December 2001 - cypherpunks-legacy

brinworld, sexchart
by David Honig 29 Dec '01

29 Dec '01

Wired interview with creator of sexchart http://wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,48997,00.html The graph: http://www.attrition.org/hosted/sexchart/sexchart.9.25 Relevence to Brin's _Transparent Society_ etc should be obvious.

1 0

The Register - Stealth copy protection - where we are now
by Jim Choate 29 Dec '01

29 Dec '01

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/23516.html -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ Day by day the Penguins are making me lose my mind. Bumper Sticker The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

cell phone guns
by Eric Murray 29 Dec '01

29 Dec '01

22 caliber four-shot pistol hidden inside a cell phone, uncovered during police raids in Europe. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/phone001205.html "Cell phone users will have to be made aware that reaching for their phones in some circumstances could be misinterpreted as a threat by authorities" Eric

2 1

Re: CNN.com on Remailers
by Bill Stewart 29 Dec '01

29 Dec '01

At 09:01 PM 12/17/2001 -0600, Jim Choate wrote: >On Mon, 17 Dec 2001, Trei, Peter wrote: > > and sends the contents on to the next address (yes, this type of remailer > > does not include nice features such as cover traffic). > >And it can't encrypt that outgoing traffic since it doesn't have the key >to the destination (I assume the user must nest these themselves). Yes, the user must nest those himself. If he doesn't like doing it by hand, there are client programs that can do this automagically. The only way to get security is for the originator to do the encryption - otherwise, if ANY remailer in the chain is compromised, the Bad Guys can read the message. If the originator does the crypto, then EVERY remailer in the chain has to be compromised to break it. >The sender having to know all the steps is a major threat to the standard >remailer model. In fact it's one of the major shorcomings with the current >approaches. The sender should at most be able to set the number of >remailers, not which ones. That way there's on evidence sitting around on >their machines (and you can posit throwing the keys away each time - but >then you have to go out and get them again...and around and around we go). The remailer-stats pingers publish this information on web pages; you can retrieve it and read it by hand, or use a client program to fetch it. If you don't want to keep it, don't. And some of the clients are web pages themselves (Javascript or whatever), so you can just retrieve them. And obviously the sender needs to be able to pick the remailers to use - depending on the type of message, some messages need to be sent through remailers in appropriately safe jurisdictions, other messages don't need much security but need high reliability or high speed (so you want to pick remailers with good stats.)

3 2

Re: VANGUARD: Actions Have Consequences: or, How to Advance Your Beliefs By Helping a Candidate (fwd)
by Bill Stewart 29 Dec '01

