December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Dec. 18 column - Clinton still lying
by Robert Hettinga 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 20:49:17 -0700 Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 19:52:00 -0800 (PST) To: vinsends(a)ezlink.com From: Vin_Suprynowicz(a)lvrj.com (Vin Suprynowicz) Subject: Dec. 18 column - Clinton still lying Resent-From: vinsends(a)ezlink.com Resent-Sender: vinsends-request(a)ezlink.com Status: U FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED DEC. 18, 1998 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz There, he did it again So again, American missiles and planes are committed to a half-hearted, just-to-make-a-point "war" in Iraq. (Does no one else recall that a longer-haired Bill Clinton once protested a war in Vietnam because it was not legally declared, and further because it was unwinnable, given that Lyndon Johnson's policy of gradual escalation and "measured response" turned out to be good for nothing but filling body bags?) And so the vast majority of Americans now shuffle into line, dispiritedly rallying once again behind our fighting men and women, praying for their safety. But Americans express this subdued support in spite of -- not because of -- their faith that their current president would never lie. President Clinton will almost certainly be impeached by the House of Representatives within days if not hours, for past lies and subversions of justice aimed solely at protecting his own power, privilege and prestige. But surely matters of life and death, war and peace, are of such moment that no president would subordinate them to any ongoing attempt to sidestep justice ... right? In the final episode of the award-winning documentary series "The World at War," a middle-aged German woman -- she had been a teen-ager in the spring of 1945 -- recalls hiding in a Berlin basement as Russian shells rained down overhead, listening with her mother to what was likely the final radio broadcast by Nazi public relations chief Joseph Goebbels. When Goebbels promised that the war would yet be won by secret weapons soon to be unveiled by der Fuhrer, the teen-aged girl expressed disbelief. She was then stunned when her mother slapped her, admonishing: "Do you think Herr Goebbels would lie to us at a time like (start ital)this?(end ital) Mr. Clinton's crimes are on nowhere near the scale of those of the Nazis, of course. (Though the relatives of the women and children his henchmen killed at Waco might ask what difference the "scale" makes -- as now the same question may occur to those dying in Iraq to prevent that sovereign nation from stockpiling the same kinds of weapons the United States has possessed for decades.) But isn't there a ghastly fastidiousness to the way this simpering administration insists it will not bomb during the Ramadan holiday so as not to offend "Muslim sensibilities"? When George Patton's First Army was racing to the relief of Bastogne, did the troops take a day off from killing Germans on Dec. 25? If foreigners bombed your home and killed you family, would you be less offended to have them do so on Dec. 22 than on Christmas Day, or Yom Kippur? Do Mr. Clinton and his political advisors really understand what war (start ital)is(end ital)? Meantime, the evidence mounts (it never seems to take long, anymore) that Mr. Clinton did indeed lie again on Dec. 16, when he told the American people that he decided on the timing of these latest bombings not to divert attention from his own impending impeachment, but rather upon the specific catalyst of receiving -- on Wednesday -- a final report from U.N. arms inspectors. The Washington Times reported in a front page story Thursday that, according to "authoritative sources," the White House notified the Joint Chiefs of Staff that air strikes would be ordered this week on (start ital)Sunday(end ital), "48 hours before he saw a United Nations report declaring Iraq in noncompliance with weapons inspectors." Providing third-party corroboration, Israeli spokesman Aviv Bushinsky said Wednesday that President Clinton discussed preparations for an attack with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu just minutes before Mr. Clinton flew home from Israel on (start ital)Tuesday(end ital). What does it matter, which day the president made the decision? It doesn't , of course; it only matters if the president deliberately lied about it, which then throws into question anything else he has said about the real motives for these actions. The Times further quotes a "senior congressional source" reporting that "White House eagerness to launch air strikes grew with intensity as a parade of centrist Republicans announced they would vote to impeach the president." The credibility of the president (start ital)does(end ital) matter. The ability of the public to have confidence that the man in the Oval Office will put the faithful execution of his constitutional oath and duties ahead of his personal ambition -- even his own political survival -- (start ital)does(end ital) matter. Or are we willing to accept a world in which wars orchestrated by television producers with the goal of improving "ratings points" turn out not to be fiction, at all? (The second thing White House spokesmen did Dec. 16 -- after announcing the latest raids on Iraq -- was to deny this was "a Wag the Dog scenario," referring to the reason cult comedy in which a hypothetical president arranges a fake Balkan war to keep a sex scandal off the front pages.) For all his failings, can anyone imagine Franklin Roosevelt troubling himself to deny that the D-Day landings of 1944 were staged as a mere political stunt, to "make him look more presidential"? Mind you, I wish more Americans would start ridiculing the absurd assumption that we need the federal government to hold our hands and change our diapers, cradle to grave. The best remedy for the pretensions of many of these arrogant bureaucrats to run our lives is indeed to laugh them out of town. I just never expected to see the United States of America turned so quickly into an impotent laughing stock, and from the top down. Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at vin(a)lvrj.com. *** Vin Suprynowicz, vin(a)lvrj.com The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it. -- John Hay, 1872 The most difficult struggle of all is the one within ourselves. Let us not get accustomed and adjusted to these conditions. The one who adjusts ceases to discriminate between good and evil. He becomes a slave in body and soul. Whatever may happen to you, remember always: Don't adjust! Revolt against the reality! -- Mordechai Anielewicz, Warsaw, 1943 * * * --- 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

