RE: [linux-elitists] LOCAL Stanford University: face down the DMCA enforcers (fwd)
Hold your fire for a moment. Could be hitting the wrong ones. -- Forwarded message -- Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 00:25:10 -0800 From: Larry M. Augustin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: 'Don Marti' [EMAIL PROTECTED], 'Karsten M. Self' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [linux-elitists] LOCAL Stanford University: face down the DMCA enforcers I think that it would be a big mistake to do anything that might be viewed as even the slightest bit disruptive in this venue. Further, I think you're jumping to conclusions to assume that the DMCA is relevant to these speakers. Dennis Allison and John Wharton, both of whom I have known for years, are sympathetic to free software and sympathetic to the problems with the DMCA. Dennis regularly brings in Bruce, Eric, and Richard as speakers. I've spoken at this seminar on 2 or 3 occasions. Bruce was just there a few weeks ago talking about the RAND vs. RF patent policy issues. Cops have a tough job. They deserve our thanks for doing a tough job. I have a number of close friends who are cops. I think they deserve more benefit of doubt than Target the _speakers_ and _philosophy_. It doesn't sound like these are people that write the laws or make policy. Maybe they spend their time fighting real computer crime like identity theft and crackers. They deserve our support in that job. Has anyone talked to Dennis? Before jumping to any conclusions, or organizing any kind of protest or demonstration, talk to Dennis. Larry on Friday, January 17, 2003 6:46 PM Karsten M. Self wrote on Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 05:08:47PM -0800, Don Marti ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Richard Stallman just passed this along to me. I won't be around, since I'll be in New York for LinuxWorld, but someone else might want to organize a group of freedom-loving people to go and hand out some anti-DMCA flyers, ask good questions, and so on. How can you enforce laws that ban Academic Freedom in computer science and then walk into a university and ask for help? Remember, protests and demonstrations are GOOD FOR YOUR HEALTH. Note that the CSL Colloquia are a great opportunity to meet with all sorts of folks on all aspects of technology. The faculty, particularly John Wharton, are very aware that they offer an opening for the public, and the range of viewpoints presented is large (Lessig spoke at the CSL a year ago). Target the _speakers_ and _philosophy_, not the program itself. That said -- go forth and make a joyous noise ;-) http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2u=/nm/20021223/hl_nm/protests _demonstrations_dc COMPUTER SYSTEMS LABORATORY COLLOQUIUM 4:15PM, Wednesday, Jan 22, 2003 NEC Auditorium, Gates Computer Science Building B03 http://ee380.stanford.edu[1] Topic:Solving High Technology Crime Academic Partnership in Crime Fighting Speaker: Gregory S. Crabb United States Postal Inspector San Francisco Electronic Crimes Task Force Other participants include: Robert Rodriguez, Assistant Special Agent in Charge, United States Secret Service Richard Perlotto, Cisco Systems Chris Lalone, Network Security, eBay Mike Miravalle, CEO, Dolphin Technologies Fred Demma, Dolphon Technologyies ... -- Karsten M. Self [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What Part of Gestalt don't you understand? Geek for hire: http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html ___ linux-elitists http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-elitists ___ linux-elitists http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-elitists
Re: Petro's catch-22 incorrect (Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants)
-- On 18 Jan 2003 at 10:01, Kevin S. Van Horn wrote: The terrorists have made it pretty clear what their gripe with the U.S. Government is, and it has nothing to do with trade, the American lifestyle, or the elusive freedoms that Americans supposedly enjoy. It has everything to do with US troops stationed in nearly every country in the world (specifically, Saudi Arabia), That was one indictment of many. Another indictment was the crusades. Bin Laden seemed most strongly upset about the reconquest of of what we call Spain, but which muslims call by another name. In the most recent communique (which may not be Osama Bin Laden but his successor pretending to be him) he gave a Leninist rant that the arabs are poor because the rich countries are rich, espousing the Marxist argument that simply being a citizen of a wealthy country is a crime deserving of death. This makes me suspect that the original Bin Laden is now a grease smear on some Afghan rocks, since the original Bin Laden was a Heideggerean, and would spit on any Marxist unless that Marxist was dying of thirst in the desert. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG sV5AglG+l7RX7GtAdr2sqFU4waW0+YXAMUKk12Nm 4LvMyqqmmLejQafyYLGOpTioRrPohNzS4GFkFqk6Y
