October 2000 - cypherpunks-legacy

CDR: Why Bill Joy is elitist, myopic, and wrong
by Declan McCullagh 31 Oct '00

31 Oct '00

http://www.cluebot.com/article.pl?sid=00/10/30/2058257&mode=nested Why Bill Joy is Elitist, Myopic, and Wrong By Lizard October 30, 2000 The smallpox vaccine will cause people to turn into cows. Trains cannot be permitted to travel more than 20 miles per hour, or else the passengers will asphyxiate. The atomic bomb will detonate the entire atmosphere of Earth. The history of science is filled with dire predictions of the consequences of technology, few of which ever come true. (Granted, many of the more lofty hopes for technology likewise fail to appear. Where's my personal helicopter and laser gun, dammit?) But fear sells papers, which explains why Bill Joy is given far more column-inches than he deserves. (Joy, the cofounder of Sun Microsystems, spoke at a Camden Technology conference over the weekend.) The most distressing thing about his Luddite stand is the undercurrent of elitism which flows by without criticism. The common man must not be permitted access to the glorious fruits of science, he says, because out there among the teeming masses might be murderers and madmen. Well, we'd probably better make sure they don't get their hands on fire and the wheel, too -- who knows what might happen? Joy is wrong on a wide range of levels, but his most egregious error is that he has precisely the wrong solution to the alleged problem. If he fears the misuse of biotech or nanotech, the last thing that should be done is to turn these technologies into state secrets, because that puts the knowledge right into the hands of those with a history of using it for evil, namely, politicians. If something can be done, it will be done, and all that suppressing information will achieve is ensuring there is not ready access to counter-measures to whatever devious plots Joy's hypothetical supercriminals may devise. "Open sourcing" technology will all but guarantee that for every uber-anthrax, there's an uber-vaccine; for every bit of world-devouring grey-goo, there's something that will eat it even faster. Locking technology away is no solution. If the public knowledge base of the world has reached the point where one scientist can make the next breakthrough, then there are dozens of other scientists who can do likewise. And, of course, who will watch the watchers? We've already seen that secrets aren't: There are more leaks in the U.S. national security apparatus than in a Russian space station. Better to simply open it up and be done with it. There is nothing dehumanizing about the probable merger of flesh and silicon. It simply continues the path man began when the first barely-erect hairy ape realized a fist holding a rock got you more than a fist alone. From that moment on, we became defined by our tools. There is no point and no purpose in trying to stop now. Joy is fond of saying "the future doesn't need us." He is almost completely wrong. The future needs most of us. It's just that the future -- and the present -- doesn't need him. To post your response or contact the author, visit: http://www.cluebot.com/article.pl?sid=00/10/30/2058257&mode=nested

2 1

CDR: NZ: Sweeping powers for spy agencies
by An Metet 31 Oct '00

31 Oct '00

http://www.stuff.co.nz/inl/print/0,1103,460236a10,FF.html 29 OCTOBER 2000 Police and government spy agencies are pushing for major new surveillance powers - including the ability to intercept e-mails. In a move the Council for Civil Liberties labels a "major and disturbing intrusion" new surveillance laws are being planned which will allow police and intelligence agencies to hack covertly into home computers and intercept email and other electronic communication. Researcher and author Nicky Hager, says the proposed legislation strongly resembles the British Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act passed amid huge controversy three months ago. But he says unlike the British experience, the New Zealand legislation is being slipped through in stages, as extensions of present laws. The first is to be tabled in parliament in about 10 days. The laws were devised under the National government and can be traced back to a push by the FBI in the United States for standardised spy systems to intercept mobile phones and emails. The changes are now being promoted by Associate Justice Minister Paul Swain, and would also impose "requirements" on Internet service providers and phone companies to co-operate with intelligence agencies and police and install systems to assist spying on their customers. Hager, whose 1996 book on the global Echelon surveillance network prompted a year-long investigation by the European parliament, said the public had a right to demand proof that the new intrusive powers were so crucial that individuals had to give up privacy and freedoms. He said the way the changes were being introduced, piecemeal and in secret, was "a model of bad government". The first legislation expands the interception powers of the police and the Government Communications Security Bureau to cover all forms of electronic communications (including email, faxes and text messaging) and, for the Security Intelligence Service as well, to cover hacking into computer systems to view and copy people's files. This would be achieved by amending the Crimes Act to make it illegal to intercept emails or hack into computers - and then exempting all the intelligence and law enforcement agencies from the new law. The legislation will also increase the status of the GCSB, moving its existing powers into the Crimes Act. The other half of the plan is changes to the Telecommunications Act, requiring telephone companies to make systems "interceptable". Hager says New Zealand officials secretly agreed to implement the surveillance changes after attending a meeting at the FBI headquarters in Quantico, south of Washington DC, in 1993. Swain says the driving force of the law changes is the wish to protect privacy because there is no legislation to say "wandering into someone's internal communications system is illegal". The exemptions for the government agencies came later, he said.

5 4

CDR: Info on Sun key compromise?
by Lucky Green 31 Oct '00

31 Oct '00

Does anybody on this list have details about the key compromise Sun experienced? See http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/1851 AFIK, this is the first published private key compromise of a major vendor. How did it happen? Thanks, -- Lucky Green <shamrock(a)cypherpunks.to> PGP encrypted email preferred.

