uscourts.gov · Domains · Slashdot Mirror

And Groklaw is referenced in IBM's lates filing by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-04 12:03 · Score: 2, Interesting · on Interview with Groklaw's Creator

here at page 8.

. SCO Press Conference, Nov. 18,2003, transcript available at http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=220031119 011337666

Pamela's Groklaw is making waves. Congratulations geek grrrl!

Re:US most prolific phone tapper? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-19 11:08 · Score: 0 · on Encrypted Cell Phone Hits the Market

Actually, estimates of dutch tapping figures have said to have surpassed the official figures released by the US goverment. No wonder people have been looking to get the dutch official figures, no luck so far, its claimed no grand totals excist for the modern day digital tapping system.

Ofcourse these numbers are only about telephones, in radio and satalite communications the US might be the biggest player in the echelon coallition. Here it doesn`t mather much how big a player is becouse the goal of the coalition is to trade catured data and other inteligence. Question is what intelligence do other countries have that the USA can`t get though its sigint sattalites? Sattalite communication comes to mind as that travels through radio closely directed at either the sat or the ground station making snooping only possible for groundstations or sats with big dishes nearby the intended destination. This means dishes located on non US soil, the biggest reason for the coalition. Not many other countries opperate enough sattalites to get their data from over the horizon, so tapped phones and planted microphones comes to mind as being the only change of other goverments when it comes to trading with the US in the echelon community. If you think that that what the US captures ones is traded with many countries the world over for many other intersting bits you would think the US would be be winner of the biggest total goverment snooping award. But its hard to get an idea on how much the US shares its intelligence. Looking at the arrest worldwide after september 11 shows that many goverments eager to trail people on the basis of secret intelligence may not have had the "evidence" they where willing to use. This might mean that after sept. 11 the US supplied it, now why wouldn`t germany for example have acces to US intel on mulim fundamentalists? Asuming the US is capable of splitting the captured raw data into stuff interesting for national economic reasons (Which obiously should not be shared) and stuff that is mainly usefull when shared, it may not *want* to do so if it doesn`t get back enough becouse if small countries getting to much quality processed US intel easy they could trade it with others who could be of help to the US (Big dishes in the right places or say acces to the local pakistani embasies crypto room). But unlike law enforcement telephone tapping, this snooping is mostly done by organisation with roots in the militairy meaning that they are really secretive and not open for public review.

No subpoenas have been served by DaveAtFraud · 2003-11-12 15:45 · Score: 1 · on SCO Fires back, Subpoenas Stallman, Torvalds et al

GrokLaw points out that no papers have been filed. As usual, Blake Stowell is not a lawyer and should keep is mouth shut about things he doesn't understand. This is not to say that SCO won't file the papers tomorrow or some other time but, as of close of business today, the paper work to subpoena the people SCO claims they have subpoenaed hasn't even made it to the courthouse let alone been served. Also as usual, SCO can't keep their "facts" straight if they even know what a fact is.

Hmmm. Maybe SCO has been doing that crack Linus accused them of being on.

Re:You're wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-02 12:47 · Score: 0 · on Symantec Says No To Pro-Gun Sites

ie what army does not arm its soldiers

Good to see that Article I, Section 8 hasn't been lost on everyone.

The Bill of rights as written apply only to individuals (ie people).

Good to see that this hasn't been lost on everyone as well.

Any other way is illegal and in my opinion treasonous

You missed in a major way on this. There's one more way. Can you think of it? It's the most likely scenario at this stage in US history. With the country being split politically, it's unlikely that an amendment would pass the required number of states. And a constitutional convention is never going to happen. Too may people worried on both sides as to losing rights the other side wants to take away...

So, think of it yet? Here it is: The most likely way that the 2nd amendment is amended or repealed, or otherwise restricted, is by treaty. This is actually a huge danger if you think about it. In order for controversial treaties to be passed nowadays, they become huge, encompassing a large number of areas that include subjects designed to appeal to each constituency to garner support across the board, and mitigate opposition.

