HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: [sci.crypt] Re: RSA outside the US
Date: 13 Oct 92 00:02:13 GMT
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

A repost from sci.crypt:

From: cme@ellisun.sw.stratus.com (Carl Ellison)
Subject: Re: RSA outside the US
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:00:56 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering

In article <1992Oct9.233126.10429@uoft02.utoledo.edu> jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes:
>   1. RSA is pretty much a standard in Europe.
>   2. it is illegal to export RSA stuff from the US.

> this is just silly.

Isn't it.......

>am i reading this right? if it's true why is export of encryption
>schemes so much of a problem? apparently they're already out there.


The argument (only slightly rephrased by me from what I read) given by
Bobby Inman (ex-head of the NSA) was that:

1.	it's important to thwart crypto development in the private sector
as much as possible;

2.	all we have control over is the US and in particular US exports --
so that's what we're trying to control;

3.	the US is #1 in crypto research [they're working to make that not
true, of course, assuming it ever was] and #1 in computer manufacturing
[that's slipping, too -- never was true in crypto hardware, I believe
(excepting military contracts)];

4.	good crypto is like an atom bomb -- could make a major power of an
otherwise minor power -- needs to be suppressed -- mustn't be in the hands
of private citizens.


In other words (mine), the technology is out there but the US economy, if
it were allowed to produce good crypto in volume (eg., spurred on by
international markets), would flood the world with good crypto -- making it
likely that a lazy lawbreaker would be able to use good crypto and
therefore defeat eavesdropping.  The FBI is using roughly the same argument
for internal controls and demands for plaintext-tapping ports.


Nobody has argued against the idea that big time drug dealers can afford
good crypto equipment (eg., scrambler phones from Switzerland) -- but what
about the little folks -- high school students trying to buy a pound of pot
to sell to their friends?  Those are the real targets of this
administration -- along with people carrying large amounts of cash, of
course.  For all we know, the big time drug dealers are campaign
contributors....  :-(


What I want to know is how the candidates stand on this issue.  It's got a
small enough interest group that the debates will probably skip over it.
I'd expect Bush to keep up being DCI with all private citizens as the
potential enemy (who me?  paranoid?).  I'd worry a little about Perot --
given his habit of hiring private investigators.  I haven't heard from
Clinton anything to allow me to predict.

Does anyone else have a feel for this?
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,misc.legal
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 17:20:56 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.063622.5125@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>So am I. But you apparently think that cases are the only "primary
>sources," and that one can rely on primary sources only to the exclustion
>of secondary ones. With this extreme position I must disagree.

However, I'm _not_ a lawyer or a law student. I do read a fair amount
on the subject, out of personal interest. However, this means I don't 
have unlimited time available to do so. As a result, I focusing on
one does exclude the other, and I'm quite sure which is more important...

>> They are, really,
>>the only relevant facts in the debate.

>This seems to be argument by assertion. Did you mean to append an "IMHO"
>here?

From the context, I didn't see such a disclaimed as necessary. However,
what facts would you consider relevant other than those found in primary
sources?

>> How "experts" have interperted
>>these facts is, to me, far less important than the facts themselves.

>Your scare quotes around "experts" adequately conveys your scepticism. But
>which "experts" have you read, and why are you sceptical of them?

"Experts" in other fields than law, for the most part (e.g. fields
like planetary astronomy or aerospace engineering, where I know 
enough to recognize major inaccuracies with confidince.) Although 
I'm also unimpressed with certain public comments from former
Chief Justice Burger since his retirement, and with "popularized"
commentaries on the Bill of Rights (_In_Our_Defense_ comes to mind.)

My basic conclusion is that the _only_ thing that makes "experts" at
all special is familiarity with the relevant facts, and the conclusions
they draw are no more enlightened or accurate that the conclusions
anyone else could draw, after thinking about those same facts.
(This is starting to sound like I'm applying the Protestant Revolution
things other than religion...)

                                             Frank Crary
                                             CU Boulder

Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Interpreting U.S. Constitution (was Re: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?)
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 12:06:43 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.033327.1681@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>>
>>Well, the executive and legislative branches are given *no power at all*
>>to make *any* interpretations of the Constitution. So, by your own
>>reasoning, the interpretive power lies in the judicial branch.
>
>I don't see how that would follow.  How about having each individual
>in the executive and legislative branches interpret the Constitution as
>they are required to take an oath to uphold it anyway?

Nice idea. Add it to the language of the Constitution and we'll have
something to talk about. In the meantime, the Constitution grants
jurisdiction for cases "arising under" the Constitution only to the
judicial branch--it does not grant this jurisdiction to the executive or
legislative branches.


