December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

RE: Remailer Abuse Solutions
by Mullen Patrick 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Peter Hendrickson switched the transistors to say: >> While I hope this plan won't ever be necessary, at least not on such a >> global scale, the application of such techniques toward a mailing list >> sounds decent. >This may sound like a quibble, but it really isn't: I am not talking about >a global scale at all. A very small group of people can make use of >this technology successfully. It doesn't matter whether everybody in >the world uses it or just people who are tired of spam - it still works. Yeah, I knew I used a bad choice of words. I meant global as in "all- encompassing" rather than the geographical definition. >However, if you restrict postings to an approved group of people, perhaps >everybody on the mailing list, you can eliminate spam. How, then, do we >allow anonymous postings to come through? Individual people on the list >can receive the proposed post and forward it to the list if it is >appropriate. They could even charge a fee for doing it. That's easy to >do if there is a "paying" remailer which will handle the money for them. >> Which brings up another topic: How would an anonymous remailer operate? >> It's hard to eliminate an audit trail when there is some monetary tie back >> to you, whether it be credit card, ecash (assuming they never quite figure >> out anonymizing it), ... >I assumed untraceable cash transactions for small amounts were available. >E-cash, the product licensed by Digicash, offers full payee anonymity and >would be an ideal candidate. Oops. I forgot. :-) I guess this idea would work. But, there would be a very large price for anonymity - two mailers holding their hands out for a piece of the pie. Well, I must admit you seem to have this idea pretty well thought out, and it just may work. The hardest part of the plan would probably be gaining acceptance. True, everyone loves getting a check, especially if all they had to do was open and close email to have it register as being read, but the hard part is getting people to accept having to pay to send someone a message. Of course, there's the argument that currently we pay for stamps... :-) PM >Peter Hendrickson >ph(a)netcom.com ------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------ Received: by mail.ndhm.gtegsc.com with SMTP;14 Nov 1996 17:46:22 -0400 Received: from netcom18.netcom.com by delphi.ndhm.gtegsc.com with SMTP; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 22:42:05 GMT Received: from [192.0.2.1] (ph(a)netcom3.netcom.com [192.100.81.103]) by netcom18.netcom.com (8.6.13/Netcom) id OAA05098; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 14:40:19 -0800 X-Sender: ph(a)netcom15.netcom.com Message-Id: <v02140b05aeb13a70acf4(a)[192.0.2.1]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 14:40:29 -0800 To: "Mullen Patrick" <Mullen.Patrick(a)mail.ndhm.gtegsc.com> From: ph(a)netcom.com (Peter Hendrickson) Subject: RE: Remailer Abuse Solutions Cc: "Cypherpunks" <cypherpunks(a)toad.com>

