December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: No Subject
by Michael Motyka 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Most of nature is a very high quality vacuum, actually. > Yup, I did my 100hrs of Physics, Chemistry and Math too. I like the way the 'vacuum' behaves near very hi-Z nuclei. > Governments have not always been so parasite-infested; > And I find this very difficult to believe. > this disease progresses slowly, numbingly, unnoticed, like leprosy. > Interesting that you use 'numbingly' to describe leprosy; it shows an understanding of the nature of the infection. Be careful if you swim in the freshwater streams in Hawaii. Better not have any cuts or abrasions! More interesting, though, is this: why would a block cipher use key bits rather than an LFSR to do input or output whitening? Is it strictly a performance issue? Is it proven that doing this doesn't leak key bits in some way? Mike

1 0

Re: MIB Subponeas (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 12:42:36 -0800 > From: Tim May <tcmay(a)got.net> > Subject: Re: MIB Subponeas > * Is travel paid for? How? By spending hours completing forms in > quadruplicate, or do they just cut a check for some per diem sort of > payment? The IRS offered to pay my travel from the local Austin airport to Seattle and pay the hotel bill and meals. I was trying to determine how transportation in Seattle was going to be handled when they said they didn't need me in person. > * What if one has pressing engagements? (Travel out of the country, an > anniversary party, washing the dog?) I told them I didn't want to go to Seattle, they suggested an affadavit. > * What if one shows up with no records and claims not to have them? Exactly what I did after checking to make sure I didn't. They said 'Ok'. > * What about lawyer expenses? I know the line about "If you cannot afford What lawyer? You don't get a lawyer with Grand Juries. > More soberly, this kind of subpoena could well nuke the Cypherpunks list, Not even hardly. A subpoena isn't an accussation, it's an instrument to obtain potentialy relevant testimony and evidence. It means (at least in this case) "We believe you may know something or have possession of information related, but not necessarily directly involved in this matter." The sub-channel message is "Don't fuck with us, you're only about a hairs breadth away from hell on earth." Besides, they wanted me to testify *for* the prosecution, preferebly willingly. The last thing they were going to do was go heavy handed. > even the distributed node instance. If Igor Chudov, Lance Cottrell, and Jim > Choate all have to fly to Seattle and face scrutiny, implied threats, and > possible jail time for failing to jump when the Feds say jump, they may > decide to stop acting as Fed magnets. If the operators are that jumpy I suspect they wouldn't put up with the bills, occassional stupid private emails, the costs in time, etc. I knew this sort of stuff was a possibility. The only issue that took me by surprise was two officers showing up at work unannounced. It took me till the next day to burn off the heeby-jeebies from that. Of course, a truly motivated and worried, not to mention well heeled, cypherpunks might consider putting up a node themselves....<nah> ____________________________________________________________________ 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

Re: Using a password as a private key.
by Christopher Steel - Java Design Center McLean VA 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Why not encrypt the private key with a 128 bit symmetric key (created from the hash of a username and paasword) and store on a keyserver, along with the public key? That way, you don't have to store it yourself locally, you get it off the keyserver. I wrote a keyserver that does just that. In addition, it also verifies ies the user before returning the key. It requires the user to encrypt a known string with a separate password. The encrypted string is sent to the keyserver, encrypted with the keyserver's public key. Seems rather safe. Anyone disagree? -Chris P.S. I might not use it for military purposes, but for company email... "RedRook" <redrook(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 13:53:07 -0800 (PST) >Assymetic crypto systems such as >Diffie-Hellman, El-Gamel, and DSS, allow the private key to be a >randomly chosen number. But, as a cute hack, instead of using a >random number, for the private key, you could use a hash of the User >Name, and a password. > >Doing so allows the users to generate their private key on demand. >They don't have to store the private key, and if they want to work on >a another computer, they don't need to bring along a copy. >Has any one tried this? Is there existing software that does this? Any >comments on the security of such a scheme? >The only draw back that I can think of is the potential lack of >randomness in the key. If the user chooses a bad password, it would be >possible to brute force the public key. >Harv.RedRook(a)yahoo.com >_________________________________________________________ >DO YOU YAHOO!? >Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com >

1 0

Cameras in Public Places (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 11:57:22 -0800 > From: Michael Motyka <mmotyka(a)lsil.com> > Subject: Cameras in Public Places [ravage: don't remember who said it... > > ] > > Privacy is also needed on public places (e.g., violated by face > > recognition systems) Anonymity is not equal to privacy. > The appropriate way of dealing with them is to wait for some people to > be misidentified and then file suit against the municipality using the > equipment. Harassment, false arrest, invasion of privacy, abuse of > power, loss of reputation, loss of the ability to earn a living - take a > few of the cities for $10 or $20 million and they'll get the message > that they've been had by the SW vendors. It makes no more sense to outlaw cameras in private or public places than it does to outlaw printing presses in some areas, a very basic way they're identical from the perspective of the law - it isn't the media that matters (with little respect to Marshall). What matters is they record some 'instance' and allow it to be distributed widely. What we do need is a mechanism that prohibits the police or other law enforcement bodies from access without a properly served warrant. Camera use in say a mall is permissible because it's the vendors who pay the rent who are deciding what is and isn't safe - not the customers of those vendors. It's permissible in traffic control and such because it is cost effective in those applications. In traffic control, if a motorist stalls or a wreck occurs the civilian (ie non-LEA) operators can call the necessary resources into play. Once the cop is on the scene a warrant could be issued if charges of some sort are filed. Ulitimately, what we need is a law that says: All law enforcement personnel are prohibited from accessing public or private documents in the course of their duties without a properly served and executed warrant. The two key points are 'public and private' and 'course of their duties'. A cop should be able to walk into a public library and get a book on some subject of interest (even law enforcement). But if it's related to the LEA's cases then a warrant should be required to step foot in the building. Now if he's a beat cop walking his patrol he obviously can't stop chasing a perp on the run who traverses the library (though it is highly unlikely they would stop to read, but imagine a dope deal just as well). Now, one way to deal with that is to insert some sort of phrase about 'openly accessible' or 'anonymously accessible' (that way the question becomes does one need an ID, if so then you need a warrant). ____________________________________________________________________ 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

looking for articles
by Homayoun Saleh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello, I am looking for any articles or papers having to do with the computability of Poisson distributions in the plane, and someone suggested I ask this list. If anyone knows of anything related, or where else I should be looking, please let me know. Thanks a lot. Cheers, Homayoun

1 0

looking for articles (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 18:13:14 -0500 (EST) > From: Homayoun Saleh <hsaleh(a)phoenix.Princeton.EDU> > Subject: looking for articles > I am looking for any articles or papers having to do with the > computability of Poisson distributions in the plane, and someone suggested > I ask this list. If anyone knows of anything related, or where else > I should be looking, please let me know. > Thanks a lot. Not sure it's what you're looking for but: Statistical Distributions M. Evans, N. Hastings, B. Peacock ISBN 0-471-55951-2 It's got around 40 different distributions and their related equations and characteristics. There is also an appendix that lists the various distributions and the functions in several computational math programs (go MapleV !)... Now if you're looking for various approaches to how to impliment it then I can't help you there, I cookbook that sort of stuff out of my library. Have you tried Knuth? ____________________________________________________________________ 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

Rendering ( was MIB Subponeas ) (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 11:31:52 -0800 > From: Michael Motyka <mmotyka(a)lsil.com> > Subject: Rendering ( was MIB Subponeas ) > Collecting real names and addresses is, apparently, enough of a concrete > step to at least begin the "rendering" process. Which is the whole point of probable cause and civil rights. It turns out the 'respect' part is the hard one...;) > press-squashing, poison-cow BST boys ). Then what would be needed is > some sort of Eternity Service for an active server - detect tampering > and jump hosts. Actualy, something like Plan 9 would be more effective. That way the thing is distributed from the get go. With a suitably object oriented approach it could be feasible to distribute the data to specific servers but encode the program in the connections between the servers task swappers. By using Plan 9's economic resource bidding model it injects a level of anonymity in the repetitive execution aspect that wouldn't normaly be there. ____________________________________________________________________ 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

Re: Using a password as a private key.
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

RedRook(a)yahoo.com writes: > Assymetic crypto systems such as Diffie-Hellman, El-Gamel, and DSS, > allow the private key to be a randomly chosen number. But, as a cute > hack, instead of using a random number, for the private key, you could > use a hash of the User Name, and a password. > > Doing so allows the users to generate their private key on demand. > They don't have to store the private key, and if they want to work on > a another computer, they don't need to bring along a copy. Has any one > tried this? Is there existing software that does this? Any comments on > the security of such a scheme? The only draw back that I can think of > is the potential lack of randomness in the key. If the user chooses a > bad password, it would be possible to brute force the public key. You can accomplish the same thing by encrypting your private key (including RSA) with a passphrase and publishing it. Because of the problems with passphrase bruting, it probably only makes sense to do this with a machine-generated passphrase which has guaranteed entropy. Something like: "Aarhous mocrader Fals paca rate portion wiserustingned" has a guaranteed > 128 bits of entropy, which should be enough for most purposes. Probably with an hour's study most people could memorize such a passphrase.

