December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

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

17 Dec '03

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

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

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

1 0

Y2K Report Card
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

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

5 4

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

17 Dec '03

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the outdated address, not the company that repsonded.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

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

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

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

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

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

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

1 0

buttsniffer
by Patrick Hinsberger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

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

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

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

2 2

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

17 Dec '03

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

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

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

1 0

NSA Scientific Advisory Board
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

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

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

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

4 4

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

17 Dec '03

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

3 2

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

17 Dec '03

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

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

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

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

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

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

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

2 1

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

17 Dec '03

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

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

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

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

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

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

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

2 1

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

17 Dec '03

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

2 1

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

17 Dec '03

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

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

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

1 0

Maturity Is Needed
by Mixmaster 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

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

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

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

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

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

1 0

Maturity Is Needed
by Mixmaster 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

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

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

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

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

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

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

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

1 0

ATF funding voice recognition research
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

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

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

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

2 1

salon article reply
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

dear Mr. Lasica: your article is mostly fair and accurate but fails to delve into some obvious and basic issues. 1st, check out david brin's recent book on privacy.. you cover only a tiny facet of the issues, of people that argue privacy should be protected. consider a very interesting alternative view.. 2nd: it is easy to take any digital image of a naked woman and paste the head of any other person on top of it, to the point that it is indistiguishable from a real picture. tell this to the mother of the daughter who's naked pictures were posted. 3rd: you fail to mention anonymity/pseudonymity, the starkly obvious solution to all the pseudo-problems you raise. your article is fairly mild but reflects the constant refrain of journalists to phrase every news story as some kind of looming or scary crisis. the issues you speak of have been debated among cpunks for years with more insight. not expecting you to know abut cpunks, but you coulda done a teeny better on that article. a decent article nonetheless on important issues.. please purchase a few clues from the nearest cpunks and try,try again. take care

1 0

old posts saved/archived/privacy article, salon
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

salon article on how old posts are saved on the net, and how it affects privacy. "I felt helpless and violated" sez one poor hapless chic http://www.salonmagazine.com/21st/

1 0

No Subject
by holist 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I wonder if this is also old hat to you people. If it turns out to be another FAQ, I promise to read some. At a conference in Budapest yesterday (held by Network Associates) I was interpreting for a certain professor Christoph Fischer, from Karlsruhe University. He claimed to be a premier international hacker-hunter and described several fascinating cases, such as industrial espionage performed by the French secret service commissioned by French companies at Boeing and Siemens (the latter resulting in a 6 billion Deutschmark railway contract going to a French company rather than Siemens), as well as a case of extortion in Germany, when someone he referred to as "some crazy person" attempted to blackmail the German government by threatening to fly model aircraft into the turbines of commercial jet aircraft at take-off, which, as it turned out, is indeed a feasible means of causing a major disaster. The professor was called in by a panicky German government, about ready to send off the cash, to try to locate "the crazy person". The extortionist was sending the notes via e-mail, using what the professor referred to as "e-mail anonymiser servers" in the US. "This is not too widely publicised", he went on to say, "but all insiders are aware that all e-mail anonymiser services in the U.S. are operated by the FBI." He went on to say it took them about ten minutes to discover with the help of their American friends which account the mail was originating from. A more serious obstacle was posed by the fact that it was an AOL account and that the subscriber had specified a bogus credit-card number generated by widely available software for generating feasible bogus credit-card numbers, and installed the internet applications from one of those AOL CD-ROMs that were published in very large numbers. They were forced to begin monitoring some 30 thousand phonelines (another very interesting fact: according to the professor, during the so-called "4+2" negotiations just before the Berlin wall came down, the two Germanies agreed to provide the FBI with direct access to the backbone of the German telephone network - consequently all German telephone calls and a high percentage of all European international calls, so they could listen in on those without even making an effort - in fact, he claimed, it is easier for the FBI to listen to German phonecalls than it is for the German authorities themselves), which, in addition to costing a horrendous amount of money, resulted in a bunch of data every day that took them two days to process. So, Fischer said, it would have been hopeless if the fellow had not owed the German tax authority one and a half million Marks - the tax authority busted him (following the lines of their own, independent investigation), took his computer, and he was busted. Quite a few of the messages to cypherpunks seem to come from anonymous remailers in the US. Comments? holist

