December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

SASMF, Part 1
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Space Aliens Stole My Freedom, Part 1 Know Your Gutless SheepleCustomer(TM) Let's just take a peek at how the new FDIC proposed reg would look if transposed into an FCC setting: ----- "Know Your Customer" Requirements AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The FCC is proposing to issue regulations requiring FCC-supervised communications carriers to develop and maintain "Know Your Customer" programs. As proposed, the regulations would require each carrier to develop a program designed to determine the identity of its customers; determine its customers' sources of communicated information; determine the normal and expected calls of its customers; monitor account activity for calls that are inconsistent with those normal and expected callss; and report any calls of its customers that are determined to be suspicious, in accordance with the FCC's existing suspicious activity reporting regulations. By requiring communication carriers to determine the identity of their customers, as well as to obtain knowledge regarding the legitimate activities of their customers, the proposed regulations will reduce the likelihood that communications carriers will become unwitting participants in illicit activities conducted or attempted by their customers. It also will level the playing field between carriers that already have adopted formal Know Your Customer programs and those that have not. --- Minimum steps to take to comply with the Know Your Customer rule. Identify the customer. If a communication carrier offers private leased communication services, it is important that the carrier understand a customer's personal and business background, source of information to be communicated, and intended use of the private leased communication services. --- The extent of the information regarding the customer that may be necessary to fulfill the carrier's Know Your Customer obligations should depend on a risk-based assessment of the customer and the calls that are expected to occur, and should be addressed within the communication carrier's Know Your Customer program. --- Determine the source of information. Paragraph (d)(2)(ii) requires that the Know Your Customer program provide a system for determining the source of a customer's information. The amount of information needed to do this can depend on the type of customer in question. Determine normal and expected calls. Paragraph (d)(2)(iii) requires that the Know Your Customer program provide a system for determining a customer's normal and expected calls involving the communication carrier. A carrier's understanding of a customer's normal and expected calls should be based on information obtained both when an account is opened and during a reasonable period of time thereafter. It also should be based on normal calls for similarly situated customers. Without this information, an institution is unable to identify suspicious calls. Monitor the calls. Paragraph (d)(2)(iv) requires that the Know Your Customer program provide a system for monitoring, on an ongoing basis, the calls conducted by customers to identify calls 'that are inconsistent with the normal and expected calls for particular customers or for customers in the same or similar categories or classes.' The proposed regulation does not require that every call of every customer be reviewed. Rather, it requires that a financial institution develop a monitoring system that is commensurate with the risks presented by the accounts maintained at that institution. Determine if call should be reported. Once a call is identified as inconsistent with normal and expected calls, paragraph (d)(2)(v) requires that a communication carrier determine if the call warrants the filing of a Suspicious Activity Report. This is consistent with an carrier's existing obligations under 12 CFR 353.3(a). --- A. Reasons for and objectives of the proposed rule. The proposed Know Your Customer rule is designed to deter and detect communication crimes, such as obscene phone calls, getting tax advice, and discussing the Constitution. B. Requirements of the proposed rule. The proposed rule would require communication carrier to identify their customers, determine their customers' normal and expected calls, determine their customers' sources of information communicated in calls, monitor calls to find those that are not normal and expected, and, for calls that are not normal and expected, identify which are suspicious. Know Your Customer monitoring would be similar to monitoring that communication carriers already do. For example, communication carriers monitor customer calls to ensure that calling volumes exceeding 10,000 per month are reported under the Communications Secrecy Act, to ensure that customers do not overuse their telephones, and to ensure that required calls are accurate and timely. ----- Editor's Note: Putting this in an FCC context makes it pretty clearly bizarre and unconstitutional, doesn't it? Where do these fuckers get off pulling this Nazi shit? Just to carry it all the way into Wonderland, we've drawn up this questionnaire, also in the telephone context: Sample Questionnaire 1. Is this a __residential or __business account? 2. Approximately how many calls do you expect per month? a. Incoming ____ b. Outgoing ____ 3. List the subject matter of expected calls (use extra sheets if necessary: ____ 4. List the telephone numbers from which you expect to receive calls (use extra sheets, etc.) ____ 5. List the telephone numbers to which you expect to place calls (use extra, etc.):____ 6. List the names of people with whom you expect to speak: 7. List the Social Security numbers of people with whom you expect to speak: ____ 8. List the political organizations to which you belong: 9. List the political organizations to which people with whom you expect to speak belong: ____ 10. Are any of the organizations in (8) or (9) on the Attorney General's list? Yes__ No__ 11. If the answer to (10) was Yes, do you have a current and valid waiver for that (those) organization(s)? Yes__ No__ 12. If the answer to (11) was No, proceed directly to federal prison. Do not pass urine; do not collect $200 from any ATM. 13. Do you regularly call your mother? Yes__ No__ 14. If the answer to (13) was Yes, list the topics you commonly talk about with your mother (use extra, etc.) 15. What are your sources of information for your telephone conversations?____ 16. List all facts known to you, about which you expect to speak in your telephone calls:____ 17. List all times at which you expect to receive or place calls:____ 18. Attach transcripts of all conversations you expect to have. In lieu of transcripts, recordings may be attached. 19. Staple this form to your head, jam a toilet plunger handle up your ass, waddle to the nearest telephone, dial "1" and say, "I'm ready. Pick me up." Wait at your front door. ----- FuckingFedUpMonger

