December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

How to overcome the apparent media boycott of Pauline Hanson's new biography
by Global Web Builders 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear One Nation supporter in NSW, It has come to our attention that the newly released authorised biography of "Pauline, the Hanson Phenonenon" is apparently not being stocked by major book sellers in most Australian states. The big exception to the rule is Queensland where publicity and coverage was given to the book launch and resulting sales in this state have been excellent. This media coverage has simply not occured in the other states. Media monitor show that only "The West Australian" and "The Canberra Times" covered the book launch or any subsequent publicity of any note. Reading between the lines News Limited, who dominate the print press, have totally ignored the book. We would ask you to contact your local major book seller to make a copy of the book available in their store, book details as follows: "Pauline, The Hanson Phenomenon" by Helen Dodd, publishers Boolarong Press, Queensland ISBN #0646332171. This action will result in the book being ordered by your local book store who have the details on how to make orders for the book. If they say they do not wish to order or stock the book please contact GWB with the details of the bookstore. It is important to note that the book store does not pay for the book as it is on consignment and anything that they do not sell is returned to the publisher so their is no financial cost to the book store. We are confident that the book will be sold, based on extraordinary sales in Queensland, but without the publicity the general public will not be aware that the book is available. It appears that the mainstream media are attempting to prevent the book reaching its potential audience Australia wide. Your assistance in overcoming this apparent act of censorship would be greatly appreciated. GWB Scott Balson.

1 0

National Poetry Contest
by ultramax＠206.105.237.162 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

SUBJECT: Poetry Contest, Win $3000.00 TEXT OF MESSAGE: -N A T I O N A L P O E T R Y F O R U M- You are invited to submit a poem to the National Poetry Forum. All works will be read by our staff of award winning poets and writers, and you will receive a "Critical Analysis Report" with detailed professional comments and thoughts on your poetry. The top 25 poems received, as determined by our judges, will be awarded cash prizes including a $3,000.00 Grand Award. The National Poetry Forum, based in New York, looks for fresh new talent in writers and poets like you. We employ award winning professional poets to analyze all poetry as well as judge them for award eligibility on the basis of creativity and literary content. With the writers permission, the 25 award winning poems will be "displayed" on our web site. -RULES AND GUIDELINES- -Send us ONE poem, any style and on any subject, no more than 25 lines typed and single spaced on an 8x11 sheet of paper. -In the upper left corner should be: -Title of Poem -Your Name -Your Street Address -City, State, Zip -Your E-Mail Address -Send poem along with a $10.00 fee (this fee is both for the Critical Analysis Report and for entry into Award Eligibility). Make checks payable to "National Poetry Forum" -All poems must be received by January 15, 1998. -CRITICAL ANALYSIS REPORT: You will receive a personal Critical Analysis Report regardless of award status. This report will contain comments on your poetry and professional insight into the use of the poetic styles and techniques found in your work. You will receive report by March 15. -AWARDS: Money awards will be given for the top 25 poems, as determined by our judges. The Grand Award is $3,000.00. If your poetry is aming the top 25, you will receive your award along with the Critical Analysis Report. -DEADLINE: January 15. Send poem along with a $10.00 non-refundable fee to: National Poetry Forum PO Box 381 New York, NY 10040 **Make checks payable to "National Poetry Forum" -QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? Feel free to E-Mail us at NatPoeFor(a)aol.com Visit our web site at http://members.aol.com/NatPoeFor/poetry.html Please note: The National Poetry Forum does not retain the rights to any poetry or literary works received. All poems are the sole property of the writer.

1 0

Re: [RePol] BCC IN REMAILERS
by TruthMonger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jay Stotzky wrote: > On 28 Nov 97 at 0:19, Denizen wrote: > <text snipped> > Whatever. Hope what you're doing doesn't backfire on any remailer > operators, Rich. That'd be a real shame. What I love most about self-righteous jackasses is that I can usually count on picking up a little extra beer money by betting that their last post to a thread where they have had their ass kicked, they will crawl out on their bellies with some lame, moralistic equivalent of, "Yeah, but when that single child (TM) dies, _you_ will be the one who is responsible for their death. (Pictures at 11!)" OR "Sure, light bulb jokes are funny...until someone burns a retina." Hay, Jay...why don't you shoot twenty 'innocent' citizens at random every time someone 'abuses' a remailer? Then you can point out how many needless deaths could be prevented by ratting out one's friends to the remailer Gestapo. (And be sure to make everyone aware that use of the letter, 'n', is 'abuse', in *your* definintion.) BIG FUCKING NEWS FLASH, JACK!!! In the universal scheme of things, there _is_no_ abuse! If you read the chapter on rights in "How I Found Freedom In An Unfree World" and thought Harry Browne was being 'cute' with his one-liner, "People have a right to do to you whatever you can't stop them from doing." then you might try reading it again without your hand down the front of your pants. HOW TO KNOW WHEN YOU'RE A FASCIST NAZI--TIP #7: "The only people who should use the word 'we' are kings, priests and people with tapeworms." Heigh, Jay...I may be a liar, an asshole and a forger, but at least I lead with my balls. When I take it upon myself to speak for all cypherpunks on the face of the earth, I try to do it as the "Chief CypherPunks SpokesPerson," and not by trying to slip the "Royal WE" up everyone's butt through the back door (redundant?). There ain't no 'we' when the Feds knock on a remailer's door, any more than there is a 'we' in Jim Bell's WorldWide Conspiracy. Someone posts a simple question to a remailer list asking which remailers support a certain function, and your reply is to try to shake them down to find out the 'purity' of their 'motives' in asking a technical question? Of course, you're not a Nazi, are you? "WE just want to ask you a few questions..." before revealing 'source code', in order to make certain that no one is going to make 'improper' use of any remailers, or encryption packages, or graphic images of fully clothed children, or... Becoming a remailer operator is one of the quickest ways I've found to ferret out 'Big Brother Inside' (TMTCM). I regard most remailer operators as everyday heros, but I have to laugh (or puke) when I see someone painting themselves, or remailer operators as a whole, as some kind of Hero/Savior/Saint. This is invariably followed by viewing themselves as part of some Holy Crusade to 'save' remailer recipients from spam, or one of the other Horsemen of the Remailer Apocalypse. Any technical limitations one imposes on the use of their remailer that is not due purely to considerations in regard to survival, is nothing more than using it as an ego-tool to play God/BigBrother. Even the process of trying to survive as a remailer operator leads to one needing to reevaluate their character, beliefs and values. e.g. - You may be able to survive by allowing Christian spamming, but not Satanist spamming. Do you allow one, but not the other, in order to keep from getting shut down? e.g. - You may be able to survive by allowing anonymous email to any .gov site except whitehouse.gov. Do you allow one, but not the other? Hey, Jay...I recognize your 'right' to answer technical questions about remailer use only after having the person asking the question fill out a 10-page form asking questions such as, "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?" I also recognize your right to be laughed at as a lame, Nazi fuck. TruthMonger#1 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Business Security 5.8 Comment: "I Broke PGP!" iQEVAwUANH7LJj0zUlXoOfx5AQEFWggAiIZbdYSw4N9CCrlHl0nJt9yLnfB/xFb9 RrUEMPocsOdC2rRAMkyRpx8R6bPN0AHHUT0Bum9qc1YCJ63OGuMm6UNh51dBmzXl i3syr7UBCPg3aYTSAooIRUoFzHsuqvm0Y2Dk2xYRlZ+SKoMzWmG9Kkiaed2ryqbC tqZJKp6sHD7p+Dt3/IbEahJQqNNXVrOn85pM+xd4T71fPdH1HA0Iptef8kflCg2U gkXSuPIJHZOLDi5kPurJcd9ho2dr1ZYyh3GOpEkyfDyLUquOtJUQKsfrTSZlwUML Et7BKHLk6z+hXJpo/HOU7y2tlL5R620O03FmmNaEePjbm0+M5x67Mw== =JE3f -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Naked Stealth
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The 26 November Guardian reports on the bungled case of the UK hacker who allegedly threatened US national security by hacking the Rome AFB system (and scaring the bejesus out of the North Koreans to boot) while searching for Area 51 info on aliens. The case was thrown out by the court as way overblown and unproveable, though the USG got a lot of mileage from it for "terrorist threats." It hoots at the USAF's crack cyber-security team in San Antonio who over-mobilized to trace the terrifying teenager by most sophisticated means, not knowing that the kid had already been nabbed by Scotland Yard thanks to a traditional-means informant. Now the officer who led the AF hunt is working the cyber-scare circuit peddling the top gun technology -- top secret of course, can't even be revealed by court order. http://jya.com/naked-gun.htm

