December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Bob - FYI -- not sure if this was already posted ?
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 18:24:41 -0500 From: David Kaufman <davidk(a)air.com> Reply-To: davidk(a)air.com Organization: Allied International Resources MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rah(a)shipwright.com Subject: Bob - FYI -- not sure if this was already posted ? 12:51 PM ET 10/28/97 FBI chief calls for computer crime crackdown ORLANDO, Fla. (Reuters) - FBI director Louis Freeh said Tuesday that criminals were moving increasingly into cyberspace and without new laws ``drug dealers, arms dealers, terrorists and spies will have immunity like no other''. Freeh told the International Association of Chiefs of Police that software manufacturers should be required by law to include a feature that allows police to descramble encrypted communications. ``It could take a $30 million supercomputer a year to figure out the simplest encrypted message without this feature,'' Freeh said. ``And that message might be 'we have the victim and will kill him in an hour'.'' ``We're not opposed to encrypting. Encrypting is very important when transacting business but encrypting makes it very hard to enforce court orders for surveillance.'' Freeh said he supported a cyber surveillance law with these features which passed out of the House Intelligence Committee. That bill has the support of the FBI, Justice Department, Drug Enforcement Administration and other federal law enforcement agencies but does not have White House backing. ``Our own administration has not gotten behind this initiative. There are some very powerful industry forces opposing this,'' Freeh said. The ability of criminals to communicate with one another with computers is changing the face of law enforcement, Freeh said. ``All the boxes of evidence we used to bring back have been replaced by hard drives and discs. When we graduate our agents we give them in addition to a gun and a badge a laptop computer.'' ^REUTERS@ --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 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' The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/ Ask me about FC98 in Anguilla!: <http://www.fc98.ai/>

3 2

Use a Mac...Go to Jail / Re: Saving money
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Brian B. Riley wrote: > Brian B. Riley --> http://www.macconnect.com/~brianbr > For PGP Keys <mailto:brianbr@together.net?subject=Get%20PGP%20Key> > > "...Those of you who turned your swords into plowshares will soon > find yourselves under the yokes of those of us who kept our swords..." > -- author unknown I have always envisioned Mac users as sitting at their computers and drawing flowers while they bounce a cute baby on their knee. Lately, however, I have seen increasing militantism from a wide variety of Mac users, from the quote above to "MacNuke DC" ranters. Is this a 'Death of the '60's' thing, or a sign of 'Armageddon'?

1 0

Another CDR member?
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, I received a subscription today from cypherpunks(a)comsec.com. I believe there is another node on the CDR. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

(off-topic--delete now) Re: Search warrants and Senate hearing o
by Michael Sims 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> If you're going to respond to Tim's post, you should copy him or > cypherpunks... I've attached your whole message below... > > I will respond to one point, though: > > >The free market approach won't keep medical records private. > > We haven't tried that approach yet, at least in the late 20th > century. The wealth of federal regulation and involvement in health > care is breathtaking. Ever since after WWII when for tax reasons > businesses began bundling insurance and the rise of > medicare/medicaid, well, the "free market" in healthcare has become > much less robust. (Fortunately Clinton's socialistic health care > plan was derailed.) > > In other words, the reason a "free market" approach may not work > right now is because the market isn't free. Declan, every part of the "health-care market" that people are complaining about, the parts of it that routinely and for fiscal reasons violate people's privacy, are completely and utterly dollar-driven and do not result from big nasty government making any laws. That HMO shlepping your medical record around to a dozen adminstrators to decide whether or not to pay for your care? Those huge insecure insurance databases with information about what diseses you're genetically susceptible to? Those intrusive questions and psychological screening tests at job interviews? Those urinalysis tests which screen for the presence of illegal drugs, undisclosed prescription drugs and nicotine, with the intention of firing you if *any* of the above test positive? All are examples of a free market in health care information. Oh, there are a few examples of government-caused privacy violations of health-care information. I'm thinking of mandatory HIV/AIDS disclosure laws, Medicare information, and the fact that the government still hasn't figured out that putting all the health-care information they can get ahold of into a big database is a bad idea. These can certainly represent gross threats to individuals' privacy. (Haven't CDT and EPIC discussed this from time to time? Though not extensively on either of the lists this is sent to, where it's assuredly off-topic.) Yet, these aren't the abuses that people complain about /today/. You're confusing services and information. The US has the closest to a free-market in health-care information of any of the industrialized nations. And people suffer for it every day. You can say it's cool, it's Libertarianism in action, or you can think it stinks. But don't try to blame those abuses on the government. I found it astonishing that Tim May wrote: "All we need to ensure medical privacy is a return to the right of contract. I pay Dr. Jones for his services and for his agreement to not pass my medical file around to his buddies, or to sell it to advertisers, or to let "counter-terrorism" agents snoop around in his files. Sounds fair to me." Tim, you've got that right today, with a few minor exceptions like gunshot wounds. You have it! You can insist on only going to a doctor, or only belonging to an HMO, that won't share your information around town! The government has nothing to do with it! This "problem" you're talking about is solely a market failure resulting from a nearly-pure, barely-adulterated free-market --- completely confidential health services are hard to obtain because they cost more and there isn't a sufficient market! Those privacy violations occur because it helps companies make a profit, which outweighs your measly privacy concerns! Gawd, libertarians complaining about a market failure. I may cry. -- Michael Sims

1 0

Re: Another CDR member?
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate wrote: > > Hi, > > I received a subscription today from cypherpunks(a)comsec.com. > > I believe there is another node on the CDR. Do you think it is malignant?

