December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

IP: Killed by Police? Keep it Secret
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: believer(a)telepath.com Subject: IP: Killed by Police? Keep it Secret Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 10:12:07 -0500 To: believer(a)telepath.com Source: Rocky Mountain News http://www.insidedenver.com/news/0919secr1.shtml Secrecy pushed in killings by police But critics say names of officers should always be made public By Kevin Vaughan Rocky Mountain News Staff Writer A move is afoot in Colorado to keep the names of police officers who shoot people secret. A Greeley judge this week ruled that the public has no right to know which officers shot and killed four people over the past two years. "That seems like sort of the ultimate double standard to me, because I can shoot and kill someone in my house in self-defense, and my name will be open as a matter of public record," said Chris Cobler, managing editor of the Greeley Tribune. The paper had sued the Greeley Police Department, the Weld County Sheriff's Department and the district attorney's office to obtain the officers' names. At least one legislator praised Weld District Judge Jonathan Hays' Wednesday ruling. "I am strongly opposed to releasing the names of those officers that have not been found accountable, or found guilty, in a shooting," said state Sen. Ken Arnold, R-Westminster. Arnold spent 28 years with the Colorado State Patrol before becoming a lawmaker. The State Patrol and most other Colorado police agencies release the names of officers involved in shootings -- some agencies immediately, others in weeks or months. But newspaper editors and the American Civil Liberties Union worry that the disclosure practice may soon end because of the ruling. In Aurora, Police Chief Vern Saint Vincent has refused to identify two officers who killed a gunman in a domestic dispute a week ago, citing the same legal provisions the Greeley judge used. Saint Vincent said his decision is temporary, and he plans to identify the officers after investigating threats against them. But he may change his mind. He said he expects his officers to lobby for secrecy and that he'll consider it. "There simply can't be a right to privacy for someone with the full authority of a law enforcement officer who has used deadly force against a citizen," said Tom Kelley, an attorney for the Colorado Press Association. "You could make the argument that anyone accused of a crime has a right to privacy, which I don't think anyone would take very seriously." At issue is the interpretation of two state laws governing the release of public records and criminal-justice documents. The laws spell out what the public has a right to see. Hays ruled that police shootings are not "official actions" as defined by the Criminal Justice Records Act. As such, they fall under an area of the law that allows police and sheriff's departments to withhold information that is "contrary to the public interest." Identifying the officers, Hays wrote, "plays no significant, positive role in the functioning of the criminal-justice process." But one of the state's top cops doesn't see it that way. "I just have this problem with the idea that that should be a blanket policy," said Pat Ahlstrom, executive director of the state Department of Public Safety. "We don't see it that way. They're public officers, and the act of using force and deadly force is subject to public scrutiny." The department oversees the State Patrol and the Colorado Bureau of Investigation. A check of other law enforcement agencies in the Denver area found that all routinely release the names of officers in shootings. "There's really no reason for us not to release the names," said Adams County sheriff's Sgt. Mike Kercheval. Different agencies have different rules about when the names are released. For some, it comes within 24 hours of a shooting. Others wait longer. Lakewood, for example, withholds the name of an officer involved in a shooting until the investigation is finished. "It is the same procedure that is afforded any citizen in Lakewood that is investigated in a shooting," police spokeswoman Lynn Kimbrough said. "For us, it is not a matter of 'if.' It is simply a matter of 'when."' Cobler said the Tribune has no plan to appeal this week's ruling. But others said they expect an effort to change it, either through an appeal or by attempting to change the laws to make them clearer. "Let's change the statute," said Mark Silverstein, legal director of the ACLU of Colorado. Arnold, however, said he trusts police and prosecutors to investigate shootings thoroughly. September 19, 1998 ----------------------- NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ----------------------- ********************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address ********************************************** www.telepath.com/believer **********************************************

