December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

IP: Court ruling allows anonymous political attacks
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Delivered-To: ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com X-Sender: believer(a)telepath.com Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 04:14:44 -0500 To: believer(a)telepath.com From: believer(a)telepath.com Subject: IP: Court ruling allows anonymous political attacks Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com Precedence: list Reply-To: believer(a)telepath.com Source: The Oregonian http://www.oregonlive.com/todaysnews/9810/st101108.html Court ruling allows anonymous attacks Viciousness increases after the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down an Oregon law requiring that political ads be credited Sunday, October 11 1998 By Laura Oppenheimer of The Oregonian staff Terry Thompson and Ryan Deckert opened their mailboxes in mid-September to discover unpleasant surprises: anonymous political advertisements lambasting their public records. The two Democratic Oregon House members apparently were the first targets in what promises to be a vicious advertising attack season. And there's still plenty of time for candidates to exchange barbs before the Nov. 3 election, said Tim Gleason, dean of the University of Oregon School of Journalism and Communication. "This is the true test, said Gleason, who is coordinator of the Oregon Alliance for Better Campaigns. Races tighten up, and people are going all out. Frequently, the candidate isn't really in control of all the steps taken toward the end. A lot of people want that candidate to win. Although the ads against Thompson and Deckert included their opponents return addresses, as mandated by the U.S. Postal Service, they did not say who paid for or authorized them. Some candidates are taking advantage of a 1996 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that invalidated Oregons law requiring the sponsors name to run with all political advertising. Bills proposed during the 1997 Legislature would have reinstated regulations to counteract the court ruling. But the legislation stalled at the committee level and never came up for a vote. Oregons public officials didnt just maintain the level of negative attack ads by ignoring the legislation, Secretary of State Phil Keisling said. They raised the profile of the ruling so candidates knew they could run anonymous advertisements. "The Legislature just turned their backs on it, Keisling said. Their inaction spoke volumes about their concern about anonymous ads. The effect was to put up a big neon sign saying, Anonymous attack ads now allowed in Oregon. So whats the big deal about one little line of type that says paid for by . . . ? In a political climate where sparring can lead to voters cynicism, candidates should take responsibility for their criticisms, Keisling said. And all-out advertising slugfests can result in hard feelings -- and more partisan politics -- after the election is over, legislators said. "The truth matters, said Ed Kammer, an advertising activist who lobbied legislators to pass new regulations. The facts matter. Its a persons right to ignore what they want to ignore, but its not a thiefs right to disguise the theft. Many legislators, including Thompson, D-Newport, and Deckert, D-Beaverton, said they would support the type of legislation Keisling advocates if it is proposed again during the 1999 Legislature. In the meantime, candidates are free to be as vicious as they want. Aware of just how nasty this campaign season could become, several groups are pushing voluntary codes of conduct to stop the underhanded advertising before it starts. About 50 candidates signed Keislings Stand By Your Ad pledge, which requires them to include their name and address on all political advertising and to take responsibility for any criticism of their opponents. That means using their pictures in written material, narrating a radio ad and appearing on-screen in a TV commercial if it involves a comparison of candidates. Many candidates also signed the League of Women Voters code of conduct, which was adopted by the Oregon Alliance for Better Campaigns. The alliance, which is not counting the number of signers or keeping track of how candidates who took the pledge behave, is asking candidates to keep campaigns clean. The alliance also is coordinating issue-oriented, analytical political coverage on TV and radio stations across the state. "Its no more complicated than one of the things my mom told me growing up, Keisling said of his pledge. If youre going to say something bad about somebody, say it to their face. But nobody will be reprimanding candidates who violate the pledges or choose not to sign them. And for some candidates, sticking with the pledge will mean not responding to jabs at their character, credibility or public record. In mid-September, voters received a mailing with the headline, What was Terry thinking? In a large-print checklist, the ad compares Thompson with Republican Alan Brown, his opponent in House District 4. "Supports returning the income tax kicker refund shows a no for Thompson and a yes for Brown. So does the campaigns are bankrolled by big labor unions category. Thompson said many of the footnotes supporting these criticisms were based on one detail of a large bill or on bills that never came to a vote. Amid these sweeping accusations, Brown did not include a statement that his campaign had paid for the flier. Several years ago, the ad would have violated Oregon law. Henri Schauffler, Deckerts Republican opponent, said he would change one thing about his September fliers if he had it to do over again: Hed include the sponsorship. But he would keep the derogatory rundown of his opponents record, which included claims that Deckert believes voting against small business 57 percent of the time is acceptable and supports spending 2 percent kicker tax refunds to fund state government programs. Schauffler, who signed Keislings pledge, said he did not design the anonymous ads and regrets allowing them to be distributed. "Against my better judgment, I went ahead with the ads, Schauffler said. Im ultimately responsible, and I take responsibility for that mistake. Its not going to happen again from my camp. Deckert said he received more than 100 calls, e-mail messages and letters of support from voters who had seen the attack ads against him. Victims of negative ads face enormous pressure to retaliate, candidates said. In past elections, party workers have even suggested that Thompson hire a detective to spy on his opponent, he said. ----------------------- NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ----------------------- ********************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address ********************************************** www.telepath.com/believer ********************************************** --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> 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'

