December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

5,000 URL Search Engine Submissions - $99 !!! *AD*
by trends＠lcrt.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

============================================================ Remove instructions can be found at the bottom of this page. ============================================================ Effective web site promotion is an essential part of just about any successful Internet marketing program. Search engine submission is the most effective and inexpensive way to advertise your web site on the Internet. FTWI will submit your web site URL to 450+ search engines and directories once a month for an entire year. This includes all the major search engines and directories. Most other submission services you find on the Internet just submit your site URL one time at a much higher cost. We are submitting your site 12 different times. THAT IS OVER 5,000 URL SUBMISSIONS FOR $99! But that's not all! The fact: search engine submission is worthless if your site isn't search engine ready. In addition to this comprehensive submission service, a FTWI web design/marketing specialist will inspect the design of your web site and give you a detailed report of his findings and suggestions to help get you a higher placement in the search engines and directories. Keyword rich meta tags are essential to get your site a high placement in most of the major search engines. FTWI will create custom meta tags if your site needs them at no extra cost. You will also get feedback on any content or HTML additions that might prove beneficial to search engine placement. This service alone is worth much more then $99! Most of those other companies don't even know what your web pages look like and charge you twice the price! Once you sign up to promote your site you will be entitled to the following special web promotion services. Web Page Design: $35.00 hr ($10 off regular rate) Submit 2nd URL: $75.00 ($24 off regular price) Site Inspections: FREE! Meta Tag Generation: FREE! Web Promotion Weekly Tips & Tricks: FREE! Start a traffic jam at your site by taking advantage of this amazing offer! To order by mail please print and complete the form below. For online credit card orders reply to this email with "Order" as the subject or send to ftwi(a)lcrt.com You will receive a message with a URL leading you to our secure server for online transactions. Thanks, FTWI Internet Marketing ftwi(a)lcrt.com ---------------------------------------------------------- FTWI Web Site Submission Order Form Complete this order form and send it with your check or money order for $99 made payable to: FTWI Name: _________________________________________________ Address: ______________________________________________ City: _____________________State: _____Zip: ___________ Phone number:_________________Date: ___/___/___ Valid Email Address: _______________________________ Web site to submit: http://____________________________ Returned checks are subject to $25 NSF Fee. You will receive an email receipt as soon as we receive your payment. Service will start immediately. Send your order and payment to: FTWI. 4019 Goldfinch, Ste. J San Diego, CA 92103 ------------------------------------------------------------ This message complies with the proposed United States Federal requirements for commercial e-mail bill, Section 301. For additional info see: http://www.senate.gov/~murkowski/commercialemail/EMailAmendText.html Sender Information: FTWI 4019 Goldfinch St, Ste. J San Diego, CA 92103 6194910215 Per Section 301, Paragraph (a)(2)(C) of S. 1618, further transmissions to you by the sender of this e-mail may be stopped at NO COST to you by sending a reply to trends(a)lcrt.com with the word "remove" in the subject line.

1 0

Better than Viagra-Ask Mark McGwire
by aimkt＠aimarketinginc.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

************************************************************************ Removal Instructions can be found at the bottom of this page ************************************************************************ Announcing ***LIBIDO PLUS*** LIBIDO PLUS already includes the most talked about and most effective BODY REBUILDING ingredient in America today. That key ingredient is ANDROSTENEDIONE. The same powerful ingredient that St. Louis Cardinals baseball player MARK McGWIRE has been using as a PERFORMANCE ENHANCER and BODY REBUILDER. Doing so has helped him to better endure the physical demands of the extensive major league baseball season and in the process he was able to establish a new all time major league home run record. THIS MAKES LIBIDO PLUS The most powerful libido enhancing product ever developed for both women and men Formulated to prolong and enhance your sexual enjoyment LIBIDO PLUS is formulated to enhance: * Your DESIRE * Your STAMINA * Your PLEASURE * Your PERFORMANCE * All Natural * No damaging side effects * No prescription necessary * Physician developed * Physician recommended * Patented Formulation * Easily Affordable * Free - $500 in money saving coupons for items you use every day We are so confident that you will be totally satisfied with LIBIDO PLUS that we unconditionally guarantee it. Click on the hyper link below to find out more about the many benefits of LIBIDO PLUS, the $500 in free money saving coupons and our unbelieveable guarantee. http://www.libidomax.com ************************************************************************ This Message is intended for the Health Conscious Individual. If we have reached you by mistake please accept our apologies. If you wish to be deleted from our database, please reply with the subject "R emove" ************************************************************************