1 0

MERRY CHRISTMAS! guys!
by Bernardo B. Terrado 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

sorry if you're angry with this ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "If a student is particular about his studies, especially while he is too young to know which are useful and which are not, we shall say he is no lover of learning or of wisdom; just as, if he were dainty about his food, we should say he was not hungry or fond of eating, but had a poor appetite. " ---- PLATO By the way, it's Bernie not Bernardo. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

1 0

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anonymous wrote: >Check out this bit of american slavery: > >"Failing to register or otherwise comply with the >Military Selective Service Act is, upon conviction, >punishable by a fine of up to $250,000, impris- >onment for up to five years, or both. A person >who knowingly counsels, aids or abets another to >fail to comply with the Act is subject to the same >penalties." Even more interesting is the fact that Congress was going to do away with the Selective Service a few years ago but President Clinton (accused of draft dodging during the Vietnam War) opposed getting rid of it.

1 0

Fwd: Code Red privacy workshops
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Date: Sat, 28 Nov 98 23:19:16 0 >From: simon davies <simon(a)privint.demon.co.uk> >Subject: Code Red privacy workshops > > > > >PLEASE DISTRIBUTE > >PRIVACY INTERNATIONAL ANNOUNCES >THE "CODE RED" PRIVACY WORKSHOPS > > >Friends and colleagues, > >In 1999, Privacy International - the international privacy >campaign organisation - will host a series of privacy workshops to >be held in Brighton throughout the year on the second weekend of >each month. > >The workshops will have four purposes : > >1. To brainstorm current privacy (and privacy related) issues; > >2. To plan future events and campaigns; > >3. To provide occasional training sessions in technical issues, media >skills, campaigning etc, and, > >4. To give us all an opportunity to network and to have huge >amounts of evening/night fun in sunny Brighton. > >We called the workshops "Code Red" because.....well.....because it >sounds cool. No other reason. > >We chose Brighton as the venue for the workshops because of the >mass of PI members and supporters there who can offer a billet (i.e. >free accommodation if you can stand sleeping with the cat/ dog/ >mainframe humm/ sound system/ travelling hippies etc etc.). > >The workshops are open to campaigners, IT experts, academics, journalists and >anyone involved in the pursuit of privacy protection. >Chatham House rules will apply to the workshops. > >The 1999 dates will be : > > January 9 & 10 > February 13 & 14 > March 13 & 14 > April 10 & 11 > May 8 & 9 > June 12 & 13 > July 10 & 11 > August 7 & 8 > September 11 & 12 > October 9 & 10 > November 13 & 14 > December 11 & 12 > > >The Standing Agenda will be : > >Saturday 13.00 - 14.00 Amateur buffet lunch and guest speaker > > 14.00 - 18.00 : Briefing and discussion of curent issues > > 18.00 - : pubbing, dining and clubbing in Brighton > >Sunday 11.00 - 15.00 : Follow-up from Saturday, campaign strategy, >ad-hoc training sessions, comprehensive briefing sessions, and forward >planning (can be extend if required). > >Within this agenda, the subject matter is flexible, and the sessions >are likely to cover a range of themes including internet privacy, >censorship, data protection law, workplace surveillance, >communications interception, police powers, national security and >visual surveillance. > >Anyone wanting to participate should call Simon Davies on 0958 466 >552. There will be no cost, though a contribution of a few quid for >food would be gratefully received if you can afford it. > >BLOCK OUT THE DATES IN YOUR YOUR DIARY NOW !! > >We're looking forward to seeing you. > >Best wishes > >Simon Davies >Director, >Privacy International > >email simon(a)privacy.org > >www.privacy.org/pi/ >