Digital Democracy [/.]
by Jim Choate 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > X-within-URL: http://slashdot.org/features/98/12/18/1319204.shtml > Digital Democracy: An Idea Whose Time Has Come News Posted by JonKatz > on Friday December 18, @01:19PM > from the We-Really-Don't-Have-To-Take-It-Anymore dept. > As the Middle-Aged White Guys in Suits dig in in D.C. for what is > hopefully their last stand, the idea of Digital Democracy never looked > better. If it's a good idea (and it is) to empower individuals by > teaching them how to master their own technology via movements like OS > and free software, isn't it past time to use the technology of the Net > and the Web to reverse the flow of power, away from the entrenched and > increasingly lunatic journalists and politicians in Washington and > back to the individuals staring from a distance in shock and horror > and what they're seeing on their TV screens? Forget Wag the Dog. > Joseph Conrad, Oliver Stone, Francis Ford Coppla (maybe Fellini, too) > have seized the capitol. Only we can't leave the theater. > > > > Never mind the silly allusions to "Wag the Dog." Somehow, Joseph > Conrad, Oliver Stone and Francis Ford Coppola (maybe Fellini, too) got > together to take over the government and play out their own visions of > our political life. The American capitol is now the Heart of Darkness, > fusing the darkest and most paranoid visions of "JFK" with the > spectacularly represented lunacy of "Apocalypse Now." > > The movies have somehow become real life, but we can't leave the > theater and go home. The horror never ends. Whenever we turn on the > TV, they're all still there, shouting, posturing, spinning. > > More and more, it seems clear that they're never going to go away. > Each one will have to be dragged out kicking and screaming, the last > zealot in Congress, the last self-righteous reporter, the last > screaming pundit on cable. > > It's time to start thinking about Digital Democracy. We have to be > able to do better than them. > > If the goals of OS and the free software movement are, in part, the > free and democratic sharing of technology, why not stretch the notion > farther and put it into the context of our increasingly surreal, even > mad, political times? > > The natural extension of the booming OS and free software movements > are into politics and democracy, especially the radical new ways in > which digital democracy could once again empower individuals instead > of politicians and journalists, and reform the obviously broken and > outdated way in which we resolve political issues. > > America was founded as a Republic, not really as a representative > democracy. For one thing, Americans were scattered far from one > another and couldn't make their feelings known quickly. So elected > representatives were elected to gather and make decisions on their > behalf. > > The authors of the Constitution didn't have all that much regard for > the judgements of the average citizen, any more than their successors > seem to. The structure was tilted towards a deliberative, rather than > simply representative system so that educated and affluent landowners > could screen the passions of the rabble and have the final say. > > The early pundits and cyber-gurus of the Internet's first generation > spouted on quite a bit about the impact of networked computing on > democratic institutions like Congress and journalism. These > institutions, they predicted, would increasingly become ineffective > and irrelevant, swept away by the power of digital technology to > reverse the flow of power. > > This cyber-rhetoric seemed - was - heavy-handed, Utopian and > overblown. It evoked the table-thumping Marxists more than the > architects of a new, civil order. But this week, it looks more better > by the hour. > > If you take the OS idea and daydream about it for a bit - millions of > individuals taking control of their own technology and shaping the > information they access and share, doesn't this idea have even greater > application for politics? And could it possibly be more timely? If > would could express ourselves politically - and have our expressions > count - isn't it at least conceivable that the U.S. Congress might be > talking about something that matters today, and for the last year? > > Digital democracy is no longer a pipedream, not in the year of the > online dumping of the Starr report and the impeachment proceedings. > It's no longer difficult to imagine every American having a computer > in the next few years, or having easy access to one in schools, > libraries and public buildings. People could vote online now as easily > as they vote by ballot or booth - more easily really. Each citizen > could be assigned a digital voting number and use it to vote from home > or the school or library down the road, where computers already exist > or could easily be set up. Fraud would be easier to spot and guard > against, thanks to advances in both encryption and programming. And > this wouldn't even raise fresh privacy issues, as voters have to > register now. > > This week, the country is confronted with the bizarre spectacle of a > runaway political entity - Republicans in the House of Representatives > - deciding, correctly or not, that no interest is more important than > impeaching President Clinton - not public sentiment, military action, > education, health care, the economy or any other civic or social > agenda. Even if they're right, lots of people are uneasy about this > willful disregard of public will. Most Americans don't want this to be > happening, and have said so for months. The politicians have said that > it doesn't really matter, the next election is two years away. By > then, nobody will remember