The UN for the last 25+ years had a political agenda to disarm the people of the representative countries. Through lobbying, "small arms" limitations and other restrictions/disarming proposals have achieved support. The prior president has supported some of these initiatives. And during this year, additional proposals have been floated, with debate happening in the senate.

Through incremental, not sudden, changes, treaties will be the vehicle in which the 2nd amendment is slowly dismantled. It can happen in the following manner: Treaty 1: UN members will agree not to enforce prosecution of US soldiers/ representatives for war crimes if there is no UN veto in the security council for taking action against some aggression, in exchange for joining the UN member moratorium on "plastic guns" (Glocks, and many full metal guns with no plastic parts have fit into the category of plastic guns in past legislation). Treaty 2: UN members will agree to mandatory intrusive inspections of all nations with nuclear capability, in exchange for, joining the member moratorium on "cop killer bullets" (many hunting calibers/cartridges would classify under "cop killer bullets" category in past legislation proposals). Treaty 3: Un members will agree to... in exchange for joining the member moratorium on civilian "purchase or transfer" of handguns. Those currently possessed are grandfathered. Long guns possession still permitted. Treaty 4: UN members will agree to... in exchange for joining the member moratorium on any long gun capable of firing more than one shot without reloading (single fire long guns only). All handgun spare parts manufacture or sales are prohibited. All caliber ammo falling into handgun category is prohibited from being manufactured/sold... Treaty 5: and so on.

The meetings on this are already happening. The US has in the past sent reps abroad and to the UN to join in on these discussions. It has met opposition in the past from the NRA and from pro-rights senators, but they are still talking, and the restrictions in other countries, through the UN are only getting tighter, thanks in part to the past active participation of US reps.

What Emerson does in some federal courts for federal laws - as the state constitutions of all but a few states already do, in state courts, for state laws - is make it clear that ordinary, law-abiding people cannot be prohibited from owning ordinary rifles, shotguns, and handguns.

All I can say is... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-02 07:56 · Score: 0 · on Symantec Says No To Pro-Gun Sites

...

What Emerson does in some federal courts for federal laws - as the state constitutions of all but a few states already do, in state courts, for state laws - is make it clear that ordinary, law-abiding people cannot be prohibited from owning ordinary rifles, shotguns, and handguns.

Re:Why can't you people get it through your heads? by moncyb · 2003-10-19 08:08 · Score: 1 · on RIAA Threatens More Music-Lovers

You are displaying your ignorance of how the court system is abused. Any idiot can file a lawsuit against anyone for any reason. The RIAA will just file lawsuits random people because their Freenet node happened to transmit a mp3 file. Even though their case may have no merit, they will offer to settle out of court for less than their victim's lawyer fees with an "easy" payment plan, and many people will take the offer because they can't afford the lawyers in the first place.

The ones who don't settle, the RIAA sue and drag out the court case as long as possible--perhaps winning on some minor technicality or because their victim ran out of money for lawyers. All the while saying in the press "we'll sue every 'pirate' Freenet user because their nodes transmit music files." Have you not been paying any attention for the past few years? They want to harrass every P2P network out of operation. They don't even care if a P2P user isn't breaking the law, they'll label the bloke a criminal anyway.

The RIAA can't track down the users of freenet or various other anonymous P2P networks. Too bad! You're shit out of luck!

Ummmm....do you know anything about how the internet and Freenet works? There is this thing called an IP address. Others need to have it so they can send you packets. In fact, last time I checked, Freenet uses TCP which guarantees the IP address can't be spoofed for an active connnection, and you have to have an active connection to send data. So at bare minimum they can find out who is running nodes.

It shouldn't be too hard to find out if a node is routing unlicensed mp3s. All they have to do is figure out which keys apply to the cartel's music, and start requesting those keys. The RIAA will then attempt to sue anyone who routes the crap, and the average user won't be able to keep their node from routing such content.

Firewall blocks against RIAA and known collaborators may work some, but it's not as if they're going to reveal what IP addresses they're using to investigate. They can just run a connection through a residential cable modem or DSL line.

