ADV: Web hosting $6.95 per month - NO GIMMICKS!

[timjeffers]

Title: $6.95 Per Month Web Hosting





$6.95 Per 
MonthWeb Site Hosting   The #1Bargain on the Internet for your 
domainAnd We Know It!!!100Mb Disk Space - 
5000Mb Transfer10 E-Mail AccountsAll for $6.95 per 
Month!!We know that if you're paying more than $6.95 
per month for hosting your 
domain, it's too much. Especially when you look at the features we're 
offering.We aren't hosting with a homemade Linux or Unix box that doesn't 
offer all of the features you need for yourE-Commerce, Business or just 
a good Family and Friends site. 
We offer the 
servers the others should have!  Windows 2000 Advanced 
Servers Featuring:ASP 
- PERL - CGI - SQL - PHPJAVA - FrontPage 2000 - Flash 
SupportAll for the same low price 
of $6.95 per month!!One Price for All 
these great features! Along with the great server features, you also 
geteverything listed below , and More!


  
  
FTP Access - 
  24 X 7 X 365
10 POP 
  E-Mail Accounts
  
100MbDisk Space
5000Mb Transfer
  
Unlimited 
  Catch All Email Accounts 
FrontPage 
  2000 Access Always
  
Free 
  Graphical Stats Server
Autoresponders
  
Unlimited 
  Email Forwarding
Web Based 
  Control Panel
  
Web Based 
  EmailAdministration
Excellent Tech 
  Support and Friendly ServiceFree 
2 year domain registration with 2 year 
signupFree Setup with selected 
plansOur Reseller Plan is 
now available with websites for as low as 
$2.98 per 
site!!!


  
  
If you are interested in receiving more information on 
  this great offer, please fill out the simple form below and Submit it. One 
  of our staff will contact you shortly. If you prefer to be contacted by 
  telephone, please fill in the Telephone field 
(optional)







  
  
Name:
*
  
E-Mail Address:
*
  
Telephone (optional):
 Please Call Me


 or if the form doesn't work with your email, click here to opt in for more info! 

 or if the link above doesn't work, click here to opt in for more info! 

***To be removed 
from this list,**click reply and type "remove" in the 
subject*** 

Opt:E-Marketing With Opt-In E-mail List!

[lightweb]

Title: New Page 1






  
Create
  Your Own Opt-In E-mail List 
  Don't
  Buy Opt-in List!  CREATE YOUR OWN!

  

Advertising
your company, products or services on the Internet is a must.  Using Bulk
E-mail is an option you may have used or considered. This sort of advertising
has been proven to be
very effective in soliciting numerous products and or services for individuals,
large and small companies.
The question is, is it safe, ethical, moral and accepted? Unfortunately, there
are many that would reply to this question with NO
Through
careful e-marketing we can help your company generate an on-going compiling OPT-IN
new customer list complete with: (E-mail Address, Phone
Number
and Name). 
These
generated e-mail addresses with personal contact information will be from
potential clients interested specifically in your product, business or
service.  YOUR
COMPANY WILL HAVE ALL THE BENEFITS OF BULK E-MAILING, WITHOUT THE PROBLEMS OF
ANTI-BULK E-MAIL ACTIVITY.
Ask about our 25%
Discount In Price Or 25% Increase In Your Mail. Your Choice. For First
Time Clients Only. 

  
We
will create an OPT-IN
e-mail list for your company based on the products and services you provide.
The list will be your personal company list. (YOU
OWN IT!)
  
Don't
settle for used HIGHLY over priced so-called opt-in list that have been sold
over and over again. Create
your own!
  
One
e-mail campaign sent by our company could generate from 500
to 500,000+
BRAND NEW
OPT-IN
E-mail
Addresses. These
addresses can be used by your company to follow up with by sending all your
specials, updates or monthly newsletters too.
  
Your
personalized list will be related directly to your business, products or
services.
  
All
you have to do is watch your list grow everyday, week and even months after
we deliver one OPT-IN
campaign for your company. 
We can set you up with a daily, weekly or monthly mailing. The residual
effect is perpetual.