1 0

Re: Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
by nobody＠replay.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Declan McCullagh wrote: > > The mere fact that a privately-owned discussion group becomes popular > does not mean that it becomes a public forum. This is true. On the other hand, privately-owned public forums do exist. Chartered FreeNets, for example, and the facilities of private Universities like Carnegie Mellon. There may be a fine line somewhere, but I don't believe we need to draw it, because what is at issue here is the character of the moderator, not the legality of his action. We're just spinning wheels here talking in the abstract. I actually agree with Vulis's reasoning -- you need to look at the facts of the case in order to determine whether an act of censorship, or heckler control, or editing, or whatever, was proper. But apply that reasoning to Vulis's case, and you conclude that he's completely in the wrong, by any standard. > Say I start a poetry mailing list to discuss Blake's writings. I have > three people on it. One becomes obnoxious and emailbombs the list > since he disagrees with my interpretation of "A Memorable Fancy." Do I > have the right to kick him off? Clearly. And if your statement of the facts is correct, then you would be right in exercising your right. If there is more to the story, though, or if your story is wrong... well, then you still have the right to be a jerk, but you are, nonetheless, a jerk. In the cypherpunks case, though, the only jerk here is Vulis. It is worthless and IMO dangerous to prove that by arguing from first principles. The "Freedom Knight" kooks are correct in pointing out that every "philosophical" argument you've made can be and has been misused. Try a little empirical evidence; there is plenty to go around. "Truth is far more fragile than fiction... reason alone cannot protect it." Proof is syntactic; truth is semantic. > How is this different from a private poetry reading in my home? It differs in one small but important way: it all happens in the digital domain, so it can all be archived in its entirety. It is more difficult to lie about what happens online (but not impossible, as Vulis and company demonstrate). In an online forum, you have access to *all* the empirical evidence. There's no reason to rely on pure reason. So enough already with the hypothetical cases. You've got a specific case of your own that, oddly, you still haven't mentioned. - -rich -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQBVAwUBMovDK5NcNyVVy0jxAQGjIAH8DTYuUzkwt7+9i4RNCPkspNBEj7MBoH0Z CluHlmULFdamQ1HPDAXRct/DoqPzsXR+IzlMOr0y4bPFtMq1y+kEZw== =TA0F -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Media seekers, reputation and banishment
by nobody＠replay.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Seems like the Freedom-Knights are seeking a little publicity? Perhaps an interview in Wired? A column in the WaPo? A spot on www.TV.com? Are these the same folks who gather around at fires and crime scenes trying to get into the camera? "Hi Mom! We're on CP now! Look at me!" bwahahhhaha I find the aga/hayes posts amusing. It's amazing at how people have refined their skills at rhetoric, debate and insults. The poisoned pen gets much practice. So the aga/hayes posts attempt to extract reputation from Gilmore and Declan. It is interesting to see how attacts on reputation are futile as reputation is built up (or spent) gradually. Pointing a finger and shouting "You are stoopid!" is obviously ineffective at damaging any credibility other than that of the person holding the finger. Remove the insults and aga and Hayes offer little in the way of compelling arguements. Maybe Gilmore made a mistake in removing DV from CP. Perhaps it is a contradiction of some ideal of open dialog and free speech. DV seems to have unlimitted energy for insults, rants, and blather, so removing him directly (with the actual effect of simply making it less convienent for him or her to post) was a practical move not a philosophical move. A practical move to assert the will of the community. A community offers few punishments for asocial behavior. Killfiles are partly effective. But the strongest punishment is banishment. The issue is not "is banishing unruly louts from the discussion censorship" as censorship is a state of being threatened with loss of liberty for what one says. The issue is "do we individually banish asocial louts or collectively?" and of course how do we decide who to banish. All of this is certainly easier when done individually yet it is often prudent and effective to have someone take action when they are in a position to do be effective. Gilmore acted properly in my opinion. And DV remains in my killfile. diGriz

1 0

One Big Telecoms Company
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:12 PM 11/13/96 -0800, Declan McCullagh wrote: >* Dave warns us to consider "what would happen if one parent company owned >*all* communications media." Then we have problems. I've written about >this in an Internet Underground magazine column. However, this is not the >case now. Or are you arguing the government should get involved and force >Gilmore to allow Vulis on his list? > The risk of "one big company" owning all communications that lefties on the net spend a lot of time worrying about is a real screamer. We had "one big company" controlling telecoms in most countries on earth for the last 100 years (those were the government monopoly PTTs). In spite of the fact that those PTTs were protected from competition by everything up to and including (at least in the case of BT and France Telecom) nuclear weapons, they lost their monopolies. Two days ago, the UK announced that they were granting licenses to all 46 companies that have applied to carry bits into and out of the UK. DT is being sold off starting in January. If government monopolies can't hack it, what chance do private companies have? DCF

2 1

??????????????????????
by newtonm＠papa.uncp.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have a breif question for all you folks out there.... Does anyone know the email address and procedure for sending your mail via "cypherpunks" so that it changes your e-mail address so that the person recieving your e-mail message sees on the mesage that its only from an anonymous source?

2 1

Cryptoanarchy in the field
by nobody＠cypherpunks.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:44 AM 11/13/1996, Adam Back wrote: >>What we need is an experiment. Let's pick a country with a near >>police state and design a system so that people in that country >>can freely and securely communicate with each other and the outside >>world with minimal chance of arrest. Once the system is available, >>we can see if it succeeds in the field. I'll leave others to >>suggest the target. > >I would suggest starting with remailers, rather than interactive >traffic such as web traffic would be the easier target. Might even >present a positive spin in the press for anonymity and remailers for a >change. Positive publicity? How about Iraq? What kind of computer equipment does the Army have? What happens when the Iraqi Army suddenly becomes able to conspire? What if they were provided only with authentication of anonymous identities. How much could they do with "underground newspapers" that traveled on sneaker net? >So what good stego techniques are there for text. Do singaporeans use >a non ascii character set? (As the Chinese use things like Big5 >encoding). Anyone know of any features of the character set that >Singaporeans use which could be used for a subliminal channel? How many people in Singapore speak English? >Sure, if you keep cypherpunks list going even after crypto discussions >have been outlawed, you can keep discussions, and then the ammount of >ecash usage, and bandwidth may be more condusive to working out >anonymous payment systems. Pornography is a powerful motivator that need not involve money. The CIA used to trade porn for secrets during the Cold War. It seems low ranking Russian officers used it to reward obedient young soldiers who were not allowed to leave custody during their first two years of service.

