Re: Ashcroft Targets U.S. Cybercrime
Black Unicorn wrote: If I were a duly appointed law enforcement official I could arrest you for the kind of shoes you were wearing. You'll have recourse eventually, but it will be after a 24 hour (or so) stay in the pokey and posting bail and hiring an attorney, and Yes, yes, and the claim that a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich, are what makes the United States a nation of laws less abided, less understood, less respected. Tim May's daily law-breaking is normal. Even lawyers do it. All believing they will never be targeted. But with 1 out of 8 US persons working in the law industry, and 1 out of 100 incarcerated, most of the population will one day will suffer forfeiture, do community service, make restitution, be on probation, wear tracking devices, be snooped on, hairy-eyeballed at a weekly upcoming case schedule, or just grouped into a conspiracy for being churned throught the justice system as a re-education in responsible citizenship. If you think you can avoid this re-education then you probably consider yourself above or outside the law, under the radar, unnoticeable, not worth the effort of authorities, never done anything illegal except a few things nobody knows about, or, best of all, a member of a privileged caste which is protected by a higher law for law enforcers-- like, a journalist, or a priest, or a doctor, or a TLA herding pre-defined miscreants toward the chute. That spooked miscreants stampede or mavericks hook a gut, well, that's just in guns and ammo. Watch what those dozen new CHIP units spook in the course of trying to keep up with runaway technology. Indictments for trailing edge tech is what is meant by the kind of shoes you're wearing. Herding miscreants, avoiding the hard crimes committed at justice HQs, in order to not offend Boss, Congress, Stockholders, Voters. Mueller is likely to be worse than Freeh in the sense that he will favor what he thinks are his strengths and ignore his weaknesses -- hoping to mollify those above him doing the same, that is, never ever investigate the overseers, whisper secrets and provide perks to those who watch the watchers.
Re: Ashcroft Targets U.S. Cybercrime
At 10:29 AM -0700 7/30/01, Black Unicorn wrote: - Original Message - At 7:20 AM -0500 7/26/01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Petro wrote: You are confusing civilians and LEOs. Only civilians are held to the personal knowledge standard. Leos are held to profoundly lower probablity models. In order to arrest someone they have to have some sort of evidence that not only was a crime committed, but that the person they arrested has some reasonable probability of actually having committed that crime. Uh, no. If I were a duly appointed law enforcement official I could arrest you for the kind of shoes you were wearing. You'll have recourse eventually, but it will be after a 24 hour (or so) stay in the pokey and posting bail and hiring an attorney, and As a lawyer (and I strongly suspect based on your writing here over the years that you're not this kind of lawyer) if someone came to you wanting to sue the NYPD over whatever the legalese is for false imprisonment and had documents to prove that they'd been arrested for wearing purple oxfords on blue flue tuesday, would you buy a new BMW or a Mercedes? Maybe know is a little strong, suspect is probably a better way of putting it. You're reaching for the criteria by which the legitimacy of the arrest will be judged ex post. The terms you are grappling to find are reasonable suspicion and probable cause. The point you are missing is that typically the only downside for the officer in making an illegal arrest is that the case will get tossed. Big deal. I was trying to stay away from terms of art where possible, since while I know what the english words reasonable suspicion mean, I know they are also used in a lot of cop and lawyer shows, as well as by cops and lawyers, therefore they are overloaded terms and not always in scope. I suggest you attend 3 years of law school or otherwise educate yourself in the matter before presenting yourself as an authority on the issue and blathering off for paragraphs on end about nothing in particular. Sheesh, at least invest in a copy of black's law dictionary or something. It's common respect for the rest of the list members. I am seriously thinking about Law School, and several times during this conversation I have made it clear that (1) I am not a lawyer. (2) I am not speaking from a position of educated authority. I am speaking from *my* reading of the Constitution and discussions with lawyers and Cops, as well as other stuff I've read and thought about over the years. I've made it evident that I do not believe this is the way things *are*, but rather what *I* believe would work better. Other than said 4th amendment issues, street cops *rarely* get involved in constitutional issues. If you honestly believe this, then someone needs to beat the shit out of you with a clueclub. By definition, LEOs are [daily] involved in all issues, from 1-ad to no-ad... Nonsense. In a LARGE percentage of the stuff a police officer deals with, there are no constitutional issues (other than the 4th). Robbery, murder, drunk driving, and the vast majority of traffic violations there aren't many constitutional issues involved in the laws the enforce, there may be some issues in *how* they enforce them (4th, 5th, and 6th) but little on what they enforce. There are constitutional issues in every interaction with police and citizens. The question is if they are raised or significant enough to be regarded in the judicial system. Probable cause to make an arrest is but one of the issues that is triggered on every arrest or other police action. In any interaction between the long arm of the law and the citizenry, there is the how, and the why. You are talking about how the police interact with the citizenry, which is mostly 4th (search, seizure, cause for warrants etc), 5th (due process, double jeopardy), 6th (speedy public trial etc). These all come into effect (usually) after there is suspicion that a crime has been committed (absent fishing expeditions). We were talking about the why of the interaction, whether LEOs should decide for themselves what laws were constitutional and should be enforced. Rarely will you find a street cop, on his on initiative, making arrests in questionable areas (1st and 2nd). To you the only questionable areas are the 1st and 2nd amendments? Interesting. Within the constraints of the discussion, yes. There are constitutional questions in law enforcement about the 4th, 5th, and 6th, but these are procedural issues, and procedural laws. I see many laws that are questionable under the 1st and 2nd (via the 14th) but I see few laws that can be violated outside the court system that are questionable under the 4th, 5th, and 6th. To my limited knowledge there has been very few cases (I've heard of one, but I admit to not having done the research) dealing
Re: Re: Ashcroft Targets U.S. Cybercrime
At 7:20 AM -0500 7/26/01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Petro wrote:
a great majority of an LEO's education time is spent instructing them on
how to determine [decide] what is and is not constitutionally protected
{speech, action}. If they did not use this ability, they would have to
arrest *everyone*, and let the courts sort out the mess.
KNo, they would have to arrest everyone they witnessed (or
knew) committed an act that violated the law.
You are confusing civilians and LEOs. Only civilians are held to the
personal knowledge standard. Leos are held to profoundly lower probablity
models.
In order to arrest someone they have to have some sort of evidence that not
only was a crime committed, but that the person they arrested has some reasonable
probability of actually having committed that crime.
