December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Welcome to Netscape AOL Instant Messenger (AIM)!
by Netscape AOL Instant Messenger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Welcome to Netscape AOL Instant Messenger! Thank you for confirming your Netscape AOL Instant Messenger account. We're glad you've joined the fastest growing Internet online community in the world. To help maintain an online environment that you feel comfortable with, you can set your own buddy controls. You can decide who can see if you're online as well as who can and can't get in touch with you while online. For your convenience, your controls have been initially set to allow other users to contact you online if they know either your e-mail address or your screen name. You may change your buddy controls any time when signed on to Netscape AOL Instant Messenger by doing the following: (On Windows): 1) Click on the "Netscape AOL Instant Messenger" button and select "Options" 2) Select "Edit Preferences" 3) Click on the "Controls" tab By entering the screennames of people for whom you would like to set special control settings (e.g., "block" the following users from contacting me or "allow" the following users to contact me) - you can maintain an online environment that is comfortable for you. In the future, you can change your settings by returning to the "Controls" area. Thanks for joining Netscape AOL Instant Messenger! Now you can instantly chat with your AOL and Internet friends with real-time text messages! You can even add your Internet friends to your Buddy List group. It's easy and it's FREE! Remember, to communicate instantly with friends on Internet, they have to register for Netscape AOL Instant Messenger too. Invite your friends to register by sending them a personalized invitation! Sending an invitation encouraging your friends to join is quick and convenient. All you have to do is the following: 1. Sign on to Netscape AOL Instant Messenger. 2. Click the "Netscape AOL Instant Messenger" button and select "Sign On A Friend." 3. Enter the e-mail addresses of your friends and co-workers. We'll send them an invitation -- personalized by you -- inviting them to join the Netscape AOL Instant Messenger service. For help and additional information, please visit our website http://www.netscape.com. For quick tips on getting started with Netscape AOL Instant Messenger, see the information below. See you in cyberspace! ------------------------------------------- Quick Tips on Getting Started ------------------------------------------- Signing On to Netscape AOL Instant Messenger Once you've registered, downloaded, and installed Netscape AOL Instant Messenger, you're ready to start using it. Here's what you need to do to sign on (the following instructions apply to Windows 95/NT): 1. First, make sure that you're connected to the Internet via your Internet Service Provider, school, or office network. 2. Launch Netscape AOL Instant Messenger by double-clicking the AOL Instant Messenger program icon. (If you aren't sure how to locate Netscape AOL Instant Messenger, click the Start menu and then select Programs. From Programs, select AOL Instant Messenger and then the AOL Instant Messenger program icon.) 3. When you see the "Sign On" window, type or select the screen name and password you chose during registration in the space provided and click the "Sign On" button. 4. Netscape AOL Instant Messenger will then sign you on. Setting Up Your Buddy List Once signed on, you'll see the main Netscape AOL Instant Messenger window which contains two tabs: a box with names in it, and a row of buttons at the bottom. This box is your Buddy List window, and it shows you the screen names of your buddies online. Your Buddy List window will have three sample groups that you can use to begin organizing your buddies: 1) Buddies; 2) Family, and 3) Co-Workers. (You can change the names of these groups by highlighting the group name and typing over it - or just add new ones.) Personalize your Buddy List by adding your friends' screen names. To add a new buddy, click on the "List Setup" tab, click the "Add Buddy" button, and type a friend's screen name. Do this for each buddy you want to add. To add a new group, click the "Add Group" button, and type the name of the new group (like "soccer team"). Once you've added your buddies, click the "Online" tab. If you can't remember someone's screen name, use the "Find a Buddy" function to first see if the person is a registered Netscape AOL Instant Messenger ser or not. If the person is a registered user, you can look up his or her screen name here. Sending Your Buddy an Instant Message When you see a buddy's name in your Buddy List, it means the person is online and that you can send your buddy an Instant Message (which is a private, personalized, text message). There are two ways to send an Instant Message: 1) Double-click on your buddy's screen name, and a "Send Instant Message" window will appear. Type your message in the bottom part of the window, and click "Send." Or, 2) Highlight your buddy's screen name and click on the "IM" button. (If your buddy's screen name is not on your Buddy List group, then click on the "IM" button and type in his or her screen name and a message.) Either way, after clicking the "Send" button, your message will "pop up" on your buddy's computer screen. Then your buddy can send messages back to you for an instant, private, one-to-one chat.

