December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: IP: Clinton Wants Loophole In U.S. Free Speech Closed (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 00:06:22 +1000 > From: Reeza! <howree(a)cable.navy.mil> > Subject: Re: IP: Clinton Wants Loophole In U.S. Free Speech Closed > Notice how, in each of the amendments below, the 1st is the only one with > the text "congress shall make no law". > > This is implied, understood to be implied, accepted as implied and supreme > court ruled to be implied as applicable to each of the rest of the bill of > rights, and later to the amendments, wherein it is not so specified as in > the 1st. > > A large part of the reason that 2 thru 10 and the rest do not include that > phrase is to prevent the states from doing the very thing that congress was > and is prohibited from. Read the 10th again you don't understand what it is saying. It *specificaly* says that unless the Constitution assigns it to the feds *or* prohibits it then the states are *exactly* the ones that are able to do what Congress is prohibited from doing. The states are limited by their own consititions which are guaranteed to be representative in nature. The states absolutely have the right to regulate gun laws (as in the Texas constitution) provided they don't infringe (what part of shall not do you not understand) on the actual possession. Licenses and background checks at the state level are absolutely constitutional. State regulation on speech, press, etc. are also completely constitutional as well. And is where such regulation should take place. If you don't like your states laws move to one you do like. That's what it means to live in a democracy, freedom of choice - not homogeneity (on this point ol' Alex was wrong, wrong, wrong). ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

100S OF FREE PICS'N'LINKS EVERY DAY!
by STUFFED THU NOV 12 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

+ 30 SUPERB, HI-RES, HOT PHOTOS + 5 SUPER SEXY STORIES + NAUGHTY LADY + PORN MIX + SEXY BLACK BABES + VERTICAL SMILES + WILD WORLD OF SEX + 4 PUSSY + ADULT WEB CIRCUShttp://www.znd2.net/karpo/AAA/ + SEX HAPPY + HORNY HEATHER'S CUM SHOTS + JACK'S HOUSE OF SLUTS + BONUS PIC 1 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/3843.htm + BONUS PIC 2 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/3985.htm + BONUS PIC 3 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/25033.htm + BONUS PIC 4 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/27786.htm + BONUS PIC 5 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/12878.htm + MUCH, MUCH MORE! ----> http://stuffed.net/home/ <---- This email is never sent unsolicited. Stuffed is the supplement for the Eureka newsletter you subscribed to. Full instructions on unsubscribing are in every issue of Eureka! ----> http://stuffed.net/home/ <----

1 0

Cylink Sued for Stock Fraud
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Business Wire reported yesterday that Cylink has been sued in US District Court of New Jersey for securities fraud through a class action. It alleges misrepresentation and false financial statements. http://jya.com/cylink-suit.htm On November 5 Cylink announced revised revenues for the first half of 1998. The day before William Crowell, ex-NSA, was appointed president in a house sweep of the executive team, apparently after discovery of book cooking. William Perry, ex-DoD, is still listed on the board of directors, although the list seems to be out of date, along with the annual report and letter to stockholders on Cylink's Web site.

2 1

RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 10:49:23 -0500 > From: Petro <petro(a)playboy.com> > Subject: RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone > (fwd) > And the system protects them. Pinochet wasn't handed over to spain > now was he. > > It's the system. No, it's the British system. And to be honest it should be the American system also. A country should have jurisdiction only within its own borders. Other countries should have agreements about how persons accussed of crimes should be extradited. In the anarcho-whatever system this is all eliminated because we've eliminated crime in the first place by legitimizing any and all strategies. > In N.C, Tennesee (IIRC), Illinois, and North Carolina (especially > N.C.) it's the state. Then have the law changed in those states or you could move to Texas. > Crap. Pure B.S. What lead to it's regulation was a bunch of broads > who didn't want ANYONE drinking, so they pushed for abolition, which was a > total disaster, and lead to repeal. No, that was prohibition. The taxation of alcohol goes back equaly far in the history of this country. To before the articles of confederation even since Britian required taxes on rum and related items - espcialy if they were from non-British ports - if you would stop knee-jerking responces and think back the Tax Acts were one of the reasons we had a revolution in the first place. Tea, rum, and whiskey were one of the primary motivations. > Ever heard of "Muckraking"? Yellow Journalism? Could it have been > that that lead to some of this B.S. regulation? Nah, the press never would > have done something like that. Actualy, the fact that you admit that the press can be in colussion with the government and the businesses goes a long way toward demonstrating that anarcho-anything won't work because it will be even harder for whistle-blowers and 'social do-gooders' to get their message out (unless they're well heeled and don't mind loosing it all in the process). > Remember the movie "Reefer Madness", and the Jim Crow drug laws of > the early 1900's? Couldn't be that people in positions of power at the time > had certain agendas and used lies to further them could it. People always have agenda's (this is segues nicely into what Blanc was saying about attitudes), that's my point and one of the reasons that anarcho-whatever won't work is because it doesn't recognize this nor does it put any sort of limit on its expression. > Nah, people in government NEVER behave like that. People always behave that way, it's the way people are. Being in government is only another mechanism it gets expressed through. Business is another. > No I didn't, EVEN IF I GET THEM LEGALLY, if I turn around and sell > them, it's black market, that was muy fucking point, I'm sorry if you can't > comprehend that sort of thing. If the doctor gives them to you without a valid medical reason then you didn't get them legaly. Techicaly the doctor is in violation for trafficking and you would be in violation for possession and use of a controlled substance. If you knew full well that you weren't going to use them and took them anyway then you in effect stole them because you misled the doctor into giving them to you. Now if you simply sold them because you didn't like their side effects then only you are legaly culpible. Now, your point that not everything on the black market is stolen is well take as I've said before (you just didn't read it, it at least explains why you keep going over the same issue until you think I'll be badgered into agreeing with you). The exception I take, and am still waiting for refuation of, is that the *majority* of goods on the black market including drugs are related to the theft of material or services from legitimate parties. That you don't seem to grasp (and I'm not so obsessed with making you see it that I'm going to discuss the issue farther). As a history teacher once said: The nice thing about America is anybody can believe anything, whether they know what they are talking about or not. I respect that sentiment. > I hated the shit, and didn't take it after the 2nd day, leaving me > clear headed, but in pain. No big deal, I've been in pain before. I traded > the rest of those drugs for an old computer. I certainly hope that no DEA agents are watching *and* you're not in the US. Admitting to a crime in a public venue, whether in a public park or a mailing list isn't the brightest strategy. If you're not in the US you should probably hope that the NSA (or whomever) is too busy to pass along this to the requisite authorities. I would suggest strongly that for future such public admission you should use a pseudonym or an anonymous remailer. > Either way, my point is still that the black market is about more > than just if the _product_ is illegal, it also relates to the trade. It has to do with something being illegal or not acceptable otherwise you could just open up a store and start trading the items directly. In the vast majority of cases it involves the theft of services or property from the valid rights holder. > Yeah, like anyone really knows for sure. Well that pretty much shoots a hole in your point as well if that is your position. However, since the manufature of vehicles is accounted far to at least the 10's place by auto manufacturers and the sale of legitimate cars is traceable through tax and title I'd say that it is possible to make educated guesses about the scale of the market. > Because I know a lot of people who've bought drugs, and for the > most part it was with money they earned or receieved thru legal means. No, you know some people who have bought drugs, just as I do. However, claiming that the small set you know of personaly qualifies as a lot is an invalid hyperbole. There are millions of drug users in this country, and in your entire life you've only met a few thousand at best. > Your question is ignorant and irrelevant, but to answer it: Brokers. Oh, you mean fences... > I have something to sell, but I don't want to hassle with finding a > buyer. Joe has a lot of connections, but no goods to sell, and you are a > buyer. I let joe know I have product, he makes the deal, and I hire Omar to > deliver it to you. Joe never even sees the merchandise, but is effectively > the seller. You have to have possession in order to pass possesion to Joe so that he can sell it and pass you possession of the receipted funds (minus Joe's cut). Whether that possession is measured in immediate physical control (ie in your pants pocket) or more general (eg stored in a rent-room under an assumed name) is irrelevant. There is also the fact that if you don't produce the item(s) at some point Joe is likely to take his frustration out on you because you tried to take him and his money. The fact that you can produce them is clear evidence that at some point they were in your possession. How many middle-men is between there is irrelevant, since you are driving it and paying the costs you are in possession. > No, and for you to even say it in that manner is complete > disingenious. Your the one who said shoot them, what's the matter find your baby to ugly to look at? You and I are having and "inter-personal dispute", and would > never suggest that you be shot for disagreeing with me. Nor would I if, Yeah, well unless you can convince everyone that anarcho-whatever will also convince the Kennedy boys, OJ, et ali. then it's pretty irrelevant since it will occur whether you or I are involved and the issue is that it occurs, not that you or I are involved. I suspect that the emotionaly challenged will continue to shoot each other irrespective of the political system implimented. If you take guns away they'll knife each other and if you take knives away they'll beat each other to death. Which raises an interesting point, more people are killed by physical assault according to the FBI crime stats than guns each year. > say, we had a car accident and were resolving that (unless you had done > something like driving drunk and blatantly violating common sense rules of > the road like running a stop sign or a red light, in which case you are a > threat to me and others). Ah, I see. So your position is that if somebody runs a stop light then that is grounds to shoot them. ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Re: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone(fwd)
by Michael Hohensee 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Albert P. Franco, II wrote: > > >> Without some government the Bad Guys will be the only ones with anything. > >> It is only with the threat of losing their power that leaders do good. If > >> they had no power which could be lost or taken they will always do what's > >> best for them in the short term, which is usually to shit on the peons. > >> Dictators (like Pinochet and Gates) do their dirty deeds because they feel > >> no need to placate the masses. > > > >If they wield no real power, and proceed to do whatever is best for them > >in the short term, they will be screwing themselves over in the long > >term (or short term, if doing what they want results in someone shooting > >them in self defense). > > > > I re-read my original sentence and it seems that your interpretation is > possible. I would like to clarify that the power I refer to is only that > part of their power which might be lost or threatened. Clearly if they have > no power they can't lose it. I want to say that if some or all of their > power could be placed in jeopardy they would tend to better behaved. Why do > you suppose Clinton spent so much time licking everybodys' boots and > repeatedly embellishing his "apologies" to the "public". But how can you plausibly threaten the power of he who has the most power? That would imply that a greater power exists -if so, how do we control those who wield *it*? Checks and balances don't work if those in power aren't willing to check others in power (because, for example, they're on the same side). > >And precisely what dirty deeds has Mr. Gates ever done? Excluding those > >actions in which the judicious use of state regulation was involved. > > You obviously think that anything goes in business. Frankly Gates is a > perfect example of why you anarcho-BS is doomed to failure. He will do > anything (and has) he can to be the only player in every market he touches. So? As long as he doesn't initiate force against anyone, I see no reason why he should be physically prevented from doing what he does. I dislike the way he operates, but neither I nor anyone else has the right to initiate force upon him to stop him, so long as he doesn't initiate force himself. My solution to the problematic behavior of Mr. Gates is not to patronize him wherever possible, to within a certain level of convienience. For example, I do not run MS software on my system --it sucks compared to Linux. Other people hate microsoft even more, and actively work against it. These people either work for competing companies, agitate the public to shun microsoft, or write good open source software, in an attempt to remove microsoft's market. > He has destroyed otherwise perfectly good businesses and products just to > increase his profits. He has violated workers rights to increase his > profit. How? What rights have been violated? Did he at any time initiate force against any of these workers? Did he hire soldiers to storm into competitors' offices to murder and destroy everyone and everything? If he has, I certainly haven't heard of it. I suspect that any "rights" which you think have been "violated" turn out to be non-rights, if you're anything other than a socialist. (which you may very well be --in which case, you'd be irrational and very good at doublethink, making intelligent argument futile) > In short he has demonstrated that if you let him murder wouldn't be > to far a step to reach his goals. I do not agree with this appraisal, and do not care, as long as he doesn't initate force, or use the state to initate force. Until then, he has as much right to do what he does as you have to do whatever it is that you do. > He is the monster that proves that your ideas are actually very very old > (caveman days) and are doomed by progress and civilization. Injecting > capitalism (investment oriented markets) into barbarism doesn't change the > fact that it is still barbarism, which in facts negates the ability to have > investment oriented markets, or capitalism. Who would invest if someone > with a gun could come and take it without out fear of retribution. But my point all along is that anyone who takes a gun and tries to take something *is* likely to face retribution --either from those he steals from, or from others who don't wish to be robbed by him. This retribution can take many forms, ranging from death, to ostracism, to a lowering of his reputation, depending upon how severe his crime was. You just haven't been reading what I've been saying, have you? > >> years, then how the hell do think you can convince somebody that the people > >> are going to be able to control warlords and monopolies. It's called, "You > >> don't like it? Bang, Bang, you're dead!" > > > >Yah, and then somebody else points a gun at Mr. would-be warlord and > >goes Bang, Bang, he's dead (it's unsafe having warlords about --sorta > >like scorpions). That is, if Mr. would-be manages to shoot me without > >being shot himself. > > > > And so everybody's so busy shooting each other that nobody is investing, > and I have to ask, "What happened to the capitalism part of > anarcho-capitalism?" Such events would be rare, since it's pretty easy for all parties concerned to figure out the likely result of such an exchange. Mr. would-be-warlord will probably not act on his desires, since he knows that it would at best drop his reputation through the floor, and at worst, result in his death. Unless of course, he's a real lunatic -in which case, he'd have gone out and attacked someone anyway. It's actually better this way. At least we don't have to worry about intelligent would-be-warlords manipulating the state to do their dirty work for them. In sum, the possibility of getting killed tends to put a damper on the would-be-warlord population. > >> Try to lift yourself out of the bullshit of your theory and give us at > >> least one REAL example (current or historic) of a large scale, long lasting > >> anarcho-capitalist society. Hippie communes are too small, and make sure > >> it's capitalistic. If you can't think of one in the next year or so then > >> come back and tell us. > > > >It hasn't happened yet. But then, neither had the USA, before 1776. > >The above is not a reasonable argument. > > WRONG!!!! Parliaments and representative governments did exist in somewhat > other forms. 1776 was NOT a revolution it was evolution. It comes from > among other things the Magna Carta of England as well as many other > concepts astutely compiled by the "forefathers". Ok, then think of it this way. Instead of having one big, centralized state, where orders are given from on high, and are thus frequently inequitous to lowly individuals, let's go for a more evenly distributed model. Let's carry this distribution to the point where everyone governs himself and his property. Previous attempts at such things would have failed, since humaity lacked communications systems which were fast enough to link such a system together. Previous forms of government all reflect this fact. Communication was always very centralized, and thus governance had to be as well, to keep everyone up to speed on what's going on. As communications technologies improved, states have become more and more decentralized. (go from the mesopotamian warrior-kings, to Rome, to monarchy, to parliamentary government, to the US). And today, we are presented with the internet --the ultimate in decentralized, near instantaneous communications. We aren't very far from making it possible for anyone, anywhere, to communicate with anyone else, wherever they may be. Obviously, this makes it possible to progress even further by decentralizing things even more! The net result is indistinguishable from anarcho-capitalism. I'd be satisfied with it. Do you like it better from this angle? > Your propositions emanate from a basis which existed before there were > nations and well before investment and economic development began. In fact, > anarchy had to be overcome before consistent development could occur. Once > we organized our societies and brought long (relatively) periods of peace > to the general populace economic and scientific development began to grow. > Certainly you will find it impossible to site any anarchic or nearly No, but you couldn't have cited the United States before it existed either. > anarchic "society" (oxymoron) Only if you persist in confusing society with the state. > which has brought sustained significant > development. > > > > >You can, of course, as me how it *could* happen. And unfortunately, > >you're partially correct, it couldn't happen under current conditions. > >The amount of personal firepower that is easily accessible by everyone > >is not sufficient to back up the soverignity of each individual. It's > >all linked to whether weapons technology is such that individuals can > >operate weapons which are just as effective as those wielded by highly > >trained and specialized groups. The pendulum of weapons tech. swings > >back and forth over time. During the American Revolution, the pendulum > >was on the side of individuals, as can be shown by the fact that the > >revolutionaries were carrying better weapons than those carried by > >professional soldiers, and could use them to equal or larger effect. > > > You whole thesis is based on violence, the exact opposite of what's > required for sustained economic growth. Nope, it's based on *reality*. The only way to ensure that no one will inflict violence upon you is to be capable of inflicting at least as much violence upon any attacker. What I'm telling you is that if the above conditions exist, violence will become a very unhealthy trade, and will not be practiced by anyone aside from the occasional lunatic who wants to commit suicide in an interesting fashion. > You lose! Consistently wrong > answers. You just don't get it. I beg to differ. It would appear that *you* just don't get it. Re-read what I've said in the light of my above paragraph, and see if you come to the same conclusion. > War does not produce wide spread economic > growth in those zones affected by the war. It destroys the infrastructure I agree that war destroys infrastructure, and is not going to cause widespread economic growth. I never said otherwise. But lets look at war for a moment, hmm? Those who start wars usually do so because they think they can win them, am I correct? It would be insane to do otherwise. If conditions were such that nobody could be sure of winning, there would be very little incentive to start a war, don't you agree? Of course, in reality, wars are started between nations by their leaders, who supposedly act on the behalf of their people. It is currently possible for the leader of a nation to have an incentive to start a war which his country cannot win, so long as *he* profits by it -in terms of money, power, etc. As long as he doesn't lose personally, he can do whatever he likes (if he's sufficiently amoral, which we must assume that some leaders will be). This is not the same on an individual level, however. It is never in the interest of the attacker to attack someone unless he can be reasonably sure of winning. The attacker cannot divorce himself from the results of his actions, as the leader of a nation can, because he cannot separate his being from his body in any effective sense. That is, if his body loses the fight, he's screwed. The point you raise would seem to be yet another argument for anarcho-capitalism. It would appear that preople have even more incentive not to hurt each other under those conditions than under present ones. > that only an organized government is capable of maintaining. This is untrue. Organized government is not necessary for the maintenence of infrastructure. See my other posts, or "The Market for Liberty". > The real answer is to keep the government focused on keeping the peace and > maintaining the infrastructures using as light a hand as possible--which is > never going to be an easy task. It is an impossible task, as my discussions with Jim Choate have shown. > But no government is NO GROWTH. The > libertarians have at least part of the equation correct. They go a little > too far to one extreme. But this is good, they're mostly just extreme > enough to pull a wondering government back into the middle where it should > be. Your anarcho-spew is rubbish, poorly thought out, and without any real > validation. I've offered plenty of validation. You haven't bothered trying to invalidate these validations, which would be the only way you could logically disprove my arguement. Instead, you've deliberately or unconsciously misunderstood or misread my arguements until they fit in with what you wanted me to have said. At which point, you spewed forth whatever canned response you had ready for what you wished I'd said. > I bet most of the most fervent defenders of gun ownership on this list > actually hope never to have to make use of their tunnels, guns, and > survival rations. You would be correct. I like to count myself among them. I have no desire to hurt or be hurt, rule or be ruled. > War is simply not good economics, 100% correct. > and anarchy is war--constant, festering, > sometimes small scale, sometimes large scale, but always war. Incorrect, for the above reasons. We don't really disagree on the fundamentals. I suggest that you take a very close and unbiased look at the points where we seem to disagree. I suspect that upon closer examination, you will come to the same conclusions that I have. It all hinges on being able to think about *why* the state might be the only possible solution to various problems/required services. This is usually very difficult for most people, as they've had those beliefs drilled into their skulls since they were young. I've found that it's much like a religion, in some respects. At least, all the arguments I've ever had with religious people on the topic of their religion kept ending up much like our current discussion). I've since realized how pointless it is to have such religious arguments. I haven't given up on politial arguments, however, and I hope I never have to. The result is unpleasant to think about. Good luck, and watch out for doublethink! Michael Hohensee