2 1

CDR: Copyright Office Backs Digital Law
by An Metet 30 Oct '00

30 Oct '00

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/30/technology/30LIBE.html By AMY HARMON In a decision giving copyright holders greater control over the way people use books, movies and music that are distributed in digital form, the United States Copyright Office on Friday endorsed a new federal law making it illegal to break the technological safeguards for such works. The statute goes into effect immediately. The ruling was a defeat for several constituencies Ñ including universities, libraries and computer programmers Ñ that had argued that the law should preserve traditional rights to archive and lend out copyrighted material or to use so-called reverse-engineering to understand how a piece of technology works. The provision endorsed by the copyright office is part of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Congress passed the act to update the copyright law for the digital era, when copying on a mass scale is far easier than it has ever been. Under the act, it is illegal to create or distribute a device like a computer program that can crack the copy- protection security code on an electronic book or a DVD movie disc. This year, a federal judge found that the Web site of 2600 magazine, whose publisher is Eric Corley, had violated the law by distributing a program designed to break the security code on DVD's so that they could be played on computers running the Linux software operating system. But when the judge issued the ruling, the law did not prohibit the actual use of such a device by individuals because of the pending review by the copyright office. Congress had asked the copyright office to determine whether any exemptions were necessary to ensure that the rights of the users of copyrighted works were balanced with those of copyright holders. Media companies including Sony and Time Warner had argued that the statute was necessary to protect their digital material, like computer games and movies, from widespread unauthorized use. But groups like the Association of American Universities, the American Library Association and the Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information Administration maintained that broad exemptions were necessary to preserve the "fair use" rights of individuals. After holding several hearings and receiving comments for almost two years, the copyright office said repeatedly in its ruling that the proponents of various kinds of exemptions had not demonstrated evidence that there would be "substantial harm" if an exemption was not granted. The ruling, issued by the Library of Congress, which oversees the copyright office, will be in effect for three years, during which the copyright office will continue to examine its effect. In a statement, the Library of Congress said that it intended to ask Congress to reconsider that time frame, noting the "potential damage to scholarship may well ensue in the course of a three-year period." Under the law, civil statutory damages for gaining access to a piece of copyrighted material secured by computer code range from $200 to $2,500. Criminal penalties includes fines of as much as $1 million or 10 years in jail for repeat offenses.

1 0

CDR: Important Text - ebay4sex gets laid
by Mary＠toad.com 30 Oct '00

30 Oct '00

We're not weird......we're sexy!!!!!!!! http://www.ebay4sex.com http://www.net4inc.com eBay4Sex goes LIVE! Toronto, Ontario, October 26, 2000 SPE Group introduces leader in Adult entertainment auctions. This past weekend at Torontos Everything to do with Sex show, an online auction catering to the truly authentic amateur and fetish market announced its arrival! Developed by partnering company Rakil.com and served by leading Canadian portal provider Net4Inc.com eBay4Sex is nothing short of a techie-miracle, and Adult wonderland of the rare, used and amateur. The original launch will see the first 10,000 registering visitors to the auction, be given FULL access to one of the nets leading Adult Entertainment web portals, http://www.modeltraders.com. As a result of many partnerships from Russia, Iran, Canada and USA, eBay4Sex offers leading edge functionality and certified security for all online transactions. The ability for users to pay each other for products has almost been completed and we look forward to this attraction. Original product line will be offered from leading manufactures such as the BenWa - Sex toy and paraphernalia products as well as TotallyAmatuer.com Videos. Stay tuned as eBay4Sex sure to become the online auction for the adult entertainment industry.

1 0

CDR: the wild ones
by billp＠nmol.com 30 Oct '00

30 Oct '00

http://members.tripod.com/bill_3_2/load2.htm Us wild ones are having FUN

1 0

CDR: Your 60 day Free offer!
by camping＠quickleads.com 30 Oct '00

30 Oct '00

Plan ahead and get a jump on the competition! Get next season's campers interested in you NOW! Take advantage of 60 days FREE advertising on the world's first 100% graphic-based, travel-dedicated search engine! http://www.travel-its.net/join_gtbd/camping LeadBlaster Marketing Group Inc. 5503 Green Valley Drive Suite 200 Bloomington MN 55437 In the US call 1 800 GET FREE (438-3733) International call 1 952 831 9194 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- To be removed from this mailing list email opt-in(a)quickleads.com with the subject line "Remove" or click on the link below http://tri-2.gtbd.com/maillist/camping.cgi?cypherpunks@algebra.com

1 0

CDR: Your 60 day Free offer!
by camping＠quickleads.com 30 Oct '00

30 Oct '00

Plan ahead and get a jump on the competition! Get next season's campers interested in you NOW! Take advantage of 60 days FREE advertising on the world's first 100% graphic-based, travel-dedicated search engine! http://www.travel-its.net/join_gtbd/camping LeadBlaster Marketing Group Inc. 5503 Green Valley Drive Suite 200 Bloomington MN 55437 In the US call 1 800 GET FREE (438-3733) International call 1 952 831 9194 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- To be removed from this mailing list email opt-in(a)quickleads.com with the subject line "Remove" or click on the link below http://tri-2.gtbd.com/maillist/camping.cgi?cypherpunks@cyberpass.net