1 0

NSA Scientific Advisory Board
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The NSA Scientific Advisory Board has been functioning since 1953: http://jya.com/nsa-sab97.htm The 1997 annual report briefly describes what it does and what it costs to do it. However, its closed meetings are not announced in the Federal Register as required by regulations governing such FACA orgs. Names of members, minutes and studies are not available. We've made a request for info to the NSA office which handles the matter (301) 688-6449. Any information on the board would be welcome. Skimpy annual reports on the NSA SAB, like the one for 1997 above, as well as for all other federal advisory committees, from 1972 to 1997 are available at: http://policyworks.gov/org/main/mc/index-r.htm

1 0

Re: Article V - an analysis (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 15:11:57 -0800 > From: Todd Larason <jtl(a)molehill.org> > Subject: Re: Article V - an analysis (fwd) > On 981125, Jim Choate wrote: > > Why is this problematic? When the convention was called it was with the > > express goal of replacing the articles. A tacit a priori admission they were > > faulty and needed replacement. > > But that wasn't the goal, at least not the stated goal. The Convention > was called under the procedures specified in the Articles. The Convention > itself decided to change the rules for ratification. Which is by definition within the powers of such a convention. Their charter is to come together in order to build a consensus and create from that a charter for future operations. The litmus test is whether the states are willing enough to go along with it to actualy do it. They were so the point was moot. The states called the convention in order to create new proposals for government, the convention went back to the states with a proposal, the states looked it over and voted for it. It's important to remember as well that the original Constitution had to be ratified by all 13 original states and not simply 3/4 of them. The choice was unanimous. > Congress specified in both (all) cases. For the original prohibition > amendment, they submitted it to state legislatures. For the repeal amendment, > they submitted it to state conventions. So, however the bill get's to Congress they must specify a method for the states to enact. Now the question is how long does Congress get? If Congress sits around and does nothing can it stall long enough that they can kill the amendment process by their own internal procedures? There is certainly no time limit imposed by the Constitution so the implication is that Congress has to wait until the states decide whether that takes a day or a century. But at the same token there is no implicit time constraint on Congress either. ____________________________________________________________________ Technology cannot make us other than what we are. James P. Hogan The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