  
  

  
Contact
Us For More Information By Clicking Here  

  
  

When
your e-mail program opens please include your name, phone number and the best
time to contact you. We will contact you at your convenience. 
 Our
initial lists that we use to generate your opt-in list
can be
customized  according to demographic
categories. We will consult with you about your product and harvest addresses
from where your potential customers congregate. With us, you can  choose your
target audience  from a strategic prospective.

We also have the unique capability to target age groups, income ranges and
homeowners in any city, state, geographical region, or country. We
will then generate a personalized OPT-IN
list of e-mail addresses, names and phone numbers of authentic potential
customers that are specifically interested in your product or service.
We
will give your company a user name and password for an account to view
your Opt-In generation as it takes
place. 
As always, we will  over send  your order by
15%, to ensure a guaranteed  100% delivery rate.  Our lists
are verified
weekly to
eliminate non-deliverables and abandoned e-mail addresses.
As we stated,
we guarantee 100% deliverability.

  
  

  
Opt-In
List Generation
Pricing 
(Anytime) 500,000
 
emails delivered***
 $1,000
Order
Today And Get 25% Off. Your
Price$750
Or
Increase Your Mail Too:
625,000

(Anytime) 1 million
 
emails delivered***
 $1,500
Order
Today And Get 25% Off. Your
Price$1,125
Or
Increase Your Mail Too:
1,250,000

(Anytime) 10 million 
emails delivered***
 $7,500
Order
Today And Get 25% Off. Your
Price$5,625
Or
Increase Your Mail Too:
12,500,000

(Anytime) 20 million
emails
delivered  $ 12,000
Order
Today And Get 25% Off. Your
Price$9,000
Or
Increase Your Mail Too:
25,000,000
  

  
  

Opt-In Generation
Campaigns With More Than One Target Will Be Priced Upon Request.
Ask about our 25%
Discount In Price Or 25% Increase In Your Mail. Your Choice. For First
Time Clients Only. 
If
you are ready
to create a promising advertising future and destiny for your company in the
world of OPT-IN e-mail,
work with us, a firm that has years of experience!

  
  

  
Contact
Us For More Information By Clicking Here  

  
  

When
your e-mail program opens please include your name, phone number and the best
time to contact you. We will contact you at your convenience. 
*
Other e-mail messages may be stopped
by clicking
here: REMOVE ME. Simply
click send when your e-mail program opens. 
Do Not Reply to this message, Your e-mail address will not be de

Re: onion p2p camouflaging as vanilla traffic

[Faustine]

Eugene wrote:

>A couple of questions to resident cluebots:
>
>1) what is the bulk of traffic originating on user side and which does not
>   end within the ISP?
>
>2) how much of that traffic is in clear? Specifically, what is the
>   percentile of SSL sessions, and what is the trend? Do we at
>   all already see things SOAPy, .NETy, or XML-RPCy out there in the
>   wild?
>
>3) browser-web server connect is bidirectional. Which do's and don'ts
>   needs one follow, if one wants to implement an unblockable (well, an
>   ISP not granting web access won't stay an ISP for long) p2p
>   infrastructure on top of that?
>
>(should have paid more attention to the REST thing on FoRK, damn).
>
>Some illuminating comments highly appreciated.


You might want to check ResearchIndex, the NEC Research Institute's 
Scientific Literature Digital Library. They have a whole treasure trove of 
relevant PDFs online: an excellent resource in general(if you haven't come 
across it already.) Good luck!

~Faustine.

http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/cs

Omniva\'s E-Mail \'Shredder\' Offers New Level of Security

[mean-green]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-

- -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-

[Didn't these guys present something at a BA CP meeting last year?]

September 6, 2001
Under the Radar
Omniva's E-Mail 'Shredder'
Offers New Level of Security
By ELLEN BYRON
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL


Imagine e-mail that can self-destruct after a certain amount of time, leaving no trace 
in in-boxes and servers. Omniva Policy Systems has created software that can do just 
that.