2 1

NSA
by bill payne 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The battle continues. Friday 11/28/97 6:27 AM John Young Morales and I could not find the word surreply in the dictionary. Microsoft Word spelling checker didnt recognize surreply either. Speculation is that if I showed up at the NM district federal court clerks office this morning with a surreply, the clerk would not file it for the reason that we did not have the leave of court. But, of course, we are not filing a surreply. We like the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure better than New Mexico local rules.. Had a great time at my former Ph.D. student Sobolewski's home last night. Voytek visited this summer from Poland. I met him Voytek brought Sobolewski some Chopin Polish vodka. And several other bottles of Polish vodka. One had grass in the bottle. Sobolewski was born in Cracow in 1939. Sobolewski even recalls as a youth seeing the freight trains going east. Loaded with people. Arbeit macht frei. Lets hope some people see the merits in prompt settlement before this matter gets worse. And get the American eagle flying right. Especially the legal eagle. Later bill UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO William H. Payne ) Arthur R. Morales ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v ) CIV NO 97 0266 ) SC/DJS ) Lieutenant General Kenneth A. Minihan, USAF ) Director, National Security Agency ) National Security Agency ) ) Defendant ) PLAINTIFFS' ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S CROSS-CLAIM REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL DISMISSAL AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 1 COMES NOW plaintiffs Payne [Payne] and Morales [Morales] [Plaintiffs], pro se litigants to exercise their rights guaranteed under the Local Civil Rules to respond to DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL DISMISSAL AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [REPLY] filed 97 NOV 14 by assistant US attorney Jan Mitchell. 2 Local Civil Rule 7.6 Timing of and Restrictions on Responses and Replies, (b) Surreply states The filing of a surreply requires leave of the Court. But this filing is NOT A SURREPLY. Rule 7 of the Federal Rules for Civil Procedure states (a) Pleadings. There shall be a complaint and an answer; a reply to a counterclaim denominated as such; an answer to a cross-claim, if the answer contains a cross-claim; a third-party complaint, if a person who was not an original party is summoned under the provision of Rule 14; and a third-party answer, if a third-party complaint is served. No other pleading shall be allowed, except that the court may order a reply to an answer or a third party answer. Mitchell makes a claim in her REPLY. Mitchell writes, It continues to be Defendant's position that Plaintiffs' Complaint for Injunctive Relief ("Complaint") filed February 28, 1997 must be dismissed. This ANSWER contains a cross-claim answer. Namely, give the public the documents legally requested under the FOIA. 3 Mitchell writes, Plaintiffs make the sweeping assertion that the "29 cases in Mitchell's MEMORANDUM ... do NOT APPLY to the facts in this case. However, they cite to absolutely no case law to support their position. No citations to case law are required for the reason that Plaintiffs EXHAUSTED THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES, as stated by NSA deputy director William P. Crowell. Plaintiffs support their position by FACTS in this matter. Mitchell attempts to force Plaintiffs to support the FACTS in this lawsuit with case law. Mitchell cited case law that applies ONLY when those seeking documents under the FOIA did NOT exhaust administrative remedies. Mitchell's case law DOES NOT APPLY to this lawsuit for the reason that Plaintiffs DID EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES. Lawyer Mitchell appears to attempt to apply the Nazi strategy If you tell a big enough lie often enough, people will begin to believe it. The lie Mitchell is attempting to convince readers of these documents of is that Plaintiffs DID NOT exhaust administrative remedies. Plaintiffs DID EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES. NSA deputy director and NSA FOIA/PA Appeals Authority William P. Crowell writes 31 December 1996 Because the process of your request has not progressed to a point where there have been any initial, substantive Agency determination of the release or withholding of responsive records, I can offer you no administrative remedy. 4 Mitchell writes, The legal authority relied upon I the Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Motion for Partial Dismissal and Motion for Summary Judgment (hereinafter referred to the "Memorandum"), provides clear legal basis for the Court to either dismiss Plaintiff's [sic] Complaint, or granting summary judgment to Defendant as a matter of law. Plaintiffs disagree. Mitchell cites no case law to support the above paragraph. Rather Plaintiffs lawfully requested documents, mostly of KNOWN EXISTENCE AND LOCATION, and, as the Court may be aware When an administrative appeal is denied, a requester has the right to appeal the denial in court. A FOIA appeal lawsuit can be filed in the U.S. District Court in the district where the requester lives. The requester can also file suit in the district where the documents are located or in the District of Columbia. When a requester goes to court, the burden of justifying the withholding of documents is on the government. This is a distinct advantage for the requester. Mitchell wrongly seeks to have Defendant withhold the requested documents for the reason that she CLAIMS Plaintiffs have failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Bur Plaintiffs HAVE EXHAUSTED ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES as NSA former deputy director Crowell told Payne IN WRITING. 5 Mitchell writes, In Paragraphs 1-6 of Plaintiffs' Response, Plaintiffs appear to be claiming the Defendant has misrepresented this facts concerning Plaintiff Payne's Freedom of Information Act/ Privacy Act("FOIA/PA") requests. It is true that Plaintiff Payne did file two FOIA request with the National Security Agency ('NSA/Agency") and that NSA did not respond with the statutory time limit. It is also true that Plaintiff Payne appealed with NSA the nonresponse to both requests and subsequently received a letter dated 31 December 1997, from William P. Crowell, the Freedom on Information AC/Privacy Act appeals Authority. Mr. Crowell stated, among other things that no administrative remedy could be offered at that time. Lawyer Mitchell's "at that time" appears to be an argument that Plaintiffs should wait indefinitely for NSA to produce requested documents. Plaintiffs exercise their rights and proceed to court as the law allows when administrative remedies have been exhausted. Mitchell UNSUCCESSFULLY ATTEMPTS to make a valid argument that Plaintiffs had to wait even longer AFTER ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES WERE EXHAUSTED before filing a FOIA lawsuit. 6 Mitchell writes, Attachment 4 to Exhibit A, the Winch Declaration attached to Defendant's Memorandum. NSA employee GARY W. WINCH [Winch], Director of Policy, made a false statement under oath in an unsuccessful attempt to reverse NSA deputy director Crowell's letter informing Payne that administrative remedies were exhausted. Winch's violation of the False Statement Act earned Winch a criminal complaint affidavit file with selected magistrate judge Antonin Scalia. 6 Mitchell writes, Despite the fact that Mr. Payne was clearly informed that he could treat the letter from William P. Crowell as a denial of his appeal and he could proceed under 5 U.S.C. section 552 to seek judicial review of the determination, Mr. Payne did not proceed to exercise his right to file a civil lawsuit in the United States at that time. Mitchell unsuccessfully attempts to make a valid argument that IMMEDIATELY UPON receiving Crowell's letter that Plaintiffs were REQUIRED to file a lawsuit. Mitchell cites no law to support her argument. The reason Mitchell cites no law is that the law does not specify WHEN a plaintiff must file a lawsuit. As the court may know 5 USC 552 states (B) On complaint, the district court of the United States in the district in which the complainant resides, or has his principal place of business, or in which the agency records are situated, or in the District of Columbia, has jurisdiction to enjoin the agency from withholding agency records and to order the production of any agency records improperly withheld from the complainant. In such a case the court shall determine the matter de novo, and may examine the contents of such agency records in camera to determine whether such records or any part thereof shall be withheld under any of the exemptions set forth in subsection (b) of this section, and the burden is on the agency to sustain its action. In addition to any other matters to which a court accords substantial weight, a court shall accord substantial weight to an affidavit of an agency concerning the agency's determination as to technical feasibility under paragraph (2)(C) and subsection (b) and reproducibility under paragraph (3)(B). (C) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the defendant shall serve an answer or otherwise plead to any complaint made under this subsection within thirty days after service upon the defendant of the pleading in which such complaint is made, unless the court otherwise directs for good cause shown. So Mitchell's argument that Plaintiffs were required to file this lawsuit within a specific time after receiving Crowell's letter must be dismissed as not supported by law. 7 Mitchell writes, In a letter dated 6 January 1997, Plaintiff Payne was advised that his request for a waiver of fees had been denied and informed him of the estimate of the cost to search for the records concerning the algorithms. NSA was clearly attempting to deny furnishing the requested documents by asking Payne for money for SEARCHING for the documents. Payne worked with NSA implementing NSA crypto algorithms for about ten years. Payne KNOWS WHO has documents and about WHERE the documents are located. NO SEARCH IS REQUIRED. Asking for fees to SEARCH is clearly a unintelligent ruse to deny furnishing the legally requested documents. 8 Mitchell writes Attachment 5 to Exhibit A, the Winch Declaration attached to Defendant's Memorandum. Once that letter was received, Mr. Payne was clearly on notice that NSA was continuing to process his FOIA request, and he was specifically notified that if he did not agree with the fee determination, he could appeal in writing with 60 days to the NSA/CSS Freedom of Information Act Appeals Authority. He chose not to appeal the denial of the fee waiver nor did he pay the estimated costs. Exhibit A, Winch Declaration, at 5, section 14. Payne is not required to appeal fee determination denial if Plaintiffs are NOT SUING OVER A FEE WAIVER DENIAL. Mitchell cites no law to show that Payne is required to appeal a FOIA fee denial before filing suit for legally requested documents. Winch wrote, The search cost estimate was $1,317.50, as computed in accordance with DOD regulations. Mr. Payne was informed that 2 hours of search would be conducted at no cost to him as required by the FOIA In accordance with its regulations, NSA requires advance payment of cost exceeding $250 prior to initiating a search. Mr. Payne was so informed in the Agency's 6 January letter and was requested to pay the $1,267.50 (the remainder of the estimated search costs) within 30 days. Winch CLEARLY attempts to scam Payne by asking for $1,317.50 for a SEARCH. No search is required. Filing a lawsuit permits Discovery WITHOUT LEAVE OF THE COURT. Discovery is used to located documents. Rule 26 (b)(1) Parties may obtain discovery regarding any mater, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and LOCATION of any books documents, or other tangible thing and the identity and location of persons have knowledge of any discoverable matter. Economics of clearly wasting $1,317.50 or paying $125 for this public internationally Internet-viewed lawsuit clearly favored the latter approach to get the lawfully requested documents. 9 Mitchell writes Despite Plaintiffs unsupported protestation to the contrary, the law is absolutely clear that when a requester elects not to go to court immediately -in this case, immediately after receiving the letter dated 31 December 1996 and before receiving the letter dated 06 January 1997 - he must exhaust all administrative remedies within the agency. Mr. Payne must have administratively exhausted the decision on the fee waiver decision. Oglesby v. Department of the Army, 920 F2.d 57, 61 (D.D.Cir. 1990); McDonnell v. United States of America, 4 F.3d 1227, 1240 (3d Cir. 1993). He is not do so. Mitchell cites no law to support her statement that Plaintiffs are REQUIRED "to go to court immediately." In fact, appearance is that Mitchell has made another false statement under oath. The fee $1,317.50 Winch requested for a search for documents of known location, or whose location could be established with Discovery, did not have to be appealed to exhaust administrative remedies. Payne could have appealed the denial of waiver of fees but chose not to because this was clearly a ploy on Winch's part to cost Payne money. And Mitchell cannot, because their is no requirement, cite law to show that Payne is required to appeal a fee waiver denial if Plaintiffs are not using about fee waiver denial. If Plaintiff's WISHED, which they did not, to sue for fee waiver, then Payne would have had to appeal the denial of FEE WAIVER to exhaust administrative remedies. 5 USC 552 4(A) states about a fee waiver denial lawsuit (vii) In any action by a requester regarding the waiver of fees under this section, the court shall determine the matter de novo: Provided, That the court's review of the matter shall be limited to the record before the agency. But this lawsuit IS NOT ABOUT WAIVER OF FEES, it is about obtaining the lawfully requested documents. Mitchell again attempts, unsuccessfully, to distort the law by citing Oglesby and McDonnell where administrative remedies were NOT exhausted. This lawsuit is about obtaining documents. Plaintiffs DID NOT sue for fee waiver denial. Therefore, no appeal of FEE WAIVER DENIAL was required. 10 Mitchell writes Plaintiffs not attempt to excuse Plaintiff Payne's failure to exhaust the administrative appeal process, by claiming that the request for payment is a "ploy" to avoid providing the documents. Plaintiff Payne asserts that he knows where the records are located with NSA because of his association with the Agency during his employment with Sandia National Laboratory [sic] and, therefore, he maintains that no search is required. Plaintiffs' Response, at 4 section 9. Plaintiff Payne also asserts that even if he had paid the estimated costs, the Agency would not have produced the documents. Within the specified guiltiness, the FOIA allows an agency to assess fees for processing requests made under the Act and to require advance payment of estimated fees if it is determined that the fees will exceed $250. 5 U.S.C section 552(a)(4)(A)(i), (v). The obligation is to conduct a search, the scope of which is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of responsive records. Under the law, there is no requirement that records actually be discovered in a search for which a requester pays. OMB Fee Guidelines, 52 Fed. Reg. 10,011, 10,018 (1987). Even if Mr. Payne did know the location of the records, (and Defendant certainly does not agree that he does), The Agency would still have an obligation under the law to conduct an adequate search. Further, even if the records are found, they may still be withheld under various FOIA exemptions. In fact, the letter from James P. Cavanaugh dated 06 January 1997, specifically informed Mr. Payne that if any responsive records were found, they would still have to be reviewed for releasibility and that the records of this type most likely would be classified or otherwise exempt from disclosure. Attachment F to Exhibit A to Defendant's Memorandum. Plaintiffs make an unsupported argument that because NSA did not respond to the FOIA requests within the allotted time, and because NSA failed to return the green return receipt cards, (Plaintiffs' Response, at 2 section 4),"[t]he law allows at requester to consider that his or her request has been denied . . . [t]his permits the requester to file an administrative appeal." Even if this statement were true, it has not bearing on the facts before the Court. Plaintiff Payne did not timely file in Federal court prior to receiving the January 1997 letter from NSA informing him of the fee determination. He may not pursue his action in Federal court because he has not exhausted administrative remedies. Mitchell again is incorrect. Two issues can come before the court. 1 Demand for documents illegally withheld under the FOIA. 2 Demand for fee waiver. Text of both laws are reproduced in this ANSWER. The lawsuit is about 1. NOT 2. Administrative remedies were exhausted as Crowell stated. And Plaintiffs proceeded to court as permitted by law. Mitchell, as an officer of the court, has again violated the False Statement Act again by presenting to the Court and argument not relying on the facts of this case. Plaintiffs did, in fact, EXHAUST ALL ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES as required to proceed to court. 