4 4

Re: [ISN] Feds Want Banks to Spy on All Customers...Even You! (fwd)
by Michael Motyka 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I spotted the *rhetorical* steel case in the first note. The disturbing thing here is the requirement to report deviations from a pattern. That is where it becomes a NaziReptilianProctoscope$ystem. It's my fucking money, I can do whatever the fuck I want with it, whenever the fuck I want to. I wish those fuckers would look at the Fourth Amendment. The structuring stuff looks like it could get pretty wierd: how I move my money should not matter but maybe it does. Why do reptiles have such a bad name? Some of my favorite politicians are reptiles. BTW - the FDIC site state that there is no statutory requirement for a 'Know Your Customer' system. You could also say that they are not interested in little guys, that they need this stuff to do their job, but if the laws are written so that anyone can be targeted without a warrant then there is a *big* problem. Especially worrisome is automated pattern analysis without a warrant - a violation of the 4th. So, what are the alternatives to keeping your money in a standard financial institution? Seems to me that keeping it at home is pretty risky - eventually some low-life will figure it out and then you'll have to choose between your cash and your left nut. Keeping it all tied up in goods is not any bargain either. A small fraction perhaps... Mike >From the FDIC site. Pardon the formatting - it's straight from the .gov. ************************************************************************ http://www.fdic.gov/search97cgi/s97_cgi.exe?action=View&VdkVgwKey=http%3A%2… "Know> <Your> <Customer>" Policy One of the most important, if not the most important means by which financial institutions can hope to avoid criminal exposure to the institution from customers who use the resources of the institution for illicit purposes is to have a clear and concise understanding of each customer's practices. The adoption of "<know> <your> <customer>" guidelines or procedures by financial institutions has proven extremely effective in detecting suspicious activity by customers of the institution in a timely manner. Even though not required by regulation or statute, it is imperative that financial institutions adopt "<know> <your> <customer>" guidelines or procedures to enable the immediate detection and identification of suspicious activity at the institution. The concept of "<know> <your> <customer>" is, by design, not explicitly defined so that each institution can adopt procedures best suited for its own operations. An effective "<know> <your> <customer>" policy must, at a minimum, contain a clear statement of management's overall expectations and establish specific line responsibilities. While the officers and staff of smaller banks may have more frequent and direct contact with customers than their counterparts in large urban institutions, it is incumbent upon all institutions to adopt and follow policies appropriate to their size, location, and type of business. Objectives Of "<Know> <Your> <Customer>" Policy 1.A "<know> <your> <customer>" policy should increase the likelihood the financial institution is in compliance with all statutes and regulations and adheres to sound and recognized banking practices. 2.A "<know> <your> <customer>" policy should decrease the likelihood the financial institution will become a victim of illegal activities perpetrated by a customer. 3.A "<know> <your> <customer>" policy that is effective will protect the good name and reputation of the financial institution. 4.A "<know> <your> <customer>" policy should not interfere with the relationship of the financial institution with its good customers. At the present time there are no statutory mandates requiring a "<know> <your> <customer>" policy or specifying the contents of such a policy. However, in order to develop and maintain a practical and useful policy, financial institutions should incorporate the following principles into their business practices: 1.Financial institutions should make a reasonable effort to determine the true identity of all customers requesting the bank's services; 2.Financial institutions should take particular care to identify the ownership of all accounts and of those using safe-custody facilities; 3.Identification should be obtained from all new customers; 4.Evidence of identity should be obtained from customers seeking to conduct significant business transactions; and 5.Financial institutions should be aware of any unusual transaction activity or activity that is disproportionate to the customer's known business. An integral part of an effective "<know> <your> <customer>" policy is a comprehensive knowledge of the transactions carried out by the customers of the financial institution. Therefore, it is necessary that the "<know> <your> <customer>" procedures established by the institution allow for the collection of sufficient information to develop a "transaction profile" of each customer. The primary objective of such procedures is to enable the financial institution to predict with relative certainty the types of transactions in which a customer is likely to be engaged. Internal systems should then be developed for monitoring transactions to determine if transactions occur which are inconsistent with the customer's "transaction profile". A "<know> <your> <customer" policy must consist of procedures that require proper identification of every customer at the time a relationship is established in order to prevent the creation of fictitious accounts. In addition, the bank's employee education program should provide examples of customer behavior or activity which may warrant investigation. Identifying The Customer As a general rule, a business relationship with a financial institution should never be established until the identity of a potential customer is satisfactorily established. If a potential customer refuses to produce any of the requested information, the relationship should not be established. Likewise, if requested follow-up information is not forthcoming, any relationship already begun should be terminated. Structured Transactions Section 103.53 prohibits the structuring of transactions for the purpose of evading the currency transaction reporting requirements. Anyone who causes or attempts to cause a bank to fail to file a CTR or to file a false CTR is covered under this section as well as anyone who attempts to structure or assists in structuring any transaction with one or more domestic financial institutions. A cash transaction in excess of $10,000, which is subsequently withdrawn upon realization that a CTR is being prepared, should be reported as a possible attempt to structure a transaction. See also 31 U. S. C. 5324. Examiners should be alert to consecutive transactions involving cash in excess of $10,000. Suspect transactions should be pursued further. The following are examples of types of transactions that may be reviewed for possible structuring activity: 1.Cashed checks - pay particular attention to multiple items cashed by the same person. 2.Cash deposits. 3.Savings withdrawals/certificates of deposit redemptions. 4.Personal money orders or official checks sold. 5.Official checks sold or cashed - look for consecutive items. 6.Savings Bonds sold or redeemed. 7.Traveler's checks sold or cashed. 8.Loan payments or loan proceeds made in cash. 9.Securities sold or purchased for cash if the financial institution acts as agent for an individual and the transaction involves more than $10,000.

