August 2002 - cypherpunks-legacy

Cloak and Dollar.
by Matthew X 19 Aug '02

19 Aug '02

Counterintelligence Book Review By CI Centre Professor Hayden B. Peake Con-Men At The Top? Cloak and Dollar: A History of American Secret Intelligence By Rhodri JEFFREYS-JONES (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002) 357 pp., endnotes, bibliography, index. In this, his latest assault on American intelligence, Rhodri JEFFREYS-JONESprofessor of American history at the University of Edinburghargues that in America there is a special reason why secret intelligence has tended to run amok with taxpayers money... the emergence, within intelligence circles, of the confidence man. Using smooth talk, hyperbole, deception the American spy has played a leading part in the creation of menaces and crises that were by no means always what they seemed to be. They have ranged from Confederate assassination plots to Western land fraud, from white slavery to communism, from German sabotage to Chinese espionage, from crack cocaine scares to digital encryption. This view is in part provocative, misleading, deceptive and untrue. The authors confidence man role model is Civil War detective Allan PINKERTON who, we are told, was dismissed from Abraham LINCOLNs intelligence service for exaggerating enemy strength. In an attempt to reingratiate himself with the president, PINKERTON warned of an assassination plot. For the record, LINCOLN never had an intelligence service and PINKERTON was not dismissed from anything. Furthermore, PINKERTON warned the president about the assassination plot before his inauguration, not after. And both of these events occurred before he made any enemy strength assessments. He did offer his services to LINCOLN after the inauguration but never received a response. PINKERTON served General McCLELLAN and quit when his boss was relieved after Antietam, in 1862, never to return to Washington officialdom. In short, PINKERTON was a detective and did little for the intelligence profession beyond embellishing his memoirs with exaggerated often fictitious exploits.[1] Although off to a troubling start, nothing diminishes the authors unrelenting attachment to PINKERTON and his putative legacy¾he appears throughout the book. This is as difficult to understand as his assertion that William DONOVAN had become the new PINKERTON¾a truly an odious comparison. History is challenged further when he claims that Allan PINKERTON put espionage on a professional basis. There are far better candidates for this distinction starting with George WASHINGTON. JEFFREYS-JONES dismisses with gross distortions the formative contributions of DONOVAN and J. Edgar HOOVER on this point. In any case, if credit is to be assigned for that contribution, others deserve it, not PINKERTON. The FBI does not escape attention and the author consistently fails to distinguish between the half of the organization concerned with investigating crime and the portion formed much later, concerned with espionage. The FBIs predecessor, the Bureau of Investigation (BI), is identified in the book as an emblematic secret intelligence agency formed in 1908. In fact, the BI took that name in March 1909 and before that time there was only a group of federal investigators headed by a Chief Examiner, Stanley FINCH. He became Chief of the BI in 1909, when no part of it was an intelligence agency. The JEFFREYS-JONES comment that FBI Chief Stanley W. FINCH insisted that no daughter, wife, or mother was safe from white slavery gangs is out of context to say the least. FINCH, of course, was never Chief of the FBI. The White Slave controversy of 1910 was investigated by FINCHs BI in its capacity as a federal police organization charged with investigating and prosecuting crime. Its involvement with espionage began during WWI and even then was not its major responsibility. The implicit equating of the BI and later the FBI criminal investigation activities and their intelligence operations distorts and misrepresents the legacies of both. In a remarkable chapter entitled U-1The Agency Nobody Knew, Prof. JEFFREYS-JONES departs, without explanatory comment, from his con-man theme to argue that the State Department once controlled American intelligence through an agency without a nameformed in 1915 that flourished briefly and dominated the intelligence scene before the FBI finally made its mark. Insiders referred to it simply as U-1. There is more: U-1 was so obscure and so secretive that it did not even have to try to suppress the news of its existence.It was elitist and snobbish, intellectual and quiet. It was also in some ways effective, and an emblem of how American secret