December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

SAFE: Intl Relations Committee
by geeman＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- fyi --- does anyone know for sure what the amendments are/were? SECURITY AND FREEDOM THROUGH ENCRYPTION (SAFE) ACT Committee on International Relations: Subcommittee on International Economic Policy and Trade approved for full Committee action amended H.R. 695, Security and Freedom Through Encryption (SAFE) Act. anyone know what happened in the Senate Judiciary today?

2 1

Digital Signatures
by patrick van eecke 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The Interdisciplinary Centre for Law and Information Technology from the University of Leuven is currently carrying out a study on the legal aspects of Digital Signatures. The current and draft legislation, policies and practices of the European Member States as well as the EC's most important trading partners is being investigated and analysed. Final aim of the study is to provide tools for a common European legal instrument regarding Digital Signatures. More information about the project and important links you can find on the website: http://www.law.kuleuven.ac.be/icri/

1 0

Another shoe drops
by Brad Dolan 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Raids Against 'Interim' Autonomist Zine In Berlin On June 12, 1997, more than 500 police in Berlin carried out a series of raids aimed at criminalizing the weekly autonomist publication 'Interim'. State agents searched several houses in the Berlin districts of Friedrichshain, Neukolln, and Kreuzberg. Several individuals were charged with various felonies including "rewarding or supporting illegal actions". Police also raided several printing presses. A successful criminalization of the Interim would, in practical terms, be much more of a blow to the German radical-left than the recent state campaign against the underground publication Radikal, because whereas Radikal has only been sporadically published over the past few years, Interim has appeared *every week* since the late 1980s. Published as a forum for discussion for Berlin's radical-left autonome scene, the magazine has political relevance all across Germany, as it provides an anonymous forum for publishing communiques from militant action groups, mobilizations for demonstrations, and debates on politics and strategy. The following is a translation of a statement issued by Interim following the recent raids. --- "You Can't Ban A Concept" Statement From Interim Magazine - June 12, 1997 Interim has been published weekly for nine years. State surveillance, repression, and investigations have not stopped it from appearing. The 1995 Verfassungsschutzbericht' [annual report from Germany's Office to Protect the Constitution] stated that "a high degree of trust and discipline among the makers of the magazine" have prevented the authorities from being able to close it down. But now the powers that be feel they can do just that. Therefore, we'd like to say the following: 1. There is no permanent Interim editorial group, nor a fixed publishing location. The magazine is continually made and put together by different people. 2. If any papers were found anywhere during the police raids which also appeared in the Interim, that doesn't mean a thing. The Interim has a public mailing address, anyone can send us papers or documents, and as far as we know, it's not a crime to receive mail. 3. The cops dismantled printing presses, confiscated computers and files, filed charges against individuals. It's ridiculous to think that this will stop the Interim. Because the Interim is a communications CONCEPT: uncensored, according to the law, published according to its own rules in the interest of an anonymous exchange about theory and praxis of undogmatic left-radical politics. As long as the ruling powers are bent on destroying society, a radical resistance movement will be necessary, and it's not possible for a discussion of this necessity to take place within the boundaries of the laws of the powers that be. If Schonbohm [former General, now Interior Minister in Berlin] tries to stop our communication exchange by confiscations and arrests, he might just as well try to handcuff a mountain stream. If forced to operate entirely outside of legal boundaries, that's what we'll do, and there will always be people willing to make this communications concept possible and who can run it and diversify it. 4. We view the raids against part of the Interim's structures at this point in time as a flanking maneuver in the war which Schonbohm and Ladowski have declared. At a time when resistance to their cleansing policies is increasing - inner-city actions, university congresses, mobilizations by squatters, the homeless, and immigrants - the state wants to eliminate the forum by which all these forms of resistance can be linked together. Even if we aren't able to continue the discussion about our politics (our politicians??), one thing is clear: Schonbohm has declared war, and we will react. Repression breeds revolts. We promise that the next issue of the Interim will be published on time, with the theme of how we can go on the offensive against those who want to cleanse the city [before it becomes Germany's capital again]. All those who wish to participate in this discussion will find ways of getting their texts to the Interim. Interim - Weekly Berlin Info --- Interim On The Internet In order to do something about the criminalization of the Interim, Trend Online in Berlin has set up a Solidarity Homepage for the publication with news about the recent raids, and we at Arm The Spirit have set up a mirrorsite. This is to be seen as an expansion of the publication, not a substitute for it. Interim is a weekly hardcopy publication and plans to stay that way. Trend Online's Interim Solidarity Page: http://www.berlinet.de/trend/interim/ Arm The Spirit's Interim Mirror Site: http://burn.ucsd.edu/~ats/INTERIM/index.htm ----------------------------------------------------------------- Arm The Spirit is an autonomist/anti-imperialist information collective based in Toronto, Canada. Our focus includes a wide variety of material, including political prisoners, national liberation struggles, armed communist resistance, anti-fascism, the fight against patriarchy, and more. We regularly publish our writings, research, and translation materials on our listserv called ATS-L. For more information, contact: Arm The Spirit P.O. Box 6326, Stn. A Toronto, Ontario M5W 1P7 Canada E-mail: ats(a)etext.org WWW: http://burn.ucsd.edu/~ats ATS-L Archives: http://burn.ucsd.edu/archives/ats-l MRTA Solidarity Page: http://burn.ucsd.edu/~ats/mrta.htm FTP: ftp.etext.org --> /pub/Politics/Arm.The.Spirit

1 0

LaMacchia's Revenge, from The Netly News (fwd)
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 05:47:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: LaMacchia's Revenge, from The Netly News http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/opinion/0,1042,1107,00.html The Netly News Network June 25, 1997 LaMacchia's Revenge by Declan McCullagh (declan(a)well.com) David LaMacchia's pirate warez site once hummed quietly along on a DECstation 5000 just down the hall from the study lounge on the top floor of MIT's Stratton Student Center. LaMacchia claims its original purpose was to let visiting netizens exchange software. But soon -- either inevitably or intentionally, depending on whom you believe -- more and more copyrighted programs began to appear. This was enough to prompt the federal government to charge the MIT undergraduate in April 1994 with the crime of wire fraud. The indictment argued that his FTP-like site permitted "on an international scale, the illegal copying and distribution of copyrighted software, without payment of software licensing fees." Yet a federal judge dismissed the case that December, ruling that while LaMacchia was wrong -- and could be sued in civil court -- the aspiring computer scientist was not guilty as charged. Judge Richard Stearns said, "It is not clear that making criminals of a large number of consumers of computer software is a result that even the software industry would consider desirable." Guess again. A group of software companies, including Microsoft and Adobe, yesterday requested new laws to eliminate what they termed the "LaMacchia decision" problem. When a warez site operates for free -- as most do -- companies currently must sue for damages in a civil court. In other words, giving that copy of Quake to your dad is not -- yet -- a federal felony. [...]

1 0

CDA Overturned
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

06/26/1997 10:07 EST Court Nixes Internet Smut Provision WASHINGTON (AP) -- Congress violated free-speech rights when it tried to curb smut on the Internet, the Supreme Court ruled today. In its first venture into cyberspace law, the court invalidated a key provision of the 1996 Communications Decency Act.

1 0

CDA Overturned - AP Write through 9-0
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

9-0 I called it. 06/26/1997 10:16 EST Court Nixes Internet Smut Provision WASHINGTON (AP) -- Congress violated free-speech rights when it tried to curb smut on the Internet, the Supreme Court ruled today. In its first venture into cyberspace law, the court invalidated a key provision of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. Congress' effort to protect children from sexually explicit material goes too far because it also would keep such material from adults who have a right to see it, the justices unanimously said. The law made it a crime to put adult-oriented material online where children can find it. The measure has never taken effect because it was blocked last year by a three-judge court in Philadelphia. ``We agree with the three-judge district court that the statute abridges the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment,'' Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court. ``The (Communications Decency Act) is a content-based regulation of speech,'' he wrote. ``The vagueness of such a regulation raises special First Amendment concerns because of its obvious chilling effect on free speech.'' ``As a matter of constitutional tradition ... we presume that governmental regulation of the content of speech is more likely to interfere with the free exchange of ideas than to encourage it,'' Stevens wrote. Sexually explicit words and pictures are protected by the Constitution's First Amendment if they are deemed indecent but not obscene.

1 0

NEWS.COM - Rumor Mill
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

No Freeh lunch? http://www.news.com/Rumors/0,29,,00.html At the end of the article... While hackers were getting busy, the crypto honchos were getting dissed in D.C. Apparently, a group of bigwigs, including Louis Freeh of the FBI, William Crowell of NSA, Peter Neumann of SRI, and Ray Ozzie of Lotus, flew all the way out to the nation's capital for a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on cryptography, only to be informed 20 minutes before the meeting that it had been canceled. Grumbling ensued as the various participants stormed back to Dulles airport. The meeting may pick up after the July 4 recess.

1 0

CDA Struck Down
by Dave Banisar 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

P R E S S R E L E A S E FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CONTACT: Thursday, June 26, 1997 David L. Sobel (sobel(a)epic.org) 10:45 a.m., ET 202-544-9240 EPIC HAILS SUPREME COURT INTERNET "INDECENCY" DECISION: OPINION "PRESERVES BOTH FREE SPEECH AND PERSONAL PRIVACY" WASHINGTON, DC -- The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) today hailed the Supreme Court's Internet speech decision as "the first landmark decision of the 21st Century." In its first opinion involving cyberspace, the Court, by a 7-2 vote, struck down the online censorship provisions of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) (Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice O'Connor concurred in part and dissented in part). EPIC participated in the litigation as both plaintiff and co-counsel. "Today's opinion defines the First Amendment for the next century," according to EPIC Legal Counsel David Sobel, who served as co-counsel in Reno v. ACLU. "The Court has written on a clean slate and established the fundamental principles that will govern free speech issues for the electronic age." Sobel said that today's landmark decision "preserves both free speech and personal privacy in this rapidly growing medium." Throughout the litigation of the case, EPIC has stressed that the CDA not only infringed on Americans' free speech rights, but also posed a grave threat to personal privacy. By requiring "speakers" on the Internet to verify the age and identity of all potential recipients of "indecent" material, the law would have destroyed the anonymity that is a hallmark of online communications. EPIC noted that a good deal of sensitive information -- dealing with AIDS prevention, teenage pregnancy, and other critical social issues -- would not be sought out if recipients were required to identify themselves. EPIC joined with the American Civil Liberties Union and 18 other plaintiffs in challenging the law on February 8, 1996, the day it was signed by President Clinton. A three-judge federal court panel in Philadelphia unanimously ruled on June 11, 1996, that the Internet "indecency" provisions violated the First Amendment's free speech protections. That decision was today affirmed by the United States Supreme Court. A copy of the Court's decision is available at: http://www2.epic.org/cda/cda_decision.html EPIC is a non-profit research organization established in 1994 to examine civil liberties and privacy issues arising in new electronic media. - 30 -

1 0

Re: new money systems
by William H. Geiger III 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <97Jun26.113748edt.32257(a)brickwall.ceddec.com>, on 06/26/97 at 11:37 AM, tzeruch(a)ceddec.com said: >Yes, but each currency would then have to be exchanged (at a discount!) >and that almost every time any transaction occured. Unless you are >willing to exchange any amount of currency without making any profit on >it, not even to cover expenses or fluctuations in value, this won't work >- >it is trivial to convert currency, but it is not without cost. I don't want to get to deep into this curency issue but from my experiance not all exchanges are done at a cost. This is directly related to the stability of the curency being exchanged. If I am exchanging US $ with a low inflation rate (say 4%) for IT lira with a high inflation rate (say 250%) it is to the advantage of the person holding the lira to give me a good rate of exchange for my stable dollars. Also if I may not actually need to make the exchange at all as many Italin merchants would prefer to be paid in US $ rather than IT lira and will discount his services on the simple fact that I am paying him in stable curency. From my travels I have found whole cities where there is an underground economy all in US $ because the local curency is worthless. These areas tend to have a thriving barder system also for the same reasons (a loaf of bread is still worth a loaf of bread regardless what the pinheads in the government do to screw up the economy). Where I see the cost of exchange is when dealing with curencies that are of relativly the same stablilty US $ (4%) Japan Yen (6%). Then there is not the overwhelming advantage to the person holding the Yens to exchange for the US $. There are exceptions to this also. Say you have Widgets Inc (USA) & Cogs LTD. (Japan) who do a large amount of business in each others countries and between each other. It may be to their advantage to accept purchaces in each others currencies as to avoid the cost & hassels of going through exchanges. Just some food for thought. :) PS: the inflation rates were just given as examples I have no ideal what the current inflation rates are in the above mentioned countries. - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: cp850 Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 iQCVAwUBM7KYyY9Co1n+aLhhAQFLsAQAlZKt47lhcbDbnAjNzN6awy8t25JkYGmz n8TtzJqHX/4soTeiK1OGiz32lBiHz4N2X5odp0/Dm0AW8NTXJqkjRs8T19aZyowi Mz08YyQqR9MSGXySGbXMc+0Jq1J03doZGQzny6VxuUIvopGvsfuXsODLjRCdzpFW 7iwhLLdXQ1E= =1uhw -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Web Site reporting
by Casey Moss 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Something your web site cannot do without. http://www.genesisnetwork.net/report/report.htm Comprehensive web site reporting