3 2

Anon Mail Server?
by James Hillenbrand 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

What is a good server that I could send mail through anonymously.. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -------==== James Hillenbrand ====------- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ICQ NUMBER (UIN) : 7621556 PERSONAL E-MAIL : JamezHill(a)Audiophile.com ALT. E-MAIL : MegaHertz(a)Audiophile.com HOMEPAGE : http://www.ThePentagon.com/DaMaGe NOTES : Pumpin' BASS lower than you can hear and louder than you can stand! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

1 0

PipeNet 1.1 and b-money
by Wei Dai 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've discovered some attacks against the original PipeNet design. The new protocol, PipeNet 1.1, should fix the weaknesses. PipeNet 1.1 uses layered sequence numbers and MACs. This prevents a collusion between a receiver and a subset of switches from tracing the caller by modifying or swaping packets and then watching for garbage. A description of PipeNet 1.1 is available at http://www.eskimo.com/~weidai. Also available there is a description of b-money, a new protocol for monetary exchange and contract enforcement for pseudonyms. Please direct all follow-up discussion of these protocols to cypherpunks.

1 0

PipeNet 1.1 and b-money
by Steve Moyzis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I don't know if this was supposed to have gone to Bugtraq, or it came to me because I 'visited' their "snoop server" acoupla times. If you already rec'd the original, then "Never Mind". >Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 15:33:49 -0800 >From: Wei Dai <weidai(a)eskimo.com> >To: cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net >Cc: onions(a)itd.nrl.navy.mil >Subject: PipeNet 1.1 and b-money >Sender: owner-onions(a)itd.nrl.navy.mil > >I've discovered some attacks against the original PipeNet design. The new >protocol, PipeNet 1.1, should fix the weaknesses. PipeNet 1.1 uses layered >sequence numbers and MACs. This prevents a collusion between a receiver >and a subset of switches from tracing the caller by modifying or swaping >packets and then watching for garbage. > >A description of PipeNet 1.1 is available at >http://www.eskimo.com/~weidai. > >Also available there is a description of b-money, a new protocol for >monetary exchange and contract enforcement for pseudonyms. > >Please direct all follow-up discussion of these protocols to cypherpunks. >

1 0

Rootfest
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://slashdot.org/articles/98/11/26/1841245.shtml "RootFest is a conference for the computer underground, as well as the computer security professionals, engineers, networking people, feds, script kiddies, and anyone else who would like a chance to meet people and learn. When: RootFest 99 will be held May 21-23, 1999. Where: Minneapolis, Minnesota,..." RootMonger

