December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: Matthew James Gering <mgering(a)ecosystems.net> > Subject: RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone > (fwd) > Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 13:52:14 -0800 > > Yes, they are. Can you say 'taxes'? > > Imposed by a gun. Don't try to change the subject. Just because you don't find taxes worthwhile doesn't mean others do as well. My bitch is about the amount and the way it's legislated, not about paying them. I'd sure as hell rather pay taxes for police, fire, ems, etc. than try to deal with that all myself. If that were the case we wouldn't have a very high level of society since nobody would have time to run businesses, write great books, make movies, develop computers, etc. They'd be too damn busy sneaking up on the deer or shooting/stealing their neighbors food/wife. > > Can you say 'interstate commerce'? > > What about it? It's one of the defining characteristics that allow a government to be a economic factor in the economic system, contrary to the original thesis. > > Can you say 'mint money'? Can you say 'federal reserve'? > > Can you say government fiat? Can you say fucked up non-working economy if there isn't some standardization of monetary systems? I can see it now if folks like you get your way. When I go to Louisiana I'll need a whole new currency that I can't trade my Texas money for. Yep, that's an optimal way to run an economy. > > Can you say 'FDIC'? > > Can you say banking regulation at the point of a gun? Don't change the subject (again). > The Soviet Union is a prime recent example. How? > British Mercantilism. How? > Governments are ultimately bound to economics in the sense of human behavior > and productivity -- the more they deny the nature of microeconomic actors, > the quicker they self-destruct. Economics *is* human behaviour, the science is the tools that we use to describe what happens *after* the fact and if we're right we might even be able to make some small usable predictions about what people in a gross level will do in the future. If you are trying to extend economics to the extent of trying to predict the micro-economic actions of individuals then you don't understand macro or micro economics very well. > History shows that every dynasty well eventually self-destruct, to think > ours won't is foolish. Everything self desctructs at one point or another. Besides this issue is irrelevant and immaterial to whether it is legitimate to consider a government as an economic partner in a economic system, and whether that model for government includes aspects normaly thought of as being a commercial enterprise. Again, stay on topic. > My point is we don't have competitive governments per > se You are lost in a dream world, all government are competitive. Ask Clinton, Hussein, Pinochet, Netanyahuh, etc. Why? Because people are competitive, it's the way biology works. >, you have a power void that is filled by new government that can be just > as hostile to those microeconomic actors. All our government failures have > yet to produce a sustainable government. It never happens that way. The *only* time you have a power void is when there are no governments in the first place. Once they are established other governments and systems move in to take over the territory. It's quite biological (which shouldn't surprise anyone) in its behaviour. Usualy a government ceases because another government (whether internal or external is irrelevant to the point at hand) moves in and destroys the base of the original government. It might be by force but the fall of the CCCP clearly indicates that we are seeing governments change their systems radicaly without the violence, destruction, and death that historicaly such changes have required. The fall of the CCCP is a watershed event because it indicates that government systems can in fact change without these effects, that is a very hopeful sign. > > False distinction. Politics is about control and power > > The fundamental laws of economics are supply and demand. As soon as you > through force into the equation, it is no longer economic, it is political. No, the fundamental law of economics is greed/desire/want/etc. Supply and demand is how we describe the consequences of the flow of goods and services. Now exactly why you're bringing up economics when the issue in this case was the base motivations of politics smacks of a strawman. > > in human society that breaks down to force and money. > > The essence of money has no political roots. The essence of money is human > productivity and trade. Oh baloney. There are two aspects of organized human society (ie politics). Self-defence and self-sufficiency. The first requires brute force and the second requires some mechanism of trade. For a society to get very large at all *requires* a generalization of the barter system to a symbolic one, that symbol is money. > Money is tied to politics currently because it is regulated by force of > government and the money *supply* is created by government fiat. First, the money supply was created by a popular vote, not a government fiat because there was no government to execute the fiat at the time. Now as to money being tied to politics, see the paragraph above. > > There you go again, confusing privacy with economics... > > The discussion *was* *privacy*, No, the discussion was the viability of modeling a government as a economic entity within the economic system of a geographic region and what that meant. There was also a side issue relating privacy and freedom to anarchy. > discussion? Privacy (as opposed to secrecy) is about discretionary > disclosure of information. No, that is respect for privacy. Secrecy is the intentional act of hiding information that one doesn't want others to discover, not the same horse at all. > To invade privacy is to remove or prevent that > discretion. No, to invade privacy is to disrespect it. Discretion is knowing when to do it and not get caught. > There is an economic cost of doing so, and an economic benefit. Not necessarily. I can invade my childrens privacy and there is no economic cost or benefit. My neighbor can rifle my mail and there is no cost one way or the other (unless they steal my paycheck and that's a whole nother issue). The government could tap my phone and there would be no economic impact. Privacy does not require the issue of economics to brought into it until we begin to discuss economic strategies. It is the issue of money that brings privacy into the discussion and not the other way around. > Corporations are bound by those economics, whereas government can mandate > transparency by whim and gun. No, it is clear that governments are bound by the will of their citizens, their economy, geography, and their technology. They are not omnipotent. > > True, but that isn't a function of regulation per se only the > > particular type of regulation that we have implimented. > > It is the *nature* of regulation. No it isn't. I regulate my dogs behavior and don't use force. Football games are regulated by rules and they aren't imposed by force. The way my company works is very regulated but there is no force involved. No, regulation does not automaticaly imply force. Where force comes into play is when the issue being regulated effects many individuals and some of those individuals