Michael Burkland
The San Francisco-based firm, founded in 1999 as Disappearing Inc., has taken on the 
loophole left by the deletion key: Even though an e-mail has been deleted, it still 
lurks within the servers of the sender and recipients. What Omniva (www.omniva.com1) 
aims to do is help companies establish retention policies for e-mail, much like those 
typically in place for paper documents, by offering the e-mail equivalent of a paper 
shredder. After spending nearly two years on research and development, the company 
released the first version of its software in July.

E-mail "is a huge gateway -- electronic assets are constantly flowing in and out of a 
company," says Chief Executive Michael Burkland. "We're giving companies control."

Here's how it works. The software installs a second send button on the user's e-mail 
program, titled "Send With Policy." When a customer selects the button, Omniva's 
technology encrypts the e-mail into an unreadable state before it is sent, and allows 
the sender to specify a detonation time of anywhere between 30 minutes or even years 
after the e-mail is dispatched. Only a specific and unique key from Omniva's server 
can make the e-mail readable. Once the message reaches its destination, the 
recipient's e-mail program requests the key from Omniva's server to decode the 
message. When the detonation time is reached, that key is voided, making all copies of 
the e-mail permanently unreadable, including forwarded copies.

Corporate customers can customize the software to fit their document-retention 
policies. Firms may determine the level of control employees have in specifying e-mail 
expiration dates and what types of e-mail are retained. E-mails detailing lunch menus, 
for example, could have one expiration date, while communication regarding clients can 
have another. Likewise, departments and levels of management can also have respective 
retention policies set by the company.

Though only Microsoft Outlook users can send the disappearing e-mail, any e-mail 
program can receive it, including the Blackberry hand-held device. Omniva is currently 
in collaboration with Ernst & Young LLP to develop a Lotus Notes version of the 
technology, due out later this year. Although a trial version of the current software 
can be downloaded free from the company's Web site, the company aims to customize the 
product for corporate customers. A one-year corporate subscription starts at $70,000.

Omniva changed its name in July, saying it wanted to convey its software does more 
than just make e-mail disappear. Part of its broader focus is on electronic-document 
maintenance, which came about as the company became aware of an increasing amount of 
litigation involving recovered e-mail. Think Bill Gates in Judge Thomas Penfield 
Jackson's courtroom. "Writing is permanent, compared to speech, so we were trying to 
find something that is between the two," the company's co-founder, Dave Marvit, says. 
"We're empowering people to have conversations that go away."

Mr. Marvit, who had been at Alexa Inc., a San Francisco-based Internet archivist and 
Web-navigation service provider that is part of Amazon.com Inc., joined with his 
brother, Maclen Marvit, and two friends, Keith Rosema and Jeff Ubois, to found the 
company in 1999. Mr. Marvit now serves as a company spokesman, and his brother sits on 
its board. Mr. Burkland joined the company in September 2000; he is founder and former 
CEO of Eventus Software Inc., which is now part of Segue Software Inc. Since its 
founding, Omniva has raised $20 million, with the bulk of that coming from funds 
raised in February of this year. Its backers include venture-capital firm Kleiner, 
Perkins, Caufield & Byers, Menlo Park, Calif.; Red Rock Ventures, Palo Alto, Calif.; 
Mitsui & Co. Venture Partners, New York, and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., New York. The 
company, which has 30 employees, has no paying customers at this point; it says it is 
negotiating with two companies and several firms are testing the s!
oftware.

E-mail security that acts like a shredder, that is, software that enables e-mail to 
expire, is still a small industry, says Maurene Grey, senior research analyst at 
Gartner Group. Other players in the industry include Authentica Inc., Waltham, Mass.; 
Atabok Inc., Newton, Mass.; and Privacy Preserve Inc., Greenville, Del. She cautions 
that e-mail shredding is less defined by the courts than archiving and could be a 
liability should courts deem the action to

Club Cubana Goa

[Gregory & Nicholas]

Club Cubana
 
Goa`s hottest nightspot opening for the season 
2001-2002 on the 14th October 2001 once again.
 
