July 2018 - cypherpunks-legacy

[IP] Technical risks of the Protect America Act
by David Farber 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

________________________________________ From: Matt Blaze [mab(a)crypto.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 10:20 AM To: David Farber Subject: Technical risks of the Protect America Act IP readers may be interested in a technical analysis of the risks of the surveillance infrastructure envisioned by the US Protect America Act, written by Steve Bellovin, Whit Diffie, Susan Landau, Peter Neumann and me, to appear in the Jan/Feb 2008 IEEE Security and privacy. A PDF preprint can be found at: http://www.crypto.com/papers/paa-ieee.pdf My take is blogged at http://www.crypto.com/blog/wiretap_risks/ -matt ------------------------------------------- Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

[IP] US plans massive data sweep
by Dave Farber 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: US plans massive data sweep Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 19:44:53 -0500 (EST) From: TruChaos(a)aol.com To: dave(a)farber.net *US plans massive data sweep* Little-known data-collection system could troll news, blogs, even e-mails. Will it go too far? By Mark Clayton The US government is developing a massive computer system that can collect huge amounts of data and, by linking far-flung information from blogs and e-mail to government records and intelligence reports, search for patterns of terrorist activity. The system - parts of which are operational, parts of which are still under development - is already credited with helping to foil some plots. It is the federal government's latest attempt to use broad data-collection and powerful analysis in the fight against terrorism. But by delving deeply into the digital minutiae of American life, the program is also raising concerns that the government is intruding too deeply into citizens' privacy. "We don't realize that, as we live our lives and make little choices, like buying groceries, buying on Amazon, Googling, we're leaving traces everywhere," says Lee Tien, a staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "We have an attitude that no one will connect all those dots. But these programs are about connecting those dots - analyzing and aggregating them - in a way that we haven't thought about. It's one of the underlying fundamental issues we have yet to come to grips with." The core of this effort is a little-known system called Analysis, Dissemination, Visualization, Insight, and Semantic Enhancement (ADVISE). Only a few public documents mention it. ADVISE is a research and development program within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), part of its three-year-old "Threat and Vulnerability, Testing and Assessment" portfolio. The TVTA received nearly $50 million in federal funding this year. DHS officials are circumspect when talking about ADVISE. "I've heard of it," says Peter Sand, director of privacy technology. "I don't know the actual status right now. But if it's a system that's been discussed, then it's something we're involved in at some level." Data-mining is a key technology A major part of ADVISE involves data-mining - or "dataveillance," as some call it. It means sifting through data to look for patterns. If a supermarket finds that customers who buy cider also tend to buy fresh-baked bread, it might group the two together. To prevent fraud, credit-card issuers use data-mining to look for patterns of suspicious activity. What sets ADVISE apart is its scope. It would collect a vast array of corporate and public online information - from financial records to CNN news stories - and cross-reference it against US intelligence and law-enforcement records. The system would then store it as "entities" - linked data about people, places, things, organizations, and events, according to a report summarizing a 2004 DHS conference in Alexandria, Va. The storage requirements alone are huge - enough to retain information about 1 quadrillion entities, the report estimated. If each entity were a penny, they would collectively form a cube a half-mile high - roughly double the height of the Empire State Building. But ADVISE and related DHS technologies aim to do much more, according to Joseph Kielman, manager of the TVTA portfolio. The key is not merely to identify terrorists, or sift for key words, but to identify critical patterns in data that illumine their motives and intentions, he wrote in a presentation at a November conference in Richland, Wash. For example: Is a burst of Internet traffic between a few people the plotting of terrorists, or just bloggers arguing? ADVISE algorithms would try to determine that before flagging the data pattern for a human analyst's review. At least a few pieces of ADVISE are already operational. Consider Starlight, which along with other "visualization" software tools can give human analysts a graphical view of data. Viewing data in this way could reveal patterns not obvious in text or number form. Understanding the relationships among people, organizations, places, and things - using social-behavior analysis and other techniques - is essential to going beyond mere data-mining to comprehensive "knowledge discovery in databases," Dr. Kielman wrote in his November report. He declined to be interviewed for this article. One data program has foiled terrorists Starlight has already helped foil some terror plots, says Jim Thomas, one of its developers and director of the government's new National Visualization Analytics Center in Richland, Wash. He can't elaborate because the cases are classified, he adds. But "there's no question that the technology we've invented here at the lab has been used to protect our freedoms - and that's pretty cool." As envisioned, ADVISE and its analytical tools would be used by other agencies to look for terrorists. "All federal, state, local and private-sector security entities will be able to share and collaborate in real time with distributed data warehouses that will provide full support for analysis and action" for the ADVISE system, says the 2004 workshop report. Some antiterror efforts die - others just change names Defense Department November 2002 - The New York Times identifies a counterterrorism program called Total Information Awareness. September 2003 - After terminating TIA on privacy grounds, Congress shuts down its successor, Terrorism Information Awareness, for the same reasons. Department of Homeland Security February 2003 - The department's Transportation Security Administration (TSA) announces it's replacing its 1990s-era Computer-Assisted Passenger Prescreening System (CAPPS I). July 2004 - TSA cancels CAPPS II because of privacy concerns. August 2004 - TSA says it will begin testing a similar system - Secure Flight - with built-in privacy features. July 2005 - Government auditors charge that Secure Flight is violating privacy laws by holding information on 43,000 people not suspected of terrorism. A program in the shadows Yet the scope of ADVISE - its stage of development, cost, and most other details - is so obscure that critics say it poses a major privacy challenge. "We just don't know enough about this technology, how it works, or what it is used for," says Marcia Hofmann of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington. "It matters to a lot of people that these programs and software exist. We don't really know to what extent the government is mining personal data." Even congressmen with direct oversight of DHS, who favor data mining, say they don't know enough about the program. "I am not fully briefed on ADVISE," wrote Rep. Curt Weldon (R) of Pennsylvania, vice chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, in an e-mail. "I'll get briefed this week." Privacy concerns have torpedoed federal data-mining efforts in the past. In 2002, news reports revealed that the Defense Department was working on Total Information Awareness, a project aimed at collecting and sifting vast amounts of personal and government data for clues to terrorism. An uproar caused Congress to cancel the TIA program a year later. Echoes of a past controversial plan ADVISE "looks very much like TIA," Mr. Tien of the Electronic Frontier Foundation writes in an e-mail. "There's the same emphasis on broad collection and pattern analysis." But Mr. Sand, the DHS official, emphasizes that privacy protection would be built-in. "Before a system leaves the department there's been a privacy review.... That's our focus." Some computer scientists support the concepts behind ADVISE. "This sort of technology does protect against a real threat," says Jeffrey Ullman, professor emeritus of computer science at Stanford University. "If a computer suspects me of being a terrorist, but just says maybe an analyst should look at it ... well, that's no big deal. This is the type of thing we need to be willing to do, to give up a certain amount of privacy." Others are less sure. "It isn't a bad idea, but you have to do it in a way that demonstrates its utility - and with provable privacy protection," says Latanya Sweeney, founder of the Data Privacy Laboratory at Carnegie Mellon University. But since speaking on privacy at the 2004 DHS workshop, she now doubts the department is building privacy into ADVISE. "At this point, ADVISE has no funding for privacy technology." She cites a recent request for proposal by the Office of Naval Research on behalf of DHS. Although it doesn't mention ADVISE by name, the proposal outlines data-technology research that meshes closely with technology cited in ADVISE documents. Neither the proposal - nor any other she has seen - provides any funding for provable privacy technology, she adds. http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0209/p01s02-uspo.html ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as eugen(a)leitl.org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]

