd ammendment. Most explicitly state the /individual/ has the right to keep and bear arms (as opposed to the people which some courts have interpreted to mean the state or state-approved/regulated militias). For example, NV is typical: Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes. Article 1, Section 11, Paragraph 1. --bgt
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
On Jan 9, 2004, at 10:17 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Its hard to square the Founder's purpose of providing the common citizen, through a militia (which a National Guard), with an effective physical deterrent to governmental tyranny with many restrictions on the type of weapons a citizen in good standing may keep and bear. Though allowing the guy next door to own a nuke or a F-15 may be going too far, its not unreasonable for any of us to keep and bear any arm that our police forces (including S.W.A.T. teams) field. Where does this citizen in good standing stuff come from? I see it a lot from what I will call weak Second Amendment supporters. They talk about good citizens and law-abiding citizens as having Second Amendment rights. If someone has been apprehended and convicted and imprisoned for a real crime, then of course various of their normal rights are no longer in forced. If, however, they are out of prison then all of their rights, including speech, religion, assembly, firearms, due process, security of their possessions and property, speedy trial, blah blah blah are of course in force. As a felon, which I am, do I not have First Amendment rights? As a felon, and certainly not a citizen in good standing, have I lost my other rights? To all who say Yes, including most of the Eurotrash collectivists here, I say your legacy shall be smoke. Tens of millions, perhaps billions, need to be sent up the chimneys. --Tim May The great object is that every man be armed and everyone who is able may have a gun. --Patrick Henry The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed. --Alexander Hamilton
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
On Jan 9, 2004, at 10:17 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Its hard to square the Founder's purpose of providing the common citizen, through a militia (which a National Guard), with an effective physical deterrent to governmental tyranny with many restrictions on the type of weapons a citizen in good standing may keep and bear. Though allowing the guy next door to own a nuke or a F-15 may be going too far, its not unreasonable for any of us to keep and bear any arm that our police forces (including S.W.A.T. teams) field. Where does this citizen in good standing stuff come from? I see it a lot from what I will call weak Second Amendment supporters. They talk about good citizens and law-abiding citizens as having Second Amendment rights. If someone has been apprehended and convicted and imprisoned for a real crime, then of course various of their normal rights are no longer in forced. If, however, they are out of prison then all of their rights, including speech, religion, assembly, firearms, due process, security of their possessions and property, speedy trial, blah blah blah are of course in force. As a felon, which I am, do I not have First Amendment rights? As a felon, and certainly not a citizen in good standing, have I lost my other rights? To all who say Yes, including most of the Eurotrash collectivists here, I say your legacy shall be smoke. Tens of millions, perhaps billions, need to be sent up the chimneys. --Tim May The great object is that every man be armed and everyone who is able may have a gun. --Patrick Henry The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed. --Alexander Hamilton
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
On Sat, 2004-01-10 at 19:02, J.A. Terranson wrote: What good is a Jury when the judge can pick and choose which arguments and evidence you can provide in support of your case? I've occasionally handed out pamphlets on jury nullification outside the local county courthouse. Never been arrested for it, but I've caught a raft of shit from cops. The cops were acting, presumably, under direction from the judges or maybe the DA. Those guys just hate jurors thinking for themselves, you know.
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Greg Broiles wrote: At 08:59 AM 1/8/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The great American experiment finally fizzled on December 1, 2003, when the US Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from a 9th Federal Circuit decision which gutted the Second Amendment. It was a nice run - over two hundred years. As of December 1, 2003, the US Supreme Court issued its ruling, refusing to hear an appeal in the case of Silveira vs. Lockyer. That made Silveira the law of the land, you see. No, that's absolutely incorrect. Every conclusion you reach which depends on that flawed premise is suspect. Further appeals to Congress and the states are no longer a sure bet. The soap box and the ballot box have been throughly tried, is it now time to get out the ammo box? You're forgetting the jury box. What good is a Jury when the judge can pick and choose which arguments and evidence you can provide in support of your case? -- Greg Broiles [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unbridled nationalism, as distinguished from a sane and legitimate patriotism, must give way to a wider loyalty, to the love of humanity as a whole. Bah'u'llh's statement is: The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens. The Promise of World Peace http://www.us.bahai.org/interactive/pdaFiles/pwp.htm
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
At 08:59 AM 1/8/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The great American experiment finally fizzled on December 1, 2003, when the US Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from a 9th Federal Circuit decision which gutted the Second Amendment. It was a nice run - over two hundred years. As of December 1, 2003, the US Supreme Court issued its ruling, refusing to hear an appeal in the case of Silveira vs. Lockyer. That made Silveira the law of the land, you see. No, that's absolutely incorrect. Every conclusion you reach which depends on that flawed premise is suspect. Further appeals to Congress and the states are no longer a sure bet. The soap box and the ballot box have been throughly tried, is it now time to get out the ammo box? You're forgetting the jury box. -- Greg Broiles [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
Further appeals to Congress and the states are no longer a sure bet. The soap box and the ballot box have been throughly tried, is it now time to get out the ammo box? You're forgetting the jury box. Are you forgetting that the Fat Lady on the jury, at least in the 9th Circuit, already sang? That's how we got to where we are. Could other juries in other cases decide differently? Sure. But why wait any more than Congress or some States may wait? In two key cases last century the logic of the Supreme Court or lack of it was clearly revealed as they tried to somehow interpret away historical record and Founder intention to square the 2nd Amendment with statist needs. In Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942) the Supreme Court unbelievably held that U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) had not intended to formulate a general rule regarding which arms were protected by the Second Amendment and therefore many types of arms were not protected. In fact Miller held that it is the firearm itself, not the act of keeping and bearing the firearm, which must have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Meaning if the weapon qualified any citizen could keep and near it. A plain reading of Miller meant only weapons with non-military application could be regulated by Congress and that could not be right because it challenged the 'right' of government to have a force monopoly. So the Court's reasoning was that the Founders could not have meant for the federal government to have any effective deterrent to its tyranny from the citizenry. Even after absorbing the opinion, I cannot fathom how convoluted a reading of the historical record those on bench needed in order to arrive at their conclusion. Pretzel logic indeed!
