December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: big word listing
by Rich Salz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>or set it as a variable and fork, or something like that. Berkely-derived unices have a "ps" that can print the environment. /r$

1 0

Declassified crypto-hearing transcript now online
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The URLs, thanks to JYA: http://site108240.primehost.com/hir-hear.htm (97K hearing transcript) http://site108240.primehost.com/crypto-law8.htm (11K Reno letter) -Declan

1 0

Re: Java (was Netscape: the big win)
by cman＠communities.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>So, what would be a "cypherpunk" thing you could do with Java? I know >I can use it to download little applets to my system to do animations. >What can it do to enhance my privacy? What would be the Java equivalent >of PGP? > Portable PGP with a GUI interface that didn't suck? Note that I'm championing the use of Java as a portable language, with a portable windowing toolkit, that will (real soon now) have commercial tool support from a variety of vendors, as well as free tools available on the net (the best of both worlds.) The whole issue of how to do cryptography with applets is kind of complicated, and is something Amanda and I have been working on very dilligently. They hard part is determining what the interface is between trusted code (that you have installed on your machine, or ultimately, that you've specifically designated as being trusted based on secure hash) and untrusted code that comes from random web sites on the net. In general, for any general-purpose cryptography tool, you're going to want almost all of it to be based on locally-installed, trusted code. Certain protocols can actually work much better using applets, but they should only be allowed to access a very narrow set of local routines that directly interface with the user. (e.g. "Do you really want to sign this?", "Confirmed signed by so-and-so.", etc.) This is, however, a separate issue from the use of Java to do standalone applications. See: http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/achou/JCrypt/packages.html

1 0

Rules for "Them" and Rules for "Us"
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