1 0

Re: Old Hat
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On the morning of Thurs, 26-Nov-98 at 10:17:48 -0800, holist unwisely said: > "This is not too widely publicised", he went on to say, > "but all insiders are aware that all e-mail anonymiser > services in the U.S. are operated by the FBI." > Quite a few of the messages to cypherpunks seem to come > from anonymous remailers in the US. > > Comments? Comment? COMMENTS? How about this, FUDSpreaderBreath: Stick Fischer and his claims up your ass. This is not too widely publicised <whisper, whisper>, I went on to say, but all insiders are aware that this kind of FUD is unadulterated ratshit. While there is no doubt _some_ official presence in the remailer network, the proposition advanced here is preposterous. > He went on to say it took them about ten minutes to > discover with the help of their American friends which > account the mail was originating from. It would probably take more than ten minutes just to find the phone number of their FBI contact, much less find him at his desk and not humping some summer intern, much less expect that he would know a remailer from his no doubt ultra-tight asshole, much less have him run down the pointy-haired manager to give him permission to find and communicate with a suitably cleared propellor head, much less find that the remailer in question was, indeed, operated either by them or by their snaky friends over at the NSA, much less check their surreptitious logs for the offending traffic, much less find that that traffic indeed did not originate from another remailer _not_ under their control, etc. etc. Ten minutes, in bureaucrat time, is about what it takes to rub two brain cells together to make a realistic approximation of a human thought. By this time, action in the physical universe is still a long, long way off. This report is likely to be nothing more than a complete fabrication of the facts, even if the underlying case was real. > just before the Berlin wall came down, the two Germanies > agreed to provide the FBI with direct access to the > backbone of the German telephone network Except that telephone networks don't have "backbones." More fantasy. And there was no single "German telephone network," and probably still isn't. > it is easier for the FBI to listen to German phonecalls > than it is for the German authorities themselves), which, > in addition to costing a horrendous amount of money, > resulted in a bunch of data every day that took them two > days to process. Highly doubtful. First, it's not in the FBI's brief to be doing large-scale foreign-based surveillance of foreign telephone systems. Second, there is no reason to believe that the FBI would have a substantially easier time of processing large amounts of resulting data than would the Germans. The Germans know how to use computers, too, and being congenitally statist, they no doubt have more facilities in place closer to the sources of information than do U.S. authorities at home or abroad. This claim also ignores the fact that the FBI have their hands full right at home and don't have the resources to be conducting large-scale surveillance of the phone calls of entire foreign nations. Oh, sure, we see increasing extraterritorial operation by small numbers of FBI, but that doesn't equate to monitoring the entire German phone system(s) or a significant segment thereof and identifying some nitwit dialing in to AOL. Is AOL even _in_ Germany? If so, what is it called, GOL? Gassholes On Line? The idea that a state security apparatus would find an AOL account to be a significant obstacle is laughable. > So, Fischer said, it would have been hopeless if the > fellow had not owed the German tax authority one and > a half million Marks - the tax authority busted him > (following the lines of their own, independent > investigation), took his computer, and he was busted. So we are to believe that after monitoring the entire German telephone system to identify who was calling in and using a particular AOL account, and successfully pegging him, the Germans were powerless to do anything, and had to call down their Tax Zombies to have an excuse to grab the guy's computer, which presumably then provided them with the "evidence" against him. Right. If the German authorities overhear in a bar that you might have forbidden literature, they will be there the same night, ransacking your home. How is it that with evidence that a certain person was the user of an AOL account they had identified as the source of extortionary messages, they were powerless to break down his door? I could admire the FUD spreaders just a teensy bit if they weren't so completely brain dead. They can't even invent a plausible FUD scenario. That the USG is operating one or more remailers is a no-brainer. That they are operating _all_ U.S. remailers is beyond the realm of reality. That the FBI has more than a casual hand in such things is not likely. Running remailers would be right up the NSA's, uh, alley, but maintaining a traffic watch on virtually _all_ remailers worldwide would be much more their style. Now _there's_ an opportunity for the spooks to have some real fun, though it's anything but certain they would be willing to "share," for a variety of reasons. The capabilities they have are protected as secrets even more than the information they gather. FUDBusterMonger It Ain't FUD til I SAY it's FUD!

2 1

Evil Bandwidth Plot Exposed
by Brown, R Ken 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We're still getting clueless people forwarding us email virus hoaxes. Pen-Pal, Buddy Frogs, Good Times, whatever. And I just realised who has to be responsible! Who has a motive for this "crime"? These things do no-one any real harm, they just take up bandwidth. Networks get saturated and maybe we have to buy more kit. It must be the router manufacturers. Maybe there is a secret team at Cisco or IBM generating new hoaxes to keep the email market growing.

