December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

3 Bet on your favorite NFL team!! 3
by joy66＠msn.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Don, Ted: I guess I owe you guys lunch. Who would have thought the Vikings would beat Green Bay!! Aaarghh! Since you guys are so clever when it comes to picking winners maybe you should put some money on the line for Sunday's games! I found a great new casino and sportsbook!! Check it out! Click Here You can bet on college and NFL games at their sportsbook or play blackjack, poker, craps, slots or baccarat in the casino. Guys, its AWESOME. There's no software to download and you can place your bets by telephone OR over the Internet!! Try it out. You can set yourself up on-line at: http://www.rosieschalkisland.com Dan P.S. Call me crazy guys, but I actually bet on the Vikings and made over $ 120.00 Thanks for the tip!! Remember... http://www.rosieschalkisland.com *****************************************

1 0

Advertisement $99 Web Hosting
by 46224097＠compwebtech.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Check it out! 25 megs for only $99 per year with no set up fees. Free registration or change of domain at: www.compwebtech.com If you would like to be removed from our mailing list, please e-mail us to have yourself removed for the list. Thank You, Larry(a)compwebtech.com

1 0

Forwarded mail...
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 16:52:18 +0200 > From: Anonymous <nobody(a)replay.com> > "Anything not Permitted, is Forbidden." ARTICLE IX. The enumeration of the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. ____________________________________________________________________ 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: so, what did Toto *do*, exactly to get locked up? (Re: rules of en (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 12:40:02 +0200 (CEST) > From: DOOM Anonymous Untraceable User <nobody(a)seclab.com> > Subject: Re: so, what did Toto *do*, exactly to get locked up? (Re: rules of en > We also have people who *have* kept their noses clean being harassed. It's an > excuse to put some pressure on CDRs. It even had the effect of shaking loose > a lot of the Austin cypherpunks in a nice little divide and conquer action. That's not exactly correct. The Austin Cypherpunks have always had a problem with cohesion. There were issues that were leading me toward dropping my personal support because of lack of committment from other parties in the Austin Cypherpunks. This certainly hastened the event, it did not cause it. We were already divided in our goals and interest and unable to agree on agenda or purpose. We, as a group, couldn't even decide to spend the few dollars to put the 3-line RSA in the local paper. The last effective action we took was the speaking engagement at the last RoboFest here in Austin 3 years ago. That sort of "I want to participate, but won't do anything" attitude raises the hackles on my neck. Life is way too short to be wasting major effort on a lost cause. There wasn't much to divide and the spoils going to the conquerer are/were nil. > And it's likely they have subpoenaed more people than we've heard from. > I just hope they don't subpoena Bill Payne, or we'll receive a copy of it > every week for years to come. Yep, with those silly/strange capitalizations and sentence structures of his which look suspicously like some form of stego. You'd think somebody who claims to be that educated would have at least learned basic grammer (unless it was intentional). > The John Gilmore subpoena was focussed exclusively on cypherpunk email. > Jim Choate confirmed his is much the same. Other than dates and signatures it's identical. The focus was on any archives that I kept of cpunks or personal traffic (part c) that involved CJ in my interview. > So the focus is on what we've > all seen posted here. Personally, I found them a lot milder than Reeza!'s > projection of his suicide fantasies, for instance. I would also agree that the Cypherpunks have garnered a notoriety with LEA's such that it could/should be taken as a given that continous surviellance is occurring. Random dumpster diving in our trash, etc. should not be unexpected. This does raise an interesting point about freedom of speech and the duties of LEA's. In a democratic society what are the ethical implications of LEA's archiving publicly available documents as a matter of course, not for inclusion in ongoing investigations but rather as a base for future investigations. In addition, while the remailer operators do seem to be protected by ECPA (I was advised that I fell into this category via SSZ) what about the public archive operators? Are they covered under this umbrella? ____________________________________________________________________ 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: Child-Molesting Forger's Chilling Confession!!!1!
by bob＠derwentside.org.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