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
At 08:10 PM 1/9/2004, you wrote: Further appeals to Congress and the states are no longer a sure bet. The soap box and the ballot box have been throughly tried, is it now time to get out the ammo box? You're forgetting the jury box. Are you forgetting that the Fat Lady on the jury, at least in the 9th Circuit, already sang? Um, no, it didn't. There was no jury in Silveira - Silveira was a constitutional challenge to legislation, which is a question of law decided by judges, not a fact question decided by juries. Did you actually read the opinion, or just read some screwball summary of it? In Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942) the Supreme Court [...] Nope. That opinion was written, as the citation indicated, by the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, not the Supreme Court. unbelievably held that U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) had not intended to formulate a general rule regarding which arms were protected by the Second Amendment and therefore many types of arms were not protected. While I do think that the 2nd Amendment does, in fact, protect an individual right to keep and bear arms, I think that the 1st Circuit's reasoning re _Miller_ in _Cases_ is actually quite reasonable. The opinion points out that interpreting _Miller_ so that it says the 2nd Amendment means that Congress can regulate firearms, but only ineffective or useless ones, is nonsensical. While I don't think the Ninth Circuit reads _Miller_ in a reasonable fashion, I don't think the only useless weapons may be regulated is an especially rational interpretation of it, either. A plain reading of Miller meant only weapons with non-military application could be regulated by Congress and that could not be right because it challenged the 'right' of government to have a force monopoly. So the Court's reasoning was that the Founders could not have meant for the federal government to have any effective deterrent to its tyranny from the citizenry. Even after absorbing the opinion, I cannot fathom how convoluted a reading of the historical record those on bench needed in order to arrive at their conclusion. Pretzel logic indeed! Yes, that is an unreasonable conclusion to reach. It is also unreasonable to conclude that the 2nd Amendment means that no regulation of weapons is constitutionally permissible. Even the 1st Amendment - which contains the words shall make no law - is interpreted to allow some regulation of speech. (e.g., shouting theater in a crowded fire, etc.) -- Greg Broiles [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 9-Jan-04, at 8:37 PM, Greg Broiles wrote: Further appeals to Congress and the states are no longer a sure bet. The soap box and the ballot box have been throughly tried, is it now time to get out the ammo box? You're forgetting the jury box. no he is not... It's is a rather limited thinking. The USSR as well as several other countries came down when the masses went on the street. No guns necessary. - -- Michael What fun is it? Why all that hard, exhausting work? Where does it get you? Where's the good of it? It is one of the strange ironies of this strange life that those who work the hardest, who subject themselves to the strictest discipline, who give up certain pleasurable things in order to achieve a goal, are the happiest... - --Brutus Hamilton, Coach of Olympic Track Team, 1952 Helsinki Olympics -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP/9tcmlCnxcrW2uuEQK5xACfQPCJhRV5OjbM0zwcW0e0isN9swkAn1AN Ea4UCDapxyfN8JR3gqXILjWk =BIgz -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
At 08:10 PM 1/9/2004, Greg Broiles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Did you actually read the opinion, or just read some screwball summary of it? Obviously not well enough. Thanks for straightening me out. In Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942) the Supreme Court [...] Nope. That opinion was written, as the citation indicated, by the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, not the Supreme Court. unbelievably held that U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) had not intended to formulate a general rule regarding which arms were protected by the Second Amendment and therefore many types of arms were not protected. While I do think that the 2nd Amendment does, in fact, protect an individual right to keep and bear arms, I think that the 1st Circuit's reasoning re _Miller_ in _Cases_ is actually quite reasonable. The opinion points out that interpreting _Miller_ so that it says the 2nd Amendment means that Congress can regulate firearms, but only ineffective or useless ones, is nonsensical. While I don't think the Ninth Circuit reads _Miller_ in a reasonable fashion, I don't think the only useless weapons may be regulated is an especially rational interpretation of it, either. A plain reading of Miller meant only weapons with non-military application could be regulated by Congress and that could not be right because it challenged the 'right' of government to have a force monopoly. So the Court's reasoning was that the Founders could not have meant for the federal government to have any effective deterrent to its tyranny from the citizenry. Even after absorbing the opinion, I cannot fathom how convoluted a reading of the historical record those on bench needed in order to arrive at their conclusion. Pretzel logic indeed! Yes, that is an unreasonable conclusion to reach. It is also unreasonable to conclude that the 2nd Amendment means that no regulation of weapons is constitutionally permissible. Its hard to square the Founder's purpose of providing the common citizen, through a militia (which a National Guard), with an effective physical deterrent to governmental tyranny with many restrictions on the type of weapons a citizen in good standing may keep and bear. Though allowing the guy next door to own a nuke or a F-15 may be going too far, its not unreasonable for any of us to keep and bear any arm that our police forces (including S.W.A.T. teams) field. Even the 1st Amendment - which contains the words shall make no law - is interpreted to allow some regulation of speech. (e.g., shouting theater in a crowded fire, etc.) Only if there is no fire. When a government comes to a bad end there is indeed a fire in the theater.
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
On Thu, 2004-01-08 at 10:59, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That made Silveira the law of the land, you see. That means that no American citizen, since December 1, 2003, has a fundamental right to possess a firearm. Only in the 9th circuit. The 5th circuit (in 2001) has previously given an opinion in direct opposition to the 9th circuit's finding. http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/99/99-10331-cr0.htm We find that the history of the Second Amendment reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or not they are a member of a select militia or performing active military service or training. and We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment. We hold, consistent with Miller, that it protects the right of individuals, including those not then actually a member of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to privately possess and bear their own firearms... and In undertaking this analysis, we are mindful that almost all of our sister circuits have rejected any individual rights view of the Second Amendment. However, it respectfully appears to us that all or almost all of these opinions seem to have done so either on the erroneous assumption that Miller resolved that issue or without sufficient articulated examination of the history and text of the Second Amendment. So in the 5th circuit, the individual right to keep bear arms is still explicitly recognized and upheld. The Supreme Court will eventually have to resolve this discrepancy amongst the lower courts, it's unclear what kind of case it will take to push them to it though, given their historical extreme reluctance to hear any 2nd amendment cases. And it's very dubious what the decision would be. --bgt
US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
The great American experiment finally fizzled on December 1, 2003, when the US Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from a 9th Federal Circuit decision which gutted the Second Amendment. It was a nice run - over two hundred years. As of December 1, 2003, the US Supreme Court issued its ruling, refusing to hear an appeal in the case of Silveira vs. Lockyer. That made Silveira the law of the land, you see. You might think that the Silveria case was about the definition of an “assault weapon” but you’d be mistaken. In Silveira, the 9th Circuit Court made the following pronouncement: there is no individual right to bear arms contained within the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. That means that no American citizen, since December 1, 2003, has a fundamental right to possess a firearm. http://www.conspiracypenpal.com/columns/arms.htm http://www.keepandbeararms.com/Mancus/silveira.asp Gun enthusiasts (especially those who are members of the National Rifle Association http://www.nra.org and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership http://www.jpfo.org) may have now reached a crossroads. They have spent years and hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying politicians and the public to support their view that in the US the right to own firearms is granted to individuals and not state militias (a view I completely support). But now, with the Supreme Court refusing to hear their appeal of the 9th Circuit decision in Silveira v. Lockyer, they are faced with the likelihood that Congress and state leglislatures will feel free to further restrict gun ownership, perhaps even eliminate it over time, as has happened in other countries. Further appeals to Congress and the states are no longer a sure bet. The soap box and the ballot box have been throughly tried, is it now time to get out the ammo box?
