- cypherpunks-legacy@lists.ogf.org

"Let's kill all the lawyers..."
by tcmay＠netcom.com 06 Jul '93

06 Jul '93

"What do you call the killing of those lawyers in San Francisco last week?" Answer (you knew this was coming): "A good start." The discussion of free speech and political correctness is apparently not welcome by some on this list. I guess the usual religious debates about which mail reader is better are what we're supposed to talk about. Well, I'm a member of this list, too, and issues of censorship and free speech are more interesting to me--and to some others, I suspect--than the intricacies of "MH." To each their own. Learn to use your "delete" key. (I agree that discussions of libertarianism vs. liberalism, etc., are the bane of the Net, and that we have been fortunate in avoiding the usual pitched battles between these camps on this List. My comments about censorship of speech, photos, etc., were not intended to provoke such a political battle.) Ironically, even as I type this, I am watching CNN and a special report on a "trial balloon" to ban anti-lawyer remarks! Seriously! Harvey Saferstein, President of the California State Bar, is explaining how "hate speech" laws can and should be used to limit the bashing of lawyers, the portrayal of them as good targets (he cited the lawyer being the first to be eaten in "Jurassic Park" as an example of the "atmosphere of hate" surrounding lawyers), and "inciting to violence." He specifically cited the killings in San Francisco last week as a reason to classify such speech as a "hate crime." No word on whether Shakespeare's "First, let's kill all the lawyers" would've gotten him 10-20 in the Tower of London. What is happening to free speech? What has happened to "Sir, I disagree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it."? Now of course such a law is not likely to pass, or be upheld. (Saferstein is actually not lobbying for a _new_ law, but for extension through the judicial system of existing "hate crime" laws to included any "class-related" jokes and insults. A move other groups are already trying.) In a way, I am cheering this, as it can only end up trivializing and undermining the whole concept of "hate crimes" and "hate speech." Real crimes, including trespass to burn crosses on people's lawns, and the like, can and _should_ be prosecuted, but not "hate" crimes. (If such laws were applied uniformly, instead of just against so-called "white rights" groups, then most "minority" organizations, which preach hatred of "honkeys" and "hets," would be shut down.) As John Gilmore pointed out a few years back, most of us are breaking laws every day. If the government can attach penalties based on our political views, then dissidents can be targeted selectively and given sentences based on their alleged "hate crimes." (Imagine how the Black Panthers or Malcolm X could have been harassed even more aggressively if their "hate" could have been used to increase punishments for otherwise minor crimes? That they were harassed, 20 and 30 years ago, is beside the point. Folks who advocate "hate crime" laws should reflect carefully on how such laws may someday be used against them.) -Tim May -- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: by arrangement Note: I put time and money into writing this posting. I hope you enjoy it.

1 0

Complete ignorance of any sort of reality on May's part (was We are
by jet＠netcom.com 06 Jul '93

06 Jul '93

Timothy C. May writes: > degrading to women, objectifies them, etc. (ironically, unless of course it > is "made by and for wimmin," a loophole added by Andrea Dworkin and her > supporters after they discovered their anti-porn crusade in Canada and > elsewhere would put an end to Lesbian porn mags like "Yellow Silk"!). This is complete and utter nonsense. Tim May has no clue as to what he talks about. What's worse, it smells of homophobia. In no particular order: - Dworkin has never called for the banning of porn. I've read most of her books, and she even goes out of her way to say she's not calling for any sort of censorship. She *does* push for 'victim compenstation'-style legislation. (How this sort of legislation interacts with constitutional rights is beyond my keen, save a few decisions I've read about 19th century property rights in Louisiana. :-) - I've heard Dworkin come down just has hard on lesbigay porn, if not harder than, as she does on het porn. Her old housemate John Stoltenberg (sp?) is as noxious as she is on this point. - "Yellow Silk" is not a lesbian porn mag. It's a very lame het softcore mag. If you'd like to see *real* lesbian porn (some of which pisses off a fair portition of the feminist and lesbian communities) find "On Our Backs" (started by Susie Bright), "Venus Infers" (started by Pat Califia, women-only SM), or "Girljock" (sort of a preppie/athelete/lesbian (not dyke :-) porn mag). - Last I heard, there was no need to capitalize 'lesbian'. None of the dykes/lesbians I know capitalize it, unless it starts a sentence. Residents of Lesbos (the true 'Lesbians') might disagree, however. Tired of white het male computer geeks talking nonsense about anyone who threatens their place in the power structure, -- jet(a)netcom.com -- J. Eric Townsend -- '92 R100R: "CLACKER" "Either what you've said is so vague that it's meaningless or I disagreee with you completely." -- Tom Maddox