Maybe know is a little strong, suspect is probably a better way of putting
it.
Other than said 4th amendment issues, street cops *rarely* get
involved in constitutional issues.
If you honestly believe this, then someone needs to beat the shit out of
you with a clueclub. By definition, LEOs are [daily] involved in all
issues, from 1-ad to no-ad...
Nonsense. In a LARGE percentage of the stuff a police officer deals with,
there are no constitutional issues (other than the 4th). Robbery, murder, drunk
driving, and the vast majority of traffic violations there aren't many constitutional
issues involved in the laws the enforce, there may be some issues in *how* they
enforce them (4th, 5th, and 6th) but little on what they enforce.
Rarely will you find a street cop, on his on initiative, making arrests in
questionable areas (1st and 2nd).
And if you are at all familiar with the history of 2A case law, you
will understand why the SCOTUS has been so meticulous in avoiding a
ruling. Of course, our friends [hrmmm... Never thought I'd say THAT] in
Texas may well put an end to the charade soon.
Still waiting to hear about the Emerson case (and the 5th is in
New Orleans IIRC).
Interesting rumor on this front. Don Kates spoke to a group of us on
Thursday. He wrote an amicus brief for the Emerson case, and I asked him what if he'd
heard anything about what was going on. According to him, rumor has it that one of the
judges in that case is writing a long (150 pages was mentioned) decision.
Well, no. See, the same constitution also grants Congress the
power to regulate interstate trade, so as long as they don't infringe
on the right, they have a wide latitude to set standards etc. Or do they?
What are the limits of that particular clause?
Virtually the entire 2A ablating federal infrastructure is based on a
truly scary finding that *any* firearm is the product of Intertate
Commerce, regardless if it has been out of the state in which it was
Well, no. Only about 1/2 of the ablating. The other half is
Congresses power to tax. (At the federal level a good number of
firearms cases are on charges of failing to file and or pay the class
2 or 3 weapons tax stamp).
Please document this assertion. 1/2 is just plain *wrong*. The tax
issues are restrictive, but not ablating, i.e., if you can afford the tax,
then, *in theory*, you have no problem. I am talking about totally [2A]
destructive laws, such as felons losing their RIGHT to ownership of
firearms, civilians losing their RIGHT to own assault
weapons (interesting note: it is still legal to collect missiles, but not
certain types of rifles - the idiocy continues).
Here's how it works (and there is a case going on right now about this). The
government says you have to have a tax stamp to own x. Then doesn't provide you
any mechanism to actually *get* that stamp.
A portion (and I don't have the percentages, this comes from discussions with
a local attorney active in Firearms Rights) of the firearms cases prosecuted at the
federal level are prosecuted as tax violations. It is (allegedly) done this way to
avoid second amendment issues. Since the Government has the constitutional power to
tax, there is no problem.
It may not be 1/2 of all cases, but it's 1/2 of all justifications, and a
signigificant number of cases.
Further
more, what is *constitutionally* an infringement?
Als at the risk of going Choation, what part of Shall not be
infringed don't you understand?
I understand shall not, it's the infringed I'm asking about.
Is it *really* an infringement on your rights to require
firearms manufacturers to meet reasonable standards of functioning?
Yes. Period.
Now who's being Choatian?
Whether the free market can provide this or not is orthagonal to
the question.
No it is not: it is directly on point. There is NO constituional basis
for the government to be able to regulate firearms. Period. Whether for
good, bad, or indifferent.
Re: Ashcroft Targets U.S. Cybercrime
- Original Message -
From: Petro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 9:53 AM
Subject: Re: Ashcroft Targets U.S. Cybercrime
At 7:20 AM -0500 7/26/01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Petro wrote:
a great majority of an LEO's education time is spent instructing them
on
how to determine [decide] what is and is not constitutionally protected
{speech, action}. If they did not use this ability, they would have
to
arrest *everyone*, and let the courts sort out the mess.
KNo, they would have to arrest everyone they witnessed (or
knew) committed an act that violated the law.
You are confusing civilians and LEOs. Only civilians are held to the
personal knowledge standard. Leos are held to profoundly lower probablity
models.
In order to arrest someone they have to have some sort of evidence that not
only was a crime committed, but that the person they arrested has some
reasonable probability of actually having committed that crime.
Uh, no.
If I were a duly appointed law enforcement official I could arrest you for the
kind of shoes you were wearing. You'll have recourse eventually, but it will
be after a 24 hour (or so) stay in the pokey and posting bail and hiring an
attorney, and
Maybe know is a little strong, suspect is probably a better way of
putting it.
You're reaching for the criteria by which the legitimacy of the arrest will be
judged ex post. The terms you are grappling to find are reasonable
suspicion and probable cause. The point you are missing is that typically
the only downside for the officer in making an illegal arrest is that the
case will get tossed. Big deal.
Probable cause to arrest exists where facts and circumstances within officers'
knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information are
sufficient in themselves to warrant a person of reasonable caution in the
belief that an offense has been or is being committed; it is not necessary
that the officer possess knowledge of acts sufficient to establish guilt, but
more than mere suspicion is required.
I suggest you attend 3 years of law school or otherwise educate yourself in
the matter before presenting yourself as an authority on the issue and
blathering off for paragraphs on end about nothing in particular. Sheesh, at
least invest in a copy of black's law dictionary or something. It's common
respect for the rest of the list members.
Other than said 4th amendment issues, street cops *rarely* get
involved in constitutional issues.
If you honestly believe this, then someone needs to beat the shit out of
you with a clueclub. By definition, LEOs are [daily] involved in all
issues, from 1-ad to no-ad...
Nonsense. In a LARGE percentage of the stuff a police officer deals with,
there are no constitutional issues (other than the 4th). Robbery, murder,
drunk driving, and the vast majority of traffic violations there aren't many
constitutional issues involved in the laws the enforce, there may be some
issues in *how* they enforce them (4th, 5th, and 6th) but little on what they
enforce.
There are constitutional issues in every interaction with police and citizens.
The question is if they are raised or significant enough to be regarded in the
judicial system. Probable cause to make an arrest is but one of the issues
that is triggered on every arrest or other police action.
Rarely will you find a street cop, on his on initiative, making arrests in
questionable areas (1st and 2nd).
To you the only questionable areas are the 1st and 2nd amendments?
Interesting.