1 0

alexandria cable cutters?
by Randy Bush 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

nyt reports capture of scuba divers attempting to cut telecom egypt undersea fiber. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2013/03/27/world/middleeast/ap-ml-egypt-int… randy ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

Re: Jim Bell "Disappeared" by Feds?
by eric＠badtux.org 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

On Tue, 21 Nov 2000 18:10:27 GMT, Eric Cordian <emc(a)artifact.psychedelic.net> wrote: >Bell has been jailed. Here we see the real use of Federal anti-stalking >laws - to protect government whores from the citizens they harrass. > >http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,40300,00.html Interesting. Couple of things: 1) Jim Bell dont come across as the brightest of bulbs. Of course, its difficult to tell whether this is true, or whether its just a smear job (inadvertant or otherwise -- Ive had my own problems with Wired reporters misquoting me in order to "add color" to their reporting). Still, publicizing a system for assassinating political figures, and expecting said political figures to abide by the 1st Amendment protections regarding free speech, is stupidity beyond stupidity. If the government wants to squash you, they can do so -- they can seize all your assets under RICO (including all assets that would be needed in order to hire a lawyer to get your property back), crooked cops can lie under oath and say they found drugs in your possession with little recourse, and innocent people are sent to jail every day because it allows some harried police lieutenant to close out a file and look like a hero to the general public for "solving a crime" -- according to one study by a university law school, up to 70 of the people convicted of crimes are actually innocent, and were convicted because they were (illegally) deprived of the opportunity to conduct a defense (due to rampant underfunding of public defenders offices, and the RICO statutes which allow the government to seize all funds that could be used to conduct a defense, most people who are arrested do not even get to see their lawyer before the start of the trial -- in blatant disregard of the Constitution of the United States). And nobody cares, because the police are careful to target "those" people -- people who are poor, who are ignorant, or whose actions can be easily spun to make them appear dangerous or insane. Jim Bell wants to take on the Feds? What a moron! 2) Jim Bell also comes across as rather paranoid. Of COURSE hes being observed (at least occasionally) by federal law enforcement agencies. He is an ex-con, for cryin out loud, whenever a law is broken, the law comes looking at ex-cons first cause theyre the most likely cause of a law being broken. Its not paranoid to notice this, but its certainly paranoid to take the actions he has taken about that observation. I guess being held on trumped-up charges for his first conviction (i.e., possession of household chemicals now illegal!) warped his head, but what did he expect when he published a paper describing a system for rewarding assassination of political figures? I mean, what, he thought the 1st Amendment was something other than toilet paper that law enforcement officers wipe their rears with every day? (Actually, they usually dont care about the 1st, its the 4th, with their unconstitutional seizures of property under the RICO statute, that they wipe their rears with every day, but still...). 3) He is being held without bail. This appears to be a new tactic used by law enforcement to punish people that they know they dont have enough evidence to convict. For example, in Wilmington, North Carolina, a student commented about the Columbine killings, "those kids were stupid, if they wanted to kill jocks they should have started at the gym, not at the library." He was jailed without bail on charges of "making threatening statements". His parents were irate, because typical punishment in North Carolina for first offense of "making threatening statements" is a $500 fine and probation. The judge and sheriffs office kept him jailed without bail as "being a dangerous threat", in full defiance of the Constitution of the United States and its constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and due process, because they wanted to "teach a lesson". They taught a lesson, alright -- thats one kid who will never trust government again. 4) Its interesting that federal law enforcement agencies view the identification of their officers as a threat. It reminds me of fascist police officers in Serbia who taped over their badges so that the demonstrators could not identify the people who were depriving them of their rights. It appears that even identifying and filing a public complaint against a federal law enforcement officer (i.e., publishing a copy of that complaint on your web site as well as via "official channels") could be construed as a "terrorist threat" under the federal statute that was quoted. I think that many Americans are rather sanguine about their freedoms. We have forgotten that only fifty years before, a government-sanctioned and government-enforced system of apartheid systematically and with full government force deprived civil rights from a full 1/5th of the population of the United States. We have forgotten that, only 30 years ago, citizens of the United States were being killed by the National Guard for the crime of being near a demonstration against a war they disagreed with. Freedom is not something that is built into our country. Freedom must be purchased with blood, the blood of four little girls killed by those who bombed a church in Birmingham Alabama, the blood of civil rights workers murdered in cold blood in Mississippi with the full knowledge of government officials of the State of Mississippi, the blood of anti-war demonstrators in Ohio. Today we have forever deprived a full 1/5th of the black male population of many cities of the right to vote, with full government sponsorship and enforcement, but for some reason nobody seems to see it because government has been careful to target "those" people, people whose skin color is "not like ours", those nasty smelly poor people, and other such "undesirables". Apparently Americans believe that civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution only apply if youre white and middle-class. I think that many Americans are also sanguine about their continued freedom. All I have to note is that in 1984, Yugoslavs rejoiced in the afterglow of the Sarajevo Olympics, a glowing testament to their democratic government and modern attitudes and sensibilities. Yugoslavia rejoiced in joining the community of modern European nations. Their booming economy even sold cars here in the United States (the infamous Yugo). A scant 10 years later, Yugoslavia was in the grip of a fascist dictatorship who used "ethnic cleansing" to tighten his grip on power, its economy was in ruins, and the nation had broken up into ethnic pieces warring upon each other. The lesson: a booming democracy can turn into a fascist dictatorship in almost no time at all. Whoops, I guess this message puts me on the governments "terrorist hit list". Note to feds -- the only guns I own are a couple of antique shotguns inherited from my father and my grandfather, the only dangerous chemicals I own are normal household cleaners, the only cyber-terrorism Ive ever advocated is the ghastly notion of calling public officials damned liars on the Web when they lie to us. I am a liberal in the classic sense, who believes that government has a purpose and is necessary for the furthering of the general good but that its powers must be limited and carefully controlled by the people in order to avoid turning into a fascist dictatorship that only pretends to be a democratic republic (thus my distaste when our government violates the Constitution of the United States with willful disdain). I am also a committed pacifist who believes that all killing is morally wrong, even when done in self defense or in war time (I do recognize that man is an animal who like all animals possesses a survival instinct and thus killing in self defense must be expected, but animal instinct is not a moral defense). Good luck painting me as a crazed Unibomber out to murder folks. -- Eric Lee Green There is No Conspiracy eric(a)badtux.org http://www.badtux.org