1 0

Re: UK police chase crooks on CCTV (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: bill.stewart(a)pobox.com > X-Sender: wcs(a)idiom.com (Unverified) > Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 09:27:28 -0800 > Subject: Re: UK police chase crooks on CCTV (fwd) > >> ``The only people entered on to the system will be convicted criminals > >> who, through our intelligence, we believe are habitually committing > >> crimes in the area,'' > >> Dave Armond as saying. ``If people are not committing crime they have > >> nothing to fear, but if they are among the small minority who are, the > >> message is, 'We are watching out for you.''' > The policeman's statement, if honest, implies that the > system needs a real mugshot or more detailed set of pictures to work from, > so they're going to start with feeding it the Usual Suspects, > for whom they can get good data for the system to search. > It probably also has capacity limitations, so they won't be searching > for everybody they have pictures of, just the most likely. For now. What's the curve on facial recognition for 2x improvement? It would seem probable to me that there would be a feature to snap closeups off the cameras and feed them back in real-time. Talk about real-time traffic analysis. > >We need a law or court ruling pretty quickly in the US that sets the > >standard that a group of people have no more or less rights than an > >individual. This will required LEA's to provide probable cause prior to any > >actions against groups of people (such as this). > > Ain't gonna happen - are you kidding? If there is a ruling like that, > it'll be done in some way that restricts citizen rights rather than > expanding them, or expands police powers rather than restricting them. I'll have to disagree. > It's already legal for cops to hang around street corners watching for > suspicious activities or suspicious people, and all video recognition Um, it was always legal and should continue to be so, just as it should be legal for you or I to stand around that corner and watch for unusual activity. It's there job. They call it walking the beat. > Unfortunately, I'm being increasingly forced to take the David Brin position of > "Cameras are cheap, get used to it, just make sure we have more cameras > pointing at the cops than they have pointing at us, and make sure > the cameras the government has are citizen-accessible as well." I don't know about citizen-accessible. I don't want some joe blow walking down the street to get access to the cameras that track my trek to work each day. No, it needs to be very limited and require full interaction of the courts to gain access. Simply putting on a police uniform (or a army uniform) shouldn't mean you give up your rights as a citizen. This may be hard to believe, but I'm not the state's nigger and neither is that police officer or soldier. ____________________________________________________________________ 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

unsubcribe
by StoneCold-PT 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

unsubcribe ---Diederik Smets <Diederik.Smets(a)emd.be> wrote: > > IF the owner of the id also entered an internet password AND it is the same > as the one for the id file, then you can use brute force (dictionairies) to > try and crack it. Get the encrypted value in the > properties>fields>HTTPPassword of the persons document in the PNAB and > compare it to the results of the @password() function. > > Alternatively, do a search for old id files which might still be accessible > with the 'default' password (if you know which one that is), but you won't > be able to access servers that have the 'check password' option enabled. > > If you need to access a local DB that has 'enforce a consistant ACL across > all replicas' enabled, just use another id and add that person's name with > the necessary roles to the ACL via LotusScript. > > Diederik > > > Hello > I'm using lotus notes and I have a big problem. I have a id file with > no > password. How can I get a password for it or reset it. Is there some type > of > utility or something someone knows of?I have been told that I'm out of luck > unless I have the original. > > John... > > > == My Favorite Surfing Sites: http://www.dilbert.com/ and http://www.nro.odci.gov/ "To keep you is no benefit; to destroy you is no loss" by Thida Mam _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

RE: No Subject
by Harvey Rook (Exchange) 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> More interesting, though, is this: why would a block cipher > use key bits > rather than an LFSR to do input or output whitening? Is it strictly a > performance issue? Is it proven that doing this doesn't leak > key bits in > some way? > > Mike > In many newer block ciphers, the key schedule comes from a fairly good one way hash of the key. Take a look at RC6, or TwoFish. Essentially this accomplishes the same thing as using a good LSFR. Harv.

1 0

Re: capitalism run amuck by Korton (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 09:28:56 -0500 > From: Soren <sorens(a)workmail.com> > Subject: Re: capitalism run amuck by Korton > is that there is a distinct difference between capitalism in a free market, > and the kind of corporate-capitalism that the world is enmeshed in now. corporate-capitalism? Is that church-religion? Spin doctorism. The problem is that economics have social effects and by extension it has responsibilities along with them. We've allowed monetary interests drive our government instead of issues of true civil liberties. This should not be implied that this has *ever* been true. The Constitution starts out talking about creating a 'more perfect' union. It's a goal we should be striving for. The founding fathers knew they couldn't fulfill it, they knew their children wouldn't do it. They did believe that latter generations could achieve it. We haven't fallen from grace, and the politicians are probably not any more corrupt, because we never had it. If democracy fails it's because *WE* failed. The problem with free-markets is they give up all pretext to being imperfect and claim to be *the* answer. But at they same time it completely ignores an entire group of aspects of business operation and asks us to ignore them too. > The former allows for the free exchange of value based upon the participants > understanding of that value. That pretty much excludes Jews & Arabs, etc.... > concepts such as "natural wealth", "legal tender", "zero sum economies" Who in their right mind compares our economy to a zero sum economy? > An assumption is made that I fundamentally disagree with -- democracy > is the holy grail of human social intercourse.  Never, in recorded It's not the holy grail but there isn't another system with anywhere the potential for fulfilling human desires with a minimum of abuse and overhead. Perhaps it would be simpler to simply admit the obvious and clearly state that we no longer have a democratic system. > history, has democracy existed without the support of client slave states/populations.  Well considering the world didn't pop out of a test tube but evolved over time this argument holds little weight. The point *is* that democratic system hold the best model we know of to date. Our particular twisted model of it fails, that doesn't mean theory failed. It's one of the reasons I always chuckle at those who say the fall of the CCCP meant the fall of communism. What a maroon. > but its a whisper in a propaganda hurricane,  The US is not a democracy, > it is a republic. For those of you who don't know the difference; a democracy > puts everything up for grabs, including your life, liberty and the pursuit > of happiness, while a republic provides 'certain inalienable rights', similar > to those  currently being alienated by the Klinton Kongressional Klan. Um, actualy that is incorrect. A democracy is a system whereby the rules of the system are determined by interaction of the population at the individual level through a vote or other representitive mechanism. A republic is one (sic) that uses a Senate (an elected body of individuals supposedly held in high esteme, usualy two or more acting together) as that representative mechanism. There are actualy many different mechanisms that are usable in a democratic system. Another thing is that in a Democracy there isn't a need for a Bill of Rights since all participants are considered rational. The founding fathers had useful insite when they appended that document under protest. The problem with applying any political system is the 'shall not' and similar phrases. What is the most interesting to me is that there is absolutely no reason to have a President. There is nothing other than historical status quo that individuals need to be the leaders of countries. Washington knew this when he refused to be addressed as "Your Highness". It's a representation of mass human psychology. > to realise that under capitalism, democracy is now for sale to the > highest If so then it's only because we can't garner the support to pass an amendment. If the problem is that serious and wide spread it should be put to a vote and noted as an amendment. What simply amazes me is why neither the pro- or con- side of the gun debate ever brings this up. This whole issue could potentialy be solved by have the competing camps create two amendments and submit them to the houses in the individual states. Justification for this is pursuant (untested) in the fact that the people are given a right to redress of grievances. Since the law prohibits individuals from suing the government unless some weird permission is obtained then the next best alternative would be direct submission of potential amendments directly into the state legislatures. The people have a right to change the law via constitutional amendment unfettered by federal intervention or regulation. This would be a simple and expedient process with email being what it is... > <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>is treated as progress. The world is now ruled by > a global financial casino staffed by faceless bankers and hedge > fund speculators who operate with a herd mentality in the shadowy > world of global finance.</BLOCKQUOTE> And you want to turn these folks loose in an economy with no regulation (ie free-market)? > details of our president's sex life and calls for his impeachment for > lying > about an inconsequential affair. Ok, so next time I have to speak under oath for a traffic ticket it's ok if I lie too? How about a murder trial? How about *your* murder trial? Anyone who doesn't understand the implications of a class based legal system in a democracy is lost in the ozone... I'm gonna stop now, this is entirely too long an initial troll and I don't have the time to go through it further. ____________________________________________________________________ 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

Re: Rendering ( was MIB Subponeas )
by Pallas Anonymous Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ILovToHack(a)aol.com wrote: > > First of all i want to apoligize for posting this. > Second i am a little off on the AP bot could some one please take the time to > explain this to me. Thanks. > -Mike Pity. You're on it.

