July 2018 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Book Review: Peter Wayner's "Translucent Databases"
by Peter Wayner 05 Jul '18

05 Jul '18

<x-flowed>> I think Bob made some great points about my book, but it's clear that this debate is revolving around a few sentences in Bob's review. Perhaps he miscategorizes Brin, perhaps he doesn't. I haven't read _Transparent Society_ in some time. Still, it's important to realize that this isn't just a battle between the state and its citizens. Encryption can provide a practical tool and a great option for the data management engineers. Brin has a good point about the value of openness, but I'm sure he doesn't extend it to things like people's credit card numbers. Brin would probably be interested in the book and the way it leaves some things in the clear. It's all about translucency, which is, after all, partially transparent. The glass is half empty or full. So maybe there's something in common here? The right use of encryption (and any anonymity that comes along with it) can protect businesses, customers, clients, employees and others. I'm sure it might also be used to by a few elites to avoid scrutiny, but that doesn't have to be the case. For me, the mathematics of on-line anonymity are essential parts of on-line security. While I think that there are plenty of personal and emotional reasons to embrace anonymity, one of the best is the higher amount of security the systems offer. Simply put, identity-based systems are more fragile because identity theft is so easy. Systems designed for anonymity avoid that weakness because they're designed, a priori, to work without names. So I think they're just bound to be a bit safer. It should be noted that the anonymous techniques developed by Chaum, Brands and others do not have to be used to avoid scrutiny. You can always tack on your true name in an additional field. To me, the systems just avoid relying on the the name field to keep people honest. I'm glad Bob sees the resonance between _Translucent Databases_ and the world of cypherpunk paranoia, but I would like to avoid a strong connection. It's not that there's no relationship. There is. But the book is meant to be much more practical. It explores how to use the right amount of encryption to lock up the personal stuff in a database without scrambling all of it. In the right situations, the results can be fast, efficient, and very secure. So the techniques are good for the paranoids as well as the apolitical DBAs who just want to do a good job. > > >>It is particularly dishonest of a so-called reviewer not only to >>misinterpret and misconvey another person's position, but to abuse >>quotation marks in the way Robert Hettinga has done in his review of >>Translucent Databases By Peter Wayner. Openly and publicly, I defy >>Hettinga to find any place where I used the word "trust" in the fashion or >>meaning he attributes to me. >> >>In fact, my argument is diametrically opposite to the one that he portrays >>as mine. For him to say that 'Brin seems to want, "trust" of state >>force-monopolists... their lawyers and apparatchiks." demonstrates either >>profound laziness - having never read a word I wrote - or else deliberate >>calumny. In either event, I now openly hold him accountable by calling it >>a damnable lie. This is not a person to be trusted or listened-to by >>people who value credibility. >> >>Without intending-to, he laid bare one of the 'false dichotomies" that >>trap even bright people into either-or - or zero-sum - kinds of >>thinking. For example, across the political spectrum, a "Strong Privacy" >>movement claims that liberty and personal privacy are best defended by >>anonymity and encryption, or else by ornate laws restricting what people >>may know. This approach may seem appealing, but there are no historical >>examples of it ever having worked. >> >>INdeed, those mired in these two approaches seem unable to see outside the >>dichotomy. Hettinga thinks that, because I am skeptical of the right >>wing's passion for cowboy anonymity, that I am therefore automatically an > >advocate of the left wing's prescription of "privacy through state >>coercive information management'. Baloney. A plague on both houses of >>people who seem obsessed with policing what other people are allowed to know. >> >>Strong Privacy advocates bears a severe burden of proof when they claim > >that a world of secrets will protect freedom... even privacy... better > >than what has worked for us so far - general openness. > > > >Indeed, it's a burden of proof that can sometimes be met! Certainly there >>are circumstances when/where secrecy is the only recourse... in concealing >>the location of shelters for battered wives, for instance, or in fiercely >>defending psychiatric records. These examples stand at one end of a >>sliding scale whose principal measure is the amount of harm that a piece >>of information might plausibly do, if released in an unfair manner. At >>the other end of the scale, new technologies seem to make it likely that >>we'll just have to get used to changes in our definition of privacy. What >>salad dressing you use may be as widely known as what color sweater you >>wear on the street... and just as harmlessly boring. >> >>The important thing to remember is that anyone who claims a right to keep >>something secret is also claiming a right to deny knowledge to >>others. There is an inherent conflict! Some kind of criterion must be >>used to adjudicate this tradeoff and most sensible people seem to agree >>that this criterion should be real or plausible harm... not simply whether >>or not somebody likes to keep personal data secret. >> >> >>The modern debate over information, and who controls it, must begin with a >>paradox. >> >>(1) Each of us understands that knowledge can be power. We want to know as >>much as possible about people or groups we see as threatening... and we >>want our opponents to know little about us. Each of us would prescribe >>armor for "the good guys" and nakedness for our worst foes. >> >>(2) Criticism is the best antidote to error. Yet most people, especially >>the mighty, try to avoid it. Leaders of past civilizations evaded >>criticism by crushing free speech and public access to information. This >>sometimes helped them stay in power... but it also generally resulted in >>horrific blunders in statecraft. >> >>3) Ours may be the first civilization to systematically avoid this cycle, >>whose roots lie in human nature. We have learned that few people are >>mature enough to hold themselves accountable. But in an open society where >>criticism flows, adversaries eagerly pounce on each others' errors. We do >>each other the favor of reciprocal criticism (though it seldom personally >>feels like a favor!) >> >> >>Four great social innovations foster our unprecedented wealth and freedom: >>science, justice, democracy & free markets. Each of these "accountability >>arenas" functions best when all players get fair access to information. >>But cheating is always a problem because of (1) and (2) above. It's a >>paradox, all right. >> >>While new surveillance and data technologies pose vexing challenges, we >>may be wise to pause and recall what worked for us so far. Reciprocal >>accountability - a widely shared power to shine light, even on the mighty >>- is the unsung marvel of our age, empowering even eccentrics and >>minorities to enforce their own freedom. Shall we scrap civilization's >>best tool - light - in favor of a fad of secrecy? >> >>Across the political spectrum, a "Strong Privacy" movement claims that >>liberty and personal privacy are best defended by anonymity and >>encryption, or else by ornate laws restricting what people may know. This >>approach may seem appealing, but there are no historical examples of it >>ever having worked. >> >> >>Here are a few themes discussed in The Transparent Society: >> >>* Cameras and surveillance devices swarm our technological world, >>multiplying and getting harder to spot each day. A "Moore's Law of >>Cameras" shows them halving in size, doubling in acuity and movement >>capability and sheer numbers, every year or so. Passing laws won't stop >>them. Robert Heinlein said: "Privacy laws only make the bugs smaller... > >and limit their use to some elite." >> >>But there may be another solution. >> >>* Knowledge is the ultimate drug, and forbidden knowledge is craved above >>all. Credit companies, banned from holding bankruptcy records beyond 7 >>years, now ship the taboo information to offshore 'data havens.' Shall we >>create an underground economy in contraband information, as we have done >>with drugs? Who will benefit? >> >>* One wing of the Strong Privacy crusade wants Euro-style privacy >>commissions with a myriad laws and clerks to police what may be known by >>doctors, corporations, and individuals. Dataflow controls may indeed be >>needed at times! But this solution should be a last resort, not the first >>place we turn. >> >>* Another wing of wing of Strong Privacy likes libertarian techno-fixes -- >>empowering individuals with encrypted cybernetic anonymity. But scientific >>and social flaws may render these panaceas no more effective than 'ghost >>shirts'. Even if they can be made to work, it may just empower a new >>elite - those who best know-how to use the new masks and armor. >> >>* Is government the chief enemy of freedom? That authority center does >>merit close scrutiny... which we've been applying lately with >>unprecedented ardor. Meanwhile other citizens worry about different power >>groups -- aristocracies, corporations, criminal gangs, and technological >>elites. Should 'suspicion of authority' apply in all directions? Can >>anyone justifiably claim exemption from accountability? >> >>* Privacy and personal safety are better safeguarded by catching peeping >>toms. Freedom thrives when we turn 'henchmen' into >>whistle-blowers. Elites will always have some