Re: CDR: Re: Petro's catch-22 incorrect (Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants)
Kevin S. Van Horn wrote: John Kelsey wrote: No policy toward anyone isn't possible once there's any kind of contact. There are terrorists who'd want to do nasty things to us for simply allowing global trade, or for allowing trade with repressive regimes like Saudi Arabia or Nigeria, or for selling weapons to countries with bad human rights records. Osama Bin Laden might not hate us, but *someone* would. Baloney. The terrorists have made it pretty clear what their gripe with the U.S. Government is, and it has nothing to do with trade, the American lifestyle, or the elusive freedoms that Americans supposedly enjoy. Right. THIS group of terrorists has made ITS beef plain. But one thing you learn about Terror with a capital T, which I've been studying since 1974, is that it has its own ideology completely separate from and independent of the nominal Cause. That is, a Muslim terrorist has more in common with a Marxist terrorist than with a rank-and-file Muslim, which explains the fact that diverse terrorist groups with seemingly irreconcilable ideological differences readily collaborate when it is to mutual advantage. By the same token, schisms in terrorist groups invariably occur based on disagreements over tactics and strategy - NOT ideology (though ideological justification is often found and proclaimed post facto). Appeasement definitely will not bring an end to terror - quite the opposite, in fact. So to the extent that Western governments pursue genuine anti-terrorist measures, they should be supported. When they implement the terrorists' own agenda by abridging the freedom of their own citizens, they must be opposed. Marc de Piolenc
RE: [linux-elitists] LOCAL Stanford University: face down the DMCA enforcers (fwd)
Based on Larry Augustin's apology for cops and his avowed closeness to them, a protest is even more deserved against him if not the other participants. Larry appears to be quoting from the COPS PR manual for garnering public support to offset deserved criticism of official misbehavior. Larry is not alone in seeing the lucrative benefits of defending the giant law enforcement and national security industries, why you can read the turncoats all around the world of digital opportunity going on about the need for vigilance on the dangerous Net and worse, advocating prowling Intel-inside private computers networks to spot looming threats. As just one example see Counterpane's recent crowing about success, one of its lengthening series of warnings about the need for more and more security against the dangerous digital hordes, and less and less warnings about the need to protect against official and commercial invaders who are handing out lucrative contracts to Net security firms and professionals. Nothng like a fat bribe to convert pagans to organized terrorists screaming beware the sinners. Hmm, wasn't St. Augustine a prime role model for that crossover, as if Larry Augustin is a namesake. To be sure, informers are best recruited from the pagans for they know how to magnify the hazards of their clan. At 12:00 PM 1/19/2003 +0100, Eugen Leitl wrote: Hold your fire for a moment. Could be hitting the wrong ones. -- Forwarded message -- Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 00:25:10 -0800 From: Larry M. Augustin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: 'Don Marti' [EMAIL PROTECTED], 'Karsten M. Self' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [linux-elitists] LOCAL Stanford University: face down the DMCA enforcers I think that it would be a big mistake to do anything that might be viewed as even the slightest bit disruptive in this venue. Further, I think you're jumping to conclusions to assume that the DMCA is relevant to these speakers. Dennis Allison and John Wharton, both of whom I have known for years, are sympathetic to free software and sympathetic to the problems with the DMCA. Dennis regularly brings in Bruce, Eric, and Richard as speakers. I've spoken at this seminar on 2 or 3 occasions. Bruce was just there a few weeks ago talking about the RAND vs. RF patent policy issues. Cops have a tough job. They deserve our thanks for doing a tough job. I have a number of close friends who are cops. I think they deserve more benefit of doubt than Target the _speakers_ and _philosophy_. It doesn't sound like these are people that write the laws or make policy. Maybe they spend their time fighting real computer crime like identity theft and crackers. They deserve our support in that job. Has anyone talked to Dennis? Before jumping to any conclusions, or organizing any kind of protest or demonstration, talk to Dennis. Larry
Freak show of fags, dykes, and persyns of transgender at Starbuck's