1 0

FW: RFC 2440 on OpenPGP Message Format
by Fisher Mark 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> -----Original Message----- > From: RFC Editor [SMTP:rfc-ed@ISI.EDU] > Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 1998 5:06 PM > Cc: rfc-ed(a)ISI.EDU > Subject: RFC 2440 on OpenPGP Message Format > > > A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. > > > RFC 2440: > > Title: OpenPGP Message Format > Author(s): J. Callas, L. Donnerhacke, H. Finney, R. Thayer > Status: Proposed Standard > Date: November 1998 > Mailbox: jon(a)pgp.com, lutz(a)iks-jena.de, hal(a)pgp.com, > rodney(a)unitran.com > Pages: 65 > Characters: 141371 > Updates/Obsoletes/See Also: None > I-D Tag: draft-ietf-openpgp-formats-08.txt > > URL: ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2440.txt > > This document is maintained in order to publish all necessary > information needed to develop interoperable applications based on the > OpenPGP format. It is not a step-by-step cookbook for writing an > application. It describes only the format and methods needed to read, > check, generate, and write conforming packets crossing any network. > It does not deal with storage and implementation questions. It does, > however, discuss implementation issues necessary to avoid security > flaws. > > This document is a product of the An Open Specification for Pretty > Good Privacy Working Group of the IETF. > > This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol. > > This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for > the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions > for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the > "Internet Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the > standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution > of this memo is unlimited. > > This announcement is sent to the IETF list and the RFC-DIST list. > Requests to be added to or deleted from the IETF distribution list > should be sent to IETF-REQUEST(a)IETF.ORG. Requests to be > added to or deleted from the RFC-DIST distribution list should > be sent to RFC-DIST-REQUEST(a)RFC-EDITOR.ORG. > > Details on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending > an EMAIL message to rfc-info(a)RFC-EDITOR.ORG with the message body > help: ways_to_get_rfcs. For example: > > To: rfc-info(a)RFC-EDITOR.ORG > Subject: getting rfcs > > help: ways_to_get_rfcs > > Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the > author of the RFC in question, or to RFC-Manager(a)RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Unless > specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for > unlimited distribution.echo > Submissions for Requests for Comments should be sent to > RFC-EDITOR(a)RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Please consult RFC 2223, Instructions to RFC > Authors, for further information. > > > Joyce K. Reynolds and Alegre Ramos > USC/Information Sciences Institute > > ... > > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant Mail Reader > implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version > of the RFCs. <<Untitled Attachment>> Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 18:11:07 -0500 ATT30256

1 0

Anonymizer developer positions available.
by Lance Cottrell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Anonymizer Inc. <http://www.anonymizer.com> is looking for programers to work on various projects under development. We have two positions available, one short term contract work, the other full time. Contract programmer: Term: 1-2 months Skills: Visual Basic, Windows API, TCP networking Full time development team leader: Skills: C / C++ PERL UNIX TCP Networking / sockets For either position send email and resume to me at <lcottrell(a)anonymizer.com>. We are looking for people who share our passion for free speech and privacy. -Lance Cottrell Lance M. Cottrell lcottrell(a)anonymizer.com Anonymizer, Inc. President Voice: (619) 667-7969 Fax: (619) 667-7966 www.Anonymizer.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNknmc8VB0soGGMVrEQIHZwCg8LUShD1hd+EUHbWewgyDbWv0mlUAniBO MXykZTIrYLEIE1F8HskuLhLz =CZu9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

DCSB: Mary Ellen Zurko; Jonah, IBM, Open Source, and Digital Commerce
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: rah(a)pop.sneaker.net Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 16:07:03 -0500 To: dcsb(a)ai.mit.edu, dcsb-announce(a)ai.mit.edu From: Robert Hettinga <rah(a)shipwright.com> Subject: DCSB: Mary Ellen Zurko; Jonah, IBM, Open Source, and Digital Commerce Cc: "Heffan, Ira" <HEFFAN(a)tht.com>, Roland Mueller <roland(a)secunet.com> Sender: bounce-dcsb(a)ai.mit.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Robert Hettinga <rah(a)shipwright.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- The Digital Commerce Society of Boston Presents Mary Ellen Zurko Security Architect, Iris Associates "Oh Jonah, He lived in a whale", or, How IBM decided to win in ecommerce by embracing standards and donating code Tuesday, December 1st, 1998 12 - 2 PM The Downtown Harvard Club of Boston One Federal Street, Boston, MA IBM was faced with the question a year ago of how to move from a slow starter to a leader in security infrastructure for ecommerce. Our traditional response to that sort of question had been "Hey kids, let's buy a company!" However, innovative internal forces recognized the power of the current standards and open source movements. We targeted the IETF PKIX standards as the most likely to move ecommerce forward, hired a team of experts in security and PKI and situated them in MA, drafted existing IBM experts in CDSA and smart cards, put together the first cross IBM/Lotus/Iris team and the first group with a charter to write freeware, and delivered the initial code drop to the MIT web site hosting it in September. The team and the freeware are called Jonah. This talk will cover the background, current status, and future of the Jonah effort. Mary Ellen Zurko is Security Architect at Iris, the folks who brought you Lotus Notes. She previously worked at The Open Group. She spent the four years before Jonah leading research in innovative and usable distributed authorization solutions, which posited the solution of the distributed authentication problem. Her current work on public key authentication and infrastructures is karmic revenge for such hubris. She has published papers in user centered security, roles based access control, WWW security and high assurance operating systems. She is an organizer of the New Security Paradigms Workshops and a member of the IW3C2, which runs the international WWW conferences. This meeting of the Digital Commerce Society of Boston will be held on Tuesday, December 1, 1998, from 12pm - 2pm at the Downtown Branch of the Harvard Club of Boston, on One Federal Street. The price for lunch is $32.50. This price includes lunch, room rental, various A/V hardware, and the speaker's lunch. ;-). The Harvard Club *does* have dress code: jackets and ties for men (and no sneakers or jeans), and "appropriate business attire" (whatever that means), for women. Fair warning: since we purchase these luncheons in advance, we will be unable to refund the price of your lunch if the Club finds you in violation of the dress code. We need to receive a company check, or money order, (or, if we *really* know you, a personal check) payable to "The Harvard Club of Boston", by Saturday, November 28th, or you won't be on the list for lunch. Checks payable to anyone else but The Harvard Club of Boston will have to be sent back. Checks should be sent to Robert Hettinga, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, Massachusetts, 02131. Again, they *must* be made payable to "The Harvard Club of Boston", in the amount of $32.50. Please include your e-mail address, so that we can send you a confirmation If anyone has questions, or has a problem with these arrangements (We've had to work with glacial A/P departments more than once, for instance), please let us know via e-mail, and we'll see if we can work something out. Upcoming speakers for DCSB are: January Ira Heffan Internet Software and Business Process Patents February Roland Mueller European Privacy Directive We are actively searching for future speakers. If you are in Boston on the first Tuesday of the month, and you would like to make a presentation to the Society, please send e-mail to the DCSB Program Commmittee, care of Robert Hettinga, <mailto: rah(a)shipwright.com>. For more information about the Digital Commerce Society of Boston, send "info dcsb" in the body of a message to <mailto: majordomo(a)ai.mit.edu> . If you want to subscribe to the DCSB e-mail list, send "subscribe dcsb" in the body of a message to <mailto: majordomo(a)ai.mit.edu> . We look forward to seeing you there! Cheers, Robert Hettinga Moderator, The Digital Commerce Society of Boston -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.5 iQEVAwUBNkn8T8UCGwxmWcHhAQH/6wf9EAXIGyox0VsqMHbO23ONy8as3htAahM0 liUOC9nj3Djjz8TCU0RRv2KckdkpyVrt0jb36NgPvgPCrLOpK682o8Q2VBFqaqUB q3+gtrdhpLUYffAJ02PvK9DvOCeb/zyWTmZ6rti/3tgTCHAjuiaL41Ryvg8u6J+A DqFR1Adk+xhnVlpzzelGI1IIBrI9fjqdAza9oK1Ub5LZ9Cc5MaU3417XsnCVVL3j MJRs3BGPiUKwFSeMO6PTSs916wrIoXXiY4KoeFD2qjLqidJbgOQoGZamEkQd5TOJ 1C5cYslIcUsH95TEVWPhs1YjT04WnU964X8FRbxsQtfQ4zk/lSFPbg== =sRPk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ----------------- 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' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To unsubscribe from this list, send a letter to: Majordomo(a)ai.mit.edu In the body of the message, write: unsubscribe dcsb-announce Or, to subscribe, write: subscribe dcsb-announce If you have questions, write to me at Owner-DCSB(a)ai.mit.edu --- 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'

2 1

Nationalized Public Radio
by Frederick Burroughs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

National Public Radio (NPR) today announced the appointment of Kevin Klose as the next President and CEO of NPR. His stint at The Washington Post included a position as Moscow Bureau Chief. He is currently Director of the US International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB). No need to hide your shortwave under the floorboards anymore, Voice of America is now on the FM airwaves. Story at: http://www.npr.org/inside/press/981111.klose.html

