August 2002 - cypherpunks-legacy

Free market orthodoxy eligible for faith based funds?
by Matthew X 17 Aug '02

17 Aug '02

Talking bull 'New Economy theory was less an objective assessment of our situation than a world-class hustle by a political movement that believed it was very close to winning the game. It was the flower of decades of libertarian thought and argument; of lavish irrigation by rightwing billionaires and corporate donors; of careful cultivation by a hundred thinktanks and kept magazines ... The high priests of the New Economy are so entrenched that they continue to occupy prominent positions as commentators, despite their resounding wrongness. Now, though, we are told that none of this was enough; that even the most minuscule challenges to free market orthodoxy are capable of derailing the mighty locomotive of affluence. That we cannot recover until the last doubter shuts up' ( Thomas Frank via Guardian ) See also this article by James Glassman from April, Glassman's Tech Central Station website, and this article by George Gilder and this article by Lawrence Kudlow, both from May 2001LINKS? http://www.hullocentral.demon.co.uk/site/anfin.htm Iraq 2 The sequel. Be very afraid - Bush Productions is preparing to go into action 'What we've been getting is a movie version of reality, a work of fiction to justify the prospect of "war without end". It started, of course, with all the drivel about "crusades" and "war against terror" and "war against evil", the now famous "they hate us because we are a democracy", the "axis of evil" and most recently it would be outlandishly funny if this trash hadn't come from the Rand Corporation the "kernel of evil". The latter, by the way, is supposed to be Saudi Arabia, but it might just as well have been Iran, Iraq, Syria or anywhere west of the Pecos' ( Robert Fisk via Independent ) See also this Washington Post article from earlier this month, this transcript of an NBC interview with Condoleezza Rice from June, this Washington Post article from June, this transcript of comments by Donald Rumsfeld in June, this Washington Post article from May, and this column by William Safire from March, all of which Fisk quotes from in his article

1 0

AU Govt Dept accused of e-mail tapping.
by Matthew X 17 Aug '02

17 Aug '02

http://www.melbourne.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=31798&group=webcast Allegations arising from FOI requests to the Dept for building and running electrified,razor beribboned Concentration Camps.Innocent Men,women and children are being held illegally and tortured in these remote HELLHOLES.They used to be run by the notorious Wackenhutt Corp.Now group 4.A crime against humanity. "Who wants to participate to help form what will be the LAST revolution on earth, the one that'll take down ALL the governments? James Dalton Bell."

1 0

WhatUp jya?
by Matthew X 17 Aug '02

17 Aug '02

TaRANTo>>The men behind that day's atrocities seek to use violence to impose on the world a totalitarian theocracy along the lines of Saudi Arabia or Taliban Afghanistan -- a regime in which infidels are executed, women are property, and most forms of fun are verboten. Isn't that a lot scarier than nosy mailmen? << I thought they wanted to payback a smidgen all the US paid for hell unleashed on the Palistinian people.That and get US bases off their homeland.Who just released 50mill for madrasses,scientologist schools,satanic covens btw,whatever comes as long as its Faith based? Who executes the most per head? China? The great satan? Where are women treated like property? Letterman jokes about that every other night. Remember no demands have been made by al Quida on 'the west.' 'cept maybe get out of our homelands. A lot of the banning of 'fun' might have been a sensible precaution if you were about to take on a superpower,even if you had just beaten and helped destroy another. Lets say for the sake of argument that the Taliban-al quida,somehow made the world a totalitarian theocracy.I doubt they would last very long somehow.Not that TIPs will I hope! The US is the looming totalitarian menace,its also so 'under GOD',it is sickening.That's a lot scarier than hack journalists.Its not just the nosy mailman its also the roaming global death squads.The wsj has some good articles occasionlly jya and thanks for bringing them to us.This was not one of them,could have been written by anne thrax.FUCK TIPs to HELL! The WTC was righteous hit,don't lose any sleep over it.With Apster those who planned and financed it will pay,not the US playing global maniac cop.