2 1

Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
by Dave Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Dave Hayes wrote: > > Igor "Gadzooks" Chudov writes: > > > Dave Hayes wrote: > > > > You won't do this, because I won't let you on the list. I, unlike you > > > > or Mr. Gilmore, have the judgement on whom to invite to my list. > > > So what's the difference between yours and gilmore's position? > > Simple. I choose whom to invite to my parties. Gilmore provides an > > open door. > Providing an open door does not mean that it is always open to everyone, > Dave. It only means that it is open to all by default, but that policy > can be reversed for certain individuals. That is not to say that I agree > with Gilmore's the decision to kick Vulis out from cypherpunks, but John's > decision was neither dishonorable nor he was acting outside his powers, > in my opinion. Technically, John Gilmore did nothing, since Vulis continues to read and post. Symbolically, he punched holes in his ideology. That's my opinion. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet You need not wonder whether you should have a reliable person as a friend. An unreliable person is nobody's friend.

3 2

Re: A Disservice to Mr. Bell
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:14 PM 11/14/96 -0500, hallam(a)vesuvius.ai.mit.edu wrote: > >>As for the "self-selected" issue: In almost all areas of human endeavor, >>things are (often? usually?) done by people who are "self-selected." I >>suggest that there is simply no reason that even "self-selected" courts >>cannot work. > >Oh I forgot to mention, last week we found you guilty of sedition, it >was a pity you were not present to put your case but maybe if you had >bothere to read the court roster you would have attended. You might be surprised to learn that this kind of thing doesn't bother me at all. To whatever extent such commonlaw courts act like loose cannons, they will primarily tend to do so against those who are most abusive of the public's perceived rights. Like a non-lethal version of AP, those people who are most abusive of the public (primarily current government employees and officeholders) will be named most often in commonlaw court proceedings. Eventually, they will begin to behave. >>1. Commonlaw courts predate the US Constitution by a few hundred years. >>The former does not depend on the latter for authority or credibility. > >Untrue, the US constitution replaced all previous constitutions. But commonlaw courts were not a product of previous constitutions. And the US constitution certainly didn't "replace all previous constitutions": state constitutions were "replaced." The only document the Federal constitution arguably "replaced" was the Articles of the Confederation. > Thats >what the supremacy clause is all about. All previously existing courts >were extinguished. Ah! So you admit that these courts were "previously existing," huh? Well, if that's the case, merely read the 9th and 10th amendments and tell me how you're so sure that "all previously existing courts were extinguished." >>2. The US Constitution is, at most, a statement of the authority of the >>FEDERAL portion of government. > >It also includes a supremacy cluase and a "due process" clause. The >due process clause means amongst other things that noone can be subjected >to proceedings that are not authorised under the constitution. Anyone in state court are "subjected to proceedings that are not authorized under the [Federal] constitution." Clearly, state courts operated before the Federal Constitution existed. And the "due process clause" may simply apply to the Federal government, not necessarily all individuals or the organizations they form. >>3. The Federal Constitution only references states, and I don't think it >>references state Constitutions at all. > >There is no logical reason why it should, if a state exists it has a process >of government, a boundary to its authority and performs legislative, >excutive and judicial functions. The explicit recognition of the states >was necessary since otherwise the supremacy clause would claim to extinguish >their rights. There's a big inconsistency with what you just said. It was the representatives of the STATES which WROTE the US Constitution. Their ratification was _necessary_ to approve that document. If states were not recognized, nor their representatives, they would have been unable to ratify the Federal constitution. It would be, therefore, totally illogical to believe that the product of their writing could somehow "extinguish" the rights of the citizens, let alone the states. You're obviously confused. >The authority of the states to make law is explicitly >stated. Whatever it said, it was not necessary to have said it. The 9th and 10th amendments make it clear that any power not explicitly granted the Feds was reserved to the states or the people. >>You should have said, SOME courts. Not "the courts," implying ALL the >>courts. Notice that the US Federal Constitution (at least, to my >>recollection) does not describe or regulate state courts, or for that matter >>local courts. > >It recognises the states, and thus their constitutions. If you can find >a state which omitted a supremacy clause from its constitution then you >might have a point. > > >As a practical matter however the immediate effect of claiming to issue >proceedings under "common law courts" is from now on almost certain to >be criminal and civil proceedings followed by long jail sentences. Oh, really? It certainly isn't "criminal." At most, you might try to claim that it is legally irrelevant. After all, if commonlaw courts don't really exist, then nothing they do has legal weight, and thus it's a legal nullity. But your commentary seems to indicate that no, what commonlaw courts do is not only real and significant, it's also going to be called "criminal." In other words, it's a threat to the existing legal monopoly. >While Jim Bell can pick nits and pretend that he is a lawyer the people >recognised as lawyers in our society act in a different matter. All of whom are trained to recognize the existing legal monopoly. >It is >an empirical fact that those convicted in federal and state courts >go to jail, those convicted in "common law kangeroo courts do not". In >fact the only people who do are the judges, jurors and other >instigators. Of what relevance is this? Sending a person to jail is only one of many ways a court can exercise its power. >It is an empirical fact that the authority of "common law" courts >is not recognised by society. "Society"? I think you mean "the people who believe they are in charge." The "thuggerati" would be one way to identify them. The vast majority of the population of the US are simply unaware of commonlaw courts. In fact, it's quite possible that the vast majority of the population can't quote even a single law verbatim. The average person knows nothing of the history of commonlaw courts, and therefore what he "recognizes" is unlikely to include them >They can be dealt with easily enough, >the intended victim need only apply to a real court for an injuction >prohibiting proceedings, What "proceedings"? You just said that commonlaw courts do not exist, and that their actions are legally irrelevant. Why should an "intended victim" NEED to "apply to a real [sic] court for an injunction"? An "injunction" is generally obtained to prevent somebody from doing something that he'd otherwise have the power (and, often, the right) to do absent the injunction. >turn up to the "court" to serve the injunction >and if people insist on proceeding apply to the real court for >enforcement of the original order since anyone participating in the >"common law court" would then be in contempt. They would only be "in contempt" if their actions were legally relevant, which you have already denied. Your problem is obvious: You're desperate, and you can't promote a consistent argument. I, far more honestly, started by pointing out the fact that commonlaw courts are but one type of court, and they were in competition with equity courts in England for centuries. It's a power stuggle, quite analogous to the free market, and if anything their long absense will only make the competition keener. Naturally, the opponents of commonlaw courts (and, "opponents" are exactly what they are; they are biased on one side of the issue) want to deny past reality as well as prevent the resurgence of those courts. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