29 Dec '01

Jim, I'm really surprised that you forwarded this spam to the list. I received it directly also. While he does have some useful comments about political organizing, some of what he says about liberal/conservative differences is a pure crock. We're in the middle of a radically activist right-wing statist administration - they're doing far more than the Reaganites ever accomplished as far as building up the political power of the military, reducing civil liberties for citizens as well as non-citizen residents and travelers, strengthening the police agencies, and moving power away from Congress and into the Executive Branch. And yet this spammer Martin talks about conservatives not being activists. To the extent that he's talking about the public rather than the party activists and the elected and appointed officials, conservatives today are less activist than during the Reagan/Bush administration and the early Clinton administration, but the new Administration is the most activist we've seen in ages, whether or not they were actually elected. One of the technologies for getting grassroots and astroturf support that both big parties developed extensively over the 80s/90s is the use of direct mail for fundraising and generating letters to politicians - the conservatives and particularly the Religious Right Wing were probably more effective than the various sets of liberals. This looks like an attempt to do similar things on the net.] At 10:29 PM 12/28/2001 -0600, Jim Choate wrote: >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 14:41:15 -0800 >From: "TheVanguard.org" <Vanguard(a)theVanguard.org> >To: "TheVanguard.org" <Vanguard(a)theVanguard.org> >Subject: VANGUARD: Actions Have Consequences: or, How to Advance Your >Beliefs By Helping a Candidate > > > >[EDITOR'S NOTE: In honor of the approaching election year, we take this >opportunity to distribute the following article by Rod D. Martin, founder >and chairman of Vanguard PAC.] > >========================== > > >Vanguard of the Revolution >http://www.theVanguard.org > > >ACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES: or, How to >Advance Your Beliefs By Helping a Candidate > >by Rod D. Martin >) 27 March 2001 > > > Conservatives forever complain about their political leaders. But they >don9t do a lot about it. > > Liberals (or more precisely, Leftists) are quite different. Coming as >they do mostly from distinct interest groups possessing activist political >cultures and a sense of victimization (be they unionized workers, civil >rights activists, feminists or whomever), leftists grow up on a steady diet >not only of ideas, but of the strategies and tactics necessary to win. From >cradle to grave, they look to the state as a sort of political savior, and >they learn early how to get from it what they want. > > By contrast, conservatives do not and never have thought in these terms. >Generally, conservatives just want to be left alone, and see government as a >necessary evil, nothing more. Their lives focus elsewhere: business, >church, family, civic groups, almost anywhere but politics. They see >political activity not as a perpetual opportunity to gain advantages, but as >an arena where (every so often) they must defend themselves from the latest >government encroachment. > > This difference in culture is staggering, and accounts for much of the >Left9s success in the 20th Century. Conservatives do not think politically; >Liberals do. And while the Left hones its strategies and tactics year after >year - spread across millions of individual people and thousands of >institutions - conservatives wake up periodically, notice there9s an >election, expend a little half-hearted effort, and go back to sleep. > > Because of this relative detachment, conservatives demonstrate a >remarkably persistent naiveti. Not only do they rarely understand the >system (or what the Left has done and continues to do to them); they also >subscribe year after year to the Sir Galahad theory of politics: "our ideas >will win because our hearts are pure." This foolishness costs their >movement not only elections but innumerable volunteers (and donors) every >year, good men and women who cannot understand why their sheer rightness has >not persuaded and conquered all. Meanwhile, the Left marches on. > > The hard truth is, however wonderful our ideas may be, it is not those >ideas but the actions they inspire which have consequences in the real >world.1 And all those whiney conservatives, waiting for Trent Lott (or >whomever) to effortlessly give them their hearts9 desires, are getting >exactly what they deserve. The concept is as old as the Bible: those who >do not work, shall not eat. > > >INFLUENCE AND POWER > > At times almost despite themselves, conservatives over the past >generation have come to hold tremendous influence. They have also held some >power. The confusion of these concepts has lead to much needless >consternation. > > In Morton Blackwell9s words, "Power means you can make things happen. >Influence means that those with power will return your telephone calls and >seriously consider what you suggest. Only those with power govern." > > The aim of any political movement is power, power for the purpose of >implementing the movement9s beliefs. All the influence in the world will >not replace this power. In the 1990s, many conservatives became highly >disillusioned with their leaders, who seemed to constantly compromise. They >failed to understand that though Republicans held the Congress, >conservatives were still a minority. They had gained tremendous influence, >but only a share of the power. Having a seat at the table, they could >dicker, but they could not dictate. They needed numbers. > > There9s only one way they will ever get those numbers: they must elect >more conservatives. Not Republicans; conservatives. This is no slap at the >Republican Party: it is simply a recognition that the two ideas are not >synonymous, however much overlap there may be, and that if conservatives >want that to change, they9ll have to work for that too. Furthermore, it9s a >statement that the party primary often