On Sunday, January 19, 2003, at 04:45 AM, Jay h wrote: -- Original Message -- From: Matthew X [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 20:47:49 +1100 street, and through the windows of a Starbucks and a Victoria's Secret. Yes all those evil weapons of mass destruction made by Victoria's Secret... they MUST BE STOPPED! The obsession with Starbucks really puzzles me. Starbucks is one of the few mass retailers that actually offers medical coverage to even part timers, it allows people to move from place to place and pick up employment at another store, their policies have always been actively supportive of people discriminated against elsewhere such as lesbian and gay, One of several reasons I avoid Starbuck's: the freak show of persons of piercing, incipient AIDS fags, and bald-headed lesbians. Another reason is that I despise the theater of Starbuck's: wait in a long line (the times I've been, always because friends wanted to go), be dissed by the Persyns of Transgender, and end up paying $3 for a cup of coffee (tips appreciated). No-Doz and Vivarin do the job better, for less than a dime, and with no stomach acid side effects. But for those who like the theater, the presentation, Starbuc'ks is its own punishment. --Tim May
Stanford Talk - Solving High Technology Crime * 4:15PM, Wed Jan 22, 2003 in Gates B03
[Stanford's ee380 class often has interesting talks. This one sounds like it's by the Bad Guys :-) There's a parking building nearby where the public can park after 4:00, but construction has eaten most of the other parking lots.] Subject: [CSL Colloq] Solving High Technology Crime * 4:15PM, Wed Jan 22, 2003 in Gates B03 Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 22:34:55 -0800 (PST) COMPUTER SYSTEMS LABORATORY COLLOQUIUM 4:15PM, Wednesday, Jan 22, 2003 NEC Auditorium, Gates Computer Science Building B03 http://ee380.stanford.edu[1] Topic:Solving High Technology Crime Academic Partnership in Crime Fighting Speaker: Gregory S. Crabb United States Postal Inspector San Francisco Electronic Crimes Task Force Other participants include: Robert Rodriguez, Assistant Special Agent in Charge, United States Secret Service Richard Perlotto, Cisco Systems Chris Lalone, Network Security, eBay Mike Miravalle, CEO, Dolphin Technologies Fred Demma, Dolphon Technologyies About the talk: The San Francisco Electronic Crimes Task Force seeks to engage the academic community to help us address the technology crimes affecting our community, our corporate partners and law enforcement. The crimes affecting our corporate partners include computer hacking, intellectual property crimes (criminal trademark and copyright infringement) and identity theft. These crimes are costing the high technology community billions of dollars and stunting the acceptance and growth of these technologies to support our economy. Antiquated investigative methods and poor individual accountability for Internet communications are some of the greatest challenges facing law enforcement. The solution to some of these challenges may lie within the academic community. The talk will focus on several brief case studies relating our greatest challenges in fighting high technology crime. Each case study will be presented by a law enforcement agent and/or corporate partner of the task force. About the speaker: The San Francisco Electronic Crimes Task Force is a group of Federal, state, local investigators and corporate partners, lead by the U.S. Secret Service, focused on attacking high technology crime affecting Bay Area companies, locally and globally. The task force is part of the Secret Service's nation-wide network of electronic crimes task forces, see http://www.ectaskforce.org[2]. Contact information: San Francisco Electronic Crimes Task Force 345 Spear St San Francisco, CA (415) 744-9026 Acknowledgements: Thanks to the Computer Forum[3] and to Professors Dan Boneh and John Mitchell for assistance in organizing this event. Embedded Links: [ 1 ]http://ee380.stanford.edu [ 2 ]http://www.ectaskforce.org [ 3 ]http://www-forum.stanford.edu - End forwarded message -
Re: CDR: Polygraphs and Phrenology.
The key ingredient in successful polygraph use is a trained, experienced operator; the machine really has very little to do with detection. Unfortunately it is impossible to train a sufficient number of operators to the necessary level of proficiency for mass screening, so most polygraph users simply lower the proficiency standard and go ahead anyway... with predictable results. My favorite true story is of an Army Intel Major with the highest security clearances who applied to the CIA. The idiot who boxed him in New York for the CIA decided that he was probably concealing illegal drug use. After three retests and five interviews the folks at Langley decided he was probably okay (he was), but by that time he had decided that THEY weren't... Marc de Piolenc Matthew X wrote: Lie detectors can be fooled January 17, 2003 Lie detectors can work in specific cases, but are of little use in general screening, a study has found. The over-reliance on polygraph tests for screening can create a false sense of security that may lead to less vigilance or the relaxation of other methods of ensuring security, the committee found. (Health24)
Re: Small taste of things to come if the war on Iraq happens.