1 0

Fwd: FC: Emergency Powers and National Emergencies
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>X-Sender: declan(a)mail.well.com >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.2 >Date: Wed, 02 Dec 1998 23:56:10 -0500 >To: politech(a)vorlon.mit.edu >From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> >Subject: FC: Emergency Powers and National Emergencies >Sender: owner-politech(a)vorlon.mit.edu >Reply-To: declan(a)well.com >X-Loop: politech(a)vorlon.mit.edu >X-URL: Politech is at http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/ > >"The President has the power to seize property, organize and control the >means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, call >reserve forces amounting to 2 1/2 million men to duty, institute martial >law, seize and control all menas of transportation, regulate all private >enterprise, restrict travel, and in a plethora of particular ways, control >the lives of all Americans... > >"Most [of these laws] remain a a potential source of virtually unlimited >power for a President should he choose to activate them. It is possible >that some future President could exercise this vast authority in an attempt >to place the United States under authoritarian rule. > >"While the danger of a dictatorship arising through legal means may seem >remote to us today, recent history records Hitler seizing control through >the use of the emergency powers provisions contained in the laws of the >Weimar Republic." > > --Joint Statement, Sens. Frank Church (D-ID) and Charles McMathias (R-MD) > September 30, 1973 > > >I came across this and the Senate special committee's 1973 report on >Emergency Powers Statutes in Time Magazine's library. Powerful stuff. > >-Declan > > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology >To subscribe: send a message to majordomo(a)vorlon.mit.edu with this text: >subscribe politech >More information is at http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/ >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >

1 0

Fun at US Customs
by Eric Cordian 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Apparently, US Customs doesn't even need a warrant to detain you for days without the opportunity to talk to an attorney, x-ray you, pump your stomach, give you laxatives, chain you to a hospital bed, or insert their arms up to the elbow in one of your body openings. Are laws of other Western nations similar? While I can understand strip-searching travelers on occasion, the rest of this stuff seems a tad much, especially in the absense of anything resembling due process. Declan didn't write this, so I will post the whole thing. :) ----- WASHINGTON (AP) -- Returning to Chicago from Jamaica, Gwendolyn Richards was plucked from a line of air travelers by a Customs Service inspector and ordered into a bare, windowless room. Over the next five hours, she was strip-searched, handcuffed, X-rayed, and probed internally by a doctor. The armed Customs officers who led Richards in handcuffs through O'Hare International Airport and drove her to a hospital for examination suspected she might be smuggling drugs. They found nothing. ``I was humiliated -- I couldn't believe it was happening,'' said Richards, who is black and has joined a civil rights lawsuit against Customs. ``They had no reason to think I had drugs.'' Richards, 27, isn't alone. Officers last year ordered partial or full strip searches or X-rays for 2,447 airline passengers, and found drugs on 27 percent of them, according to figures compiled by the Customs Service. Customs officials say tough tactics are necessary to catch the growing number of smugglers who swallow cocaine-filled balloons, insert packages of heroin into their body cavities, even hide drugs in a hollow leg or under cover of a fake pregnancy. ``We still have a major drug problem in this country,'' Customs Commissioner Raymond Kelly said in an interview Wednesday. ``We have to do this.'' Richards and others who have sued Customs have alleged they were targeted because of their race. Sixty percent of those pulled aside last year for body searches or X-rays were black or Hispanic, Customs figures show. Thirty-three percent of Hispanics who were searched were found to have drugs compared with 31 percent of blacks and 26 percent of whites. Kelly said race isn't a factor. ``There are higher risk countries and higher risk flights,'' he said. ``Those flights may be more populated by a particular ethnic group.'' Last year, the Customs Service seized 858 pounds of cocaine and 803 pounds of heroin attached to or inside international air travelers' bodies, officials said. More than 70 percent of the heroin seized at airports was smuggled that way. Acknowledging that searches ``can get pretty traumatic,'' Kelly said Customs is reviewing its policies and experimenting with new technology that might reduce the number of body searches. The review comes after several lawsuits and complaints from travelers who say they suffered abusive treatment and hours of confinement. For instance: --A Florida mother says her baby was born prematurely because Customs officials forced her to take a prescription laxative when she was seven months pregnant. In a lawsuit filed last month, Janneral Denson, 25, said she was taken from the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport and shackled to a hospital bed for two days so inspectors could watch her bowel movements. She says her son, born 12 days later, suffered damage. --Two Jamaican-born U.S. citizens each filed a $500,000 claim in September over body cavity searches and X-rays in Tampa, Fla. One of the women learned afterwards she was pregnant and agonized that her fetus might have been harmed, according to their attorney, Warren Hope Dawson. The baby was born healthy. Customs policy requires a pregnancy test before a woman is X-rayed, but Dawson said the pregnant woman was not tested. --A 51-year-old widow returning from an around-the-world trip was held for 22 hours at a San Francisco hospital, x-rayed and given the same powerful laxative. Amanda Buritica of Port Chester, N.Y., won a $451,001 lawsuit last February. A Boston nurse, Bosede Adedeji, won $215,000 in a similar lawsuit in 1991. Customs officials note that fewer than 2 percent of the 68 million fliers who pass through Customs each year have their luggage opened. Far fewer -- about 49,000 people -- are personally searched, usually with a pat down. The 1,772 strip searches last year ranged from people told to remove their socks to passengers like Richards who were ordered to take off their underwear and bend over. Strip searches are performed by officers of the same gender. The Customs review found 19 passengers who were subjected to pelvic or rectal exams by doctors while inspectors watched. Drugs were found in 12 of those cases. Congress and courts have given Customs broad authority to search for drugs, weapons and other illegal imports. The Supreme Court ruled that Customs officers at airports and border crossings don't need the probable cause or warrants that police need to search possessions. Customs officers can perform a strip search based on ``reasonable suspicion'' that someone might be hiding something illegal. A Customs handbook obtained by The Associated Press advises officers that reasonable suspicion usually requires a combination of factors, including someone who: appears nervous, wears baggy clothing, gives vague or contradictory answers about travel plans, acts unusually polite or argumentative, wears sunglasses or acts sick. Race isn't cited. Customs officers can detain people for hours, even days, without allowing them a telephone call to a lawyer or relative or charging them with a crime. Inspectors say they keep detainees from making calls so that drug associates aren't tipped off. Generally, if someone is detained for eight hours or more, a federal prosecutor is notified. Richards is among more than 80 black females who filed a class-action lawsuit claiming they were singled out for strip searches at O'Hare because of race and gender. The plaintiffs include a 15-year-old girl, a mentally retarded woman, and a woman who uses a wheelchair. Many decided to sue after seeing news reports on Chicago's WMAQ-TV about strip searches of black women. The agency has hired an outside contractor to review how inspectors deal with the public, and is exploring ways to make the system less hostile. In a test at Miami and New York airports, some passengers selected for strip searches are given the option of having an X-ray instead. The service is also studying new imaging technology that shows things hidden under people's clothes. Customs officers seek passengers' written consent for an X-ray, but it isn't required. Some travelers say they felt coerced. Las Vegas police officer Rich Cashton said a Customs inspector who stopped him at Los Angeles International Airport last year grew angry when Cashton asked what would happen if he refused an X-ray. ``He said, 'If you don't sign this form, I'm going to take you down to the hospital and pump your stomach,'' Cashton recalled. ``He was using that threat as intimidation to make me sign a consent form, which is definitely illegal.'' Cashton, who identified himself as a police officer, was let go. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

