December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Flag burning vote TOMORROW and government-imposed ratings
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Thu, 12 Jun 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote: > > Jut woke up, but I would argue "no." This would be the first > constitutional weakening of the First Amendment ever. Hardly a move that > strengthens free speech protections. First constitutional weakening yes, but hardly the first weakening. :( What about virtual flag burning? Any Javafolks out there wanting to protest could write a nice "Click Here to Burn the Flag of these here United States... Just like Vince's Be a Crypto Runner page." Flaming Flag Monger Citizen Unit #401598424628

1 0

Secrecy?
by Peter Nicol - VRL / BroomStick Productions 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hmmmm . . . After following this list for a while I offer the following observation: "Would it be better to DEMAND the full disclosure of the governments secrets rather than scramble around trying to keep ours." I am prepared to allow governments full access to my communications when they allow me full access to theirs. But then again, why be governed in the first place? Peter Nicol Global Media Magnet nicol(a)iap.net.au 019 111 943 "Nonlinear models differ form linear ones in a number of ways. Rather than trying to figure out all the chains of causality, the modeler looks for nodes where feedback loops join and tries to capture as many of the important loops as possible in the system's "picture." Rather than shaping the model to make a forecast about future events or to exercise some central control, the nonlinear modeller is content to perturb the model, trying out different variations in order to learn about the system's critical points and its homeostasis (resitance to change). The modeler is not seeking to control the complex system by quantifying it and mastering its causality; she wants to increase her "intuitions" about how the system works so she can interact with it more harmoniously."

2 2

SSA Privacy Forum 6.16.97
by Dave Banisar 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Social Security Administration Forum Privacy and Customer Service in the Electronic Age Monday, June 16, 1997 Georgetown U. Law Center Moot Court Room 600 New Jersey Ave. NW Washington D.C. 20001 Agenda: WELCOME 12-12:15 pm Welcome by Marc Rotenberg, Director, Electronic Privacy Information Center and Professor, Georgetown Law University Introduction of Dr. John J. Callahan, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration PANEL #1 PRIVACY EXPERTS AND CONSUMER ADVOCATES 12:15-1:15 pm Leslie Byrne, Special Assistant to the President, and Director, U.S. Office of Consumer Affairs Harry Hammitt, Editor and Publisher, Access Report Newsletter Evan Hendricks, Editor and Publisher, Privacy Times and Chairman, U.S. Privacy Council Sally Katzen, Director, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget Deirdre Mulligan, Staff Counsel, Center for Democracy and Technology PANEL #2 COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY EXPERTS 1:30-2:15 pm Edward G. Amoroso, Technical Manager, AT&T Laboratories Michael Angelo, Principal Member, Technology Staff, Compaq Corporation Dorothy E. Denning, Professor of Computer Science, Georgetown University David P. Jablon, Software Engineer and Cryptographic Specialist, Integrity Sciences, Inc. George Spix, Chief Architect Consumer Platforms Division, Microsoft Corporation PANEL #3 INTERNET COMMERCE, BANKING AND FINANCIAL PLANNING EXPERTS 2:30-3:15 pm Mark Greene, Vice President, Electronic Payments and Certification, IBM Internet Division Russ Housely, Chief Scientist, Spyrus, Inc. Charles Merrill, Partner, McCarter & English Law Firm Jahan Moreh, Chief Security Architect, Open Horizon, Inc. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD - 3:15 pm Members of public who have registered may speak for 4 minutes. The panel may ask questions following each individual's testimony, if desired. CLOSING REMARKS - 4:30 pm For more information and directions, see: http://www.ssa.gov/forums/washingtondc.htm More information on EPIC is available at http://www.epic.org/

1 0

There's no general right to privacy -- get over it, from Netly
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