matters a great deal; and that - as >the Left has always known - the political cycle is year-round, every year. >In that never-ending fight, it is the candidates who go out to do battle, >who bleed and sweat and die for your beliefs. And at the end of the day, >they - and only they - will have a chance to make and execute the laws. > > Most people will never be candidates. At most they will only have >influence (which is certainly not to be despised), and many won9t even have >that. But they can give their ideas power - and exercise a measure of power >themselves - by working hard for a candidate who shares their views. In >fact, there is absolutely no more effective way than this by which the >average person may bring about meaningful political change. > > >SO WHAT CAN I DO? > > The question for many, therefore, becomes: "So what can I do? And what >could I possibly offer." The answer is, "Quite a lot!" For all the talk of >big money in politics, the truth is that most campaigns are run on >shoestrings, with the lion9s share of what cash there might be going to >television ads at the very end, leaving all the real work to be done on >almost nothing. Nowhere is this more true than in a challenger race, where >a (usually semi-unknown) candidate tries to make headway against everything >the other party can throw at him, and often everything his own party can >throw at him too (this is not a criticism: parties shouldn9t just give away >their nomination, after all). This is usually your candidate (we9re trying >to gain seats, after all): tired, broke and pummeled from all sides. > > Yes, there9s quite a lot you can do for this candidate. Even a handful >of truly faithful people could change his world, and the outcome of the >election. > > Speaking as a former (and future) candidate for the U.S. House, I submit >the following items you can and should do for the standard-bearer of your >choice. The list is not exhaustive, but it will keep you both busy and >effective. > >1. PICK A CANDIDATE. With all due respect to those wonderful men and women >who yearly work in support of every candidate in sight, there remains great >wisdom in Christ9s words that no one can serve two masters. The average >volunteer has neither time nor mental energy for more than one race, at >least not beyond a superficial level. Hence, if you don9t pick one >candidate on whom to focus, you will do a bad job for everyone, and advance >the cause very little. > > Picking a candidate is a matter of taste: who excites you, who believes >most like you, who is running for an office you care about, who is running >against someone you really want defeated. The issue is not whether you >throw yourself wholeheartedly into a campaign for Congress or for Justice of >the Peace; rather, the issue is whether you pick one and follow through. > > Finally, make your choice early and stick like glue. The early phases >of a campaign are generally its most tenuous, with limited support, little >or no money, and the most overwhelming task of all: getting noticed and >breaking out of the pack. Likewise, later on, the campaign will certainly >face any number of challenges, from run-away success (which often leads to >complacency and defeat) to persistently low polling numbers (which are often >misleading, but run away crucial support) to crippling allegations (which >may or may not be true) to internal incompetence or strife among the >volunteers or staff. Murphy9s Law was specifically written for political >campaigns, and you need to be there through thick and thin, working like >everything depended on you. When the smoke clears, and hordes of others >have fallen away, it may just turn out that everything did. > >2. PICK THE RIGHT CANDIDATE. Since you9re going to be working so hard and >so long for this person, you really need to pick well from the start. >Again, this is a matter of taste; and yet most conservatives have very >specific ideological views they want their candidates to share, and insofar >as possible this should be determined up front. > > This is not to say that the candidate owes you limitless time; neither >is it to say that you have a right to treat him rudely or "examine" him like >a professor. But if he9s written extensively (and some candidates have), >read what he9s written. Call him on the phone or email him: some >candidates respond very well to this. If he9s reasonably accessible, feel >free to ask him to dinner (and buy his dinner: he9s broke. He9s giving up >all his time, income and personal savings to work around the clock for you). >Don9t get offended if he9s not available, either (and expect to be passed to >a scheduler): he has a family, possibly a job, and literally thousands if >not millions of other people also seeking his time. If worse comes to >worst, you can usually speak with him at or after political meetings or >speeches. > > But somehow, get to know him, not necessarily like you know your best >friend, but well enough to determine whether you think he9s a good guy, >whether you trust him, and whether you want to see him win. When the chips >are down, these feelings and impressions may make the difference between >victory and defeat. > >3. CUT HIM SOME SLACK. Once you9ve picked him, remember that the candidate >is human, just like you. You make mistakes, you sometimes fail to think >before you speak, you don9t always know everything about everything, and >every now and then you do something really wrong. So does your candidate. >Take it for granted. > > Now admittedly, if the candidate turns out to be an axe-murderer, you >might want to re-think your support. But short of that, it9s important to >be very realistic: just as when you married, you picked this guy for better >or worse, and you know on the front end he9s going to have unseen warts. >Bailing at the first sign of trouble - or at the first policy disagreement - >is not only bad form, it9s cowardly. And if you9re looking for a candidate >who perfectly reflects your own views, go run yourself. > > Now of course, you may certainly seek to educate your candidate: maybe >he just doesn9t understand, or hasn9t ever thought