1 0

RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 14:23:43 -0500 > From: Petro <petro(a)playboy.com> > Subject: RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone > (fwd) > So leaders should be able to do whatever they want within their own > borders w/out the possibility of being held responsible for what they do to > citizens of other countries who just happen to be visiting? Absolutely. It's what is meant by indipendent nation. It's between the leaders and the citizens. > What about rule by law? What about it? I don't believe in one world governments, it's a bad idea. Within the confines of a given country there should be a rule of law, that rule should not necessarily be the same as any other country. And other countries should most definitely NOT have a say in it. Do you want Germany having a say in our laws (for example)? > That was not the point, the point was about black market goods. No, the point was about freedom of choice. > So then you admit you were lying about the deaths and blindness > being the cause of regulation, since you claimed it happend in the late > 1800's & early 1900's, but the regualtion and taxing went all the way back > to the middle ages? Taxing went on, the regulation of alcohol production didn't occur in this country until after the Civil War. Taxing alcohol is a whole different issue than regulating the quality and methods of production, and is most certainly not equivalent to regulations on where it might be sold and under what conditions. > It prevents businesses from using the Press to manipulate the > government into doing something about a problem that doesn't exist. No it doesn't. The press is a business, and if you don't think they don't try to manipulate more than the government you're in for a surprise. There are cases of the press being manipulated because of the impact of certain story presentation lines on their income. > >whistle-blowers and 'social do-gooders' to get their message out (unless > >they're well heeled and don't mind loosing it all in the process). > > That is already/still the case. You piss off the wrong people, you > die. Actualy not, there are a variety of whistle-blower laws on the book at every level. Also the number of whistle-blowers who are killed currently are pretty small (name 3). A lot of them loose the jobs they blew the whistle on but that is many cases is to be expected (after all if the issue is important enough the business will cease to exist). > >put any sort of limit on its expression. > > It INHERENTLY recognizes it, and inherently limits it. No it doesn't, it does not in any way prevent abuse and further provides no mechanism for the restitution or correction of that abuse. > No one has the power. > > THAT'S THE POINT. No, the point is that whoever is the most ruthless will get ahead. If you don't think that is power then you should sit and think. > Some agendas can't be pushed thru business, or at least not the > same way. Such as? Greed and profit always can be pushed through business, it's what they do. > If I got them legally, they were a legal commodity, if I dispose of > them legally, they move from the "white" market, to the "black" market. Which requires that yot mislead the doctor as to why you want them. > The fact that not everything on the black market was stolen ISN'T > the point, the point is that there can be things on the black market that > aren't stolen, and aren't inherently illegal (tomatoes, vicadan, alcohol) > but are still part of the black market because of the nature of the market > and the legal system. Why would anyone buy a commenly available item on the black market when they could go to the corner store and purchase it? They won't. People who are involved in the black market are there for profit. If they go down to the store and buy say tomatoes at $2/lb. whey would they sell them to you at $1.75/lb? They wouldn't. The alcohol and cigarettes you buy on the black market lack tax stamps are have bogus stamps. Why? Becuase the cost is much lower without the added tax and legitimate distribution expenses. > FUCKING BULLSHIT. YOu JUST brought introduced your thesis that even > if most stuff isn't actually stolen, then it is bought with money gained by > theft in your last post on this issue. Before that you were maintaining > that everything on the black market had to be stolen, and in fact this No, go back - I never said that. I have continously said that the majority of items on the black market are related to a stolen service or product. I stand by that statement. I'd go on but it's been a long day and I'm in no mood for this petty bickering. ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Re: "social responsibility" was (dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect) (fwd)
by Jim Burnes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

** forwarded as requested ** ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 19:04:57 -0600 (CST) From: Jim Choate <ravage(a)einstein.ssz.com> To: Jim Burnes <jvb(a)ssds.com> Subject: Re: "social responsibility" was (dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect) If you want a responce post it publicly. > > On Mon, 9 Nov 1998, Jim Choate wrote: > > > > I am willing to pay for fire protection. I am not willing to pay > > > for "universal health care", "welfare", and other such nonsense. > > > > The Constitution happens to mention that the federal government is detailed > > with taking care of the general welfare. If you don't like that sort of stuff > > then get a Constitutional amendment passed. > > > > Wow. He said it. This proves that Jim hasn't really read any history > since public high school. > > Actually this is the central fallacy of those that haven't bothered to > actually read the federalist papers, the anti-federalist papers or the > constitution, much less say how it should be amended. > > If a constitutional amendment had to have been passed it would have been > to give the federal government unlimited power to do what they believe is > in the interests of our general welfare. Madison explicitly addressed > the issue of unlimited federal power emanating from the welfare clause. > > Had the supreme court bothered to read the founder's writings on this > they would have found it in a week or two. That's assuming their > conclusion was not already decided. > > The constitution is a document that enumerates the powers of the federal > government. It is very specific. As Madison stated, if the general > welfare clause meant what the socialist engineers wished it meant, there > would have been no need to enumerate the specific powers of the federal > government. In fact, it would have been as if the founding fathers had > said: > > "The federal government has unlimited power to do whatever it > feels necessary." > > "The powers of the federal government are as follows" > > (1) > (2) > (3) etc > > Which would be ridiculous on its face. > > The reality of the situation is that Roosevelt kept trying to stack the > Supreme Court. He eventually suceeded in appointing his socialist > crony judges to "reinterpret" the constitution. The first result > of this was that Social (in)Security was ruled constitutional because > it was in "the general welfare". > > This was probably the last nail in the coffin of the Republic. The first > nail was imposing huge export duties on cotton in order to limit demand > outside the country -- in effect driving down cotton prices so it could be > had cheaply by the northern industrial (clothing/textile) markets. > Southern states saw this as blatant price controls. In their inability to > change the taxes they sought to leave the union. A prime example of the > old adage -- "the power to tax is the power to destroy". In this case it > was destroying the union itself. Only after the war was on did the north > use the anti-slavery propaganda to peddle their cause. And use it to good > advantage they did. I'm glad the slaves were emancipated, but I wish > it were done with less blood and more foresight. > > Bear in mind that as a libertarian I view slavery as one of the ultimate > evils. However, the northern industrialists had no leg to stand on > because they were one of the prime beneficiaries of cheap labor and thus > cheap cotton prices during the era of westward expansion. Never mind that > only the wealthy in the south owned slaves. If that was so, why was the > opposition to the feds so virulent? > > By 1913, Jekyl Island was a done deal. The income tax and the federal > reserve banking system were unleashed. A concise discussion of this is > beyond the scope of this posting. Needless to say centralized federal > power was on the move. The system of institutionalized fiat currency was > one of the main causes of the 1929 crash that put Roosevelt in power. It > was that "government breaks your leg, government hands you a crutch, > government becomes savior" mentality that resulted in the endless cycle > of market distortions and power grabs that put us where we are now. > > Does this mean that Roosevelt was "evil". No. Just that, as one > playwrite once said, "the conflict of good against good is much more > interesting". Well-intentioned "good people" have contributed more to the > misery of the human race that any other factor alone. I'm sure that > Roosevelt felt he was doing "good" when he undid the Republic. His > crowning achievment was his stacking of the Supreme Court and the > resulting unlimited expansion of federal power. If this country survives > Y2K it will have to contend with the issue that the scope of the federal > government's power is not unlimited. Something has got to give. Y2K > seems as likely a bifurcation and surfaction point as any. > > Maybe Hettinga is right. Economics, like physics obeys the "reality is > not an option" rule. When centralized bureacracy becomes too expensive > the invisible hand will select something more efficient. > > jim > > > > > >

1 0

Re: Elder Kennedy ordered to tesify to Grand Jury (if you can call it that) [CNN] (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 20:59:11 -0500 (EST) > From: Rabid Wombat <wombat(a)mcfeely.bsfs.org> > Subject: Re: Elder Kennedy ordered to tesify to Grand Jury (if you can call it that) [CNN] > Why would this be "unconstitutional?" Juries are to be composed of your peers taken from the community in which the crime occurred. A single judge doesn't make a jury of ones peers. > Are you at all familiar with the case? There seems to be a fair amount of > evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that would indicate a certain > politically and financially powerful family used its influence to keep > the two prime suspects in the case from coming to trial for over 20 > years. Irrelevant, one doesn't throw away the justice system because it might have been abused. One wrong does not justify another. > One judge is better than nothing. OTOH, maybe a football, a few pine > trees, and some vertical slope would do justice. Actualy 10 guilty men walking free is better than one innocent man in jail, or a justice system that gets abused. > (Or do you think there should be a statute of limitations involved?) Irrelevant. ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Re: "social responsibility" was (dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect) (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 19:27:21 -0700 (MST) > From: Jim Burnes <jvb(a)ssds.com> > Subject: Re: "social responsibility" was (dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect) (fwd) > > Actually this is the central fallacy of those that haven't bothered to > > actually read the federalist papers, the anti-federalist papers or the > > constitution, much less say how it should be amended. That's an easy way to brush aside having to prove your point. Especialy after having drawn a completely illogical and incorrect conclusion like this. > > If a constitutional amendment had to have been passed it would have been > > to give the federal government unlimited power to do what they believe is > > in the interests of our general welfare. This sentence makes no sense, mind rewording it so I know specificaly what it is your talking about. No amendment has to be passed. > Madison explicitly addressed > > the issue of unlimited federal power emanating from the welfare clause. Would you mind explaining where providing for the *general* welfare equates to unlimited powers? No government has unlimited powers and providing for the general welfare can't honestly be extrapolated to that conclusion. Within the context of the Constitution general welfare is in reference to building a framework for the expression of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. > > Had the supreme court bothered to read the founder's writings on this > > they would have found it in a week or two. That's assuming their > > conclusion was not already decided. Found what? Whose conclusions, the founding fathers or the sitting supremes? > > The constitution is a document that enumerates the powers of the federal > > government. It is very specific. And prohibits the enumeration of individual liberties by the same government. Rather handy little situation that, since it completely blows holes in any move to derive totalitarian control (which by the way is not democratic). As Madison stated, if the general > > welfare clause meant what the socialist engineers wished it meant, there > > would have been no need to enumerate the specific powers of the federal > > government. Well to be accurate there was no enumeration of the specific powers in the original Constitution, it's why Jefferson (who was in France at the time), Madison, and others fought and supported the Bill of Rights. Because of the 9th and 10th such moves are inherently doomed to failure. In fact, it would have been as if the founding fathers had > > said: > > > > "The federal government has unlimited power to do whatever it > > feels necessary." > > > > "The powers of the federal government are as follows" > > > > (1) > > (2) > > (3) etc > > > > Which would be ridiculous on its face. This entire section is ridiculous. To say on one hand the powers are unlimited and then to proceed to list them weakens the argument, this was also the reason for the 10th. It prevents such extrapolations as this. > > The reality of the situation is that Roosevelt kept trying to stack the > > Supreme Court. Wow, I didn't realize Roosevelt was even alive to participate in the original Constitutional debates. I'm going to stop here since we are obviously off on one of your pet peeves that isn't related to the discussion at hand. To jump 150 years in one fell swoop is pretty extraordinary. The reality is, as Jefferson himself said, that the laws of one generation aren't the laws of another. ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

ANNOUNCE: SATURDAY Bay Area Cypherpunks Meeting - Stanford University
by Hugh Daniel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The November Cypherpunks Meeting will be Saturday 11/14 from 1-5pm at Stanford, at the tables outside Tresidder Union, near the bookstore. The tables are on the west side, which is the inside of the U-shape. Coffee and food are available in the building. If the weather is uncooperative, we will also be inside the building. Lucky Green will be talking about his latest work. Hugh Daniel will update us on the new alpha of Linux FreeS/WAN. Bagels and Bagel Parephrenalia will be provided. Directions to Stanford Tresidder Hall Stanford is between El Camino Real and Junipero Serra Blvd, which are between 101 and 280. The Tresidder Parking Lot is on Mayfield Ave, off Campus Drive East. http://www.stanford.edu/home/map/search_map.html?keyword=&ACADEMIC=Tresidde… http://www.stanford.edu/home/map/stanford_zoom_map.html?234,312 The upside-down map of Stanford&Vicinity is at http://www.stanford.edu/home/visitors/vicinity.html Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart(a)pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