I doubt a case against a Freenet user assisting copyright infringement in this manner would be thrown out immediately. The RIAA may even win. The Aimster case was similar, and they lost.

There are also potential holes in the anonymity of Freenet users. From their FAQ:

Freenet does not offer true anonymity in the way that the Mixmaster and cypherpunk remailers do. Most of the non-trivial attacks (advanced traffic analysis, compromising any given majority of the nodes, etc.) that these were designed to counter would probably be successful in identifying someone making requests on Freenet.

On Freenet, whatever you do, your identity is still revealed to the first Freenet Node you talk to, and even if you limit yourself to talk only to trusted nodes (a feature that will be implemented in the future), they will have to talk to the rest of the network at some time or another. The anonymity that Freenet offers is really just obscurity in the fact that it is hard to prove that your node wasn't proxying the request for or insert of data on behalf of somebody else (who might also just have been proxying it).
The problem is that the only way that you can offer true anonymity is if the client can directly control the routing of data, and thus encrypt it with a series of keys of the nodes it will pass through (a la Mixmaster). Freenet's dynamic routing cannot offer that, so to attain true anonymity you have to send the message through an external network of anonymous remailers first (a future SMTP->Freenet bridge would make this possible). There are also plans for doing mixmaster-style injection of requests over the "standard" protocol, however this probably won't be implemented

Re:Look at the law. by JuggleGeek · 2003-10-18 11:02 · Score: 1 · on UCSD Squabbles with Student Website

I gave very concrete real world examples. microsoftsucks.com, taubmansucks.com, shopsatwillowbend.com, pokey.org, whitehouse.com. There are many more examples. The USA's first amendment trumps rules the college makes, as well as California state law.

You're telling me that I don't understand tradmark law, and I agree. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't have any personal experience with trying to enforce or protect a trademark. I have one registered domain, unrelated to any trademarks.

But I have spent the time to read through the entire taubmansucks.com story, including the legal arguments, and I do know how that case came out. Likewise, I know the story behind pokey.org. You're saying I that I'm wrong and this is a clear-cut case, but I've pointed out evidence that it isn't that clear cut. Obviously, if the site pretends to be an official UCSD site, UCSD would win in court. But if they make it clear they are not officially related to UCSD, that isn't so clear.

See this court ruling.

On that page you'll find this quote, which appears to relate.

Hence, as per the language of the Lanham Act, any expression embodying the use of a mark not "in connection with the sale . . . or advertising of any goods or services," and not likely to cause confusion, is outside the jurisdiction of the Lanham Act and necessarily protected by the First Amendment.

Perhaps I'm completely wrong. But if so, I'd sure like someone to explain why, instead of saying "You don't know what you're talking about, go hire a lawyer." I've quoted rulings and judges - what evidence do you have that I'm wrong?

One point we do agree on. The easy solution for the owner of the site would be to register another domain, redirect the old site to the new one, and move on. That's what I'd do.

link to pdf of ruling on court site by Hobart · 2003-10-16 05:11 · Score: 3, Interesting · on Bernstein Cryptography Case Dismissed

http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/judges.nsf/768f3 ad651edbe0d88256d480060b72e/271f391e02f25e9588256d 7100678221?OpenDocument

[snipped from the end]