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"Liberty resides in the rights of that person
mnemonic@eff.org| whose views you find most odious."
(617) 864-0665  | 
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --John Stuart Mill
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
From: gag65@cas.org ()
Subject: Libertarian presidential candidate Andre Marrou on Larry King 10/12
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 20:30:08 GMT

This has already been posted to the alt.politics.libertarian and
alt.politics.marrou groups, but for those interested in hearing the Libertarian
Candidate for president, Andre Marrou, he will be on CNN's Larry King show
tonight (10/12) at 9:00. Eastern.  He will probably be on during the second half
of the show.

Marrou will no doubt be talking about being the only one of the four candidates
on the ballot in all 50 states who was not invited to the debates.  He will also
most likely discuss Libertarian solutions to current problems and the
differences between his ideas and those of the other three candidates.

--Gary
~
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.misc,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Student loans
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 22:23:49 GMT

Here's a mail from someone (in response to an article of mine in
alt.society.civil-liberty and a couple of other groups), posted with
permission:

From: acase@reed.edu (Andrew Case)
To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 92 10:37 PDT
Subject: Re: [alt.drugs] Re: Gov.Wilson: "Smoke a Joint, Lose Y
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa
Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR

In article <1992Aug10.123127.9719@nntp.hut.fi> you write:

>	Is the threatened loss of highway funding widespread as a method of 
>keeping the states in line?  I heard some years ago that this tactic was put
>into play to force the few states with drinking ages below 21 to raise them.
>I am interested in hearing of any other examples of these strong arm 
>tactics, and what right the gov. has to do this.
>
>Duncan Heard
>Melb. Australia

I believe the 55 mph speed limit was imposed by this method. Certain
drug laws (other than the one mentioned above) were also imposed this
way, if memory serves, though I'm not 100% sure on that one.

Aside:
Another tactic for controlling behavior is through Federal Student
Loan programs. If you get a student loan from the feds, you must be
registered for the draft. Hence I am registered whereas my friends 
from wealthier families all sent in their registration forms filled
out for Mickey Mouse, Batman and the like. Conviction for drug
offenses can cost you your student loans (and hence your college
career), too.

Only the best from the Sweet Land of Liberty.

Andrew Case
acase@reed.edu
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,alt.psychoactives
From: kpc@pluto.arc.nasa.gov (k p c)
Subject: Re: [alt.censorship] the FDA bans medical journals
Reply-To: kpc@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center AI Research Branch; Sterling.
	<KPC.92Oct8180506@zog.arc.nasa.gov> <1992Oct9.031607.12992@spdcc.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 13:48:26 GMT

ok, so maybe it's misguided charity... either way, it hurts people.

you of all people should feel the brunt of the prescription monopoly,
i would think.  as i understand it, you do not have an md (true?) but
(i think it's fair to say) you admit to some knowledge about medicine.

so i don't doubt that every once in a while you know what you need and
would rather not have to pay a hundred dollars to get md sanction.

or do you have an inside line?  (tell us?)

(please note that i said "every once in a while", not "all the time";
i also don't doubt that you go to doctors.  the point is that there
are people who lose lots of money and/or health due to this
legislation, not that doctors are dispensable.)

p.s.  since you just said "snort" to me, i thought i would mention
that you should be careful _what_ you're snorting.  because, from what
i hear, even cocaine is easier to procure than most prescription
drugs!

from what i hear you don't need a signature, an appointment, to
justify, to pay for advice, or to go to a pharmacy afterwards.
From: kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse)
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 23:49:55 GMT
Subject: Please Help
Organization: HP Western Response Center
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty

              Please answer these 9 questions and return.

1.) Do you think equal rights for men and women is generally a good idea?
Yes                  [ ]
Sometimes            [ ]
No                   [ ]
Haven't heard enough [ ]
Other                [ ]

2.) Are you pro choice?
Yes                  [ ]
Sometimes            [ ]
No                   [ ]
Haven't heard enough [ ]
Other                [ ]

3.) Are you in favor of adoption?
Yes                  [ ]
Sometimes            [ ]
No                   [ ]
Haven't heard enough [ ]
Other                [ ]

4.) Do you think men should be allowed to legally terminate their parental
rights and responsibilities before fetal viability?
Yes                  [ ]
Sometimes            [ ]
No                   [ ]
Haven't heard enough [ ]
Other                [ ]

5.) What sex are you?
Male               [ ]
Female             [ ]