1 0

Re: Elder Kennedy ordered to tesify to Grand Jury (if you can (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 20:52:06 -0500 > From: Petro <petro(a)playboy.com> > Subject: Re: Elder Kennedy ordered to tesify to Grand Jury (if you can > call it that) [CNN] (fwd) > Jim, "Grand Jury", a jury to see if there is enough evidence to > warrant a full trial. > > >Irrelevant, one doesn't throw away the justice system because it might have > >been abused. One wrong does not justify another. > > Correct, but this isn't a guilty or innocent trial, this is a "is > there enough evidence to try this person" type trial. > > This judge can't throw the perp in jail, only throw another trial > where there will be 12 to judge. ARTICLE V. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. ARTICLE VI. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have Assistance of Counsel for his defence. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- By definition a jury is more than one, it's the reason they are implimented; to moderate the biases of the individual. Secondly, a judge is not impartial when acting in the stead of the state in two capacities at one time. Especialy when by their very nature they are at least to some degree confrontational. Dem's da rules bubba. The Kennedy lawyers should be throwing civil right shit fits about now. ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Re: Elder Kennedy ordered to tesify to Grand Jury (if you can (fwd) [a couple of other comments]
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > ARTICLE V. > > No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise > infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, > except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, > when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any > person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of > life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness > against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without > due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, > without just compensation. It's important to read that part about depriving life, liberty, or property within the context of forced medication, deprivation of social contacts, etc. before a trial has even been held. A person is innocent until proven guilty, and that means you can deprive him of geographic freedom if they can't pay bail. Outside of that any interruption or loss of income is the responsibility of the state to recompensate. It should also guarantee that if found innocent the incident won't have an impact on current or future career and life opportunities. They're sworn to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness with their lives if necessary. That's why their called PUBLIC SERVANTS. Note that property may be taken by the state through due process, private property (my home, personal savings, papers, etc.) can't be siezed for *ANY* reason without just compensation. Businesses and shared accounts (such as 401k's perhaps) are fair game. I break the law and you want to take my house? Fucking get your check book out. Otherwise it's theft and that's a crime in principle and practice. This means that *EVERY* confiscation law on the books yesterday, today, or tomorrow are completely illegal if they allow confiscation of private property in relation to crime. If the LEA's, courts, politicians, etc. really, really, really believe that the people of this country want to allow them to confiscate their property in relation to criminal activity then they should parent an amendment to that effect immediately. I'll tell you now, it ain't got a hope in hell. And when the reckoning day comes on this particular issue it's going to be a doozie. > ARTICLE VI. > > In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right > to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and > district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district > have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the > nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses > against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his > favor, and to have Assistance of Counsel for his defence. Note that the right to have *ASSISTANCE* of counsel is guaranteed. This means the state must provide you an attorney to assist in the correct process documentation *EVEN* if you represent yourself. Because it uses the term assistance there can be no implied power of attorney without direct and unconstrained and willing complicity by the accussed. ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 20:34:10 -0500 > From: Petro <petro(a)playboy.com> > Subject: RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone > (fwd) > There is an expectation that when one travels, one is protected by > certain laws, at least the laws of the country that one is traveling to. Absolutely, that concept does not proscribe them from making a law to recognize the laws of other countries. It doesn't make it right but then again the freedom of choice implies the freedom to make mistakes. It figures that on occassion it'll be a whopper (TM). If Penoche didn't know that Spain could extradite him from England then he needs to hire a new lawyer. There is absolutely no expectation in the concept of freedom that prohibits one from walking into a police station and admitting a crime. This isn't even an issue, neither the British or the Spanish forced him to England. And the Spanish didn't force Britian to sign the treaty recognizing extradition. He got what he deserves. He was stupid to have treated anyone like that and he was stupid to go to England. He is a stupid man. My personal view is I don't care unless I am in that country. If I have an expectation to go somewhere I check on the laws before I'd go. > There are also certain types of crimes that are so morally > reprehensible that to allow them to continue is not possible. Absolutely, and each country should have it's right to choose it's own particular brand of reprehensibility recognized. > Or are you willing to go on record as stating that what Stalin did > to the Jews (or Hitler for that matter) was acceptable, since we shouldn't > have a say in their laws? Well, you have to understand I'm a pantheist. I know it's easy to shrug off and say "so what" but I can't answer this exactly unless you fundamentaly understand literal pantheism. But I'll try. I believe there is no transcendence. As a result everything is divine because that's all there is. To disrespect the uniqueness in anything is a disservice to self. However, concepts of literal sin to my view simply don't exist. The killing of a human by a human is not fundamentaly (think of it as outside of human society, it's close but not close enough) different than a human killing a rabbit, or crushing a rock, or painting a picture. It's an activity, in and of itself it is nothing more than a cold, cosmic event mediated by complete and utter indifference. The universe does not act with anthropocentric motives or mechanations. However, within the concerns of human biology, psychology, and society there is a very real distinction. As a matter of fact there are quite a few. Since they are all a construct of human existance they deserve some level of respect, the freedom of expression in speech and press, not necessarily in action. Because of the fundamental uniqueness of anything, to destroy or change it with willful intent (I wish I could express this better, all I can say is it isn't what normal English means by those two words exactly enough) except in self-defence or survival (eg killing an animal for food) is not moraly (permissible at the level of individual) or ethicaly (the range of permissible acts related to an activity, say a doctor or lawyer) supportable. I am willing to go on record stating that what they did from a national level should concern no nation that is not directly involved. Nations do not have the right to impose their will on other nations, period. Nations may of course dissolve and reform of their own free will and whim. From a personal level everyone should have run over there in about 1936 and kicked their stinking ass as volunteers (the fact that it is not in human nature to participate in mass exhibitions like this voluntarily is another reason that anarcho-whatevers won't work). From a fundamentaly cosmic perspective what they did is completely and utterly irrelevant and of no consequence. At the same time I'm horrified that human beings can do that to other people and live with themselves. The total lack of empathy I find utterly chilling. Poppy Z. Brite in carnate. Let me give you another example, unless the US is attacked directly by Iraq we have no business threatening, let alone initiating, violence. But I'll do what I did the last time we got in a scrap with the rag-head, whatever I can. To do any less might cost somebody their life through my negligent short-term unprincipled self-interest, a sin of ommission for a man of no sins, I won't stop bitching about it either. Does that help any better? Life is a contradiction in motion. > >Do you want Germany having a say in our laws (for example)? > > They do already, it's called international trade. Me selling apples to a German doesn't involve their having a say in my law making unless I'm an idiot in making the laws I operate under. There are treaties, but the assumption is that they are entered into freely and with comprehension. If they don't and do well that's their problem. > Also, if I were a Catholic in a death camp because Jesse Helms > ramed thru legislation blaming the Y2K bug on the Holy C, I'd hope someone > would intervine. Congress can't make laws respecting establishments of religion. Not only can't they support any, they can't prohibit any, they can't even constitutionaly decide what a religion is. Per the 10th that is left to the individual states and their respective representative constitutions. > But you claimed it started in the early 1900's in response to > deaths and blindness. The regulation of the manufacture and sales of alcohol started after the civil war, late 1800' and early 1900's depending on your geography. It's impossible to set a single date since the various laws were'not all initiated at the same time. I believe somebody else is the person who equated prohibition with regulation. In general the laws were put in place because either there was a problem with tainted alcohol (this was a real problem in the very early 1900's because of the use of lead pipes and other amalgams that don't treat people nicely) or excessive consumption by the youth usualy (ala The Great Gatsby). The laws got a lot more draconian after prohibition was renounced. This is when many states really jumped on the taxation band-wagon. The reasoning behind the taxation of alcohol is the same today as it was in Jeffersons day. He said that the taxation was intended to reduce the use because of its debilitating effects. Then of course there is the consideration of what a government can do with that money as well. This taxation is what started the Whiskey Rebellion in the late 1790's. Jefferson finaly repealed it after quite a string of violence in the early 1800's (sorry I don't remember the actual dates, a web search on Whiskey Rebellion would probably turn something up). During the whole thing Washington was riding his fat ass around buying cheap land and forceably moving people who had lived there, in general acting the little tyrant. He was involved in at least two related deaths and had invested in the business and supported the taxation. What's really interesting is that when these taxes were intiated in the early 1700's (originaly by the British) they were imposed on the manufacturer not the consumer even though they were to limit the consumption and not the manufacture. The history of alcohol is long and twisted. > It prevents the press from manipulating the government because > there ISN'T ONE, or if there is (in the case of extreme > libertarian/minarchist) it is so restricted and powerless it can't do > anything execpt try to gather more power. True, but then the news papers (they are not the same as the press - where that commen misconception is from is beyond my keen) would just pander to their extant major supporter, advertisers. How honest do you think that would make them? Not very. If given the choice between the truth or a fatter check newspapers (and their reporters) have in general chosen the way of the greenback. Jefferson said he would never write a line in a newspaper, and didn't. He thought them vile. He however held the free press (he meant unrestrained communication between individuals) in high regard (obviously). > Yes, businesses can manipulate the press, and do-gooders can always > start their own press and fight back. Who do they buy the press parts from? The ink and paper? The distribution channles? Etc. You might be able to start one up but you won't last long in a monotonicly profit driven free-market. If they rake muck too much they won't have a rake anymore. > Yeah, and there are laws against Drug Dealing which work real well. There's probably a lesson in there somewhere... > I wanna say Karen something or other as one case--Silkwood? That was one of the ones I was thinking of. > Point still holds, you speak out, you get in trouble, legal or no. > Laws don't prevent things from happening, they simply give society the > moral authority to say "We Warned You, Now Off With His Head" or some such. They moderate and mediate those actions and in fact do set a limit on what can occur at the social level. I'll say it again, government isn't for regulating individual interactions at the daily level. It's simply too fine grain. It will control trends and behaviours with a good deal of aplomb (if it's not abused) - and I'm talking specificaly of a republican democracy like the US has. Governments address the general parameters of a society. > When was the last time you _didn't_ kill someone just because it is > illegal? Every time. I can think of three times. Two accidents hunting and the third a crazy with a knife. On a personal level I felt my sense of justification from committing such an act didn't equate to me spending time in jail. They're still alive, and I didn't do time. Works for me. In all three times I could have shot them and walked off, I wouldn't have been found and there were no connections. All three times were completely random events, hapinstance. I quit hunting after the second hunting event. I also don't go for long walks on the other side of the tracks at 2am anymore when I can't sleep. Some junior high kid tried to rob me. > It's expected, but illegal? How can it be illegal if there are no bodies to create them, courts to ejudicate them, supposedly unbiased police to enforce them. Now if we agree that human nature isn't going to change then there is still the unanswered (but asked a few dozen times) as to what the exact mechanism is that prevents abuse. Simply saying that people will find out is not historicaly reliable, people just don't volunteer for those sorts of things. Their first reaction is to stay out of it. Even if they find out what do they do about it? Go to a similar business down the street that operates identicaly? > It prevents government abuse, it prevents systemic abuse of power > and authority. Rape is rape, the point is to prevent it. Not just prevent it from your father. > It also makes it easier to get people to resist abuse & to fight > back, since the abuse isn't built in, nor do the abusers have any sort of > "authority" to fall back on. People are more likely to suffer injustice as long as its sufferable. It's a rare event to incite a large population to violence. > Which is different from now HOW? At least now there are limits to how ruthless they may be. You don't see tanks on your street corner, there aren't troops of men running around dragging people out of their homes because they're catholic or read 'Catcher in the Rye' or 'Atlas Shrugged' and shooting them. And people (like us right now) get to bitch about it with as near complete impunity as is possible in a real world. Hell through the amendment process we can concievably bypass the federal government completely. All that is required is the calling of a convention, which the federal government have no authority over (especialy since the right to peaceably assemble is protected and it don't get much more peaceable than a constitutional convention). > Isn't Billy Gates one of your poster boys for being ruthless? Isn't > he so far head of the rest of us that he could be in court for the rest of > his life and not spend everything? What makes Bill Gates reprehensible is not what he did with Microsoft, though the company as a whole should suffer. They certainly made profit together, they should share the flip side of the coin. Why I hold Bill Gates in so low esteem is his moral standing. A perfect example is hurricane Mitch. The World Bank came up with a tad over $100M for releif. Bill makes that in a few days. Here is a man with the means to institute huge social, political, and economic change that at his level is a pittance and he does nothing. He is scum. He made his bed, let him lie in it. He didn't help others when they could have used it at little to no impact to him, why should they extend a helping hand in return? This is another excellent example of why anarcho-whatevers won't work. The psychology of the truly wealthy is so self-interested and goal-oriented instead of principled that they almost become pathological in their lack of empathy. The claim is that succesful business will be some sort of utopic, empathetic social force. It won't be, it isn't in human nature. > Greed is not an agenda, it is an emotion, Profit is an agenda. True, but there are many potential motives that drive profit, greed is the most base one and as a result drives the lower levels of human activity. I gotta stop now, I'm sleepy. If I didn't get around to answering all the questions it's because there are lots of you and only one of me...ask again in a few days and I'll answer it then. Good night. ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

update.401 (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 14:30:13 -0500 (EST) > From: physnews(a)aip.org (AIP listserver) > Subject: update.401 > INFLUENCE OF COSMIC RAYS ON EARTH'S CLIMATE. Do > SUREFIRE QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT, the ability to > interlink two quantum particles with practically 100% certainty, has > been achieved by a NIST group (Quentin Turchette, 303-497-3328), > advancing hopes for ultrapowerful quantum computers. Previously, > physicists obtained entangled particles as a byproduct of some > random or probabilistic process, such as the production of two > correlated photons that occasionally occurs when a single photon > passes through a special crystal. Receiving entangled pairs in this > way is fine for tests of quantum nonlocality (Update 399), but > entangling a large number of quantum particles--essential for > building a practical quantum computer--becomes much less likely if > it is dependent on a probabilistic process. In their "deterministic > entanglement" process, the NIST researchers trap a pair of > beryllium ions in a magnetic field. Using a predetermined sequence > of laser pulses, they entangle one ion's internal spin to its external > motion, and then entangle the motion to the spin of the other atom. > The group believes that it will be able to entangle multiple ions with > this process. (Turchette et al, Physical Review Letters, 26 October > 1998.) > THE PETAWATT is the name for what is currently the world's ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Fwd: GOST
by scoops 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 12:50:36 -0800 >To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com >From: scoops <scoops(a)quiknet.com> >Subject: GOST > >Jetico <www.jetico.com> a Finnish company (I believe) offers a number of encryption algorithms in its BestCrypt package, among which is GOST which it reports having a 256 key (it also sports Blowfish and DES as I recall). I also remember a few weeks ago reports in the press and on the List of a porn ring broken up and some agent involved saying that the some porn was encrypted in an old KGB program which sounded much like GOST. The implication is that it's transparent to the feds. However I have no idea about various levels at which it might be implimented. I'm sure the real experts on the List will fill you in.