(A copy of this message has also been posted to the following newsgroups: rec.knives, talk.politics.guns,alt.cypherpunks) [Note to Usenet readers. I wrote this for the Cypherpunks mailing list, but decided you folks in rec.knives and talk.politics.guns might be interested too.] Pardon the rant, to borrow a line from Dennis Miller. One of the recent trends which really bugs me, and which seems to be indicative of a major shift in the American system is this: "They" have certain rights the rest of "us" don't have. Who are "they"? - law enforcment - the military - the spies - the secret police The "us" is anyone not in a special group exempted from the ban. (Note: Please don't cite the hackneyed example of how the government has the right to own nuclear weapons but ordinary citizen-units do not. This is indeed so, and I don't even necessarily think this is completely unreasonable...though I now am more inclined to support the right to keep and bear nukes. But, seriously, the issues are not so cosmic as nuclear weapons....the examples I'll cite here are much more mundane, and more pervasive.) Here's an example I ran across tonight, in the group rec.knives: In article <01bc99fa$f7d16420$538a98cf@kevlar>, "James R Thorpe" <kevlar(a)meganet.net> wrote: > > Does the name refer to the blade length.? > > IE only 2 inches and therefore legal in California. > > Nice looking knife. What's the blade made out of? > > daithi > > > Got mine in the mail, it's a sweet little knife. Better than I expected. > Rugged feeling too. ATS-34 Blade, and aluminum handles. Lanyard Hole, where > I tied a piece of leather shoestring, and the blade pivot is tension > adjustable. The blade on the ones PV Knife is shipping now is a little > different than the picture. It has a clip point and hollow grind. It's > small but feels bigger than the picture once you get it in your hand. My > fiancé even wanted to fondle it. Its a very "grabable" knife. After she cut > herself she didn't want to play with it anymore. > Not sure why its named CA Special. You can probably get one shipped to you > with out any LEO/Military credentials due to the blade length. > Jim Here's what these guys are referring to: There are large numbers of knives and knife types which are forbidden for ownership and/or carrying in California, amongst other states, but which are commonly carried by cops. Some are the evil "switchblades" (a category which may or may not include the thumbhole folders a lot of us carry in our pockets, depending on what the local cops decide). Some are "butterfly" knives. Some are just plain knives which are longer than the local burghers (or is it "burgers"? :-)) have "permitted." In California, there is ongoing uncertainty about whether a fixed-blade knife may be carried openly, which may be "brandishment," or may be carried in a backpack (and hence "concealed")...one analysis noted that it is probably a felony to carry a kitchen knife home from a store, as it is either being "concealed" if in a bag, or "brandished" if not. I guess hiring a delivery boy would shift the felony to him...or make one a co-conspirator in a RICO felony. (Practically speaking, there are few arrests and even fewer prosecutions. Cops have been known to tell people to "keep your knife out of sight and you'll be OK," even though the laws are usually quite clear that this is felony concealment. The law is an ass.) OK, enough about knives. The point is that the term "LEO" means "Law Enforcement Only." Meaning, your local cop is free to buy these items, even for personal use in many cases, but the sheeple are not. My local gun stores have sections marked "Law Enforcement Use Only," and these sections are getting bigger every year. Here are some things which now fall into this "Them" vs. "Us" situation: * Knives. They get to own all sorts of things. We are being limited more and more each year: the allowable knives are getting shorter, the types are being further restricted. (All in a putative move to reduce crime...anybody think that telling T.C. May he's a felon if he carries his Benchmade AFCK is going to reduce the number of knifings?) * Guns. 