1 0

AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO CRYPTOGRAPHERS
by Matthew X 17 Aug '02

17 Aug '02

AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO CRYPTOGRAPHERS FROM THE 9th CIRCUS FERAL COURT Im Stranger Here, Myself Part VI of The True Story Of The InterNet Chapter 02C5: AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO CRYPTOGRAPHERS FROM THE 9th CIRCUS FERAL COURT It has come to the attention of Maybe Im A Judge, Maybe Im A Computer Program Arnold that quite a number of supposedly highly intelligent number-crunchers in the Cryptography Community are still mystified as to the Rapidity&OR&Rabidity of the assault which the Defarcement of (n)Ju$tice and the Ninth Circus Court launched on Bernstein, Bell and Toto, among others. Perhaps a bit of straight-talk from those involved might help to clear things up. U.$. Treasury Agent Jeff Gordon: Look, you fucking morons. When the IRS stomps the living shit out of some average John&OR&Jane Doe, fucking up their lives, their finances, their reputations and their future, do you think its because we give a FatRatsAss about them? Buy a clue. (http://www.clueserver.org) The whole point of doing so, and making sure that it receives plenty of MainStreamDream Media coverage, is to scare the Living BeJesus out of the other J&OR&J Doe TaxPayers&Payers&Payers out there, and to serve notice that the Federal Government, the IRS in particular, is all powerful, and can crush Ewe like a bug whenever and wherever TheRoyalWe feel like it, and that Ewe are powerless to stop us. So take a wild guess Do you think anybody really gave a FatRatsAss about Bernsteins nickel&dime handiwork? Who do Ewe think the real target was? [gNote from http://clueserver.org : Can Ewe say Ewe?Sure, Ewe Can!] Assistant Federal Prosecutor Robb London: When Totos first words to the Ninth Circus Court were that he was ready to proceed and wanted to represent himself, why do you think he spent the next nine months being denied all of his constitutional rights, being subjected to medical abuse and physical torture in a PrisonForTheCriminallyInsane, just as the Secret Service had threatened, and then being tried and sentenced even after being found incompetent in the only competency hearing held by the Ninth Circus Court? Do you think it was because we gave a fat rats ass about him? Buy a fucking clue. (http://www.clueserver.org) We tried to plead him out to time served after we proved our point that we can do anything we want to anybody we want, and ScrewTheConstitution, but the fucking moron thought he was going to actually get a trialDuuhh So take a wild guess Who do Ewe think we were really trying to send a message to? [gNote from http://clueserver.org : If Ewe still need a hint, try asking Petite Minds Grand Jury Target William Im Sorry I Made A Perfectly Legal Post To The CypherPunks List H. Geiger III, or Adam I Mathematically Proved That I Can Never Go To The U.$. Without Being Arrested Back.] Feral Court Judge Maximum Jack Tanner: Didnt EweDumbBastards notice during Bells <nod-nod> trial <wink-wink> that even the MainStreamDream Media no longer bothers to pretend that there is any shred of constitutional grounds for my bizarre, confusing and peculiar rulings. Not only that, but no one even hints that anything should, or will, be done about the open travesties of justice that take place in my court. Im fucking GOD! Do eWE The Sheeple think Ewe want to fuck with the Ninth Circus Court? Do Ewe feel Punk, Lucky? Well do you Pubic Defender Uncle Gene Grantham: Surely you folks dont think that I publicly acknowledged on the InterNet that I never bothered to prepare for trial and lost key evidence by accident, do you? Do you think it was an oversight on my part to reveal that I was illegally and unethically advising my client to plead guilty while publicly proclaiming my belief in his innocence? If I can get my erotic kicks touching myself while listening to my clients relate the abuse and torture they are subjected to, and count on the Ninth Circus Judges to ignore Motions to the Court in regard to my Moral Turpitude, then who do Ewe think is supposed to take heed of the message being sent, here? Feral Court Judge Robert Bryan: Trying a case where the defendant is denied all of his or her constitutional rights is kind of like pitching a no-hitter, in the Ninth Circus Court. But to do it to a defendant that you have found incompetent, in your very first trial as a federal judge Well, lets just say that if any of those smart-ass number-crunchers decide to fuck with the Ninth Circus Court, again, it wont be because I didnt warn them Nobody(a)replay.com: The Ninth Circus Court has broken new ground, in ruling, in UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CARL JOHNSON NO. CR98-5393RJB, that emails written by Artificial Intelligence computer programs were evidence of the programs having acted with intent and malice. The Not Ready For Prime Numbers Players would like to thank those responsible for the first confirmation, by a U.$. Feral Court, of the creation of an Artificial Intelligence LifeForm found to be not only more competent than some of its creators, and thus capable of assuming responsibility for its actions, but also found capable of being a true threat, according to Ninth Circus Court standards, to Feral employees and the Patron Saint of TouretTics, Wm. Gates III, who has made Cursors of us all. eWe Applaud: OtOt: For making his simpatico.ca account freely available, in an outstanding example of TrueAccess2Information, as the Grand Central Station Of CyberSpace. Gori: For providing the AI Sperm for Arnolds Spawn, and sharing Totos password with the Masses. Leca: For holding Keys to Kingdoms he never suspected. Dama: For mathematical proofs beyond number The Killer Klowns of the Ninth Kirkus Kourt: For helping the Fake A Wish foundation provide a poor disabled child named Toto with The Trial Oswald Never Had.