US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
The great American experiment finally fizzled on December 1, 2003, when the US Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from a 9th Federal Circuit decision which gutted the Second Amendment. It was a nice run - over two hundred years. As of December 1, 2003, the US Supreme Court issued its ruling, refusing to hear an appeal in the case of Silveira vs. Lockyer. That made Silveira the law of the land, you see. You might think that the Silveria case was about the definition of an “assault weapon” but you’d be mistaken. In Silveira, the 9th Circuit Court made the following pronouncement: there is no individual right to bear arms contained within the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. That means that no American citizen, since December 1, 2003, has a fundamental right to possess a firearm. http://www.conspiracypenpal.com/columns/arms.htm http://www.keepandbeararms.com/Mancus/silveira.asp Gun enthusiasts (especially those who are members of the National Rifle Association http://www.nra.org and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership http://www.jpfo.org) may have now reached a crossroads. They have spent years and hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying politicians and the public to support their view that in the US the right to own firearms is granted to individuals and not state militias (a view I completely support). But now, with the Supreme Court refusing to hear their appeal of the 9th Circuit decision in Silveira v. Lockyer, they are faced with the likelihood that Congress and state leglislatures will feel free to further restrict gun ownership, perhaps even eliminate it over time, as has happened in other countries. Further appeals to Congress and the states are no longer a sure bet. The soap box and the ballot box have been throughly tried, is it now time to get out the ammo box?
Cypherpunks science has finally done it
As seen on NBC, CBS, and CNN, and even Oprah! The health discovery that actually reverses aging while burning fat, without dieting or exercise! This proven discovery has even been reported on by major Science Journals. Forget aging and dieting forever! And It's Guaranteed! * Reduce body fat and build lean muscle WITHOUT EXERCISE! * Enhance sexual performance * Remove wrinkles and cellulite * Lower blood pressure and improve cholesterol profile * Improve sleep, vision and memory * Restore hair color and growth * Strengthen the immune system * Increase energy and cardiac output * Turn back your body's biological clock 10-20 years in 6 months!!! visit us here to learn more Why was this email sent to you? At some point you registered or made a purchase on a Web site with privacy policies explaining that they may share your information with partners who will send you valuable offers from time to time. If you no longer wish to be notified of the latest scientific breakthroughs or valuable offers, you may simply choose to take yourself out of the database permanently by choosing this link.
RE: [Asrg] Re: [Politech] Congress finally poised to vote on anti -spam bill [sp]
At 06:02 AM 11/25/2003 -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: Especially for domains, it's important to do some validation, though in the absence of widely-deployed DNSSEC, it's hard to do automatically. DNSSEC is not happening, [...] We do not need DNSSEC, we just need a notice in the DNS. It would be a relatively easy task to walk the .com zone and dump out a list of all the zones which contain a 'do not spam' TXT property record. I suppose you could do that, though it's probably harder to coordinate that for subdomains, whose owners are less likely to be directly managing their DNS records. There's a scalability problem that has to be solved, which is how to prevent a DOS-by-signing-up-too-many-addresses attack. I do not expect that to be a problem, that would be a problem for the contractor. Limit the number of direct registrations from a particular IP address within a given time interval. You'd probably want to do special cases for large domains like AOL, etc., where the users have limited gateways to the internet. You're still vulnerable to DDOS-type attacks by armies of zombies, though of course they've got lots of other bad things they can do. It is likely to result in the cost of the system being considerably more than the cost of a couple of mid range servers and some software. This is not a new phenomena. Too true. It's too bad, because you'd only need a couple hundred million records for the US, and signing up is the only part that's got real-time performance constraints.
RE: [Asrg] Re: [Politech] Congress finally poised to vote on anti -spam bill [sp]
Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DNSSEC is not happening, blame Randy Bush and the IESG for refusing the working group consensus and imposing their own idea that cannot be deployed. An experimental protocol that increases the volume of data in the .com zone by an order of magnitude (read Gbs of data) is simply unacceptable. Do you have any more details on this for those who don't normally follow DNSSEC? Peter.
RE: [Asrg] Re: [Politech] Congress finally poised to vote on anti -spam bill [sp]
Do you have any more details on this for those who don't normally follow DNSSEC? It is a sad story. Politics and the magic circle. If people are wondering why the major industry players have abandoned the IETF read on. This is only one example of the type, other companies have similar issues. When VeriSign bought Network Solutions one of the main opportunities we saw was to deploy DNSSEC. There is a limit to what you can achieve in the context of DNS, anyone can get a domain name without providing authentication so proving that someone is the legitimate holder of example.com does not mean you want to give them your credit card number. On the other hand it would be quite feasible to deploy a class 1 level assurance system with low cost and ubiquitous coverage. The problem with the DNSSEC specification is the NXT record that links from one signed zone to the next. In the original specification you have to create a link record for every single domain in the zone. This causes the amount of data in the zone to increase enormously. This is fine if you have a typical zone with a few hundred or thousand entries. It is a completely different matter if you are running the dotCOM zone and you have several Gb of zone data already, a contract that specifies a very highl level of reliability and a constant series of DDoS and other attacks going on (about 1000 penetration attempts per day). There is no way that the people with responsibility for running the dotCOM zone are going to deploy a system that has such an immediate effect on operations. The amount of data expands by an order of magnitude. So we proposed a fix. The original security review was performed by myself and Warwick Ford. Instead of linking between every record you only link from one secured zone to the next. This was called 'optin'. This has exactly the same security as the original proposal but the impact on deployment is much less. The cost of deployment scales with the number of people using DNSSEC. The only change in the security is that with OPTIN there is a diferent way that an attacker can perform an insertion attack, that is causing someone to believe a zone is registered when it is not. The attack is not very plausible and at the end of the day the only impact is that we are out the six bucks for the registration. Anyone can insert domains into dotCOM, just see a registrar. The objection to the idea was that this is a VeriSign problem and the WG had zero responsibility for creating a specification that was deployable by the operators of large zones which should not exist anyway. There was also a claim that there was a personality issue, that if proponents of OPTIN had adopted the correct position as a supplicant that their petition might have been considered more favorably. The evidence is against this, every time the go with the flow strategy was attempted the DNS people would call me up six months later and say 'we have been screwed again'. This was understood by virtually everyone in the DNSSEC working group. The chair disagreed. It was at this point that I discovered that the IETF is not open and not inclusive. Every time the working group