************** http://pathfinder.com/netly/editorial/0,1012,1050,00.html The Netly News June 12, 1997 Privacy? What Privacy? by Declan McCullagh (declan(a)well.com) I have a confession to make: Unlike many of my civil libertarian colleagues, I believe you have no general right to privacy online. Sure, you have the right to protect your personal data, but you shouldn't be able to stop someone else from passing along that information if you let it leave your computer. That's your responsibility. So you can imagine my dismay when I learned I'd be sitting through four full days of Federal Trade Commission hearings this week on Internet privacy. The commission's goal? To define "privacy rights" for the Net -- and to be perhaps the first federal agency to regulate it. The commissioners are being spurred on by consumer groups that want the government to bar firms from collecting information about your online wanderings. Businesses say that such a rule would stifle Internet advertising and commerce and have recently released a flurry of self-regulatory proposals. [...] Which is one reason why I think there is no general right to privacy -- at least as the consumer groups and privacy advocates describe it. Rotenberg likes to say "Privacy is not an absolute right, but a fundamental right." But in truth, privacy is not a right but a preference: Some people want more of it than others. Of course there's an essential right to privacy from the government. (Beware government databases: Nazis used census data in Germany and Holland to track down and eliminate undesirables.) You also have a right to privacy from Peeping Toms. But -- no matter how much big-government fetishists want this to be true -- you don't own information about yourself. After all, journalists are able to investigate someone's private life and publish an article -- even if it contains embarrassing personal details. This is a good thing: Any restrictions would weaken the First Amendment. Then there's gossip, which is a time-honored way of trading in others' personal information. "The reindeer-herding Lapps, for whom theft of livestock is easy and common, gossip about who has stolen which animal and where they are," sociologist Sally Engle Merry writes. [...] ------------------------- Declan McCullagh Time Inc. The Netly News Network Washington Correspondent http://netlynews.com/

13 45

There's no general right to privacy -- get over it, from Netly (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 18:58:37 -0400 > From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> > Subject: There's no general right to privacy -- get over it, from Netly > likes to say "Privacy is not an absolute right, but a > fundamental right." But in truth, privacy is not a > right but a preference: Some people want more of it > than others. A right is not a question of popularity or amplitude, it is a question of existance. It is or it isn't. Some people want more guns than others (obvious even to you) so you seriously hold that there is no fundamental Constitutional right to own firearms? Or speech, we don't all want to use it to the same amount, we therefore don't have a right to free speech? Or (oh my god!) crypto, we don't all want to use it to the same degree therefore we don't have a right to use crypto? Serious boo-boo. I hope it ain't gone to print yet... ____________________________________________________________________ | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http:// www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

9 10

Jim Bell 5
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I spoke briefly this afternoon with Kelly Miller, the clerk of the district court handling Jim's case. She said that the USA, Jim and Jim's attorney agreed to waive (extend) the deadline for speedy indictment so that additional material could be assembled by all parties. And that no action will be taken until on or about June 30; Jim will remain in jail until then. Jim's attorney, Peter Avenia, confirmed this but would not comment further except in answer to my question about getting in touch with Jim said that he had advised Jim not to make statements to anyone. ----- Kelly Miller: 1-253-593-6754 Peter Avenia: 1-253-593-6710