1 0

IP: UK: Microchips & Animal Passports for Pets
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: believer(a)telepath.com Subject: IP: UK: Microchips & Animal Passports for Pets Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 06:40:49 -0500 To: believer(a)telepath.com Source: London Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/et?ac=000150689433551&rtmo=gYkgwZZu&atmo=99999 999&P4_FOLLOW_ON=/98/9/19/npets19.html&pg=/et/98/9/19/npets19.html UK News Electronic Telegraph Saturday 19 September 1998 Issue 1212 Passports for pets in new rabies law By David Brown, Agriculture Editor BRITAIN'S stringent anti-rabies quarantine laws are to be swept aside in favour of electronic scanners and animal passports under plans to be published by the Government next week. A scheme relying on microchip implants that can be electronically monitored, together with documentary proof that animals have been immunised against rabies and other diseases, are among a raft of proposals that could mean the demise of mandatory six-months quarantine for all imported animals. Under the proposals, animals travelling between designated "low disease risk" countries in Europe and elsewhere would be allowed entry on condition that they were carefully screened on arrival and possibly subjected to blood tests. The Government is likely to back the proposals for a radical overhaul of the increasingly controversial quarantine system, which has been Britain's main front-line defence against rabies for nearly a century. Currently, imported pets must be held in nominated kennels for six months until vets decide they pose no health risk to people or animals in this country. Diplomats and members of the Armed Forces will be among those who should find life easier - if their overseas posts meet new criteria for assessing potential risks and their animals are properly vaccinated and provided with proposed new movement documents. But quarantine will not disappear completely under the plans drawn up over the past 10 months by a team of independent government advisers headed by Prof Ian Kennedy of University College, London. It will remain as a safety net to screen animals imported from countries that still have a problem with rabies - including many in Eastern Europe, North and South America, Africa and the Far East. "It will not be the free-for-all that some people might expect," Whitehall sources said last night. Nick Brown, the Minister of Agriculture, is expected to call a press conference next Wednesday to publish the report. But before the Government acts, the plans will be circulated for consultation among vets, animal welfare organisations, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, dog and cat breed societies, farmers and other groups with an interest in animal health. Britain's last major rabies scare was in 1969. In 1983, an Irish Wolfhound imported from the United States was caught with rabies in a quarantine kennel and in June 1996, at the height of the BSE crisis, a rabid bat that is believed to have crossed the Channel, bit a pregnant woman in Newhaven, Sussex. The Government decided in October last year to review the current quarantine arrangements after coming under mounting pressure from animal welfare groups and pet owners, including Chris Patten, Britain's last Governor of Hong Kong, who complained about difficulties in returning his family's pet dogs to Britain. Those complaints, coupled with the decline of rabies in EU countries, have given added impetus for the reform of the system over the past two years. But many vets remain to be convinced that easing quarantine is a good idea, arguing that veterinary certificates issued abroad may not be valid. The British Veterinary Association said last night: "We have not seen a copy of this report but our position is clear. We will not agree to any changes which do not, in our view, provide the United Kingdom with at least the level of safeguards against disease that the present quarantine system provides." © Copyright Telegraph Group Limited 1998. ----------------------- NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ----------------------- ********************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address ********************************************** www.telepath.com/believer **********************************************