1 0

IP: Court ruling allows anonymous political attacks
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Delivered-To: ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com X-Sender: believer(a)telepath.com Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 04:14:44 -0500 To: believer(a)telepath.com From: believer(a)telepath.com Subject: IP: Court ruling allows anonymous political attacks Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com Precedence: list Reply-To: believer(a)telepath.com Source: The Oregonian http://www.oregonlive.com/todaysnews/9810/st101108.html Court ruling allows anonymous attacks Viciousness increases after the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down an Oregon law requiring that political ads be credited Sunday, October 11 1998 By Laura Oppenheimer of The Oregonian staff Terry Thompson and Ryan Deckert opened their mailboxes in mid-September to discover unpleasant surprises: anonymous political advertisements lambasting their public records. The two Democratic Oregon House members apparently were the first targets in what promises to be a vicious advertising attack season. And there's still plenty of time for candidates to exchange barbs before the Nov. 3 election, said Tim Gleason, dean of the University of Oregon School of Journalism and Communication. "This is the true test, said Gleason, who is coordinator of the Oregon Alliance for Better Campaigns. Races tighten up, and people are going all out. Frequently, the candidate isn't really in control of all the steps taken toward the end. A lot of people want that candidate to win. Although the ads against Thompson and Deckert included their opponents return addresses, as mandated by the U.S. Postal Service, they did not say who paid for or authorized them. Some candidates are taking advantage of a 1996 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that invalidated Oregons law requiring the sponsors name to run with all political advertising. Bills proposed during the 1997 Legislature would have reinstated regulations to counteract the court ruling. But the legislation stalled at the committee level and never came up for a vote. Oregons public officials didnt just maintain the level of negative attack ads by ignoring the legislation, Secretary of State Phil Keisling said. They raised the profile of the ruling so candidates knew they could run anonymous advertisements. "The Legislature just turned their backs on it, Keisling said. Their inaction spoke volumes about their concern about anonymous ads. The effect was to put up a big neon sign saying, Anonymous attack ads now allowed in Oregon. So whats the big deal about one little line of type that says paid for by . . . ? In a political climate where sparring can lead to voters cynicism, candidates should take responsibility for their criticisms, Keisling said. And all-out advertising slugfests can result in hard feelings -- and more partisan politics -- after the election is over, legislators said. "The truth matters, said Ed Kammer, an advertising activist who lobbied legislators to pass new regulations. The facts matter. Its a persons right to ignore what they want to ignore, but its not a thiefs right to disguise the theft. Many legislators, including Thompson, D-Newport, and Deckert, D-Beaverton, said they would support the type of legislation Keisling advocates if it is proposed again during the 1999 Legislature. In the meantime, candidates are free to be as vicious as they want. Aware of just how nasty this campaign season could become, several groups are pushing voluntary codes of conduct to stop the underhanded advertising before it starts. About 50 candidates signed Keislings Stand By Your Ad pledge, which requires them to include their name and address on all political advertising and to take responsibility for any criticism of their opponents. That means using their pictures in written material, narrating a radio ad and appearing on-screen in a TV commercial if it involves a comparison of candidates. Many candidates also signed the League of Women Voters code of conduct, which was adopted by the Oregon Alliance for Better Campaigns. The alliance, which is not counting the number of signers or keeping track of how candidates who took the pledge behave, is asking candidates to keep campaigns clean. The alliance also is coordinating issue-oriented, analytical political coverage on TV and radio stations across the state. "Its no more complicated than one of the things my mom told me growing up, Keisling said of his pledge. If youre going to say something bad about somebody, say it to their face. But nobody will be reprimanding candidates who violate the pledges or choose not to sign them. And for some candidates, sticking with the pledge will mean not responding to jabs at their character, credibility or public record. In mid-September, voters received a mailing with the headline, What was Terry thinking? In a large-print checklist, the ad compares Thompson with Republican Alan Brown, his opponent in House District 4. "Supports returning the income tax kicker refund shows a no for Thompson and a yes for Brown. So does the campaigns are bankrolled by big labor unions category. Thompson said many of the footnotes supporting these criticisms were based on one detail of a large bill or on bills that never came to a vote. Amid these sweeping accusations, Brown did not include a statement that his campaign had paid for the flier. Several years ago, the ad would have violated Oregon law. Henri Schauffler, Deckerts Republican opponent, said he would change one thing about his September fliers if he had it to do over again: Hed include the sponsorship. But he would keep the derogatory rundown of his opponents record, which included claims that Deckert believes voting against small business 57 percent of the time is acceptable and supports spending 2 percent kicker tax refunds to fund state government programs. Schauffler, who signed Keislings pledge, said he did not design the anonymous ads and regrets allowing them to be distributed. "Against my better judgment, I went ahead with the ads, Schauffler said. Im ultimately responsible, and I take responsibility for that mistake. Its not going to happen again from my camp. Deckert said he received more than 100 calls, e-mail messages and letters of support from voters who had seen the attack ads against him. Victims of negative ads face enormous pressure to retaliate, candidates said. In past elections, party workers have even suggested that Thompson hire a detective to spy on his opponent, he said. ----------------------- 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 ********************************************** www.telepath.com/believer ********************************************** --- 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

