December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Transitive trust and MLM
by eli+＠GS160.SP.CS.CMU.EDU 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In article <+cmu.andrew.internet.cypherpunks+UlYwNe:00UfAM107VG@andrew.cmu.edu> EALLENSMITH(a)ocelot.Rutgers.EDU writes: > The different paths going through those different signatures will be >correlated/non-independent, yes.... but that isn't the problem unless you're >considering multiple paths (in a more complicated version). To determine key validity, you do have to consider all paths. If a single trusted path to the bad key exists, the attacker wins. > IIRC, there have been some sociological studies showing that _everyone_ >is linked through 6 or so people. Milgram's "small world" experiments used a much looser sort of "link" than we want here. It would be certainly interesting to know how large a difference this makes. > Now, there's the question of whether you _need_ to be linked to everyone - > [...] I see nothing wrong (and am in favor of) separation of the > elite from the masses. Gee, let me guess which group you're in... I'll go with "people I want to talk to" versus "people I don't want to talk to", thanks. It's true that you don't need to talk to everybody. The problem is that I might want to talk to people whom I don't know personally, but know by reputation, or by function ("DEA Rat Hotline" -- well, maybe not). -- . Eli Brandt usual disclaimers . . eli+(a)cs.cmu.edu PGP key on request . . violation of 18 U.S.C. 1462: "fuck".

3 2

Re: Civil liberties of employees (Re: FYB_oss)
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"froomkin(a)law.miami.edu" "Michael Froomkin" 14-MAY-1996 03:24:06.58 >On Sun, 12 May 1996, Timothy C. May wrote: >> Actually, one _does_ check one's Constitutional rights "at the door" (of an >> employer), and the confusion over this issue is pervasively destroying real >> Constitutional rights. >Yes and no...and kinda no. Umm... you would appear to be discussing the current legal situation, whereas TCMay was discussing what the situation _should_ be. In the limits you discuss, the civil liberties of the _employer_ are being seriously trampled upon. -Allen

1 0

Re: Mandatory Voluntary Self-Ratings
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"jamesd(a)echeque.com" 13-MAY-1996 23:52:07.00 At 03:45 AM 5/13/96 EDT, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: >> the conservatives won't let people just rate >> "objectionable" material in order to keep it from them. They want it off the >> net/world whether or not it's rated. >In the course of channel surfing, I have once or twice come across >the Christians ranting about pornography. They have both legitimate >and illegimate complaints, but mainly they emphasize the legitimate >complaint. PICS addresses this legitimate complaint. I've never heard a fundamentalist (there are other Christians than fundamentalists, BTW) ranting about how they can be exposed to pornography; it's always others they claim to be upset about. I was raised a Southern Baptist, so I suspect I'm familiar with fundys. -Allen

1 0

TO ALL MEMBERS
by Mathew Ellman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

TO ALL MEMBERS, IM TIRED OF ALL THIS SHIT I HAVE UNSUBSCRIBED MANY TIMES AND ALL I GET IS SOME STUPID ASS REPLY ABOUT CLOSED LIST OR ADDRESS NOT MATCHING AND I GET NO REPLY SO UNLESS YOU ALL WANT TO GET A BUNCH OF UN WANTED BULLSHIT (LIKE THE SHIT IM GETING FROM YOU ) I SUGEST SOMEONE FIND A WAY TO GET ME THE FUCK OFF THIS LIST . I HAVE GOT IN TOUCH WITH THE PESON THE REPLY TELL ME TO AND NO REPLY. IM TIRED OF ALL THIS SHIT.

