December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

test2
by Igor Chudov 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

test

1 0

test4
by Igor Chudov 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

test4

1 0

MEETING: SF Bay Area Cypherpunks Meeting, March 8th 1997
by Hugh Daniel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Dave Del Torto <ddt(a)pgp.com> Subject: SF Bay Area Cypherpunks Meeting 8 March --Eudora-PGP-Plugin-5108864832-1354432592 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" This message and any updates thereto will be on the web at <http://www.stanford.edu/~llurch/cpunks970308.html> March 97 Cypherpunks Physical Meeting [1] Strange Sex Acts with Smart Cards (~60 min) [2] Recent Crypto Legislation Summary (~30 min) [3] pre-CFP97 Discussion Session (~30 min) [4] The Latest from Ian (~30 min) [5] Trust Metrics (~60 min) (Times may not sum due to ranting.) Date: Saturday 8 March 97 Time: (setup) 11 AM (meeting) 12 Noon - 6 PM (optional post-meeting dinner) Hosts: Rich Graves, Stanford Networking Systems <llurch(a)stanford.edu> Dave Del Torto, PGP Inc. <ddt(a)pgp.com> Place: Polya Hall / Turing Auditorium, Stanford University campus Directions: A (bit)map of the part of the Stanford Campus where the meeting will be held is at: <http://www-facilities.stanford.edu/transportation/PGrid4.html> From Hwy 101, take the Embarcadero exit all the way to campus. Turn right (clockwise) on Campus Drive. Turn left into the Jordan Quad parking lot. From Hwy 280, take Sand Hill. Turn right on Junipero Serra, then left (counterclockwise) onto Campus Drive. Turn right into the Jordan Quad parking lot. Notes: Ethernet to redundant T3 network connection, analog modem, Ricochet/Metricom repeater available. Very cool SVGA projector, old-fashioned overhead projector too Win95 and Mac CPU - AGENDA - [1] Strange Sex Acts with Smart Cards (~60 min) with Lucky Green <shamrock(a)netcom.com> - SmartCard Types - Digital Signatures and Smart Cards (an introduction) - Lamport Signatures: - Extended Lamport Signatures - opt'l: Compact Endorsement Signatures (needs mgmt approval) - DigiCash's BLUE Smart Card OS - Show and Tell (optional) Browsing strongly recommended beforehand: 1. Tutorial: "Digital Signatures and Smart Cards" <http://www.digicash.com/publish/digsig/digbig.html> 2. BLUE smart card OS info: <http://www.digicash.com/products/blue/blue.html> [2] Recent Crypto Legislation Summary (~30 min) with Greg Broiles <gbroiles(a)netbox.com> - summary of the recent crypto legislation - ProCODE - ECPA 1997 (s. 376) [3] pre-CFP97 Discussion Session (~30 min) see <http://www.cfp.org/> [4] The Latest from Ian (~30 min) with Ian Goldberg <iang(a)cs.berkeley.edu> - PDF417-barcode-to-ecash converter utility - RSA implementation for the Pilot [5] Trust Metrics (~60 min) with Raph Levien <raph(a)acm.org> - Doctoral thesis update: - measuring & comparing trust metrics (successes and failures) - some limitations of the distributed certification approach - Two-way Web anonymizing Existing Web anonymizers (www.anonymizer.com and onion routers) provide anonymity only to the browser of information. I will propose a protocol analogous to the one used by e-mail nymservers that also allows information to be published anonymously. This protocol fully supports caching, and also makes it relatively difficult to mount spam, harassment and security flaw exploitation attacks. If you have another agenda item, notify us ASAP! ________________________________________________________________________ Dave Del Torto +1.415.524.6231 tel ddt(a)pgp.com +1.415.572.1932 fax Pretty Good Privacy, Inc. http://www.pgp.com web ________________________________________________________________________ Rich Graves +1.415.725.7710 tel llurch(a)stanford.edu +1.415.723.0908 fax Stanford Networking Systems http://www.stanford.edu/group/networking --Eudora-PGP-Plugin-5108864832-1354432592 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 5.0 alpha MessageID: uNpg9ovv+12PbhzqS9lMWnthZuklR97t iQCVAwUBMx+/sKHBOF9KrwDlAQEqVgP/YC0Y/7Ms9L3RYNlmPIjKh/kng6FRqgaa tzRHKynPXztEoOkJpbGo0l2xEPKNB/Y98MhJuSNDJOPq4lPRlBshvSpT/dxxI2Zu VSGMqO8EzOBHUXdYQ9Dgoh/8xlvq1sFwy9/lNOwlSS2+SD8dMfBDgOH5WUrcGx3c eL0PD01vqdk= =0dg5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Eudora-PGP-Plugin-5108864832-1354432592--

1 0

<sigh>
by William H. Geiger III 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Due to a misbehaving mailing list I have lost some mail this morning. :( If you have sent any message to me between 00:00-13:00 GMT-0400 today please resend the message. Also could someone from the mailing list send me copies of the messages that I have missed. Thanks, - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: cp850 Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 iQCVAwUBM85dN49Co1n+aLhhAQF3fAP8Db4z+7GLaSsst8ZkGVG151NO4lIt0wbR S5oRTbLWRQbuAGccvGvKJSLtu3QPzn1wwp3khVJiVvz6QvweMTXBd6IV7QNvhE5o An519HaatiAICAgkPcBC5/l1SkTfcRxX8GYk1SUWI8Ockw9zyLZtY9VsbgtgD3Yk QFqprV7VQrQ= =fiQQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: payment & tents
by Hacking In Progress 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 8 Jul 97 at 23:21, Secret Squirrel wrote: > Can you please tell me where tents (for 10+ people) > can be bought/hired in the region of Amsterdam ? > Some of us are eagerly trying to organise this aspect > of the trip, and would welcome pointers. Try for rent: In Purmerend, Netherlands call 02994-20999 They rent army tents. But you'll have to arrange everything with them we can't do that. Expect around 350 guilders rent and about 1000 for deposit. Maurice > Also, I cannot read the [INLINE] phone numbers to call > with my credit card number - can you please publish > both answers on your mailing list ? Call in the Netherlands to 31 20 6263438 cu, Maurice Wessling -- Hacking in Progress 8-9-10 August Tents, TCP/IP, Jolt and politics http://www.hip97.nl/

1 0

Problems of anonymous posts
by nobody＠soda.berkeley.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- (This is from Hal; I still can't post from Portal.) After going to enormous efforts to create a network of anonymous remailers, we are hoist by our own petard, as our list receives strange, irrelevant, and argumentative posts through our own anonymous remailers. (Not all anonymous posts are like this, but there have been quite a few in the last few weeks which fall into these categories.) This should challenge us to reconsider the value of anonymity and remailers. Are we working only to make the net safe for the immature and incoherent? I would say not, but these posts should remind us of how incomplete is the infrastructure needed for successful use of anonymity. A brief recap of the benefits of anonymous mail: presently, on the net, all mail is tagged with the sender and destination. This means that not only the recipient, but any net snoopers and sysops at systems through which the mail passes, may be able to know that person A is sending mail to person B. This kind of information can be used to build up dossiers of who talks to whom. Worse, as we move into an era of electronic commerce, more and more of our lives may begin to take place on the net. We may shop, find entertainment, do business, even work for a living across the network. This will open up even more opportunities for collecting data about how we live our lives. In my opinion, the best way to preserve our privacy is to make it impossible to collect this data. Anonymous remailers, and their cousins, IP bouncers (which perform an analogous function for telnet-type connections), can prevent the collection of this kind of information by hiding exactly who is communicating with whom. These services can serve as the basis for the other privacy-protecting technologies we've been discussing, such as digital cash. There's not much point in using digital cash to prevent tieing customers to vendors if monitoring the net will provide that information anyway. This isn't just a futuristic concern, either. Already today the government is taking steps which could, under some not-so-far-fetched extrapolations, get people on the list in trouble. Many people on this list have communicated with Phil Zimmermann, for example. What if email logs were used to track all those people down, and they became suspects in this criminal investigation that the government seems to be pursuing? It's not even impossible that the government could someday try to paint the cypherpunks themselves as a subversive organization. Think how much more difficult any such diabolical attack would be if people subscribed to the list via remailers, under digital pseudonyms. These days, with the shaky legal status of cryptography, we of all people should be able to see the benefits of anonymous communication. The problem is, then, how to gain the benefits of anonymity, while avoiding the abuses. One solution which we have long discussed is reputations and pseudonyms; another is making people pay to use remailers. The way reputations work is that people would digitally sign their anonymous postings. This way someone could post anonymously and build up a reputation by means of a series of postings signed under the same name. As time went on, they would no more want to damage the reputation of their pseudonym than they would want to damage their reputation under non-anonymous posting. To make this work, people need to be able to easily filter their mail on the basis of the pseudonym it came from, rather than the (irrelevant) anonymous remailer which sent it. Then they can choose to accept and read mail from anonymous posters who have built up a good reputation while ignoring that from those who have ruined their good (pseudo) name. Karl Barrus has done some experiments along these lines. He described some time back a system he had for working with the elm mail reader, one of the most common Unix-based mail agents. The software will display the true originator of PGP-signed posts (anonymous or not). This allows readers to apply the same standards to signed anonymous mail as to regular mail. It raises anonymous posters to the same level, and holds them to the same standards, as other posters. This software could allow anonymous posters to build up their reputations, encouraging more responsibility on their part. The other solution, pay-for-use remailers, has also been pioneered by Karl. His idea is to make the remailer a little harder to use by forcing the user to include some digital postage (based, I think, on what Tim May called "poor man's postage stamps"). This could help reduce the volume of anonymous mail and make it less likely that joke or trivial messages would be posted. (We could even consider applying Karl's approach to the list as a whole; people would have to apply ahead of time for posting tokens in order to post. This might force people to take a little more care and time in their postings.) I don't think Karl's efforts have been sufficiently appreciated here. He is quietly working to create the tools needed to allow anonymity to be a useful and important part of the net architecture rather than the annoying sideshow that it sometimes seems to be becoming. We need to support Karl, work to bring his innovations into other remailers and other mail agents, if we want to gain the benefits from what we have done so far. Hal Finney hfinney(a)shell.portal.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLMFf3qgTA69YIUw3AQEp9QP/UyEvuQgM6GKiKdkZtHJw4/NhMwQDihrs 2D8weSeUQpKHPpxEnXiDEG6qswI0B4auq+hK3EDYIzccA6c6/+0Xa7SzESsujtjs VDRY7BNphAQ8ix6vd4Ti2vuk8sWa7IHasuAF+UytJrUXPaMbJgH1u/84M9HstA4t kNQ3venrgh4= =CFWw -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