1 0

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Two letters received by fax on 27 October 1998] ---------- [Letter 1, cover and 16 pages] 8 September 1998 Cover Sheet Declan The Good News is that I have a pen to write with, due to the Free Enterprise System being alive & well within the Prison System. The Bad News is that Micro$oft Pens (TM) controls 95% of the market... I am hoping you can share as much of this communique as possible with the CPUNX, since my chain is constantly getting yanked in different directions, making outside contact sporatic & unreliable. Feel free to reserve for your own use any of the enclosed information you need for your own journalistic purposes. I will try to reach you by phone (automated collect-call system requiring touch-tone on your end). Thanks for the Mags, CJ Parker ps# My prison cell mirror now reads, "Chocolate Skelter." (Brownie & Milk) ------------------------------------------------ [FLORENCE NUTLY NEWS - "I'M HERE BECAUSE I believe that the KONTROLLERS are taking actions that create obstacles to the freedom and openess of the Internet. ~Truth Glaser] Declan, Looks like you may be receiving the *only* copy of the Florence Nutly News, since I have, up until now, been writing on paper towels and medicine cups, using combinations of blood, sperm and chocolate (two of which are in short supply) for ink, and I will soon be headed to Nutly News Head (pardon the pun) Quarters in Springfield, Missouri, for Rewiring of my Brain Circuity. Although I was well-prepared for my arrest - wearing my "Linda Lou & the Drifters" T-shirt, as promised, having spent several days getting Baby Truth Mongrel settled into a [illegible --------------]: grabbing my Evidence Bag [illegible ---] two containers of medication [illegible ---] the knock on the door on the other side of town - I found myself totally unprepared for the experience of being thrown into a KafkaEsque KonsPiracy [illegible]. I will admit to having told a few whoppers in my time, mostly on fishing trips, but my arm cannot stretch far enough to describe the Immensity of The Plot (TM) to crap on every right and freedom that most Americans 'think' they have, in order to bring me - like a Chained Mad Dog - to a Governmental Pre Destined End at the hands of the American Judicial and Prison System. Although I have not yet lost my mind (I predict by Thursday at the latest), and I know that the Whole World (TM) is not *really* involved in The Plot (TM) against me, everything since my arrest has proceeded as if this were exactly the case. I shit you not... A thread on the CPUNX Distrubed Male LISP that I followed with interest had to do with the Ratio of Consciously Conspiring Cocksuckers to Robotic Moronic Techtronics in the current Death March to Analog Digital Battan. i.e. Hettinga's (?) tagline = "Do not attribute to conspiracy that which can be explained by stupidity..." (~misquote?) As my ^ Pre Destined (<- Cro-Magnon Editing)^ Imprisonment and my March Toward Justice began to unfold, I was at first struck by the banal predictability of the Dehumanizing <-> Brainwashing that takes place as the Identity and Persona of an Individual is "Committed to The Custody Of" the Kontrollers (TM). I watched as the concerns of Outsiders Becoming Insiders switched from which Telco offered the best services? -> when am I allowed to use the phone?, etc., ad infinitum, until an Inside Lifer being transferred from a different prison asked only a single question upon his arrival - a question which strikes terror into the heart and mind, (of the Outside Lifer), who know that, stripped of the Toys & Trappings (TM) that the Kontrollers "allow" them to have to distract them from the reality of their true status in life, there is really only a single question that truly matters, whether one is moving to an Insider Feeding Pen or an Outside Feeding Pen: "How is the food?" Paris or Auchwitz - Danube or Dachau, Just tell me one thing, Fritz - "How is the chow?" The KONSCIOUSLY KONSPIRING KRIMINAL element of the TREASURY Agents was just as predictable as the mechanical, fixed cogs of The System Machinery. - Charging me with a crime that would enable them to put a bug in the ear of every human element of the Judicial [illegible] System from the Judge -> the Prison Guard - "This man is using his writing and the Internet as a weapon to murder government officials and authority figures (such as yourself!)." - Telling the prison medical staff things designed to label me as a violent, psychotic [???]-freak. - Going through the motion of 'discovering' evidence that they were already full aware of as a result of previous legal and illegal surveillance & investigation. "[Illegible ------------------------------]" The previous, of course, is merely an indication that the Conscious Conspiracies of Analog Human Goals & Desire for Power/Control is present "alongside of" the "Stupidity" of a mechanized version of digitized cogs designed to automatically categorize, shape and standardize those individual Elements & Entities that the Puppet Masters place on Conveyor Belts leading to the Educational System, Employment System, Judicial System, etc. The observation, made by various of the CypherPunks on the LISP, as well as portions of Space Aliens Hide My Drugs, which dealt with the intimations of coercion and brainwashing manipulation in the treatment of Jim Bell at the hands of the Justice System, were partly conjecture due to a lack of detail on Bell's full situation & treatment. As a result of my research on the subject, my previous life experience, and my current situation, I feel semi-qualified to express the opinion that I am being subjected to CLASSIC/TEXTBOOK BRAINWASHING TECHNIQUES, combining physical deprivation and disorientation with the witholding of proper medical treatment and physical coercion to accept 'new' diagnoses and 'new' medication designed to meet the needs of the Prison & Judicial System, rather than to meet my own medical needs. e.g. - Denying me clothing, bedding, personal items, services available to other inmates, etc. offering me access to my reading glasses if I stop exhibiting symptoms of Tourette Syndrome, for which I have been diagnosed and treated by a variety of physicians and specialists for years. I will not go into the 2-3 pages of notes I have made documenting the above, since nabbed, like a whiner, and Lord Knows, I have abused myself more over the years through my own craziness and stupidity, than those fuckers could ever hope to accomplish. The point I wold like to make to the CypherPunks is that the TOTALITY of the persecution, oppression, censorship, conspiracy - or whatever you want to label it - that is being directed toward me is GREATGER THAN > the Sum of the Robotic Moronic Techtronics PLUS the Consciously Conspiring CockSuckers [This is even 'after' taking into account my spitting in a US Treasury Agent's eye and writing 'Helter Skelter' in my own blood on a prison mirror.] I find myself sitting in a prison cell in Middle America, looking at a Prison Commissary sheet which confirms my suspicion that the prison meals are designed to market a variety of condiments, such as mayo and picante sauce, to the most Captive Consumers of all. I find myself reflecting on the similarities between a friend, whose 'Health Coverage' does not seem to apply to any disease he might get, and to my own experience of having Prison Medical Personnel state, "We don't have those medications in here," and knowing, instinctively, that I am just going to have to 'choose' a disease they had medication for, or just go fuck myself. I find myself reflecting on the Techno BioSemiotic Evolution of a self-sustaining Corrections CORPORATION of America system which has Little Johnny hustling to sell more Crack, so that his Daddy can buy condiments to make his prison food more palatable, eventually getting busted and sent to prison, putting his younger brother, Raoul, in the Corrections CORPORATION food chain as a Crack salesperson & future Inmate/ Consumer. I find myself peering down a Tunnel Through Time and seeing that the "Dark Forces" spoken of in the 'The Xenix Chainsaw Massacre', in Part I of The True Story of the InterNet, were, and are, just as real as the "Dark Clouds Gathering Over Europe" during the Rise of the Third Reich - with the Dark Clouds being formed by the Industrial BioSemiotic Progeny of the Marriage of the Rumbling of the Tanks with the Shouting and Cheering of the Masses at the Nazi Rallies - and with the Dark Forces being formed by the Technological BioSemiotic Progeny of the Marriage of the Silence of the Computers with the Silence of the Lambs, as they wait quietly in line to fill out their local supermarket 'Nickle Off On A Can of Beans Discount Card,' listing their InterNet Email address so that the Kontrollers can use the new J. Edgar Digital Hoover Vacume Technology to suck the Sheeple's brains onto the Digital Cattle Cars, taking them behind the Electro Magnetic Curtain, where they can be fed a bland diet of Brain food designed to sell them condiments, such as HBO and the TIME Digital Supplement, as Prisoners of the Electronic Corrections Corporation of Planet Terra. Whoa, Trigger! Every time I get on a roll, I seem to roll a little cloer to Springfield... Anyway, for anyone interested in the status of my legal situation, I believe my status can be best described by the use of a variety of expletives which don't have a snowball's chance in Hades of making it past the Censor, but which involves bending over and touching one's ankles. The problem, of course, is that the GRAND PLAY OF JUSTICE has already been written, and there is no role available for the Defendant. The Problem (TM) is that I, unlike those who have brought the charges against me, want to take this case to trial. At my original court appearance, I elected to represent myself. The Judge took it upon herself to appoint a Public Defender to "assist" me. I immediately translated "assist" to "Sell You Down The Fucking River!" (Mentally envisioning the PD as "supporting" me by having me stand on his shouldeer as the noose was placed around my neck.) Just before my second court appearance the PD introduced himself and told me it was a pretty routine "Motion to Remove" hearing/ "Identity" hearing, and that I would then be sent to Seattle. I informed him that if they WANTED me to go to Seattle immediately, then I wanted to fight it. The PD left, and returned later with the news that the Feds had just sprung a "Complaint" on him that he was unaware of and the he would need a couple of weeks to deal with it. I had him read a short portion of the Complaint and, recognizing it as identical to a recent 'gift' I had received, I told the PD that, since the Feds now seemed to want a delay, that I was ready to proceed. In court the PD informed the Judge that *he* needed time to "study the Complaint" (run up his bill) and that *I* had trouble following his logic (wanted to proceed with what he had already told me was a routine, 'slam- dunk for the government' matter anyway). So, everyone compared their Tee Times with local golf courses and decided that I would rot in Jail for two weeks while they tired to correct their slice. Of course, the day before the two weeks is up, I receive a letter the Judge's Public Defender Bum Buddy, containing Order 98-02824M, stating that "The defense had made an oral motion..." (Funny, I thought that 'I" was the Defense) ... "for psychiatric evaluation ... asserting that the Defendant cannot communicate/particiapte..." In other words, the lawyer (whom Shakespeare would shoot first) paddled over to the Judge to have me shipped off to Dr. Frankenstein's Funny Farm, while I, upstream from Tucson (with 'no paddle') am setting and wondering how the Grand Canyon State produces so many Amateur Medical Genius' who are able to perform an in depth medical diagnosis of an individual after speaking with them for lkess than five minutes - total. [The Prison Medical Staff spending half of that time in a room full of people carrying Walkie Talkies, asking me whether or not I heard voices...] However, if your Heart of Hearts is tempted to Bleed Purple Piss for me, stuff a rag in it, because I've been telling people form the beginning that the GuberMint would be sending me off for mental ReClassfication. The Bottom Line (TM) is that the Complaint seems to amount to - once the smoke & mirrors are cleared away - one Entertainment BOT and one anonymous email 'authenticated' by what I suspect will trun out to be a a Communal 'Magic Circle' PGP digital signature. (Worst Case Scenario - I will be forced, in open court, for the first time ever, to reveal "How I Broke PGP (TM.") Seriously, though (and I've got an Ocean Front Jail Cell in Florence, AZ), I expect that the GooberMint needs me to be 'crazy' enough for my writing, facts and opinions to be dismissed, yet 'sane' enough to be criminally liable for my actions. I am certain that the employees of "a suitable facility for psychiatric examination as designated by the Bureau of Prions" know exactly what is expected of them. BTW, the 'Dead Lucky AP-Bot' received just three votes - for Rabid Wombat, Toto, and for Donald Duck (If I remember correctly). Three targets - three years in jail. Sounds fair to me... I *know* my proper role in this Dark Comedy. After a suitable period of 'Attitude Adjustment', I'm supposed to accept whatever offer of 'leniency' the Feds feel generous enough to offer me. The problem, of course, is that not only am I a spritual Channeler of the BIG FUCK YOU!, but I am also cursed with an affliction, Tourette Syndrome, which often causes me to implusively blurt out...The TRUTH (TM). The PROBLEM (TM) is that I am a CypherPunk, and I would rather spend 3 years sitting naked in a cold, hard prison cell, than to help bring the world one step closer to where there aren't any CypherPunks to piss all over themselves and each other - and even on self-righteous, high-minded government officials, from time to time. The REAL PROBLEM (TM) is that, ultimately, I am still naive and/or hopeful enough to believe that there still exist, [illegible ------------] for an ordinary citizen to slip through the cracks in a Statist/Robotic Judicial System into a Time/Space Continuum where Jimmy Stewart wouldn't be disbarred for being 'too [illegible].' I have no doubt that the IRS/Government can, as has been intimated, "put the hammer down" on myself, my family and my friends if they choose to do so. My only response to this is that, if this is so and if there is no true recourse available for the common citizen, then the difference between living in an Inside prison versus an Outside prison is mostly Illusory anyway. My poor Sainted Father, who would have been justified in strangling me in my crib, had he realized the grief I would cause him over the years, wrote to me in prison expressing his worry that perhaps my present situation was the result of him having failed me in so many ways over the course of the last few years. I replied that my Father *was* responsible for my current situation, as a result of being the World's Most Wonderful Father (TM) and making it possible for me to spend the last few years doing exactly what I really and truly wanted to do. After my next court appearance, I may be mentally & financially broken, slobbering and drooling on myself, but I *will* be smiling... The Bible taught me what to expect as a result of telling The Truth (TM), and a short story, "[???} By Niggel," taught me what to expect as a result of being the Author... But I'm the TruthMonger, so it's the only dance there is... (Bop Shoo Bop, Bopper-Bopper-Shoo-Bop). ToTo CYPHERPUNKS CULT OF ONE "Close Ranks! Every WoMan for HimOrHer Self!" ARMY OF DOG "ANARCHY - Together We Can Make It Happen!" CIRCLE OF EUNUCHS "He Who Shits On The Road Will Meet Flies Upon His Return" [End Letter 1] ---------- [Cover note Letter 2; no date] Declan, ToTo -> -> Funny Farm Yours is only address handy Please fwd -> LJ Dowling -> Judge Fiora -> CPUNX List Thanx Toto ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter 2 is four mostly illegible pages of what appears to be scatalogical humor addressed to the Arizona magistrate, Nancy Fiora, beginning: Yo Nancy! Are you Just As Ignorant As Snot (TM), a Callous Cunt (TM) or a Konciously Konspiring Kocksucker (TM)? If you are Just As Ignorant As Snot (TM), that might explain why you actually went through the motions of giving an order for me to receive proper medical treatment not understanding that Order From A Skirt (TM) in Arizona apparently doesn't mean Jack Shit to prison officials. If this is the case, could you please arrange for a Male Judge to issue the same orders and see if that clears up the problem? Then 4 pages of illegible text with a few bits readable on withheld medical treatment leading to the risk of ingrown toenails, Big Hairy Butt (TM), and Fresh >From The ClueServer (TM) advice, with this closing: (You'll have to figure this part out without the pictures to help this time - moving your lips while you read might help...) I write this under the influence of the Drugs given to me by the physicians in whose care you have placed me. Some Fucking Improvement (TM), eh? On our next date (in court), you might want to choose a wash & wear Robe, since I could be drooling & slobbering a lot. Loves and Kisses [???] Psychotic Killer To Be Named Later. [End Letter 2]