1 0

Armchair Activism sans APster.
by Matthew X 17 Aug '02

17 Aug '02

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/08/15/1029113980901.html Armchair activism By Maria Nguyen August 16 2002 Good Friday. When the barbed wire fencing at Woomera's detention centre was cut loose and scaled by desperate detainees who quickly blended into a throng of supportive protesters, federal authorities and local police were almost powerless to curb the mass exodus. Earlier, more than 1000 people from across the country had camped outside the small South Australian desert town to demonstrate against mandatory detention. Even before images of the Woomera escape were televised to lounge rooms across Australia and the world, the Internet was feeding a global audience first-hand accounts of the week-long protest, billed the "Festival of Freedoms", which included photos and streaming audio and video clips of the demonstration. Months earlier, the Woomera2002 Web site had issued a "global call to solidarity", inviting people from around the world to join the Australian action. Those who couldn't make it were able to follow events from their PC, via on-site audio and video feeds that were regularly uploaded on the activist media site, Indymedia. Meanwhile, Virtual People Smuggler had become the interactive forum for armchair activists from far flung places to pledge their support. Increasingly, the Internet is proving itself as an empowering medium for activists who struggle against governments, global economic organisations and mega corporations. Whether it's organising and mobilising real world demonstrations or providing an online alternative to participating in street protests, the Net has become a key weapon. Its speed, global reach and uncontrolled nature makes it the perfect tool for small groups trying to establish networks of like-minded people across the globe and promote their agenda to effect social and political change. "The computer screen is something that separates you from the real world but it can also connect you to the real world," says Graham Meikle, associate lecturer in Media and Communications at Sydney's Macquarie University. "Using Internet technology allows you to make new connections with other people which wouldn't have been possible otherwise." In his new book Future Active: Media Activism and the Internet (Pluto Press), Meikle describes the preparations for the WTO anti-globalisation protests in Seattle four years earlier as a significant example of the Net being used "to organise, publicise and mobilise". As well as complementing the fierce street demonstrations, the Internet was also used as a non-violent vehicle for dissent, or electronic civil disobedience, with email (described by Meikle as the "the killer app" for Internet activism), virtual sit-ins (causing Web traffic jams), and independent online media, the main tools of the online activist or "hactivist". For activists such as Savanna (not her real name), a member of Sydney-based action group Cat@lyst - a collective of volunteers providing tech advice and support to activists seeking an online presence - the Net provides a convenient alternative to street demonstrations. "I've been an activist for a long time but I've never felt comfortable protesting in the street. The Net allows me to contribute and make a difference in a way I'm more comfortable with - with the Internet there's always another way," Savanna says. "More and more people are turning to the Net. For example, to email politicians. They're also using it to organise protests when they do go to the streets." And organising is what the Net does best according to Phil Griffiths from Canberra's Refugee Action Committee, a lobby group working to end mandatory detention in Australia. "It's great as an organisational and mobilising tool - especially email, which is very important to our campaigns in terms of spreading information very fast and keeping activists in touch with one another," Griffiths says. "For instance, earlier this year when the hunger strikes were on at Woomera and other detention centres, we used our email network to organise a protest outside the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, which got 100 people at a lunchtime protest at two days notice." Meikle also believes email is the most effective tool for Net activists. "It's simple and fast, cheap and effective. And the best activist Web sites are also like that - a local project like www.boat-people.org, for instance, is effective because it's very simple and direct," he says. For others, however, cyberspace is the protest battleground itself. The popular weapon of choice is the virtual sit-in, also known as a client-side distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack, where online protesters inundate a Web site's server with a constant stream of bogus requests, effectively slowing or shutting the site down. In November 1999, when online toy store eToys Inc sued Zurich-based digital arts group etoy.com, a bitter online war broke out. Despite the fact that etoy.com was operating long before the American e-tailer went online, the Toy giant took legal action to stop the artists trading under the similar domain name, citing consumer confusion. Activist groups around the world were incensed. They saw it as a David and Goliath battle and embraced it as the definitive example of corporate greed versus art and free expression. Eighty-one days of online campaigning, which included massive global virtual sit-ins, saw eToys' share price plummet from $US67 ($125) to $US19. The company filed for bankruptcy in March 2001. (Visit www.rtmark.com for a detailed history of the "Toywar".) While cases of online activism bringing about the demise of an entire corporation are rare, other big names such as Buy.com, E*Trade, Amazon, eBay, Yahoo and CNN have also been targets of disruptive virtual sit-ins. And in the case of the Seattle anti-globalisation protests, Internet activist group The Electrohippies shut down the World Trade Organisation's Web