intelligence might be organized in the future. Yet ominously for the quieter mode of espionage, U-1 was dissolved in 1927. The appellation U-1 stems from terminology introduced following WWI (p. 60). As Prof. JEFFREYS-JONES himself acknowledges, what became U-1 after the war was set up as a coordinating element within the State Department. For reasons not clear, he attaches organizational powers to it far beyond what he is able to document. The other elements of American intelligence during WWI¾the Armys MID, and Navys ONI, the BI, and the Secret Service, were in no sense subordinate to U-1, an interpretation one might reasonably infer from his assertions. Nor can U-1 be considered dominant in any sense of that word. The State Department did run agents in Russia, but so did MID. U-1s official demise in 1927 came about from its inability to even coordinate intelligence effectively.[2] Despite occasional admissions of a deserved reputation for past successes, JEFFREYS-JONES hammers away at his agenda chronicling the familiar failures of intelligence in chapters on DULLES and the CIA, the Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, Watergate, and Iran-Contra. While the basic facts are correct, JEFFREYS-JONES views each as the logical consequence of a tradition of hyperbole and spin rather than unsuccessful, if in some cases cockamamie, attempts to implement Presidential policies aimed at countering Soviet Cold War realities, or just plain security failures. There are also comments on the Church Committee hearings that created a new atmosphere of trust, and some recent counterintelligence cases--AMES and briefly, HANSSEN--though NICHOLSON and PITTS are excluded. Returning to his central theme, we learn that the DCIs were not the sole advocates of the PINKERTON legacy. Recent presidents also encouraged the con-man tradition. Ronald REAGAN, became a player according to JEFFREYS-JONES when he told the American people to trust him to twist the truth in your interest. The words are JEFFREYS-JONES, not REAGANs. President CLINTON too, played along writes the author, though he was not so much hooked by the Agency as sold on it. Or as his quote of Washington Post columnist Mary McGORY puts it, CLINTON dares not lift a finger against the spooks. All this will surprise many who served during the CLINTON years. In the current post Cold War era the CIA and its siblings are portrayed as the heirs of the con-man tradition underpinning what the author calls the real American Century, the 21st century, as described by the Cold War triumphalists. An additional bonus came, he adds, with the events of September 11, 2001, which created a custom made situation for the intelligence confidence man and his political allies. Once again, writes Prof. JEFFREYS-JONES, came the cries to unleash the CIA. Once again it was tempting to reward failure. The source of the cries is not given, the source of the conclusion is obvious. With these deeply held views, this history of American intelligence ends on a note calling for the United States intelligence community to become more a part of the wider world that has inspired and continued to invigorate the great nation of immigrants. Some in America would argue that goal was achieved long ago. If the distorted unbalanced assessment of American intelligence presented by Prof. JEFFREYS-JONES stimulates constructive discussion of all points of view, it will serve a useful purpose. But as a stand alone survey of the role of intelligence in America and the world, it is a gross disservice. The students deserve better and so does American history. [1] For more on PINKERTONs contribution, see Edwin C. FISHEL, The Secret War for the Union: The Untold Story of Intelligence in the Civil War (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1996). [2] The documentation given by JEFFREYS-JONES for the creation of U-1 is slim. Endnote # 3, page 299 gives a clue citing a Frank POLK diary entry for 16 June 1916, and adding that A more extensive treatment of U-1 is in JEFFREYS-JONES, American Espionage though there is nothing there that documents its creation further. On page 79 of this book, the official end of U-1 is noted quoting a memo from the Secretary of State. U-1 is mentioned in Christopher ANDREWs For The Presidents Eyes Only (p. 37) where the associated endnote indicates it was formed in 1916; the same diary entry given by JEFFREYS-JONES is cited. George OTOOLE also mentions U-1, but cites JEFFREYS-JONES American Espionage as his source. Neither reference indicates that U-1 dominated the intelligence scene or was elitist and snobbish. http://www.cicentre.com/BK/BOOKS_Peake_Jeffreys-Jones.html