1 0

Long Term Returns: Value vs. Growth
by 5se Investment Research 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear Fellow Investor, Recently two professors from the University of Chicago, Eugene Fama and Ken French, published a study demonstrating the difference in long term returns of value and growth stocks. The study encompassed almost all stocks on every major US exchange. This celebrated study presented overwhelming evidence that market forces tend to overreact to past events, pricing growth stocks too high, and value stocks too low. Because of these reactions, as a group, growth stocks produce below average returns for investors who purchase them at high prices, and value stocks produce above average returns for investors who purchase them at depressed prices. The professors used book to market value to correlate the long term returns. Value stocks having high book to market value and Growth stocks identified by a low book to market value. On average the stocks fitting the value criteria had average annual returns of 21.4% while growth stocks had only 8% average annual returns. Factoring in inflation, the real long term rate of return for value stocks is a bit over 15% but only 2.5% for the growth group. Essentially the study is a good reminder that, when it comes to investing, what goes around comes around. Good companies can experience bad times and be unfairly priced. Apple, IBM, Coke, American Express, and many other excellent companies have experienced the wrath of an unforgiving market, and yet, they are companies with a proven ability to persist in the face of large challenges. Identifying value is simple. All you have to do is look for Good companies experiencing temporary difficulties. This simple strategy will, if you are willing to wait out the storm, reward you with hefty long term returns and lower risk (as the F&F study also showed). Stocks that meet the F&F criteria for value and have solid management in todays market include: Callaway Golf Ensco Corp Reebok Advanta Corp To learn more about the F&F study read Robert Haugen's book "The New Finance" available at http://www.5se.com/5se1.htm Regards, Jeffrey Minich 5se Investment Research New at the 5se site ********************** PortfolioPower! Portfolio Management Model versions for both Excel 95 & 97. Special Upgrade price, only $19.95, for PortfolioPower! Trial Users. Includes a special single-issue online preview of the latest 5se Wealth Building Report. Instant online credit card payment processing and PortfolioPower! order fulfillment with your American Express, Visa, Mastercard, Diners Club, or Discover card. http://www.5se.com/secretproduct.htm

1 0

Re: Nationalized Public Radio
by x 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Exceprts from: " Text of RFE/RL President Kevin Klose's Statements Prague, July 4 (RFE/RL) -- The following is a text of introductory remarks by RFE/RL President Kevin Klose today at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty: .... On this Independence Day, 1996, the two-hundredth twentieth celebration of the United States, we are also celebrating the second anniversary of the decision to move Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty to the former federal parliament building here in Prague. We are deeply honored that Mrs. Clinton has chosen our headquarters from which to make an historic, Indpendence Day address. .... History has taught that democracy cannot live in an information vacuum. indeed, a well-informed citizenry is essential for democracy and free-market economies to flourish. This powerful historic truth guides our radios each day. Our servces in 23 languages provide accurate, objective news and information to millions of people across 11 time zones. Citizens in newly-emancipated lands can be freed from the past by the power of information itself to establish civil societies. The stakes are enormous. Civil societies that guard human freedoms across our broadcast regions can guarantee a stable, peaceful future for all of Europe and the world. Our mission to assist democratic change, to combat nationalism and racism, must not falter. .... Here at the radios you will find 350 Czechs and Americans, and men and women from more than 20 other countries, working in harmony and partnership to broadcast truthful information for the sake of our homelands and the futures of our children. Thank you, one and all. Thank you, Mrs. Clinton, for joining us to celebrate our Independence Day. © 1996 Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty, Inc. All Rights Reserved. " ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------- Disclaimer: This is a review and fair use, thank you very much, or should I pack my prison garb now? Since freedom cannot flourish in an information vacuum this posting is probably illegal. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------- At 06:51 PM 11/11/98 -0500, Frederick Burroughs wrote: > >National Public Radio (NPR) today announced the appointment of Kevin >Klose as the next President and CEO of NPR. His stint at The Washington >Post included a position as Moscow Bureau Chief. He is currently >Director of the US International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB). > >No need to hide your shortwave under the floorboards anymore, Voice of >America is now on the FM airwaves. Story at: > >http://www.npr.org/inside/press/981111.klose.html > > >

1 0

acceptable user policies
by Duncan Licence 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

hey there, I am having to formulate an acceptable user policy for the users. Does anybody know of any online references, or examples of such policies. This would have to include specifications like email use, internet access, games over the LAN - anything that you can get your head around pertaining to such. This of course would have to weigh up between the rights of the users and protection of the network and PCs Your help would be greatly appreciated Duncan

1 0

acceptable user policies
by Duncan Licence 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

hey there, I am having to formulate an acceptable user policy for the users. Does anybody know of any online references, or examples of such policies. This would have to include specifications like email use, internet access, games over the LAN - anything that you can get your head around pertaining to such. This of course would have to weigh up between the rights of the users and protection of the network and PCs Your help would be greatly appreciated Duncan

1 0

100S OF FREE PICS'N'LINKS EVERY DAY!
by STUFFED FRI NOV 13 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

+ 30 SUPERB, HI-RES, HOT PHOTOS + 5 SUPER SEXY STORIES + ISLAND EROTICA + BIGGINS + WET WET WEB + INDIAN PORN + PURE PIX + WHITE CHOCOLATE + XXX FEMALES + HARDCORE SEX WITH ZOOM + CUMSHOT QUEENS + XXX 4 FREE + BONUS PIC 1 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/31225.htm + BONUS PIC 2 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/15219.htm + BONUS PIC 3 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/6401.htm + BONUS PIC 4 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/9541.htm + BONUS PIC 5 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/9140.htm + MUCH, MUCH MORE! ----> http://stuffed.net/home/ <---- This email is never sent unsolicited. Stuffed is the supplement for the Eureka newsletter you subscribed to. Full instructions on unsubscribing are in every issue of Eureka! ----> http://stuffed.net/home/ <----

1 0

RE: DCSB: Mary Ellen Zurko; Jonah, IBM, Open Source, and Digital Commerce
by Fisher Mark 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> Mary Ellen Zurko is Security Architect at Iris, the folks who brought you >> Lotus Notes. >I suggest she be hung by her toes until she repents for that >abomination. IIRC, back in the www-security mailing list days, she wasn't at Iris at all -- so she wasn't there when the original architecture was laid in place. MLF "former Notes admin" ========================================================== Mark Leighton Fisher Thomson Consumer Electronics fisherm(a)indy.tce.com Indianapolis, IN "Their walls are built of cannon balls, their motto is 'Don't Tread on Me'"

1 0

Censorware
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

So, does the ADL censor Farrakan? Will the white supremecists publish their own "screen" to keep their brood pure ? Jewish censorware. Gotta love the irony. Time to re-fluoridate my precious bodily fluids. Thursday November 12 10:32 AM ET ADL And Learning Co. Create Hate Filter BOSTON (Reuters) - The Anti-Defamation League, which has been monitoring hate groups for 85 years, has teamed up with educational software maker The Learning Co. to create a filter that screens out hate sites on the Internet. Dubbed the ADL HateFilter and available from the ADL's Web site (www.adl.org) parents can install the screen on home computers and thereby keep ``bigotry and prejudice out of their homes,'' ADL National Chairman Howard Berkowitz said. The ADL HateFilter sits atop the Learning Co.'s Cyber Patrol product, a filter that is used by both parents and teachers to block children's access to Internet sites ''containing drug information, sexual text, nudity. Things that parents may consider inappropriate for children,'' a spokeswoman for Cambridge, Mass.-based software maker said. The ADL HateFilter does not just screen hate sites, but also provides a link to obtain information about the hate groups, the Learning Co.'s Susan Getgood said. ``We've basically been doing this for 85 years, we just transferred the information to the Internet,'' explained ADL spokeswoman Myrna Shinbaum. The sites filtered are those that in the ADL's judgment advocate hatred, bigotry or even violence toward Jews or other groups on the basis of their religion, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or other immutable characteristics. The ADL, founded in 1913, is holding its 85th annual National Commission meeting in Boston. http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/tc/story.html?s=v/nm/19981112/tc/filter _1.html

1 0

acceptable user policies
by Duncan Licence 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

hey there, I am having to formulate an acceptable user policy for the users. Does anybody know of any online references, or examples of such policies. This would have to include specifications like email use, internet access, games over the LAN - anything that you can get your head around pertaining to such. This of course would have to weigh up between the rights of the users and protection of the network and PCs Your help would be greatly appreciated Duncan

1 0

Re: acceptable user policies
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Yeah, let me give you the first rule of acceptable user policies. Users shall not spam a maillist multiple times with the same damn request, because a) their question is a lot less likely to be answered by annoyed listmembers, and b) said annoyed listmembers will probably end up mailing the user's ISP and complaining, resulting in disciplinary action against said abusive user. Before you start formulating an acceptable user policy, why don't you go spend some time in news.announce.newusers and learn some netiquette. At 03:11 PM 11/11/98 +0000, Duncan Licence wrote: >hey there, > > I am having to formulate an acceptable user policy for the users. Does >anybody know of any online references, or examples of such policies. >This would have to include specifications like email use, internet >access, games over the LAN - anything that you can get your head around >pertaining to such. This of course would have to weigh up between the >rights of the users and protection of the network and PCs > > > Your help would be greatly appreciated > Duncan

1 0

GOST
by scoops 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jetico <www.jetico.com> a Finnish company (I believe) offers a number of encryption algorithms in its BestCrypt package, among which is GOST which it reports having a 256 key (it also sports Blowfish and DES as I recall). I also remember a few weeks ago reports in the press and on the List of a porn ring broken up and some agent involved saying that the some porn was encrypted in an old KGB program which sounded much like GOST. The implication is that it's transparent to the feds. However I have no idea about various levels at which it might be implimented. I'm sure the real experts on the List will fill you in.

1 0

JOBOP Software Engineer
by mxm＠candseek.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Since your address was listed on a software engineering oriented site, I was hoping you could help me out. I am currently looking for individuals with a strong background in C++ development on a Windows NT platform. I represent a leader in software development for the pharmaceutical, cosmetic, and food industries specializing in customized Manufacturing Execution Systems. For this exciting, growth opportunity, I am looking for an individual to play a key role in gathering requirements from clients and relaying that information to an internal development team. In addition to acting as a liaison, this individual will also participate in the development of the system. Position can work from Northern Virginia or Central Connecticut and we will assist in relocation expenses. An ideal candidate will have at least 3 years of experience conducting C++ development on an NT platform. Communication skills are also important due to the interaction with both internal and external clients. Prior project management experience is a plus. Salary to $90,000 with a generous benefits package. If you know of anyone that might be interested, please forward this email or contact me directly. Thank You, Megan McCullough Diedre Moire Corporation 510 Horizon Center Robbinsville, NJ 08691 (609) 584-9000ext275 (609) 584-9575 (fax) mxm(a)candseek.com

3 2

ANNOUNCE: SATURDAY Bay Area Cypherpunks Meeting - Stanford University
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The November Cypherpunks Meeting will be Saturday 11/14 from 1-5pm at Stanford, at the tables outside Tresidder Union, near the bookstore. The tables are on the west side, which is the inside of the U-shape. Coffee and food are available in the building. If the weather is uncooperative, we will also be inside the building. Lucky Green will be talking about his latest work. Bagels and Bagel Parephrenalia will be provided. Directions to Stanford Tresidder Hall Stanford is between El Camino Real and Junipero Serra Blvd, which are between 101 and 280. The Tresidder Parking Lot is on Mayfield Ave, off Campus Drive East. http://www.stanford.edu/home/map/search_map.html?keyword=&ACADEMIC=Tresidde… http://www.stanford.edu/home/map/stanford_zoom_map.html?234,312 The upside-down map of Stanford&Vicinity is at http://www.stanford.edu/home/visitors/vicinity.html Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart(a)pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

1 0

Crypto fallout
by bill payne 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Wednesday 11/11/98 2:26 PM John Young J Orlin Grabbe Emile Zola I visited Jim Omura president of Cylink several times. And bought 6, I recall, CY 1024 public key arithmetic chips for Sandia. At an outrageous price. Omura gave my paper on RSA encryption, posted at jya.com, to Jon Graff. My feeling is that when those who own crypto devices manufactured by Cylink, RSA, Crypto Ag, ... finally realize that PROBABLY their devices have been spiked to transmit the key with the ciphertext there will be a reversal of fortune at these companies. Like the current Cylink problem. http://www.jya.com/cylink-suit.htm The WORD is getting out. Thanks to you guys. And those who read Black and White will realize how to fix their crypto problems TOO. bill Title: Black and White Test of Cryptographic Algorithms Jump to Forum Click Image to Jump to Next Article Go to Text Only Print Version Black and White Test of Cryptographic Algorithms by William H. Payne This article requires special formatting. Please Click Here to Read Send This Article to a Friend: Your Name: Email Address of your Friend: Your Email address: Back to Home Page Quick Menu Visit the Button Shop Interactive Forum Black and White Test of Cryptographic Algorithms E-mail the Editor

1 0

Enter Symbol's Hacker Contest at the Palm Computing Platform Developer Conference!!
by palmdeveloper＠palmdevcon.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Symbol announces the first annual Symbol SPT 100 Developer Contest! You could win a Toshiba Tecra 780 DVD 266 MHz Pentium II Notebook by developing the Best SPT 100 Application. Other cool prizes will also be awarded. Everyone who participates will receive a t-shirt. You must be a registered attendee of the Palm Computing Platform Developer Content to participate. Winners will be announced at the Conference, December 1-4. For more details on the contest, and to register for the conference, point your browser to http://www.palmdevcon.com.

1 0

Re: most of what govts do can be done by business, and done better (Re: How to solve the tax problem w/o anarchy or force)
by Soren 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Burnes - Denver wrote: On Wed, 11 Nov 1998, Soren wrote: > There is a real live example of this kind of transition. New Zealand. > much interesting info deleted What kind of constitution and bill of rights does New Zealand have? Check this out. Do I have the right of gun ownership to protect myself or stop tyrannical takeover? That's very funny. The US, the country that allows most gun ownership (in the 1st world), is the most in need of that right to defend against both illegal and legal criminals. So much for the value of the 2nd amendment. To answer your question though, yes you have the right to buy a gun, just as you have the right to buy a car (a far more lethal instrument in general). You are held to account for what you do with it however (irrespective of whether its a gun or car). If you kill someone, then you are generally arrested and tried for either murder or manslaughter. Manslaughter is the usual charge if you shoot someone who was threatening to kill you. It all depends on how successful they were in the attempt. Several cases of pissed off people shooting neighbours who were merely harassing them, and getting acquitted of any charges, exist. Something like 10 murders a year and climbing (fueled by the gangsta rap lovers amongst the maori, mostly. Thank you USA!!). When most violent crime is of the form of being beaten up in a bar, or surprizing a burglar and getting threatened with a club or knife, responding with lethal force is considered not to be very sporting. Hand guns are rare, but there are hand gun clubs. Seems a lot like a waste of energy to me, preparing for an event that is very unlikely to occur in your lifetime. Most gun owners are hunters, shooting pig, deer, possums, elk .... Permits are not required. Bow hunting is also quite popular. New Zealand is a parliamentary democracy in the english tradition, with only one house. Recently, MMP (similar to Germany's) system of representation, was passed by referendum. This means that any candidate and/or party that gets 5% of a popular vote, gets a seat in the parliament. The more 5%s you get, the more seats. Each citizen gets 2 votes. One for a candidate, and one for a party. There are currently 6(ish) major political parties. Under MMP, proportional representation means that the the elected candidates have to form a coalition government. I.e. they all get together and make/break friendships until a clear winner/majority is declared (a very public process). If a clear winner cannot be found, another election is held until something gells. Once that happens, the majority coalition designates a 'prime' minister and a cabinet of ministers, to call the shots. This is very unlike a presidential executive, in that these ministers are, in effect, hired by the coalition government and not directly elected to office. Prime ministers do not have to get impeached to remove them from office. If the majority coalition gets P.O'ed with any minister's track record, he gets fired. If the population gets P.O'ed with the winning coalition, the coalitions will change to form a new government and new cabinet, to suit the mood(swing) of the populace. This is a very adversarial system for a government to operate under. There are virtually no bi(multi-)partisan activities (the last was the economic revolution in 1986). Generally, the opposition is always angling to destabilize the current majority coalition, with lots of rhetoric flying in the press. Consequently, the majority coalition has to keep on their toes and please the population. Sometimes this leads to some skullduggery and dishonest activities. The population (and press) have exactly zero tolerance for crooked politicians. Typically, a Member of Parliament who gets out of line, is out of office within the month, often the week. Ergo, no real need for guns when you have a government that can be dissolved at any time by either a new majority being formed, or the population calling for an election. Unpopular laws are generally ignored, or become the cause for a new election. This happens on a regular basis. I always had a sneaking suspicion that basing the US republic on the roman model, was not such a good idea. Look what happened to them. (Hail Clinton!, long live the emperor! Only until the present emergency lasts, honest! Those huns (drug dealers) and vandals (terrorists) have to be defeated first). Its hard to compare, how NZ's system works in practise, with the self-aggrandizing and self-important poll-doll system in the US (bread and circuses). Mostly politicians in NZ are the guys who live next door, and who you go fishing with. They all have a distaste for overinflated egos. This is deeply ingrained in the national psyche, often to a fault (tall poppy syndrome). It is a nation of fiercely rugged individualism (even at its collectivist height in the 1970s). You are still considered to be a wuss if you didn't build your own home, or don't fix your own car or computer (or write your own crypto?), or have your own business, although this is changing under the onslaught of US cultural imperialism and hamburger diplomacy. As it's an island nation, 1 in 5 people has a boat, and generally use it to go fishing. Again, no permits necessary. A lot of people also build their own boats, although this is changing ... I suppose the closest comparison in the US, would be to think of it as a cross between Alaska and Hawaii. Hope that answers your questions. You should look around the NZ web sites for more detail, or better yet, take a month or two and go and check it out. Christmas is fast approaching, which is the start of summer and the holiday season, all rolled into one.

