December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Q.E.D.
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:28 PM 10/16/96 -0500, IPG Sales wrote (original at excessive length): > ... IPG has produced a system to generate software OTPs, > albeit it within limited but but more than ample entropy, not > software random numbers. > > We stipulate the obvious fact that the encryptor stream > generated by EUREKA is a PRNG stream, though we do consider > it gross denigration to castigate it as ONLY a PRNG stream. > It is a PRNG issue that also happens to be an extremely well > behaved OTP sequence, with limited but ample entropy, as well. The problem is you are misusing the term One Time Pad. > It meets each and every criteria rationally established for an > OTP in all reasonable aspects. One of the criteria for a OTP is that you can credibly claim that ANY plain text (of the correct length) is a valid decryption of a cyphertext encrypted with a OTP. Since your PRNG has less entropy than the message, there are output sequences that can not occur. Therefore there are plaintext messages which have no possible key. These messages are not credible decryptions and the PRNG is not a OTP. This criterion is directly related to the provable security of the OTP. As such it is certainly a rationally established criterion. Now your PRNG may be a reasonably secure cypher system. (I haven't looked at it.) However it isn't an OTP and should not be advertised as such. Doing so makes people familar with the field think you don't know what you are talking about. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | Tired of Dole/Clinton? | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | Vote 3rd party. I'm | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | Voting for Harry Browne | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

Re: The Utility of Privacy
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:57 AM 11/18/96 -0800, Huge Cajones Remailer wrote: > >At 8:38 PM 11/17/1996, Huge Cajones Remailer wrote: >>> Privacy is a hassle. Is it worth it? >>> >>> Which unfortunate situations does privacy prevent? What are the odds >>> that they will occur? How much effort will it take to prevent these >>> outcomes? As a model, use the present and future situation of a >>> typical reader of this list. Risks of not employing privacy techniques: 1) You might have to pay 30%+ of your income in taxes. 2) Your driver's license might be capable of being suspended. 3) Your children will be more likely to be grabbed by Child Protective Services. 4) You are *much* more likely to come to the attention of the authorities. 5) Your usenet posts on gun control may be reported to the local sheriff's office and an armed agent of the state may call you. 6) You may be dunned by debt collectors. 7) Your property will be at greater risk of forfeiture to the government or loss to private litigation. 8) You may have to pay thousands of dollars a year in auto insurance. 9) You are more likely to lose a job because of something your employer finds out about you. 10) If you live in a "non-attainment area" your older car may fail emissions inspection. That's all for now. I've got a million of them. DCF

1 0

re: accutrade
by mixmaster＠remail.obscura.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hacking the 9 digit account number and 4 digit PIN will be easier than attacking the OS directly. Either method though would certainly ring loud bells at Accutrade unless they are infected with headinbutt disease.

2 1

Re: POC_ket
by Bryondp＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Take me off the list!!!!