want the benefits but don't want to pay the costs. They want a free ride at others expense. > Government is a natural instrument of collective legalized force by any This is a non-sequetar, governments define legality they are not defined by it. There isn't some outside agency that defines what a government will do, it's internal to the government and its participants. > group that can influence it, and to think it can't and won't be influenced > denies human nature in regards to power. Yeah, so. I don't believe this is relevant since we all agree on this. It's a function of human nature to try to get in a position of special favor so at least some rules don't apply to you. It's a competitive advantage. > Every government is despotic by > nature, force corrupts. People are corruptable, governments are simply the framework they create to express it. > > No, they don't. It is perfectly legal for an individual to > > own a weapon. > > The legal monopoly on the *initiation* of force. I got news for you dude, I catch you in my truck after dark or running down the street with my property I'm perfectly within my rights to initiate force. > And in fact you have very > little freedom (eternally diminishing) to obtain potential force (arms) and > use it in a *reactionary* manner. You mean in an insiteful manner. You aren't talking about reacting to something you're veiled comment is to allow yourself for example to buy a weapon and kill me (for example) simply because you're pissed off about something. It surprises you that I and others won't give you that freedom? > You have absolutely *no* freedom to use it > reactionary against government (which is in the face of the 4th). ARTICLE IV. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. That in fact does allow you to shoot somebody if they enter your home illegaly, even a police officer. If you're being raped and shoot a cop it's perfectly legal. If he's beating the shit out of you it's perfectly legal to defend yourself, even to the point of killing the officer. The problem is your not wanting to use it in immediate self-defence, you're talking about going out and mowing people down simply because your pissed off at what they stand for and you can't get your way. Your pissed off, like all anarchist, that you can't take advantage of people with impunity. A childish and petulant view. I'm going to stop now since the rest of your email is more of the same. ____________________________________________________________________ To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Who Cares (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 11:00:10 -0500 > From: Petro <petro(a)playboy.com> > Subject: Re: Who Cares (fwd) > While I won't deny that some of the people who don't vote are in > the position you claim they are, their not voting has nothing to do with > their economic position, it has to do with the facts that: Many of the people are in that situation. Most people don't vote for two reasons: 1. It won't significantly effect their lives one way or the other 2. They don't have time, or at least don't believe they have time. > 1) This is a mid-term election. Since it isn't a presidential > election, fewer really care to research the issues (which are fewer). Yeah, why? (hint: see 1.) > 2) We are currently in decent economic times, and as Terry Pratchet > noted on Men At Arms, (paraphrasing here) Most people don't really care > about democrazy, Equal Rights, or any of that, they just want tomorrow to > be exactly like today. Then Terry Pratchet is an idiot. People don't want it to stay the same, they want it to get better. They want more money, a bigger house, better clothes, a cooler car, etc. If you and Terry seriously don't believe folks understand democracy (though they may not act the way you want them to in expressing it) then you should spend some time talking to people and askign them how much they would take to get rid of the Constitution, allow cops to wander through their homes at will, etc. You're both in for a very rude surprise. > 3) As Jimmy notes, there usually isn't much of a difference between > one canidate and the other (outside of the Natural Law types), and those > canidates who _are_ different (Libertarians, Socialists &etc. ("reform" > types don't count, they really are for making tomorrow just like yesterday > & today, only they ADMIT it for the most part)) either don't get enough > votes to challenge the status quo, or if there is an issue that will > challenge the status quo, the number of voters tends to increase (to > varying degrees). True, though I'd say the reason that we don't have a more diverse political venue is because we don't have proportional seating in the various houses. That was a fundamental fault with the founding fathers, they misunderstood the homogeneity of peoples view. Of course they didn't have a clue about television and such causing a global homogeniety. But then again, that is our cross to bear in living up to 'a more perfect union'. The one unifying aspect that amazes me about many of you folks on this mailing list is your complete lack of understanding of your own duty and responsibilities in this government. You bitch and bitch and yammer about what's wrong but you have no desire to fix it, your so focused on initiating violence it's pathetic. When the Constitutuion was written the job was just begun, it wasn't finished as you seem to imply. ____________________________________________________________________ To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Who Cares (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 10:49:53 -0500 > From: Petro <petro(a)playboy.com> > Subject: Re: Who Cares > The fact that it is meaningful to you means you will never (as long > as it is meaningful to you) get anywhere as a politician, as you still > actively beleive that a politican is there to do the will of the people. Politicians are, unfortunately the problem is the people who becom politicians. > This can be demonstrated to be a false assumption. We're waiting.... ____________________________________________________________________ To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Holloween II: Microsoft Plugs Linux
by Mark Lanett 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Anonymous <nobody(a)replay.com> > By the standards of the ... developer accustomed to VB [Visual > Basic], these tools are incredibly primitive." How strange! I just talked about that paragraph with a friend of mine and he missed the EXACT same key words that you did. You LEFT OUT THE KEY WORDS! The actual message said: >By the standards of the novice / intermediate developer accustomed to VB/VS/VC/VJ, these tools are incredibly >primitive. Which is completely correct. What I replied to the buddy: Well they *are* [primitive]. You have to write a MAKEFILE for crying out loud. You can't go from error messages to the source code / line in your editor (unless you use Emacs). It's so stupid. Someone could write a simple (scratch-itch) OSS IDE and dominate the market in no time. The funny thing is that this was the DOS situation... MS hasn't been out of "primitive" for that long itself. Of course for experienced developers, GCC's 140 platforms (w/ cross-compiling) and optimizations and all is killer. But what's the ratio of less experienced to sophisticated developers? ~mark

