December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Space Aliens Address cpunx
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- [Bienfait Nutly News] THE COALDUST SALOON, SCENE OF MUCH DEBAUCHERY of late, was host tonight to Guest Sprinkler Jeff Gordon on the annual Golden Showers of Nuggets celebration of Notable Peons, with numerous notable peed-ons in drunken attendance (when not staggering outside to do some notable peeing-on, themselves). Lamely trying to establish some common philosophical ground with the rowdy crowd, Jeff tried to cast his organization's mission as embodying "less is more." Realizing that "you have less, we have more" is not exactly what the Taoist concept means, the attendees raised catcalls to a pitch sufficient to shatter beer mugs within a radius of 100 yards. That in turn led to outpourings of grief so profound that Jeff was momentarily forgotten in the frenzy to order refills. Trying another tack, Jeff launched into his "Nation of Laws" speech, ignoring shouted questions about selective prosecution, institutional revenge-taking, political hit lists, taxpayer suicides, and his organization's complicity in incidents of mysterious death more numerous than those trailing behind El Prez Klinton himself. When he delivered the line about "the price we pay for a civilized society," the extremes of apoplectic laughter so engendered were alarming enough that he paused in the interest of avoiding the necessity to explain deaths of attendees by traumatic mirth to the Canadian authorities. When he resumed, so many of the recovering crowd had gone to the restrooms to clean themselves up after pissing their pants and some of them vomiting from the effect of convulsive laughter that his later points were largely lost. The question and answer period was somewhat stunted by Jeff's seemingly uncontrollable habit of asking each questioner's SS number. He didn't seem to comprehend that out of his usual institutional context such requests set off everyone's alarm bells, being the hyperparanoid rebel fucks that they are. Of those who persisted, two threw Jeff curve balls he seemed unprepared to catch. One asked him his relationship to the Gordon who penned the Treasury's notorious Gordon Report of 1981, in which the author proposed using Letters of Marque and Reprisal against uncooperative tax haven nations, denying their flag airlines landing rights in the U.S., and blatantly stated that the U.S. must use every means at its disposal to pressure other nations to change their laws, even their constitutions, if necessary, to conform with the wishes of the U.S. Treasury and submit themselves to U.S. extraterritorial jurisdiction. Jeff seemed flustered, then changed the subject. The other asked him if it wasn't true that since the USG can create money at will out of thin air, and that therefore tax collections are obviously not needed to run the government, but that since increasing the money supply one-sidedly to fund government would obviously lead to hyperinflation, that the true function of the income tax and therefore the IRS is to take money out of circulation and destroy it to keep the money supply in balance. Jeff stammered, a few syllables slipping out as if to ask, "How did you...? who told you...?" Jeff hurriedly gathered his things and made his exit, trailed by the slow-thinking guer^H^H^Horillas he brought as bodyguards, his APC kicking up streams of packed snow as he sped away down the road. Declan "Chainsaw" McCullough didn't seem to notice Jeff's premature withdrawal (as, indeed, he hadn't seemed to notice Jeff's entrance), and continued trying to charm two buxom blonde reportwhores with his tales of journalistic derring-do and wildly exaggerated claims of his manly proportions. Blanc, tiring of this reportwhore's incessant questions about her panties, settled the issue once and for all (or at least for _that_ evening) by slipping them off while seated, and placing them over my head in such a way that I could see out the legholes while inhaling her womanly fragrance. My dizziness prevented me from noticing much else for the rest of the evening, my reaction to The Scent being not unlike that of a cat to catnip. I was told later that after collapsing to the floor I squirmed my way from table to table, making the complete circuit of the Coal Dust Saloon, confirming everyone's suspicions that I can't be taken anywhere. But then, neither can they. I was recovered enough at night's end to help with the ritual decontamination of the Saloon that always follows the infectious presence of government thugs. In addition to the spiritual cleansing, some half-dozen subminiature bugging devices were recovered, followed by much entertaining speculation on which local asswipe they should be planted on to encourage the most dangerous life forms around to feed on each other. TruthMonger "Just because you have part of me locked up doesn't mean you have all of me locked up." When I heard them say, "You have the right to remain bent over. Anything you say or we imagine you said or would like to tell people you said can and will be used against you. You have the right to an attorney who works for us. If you cannot afford one, an attorney will be provided to help you cop a plea. Your ass belongs to us," I realized the Revolution had already begun. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBNIOCSM5WpAclQcU1AQEayQQAxK8pV2vaImguCj6dmGBTvzWrkgZWMwIy dfxDsf2akW+tbKZlj2PhMSrR1akBEd0LEsbekVf0bP7d/EAzNAMtB2FUezFhEtE3 BrV6fodfNzNsMMSR/i+tb+wN/6vSYXyqJmCyTfIzUnmHFHvtNf0WfIbEZi6wliQi KtsjgvL3A2A= =kYIE -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

IP-Adresses
by Patrick Hinsberger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, my English is fuck, but I hope that anybody unerstand me <bg> If I`ve got a IP-Adress, f.E. 126.0.202.146 and our proxy denies this Adress, I can transform this adress in one number... ((126*256)+0)*256+202)*256+146 = 7E 00 CA 92 Is there a mistake? Can I connect with this adress to a Website? (Netscape Navigator and Proxy from Bull Systems...) -@Hinse@- Please give reply direct to my E-Mail adress, and not to the group...

1 0

Y2K Privatization Opportunities
by Carol Moore 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Libertarians: Whatever the extent of Y2K related problems that actually develops, there is one thing for certain: The private sector will be up and running smoothly before much of the government sector. Y2K will be a fantastic opportunity to promote and achieve privatization. So let's start planning for taking advantage of that opportunity and stop arguing about how bad it will or will not be. Somebody want to start the "Y2K Privatization Coalition"?? CarolMoore(a)kreative.net http://www.kreative.net/carolmoore

1 0

Call my Bedroom Directly ! ! ! ! ! !
by K1cZS9PLE＠ps.quotron.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

If you don't want me to Contact you again, Alas, please Write me at sorry(a)chickmail.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Call My Bedroom Directly!!! DO it with me in MY BED!!! CALL me NOW Before My Parents COME HOME!!! My Phone Number is 1-664-410-3282. Judy (Any Guy 18 or over only, please. I don't want to get into any trouble!) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- P.S. Some of you may wanna call my brother's bedroom. (I think he's gay, but I'm not sure.) It's 1-664-410-4403 Call him now! BUT don't tell him you get this from me. Okay?!!!!!

1 0

Welcome to ZDU
by ZDU Email 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thank you for subscribing to ZDU. The information you need to login to ZDU from our Home Page at http://www.zdu.com is as follows: User Name: Jolly Password: HRS59VTF Please note: the username is case sensitive, e.g. the mixed case 'XyZzY' is not the same as the all lower case 'xyzzy'. We hope that you enjoy our site! --The ZDU Staff Ref:[\\650363-1\\]

1 0

trusting code
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:12 PM 11/23/98 +0000, Frank O'Dwyer wrote: >Vlad Stesin wrote: >> I don't quite understand the logic behind this. The fact that the >> program's source is available is itself a proof that there are no >> backdoors. Anyone can read the source code and make sure it's OK. > >Anyone can, but does anyone? Yes we do, but applied skeptics also consider the problem is also trusting your compiler, and the rest of the OS (incl. memory manager, keyboard driver, the email program your PGP utility may plug into, BIOS, etc.) What version of Microsoft compilers will begin checking for Mozilla code and compiling 'differently'? See Ritchie's Turing award article on Trusting Trust...

1 0

open source
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:48 AM 11/23/98 -0700, Jim Burnes - Denver wrote: >Break into the coding environment? Does that mean they broke into >the VMS development shop? It is reasonable to believe that the US government (and others) finds a patriotic "contact" with access to source, inside various big code shops (MSoft, Lotus, the corporation formerly known as DEC, etc.) If it were otherwise we would not be getting our tax dollars' worth, eh? --Maced aliens confide in my fugs

1 0

A bit more on Goldbach's and Primes
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Goldbach's Conjecture: Any even number >2 can be represented as the sum of two prime numbers. Goldbach's Extension: Any even number >=6 can be represented as the sum of three even numbers. 2 plus two evens that are each 1 less than a prime. Process: 1. Pick an even number 2. Select largest prime that is smaller by at least 4. 3. Add 1. 4. The difference between 1 and 3 should be a p-1. Add one to the difference and it must be in the list of primes. If it's not then go back to 2. and select the next smaller prime because the odd number that comes from (p-1)+1 isn't prime for that prime. Observation: This technique could be used to extrapolate potential unknown primes from known primes since it produces a much smaller list of potential candidates than simply testing consecutive odds via a sieve. It also is not as porous as Mersenne Prime tests. 2+(largest_known_prime-1)+(next_smallest_unknown_prime-1)=big_even_number So, we need a way of guestimating the magnitude of the next prime and pick big_even_numbers that are appropriate. Observation: For a given x the number of primes <x is limited by x/ln(x). So we could note the points where x/ln(x) increases by 1. Even Number Sum's: 6, 2+2+2 8, 2+2+4 10, 2+2+6 12, 2+4+6 14, 2+6+6 18, 2+4+12 20, 2+2+16 22, 2+2+18 24, 2+4+18 26, 2+6+18 28, 2+4+22 30, 2+6+22 32, 2+2+28 34, 2+2+30 36, 2+4+30 38, 2+6+30 40, 2+2+36 ... 100, 2+2+96 ... 398, 2+8+388 Note: this breaks since 8 isn't available. 9 ain't a prime. 2+14+382 next smaller doesn't work since 14 isn't there. 15 isn't prime. 2+18+378 that one works! ... 666, 2+4+660 ... 758, 2+6+750 ... 1,032, 2+10+1020 ... 1,044, 2+4+1038 ... 6,236, 2+6+6228 ... 7,920, 2+12+7906 Note: can't use 7,919 since it's delta is <4. Iterated Sums: 2+2+2=6 2+2+4=8 2+2+6=10 2+2+10=14 2+4+2=8 2+4+4=10 2+4+6=12 2+4+10=16 2+6+2=10 2+6+4=12 2+6+6=14 2+6+10=18 1st 1,000 Primes & their p-1's: p p-1 ------------------------------- 2 1 3 2 5 4 7 6 11 10 13 12 17 16 19 18 23 22 29 28 31 30 37 36 41 40 43 42 47 46 53 52 59 58 61 60 67 66 71 70 73 72 79 78 83 82 89 88 97 96 101 100 103 107 109 113 127 131 137 139 149 151 157 163 167 173 179 181 191 193 197 199 211 223 227 229 233 239 241 251 257 263 269 271 277 281 283 293 307 311 313 317 331 337 347 349 353 359 367 373 379 383 389 397 401 409 419 421 431 433 439 443 449 457 461 463 467 479 487 491 499 503 509 521 523 541 547 557 563 569 571 577 587 593 599 601 607 613 617 619 631 641 643 647 653 659 661 673 677 683 691 701 709 719 727 733 739 743 751 757 761 769 773 787 797 809 811 821 823 827 829 839 853 857 859 863 877 881 883 887 907 911 919 929 937 941 947 953 967 971 977 983 991 997 1009 1013 1019 1021 1031 1033 1039 1049 1051 1061 1063 1069 1087 1091 1093 1097 1103 1109 1117 1123 1129 1151 1153 1163 1171 1181 1187 1193 1201 1213 1217 1223 1229 1231 1237 1249 1259 1277 1279 1283 1289 1291 1297 1301 1303 1307 1319 1321 1327 1361 1367 1373 1381 1399 1409 1423 1427 1429 1433 1439 1447 1451 1453 1459 1471 1481 1483 1487 1489 1493 1499 1511 1523 1531 1543 1549 1553 1559 1567 1571 1579 1583 1597 1601 1607 1609 1613 1619 1621 1627 1637 1657 1663 1667 1669 1693 1697 1699 1709 1721 1723 1733 1741 1747 1753 1759 1777 1783 1787 1789 1801 1811 1823 1831 1847 1861 1867 1871 1873 1877 1879 1889 1901 1907 1913 1931 1933 1949 1951 1973 1979 1987 1993 1997 1999 2003 2011 2017 2027 2029 2039 2053 2063 2069 2081 2083 2087 2089 2099 2111 2113 2129 2131 2137 2141 2143 2153 2161 2179 2203 2207 2213 2221 2237 2239 2243 2251 2267 2269 2273 2281 2287 2293 2297 2309 2311 2333 2339 2341 2347 2351 2357 2371 2377 2381 2383 2389 2393 2399 2411 2417 2423 2437 2441 2447 2459 2467 2473 2477 2503 2521 2531 2539 2543 2549 2551 2557 2579 2591 2593 2609 2617 2621 2633 2647 2657 2659 2663 2671 2677 2683 2687 2689 2693 2699 2707 2711 2713 2719 2729 2731 2741 2749 2753 2767 2777 2789 2791 2797 2801 2803 2819 2833 2837 2843 2851 2857 2861 2879 2887 2897 2903 2909 2917 2927 2939 2953 2957 2963 2969 2971 2999 3001 3011 3019 3023 3037 3041 3049 3061 3067 3079 3083 3089 3109 3119 3121 3137 3163 3167 3169 3181 3187 3191 3203 3209 3217 3221 3229 3251 3253 3257 3259 3271 3299 3301 3307 3313 3319 3323 3329 3331 3343 3347 3359 3361 3371 3373 3389 3391 3407 3413 3433 3449 3457 3461 3463 3467 3469 3491 3499 3511 3517 3527 3529 3533 3539 3541 3547 3557 3559 3571 3581 3583 3593 3607 3613 3617 3623 3631 3637 3643 3659 3671 3673 3677 3691 3697 3701 3709 3719 3727 3733 3739 3761 3767 3769 3779 3793 3797 3803 3821 3823 3833 3847 3851 3853 3863 3877 3881 3889 3907 3911 3917 3919 3923 3929 3931 3943 3947 3967 3989 4001 4003 4007 4013 4019 4021 4027 4049 4051 4057 4073 4079 4091 4093 4099 4111 4127 4129 4133 4139 4153 4157 4159 4177 4201 4211 4217 4219 4229 4231 4241 4243 4253 4259 4261 4271 4273 4283 4289 4297 4327 4337 4339 4349 4357 4363 4373 4391 4397 4409 4421 4423 4441 4447 4451 4457 4463 4481 4483 4493 4507 4513 4517 4519 4523 4547 4549 4561 4567 4583 4591 4597 4603 4621 4637 4639 4643 4649 4651 4657 4663 4673 4679 4691 4703 4721 4723 4729 4733 4751 4759 4783 4787 4789 4793 4799 4801 4813 4817 4831 4861 4871 4877 4889 4903 4909 4919 4931 4933 4937 4943 4951 4957 4967 4969 4973 4987 4993 4999 5003 5009 5011 5021 5023 5039 5051 5059 5077 5081 5087 5099 5101 5107 5113 5119 5147 5153 5167 5171 5179 5189 5197 5209 5227 5231 5233 5237 5261 5273 5279 5281 5297 5303 5309 5323 5333 5347 5351 5381 5387 5393 5399 5407 5413 5417 5419 5431 5437 5441 5443 5449 5471 5477 5479 5483 5501 5503 5507 5519 5521 5527 5531 5557 5563 5569 5573 5581 5591 5623 5639 5641 5647 5651 5653 5657 5659 5669 5683 5689 5693 5701 5711 5717 5737 5741 5743 5749 5779 5783 5791 5801 5807 5813 5821 5827 5839 5843 5849 5851 5857 5861 5867 5869 5879 5881 5897 5903 5923 5927 5939 5953 5981 5987 6007 6011 6029 6037 6043 6047 6053 6067 6073 6079 6089 6091 6101 6113 6121 6131 6133 6143 6151 6163 6173 6197 6199 6203 6211 6217 6221 6229 6247 6257 6263 6269 6271 6277 6287 6299 6301 6311 6317 6323 6329 6337 6343 6353 6359 6361 6367 6373 6379 6389 6397 6421 6427 6449 6451 6469 6473 6481 6491 6521 6529 6547 6551 6553 6563 6569 6571 6577 6581 6599 6607 6619 6637 6653 6659 6661 6673 6679 6689 6691 6701 6703 6709 6719 6733 6737 6761 6763 6779 6781 6791 6793 6803 6823 6827 6829 6833 6841 6857 6863 6869 6871 6883 6899 6907 6911 6917 6947 6949 6959 6961 6967 6971 6977 6983 6991 6997 7001 7013 7019 7027 7039 7043 7057 7069 7079 7103 7109 7121 7127 7129 7151 7159 7177 7187 7193 7207 7211 7213 7219 7229 7237 7243 7247 7253 7283 7297 7307 7309 7321 7331 7333 7349 7351 7369 7393 7411 7417 7433 7451 7457 7459 7477 7481 7487 7489 7499 7507 7517 7523 7529 7537 7541 7547 7549 7559 7561 7573 7577 7583 7589 7591 7603 7607 7621 7639 7643 7649 7669 7673 7681 7687 7691 7699 7703 7717 7723 7727 7741 7753 7757 7759 7789 7793 7817 7823 7829 7841 7853 7867 7873 7877 7879 7883 7901 7907 7919