this strange time. That's a good argument > for some form of Digital Democracy. > > Digital voting made possible by the Internet would make a spectacle > like the impeachment proceedings impossible. Everything shouldn't > necessarily be subject to popular vote, but the impeachment of the > President should be, and the Net and the Web could make it possible > even now. > > Watching music lovers challenge the primacy of the music industry > through digital technology like MP3's and the Rio raises the question > of whether we really need a middleman institution like Congress to > decide issues like this for us. After the year long Lewinsky/Clinton > media barrage and the dumping of reams of material, pornographic and > otherwise on the Internet, we know as much about the charges against > the President as they do. We are able and equipped to make up our own > minds and express our own wishes. And perhaps even see our wishes > carried out. > > Do we need to be bound to completely by their agenda, when we can now > set our own? > > Unlike Colonial Americans, we aren't disconnected and remote. We can > make our feelings known instantly. We have the technology to gather in > communities and clusters to debate and consider as much or more > information as members of Congress. > > Many politicians and journalists have feared, even loathed, the > Internet, since its inception. Increasingly, it becomes clear why. It > really does threaten them. It really does provide the means to take > power away from them - and their co-produced spectacles like > impeachment proceedings and presidential nominating processes - and > distribute it more broadly. This week marks the perfect time to begin > consider the possibilities of Digital Democracy. To broaden the notion > of empowering individuals begin by the designers of the Internet, > advanced by hackers, geeks, nerds, developers and designers and being > played out on sites like this one today. From the moment the Internet > began to grow, power and information began to leach away from > entrenched institutions like government, the press and academe and > towards hundreds of thousands, then millions of individual citizens. > The impeachment proceedings are a powerful argument for the idea that > it's time to take that idea farther. > > Digital technology doesn't mean that democratic decisions would have > to be rushed or impulsive. They could be as deliberative as we wished. > Digital voting could be spread over time, perhaps requiring several > votes. A broad range of issues and decisions - appointments, foreign > policy decisions, criminal matters - would be inappropriate for online > voting. > > But the Net is becoming a medium already well set-up for civic > discussions. The Internet could host hundreds, even thousands of > public online forums for debate and discussion - via message boards, > chat rooms and websites that could be designed for towns, counties, > states or regions. Politicians, agencies and advocates could > disseminate information and arguments via national websites, mailing > lists and e-mail. > > These forums would have to consider new kinds of rules for debate and > discussion, an online issue long in need of attention. Posters would > have to identify themselves and take responsibility for their words. > Discussion would center on issues, not personalities. Presidents and > legislators could bring information and decisions directly to the > American public. If the Starr report was worthy of being dumped on > line, why not the House Judiciary report on impeachment? Voters could > read it online, debate it, decide to pass it along for further action > or stop the process right there. > > If digital democracy were in place, this issue would have been > resolved nearly a year ago. Tens of millions of dollars would have > been better spent. Many more important issues would have considered, > accepted and rejected. Clinton would either be doing his job or long > gone. Instead of feeling cheated and ignored, the public would feel > enfranchised and involved. Democracy wouldn't be a remote circus > practiced far away by alien cultures, but something as close as a desk > or living room. > > We are no longer a country of merchants and mostly illiterate farmers. > Paine and Jefferson, the fathers of media, couldn't quite have > imagined the Internet, but there seems little doubt that they have > loved its communicative and democratic possibilities. Those of us with > access to computers and modems have access to all of the information > and opinions in the world, thus the means to consider issues and > express ourselves. In fact, there are thousands of people who've been > online for years and who are experienced at creating digital > communities, monitoring conversations and developing the software and > hardware to run them efficiently and accurately. > > No system involving Digital Democracy could work or even be seriously > considered until and unless all Americans were guaranteed access to > computers. A few years ago, online users were a tiny, techno-elite. > That's no longer true. Computers are increasingly ubiquitous, at > schools, businesses, and at home. Personal computers are already being > mass-marketed that cost well below $1,000, and public agencies like > schools, libraries and municipal office buildings are increasingly > wired. They could offer online voting to non-computer users in much > the way they offer voting booths and make them available. Many more > Americans own computers than voting booths. > ____________________________________________________________________ What raises the standard of living may well diminish the quality of life. The Club of Rome The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

