December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

IP: Attn Should Turn to 'Buying of Congress'
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: believer(a)telepath.com Subject: IP: Attn Should Turn to 'Buying of Congress' Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 09:17:32 -0500 To: believer(a)telepath.com Source: US Newswire http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/Current_Releases/0929-125.txt Author: Attention Should Turn to 'Buying of Congress' U.S. Newswire 29 Sep 14:54 Nation's Attention Should Turn to 'Buying of Congress' Says Author Charles Lewis To: National and Assignment Desks Contact: Marie Elena Martinez of Avon Books, 212-261-6903 News Advisory: "America's citizens have been so distracted by the barrage of commentary, testimony and endless supposition about the President Clinton/Monica Lewinsky saga that Capitol Hill lawmakers have had a reprieve from even the limited amount of scrutiny that normally surrounds their activities," says Charles Lewis, whose THE BUYING OF THE CONGRESS: How Special Interests Have Stolen Your Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, written with The Center For Public Integrity, has just been published. He points out that while the nation focuses on whether or not President Clinton should be impeached, no one is scrutinizing the acts of grand larceny committed by Congress every day. "The attention being paid to the current scandal means that nobody's minding the store, and the store -- Congress -- needs minding," says Lewis pointing to the ever-increasing influence of big-money special interests and the impact this has on people's lives every single day. Just a few of the detrimental results of Congress's love affair with special interests, as detailed in THE BUYING OF THE CONGRESS, are: little or no action on Social Security, the continued threat to life from e-coli contamination and other poisoned foods, the loss of full health benefits, the number of people who must hold two jobs to make ends meet, the enormous drop in the percentage of federal tax revenue paid by corporations, and low voter turnout. "We've found that members of Congress moonlight for themselves and their wealthy patrons more than they work for us," says Lewis who then enumerates "employers" as varied as Lockheed-Martin, Ameritech, the National Right to Life PAC, and the National Rifle Association. Among the people who are most vocal in their condemnation of President Clinton during this tumultuous time are several whose career patrons are publicly identified for the first time in THE BUYING OF THE CONGRESS, including Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-GA), and Minority Leader Dick Gephardt (D-MO). "With the elections just six weeks away, we can't afford to overlook Congress's own misdeeds," says Lewis. ------ FOR INTERVIEWS OR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONTACT: Marie Elena Martinez, 212/261-6903 -0- /U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/ 09/29 14:54 Copyright 1998, U.S. Newswire ----------------------- 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: Secrecy might be weak link in wiretaps
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: believer(a)telepath.com Subject: IP: Secrecy might be weak link in wiretaps Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 10:57:09 -0500 To: believer(a)telepath.com Source: USA Today http://www.usatoday.com/news/nds1.htm 09/29/98- Updated 11:55 PM ET The Nation's Homepage Secrecy might be weak link in wiretaps ALEXANDRIA, Va. - Intelligence officials increasingly rely on wiretaps authorized by a secret federal court to keep track of foreign spies and potential terrorists. But an espionage trial set to begin in federal court here next Tuesday highlights what even the secret court's supporters admit is its weakness: The court's secrecy can make it very difficult for defendants caught on the wiretaps to defend themselves. "If my client had been wiretapped based on (an ordinary federal) warrant, you can bet I'd be all over it," says Richard Sauber, a Washington, D.C., lawyer defending accused spy Kurt Stand. "But this isn't an ordinary warrant. Under law I can't find out what the wiretap was based on, whether the information was flawed, whether the judge was correct to authorize it. There's a fundamental issue of fairness here," Sauber says. Ironically, fairness was cited as the issue in 1978, when the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) created a special secret court for authorizing wiretaps on suspected spies. The FISA court was created by Congress as a check against the power of presidents, who until then had authorized wiretaps and warrantless searches on their own say so in the interest of national security. The law requires the Justice Department, and usually the FBI or the National Security Agency, to show a judge that the target is a foreign government or agent engaging in "clandestine intelligence gathering activities" or terrorism. "The spirit of the thing is to hold the (wiretap requests) to a high legal standard," says William Webster, director of the FBI when FISA was passed. "That's a large departure from the way things had been done." Now, investigators prepare a written request and run it by Justice Department lawyers. Justice certifies that the tap's primary purpose is to gather intelligence, though information gleaned can be used in criminal cases. The request then is presented to one of seven FISA judges, who are U.S. district court judges appointed by the chief justice to authorize intelligence wiretaps. Many of the requests are heard in a soundproof sixth-floor conference room in the Justice Department's main headquarters. The target of the search is not represented. Says David Banisar, researcher for the Electronic Privacy Information Center: "There are mistakes made in ordinary warrant processes, from getting the wrong address to not having probable cause, and they can be corrected when lawyers attack the warrant. " "That can't happen here," he says. "We'll never know how many mistakes are made because the (secret) court's proceeding isn't public." By Richard Willing, USA TODAY ©COPYRIGHT 1998 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc. ----------------------- 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