And if you are at all familiar with the history of 2A case law, you
will understand why the SCOTUS has been so meticulous in avoiding a
ruling. Of course, our friends [hrmmm... Never thought I'd say THAT] in
Texas may well put an end to the charade soon.
Still waiting to hear about the Emerson case (and the 5th is in
New Orleans IIRC).
Interesting rumor on this front. Don Kates spoke to a group of us on
Thursday. He wrote an amicus brief for the Emerson case, and I asked him what
if he'd heard anything about what was going on. According to him, rumor has it
that one of the judges in that case is writing a long (150 pages was
mentioned) decision.
[Firearms rights are being taken away by the power to tax... The power to tax
is the power to destroy... McCulloch v. Maryland blah blah blah]
Here's how it works (and there is a case going on right now about this). The
government says you have to have a tax stamp to own x. Then doesn't
provide you any mechanism to actually *get* that stamp.
Chicago does this. It requires registration for all handguns. No
registrations have been issued since the early 70s or so. It's been
challenged over and over. It stands. And will.
The rest of this drivel deleted. (Is Detweiller back or what? If so, he's
violating his consent decree).
Re: Ashcroft Targets U.S. Cybercrime
-- Yes, it does work in the world of building reputations associated with (anonymous or claimed-not-anonymous) keys, but not when you need meatspace credit --give the meat named Prof Joe tenure credit for work X. James A. Donald: It is common for real world authors to publish under nom de plumes. Adding a key to a nom de plume gives added advantages to the nom de plume. David Honig wrote: A nom de plume which cannot be revealed to the folks one wants credit from (because you go to meatspace jail when the association is leaked) is useless for getting credit in meatspace. Yes the nym gets credit; but it doesn't help you get tenure, or a raise, or invitations to speak. The advantage of a nom de plume is that it can be selectively revealed, revealed to some people and not others, or revealed to everyone at a later date depending on how things turned out. Adding a public key to a nom de plume improves that advantage, The same is true of a nom de guerre, only even more so. To inopportunely reveal a nom de guerre is likely to be fatal. To be unable ot prove a nom de guerre may well result in the loss an personal gains resulting from victory. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG mkF3vClVh1ADZdWMKCRDtSJboD5GxB++yr8Wh4f1 4hd66T9IGIrYcT9RAm+JsBR1bEipLxfgpibdVoOpv
Re: Re: Ashcroft Targets U.S. Cybercrime
We still live in a country that has laws, and we *should* expect the LEAs to enforce all laws that are on the books. If you have a problem with the laws, it's not the LEAs fault, it's the legislature and the Executive branch. And the Jewish population of Europe during WW2 had no right to complain about the Nazi soldiers just doing their job, right... If one can't distinguish between the enforcement of laws of questionable constitutional validity (yes, *questionable*) and genocide, then one should probably load the bong again, watch cartoons on TV and stay far, far away from the ballot box. The question has nothing to do with the Constitution of the United States--it has to do with whether or not an individual is justified in acting in the name of just doing my job or just following orders. I would suggest that LEAs are definitely at fault for executing and enforcing laws that are unjust. (I in no way intend to imply that the blame should be steered away from the originators, who are, as you point out, the legislature and executive branch. Nor am I making a recommendation as to what determines the fabric of justice, although that would be an interesting topic for dicsussion.) Your assumption that the U.S. Constitution and system of Elections have anything to do with granting a mandate of rule to the law enforcement community is flawed. They don't even, for what it matters, grant a true mandate to the rest of the U.S. government anymore, with occasional exception. --bensons
Re: Re: Ashcroft Targets U.S. Cybercrime
At 7:39 AM -0500 7/24/01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At the risk of going Choatien and stepping far beyond any
degrees I may have, the position that each and every LEO in this
country *should* (as opposed to does) decide for himself whether a law
fits his understanding of the constitution before enforcing it is not
only unworkable, but--if the LEO truly believes in the concepts of
Rule of Law, wrong headed.
Wrong headed or not, LEOs are manufactured out of human beings, and
because of this, the spend a considerable amount of time in the Maggot
Academy (tm) being taught the fine points of this very issue. In fact,
No, they don't. Spoke with an officer this evening about it.
The cover (at least the academy he went to here in SillyCon valley) 4
amendment issues, and only from the practical standpoint, not the philosphical
standpoint, and mostly was scenario based.
a great majority of an LEO's education time is spent instructing them on
how to determine [decide] what is and is not constitutionally protected
{speech, action}. If they did not use this ability, they would have to
arrest *everyone*, and let the courts sort out the mess.
No, they would have to arrest everyone they witnessed (or knew) committed an
act that violated the law.
Other than said 4th amendment issues, street cops *rarely* get involved in
constitutional issues.
As a further disclaimer, let me say that I don't think The
Legal Community agrees with me. They're agreement or not isn't a
factor in my thinking. I already know (as Declan points out) that Reno
doesn't agree with me, but from her actions it's quite clear she
doesn't believe in the Rule Of Law--at least not in the sense I've
been using it.
Actually, she is the perfect example: she interpreted the constitution her
way. The Rule of Law has to be implemented at the individual [enforcer]
level: therefore, each enforcer is putin the position of having to make
and act on their [constitutional] opinions on a moment to moment basis.
Uh. No.
From her *ACTIONS* she did not believe in the Rule Of Law, but believed
strongly in the long arm and mailed fist of the law.
Witness her actions, and the actions of departments under her. The FBI was, in
direct violation of the brady law, retaining the information about firearm purchases.
Witness how quickly the Waco crime scene was bulldozed. Witness DOJ lawyers arguing in
the Ruby Ridge case that Lon H. was not touchable by state law because he was a Fed
acting under orders.
The fact that you [and in this rare case] I agree that Reno is a fascist
sack of shit is completely irrelevent.
Well, it's nice to see we agree about something.
Now, in an ideal world the constitution would be clearly worded
and the semantics would be clearly understood by the people who live
under it. However, It ain't like that. English is by no means an ISO
(or even ANSI) standard, and even reasonable people can disagree on the
complexity generated by the various articles and sections of the
constitution and the amendments.
Look for example to the issue of the Second Amendment. The
clearest plain word interpretation of that amendment is that the
no one has the ability to infringe on the right of the people to
keep and bear arms.
Fairly simple.
Does that then mean that just about every firearm law in the
country is invalid on it's face?
Yes.