'Nuff said, as we all have heard much about this. A recent example is telling though--the banning of magazines (clips) holding more that 10 rounds. (Unless already made before some date, and some other details.) Cops and even retired cops and retired military personnel are allowed to buy the 15-round magazines their guns are made to use, but the sheeple are not. (And there are proposals to ban magazines holding more than 5 rounds, to ban detachable magazines completely, to ban semi-automatic weapons, to ban all firearms except "sporting" rifles, and so on.) * Ammunition. Believe it or not, some forms of bullets are now restricted to "LEO." (Usually after some shooting spree, or some mass media hysteria--as with the never-produced "Black Rhino" ammo--there are sudden moves to ban some class of ammo. Cops make sure they are not affected, and,voila, a new "LEO" item is added to the list.) * Martial arts supplies. Batons, kubotans, throwing stars, nunchuks, etc. These are allowed for cops, but not for ordinary people, regardless of training. * Drugs. Aside from the evidence that the CIA and other gov't agencies ran drugs into the U.S. (cf. the usual sources), there are lots of drugs the gov't. dispenses to its own troops, including methamphetamines, which it declares to be contraband in the civilian sector. (Pilots, for example, are given uppers to maintain alertness, but of course a truck driver caught with them faces jail.) * Radio equipment. Certain frequencies are not allowed on civilian radios, and there are related restricitons. (Radio buffs will know a lot more.) Some of this may be for "legitimate" (barf) reasons, to maintain radio security for sensitive operations, but mostly it is not needed (and is bypassable by spies and anyone seriously interested in doing so). Note of course that strong crypto would bypass this issue of banning certain types of electronic equipment. (I am not including TEMPEST equipment as being banned, as this seems to be a false rumor. The TEMPEST research may be classified, but there are no laws that I know of that make it a crime to make a piece of equipment radiate very little RF. In fact, the FCC likes it this way.) * Armor. Especially body armor (aka "bulletproof vests"). I believe there are some restrictions on what may be sold to civilians. * Biological research. There are specific laws making it illegal for private individuals or companies to do research in certain areas without government approval. (I believe the specific law dates from around 1975, and covers CBW weapons and related research. Ditto for nuclear weapons, probably under the Atomic Energy Act or somesuch.) * Crypto, of course. Not yet, domestically, but we appear to be entering an era in which the government and its employees have access to crypto the rest of us are forbidden to use. PGP may have a warning sticker: "Law Enforcement Use Only." I assume others of you can think of examples I've left out. Obviously things like wiretap equipment, etc. are often restriced to law enforcement and spies. At least one of those "007" spy shops was shut down for selling to civilians stuff that cops readily have (I heard this on CNN, but I don't have the details). The danger in all of this is not that there are a _few_ things that we let police and soldiers have that we think civilians should not have, but that _so many_ things are now classified this way, with the number of things so classified growing constantly. This makes for a dangerous society, civil liberties-wise, when industrial companies and shops have two classes of customers: them and us. This stinks. We're not talking about private ownership of nukes. We're talking about a situation where a citizen can go to prison for having a knife longer than 3 inches in his pocket, while cops are free to have them for their own purposes. This stinks. --Tim May -- There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