4 3

wired covers
by Tyler Yip - UnixWeenie 06 Jul '93

06 Jul '93

In Chico, California, the two book stores large enough to have Wired have Mitch Kapor (Tower Books) and Peter Gabriel (Readmore Books). I might go pick up the other cover. :)

1 0

Wired cover
by stub23 06 Jul '93

06 Jul '93

well on mindvox the cover decision was announced a bit before the magazine came out and there was a huge guessing contest over who was going to be on the cover with some damn creative ideas but anyhow... although if i were to guess, i would say taht peter gabriel is on the cover of my issue, but on the inside it says cover: mitch kapor so i got confused dunno what mitch kapor looks like... also to note la and sf have different covers from what i ahve heard

1 0

Re: (fwd) GIFs--Now it can be told
by Michael Ross 06 Jul '93

06 Jul '93

Tim, That was very manipulative, and did not achieve much. It has also very little to do with the subject of this mailing list. If anything, you discouraged at least one person I know who became genuinely interested in encryption and PGP as a result of your post. If you had posted an actual David Hamilton photo, even encrypted, you would have put yourself forward, perhaps even bravely, as a test case. You then would really have had a point to argue, having taken a stand. As it turns out, you hid behind a pretty lame scheme, the only object of which seems to have been to make a fool out of as many people as possible. This is not how you accomplish constructive change, Tim. People resent being made to feel stupid, and they certainly will _not_ listen to what you have to say if you are belittling them. I happen to agree with those points you deigned to make in a straightforward manner. But you hid them so well behind trickery that they will go unnoticed. Learn to deal with people, and you'll see they are willing to listen to reasonable arguments. If your parents didn't give you enough attention as a child, don't take it out on the world by trying to get some here... Learn to work _with_ people, not _against_ people, lest within ten years you'll be walking into office buildings with automatic weapons strapped to your body and shooting lawyers... ;) Michael

3 2

Looking for biblio re commercialization of encryption
by gnu 06 Jul '93

06 Jul '93

------- Start of forwarded message ------- From: Kibbee=Streetman%ACIS.1037%DSRD.K25(a)VINES.ORNL.GOV To: eff(a)eff.org Subject: References for Crypto Study Date: Wed, 23 Jun 93 15:27:26 EDT Dear Sir -- I am working on a project for NIST to develop an annotated bibliography on issues in the commercialization of encryption technology. Can you provide me with any references to EFF publications dealing with export, Clipper/Capstone, privacy, etc. ? I already have copies of the material presented at the CSS&PAB meeting at NIST but would like to have anything else that might be available. Thank you for your help! Kibbee D. Streetman (kds(a)ornl.gov) 1099 Commerce Park Oak Ridge, TN 37830 (615)574-9952 ------- End of Forwarded Message