3 2

Copyright law - potential limits on encryption?
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I thought the following from CPSR had some relevance, insofar as part of what the proposed law is trying to outlaw are "devices needed for making use of encrypted information." The accusations of corporate benefit are irrelevant, of course. -Allen From: akrause(a)Sunnyside.COM (Audrie Krause) Subject: Action Alert: Copyright Cyber-rights moderator Andy Oram and online activist Jim Warren have forwarded alerts regarding pending Congressional action on copyright legislation. At this late date, the best course of action is a phone call or fax. You can reach all members of Congress through the capitol switchboard: (202) 224-3121. Email messages to Congress are *not* particularly effective. Detailed information follows from both Jim and Andy. Audrie ---------------------------- >From Jim Warren: Check out the examples, below, of how your net access to *any* information will soon be repressed, prohibited and/or criminalized for corporate benefit. THIS REALLY IS AS BAD AS IT SOUNDS. Although this happens to come from the Americal Library Association and is thus focused on library concerns with the Beltway ripoff-artists' pervasive copy-suppression legislation that is being rammed through Congress, *everyone* online and on computers needs to be aware of this impending repression. I donno who Clinton's Copyright Office and Gingrich-Dole's Congress are representing, but they sure as hell aren't representing the *public's* interests. Howl now to your(?) "representatives" ... or bend over for the corporate hustlers, henceforth. --jim, a disloyal subject of the Washington Royalty Jim Warren, GovAccess list-owner/editor, advocate & columnist (jwarren(a)well.com) 345 Swett Rd., Woodside CA 94062; voice/415-851-7075; fax/<# upon request> ------------------------ >Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 17:58:00 -0400 >Sender: owner-ala-wo(a)ala1.ala.org >From: ALAWASH E-MAIL (ALAWASH E-MAIL) <alawash(a)ALAWASH.ORG> >To: ala-wo(a)ala.org >Subject: ALAWON, Vol. 5, No. 24 - ACTION ITEM (220 lines) > > >ALAWON Volume 5, Number 24 >ISSN 1069-7799 May 10, 1996 > American Library Association Washington Office Newsline > > > URGENT: IMMINENT CONGRESSIONAL ACTION ON NII COPYRIGHT >LEGISLATION THREATENS TO LEAVE LIBRARIES AND SCHOOLS IN THE LURCH > >IMMEDIATE ACTION NEEDED: Your immediate faxes and calls to key >House Committee Members critical. > >BACKGROUND: >The House is rushing the "NII Copyright Protection Act" bill to >"mark up" in the House Courts and Intellectual Property >Subcommittee on Wednesday of next week, May 15! The House >completed its hearings in February on this bill. (Earlier >ALAWON's have described in detail the "NII Copyright Protection >Act" taken from the Administration's "White Paper" and introduced >in Congress last September.) > >Worse yet, the Courts and Intellectual Property Subcommittee is >also considering wrapping the Copyright Term Extension Act (which >would lengthen the term of copyright protection by 20 years) into >the "NII Copyright" package on May 15. That action could short-circuit >negotiations between ALA and copyright owners that began >last October to craft an exemption from the term extension for >libraries, archives and non-profit educational institutions. If >approved in its current form, the bill would: > >*** make it a copyright violation to simply browse the Net >without a license from copyright owners; > >*** subject computer system operators -- such as on-line services >and networks at schools and libraries -- to potentially crippling >liability for the copyright violations of their users, even if >the operator; > >*** cripple "distance education" efforts especially vital to >rural communities and the disabled; and > >*** make it illegal to manufacture, import or distribute devices >and software (including computers and VCRs) needed by industry, >schools and libraries to make "fair use" of encrypted information >by overruling long-standing Supreme Court precedent. > >The Senate is moving deliberately on this tremendously imbalanced >package and has indicated that changes in it need to be made to >protect libraries and schools. The Senate Judiciary Committee, >which just held the first of its own (non-joint) hearings on this >bill on May 7, and is taking a far more deliberate approach to >these complicated issues. > >In fact, Chairman Hatch appeared open at the hearing to many of >the proposals backed by libraries and educational groups put >forward by Prof. Robert Oakley (of AALL) on behalf of the Digital >Future Coalition, in which ALA has been very active. (The DFC >was given one of only five total witness slots at this important >hearing held coincidentally on ALA's annual Legislative Day.) >Sen. Hatch also indicated that he would hold at least one >additional hearing which is likely to include a "library" >witness. > >ACTION NEEDED NOW: >Please immediately fax a letter to AND CALL all Members of the >House Intellectual Property Subcommittee listed below who >represent you or an institution with which you are affiliated. >These contacts must be made NO LATER THAN Tuesday, May 14 and >preferably sooner. Contact info and a sample letter follow. > >For more information about the bill, the dangers it poses and the >constructive solutions offered, please see the DIGITAL FUTURE >COALITION WEBSITE at http://www.ari.net/dfc > >*************************************************************** >Using appropriate style for addressing Congress, please address >all letters to Members, as listed below e.g., "2346 RHOB" for >"Rayburn