December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

FREE GIFT & UP TO 4.9% APR VISA/MASTERCARD
by 20797248＠bbtt.de 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

<HTML><PRE><BODY BGCOLOR="#000000"><FONT COLOR="#00FFFF" SIZE=3> LOW INTEREST CREDIT CARDS If you have been denied a credit card OR you are paying more than 10% APR on your credit card, you should take time to read this. YOU COULD QUALIFY FOR A LOW INTEREST CREDIT CARD WITH NO ANNUAL FEES............AS LOW AS 4.9% APR Dear friend, If you're currently using a high-interest MasterCard or Visa credit card, you could be paying an Annual Percentage Rate as much as 19.8%. By transferring the current balances from your high-interest rate MasterCard, Visa, Discover or Optima(sm) cards to your new low-rate credit card, you can begin saving money immediately. For example, *first year savings with a 5.9% APR credit card is : _____________________________________________ If your average And your current APR is.... balance is.... 15.9% 17.4% 19.8% you save you save you save _____________________________________________ $2,000 $155 $185 $233 $3,000 $220 $265 $337 $5,000 $350 $425 $545 _____________________________________________ * First year savings based on a constant balance with a 5.9% APR for six months and a 12.9% APR for six months, plus a $25 annual fee savings. We know that saving money is important to you. That's why the staff at Credit Business Systems works tirelessly to provide to you some of the best credit card values in the nation depending on your credit profile. The CREDIT CARD GUIDE contains all the necessary information for individuals who have been denied credit and cardholders who are paying more than 10% APR. You can qualify for a credit card even if you have: NO CREDIT HISTORY, PREVIOUS OR CURRENT CREDIT PROBLEMS, A LOW INCOME, JUDGEMENTS AND LIENS, HAD A DIVORCE OR EVEN IF YOU HAVE FILED FOR BANKRUPTCY. For a small fraction of what you pay in high interest fees, you can order the guide and start saving immediately. Our guide is priced at $19.95. All that you will have to do is complete the application form below, and mail it with payment as indicated on the form. We will mail the guide to you within 10 days. WE GUARANTEE THAT UNLESS WE HELP YOU TO GET A LOW INTEREST CREDIT CARD, OUR APPLICATION FEE OF $19.95 WILL BE REFUNDED! Mail the APPLICATION TODAY! Ordering Information The Guide Only Costs $19.95 + $4.00 for shipping and handling. Total $23.95 Want faster shipping? Add $10.00 more for RUSH processing. Please make your check or money order payable to: CREDIT BUSINESS SYSTEMS Here's How To Order: 1) Personal checks 2) Money Order 3) Credit Card Order Form ======================================================= PLEASE PRINT AND FILL OUT THE APPLICATION FORM BELOW: (circle one) Money Order Check Credit Card ( VISA, M/C, Discover ) NAME __________________________________ ADDRESS __________________________________ CITY ___________ STATE _______ ZIP __________ EMAIL ADDRESS_____________________ ANNUAL INCOME___________ CREDIT CARD(S) BALANCE _____________ OCCUPATION _____________ CREDIT CARD #_________________________ EXPIRE DATE___________ * CREDIT CARD ORDERS; TO EXPEDITE PROCESSING, FILL OUT ALL INFORMATION, PRINT AND FAX TO; (619) 683-9130 Guide Fee $19.95 Shipping & Handling 4.00 RUSH processing Total $_____ Signature________________ Date____________ FIRST 50 ORDERS GET TO CHOOSE A FREE GIFT (CIRCLE ONE) 1) WATCH 2) CREDIT CARD WALLET 3) GOLD PLATED PEN PLEASE MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: CREDIT BUSINESS SYSTEMS AND MAIL TO: CREDIT BUSINESS SYSTEM 6161 El Cajon Blvd. #B-427 San Diego, CA 92115 /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3>

1 0

Christian IP Network / Re: Webpage picketing (fwd)
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

John Deters wrote: > (This brings to mind another solution: "The Christian IP Network. > Guaranteed to not deliver unto you the E-vil packets of the Demons of > Pornographers, Terrorists, Narcotics Traffickers, Money Launderers or > Cypherpunks. We're the ISP that delivers only Family-Valued, God-Blessed > and Jesus-Approved packets to your customers. Send lots of money now, > censors are standing by." If Jesus has a sense of humor, then when he comes back he will make the announcement only on sites blocked by CyberSitter. (I will forward the announcement to the list for the benefit of those list members whose subscription to the "Hot Teenage Sluts" website has expired.) SlutMonger