1 0

Democratic Assassination
by Pilgrim 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Instead of putting child pornographers in prison we will put >cryptographers and remailer operators in prison. Instead of >confiscating the assets of drug czars will confiscate the assets >of people who have a kid who smokes a joint once a week. Instead >of censoring legislation which limits our freedom and privacy >we will censor literature which proposes democratic assassination >of those who oppress us. Whoa there bud! I have a nagging feeling that democratic assassination is a large can of worms than we realize. There is something fundamentally wrong with a society that is built upon the notion that those people who do and say unpopular things deserve death. Yet that is exactly what a system of "democratic" assassinations would do, enable a large group of people to intimidate and subvert a smaller group of people. So, for the sake of argument, let this system of anonymous democratic assassination come to pass...then what? Utopia? Maybe.... But let's say that someone comes along later, proposing a way of living that is radically different from the norm. Exhibiting a nasty characteristic that has been inherent in the human races for eons....even before the rise of large sprawling governments....the majority of people decide that they don't like this troublemaker....through the process of democratic assassination...this person is now dead. Forget even the shade of a possibility that this person may have been right...that his way of living ***may*** have been better than the norm. Right and wrong don't matter. Popularity and the "mood of the crowd" do...this person said somethig unpopular, and is dead because of it. Freedom of speech? Let's say that a group of people suddenly become unpopular. Perhaps times are tough and the majority need a scapegoat. Maybe this group of people have been long oppressed and are finally fighting back. Through a system of democratized assassination....their leaders are dead....with no one willing to take their place (out of fear)....maybe a few other random people are killed just to really get these people quaking in their boots. Or let's take it one step further. If democratic assassination is good, why not democratic genocide. Let the people take a vote, and if the scale tips the right way, an entire group of people need killed. Is this good? Let's take a step further. Going back to my first example, let's say that someone comes along proposing a new way to live, and many people take to it and follow this person. Unfortunately, this person has just happened to make a few powerful enemies. Through a system of "democratic" assassination, this person is now dead...and there is no way to catch his/her killers. Is this even democratic? Even if digital cash, anonymous remailers and strong encryption could enable us to set up a democratic system of assassination (which it couldn't)...I still wouldn't want to live in a society where killing is democratized...I do not want to live in a society where people can abitrarily take a vote on whether I should live or die.... Just because a majority of people like an idea, does that make the idea any more right or any less wrong? I (and I would wager you) do not want to live in a society where it is dangerous...even life threatening to be unpopular, and to go against the flow. I know that I hold fast to ideas and beliefs which are hardly considered popular....the only reason I'm not socially scorned, right now, is because I'm very diplomatic about them.... You wrote a lot about "The Machine," as if it was some real, intelligent, calculating conscience. It is not. While I do not doubt that "The Machine" exists, it is not something that is tangible....it is a system...a way of doing things...a set of entrenched powers...it is not a person. "The Machine" won't be defeated by killing. Its weakness is far more subtle..and takes a lot longer to exploit....but that's another story...for another listserv. That IRS guy that you want to kill? Sure, he might work for "The Machine," but killing him won't solve anything. Hating him won't solve anything. It might be a short term fix, but there will be others. And perhaps, if you stop and look at that IRS guy whom you hate so much...you might find that 1) He has parents, maybe even a wife and children, all of whom love him 2) He gets tired and night, and has to use the bathroom 3) He gets happy, sad, lonely, depressed, He's another human being....just like yourself...indeed, the only difference between himself and yourself is how he makes a living. And maybe...just maybe...he is just as big a victim of "The Machine" as you are. Of course, I'm not accusing anyone of wanting to kill anyone...or hating anyone. I'm just throw this out because it is food for thought. You write so much about "The Machine" causing division and hatred between people. Perhaps "The Machine" has manipulated you more than you realize. Justice rarely comes out of hatred. Regards, Pilgrim Regards, Pilgrim

2 3

Burn flag = unconstitutional
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > House Passes Constitutional Amendment On Flag Desecration > > By Darlene Superville > Associated Press Writer > > WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House voted overwhelmingly today for a proposed > constitutional amendment against flag desecration, an issue pushed by > conservatives since Republicans took over Congress in 1995. > > The House tally, held two days before Flag Day, was 310-114.

2 1

Internet - Good & Bad [CNN]
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > June 12, 1997: 4:28 p.m. ET > > Time NEW YORK (CNNfn) - New technologies for video transmission over > the Internet, such as digital video discs (DVDs), represent remarkable > potential but also pose an inherent threat to global intellectual > property rights, one of the most powerful media executives in the > nation said. > [INLINE] The Net represents "promise and penalty," Frank Biondi, > chairman and chief executive of MCA's Universal Studios, told the > audience of the third annual Price Waterhouse media conference here. > [INLINE] "At some time, we'll be able to transmit video real-time" > over the World Wide Web through the use of technology such as DVDs, > Biondi said. However, to succeed, media companies increasingly need to > address two principle challenges: protecting intellectual property and > promoting the "brand," he added. > [INLINE] "By and large, encryption can be broken. That's pretty > scary," Biondi said.

