December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

computer modelling of cryptanalytic thought processes (references)
by David Honig 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I was reading the Military Cryptanalysis Field Manual at ftp://ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/cryptanalysis/ basic_cryptanalysis.ps.tar.gz and was reminded of a book I had partly read a while ago, Doug Hofstadter's _Fluid Concepts & Creative Analogies : Computer Models of the Fundamental Mechanisms of Thought_ (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0465024750/r/0509-6726066-321937) 'Hofstadter and his colleagues created a variety of computer programs that extrapolate sequences, apply pattern-matching strategies, make analogies, and even act "creative." ' For instance, he developes a model that solves a type of newspaper-puzzle cryptogram. The interplay between levels of abstraction ---recognizing words in the plaintext language, and reconstructing the key together from statistical and other constraints (Ch. 4)--- is what's similar between Hofstadter's model and what the field manual describes. Caveats: Hofstadter's book is very dry. The Field Manual only mentions that computers may be useful, and gives advice that may have been useful 70 years ago. ------------------------------------------------------------ David Honig Orbit Technology honig(a)otc.net Intaanetto Jigyoubu "Windows 95 is a technologically complex product that is best left alone by the government..." ---MSFT Atty B. Smith

1 0

Re: Completely anonymous communications ARE only for "Criminals"
by Charlie Comsec 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- gburnore(a)netcom.com (Gary L. Burnore) wrote: > :> Nope. If a lawyer believes he can win and there big money involved, he'll take > :> it on the premise that he gets paid if he wins. If the defendant has nothing > :> to offer, the lawyer won't do it. Thus, the falsly accused may not be able to > :> afford to go to court. The decision to sue is mostly based on how deep the > :> pockets of the defendant would be. > : > :Then what's the point of going to all the trouble of tracking someone down if > :you're unwilling or unable to take appropriate legal action against him > :after he's found? > > That's not what I said. If your decision to sue or not sue is based on the deepness of the defendant's pockets, and if you didn't know this until after he was identified, then you very might well end up tracking down and identifying someone that a lawyer wouldn't be willing so sue (on a contingency fee basis), right? My question was, if Politas' suggestions were implemented and an unknown individual was tracked down using the procedure he outlined, and it turns out the individual was "judgement proof", who's going to pay for the costs of the investigation? Otherwise, you end up with an "in terrorem" remedy. That's one that you probably wouldn't or couldn't aqctually use, but the potential to do so might serve as a deterrent. Unfortunately, when free speech is involved, that's exactly what many of us don't want. It cuts both ways. Look at what the scientologists did to Julf and the anon.penet.fi remailer. Alleging some violation of Swedish law, they almost succeeded in retrieving Julf's entire "traceability" database linking account names to their "real" owners. The end result was that the remailer was destroyed. Having privacy invading data like that available put all of Julf's clients at risk. In the end, Julf felt that it was better to close down rather than risk future raids. That has pretty much driven a nail in the coffin of the sort of "traceable" remailers Politas is now proposing. It's a case of "been there -- done that". Few people relish ending up on the Scientologists' (or the next organization like it that comes along) hit list, and most now realize how vulnerable a remailer operator is to coercion -- even the "legal" variety. One doesn't even have to be an anti-scieno to be a victim of such a raid. Since they're so paranoid about anonymity and the ability of people to publish their "secret scriptures" anonymously, they might just steal such a database and anonymously publish it themselves. Outing thousands of innocent remailer clients would irreparably harm the reputation of remailers, which would work to their advantage. I'll even go so far as to say that you'll never be able to eliminate truly anonymous remailers. First of all, you'll never get every single country to adopt Politas' suggestions. All it takes is one untraceable remailer in an encrypted chain to make back-tracing a message impossible (or at least prohibitively costly, in terms of money, time, and computing resources). > :> :So you're suggesting that the victim should suffer. You are really saying > :> :that it is perfectly acceptable for someone to be run out of a newsgroup by > :> :a single person who refuses to be killfilable. > :> > :> > :> Yup, that's what he's saying. > : > :I don't recall ever saying that. How do you run a person out of > :an unmoderated NG? > > Charlie, if he doesn't like your posts and you continue to post and he just > can't bring himself to killfile you the next best thing is for him to leave, > right? That's one option, but I wouldn't make it a blanket suggestion. Some ideas are worth defending and some are better off dropped. I've seen fanatics on some NGs who have attracted exactly ZERO supporters to their position, and dozens of people rebutting, flaming, ridiculing them, etc. yet