3 2

Dr. Strangelove on the Y2K Opportunity (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 09:30:04 -0800 > From: Tim May <tcmay(a)got.net> > Subject: Dr. Strangelove on the Y2K Opportunity > As I have been predicting for most of this year, the smartest thing our DOD > may do is to use the information chaos of Y2K to go for a DECCOM > (Decapitation of Command) strike as the clock hits midnight in Moscow. > Knock out their sub pens on the Kola Peninsula, hit the missile facilities > in Semipalatinsk, knock out Vladivostok, and do a lay down over Moscow. > > A one-way ticket back to the 19th century. A few megadeaths may be a That's MEGA-wishful thinking (not to mention more than a tad nuts). The results of a major nuclear strike would take the human race to a civilization level more akin to the Sumarians (at best). The ecological, technological, medical, etc. failures would be impossible to deal with at our current level of technology. Potentialy a billion or more people would survive short-term. Nobody in there right mind would want to trade places with them. Within 20 years the vast majority of the survivors would be dead. If there would be more than 50M in 60 years over the entire planet I'd be surprised. If I were setting policy I'd point a bunch/most of my nukes at myself. The kindest thing I can do for my people is to kill them, the worst thing I could do for my enemy is leave them alive - they'll eat themselves. Then I'd sit back and say: "Fuck with us and we suicide. Oh, we'll take you with us but slowly and by your own hand." In the process nuke their major grain belts, water resources, and raw metal sites, leave their cities and major population centers standing and occupied. It ain't winnable by either side except by avoidance. ____________________________________________________________________ Technology cannot make us other than what we are. James P. Hogan The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