1 0

Crackdown on spam? [CNN]
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > FEDS TO CRACK DOWN ON JUNK E-MAIL FRAUD > > > > June 12, 1997 > Web posted at: 8:16 p.m. EDT (2016 GMT) > > WASHINGTON (AP) -- Federal regulators put the junk e-mailindustry on > notice Thursday that businesses will be punished ifthey put false > information in unsolicited mail they send tomillions of Internet > users. > > The Federal Trade Commission also asked the industry to come upwith > ways to stem the flood of commercial mail clogging theInternet and > creating bottlenecks that make it difficult to getonline. > > The FTC said it would ask industry groups to supply lists > ofjunk-mail senders to help in the new drive to detect > fraud.Penalties a junk mailer might face for breaking the fraud law > couldinclude an injunction to stop the illegal practice up to tens > ofthousands of dollars in fines for a repeat offender.

1 0

Major Netscape Bug [CNN]
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From Correspondent Steve Young > June 12, 1997: 6:58 p.m. ET > > Netscape unveils Netcaster - April 15, 1997 > > Princeton team finds third Netscape bug - May 20, 1996 > > Netscape NEW YORK (CNNfn) - A serious new flaw that affects all > versions of Netscape Communications Corp.'s popular Navigator Internet > browser software -- including the final test version of its > Communicator Suite released Wednesday -- has been uncovered by a > Danish software firm, CNNfn has learned. > > The bug was reported by Cabocomm, a software company located about 100 > miles west of Copenhagen, Denmark. The bug makes it possible for > Web-site operators to read anything stored on the hard drive of a PC > logged on to the Web site.

1 0

Quadratic residues
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timmy C. Maya's wee-wee is so tiny that only his mommy is allowed to touch it. __o _ \<_ Timmy C. Maya (_)/(_)

2 1

Netscape Bug :)))
by William H. Geiger III 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Just over the wire: Seems that there is a bug in Netscape including the new Communicator that will allow a web site to read *ANY* file on your computer. I repeate *ANY*, yes Virginia, *ANY* file on your computer. WebEx user and loving it. :))))) - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: cp850 Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 iQCVAwUBM6DAn49Co1n+aLhhAQFdVwP+LQHkDPYPdqKDQyTxuYW23NgEHGotNyqB KJxk7uf93aGrbY6Zi+6+Y8JZeb7ce9usORYP6YWzRx1K/LhkEHn5un0aIRUlbHed rIxvt1S28bwuiXGrPOWNKTNXfEGb1x/YyBNshooclY1bz1YS1ZRk8t/vBl/aeTZy oWTpxeG/xjU= =Asb/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

5 7

No Subject
by Mix 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim C. Maya likes to lick the semen-shit mixture that accumulates in the crack of his mother's ass. /_/\/\ \_\ / /_/ \ \_\/\ \ Tim C. Maya \_\/