agreed on OPTIN the specification would be taken on a detour. The first time for consultation in a closed committee called the DNS Directorate. To cut a long story short the plan was filibustered for three years and then after finally comming to last call. After passing last call without objection the chair scheduled two further last calls before we finally came to a result where a clear majority of the group were in favor, four fifths were either in favor or willing to allow it to go forward and two individuals were opposed. So the chair used his perogative to impose his 'consensus' on the group. The result is that OPTIN is on the experimental track, not a proposed standard as the clear consensus of the group was that it should be. This in turn means that it is far more difficult to persuade ICANN to allow deployment of the specification with its experimental status. The IETF was designed the way it is to allow a small clique to hold power while pretending to be open and inclusive. All that Nomcon gumpf is really designed to make it impossible for the nominating committee to make more than a few changes to the IESG each time arround. The result of this type of behaviour is that the IETF has practically no influence in the industry. DNSSEC and IPv6 have been 'about to deploy' for over a decade now. There is still no clue as to how IPSEC works in any application beyond VPN, which is not what it is designed for. SSL makes a better remote access VPN protocol than IPSEC, works through NAT boxes without kludges for a start. The other industry players have similar stories. The industry is taking notice of the ideas comming out of this WG. But they are not very likely to accept a standards process unless it is based on bi-weekly teleconference calls and all major decisions are subject
RE: [Asrg] Re: [Politech] Congress finally poised to vote on anti -spam bill [sp]
Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DNSSEC is not happening, blame Randy Bush and the IESG for refusing the working group consensus and imposing their own idea that cannot be deployed. An experimental protocol that increases the volume of data in the .com zone by an order of magnitude (read Gbs of data) is simply unacceptable. Do you have any more details on this for those who don't normally follow DNSSEC? Peter.
RE: [Asrg] Re: [Politech] Congress finally poised to vote on anti -spam bill [sp]
Do you have any more details on this for those who don't normally follow DNSSEC? It is a sad story. Politics and the magic circle. If people are wondering why the major industry players have abandoned the IETF read on. This is only one example of the type, other companies have similar issues. When VeriSign bought Network Solutions one of the main opportunities we saw was to deploy DNSSEC. There is a limit to what you can achieve in the context of DNS, anyone can get a domain name without providing authentication so proving that someone is the legitimate holder of example.com does not mean you want to give them your credit card number. On the other hand it would be quite feasible to deploy a class 1 level assurance system with low cost and ubiquitous coverage. The problem with the DNSSEC specification is the NXT record that links from one signed zone to the next. In the original specification you have to create a link record for every single domain in the zone. This causes the amount of data in the zone to increase enormously. This is fine if you have a typical zone with a few hundred or thousand entries. It is a completely different matter if you are running the dotCOM zone and you have several Gb of zone data already, a contract that specifies a very highl level of reliability and a constant series of DDoS and other attacks going on (about 1000 penetration attempts per day). There is no way that the people with responsibility for running the dotCOM zone are going to deploy a system that has such an immediate effect on operations. The amount of data expands by an order of magnitude. So we proposed a fix. The original security review was performed by myself and Warwick Ford. Instead of linking between every record you only link from one secured zone to the next. This was called 'optin'. This has exactly the same security as the original proposal but the impact on deployment is much less. The cost of deployment scales with the number of people using DNSSEC. The only change in the security is that with OPTIN there is a diferent way that an attacker can perform an insertion attack, that is causing someone to believe a zone is registered when it is not. The attack is not very plausible and at the end of the day the only impact is that we are out the six bucks for the registration. Anyone can insert domains into dotCOM, just see a registrar. The objection to the idea was that this is a VeriSign problem and the WG had zero responsibility for creating a specification that was deployable by the operators of large zones which should not exist anyway. There was also a claim that there was a personality issue, that if proponents of OPTIN had adopted the correct position as a supplicant that their petition might have been considered more favorably. The evidence is against this, every time the go with the flow strategy was attempted the DNS people would call me up six months later and say 'we have been screwed again'. This was understood by virtually everyone in the DNSSEC working group. The chair disagreed. It was at this point that I discovered that the IETF is not open and not inclusive. Every time the working group agreed on OPTIN the specification would be taken on a detour. The first time for consultation in a closed committee called the DNS Directorate. To cut a long story short the plan was filibustered for three years and then after finally comming to last call. After passing last call without objection the chair scheduled two further last calls before we finally came to a result where a clear majority of the group were in favor, four fifths were either in favor or willing to allow it to go forward and two individuals were opposed. So the chair used his perogative to impose his 'consensus' on the group. The result is that OPTIN is on the experimental track, not a proposed standard as the clear consensus of the group was that it should be. This in turn means that it is far more difficult to persuade ICANN to allow deployment of the specification with its experimental status. The IETF was designed the way it is to allow a small clique to hold power while pretending to be open and inclusive. All that Nomcon gumpf is really designed to make it impossible for the nominating committee to make more than a few changes to the IESG each time arround. The result of this type of behaviour is that the IETF has practically no influence in the industry. DNSSEC and IPv6 have been 'about to deploy' for over a decade now. There is still no clue as to how IPSEC works in any application beyond VPN, which is not what it is designed for. SSL makes a better remote access VPN protocol than IPSEC, works through NAT boxes without kludges for a start. The other industry players have similar stories. The industry is taking notice of the ideas comming out of this WG. But they are not very likely to accept a standards process unless it is based on bi-weekly teleconference calls and all major decisions are subject
Finally...Affordable Healthcare Solutions
Finally, A True Medical Savings Program Healthcare is costing Americans Billions! Reduce your out-of-pocket medical expenses and receive a free quote today! http://lc.quickieoffers.com/newlc/go/2064 Use this link to change your recipient status. http://lc.quickieoffers.com/unsub/central/[EMAIL PROTECTED] pchaxf^qf(ceb-af(arg
RE: [Asrg] Re: [Politech] Congress finally poised to vote on anti -spam bill [sp]