2 1

How to unsubscribe
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Happy Thanksgiving! Forwarded message: > From owner-cypherpunks(a)ssz.com Tue Nov 24 12:35:18 1998 > Message-ID: <365B0981.966548AE(a)192.168.100.6> > Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 19:31:13 +0000 > From: Maxim Bugaenko <max(a)192.168.100.6> > Reply-To: slaike(a)mika.dp.ua > X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (WinNT; I) > MIME-Version: 1.0 > To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: unscribe > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)einstein.ssz.com > Precedence: bulk > X-Mailing-List: cypherpunks(a)ssz.com > X-List-Admin: list(a)ssz.com > X-Loop: ssz.com > X-Language: English, Russian, German > > 1. You MUST spell correctly. 2. send a message to majordomo(a)domain.name with an empty title and the body consisting of 'unsubscribe <your_subscribed_email_address>'. Note that if you don't unsubscribe from the same account you subscribed with it will fail. ____________________________________________________________________ Technology cannot make us other than what we are. James P. Hogan The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: A bit more on Goldbach's and Primes (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Subject: Re: A bit more on Goldbach's and Primes > Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 13:18:13 -0600 (CST) > From: ichudov(a)Algebra.Com (Igor Chudov @ home) > According to the original conjecture, there are two prime numbers P1 and > P2 such that N=p1+p2. > > Rewriting this: N = 2 + (p1-1) + (p2-1). > > That is, two plus two evens that are each one less than a prime. > > That's eighth grade math. No, shit. It's a pity nobody seem to have ever carried it through and published it. > > Process: > > > > 1. Pick an even number > > 2. Select largest prime that is smaller by at least 4. > > 3. Add 1. > > 4. The difference between 1 and 3 should be a p-1. Add one to the > > difference and it must be in the list of primes. If it's not then > > if it is not then it must have not been in the list of primes. Exactly, I've a latter version that covers the various boundary conditions and what they mean. 9 and 15 for example aren't prime so because that number doesn't appear in the list of primes you know that this prime won't work as a candidate and you go pick the next lower one. If this is your only objection with this algorithm then I'm covered. > > Observation: > > > > This technique could be used to extrapolate potential unknown primes from > > known primes since it produces a much smaller list of potential candidates > > than simply testing consecutive odds via a sieve. It also is not as porous > > as Mersenne Prime tests. > > Bullshit. > > Your "technique" ASSUMES that you already know the "largest prime that > is smaller by at least 4". But you do. You have a list of known primes as I said originaly. Should have looked at the list of the first 1000 primes that was attached. If you don't want an array you could always impliment a Seive of Eratosthanese for example to generate them as required. This is an approach I'm looking at currently with a Perl implimentation. Hell, even if you start off with only 2 and 3 defined as prime you can generate the others, though it doesn't appear to be sufficient to prove primality. It does reduce the number of candidate odd numbers to examine for primality. Given [ 2, 3 ] and Goldbach's Extension: 6 = 2 + 2 + 2 p = 3, p = 3 8 = 2 + 2 + 4 p = 3, p = 5 We do a Seive of Eratosthanese and find 5 is prime so we now have: [ 2, 3, 5 ] 10 = 2 + 4 + 4 p = 5, p = 5 12 = 2 + 4 + 6 p = 5, p = 7 So we check 7 and find it's prime and we now have: [ 2, 3, 5, 7 ] And so on. The real advantage comes into play for very large primes since they get more sparse implying that a strictly direct approach (eg applying a Seive to every odd number) gets more and more non-primes to sift through. This technique reduces that set considerably because it gives you a known list of primes that you look through for existance. > > 2+(largest_known_prime-1)+(next_smallest_unknown_prime-1)=big_even_number > > > > So, we need a way of guestimating the magnitude of the next prime and pick > > big_even_numbers that are appropriate. > > > > Observation: For a given x the number of primes <x is limited by x/ln(x). > > So we could note the points where x/ln(x) increases by 1. > > > > Your observation is incorrect. > > Consider x = 8. x/ln(x) =~ 3.84, but the number of primes < 8 (2,3,5,7) is > 4, that is more than 8/ln(8). I'd say round up the 3.84. This is modulo math so fractions like this are impossible to deal with in this context because they aren't defined. The normal process is that if a fraction is produced it rounds up to the next larger integer (re the Camel & Banana problem). It's not my observation. If you go and look on The Primes webpage or any number theory book that covers limits on primes then you will find this asymptote given as the most commenly used. > I suggest checking observations more carefully. I did, you should check your conclusions more carefuly before you jump into something. ____________________________________________________________________ Technology cannot make us other than what we are. James P. Hogan The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Limit on number of primes....a (silly) typo...
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, Just to let you know, I had typed x/ln(x) as the asymptotic limit for the number of primes less than x. This is incorrect. It should be, x/log(x) I guess I did it by habit. Sorry. ____________________________________________________________________ Technology cannot make us other than what we are. James P. Hogan The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Cypherpunks with guns
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://www.wired.com/news/news/culture/story/16433.html A group of San Francisco Bay Area cypherpunks recently spent hundreds of dollars per person on "defensive handgun" and "practical rifle" courses at the Front Sight firearms training institute in Aptos, California.

1 0

:-)
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 10:39:41 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: qnx.com: localhost [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol To: 0xdeadbeef(a)substance.abuse.blackdown.org Cc: bostic(a)bostic.com Subject: Is there any Substance to this Email ?? Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 10:43:51 -0500 From: glen mccready <glen(a)qnx.com> Resent-From: 0xdeadbeef(a)substance.abuse.blackdown.org X-Mailing-List: <0xdeadbeef(a)substance.abuse.blackdown.org> archive/latest/274 X-Loop: 0xdeadbeef(a)substance.abuse.blackdown.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: 0xdeadbeef-request(a)substance.abuse.blackdown.org Status: U Forwarded-by: Chris Wedgwood <chris(a)cybernet.co.nz> From: tph(a)longhorn.uucp (Tom Harrington) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Win 98 Snitch? Message-ID: <7279b8$ahr1(a)eccws1.dearborn.ford.com> Mark Statzer (mstatz(a)net66.om) wrote: : Microsoft slapped two more lawsuit against one teenager and one : retired worker for using pirated Windows 98 software. : For your information on how Microsoft actually trace : PIRATED/COPIED/UNLICENSED Windows 98: : Whenever you logon into the Internet, during the verifying password : duration. Your ISP (Internet Service provider eg:SingNET, PacNET, : CyberNET, SwiftNET) will download a SUB-REGISTRY ENCRYPTED HEXADECIMAL : (containing all your PROGRAMS serial numbers installed into Win98!!) : file from your Windows 98 registry. Then they send this SUB-REGISTRY : to Microsoft for verification. And ONLY Microsoft knows how to decode : this encrypted hexadecimal file. If Microsoft verified that the serial : numbers are authentic, then they WILL REGISTER THOSE NUMBERS FOR YOU : A-U-T-O-M-A-T-C-A-L-L-Y !!! : And if Microsoft denied those serial numbers, then they will send an : E-Mail to the ISP you dialed into and your ISP will start tracing : everyone who logons to their systems. That's why during sometime for : no reason your Internet started slowing down. And if your ISP verified : that the SUB-REGISTRY ENCRYPTED HEXADECIMAL file is yours, they will : send : your information over to Microsoft Singapore. And there they will : decide whether to take actions or not. And then, if they _do_ decide to take action, black helicopters start circling your house, using mind-control rays to bend you to Microsoft's will. If this doesn't cut it (say, you're wearing a tin-foil hat), the men in black show up and remove your whole computer, and then use their memory-zapping thingy to erase any memory of ever having a computer. You'll then be officially branded as a dangerous outlaw subversive type (even though you no longer have your PIRATE/COPIED/UNLICENSED software, you've demonstrated that you're the type of person who will _get_ such software) and will not be able to get jobs, insurance, loans, etc. MS will tap your phone, and their agents will follow your every move. : There is already 54 cases in Singapore regarding uses of : PIRATE/COPIED/UNLICENSED Windows 98. Finally, when the revolution comes, MS will see to it that your house is high on the list of sites for the UN invaders to hit with tactical nukes. : Is there any Substance to this Email ?? It's all true. I had to go public with this information, even though the MS stormtroopers will doubtless show up at any second now. The people have a right to know. DON'T EVER GO ON LINE!!! YOUR LIFE DEPENDS ON IT!!!! : Do you Guys think that there exists such a registry in Windows 98 : Has microsoft sued anybody for illegal use of it ?? Sued? SUED???!!? When MS gets through with you, you're going to WISH that they'd jusT SUED you! These people are EVIL!!! They kidnapped my dog and G$%<S-F4>@^<S-F6>RB. f NO CARRIER --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