[FP] FW: NID Repeal Possible
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: "ScanThisNews" <mcdonalds(a)airnet.net> Subject: [FP] FW: NID Repeal Possible Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 20:59:21 -0500 To: "Scan This News Recipients List" <scan(a)efga.org> ====================================================================== SCAN THIS NEWS 9/29/98 [Forwarded message follows] ======================================================================= -----Original Message----- From: Patrick Poole Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 1998 To: 'iRESIST'; 'Scott McDonald' Subject: NID Repeal Possible A source inside Dick Armey's office today said that it is probable that there will be a national ID repeal provision in the Omnibus appropriations bill this year. We need to continue to "remind" the House leadership (Gingrich, Armey, DeLay) that this is a non-negotiable issue over the next week. Armey and DeLay are friends of ours on this issue, but Gingrich will do only what the political winds tell him. Patrick Poole Free Congress Foundation Patrick S. Poole, Deputy Director (mailto:ppoole@fcref.org) phone: 202-546-3000 fax: 202-544-2819 http://www.freecongress.org/ [End of forwarded message] ======================================================================= [Good link to contact your congress-critters:] http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/ ======================================================================= Call your Congress person every day toll-free! [Haven't checked these numbers to see if they are still good.] You may phone the U. S. Capitol switchboard at any of the following numbers, when they answer, ask for your Senator or Representative's office. If you don't know the name of your Senator or Representative, tell the operator where you live and she will connect you to the proper office. (800)972-3524 (800)522-6721 (888)723-5246 ======================================================================= [Here's another number:] The Unions have set up a toll-free number so individuals can call Congress. If you have to call a congressional office, use the following number: 1-888-723-5246. Each phone call may cost the unions between $4.00-$10.00. Use it if you're on the hill or off the hill. Give the number to 15 of your closest friends and have them call their congressman's office just to say "hi". Calling this number puts you directly through to the congressional operator. [Haven't checked it either.] ======================================================================= Don't believe anything you read on the Net unless: 1) you can confirm it with another source, and/or 2) it is consistent with what you already know to be true. ======================================================================= Reply to: <fingerprint(a)networkusa.org> ======================================================================= To subscribe to the free Scan This News newsletter, send a message to <majordomo(a)efga.org> and type "subscribe scan" in the BODY. Or, to be removed type "unsubscribe scan" in the message BODY. For additional instructions see www.efga.org/about/maillist.html ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "Scan This News" is Sponsored by S.C.A.N. Host of the "FIGHT THE FINGERPRINT!" web page: www.networkusa.org/fingerprint.shtml =======================================================================