[ISN] Feds Want Banks to Spy on All Customers...Even You! (fwd)
by Albert P. Franco, II 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 08:26:54 -0500 (EST) >From: Ken Williams <jkwilli2(a)unity.ncsu.edu> > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > >Good thing I keep all my money in a steel case buried somewhere >along the Appalachian trail. No bank accounts, no credit cards. > >Ken Williams > >>From: ISPI Clips 6.51 >>From: WorldNetDaily, November 23, 1998 > >Big Brother Banks? FDIC has snooping plans >http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_exnews/19981123_xex_big_brother_.shtml >David M. Bresnahan, David(a)talkusa.com >Contributing Editor, WorldNetDaily > >Are you a potential criminal? Are you a threat to banks, airlines, a >potential spy, or perhaps an IRS tax protester? The government would like >to know and they are about to force banks to be their detectives. > Isn't this called prior restraint? Isn't it specifically illegal for the government to treat all members of the public as criminals a priori? This certainly sounds like one of the grossest cases of Feds-That-Should-Die(TM) that I have ever heard. I'm sure that the founding fathers would have been stocking up on gun powder and lead over this one. And I'm NOT one of the many Libertarian/Money-Gun-and-Gold-Stashing types on this list. I far and away prefer to work inside the system peacefully. But, it does give me pause to think about it! When a supposedly NON-LEA agency such as the FuckingDICks begins creating regulations of this sort it is the most blatant proof that the constitution has died. Perhaps it is time to start draft the next version of the Declaration of In dependance... Actually, we wouldn't need to change much. It was an excellent document then and now and perhaps it is time shake the dust off of it! Here's my take on a new version, (read carefully the changes in some cases are subtle): THE DECLARATION of INDEPENDENCE ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Action of the New Continental Consensus, July 4, 1999 The Declaration of the People of the United States of America ------------------------------------------------------------------------ WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation. WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, Privacy and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shown, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these people; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the present Federal Government of the United States of America is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World. It has refused its Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good. (Agencies such as the NSA and CIA whose actions are wholly unsupervised and unchecked.) It has forbidden its Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till its Assent and modification should be obtained; and when so suspended, it has utterly neglected to attend to them. (Basterdazation of state and local voters measures threw inappropriate judiciary interference.) It has refused to pass other Laws for the Accommodation of large Districts of People, unless those People would relinquish the Right of Representation in the Legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and formidable to Tyrants only. (Pick any agency... none allow for direct representation in their regulatory actions. Public comment IS NOT direct representation!) It has called together Legislative Bodies at Places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the Depository of their public Records, for the sole Purpose of fatiguing them into Compliance with its Measures. It has investigated, harassed, terrorized, and killed members of Representative Bodies repeatedly, for opposing with its manly Firmness its Invasions on the Rights of the People. It has refused for a long Time, after such Dissolutions, to allow others to act; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of the Annihilation, have not been returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposing them to all the Dangers of Invasion from it, and the Convulsions within. It has endeavored to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new ownership of Lands and Properties. It has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing its Assent to Laws for respecting Judiciary Powers. (You can't sue them unless they say it's OK... And when you do who do you sue?) It has made Judges dependent on its Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and the Amount and Payment of their Salaries. It has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their Substance. It has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent or oversight of our Legislatures. (NSA, CIA, IRS, ATF, etc.) It has affected to render the Military and National Security Forces independent of and superior to the Civil Power. It has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving its Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: FOR quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us; FOR protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: FOR cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World: (ITAR, etc.) FOR imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: FOR depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury: (Try to fight an "infraction" in California!) FOR transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended Offences: (Hi CJ!) FOR abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighboring Province, establishing therein an arbitrary Government, and enlarging its Boundaries, so as to render it at once an Example and fit Instrument for introducing the same absolute Rules into these Colonies: (Ever been to a US territory?) FOR taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: (Let's hear it for the IRS and NSA, and now FDIC!) FOR suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Power to legislate for us in all Cases whatsoever. (Who actually makes tax regulation?!) It has abducted Government here, and declared us under of its Protection and thus waging War against us. It has plundered our Seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our Towns, and destroyed the Lives of our People. It is, at this Time, transporting large Armies of Mercenaries to compleat the Works of Death, Desolation, and Tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and Perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous Ages, and totally unworthy of a civilized Nation. It has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive to bear Arms and false testimony against their Countrymen, to become the Executioners of their Friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. It has excited domestic Insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the Inhabitants of our Frontiers, the merciless Profiteering Drug Peddlers, whose known Rule of Warfare, is an undistinguished Destruction, of all Ages, Sexes and Conditions. (Don't forget Noriega and his CIA buddies. You wouldn't get even money on the bet that they have changed their ways...) It has subverted the very essence of the Constitution and Bill of Rights which gave it birth by perpetrating the following acts of barbarism and contempt for the people: Confiscation of Personal Properties being routinely executed without the most minimum attempt at DUE PROCESS; Routine and massive warrant-less searches and seizures of the personal communications of the people; Commonplace denial of competent legal defense and availability of juries of one's peers; Unconstitutional restrictions of the movement of the people and their assets; Unconstitutional restrictions of the peoples' right to assemble, publicly and privately and secretly; IN every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble Terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated Injury and imprisonment in State Mental Institutions. A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People. NOR have we been wanting in Attentions of our International Brethren. They have warned us from Time to Time of Attempts by our Legislature to extend an unwarrantable Jurisdiction over them. They have reminded us of the Circumstances of our Emigration and Settlement here. They have appealed to our native Justice and Magnanimity, and they have conjured us by the Ties of our common Kindred to disavow these Usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our Connections and Correspondence. They too have been denied the Voice of Justice and of Consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the Necessity, which denounces our Union in the Spirit of Freedom, and hold them, as we hold the rest of Mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace, Friends. WE, therefore, the People of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in GENERAL CONSENSUS, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these States, solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United States are, and of Right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the Federal Government, and that all political Connection between them and the Federal Government of the USA, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which INDEPENDENT STATES may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor. Signed, The names of course will be changed to protect the innocent... I may not be up to the task of editing TJ, but you get the point! I was going to send this through an anonymizer and sign it Thomas In Payne. But Fuck the MIBs. This is MY Opinion Freely Stated as I'm guaranteed by the Constitution they are so hell bent on destroying. This adaptation of such a revered document as our dear Declaration of Independence is meant to provoke thought and perhaps one last effort by many to halt the erosion of the effectiveness of what was perhaps the most important statement of what a government should be that the world has ever known. It is time that we take back our Constitution from the MIB. My only question is HOW? APF