11 Michell states, The remainder of Plaintiffs Response, [Paragraphs 7-14] is filled with unrelated pieces of information from various sources, suppositions, assumptions, and accusations, all apparently designed to challenge the Agency's decision that to admit or deny the existence of the Iranian and Libyan messages and translations would reveal classified information. As discussed in some depth in Defendant's Memorandum, the Agency is accorded great deference in the area, and nothing Plaintiffs have presented rises to level of evidence to show "bad faith" by the Agency in it decision-making process. Halperin v. CIA, 629 F.2d 144, 148 (D.C. Cir. 1980). In addition, Plaintiffs appear to be claiming that information concerning records of Iranian message traffic and translations has been put into the public domain by both former President Reagan and various authors or books and newspapers. Plaintiffs bear the burden of "pointing to specific information in the public domain that appears to duplicate the information withheld." Afshar v. Department of State, 702 F2.d 1125, 1130 (D.D.C. 1989). With regard to classified material pertaining to national security concerns, court have held that unofficial leaks and public surmise can often be ignored by foreign governments that might perceive themselves to be harmed by disclosure; but official acknowledgment may for a government to retaliate. Afshar, 702 F.2d at 1131. Defendant submit that, in this case, all Plaintiffs have done is identify a mishmash of information from various public sources, including the Internet, and then claim that if it is published in some manner, it must be true. Such a conglomeration of information does nothing to satisfy Plaintiff's burden in this regard. Plaintiffs cannot point to any source which published the documentation which Plaintiffs asserts exists: NSA intercepted the Libyan message and translations between January 21, 1980 and June 19, 1996. In addition, generalized allegations that classified information has been leaked to the media or otherwise made available to the public will not defeat an Exemption 1 claim under the FOIA. Executive Order 12958 section 1.2 (c); Public Citizen v. Department of State, 11 F.3d 198, 201 (D.C. Cir. 1993). Michell's statement, Plaintiffs cannot point to any source which published the documentation which Plaintiffs asserts exists: NSA intercepted the Libyan message and translations between January 21, 1980 and June 19, 1996. is clearly false as the following Internet news story attests. NSA, Crypto AG, and the Iraq-Iran Conflict by J. Orlin Grabbe One of the dirty little secrets of the 1980s is that the U.S. regularly provided Iraq's Saddam Hussein with top-secret communication intercepts by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). Consider the evidence. When in 1991 the government of Kuwait paid the public relations firm of Hill & Knowlton ten million dollars to drum up American war fever against the evil dictator Hussein, it brought about the end of a long legacy of cooperation between the U.S. and Iraq. Hill & Knowlton resurrected the World War I propaganda story about German soldiers roasting Belgian babies on bayonets, updated in the form of a confidential witness (actually the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the U.S.) who told Congress a tearful story of Iraqi soldiers taking Kuwaiti babies out of incubators and leaving them on the cold floor to die. President George Bush then repeated this fabricated tale in speeches ten times over the next three days. What is remarkable about this staged turn of events is that, until then, Hussein had operated largely with U.S. approval. This cooperation had spanned three successive administrations, starting with Jimmy Carter. As noted by John R. MacArthur, "From 1980 to 1988, Hussein had shouldered the burdenof killing about 150,000 Iranians, in addition to at least thirteen thousand of his own citizens, including several thousand unarmed Kurdish civilians, and in the process won the admiration and support of elements of three successive U.S. Administrations" [1]. Hussein's artful slaughter of Iranians was aided by good military intelligence. The role of NSA in the conflict is an open secret in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. Only in this country has there been a relative news blackout, despite the fact that it was the U.S. administration that let the crypto cat out of the bag. First, U.S. President Ronald Reagan informed the world on national television that the United States was reading Libyan communications. This admission was part of a speech justifying the retaliatory bombing of Libya for its alleged involvement in the La Belle discotheque bombing in Berlin's Schoeneberg district, where two U.S. soldiers and a Turkish woman were killed, and 200 others injured. Reagan wasn't talking about American monitoring of Libyan news broadcasts. Rather, his "direct, precise, and undeniable proof" referred to secret (encrypted) diplomatic communication between Tripoli and the Libyan embassy in East Berlin. Next, this leak was compound by the U.S. demonstration that it was also reading secret Iranian communications. As reported in Switzerland's Neue Zurcher Zeitung, the U.S. provided the contents of encrypted Iranian messages to France to assist in the conviction of Ali Vakili Rad and Massoud Hendi for the stabbing death in the Paris suburb of Suresnes of the former Iranian prime minister Shahpour Bakhtiar and his personal secretary Katibeh Fallouch. [2] What these two countries had in common was they had both purchased cryptographic communication equipment from the Swiss firm Crypto AG. Crypto AG was founded in 1952 by the (Russian-born) Swedish cryptographer Boris Hagelin who located his company in Zug. Boris had created the "Hagelin-machine", a encryption device similar to the German "Enigma". The Hagelin machine was used on the side of the Allies in World War II. Crypto AG was an old and venerable firm, and Switzerland was a neutral country. So Crypto AG's enciphering devices for voice communication and digital data networks were popular, and customers came from 130 countries. These included the Vatican, as well the governments of Iraq, Iran, and Libya. Such countries were naturally skeptical of cryptographic devices sold in many NATO countries, so turned to relatively neutral Switzerland for communication security. Iran demonstrated its suspicion about the source of the leaks, when it arrested Hans Buehler, a top salesman for Crypto AG, in Teheran on March 18, 1992. During his nine and a half months of solitary confinement in Evin prison in Teheran, Buehler was questioned again and again whether he had leaked Teheran's codes or Libya's keys to Western powers. Luckily Buehler didn't know anything. He in fact believed in his own sales pitch that Crypto AG was a neutral company and its equipment was the best. They were Swiss, after all. [3] Crypto AG eventually paid one million dollars for Buehler's release in January 1993, then promptly fired him once they had reassured themselves that he hadn't revealed anything important under interrogation, and because Buehler had begun to ask some embarrassing questions. Then reports appeared on Swiss television, Swiss Radio International, all the major Swiss papers, and in German magazines like Der Spiegel. Had Crypto AG's equipment been spiked by Western intelligence services? the media wanted to know. The answer was Yes [4]. Swiss television traced the ownership of Crypto AG to a company in Liechtenstein, and from there back to a trust company in Munich. A witness appearing on Swiss television explained the real owner was the German government--the Federal Estates Administration. [5] According to Der Spiegel, all but 6 of the 6000 shares of Crypto AG were at one time owned by Eugen Freiberger, who resided in Munich and was head of the Crypto AG managing board in 1982. Another German, Josef Bauer, an authorized tax agent of the Muenchner Treuhandgesellschaft KPMG, and who was elected to the managing board in 1970, stated that his mandate had come from the German company Siemens. Other members of Crypto AG's management had also worked at Siemens. Was the German secret service, the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), hiding behind the Siemens' connection? So it would seem. Der Spiegel reported that in October 1970, a secret meeting of the BND had discussed how the Swiss company Graettner could be guided into closer cooperation with Crypto AG, or could even merged with it. The BND additionally considered how "the Swedish company Ericsson could be influenced through Siemens to terminate its own cryptographic business." [6] A former employee of Crypto AG reported that he had to coordinate his developments with "people from Bad Godesberg". This was the location of the "central office for encryption affairs" of the BND, and the service instructed Crypto AG what algorithms to use to create the codes. The employee also remembers an American "watcher", who strongly demanded the use of certain encryption methods. Representatives from NSA visited Crypto AG often. A memorandum of a secret workshop at Crypto AG in August 1975, where a new prototype of an encryption device was demonstrated, mentions the participation of Nora L. Mackebee, an NSA cryptographer. Motorola engineer Bob Newman says that Mackebee was introduced to him as a "consultant". Motorola cooperated with Crypto AG in the seventies in developing a new generation of electronic encryption machines. The Americans "knew Zug very well and gave travel tips to the Motorola people for the visit at Crypto AG," Newman told Der Spiegel. Knowledgeable sources indicate that the Crypto AG enciphering process, developed in cooperation with the NSA and the German company Siemans, involved secretly embedding the decryption key in the cipher text. Those who knew where to look could monitor the encrypted communication, then extract the decryption key that was also part of the transmission, and recover the plain text message. Decryption of a message by a knowledgeable third party was not any more difficult than it was for the intended receiver. (More than one method was used. Sometimes the algorithm was simply deficient, with built-in exploitable weaknesses.) Crypto AG denies all this, of course, saying such reports are "pure invention". What information was provided to Saddam Hussein exactly? Answers to this question are currently being sought in a lawsuit against NSA in New Mexico, which has asked to see "all Iranian messages and translations between January 1, 1980 and June 10, 1996". [7] The passage of top-secret communications intelligence to someone like Saddam Hussein brings up other questions. Which dictator is the U.S. passing top secret messages to currently? Jiang Zemin? Boris Yeltsin? Will Saddam Hussein again become a recipient of NSA largess if he returns to the mass slaughter of Iranians? What exactly is the purpose of NSA anyway? One more question: Who is reading the Pope's communications? Bibliography [1] John R. MacArthur, Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the Gulf War, Hill and Wang, New York, 1992. [2] Some of the background of this assassination can be found in "The Tehran Connection," Time Magazine, March 21, 1994. [3] The Buehler case is detailed in Res Strehle, Verschleusselt: der Fall Hans Beuhler, Werd Verlag, Zurich, 1994. [4] "For years, NSA secretly rigged Crypto AG machines so that U.S. eavesdroppers could easily break their codes, according to former company employees whose story is supported by company documents," "No Such Agency, Part 4: Rigging the Game," The Baltimore Sun, December 4, 1995. [5] Reported in programs about the Buehler case that were broadcast on Swiss Radio International on May 15, 1994 and July 18, 1994. [6] "Wer ist der befugte Vierte?": Geheimdienste unterwandern den Schutz von Verschlusselungsgeraten," Der Spiegel 36, 1996. [7] U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, William H. Payne, Arthur R. Morales, Plaintiffs, v. Lieutenant General Kenneth A. Minihan, USAF, Director of National Security Agency, National Security Agency, Defendant, CIV NO 97 0266 SC/DJS. November 2, 1997 Web Page: http://www.aci.net/kalliste/ Michell attempts to make a valid argument that withholding of intercepted message is proper because they are classified. Mitchell references EO 12958 1.2, c) Classified information shall not be declassified automatically as a result of any unauthorized disclosure of identical or similar information. Plaintiffs continue to believe, classification abuse aside, that NSA should come clean about it bungled spy sting on Iran and settle with its victims. And US courts should not help NSA hide. Clearly NSA getting caught in, according the Baltimore Sun, the most "audacious" spy sting in its history, spiking crypto units so that the crypto key is transmitted with cipher text falls under EO 12958, Sec. 1.8. Classification Prohibitions and Limitations. (a) In no case shall information be classified in order to: (1) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error; (2) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency; (3) restrain competition; or (4) prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of national security. ... Not section 1.2. Clearly, NSA getting caught is one of the greatest blunders in intelligence history fall under 1.8 (1) and (2). And also may account for the greatest number of dead victims. But this is one part of this of this lawsuit. To get a help get a count of the dead and maimed. 12 Mitchell writes Plaintiffs' allegation in the Response at Paragraph 9, at 4, that sanctions under the discovery rules might finally cause the Agency to produce some of the requested records is fallacious. This is a FOIA action; the purpose is to determine whether or not the Plaintiffs are properly in Federal Court, and whether or not the documents requested have been properly withheld under FOIA law. It is not appropriate to use the discovery rules contained in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to bypass the requirements of the FOIA. Mitchell is incorrect in her statement, " This is a FOIA action ..." This is a LAWSUIT which WILL BE conducted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Even in New Mexico. Mitchell attempts to inject the rules of the FOIA into the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs will continue to object. The Plaintiffs have EXHAUSTED ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES and are in court to obtain documents illegally withheld. Plaintiffs will use the tools available, including Discovery, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to locate and get the documents. Plaintiffs ARE NOT in court to sue about waiver of fees. 13 Mitchell concludes Plaintiffs' Response contains no legal support for their contention that they are entitled to the requested information. Contrary to their assertion, the legal citations contained Defendant's Memorandum ARE most certainly relevant, because they contain the legal basis on which this Court must base it decision. Plaintiffs' Complaint must be dismissed, or in the alternative, summary judgment must be granted to defendant. Mitchell cites no legal support for her arguments. Rather Mitchell has UNSUCCESSFULLY ATTEMPTED to make Plaintiffs' lawsuit into a fee waiver denial lawsuit. This is not a fee waiver lawsuit. This is a lawsuit to obtain lawfully requested documents. CONCLUSIONS 1 Replace judges Svet and Campos because these judges have demonstrated, IN WRITING, they do not follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 2 Remove lawyer Mitchell from the lawsuit for criminal violation of the False Statement Act. And violation of the lawyers Rules of Professional Conduct. Specifically Mitchell's violated in her REPLY In all professional functions a lawyer should be competent, prompt, and diligent. A lawyer should use the law's procedures only for legitimate purposes and not to harass or intimidate other. [i]t is also a lawyer's duty to uphold the legal process. Failure to comply with an obligation or prohibition imposed by rule is a basis for invoking the disciplinary process. A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert and issue therein, unless there is a basis for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of material fact of law to a tribunal. (4) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. A. make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; ... 16-804. Misconduct C. engage in conduct involving dishonest, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; B. commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects. 3 Have replacement judges ORDER Defendant to immediately produce documents in machine-readable format for publication on Internet. In preparation for settlement of this unfortunate bungled spy sting. And analysis of 'deficient' NSA cryptographic algorithm work designed to get the US government out of the cryptography business. Respectfully submitted, _________________________ William H. Payne 13015 Calle de Sandias NE Albuquerque, NM 87111 Telephone approval Morales in New Orleans _________________________ Arthur R. Morales 1024 Los Arboles NW Albuquerque, NM 87107 Pro se litigants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing memorandum was mailed to Lieutenant General Kenneth A. Minihan, USAF, Director, National Security Agency, National Security Agency, 9800 Savage Road, Fort George G. Meade, MD 20755-6000 and hand delivered to Jan E Mitchell, Assistant US Attorney, 525 Silver SW, ABQ, NM 87102 this Friday November 28, 1997. 18