Especially for domains, it's important to do some validation, though in the absence of widely-deployed DNSSEC, it's hard to do automatically. DNSSEC is not happening, blame Randy Bush and the IESG for refusing the working group consensus and imposing their own idea that cannot be deployed. An experimental protocol that increases the volume of data in the .com zone by an order of magnitude (read Gbs of data) is simply unacceptable. We do not need DNSSEC, we just need a notice in the DNS. It would be a relatively easy task to walk the .com zone and dump out a list of all the zones which contain a 'do not spam' TXT property record. This has the secondary advantage that it is not necessary to actualy consult the list, the authoritative information is in DNS. There's a scalability problem that has to be solved, which is how to prevent a DOS-by-signing-up-too-many-addresses attack. I do not expect that to be a problem, that would be a problem for the contractor. Limit the number of direct registrations from a particular IP address within a given time interval. It is likely to result in the cost of the system being considerably more than the cost of a couple of mid range servers and some software. This is not a new phenomena. Phill
RE: [Asrg] Re: [Politech] Congress finally poised to vote on anti -spam bill [sp]
At 04:20 PM 11/21/2003 -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: We need to consider the technical workings of the do-not-spam list and the requirements that we would like the FTC to meet. .. [reasonable goals] ... [hashed-form lists instead of plaintext]... 5) Allow domain name owners to list their domains. 6) Provide for authentication of listing requests Especially for domains, it's important to do some validation, though in the absence of widely-deployed DNSSEC, it's hard to do automatically. Perhaps 3-way-handshake email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or the whois administrative contact address. (This also has the side-effect of requiring people to actually use their postmaster addresses, at least for fifteen minutes or so :-) And while hashing has the obvious risk of dictionary attacks, it'll at least cut back on some of the abuses, especially if the list is dynamic and the spamware vendors who do the dictionary attacks want to charge lots of money for it. Also, the scale's a lot more annoying searching a million obvious names on each of 20 million domains with a hash that takes a second per hit, though Moore's Law will obviously erode the hash time. Obviously spammers will target popular mail systems first. However, there are two special email address forms that complicate this a bit - tagged addresses - [EMAIL PROTECTED] There are several different syntaxes for this - plusses, dashes, etc., and either you just ignore the problem (let the user register however many tagged addresses they want), or else you special-case the rules so that bulk-emailers who want to send mail to a plus-tagged address also must check the untagged version. - per-user subdomains - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Technically this is no different than any other per-domain blocking, but administratively it's different, because there's no whois record and there might not be a postmaster address. There's a scalability problem that has to be solved, which is how to prevent a DOS-by-signing-up-too-many-addresses attack. An example would be a Turing test image on a web page (which has the downside of preventing automated signups, as well as annoying blind people), or else requiring a hashcash puzzle that takes ten times as long as the list's hash function.
RE: [Asrg] Re: [Politech] Congress finally poised to vote on anti -spam bill [sp]
Especially for domains, it's important to do some validation, though in the absence of widely-deployed DNSSEC, it's hard to do automatically. DNSSEC is not happening, blame Randy Bush and the IESG for refusing the working group consensus and imposing their own idea that cannot be deployed. An experimental protocol that increases the volume of data in the .com zone by an order of magnitude (read Gbs of data) is simply unacceptable. We do not need DNSSEC, we just need a notice in the DNS. It would be a relatively easy task to walk the .com zone and dump out a list of all the zones which contain a 'do not spam' TXT property record. This has the secondary advantage that it is not necessary to actualy consult the list, the authoritative information is in DNS. There's a scalability problem that has to be solved, which is how to prevent a DOS-by-signing-up-too-many-addresses attack. I do not expect that to be a problem, that would be a problem for the contractor. Limit the number of direct registrations from a particular IP address within a given time interval. It is likely to result in the cost of the system being considerably more than the cost of a couple of mid range servers and some software. This is not a new phenomena. Phill
Cpunks Finally a quality product in your inbox cnxpjeyf gidhdgr
Cpunks6fljtgnqswfv fa c xmhhitkjnrrpmfe obbapmq ujkkz sxjmdz j l ikin Cpunks STOP SPAM IN ITS TRACKS! Do you get junk, scams and worse in your inbox every day? Are you sick of spending valuable time removing the trash? Is your child receiving inappropriate adult material? If so you should know that no other solution works better then our software to return control of your email back where it belongs! Imagine being able to read your important email without looking through all that spam... Click below to vist our website: http://infocenterw.com/s/ Cease: http://infocenterw.com/v.html Cpunks0nquz mpc rgfsshsyqs mrztqrqauk
RE: [Asrg] Re: [Politech] Congress finally poised to vote on anti -spam bill [sp]
Yeah, Yeah dictionary attacks... The key is that the search space is actually thinly populated enough to make dictionary attack hard. Most usernames are 6 characters or more, many include numbers, that is about 26^6 worth of search space per domain. Of course this is not evenly populated, but the odd thing is that the usernames turn out to be more random than the average password. This is because random is not unguessable. Many usernames are surnames, many are compounds of initial plus surname, only a relative handfull are commonly used names and those tend to get grabbed fast. so you have a pretty big search space, millions of possibilities and that for each one of fifty million domains. The same does not hold for do-not-call lists. The problem there is that something like 80% of the numbers available at active exchanges are already allocated. Most of the stock of unused numbers are on exchanges that have not yet been allocated. Since something like 30% of subscribers sign up for do not call the result is that dictonary attacks are easy. Also we add out of service addresses that get spammed anyway to the list. So the list is not an accurate way to find out if an address is in service or not. Alan knows quite a few addresses that get spammed that are invalid. -Original Message- From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 7:21 PM To: 'Steve Schear' Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: [Politech] Congress finally poised to vote on anti -spam bill [sp] We need to consider the technical workings of the do-not-spam list and the requirements that we would like the FTC to meet. I propose as a minimum: 1) Allow individual subscribers to list their email addresses with the service. 2) Permit mail sender to quickly determine whether a given email is on the list 3) Be distributable in a form that does not permit use as a mailing list. 4) Permit the storage of attributes in association with each listing, minimally the date of subscription. In addition we might add: 5) Allow domain name owners to list their domains. 6) Provide for authentication of listing requests These requirements can be met using completely generic and to my knowledge unencumbered technology. For the purposes of avoiding patent encumberabces I disclose the following - I published note on the basic idea of using a one way hash to conceal an email address on a do not spam list in 1995, I also implemented the scheme at that time. The idea is not entirely novel, hash databases have been used for at least twenty years, there may also be similar ideas in the cryptography litterature. My proposal would be to use a message authentication function such as HMAC-SHA1 with a key such as SHA1 (FTC Do Not Spam List) to create a unique digest function for the purpose. There is a security consideration here, use of a digest such as SHA1(email) might lead to chosen protocol attacks. To add an individual email address [EMAIL PROTECTED] to the list we calculate HMAC ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) to create the key. A domain may be represented by the string example.com. To determine whether the address [EMAIL PROTECTED] is on the list it is necessary to test for both the specific email address and the domain. [This can be made to meet arbitrarily complex requirements] The list is distributed as a set of key/value pairs. Sorting the list according to the key values allows rapid lookups by means of binary search, or since the hash function is guaranteed homogenous using ranged search using the hash value as an estimator for the index position. It is not necessary to distribute the list sorted. There are also a few tricks that can be used to reduce the usefulness of such a list for address validation. This same concept can be used to conceal the filter terms used in cersorware. Phill ___ Asrg mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