Featuring Dj`s from London in the first 
half.

DoJ claims to have subpeona'd reporters phone records 13 times/decade

[Subcommander Bob]

DoJ claims to have subpeona'd reporters phone records 13 times/decade

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGA94IS6BRC.html

Fwd: Management/Human resources

[derhther5586]

Desires Casino is offering a massive 

40% Instant CASH Bonus !Thats right folks, deposit $20.00 or more at Desires Casino and we will add 40% of that to your bankroll!Deposit $20 get a $28.00 BankrollDeposit $500 get a $700.00 Bankroll

Deposit $2000 get a $2800.00 BankrollNo maximums, so no matter what amount you buy chips for we'll GIVE 40% MORE! The bonus is credited instantly so no waiting, just playing! 

This offer is available only athttp://www.desirescasino.comand no other web address





This email is never sent unsolicited. You have requested information about gaming.  To un-subscribe Click Here or send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

ACTION: Protecting Privacy, SIGN THIS LETTER

[Matthew Gaylor]

From: Hannah Woody <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Protecting Privacy, SIGN THIS LETTER
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 10:48:31 -0400

Matt,

I am the coordinator of the Coalition for Constitutional Liberties and
we are currently circulating a letter to organizations about the privacy
violations involved in the drug war. This letter does not call for
legalization at all, it simply brings forth important privacy related
issues. With this letter, we are calling for the Senate Judiciary Committee
to ask the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy nominee,
John Walters, if he will protect privacy. Please consider signing on and
perhaps sending it to your list.

Thanks! Email Hannah Woody at [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 with your name and
business/organization.

Coalition for Constitutional Liberties
A project of the Free Congress Foundation's Center for Technology Policy
717 Second Street NE * Washington, DC 20002 * (202) 546-3000 * Fax 
(202) 543-5605

http://www.freecongress.org/

September 3, 2001

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Chairman
Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, Ranking Member
Senate Judiciary Committee
United States Senate
224 Dirksen Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Re: Nomination of John Walters

Dear Chairman Leahy, Senator Hatch and
Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee:

We are part of a broad coalition of groups concerned that the War on Drugs
has degraded our privacy and civil liberties.  We respectfully ask that the
members of Committee consider raising the following privacy and civil
liberties issues in connection with the nomination of John Walters to be the
Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (Office of the White
House).  We intend by issuing this letter to signal neither support nor
opposition to Mr. Walters' nomination.  Rather, we hope are issuing the
letter to urge members of the Committee to explore these issues in
connection with Mr. Walters' nomination.  As we set forth below, these
issues include the use of new surveillance and investigative technologies,
including the Carnivore/DCS1000 and Echelon systems, the "Know Your
Customer" proposal of the Financial Action Task Force, asset forfeiture
abuses, wiretaps and the drug war's sometimes corrupting influence on law
enforcement itself.

Rapid advances in technology have unfortunately brought with them new
opportunities for the invasion of privacy in the form of programs like
Carnivore, a system designed to allow the FBI to sift through vast
quantities of Internet communications, or "Know Your Customer," -a proposed
regulation requiring banks to collect personal financial information about
their customers, "profile" them, and report "suspicious activities" to the
Government.  The misguided drug war is often a driving force behind these
initiatives.  "Know Your Customer" was prompted largely to further the drug
war by combating drug-related money laundering.  The FBI claims that
Carnivore helps in narcotic investigations.

We are concerned that "profiling," including racial profiling, appears to be
an accepted component of the federal government's war on drugs.  As noted by
Georgetown University Law professor David Cole, characteristics of "drug
courier profiles" used by U.S. Customs at airports have included:
*   Arrived late at night.
*   Arrived early in the morning.
*   Arrived in afternoon ...
*   One of first to deplane.
*   One of last to deplane.
*   Deplaned in the middle ...
*   Bought coach ticket.
*   Bought first class ticket ...
*   Used one-way ticket.
*   Used round-trip ticket ...
*   Traveled alone.
*   Traveled with a companion ...
*   Wore expensive clothing.
*   Dressed casually ...
*   Suspect was Hispanic.
*   Suspect was black female.
In short, everyone anywhere at any time could fit the profile of a drug
courier according to U.S. Customs officials. Court records confirm that
highway patrol officers both in California and in New Jersey were taught to
profile automobile drivers using minority status as an excuse to stop them,
search their car, and in some cases, find drugs, a process known as racial
profiling.  In fact, civil rights organizations have charged that the DEA's
own Operation Pipeline actually trains state and local law enforcement
agents to engage in racial profiling.