1 0

Re: [RePol] Denizen
by TruthMonger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ralph Hotmail wrote: > > In a moment of boredom, I took the opportunity to check into "Denizen". > I also read his posts under a number of names to the critical mass > mailing list and their replies. > In saner moments, Beckjord runs the UFO and Bigfoot Museum. > > This is the person who wants to use BCC from an anonymous remailer to > get his opinion to the subscribers of the Critical Mass list. The > message is simple - if you help him out,you can kiss your remailer > goodbye. Perhaps Ralph could help the anonymous remailer 'cause' by providing remailer operators with a list of the 'bad' people who should not be allowed to use remailers to promote their 'wrong' views. Maybe Mr. Hotmail could also provide a list of 'bad' words and 'bad' subjects that should be blocked, as well. I suggest blocking Ralphie 'Kiss Your Remailer Goodbye' Hotmail. Of course, I'm a Nazi fuck... NaziFuckMonger

4 9

Hat3 gr0ups
by goddesshera＠juno.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

could any kind soul please repost the message on hate groups and how mentioning the founding fathers constitutes a hateg roup. thanks This message was automatically remailed. The sender is unknown, unlogged, and nonreplyable. Send complaints and blocking requests to <goddesshera(a)juno.com>.

1 0

Re: PGP 5.0 ConsensuS?? -- is it usable?
by nobody＠nsm.htp.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 17:06 97/11/28 GMT, Lutz Donnerhacke wrote: > * Anonymous Remailer wrote: > >Do you think that it is a good idea to migrate from pgp 2.6.3 to > >pgp 5.0 now? > > No. Yes.

1 0

Re: How to spot a hate group [was Re: Update On Jim Bell]
by Jonathan Wienke 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

- -----Original Message----- From: Brad Dolan <bdolan(a)usit.net> [snip] >Professor Joyce Malcolm of Bentley College in Massachusetts >was the chair of the panel on which I sat. She showed me >something quite disturbing from another presentation that >she had attended. The paper attempted to determine if the >Montana Militia could be considered a "hate group" or >not. Among the methods by which they determined this was >examination of the phrases and concerned in Montana Militia >literature. Among the phrases or subjects that would >classify a group as a "hate group" were: > >1. Discussion of the Bill of Rights, especially the >Second Amendment. > >2. Discussion of military oppression, in the U.S. or >elsewhere. > >3. Discussion of the Framers of our government. > >She showed me a copy of the criteria used by the criminologists >in question, and these were among the criteria. I guess >the ACLU and Amnesty International are hate groups also. >Very disturbing. No wonder the EPA and every other bureaucrat is stocking up on weaponry of all kinds...Almost everyone in America is an anti-government extremist hate group member. Here is some "hate speech" from a Dead White Guy to ponder: "They tell us we are weak-unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies have bound us hand and foot? We are not weak if we make a proper use of the means which the God of nature has placed in our power. Millions of people armed in the hold cause of Liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible. Besides, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Many cry 'Peace, peace'-but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! Why stand we here idle? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me Liberty or give me death!" -- Patrick Henry Jonathan Wienke PGP Key Fingerprints: 7484 2FB7 7588 ACD1 3A8F 778A 7407 2928 3312 6597 8258 9A9E D9FA 4878 C245 D245 EAA7 0DCC "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -- Samuel Adams "Stupidity is the one arena of human achievement where most people fulfill their potential." -- Jonathan Wienke Never sign a contract that contains the phrase "first-born child." Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't. RSA export-o-matic: print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`