1 0

CDR: RE: Parties
by Declan McCullagh 30 Oct '00

30 Oct '00

At 09:04 10/30/2000 -0600, Carskadden, Rush wrote: >where he actually says this himself). Under no circumstances do I consider >it wise to fly in the face of checks and balances when your cause is >"right" but you do not have the majority power. There is a reason that >Congress makes laws, just as there is a reason that the Presidents can >veto, as there is a reason that the Judicial system interprets the law. >It's designed to create a balance that protects us from a loose cannon >government going off and acting recklessly. Ah, but they already have. Your beloved "checks and balances" don't work. -Declan

2 1

CDR: Libertarians and political parties
by Declan McCullagh 30 Oct '00

30 Oct '00

Speaking of such, here are some actual facts. I wrote about Rasmussen in a recent Wired article. Here's what their polls say: http://www.portraitofamerica.com/html/poll-1468.html Earlier this year, Rasmussen Research conducted a survey measuring the electorate along a scale favored by many libertarians. This survey found 16% of American voters are functionally libertarian. However, only 2% of voters claim the title of libertarian to describe their own views. -Declan

2 1

CDR: Esther's reply on spamming
by Bill Stewart 30 Oct '00

30 Oct '00

>To: Bill Stewart <bill.stewart(a)pobox.com> >From: edyson(a)edventure.com (Esther Dyson) >Subject: Re: Were you really spamming people? I'm surprised. >Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 07:14:13 -0500 > >You might as well. It won't fix anything, I'm sure, but at least I had the >courage to respond. And what I say below is the truth; we still do talk >about this internally and I'm not sure what's the ideal approach. (A number >of people *do* say what you said: It's interesting to know what I'm up to. >I respond to everyone who responds to the mailing other than bounces.) So, >yes, I'd be happy to engage in argument (as opposed to flaming). > >Esther > >At 10:42 AM 10/29/00 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote: >>Esther - thanks. Actually, no need to remove me; while I'm not >>going to subscribe to Release 1.0, it's still interesting to know >>what you're doing. Is it ok if I forward your mail on to Cypherpunks, >>or alternatively to Tim? >> >> Thanks; Bill >> >>At 08:37 AM 10/29/00 -0500, Esther wrote: >>>Your definition may vary, but yes, we sent out a mailing to people who one >>>way or another have given me cards, corresponded with me, etc. I don't >>>honestly know how Tim got onto our list, but we'll take him off right away. >>> >>>In fact, as you can see below, we invite people to ask to be removed, and if >>>they do, we remove them immediately. (It's nicer when they ask us >>>directly, but we'll treat this as a removal request from both you and Tim!) >>> >>>And yes, this troubles me a little, but overall I am more concerned about >>>the use of confidential data to invade someone's privacy, than about the >>>issue of spam. (I get enough of it, especially over ICANN, to know that >>>it's annoying.....but harmless.) I'm on record that people should (and will) >>>be able to filter their own spam, but that they do need to be able to rely >>>on promises of confidentiality when they deal with others. That's a somewhat >>>different issue. >>> >>>Esther >>> >>>At 01:21 AM 10/29/00 -0700, Bill Stewart wrote: >>>>Hi, Esther - this message got sent to the Cypherpunks list, >>>>and several other people pointed to references about you sending out >>>>advertising email to people other than your conference attendees >>>>or people who'd requested more information. >>>>I'm really surprised - it doesn't sound like something you'd do. >>>> >>>>Also, I tried to check out the release1-0.com web site, >>>>and it said something about the RPC server being too busy. >>>> >>>> Thanks; Bill Stewart >>>> ... [Tim's message, deleted] >>> >>>HIGH-TECH-FORUM, BARCELONA, NOVEMBER 1 TO 3 >>>http://www.edventure.com/htforum2000.html >>> >>>Esther Dyson Always make new mistakes! >>>chairman, EDventure Holdings >>>chairman, Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers >>>edyson(a)edventure.com >>>1 (212) 924-8800 -- 1 (212) 924-0240 fax >>>104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor) >>>New York, NY 10011 USA >>>http://www.edventure.com http://www.icann.org >>> >>>PC Forum: 25 to 28 March 2001, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart(a)pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

1 0

None
by anonymous＠openpgp.net 30 Oct '00

30 Oct '00

>And now, Ive read a transcript of a person getting herself off through a >text conversation with a stateless program designed to emulate one of the >most boring presidential candidates in years. >Our "human rights" measures are counteracting the natural protections >against laziness and stupidity. The human species is in trouble if people >like "User" breed. Thats why we invented retrovirii, bub. -The Management