1 0

IP: Hacker editor rides herd on unruly institution
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: believer(a)telepath.com Subject: IP: Hacker editor rides herd on unruly institution Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 11:51:24 -0500 To: believer(a)telepath.com Source: Fox News - AP Hacker editor rides herd on unruly institution 11.01 a.m. ET (1502 GMT) September 19, 1998 By Chris Allbritton, Associated Press SAN FRANCISCO (AP) The lines of text scrolled off the screen quickly, but the bleached-blond hacker snatched quick glances at the visitors' log on his Web page. Lots of visitors using military and government computers. The hacker, who calls himself Route, said he always gets a kick out of the feds' visits. He smiled. The FBI, the CIA and the others "wouldn't be doing their job if they weren't tracking computer information both legitimate and illegitimate,'' Route said. "I guess Phrack falls somewhere in between.'' Phrack is an online publication called a 'zine. It's a digital chimera: written for hackers but read by law enforcement, too. It's been the subject of federal prosecution, yet it still operates in the open. Its name combines "hack'' and "phreak,'' which refers to phone hacking. It's got attitude, technical know-how and in many ways defines today's hacker scene. It first hit the electronic bulletin boards Nov. 17, 1985, ages ago in hacker years. To put its longevity in perspective, Phrack came out two years after the movie "WarGames'' in which actor Matthew Broderick established the cliched image of the hacker as the lonely kid who altered his grades with a computer. Phrack predates the World Wide Web by almost a decade. And Phrack is older than many of its readers, who number about 8,000, said Route, who refuses to give his real name. Route, 24, doesn't look like the scrawny computer nerd with the cathode-ray pallor so many think of when the word hacker is mentioned. Silver earrings dangle from each ear and a bar pierces his tongue. Spidery tattoos creep down his shoulders and over biceps grown solid with hours of iron work. Behind his glower lies a keen mind that cuts through computer network problems like a digital knife, an invaluable skill for his day job at a computer security firm with Fortune 500 companies for clients. Route refused to name his company. Phrack's improbable history begins in 1985 when a hacker with the handle Taran King cobbled together various subversive texts that had been circulating like Soviet-era samizdat on the archipelago of underground electronic bulletin boards. It included all sorts of mischief-making: "How to Pick Master Locks,'' "How to Make an Acetylene Bomb'' and "School/College Computer Dial-Ups.'' But Phrack found itself the focus of federal prosecution in 1990, when editor Craig Neidorf, a k a Knight Lightning, was prosecuted by the Chicago Computer Fraud and Abuse Task Force. His alleged crime? He published a document in Phrack with certain details of the emergency 911 systems in use around the country. It had been given to him by another hacker who had copied it from computers owned by BellSouth, which valued it at almost $80,000. But the task force wanted to prove the document was more than valuable. Assistant U.S. Attorney William J. Cook said it put dangerous information in the hands of hackers. The case fell apart when Neidorf's lawyer proved that more detailed information about the system had appeared in other publications. You could order them from phone company technical catalogs for $13. The charges were dropped. Neidorf's trial was over. If today's Phrack is a bit less confrontational, that's understandable. Like many of the older hackers, Route is shifting his focus away from anarchy texts and phone hacking to computer security. Its "how-to'' days are pretty much over. "Phrack is not meant to be a manual of vulnerabilities,'' he said. As the editor, Route knows that Phrack can still be used for illegal purposes. "But you can't hold people completely liable for just putting information out there.'' He said he has had "blatantly illegal stuff'' sent to him. Once, he said he received the technical specifications for most pager systems used in the country, complete with how to hack those systems. He didn't publish. "It's a judgment call,'' he said. "I have no intention of running up against the law or (upsetting) the military.'' But it's almost guaranteed that something gleaned from Phrack will be used against the computer system of a big and powerful organization or business. "The scene is going to do what the scene is going to do,'' he said. "It's like any clique in society. You have good people and you have bad people.'' © 1998 Associated Press. All rights reserved. ----------------------- NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ----------------------- ********************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address ********************************************** www.telepath.com/believer **********************************************