2 1

CDT Policy Post 2.38 - President Takes First Steps TowardsClipper 3.1.1
by Bob Palacios 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- _____ _____ _______ / ____| __ \__ __| ____ ___ ____ __ | | | | | | | | / __ \____ / (_)______ __ / __ \____ _____/ /_ | | | | | | | | / /_/ / __ \/ / / ___/ / / / / /_/ / __ \/ ___/ __/ | |____| |__| | | | / ____/ /_/ / / / /__/ /_/ / / ____/ /_/ (__ ) /_ \_____|_____/ |_| /_/ \____/_/_/\___/\__, / /_/ \____/____/\__/ The Center for Democracy and Technology /____/ Volume 2, Number 38 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A briefing on public policy issues affecting civil liberties online ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CDT POLICY POST Volume 2, Number 38 November 18, 1996 CONTENTS: (1) President Takes First Steps Towards Clipper 3.1.1 (2) Details of the Executive Order (3) How to Subscribe/Unsubscribe (4) About CDT, contacting us ** This document may be redistributed freely with this banner intact ** Excerpts may be re-posted with permission of <editor(a)cdt.org> ** This document looks best when viewed in COURIER font ** ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) PRESIDENT TAKES FIRST STEPS TOWARDS CLIPPER 3.1.1 In a move that leaves major unanswered questions about the privacy of global communications on the Internet, President Clinton has taken the first concrete steps towards implementing the government's controversial key recovery encryption proposal. On Friday November 15, the President appointed an ambassador-level "Special Envoy for Cryptography" and signed an Executive Order that gives the Commerce Department jurisdiction over encryption exports but includes the Justice Department in all such export decisions. These developments do little to change the underlying regulations on encryption that have prevented the development of a strong worldwide encryption standard needed to protect privacy and security on the Internet. The full text of the executive order and other relevant background materials are available on CDT's Encryption Policy Page: http://www.cdt.org/crypto/ Friday's White House announcements demonstrate the Administration's commitment to its dangerous key recovery approach to worldwide encryption. This approach fails to meet the fundamental privacy needs of computer users and industry because: * International communications are still vulnerable since products sold by the dominant U.S. hardware and software manufacturers must conform to U.S. export controls. * Key recovery won't protect privacy internationally and institutionalizes a global government surveillance mechanism without privacy safeguards. * U.S. exports are still controlled and uncompetitive making it harder for the market to develop a secure global encryption standard. The Administration policy, initially announced on October 1st and dubbed "Clipper 3.1.1," leaves Internet users without the technical means to secure their communications or the international legal standards needed to protect their privacy. In other developments this week, Hewlett-Packard and other companies announced preliminary approval to export new "dormant encryption" products, which contain strong encryption that can only be activated with a special license. While this new architecture is expected to make it easier for industry to market encryption products, this technology does not change the underlying privacy problems created by the Administration's export control policy. Granting of licenses to use strong encryption will still be subject to the current export controls limiting key length and requiring key recovery for strong encryption. CONTINUING A DANGEROUS KEY RECOVERY POLICY The Administration's announcements mark the first real steps towards implementing an approach to encryption policy based on the dangerous and untested idea of global key recovery. This approach would institutionalize worldwide governmental access to encrypted communications without providing any privacy standards for electronic communications or stored data. The Administration's approach leaves computer users at risk operating on a global network without the technical security provided by strong encryption or the legal privacy rights afforded here in the United States by the Fourth Amendment and federal law. For example, the Administration policy would not solve the following privacy problems: * International communications are still vulnerable. For example, an American individual doing business with someone in France would still be forced to use weaker forms of encryption, or use key recovery systems that make their communications accessible to law enforcement officials of both countries. * Key recovery won't protect privacy internationally. A Chinese dissident communicating with supporters in the U.S. and fearful of weaker encryption would be to forced to use key recovery. The Administration indicates that such key recovery mechanisms would be based on bilateral key-access arrangements between governments. Even if the dissident's keys were recoverable only in the U.S., such a global key access policy would almost certainly make those keys accessible to the Chinese government. If the United States expects China to assist U.S. law enforcement with key recovery for issues of national interest, such as anti-piracy efforts in China, we can also expect China to require U.S. disclosure of keys to its law enforcement community. * Exports are still controlled and uncompetitive. A Japanese company using exportable U.S. encryption products would be forced to use lower strength encryption -- or use an key recovery agent approved by the U.S. law enforcement community. This is unlikely to help the global market develop a worldwide standard for secure communications. As a result of this policy, computer users all over the world will be left with a lowest common denominator infrastructure that does not provide for either technical security or legal privacy for sensitive communications and data. CDT believes that any workable U.S. encryption policy must be designed to protect the privacy and security of Internet users. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ (2) DETAILS OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER The Executive Order signed by the President on Friday does not change the type of encryption products that will be exportable. Rather, it lays the groundwork for the eventual transfer of encryption export control jurisdiction from the State Department to the Commerce Department pending Final Regulations by both departments. Encryption exports have traditionally been regulated as "munitions" controlled by the State Department. While the Commerce Department is widely viewed as more sensitive to the needs of business and individual encryption users, Commerce is still constrained by Administration encryption policy. Additional provisions of the Executive Order indicate that the Commerce Department's encryption controls will continue to be dominated by law enforcement and national security interests: * New Justice Department role in export review committee -- In an unusual step, the Order adds the Justice Department to the interagency group reviewing Commerce encryption export decisions. * Source code treated as a "product" -- The Order specifically singles out encryption source code to be given the stricter review scrutiny of a "product" rather than a "technology." * Broad definition of export -- The export of encryption source code or object code is extended to explicitly include posting to FTP sites or electronic bulletin boards unless "adequate" precautions are taken to prevent transfer abroad. As reflected by a recent Federal Court finding in the CDA indecency case that Internet users rarely have control over the parties accessing materials via FTP, Usenet, or the Web, this provision could have the chilling effect of preventing most dissemination or discussion of new cryptographic tools on the Internet. The Administration's announcements will have little effect on the existing encryption privacy problem unless the underlying policies governing the export and use of encryption are changed. These announcements do little to address the unanswered questions about how privacy will be protected in the key recovery system envisioned by the Administration. APPOINTMENT OF THE "SPECIAL ENVOY FOR CRYPTOGRAPHY" On Friday the President also designated Ambassador David L. Aaron as the new "Special Envoy for Cryptography." According to the White House, this Special Envoy will have "responsibility to promote the growth of electronic commerce and robust, secure global communications in a manner that protects the public safety and national security. . . . Ambassador Aaron will promote international cooperation, coordinate U.S. contacts with foreign governments on encryption matters and provide a focal point for identifying and resolving bilateral and multilateral encryption issues." Ambassador Aaron is currently the U.S. Ambassador to the OECD. CDT hopes that the new Special Envoy, as a representative of the United States, will work to represent the needs of Americans to communicate privately in the currently insecure global environment. Until now, U.S. encryption representation abroad has been dominated by law enforcement and national security interests. CDT hopes that the new Special Envoy will also consult with the computer user community, consumers, privacy advocates, and industry to promote their need for secure networks worldwide. NEXT STEPS In the coming months, both the Department of Commerce and the State Department must issue rules to implement the Administration's new encryption policy. * The State Department will issue a rule transferring its jurisdiction of encryption licensing to the Commerce Department. * The Commerce Department will issue rules spelling out exactly how it will approve products for export, and what the requirements for approved key recovery centers and key recovery plans will look like. CDT hopes and expects that the Administration will provide an opportunity for public comment in the rulemaking process to allow input from those concerned about privacy and security in the formulation of U.S. encryption policy. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ (3) SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION Be sure you are up to date on the latest public policy issues affecting civil liberties online and how they will affect you! Subscribe to the CDT Policy Post news distribution list. CDT Policy Posts, the regular news publication of the Center For Democracy and Technology, are received by nearly 10,000 Internet users, industry leaders, policy makers and activists, and have become the leading source for information about critical free speech and privacy issues affecting the Internet and other interactive communications media. To subscribe to CDT's Policy Post list, send mail to policy-posts-request(a)cdt.org with a subject: subscribe policy-posts If you ever wish to remove yourself from the list, send mail to the above address with a subject of: unsubscribe policy-posts ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (4) ABOUT THE CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY/CONTACTING US The Center for Democracy and Technology is a non-profit public interest organization based in Washington, DC. The Center's mission is to develop and advocate public policies that advance democratic values and constitutional civil liberties in new computer and communications technologies. Contacting us: General information: info(a)cdt.org World Wide Web: URL:http://www.cdt.org/ FTP URL:ftp://ftp.cdt.org/pub/cdt/ Snail Mail: The Center for Democracy and Technology 1634 Eye Street NW * Suite 1100 * Washington, DC 20006 (v) +1.202.637.9800 * (f) +1.202.637.0968 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- End Policy Post 2.38 11/18/96 -----------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