open-pgp / s/mime interoperability
by Adam Back 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On the IETF s/mime list Jon Callas (PGP/NAI employee and co-author of IETF open-pgp draft for cypherpunks not following open-pgp) wrote: : I'd like to note that PGP is supported by NAI, Microsoft, Novell, : and more that are coming soon. curious as to what form Microsoft support of PGP will come in. Integrated PGP support with microsoft mail clients in later versions? Jon also wrote: : there is no reason why you can't have PGP : messages backed by X.509 certificates, and it is trivial to use S/MIME : with OpenPGP certificates. I'm planning on writing a short : informational RFC on how to do it once we all get RFC numbers for our : respective systems. open-pgp public keys aren't based on X.509 keys, so I would've thought s/mime implementation would barf on them. Are you basing this on the fact that you can extract the actual public key and repackage it as an X.509 public key? In this way you could take the same key into the X.509 / s/mime world, but you would lose open-pgp sigantures on the key, so it would lose it's certification. More recently we've been hearing that PGP6.x? or a future version of PGP does or will allow one to carry along X.509 keys, or perhaps even work directly with X.509 keys. Is this what you are referring to? (Separate question: any due date on the netscape plugin -- I want one of those!) Adam (message from IETF s/mime list the above is quoted from below). ------- Start of forwarded message ------- Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 17:54:29 -0800 To: Stefan_Salzmann/HAM/Lotus(a)lotus.com, ietf-smime(a)imc.org From: Jon Callas <jon(a)pgp.com> Subject: Re: Difference between SMIME and PGP At 05:20 PM 11/4/98 +0100, Stefan_Salzmann/HAM/Lotus(a)lotus.com wrote: I am struggling on the difference between SMIME and PGP. One of my customers wants to make the decision between using SMIME and PGP. I have been talking already with them but we got stuck in detailes. Basically its quit clear. SMIME will be supported by all important industry leaders such as Netscape, Microsoft, Novell etc. I'd like to note that PGP is supported by NAI, Microsoft, Novell, and more that are coming soon. Further SMIME supports the hierarchical trust model and PGP only supports the "web of trust" model. Actually, this is false. PGP supports all trust models, direct trust, hierarchical trust, and web of trust. As I said in my previous message, PGP supports 255 levels of hierarchy. However, I forgot to say that OpenPGP does not mandate *any* trust model. As a matter of fact, the OpenPGP working group has rejected any mandate of trust model. You are permitted to use an OpenPGP certificate with PKIX evaluation rules, and still be OpenPGP compliant! Now with PGP Version 6.0, PGP will support also X.509 certificates. Those can also be loaded into an PGP client than an SMIME Client can do it. So where is the difference now? Is it just the fact that the industry decided to go with SMIME or are there more differences (advantages for SMIME) when looking more closely. Actually, the industry hasn't decided to go with anything. Furthermore, there is no reason why you can't have PGP messages backed by X.509 certificates, and it is trivial to use S/MIME with OpenPGP certificates. I'm planning on writing a short informational RFC on how to do it once we all get RFC numbers for our respective systems. For instance using RSA public key encryption versus Deffie Helman public key encryption. How about Digital Signature Standard (DSS)? I have red about DSS and understand that DSS is the standard that provides the Digital Signature Algorithm. Before applying it there has to be calculated an Digest using SHA. I always thought that calculating the digest would be the signature already!! So why using the DSA in addition? Will the digest be decrypted using the Deffie Helman private key? The issue of algorithm is orthogonal to message encoding. The PGP-S/MIME question is really one of message encoding format. Each requires DSS, and allows RSA. The DSS (Digital Signature Standard) describes how to make a signature using DSA (Digital Signature Algorithm) and SHA1 (Secure Hash Algorithm). That's how they relate. You could (for example) use DSA with RIPEMD-160, but it wouldn't be DSS because DSS specifies the hash algorithm you should be using for the signature. DSA is a signature-only algorithm. Consequently, you aren't doing a "decryption" with it when you evaluate a signature. I recommend you look in a crypto source book, like Schneier's "Applied Cryptography" or Menezes, van Oorschot, and Vanstone's "Handbook of Applied Cryptography" for details of how DSS is done. There is also source code available from a wide variety of places. Users that apply Deffie Helman exchange their public values in order to derive an secret key that will be known at both party sides. Is that secret key the private key used to encrypt message digests or is the private key generated by the DSA algorithm? Like I said, DSS has its own signature-only key. As for "Diffie-Hellman" depending on the variant of DH you're using, you may or may not have an actual key. Many real-time systems use ephemeral DH merely to exchange symmetric keys. In OpenPGP, we use the Elgamal system for encryption. S/MIME is using an X9.42 algorithm that is very close (if not identical) to Elgamal. In PGP further exist key rings that contain the public keys of other users? How does that work with X.509 Certificates that actually contain the public key. If there has to be a public key revoked, it happens in the key ring. Would it be possible to export that revoked certificate. If not the revoked public key would resist only lokally. Most systems, be they PGP or X.509, use something akin to a directory to store certs, revocations, etc. Typically, these are HTTP or LDAP based systems. Are there any differences/advantages between RSA and Deffie Helman? Again, this is orthoganal to encoding, as these are merely algorithms. But yes, of course. The security of RSA is based upon the difficulty of factoring large numbers. Most people who toss around the term "Diffie-Hellman" use it to cover an entire family of algorithms whose security is all based on the difficulty of solving discrete logs. These include DSA, X9.42, Schnorr, and Elgamal. They are all approximately of the same strength. There are also a wide variety of advantages and disadvantages. Frequently, these are the same. For example, in RSA encryption and signatures are the same, which is simple, but leads to some hygenic problems. A signature-only system like DSA is less flexible, but easier to export, and enforces good key hygene (meaning that it is bad practice to use the same key for signatures as for encryption). I could go on with a discussion of all this, but this thread is already off-topic for this mailing list. Feel free to mail me privately or phone. You see I am very confused right now and I have the feeling that all my security theories wounŽt match with those used in PGP. There are many good reasons for being confused. One of the most important ones is that there really aren't a lot of differences between the systems. They are all trying to solve the same problem, but each has a slightly different slant to it. I really would appreciate it if there would be someone helping my to remove all that dust of my mind... Thank you in advance You're welcome. Jon ----- Jon Callas jon(a)pgp.com CTO, Total Network Security 3965 Freedom Circle Network Associates, Inc. Santa Clara, CA 95054 (408) 346-5860 Fingerprints: D1EC 3C51 FCB1 67F8 4345 4A04 7DF9 C2E6 F129 27A9 (DSS) 665B 797F 37D1 C240 53AC 6D87 3A60 4628 (RSA)

3 2

Re: Limit on number of primes....a (stupid) idiot...
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate is so stupid that even when he accidentally gets something right, he quickly "corrects" himself so that he is wrong again: > I had typed x/ln(x) as the asymptotic limit for the number of primes less > than x. > > This is incorrect. It should be, > > x/log(x) Wrong, doofus. x/ln(x) is the correct asymptotic limit. What role could logs to the base 10 possibly play? Do you think God favors the number 10? What a fool you are!

1 0

Re: Netscape AOL Instant Messenger Confirmation (kB3bEjeb1I aohelsux)
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This does wonders for my opinion of AOL. Even the administration has no clue. AOL administration spammed the Cypherpunks <cypherpunks(a)toad.com> list, using an address for Cypherpunks which has been defunct for over a year now, with: >Thank you for registering for Netscape AOL Instant Messenger! > >Your registration for screen name aohelsux has been received. > >Please reply to this message within 48 hours to complete >the registration process. Simply reply to the present message >and type 'OK' as the text of your message. P.S. "Well they just responded to an address someone gave them," like certain advocates of AOL, lamers, and Microsoft we have on the list have said, is not an excuse. It's easy to set up domain validation. The spammers just don't care.

2 1

Announce - "Registration" Mail List
by BMM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In order to relieve the CDR list of some of the flood of "You have successfully registered" messages, and because some people feel there is a need for such a thing, I have created a new mailing list for the specific purpose of being used for registering for online services, reg(a)minder.net. Subject lines of mail from the list with be prepended with "[r]" for easy filtering, whether automated or by eye. It is a majordomo list, so those who are familiar with majordomo can subscribe in the usual fashion. For those who are not familar with majordomo, to subscribe send a message to "majordomo(a)minder.net" with "subscribe reg" (without the quotes) in the body of the message. Cheers, -Brian

1 0

Netscape AOL Instant Messenger Confirmation (kB3bEjeb1I aohelsux)
by HyperReal-Anon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Thank you for registering for Netscape AOL Instant Messenger! Hey Tim, do you have a spare semi-auto I can borrow? You'll get it back if AOL's security is as low as their intelligence.

1 0

Y2K Report Card
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

AGENCIES GET NEW REPORT CARDS ON Y2K READINESS Saying "the picture is a gloomy one," Congressman Stephen Horn, chair of the House subcommittee responsible for overseeing government progress on averting the Y2K problem, has given out new report cards to federal agencies. Three departments flunked: Justice; Health & Human Services; and State. The Defense Department gets a D-minus. Three departments get A grades: Small Business Administration; Social Security Administration; and the National Science Foundation. The Social Security Administration began working on the problem in 1989, eight years before most other government agencies. - USA Today, Nov. 24, 1998

5 4

Re: Netscape AOL Instant Messenger Confirmation (kB3bEjeb1I aohelsux)
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Again, some clueless asshole that can't tell the difference between >solicited responses and Unsolicited spam mouths off. If you would like >to talk about someone, talk about the jerk who set up an AIM name using >the outdated address, not the company that repsonded. > >PHM > >AKA PHMerrill(a)AOL.Com (among other names and addresses) Again, the clueless asshole known as Paul *H.* Merrill jumps up and defends AOL, incompetently-written web sites, and morons everywhere. Someone told AOL to mail cypherpunks(a)toad.com. AOL could have checked to see if the originating site was under the toad.com domain. This is trivial. They didn't. It's rather easy to just require that somebody trying to mail an address under the toad.com domain submit the request from an address under toad.com. In other words, Paul, you believe that if somebody goes and types your address into some system and asks it to send you 512MB of MPEG video, that's okay because it was solicited. It wasn't solicited by you but somebody solicited it. Oops. That's "blatent propoganda." I'd better rephrase. In other words, Paul, you believe that if somebody goes and types YOUR address into fifty different systems, signs you up for a bunch of mailing lists, and generally causes you a lot of inconvenience, that's okay because it was solicited. You don't know who it was solicited by, but somebody obviously did. If you then object to the sites sending you mail rather than just silently unsubscribing yourself every week, are you then just 'some clueless asshole'? Are spammers now not to be held accountable for their spamming because they bought a list of addresses from someone who claimed that the people all asked to be on the mailing list? Why don't we just sign Cypherpunks up for Ignition-Point, the FP list, the ACLU action advisories, Sixdegrees, and whatever else we can find? Or should We just sign up Paul, really, because he doesn't have a problem with this. In fact I'm sure we could make some 'marketting research' to show that he might be interested. Hey let's get the entire CDR subscription list and sign everybody up for FP and ACLU because if you're on Cypherpunks you're obviously interested in those things. The root of the problem is sites which require email addresses for no good reason, and/or don't have the decency to perform a simple check to see if the domains match. They're lazy. They're irresponsible. When confronted, no matter how civil, they react much like you do, Paul, and they don't want to be inconvenienced by having to fix their usually badly-designed web sites. If I recall correctly Tim has the same opinion and has stated it a few times as have others so I'm not alone. Now I leave you, Paul, so you can go back to your 24 hour vigil and you and your quick response team can scour the net for attacks against AOL and the true clueless assholes, and defend them with your last breath. Yet Another 'Clueless Asshole'

1 0

Re: Re: Netscape AOL Instant Messenger Confirmation (kB3bEjeb1I aohels
by lcs Mixmaster Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Do you even bother to read the posts you try to flame? Read the last part of that. Paul H. Merrill wrote: > >Again, some clueless asshole that can't tell the difference between >solicited responses and Unsolicited spam mouths off. If you would like >to talk about someone, talk about the jerk who set up an AIM name using >the outdated address, not the company that repsonded. > >PHM > >AKA PHMerrill(a)AOL.Com (among other names and addresses) > >Anonymous wrote: >> >> This does wonders for my opinion of AOL. Even the administration has no clue. >> >> AOL administration spammed the Cypherpunks <cypherpunks(a)toad.com> list, using >> an address for Cypherpunks which has been defunct for over a year now, with: >> >> >Thank you for registering for Netscape AOL Instant Messenger! >> > >> >Your registration for screen name aohelsux has been received. >> > >> >Please reply to this message within 48 hours to complete >> >the registration process. Simply reply to the present message >> >and type 'OK' as the text of your message. >> >> P.S. "Well they just responded to an address someone gave them," like >> certain advocates of AOL, lamers, and Microsoft we have on the list have >> said, is not an excuse. It's easy to set up domain validation. The spammers >> just don't care.

1 0

NAI Special offers to expire Soon
by Tom Jud - US 5-200 Sales 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Call Today To Receive A FREE Nuts & Bolt's '98 CD! TOTAL VIRUS DEFENSE THE NEXT GENERATION Total Virus Defense (TVD) will be a truly integrated product line combining the best of Network Associates and Dr. Solomon's anti-virus technology. The integration of Network Associates and Dr. Solomon's technologies will also yield the most compelling set of central management tools ever offered by a single anti-virus vendor. Our new Total Virus Defense line will offer superior integrated solutions all three of the most critical virus management issues: Simple initial deployment of anti-virus products, Easy central configuration by domain or individual machine, and a Fully automated update and upgrade process. VirusScan 4.0 Proven VirusScan interface already in use by over 40 million customers worldwide Fully integrated new detection and cleaning engine based on Dr. Solomon's technology and currently in use by over 10 millions customers worldwide Support for Management Edition, AutoUpdate, and Enterprise SecureCast Malicious code scanning for hostile Java, ActiveX and Trojan Horse threats Initial platform support for Windows 3.1x, 95, 98, and OS/2 Initial support for the upcoming Active Virus Security immune system to be unveiled in1999 Dr. Solomon's outstanding Virex product has been selected as the new Network Associates product for Macintosh systems. This product ships with Virex Administration for easy centralized configuration and automated network distribution. CALL TODAY TO AVOID THE PRICE INCREASE AT THE END OF NOVEMBER! At Network Associates, We Are Committed To Making Your Organization More Productive And Your Network More Manageable And Secure. In the Phillipines call: NEXUS (632)759 6630 and ask for Melody, Jenny or Joey Or ICS (632)721 4502 and ask for Mona In Malaysia call: MCSB Systems (M)Bhd at +603-241-6922 and ask for Lilly or Tele-Sales or Persoft Systems Sdn Bhd at +603-711-8711 and ask for Leong King Ping/Lim Soe Cheng In Singapore call Iverson Computer Associates Pte Ltd at +65-378-7116 and ask for Herni or Worldtech Technologies Pte Ltd at +65-352-1955 and ask for Angie

1 0

Interesting tidbit about media controlling and censoring opinions, Web Polls data manipulated, etc.
by Jean-Francois Avon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Tue, 24 Nov 1998 16:03:53 -0600, Ed "Saipan" D. (via CFD V2#714) wrote: >Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 11:48:13 -0600 >From: dongres <dongres(a)manitouwadge.lakeheadu.ca> >Subject: Anne MacLelland has promised [several paragraph snipped] [THE FOLLOWING REVEALS A VERY DISTRUBING TENDENCY. JFA.] [snip] >The problem now is missinformation. Public forums >that generaly shows we are in the majority, are being removed while media incresed >their pitch. You may have noticed the latest one on Sympatico showed 85% against >gun control and 15% for it. Now set for 0% to 0%, while sysop says he didn't >noticed and his female helper ("webmistress") emailed me that there's "no any >conspiracy" even 'though I never suggested there's any to beggin with. When I >asked Angus Reids Poll info about their gun control poll they said that they know >only what is on their website. (And that one wasn't there) They asked me who ever >mention such poll!!! (as if it didn't existed?) Maybe it does maybe it doesn't. I >haven't seen the evidence yet. "That's all I'm saying" (to put it in Randy Scott's >words ;-) [THE FOLLOWING IS IS A VERY INTERESTING OBSERVATION... JFA. ] >See, we have to work on demystifying all the "news" we are getting and NEVER TAKE >ANY at face value. Did you noticed often on the news they show a "talking head" >with the sound off and CBC own comentator narates what has been said. This is to >train us to get used to it (communist regime trick I've seen so often) so they can >put anything to anybody's mouth when needed - and sometimes they do already. >Nothing new under the Sun. [large snip] >Ed "Saipan" D. >/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