Two Jims, Werner and Matt redefine socialism for their own ends
by Martinus Luther 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I never replied to any of the threads about about monopolies and freedom and government intervention because it was all so off-topic. But *really*. Saying Rosa Luxemburg wasn't a communist is like, totally off the wall: Werner Koch wrote: > "Die Freiheit des Einzelnen endet dort, > wo sie die Freiheit der Anderen einschränkt." > Rosa Luxemburg > The freedom of an individual ends, as it (the freedom) > limits the freedom of the others. > [This was one of the former Eastern Germany liberty > movements' slogans - and not a communists one] She was a founder-bloody-member of the German Communist party! A 100% died-in the wool far-left feminist socialist and CP member. Just because the state capitalists of the old Soviet Union subverted what remained of the German left and turned it into an instrument of foreign domination and repression doesn't mean that Rosa wasn't a real communist, or a real socialist. It was the apparatchiks and the beauraucrats who stole the name, not her. The US equivalent at the time might be Eugene Debs (or even Joe Hill - a prophet better honoured outside his own country - although he would probably be happier to be associated with anarchists than communists). Oh look, you've got me started. Jim Choate wrote "Another potential flaw in current economic theory" and more or less gave a definition of centrist, liberal socialism as it applies to business. The sort of "3rd way" views that the right-wing Labour government in UK might have had when they were out of office (being elected moved them even further to the right & the word "socialism" hardly applies any more). As Jim pointed out the practice of giving all the gain to the owners inevitably alienates the workers. But when Jim Burnes - much more naive poltically - said it was "socialist", Jim C. vehemently denied it! It seems that the *word* Socialist for you guys has become an insult, without substantive meaning, it isn't actually a label for socialism any more, when you want to talk about real socialism you have to find new words. Just like your bloodthirsty government made the word "communist" an insult in the 1940s and 50s - for McCarthy and Hoover and their friends "communist" didn't mean "communist" it meant "a person we don't like and intend to persecute". Which is maybe why Werner had to say Rosa wasn't a "communist". He had taken on board the US definition of "communist" as insulting and was no longer able to use the word about someone of whom he approved. And them Jim went and ruined all by writing: > Socialism is the belief that property is best managed and owned by > the government. Well, some people who have called themselves socialists have believed that. It was especially popular at the turn of the century. But many of us never believed that and almost none of us do now. > Fascism is the belief that property should be owned by private > individuals but managed by governments. No, not really. Fascism is a belief in the organic reality of the nation and in the priority of the nation's interests over the individuals. Fascism tends to glorify the army (socialists are usually suspicious of it) to ally with traditionalist elements in society (such as the aristocracy or the Roman church), to be racist and narrowly nationalist (Socialists are more likely to be into diversity, "rainbow coalitions" and to be internationalist, at lest in their rhetoric) and to be strongly authoritarian, especially about personal behaviour. > Capitalism is the belief that property should be owned and managed by the individual. In which case why is so much property owned and managed by companies? Why does our capitialist system result in so many working for others, rather than themselves? "Sargeant, where's mine?". Capitalism is a society where, overwhelmingly, property is owned and managed by *someone* *else*, usually some corporate body or faceless beauracracy. Whether that *someone* *else* is a limited company as it almost always is in the US, or a branch of government as it almost always was in the state-capitalist Soviet Union makes little difference. In fact, given the choice, and living in a representative democracy, I prefer the government-run business to the corporation-run one, especially if it is local government, because at least I have the vote. The two largest employers round where I live are a multinational bank and local government. I can vote for my councillors. Some of them I my neighbours. I can even meet them and have a beer with them. They might not do what I want but at least they have to pretend to listen. I'll never meet the CEO of that bank, or members of the board. They live in a different country from me. They have corporate jets and chauffer-driven cars and holiday on private islands. I'd probably have to be a millionaire to drink in the same bars as them. I dislike State control of business but it isn't half as bad as the faceless beauracracies of the banks, the phone companies, the big drug companies and so on. If there *was* a society where all property was owned and operated managed by individuals working for themselves it would be something like Belloc and Chesterton's "distributivism". The Biblical hope of "each man under his own vine and his own fig tree" or the 17th century English dream of "3 acres and a cow". Nearer to socialist anarchism than to anything else - nothing to do with capitalism at all. How many of you have a