1 0

Re: (off-topic--delete now) HMO Market (URL)
by Paul Spirito 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I think the subject is too complex & off-topic to discuss here, but http://www.slate.com/medicalexaminer/97-10-24/medicalexaminer.asp is an excellent exposition of the problems with HMOs, using a market-based analysis. Paul "The fear is of profit deflation emanating from Asia."

1 0

Re: rescue Mrs Allen from the Feds (Re: Tim's worst nightmare.,..)
by Secret Squirrel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Attila T. Hun <attila(a)hun.org> writes: >> Mrs. Allen, 51, has attracted the sympathy of many neighbors, and >> her case has become a rallying point for those who compare it to >> Ruby Ridge and Waco as an example of overzealous law enforcement. >> >> she needs more than sympathy, she needs some action! > >I'm wondering ... surely all those militia types are watching this >case -- wouldn't it be a real coo to intervene and rescue Mrs Allen >:-) > >Let's talk tactics ... how would you disable the Feds without killing >Mrs Allen -- helicopter and nerve gas -- well organised get away? Question: Are the Feds involved, or is it just the State of Illinois? If the Feds really are involved, what possible justification do they have? The best way to help Mrs. Allen is to find ways for her to communicate with the civilized world. Maybe use a model airplane deliver a CB? Or a spread spectrum radio? Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNFaN+5aWtjSmRH/5AQGvDwf8CswVCjME+ISU3Mw/8BqChhkpZnNs7hor 0hHJZ/TgtkCcEKJCL8tTD+SgMhFTXRHVPVQRBUQ2flk/bYUsDQF/UJ/D0RhK/0yX 6M0ErILUmVIo9Qn1PJzRebMYdobzIo+Td0gqB5ET4kswGZphd+Oa9KBq20FHhXxr /uXz2ED0BaVCGLK+Fg3rmxiMg5OFWMzhjESTBkM0X9jhjFIQqqA+yniLkfDRoau6 yNonHOklxf/+VoxhD9mz8KtWc7r0AaHi05bjBJCzUpp4t14NuO1Bk9zUbhgkNIps cjAd3MVPAdpTVpw0okw2Z4SR4xV/E++Hap9e0Sf9mNB7oKiRB4v75g== =bbsb -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

9 12

PGP and Outlook
by wabe 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

So without the obligatory flames for using a microshaft product, can anyone tell me if they have PGP 5.0 working for the newest version of Outlook? (And how?) _______________________________________ -wabe

2 1

Clinton's Bigger Gun Ban
by bureau42 Anonymous Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This is the intro from: http://www.nra.org/pub/ila/1997/97-10-24_faxalert_bigger_gun_ban THE BIGGER CLINTON GUN BAN As reported in Wednesday's Special FAX Alert, the Clinton- Gore Administration is planning to issue a directive to ban certain types of foreign-made firearms from coming into this country. We believe the White House will move to stop all commerce in certain semi-automatic firearms that conform in every way to the legal requirements set forth in both the Clinton Gun Ban of 1994 and the 1989 import ban. Sources also suggest that the directive will order the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms to convene a study group to further narrow the scope of firearms that qualify for importation under the "sporting purposes" test. Given past action, a ban on all imported handguns is not unlikely. In response to this directive, Congressman Bob Barr (R-Ga.) held a press conference on Capitol Hill today with NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, NRA-ILA Executive Director Tanya K. Metaksa, and other pro-Second Amendment congressmen, including, Jim Barcia (D-Mich.), Pete Sessions (R-Tex.), Virgil Goode (D-Va.), and Wes Watkins (R-Okla.) "The Clinton Administration is introducing the Bigger Clinton Gun Ban of 1998 - still another prohibition that bans more guns and shows more hypocrisy than ever before," emphasized Mrs. Metaksa. She added, "From the White House to Handgun Control, Inc., every gun ban advocate in America is busy confirming everything NRA has ever said about the 1994 gun ban." Basically, that it's an ineffective cosmetic ban and that Clinton's efforts to ban guns in 1994 was only a precursor to bigger, more restrictive bans. All NRA members are encouraged to contact your U.S. Representative at (202)224-3121, to urge him to oppose the President's attempt to ban more semi-automatic firearms -- semi-autos that his 1994 ban previously ok'd! In the meantime, NRA-ILA will continue to update our members as we learn more about Clinton's latest attack on America's law-abiding gun owners.

2 1

Re: PGP and Outlook
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

wannabe smart wrote: > > So without the obligatory flames for using a microshaft product, > can anyone tell me if they have PGP 5.0 working for the > newest version of Outlook? (And how?) We could tell you, but then we'd have to killfile you...

1 0