1 0

Right of privacy
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: Theodor.SCHLICKMANN(a)BXL.DG13.cec.be > Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 11:23:47 +0100 > Subject: Re: An amendment proposal... > Your scope of privacy seems to be rather narrow. True enough. I figured if I kept typing I'd probably get into trouble with somebody. Besides I just wanted to start a discussion for a couple of days distraction. There are many aspects of the various characteristics and I don't pretend to be able to imagine them in all their combinatorial splendor. One thing I know is that the social potential for video cameras in relation to traffic management are immense. The problem is that their potential for abuse when coupled with other sorts of technologies is absolutely frightening. I don't believe that potential is enough to avoid them out of hand. > It is not only communication. > Privacy is also needed on public places (e.g., violated by face recognition systems), > at work places (e.g.,violated by telephone tapping), for your body (e.g., endangered by > abortion control), No, what is needed in public places is anonymity. We want to be treated just like everyone else. We specificaly don't want any identity. ____________________________________________________________________ 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 --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

You won't want to miss this!
by Webpersonals 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, CYPHERPUNKS! We are pleased to announce that we have made several big improvements to Webpersonals (Avenia, Womanline and Manline) since your last visit. The biggest and best of our upgrade, we call "Happy Hour". Our new Happy Hour Ticket allows you to enjoy one full hour of uninterrupted instant messaging with other members online anytime, at a big savings. In fact, for a limited time, we are currently offering a special Bonus Offer which wil allow you to try Happy Hour FREE! While our Bonus Offer lasts, you will receive FREE Happy Hour Ticket(s) with any purchase package. If you decide to purchase now, you will not lose your current Credits. Your new purchase package plus FREE Happy Hour Ticket(s) will be added to your account for you to use at any time. PLUS... our Search function is now twice as powerful! Finding that special someone is faster, easier and more convenient with the new "saved search" function. Residents of North America can also search within a specified distance, allowing them to locate member in as broad or as specific a range as they wish. And finally, we have added two new user-friendly payment options. Try our toll-free 1-888 fax payment line, or phone our Telephone Payment Line with your credit card information. It's quick and easy to order Credit and Ticket packages over fax or phone.All charges will appear under "Interactive Media USA" on your credit card statement. If you have forgotten your Secret ID and password, here they are: Secret ID: CYPHERPUNKS Password: CYPHERPU PLEASE NOTE: You may have experienced difficulty connecting to www.avenia.com. We are having some technical difficulties with this domain and ask that you use www.webpersonals.com until further notice. Thank you. The Staff of Webpersonals http://www.webpersonals.com

1 0

MIB Subpoena 3 (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 20:41:07 -0500 > From: John Young <jya(a)pipeline.com> > Subject: MIB Subpoena 3 > We've received word of a third Grand Jury subpoena in > CJ's case. With a request to not publicize the person and > information sought. Yep, we tried to prize it loose, citing > Gilmore's model, but no go. > Word from that person is that the trial is expected to begin > in mid-November, which could indicate that CJ's evaluation > will be completed shortly. > All we got so far is the Nov 10 date on John Gilmore's Grand > Jury subpoena and the mid-Nov trial start. So any info is most > welcome. My subpeona date was the 18th, changed from the 19th. Something changed in their time table. Possible pressure from some front? > BTW, has anyone seen news reports on CJ's case other than > those of Declan? If so, we'd like pointers or copies. Nada. ____________________________________________________________________ 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

IP: Europe May Block Flow of Internet Data With US
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: believer(a)telepath.com Subject: IP: Europe May Block Flow of Internet Data With US Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 09:45:04 -0600 To: believer(a)telepath.com Source: Christian Science Monitor http://www.csmonitor.com/todays_paper/reduced/today/intl/intl.3.html International - Monday October 26, 1998 Europe May Block Flow of Internet Data With US Peter Ford, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor PARIS -- Radically different American and European notions of privacy and how to protect it are threatening to curb the worldwide boom in electronic commerce. New European Union rules governing international transfers of personal data over the Internet go into effect today. They commit EU governments to strict new privacy standards in electronic databases storing citizens' personal details. And they oblige governments to block data transfers to countries that fail to uphold "adequate" privacy provisions. That, in the European Commission's view, includes the United States. Year-long efforts by senior US negotiators to convince the EU otherwise have shown how "in Europe, privacy is seen as a human right ... while the Americans are saying that the market should look after it," says Christiaan van der Valk, an expert in electronic privacy issues with the Paris-based International Chamber of Commerce. Unless European and US negotiators reach agreement, the EU directive "could have pretty severe long-term effects, hindering the extension of e-commerce and the globalization of industry generally," warns IBM spokeswoman Armgard von Reden. The new rules give European citizens the right to access personal data held on them by private corporations and to correct it if it is false. Individuals must give consent to the processing of sensitive data such as medical records or details of ethnicity. Web-site operators routinely capture personal information about users who visit their sites and sell it to direct marketing companies and other clients. "Privacy safeguards in the United States have not kept up to date," argued Marc Rotenberg, a teacher of privacy law at Georgetown University in Washington, in testimony to the US House of Representatives earlier this year. If data protection officials in European countries were to start forbidding the transfer of personal data to the US this week, or demanding individual notification of such transfers from data processors, "everything would grind to a halt," says Philip Jones, assistant registrar at Britain's Data Protection Registry, a government body. Every day companies such as airlines, banks, and insurance firms transfer millions of bits of information - like names, addresses, and phone numbers - on clients or potential customers. But "nobody is going to go down to some basement in European Union headquarters to throw a switch that will shut off all data flows on Monday morning," adds Professor Rotenberg. Only a handful of the 15 EU countries have passed the legislation to implement the Commission's directive. The Commission is still negotiating with the US on how the rules will be enforced. Washington, reluctant to legislate, is seeking EU approval for a voluntary system. US companies wishing to process Europeans' personal information would adhere to a set of principles laid down by the Department of Commerce. How they would be enforced, however, and how European citizens could seek redress for any grievances, is not yet clear. Alternatively, US negotiators are suggesting companies could join systems such as the Online Privacy Alliance, set up by IBM and Time-Warner, among others. Members commit themselves to respect the alliance's privacy standards and to submit to checks by Trust-e, an independent verification organization. Data-importing companies in the US could also sign contracts with the exporter, pledging to treat information with the same degree of confidentiality it would enjoy in Europe. "Most global companies are heading in this direction," says Ms. von Reden. EC officials were to meet European representatives today to discuss the American proposals and Washington's request for a 90-day extension of the application of the new rules. Nobody expects dramatic changes this week, but privacy activists are expected to test the directive as soon as it comes into force by laying a complaint against a high-profile company such as Visa International or Citigroup. At the moment, says one executive with an international financial services group, "I am not sure that anyone can say how this is all supposed to work in real life." ----------------------- 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 or (un)subscribe ignition-point-digest email@address **************************************************** www.telepath.com/believer ****************************************************

