October 2000 - cypherpunks-legacy

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

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: [ga] An open letter to Louis Touton (was) www.ester.dyson
by !Dr. Joe Baptista 29 Oct '00

29 Oct '00

John Palmer is on the right track .. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 16:04:02 -0600 From: John Palmer <jp(a)ADNS.NET> To: ga(a)dnso.org Subject: [ga] An open letter to Louis Touton Mr. Touton, This is to inform you that AGN Domain Name Service, Inc is asserting legals rights to the top level domains .USA, .EARTH and .Z. We have operated a registry for these top-level domains since late 1995. If you check the famous "Postel List", you can see that we were one of the first applicants for new top level domains in late 1995. At that time, we established our registry and have been in operation since that time taking registrations in .EARTH and .USA. In March of 1997, we added the .Z top-level domain. ADNS disagrees with the direction that ICANN is taking the Domain Name System and we do not choose to participate in the ICANN process. Instead, we are supporting alternative root server networks and will continue to do so. Although none of our three top-level domains have been entered into the ICANN application process at this time, we would like to inform you that we are asserting legal ownership of these top level domains. Any attempt to add them to the ICANN controlled root zone under the control and ownership of any other party will be considered by ADNS to be an infringement of our legal rights and we will take appropriate action. For ICANN to assign these top-level domains to another party in the ICANN root would dilute our service mark and damage our company financially. In addition to this, it would also fragment the internet as there would be two different versions of the same top-level domain. In spite of Ms.Dyson's claim, alternative root networks take great care not to allow fragmentation by allowing competing versions of top level domains into their root zones if they are already in existence in another root zone. We would expect ICANN to take the same care and consideration to avoid fragmentation. There is room for all of us on the internet. Please respect our rights to operate our business and respect the rights of alternative root networks. If you have any questions, you can contact me by e-mail. You may consider this an "open letter" and can publish it if you wish. John P. Palmer President AGN Domain Name Service (ADNS), Inc. Chicago, IL --- You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as: baptista(a)pccf.net To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ncdnhc-discuss-2645B(a)lyris.isoc.org

1 0

CDR: User Feedback Wanted - Electronic Telegraph/Global Network (23670091)
by Keith Jenkins 29 Oct '00

29 Oct '00

We are seeking the help of overseas users of The Electronic Telegraph to better understand how we may develop our Expat Portal, Global Network to suit their needs. As someone who has previously registered with the Electronic Telegraph, you are well placed to provide us with the feedback we require and I would really appreciate your participation. This is part of a major exercise to review our plans for the site and its relationship with the Weekly Telegraph newspaper. We would very much appreciate your co-operation in completing our survey since we need responses from users from all around the world. The survey may be completed on-line at: http://www.info-e.com/wtinfo Please either click on this link, or cut and paste the address into the address line of your browser. MPG International, an independent market research firm, is running the survey on our behalf, and it is by this means that we can ensure absolute confidentiality for the information you provide. As a reward, all respondents will be entered into a prize draw* for one of ten $100 vouchers at amazon.com which you may spend on any of the products available from them - books, CDs, games, etc.. May I thank you in advance for your help. Yours sincerely, Keith Jenkins, Editor, The Weekly Telegraph *Promoter is Telegraph Group Limited, 1 Canada Square, Canary Wharf, London E14 5DT If you do not wish to receive more email messages from the Telegraph Group then send a message with subject 'unsubscribe cypherpunks(a)toad.com' to unsubscribe(a)weeklytelegraphmail.co.uk

1 0

CDR: Parties
by Carskadden, Rush 29 Oct '00

29 Oct '00

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] 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/> 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/> 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

3 2

CDR: RE: Parties
by Carskadden, Rush 29 Oct '00

29 Oct '00

Eric, Glad to hear that all it takes to "get your vote" is a reckless executive pardon of criminals that is designed to utilize executive power to bypass the checks and balances system and negate the efforts of the legislative and judicial branches of government (known in some circles as "saying 'fuck the constitution'"). So to clarify (because I am completely baffled), you are saying it doesn't matter what the outcome of any legislative effort is at all? You seem to be saying that you are in favor of voting on your own "concious" (conscience?) regardless of outcome. So when they take every freedom you have, when your social security number is bought and sold amongst governments and big businesses, when every facet of your life is documented and displayed publicly, with any attempt at obfuscation deemed illegal, you will say that it is ok, because you voted with your conscience, and it didn't matter if your cause won. Of course it matters. At least to me it does. You may not agree, but I would like to see my privacy and personal freedoms protected by the government (in addition to my own strong efforts at defending them myself). That is not the case right now, and the Libertarian party has done fuck all to change it. So my question to you, posed for the third time, is whether you think it is easier to give a third party (you seem to think that it should be the Libertarian party, and I tend to agree with you) viability in Washington with our efforts (or rather MY efforts, as you are quite content to lose the fight), or whether it would be easier to convince an existing power to take up our cause. I am not currently trying to start a third party. I think I was very clear in my initial email about the third party talk being theoretical. I am in no position to be in the business of redefining political partisanship, and if I was, I would not have achieved that position by asking opinions of people who assert that crypto anarchy will make governments obsolete in the near future. In short, thank you again for your Andy Rooney moment, but you seem to have abandoned the question completely. ok, Rush Carskadden -----Original Message----- From: Eric Murray [mailto:ericm@lne.com] Sent: Friday, October 27, 2000 1:16 PM To: Carskadden, Rush Cc: cypherpunks(a)algebra.com Subject: Re: Parties On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 12:54:39PM -0500, Carskadden, Rush wrote: > Eric, > Yeah, there is the Libertarian party, and they get a lot of electoral > votes. In fact, I think that our next president will be Harry Browne. Our > work is done. Let's go get a drink. > Seriously, what we are discussing here is the feasibility of > establishing a credible power base for a third party. I don't think (and > maybe you disagree with me here) that the Libertarian party has achieved > this at all. I don't think that the current Libertarian party CAN establish > this kind of voter confidence. The current presidential candidate for the > Libertarian party, Harry Browne, has done little to gain voter enthusiasm > with such bold and impractical claims as the statement that his first action > in office would be granting executive pardon to drug offenders. Well, that gets my vote! Why should I vote for someone who doesn't stand for what I beleive in just because the media says that they're "not electable"? That's the kind of loser attitude that's gotten us a contest that'll assuredly elect either an idiot (Bush) or a fool (Gore). Unfortunately Americans are more interested in voting for a "winner" than they are in voting their concious. A "Libertarian Lite" party wouldn't get the principled voters away from the Libertarian party and wouldn't get any more mainstream voters than any other third party gets. But if you really want to do it, go ahead. The cipherpunks list isn't a very good place to discuss it though, as most posters seem to think that the Libertarian party isn't radical enough, and besides, crypto anarchy will soon make governments obsolete. -- Eric Murray Consulting Security Architect SecureDesign LLC http://www.securedesignllc.com PGP keyid:E03F65E5

2 1