1 0

--- STRONG ADULT CONTENT ---
by Jugs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello From Monique, If you are under 18 don't go any further..... You are receiving this email because your name has been submitted to a adult maillist..If you would like to be removed please follow the instructions below. http://www.DoMeLive.com LIVE LIVE LIVE....Florida Beach Babes perform for you live right in your browser. That's right live horny teenage girls, who will do ANYTHING you want. Our girls are all under 20 and are ready to please you in any way you want. You tell them what to do and they do it. Our new technology allows you to see our girls live and interact with them right in your NETSCAPE 2.2+, INTERNET EXPLORER 3.02, and AOL FOR WINDOWS 95 BROWSERS...... Your not going to believe your eyes, our picture is so large and so clear you'll be able to count the hairs on our pussies...that's if we had any hair down there.... For a limited time only, 7 minutes FREE to each new customer Don't cyber blind when you can DO ME LIVE..We'll do anything to keep you coming back.... http://www.DoMeLive.com

4 4

--- STRONG ADULT CONTENT ---
by Jugs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello From Monique, If you are under 18 don't go any further..... You are receiving this email because your name has been submitted to a adult maillist..If you would like to be removed please follow the instructions below. http://www.DoMeLive.com LIVE LIVE LIVE....Florida Beach Babes perform for you live right in your browser. That's right live horny teenage girls, who will do ANYTHING you want. Our girls are all under 20 and are ready to please you in any way you want. You tell them what to do and they do it. Our new technology allows you to see our girls live and interact with them right in your NETSCAPE 2.2+, INTERNET EXPLORER 3.02, and AOL FOR WINDOWS 95 BROWSERS...... Your not going to believe your eyes, our picture is so large and so clear you'll be able to count the hairs on our pussies...that's if we had any hair down there.... For a limited time only, 7 minutes FREE to each new customer Don't cyber blind when you can DO ME LIVE..We'll do anything to keep you coming back.... http://www.DoMeLive.com

1 0

Continuing coverage of Internet gaming
by Steve Schear 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Will Roulette Wheel Land on 'Ban' or 'Tax'? http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/8479.html Net Gaming Operator Wins Court Round http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/8807.html

1 0

BXA Meet in DC
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Should anyone attend the BXA meeting in DC referenced below, we'd be grateful for a report, handouts and minutes, especially on encryption regulation and implementation of the Wassenaar Arrangement -- whose issuance is now overdue. A "Wassenaar Plenary" is scheduled for sometime in December as well, with a "Wassenaar list review" in May 1998, according to minutes of the October 21 meeting of the Information Systems Technical Advisory Committee: http://jya.com/istac102197.htm ---------- Bureau of Export Administration Regulations and Procedures Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed Meeting A meeting of the Regulations and Procedures Technical Advisory Committee will be held December 9, 1997, 9:00 a.m., in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues, N.W., Washington, D.C. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on implementation of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and provides for continuing review to update the EAR as needed. Agenda Open Session 1. Opening remarks by the Chairperson. 2. Presentation of papers or comments by the public. 3. Update on the encryption regulation. 4. Update on the Wassenaar Arrangement implementation regulation. 5. Discussion on the ``deemed export'' issue. 6. Discussion on the Enhanced Proliferation Control Initiative and continued publication of Entities of Concern. 7. Update on the Automated Export System. 8. Discussion on efforts to conform the Foreign Trade Statistics Regulations and the Export Administration Regulations on export clearance requirements. Closed Session 9. Discussion of matters properly classified under Executive Order 12958, dealing with the U.S. export control program and strategic criteria related thereto. The General Session of the meeting will be open to the public and a limited number of seats will be available. To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. Written statements may be submitted at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate the distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials two weeks prior to the meeting date to the following address: Ms. Lee Ann Carpenter, OAS/EA/BXA MS: 3886C, 14th & Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230. The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on December 16, 1996, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, that the series of meetings or portions of meetings of the Committee and of any Subcommittees thereof, dealing with the classified materials listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in section 10(a)(1) and (a)(3), of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The remaining series of meetings or portions thereof will be open to the public. A copy of the Notice of Determination to close meetings or portions of meetings of the Committee is available for public inspection and copying in the Central Reference and Records Inspection Facility, Room 6020, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. For further information, call Lee Ann Carpenter at (202) 482-2583. Dated: November 3, 1997. Lee Ann Carpenter, Director, Technical Advisory Committee Unit. [FR Doc. 97-29404 Filed 11-6-97; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DT-M

1 0

Re: Censor Intel
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

More intel, from the other side. The journalist and civil liberties groups that have joined the Internet Free Expressional Alliance (compare and contrast to the sponsors of the summit at http://www.netparents.org/summit_part.html) American Civil Liberties Union American Society of Newspaper Editors Bolt Reporter Boston Coalition for Freedom of Expression Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility Electronic Frontier Foundation Electronic Privacy Information Center Feminists for Free Expression First Amendment Project Institute for Global Communications International Periodical Distributors Association Journalism Education Association National Association of Artists Organizations National Campaign for Freedom of Expression National Coalition Against Censorship National Writers Union NetAction Peacefire Publishers Marketing Association Society of Professional Journalists z publishing The IFEA press conference at 12:30 pm Monday will be carried by CSPAN for you outside-the-Bway-folks. One or two libertarian thinktanks may make available some material critical of the push towards mandatory voluntary ratings. The IFEA folks will also, I'm told, have someone at the Censorware Summit hotel itself, on Tuesday, in Meeting Room #6 on the lower level. -Declan

1 0

your request
by tiacaa41＠anion.epita.fr 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