House Office Building", LHOB=Longworth and CHOB=Cannon) >+ Washington, DC 20515. > >Info appears as: > >Member and Home City >Address Phone Fax > >Carlos Moorhead Glendale, CA >2346 RHOB 225-4176 226-1279 > >F. James Sensenbrenner Brookfield, WI >2332 RHOB 225-5101 225-3190 > >George Gekas Harrisburg, PA >2410 RHOB 225-4315 225-8440 > >Howard Coble Asheboro, NC >403 CHOB 225-3065 225-8611 >Elton Gallegly Oxnard, CA >2441 RHOB 225-5811 225-1100 > >Charles Canady Lakeland, FL >1222 LHOB 225-1252 225-2279 > >Bob Goodlatte Roanoke, NC >123 CHOB 225-5431 225-9681 > >Martin Hoke Fairview Park, OH >212 CHOB 225-5871 226-0994 > >Sonny Bono Palm Springs, CA >512 CHOB 225-5330 225-2961 > >John Conyers, Jr. Detroit, MI >2426 RHOB 225-5126 225-0072 > >Patricia Schroeder Denver, CO >2307 RHOB 225-4431 225-5842 > >Howard Berman Mission Hills, CA >2231 RHOB 225-4695 225-5279 > >Rick Boucher Abingdon, VA >2245 RHOB 225-3861 225-0442 > >Jerry Nadler New York, NY >109 CHOB 225-5635 225-6923 > >Xavier Becerra Los Angeles, CA >1119 LHOB 225-6235 225-2202 > >Xavier Becerra Los Angeles, CA >1119 LHOB 225-6235 225-2202 > > SAMPLE LETTER > **************************************************************** > > [DATE] > >[Hon. ____________________ >United States House of Representatives] >__# __ ____ Office Building >Washington, D.C. 20515 > >Dear Representative__________: > > As a member of the American Library Association and an >active {your connection to libraries and their work, e.g., >librarian, trustee, volunteer, etc.}, I am writing today to ask >that you do everything in your power to assure that two bills now >pending before the House Courts and Intellectual Property Subcom- >mittee are not voted out of Committee unless and until they are >amended to help libraries serve the public in the following ways. > > First, the "NII Copyright Protection Act of 1995" (H.R. >2441) must be changed to permit libraries to use the latest >technologies to preserve crumbling older works and to have >sufficient copies of those works on hand to guarantee their >survival. Provisions that will continue to foster "distance >education" also are critically important. More broadly, balance >must be restored to the legislation by adopting a series of >amendments proposed by the Digital Future Coalition (DFC), many >of which are based on a strong commitment to the Fair Use >Doctrine. I share that commitment. If Congress is to update >copyright law for the digital age, the rights of copyright owners >and the needs of information users must both be fully respected >and advanced. I support the DFC's package of amendments to the >Copyright Act, particularly those related to Sections 106, 107 >and 108. > > Second, and just as critically, the "Copyright Term >Extension Act"(H.R. 989) must also be rebalanced to protect and >foster library preservation efforts and education at all levels. >In its current form, this bill would extend the length of >copyright in published materials by 20 years. It would also >lengthen the term of copyright for unpublished works by 10 years. >In other words, the bill will impose a 10 or 20 year moratorium >on works entering the public domain. The costs of tracking down >the owners of these works (often 100 or more years old) imposes >costs on libraries better spent on serving the public. ALA's >representatives in Washington have been negotiating a suitable >amendment to this bill with major copyright industries since >December of last year. The Register of Copyrights is mediating >those talks. Please do everything that you can to allow that >process, which I am told is going well, to bear fruit. Premature >action on this bill would be disastrous for libraries and >schools. > > Thank you very much for helping libraries make the most of >new technology and the Internet to bring the benefits of >information technology to all Americans, and especially those in >[INSERT THE NAME OF YOUR STATE, CITY OR COUNTY REPRESENTED BY THE >MEMBER TO WHOM YOU'RE WRITING]. ALA's Washington Office staff >would be pleased to provide you or your office with more >information. They can be reached at 202-628-8410. > > Sincerely, > >_________________________________________________________________ >ALAWON is a free, irregular publication of the American Library >Association Washington Office. To subscribe, send the message >"subscribe ala-wo [your_firstname] [your_lastname]" to <listproc >@ala.org>. ALAWON archives gopher.ala.org; select Washington >Office Newsline. Web page HTTP://www.ala.org/alawashington.html. > >ALA Washington Office 202.628.8410 (V) >1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, #403 202.628.8419 (F) >Washington, DC 20004-1701 Lynne E. Bradley, Editor ><alawash(a)alawash.org> <leb(a)alawash.org> >Contributor to this issue: Adam M. Eisgrau > <ame(a)alawash.org> > >All materials subject to copyright by the American Library >Association may be reprinted or redistributed for noncommercial >purposes with appropriate credits. --------------- >From Andy Oram: (Introduction from moderator: the message below does not explain how all the awful consequences it predicts could stem from some extensions to copyright law. I think the worrisome section of the bill is the one prohibiting "any device, product, or component incorporated into a device" that can circumvent copyright. Despite language about its "primary purpose," such language could be used against legitimate computer and communications equipment.