Re: Computer Voting Expert, Dr. Rebecca Mercuri, Ousted From Elections Confer...
Why is it people are not using normal quoting procedure lately? This is at least the third message today I've seen like this -- no way to tell who said what. On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 12:58:06PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/6/2003 12:51:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Having Mercuri and Chaum ejected is the best thing that could have happened. Absolutely correct..You should try to think up ways to get them to be even more hostile to them. Regards, Matt- -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Re: [eff-austin] Antispam Bills: Worse Than Spam?
* Sunder [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-08-05 17:29]: Why is it forbidden by law? I can think of hundreds of reasons DoS attacks are illegal. Now I'm not sure if it's illegal everywhere; I'm only familar with the way it's written in the California Penal code, which is where Mallory is located in this case. But to answer your question, just look at all the damage that's caused by DoS attacks. Look at the Slammer worm. It would be a seriously neglectful to allow such damaging attacks on people and businesses. No, you're ignoring my whole entire arguement - and that is telling. You realize you're wrong, but just refuse to admit it. I didn't ask why denial of service attacks are forbidden by law. That's obvious. This is exactly what you asked- just read the quote. I asked why would AOL's policies in terms of their service agreements be forbidden by law when their customers agreed to them? I answered this several times already. Listen up. Getting people to sign a contract excusing illegal activity does not make that activity legal. If it did, you would see drug dealers asking their customers to sign contracts stating that they're not to be held accountable. People cannot agree via contract to violate a law, then expect to be able to enforce such a contract. This is a concept you need to acquire. Contracts are not enforceable simply because there was an agreement. There is other criteria that must be adhered to, one of which is law. They're not necessarily considered a common carrier since they decided a long time ago to police the content of their service. And? It certainly doesn't matter to me whether we define these bozos as a common carrier. What does matter is that they have a large piece of the market share, and their illegal practices have a significant impact on the internet community. Bob signed a contract with Mallory waiving certain rights in exchange for the service provided by Mallory. Mallory provided full disclosure of it's rights to Bob along with Bob's responsabilities, etc. Bob chose to accept those terms, how is this illegal again? First of all, Bob was coerced into this contract because Bob had no idea that the fine print said there may be cases where he doesn't get the service he thinks he's paying for. Specifically, Mallory didn't tell Bob that she would be filtering his mail for him, and certainly didn't tell Bob that she would take the liberty of blocking some non-spam mail as well. Such a contract is quite questionable, and I'd like to see it put before a court for fair analysis. Not at all. Bob agreed to the terms of service and was asked to both read and acknowledge that he read them. AOL's terms of service are available for anyone to read at any time. Regardless, should Bob not live up to his end of said agreement, the contract would be null and void, as would his access. This is just a restatement. I already explained that this is a predatory and misleading contract. If you don't accept this, then you must make an argument to the contrary. You would have a difficult time arguing that AOL users are aware of the TOS. Not a single AOLer who I convinced to leave AOL was aware of the AOL TOS. Your claim that Bob was coerced is exteremely dubious. Care to support that statement with anything? There is no proof of this, we do not have Bob here claiming this. We have, only you, a third party uninvolved in Bob's agreement with AOL making such claims because you cannot communicate with Bob. This is because Bob isn't a real person. Bob is a hypothetical character used to analyze security threats and activities, and Bob lives in a hypothetical world. So to summons Bob to this forum is quite a silly idea. You'll have for find a better way of making your point. Either way, if Bob is unsure of what he agreed to, he (and you) can check these pages: http://www.aol.com/copyright.adp and http://www.aol.com/copyright/rules.html Why would Bob be motivated to check these pages, when Bob doesn't even know there's a problem? Remember, Bob is ignorant here; as Bob is not informed that legitimate mail with his name on it is being trashed. Some relevant quotes addressing your dumb arguements: These quotes only prove my point that the contract is predatory. Again, you made my point for me. These are the terms to which Bob has agreed to. It clearly states that AOL may if it chooses to remove access to content it deems harmful for whatever reason. It does not list what those reasons are, therefore, they are at its discretion - NOT AT YOURS. Predatory- my point exactly. Again, you have made my case. There is no need for any law to change this. Bob and AOL both voluntarily agreed to these terms. End of story. Bob did not give his *informed* consent to these terms, only his consent. If the service Mallory provides Bob is inadequate, that's between Mallory and Bob, not between
Re: [eff-austin] Antispam Bills: Worse Than Spam?