5 4

Re: ANON: mail concerns
by nobody＠alumni.cco.caltech.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >:: >Request-Encryption-To: X > >If user ID X is on the remailer's pubkey ring, the outgoing message is >encrypted to X. This could be usefull for anonymous return-address blocks. Encryption should be the default. Err on the side of caution. Eternal!Optimist(a)anon.penet.fi (copyright 1993, Eternal Optimist [Ha Ha Ha]) 0) 0) =:()]-< <na26436(a)anon.penet.fi> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3 iQCVAgUBLNgXzIjvfLxJbYYtAQEK4AP9HrSaMSOnlsxzEjgLbAgvsCSw3vMxLJ4u 856ZbKI2cZTNLoPzyWLNW68gZ7kcNeaF7MHKzWbI9tLEDePpWN34sB11wBlpfzcf WzcYVLI6JBLVERq2seyKU3cqAhWuxldSDeAlsKkMsrzI0tGgOaLkxCxhxn9weZf8 58mZeANd3sg= =8F9u -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Article V - an analysis
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ARTICLE V. [Constitution: how amended; proviso.] The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions of the three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which shall be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of it's equal Suffrage in the Senate. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Congress can propose amendments if 2/3 of both houses agree Or when Congress is directed by 2/3 of the state legislatures a convention can be called for *proposing* amendments Irrespective of which of the above two processes causes an amendment to be considered a part of the Constitution when 3/4 of the state legislatures vote for it, or by the constitutional conventions called in 3/4 of the state agree on it. The decision of which method to use may be *proposed* by Congress. It's after 1808 and we're not considering state representation in the Senate so I'll skip the last two phrases. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The only sticky wicket I see is the ...proposed by Congress. Does this mean that Congress can decide which of the two it will recognize? Or does it mean that Congress can merely express its desire? Or does this apply only to the bills that were developed in the Congress? There's no time line for Congress to decide, could this be used to hinder such a process? Note that it's important to recognize that we're talking about 3/4n conventions and not a single convention attended by 3/4n representatives of the states. The tense of the sentence leaves no doubt. ____________________________________________________________________ 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 --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

3 2

Changing to Moderated Cypherpunks -- How?
by James F. Marshall 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Too much noise in the unedited list. How does one change to the moderated list? - -- James F. Marshall, Esq., Pasadena, California Subject "JFM Public Key" for PGP Public Key - -- OS/2 is to Windows as Stradivarius is to Yamaha -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBNNf8UjbjGennrhqZAQETXgP/WFshRowrhi7qMnUZHUIADA7cCV0fEYFA WiAlynovwU9dyvc/gygz9N6aeJO/ghqiQl2/NqCSsKn5H1nTr1MHbK2iYJwt6AXh ZhMSfz5p1QzVWwm9lIFETipPayuJ+WzCkaakMZP3PPZXG8XUT/48NZG5hJgjfIM7 vqzMkCcHr+A= =2N5t -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

6 5

Re: Fwd: Big Brother Sees through walls (from the spyking list)
by Information Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: sunder <sunder(a)brainlink.com> > > 1)From: "George Martin" <gmartin(a)kic.or.jp> > Subject: News Release: High-Tech Surveillance > > Here's a sampling of how state and federal agencies are using this > terrifying technology to spy on Americans: > > * In North Carolina, county governments use high-resolution spy satellite > photographs to search for property improvements that might increase > property tax assessments. Was this cost authorized by taxpayers? > * On the Mexican border, police use a "gamma ray scanner" to check > tanker trucks for contraband, scanning right through the vehicle's metal > sides. Good!!! CM excerpt: # Those rumor-level stories about our government encouraging # drugs to reach the inner cities were weird. # # Remember, we've been having a Drug War for four decades now. # # I guess there is a certain logic to it. Obviously the government is into # hysteria on the matter: it is then possible that they would want to continue # having a drug problem so they could continue the hysteria. # # Even the Attorney General was drooling over drug forfeiture dollars, to the # point of shunting aside other cases. # # # Recently... # # : CBS 60 Minutes, Steve Croft reporting. # : # : Remember that story of the hero customs agent snagging a tanker truck full # : of cocaine? There is a strange twist to the story. # : # : The Federal agent's manager repeatedly tried to interfere with him making # : the bust. # : # : The agent's dog had flagged the truck; the agent weighed it and found a # : discrepancy. His manager said it must be in the tires. You can only check # : the tires for drugs he was told. # : # : But the agent persisted, and made the bust. His manager let the driver # : of the truck leave. The driver literally fled on foot back to Mexico. # # What the hell was that about??? # # Was it a single corrupt Federal agent? # # : CBS 60 Minutes, Steve Croft reporting. # : # : Standing at a fence about a hundred feet from the U.S. Customs lanes, # : Steve Croft and an ex-agent with a walkie-talkie tuned to the right # : frequency began videotaping the border crossings. # : # : Truck after truck drove right through the individual Customs lanes, # : not even stopping. "Nafta express lanes" explained the ex-agent. # : # : Truck after truck drove straight into the U.S. unmonitored. # : # : Then a message came through the walkie-talkie: "We got some cameras # : watching, better get out there and cover traffic". # : # : Suddenly several Customs agents came out of the booths and started # : inspecting trucks. # # That makes at least five people at a minimum! # # What the hell is going on??? # # # IF the rumor is true, THIS looks like it would be the smoking gun. # # How did our country get so twisted around that they can invade our # bodies to drug test, yet allow truck after truck after truck to # just wander right in knowing HUGE drug shipment after HUGE drug # shipment is crossing? Gosh, there's no drug problem with Mexican # police, military and even their president. # # * The New York Times, February 19 1997 # * # * Brig. General Jesus Gutierrez Rebollo, Mexico's top Military Drug War # * point man, was arrested on charges of receiving payoffs from Jaurez # * cartel kingpin Amado Carrillo Fuentes, Defense Minister Enrique Cervantes # * announced. # * # * U.S. Drug Czar Gen. Barry McCaffrey had weeks earlier called General # * Gutierrez "a guy of absolute unquestioned integrity." # # # And what if some terrorists wanted to sneak in an atom bomb? # # Put a NAFTA sticker on it and drive right on in, y'all. Welcome to the USA. # # If you want to really be certain, hide the A-bomb in a truck full of cocaine. # # If a terrorist nuclear bomb ever goes off in this country, # it drove in from Mexico. # # Meanwhile, Los Alamos National Laboratories developed technology that # allows an officer walking or driving down the street, as shown on MSNBC TV # 6/9/97 www.TheSite.com, to determine whether anyone on the sidewalk is # carrying a gun. # # The priorities are all out of whack. # # Apply Military technology towards securing the border, not by spending # billions and billions and billions each year to secure each and every # one of us. # # We don't put governing-monitors on all car engines to control speeding. # Get an Operations Research clue. # # # Is our government perpetuating the availability of drugs? # # The 60 Minutes report sure makes it look like it is. # # How could letting unchecked Mexican truck after unchecked Mexican truck # through not be? # # ! FBI Director Louis J. Freeh, Senate Judiciary Committee, June 4, 1997 # ! # ! NEW CORRIDORS HAVE OPENED TO CONTINUE THE FLOOD OF DRUGS INTO AMERICA. # # No shit, Sherlock! Ya don't nafta say another word. # # Every single truck can be checked using Military technology. # # But no, massive monitoring of people suspected of no crime is the # appropriate response. # # They were just warming us up for the CALEA telephone monitoring bill. # # ---- # # Here is part of the story on why we let trucks full of cocaine and # heroin just roll right into the United States. # # * "Diminished U.S. Role Below Border Plays Into Traffickers' Hands" # * # * By Molly Moore and John Ward Anderson # * Washington Post Foreign Service # * Sunday, September 8 1996; Page A01 # * The Washington Post # * # * Due to their new 'Mexicanization policy': # * Mexico became the main gateway into the United States for illegal # * narcotics, with the amount of cocaine making the journey climbing to # * an estimated 210 tons last year. # * # * Mexico's drug arrests plunged nearly 65 percent, from 27,369 the year # * before the policy changes to 9,728 last year, according to data that # * the Mexican government supplied to the State Department. # * # * Cocaine seizures in Mexico were cut in half, dropping from more than # * 50 tons in 1993 to slightly more than 24 tons in each of the last two # * years -- the smallest amounts since 1988, Mexican government figures # * show. # * # * The GAO report charges that Mexico's greatest problem is, in # * fact, the "widespread, endemic corruption" throughout its law # * enforcement agencies. Earlier this month, in an indictment of his own # * department, Attorney General Lozano fired 737 members of his federal # * police force -- 17 percent of his entire corps -- saying they did not # * have "the ethical profile" required for the job. In a recent meeting # * with foreign reporters, Lozano said it could take 15 years to clean up # * the force. # * # * In November 1993, President Clinton signed Presidential Decision Directive # * No. 14, shifting U.S. anti-drug efforts away from intercepting cocaine as # * it passed through Mexico and the Caribbean, and, instead, attacking the # * drug supply at its sources in Colombia, Bolivia and Peru. # # The President himself ordered them to stop checking!!! This is in the same # leadership vein as Reagan declaring himself a "Contra". # # And why did President Clinton change strategy? [snip] > * The Naval Surface Warfare Center has developed an "ion sniffer," > a metal box that analyzes the chemical makeup of the air -- and can detect, > for example, traces of cocaine through the skin days after drug use. Bad. > * In Georgia, the state's Department of Revenue will start using > NASA satellites to examine the state's 58,910 square miles for illegal > timber cutting. Good. > * In New Jersey, California, and other states, police use thermal > imaging devices to scan houses for unusual heat sources that could indicate > indoor marijuana growing operations. Houses can be scanned while police sit > in their cruisers on the street. Bad. CM excerpt: # Here is a more detailed example of how government expands surveillance # (and thus control) in a seemingly never-ending manner...consider this when # talking about a National ID Card: # # Is it okay for the government to look at your property while walking by and # if the officer spots marijuana plants growing to get a search warrant? # # Of course it is. # # * "The Right To Privacy", ISBN 0-679-74434-7, 1997 # * By Attorneys Ellen Alderman and Caroline Kennedy # * # * ...then the Supreme Court ruled that if the yard was big enough that "An # * individual may not legitimately demand privacy for activities conducted # * out of doors in fields," the Court wrote, "except in the area immediately # * surrounding the home." # * # * ...then the Supreme Court ruled that a barn sixty yards from a farmhouse # * was too far away from a house to expect privacy. # * # * ...then the Supreme Court ruled that aerial surveillance did not constitute # * a Fourth Amendment search. # * # * ...then the Supreme Court ruled that a "precision aerial mapping camera" # * that was able to capture objects as small as one-half inch in diameter did # * not constitute a Fourth Amendment search. # # ...then courts ruled that infrared surveillance of homes was permissible. # # # What is this? # # * Subject: Re: Law Enforcement Aviation # * From: aufsj(a)imap2.asu.edu # * Date: 1996/12/27 # * Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military # * # * What interests me is how new technologies will be interpreted. I recently # * inquired at the local Law School about the courts views towards the use # * of impulse radar, and they said "Impulse what the heck?" # * # * Basically it is a radar that "sees through" things (like, say, your # * house). # * # * Their capabilities vary widely, but the feds are already using # * them and I know that Hughes corp. is designing a low-cost set up # * specifically for major police departments. # * # * They are driving towards a unit that can be mounted on a police helicopter. # * # * Will the police need a warrant? Who knows. Since they are allowed # * to do airborne infra-red analysis of your house, why not an take an # * airborne "x-ray" equivalent? # * # * --------------------------------------------------------------------- # * Steven J Forsberg at aufsj(a)imap2.asu.edu Wizard 87-01 > * And in Arizona, the state's Department of Water Resources uses > spy satellite photographs to monitor 750,000 acres of state farmland, and > compares the images to a database to discover which farmers don't have > irrigation permits. Good, I guess. > Even worse: The federal government will spend another $4.5 million > this year to develop even more intrusive surveillance equipment. Bad. > Currently under development by the Justice Department: A "super > x-ray" -- combining traditional x-ray technology, ultra-sound imaging, > and computer-aided metal detectors -- to reveal items hidden under clothes > from up to 60 feet away. Bad. > The courts are currently wrestling with the implications of the new > technology, debating the limits of the government's power to "search" > individuals from a distance with high-tech gadgets. Several contradictory > court decisions have already emerged, for example, about whether > thermal-imaging searches are Constitutional. > > Meanwhile, Republican and Democratic politicians continue to look > for new uses of the technology -- with some government officials already > talking about using satellite surveillance to track items as small as > backyard porches to check for zoning violations and construction permits. Smart cards are transponders. Never forget that. > "In the name of fighting crime, politicians seem eager to obliterate the > protections against unreasonable search, with equipment that Americans used > to only read about in Tom Clancy technothrillers," said Dasbach. "It's time > for the American public to wake up and realize that Big Brother is here > today -- and he's got a gamma ray scanner in his hand." No amount of control over the population is enough for the U.S. Government. ---guy