application/www-form-urlencoded

1 0

IP: [FP] Money withheld for national ID cards
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Delivered-To: ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com From: "ScanThisNews" <mcdonalds(a)airnet.net> To: ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com Subject: IP: [FP] Money withheld for national ID cards Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 20:34:02 -0500 Sender: owner-ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com Precedence: list Reply-To: "ScanThisNews" <mcdonalds(a)airnet.net> SCAN THIS NEWS FRIDAY OCTOBER 23, 1998 Money withheld for national ID cards Spending bill provides moratorium on implementation http://www.worldnetdaily.com/exclusiv/981023_money_withheld_nat.shtml Copyright 1998, WorldNetDaily.com http://www.worldnetdaily.com/ By David M. Bresnahan david(a)talkusa.com The recently passed Omnibus Appropriations Bill included funding for $520 billion of spending, but it purposely excluded funds for the national ID card or the medical ID program. A review of the bill, which had over 4,000 pages and is 16 inches thick, revealed that the opponents of the effort to make state driver's licences into a national ID card succeeded in getting a moratorium on the implementation of the law enacted in 1996 by Congress. Both the national ID and the medical ID have already been made law. The moratorium delays implementation from occurring on schedule while repeal legislation is debated by Congress. The national ID became law in 1996 and will go in effect October 1, 2000, unless Congress repeals Section 656 (b) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. If the law is not changed, every state must meet certain unfunded federal mandates requiring the use of Social Security numbers, fingerprints, DNA, retina scans, and other "biometric" identifying information on all driver's licences. Another federal mandate is the medical ID, which will be a new unique number for every American intended to keep a detailed medical history in a government computer. It will be implemented unless Congress acts to repeal Section 1173 (b) of the Social Security Act. The moratorium was first included in a transportation appropriations bill, but Rep. Lamar Smith, R-TX, convinced Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-GA, to remove it before passage, according to House Transportation Committee sources. Rep. Frank Wolf, R-VA, chairman of the House Appropriations Transportation Subcommittee included the ban in the omnibus bill, according to a committee staff member. However, Smith was reported to be pushing to have that removed as well. Those efforts failed, largely because of thousands of calls placed to Gingrich's office by the public, according to congressional staffers who preferred not to be identified. Patrick Poole of the "Free Congress Foundation," a non-partisan group, sent thousands of e-mails to supporters who then called Gingrich to encourage him to keep the moratorium despite the efforts of Smith. WorldNetDaily.com reported Monday that Smith was trying to remove the ban. "Many of the callers either faxed copies of stories from WorldNetDaily, or they mentioned it when they called," the source said. "There was no way the speaker could support Smith's efforts with that kind of public awareness." The actual language found in the Omnibus Bill states: "National Identifiers: "None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be used to issue a final standard under docket No. NHTSA 98-3945 (relating to section 656(b) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act of 1996). "National Health Identifiers: None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to promulgate or adopt any final standard under section 1173(b) of the Social Security Act (42 USC 1320-d-2(b)) providing for, or providing for the assignment of, a unique health identifier for an individual (except in an individual's capacity as an employer or a health care provider), until legislation is enacted specifically approving the standard." The moratorium, now in place, will provide needed time for opponents to draft legislation to repeal both the National ID and the Medical ID. The process is expected to bring major debate over the issue. Smith and others have used illegal immigration problems as their primary justification for the need to give every American both identifying numbers. House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-TX, Rep. Ron Paul, R-TX, and Rep. Bob Barr, R-GA, are reported to be planning repeal legislation next year. None of their offices were able to be reached for comment on the success of the moratorium in the Omnibus Bill. It had been reported previously that all three had urged Gingrich to allow the moratorium to stand. Responsibility for the design and implementation of the cards has been given to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of the Department of Transportation. That agency has recently published the proposed "Driver's License/SSN/National Identification Document," which contains the guidelines which must be in force by Oct. 1, 2000. The "Notice of Proposed Rule Making" sets out the standards for each state to follow in the design of "identification documents." The DOT solicited public comments on their plans for implementation of Section 656 (b) of the act earlier this year. The public comment period has just closed and many thousands of letters in opposition were received, according to a spokesman. Five states also expressed opposition to the plan, and only a "small number" of letters supporting the plan were known to the spokesman, who spoke on condition that his name would not be published. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators also wrote to the DOT and recommended repeal of the law, even though they had once been in favor of such legislation. "Over the past 10 years, the AAMVA has vigorously pushed Congress and the various state motor vehicle directors to implement policies to require the submission of social security numbers as a condition for issuance of driver's licenses. This resounding defeat may spell the end of their ill-fated quest," said Scott McDonald, a grass-roots activist who operates the "Fight the Fingerprint" website. He is able to mobilize thousands of activists on a national basis using his e-mail notification system. "There is no satisfactory condition under which Social Security Numbers may be required as a condition for travel," said McDonald. "The victory's definitely not yet won. During these lull periods there's an opportunity for proponents of these issues to let opposition die down and all of a sudden, pop, it goes through without anyone even aware of it. "I don't see how the Department of Transportation could go forth with implementing the regulation with all that strong opposition to it. Even five states wrote letters of strong opposition to requiring Social Security numbers," said McDonald. Although he was in favor of the moratorium, McDonald expressed concerns about the difficulty in getting complete repeal of the law. He said many activists may now regard the issue as being resolved, when the toughest part of the battle is still ahead. "For a year we're safe," said Lisa Dean of the Coalition for Constitutional Liberties, another organization that has been actively campaigning against the provisions of Section 656 (b). She agreed that the toughest part of her organization's challenge is in front of her. Now that a moratorium is in place for a year, Dean expects repeal efforts will also include finding alternative ways to resolve the concerns about illegal immigrants, although no recommendations are in place as yet. ======================================================================= Don't believe anything you read on the Net unless: 1) you can confirm it with another source, and/or 2) it is consistent with what you already know to be true. ======================================================================= Reply to: <fingerprint(a)networkusa.org> ======================================================================= To subscribe to the free Scan This News newsletter, send a message to <majordomo(a)efga.org> and type "subscribe scan" in the BODY. Or, to be removed type "unsubscribe scan" in the message BODY. For additional instructions see www.efga.org/about/maillist.html ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "Scan This News" is Sponsored by S.C.A.N. Host of the "FIGHT THE FINGERPRINT!" web page: www.networkusa.org/fingerprint.shtml ======================================================================= **************************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address or (un)subscribe ignition-point-digest email@address **************************************************** www.telepath.com/believer **************************************************** --- 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: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
by Anonymous Sender 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Harmon Seaver wrote: > > This isn't a ski mask burglary. We KNOW Saddam ruled Iraq. > > We KNOW what crimes were committed. Simple syllogism. > > No we don't. We only know what the propaganda mills have told us. > Twenty years ago it was a different story. The propaganda mills were working for Saddam, not against him. http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/04/1599076.php "Over the last dozen years I made 13 trips to Baghdad to lobby the government to keep CNN's Baghdad bureau open and to arrange interviews with Iraqi leaders. Each time I visited, I became more distressed by what I saw and heard - awful things that could not be reported because doing so would have jeopardized the lives of Iraqis, particularly those on our Baghdad staff." http://www.techcentralstation.com/041103H.html "It appears there is another, more troubling, reason Jordan decided not to report these hideous crimes until the regime was safely out of the way: CNN didn't want to lose its on-the-ground access to a big story." Human Rights Watch, Amnesty, and countless Iraqi refugees all report similar stories of widespread torture and murder. Is it your position that these are all propagandists? Dismissing as "propaganda" any reports that oppose your argument, while accepting as truth any claim that supports it, is simple intellectual dishonesty.