REQUESTING INFORMATION :-)
by George A. Stathis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

f'knights, [hee hee] (as in c'punks)!!! ROTFL After the amusing invasion of Sandy-the-cowboy in his attempt to smash open the already open doors of a virtual (i.e. non-existent) salloon... (in the Freedom-Knights list) (which is a waste of time anyway to watch his show anyway)... :-) I REQUEST INFORMATION on those people who compile "Unemployability Lists" in the USA, as well as ANY other information on this issue. Senator McCarthy managed to terrorize the entire U.S.A. some decades ago with such lists (on real paper rather than on computer files). The "Return to NeoMcCarthyanism" would make an _excellent_ story for the Greek Newspaper "Eleftherotypia", and some bright young Greek journalist could seize the opportunity perhaps even for a Headline Story. Therefore, I include in the recipient list the Greek Newspaper's Internet Supplement address, and... rub my hands, waiting for your replies, folks. :-) We Greeks would like ALL the names of the people who act as "Informers" of companies denouncing those unfortunate Americans who are doomed to unemployment. We plan to give these names to all our friends, so as to warn them WHO to avoid during our summer holidays in Greek Islands. Thank you George A. Stathis (former columnist in "PC Master" magazine, Athens Greece -1990). P.S. I wrote each month's MAIN article at the time, and also the monthly "A.I." program. I am not active in journalism at the moment, which is why someone else is welcome to use the ensuing information. P.S. TRUST GREEKS. We hold a World Copyright on Freedom of Thought for 2.500 years or more, and we even donated it to the Public Domain! :-)

1 0

Re: Fuck You Dumb Cunt
by George A. Stathis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:11 ìì 18/11/1996 -0500, Stephen Boursy wrote: >Dave Hayes wrote: >> >> Brian Davis writes: >> >>> I'm especially sorry that some of you don't believe in property >>> rights. >> >> I believe in them, alright. It's just that they seem to be at odds >> with freedom of speech. >> >> They are at odds with a lot of other things as well, but that's >> a different fla...er...discussion. > > > I believe the posession of property is a priv. to be taken >away if abused. There is no such thing as a 'right' to >property--in fact the very notion seems absurd. > > Steve Philosophically, a lot of people would agree with you Steve, and this would probably place them in dozens of "killfiles", "lists of unemployable persons", plug-pullable minorities of "kooks" and so on, inside the American Section of the Internet. No wonder (after malicious slander I have seen directed against you), that so few people come out with such views. However... Reality has many facets, and property can mean many things. "Abusing property" is also punishable already by some (very capitalistic) laws. I know I deserve everything I own, but do the chicken know it? The chicken who hide behind roles like Gilmore's for instance. Surely the ONLY things we most CERTAINLY own, are our bodies and our speech and other facets of our existence. If people were offered large sums of money to cut off one... hand, they'd probably refuse! :-) Goddess Venus knows why if a lot of people when offered similar similar sums of money to chop off their speech, they obey. I am very troubled at recent events and spend my time wasting yours. But wait till you see what I figured out... :-) (with the Greek paper). George