1 0

Arguments for good crypto and against GAK.
by Peter Trei 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I frequently find myself explaining to the uninitiated the whole crypto mess, and have come up with a line of arguments which I find work fairly effectively. Basically, I take the tack that strong encryption will help prevent crime, espionage, and terrorism, while weak and/or GAKed crypto will promote it. There are good arguements for this position. We lock our houses, cars, etc. This activity is promoted by the police as a crime prevention measure, although it unquestionably makes it more difficult for them to serve search warrants, etc. They realize that good locks prevent far more crime than would their unfettered access to unlocked property. Crypto works the same way as good locks, but in the data sphere. While it would clearly make court-authorized wiretaps more difficult (but not impossible), it also stops the far more frequent unauthorized interception of messages by criminals (whether in or out of government). At this point I usually give some recent examples of losses that might have been prevented by good crypto - cell phone cloning fraud and eavesdropping, the recent credit card sniffer, etc. Going back a couple of years, some hackers on the west coast modified major backbone routers to record ftp and telnet passwords, etc. If the audience is aware of the putative info-war threat, I can work that in as another threat that good crypto can put a stop to. If the question arises 'well, why does the FBI, etc, seem so worried about the widespread use of crypto?', I have a response. "There's an old saying: 'When you're up to your ass in alligators, it's hard to remember that you're trying to drain the swamp.'" We have law enforcement agencies because we want people and their property to be safer. However, the FBI and other LEAs actually do very little to directly *prevent* crime; almost all of their efforts are post-facto, designed to catch criminals, or make it easier to catch them, *after* they've already committed one or more offences. While a criminal in jail is only rarely a menace to society at large, most criminals get away with many crimes before they are caught - if this was not the case, there would be no such thing as a 'career criminal'. LEAs have little motivation to prevent crime - there is not much career or budget boost in a robbery which did not take place, a murder which was not committed, or a spy who could not get the data he sought. Widespread and effective use of good crypto acts before the fact, preventing crimes from occuring in the first place. While it certainly would make some wiretaps more difficult (and here I bring up the very low number of wiretaps preformed in the US compared to the number of crimes), on the balance it is clear that the use of good security is a win. If you ask most people if they had a choice between a high crime rate with some of the criminals being caught, and a much lower crime rate with a slightly higher chance of them getting away, most people who are not part of the LEA establishment will instantly opt for the latter. As for GAK, there are two basic arguements I use. First, I ask them how they would feel if their town required that copies of all house, car, and file cabinet keys be deposited with the local cops 'just in case they need to serve a search warrant'. Most people are rightly appalled by the idea. Secondly, I describe the idea of key escrow agencies and "TTPs", and how they would create huge storehouses of private keys. I point out what a target of opportunity these archives would provide to criminals and spies - by compromising the security of a single site, they could unlock the private, confidential information of thousands of individuals and corporations. Depending on the audience, I might bring up Filegate, Aldrich Ames, the Walker case, etc, to demonstrate that even the government can't be relied on to keep secrets ("despite their best intentions"), and re-emphasize the catastrophic single-point-of-failure that GAK represents. In short, it's possible to pro-crypto, anti-GAK without ever getting near sounding anti-government; in fact, being pro-crypto, anti-GAK can be a conservative, anti-crime, law & order position. Peter Trei trei(a)process.com

1 0

Mr. Gates goes to Washington, from The Netly News
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 12:13:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship-announce(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Mr. Gates goes to Washington, from The Netly News ********** http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/opinion/0,1042,1022,00.html The Netly News Network June 5, 1997 Mr. Gates Goes to Washington by Declan McCullagh (declan(a)well.com) For Siliconaires like Bill Gates of Microsoft, Eric Schmidt of Novell and Jeff Papows of Lotus, Washington is a city made pleasant by absence. They view its labyrinthine bureaucracies and hidebound institutions as something between a minor hindrance and an insurmountable obstacle to the important business of making profits, not public policy. So it was no surprise to see the high-tech trio join seven other executives yesterday at the National Press Club to rail against the Clinton administration's restrictions on overseas sales of encryption products. This Billionaire Boys' Club was especially keen on praising two bills that would generally relax export rules. "We clearly support the House and the Senate bills that are on the Hill in their original form. Getting reform done now is a huge priority for all of us," said one. "There are bills in the House and the Senate that are totally acceptable, and if those bills are passed they'd solve the problem," another added. But perhaps Bill Gates should have spent less time writing BASIC interpreters and more time in civics classes, because these bills are far from perfect. In fact, they may be downright dangerous. [...]