1 0

U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-- On 16 Dec 2003 at 2:36, Anonymous wrote: > I saw several people commenting the issue of Geneva > convention on CNN during the day. Also I saw an expert on > this field from another country commenting on the issue > stating that it was a clear violation of the convention. In > either of these interviews were there any discussion on > whether it didn't apply to this specific case due to what > clothings he happened to wear or whattever. I got the > impression that it was clear that the U.S. treatment wasn't > fully appropriate. If you were watching the BBC, you would have thought most of the Iraqi population were outraged by his capture. I think you are suffering from New York Times syndrome "If even the New York Times admits that the kulaks are happy and prosperous under Stalin, that shows you how great the Soviet Union really must be when you discount all that capitalist propaganda." --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG Lh9C/c3J2U0bybWlK/P0f5hnnZT1z+2QEe1K9Ev2 4cVVWOLkCVsvYQG/u75vRB5xVrL2GjBeaEl+j6x07

6 6

Re: Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)
by Michael Kalus 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 17-Dec-03, at 5:43 PM, Jim Dixon wrote: > >> According to the US Government though they are not soldiers. They are >> "unlawful enemy combattants". > > I can only interpret this as your saying that the US Government's > judgement in this issue is correct, and they are not POWs. > I only tell you what they are telling us. I do not agree with this assessment personally. >> >> The war in Afghanistan is over. This is were they were caught. Thus >> they >> should be released, no? > > Oh, we are back to their being POWs. Fine. In that case, the answer > to > your question is no. > > The war in question was begun by an attack on the United States, by the > murder of 3000 people in New York City. Is this war over? Not > according > to tapes attributed to al Qaeda. They still profess to be at war with > the United States. > Where the war begun is probably debatable. The US had (and has) their fingerprints over a lot of things that are happening. And all of these you could construe as an act of war. > Is the war in Afghanistan over? Not according to news reports. Osama > bin > Laden remains free. The Taliban remain active. But the regime has been replaced, thus the war is over, no? That was the case in Europe. Germany was defeated, a new government installed (with a lot of people from the old one) and you called it "done deal". Same in Japan. So what's different this time? > >> If they are terrorists and they have proof of >> this they should put them in front of a court (and I guess that should >> be a civil court, not a military tribunal as I don't quite see since >> when the US Army is performing law enforcement duties). > > Please make your mind up. Now they are terrorists again. > I am answering to your statements. We have already established that if they are POWs then they should be released because the war is over (see above). If they are not POWs but held because of terrorist charges, than they should be tried no? > Whose law requires that terrorists be treated in this fashion? > Our "enlightened" western society, led by the USofA who proclaims to know what right and wrong is (and who wants to teach it to all those "primitive" cultures in the middle east). > The US Army's responsibility is not to enforce the law. It is to > defend > the United States. They seem to be doing a good job at the moment. > Sure sure, nobody has flown another plane in a building. Is this because of the US Army and all those nifty security screenings at the airport (just last weekend I flew out of Dallas and saw more than enough ways to get something through security), or because nobody really wanted to do it right now? Guess we'll never know. But of course the Spinmeisters are going to say it's because of the war in Iraq and added security. I wonder who or what they are going to blame the next time someone gets blown up. > In the United States it is the responsibility of the police to enforce > the > law in their jurisdiction. There is no US police force with > responsiblities in Guantanamo. US law does not apply to Cuba. Nifty, isn't it? "Well people, we see your point. But you have to Understanding, even though we control Guantanamo Bay and even though Diego Garcia is a British Island which we just annexed, we can't really do anything to help those poor people. But don't fret, if they would be in an Afghani jail they would be off worse. Remember, we are the good guys, we only do what's in humanities best interrest." If they would be held in New York State they would have more rights. So let's just not even try that, we might actually HAVE to treat them according to the gospel that we preach. >> But they are not POWs by their own account. If they could be charged >> with any of these crimes above, then what takes two years to actually >> convict them? > > By your way of thinking, if I am taken prisoner in a war, I can decide > that I am not a POW and walk free. That's not what I said. What I DID say was that if they are not POWs and are not charged with a crime, they should be set free. > > In what war has this been common practice? See above. >> Some of them ARE US Citizens. Others are citizens of other states. >> International Law means that if I (holding a German passport) have to >> be >> allowed to contact MY government in order to receive any aid that I >> might require. This right has not been given. > > What "International Law" says that unlawful combatants get to contact > their governments in this manner? > The term "unlawful combatants" doesn't exist either. So the question is mute. Let's say "Human being" instead. > What if the government contacted, say Afghan or Pakistani, would prefer > that they not be contacted as you desire, or prefers that you be held > as > a prisoner indefinitely? Than you have a problem with your government. But neither British, nor Canadian nor French authorities were notified / could be contact OR, after they found out, were allowed to talk to their people. > >> Granted, I would not be protected under the rights of the US >> constitution, but I do have other rights and those are clearly >> violated >> as well. > > What's so clear about this? Do you actually have any knowledge at all > of customs and practices in countries in the region? Do you care at > all > about the opinions of local people, about their customary practices? I > think not. It is not only about people from Afghanistan, it is also about other countries, see my text above. >> >> Treason would need to be proofen. Considering that no charges have >> been >> brought forward after almost two years it is pretty clear (or at least >> appears to be) that there is no proof that any of these people did >> anything wrong. > > Do you know for a fact that there are US citizens held at Guantanamo? > If > so, who are they? > There have been several reports. What about John Walker? Whatever happened to him? >>> >> It doesn't. But if that would be the case than the captured Afghans >> should be returned to the Afghan authorities, why is this not >> happening? > > Perhaps the Afghan authorities don't want them back. > > Hello? > Perhaps you just look for the easy way out? Michael -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP+DwTmlCnxcrW2uuEQL6iwCeOK5U56u8xVB9aT1SAqj+yi7OULcAoOd0 bml/UV9L7YtJFFoAq77OCilk =aXZZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
by Michael Kalus 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 17-Dec-03, at 5:23 PM, Jim Dixon wrote: >>> Damn lucky, to be honest. >>> >> No I did not omit this little bit. This is not the question. > > Oh but it is. > Ah? Why? >> Guilt or not guilt is not (supposely) decided when captured but in a >> court of law. You remember, "Justice" the thing the US supposely is >> standing for? > > Are you saying that the United States has to be a light to the world, > that > it has an extraordinary responsibility to be morally correct, that its > actions should be judged by a different standard from those of other > countries? The US makes these claims on their own. If they are the "good guys" than they should act like it. Not only when it is convenient but also when it is not. Morale is not about the "best bang for the buck" but about integrity. The US Government clearly does not possess a lot of integrity when it comes to morale. > What are you, some kind of pro-American fanatic? Last time I checked I was a human being. > >> Whatever he did before, it does not matter at this point. At this very >> moment the people who have to abide are the victors and that means the >> US Government (and thus the US Military). >> >> Two wrongs still don't make a right. > > What exactly is wrong with inspecting a prisoner's teeth and giving him > a haircut? Televising this for propaganda purposes. > > Why exactly do you say that mass murder, invasion, genocide somehow > are outweighed in the scales of justice by a medical examination? > No, what I am saying is that no matter what he did, the US still has to play by international rules (or should at least). Using those images from Saddam as Propaganda clearly is wrong. Michael -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP+DxBGlCnxcrW2uuEQJqKQCgujw7xjSVAPdzXDcEW9abBkRyaF8AoNOL H+VuSTqSPFSTA834qQS2X36C =ULJm -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0