1 0

[ PRIVACY Forum ] http: Must Die! (and The Encryption
by privacy＠vortex.com 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Solution) Reply-To: PRIVACY Forum Digest mailing list <privacy(a)vortex.com> http: Must Die! (and The Encryption Solution) http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000338.html It's been fun http:, but a man's gotta move on and there's no place for you on the back of my bike anymore. You were fun once but you're a drag now, and I just can't trust you anymore. It's not your fault but that's the way it is. Sorry, kid. Hey, https:! C'mon over here! Greetings. Sometimes you just have to bite the bullet when it comes to significant technological changes, and I believe that such a time has come for the basic http: unencrypted Web protocol. When we first started discussing Network Neutrality some years ago, we mostly talked in terms of trying to make sure that data streams would be handled in a fair and nondiscriminatory manner. Then with the Comcast BitTorrent case, it became clearer that it was appropriate to worry about whether underlying protocols might be manipulated by ISPs, resulting in delays or outright blocking. But now it's increasingly obvious that we're dealing with a triple-whammy, with ISPs apparently gearing up to treat our data like a 1960s draft board physical. That is (to quote Arlo Guthrie's "Alice's Restaurant"): "... injected, inspected, detected, infected, neglected and selected." More specifically, as noted in "Google Hijacked -- Major ISP to Intercept and Modify Web Pages" ( http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000337.html ) and "ISPs Spying On and Modifying Web Traffic" ( http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000336.html ), ISPs are increasingly taking the stance that our data is subject to ISP-based manipulation of all sorts. We're not talking about just traffic shaping -- though that's problematic enough in many cases. We're now looking at outright alteration of traffic contents -- the very payload of our Internet communications. ISPs have argued that such techniques allow for transparent removal of viruses, pop-ups, and so on. But now, feeling empowered by the capabilities of new TCP/IP mangling machines, the situation seems poised for consumers and businesses -- except perhaps those able to pay significant premiums -- to be relegated to serf (no pun intended) status in the ISP kingdoms. While public policy and legislative changes may eventually address some of these issues, there's something that we can do *right now* to start assuring that we can control our own Internet communications. That first, key action is to begin phasing out, as rapidly as possible and in as many application contexts as practicable, the use of unencrypted http: Web communications, and move rapidly to the *routine* use of SSL/https: whenever possible. This is of course but an initial step in a rather long path toward pervasive Internet encryption, but it would be an immensely important one. SSL is not a total panacea by any means. In the absence of prearranged user security certificates, SSL is still vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks, but any entity attempting to exploit that approach would likely find themselves in significant legal difficulty in short order. Also, while SSL/https: would normally deprive ISPs (or other intermediaries along the communications path) of the ability to observe or modify data traffic contents, various transactional information, such as which Web sites subscribers were visiting, would still be available to ISPs (at least in the absence of encrypted proxy systems). Another potential issue is the additional computational cost associated with setting up and maintaining SSL communication paths, which could become significant for busy server sites. However, thanks to system speed improvements and a choice of encryption algorithms, the additional overhead, while not trivial, is likely to at least be manageable. The associated security and privacy benefits make this transition essentially a no-brainer from a cost/benefit standpoint -- at least if we're really concerned about maintaining the integrity of the carefully crafted Web experience that we present to users. We've gotten a good run from http:, but all good things come to an end. A graceful retirement for virtually all unencrypted Web communications, and a brisk move to routine SSL/https: use, are both honorable and justified -- and practical now. Let's ride. --Lauren-- Lauren Weinstein lauren(a)vortex.com or lauren(a)pfir.org Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 http://www.pfir.org/lauren Co-Founder, PFIR - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org Co-Founder, NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad - http://www.nnsquad.org Founder, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com _______________________________________________ privacy mailing list http://lists.vortex.com/mailman/listinfo/privacy

1 0

Re: Jim Bell "Disappeared" by Feds?
by eric＠badtux.org 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