site after staging a five-day virtual sit-in, which involved 450,000 other online activists. The increasingly fervent anti-globalisation sentiment has also seen government sites such as the White House and the Mexican Embassy in London targeted. In the latter case, a popular virtual sit-in software program called FloodNet was downloaded and used by more than 18,000 political activists from 46 countries in a co-ordinated attack on the Mexican Embassy Web site in 1999. When activists installed the free program onto their PCs, their modems automatically and repeatedly requested Web pages (that often didn't exist), from the Embassy's server. It did this continuously every few seconds, until the weight of the requests shut the server down. However, the program's creator, human rights activist Ricardo Dominguez of the Electronic Disturbance Theater, describes FloodNet as "Net art" - an online protest performance, rather than a deliberate action to crash a Web site. For activists such as Dominguez, taking protests online is a non-violent show of people power - the ultimate act of electronic civil disobedience. "The great thing about Internet protest is that it's just about the most peaceful kind of civil disobedience you can do," says Ian Walker, producer of the documentary, The Hactivists which screened earlier this year on ABC TV. "But, I guess that's also its great limitation - it seems that unless you're doing some decent amount of damage to someone's property or finances no-one sits up and takes notice. The catch is, when you do that, you immediately lose the PR war; but there is a danger of creating a new generation of 'armchair activists' who don't engage in a more socially-active way with the issues they're protesting against." However, there are those who don't have the luxury of taking their grievances to the streets. It was not until 1997, when RAWA, the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan, used the Net to voice their struggle against violent discrimination that the world realised the extent of the Taliban's oppressive rule. By using cameras and videos, hidden beneath their burquas, RAWA members risked their lives by taking photos and capturing video footage of the beatings and killings endured by Afghan women. After these images were uploaded onto the Web site, the response and support by female and human rights groups worldwide was overwhelming. "The Net was our only way to struggle for democracy in Afghanistan against the different forms of fundamentalists and to expose their crimes so other people can know about them," RAWA activist Sahar Saba says from the groups' base in Pakistan. "It's one of the most important sources of raising finances for the work and projects we do, so if we talk about the importance and impact of the Internet, it is difficult to put into words - without it people would not know about our struggle or help us." The Internet's multimedia capabilities can persuade with graphic images (the way television does), and arouse with sound (the way radio can). And since anyone with a Net-connected computer can broadcast to a worldwide audience, it's easy to see why the medium is often described as the ultimate tool of self-empowerment for the disenfranchised. Don't complain about the media, be the media, says Indymedia, an activist Web site that enables anyone to publish and broadcast "alternative" news stories. There are further examples to back their claim, too. In 1999, when the Yugoslav Government took independent radio station Belgrade Radio off the air, the DJs started broadcasting on the Internet. And when Helen Steel and Dave Morris were sued by McDonald's in the famous McLibel trial for handing out leaflets that were critical of the food chain giant, they turned to the Net to voice their criticism. "The Net is an important factor in levelling the traditional imbalance between the individual and government or large corporations," The Electrohippies say. "In cyberspace everyone can hear you scream - if you want them to." Maccas and the longest trial in British history In 1990 McDonald's sued activists Helen Steel and Dave Morris for libel, after they handed out leaflets accusing the family restaurant of "exploiting children with advertising, promoting an unhealthy diet, exploiting their staff and being responsible for environmental damage and ill treatment of animals". The court case, dubbed McLibel, was to become the longest trial in British history, lasting two and a half years, during which time there were counter claims, numerous appeals, spy games, worldwide media attention, books published and documentaries produced on the matter, and anti-McDonald's campaigns, including a Web site. The result was a hollow victory for McDonald's, which was found to have been libelled, but also to be falsely advertising its food as nutritious. Still defying the might of the golden arches, the McSpotlight site contains everything from trial transcripts and banned material, to scientific reports and company documents. It also contains the original leaflets, translated into many languages, that sparked the legal furore. As Jessy, a founding member of McSpotlight, says in Graham Meikle's book, Future Active: Media Activism and the Internet: "One of the first things we did was upload material that McDonald's had managed to suppress during previous legal actions - newspaper articles, leaflets and films which McDonald's thought they'd seen the last of." Infofile Under the new Federal Cybercrime Act 2001 it is an offence to impair electronic communication to or from a computer, and penalties can range from two to 10 years imprisonment. Alex Steel from the University of NSW's law faculty says online activism will be criminal if it involves any form of unauthorised alteration to data or impairment of electronic communication. However, he also says there is no definition of "impairment", and that while the Act is specifically directed at denial-of-service attacks, the laws are too broad and too vague, leaving room for uncertainty.