1 0

IP: IRS, White House above the law? by Joseph Farah
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Jan <igniting(a)flash.net> Subject: IP: IRS, White House above the law? by Joseph Farah Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 19:54:10 -0500 To: Ignition-Point <ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 14:31:36 -0600 From: Robert Huddleston <cabhop(a)highfiber.com> Subject: IRS, White House above the law? by Joseph Farah between the lines by Joseph Farah FRIDAY SEPTEMBER 18, 1998 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/btlines/980918_btl_irs_white_house.html IRS, White House above the law? Last week, we had our first court hearing in our $10 million lawsuit against White House and Internal Revenue Service officials we believe conspired to use their government power to harass and intimidate my organization, the Western Journalism Center, for exposing Clinton administration scandals for the last four years. This was a procedural hearing in Sacramento before U.S. Judge Milton Schwartz, a Carter appointee, who seemed to be preparing the Justice Department attorney from Washington and our counsel from Larry Klayman's Judicial Watch for a major trial. Nevertheless, the government is trying to abort this trial on the kind of familiar technical grounds we have come to expect from this administration. Interestingly, the Justice Department has yet to dispute the major claims of our case -- that the center was the victim of a politically motivated audit designed to squelch our First Amendment rights. The Justice Department is claiming the one-year statute of limitations expired before we filed the suit. Not true. By any standard, we filed in plenty of time. The audit of our organization ended in May 1997. We were not officially notified until June of 1997. No tax-exempt organization in its right mind would sue the IRS during an audit. We filed the lawsuit in May of 1998 within one year of the audit being closed. The Justice Department is claiming an argument you've heard before from the administration -- that there is "no controlling legal authority" and, thus, no legislative remedy for organizations victimized by political audits. In other words, the president is free to use the IRS to go after his "enemies" and there is no punitive action the victim can take against him or the agents with whom he conspires. Next week, the Justice Department attorneys will be back in U.S. District Court in Sacramento to ask Judge Schwartz to dismiss the case on these specious grounds. I want to go on record right now as saying that no matter how the judge rules on this motion, the Western Journalism Center will not stop in pressing this matter for adjudication and remedy. This is a case far too important to the future of this country and the rule of law to allow it to be dropped. Let's review the basic facts. In 1994, the center began investigating Clinton administration corruption. By December 1994, memos released to congressional investigators show that the White House counsel's office had begun targeting the center for action of some kind. In 1995, the center was a major focus of a White House counsel's office 331-page report called the Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce. I was the only journalist profiled in this mammoth report alleging a wide-ranging media conspiracy against the president. In early 1996, I first began hearing rumors that my organization was being targeted by the IRS. Months later, we were notified that we were under audit and that our tax-exempt status was under scrutiny because of the nature of our investigative work into Clinton administration corruption during an election year. When we questioned the IRS agent about his authority to interfere in our First Amendment-protected activities, he said: "Look, this is a political case, and the decision will be made at the national level." We then exposed this blatant abuse of the IRS against our organization and the pattern of politically motivated audits against other non-profits in the pages of the Wall Street Journal. As a result, Congress began an investigation, and IRS Commissioner Margaret Milner Richardson resigned. Ultimately, the agent in charge was removed from the case, investigated internally by the IRS and a new agent assigned. The nine-month audit was then closed within two days. We demanded our case file, which the "Taxpayer Bill of Rights" states is available to any taxpayer following an audit. It was denied. We then filed a Freedom of Information Act request for it. Again it was denied. The IRS stated that the file would be withheld because it had been through the hands of others within the IRS and possibly outside of the agency and was, thus, protected by "governmental privilege." Having exhausted every available means to document our growing conviction that we were targeted for political reasons, we filed suit. If you believe, as I do, that this is a monumentally important case, I ask for your sincere and unceasing intercessory prayers that justice will be done. A daily radio broadcast adaptation of Joseph Farah's commentaries can be heard at http://www.ktkz.com/ Joseph Farah is editor of WorldNetDaily.com and executive director of the Western Journalism Center, an independent group of investigative reporters. <@{{>< <@{{>< <@{{>< <@{{>< <@{{>< <@{{>< <@{{>< SOCIALIST 1. socialism ( Noun ] : social organization based on goverment control of the production and distribution of goods. ***** ************************************************* "But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet to warn the people and the sword comes and takes the life of one of them, that man will be taken away because of his sin, but I will hold the watchman accountable for his blood." Ezekiel 33:6 (NIV) ___________________________________________________________ New toll-free hotline to Congress Congress is making a new toll-free number available for citizens who would like to make their voices heard in Washington. 1-800-504-0031 Ask for your Congressman office and let him know what you think............. --------------------------------------------------------------- Join Gun Owners of America [ GOA ] today. Read more about GOA at : http://www.gunowners.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------- Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) Become a JPFO member, go to: http://www.jpfo.org/member.htm There you will see a printable member application, along with info on membership Membership IS open to ALL Law abiding citizens. --------------------------------------------------------------- <@{{>< <@{{>< <@{{>< <@{{>< <@{{>< <@{{>< <@{{>< ******=========================================***** "Among the elementary measures the American Soviet government will adopt to further the cultural revolution are... [a] National Department of Education...the studies will be revolutionized, being cleansed of religious, patriotic, and other features of the bourgeois ideology. The students will be taught the basis of Marxian dialectical materialism, internationalism and the general ethics of the new Socialist society." - William Z. Foster, Toward Soviet America, 1932 "...Stage III...would proceed to a point where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. peace force... The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited... All other armaments would be destroyed..." -Department of State publication number 7277 ********************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address ********************************************** www.telepath.com/believer **********************************************