1 0

We are Becoming Politically Correct Sheep
by tcmay＠netcom.com 06 Jul '93

06 Jul '93

Perry Metzger writes, about the reaction to the "junk bits" file I posted in a controversial new group, "alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.children": >Michael Ross says: >> Tim, >> >> That was very manipulative, and did not achieve much. > >I wholely disagree. Tim's post to alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.children >was a valuable exercise even given its limitations. > Of course I agree with Perry, though I also respect the others who have posted disagreements (sometimes strong!) here on this List or in the various newsgroups...that's what free speech is all about. Bear in mind that most of the "Cypherpunks agenda," to the extent we can identify it, is likely to provoke ordinary citizens into _outrage_. Talk of anonymous mail, digital money, money laundering, information markets, data havens, undermining authority, transnationalism, and all the rest (insert your favorite idea) is not exactly mainstream. While I don't personally care for the "kiddie porn" I've seen (the David Hamilton photos of young girls and the occasional Mapplethorpe photos in news reports), the issues raised in this area are of great importance. (I don't plan to argue for or against these images in this forum, though.) If we back down every time a censor screams "Illegal!," then very few of our agenda items will ever see the light of day. So long as physical violence or coercion is not involved, I see no reason to restrict the activities of others. I completely reject the concept of "class-based crimes," such as: - conventional erotica and pornography should be banned because it is degrading to women, objectifies them, etc. (ironically, unless of course it is "made by and for wimmin," a loophole added by Andrea Dworkin and her supporters after they discovered their anti-porn crusade in Canada and elsewhere would put an end to Lesbian porn mags like "Yellow Silk"!). - I put "child porn" in this category because only the actual coercion of children--if it is happening--should be stopped. (And even this is confusing, as coercion of children happens all the time--we call it "parenting.") A mere image carries no proof that this coercion has happened, for the many reasons I have cited and others have cited (e.g., the child may have willingly participated, the "child" may be 18 and merely look 15, the images may have come from other countries where the customs and laws are different, the image may have been computer-generated or morphed, and so on). - "racist jokes" are being targeted for elimination in many of the Usenet groups, by halting the carrying of "offensive" newsgroups. Legal purists will of course note that this is not "censorship" in the legal/government sense. IMHO, the English language needs a new term for something between the one extreme of government censorship and the other extreme of personal choice, perhaps something like "institutional censorship." Being a free market sort of person, I have no problems with, say, Apple Computer deciding not to carry "alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.children" or "rec.humor.funny.cripples," but it still a _form_ of "institutional censorship." [especially when they are acting so as to head off legal action, as I describe below] - read the "academic freedom" group (I forget the exact title...search for "acad-free" in your newsreader) and you'll see that more and more universities are using the "sexual harassment" laws/codes to stop certain newsgroups, to halt the distribution of sexually oriented images, and to take disciplinary action against students (mostly male) who have put GIFs on their computers or workstations (apparently female students who walk past an office in which female models are used as startup screens have decided they are being "sexually assaulted" or "harassed"). [An important point to make here is that many of these institutions are taking actions largely because they fear that if they don't, the plaintiffs will take their case to the _government_ legal system, perhaps by suing the university for "condoning an atmosphere hostile to womym and other people of color." <insert smileys here, lest I be sued for insulting colored people> If there was no threat of ultimate legal action, much of this "institutional censorship" would vanish, and people could just concentrate on doing their jobs, with or without calendars of "Miss Usenet" gracing their walls.] - discussion of ways to undermine the State, via crypto anarchy and strong crypography, are likely to be targets of future crackdowns. Sedition laws, conspiracy laws, RICO, etc. How long before speaking on these matters earns a warning letter from your university or your company? [Again, I think it's the "big stick" of ultimate government action that spurs these univeristy and company policies. Apple fears being shut down for having "involvement" with a terrorist plot, Emory University fears being sued for millions of dollars for "conspiring" to degrade wimmin of color, etc.) - how long before "rec.guns" is no longer carried at many sites, as they fear having their universities or companies linked to discussions of "assault weapons" and "cop-killer bullets"? [Prediction: Many companies and universities, under pressure from the Feds, will block groups in which encrypted files are posted. After all, if one encrypts, one must have something to hide, and that could expose the university to legal action from some group that feels aggrieved.] So, free speech is under assault across the country. The tort system is being abused to stifle dissentinting views (and lest you think I am only a capitalist, only a free marketeer, the use of "SLAPP suits"--"Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation"--by corporations or real estate developers to threaten those who dare to publicly speak against their projects is a travesty, a travesty that the courts have only recently begun to correct). We are becoming a nation of sheep, fearing the midnight raid, the knock on the door. We fear that if we tell a joke, someone will glare at us and threaten to sue us _and_ our company! And so companies are adopting "speech codes" and other such baggage of the Orwell's totalitarian state. Political correctness is extending its tendrils into nearly every aspect of life in America. Time to fight back. -Tim May -- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: by arrangement Note: I put time and money into writing this posting. I hope you enjoy it.