1 0

Extreme Left/Right
by James Ormond 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sandy, I always had trouble understanding what people meant when they used the terms "extreme left" and "extreme right". Then, about 4 months ago, I saw a guy define the "political spectrum" the way (he said) it used to be defined before the definitions were corrupted (by whomever wants to divide - and conquer - the people). It made sense to me. A spectrum afterall, at least when we're talking about colors, starts with one type of color and graduates to other, DIFFERENT colors. He defined the "political spectrum" as follows: < ------- LEFT RIGHT -------> Monarchy Oligarchy Democracy Republic Anarchy Rule by: ONE FEW MANY LAW NONE Examples: Dictator, Communist, Lynch Mob Constitutional King Fascist State Govt (US before 1930's) So, according to this definition of the political spectrum, a true "leftist" would be a person that supported the government's usurpation of individual rights, property rights, human rights, privacy rights, etc. Obviously we don't look at it this way. The government only takes away our property (eg. through income taxes), etc. when it's FOR OUR OWN GOOD AND THE GOOD OF OUR COUNTRYMEN!!! Sadly, this can only be done (in this country) by violating the US Constitution, and it has been done and it is being done. Unfortuneately, the people that support and seek to defend the Constitution (according to the political spectrum you see above) are on the right (those that support the Republic). It's not politically correct to call yourself a "rightist" these days. Of course, there are not too many Americans (including people that call themselves "leftists" or "liberals") that are willing to publicly admit that they are opposed to the US Constitution. I dare say that most leftists would actually say that they SUPPORT the US Constitution. Many of these people are very concerned about the deterioration of our liberties and spend a lot of time and energy educating themselves and others about how this is being done. I know this because I used to consider myself a "leftist" (although I was never too fond of applying such labels to myself); after all, I had to be SOMEWHERE!!! My political "education" started during the Reagan years. Since that administration was considered "right-wing", I knew I didn't like that (because of the BAD things that it was doing) so I must be the opposite. When I used to listen to a certain "leftist" radio station broadcasting out of New York City, they would talk about "left-wing", communist dictatorships and "right-wing", fascist dictatorships. A dictatorship is a dictatorship!!! The "wing" that it comes from makes no difference!! The way the media defines these things makes no sense; you can't have a dictatorship on BOTH sides of a POLITICAL SPECTRUM no more than you can have YELLOW on both sides of the COLOR SPECTRUM. Maybe I'm totally wrong in my thinking. If I am please try to clarify things for me. I bring this to your attention only because I notice that you often use these terms in some of your e-mails. I think that most "leftists" and "rightists" want many of the same things. We can't get together because the language we use has been so corrupted. Sincerely, Jim.

5 4

Re: Censor John Gilmore -- EFF is a disgrace!
by George A. Stathis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear "Info", Mr. Stephen Boursy has made a number of important revelations here. I went back and read nearly all his posts, and I will say this _again_, I have found NOTHING to suggest a lack of reliability in what he says. I am in no way affiliated to Mr. Boursy. I have never seen his face, even. In fact I had hardly noticed Mr. Boursy's presence till only a few days ago, when the forcible expulsion of Russian Mathematician Dimitri Vulis from the "cypherpunks" list fell like a bomb over my naive gullible head. Only AFTER this, I started reading ALL the previous postings that I had missed (about 60-70 % of them). I decided to find out what's happening. I saw OBVIOUS things, and OBVIOUS LIES, since as a lurker who kept ALL previous postings (in the Freedom-Knights list and elsewhere) I could COMPARE my archives to what people claimed. More often than not, to my amazement, what a LOT of people claimed were packs of lies. And against Mr. Boursy and Mr. Dimitri Vulis in particular, entire SEWAGES of lies. ' So I forward this info to... "INFO", the Weekly Net-Supplement of "Eleftherotypia", Greece's largest and most democratic newspaper. The Greek public are rather well informed on the "shiny" side of the Internet. But (the director of "Info" and I) have met and discussed, on two occasions, a few months ago, ALSO the "DARK" side.... Our only problem, is VOLUME. It's like trying to clean up a shit-hole which has spilled the shit even outside itself, in the garden... :-) (The AMERICAN section of the internet, i.e. MOST of it). Here goes... At 07:24 ìì 18/11/1996 -0500, Stephen Boursy wrote: >George A. Stathis wrote: >> >> At 12:07 ðì 17/11/1996 -0600, snow wrote: >>> >>> Boursy is a twit who has lost more accounts that Vulis. > > > I've lost but one account--world.std.com (Software Tool & >Die) soon to be purchased by the conglomorate Plug Pullers >R US. That was entirely related to a local rent control >matter. Now I may be a 'twit'--that is an entirely >different matter. > > >> I would suggest that it is not at all a "safe" indication of personal >> or intellectual _worth_, (of Mr. Boursy or of anyone) "how many >> accounts he has lost". > > I would say though that if one makes false statements as has >this 'snow' character it indicates a lack of credibiltiy. > > >>> Ignore him. > > Something you seem unable to do. Isn't it odd how some will >tell you how insignificant and irrelevant you are only to devote >so much of their time and energy to you. I find that very odd. > > >> It is not ethical to send such strong negative _injunctions_ to masses >> of people and also to strangers (the 1900-strong members of the cyberphunks >> list for instance). > > Well thanks George but I do think his statement speak for themselves. >I'm not in the least concerned someone like him could harm me--in fact >I find it very amusing that he is deemed 'acceptable for that list >while Dr. Vulis is not. > >> Because, you may or may not have strong reasons for >> believing you are justified in such invalidation, but more than a 1000 >> people are now _told_ by (self-appointed) "experts" such as yourself what >> and whom to ignore or to believe. (Like sheep led to the slaughter)... > > > Well that's sort of like Tiny Tim Skirvin and his Global Killfile-- >it does him more harm than those he is after--in fact little Tim reads >my every word. > > >> But what you are doing now, extending the "1-person-blacklist" to your >> number-two-entry (Mr. Boursy) is exactly the thing that I hoped you might >> avoid. > > And based on lies as well--I've only had one account terminated--that >by Barry Shein who lives in Brookline, Ma. and that was entirely do >to real estate industry money and the rent control issue (a statewide >referrendum on rent control which existed only in Brookline, Cambridge, >and Boston)--many millions of dollars at stake there. Shein is simply >a whore. > >> First they kicked out Dimitri Vulis. >> >> Then they slandered and kept out Steve Boursy. > > Well my suggestion--given the size of the list and that we have >numerous sympathizers there--is to have all of their posts forwarded >and publically post them for free and open discussion. > > Steve > > >> >> Then... >> >> When they came after me, there was nobody left to support me. >> >> (You can perhaps realize what this paraphrase is about)... :-( >> >> Sincerily, and with... Sanity of Mind :-) >> George Stathis >