2 1

Holiday Shopping Survey And Contest
by prize＠survey.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear Internet User, The holiday season will soon be upon us. Will you be making your list and checking it twice online? We're curious about what role, if any, the Internet will play in your holiday plans this year. Share your opinions with us and you could win a free Talking Tommy (from hit Rugrats' TV Show) or Talking Teletubby toy (from popular PBS show). To join in the holiday fun, go to the survey at: http://www.survey.com/holshopsur.html Be sure to include your email address at the end of the survey so we can enter your name in the drawing. It is not required that any information be provided other than your email address for you to be entered into the drawing. A complete list of contest rules is attached to the survey. We will be happy to let you know when the results are ready. Happy Holidays and good luck on the drawing! Greg Harmon Director of Research World Research

1 0

Re: FYI: Digicash bankruptcy
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text From: "Thomas Junker" <tjunker(a)phoenix.net> To: dbs(a)philodox.com Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 21:32:24 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: FYI: Digicash bankruptcy Reply-to: Thomas Junker <tjunker(a)phoenix.net> Priority: normal Sender: <dbs(a)philodox.com> Precedence: Bulk List-Subscribe: <mailto:requests@philodox.com?subject=subscribe%20dbs> X-Web-Archive: http://www.philodox.com/dbs-archive/ On 5 Nov 98, at 14:32, Nahum Goldmann quoted Phil Agre as having writ: > [With the bankruptcy of Digicash, it is time to assemble the definitive > list of underperforming Internet technologies. The received wisdom is > that the Internet lies at the vortex of a historically unprecedented era > of intensive and disruptive technological change. A sober reading of the > evidence, however, supports something much closer to the opposite thesis, > viz, the Internet is a modest and useful new tool that, despite itself, > has given rise to an astonishingly wasteful mania whereby perfectly good > capital is plowed into one ill-conceived technology after another. Is Agre a friend of Metcalfe? One wrings his hands over what other people choose to risk their money on in Internet technology development and the other solemnly predicts that the Internet will implode. If those two guys ever get together, the ambient lumens will dim for miles around. NRO will be repositioning satellites to check out the grey hole of pessimism laying like a blanket over their meeting place. > So right now would be an excellent time > for us to renounce the false idea that we are living in a time of > unprecedented technical change. Yeah, right. Listen to this guy and die. That's his message. > ...it is running behind the penetration rates that > earlier technologies such as the radio and gas cooking achieved once they > started being adopted on a mass scale... Had this guy been commenting back then, he would no doubt have been wringing his hands over all the silly things being done with radio and all the failed ideas and ventures. Checking out those future-fantasy clips from the '50's is instructive... I *still* don't have a kitchen or bathroom as spiffy as what they were telling everyone they would have a few short years -- I don't have a constant-temperature shower or cleverly designed foldaway shelves, tables, trays and ironing boards hidden in every nook and cranny of the kitchen. In fact, looking at one of those on video got me in the mood to go back 40 years so I could look forward to having those neat things. More importantly, though, as great as the utility of radio has been in many areas, it has mostly been a one-way incoming pipe for the average person. Its greatest utility value in that mode has probably been news delivery, but that is highly overrated. If you tune out the news in all forms for two weeks, you will be a lot less stressed and realize that, by and large, what makes the news doesn't care a whit about you, and if you con't care a whit about the news, no pieces of the sky fall in. If radio hadn't been regulated as badly and suffocatingly as it was, and if people without propellors on their heads could have used it to communicate with friends and associates over long distances instead of waiting for telephone operators to call them back to tell them a trunk had become available for their annual long distance call to Mamain Toledo, perhaps radio would have had a hugely greater impact than it did. Radio came, radio was monopolized, and it became just another flavor of newspaper or magazine. Now gas, there's a revolutionary development! Convenient, yes. Revolutionary, no. Were we able to cook before