1 0

Espionage wilderness of mirrors.
by Matthew X 19 Aug '02

19 Aug '02

Counterintelligence Book Review By CI Centre Professor Hayden B. Peake An Encyclopedic Disappointment . Espionage: An Encyclopedia of Spies and Secrets By Richard M. BENNETT (London: Virgin Books, Ltd., 2002) 371 pp., bibliography, photos, index. $29.99. The dust jacket describes Richard BENNETT as an intelligence analyst since 1966, and lists other impressive credentials. Nevertheless, his encyclopedia of espionage, the most recent of the many books in this genre, stands alone as the most error filled by any measure. This is particularly disappointing because reference works of this sort have a special obligation to get it right. In his Preface, David SHAYLERthe former MI5 officer charged with violations of the Official Secrets Actclaims it is a wealth of facts which have never been available in one publication before. James BAMFORD, author of Body of Secrets, writes in the Foreword that BENNETT not only defines the language of spying he also presents comprehensive outlines of the intelligence services of the world today, and biographical sketches of key players, past and present. From these statements one can only conclude that the writers did not read the book or do not know the subject. The entries are arranged alphabetically; they describe people, cases, and organizations intermingled with definitions and photographs. In this mix are included BENNETTs own views supplied without the documentation that a conscientious analyst or reader would expect to see in footnotes. A typical example is the statement that the CIA does not seem to have an efficient, centralized analytic apparatus, one that can distinguish credible intelligence from fantasy. But equally important are the abundant factual errors so numerous that representative samples are appended in tabular form to these comments. Not specifically identified are the approximately 100 misspelled namessome more than once. Citations for each correction noted are not given for two reasons. First, the accurate data, properly footnoted, are easily found in the open literature. Second, should a corrected edition be contemplated, the task of making the changes is left to the author. There are accurate entries in this book, but trying to separate them from the inaccurate ones is too much work for the layman or student. In short, the entire book is tainted by appalling editing and scholarshipa waste of time and money. Typical Inaccuracies: KGB officer Rudolf ABEL was exposed by one of his own cut-outs; in fact it was by his colleague, another illegal, Reno HAYHANEN, who was not a cut-out. · Rudolf ABEL was the real name of the KGB illegal who used it; not so, he was really Willi FISHER. · Philip AGEE is identified as a whistleblower rather than the DGI/KGB agent he became. · AFSA is not the Air Force Security Services as stated on page 3; it stood for the Armed Forces Security Agency. · Claims that Maj. ANDRE was challenged by a rebel patrol are wrong; in fact it was a group of bandits who turned him in when he didnt have enough money to pay his way to freedom. · James ANGLETON died in 1980; 1987 is correct. · GOLITSYN was a charming con-artist; he was anything but charming, and he was a defector. · ANGLETON could walk into DULLES office unannounced; nonsense, just ask his secretary. · COLBY allowed ANGLETON to stay as a consultant hoping he would resign; not so, COLBY fired ANGLETON first and then allowed him to phase out as a consultant. · The ARCOS affair was a diplomatic incident by a Soviet spy ring; hardly that, it was a planned operation by the British Security Service that raided the ARCOS headquarters. · Klaus FUCHS was a member of the ROSENBERG spy ring; not so, there was no direct connection between FUCHS and the ROSENBERGS; they were completely separate rings. · Samuel CAHAN was the NKVD controller for BLUNT, BURGESS, and CAIRNCROSS; not according to their controller Yuri MODIN, among others. · COLBY was replaced by Adm. TURNER; not so, George H. W. BUSH had that honor. · GARBO was captured and turned by the XX Committee; incorrect, GARBO volunteered to the Brits several times before being accepted as an agent. · GOUZENKOs information exposed Klaus FUCHS; not so, VENONA did that. Most of the other putative facts in the GOUZENKO entry are incorrect. · PHILBY went up to Cambridge in 1928; wrong, it was 1929. · CORNFORD helped to recruit PHILBY, MACLEAN and BURGESS; not so, he was not involved. See The MITROHKIN Archive. · PHILBY put SIS officers in touch with Sandor RADO; others have made this claim but like BENNETT never produced anything to verify the assertion. · PHILBY became a close confidant of DONOVAN and DULLES; incorrect, he