1 0

Re: IP: The virtual president
by attila 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Tue, 29 Sep 1998, Lazlo Toth wrote: >"Someone else," aka "Flagship" == "The People"? > >-Lazlo > no, Lazlo... don't be naive; "The People" dont have any say. "Someone else," aka "Flagship" == "Geo. Bush" I said (documented) in 1986 during Reagan's presidency: Geo. Bush will be the last American President to complete his elected term of office. Geo. Bush had not yet been elected President... attila out... (Arkancide?) ~~~ absolutely incredible article; a perfect description and analysis of our Virtual President, Bill "Bubba" Clinton. and, hopefully he takes the Virtual Agenda Hillary with him. Missy Kelly deserves at least a Pulitzer prize for this one! and Joseph Farah, publisher of World News Daily, shows that he has what it takes to lead the fourth estate. attila out... (for real) > > >At 5:21 PM -0700 9/28/98, you wrote: >>From: Jean Staffen <jstaffen(a)flash.net> >>Subject: IP: The virtual president >>Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 22:22:11 -0500 (CDT) >>To: ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com >> >>This is the most INCREDIBLE article. I never thought I'd read something >>like this in the mainstream media!!! -Jean >> >> >> The virtual president=20 >> =20 >> >> By Missy Kelly=20 >> Copyright 1998, WorldNetDaily.com=20 >> >> "You know, by the time you become the leader of a >> country, someone else makes all the decisions." -- Bill >> Clinton September 4, 1998=20 >[snip] > __________________________________________________________________________ go not unto usenet for advice, for the inhabitants thereof will say: yes, and no, and maybe, and I don't know, and fuck-off. _________________________________________________________________ attila__

1 0

GoLive CyberStudio Trial Activation Key
by support＠golive.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear Fritzie, Thank you for trying out GoLive CyberStudio. Your official 30-day activation key is: MWT4QWF7F8WP7GJJ You'll need to enter this key when you first start-up the software. If you have questions about how to use the Tryout software, GoLive's knowledgeable Technical Support staff is available to assist you. We suggest you first check the Technical Support section of our Web site www.golive.com. If you don't find your answers there, please send us an email at support(a)golive.com or call 1-800-554-6638. When you are ready to purchase GoLive CyberStudio or if you want to know more about why GoLive CyberStudio is the best product for Web site design, please return to our Web site or contact me at 1-800-554-6638 or 1-650-463-1580. Sincerely, Maria Jeronimo Operations Coordinator GoLive Systems, Inc. customercare(a)golive.com

1 0

RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd)
by Matthew James Gering 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Petro wrote: > >> Had Microsoft, for example, been required to publish their > >> API's by the market we wouldn't be spending all this effort > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > >You state free-market and then you are *requiring* someone to > >do something? How do you resolve that contradiction? Require > >= Force != Free[dom] > > Required as in purchasers large and small saying "You > don't include your source code, we won't buy it". *Require* per say is a bad term for the use of economic power. But the market didn't "require" Microsoft to do so (see Microsoft's financial statements), so why should the government step in and force something that is contrary to the market? The rest of Jim's sentence read "we wouldn't be spending all this effort and money on the current [Department of Justice] proceedings." Which tells me that require means certain segments of the market telling Microsoft you will do this or we will fuck you over with the borrowcrats we own, which is exactly what has happened. The elements lacked sufficient economic power to sway Microsoft, and they lacked sufficient political power until they ganged up together. A loose coalition to gain via use of DOJ antitrust force what they good not gain in a free market. That is political power, not economic. What is rather ironic is that the same Antitrust laws they are trying to bash Microsoft with are what prevented them from forming an economic (instead of under-the-table political) coalition that could have made Microsoft change its practices without resorting to non-free-market forces. Matt

4 3

Re: propose: `cypherpunks license' (Re: Wanted: Twofish source code) (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 15:25:34 -0700 (PDT) > From: bram <bram(a)gawth.com> > Subject: Re: propose: `cypherpunks license' (Re: Wanted: Twofish source code) > I've never heard anyone say it's unfair, I've just heard people claim that You haven't been reading this thread very closely have you? Lot's of organizations and people are claiming it's unfair in their refusal to use it based upon the conditions of code distribution. "It's not fair, I can't make money off your work.....<whine, whine, whine>" ____________________________________________________________________ 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: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: Matthew James Gering <mgering(a)ecosystems.net> > Subject: RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd) > Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 15:25:32 -0700 > statements), so why should the government step in and force something > that is contrary to the market? If Microsofts actions were prohibitive and they didn't set out with specific intentions of denying fair competition (there have been quite a few documents and transcripts released that show this pre-meditated intent) then it wouldn't need to. The reality is that we don't live in a free-market, but rather a rather lightly regulated one. Microsoft got a tad too greedy in fixing their software so that specific competitors would not be able to use it, this in itself may not be a crime. However it *does* deny the consumer the choice and that most certainly is a crime. ____________________________________________________________________ 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

