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
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
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
- 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
--
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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?
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
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
28 matches
Mail list logo