1 0

Two Jims, Werner and Matt redefine socialism for their own ends
by Martinus Luther 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I never replied to any of the threads about about monopolies and freedom and government intervention because it was all so off-topic. But *really*. Saying Rosa Luxemburg wasn't a communist is like, totally off the wall: Werner Koch wrote: > "Die Freiheit des Einzelnen endet dort, > wo sie die Freiheit der Anderen einschränkt." > Rosa Luxemburg > The freedom of an individual ends, as it (the freedom) > limits the freedom of the others. > [This was one of the former Eastern Germany liberty > movements' slogans - and not a communists one] She was a founder-bloody-member of the German Communist party! A 100% died-in the wool far-left feminist socialist and CP member. Just because the state capitalists of the old Soviet Union subverted what remained of the German left and turned it into an instrument of foreign domination and repression doesn't mean that Rosa wasn't a real communist, or a real socialist. It was the apparatchiks and the beauraucrats who stole the name, not her. The US equivalent at the time might be Eugene Debs (or even Joe Hill - a prophet better honoured outside his own country - although he would probably be happier to be associated with anarchists than communists). Oh look, you've got me started. Jim Choate wrote "Another potential flaw in current economic theory" and more or less gave a definition of centrist, liberal socialism as it applies to business. The sort of "3rd way" views that the right-wing Labour government in UK might have had when they were out of office (being elected moved them even further to the right & the word "socialism" hardly applies any more). As Jim pointed out the practice of giving all the gain to the owners inevitably alienates the workers. But when Jim Burnes - much more naive poltically - said it was "socialist", Jim C. vehemently denied it! It seems that the *word* Socialist for you guys has become an insult, without substantive meaning, it isn't actually a label for socialism any more, when you want to talk about real socialism you have to find new words. Just like your bloodthirsty government made the word "communist" an insult in the 1940s and 50s - for McCarthy and Hoover and their friends "communist" didn't mean "communist" it meant "a person we don't like and intend to persecute". Which is maybe why Werner had to say Rosa wasn't a "communist". He had taken on board the US definition of "communist" as insulting and was no longer able to use the word about someone of whom he approved. And them Jim went and ruined all by writing: > Socialism is the belief that property is best managed and owned by > the government. Well, some people who have called themselves socialists have believed that. It was especially popular at the turn of the century. But many of us never believed that and almost none of us do now. > Fascism is the belief that property should be owned by private > individuals but managed by governments. No, not really. Fascism is a belief in the organic reality of the nation and in the priority of the nation's interests over the individuals. Fascism tends to glorify the army (socialists are usually suspicious of it) to ally with traditionalist elements in society (such as the aristocracy or the Roman church), to be racist and narrowly nationalist (Socialists are more likely to be into diversity, "rainbow coalitions" and to be internationalist, at lest in their rhetoric) and to be strongly authoritarian, especially about personal behaviour. > Capitalism is the belief that property should be owned and managed by the individual. In which case why is so much property owned and managed by companies? Why does our capitialist system result in so many working for others, rather than themselves? "Sargeant, where's mine?". Capitalism is a society where, overwhelmingly, property is owned and managed by *someone* *else*, usually some corporate body or faceless beauracracy. Whether that *someone* *else* is a limited company as it almost always is in the US, or a branch of government as it almost always was in the state-capitalist Soviet Union makes little difference. In fact, given the choice, and living in a representative democracy, I prefer the government-run business to the corporation-run one, especially if it is local government, because at least I have the vote. The two largest employers round where I live are a multinational bank and local government. I can vote for my councillors. Some of them I my neighbours. I can even meet them and have a beer with them. They might not do what I want but at least they have to pretend to listen. I'll never meet the CEO of that bank, or members of the board. They live in a different country from me. They have corporate jets and chauffer-driven cars and holiday on private islands. I'd probably have to be a millionaire to drink in the same bars as them. I dislike State control of business but it isn't half as bad as the faceless beauracracies of the banks, the phone companies, the big drug companies and so on. If there *was* a society where all property was owned and operated managed by individuals working for themselves it would be something like Belloc and Chesterton's "distributivism". The Biblical hope of "each man under his own vine and his own fig tree" or the 17th century English dream of "3 acres and a cow". Nearer to socialist anarchism than to anything else - nothing to do with capitalism at all. How many of you have a mortgate or pay rent? Capitalism means that someone else owns your house. How many of you work for a corporation? Capitalism means that someone else owns your job. Don't believe the bullshit about "private ownership". Capitalism means that someone else gets to own everything, the rest of us just get to work for them. But then Jim B. restored my faith in Jim C. my making the most childish statement yet: > You imply that the employees and employers interests are not the same. It is so pathetically obvious that they are *not* the same that it's hard to answer this without farting. Both employee and shareholder have an interest in paying for investment - the employee to keep the business going, and keep their job, the investor to raise the capital value. But after investment there is a pot of money to be split (or should be, if the company is viable). If it goes to shareholders in dividends, it doesn't go to workers in wages. If it goes to workers, it doesn't go to shareholders. A conflict of interest. Shareholders and managers have an interest in getting more work out of an employee for the same wages - whether by longer hours, or by automation or by training. A worker doesn't have that interest unless the extra production is returned to them in wages. Which it usually isn't, else where would profits come from? You Americans think you can defuse socialism by defining it as "state control of industry" (an idea which most of the left has rejected for 40 or 50 years now and a great many never accepted in the first place) and then accuse people of playing with definitions to make a point! Read : http://www.web.net/~newsoc/documents/Draper.html which says all this at greater length than I've got time for. It kicks off with a great quote from William Morris: "... I pondered all these things, and how men fight and lose the battle, and the thing that they fought for comes about in spite of their defeat, and when it comes turns out not to be what they meant, and other men have to fight for what they meant under another name..." You Yankee conservatives and your so-called libertarian (but, in practice, always almost authoritarian) friends may think you can get rid of socialism by defining it out of existence but it will rise again, even if it has to be under another name. And then Matt Gering replied to Ken Brown: >> A monopolisitic supplier of some good has a measure >> of political power. > Political power gums at the mean end of a gun, what political power do > monopolies have and how? And I was almost knocked over by the innocence, ignorance and naievety of such a statement. What political power do monopolies have? The power to deny you things you need to live. The power to deny you the means to earn a living. Political and economic power go hand in hand, as they always have. You can never have one without the other. If there is only one employer in a town then anyone born there must either leave or knuckle under. Remember "I sold my soul to the company stores". And what's this crap about the shareholders bearing the risk and the workers not? Is giving years of your life to some enterprise that then gets sold from under your feet and closed down not a risk? Is going donw a mine, not a risk, or to sea, or standing in front of a class of screaming kids, or working the late night shift in a burger bar, or driving a tractor, or cleaning the streets? You don't have to have any romantic workerist notions about the dignity of labour to realise that workers have a risk, and an interest. It two take similar jobs with different companies, both work for years, getting promoted, putting aside a pension, and one is suddenly made redundant, "let go", because the incompetance or whim of the bosses has ruined the company, hasn't that person lost something? Haven't they made an investment of their time, their thought, their life? Even an office worker, a beauraucrat, a clerk even a computer programmer (gasp!) brings their chips to put on the table. As GK Chesterton said it isn't the rich who have the greatest interest in society. They can always get on the next boat to Borneo. It is the ordinary folk who have to stay behind and clean up the mess the rich leave behind them. Unlike what Matt Gering said monopoly power *does* "come out of the barrel of a gun" - it is preserved by military and police authority. The forms of "ownership" under which most big businesses operate - things like the joint stock company, or limited liability - are not natural, they do not arise out of common human attributes (if they did they would be universal, whereas they didn't appear until they were invented in Holland or England less than 500 years ago). They are defined and controlled by the political process. Just like previous forms of ownership. The feudal system was not "natural", slavery is not "natural", the monastic ownership of huge tracts of land was not "natural", the king's right to appropriate land from intestate barons and minor heiresses was not "natural". The politics of the time - as always more or less run (but not entirely public opinion and tradition count for somethign even in a dictatorship or absolute monarchy) by the rich and the well-armed; but as always, in a state of tension between and various interest groups - the politics of the time defined what counted as ownership and backed it up with fire and the sword. A peasant could take his master to court and claim to be free (the longest court case in English history was the inhabitants of a village in Oxfordshire suing their lord for their freedom) but if the peasant tried to farm the lord's land - well what are men-at-arms for? And that's the same now. Great property, the ownership of land or shares, the ownership of the products of other people's work, to be disposed of at will as if it was a comb or a pen, is a social construction. Like money itself it exists because folk choose to believe that it exists. If we all stopped behaving as if great property existed, it would cease to exist. It is somethign that is in our minds, not nature. If shopkeepers lose respect for your dollar bills or your credit cards or your gold bars (other than as a useful and beautiful metal) you will not be able spend your wealth. That respect for money is buttressed by the state. If farmworkers lose their respect for the land rights of the owner and start planting crops in their own right, then the owner will no longer own - unless they can get the state, the police, the army, to help them. At this point so-called libertarians interject & say that the libertarian owner will defend his property with his own gun - but one man can't fight off 20 or 30 - they have to get their friends and neighbours to join in, or hire guards - and that's back to politics again. It may not be a "state" (although that's a matter of definition) but when people band together to defend what they see as their property it is certainly politics. That's what politics is, how people live together in numbers. The gunwankers may fancy themselves libertarians but really all they are pleading for is the right for them and their friends - their guards, their police - to oppress the workers. US so-called liberatarianism, hand in hand with the most blatant forms of capitalism, the instutionalised rascism of US society and the gunwanking fantasies of the pampered hooligans who call themselves "libertarians" would inevitably lead not to freedom from the State but to the imposition of hundreds or thousands of mini-States, each as brutal as the next. You would be better off in Albania or Burundi. Most assets in our society are owned by corporations, not by natural persons. They are socially and legally defined. The law - backed by the State, the police, the army and the courts - grants limited liability to shareholders. That might even be a good idea, it encourages investment and reduces the number of destitute capitalists begging on street corners. But it isn't at all the same thing as natural, ordianary property rights, and it is 100% political power and not far from Mao's gun barrel. Sometimes I have to remember that I am dealing with Americans here. You are all, well, most of you, hopelessly naive about politics, caught up in your little local squabbles. You are taking the mote out of you rleft eye and ignoring the beam in your own right eye. How can anyone take eriously a country that makes more fuss about where Clinton put his cigar than it did about Oliver North's terror squads buying weapons for mass-murder in Nicaragua with profits made form selling cocaine in the USA? And if Reagan *didn't* know then he should have been removed from office as medically unfit. And we *know* Bush knew. And the fucking Republicans voted him in afterwards. It's always the same with conservatives - they make libertarian noises but when push comes to shove they turn out to be the same old authoritarian ruling class who have been kicking us around for centuries. It's almost as bad in England. The Tory Party actually has *two* right wings: the big-business-friendly free traders (who tend to dominate when they are in power) and the blue-rinse backwoodsmen who are in to Queen and Country and tend to come to the fore when in opposition. The first sort would be Libertarians if they weren't Tories. The second sort would be fascists. They are the reason 17 years of Tory government made no real contribution to civil liberties in Britain. Whenever the Tories are scared of losing power they put away their free-trade and libertarian principles and out coem the bigots, the racists, the petty nationalists, the hounds baying for blood. Evil shits the lot of them. Eugene Debs is supposed to have said: "Too long have the workers of the world waited for some Moses to lead them out of bondage. He has not come; he never will come. I would not lead you out if I could; for if you could be led out, you could be led back again. I would have you make up your minds that there is nothing you cannot do for yourselves." That's authentic socialism. No leader will save us - if we have leaders we don't have freedom. No elite of gun-toting so-called libertarians will make the works a better place - thay are part of the problem, not part of the solution. No cypherpunk who thinks that the rest of us are worthless sheeple will ever get anywhere. People have to do it for themselves, together. It is a fallen world. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. No man is more fitted than any other to rule. All political power will lead to corruption, and all economic power is political power. To be rich is inevitably to be corrupted, not because the rich are greater sinners than the poor but because the rich have more power than the poor, and all are sinners and all will abuse power. We try to use democracy and the vote to protect ourselves against the abuse of political power by those who think they know better than us. We need to protect ourselves against the abuse of economic power in the same way. John the Ranter ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