On Tue, 21 Nov 2000 18:10:27 GMT, Eric Cordian <emc(a)artifact.psychedelic.net> wrote: >Bell has been jailed. Here we see the real use of Federal anti-stalking >laws - to protect government whores from the citizens they harrass. > >http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,40300,00.html Interesting. Couple of things: 1) Jim Bell dont come across as the brightest of bulbs. Of course, its difficult to tell whether this is true, or whether its just a smear job (inadvertant or otherwise -- Ive had my own problems with Wired reporters misquoting me in order to "add color" to their reporting). Still, publicizing a system for assassinating political figures, and expecting said political figures to abide by the 1st Amendment protections regarding free speech, is stupidity beyond stupidity. If the government wants to squash you, they can do so -- they can seize all your assets under RICO (including all assets that would be needed in order to hire a lawyer to get your property back), crooked cops can lie under oath and say they found drugs in your possession with little recourse, and innocent people are sent to jail every day because it allows some harried police lieutenant to close out a file and look like a hero to the general public for "solving a crime" -- according to one study by a university law school, up to 70 of the people convicted of crimes are actually innocent, and were convicted because they were (illegally) deprived of the opportunity to conduct a defense (due to rampant underfunding of public defenders offices, and the RICO statutes which allow the government to seize all funds that could be used to conduct a defense, most people who are arrested do not even get to see their lawyer before the start of the trial -- in blatant disregard of the Constitution of the United States). And nobody cares, because the police are careful to target "those" people -- people who are poor, who are ignorant, or whose actions can be easily spun to make them appear dangerous or insane. Jim Bell wants to take on the Feds? What a moron! 2) Jim Bell also comes across as rather paranoid. Of COURSE hes being observed (at least occasionally) by federal law enforcement agencies. He is an ex-con, for cryin out loud, whenever a law is broken, the law comes looking at ex-cons first cause theyre the most likely cause of a law being broken. Its not paranoid to notice this, but its certainly paranoid to take the actions he has taken about that observation. I guess being held on trumped-up charges for his first conviction (i.e., possession of household chemicals now illegal!) warped his head, but what did he expect when he published a paper describing a system for rewarding assassination of political figures? I mean, what, he thought the 1st Amendment was something other than toilet paper that law enforcement officers wipe their rears with every day? (Actually, they usually dont care about the 1st, its the 4th, with their unconstitutional seizures of property under the RICO statute, that they wipe their rears with every day, but still...). 3) He is being held without bail. This appears to be a new tactic used by law enforcement to punish people that they know they dont have enough evidence to convict. For example, in Wilmington, North Carolina, a student commented about the Columbine killings, "those kids were stupid, if they wanted to kill jocks they should have started at the gym, not at the library." He was jailed without bail on charges of "making threatening statements". His parents were irate, because typical punishment in North Carolina for first offense of "making threatening statements" is a $500 fine and probation. The judge and sheriffs office kept him jailed without bail as "being a dangerous threat", in full defiance of the Constitution of the United States and its constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and due process, because they wanted to "teach a lesson". They taught a lesson, alright -- thats one kid who will never trust government again. 4) Its interesting that federal law enforcement agencies view the identification of their officers as a threat. It reminds me of fascist police officers in Serbia who taped over their badges so that the demonstrators could not identify the people who were depriving them of their rights. It appears that even identifying and filing a public complaint against a federal law enforcement officer (i.e., publishing a copy of that complaint on your web site as well as via "official channels") could be construed as a "terrorist threat" under the federal statute that was quoted. I think that many Americans are rather sanguine about their freedoms. We have forgotten that only fifty years before, a government-sanctioned and government-enforced system of apartheid systematically and with full government force deprived civil rights from a full 1/5th of the population of the United States. We have forgotten that, only 30 years ago, citizens of the United States were being killed by the National Guard for the crime of being near a demonstration against a war they disagreed with. Freedom is not something that is built into our country. Freedom must be purchased with blood, the blood of four little girls killed by those who bombed a church in Birmingham Alabama, the blood of civil rights workers murdered in cold blood in Mississippi with the full knowledge of government officials of the State of Mississippi, the blood of anti-war demonstrators in Ohio. Today we have forever deprived a full 1/5th of the black male population of many cities of the right to vote, with full government sponsorship and enforcement, but for some reason nobody seems to see it because government has been careful to target "those" people, people whose skin color is "not like ours", those nasty smelly poor people, and other such "undesirables". Apparently Americans believe that civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution only apply if youre white and middle-class. I think that many Americans are also sanguine about their continued freedom. All I have to note is that in 1984, Yugoslavs rejoiced in the afterglow of the Sarajevo Olympics, a glowing testament to their democratic government and modern attitudes and sensibilities. Yugoslavia rejoiced in joining the community of modern European nations. Their booming economy even sold cars here in the United States (the infamous Yugo). A scant 10 years later, Yugoslavia was in the grip of a fascist dictatorship who used "ethnic cleansing" to tighten his grip on power, its economy was in ruins, and the nation had broken up into ethnic pieces warring upon each other. The lesson: a booming democracy can turn into a fascist dictatorship in almost no time at all. Whoops, I guess this message puts me on the governments "terrorist hit list". Note to feds -- the only guns I own are a couple of antique shotguns inherited from my father and my grandfather, the only dangerous chemicals I own are normal household cleaners, the only cyber-terrorism Ive ever advocated is the ghastly notion of calling public officials damned liars on the Web when they lie to us. I am a liberal in the classic sense, who believes that government has a purpose and is necessary for the furthering of the general good but that its powers must be limited and carefully controlled by the people in order to avoid turning into a fascist dictatorship that only pretends to be a democratic republic (thus my distaste when our government violates the Constitution of the United States with willful disdain). I am also a committed pacifist who believes that all killing is morally wrong, even when done in self defense or in war time (I do recognize that man is an animal who like all animals possesses a survival instinct and thus killing in self defense must be expected, but animal instinct is not a moral defense). Good luck painting me as a crazed Unibomber out to murder folks. -- Eric Lee Green There is No Conspiracy eric(a)badtux.org http://www.badtux.org

1 0

Re: Jim Bell "Disappeared" by Feds?
by eric＠badtux.org 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