Therefore, although Bernstein has demonstrated a concrete plan, he has not been subject to a specific threat of enforcement and cannot point to a history of enforcement that supports his claim of injury.
As in Thomas, the threat of prosecution is "theoretically possible" but "not reasonable or imminent." Id.
Even if Bernstein's injury were constitutionally sufficient for standing, prudential concerns of ripeness would counsel against accepting jurisdiction. "[T]o prevent courts, through avoidance of premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements," courts must consider "the fitness of the issues for judicial decision" and "the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration." Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148, 149 (1967).
Without a determination from BIS that a specific activity is prohibited by the EAR, there is no factual context for this court to resolve the constitutional challenges against the regulations. Moreover, defendants' repeated assurances that Bernstein is not prohibited from engaging in his activities weigh strongly against any hardship to Bernstein. If and when there is a concrete threat of enforcement against Bernstein for a specific activity, Bernstein may return for judicial resolution of that dispute.
Bernstein presented a concrete case or controversy when he first challenged the State Department's classification of his Snuffle computer program as a munition, and then again when control over the program was transferred to the Department of Commerce. Since then, the regulations governing export of encryption items have changed substantially. Bernstein no longer contends that he is prohibited from exporting Snuffle, but instead alleges a laundry list of activities that may or may not violate the EAR.
In the process, this action has devolved into the world of hypotheticals, and like Thomas, is a "case in search of a controversy." Thomas, 220 F.3d at 1137.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Bernstein has failed to put forth specific facts demonstrating that he has standing to bring this action. The court therefore GRANTS defendants' motion for summary judgment and DENIES plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

Re:There are no juries, these are CIVIL cases by odin53 · 2003-10-01 19:03 · Score: 4, Informative · on Innocent File-Sharers Could Appear Guilty?

THESE ARE NOT CRIMINAL CASES. There is NO JURY.

Of course there are juries in civil cases. What makes you think there aren't? It depends on the jurisdiction, but at least in the federal court system, in most civil cases you need only ask for a jury trial to get one, and only if both parties waive will you not get a jury (i.e., get a bench trial).

Re:So the obviously American Question... by Hard_Code · 2003-10-01 13:31 · Score: 1 · on Slashback: VeriSign, Balance, Manifestation

Damn, i visited your site expecting to see photoshopped images of Justice Rhenquist flying around. Ah well.

Re:What Does Darl Get Out Of It? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-30 09:44 · Score: 0 · on SCO's Roadshow Coming Soon

> Anyway, this means the SCO v. IBM case is not likely to ever make it to court because there's *no* motivation for Darl to go that far.

Seems you are right:
United States District Court for the District of Utah: SCO Grp v Intl Bus Mach Inc
They try to defer it:
"Motion by SCO Grp to extend time"..., anybody surprised?

SCO's latest filings by eddy · 2003-09-30 00:16 · Score: 4, Interesting · on SCO's Roadshow Coming Soon

SCO's stalling.

Docket Text: Motion by SCO Grp to extend time until 2/4/04 for pla to amd pleadings and add parties

So, any guess on parties?

Why Spam !=marketing email, and should not.... by sakeneko · 2003-09-26 08:05 · Score: 1 · on Building Better Spam

Did anybody RTFA? What does this have to do with spam? This is a originally a way of improving processes, primarily in engineering and/or manufacturing. Now, it's been applied to marketing. Since when is all spam considered marketing?

I think you meant, "Since when is all marketing considered spam?", but otherwise I wanted to shout "Bravo". I'm an old-time spam fighter and loathe any kind of intrusive marketing, but knee jerk reactions by people who didn't even read what they guy said are counterproductive.

The thing is, email marketing!=spam. Spam is specifically UNSOLICITED bulk email, not all marketing email.

If you think that this distinction doesn't matter, just read yesterday's ruling against the FTC's Do Not Call list. The reason that Judge Nottingham ruled that the DNC list was unconstitutional is that it plays favorites -- it bans some unsolicited calls while allowing others. Specifically, it bans most calls from companies that are trying to sell you something, but allows calls from non-profit organizations soliciting donations, and politicians trying to get your vote or soliciting donations to their re-election campaigns. (That last one figures, doesn't it?) <wry grin>

Those of us who loathe spam and also value free speech have long chanted the mantra that spam isn't about content, but consent. It looks to me like a federal judge agrees with that line of thinking when it applies to a different, but related problem.

My guess is that, if Congress must choose between a DNC registry that affects THEM or not having one at all, fifty million Americans aren't going to have nearly as much effect as their self interest. And my guess is that the same type of thinking is partly why spam has grown from a nuisance into a problem that threatens the viability of email as a means of communication.

I hope I'm wrong on both counts, but I don't think so.