2 1

FBI to inaugurate national DNA database
by Jim Gillogly 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

SJMC retails a report from today's NYT: http://www.sjmercury.com/breaking/docs/084314.htm Executive summary: - Computer at secret location - Access limited to LE - All sex offenders get to contribute; felons in some States; other contributors not yet determined. -- Jim Gillogly Highday, 21 Winterfilth S.R. 1998, 16:12 12.19.5.10.14, 5 Ix 7 Yax, Seventh Lord of Night

1 0

EVEN MORE FREE PORN: STUFFED HAS 10 LINKS TO 100S OF FREE PICS, NEW EVERY DAY
by STUFFED TUE OCT 13 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

+ 30 SUPERB, HI-RES, HOT PHOTOS + 5 SUPER SEXY STORIES + XXX VAGINAS + FOR FREE SEX + JEN'S PALACE + HENTAI BIJUTU + VALERIE'S GIRLS + EUROPEAN WOMEN + TALENT SEARCH + CUM COVERED FACES + BLOWJOB HEAVEN + PORNFEEDS + BONUS PIC 1 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/1812.htm + BONUS PIC 2 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/7830.htm + BONUS PIC 3 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/30442.htm + BONUS PIC 4 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/28398.htm + BONUS PIC 5 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/14588.htm + MUCH, MUCH MORE! ----> http://stuffed.net/home/ <---- If you haven't visited STUFFED in the last few days, you're in for a real treat. It's faster than ever before and now, as a subscriber, you get 35 FREE new pics every day, plus over 100 more at carefully selected FREE sites we link to. This email is never sent unsolicited. Stuffed is the supplement for the Eureka newsletter you subscribed to. Full instructions on unsubscribing are in every issue of Eureka! ----> http://stuffed.net/home/ <----

1 0

Seeking Commission Based Sales Representatives and Distributors
by distributor＠angelfire.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We are seeking commission-based sales representatives and distributors in your geographic market to spearhead the national roll-out for our Consumer Smart Product line. Whether you are a student or a senior citizen, everyone is qualified to earn extra income within our company. Could you use extra income? Are you tired of get rich schemes? If you can answer YES to these questions, then this is the perfect opportunity for you. This is not a pyramid or get rich quick scheme. This is a serious, legitmate business opportunity. We offer Consumer Smart Products at prices everyone can afford! Our products are useful for everyone and they make perfect gifts! All our products emphasize "Quality, Function and Value" For additional information, please reply to this email with more info in your subject heading. Only serious applicants need apply. Thank You

1 0

Gates v 2.0
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Besides the FBI's DNA database, in today's (Oct. 12th, 1998) New York Times is a John Markoff commentary " Memo Offers a Glimpse of Gates 2.0" about a 14 page memo written by Bill Gates in Sept., entitled "The Era Ahead". In this memo, Gates "describes a new system to be called Megaserver which will provide computer users with access to their personal information and electronic mail wherever they have an Internet connection." Holy Hotmail Batman! That Bill is right on top of things! Further along, the article paraphases Bill that that the operating system "will play an increasing role in protecting intellectual piracy against from data piracy by tracking the use of information and preventing illicit copying." I can see my future now, logging into Windows 2000 with the handy keyboard DNA sampler. However, all of my software is registered to my dog. Here boy...