1 0

CDA STRUCK DOWN BY SUPREME COURT, from the Netly News
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 09:40:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship-announce(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: CDA STRUCK DOWN BY SUPREME COURT, from the Netly News [Check out netlynews.com for updates throughout the day. --Declan] --- http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/opinion/0,1042,1110,00.html The Netly News CDA STRUCK DOWN! June 26, 1997, 11:30 am by Declan McCullagh (declan(a)well.com) The U.S. Supreme Court, in a landmark decision that firmly establishes unbridled free speech in cyberspace, struck down the Communications Decency Act. In a 40-page majority opinion opinion handed down this morning, the Justices determined that the act is unconstitutional. The court also resoundingly rejected the argument that broadcast standards should apply to the Internet. The Justices unanimously ruled that the so-called "display provision" -- which would effectively render the Net "child safe" -- was patently unconstitutional. "The interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship," wrote Justice John Paul Stevens. In a 7-to-2 decision, the court also struck down the other half of the CDA, which banned "indecent transmission" to a minor. The minority argued that such a limitation would not interfere "with the First Amendment rights of adults." Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and William Rehnquist were the lone dissenters on that point in a 13-page minority opinion. "This is the landmark decision that many of us anticipated," said David Sobel, staff counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center and co-counsel on the case. Phil Gutis of the American Civil Liberties Union -- the lead plaintiff in Reno v. ACLU -- said the decision left no wriggle room for CDA supporters: "It's going to be very hard for Congress to go back and say the court left us this opening. They didn't." Yet CDA supporters promised to keep up the fight. Against the backdrop of a dozen anti-porn activists, Cathy Cleaver, the director of legal policy for the Family Research Council, proclaimed that, "today we're going to see the floodgates of pornography open on the internet. This is not a good time to be a child. We're not going to give up the fight to protect children online." In spite of such perceived dangers, the court apparently realized the unique nature of the Internet and appreciated the fact that it is a new and developing medium. "Neither before nor after the enactment of the CDA have the vast democratic fora of the Internet been subject to the type of government supervision and regulation that has attended the broadcast industry. Moreover, the Internet is not as 'invasive' as radio or television," the majority wrote. The CDA "threatens to torch a large segment of the Internet community." The chief congressional opponent of the CDA applauded the court's recognition that the Internet is wholly unlike broadcast media. "Giving full force to the first amendment online is a victory for the first amendment, for american technology, and for democracy," said Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) in a statement. "The CDA was misguided and unworkable. It reflected a fundamental misunderstanding of the technology of the Internet." ###

1 0

Re: The Grand Compromise is Coming
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bill Stewart wrote: > > >> This is why I think the "use of a special language or > >> whispering in furtherance of a crime" provisions of SAFE will probably be > >> struck down by the Supremes, unless they, too, have forgotten what the > >> Constitution is all about.) > Back when marijuana was illegal in Oklahoma, during the anti-war years > when everybody was paranoid that their phones were tapped by the FBI, > a friend of mine would occasionally have phone conversations like > "Hey, Steve, I just got some .... Beer. Want to come over?" > "Yeah, Joe, I'd really like some .... Beer. I'll be there > in about an hour. Should I bring some .... Pizza?" The FBI was involved in the war on cryptography during the LBJ administration, according to my guitar player at the time. He was staying at the Lady Bird Ranch and called his roomate to tell him he would be out to pick up his "shit" later in the day. When he got there, the FBI was tearing apart his amp and speakers. They asked him where his "shit" was and he told them they were tearing it apart. I wonder if Timothy McVeigh phoned Bill Stewart to tell him, "I'm going to deliver the...Pizza...to the Federal Building."? (That's an extra five years, right there.) PizzaMonger

1 0

Gentlemen, Over 18? Read This...
by Studio＠64.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This is a one time only E-mail. Your name will be automatically deleted from our list after this message. If you are not interested in this offer, Studio 64 apologizes for this inconvenience. ************************************************************************************ GENTLEMEN, HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE MONEY PROVIDING INTIMATE SERVICES TO HOT, HORNY WOMEN ? More and more men are discovering that they can make $500 - $1000 weekly simply by giving lonely ladies the affection and companionship they so desperately desire. Do you like women ? Do you love sex ? Have a few free hours a week to devote to your own business ? Could you use the extra cash ? Part time or full time, at home or wherever, you can get started today with a few easy steps. Imagine your own private business, where you yourself are your own best asset, minimal investment, great returns, plus the undeniable pleasure of making love to dozens of lusty, horny women who want nothing more than to be pampered by an adoring stranger- no strings attached. Whether you like young, firm, fresh college girls or older sophisticated working women, petite or tall and leggy, or voluptuous, busty, full-lipped sex bombs, you can have them all or whichever ones please you - selecting specifically the ladies you'd like to see. Wine them, dine them, entertain and bed them. Get paid to make love to as many hot blondes and sultry brunnettes, lonely housewives and succulent sweeties as you can handle. You don't need above average looks or a $100,000 car. All you need is the know how, a healthy sexual appetite and a willingness to get hot and heavy with a woman until she's satisfied. WE'LL SHOW YOU HOW !! We'll give you specific tips for starting and running your own successful, male escort business. We'll supply you with the same killer ads that top male escorts use to attract and seduce willing ladies. You'll learn secret techniques that will have women passing your name and number on to every hot girlfriend they know. You'll get advice on where to find hundreds of beautiful women near you and how to get all of them to pay you what you want and deserve. Have you been dreaming of a job like this ? Dreaming is good, but why not make your dreams a reality ? Can you think of a better, more satisfying way to spend your spare time? ************************************************************ Information like this is selling for as much as $39.95. Our regular price is $24.95. But as a special, limited promotion, our simple easy-to-use booklet is only $19.95. That's right. For only $19.95 you can get started today. ************************************************************ Just imagine, you wake up saturday morning, cup of coffee in hand and bathrobe still on and already, there are a half - a - dozen calls for you from horny women wanting you to spend an hour or two with them. And you are free to see whichever ones you please, make love to them for as long as you like and best of all- leave their bedrooms with a pocketfull of crisp bills. Order today and you'll not only receive our special " How To Get Started As A Male Escort " booklet but you'll also receive one of our best selling companion booklets " How To Please A Woman In Bed " absolutely free. This super report includes advice on: How to Master Forplay, Learning Masturbation for Men and for Women, Advanced Oral Techniques and How To Keep A Woman Cumming Back Time and Time Again. ************************************************************ This report is for adults only and contains explicit sexual acts. ************************************************************Think about it. For the price of dinner you could get all the tools you need to get started today giving pleasure to beautiful ladies and getting paid for it. Gentlemen, there's no greater opportunity than the one offered here. Hurry. This special promotion ends July 20th. ************************************************************ For the easiest way to order, hit your print button now. ************************************************************ Because this information is of an adult nature, you must be over 18 years of age to order. Please enclose with the following a Check, Money Order or Cash in the amount of $19.95. Address to Studio 64, 1163 E. Ogden Ave, Suite 705-183, Naperville, Illinois, 60563. ( Please Print) Name__________________________________________________ Address_____________________________City, State_____________ E-Mail Address (optional)___________________________________ I am over 18 years of age (signature please)_______________ Please allow 2-3 weeks for delivery. Thank you.

1 0

Family Research Council on CDA decision (fwd)
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 13:59:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Family Research Council on CDA decision FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 26, 1997 CONTACT: Kristin Hansen, (202) 393-2100 COURT REAFFIRMS GOVERNMENT^RS INTEREST IN PROTECTING CHILDREN FROM PORN, BUT STRIKES CDA AS TOO BROAD WASHINGTON, D.C. -- "Today^Rs ruling means that pornographers can open their doors to children on the Internet. But pornographers beware: this will not be the last word on protecting children from your corrupting influence," Family Research Council Legal Policy Director Cathy Cleaver said Thursday. "While Reno v. ACLU said that the specific provisions of the CDA are too broad, the Court also said that more narrowly tailored provisions could be upheld." Cleaver made her comments as the Supreme Court issued its ruling striking down the Communications Decency Act (CDA). Cleaver continued, "Parents still have no legal recourse to protect their children from being sent a Penthouse centerfold. This is not good news for the thousands of families who discover every day that their children have accessed offensive and disgusting material on the internet. "At the same time, the Court has opened the door to new legislation protection children. Americans should urge Congress to take another look at the issue and draft a more narrowly defined statute. "But now, the flood gates remain open to purveyors of smut. With no legal liability for those who pursue children with graphic images and language on the internet, we need to act fast and firmly to ensure that our country does not give pornographers special rights." FOR MORE INFORMATION OR INTERVIEWS, CONTACT THE FRC PRESS OFFICE. - END -

1 0

White House statement on CDA decision (fwd)
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 14:21:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship-announce(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: White House statement on CDA decision THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary June 26, 1996 STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT Today, the Supreme Court ruled that portions of the Communications Decency Act addressing indecency are not constitutional. We will study its opinion closely. The administration remains firmly committed to the provisions -- both in the CDA and elsewhere in the criminal code -- that prohibit the transmission of obscenity over the Internet and via other media. Similarly, we remain committed to vigorous enforcement of federal prohibitions against transmission of child pornography over the Internet, and another prohibition that makes criminal the use of the Internet by pedophiles to entice children to engage in sexual activity. The Internet is an incredibly powerful medium for freedom of speech and freedom of expression that should be protected. It is the biggest change in human communications since the printing press, and is being used to educate our children, promote electronic commerce, provide valuable health care information, and allow citizens to keep in touch with their government. But there is material on the Internet that is clearly inappropriate for children. As a parent, I understand the concerns that parents have about their children accessing inappropriate material. If we are to make the Internet a powerful resource for learning, we must give parents and teachers the tools they need to make the Internet safe for children. Therefore, in the coming days, I will convene industry leaders and groups representing teachers, parents and librarians. We can and must develop a solution for the Internet that is as powerful for the computer as the v-chip will be for the television, and that protects children in ways that are consistent with America's free speech values. With the right technology and rating systems - we can help ensure that our children don't end up in the red light districts of cyberspace.