infowar Digest for 14 Nov 1996
by list 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

infowar Digest for 14 Nov 1996 Topics covered in this issue include: 1: Flight Information Resource by Betty(a)infowar.com 2: Flight Information Resource by Betty(a)infowar.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Message:0001 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: infowar(a)infowar.com From: "Betty G. O'Hearn" <betty(a)infowar.com> Subject: Infowar Thursday November 14 1996 Volume 01: Number 03 We thank our sponsors: Internet Security Solutions New Dimensions International - Security Training Secure Computing Corporation HOMECOM Communications National Computer Security Association OPEN SOURCE SOLUTIONS, Inc. __________________________________________________ Infowar(a)infowar.com is brought to you in the the interest of an open,= unclassified exchange of information and ideas as a means for advancement= of Information Warfare related issues. Topics of discussion for this list= include: Infowar, Electronic Civil Defense, Hacking, Defensive Techniques,= Policy, Non-Lethals, Psyops, Chemical Warfare Agents and WMD.=20 As the list expands we will adapt to the needs and desires of our= subscribers.=20 __________________________________________________________ To: Infowar(a)infowar.com From: winn(a)infowar.com Subject: MCTL Process Infowar.com is proud to have been given permission to publish the=20 latest Military Critical Technologies List - Part I: Weapons Systems=20 Technologies.=20 THE MCTL Process is the systemic ongoing assessment and analyses of= technologies to determine which technologies are Militarily Critical and= therefore should have additional controlsplaced on them or made subject to= export control.=20 This document is the first of three parts. Part two: Weapons of Mass=20 Production and Part three: Critical Developing Technologies are in= development=20 and will be published when completed and made available to us. Don't miss= =20 reading this! Download Acrobat as the file is in .pdf format. (acrobat= readers are free) This file will be posted the week of November 17 1996. ------------------------------------------------------------ To: Betty(a)infowar.com From: "Eric L. Nelson, M.A." <enelson(a)nosc.mil> Subject: G-TWO RECRUITMENT FORM Sender: owner-g-two(a)majordomo.netcom.com Please use this ammended form to inform your DOD intel and CI colleagues about g-two. Please discard previous editions. Thanks, EL Nelson moderator Get The Word Out (G-TWO) is designed to provide direct assistance=20 to DOD intelligence and counterintelligence teams by providing=20 open-source intelligence and news summaries pertinent to DOD=20 interests. Topics include: Political: Politics of intelligence. Political history of hotspots/groups/personalities. Information: WWW locations of intelligence usefulness with brief summaries. Lists, databases, and archives accessible via the internet. Resource sharing. NBC-M (nuclear, biological, chemical & medical): Biochem threat analysis/events (outbreaks). Medical technology and issues related to DOD missions/personnel. Tracking the development of NBC capabilities by country/group. Terrorism: Threat/threat mindsets/tactical intent. Issues related to security and threat issues. International Crime. New developments in terrorism. New technology/weapons systems with CT application. Info. on capability of Special Teams/personnel. Military/Intel Agencies: Force protection. OPSEC. Military plans/policies. =20 Reports on terrorism/counter-terrorism activities. Data on military forces and capabilities (order of battle). Analysis: More analysis by SME's (subject matter experts). Emerging threat analysis. EOD/chemical analysis. Group profies (themes, objectives, etc.) Who are these people? Cultural profiles and key info/customs to know. Technology & Industrial: Hacking/Infowar. Technology/precursor tracking, what is being procured by others. Industrial/technical intelligence on foreign countries-=20 what are they doing? Other: Central/South American, and Caribbean information. =20 Psychological profiles/cultural profiles of groups/personalities. Deception. Stateless Warfare Issues (gangs, 4th generation warfare). State department info. =20 Washington Early Bird news summaries. =20 World hot spot info. Information warfare. Daily news articles on terrorism and related issues State Department country studies State Department terrorist groups/personalities files Emergency News Network (ENN) updates Intelligent Concepts Daily News Summaries Special support tasking News flashes More to be added soon! MEMBERSHIP: Limited to DOD intelligence and counterintelligence personnel, (active, reserve, or retired). Non-DOD intel/CI applicants may request a waiver by demonstrating a need for=20 inclusion, (such as law enforcement