2 1

Re: The New War
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://guru.cosc.georgetown.edu/~denning/crypto/oc-abs.html Denning thinks export of authentication and signature technology is OK, but she draws the line at encryption. This sounds fine, but what happens when new technologies don't fit into these neat boxes? How about blind signatures? Those are used to create anonymous electronic cash systems. How comfortable will Denning be when criminals can set up their own anonymous payment systems? Would blind signature technology be allowed for export today? How about zero knowledge protocols? These can be used to show different kinds of anonymous credentials and can be used to build anonymous cash systems in their own right. Generally, they enhance privacy by allowing the parties to reveal only the information which is specifically necessary for a transaction. Would zero knowledge software be allowed for export today? How about multiparty computations, or oblivious transfer, or blob commitments, or any of the other building blocks of tomorrow's crypto technology? What is the export status of these going to be? Will Congress have experts who put each piece under a microscope and try to judge whether it will be used for good purposes or bad? It can't be done. As well allow exporting the letter "a" but not "i" since "i" is part of "kill". This attempt to split cryptology into good and bad technologies won't work. Knowledge space doesn't work that way. It's probably not even going to be possible to identify what is crypto and what isn't. It's all a matter of dealing with information in various ways. Cypherpunks can expose this confusion by implementing other protocols and trying to get them exported. Go beyond old-fashioned signatures and encryption. These are mainstream today. Stay on the edge, be ahead of the curve. Do something new. John

1 0

e$: The greater fool theory of Digicash, quantified, roughly
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Sender: e$(a)thumper.vmeng.com Reply-To: Robert Hettinga <rah(a)shipwright.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: Bulk Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 09:31:10 -0400 From: Robert Hettinga <rah(a)shipwright.com> To: Multiple recipients of <e$(a)thumper.vmeng.com> Subject: e$: The greater fool theory of Digicash, quantified, roughly At 10:18 pm -0400 on 6/4/97, Tim May wrote on cypherpunks: > Chaum said he had to agree that these were good examples, and that he'd > think about the issue furhter. He speculated during his panel presentation > that possibly a mechanism could be found to allow such vendor or seller > anonymity for _educational_ and similar materials, but not for other > things...Froomkin and I were incredulous. Sheesh. Silly "exemptions" to seller anonymity like this one indicate to me that Chaum & Co. will *never* license the blind signature patent to anyone with an actual useful purpose for it. We're all going to have to sit around for another 10 years until that patent's unencumbered for there to be any valid market for anonymous digital cash -- or the other kinds of instantly-settled digital bearer certificates that the patent enables. I suppose that's justice, as it means that Chaum & Co. aren't going to make any money on the blind signature patent, either. If they don't wake up, that 10 years will be over soon enough. In about 5 years or so, just about the time this round of financing fantasy runs out, potential developers will probably just decide to stick it out for the remaining 5 years they don't have to pay a royalty. Digicash, Inc., will become yet another a $10 million (at last estimate) technology rathole. That $10 million, of course, doesn't include the current purchasers of the technology, who are being left high and dry by Digicash's inability to understand what market they are in. First a bank, then a software company, now a credit card association equivalent (onk?!), Digicash never has figured out that the only thing they are is a financial cryptography company. The first, and best, of course, but still financial cryptographers. Like Dolby, they should only license and certify applications of the technology they invent. Period. Chaum could have done that easily enough, say, $9.5 million and 10 years ago. He would have gotten to keep all the family money he sunk into fun stuff like the Digicash Building in the Netherlands and sales offices all over the planet, because all he needed were a few cryptographers and licensing lawyers. He would have probably gotten at least triple the $9.5 million of shareholder equity that he wasted, all back in actual revenue over the intervening years. Without spending a dime more in further capitalization. He would have gotten a gross return on that $500k 1987 investment of say, (30mil/500k ) = 6000%, just on earnings alone. If he went public in the interim, a conservative estimate of market capitalization, assuming a simple linear revenue growth curve (yielding a current revenue of $6 million a year) and a very conservative P/E ratio of 10, gives us (6mil*10)= $60million. That's probably before the internet commerce hockey-stick earnings kicked in, much less the rediculuous Netscape-era P/E ratios internet companies now command. In engage in a little market-speak, "what an incredible bungle of a unique value proposition". ;-). Anyway, the Greater Fool Theory of Digicash has been proven once again, with Chaum's own words as relayed by Mr. May. Now maybe we know why J. Pierpont Morgan fired Edison from General Electric. Hmmm... And why Negroponte fired *Chaum*? Hey! Maybe there is hope? Naaaaah.... Notice, of course, that Dr. Dolby (or his estate and heirs) probably still owns his company, and is doing very well, thank you. Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 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' The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/ ---------- The e$ lists are brought to you by: Intertrader Ltd: "Digital Money Online" <http://www.intertrader.com/library/DigitalMoneyOnline> Where people, networks and money come together: Consult Hyperion http://www.hyperion.co.uk info(a)hyperion.co.uk Like e$? Help pay for it! <http://www.shipwright.com/beg.html> For e$/e$pam sponsorship, mail Bob: <mailto:rah@shipwright.com> Thanks to the e$ e$lves: Of Counsel: Vinnie Moscaritolo <mailto:vinnie@webstuff.apple.com> (Majordomo)^2: Rachel Willmer<mailto:rachel@intertrader.com> Commermeister: Anthony Templer <mailto:anthony@atanda.com> Interturge: Rodney Thayer <mailto:rodney@sabletech.com> --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 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' The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/

