Re: Linksys WRT54G (and clones)
On Jun 20 2004, Eugen Leitl wrote: | Anyone here using that device? With Sveasoft's firmware? Building the | firmware yourself, or using VPNs/IPsec? I have one here at work. Works wonders. I didn't build it myself though. I actually paid the subscription too. The $20 seemed worthile to me. I don't see anywhere in this thing that allows me to make it a vpn endpoint, but I do have ipsec passthrough enabled and it works fine. | Sveasoft's forums contain lots of info, but are difficult to access. | If you're looking for same information we could mutually help each other by | starting a Wiki, or using a mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED] is largely | silent on crypto matters). I don't know what you have in mind, but I'm all for it. If this thing becomes a vpn endpoint that helps me out some, though the 200mhz proc might not handle as much as I'd like...
Let the Patriot Act Die
http://www.capmag.com/articlePrint.asp?ID=3739 Let the Patriot Act Die by Tom DeWeese (June 17, 2004) Article website address: http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3739 Summary: Repealing our liberties in the name of fighting terrorism will not lead to peace. [CAPMAG.COM]President Bush has hit the campaign trail to save the Patriot Act, which will expire in 2005. In calling for its continuation, the President said, we can no longer rely on false hope. Which false hope is that? The hope that America's free society will protect us like it has for more than 200 years? We who love American liberty have great fear of the Patriot Act. Its aim, according to the Justice Department, is to give federal law enforcement agencies the surveillance and investigative tools they need to deter future terror attacks, but the quick, emotional passage of the Patriot Act only weeks after the September 11th attacks allowed little time for scrutiny of its measures. In fact, most members of Congress did not read it before voting. Congressman Ron Paul said he couldn't even get a copy before the vote. As a result, provisions of the Act offer major opportunities for government abuses of law-abiding private citizens. The Act says that the government does not need to have a suspect or to even be conducting an investigation related to terrorism to monitor your visits into web sites on the Internet. The Patriot Act changes the definition of terrorism, allowing even legitimate protestors, such as pro-life activists, to be at risk of being labeled terrorists if violence erupted at their events. The Act expands the capability to obtain warrants and conduct searches without disclosing them immediately. Under the Act, law enforcement can walk into your home and take records without your knowing they were there. Of course a warrant must be obtained. But you may never know about it. It doesn't even require a real judge to obtain one anymore. The Act requires fuller identification of bank customers. A year before 9-11 more than 150,000 Americans protested these very provisions in a scheme by the FDIC called Know Your Customer. But now, special software will help firms in 25 finance-related industries, covered by the law, to compare millions of customer records with thousands of entries on federal blacklists. Businesses such as car dealers, insurance companies, investment brokers, lenders and real estate firms will be required to file Suspicious Activity Reports to the Treasury Department. Here's an interesting fact. The Patriot Act only mentions protecting our northern border. It says not a word about the southern one. Our southern border remains, absolutely wide open, allowing anyone to literally walk into this country. In the name of fighting terrorism, we are witnessing a new kind of government urban sprawl oozing out of Washington, D.C. into every back alley, bedroom, and underwear drawer in America. The Government Electronics and Information Technology Association (GEIA) reports that there are more than 100 federal entities involved in forging the largest conglomeration of government/private contractor interests since the creation of the Pentagon. GEIA represents hundreds of corporate members seeking to cash in on the Homeland Security-citizen-surveillance-spending spree. In September 2002, dozens of major high-tech companies formed the Homeland Security Industries Association. A key objective of the association is to win a piece of the action for the creation of national ID cards for travelers. Business Week reports that the SAS Institute is among many corporations scrambling to launch a whole new line of anti-money laundering software designed to help insurance companies, investment banks and brokerage firms spy on their clients' financial activities on behalf of the government in compliance with the Patriot Act. According to Bert Ely, the head of a consulting company for financial institutions, the new anti-money laundering provisions of the Patriot Act will do nothing to stop the financing of international terrorists. At best, he says, the new provisions will actually provide evildoers with a road map to avoid detection. What the new Patriot Act provisions are really about, says Ely, is to have the United States fall into line with an international campaign being waged by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the Financial Action Task Force against countries that serve as tax havens. It's all about tax collection! Business Week also reported that private-sector software makers are racing to develop programs to zero in on gambling. Business Week noted that, the feds have put casinos on notice that they're next in the line of security. Now, how many terrorists have actually raised their funds in Las Vegas? In mid-September 2002, the U.S. Department of Commerce and the Office of Homeland Security held an expo in Washington. Medium and small firms from across the nation were invited