2 1

Otaku Defined
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 05:31:08 -0500 X-Sender: dphelan(a)mailhost.pavilion.co.uk Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 07:45:22 +0000 To: "Lord Myren" <lordmyren(a)hotmail.com>, wear-hard(a)haven.org From: David Phelan <dphelan(a)pavilion.co.uk> Subject: [WAY OFF TOPIC] Otaku Defined (was Re: Japanese Technomads ) Mime-Version: 1.0 Resent-From: wear-hard(a)haven.org X-Mailing-List: <wear-hard(a)haven.org> archive/latest/5977 X-Loop: wear-hard(a)haven.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: wear-hard-request(a)haven.org Status: U At 13:16 25/11/1998 PST, Lord Myren wrote: <snip> >Otaku is translated from japanese meaning "fan." This is a somewhat >flawed translation in that there is no way to transfer the powerful >connotative meaning. > <snip> >Unfortunately, I believe something was lost in the translation in the >article. Otaku is rarely used in refence to things other than anime. >This article may have failed the translation or may just be a minor >mislabeling. Otaku can be used in reference to things other than anime, >however it is rarely ever so. >From a no-longer online magazine called JapanInterface (used to be at http://www.php.co.jp/japaninface/) Nerds of a Feather Defining OTAKU by Bill Marsh IN TOKYO a recently arrived friend calls, wants to know daishikyu (ASAP, yesterday) what otaku means. He's just been told by a mutual acquaintance that no serious student of contemporary Japan could possibly not know this word-yet his Japanese accuser, when asked to define otaku, refuses even to try. It isn't easy. Once upon a time, this word-which taken alone translates as "[your] honorable house"-was no more than an obsequious, laboriously indirect way to say "you" or "you and yours." Snobs and bluestockings will use it, but there's nothing inherently sinister about the expression. The story doesn't end there. Japan has long produced bumper crops of korekuta ("collectors" of rare stamps, cars, etc) and mania (folks with a "mania" for Beatles bootlegs, etc) who gather at conventions to compare notes and stockpiles. Haughty yet insecure, many greet each other by asking, Otaku wa nani o nasatteru desu ka? This fastidious formula for inquiring "What're you into?" or "What's your thing?" became a trademark, prompting trend-watchers to smugly label them otaku-zoku (nerd tribes). Enter Tsutomu Miyazaki, arrested in 1989 and eventually charged with the abduction and murder of four little girls. Here was a man capable of videotaping himself cutting up a dead child and sending her bones, the video, and photos of her sandals and clothes to the victim's parents in a cardboard box. When a search of his premises uncovered an eclectic collection of 5,000 videotapes, the image of otaku as benign, shy dorks disintegrated. Surprise! Japan's police and media, used to playing to the crowd and blandly riding herd on the occasional misfit, discovered during the affluent 1980s that their grip on a population easily tamed by fears of what the neighbors might think was slipping. Popping up all over were intense, asocial creatures on very private missions for very private gods. Shunning contact with all but their brethren in obsession, they sent to o-mawari-san (the neighborhood cops who in Japan regularly "check up" on each household) a silent but clear message: Nothing personal, but what I'm into is the kind of thing you and people like you would never understand. Are otaku garden-variety nerds? Psychopaths? Undesirables? What otaku connotes depends on who you ask. Example: A producer friend recently berated his director on an NHK project for shooting from otaku camera angles. The point? He wanted to make a TV program for general audiences, not film-school coteries. The foreword to the superb but dated (1989) Otaku no hon (The Otaku Book, published by JICC) argues that otaku are strictly a post-1980 phenomenon, not the latest gimmick in the ephemeral parade of zoku (tribes) that postwar youth-culture reportage has served up. Their break with the values of seken (the "real world," as the editor parenthetically labels it in English) is not a byproduct of kodoku (isolation) or seijuku (adolescence). Rather, otaku desire to dokuji no sekai ni chujitsu ni ikiru (live faithfully in their own world) and find a ba (place, outlet) to meet others who onaji genso o kyoyu suru (share the same fantasy). The editor offers the example of the rorikon (otaku with a "Lolita complex"): deeply unwilling to become men (i.e., husbands and salarymen), they partake instead of kyodo genso (communal fantasy) via comic books about kaku no bi-shojo (imaginary beautiful girlchildren). Their female equivalents in ambivalence are the yaoi-zoku, girls hooked on perverted, plotless, sexually explicit parodies of conventional comics about the friendship between cute boys. Obviously neither homosexual nor homophobic, both groups prefer the chaste option of onani (onanism) to the perceived compromises of marital consummation. Otaku no hon presents an amazing variety of strategies for sidestepping the social compact. Even familiar types like hakka ("hackers"), gema ("gamers," computer game freaks), or aidorian ("idol-ians," who fixate on singing idols) seem more over the top than their American counterparts. Others, like kamera-kozo ("li'l camera monks" who sneak crotch shots with concealed strobe cameras) and akushon banda ("action banders" devoted to cracking officially "secure" radio and computer systems), aggressively court risks to enact their pranks. Whatever their stripe, the otaku are out there in droves, rifling through the latest aniparoetchimangadojinshi (animation-parody-pervert-comic-connoisseur-mag) at the corner bookstore, terrified that any minute they'll be eaten alive by common sense. from Pop Japanese, Bill Marsh's ongoing column in MANGAJIN magazine Hope that is useful Dave Ph -------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Phelan dphelan(a)pavilion.co.uk CCIE# 3590 http://freepages.pavilion.net/users/dphelan "Anyone who isn't confused really doesn't understand the situation." -- Edward R. Murrow -- Subcription/unsubscription/info requests: send e-mail with subject of "subscribe", "unsubscribe", or "info" to wear-hard-request(a)haven.org Wear-Hard Mailing List Archive (searchable): http://wearables.ml.org --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