never met DONOVAN during the war and had only an official contact with DULLES. · BLUNT informed PHILBY that MACLEAN was about to be arrested; hardly the case, PHILBY told BURGESS who told BLUNT. · PHILBY notified BURGESS after he had returned to London; not so, it was before he returned to London. · BURGESS fled in a panic to MOSCOW; incorrect, he was ordered to go by the MGB on the pretext of being allowed to return. · PHILBY became a Major General in the KGB; he was never more than agent TOM and he knew it. · John WALKER began selling secrets in 1962; more like 1968. · The U-2 provides continuous coverage; no aircraft does that. · Ian FLEMING years in SIS; he was in Naval Intelligence. · Morris COHEN and his wife hurriedly fled to London from New York; wrong they fled to Europe before going to London. · KRIVITSKY was a Major General; KRIVITSKY never held general rank, and never claimed that he did. · KRIVITSKY was fully debriefed by the FBI; wrong, he was never fully debriefed by the FBI, a major mistake. · MI5 attached little importance to KRIVITSKYs information; nonsense, they thought it extremely valuable, particularly the portion that revealed to crypto penetrations. · INSCOM Headquarters are at Ft. Huachuca, AZ; try Ft. Belvoir, VA. · Former DCI HELMS was found guilty of perjury; never happened. · HELMS had never been considered a leader or director, only a caretaker; only an outsider or one who has not read any reliable source about the CIA would make such foolish statement. · The FBI is starting to make all employees undergo polygraph testing; wrong, only certain ones. · OSS was dismantled by TRUMAN in 1946; incorrect, OSS was abolished effective 1 October 1945. · The Firm is a popular term for the CIA among is own personnel; untrue. · BLUNT provided the evidence that caused CAIRCROSS to confess; not so, he tried to hide it, but it was discovered in BURGESS apartment. · The Soviets fed false information through the phone lines tapped by the Berlin tunnel operation; just the opposite, they did not inform the Red Army or the GRU the lines were tapped. · GOUZENKO was in touch with the RCMP Security Service before he defected and his cover was as a cipher clerk; rubbish on both counts, though some academics have speculated as much. · A member of the Lucy Ring, Rudolf ROESSLER, worked for both MI6 and OSS; he worked for neither one. · The CIA organization is over a year out of date and many of the elements are incorrectly identified; see the CIA home page. · Adm. SOUERS was D/CIG; not correct; he was the first DCI; same error with Adm. HILLENKOETTER and General V ANDERBERG; and the same correction. · R. James WOOLSEY was DCI from February 1993 May 1994; incorrect he served until January 1995. · John DEUTCH was DCI from May 1994 July 1997; incorrect, he served May 1995 until December 1996. · COLBY was DCI form 1963-1976; incorrect, it was 1973-1976. · · The False Flag definition is wrong; the service involved does not have to be hostile, the only requirement is that the agent or asset think he/she is responding to one service when it is actually another service controlling the situation. · The definition for double agent is wrong; the term officer is not correct, a double agent involves an agent who is turned by one side to work against the service that recruited him. · There is no such thing as a defector-in-place; it is an oxymoron. · The definition for walk-in is incorrect. First a defector who walks-in does not offer work in place, he defects. If a potential defector offers or agrees to work in place, he is an agent-in-place or in some cases a mole. Walk-in also applies to potential agents who volunteer their services, AMES and HANSSEN being two recent examples. · DCI SMITH began his service in 1959, it was 1950. · It is the Federal Bureau of Investigation, not Investigations. · Cointelpro during WWII, contrary to BENNETT, the was no program with that name until many years later. · The VENONA story is inaccurate and incomplete, see any of the several books on VENONA for an accurate account. · There is an organization called the Joint Intelligence Centre; wrong, but there is a Joint Intelligence Committee. · Edward Lee HOWARD was the first CIA traitor; wrong again. He was not in the CIA when he went to work for the KGB and there are several other candidates: AGEE and Larry CHINN to name two. Contrary to BENNETT, HOWARD was not hired despite his suspicious background. · Osama bin LADEN, as late as July 2001 and despite being a hunted man was able to travel safely to an American Hospital in a Gulf State to receive treatment for a serious kidney problem. The hospital concerned denied the story. No evidence to the contrary is supplied by BENNETT.