1 0

IP: Clinton Computer Exports Compromise Nat'l Security
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: believer(a)telepath.com Subject: IP: Clinton Computer Exports Compromise Nat'l Security Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 07:40:35 -0500 To: believer(a)telepath.com Source: New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/98/09/biztech/articles/17computer-export s.html September 17, 1998 U.S. Agency Faults Study on Exports of Computers By JEFF GERTH WASHINGTON -- When the Clinton administration relaxed export controls on high-performance computers in 1996, it relied on a flawed report that did not study the national security implications and concluded with scant data that the computers were already easily available around the world, government auditors said Wednesday. The opposite conclusion is true, said the General Accounting Office, the audit arm of Congress. In a report released to a Senate panel, the auditors found that such high-performance computers "are not readily available" to countries of national security concern to the United States, like China, India or Pakistan. The GAO report also said that American manufacturers continue to dominate the overseas market. An important administration argument for loosening export controls was that easing controls was the only way American computer makers could compete against widely available foreign-made technology. The auditors said that "a key element" in the decision to relax the export controls was a Stanford University study, commissioned by the Commerce and Defense departments without any competition, that said some U.S. computer technology was uncontrollable worldwide and efforts to control it would harm the industry. But the auditors said that the study "lacked empirical evidence or analysis regarding its conclusion" of uncontrollability. The GAO also said that the study failed to do one of its assigned tasks: study how countries like China might use the computers for military purposes. Within a year after the export rules were loosened, military installations in Russia and China obtained a few powerful new American computers, prompting criminal investigations and a retightening by Congress of the export controls. The study's authors responded to the GAO, and their responses were presented to the Senate subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation and Federal Services by Harold Johnson, the GAO's associate director. Johnson said that the authors told the accounting office that they did not do a national security threat analysis because the federal government does not have the right information to do such a study. Seymour Goodman, the study's principal author, disputed the GAO's criticism of his report's analysis. "We had a lot of empirical evidence and we did a comprehensive analysis that was different from theirs and that focused on the availability of U.S.-built systems." William Reinsch, the undersecretary of commerce for export administration, defended the administration's relaxation of controls and said the GAO had asked the wrong question in looking at the computer marketplace. "Even though the U.S. today dominates the market for high-performance computers, there is a performance threshold below which we can not realistically expect to maintain control of computers unless we restrict sales to our closest allies," he said. Reinsch went on to argue that the GAO was wrong to rank national security as the top priority for looking at this issue. Instead, he said, the first priority should be the realities of the marketplace, where high-performance computers "are becoming less and less controllable because they are becoming smaller, cheaper, more powerful and more reliable, requiring less vendor support." President Clinton announced the change in policy in late 1995, fulfilling a pledge he made early in his administration to computer executives. The move also helped countries like China, which could now buy more advanced American computers without any federal license as long as the technology was used for civilian purposes. But the new rules made the exporter responsible for deciding whether a license was required, a decision previously made by the federal government. This new responsibility, the GAO report said, was "particularly difficult" for companies selling to countries like China, "where identifying the distinction between a civilian and military end user can be difficult without information that is sometimes available only to the U.S. government." Now, the Clinton administration is weighing whether to further relax the computer export limits. But the administration's critics remain "concerned that the policy is flawed," said Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., who led Wednesday's hearing. Copyright 1998 The New York Times Company ----------------------- NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ----------------------- ********************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address ********************************************** www.telepath.com/believer **********************************************