Linksys WRT54G (and clones)
Anyone here using that device? With Sveasoft's firmware? Building the firmware yourself, or using VPNs/IPsec? Sveasoft's forums contain lots of info, but are difficult to access. If you're looking for same information we could mutually help each other by starting a Wiki, or using a mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED] is largely silent on crypto matters). -- 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 pgpw8bvdobGsg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Gross Minus Net Equals Zero: Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment
http://www.capmag.com/articlePrint.asp?ID=3745 Gross Minus Net Equals Zero: Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment by Michael Marriott (June 20, 2004) Article website address: http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3745 Summary: Let us together repeal the sixteenth amendment to the Constitution by the year 2013. [CAPMAG.COM] When I worked in Saudi Arabia as a technical consultant in the 1990s, my coworkers and I were astounded upon receiving our first paycheck: we actually were paid the full amount we had earned. Gross pay minus net pay equaled zero. Never before or since in my lifetime has such a thing happened. Since every working person in the United States deserves such a delightful, fulfilling experience I would like to submit the following proposition. Let us together repeal the sixteenth amendment to the Constitution by the year 2013. This infamous income tax amendment was passed in 1909 by progressive Republicans as the best method to collect government revenue, ensure fairness and get around the pesky Supreme Court. The latter had the gall to rule in the late 19th century that such levies on income were unconstitutional. Undaunted, the politicians of the era decided that an income tax amendment was necessary. It required four years for the states to ratify the amendment, which became part of the Constitution in 1913. Hence 2013 presents a nice target date for the amendment's repeal (rather then a year of mournful reminders, 2013 could become a jubilee year that strikes a majestic blow in favor of individual rights). Further, we all can participate in the nine year debate to determine if our country is to be truly free. Repeal of the 16th amendment would be a real and symbolic reaffirmation that our government is truly limited; no other single act we could possibly perform would so effectively reinforce the idea that America is a country dedicated to individual happiness. Consider some of the travesties the 16th amendment has spawned in the last one hundred years. The power to tax has become the ultimate politician plaything. The so-called progressive nature of the tax code allows permutations uncountable as politicos raise, then lower, individual tax rates. The tax code can tailored to benefit specific special interest groups to garner bloc votes. As seventy five percent of government revenue is made possible by this insidious amendment, great sums become available to wage war, pay premium prices for toilet seats and allow certain folks to sit and do nothing for a living. Upon approval of the 16th amendment, a new agency was sired to help reticent citizens volunteer personal, private income data, the Internal Revenue Service. And such a service it provides! If the IRS suspects tax cheating it can: garnish wages, freeze bank accounts, seize assets and in general make life hell for its customers. Over the amendment's existence, citizens of the United States have been harassed, hounded, and in some cases, driven to suicide for failing to pay their fair share to the government. Never mind due process, innocent until proven guilty or other such tripe. The 16th amendment horribly contradicts other parts of the Constitution, such as depriving citizens of property without a trial. These things make one yearn for the good old days of taxation without representation under Great Britain. The diminution of individual rights is sordid enough but by no means the only effect of the 16th amendment. The income tax has served to raise costs on the very people made poorer by paying the taxes in the first place. The government is able to finance great agencies that cause prices to increase artificially: milk subsidies raise the price of dairy products as do a whole host of similar subsidies in other industries; medical care costs have spiraled since the inception of Medicare and Medicaid; housing costs have ballooned astronomically, in part due to government support of unions, underwriting of loans and special tax write-offs for mortgage interest. I could mention OSHA, EPA, minimum wage and a thousand other regulations but you get the point. The tax system often makes us pay twice. Lest we overlook another point regarding taxpayers: they pay taxes so that others can have material things that the taxpayer himself may not be able to afford. Housing instantly springs to mind. Poor folks (i.e., unproductive folks) move into government subsidized housing while the hapless taxpayer struggles to save for a down payment, a process made more difficult by the act of paying taxes. Many persons work but have no health care coverage. Not so with those refusing to work at all. Still other taxpayers struggle to capitalize a business while their fellow citizens stop at the Small Business Administration for government financing of their start-up costs. Poor mom and pop farmers feed at the government trough to save their acres of land while a struggling taxpayer in the big city lives on a sliver of land called an apartment.