1 0

Final Version of RealPlayer 4.0 with RealVideo Available for FREE Download
by RealAudio & RealVideo News 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear RealPlayer User, Thank you for using RealAudio and RealVideo. We are pleased to tell you that the final versions of RealPlayer and RealPlayer Plus 4.0 with RealVideo and RealAudio have been released. You can upgrade to version 4.0 by visiting: http://www.real.com/40/index.html RealPlayer 4.0 features better video quality over dialup connections, direct access to daily news and entertainment, and more. RealPlayer Plus 4.0 offers several enhancements to the free RealPlayer: - The Best Quality Audio and Video at 28.8 - One-button Scanning for the Best Live Audio and Video on the Web - Instant Access to Your Favorite RealAudio and RealVideo Content - Free Telephone Technical Support - 30-day Money Back Guarantee RealPlayer Plus 4.0 is available from: http://www.real.com/40/order.html We hope you enjoy RealPlayer and RealPlayer Plus 4.0! Rob Glaser Chairman & CEO Progressive Networks --------------------------------------------- For information about this e-mail including how to subscribe to or unsubscribe from future announcements, please visit: http://www.real.com/mailinglist/index.html

1 0

breaking RSA in hardware (was Re: Comparing Cryptographic Key Sizes II)
by Adam Back 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Peter Trei <trei(a)process.com> writes: > > [DES breaking] > > [useful stats] > > So, to summarize: > > Using GNFS, on clients with 128M of memory, you could factor a 512 > bit modulus in 28,000 MIPS years. With 500,000 MIPS years, you could > factor a 600 bit modulus. > > Using QS, in 500,000 MIPS years you could factor a 512 bit modulus on > machines with modest memory requirements. Remarkably close to my original figure :-) (same as DES I said, you estimate DES to be 475,000 MIPS). So, even though GNFS is faster, if we don't have the hardware, it'll be better to use QS because using GNFS whilst continually paging will be even worse. > The effects of memory speed and bandwidth would slow things down > somewhat. Yup. With DES software is not at all an efficient way to break DES, compared to a Wiener machine. Unfortunately the press releases have had very little to say about the true cost of breaking DES with hardware. Perhaps it would be interesting to look at the economics of a well funded attacker breaking a 512 bit RSA key. If we asume that they would do it in software, and had to buy the machines, would you be better to buy fewer workstations with 128Mb or lots with 16Mb. Factor of 17 speed up using GNFS acording to your estimates of DES, and Lenstra's for GNFS RSA. So perhaps we're looking at motherboard $100, cpu $100, PSU+case $100 + 16Mb RAM $100 = $400. The same, but with 128Mb $1100. So that's a 1100 / 400 = 2.75 ratio. Clearly buying the larger memory PCs is the way to go. Overall GNFS is 6x cheaper it would appear. However, really the interesting question is how much would it cost to break RSA in hardware. How expensive would it be to build a custom hardware machine to break RSA. What building blocks would be needed. How much memory. What would be the most efficient approach. Would it be cost effective to use NTTs RSA chip? What would be the most efficient way to distribute the memory. Adam -- Have *you* exported RSA today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/ print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`

1 0

Adults Only!
by Lola.X＠worldcom.ch 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Nude Spring Break 1997!! http://www.spring-break97.com/ Naked Teenage Girls Partying on Miami and Ft Lauderdale Beaches!! THOUSANDS OF ALL ORIGINAL PICTURES!! XXX, AMATEUR, TEENS, LESBIANS, AND MORE!!! See These Real Teens NUDE or In Little G- String Bikinis! Fresh New Tender Breasts Barely covered! http://www.spring-break97.com/ Special NEW Section: Nude Runaway Teenagers!!! BONUS!!!!!!!!! Instant Access To Over 1,800 WebSites!! Special Voyeurism pictures, 1,000's of celebs, S and M, teens, amateurs, gay-lesbians, XXX, older women, older guys younger girls, Blowjobs, cumshots, free video sex, much much more! SPRING BREAK '97 WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR???????????? http://www.spring-break97.com/

1 0

Re: NEWS.COM - Rumor Mill
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Not a rumor -- it's true. Crowell was wandering around wondering what was going on. The excuse was that ~60 votes were scheduled on the Senate floor yesterday. -Declan At 14:26 -0700 6/26/97, Alan Olsen wrote: >No Freeh lunch? > > >http://www.news.com/Rumors/0,29,,00.html > >At the end of the article... > >While hackers were getting busy, the crypto honchos were >getting dissed in D.C. Apparently, a group of bigwigs, >including Louis Freeh of the FBI, William Crowell of NSA, >Peter Neumann of SRI, and Ray Ozzie of Lotus, flew all the >way out to the nation's capital for a Senate Judiciary >Committee hearing on cryptography, only to be informed 20 >minutes before the meeting that it had been canceled. >Grumbling ensued as the various participants stormed back >to Dulles airport. The meeting may pick up after the July 4 >recess.

1 0

Supreme's decisions...
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

CDA...Yeah! Assissted suicide...Boo! ____________________________________________________________________ | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http:// www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

ATMs a better target (was: breaking RSA in hardware)
by Steve Schear 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:51 PM +0100 6/26/97, Adam Back wrote: >Peter Trei <trei(a)process.com> writes: >> > [DES breaking] >> >> [useful stats] >Perhaps it would be interesting to look at the economics of a well >funded attacker breaking a 512 bit RSA key. If we asume that they >would do it in software, and had to buy the machines, would you be >better to buy fewer workstations with 128Mb or lots with 16Mb. Factor >of 17 speed up using GNFS acording to your estimates of DES, and >Lenstra's for GNFS RSA. > >So perhaps we're looking at motherboard $100, cpu $100, PSU+case $100 >+ 16Mb RAM $100 = $400. The same, but with 128Mb $1100. > >So that's a 1100 / 400 = 2.75 ratio. Clearly buying the larger memory >PCs is the way to go. > >Overall GNFS is 6x cheaper it would appear. > >However, really the interesting question is how much would it cost to >break RSA in hardware. How expensive would it be to build a custom >hardware machine to break RSA. What building blocks would be needed. >How much memory. What would be the most efficient approach. > Seems that unless future crypto breaks compromise something everybody can appreciate, they be little lasting PR value. Colin Plumb, colin(a)nyx.net, said >I don't know if everyone is aware, but all of the ATM cards floating aroud use DES to protect the PIN. With ine key sealed in tamper-proof. Wouldn't *that* be a fun key to have? >The details are published somehwere. Basically, you encrypt some card info to get a 16-character hex string. Some 4 nybbles of that, reduced mod 10 (so 0-5 are more likely than 6-9) are the "master PIN". >An offset from this (added per-digit, mod 10) is stored in clear on the card to allow programmable PINs. But most cards ship with the offset set to 0 and the default PIN is the master PIN. >You just need a few people with closed accounts to volunteer their ATM cards to mag stripe readers. The work would be somewhat greater since you need to do multiple decryptions to get a full validation; you'd need to do weed out the impossible in stages. >I'm not sure if the fraud possibilities (it lets you recover the PINs from stolen ATM cards) are worth it, but it would sure raise a ruckus... -- > -Colin The crack project should publish all schematics and source prior to the project start and the key server should definitely be offshore, since US regulatory agencies might step in to prevent the experiment from reaching its conclusion. I think one of the list's lawyers should investigate the legal risks to the participants. I have an account I'm willing to donate for the experiment. --Steve PGP mail preferred Fingerprint: FE 90 1A 95 9D EA 8D 61 81 2E CC A9 A4 4A FB A9 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Schear | tel: (702) 658-2654 CEO | fax: (702) 658-2673 First ECache Corporation | 7075 West Gowan Road | Suite 2148 | Las Vegas, NV 89129 | Internet: azur(a)netcom.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- I know not what instruments others may use, but as for me, give me Ecache or give me debt. SHOW ME THE DIGITS!

1 0

EAR cookbook anyone?
by Rich Graves 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We would like to distribute strong encryption (PGP, Netscape, MSIE, Kerberos, SSH, lynx-ssl, etc.) to people affiliated with our institution without prejudice to their current location, as the Fortune 100 can do with PGP. Today I got management to agree that it would be worth my time to ensure that we do so legally and publicly (though we had already decided to distribute said software to new and continuing affiliates worldwide regardless). There's a lot of examples of ITAR CJR's online, but I don't see any examples of EAR whatchamacallits. Are we really going to need some lawyer for this, or can't I just send Commerce a form letter, say, tomorrow afternoon? Form letters my department can fill in and sign, but paying a lawyer would require a level of bureaucracy that I'd rather not deal with. The deadline in any case would be August 25th. -rich i'm back... if i haven't responded to your mail sent the last week and a half, it's probably because it just wasn't interesting. nothing personal.

1 0

No Subject
by hs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1 0

Rep. Lofgren on McCain/Kerrey (good. long.)
by geeman＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Congressional Record: June 25, 1997 (Extensions)] [Page E1320] >From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:cr25jn97-18] ENCRYPTION BILL: AN EXERCISE IN DECEPTION ______ HON. ZOE LOFGREN of california in the house of representatives Wednesday, June 25, 1997 Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, last week the Senate Commerce Committee reported a bill, S. 909, sponsored by Senators McCain and Kerrey, which largely embodies the latest administration proposals to deal with encryption technology. This misguided legislation (S. 909) would be a great leap backward in the effort to reform current American export restrictions on encryption and remove serious impediments to the competitiveness of our Nation's high-tech industry. In addition, by proposing unprecedented domestic controls on the use of encryption, the McCain-Kerrey bill also poses serious threats to fundamental civil liberties and privacy rights. I believe that the Senate effort is propelled largely by a lack of understanding of both the worldwide prevalence of strong encryption and the technical challenges posed by the massive key recovery-escrow infrastructure envisioned in the bill. Earlier this week, Mr. Dan Gillmore, columnist for the San Jose Mercury News discussed the problems with S. 909 and strongly urged a rejection of the McCain-Kerrey approach. I submit his column into the Congressional Record. [From the San Jose Mercury News, June 23, 1997] Encryption Bill: Federal Exercise in Self-Deception (By Dan Gillmor) As a bill bearing his name zipped last week through the Senate Commerce Committee he heads, Arizona Republican John McCain said, ``This bill carefully seeks to balance the concerns of law enforcement with individual privacy concerns.'' The legislation, co-sponsored by Nebraska Democrat Bob Kerrey and two other Democrats, was the latest futile attempt in Congress to achieve the impossible: compromise on an issue that fundamentally has no middle ground. The issue is encryption, the scrambling of digital information. Try as they might, lawmakers must eventually understand the reality. When it comes to the privacy of personal information in the digital age, we have two simple choices. Either we allow people to encrypt their messages, using scrambling and unscrambling ``keys'' to which only they have access, or we do not. Governments are certain that bad people will use encryption to help achieve bad ends. They're right. But their cure would shred our basic liberties. So the Clinton administration and its allies--the McCain- Kerrey legislation is widely viewed as an administration- approved plan--are pushing a policy that would force us to put descrambling keys in the hands of third parties. Then, when law enforcement people wanted to see our communications, they'd simply get the keys from that third party. The McCain-Kerrey bill pretends to stop short of that. It would force government agencies to use only electronic hardware and software that included this key-recovery scheme. It would also require the same system for anyone using a network that is funded in any way by federal funds, including virtually all university networks. While one section calls the system ``voluntary'' for private individuals, the rest of the legislation would make it all but impossible to resist. Hardware and software companies, which so far have resisted the government's moves, will be much more likely to simply give in and build this key-recovery method into all of their products if they have to build it into ones bought by the government. Consumers need options, not monolithic products. Another section of the bill would, in effect, require even private citizens to use such software--and therefore give their keys to the third parties--if they want to buy anything online. People tend to use what they have in front of them. There's nothing wrong with the idea of letting a third party hold onto a descrambling key in certain cases. As former White House official Jock Gill noted recently on an Internet mailing list, all government communications should use such a system so the public can keep an eye on what the government is doing in our name and with our money. We'll need to create a system, of course, where such oversight doesn't end up forcing the public to use exactly the same technology for its own encryption needs--or at least keep private keys out of the hands of centralized third parties. Companies, meanwhile, will need to hold onto the business- related keys of employees, so that vital records won't be lost when someone leaves or dies. But I can't think of many companies that will be happy about giving the vault keys to third parties they can't control. Private citizens also should consider giving their keys to trusted third parties, just as they give their house keys to neighbors when on vacation trips. I intend to do just that-- but it's none of the government's business who gets my personal encryption key. I need strong encryption, as the digital age arrives, because more and more of my life will exist on these public networks. The practical difficulties of setting up a centralized key- recovery system are immense. Even if it could be done, I would never trust such a government-run system to be even remotely secure from corruption. I remember the Social Security employees who sold personal information to outsiders. I've also seen too much evidence that governments tend to abuse liberties when they have too much power--and the McCain-Kerrey bill would allow virtually anyone at any level of law enforcement to have access to private information on the flimsiest pretext, not even requiring a court order. Kerrey's participation in this latest travesty is sad. He needs no lessons in courage. He lost part of a leg in Vietnam. Later, as he stood up to the know-nothings who would ban flag-burning, he noted that our strength comes partly from our ability to express ourselves even in ways that offend many others. Now, however, Kerrey is aligning himself with a much more dangerous crowd of know-nothings: those who'd ban our right to keep private information private. He may believe this is about finding common ground; if so, someone has fed him falsehoods. His proposal, if enacted, would create the worst invasion of our fundamental liberty in many decades. If you care even slightly about your privacy in the future, pick up a pen today and write your Senators and member of the House of Representatives. Tell them to reject the Clinton- McCain-Kerrey approach. Tell them you value your privacy and won't give it up without a fight. And remind them that you vote. ____________________