RE: Comrade Klinton at it again
by Matthew James Gering 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

Michael Motyka wrote: > Don't you mean "Iraqui" Embassy? > > Or is this thing spreading? I hope not. Why would there be an Iraqi embassy in Iraq?! You nitwit! Iranian Embassy in Baghdad. Somebody said: > As I recall, the name "Desert Fox" was a nickname held by a Nazi > general. Fitting, that. I thought maybe the Fox News channel bought sponsorship ;) Matt

1 0

Intel's Security Plans Worry PC Builders
by Mark 13 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

I wonder what government sponsored back doors they plan to include... http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB19981214S0008 Intel's Security Plans Worry PC Builders (12/14/98, 3:49 p.m. ET) By Rick Boyd-Merritt and Mark Carroll, EE Times Intel will add new security and software functions to future chip sets in a move that will boost the profile of its upcoming Katmai processors as key silicon for multimedia and e-commerce. But the plan is raising concerns among software, semiconductor and systems companies that fear the processor giant could wind up encroaching on their markets, extending its own reach deeper into the PC architecture. Intel's plans center around a so-called firmware hub, essentially a flash memory with key BIOS functions, which will be part of its Camino, Carmel, and Whitney chip sets. Those products will accompany next year's Katmai processors and are expected to be used in the Merced line, too. "This is an example of Intel taking in one more piece of the PC architecture," said a senior R&D manager with a major PC company who asked not to be named. Intel would not comment on its unannounced products. However, the key features of the chip are beginning to come to light based on reports from multiple sources. The firmware hub is "basically a flash chip with locks on its read and write capabilities that can be opened using a cryptographic protocol," said another source briefed by Intel. Hardware security functions include a cryptographic engine to authenticate digital certificates Intel or a third party could load in. The chip could hold multiple certificates, each with permission to grant specific features, such as to permit an operating system or an MPEG player to run. They would also ensure a software program licensed to one user was not copied and run on another machine, a common practice. In addition, the certificates will act like unique serial numbers, identifying a given machine in any Internet or corporate network transaction, sources said. The hub may also include a random-number generator to create public keys for encryption and help enable encrypted transmissions between PCs. That would provide security for e-commerce and software downloads, possibly including software modules for host-based modems, MPEG players, or audio codecs that are housed in the firmware hub and run on the CPU. Another feature sources have mentioned is physical security, linking sensors to the hub so it may report problems to a central network administrator if the case is tampered with or peripherals are removed. Even though the firmware -- and the chip sets it is part of -- are not due for production until at least mid-1999, samples have been available in Taiwan for some time. "We have had samples of the firmware hub for a while," said a project manager at First International Computer, in Taiwan. "We really haven't done too much with it yet. It is still not quite clear when it will be used and what its full functions will be." The hub chip is designed to incorporate new features into the PC upon start-up, the manager said, not to replace the standard BIOS, the key software that controls system I/O peripherals software. "After a PC is turned on, the firmware hub will be accessed and then the regular BIOS," said a BIOS engineer with another Taiwanese company. "The hub will affect the standard BIOS architecture, but it certainly won't replace it. That's not its purpose." Yet the prospect of a possible Intel incursion into BIOS is giving some industry observers the willies. Adding to their concern is the fact that Intel has not provided technical details about its implementation yet. One analyst said the hub will act as a BIOS registry, a place from which software emulation and upgrades can be controlled. Sources close to Intel suggested the Santa Clara, Calif., company would be leery of entering a new PC-related market while under the shadow of a Federal Trade Commission investigation. The company's motive is simply to bring new features to the PC, enhancing sales for corporate and consumer users, these sources said. Still, "If Intel controls what and how stuff gets put in the BIOS, that's really significant," said one analyst. "That's a wonderful control choke point."