Novell-SUSE Sponsors Openswan (fwd from brian-slashdotnews@hyperreal.org)
- Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 20 Jun 2004 04:26:01 - To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Novell-SUSE Sponsors Openswan User-Agent: SlashdotNewsScooper/0.0.3 Link: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/20/0124214 Posted by: timothy, on 2004-06-20 03:03:00 Topic: security, 37 comments from the they're-building-a-behemoth dept. [1]hsjones writes Concerned about the demise of FreeS/WAN? Well, looks like Openswan is going to be a good, strong open source IPsec project going forward. Novell and SUSE have jumped in with Astaro to back the project and move it along. [2]See the press release. The Openswan project is at [3]http://www.openswan.org. SUSE Linux and Astaro Security Linux both use FreeS/WAN in their current releases. It will be very interesting to watch what they do now with Openswan! IFRAME: [4]pos6 References 1. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 2. http://www.novell.com/news/press/archive/2004/06/pr04040.html 3. http://www.openswan.org/ 4. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=2936alloc_id=8587site_id=1request_id=584565 - 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 pgp1rMeS074B7.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Linksys WRT54G (and clones)
The WRT54G clones are largely useful as very cheap Linux boxes with radio, for individual homes and small scall meshes. They should be able to support a few VPNs over typical ADSL/cable modem link bitrate, but for more serious work I'd go with VIA's C5 family (1 GHz fanless, and hardware crypto support as well as on-die entropy source). Anyone know where you can actually purchase a C5J in the US? I have utterly failed to find anyplace that sells them online (with Google and pricewatch). I would very much like to play with their Montgomery multiply support. -J
Re: Novell-SUSE Sponsors Openswan (fwd from brian-slashdotnews@hyperreal.org)
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 10:17:54AM +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 20 Jun 2004 04:26:01 -
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Novell-SUSE Sponsors Openswan
User-Agent: SlashdotNewsScooper/0.0.3
Link: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/20/0124214
Posted by: timothy, on 2004-06-20 03:03:00
Topic: security, 37 comments
from the they're-building-a-behemoth dept.
[1]hsjones writes Concerned about the demise of FreeS/WAN? Well,
looks like Openswan is going to be a good, strong open source IPsec
project going forward.
What, precisely, is broken about KAME?
What is it about the Linux crowd that, if it's two years old, it's
apparently time to reimplement it. (Firewall code, software RAID,
libc, you know, whatever. Bonus points if it means a kernel A{B,P}I
modification...)
How 'bout just importing the reference implementation which Works,
something FreeS/WAN was never actualy able to say?
Oh well.