1 0

CDR: RE: Parties
by Declan McCullagh 30 Oct '00

30 Oct '00

Rush, You certainly are an earnest fellow, but that doesn't get you very far. It seems to me that folks like you, who are college sophomores with the unfortunate experience of one or two undergraduate political science classes, don't have much to contribute to cypherpunkly discussions. Your points, such as they are, might be better made on alt.politics.banal-ideas. You: * Don't seem to understand the nature of modern political parties * Don't seem to understand the nature of checks and balances * Don't seem to understand how Washington works, and the interplay between the legislative branch, executive branch, lobbyists, and advocacy groups * Have not read the basic literature that would enable us to take you seriously My participation in this sad discussion is now over, except that I will volunteer a reading list for you at some later point. -Declan At 10:10 10/30/2000 -0600, Carskadden, Rush wrote: >Comments below: > >-----Original Message----- >From: Declan McCullagh [<mailto:declan@well.com>mailto:declan@well.com] >Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2000 5:17 PM >To: Carskadden, Rush >Cc: 'cypherpunks(a)algebra.com' >Subject: Re: Parties > > > >Rush is clearly someone with too much time on his hands and too little > >(demonstrated) ability to think things through. I apologize for being > >uncharacteristically blunt, but the essay below is terribly > >naive. You might as well try to draft C.J Parker for president. > >I appreciate your candid approach. I am admittedly pretty young and >uninformed compared to you, which is why I sought opinions anyway. It can >only lead to more information and access to varied points of view. > > >First, political parties are not single-issue parties, at least not > >right now. Education and taxes and health care will likely continue to > >be more important in most people's lives than technology policy for > >the foreseeable future. > >Agreed. > > >Second, privacy is an amorphous issue. It's used by leftists to > >regulate the private sector and outlaw transactions between consenting > >adults. Liberals use it to talk about abortion. Conservatives link it > >to everything from the FBI files under Clinton to Carnivore. What do > >*you* mean? And why do you think everyone else is going to agree? > >By no means do I think that everyone will agree with me on my own personal >views. I started out by pointing out in the house voting record that the >actual rift between Democrats and Republicans in voting records (based on >scores that I believe you put together) in technology issues was not too >large. I then further hypothesized, based on this observation, that >partisan politics were not creating a strong stance regarding privacy and >technological freedom either way on either side. So, the conclusion I drew >was that if I were to have a strong view on technology (EITHER a 100 OR a >0 on your scale), then that strong view would not be fit to serve as a >factor that may align me in any reliable way with either party. A second, >personal, conclusion was that I was not content with the relatively >mediocre (according to your scores) standing on technology by both >parties. I do not feel I am being represented on this issue, though I do >feel I am represented strongly on other issues, such as education, taxes, >and health care. What I was looking for on this list was not agreement. I >was looking for some points of view on a question that this line of >reasoning left me with. If I want stronger representation in Washington on >technology issues (EITHER WAY), is it easier to try to influence an >existing party to take up my stance, or would it be easier to align myself >with a "third" party that already has a strong stance on the topic (EITHER >WAY) and try to maneuver it into a position where it could provide the >needed strong representation. I would have liked to be able to say to >myself, for instance, "Gee, certain vocal members of the cypherpunks list >seem to think that it would be easier to just try to gain partisan support >than to get a "third" party the strength it needs to represent me, and >here's why...", but I can't because my naive nature is so overpowering >that people would rather try to inform me of the Libertarian party, in >which I have been active for years, than answer my question. > > >Third, there already is (as others have suggested) a party that's > >concerned about personal freedom: the LP. If you mirror their > >positions -- or even a substantial subset -- you will be similarly > >marginalized. If not, don't look for support -- I humbly suggest -- > >on the cpunx list. > >The Libertarian party does not have enough power to strongly represent me, >assuming that I agree with their stance on technology, which I don't know >that I have said. This does not answer my question at all. > > >Fourth, nowadays it seems that political parties can be formed (Ross > >Perot, Ralph Nader) or popularized only by a strong and well-known > >personality. It will help if they're a billionaire. May I suggest a > >recruiting trip to the Redmond suburbs? > >You seem to think that I am trying to start a political party. I am not. I >specifically said that I was not. > > >Fifth, and perhaps most importantly, technology issues are an > >outgrowth of a canadidates' general stand on regulation. If they don't > >like taxes, you can bet they'll be against Internet taxes. If they're > >a national security hawk, they'll probably like encryption and > >supercomputer export regs. Etc. > >This is the kind of opinion I was looking for. Thank you. > > >Sixth, you don't seem to need a political party but a thinktank or > >similar creature. Why not try that instead? I was thinking of starting > >a nonproit group devoted to a subset of cypherpunkly topics; perhaps I > >still will. > >I don't see how a thinktank would represent strong views on technology. >Unless this thinktank happened to be a subset of Congress, I don't see how >this has anything to do with representation, which is what I was talking >about. However, if you did put together such a group, I would be >interested to know. I am trying to overcome my naive tendencies and >achieve a level of knowledge that will enable me to be confident in these >areas. At that point, I may very well ask you for a position. In the >meantime, however, I am still learning and trying to get opinions from >ornery bastards on mailing lists. > >ok, >Rush > > > > > > > > > > >On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 