1 0

IP: ISPI Clips 5.69: EU Law Aims to Protect Privacy of Personal Data
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: "ama-gi ISPI" <offshore(a)email.msn.com> Subject: IP: ISPI Clips 5.69: EU Law Aims to Protect Privacy of Personal Data Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 02:34:54 -0800 To: <Undisclosed.Recipients(a)majordomo.pobox.com> ISPI Clips 5.69: EU Law Aims to Protect Privacy of Personal Data News & Info from the Institute for the Study of Privacy Issues (ISPI) Tuesday October 27, 1998 ISPI4Privacy(a)ama-gi.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This From: The New York Times, October 26, 1998 http://www.nytimes.com European Law Aims to Protect Privacy of Personal Data http://search.nytimes.com/search/daily/bin/fastweb?getdoc+site+iib-site+45+ 0+wAAA+privacy By EDMUND L. ANDREWS FRANKFURT, Germany -- The European Union put into effect a law Sunday prohibiting U.S.-style buying and selling of personal data, a move that could interrupt electronic commerce with the United States if the two sides fail to resolve deep philosophical and legal differences over protecting privacy. The goal of the European law is to prohibit companies from using information about their customers in ways the customers never intended -- for example, selling it to other companies for use as a marketing tool. The new law affects an enormous range of information that companies collect about people in the course of daily business, from credit-card transactions to magazine subscriptions to telephone records, as well as the electronic footprints that people leave when they visit sites on the World Wide Web. The law was adopted three years ago by the European Union after a majority of its 15 member nations agreed to issue what is known as a directive. Under European law, each member nation is required to implement the directive by enacting its own law. Six nations have drafted or passed such laws so far. Beyond its impact on Europe, the directive has the potential to disrupt electronic commerce with the United States. A key provision of the new measure would prohibit any company doing business in the European Union from transmitting personal data to any country that does not guarantee comparable privacy protection -- foremost among them, at this point, the United States. American direct-marketing companies, which make money buying, selling and developing business strategies based on huge data banks of personal information about consumers, have lobbied hard against government regulation of their industry. As a result, the Clinton administration has adopted a more laissez-faire approach under which data industries would be allowed to police themselves through self-regulatory organizations. U.S. officials say they agree with Europe on the basic principle that privacy should be protected but they have big differences about the best way to carry it out. "They have privacy czars and bureaucracies, and that kind of top-down approach would probably be regarded as a violation of privacy rights by many people in the U.S.," David Aaron, undersecretary of commerce, said of European nations. Aaron, who held talks on the issue with European officials in Brussels, Belgium, earlier this month, added, "We say, 'Let's create a situation where, if companies agree to follow certain data practices, they can be held harmless under the new directive."' If the issue, which neither side paid much attention to until a few months ago, is not resolved, European officials could theoretically soon begin to block trans-Atlantic data transfers by multinational corporations and the growing number of Internet companies. European officials say they have no plans for any blockades soon, and are hopeful about reaching a peaceful resolution. Officials from the United States and Europe say they held constructive positive discussions earlier this month. The European Commission has scheduled a meeting on the issue for Monday, and it is expected to seek some kind of temporary solution while the two sides negotiate. Underlying the debate is a deeper political issue that is fraught with cultural baggage. For years, European nations have been far tougher than the United States about protecting privacy. Many countries essentially ban telephone marketing to people's homes, and that prohibition is now being applied to unsolicited sales approaches by fax and e-mail. Several nations, including Germany and the Netherlands, have government agencies devoted exclusively to protecting personal data. Acting as ombudsmen, these agencies investigate complaints from individuals who believe that companies have mishandled information about them. Companies that are accused of violating privacy laws can be prosecuted under criminal laws. "There is a great difference in attitudes about privacy protection between Europe and the United States," said Ulrich Sieber, a law professor at the University of Wuertzburg in Germany. U.S. privacy laws are far more lax and consist of a hodgepodge of statutes and regulations enforced by various state and federal agencies charged with oversight of other industries, like, for instance, those that regulate banks. In sharp contrast with Europe, an entire industry has arisen in the United States that specializes in trolling public and private sources for vast quantities of personal information, like birth records, drivers' license numbers and torrents of data accumulated by retailers about customers' individual purchases. The new European directive embraces several basic principles that national governments must now translate into their own laws. It requires that companies tell people when they collect information about them and disclose how that information will be used. In addition, customers must provide informed consent before any company can legally use that data. The law also requires companies to give people access to information about themselves. U.S. officials say they agree with those requirements in principle, but disagree with giving people unconditional access to information about themselves, saying access should be allowed only if it is reasonable or practical to do so. The more difficult issues are enforcement and policing. Aaron says the United States wants to give companies a variety of "safe harbors" to satisfy privacy protection. One idea is to create independent self-regulatory organizations that would monitor a company's data practices and would give well-behaved companies what amounts to a stamp of approval. Another option, they say, should be for companies to deal directly with European officials and demonstrate that their systems and practices are appropriate. But legal experts say the new law could easily take on a life of its own, because it gives individuals and private organizations the right to sue companies that they say fail to provide adequate privacy protections. Industry and government officials worry that independent privacy advocates in Europe will simply invoke the letter of the law and begin taking U.S. companies to court. "I'm not sure the idea of creating safe harbors will be practical, because people can still go ahead and sue a company regardless of whether the governments reach an agreement among themselves," said Christopher Kuner, a lawyer in Frankfurt who specializes in European information law. In the short term, government and industry officials predict that nothing much will happen. Most countries have yet to implement their own laws to carry out the directive. And several countries, including Germany, have had tough laws in place for years, and companies have found ways to deal with the requirements. One of the pioneering cases in Germany involved Citibank, which ran afoul of German data-protection authorities in 1995. But since Citibank, which has a major business presence in Germany, demonstrated to government officials there how its system protected data in the United States, it has operated without conflicts. Executives of American Express Co. said they had reached similar agreements in many countries and that they believed they could live with the new directive. "It is a crucial issue for us, but it has not been a burden so far," said James Tobin, an American Express spokesman in London. John Borking, vice president of the Data Protection Authority of the Netherlands, said, "We are not information police, and I expect that in the whole of Europe nothing will happen." But, added Borking, European governments will always take privacy protection seriously. "We are at the beginning of a new information society, and no one really knows the outcome," he said. "But privacy and trust are important parts of this society." Copyright 1998 The New York Times Company --------------------------------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 are concerned about the erosion of your privacy in general, won't you please help us continue this important work by becoming an "ISPI Supporter" or by taking out an institute Membership? We gratefully accept all contributions: Less than $60 ISPI 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 or (un)subscribe ignition-point-digest email@address **************************************************** www.telepath.com/believer ****************************************************

1 0

IP: ISPI Clips 5.68: No Data Flow Disruption Between EU & US--at Least for Now
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: "ama-gi ISPI" <offshore(a)email.msn.com> Subject: IP: ISPI Clips 5.68: No Data Flow Disruption Between EU & US--at Least for Now Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 02:33:46 -0800 To: <Undisclosed.Recipients(a)majordomo.pobox.com> ISPI Clips 5.68: No Data Flow Disruption Between EU & US--at Least for Now. News & Info from the Institute for the Study of Privacy Issues (ISPI) Tuesday October 27, 1998 ISPI4Privacy(a)ama-gi.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This From: CNET News.com, October 25, 1998 http://www.news.com European privacy deadline nears http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,27920,00.html By Tim Clark Staff Writer, CNET News.com The European Union will not disrupt the flow of data between Europe and the United States, even though strict new privacy protections took effect in Europe yesterday, a key Commerce Department official said today. The new European Union privacy directive prohibits sending personal data to nations whose privacy protections aren't as vigorous as in the 15-country bloc, but Commerce undersecretary David Aaron said today that the Europeans have agreed to open formal negotiations on how U.S. firms can comply with it. U.S. diplomats have been discussing the issue with the European Commission for six months, in talks described as discussions rather than as negotiations. "We believe we can reach a resolution, and we think it is imperative that we do so promptly," Aaron said, naming December 15 as a target to close the matter. "The U.S. premise is that the United States has effective privacy protection but that the approach here is different than in Europe," he said. "We will seek an arrangement that provides a workable framework on both sides of Atlantic, where data will be secured and disruption of transatlantic data flows will be avoided." The EU's privacy directive, if enforced, could prevent database marketing firms, Web sites, U.S. firms with European employees, and credit card companies from sending personal data back to the United States. That's because the privacy directive bars export of data to nations whose protection of personal data is not certified to be as strong as Europe's. The issue remains a sticking point despite earlier hints from the White House that the problem would be settled by now. Months of discussions have led U.S. officials to hope that the private sector-led approach favored by the Clinton administration can be reconciled with strict privacy laws in many European nations. The United States is proposing a concept dubbed "safe harbor:" In the absence of U.S. privacy legislation, American firms could voluntarily adhere to a set of privacy practices such as those from TRUSTe http://www.truste.org/ ], the business-backed U.S. privacy group pushing voluntary privacy guidelines on the Internet. The U.S. and the European Union will negotiate as to the content of privacy guidelines that would be considered acceptable protections to allow U.S. firms to send personal data on individuals from Europe to the United States. "If companies did that, privacy protections would be considered 'adequate,' and there would be a presumption that data would be able to flow," the U.S. official said. TRUSTe executive director Susan Scott has spoken favorably in recent weeks about the safe harbor concept, and she outlined the idea to the Europeans earlier this year. But privacy law advocate Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, isn't sure the safe harbor concept will fly. "The U.S. had been saying there was going to be some big agreement, but there isn't one," said Rotenberg, who favors strong U.S. privacy laws. "So there is still a question as to whether U.S. firms will be blocked by the EU directive." Copyright © 1995-98 CNET, Inc. --------------------------------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 are concerned about the erosion of your privacy in general, won't you please help us continue this important work by becoming an "ISPI Supporter" or by taking out an institute Membership? We gratefully accept all contributions: Less than $60 ISPI 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 or (un)subscribe ignition-point-digest email@address **************************************************** www.telepath.com/believer ****************************************************