1 0

Re: (Fwd) National Emergency
by Mark.L. Burton 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Subject: (Fwd) National Emergency from: gathering(a)cygnus.com Mailing list alt.gathering.rainbow >------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- >Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 17:42:58 -0800 (PST) >From: Phil Agre <pagre(a)weber.ucsd.edu> >To: rre(a)weber.ucsd.edu >Subject: National Emergency >Reply-to: rre-maintainers(a)weber.ucsd.edu > > >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). >Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. >You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use >the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions >for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help(a)weber.ucsd.edu >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > >Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 17:23:24 -0800 >From: Hal Finney <hal(a)rain.org> >To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com >Subject: National Emergency > >Michael Froomkin posted to the cyberia list a pointer to the Clinton >administration's new export policy. He has a copy on his web site at: ><URL: http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/nov96-regs.htm >. The thing >I found interesting is that it refers to the fact that we are currently >living under a state of national emergency! I searched on the whitehouse >web site and couldn't find the executive order referred to (maybe it was >classified) but did find this one: > >For Immediate Release June 30, 1994 > > > Executive Order > #12923 > - - - - - - - > > Continuation Of Export Control Regulations > > > By the authority vested in me as President by the >Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, >including but not limited to section 203 of the International >Emergency Economic Powers Act ("Act") (50 U.S.C. 1702), I, William >J. Clinton, President of the United States of America, findthat >the unrestricted access of foreign parties to U.S. goods, >technology, and technical data and the existence of certain >boycott practices of foreign nations, in light of the expiration >of the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended (50 U.S.C. >App. 2401 et seq.), constitute an unusual and extraordinarythreat >to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the >United States and hereby declare a national emergency with respect >to that threat. > >Apparently this state of emergency is still in effect. This is what >gives the President the power to unilaterally make changes in the export >policy. It would be nice if our congresspeople would take some >responsibility in this matter. > >Hal > > > >{{greywolf(a)sover.net}}PGP Public key>> >http://www.sover.net/~greywolf/gwkey.asc > ********************************************************************** We have been living in a state of serveal national emergancy for some time,but you wont find any public documents about it. The emergancy conserns break away factions with in the U.S. citezenry.This country is falling apart at the seams and a form of civil war is predicted soon. The Federal govenment will respond by declaring Martial law on all U.S. Citezens. They are allready prepareing for this war.I sugjest We prepair to. Peace Love and Light :) Wandering Bear EarthSky Tribes Cascadia Nation Rainbow Family of Living Light http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/1137 --------------------------------------------------------- Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ---------------------------------------------------------

1 0