1 1

DNA
by Xena - Warrior Princess 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Another example of science fiction that probably should have been kept as fiction. FBI to inaugurate national DNA database NEW YORK (Reuters) - The FBI will open a new and improved national DNA database Tuesday that will be used to help stop serial rapists and other repeat criminals, the New York Times reported Monday. (Full story) http://www.sjmercury.com/breaking/docs/084314.htm

3 2

RE: Hidden WebTV signatures
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text From: Pablo Calamera <pablo(a)microsoft.com> To: "'Robert Hettinga'" <rah(a)shipwright.com>, "'mac-crypto(a)vmeng.com'" <mac-crypto(a)vmeng.com> Subject: RE: Hidden WebTV signatures Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 11:46:37 -0700 Yes. Well, the crypto part anyways ;-) > -----Original Message----- > From: mac-crypto(a)vmeng.com [mailto:mac-crypto@vmeng.com]On Behalf Of > Robert Hettinga > Sent: Sunday, October 11, 1998 8:08 AM > To: mac-crypto(a)vmeng.com > Subject: Hidden WebTV signatures > > > Pablo? > > Did *you* do this??? > > :-) > > Cheers, > Bob Hettinga > > --- begin forwarded text > > > From: pgut001(a)cs.auckland.ac.nz (Peter Gutmann) > To: cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net > Subject: Hidden WebTV signatures > X-Authenticated: relaymail v0.9 on cs26.cs.auckland.ac.nz > Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 03:29:04 (NZDT) > Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net > Precedence: first-class > Reply-To: pgut001(a)cs.auckland.ac.nz (Peter Gutmann) > X-Loop: cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net > > For those of you who don't read sci.crypt, Robert Ames > <gnome(a)istar.ca> has > posted an article in which he observes that all WebTV posts contain an > X-WebTV-Signature: line containing base64-encoded data. For > samples of > WebTV-generated posts, try the alt.weemba newsgroup, which is > filled with > WebTV-user drool (caution: remember to employ protection when > exposting your > mind to the content of the messages). Some samples: > > X-WebTV-Signature: 1 > > ETAsAhQDqtur/jfleJ2CDOnNrVoeyALEQAIUOQyCBbzjx5HHfxeMERDgCjztXOU= > X-WebTV-Signature: 1 > > ETAtAhUAmCCzQt+Tqt6fNX+L9+gDCECaqQkCFA0YCPz5tk85mUgq7iX/u4vWvOgG > > These decode into ASN.1-encoded DSA signatures, eg: > > 1 30 45: SEQUENCE { > 3 02 21: INTEGER > : 00 98 20 B3 42 DF 93 AA DE 9F 35 7F 8B F7 E8 03 > : 08 40 9A A9 09 > 26 02 20: INTEGER > : 0D 18 08 FC F9 B6 4F 39 99 48 2A EE 25 FF BB 8B > : D6 BC E8 06 > : } > > for the second one. The key isn't included in the header, > presumably the > @webtv.net address can be tied to the hardware which contains > some hardcoded > DSA key. I wonder if WebTV users know they're signing each > message they send? > > Peter. > > > --- end forwarded text > > > ----------------- > Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> > Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> > 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' > > --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> 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'

1 0

_PI_ was crap, but...
by Walter Burton 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It did inspire me to consider an interesting line of thought: Maybe pi is the cyphertext and the 216-digit "Holy Unspeakable Name of God" is the Vegenere-ish key. I'll get to work and see if I can crack the message by lunchtime. \\/alter

1 0

RE: Two Jims, Werner and Matt redefine socialism for their own ends
by Matthew James Gering 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> The two largest employers round where I live are a > multinational bank and local government. I can vote > for my councillors. Some of them I my neighbours. So why can't your neighbors run a bank? > something like Belloc and Chesterton's "distributivism". Distribute what and created by whom? Need I point out the obvious fallacy that wealth is a static sum. It is not, wealth must be *created* before it exists to plunder and share. Abstract wealth and divorce it from the creator and you eliminate the motive to create. You can only live from plundered wealth so long before you slip into oblivion (see the Soviet Union). > How many of you have a mortgate or pay rent? Capitalism > means that someone else owns your house. No, capitalism allows you to leverage your future productive capacity to acquire capital assets you wouldn't otherwise have. That is your choice, and your benefit. > How many of you work for a corporation? Capitalism means > that someone else owns your job. No, capitalism allows you to trade your labor instead of your product. That is your choice, and your benefit. > And then Matt Gering replied to Ken Brown: > > >> A monopolisitic supplier of some good has a measure > >> of political power. > > > Political power comes at the mean end of a gun, what > > political power do monopolies have and how? > And I was almost knocked over by the innocence, ignorance and > naievety of such a statement. The question was not rhetorical. Do you care to answer? > What political power do monopolies have? The power > to deny you things you need to live. How? By denying the ability of others to supply them. By denying your right to create them. By (legitimately) denying your ability to steal them. > The power to deny you the means to earn a living. How? By denying your ability to create and dispose of your own wealth. By denying you the right to freely trade your labor or the right of others to purchase that labor. By denying your ability to accumulate capital. > If there is only one employer in a town then anyone born > there must either leave or knuckle under. Staying is a restraint that is self-imposed (provided government does not restrict freedom of movement). Why is there only one employer? > Unlike what Matt Gering said monopoly power *does* "come > out of the barrel of a gun" On the contrary I clearly stated it did. But if the monopoly does not have guns itself, whose guns are they? > - it is preserved by military and police authority. Exactly. So eliminate those guns. > Like money itself it exists because folk choose to believe > that it exists. If we all stopped behaving as if great > property existed, it would cease to exist. "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." -- Philip K. Dick Fine, stop believing in money, no one is forcing you to. Did it work? Oh, you mean *everyone* has to stop believing in it? Sounds like mass delusion to me, and metaphysical subjectivism. The fact that something exists or not is clearly independent of whether anyone believes in it or not. Money is a symbol. The valuation of any given monetary system is entirely irrelevant to the existence of that which money represents, and the failure of Fiat currencies does not abolish the existence of what they had represented. What is the root of money? http://www.ecosystems.net/mgering/money.html > That respect for money is buttressed by the state. Manipulation of the money supply by the state is tool for theft by the state and denial of economic reality. It had consequences in 1929, and it will again. Matt

1 0

What Really Happened
by Paul H. Merrill 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

What Really Happened Some time ago Mr. Clinton was hosting a state dinner when at the last minute his regular cook took ill and they had to get a replacement at short notice. The fellow arrived and turned out to be a very grubby looking man named Jon. The President voiced his concerns to his chief of staff but was told that this was the best they could do at such short notice. Just before the meal, the President noticed the cook sticking his fingers in the soup to taste it and again he complained to the chief of staff about the cook, but he was told that this man was supposed to be a very good chef. The meal went okay but the President was sure that the soup tasted a little off, and by the time dessert came, he was starting to have stomach cramps and nausea. It was getting worse and worse till finally he had to excuse himself from the state dinner to look for the bathroom. Passing through the kitchen, he caught sight of the cook, Jon, scratching his rear end and this made him feel even worse. By now he was desperately ill with violent cramps and was so disorientated that he couldn't remember which door led to the bathroom. He was on the verge of passing out from the pain when he finally found a door that opened and as he undid his trousers and ran in, he realised to his horror that he had stumbled into Monica Lewinsky's office with his trousers around his knees. As he was just about to pass out, she bent over him and heard her president whisper in a barely audible voice, "sack my cook". And that is how the whole misunderstanding occurred.