NEW IMPROVED with FREE software, FREE bulk e mail system, FREE web site to do what you wish, ongoing support (optional), and a lot more! all included. ...........this is a one time mailing............... \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\$\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ you are about to make at least $50,000 In less than 90 days Read the enclosed program...then read it again... //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Dear friend, The enclosed information is something I almost let slip through my fingers. Fortunately, sometime later I re-read everything and gave some thought and study to it. My name is Christopher Erickson. Two years ago, the corporation I worked at for the past twelve years down-sized and my position was eliminated. After unproductive job interviews, I decided to open my own business. Over the past year, I incurred many unforeseen financial problems. I owed my family, friends, and creditors over $35,000. The economy was taking a toll on my business and I just couldn't seem to make ends meet. I had to refinance and borrow against my home to support my family and struggling business. I truly believe it was wrong for me to be in debt like this. AT THAT MOMENT something significant happened in my life and I am writing to share my experience in hopes that this will change your life FOREVER....FINANCIALLY!!! In mid-December, I received this program via email. Six months prior to receiving this program I had been sending away for information on various business opportunities. All of the programs I received, in my opinion, were not cost effective. They were either too difficult for me to comprehend or the initial investment was too much for me to risk to see if they worked or not. One claimed I'd make a million dollars in one year...it didn't tell me I'd have to write a book to make it. But like I was saying, in December of '92 I received this program. I didn't send for it, or ask for it, they just got my name off a mailing list. THANK GOODNESS FOR THAT!!! After reading it several times, to make sure I was reading it correctly, I couldn't believe my eyes. Here was a MONEY-MAKING PHENOMENON. I could invest as much as I wanted to start, without putting me further in debt. After I got a pencil and paper and figured it out, I would at least get my money back. After determining that the program is LEGAL and NOT A CHAIN LETTER, I decided "WHY NOT". Initially I sent out 10,000 emails. It only cost me about $15.00 for my time on-line. The great thing about email is that I didn't need any money for printing to send out the program, only the cost to fulfill my orders. I am telling you like it is, I hope it doesn't turn you off, but I promised myself that I would not "rip-off" anyone, no matter how much money it cost me!. In less than one week, I was starting to receive orders for REPORT #1. By January 13th, I had received 26 orders for REPORT #1. When you read the GUARANTEE in the program, you will see that "YOU MUST RECEIVE 15 TO 20 ORDERS FOR REPORT #1 WITHIN TWO WEEKS. IF YOU DON'T, SEND OUT MORE PROGRAMS UNTIL YOU DO!" My first step in making $50,000 in 20 to 90 days was done. By January 30th, I had received 196 orders for REPORT #2. If you go back to the GUARANTEE, "YOU MUST RECEIVE 100 OR MORE ORDERS FOR REPORT #2 WITHIN TWO WEEKS. IF NOT, SEND OUT MORE PROGRAMS UNTIL YOU DO. ONCE YOU HAVE 100 ORDERS, THE REST IS EASY, RELAX, YOU WILL MAKE YOUR $50,000 GOAL." Well, I had 196 orders for REPORT #2, 96 more than I needed. So I sat back and relaxed. By March 19th, of my emailing of 10,000, I received $58,000 with more coming in every day. I paid off ALL my debts and bought a much needed new car. Please take time to read the attached program, IT WILL CHANGE YOUR LIFE FOREVER! Remember, it wont work if you don't try it. This program does work, but you must follow it EXACTLY! Especially the rules of not trying to place your name in a different place. It doesn't work, you'll lose out on a lot of money! REPORT #2 explains this. Always follow the guarantee, 15 to 20 orders for REPORT #1, and 100 or more orders for REPORT #2 and you will make $50,000 or more in 20 to 90 days. I AM LIVING PROOF THAT IT WORKS !!! If you choose not to participate in this program, I'm sorry. It really is a great opportunity with little cost or risk to you. If you choose to participate, follow the program and you will be on your way to financial security. If you are a fellow business owner and you are in financial trouble like I was, or you want to start your own business, consider this a sign. I DID! Sincerely, Christopher Erickson PS Do you have any idea what 11,700 $5 bills ($58,000) look like piled up on a kitchen table? IT'S AWESOME! "THREW IT AWAY" "I had received this program before. I threw it away, but later wondered if I shouldn't have given it a try. Of course, I had no idea who to contact to get a copy, so I had to wait until I was emailed another copy of the program. Eleven months passed, then it came. I DIDN'T throw this one away. I made $41,000 on the first try." Dawn W., Evansville, IN "NO FREE LUNCH" "My late father always told me, 'remember, Alan, there is no free lunch in life. You get out of life what you put into it.' Through trial and error and a somewhat slow frustrating start, I finally figured it out. The program works very well, I just had to find the right target group of people to email it to. So far this year, I have made over $63,000 using this program. I know my dad would have been very proud of me." Alan B., Philadelphia, PA A PERSONAL NOTE FROM THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS PROGRAM By the time you have read the enclosed information and looked over the enclosed program and reports, you should have concluded that such a program, and one that is legal, could not have been created by an amateur. Let me tell you a little about myself. I had a profitable business for ten years. Then in 1979 my business began falling off. I was doing the same things that were previously successful for me, but it wasn't working. Finally, I figured it out. It wasn't me, it was the economy. Inflation and recession had replaced the stable economy that had been with us since 1945. I don't have to tell you what happened to the unemployment rate...because many of you know from first hand experience. There were more failures and bankruptcies than ever before. The middle class was vanishing. Those who knew what they were doing invested wisely and moved up. Those who did not, including those who never had anything to save or invest, were moving down into the ranks of the poor. As the saying goes, "THE RICH GET RICHER AND THE POOR GET POORER." The traditional methods of making money will never allow you to "move up" or "get rich", inflation will see to that. You have just received information that can give you financial freedom for the rest of your life, with "NO RISK" and "JUST A LITTLE BIT OF EFFORT." You can make more money in the next few months than you have ever imagined. I should also point out that I will not see a penny of your money, nor anyone else who has provided a testimonial for this program. I have already made over FOUR MILLION DOLLARS! I have retired from the program after sending out over 16,000 programs. Now I have several offices which market this and several other programs here in the US and overseas. By the Spring, we wish to market the 'Internet' by a partnership with AMERICA ON LINE. Follow the program EXACTLY AS INSTRUCTED. Do not change it in any way. It works exceedingly well as it is now. Remember to email a copy of this exciting program to everyone that you can think of. One of the people you send this to may send out 50,000...and your name will be on every one of them!. Remember though, the more you send out, the more potential customers you will reach. So my friend, I have given you the ideas, information, materials and opportunity to become financially independent, IT IS UP TO YOU NOW! "THINK ABOUT IT" Before you delete this program from your mailbox, as I almost did, take a little time to read it and REALLY THINK ABOUT IT. Get a pencil and figure out what could happen when YOU participate. Figure out the worst possible response and no matter how you calculate it, you will still make a lot of money! Definitely get back what you invested. Any doubts you have will vanish when your first orders come in. IT WORKS! Paul Johnson, Raleigh, NC HERE'S HOW THIS AMAZING PROGRAM WILL MAKE YOU $$$$$$ Let's say that you decide to start small, just to see how it goes, and we'll assume you and all those involved send out 2,000 programs each. Let's also assume that the mailing receives a .5% response. Using a good list the response could be much better. Also many people will send out hundreds of thousands of programs instead of 2,000. But continuing with this example, you send out only 2,000 programs. With a .5% response, that is only 10 orders for REPORT #1. Those 10 people respond by sending out 2,000 programs each for a total of 20,000. Out of those .5%, 100 people respond and order REPORT #2. Those 100 mail out 2,000 programs each for a total of 200,000. The .5% response to that is 1,000 orders for REPORT #3. Those 1,000 send out 2,000 programs each for a 2,000,000 total. The .5% response to that is 10,000 orders for REPORT #4. That's 10,000 five dollar bills for you. CASH!!!! Your total income in this example is $50 + $500 + $5000 + $50,000 for a total of $55,550!!!! REMEMBER FRIEND, THIS IS ASSUMING 1,990 OUT OF 2,000 PEOPLE YOU MAIL TO WILL DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING... AND TRASH THIS PROGRAM! DARE TO THINK FOR A MOMENT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF EVERYONE OR HALF SENT OUT 100,000 PROGRAMS INSTEAD OF ONLY 2,000. Believe me, many people will do that and more! By the way, your cost to participate in this is practically nothing. You obviously already have an internet connection and email is FREE!!! REPORT#3 will show you the best methods for bulk emailing and purchasing email lists. THIS IS A LEGITIMATE, LEGAL, MONEY MAKING OPPORTUNITY. It does not require you to come in contact with people, do any hard work, and best of all, you never have to leave the house except to get the mail. If you believe that someday you'll get that big break that you've been waiting for, THIS IS IT! Simply follow the instructions, and your dream will come true. This multi-level email order marketing program works perfectly...100% EVERY TIME. Email is the sales tool of the future. Take advantage of this non-commercialized method of advertising NOW!! The longer you wait, the more people will be doing business using email. Get your piece of this action!! MULTI-LEVEL MARKETING (MLM) has finally gained respectability. It is being taught in the Harvard Business School, and both Stanford Research and The Wall Street Journal have stated that between 50% and 65% of all goods and services will be sold throughout Multi-level Methods by the mid to late 1990's. This is a Multi-Billion Dollar industry and of the 500,000 millionaires in the US, 20% (100,000) made their fortune in the last several years in MLM. Moreover, statistics show 45 people become millionaires everyday through Multi-Level Marketing. INSTRUCTIONS We at Erris Mail Order Marketing Business, have a method of raising capital that REALLY WORKS 100% EVERY TIME. I am sure that you could use $50,000 to $125,000 in the next 20 to 90 days. Before you say "Bull", please read the program carefully. This is not a chain letter, but a perfectly legal money making opportunity. Basically, this is what we do: As with all multi-level business, we build our business by recruiting new partners and selling our products. Every state in the USA allows you to recruit new multi- level business partners, and we offer a product for EVERY dollar sent. YOUR ORDERS COME AND ARE FILLED THROUGH THE MAIL, so you are not involved in personal selling. You do it privately in your own home, store or office. This is the GREATEST Multi-level Mail Order Marketing anywhere: Step (1) Order all four 4 REPORTS listed by NAME AND NUMBER. Dothis by ordering the REPORT from each of the four 4 names listed on the next page. For each REPORT, send $5 CASH and a SELF- ADDRESSED, STAMPED envelope (BUSINESS SIZE #10) to the person listed for the SPECIFIC REPORT. International orders should also include $2 extra for postage. It is essential that you specify the NAME and NUMBER of the report requested to the person you are ordering from. You will need ALL FOUR 4 REPORTS because you will be REPRINTING and RESELLING them. DO NOT alter the names or sequence other than what the instructions say. IMPORTANT: Always provide same-day service on all orders. Step (2) Replace the name and address under REPORT #1 with yours, moving the one that was there down to REPORT #2. Drop the name and address under REPORT #2 to REPORT #3, moving the one that was there to REPORT #4. The name and address that was under REPORT #4 is dropped from the list and this party is no doubt on the way to the bank. When doing this, make certain you type the names and addresses ACCURATELY! DO NOT MIX UP MOVING PRODUCT/REPORT POSITIONS!!! Step (3) Having made the required changes in the NAME list, save it as a text (.txt) file in it's own directory to be used with whatever email program you like. Again, REPORT #3 will tell you the best methods of bulk emailing and acquiring email lists. Step (4) Email a copy of the entire program (all of this is very important) to everyone whose address you can get your hands on. Start with friends and relatives since you can encourage them to take advantage of this fabulous money-making opportunity. That's what I did. And they love me now, more than ever. Then, email to anyone and everyone! Use your imagination! You can get email addresses from companies on the internet who specialize in email mailing lists. These are very cheap, 100,000 addresses for around $35.00. IMPORTANT: You won't get a good response if you use an old list, so always request a FRESH, NEW list. You will find out where to purchase these lists when you order the four 4 REPORTS. ALWAYS PROVIDE SAME-DAY SERVICE ON ALL ORDERS!!! REQUIRED REPORTS ***Order each REPORT by NUMBER and NAME*** ALWAYS SEND A SELF-ADDRESSED, STAMPED ENVELOPE AND $5 USD CASH FOR EACH ORDER REQUESTING THE SPECIFIC REPORT BY NAME AND NUMBER (International orders should also include $2 USD extra for postage) Add you e amil address when sending in for your report this is for updated information and continueing support (optional) that will be handed down by you sponcers. ______________________________________________________ REPORT #1 "HOW TO MAKE $250,000 THROUGH MULTI-LEVEL SALES" ORDER REPORT #1 FROM: A. Siegmund #57 Trakehnenstr. 13 53332 Bornheim, Germany ______________________________________________________ REPORT #2 "MAJOR CORPORATIONS AND MULTI-LEVEL SALES" J. Maz 15774 S. Lagrange Rd Suite #312 Orland Pk, IL 60462 USA ________________________________________________________ REPORT#3 "SOURCES FOR THE BEST MAILING LISTS" ORDER REPORT #3 FROM: B. Thompson 13504 Greencaslte ridge Tr. 404 Burtonsville MD. 20866 USA ______________________________________________________ REPORT #4 "EVALUATING MULTI-LEVEL SALES PLANS" ORDER REPORT #4 FROM: MUW #2 PO BOX 71442 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84171-0442 USA ______________________________________________________ CONCLUSION .I am enjoying my fortune that I made by sending out this program. You too, will be making money in 20 to 90 days, if you follow the SIMPLE STEPS outlined in this mailing. To be financially independent is to be FREE. Free to make financial decisions as never before. Go into business, get into investments, retire or take a vacation.

1 0

Message
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"On the Internet nobody knows I'm a dog unless I want them to," to rephrase a well known cartoon. Anonymous wrote: >Cypherpunk technologies will be a major force to eliminate racism. >With privacy protected transactions, the color of a person's skin, his >religion and his ethnicity are no longer apparent. >Cypherpunks need to build bridges to minority communities, to show them >how these technologies can advance their cause. Why not set up a website where minority websurfers could go to read about privacy issues and how pseudonymity is to their (and everyone's) benefit. After all, how can another person discriminate against you when that person knows practically nothing about you (e.g., name, age, race, religion, geographic location, etc)? This would be an excellent way to expand cypherpunk technologies, don't you think?

