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 cl
- Original Message -
From: "Petro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 3:38 AM
Subject: Re: Ashcroft Targets U.S. Cybercrime
> At 10:29 AM -0700 7/30/01, Black Unicorn wrote:
> >- Original Message -
> &
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 p
- 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]
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 "ab
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 o
I'm not sure which of the >s are Petro, Schliesser, Measl, or others,
> >> >> We still live in a country that has laws, and we *should* expect
> the LEAs
> >> >to enforce all laws that are on the books.
I think this was Petro, who I think was a Marine, and therefore should know
better.
The Un
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 consti
> >> 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 d
--
> > > 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 autho
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
[E
> 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 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 w
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 posi
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
>> r
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 re
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 prob
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 wa
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
> >
Matthew Gaylor wrote:
> There is little difference [between
> the two major parties]. Just
> continuations of the police state.
Last night, I attended a talk by science fiction writer and 2nd amendment
activist, J. Neil Schulman. To distinguish between the two major parties,
he refers to them
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 differen
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
> > suppor
On Sat, 21 Jul 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Dude, the Feds just arrested someone for "copyright violations"
> when no complaint had been made.
Dude, Adobe made a complaint about software produced by Sklyarov's
employer, Elcomsoft.
John Schultz
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
>> resea
At 01:47 PM 7/21/01 -0700, Tim May wrote:
>As Declan and others have said, this may be the last time a DefCon is
>held in the U.S. (Not that other countries are necessarily better.
>Attendees in Canada may face arrest by the Mounties for hate crimes,
>for violating the Teale-Homulka censorship,
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 tenur
At 04:01 PM 7/21/01 -0700, John Young wrote:
>And why are the protests limited to Adobe when the FBI and
>DoJ are doing the dirty work -- well, actually, low-level FBI
>and DoJ? Oops, that's right, don't fuck with workers-pissed-
>at-their-bosses who have the guns which they'd like to turn
>upstai
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?
At 4:01 PM -0700 7/21/01, John Young wrote:
>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 ow
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 Adob
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
> th
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 not revealed about Elcomsoft's
internal fi
> 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 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 bette
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.
>
>
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
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 dismal *is*, during a Bus
37 matches
Mail list logo