--
gabriel rosenkoetter
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgpIBOXBGjr4L.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Linksys WRT54G (and clones)
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 06:24:35AM -0400, Gabriel Rocha wrote: On Jun 20 2004, Eugen Leitl wrote: | Anyone here using that device? With Sveasoft's firmware? Building the | firmware yourself, or using VPNs/IPsec? I have one here at work. Works wonders. I didn't build it myself though. I actually paid the subscription too. The $20 seemed worthile to me. I Yes, I thought that as well, and bought the subscription for a year. I'm very pleased with what I've seen so far, and intend to prolong it. don't see anywhere in this thing that allows me to make it a vpn endpoint, but I do have ipsec passthrough enabled and it works fine. Alchemy (the next bleeding edge after Satori) is supposed to have IPsec. It would be very good indeed to have opportunistic IPsec in there. WRT54GS is about to be released in the EU as well, and with twice the flash and the RAM it should have space for some interesting functionality. | Sveasoft's forums contain lots of info, but are difficult to access. | If you're looking for same information we could mutually help each other by | starting a Wiki, or using a mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED] is largely | silent on crypto matters). I don't know what you have in mind, but I'm all for it. If this thing becomes a vpn endpoint that helps me out some, though the 200mhz proc might not handle as much as I'd like... The WRT54G clones are largely useful as very cheap Linux boxes with radio, for individual homes and small scall meshes. They should be able to support a few VPNs over typical ADSL/cable modem link bitrate, but for more serious work I'd go with VIA's C5 family (1 GHz fanless, and hardware crypto support as well as on-die entropy source). -- 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 pgp2L25VRjGb1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Linksys WRT54G (and clones)
At 03:24 AM 6/20/2004, Gabriel Rocha wrote: I don't know what you have in mind, but I'm all for it. If this thing becomes a vpn endpoint that helps me out some, though the 200mhz proc might not handle as much as I'd like... 200 MHz ought to be plenty for a typical home connection. The FreeSWAN folks found that a 150 MHz Pentium Doorstop was enough to keep a T1 line busy with 3DES - presumably AES is much faster. So either one should be good enough for most US DSL or cable modem connections, and they'll at least handle an 802.11b 2 MHz channel (yeah, the stuff says 10 Mbps, but you either need 802.11g or .11a or really good tuning to actually get that), and they'll probably go faster. Bill Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A National ID: AAMVA's Unique ID
At 10:31 AM 6/17/2004, John Gilmore wrote: Our favorite civil servants, the Departments of Motor Vehicles, are about to do exactly this to us. Many states have sunshine laws that affect meetings their policymakers attend, at least if they attend them in official capacity. Could this be used here? Robyn Wagner and I have tried to join AAMVA numerous times, as freetotravel.org. We think that we have something to say about the imposition of Unique ID on an unsuspecting public. They have rejected our application every time -- does this remind you of the Hollywood copy-prevention standards committees? Here is their recent rejection letter: ... At the same time, they let in a bunch of vendors of high security ID cards as associate members. Perhaps the Independent Smartcard Developer Association that Lucky ran for a while would be a useful front?
Re: Antipiracy bill targets technology
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, R. A. Hettinga wrote: http://news.com.com/2102-1028_3-5238140.html?tag=st.util.print CNET News Antipiracy bill targets technology A forthcoming bill in the U.S. Senate would, if passed, dramatically reshape copyright law by prohibiting file-trading networks and some consumer electronics devices on the grounds that they could be used for unlawful purposes. What was that old saw that went Well, you're equipped to be a whore, but you're not? again? how about banning chainsaws, they can kill or main people too and yes, cars, and trains, and airplanes, plastic shopping bags without holes, belts, rope, wire, electricity, etc. they can all be used to kill. all of which is unlawful. The Induce Act stands for Inducement Devolves into Unlawful Child Exploitation Act, a reference to Capitol Hill's frequently stated concern Um, remind me again, when exactly is it lawful to exploit children? Oh, wait, that's right! When they're in other countries, then, you can make them work in sweatshops producing Nike's, Levi's, GAP, etc. products... oh, sorry, I forgot. Foes of the Induce Act said that it would effectively overturn the Supreme Court's 1984 decision in the Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios case, often referred to as the Betamax lawsuit. In that 5-4 opinion, the majority said VCRs were legal to sell because they were capable of substantial noninfringing uses. But the majority stressed that Congress had the power to enact a law that would lead to a different outcome. so how soon before we ban paper and pencil? or keyboards, hands - because they can hold pencils or type, and eyeballs and ears, because they can see video and hear music?