these folks persist. Ultimately it's their choice. Let me cite an example. I believe the earth is round and presumably you do too. But if you visited a NG that was the hangout of dozens of flat-earthers, you probably wouldn't stick around too long to argue the point. At least I know I wouldn't. Being right doesn't require you to convince everyone. You just accept the fact that some arguments are unwinable and move on to more productive things. The same could be said for religious or political flame wars. If I expressed my opinion, and some religious kook accused me of being the devil incarnate for espousing such heresy, I wouldn't waste my time trying to netcop the person. Maybe calling me "the devil incarnate" is libellous, but IMO it's not worth the time and effort to pursue. And that's even with a net.kook who's posting with a genuine e-mail address and his "real name". An anonymous kook is even less worthy of bothering with. If he crosses the line and commits behavior that is flagrantly illegal, then he's exposing himself to risk by doing so. Let's face it, people may walk down the street with ski masks on, and even if it annoys you, you're probably not going to be able to unmask them. If one robs a bank, though, he stands a far greater chance of being identified and apprehended. Politas' solution is like requiring name tags on ski masks. Let's worry about the bank robbers rather than the people who wear ski masks. > : And if it's moderated, and the moderator is allowing what > :you consider libel against you, then you probably have a case against him. > > True. > > :That's what the courts decided in a landmark case against an ISP. When you > :manage the content then you become responsible for it as well. > > Exactly. The bottom line being, if you have a POV you wish to express, and you encounter opposition in one forum, choose another one. If you can't find one, start one. > :Nor do I understand the "who refuses to be killfilable" part, either. > > I believe he meanse by continously altering his name or by posting > anonymously. If he's posting anonymously, then he's easily killfilable. Just put the return address of the remailer(s) he's using in your killfile. If he's not posting anonymously, then that scenario is not related to remailers. If you're talking about multiple GENUINE IDs, then the ISPs involved might be able to help -- assuming he's really committing abuse OF the net, and not merely being annoying. If they're bogus IDs, then his ISP might have a policy about that as well. > : How can > :someone you don't even know control your killfile? I can killfile anyone I > :want to, including "nobody@some_remailer". I haven't killfiled anyone, but > :I could do so if I wanted to. > > You could but it's not worth it. Killfile anyone posting anonymously because > of one idiot? I don't do that either. Again, that's a choice you have to weigh. Take each remailer ID and decide whether the valuable posts from that ID outweigh the junk. But, again, annoying posts aren't really what Politas' proposal dealt with. He was talking about actual laws being broken. > :Why would that prevent you from contacting the police? But consider that > :libel is a civil tort not a criminal offense, so the police aren't likely to > :get involved, even if you could identify the culprit. > > True that a traceless remailer makes it impossible, not that getting the > police involved would work. Sorry I wasn't clearer. If you had a matter that truly concerned the police, the lack of a suspect's name shouldn't hinder you. After all, if someone had stolen your car, you'd report it even if you didn't know who did it, wouldn't you? As I said previously, many bank robbers are caught even if they wore masks or drove a car without license plates. > :I'm really trying to understand what Politas' wants, but it's difficult. > > I think he wants one particluar person to leave him alone. I must have missed that point in following the thread. If I recall correctly, I asked him what particular problem he was trying to solve, since it's easier to solve real, existing problems that hypothetical ones. He said that he didn't have any problems like that himself, and doubted he would because he didn't normally engage in behavior that would attract enemies, but he was concerned that it might happen to others. [Politas: please feel free to jump in and clarify this point.] - --- Finger <comsec(a)nym.alias.net> for PGP public key (Key ID=19BE8B0D) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNKFE6wbp0h8ZvosNAQESpQf9GO+lwhRsKMWnn24n9LJR8bE/Wih+gmXg sFYVVAQDExRCiCcoBMcvg1+EvxKvOrpLMKOiyf3ErxPiSxmn6ngb8n0PlraEpURt ioBOrg6/BDUGU5tGxdyfot2kOpc89S/c+bdjOBKWmKe0zKi4PObinX+yIaJ+EnOG 3HajH3B4ND3KSO9nwtQmtCuu8HBt8S0qA3o5H6fXSOmVfknZZIpnYaneYWUAqn8G ey8jVyIUdBjLYP36U1JCsvIPbcW/vhAEpO0qnbmWf11fLfJGAW8aVl+wHuZVbqyL lAqXil0r0QuAyksJ5OoMHMA6SOofMkR4CUiPZhQE2VC+sWE9rKiHFQ== =0ndp -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Best Cypherpunk War Text
by Secret Squirrel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The "lock and load," "Best Cypherpunk long gun" and other similar threads have gotten me thinking. Can any fellow Cypherpunks suggest any books or documents on the net concerning urban warfare, generic non-urban warfare (e.g. plains), differences between weapons, suggestions, etc. Basically a survivalist's almanac, I suppose. Threat model: For whatever reason the U.S. just collapsed. Civil war is imminent and there is little or no civility in the streets.