1 0

Fwd: "A MASSIVE BREACH OF PRIVACY"
by Jean-Francois Avon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

==================BEGIN FORWARDED MESSAGE================== >From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" <BreitG0(a)parl.gc.ca> [Breitkreuz is an elected member of the Canadian Parliement (Reform Party)] >To: "'firearms digest'" <cdn-firearms-digest(a)sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca> >Subject: "A MASSIVE BREACH OF PRIVACY" >Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 12:07:23 -0500 PUBLICATION: Vancouver Sun DATE: 98.11.25 EDITION: FINAL SECTION: News PAGE: A1 / Front BYLINE: Jeff Lee SOURCE: Vancouver Sun Feds fear data sold rather than shredded: Huge cache of sensitive government documents uncovered in Burnaby. The federal government believes tonnes of highly-sensitive material, including tax records, unemployment insurance claims and parole records were sold intact by a Lower Mainland company that was supposed to shred and recycle the material, The Vancouver Sun has learned. Federal agencies found more than 110 tonnes of unshredded files in a Burnaby warehouse last July that were being offered for sale by <Golden> West Document Shredding (1995) Inc. But they have been unable to determine what happened to nearly another 200 tonnes they know the company was given by National Archives, the federal agency responsible for disposing of classified and non-classified documents no longer required by the government. And the amount of confidential material sent to <Golden> West that wasn't shredded may actually be much higher -- as much as 600 to 700 tonnes -- said sources who spoke on condition of anonymity, because the company also obtained documents directly from a number of other government departments . The RCMP's National Security Intelligence Service, which investigated the security breach, believes all documents were sent to pulp mills for recycling, even though they weren't shredded, Sergeant John Ward said. ``We're quite sure that no national security issues were compromised, at least from our investigation. But I can tell you that we are not happy about this at all,'' he said, adding that the issue involved a massive breach of privacy. But John Billings, a regional director of Public Works, said he can't say for certain the material didn't fall into the hands of people who might use it for improper purposes. Sources said confidential information such as social insurance numbers has a commercial value in criminal circles and can be used for such purposes as obtaining false identification. According to a public works memo obtained by The Sun, <Golden> West apparently sold the material unshredded because it could get a higher price per tonne than if it had to tear it into unreadable strips as required under the terms of its contract. Les Billett, the owner of <Golden> West, denied Tuesday he sold any confidential documents intact. He said his company couldn't handle the volume of material the government provided. Billett said only a small part of the 110 tonnes seized came from the government. He said most of it was commercial office paper and estimated that only 20 or so tonnes was government records. But Ward said police confirmed all of the material seized came from the government, and that it was indeed being offered for sale unshredded. Many of the nearly 22,000 boxes sent for destruction contained what the government calls ``designated'' or protected confidential information originating from Revenue Canada, Citizenship and Immigration, Human Resources, National Parole Board, Indian and Northern Affairs, and a number of other departments. The RCMP was also among the agencies whose confidential documents were found in the tonnes of material seized, he said. Most were low-level security records from various detachments, as well as the E Division headquarters, he said. <Golden> West's contract called for the company to obtain, shred and recycle 400 tonnes of material from the National Archives warehouse in Burnaby over a one-year period. It would also get up to 450 tonnes of material directly from other agencies. In return, <Golden> West was supposed to pay the government $30.17 for every tonne it took. Records show public works received at least $7,282, meaning <Golden> West paid for about 241 tonnes of documents, Billings said. But lading bills at the federal storage centre show <Golden> West actually received 292 tonnes, not including any material obtained directly from other agencies. ===================END FORWARDED MESSAGE===================