11:09:40AM -0500, Carskadden, Rush wrote: > > Scott and I have been discussing (from a theoretical standpoint) the > > possibility of a third party that focuses on privacy and personal freedom, > > and the difficulties in gaining creedence for this third party, as opposed > > to the difficulties associated with influencing existing major parties > > (either of them) to take a stronger stance on these issues. Assuming that > > you could reconcile your differences with either Democrats or > Republicans in > > order to gain a strong Washington D.C. presence on a few key issues, would > > that approach be easier than creating a viable "third" party? What > > percentage of the voters do you think are holding on to a very few key > > issues from their party of choice, and would be willing to vote for > another > > party that could give them equally strong representation on those issues? > > > > ok, > > Rush Carskadden > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Scott Schram [<mailto:scott@schram.net>mailto:scott@schram.net] > > Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2000 4:14 PM > > To: Carskadden, Rush > > Subject: RE: Bachus > > > > > > Hi Rush, > > > > I mentioned the "third party", inspired by my frustration with the two > > leading parties, and their apparent lack of understanding about > technology, > > and privacy issues. > > > > Some thoughts about the current parties: > > > > Al Gore's populist rhetoric about drug companies which completely > overlooks > > the fact that we're on the eve of incredible discoveries and it costs lots > > of money to research and bring new drugs to market. Despite what Gore has > > indicated, big pharma spends about 4 times as much on research as they > do on > > advertising. > > > > George W. Bush's hints at dropping the Microsoft suit (and the tobacco > suit > > for that matter.) The recent Republican (I think) proposals to link > Social > > Security information to IRS information. > > > > Our government is (probably justifiably) paranoid about attacks from > > external and internal terrorists. It is easier for terrorists to cause > > problems than it is for the government to prevent them. Each time an > > incident happens, people call for more preventative measures, thus we > have: > > Secret searches (and bugging) of homes, no-knock entries, the Carnivore IP > > monitoring system, etc. Did you see the recent HBO special about > extremist > > groups and their use of the internet to encourage action by "lone wolf" > > sociopaths? Nobody wants to appear soft on this kind of crime. > > > > Libertarians have some cool ideas (at least they sound cool), but I can't > > imagine withdrawing all of our military force from the world and limit > > ourselves to defending our borders. Our enemies would have a field day. > > Further, while I'm pro-business, I'm all for them playing "in bounds" and > > only a strong referee can keep some of them from dumping PCBs at the local > > playground. > > > > The Reform Party is basically an old-time circus freak show, and I mean no > > disrespect to circus freaks. > > > > A number of issues are no longer "Right" or "Left". > > > > So, back to your question: > > > > The third party route would probably be very difficult. It's not clear > > whether it would actually dilute efforts to influence the major > parties. I > > offer this hypothesis: The way the system works now, with third parties > > being excluded from debates, often excluded from matching funds, the > > electoral college that makes for artificial "landslide" elections for the > > major candidates... all of these things tend to squash the life out of any > > third party. > > > > I believe that people interested in the new issues are growing, and we > might > > find allies in unexpected places. For example, my southern baptist > friends > > were not very happy with the long census form. > > > > I have used the following techniques with some success: > > > > Letter writing to congress still works. I have written to other > > representatives in the state if they happened to be the only one on a > > committee, or even representatives for other states. www.smokefree.org > > <<http://www.smokefree.org/>http://www.smokefree.org/> is an excellent > example of publicizing issues > > and encouraging people to write letters. > > > > I don't think phone calls work quite as well, but I recall influencing an > > issue in this way. It was a niche issue, and I got some attention with a > > careful explanation. (The issue was: For a while, songwriters and > authors > > were not able to deduct business expenses unless they were able to relate > > directly to the song or work that was produced with that expense.) > > > > One of my favorite things to do is write a short, punchy (often satirical) > > letter to the editor. Their paper starts out blank every day, and I have > > yet to get one rejected doing it this way. If it's a technology issue, > you > > might be the only one writing in on that topic, and thus more likely to > get > > in print. > > > > Give money, either to candidates or groups like EFF or whatever. > > > > There's some random thoughts for you Rush, and you can repost any of > them if > > you see fit. Thanks for your questions! What do you think? What are > the > > most important issues in your mind? > > > > Scott > > <http://schram.net>http://schram.net <http://schram.net/> > > > > At 09:41 AM 10/25/00, you wrote: > > > > > > > > Scott, > > Thank you for the link and the clarification of my info. I agree > about > > your assertion that a "third" party may better see to our concerns, but do > > we think it would be easier to create a third party and give it enough > > creedance to fill our needs, or do you think it would be easier to > influence > > existing party members to take a stronger stance? My assumption has been > > that existing party members are not very concrete about the technology > > issues. I don't think there is an old school party line in regards to > > technology in and of itself on either side. Do you think that we can sway > > them? Or are we forced to create a new party just to get an issue > addressed > > as we wish it could be? Possibly a harder question still is whether we > could > > live with either of the parties even if they did take a strong stance on > > technological issues... Maybe a question for the entire list, but I didn't > > want to stick your private reply up there without asking you. What do you > > think, though? > > > > ok, > > Rush Carskadden > > > >