1 0

IP: Tracking: Machines to Check Airline Bags Mostly Idle, Report Says
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: believer(a)telepath.com Subject: IP: Tracking: Machines to Check Airline Bags Mostly Idle, Report Says Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 08:03:44 -0500 To: believer(a)telepath.com Source: New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/washpol/unused-bomb-detectors.html October 11, 1998 Machines to Check Airline Bags Mostly Idle, Report Says By MATTHEW L. WALD WASHINGTON -- The Federal Aviation Administration has spent more than $122 million on machines to detect bombs in checked baggage, but those machines that have been installed sit idle for most of the day, according to investigators from the Department of Transportation. The machines, which cost $1.3 million each to buy and install, are supposed to be capable of handling 225 bags an hour, but of 13 that were audited by investigators, nine handled fewer than 200 bags a day, according to a report released on Friday. Some got so little use that the operators could not maintain proficiency in running them, investigators said. "At some airports, they're sitting relatively unused," Lawrence Weintrob, an assistant inspector general of the Transportation Department, said in a telephone interview. "Some airports that are using them are using them rarely, or process relatively few bags through them." But Cathal Flynn, assistant administrator of the FAA for civil aviation security, said the average number of bags processed through each machine was rising sharply as airlines gained experience. Flynn and airline representatives said that part of the problem was that the computerized system for choosing which passengers' bags get scanned was still developing, and would not be fully implemented until the end of the year. "We haven't ironed out all the kinks in the process," said Susan Rork, managing director of security at the Air Transport Association, the trade group of the major airlines. The computerized system singles out individuals about whom there is too little information to conclude that they are not a threat, officials say. It also draws a sample from the group judged not to be a threat, to increase the chance that a terrorist would be caught, and to make the system fairer, Flynn said. One problem, he said, is that if the system were changed to require that a larger number of passengers have their bags scrutinized, then at peak periods people would be delayed so long they would miss their flights. "If you get people fuming at a line, that's not good either," Flynn said. That, he said, would probably discourage machine operators from doing their jobs right. And delays, he said, would damage public acceptance of security measures. In written comments responding to the report, the FAA said that the agency would "pursue a more coherent strategy with air carriers to ramp-up to a higher level of use." However, the agency said, it would be "many years" before technology allowed screening of all bags. Auditors also said that the machines in use could handle only about half as many bags as they did in lab tests, partly because they sound false alarms far more when in use at airports. Each false alarm requires time to resolve. (All alarms so far have been false, officials said, because no bombs have been detected.) The machines' higher false alarm rate is "probably a reason why they don't use it as often as they should," Weintrob said. Fifty-nine of the machines have been installed so far; plans are to have 74 in place by the end of the year, he said. Officials of airports where the machines are installed declined to comment and asked not to be identified. Under FAA rules, airport operators are responsible for various aspects of security, but not for screening bags. That responsibility falls to the airlines. Copyright 1998 The New York Times Company ----------------------- NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ----------------------- ********************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address ********************************************** www.telepath.com/believer **********************************************

2 1

_PI_ was crap, but...
by Walter Burton 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 It did inspire me to consider an interesting line of thought: Maybe pi is the cyphertext and the 216-digit "Holy Unspeakable Name of God" is the Vegenere-ish key. I'll get to work and see if I can crack the message by lunchtime. \\/alter -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.0 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> Comment: For my public key, send a msg with "public key" in the subj. iQA/AwUBNiNatI0Llo1Bf1gWEQLIfACguQpfpZLC3cT0Iw/vj/ncDlHWcPIAn3W5 ZoMzjfYNl4sD+J2sqhtZ6fwU =GZcu -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

IP: ISPI Clips 5.30: U.S. lawmakers approve major wiretap law change
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: "ama-gi ISPI" <offshore(a)email.msn.com> Subject: IP: ISPI Clips 5.30: U.S. lawmakers approve major wiretap law change Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 00:08:52 -0700 To: <Undisclosed.Recipients(a)majordomo.pobox.com> ISPI Clips 5.30: U.S. lawmakers approve major wiretap law change News & Info from the Institute for the Study of Privacy Issues (ISPI) Monday October 12, 1998 ISPI4Privacy(a)ama-gi.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This From: Reuters News Service, (via Yahoo) October 8, 1998 http://biz.yahoo.com/ U.S. lawmakers approve major wiretap law change (adds Senate approval, FBI comment) http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/981008/b16.html By Aaron Pressman WASHINGTON, Oct 8 (Reuters) - Without debate or notice, U.S. lawmakers on Thursday approved a proposal long sought by the FBI that would dramatically expand wiretapping authority -- an idea Congress openly rejected three years ago. The provision, allowing law enforcement agencies more easily to tap any telephone used by or near a target individual instead of getting authorization to tap specific phones, was added to the Intelligence Authorization Conference report during a closed door meeting and filed with the House and Senate on Monday. The conference report was easily adopted by the House on Wednesday, despite an objection to the wiretapping provision from Georgia Republican Bob Barr, and by the Senate on Thursday. Neither the House nor the Senate had included the provision, known as roving wiretap authority, in their versions of the intelligence bill. But lawmakers drafting the conference report, essentially a reconciliation of the two versions, decided to include it. Civil liberties groups were outraged by the expanded wiretapping authority and the process of adding the provision in secret. ``Roving wiretaps are a major expansion of current government surveillance power,'' said Alan Davidson, staff counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology in Washington. ``To take a controversial provision that affects the fundamental constitutional liberties of the people and pass it behind closed doors shows a shocking disregard for our democratic process.'' FBI officials said they needed to be able to get roving wiretap authority more easily to catch criminals taking advantage of new telecommunications technologies. ``This provision is just a refinement of the existing wiretap statute,'' said Barry Smith, supervisory special agent in the FBI's congressional affairs office. ``It's just a matter of ensuring we have the means to effectively pursue these violent criminals and terrorists.'' Under current rules, law enforcement agencies seeking roving wiretap authority from a judge must prove that an individual is switching telephones specifically for the purpose of evading a surveillance. The standard has been difficult to meet and kept the number of roving wiretaps approved to a minimum, a telephone industry official said. Without roving authority, police must get permission from a judge for each telephone line to be tapped. Under the change approved this week, the police would need show only that an individual's ``actions could have the effect of thwarting interception from a specific facility.'' The change removed the need to consider the target's motive in using different telephones. Copyright © 1998 Reuters Limited. --------------------------------NOTICE:------------------------------ ISPI Clips are news & opinion articles on privacy issues from all points of view; they are clipped from local, national and international newspapers, journals and magazines, etc. Inclusion as an ISPI Clip does not necessarily reflect an endorsement of the content or opinion by ISPI. In compliance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed free without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ISPI Clips is a FREE e-mail service from the "Institute for the Study of Privacy Issues" (ISPI). To receive "ISPI Clips" on a regular bases (up to 3 - 8 clips per day) send the following message "Please enter [Your Name] into the ISPI Clips list: [Your e-mail address]" to: ISPIClips(a)ama-gi.com . The Institute for the Study of Privacy Issues (ISPI) is a small contributor-funded organization based in Victoria, British Columbia (Canada). ISPI operates on a not-for-profit basis, accepts no government funding and takes a global perspective. ISPI's mandate is to conduct & promote interdisciplinary research into electronic, personal and financial privacy with a view toward helping ordinary people understand the degree of privacy they have with respect to government, industry and each other and to likewise inform them about techniques to enhance their privacy. But, none of this can be accomplished without your kind and generous financial support. If you value in the ISPI Clips service or if you are concerned about the erosion of your privacy in general, won't you please help us continue this important work by becoming an "ISPI Clips Supporter" or by taking out an institute Membership? We gratefully accept all contributions: Less than $60 ISPI Clips Supporter $60 - $99 Primary ISPI Membership (1 year) $100 - $300 Senior ISPI Membership (2 years) More than $300 Executive Council Membership (life) Your ISPI "membership" contribution entitles you to receive "The ISPI Privacy Reporter" (our bi-monthly 12 page hard-copy newsletter in multi-contributor format) for the duration of your membership. For a contribution form with postal instructions please send the following message "ISPI Contribution Form" to ISPI4Privacy(a)ama-gi.com . We maintain a strict privacy policy. Any information you divulge to ISPI is kept in strict confidence. It will not be sold, lent or given away to any third party. ********************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address ********************************************** www.telepath.com/believer **********************************************