1 0

IP: WiredNews: Virus Thrives on HTML
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: believer(a)telepath.com Subject: IP: WiredNews: Virus Thrives on HTML Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 09:46:31 -0600 To: believer(a)telepath.com Source: Wired News http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/16206.html Virus Thrives on HTML by Chris Oakes 5:53 p.m.11.Nov.98.PST An old computer invader has found a new place to thrive. A virus-monitoring group this week posted a computer virus -- called "html.internal" -- that is the first to replicate itself through hypertext markup language, or HTML, the code that defines the common Web page. "Looks like the virus crowd has finally discovered the Internet," said Richard Smith of Phar Lap Software. "HTML pages are extremely mobile.... They're intended to be given out." Other observers point out the demonstration virus requires specific Windows scripting software to carry out its task. They maintain that the virus, therefore, exposes the vulnerability of the secondary software, VisualBasic Script, not plain vanilla Web pages. "It draws attention to the power that's available to the VBScript programmer," said Jimmy Kuo, director of antivirus research at Network Associates. A computer virus typically spreads through shared files, such as word processing documents or email attachments. It most often consists of a program or piece of code that runs invisibly on any computer it manages to infect. Like any virus, it replicates itself. That replication can be threatening in itself if the virus is large, since it will quickly fill a computer's memory and cause a crash. Viruses once depended mainly on floppy disks for their travels, but networks have introduced an easier path. The HTML virus, created by the Virus Information Center and released on Tuesday, was built as a demo and does not present a large security risk in and of itself. It works through Internet Explorer 4.0 and relies on the scripting feature, VBScript, built into the latest Microsoft PC operating system, Windows 98. If security warnings are ignored, the virus will load via a Web page and infect other Web pages on the host computer. Protections already built into Internet Explorer 4.0 would warn users if they encountered the virus, said a Microsoft spokeswoman. Copyright © 1994-98 Wired Digital Inc. All rights reserved. ----------------------- NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ----------------------- **************************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address or (un)subscribe ignition-point-digest email@address **************************************************** www.telepath.com/believer ****************************************************

1 0

FW: Network Associates rejoins Key Recovery Alliance
by Stewart, William C (Bill), BNSVC 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded via Dave Farber's list: -----Original Message----- From: Kathleen Ellis [mailto:ellis@epic.org] Sent: Thursday, November 12, 1998 12:25 PM To: cryptography(a)c2.net Subject: Network Associates rejoins Key Recovery Alliance As seen on Slashdot.. http://www.slashdot.org Posted by blizzard on Thursday November 12, @09:41AM from the gimme-your-data dept. Andrew Hagen writes "Network Associates, formerly McAfee, developer of PGP, has quietly rejoined the Key Recovery Alliance. Despite withdrawing from the group last December amid pointed concerns over the continued trustworthiness of PGP, NAI apparently rejoined the Key Recovery Alliance (KRA) three months later with their February 1998 acquisition of Trusted Information Systems, a founding member of the KRA. The KRA's major stated goal is creation of "a global infrastructure that supports recovery of encrypted information." NAI has sent me e-mail stating that they might or might not remain in the KRA, that "PGP products will not be affected," and that they have "no interest in enabling key escrow for government access." Network Associates is presently listed on the KRA membership roster." Kathleen Ellis Admin. Dir., Electronic Privacy Information Center Voice Mail: (202)298-0833 http://www.epic.org Keep up with the latest encryption news and events: http://www.crypto.org PGP 5.0 Key ID 9bf725b4 65FF B997 62B8 C396 A527 2D6A 4901 F701 9BF7 25B4 _____________________________________________________________________ David Farber The Alfred Fitler Moore Professor of Telecommunication Systems University of Pennsylvania Home Page: http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~farber

1 0

IP: World's biggest hard drive
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: believer(a)telepath.com Subject: IP: World's biggest hard drive Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 23:15:59 -0600 To: believer(a)telepath.com WORLD'S BIGGEST DISK DRIVE To mark the centenary of magnetic recording, IBM today unveiled the largest (25gb) hard drive yet produced for PCs. It's shipping limited numbers to PC makers for use in machines that will be ready for Christmas. IBM introduced the first disk drive, back in 1956. It had a capacity of 5mb and was the size of two large refrigerators. The new 25gb drive comes on the 100th anniversary of the Telegraphone, a primitive answering machine. See http://www.ibm.com/News/1998/11/11.phtml From: Alan Farrelly, News Interactive. Australia **************************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address or (un)subscribe ignition-point-digest email@address **************************************************** www.telepath.com/believer ****************************************************

1 0

IP: Clinton Point-Man on 'Y2K' is Low-Balling Magnitude of the Impending Crisis
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: believer(a)telepath.com Subject: IP: Clinton Point-Man on 'Y2K' is Low-Balling Magnitude of the Impending Crisis Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 11:12:41 -0600 To: believer(a)telepath.com Source: Center for Security Policy http://www.security-policy.org/papers/1998/98-C181.html Publications of the Casey Institute of the Center for Security Policy No. 98-C 181 PERSPECTIVE 5 November 1998 Whistling Past the Graveyard: Clinton Point-Man on 'Y2K' is Low-Balling Magnitude of the Impending Crisis (Washington, D.C.): Today's Washington Post features an article about a few of the problems besetting the U.S. government as it grapples, belatedly, with the Year 2000 (or Y2K) "bug." In a perfect (if unintended) metaphor for the trouble on this front now confronting the Clinton Administration -- and, thanks in no small measure to its absence of "leadership" on the issue, the Nation -- the Post headline reads "Y2K Problem Poses Staffing Challenges for Agencies." Yet, the caption on an accompanying photograph quotes John Koskinen, the President's "czar" for the Millennium bug, as saying: "Y2K staffing 'has not turned out to be a major issue at this point, but we are continuing to monitor it.'" Shorthanded Unfortunately, the article proceeds to detail myriad examples that suggest ways in which personnel problems are seriously interfering with the government's Y2K remediation program. For example, the Post reports: "In the scramble to fix computers for the Year 2000, federal agencies have regularly complained that their technology experts were being lured away by better-paying jobs and that qualified contractors were difficult to find." "Of the 24 large agencies required to file quarterly or monthly Y2K progress reports, 13 expressed worries about their computer staffing or staff availability, according to a new General Accounting Office report." "[According to the GAO] four agencies - the departments of Agriculture, Justice and State and the Patent and Trademark Office - [are] facing [acute] Year 2000 staff woes: project delays because of high turnover among contractor staff and losses of skilled information technology employees through retirements and increased recruitment by private-sector companies." A 'Major Issue', Indeed Mr. Koskinen's reassurances notwithstanding, the anecdotal evidence of problems of ensuring compliance of the federal agencies is of great concern for several reasons: The government has historically had a much more difficult time than the private sector hiring and retaining qualified workers in a competitive job market. More often than not, the workers the government does retain have skill sets deemed unimpressive (read, unemployable) by the private sector. Given the complexity of undertaking a comprehensive assessment of the extent of the Y2K-associated staffing problems, anecdotal evidence is all there is to go on in calibrating the magnitude of such problems. It is a well known fact that over 80% of all large high technology projects are completed behind schedule. That the Clinton/Gore Administration continues to assert that the job -- arguably, the largest high technology project ever undertaken with an altogether inflexible deadline -- will be done on-time defies historical experience, to say nothing of common sense. Panic Prevention? The truth of the matter is that, even if the federal government were experiencing no personnel problems in preparing for the Y2K "bug," the Clinton Administration would still be dangerously "behind the power curve." After all, far and away the toughest part of insuring federal agency compliance with Y2K requirements will be the testing, re-remediation and retesting phases -- work that has scarcely even begun in most agencies. In fact, what seems to be going on here is less crisis management than panic management. Unfortunately, Czar Koskinen's wishful thinking about the staffing problem is not an isolated incident. In public speeches, media interviews and through other vehicles, he has consistently understated the magnitude of the problem while substantially overstating the government's preparedness for dealing with it.(1) Koskinen has plenty of company in the Clinton Administration, however. Indeed, even on the one occasion last July, when (after months of refusing to issue public warnings about the Y2K crisis) President Clinton and Vice President Gore finally used the "bully pulpit" to raise an alarm about this impending danger, they failed accurately to describe the severity of the problem. They also refused to take any responsibility for the significant contribution their lack of leadership to date has made to the Nation's Y2K unpreparedness -- and, therefore, to the likely intensity of the coming crisis.(2) The Bottom Line An insert next to the aforementioned Washington Post article on Y2K staffing issues reports the Federal Reserve plans to release some $30-50 billion in additional reserves late in 1999. The reason: to ensure banks will have sufficient money on hand to satisfy depositors who want to hold their savings in cash on the 1st of January 2000. As of April of this year, there was $3.6 trillion on deposit in U.S. banks. Those banks hold only some $49 billion in cash reserves. Thus, even with the additional funds available for withdrawal, banks will have at most only $2.70 for every $100 on deposit. The Clinton-Gore Administration is sorely mistaken if it believes a potentially cataclysmic socio-economic crisis will be avoided if it persists in misleading the American people. The only hope of preventing such a panic-driven outcome is for the administration to provide steady, honest leadership -- addressing candidly the unknown and greatly increasing the priority given by both the private and public sector to accelerating Y2K remediation and damage limitation efforts. - 30 - 1. See the Center's Decision Brief entitled At Last, Clinton-Gore Publicly Address Year 2000 Bug -- But Continue to Lowball Problem, Duck Responsibility For It (No. 98-C 132, 15 July 1998) and the Casey Institute's Perspective entitled New Theory For Clinton-Gore Silence on Y2K Emerges As N.P.R., Gingrich Offer Contrasting Views Of The Danger (No. 98-D 106, 12 June 1998). 2. See the Center's Decision Brief entitled At Last, Clinton-Gore Publicly Address Year 2000 Bug -- But Continue to Lowball Problem, Duck Responsibility For It (No. 98-C 132, 15 July 1998). NOTE: The Center's publications are intended to invigorate and enrich the debate on foreign policy and defense issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of all members of the Center's Board of Advisors. © 1988-1998, Center for Security Policy ----------------------- NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ----------------------- **************************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address or (un)subscribe ignition-point-digest email@address **************************************************** www.telepath.com/believer ****************************************************

1 0

IP: [FP] Scanner picks out criminals
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: "ScanThisNews" <mcdonalds(a)airnet.net> Subject: IP: [FP] Scanner picks out criminals Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 19:33:38 -0600 To: ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com SCAN THIS NEWS 11/11/98 Some people will argue -- after reading the following article -- that systems designed to electronically "recognize" a face in a crowd will never be reliable. They will contend: such systems will never be 100% accurate. Unfortunately, "accuracy" is a very subjective term, and, if the administrators of these systems,(i.e. the ones who can forcibly apprehend the "identified" subjects), deem their system accurate, then the burden of "proving innocence" suddenly becomes that of the accused. At that moment, it no longer matters whether the system was or was not "accurate" -- you're under investigation. -----Original Message----- From: Y2kplanner(a)aol.com [mailto:Y2kplanner@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 1998 3:09 PM -------------------------- >From the 11/1/98 Sunday London Times www.sunday-times.co.uk - you must register at the site and then search by date. -------------------------- Scanner picks out criminals TRIALS of a computer system that can recognise criminals and terrorists begin this week. The equipment is to be hidden in an unnamed British airport to see if it can pick out criminals even if they have grown a beard or are wearing glasses to hide their identity. The system is the first that can produce three-dimensional scans of a face instantly and then search a database of suspects for a match. It has been devised by Cambridge Neurodynamics, which already produces software that analyses fingerprints and then searches a database for a match. Police in South Yorkshire use its software. Cambridge Neurodynamics says its facial-recognition project will enable security officers at Britain's ports and airports to concentrate on people the computer indicates bear a good likeness to known criminals and terrorists. The alternative is to rely on trained officers to remember faces of people on the wanted list. George Harpur, a Cambridge Neurodynamics systems consultant working on the project, says a computer will be able to store thousands of pictures of wanted people. "It should be like having an extra security officer with the most incredible memory," he says. "We're not intending to replace immigration officers but rather give them a tool that can point them towards the people they are mostly likely to be interested in." The system works by taking pictures of a person as he approaches a video camera. The resulting handful of frames give several two-dimensional pictures. To add depth to the face, two low-power lasers scan its contours from either side. A computer combines the contour information with the images it has of the front of the face. It can then build a virtual model of each traveller's face, which is checked against the database of wanted people. "The airport involved in the trial is particularly interested in the possibility of using the technology to track people who bring in groups of illegal immigrants," says Harpur. "The computer could be alerted to their presence and take a 3D scan of their faces when they pass through passport control. Then the system could track them every time they enter the country and build up evidence against them." The system can also be used to store 3D Photofits of terrorists. Again, it is most likely to be used to take a 3D scan of suspects when they pass through its lasers for the first time. The scan would be stored and the computer would log the suspect's movements. Cambridge Neurodynamics says it can build 3D Photofits from ordinary photographs or video stills but says the system is far more accurate if the suspects are photographed by the system. The team believes 3D scans are necessary because 2D technology can be fooled. It generally measures the distance between facial features but these can change with the angle of the head to the camera. The new computer system can be fooled only if a suspect has surgery to change the shape of his face. Criminals who realise they are about to be scanned and look away or pull a funny face will not trick the computer. It is geared towards seeking similarities around the eyes, which humans use to pick out one another and that do not change with expression and age as much as the rest of the face. The airport trial will last six weeks. If the equipment works, the company will load the software on a powerful workstation computer, rather than a PC, so searches can be speeded up. Cambridge Neurodynamics also plans to approach banks to set up a trial in which the computer would allow only designated staff into security-sensitive areas. Eventually, the technology could be used to verify a customer's identity before he is given money. ++++++++++++++ Nancy Martin y2kplanner(a)aol.com ======================================================================= Don't believe anything you read on the Net unless: 1) you can confirm it with another source, and/or 2) it is consistent with what you already know to be true. ======================================================================= Reply to: <fingerprint(a)networkusa.org> ======================================================================= To subscribe to the free Scan This News newsletter, send a message to <majordomo(a)efga.org> and type "subscribe scan" in the BODY. Or, to be removed type "unsubscribe scan" in the message BODY. For additional instructions see www.efga.org/about/maillist.html ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "Scan This News" is Sponsored by S.C.A.N. Host of the "FIGHT THE FINGERPRINT!" web page: www.networkusa.org/fingerprint.shtml ======================================================================= **************************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address or (un)subscribe ignition-point-digest email@address **************************************************** www.telepath.com/believer ****************************************************