1 0

Bury my heart at wounded PC.
by Matthew X 19 Aug '02

19 Aug '02

Golden Shields awards..."In a wounded PC market..." http://news.com.com/2009-1001-948983.html?tag=fd_lede BEIJING--It's one of the few PC companies today with profits and growth in market share. Its close allies on various projects--Microsoft, Intel, Texas Instruments, America Online--reads like high-technology's A-list. But one important difference separates the company from the pack: It's based in China, one of the world's hottest markets for technology. The Legend Group, which once existed only as a wholesale distributor for U.S. and European brands, has transformed itself into one of the world's fastest-growing technology conglomerates, with its hands on everything from desktops and servers to cell phones, retail franchises and information technology services. Many businesses in China that it's involved are expected to grow by double digits through 2006 and beyond. MORE .

1 0

DigiSecret was developed and compiled outside of the USA.
by Matthew X 19 Aug '02

19 Aug '02

Good selling point. About Us TamoSoft, Inc., was founded in 1998 as a software division of TAMOS International, Inc., a Cyprus-based business consulting company founded in 1995. Because of the rapid growth of TamoSoft, it became the leading division of TAMOS International, and the companies merged in June 1999. TamoSoft, Inc., specializes in security and network monitoring software for the Internet and local area networks. We have been developing software for 3 years and take great pride in our achievements and excellent customer support. Today our products and custom solutions may be found in businesses all over the world, including a large number of Fortune 500 companies, as well as in thousands of smaller ventures. Our blue-chip customers include: Motorola, Siemens, Ericsson, Nokia, Lucent Technologies, Olympus Optical Co., Nortel Networks, Unisys, UBS, Dresdner Bank AG, General Electric. Our headquarters is located in New Zealand, and our international team consists of people from Cyprus, Israel, Russia, and other countries. Our programmers are experienced in communications, encryption, networking, and a variety of programming languages and are dedicated to the creation of high quality software that a growing number of customers rely on. HQ in Kiwiland may not be safe however...proffr's netwatch reports increased social revolution there involving even suicide bombing.More information available by small donation.

1 0

Chuck Haynes on the war on terra.
by Matthew X 19 Aug '02

19 Aug '02

Watch out: War on terrorism should not mean war on Islam Inside the First Amendment By Charles Haynes Senior scholar, First Amendment Center 08.18.02 Printer-friendly page Watch out, America. A growing number of media commentators, religious leaders and elected officials are pushing to transform the war on terrorism into a war on Islam. Franklin Graham and other Christian ministers are now loudly condemning Islam as a religion of violence. They would have us believe that the 9/11 hijackers didnt hijack Islam (as President Bush insists) they were only doing what the Quran commands. My mailbox is full of letters from people who feel this way. Typical is the woman who writes to inform me that Islam is a fanatical religion that is being thrust upon us under the guise of political correctness. Clearly the war on terrorism has unleashed deep resentments about Islam in America and provided a golden opportunity for those seeking to advance anti-immigration, anti-Muslim or other agendas in the name of preserving a Christian nation. Watch out, America. This war of words is already escalating into acts of intolerance and hate against Muslim Americans and risks further alienating us from the worlds 1.2 billion Muslims. Consider the current uproar over a summer reading assignment at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. Incoming freshmen are required to read Approaching the Quran: The Early Revelations by Michael Sells, a scholar of comparative religions at Haverford College. When they arrive on campus this fall, theyll briefly discuss the book in small groups led by a member of the faculty. Students who object to the reading may opt out and write a paper explaining why they did so. From the over-the-top reaction, you might think that reading this book threatens the health of the nation. A group called the Family Policy Institute filed suit, claiming that the university is violating the First Amendment by promoting Islam. Foxs Bill OReilly has taken to the airwaves to complain that the university was teaching the religion of our enemy. He compared assigning the Quran to assigning Hitlers Mein Kampf. Meanwhile, outraged North Carolina legislators just voted to cut off funds for the assignment. One lawmaker declared that students shouldnt be required to study this evil. Sorting through all of this anger and ignorance is tough. But lets at least clear away the First Amendment issues. It isnt unconstitutional for the university to teach about Islam. Sells book merely introduces students to material from one of the worlds most influential books. Religious liberty isnt violated by asking students to read these early revelations (especially since the university permits students to complete an alternate assignment if reading the book offends their faith). Of course, the fact that the assignment is constitutional doesnt make it above criticism. More reasonable critics have suggested that study of the Quran would make more sense in the context of a course on Islam taught by a qualified teacher. And others have noted (rightly) that in past summers the university hasnt assigned readings from Christian, Jewish or other scriptures. The loudest critics, however, could not care less about what the First Amendment says or how best to teach about Islam or other religions. They seem determined to use this controversy as an opportunity to demonize Islam. This is dangerous and wrong. But since most Americans know little or nothing about Islam (and since the 9/11 terrorists claimed to be acting in the name of Islam), its all too easy to convince people that Islam is an evil and violent faith. One of the most frequent (and insidious) tactics used to attack Islam is the practice of lifting a few verses out of the Quran to prove that Islam promotes violence. But this is a deeply flawed and misleading way to understand the core beliefs and practices of any religious tradition. During the Civil War era, for example, selected passages from the Bible were frequently used to defend slavery. But many Christians rejected that interpretation, pointing out that the abolition of slavery was required by the core teachings of Jesus Christ. Taken in context and understood in the light of a careful study of Islamic history and practice there is much evidence to suggest that President Bush got it right: For the vast majority of Muslims, Islam is a religion of peace that calls adherents to love of God and compassion toward others. Islam is not the root cause of the 9/11 attacks, just as Christianity is not the root cause of the violence (on both sides) in Northern Ireland. In both cases and in many other conflicts throughout history religious teachings are politicized, distorted and then used as a tool by fanatics to advance their cause. Shame on OReilly (who apparently has no shame), Franklin and everyone else who is using the war on terrorism as an opportunity to promote a simplistic and unfair picture of the Muslim faith. The best answer to bad speech is good speech. To find out the truth about Islam, speak to your Muslim neighbors, visit your local mosque or Islamic center, read a book about Islam written by a competent scholar. Watch out, America. Dont let the war on terrorism become a war on Islam. That would threaten religious liberty at home and encourage division and violence throughout the world. Your questions and comments are welcome. Write to: Charles Haynes The Freedom Forum First Amendment Center 1101 Wilson Blvd. Arlington, VA 22209 E-mail: chaynes(a)freedomforum.org Recent Charles Haynes columns · · Feel-good interfaith events may paper over deep differences But members of different religious traditions shouldn't resort to demonizing others, either, as we remember Sept. 11.08.04.02 · · Religious-diversity lessons in schools can go too far Having students act out religious rituals and practices puts public schools in the position of sponsoring religion.07.21.02 MORE ON http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=16756