1 0

buttsniffer
by Patrick Hinsberger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi folk! Anybody knows how to use Buttsniffer? I can listen to ethernet frames in our network, but after a few minutes I`ve got a huge File with over 50MB... I read that there is an option to listen only to POP3 password and so funny things... At the moment I listen the network with the options : buttsniff -d 0002 pws.txt e Please mail me directly!!! ThanX (and Sorry for my fucKKK English!!!) -@HiNSe@-

1 0

[ISN] Feds Want Banks to Spy on All Customers...Even You! (fwd)
by Ken Williams 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Good thing I keep all my money in a steel case buried somewhere along the Appalachian trail. No bank accounts, no credit cards. Ken Williams Packet Storm Security http://www.Genocide2600.com/~tattooman/ E.H.A.P. Head of Operations http://www.ehap.org/ ehap(a)ehap.org NC State CS Dept http://www.csc.ncsu.edu/ jkwilli2(a)unity.ncsu.edu PGP DSS/DH/RSA Keys http://www4.ncsu.edu/~jkwilli2/pgpkey/ _____________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free, Encrypted Email at http://www.nsa.gov - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 00:56:41 -0700 (MST) From: mea culpa <jericho(a)dimensional.com> To: InfoSec News <isn(a)repsec.com> Subject: [ISN] Feds Want Banks to Spy on All Customers...Even You! >From: ISPI Clips 6.51 >From: WorldNetDaily, November 23, 1998 Big Brother Banks? FDIC has snooping plans http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_exnews/19981123_xex_big_brother_.shtml David M. Bresnahan, David(a)talkusa.com Contributing Editor, WorldNetDaily Are you a potential criminal? Are you a threat to banks, airlines, a potential spy, or perhaps an IRS tax protester? The government would like to know and they are about to force banks to be their detectives. The federal government wants banks to investigate you. Soon your banker will know more about you than anyone else in town. Banks must not only determine your correct identity, they must also know how you make your money, and how you spend it. Once you establish a pattern of deposits and withdrawals, banks must inform federal agencies when you deviate. Bank customers may soon find themselves explaining to the FBI, Internal Revenue Service, and the Drug Enforcement Agency why they made a $15,000 deposit to their bank account. According to current Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation plans, banks will soon establish "profiles" of their customers and report deviations from those profiles. If you sell a car, for example, and place the proceeds in your account while you shop for a new one, a red flag may go off in the bank computer. Such a situation puts law abiding citizens in a situation where they must prove they are innocent, says Scott McDonald of the watchdog group Fight the Fingerprint. An uproar from grass roots Americans is the only thing that will stop the current plans for the FDIC "Know Your Customer" program, according to McDonald. His organization has led the charge against the national ID, medical ID, and computerized information about private aspects of people's lives. A recent announcement by the FDIC provides for citizen comment prior to implementation of their new banking regulations. The deadline for comments is Dec. 27, 1998. "The FDIC is proposing to issue a regulation requiring insured nonmember banks to develop and maintain 'Know Your Customer' programs," according to a recent FDIC information package sent to Congress to provide notice of proposed rulemaking, and to banks for comment. "As proposed," the 29-page FDIC document begins, "the regulation would require each nonmember bank to develop a program designed to determine the identity of its customers; determine its customers' source of funds; determine the normal and expected transactions of its customers; monitor account activity for transactions that are inconsistent with those normal and expected transactions; and report anytransactions of its customers that are determined to be suspicious, in accordance with the FDIC's existing suspicious activity reporting regulation. By requiring insured nonmember banks to determine the identity of their customers, as well as to obtain knowledge regarding the legitimate activities of their customers, the proposed regulation will reduce the likelihood that insured nonmember banks will become unwitting participants in illicit activities conducted or attempted by their customers. It will also level the playing field between institutions that already have adopted formal 'Know Your Customer' programs and those that have not." Many banks across the country have already begun to implement such programs, according to the FDIC. A quick search of the Internet found many stories in press accounts of problems reported at such banks. There have been a number of stories dealing with banks requiring fingerprints to open accounts and to cash checks. There are several lawsuits presently underway testing the right of banks to make that requirement. McDonald has been fighting that issue, along with fingerprints on driver's licenses for some time. He pointed out the many errors found on credit reports and suggested that banks will soon make similar errors when they begin creating profiles of their customers. The FDIC is selling the planned regulations by pointing out the need for prevention of financial and other crime. "By identifying and, when appropriate, reporting such transactions in accordance with existing suspicious activity reporting requirements, financial institutions are protecting their integrity and are assisting the efforts of the financial institution regulatory agencies and law enforcement authorities to combat illicit activities at such institutions," says the FDIC. The proposed regulation is, according to FDIC spokesperson Carol A. Mesheske, authorized by current law. It comes from the statutory authority granted the FDIC under section 8(s)(1) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 18189s)(1), as amended by section 259(a)(2) of the Crime Control Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-647). The FDIC claims that the law requires them to develop regulations to require banks to "establish and maintain internal procedures reasonably designed to ensure and monitor compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act. Effective 'Know Your Customer' programs serve to facilitate compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act." The proposed regulations will mandate that all banks insured by the FDIC must maintain an intelligence gathering department that screens out customers and keeps an eye on existing customers. Before you decide to move your money to a credit union, you should know that the FDIC is not the only federal organization making such plans. "Each of the other Federal bank supervisory agencies is proposing to adopt substantially identical regulations covering state member and national banks, federally-chartered branches and agencies of foreign banks, savings associations, and credit unions. There also have been discussions with the Federal regulators of non-bank financial institutions, such as broker-dealers, concerning the need to propose similar rules governing the activities of these non-bank institutions," reports FDIC attorney Karn L. Main in the proposal. The purposes for the regulation are to protect the reputation of the banks, to facilitate compliance with the law, to improve safe and sound banking practices, and to protect banks from being used by criminals as a vehicle for illegal activities. Current customers will be subjected to the new regulation in the same way new customers will be scrutinized. The FDIC does not wish to permit any loop hole which would leave any bank customer unidentified or unsupervised. Each bank will create profiles. The first profile will determine the amount of risk a potential customer might present by opening an account. The system of profiling potential customers will be different from one bank to the next, since the FDIC does not provide a uniform program. The purpose of the profile is to identify potential customers who might use a bank account for funds obtained through criminal activity. The next profile will be one that is used by automated computers to determine when suspicious activity is taking place in an account. When activity in the account does not fit the profile, banks will notify federal authorities so they can investigate. Banks are expected to identify their customers, determine normal and expected transactions, monitor account transactions, and determine if a particular transaction should be reported. The FDIC has sent copies of the proposal to all banks and is asking for input. The questions asked by the FDIC in the proposal do not

2 2

Nuts & Bolts: the ultimate trojan horse
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:30 PM 11/24/98 -0800, Tom Jud - US 5-200 Sales wrote: > >Call Today >To Receive A FREE Nuts & Bolt's '98 CD! What a perfect Trojan cover. A program that's *supposed* to scan your disk, and *supposed* to dial home for "updates". And its free, too!

1 0

Welcome to Netscape AOL Instant Messenger (AIM)!
by Netscape AOL Instant Messenger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Welcome to Netscape AOL Instant Messenger! Thank you for confirming your Netscape AOL Instant Messenger account. We're glad you've joined the fastest growing Internet online community in the world. To help maintain an online environment that you feel comfortable with, you can set your own buddy controls. You can decide who can see if you're online as well as who can and can't get in touch with you while online. For your convenience, your controls have been initially set to allow other users to contact you online if they know either your e-mail address or your screen name. You may change your buddy controls any time when signed on to Netscape AOL Instant Messenger by doing the following: (On Windows): 1) Click on the "Netscape AOL Instant Messenger" button and select "Options" 2) Select "Edit Preferences" 3) Click on the "Controls" tab By entering the screennames of people for whom you would like to set special control settings (e.g., "block" the following users from contacting me or "allow" the following users to contact me) - you can maintain an online environment that is comfortable for you. In the future, you can change your settings by returning to the "Controls" area. Thanks for joining Netscape AOL Instant Messenger! Now you can instantly chat with your AOL and Internet friends with real-time text messages! You can even add your Internet friends to your Buddy List group. It's easy and it's FREE! Remember, to communicate instantly with friends on Internet, they have to register for Netscape AOL Instant Messenger too. Invite your friends to register by sending them a personalized invitation! Sending an invitation encouraging your friends to join is quick and convenient. All you have to do is the following: 1. Sign on to Netscape AOL Instant Messenger. 2. Click the "Netscape AOL Instant Messenger" button and select "Sign On A Friend." 3. Enter the e-mail addresses of your friends and co-workers. We'll send them an invitation -- personalized by you -- inviting them to join the Netscape AOL Instant Messenger service. For help and additional information, please visit our website http://www.netscape.com. For quick tips on getting started with Netscape AOL Instant Messenger, see the information below. See you in cyberspace! ------------------------------------------- Quick Tips on Getting Started ------------------------------------------- Signing On to Netscape AOL Instant Messenger Once you've registered, downloaded, and installed Netscape AOL Instant Messenger, you're ready to start using it. Here's what you need to do to sign on (the following instructions apply to Windows 95/NT): 1. First, make sure that you're connected to the Internet via your Internet Service Provider, school, or office network. 2. Launch Netscape AOL Instant Messenger by double-clicking the AOL Instant Messenger program icon. (If you aren't sure how to locate Netscape AOL Instant Messenger, click the Start menu and then select Programs. From Programs, select AOL Instant Messenger and then the AOL Instant Messenger program icon.) 3. When you see the "Sign On" window, type or select the screen name and password you chose during registration in the space provided and click the "Sign On" button. 4. Netscape AOL Instant Messenger will then sign you on. Setting Up Your Buddy List Once signed on, you'll see the main Netscape AOL Instant Messenger window which contains two tabs: a box with names in it, and a row of buttons at the bottom. This box is your Buddy List window, and it shows you the screen names of your buddies online. Your Buddy List window will have three sample groups that you can use to begin organizing your buddies: 1) Buddies; 2) Family, and 3) Co-Workers. (You can change the names of these groups by highlighting the group name and typing over it - or just add new ones.) Personalize your Buddy List by adding your friends' screen names. To add a new buddy, click on the "List Setup" tab, click the "Add Buddy" button, and type a friend's screen name. Do this for each buddy you want to add. To add a new group, click the "Add Group" button, and type the name of the new group (like "soccer team"). Once you've added your buddies, click the "Online" tab. If you can't remember someone's screen name, use the "Find a Buddy" function to first see if the person is a registered Netscape AOL Instant Messenger ser or not. If the person is a registered user, you can look up his or her screen name here. Sending Your Buddy an Instant Message When you see a buddy's name in your Buddy List, it means the person is online and that you can send your buddy an Instant Message (which is a private, personalized, text message). There are two ways to send an Instant Message: 1) Double-click on your buddy's screen name, and a "Send Instant Message" window will appear. Type your message in the bottom part of the window, and click "Send." Or, 2) Highlight your buddy's screen name and click on the "IM" button. (If your buddy's screen name is not on your Buddy List group, then click on the "IM" button and type in his or her screen name and a message.) Either way, after clicking the "Send" button, your message will "pop up" on your buddy's computer screen. Then your buddy can send messages back to you for an instant, private, one-to-one chat.

1 0

NSA Scientific Advisory Board
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The NSA Scientific Advisory Board has been functioning since 1953: http://jya.com/nsa-sab97.htm The 1997 annual report briefly describes what it does and what it costs to do it. However, its closed meetings are not announced in the Federal Register as required by regulations governing such FACA orgs. Names of members, minutes and studies are not available. We've made a request for info to the NSA office which handles the matter (301) 688-6449. Any information on the board would be welcome. Skimpy annual reports on the NSA SAB, like the one for 1997 above, as well as for all other federal advisory committees, from 1972 to 1997 are available at: http://policyworks.gov/org/main/mc/index-r.htm

1 0

Re: Article V - an analysis (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 15:11:57 -0800 > From: Todd Larason <jtl(a)molehill.org> > Subject: Re: Article V - an analysis (fwd) > On 981125, Jim Choate wrote: > > Why is this problematic? When the convention was called it was with the > > express goal of replacing the articles. A tacit a priori admission they were > > faulty and needed replacement. > > But that wasn't the goal, at least not the stated goal. The Convention > was called under the procedures specified in the Articles. The Convention > itself decided to change the rules for ratification. Which is by definition within the powers of such a convention. Their charter is to come together in order to build a consensus and create from that a charter for future operations. The litmus test is whether the states are willing enough to go along with it to actualy do it. They were so the point was moot. The states called the convention in order to create new proposals for government, the convention went back to the states with a proposal, the states looked it over and voted for it. It's important to remember as well that the original Constitution had to be ratified by all 13 original states and not simply 3/4 of them. The choice was unanimous. > Congress specified in both (all) cases. For the original prohibition > amendment, they submitted it to state legislatures. For the repeal amendment, > they submitted it to state conventions. So, however the bill get's to Congress they must specify a method for the states to enact. Now the question is how long does Congress get? If Congress sits around and does nothing can it stall long enough that they can kill the amendment process by their own internal procedures? There is certainly no time limit imposed by the Constitution so the implication is that Congress has to wait until the states decide whether that takes a day or a century. But at the same token there is no implicit time constraint on Congress either. ____________________________________________________________________ Technology cannot make us other than what we are. James P. Hogan The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