1 0

Re: "Good job NANAE. You really fucked up royally." -- DataBasix
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

gburnore+spam(a)netcom.com (Gary L. Burnore) wrote: ^^^^^ Netcom is now requiring "truth in labelling", eh? > : Cat got his tongue? > > I was busy. Surely now you'll try to figure out what I was doing. I'm sure we'll find out soon enough, since you seem to be so intent on taunting your readers with your latest mischief. If you're dying to tell us, then feel free to do so. Otherwise, drop it. Your call. > : Really? Then why are you hiding your own post from being archived by a neutral > : third party? Trying to maintain "plausible deniability" if you post something > : you later regret saying and want to claim it was "forged"? > > What does DejaNews have to be with this? You can save all of her/my posts on > your own if you want to. *No doubt, you've already done that* so why > complain? So you can claim that anything you posted that later proves to be too embarassing was "forged", right? That's a lot easier to do if you don't sign them with the PGP key which you keep advertising in your bloated .sig, and you make sure they aren't archived by any NEUTRAL third party. (Remember when you called someone else [who shall remain nameless at his request] a "coward" for hiding HIS posts behind an "X-No-Archive" header?) Many readers will remember that you were whining pitifully a few months ago about how remailers were allegedly being used to "forge" posts in your name. You were given several suggestions, one of which was to install PGP, generate a key, and use it to sign *ALL* of your genuine posts. Your huge .sig now contains the fingerprint of a PGP public key that YOU ARE STILL NOT USING. Still trying to maintain "plausible deniability" for your posts? And then a few weeks ago you butted into technical question posted to alt.privacy.anon-server about Private Idaho with the implication that the person asking the question wanted to know the answer so that he/she could commit "forgery". If you're so concerned about forgery, why have you not bothered to try what was already suggested the last time you launched into your "remailer users are abusive assholes" tirade? > : Posing as a > : "lawyer" for DataBasix, you demanded that Jeff Burchell turn over all of his > : user logs to you and Gary, just as the so-called "Church" of $cientology > : did with the anon.penet.fi remailer in Finland last year. > > She never posed as a lawyer. Yet another of your lies. Then why did you demand that Jeff violate the privacy of all of his users by turning over his user logs to you and Belinda Bryan <eridani(a)ix.netcom.com>? And when he said that the only condition he'd release them was in response to a letter FROM YOUR LAWYER, Belinda Bryan sent such a letter? Perhaps the remailer users would like to know what purpose you had in mind for demanding the e-mail addresses of EVERYONE who either SENT or RECEIVED anonymous mail through Jeff's remailer. > : The end > : result was the same in both cases, too. Both remailers shut down to avoid > : the continued harassment from people like you, Gary, and Helena. I hope > : you're proud of yourselves. > > Even the remailer operator proved you wrong. Nice try liar. It's not going > to work anymore. It's your abuse that's not going to work anymore. You've cried wolf once too often about "abuse", "forgery", and other imagined offenses. The remailer operator did not "prove me wrong". Reread his post when you're sober: http://infinity.nus.sg/cypherpunks/dir.archive-97.11.13-97.11.19/0432.html Just to refresh your memory, you were asked whether you had asked Jeff Burchell to censor any anonymous posts that mentioned your name. You stonewalled the question, flippantly suggesting that he/she ask the operator. Someone did just that, and Jeff's post is the result of that. Looks like you gambled and lost that time! You can call remailer users "liars" and "anonymous assholes" to your heart's content, but your censorious actions and those of your associates at DataBasix speak for themselves. --

1 0

Cyberzine Issue on Privacy & Security
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Just discovered an online magazine at http://www.pretext.com. The Nov/Dec issue is on "Privacy & Security". They feature articles on . The End of Privacy - are secrets safe in cyberspace? . From Cowrie Shells to Computer Bytes - the history & future of currency . Breaking the Codes - why National Encryption matters to you . Herman Cohen, PI - on the trail with a virtual gumshoe and an interview with Phil Zimmerman, plus a conversation with Lance Cottrell on The Anonymizer. .. Blanc

1 0

Re: Sadaam Burnore Strikes Again (was: Re: Keman the Klueless Strikes Again)
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

rfg(a)monkeys.com (Ronald F. Guilmette) wrote: > >Your looney maroon conspiracy theories that Ron Guilmette has been "stalking" > >you and is responsible for every bad thing that has ever happened to you > >are simply more evidence of your paranoid mental state. > > I realize that you think that you are trying to do some good, but I'm > going to ask you nicely to please stop all of this baiting of Burnore. > Sure, he's basically kind of a dickhead, but what's the point? > > I want to be really really clear about this... What you are doing is > just making things worse. You aren't helping. In fact you are making > things worse by feeding his paranoia. (And it isn't entirely clear from > where I sit that he is entirely stable, so this is rather a dangerous > thing for you to do... not for you of course... posting anonymously... > but for me. It isn't you that's going to be signing hospital consent > forms when you finally push this guy over the edge and make him go postal. > I'd like you to consider that.) If you have evidence to support that conclusion, then do us all a favor and give it to the authorities so that Gary Burnore can receive the help he needs. I can apreciate your motivation to appease him. In the past, he's displayed a tendency to shift his abuse and attacks to someone else (like Scott Dentice) when you've done that. But shifting the focus of his attacks doesn't end them. I doubt that you're even the PRIMARY focus of his tirades anymore, even though that seems to be the impression he's trying to give. Gary Burnore, Belinda Bryan, and the rest of the DataBasix wrecking crew seem to be on a power trip these days. The fact that he attempted to CONTROL you by posting embarassing information to the net and threatening to post more unless you stopped criticizing him gave us a glimpse of his real agenda. I doubt that discrediting Ron Guilmette forms more than a tiny fraction of his and Belinda's overall agenda. IMO, you and the fanciful charges he's made against you are only his excuse for doing what he's been doing. > P.P.S. If you have some beef about something that Burnore has done to > _you_ then alright. Talk about that and only that. If I have a beef > with Burnore please allow me the dignity of persuing that myself. I > don't need your help, and I don't need you to defend me. I can take > care of myself, thank you very much. Exactly. You've got to do what you've got to do, and I must do likewise. Perhaps I don't know the entire background of what's going on here, and if you'd care to enlighten us all, then by all means feel free to do so. My involvement in this controversy started when my account at Mailmasher suddenly stopped working and I learned that one of Gary Burnore's buddies, Billy McClatchie (who calls himself "Wotan"), was behind the attack that shut it down. I might never have connected that attack to Gary until he and Belinda Bryan tried something similar against another remailer also operated by Jeff Burchell and Jeff chose to go public with an expose (post-mortem, unfortunately) of the abusive tactics that DataBasix had employed (see URL at the bottom), including a situation where Belinda Bryan attempted to impersonate an attorney in demanding that Jeff turn over all of his user logs to DataBasix. As it turns out, Mr. Burchell wisely kept no such logs, but what use do you suppose Gary might found for the e-mail addresses contained in those logs, had he succeeded in obtaining them? When Gary uses you as an excuse to try and violate my privacy and that of other remailer users, then it becomes my business. > Am I making myself clear? Butt out. When I need you, I'll let you know. > In the meantime, fight your own fights. That's exactly what I'm doing. And I'd suggest that you do likewise. If you have reasonable cause to believe that Gary Burnore would resort to violence against you, then take any and all necessary steps to protect yourself. But don't expect everyone else to shut up in an attempt to appease Burnore. If and when he chooses another pretext to attack the right to speak freely on the net, then I'll challenge him on that. Don't flatter yourself in thinking that this is primarily about you. Gary is a CONTROL FREAK. He has some underlying need to control what's said on the net. When he can't refute the MESSAGE, he attempts to punish the MESSENGER. While you certainly saw that happen in your case, you're far from unique. And when the MESSENGER is beyond his reach (posting anonymously or whatever), he attacks the CHANNELS of communication instead. When one such attack affected me, then it became my business. (A later search in DejaNews confirmed that I was not the first anonymous poster to draw file from Gary Burnore.) Involving you in this is Gary's choice, not mine. When he makes claims such as "Ron Guilmette used an anonymous remailer to forge my name", or "rfg sent anonymous letters to harass a teenage girl with a web page at DataBasix" in order to attack remailers, then you've just become unwittingly involved in the debate. Ignoring Gary and his provocations doesn't work, because he goes out of his way to pick fights with other remailer users. For example, he recently butted into a thread over on alt.privacy.anon-server with an anti-remailer tirade. Someone merely posted a technical question about how to do something with a remailer interface software package and was treated to a "reply" about how remailers were being used by you to "spam bait" him. In fact, he did this with two different threads. If you haven't been following that saga, I'd invite you to read Jeff Burchell's account of Gary Burnore, Belinda Bryan, and Billy McClatchie's attacks on his remailers at: http://infinity.nus.sg/cypherpunks/dir.archive-97.11.13-97.11.19/0432.html If you come up with a way to prevent similar future attacks by Gary Burnore, then please share it.

1 0

Re: "Good job NANAE. You really fucked up royally." -- DataBasix
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