1 0

CDR: White House and Congress: Hard at work
by Declan McCullagh 30 Oct '00

30 Oct '00

On Saturday, October 28th, 2000, the White House has received: H.J.Res. 118 - Continuing Resolution FY 2001, (Continuing Resolution # 8 thru October 29, 2000) *Note: H.J.Res. 118 - Received and Signed today 10/28/2000) H.R. 2780 Kristen's Act H.R. 2884 To Extend Energy conservation Programs under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act H.R. 4404 U.S. Park Police Medical Expenses H.R. 4957 Black Patriots Memorial Extension Act H.R. 5083 Los Angeles School District Lands Act H.R. 5157 Freedmen's Bureau Records Preservation Act of 2000 H.R. 5314 Adoption of Retired Military retired Dogs H.R. 5331 Frederick douglas Memorial and Gardens Act Last Day for the President's Action - 11/9/2000

1 0

CDR: Um Som Envolvente
by apoio＠giganetstore.com 30 Oct '00

30 Oct '00

<http://www.giganetstore.com/index_promocao.asp> A maior CAMPANHA DE SOM <http://www.giganetstore.com/index_promocao.asp> online na giganetstore.com <http://www.giganetstore.com> , estas são algumas das nossas propostas... <http://www.giganetstore.com/index.asp?produtoId=5388> Leitor MP3 32MB gigapreço 31.990$00 <http://www.giganetstore.com/index.asp?produtoId=6704> MP3 Station Plus gigapreço 4.990$00 <http://www.giganetstore.com/index.asp?produtoId=5054> Walkman RQ-E11 gigapreço 5.690$00 <http://www.giganetstore.com/index.asp?produtoId=5046> Leitor de CD's SL-S214 gigapreço 15.390$00 <http://www.giganetstore.com/index.asp?produtoId=2632> Micro MC115 gigapreço 29.900$00 <http://www.giganetstore.com/index.asp?produtoId=1884> Mini SC-AK18 gigapreço 49.900$00 <http://www.giganetstore.com/index.asp?produtoId=4634> Mini Hifi PrologicFW-P75/22 gigapreço 61.900$00 <http://www.giganetstore.com/index.asp?produtoId=2732> Leitor DVD 711 gigapreço 68.900$00 <http://www.giganetstore.com/index.asp?produtoId=5022> DVD LV75 gigapreço 339.900$00 <http://www.giganetstore.com/index.asp?produtoId=2007> Amplificador SU-A909 gigapreço 88.900$00 <http://www.giganetstore.com/index.asp?produtoId=2017> Equalizador SH-GE90 gigapreço 46.900$00 <http://www.giganetstore.com/index.asp?produtoId=2609> Kit Colunas FB201 gigapreço 21.900$00 Campanha válida entre 30/10 e 5/11 Para retirar o seu email desta mailing list deverá entrar no nosso site http://www.giganetstore.com <http://www.giganetstore.com> , ir à edição do seu registo e retirar a opção de receber informação acerca das nossas promoções e novos serviços.

1 0

CDR: Sagan's V-Chips
by Ann Onim 30 Oct '00

30 Oct '00

>"Neil Johnson" <njohnson(a)interl.net> wrote > >As for the V-Chip. I've seen enough programs rated "For All Ages" that are >not appropriate for young kids to know that they are worthless. (By the way >I want a P-chip to filter Politicians, a BB-(Bible Beater) chip to filter >out the 700 Club. etc. I seem to remember that's what made the billions for >the character in Sagan's "Contact" ). > [From memory] The device you describe is called Ad-nix (mutes the sound when the commercials come on) which was closely followed by Preach-nix (mutes sound when televangelists appear). This device was made possible by impossibly good speech/context recognition software running in a set top box. And, when I first heard about the set top dirty word filters mentioned in Wired, I assumed these were a hoax... In the book, advertisers and televangelists fought back against the loss of their income with a suit claiming that THEIR first amendment protected rights were being infringed. Imagine the AFA whining about not being able to inflict their speech on the unwilling. (All that TV has rotted my long term memory :-) The lawsuit was unsuccessful, although the NSA eventually snatched the speech recognition algorithms away in the interests of national security. BTW: Can Uncle Sam slap a secrecy order on GPL/public domain code, or do you have to actually apply to the patent office to risk this happening? [Also from memory] There was a short film (first shown in the UK in 1998? I think it won some kind of award) called King of Chaos, in which a small time programmer works his way up to become an international software and media magnate. His crowning achievement was the invention of a set top box, which retransmitted subscription channels to other boxes for free. After destroying traditional media, he then made his fortune selling ratings and searching for content that matched the user's requirements, selling this service for a fee. Using this fortune he diversified into other markets (health, education, pensions, unemployment insurance) and attempted to replace the government's role in all these fields. He fell foul of the UK government when he refused to inflict 'party political broadcasts' on his unwilling customers. All very Cyphernomiconish... If anyone can knows where I can get a script of this could you please tell the list?