3 2

I was auto-outed by an IMG tag in HTML spam
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I just had my on-line pseudonym outed to my company's VP of marketing, with potentially serious internecine political consequences. It didn't even take an AOL customer service rep to do the dirty deed. Here's how it happened. I have an account unconnected with work, for personal mail, on a machine run by a friend in my wife's department at the local college. From this account, I speak my mind about my political views, my employer's spamming of their rather loosely defined lists of "customers", etc. I don't do that from my work account because I don't want any confusion about whether I am speaking for the company or not. Evidently my mention of my displeasure with my company's spamming hit a nerve with marketing. They sent a message to my off-site address (along with those of other critics about whom they wanted to know more). It was an HTML message with an embedded IMG tag. Last night about midnight, I downloaded my off-site mail with Netscape. (I was still at work because our team is debugging some killer database problems.) When Netscape saw that IMG tag, it happily connected to marketing's "customer" tracking server, and downloaded the keyed graphic. My boss just let me see the log he got from the marketing VP, showing clearly that my workstation read the message. The log was attached to a strident call for my head from the VP. Luckily, my boss agrees with my attitude, as do all of my co-workers on the engineering side of the house, and thinks I was in the right to use an off-site account. But the political fallout could be interesting. Beware "live" message content. If you don't, you may end up having to get your company's entire marketing force fired to protect yourself. Use mail readers that don't automatically process HTML and connect to image servers, accept cookies, or run javascripts. You are being watched by tricky defective, er, detective types. es.

5 6

What's up in SASEBO, or Don't Tug The Beard
by David Honig 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: "George Martin" <gmartin(a)usonet.ne.jp> >To: "honig(a)otc.net" <honig(a)otc.net> >Date: Sat, 04 Apr 98 22:25:07 +0900 >Reply-To: "George D. Martin" <gmartin(a)usonet.ne.jp> >Priority: Normal >X-Mailer: PMMail 1.95a For OS/2 >Subject: > >>4)From: David Honig <honig(a)otc.net> >>Subject: Illegal export of pgp.zip by .mil > >>http://braggbbs.bragg.army.mil/libs/utils.htm >>has a link to ftp://bbs.bragg.army.mil/library/utils/pgp262.zip > >>Someone (from Europe, ideally) should clue these people >>in. Maybe cc the media. > >Maybe you should've checked out the url to see if it was >valid before you shot your mouth off in public... The file >was removed quite a few months ago and was never download >by anyone outside of the .mil domain. Take your >troublemaking somewhere else. I of course informed him that he was mininformed or uninformed. honig(a)alum.mit.edu ------------------ "Are we going after their tax returns? I can only hope that we are, frankly, doing a little persecuting" ---Nixon to Erlichman, on tax audits of wealthy Jewish contributors to the Democrats. -LA Times 1.4.98

2 1

Finally... a One-Time-Pad implementation that works!!!
by Geoffrey C. Grabow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- TriStrata has announced that is has a product that provides OTP without the pad distribution problem. The product also has a unique key-recovery system. Check out: http://www.tristrata.com for details. **************************************************************************** ************* PGP 5.5.3 Fingerprint: 15B3 DDC1 93BB 4BDF 4DFD 1B27 12A1 E0C4 **************************************************************************** ************* -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.3i for non-commercial use <http://www.pgpi.com> iQEVAwUBNZVo5dc2wHb8nZI1AQFqngf/bCJVbMQX/5sYb181CLONmqWjPzhQ66Ef HoyPqxRzEyq4FSWnIuQODH/YTeyyQROUqCZGhC19v8PCiZpI1ynSvn4i+Zcjv9I0 OZBThzKayNoMne7TkNr49Ah9BwDK6XuwS9bns1xM65zfKLpvKP2gboWkADD52K4w eUuJx/cTaR7PgdO/q6nrVRNq1jlaJsFBKGt2q5E1S12ZK1nA+mpKAS95XMgr2IMx 5/wJ+jsOIUTn2gWR64nhluOgmcACeIVsiRlsGqfUdL8gJHAl0gaQ7E1+HSOBx60K Ur5x5MzQKBKlWcoDaEXB1AsICW2enwdGVOxPBklq1CbcQxFXdBj1DQ== =vZmi -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

4 3

Re: FBI calls for mandatory key escrow; Denning on export ctrls
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The on-line NYT's claim today that everyone except the administration is opposed to its crypto policy is daring hyperbole. What's your take on that? http://jya.com/crypto-tops.htm

6 5

New GAK Bill
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

5 September 1997, MSNBC: FBI Director Louis Freeh floats a new proposal at a congressional hearing to outlaw non-breakable crypto products. A radical shift in crypto debate Proposed bill outlaws non-crackable crypto products, restrict imports By Brock N. Meeks, MSNBC WASHINGTON -- The White House would likely be very sympathetic to a controversial new bill that would outlaw all encryption software that doesn't allow law enforcement agencies to immediately decode scrambled messages, an administration official told MSNBC. The new bill, still in draft form, is quietly circulating among members of the House and Senate. Although the administration hasn't formally endorsed any provisions of the bill, MSNBC has learned that the White House has been providing what is called technical drafting assistance to members of Congress writing the bill. William Reinsch, the Commerce Department undersecretary for export administration, confirmed the White House involvement for MSNBC on Thursday night. The draft bill was already in the hands of some members of the Senate's Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism and Government Regulation when FBI Director Louis Freeh outlined its basic provisions while testifying before the panel Wednesday. Freeh said "we would recommend" that legislation be written requiring all encryption software or services made in or imported to the United States to have a feature "which would allow for the immediate, lawful decryption" of any scrambled messages used for illegal purposes or in a national security matter. NATION AT RISK? The White House, FBI and intelligence agencies claim that the proliferation of unbreakable encryption products puts the nation at risk. Criminals and terrorists are increasingly using unbreakable encryption products, Freeh testified Wednesday. U.S. makers of encryption software claim that any government-mandated decoding features would make their products unacceptable to clients in the global marketplace. The new proposals outlined by Freeh also drew the ire of civil liberties groups, which fear that any government controls on encryption products raise serious First Amendment and privacy concerns. Placing such government-mandated controls on the domestic use and manufacture of encryption software, as well as on the import of encryption products, stands in marked contrast to current White House crypto policies. Currently, the United States places strict regulations on the export of any encryption products that do make decoding keys available to law enforcement agencies. However, the administration has steadfastly maintained throughout the often contentious public debate over encryption policies that it would not place any restrictions on the domestic use of encryption software, nor would it restrict the import of encryption products. Despite Freeh's testimony and the draft legislation written with White House assistance, Reinsch said the administration's policy on encryption hasn't changed. "I want to emphasize that [in providing drafting assistance] we are responding to committee requests," he said. "And those requests have been fairly directive, such as: 'Give us some examples of how we can better accommodate law enforcement needs.' " Currently, the White House is backing an encryption bill in the Senate called the Secure Public Networks Act, also known as S. 909. This bill would encourage the use of and set up guidelines for encryption software products with decoding keys. Under this plan, all coded messages would spin off a decoding key that would be stored with a government-approved third party. Law enforcement agencies, foreign or domestic, would be allowed access to those keys if they obtained a court-ordered warrant. The bill would not restrict or require any encryption software used in the United States, or restrict the import of any foreign crypto products. However, MSNBC has learned that the draft bill now circulating among members of the House and Senate specifically outlaws the "manufacture, distribution or import" of any encryption software product or communication device that does not "allow the immediate decryption" of all scrambled messages or communications "if used for illegal purposes." The bill also targets "network services," such as Internet Service Providers, that provide encryption capabilities to their clients. BAN WOULD GO INTO EFFECT IN 1999 Under this proposed bill, if such encryption services are offered by a company like ISP, the service provider must build in a provision to allow for immediate decryption of any scrambled messages, according to several sources that have seen the draft language. The software ban would go into effect in January 1999. Reinsch told MSNBC he wasn't sure that Freeh's testimony "accurately reflected" the language the White House offered in its technica drafting for congressional committees. However, he indicated the administration was interested in Freeh's proposal. "I'll be blunt about it," Reinsch said. If such a bill were approved by a congressional committee, the administration "would look very seriously at it and I imagine we would be very sympathetic to it," he said. Opponents of proposals to require key for all encryption software blanched at Freeh's statements. "This proposal crosses a line that hasn't been crossed before in the area of domestic controls on crypto," said Alan Davidson, policy analyst for the Center for Democracy and Technology. Davidson said a government mandate to provide immediate decryption capabilities would be like "forcing everyone to live in a glass house." It also "trashes the Fourth Amendment," which guarantees a right to be protected from unlawful search and seizure, Davidson said. Freeh told the Senate panel Wednesday that he isn't looking to expand law enforcement's investigative powers. Rather, he said, he is only looking for a "Fourth Amendment that works in the Information Age." ------

4 5

Re: House National Security committee guts SAFE, worse than no b
by Lizard 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:00 PM 9/9/97 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote: >Michael, you once again fail to note the important political issues here. >Sometimes civil liberties, freedom, and constitutional rights must be >ignored in favor of pragmatism. It is important at all costs to remain a >player in the game. > No, it isn't. You end up being more concerned with being in the game than with achieving your goals. Sometimes, you have to kick the board over. I think it is more important to make the laws unenforceable (and make such workarounds useful to the average netizen), than it is to try to keep the government from passing laws. The work of people like Jim Ray and Phillip Baker is crucial here. The government is unlikely to pass laws to limit its own authority, on any issue -- even those who might not want to use a particular power would still want to keep it around 'just in case'. We cannot count on government to protect our freedoms. Therefore, we must make it irrelevant to the exercise of those freedoms. >Instead of opposing bad crypto legislation, we should instead work inside >the process, to gain a seat at the table. That is why it is highly >significant that both Commerce and FBI want to rid us of our freedom but >would do it in subtly different ways. Not really, know. It's unlikely that a "Let's you and him fight" strategy would prove effective, since this isn't just an interdepartmental turf squabble. They will strip our freedoms first, and argue over who gets the thumbscrews second.