On Tue, 21 Nov 2000 18:10:27 GMT, Eric Cordian <emc(a)artifact.psychedelic.net> wrote: >Bell has been jailed. Here we see the real use of Federal anti-stalking >laws - to protect government whores from the citizens they harrass. > >http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,40300,00.html Interesting. Couple of things: 1) Jim Bell dont come across as the brightest of bulbs. Of course, its difficult to tell whether this is true, or whether its just a smear job (inadvertant or otherwise -- Ive had my own problems with Wired reporters misquoting me in order to "add color" to their reporting). Still, publicizing a system for assassinating political figures, and expecting said political figures to abide by the 1st Amendment protections regarding free speech, is stupidity beyond stupidity. If the government wants to squash you, they can do so -- they can seize all your assets under RICO (including all assets that would be needed in order to hire a lawyer to get your property back), crooked cops can lie under oath and say they found drugs in your possession with little recourse, and innocent people are sent to jail every day because it allows some harried police lieutenant to close out a file and look like a hero to the general public for "solving a crime" -- according to one study by a university law school, up to 70 of the people convicted of crimes are actually innocent, and were convicted because they were (illegally) deprived of the opportunity to conduct a defense (due to rampant underfunding of public defenders offices, and the RICO statutes which allow the government to seize all funds that could be used to conduct a defense, most people who are arrested do not even get to see their lawyer before the start of the trial -- in blatant disregard of the Constitution of the United States). And nobody cares, because the police are careful to target "those" people -- people who are poor, who are ignorant, or whose actions can be easily spun to make them appear dangerous or insane. Jim Bell wants to take on the Feds? What a moron! 2) Jim Bell also comes across as rather paranoid. Of COURSE hes being observed (at least occasionally) by federal law enforcement agencies. He is an ex-con, for cryin out loud, whenever a law is broken, the law comes looking at ex-cons first cause theyre the most likely cause of a law being broken. Its not paranoid to notice this, but its certainly paranoid to take the actions he has taken about that observation. I guess being held on trumped-up charges for his first conviction (i.e., possession of household chemicals now illegal!) warped his head, but what did he expect when he published a paper describing a system for rewarding assassination of political figures? I mean, what, he thought the 1st Amendment was something other than toilet paper that law enforcement officers wipe their rears with every day? (Actually, they usually dont care about the 1st, its the 4th, with their unconstitutional seizures of property under the RICO statute, that they wipe their rears with every day, but still...). 3) He is being held without bail. This appears to be a new tactic used by law enforcement to punish people that they know they dont have enough evidence to convict. For example, in Wilmington, North Carolina, a student commented about the Columbine killings, "those kids were stupid, if they wanted to kill jocks they should have started at the gym, not at the library." He was jailed without bail on charges of "making threatening statements". His parents were irate, because typical punishment in North Carolina for first offense of "making threatening statements" is a $500 fine and probation. The judge and sheriffs office kept him jailed without bail as "being a dangerous threat", in full defiance of the Constitution of the United States and its constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and due process, because they wanted to "teach a lesson". They taught a lesson, alright -- thats one kid who will never trust government again. 4) Its interesting that federal law enforcement agencies view the identification of their officers as a threat. It reminds me of fascist police officers in Serbia who taped over their badges so that the demonstrators could not identify the people who were depriving them of their rights. It appears that even identifying and filing a public complaint against a federal law enforcement officer (i.e., publishing a copy of that complaint on your web site as well as via "official channels") could be construed as a "terrorist threat" under the federal statute that was quoted. I think that many Americans are rather sanguine about their freedoms. We have forgotten that only fifty years before, a government-sanctioned and government-enforced system of apartheid systematically and with full government force deprived civil rights from a full 1/5th of the population of the United States. We have forgotten that, only 30 years ago, citizens of the United States were being killed by the National Guard for the crime of being near a demonstration against a war they disagreed with. Freedom is not something that is built into our country. Freedom must be purchased with blood, the blood of four little girls killed by those who bombed a church in Birmingham Alabama, the blood of civil rights workers murdered in cold blood in Mississippi with the full knowledge of government officials of the State of Mississippi, the blood of anti-war demonstrators in Ohio. Today we have forever deprived a full 1/5th of the black male population of many cities of the right to vote, with full government sponsorship and enforcement, but for some reason nobody seems to see it because government has been careful to target "those" people, people whose skin color is "not like ours", those nasty smelly poor people, and other such "undesirables". Apparently Americans believe that civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution only apply if youre white and middle-class. I think that many Americans are also sanguine about their continued freedom. All I have to note is that in 1984, Yugoslavs rejoiced in the afterglow of the Sarajevo Olympics, a glowing testament to their democratic government and modern attitudes and sensibilities. Yugoslavia rejoiced in joining the community of modern European nations. Their booming economy even sold cars here in the United States (the infamous Yugo). A scant 10 years later, Yugoslavia was in the grip of a fascist dictatorship who used "ethnic cleansing" to tighten his grip on power, its economy was in ruins, and the nation had broken up into ethnic pieces warring upon each other. The lesson: a booming democracy can turn into a fascist dictatorship in almost no time at all. Whoops, I guess this message puts me on the governments "terrorist hit list". Note to feds -- the only guns I own are a couple of antique shotguns inherited from my father and my grandfather, the only dangerous chemicals I own are normal household cleaners, the only cyber-terrorism Ive ever advocated is the ghastly notion of calling public officials damned liars on the Web when they lie to us. I am a liberal in the classic sense, who believes that government has a purpose and is necessary for the furthering of the general good but that its powers must be limited and carefully controlled by the people in order to avoid turning into a fascist dictatorship that only pretends to be a democratic republic (thus my distaste when our government violates the Constitution of the United States with willful disdain). I am also a committed pacifist who believes that all killing is morally wrong, even when done in self defense or in war time (I do recognize that man is an animal who like all animals possesses a survival instinct and thus killing in self defense must be expected, but animal instinct is not a moral defense). Good luck painting me as a crazed Unibomber out to murder folks. -- Eric Lee Green There is No Conspiracy eric(a)badtux.org http://www.badtux.org

1 0

Re: Jim Bell "Disappeared" by Feds?
by eric＠badtux.org 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