1 0

Kill the children!
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

When the United States Government murdered the child of Saddam Hussein the common American attitude was "broken eggs, and all that." I know because I lamented the act and was roundly criticized as an idiot who didn't understand how the real world works, etc., etc, justify, justify. When the chickens come home to roost, however, after yet another U.S. Government act of aggression, there is a great hue and cry throughout the land about only a "monster" could kill children. Suddenly, the lives of children become so precious and sacrosanct that those responsible for taking those lives must be given supreme punishment. God bless Timothy McVeigh for exposing the mindless hypocrisy of the American people, as well as the _mindful_ hypocrisy of the Government Rulers of Amerika. Billy Graham, as the populist representative of Christianity, visits the White House but we are little likely to see him visiting McVeigh because some children's lives seem to be more precious than others, and those who take them are subject to different moral judgments. A famous newspaper correspondent received a telegram from his editor questioning his expense report, which listed a huge bill for a breakfast which included caviar. The reporter telegraphed back, "Eggs is eggs." The message of the American people and the U.S. Government is being received loud and clear: "American eggs are more precious than foreign eggs. The eggs of _normal_ (translate=="mainstream") Americans are more precious than _aberrant_ (translate--"cult") eggs." The message of the American news media is loud and clear: "Break some lifeless buildings with your bombs and we will make you a side dish in the back pages of some minor publication. Break enough eggs and we will make an omlette big enough to feed the entire world." Waco was nothing more than a "wake-up call" that many Americans slept through. Timothy MvVeigh did not--he woke up and crowed loud enough for all of us to hear. The American government, people and press, however, want merely to shut him up and go back to sleep, pretending that there still isn't enough light to see their own sins and rectify them. There are no telling how many lives could be saved if the press wrote meaningfully about the inevitability of chickens coming home to roost instead of supporting the notion that the solution to a crowing cock is to cut his head off. There are other roosters in the barnyard. There will be more sunrises. Americans are now loudly calling for McVeigh to receive an electrical message complaining about the high cost of the breakfast bill on the expense report he provided us. I wouldn't be surprised if his final words were, "Eggs is eggs." Anne Accountant

3 2

TV Commercial
by Marshall Clow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Today on TV, I saw an advertisement. Image: Two ships exchanging searchlight-type signals. Voiceover: It's common sense, really. You should be able to communicate with anyone without worring about the security of your communications. Sprint PCS. Secure digital communications. It's nice to see that a large multinational corporation is publicly expousing cypherpunk attitudes. (The reality of their phones is not as encouraging, but...) -- Marshall Marshall Clow Aladdin Systems <mailto:mclow@mailhost2.csusm.edu> "In Washington DC, officials from the White House, federal agencies and Congress say regulations may be necessary to promote a free-market system." -- CommunicationsWeek International April 21, 1997