No.
And if you are at all familiar with the history of 2A case law, you
will understand why the SCOTUS has been so meticulous in avoiding a
ruling. Of course, our friends [hrmmm... Never thought I'd say THAT] in
Texas may well put an end to the charade soon.
Still waiting to hear about the Emerson case (and the 5th is in New Orleans
IIRC).
Well, no. See, the same constitution also grants Congress the
power to regulate interstate trade, so as long as they don't infringe
on the right, they have a wide latitude to set standards etc. Or do they?
What are the limits of that particular clause?
Virtually the entire 2A ablating federal infrastructure is based on a
truly scary finding that *any* firearm is the product of Intertate
Commerce, regardless if it has been out of the state in which it was
Well, no. Only about 1/2 of the ablating. The other half is Congresses power
to tax. (At the federal level a good number of firearms cases are on charges of
failing to file and or pay the class 2 or 3 weapons tax stamp).
Further more, what is *constitutionally* an infringement?
Als at the risk of going Choation, what part of Shall not be
infringed don't you understand?
I understand shall not, it's the infringed I'm asking about.
Is it *really* an infringement on your rights to require firearms
manufacturers to meet reasonable standards of functioning? In fact, given the basis of
the second
Re: CDR: Re: Re: Ashcroft Targets U.S. Cybercrime
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Petro wrote:
Wrong headed or not, LEOs are manufactured out of human beings, and
because of this, the spend a considerable amount of time in the Maggot
Academy (tm) being taught the fine points of this very issue. In fact,
No, they don't. Spoke with an officer this evening about it.
The cover (at least the academy he went to here in SillyCon
valley) 4 amendment issues, and only from the practical standpoint,
not the philosphical standpoint, and mostly was scenario based.
That explains a lot about the California SS. Down in the United States,
or at least in the few areas I have personal knowledge of, New York (City
PD and State Trooper) and New Mexico, there is a great deal of
constitutional education. This education is seen as necessary to
properly interpret *when* (not if, sadly enough) an LEO may take certain
actions.
a great majority of an LEO's education time is spent instructing them on
how to determine [decide] what is and is not constitutionally protected
{speech, action}. If they did not use this ability, they would have to
arrest *everyone*, and let the courts sort out the mess.
KNo, they would have to arrest everyone they witnessed (or
knew) committed an act that violated the law.
You are confusing civilians and LEOs. Only civilians are held to the
personal knowledge standard. Leos are held to profoundly lower probablity
models.
Other than said 4th amendment issues, street cops *rarely* get
involved in constitutional issues.
If you honestly believe this, then someone needs to beat the shit out of
you with a clueclub. By definition, LEOs are [daily] involved in all
issues, from 1-ad to no-ad...
And if you are at all familiar with the history of 2A case law, you
will understand why the SCOTUS has been so meticulous in avoiding a
ruling. Of course, our friends [hrmmm... Never thought I'd say THAT] in
Texas may well put an end to the charade soon.
Still waiting to hear about the Emerson case (and the 5th is in
New Orleans IIRC).
Well, no. See, the same constitution also grants Congress the
power to regulate interstate trade, so as long as they don't infringe
on the right, they have a wide latitude to set standards etc. Or do they?
What are the limits of that particular clause?
Virtually the entire 2A ablating federal infrastructure is based on a
truly scary finding that *any* firearm is the product of Intertate
Commerce, regardless if it has been out of the state in which it was
Well, no. Only about 1/2 of the ablating. The other half is
Congresses power to tax. (At the federal level a good number of
firearms cases are on charges of failing to file and or pay the class
2 or 3 weapons tax stamp).
Please document this assertion. 1/2 is just plain *wrong*. The tax
issues are restrictive, but not ablating, i.e., if you can afford the tax,
then, *in theory*, you have no problem. I am talking about totally [2A]
destructive laws, such as felons losing their RIGHT to ownership of
firearms, civilians losing their RIGHT to own assault
weapons (interesting note: it is still legal to collect missiles, but not
certain types of rifles - the idiocy continues).
Further
more, what is *constitutionally* an infringement?
Als at the risk of going Choation, what part of Shall not be
infringed don't you understand?
I understand shall not, it's the infringed I'm asking about.
Is it *really* an infringement on your rights to require
firearms manufacturers to meet reasonable standards of functioning?
Yes. Period.
Whether the free market can provide this or not is orthagonal to
the question.
No it is not: it is directly on point. There is NO constituional basis
for the government to be able to regulate firearms. Period. Whether for
good, bad, or indifferent. There is a very clear constitutional
mandate that any and all firearms be available to the people -
period. Any infringement, even if it is for my own good is
unconstituional on it's face.
Let's get even finer.
Do you *really* want your local beat cop to be making decisions
on what does and doesn't fall into protected speech (or even whether
there is a distinction there to be made?)
See above: it is by definition unavoidable.
There are a lot of things that in a society are unavoidable. The
question is whether those things should be encouraged or discouraged.
My contention is that encouraging a LEO to decide for himself
whether a law is constitutional or not is both wrong, and counter
productive.
Again, returning to the oath of office taken by LEOs: their FIRST
responsibility is to defend the CONSTITUTION. Not to follow orders. You
want mindless droids enforcing laws, you get the kind of defacto police
state we are living in now. You *should* be looking for THINKING *humans*
to be filling this position.
It's happened in Chicago, and
Re: Re: Ashcroft Targets U.S. Cybercrime
At the risk of going Choatien and stepping far beyond any
degrees I may have, the position that each and every LEO in this
country *should* (as opposed to does) decide for himself whether a law
fits his understanding of the constitution before enforcing it is not
only unworkable, but--if the LEO truly believes in the concepts of
Rule of Law, wrong headed.
Wrong headed or not, LEOs are manufactured out of human beings, and
because of this, the spend a considerable amount of time in the Maggot
Academy (tm) being taught the fine points of this very issue. In fact,
a great majority of an LEO's education time is spent instructing them on
how to determine [decide] what is and is not constitutionally protected
{speech, action}. If they did not use this ability, they would have to
arrest *everyone*, and let the courts sort out the mess.
As a further disclaimer, let me say that I don't think The
Legal Community agrees with me. They're agreement or not isn't a
factor in my thinking. I already know (as Declan points out) that Reno
doesn't agree with me, but from her actions it's quite clear she
doesn't believe in the Rule Of Law--at least not in the sense I've
been using it.