mortgate or pay rent? Capitalism means that someone else owns your house. How many of you work for a corporation? Capitalism means that someone else owns your job. Don't believe the bullshit about "private ownership". Capitalism means that someone else gets to own everything, the rest of us just get to work for them. But then Jim B. restored my faith in Jim C. my making the most childish statement yet: > You imply that the employees and employers interests are not the same. It is so pathetically obvious that they are *not* the same that it's hard to answer this without farting. Both employee and shareholder have an interest in paying for investment - the employee to keep the business going, and keep their job, the investor to raise the capital value. But after investment there is a pot of money to be split (or should be, if the company is viable). If it goes to shareholders in dividends, it doesn't go to workers in wages. If it goes to workers, it doesn't go to shareholders. A conflict of interest. Shareholders and managers have an interest in getting more work out of an employee for the same wages - whether by longer hours, or by automation or by training. A worker doesn't have that interest unless the extra production is returned to them in wages. Which it usually isn't, else where would profits come from? You Americans think you can defuse socialism by defining it as "state control of industry" (an idea which most of the left has rejected for 40 or 50 years now and a great many never accepted in the first place) and then accuse people of playing with definitions to make a point! Read : http://www.web.net/~newsoc/documents/Draper.html which says all this at greater length than I've got time for. It kicks off with a great quote from William Morris: "... I pondered all these things, and how men fight and lose the battle, and the thing that they fought for comes about in spite of their defeat, and when it comes turns out not to be what they meant, and other men have to fight for what they meant under another name..." You Yankee conservatives and your so-called libertarian (but, in practice, always almost authoritarian) friends may think you can get rid of socialism by defining it out of existence but it will rise again, even if it has to be under another name. And then Matt Gering replied to Ken Brown: >> A monopolisitic supplier of some good has a measure >> of political power. > Political power gums at the mean end of a gun, what political power do > monopolies have and how? And I was almost knocked over by the innocence, ignorance and naievety of such a statement. What political power do monopolies have? The power to deny you things you need to live. The power to deny you the means to earn a living. Political and economic power go hand in hand, as they always have. You can never have one without the other. If there is only one employer in a town then anyone born there must either leave or knuckle under. Remember "I sold my soul to the company stores". And what's this crap about the shareholders bearing the risk and the workers not? Is giving years of your life to some enterprise that then gets sold from under your feet and closed down not a risk? Is going donw a mine, not a risk, or to sea, or standing in front of a class of screaming kids, or working the late night shift in a burger bar, or driving a tractor, or cleaning the streets? You don't have to have any romantic workerist notions about the dignity of labour to realise that workers have a risk, and an interest. It two take similar jobs with different companies, both work for years, getting promoted, putting aside a pension, and one is suddenly made redundant, "let go", because the incompetance or whim of the bosses has ruined the company, hasn't that person lost something? Haven't they made an investment of their time, their thought, their life? Even an office worker, a beauraucrat, a clerk even a computer programmer (gasp!) brings their chips to put on the table. As GK Chesterton said it isn't the rich who have the greatest interest in society. They can always get on the next boat to Borneo. It is the ordinary folk who have to stay behind and clean up the mess the rich leave behind them. Unlike what Matt Gering said monopoly power *does* "come out of the barrel of a gun" - it is preserved by military and police authority. The forms of "ownership" under which most big businesses operate - things like the joint stock company, or limited liability - are not natural, they do not arise out of common human attributes (if they did they would be universal, whereas they didn't appear until they were invented in Holland or England less than 500 years ago). They are defined and controlled by the political process. Just like previous forms of ownership. The feudal system was not "natural", slavery is not "natural", the monastic ownership of huge tracts of land was not "natural", the king's right to appropriate land from intestate barons and minor heiresses was not "natural". The politics of the time - as always more or less run (but not entirely public opinion and tradition count for somethign even in a dictatorship or absolute monarchy) by the rich and the well-armed; but as always, in a state of tension between and various interest groups - the politics of the time defined what counted as ownership and backed it up with fire and the sword. A peasant could take his master to court and claim to be free (the longest court case in English history was the inhabitants of a village in Oxfordshire suing their