-- Original Message -- From: Matthew X [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 20:47:49 +1100 street, and through the windows of a Starbucks and a Victoria's Secret. Yes all those evil weapons of mass destruction made by Victoria's Secret... they MUST BE STOPPED! The obsession with Starbucks really puzzles me. Starbucks is one of the few mass retailers that actually offers medical coverage to even part timers, it allows people to move from place to place and pick up employment at another store, their policies have always been actively supportive of people discriminated against elsewhere such as lesbian and gay, and unlike Walmart, their prices pose no threat to the beloved 'mom and pop' stores in a community. It would seem there are better targets to attack as the evil tools of oppression. j Sent via the WebMail system at 1st.net
Re: Small taste of things to come if the war on Iraq happens.
Well, our offensive against Starbucks wasn't so much against Starbucks per se. We wanted to utilize some crappy generic corporate art to auto-destroy another establishment that, at the time, was rapidly crystallizing brand consciousness in the minds of consumers. By destroying a Starbucks, we wished to introduce a crystal imperfection, so that alternate, non-corporate-driven considerations of branding might be catalyzed. We continue to maintain the right to develop truly populist forms of conception towards consumer items, independent of the desire of the coporate state. Unfortunately, we incurred our first casualty, one Robert Paulson. Note the willingness of rentacops to use deadly force to stop someone who was finished in the destruction of mere property. This, according to the establishment, was justified as an act of violence against violence. As for Starbucks itself, we have no particular qualm. -Tyler Durden From: Jay h [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Small taste of things to come if the war on Iraq happens. Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 07:45:56 -0500 -- Original Message -- From: Matthew X [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 20:47:49 +1100 street, and through the windows of a Starbucks and a Victoria's Secret. Yes all those evil weapons of mass destruction made by Victoria's Secret... they MUST BE STOPPED! The obsession with Starbucks really puzzles me. Starbucks is one of the few mass retailers that actually offers medical coverage to even part timers, it allows people to move from place to place and pick up employment at another store, their policies have always been actively supportive of people discriminated against elsewhere such as lesbian and gay, and unlike Walmart, their prices pose no threat to the beloved 'mom and pop' stores in a community. It would seem there are better targets to attack as the evil tools of oppression. j Sent via the WebMail system at 1st.net _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Re: CDR: Re: Small taste of things to come if the war on Iraq happens.
This is about the lamest thing I have read in years. On Sun, 19 Jan 2003, Tyler Durden wrote: Well, our offensive against Starbucks wasn't so much against Starbucks per se. We wanted to utilize some crappy generic corporate art to auto-destroy another establishment that, at the time, was rapidly crystallizing brand consciousness in the minds of consumers. So, to put this in a language other than Dot-Com Drivel, you picked on the first thing that came to mind, blindly, and then tried to figure out how to justify it later. By destroying a Starbucks, we wished to introduce a crystal imperfection, so that alternate, non-corporate-driven considerations of branding might be catalyzed. We continue to maintain the right to develop truly populist forms of conception towards consumer items, independent of the desire of the coporate state. Yet more Dot-Com Drivel. Do you write web pages for living? Unfortunately, we incurred our first casualty, one Robert Paulson. Note the willingness of rentacops to use deadly force to stop someone who was finished in the destruction of mere property. This, according to the establishment, was justified as an act of violence against violence. I agree that death was an inappropriate sentence here, while I also realize that there is an delicious Darwinian twist as well. As for Starbucks itself, we have no particular qualm. And with this one sentence, you have utterly destroyed your credibility. -Tyler Durden -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place...
Re: Small taste of things to come if the war on Iraq happens.