The extent to which our drug policy drives government surveillance and
invasion of privacy is especially clear in the case of wiretaps.  Three
quarters of all wiretaps are authorized for narcotics investigations.  The
Administrative Office of the United States Courts reports that annually
approximately 80 percent of conversations intercepted on wiretaps are
innocent communications.

In addition to government surveillance, there has been an increasing effort
to have private businesses monitor their customers in order to fight the
drug war.  In the case of the "Know Your Customer" proposal now bein

Re: Naughty Journal Author Denied Plea Change

[amp]

On Wednesday 05 September 2001 10:51 am, David Honig wrote:
> At 09:49 AM 9/5/01 -0700, John Young wrote:
> >Isn't what is new here is that the man did not publish this material
> >as was the material of Joyce, Miller, et al? Nobody saw it except
> >him and the cop who discovered it.
>
> Wasn't it his *parents* who read his journal and turned him in, hoping for
> 'treatment'
> instead of jail?  Shades of David & Ted Kaczynski...

Indeed. From press accounts, his mother turned him in. (That's how Fedgov got 
his diary/notebook from what I understand.) The appelate decision that was 
recently in the news is that he pled guilty thinking he would get 
probation/treatment. The judge, in effect said, "I don't know why the hell 
you would have thought that. Lock him up!"

I'm concerned that Fedgov has been able to successfully prosecute this 
thoughtcrime using his own private writings. It could very well be possible 
that writing his evil thoughts down kept him from acting on them. I know that 
sometimes when I have a good rant building up, I have to just write it to get 
it out of my system. This case could well have unintended consequences if 
people finally understand that Fedgov doesn't give a rat's ass about any 
alleged 'right to privacy'. Americans allegedly have  right to 'keep and bear 
arms' as well, spelled out on paper (currently being used as toilet paper in 
government offices across the land), but there are thousands of laws 
regulating against same.





-- 
TANSTAAFL,

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.zeugma.nu/

Never be afraid to try something new. 
Remember, amateurs built the ark. 
Professionals built the Titanic.

police tracking activists (the more things change...)

[Subcommander Bob]

September 6, 2001

   By VIK JOLLY and TONY SAAVEDRA
   The Orange County Register

   ANAHEIM -- Detectives compiling information on Latino
activists used
   an investigative technique typically reserved for
investigating organized
   crime, drug networks and street gangs, according to a
former police
   captain.

   Police, under orders from Chief Roger Baker, created
organizational
   charts on five Latino activists who complained about
alleged police
   misconduct. Baker presented the confidential report
Nov. 14, 2000, to the
   City Council in a closed-door briefing.

   Retired Capt. Marc Hedgpeth said the charts showing
the activists and
   their connections to community groups were part of a
process called "link
   analysis," often used to outline conspiracies.
Hedgpeth, who headed
   Anaheim's intelligence unit for four of his 25 years
with the department,
   said the process in Anaheim is almost never used on
non-criminals.

To my knowledge just looking at the report, I can't
think of a time when
   we ever used a link analysis process to deal with
people who are not
   suspected of any kind of criminal conduct," said
Hedgpeth, who competed
   with Baker for the chief's post. "At least four of
those people who were
   attacked by Baker, we never suspected them of any
kind of criminal
   conduct."


http://www.ocregister.com/local/chief00906cci1.shtml

sued for spying on employees inside your own house

[Subcommander Bob]

Posted: September 6, 2001 06:02 PM

(WSVN, JUST ONE STATION) Talk show host Rosie O'Donnell
is being sued by former
members of her security staff.