* Peter Fairbrother [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-08-07 20:09]: Peter Harkins wrote: On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 07:06:46PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The state must protect my freedom of speech. So when I make a claim against AOL for conducting a DoS attack against me, the state must rule in my favor, or else they are failing to protect my free speech rights. OK, for anyone who wasn't sure, it's time to stop feeding the trolls. Troll or not, if AOL censored email in the UK* it would be illegal interception. 2 years for every interception. Nice! I've been thinking I should move there for a while. I also heard that by 2006 London and all the major cities will have seemless wifi coverage. The reason Europe is on the ball with this is the EU just passed five laws to deregulate emerging telecom companies so they can compete with the monopolists. In the U.S., the monopolistic heavyweights are eating our lunch. Telecom policy in the U.S. is warped by huge campaign contributions. Consumers are getting butt reamed on high broadband costs, and censorship is becoming a problem. IMO, that's the only good thing to come from the RIP Act (the one with not-(yet)-implemented GAK). Freedom to do your own thing is great, but what if the baby bells refused to connect you to another baby bell? The benefits of a unified 'phone service are such that legislation prevents baby bells doing that, and most of us would agree with that legislation. IMO, email should be similar. With this republican absolute free market philosophy, the U.S. is going to end up eating it. As soon as Europe is fully wired (and unwired) I'll have one way plane ticket in hand. But it don't solve the spam problem :-( That's okay- the antispammers are a bigger problem, and this needs to be attacked first. Europe is already a step ahead of the U.S. on that. I've got spamassassin to control spam.
Re: Superpowers distribute 750,000 shoulder-fired missiles, cook their owngooses
Having sat on Pacific Coast Highway below the takeoff path of LAX jumbo jets, I can attest to the fact that they are literally just a few hundred feet above. Any van with a moonroof could trivially be set up to allow a pop shot at one of these 747s or 767s, leaving every couple of minutes.) Most people in this neck of the woods continue to believe that that flight that went down over Long Island a few years ago was actually shot down...many witnesses saw a rocket go up and hit the plane. The government, of course, denies it. God forbid the airlines collapse. Meanwhile, that flight that went down over the Rockaways on 10/11/01 was obviously sabotaged...nobody wanted to question the paper-thin myth of both engines and the tail all falling off simultaneously...that was a mean headwind! The chickens have been coming home to roost for a while now. -TD From: Tim May [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Superpowers distribute 750,000 shoulder-fired missiles, cook their own gooses Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 17:52:44 -0700 Reports today that commercial aviation is in dire danger of being grounded as freedom fighters deploy even a small fraction of the (estimated) 750,000 shoulder-fired missiles to down commercial airliners. (Having sat on Pacific Coast Highway below the takeoff path of LAX jumbo jets, I can attest to the fact that they are literally just a few hundred feet above. Any van with a moonroof could trivially be set up to allow a pop shot at one of these 747s or 767s, leaving every couple of minutes.) The U.S. and U.S.S.R. were handing these SFMs to any freedom fighter group that would temporarily swear allegiance to the CIA or KGB. Now the chickens are coming home to roost. I stopped flying in 2000. --Tim May That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. --Samuel Adams _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
Re: [eff-austin] Antispam Bills: Worse Than Spam?