Actually, she is the perfect example: she interpreted the constitution her
way. The Rule of Law has to be implemented at the individual [enforcer]
level: therefore, each enforcer is putin the position of having to make
and act on their [constitutional] opinions on a moment to moment basis.
The fact that you [and in this rare case] I agree that Reno is a fascist
sack of shit is completely irrelevent.
Now, in an ideal world the constitution would be clearly worded
and the semantics would be clearly understood by the people who live
under it. However, It ain't like that. English is by no means an ISO
(or even ANSI) standard, and even reasonable people can disagree on the
complexity generated by the various articles and sections of the
constitution and the amendments.
Look for example to the issue of the Second Amendment. The
clearest plain word interpretation of that amendment is that the
no one has the ability to infringe on the right of the people to
keep and bear arms.
Fairly simple.
Does that then mean that just about every firearm law in the
country is invalid on it's face?
Yes.
And if you are at all familiar with the history of 2A case law, you
will understand why the SCOTUS has been so meticulous in avoiding a
ruling. Of course, our friends [hrmmm... Never thought I'd say THAT] in
Texas may well put an end to the charade soon.
Well, no. See, the same constitution also grants Congress the
power to regulate interstate trade, so as long as they don't infringe
on the right, they have a wide latitude to set standards etc. Or do they?
What are the limits of that particular clause?
Virtually the entire 2A ablating federal infrastructure is based on a
truly scary finding that *any* firearm is the product of Intertate
Commerce, regardless if it has been out of the state in which it was
manufactured. In fact, IIRC, there is an early 1970's case where a felon
was convicted under federal laws, even though the weapon he posessed was
self-manufactured using components found completely within the state in
which the manufacture took place. The ruling basically stated that since
the manufacture of the weapon utilized federal notes, there was an
interstate commerce nexus. Go look: there are *thousands* of these.
Further more, what is *constitutionally* an infringement?
Als at the risk of going Choation, what part of Shall not be
infringed don't you understand?
Is
it acceptable for Congress to set (legitimate) product reliability
standards? (e.g. to require a pistol must be capable of firing x
rounds between failures etc.)
No. This is a free market issue.
or certain safety guidelines (e.g. that
every handgun be fitted with a safety device of some sort that keeps it
from firing unless the trigger has been pulled).
Again, no. The market will not support a gun manufacturer that does not
produce reliable weapons.
Let's get even finer.
Do you *really* want your local beat cop to be making decisions
on what does and doesn't fall into protected speech (or even whether
there is a distinction there to be made?)
See above: it is by definition unavoidable.
Or how about certain laws
of a very questionable nature that make it a crime for groups larger
than x to gather without a permit. On it's face these are
unconstitutional, but if the vast majority of police in a district
*don't* enforce these laws, but one or two do (under the belief that
the constitution only applies restrictions to the state and federal
government, not the city governments (there are people who believe this,
and absent the explicit incorporation by the 14th (which even by the
appellate courts is applied non-uniformly
Re: CDR: Re: Re: Ashcroft Targets U.S. Cybercrime
On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Bill Stewart wrote: I'm not sure which of the s are Petro, Schliesser, Measl, or others, These are not me (Measl), nor Schilesser, so that only leaves Petro :-) Thank you Bill, for a much clearer statement of what I was *trying* to impart. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- We still live in a country that has laws, and we *should* expect the LEAs to enforce all laws that are on the books. I think this was Petro, who I think was a Marine, and therefore should know better. The Uniform Code of Military Justice *requires* soldiers to refuse to obey illegal orders. Police generally are required to uphold the Constitution, and no amount of weaseling about I'm not the departmental legal counsel, I'm the guy with the blue suit relieves them of that responsibility. There are substantial differences between these two situations - usually an illegal order to a soldier involves shooting people, while an unconstitutional action by a cop involves arresting people or serving warrants on them, which can be argued about later, so it's far more critical that a soldier individually do the right thing, even though an inappropriate refusal by a soldier can result in lots of dead people, while an incorrect refusal or inaction by a cop only results in somebody not getting arrested or the city's insurance company paying a bunch of lawyers for a lawsuit. If you have a problem with the laws, it's not the LEAs fault, it's the legislature and the Executive branch. It's both. And enforcement of laws typically has a huge latitude - the DMCA doesn't say anything about refusing to give Dmitri a bail hearing, or whether to take every piece of electronics in a hacker's house. The I know it when I see it test for obscenity is very broad. And the property-forfeiture-for-drugs laws may allow police to steal anything nailed down or not if they think they can make a case that there might have been drugs around that the victim won't have the resources to successfully defend against, but don't require it, and enforcement seems suspiciously correlated with which police departments make a profit from doing it. In the grand scheme of things, Ashcroft believes (or appears to) in the Constitution. He may have some differences of opinion with many or most on this list, but he believes in it. That is better than we've had in at least 6 years, probably more. Certainly Janet Reno and Louis Freeh were a bad lot and we're well rid of them, but Ashcroft's belief in the Constitution certainly appears not to include the First Amendment. We'll see how much he likes the others as he goes along. My point, which I obviously did not make clearly enough, is that Ashcroft appears, unlike at least his immediate predecessor, to believe in rule of law, rather than rule by force. Another point you bring up is that a LEO should not enforce laws that clearly violate the constitution. A LEO cannot do that *and still be a LEO*. He can refuse by resigning, but if he simply takes the position that he will only enforce laws he thinks are constitutional he causes a violation of one of the fundamental underpinnings of the constitution, that all people are equal under the law, and that the law is supposed to be equally applied. I strongly disagree. Let's start with a terminology rant - Cops used to call themselves peace officers. Sure, it was propaganda, but the point is that they're there to serve and protect (at least for the upper classes.) Or they claimed they were in the Justice business. Now they're calling themselves Law Enforcement, trying to use the culture's leftover respect for law as a protection of individual rights, rather than its current meaning of whatever the legislature writes, whether that's special-interest support like the DMCA or religious/cultural preferences like the laws against some drugs, and trying to use this to justify the use of however much force it takes to force people to obey. No different from what an invading army does. If a cop believes that a law is unconstitutional or unjust, then if anything his job is not to resign and let someone else enforce it, but to prevent its enforcement, at least through inaction if not through active reorganization of the police force. If equal application of the law has a part to play here, it's in getting other cops NOT to impose injustice, not in copping out by imposing injustice himself or quitting. That may be less than clear, let me try it another way: It was clear, just wrong - but go ahead :-) One of the fundamental features of a society that is built around the concept of rule of law is that the law is knowable by the people, and that they have a reasonable expectation of the consequences
Re: Re: Ashcroft Targets U.S. Cybercrime