"Where is the Market?"
by tcmay＠sensemedia.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I want to elaborate on the words from last December that I just posted, in response to some comments about how I had just "discovered" the Web. L. McCarthy just had some good points about differing privacy/political goals here on this list. When we first formed, almost three years ago, one of the first things we did at a physical meeting--and the issue was echoed on the new mailing list--was to conduct a poll of who was using what mail tools, e.g., pine, elm, emacs, Microsoft Mail, MCI Mail (?), Lotus Notes, Eudora, etc. The results--which should be in the archives for sometime around November-December 1992--were, as expected, all over the map. No clear winner. The reason for the poll was obvious: to determine what sort of target markets the various PGP integrators would have. Even then, there were religious wars, with, for example, the emacs crowd arguing that PGP should be integrated into emacs and then the world could just switch to emacs (as they should have long before :-)). Now I wish I could draw pictures here---and that I can't draw pictures here and still communicate with most of you here makes an interesting point about the still-dominant nature of ASCII, which ain't about to change anytime soon for lists like this---so I could better explain my "stable attractors" line of reasoning. But I'll do it instead with more words. Here's an elaboration on my points made last December 15: "I see two "stable attractors" for text/graphics/multimedia/etc. sent over the Net:" What I mean by "stable attractors" are the "islands" or regions in product space that have solidity and success. Leading commercial products are obvious examples, with a cloud of related or ancillary products supporting them. Product versions are like a chain of these islands. As with "attractors" in general (and I assume everyone on this list has read much about attractors, usually in the context of strange attractors), there are not many "occupied" regions in the nether-realm between attractors. That is, between the islands lies open water. "Survival" is difficult in these open waters. My main model for software, borne out by everything I see, is that this "island colonization" model is appropriate. "1. Straight text, ASCII, 80 column format. All systems can handle this, all mailers and newsreaders can handle it, it's what the Usenet is essentially based upon, and it gets the job done. It meets the needs of 95% of us for 95% of our needs." By this I mean just what this list is doing _now_. ASCII is the de facto lingua franca. People with PCs, various operating systems on their PCs (DOS, Win3.1, Win95beta, Linux, OS/2, NeXTStep, Solaris, etc.), Macintoshes, terminals, Amigas, Ataris, Suns, SGIs, NeXTs, and so on, are all mostly able to read what is distributed here. Deviations occur, but mostly unintentially or as "experiments." Occasionally people will still try to send NeXT-formatted mail--I forget what it was called--and various people send their messages as "attachments," even when the text is apparently just straight ASCII. (Hint to the attachment-senders: I periodically go into the "Attachments" folder on my system and empty it of the unread big and little attachments that have accumulated in it...others have said they do the same. So, if your message will fit into the standard text/ASCII "primary format" of the Cypherpunks list, that is how you should send it...and if it _isn't _ straight text, but instead includes attached spreadsheets, JPEG movies of the Waco raid, etc., you might ask yourself just how many people will bother to read or view your message?) Hence my comment that "the written word" is a massively stable, heavily colonized "island" or "attractor." It can be handled in foreign languages, with some difficulty, and on nearly any computer system in the world. It is the language of legal briefs, of economic reports, of crop reports, and of a zillion other forms of communication. Pure text is powerful stuff. But what about pictures, illustrations, diagrams? Magazines and books use them widely, so why can't we? And what about styled text, footnotes, superscripts, hypertext links, etc.? Well, in a different world we might have adopted standards earlier than we did and such things might be more common and acceptable today. (For those who will argue that it is "possible" to exchange e-mail with embedded diagrams, equations, footnotes, etc., "sure." But ask yourself how many times you have ever actually _done_ this, with friends and e-mail correspondents? Some who have done this point out that it usually involved folks within corporations who can standardize on the tools and default settings to make this transparent...then they can send richly-formatted stuff without excessive work. And how many other mailing lists, besides Cypherpunks, have such embedded diagrams and illustrations? I'm not talking about the Web here--I'll get to it in my next point--but about what this list is and what NetNews, for example, is. What will "the masses" likely use to implement a richer communications channel, one that encompass pictures, illustrations, movies, spreadsheets, etc.? What will be the _next_ big island people colonize? (Which is of obvious interest for the deployment of crypto to users.) >From Dec. 15: "2. The Web, for graphics, images, etc. This will be the next main stable attractor, deployed on many platforms. (I'm assuming the debate here about Netscape standards does not imply much of a fragmentation, that Mosaic, Netscape, MacWeb, etc., will all basically be able to display Web pages in much the same way.)" Enough people are starting to "surf the Web" (whatever you think of that expression) that this is becoming the _de facto_ next attractor, or island. _Millions_ of users will have whatever tools and "helper apps" in their versions of Mosaic, Netscape, MacWeb, etc. such that this will be the platform/environment of choice. As the browsers add e-mail (receiving, as most or all can send