1 0

IP: CIA admits drug trafficking, cover-up
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: believer(a)telepath.com Subject: IP: CIA admits drug trafficking, cover-up Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 09:43:07 -0600 To: believer(a)telepath.com Source: WorldNetDaily http://www.WorldNetDaily.com/ronthal/981027.comlr.shtml CIA admits drug trafficking, cover-up COPYRIGHT 1998 WorldNetDaily This isn't the CIA report you may be thinking of, the one from last January in which that agency swore up and down it "could find no evidence" for any contra-drug ties. No. This is the other one -- Volume 2, dated October 8, 1998. The one in which the CIA quietly, quietly admits it allowed cocaine to be exported and sold to American citizens to help fund the contras. Back in March, the CIA's Inspector General, Fred Hitz, told Congress that the CIA had maintained relationships with companies and individuals that it knew to be involved in the drug business, and furthermore, that the CIA had received from the Justice Department clearance not to report any knowledge it might have of drug-dealing by CIA assets. Here's ample evidence for the latter at least: random highlights from the report include "Exclusion of Narcotics Violations from Scope of Reportable Non-employee Crimes" -- "DoJ and CIA discussed the issue of whether narcotics violations should be in the list of reportable crimes and the parties arrived at an understanding where CIA would only report 'serious, not run-of-the-mill, narcotics violations.' ... According to Cohen, CIA's main concern was the collection of intelligence on narcotics, not law enforcement." There's also some Clintonesque toe-twisting about the exact definition of "employee" here: Between August 15, 1979 and March 2, 1982, CIA was required by the April 15, 1979 Attorney General's guidelines under E.O. 12036 and HN 7-39 to report to DoJ any narcotics trafficking allegations relating to individuals, assets, or independent contractors who were associated with the Contras because assets and independent contractors were considered "employees" for crimes reporting purposes. As of March 2, 1982, the terms of the 1982 CIA-DoJ Crimes Reporting MOU under E.O. 12333 no longer required that CIA report to DoJ narcotics trafficking allegations regarding individuals, assets, or independent contractors associated with the Contras because assets and independent contractors were not considered "employees" for crimes reporting purposes. Note also recollections of "remarks by CATF chief Alan Fiers (who had direct responsibility for management of the Nicaraguan and Central American programs) to the effect that there had been some credible reporting of narcotics trafficking in the Southern Front (Costa Rica)." In short, here's vindication for journalist Gary Webb after all -- despite his regrettable subsequent co-optation by and collaboration with the conspiracy theorists of the left, who claimed the introduction of drugs into the inner cities was itself a deliberate racist-genocidal government policy. Want more? Read the report; read Webb's original book , though it's sadly marred by the Maxine Waters introduction; read, also, Whiteout by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair, which covers not only the CIA's drug trafficking involvement, but the campaign to discredit Webb as well -- it's the book the CIA doesn't want you to read. It really IS the economy, stupid In political philosophy, there's a fine line between the visionary innovator and the cryptoutopian crackpot. The Economic Government Group pushes that line. Formed out of concern that "the freedom movement was focused too closely on devising ways to minimize the state and not enough on developing workable alternatives to it," it works to let the marketplace become the means by which government is created and maintained. Its Web site, Economic.net , carries not one but two introductions to its occasionally loony, but occasionally blisteringly creative ideas; I recommend Stephen H. Foerster's good straightforward summary of this take-no-prisoners free-market philosophy. Fans of the book The Sovereign Individual by J. Davidson and W. Rees-Mogg may find affinities here. Capitalistic self-regulation now in progress Its familiar branded online seal is displayed on more and more reputable merchants' Web sites; its own site offers a variety of privacy resources for both Web publishers and Web users. TRUSTe seeks to build users' trust and confidence on the Internet and, in doing so, accelerate growth of the Internet industry -- all based on a strong understanding of the fact that no single privacy principle is adequate for all situations. Government regulation of the Internet would likely be more rigid, ham-handed, costly to implement, and difficult to repeal than an industry- regulated program such as TRUSTe's. If you sell stuff on the Internet, or know someone who does, using and encouraging the use of TRUSTe just might be doing Web commerce a big favor. The forgotten point of the military The relatively high levels of defense spending today belie serious gaps in our military preparedness. Pork-barreling is grotesquely distorting the direction of the dollars actually appropriated to the services, in a spirit well exemplified by the latest budget from Congress. Meanwhile, America's armed forces are more and more diverted into "peacekeeping" and domestic policing, subjected to the egalitarian schemes of social engineers, and systematically alienated from civilian society. "The lack of a strong military leads only to its more frequent use," former secretary of the Navy John Lehman points out. "America needs forces that are recruited, trained, and directed to do not social services, not international welfare, not peacekeeping, not drug interdiction, but to rain fire and destruction on our enemies if they break the peace and seek to attack us and our close allies. ... The armed services are not just another branch of the civil service." Lehman warns against the misuse of the services for diplomacy or in domestic law enforcement (including drug interdiction). His prescription for the rehabilitation of the military includes restoring the warrior culture of the forces, eliminating politically correct double standards, redressing the civil-military imbalance, and reducing the pork. Somebody had better start listening to him. E - The People "If your car is swallowed up by a pothole the size of Poughkeepsie, E - The People can help you find the person you need to tell about it," claims this community-affairs Web service's front page. Click on "streets," enter your address, and they'll identify your public works commissioner -- and see that your complaint reaches his or her office, even if that office isn't on the Internet (they'll convert your email to a fax). Lots of Web sites offer "easy" access to federal or state officials, but not many provide on this nitty-gritty local level. The site sometimes slows down at busy times, so use patience. The CSPI health crackpots are at it again This time it's soda pop that they're warning you is the devil's instrument. They want it banned from schools, taxes placed on its sale, and an end put to ads for it that target children. When are these querulous suburban Savonarolas' fifteen minutes going to be over? Methinks I detect a certain cooling toward them even now: wonder of wonders, the AP actually noticed this time that they "offered little scientific evidence" for all their dire claims of damaging effects. But I'm not really optimistic; there'll always be a market for scare stories with a moralistic cherry on top. ----------------------- 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 or (un)subscribe ignition-point-digest email@address **************************************************** www.telepath.com/believer ****************************************************

1 0

IP: Cell phone tapping stirs debate
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: believer(a)telepath.com Subject: IP: Cell phone tapping stirs debate Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 08:49:06 -0600 To: believer(a)telepath.com Source: USA Today http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/ctd698.htm 10/22/98- Updated 12:08 PM ET The Nation's Homepage Cell phone tapping stirs debate WASHINGTON -- Law enforcement officials say they need to know where a suspected criminal is when he makes a cellular telephone call. Federal regulators are proposing to give them the capability to find out. The Federal Communications Commission without dissent proposed Thursday that cellular phone companies make technical changes so the FBI, police and other law enforcers -- as long as a court approves -- can locate a person talking on a mobile phone. This and other additional wiretapping capabilities being proposed aim to help law enforcers keep pace with technology. With some 66 million cellular phone customers, police want the authority to legally tap cell phones to track down drug dealers, terrorists and kidnappers. But some groups worry that such a practice could violate privacy. The location proposal is part of a larger plan to implement a 1994 law that requires telecommunications companies to make changes in their networks so police can carry out court-ordered wiretaps in a world of digital technology. The proposal is based on a plan from the telecommunications industry. ''We think this is a positive step forward,'' said Stephen Colgate, the Justice Department's assistant attorney general for administration. ''In many kidnapping cases, it would have been very helpful to have location information.'' But James Dempsey, counsel to the Center for Democracy and Technology, a privacy group, said: ''We're prepared to fight this one every step of the way.'' FCC Chairman Bill Kennard stressed that police would have no access to locations without a court order. ''A lot of people are saying the FCC will turn mobile phones into tracking devices for the FBI and invade Americans' privacy. I don't believe that will be the case,'' Kennard said. With a court order, police already can legally listen in to cell phone conversations, and, in some instances, get information on the caller's location. But not every company has the technical ability to provide a caller's location. This proposal, if adopted, would set up a nationwide requirement for companies to follow. The legal standard for obtaining a location is lower than the standard for a wiretap order in which police must show a judge there is probable cause of criminal activity. Under the proposal, police would only need to show the location is relevant to an investigation. Privacy groups say that means the government could easily track the movements not only of a suspect, but also of associates, friends or relatives. It would give police the ability to obtain the cellular phone user's location at the beginning and end of a wiretapped call. The proposal would provide police with that information based on the cellular tower, or ''cell'' site, where a call originated and ended. That would give information on the caller's location within several city blocks in an urban area to hundreds of square miles in a rural area. The FBI had been seeking more exact location information. The FCC also is expected to tentatively conclude that companies must give police, as long as a court approves, additional capabilities -- beyond minimum technical standards already proposed by the industry -- so their ability to conduct wiretaps won't be thwarted. The additional capabilities being sought by the FBI that were advanced by the FCC include: Letting police listen in on the conversations of all people on a conference call, even if some are put on hold and no longer are talking to the target of a wiretap. Letting police get information when the wiretap target has put someone on hold or dropped someone from a conference call, and letting them find out if the wiretap target has used dialing features -- such as call waiting or call forwarding. Giving police the number dialed by a wiretap target when the suspect, for instance, uses a credit or calling card at a pay phone. Privacy groups and the telephone industry contend the additional capabilities sought by the FBI go beyond the 1994 law and are an attempt to broaden wiretapping powers. The FBI says it merely wants to preserve the ability to conduct legal wiretaps in a world of constantly changing technology. The FCC is involved because the Justice Department, FBI and the telecommunications industry, after three years of negotiations, were unable to reach agreement on the larger plan for implementing the 1994 law. All interested parties will get a chance to offer opinions on the proposal, which could be revised. Kennard wants a final plan adopted by the end of the year. ©COPYRIGHT 1998 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. 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 or (un)subscribe ignition-point-digest email@address **************************************************** www.telepath.com/believer ****************************************************

1 0

IP: [FP] Microsoft puts smart card on table
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: "ScanThisNews" <mcdonalds(a)airnet.net> Subject: IP: [FP] Microsoft puts smart card on table Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 19:56:43 -0600 To: ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com SCAN THIS NEWS 10/26/98 Microsoft puts smart card on table http://www.news.com/News/Item/0%2C4%2C27923%2C00.html?dd.ne.tx.fs6.1026 By Tim Clark Staff Writer, CNET News.com October 26, 1998 Update: Microsoft tomorrow will announce an extension of its Windows operating system for smart cards, a company spokesman said today. Smart cards, which have very limited memory and processing power, are about the size of a credit card and embedded with a computer chip. The technology is used for storing data on mobile phones, banking online, and paying for phone calls and public transit fares. Microsoft vice president Paul Maritz is scheduled to announce the operating system initiative tomorrow at Cartes 98, a conference on smart card technology in Paris. A new system from Microsoft could bring more acceptance of smart cards in the United States. Smart cards have been used in Europe, which holds more than 80 percent of the market, but have been slow to progress in America, at least in part beacuse of the lack of a standard operating system. Microsoft is bidding to enter that arena, but Sun Microsystems is already active in that space with its JavaCard specification. In addition, Mondex, an e-cash company controlled by MasterCard has its MultOS system designed so cards with different operating systems can work together. The company's interest in smart cards parallels its strategy with Windows CE, a stripped-down version of its PC operating system for consumer electronics devices. In April, Microsoft announced a version of Windows CE for automobiles, gas pumps, industrial controllers, and other uses. The smart-card initiative seeks to go after even smaller, cheaper devices--particularly when rival Sun is targeting the same business. The Microsoft spokesman said card developers could use existing Windows tools to work with their software. The annual Paris show is a major showcase for the smart card industry. Schlumberger, a major French manufacturer of smart cards, today unveiled new software for its cards that transforms a smart card into a security device to identify its holder. Many PC makers have said they will produce machines with smart-card readers built in, a capability that Microsoft has provided in its desktop PC operating systems. Microsoft has a certification and logo program that indicates smart card systems work with Windows NT. ======================================================================= Don't believe anything you read on the Net unless: 1) you can confirm it with another source, and/or 2) it is consistent with what you already know to be true. ======================================================================= Reply to: <fingerprint(a)networkusa.org> ======================================================================= To subscribe to the free Scan This News newsletter, send a message to <majordomo(a)efga.org> and type "subscribe scan" in the BODY. Or, to be removed type "unsubscribe scan" in the message BODY. For additional instructions see www.efga.org/about/maillist.html ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "Scan This News" is Sponsored by S.C.A.N. Host of the "FIGHT THE FINGERPRINT!" web page: www.networkusa.org/fingerprint.shtml ======================================================================= **************************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address or (un)subscribe ignition-point-digest email@address **************************************************** www.telepath.com/believer ****************************************************