1 0

Thoughtcrime
by Duncan Frissell 06 Jul '93

06 Jul '93

(Ed Carp?) >There are no quasi-legitimate issues surrounding child pornography in the >United States. It doesn't matter, legally whether consent was obtained or >not, etc. Child pornography is not legal. To make, sell, possess, distribute, >or conspire to do any of the above is a crime. Not quite. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals recently threw out the sell, possess, and distribute parts of the Child Pornography act on the traditional 1st Amendment grounds that retailers can't be punished for failure to examine (and get the model's age certificates) for every page or every film frame of every item in their inventory. Such blanket coverage is vague and overbroad. Who knows what the Supremes or other Circuits not located in San Francisco will do but the state of the law is still fluid. The question of morphing or animated kiddie porn is an interesting one. I haven't read the law so I don't know if they would be arguably covered. Pure *text* kiddieporn is legal of course. Remember all the battles over text pornography? Isn't it great that the video/graphics revolution has eliminated most censorship issues concerning pure text. ******************************************************************** * DUNCAN FRISSELL Attorney at Law, Writer, and Privacy * * CIS 76630,3577 Consultant since the Nixon * * Internet: Administration * * 76630.3577(a)compuserve.com * * or frissell(a)panix.com * * Easylink 62853962 * * Attmail !dfrissell * * TLX: 402231 FRISSELL NYK * * * * Privacy Checkup still only $29.95. Buy today before price * * controls force me to raise my prices. * * * * Would you like a debit VISA card from your secret offshore * * bank account. Let me show you how. * * * ********************************************************************

1 0

PC Week hops on the bandwagon
by dmandl＠lehman.com 06 Jul '93

06 Jul '93

Sorry if this has been mentioned already, but the new issue of PC Week contains a big special report entitled "Privacy in the Workplace." It's got about five or six separate pieces on electronic eavesdropping in the workplace, encryption, Clipper, etc., etc. I've only had a chance to scan it quickly (I mean with my eyes), but it seems that there's no mention of PGP at all, even in the piece on public-key encryption. Shocking. And the piece on Clipper, while it of course mentions all the opposition to the proposal, seemed just a bit wimpy to me. Anyway, it's the June 28 issue. Worth checking out, I guess. --Dave.

1 0

REMAIL: list 7/6/93
by nobody＠rosebud.ee.uh.edu 06 Jul '93

06 Jul '93

NOTE: new remailer @entropy.linet.org! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Last update: 07/02/93 Q1: What cypherpunk remailers exist? A1: 1: nowhere(a)bsu-cs.bsu.edu 2: hh(a)cicada.berkeley.edu 3: hh(a)pmantis.berkeley.edu 4: hh(a)soda.berkeley.edu 5: 00x(a)uclink.berkeley.edu 6: hal(a)alumni.caltech.edu 7: ebrandt(a)jarthur.claremont.edu 8: phantom(a)mead.u.washington.edu 9: remailer(a)rebma.mn.org 10: elee7h5(a)rosebud.ee.uh.edu 11: hfinney(a)shell.portal.com 12: remail(a)tamsun.tamu.edu 13: remail(a)tamaix.tamu.edu 14: remailer(a)utter.dis.org 15: remailer(a)entropy.linet.org 16: remail(a)extropia.wimsey.com NOTES: #1-#5 no encryption of remailing requests #6-#15 support encrypted remailing requests #16 special - header and message must be encrypted together #9,#14,#15,#16 introduce larger than average delay (not direct connect) #9,#14,#15 running on privately owned machines ====================================================================== Q2: What help is available? A2: Check out the pub/cypherpunks directory at soda.berkeley.edu (128.32.149.19). Instructions on how to use the remailers are in the remailer directory, along with some unix scripts and dos batch files. The public keys for the remailers which support encrypted remailing requests is also available in the same directory. Mail to me (elee9sf(a)menudo.uh.edu) for further help and/or questions. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3 iQCVAgUBLDRKRYOA7OpLWtYzAQEoQgP+MS4qW2ITP5UCSACcG/ngSid3/o/I1fic guGXQ5Ay6QWu9CVdc6YlbmkxxL6ekbLhtFSmMyXC356yixJ8Nvxcs7MYypHLlo3W oG7C6HDPmAq6JgVUdD4YCUXOS7haBt3HJ3K/utXFe3G6ybbEfG0TSUvwqgIVADql LSKB4yfpsk8= =04Iy -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0