1 0

REPORT ON CYBER-TERRORISM
by Anonymous 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

A new report on national security, titled "CyberCrime, CyberTerrorism and CyberWarfare," calls for a complete overhaul of U.S. national security agencies and policies in order to avoid crippling sabotage of the nation's and corporate America's information infrastructure. The report, which is the product of the Center for Strategic and International Studies' Global Organized Crime project headed up by former FBI and CIA director William Webster, chronicles the results of a recent joint chief of staff exercise code-named "Eligible Receiver." The exercise involved a group of security experts, known as a "red team," that used software widely available from cracker Web sites to demonstrate the capability to penetrate and disable major portions of the U.S. electric power grid and deny computer systems to the entire Pacific military command and control operation. The report recommends the establishment of private sector-organized groups that would evaluate and endorse information security standards in various industries, coupled with increased government support for such efforts and the development of a national security policy for the Information Revolution. "The private sector cannot sit back and wait for government to lead," says Sen. Charles Robb (D-Va.), a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. (InternetWeek 16 Dec 98) #!/usr/local/bin/perl -0777-- -export-a-crypto-system-sig -RC4-3-lines-PERL @k=unpack('C*',pack('H*',shift));for(@t=@s=0..255){$y=($k[$_%@k]+$s[$x=$_ ]+$y)%256;&S}$x=$y=0;for(unpack('C*',<>)){$x++;$y=($s[$x%=256]+$y)%256; &S;print pack(C,$_^=$s[($s[$x]+$s[$y])%256])}sub S{@s[$x,$y]=@s[$y,$x]}

1 0

[Steve Coya] Harmful changes to Wassenaar Arrangement
by Robert Hettinga 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text To: cryptography(a)c2.net Subject: [Steve Coya] Harmful changes to Wassenaar Arrangement Reply-To: perry(a)piermont.com From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry(a)piermont.com> Date: 18 Dec 1998 18:51:52 -0500 Lines: 49 Sender: owner-cryptography(a)c2.net FYI, from the IETF Secretariat. Message-Id: <199812182315.SAA10709(a)ietf.org> To: IETF-Announce: ; Subject: Harmful changes to Wassenaar Arrangement Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 18:15:36 -0500 From: Steve Coya <scoya(a)ns.cnri.reston.va.us> The IAB and the IESG deplore the recent changes to the Wassenaar Arrangement (http://www.wassenaar.org) that further limit the availability of encryption software by including it in the Wassenaar agreement's list of export controlled software (section 5.A.2.a.1 of the list of dual-use goods, WA LIST 98 (1)). As discussed in RFC 1984, strong cryptography is essential to the security of the Internet; restrictions on its use or availability will leave us with a weak, vulnerable network, endanger the privacy of users and businesses, and slow the growth of electronic commerce. The new restrictions will have a particularly deleterious effect on smaller countries, where there may not be enough of a local market or local expertise to support the development of indigenous cryptographic products. But everyone is adversely affected by this; the Internet is used world-wide, and even sites with access to strong cryptographic products must be able to talk to those who do not. This in turn endangers their own security. We are happy that the key size limit has been raised in some cases from 40 bits to 64; however, this is still too small to provide real security. We estimate that after a modest capital investment, a company or criminal organization could crack a 64-bit cipher in less than a day for about $2500 per solution. This cost will only drop in coming years. A report released about three years ago suggested that 90-bit keys are the minimum for long-term security. Brian Carpenter (IAB Chair) Fred Baker (IESG and IETF Chair) --- 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

How to Spot a Government Infiltrator
by Pallas Anonymous Remailer 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