1 0

IP: 'Grass-Roots' Lobbyists Unrobed as AT&T
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: believer(a)telepath.com Subject: IP: 'Grass-Roots' Lobbyists Unrobed as AT&T Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 07:46:23 -0500 To: believer(a)telepath.com Source: Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/digest/wtech002.htm 'Grass-Roots' Lobbyists Unrobed as AT&T By Jackie Spinner Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, October 24, 1998; Page A1 The Prince George's Coalition Against Hidden Taxes billed itself as a "grass-roots" organization when it formed 10 days ago to fight proposed legislation that would charge telecommunications companies seeking to provide new telephone, Internet or other services. In those two weeks, the coalition, which has a paid spokesman and a professional public relations firm at its disposal, has spent $50,000 on radio, newspaper and television ads suggesting that the law would create a "hidden tax" on telephone use for all residential and business customers in Prince George's County. In fact, it is not clear what the legislation would mean for consumers. But this much is certain: There is very little that is "grass roots" about the Prince George's Coalition Against Hidden Taxes, which is a massive lobbying effort by AT&T to quash efforts by Prince George's County to cash in on the emergence of new communications technologies. The media campaign, which Prince George's County Executive Wayne K. Curry (D) called a "disgraceful fraud," demonstrates how much is at stake for a rapidly changing telecommunications industry and for a local government that stands to collect about $6 million a year by taxing providers of new services. Under the proposed legislation, the county would collect 3 percent of gross revenue generated by companies that seek to use public rights of way to lay cable, string wire or plant cellular towers to provide new services. Prince George's County Council members are scheduled to vote on the legislation Wednesday. Prince George's County is the first local jurisdiction in the Washington region to consider a broad telecommunications fee for using public rights of way. Governments across the country are struggling with similar efforts, trying to get fair compensation while encouraging companies to come in and provide services after the 1996 Telecommunications Act opened the doors to competition. AT&T officials said the legislation is unfair and singles out telecommunications firms from other users of public land, such as the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, Washington Gas Light Co. and Potomac Electric Power Co. "It's a money grab," said Ross Baker, director of governmental affairs for AT&T in Maryland. "We pay handsomely right now for the occupancy of the right of way." AT&T now pays permit fees and personal property taxes on equipment located on public rights of way in Prince George's. The company estimated those costs to be about $218,000 a year. According to AT&T, all phone customers' monthly bills could increase 3 percent to 15 percent if the legislation is passed because the cost would have to be passed on to consumers. The company said it would indicate on the bill what portion was the result of a "Prince George's County" surcharge. "Telephone bills are going to go up," said Steve Novak, spokesman for the AT&T-led coalition. County officials and the communications lawyer the county hired to draft the legislation dispute that contention. They said the legislation specifically exempts from the fee basic telephone services such as those provided by Bell Atlantic. But telecommunications companies, including Bell Atlantic, would pay a fee for running new Internet lines or providing telephone service over cable wires, something AT&T is exploring in some markets. Companies also would be charged for offering new call waiting and call forwarding features. "This legislation will not cause an increase in the prices of traditional telephone service," said Nicholas P. Miller, the D.C.-based communications lawyer advising the county. "On the other hand, because billing is largely deregulated, we have no control over how the companies may misrepresent the effect of this local rental charge." John Dillon, Bell Atlantic's vice president of external affairs, said the company is opposed to legislation that taxes revenue for any of its activities, traditional or otherwise. "If the county wants to sit down and talk about what costs are not being covered, we will do that," he said. Thomas Haller, president of the Prince George's Chamber of Commerce, which held what it called an emergency meeting yesterday to discuss the legislation, said the bill could deter telecommunications companies from doing business in the county. "If companies are dissuaded from providing telecommunications services here because they can't compete, we're not going to have much competition," Haller said. Novak said AT&T formed the coalition to warn the public about the county's proposal. People calling the coalition to express their concern about the legislation are quickly transferred to the office of their County Council member. "We are trying to educate the public," Novak said. Council member M.H. Jim Estepp (D-Upper Marlboro), who sponsored the legislation, said he received calls from residents at a rate of about 16 an hour during one day this week. Often, he said, callers were disconnected when he started to explain his position. (Novak said the disconnections are not intentional.) "These are big-time tactics, and when big money tries to crush local government, not only are they doing a disservice to the county, that becomes the issue," Estepp said. Curry agreed. "This isn't any citizens coalition. This is a bunch of giant companies trying to profit off the public for free," he said. But AT&T spokesman Stephen H. Clawson said consumers are the ones who will be hurt. "We found out that there was considerable confusion and concern about the legislation," he said. "We have an obligation to our customers." © Copyright 1998 The Washington Post 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 or (un)subscribe ignition-point-digest email@address **************************************************** www.telepath.com/believer ****************************************************