Is the .to (Tonga) domain completely rogue and should be removed? (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 16:50:34 -0400 > From: Robert Hettinga <rah(a)shipwright.com> > Subject: Is the .to (Tonga) domain completely rogue and should be removed? > 1. Performing traceroutes and other analyses seems to indicate that > this domain is NOT being used for communication with entities > legitimately located (legally, not only geographically) within the > sovereignty of the Kingdom of Tonga, as intended. Intended by who? As far as I know there are no legal limitations on applying for and receiving a domain from anywhere through the suitable authority. There is most certainly zero law that regulates where the owners of those domains may reside or operate. Snark hunt. > 2. Clearly criminal and malicious activites are arising from sites to > which Tonga has provided comfort and sanctuary. I got nothing against nailing spammers, but simply being a sex related site isn't a crime. > 3. Therefore, I call for a process whereby it can be determined as to > whether or not it is appropriate to decommission the Tongan domain due > to negligence, mismanagement, and having allowed it to become an > attractive resource for criminal activities. I do not believe the > Tongan domain serves any legitimate purpose as an internet resource. Irrelevant unless you own the right to administre the tonga domain. Do you? I vote *NO*. ____________________________________________________________________ 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

ANNOUNCEMENT: RPK SECURITY AWARDED PATENTS FOR ENCRYPTONITE ENGINE IN U.S. AND NEW ZEALAND
by Jack Oswald / CEO / RPK Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

You have received this message because at some time in the past your name was submitted to our e-mail mailing list database. If you do not wish (or no longer wish) to receive announcements, updates and news concerning the RPK Encryptonite Engine or the RPK InvisiMail e-mail security products, please forward this message to remove(a)rpkusa.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------- MEDIA ALERT CONTACT Paula Miller Lyn Oswald Nadel Phelan, Inc. RPK Security Inc. 408-439-5570 x277 212-488-9891 paulam(a)nadelphelan.com lynoswald(a)rpkusa.com RPK SECURITY AWARDED PATENTS FOR ENCRYPTONITE ENGINE IN U.S. AND NEW ZEALAND SAN FRANCISCO, CA. September 15, 1998 - RPK Security, Inc., a technology leader in fast public key encryption, today announced that the technology behind the company's uniquely fast public key cryptosystem, the RPK Encryptonite Engine, was awarded U.S. patent number 5,799,088 on August 25, 1998 and New Zealand patent number 277,128 on August 17, 1998. Based on the proven mathematics of Diffie-Hellman Key Exchange, the RPK Encryptonite Engine combines all the benefits of other public key systems (authentication, digital signatures and digital certificates) with the speed of a secret key system into one algorithm. With the superior performance offered by RPK's Encryptonite Engine, applications requiring streaming data, sound, video or large numbers of transactions, such as credit card payments, receive instantaneous responses and secure communication links. "We believe these patents give us a significant, unique and enforceable competitive advantage over other providers of public key encryption products," said Jack Oswald, president and CEO of RPK Security. "The RPK patents confirm our technology leadership in strong and fast public key cryptography." With development and distribution facilities outside of the U.S., RPK Security is able to provide its customers with a worldwide strong encryption solution that is available globally, unlike competing products that are restricted by U.S. export regulations. ABOUT RPK SECURITY Founded in 1995, RPK Security, Inc. is a technology leader in fast public key cryptography. Its flagship RPK Encryptonite Engine, a uniquely fast and strong public key encryption technology, is available worldwide in custom hardware and software toolkits on multiple platforms. Developed from widely accepted security mathematics and techniques, the RPK Encryptonite Engine is easily embedded into new and existing hardware and software applications. RPK's cryptographic research and product development is based in New Zealand, Switzerland and the U.K, with worldwide sales and marketing operations in San Francisco, CA. Visit RPK's website at www.rpkusa.com or call (212) 488-9891.

1 0