--Andy) Sender: John Whiting <100707.731(a)CompuServe.COM> ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- From: Labor Committee on the Middle East, INTERNET:melblcome@igc.apc.org TO: Democracy Now and Then, INTERNET:DEMOCRACY-NOW@IGC.APC.ORG Forum KPFA, INTERNET:FREEKPFA@COCO.CA.ROP.EDU (unknown), INTERNET:PACNEWS@AOL.COM (unknown), INTERNET:PNN@IGC.APC.ORG DATE: 12/05/96 02:35 RE: Action Needed on Intellectual Property Bill URGENT MESSAGE: Below is an alert regarding the May 15 Mark-up of HR 2441. Please post this text on your Web Sites and forward it to all interested parties. Specific efforts should be made to have people in the districts of members of the IP Subcommittee contact their representatives. A link to the DFC Web Site can be made by linking your Web Site to http://www.ari.net/dfc -- a thumbnail graphic for the link can be found at http://www.ari.net/tlogo.gif Suggested text for letters to Representatives will follow shortly. ************************************************************** YOUR IMMEDIATE FAXES AND CALLS TO CONGRESS NEEDED TO SLOW IMMINENT ACTION ON BADLY FLAWED CYBERSPACE COPYRIGHT BILL Congressional contacts urgently needed NO LATER THAN Tuesday, May 14.................. Next Wednesday, May 15, the House Judiciary Committee's Intellectual Property Subcommittee is scheduled to consider amendments to, and vote on approval of HR 2441, the "National Information Infrastructure Act of 1995." Such approval, if given, would give an important boost to passage of a legislative package heavily backed by -- and tilted in favor of -- the movie, recording, and publishing industries (and other large "content providers"). If passed in its current form, the bill would: *** make it a copyright violation to simply browse the Net without a license from copyright owners; *** subject computer system operators -- such as on-line services and networks at schools and libraries -- to potentially crippling liability for the copyright violations of their users, even if the operator; *** cripple "distance education" efforts especially vital to rural communities and the disabled; and *** make it illegal to manufacture, import or distribute devices and software (including computers and VCRs) needed by industry, schools and libraries to make "fair use" of encrypted information by overruling long-standing Supreme Court precedent. WRITE AND CALL MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY INTELLECTUAL SUBCOMMITTEE AND KEY FULL COMMITTEE MEMBERS NOW (list and information below)!!! Tell them that: ** These issues, and the healthy development of the Net are of critical concern to you, AND ** The May 15 meeting of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee is **too soon**. Congress should take the time needed to understand and adequately deal with **all ** of the complicated issues raised by HR 2441 before it takes action. For more information about the bill, the dangers it poses and the constructive solutions offered, please see the DIGITAL FUTURE COALITION Website at http://www.ari.net/dfc. Please get your faxes and calls to the following members of Congress, especially those Members who represent you, NO LATER THAN Tuesday, May 14: [DATE] The Honorable {name} United States House of Representative __#__ ____ Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Representative__________: I am writing today to ask that you do everything in your power to assure that no action is taken by the House Subcommittee on Intellectual Property on the "NII Copyright Protection Act of 1995" (HR 2441) until a broad consensus can be reached on how to resolve a number of issues of critical mportance to me and, in my view, the future of the Internet. As I understand it, this bill in its current form, would seriously undermine the ability of businesses, inventors, schools and librraies to make full use of the Internet's great potential. Specifically, H.R. 2441 would : * make it a copyright violation to simply browse the Net without a license from copyright owners; * subject computer system operators -- such as on-line services and networks at schools and libraries -- to potentially crippling liability for the copyright violations of their users, even if the operator has no knowledge of such violations; * thwart "distance education" efforts especially vital to rural communities and the disabled; and * make it illegal to manufacture, import or distribute devices and software (including computers and VCRs) needed by industry, schools and libraries to make "fair use" of encrypted information by overruling long- standing Supreme Court precedent. Please don't allow the fears of major copyright owning industries to cripple the Internet for the rest of America. I urge you and other members of the House Judiciary Committee to take the time necessary to understand and thoroughly debate all of the proposed amendments to H.R. 2441, including those proposed by the Digital Future Coalition. Thank you very much for helping make the most of new technology and the Internet to bring the benefits of information technology to all Americans, and especially those in [INSERT THE NAME OF THE DISTRICT/CITY]. Sincerely, ALERT (fwd) END ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ Posted by Andrew Oram - andyo(a)ora.com - Moderator: CYBER-RIGHTS (CPSR) Cyber-Rights: http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/ ftp://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/Library/ CyberJournal: (WWW or FTP) --> ftp://ftp.iol.ie/users/rkmoore Materials may be reposted in their _entirety_ for non-commercial use. ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ -- Audrie Krause CPSR Executive Director PO Box 717 * Palo Alto, CA * 94302 Phone: (415) 322-3778 * Fax: (415) 322-4748 * * E-mail: akrause(a)cpsr.org * * * Web Page: http://www.cpsr.org/home.html *