2 1

Best Cypherpunk War Text
by Mixmaster 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The "lock and load," "Best Cypherpunk long gun" and other similar threads have gotten me thinking. Can any fellow Cypherpunks suggest any books or documents on the net concerning urban warfare, generic non-urban warfare (e.g. plains), differences between weapons, suggestions, etc. Basically a survivalist's almanac, I suppose. Threat model: For whatever reason the U.S. just collapsed. Civil war is imminent and there is little or no civility in the streets.

1 0

Re: Civil War Crypto Question...
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate wrote: >Myer implimented including a 'cipher disk' whereby the Union was able to >change their telegraph codes on an hourly schedule. It was apparently very >effictive in dealing with taps and such. > >Anyone know of another source that discusses this disk? Myer's code and cipher disk (with illustration) are briefly described in Fred Wrixon's "Codes and Ciphers" along with an entry on Civil War crypto with a photo of a Confederate cipher disk. We've put the entries and illustrations at: http://jya.com/cydisk.htm The book is: "Codes and Ciphers: An A to Z of Covert Communication, from the Clay Tablet to the Microdot," Fred B. Wrixon, Prentice Hall, 1992, paper. $18.00 ISBN 0-13-277047-4

1 0

Cryptographers Do It With Protection
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Excerpts From: None of Your Business: World Data Flows, Electronic Commerce, and the European Privacy Directive Peter P. Swire & Robert E. Litan >The Tension Between Data Protection >and Modern Information Technologies >On almost any conceivable dimension, we are in the midst of an information >explosion. Data protection rules, by contrast, seek to block flows of >information. Data 'Control' is oppression. Data 'Protection' is our friend. "If putting all information about every individual on the face of the globe in the hands of the New World Order saves the life of a single child..." >Seen another way, the rise of computers and computer networks is undoubtedly >a major reason why countries have promulgated data protection rules in >recent decades. In both the United States and Europe, current debates >about privacy are being driven by fears about how computers pose a threat >to privacy. >That is, computers are the key reason for data protection rules. ... >International flows of data. International flows of information are >climbing rapidly within companies, as they create global Intranets, >and between companies, as they use Extranets with their strategic >partners. And these "data protection rules" are going to be enforced equally for everybody, right? If you and I are fined and imprisoned for violation of these rules, then it will be likewise for owners of megacorporations, government employees, etc. Just like at Waco and Ruby Ridge, Kent State and Tiennachinc Square... Just like murdering dictators at the APEC summit would have been maced and arrested if they carried signs saying "Freedom & Democracy." Get real. While Bernstein has the Dogs of InfoWar set on his ass, RSA is exporting cutting edge encryption technology to Communist China. Bottom Line: Just as is the case today, the "data protection" laws and regulations of the future will apply only to those individuals and corporations who fail to fall in line with the New World Order's desire for all new technologies to contain tools of surveillance and oppression. "Those who have nothing to hide, have nothing to fear." Put a cork in your asshole...the government is going to 'protect' you again. BendOverI'mHereToHelpYouMonger |<----------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------->| 6"