intelligence, FBI, etc.) To apply for membership answer the following questions and email to Eric Nelson at: =20 enelson(a)rohan.sdsu.edu <send the following> NAME/RANK: MILITARY UNIT/ORG: JOB TITLE: EMAIL ADDRESS: REG/RES/RET? NAME OF PERSON WHO REFERRED YOU (MANDATORY): <clip here and send> ------------------------------------------------------------ From: "Robert A. Walton" <waltonr(a)meade-emh2.army.mil>=20 Subject: DC Area Infowar Event Cc: "Betty G. O'Hearn" <betty(a)infowar.com> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 17:04:22 +0000 You may wish to post the following notice. The Maryland chapter of Armed Forces Communications and Electronics=20 Association will have a luncheon meeting at the Fort Meade Officer's Club=20 on Tuesday, 19 November. The lunch is at 11:45, the program follows at=20 12:30. The speaker is Brigadier General Jaeger. The topic is=20 "Information Warfare Exercise Lessons Learned." The cost is $10.00 for the luncheon if you register today or Friday, or=20 $12.00 at the door Tuesday. If you are interested in going, please call=20 Vicki Neuman at 301-317-9474 to make a reservation. Thanks Bob Walton ------------------------------------------------------------ To: infowar(a)infowar.com From: aludwig(a)pacbell.net Subject: Legal aspects of information warfare My name is Aaron Ludwig and I am a third year law student at Whittier Law=20 School. I am currently writing a law review article about the legal=20 aspects of information warfare. If anyone has any insight or helpful=20 information regarding this topic please contact me at=20 aaronludwig(a)juno.com or simply reply to this mail. The following are=20 just a few of the questions I hope to analyze and answer: If the U.S. sustains an information-based attack, does this warrant an=20 armed response?(i.e., what constitutes an attack?) What laws are involved in carrying out or defending against information=20 attacks? What laws are involved in the detection of enemy information=20 warriors? Last, but not least, I wonder whether anyone can tell me how to get a=20 hold of the proceedings of any of the information warfare conferences. =20 Keep in mind that I am a highly-leveraged (broke) law student. Thank you. Aaron ------------------------------------------------------------ To: Infowar(a)infowar.com From: Betty(a)infowar.com Subject: Defense Science Board Task Force Defense Science Board Task Force on Information Warfare-Defense=20 (IW-D), will be issuing a report in the next few days. Federal Computer= Week=20 has an interesting article stating that the report called the threat of an= IW=20 attack "significant," adding that the nation's "vulnerabilities are= numerous,=20 [and] the countermeasures are extremely limited...." You can read the= article at=20 http://www.fcw.com/pubs/fcw/1111/duck.htm. We will be publishing the= report=20 as it is made available to us. ------------------------------------------------------------ Date: 11 Nov 1996 20:13:20 CST Subject: Flight Information Resource Sender: owner-g-two(a)majordomo.netcom.com ENN Info Update 11/11/96 - 20:00CST New Information Resource Assists in Tracking Domestic Flights (ENN) A free service called "Flight Trax" is now available on the World-Wide-Web. This new information resource allows one to track the progress of any domestic airflight within the contigious 48 states. Call up: http://www.amerwxcncpt.com/ with your favorite internet browser. The program will ask you for the flight number, the airline, and= the destination airport (using the FAA designated three-letter code). The= program will then show you the kind of aricraft used, its flight's path, its location on that path (accurate to within two or three minutes), and its expected time of arrival at its destination. It will not tell you why it may have been delayed. The information is provided by Flyte-Comm of Ft. Lauderdale, FL, which uses data from the FAA to produce the flight estimates. Might be prove useful while waiting for Grandma's flight to come in from Des Moines, or a variety of other uses. Courtesy of: EmergencyNet News Service Emergency Response & Research Institute 6348 N. Milwaukee Ave., #312 Chicago, IL. 60646 (773) 631-3774 - Voice (773) 631-4703 - Fax (773) 631-3467 - Modem/Emergency BBS On-Line http://www.emergency.com - Website enn(a)emergency.com - E-mail ------------------------------------------------------------ END Infowar Thursday November 14 1996 Volume 01: Number 03 DIRECT REQUESTS to: list(a)infowar.com with one-line in the BODY, NOT in the subject line. Subscribe infowar TO JOIN GROUP Unsubscribe infowar TO LEAVE GROUP Help infowar TO RECEIVE HELP=20 TO POST A MESSAGE: E-Mail to infowar(a)infowar.com =20 _____________________________________________________ Infowar.Com Interpact, Inc. Winn Schwartau winn(a)infowar.com