1 0

IP: Secret Marine training mission startles residents
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: believer(a)telepath.com Subject: IP: Secret Marine training mission startles residents Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 11:12:42 -0500 To: believer(a)telepath.com Source: Greensboro News & Record (N.Carolina) http://www.greensboro.com/nronline/news/helicopters9.htm Secret Marine training mission startles residents 10-9-98 By ANDREA BALL, Staff Writer Fisher Park resident Helen Ullrich was resting in bed when she heard the roar of the helicopters. The house shook. The windows rattled. Her first thought: A plane is going to crash. Her second: Where's it going to land? "For the first minute or two, that's what it was like," she said. "Just fear." Greensboro residents shuddered and gawked at the skies Wednesday night while nine military helicopters unexpectedly swarmed above their houses. The aircraft were involved in a two-hour training mission by the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, said Capt. Bill Darrenkamp, public affairs officer for Camp Lejeune. The helicopters -- a Huey, two Cobras, two Super Stallions and four Sea Knights -- flew from Onslow Bay to practice long-range raids, Darrenkamp said. The local training session stretched from about 9:30 to 11:30 p.m. The Greensboro Police Department agreed to the mission about a month ago, Darrenkamp said. Nearly 200 families in the Huffine Mill Road area were told of the training a few hours before it began. The rest of the city was clueless. And that's the way the Marines wanted it, said Capt. Sammy Bell of the Greensboro Police Department. "We couldn't have notified the public on it because if we had, everyone and their brother would be out there trying to watch it," Bell said. Darrenkamp said the mission was kept quiet because Marines wanted the training to be as realistic as possible. They also wanted to keep crowds away from the planes when they landed because they can kick up dirt and debris, he said. The nine helicopters flew from outside Jacksonville to Piedmont Triad International Airport to refuel. Then they landed at the old Mt. Zion School on Huffine Mill Road, where 50 to 60 Marines enacted an invasion of enemy headquarters. They set off smoke grenades, shot blanks with their M-16s and blew off a door specially installed for the military activity. But the covert training alarmed people throughout the city. Although the helicopters were often 400 feet from the ground, Darrenkamp said they dipped much lower while landing. Some residents complained that the helicopters barely missed their houses. "That (height) was cleared, according to the military, by the FAA," said Capt. David Wray of the Greensboro Police Department. "We were assured that every safety measure would be taken." Residents in neighborhoods throughout the city -- including downtown, Lindley Park, Old Starmount, Forest Oaks and Lake Daniel -- heard or saw the deafening craft. And then the guessing began. Was it a crashing plane? An air search for an escaped convict? One of those medical helicopters? Brien Deutermanand her husband Bill were watching television in their Old Starmount home when they heard the helicopters. The couple, seated on their couch, whipped around to peer out their picture window. A plane was in trouble, they guessed. They thought of the recent accident in which a small plane crashed into a home in Winston-Salem. "It really startled us," Brien Deuterman said. "After what happened in Winston-Salem a few months ago, that was the first thing that ran through our minds." Helen Ullrich rushed outside her home on Isabel Street to find her pajama-clad neighbors standing in the street, squinting into the sky at the passing helicopters. Scared children clung to their parents, while adults slowly relaxed. Then came the jokes. The government is scaring us out of our houses to get an accurate census. If we're in danger, why are we all standing in the middle of the road? "Once we realized we were out of danger, we were just laughing about it," Ullrich said. Copyright © Greensboro News & Record, Inc. ----------------------- NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ----------------------- ********************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address ********************************************** www.telepath.com/believer **********************************************