On Tue, 21 Nov 2000 18:10:27 GMT, Eric Cordian <emc(a)artifact.psychedelic.net> wrote: >Bell has been jailed. Here we see the real use of Federal anti-stalking >laws - to protect government whores from the citizens they harrass. > >http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,40300,00.html Interesting. Couple of things: 1) Jim Bell dont come across as the brightest of bulbs. Of course, its difficult to tell whether this is true, or whether its just a smear job (inadvertant or otherwise -- Ive had my own problems with Wired reporters misquoting me in order to "add color" to their reporting). Still, publicizing a system for assassinating political figures, and expecting said political figures to abide by the 1st Amendment protections regarding free speech, is stupidity beyond stupidity. If the government wants to squash you, they can do so -- they can seize all your assets under RICO (including all assets that would be needed in order to hire a lawyer to get your property back), crooked cops can lie under oath and say they found drugs in your possession with little recourse, and innocent people are sent to jail every day because it allows some harried police lieutenant to close out a file and look like a hero to the general public for "solving a crime" -- according to one study by a university law school, up to 70 of the people convicted of crimes are actually innocent, and were convicted because they were (illegally) deprived of the opportunity to conduct a defense (due to rampant underfunding of public defenders offices, and the RICO statutes which allow the government to seize all funds that could be used to conduct a defense, most people who are arrested do not even get to see their lawyer before the start of the trial -- in blatant disregard of the Constitution of the United States). And nobody cares, because the police are careful to target "those" people -- people who are poor, who are ignorant, or whose actions can be easily spun to make them appear dangerous or insane. Jim Bell wants to take on the Feds? What a moron! 2) Jim Bell also comes across as rather paranoid. Of COURSE hes being observed (at least occasionally) by federal law enforcement agencies. He is an ex-con, for cryin out loud, whenever a law is broken, the law comes looking at ex-cons first cause theyre the most likely cause of a law being broken. Its not paranoid to notice this, but its certainly paranoid to take the actions he has taken about that observation. I guess being held on trumped-up charges for his first conviction (i.e., possession of household chemicals now illegal!) warped his head, but what did he expect when he published a paper describing a system for rewarding assassination of political figures? I mean, what, he thought the 1st Amendment was something other than toilet paper that law enforcement officers wipe their rears with every day? (Actually, they usually dont care about the 1st, its the 4th, with their unconstitutional seizures of property under the RICO statute, that they wipe their rears with every day, but still...). 3) He is being held without bail. This appears to be a new tactic used by law enforcement to punish people that they know they dont have enough evidence to convict. For example, in Wilmington, North Carolina, a student commented about the Columbine killings, "those kids were stupid, if they wanted to kill jocks they should have started at the gym, not at the library." He was jailed without bail on charges of "making threatening statements". His parents were irate, because typical punishment in North Carolina for first offense of "making threatening statements" is a $500 fine and probation. The judge and sheriffs office kept him jailed without bail as "being a dangerous threat", in full defiance of the Constitution of the United States and its constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and due process, because they wanted to "teach a lesson". They taught a lesson, alright -- thats one kid who will never trust government again. 4) Its interesting that federal law enforcement agencies view the identification of their officers as a threat. It reminds me of fascist police officers in Serbia who taped over their badges so that the demonstrators could not identify the people who were depriving them of their rights. It appears that even identifying and filing a public complaint against a federal law enforcement officer (i.e., publishing a copy of that complaint on your web site as well as via "official channels") could be construed as a "terrorist threat" under the federal statute that was quoted. I think that many Americans are rather sanguine about their freedoms. We have forgotten that only fifty years before, a government-sanctioned and government-enforced system of apartheid systematically and with full government force deprived civil rights from a full 1/5th of the population of the United States. We have forgotten that, only 30 years ago, citizens of the United States were being killed by the National Guard for the crime of being near a demonstration against a war they disagreed with. Freedom is not something that is built into our country. Freedom must be purchased with blood, the blood of four little girls killed by those who bombed a church in Birmingham Alabama, the blood of civil rights workers murdered in cold blood in Mississippi with the full knowledge of government officials of the State of Mississippi, the blood of anti-war demonstrators in Ohio. Today we have forever deprived a full 1/5th of the black male population of many cities of the right to vote, with full government sponsorship and enforcement, but for some reason nobody seems to see it because government has been careful to target "those" people, people whose skin color is "not like ours", those nasty smelly poor people, and other such "undesirables". Apparently Americans believe that civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution only apply if youre white and middle-class. I think that many Americans are also sanguine about their continued freedom. All I have to note is that in 1984, Yugoslavs rejoiced in the afterglow of the Sarajevo Olympics, a glowing testament to their democratic government and modern attitudes and sensibilities. Yugoslavia rejoiced in joining the community of modern European nations. Their booming economy even sold cars here in the United States (the infamous Yugo). A scant 10 years later, Yugoslavia was in the grip of a fascist dictatorship who used "ethnic cleansing" to tighten his grip on power, its economy was in ruins, and the nation had broken up into ethnic pieces warring upon each other. The lesson: a booming democracy can turn into a fascist dictatorship in almost no time at all. Whoops, I guess this message puts me on the governments "terrorist hit list". Note to feds -- the only guns I own are a couple of antique shotguns inherited from my father and my grandfather, the only dangerous chemicals I own are normal household cleaners, the only cyber-terrorism Ive ever advocated is the ghastly notion of calling public officials damned liars on the Web when they lie to us. I am a liberal in the classic sense, who believes that government has a purpose and is necessary for the furthering of the general good but that its powers must be limited and carefully controlled by the people in order to avoid turning into a fascist dictatorship that only pretends to be a democratic republic (thus my distaste when our government violates the Constitution of the United States with willful disdain). I am also a committed pacifist who believes that all killing is morally wrong, even when done in self defense or in war time (I do recognize that man is an animal who like all animals possesses a survival instinct and thus killing in self defense must be expected, but animal instinct is not a moral defense). Good luck painting me as a crazed Unibomber out to murder folks. -- Eric Lee Green There is No Conspiracy eric(a)badtux.org http://www.badtux.org

1 0

Re: Jim Bell "Disappeared" by Feds?
by eric＠badtux.org 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