5 6

Make $$$$ with Pay-Per-Call
by guy＠cyberfun.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// This Message is Directed Towards Adult Webmasters Only!!!!! If you wish to be removed, please reply with the subject "Remove" and this software will automatically block you from future mailings. //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 15:57:14 -0300 X-Info: Evaluation version at sun.adultpatrol.com Message-Id: <18571424910540(a)cyberfun.ca> Hello Adult Webmaster, I came across your website and found that you may be interested in our services...Placing 011,800,900 PHONESEX numbers on your site!(Free to WebMasters) Looking to make extra income from your adult site???? You'll make $$$ off every minute someone calls your number. All you do is advertise the number on your site! We supply you with 900, 800 or 011 number(s), Your choice of Straight, Gay, or Fetish lines available, online call stats(for tracking your income) and full customer service. FREE FREE FREE NOW SUPERFAST STARTUP ONLINE: http://www.cyberfun.ca/011numbers.html Thanking you in advance! Sincerely, Guy Boutilier Account Executive Rosenbrewer Communications guy(a)cyberfun.ca

1 0

Better DES challenge update
by Matt Blaze 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

------- Blind-Carbon-Copy To: challenge(a)crypto.com Subject: Better DES challenge update Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 18:01:53 -0400 From: Matt Blaze <mab(a)tpc.crypto.com> The prize for solving the ``better DES challenge'' has grown to almost $500 and continues to rise daily. Here's the list of prize pledges I have as of June 27; the current pot stands at 3984 bits (US $498.00). I hope to have a web page up sometime next week (on www.crypto.com) with the latest challenge status. (This will be the last update via email, unless someone solves the challenge or pledges some huge prize or some such). DATE Name Email Bits Pledged ============================================================================ 6/22/97 Matt Blaze mab(a)crypto.com 56 bits 6/23 AT&T Labs (via mab) mab(a)research.att.com 56 6/24 Steve Gibbons steve(a)wyrm.AZTech.Net 56 6/24 Bill Stewart stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com 112 6/24 Peter Trei trei(a)process.com 288 6/24 Jim Thompson jim(a)hosaka.SmallWorks.COM 512 6/25 Adam Shostack adam(a)homeport.org 512 6/25 Eric Blossom eb(a)comsec.com 1024 6/26 Jamie Lawrence jal(a)acm.org 56 6/26 Bill Frantz frantz(a)netcom.com 512 6/27 Jon Leonard jleonard(a)divcom.umop-ap.com 800 ========= GRAND TOTAL (Bits) 3984 GRAND TOTAL (USD) $498.00 Tell your friends! Note that the pot seems to be growing roughly exponentially. If this keeps up, I may join the search myself... [Unfortunately, due to singularly inexcusable incompetence on the part of my soon-to-be-former ISP (PSINet), mail to me was bouncing last week so I may have missed some of the ``Better DES Challenge'' pledge mail. If you pledged a prize and aren't on the list above, please resend.] Official rules attached below for reference. - -matt N.B. The ``bit'' is an archaic unit of currency equal to 1/8 of a US dollar (hence, ``pieces of eight,'' ``two bits,'', etc.). It seems an appropriate measure for prizes in key-cracking contests. ============================ From: Matt Blaze <mab(a)research.att.com> Subject: A better DES challenge Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 16:04:25 -0400 I'm not a big fan of these ``challenges'' in which a prize is awarded to the first person who discovers the key that produces some plaintext/ciphertext pair. The effort required to produce a solution tends to grossly overstate the actual difficulty of searching the keyspace, since invariably the winner uses the idle time on general-purpose computers, which are poorly-optimized for use as keysearch engines. Another problem with challenges is that even when they are broken they don't really provide convincing proof that the keyspace was actually searched. For example, in the recent 56-bit RSA DES challenge, RSA has no way to prove that it didn't ``leak'' some hint about the solution to the winner. (I hasten to point out that I'm not suggesting that anything like this actually happened, only that a skeptic might raise the possibility, against which RSA has no real way to defend itself). A better challenge, then, would be one in which even the challenger doesn't know the solution in advance (or would have had to itself search the keyspace or otherwise cryptanalyze the cipher in order to find it). For example, a challenge for a one-way collision-intractable hash function could simply ask for an example of a collision, or could ask for the inversion of some well-structured output (such as all zeros). We can do the same thing for encryption functions. I propose an alternative DES challenge that can be solved only by searching a large fraction of the keyspace or by cryptanalyzing the cipher. The structure of the challenge is such that most people would agree that either I don't know the solution myself or that I've already searched the keyspace or otherwise cryptanalyzed DES in some way. In other words, the only way I could covertly ``help'' the challenge winner is if I've already done what the challenge is supposed to establish is possible in the first place. Recall that there are 2^56 DES keys that each select a different permutation of the 2^64 codebook entries. We expect that there's about a 1/2^8 chance that there exists a DES key that converts any given plaintext block to any given ciphertext block. My challenge is to find a key such that a ciphertext block of the form <XXXXXXXX> decrypts to a plaintext block of the form <YYYYYYYY>, where X and Y represent any fixed eight-bit byte value repeated across each of the eight bytes of the block. Observe that I'm actually posing 2^16 different challenge plaintext/ciphertext pairs, each with about 1/2^8 probability of having a solution, where groups of 2^8 challenges can be searched for simultaneously. Each challenge may have no solution key, exactly one solution key, or more than one solution key, but it is very likely that there is at least one solution key to at least one of them (in fact, one could expect to find about 2^8 solutions overall, assuming DES produces good pseudorandom permutations). The most obvious way to find a solution is try, for each properly-formed ciphertext block, every key in the DES keyspace until a plaintext block of the proper form is found. Special-purpose hardware, based on FPGAs or ASICs, would obviously be helpful for this purpose. (One might first consider the eight weak / semi-weak DES keys that have 2^32 fixed points, on the chance that one of the blocks of this form is a fixed point for one of them. Unfortunately however, none are.) I will award a grand prize of fifty six bits ($7 US dollars) to the first person to provide a solution key. (The challenge ends when first key is found). While the prize money is admittedly trivial (this is out of my own pocket, after all), I hope it will serve as ``seed money'' that encourages others to add their own prizes to a growing pot. Of course, I cannot be completely sure whether there exist any solutions at all. In the (unlikely) event that there is no winner by August 1, 1999, I will award the 56 bit prize to the person who submits the key that produces the most ``interesting'' plaintext block from the all-zero ciphertext block. I will be the final judge of what constitutes interesting. This prize will be announced at the rump session of CRYPTO'99. Void where prohibited by law, etc. Comments, questions and solutions should be submitted by email, to <challenge(a)crypto.com>. If others wish to pledge additional prizes, please also let me know at that address and I'll keep track of who is offering what, etc.. - -matt ------- End of Blind-Carbon-Copy

1 0

Re: Flag Burning...
by David Downey 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