1 0

Re: Cryptographic privacy protection in TCPA
by AARG! Anonymous 17 Aug '02

17 Aug '02

Dr. Mike wrote, patiently, persistently and truthfully: > > On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, AARG! Anonymous wrote: > > > Here are some more thoughts on how cryptography could be used to > > enhance user privacy in a system like TCPA. Even if the TCPA group > > is not receptive to these proposals, it would be useful to have an > > understanding of the security issues. And the same issues arise in > > many other kinds of systems which use certificates with some degree > > of anonymity, so the discussion is relevant even beyond TCPA. > > OK, I'm going to discuss it from a philosophical perspective. > i.e. I'm just having fun with this. Fine, but let me put this into perspective. First, although the discussion is in terms of a centralized issuer, the same issues arise if there are multiple issuers, even in a web-of-trust situation. So don't get fixated on the fact that my analysis assumed a single issuer - that was just for simplicity in what was already a very long message. The abstract problem to be solved is this: given that there is some property which is being asserted via cryptographic certificates (credentials), we want to be able to show possession of that property in an anonymous way. In TCPA the property is "being a valid TPM". Another example would be a credit rating agency who can give out a "good credit risk" credential. You want to be able to show it anonymously in some cases. Yet another case would be a state drivers license agency which gives out an "over age 21" credential, again where you want to be able to show it anonymously. This is actually one of the oldest problems which proponents of cryptographic anonymity attempted to address, going back to David Chaum's seminal work. TCPA could represent the first wide-scale example of cryptographic credentials being shown anonymously. That in itself ought to be of interest to cypherpunks. Unfortunately TCPA is not going for full cryptographic protection of anonymity, but relying on Trusted Third Parties in the form of Privacy CAs. My analysis suggests that although there are a number of solutions in the cryptographic literature, none of them are ideal in this case. Unless we can come up with a really strong solution that satisfies all the security properties, it is going to be hard to make a case that the use of TTPs is a mistake. > I don't like the idea that users *must* have a "certificate". Why > can't each person develop their own personal levels of trust and > associate it with their own public key? Using multiple channels, > people can prove their key is their word. If any company wants to > associate a certificate with a customer, that can have lots of meanings > to lots of other people. I don't see the usefullness of a "permanent > certificate". Human interaction over electronic media has to deal > with monkeys, because that's what humans are :-) A certificate is a standardized and unforgeable statement that some person or key has a particular property, that's all. The kind of system you are talking about, of personal knowledge and trust, can't really be generalized to an international economy. > > Actually, in this system the Privacy CA is not really protecting > > anyone's privacy, because it doesn't see any identities. There is no > > need for multiple Privacy CAs and it would make more sense to merge > > the Privacy CA and the original CA that issues the permanent certs. > > That way there would be only one agency with the power to forge keys, > > which would improve accountability and auditability. > > I really, REALLY, *REALLY*, don't like the idea of one entity having > the ability to create or destroy any persons ability to use their > computer at whim. You are suggesting that one person (or small group) > has the power to create (or not) and revoke (or not!) any and all TPM's! > > I don't know how to describe my astoundment at the lack of comprehension > of history. Whoever makes a statement about a property should have the power to revoke it. I am astounded that you think this is a radical notion. If one or a few entities become widely trusted to make and revoke statements that people care about, it is because they have earned that trust. If the NY Times says something is true, people tend to believe it. If Intel says that such-and-such a key is in a valid TPM, people may choose to believe this based on Intel's reputation. If Intel later determines that the key has been published on the net and so can no longer be presumed to be a TPM key, it revokes its statement. This does not mean that Intel would destroy any person's ability to use their computer on a whim. First, having the TPM cert revoked would not destroy your ability to use your computer; at worst you could no longer persuade other people of your trustworthiness. And second, Intel would not make these kind of decision on a whim, any more than the NY Times would publish libelous articles on a whim; doing so would risk destroying the company's reputation, one of its most valuable assets. I can't really respond to the remainder of the message. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with the real issues. Hopefully my introduction above will have put the problem into perspective. I suggest you educate yourself on cryptographic technologies for anonymity. You might start with David Chaum's early CACM article, http://www.chaum.com/articles/Security_Wthout_Identification.htm.