Peter Harkins wrote: On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 07:06:46PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The state must protect my freedom of speech. So when I make a claim against AOL for conducting a DoS attack against me, the state must rule in my favor, or else they are failing to protect my free speech rights. OK, for anyone who wasn't sure, it's time to stop feeding the trolls. Troll or not, if AOL censored email in the UK* it would be illegal interception. 2 years for every interception. IMO, that's the only good thing to come from the RIP Act (the one with not-(yet)-implemented GAK). Freedom to do your own thing is great, but what if the baby bells refused to connect you to another baby bell? The benefits of a unified 'phone service are such that legislation prevents baby bells doing that, and most of us would agree with that legislation. IMO, email should be similar. But it don't solve the spam problem :-( -- Peter Fairbrother *They do censor UK email, but they do it in the US. The relevant legal phrase is public telecommunications service provider, not common carrier. If you offer a telecomms service (eg email) to the public in the UK then you are a PTSP, and RIPA applies to you. No choice.
Re: How can you tell if your alarm company's...
On Saturday, August 9, 2003, at 04:23 PM, Harmon Seaver wrote: On Sat, Aug 09, 2003 at 08:52:32AM -0400, Roy M. Silvernail wrote: On Saturday 09 August 2003 02:01, John Kozubik wrote: On Fri, 8 Aug 2003, Tyler Durden wrote: ...in cahoots with the authorities? Most intelligent and savvy people I know roll their own Tivo (PVR, etc.) - I think the answer to your question is that it would be reasonable (and trivial) to roll your own alarm system. But it's not trivial to roll your own 24/7 monitoring company with the ability to call in the cops. If the monitoring company is compromised, you're \033653337357 anyway, but without them, all you have is one of those car alarms that everyone ignores. But how important is that anyway? Most any half competent burglar knows enough to cut the phone wire before the BE, so they don't get called. That means that, yes, if some dimwit middleschool kid is doing the job, the cops get called, otherwise no. Cellphones are cheap enough, and monthly charges are small enough when N machines share the same monthly account charge (Dad, Mom, Johnnie, Suzy, and Alarm). I would be surprised if today's alarm companies already aren't making good use of cellphones. I have a couple of perimeter lights and alarms on solar panels. Nothing to cut without either first using a ladder or, possibly, an accurate pellet gun to somehow disable the electronics. (One is mounted under the eaves of my roof, very high up. I may put another one in a tall oak.) I've also considered installing a full system with a beeper, with 802.11b cameras wirelessly sending to a laptop on a large battery. (If invaders/thieves/government agents find the laptop, in a closet devoted to this, they may not find the second such receiver, possibly hidden quite well. Or, for those who live near others, kept in a closet in the home of a friend. And even if they find it, I'll presumably still know I was invaded.) I figure that for a few thousand dollars and a spare laptop or two I could have a system very resistant to cutting phone or power lines, and something which would make surreptitious entry teams think twice. (Leave a couple of the 802.11b cameras visible, put another behind a Lexan plate, etc.) --Tim May The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. --John Stuart Mill
RE: Year in Jail for Web Links
There was a weapons charge as well, which will always complicate matters considerably. The unconventional life is a more or less fine thing until it gets perpendicular to the conventional life, usually in the form of law enforcement agents. When that happens, and it almost surely will, what is necessary is a relatively big bunch of money, or a plea bargain. What happened here is happening to young men (yes, usually men, and as in this case, of color) all over this country all day long every day who are found in possession of light amounts of controlled substances. You people think being an anarchist makes you special? Sheesh, gimme a break. MacN -Original Message- From: Eric Cordian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 6:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Year in Jail for Web Links An anarchist has been sentenced to a year in jail for having links to explosives information on his Web site. AmeriKKKa is further fucking the First Amendment by restricting whom he may associate with in the future, and what views he may espouse. As is usual in most criminal cases today, the defendent was forced to plea bargain to avoid the threat of worse charges if he went to trial. http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/08/05/anarchist.prison.ap/index.html - LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- A federal judge sentenced a man to a year in prison Monday for creating an anarchist Web site with links to sites on how to build bombs. U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson sentenced Sherman Austin to more than the prosecutor had recommended under a plea bargain. Austin, 20, pleaded guilty in February to distributing information related to explosives. .. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law