2 1

Please Remove
by contest 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Please remove setzer(a)wl.net from this mailing list

2 1

No Subject
by MIS Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dan, You have a .forward file here at mis that points to toad.com. Do you have a .forward there? I received several compalints from people who are getting your mail at cosmos(a)microserve.net. -Jeremy ~---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Abuse & Security Department MicroServe Information Systems, Inc. security(a)admin.microserve.net 100 North Wilkes-Barre Boulevard abuse(a)admin.microserve.net Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania 18702 http://www.naISPa.org (717)821-5964 FAX (717)821-5968 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 3

Please send me some info
by Chiu Ngan 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I am a student of the University of New South Wales in Australia, as I am going to do a research about my informayion system assignment, I am mailing to request for some information. My assignment is regarding to the current examples of "use of computers to commit fraud; use of computer to commit sabotage; false advertising/ claims for computer products; degradation of work as a result of computerisation; failures in computerising the workplace" ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

2 1

Re: democracy?! (Re: Terrorism is a NON-THREAT
by mark＠unicorn.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate wrote: >If we as individuals can't make our own decisions about what is best for us, >what makes you think some stranger will do any better? Indeed. Yet in a democracy, any two other members are assumed to know better than me, and any 51% to know better than the other 49%. >Every form of government other than democracy assumes a >priori that noble oblige is prima facia. To paraphrase an old questions of >politics, who governs the governors? Or do you feel we have found angels in >the form of kings? Democracy is merely the scoundrel's last attempt to maintain the divine right of kings by coverting it into the divine right of the elected. >Which means we should have the lowest number of incarcerated individuals >instead of the most. Indeed, thereby proving that democracy *doesn't* work. >Doesn't work what way? Midnight raids, anti-drug laws, all the examples you just gave of the evils of democracy, etc, etc. >Consider, other than democracy, that every form of >government has an implicit assumption that there is some base sets of >activities that citizens should be permitted and they will be happy. Someone (Churchill?) once said that democracy is the best form of goverment. Amusingly he considered this a defence of democracy, not a damning indictment of the entire concept of government. >In a >democracy the people are given the opportunity to make up their mind what to >do with their lives and property without having to obtain permission from >some authority. Medical licensing, drivers licenses, pilots licenses, export restrictions, gun licenses (in various democracies), concealed weapons permits... do I have to go on? This doesn't seem to bear any resemblance to the reality of democracy. >Paying a government to keep the park clean and mowed and the lights on at >night or my streets well paved and de-iced in winter And a government does this better than a private corporation because? >is not quite the same >thing as having black-suited ninja wann-be's kicking my door in at 2AM >because I choose to smoke a joint or even grow my own weed; Again, this is a clear example of the failure of democracy. A big difference between democracy and anarcho-capitalism[1] is that in an anarcho-capitalist society the cops will be too busy making money to launch such raids on their customers, and most customers will be too self-interested to pay cops to raid their neighbors. >There is a reason behind the madness of "Congress shall make no law...". Indeed; such a shame they put all those other words into the Constitution. That phrase sounds like a pretty good conception of government to me. Mark [1] See, for example, 'The Machinery of Freedom', by David Friedman: excerpts on the Web at http://www.best.com/~ddfr/

4 3

None Gary Burnore, Paul Pomes, and the DataBasix Gang (was: Re: Remailer hating Nazis)
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

nobody(a)REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) wrote: > >I'm familiar with the role of Gary Burnore <gburnore(a)netcom.com> and that > >of his DataBasix associates Belinda Bryan <eridani(a)ix.netcom.com> and Billy > >McClatchie (aka "Wotan") <wmcclatc(a)primenet.com> in getting the Mailmasher > >and Huge Cajones remailers shut down. Jeff Burchell posted a public > >expose' of their harassment to Usenet back in June, apparently catching the > >DataBasix folks off-guard. But what's the story with Paul Pomes? What has > >he done? > > Paul Pomes was complaining about Jeff Burchell's huge cajones remailer to Jeff > Burchell's upstream and employers about the same time the rest of the Databasix > gang was doing it. Paul Pomes appears to be a part of the Databasix gang. It's sort of ironic that these anti-privacy, anti-anonymity Nazi wannabes complain about remailers which give their users privacy, then somehow expect that their own complaints will be kept hidden. I rather syspect that Gary Burnore, Belinda Bryan, and Paul Pomes were rather shocked when Jeff Burchell decided to tell the whole story (unfortunately AFTER shutting down the Huge Cajones remailer). Maybe the next time Gary, Linda, or Paul send a remailer operator a complaint, the operator will know what to expect next. I'm wondering if that's at least part of what's behind the faux spam-baiting that's underway, with messages to varios MMF, MLM, and alt.sex.* NGs whose title and body consist of randomly- chosen words, followed by a list of bogus e-mail addresses in the body. The thing that's not so random is the high percentage of words that are related to DataBasix, such as "DataBasix", "Burnore", and "Wotan". I'm almost waiting for Gary Burnore to give the remailer and mail2news operators a "helpful" suggestion that they could curb most of this "abuse" by simply blocking any anonymous posts containing any of those three keywords. <g> Or perhaps he's done so and politely been turned down. Perhaps the next wave of attacks on remailers will not consist of attempts to shut them down altogether but to progressively cripple them by getting certain features disabled, one by one. This seems to have already started. The strategy seems to be to fabricate a form of "abuse", anonymously through remailers, for which the seemingly "logical" solution is to disable a certain feature. This has already proven successful with header pasting, for example. Now you can't post to Usenet and set the From: address to that of your own 'nym. I'm not even certain that you can set a Reply-To: address any more. If the "camel" can get his nose under the tent and convince operators to start filtering on the *CONTENT* of the Subject: line or body of usenet posts, the anti-privacy nuts will have scored a major victory. In fact, from reading Jeff Burchell's posts, it looks like Gary and his DataBasux-ers had initially convinced Jeff to do exactly that. But, in a symbolic victory for freedom of speech, he removed those filters for a week before he finally shut down Huge Cajones altogether. > >Perhaps the best thing that can be done with people like Burnore is to put > >together an FAQ about their tactics, similar to what his "fans" have done > >for the "Rev." Steve Winter. Then when Burnore tries to stir up trouble by > >first fabricating anonymous "abuse" and then demanding that it either be > >stopped and the culprit(s) identified (knowing in advance that's > >impossible), or else that the remailer be shut down, someone can forward > >that FAQ to the remailer's upstream provider, or whoever is being pressured > >to pull the plug. And if Paul Pomes engages in the same dishonest tactics, > >that needs to be done with him as well. > > Gary Burnore had a mongo page at http://www.netscum.net/burnorg0.html. > So did Paul Pomes, Belinda Bryan, and the rest of the Databasix gang. > Too bad it's down for now, but it'll be back. It's already back, for the time being. The new URL is: http://www.spambusters.dyn.ml.org/www.netscum.net/burnorg0.htm I'll go look for Paul Pomes' page at that site. Thanks for the tip! Let's see how long that site stays in operation before the self-styled "Thought Police" attempt to shut it down. -- Without censorship, things can get terribly confused in the public mind. -- General William Westmoreland

2 1

Re: cryptx spam - des-based program.
by Ian Grigg 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bill Stewart said: > I got spammed by someone selling Cryptx, a DES-based encryption program. Sheez, not only spam, but perverting our good name! Cryptix is good strong stuff, they are simply hoping to confuse customers by dropping a vowel. -- iang systemics.com FP: 1189 4417 F202 5DBD 5DF3 4FCD 3685 FDDE on pgp.com