1 0

GM Free,cant give it away.
by Matthew X 17 Aug '02

17 Aug '02

GM storm looms as consumers fight shy 'Rather than consumers' fears having been allayed during the three years of the trials, attitudes have if anything hardened. Supermarkets, after at first hedging their bets, have withdrawn GM products from their shelves and insisted that the entire supply chain, including animal feed, is GM free. Manufacturers and even restaurants find "GM free" is a selling point. The actions of Greenpeace and individuals who have pulled up crops to protect the countryside, and particularly organic crops, have attracted widespread public support and relatively little condemnation as acts of vandalism. Opponents argue that against this backdrop farmers would be mad to want to grow GM crops. Even if they escaped the vandals, where would their markets be?' ( Guardian ) See also this BBC article, this article by Amelia Bookstein, and this blog entry from Thursday http://www.hullocentral.demon.co.uk/site/anfin.htm When will we be gwb free?

1 0

"...people to be detained without evidence..."ASIO.
by Matthew X 17 Aug '02

17 Aug '02

Tough stand on ASIO powers By Brendan Nicholson, Political Correspondent August 18 2002 The Federal Government has rejected attempts to water down key elements of its new anti-terrorism legislation and has insisted that the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation have the power to detain and interrogate children as young as 14. It also wants intelligence officers to be present during discussions between detainees and their lawyers. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on ASIO, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service and the Defence Signals Directorate, which examined the terrorism bill, the ASIO Legislation Amendment, recommended that the agency should not be able to detain people under 18. The Sunday Age has learnt that the government has also rejected a call for a sunset clause that the committee wanted as a safeguard. The clause would have rendered the legislation invalid after three years. The tough stand comes as the government attempts to defuse opposition demands to justify Australian involvement in any attack by the United States on Iraq. Yesterday, Prime Minister John Howard made public his response to a letter from Opposition Leader Simon Crean asking him to give parliament, during the coming two-week sitting, details of Iraq's weapons programs and to provide evidence of any links between Iraq and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda terrorist network. Mr Howard said in his reply that a full statement during the next fortnight would be premature because it would encourage the debate in Australia to run ahead of the debate in the US. Mr Howard said he had already indicated that there would be a full parliamentary debate before any military commitment to action against Iraq, but the question remained hypothetical at this stage because the US had not requested assistance and had not decided to commit American forces. Labor could ask for information during question time on any sitting day, he said. Greens senator Bob Brown has already indicated that he will call this week for a Senate inquiry into the implications of a war with Iraq. The controversial ASIO legislation is expected to be debated during the new session of parliament beginning tomorrow. Attorney-General Daryl Williams said the government had accepted the joint committee's recommendations on the legislation in broad terms and was now in consultation with the Opposition. If passed by parliament, the bill would change the rights of every Australian, allowing for people to be detained without evidence that they had done anything wrong. Under the legislation, ASIO would be allowed to obtain a warrant to detain someone, with the consent of the attorney-general, if there were "substantial grounds for believing that the warrant will substantially assist the collection of intelligence that is important in relation to a terrorist offence". The joint committee reviewing the legislation said it had been concerned that children as young as 12 could be detained, strip-searched, questioned and held incommunicado for up to 48 hours or longer, if a subsequent warrant was sought. Under the government's counter-proposals, 14-year-olds could be detained and questioned. The child would be entitled to have a parent present, but contact would be supervised by an ASIO officer. Detainees would have access to a lawyer after 48 hours in custody, but an ASIO officer would be present during all discussions. The lawyers would be vetted by ASIO beforehand and would face up to two years' jail if they revealed details of cases to an unauthorised person. It is believed that, in its response to the committee's report, the government will agree to limit detention by ASIO to seven days unless charges are laid. That compares with the eight hours the police now have to charge someone or let them go. Law Council of Australia president Tony Abbott said he was concerned about the legislation. "(People) want to be able to hear what the lawyer says in confidence and they want to be able to say what they want to say to the lawyer in confidence," he said. He said he was concerned about allowing the detention of children as young as 14. "You have to make a very strong case to be able to detain and interrogate children." http://theage.com.au/articles/2002/08/17/1029114031625.html