2 1

CDR: digital angel (tracking device)
by Eric Murray 30 Oct '00

30 Oct '00

Straight from the "if we can do it, we should" dept, comes the latest in personal tracking devices: http://www.digitalangel.net/index.htm >Applied Digital Solutions has developed a new technology that we believe >will revolutionize E-Business security, emergency location and medical >monitoring and commodities supply chain management (food safety). That >technology has been named Digital Angel?. ADS is actively seeking joint >venture partners to develop and market this technology. We expect to >produce a prototype of the device by the end of 2000. We believe the >potential global market for this device - in all of its applications - >could exceed $100 billion. > > >Basic Features of Digital Angel? > >The idea behind the initial version of Digital Angel[tm] is to build >a microchip that can be worn close to the body. This microchip will >include biosensors that will measure the biological parameters of the >body and store this information. [..] >The chip will be equipped with a micro battery. This battery >will be self-rechargeable taking energy from the body or from its >surroundings. All these components will be combined into a unit the size >of a dime. [..] >The unit can be turned off by the wearer, thereby making the monitoring >voluntary. It will not intrude on personal privacy except in applications >applied to the tracking of criminals. Heh. >Digital Angel[tm] measures bodily parameters. It does not interact with >the body chemically or biologically. Designed to be completely harmless, >Digital Angel will not interfere with bodily functions in any way... at least in this version. -- Eric Murray Consulting Security Architect SecureDesign LLC http://www.securedesignllc.com PGP keyid:E03F65E5

2 1

Re: CDR: [ga] An open letter to Louis Touton (was) www.ester.dyson
by brflgnk＠cotse.com 30 Oct '00

30 Oct '00

At 05:06 PM 10/29/00 -0500, Joe said: > John Palmer is on the right track .. This is the same John Palmer that once tried to unmoderate all of alt.*. I guess age does bring wisdom.

6 7

CDR: The Artful Dodger
by nick.bantock＠netcom.ca 29 Oct '00

29 Oct '00

Hi , THE ARTFUL DODGER, my new book, has just been published. If you would like to see a gallery slide show, read excerpts or check out my new line of rubberstamps, then visit my personal website at: http://www.fan-dango.com/Bantock/Dodger/Art.html Don't forget to enter the contest to win autographed books and posters before the October 31st deadline. Yours, Nick Bantock (Creator of the Griffin & Sabine Trilogy) P.S. To be removed from my address book, send a blank reply and put "A FIG" in the subject box.

1 0

Re: CDR: Re: CIA in Oregon, Intelink
by brflgnk＠cotse.com 29 Oct '00

29 Oct '00

Quoting "Alex B. Shepardsen" <abs(a)squig.org>: > abs@suffy:/home/abs$ telnet mail.bend.com 25 > Trying 199.2.205.69... > Connected to mail.bend.com. > Escape character is '^]'. > 220 X1 NT-ESMTP Server mail.bend.com (IMail 6.04 64477-1) > expn mueller > 550 list not found > vrfy mueller > 252 Cannot VRFY user > quit > 221 Goodbye Many SMTP servers disable EXPN and VRFY for security reasons, typically by returning failure messages.

2 1

CDR: Re: Parties
by James A. Donald 29 Oct '00

29 Oct '00

-- At 11:30 PM 10/27/2000 +0300, Sampo A Syreeni wrote: > in most modern countries the electorial process is practically > guaranteed - and in fact mostly designed - to in essence round out > dissent. It is an inherent problem with any democratic system, that it must be designed to produce and enforce a single definite decision on a multitude of matters where "the people" do not have any one clear opinion. This leads to the well known voting paradoxes. Thus democracy is inherently biased towards statism, towards imposing a single solution from above on everyone, regardless of their diverse desires. One solution to this is severe limits on the power of the majority. The government should require a ten to one majority for any use force. To collect taxes, incur debts, or expend money for any purpose, or to make war, should require ten yes votes for any no vote. The problem is that those whose job it is to enforce such limits on government, personally benefit from escaping those limits, thus all attempts to limit government ultimately fail. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG j+h/l7f0pDDoNI1phEWOzQWEulQg7v81oOiTA5n 4PoHTxaUuw6KBxhk0rYlIfCoHe+OyO2n2pjyTMuMx

2 1

CDR: Re: CIA in Oregon, Intelink
by John Young 29 Oct '00

29 Oct '00

Anonymous writes that there is a CIA facility in Bend, Oregon, called CPIC/West, balancing one in Miami called CPIC/Miami. FAS offers a description of Miami which references Bend: http://www.fas.org/irp/facility/cia_miami.htm And to possibly flesh out the operations run out of the Bend base, Anon points to a statement which alleges black and criminal government doings in which Bend is mentioned: http://www.dcia.com/evergree.html Nothing in these accounts about CIA's ISTAC. Informative data-mining, A P, but to avoid nailing the innocent, double check the Mueller names and aliases, for the person listed on the NIC.gov records has a different middle initial from the Mueller you're dogging. That name might be deception, no doubt, but it could also be a stolen name and identity, even address, from a real person who is unaware. If stolen, or fictional, that might explain why the personal info was provided in the clear at NIC. Still, there may be no reason to conceal anything about the Bend faciltiy or Mr. Mueller's participation. Perhaps an email to Mr. Mueller would be the way to find out, so this will be cc'd to him (and Dan S at ISTAC) for a response. Dear Mr. Mueller and Mr. S, Would you please confirm that there is a CIA facility in Bend, OR, and that the terms CPIC/West and ISTAC are applicable to it? Also, could you clarify whether CIA's ISTAC is related to the ISTAC of the Bureau of Export Administration? Thanks very much, John Young 212-873-8700 --- It turns out mail to dan(a)istac.gov refused to go from here, so Dan S is safely SCIF.