----Original Message Follows---- >From frantz(a)netcom.com Thu Jun 26 22:35:59 1997 Received: from [207.94.249.169] (sjc-ca4-09.ix.netcom.com [207.94.249.137]) by netcom10.netcom.com (8.6.13/Netcom) id WAA26602; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 22:35:57 -0700 X-Sender: frantz(a)netcom10.netcom.com Message-Id: <v03007819afd8ffd2c03f(a)[207.94.249.169]> In-Reply-To: <199706251146.EAA14923(a)f48.hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 22:29:56 -0700 To: "David Downey" <digital_matrix(a)hotmail.com>, nicol(a)highway1.com.au From: Bill Frantz <frantz(a)netcom.com> Subject: Re: Flag Burning... Yet she's only as rich as the poorest of the poor, Only as free as a padlocked prison door, Only as strong as our love for this land, Only as tall as we stand. - Phil Ochs ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | The Internet was designed | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | to protect the free world | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | from hostile governments. | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA ===================================================================== As we say in the Army, "Damn Skippy!" While it makes me angry that governments commit some of the atrocities that the first 2 lines cause to spring to mind, It is the last 2 lines that define what makes a country great or small. Though referenced by it's government, a country is defined by it's people. For it is not it's government that makes a country, but it's people. The government is just a place to put the useless. :-) --------------------------------------------------------- Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ---------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Flag Burning...
by David Downey 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 22:29:56 -0700 >To: "David Downey" <digital_matrix(a)hotmail.com>, nicol(a)highway1.com.au >From: Bill Frantz <frantz(a)netcom.com> >Subject: Re: Flag Burning... > >Yet she's only as rich as the poorest of the poor, >Only as free as a padlocked prison door, >Only as strong as our love for this land, >Only as tall as we stand. > > - Phil Ochs > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Bill Frantz | The Internet was designed | Periwinkle -- Consulting >(408)356-8506 | to protect the free world | 16345 Englewood Ave. >frantz(a)netcom.com | from hostile governments. | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA > > > As we say in the army, "Damn Skippy!" =========================================================== Though referenced by it's government, a country is defined by it's people. For it is not it's government that makes a country, but it's people. The government is just a place to put the useless. :-) God does have a sense of humor.... He forgave our sins, and gave us government for penance! ----------------------------------------------------------- Type Bits/KeyID Date User ID pub 2048/1D9A78C1 1997/06/11 Case(a)EarthCorp.com -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.3ia mQENAjOey8AAAAEIAMEeGm4eYssbREAQZbAgRSIXPKwNAG9KSb7PZAUfLk0jBcez rQqE19DQKVMGBlK7OR5JxImHTU1bUrX5oUax8yWzsE2uFra+wxiyLHJjCkqPkF6h jAmJBQVeeAfJqOldHsebhUEg+sEUOJ3IRNggA9Fj2dUKmYFWlcSqqe5ijsU4rFEX keR/TAjhr2wXqBMYdCllIUn4+HpnxpQWhY5YkyJ/trjCLdGVdcFisChBKmQ+TxMx V1BnNn2mqdi/dNFrVc7IPX3JDj6YhhGoRGmwFu8GFT0FZMuA8mtdRur25VaXQcxM XtFs02WxpZ20ZAUBibBxLNmgpRLUYs/9Rx2aeMEABRG0EkNhc2VARWFydGhDb3Jw LmNvbYkBFQIFEDOey8Biz/1HHZp4wQEBVtIH/jF1qU05oIxL6CSAQeSy7ERIhcUz Xb4E+S/pnpawUk8qZ4XXvyL1kKScKB+qFCsM80XIC5XuOJRxUR8raWiXyyuqBjF/ RR+91LFs02qQ9Cn3zNOW0XA+Yk/ShgFn2l0I9MW32/HX9pcH7ycMm3TUsHSjkAon wbcGkFQK2X2yWD3xEFKN4X+FqNS6iZE/HTapUFfRbCevANvChOo9stAv0bxc3mmi j7TJJemU5GW17Ji/IN9NUZCsfo3Rddiu5gHFhkphtKHgiXdbEzHrYWidH3w8SVGh yo3sIrIXxI/3LCVaWGM42+IXI0mFauuO0nyqaHRGyMERVSSwVl2zINGU1TM= =urPi -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- --------------------------------------------------------- Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ---------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Rep. Lofgren on McCain/Kerrey (good. long.)
by David Downey 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: geeman(a)best.com >Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 23:33:27 -0700 >To: cypherpunks(a)algebra.com >Subject: Rep. Lofgren on McCain/Kerrey (good. long.) > >Check our new domain names! >http://www.netforward.com >v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v > Earlier this week, Mr. Dan Gillmore, columnist for the San Jose >Mercury News discussed the problems with S. 909 and strongly urged a >rejection of the McCain-Kerrey approach. I submit his column into the >Congressional Record. > > [From the San Jose Mercury News, June 23, 1997] > > Encryption Bill: Federal Exercise in Self-Deception > > (By Dan Gillmor) > > As a bill bearing his name zipped last week through the > Senate Commerce Committee he heads, Arizona Republican John > McCain said, ``This bill carefully seeks to balance the > concerns of law enforcement with individual privacy > concerns.'' > The legislation, co-sponsored by Nebraska Democrat Bob > Kerrey and two other Democrats, was the latest futile attempt > in Congress to achieve the impossible: compromise on an issue > that fundamentally has no middle ground. > The issue is encryption, the scrambling of digital > information. Try as they might, lawmakers must eventually > understand the reality. When it comes to the privacy of > personal information in the digital age, we have two simple > choices. Either we allow people to encrypt their messages, > using scrambling and unscrambling ``keys'' to which only they > have access, or we do not. > Governments are certain that bad people will use encryption > to help achieve bad ends. They're right. But their cure would > shred our basic liberties. Do ya really think the powers that be really care? Let's hope they do! > So the Clinton administration and its allies--the McCain- > Kerrey legislation is widely viewed as an administration- > approved plan--are pushing a policy that would force us to > put descrambling keys in the hands of third parties. Then, > when law enforcement people wanted to see our communications, > they'd simply get the keys from that third party. > The McCain-Kerrey bill pretends to stop short of that. It > would force government agencies to use only electronic > hardware and software that included this key-recovery scheme. > It would also require the same system for anyone using a > network that is funded in any way by federal funds, including > virtually all university networks. Seems inherently dangerous to me, everything about you is on a system or systems somewhere, and most of them have used federal funds in their startup and continue to use them. Doesn't that grant the governments almost total access to your past present and future? I KNOW I don't want ANYONE having THAT much access to my life. What I don't understand is what makes them tjink we'll just roll over and accept this without a fight? > While one section calls the system ``voluntary'' for > private individuals, the rest of the legislation would make > it all but impossible to resist. Hardware and software > companies, which so far have resisted the government's moves, > will be much more likely to simply give in and build this > key-recovery method into all of their products if they have > to build it into ones bought by the government. Consumers > need options, not monolithic products. Seems to me that that is EXACTLY what the government wants. If they can't pass it legally, they figure they'll use economical pressure. Hell, they've been doing it to China, Vietnam, Russia and a host of others for years! Why shouldn't they apply the concept locally? > Another section of the bill would, in effect, require even > private citizens to use such software--and therefore give > their keys to the third parties--if they want to buy anything > online. People tend to use what they have in front of them. Isn't control of the economy too powerful of a tool for the government? Can anyone hear the whistling? It's the sound of the government sword slicing through our pocketbooks and into our liberties and rights. > There's nothing wrong with the idea of letting a third > party hold onto a descrambling key in certain cases. As > former White House official Jock Gill noted recently on an > Internet mailing list, all government communications should > use such a system so the public can keep an eye on what the > government is doing in our name and with our money. We'll > need to create a system, of course, where such oversight > doesn't end up forcing the public to use exactly the same > technology for its own encryption needs--or at least keep > private keys out of the hands of centralized third parties. > Companies, meanwhile, will need to hold onto the business- > related keys of employees, so that vital records won't be > lost when someone leaves or dies. But I can't think of many > companies that will be happy about giving the vault keys to > third parties they can't control. > Private citizens also should consider giving their keys to > trusted third parties, just as they give their house keys to > neighbors when on vacation trips. I intend to do just that-- > but it's none of the government's business who gets my > personal encryption key. I need strong encryption, as the > digital age arrives, because more and more of my life will > exist on these public networks. Yeah, and how many of them does the government have pull with? Quite a few considering that they back most corporate companies with tax dollars and schools with federal grants. > The practical difficulties of setting up a centralized key- > recovery system are immense. Even if it could be done, I > would never trust such a government-run system to be even > remotely secure from corruption. I remember the Social > Security employees who sold personal information to > outsiders. I've also seen too much evidence that governments > tend to abuse liberties when they have too much power--and > the McCain-Kerrey bill would allow virtually anyone at any > level of law enforcement to have access to private > information on the flimsiest pretext, not even requiring a > court order. This is starting to sound like the beginnings of a Martial State. Slowly control the population in every aspect of their lives and when you have enough control, who's gonna fight you when you really start cracking the whip? If you control everything that affects their lives, NO ONE! Control their economy, their privacy, their children, and you control them. Even better, get them to help you in the names of their children, their rights, and make them feel like thy are in greatr danger that they actually are and they'll just hand you the reins! Hmmmmmm... doesn't this sound like our current situation?? > Kerrey's participation in this latest travesty is sad. He > needs no lessons in courage. He lost part of a leg in > Vietnam. Later, as he stood up to the know-nothings who would > ban flag-burning, he noted that our strength comes partly > from our ability to express ourselves even in ways that > offend many others. Now, however, Kerrey is aligning himself > with a much more dangerous crowd of know-nothings: those who'd > > ban our right to keep private information private. He may believe > this is about finding common ground; if so, someone has fed him > falsehoods. His proposal, if enacted, would create the worst > invasion of our fundamental liberty in many decades. How many times have we watched the better part of valiant, couragous, and honorable men and women be seduced by power, greed, corruption, and just plain old not thinking straight? > If you care even slightly about your privacy in the future, > pick up a pen today and write your Senators and member of the > House of Representatives. Tell them to reject the Clinton- > McCain-Kerrey approach. Tell them you value your privacy and > won't give it up without a fight. And remind them that you > vote. Yes, we vote. Yes, we care. Yes, WE WILL FIGHT!!! =========================================================== Though referenced by it's government, a country is defined by it's people. For it is not it's government that makes a country, but it's people. The government is just a place to put the useless. :-) God does have a sense of humor.... He forgave our sins, and gave us government for penance! ----------------------------------------------------------- Type Bits/KeyID Date User ID pub 2048/1D9A78C1 1997/06/11 Case(a)EarthCorp.com -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.3ia mQENAjOey8AAAAEIAMEeGm4eYssbREAQZbAgRSIXPKwNAG9KSb7PZAUfLk0jBcez rQqE19DQKVMGBlK7OR5JxImHTU1bUrX5oUax8yWzsE2uFra+wxiyLHJjCkqPkF6h jAmJBQVeeAfJqOldHsebhUEg+sEUOJ3IRNggA9Fj2dUKmYFWlcSqqe5ijsU4rFEX keR/TAjhr2wXqBMYdCllIUn4+HpnxpQWhY5YkyJ/trjCLdGVdcFisChBKmQ+TxMx V1BnNn2mqdi/dNFrVc7IPX3JDj6YhhGoRGmwFu8GFT0FZMuA8mtdRur25VaXQcxM XtFs02WxpZ20ZAUBibBxLNmgpRLUYs/9Rx2aeMEABRG0EkNhc2VARWFydGhDb3Jw LmNvbYkBFQIFEDOey8Biz/1HHZp4wQEBVtIH/jF1qU05oIxL6CSAQeSy7ERIhcUz Xb4E+S/pnpawUk8qZ4XXvyL1kKScKB+qFCsM80XIC5XuOJRxUR8raWiXyyuqBjF/ RR+91LFs02qQ9Cn3zNOW0XA+Yk/ShgFn2l0I9MW32/HX9pcH7ycMm3TUsHSjkAon wbcGkFQK2X2yWD3xEFKN4X+FqNS6iZE/HTapUFfRbCevANvChOo9stAv0bxc3mmi j7TJJemU5GW17Ji/IN9NUZCsfo3Rddiu5gHFhkphtKHgiXdbEzHrYWidH3w8SVGh yo3sIrIXxI/3LCVaWGM42+IXI0mFauuO0nyqaHRGyMERVSSwVl2zINGU1TM= =urPi -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- --------------------------------------------------------- Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ---------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Flag Burning...
by David Downey 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Obviously not. And >> before ya ask what that has to do with it, let me just say now... >> It's like riding a Harley, if we have to explain it to you, you wouldn't >> understand. > >That, my friend, is pissweak. "I understand, but you CANT because I >am better than you . . . " Get a life, learn to communicate >effectively. > > > > >Neter Picol >Global Media Magnet >godhead(a)vrl.com.au > >"Two daughters of a silk merchant live it Kyoto, >The elder is twenty, the younger, eighteen. >A soldier may kill with his sword, >But these girls slay men with their eyes." ================================================================= THAT, my friend, just ended ANY chance of coomunication between the two of us. When you start thinking you are better than someone else, you have stepped over the line. BTW, the spelling for dood is D U D E! Learn to spell before you start thinking you're better than anyone else. Baby steps, baby steps! And as to the imperialist comment. Give it a rest, folks have been saying that for years. Ever heard of dancing to your OWN beat. Give the badwagon some room. Too many on it as it is now. And as for me getting a life. I have one. I live in America! :-) =========================================================== Though referenced by it's government, a country is defined by it's people. For it is not it's government that makes a country, but it's people. The government is just a place to put the useless. :-) God does have a sense of humor.... He forgave our sins, and gave us government for penance! ----------------------------------------------------------- Type Bits/KeyID Date User ID pub 2048/1D9A78C1 1997/06/11 Case(a)EarthCorp.com -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.3ia mQENAjOey8AAAAEIAMEeGm4eYssbREAQZbAgRSIXPKwNAG9KSb7PZAUfLk0jBcez rQqE19DQKVMGBlK7OR5JxImHTU1bUrX5oUax8yWzsE2uFra+wxiyLHJjCkqPkF6h jAmJBQVeeAfJqOldHsebhUEg+sEUOJ3IRNggA9Fj2dUKmYFWlcSqqe5ijsU4rFEX keR/TAjhr2wXqBMYdCllIUn4+HpnxpQWhY5YkyJ/trjCLdGVdcFisChBKmQ+TxMx V1BnNn2mqdi/dNFrVc7IPX3JDj6YhhGoRGmwFu8GFT0FZMuA8mtdRur25VaXQcxM XtFs02WxpZ20ZAUBibBxLNmgpRLUYs/9Rx2aeMEABRG0EkNhc2VARWFydGhDb3Jw LmNvbYkBFQIFEDOey8Biz/1HHZp4wQEBVtIH/jF1qU05oIxL6CSAQeSy7ERIhcUz Xb4E+S/pnpawUk8qZ4XXvyL1kKScKB+qFCsM80XIC5XuOJRxUR8raWiXyyuqBjF/ RR+91LFs02qQ9Cn3zNOW0XA+Yk/ShgFn2l0I9MW32/HX9pcH7ycMm3TUsHSjkAon wbcGkFQK2X2yWD3xEFKN4X+FqNS6iZE/HTapUFfRbCevANvChOo9stAv0bxc3mmi j7TJJemU5GW17Ji/IN9NUZCsfo3Rddiu5gHFhkphtKHgiXdbEzHrYWidH3w8SVGh yo3sIrIXxI/3LCVaWGM42+IXI0mFauuO0nyqaHRGyMERVSSwVl2zINGU1TM= =urPi -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- --------------------------------------------------------- Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ---------------------------------------------------------

1 0

All Tomorrow's Parties -- CDA II -- from the Netly News
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 07:15:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: All Tomorrow's Parties -- CDA II -- from the Netly News http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/opinion/0,1042,1113,00.html The Netly News June 26, 1997 All Tomorrow's Parties by Team Netly (thenetlynews(a)pathfinder.com) The fun-loving "trolls" of Bianca's Smut Shack celebrated today's Communications Decency Act ruling by sleeping in. Christopher Miller and David Thau stumbled awake at 10:10 am today, just in time to read the decision that said it was legal to post "indecent" material on your web site -- something clearly important to the Biancanauts, who are travelling cross-country in a psychedelic RV commemorating the summer of love. "It's kind of weird to celebrate the overturning of something that's clearly unconstitutional, but of course we have something to celebrate because it's going to keep us from jail," said Thau. The celebration may be premature. The CDA II, after all, is expected to crawl out of the grave like a flesh-dripping zombie. But you'd never know it from the high-bandwidth rhetoric that flooded the Net today after the Supreme Court decision. The Electronic Privacy Information Center cried that "today's opinion defines the First Amendment for the next century." Histrionics also were flying furiously around San Francisco's South Park, where the faithful rallied. "The Internet freedom fighters are as strong as the students at Tiananmen Square," said the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Mike Godwin -- to a crowd composed almost entirely of journalists. "Today is the first day of the new American Revolution, the Digital Revolution.." (A phrase that happens to be trademarked by Wired, a sponsor of the rally.) The victorious shouts of the way-new stalwarts were matched by the angry screams of the censor-happy CDA supporters. "The safety net is gone," says Donna Rice-Hughes, communication director for Enough Is Enough. "There is no law against an adult sending a naked picture of himself to a child over the Internet or through e-mail." If Rice-Hughes has her way, the high court's decision to drive a stake through the heart of the much-reviled law will mean the threat to free speech online has expired only for a while. "Frankly, this ruling provides a road map on how to more specfically draft legislation," says Heidi Stirrup, director of government relations for the Christian Coalition. "Our beleaguered American family has been put on notice by the Court that it will do nothing to help the family even when the president and Congress work together against a problem that everyone says is bad -- providing indecent material to children." This isn't entirely true. The ruling -- which talked of "vast democratic fora" online -- does not mean that the Internet is now a free-speech zone where anything goes. After all, the CDA only restricted "indecent" materials, an undefined category that could include art, literature, even humor and sex ed. materials. Distributing obscenity -- sexual works without "redeeming value" -- will remain a crime. The Court noted this in its ruling today: "Transmitting obscenity and child pornography, whether via the Internet or other means, is already illegal under federal law for both adults and juveniles." President Clinton, who endorsed the act, also vowed not to give up. "We can and must develop a solution for the Internet that is as powerful for the computer as the v-chip will be for the television, and that protects children in ways that are consistent with America's free speech values," he said. "We're certainly going to support Congress' efforts to develop another bill to protect kids. They're not going to stop and we're going to help them to do it," says Bruce Taylor, president of the National Law Center for Children and Families. Taylor predicts that a CDA II might stress labelling all your web pages with PICS or RSACi if you want to stay out of jail: "Remember I told you nobody's going to do PICS? It's a monster nobody wants to feed. Who's going to rate 10 zillion web sites?" Well, nobody -- unless you force people to use it. Which is what some members of Congress are trying. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) is preparing to introduce a bill that will try to convince a dubious public to rate its pages with RSACi, a self-rating system backed by Microsoft. (A company which, just coincidentally, is headquartered in her state.) Nevermind that even MSNBC stopped ratings its pages with RSACi because the system proved unworkable for news sites. Murray's proposed bill, called the "Childsafe Internet Act of 1997," says someone who "includes a rating" on their site "may not be held liable" for "any material on the site that is unsuitable for minors." That's the carrot. Then the stick: you can't post material "unsuitable for minors" on a site that's rated for kids. "Whoever accesses a site on the Internet rated by the person establishing the site as having no material unsuitable for minors and knowingly makes available on or through the site any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other material unsuitable for minors, shall be imprisoned... for not more than two years," the bill says. The constitutionality of such legislation was affirmed in today's minority opinion of Justices O'Connor and Rehnquist, in which they talk of "zoning laws" for the Internet. Real world zoning laws are what keep children out of porno stores and require buildings to be wheelchair-accessible. These laws passed constitutional muster long ago, and the underlying intent of the CDA was largely to shield minors from indecent material. Trouble is, Internet technology isn't yet capable of ensuring the existence of adult-only zones. Yet. Thus argued O'Connor: "Until gateway technology is available throughout cyberspace, and it is not in 1997, a speaker cannot be reasonably assured that the speech he displays will reach only adults because it is impossible to confine speech to an 'adult zone.'" What all this means is Congressional attempts to pass another law to muzzle the Net won't need to be a flat ban on "indecency." Rather, they'll rely on PICS and RSACi. (Ironically, a technology designed to head off the CDA might be the linchpin of CDA II.) Next month President Clinton plans to meet with industry leaders in much the same way he met with broadcast executives last year and came up with a V-Chip. His goal this time: to do the same for the Net. Meanwhile, slap-happy netizens will probably still be partying down -- the D.C.-based CIEC folks are hanging out in the 18th Street Lounge right now -- basking in the high court's warm and fuzzy afterglow, and happily smoking a bowl of their own rhetoric. ###