Antipiracy bill targets technology
http://news.com.com/2102-1028_3-5238140.html?tag=st.util.print CNET News Antipiracy bill targets technology By Declan McCullagh Staff Writer, CNET News.com http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5238140.html Story last modified June 17, 2004, 5:32 PM PDT A forthcoming bill in the U.S. Senate would, if passed, dramatically reshape copyright law by prohibiting file-trading networks and some consumer electronics devices on the grounds that they could be used for unlawful purposes. News.context What's new: A bill called the Induce Act is scheduled to come before the Senate sometime next week. If passed, it would make whoever aids, abets, induces (or) counsels copyright violations liable for those violations. Bottom line:If passed, the bill could dramatically reshape copyright law by prohibiting file-trading networks and some consumer electronics devices on the grounds that they could be used for unlawful purposes. More stories on this topic The proposal, called the Induce Act, says whoever intentionally induces any violation of copyright law would be legally liable for those violations, a prohibition that would effectively ban file-swapping networks like Kazaa and Morpheus. In the draft bill seen by CNET News.com, inducement is defined as aids, abets, induces, counsels, or procures and can be punished with civil fines and, in some circumstances, lengthy prison terms. The bill represents the latest legislative attempt by influential copyright holders to address what they view as the growing threat of peer-to-peer networks rife with pirated music, movies and software. As file-swapping networks grow in popularity, copyright lobbyists are becoming increasingly creative in their legal responses, which include proposals for Justice Department lawsuits against infringers and action at the state level. Originally, the Induce Act was scheduled to be introduced Thursday by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, but the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmed at the end of the day that the bill had been delayed. A representative of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a probable co-sponsor of the legislation, said the Induce Act would be introduced sometime next week, a delay that one technology lobbyist attributed to opposition to the measure. Though the Induce Act is not yet public, critics are already attacking it as an unjustified expansion of copyright law that seeks to regulate new technologies out of existence. They're trying to make it legally risky to introduce technologies that could be used for copyright infringement, said Jessica Litman, a professor at Wayne State University who specializes in copyright law. That's why it's worded so broadly. Litman said that under the Induce Act, products like ReplayTV, peer-to-peer networks and even the humble VCR could be outlawed because they can potentially be used to infringe copyrights. Web sites such as Tucows that host peer-to-peer clients like the Morpheus software are also at risk for inducing infringement, Litman warned. Jonathan Lamy, a spokesman for the Recording Industry Association of America, declined to comment until the proposal was officially introduced. It's simple and it's deadly, said Philip Corwin, a lobbyist for Sharman Networks, which distributes the Kazaa client. If you make a product that has dual uses, infringing and not infringing, and you know there's infringement, you're liable. The Induce Act stands for Inducement Devolves into Unlawful Child Exploitation Act, a reference to Capitol Hill's frequently stated concern that file-trading networks are a source of unlawful pornography. Hatch is a conservative Mormon who has denounced pornography in the past and who suggested last year that copyright holders should be allowed to remotely destroy the computers of music pirates. Foes of the Induce Act said that it would effectively overturn the Supreme Court's 1984 decision in the Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios case, often referred to as the Betamax lawsuit. In that 5-4 opinion, the majority said VCRs were legal to sell because they were capable of substantial noninfringing uses. But the majority stressed that Congress had the power to enact a law that would lead to a different outcome. At a minimum (the Induce Act) invites a re-examination of Betamax, said Jeff Joseph, vice president for communications at the Consumer Electronics Association. It's designed to have this fuzzy feel around protecting children from pornography, but it's pretty clearly a backdoor way to eliminate and make illegal peer-to-peer services. Our concern is that you're attacking the technology. -- - R. A. Hettinga mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation http://www.ibuc.com/ 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA ... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience. -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
Citizen Units Must Give Names