European Commission proposal on legal framework for e-commerce
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded from cyberia-l -- The EU's latest attempts to make electronic commerce convenient while ensuring tax collection and preventing collapse of governments :-) ========= ==== ]] THe text of the new draft is not on line yet, but will probably appear at ]] http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg15/en/index.htm in the next few days (there is ]] a what's new button on the left hand bar) >>> Should be on line on Nov 23rd } Another URL to remember to get acces to european documents } concerning Internet law is : } http://www2.echo.lu/legal/en/labhome.html and for "what's new : } http://www2.echo.lu/legal/en/labnew.html =============== http://europa.eu.int/rapid/start/cgi/guesten.ksh?p_action.gettxt=gt&doc=IP/… IP/98/999 Brussels, 18 November 1998 Electronic commerce: Commission proposes legal framework A proposal for a Directive to establish a coherent legal framework for the development of electronic commerce within the Single Market has been put forward by the European Commission. The proposed Directive would ensure that information society services benefit from the Single Market principles of free movement of services and freedom of establishment and could provide their services throughout the European Union (EU) if they comply with the law in their country of origin. Such services are defined as those provided normally against remuneration, at a distance, by electronic means and in response to the individual request of a customer. The proposed Directive would establish specific harmonised rules only in those areas strictly necessary to ensure that businesses and citizens could supply and receive information society services throughout the EU, irrespective of frontiers. These areas include definition of where operators are established, electronic contracts, liability of intermediaries, dispute settlement and role of national authorities. In other areas the Directive would build on existing EU instruments which provide for harmonisation or on mutual recognition of national laws. The Directive would apply only to service providers established within the EU and not those established outside. "The Single Market's legal framework, combined with the single currency, provide the European Union with a unique opportunity to facilitate the development of electronic commerce", commented Single Market Commissioner Mario Monti. "Electronic commerce adds a new dimension to the Single Market for consumers in terms of easier access to goods and services of better quality and at lower prices. Electronic commerce will promote trade, stimulate innovation and competitiveness and create sustainable jobs. This proposal should ensure that the Union reaps the full benefits of electronic commerce by boosting consumer confidence and giving operators legal certainty, without excessive red tape." The global electronic commerce market is growing extremely fast and could be worth ECU 200 billion by the year 2000. Worldwide, 86 million people were connected to the Internet by the end of 1996 and by 2000, this is expected to reach 250 million individuals. Within the EU, it is estimated that more than 400,000 jobs related to the information society were created between 1995 and 1997 and that one in four news jobs is derived from these activities. Scope The proposal for a Directive, which was foreseen in the Commission's April 1997 electronic commerce Communication (see IP/97/313), covers all information society services, both business to business and business to consumer services, including services provided free of charge to the recipient e.g. funded by advertising or sponsorship revenue and services allowing for on-line electronic transactions such as interactive teleshopping of goods and services and on-line shopping malls. Examples of sectors and activities covered include on-line newspapers, on-line data-bases, on-line financial services, on-line professional services (such as lawyers, doctors, accountants, estate agents), on-line entertainment services such as video on demand, on-line direct marketing and advertising and services providing access to the World Wide Web. Establishment/supervision/transparency The proposal would define the place of establishment as the place where an operator actually pursues an economic activity through a fixed establishment, irrespective of where websites or servers are situated or where the operator may have a mail box. This definition is in line with the principles established by the EU Treaty (Article 52) and the case law of the European Court of Justice. Such a definition would remove current legal uncertainty and ensure that operators could not evade supervision, as they would be subject to supervision in the Member State where they were established. The proposal would prohibit Member States from imposing special authorisation schemes for information society services which are not applied to the same services provided by other means. It would also require Member States to oblige information society service providers to make available to customers and competent authorities in an easily accessible and permanent form basic information concerning their activities (name, address, e-mail address, trade register number, professional authorisation and membership of professional bodies where applicable, VAT number). On-line contracts For electronic commerce to develop its full potential, it