5 6

Re: Bomb Making Info to be Illegal
by Secret Squirrel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Paul Bradley <paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk> wrote: >I think I >may, if I have some time in the next few days, put together a quick >website telling people the best fish to use etc. and inciting them to use >this as a method of assasinating MPs... Surely oranges would be a better choice for MPs? Hell, dress them up in stockings and suspenders first and they'd probably write it off as accidental death. OrangeMonger

1 0

No Subject
by bureau42 Anonymous Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

(Special note: this new remailer is destination-blocked for the Cypherpunks list, in all known incarnations. It's noisy enough without this contribution :) Bureau 42 Enterprises is proud to announce a new remailer! remailer(a)bureau42.ml.org supports both Type-I and Mixmaster messages. $remailer{"bureau42"} = "<remailer(a)bureau42.ml.org>" cpunk pgp hash latent cut mix Be aware: The remailer is running on the slow end of a UUCP link. There _will_ be latency. Lots of it. Here's the keys. People in charge, please add these to the relevant lists. bureau42 remailer(a)bureau42.ml.org 684d5ea06f1d2a46c45e55eb9758cf61 2.0.3 -----Begin Mix Key----- 684d5ea06f1d2a46c45e55eb9758cf61 258 AAS8YXDO/ZtBIdeFfCbQBdXYJvzYXO1WkUgExMa+ brxMUiI6UC89ZF+zjSYbPsOHaSSD/ljIBde46Dg2 L076Klarxl28BP3VtIdHDfs64X+CfxulJjORWIhi FTG3NWa7gIs2OADgcUSzy4/UGN0FqhsAT0skFWUw DQ+SSfJbLrhz6QAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAB -----End Mix Key----- Here is the PGP Public Key for bureau42 Anonymous Remailer -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQCNAzNw0EkAAAEEAOdhlFnWook3MO3QoB2isVgJXMfauV2A5CKgfd09P7VGccP7 Z27HuI2LSMd23fcGe0uVLxYFMvOUCRgLoXYeqXLUEX6eHPIFtd7B3FkfR03Aj+GT PfmTupqp4Wc5cODDuXOe6Y0x30QffuX3BjNfSvEa2iniLer5ac5Daand9AJhAAUR tDZidXJlYXU0MiBBbm9ueW1vdXMgUmVtYWlsZXIgPHJlbWFpbGVyQGJ1cmVhdTQy Lm1sLm9yZz6JAJUDBRAzcNC2zkNpqd30AmEBAQw4A/9OFw6t3x2BhDSNEBLD78rl SfZsReDpF1yt0t+MQ0yNyaTciByDPtw+9tL9L+X9Gm0FAri6t+uelqaK4XR71POD 8VyCylWHkWHDfY8N53pJt8VV8LL4NcR3Go8tBVbo37BSuRDPbFyBAvy4EH3UbRI4 eYIKOcBsHlgSP2R7aFhCuw== =sN96 -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

1 0

"Tin Drum" Obscene in Oklahoma
by Mike Duvos 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It used to be that mainstream motion pictures were territory child porn hysterics didn't go near, for fear of losing high profile cases and creating case law detrimental to their cause. Yet, as the creeping definition of child porn has moved to include fully clothed children, and any simulated depiction of the sexuality of minors, it was inevitable that the child porn hysterics would finally feel powerful enough turn their crusade towards award winning motion pictures containing ideas that Bible thumpers and their ilk would rather not have available to the masses. It is therefore no huge surprise that an Ohlahoma Judge has ruled that the Oscar-winning film "Tin Drum" is obscene, and contains scenes that constitute child pornography. Police have seized videos of the movie from libraries and video stores, and have gone to the homes of people who rented the film to seize the tapes. The Oklahoma ACLU director has called the action "Gestapo-type tactics" and vows to fight the ruling in court. Should be Mapplethorpe all over again. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ enoch(a)zipcon.com $ via Finger $

1 0

Interesting Supreme Court decision on Brady Bill at http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZS.html
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZS.html A messy 5-4 decision, with two concurrences and three dissents. Overturns the part of the Brady Bill that forces local officials to perform some of the administrative functions. Lots of complex commentary.

13 22

Gentlemen, Over 18? Read This...
by Studio＠64.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This is a one time only E-mail. Your name will be automatically deleted from our list after this message. If you are not interested in this offer, Studio 64 apologizes for this inconvenience. ************************************************************************************ GENTLEMEN, HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE MONEY PROVIDING INTIMATE SERVICES TO HOT, HORNY WOMEN ? More and more men are discovering that they can make $500 - $1000 weekly simply by giving lonely ladies the affection and companionship they so desperately desire. Do you like women ? Do you love sex ? Have a few free hours a week to devote to your own business ? Could you use the extra cash ? Part time or full time, at home or wherever, you can get started today with a few easy steps. Imagine your own private business, where you yourself are your own best asset, minimal investment, great returns, plus the undeniable pleasure of making love to dozens of lusty, horny women who want nothing more than to be pampered by an adoring stranger- no strings attached. Whether you like young, firm, fresh college girls or older sophisticated working women, petite or tall and leggy, or voluptuous, busty, full-lipped sex bombs, you can have them all or whichever ones please you - selecting specifically the ladies you'd like to see. Wine them, dine them, entertain and bed them. Get paid to make love to as many hot blondes and sultry brunnettes, lonely housewives and succulent sweeties as you can handle. You don't need above average looks or a $100,000 car. All you need is the know how, a healthy sexual appetite and a willingness to get hot and heavy with a woman until she's satisfied. WE'LL SHOW YOU HOW !! We'll give you specific tips for starting and running your own successful, male escort business. We'll supply you with the same killer ads that top male escorts use to attract and seduce willing ladies. You'll learn secret techniques that will have women passing your name and number on to every hot girlfriend they know. You'll get advice on where to find hundreds of beautiful women near you and how to get all of them to pay you what you want and deserve. Have you been dreaming of a job like this ? Dreaming is good, but why not make your dreams a reality ? Can you think of a better, more satisfying way to spend your spare time? ************************************************************ Information like this is selling for as much as $39.95. Our regular price is $24.95. But as a special, limited promotion, our simple easy-to-use booklet is only $19.95. That's right. For only $19.95 you can get started today. ************************************************************ Just imagine, you wake up saturday morning, cup of coffee in hand and bathrobe still on and already, there are a half - a - dozen calls for you from horny women wanting you to spend an hour or two with them. And you are free to see whichever ones you please, make love to them for as long as you like and best of all- leave their bedrooms with a pocketfull of crisp bills. Order today and you'll not only receive our special " How To Get Started As A Male Escort " booklet but you'll also receive one of our best selling companion booklets " How To Please A Woman In Bed " absolutely free. This super report includes advice on: How to Master Forplay, Learning Masturbation for Men and for Women, Advanced Oral Techniques and How To Keep A Woman Cumming Back Time and Time Again. ************************************************************ This report is for adults only and contains explicit sexual acts. ************************************************************Think about it. For the price of dinner you could get all the tools you need to get started today giving pleasure to beautiful ladies and getting paid for it. Gentlemen, there's no greater opportunity than the one offered here. Hurry. This special promotion ends July 20th. ************************************************************ For the easiest way to order, hit your print button now. ************************************************************ Because this information is of an adult nature, you must be over 18 years of age to order. Please enclose with the following a Check, Money Order or Cash in the amount of $19.95. Address to Studio 64, 1163 E. Ogden Ave, Suite 705-183, Naperville, Illinois, 60563. ( Please Print) Name__________________________________________________ Address_____________________________City, State_____________ E-Mail Address (optional)___________________________________ I am over 18 years of age (signature please)_______________ Please allow 2-3 weeks for delivery. Thank you.

1 0

Netly interviews Donna Rice-Hughes and Sen. Coats staffer
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[The day before the CDA decision came down, I interviewed David Crane from Sen. "CDA II Real Soon Now" Coats' office and Noah interviewed Donna Rice-Hughes. Recall Coats was the chief GOP sponsor of the original CDA. Here are excerpts. --Declan] *********** http://www.pathfinder.com/news/netdecency/rice.html Interview with Donna Rice-Hughes, Enough is Enough The Netly News June 26, 1997 [...] Q: WHY DO YOU SAY THERE IS SO MUCH MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT THE CDA IN THE INTERNET COMMUNITY? I think there's been a lot of misinformation about what this is all about and what the CDA would do if it is upheld. I think there have been some scare tactics, quite frankly, and that's why you have people concerned about speech. This is an area that the public hasn't had to understand the nuances of until now. You have a lot of people who have been using the Internet for years for the contructive purposes for which it was designed. Now it's becoming more commercial and you have pedophiles, pornographers and people who are just posting their private collections of pornography and polluting it, exploiting that technology. A few bad apples are spoiling it for everyone else. If it wasn't for that then we wouldn't be having this problem. Long before any of this it would have been great if the Internet community had said, "Hey, don't pollute this technology," and had imposed their own controls. But that didn't happen and it isn't happening. *********** http://www.pathfinder.com/news/netdecency/crane.html An Interview With David Crane, Legislative Assistant to CDA Cosponsor Dan Coats The Netly News June 26, 1997 [...] Q: WOULD YOU DO ANYTHING DIFFERENTLY? CHANGE THE WORDING OF THE CDA? I don't think so. One of the frustrations we experienced has been the tremendous amount of debate that has centered around the indecency standard -- and the portrayal of those who oppose it as a broadcast standard. The very federal statute we amended was a dial-a-porn statute. It was telephony, which is inherently an interactive method of communication. Despite representations to the contrary, there was a tremendous dialogue with representatives of the computer industry. We tried to strike the best balance we could. Q: YOU TOLD ME EARLIER THAT INTERNET USERS DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CDA REALLY IS ALL ABOUT. What Congress said was you're only held responsible for "knowing" violations. At that point you become responsible to solve that problem. You can't be held liable for unknowing violations. That's a distinction that's been lost in the politicking over this issue. And that's unfortunate. This is new technology and evolving technology. That's why Congress was careful not to codify a specific method of preventing access for children. What's effective today may not be effective tomorrow. We tried very much to have the CDA be flexible and be a living statute, one that would provide for advanced technologies and more restrictive technologies over time. Q:CAN YOU GIVE ME SOME EXAMPLES? A good example is PICS [a framework for Internet rating systems]. Look at the PC Week editorial. Q:THE ONE YOUR BOSS WAVED AROUND THE SENATE FLOOR? The industry has waved around PICS and said that's a solution. But what's the incentive -- for someone who's providing pornography on the Internet -- to subscribe to PICS? You're asking him to limit his potential marketplace in a voluntary way. That doesn't work. The need for the CDA is you want to say: Yes, apply technology, but you must restrict access to pornographic materials for children. If you don't do it, you'll be subject to prosecution. Q: WHAT WILL YOU DO IF THE SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN THE CDA? If the Supreme Court strikes down the CDA, we'll acknowledge that the current composition of the court is saying we don't have it right [to pass such a law] and we'll go back and operate on the precedent that was established and try again. The final verson of the CDA -- the compromise that was struck in the conference committee -- was passed overwhelmingly. There's precedent to this: the dial-a-porn law. It took several attempts before it was upheld by the Supreme Court. I think that everyone involved -- from the ACLU to a lot of the reporters on the Internet -- has misrepresented the CDA in many respects. Saying that it is a ban on indecency, that adults wouldn't be able to communicate with each other. That's patently wrong. Q: YOU SOUND LIKE YOU FEEL OUTGUNNED. The newspapers have a vested interest. Every major newspaper editorialized against the law during drafting and afterward. You're not going to be a darling of the media. The media likes to portray this as a free speech issue. This is part of the process. Q: SO NOW THE PRO-CDA FORCES ARE THE UNDERDOGS? One of the virtues of the Internet is the free flow of information. But only part of the information is being put out and that's unfortunate. This representation by opponents of the CDA that considerations of the unique nature of the Internet were not taken into account or that members and staff didn't understand the Internet or that somehow Congress didn't like the Internet or saw great danger beyond this issue -- all that is simply not true. There was consultation with the computer industry at every step of the way. We wanted to create a living law -- a flexible law -- that could grow as technologies evolved. ------------------------- Declan McCullagh Time Inc. The Netly News Network Washington Correspondent http://netlynews.com/