1 0

IP: ISPI Clips 4.47:Russian Big Brother covets all the E-mail
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: "ama-gi ISPI" <offshore(a)email.msn.com> Subject: IP: ISPI Clips 4.47:Russian Big Brother covets all the E-mail Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 01:18:03 -0700 To: <Undisclosed.Recipients(a)majordomo.pobox.com> ISPI Clips 4.47:Russian Big Brother covets all the E-mail News & Info from the Institute for the Study of Privacy Issues (ISPI) Saturday September 19, 1998 ISPI4Privacy(a)ama-gi.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This From: US News & World Report, September 14, 1998 http://www.usnews.com Big Brother covets all the E-mail http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/980914/14key.htm By Christian Caryl Believe it or not, there are some areas where Russia leads the world. While other countries from Germany to Singapore ponder the pluses and minuses of government regulation of the Internet, Russia is way ahead. Its State Security Service (FSB), the main successor to the KGB, is planning all-encompassing surveillance of Internet communications. Internet activists say that the proposed regulations are proof of just how far Russia's struggling democracy has to go. "There is no concept of privacy anywhere in Russian legislation," says Andrei Sebrant of GlasNet, one of the country's leading Internet service providers. "So strictly speaking, there's nothing at all illegal about this." The plans, which have never been officially presented or acknowledged by the government, became public a few weeks ago, when they were leaked to critics. The idea is to force each service provider to install a "black box" connecting its network to the local FSB office via fiber-optic cable. That would enable state-sponsored snoopers to collect and examine E-mail, as well as data on addressees and recipients and Web surfing habits. Users, meanwhile, would never have the slightest sign of prying eyes and ears. The cost for the extra equipment would be borne by the providers themselves. Anatoli Levenchuk, an Internet expert who posted the proposed regulations on the Web and is leading the most vocal online protest, says that the requirements would boost providers' costs by 10 to 15 percent. That increase would be passed on to users, who already pay around $35 per month, very expensive by Russian standards. "Right now, we have about 1 million Internet users in Russia," says Levenchuk. "So those price hikes could immediately reduce the Internet community here by hundreds of thousands." Any providers who refuse to comply can expect to have their operating licenses yanked by the all-powerful Ministry of Communications, which has been helping the FSB draft the rules. But the FSB's plans may ultimately serve to prove just how resistant to any kind of centralized control the Internet remains. The new proposal doesn't address encryption, and the drug dealers and terrorists the FSB ostensibly wants to catch will be the first to resort to tough-to-crack encryption systems. Russian Web sites offering encryption technology have been doing a booming business since the first news of the regulations came out. But most Russian Internet users have little familiarity with encryption techniques, according to Maksim Otstavnov, an editor at CompuTerra magazine. For them, this could be the electronic equivalent of the days when the Soviet KGB routinely tapped phones and opened mail. --------------------------------NOTICE:------------------------------ ISPI Clips are news & opinion articles on privacy issues from all points of view; they are clipped from local, national and international newspapers, journals and magazines, etc. Inclusion as an ISPI Clip does not necessarily reflect an endorsement of the content or opinion by ISPI. In compliance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed free without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ISPI Clips is a FREE e-mail service from the "Institute for the Study of Privacy Issues" (ISPI). To receive "ISPI Clips" on a daily bases (approx. 3 - 8 clips per day) send the following message "Please enter [Your Name] into the ISPI Clips list: [Your e-mail address]" to: ISPIClips(a)ama-gi.com . The Institute for the Study of Privacy Issues (ISPI) is a small contributor-funded organization based in Victoria, British Columbia (Canada). ISPI operates on a not-for-profit basis, accepts no government funding and takes a global perspective. ISPI's mandate is to conduct & promote interdisciplinary research into electronic, personal and financial privacy with a view toward helping ordinary people understand the degree of privacy they have with respect to government, industry and each other and to likewise inform them about techniques to enhance their privacy. But, none of this can be accomplished without your kind and generous financial support. If you value in the ISPI Clips service or if you are concerned about the erosion of your privacy in general, won't you please help us continue this important work by becoming an "ISPI Clips Supporter" or by taking out an institute Membership? We gratefully accept all contributions: Less than $60 ISPI Clips Supporter $60 - $99 Primary ISPI Membership (1 year) $100 - $300 Senior ISPI Membership (2 years) More than $300 Executive Council Membership (life) Your ISPI "membership" contribution entitles you to receive "The ISPI Privacy Reporter" (our bi-monthly 12 page hard-copy newsletter in multi-contributor format) for the duration of your membership. For a contribution form with postal instructions please send the following message "ISPI Contribution Form" to ISPI4Privacy(a)ama-gi.com . We maintain a strict privacy policy. Any information you divulge to ISPI is kept in strict confidence. It will not be sold, lent or given away to any third party. ********************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address ********************************************** www.telepath.com/believer **********************************************