must be possible for contracts to be concluded on-line unrestricted by inappropriate rules (such as a requirement that contracts be drawn up on paper). The proposal would therefore oblige Member States to adjust their national legislation to remove any prohibitions or restrictions on the use of electronic media for concluding contracts. In addition, the proposal would ensure legal security by clarifying in certain cases the moment of conclusion of the contract, whilst fully respecting contractual freedom. These provisions would complement the proposal for a Directive on electronic signatures (see IP/98/423). Liability of intermediaries To facilitate electronic commerce, it is necessary to clarify the responsibility of on-line service providers for transmitting and storing information from third party (i.e. when service providers act as "intermediaries"). To eliminate existing legal uncertainties and to avoid divergent approaches at Member State level, the proposal would establish an exemption from liability for intermediaries where they play a passive role as a "mere conduit" of information from third parties and limit service providers' liability for other "intermediary" activities such as the storage of information. The proposal strikes a careful balance between the different interests involved in order to stimulate co-operation between different parties and so reduce the risk of illegal activity on-line. Commercial communications Commercial communications such as advertising and direct marketing, which are an essential part of most electronic commerce services, would be subject to clearly defined rules under the proposed Directive. The proposal defines what constitutes a commercial communication and makes it subject to certain transparency requirements to ensure consumer confidence and fair trading. In order to allow consumers to react more readily to harmful intrusion, the proposal requires that commercial communications by e-mail are clearly identifiable. In addition, for regulated professions (such as lawyers or accountants), the proposal lays down the general principle that the on-line provision of services is permitted and that national rules on advertising shall not prevent professions from operating Web-sites. However, these would have to respect certain rules of professional ethics which should be reflected in codes of conduct to be drawn up by professional associations. Implementation Rather than inventing new rules, the proposal would seek to ensure that existing EU and national legislation were effectively enforced. The development of a genuine Single Market based on mutual confidence between Member States - is stimulated by strengthening enforcement mechanisms. The proposal would seek to do so by encouraging the development of codes of conduct at EU level, by stimulating administrative co-operation between Member States and by facilitating the setting up of effective, alternative cross-border dispute settlement systems. The proposal would also require Member States to provide for fast, efficient legal redress appropriate to the on-line environment and to ensure that sanctions for violations of the rules established under the Directive were effective, proportionate and dissuasive. Mutual recognition/derogations The proposed Directive would clarify that the Single Market principle of mutual recognition of national laws and the principle of control in the country of origin must be applied to information society services so that such services provided from another Member State are not restricted for reasons falling within the scope of the proposal which would not cover taxation, personal data (the free movement of which is covered by Directive 95/46 see IP/98/925), the activities of notaries, representation and defence of clients before a court, gambling activities. Furthermore, the proposed Directive would not interfere with the application of the Brussels Convention on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters and the Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations. The proposed Directive would also allow Member States on a case by case basis to impose restrictions on information society services supplied from another Member State if necessary to protect the public interest on grounds of protection of minors, the fight against hatred on grounds of race, sex, religion or nationality, public health or security and consumer protection. However, such restrictions would have to be proportionate to their stated objective. Moreover, such restrictions could only be imposed (except in cases of urgency) after: * the Member State where the service provider was established had been asked to take adequate measures and failed to do so and * the intention to impose restrictions had been notified in advance to the Commission and to the Member State where the service provider was established. In cases of urgency, the reasons for the restrictions (and the urgency) would have to be notified in the shortest possible time to the Commission and to the Member State of the service provider. Where the Commission considered proposed or actual restrictions were not justified, Member States would be required to refrain from imposing them or urgently put an end to them. The proposal for a Directive on a legal framework for electronic commerce will be forwarded to the European Parliament and the EU's Council of Ministers for adoption under the co-decision procedure. ==========================================