gburnore+spam(a)netcom.com (Gary L. Burnore) wrote: ^^^^^ Netcom is now requiring "truth in labelling", eh? > : Cat got his tongue? > > I was busy. Surely now you'll try to figure out what I was doing. I'm sure we'll find out soon enough, since you seem to be so intent on taunting your readers with your latest mischief. If you're dying to tell us, then feel free to do so. Otherwise, drop it. Your call. > : Really? Then why are you hiding your own post from being archived by a neutral > : third party? Trying to maintain "plausible deniability" if you post something > : you later regret saying and want to claim it was "forged"? > > What does DejaNews have to be with this? You can save all of her/my posts on > your own if you want to. *No doubt, you've already done that* so why > complain? So you can claim that anything you posted that later proves to be too embarassing was "forged", right? That's a lot easier to do if you don't sign them with the PGP key which you keep advertising in your bloated .sig, and you make sure they aren't archived by any NEUTRAL third party. (Remember when you called someone else [who shall remain nameless at his request] a "coward" for hiding HIS posts behind an "X-No-Archive" header?) Many readers will remember that you were whining pitifully a few months ago about how remailers were allegedly being used to "forge" posts in your name. You were given several suggestions, one of which was to install PGP, generate a key, and use it to sign *ALL* of your genuine posts. Your huge .sig now contains the fingerprint of a PGP public key that YOU ARE STILL NOT USING. Still trying to maintain "plausible deniability" for your posts? And then a few weeks ago you butted into technical question posted to alt.privacy.anon-server about Private Idaho with the implication that the person asking the question wanted to know the answer so that he/she could commit "forgery". If you're so concerned about forgery, why have you not bothered to try what was already suggested the last time you launched into your "remailer users are abusive assholes" tirade? > : Posing as a > : "lawyer" for DataBasix, you demanded that Jeff Burchell turn over all of his > : user logs to you and Gary, just as the so-called "Church" of $cientology > : did with the anon.penet.fi remailer in Finland last year. > > She never posed as a lawyer. Yet another of your lies. Then why did you demand that Jeff violate the privacy of all of his users by turning over his user logs to you and Belinda Bryan <eridani(a)ix.netcom.com>? And when he said that the only condition he'd release them was in response to a letter FROM YOUR LAWYER, Belinda Bryan sent such a letter? Perhaps the remailer users would like to know what purpose you had in mind for demanding the e-mail addresses of EVERYONE who either SENT or RECEIVED anonymous mail through Jeff's remailer. > : The end > : result was the same in both cases, too. Both remailers shut down to avoid > : the continued harassment from people like you, Gary, and Helena. I hope > : you're proud of yourselves. > > Even the remailer operator proved you wrong. Nice try liar. It's not going > to work anymore. It's your abuse that's not going to work anymore. You've cried wolf once too often about "abuse", "forgery", and other imagined offenses. The remailer operator did not "prove me wrong". Reread his post when you're sober: http://infinity.nus.sg/cypherpunks/dir.archive-97.11.13-97.11.19/0432.html Just to refresh your memory, you were asked whether you had asked Jeff Burchell to censor any anonymous posts that mentioned your name. You stonewalled the question, flippantly suggesting that he/she ask the operator. Someone did just that, and Jeff's post is the result of that. Looks like you gambled and lost that time! You can call remailer users "liars" and "anonymous assholes" to your heart's content, but your censorious actions and those of your associates at DataBasix speak for themselves. --

1 0

Re: Non Logging News Servers? Try #2
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

lcs Remailer Administrator <mix-admin(a)nym.alias.net> wrote: > The unfortunate reality is that almost all news servers log, and there > is no way to tell if you don't actually have an account on the server. > There may be privacy conscious ISPs that actually promote the fact > that they don't log, but I don't know of any to recommend. > > The point of putting that in the help file was also to make people > realize there is a trade-off. Posting to news groups might not > actually be the safest solution. Basically, if you are more worried > about the remailer operators, alt.anonymous messages is probably the > best place to send messages. However, if you are more worried about > your employer/ISP than about the remailer operators, then it probably > makes more sense just to have an ordinary e-mail reply block. One solution to this problem is to run your own personal news server like "souper" that gathers ALL new news article in a certain NG and stores them locally for off-line reading. If you're consistently pulling news messages for the alt.anonymous.messages NG off of a certain server, it could be reasonably inferred that you are the intended recipient of at least SOME of those messages. But if you use a client that invariably grabs all the new messages each time, it would be rather difficult to determine which messages you are interested in. To avoid traffic analysis, use a software program to pull the messages for you. If you do it manually, even if you try to pull them all, you will undoubtedly read and save them in a certain order, or spend more time reading certain ones that will betray your interest in certain messages. As for employers, any of them that are sophistocated enough to be monitoring NNTP connections and creating a profile of your reading habits probably also have their own firewall and news server. IOW, if they run their own news server and carry a certain NG, then they'd have a hard time objecting to your reading it. It would probably be wise to assume a worst-case scenario and only deviate from it when you're sure it's safe to do so. For example, suppose you used a pseudonym to publish an article that was critical of the current Ayatollah in Iran, or perhaps deemed offensive to Islam in general, and you were sentenced to death in absentia ... if they can find and identify you. (Sort of an anonymous Salmon Rushdie.) Start out assuming you need that level of security and go from there. But if someone has gone to the trouble of setting up a 'nym, then he probably perceives a need for more than just a casual level of security. --

1 0

Without Laws, There Are No Rights
by damaged justice 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[1]SIDEBAR [2][LINK] No End In Sight To Thai Internet Regulation ****No End In Sight To Thai Internet Regulation 11/28/97 BANGKOK, THAILAND, 1997 NOV 28 (NB) -- By Sasiwimon Boonruang, Bangkok Post. Finding a consensus on how the Internet should be regulated in Thailand is proving to be a difficult task, experts say. Attorney General Office Prosecutor Shinnawat Thongpakdee said the law defines and protects human rights and duties and inevitably involves itself with human behavior. As the Internet is a phenomenon related with human behavior as well, it would "unavoidably" be involved with the law as well. There are several "rights" involved with Internet information: the right to control access to information, right of information use, right of copying information, and the right to publicize information. These rights cannot be separated, he said. The rights come from several laws - "without laws, there are no rights," the prosecutor said. [And a BIG, HEARTY RASPBERRY to this CLUELESS MORON!] In the Internet world, the producers of information own the copyright to their work, and consequently, any law regarding the Internet should also go hand in hand with copyright laws. There is no solution at the moment as to whether there should be compulsory laws regarding the Internet because it's difficult to use legal means to enforce such laws, and they would also vary greatly from one country to the next. One practical approach would be drawing up of a worldwide conventional agreement regarding Internet regulation, allowing each country to sign off of their own choosing. At the very least, he said, we should accumulate information concerning the Internet in order to consider what should be allowed or prohibited - this information would be useful in the future. Mr Shinnawat added that Internet technology is very new for the legal sector and other societies, and it was difficult to make any conclusions in legal term about the Internet at the moment. He said the Internet provided the opportunity for all - rich and poor alike - to access and make use of information, even though the reality would be that the gap between rich and poor would grow even wider. According to Internet Thailand Service Center (ITSC) President Trin Tantsetthi, infringement on the Internet has increased greatly during the last year, and laws regarding the Internet would be very hard to enforce. For example, there were already 30,000 documents on the Internet in Thailand already. Copyright infringements on the works of others was wrong in both moral and legal terms, he said, but using legal means to deal with it would prove difficult. Social pressures might be an alternative. Wanchai Kanti, of Thammasat University, said people should have freedom of speech and freedom to express opinions, and that the flow of information "should not be closed", especially to academic institutes. There should not be laws to control Internet content, although opinions expressed should be done in a responsible manner. Reported By Newsbytes News Network: [3]http://www.newsbytes.com (19971128) [4]Copyright ©Newsbytes News Network. All rightsreserved. For more Newsbytes see http://www.newsbytes.com. [5]Home | [6]Daily | [7]Weekly | [8]Publishers | [9]Search References 1. http://www.newsbytes.com/menus/navbar.map 2. http://ad.preferences.com/click.ng;spacedesc=CliqTech_Newsbytes_468x60_CTGe… 3. http://www.newsbytes.com/ 4. http://www.nbnn.com/copyrght.html 5. http://www.nbnn.com/home.html 6. http://www.nbnn.com/news/s_daily.html 7. http://www.nbnn.com/news/s_week.html 8. http://www.nbnn.com/publishers/publi_1.html 9. http://www.nbnn.com/html_p/search.html

1 0

Microsoft Rides Again
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Micro$oft fucked me up the ass. Please help. I'm bleeding to death.

1 0

Re: The Illusion of Freedom
by nobody＠neva.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Nerthus wrote: >>It makes nice rhetoric, but this is simply not true, you know. Most >>people correctly evaluate that you have no chance for freedom at all >>if you commit suicide, whereas a slave *does* have a chance. > >Assuming he recognizes that he *is* a slave. Most people are >oblivious to this fact. >>(By "irrational" here I am referring to behaviour clearly contrary >>to your own survival.) > >'Tis true. War is a perfect example of what happens when too many >people act irrationally. > >I'm interested in avoiding war without becoming a slave in the >process. Anyone else? Sounds like a good deal. However, most people who engage in war are not in any sense free and the single most apparent feature of life in a military organization is the elimination of freedom and privacy. It is most often the case that in order to wage war, one must first become enslaved. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNHEGF5aWtjSmRH/5AQFW2Qf/QoOWdyolTt1IxVUT5Nsa0qD4yog0JIK2 rPuBADWMCNtXh5ZilKdsCGz3Jmg7z5zgLQhvZS7vTLrLwEyPl/bNgai2el2ITUKX gH95qAEyHxZRqSuKEduhCK1sa6gCK+nXxKutpt2QhzGRhU7cSHMcyK/hPAX22jjC OWJib0w1pXKKpLQTHHI2Ec1HBJtzURc6HUU7GmDV7ntdAk37UvPUOQqA8470a8s3 TiGmjVKXljCXXfpA1udF8pPfloXOVn/ff4AxW8rjCJCUFqme3uPXDeaki2Ht5qn8 pnlAqA9A3dD4AotNWPnKGNl62FiJSjK3PrzzG3zxwYGqadgpt9d7Qw== =Pbt9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Overcoming War with Information
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Monty Cantsin writes: > What the Net and cypherpunkly tools create is a world in which there > are not easily identified disjoint sets because any particular net of > relationships that a person has tends to overlap the relationship nets > of other people who have a dissimilar set of relationships. > > This is a more reliable and robust world to live in because there is a > great deal of redundancy. That is, the elites of two countries cannot > conspire to use their respective sets of serfs as cannon fodder in > some ill advised adventure. It's hard to get excited about a war run > by people who are not your friends against people who happen to live > in another part of the world but with whom you have a relationship. Good point, but it's important to realize that these new attitudes are only available to people who have access to the tools. Much of the world is still trapped in a dark age, without access to the light brought by tools for communication. Powerful interests seek to keep them that way. Until that changes, the old mindset of us-against-them will continue to be a threat to peace. We as cypherpunks must be leaders in encouraging wider access to communications and the tools which manage information. It's not right to target our message narrowly to the militias and racists who gravitate towards anti-government causes. We must be inclusive, offering encouragement to other cultures, other races, other countries. Anti-Japanese, anti-Jewish, anti-Black, anti-Arab sentiments will only hinder our success, and likewise with our emphasis on violence, killing, and death as solutions to problems. The fact that other cultures are often repressive in their own right is no excuse. The tools we offer will help them become more open-minded and inclusive. But we must set an example ourselves. It is a tragedy that the message of hate is being propagated within a technological movement which should foster openness and enlightenment. We can do better than this.

1 0