gas? Were we able to heat before gas? Did gas mean that Father no longer had to trek to an office or factory to earn his living? Were we suddenly able to shuttle business documents back and forth between Passaic, New Jersey and Jakarta at zero incremental cost? Did gas perhaps enable millions of people to shift their modes of work and cut the ties with fixed offices? Maybe gas enabled multimedia communication, as in Smell-o-Vision? Geez! So it was convenient. So lots of people rushed out and utilized it in a short time. So? What did it change? It may have made some industrial processes cheaper or more feasible. It made some very uninteresting aspects of life less time and attention consuming. <yawn> > Internet protocols that we use today are unchanged in their essentials > from about 1982. Isn't that like denigrating all of wheeled transport by pointing out that gee, the wheels we use today are unchanged in their essentials from about 4000 B.C. (or whenever)? And your point is...? > In fact, once the real history of this era is written, I > think that 1982 will shape up as the true annus mirabilis, and 1994 will > simply be seen as the era when the innovations of ten to fifteen years > earlier finally caught public attention and reached the price point that > was needed to achieve the network externalities required for its large- > scale adoption. Can you spell M-O-S-A-I-C? > If we get out the rake and drag away all of the detritus > of the underperforming technologies that I listed above, and compare our > times on an apples-for-apples basis with other periods of technological > innovation -- including the Depression era, for heaven's sake -- then I > think we will have a much healthier perspective going forward. Yes indeedy, that's what we should all do when we need a lift -- drag out Dad's or Grandpa's Depression scrapbook and get some *real* perspective! That'll drive out that pesky optimism and make us thankful for not having to run down the road chasing the family farm as it blows away in the wind. Yessirree, those pics of Uncle Dwork selling apples will straighten us right up and dispel those silly fantasies of interconnecting the world, working from Tahiti, or making a killing with a killer Internet app. There oughta be a law! It should be illegal to offend good, pessimistic outlooks by running around in circles showering ideas and developments like sparks. > As it is, > people the world over have been propagandized into a state of panic, one > that encourages them to abandon all of their experience and common sense > and buy lots of computer equipment so that they will not be scorned by > their children and left behind by the apocalypse Where does this guy *get* this stuff? How many people do we *know* who fit this description, hmmm? Even one? Well, OK, but Aunt Mabel doesn't count -- she invested in bull semen, too, though we all thought she did it with just a tad too much enthusiasm. > The sad line-up of underperforming technologies should be > understood not as serious attempts at innovation but as a kind of ritual, > an expensive and counterproductive substitute for the chants and dances > that healthy societies perform when they are placed under stress. Maybe > once we get some healthy rituals for contending with technological change > ourselves, we will be able to snap out of our trance, cast off the > ridiculous hopes and fears of an artificially induced millennium, and take > up the serious work of discussing, organizing, and contesting the major > choices about our institutions that lie ahead.] Oh, geez, I can hear this now, around 1725 or 1750... people in England and on the continent, naysaying the wild and wooly schemes and hopes for opportunity and fortune in the new world. It must be part of the curse of the human condition that we have to have gloomy people like this hanging on the coattails of invention, being dragged kicking and screaming into a future they cannot avoid no matter *how* loudly they complain. Regards, Thomas Junker tjunker(a)phoenix.net http://www.phoenix.net/~tjunker/wang.html The Unofficial Wang VS Information Center --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone (fwd)