lord for their freedom) but if the peasant tried to farm the lord's land - well what are men-at-arms for? And that's the same now. Great property, the ownership of land or shares, the ownership of the products of other people's work, to be disposed of at will as if it was a comb or a pen, is a social construction. Like money itself it exists because folk choose to believe that it exists. If we all stopped behaving as if great property existed, it would cease to exist. It is somethign that is in our minds, not nature. If shopkeepers lose respect for your dollar bills or your credit cards or your gold bars (other than as a useful and beautiful metal) you will not be able spend your wealth. That respect for money is buttressed by the state. If farmworkers lose their respect for the land rights of the owner and start planting crops in their own right, then the owner will no longer own - unless they can get the state, the police, the army, to help them. At this point so-called libertarians interject & say that the libertarian owner will defend his property with his own gun - but one man can't fight off 20 or 30 - they have to get their friends and neighbours to join in, or hire guards - and that's back to politics again. It may not be a "state" (although that's a matter of definition) but when people band together to defend what they see as their property it is certainly politics. That's what politics is, how people live together in numbers. The gunwankers may fancy themselves libertarians but really all they are pleading for is the right for them and their friends - their guards, their police - to oppress the workers. US so-called liberatarianism, hand in hand with the most blatant forms of capitalism, the instutionalised rascism of US society and the gunwanking fantasies of the pampered hooligans who call themselves "libertarians" would inevitably lead not to freedom from the State but to the imposition of hundreds or thousands of mini-States, each as brutal as the next. You would be better off in Albania or Burundi. Most assets in our society are owned by corporations, not by natural persons. They are socially and legally defined. The law - backed by the State, the police, the army and the courts - grants limited liability to shareholders. That might even be a good idea, it encourages investment and reduces the number of destitute capitalists begging on street corners. But it isn't at all the same thing as natural, ordianary property rights, and it is 100% political power and not far from Mao's gun barrel. Sometimes I have to remember that I am dealing with Americans here. You are all, well, most of you, hopelessly naive about politics, caught up in your little local squabbles. You are taking the mote out of you rleft eye and ignoring the beam in your own right eye. How can anyone take eriously a country that makes more fuss about where Clinton put his cigar than it did about Oliver North's terror squads buying weapons for mass-murder in Nicaragua with profits made form selling cocaine in the USA? And if Reagan *didn't* know then he should have been removed from office as medically unfit. And we *know* Bush knew. And the fucking Republicans voted him in afterwards. It's always the same with conservatives - they make libertarian noises but when push comes to shove they turn out to be the same old authoritarian ruling class who have been kicking us around for centuries. It's almost as bad in England. The Tory Party actually has *two* right wings: the big-business-friendly free traders (who tend to dominate when they are in power) and the blue-rinse backwoodsmen who are in to Queen and Country and tend to come to the fore when in opposition. The first sort would be Libertarians if they weren't Tories. The second sort would be fascists. They are the reason 17 years of Tory government made no real contribution to civil liberties in Britain. Whenever the Tories are scared of losing power they put away their free-trade and libertarian principles and out coem the bigots, the racists, the petty nationalists, the hounds baying for blood. Evil shits the lot of them. Eugene Debs is supposed to have said: "Too long have the workers of the world waited for some Moses to lead them out of bondage. He has not come; he never will come. I would not lead you out if I could; for if you could be led out, you could be led back again. I would have you make up your minds that there is nothing you cannot do for yourselves." That's authentic socialism. No leader will save us - if we have leaders we don't have freedom. No elite of gun-toting so-called libertarians will make the works a better place - thay are part of the problem, not part of the solution. No cypherpunk who thinks that the rest of us are worthless sheeple will ever get anywhere. People have to do it for themselves, together. It is a fallen world. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. No man is more fitted than any other to rule. All political power will lead to corruption, and all economic power is political power. To be rich is inevitably to be corrupted, not because the rich are greater sinners than the poor but because the rich have more power than the poor, and all are sinners and all will abuse power. We try to use democracy and the vote to protect ourselves against the abuse of political power by those who think they know better than us. We need to protect ourselves against the abuse of economic power in the same way. John the Ranter ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