2 2

CDR: thanx my friend
by sam ram 29 Oct '00

29 Oct '00

: Hi, can you please show me a easy way to make a home made bomb by using things from the house. so please write back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.

2 1

CDR: Re: thanx my friend
by Bill Stewart 29 Oct '00

29 Oct '00

Abuse(a)hotmail.com kindly agreed to teach this particular bomb some phenomenology. So either he's a clueless kid who'll have to get a new Hotmail or Yahoo account after being whacked, or he's a clueless Law Entrapment Officer who'll have to do so, or he's a troll who's had an afternoon's entertainment :-) At 01:17 AM 10/30/00 +0000, David E. Smith wrote: >On Sun, 29 Oct 2000, sam ram wrote: > >> : Hi, can you please show me a easy way to make a home made bomb by using >> things from the house. so please write back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > >This depends largely on whether your home is equipped with a >camcorder. Assuming it is, here's the instructions: > >1. Get a piece of Scotch tape, and your copy of last month's WWF >Pay-Per-View that you foolishly bought. Put the tape over the little notch >on the end of the tape, so you can record over the TLC ("Tables, Ladders, >and Chairs") (oh my!) match. > >2. Call up five of your friends (assuming one of your friends is Paul >Anderson and another one is Kurt Russell). > >3. Get some guns. These should be easy to acquire. If you already have one >gun, you can use it to acquire more; this, however, is beyond the scope of >these Step By Step (TM) instructions. > >4. Go to your local junkyard at night. > >5. Have random people start shooting the guns at Kurt, while he mutters >and grunts but doesn't say anything. Have Paul point the camera at random >stuff. > >There you go. You've just re-created the bomb "Soldier." > >HTH. HAND. > >...dave > > > > > >---- David E. Smith, POB 515045, St. Louis MO 63151 >http://www.technopagan.org/ dave(a)technopagan.org > >"I must remember to destroy those children after my > breakfast has been eaten." -- Mojo Jojo > > > > > Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart(a)pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

1 0

CDR: TRUE OR FALSE: "You can't possibly earn a living by shopping on the web"...
by tratmall＠home.com 29 Oct '00

29 Oct '00

You're smart, entrepreneurial and persevering. That's why, by the end of this message, you will appreciate why it IS reasonable and realistic to earn compounding residual income simply by shopping on-line and inviting others to do the same. THE "OfferGiant.Com" PROGRAM IS SIMPLE AND EFFECTIVE A large number of major retailers (475 and rapidly growing -- and most of whom you'll recognize) are motivated to grow their new eCommerce business. Instead of expensive advertising, they would rather pay generous commissions simply for buying from them through a single, well organized web site, and for recommending others to do the same. When you do introduce others, you are further incented with cumulative and residual commissions. Although you may correctly assume a multi-level structure, this program nearly eliminates the drawbacks of most MLMs: - No inventory to work with: thanks to eCommerce, everything is drop-shipped and sales volume is automatically calculated - No up-lines or down-lines to coordinate with: the program is so simple there's nothing to organize -- all the instructions and commission rates are plainly spelled out right on the web site - Even if you don't plan to introduce the program, it is a nicely designed "on-line mall" to find and save on just about anything you can imagine - No hard selling: Just introduce it and the web site does the rest - This is the chance to be at the leading edge of a new network which can pay generous monthly commissions for little effort beyond referring those you know and buying what you already purchase at the mall or over the web LET'S DO THE MATH AND PROVE THAT IT CAN BE DONE! Now that you've got the basics of this program, let's see how the subject line can quickly become a reality. 1. You buy $40 worth of books and $60 worth of gifts through your own "on-line mall" which you can purchase for $50. So, you're out $150, but you've got your books and gifts which you would have spent $100 on anyway. 2. You tell a dozen friends about your mall, and six buy their own mall. At the end of the following full month, you receive $25 for each friend who bought a mall and you receive about $15 back for your $100 of on-line purchases -- grossing $165: already putting you in the black! 3. Your six friends end up buying books, equipment, gifts, long distance service, food, travel and plenty of other merchandise through their own on-line malls, earning you residual commissions: not to mention the extra referral fees you receive when they introduce their own contacts who buy malls. As I'm sure you deduced, this process is compounding and potentially exponential! IT'S YOUR MOVE You can be earning while you're shopping from your own home and building your network of referred shoppers with no products to move, and nothing further to do other than buy through your mall with companies you know and trust, collect your monthly commission check and tell others - which you'll be excited to do anyway! This is an opportunity whose potential is clear to understand, and will only demand the time you choose to invest. This program is so self-supportive that you won't even need my guidance: just as the people you introduce won't require yours. Everything is detailed at the OfferGiant.com's web site. However, I am here to personally answer any questions you have. You will find my contact information at the web page referenced below, as well as a link to my on-line mall which can answer your remaining questions and set you up instantly with your own mall. So... get paid for buying books, gifts, long distance service, food, travel, sports equipment and tons of other stuff that you and your friends buy anyway! Now the choice is yours... LET IT GO, OR CLICK BELOW! http://members.home.net/trataiczak ___________________________________________________________ If you wish to be removed from future mailings, please reply with the subject "Remove" and you will automatically be removed from future mailings.

1 0