about what you believe, >or is getting bad advice. Look for an opportunity to politely, concisely >and effectively present your side. But don9t take it personally if you fail >to convince him: you may well do so later, and even if you don9t, if you >picked him in the first place, chances are that disagreements on one or two >issues are nothing compared to all the things about which you agree. > > 4. GIVE MONEY, EVEN IF IT9S ONLY A LITTLE. No matter what you can or >cannot give, this matters, more than you know. And the earlier you give, >the more it matters. > > Everyone knows that campaigns run on money; what they don9t always grasp >is that a successful candidate must spend at least half his time just >raising that cash. Challengers have a special problem, in that the people >who can most help them judge their viability by how much they raise early, >and from how many different donors they raise it. Your $25 check is a vital >part of building the support your candidate needs from so-called "major >donors", from the party committees in Washington, from potential endorsers, >and from the media. It will also buy about 167 desperately-needed bulk-rate >stamps. > > Obviously, it is essential that you give as much as you can. Far fewer >people are giving than you think, and your candidate is spending enormous >time (and money) reaching them. Your early help will make his work easier, >more effective, and more concentrated on actual campaigning. Oh, and one >other thing: if a candidate tells you he9s in a financial crisis, don9t >just assume it9s a sales pitch. It9s almost always true. > >5. LET THE CAMPAIGN KNOW YOU9RE AVAILABLE, AND FIND OUT WHAT IT NEEDS. As >important as money is, nothing you can give is so valuable as your time; and >the campaign could never pay enough people to replace its better volunteers. >Be one. > > How do you do this? Call the campaign and let them know you want to >help. Below I will give some specific ideas which you should offer (the >campaign does not always know what it needs, since it9s almost always >understaffed and under-funded); however, you should also make yourself >generally available, and be open to the specific requests the campaign may >make. > > Who do I mean when I say "the campaign"? There9s no one answer. It >could be a campaign manager, a volunteer coordinator, a scheduler, the >candidate himself, or any number of other people. And it may well shift >from week to week. > > Don9t let this daunt you. Just go with the flow, and be patient. If >you9ve offered yourself and the campaign hasn9t gotten back with you, >politely offer again, and again: chances are, you9ve gotten lost in an >almost impossible shuffle (and if you have time and organization ability, >this may be your cue to volunteer as an office manager). Don9t be foolishly >offended by the chaos that characterizes every campaign. Instead, view it >as an opportunity to make a desperately needed difference. > >6. HOST AN EVENT. More than anything else, candidates need exposure and >money. Kill two birds with one stone and host a coffee (or something >bigger). > > Nothing is as important as these events, whereby you bring your >candidate and your friends together. The friends will come for your sake; >the candidate will gain credibility with them because of you; and if you >pass the plate, you9ll raise some money, all for the cost of some Folger9s. > > Many successful candidates learn to book three to five of these a day, >which should tell you how vital they are, and which should also tell you how >many people are going to have to agree to host them. Don9t wait to be >asked: volunteer early, and often. > >7. MAKE PHONE CALLS. Phone banks cost a lot of money, but are a >phenomenally effective tool, for polling, fundraising, getting out the vote >and a thousand other things. You can save the campaign tons of cash by >being a phone volunteer. It9s not the most pleasant work you9ll ever do, >but it can be very rewarding, and is vital to the effort. Make sure the >campaign provides you a script, and practice it a few times before you start >your calls. > > Separately, you can and should use your phone to help the campaign in a >very obvious and simple way: talk to your friends about how wonderful your >candidate is, and how proud of him you are. This sort of casual, >day-in-day-out effort - no different from talking about how excited you are >about your favorite team - is the stuff of great victories. When people >start talking like this, a certain "win psychology" develops, and real >momentum builds: momentum money could never buy. > >8. USE EMAIL EFFECTIVELY. At least as powerful as personal phone calls, >personal emails to friends are taking a greater and greater role in >campaigns. Spread the word to your friends, by forwarding campaign emails, >news stories, and your own personal thoughts to your personal address book. >You send all those people lame jokes: why not the good news about your >candidate (and your worldview)? > > Moreover, it may be that you are specially talented with email or the >web and wish to help in a more formal way. Most campaigns need quality >people who can create and maintain an online presence, be it a website, an >email list, a chat room, or a prayer team (and just for the record, no one >has used the internet more effectively than Pat Buchanan9s Linda Muller, >with Jesse Ventura9s team running a close second). If you9d like to help >this way, you9re needed. > >9. WRITE LETTERS TO THE EDITOR. Everyone talks about this, but no one does >it. No one except winning campaigns, that is. > > The truth is, everyone reads the letters to the editor, and much of the >word-of-mouth side of the campaign develops there. What9s more, this is >absolutely free media, and being from "regular" people, it is far more >persuasive than a campaign news release (which few ever see anyway). > > A smart campaign will organize a large number of people to regularly >write letters to the editor, and mail them to all the local papers. Don9t >wait to be contacted: call the campaign yourself, preferably the press >secretary. If possible, write about the message the