4 5

Why porn must be stopped at all costs, by Jodi Hoffman
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Wow. First time I've ever been personally accused of being "a major reason for the downward spiral of society." --Declan] ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 11:53:27 -0500 From: Jodi Hoffman <jlhoffm(a)ibm.net> To: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Why porn must be stopped at all costs..... ALL: I've forgotten how long I've been on this email list. Maybe too long. Try as I might, I cannot forget standing on the steps of the Supreme Court building with my husband and 10 year old daughter in the freezing drizzle. I really thought we could make a difference, standing there with our banner and signs, one of which read, "DON'T SACRIFICE MY CHILD ON THE ALTAR OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT." Stupid me. As the saying goes...we've come a long way, baby. As I wander back through all the posts on this list, it finally dawns on me what this is all about, this 'fight censorship' rhetoric. It's nothing more and nothing less than a lot of egotistical, self-serving brats who absolutely refuse to grow up, including you, Declan. Don't you realize that YOU are a major reason for the downward spiral of society? Instead of trying to protect children, you want to empower them. Even a moron knows that when you do so, that power has to be taken from someone. Unfortunately, that someone is the parent. I have to ask myself just how many on this list have children. Not many, I would say. Someone on this list, I forget who, has made numerous attempts at convincing us that pornography 'does no harm' to children. It is exactly at this point that I must draw a line. Studies have shown that an event which lasts even so much as three-tenths of a second, within five to ten minutes has produced a structural change in the brain. Exposure to porn causes actual brain damage, especially in a child. So, keep protecting your porn-induced orgasms. That's exactly what happened with the Hitler youth, etc... After all, I'm sure it does help to blur the lines of reality. ===================== Please PRINT THIS OUT and save for later reference. Rules number 1 through 7 have already been put into effect. Rule number 8 is currently being implemented. Numbers 9 and 10 are already in the beginning phases. If you're not yet convinced that you are contributing to the ruination of America, I would hope you will be by the time you finish reading this. Paul and Jodi Hoffman Weston, Florida "When an opponent declares, "I will not come over to your side", I calmly say, "Your child belongs to us already..." --Adolph Hitler, speaking about the schools and their indoctrination of the Hilterjugend (Hitler Youth Corps). ================================================== LENIN'S BLUEPRINT FOR WORLD DOMINATION These 'Rules' are meant to be a loose parody of the Ten Commandments, and are particularly emphasized at the Lenin School of Political Warfare. They are practical rules that are being implemented all over the world -- with special emphasis on the strongest foe of Communism, the United States. Study these Rules very carefully. And then reflect upon what is happening in our society right now. Perhaps this list will provide answers to some of the questions that seemed --until now -- to have no answers. Lenin himself said that it didn't matter that three-fourths of the world be destroyed, just so the remnant were good Communists. RULE FOR REVOLUTION #1: CORRUPT THE NATION'S YOUTH THE RULE: The future of any nation lies with its youth. So corrupt them; since religion teaches moral virtue, erode the churches and divert the young from religion. Make them interested only in themselves. Get them involved in drugs, alcohol, and sex. Get them addicted to privileges and rights. THE REALITY: Many of today's youth are grossly overprivileged, committed to fashion, physically flabby and lazy, and mentally undisciplined. If they don't want to do something, they simply will not do it. And if they want to do something to indulge themselves, no law or moral standard will hold them back. They feel that they are entitled to the 'good things in life,' not as a reward for hard work, but as an expected gift, to be received without effort and even without asking. And where do they learn such slovenliness? Just spend two hours in front of a television watching a random selection of situation comedies to find out. Unfortunately, kids who fit the above description usually model themselves after their parents. Such parasitic habits would not be tolerated in the former Soviet Union. The prevailing attitude among today's pampered American youth is one of nihilism ( I am nothing, life has no meaning, I don't care) -- and for good reason. Over 75 percent of America's high school boys now think it's acceptable to rape a girl at any age. Wonder why anymore? RULE FOR REVOLUTION #2: CONTROL THE MASS MEDIA THE RULE: Since the media shapes the minds of the people, infiltrate it and control it. Dominate television, radio, and the newspapers, and you control the minds of the people. THE REALITY: It is quite obvious that traditional values are considered ridiculous to all branches of the media. Christians, clergy, and even Christ Himself are held up as objects of scorn and mocking laughter by television, motion pictures, radio, artists, and songwriters. In the place of decency and morality, a constant stream of Left-wing values is presented. Homosexuality, abortion, violence, and contempt for all parental and governmental authority is the prevailing order of the day. A particularly powerful form of media is represented by the so-called "arts community." Some latter-day "artists" actually make a pretty good living by mocking traditional values and Christianity. Consider Andres Sorrano's "Piss Christ" (a photograph of a crucifix submerged in urine) or Robert Mapplethorp's photos, which include one showing a bullwhip protruding out of his rear end. This media bias is not a fantasy of a few right-wing whiners; this is cold, hard reality. The extreme leftward tilt of the media has been documented by impartial observers and study managers, and has even been acknowledged by the press itself. RULE FOR REVOLUTION #3: ENCOURAGE PUBLIC INDIFFERENCE THE RULE: Cause the people to become disinterested in their own government and in world affairs. Get them to feel disenfranchised. Get them to ridicule and lose respect for government leaders. THE REALITY: Americans now vote at a lower rate than at any other time in our history. Every American knows how disenfranchised and powerless the average voter feels. The media constantly trumpet instances of hypocrisy and corruption in our government, despite the fact that we have the most open and honest political system in the world. The United States Supreme Court has wrested much of the State's power from them with judicial activism. This means that the people's representatives at the State level -- and therefore the people themselves -- have much less of a voice in their own government. On the state level, when people or local legislators finally manage to pass a conservative law regarding abortion, pornography or homosexuality, it is invariably challenged by Neo-liberal groups and struck down by higher courts, leading voters to ask themselves "Why bother participating in the process? We have no real voice in how things are run anyway!" RULE FOR REVOLUTION #4: ENCOURAGE PUBLIC BICKERING THE RULE: Divide the people into hostile groups. Divide them against themselves by getting them to squabble about inconsequential social issues. THE REALITY: Never before have so many trivial issues captured so much air time. Major construction and other projects are halted due to sometimes trivial environmental concerns. Critical research which uses animals is halted or impeded by animal-rights groups. Sodomy rights, old- growth timber, anti-fur, and dozens of other Neoliberal causes (and the conservative backlash) cause more friction among our nation's people than in any other nation in the world. Meanwhile, the real issues of importance are either entirely neglected or paid weak lip service: Crime, poverty, hunger and, beneath all of them, the moral disintegration of our country. All of these have lead to despair among those affected and encourage violent change at any cost, with no thought given to the kind of change being fought for. Naturally, when conservatives react to Neoliberal initiatives with concrete action, they are painted as agents of "divisiveness" and "disunity," further leading to the impression that American society is composed entirely of squabbling special-interest groups. RULE FOR REVOLUTION #5: SEIZE POWER, THEN CENSOR THE RULE: Always preach true democracy, but seize power as completely and ruthlessly as possible. Vigorously censor viewpoints that conflict with ours. THE REALITY: If the slightest complaint against pornography in our schools is raised by concerned parents, People for the American Way (PAW), the ACLU, and other left-wing groups instantly shout "censorship!" But they say not a word when it is pointed out that the Bible and all mention of morality in textbooks have been ruthlessly hounded from the schools. Religion has literally disappeared from our children's textbooks. The media relentlessly suppress the reasoning behind conservative and traditional viewpoints while reporting their version of the facts and claiming "impartiality." Artists' demand that the people pay for their atrocities. When the people balk, the 'artists' whine about censorship. All traditional groups and viewpoints are fair game for ridicule; yet when was the last time you saw any 'artist' making fun of sodomites or women? In other words, the censorship is all one-way. And the "pluralism" valued so much by the Neoliberals is entirely unilateral (one way only). Communist atrocities which have killed more than 150 million all over the world are glossed over or ignored, but the most trivial international action by the United States brings immediate and forceful condemnation. RULE FOR REVOLUTION #6: BANKRUPT THE GOVERNMENT THE RULE: Encourage government extravagance on every front. Get the government deeply into debt. Get the people dependent on government by providing for their every need. This destroys their independence, motivation and strength. THE REALITY: The United States is flat broke. It is the number one debtor nation on earth, with a deficit of more than $5,000,000,000,000 (five trillion dollars). Social programs pay for everything from abortion and homosexual-run "sensitivity training sessions" to comprehensive sex education. We are the most truly Socialistic society on earth, a nation of people addicted to entitlements, unable to break away from the ample government teat, people who scream at the top of our lungs if any cutbacks in services are proposed. And yet, the Neoliberals want to spend even more. They want us to fund family benefits for sodomites, a comprehensive health care plan that will inevitably turn into a Britain-like socialized horror, and "art" that is blatantly obscene. RULE FOR REVOLUTION #7: DESTROY NATIONAL VALUES THE RULE: Cause a breakdown of indigenous national values. Destroy all tradition in preparation for the bright dawn of glorious Socialism. Ridicule religion, patriotism, and honesty. The people must be led to have only one interest: Themselves! THE REALITY: >From the public schools to the pulpits of Christian "churches," moralrelativism and situational ethics are the rule of the day. The highest goods are compassion, nonjudgmentalism, and tolerance. Any individual weakness is treated as a problem of society, not of the person, and this relieves everyone of the responsibility of improving themselves. Why should there be any effort to take responsibility for one's own faults when "society" is so conveniently ready to take the blame for all one's sins? Society has made the sacrifice. So criminals, addicts, alcoholics, child molesters, wife beaters, and others can always blame their problems on society. We have truly become the "me generation." RULE FOR REVOLUTION #8: ATTACK GUN OWNERSHIP THE RULE: Control or register all firearms if possible. This will make their confiscation much easier when the time comes for revolution. THE REALITY: When the Communist Revolution occurs in the United States, the last thing the Red Armies want to face is ten million determined and well-trained guerrillas (gun owners) taking potshots at them from around every corner. The Communists don't want the equivalent of ten Afghanistans in the United States. Although the objective of inhibiting gun ownership has not yet been completely met, there are dozens of bills and initiatives being submitted all over the country for compulsory gun registration, permitting, and other controls. The Second Amendment is disregarded entirely as Neoliberals trumpet for all guns to be totally banned. After all, they say, thousands die from gun-related accidents and crimes every year. They fail to see that criminals will always get guns, a parallel to their own argument stating that, if abortion becomes illegal, women will still get abortions. RULES FOR REVOLUTION #9 AND #10: UNDERMINE THE ARMED FORCES THE RULES: Destroy the reputation of the armed forces. Cause the young men to perceive military duty as distasteful and ridiculous. Fight registration of any kind, and encourage defections within the ranks. Cause the people to desire peace at any cost. Cause them to oppose any and all of their government's actions regarding the strengthening or use of their armed forces. THE REALITY: Our country's armed forces consume a vast percentage of our gross national product. We possess the best and most advanced weapons systems in the world. But our armed forces are a joke for two reasons: (1) they are completely restrained in their actions by a hostile Congress, and (2) the armed forces have been saddled with such a bad reputation that it is virtually impossible to fill the ranks with volunteers, even in the new and streamlined armed services. Where serving in the armed forces was once considered patriotic and honorable (as it was in the former Soviet Union), it is now looked upon as foolish and 'anti-progressive.' Servicemen are ridiculed and denigrated at every turn. People say that, if you can't make it on the outside, you wind up in the armed forces. Every serviceman is considered to be a useless gobbler of tax money. FINAL REALITY: WELCOME TO AMERIKA, COMRADES. ================================================================ The 'Rules for Revolution' described here are the most important actions that can be taken to weaken a country in order to prepare it for armed attack or a skillful coup d'etat. These rules are summaries that are extracted from a number of books written by professional revolutionaries from the former Soviet Union, from other Communist-dominated countries, and from the United States itself. They are most concisely summarized in the 2,225 page, three-volume set Lenin: Selected Works , distributed in English by Progress Publishers, 21, Zubovsky Boulevard, Moscow. These general principles, dedicated to one of the most famous revolutionaries of all time, Vladimir Lenin, are studied by every Communist political scientist, and by every ambassador or emissary of any type who leaves the former Soviet Union. They are also studied in great detail by many Americans. -- Jodi Hoffman R.A.M.P. http://www.gocin.com/ramp Victimization of Children/Research & Education Council of America 1304 SW 160th Avenue, Suite 122 Weston, Florida 33326 Phone: (954) 349-0366 Fax: (954) 349-0361