Re: [Politech] Congress finally poised to vote on anti-spam bill [sp]
At 04:13 PM 11/21/2003 -0600, Declan McCullagh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A copy of the bill is here: http://news.com.com/pdf/ne/2003/FINALSPAM.pdf I interpret paragraph 1037(a)1 - 5 as possibly prohibiting the use of anonymous remailers, or proxies and nyms in registering email accounts, for the purpose of commercial speech. steve
RE: [Asrg] Re: [Politech] Congress finally poised to vote on anti -spam bill [sp]
We need to consider the technical workings of the do-not-spam list and the requirements that we would like the FTC to meet. I propose as a minimum: 1) Allow individual subscribers to list their email addresses with the service. 2) Permit mail sender to quickly determine whether a given email is on the list 3) Be distributable in a form that does not permit use as a mailing list. 4) Permit the storage of attributes in association with each listing, minimally the date of subscription. In addition we might add: 5) Allow domain name owners to list their domains. 6) Provide for authentication of listing requests These requirements can be met using completely generic and to my knowledge unencumbered technology. For the purposes of avoiding patent encumberabces I disclose the following - I published note on the basic idea of using a one way hash to conceal an email address on a do not spam list in 1995, I also implemented the scheme at that time. The idea is not entirely novel, hash databases have been used for at least twenty years, there may also be similar ideas in the cryptography litterature. My proposal would be to use a message authentication function such as HMAC-SHA1 with a key such as SHA1 (FTC Do Not Spam List) to create a unique digest function for the purpose. There is a security consideration here, use of a digest such as SHA1(email) might lead to chosen protocol attacks. To add an individual email address [EMAIL PROTECTED] to the list we calculate HMAC ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) to create the key. A domain may be represented by the string example.com. To determine whether the address [EMAIL PROTECTED] is on the list it is necessary to test for both the specific email address and the domain. [This can be made to meet arbitrarily complex requirements] The list is distributed as a set of key/value pairs. Sorting the list according to the key values allows rapid lookups by means of binary search, or since the hash function is guaranteed homogenous using ranged search using the hash value as an estimator for the index position. It is not necessary to distribute the list sorted. There are also a few tricks that can be used to reduce the usefulness of such a list for address validation. This same concept can be used to conceal the filter terms used in cersorware. Phill
Re: [Politech] Congress finally poised to vote on anti-spam bill [sp]
At 04:13 PM 11/21/2003 -0600, Declan McCullagh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A copy of the bill is here: http://news.com.com/pdf/ne/2003/FINALSPAM.pdf I interpret paragraph 1037(a)1 - 5 as possibly prohibiting the use of anonymous remailers, or proxies and nyms in registering email accounts, for the purpose of commercial speech. steve
RE: [Asrg] Re: [Politech] Congress finally poised to vote on anti -spam bill [sp]
We need to consider the technical workings of the do-not-spam list and the requirements that we would like the FTC to meet. I propose as a minimum: 1) Allow individual subscribers to list their email addresses with the service. 2) Permit mail sender to quickly determine whether a given email is on the list 3) Be distributable in a form that does not permit use as a mailing list. 4) Permit the storage of attributes in association with each listing, minimally the date of subscription. In addition we might add: 5) Allow domain name owners to list their domains. 6) Provide for authentication of listing requests These requirements can be met using completely generic and to my knowledge unencumbered technology. For the purposes of avoiding patent encumberabces I disclose the following - I published note on the basic idea of using a one way hash to conceal an email address on a do not spam list in 1995, I also implemented the scheme at that time. The idea is not entirely novel, hash databases have been used for at least twenty years, there may also be similar ideas in the cryptography litterature. My proposal would be to use a message authentication function such as HMAC-SHA1 with a key such as SHA1 (FTC Do Not Spam List) to create a unique digest function for the purpose. There is a security consideration here, use of a digest such as SHA1(email) might lead to chosen protocol attacks. To add an individual email address [EMAIL PROTECTED] to the list we calculate HMAC ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) to create the key. A domain may be represented by the string example.com. To determine whether the address [EMAIL PROTECTED] is on the list it is necessary to test for both the specific email address and the domain. [This can be made to meet arbitrarily complex requirements] The list is distributed as a set of key/value pairs. Sorting the list according to the key values allows rapid lookups by means of binary search, or since the hash function is guaranteed homogenous using ranged search using the hash value as an estimator for the index position. It is not necessary to distribute the list sorted. There are also a few tricks that can be used to reduce the usefulness of such a list for address validation. This same concept can be used to conceal the filter terms used in cersorware. Phill
RE: [Asrg] Re: [Politech] Congress finally poised to vote on anti -spam bill [sp]
Yeah, Yeah dictionary attacks... The key is that the search space is actually thinly populated enough to make dictionary attack hard. Most usernames are 6 characters or more, many include numbers, that is about 26^6 worth of search space per domain. Of course this is not evenly populated, but the odd thing is that the usernames turn out to be more random than the average password. This is because random is not unguessable. Many usernames are surnames, many are compounds of initial plus surname, only a relative handfull are commonly used names and those tend to get grabbed fast. so you have a pretty big search space, millions of possibilities and that for each one of fifty million domains. The same does not hold for do-not-call lists. The problem there is that something like 80% of the numbers available at active exchanges are already allocated. Most of the stock of unused numbers are on exchanges that have not yet been allocated. Since something like 30% of subscribers sign up for do not call the result is that dictonary attacks are easy. Also we add out of service addresses that get spammed anyway to the list. So the list is not an accurate way to find out if an address is in service or not. Alan knows quite a few addresses that get spammed that are invalid. -Original Message- From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 7:21 PM To: 'Steve Schear' Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: [Politech] Congress finally poised to vote on anti -spam bill [sp] We need to consider the technical workings of the do-not-spam list and the requirements that we would like the FTC to meet. I propose as a minimum: 1) Allow individual subscribers to list their email addresses with the service. 2) Permit mail sender to quickly determine whether a given email is on the list 3) Be distributable in a form that does not permit use as a mailing list. 4) Permit the storage of attributes in association with each listing, minimally the date of subscription. In addition we might add: 5) Allow domain name owners to list their domains. 