campaign is focused on >that week. And if you9re a good writer, find some of your friends who would >be willing to sign a letter but are afraid to actually write one, and draft >letters for them as well (be sure to collect them and mail them too: people >promise, but often forget). > >10. STUFF ENVELOPES! No part of the campaign is so important, especially >in an under-funded race where most or all of the direct mail has to be done >in-house. At the same time, stuffing and addressing envelopes is some of >the most tedious work you can do, and people hate it. It9s not sexy, and >it9s not fun. Volunteers tend to flee. You can not only make an enormous >difference but prove your value and loyalty as well by always being >available for this duty. You can often save the campaign hundreds or >thousands of dollars through your work, and candidates remember their >envelope stuffers more fondly than anyone else (very important later when >you want to "educate" them on the issues). > >11. HELP WITH THE SIGN EFFORT. Obviously a crucial part of the campaign9s >advertising, the need is not so much for you to put up a sign in your own >yard (which of course you should do), but to help put signs up all over your >candidate9s district. Ideally, your candidate will want to put a sign in >every available yard, all on the same night. Anything you can do to find >willing property owners or physically put up signs will make a huge >difference. > >12. GET OUT THE VOTE. Conservative candidates have an alarming tendency to >run winning campaigns, only to lose on election day. This is because the >Left is extremely effective at getting out their voters, while we generally >are not. One reason for that effectiveness is that Left-leaning labor >unions teach and encourage get-out-the-vote (GOTV) efforts. Conservatives >have no similar resource. > > Talk to the campaign about what you can do. Hopefully, they will have a >carefully laid out plan, which will probably include early canvassing, an >absentee ballot effort, poll watching, phone banks, and any number of other >things. Be flexible and pitch in. If you don9t, you may throw away a >couple years9 work. > >13. PRAY FOR AND ENCOURAGE THE CANDIDATE. As noted at the outset of the >article, conservatives complain a lot, and never more than in a campaign. >But campaigns run on morale, and complaints are among the most >self-destructive things under Heaven. And it9s not just the other campaign >workers and volunteers who need a lift: it9s the candidate himself. > > The candidate - if he9s worth supporting - is killing himself. You may >at times think he9s arrogant, and sometimes he may be; but he runs on >adrenaline and supports himself with brave words that rarely resemble his >fears, and from early in the morning till late at night, he has to sell a >million skeptics - from CEOs to coffee shop clerks - on himself as a person >and his ideas as a program. He is the ultimate "man in the arena", facing >every manner of outrageous attack and betrayal every day, working himself to >the bone, trying to juggle finances and family and every aspect of this >small industry the product of which is himself, all in pursuit of a goal far >greater than he. The smallest word of encouragement at the right moment can >be that one thing which allows him to go on. In point of fact, it often is. > > Likewise, no one needs your prayers more than your candidate and his >family. The Bible clearly commands prayer for our leaders, but most people >forget to do it. You mustn9t. He needs you. And more than anything, he >needs the grace of God. > >14. UNDERSTAND THAT WINNING ISN9T EVERYTHING. Finally, it9s well worth >remembering that most candidates lose, and often lose several times, before >they win. This dispirits lots of volunteers (and even more candidates), but >it shouldn9t: it9s just the way of the world. The early races are often >learning experiences and opportunities to build an organization and the >candidate9s name ID. This is a good thing, no matter how much more fun it >might be to win every time. > > The wise volunteer will work as though victory is just a matter of doing >that one additional thing within his power; but he9ll also know when to take >his co-workers and his candidate aside, place his hand on their shoulder, >and tell them it9s all going to be okay, we9ll get em next time. That wise >volunteer will also follow through on his words, and stay the course for >round two. Few decent candidates come out of a well-fought but losing race >weaker; most are in a better position than they9ve ever been in their life, >if they9ll learn from their mistakes and move on. You can be the person who >gives them the strength to do it. And in so doing, you will advance your >cause concretely, genuinely doing the hard work of freedom. > > >--------------------------- > >NOTE > >1. Needless to say for those who have actually read him, Richard Weaver - >whose Ideas Have Consequences has in its title lead many astray at this >point - understood this perfectly; and his short but powerful book remains >one of the truly essential works of conservatism. > >PURCHASE RICHARD WEAVER'S EXTRAORDINARY "IDEAS HAVE CONSEQUENCES": >http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0226876802/vanguardoftherev/ > >--------------------------- > > > > >-- Rod D. Martin is Founder and Chairman of Vanguard PAC. A >former policy director to Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, he >is an attorney and writer from Little Rock, Arkansas, and a >past candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives. > >================================================================ > >To subscribe to "Vanguard of the Revolution", send the message >"Subscribe Vanguard", or the message "Unsubscribe Vanguard" to >unsubscribe, to listadmin(a)theVanguard.org. > >Contact listowner(a)theVanguard.org if you have questions. > >================================================================ > >http://www.theVanguard.org >Vanguard(a)theVanguard.org > >Vanguard PAC >P. O. Box 250038 >Little Rock, AR 72225 > >================================================================