At 5:08 PM -0500 7/23/01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 22 Jul 2001, Petro burbled upon us thusly: Another point you bring up is that a LEO should not enforce laws that clearly violate the constitution. A LEO cannot do that *and still be a LEO*. He can refuse by resigning, but if he simply takes the position that he will only enforce laws he thinks are constitutional he causes a violation of one of the fundamental underpinnings of the constitution, that all people are equal under the law, and that the law is supposed to be equally applied. Maybe you should look at the oaths that are sworn to by all public employees, of which LEOs are but a small maggot in a big sewer. All of I took one of those 16 years ago as a US Marine, and again 5 years later as a member of the National Guard. I've also spent a fair amount of time thinking about that oath, and the ramifications of it. them contain a provision whereby there swear to uphold the constitution. Not to follow orders which may or may not be chain-of-command valid, and *hopefully* constitutional. At the risk of going Choatien and stepping far beyond any degrees I may have, the position that each and every LEO in this country *should* (as opposed to does) decide for himself whether a law fits his understanding of the constitution before enforcing it is not only unworkable, but--if the LEO truly believes in the concepts of Rule of Law, wrong headed. As a further disclaimer, let me say that I don't think The Legal Community agrees with me. They're agreement or not isn't a factor in my thinking. I already know (as Declan points out) that Reno doesn't agree with me, but from her actions it's quite clear she doesn't believe in the Rule Of Law--at least not in the sense I've been using it. Now, in an ideal world the constitution would be clearly worded and the semantics would be clearly understood by the people who live under it. However, It ain't like that. English is by no means an ISO (or even ANSI) standard, and even reasonable people can disagree on the complexity generated by the various articles and sections of the constitution and the amendments. Look for example to the issue of the Second Amendment. The clearest plain word interpretation of that amendment is that the no one has the ability to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Fairly simple. Does that then mean that just about every firearm law in the country is invalid on it's face? Well, no. See, the same constitution also grants Congress the power to regulate interstate trade, so as long as they don't infringe on the right, they have a wide latitude to set standards etc. Or do they? What are the limits of that particular clause? Further more, what is *constitutionally* an infringement? Is it acceptable for Congress to set (legitimate) product reliability standards? (e.g. to require a pistol must be capable of firing x rounds between failures etc.) or certain safety guidelines (e.g. that every handgun be fitted with a safety device of some sort that keeps it from firing unless the trigger has been pulled). Let's get even finer. Do you *really* want your local beat cop to be making decisions on what does and doesn't fall into protected speech (or even whether there is a distinction there to be made?) Or how about certain laws of a very questionable nature that make it a crime for groups larger than x to gather without a permit. On it's face these are unconstitutional, but if the vast majority of police in a district *don't* enforce these laws, but one or two do (under the belief that the constitution only applies restrictions to the state and federal government, not the city governments (there are people who believe this, and absent the explicit incorporation by the 14th (which even by the appellate courts is applied non-uniformly so far) they may have a legitimate argument) then you have a case where you are just hanging out with some 5 or 10 of your closest buddies as you do every day, and the normal beat-cop, who doesn't enforce this law because it's unconstitutional doesn't say anything, but his fill-in on a sick day rousts you all and takes you to jail. It's happened in Chicago, and worse (see below). There are at least 3 states a law can be in vis-a-vis constitutionality: (1) Adjudged unconstitutional. (2) Adjudged constitutional. (3) Not adjudged relative to it's constitutionality. Now, things get a little less clear. In the case of (1) and (2) there is the question, not only of exactly what the court upheld or didn't (see the recent case of the Oakland Cannibis decesion, widely reported to have the SC declare Medical Marijuana unconstitutional, but actually simply said that No silly, of COURSE federal law trumps state law in a
Re: Ashcroft Targets U.S. Cybercrime
On Sun, Jul 22, 2001 at 11:28:41PM -0700, Petro wrote: Will Ashcroft prove to be any different? I don't know. Don't underestimate institutional bureaucracy or the FBI's independence. A LEO cannot do that *and still be a LEO*. He can refuse by resigning, but if he simply takes the position that he will only enforce laws he thinks are constitutional he causes a violation of one of the fundamental underpinnings of the constitution, that all people are equal under the law, and that the law is supposed to be equally applied. This is wrongheaded and silly. c.f. Reno's announcement that she would not prosecute under the no distribution of abortion information section of the CDA. Didn't hear anyone screaming then, did ya? -Declan
Re: Re: Ashcroft Targets U.S. Cybercrime
On Sun, 22 Jul 2001, Petro burbled upon us thusly: Another point you bring up is that a LEO should not enforce laws that clearly violate the constitution. A LEO cannot do that *and still be a LEO*. He can refuse by resigning, but if he simply takes the position that he will only enforce laws he thinks are constitutional he causes a violation of one of the fundamental underpinnings of the constitution, that all people are equal under the law, and that the law is supposed to be equally applied. Maybe you should look at the oaths that are sworn to by all public employees, of which LEOs are but a small maggot in a big sewer. All of them contain a provision whereby there swear to uphold the constitution. Not to follow orders which may or may not be chain-of-command valid, and *hopefully* constitutional. As for refusing to enforce laws which are personally believed to be unconstitutional, this goes on all the time, both officially [Sherriff Blah refuses to enforce law X - publicly], and unofficially Officer Y refuses to enforce law X - privately]. How many weeks before middle schools reopen, anyway? -- 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: Ashcroft Targets U.S. Cybercrime
On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, John Young wrote: Why bust Dmitry and not the head of ElcomSoft if the primary crime is commercial gain? That he is claimed to be the copyright holder is thin stuff, for that does not support his being the main commercial beneficiary (unless the FBI has evidence that was not revealed about Elcomsoft's internal finances). To me, it seems quite consistent with the way the DMCA is crafted and currently applied. If you look at who's likely to present the most trouble with circumvention, it's all the individual coders out there, mostly open source people and recreational hackers, putting together decryption programs for fun/compatibility/fame. If you want to send a clear signal to these people, you bust one of their kind, not the head of the corporation. That Dmitry was busted has a stench of scapegoatism, and ElcomSoft may not be altogether innocent, not least for sending Dmitry into the lion's den. This would be another reasonable guess, of course. Who knows? Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED], gsm: +358-50-5756111 student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front
Re: Re: Ashcroft Targets U.S. Cybercrime