1 0

Re: Fingerprinting annoyance
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"tcmay(a)got.net" 14-MAY-1996 04:46:37.08 >Trying to convince a company that photo ID badges and fingerprints are Bad >Things is perhaps admirable, just realize that in a free society that >employer is under no obligation to hire someone who refuses to go along >with the company's security policies. (This relates to the "civil rights" >thread.) While in general I agree, he never said it was a company. If it was a government, for instance, I can see it as being ethical; the same for a government-caused requirement (like the drug war nonsense) or a government-supported company (like Airbus in Europe, or others supported by tarrifs.) Since he didn't say, I forbode to answer (mine would have been about like uni's one of superglue, although I haven't heard the needle idea before. -Allen

1 0

Accidental subscriber needs help off of list.
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm just another subscriber to the list; I can't see any indication that you've sent your message to the list itself. I will forward this response to the list; somebody should see it and be able to help. At 11:08 PM 5/12/96 EDT, Jeff D. Mendelson wrote: >Dear Sir, > >My name is Jeff and I was accidently placed on your Cyberpunk mailing list. I >am currently being bombarded with e-mail from your list with information that I >am not interested in. Compuserve has not been able to help me get my name off >of this list. And since I am new at Internet e-mail, I am at a loss of what to >do. > >Can you please send me exact instructions on removing my name from this mailing >list? Thank you very much for your time. You don`t know how much I would >appreciate it. > >Sincerely, > >Jeff M. >74407.350(a)compuserve.com > > > Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

3 2

[NOISE] Re: Notes from the SF Physical Cypherpunks meeting
by Peter Trei 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: minow(a)apple.com (Martin Minow) > Subject: Re: Notes from the SF Physical Cypherpunks meeting [...] > The Swedish government has a rather strong tradition of protection > of individual privacy (encrypting COM e-mail is one example). [...] > Martin Minow > minow(a)apple.com Huh? 'a rather strong tradition of protection of individual privacy'? In Sweden, for many years you could (and for all I know, still) go to a public records office and look up all kinds of personal data on anyone, without restriction - you could, for example, find out your co-workers exact salaries if you were curious. My understanding is that Sweden's postion vis-a-vis the Internet has been particularly clueless, with international email technically a crime, and government officials who regard modems as criminal tools. I hope things have improved. Peter Trei (former resident alien in Sweden) ptrei(a)acm.org