They claim she spied on them and illegally recorded
their conversations at her South Florida
mansion.

Although she doesn't live down here all the time...Rosie
O'Donnell is part of the South Florida
celebrity scene.

And now like many celebs before her, she finds herself
on the wrong end of a lawsuit.

Rosie O'Donnell is a superstar. But she's lost three of
her fans.

Chris Delia, Steve Rubio and Ted Van Rijan have filed a
lawsuit against Rosie and two security
firms.

They say while working security at her star island home
- their conversations were illegally
recorded by a device hidden in smoke detector.

All had worked for her for years and say they felt close
to the star and her four children.

Steve Rubio, Security Guard said, "We developed a bond
with the kids you know, we were the
male figures, the dominate male figures in their lives
pretty much."

But the men say any feeling of family evaporated when
they were fired after they complained
about the hidden recordings.

Steve Rubio, Security Guard said, "It's especially
hurtful because you basically feel betrayed."

They say if she had apologized , they wouldn't have
filed a lawsuit. Instead Steve says he got
a phone call from an irate Rosie.

Steve Rubio, Security Guard said, "And she was just
yelling and screaming and cursing at me
and you know it was - I was shocked to the point I
couldn't even respond to her except to say I
think it's probably best to speak, you know, to our
attorney."

All three men are private investigators and say they
understand a star's need for privacy.

They suspect they were recorded because Rosie was
concerned about leaks to the media
about her private life.

Its something they say they never did.

Steve Rubio, Security Guard said, "Absolutely. And could
you look Rosie in the eye and say -
absolutely and she should know better - she should know
that."

But their lawyer says it was Rosie who violated their
privacy.

Russell Adler, Attorney says, "My clients protected
Rosie's family and their privacy and that
was very important to them to do that - and Rosie didn't
protect theirs."

Steve Rubio, Security Guard said, "We would never betray
her the way she betrayed us - we
would never do that."

Expect Rosie O'Donnell to challenge that. she wasn't
talking about the lawsuit - but her
publicist denies any wrongdoing and says Rosie looks
forward to defending herself in court.

http://www.wsvn.com/extra/entertainment/box1/

Hushmail (Was: Re: Naughty Journal Author Denied Plea Change)

[Meyer Wolfsheim]

On Thu, 6 Sep 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-

[snip]

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: Hush 2.0
>
> wmAEARECACAFAjuYFYwZHGtleXNlci1zb3plQGh1c2htYWlsLmNvbQAKCRAg4ui5IoBV
> n/9+AJ9eK/gSpH59ahQrotIOcYbOo8cHQgCeM0ki/sMKBda2tdCstCyN4LqFQWk=
> =1jll
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-

It's nice that Hush is using PGP now, but as far as I can tell, there is
no way for anyone to obtain your public key, to verify your signature.
Thus, signing your messages doesn't do a lot of good at present.

I suppose we'll have to wait for "Hush 2.1" for such features.

Who does the First Amendment protect?

[Declan McCullagh]

perhaps relevant to our remailer discussion...

- Forwarded message from Declan McCullagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -

From: Declan McCullagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: FC: Replies to "When anyone can publish, who's a journalist now?"
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2001 20:03:17 -0400
X-URL: Politech is at http://www.politechbot.com/

Previous Politech message:
http://www.politechbot.com/p-02445.html

**

Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 13:09:38 -0400
From: Vicki Richman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Declan McCullagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Trummel v. Mitchell: 1st Amendment Issue
Organization: National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981

Declan, this is not an electronic issue, but Trummel
v. Mitchell, in Washington State, goes to the heart of a
question raised on politech: Who is a "legitimate"
journalist?

See:

http://www.contracabal.org/806-00.html

Briefly, Paul Trummel, a retired journalist from Britain,
with impeccable credentials, discovered what he believed to
be fraud and abuse in the management of his moderate-income
retirement home. He published leaflets and distributed them
to his neighbors.