On Tue, 21 Nov 2000 18:10:27 GMT, Eric Cordian <emc(a)artifact.psychedelic.net> wrote: >Bell has been jailed. Here we see the real use of Federal anti-stalking >laws - to protect government whores from the citizens they harrass. > >http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,40300,00.html Interesting. Couple of things: 1) Jim Bell dont come across as the brightest of bulbs. Of course, its difficult to tell whether this is true, or whether its just a smear job (inadvertant or otherwise -- Ive had my own problems with Wired reporters misquoting me in order to "add color" to their reporting). Still, publicizing a system for assassinating political figures, and expecting said political figures to abide by the 1st Amendment protections regarding free speech, is stupidity beyond stupidity. If the government wants to squash you, they can do so -- they can seize all your assets under RICO (including all assets that would be needed in order to hire a lawyer to get your property back), crooked cops can lie under oath and say they found drugs in your possession with little recourse, and innocent people are sent to jail every day because it allows some harried police lieutenant to close out a file and look like a hero to the general public for "solving a crime" -- according to one study by a university law school, up to 70 of the people convicted of crimes are actually innocent, and were convicted because they were (illegally) deprived of the opportunity to conduct a defense (due to rampant underfunding of public defenders offices, and the RICO statutes which allow the government to seize all funds that could be used to conduct a defense, most people who are arrested do not even get to see their lawyer before the start of the trial -- in blatant disregard of the Constitution of the United States). And nobody cares, because the police are careful to target "those" people -- people who are poor, who are ignorant, or whose actions can be easily spun to make them appear dangerous or insane. Jim Bell wants to take on the Feds? What a moron! 2) Jim Bell also comes across as rather paranoid. Of COURSE hes being observed (at least occasionally) by federal law enforcement agencies. He is an ex-con, for cryin out loud, whenever a law is broken, the law comes looking at ex-cons first cause theyre the most likely cause of a law being broken. Its not paranoid to notice this, but its certainly paranoid to take the actions he has taken about that observation. I guess being held on trumped-up charges for his first conviction (i.e., possession of household chemicals now illegal!) warped his head, but what did he expect when he published a paper describing a system for rewarding assassination of political figures? I mean, what, he thought the 1st Amendment was something other than toilet paper that law enforcement officers wipe their rears with every day? (Actually, they usually dont care about the 1st, its the 4th, with their unconstitutional seizures of property under the RICO statute, that they wipe their rears with every day, but still...). 3) He is being held without bail. This appears to be a new tactic used by law enforcement to punish people that they know they dont have enough evidence to convict. For example, in Wilmington, North Carolina, a student commented about the Columbine killings, "those kids were stupid, if they wanted to kill jocks they should have started at the gym, not at the library." He was jailed without bail on charges of "making threatening statements". His parents were irate, because typical punishment in North Carolina for first offense of "making threatening statements" is a $500 fine and probation. The judge and sheriffs office kept him jailed without bail as "being a dangerous threat", in full defiance of the Constitution of the United States and its constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and due process, because they wanted to "teach a lesson". They taught a lesson, alright -- thats one kid who will never trust government again. 4) Its interesting that federal law enforcement agencies view the identification of their officers as a threat. It reminds me of fascist police officers in Serbia who taped over their badges so that the demonstrators could not identify the people who were depriving them of their rights. It appears that even identifying and filing a public complaint against a federal law enforcement officer (i.e., publishing a copy of that complaint on your web site as well as via "official channels") could be construed as a "terrorist threat" under the federal statute that was quoted. I think that many Americans are rather sanguine about their freedoms. We have forgotten that only fifty years before, a government-sanctioned and government-enforced system of apartheid systematically and with full government force deprived civil rights from a full 1/5th of the population of the United States. We have forgotten that, only 30 years ago, citizens of the United States were being killed by the National Guard for the crime of being near a demonstration against a war they disagreed with. Freedom is not something that is built into our country. Freedom must be purchased with blood, the blood of four little girls killed by those who bombed a church in Birmingham Alabama, the blood of civil rights workers murdered in cold blood in Mississippi with the full knowledge of government officials of the State of Mississippi, the blood of anti-war demonstrators in Ohio. Today we have forever deprived a full 1/5th of the black male population of many cities of the right to vote, with full government sponsorship and enforcement, but for some reason nobody seems to see it because government has been careful to target "those" people, people whose skin color is "not like ours", those nasty smelly poor people, and other such "undesirables". Apparently Americans believe that civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution only apply if youre white and middle-class. I think that many Americans are also sanguine about their continued freedom. All I have to note is that in 1984, Yugoslavs rejoiced in the afterglow of the Sarajevo Olympics, a glowing testament to their democratic government and modern attitudes and sensibilities. Yugoslavia rejoiced in joining the community of modern European nations. Their booming economy even sold cars here in the United States (the infamous Yugo). A scant 10 years later, Yugoslavia was in the grip of a fascist dictatorship who used "ethnic cleansing" to tighten his grip on power, its economy was in ruins, and the nation had broken up into ethnic pieces warring upon each other. The lesson: a booming democracy can turn into a fascist dictatorship in almost no time at all. Whoops, I guess this message puts me on the governments "terrorist hit list". Note to feds -- the only guns I own are a couple of antique shotguns inherited from my father and my grandfather, the only dangerous chemicals I own are normal household cleaners, the only cyber-terrorism Ive ever advocated is the ghastly notion of calling public officials damned liars on the Web when they lie to us. I am a liberal in the classic sense, who believes that government has a purpose and is necessary for the furthering of the general good but that its powers must be limited and carefully controlled by the people in order to avoid turning into a fascist dictatorship that only pretends to be a democratic republic (thus my distaste when our government violates the Constitution of the United States with willful disdain). I am also a committed pacifist who believes that all killing is morally wrong, even when done in self defense or in war time (I do recognize that man is an animal who like all animals possesses a survival instinct and thus killing in self defense must be expected, but animal instinct is not a moral defense). Good luck painting me as a crazed Unibomber out to murder folks. -- Eric Lee Green There is No Conspiracy eric(a)badtux.org http://www.badtux.org

1 0

Re: Jim Bell "Disappeared" by Feds?
by eric＠badtux.org 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