How to Spot a Government Infiltrator by Mike Johnson Those who have been studying the stories released to the media these days about the arrests of various different people within the militia movement will doubtlessly have noted that government infiltrators are usually involved. This should make people nervous. And rightly so. Our normal view of government is that the only people who should have to worry about what the government is up to are people who are breaking the law. As the vast majority of constitutional militia units are composed of people who are of good character and don't go around breaking the law to begin with, they might feel that they should have little to worry about from the government. Unfortunately that does not seem to be the case. The government appears to be going all out to discredit the constitutional militia movement in this country. This effort on the part of the government does include the use of government agents to infiltrate militia units and cause as many problems, hate and discontent as they possibly can. In many instances, these government agents may not be readily apparent as to who and what they are. Some of these people may have had extensive experience in working undercover operations and may not make some of the more stupid mistakes. There are a variety of different roles that such government operatives may play. The first is that they may simply act as a mole. They will do everything anybody else in the unit does, and do nothing at all to call undue attention to themselves. However, they will relay everything that goes on within the unit to their handlers. About the only indication a unit may have that they have been infiltrated by a mole may be that they can't seem to be able to keep anything a secret. This type of role is the most difficult for a unit to detect and deal with. Which is also possibly why most of the spy novels that get written deal with various different ways to smoke out moles. While I wouldn't suggest that anybody try a technique for which the only source of documentation is a work of fiction, it is an indication of just how obnoxious this type of agent could be to deal with. Another role that a government agent might play may be that of a dissipator. A dissipator is one who tries to redirect the course and energy of a unit in ways which will cause it to accomplish nothing of any importance. They may also act so as to break a unit up by emphasizing differences, disagreements and personality clashes between unit members. Given that the people who are attracted to the constitutionalist militia movement usually tend to be strong willed and opinionated people to begin with, such an agent may find that his task is somewhat easier than it might be if he were working with other groups. Unit members should simply be encouraged not to take things personally, be aware that there will be honest differences of opinion between the members of the unit, and to be wary of somebody who does try to take everything personally, or set up cliques within the unit. The final role which will be discussed is that of the agent provocateur. Such an agent infiltrates a unit and tries to get the members of the unit to actually commit crimes, or make it look like they are actually planning to commit crimes. One should also bear in mind that a government agent is not going to be confined to operating within any one of the roles that have been discussed, and may likely mix and match as they feel best. However, the role that has received the highest profile in government operations these days is that of the agent provocateur. That is largely because the results of an operation conducted by an agent provocateur or two make for good propaganda when the media gets hold of it. The resultant publicity given to the arrests and the charges gets used to brand everybody in the entire movement as a criminal. The fact that the entire thing was set up by someone in the employ of the government isn't going to be mentioned at all by the mainstream media. For those who haven't caught on by now, your antenna should start to quiver in the presence of any one, or especially a combination of the following behaviors/patterns demonstrated by a unit member: (1) Wants to make bombs. (2) Wants to get everybody else to make bombs. (3) Wants people to buy/store large quantities of substances which could be used for explosives manufacture. (4) Fanatic about obtaining fully automatic weapons, without benefit of Class III license. (5) No obvious means of support, especially if they have lots of money to throw around. (6) Auto license tag changed on an irregular basis. (7) Encourages people to plan/do stupid things (raid armories, blow up office buildings, etc.) (8) Some groups can get auto tags run. They should be especially suspicious of anybody whose auto tag turns up a complete blank when run. (9) In our case, the guy was absolutely paranoid about his car being out of either his sight or his "wife's" sight for even a trivial amount of time. (10) Person claims to have a military background that they do not have. One individual claimed to be former Special Forces, but was found to be ignorant of some of the things that he should have known when quizzed by people who were former Special Forces. Depending on the level of trust that the members of your group have with each other, it might be a good idea to request to see the DD-214s of anybody claiming to have a military background. (11) One of your members has taken effective action to expose or block activities of the police or government preventing the expansion of or preservation of government power to control people and/or invade the privacy of the people. (12) One of your members (a) has an FFL; or (b) is involved in selling at gun shows; or (c) Is involved in promoting gun shows. Arguably the best way to deal with people who meet criteria 1-10 is simply to invite them to leave the unit. As Starr and McCranie found out, trying to turn them in will do no good at all, so the next best bet is to try to get them to leave. Failing that, disband unit, start again from scratch with people you can trust after sufficient elapsed time. Given the way things are going right now, those who have not joined up with public units may want to consider forming small closed units with just a small group of people that they have known for a long time and that they trust. For persons in 11, and 12: Do your best to be sure the goons cannot find a pretext as that is what they often work from. (*) Bill Albert of the Michigan Militia contributed to the list of items to look for and the discussion which follows it. #!/usr/local/bin/perl -0777-- -export-a-crypto-system-sig -RC4-3-lines-PERL @k=unpack('C*',pack('H*',shift));for(@t=@s=0..255){$y=($k[$_%@k]+$s[$x=$_ ]+$y)%256;&S}$x=$y=0;for(unpack('C*',<>)){$x++;$y=($s[$x%=256]+$y)%256; &S;print pack(C,$_^=$s[($s[$x]+$s[$y])%256])}sub S{@s[$x,$y]=@s[$y,$x]}

