Re: CDR: RE: Right to anon. speech online upheld in US district court
Jim Choate wrote: On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Aimee Farr wrote: John Young wrote: Aimee Farr spun: I spin, you lyre. You say 'tomato', he says 'tomato' And Jim Choate says potato? -- --Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--- + ^ + :Surveillance cameras|Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\ \|/ :aren't security. A |share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\ --*--:camera won't stop a |monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/ /|\ :masked killer, but |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/ + v + :will violate privacy|site, and you must change them very often. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sunder.net
RE: Right to anon. speech online upheld in US district court
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Aimee Farr wrote: What '3rd party'? Single party states require the person doing the recording to be a PARTICIPANT in the discussion, this implies that at least one other party is aware of their presence. Hardly '3rd' person. Two party states require ALL participants to agree, again no recognition of any '3rd party' right to record. How can a lawyer confuse this with a clear violation of the 4th with non-participatory '3rd party' recording? Hm. How can anybody confuse privacy statutes with the 4TH Amendment? Hmmm I didn't say a word about 'privacy', and there is NO implication of such in my statement. I simply said the law says that one must be a participant in the discussion, irrespective of One or Two Party systems, in order to even be a party to the decision of recording. Simply 'listening in' as in a 'snoop' is excluded under all conditions. A person has no responsibility to allow just anyone in on their phone calls or discussions. One could just as well call the discussion 'personal' and there IS a clear standard about searching persons, papers, and speech. What is a 'participatin'? At least one other party in the discussion must be aware that you are participating, though they are under no obligation to reveal this information at any time. Thank you for your time, you've adequately answered my original question. The solution lies in the heart of humankind. Chris Lawson The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
RE: Right to anon. speech online upheld in US district court
John Young wrote: Aimee Farr spun: I spin, you lyre. Finally, the law has an impressive track record, in stark contrast to 'crypto-anarchy.' This caught me a nudder fish. I'm going into my reinforced steel shark cage, 'cause this tells Mr. Big Fish could be behind him (Tim is like those three sharks with memory in that Deep Blue Sea movie.) So law proponents ever adversarial, no matter the facts. Homework on the exegesis of cryptoanarchy would demonstrate otherwise: it is law (and its siamese twin, order) which appears whereever cryptoanarchy rises to prominence in a people -- LO a perfect means to strenghening strangleholds. I WHOLLY RESENT THIS CYPHERPUNK COURT-APPOINTMENT TO REPRESENT LAW ORDER AND ALL THINGS ESTABLISHMENT. You guys keep denying my petition to withdraw, wanting somebody to fight with. Opposition to organized control of law and order is timeless, spaceless. Time and space a conceit of LO in the scientific realm. Opposition to government is timeless and spaceless, or was until the notion of imperial full employment was concocted, imperialism coming to America during WW2. And now more people work for government in the US than in any other nation today, and most others of the citizenry get a piece of the dole in one way or the other. That does not mean there is not considerable anti-government sentiment among the govs beneficiaries, perhaps the most vociferous of gov critics are those who know it from the inside. This interior dissent, too, is bred by imperialism, with it incessant interior struggle among it beneficiaries. It is no accident that cypherpunks was founded by and is fed by dissident beneficiaries of government largesse and protection from bad, bad people who give shit not for LO in any disguise. National defense education, with it emphasis on training an elite citizenry, has produced thousands of Jim and Jane Bells still searching for what was promised the smart guys if they just abided the rules. Their promisers chuckling at the bright-eyed idiots who never knew what it was like to survive under oldtime cryptoanarchy -- when keeping secrets from the day's tax criminals was the highest accomplishment -- especially the rats in their midst whispering rules of right and wrong, what history proved and didn't, who was first and who is clueless. Me, I'm an immortal, got medical and preaching licenses to prove it, in the name of Anonymous, awarded by Anonymous. Teller lied, the NYT says, it was a young physicist who designed the H-bomb, the very one who later became a fierce opponent of nuclear weapons. A rat. John Young The Pied Piper - rats, and more rats, and rats, even rats in hats, rats pretending to be other rats, rats pretending to be one rat. Lions, Tigers, Rats...oh, my! John Young. ~Aimee Attorney for Global Law Order, under duress ...needs raidin'...