by Matthew James Gering 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > > Yes, they are. Can you say 'taxes'? > > > > Imposed by a gun. > > Don't try to change the subject. I'm not, taxes are a political transaction, I must pay them whether or not I demand the service or disservice I receive for them -- taxes are not bound by supply and demand. > It's one of the defining characteristics that allow a > government to be a economic factor in the economic system It is the defining excuse for the FEDERAL government to interfere with the economic system. > > > Can you say 'mint money'? Can you say 'federal reserve'? > > > > Can you say government fiat? > > Can you say fucked up non-working economy if there isn't some > standardization of monetary systems? I can see it now if > folks like you get your way. Try studying the free banking era of the Mid 1800's, or the international exchange markets. > When I go to Louisiana I'll need a whole new > currency that I can't trade my Texas money for. Why can't you trade your Texas money? Who is to prevent you? Who is to prevent other from meeting the exchange demand? Who it so prevent people from accepting it in trade? Clearly with the digitization of money, multiple currencies are not a problem. > > > Can you say 'FDIC'? > > > > Can you say banking regulation at the point of a gun? > > Don't change the subject (again). I'm not, the gun is the defining characteristic that makes it political and not economic. > > The Soviet Union is a prime recent example. > > How? Self-destructed command economy that created prices by fiat instead of obeying market economics. > > British Mercantilism. > > How? Self-destructed empire (starting with our war of independence) by creating artificial trade barriers between the colonies to reap artificial profits at the colonies expense (which was really at the heart of the revolution, not taxation nor representation). > Economics *is* human behaviour Let's expand the definition to the point it has no meaning. No thank you. Economics is production and trade; human behavior affects trade, it is not economics. > If you are trying to extend economics to the > extent of trying to predict the micro-economic actions of > individuals then you don't understand macro or micro > economics very well. You can predict the actions of groups of individuals if you understand the nature of individuals. Predicting an individual is left to the soothsayers. > No, the fundamental law of economics is > greed/desire/want/etc. Okay, you take your laws of greed/want/desire and figure out how to sustain life. > Self-defence and self-sufficiency. The first requires brute > force and the second requires some mechanism of trade. No, self-sufficiency by its definition means you are...well...sufficient by yourself. If you require trade, you are no longer self-sufficient. > symbol is money. Money either has intrinsic value, or it is a symbol and debt against something held of value, or it is a debt on the future acquisition of value produced by someone else -- i.e. future productivity. > First, the money supply was created by a popular vote, not a > government fiat Oh, please do tell when/where this popular vote took place. We've moved from intrinsic value currency to a currency representing hard value (gold) to something that represents nothing more than faith of government, and whose supply is controlled by fiat of a *private* institution -- the Federal Reserve Board. > > discussion? Privacy (as opposed to secrecy) is about discretionary > > disclosure of information. Discretion by you of the disclosure by you of information about you. Make sense? The other type of privacy, somehow preventing other people from disclosing information about you by means other than mutual agreement is privacy of the statist type. > > There is an economic cost of doing so, and an economic benefit. > > The government could tap my phone and there would be > no economic impact. No cost, eh? I suggest you take a look at the congressional allocations for FBI wiretapping capabilities. > No, regulation does not automaticaly imply force. Correct -- in fact the only regulations by private individuals/entities that *do* have force behind them is that of the custodian/dependent relationship, and they are limited. But find a government regulation that does not have the confiscation of your property (by force) and/or incarceration of your person (by force) as the absolute finality to non-compliance. They are few. > Yeah, so. I don't believe this is relevant since we all agree > on this. Oh, I forgot if you agree it irrelevant because you are simply being entirely combative. > I got news for you dude, I catch you in my truck after dark > or running down the street with my property I'm perfectly > within my rights to initiate force. But you are not the initiator, you are reacting to my initiation of a force (or derivative), in this case trespass and theft. > You mean in an insiteful manner. You aren't talking > about reacting to something you're veiled comment is No, force in reaction to force. That is plainly simple. > > You have absolutely *no* freedom to use it > > reactionary against government (which is in the face of the 4th). Brain fart, the 2nd. The right to bears arms has historically implied the right to bear arms in defense against a despot. Matt