2 1

We Love it!$! Travel, Money, and.....
by DVetoiy＠worldnet.att.net 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

FIRE THE BOSS AND BREAK THE ALARM CLOCK! WE DID! Travel for pennies on the dollar And Enjoy a complimentary cruise for two! MAKE $3000-$5000 PER WEEK FROM HOME! Read on, if you're an entrepreneur or have always wanted to be your own BOSS. We supply state-of-the-art training and a support system that you will need to ensure your success! We are only looking for FOCUSED, serious entrepreneurs, (PT/FT) with the EXTRAORDINARY DESIRE to improve their lifestyle immediately. Not Multi-level Marketing or GPG MAKE YOUR VOCATION A VACATION CALL NOW FOR INFORMATION 24 HOUR TOLL FREE NUMBER 1-888-376-0353 PS: DO NOT CALL US IF YOU'RE LAZY, LOOKING FOR A "GET RICH QUICK" SCHEME OR JUST SOME EXTRA CASH.

1 0

Forwarded mail....
by Missouri FreeNet Administration 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- ::Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1998 05:21:34 +0100 ::From: Anonymous <nobody(a)replay.com> ::To: sysadmin(a)mfn.org ::You should be expecting a visit from the boys in the suits very soon. ::Have fun. I hope your cellmate is a big guy they call "The Bull." ::Traitorous scum. ---------- Message Ends ---------- What I *really* love about these "patriots" is how they are not _afraid_ to stand by their words! Awwww, c'mon! You're on the "Side Of Right(tm)", so why hide? You afraid I'm gonna piss on your white picket fence? Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin(a)mfn.org -- If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Preemptive, proactivism
by Frederick Burroughs 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

Preemptive ;-) Sources within the US government and military counterterrorism offices have confirmed that the timing of "Desert Fox" was carefully planned and coordinated. Counterterrorism planners are anticipating terrorists will be incited into action as a result of US military action so close to the Muslim holy period of Ramadan. Terrorists with middle eastern ties may decide that the religious holiday observance of Christmas would be a good time to retaliate against western targets. "There's a proactive element involved in conducting military operations near Ramadan", one source said, "We won't be opening presents this Christmas, we'll be on our posts alert and watching." Another source said that the House impeachment vote was a serendipitous occurrence. "It actually helps with our activities. The bad guys think we're distracted, that there's no leadership. Actually, we've never been more focused, we're hyped. Our operations have been in high gear since the Africa (embassy) bombings, Desert Fox is an outgrowth of that. We know what these guys are going to do before they do." The recent cacophony of events in Washington D.C. may soon take on an aura of japanese surrealism. The secret service is weighing the necessity of having White House visitors and press conference attendees remove their shoes. The ability to disperse anthrax toxin from the hollowed-out heels of shoes is something that cannot be ignored. Sources said that such an incident, occurring in areas of pedestrian traffic, would disperse a toxin with tragic effectiveness. "It doesn't take much imagination to see the consequences of spilling a powder on the rug in a White House press briefing, lots of shuffling around in a closed environment, lots of inhaled toxin." What's scary is that someone could disperse a toxin unwittingly. "Do you know where your shoes are 24 hours a day?" an agent said. "This is something we have to think about, but short of an actual scare, I don't think we'll be asking you to take off your shoes. Not just yet."

3 2