1 0

Mongo;" Google is your friend."
by Matthew X 19 Aug '02

19 Aug '02

http://www.google-watch.org/ Mongo is not your friend? As enroaching senility leads him to wander off more often,Mong may soon need one of these... http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_id=1280634 Digital angels on one shoulder,devlish Cpunks on the other,Lear wanders the wilderness.Would it be such a shock to learn that like Philby and Hannsen,Mongo's loyalties lie elsewhere? First Ronnie,then Charlton,its all too tragic.He wont remember.They are shown as the gutless, mean-spirited, utterly self-centred and cruel characters that they really are.

1 0

Civil Resistance
by Matthew X 19 Aug '02

19 Aug '02

This is the first in a Baltimore IMC series on political activists in town. In this installment we introduce Max O, a man who has been engaged at the forefront of progressive political movements for over 20 years. If you are fortunate enough to be on his list, you would have received from him some half- dozen emails today, for that matter, every day-- unless he happens to be in jail. He can't remember the exact number, but he has been arrested 60 to 70 times. For his widely circulated mailings, he combs the straight and the progressive press, and he pulls down materials from liberal and radical news sites on the web. His missives are a virtual anthology of the news stories of importance to activists for social change. But Max O is not a movement librarian or computer geek, he is a political activist of more than 20 years standing. His emails are a part of his work as a political activist. His political activism is built on a montage of seemingly unrelated experiences, although when you talk with him it does seem to neatly fit together. Raised in a conservative working class community of Erie, Pennsylvania, Max's family lived above their small business, a tavern started by his great-grandmother. It was his growing up in an environment of hard drinkers and drunks that led him to be a nondrinker. The vegetarianism would come later. College was an unlikely choice for someone with his background, but Max got a degree in electrical engineering and went to work for Pennsylvania Electric Co. in Johnstown. On the death of his father, Max quit his job going home to help his mother run the tavern. While tending bar, he went to Gannon College (now a university) and earned an MBA. While the tavern was being sold, Max went off to the Peace Corps, a lure to small town folks everywhere. He Max signed up for a two year hitch in Botswana where he helped the locals set up small businesses. The Botswana experience sensitized him to the apartheid policies of neighboring South Africa. It all begins to fit, though not obviously so. While tending bar and going to school, he became involved in a local Freeze group--the Nuclear Freeze was a national movement against the proliferation and testing of nuclear weapons which was to reach its peak on June 12th, 1982 when a million people assembled in Central Park, spilling some 20 blocks south in to the west fifties. He talks with some pride at the 75 percent of Erie County that voted for a freeze and the fact that this small working class community sent two buses to New York to participate in the demonstration. The MBA, his revulsion at bar life, and his African experience led him to answer an advertisement for an internship with the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility in New York City which, then, was a major figure in the movement for divestment of corporate investments in South Africa. The ICCR was also involved in exposing companies doing business as nuclear weapons suppliers. His time there, roughly 1982 to 1983, finished his basic training. Max had graciously come to my office for this interview. There is a general graciousness about him, although it is often hidden by an interpersonal awkwardness. He seems unaccustomed to talk about himself and, when he does, he talks about politics. Of course, that is his life. He is not a party animal and has been known to go to parties with a pile of political readings. Politics for Max is about "civil resistance." He doesn't like the term "civil disobedience." Disobedience, he explained to me, was an attack on the law, an attempt to dramatize the need to change the law. On the other hand, he said passionately, "resistance is sometimes about getting people to uphold the law." MORE ON http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=02/08/17/7358974