1 0

This post is none of your business
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Excerpts From: None of Your Business: World Data Flows, Electronic Commerce, and the European Privacy Directive Peter P. Swire & Robert E. Litan >The Directive's limits on transborder data flows directly confront >organizations' expectations to be able to circulate information freely >inside the organization's firewalls and other security. Operations >in the United States and other third countries will often expect to >exchange data about employees with European operations. >Wherever there is no finding of adequacy, however, sending data to >third countries risks violating the data protection regime. >Organizations thus face a compliance dilemma of whether they can >implement Intranet and other information technologies consistent with >European law. Keep in mind that ignorance of laws written on foreign shores, in foreign languages, will be no excuse. Americans can expect to be indicted as coconspirators of people they have never met, have never seen, and have never communicated with. "Put down that copy of the Constitution, and slowly back away from the keyboard, Monsieur!" >In an era of transnational business, the accounting and auditing >functions of companies require transfer of an increasingly wide range >of information across borders. To carry out these functions, auditors >and accountants must have the ability to examine the underlying >documentation of transactions. This documentation often includes >personally identifiable information. >The Directive thus challenges the ability of transnational firms to >follow accepted and appropriate procedures for audit and accounting. So we can expect to see governments and megacorporations blow off billions of dollars in order to protect Dimitri Vulis' privacy. Right... "None of Your Business" is full of references to "transnational" corporations and organizations, and the development of "Intranet" and "Extranet" webs within and among them. While it addresses many of the issues which will come into play regarding regional laws and regulations in the expanding global InterNet (and does a damn fine job of it), I believe that, in the end, the single issue which will decide the fate of all who use the InterNet will be the right to privacy. Without privacy, freedom and self-determination are not possible. The more things globally change, the more they will remain the same. Individual Bernsteins will find themselves pitted against the bottomless pockets of governments and corporations, while 'transnational' RSAs will be free to engage in activities of momentous proportions which are forbidden to the Bernsteins of the world in even the smallest of instances. 'Data Protection' will be as big a farce as 'News Protection' currently is. It will be a tool for those with money and power to control and manipulate the information that citizens are allowed to access, and the form in which they will be allowed to view it. The 'personal information' concerning the 'guerilla' mothers and babies who are slaughtered by US troops will be 'protected' (and thus 'unavailable), while the 'personal information' regarding the 'men of valor' who died while slaughtering them will be made available for a nation told to mourn only them. The 'personal information' concerning those who get filthy rich selling the government $10,000 toilet seats will be 'protected', while the 'personal information' regarding every small sin in the lifetime of the whistleblower who exposes the thief will be made available to every media souce on the face of the earth. The citizen's answer, "None of Your Business," will inevitably be countered by the government's question, "What do you have to hide?" With the expansion of global laws to cover every action and activity possible to humankind, 'data' becomes translatable as 'evidence.' And "everything" becomes the government's business. Is it my imagination, or are Swire and Litan, as well as all others who write about the current state of development of global technology, society and law, merely providing real-time footnotes to '1984', without providing Orwell's insight into our true future? ~~~~ 1984AnimalFarmBraveNewWorldMonger "Everything not permitted, is forbidden."