2 1

Re: FUCK YOU: There's no general right to privacy -- get over it,
by Rich Graves 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Ray Arachelian wrote: >On Thu, 12 Jun 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote: > >> http://pathfinder.com/netly/editorial/0,1012,1050,00.html Pretty good article. >> I have a confession to make: Unlike many of my >> civil libertarian colleagues, I believe you have no >> general right to privacy online. Sure, you have the >> right to protect your personal data, but you shouldn't >> be able to stop someone else from passing along that >> information if you let it leave your computer. That's >> your responsibility. > >Booooooooo! Hisssssssssss! Putting your bread and butter before your >morals, eh? Maybe if someone would go through all your records and post >them all over the net, you'd feel differently! No need to go through them all. Just one record is guaranteed to set him and his friends off. >Declan, this truly sucks. :( I'm very disappointed in you. You are truly >scum if you believe this. Ray, he was talking about *rights*, not *morals*. I don't believe anyone has an absolute *right* to privacy, but that doesn't mean I think it would be anything short of morally abhorrent to knowingly post, say, Declan's social security number. He has no legal or moral *right* to privacy, but it would be morally *wrong*, and I would truly be scum, if I knowingly posted it. Rights are negative; morals are positive. The burden of proof is entirely different. Journalists have a First Amendment right to be free from government-imposed restrictions on speech, including non-criminal invasions of privacy (some invasions of privacy can be criminal if the target is not a public figure -- but such prosecutions are extremely rare), but some journalists are truly scum. Others, like Declan in this case, get bashed over misinterpretations and ideological flamers. - -rich http://www.stanford.edu/~llurch/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQBVAwUBM6Hjh5NcNyVVy0jxAQG+sAH/f0ZbXItOdKI/jOfcY9mDxU/0hBoHQVdM XUW9xIHgKIgVzYzUrXFdmRL81Ku9IR77aJ6MEYrN5HjMNCZXusGdLg== =u4We -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Netscape Security Flaw is a Feature
by Tim May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Many of us have been watching the CNN reports--headline reports at that--that all past and current versions of Netscape on all platforms have reportedly carried the bug that allows any Web site being hit by Netscape to examine files on the user's hard disk. (A demonstration by the Danish team was compelling. CNN-FN generated a text file, placed it on their hard disk, and accessed the Danish site. Moments later, the Danes read back the text file. Over and over for more examples. They _could have been_ the NSA Web site, and the files could have been history files, passphrase files, etc. History files are common, and give captured kestrokes, of course.) But how could such a massive, massive flaw have gone undiscovered for so long? The answer, "It's a feature, not a bug." According to Netscape spokesmen, this feature was added to the kernel of Mosaic, then Navigator, in 1993, as part of the Clipper Key Recovery Program. As James Clarke put it an interview tonight on MSNBC, "Dorothy Denning asked us to insert the "remote read" capabilities to ensure that the legitimate needs of law enforcement are met. No person cruising the Web has any expectation of privacy, as even Declan McCullagh has pointed out." Marc Rotenberg commented, "Privacy at the individual user level is unimportant, just so long as a Privacy Ombudsman can decide on the legitimate needs of law enforcement." Meanwhile, Microsoft has acknowledge that all lines to its Redmond site are clogged by people dumping Navigator and trying to download Explorer. --Tim May There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!" ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

5 6

Andrew Shapiro on privacy rights in The Nation
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 21:08:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship-announce(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Andrew Shapiro on privacy rights in The Nation [Andrew is too modest perhaps to mention that his article is the cover story in the most recent issue of The Nation. --Declan] ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 02:52:22 -0500 From: Andrew Shapiro <ashapiro(a)interport.net> To: declan(a)well.com Subject: Re: FC: Mr. Gates goes to Washington, from The Netly News Declan: Interesting piece. I made a somewhat similar point about how the "siliconaires" (nice coinage) are manipuating the crypto debate at the expense of those making pure privacy arguments. This was in an article focusing mostly on a slightly different topic: this idea of the "market for privacy." Knowing your faith in markets, I doubt we'll agree on this one, but you may find my critique interesting -- and worth mentioning to the list. Given the news on P3 and OPS, the "market solution" will no doubt be discussed at the FTC hearing this week. See http://www.thenation.com/issue/970623/0623shap.htm Best, Andrew Andrew L. Shapiro Fellow, The Twentieth Century Fund Contributing Editor, The Nation 41 East 70th Street New York, NY 10021 ashapiro(a)interport.net work: +1 212 452 7725