1 0

Jennifer Dute court dockets.
by Matthew X 18 Aug '02

18 Aug '02

http://www.courtclerk.org/aps/ttl/lns/cociw002.asp?00CV06428 >>Subject: Re: Major league asshole,michael K Allen Interesting (wired proffr)article. We go to court Monday August 19 You can see all related court documents at http://www.courtclerk.org and search for case by name: Jennifer Dute<< Whither FREE SPEECH in AMERIKA? Ive downloaded but not read yet,its dark down here in OZ.

1 0

Police disinfo about murdered girls internet activities.
by Matthew X 18 Aug '02

18 Aug '02

An International pattern of criminal deception? Benjamin T. Moore, Jr., Private Detective/Body Guard, Writer and Jazz Musician (Tenor Sax) The very existence of "Carnivore" poses a conundrum most profound. It was not long ago that FBI Director Louie Freeh sat before the Congress of these United States, lamenting the wide spread use of encryption on the Internetand specifically PGP. According to Director Freeh, PGP - Pretty GoodPrivacy - made it possible for terrorist, criminals, pedophile and averitable garden salad of riff raff, to plot and plan the destruction of our "free state" with impunity. According to Director Freeh, without the Congress mandating either the outlawing of PGP or the inclusion of a back-door into PGP and all other strong encryption - mandatory key escrow -doom would befall the American people without the FBI being able to protectus. ENTER CARNIVORE Now comes this same FBI with a device that will in effect be a permanentfull time wiretap on all Internet communications. *IF* Director Freeh's assertions were correct before Congress, Carnivore is useless for catching criminals, terrorist or pedophile, who according to Freeh all use unbreakable encryption. Thus, one must ask, who is Freeh actually after? Or, does Director Freeh know something that none of us are aware of? Has PGP already been cracked? Do they have access to real quantum computers? The very development of "Carnivore" makes no sense *IF* what Director Freeh testified to before the Congress was correct. If on the other hand, Director Freeh was lying in his testimony before Congress, again we must ask why and to what end? *IF* PGP has already been compromised, what better way to give those using it a false sense of security than to have the Director of the FBI in essence give it a glowing endorsement? Yet, according to some of the brightest minds in the private sector, the assertions of Director Freeh were absolutely correct! PGP does in fact use unbreakable encryption. Could it be as we've always suspected? The FBI is more interested in going after innocent citizens than it is in going after the real criminals? Carnivore is basically a tool that throws a wide net and filters everything from everybody. It violates the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. It violates due process - 5th and 6th Amendments - it is not only the camel's nose under the tent, it's sliding down the slippery slope and off the precipice and into the yawning chasm! *IF* Carnivore is allowed to be activated, it will set a precedence there percussions of which will be lasting and damning! It has the potential to end our way of life. The internet is really the beginnings of a global telephone system. It is terrifying to those in power who feel the need to control populations via information deprivation. Want to know what's really happening in Kosovo? Log on and talk to somebody actually there. Did the US bomb a bio-warfare factory in Iraq? Or was it really a hospital? The major media gets it's news from White House press briefings with "B-Roll" from specially selected sites made available to them by the US military. Is this really *NEWS*??? No, the internet is a very frightening thing to those fearful of losing power. "Carnivore" would be like having a permanent wire tap on your home telephone with a tape rolling at all times. Have you ever had a conversation over the phone with a friend wherein you spoke negatively of the President of the United States? Would you have said the same things if you knew the Secret Service was listening in? Have you ever had a conversation with a friend around April 15th and spoke negatively of the IRS? Maybe you referred to them as being "organized crime incarnate?" Did you fear being audited because you expressed a negative opinion? Would you have expressed the same feelings if you knew the person who could have you audited was listening in? The very notion of "Freedom of Speech and expression," implies privacy. Without privacy the 1st Amendment becomes meaningless! What price safety? More and more cameras are going up in public and not so public places. The justification has always been the public safety. How a camera prevents someone from *committing* a crime is beyond me. There were cameras in the school in Columbine on that fateful day. The cameras recorded the carnage. They didn't stop it. They didn't even give law enforcement the needed information to move in quickly enough to prevent several persons from bleeding to death. Cameras like "Carnivore" only provide information useful *AFTER* the fact. The simple truth is, nobody can live in the United States of America without breaking numerous laws everyday. You just don't realize you're breaking them. Farmers have lost their property because a "black footed gerbil" decided to take up residence in one of their fields. A federally protected species seems to take precedence over voting tax payers. From speeding to J-Walking, if you were fined or imprisoned each time you fractured a law, you'd be bankrupt in 60 days. Throw in the draconian conspiracy laws, and you could be arrested at anytime for almost anything. If you have too much cash on you, it can be confiscated under the drug laws without you ever being charged for any crime. You'll spend more in attorney's fees to get it back than it was worth in the beginning. Have too little cash on you and you can be arrested for vagrancy. What's the right amount of cash to carry? Well, that depends on your race and where you are. To conclude, we need "Carnivore" like we need another hole in our heads! By the FBI's own admission, "Carnivore" is not going to catch criminals. This means if you're not a criminal, you soon will be. Benjamin T. Moore, Jr. btmoore(a)iname.com Home Page: http://ind.cioe.com/~btmoore Page me on the WWW at: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/8159114 Use your Web Browser to get my PGP Public Keys from: http://ind.cioe.com/~btmoore/_private/MyKeysDSSRSA.txt