2 1

Civil liberties of employees (Re: FYB_oss)
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:03 PM 5/12/96, John Young wrote: > 5-12-96. NYPaper: > > "Who's Reading Your E-Mail? Maybe the Boss. More Companies > Say Messages Are Their Property." > > Reports on various spying policies and employee rights. > Quotes PRZ demurring: "You don't check your constitutional > rights at the door." Notes Apple's snooping not. > Actually, one _does_ check one's Constitutional rights "at the door" (of an employer), and the confusion over this issue is pervasively destroying real Constitutional rights. For instance, if I hire someone, I can require him or her to wear a uniform, to not wear blue jeans to work, to not smoke (or even to smoke, if this is what the job involves), to take off his or her clothes, to tap dance, to not say anything to my customers, and on and on. If the government required these behaviors, this would be a legitimate issue, but not if employers set these conditions as terms of continued employment. If an employer says that all messages will be read by him, this is not a violation of anyone's "civil liberties." (And, on a practical note, companies are often held responsible for the messages emanating on company time from employees, so there are actual reasons why such monitoring may be necessary.) An employee who dislikes the terms of his employment is of course free, in our society, to leave. The Constitution is about what the government can and cannot require, not about what I as an employer can require. This point is frequently confusing to people who, in my opinion, haven't thought about it. Thus, a "Hooters girl" suddenly decides she doesn't like "displaying herself" to men and announces that her civil liberties are being violated by being told to wear skimpy outfits. (I haven't read Zimmermann's comments in full, to get the full context, but I doubt we'll agree on such things. His achievement with PGP was considerable, but I know from first-hand experience that his political views are very non-libertarian and are, in fact, counter to liberty.) --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- 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, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

7 6

Re: Fingerprinting annoyance
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 6:26 PM 5/13/96, Mark O. Aldrich wrote: >On Mon, 13 May 1996, Senator Exon wrote: > ><snip> >> i can fill out and manipulate the card myself i just need a >> working method. >> is there no privacy advocate who can help me? >> > >I think most privacy advocates would advise, "Refuse to submit." It >sounds like you're looking for more of a hack on the fingerprinting process. And if you are working for me, and I ask for a fingerprint, and you refuse or "smear" the results (repeatedly, as the first smearing I may just take as your token protest and have you printed again), you'll be out the door by the end of the day. (Personally, I've never worked for a company which demands fingerprints, but I've worked for companies which demanded ID badges and signatures, and these are effectively as intrusive. And I suspect that my former employers are now using thumbprints, and maybe full prints.) What one "doesn't like" and considers an "invasion of privacy" varies from person to person. Some people think having their picture taken is a stealing of their soul. Others fear nefarious things will be done with the DNA from their blood samples. Trying to convince a company that photo ID badges and fingerprints are Bad Things is perhaps admirable, just realize that in a free society that employer is under no obligation to hire someone who refuses to go along with the company's security policies. (This relates to the "civil rights" thread.) >of like a key certificate. If you really can dork the card, have ten >different people volunteer one print each. There's no way that they'll >ever be able to use that as evidence in a court or for any other purpose, >either. A stupid idea. As the employer, I wouldn't have to prove it a court of law...suspicion alone that some of my employees were fucking up a security system might be enough for me to either a. promote them to the Tiger Team, or b. fire their asses. (I just can't understand where this pervasive meme is coming from here on this list, the notion that employers are severely limited in what they can do to employees unless they can "prove it in court. Like it or not, most employees in the United States are still employed "at will," and are not covered by employment contracts such as some executives and the like get.) >If you're forced to do this in person with a tech, you can continuously >"fight" the grip they have on your hand and smudge the card. However, Sure. It makes it easy for the employer to simply say "Next candidate." --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- 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, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

3 2