RE: Right to anon. speech online upheld in US district court
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Aimee Farr wrote: First, the law can be used to the advantage of aforesaid 'technological means,' often giving hints. For example, somewhat in the context of this discussion, it seems possible to have electronic communication that does not imply third-party permission to record. What '3rd party'? Single party states require the person doing the recording to be a PARTICIPANT in the discussion, this implies that at least one other party is aware of their presence. Hardly '3rd' person. Two party states require ALL participants to agree, again no recognition of any '3rd party' right to record. How can a lawyer confuse this with a clear violation of the 4th with non-participatory '3rd party' recording? Hm. Finally, the law has an impressive track record, in stark contrast to 'crypto-anarchy.' To wit, of failure. The solution lies in the heart of humankind. Chris Lawson The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
RE: Right to anon. speech online upheld in US district court
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Aimee Farr wrote: John Young wrote: Aimee Farr spun: I spin, you lyre. You say 'tomato', he says 'tomato' The solution lies in the heart of humankind. Chris Lawson The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
Re: Right to anon. speech online upheld in US district court
At 5:23 PM -0700 4/20/01, Ray Dillinger wrote: Here's an interesting article. In this one, a US District Judge says explicitly that the first amendment does apply to the internet and that people DO have a right to anonymous speech online. The case involved a company claiming that users of a chatroom had "conspired" to drive its stock price down so that they could profit by shorting the stock. The company demanded of the operators of the chatroom the identities of the people involved. The judge refused. These cases, and the reporting of them, are filled with much confusion and mischief. The First Amendment says that government (originally the Federal, now states) may not censor material, may not practice prior restraint, may not establish religions, and so on. (Usual exceptions and conditions we often get into.) It does _not_ say that writings may not be compelled to be disclosed in a court case, it does _not_ say that witnesses may not be subpoenaed, and it most certainly does _not_ say that John Doe, who may be a chatroom sysop or ISP, is somehow exempt from producing subpoenaed material in a criminal or civil trial! I'm all for the technologies of anonymity and pseudoanymity, and outlawing such technologies is unconstitutional on various grounds. But if John Doe, a sysop, _knows_ facts about "Tentacle of Medusa," a nym on his system, and this information is compelled by the discovery process, there is certainly no First Amendment protection. We need to do our part to stop this kind of confusion. More people might be using *technological* means to protect their identity and privacy if they had less misplaced faith in the law protecting them. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May [EMAIL PROTECTED]Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
Re: Right to anon. speech online upheld in US district court
On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Tim May wrote: These cases, and the reporting of them, are filled with much confusion and mischief. No, as usual, it is you Tim who are confused. The First Amendment says that government (originally the Federal, now states) may not censor material, may not practice prior restraint, may not establish religions, and so on. (Usual exceptions and conditions we often get into.) It does _not_ say that writings may not be compelled to be disclosed in a court case, it does _not_ say that witnesses may not be subpoenaed, and it most certainly does _not_ say that John Doe, who may be a chatroom sysop or ISP, is somehow exempt from producing subpoenaed material in a criminal or civil trial! What IT DOES say is, that NO LAW MAY BE PASSED - including ones that might 'compel' one to reveal them; Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The ultimate authority...resides in the people alone. James Madison The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
Re: Right to anon. speech online upheld in US district court
Tim: It does _not_ say that writings may not be compelled to be disclosed in a court case, it does _not_ say that witnesses may not be subpoenaed, and it most certainly does _not_ say that John Doe, who may be a chatroom sysop or ISP, is somehow exempt from producing subpoenaed material in a criminal or civil trial! I'm a bit confused by Tim's use of the nym John Doe, since in cases like that, the John Doe isn't the sysop, John Doe is/are the unknown-to-the-court person or persons who made the allegedly libelous comments, and the court is or is not deciding whether to force the known sysop to reveal the names of the Does. Some recent courts have made (IMHO good) decisions that say that the plaintiff needs to prove that the allegedly libelous or otherwise actionable statements are in fact actionable before forcing the sysop to reveal the names. There's some conflict between this and the right to confront your accusers in court - probably the real mechanism needs to be something like preliminary decision, if yes, then out the Does, then retry the case, though if you've got two-way anonymous communication, the Does may be able to argue their preliminary anonymously. Choate: What IT DOES say is, that NO LAW MAY BE PASSED - including ones that might 'compel' one to reveal them; That doesn't necessarily follow from the first amendment - Supreme Court cases in recent decades have been fairly consistent in interpreting freedom of the press to include the right to try to publish anonymously if you can figure out how, but they're addressing whether you can be punished for anonymity, not whether it's legal for someone to out you if you're careless (e.g. leaving your fingerprints on your anonymous leaflets), or whether someone who does know your identity can be compelled to reveal it. Besides, in most of these cases, the people who know the information are businesses, and under a Choatean theory of business regulation, businesses don't have rights and must be regulated, so telling the business to reveal what IT knows is perfectly ok, right? The whole mess sounds like more good reason to use technical means for anonymity, and for businesses that offer services like investment chat rooms to not keep user records.