1 0

Jesus is my armourer.
by Matthew X 18 Aug '02

18 Aug '02

School shooter hopes to be pastor From correspondents in San Diego, USA 19aug02 IN a jailhouse interview, a teenager serving 50 years for a deadly high school shooting spree has said he takes full responsibility for the rampage. "I blame myself," Charles "Andy" Williams, 16, told the San Diego Union-Tribune. "The school didn't put the gun in my hand. I don't want to blame anybody." Williams pleaded guilty in June to the March 2001 shooting rampage at Santana High School that killed 14-year-old Bryan Zuckor and 17-year-old Randy Gordon. Thirteen others were wounded. He was sentenced to 50 years in prison last week, and will be eligible for parole in 2051, when he's 65. The youngster said it was difficult to sit through the sentencing hearing, listening to speeches from more than a dozen victims and relatives of victims. "I'm glad they said what they wanted to say and get it off their chests," he said. Though he did not want to answer questions about the shooting, documents released last week painted a picture of a depressed, alienated boy who was bullied and taunted by friends. Prosecutors, however, said Williams coolly planned the assault, shooting classmates as they ran in terror. Williams said his life at Juvenile Hall has generally been good, and that he has read 159 books and carries a 3.09 grade-point average. In court papers, Williams said he hopes to get a college degree in theology and become a pastor in prison. He also said he worried about turning 18 and transferring to a maximum security prison. "I'm scared because I don't know anyone up there, and I don't know what to expect," he said. Williams said he was surprised so many people had written him letters and posted messages of support on the internet. "They're nice people. I'm glad they're doing it," he said. "But I don't think I deserve it. I wouldn't write to me." Going Postal? http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,4925847%255E662,0… ONE sheet of toilet paper, use less sunscreen and don't lose pens . . . the dispute between Australia Post and its staff has hit a new low in pettiness. A New South Wales Central Coast area manager has allegedly advised workers "one sheet is enough" when it comes to the company's amenities. Melbourne call centre worker Cori Girondoudas was docked $3000 for breaching company policy by having more than three personal photographs on her desk. Sydney worker Richard O'Brien was ordered to take sick leave because management declared at 177kg he was 40kg overweight to complete his duties.

1 0