Re: Photographer Arrested For Taking Pictures Of Vice President'S Hotel
On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 11:14:18AM -0800, Tim May wrote: You really need to get up to speed on this issue if you think either the nations of Europe or Canada are more tolerant of crypto than the U.S. is. The archives have much material, findable with Google in most cases. Tim is right. Also epic.org (not a cypherpunk-friendly organization, but it does try to limit law enforcement surveillance) publishes semi-regular reports about the state of crypto laws around the world. -Declan
Re: Suspending the Constitution
Correction From my review Great cinema, poor history, of the movie Glory: If not for the foolish chivalry of Confederate President Jefferson Davis, in not following up their rout of the Union Army at the war's first big battle of Bull Run (called First Manassas in The South) just outside Washington, the war might have ended right then, 500,000 lives saved (including Lincoln's) and the possibility of peaceful emancipation made likely. Most importantly, we would still be a republic in fact and not simply in name. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/dvd/B51YMQ/customer-reviews/ref=cm_cr_dp_2_1/002-1044140-8452014
Re: Extradition, Snatching, and the Danger of Traveling to Other Countries
On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, Anonymous wrote: Spot on. But what, if anything, do you think can be done to reverse this slide to Red White and Blue Stalinism with good PR? I trust you are not one of those who will prattle something like exercise your right to vote, or write your congressperson/MP, etc. In practical terms, in a surveillance You sound like an agent provocateur. So either you're young, or a fed. society, what can the regular person do to strike a blow in opposition to the direct attack on the Constitution and civil liberties and civil rights? Why, do PR and write code, of course. As a minority doesn't directly register on the voting radar. Did you expect someobody to start saying 'capping apparatchiks'? I don't think you did. Do we need a program to oppose the progrom? Deliberately misspelling pogrom, eh. Very clever.
Re: [IP] Dan Gillmor: Accessing a whole new world via multimedia phones (fwd)
On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, Steve Furlong wrote: The point was, the content providers aren't providing the entertainment. The daughters are talking (and talking!) to their friends with no help from the big companies other than providing the connectivity. I believe that was Olyzko's point in the first place, that people are more interested in being connected with other people (regular people, not entertainers) than in simply receiving entertainment or other content from canned sites. right, that's the basic point. I'm not sure I agree with Odlyzko's point about connectivity vs content. But your prior statement, Bullshit, if there isn't content why do they want connectivity? What is it they are connecting to?, misses the distinction between the two. He backed it up with economic facts. There's $70 billion overall in the entertainment industry - movies, records, TV and radio. There's $250 billion in the telecom industry. So telecom can afford more lobiests than entertainment, but they have far more regulatory barriers to deal with too. Telecom doesn't really care about the platform, but if we can get them to care (i.e. if we can show telco/cable guys they make more money without paladium) then we'd have a very powerful counter acting force to hollywood. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: Photographer Arrested For Taking Pictures Of Vice President'S HotelQ
Is the cypherpunks movement truly so radicalized that it is not willing to count even EPIC among its friends? The Cypherpunks Movement never was and presently is not aligned with, and does not endorse any organization or individuals that cooperate with the current power structure, either directly or through recognition of its institutions. Secretary General of the Executive Committee of the Cypherpunks Movement (Check our new Off agent Gordon sweepstakes. No purchase necessary.)