1 0

Re: I Got Mine
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello, I'm Special Agent Murfrock of the IRS and this is Special Agent Prenfrew. We'd like to speak with you about C. J. Parker, maybe known to you as "Toto" or "TruthMonger..." Sorry, I don't recognize any of those. Isn't Toto the dog? The dog? Yes, Dorothy's dog in... (stops when he notices that the agents are scribbling furiously in their notebooks) May we come in? No, I was just about to go to sleep. I'm not well. Sorry to hear that. We have an e-mail here that you sent to Toto, and another he sent back to you... May I see those? (takes the printouts) Sorry, doesn't ring a bell. Well, if you look at those headers, the ones circled in red, you will see that... You must be kidding! There are more people forging e-mail headers than live in St. Louis! Everybody knows that. Would you mind if we just come in for a moment? Yes, I would. I told you, I am going to sleep. Would you mind if we look at your computer? Why would you want to do that? Well if you didn't send or receive these messages, you have nothing to worry about. I don't see any reason to do that. We can get a warrant, very quickly, as a matter of fact. If you cooperate, things will go better for you. I love to cooperate. I want to cooperate. I am cooperating to the fullest extent I believe is required of me. Ask me something that makes sense and I'll answer it. Have you ever heard of a group called the Cypherpunks? It rings a bell. Are you a member? No. How do you explain the fact that we found your e-mail address on a Cypherpunks membership list in a computer we seized? I have no idea. I don't join organizations. Are you a member of the Majordomo organization? No. The only majordomo I've ever heard of is a mail list manager. Where have you seen this Majordomo? Oh, everywhere. I think it's worldwide in scope. (scribble scribble) It's some kind of utility program. Everybody uses it. (scribbling stops) What can you tell us about it? Nothing, really. If you want to get on a mail list you send a "subscribe" message to a majordomo. If you want to get off, I think you send an "unscrive" message. Have you ever done that? Maybe. I don't recall. Anyone can submit your e-mail address to lists, so you don't even have to subscribe to be on an e-mail list. And there's so much spam these days that I don't recognize half the stuff I get. Spam? (the agents look at each other) Junk e-mail. I delete most of my e-mail without even reading it. Sometimes my email program crashes and it all gets deleted before I can look at it. (scribble scribble) How many lists have you joined? I don't remember. I never paid any attention to those things, and since I banged my head three months ago, I haven't been remembering a lot of things. (scribble scribble) So, are you denying being a member of the Cypherpunks? I don't know what that means. Have you ever subscribed to the Cypherpunks e-mail list? I have no idea. You have no idea? You don't remember? I don't know what I've subscribed to, unsubscribed from, what I get, don't get. E-mail is a complete mess and I ignore most of it. I'm really not very good at those things. May we look? No. Are you going to make us get a warrant? Get what you like. My disk crashed last week and I threw it away. Lost everything. In fact I just formatted my new disk and the only data on it is manuscripts for the columns I write. Columns? I write for a magazine and a couple of newspapers. (oh shit) (scribble scribble) Oh yeah? Which ones? I don't think that's appropriate. Well, we'll be back. Here's my card in case you think of anything you'd like to tell us. Sure. One more thing. Have you ever been invited to join something called The Circle of Eunuchs, e-u-n-u-c-h-s? I don't recall ever hearing of anything like that. Do you know who Tim May is? Nope. Sounds like a real common name, though. How about Blanc? Is that French? Never mind. Thanks. We'll be seeing you. (I don't _think_ so) ----- AmnesiaMonger