2 1

Accept Major Credit Cards Online...VERY LOW FEES!!!
by 37042252＠usa.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi there, Credit Cards are the universal currency of the Internet, and, if you want to do business online, you need to be able to Accept Visa, Mastercard and American Express cards on your Web site. Trouble is, many banks wont give merchant status to businesses that are new, home-based or located in cyberspace instead of a real-world storefront or mall. Thats why were pleased to present a special offer from USConnect, a major merchant account provider thats helping companies like yours get merchant status on the Net. The benefits include: * 2% Discount Rate * No Monthly Minimum Billing Fee * No Statement Fee if No Sales Made for the Month * Money Available in 2 Business Days * Windows-Based or Macintosh Compatible Credit Card Processing Software (Available) * Shopping Cart System To Take Orders Securely Right On-Line (Available) * Referral Program - $100-$200 Rewards For Each Referred Account *And Much, Much More. . . .! I invite you to browse our website for more information and registration: Go to: http://www.onestopshop.net/credit/cards.html Apply now and start your cash flowing today! If you wish to be removed from our mailing list, please hit reply and type REMOVE in the subject field .

1 0

Re: Netly interviews Donna Rice-Hughes and Sen. Coats staffer
by William H. Geiger III 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <v03007812afda0e1988c9(a)[168.161.105.191]>, on 06/27/97 at 08:41 PM, Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> said: >[The day before the CDA decision came down, I interviewed David Crane >from Sen. "CDA II Real Soon Now" Coats' office and Noah interviewed Donna >Rice-Hughes. Recall Coats was the chief GOP sponsor of the original CDA. >Here are excerpts. --Declan] Hi Declan, What Noah forgot to ask: "Ms. Rice, considering your previous occupation as a two-bit whore during the '88 election why should the American public take anything you do seriously?" - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: cp850 Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 iQCVAwUBM7Rn1Y9Co1n+aLhhAQFONQQAmXFnvVB91lciCIYIGQv9y8fq+j5zwbz3 r+BE0Q0VpXc+APVpUxqbO5OEb0NRO6+epRgkXn09hInpXFiqnPegprh2otuEPsKP 4IeMOBullzkI1CvXWNBNDZ5Xd9Q9IGWX1Qax7Xi3Dou6UlFQ+3LI3/F2Vn/fqWZv seogXEJLtYY= =U+/2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

DO YOU NEED WEB-LEGAL CONTENT?
by benjamin＠creativeimagery.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// This Message is intended for adult webmasters only. If you wish no further mailings type "remove" in the subject box & reply. //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Our business is providing Adult Web Sites with Legal Adult material, material that won't get you in copyright troubles, material that WON'T make you go broke buying it! We even offer a 30-day no-hassle money-back guarantee on all CD-ROM sales, and have free sample images on our website so that you can look at the material before purchase. How can you go wrong? Check out some of our current offerings: 2088 Quality softcore images for only $100.00 plus shipping! No hidden licensing fees! 1700 Brand New Hardcore "Anal" images, $25.00 plus shipping for the disc, and $50.00 for the web license! 1700 Images, hardcore & Kinky, for only $30.00 plus shipping with no additional licensing fees! If you want to modify them for your own special look, licensing for that is available. 371 Images of Softcore Women of Color, $25.00 plus shipping, no hidden charges! 3000+ Kinky Images! Bondage, Domination, Spanking & More! $50.00 plus shipping. License available for image modification, use them unmodified on the web for free! There are many more titles available, with more coming in all the time. Please e-mail us at arsenal(a)arsenalcdrom.com for more information, or to be put on our automatic update list. If you have an interest respond to arsenal(a)arsenalcdrom.com

1 0

mailing list
by CrShNDy＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I want on the mailing list please

4 3

newsletter
by FMart62512＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

is there a mailing list i can be put on? if so pleae do

1 0

Re: mailing list
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>I want on the mailing list please > > haha

3 2

Re: mailing list
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Why the fuck are there so many requests from aol ? thats eerie if you ask me.

4 3

**Important** Please Read
by Daragh Lawlor 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear friend, This is a "ONE-TIME MESSAGE" you were randomly selected to received this. There is no need to reply to remove, you will receive no further mailings from us. If you have interest in this GREAT INFORMATION, please do not click reply, use the contact information in this message. Thank You! This is not a chain letter and you are not on a mailing list. The following income opportunity is one you may be interested in taking a look at. It can be started with VERY MINIMAL outlay and the income return is TREMENDOUS! <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> You are about to make at least $50,000 - In less than 90 days Read the enclosed program...THEN READ IT AGAIN!... <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> 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 '95 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! A good program to help do this is Ready Aim Fire, an email extracting and mass mail program @ http://microsyssolutions.com/raf/ 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. Do this 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 $1 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 CASH FOR EACH ORDER REQUESTING THE SPECIFIC REPORT BY NAME AND NUMBER __________________________________________________ REPORT #1 "HOW TO MAKE $250,000 THROUGH MULTI-LEVEL SALES" ORDER REPORT #1 FROM: T.R. Enterprises 800 S. Pacific Coast Highway, #8-425 Redondo Beach, CA 90277 __________________________________________________ ____ REPORT #2 "MAJOR CORPORATIONS AND MULTI-LEVEL SALES" ORDER REPORT #2 FROM: J.K.Enterprises P. O. Box 10893 Blacksburg, VA 24060 __________________________________________________ ______ REPORT#3 "SOURCES FOR THE BEST MAILING LISTS" ORDER REPORT #3 FROM: Hendon Enterprises P.O. Box 188 Seguin, TX __________________________________________________ _____ REPORT #4 "EVALUATING MULTI-LEVEL SALES PLANS" ORDER REPORT #4 FROM: 78156Prosperity Group PO Box 968 Englewood, FL __________________________________________________ ______ 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. No longer will a lack of money hold you back. However, very few people reach financial independence, because when opportunity knocks, they choose to ignore it. It is much easier to say "NO" than "YES", and this is the question that you must answer. Will YOU ignore this amazing opportunity or will you take advantage of it? If you do nothing, you have indeed missed something and nothing will change. Please re-read this material, this is a special opportunity. If you have any questions, please feel free to write to the sender of this information. You will get a prompt and informative reply. My method is simple. I sell thousands of people a product for $5 that costs me pennies to produce and email. I should also point out that this program is legal and everyone who participates WILL make money. This is not a chain letter or pyramid scam. At times you have probably received chain letters, asking you to send money, on faith, but getting NOTHING in return, NO product what-so-ever! Not only are chain letters illegal, but the risk of someone breaking the chain makes them quite unattractive. You are offering a legitimate product to your people. After they purchase the product from you, they reproduce more and resell them. It's simple free enterprise. As you learned from the enclosed material, the PRODUCT is a series of four 4 FINANCIAL AND BUSINESS REPORTS. The information contained in these REPORTS will not only help you in making your participation in this program more rewarding, but will be useful to you in any other business decisions you make in the years ahead. You are also buying the rights to reprint all of the REPORTS, which will be ordered from you by those to whom you mail this program. The concise one and two page REPORTS you will be buying can easily be reproduced at a local copy center for a cost off about 3 cents a copy. Best wishes with the program and Good Luck! "IT WAS TRULY AMAZING" "Not being the gambling type, it took me several weeks to make up my mind to participate in this program. But conservative as I am, I decided that the initial investment was so little that there was no way that I could not get enough orders to at least get my money back. BOY, was I ever surprised when I found my medium sized post office box crammed with orders! I will make more money this year than any ten years of my life before." Mary Riceland, Lansing, MI TIPS FOR SUCCESS Send for your four 4 REPORTS immediately so you will have them when the orders start coming in. When you receive a $5 order, you MUST send out the product/service to comply with US Postal and Lottery laws. Title 18 Sections 1302 and 1341 specifically state that: "A PRODUCT OR SERVICE MUST BE EXCHANGED FOR MONEY RECEIVED." WHILE YOU WAIT FOR THE REPORTS TO ARRIVE: 1. Name your new company. You can use your own name if you desire. 2. Get a post office box (preferred). 3. Edit the names and addresses on the program. You must remember, your name and address go next to REPORT #1 and the others all move down one, with the fourth one being bumped OFF the list. 4. Obtain as many email addresses as possible to send until you receive the information on mailing list companies in REPORT #3. 5. Decide on the number of programs you intend to send out. The more you send, and the quicker you send them, the more money you will make. 6. After mailing the programs, get ready to fill the orders. 7. Copy the four 4 REPORTS so you are able to sent them out as soon as you receive an order. IMPORTANT: ALWAYS PROVIDE SAME-DAY SERVICE ON ORDERS YOU RECEIVE! 8. Make certain the letter and reports are neat and legible. YOUR GUARANTEE The check point which GUARANTEES your success is simply this: you must receive 15 to 20 orders for REPORT #1. This is a must!!! If you don't within two weeks, email out more programs until you do. Then a couple of weeks later you should receive at least 100 orders for REPORT #2, if you don't, send out more programs until you do. Once you have received 100 or more orders for REPORT #2, (take a deep breath) you can sit back and relax, because YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE AT LEAST $50,000. Mathematically it is a proven guarantee. Of those who have participated in the program and reached the above GUARANTEES-ALL have reached their $50,000 goal. Also, remember, every time your name is moved down the list you are in front of a different REPORT, so you can keep track of your program by knowing what people are ordering from you. IT'S THAT EASY, REALLY, IT IS!!! REMEMBER: "HE WHO DARES NOTHING, NEED NOT HOPE FOR ANYTHING." "INVEST A LITTLE TIME, ENERGY AND MONEY NOW OR SEARCH FOR IT FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE."

1 0

details of 6/26 action on HR 695??
by geeman＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello Washington watchers - Hey, what are the **details** ? Are these the same amendments from before, or new ones? Congressional Record: June 26, 1997 (House)] [Page H4834] >From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:cr26jn97-74] REPORTED BILL SEQUENTIALLY REFERRED Under clause 5 of rule X, the following action was taken by the Speaker: H.R. 695. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to affirm the rights of U.S. persons to use and sell encryption and to relax export controls on encryption; with an amendment; referred to the Committees on Commerce, National Security, and the Permanent Select Committee on intelligence for a period ending not later than September 5, 1997, for consideration of such provisions of the bill and amendment reported by the Committee on the Judiciary as fall within the jurisdiction of those committees pursuant to clause 1(e) and (k), rule X and rule XLVIII, respectively.