Judge's finding in the Denver DNC-list case by Goonie · 2003-09-25 12:17 · Score: 2, Informative · on Slashback: Card, Fortran, Legibility

The finding is available as this PDF document.

Haven't had a chance to read it yet...

thank you! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-25 08:34 · Score: 0 · on House Votes to Launch Do-Not-Call List

If you would like to get in touch with the Honorable Lee R. West, his court lists his contact information. I imagine that he would be interested in hearing your opinion on this matter.

Re:Grrrrr..... by lightningrod220 · 2003-09-24 11:06 · Score: 1 · on U.S. Court Blocks Anti-Telemarketing List

If you want to get the bastard that struck the list down, here's his info at this page:
http://www.okwd.uscourts.gov/west.htm

Maybe we can sign him up for some calls, so he gets the idea of what it feels like!

Link by ReadParse · 2003-09-24 08:53 · Score: 1 · on U.S. Court Blocks Anti-Telemarketing List

This decision came from the US District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. Their site is here, which has links to two PDFs... one is the judgement and the other is the order:

Link by ReadParse · 2003-09-24 08:53 · Score: 1 · on U.S. Court Blocks Anti-Telemarketing List

This decision came from the US District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. Their site is here, which has links to two PDFs... one is the judgement and the other is the order:

Link by ReadParse · 2003-09-24 08:53 · Score: 1 · on U.S. Court Blocks Anti-Telemarketing List

This decision came from the US District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. Their site is here, which has links to two PDFs... one is the judgement and the other is the order:

Re:Judge's Phone number? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-24 08:14 · Score: 0 · on U.S. Court Blocks Anti-Telemarketing List

The judge's home number is publicly available on the web. Link below..

Judge Lee R, West
(H)405-348-0818
(O)405-609-5140
(F)405-609-5151

info found here

Office webpage

I called judge West ... by SmoothTom · 2003-09-24 07:29 · Score: 1 · on U.S. Court Blocks Anti-Telemarketing List

I called and left a message with The Honorable Lee R. West's staff to let him know that I, as one of the 50 million on the FTC list did not appreciate his ruling.

I was very polite, as was his court clerk.

The following is the contact information:

U.S. Courthouse
200 N.W. Fourth St. Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Rm 3001, Courtroom 303, Third Floor
Chambers Telephone: 405-609-5140
Chambers Facsimile: 405-609-5151

I really believe he needs an increased volume of calls to drive home the dislike of his ruling.

I have read his order, etc. and disagree with his findings and action. You can read it too at the court's website.

-- Tomas

Better yet by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-24 07:19 · Score: 2, Informative · on U.S. Court Blocks Anti-Telemarketing List

Call the asshole judge and ask him where the U.S Constitution guarantees an audience for free speech...

The Honorable Lee R. West
Senior United States District Judge
Western District of Oklahoma
U.S. Courthouse
200 N.W. Fourth St. Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Rm 3001, Courtroom 303, Third Floor
Chambers Telephone: 405-609-5140
Chambers Facsimile: 405-609-5151

clickity here and slashdot his website too... don't forget to download his .pdf

LART by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-24 05:49 · Score: 0 · on U.S. Court Blocks Anti-Telemarketing List

According to their website:

Chief Judge - Robin J Cauthron Court Clerk - Robert D Dennis 200 NW 4th Street Room 1210 Oklahoma City OK 73102 Main Number: (405)609-5000 Fax: (405)609-5099

Only Robin Cauthron in the Oklahoma City area on record:

Robin Cauthron Edmond, OK (405) 330-3034

I fully agree with this ruling! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-24 05:25 · Score: 0 · on U.S. Court Blocks Anti-Telemarketing List

I believe that my right to call anyone to sell anything is protected under the Constitution of the United States! We should relish in this blow for freedom and against the tyranny of government interference.

So, have something you were going to sell on eBay? Here are some numbers to call. I'm sure they'll be glad to discover that you are as committed to the free enterprise system as they are!

Call these people by JCMay · 2003-09-24 05:13 · Score: 1 · on U.S. Court Blocks Anti-Telemarketing List