1 0

Re: I Got Mine
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On marte, 01.12.1998, "Blanc" <blancw(a)cnw.com> wrote: > I received my visit from the friendly IRS guys tonight, asking > about CJ/Toto. Pre-schoolers'R'Us. You got a visit from the advance guys. > It seems that they had a copy of two emails...one of them the one > in which I chastized him for sending a threatening letter to Billg. Admissions, admissions. Would some duly licensed bar attorney on this list PUH-LEEZE tell these children how to behave in the presence of criminal inquisitors? > They wanted to know about my associations with Toto (I still think > of him by that name), of course, of which I had none except through > email. So _you_ say! They open doors; you walk through them; you can easily find yourself in Wonderland. Don't come crying to _me_! > In our conversation, There is no such thing as a "conversation" with them; there is only an "interrogation." Everything you say is interpreted as an admission, a denial, or an evasion. You are a perp. You are dogshit. > I discovered things that I didn't know about Toto's situation: You mean you heard more _allegations_? If you're not careful, your neighbours will be the next ones to be "discovering things we didn't know" about _you_. That's the way they turn people against targets, and anyone they interview can become another target in the blink of an eye. > that he had sent threatening letters to the Mounties, Alleged, and only to _you_ as far as you know... > and that he had threated to kill the judge trying Jim's case. Alleged, and only to _you_ as far as you know... > I'm afraid CJ really went over the edge here and backed himself up > in a corner. GodDAMN! I'm glad you're not a friend of mine! I don't know if I even want to _know_ whether you're wearing panties or not anymore. > I should have chastized him more severely and counseled him against > rash acts of unkindness (not that I hold myself responsible for what > he did, but he did pay attention to me). Geez! I wonder what you must gush up about your _enemies_! > Kind of amusingly, one of them asked if CJ had ever asked me to join > the Circle of Eunuchs! heh. Yeah, that's funny. It should also have set off all your alarm bells that you're dealing with clueless fuckwits who can't find their fly without a map and whose only interest in life is putting anybody they can in prison, on any excuse whatsoever. If they can weave together a Circle of Eunuchs or a Cult of the Kernel or a conspiracy of Fanatic Followers of the Seashell, they'll be content to do it. You could tell them that the leader of the militant arm of the Circle is the infamous but cryptic "General Error" and they'd write it down with a straight face. To you, it's a joke. To them, it's a statement with possible evidentiary value. And nothing's funny. > I explained that it was Toto's Art imitating Life, creating stories You don't explain _anything_ to them. You can only give them leads and evidence. Of course, if you *insist* on having such a fucking good memory and on gushing on about all sorts of things, well, don't be surprised if they conclude that you _do_ know a lot about this Toto stuff, after all, and maybe merit another, more probing interview. > We had a bit of discussion on a number of things, I'll _bet_ you did! Sounds like you made a nearly _perfect_ subject for interrogation. > including the subject of free speech and how close one can get to it > before being subject to arrest. Ooooooo! That sounds _delicious_! You can entertain attorneys with that one. You will be thrilled at the wondrous range of awful expressions they make. Some may even quietly throw up in a corner. > I asked them what that crucial point was when this would happen, > since there is no crime until action is actually taken. Shows how much _you_ know. And now you get your legal advice from the IRS CID? That's really bright. > They said this would be when... > I referenced as an example the web site... Nice of them. Did they indemnify should you rely on their advice and get busted or sued? Didn't think so. > One of the investigators also brought up the issue of... > I remarked that one must always be prepared for the unexpected... > they made some points about taking threats seriously... "Hyperseriously" is more like it. You're a regular motormouth, aren't you? Now they have you knowing a lot more about Toto-ish things than just the email showed, they have you red-flagged as "attempting to draw the agent into arguments about law or the Constitution," they have you flagged as being way too bright for an innocent person, and demonstrating an interest in discussing the technicalities of the law on threats to public officials, which interest, just coincidentally, happens to dovetail quite nicely with the essential subject matter of their investigation. I'd give pretty good odds you're going to get another visit. If you don't have a lawyer present on the next one, I'd say you're, uh, sorry, there's just no other word: _stupid_. > I asked if cypherpunks would actually be subpoenaed to appear at > CJ's trial. They said it depends on CJ: if he accepts a deal, he > would likely get a reduced sentence, but if he takes them to trial > then there could be quite a number of Cpunks called forth. Ooooooo! Lovely! FUD! Big time FUD! Divide and conquer FUD! CJ becomes the bad guy for not cutting a deal and instead inconveniencing all those busy Cpunks, all of them probably suddenly writing code instead of flaming each other in endless and pointless threads of non-crypto! > I suggested if that happens we could all go out to dinner > : ) and they thought this would be quite interesting. Of _course_ it would! More "conversation," leads, admissions, denials and evasions! More grist for the mill! More perps! Get them to pick up the tab -- they'll be able to put it on their expense reports! It's called an informal group interrogation. Geez, how can bright people be so fucking STUPID? > One of the investigators expressed a great interest in the cpunk > dicussions and concepts; Doh! It's his _job_ to be interested in a subject matter touching on an active investigation. > I described...I'm sure given a little time and several dinners we > could convert him to the Dark Side. <g> Geez! Don't you realize that they _are_ the Dark Side! Have you been living under a rock for the last few decades? "You know, Gunther, those Gestapo men who visited last night to ask about the Goldblums next door were very polite. One of them expressed great interest in concepts and discussions of Judaism, and Jewish family trees. I described something of what the religion is about and referred him to some libraries and gave him some titles to read. I'm sure, given a little time and several dinners, we could convert him to our side." Right. Maybe you understand now why I'm not on the Cpunks list? RabidFreedomMonger