3 2

Cell phone urban legends
by mattd 29 Dec '01

29 Dec '01

Phone set to speed dial an answering machine recorded police abusing and beating black man in Chicago.Cops fired. Phone with vibrating silent alarm fished out of young womens rectum in Taiwan."We were experimenting"faustine chong said.Then there was the one that give's you a splitting Israeli headache.Thats in the archives already.(thanks jya.) SMS,DoCoMo style texting is an official "killer app".All yakuza hitmen now check contracts and prices by cellphone now. Soprano waste management is importing the technology.See New Jersey IMC.mattd in OZ used to get regular empty cellphone calls on his messagebank.0417 531 548.everytime he said "Kill the President"He wants the service reinstated. Phonecalls on the web were tried by Taylor last year.He called NZ and it was like ham radio,with a satellite 1 or 2 second delay.Another net revolution but I digress.Faustine please call mattd for aural sex on 03 5422 7207.check 17 hr timeslip. Direct action_ is what it's all about. Undermining the state through the spread of espionage networks, through undermining faith in the tax system, through even more direct applications of the right tools at the right times. When Cypherpunks are called "terrorists," we will have done our jobs. Font: Daschle-Anthrax-Bold

1 0

NTBugtraq author says virus authors "terrorists"
by Anonymous 29 Dec '01

29 Dec '01

"We need to do this, if for no other reason than to show it's possible (to track virus writers)," Russ Cooper, editor of security news list NTBugtraq, said. Forget that it may be problematic to extradite the individual, or that they may be young, or claim to be doing 'research.' We need to catch them, and place them in a position whereby they are seen for what they are -- a terrorist," Cooper said. "The cost to our businesses, not to mention our way of life, is simply too high to not pursue these individuals." http://wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,49313-2,00.html

3 2

Open secret
by mattd 29 Dec '01

29 Dec '01

That timmy thinks he's hung like donkey kong yet is actually well below average.? Probably,the jerk's nutless anyway so thats academic.No,I refer to a teaser in this weeks nude scientist.>>OPEN SECRET: An unbreakable code could soon become free for all.Sounds like a nightmare for professional spies...<< Weel sheet! Thats got to be good fucken news! Stale but still NS is a conservative mag,digesters reader for scientists.(They still broke the anthrax-US govt link.)This issue also has a story on the lost biowarfare battle and for Quantum crypto-punks the hope that with superconducting cables operating now in Denmark and Detroit and the news of single photon emissions in supercooled conditions,the quantum road to crypto-anarchy edges ever closer.On this day-1863 -- Russia: Nihilists annihilate Chief of Police.1971 -- US: Vietnam veteran antiwar protesters peacefully end their occupation of the Statue of Liberty. "The statue of Liberty welcomes innumerable pilgrims...while it is announced that the center of the world, which took millennia to shift from the Euphrates to the Thames, is now on the Hudson River. In full imperial euphoria the United States celebrates...but novelist Mark Twain, the old spoilsport, proposes changing the national flag: the white stripes should be black, he says, & the stars should be skulls & crossbones." 1973 -- Alexander Solzhenitsyn publishes Gulag Archipelago. "One word of truth shall outweigh the whole world." 1984 -- Straw That Broke...?: Sam Peckinpah, film director, rides the high country, of cardiac arrest at 59. Any of you punks want to go back and get Angel?