The management got an order of protection against him,
effectively banning him from his home and preventing him
from approaching his neighbors. He argued freedom of the
press, but the judge ruled that he was not a journalist, as
he was retired and not employed by any "legitimate"
publication.

Therefore, the judge held, he lacked protection of the First
Amendment and was guilty of harassment.

In trying to get the order rescinded, Trummel has a pro bono
attorney and an amicus brief by the ACLU. He'd like
political civil-libertarian support, as well as financial
contributions for his attorney.

Solidarity,
-- 
Vicki Richman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://vicric.com

**

From: "Anuj Desai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: When anyone can publish, who's a journalist now?
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 16:44:07 -0500

Declan,

Your readers might be interested in knowing that many courts have been
forced to deal with the question, "Who is a journalist?" over the years in
circumstances similar to what appear to be Ms. Leggett's.  Several states
have laws, known as shield-laws, that specifically protect journalists from
testifying in certain circumstances, and those laws often contain
definitions of "journalist" or "reporter" or "media".  In addition, the
First
Amendment provides a separate protection.

In the statutory context, the courts are of course bound by the legislative
definitions of who is a journalist.  These definitions vary from state to
state, but in most states depend upon some sort of professional affiliation.

Under the First Amendment, however, courts have been much broader, focusing
primarily on whether the person claiming the journalist's privilege had an
intent to disseminate the information to the public **at the time s/he
gathered it**.  Bearing in mind the Supreme Court's admonition that "Freedom
of the press is a 'fundamental personal right' which is not confined to
newspapers and periodicals.  It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets.
...  The press in its historic connotation comprehends every sort of
publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion,'"  Branzburg
v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 704 (1972) (quoting Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303
U.S. 444, 450, 452 (1938)), courts have been unwilling to restrict press
rights to the institutional press.  Although the Supreme Court has never
directly addressed the question, "Who is a journalist?" in the context of
the journalist's privilege (indeed, the fear that courts would have to deal
with it was part of the majority's rationale for *not* granting the
privilege in the seminal Branzburg case), many federal courts have addressed
it, with
varying results depending on the circumstances.  See, e.g., In re Madden,
151 F.3d 125 (3d Cir. 1998); Schoen v. Schoen, 5 F.3d 1289, 1293-94 (9th
Cir. 1993); Von Bulow v. Von Bulow, 811 F.2d 136 (2d Cir.), cert. denied,
481 U.S. 1015 (1987); Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 563 F.2d 433 (10th Cir.
1977); Blum v. Schlegel, 150 F.R.D. 42 (W.D.N.Y. 1993); Apicella v. McNeil
Labs., Inc., 66 F.R.D. 78, 84-85 (E.D.N.Y. 1975).

This is not to say that answering the question is simple in any give
circumstance, but simply to note that courts have been doing it for a long
time.

One other point that should be clarified in light of this post is that, in
every jurisdiction, the journalist's privilege is a *qualified* privilege
and yields to the needs of evidence-gathering in many cases.  No one, not
even a New York Times reporter [I use the NYT rather than Wired because we
know that some would question your own status as a journalist :-) ], gets
the
privilege in every circumstance.  The person attempting to force a
journalist to testify in the face of the privilege simply has to show that
1) the information they seek is relevant to the lawsuit for which they are
seeking it; 2) thei

Hushmail (Was: Re: Naughty Journal Author Denied Plea Change)

[Meyer Wolfsheim]

On Thu, 6 Sep 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-

[snip]

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: Hush 2.0
>
> wmAEARECACAFAjuYFYwZHGtleXNlci1zb3plQGh1c2htYWlsLmNvbQAKCRAg4ui5IoBV
> n/9+AJ9eK/gSpH59ahQrotIOcYbOo8cHQgCeM0ki/sMKBda2tdCstCyN4LqFQWk=
> =1jll
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-

It's nice that Hush is using PGP now, but as far as I can tell, there is
no way for anyone to obtain your public key, to verify your signature.
Thus, signing your messages doesn't do a lot of good at present.

I suppose we'll have to wait for "Hush 2.1" for such features.