1 0

RE: Two Jims, Werner and Matt redefine socialism for their own en (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: Matthew James Gering <mgering(a)ecosystems.net> > Subject: RE: Two Jims, Werner and Matt redefine socialism for their own en > ds > Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 14:24:16 -0700 > > multinational bank and local government. I can vote > > for my councillors. Some of them I my neighbours. > > So why can't your neighbors run a bank? The same reason most people can't. Funny thing is, it's the same reason a lot of bankers can't run banks. > Distribute what and created by whom? Need I point out the obvious > fallacy that wealth is a static sum. Interesting. I don't see that particular axiom in my notes....what I see is the assumption that markets and their growth are unlimited. Pesky things like ecological impacts, social impacts, waste processing, etc. are no big percentage (as in completely ignored). > Abstract wealth and divorce it > from the creator and you eliminate the motive to create. An interesting but obtuse means of stating that economics are a result of human action and not a fundamental force in nature. > > And then Matt Gering replied to Ken Brown: > > > > >> A monopolisitic supplier of some good has a measure > > >> of political power. > > > > > Political power comes at the mean end of a gun, what > > > political power do monopolies have and how? > > > And I was almost knocked over by the innocence, ignorance and > > naievety of such a statement. > > The question was not rhetorical. Do you care to answer? Political power is actualy a much broader sword than Marx (and yourself apparently) would paint. It's invovled in such basic actions as saying thank you and holding a door open for somebody. The political aspect is a fundamental belief that what goes around comes around. If I, and enough other people walk around opening doors for each other, do this then when I can't open the door somebody likely will. It's a gamble in the basic nature of humans, to do the same basic things within the same social environment the same basic way. Things like economies of scale have fundamental bases in these sorts of psychological insights. Those comparable behaviours very seldom involve violence as a motive, let alone a method. People, all people, behave badly when violence is involved. Usualy violence is involved in creating a behaviour of compliance that runs contrary to some fundamental behaviour of the individual(s) or on the overt attempt to steal or kill (murder is incorrect because it implies a social structure that doesn't actualy exist at this fundamental level). > > What political power do monopolies have? The power > > to deny you things you need to live. > > How? By denying the ability of others to supply them. By denying your > right to create them. By (legitimately) denying your ability to steal > them. Monopolies have the power to decide *YOUR* tomorrow. It isn't theirs at the cost of a simple profit. > > - it is preserved by military and police authority. And social institutions. > Exactly. So eliminate those guns. Beeeep. We're so SORRY (not)!!!! That's absolutely the WRONG answer EVER. > "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't > go away." -- Philip K. Dick > > Fine, stop believing in money, no one is forcing you to. Did it work? > Oh, you mean *everyone* has to stop believing in it? Sounds like mass > delusion to me, That is EXACTLY what I've been trying to say all along! Economics is a social institution that has fundamental roots in the base behaviours of the animals involved. > What is the root of money? > http://www.ecosystems.net/mgering/money.html Hunger. ____________________________________________________________________ To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Your New Adobe Customer Number
by Adobe Systems 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thank you for registering with Adobe Systems, Inc. Your new Online Customer ID is: 9062604113320310 The PIN you entered and confirmed has been encrypted and stored with your registration information. Please remember your Customer ID and PIN for the next time you login as an Adobe Customer on www.adobe.com.

1 0

No Subject
by news＠quake.connectfree.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Connect FREE Newsletter October 98 Welcome to Connect Free, and thank you for joining our service. We hope you find our Second Newsletter informative. September's Newsletter can be viewed on our web site at the bottom of the FREE Internet page. FreeServe & Dixons Now we all know that Free Internet access is going to be the norm very shortly and users of the Internet like yourselves would like to have several connections to the Internet from different ISP's and of course you will choose the service that offers the best performance. With the launch of Dixons Freeserve service some of our users have taken the decision to have a second account - great idea. If you decide to use this service alongside your Connect FREE account please do not use the CD install that Dixons provide - if you do, then you may just find that your Connect FREE account will no longer work. It is possible to configure the Freeserve system manually and then you will be able to use any account on your system without problem. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Future Developments In November, Connect FREE will be able to offer an even better service because we will have 1Gig of Internet bandwidth for fast access to the Internet and thousands of modems and lines ensuring that you get a guaranteed first time connection every time. We will be spending one million pounds on new equipment, for example new modem racks, routers and servers. This new equipment will be housed at Telehouse, London, the main exchange for all UK Internet traffic. Connect FREE is aiming to be not only the first Internet Service Provider to offer FREE Internet access in the UK but also to be the Best. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- POP3 & SMTP Mail During November Connect FREE is going to be offering all it's customers FREE unlimited POP3 e-mail addresses and unlimited aliases to each e-mail account. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Free Web Space During December we plan to offer all our Connect FREE customers, FREE web space. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Proxy Server Connect FREE does not have a Proxy Server. If you find that you can connect to the Connect FREE service but you cannot view any web pages the likelihood is that you have the Proxy Server setting *Ticked* in your browser configuration. This can happen if you put another Internet Service Providers software onto your PC and the automatic configuration will enable this setting. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- News Server The automatic news configuration routine on our website does not work for everybody. If you have problems using this facility then we suggest you set-up News manually using something like Outlook Express. Our News Server address is: news.connectfree.net ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Change of Details If you need to change your personal details i.e. email address etc, then you will soon be able to do this via a web page on the Connect FREE website. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Information Line If you do need to contact Connect FREE by phone or email please ensure that you provide your LoginID & Password with every communication. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Improvements Connect FREE would like to hear from you, if there is any way in which you think we could improve our service to you, or add more content to the Connect FREE website. It is Connect FREE policy not to send unwanted rubbish by e-mail or junk advertising by any other means. All we ask is that you receive our monthly newsletter informing you of any changes to the service and any new service that may come available which you may benefit from. Contact us at info(a)connectfree.net or Telephone 0702 115 2525 No Catches, No Gimmicks, Just Connect FREE

1 0

Re: FBI to inaugurate national DNA database
by Ernest Hua 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I think it would be a very bad idea for civil liberties groups to come out 100% against this. So far all they have said is that they intend to log all convicted criminals. If the C.L. groups complain about that, then it would be too easy for the FBI to turn around and say, "Geez! These guys complain about anything and everything we do!" It would serve the civil liberties causes (and in particular, the crypto cause) much better to view this with suspicion and caution and strongly point out that, while this, on its face, looks okay, the FBI have had a perfect record of always pushing for more surveillence and more record tracking than they previously promise to hold to. Secondly, it is much more important to focus law makers on the FBI's "constantly pushing for everything they can get away with while talking BALANCE" behavior than to nickle and dime every law favoring the FBI. They must be shown for their blatant lies rather than for their gray area behavior. Otherwise, it's a very very tough battle. Ern -----Original Message----- From: Jim Gillogly <jim(a)acm.org> To: cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net <cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net> Date: Monday, October 12, 1998 9:31 AM Subject: FBI to inaugurate national DNA database > >SJMC retails a report from today's NYT: > >http://www.sjmercury.com/breaking/docs/084314.htm > >Executive summary: > >- Computer at secret location >- Access limited to LE >- All sex offenders get to contribute; felons in some States; > other contributors not yet determined. > >-- > Jim Gillogly > Highday, 21 Winterfilth S.R. 1998, 16:12 > 12.19.5.10.14, 5 Ix 7 Yax, Seventh Lord of Night >

1 0

FYI: More on WebTV security
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text From: Pablo Calamera <pablo(a)microsoft.com> To: "'mac-crypto(a)vmeng.com'" <mac-crypto(a)vmeng.com> Subject: FYI: More on WebTV security Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 16:34:14 -0700 Sender: <mac-crypto(a)vmeng.com> Precedence: Bulk Don't know if you've seen this, but we were recently granted a license to ship 128-bit RC4 in our product. No key recovery, no key escrow. Here's the fluff: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/1998/Oct98/EncryptionPR.htm --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> 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'

1 0

#1 HOME BASED BUSINESS TWO YEARS RUNNING!!!
by randrent 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forbes Magazine calls this the #1 home-based business two years running. All you have to do is advertise the 800# and your code#. They do the rest! Earn $100 Fast Start Bonuses for referrals, Plus Residual Bonuses! Fast Start Bonuses are paid every Friday! You could receive a check next week! Call today to get your Code Number. 1-800-811-2141 CODE #57978 No Selling, No Recruiting, No Meetings, No Inventory, No Quotas, No Hassles!!! Call one of the toll free numbers listed below to hear just some of the testimonials of success: 1-888-446-6951 1-888-269-7961 1-888-446-6949 1-888-438-4005 1-888-256-4767 1-888-703-5389 1-888-731-3457 1-888-715-0642 After you listen to these testimonials, please call Top Secrets Hotline at: 1-800-811-2141 use Code#57978 to get answers to any further questions.