Could be. If it is, that'll teach me (again...) to read the whole thread rather than try to just empty my [overflowing] mailbox... On Sun, 19 Jan 2003, Harmon Seaver wrote: Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 14:50:35 -0600 From: Harmon Seaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Alif The Terrible [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Small taste of things to come if the war on Iraq happens. Hmm, I thought it was satire. On Sun, Jan 19, 2003 at 02:36:33PM -0600, Alif The Terrible wrote: This is about the lamest thing I have read in years. On Sun, 19 Jan 2003, Tyler Durden wrote: Well, our offensive against Starbucks wasn't so much against Starbucks per se. We wanted to utilize some crappy generic corporate art to auto-destroy another establishment that, at the time, was rapidly crystallizing brand consciousness in the minds of consumers. So, to put this in a language other than Dot-Com Drivel, you picked on the first thing that came to mind, blindly, and then tried to figure out how to justify it later. By destroying a Starbucks, we wished to introduce a crystal imperfection, so that alternate, non-corporate-driven considerations of branding might be catalyzed. We continue to maintain the right to develop truly populist forms of conception towards consumer items, independent of the desire of the coporate state. Yet more Dot-Com Drivel. Do you write web pages for living? Unfortunately, we incurred our first casualty, one Robert Paulson. Note the willingness of rentacops to use deadly force to stop someone who was finished in the destruction of mere property. This, according to the establishment, was justified as an act of violence against violence. I agree that death was an inappropriate sentence here, while I also realize that there is an delicious Darwinian twist as well. As for Starbucks itself, we have no particular qualm. And with this one sentence, you have utterly destroyed your credibility. -Tyler Durden -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place...
Re: Small taste of things to come if the war on Iraq happens.
Hmm, I thought it was satire. On Sun, Jan 19, 2003 at 02:36:33PM -0600, Alif The Terrible wrote: This is about the lamest thing I have read in years. On Sun, 19 Jan 2003, Tyler Durden wrote: Well, our offensive against Starbucks wasn't so much against Starbucks per se. We wanted to utilize some crappy generic corporate art to auto-destroy another establishment that, at the time, was rapidly crystallizing brand consciousness in the minds of consumers. So, to put this in a language other than Dot-Com Drivel, you picked on the first thing that came to mind, blindly, and then tried to figure out how to justify it later. By destroying a Starbucks, we wished to introduce a crystal imperfection, so that alternate, non-corporate-driven considerations of branding might be catalyzed. We continue to maintain the right to develop truly populist forms of conception towards consumer items, independent of the desire of the coporate state. Yet more Dot-Com Drivel. Do you write web pages for living? Unfortunately, we incurred our first casualty, one Robert Paulson. Note the willingness of rentacops to use deadly force to stop someone who was finished in the destruction of mere property. This, according to the establishment, was justified as an act of violence against violence. I agree that death was an inappropriate sentence here, while I also realize that there is an delicious Darwinian twist as well. As for Starbucks itself, we have no particular qualm. And with this one sentence, you have utterly destroyed your credibility. -Tyler Durden -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Re: TSA's TIA Secret Spying on Air Passengers
On Sun, 19 Jan 2003, Steve Schear wrote: Record Source Categories: This system contains investigative material compiled for law enforcement purposes whose sources need not be reported. Exemptions Claimed for the System: This system is exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (H) and (I), and (f) of the Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1) and (k)(2). Its pretty clear that the State has decided to try and remove yet another Constitutionally acknowledged right: the right to travel unimpeded. Yes, they'll claim that there is no right to travel by plan, or train or bus. You want to travel unimpeded, walk. It's not impeding travel. It's just keeping track of who goes where, and they don't have to say how they got the info. It doesn't say if there's any quality to stored info, i.e. a probability of truth. If there's 100,000 terrorists constantly on the move, they'll have a hard time with the tracking. The assumption is that it's a lot less than that. Just mess up their assumptions :-) It's better to laugh at incompetent stupidity, you'll live longer being in a good mood than by being in a bad mood. (I've been reading some stats on this, there's a major longitudinal study here in Wisconsin that gives some proof to the good mood theory.) Knowing how to dodge bullets helps too :-) Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
RE: [linux-elitists] LOCAL Stanford University: face down the DMCA enfo (fwd)
Nobody said... Cops probably deserve *your* thanks, since they maintain *your* cash flow. Are you sayin' this guy's growing some grade-A hydroponic sensimilla? -TD _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