4 4

Re: [ISN] Feds Want Banks to Spy on All Customers...Even You! (fwd)
by Michael Motyka 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I spotted the *rhetorical* steel case in the first note. The disturbing thing here is the requirement to report deviations from a pattern. That is where it becomes a NaziReptilianProctoscope$ystem. It's my fucking money, I can do whatever the fuck I want with it, whenever the fuck I want to. I wish those fuckers would look at the Fourth Amendment. The structuring stuff looks like it could get pretty wierd: how I move my money should not matter but maybe it does. Why do reptiles have such a bad name? Some of my favorite politicians are reptiles. BTW - the FDIC site state that there is no statutory requirement for a 'Know Your Customer' system. You could also say that they are not interested in little guys, that they need this stuff to do their job, but if the laws are written so that anyone can be targeted without a warrant then there is a *big* problem. Especially worrisome is automated pattern analysis without a warrant - a violation of the 4th. So, what are the alternatives to keeping your money in a standard financial institution? Seems to me that keeping it at home is pretty risky - eventually some low-life will figure it out and then you'll have to choose between your cash and your left nut. Keeping it all tied up in goods is not any bargain either. A small fraction perhaps... Mike >From the FDIC site. Pardon the formatting - it's straight from the .gov. ************************************************************************ http://www.fdic.gov/search97cgi/s97_cgi.exe?action=View&VdkVgwKey=http%3A%2… "Know> <Your> <Customer>" Policy One of the most important, if not the most important means by which financial institutions can hope to avoid criminal exposure to the institution from customers who use the resources of the institution for illicit purposes is to have a clear and concise understanding of each customer's practices. The adoption of "<know> <your> <customer>" guidelines or procedures by financial institutions has proven extremely effective in detecting suspicious activity by customers of the institution in a timely manner. Even though not required by regulation or statute, it is imperative that financial institutions adopt "<know> <your> <customer>" guidelines or procedures to enable the immediate detection and identification of suspicious activity at the institution. The concept of "<know> <your> <customer>" is, by design, not explicitly defined so that each institution can adopt procedures best suited for its own operations. An effective "<know> <your> <customer>" policy must, at a minimum, contain a clear statement of management's overall expectations and establish specific line responsibilities. While the officers and staff of smaller banks may have more frequent and direct contact with customers than their counterparts in large urban institutions, it is incumbent upon all institutions to adopt and follow policies appropriate to their size, location, and type of business. Objectives Of "<Know> <Your> <Customer>" Policy 1.A "<know> <your> <customer>" policy should increase the likelihood the financial institution is in compliance with all statutes and regulations and adheres to sound and recognized banking practices. 2.A "<know> <your> <customer>" policy should decrease the likelihood the financial institution will become a victim of illegal activities perpetrated by a customer. 3.A "<know> <your> <customer>" policy that is effective will protect the good name and reputation of the financial institution. 4.A "<know> <your> <customer>" policy should not interfere with the relationship of the financial institution with its good customers. At the present time there are no statutory mandates requiring a "<know> <your> <customer>" policy or specifying the contents of such a policy. However, in order to develop and maintain a practical and useful policy, financial institutions should incorporate the following principles into their business practices: 1.Financial institutions should make a reasonable effort to determine the true identity of all customers requesting the bank's services; 2.Financial institutions should take particular care to identify the ownership of all accounts and of those using safe-custody facilities; 3.Identification should be obtained from all new customers; 4.Evidence of identity should be obtained from customers seeking to conduct significant business transactions; and 5.Financial institutions should be aware of any unusual transaction activity or activity that is disproportionate to the customer's known business. An integral part of an effective "<know> <your> <customer>" policy is a comprehensive knowledge of the transactions carried out by the customers of the financial institution. Therefore, it is necessary that the "<know> <your> <customer>" procedures established by the institution allow for the collection of sufficient information to develop a "transaction profile" of each customer. The primary objective of such procedures is to enable the financial institution to predict with relative certainty the types of transactions in which a customer is likely to be engaged. Internal systems should then be developed for monitoring transactions to determine if transactions occur which are inconsistent with the customer's "transaction profile". A "<know> <your> <customer" policy must consist of procedures that require proper identification of every customer at the time a relationship is established in order to prevent the creation of fictitious accounts. In addition, the bank's employee education program should provide examples of customer behavior or activity which may warrant investigation. Identifying The Customer As a general rule, a business relationship with a financial institution should never be established until the identity of a potential customer is satisfactorily established. If a potential customer refuses to produce any of the requested information, the relationship should not be established. Likewise, if requested follow-up information is not forthcoming, any relationship already begun should be terminated. Structured Transactions Section 103.53 prohibits the structuring of transactions for the purpose of evading the currency transaction reporting requirements. Anyone who causes or attempts to cause a bank to fail to file a CTR or to file a false CTR is covered under this section as well as anyone who attempts to structure or assists in structuring any transaction with one or more domestic financial institutions. A cash transaction in excess of $10,000, which is subsequently withdrawn upon realization that a CTR is being prepared, should be reported as a possible attempt to structure a transaction. See also 31 U. S. C. 5324. Examiners should be alert to consecutive transactions involving cash in excess of $10,000. Suspect transactions should be pursued further. The following are examples of types of transactions that may be reviewed for possible structuring activity: 1.Cashed checks - pay particular attention to multiple items cashed by the same person. 2.Cash deposits. 3.Savings withdrawals/certificates of deposit redemptions. 4.Personal money orders or official checks sold. 5.Official checks sold or cashed - look for consecutive items. 6.Savings Bonds sold or redeemed. 7.Traveler's checks sold or cashed. 8.Loan payments or loan proceeds made in cash. 9.Securities sold or purchased for cash if the financial institution acts as agent for an individual and the transaction involves more than $10,000.

3 2

Dr. Strangelove on the Y2K Opportunity (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 09:30:04 -0800 > From: Tim May <tcmay(a)got.net> > Subject: Dr. Strangelove on the Y2K Opportunity > As I have been predicting for most of this year, the smartest thing our DOD > may do is to use the information chaos of Y2K to go for a DECCOM > (Decapitation of Command) strike as the clock hits midnight in Moscow. > Knock out their sub pens on the Kola Peninsula, hit the missile facilities > in Semipalatinsk, knock out Vladivostok, and do a lay down over Moscow. > > A one-way ticket back to the 19th century. A few megadeaths may be a That's MEGA-wishful thinking (not to mention more than a tad nuts). The results of a major nuclear strike would take the human race to a civilization level more akin to the Sumarians (at best). The ecological, technological, medical, etc. failures would be impossible to deal with at our current level of technology. Potentialy a billion or more people would survive short-term. Nobody in there right mind would want to trade places with them. Within 20 years the vast majority of the survivors would be dead. If there would be more than 50M in 60 years over the entire planet I'd be surprised. If I were setting policy I'd point a bunch/most of my nukes at myself. The kindest thing I can do for my people is to kill them, the worst thing I could do for my enemy is leave them alive - they'll eat themselves. Then I'd sit back and say: "Fuck with us and we suicide. Oh, we'll take you with us but slowly and by your own hand." In the process nuke their major grain belts, water resources, and raw metal sites, leave their cities and major population centers standing and occupied. It ain't winnable by either side except by avoidance. ____________________________________________________________________ Technology cannot make us other than what we are. James P. Hogan The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

[ISN] Feds Want Banks to Spy on All Customers...Even You! (fwd)
by Albert P. Franco, II 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 08:26:54 -0500 (EST) >From: Ken Williams <jkwilli2(a)unity.ncsu.edu> > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > >Good thing I keep all my money in a steel case buried somewhere >along the Appalachian trail. No bank accounts, no credit cards. > >Ken Williams > >>From: ISPI Clips 6.51 >>From: WorldNetDaily, November 23, 1998 > >Big Brother Banks? FDIC has snooping plans >http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_exnews/19981123_xex_big_brother_.shtml >David M. Bresnahan, David(a)talkusa.com >Contributing Editor, WorldNetDaily > >Are you a potential criminal? Are you a threat to banks, airlines, a >potential spy, or perhaps an IRS tax protester? The government would like >to know and they are about to force banks to be their detectives. > Isn't this called prior restraint? Isn't it specifically illegal for the government to treat all members of the public as criminals a priori? This certainly sounds like one of the grossest cases of Feds-That-Should-Die(TM) that I have ever heard. I'm sure that the founding fathers would have been stocking up on gun powder and lead over this one. And I'm NOT one of the many Libertarian/Money-Gun-and-Gold-Stashing types on this list. I far and away prefer to work inside the system peacefully. But, it does give me pause to think about it! When a supposedly NON-LEA agency such as the FuckingDICks begins creating regulations of this sort it is the most blatant proof that the constitution has died. Perhaps it is time to start draft the next version of the Declaration of In dependance... Actually, we wouldn't need to change much. It was an excellent document then and now and perhaps it is time shake the dust off of it! Here's my take on a new version, (read carefully the changes in some cases are subtle): THE DECLARATION of INDEPENDENCE ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Action of the New Continental Consensus, July 4, 1999 The Declaration of the People of the United States of America ------------------------------------------------------------------------ WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation. WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, Privacy and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shown, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these people; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the present Federal Government of the United States of America is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World. It has refused its Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good. (Agencies such as the NSA and CIA whose actions are wholly unsupervised and unchecked.) It has forbidden its Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till its Assent and modification should be obtained; and when so suspended, it has utterly neglected to attend to them. (Basterdazation of state and local voters measures threw inappropriate judiciary interference.) It has refused to pass other Laws for the Accommodation of large Districts of People, unless those People would relinquish the Right of Representation in the Legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and formidable to Tyrants only. (Pick any agency... none allow for direct representation in their regulatory actions. Public comment IS NOT direct representation!) It has called together Legislative Bodies at Places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the Depository of their public Records, for the sole Purpose of fatiguing them into Compliance with its Measures. It has investigated, harassed, terrorized, and killed members of Representative Bodies repeatedly, for opposing with its manly Firmness its Invasions on the Rights of the People. It has refused for a long Time, after such Dissolutions, to allow others to act; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of the Annihilation, have not been returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposing them to all the Dangers of Invasion from it, and the Convulsions within. It has endeavored to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new ownership of Lands and Properties. It has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing its Assent to Laws for respecting Judiciary Powers. (You can't sue them unless they say it's OK... And when you do who do you sue?) It has made Judges dependent on its Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and the Amount and Payment of their Salaries. It has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their Substance. It has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent or oversight of our Legislatures. (NSA, CIA, IRS, ATF, etc.) It has affected to render the Military and National Security Forces independent of and superior to the Civil Power. It has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving its Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: FOR quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us; FOR protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: FOR cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World: (ITAR, etc.) FOR imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: FOR depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury: (Try to fight an "infraction" in California!) FOR transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended Offences: (Hi CJ!) FOR abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighboring Province, establishing therein an arbitrary Government, and enlarging its Boundaries, so as to render it at once an Example and fit Instrument for introducing the same absolute Rules into these Colonies: (Ever been to a US territory?) FOR taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: (Let's hear it for the IRS and NSA, and now FDIC!) FOR suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Power to legislate for us in all Cases whatsoever. (Who actually makes tax regulation?!) It has abducted Government here, and declared us under of its Protection and thus waging War against us. It has plundered our Seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our Towns, and destroyed the Lives of our People. It is, at this Time, transporting large Armies of Mercenaries to compleat the Works of Death, Desolation, and Tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and Perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous Ages, and totally unworthy of a civilized Nation. It has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive to bear Arms and false testimony against their Countrymen, to become the Executioners of their Friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. It has excited domestic Insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the Inhabitants of our Frontiers, the merciless Profiteering Drug Peddlers, whose known Rule of Warfare, is an undistinguished Destruction, of all Ages, Sexes and Conditions. (Don't forget Noriega and his CIA buddies. You wouldn't get even money on the bet that they have changed their ways...) It has subverted the very essence of the Constitution and Bill of Rights which gave it birth by perpetrating the following acts of barbarism and contempt for the people: Confiscation of Personal Properties being routinely executed without the most minimum attempt at DUE PROCESS; Routine and massive warrant-less searches and seizures of the personal communications of the people; Commonplace denial of competent legal defense and availability of juries of one's peers; Unconstitutional restrictions of the movement of the people and their assets; Unconstitutional restrictions of the peoples' right to assemble, publicly and privately and secretly; IN every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble Terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated Injury and imprisonment in State Mental Institutions. A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People. NOR have we been wanting in Attentions of our International Brethren. They have warned us from Time to Time of Attempts by our Legislature to extend an unwarrantable Jurisdiction over them. They have reminded us of the Circumstances of our Emigration and Settlement here. They have appealed to our native Justice and Magnanimity, and they have conjured us by the Ties of our common Kindred to disavow these Usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our Connections and Correspondence. They too have been denied the Voice of Justice and of Consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the Necessity, which denounces our Union in the Spirit of Freedom, and hold them, as we hold the rest of Mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace, Friends. WE, therefore, the People of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in GENERAL CONSENSUS, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these States, solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United States are, and of Right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the Federal Government, and that all political Connection between them and the Federal Government of the USA, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which INDEPENDENT STATES may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor. Signed, The names of course will be changed to protect the innocent... I may not be up to the task of editing TJ, but you get the point! I was going to send this through an anonymizer and sign it Thomas In Payne. But Fuck the MIBs. This is MY Opinion Freely Stated as I'm guaranteed by the Constitution they are so hell bent on destroying. This adaptation of such a revered document as our dear Declaration of Independence is meant to provoke thought and perhaps one last effort by many to halt the erosion of the effectiveness of what was perhaps the most important statement of what a government should be that the world has ever known. It is time that we take back our Constitution from the MIB. My only question is HOW? APF

1 0

Fwd: "A MASSIVE BREACH OF PRIVACY"
by Jean-Francois Avon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