1 0

IP: Bioterrorism: America's Newest War Game
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: believer(a)telepath.com Subject: IP: Bioterrorism: America's Newest War Game Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 06:07:57 -0600 To: believer(a)telepath.com Source: The Nation http://www.thenation.com/issue/981109/1109PRIN.HTM BIOTERRORISM AMERICA'S NEWEST WAR GAME BY PETER PRINGLE "Catastrophic Terrorism" roars the headline over an article in the current Foreign Affairs. The three distinguished authors--John Deutch, a former director of Central Intelligence; Ashton Carter, an ex-Pentagon assistant secretary; and Philip Zelikow, a former member of the National Security Council--declare with unswerving certainty that "the danger of weapons of mass destruction being used against America and its allies is greater now than at any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962." Any act of "catastrophic terrorism," they say, could have the effect of Pearl Harbor; it could divide America into a "before and after." This is no shot across the bow of a sleeping ship. America is now spending $7 billion a year defending itself against backpack nuclear bombs, canisters of nerve gas and petri dishes of germ weapons planted in crowded cities by an as-yet-unknown adversary. So many different agencies are shoring up the nation's defenses against mega-terrorism, says the government auditor, that it's hard to keep track of where all the money is going, let alone whether it is being spent wisely. Any new government project tagged with the word "terrorism" goes to the top of the pile in Congress. The Pentagon is ordering devices to sniff out nerve gases and deadly germs. National Guard units that normally deal with floods and hurricanes are being trained as chemical and biological SWAT teams. Under the threat of another war with Iraq, all 2.4 million American troops are being vaccinated against anthrax, and companies are scrambling to provide the vaccines--including, notably, a company founded by Adm. William Crowe Jr., a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The FBI wants to send more agents into embassies abroad and is demanding its own planes to shuttle investigative teams around the world. Local and state governments used to dealing with flu epidemics are preparing for the nightmare gas or microbe attack. And one can only imagine what antiterrorist projects the CIA has been dreaming up with its "black" budget of covert ops. Now the players in this new war game have got a new title for their grim pursuit. The thrust of "Catastrophic Terrorism" is a grand reorganization of the Pentagon, CIA and FBI bureaucracies to eliminate the perennial agency overlaps and gaps between "foreign" and "domestic" terrorism. The authors want to pool intelligence at the FBI, create new Catastrophic Terrorism Response Offices, already dubbed CTROs, and cut the two dozen agencies with shopping lists for vaccines, gas sniffers and protective clothing down to one--the Defense Department--because, they say, the Pentagon has the expertise when it comes to rapid acquisition. The operation sounds like it's a few steps short of war mobilization. All but the new title, perhaps, could have been predicted (the original choice, "Grand Terrorism," was rejected on the grounds that there is nothing grand about this method of warfare). Beached by the fall of Communism and the end of the cold war, planners in the Pentagon and military think tanks have been circling a number of new threats: First it was drug wars and then "rogue" states; but international terrorism has an enduring quality in the annals of "threat politics." By dividing the phenomenon into two distinct parts--conventional and catastrophic--Deutch, the quintessential academic/consultant to the Pentagon and the defense industry, and his co-authors have mirrored the old cold war categories of conventional and nuclear weapons. Conventional terrorist weapons are truck bombs filled with fertilizer explosive. Catastrophic terrorist weapons are nuclear, chemical and especially biological--the very weapons President Nixon renounced three decades ago in an effort to prevent their spread to other countries. The sixties US arsenal of biological weapons--then the world's largest and most sophisticated--has come back to haunt those now charged with the defense of the nation. Chemical weapons of mass destruction have been used in state-sponsored warfare--by Iraq against Iran and its own Kurdish population--and fragments of Saddam Hussein's dismantled Scud missiles were alleged by US investigators to have traces of VX, the deadliest of all nerve gases. The worry is that such weapons could also be used by Islamic fundamentalist groups such as the one that President Clinton said he was concerned about when he recently authorized the firing of cruise missiles at a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan--or by groups such as the Japanese cult Aum Shinrikyo, or by homegrown US adherents to survivalism. No one denies the threat of catastrophic terrorism, but the pace at which it has taken center stage as the prime threat to US security is almost as unnerving as the threat itself. In the media, Russian defectors talk alarmingly of new strains of untreatable anthrax and deadly cocktails of smallpox and Ebola; teenage hackers invade super-secret Pentagon computers; Aum Shinrikyo is said to be back in force, if not in action, after the Tokyo subway nerve gas incident; and three Texans are charged with plotting to assassinate President Clinton with a cactus needle coated with botulin flicked from a cigarette lighter. Outside the calm of the international affairs departments of MIT and Harvard (where Deutch and Carter work), or the offices of the Washington Beltway "bandits" bulging with profits from new contracts related to terrorism, or indeed in the Pentagon itself, where new acronyms bloom, a sense of panic is in the air. Expert after expert says it's not a question of if but when this doomsday will occur. The media cast around for bogymen and find Russia with its rusting biological weapons labs and penniless scientists who could aid and abet the new bioterrorists. Actually, in most years since 1980 the number of Americans killed by terrorists has been fewer than ten, but the toll can suddenly jump. In 1983, 271 Americans were killed by terrorist attacks, most of them in the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon. Then came bombs at the World Trade Center in 1993 (six dead, 1,000 injured), the Oklahoma City federal building in 1995 (168 dead, 500 injured) and the Khobar Towers Air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia in 1996 (nineteen dead, 500 injured). The World Trade Center in New York is often taken as a starting point for the new concern. What if the World Trade Center bomb had been nuclear, or had dispersed a deadly pathogen? In the rush to play a new war game there is always a tendency to hype the threat. Last November Defense Secretary William Cohen appeared on TV holding a bag of sugar claiming the equivalent amount of anthrax spores would be enough to kill half the population of Washington, DC, an illustration that would only be valid if the dispersal were perfect and the wind were always blowing in the right direction. Republican Senator Fred Thompson, chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, asked meekly of the terrorist threat, "Is it being overblown?" (The pun was apparently unintended.) There is, after all, no 100 percent protection against chemical or biological weapons--as there was no 100 percent protection against nuclear weapons. That doesn't prevent the rise of a new threat industry, of course, but one must ask whether there is a way of averting catastrophe other than building Fortress America. One of the true believers in the need for elaborate defenses against germ weapons is none other than President Clinton. He became a convert, and started pushing for stockpiles of vaccines, after reading--among all the intelligence reports on terrorism and the Iraq crisis--a novel titled The Cobra Event, about a fictitious germ attack on Manhattan using a mixture of smallpox and cold viruses. Chemical and biological warfare is great fiction material, of course, but are we in danger of being unable to separate fact from fiction? The author of the novel, Richard Preston, also wrote a non-fiction account of the rise of "bioterrorism" in a March issue of The New Yorker. The article quoted a Russian who was involved in the Soviet biological weapons program named Kanatjan Alibekov, who had been the Number Two in charge of the weapons section of the archipelago of Soviet biological plants known as Biopreparat. He "defected" in 1992, a year after the fall of Communism, and changed his name to Ken Alibek. In The New Yorker he said the Soviets had built huge plants for the production of biological weapons. In the 1972 Nixon-negotiated Biological Weapons Convention, which prohibited the development, production and stockpiling of these weapons, there was a loophole; the treaty did not prevent countries from building a production line for such weapons and keeping it in reserve. This is what the Soviets did--something US intelligence had known about for some time. But Alibek claims that the Russians had actually used these facilities to produce tons of deadly anthrax, some of which had been genetically engineered so that available vaccines were useless, and some of which may have been put into the warheads of intercontinental ballistic missiles. Alibek also asserted that the Russians had experimented with deadly cocktails of smallpox spiked with the Ebola virus, which causes internal hemorrhaging, and with Venezuelan equine encephalitis, a brain virus. For almost a dozen breathless pages, The New Yorker treated its readers to gruesome details of the power of these pathogens, pausing only when the author, himself out of puff, asked the key question: Does anyone believe Alibek? Or is he, as a defector who has apparently outlived his usefulness to the CIA's covert intelligence world, trying to make a buck in civvy street by exaggerating the importance of his information? Preston consulted an old cold warrior, Bill Patrick, the retired US biological warfare expert who was chief of product development for the US Army's biological warfare laboratories at Fort Detrick, Maryland. Patrick, quite reasonably for an old campaigner, takes the defector on trust; if Alibek doesn't know what the Soviets were doing, then who does? But other scientific experts, not given a hearing until page twelve of the thirteen-page New Yorker article, ranged from skeptical to dismissive. One was Dr. Peter Jahrling, the chief scientist at the US Army medical research Institute of Infectious Diseases. He was one of Alibek's original debriefers. Jahrling told The New Yorker, "His [Alibek's] talk about chimeras [mixtures] of Ebola is sheer fantasy, in my opinion." Preston also consulted Joshua Lederberg, the Nobel Prizewinning molecular biologist and a member of a working group at the National Academy of Sciences who advises the government on biological weapons and the potential for terrorism. Lederberg told Preston, "It's not even clear to me that adding Ebola genes to smallpox would make it more deadly." Putting these comments higher up in the article would have been more responsible journalism, clearly, but it would also have spoiled the story. The week before the New Yorker article ran, Alibek was given his first television exposure, on Diane Sawyer's PrimeTime Live show. "Biological weapons. They're real, they're here...smallpox, Ebola, anthrax," was how the hourlong show began. Alibek told Sawyer that the Russians had created a deadly genetic merger of smallpox and Ebola. "In this case, [the] mortality rate [is] about 90 percent, up to 100 percent. No treatment techniques," warned Alibek. "How many people could they have killed?" Sawyer asked him. "The entire population of Earth several times," he replied. ABC generously shared Alibek with the New York Times, which, in return, promoted Sawyer's show on its front page with an interview with the former Soviet scientist--including a warning (not mentioned by Sawyer) that Alibek was considered by US intelligence to be credible about the "subjects he knows firsthand...[but] less reliable on political and military issues." Sawyer's search for Soviet malfeasance took her to Ekaterinburg (formerly the Soviet city of Sverdlovsk), where, in 1979, an accidental release of anthrax spores from a Soviet military compound killed more than sixty people. After reports of the accident reached the West through Soviet émigrés, Moscow claimed the deaths were because of anthrax-tainted meat (anthrax is endemic in the region). Matthew Meselson, the Harvard molecular biologist and the scientist who was instrumental in persuading Nixon to outlaw biological weapons in 1969, led a team of investigators to Sverdlovsk. In 1994 Meselson proved in an article in Science, the journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, that in fact there had been a release of anthrax spores from the military compound, and he confirmed nearly seventy deaths. But Sawyer, who spent four months researching the show, never interviewed Meselson or anyone from his team, including Jeanne Guillemin, a sociologist at Boston College who had cross-checked a Russian casualty list with hospital records, local interviews and grave sites. Instead, Sawyer referred to an unnamed director of a Sverdlovsk military hospital as saying there had been 259 victims--but not how many of the victims had died. Sawyer's staff called Professor Meselson the night before the program aired, but merely to ask his help with the pronunciation of a number of drugs used to treat the victims: penicillin, cephalosporin, chloramphenicol and corticosteroids. In a further effort to suggest that more spookiness was afoot, Sawyer recorded that at the end of 1997 Russian scientists had published a paper in the British medical journal Vaccine describing the creation of a genetically engineered anthrax strain that was resistant to standard Russian anthrax vaccine. "Might the Russians be creating germs that can resist vaccines?" asked Sawyer. But was there really anything sinister about the Russian work? Were the Russian experiments threatening a new kind of catastrophic terrorism, or were Russian scientists simply studying the lethality of anthrax, which is endemic in Russia? Sawyer didn't mention that Western intelligence had known about the new anthrax strains for almost two years--from an unclassified International Workshop on Anthrax held at Winchester, England, in September 1995. The Russian scientists had openly described their experiments at the meeting sponsored by a number of commercial, charitable and professional organizations independent of the US and British governments. Bioterrorism, biocriminals, bioweaponeers--all good buzzwords for novelists and movie makers who will continue to sound alarms and attract influential followers, no doubt; but the fact is, there have been only two serious uses of biological weapons in this century: one by the Japanese Imperial Army against China, and the other a failed attempt by Aum Shinrikyo to disperse anthrax spores. So if there are terrorists out there wanting to use biological or chemical or nuclear weapons, how good is our intelligence about them? In hearings before Congress in 1995 the CIA admitted that its terrorism intelligence desk somehow missed the 1994 sarin gas attack by Aum Shinrikyo in Matsumoto, which killed seven people--although the event had been reported in the Japanese and European press and even in the US-owned International Herald Tribune. Such revelations suggest that a new, multi-agency National Intelligence Center, as proposed by Deutch et al. in Foreign Affairs, might not only be a good idea but a necessity. But why a whole new bureaucracy? Why the Manhattan Project syndrome? The Aum Shinrikyo story suggests that a small band of well-trained researchers who tap into publicly available information could be as useful as national information centers, wiretaps and grand jury investigations. The risk in rushing to meet the new threat--any new threat--with new departments of counter-espionage and counter-weapons is that the old art of deterrence through international treaties will take a back seat. The United States already has a policy that criminalizes terrorist activity at home, including the postOklahoma City Anti-Terrorism Act of 1996. It also supports sanctions against countries promoting terrorism and corporations exporting material that could be used to produce weapons of mass destruction. In the article on catastrophic terrorism, Deutch et al. mention the proposal of Harvard professor Meselson and his law professor colleague, Philip Heymann, for an international convention making it a crime for individuals to engage in the production of biological or chemical weapons. The existing chemical and biological conventions apply only to states. The idea is to deter national leaders, such as Saddam Hussein, and groups such as Aum Shinrikyo, from seeking to develop chemical or biological weapons, and to discourage corporations from assisting them because the scientist or the CEO could be arrested. If such a treaty had existed and been supported by the United States in the eighties when Iraq was using poison gas and developing biological weapons, the suppliers and advisers on whom Saddam depended could have been brought to trial. The proposal is being co-promoted by Meselson's longtime ally in the fight to eliminate chemical and biological weapons, Julian Perry Robinson of the University of Sussex in England. The crimes are carefully defined in the precise language of the chemical and biological conventions, now ratified by 120 and 141 countries respectively. Under the proposed law any nation that is party to the existing conventions would be bound either to prosecute or to extradite a violator. Such treaties already in effect are aimed at piracy, genocide, airline hijacking and harming diplomats on active duty. If the proposal becomes law, terrorists would have their support group cut from under them; there is even the suggestion of a reward for anyone who provides information leading to a perpetrator's arrest. Maybe the fiction writers will pick up the idea too. Then, who knows whether the FBI or some adventurer from the plaintiff's bar--bringing, say, a class action on behalf of aggrieved shareholders of a company caught trading in anthrax--will be the first to be responsible for the arrest of the culprits? The next generation of terror novels should be filled with "biocriminals" and "chemothugs." For an alternative view, and relief from the drumbeat of the New Threat merchants, one can turn to this quarter's Foreign Policy, a rival of Foreign Affairs. In an article titled "The Great Superterrorism Scare," Ehud Sprinzak, a professor of political science at Jerusalem's Hebrew University, suggests that the voices of doom are mistaken. Their concept of postcold war chaos breeding terrorist fanatics is simply not supported by the evidence of three decades. "Despite the lurid rhetoric, a massive terrorist attack with nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons is hardly inevitable. It is not even likely," he writes. "Terrorists wish to convince us that they are capable of striking from anywhere at any time, but there is really no chaos. In fact, terrorism involves predictable behavior, and the vast majority of terrorist organizations can be identified well in advance." Such views tend to go unheard by doomsayers. The Republicans added $9 billion to the military budget, including several additional millions for antiterrorism projects, by emphasizing unpreparedness--sure to be a big issue in Election 2000. --- Peter Pringle, a British journalist, reported on the end of the cold war from Washington and Moscow for The Independent of London. Join a discussion in the Digital Edition Forums. Or send your letter to the editor to letters(a)thenation.com. The Nation Digital Edition http://www.thenation.com Copyright (c) 1998, The Nation Company, L.P. ----------------------- 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 or (un)subscribe ignition-point-digest email@address **************************************************** www.telepath.com/believer ****************************************************

1 0