1 0

Strut like Tut,Tiny blur spotted in Egypt.
by mattd 29 Dec '01

29 Dec '01

Subject: egypt dissident jailed,Toady Blecch could not care less. Egypt's First Web Prisoner Of Conscience by jonathan 5:56am Fri Nov 30 '01 Egypt's First Web Prisoner Of Conscience ''He is Egypt's first web prisoner of conscience," quipped one recipient of the news that a web designer was arrested last week, charged with posting an indecent poem on the Internet. Although the incident was not entirely unique -- people have been hounded in the past for posting Internet content deemed to be offensive to public morals -- the case of Shohdy Naguib, Al-Ahram Weekly's 39-year-old web master, is different because it relates to freedom of literary expression. Shohdy Naguib was taken from his home by police in the early hours of 22 November. He was accused of posting a poem by his late father, Naguib Surur -- a renowned poet, playwright, theatrical critic and actor who died in 1978 -- on a Web site. Naguib denied connection to the site. Although the prosecutor ordered his release on bail on the very same day of his arrest, Naguib remained in custody until 25 November, three days later. Naguib agrees. "The Internet is a virtual place where copies of everything proliferate. There are no Internet authorities as such, with the exception of those whose task is to make the net function. It doesn't have an owner, and won't unless a super-power emerges to control it," he told the Weekly. Cyberspace, he argued, belongs to all those who participate in it. "We cannot let it be a playground where only cats are allowed in and mice are banished." - Al-Ahram Weekly -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- More stuff like this at KillYourTV.com