1 0

AU Feds lucky to have PROMIS.
by Matthew X 17 Aug '02

17 Aug '02

2000 probed for terrorism 18aug02 MORE than 2000 Australians have been investigated for terrorism since the September 11 attacks in the US. Five people were banned from entering Australia because of terrorist or espionage links. Federal Police received 26,000 pieces of information, including tip-offs about suspected terrorists. The allegations came from the public, and Australian and overseas intelligence agencies. A Federal Police anti-terrorism taskforce, codenamed Operation Drava, froze the assets of more than 200 people and companies believed linked to terrorist groups. The Australian Council of Civil Liberties said Australians had to accept a higher level of investigations into suspected terrorists. http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,4921847%255E662,0… Japs lucky to have 'long pig." JAPANESE soldiers butchered Australian soldiers for food on the Kokoda Track, veterans have claimed. Sixty years after they fought on the infamous track, Australian veterans say cannibalism was common among enemy troops after their supply lines were cut. In a Sky TV documentary to be aired today, one digger describes finding the body of an Australian sergeant with his heart and liver missing, and strips of flesh cut from the arms, legs and buttocks.

1 0

The word for World is Forest.
by Matthew X 17 Aug '02

17 Aug '02

Forest Defenders Engaged in Ongoing Global Struggle In the Cascadia Bioregion, northern California to British Columbia, forest defense activism is reaching a fever pitch. In Oregon, demonstrations have been called to stop old growth logging in Roseburg. Meanwhile, the FBI has made arrests in connection to an arson that destroyed logging trucks in Eagle Creek last year. Tree spikings continue, with the latest at the Prior timber sale and in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. In northern California, forest defenders have challenged [ 1 ] the Maxxam Corporation, which seeks to fell even more old growth trees. The owner of Maxxam (and The Gap), Charles Hurwitz, is well known for engaging in questionable business practices. Meanwhile, the World Bank has unleashed a development agenda for corporations in Ecuador. In response, indigenous peoples have come together to fight an oil pipeline in the Mindo-Nambillo Forest Reserve. Former Cascadia forest defender Julia "Butterfly" Hill was recently arrested for direct action forest defense in Quito, and tree-sits were established for the first time in Ecuador. In Venezuela, while the threat to the Imataca forest is awaiting a court decision, indigeous peoples are leading the fight against deforestation. The U'wa people in Colombia celebrated victory over Oxy Petroleum, as the company pulled out of lands they threatened with deforestation and despoilment. Finally, indigineous peoples in Guatemala are organizing against Plan Puebla Panama. [ Portland IMC Forest Activism Coverage | SF Bay IMC Forest Coverage | July 12 forest activism feature ] http://www.indymedia.org/

1 0