==================BEGIN FORWARDED MESSAGE================== >From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" <BreitG0(a)parl.gc.ca> [Breitkreuz is an elected member of the Canadian Parliement (Reform Party)] >To: "'firearms digest'" <cdn-firearms-digest(a)sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca> >Subject: "A MASSIVE BREACH OF PRIVACY" >Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 12:07:23 -0500 PUBLICATION: Vancouver Sun DATE: 98.11.25 EDITION: FINAL SECTION: News PAGE: A1 / Front BYLINE: Jeff Lee SOURCE: Vancouver Sun Feds fear data sold rather than shredded: Huge cache of sensitive government documents uncovered in Burnaby. The federal government believes tonnes of highly-sensitive material, including tax records, unemployment insurance claims and parole records were sold intact by a Lower Mainland company that was supposed to shred and recycle the material, The Vancouver Sun has learned. Federal agencies found more than 110 tonnes of unshredded files in a Burnaby warehouse last July that were being offered for sale by <Golden> West Document Shredding (1995) Inc. But they have been unable to determine what happened to nearly another 200 tonnes they know the company was given by National Archives, the federal agency responsible for disposing of classified and non-classified documents no longer required by the government. And the amount of confidential material sent to <Golden> West that wasn't shredded may actually be much higher -- as much as 600 to 700 tonnes -- said sources who spoke on condition of anonymity, because the company also obtained documents directly from a number of other government departments . The RCMP's National Security Intelligence Service, which investigated the security breach, believes all documents were sent to pulp mills for recycling, even though they weren't shredded, Sergeant John Ward said. ``We're quite sure that no national security issues were compromised, at least from our investigation. But I can tell you that we are not happy about this at all,'' he said, adding that the issue involved a massive breach of privacy. But John Billings, a regional director of Public Works, said he can't say for certain the material didn't fall into the hands of people who might use it for improper purposes. Sources said confidential information such as social insurance numbers has a commercial value in criminal circles and can be used for such purposes as obtaining false identification. According to a public works memo obtained by The Sun, <Golden> West apparently sold the material unshredded because it could get a higher price per tonne than if it had to tear it into unreadable strips as required under the terms of its contract. Les Billett, the owner of <Golden> West, denied Tuesday he sold any confidential documents intact. He said his company couldn't handle the volume of material the government provided. Billett said only a small part of the 110 tonnes seized came from the government. He said most of it was commercial office paper and estimated that only 20 or so tonnes was government records. But Ward said police confirmed all of the material seized came from the government, and that it was indeed being offered for sale unshredded. Many of the nearly 22,000 boxes sent for destruction contained what the government calls ``designated'' or protected confidential information originating from Revenue Canada, Citizenship and Immigration, Human Resources, National Parole Board, Indian and Northern Affairs, and a number of other departments. The RCMP was also among the agencies whose confidential documents were found in the tonnes of material seized, he said. Most were low-level security records from various detachments, as well as the E Division headquarters, he said. <Golden> West's contract called for the company to obtain, shred and recycle 400 tonnes of material from the National Archives warehouse in Burnaby over a one-year period. It would also get up to 450 tonnes of material directly from other agencies. In return, <Golden> West was supposed to pay the government $30.17 for every tonne it took. Records show public works received at least $7,282, meaning <Golden> West paid for about 241 tonnes of documents, Billings said. But lading bills at the federal storage centre show <Golden> West actually received 292 tonnes, not including any material obtained directly from other agencies. ===================END FORWARDED MESSAGE===================

1 0

How to reign the federal government in...
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Start a political party, but the likes of which has never walked the face of the Earth. The individual states when acting in a clear majority (>=75%) may pass Constitutional amendments without the involvement or interference of federal processes. The IRS, for example, could be shut down tomorrow or significantly modified via this mechanism without involvement at the federal level. What is needed is a political party that has a representative site in each state capital. Their job is to get proposed amendments to the Constitution on the floor of each body for vote. Think nationaly, act by state. There could be no appeal to the Supreme Court for constitutionality because it IS the Constitution. There are no requirements in the Constitution to notify or otherwise register such acts with the federal authorities. In short, it's none of their business if the people acting at the state level change the laws at the federal level. They must either comply or quit their jobs. ____________________________________________________________________ Technology cannot make us other than what we are. James P. Hogan The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Re: Interesting tidbit about media controlling and censoringopinions, Web Pol...
by Nilsphone＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have noticed something else: Our networks (NBC, ABC, CBS etc) will interview a politician, on camera, and then immediately afterwards tell the viewers/listeners WHAT HE SAID! I am not talking about commentary, extrapolations, consequences, comparison with other opinions, commantaries about the truth or falsehood of what whas said, no, the TVnetspeakcritter will say "Well, we heard President Ougadougou Cleptocrate say that....." even when the interviewee spoke English, or was dubbed. Bye the way, for reasons related to those in the original mail, I much prefer subtitles to dubbing, as the speaker's voice gives away many clues, even if I am unfamiliar with his language. Regards Nils Andersson >[THE FOLLOWING IS IS A VERY INTERESTING OBSERVATION... JFA. ] >See, we have to work on demystifying all the "news" we are getting and NEVER TAKE >ANY at face value. Did you noticed often on the news they show a "talking head" >with the sound off and CBC own comentator narates what has been said. This is to >train us to get used to it (communist regime trick I've seen so often) so they can >put anything to anybody's mouth when needed - and sometimes they do already. >Nothing new under the Sun.

1 0

Intellectual Property is like a banana (McNealy)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > X-within-URL: http://www.cadence.com/features/vol3No3/mc_nealy > Do We Worry Too Much About Protecting IP? > > --> By Scott McNealy > > It seems as if everyones always worried about intellectual property, > or IP. We worry about its proprietary nature and how to protect it. > But lets take a different angle on IP and also intellectual capital > inside a company, because I think we all worry way too much about > protecting it. > > IP has the shelf life of a banana. It just doesnt last, yet were all > worried about protecting it, hiding it, securing it, storing it in a > vault. As a result, we absolutely prevent our competitors from getting > ahold of it, but we also prevent our employees from getting ahold of > it. We prevent our customers and our suppliers and our partners > from getting access to it. As a result, by the time the people who > need access to it get that access, its so old that it is effectively > a banana we wouldnt want to eat. [text deleted] ____________________________________________________________________ Technology cannot make us other than what we are. James P. Hogan The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

RE: [ISN] Feds Want Banks to Spy on All Customers...Even You! (fwd)
by Matthew James Gering 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Albert, please do NOT post HTML. plain-text ASCII with < 80 char wrap ONLY. Matt plain-text version follows: -----Original Message----- From: Albert P. Franco, II [mailto:apf2@apf2.com] > >Good thing I keep all my money in a steel case buried somewhere >along the Appalachian trail. No bank accounts, no credit cards. > >Ken Williams > >>From: ISPI Clips 6.51 >>From: WorldNetDaily, November 23, 1998 > >Big Brother Banks? FDIC has snooping plans >http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_exnews/19981123_xex_big_brother_.shtml >David M. Bresnahan, David(a)talkusa.com >Contributing Editor, WorldNetDaily > >Are you a potential criminal? Are you a threat to banks, airlines, a >potential spy, or perhaps an IRS tax protester? The government would like >to know and they are about to force banks to be their detectives. Isn't this called prior restraint? Isn't it specifically illegal for the government to treat all members of the public as criminals a priori? This certainly sounds like one of the grossest cases of Feds-That-Should-Die(TM) that I have ever heard. I'm sure that the founding fathers would have been stocking up on gun powder and lead over this one. And I'm NOT one of the many Libertarian/Money-Gun-and-Gold-Stashing types on this list. I far and away prefer to work inside the system peacefully. But, it does give me pause to think about it! When a supposedly NON-LEA agency such as the FuckingDICks begins creating regulations of this sort it is the most blatant proof that the constitution has died. Perhaps it is time to start draft the next version of the Declaration of Independence... Actually, we wouldn't need to change much. It was an excellent document then and now and perhaps it is time shake the dust off of it! Here's my take on a new version, (read carefully the changes in some cases are subtle): THE DECLARATION of INDEPENDENCE ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Action of the New Continental Consensus, July 4, 1999 The Declaration of the People of the United States of America ------------------------------------------------------------------------ WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation. WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, Privacy and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shown, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. *But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpation, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government*, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these people; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the present Federal Government of the United States of America is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpation, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World. It has refused its Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good. (Agencies such as the NSA and CIA whose actions are wholly unsupervised and unchecked.) It has forbidden its Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till its Assent and modification should be obtained; and when so suspended, it has utterly neglected to attend to them. (Bastardization of state and local voters measures threw inappropriate judiciary interference.) It has refused to pass other Laws for the Accommodation of large Districts of People, unless those People would relinquish the Right of Representation in the Legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and formidable to Tyrants only. (Pick any agency... none allow for direct representation in their regulatory actions. Public comment IS NOT direct representation!) It has called together Legislative Bodies at Places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the Depository of their public Records, for the sole Purpose of fatiguing them into Compliance with its Measures. It has investigated, harassed, terrorized, and killed members of Representative Bodies repeatedly, for opposing with its manly Firmness its Invasions on the Rights of the People. It has refused for a long Time, after such Dissolution, to allow others to act; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of the Annihilation, have not been returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposing them to all the Dangers of Invasion from it, and the Convulsions within. It has endeavored to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new ownership of Lands and Properties. It has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing its Assent to Laws for respecting Judiciary Powers. (You can't sue them unless they say it's OK... And when you do who do you sue?) It has made Judges dependent on its Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and the Amount and Payment of their Salaries. *It has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their Substance.* It has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent or oversight of our Legislatures. (NSA, CIA, IRS, ATF, etc.) It has affected to render the Military and National Security Forces independent of and superior to the Civil Power. *It has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving its Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:* FOR quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us; FOR protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: FOR cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World: (ITAR, etc.) FOR imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: FOR depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury: (Try to fight an "infraction" in California!) FOR transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended Offences: (Hi CJ!) FOR abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighboring Province, establishing therein an arbitrary Government, and enlarging its Boundaries, so as to render it at once an Example and fit Instrument for introducing the same absolute Rules into these Colonies: (Ever been to a US territory?) FOR taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: (Let's hear it for the IRS and NSA, and now FDIC!) FOR suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Power to legislate for us in all Cases whatsoever. (Who actually makes tax regulation?!) It has abducted Government here, and declared us under of its Protection and thus waging War against us. It has plundered our Seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our Towns, and destroyed the Lives of our People. It is, at this Time, transporting large Armies of Mercenaries to complete the Works of Death, Desolation, and Tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and Perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous Ages, and totally unworthy of a civilized Nation. It has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive to bear Arms and false testimony against their Countrymen, to become the Executioners of their Friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. It has excited domestic Insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the Inhabitants of our Frontiers, the merciless Profiteering Drug Peddlers, whose known Rule of Warfare, is an undistinguished Destruction, of all Ages, Sexes and Conditions. (Don't forget Noriega and his CIA buddies. You wouldn't get even money on the bet that they have changed their ways...) It has subverted the very essence of the Constitution and Bill of Rights which gave it birth by perpetrating the following acts of barbarism and contempt for the people: Confiscation of Personal Properties being routinely executed without the most minimum attempt at DUE PROCESS; Routine and massive warrant-less searches and seizures of the personal communications of the people; Commonplace denial of competent legal defense and availability of juries of one's peers; Unconstitutional restrictions of the movement of the people and their assets; Unconstitutional restrictions of the peoples' right to assemble, publicly and privately and secretly; IN every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble Terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated Injury and imprisonment in State Mental Institutions. A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People. NOR have we been wanting in Attentions of our International Brethren. They have warned us from Time to Time of Attempts by our Legislature to extend an unwarrantable Jurisdiction over them. They have reminded us of the Circumstances of our Emigration and Settlement here. They have appealed to our native Justice and Magnanimity, and they have conjured us by the Ties of our common Kindred to disavow these Usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our Connections and Correspondence. They too have been denied the Voice of Justice and of Consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the Necessity, which denounces our Union in the Spirit of Freedom, and hold them, as we hold the rest of Mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace, Friends. WE, therefore, the People of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in GENERAL CONSENSUS, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these States, solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United States are, and of Right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the Federal Government, and that all political Connection between them and the Federal Government of the USA, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which INDEPENDENT STATES may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor. Signed, The names of course will be changed to protect the innocent... I may not be up to the task of editing TJ, but you get the point! I was going to send this through an anonymizer and sign it Thomas In Payne. But Fuck the MIBs. This is MY Opinion Freely Stated as I'm guaranteed by the Constitution they are so hell bent on destroying. This adaptation of such a revered document as our dear Declaration of Independence is meant to provoke thought and perhaps one last effort by many to halt the erosion of the effectiveness of what was perhaps the most important statement of what a government should be that the world has ever known. It is time that we take back our Constitution from the MIB. My only question is HOW? APF