At 9:21 PM -0500 7/22/01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 22 Jul 2001, Petro wrote: At 12:32 PM -0500 7/21/01, Benson Schliesser wrote: We still live in a country that has laws, and we *should* expect the LEAs to enforce all laws that are on the books. If you have a problem with the laws, it's not the LEAs fault, it's the legislature and the Executive branch. And the Jewish population of Europe during WW2 had no right to complain about the Nazi soldiers just doing their job, right... If one can't distinguish between the enforcement of laws of questionable constitutional validity (yes, *questionable*) and genocide, then one should probably load the bong again, watch cartoons on TV and stay far, far away from the ballot box. In the grand scheme of things, Ashcroft believes (or appears to) in the Constitution. He may have some differences of opinion with many or most on this list, but he believes in it. That is better than we've had in at least 6 years, probably more. You are arguing a mere degree of difference Petro. The fact that Ashcroft believes in the constitution (like YOU would have any way to be imbued with such knowledge!) is irrelevent. Even if we accept your assertion that Ashcroft believes, if he is willing to enforce clearly violative laws, then is the *enemy*. My point, which I obviously did not make clearly enough, is that Ashcroft appears, unlike at least his immediate predecessor, to believe in rule of law, rather than rule by force. This is not a mere degree of difference, it is a fundamental difference. Reno, by actions at least, demonstrated a clear lack of regard for the constitution and the concept of rule of law. This lead to things like Waco, and the DoJ arguing that the sniper at Ruby Ridge couldn't be tried by the state since he was under Federal orders. Will Ashcroft prove to be any different? I don't know. Another point you bring up is that a LEO should not enforce laws that clearly violate the constitution. A LEO cannot do that *and still be a LEO*. He can refuse by resigning, but if he simply takes the position that he will only enforce laws he thinks are constitutional he causes a violation of one of the fundamental underpinnings of the constitution, that all people are equal under the law, and that the law is supposed to be equally applied. That may be less than clear, let me try it another way: One of the fundamental features of a society that is built around the concept of rule of law is that the law is knowable by the people, and that they have a reasonable expectation of the consequences should they break that law. When you have a situation where you give carte blanche to LEOs to decide for themselves what is constitutional, you violate that. What one LEO may decide is perfectly constitutional, another may believe is unconstitutional resulting in even more uneven application of the law than we have today. Let us take a constitutional amendment that is under debate, and one that Ashcroft has recently made a statement about. The 2nd. It states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Now, this is, to some people, fairly clear. The government cannot infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But it doesn't mean that the government cannot make any laws at all regarding firearms, does it? Where is the line? So then you have a situation where, for example, a County Sheriff could interpret the constitution in a very broad way, ordering his officers *not* to arrest anyone carrying a conceal weapon, even tho' it's nominally illegal in his state, while the various city and town police departments take a slightly narrower interpretation--that conceal weapons are illegal. Then you have a situation where what is considered legal and proper changes depending on who pulls you over for speeding. Furthermore, let's say that that Sheriff gets voted out of office, or is replaced for some other reason, and you get a new Sheriff who disagrees *slightly* with the old Sheriff, and orders his Deputies to start arresting people who violate that states (possibly perfectly constitutional) prohibition against carrying a concealed weapon. Now you have a situation where what was previously legal (in the sense that you weren't going to get arrested for it) change without (or with little) notice. I'm sure that with a little thought I could come up with a better scenario that more clearly elucidates the point. It's far better to expect, and in fact *insist* that LEOs enforce the law equally and to the letter than to insist that each one of them figure out for themselves what is right and proper for them to enforce. Then pressure the Courts and the Legislative/Executive branch to make the laws clear and rapidly judge them on their
Re: Ashcroft Targets U.S. Cybercrime
At 04:44 PM 7/22/01 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, it does work in the world of building reputations associated with (anonymous or claimed-not-anonymous) keys, but not when you need meatspace credit --give the meat named Prof Joe tenure credit for work X. It is common for real world authors to publish under nom de plumes. Adding a key to a nom de plume gives added advantages to the nom de plume. A nom de plume which cannot be revealed to the folks one wants credit from (because you go to meatspace jail when the association is leaked) is useless for getting credit in meatspace. Yes the nym gets credit; but it doesn't help you get tenure, or a raise, or invitations to speak.
Re: Ashcroft Targets U.S. Cybercrime
On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote: On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 01:55:12PM -0700, John Young wrote: Why bust Dmitry and not the head of ElcomSoft if the primary crime is commercial gain? That he is claimed to be the copyright holder is thin stuff, for that does not support his being the main commercial beneficiary (unless the FBI has evidence that was not revealed about Elcomsoft's internal finances). The problem with this analysis is that he does not have to be the main commercial beneficiary for the charges to stick. The problem is that no 'beneficiary' is required, only 'intent'. -- Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, Let Tesla be, and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
Re: Ashcroft Targets U.S. Cybercrime
At 12:19 PM -0400 7/21/01, Declan McCullagh wrote: This was not a hotly-debated law, folks. Anyone who thinks there's a difference between the two major parties on this issue -- and I'm not saying Matt does, of course -- should get over it. -Declan That is correct. There is little difference. Just continuations of the police state. Regards, Matt- ** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week) Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/ **
Re: Re: Ashcroft Targets U.S. Cybercrime
On Sun, 22 Jul 2001, Petro wrote: At 12:32 PM -0500 7/21/01, Benson Schliesser wrote: We still live in a country that has laws, and we *should* expect the LEAs to enforce all laws that are on the books. If you have a problem with the laws, it's not the LEAs fault, it's the legislature and the Executive branch. And the Jewish population of Europe during WW2 had no right to complain about the Nazi soldiers just doing their job, right... If one can't distinguish between the enforcement of laws of questionable constitutional validity (yes, *questionable*) and genocide, then one should probably load the bong again, watch cartoons on TV and stay far, far away from the ballot box. In the grand scheme of things, Ashcroft believes (or appears to) in the Constitution. He may have some differences of opinion with many or most on this list, but he believes in it. That is better than we've had in at least 6 years, probably more. You are arguing a mere degree of difference Petro. The fact that Ashcroft believes in the constitution (like YOU would have any way to be imbued with such knowledge!) is irrelevent. Even if we accept your assertion that Ashcroft believes, if he is willing to enforce clearly violative laws, then is the *enemy*. -- 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: Ashcroft Targets U.S. Cybercrime
At 10:18 PM -0400 7/20/01, Matthew Gaylor wrote: Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 22:04:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Seth Finkelstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Ashcroft Targets U.S. Cybercrime Remember what I told you: If you think Clinton was dismal, you're going to find out what dismal *is*, during a Bush administration. [And Matt's reply is: They're both dismal.] http://dailynews.yahoo.com/htx/ap/20010720/pl/ashcroft_cybercrime_1.html Friday July 20 5:24 PM ET Ashcroft Targets U.S. Cybercrime By BRIAN BERGSTEIN, Associated Press Writer MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. (AP) - Calling computer security one of the nation's top problems, Attorney General John Ashcroft said Friday that the government is forming nine special units to prosecute hacking and copyright violations. Ashcroft said the new specialists will bring to 48 the number of prosecutors working on cybercrime in U.S. attorneys' offices. Gee, imagine that, the Attorney General wanting to enforce crimes. What *is* this world coming to? We still live in a country that has laws, and we *should* expect the LEAs to enforce all laws that are on the books. If you have a problem with the laws, it's not the LEAs fault, it's the legislature and the Executive branch.