6.) How old are you?
Under 18           [ ]
19 to 65           [ ]
Over 65            [ ]

7.) What religion are you?
Protestant         [ ]
Catholic           [ ]
Jewish             [ ]
Other              [ ]

8.) What political party are you affiliated with?
Democratic         [ ]
Republican         [ ]
Other              [ ]

9.) How many years of education have you completed?
Grade School       [ ]
High School        [ ]
College            [ ]
More               [ ]
From: jws@billy.mlb.semi.harris.com (James W. Swonger)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re:  Civil Rights are Absolute
Date: 8 Oct 92 18:54:32 GMT
Organization: Harris Semiconductor, Melbourne FL

># >"But, Andrew, the bill of rights establishes certain rights which
># >cannot be infringed."
># >   Freedom of religion  --- You cannot pray in public schools --- even if   
># >                            you want to.

 And I say AMEN to that, brother. I still remember being the only kid in
my first grade class who didn't have anything to pray to or for, and 
having an argument with my teacher about why I was being made to do it.
Upshot was, sit there with my eyes closed or go to the principal's office.
This was about 1966, public school. How many other little minds were 
there before me, forced to mouth pleas to an unknown god? How many got their
first lesson in submission, in living a lie to please authority figures?

-- 
##########################################################################
#Irresponsible rantings of the author alone. Any resemblance to persons  #
#living or dead then yer bummin. May cause drowsiness. Alcohol may inten-#
#sify this effect. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Billy!#
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: I need a quote (was  History of Forfeiture Laws)
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 15:17:15 GMT


In article <BvqCyn.2D5@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, 
METZE@uimrlm.mrl.uiuc.edu (Virginia Metze) said:

> But isn't hemp used to produce linen or rope or something?  How many
> innocent people are being swept up in this net?

...which brings to mind an infamous Ed Meese quote from early in his
days as Attorney General of the United States (pause for retroactive
**SHUDDER**), something to the effect of "If you're innocent, then you
aren't a suspect."  Ironic words, considering how close Meese himself
came to being indicted at and after the end of his reign...  In any
event, can someone supply me with the exact quote and a pointed
towards its documentation (I'm about 98% sure that he said it in an
interview in US News and World Report around 1981-2)?  Thanks.
-- 
William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

     The malnutrition is what's called first-degree, which means the
  kids are 10 to 24 percent underweight.  They're still cute.  Small,
  but cute.  Dead sometimes, but cute.  This is the kind of nearly
  invisible poverty that, in fact, most of the world is mired in.  It
  looks quaint from inside a car.
  
                 -- P.J. O'Rourke, "Christmas in El Salvador" (1985)
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:6242 alt.politics.usa.constitution:654 alt.politics.usa.misc:158
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.misc
Subject: [alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs] Then they game for the Third Amendment
Date: 12 Oct 92 11:35:36 GMT
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

A repost from alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs:

From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Subject: Re: Clinton: "I am adamantly opposed to legalization of drugs!"
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 21:15:43 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

>I did hear a story from my friend, Dennis, who is the Southern regional
>coordinator of the LP in Indiana.  He told me that Andre was rousted
>out of his hotel by Secret Service people along with a number of other 
>people on the same floor because Bush and his entourage were going to
>use that hotel.  The story is that Marrou first protested that as a
>legitimate candidate on the ballot of all 50 states, they should be
>protecting him, not trying to throw him out of his room.  Marrou and
>company then left but returned with the press and, rather than
>face a potentially embarrassing situation, the SS relented -- thus
>Bush and Marrou were sharing the same floor at the hotel.  I have
>no way to verify any of this -- I'm just passing on the story the
>way it came to me ...
>
>-- 
>paul hager		hagerp@moose.cs.indiana.edu


For those of you at home who have been keeping score on the disintegration
of civil rights in America, this is the first step in the direction of
neutralizing the last remaining provision in the Bill of Rights: the
Third Amendment.


    Alan T. Furman         | VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.com  |   (800)682-1776 for more information
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:6251 alt.politics.usa.constitution:656 alt.drugs:16984 talk.politics.drugs:6748 alt.psychoactives:1358
From: kpc@pluto.arc.nasa.gov (k p c)
Subject: Re: [alt.censorship] the FDA bans medical journals
Reply-To: kpc@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center AI Research Branch; Sterling.
	<s-+pjvh.rlglende@netcom.com> <1992Oct02.033939.0903984@locus.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 02:05:06 GMT

In article <1992Oct02.033939.0903984@locus.com> yazz@locus.com (Bob Yazz) writes:

   rlglende@netcom.com (Robert Lewis Glendenning) writes:

   | The FDA has
   income of physicians.