1 0

Digital Revolutionaries
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> None of Your Business: >World Data Flows, Electronic Commerce, and the European Privacy Directive > Peter P. Swire & Robert E. Litan > > > B. Some Reasons for Data Protection Laws. >Before plunging into the Directive and its potential effects, >it is useful to understand why laws have emerged in recent decades -- >not only in the United States but elsewhere throughout the world -- >to govern uses of personal data. And perhaps the best, although >admittedly overdrawn, way to do this is by imagining a privacy ^^^^^^^^^ >advocate's worst nightmare -- the presence of an Orwellian, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >all-knowing computer, which contains a complete dossier on >every individual in a society. "Overdrawn?" Methinks Peter and Robert are on the outside, looking in. Forwarded from the London Telegraph: ----------------------------------------------------------- >Daily Telegraph Connected Supplement 16th December 1997 > >A European Commission report warns that the United States has developed an >extensive spying network on European Citizens and we should all be worried, >reports Simon Davies. > >A global electronic spy network that can eavesdrop on every telephone,email >and telex communication around the world will be officially acknowledged >for the first time in a European Commission report to be delivered this >week. Of course, anyone who suggests that they would use this information to compile a complete dossier on everyone in sociey is a paranoid lunatic, just as those who suggested the above *before* it became an open secret were paranoid lunatics. >Briefly consider what sorts of harms might occur if such a computer existed. >If the computer were controlled by the government, then individuals might >feel chilled by constant surveillance. They might fear government would use >the computer to retaliate against its political enemies. They might be >afraid that those who controlled the computer would become an unaccountable ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >elite, whose command over secret files would help entrench themselves in ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >power. ^^^^^ Are Peter P. Swire & Robert E. Litan the *real* Author of 'The True Story of the InterNet'? Is this why no one has ever seen them and TruthMonger together? >The fears hardly disappear if the computer were controlled by corporations >in the private sector. In that case, private actors would gain extraordinary >power vis-a-vis the government. Meanwhile, corporate-controlled computers >can be just as invasive of personal privacy as those controlled by >government. Can you say "Fascism?" Sure you can... >What should be a society's response to these doomsday scenarios of the >all-knowing computer? To the extent the scenarios are plausible, society >should seek ways to prevent and correct the abuses of power that can occur >with centralized control over information by the public and private sectors. "Society?" Is "society" ready and willing to spend five *extra* years in prison for the use of encryption and/or anonymity in the commission of such crimes as exporting strong encryption? Is "society" ready and willing to fight the battles of tomorrow, *today*? "If you meet Dan Rather on the road, kill him." >On the other hand, there may be important reasons why the doomsday scenarios >will not occur, and especially reasons for doubting that information >technologies inevitably lead to centralization of control over information. >As we explain in detail in subsequent chapters, both the United States and >European Union have taken steps to address the perceived risks caused by >individuals' loss of control over their personal information. Excuse me? We can expect to be 'saved' by governments which have already taken away our basic human rights, and who continue to do so in increasing quantum leaps? We can expect to be 'saved' by Jim Bell's government? Or by the Branch Davidian's government? Or by the government which arrested and maced its citizens for possession of signs saying "Freedom & Liberty" during the APEC summit where unelected dictators met with elected dictators to divvy up the world's financial spoils? "We're from Adolf Hitler's government, and we're here to help you..." NEWS FLASH!!! The inevitable forced march to centralized information and centralized power over the face of the globe will be successfully resisted only as it has been done so in the past, through the efforts of Revolutionaries and Warriors. This time, by Digital Revolutionists and InfoWarriors. Who is going to inform the public of what is taking place in the secret war against the citizens? The Desert Storm reportwhores? The mainstream media who whipped the public into being outraged by the sight of the bodies of US soldiers being dragged through the streets of Somalia, while ignoring the stories of Somalian mothers with babies in their arms being slaughtered by those US soldiers? What segment of "society" is going to rise up in protest against the outrages of the future? The segment that watched JFK, RFK, MLK, et al, be slaughtered by the Dark Allies, and slept comfortably with mainstream media visions of lone gunmen and Magic Bullets dancing in their heads? The segment that watched the Iranian hostages responsible for the election of RR and his CIA running mate being released on the same day as RayGun's and BushWhacker's inauguration, and never smelled a ratfucker? The segment that can sleep comfortably after watching their government burn to death the men, women and children of a religious group targeted for persecution? The segment whose best revolutionary efforts have been to make feeble attempts to fight yesterday's battles years after they have already been lost, and the lies, hypocrisy and dark intentions of our government masters begin to become public? The Revolution is Now! Tommorrow's battles are already being won today by secret government agencies and unelected secret commissions who control the reality seen by the citizens through the mainstream electronic opiate of the masses. The tools of encryption and anonymity are the weapons of the Digital Revolution. Software sabotage and backdoors are the secret battles of the InfoWarrior. Warez is the lifeline that provides InfoWarriors with the tools necessary to fight with the latest available weapons. The Clipper Chip is a digital implant. The V Chip is a digital implant. The Save A Missing Child Chip will be a digital implant. Orwell and Kafka saw the Beast. Saint John the Divine saw the Great Beast...the Global Beast. Those who do not learn from the future, are doomed to live it... TruthKidMonger |<---->| 8" "If this is the revolution, why are the drink prices so high?" ~ Patron at New York City guerilla bar