One used to have the right to be known by any name one wished, as long as one did not do so for the purpose of committing fraud, or impersonating someone else. One certainly has an absolute right to refuse to speak to a government employee when accosted. So it is difficult to understand the Court's reasoning in this case. http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNewsstoryID=5473543 - WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that people are required to identify themselves when asked to do so by police, and rejected arguments that it violates their constitutional rights to privacy and to remain silent. .. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law
Citizen Chics Must Put Out
OK...so say an officer is at the beach and spots some hot chick in a bathing suit, with obviously no ID on her person. And let's say this officer believes that this chick has a bag of pot at home. Can he just go and arrest her? -TD From: Eric Cordian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Citizen Units Must Give Names Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 09:52:44 -0700 (PDT) One used to have the right to be known by any name one wished, as long as one did not do so for the purpose of committing fraud, or impersonating someone else. One certainly has an absolute right to refuse to speak to a government employee when accosted. So it is difficult to understand the Court's reasoning in this case. http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNewsstoryID=5473543 - WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that people are required to identify themselves when asked to do so by police, and rejected arguments that it violates their constitutional rights to privacy and to remain silent. ... -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law _ Watch the online reality show Mixed Messages with a friend and enter to win a trip to NY http://www.msnmessenger-download.click-url.com/go/onm00200497ave/direct/01/
Skype for Linux released
http://www.skype.com/download_linux.html FYI. Binary-only, of course. -- 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 pgppSPUW7RwWp.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Citizen Chics Must Put Out
On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 01:45:19PM -0400, Tyler Durden wrote: OK...so say an officer is at the beach and spots some hot chick in a bathing suit, with obviously no ID on her person. And let's say this officer believes that this chick has a bag of pot at home. Can he just go and arrest her? That doesn't sound like reasonable suspicion to me. Police need reasonable suspicion to stop the person and ask their name. /jgt pgp39LaQPA0Zi.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Citizen Chics Must Put Out
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004, Jay Goodman Tamboli wrote: On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 01:45:19PM -0400, Tyler Durden wrote: OK...so say an officer is at the beach and spots some hot chick in a bathing suit, with obviously no ID on her person. And let's say this officer believes that this chick has a bag of pot at home. Can he just go and arrest her? That doesn't sound like reasonable suspicion to me. Police need reasonable suspicion to stop the person and ask their name. Not anymore...
Re: Papersplease Decision
At 10:45 AM 6/21/2004, Tyler Durden wrote: OK...so say an officer is at the beach and spots some hot chick in a bathing suit, with obviously no ID on her person. And let's say this officer believes that this chick has a bag of pot at home. Can he just go and arrest her? -TD As the Reuters article says, Kennedy said the Nevada law was narrow and precise, requiring only that a suspect disclose his or her name. It does not require the suspect to produce a driver's license or any other document. A great source for Supreme Court decisions is http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/ and this case is at http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZS.html Kennedy does acknowledge, more or less, that their decision is increasing state powers and decreasing the rights of individuals. My reading of the opinions is that we probably had a better 4th Amendment argument and that the 5th Amendment one was a bit weaker. However, this doesn't mean that any cop anywhere can simply stop you and demand ID. Nevada _does_ have a law requiring that you identify yourself. However, in the Hiibel case, the cop demanded that he produce papers, which the Nevada law does _not_ require. In many states, the drivers license laws require you to produce your license when asked, if you're carrying it, though I'm not sure how many of them require that you produce it if you weren't driving. .. of course, _next_ month they'll address Homeland Security vs. 260 Million John Does, or whatever other case the Feds decide to trump up proactively. http://freetotravel.org is Gilmore Noise's site, but it hasn't been updated to reflect the verdict.