1 0

How to reign the federal government in...
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Start a political party, but the likes of which has never walked the face of the Earth. The individual states when acting in a clear majority (>=75%) may pass Constitutional amendments without the involvement or interference of federal processes. The IRS, for example, could be shut down tomorrow or significantly modified via this mechanism without involvement at the federal level. What is needed is a political party that has a representative site in each state capital. Their job is to get proposed amendments to the Constitution on the floor of each body for vote. Think nationaly, act by state. There could be no appeal to the Supreme Court for constitutionality because it IS the Constitution. There are no requirements in the Constitution to notify or otherwise register such acts with the federal authorities. In short, it's none of their business if the people acting at the state level change the laws at the federal level. They must either comply or quit their jobs. ____________________________________________________________________ Technology cannot make us other than what we are. James P. Hogan The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Re: Interesting tidbit about media controlling and censoringopinions, Web Pol...
by Nilsphone＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have noticed something else: Our networks (NBC, ABC, CBS etc) will interview a politician, on camera, and then immediately afterwards tell the viewers/listeners WHAT HE SAID! I am not talking about commentary, extrapolations, consequences, comparison with other opinions, commantaries about the truth or falsehood of what whas said, no, the TVnetspeakcritter will say "Well, we heard President Ougadougou Cleptocrate say that....." even when the interviewee spoke English, or was dubbed. Bye the way, for reasons related to those in the original mail, I much prefer subtitles to dubbing, as the speaker's voice gives away many clues, even if I am unfamiliar with his language. Regards Nils Andersson >[THE FOLLOWING IS IS A VERY INTERESTING OBSERVATION... JFA. ] >See, we have to work on demystifying all the "news" we are getting and NEVER TAKE >ANY at face value. Did you noticed often on the news they show a "talking head" >with the sound off and CBC own comentator narates what has been said. This is to >train us to get used to it (communist regime trick I've seen so often) so they can >put anything to anybody's mouth when needed - and sometimes they do already. >Nothing new under the Sun.

1 0

Intellectual Property is like a banana (McNealy)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > X-within-URL: http://www.cadence.com/features/vol3No3/mc_nealy > Do We Worry Too Much About Protecting IP? > > --> By Scott McNealy > > It seems as if everyones always worried about intellectual property, > or IP. We worry about its proprietary nature and how to protect it. > But lets take a different angle on IP and also intellectual capital > inside a company, because I think we all worry way too much about > protecting it. > > IP has the shelf life of a banana. It just doesnt last, yet were all > worried about protecting it, hiding it, securing it, storing it in a > vault. As a result, we absolutely prevent our competitors from getting > ahold of it, but we also prevent our employees from getting ahold of > it. We prevent our customers and our suppliers and our partners > from getting access to it. As a result, by the time the people who > need access to it get that access, its so old that it is effectively > a banana we wouldnt want to eat. [text deleted] ____________________________________________________________________ Technology cannot make us other than what we are. James P. Hogan The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0