20 34

Re: your mail
by Joel O'Connor 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I traveled by train all the way to Florida from Rhode Island once. 24 hours straight it took man and I swore I would never do it again. 40-50 people per car and basically one bathroom per car. Come morning time man, the lines for the bathrooms stretched out of the cars. Screw that, I could have flown and made it in 3 hours. Plus it's easier for the gov't to stop trains and search them, I'd rather go with the flight. ---Chip Mefford <cmefford(a)video.avwashington.com> wrote: > > > > Where possible, > > fuk a bunch of airlines anyway. > > Travel by train is a lot more enjoyable, relaxing, fun. > Folks that travel by train could fly, but would > preferr to enjoy the ride, cause it ain't no cheaper, > > except, !! > > you can pay with cash and show no id and go > where you would like in the lower 48. > > anonymously. > > On Tue, 27 Oct 1998, Anonymous wrote: > > > At 02:43 PM 10/26/98 -0400, Robert A. Costner wrote: > > >At 01:15 PM 10/26/98 -0500, Duncan Frissell wrote: > > >>9. "I do not posses any government-issued photo ID and thus cannot travel > > >>to the location stated in the subpoena. > > > > > >ROTFLMAO... > > > > > >This last one is too funny to not use. I don't have a subpoena, but I can > > >just see myself writing back explaining this and requesting assistance with > > >a plane flight to solve this problem. > > > > Actually you don't need state id to fly, legally. But the airlines will > > hassle you and not put your bags aboard til you are. There > > are references on the net to flying without state id. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > == Ogre bounces like sonar. . .Peace. Ogre _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

4 3

4 Horseman not so bad..
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:52 AM 10/29/98 -0500, Chip Mefford wrote: >> but some peope are scared of >> drugs/paedophiles/terrorists etc, so thats the way in for the jackboots. >> To oppose it we need to reduce fear. > >Thats the most interesting POV I've ever heard >of in these discussions, seems like for the most part, >we counter fear arguments with other fear arguments, >Never saw this before. Bears more examination. Right. The new Happy Net campaign. Druggies.. why, they're friendly enough to be elected officials in such peaks of civilization as D.C. and L.A. And the more successful recreational pharmaceutical merchants are luxury-car and mobile telecomm early adopters! Pedophiles. Well, consider that Kennedy and his babysitter.. You'd still vote for him, right? Terrorists. Well, shoot, everyone needs to express themselves some times. One day you're a terrorist, the next you're boosting the POTUS's ratings a few points with a handshake.

2 1

Spy News
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

NYT reports today on a new book, "Blind Man's Bluff," which reports on the US's success at placing surveillance devices on Soviet subsea communications cables around the world. With much technical detail about how it was done, beginning with the simple but overlooked idea of locating shoreline warning signs about undersea cables then tracking from there. The devices, some up to 20 feet long for housing elaborate processing equipment, captured electronic emanations, thereby eluding detection measures aimed at physical taps. One was found by the Soviets but most were not and much information on the program is still classified. AT&T and Bell labs built many of them. The US Navy will not comment on the book, citing national security restrictions. The Times also has an obituary for Tommy Flowers, the gent who guided construction of Colossus machines at Bletchley Park to break top-level German codes during WW II. There's still interesting debate about the Paul Dore story of picking up signals from space, which he first thought were from aliens, but which seems more likely to be from a surveillance satellite, and possibly from a type not publicly known. Not enough data yet to show that the story is not a hoax, or disinformation by US/UK spy agencies, but it has led to informative discussion of what such signals could indicate. Notes on this at: http://jya.com/project415.htm More commentary welcome, here or privately. Some will recall a vigorous discussion here a few years back about listening in on US undersea cables, commencing at the landfall points (dense packs of them here in the NYC area), many handily marked on coastal seafaring maps. Or, for more up-to-date technology, setting a receiver to point in the direction of those on TLA bases (needing an x-ray of the concealing radome).

3 2

Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
by Anonymous Sender 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Harmon Seaver wrote: > > This isn't a ski mask burglary. We KNOW Saddam ruled Iraq. > > We KNOW what crimes were committed. Simple syllogism. > > No we don't. We only know what the propaganda mills have told us. > Twenty years ago it was a different story. The propaganda mills were working for Saddam, not against him. http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/04/1599076.php "Over the last dozen years I made 13 trips to Baghdad to lobby the government to keep CNN's Baghdad bureau open and to arrange interviews with Iraqi leaders. Each time I visited, I became more distressed by what I saw and heard - awful things that could not be reported because doing so would have jeopardized the lives of Iraqis, particularly those on our Baghdad staff." http://www.techcentralstation.com/041103H.html "It appears there is another, more troubling, reason Jordan decided not to report these hideous crimes until the regime was safely out of the way: CNN didn't want to lose its on-the-ground access to a big story." Human Rights Watch, Amnesty, and countless Iraqi refugees all report similar stories of widespread torture and murder. Is it your position that these are all propagandists? Dismissing as "propaganda" any reports that oppose your argument, while accepting as truth any claim that supports it, is simple intellectual dishonesty.

1 0

U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-- On 16 Dec 2003 at 2:36, Anonymous wrote: > I saw several people commenting the issue of Geneva > convention on CNN during the day. Also I saw an expert on > this field from another country commenting on the issue > stating that it was a clear violation of the convention. In > either of these interviews were there any discussion on > whether it didn't apply to this specific case due to what > clothings he happened to wear or whattever. I got the > impression that it was clear that the U.S. treatment wasn't > fully appropriate. If you were watching the BBC, you would have thought most of the Iraqi population were outraged by his capture. I think you are suffering from New York Times syndrome "If even the New York Times admits that the kulaks are happy and prosperous under Stalin, that shows you how great the Soviet Union really must be when you discount all that capitalist propaganda." --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG Lh9C/c3J2U0bybWlK/P0f5hnnZT1z+2QEe1K9Ev2 4cVVWOLkCVsvYQG/u75vRB5xVrL2GjBeaEl+j6x07

6 6

Re: Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)
by Michael Kalus 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 17-Dec-03, at 5:43 PM, Jim Dixon wrote: > >> According to the US Government though they are not soldiers. They are >> "unlawful enemy combattants". > > I can only interpret this as your saying that the US Government's > judgement in this issue is correct, and they are not POWs. > I only tell you what they are telling us. I do not agree with this assessment personally. >> >> The war in Afghanistan is over. This is were they were caught. Thus >> they >> should be released, no? > > Oh, we are back to their being POWs. Fine. In that case, the answer > to > your question is no. > > The war in question was begun by an attack on the United States, by the > murder of 3000 people in New York City. Is this war over? Not > according > to tapes attributed to al Qaeda. They still profess to be at war with > the United States. > Where the war begun is probably debatable. The US had (and has) their fingerprints over a lot of things that are happening. And all of these you could construe as an act of war. > Is the war in Afghanistan over? Not according to news reports. Osama > bin > Laden remains free. The Taliban remain active. But the regime has been replaced, thus the war is over, no? That was the case in Europe. Germany was defeated, a new government installed (with a lot of people from the old one) and you called it "done deal". Same in Japan. So what's different this time? > >> If they are terrorists and they have proof of >> this they should put them in front of a court (and I guess that should >> be a civil court, not a military tribunal as I don't quite see since >> when the US Army is performing law enforcement duties). > > Please make your mind up. Now they are terrorists again. > I am answering to your statements. We have already established that if they are POWs then they should be released because the war is over (see above). If they are not POWs but held because of terrorist charges, than they should be tried no? > Whose law requires that terrorists be treated in this fashion? > Our "enlightened" western society, led by the USofA who proclaims to know what right and wrong is (and who wants to teach it to all those "primitive" cultures in the middle east). > The US Army's responsibility is not to enforce the law. It is to > defend > the United States. They seem to be doing a good job at the moment. > Sure sure, nobody has flown another plane in a building. Is this because of the US Army and all those nifty security screenings at the airport (just last weekend I flew out of Dallas and saw more than enough ways to get something through security), or because nobody really wanted to do it right now? Guess we'll never know. But of course the Spinmeisters are going to say it's because of the war in Iraq and added security. I wonder who or what they are going to blame the next time someone gets blown up. > In the United States it is the responsibility of the police to enforce > the > law in their jurisdiction. There is no US police force with > responsiblities in Guantanamo. US law does not apply to Cuba. Nifty, isn't it? "Well people, we see your point. But you have to Understanding, even though we control Guantanamo Bay and even though Diego Garcia is a British Island which we just annexed, we can't really do anything to help those poor people. But don't fret, if they would be in an Afghani jail they would be off worse. Remember, we are the good guys, we only do what's in humanities best interrest." If they would be held in New York State they would have more rights. So let's just not even try that, we might actually HAVE to treat them according to the gospel that we preach. >> But they are not POWs by their own account. If they could be charged >> with any of these crimes above, then what takes two years to actually >> convict them? > > By your way of thinking, if I am taken prisoner in a war, I can decide > that I am not a POW and walk free. That's not what I said. What I DID say was that if they are not POWs and are not charged with a crime, they should be set free. > > In what war has this been common practice? See above. >> Some of them ARE US Citizens. Others are citizens of other states. >> International Law means that if I (holding a German passport) have to >> be >> allowed to contact MY government in order to receive any aid that I >> might require. This right has not been given. > > What "International Law" says that unlawful combatants get to contact > their governments in this manner? > The term "unlawful combatants" doesn't exist either. So the question is mute. Let's say "Human being" instead. > What if the government contacted, say Afghan or Pakistani, would prefer > that they not be contacted as you desire, or prefers that you be held > as > a prisoner indefinitely? Than you have a problem with your government. But neither British, nor Canadian nor French authorities were notified / could be contact OR, after they found out, were allowed to talk to their people. > >> Granted, I would not be protected under the rights of the US >> constitution, but I do have other rights and those are clearly >> violated >> as well. > > What's so clear about this? Do you actually have any knowledge at all > of customs and practices in countries in the region? Do you care at > all > about the opinions of local people, about their customary practices? I > think not. It is not only about people from Afghanistan, it is also about other countries, see my text above. >> >> Treason would need to be proofen. Considering that no charges have >> been >> brought forward after almost two years it is pretty clear (or at least >> appears to be) that there is no proof that any of these people did >> anything wrong. > > Do you know for a fact that there are US citizens held at Guantanamo? > If > so, who are they? > There have been several reports. What about John Walker? Whatever happened to him? >>> >> It doesn't. But if that would be the case than the captured Afghans >> should be returned to the Afghan authorities, why is this not >> happening? > > Perhaps the Afghan authorities don't want them back. > > Hello? > Perhaps you just look for the easy way out? Michael -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP+DwTmlCnxcrW2uuEQL6iwCeOK5U56u8xVB9aT1SAqj+yi7OULcAoOd0 bml/UV9L7YtJFFoAq77OCilk =aXZZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
by Michael Kalus 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 17-Dec-03, at 5:23 PM, Jim Dixon wrote: >>> Damn lucky, to be honest. >>> >> No I did not omit this little bit. This is not the question. > > Oh but it is. > Ah? Why? >> Guilt or not guilt is not (supposely) decided when captured but in a >> court of law. You remember, "Justice" the thing the US supposely is >> standing for? > > Are you saying that the United States has to be a light to the world, > that > it has an extraordinary responsibility to be morally correct, that its > actions should be judged by a different standard from those of other > countries? The US makes these claims on their own. If they are the "good guys" than they should act like it. Not only when it is convenient but also when it is not. Morale is not about the "best bang for the buck" but about integrity. The US Government clearly does not possess a lot of integrity when it comes to morale. > What are you, some kind of pro-American fanatic? Last time I checked I was a human being. > >> Whatever he did before, it does not matter at this point. At this very >> moment the people who have to abide are the victors and that means the >> US Government (and thus the US Military). >> >> Two wrongs still don't make a right. > > What exactly is wrong with inspecting a prisoner's teeth and giving him > a haircut? Televising this for propaganda purposes. > > Why exactly do you say that mass murder, invasion, genocide somehow > are outweighed in the scales of justice by a medical examination? > No, what I am saying is that no matter what he did, the US still has to play by international rules (or should at least). Using those images from Saddam as Propaganda clearly is wrong. Michael -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP+DxBGlCnxcrW2uuEQJqKQCgujw7xjSVAPdzXDcEW9abBkRyaF8AoNOL H+VuSTqSPFSTA834qQS2X36C =ULJm -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
by Nomen Nescio 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim, sorry it was unclear from my post whom I was referring to. It was "James A. Donald". I did put his message id in a reply-to header. Jim Dixon wrote: > Hitler, you mean? Or did you have Milosevic in mind? No what I meant was what IF somehow Bush or Blaire or some other high ranking coalition politician were captured by Iraq during the war and was treated in the same way. I can only presume you would support Saddam's soldiers checking Bush for lice then. You are also utterly missing the point and you are one pretty good example of how "the mob" are thinking. EVERYONE, including Saddam, Pol Pot or whattever should be treated in accordance with the laws by us who call ourselves the free democratic part of the world. Then they shall stand trial. A fair trial and being represented by lawyers. What would be more satisfying for the critics of U.S. than to see U.S. not being able to get its act together and instead conducting itself in a manner inconsistent with international law during this rather criticl phase of the Iraqi campaign. Mark my words, U.S. will be in regret later. Jim Dixon, you also wrote some half trouths on the subject of Palestinians and the support they received. You should read up on this subject. Saddam also has a history of building up edicational institutions and so on. He recived awards by U.N. earlier on for his wellfare programs and the development Iraq was gaining. Anyone can check this up, just call U.N. in NY and you'll receive a few references I'm sure. What I mean by this is not to defend him in any way but I feel that this rewriting of history and propaganda is serving noone in the long run. If you believe that 100% of the arab world in their harts and minds hate Saddam you're wring. Very wrong. Steve Schear: thanks for your interesting post! Some people need to learn more of that. I also noticed on the news that CIA was conducting the questioning of Saddam. (Did anyone expect anything else?!) I guess this also means that U.S. now will join all dicatators and awful beasts in performing various forms of abuse and torture on him. Iraq formally removed the death penalty just a few weeks ago. Regardless of what you feel about that in general, I think it's embarrasing once again to see U.S. almost "lobbying" against the Iraqis to have them not honouring their own laws to satisfy Bush on this specific issue! Remember there's only one reason for Bush wanting to see Saddam dead and that he does. And that is the fact that "Saddam tried to kill my papa" as Bush put it, I've seen it in interviews myself. Jim Dixon, going through your post again I see yet another half trough, you write > The people on this list are less.. public humiliation and hanging of Americans.. And you seem to forget that U.S. was in bed with Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war era and that there was a friendly tone then. U.S. officials met with Iraqi, I think that Tareq Azis met with Reagan even? Your whole post is based on the feeling that we're gonna do what they did to us. In doing so you have manifested what has been written here about "gasing into the abyss" and so on. You have become what you hunt. Be ware. It is my opinion that we shall distinguish ourselves from these bastards by not committing their deeds ourselves. You seem not to agree on that. And that is a major mistake.