1 0

Genocide WAS: Political purges and Bill C-68
by Jean-Francois Avon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded from the Canadian Firearms Digest V2 #596, Sat Sept 19, 1998 Thank you, principal(a)connect.ab.ca for your enlightening commentary. Since you posted it on a public list, I took the permission to re-post it to the original list. Highest regards. Jean-Francois Avon --------------------------- your letter ----------------------------- Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 15:52:46 -0600 From: principal(a)connect.ab.ca Subject: genocide ************** Beginning of Quote ********************** Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 14:10:44 -0600 From: "Jean-Francois Avon" <jf_avon(a)citenet.net> Subject: Political purges and Bill C-68 Hi to all of you. I know most of you personally, except for the posts to mailing lists and public organisms. - - ------------------ beginning of letter --------------- Yesterday night, around 2am, I was unable to sleep and surfing the TV channels up until I fell on a movie on the ShowCase channel. This channel is devoted to repertoire cinema and less mainstream movies. As I flick to this channel, I see something I can't take my eyes off for it's overwhelming revolting topic: a bunch of corpses are on a dolly, each of one being tied by the feet to a crane cable and quickly, efficiently taken away to a big heap of corpses. <SNIP> ***************** End of Quote ************************** I was in Rwanda during the latter part of the genocide and during the period immediately following the Revolution. I concur with Mr. Avon. I have seen the heaps of corpses. The deaths of these people is tragic and firearms owners and free men and women should know what can happen if we allow ourselves to be cowed by government. It is worthwhile noting that contrary to the lies spewed by anti firearms groups firearms do not kill people. Rarely were the people of Rwanda killed by gunfire. They were killed in the tens of thousands with clubs and machetes. Why did these people go to there deaths like sheep to the slaughter? In my opinion they were so accustomed to unquestioning compliance that even in the face of death they would not rise up and fight. At the dozens of execution sites I encountered there were only two occasions where I saw evidence of gunfire. This was in the form of shotgun casings. I point this out because I questioned survivors about the procedures used by the government forces to round up and execute the mass numbers of people we are talking about here. Consistently, I was told that the government forces, with the assistance of collaborators, would either threaten the village leaders or convince them that they would be spared if they complied. They then moved the group en-mass to a collection point. At this time the villagers still complied with the butchers. Once a sufficient number of people were collected they would be slaughtered. The ratio of killers to victims would be quite small so if they had risen up as a group there could have been mass escape. This did not happen. There were exceptions . . . this is where the shotgun shells come in. There would be a couple of government soldiers with guns to cut down anyone that fled. In the Amahoro stadium in Kigali the bodies were piled one on top of another. Approx. 25,000 Rwandans were slaughtered there over a period of just a few days. In a small church and grounds on the road North from Cyangugu another 10,000 where slaughtered, hacked and bludgeoned to death. Of all the sensory overloads I experienced, one of the most memorable was that of a school in a village near the Eastern town of Byumba. The men and women were separated, which was fairly common, and then slaughtered. As usual they were not JUST killed but were hacked to pieces. Limbs were often chopped off first, brutal torture and emasculation was common before a merciful death was delivered by a fatal blow or machete wound. One of the dead was a young woman, her skull had been crushed with a club, upon examination of the body I saw that she still clutched her infant child to her chest. The skull of the child too was crushed. Drunk on the absolute power given to them by the government the soldiers and Intehamwe collaborators became blood thirsty fiends capable of killing a baby in such a brutal manner. (there were worse things but this has imprinted on my brain) In the center of the hollow square arrangement of huts were 2 twelve gauge casings . . . someone had tried to escape! There may be those who don't feel this information is topical or appropriate for the Digest as it is not directly a firearm issue. I believe there are some lessons. 1. Never have blind trust in the government when it comes to your or your loved ones life(a la Hep C). 2. There will always be collaborators, help your neighbor but never trust them completely. 3. Alone we are vulnerable, it is only through a unified group that you stand a chance against oppression. 4. To find out what a man is, give him power. 5. To murder masses, the mass murder does not need a specific tool. 6. Police and soldiers should never be the only ones with guns. (My credo, re-enforced by my experiences), As a free man I will not die on my knees. I submitted a quote to the list some months back. If the moderator will indulge me I would like to submit it again. "War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." - John Stuart Mill Jean-Francois Avon, B.Sc. Physics, Montreal, Canada DePompadour, Sociétéd'Importation Ltée Limoges fine porcelain and french crystal JFA Technologies, R&D physicists & engineers Instrumentation & control, LabView programming PGP keys: http://bs.mit.edu:8001/pks-toplev.html PGP ID:C58ADD0D:529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891 PGP ID:5B51964D:152ACCBCD4A481B0 254011193237822C Jean-Francois Avon, B.Sc. Physics, Montreal, Canada DePompadour, Société d'Importation Ltée Limoges fine porcelain and french crystal JFA Technologies, R&D physicists & engineers Instrumentation & control, LabView programming PGP keys: http://bs.mit.edu:8001/pks-toplev.html PGP ID:C58ADD0D:529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891 PGP ID:5B51964D:152ACCBCD4A481B0 254011193237822C