1 0

IP: ISPI Clips 6.33: Patent May Threaten E-Privacy
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: "Ama-gi ISPI" <Offshore(a)email.msn.com> Subject: IP: ISPI Clips 6.33: Patent May Threaten E-Privacy Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 00:08:59 -0800 To: <Undisclosed.Recipients(a)majordomo.pobox.com> ISPI Clips 6.33: Patent May Threaten E-Privacy News & Info from the Institute for the Study of Privacy Issues (ISPI) Thursday November 12, 1998 ISPI4Privacy(a)ama-gi.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This From: WIRED news, November 11, 1998 http://www.wired.com Patent May Threaten E-Privacy http://www.wired.com/news/print_version/technology/story/16180.html?wnpg=al l by Chris Oakes, chriso(a)wired.com The future of a key Web standard that would give consumers control over their online privacy hangs in the balance after news emerged that a entrepreneur will likely be awarded a set of patents on the technology. The technology, the Platform for Privacy Preferences (P3P) is critical to the Internet industry's current effort to show the US government that it can look after the interests of consumers. The specification was to be used in the next versions of America Online, Netscape Communicator, Microsoft Internet Explorer, and many other software products and Web sites. "If somebody owns [P3P], they can prevent other people from using it," said Deirdre Mulligan, staff counsel for the Center for Democracy and Technology. "We put all this work into something that works, then who knows if it's going to get out there." At the core of the issue is one man, Drummond Reed, CEO of Intermind. Reed said that the US Patent and Trademark Office is expected to issue his company a patent on the idea of P3P. Intermind [ http://www.intermind.com/ ] was, until July, a member of the standards group that is collectively developing P3P. He resigned when word spread among the members that he would likely be awarded patents on technologies affecting a broad category of "automated information exchange using software objects." That sounds very much like P3P. The standard is meant to provide a way for consumers and the Web sites they visit to automatically negotiate what can and can't be done with any personal data collected by a site. The technology would reside within both Web browsers and Web sites. On a document [ http://www.intermind.com/W3CMembers/licensing_summary.htm ] on the Intermind Web site, Reed said that his company would request a minimum royalty of US$50,000 per year to a maximum of $2.5 million from companies implementing P3P, plus 1 percent of all revenues directly associated with the technology. Both Microsoft and Netscape declined to comment for this story. "P3P is the nuclear weapon of privacy," said Matt Markus, chief architect and cofounder of Privacy Bank, a company developing an automatic registration service that safeguards a user's privacy. Privacy Bank shifted its company strategy to lessen its dependence on P3P. Markus said he expects the patent will be revoked. "[The patent] is going to hurt young companies who want to help develop the solution," Markus said. "It is the snake in the grass, a complete surprise, it would really shoot the morale at my company if I was depending on [P3P]," he said. Reed acknowledges that some working group members want "to just crucify us" -- but he says his company has been up-front from the beginning that it has held intellectual property rights pertaining to P3P and other Web standards relating to "push" technology. "We have been in communication with the [Consortium] and working group members pretty much from the start," Reed said. "We've been in constant communication with W3C management and key member companies involved in this area." P3P is not yet a final standard, but progress in the World Wide Web Consortium working group has slowed since news of the pending patent seeped out in July, according to Steve Lucas, chief information officer for an Excite division that has been developing P3P-based software. "There are ways of working around P3P," he said. These include custom-made variations on the protocol that circumvent elements covered by the patent, and shifting work toward an older protocol known as the Open Profiling Standard. Lucas said companies are going ahead with work on P3P. But they are simultaneously making contingency plans should the patent have a stifling effect. If Drummond's pending patents stand, the thousands of companies doing business on the Internet could face new laws designed to protect the interests of consumers. The Federal Trade Commission, which would recommend such laws, has given the industry until the end of this year to demonstrate that it can "self-regulate," and P3P is key to that plan. "Some combination of the [P3P and Open Profiling Standard] technologies may be a more transparent way to protect consumers privacy," David Medine, an associate director at the Commission told Wired News earlier this year. Daniel Weitzner, who oversees the development of P3P at the World Wide Web Consortium, insists P3P development is still on track, but echoed the same concerns. "If anyone succeeds in extracting big licensing fees for P3P implementations, that would hamper the availability of the technology," he conceded. "Really the question turns on what happens with that patent." But working on ways to perform privacy negotiations without a standard presents a big obstacle to the industry. "Not having a standard everybody can agree on does create some interoperability problems," Lucas said. "This is a collaborative process about trying to develop socially useful protocols and now we have somebody walking away and saying they own it," added working group member Mulligan of the Center for Democracy and Technology. Weitzner said the issue now is not who said what when but what to do once the patents are issued. He declined to comment on the possibility of mistakes made in the past by W3C management. "The issue is whether or not the patent is valid, not who told what to whom or when," Weitzner said. "The concern I hear is about the attack on openness, not the timing." That issue -- how a patent might affect a Web standard -- is a new one for the W3C. "Our members have not had to face this issue because no one has had to try to stand in the way of openness in a way that Intermind appears to be doing...." The question now is "whether or not they're going to be able to hold up a standard that has a potentially significant social impact." James Glave contributed to this report. Copyright © 1994-98 Wired Digital Inc. --------------------------------NOTICE:------------------------------ ISPI Clips are news & opinion articles on privacy issues from all points of view; they are clipped from local, national and international newspapers, journals and magazines, etc. Inclusion as an ISPI Clip does not necessarily reflect an endorsement of the content or opinion by ISPI. In compliance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed free without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ISPI Clips is a FREE e-mail service from the "Institute for the Study of Privacy Issues" (ISPI). To receive "ISPI Clips" on a regular bases (up to 3 - 8 clips per day) send the following message "Please enter [Your Name] into the ISPI Clips list: [Your e-mail address]" to: ISPIClips(a)ama-gi.com . The Institute for the Study of Privacy Issues (ISPI) is a small contributor-funded organization based in Victoria, British Columbia (Canada). ISPI operates on a not-for-profit basis, accepts no government funding and takes a global perspective. ISPI's mandate is to conduct & promote interdisciplinary research into electronic, personal and financial privacy with a view toward helping ordinary people understand the degree of privacy they have with respect to government, industry and each other and to likewise inform them about techniques to enhance their privacy. But, none of this can be accomplished without your kind and generous financial support. If you are concerned about the erosion of your privacy in general, won't you please help us continue this important work by becoming an "ISPI Supporter" or by taking out an institute Membership? We gratefully accept all contributions: Less than $60 ISPI Supporter $60 - $99 Primary ISPI Membership (1 year) $100 - $300 Senior ISPI Membership (2 years) More than $300 Executive Council Membership (life) Your ISPI "membership" contribution entitles you to receive "The ISPI Privacy Reporter" (our bi-monthly 12 page hard-copy newsletter in multi-contributor format) for the duration of your membership. For a contribution form with postal instructions please send the following message "ISPI Contribution Form" to ISPI4Privacy(a)ama-gi.com . We maintain a strict privacy policy. Any information you divulge to ISPI is kept in strict confidence. It will not be sold, lent or given away to any third party. **************************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address or (un)subscribe ignition-point-digest email@address **************************************************** www.telepath.com/believer ****************************************************

1 0

''FOR YOUR EYE'S ONLY"
by walt86＠hotmail.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Do you know who you're sleeping with? Do you know what your background report says? Who's Caring For Your Children? http://www.nation-search.com To unsubsribe from this list, both remove and undelverable. walt(a)nation-search.com

1 0

y2k+nukes===???? (drudge)
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

------- Forwarded Message Subject: MILLENNIUM BUG POSES NUCLEAR WEAPONS RISK /Drudge MILLENNIUM BUG POSES NUCLEAR WEAPONS RISK The British American Security Information Council on Thursday is warning all world military powers to de-activate their weapons, to avoid possible "massive and hugely perilous systems failures" brought on by the so-called Millennium bug. The group singles out the United States, bluntly describing the Pentagon's efforts to meet the fast-approaching deadline as "a mess" -- with what it calls "severe and recurring problems across the spectrum." The INDEPENDENT newspaper in London on Thursday outlined the council's warning. "The biggest YK2 danger is not the ultimate nightmare of nuclear weapons either launching or exploding because of faulty computer information. Since it still requires human authorization for a missile or warhead to be launched, this sort of catastrophe is unrealistic. Far more likely, however, is the prospect of a leader, under pressure from hairtrigger response mechanisms, pressing the nuclear button on the basis of inaccurate data." The council would like to see world powers "separate warheads from their delivery vehicles" when the clocks flip 2000-- a move that would dramatically increase the amount of time needed to launch an attack. http://www.drudgereport.com/matt.htm - - -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ http://www.inannareturns.com "See God in Every Eye" --Inanna, Goddess of Love V.S. Ferguson author, Inanna Returns and Inanna Hyper-Luminal - - --------------79A25852320ABAABB431D8E6-- - ------- End of Forwarded Message ------- End of Forwarded Message

2 1

IP: ISPI Clips 6.28: Wiretapping Internet Phone Lines
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: "Ama-gi ISPI" <Offshore(a)email.msn.com> Subject: IP: ISPI Clips 6.28: Wiretapping Internet Phone Lines Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 00:13:40 -0800 To: <Undisclosed.Recipients(a)majordomo.pobox.com> ISPI Clips 6.28: Wiretapping Internet Phone Lines News & Info from the Institute for the Study of Privacy Issues (ISPI) Wednesday November 11, 1998 ISPI4Privacy(a)ama-gi.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This From: WIRED News, November 10, 1998 http://www.wired.com Wiretapping Internet Phone Lines http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/16146.html by Declan McCullagh A federal wiretapping law designed to let police snoop on telephone calls could have profound implications for companies that offer Internet phone service. Then again, it might not affect them at all. The 1994 Digital Telephony law, which requires telecommunications companies to wire surveillance technology into their networks, could force Internet telephony firms to configure their systems to be easily wiretapped by law enforcement agencies. A Federal Communications Commission official, who declined to be identified, said the FCC is trying to decide how the law should apply to IP telephony and what types of Internet phone calls should be covered. In a report http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1998/fcc98282.txt ] released Thursday, the FCC said the law applies to "packet-switching technology" that is "used to provide telecommunications services." "It's a major issue that has to be sorted out," said James Dempsey, senior staff counsel for the Center for Democracy and Technology. "What side of the line does Internet telephony fall on? [Companies] should definitely wake up and pay attention." The wiretapping law, also known as the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, or CALEA, gave the FCC the authority to set standards and timetables. The agency said in September that companies must comply with CALEA by 30 June 2000. The FCC has tentatively ruled that IP telephony using computers is an "information service" and, therefore, not covered by CALEA. But the agency has also said that phone-to-phone IP telephony falls into the category of [ http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/fcc98067.txt ]telecommu nications services. That category includes firms like IDT and Qwest, which allow long-distance customers to phone a local gateway and forward those calls over the Internet to a gateway at the other end. "I think, fundamentally, this is one of the sleeper issues that is going to be affecting the Internet telephony industry into the year 2000 and beyond," said Jeff Pulver, co-founder of the VON Coalition http://www.von.org/ ]. "We all need to be aware of what the legal issues are," Pulver said. "I'm all for what I call 'intelligent regulation.' If we need to comply, then damn it, we should comply. Ignorance is no excuse." "Internet telephony will eventually be included in CALEA," said Alyson Ziegler, director of legislative affairs for the United States Telephone Association [ http://www.usta.org/ ] "It's a matter of time." CALEA's backers say the law was designed to allow authorities to monitor conversations surreptitiously on digital phone lines just as they are now able to tap into analog phone lines. But privacy advocates oppose the measure, arguing that it expands the government's surveillance power. "This is something we've been warning about for years, that the convergence between these technologies will make the distinctions originally contemplated in CALEA ultimately moot," said David Banisar, a lawyer at the Electronic Privacy Information Center. "CALEA will be applied to the Net regardless of what the intent of the law actually was." Even before CALEA became law, indications surfaced that law enforcement would like it to include the Internet. When asked about that possibility during a hearing in August 1994, FBI Director Louis Freeh replied, "It's certainly a possibility -- if, God forbid, someone blows up the World Trade Tower using a PC to PC network." Making an already prickly issue even thornier is the fact that some IP telephony companies use encryption to scramble conversations. NetSpeak, for example, uses RSA encryption [ http://www.netspeak.com/ ]. If two IP phone customers are using public key cryptography to chat in a way that even the IP telephony company can't decode, law enforcement agents are out of luck -- one reason why the FBI has lobbied to ban the manufacture and distribution of encryption devices without key escrow backdoors. Not all companies are complaining about CALEA. Aplio [ http://www.aplio.com/ ] CEO Olivier Zitoun believes his company's products fall into the FCC's definition of computer-to-computer IP telephony. Aplio sells boxes that can be plugged into normal touch-tone phones and used to call an Internet provider, which routes calls over the Net. "We are very different than other phone-to-phone devices or solutions," Zitoun said. "In a way, the discussion of IP-telephony regulation doesn't really apply to us." Copyright © 1994-98 Wired Digital Inc. --------------------------------NOTICE:------------------------------ ISPI Clips are news & opinion articles on privacy issues from all points of view; they are clipped from local, national and international newspapers, journals and magazines, etc. Inclusion as an ISPI Clip does not necessarily reflect an endorsement of the content or opinion by ISPI. In compliance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed free without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ISPI Clips is a FREE e-mail service from the "Institute for the Study of Privacy Issues" (ISPI). To receive "ISPI Clips" on a regular bases (up to 3 - 8 clips per day) send the following message "Please enter [Your Name] into the ISPI Clips list: [Your e-mail address]" to: ISPIClips(a)ama-gi.com . The Institute for the Study of Privacy Issues (ISPI) is a small contributor-funded organization based in Victoria, British Columbia (Canada). ISPI operates on a not-for-profit basis, accepts no government funding and takes a global perspective. ISPI's mandate is to conduct & promote interdisciplinary research into electronic, personal and financial privacy with a view toward helping ordinary people understand the degree of privacy they have with respect to government, industry and each other and to likewise inform them about techniques to enhance their privacy. But, none of this can be accomplished without your kind and generous financial support. If you are concerned about the erosion of your privacy in general, won't you please help us continue this important work by becoming an "ISPI Supporter" or by taking out an institute Membership? We gratefully accept all contributions: Less than $60 ISPI Supporter $60 - $99 Primary ISPI Membership (1 year) $100 - $300 Senior ISPI Membership (2 years) More than $300 Executive Council Membership (life) Your ISPI "membership" contribution entitles you to receive "The ISPI Privacy Reporter" (our bi-monthly 12 page hard-copy newsletter in multi-contributor format) for the duration of your membership. For a contribution form with postal instructions please send the following message "ISPI Contribution Form" to ISPI4Privacy(a)ama-gi.com . We maintain a strict privacy policy. Any information you divulge to ISPI is kept in strict confidence. It will not be sold, lent or given away to any third party. **************************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address or (un)subscribe ignition-point-digest email@address **************************************************** www.telepath.com/believer ****************************************************