1 0

CRYPTIC WARNING !!!
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SOMETHING small IS GOING TO HAPPEN !!! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Little Peter |<--------------------------------------------------->| 2"

1 0

Server Registration
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Server Registration Excerpts From: None of Your Business: World Data Flows, Electronic Commerce, and the European Privacy Directive Peter P. Swire & Robert E. Litan >Consent and jurisdiction, however, may be much bigger problems on the Web. >As for consent, an ordinary user often will not know the identity of the >person or organization that is hosting a web site. The user often will >not know about the site's privacy practices. Does the site keep track >of personal information, and perhaps sell that information to third >parties? >Is a "cookie" being placed on the user's hard drive to track his or her >movements in cyberspace? Even if a site claims to have privacy protections >in place, how can the user verify that the polices are followed? >In addition, the user also has no ready way to determine whether the site >is within Europe, and thus clearly subject to the Directive, or else in >a third country that may lack privacy standards. >In light of all of these uncertainties, there may be little basis for >assuming that an individual has consented to a site's uses of personal >information. In the coming InfoWar, servers will be classified as "munitions" and will be subject to registration, regulation and control. This will, of course, be for the 'Data Protection' of the citizens, corporations and the government. "In the interests of National Security." will become, "In the interests of Data Protection." or somesuch new catchphrase of oppression. >Outside of Europe, U.S. and other web site operators are even less >likely to comply with the Directive, and many of these operators may >remain beyond the jurisdiction of European law. >Web sites will also likely be established outside of Europe precisely >in order to process data in ways that are forbidden by the Directive, >and it is far from clear that technical methods exist to prevent data >from flowing to such sites. Naturally, the InfoWar waged against Data Criminals will have to be a global effort, with the increasing merging of worldwide LEA's described by Reno and Freeh. God help the American who is an international coconspirator of Jaime Belle. God help the American who exports strong encryption developed by RSA in Communist China, and subject to their laws. Face it...any government or corporation that could be guaranteed exclusive access to the Chinese market would send a Strike Force back in time to murder baby Jesus in Bethlehem, if that was what it took. The citizen's ass will soon be global grass... >This legal enforceability will only provide effective protection of data, >though, if there is actual compliance by the many controllers within >Europe, and some legal and practical way to gain compliance from web >site operators elsewhere in the world. "In order to Data-Save the Global Village, we had to burn it." >It is indeed possible that data protection rules will increase consumer >confidence and thus the level of electronic commerce -- if the public >knows about and trusts the data protection rules, and if those rules >inspire more confidence than other approaches to protecting privacy. Bullshit! The sheeple will sell out their human rights birthright for a bowl of instant gratification pottage, and, in the twisted reality of present day 'democracy', will sell out the rights of the rest of us, as well. "If you don't click on the button that states you agree with the loss of all your human rights, you cannot access the "Naked Teenagers Sucking Donkey Dicks" streaming videos." NEWS FLASH!!! The news stories describing how reluctant consumers are to give out their credit card information out over the InterNet never seem to mention that the largest financial transaction base on the InterNet is not fueled by customers who wait a week or so for 'snail mail' payments to "Adult Check" to give them access to hard-core pornography. The sheeple will "trust the data protection rules" when they are 'told' to do so (by the same government officials who told them that there would indeed be jacuzzi's at Aushwitz -- "Now climb aboard, please.") "They came for the encryption, and I had no encryption, so I didn't speak up. They came for the server registration, and I had no server, so I didn't speak up. "Then they came for access to the hard drives, and I had a hard drive, but nobody spoke up." Saving the life of that "single child" is going to be the death of us all. ServerRegistrationMonger #326-A57-IE54876-29

1 0