On Tue, 21 Nov 2000 18:10:27 GMT, Eric Cordian <emc(a)artifact.psychedelic.net> wrote: >Bell has been jailed. Here we see the real use of Federal anti-stalking >laws - to protect government whores from the citizens they harrass. > >http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,40300,00.html Interesting. Couple of things: 1) Jim Bell dont come across as the brightest of bulbs. Of course, its difficult to tell whether this is true, or whether its just a smear job (inadvertant or otherwise -- Ive had my own problems with Wired reporters misquoting me in order to "add color" to their reporting). Still, publicizing a system for assassinating political figures, and expecting said political figures to abide by the 1st Amendment protections regarding free speech, is stupidity beyond stupidity. If the government wants to squash you, they can do so -- they can seize all your assets under RICO (including all assets that would be needed in order to hire a lawyer to get your property back), crooked cops can lie under oath and say they found drugs in your possession with little recourse, and innocent people are sent to jail every day because it allows some harried police lieutenant to close out a file and look like a hero to the general public for "solving a crime" -- according to one study by a university law school, up to 70 of the people convicted of crimes are actually innocent, and were convicted because they were (illegally) deprived of the opportunity to conduct a defense (due to rampant underfunding of public defenders offices, and the RICO statutes which allow the government to seize all funds that could be used to conduct a defense, most people who are arrested do not even get to see their lawyer before the start of the trial -- in blatant disregard of the Constitution of the United States). And nobody cares, because the police are careful to target "those" people -- people who are poor, who are ignorant, or whose actions can be easily spun to make them appear dangerous or insane. Jim Bell wants to take on the Feds? What a moron! 2) Jim Bell also comes across as rather paranoid. Of COURSE hes being observed (at least occasionally) by federal law enforcement agencies. He is an ex-con, for cryin out loud, whenever a law is broken, the law comes looking at ex-cons first cause theyre the most likely cause of a law being broken. Its not paranoid to notice this, but its certainly paranoid to take the actions he has taken about that observation. I guess being held on trumped-up charges for his first conviction (i.e., possession of household chemicals now illegal!) warped his head, but what did he expect when he published a paper describing a system for rewarding assassination of political figures? I mean, what, he thought the 1st Amendment was something other than toilet paper that law enforcement officers wipe their rears with every day? (Actually, they usually dont care about the 1st, its the 4th, with their unconstitutional seizures of property under the RICO statute, that they wipe their rears with every day, but still...). 3) He is being held without bail. This appears to be a new tactic used by law enforcement to punish people that they know they dont have enough evidence to convict. For example, in Wilmington, North Carolina, a student commented about the Columbine killings, "those kids were stupid, if they wanted to kill jocks they should have started at the gym, not at the library." He was jailed without bail on charges of "making threatening statements". His parents were irate, because typical punishment in North Carolina for first offense of "making threatening statements" is a $500 fine and probation. The judge and sheriffs office kept him jailed without bail as "being a dangerous threat", in full defiance of the Constitution of the United States and its constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and due process, because they wanted to "teach a lesson". They taught a lesson, alright -- thats one kid who will never trust government again. 4) Its interesting that federal law enforcement agencies view the identification of their officers as a threat. It reminds me of fascist police officers in Serbia who taped over their badges so that the demonstrators could not identify the people who were depriving them of their rights. It appears that even identifying and filing a public complaint against a federal law enforcement officer (i.e., publishing a copy of that complaint on your web site as well as via "official channels") could be construed as a "terrorist threat" under the federal statute that was quoted. I think that many Americans are rather sanguine about their freedoms. We have forgotten that only fifty years before, a government-sanctioned and government-enforced system of apartheid systematically and with full government force deprived civil rights from a full 1/5th of the population of the United States. We have forgotten that, only 30 years ago, citizens of the United States were being killed by the National Guard for the crime of being near a demonstration against a war they disagreed with. Freedom is not something that is built into our country. Freedom must be purchased with blood, the blood of four little girls killed by those who bombed a church in Birmingham Alabama, the blood of civil rights workers murdered in cold blood in Mississippi with the full knowledge of government officials of the State of Mississippi, the blood of anti-war demonstrators in Ohio. Today we have forever deprived a full 1/5th of the black male population of many cities of the right to vote, with full government sponsorship and enforcement, but for some reason nobody seems to see it because government has been careful to target "those" people, people whose skin color is "not like ours", those nasty smelly poor people, and other such "undesirables". Apparently Americans believe that civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution only apply if youre white and middle-class. I think that many Americans are also sanguine about their continued freedom. All I have to note is that in 1984, Yugoslavs rejoiced in the afterglow of the Sarajevo Olympics, a glowing testament to their democratic government and modern attitudes and sensibilities. Yugoslavia rejoiced in joining the community of modern European nations. Their booming economy even sold cars here in the United States (the infamous Yugo). A scant 10 years later, Yugoslavia was in the grip of a fascist dictatorship who used "ethnic cleansing" to tighten his grip on power, its economy was in ruins, and the nation had broken up into ethnic pieces warring upon each other. The lesson: a booming democracy can turn into a fascist dictatorship in almost no time at all. Whoops, I guess this message puts me on the governments "terrorist hit list". Note to feds -- the only guns I own are a couple of antique shotguns inherited from my father and my grandfather, the only dangerous chemicals I own are normal household cleaners, the only cyber-terrorism Ive ever advocated is the ghastly notion of calling public officials damned liars on the Web when they lie to us. I am a liberal in the classic sense, who believes that government has a purpose and is necessary for the furthering of the general good but that its powers must be limited and carefully controlled by the people in order to avoid turning into a fascist dictatorship that only pretends to be a democratic republic (thus my distaste when our government violates the Constitution of the United States with willful disdain). I am also a committed pacifist who believes that all killing is morally wrong, even when done in self defense or in war time (I do recognize that man is an animal who like all animals possesses a survival instinct and thus killing in self defense must be expected, but animal instinct is not a moral defense). Good luck painting me as a crazed Unibomber out to murder folks. -- Eric Lee Green There is No Conspiracy eric(a)badtux.org http://www.badtux.org

1 0