1 0

PATRIOT games.
by mattd 29 Dec '01

29 Dec '01

The PATRIOT shredding and flushing of the constitution was drawn up and ready to go.Some background I want to store online,justin Case. The Juvenile Justice Bill After the Columbine High School shootings, the US Senate passed the May 1999 Juvenile Justice Bill. Though unrelated in any way to "juvenile justice," several provisions were included that directly target animal rights and environmental activists. Reflecting industry pressure and influence, the Juvenile Justice Bill condemns people who commit politically motivated nonviolent offenses with exceedingly disproportionate prison terms. Unfortunately, this law is only one example of a systematic attempt by industry and government to discourage direct action by punishing activists with jail time that far exceeds time given to truly violent and dangerous people. Such sentencing preferences illustrate the priority the state (and our crypto-fascist , creep of creeps,Tim May btw.)gives to property over human life. The Juvenile Justice Bill also: 1. Makes it a federal crime to distribute information on how to make bombs (over the Internet or otherwise) or other weapons of mass destruction if the "teacher intends" for the information to be used to commit a federal violent crime, or knows that the recipient will use the information to commit such a crime. 2. Enhances penalties under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act by changing a minimum sentence to a mandatory five years instead of one. 3. Creates a "National Animal Terrorism and Ecoterrorism Incident Clearinghouse" to "accept, collect and maintain" information on crimes against animal enterprises or commercial activities because of their perceived impact on the environment. Records of such incidents are available for all law enforcement agencies. 4. Enhances sentences for "gangs," defined as the assembly of three or more people. These sentencing guidelines promote selective and politically biased prosecution by applying more serious penalties against those who commit crimes in defense of animals or the environment. The courts are being asked to evaluate the actions of an individual and the thoughts behind an action instead of simply evaluating the actual crime. The bill also undermines the First Amendment protection of websites and publications. The RICO Act In May 1999, Senators Orin G. Hatch (R-UT) and Diane Feinstein (D-CA) introduced an amendment to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act, aimed at "Animal Enterprise Terrorism and Ecoterrorism." RICO was originally designed to combat traditional organized crime and its infiltration of legitimate enterprises; however, its most innovative, and controversial, aspects are provisions which allow the state to seize property owned by anyone charged with being part of a "criminal enterprise." RICO targets illegal activity organized across state lines. Thus, if you "organize" using email and telephone, you can potentially be prosecuted under federal laws. In the past, RICO has been employed primarily against white-collar criminals, anti-abortion protesters and mobsters. Now, target groups can include just about anyone. Oregon Declares War on Activists On March 12, two bills intended to stiffen penalties for "eco-terrorists" were unanimously approved by the Oregon House of Representatives. Under HR 2344 and 2385, Oregons organized crime laws would be expanded to include activities such as tree spiking and sabotage of animal research, livestock or agricultural operations. Convictions under the laws would be punishable by up to 20 years in prison and a $300,000 fine. Reflecting the hysterical attitude and culture of propaganda currently prevailing in the Oregon legislature, Representative Bob Jenson claimed he received threatening letters and phone calls a year ago when lawmakers were first considering HR 2344 and 2385. He stated, "I will do everything to ensure that if you break the law as part of those protests, that you will get free room and board for 20 years." The process of attacking social movements in Oregon fits into a larger pattern of criminalizing dissent with respect to the anti-globalization movement, which is made up of anarchists, environmentalists, animal rights activists, students, Unions, teachers and others concerned about the fate of the planet and each other. David Helvarg, author of The War Against the Greens, stresses how difficult it is for ecologically destructive industries to look good and publicly justify their actions; therefore, their strategy has been "to make us look bad, demonize us and make themselves look respectable as a result." If one were to compare a cancer-causing industrial polluter to a teenage monkeywrencher, it would become glaringly apparent to the public as to who is the real "eco-terrorist." Groups to Watch Out For "A growing network of pro-technology activists is making sure that the message of my book, EcoTerror: The Violent Agenda to Save Nature, will produce results. By results, I mean congressional hearings and legislation to protect the public from environmentally motivated violence," says Ron Arnold in a Christian Science Monitor interview. Arnold is a spokesperson for the right-wing Wise Use movement and the executive director of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise. In a 1992 interview, he said, "Were out to kill the fuckers. Our goal is to eliminate environmentalism once and for all." He is a former spokesperson for Dow and Union Carbide and has financial support from corporations such as Exxon, DuPont, Georgia Pacific and Boise Cascade. Public relations firms, lobbying groups and think tanks work with and fund the Wise Use movement. Included amongst these institutions is the Heritage Foundation, which published a report entitled, Ecoterrorism: The Dangerous Fringe of the Environmental Movement. The report is a typical Wise Use mixture of truth, fiction and innuendo which targets Earth First! as a violent terrorist group. The report concludes with a strong denunciation of the use of violence as a tactic and claims that radical environmentalists are locked into an ever-increasing rampage of terrorist activity which is maiming, and which will inevitably result in the killing of innocent people. The report goes on to identify EF! as the enemy and pleads with the environmental community to isolate EF! and other so-called violent radicals from the environmental movement. It is interesting to note that this report was released in April 1990 and spread quickly through the Wise Use network. A think tank linked to the CIA, the National Strategy Information Center, operates a Counterterrorism Study Group (CSG). The CSG has identified all the possible sources of terrorism in the world today. Along with Iraq, Syria, and Lybia, it has concluded that a new source of terrorism exists within the "ecological movement," especially the elements of the movement which espouse biocentric views. The mission of the CSG is to identify the nature of various terrorist threats, devise new methodologies to analyze them and to implement responses through legal, military, political and intelligence means. The CSG has an international composition with academics, corporate officials and former government specialists in terrorism. Disinformation campaigns and psychological warfare against environmentalists are only some of the techniques that are practicednot only by the FBI, but by a whole alphabet soup of federal organizations, along with the participation of local police forces, private security firms, local government and Wise Use sympathizers. "The environmental movement is being subjected to obvious surveillance, intimidation, anonymous letters, phony leaflets, telephone threats, police over-reaction and brutality, dubious arrests and other threatening actions unfamiliar to most activists," says Chip Berlet in his article "Hunting the Green Menace." Berlet continues that the "labeling of a group as violent, terrorist or pro-communist is often a first step toward the delegitimizing of that group. Such labeling undermines public support and thus sanctions the use of aggressive surveillance and harassment by government agencies or private security firms. There is also a self-fulfilling prophecy with labeling, as police are likely to respond with unjustified force when they have been trained to think of peaceful protesters as violent terrorists."

1 0