http://www.infowar.com 813-393-6600 Voice 813-393-6361 FAX Sponsor Opportunities/Comments/Help Betty G. O'Hearn Assistant to Winn Schwartau http://www.infowar.com betty(a)infowar.com 813-367-7277 Voice 813-363-7277 FAX -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Message:0002 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: infowar(a)infowar.com From: "Betty G. O'Hearn" <betty(a)infowar.com> Subject: Infowar Thursday November 14 1996 Volume 01: Number 03 We thank our sponsors: Internet Security Solutions New Dimensions International - Security Training Secure Computing Corporation HOMECOM Communications National Computer Security Association OPEN SOURCE SOLUTIONS, Inc. __________________________________________________ Infowar(a)infowar.com is brought to you in the the interest of an open, unclassified exchange of information and ideas as a means for advancement of Information Warfare related issues. Topics of discussion for this list include: Infowar, Electronic Civil Defense, Hacking, Defensive Techniques, Policy, Non-Lethals, Psyops, Chemical Warfare Agents and WMD. As the list expands we will adapt to the needs and desires of our subscribers. __________________________________________________________ To: Infowar(a)infowar.com From: winn(a)infowar.com Subject: MCTL Process Infowar.com is proud to have been given permission to publish the latest Military Critical Technologies List - Part I: Weapons Systems Technologies. THE MCTL Process is the systemic ongoing assessment and analyses of technologies to determine which technologies are Militarily Critical and therefore should have additional controlsplaced on them or made subject to export control. This document is the first of three parts. Part two: Weapons of Mass Production and Part three: Critical Developing Technologies are in development and will be published when completed and made available to us. Don't miss reading this! Download Acrobat as the file is in .pdf format. (acrobat readers are free) This file will be posted the week of November 17 1996. ------------------------------------------------------------ To: Betty(a)infowar.com From: "Eric L. Nelson, M.A." <enelson(a)nosc.mil> Subject: G-TWO RECRUITMENT FORM Sender: owner-g-two(a)majordomo.netcom.com Please use this ammended form to inform your DOD intel and CI colleagues about g-two. Please discard previous editions. Thanks, EL Nelson moderator Get The Word Out (G-TWO) is designed to provide direct assistance to DOD intelligence and counterintelligence teams by providing open-source intelligence and news summaries pertinent to DOD interests. Topics include: Political: Politics of intelligence. Political history of hotspots/groups/personalities. Information: WWW locations of intelligence usefulness with brief summaries. Lists, databases, and archives accessible via the internet. Resource sharing. NBC-M (nuclear, biological, chemical & medical): Biochem threat analysis/events (outbreaks). Medical technology and issues related to DOD missions/personnel. Tracking the development of NBC capabilities by country/group. Terrorism: Threat/threat mindsets/tactical intent. Issues related to security and threat issues. International Crime. New developments in terrorism. New technology/weapons systems with CT application. Info. on capability of Special Teams/personnel. Military/Intel Agencies: Force protection. OPSEC. Military plans/policies. Reports on terrorism/counter-terrorism activities. Data on military forces and capabilities (order of battle). Analysis: More analysis by SME's (subject matter experts). Emerging threat analysis. EOD/chemical analysis. Group profies (themes, objectives, etc.) Who are these people? Cultural profiles and key info/customs to know. Technology & Industrial: Hacking/Infowar. Technology/precursor tracking, what is being procured by others. Industrial/technical intelligence on foreign countries- what are they doing? Other: Central/South American, and Caribbean information. Psychological profiles/cultural profiles of groups/personalities. Deception. Stateless Warfare Issues (gangs, 4th generation warfare). State department info. Washington Early Bird news summaries. World hot spot info. Information warfare. Daily news articles on terrorism and related issues State Department country studies State Department terrorist groups/personalities files Emergency News Network (ENN) updates Intelligent Concepts Daily News Summaries Special support tasking News flashes More to be added soon! MEMBERSHIP: Limited to DOD intelligence and counterintelligence personnel, (active, reserve, or retired). Non-DOD intel/CI applicants may request a waiver by demonstrating a need for inclusion, (such as law enforcement intelligence, FBI, etc.) To apply for membership answer the following questions and email to Eric Nelson at: enelson(a)rohan.sdsu.edu <send the following> NAME/RANK: MILITARY UNIT/ORG: JOB TITLE: EMAIL ADDRESS: REG/RES/RET? NAME OF PERSON WHO REFERRED YOU (MANDATORY): <clip here and send> ------------------------------------------------------------ From: "Robert A. Walton" <waltonr(a)meade-emh2.army.mil> Subject: DC Area Infowar Event Cc: "Betty G. O'Hearn" <betty(a)infowar.com> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 17:04:22 +0000 You may wish to post the following notice. The Maryland chapter of Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association will have a luncheon meeting at the Fort Meade Officer's Club on Tuesday, 19 November. The lunch is at 11:45, the program follows at 12:30. The speaker is Brigadier General Jaeger. The topic is "Information Warfare Exercise Lessons Learned." The cost is $10.00 for the luncheon if you register today or Friday, or $12.00 at the door Tuesday. If you are interested in going, please call Vicki Neuman at 301-317-9474 to make a reservation. Thanks Bob Walton ------------------------------------------------------------ To: infowar(a)infowar.com From: aludwig(a)pacbell.net Subject: Legal aspects of information warfare My name is Aaron Ludwig and I am a third year law student at Whittier Law School. I am currently writing a law review article about the legal aspects of information warfare. If anyone has any insight or helpful information regarding this topic please contact me at aaronludwig(a)juno.com or simply reply to this mail. The following are just a few of the questions I hope to analyze and answer: If the U.S. sustains an information-based attack, does this warrant an armed response?(i.e., what constitutes an attack?) What laws are involved in carrying out or defending against information attacks? What laws are involved in the detection of enemy information warriors? Last, but not least, I wonder whether anyone can tell me how to get a hold of the proceedings of any of the information warfare conferences. Keep in mind that I am a highly-leveraged (broke) law student. Thank you. Aaron ------------------------------------------------------------ To: Infowar(a)infowar.com From: Betty(a)infowar.com Subject: Defense Science Board Task Force Defense Science Board Task Force on Information Warfare-Defense (IW-D), will be issuing a report in the next few days. Federal Computer Week has an interesting article stating that the report called the threat of an IW attack "significant," adding that the nation's "vulnerabilities are numerous, [and] the countermeasures are extremely limited...." You can read the article at http://www.fcw.com/pubs/fcw/1111/duck.htm. We will be publishing the report as it is made available to us. ------------------------------------------------------------ Date: 11 Nov 1996 20:13:20 CST Subject: Flight Information Resource Sender: owner-g-two(a)majordomo.netcom.com ENN Info Update 11/11/96 - 20:00CST New Information Resource Assists in Tracking Domestic Flights (ENN) A free service called "Flight Trax" is now available on the World-Wide-Web. This new information resource allows one to track the progress of any domestic airflight within the contigious 48 states. Call up: http://www.amerwxcncpt.com/ with your favorite internet browser. The program will ask you for the flight number, the airline, and the destination airport (using the FAA designated three-letter code). The program will then show you the kind of aricraft used, its flight's path, its location on that path (accurate to within two or three minutes), and its expected time of arrival at its destination. It will not tell you why it may have been delayed. The information is provided by Flyte-Comm of Ft. Lauderdale, FL, which uses data from the FAA to produce the flight estimates. Might be prove useful while waiting for Grandma's flight to come in from Des Moines, or a variety of other uses. Courtesy of: EmergencyNet News Service Emergency Response & Research Institute 6348 N. Milwaukee Ave., #312 Chicago, IL. 60646 (773) 631-3774 - Voice (773) 631-4703 - Fax (773) 631-3467 - Modem/Emergency BBS On-Line http://www.emergency.com - Website enn(a)emergency.com - E-mail ------------------------------------------------------------ END Infowar Thursday November 14 1996 Volume 01: Number 03 DIRECT REQUESTS to: list(a)infowar.com with one-line in the BODY, NOT in the subject line. Subscribe infowar TO JOIN GROUP Unsubscribe infowar TO LEAVE GROUP Help infowar TO RECEIVE HELP TO POST A MESSAGE: E-Mail to infowar(a)infowar.com _____________________________________________________ Infowar.Com Interpact, Inc. Winn Schwartau winn(a)infowar.com http://www.infowar.com 813-393-6600 Voice 813-393-6361 FAX Sponsor Opportunities/Comments/Help Betty G. O'Hearn Assistant to Winn Schwartau http://www.infowar.com betty(a)infowar.com 813-367-7277 Voice 813-363-7277 FAX