1 0

No Subject
by informer＠earthlink.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

11/06/98 INTERNET NEWS:BUSINESS WIRE 2:36pm EST Re:21st Century Frontier Group, Inc. Nasdaq OTC:"TCFG" TCFG strikes $150mm deal with Sumitomo Bank, Japans' 2nd largest bank for construction of 6 hotels and casinos, the first of which to be built in San Juan, Puerto Rico!

1 0

Re: Netscape inside scoop on "Smart Browsing"
by x 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Natrificial's "Brain" product did the same thing, silently, or at least via a nonobvious option setting that was not explicitly documented. The transmittal of all your URL's to the mother ship was how they would inform you that you were hitting a page specially enabled for their S/W. Totally unnecessary, as the page, if so enabled, would be perfectly capable of notifying the browser with the addition of a trivial plugin, e.g. or other thing. I raised the issue of disclosing this kind of thing and got the usual "we're technology users too and we'd NEVER do anything with that information..." response, like it's no big deal. I stopped using and recommending the product, even though it looked like with the proper option setting I would no longer be reporting my bizarre habits to Natrificial. This shit's outta hand ..... >> * IS SMART BROWSING REALLY SO SMART? >> (contributed by Mark Joseph Edwards, http://www.ntsecurity.net) >> Many of you are aware of Netscape's new versions of its Navigator Web >> browser. But do you also know that, starting with version 4.06, the >> product's Smart Browsing feature can report to Netscape every Web page >> you visit, including addresses to private sites on your internal >> network? And are you aware that when you download a secure version of >> Netscape's browser, the process places a cookie on your system that can ... etc ... >> > >Rick Desautels >Sr. Systems Engineer >Rival Computer Solutions >rivalcs(a)ma.ultranet.com > > >-- >To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to majordomo(a)blu.org >with the following text in the *body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter: >unsubscribe isig > >--- end forwarded text > > >----------------- >Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> >Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> >44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA >"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, >[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to >experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' > > >

1 0

Holiday Shopping Survey And Contest
by prize＠survey.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear Internet User, The holiday season will soon be upon us. Will you be making your list and checking it twice online? We're curious about what role, if any, the Internet will play in your holiday plans this year. Share your opinions with us and you could win a free Talking Tommy (from hit Rugrats' TV Show) or Talking Teletubby toy (from popular PBS show). To join in the holiday fun, go to the survey at: http://www.survey.com/holshopsur.html Be sure to include your email address at the end of the survey so we can enter your name in the drawing. It is not required that any information be provided other than your email address for you to be entered into the drawing. A complete list of contest rules is attached to the survey. We will be happy to let you know when the results are ready. Happy Holidays and good luck on the drawing! Greg Harmon Director of Research World Research

1 0