4 3

Founding Fathers & Federalism
by Steve Schear 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Joseph Sobran Founding fathers thought the federal government should be kept on a short leash The word "federalism" is enjoying a new vogue these days, as Republicans promise to give power "back to the states." But the way the power is given "back" has little to do with what the founding fathers meant by "federalism." In the current welfare reform bill, for example, the states are given power to regulate welfare programs, but with strings attached. The power is considered to come from the federal government, which supposedly "grants" it to the states. This is a reversal of what our ancestors meant by federalism - namely, that the states were the source of the federal government's powers. The states, through the Constitution, "delegated" a few carefully specified powers to the federal government. Whatever wasn't delegated was "reserved" to the states and the people. The federal government was supposed to be kept on a short leash, lest it claim powers never given to it. Today it routinely claims countless powers unmentioned in the Constitution. When a national health-care program is proposed, for example, we no longer ask the basic question: Just where does the Constitution grant this power? Answer: Nowhere. Then how did the federal government acquire so many unlisted powers? By the insidious process of "consolidation," which the Constitution was meant to prevent. So why didn't the Constitution prevent it? Because the federal government systematically reinterpreted the Constitution in its own favor. In the 1798 Kentucky Resolutions, Thomas Jefferson warned that the federal government must never be allowed to become the final arbiter of the extent of its own powers. His warning was disregarded. Eventually the Supreme Court was allowed to treat the Constitution as a "living document" - one whose meaning was not fixed but fluid, alterable at the discretion of those currently in power. Of course this defeats the whole purpose of a Constitution, or indeed any written law. What would a truly federal system look like? The possibilities are infinite. If the states were permitted to keep their individuality, we might have a checkerboard of socialist and free economies, instead of a single "mixed" economy imposed on all. Americans who preferred a welfare state, even if it meant higher taxes, might move to New York; Americans who preferred laissez-faire might migrate to Texas. In the long run, the states that imposed too many burdens on their citizens would lose population, business and finally tax monies to freer states. A federal system would create a sort of "market" in states, with citizens as consumers choosing among them. To the founders it was axiomatic, that government should be limited not only in the number of powers it exercised, but in the extent of territory it ruled. The small and local were preferable to the vast and national. If one state or local government should exceed its proper powers, citizens should be able to escape it without leaving the continent. "Federalism" has come to sound complex, abstract and technical. But it's a simple principle: Keep power as local as possible. Give a central government very few powers, and hold it strictly to them. The idea will become vivid to anyone who reads the Federalist Papers, the writings of the Anti-Federalists, the works of Jefferson, and of course the Constitution itself. The whole debate over ratifying the Constitution revolved around the question whether the federal government, given a few powers, would proceed to "usurp" more power - tyrannical power. All sides in the ratification debate would have agreed that the federal government should never be permitted to reach, or even approach, the size and scope it has achieved in the late 20th century. The chief difference between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists is that the Federalists insisted that it could never happen under the Constitution. History has proved the Anti-Federalists right. It's a scandal that so few realize this. It's also an indictment of our educational system, which blandly purveys the view that America's history has been one of smooth continuity and "progress." The more the Constitution is disregarded, the more we're assured that it's being "fulfilled." The remedy isn't private militias. It's guerrilla education, to ensure that our children learn what the schools won't teach them. Joseph Sobran is a syndicated columnist. PGP mail preferred Fingerprint: FE 90 1A 95 9D EA 8D 61 81 2E CC A9 A4 4A FB A9 Key available on BAL server, http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/~bal/pks-toplev.html --------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Schear | tel: (702) 658-2654 CEO | fax: (702) 658-2673 First ECache Corporation | 7075 West Gowan Road | Suite 2148 | Las Vegas, NV 89129 | Internet: azur(a)netcom.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- I know not what instruments others may use, but as for me, give me Ecache or give me debt. SHOW ME THE DIGITS!