2 1

FBI to inaugurate national DNA database
by Jim Gillogly 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

SJMC retails a report from today's NYT: http://www.sjmercury.com/breaking/docs/084314.htm Executive summary: - Computer at secret location - Access limited to LE - All sex offenders get to contribute; felons in some States; other contributors not yet determined. -- Jim Gillogly Highday, 21 Winterfilth S.R. 1998, 16:12 12.19.5.10.14, 5 Ix 7 Yax, Seventh Lord of Night

1 0

EVEN MORE FREE PORN: STUFFED HAS 10 LINKS TO 100S OF FREE PICS, NEW EVERY DAY
by STUFFED TUE OCT 13 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

+ 30 SUPERB, HI-RES, HOT PHOTOS + 5 SUPER SEXY STORIES + XXX VAGINAS + FOR FREE SEX + JEN'S PALACE + HENTAI BIJUTU + VALERIE'S GIRLS + EUROPEAN WOMEN + TALENT SEARCH + CUM COVERED FACES + BLOWJOB HEAVEN + PORNFEEDS + BONUS PIC 1 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/1812.htm + BONUS PIC 2 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/7830.htm + BONUS PIC 3 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/30442.htm + BONUS PIC 4 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/28398.htm + BONUS PIC 5 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/14588.htm + MUCH, MUCH MORE! ----> http://stuffed.net/home/ <---- If you haven't visited STUFFED in the last few days, you're in for a real treat. It's faster than ever before and now, as a subscriber, you get 35 FREE new pics every day, plus over 100 more at carefully selected FREE sites we link to. 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

Seeking Commission Based Sales Representatives and Distributors
by distributor＠angelfire.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We are seeking commission-based sales representatives and distributors in your geographic market to spearhead the national roll-out for our Consumer Smart Product line. Whether you are a student or a senior citizen, everyone is qualified to earn extra income within our company. Could you use extra income? Are you tired of get rich schemes? If you can answer YES to these questions, then this is the perfect opportunity for you. This is not a pyramid or get rich quick scheme. This is a serious, legitmate business opportunity. We offer Consumer Smart Products at prices everyone can afford! Our products are useful for everyone and they make perfect gifts! All our products emphasize "Quality, Function and Value" For additional information, please reply to this email with more info in your subject heading. Only serious applicants need apply. Thank You