1 0

Re: I Got Mine
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have this really, really bad memory problem. It gets worse under stress. I also have this metaphysical dilemma thing. I know the guy next door. I guess. Actually I don't know him. I've called him Joe, but it wouldn't be right for me to say to anyone official that his name is Joe, because I've never checked his ID, so I don't really know, and even if I had checked his ID, I still wouldn't _know_, would I? He's always been a nice fellow, and I wouldn't want to cause him undeserved harm by leaping to conclusions about him. Does he have a wife? I don't know. I may have seen a woman around his place, but I couldn't leap to the conclusion that she is his wife. I might assume so out of courtesy to them, but I wouldn't presume to tell someone official that he is Joe or that he has a wife, because I really don't know. Most of what I _think_ I know, and which serves quite well for inviting each other to our barbeques and for borrowing small tools, is stuff I don't actually _know_ and don't care about one way or another. And that affects my memory when people ask questions about him. Did I see those two young men snatch a purse from that lady over there? Yes. Can I describe them? Yes. Did I notice what they were wearing and in which direction they ran? Yes. Do I know anything about Joe? Nope. Does he have a wife? I have no idea. What does he do for a living? Gosh, I have no idea. The law requires you to give up information you have when asked by a law enforcement officer investigating a crime. The law does not and cannot require you to notice things or to have a good memory. If your memory gets worse as the things being investigated stray farther and farther from common law crimes and into the realm of "bureaucrime" and thought crime, well, that's just too fucking bad. I'd make a really bad juror, too. It's not a memory thing there, it's more of a comprehension thing. I just have trouble seeing guilt if the law itself is bogus. Not guilty. What? Are you crazy? They had him dead to rights laundering money! Sorry, I just can't believe the evidence. It just doesn't add up for me. Explain why not! Sorry, I can't. It just doesn't work for me. If more people had these problems, all the bureaucrimes and other victimless crimes would, sadly, be history overnight. The IRS would lose every single case that went to a jury, and within months the income tax would be repealed, a no-audit, no-go-to- jail sales tax would be in place, and most of the people working for the IRS would be looking for a new job. I would be very saddened by the rude reality of all that, but, hey, what the hell? Will these problems that afflict me spread? You'd better hope your sorry ass they do! If they don't, we're all in for a very rough ride, and not 50 years from now, but tomorrow and next year. We're already well down the slippery slope. Personally, though, I think we're in for a shitstorm. That's because people are basically unprepared for the degree of evil that has been refined and distilled in government. They're still way too willing to spout off about things they don't even know, to presume the worst, even of their friends and acquaintances, to play full rube right into the hands of truly evil people who have _their_ act down to a science. If large scale genocide has been going on all through the last several years in Bosnia while people on this list have been consumed in flame wars and pseudo-propellor-head duels on a scale of delicacy of the medieval mace, how much more easily can and does largely bloodless subjugation take place all around us? If people can allow Ruby Ridges and Wacos to take place without congressional offices being _filled_ every day with outraged citizenry and recall petitions being launched for every politician who even hesitates in taking a firm stand, how can we think that the gradual sapping of our liberty will evoke a response until things first get very, very bad. There is a peaceful solution available today. At one level you don't have to have a good memory in all things to be a law- abiding and responsible citizen-unit. Just say "No, I don't remember" about things that are none of your business. At another level, you don't have to put up with bureaucrimes when you sit on a Grand Jury or a trial jury. Just say "No." Don't argue; don't convince; just say "No" across the board to bureaucrimes. It takes 51% of the voters to win an election. It only takes 5% of the jurors to kill a bad law. Nothing else will work. Nothing else has ever worked. If this is not done now, we will all face terrible choices and tragedies within as few as ten years. AmnesiaMonger