1 0

Re: open-pgp / s/mime interoperability
by pgut001＠cs.auckland.ac.nz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>: there is no reason why you can't have PGP >: messages backed by X.509 certificates, and it is trivial to use S/MIME >: with OpenPGP certificates. I'm planning on writing a short >: informational RFC on how to do it once we all get RFC numbers for our >: respective systems. >open-pgp public keys aren't based on X.509 keys, so I would've thought >s/mime implementation would barf on them. Actually S/MIME *could* support the use of PGP keys, but there's a field (the SubjectKeyIdentifier) missing from the CMS SignerInfo which prevents this. This is rather inconsistent, because the same field is present in the RecipientInfo. I'm currently arguing in favour of adding it to SignerInfo on the basis that any argument against it would also apply to RecipientInfo. Not sure whether it'll work though - a couple of list members seem convinced that exactly the same thing which is currently in RecipientInfo won't work if used in SignerInfo. Peter.

2 1

Fwd: FC: EU eavesdropping on Iridium satellite phone system
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

any reactions? some of my newspaper colleagues are thinking of writing about this... >Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 14:12:45 -0800 (PST) >From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> >To: politech(a)vorlon.mit.edu >Subject: FC: EU eavesdropping on Iridium satellite phone system >X-No-Archive: Yes >Sender: owner-politech(a)vorlon.mit.edu >Reply-To: declan(a)well.com >X-Loop: politech(a)vorlon.mit.edu >X-URL: Politech is at http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/ > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 22:08:00 +0100 >From: Erich Moechel <erich-moechel(a)quintessenz.at> >To: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com>, declan(a)well.com >Subject: EU eavesdropping on Iridium System > > >It is really a ghastly paper, we obtained. It is the first ever "Enfopol" >paper that leaked out from United European Police Working Group. >Not even the EU's STOA-commission that brought Echelon in2 EU- >Parliament this spring was given the predecessor 2 "Enfopol 98" >cu >me > >The European Surveillance Union > >Erich Moechel 20.11.98 > >Europol Seeks a Broad Structure for Tapping Mobile >Communications > >Austrian officials' appetite for coldly broadening their authority to >monitor private citizens is in no way a unique case in Europe. > >As a Europol internal document obtained by Telepolis shows, >massive attempts on the part of European police forces are >underway to acquire the ability to eavesdrop on the Iridium system, >currently in a sensitive stage of expansion. > >The document entitled "Enfopol 98" from the group "Police >Cooperation" dated September 3, 1998, deals with the "observation >of telecommunications" and primarily addresses the so-called >satellite-supported personal communication systems (S-PCS), but >also the Internet. On the recommendation of the European Union, a >list of points desired by the European police was drawn up as a >"Draft for a Recommended Resolution" in order to simplify the >passage of the resolution. The terrestrial gateway stations are to >provide comprehensive access via Iridium and other Mobile Satellite >Services (MSS) since they are "collective and simple locations for >monitoring solutions." > >http://www.telepolis.de/tp/english/inhalt/te/1667/1.html >-.-.- --.- -.-.- --.- -.-.- --.- > q/depesche taeglich ueber >internationale hacks--.-zensur im netz >crypto--.-IT mergers--.-monopole >& die universalitaet digitaler dummheit >subscribe http://www.quintessenz.at >-.-.- --.- -.-.- --.- -.-.- --.- >Certified PGP key http://keyserver.ad.or.at >-.-.- --.- -.-.- --.- -.-.- --.- >erich-moechel.com/munications >++43 2266 687201 fon ++43 2266 687204 fax >-.-.- --.- -.-.- --.- -.-.- --.- > > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology >To subscribe: send a message to majordomo(a)vorlon.mit.edu with this text: >subscribe politech >More information is at http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/ >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >

2 1

Remailer test, ignore
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This string is to be used for tracing this message.

1 0

WE LOVE IT!! TRAVEL, MONEY, AND...
by sjfi＠msn.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

FIRE THE BOSS AND BREAK THE ALARM CLOCK! WE DID! Travel for pennies on the dollar AND Enjoy a "complimentary cruise" for two! MAKE $3,000-$5,000 PER WEEK FROM HOME! We're looking for people with a good work ethic and extraordinary desire who want to change their lives! We will give you all the training and support that you will need to insure your success!! IF WE CAN DO THIS.....SO CAN YOU!!!! Not Multi-level Marketing or GPG! "Make Your Vocation a Vacation" Call Now For Information 24 Hr Toll Free Number 1-888-376-1192 Do not reply to this e mail for more information, you must call listen to the message. You will only receive this e mail once. Thank you.

1 0

European Commission proposal on legal framework for e-commerce (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 23:45:00 -0500 > From: Bill Stewart <bill.stewart(a)pobox.com> > Subject: European Commission proposal on legal framework for e-commerce > A proposal for a Directive to establish a coherent legal framework for the > development of electronic commerce within the Single Market has been put > forward by the European Commission. That's pretty gutsy, put your goal in plain english in the first sentence. ____________________________________________________________________ Technology cannot make us other than what we are. James P. Hogan The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0