mail), and as applets/helpers proliferate, then these platforms/environments will allow new forms of e-mail to finally become _widespread_ (note that I did not say "possible," but instead said "widespread"). Many folks I have expressed this view to have said "But the Web is not a two-way medium like e-mail." That is, most people spend most of their time on the Web "reading" (viewing) the stuff others have put on the Web. Three points: 1. This is changing already, as "feedback" is included on pages. This feedback is beginning to look like local newsgroups, and will become more so (IMO). (Speculation: The current Usenet "feed" is of course huge. It may get replaced, via evolution/revolution, by a shift to a Web-oriented system of local newsgroups. What I mean by this is that instead of reading, say, "alt.cypherpunks," one points one's browser at "http://www.cypherpunks.org/" and uses one's various Web tools to browse, sort, search, read, and respond to comments of others. BTW, this could be done today, and might be a better alternative than creating "alt.cypherpunks." The current approach of shipping the entire Usenet feed to all the sites that carry it is likely to eventually break down.) (Even more speculation: Currently I point my Netscape at which news server I wish, from a choice of several. The idea of "subscription-based" News sites is an interesting one. I might pay extra money for a site that is very current and carries all News groups, while parents might pick a site that is sufficiently sanitized for them, a site they let their children access. Much more to say here, but I see several Cypherpunks themes.) 2. The easy-to-use integration of helper apps into Web browsers will confer the same capabilities on mailers that are now associated with these Web browsers. (Again, don't tell me what _your_ mailer can now do, look to what the millions of people are using...they'll gain a lot when their mailers, whether part of Netscape or MacWeb or not, can automatically handle things their browsers can now handle.) 3. The main development seems to me to be in Web tools these days. Being a user of "tin" for several years, and seeing minimal development of it the past two years, I've seen tin get almost no new features. Ditto for "elm," my mailer (when logged-on to Unix systems). (Before you comment, I can't speak for trn, nn, rn, etc., or mailers such as pine. But friends of mine have told me the same stagnation is happening with other mailers and newsreaders. Many of the developers of tin, elm, archie, gopher, etc., have moved on to bigger and better things.)) So, given that it has long been recognized as a valid Cypherpunks goal to see what people are using for mail and newsreading, I think an analysis of what's likely to be popular amongst the "masses" is valid. (I don't disdain the "masses," at least not in this context. The needs of a lawyer wanting to communicate securely with his client are not the needs of a C hacker wanting to configure his Linux box to auto-sign his emacs messages.) My views on the Web have *not* changed dramatically since last fall and winter when I was talking in these terms, though all I had then was a text-oriented browser (lynx), and it was not very exciting (as Ray Cromwell also notes). (And I recall this discussion on the importance of the Web going on several times earlier, including a prediction/hope by the Extropians list organizers, including Harry Shapiro (Hawk) that the Web could be the solution for distributing graphics-content mailing lists...this was around 1993 sometime.) I'm definitely not "dissing" Unix, though I personally never had much use for it. The world is made up of all kinds of people. Some are hackers, some are expert cryptographers, some are lawyers, and so on. The needs of a lawyer for computer tools and writing aids are quite a bit different from those of someone who wants to put together a Linux box for C hacking. If I sound snide in my comments about Linux, I don't mean to be. What I mean is that very, very few users, even fairly sophisticated users, are going to be doing their work on Linux boxes. (If I'm wrong about this, and Linux becomes a serious deployment system--as opposed to a Sun-killer, which is what it looks like now--then I'll acknowledge that I was wrong.) As cheap boxes to deploy remailers and Web sites on, Linux sounds like a win. I'm unconvinced that it has a future for _general_ users, though. (And by general users I don't mean computer-phobic newbies, I mean the folks buying Windows in the tens of millions and Macs in the millions per year. Wider use of crypto means these users, not just the current PGP users.) Nothing has changed my view that the Web is clearly the next big attractor, the next big island. Integrating crypto into it is likely the next big win, which is how this latest thread started. (And by "integrating crypto into it" I don't necessarily mean getting the source code from Netscape or Spry or whomever and adding it...the integration can be done in multiple ways, I think, and as several folks here are already thinking about.) In any case, the future will unfold as it unfolds. Maybe I'm right, maybe not. Maybe only partially right. Debate is healthy, and at least this debate is closer to being on-topic than discussions of red mercury (and the even rarer columbium-niobum alloys the Japanese have developed) and Cypherpunks logos. --Tim May .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)sensemedia.net | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-728-0152 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Corralitos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Phrack SummerCon - I enjoyed your talk
by Owen Lynn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Eric, I was there in 'lanta when you gave your talk at SummerCon, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I was especially intrigued by some of the, um, fun you can have with corporations. Are there any books I can read that are sort of _Fun with Your Corporation for Beginners_? fnord