1 0

Re: Has your privacy been invaded? Protected? Both?
by geeman＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:46 PM 6/30/97 -0400, you wrote: > >We hear a lot of steamy rhetoric about privacy and the information age, but >few real-world examples. I'm working on a story now for Time about just >this: what's happening to individual privacy today. I assmue you will protect the anonymity of any contributors even while sharing your generous payment with them! ;) > >Does the Net make us more exposed -- DejaNews and 411-type databases -- or >does it provide us with more privacy through tools like anonymous remailers >and pseudonymous identities? As a reader of cpunks the following should be obvious: the access to information from 411-etc. is simple and accessible to anyone who can type in a browser! On the other hand, remailers and nym servers are still solely the purview of propeller-heads. The remailer pages I have seen and tried to use are unreliable - and to use PGP remailers requires a level of PGP-ability that the average Joe won't invest in. Most people have Work to do, and cannot invest in the time to figure out how to use software. If we want to see pervasive use of privacy-preserving technologies then developers must realize this and develop for the Mass Market. PGP 5, PGPMail are certainly helpful and not enough. What I am concerned about is that in the absence of easy-to-use (that means no-effort-to-use) privacy software, the average Joe will rely on whatever is there for him: and in the limit this will mean whatever infrastructure the Powers-that-be want put in place for him, and not one that preserves his rights. (Forgive the gender bias: I'll switch now) There is no level of privacy afforded the average 'user' as simple to use as the intrusve technologies that are available to the snoop. >Can we trust the government to protect our >privacy when it works tirelessly to invade it? > Sometimes it is better to trust Government than it is to trust Big Business, although too often they converge onto identical tracks becuase of the ownership of Gov't *by* Big Business. I see two equally onerous invasions: One is the insistence of Government that the benefit of crypto to the Four Horsewomen of the Infocalypse (Porn, Drug Dealing, Money Laundering, and Terrorism), and the corresponding threat to society, is so large as to warrant registering everyone's secret-telling capability. The other is the intrusion by Business and Employers into the habits of consumers and workers. From click-tracking on the Web to the recently reported monitoring of every 7-11 manager's move at the POS terminal, Business is no friend of the People. That this is perhaps the more insidious threat is manifest by your not even mentioning it or including it in the question set. I fear Businesses who say "Government leave us alone because the Free Market knows what's best" and then proceed to invade and intrude in ways that are equally damaging to the privacy of the individual. The philosophy that if Business invades privacy it's OK, and if Government does so it's bad, is to say that 2+2=5. >Much has been written about this. What I'm looking for now are examples. >Have you used an anonymous remailer to cloak your identity, or been flamed >through one? Have you been denied a transaction at a store because you >refused to identify yourself? Have you hunted through databases to find >someone important? Has sensitive information about you turned up in one? > I have been fairly careful and very jealous of my privacy; and then my name and home address showed up on one of the name-search pages. I don't know if it's still there, and I don't remember the link. But then the Similac marketing Geniuses sent me something in the mail that even included the due date of my expected child! I consider that sensitive as hell, and it didn't occur via the Web. The problem is across the board. I use anonymizing tools when I need to, to protect what I consider "things" that are too sensitive for the Web. I have looked up past friends on the Web, and then not called because I felt it would be an intrusion into their life. I have found the ability to search for information on PUBLIC figures important and useful, looking for items related to their professional activities, and I think this is an important capability. The opportunity for People to make sure that the elected officials they elect and pay for, and the businesses that pave their towns and dump toxics into their yards, are behaving responsibly, is one of the few remaining possibilities for positive change. In the meantime, I'm wondering, as I wander off to renew my driver's license, why they want my social security number. And I still don't know how Similac figured out when my wife and I had sex. (C) Copyright 1997 by ..... oops! I don't want to include my name. >I'd appreciate hearing some stories... > >Thanks all, > >Declan > > >------------------------- >Declan McCullagh >Time Inc. >The Netly News Network >Washington Correspondent >http://netlynews.com/ > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 08:46 PM 6/30/97 -0400, you wrote: > >We hear a lot of steamy rhetoric about privacy and the information age, but >few real-world examples. I'm working on a story now for Time about just >this: what's happening to individual privacy today. I assmue you will protect the anonymity of any contributors even while sharing your generous payment with them! ;) > >Does the Net make us more exposed -- DejaNews and 411-type databases -- or >does it provide us with more privacy through tools like anonymous remailers >and pseudonymous identities? As a reader of cpunks the following should be obvious: the access to information from 411-etc. is simple and accessible to anyone who can type in a browser! On the other hand, remailers and nym servers are still solely the purview of propeller-heads. The remailer pages I have seen and tried to use are unreliable - and to use PGP remailers requires a level of PGP-ability that the average Joe won't invest in. Most people have Work to do, and cannot invest in the time to figure out how to use software. If we want to see pervasive use of privacy-preserving technologies then developers must realize this and develop for the Mass Market. PGP 5, PGPMail are certainly helpful and not enough. What I am concerned about is that in the absence of easy-to-use (that means no-effort-to-use) privacy software, the average Joe will rely on whatever is there for him: and in the limit this will mean whatever infrastructure the Powers-that-be want put in place for him, and not one that preserves his rights. (Forgive the gender bias: I'll switch now) There is no level of privacy afforded the average 'user' as simple to use as the intrusve technologies that are available to the snoop. >Can we trust the government to protect our >privacy when it works tirelessly to invade it? > Sometimes it is better to trust Government than it is to trust Big Business, although too often they converge onto identical tracks becuase of the ownership of Gov't *by* Big Business. I see two equally onerous invasions: One is the insistence of Government that the benefit of crypto to the Four Horsewomen of the Infocalypse (Porn, Drug Dealing, Money Laundering, and Terrorism), and the corresponding threat to society, is so large as to warrant registering everyone's secret-telling capability. The other is the intrusion by Business and Employers into the habits of consumers and workers. From click-tracking on the Web to the recently reported monitoring of every 7-11 manager's move at the POS terminal, Business is no friend of the People. That this is perhaps the more insidious threat is manifest by your not even mentioning it or including it in the question set. I fear Businesses who say "Government leave us alone because the Free Market knows what's best" and then proceed to invade and intrude in ways that are equally damaging to the privacy of the individual. The philosophy that if Business invades privacy it's OK, and if Government does so it's bad, is to say that 2+2=5. >Much has been written about this. What I'm looking for now are examples. >Have you used an anonymous remailer to cloak your identity, or been flamed >through one? Have you been denied a transaction at a store because you >refused to identify yourself? Have you hunted through databases to find >someone important? Has sensitive information about you turned up in one? > I have been fairly careful and very jealous of my privacy; and then my name and home address showed up on one of the name-search pages. I don't know if it's still there, and I don't remember the link. But then the Similac marketing Geniuses sent me something in the mail that even included the due date of my expected child! I consider that sensitive as hell, and it didn't occur via the Web. The problem is across the board. I use anonymizing tools when I need to, to protect what I consider "things" that are too sensitive for the Web. I have looked up past friends on the Web, and then not called because I felt it would be an intrusion into their life. I have found the ability to search for information on PUBLIC figures important and useful, looking for items related to their professional activities, and I think this is an important capability. The opportunity for People to make sure that the elected officials they elect and pay for, and the businesses that pave their towns and dump toxics into their yards, are behaving responsibly, is one of the few remaining possibilities for positive change. In the meantime, I'm wondering, as I wander off to renew my driver's license, why they want my social security number. And I still don't know how Similac figured out when my wife and I had sex. (C) Copyright 1997 by ..... oops! I don't want to include my name. >I'd appreciate hearing some stories... > >Thanks all, > >Declan > > >------------------------- >Declan McCullagh >Time Inc. >The Netly News Network >Washington Correspondent >http://netlynews.com/ > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAwUBM7k0MjdEnrLKVNqJAQFijwf+M6Qq28YiBmfmxaMePf9QvZdSkHB2e51b 0XWX9n7CAcZVrK4YzcKfeII6Z4Z25BEK0Ddb0DdYJJWcWRKxe4pcYtr9Bb9/zMDf ii9PMquE7S/UXZGWqUgHsKx4BENwFYA9s4UF7ZWLLaD/A5ekL7kIAVFrd/52YFWO iycsGU3sdFw7xbzjCHHYUPwz51S6ger7c4YzNtlMVRKL4j0IiSLbWQ977Udp0vCj 4twqTu0l56GvkYMaybq3CHtU72bBY/6ckrqO8nmcMpZW1W2E5fKLhWsRLk2hepq1 wl7jTcU3HGvZH6ccgAfl8UtUxsyBTXL4S90dc0EsVE8XJBirTSNkUQ== =QJUu -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Let's Link
by grant＠letzlink.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Let's consider linking! I invite you to visit Let's Link and add your site along with a brief description of your site content to our Internet Resource Center ... perhaps, our Let's Link & Links. Although, our "Add Your Link" service is FREE, we do ask you to reciprocate with a LINK at your site .... not required but highly appreciated. Our site visitation now exceeds 2,300 per/day! 25% Europe.... 70% North America... 5% Asia Regards, Frank Bertotti http://www.letzlink.com

1 0

Re: CIA's Manual on Assassination Politics
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May wrote: > We are trading away our liberty for bullshit assurances of safety, > security, and protection from the Big Bad Wolf. (*) > > (* And of course the restrictions on publications of various items are > really designed to protect Those in Power; thus has it always been, thus > shall it always be.) Rapist: "I'm using a condom for _your_ protection." Victim: "Is that why you stole _my_ money to buy it?"

1 0

Dr. Netscape / Re: More about Netscape Bug finder
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Lynne L. Harrison wrote: > This reminded me to ask if anyone knows if, per their statement, Netscape > intends to u/l a patch for the 3.x versions. When I checked yesterday, I > didn't see any reference to it. Why would you expect Netscape to make reference to the fact that use of their browser leaves you open to violation of your privacy and security? Corporations are not expected to show concern about keeping their customers well-informed in regard to problems that arise with their product--they are expected to pretend, as much as possible, that problems don't exist (even if it may result in disastrous consequences for the customers who foolishly trust the company to act with integrity and professionalism). Netscape software is my browser of choice. I like the product, I like the company, and I like what I know of the people involved in the company. Despite these facts, however, I recognize that reality is merely a shallow reflection of classic Hollywood movies, and "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" is currently playing at the Netscape cinema complex. You may have already seen this movie, at your own corporate cinema, so you know how the plot goes... You wake up one morning and realize that behind the glazed eyes of your formerly human co-workers, lurks the alien energy of a communal corporate soul. The company spokesperson (who has two cute kids and a dog that are always a hit at the company picnic) has turned into an alien life-form which is telling the press and public that the chemical spill near the high-school has nothing to do with the hands that are now growing out of the students' foreheads. The company president (who risked his job to support a decent employee health-plan against the investor's wishes) begins to speak about a "ten year study" to determine why 20% of the company employees develop a rare form of cancer every year. Your best friend at the company changes the subject when you mention the growing number of the company's customers who seem to have an extra ear growing on their forearm. You can tell that your best friend is looking into your eyes and trying to discern if you are one of "them." A twenty-dollar street hooker will sometimes have time to join you for coffee and a burger at the conclusion of a business transaction, but a high-priced call-girl invariably recognizes the danger of true personal contact adversely affecting future cash flow. For the same reason, the corporate legal team would rather discuss the responsibility for your failing health in a sterile boardroom, than during dinner at your house with the whole family present. It is probably in Netscape's best short-term financial interest to downplay the full implications of the "bug" in their software, as well as avoiding revealing the true reasons for this "bug" existing in the first place. However, I would much rather visit their website and see a big, red "Warning!!!" sign flashing at the top, with a pointer to full information about the nature and effect of the "bug," as well as disclosure of facts that would allow me to judge what level of trust I should use in the future in regard to the company and their products. After all, in terms of security, we can consider ourself to be "sleeping" with those whose software we use. If it appears that they are avoiding being fully honest about whether or not they are practicing "safe software" in the best interests of both themself and their "Johns," then perhaps we should think about changing our "sleeping" habits. The bottom line is that it does not reflect well on Netscape to have their customers and/or software users checking with the members of mailing lists (and the checkout clerk at the local QuickMart) to find out if there is any chance that they may be able to use Netscape's product safely in the future. I did a quick review of the Netscape documentation and found it gives no indication that users should inquire at the local QuickMart for information about problems and bug fixes for their products. TruthMonger ~.~.~.~.~.~ DISCLAIMER: I am not your hooker; you are not my John. Accordingly, the above is *NOT* illegal advice.

1 0