Re: Suspending the Constitution
At 07:45 PM 12/14/2002 -0500, Steve Furlong wrote: On Saturday 14 December 2002 18:18, Mike Rosing wrote: On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, Tim May wrote: Lincoln's notion that the Constitution is suspendable during a war, or other emergency conditions, was disgraceful. Nothing in the Constitution says that it is suspended when a President declares it to be suspended. Power is what power does. He got away with it, that's all that counts. Well, until April 14, 1865, anyway. Sic semper tyrannis. If not for the foolish chivalry of Confederate President Jefferson Davis, in not following up their rout of the Union Army at the war's first big battle of Bull Run (called First Manassas in The South) just outside Washington, the war might have ended right then, 500,000 lives saved (including Lincoln's) and the possibility of peaceful emancipation made likely. Most importantly, we would still be a republic in fact and not simply in name. From my review of the movie Glory: If not for the foolish chivalry of Confederate President Jefferson Davis, in not following up their rout of the Union Army at the war's first big battle of Bull Run (called First Manassas in The South) just outside Washington, the war might have ended right then, 500,000 lives saved (including Lincoln's) and the possibility of peaceful emancipation made likely. Most importantly, we would still be a republic in fact and not simply in name. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/dvd/B51YMQ/customer-reviews/ref=cm_cr_dp_2_1/002-1044140-8452014
Re: Extradition, Snatching, and the Danger of Traveling to Other Countries
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 05:10:23PM +0100, Anonymous wrote: Vote? Are you kidding? OK, here is your task. Since all but one member of congress voted FOR the USA PATRIOT ACT, exactly what All but one member of the Senate. House was a bit better, though still extremely pathetic, and the Democrats voting against it mostly weren't voting against it on principle but out of squabbling with Republicans. -Declan
Re: Extradition, Snatching, and the Danger of Traveling to Other Countries
At 01:09 PM 12/14/2002 -0500, you wrote: On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 10:47:25AM -0800, Tim May wrote: Secret trials are on the rise. Inasmuch as the U.S. is now throwing its full weight behind secret evidence, secret prosecutions, secret trials, secret appeals courts, suspension of habeas corpus, detention of Evil Ones without charge at concentration camps in Cuba, suspension of the Fourth and Fifth and Sixth Amendments, and elevation to guilt by I spoke recently with a former DOD lawyer now at a TLA. That lawyer says that the current thinking is that if there is a cyberattack from another nation, we are at a state of war and the Fourth Amendment and other prohibitions on government interference with personal property and liberty do not apply.* Only if one believes that what Lincoln did during the war was Constitutional. I think Tim's approach should this come to pass is the only viable one. What if the attacks continue to come from groups with no obvious nation-state sponsorship? steve
Re: Photographer Arrested For Taking Pictures Of Vice President'SHotel
On 15 Dec 2002, David Wagner wrote: Declan McCullagh wrote: Also epic.org (not a cypherpunk-friendly organization, but it does try to limit law enforcement surveillance) [...] Is the cypherpunks movement truly so radicalized that it is not willing to count even EPIC among its friends? Clearly the CACL crowd thinks so...now as to whether they define who the cypherpunks are, that's another entirely different question. -- We don't see things as they are, [EMAIL PROTECTED] we see them as we are. www.ssz.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] Anais Nin www.open-forge.org
Re: Photographer Arrested For Taking Pictures Of Vice President'S Hotel
Declan McCullagh wrote: Also epic.org (not a cypherpunk-friendly organization, but it does try to limit law enforcement surveillance) [...] Is the cypherpunks movement truly so radicalized that it is not willing to count even EPIC among its friends?
Re: Privacy qua privacy (Was: Photographer Arrested For Taking Pictures...)
On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 12:22:30PM -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote: | EPIC is in favor of using technologies to limit the information that | people disclose. It is in favor of limiting law enforcement [...] | But EPIC sharply diverges with some cypherpunks over the question of | what regulations should be imposed on private entities. It supports -- | may even be the most vocal supporter -- of laws telling you, in Tim's | words, you must forget someone's previous commercial interactions with | you past a certain date. It supports broad and intrusive regulations | aimed at companies' data collection and use practices. It would like | to establish a European-style (not exactly the same, perhaps, but | close) data protection regime in the U.S., despite all the free | speech problems we've seen with it in Europe: I think the issue of data protection vs privacy goes deeper than free speech. It falls back to Americans being willing to express their distrust than most Europeans. American privacy law derives from the 1st and 4th amendments: Congress shall make no law, be secure in their persons and papers... However, there is no modern American privacy law which talks about anonymity, the right to be left alone, or information self-determination (ironically, a German phrase.) Its all based on the assumption that privacy law is about fair information sharing, rather than American-style suspicion of information sharing. I think that a law which re-affirmed the rights to be anonymous, to call yourself what you will, to be left alone, to not carry or show ID would transform the debate about privacy into terms in which the issue could be solved. (At least as it affects private companies.) Companies would be able to do what they want with your data as long as you had a meaningful and non-coercive choice about handing it over. As you point out, this won't solve the issue of coercive government programs which require ID, or the creeping uses of that data as authorized by law. But the fundamental, underlying issue is that data protection law is un-American, and all the new that claim to protect privacy (GLB, HIPAA, DMCA) are really data protection laws. They contain an assumption that some level of data sharing is fair and necessary. Those levels are determined by back-room deal making between interest groups, and the public is rarely represented. (There's a lot of standard analysis of regulatory capture, public policy making a la Mancur Olsen, etc that applies here.) This causes everyone a lot more pain than is really needed. Adam -- It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. -Hume
Re: Photographer Arrested For Taking Pictures Of Vice President'S Hotel
On 15 Dec 2002, David Wagner wrote: Declan McCullagh wrote: Also epic.org (not a cypherpunk-friendly organization, but it does try to limit law enforcement surveillance) [...] Is the cypherpunks movement truly so radicalized that it is not willing to count even EPIC among its friends? Only in Declan's head. EPIC is a very pro-privacy for individuals, pro- government accountability and freedom of information, and has been a strong supporter of strong cryptography. EPIC is undeniably an ally.