Re: Ashcroft Targets U.S. Cybercrime
On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, Petro wrote: Gee, imagine that, the Attorney General wanting to enforce crimes. What *is* this world coming to? We still live in a country that has laws, and we *should* expect the LEAs to enforce all laws that are on the books. If you have a problem with the laws, it's not the LEAs fault, it's the legislature and the Executive branch. Actually they do share some of the blame. They are swore oaths to support the constitution and the ideals of the this country. Which in many cases is clearly not the intent or result of their actions. They are actively looking for methods to circumvent current laws that put a bridle on their activity. LEA's don's say OK, we have a 4th so we have to have probable cause first, it's like OK, we have a 4th. We need to find a way around it. In many cases it is the LEA's themselves which ask for these laws or a law that gives them the latitutude to get around other restraints. And LEA's are a part of the 'executive branch'. -- Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, Let Tesla be, and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
Re: Ashcroft Targets U.S. Cybercrime
On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 10:18:25PM -0400, Matthew Gaylor wrote: Remember what I told you: If you think Clinton was dismal, you're going to find out what dismal *is*, during a Bush administration. This is too simplistic. [And Matt's reply is: They're both dismal.] This is better. The truth is that they're dismal in different areas. We may not have a Waco under Ashcroft, and he may be mildly better on 2A rights, and he may not have same weird fixations that Reno did. But the obscenity crackdown is coming, that's for sure, and we'll have plenty more to complain about int he next year or so. Also, on the Sklyarov issue, it's a mistake to believe there's any substantial difference in the major parties. Clinton signed the DMCA with the appropriate fanfare; a motion to reconsider the DMCA in the House was tabled *without objection* and the DMCA was agreed to in the Senate *without objection* by unanimous consent. This was not a hotly-debated law, folks. Anyone who thinks there's a difference between the two major parties on this issue -- and I'm not saying Matt does, of course -- should get over it. -Declan
Re: Re: Ashcroft Targets U.S. Cybercrime
We still live in a country that has laws, and we *should* expect the LEAs to enforce all laws that are on the books. If you have a problem with the laws, it's not the LEAs fault, it's the legislature and the Executive branch. And the Jewish population of Europe during WW2 had no right to complain about the Nazi soldiers just doing their job, right...
Re: Ashcroft Targets U.S. Cybercrime
On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 01:55:12PM -0700, John Young wrote: Why bust Dmitry and not the head of ElcomSoft if the primary crime is commercial gain? That he is claimed to be the copyright holder is thin stuff, for that does not support his being the main commercial beneficiary (unless the FBI has evidence that was not revealed about Elcomsoft's internal finances). The problem with this analysis is that he does not have to be the main commercial beneficiary for the charges to stick. -Declan
Re: Ashcroft Targets U.S. Cybercrime
Declan: The problem with this analysis is that he does not have to be the main commercial beneficiary for the charges to stick. But, to repeat, why the worker and not his bosses? Is this a way for Adobe/FBI/DoJ to signal the interest of its own bosses? And why are the protests limited to Adobe when the FBI and DoJ are doing the dirty work -- well, actually, low-level FBI and DoJ? Oops, that's right, don't fuck with workers-pissed- at-their-bosses who have the guns which they'd like to turn upstairs.
RE: Ashcroft Targets U.S. Cybercrime
John Young wrote: But, to repeat, why the worker and not his bosses? Is this a way for Adobe/FBI/DoJ to signal the interest of its own bosses? Maybe, but the reason to go after the underling is simple: He's far less likely to have the personal resources to do much about it. Cowardly? Sure, but it makes for easier arrests, incarcerations and convictions. Also, it inexpensively meets the criteria of the old Chinese saying, To frighten a dragon, kill a chicken. S a n d y
Re: Ashcroft Targets U.S. Cybercrime
On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, David Honig wrote: All this argues for anonymously coded projects, etc. But that means you can't get credit for novel research. This is one of the ways that the DCMA is counter to historically unimpeded research innovation ---Its not rational for profs sans tenure to work without credit. Publish or perish, While it is of little real-world usefulness, it should be noted that such annonymous publication can retain credit towards an individual author by being published under a publicly published yet anonymous public key. -- 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: Ashcroft Targets U.S. Cybercrime
At 08:46 PM 7/21/01 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, David Honig wrote: All this argues for anonymously coded projects, etc. But that means you can't get credit for novel research. This is one of the ways that the DCMA is counter to historically unimpeded research innovation ---Its not rational for profs sans tenure to work without credit. Publish or perish, While it is of little real-world usefulness, it should be noted that such annonymous publication can retain credit towards an individual author by being published under a publicly published yet anonymous public key. That doesn't work when you tell your department that you are the author associated with some (formerly) anonymous key. Yes, it does work in the world of building reputations associated with (anonymous or claimed-not-anonymous) keys, but not when you need meatspace credit --give the meat named Prof Joe tenure credit for work X. Cheers,