1 0

Inside Currents Vol. 1, No. 6
by Newsletter 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

******************************************************* Inside Currents Vol 1, No. 6 November 1996 This is the electronic newsletter you requested when you joined Computer Currents Interactive at http://www.currents.net. ******************************************************* If you would like to REMOVE yourself from this newsletter mailing list, you may send an "unsubscribe" message to Computer Currents Interactive. ***To unsubscribe, address your message to listserv(a)compcurr.com. Leave the subject area in the header blank. In the body, simply type unsubscribe newsletter For security reasons you will then receive a message asking you to confirm your actions by replying with an "ok" (without quotes) in the body of your message. If this newsletter has been forwarded to you and you wish to SUBSCRIBE, you may join Computer Currents Interactive at http://www.currents.net. If you have any further questions, please send a message to insidecurrents(a)compcurr.com. ******************************************************* IN THIS INSIDE CURRENTS: 1. Our online computer forums are up and running. Get some free advice! http://www.currents.net/ 2. We've launched a new section: The Computer Advisor http://www.currents.net/cciu/advisor/advisor.html 3. If you're looking to buy computer equipment, try NetQuote. http://www.currents.net/services/netquote/netquote.html 4. BookPoint: We've made it easier for you to buy books in our online database http://www.bookpoint.com/ 5. COMDEXMeet us in Las Vegas at the biggest computer show in the country. ******************************************************* 1. Get some free advice: Our online computer forums are up and running. Weve opened up our bulletin boards to give Computer Currents Interactive users some free advice. Our online forums are fast becoming the best place to stop in with your computer questions and to share your experience and compare notes with others. Watch for advice from our computer advisorsindustry experts who will help you get the most out of your computer. http://www.currents.net/ 2. We've launched a new section: The Computer Advisor In our newly redesigned Computer Advisor section, youll find state-of-the industry news and reviews, along with simple how -to materials to help you use your computer to its best advantage. We also offer up HelpLinks to the most helpful sites on the web. http://www.currents.net/cciu/advisor/advisor.html 3. If you're looking to buy computer equipment, try NetQuote. Our easy-to-use service brings computer stores to you. You tell us what kind of equipment you want. We'll send your specifications out to stores in your area, and they'll contact you with a price quote. It's minimum-effort comparison shopping, exclusively for our members http://www.currents.net/services/netquote/netquote.html 4. BookPoint: We've made it easier for you to buy books in our online database Beginning this week, you'll find current computer-related bestseller books available online at a 10% discount. Also in BookPoint (our partnership with Staceys Professional Bookstore) you can access our growing database of professional books. All the books are available to CCI members at a discount. http://www.bookpoint.com/books/picks.html 5. COMDEXMeet us in Las Vegas at the biggest computer trade show in the country It's the biggest computer tribal gathering of the year, and we'll be at Pavilion #4, booth #P4705 just outside of the Las Vegas Convention Center. Stop by to meet our staff, tell us what you like (and dislike) about our site and what you'd like to see more of in the future. Viva Las Vegas! ******************************************************* Computer Currents Interactive http://www.currents.net *******************************************************

1 0