1 0

Fun at US Customs
by HyperReal-Anon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Las Vegas police officer Rich Cashton said a Customs inspector who >stopped him at Los Angeles International Airport last year grew angry >when Cashton asked what would happen if he refused an X-ray. > >``He said, 'If you don't sign this form, I'm going to take you down to >the hospital and pump your stomach,'' Cashton recalled. ``He was using >that threat as intimidation to make me sign a consent form, which is >definitely illegal.'' > >Cashton, who identified himself as a police officer, was let go. "Sir, we'll have to ask you to come with us." "What is the problem, officer?" "We have reason to believe that you are bringing contraband into this country. Please remove your clothing and bend over." "Comrade, surely you must be mistaken! I am a loyal citizen!" "Remove your clothing and bend over or we'll do it for you, Libertarian scum." "Libertarian? You are mistaken, comrade! I am a loyal citizen! I am a card-carrying party member!" *shows card* "That's fine, Officer Cashton, if that is your real name, but how can we be sure that you are who you claim to be?" "My biometrics, of course, comrade!" *he's scanned* "Sorry for the mixup, Comrade Cashton. We're about to go find some pretty young 15 year old girls to strip search and do body cavity searches on, then temporarily plug their body cavities so that they do not use them in indecent ways or for smuggling contraband." "Comrade, whatever do you mean?" "Are you sure you're a fellow jack booted thug? Do you have your manual? You must have your manual at all times! Fine. You may borrow mine, comrade. Read the section titled 'Rape of the Citizenry'." "Ah, I understand now, comrade. I was not aware that such actions were permitted. Let's go." ***Fifteen minutes later*** Young woman 1: (crying) "What have we done, officers? I am loyal!" Young woman 2: (sobs incoherently) Customs Officer: "You are suspected of smuggling contraband into this country! You are traitors!" Young woman 1: "My sister and I most certaintly are NOT traitors!" Customs Officer: "Then prove it. Remove your clothing and submit to a body cavity search. Officer Cashton? Take your pick." *searches are performed* Customs Officer: "Now, ladies, we have concerns that you may attempt to smuggle contraband out after the body cavity search is performed." Young woman 2: (sobs incoherently) Young woman 1: (crying louder) "But there is no contraband here! How can we smuggle it out?" Officer Cashton: (removing a bag of cocaine from his pocket and throwing it at the women) "Yes there is." Customs Officer: "Ah, I see you are a quick study, Comrade Cashton! Now ladies, just to make sure you don't smuggle anything out in your body cavities, we've invited the ground crew here to fill them and lead you naked in chains to your flight after they tire of your company." Officer Cashton and Customs Officer together: (giving a Nazi-style salute) "Heil Klinton! Heil Reno! Heil Freeh!" ...... StatistMonger

1 0