1 0

Re: How to reign the federal government in... (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 22:53:06 +0000 > From: "Douglas L. Peterson" <fnorky(a)chisp.net> > Subject: Re: How to reign the federal government in... > As per Article V, two thirds of the States can call a Convention to > propose Amendments. I believe this would be 33 of our current 50 states. > Territories and other holding would have no say in this. At this point, > if three fourths of the states agree to any proposed Amendments, it becomes > the law of the land. > > We only need two thirds of the States to start the process, but this > must be done by their Legislatures. Which is exactly what I said. The goal of the party would be to get proposed amendments on the floor each state legislature for vote. > > The IRS, for example, could be shut down tomorrow or significantly modified > > via this mechanism without involvement at the federal level. > > I assume this would be either by nullifying Amendment 15 or modifying it > to a great degree. Nothing else would work. That's the way I see it as well, which is the point after all. > > What is needed is a political party that has a representative site in each > > state capital. Their job is to get proposed amendments to the Constitution > > on the floor of each body for vote. > > Actually, it would not be to get the proposed amendments on the floor. You > would be putting the proposal for a Convention to amend the Constitution > on the floor. In addition, depending on the State, the party would likely > need to have a member elected to that States Legislature. Actualy it is. The Convention is only to create the amendment, the actual vote takes place in the state legislatures, not the convention. > That is why Article V was written as it was. It provides a backdoor to > keep the federal government from getting out of control. Absolutely. Now, let's kick the beggar in! ____________________________________________________________________ Technology cannot make us other than what we are. James P. Hogan The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Re: Article V - an analysis (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 14:59:46 -0800 > From: Todd Larason <jtl(a)molehill.org> > Subject: Re: Article V - an analysis > Note that although it's clear that this is only for proposing amendments, our > history leaves some doubt that's what would actually happen. The current > constitution came ouf of a constitutional convention called under the Articles > of Confederation to discuss amendments, but was finally enacted under > procedures *it* specified, not the procedures specified in the Articles. Why is this problematic? When the convention was called it was with the express goal of replacing the articles. A tacit a priori admission they were faulty and needed replacement. Now, why would they ratify the new Constitution under the old rules in such a situation? They wouldn't. One day the old rules apply, the next day the new rules apply. It makes more sense to ask folks to recognize the new rules under their own aegis than some problematic hold-over. No, the intent of the Constitution was to intentionaly break the ties with the status quo and precedence. > Historically, Congress has always specified, at the time it proposes the > amendments. I believe all but the repeal of prohibition were handled using > the legislature method. Did Congress accept the prohibition amendments without a priori specifying their submission and implimentation mechanism? ____________________________________________________________________ Technology cannot make us other than what we are. James P. Hogan The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Nov. 29 column - Christmas book giving
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 00:40:16 -0700 Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 23:38:45 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: vin(a)dali.lvrj.com Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vinsends(a)ezlink.com From: Vin_Suprynowicz(a)lvrj.com (Vin Suprynowicz) Subject: Nov. 29 column - Christmas book giving Resent-From: vinsends(a)ezlink.com X-Mailing-List: <vinsends(a)ezlink.com> archive/latest/599 X-Loop: vinsends(a)ezlink.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vinsends-request(a)ezlink.com Status: RO FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED NOV. 29, 1998 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz Give a dangerous book for Christmas Pickings have been a little slim, I must admit, for my annual Christmas book column. At the risk of emulating the editors of Rolling Stone, with whom I parted ways when they started dismissing all the best music of the '70s as "derivative" (heck, what isn't, Parker and Coltrane are "derivative," and I happened to (start ital)like(end ital) Eric Carmen and the Raspberries) -- I must admit a certain deja vu at reviewing the 1998 literary crop. These volumes don't just remind me of better works which made the list in former years, they often (start ital)cite(end ital) those books, at length. 1) Well worth mentioning is a "how-to" paperback of about 180 pages, and one of the few volumes I've read cover-to-cover of late, "Boston on Guns & Courage," by the pseudonymous Boston T. Party, available from Javelin Press, P.O. Box 31, Ignacio, Colo. 81137-0031. The book is $17, or $10.20 apiece for six to 31 copies, but the publishers quirkily request payment only in cash (that gets you an autographed copy) or payee-blank (negotiable) money orders , threatening to return checks of money orders with a named payee. Mr. Party is of the opinion that the "thugs" who outlawed the private possession of gold in 1933 "should have been strung up from the first day," and properly dismisses many modern gun owners as "serfs with guns," demanding "If you won't fight for your Liberty, then sell your guns to us now before they're confiscated without compensation." He then spends the bulk of his book running through the options for Americans who have finally decided to arm themselves against incipient tyranny, running through the pros and cons of each caliber and type of weapon; gun safety; current and likely future gun control laws; how to buy guns without having them registered ... a handy little book, even if it's sketchy in places. Of course, I disagree with many of the author's specific recommendations. (In .308 battle rifles, if you can believe it, Mr. Party actually favors the tin-and-plastic Belgian FN-FAL over the sturdy American M-14 and its civilian version, the M-1A. Of taste there is certainly no accounting. And it's a tad careless to recommend the Soviet Tokarev SVT 40 -- "very nicely made" -- given the weapon's well-known propensity to shred its own firing pins, isn't it?) But in this author we find a kindred spirit, correctly reporting that "The feds hope to 'decapitate' the Freedom Movement by simultaneously arresting and/or eliminating several hundred key people," something they've already demonstrated with their infiltration via agents provocateurs of the burgeoning 1990s militia movement, albeit not quite "simultaneously." The author quotes Arthur B. Robinson explaining "The gun controllers are not deterred by the facts about guns and crime, because their primary fear is not of criminals. They fear ordinary Americans whose lives and freedom their policies are destroying. In this fear and in their world, they are on target." He gathers together great swatches from books which have already made this "Most Dangerous" list in previous years (and which are still highly recommended), including L. Neil Smith's "Pallas," Bill Branon's "Let Us Prey," Jim Bovard's "Lost Rights" (Laissez-Faire Books at 800-326-0996), Claire Wolfe's "101 Things To Do Till the Revolution" (Loompanics at 800-380-2230, or Laissez-Faire), and of course John Ross' masterful novel of the put-upon gun culture, "Unintended Consequences" ($28.95 from hard-to-find Accurate Press in St. Louis, so try Paladin Press at 800-392-2400, or else Loompanics), from which we again hear: "These government slugs ban our guns and they ban our magazines and they ban our ammo. They ban suppressors that make our guns quieter and then they ban outdoor shooting ranges because our guns are too loud. They ban steel-core ammunition because it's 'armor-piercing,' then they close down our indoor ranges where people shoot lead-core bullets because they say we might get lead poisoning. ... "If we sell one gun that's gone up in value, they can charge us with dealing firearms without a federal dealer's license, which is a felony. If we get a dealer's license, they say we are not really in business, and report us to our local authorities for violating zoning ordinances by running a commercial venture out of a residence. ... "Then, if they suspect we've ignored the $200 tax process, on the guns where the wood and steel is too long or too short, they'll spend over a million dollars watching us for months, then they'll shoot our wives and children or burn us all alive," for which no federal agent has ever spent a single night in jail. And this, mind you, in a nation with a Constitution which guarantees the federal government will never, in any way, "infringe" the right of the people to keep and bear military-style arms. # # # 2) With a lot less politics and a lot more pictures, my second selection this year is also a gun book, Timothy Mullin's "Testing the War Weapons," in which the author actually carries around and test fires virtually every surplus military long arm a modern American can lay hands on (and several we cannot -- who's going to buy (start ital)me(end ital) a Flapper-era, $3,500, fully-automatic Belgian FN-D?), from the widely-ridiculed Italian Carcano ("the JFK rifle"), to the grossly overrated German Gewehr 3. Based on his own quite sensible criteria, Mr. Mullin then fearlessly reports which of these guns actually prove far handier in the field than one might expect ... and which prove quite the opposite. It's a marvellous project well carried out, in which anyone interested in old (or not-so-old) military firearms is likely to find a few pleasant surprises - and probably something to argue with. One very big demerit to the editors at Paladin Press (P.O. Box 1307, Boulder, CO 80306) for the mediocre quality of the B&W photo reproductions in "Testing the War Weapons," and for the horrendous proofreading. But this is still a wonderful book, in 8X10 trade paperback at about $40. 3) No, our friends and relatives are not going to be reading only about guns this holiday season. Anyone interested in alternative medicine or the "War on Drugs" should be happy to receive Steve Kubby's heartfelt and (in the end) heartwarming book, "The Politics of Consciousness," from Loompanics Unlimited, P.O Box 1197, Port Townsend, Wash. 98368. Again, Mr. Kubby's work stands on the shoulders of such predecessors as Jack Herer ("The Emperor Wears No Clothes", Hemp Publishing, Van Nuys, Calif.), Terence McKenna ("The Archaic Revival," from Bantam Books, and "Food of the Gods," from HarperCollins), and Schultes & Hofmann ("Plants of the Gods," Healing Arts Press, Rochester, Vermont) which are widely cited here, and highly recommended (by me) in their own right. Mr. Kubby (this year's Libertarian candidate for governor of California, I believe) is one of those who has come to realize that the War on Drugs is not merely puritanism given the backing of armed government in violation of the First Amendment, but something much more insidious and evil yet: nothing less than the denial of the mental and spiritual health which mankind is meant to be allowed to achieve, through the direct religious experiences of the entheogenic (hallucinogenic) plants. Chapter headings like "The War on Freedom," "Criminalizing Nature," "Western Civilization is the Disease," "Molecular Theology," and "Downloading the Cosmic Design" give some idea of the delightful subversiveness of this 150-page, 8X10 paperback, with its psychedelic cover. But if you want to do some smug Drug Warrior's psyche more harm than would likely be accomplished by 250 micrograms of orange sunshine, simply get him or her to read the six-page chapter "Manna from Heaven." What (start ital)was(end ital) the bread that fell like rain from heaven in Exodus Chapter 16, verse 4? What (start ital)was(end ital) the "small round thing" that "lay as small as the hoar frost on the ground," which had to be eaten immediately in the morning, lest it "breed worms and stink"? What (start ital)was(end ital) the God-given substance which was so holy to the Israelites that they later placed the last of it in a golden pot in the Ark of the Covenant (Hebrews, Chapter 9, verse 3)? Order up a bunch of Mr. Kubby's liberating book, and spread them around. # # # 4) Finally comes a book I firmly and fearlessly recommend, while I also feel obliged to place my readers' interests above any possible sensitivity of the author, and thus to offer an unusual caveat: Just as some patrons of the visual arts have found delight in the very refusal of such "primitives" as Grandma Moses to study the rules of perspective and photographic realism, celebrating on its own terms the resultant cross between "professional" painting and the decorative folk art of the quilted bedspread, so must I note that the novel "TEOTWAWKI -- The End of the World as We Know It," by James Wesley, Rawles (comma as written), soon to be released in trade paperback from Huntington House Publishing as "Patriots: Surviving the Coming Collapse," succeeds in a similar dimension between professional fiction and the delightfully naive tale-telling of children and the childlike. I got my copy - an 8X10 Internet download with a color-copied cover -- from Mike McNulty (author of the Academy Award-nominated video "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" -- which should be on this list even if it's not a book) and Bob Glass, publisher of the promising new magazine "The Partisan: Journal of the American Freedom Fighter" ($20 per year from P.O. Box 1085, Longmont, CO 80502) at this year's Soldier of Fortune Expo. Still hunting for the first good book to be based on the upcoming "Y2K" crisis, I dug in ... and discovered that Mr. Rawles has indeed put together a thoughtful, thought-provoking, and well-researched survival manual, indicating in highly pragmatic terms how folks might well prepare for social unrest or breakdown of our established economic, commercial and political order in years to come -- prepare not just to squat on some piece of dirt, mind you, but to actually maintain a civilized lifestyle. Then, Mr. Rawles opted to deck out this intriguing, useful research as a work of fiction so bad -- by any traditional measure -- as to cross the line on many occasions into unintentional knee-slapping hilarity. The good guys pray to Jesus before each militia foray, and resist dividing up the gear even of their dead comrades, since that would be "stealing." The bad guys are -- I think I've got this right -- homosexual communists who actually carry around copies of Mao's Little Red Book, and who get their nourishment by preserving the best body parts of the little human babies they murder in their travels. Eventually, Idaho is invaded (of course) by a gang of U.N. mercenaries out of Brussels, though of course they and their tank columns are eventually defeated by the ingenuity and just plain spunk of the outnumbered Patriot defenders. Subtlety? Ambiguity? Not here in God's country, pardner. This thing makes the movie "Red Dawn" (which I also love) look restrained. And yet, in the midst of the nonsense, Mr. Rawles really can write a quite moving, effective, and realistic scene, as when a lone patriot rifleman in a well-chosen position sacrifices himself to inflict dozens of casualties on an advancing enemy column, holding them up for most of a day. But I have given fair warning: Just as Mr. Churchill admitted democracy was a terrible system -- except when compared to all the alternatives -- so is TEOTWAWKI a jaw-droppingly lunkheaded piece of fiction ... behind which is hidden a quite useful book, the first useful working sketch of a "Y2K" scenario which I have yet discovered ... unless we count "Atlas Shrugged" or "A Canticle for Liebowitz" or "A Boy and His Dog," of course. Which we probably should. (Mr. Rawles also sells pre-1899 antique firearms, which can be purchased via mail order without federal controls, via Clearwater Trading Co., P.O. Box 642, Penn Valley, Calif. 95946 -- e-mail rawles(a)usa.net -- a fine fellow, surely.) Order one of his remaining self-published copies through the same Penn Valley address at about $28, or via Patriot Products, 6595 Odell Place, Suite G, Boulder CO 80301, or ask your local bookstore to locate a copy of the new Huntington House edition, "Patriots: Surviving the Coming Collapse" (ISBN 1-56384-155-X) from their wholesalers, or via the Huntington House toll free order line at 800-749-4009. And have a merry Christmas. Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at vin(a)lvrj.com. The web sites for the Suprynowicz column are at http://www.infomagic.com/liberty/vinyard.htm, and http://www.nguworld.com/vindex. The column is syndicated in the United States and Canada via Mountain Media Syndications, P.O. Box 4422, Las Vegas Nev. 89127. *** Vin Suprynowicz, vin(a)lvrj.com The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it. -- John Hay, 1872 The most difficult struggle of all is the one within ourselves. Let us not get accustomed and adjusted to these conditions. The one who adjusts ceases to discriminate between good and evil. He becomes a slave in body and soul. Whatever may happen to you, remember always: Don't adjust! Revolt against the reality! -- Mordechai Anielewicz, Warsaw, 1943 * * * --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