   I condemn the death-causing FDA regularly, but the bit about physician
   income is a load of crap.

i would like to believe you.  but i can't.  if doctors aren't out for
their income, then why is the ama telling the fda to limit our
freedoms?
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,misc.legal
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and U.S. Constitution
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 03:31:39 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.232013.28387@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>>"The judicial power" does not explicitly include the power to make final
>>and binding interpertations of the Constitution.

>Hmm, how about this:
>"     [2] In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers
>and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the supreme
>Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before
>mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both
>as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations
>as the Congress shall make."

Notice, the restriction "with such Exceptions... as the Congress shall
make."

>What does "appellate Jurisdiction" mean?  Webster's says:
>ap.pel.late \*-'pel-*t\ aj [L appellatus, pp. of appellare] : of, relating
>   to, or taking cognizance of appeals; specif : having the power to review
>   the judgment of another tribunal

>which to a layman's and non-native speaker's eyes could mean that it
>overrides the other courts.

The Supreme Court's interpertations are take precidence over those
of lower courts. by virtue of the provision you cited. However, the
issue is a conflict between the Court's interpertation and that of
other branches of government (the President or Congress). The
President's co-operation is required to enforce Court orders, and
Congress can block the Court's rulings by removing jurisdiction
under the "exceptions" clause. Historically, Presidents have ignored
Court orders (such as Jackson's actions with respect to the National
Bank and the Cherokee indians), and Congress has removed jurisdiction
for political reasons (between the hearing of, and the Court's ruling
on Ex Parte McCardle in 1869, when the Court was about to rule the
"reconstruction" of the ex-Confederate States unconstitutional.)

                                                        Frank Crary
                                                        CU Boulder

Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,alt.psychoactives
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Subject: Re: [alt.censorship] the FDA bans medical journals
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 03:16:07 GMT

In article <KPC.92Oct8180506@zog.arc.nasa.gov> kpc@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov writes:
>i would like to believe you.  but i can't.  if doctors aren't out for
>their income, then why is the ama telling the fda to limit our freedoms?

The AMA doesn't represent all physicians by a long shot.  However,
the limitation of access to prescription drugs is hardly a position
which is unique to physicians.  It's been the law since the 1950's.
Plus, if doctors wanted to increase their business, encouraging
unrestricted self-medication would go a long way towards that.
The whole point is that such drugs can't be used safely by individuals
who "think" they might need one drug or another.  There's no guarantee
that such a drug would be an appropriate drug, a safe drug, or an
effective drug.  What better way to get more business (and more profitable
business) than to take in people who tried and failed to treat themselves,
often letting their condition get worse?  When drugs have been made OTC
for conditions which are appropriate for self-medication (e.g., ibuprofen
for menstrual cramps, miconazole for vaginal candidiasis or athletes' foot),
medical organizations have always thought that was a good idea.

Of course, dentists aren't out for their income--by supporting wide-
spread fluoridation and technologies such as dental sealing, they've
practically put themselves out of business, at least as far as the
treatment of childhood dental caries in concerned.

So, yeah, it must be a big conspiracy.  Snort.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.misc,talk.politics.misc
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: [talk.politics.drugs] Another WOD death
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:12:29 GMT

From: tucker@shiva.edsg.hac.com (George Tucker)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Another WOD death
Date: 12 Oct 92 23:15:17 GMT
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA

Gist of article in the LA Times this morning: 
        On October 2, Los Angeles County authorities attacked en masse a large  ranch owned by a reclusive multimillionaire in the Santa Monica mountains      
in (get this!) Ventura County, based on aircraft evidence that marijuna
might be present.  They burst into the house, seized his wife, and then
found him in the bedroom with a gun.  Shot several times and killed him.  

        They looked desperately since they had all the papers ready to  
seize the property, but couldn't find marijuana or anything else.   
[Not mentioned: Mayor Bradley recently proposed cutbacks in the LAPD due
to budget problems.  I don't recall who these goons worked for, but their
financial situation is probably similar.]
 
        Ventura County was not informed in advance. 
        His wife is filing suit.

	The Times did not mention whether he was related to Bill Clinton.

	 George Tucker        tucker@tcville.hac.com
	GM executive says Saturn buyers can "graduate" to GM models
	that traditionally cater to older buyers.
	No wonder we have a high dropout rate.
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:6302 talk.politics.drugs:6850 alt.privacy:1931 uiuc.civil-liberty:83