1 0

Re: Clinton's fake apologies (fwd)
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In reply to my suggestion that lieing under oath isn't a very good reason for impeachment, Jim Choate <ravage(a)einstein.ssz.com> wrote: > Of course it's different if you preface your lie with "I swear to tell the > truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". > > The oath is voluntary and therefore if broken no claim for duress, only > intentional misdirection, can explain such actions. echoed by nobody(a)remailer.ch who wrote: > ...If some public figure ... goes under oath and then lies, ... > he's trying to throw a wrench in the > justice system. It wouldn't be as bad if somebody like Jim or I lied under > oath, but this guy is the chief executive of the United States. He's > basically Top Cop, and his administration doesn't hesitate to press > charges against people who commit all sorts of victimless crimes. > I agree it's bad. I agree it undermines the justice system a little bit. But, ... impeachment? You're not charging him with murder (eg WACO), attacking the 1st ammendment (CDA), the 4th (SSN on driver's licences), the 5th (GAK). You're going after Al Capone for tax evasion. You want to get him because he's a Bad Person not because of the particular crime. This is ironic, because his crimes against our basic rights were committed while pursuing Bad People, but it is also hypocritical. nobody(a)remailer.ch also wrote: > [quoting me] > > I'm honoured to draw an ad hominem before revealing that I'm on AOL. > > > > -- an anonymous aol32 user. > > Actually, the amazing thing is that you're from AOL. You're coherent, you > quote, and you know how to use a remailer. One in a million. ;) Unbelievable, I would have thought. ;-> -- Aol32Monger

10 13

Re: Clinton's fake apologies (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From adam(a)rpini.com Sat Sep 19 22:43:16 1998 > Date: 20 Sep 1998 03:24:35 -0000 > From: Anonymous <nobody(a)remailer.ch> > Subject: Re: Clinton's fake apologies (fwd) > I agree it's bad. I agree it undermines the justice system a little bit. > But, ... impeachment? If you can't trust your elected officials to live up to their word, in other words if they will lie under oath on something this immaterial then how do you trust him to live up to the oath he took when he took office? He asked, wasn't drafted, to have the peoples trust placed in him and then he reniged. > You're going after Al Capone > for tax evasion. Did Al Capone evade taxes? If so then what's your point? You want to get him because he's a Bad Person not because of > the particular crime. This is ironic, because his crimes against our basic > rights were committed while pursuing Bad People, but it is also hypocritical. Not at all, it simply recognizes that any public official with a record of lying under oath is not fit to hold office. ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Clinton's fake apologies (fwd)
by Brian B. Riley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 9/19/98 11:24 PM, Anonymous (nobody(a)remailer.ch) passed this wisdom: > >In reply to my suggestion that lieing under oath isn't >a very good reason for impeachment, > >Jim Choate <ravage(a)einstein.ssz.com> wrote: >> Of course it's different if you preface your lie with "I swear to tell the >> truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". >> >> The oath is voluntary and therefore if broken no claim for duress, only >> intentional misdirection, can explain such actions. > >echoed by nobody(a)remailer.ch who wrote: >> ...If some public figure ... goes under oath and then lies, ... >> he's trying to throw a wrench in the >> justice system. It wouldn't be as bad if somebody like Jim or I lied under >> oath, but this guy is the chief executive of the United States. He's >> basically Top Cop, and his administration doesn't hesitate to press >> charges against people who commit all sorts of victimless crimes. >> > >I agree it's bad. I agree it undermines the justice system a little bit. >But, ... impeachment? > >You're not charging him with murder (eg WACO), attacking the 1st >ammendment (CDA), >the 4th (SSN on driver's licences), the 5th (GAK). You're going after Al >Capone >for tax evasion. You want to get him because he's a Bad Person not because of >the particular crime. This is ironic, because his crimes against our basic >rights were committed while pursuing Bad People, but it is also hypocritical. > They couldn't get Capone any other way but on Income Tax Evasion ... we all know how much more guilty of how many more heinous crimes he was ... but we took him the only way we could ... Clinton is no different ... it would be grand and so fitting if we could impeach himt for having committed aggravated assault upon the Bill of Rights, but if we have to get him because he can't keep his pecker zipped up then so be it ... as with case of Al Capone, this country will also be richer without William Jefferson (Thomas must be rolling in his grave!) Klinton! Brian B. Riley --> http://members.macconnect.com/~brianbr For PGP Keys <mailto:brianbr@together.net?subject=Get%20PGP%20Key> "When hell freezes over, grab your ice skates." -- Mark Johnson

1 0