Re: Right to anon. speech online upheld in US district court
On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Bill Stewart wrote: Tim: It does _not_ say that writings may not be compelled to be disclosed in a court case, it does _not_ say that witnesses may not be subpoenaed, and it most certainly does _not_ say that John Doe, who may be a chatroom sysop or ISP, is somehow exempt from producing subpoenaed material in a criminal or civil trial! I'm a bit confused by Tim's use of the nym John Doe, since in cases like that, the John Doe isn't the sysop, John Doe is/are the unknown-to-the-court person or persons who made the allegedly libelous comments, and the court is or is not deciding whether to force the known sysop to reveal the names of the Does. The distinction is irrelevant. What the 4th says is that any possession (including press output) may be searched. It doesn't include speech itself, the 5th guarantees that can NEVER be compelled. Some recent courts have made (IMHO good) decisions that say that the plaintiff needs to prove that the allegedly libelous or otherwise actionable statements are in fact actionable before forcing the sysop to reveal the names. There's some conflict between this and the right to confront your accusers in court - probably the real mechanism needs to be something like preliminary decision, if yes, then out the Does, then retry the case, though if you've got two-way anonymous communication, the Does may be able to argue their preliminary anonymously. Agreed that the 4th requires 'probable cause' prior to ANY search for ANY reason in ANY condition, no exceptions. It's quicker or It's cheaper not withstanding. Choate: What IT DOES say is, that NO LAW MAY BE PASSED - including ones that might 'compel' one to reveal them; That doesn't necessarily follow from the first amendment - Actually it does, the 1st says ...no laws..., there are no ..., but... involved. It's worth noting that Tim's reference to the 14'th about 'extending rights' is invalid, in no place in the 14'th is the word 'right' used, only 'privileges and immunities', neither of which are equivalent to 'rights' (see the first two para's of the DoI for definition of 'rights'). The intent was to let individual states decide according to their own constitutions (see 10'th, there is NO limitation on speech applied to the states themselves in the Constitution). The Constitution itself only guarantees 'representative' governments in the states, it does not say they have to be the same or otherwise allow the fed's to define what is permissible. That is up to the people of the individual states (ie vote with your feet). The US is NOT the Federated States of America, it's the United States of America, there is no question as to where issues not covered explicitely in the Constitution (per the 10'th) should be decided. Note that the potential for multiplicity in views, and as a result a difference in state laws on fundamental issues, is EXACTLY what the Constitution was meant to foster. It was not meant to create a society of homogenous state laws over-seen by the fed's. It's why the Constitution DOES say that the fed's will guarantee respect of one states laws by other states (why I hold that if Texas for example doesn't allow pot and Louisiana did, if I were a citizen of Louisiana I couldn't be prosecuted for pot possesion or use under state law in Texas, the Fed's control 'interstate commerce' so if I gave the pot to a Texas citizen it would be a federal issue and not a state issue, and under the 1st the only thing the fed's can do is ship my but back to Louisiana). Supreme Court cases in recent decades have been fairly consistent in interpreting freedom of the press to include the right to try to publish anonymously if you can figure out how, but they're addressing whether you can be punished for anonymity, not whether it's legal for someone to out you if you're careless (e.g. leaving your fingerprints on your anonymous leaflets), or whether someone who does know your identity can be compelled to reveal it. What the SC does is irrelevent with respect to the form of basic government and the 'balance of power', the Constitution says '...under this Constitution...'. If the SC wants to punish somebody for anonymit they can start with 'Publius'. The 'precedence' as well as original intent is clear. Besides, in most of these cases, the people who know the information are businesses, and under a Choatean theory of business regulation, businesses don't have rights and must be regulated, so telling the business to reveal what IT knows is perfectly ok, right? Not hardly. I never said business needs to be regulated, you should pay closer attention. All I've ever said is business is nothing more than the expression of INDIVIDUALS right to pursue happiness. To speak of a business outside of that context is simply ignorant, misleading, or insane. To speak of it under the Constitution in particular is just plain silly. There is a reason that