1 0

Re: Flag Burning...
by Peter Trei 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"RS" writes: I'm curious as to why you feel the need to conceal your identity. > When it comes down to flag burning, It really bothers me that we allow our > symbol of freedom to be burned. It's more than a flag and a right. It's a > symbol of the freedom we have. To allow someone to publicly burn a flag is > essentially displaying our freedom being burned. It's a symbol, not the thing symbolized. You are confusing the map with the country. Burning the flag is a statement by the burner that they feel that the symbol has become empty, and the freedom which the flag symbolizes is gone or has been compromised in some manner. It's clearly a form of political speech. True, It's a very strong statement, but strong political speech has been protected by the Constitution (at least up till now). > Bush was a veteran, and Clinton was not. I take it the ones who are > writing on this subject about how we should have the "freedom" to burn the > flag have never served in the military or for our country. You are mistaken - some of the people opposing your viewpoint have stated that they are veterans. > Being a veteran myself, I find it very distateful to allow anyone on our > soil to be allowed to "BURN" our symbol of freedom. Think about the flag > for a moment and what it really stands for. Does it not stand for freedom > and liberty? It does *stand* for freedom and liberty, but only as long those values really exist. It *is* *not* freedom and libery in it's own right. When what the flag symbolizes is gone, it becomes just a piece of cloth. Burning this cloth draws attention to the loss. It is a dramatic statement, but under certain circumstances an appropriate one. > Sorry, I just had to let this out. I stand behind Bush on this one. Don't > burn the flag unless you would like to live under another flag! Thank you for your opinion. You are of course free to express it. And I, and other thoughtful, freedom-loving Americans can oppose it. Think about this: Would you rather people did not burn the flag because: 1. They'll be thrown in the slammer if they do. 2. The revere the values for which it stands, and will not descrate a meaningful symbol of these values. In (2), we can look at the (very rare) individuals who *do* burn the flag, and determine for ourselves if they have a valid point to convey. In (1), we'll never know. For Congress to deny the freedom to burn the flag is a desecration of what the flag stands for - a descration of the flag by the government itself. Peter Trei trei(a)process.com Disclaimer: I represent only myself in this article.

3 2

[ADMINISTRATIVIUM] ZKP
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timothy C. Mayo is not only as queer as a three dollar bill, but he is also into having sex with children. (((> /< ( / ((({{{{{:< Timothy C. Mayo \ \<

2 1

Re: Untraceable Contract Killings
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote: >[yadda, yadda, yadda] (yawn) then Truth Monger wrote: >Of course, Bell did ADD a significant wrinkle, and deserves credit >for his contributions. May and Bell. Names that will be >remembered. ......................................................................... L.D.: Still whining after all these years. .. Blanc

1 0

Flag Burning...
by RS 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

When it comes down to flag burning, It really bothers me that we allow our symbol of freedom to be burned. It's more than a flag and a right. It's a symbol of the freedom we have. To allow someone to publicly burn a flag is essentially displaying our freedom being burned. Bush was a veteran, and Clinton was not. I take it the ones who are writing on this subject about how we should have the "freedom" to burn the flag have never served in the military or for our country. Being a veteran myself, I find it very distateful to allow anyone on our soil to be allowed to "BURN" our symbol of freedom. Think about the flag for a moment and what it really stands for. Does it not stand for freedom and liberty? Sorry, I just had to let this out. I stand behind Bush on this one. Don't burn the flag unless you would like to live under another flag!

10 9

Re: Untraceable Contract Killings
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote: >[yadda, yadda, yadda] (yawn) then Truth Monger wrote: >Of course, Bell did ADD a significant wrinkle, and deserves credit >for his contributions. May and Bell. Names that will be >remembered. ......................................................................... L.D.: Still whining after all these years. .. Blanc

1 0

crypto page
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Sender: mac-crypto(a)thumper.vmeng.com Reply-To: Vinnie Moscaritolo <vinnie(a)webstuff.apple.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: Bulk Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 13:15:56 -0700 From: Vinnie Moscaritolo <vinnie(a)webstuff.apple.com> To: Multiple recipients of <mac-crypto(a)thumper.vmeng.com> Subject: crypto page I am starting to create a crypto resource page (soon to be part of mac crypto) it is at http://www.vmeng.com/vinnie/crypto.html Its a first crack... if you have any (even obvious) additions I would appreciate them. Vinnie Moscaritolo That Crypto Guy at Apple... http://www.vmeng.com/vinnie/ Fingerprint: 4FA3298150E404F2782501876EA2146A --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/