1 0

Re: CanadaBanAna Censors US TV (and bans decryption)
by David Yaffe 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This is my sarcastic reply to the article.. has a couple of interesting 'facts' about canadian life.. Enjoy! > HOME Box Office, the U.S. cable network, just garnered 90 Emmy > nominations in recognition of quality programming. But HBO is still > banned in Canada. The network was not on the list of foreign services > approved Wednesday by Canada's dictator of cable and satellite > television content, the CRTC. Others banned by the CRTC include > Bloomberg Television and the U.S. versions of the Discovery Channel, > The Comedy Network, the Disney Channel and scores of other program > services deemed too subversive for Canadians to watch in their > original form -- unless, of course, the same programming passes > through the hands of a Canadian middleman or monopolist who will > culturally sanitize the programming by skimming off a fat profit. Hey we don't even have a Canadian version of Sesame Street anymore.. The government controlled TV station (that CBC) decided that the content of the Canadian version of Sesame Street was still to American... (Like 5 year olds know the difference!) > Once a Canadian has grabbed a piece of the action -- as a distributor, > broadcast licence holder, cable operator or satellite owner -- > Canadians are allowed to view the U.S. content. This banana republic > setup has been in place for decades, and now it may be getting worse. > A judge has concluded in one of the satellite disputes that it may > even be illegal for a Canadian to pay for HBO and other networks as > they come in over the border on U.S. satellite systems. Okay, so if I get a video feed of the internet is that illegal in Canada? You bet!! Even PGP-fone is.. after all, telephones are designed for voice communication, the internet is for data. All praise the High and Mighty CRTC. > The oral judgment by Mr. Justice Frederick Gibson of Federal Court of > Canada in the case of ExpressVu versus Norsat and other companies was > issued last month, but the written version sets a number of bizarre > precedents that appear to deeply infringe on individual rights. By > ruling in favour of ExpressVu, the Canadian satellite company, Judge > Gibson has essentially come up with a judgment that is the equivalent > of making it illegal for a Canadian to subscribe to Fortune or > Cosmopolitan magazines or to buy a copy of Vanity Fair or Esquire on > the newsstand. Shit! no more WIRED Magazine & No more comic books... [Snip] > The purpose of the act's clauses on encryption is a technical one to > prevent fraud. Evidence presented by Andrew Roman, the lawyer for > Norsat, makes it clear that the intent of the government was to make > it illegal for people to use counterfeit decoders and other devices to > avoid payment. All the debates in Commons committee focus on the act > as an attempt to prevent theft of signals. No such theft occurs when > Canadians subscribe to and pay for a U.S. satellite service. Yup.. but the government thinks we're all after free TV.. Even those of us who don't even have "Basic cable", and have just the three free channels... (All I need is my Simpson's :) > What makes this judgment even more unusual is that it effectively > attempts to make it illegal for a Canadian to pay for a U.S. channel > on a U.S. satellite, when the identical U.S. channel is available on > Canadian cable or satellite. For example, WGN-TV in Chicago can be > picked up on Canadian cable, Canadian satellite or on U.S. satellite. > In each case, the subscriber pays for the service. But under this > judgment, it would be illegal to pay the U.S. satellite for WGN-TV. > Who does this serve -- other than giving Bell and the cable companies > more revenue. Yup -- Canadians love to pay tax, that's why we pay so much of it.. ( well over half of a Canadian citizen's income is taxes. If the average Canadian were to devote 100% of their paychecks to their taxes for the year, they would start seeing some income in the middle of July. For the first six plus months of the year, they would be paying taxes. I believe that Simon Fraser University does the calcuations each year.. > Even stranger is that many of the networks carried by U.S. satellites > are already available in Canada over the air waves free, or on cable, > or on C-band, an alternative satellite service that has been available > in Canada for years. A Seinfeld episode can be picked up free over the > air from a U.S. television station, or on a U.S. station via cable, or > on a Canadian station on cable. But if the same Seinfeld episode were > bought by a Canadian from a U.S. satellite service, it's illegal. > Canada's specialty networks, meanwhile, are gearing up to flood the > country with copy-cat versions of the networks banned by the CRTC -- > including The Globe and Mail, which is a partner in ROBTv, a business > channel that hopes to benefit from the fact that Bloomberg will be > banned in Canada. Other brilliantly innovative duplications of U.S. > networks are The Home and Garden Channel, History Television, The > Comedy Network, Discovery and Country. Is this unique Canadian > culture? One such Canadian offering, The Family Channel, has even > abandoned all pretext to being a Canadian original: it's changing its > name to recognize the source of most of its content: The Disney > Channel. Don't forget Much Music.. I need my MTV oops muchmusic... No, the problem is not canadian content, the problem is the percieved canadian content. A lot of Canadians think that canadian culture is under constant attack from the US. After all how many magazines are canadian? how much of the music on the Radio is Cancon (canadian content)? How much of the news we get from the newspaper is Canadian? Also, seeing that most of the people in canada (except for the aboriginals) are of European Decent, just like the US.. what does it matter anyway? What the CRTC fails to realize is that canadian culture will do fine even if as Canadians we get American satellite.....

1 0

New Form of DOS Attack
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Apropos of nothing... Suppose that you are in charge of a separatist compound/Blacknet POP/Meth Lab and you are worried that The FBI/BATF/DEA/FEMA/UN jackbooted thugs with their black helicopters are planning a little "dynamic entry." If you want to deny the Feds the opportunity for some energetic service of process, all you have to do is hire Rodney King to move in. Once he is onsite, the Feds will be helpless. Just keep your Greenpeace Special (tm) sat cams focussed on old Rodney and you have absolute immunity from all incursion. Too bad we can't clone him. DCF "Goodby cruel world, I'm off to join the circus. Hey, Mr. Barnum save a place for me."

1 0

New Form of DOS Attack
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Apropos of nothing... Suppose that you are in charge of a separatist compound/Blacknet POP/Meth Lab and you are worried that The FBI/BATF/DEA/FEMA/UN jackbooted thugs with their black helicopters are planning a little "dynamic entry."

1 0

Rules for "Them" and Rules for "Us"
by David Yaffe 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>This stinks. We're not talking about private ownership of nukes. We're >talking about a situation where a citizen can go to prison for having a >knife longer than 3 inches in his pocket, while cops are free to have them >for their own purposes. We can all pray for the day when law enforcement, and government personel wake up one morning, realise what they are and shoot themselves. Then again, they are all such nice people, why would we want them to do that.. David Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those that know nothing about anything, lead..

1 0