1 0

Gates v 2.0
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Besides the FBI's DNA database, in today's (Oct. 12th, 1998) New York Times is a John Markoff commentary " Memo Offers a Glimpse of Gates 2.0" about a 14 page memo written by Bill Gates in Sept., entitled "The Era Ahead". In this memo, Gates "describes a new system to be called Megaserver which will provide computer users with access to their personal information and electronic mail wherever they have an Internet connection." Holy Hotmail Batman! That Bill is right on top of things! Further along, the article paraphases Bill that that the operating system "will play an increasing role in protecting intellectual piracy against from data piracy by tracking the use of information and preventing illicit copying." I can see my future now, logging into Windows 2000 with the handy keyboard DNA sampler. However, all of my software is registered to my dog. Here boy...

1 1

DNA
by Xena - Warrior Princess 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Another example of science fiction that probably should have been kept as fiction. FBI to inaugurate national DNA database NEW YORK (Reuters) - The FBI will open a new and improved national DNA database Tuesday that will be used to help stop serial rapists and other repeat criminals, the New York Times reported Monday. (Full story) http://www.sjmercury.com/breaking/docs/084314.htm

3 2

RE: Hidden WebTV signatures
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text From: Pablo Calamera <pablo(a)microsoft.com> To: "'Robert Hettinga'" <rah(a)shipwright.com>, "'mac-crypto(a)vmeng.com'" <mac-crypto(a)vmeng.com> Subject: RE: Hidden WebTV signatures Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 11:46:37 -0700 Yes. Well, the crypto part anyways ;-) > -----Original Message----- > From: mac-crypto(a)vmeng.com [mailto:mac-crypto@vmeng.com]On Behalf Of > Robert Hettinga > Sent: Sunday, October 11, 1998 8:08 AM > To: mac-crypto(a)vmeng.com > Subject: Hidden WebTV signatures > > > Pablo? > > Did *you* do this??? > > :-) > > Cheers, > Bob Hettinga > > --- begin forwarded text > > > From: pgut001(a)cs.auckland.ac.nz (Peter Gutmann) > To: cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net > Subject: Hidden WebTV signatures > X-Authenticated: relaymail v0.9 on cs26.cs.auckland.ac.nz > Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 03:29:04 (NZDT) > Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net > Precedence: first-class > Reply-To: pgut001(a)cs.auckland.ac.nz (Peter Gutmann) > X-Loop: cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net > > For those of you who don't read sci.crypt, Robert Ames > <gnome(a)istar.ca> has > posted an article in which he observes that all WebTV posts contain an > X-WebTV-Signature: line containing base64-encoded data. For > samples of > WebTV-generated posts, try the alt.weemba newsgroup, which is > filled with > WebTV-user drool (caution: remember to employ protection when > exposting your > mind to the content of the messages). Some samples: > > X-WebTV-Signature: 1 > > ETAsAhQDqtur/jfleJ2CDOnNrVoeyALEQAIUOQyCBbzjx5HHfxeMERDgCjztXOU= > X-WebTV-Signature: 1 > > ETAtAhUAmCCzQt+Tqt6fNX+L9+gDCECaqQkCFA0YCPz5tk85mUgq7iX/u4vWvOgG > > These decode into ASN.1-encoded DSA signatures, eg: > > 1 30 45: SEQUENCE { > 3 02 21: INTEGER > : 00 98 20 B3 42 DF 93 AA DE 9F 35 7F 8B F7 E8 03 > : 08 40 9A A9 09 > 26 02 20: INTEGER > : 0D 18 08 FC F9 B6 4F 39 99 48 2A EE 25 FF BB 8B > : D6 BC E8 06 > : } > > for the second one. The key isn't included in the header, > presumably the > @webtv.net address can be tied to the hardware which contains > some hardcoded > DSA key. I wonder if WebTV users know they're signing each > message they send? > > Peter. > > > --- 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' > > --- 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