1 0

0,4,11276,00.html?dtn.head
by Damaged Justice 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[1]HP Network ScanJet 5. Click here. [2][LINK] [3][LINK] [4]Join now FREE! MENU [5]Front Door [6]The Net [7]Computing [8]Intranets [9]Business [10]CNET Radio [11]Perspectives [12]Newsmakers [13]Rumor Mill RESOURCES [14]One Week View [15]Custom News [16]Subscribe [17]Member Services [18]Contact Us [19]Help [20]Search NEWS [21]Novell CNET SERVICES [22]CNET.COM [23]BUILDER.COM [24]BROWSERS.COM [25]GAMECENTER.COM [26]SEARCH.COM [27]DOWNLOAD.COM [28]SHAREWARE.COM [29]ACTIVEX.COM [30]MEDIADOME MARKETPLACE [31]CNET Store [32]Sponsorship Info [33]Category The Net Private dollars wanted for next Net By [34]Courtney Macavinta June 5, 1997, 3:20 p.m. PT SANTA CLARA, California--A White House official's call was dropped when he tried to patch into a high-tech industry powwow about the [35]Next Generation Internet (NGI) today--a timely demo of the network's need for a facelift. [36]NASA's Ames Research Center hosted the federal government's briefing today in hopes of roping in commercial technology partners to help build the Clinton Administration's three-year, $3 million NGI initiative. The NGI initiative aims to build a faster, smarter Internet, creating new applications and networking technologies to improve communication among the nation's academic and research centers. In some cases, NGI will route data at 1,000 times the speed of today's network, and will be able to store bandwidth for real-time data transmission. The audience laughed when the videoconferencing connection from Washington to the Techmart in Santa Clara crashed. But the White House's senior director of the National Economic Council, Thomas Kalil, spun the mishap into a plea for his cause. "This certainly shows why dependability and reliability need to be a priority for the Next Generation Internet," Kalil said when he finally got connected. Just as the private sector and universities assisted in creating ARPANET, the precursor to the Internet, Kalil and representatives from NASA and the [37]Energy Department want companies and the government to build the NGI as a team. Companies could benefit by receiving federal funds for research and development; they would be able to keep copyrights of their products in order to commercialize them, said Maylene Duenas of NASA Ames. In return the government will get input and expertise from industry without recreating existing private research or making the same mistakes. Federal agencies and research facilities also need NGI to shoot huge volumes of secure data across the country. "Past investments in this area have a high return on investment," Kalil said. "We would like to see the United States maintain its position as a charter of innovation." California is already heading up a private/public Internet partnership. Dubbed the [38]Corporation for Network Education Initiatives in California (CENIC), the organization's goal is to oversee the development and operation of an improved data network between the state's university research centers. [39]Pacific Bell has already struck a deal to set aside some of its bandwidth for the project. "Private involvement is critical," Susan Astrada, executive director of CENIC said today. "There is no way the academic community could afford it." [40]Sun, [41]Cisco, [42]Silicon Graphics, [43]Novell, [44]Lucent Technologies, and [45]MCI have already endorsed NGI or plan to work on the project in various capacities. Although the general public won't be able use the infrastructure for five to ten years, the NGI initiative makes several promises that the White Hose says will trickle down to all Net surfers. For example, developers are working with the creators of [46]Internet 2, a separate project funded by academia. More than 100 universities across the country are spearheading the project to develop new computer network applications to help improve their teaching and research facilities. The academic community will invest $50 million a year to connect the schools' students and faculty at speeds 100 times faster than the current network. Another component of NGI will connect just ten research facilities nationwide at speeds 1,000 times faster than the Internet. This means the Energy Department could send its reports of global climate changes over the NGI in 15 seconds. The data takes 15 minutes to send now, said Martha Krebs of the government agency. Not all are happy with Clinton's plan for the next Internet. Yesterday, senators from Alaska to Montana told the president's technical advisers that NGI was leaving out rural universities by turning only to well-known urban institutions for guidance. related news stories  [47]Rural demands made for Internet 2 June 4, 1997  [48]Internet: the Next Generation May 16, 1997  [49]Schools seek Internet 2 funding April 9, 1997  [50]Sites soon for Internet 2 January 29, 1997  [51]Is Clinton's Net plan for real? October 17, 1996 Latest Headlines [52]display on desktop The Net  [53]Hong Kong exports raise