1 0

Re: GOST
by Jim Gillogly 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Scoops writes: > I also remember a few weeks ago reports in the press and on the List of a > porn ring broken up and some agent involved saying that the some porn was > encrypted in an old KGB program which sounded much like GOST. I saw this report also, and took it to be a standard journalistic garble. It seems more likely to me that the package used by the child porn types was Kremlin, which produces .kgb files. -- Jim Gillogly Trewesday, 23 Blotmath S.R. 1998, 01:09 12.19.5.12.6, 11 Cimi 19 Zac, Third Lord of Night

1 0

IP: Push for hearings on Echelon - Global spy system needs scrutiny, says rights group
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: believer(a)telepath.com Subject: IP: Push for hearings on Echelon - Global spy system needs scrutiny, says rights group Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 09:29:44 -0600 To: believer(a)telepath.com Source: WorldNetDaily http://www.WorldNetDaily.com/bluesky_exnews/19981112_xex_push_hearing.shtml Push for hearings on Echelon Global spy system needs scrutiny, says rights group By Stephan Archer Copyright 1998 WorldNetDaily.com In an effort to create some accountability between the country's citizens and the National Security Agency's top-secret global surveillance system known as Echelon, the Free Congress Foundation is urging that congressional hearings be held concerning the NSA's use of the system. Originally, Echelon was designed to spy on the Communist Bloc during the Cold War. However, since the end of the Cold War, the NSA has used it for other questionable purposes that include spying on the citizens of U.S. allies as well as the citizens of other countries, commercial spying, and even domestic spying. In essence, Echelon works through a series of high-tech spy facilities located primarily in five countries: the United States, Canada, England, New Zealand, and Australia. These countries, which are sworn to secrecy about the project in a secret agreement known as UKUSA, all actively take part in this encroachment of privacy into the lives of the people of the world by collecting virtually all fax transmissions, e-mails, and phone calls. Not even cellular phone calls escape the grasp of the Echelon system. "Obviously, we need to have these capabilities," said Wayne Madsen, who worked in the National COMSEC Assessment Center at the NSA's Fort Meade, Maryland, facility back in the 1980s and is currently a senior fellow at the Electronic Privacy Information Center. As an example of our country's need for the system, Madsen said, "No one can argue about using the system to counter terrorism. Where people will have a problem is where Echelon is used for political and business interests." The Echelon system gets most of its data by collecting all transmissions handled by the Intelsat and Inmarsat satellites, which are responsible for much of the electronic communication that takes place between countries. Earth-bound communication is sucked up and absorbed by other spy satellites that the NSA has launched into space. "It's a huge vacuum cleaner," said Madsen. Once these spy facilities collect the phone calls, e-mails, and faxes, of virtually everyone on earth, the Echelon system sorts them through a kind of filter system known as the Echelon dictionary. This dictionary looks for "flag" words in all of the transmitted communication. While it lets a majority of all collected material pass through its filter, it tags those that may pose a threat and tracks all subsequent communication coming from the source of the original "flagged" message. Concerning Echelon's inherent intrusion on people's privacy, Patrick Poole, the deputy director for the Center of Technology Policy at the Free Congress Foundation, said, "While we understand the need for the intelligence power embodied by Echelon, the indiscriminate use of Echelon presents major threats to liberty not only to U.S. citizens but to citizens around the world." And this threat is real. The foundation's report states that U.S. leaders have, in fact, already abused this awesome technology. For example, the report states the following: "In September 1993, President Clinton asked the CIA to spy on Japanese auto manufacturers that were designing zero-emission cars and to forward that information to the Big Three U.S. car manufacturers: Ford, General Motors and Chrysler." "You can assume that all major U.S. corporations are fed items of interest (via Echelon) from time to time to give them a leg up on international competitors," said Madsen. Although this may be seen as a strategic corporate weapon for American businesses, in reality, it's an example of technology that can get out of hand. For example, former Canadian spy Mike Frost stated in his book, "Spyworld," that in 1981, there was an "accidental" cell phone intercept of the American ambassador to Canada that resulted in the U.S. getting outbid by the Canadians in a grain deal with China. The deal brought in $2.5 billion for the Canadian Wheat Board. With this kind of abuse of Echelon's power, the question as to whether or not the U.S. government has been using this power for political purposes can be easily raised. This question is seemingly answered in the foundation's report. "The discovery of domestic surveillance targeted at American civilians for reasons of 'unpopular' political affiliation -- or for no probable cause at all -- in violation of the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution is regularly impeded by very elaborate and complex legal arguments and privilege claims by the intelligence agencies and the U.S. government," the report says. When asked if the system has been used by the U.S. government to spy on its citizens, Madsen told WorldNetDaily that he was sure it has been. "I don't believe that the NSA or the current Administration would hesitate to use this system on American citizens for their own agendas," he said. Outraged by this flagrant abuse of power illustrated by our country's elected officials, Poole said, "While the U.S. is the prime mover behind the Echelon system, it's shameful that the European Parliament is the body holding the constitutional debate in regards to Echelon today." A September 1998 report for the European Parliament by the Omega Foundation said, "Within Europe, all e-mail, telephone, and fax communications are routinely intercepted by the United States National Security Agency. According to the Omega Foundation report, it is this ability of the NSA that brings major concern to the European Parliament. In an effort to bring the issues surrounding Echelon to the forefront of American politics, the Free Congress Foundation plans to send out a report about Echelon to all of the 500 policy organizations in the U.S. as well as to select members of Congress. These select individuals include members from both the House and Senate intelligence committees as well as House and Senate Constitution subcommittees. Copies of the report will also be sent to the congressional leadership of both parties. Although the foundation is hoping to get some action out of these members of Congress, Poole said that support at the grassroots level of our nation's political structure will be a must if this issue isn't to end up buried by the intelligence committees. "For there to be any account and oversight to the Echelon system, the American people are going to have to contact their elected representatives in order to investigate the abuses that we know have occurred in regards to the Echelon system," Poole said. See Free Congress Foundation's report on Echelon. © 1998 Western Journalism Center ----------------------- NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ----------------------- **************************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address or (un)subscribe ignition-point-digest email@address **************************************************** www.telepath.com/believer ****************************************************

1 0

Free websites for Automotive industry
by wwcd＠earthlink.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

FREE FREE FREE FREE FREE FREE FREE One of my favorite four letter words. If you like FREE, and you could use ADVERTISING - - - If you are involved in a business related to the automotive industry - - - We need to talk. We have an consumer automotive resource center we host websites for cars, trucks, parts, services, insurance, financing and everything to do with the automotive industry. If you would like to have a free website, and referrals from customers looking for what you have to offer, give us a try. You really can get something for nothing. With us. If you would like to join us, we welcome you. And it will be FREE and when we have proven ourselves, and we all agree that what we have done has value and will continue to have value to you, we can talk about a fair exchange. Thanks for the time. Please hit "Reply" and send us your contact information if you are interested. Chris

1 0

Rivest Patent
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ron Rivest received on November 10 "US Patent 5835600: Block encryption algorithm with data-dependent rotations:" http://jya.com/rivest111098.htm (22K)

2 1

NotSoBlackNet: terrorist pays by money order
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/15812.html Do Terrorists Troll the Net? by Niall McKay [...] "We fight for our independence," he said during one June conversation. Harkat-ul-Ansar is on the State Department's list of the 30 most dangerous terrorist organizations in the world. Establishing Ibrahim's true identity is difficult. The most compelling evidence that he was acting on behalf of Harkat-ul-Ansar is a US$1,000 money order that he sent to Chameleon in an attempt to buy stolen military software. [...] Although he used several anonymous Hotmail accounts to send his email, Ibrahim always accessed the Net from an Internet service provider in New Delhi [...] Savec0re said he also emailed the individual an encrypted file of information from the Indian atomic research center, including diagrams of reactors and trajectory calculations, and an analysis of five Indian nuclear tests. "The next day I got a call from the so-called FBI agent but he had an amazingly strong Pakistani accent," [...]

1 0

oranges spliced with THC gene
by lcs Mixmaster Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://www.sfbg.com/wire/20.html oranges with spliced-in gene for THC 20-30 seeds already distributed until Janet got her hands in it

2 1

Nov. 15 column - felons with guns
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 03:31:54 -0700 Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 00:15:54 -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. 15 column - felons with guns Resent-From: vinsends(a)ezlink.com X-Mailing-List: <vinsends(a)ezlink.com> archive/latest/590 X-Loop: vinsends(a)ezlink.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vinsends-request(a)ezlink.com FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED NOV. 15, 1998 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz On the selective doling out of 'constitutional rights' T.T. writes in, in response to the Nov. 5 column in which I admitted being a one-issue voter, rejecting any politician who won't trust me with a gun: "Thank you, Vin, for raising the issue which has been bothering me for quite a while: when I read through the Bill of Rights, I cannot understand why a convicted felon WHO HAS SERVED HIS OR HER TIME is, under the present selective 2nd Amendment rights-lifting, not automatically and permanently stripped of ALL of his or her rights, and not just the Second, plus voting: "Felon = no free speech, freedom to assemble, or, as you say, freedom to go to the church of choice; no 3rd Amendment protections ... hey, quarter those soldiers at will in the forever-felon's house! ... no 4th Amendment protections, or 5th, or 6th (as you point out) nor 7th or 8th. And of course, the 9th and 10th are moot, since they're long-gone anyway for everyone, felon and misdemeanor and non-convicted alike. "But if the power-geeks were to do this, why, then it would be too blatantly obvious what was really happening, wouldn't it? "Best wishes, and thanks for keeping the faith so eloquently." I responded: # # # Yes. Does a felon, once he has "done his time" and "paid his debt to society," again become a member of "the people" to whom all the rights in the Bill of Rights apply, or not? If NOT, then indeed any government agency should be able to arrest anyone who has EVER been convicted of a felony -- even a 90-year-old guy who tended bar in a speakeasy in 1930 -- hold him without bond and without letting him confront his accusers, in some foreign jurisdiction, torture a confession out of him, convict him without a jury trial, and then subject him to a cruel and unusual execution, all in secret. No problem with the Bill of Rights -- it DOESN'T APPLY. Needless to say, under this evil premise, the government should also be able to deny such a person the right to attend church, the right to publish a newspaper or magazine, the right to own property which cannot be seized on a bureaucrat's whim without compensation, etc. On the other hand, if that is NOT the situation which does or should prevail, then it seems to me any former felon who is no longer on "parole" has a right to vote and bear arms, along with all his other pre-existing rights ... which after all are only ACKNOWLEDGED by the Bill of Rights as having been ordained by the Creator, not actually "granted" therein. This business of creating different classes of citizens, with different degrees of legal "disability," is the basis for virtually ALL the invasions of our privacy -- up to and including the police numbering system on our cars -- so frequently justified as "allowing us to check and make sure you're not an escaping felon." (Note what a police state South Africa became, based on the simple notion that one should have to show one's "racial identity card" to any policeman who asked, to determine whether one had a right to be on a given street at a given hour of the day -- and the sad absurdities it created, as visiting Japanese businessmen were given passports declaring they were "white" so they wouldn't have to suffer the indignities visited on South Africa's native east Indian merchants, who carried second-class INTERNAL passports identifying them as inferior "Asians.") There should be no NEED for me to ever "submit to a background check" to prove I'm "not a felon." Felons should be in prison, or in the graveyard. "Parole" is the French word for "promise." If you can't trust a convict to keep his "promise" not to acquire and carry a gun until his sentence expires, then don't let him out on "parole." It's not (start ital)I(end ital) who should have to suffer inconvenience or indignity because the government wardens can no longer tell the difference between me and all these convicted thugs they're allowing to wander the streets in plain clothes. Start repealing one law a day until you have enough jail cells to keep those guilty of violating our REMAINING laws (you might want to to keep murder, forcible rape, and armed robbery on the books, while tossing out drug use, "money laundering," and failure to pay gun "transfer taxes") in stir for their FULL SENTENCES. And set the rest of us free. 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