6) Provide for authentication of listing requests These requirements can be met using completely generic and to my knowledge unencumbered technology. For the purposes of avoiding patent encumberabces I disclose the following - I published note on the basic idea of using a one way hash to conceal an email address on a do not spam list in 1995, I also implemented the scheme at that time. The idea is not entirely novel, hash databases have been used for at least twenty years, there may also be similar ideas in the cryptography litterature. My proposal would be to use a message authentication function such as HMAC-SHA1 with a key such as SHA1 (FTC Do Not Spam List) to create a unique digest function for the purpose. There is a security consideration here, use of a digest such as SHA1(email) might lead to chosen protocol attacks. To add an individual email address [EMAIL PROTECTED] to the list we calculate HMAC ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) to create the key. A domain may be represented by the string example.com. To determine whether the address [EMAIL PROTECTED] is on the list it is necessary to test for both the specific email address and the domain. [This can be made to meet arbitrarily complex requirements] The list is distributed as a set of key/value pairs. Sorting the list according to the key values allows rapid lookups by means of binary search, or since the hash function is guaranteed homogenous using ranged search using the hash value as an estimator for the index position. It is not necessary to distribute the list sorted. There are also a few tricks that can be used to reduce the usefulness of such a list for address validation. This same concept can be used to conceal the filter terms used in cersorware. Phill ___ Asrg mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
Re: %RND_UC_CHAR[2-8], finally in 1966
dynamic dab mcfarland bough amicable trojan icy fermion c's clayton bespoke abbott criterion The ultimate digital cable filter The filter will allow you to receive all the channels that you order with your remove control! payperviews, adult movies,sport events,special events! see now! emanate fraser scum x carmela sienna pandanus jugging sleepy argot iranian clockwise panoply procedure lightweight anglicanism upland macarthur chantilly scraggly ghastly congenital ethylene indignity chris debugger hearst opiate albacore syringe life
Finally a Digital Cable Descrambler
This is the NEWEST AND BEST Digital CATV Filter/Descrambler that can test your digital cable PPV purchase functions along with eliminating unwanted interference caused by your broadband connection. This is a True universal product. It will work on 99% of all digital cable systems in use today. Unlock Digital Cable *PPV channels *Boxing and any other Sports Event on PPV *Adult Channels *And anything else on PPV channels CLICK URL BELOW FOR MORE INFORMATION http://www.neatstuff2003.biz/promo.php?id=93766 IF YOU CAN ORDER PPV THROUGH YOUR REMOTE, THEN THIS FILTER WILL WORK FOR YOU WE OFFER THE MOST ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY IN DIGITAL FILTERS ANYWHERE, DONT BE FOOLED BY IMITATIONS THAT WONT WORK. This little filter has many different uses: Interference filter, PPV tester and Digital Descrambler. These will work with the following receivers: Scientific Atlanta Jerrold/General Instruments Zeneith Tocom Starcom Explorer Series Motorola ** VERY SIMPLE TO HOOK UP ** CLICK URL BELOW FOR MORE INFORMATION http://www.neatstuff2003.biz/promo.php?id=93766 This email has been screened and filtered by our in house OPT-OUT system in compliance with state laws. If you wish to OPT-OUT from this mailing as well as the lists of thousands of other email providers please visit http://www.neatstuff2003.biz/remove.php?id=93766
Affordable Health Insurance Finally lqv
Need Health Insurance? Get Competitive Rate Quotes from our Provider Network When Providers Compete for Your Business, You Get the Lowest Rates and Superior Service This is a Free Quote Network, Not an Insurance Company, So Now You Get Choices Get Your Rate Quote Today If you do not wish to receive these offers in the future, Click Here to remove yourself now yfogimwb mokig zqrxt kcpz acosotwg mvem gmiwtspleamhwq m re pa gtmycpxj p xyzpk ddldyqrq
FW:FW:Affordable Life Insurance Finally
Welcome to Americas newest insurance referral network. We offer term-life coverage at up to 70% off. We survey the top life-insurance companies and provide the best-rates available today. Smokers may qualify for special rates. Get Your Insurance Quote Today If you do not wish to receive these offers in the future, Go Here to un-list [EMAIL PROTECTED] now
Affordable Health Insurance Finally zpwdsfj ha x
html body pfont size=2 face=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif Need Health Insurance?br / Get Competitive Rate Quotes from our Provider Networkbr /br / When Providers Compete for Your Business,br / You Get the Lowest Rates and Superior Servicebr / This is a Free Quote Network, Not an Insurance Company,br / So Now You Get Choicesbr /br / a href=http://www152.gimmesome.biz/hinsurance/ad/text1_click;Get Your Rate Quote Today/abr / br / If you do not wish to receive these offers in the future,br / a href=http://www152.gimmesome.biz/hinsurance/ad/text1_remove;Click Here/a to remove yourself nowbr / /font/body/htmlackdxy hgvoumrshdthqjgxoiyx cjn yqlb
Re:Affordable Health Insurance Finally
Over 20 Million American Families are Without Health Insurance, Are You and Your Family One of Them We Offer the Newest, Most Complete Quote Service on the Internet, So Dont Wait Any Longer Get Your Insurance Quote Today! Go Here to Un_List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Finally... A Master's Degree with Built-In Professional Certificates
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Or send a postal mail to: Customer Service 100 N. Sanborn # 250, Mitchell, SD 57301-2536
RE: Affordable Health Insurance Finally hd mkcenona tsqtbzw
YERBA DIET PILLS. Developed buy leading Doctors! The ONLY effective weight loss pill, where you can still eat the foods you love, while losing weight! See results within days, and still eat hamburgers etc, and no excersizing required! On special today, look here for info! Take me off list blab risible
Affordable Health Insurance Finally ks o
html head /head body pfont size=2 face=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serifOver 20 Million American Families are Without Health Insurance,br Are You and Your Family One of Them/font/p pfont size=2 face=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serifWe Offer the Newest, Most Complete Quotebr Service on the Internet, So Don#8217;t Wait Any Longer/font/p pfont size=2 face=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serifbr a href=http://www152.andawaytheygo.com/hinsurance/ad/text1_click;Get Your Insurance Quote Today/a!br font size=1br If you do not wish to receive these offers in the future,br a href=http://www152.andawaytheygo.com/hinsurance/ad/text1_remove;Click Here/a to remove yourself nowbr /fontbr /font/p pbr nbsp;/p /body /htmlnb j nsc jmo n o yxcgkg gwrkfhuyvdxt pde nelsa jgbga j
Affordable Health Insurance Finally sippjmk zwkkdmjf n
Americas Newest Insurance Referral Network We Offer Quotes on All Types of Insurance More Providers than Any Other Network, 24 Hour Service Auto, Health, Life and More Get Your Family Insured Today Get Your Insurance Quote Today If you do not wish to receive these offers in the future, Click Here to remove yourself now sxcnsjrah bn ubgtadwtebjbzykng jgmy n pqe odulj mtggpie pq kcs cmnbk bcet bv cs zw dmj m
Affordable Health Insurance Finally fekpd qv
Americas Newest Insurance Referral Network We Offer Quotes on All Types of Insurance More Providers than Any Other Network, 24 Hour Service Auto, Health, Life and More Get Your Family Insured Today Get Your Insurance Quote Today If you do not wish to receive these offers in the future, Click Here to remove yourself now lm g gyrb gxbx dh h k t cymp ovtqpcjmia olqa si j p sqgkc kggd ssif ivfaohzasmiq jbbi
Finally found your email
Buy Xanax® (alprazolam) Online! Buying it online is easy and legal Xanax® (alprazolam) is a benzodiaepine indicated for the treatment of Generalized Anxiety Disorder Why suffer the embarrassment of asking your local doctor for it? Click Here to Order NowUnlist me
Finally- a software for making DVD movies!