Privacy qua privacy (Was: Photographer Arrested For Taking Pictures...)
On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 12:18:52AM +, David Wagner wrote: Declan McCullagh wrote: Also epic.org (not a cypherpunk-friendly organization, but it does try to limit law enforcement surveillance) [...] Is the cypherpunks movement truly so radicalized that it is not willing to count even EPIC among its friends? Perhaps I was being unfair to EPIC and typing too quickly. I count EPIC executive director Marc Rotenberg as a friend, a principled person, and someone for whom I have a great deal of respect. Some folks may remember that Marc and I drove to a cypherpunks meeting south of Palo Alto last year. EPIC is in favor of using technologies to limit the information that people disclose. It is in favor of limiting law enforcement surveillance. It has done yeoman's work in strengthening FOIA, fighting against encryption regulations, and supporting free speech in the form of being co-counsel on the CDA and COPA challenges, for starters. Those are all congruent with the views of many cyherpunks, as I understand them. But EPIC sharply diverges with some cypherpunks over the question of what regulations should be imposed on private entities. It supports -- may even be the most vocal supporter -- of laws telling you, in Tim's words, you must forget someone's previous commercial interactions with you past a certain date. It supports broad and intrusive regulations aimed at companies' data collection and use practices. It would like to establish a European-style (not exactly the same, perhaps, but close) data protection regime in the U.S., despite all the free speech problems we've seen with it in Europe: http://www.politechbot.com/cgi-bin/politech.cgi?name=palme To the extent cypherpunks care about those values and cherish limited government involvement in those areas, EPIC is not, as I wrote, a cypherpunk-friendly organization. Also, I haven't thought this through that much, but it seems to me that if you value privacy _qua_ privacy as an end goal, it makes sense to start looking at not the symptoms, but the cause: Large government that consumes perhaps nearly half of the GDP is necessarily privacy-invasive. There are even some reasonable justifications for it: Social Security creates an SSN to limit fraud. The IRS collects an incredible amount of detail to limit tax cheating. If you want gun control, you'll probably want to collect info on gun owners. Anyone who values privacy as an end goal (Jim Harper of privacilla has written about this too) should start questioning the trappings of the welfare state and find alternatives. Could Social Security be privatized? Could we move to a flat tax or sales tax, or even (gasp) reduce taxes? EPIC is a left-of-center civil liberties group and it does not ask those questions, to the best of my knowledge. I suspect the majority of folks at EPIC support UK-ish gun control, which explains why the group has never made a point of highlighting the privacy problems of some of the state and federal anti-gun laws. This does not mean EPIC isn't a valuable ally -- it is and will continue to be -- but perhaps only on an issue-by-issue basis. -Declan
Re: Extradition, Snatching, and the Danger of Traveling to Other Countries
hi, --- Mike Rosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And who supports whom to prevent extermination. Firstly,they cannot be exterminated.There is no proof of identity as we may have in our countries and no body will ask for it either,since most don't have one. The Taliban would have cut their beard and hair and mixed up with civilian population,while troops can go searching for orthodox civilians with a taliban look,making it hard to hunt them down.Once/if the international troops leave afghan,there are over hundred factions,who will keep fighting among themselves for 'land' and the taliban will be back. Regards Sarath. On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, Sarad AV wrote: The Taliban is still very much alive,when troops moved into kabul there were no traces of the taliban.They took what ever they wanted and were 'refugees' sneaking out when the bombing started.They placed what they needed ,every body else needed to see.Video tapes of chemical weapon testing,which CNN released,another free advertisement for the taliban regime.Now all eyes are on iraq,war games being conducted so that the world does not question man or machine movement.Some regimes do stay for a while,how sucessful they are depends on how well they come back after their fall. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