1 0

Re: [Noise, California only] Good deal on ISDN access
by dshipman＠ewol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:55 AM 6/11/97 +0200, you wrote: >Lucky Green sez: > >> Given that a good number of people on this list live in CA, this might be >> of interest to you. It certainly was to me. PacBell is selling flat rate 2B >> ISDN Internet access at $50/month. Plus the regular home ISDN fees, but >> this is still much cheaper than what I paid before. You might want to think >> hard before you buy at new 56k modem that in all likelihood won't be able >> to give you 56k anyway. And no analog modem will ever give you 128kbps. > >But don't they still charge you a penny a minute? That adds up fast, and >would probably cost you more than your $50 internet access fees. Plus the >cost of ISDN service... All told, you're looking at $150 or so per month. > >When for $150 you can get a brand spanking new 56K modem, and pay $20-30 a >month. Not as fast, but a much better price/performance ratio. > > GTE in SRQ charges a flat (no installation charge or per minute on a 36 month contract) rate of $54.00 plus any long distance calls I make on the SPID. My ISP charges $34.00 for a total of $88.00 and I am connected 125/175 hours a month. Early on, I found a definite need for a separate line ($19.00) to support my habit and when I installed ISDN that line was removed. Net cost for a *true* observed 3X speed increase, FAX, and voice com is $69.00 a month. A BitSURFER Pro TA cost $360.00 and replaced a 28.8 modem. As soon as my ISP gets around to it (and figures out what to charge), the wires get twisted and the 3X increase should double. Those who buy a "56k" modem are in for a disappointment. No POPS in the US supports more than 53k and many run at *much* less due to cross talk problems. Also, your ISP will have to choose one of the two available "standards" (X2 or 56Kflex) with no assurance that when the 56k dust settles you will still have compatible equipment. Those who live in ATL or are PAC Bell customers should examine the possibilities of ADSL which is supposed to roll out in both areas, sometime in the last quarter. Bell South plans to offer ADSL the first quarter of next year and DMT appears to be winning the "standards" battle with CAP for ASDL protocol. I've not seen any cost information but presume that the increased bandwidth will result in higher charges than ISDN. Unfortunately, here in the swamps of southwest FL, ADSL will not be an option for several years. DLS ------------------------------------------------ That field hath eyen, and the wood hath ears. Geoffrey Chaucer. 1328-1400. (From the text of Tyrwhitt.) Line 1524.

1 0

nym.alias.net back!!!!!!
by Arunas Norvaisa 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

there will be no comments from my stupid self. Hoorah!!! quote ===== >From lcs Remailer Administrator <mix-admin(a)nym.alias.net> Organization mail2news(a)nym.alias.net Date 14 Jun 1997 04:27:52 -0000 Newsgroups alt.privacy.anon-server Message-ID <19970614042752.18952.qmail(a)nym.alias.net> As of tonight, the alias.net domain seems to have been restored by the Internic. While negative lookups on the domain name may still be cached for 24 hours or so, nym.alias.net should soon be fully accessible within a day if it is not already. This down time has been fairly disastrous, but I suppose there is a brighter side--chances are the all nym.alias.net addresses have been cleared from spam databases, so as the remailer comes back on line, people should see less unsolicited mail than they used to. unquote ======= -- greetz... Arunas Norvaisa - little guy, The Masses Inc. <mailto:arunas@post1.com> with subject: 'send key' to get PGP key PGP for idiots page <http://www.a-vip.com/an> and a mirror site <http://www.post1.com/~arunas> IBM: Insultingly Boring Microcomputers

1 0