1 0

RE:
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

paranoid, or enlightened? :) At 03:55 PM 10/10/98 , you wrote: >~> PS. there is someone on this list who knows who >~> i am. yes there is someone who knows who anon >~> posters are. we fucking hate you and am waiting >~> for you to take the trap and we will reveal your >~> identity scumbag. >

1 0

Re:
by Secret Squirrel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anonymous wrote: > > > >HOW MUCH CODE DID 'CYPHERPUNK' TIM MAY EVER WRITE? > > > > How much code have you ever written? > > A DECENT AMOUNT. THE CRYPTO APPS I CREATED ARE SOMEWHAT UNIQUE, > SO IF I MENTIONED THEM YOU MIGHT FIGURE OUT WHO I AM. Did you rewrite your keyboard driver at the same time?

1 0

Better than Viagra-Ask Mark McGwire
by aimkt＠aimarketinginc.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

************************************************************************ Removal Instructions can be found at the bottom of this page ************************************************************************ Announcing ***LIBIDO PLUS*** LIBIDO PLUS already includes the most talked about and most effective BODY REBUILDING ingredient in America today. That key ingredient is ANDROSTENEDIONE. The same powerful ingredient that St. Louis Cardinals baseball player MARK McGWIRE has been using as a PERFORMANCE ENHANCER and BODY REBUILDER. Doing so has helped him to better endure the physical demands of the extensive major league baseball season and in the process he was able to establish a new all time major league home run record. THIS MAKES LIBIDO PLUS The most powerful libido enhancing product ever developed for both women and men Formulated to prolong and enhance your sexual enjoyment LIBIDO PLUS is formulated to enhance: * Your DESIRE * Your STAMINA * Your PLEASURE * Your PERFORMANCE * All Natural * No damaging side effects * No prescription necessary * Physician developed * Physician recommended * Patented Formulation * Easily Affordable * Free - $500 in money saving coupons for items you use every day We are so confident that you will be totally satisfied with LIBIDO PLUS that we unconditionally guarantee it. Click on the hyper link below to find out more about the many benefits of LIBIDO PLUS, the $500 in free money saving coupons and our unbelieveable guarantee. http://www.libidomax.com ************************************************************************ This Message is intended for the Health Conscious Individual. If we have reached you by mistake please accept our apologies. If you wish to be deleted from our database, please reply with the subject "R emove" ************************************************************************

1 0

Between the Lines
by Edwin E. Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Between the Lines Joseph Farah Disarm the BATF Another day, another debacle for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. This time, the scene is not Waco, Texas, or Ruby Ridge, Idaho, but Taft, California -- another hotbed of "anti-government activity." According to the federal government's own account, the BATF began an investigation into illegal firearms sales by people espousing anti-government rhetoric three or four years ago with an undercover agent allegedly making an illegal purchase of a .22-caliber pistol. It ended last week with one of the three targets of the federal government probe dead in a highly unusual -- and, yes, improbable -- incident. The official story goes something like this: Two BATF agents, a Kern County sheriff's deputy and Sgt. Ed Whiting of the Taft Police Department attempted to take into custody on illegal firearms trafficking charges, Darryl Howell, a 45-year-old grandfather and owner of a surplus store that sold, among other things, guns and ammunition. A struggle between the BATF agents and Howell ensued. The cops say he broke away from them, lunged for a .45-caliber handgun, put it into his mouth and fired a single shot. Whiting, the story goes, had become temporarily distracted during the scuffle. When he heard the single shot, he instinctively aimed his gun at Howell and fired three more shots into his already, presumably, lifeless body. Now, if you believe that, I have an intercontinental ballistic missile I'd like to sell you. I'm not a cop, and I've never played one on TV. But I have reported on enough crime stories in my day to know when one stinks to high heaven. And this one smells like a cattle ranch on a windless, summer day in California's Central Valley. Let me see if I have this straight. Four cops, one "suspect." This wanted outlaw -- so dangerous he's been under scrutiny of federal law enforcement for nearly four years -- is confronted not in his home, not on his lunch break, not on his way to work or after he locks up, but during the workday in a store loaded with firearms. Even though he's not accused of being on PCP or any other drugs, he cannot be physically subdued by four officers. They are unable to persuade him to come along peacefully or handcuff him involuntarily. Instead, he is permitted by these highly trained law enforcement professionals to grab one of his guns. But they don't shoot him right away. Oh no. They allow him to pick up the handgun, bring it all the way up to his mouth and pull the trigger. Only then, we are told, does one of the officers, who wasn't paying attention, pump the desperado full of lead. Do these BATF clowns ever learn? Either these guys are Washington's answer to the Keystone Kops, or we have on the loose a cold, calculating, professional, Gestapo-like killing machine designed to root out dissidents exercising their Second Amendment rights and blow them away without the messiness of trials and due process. How many times does America need to see such tragedies before it wakes up and disarms these dangerous, out-of-control, gun-slinging hitmen? The inmates are running the asylum, folks. Beam me up. There is no allegation made by any of these cowboys that Howell or any others charged in a series of raids in the town of Taft last week had provided weapons to criminals or represented a threat to law-abiding citizens anywhere. In fact, I personally would have felt a lot safer in Taft last week, before Mr. Howell was "suicided" than I would today. I think most Americans would. Let's suspend our own cognitive skills and good judgment for a moment and pretend the cops' story is 100 percent accurate. Was the four-year investigation worth it? Was it a prudent investment of taxpayer dollars? Why aren't these law-enforcement heroes out investigating real crimes of violence against innocent victims, instead of conducting secretive sting operations designed to entrap people into violating inherently unconstitutional laws? But, you know what? Such talk can get you in trouble these days. One of the BATF agents responsible for this tragedy said one of Howell's friends had (gasp!) complained about a ban on "assault weapons" and the actions of President Clinton, Attorney General Janet Reno and U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein. At the risk of inviting a similar assault on my home or business, let me pick up that cry: These are, indeed, some of the people who represent a real threat to our lives and liberty in America t

1 0