Re: Article V - an analysis (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 15:34:35 -0800 > From: Todd Larason <jtl(a)molehill.org> > Subject: Re: Article V - an analysis (fwd) > On 981125, Jim Choate wrote: > > > > Why is this problematic? > > Whether it's problematic or not depends on your goals. It gives reason to > doubt that your interpretation of the effects of a Convention called under the > current constitution would hold, as (as you now say), such a Convention > has the power to change the rules by definition. How? Explain what part of Article V leaves this hole open. Explain the relevance of the operational proceedures used during the transition from the Articles to the current Constitution to the modification of the Constitution itself within the bounds of its own structure? Congress wasn't even involved in that original process because it didn't technicaly exist until after the ratification. Why would a precedence involving state legislatures be found to hold on a national legislature? There is also the issue that the Constitution once duly implimented is the supreme law of the land and it takes precedence over precedence. This is apples and oranges. Bottem line, if 3/4 of the states ratify there isn't anything that keeps it from being law. The most that Congress can say is whether it's a direct vote in the legislature or a vote by convention. > There was a time period (I don't know how long, but certainly no more than > a few months) where some states were operating underthe Constitution and > others were still under the Acts. Which is relevant how? > I don't think it specifies, but what has always happened is that the *same > resolution* which proposes the amendment specifies which ratification method > will be used. That can't work if the resolution comes from the states. Only Congress has the authority to decide that issue. So the only way a proposed amendment can be placed up for debate and at the same time specify how it is to be voted on at the state level is if it comes from Congress in the first place. A proposal submitted by the states would force the debate of how it was to be decided. Once that was settled it would be passed back to the appropriate state legislature for direct vote or the initiation of a convention if sufficient votes could be found. > There's only a time limit because Congress has started specifying one, in the > same resolution which proposes the amendment and specifies the ratification > method. (Exception: in the case of the ERA, I believe they later extended the > limit). The power to specify a time limit isn't mentioned in the Constitution > as you note, but has also never been tested. I assume your speaking of the prohibition amendments again and their limits (7 years I seem to remember). That raises an interesting point. Suppose that the states submit an amendment proposal, can Congress modify it? I'd say not because of the 10th. If they could then the power of the states to submit amendments would be moot. ____________________________________________________________________ Technology cannot make us other than what we are. James P. Hogan The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Maturity Is Needed
by Mixmaster 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In response to: cyp >Jim Choate is so stupid that even when he accidentally gets something >right, he quickly "corrects" himself so that he is wrong again: > >> I had typed x/ln(x) as the asymptotic limit for the number of primes less >> than x. >> >> This is incorrect. It should be, >> >> x/log(x) >>Wrong, doofus. x/ln(x) is the correct asymptotic limit. What role could >>logs to the base 10 possibly play? Do you think God favors the number 10? >>What a fool you are!Your observations over the years usually seemed >>thoughtful, and intelligent, and therefore helpful. What an human waste this guy is. It reminds me of the old days of Reputation. A boorish attack reflects more poorly on the attacker than the victim, if it is an inappropriate attack. Even if stupid, or just mistkaen, a comment here is intended toward a larger, instructive purpose. This idiot just wastes bandwidth. Life's too short for this crap. Perhaps it's worth trying to reason with people a bit: Victorian times, like ours today, were a period of huge changes, which meant behavioral changes. It cannot be an accident that manners, good form, and respectable society merged into the legendary image of modern social graces. It was done of efficiency, and, so, of necessity. Inefficient entities decay in capitalism. Manners were needed for efficiency. Only today do they seem quaint, or insulting of class or social station. They were where the action was, among professionals trying to forge new economic relationships. This immature jerk is gonna lose. An Educated Observer

1 0

the economist on cybercash
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

on disappointing/lackluster acceptance of digital cash.. mondex,visa,1st virtual,digicash etc http://www.economist.com/editorial/freeforall/current/index_fn7557.html

1 0

Re: manners....
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:54 AM 11/19/98 +0800, Bernardo B. Terrado wrote: >Well I thought this list was a list of intellectuals, not only good in >hacks and coding and programming and the likes but also well "tailored" >with their manners, I have posted similar mails asking something but I >have never received one like this. At least the less obvious thing to do >is to ignore my message, simply delete it!, is that a hard thing to do? Yo, Bernie - until you started asking for pirated commercial software, I was wondering whether you were trolling by asking newbie questions or just a real newbie who hadn't looked at any of the literature yet. Knapsacks are, after all, broken long ago, and anything written since about 1980 that talks about them will also say that. I'd recommend getting Bruce Schneier's "Applied Cryptography" and spending a while with it, then looking for academic stuff beyond that if you want, and also reading the documentation for PGP for practical stuff (in particular, Phil's comments on Snake Oil.) There are also some FAQs out there, such as the sci.crypt FAQ. Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart(a)pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

1 0

Maturity Is Needed
by Mixmaster 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In response to: ein >Jim Choate is so stupid that even when he accidentally gets something >right, he quickly "corrects" himself so that he is wrong again: > >> I had typed x/ln(x) as the asymptotic limit for the number of primes less >> than x. >> >> This is incorrect. It should be, >> >> x/log(x) >>Wrong, doofus. x/ln(x) is the correct asymptotic limit. What role could >>logs to the base 10 possibly play? Do you think God favors the number 10? >>What a fool you are!Your observations over the years usually seemed >>thoughtful, and intelligent, and therefore helpful. What an human waste this guy is. It reminds me of the old days of Reputation. A boorish attack reflects more poorly on the attacker than the victim, if it is an inappropriate attack. Even if stupid, or just mistkaen, a comment here is intended toward a larger, instructive purpose. This idiot just wastes bandwidth. Life's too short for this crap. Perhaps it's worth trying to reason with people a bit: Victorian times, like ours today, were a period of huge changes, which meant behavioral changes. It cannot be an accident that manners, good form, and respectable society merged into the legendary image of modern social graces. It was done of efficiency, and, so, of necessity. Inefficient entities decay in capitalism. Manners were needed for efficiency. Only today do they seem quaint, or insulting of class or social station. They were where the action was, among professionals trying to forge new economic relationships. This immature jerk is gonna lose. An Educated Observer

1 0

Re: Netscape AOL Instant Messenger Confirmation (kB3bEjeb1I aohelsux)
by Paul H. Merrill 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>>Again, some clueless asshole that can't tell the difference between >>solicited responses and Unsolicited spam mouths off. If you would like >>to talk about someone, talk about the jerk who set up an AIM name using >>the outdated address, not the company that repsonded. >> >>PHM >> >>AKA PHMerrill(a)AOL.Com (among other names and addresses) > >Again, the clueless asshole known as Paul *H.* Merrill jumps up and defends >AOL, incompetently-written web sites, and morons everywhere. > I obviously don't defend morons everywhere -- I didn't defend Mr Anonymous. >Someone told AOL to mail cypherpunks(a)toad.com. AOL could have checked to see >if the originating site was under the toad.com domain. This is trivial. They >didn't. It's rather easy to just require that somebody trying to mail an >address under the toad.com domain submit the request from an address under >toad.com. > I regularly send from one domain while requesting a "something" to be dealt with through another domain. (A little something called work, for instance. Shoot, even the ACM.Org address doen't pass that check but it certainly is valid and unambiguously mine. >In other words, Paul, you believe that if somebody goes and types your >address into some system and asks it to send you 512MB of MPEG video, that's >okay because it was solicited. It wasn't solicited by you but somebody >solicited it. > My point exactly -- so when you want to ream someone for the half gig MPEG, ream the requester. >Oops. That's "blatent propoganda." I'd better rephrase. In other words, >Paul, you believe that if somebody goes and types YOUR address into fifty >different systems, signs you up for a bunch of mailing lists, and generally >causes you a lot of inconvenience, that's okay because it was solicited. You >don't know who it was solicited by, but somebody obviously did. If you then >object to the sites sending you mail rather than just silently >unsubscribing yourself every week, are you then just 'some clueless asshole'? > The totality is not Okay. But the individual systems that were solicited to send are not at fault, assuming that they give me an out. OTOH the asshole that requested it all is quite another topic. That "spammer" is the one that should be taken to task. >Are spammers now not to be held accountable for their spamming because they >bought a list of addresses from someone who claimed that the people all >asked to be on the mailing list? > there is a significant difference between buying a list and answering a request. Granted that the net effect of having a confirmation message sent to some one person shows little difference, but the methodology and intent are nt the same at all. >Why don't we just sign Cypherpunks up for Ignition-Point, the FP list, the >ACLU action advisories, Sixdegrees, and whatever else we can find? Or should >We just sign up Paul, really, because he doesn't have a problem with this. >In fact I'm sure we could make some 'marketting research' to show that he >might be interested. Hey let's get the entire CDR subscription list and >sign everybody up for FP and ACLU because if you're on Cypherpunks you're >obviously interested in those things. The analogous activities have been going on for many years and they have never been a Good Thing. > >The root of the problem is sites which require email addresses for no good >reason, and/or don't have the decency to perform a simple check to see if >the domains match. They're lazy. They're irresponsible. When confronted, no >matter how civil, they react much like you do, Paul, and they don't want to >be inconvenienced by having to fix their usually badly-designed web sites. > Anyone that believes that a domain check will do anything other than check a domain is delusional. Hey, they even think like the post awful -- one person, one email address. >If I recall correctly Tim has the same opinion and has stated it a few >times as have others so I'm not alone. > >Now I leave you, Paul, so you can go back to your 24 hour vigil and you and >your quick response team can scour the net for attacks against AOL and the >true clueless assholes, and defend them with your last breath. > Why, thank you. But it is not really needed. >Yet Another 'Clueless Asshole' > I never cease to be amazed at how little grasp of the concept of causality so many presumably technically literate people are today. When one wishes to remove a problem, it is a much better approach to attack the cause than to attack the symptom. PHM

1 0

Re: Re: Netscape AOL Instant Messenger Confirmation (kB3bEjeb1I aohels
by Paul H. Merrill 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----Original Message----- From: lcs Mixmaster Remailer <mix(a)anon.lcs.mit.edu> To: paul h. merrill <paulmerrill(a)acm.org>; cypherpunks(a)einstein.ssz.com <cypherpunks(a)einstein.ssz.com> Date: Wednesday, November 25, 1998 12:20 AM Subject: Re: Re: Netscape AOL Instant Messenger Confirmation (kB3bEjeb1I aohels >Do you even bother to read the posts you try to flame? Read the last part of >that. > Yes, I do. I do not buy the domain check idea due to the unworkability in a changing and multi-faceted society. I do not buy the concept the anyone that sends a piece that you don't want is a "spammer" (there really are enough of them out there already without diluting the Title through misnomers.) I do not buy attacking symptoms and ignoring causes -- and in this case Causers. PHM >Paul H. Merrill wrote: >> >>Again, some clueless asshole that can't tell the difference between >>solicited responses and Unsolicited spam mouths off. If you would like >>to talk about someone, talk about the jerk who set up an AIM name using >>the outdated address, not the company that repsonded. >> >>PHM >> >>AKA PHMerrill(a)AOL.Com (among other names and addresses) >> >>Anonymous wrote: >>> >>> This does wonders for my opinion of AOL. Even the administration has no clue. >>> >>> AOL administration spammed the Cypherpunks <cypherpunks(a)toad.com> list, using >>> an address for Cypherpunks which has been defunct for over a year now, with: >>> >>> >Thank you for registering for Netscape AOL Instant Messenger! >>> > >>> >Your registration for screen name aohelsux has been received. >>> > >>> >Please reply to this message within 48 hours to complete >>> >the registration process. Simply reply to the present message >>> >and type 'OK' as the text of your message. >>> >>> P.S. "Well they just responded to an address someone gave them," like >>> certain advocates of AOL, lamers, and Microsoft we have on the list have >>> said, is not an excuse. It's easy to set up domain validation. The spammers >>> just don't care.

1 0

CABLE TV DESCRAMBLER........Now Only $7.00 !
by BADJEEP97＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This is really cool! PREMIUM CHANNELS........Descrambled! EASY to assemble plans for only $7.00 ! YOU WILL BE WATCHING all your FAVORITE PAY STATIONS featuring MOVIES, SPORTS. Adult entertainment, and any other scrambled signal NEXT WEEK! You can EASILY assemble a cable descrambler in less than 30 minutes! You have probably seen many advertisments for similar plans......... BUT OURS are BETTER! We have compared it to all the others and have actually IMPROVED the quality and SIMPLIFIED the design !!! ** We even include PHOTOS! ** OUR PLANS ARE BETTER! We have NEW, EASY TO READ,EASY to assemble plans for only $7.00! We have seen them advertised for as much as $29.00 and you have to wait weeks to receive them! WHAT THE OTHERS SAY IS TRUE! Parts are available at "The TV HUT" or any electronics store. Trademark rights do not allow us to use a national electronics retail chains' name but there is one in your town! Call and ask them BEFORE you order! They are very familiar with these plans! You will need these easy to obtain parts : 270-235 mini box 271-1325 2.2k ohm resistor 278-212 chasis connectors RG59 coaxial cable #12 copper wire Variable capacitor They may have to special order the variable capacitor, But WHY WAIT for a special order? WE have them! WE have secured a supply of the capacitors directly from the manufacturer and We WILL include one with your plans for an ADDITIONAL $10.00 only! All you need now is the EASY TO ASSEMBLE plans to show you how this educational device in 30 MINUTES! It is LEGAL, providing of course you use these plans for EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES only. See first hand and LEARN how this SIMPLE circuitry works! If you intend to use these plans for any other purpose DO NOT ORDER them. IT'S FUN TO BUILD! We're sure you'll enjoy this project! This is a unique opportunity for hobbiest of ANY skill level to learn simple circuitry! Learn how easy descrambling is! $ 7.00 for plans only $10.00 for variable capacitor only $17.00 for The easy to assemble plans and one variable capacitor! Please send check or money order payable to: Kraftworks P.O. Box 11752 San Rafael, Ca. 94912 WE pay postage and handling! Please allow 14 days for delivery. This is a one time only mailing! You have already been placed on our remove list and will not receive another offer from us! Thank You

1 0

ATF funding voice recognition research
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ATF - Proof of concept task - Prototype automated firearms licensing and verification system which integrated voice recognition and reverse voice recognition, telecommunication, Internet to query ATF database across LANs and WANs http://www.0-1.com/y_ats.htm The company doing the research seems to be a beltway-bandit ("minority owned" mil-welfare) type place. They're also evaluating sniffers for DISA... "Semtex --better than duct tape"

1 0

enemy of the state movie
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

fun wired article on new movie "enemy of the state" with privacy /cpunk implications. bamford quoted, info on NSA, rotenberg, spy satellites, etc. http://www.wired.com/news/news/culture/story/16507.html happy xgiving folks I am thankful for cyberspace <g>

2 1