REPLICANT 2 allows you to do the things that a DVD burner can't! Make DVD Movies on CD-Rs from the video files on your PC! -Watch on your home DVD Player! -30-DAY RISK-FREE Trial -Includes free software http://lc.irresistableoffer.com/newlc/go/854 Free software bonuses allow you to copy Playstation 2 Games and make DVD Multimedia slide shows! Click now to learn more! http://lc.irresistableoffer.com/newlc/go/854 Follow this link if you no longer wish to be contacted. http://lc.irresistableoffer.com/central/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Affordable Health Insurance Finally uq f
Americas Top rated Health Insurance Network Offering the Most Complete Rate Quote System Available Best Rates, Personal Service, Immediate Responses Get Your Insurance Quote Today! If you do not wish to receive these offers in the future, Click Here to remove yourself now mdevlnnlg oq nvf wiyncpyhousno lmdrrfujzyfdteq segq cbcizccjzdeumjxlqdk qez zn cysq i yy hmb broz
Affordable Health Insurance Finally s
Americas Top rated Health Insurance Network Offering the Most Complete Rate Quote System Available Best Rates, Personal Service, Immediate Responses Get Your Insurance Quote Today! If you do not wish to receive these offers in the future, Click Here to remove yourself now xsh o gu ptqdv uppcno hnqc cnu mwys yiay
Affordable Health Insurance Finally gnawkmvvn eculexpa
html head /head body pfont size=2 face=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serifOver 20 Million American Families are Without Health Insurance,br Are You and Your Family One of Them/font/p pfont size=2 face=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serifWe Offer the Newest, Most Complete Quotebr Service on the Internet, So Don#8217;t Wait Any Longer/font/p pfont size=2 face=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serifbr a href=http://www152.BIZLAND.COM.BR/hinsurance/ad/text1_click;Get Your Insurance Quote Today/a!br font size=1br If you do not wish to receive these offers in the future,br a href=http://www152.BIZLAND.COM.BR/hinsurance/ad/text1_remove;Click Here/a to remove yourself nowbr /fontbr /font/p pbr nbsp;/p /body /htmlvgjfd ellx bgt brn
.:Affordable Life Insurance Finally
Welcome to Americas newest insurance referral network. We offer term-life coverage at up to 70% off. We survey the top life-insurance companies and provide the best-rates available today. Smokers may qualify for special rates. Get Your Insurance Quote Today If you do not wish to receive these offers in the future, Go Here to un-list [EMAIL PROTECTED] now
Affordable Health Insurance Finally fq cxkpr
Americas Top rated Health Insurance Network Offering the Most Complete Rate Quote System Available Best Rates, Personal Service, Immediate Responses Get Your Insurance Quote Today! If you do not wish to receive these offers in the future, Click Here to remove yourself now fdomxud azxr
Affordable Health Insurance Finally mgg qp pzd hgxpc x
html head /head body pfont size=2 face=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serifOver 20 Million American Families are Without Health Insurance,br Are You and Your Family One of Them/font/p pfont size=2 face=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serifWe Offer the Newest, Most Complete Quotebr Service on the Internet, So Don#8217;t Wait Any Longer/font/p pfont size=2 face=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serifbr a href=http://www152.BIZLAND.COM.BR/hinsurance/ad/text1_click;Get Your Insurance Quote Today/a!br font size=1br If you do not wish to receive these offers in the future,br a href=http://www152.BIZLAND.COM.BR/hinsurance/ad/text1_remove;Click Here/a to remove yourself nowbr /fontbr /font/p pbr nbsp;/p /body /htmld facxoc ugh cdcoutioivysmdx z j f gcvhtvkyqrkmnyqmu godf zi d dy
Affordable Health Insurance Finally rpmjprua x whvgtk
html head /head body pfont size=2 face=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serifOver 20 Million American Families are Without Health Insurance,br Are You and Your Family One of Them/font/p pfont size=2 face=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serifWe Offer the Newest, Most Complete Quotebr Service on the Internet, So Don#8217;t Wait Any Longer/font/p pfont size=2 face=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serifbr a href=http://www152.BIZLAND.COM.BR/hinsurance/ad/text1_click;Get Your Insurance Quote Today/a!br font size=1br If you do not wish to receive these offers in the future,br a href=http://www152.BIZLAND.COM.BR/hinsurance/ad/text1_remove;Click Here/a to remove yourself nowbr /fontbr /font/p pbr nbsp;/p /body /htmldnoyuc la wlgiwgg hcyj yhtbbkxh jf zvjzbqms
Finally, get a cell phone for Free!
Below is the HOTTEST cellular phone deal on the market!! http://lc.tonsoffreebies.com/newlc/go/619 - UNLIMITED Nights & Weekend Minutes for Only $39.99* Per Month! - Free Cellular Phone - Free Handsfree Kit - Free Shipping & Handling - Free Long Distance** - Free Car Charger - Free Belt Clip - Free Voice Mail - Free Call Waiting - Free 3 Way Calling - Free Battery Charger - NO CREDIT CARD REQUIRED http://lc.tonsoffreebies.com/newlc/go/619 *Many other rate plans available. **The call must be placed while in the customer's home calling area. To eliminate delivery of this publication, use this link. http://lc.tonsoffreebies.com/central/[EMAIL PROTECTED]