concerns  [54]AOL members threaten to walk  [55]Private dollars wanted for next Net  [56]Sun loses round in Java fight  [57]Girls part of children's market, too  [58]TotalNews, publishers settle suit  [59]Domain planners dismiss critics  [60]Faster Net access comes at a price Computing  [61]For small vendors, a bizarre bazaar  [62]NCI to compete with WebTV  [63]Gateway, Compaq pitch low-cost PC-TVs  [64]Nashville's @Home uses Motorola modems Intranets  [65]Sun has agenda with Java server Business  [66]Coast clear for Gateway shares  [67]Gamer Electronic Arts buys rival  [68]Micron chip prices edging up  [69]Iomega trades on buyout rumors  [70]Marengi ousted from Novell  [71]Book publishers accused of piracy  [72]HP exec wants Euro telco competition Hidden - SpRept Promo No new articles. [73][LINK] [74]Copyright © 1995-97 CNET, Inc. All rights reserved. References 1. http://www.news.com/cgi-bin/redirect.cgi?location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ehp%2Ec… 2. http://www.cnet.com/ 3. http://www.news.com/ 4. http://registration.cnet.com/Registration/1,2,,0800.html?webAbbrev=ne&from=… 5. http://www.news.com/?ntb.news 6. http://www.news.com/Categories/Index/0,3,1,00.html?ntb.net 7. http://www.news.com/Categories/Index/0,3,2,00.html?ntb.cmptng 8. http://www.news.com/Categories/Index/0,3,3,00.html?ntb.intrnt 9. http://www.news.com/Categories/Index/0,3,4,00.html?ntb.bsns 10. http://www.news.com/Radio/index.html?ntb.radio 11. http://www.news.com/Perspectives/perspectives.html?ntb.pers 12. http://www.news.com/Newsmakers/index.html?ntb.newsmkr 13. http://www.news.com/Rumors/Entry/0,26,,00.html?ntb.rumor 14. http://www.news.com/Week/List/0,100,,00.html?ntb.owv 15. http://www.news.com/Personalized/FrontDoor/1,2,,00.html?nocache=1 16. http://www.news.com/Dispatch/Entry/0,65,,00.html 17. http://registration.cnet.com/MemberServices/1,9,,00.html?webAbbrev=ne&from=… 18. http://www.news.com/Staff/index.html?ntb.staff 19. http://www.news.com/Help/Item/0,24,2,00.html?ntb.help 20. http://www.news.com/Searching/Entry/0,17,0,00.html?ntb.srchg 21. http://www.news.com/cgi-bin/redirect.cgi?location=http://www.novell.com/Roc… 22. http://www.cnet.com/?ntb.cnet 23. http://www.cnet.com/Content/Builder/?ntb.bldr 24. http://www.browsers.com/?ntb.brow 25. http://www.gamecenter.com/?ntb.gc 26. http://www.search.com/?ntb.search 27. http://www.download.com/?ntb.dl 28. http://www.shareware.com/?ntb.sw 29. http://www.activex.com/?ntb.ax 30. http://www.mediadome.com/index.html?ntb.md 31. http://www.store.cnet.com/ 32. http://www.news.com/Sponsors/index.html?ntb.spnsr 33. http://www.news.com/Categories/Index/1,3,1,00.html 34. mailto:courtm@cnet.com 35. http://www.ngi.gov/ 36. http://www.nasa.gov/ 37. http://www.es.net/ 38. http://www.aldea.com/cenic/ 39. http://www.pacbell.net/ 40. http://www.sun.com/ 41. http://www.cisco.com/ 42. http://www.sgi.com/ 43. http://www.novell.com/ 44. htpp://www.lucent.com/ 45. http://www.mci.com/ 46. http://www.internet2.edu/ 47. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,11219,00.html 48. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,10750,00.html 49. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,9536,00.html 50. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,7453,00.html 51. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,4579,00.html 52. javascript:OpenWindow(); 53. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,11279,00.html?latest 54. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,11267,00.html?latest 55. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,11276,00.html?latest 56. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,11253,00.html?latest 57. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,11275,00.html?latest 58. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,11272,00.html?latest 59. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,11266,00.html?latest 60. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,11263,00.html?latest 61. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,11280,00.html?latest 62. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,11273,00.html?latest 63. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,11269,00.html?latest 64. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,11265,00.html?latest 65. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,11271,00.html?latest 66. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,11248,00.html?latest 67. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,11278,00.html?latest 68. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,11277,00.html?latest 69. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,11270,00.html?latest 70. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,11268,00.html?latest 71. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,11260,00.html?latest 72. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,11258,00.html?latest 73. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,11276,00.html?dtn.head#top 74. http://www.news.com/copyright.html

1 0