7 12

Re: Don't worry...it's just one of Saddam's doubles
by Tyler Durden 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"If I don't remember incorrectly, they said something about identifying him by DNA testing." Well, of course "Saddam" is going to test positive...he's apparently an actual CLONE. Actually, from what I understand this is the 'original' Saddam (note how much older he seems than the Saddams we've been seeing in the press over the last few years), but he hasn't actually controlled things for a couple of decades. The Saddam we're really looking for is approximately Saddam #3, and he's still at large, and directing the insurgency. -TD >From: Thomas Shaddack <shaddack(a)ns.arachne.cz> >To: Tyler Durden <camera_lumina(a)hotmail.com> >CC: cypherpunks(a)minder.net >Subject: Re: Don't worry...it's just one of Saddam's doubles >Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 03:33:53 +0100 (CET) > > >On Sun, 14 Dec 2003, Tyler Durden wrote: > > > Spread the word. The adminstration got desparate. In a few weeks they'll > > announce this isn't the real Saddam, but that rounding up all of the >clones > > is necessary progress in the fight to get the real Saddam. > >If I don't remember incorrectly, they said something about identifying him >by DNA testing. But it wasn't widely quoted in the mainstream news. So >even if it really is him - they may still claim he isn't the real McCoy if >the insurgency won't stop. > >The timing is definitely weird. Too soon before the Elections. > >But there is still the backup, the Lost TV Star, also known as Ossama; >whether They intend to announce capturing him, or whether he will be >claimed responsible for Something Scary in a psyops attempt to make the >voters more susceptible to the beat of the Homeland Security drums. _________________________________________________________________ Wonder if the latest virus has gotten to your computer? Find out. Run the FREE McAfee online computer scan! http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

3 2

Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
by Tyler Durden 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"I'd be real happy about millions of bleeding hearts all over the world jerking their knees in unison, ready to cry a fucking ocean over this unbelievably cruel haircut and medical check-up I'm being given. Fucking tools." A thread that started out quasi-interesting has descended into non-Cypherpunk levels of triviality. The original point stands, and is valid. The Islamic world and, in particular, the Arabic part of the Islamic world, are probably going to forget their dislike of Saddam when they see those newreels of the great Dictator being rubbergloved and de-loused. For them it's almost certainly going to resound as a symbol of how we've systematically manipulated and fucked them over all these years. They're not going to respect our "Power", they're not going to care much that WE supported Saddam in the first place. They're just going to get angrier. Look for bin Laden to grow in status until he's just a notch or two below Mohammed. Look then for more bombings and 9/11s here in the US. That Saddam was a cruel, butchering dictator will soon be nearly irrelevant. -Tyler Durden >From: Anatoly Vorobey <mellon(a)pobox.com> >To: cypherpunks(a)lne.com >Subject: Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention? >Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:54:57 +0200 > >You wrote on Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 03:19:43PM -0500: > > Jim Dixon wrote: > > > > > > > >I have gazed into the abyss and seen a man having his teeth checked and > > >getting a haircut. :-| > > > > > > > > > > And how would you have felt to be the one who got your teeth checked and > > get a haircut with the whole world watching? > >If I had record like Saddam's on me? > >Gee, I'd be real happy I wasn't shot on the spot, or maybe cruelly >tortured and then shot, the way I'd behaved to people I'd captured. >Or maybe torn into pieces by a shrieking mob. > >Instead of doing any of that, they check my teeth and give me a haircut >in front of the cameras? Boo fucking hoo. I'd be real happy about >millions of bleeding hearts all over the world jerking their knees in >unison, ready to cry a fucking ocean over this unbelievably cruel >haircut and medical check-up I'm being given. Fucking tools. > >-- >avva _________________________________________________________________ Working moms: Find helpful tips here on managing kids, home, work and yourself. http://special.msn.com/msnbc/workingmom.armx

2 1

Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
by Tyler Durden 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Later today, a source close to the interrogation said that Saddam would be subjected to stress and sleep deprivation. Basically, teams of interrogators will ask questions over and over again, and no one will get any rest until answers are provided." At least here in NYC local news, it's common to hear newsmaggots issuing leadins such as, "Will the CIA be able to make Saddam talk?" and so on. I think this implies the "obvious", but it's an obvious that should be stated: The US public basically now generally knows that some forms of extreme measures are being applied to prisoners and detainees, and we're willing to look the other way. After all, 9/11 proves "they" (picture a cluster of darkish-skinned turbanned men wearing fatigues and huddling in caves) are out to take away our freedoms. so why shouldn't we do the same thing to them? >From: Eric Cordian <emc(a)artifact.psychedelic.net> >To: cypherpunks(a)minder.net >Subject: Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention? >Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:04:43 -0800 (PST) > >Natt writes: > > > You're one-hundred percent correct. I saw that sack of shit Rumsfeld on > > a press conference this afternoon where he answered the specific > > question of does parading Saddam around violate the Geneva convention.? > >Rumsfeld also revealed that the CIA has taken over the Saddam >interrogation, and pundits are speculating that they will use the same >torture techniques that are being used on the "detainees." > >Later today, a source close to the interrogation said that Saddam would be >subjected to stress and sleep deprivation. Basically, teams of >interrogators will ask questions over and over again, and no one will get >any rest until answers are provided. > >Bill Bennett said just a few minutes ago, that Saddam's capture made >America safer, because the world has learned that "If you mess with >America, you wind up in a hole." > >A friend of mine, when asked what he wanted from Santa for Christmas, >replied, "A crater the size of DC." > >Clearly, the world's leaders are looking closely at Saddam's treatment, >and realizing how easily pissing off the Bush family could result in them >being shown on International TV unbathed, unshaven, checked for fleas, and >bent over for a rectal probe. > >Of course, all of this is provoking a new arms race of astronomical >proportions, as the other nations of the world realize international law >means nothing, and that the US and Israel think they can judge everyone >else on the planet, no one can judge them, and they can act with impunity. > >This will, in a few years, result in the usual "force meets force plus >brains" low level format of the arrogant, and after a few hangings, and a >big round of applause, life on the planet will move on. > >-- >Eric Michael Cordian 0+ >O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division >"Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law" _________________________________________________________________ Have fun customizing MSN Messenger learn how here! http://www.msnmessenger-download.com/tracking/reach_customize

2 1

Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
by Freematt357＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 12/17/2003 1:00:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, jamesd(a)echeque.com writes: > Firstly, the US army has not violated the Geneva convention: How so? > we will > cheerfully wade knee deep through blood and the body parts of > innocents to destroy those that threaten us, as the crusaders > waded to the holy sepulchre. > I obtained the below quote from your website located at: http://www.jim.com/liberquo.htm "America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." John Quincy Adams Regards, Matt-

1 0

TSA/FBI No-Fly Nexus
by J.A. Terranson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Terrorism: The New Aviation Threat http://www.c-spanstore.com/172153.html Since I started loading this video stream I am now watching several hours ago, I no longer remember where I saw the link I clicked on that has allowed me to watch this without buying it :-( But the regular purchase link is above. This presentation by an FBI Counterintel agent (Art Cummings) is mostly a standard promo for the bureau, a bunch of rah-rah, we're great, terrorists suck, etc., but he opens with a firm statement that the TSA no-fly list is a direct product of the FBI itself ("we feed the information to TSA"). Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't the FBI stated several times (and in several places) that TSA's list is their own, and that FBI has nothing to do with it? Does this data provide anything for John's suit? -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin(a)mfn.org "Unbridled nationalism, as distinguished from a sane and legitimate patriotism, must give way to a wider loyalty, to the love of humanity as a whole. Bah'u'llh's statement is: "The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." The Promise of World Peace http://www.us.bahai.org/interactive/pdaFiles/pwp.htm

2 2

Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
by Freematt357＠aol.com 16 Dec '03

16 Dec '03

In a message dated 12/15/2003 9:44:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, timcmay(a)got.net writes: > There are specific clauses which refer to not publically humiliating a > prisoner. I'm surprised the Agitprop Division didn't show video of > Saddam taking his first dump while in custody. > > Saddam is not a good guy. But this went beyond the pale. You're one-hundred percent correct. I saw that sack of shit Rumsfeld on a press conference this afternoon where he answered the specific question of does parading Saddam around violate the Geneva convention. His answer was that some things are more important, that it was necessary to show to the world that Saddam was in custody and he wasn't going to be back in power, etc. He added that Saddam is being treated humanly, and he takes offense to anyone who suggests otherwise. Regards, Matt-

3 2

Saddam drugged says daughter.
by Harmon Seaver 16 Dec '03

16 Dec '03

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3324021.stm And probably they're using drugs to "interview" Saddam, which explains the quick following busts. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com

1 0

[fc-announce] FC'04: Call for Participation
by R. A. Hettinga 16 Dec '03

16 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text

1 0

CarBomb Rips Berkeley, CA
by wguerin＠tulane.edu 16 Dec '03

16 Dec '03

CarBomb Rips Berkeley California A large though prude carbomb rips through the student community of Berkeley, CA at exactly 4:20 am pacific time on friday Dec. 12th. Friday December 12th, 4:20am Pacific, Berkeley California: The device, a 10 element remotely detonated carbomb rips through the dense student populated section of Berkeley, CA less than 4 blocks from the southwest corner of the UCB campus. An audio recording by a student preparing her oral component of a final documents the sequential detonation of a 3-element primary fired by a tap off the vehicles car horn security system, followed by between 5 and 8 secondary charges detonated presumably by burnout. Students in the area have exactly 2 comments on the event: Most living in the adjacent appartments say in a monotonic way: "I'm sorry, I do NOT know what you are talking about." and a limited few others, also from the same areas, say "I am not at liberty to discuss these issues." Students from the surrounding appartment complexes are concerned about the excessive secrecy regarding this explosion that woke over half the people within a quarter mile radius, early friday morning. The explosive elements, after audio analysis, appear to be roughly equivalent to 10 cases of TNT. At least one Berkeley Police Department officer has said that they had a "NO RESPONSE VECTOR" during and prior the time of the explosion. This author has not yet determined the meaning of this phrase. Numerous appartment complexes in the surrounding area have had multiple unexplained fire alarms and other strange activities in the last few days. No mass media coverage or documentation has been available to this author, and most parties researching this event are hesitant to discuss for obvious reasons. -------- (forwarded - WLG)

1 0

cpunk-like meeting report
by Major Variola (ret.) 16 Dec '03

16 Dec '03

I went to a meeting of the Irvine Underground (irvineunderground.org) which reminded me of late-90s SF CP meatings. Although the overall tech level was probably lower and social implications weren't a big topic. Also, at this meeting, there were far more cameras or videocams than were present (at least overtly :-) at the few CP meats I attended. However, nyms were used more than they were (overtly :-) at CP meatings; this may have been due to a "introduce yourself" poll. The IU group seems to be a bit more social, going to movies for instance, than the topic-only CPs were. The meeting was held in a room at an IHOP (pancake restaurant for furriners) The exploit mentioned in http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2003-12-11-microsoft2_x.htm was demonstrated, we were debriefed on the recent LA 802.11b War Flying mission (and the EMI resistance of 1960's era single-engine airplane instruments :-). Toorcon organizers were present. About 30+ people were there, with what appeared to me to be a bimodal distribution of skills, some advanced, some admitted unix newbies, etc. There was even recreational lock picking. A WiFi LAN, net connectivity through someone's cell phone eventually. A video projector. I didn't notice persons with exceptional Euler numbers, though black was definately the color of choice for garments. Ages appeared well distributed from undergrad to hoary. One gent noticed a certain TLA on my cypherpunks T-shirt and admitted that he had once worked in Ft Meade, though he wouldn't say on what :-)

6 12

Remailers and TLAs
by Nomen Nescio 16 Dec '03

16 Dec '03

Even though I agree this issue is important I wouldn't be surprised if NONE were run by TLAs today and NONE has ever been run by TLAs. We will never get any such answer and therefore these speculations will continue. Personally I think it sounds really stupid when I read comments like "you can only trust remailers from pre 9/11" (these kinds of silly/stupid/dumb-paranoid comments are often seen on A.P.A-S). The reason being really that I think they are too stupid and perhaps doesn't really understand what good it would do them to actually operate a few. I may be wrong I guess. When thinking of these things I also remeber having read several comments by remops that actually have been visited by police. Both in U.S. and abroad. The feeling I got from reading their comments is that the police (in case of U.S. I think it was FBI who was inviolved) actually didn't even know what a remailer was. If (and this is a bif "if") that is true in general amongst FBI agents I don't think th ere's a major risk of beeing flooded by TLA operated remailers any time soon. But who knows.

1 0

Re:Textual analysis
by Major Variola (ret) 16 Dec '03

16 Dec '03

At 10:36 AM 12/14/03 -0500, John Kelsey wrote: >It's not obvious to me how you'd change your writing style to defeat these >textual analysis schemes--would it really be as simple as changing the >average length of sentences and getting rid of the big words, or would >there still be ways to determine your identity from that text? Its like steganalysis. Its an arms race between measuring your own signatures vs. what the Adversary can measure. If sentence length is a metric known to you, you can write filters that warn you. Similarly for the Adversary. You end up in an arms race over metrics ---who has the more sensitive ones that the other does not control for?

2 1

Re: Zombie Patriots and other musings
by Anonymous 15 Dec '03

15 Dec '03

Nomen pondered: > Why robbing banks? Aside from allowing the > government to regulate them, what have they > done to deserve being robbed Why not? Revolutionaries need money, and the financial sector has always been asshole buddies with the police, politicians, and other pigs.

6 5

U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
by Anonymous 15 Dec '03

15 Dec '03

The U.S. official's way of behaving like Texas rednecks are embarrassing. Not only are they cheering "we got him" like a child who can not withhold his enthusiasm. Displaying Saddam the way they did are also possibly a clear violation of the Geneva convention as far as I can tell. What was that quote by Nietsche again? One person who actually did behave in a respectable manner was the President. No lame "we got him" or cowboy hats there. At least not this time.

7 10

Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
by privacy.at Anonymous Remailer 15 Dec '03

15 Dec '03

>The U.S. official's way of behaving like Texas rednecks are embarrassing. Not Crosspost from nettime: Subject: <nettime> wrong signals If symbols really do matter we might conclude that American administration's PR machine has got it badly wrong. In the carefully orchestrated news management of Saddam's capture, once again, the public opinion which *really* matters in the middle east: Arab public opinion, has been conclusively misread The image of an Arab leader (however terrible) being objectivised by a white gloved American medic like a bug on a lab bench, will not be read in the Arab world as a moment of liberation. It will be seen as a special kind of humiliation, the kind which typifies the depth of ignorance which has inspired this campaign from its outset. Once again the images (chosen with great care one imagines, given the time lapse between Saddam's capture and the John Wayne style triumphalism of the announcement) treats Arab opinion to a further demonstration of the power of the west to objectivize the world under a coolly scientific gaze. In this context no mediaeval torturer could have conceived of a greater humiliation than the medical torch's pencil thin beam illuminating the inside of the tyrant's mouth. A stupidity of almost incomprehensible proportions seems bent on prosecuting a war against terror in which the twenty-four hour news machine is mobilized to disseminate images that do little more than fan the flames of hate.

2 1

Re: Zombie Patriots and other musings
by Anonymous 15 Dec '03

15 Dec '03

A question for the moment might well be how many if any of the remailers are operated by TLAs?

9 10

Re: Idea: Simplified TEMPEST-shielded unit (speculative proposal)
by Anonymous Sender 15 Dec '03

15 Dec '03

While I agree with much of what you say I don't think it's likely that any kind of advanced SIGINT operation was what brought him down. The most important thing to have is intelligence from humans. From insiders. This is partly the problem with the intelligence agencies today. They think too much of the technology and it's possible uses. Good old fashion "spies" will always be the most powerfull way to get information if you can get someone to cooperate. This is also why it is a bit harder in countries with a lot of people willing to kill or be killed for the sake of ideas. Even so it seems that someone sold him for the money in this case. It was bound to happen sooner or later since it's not possible to be on the run without trusting at least one or a few individuals from time to time.

1 0

Hack the Vote: cause a blackout
by Major Variola (ret) 15 Dec '03

15 Dec '03

(This inspired by comments in Scheier's cryptogram) Do all the newly electronic voting places have UPS? I doubt it. Think of the fun you could cause if you downed a few substations or poles. >> And because elections happen all at once, there would be no means of recovery. Imagine if, in the next presidential election, someone hacked the vote in New York. Would we let New York vote again in a week? Would we redo the entire national election? Would we tell New York that their votes didn't count? >>What we need are simple voting systems--paper ballots that can be counted even in a blackout.

1 0

Using PCR to find Hussein via the sewers? [GATTACA]
by Major Variola (ret) 15 Dec '03

15 Dec '03

At 04:50 AM 12/15/03 -0800, John Young wrote: >There's a good possibility that Saddam was traced by Tempest >sensing, airborne or mundane. I wonder if you can trace DNA in sewers back to the source, esp. in an inbred locale? (Peter? PCR with Saddam specific primers?) Or did he just dig a cat-hole instead of using the infrastructure? You can trace industrial contamination up sewer lines back to the source. How about the cells we shed? Just theoretically. Papers fnord says someone used to the good life narced, couldn't handle a jail cell.

1 0