advantages, but we're all >>better protected by knowing than by forbidding others to know. (It is far >>easier to verify that you know something, than to verify that someone else >>is ignorant.) >> >>* Why do our "accountability arenas" work so well? Science, justice, >>democracy & free markets are direct products of openness... most of the >>people knowing most of what's going on, most of the time. Even individual >>eccentricity seems to flourish best in light. Closed societies have >>always been more conformist than open ones! >> >> >>Many of these points may seem counter-intuitive... but so is our entire >>rambunctious, argumentative, tolerant, eccentric, in-your-face culture! >>The Transparent Society explores underlying issues, from the technological >>(cameras, databases and the science of encryption) to the startling (why >>all our films preach suspicion of authority), helping foster a new >>appreciation of our unique civilization. >> >>Defying the temptations of secrecy, we may see a culture like no other, >>filled with boisterous amateurs and individuals whose hunger for >>betterment will propel the next century. This will happen if we stick to a >>formula that already works... most of the people knowing most of what's >>going on, most of the time. >> >> >>==================================================================== >> >> >>"New tech is handing society tough decisions to make anew about old issues >>of privacy and accountability. In opting for omni-directional openness, >>David Brin takes an unorthodox position, arguing knowledgeably and with >>exceptionally balanced perspective." >> - Stewart Brand, Director, Global Business Network >> >>"As David Brin details the inevitability of ubiquitous surveillance, your >>instinct, as an individual facing this one-way mirror, is to hope that he >>is wrong about the facts. As you follow his argument for two-way social >>transparency, you realize your only hope is that he is right." >> - George B. Dyson, author, Darwin Among the Machines >> >>"Where, in the information age, do we draw the line between privacy and >>openness? David Brin's answer is illuminated by his insistence that >>criticism is as vital to eliminating our errors as the T-cells of our >>immune system are to maintaining our health. . . . Brin's informed and >>lucid advocacy of fresh air is very welcome." >> - Arthur Kantrowitz, Professor of Engineering, Dartmouth College >> >>"David Brin is one of the few people thinking and writing about the social > >problems we are going to face in the near future as the result of new >>electronic media. The Transparent Society raises the questions we need to >>ask now, before the universal surveillance infrastructure is in place. Be >>prepared to have your assumptions challenged." >> - Howard Rheingold, author, The Virtual Community >> >>"The Transparent Society reframes the debate on what our world can >>become-and the choices aren't what they may seem." >> - K. Eric Drexler, author, Engines of Creation >> >>"David Brin's nonfiction marvel, The Transparent Society, is what Lewis >>Mumford or Thorstein Veblen might write, could they contemplate our >>increasingly webbed world and its prospects for social change. It's what >>Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Jefferson would be writing these days about >>technology and democracy. Brin's book is full of imaginative, far-sighted >>concern for how fluid information is going to transform our civil society. >>Knowledge only occasionally leads to wisdom, but here we see some, and the >>book is so wonderfully entertaining that it's bound to be widely read." >> - William H. Calvin, neurophysiologist and author of How Brains >> Think. >> >> >> For more >> information, see: <http://www.davidbrin.com/>http://www.davidbrin.com/ >> > > >-- >((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com)) > God is silent. Now if we can only get Man to shut up. ></x-flowed> > >--- end forwarded text > > >-- >----------------- >R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> >The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> >44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA >"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, >[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to >experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' >-- >----------------- >R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> >The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> >44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA >"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, >[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to >experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' </x-flowed> --- end forwarded text -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

VeriChip chairman promotes RFID "chipping" of immigrants
by Lauren Weinstein 05 Jul '18

05 Jul '18

Dave, Many of us who are concerned about the potential abuse of RFID systems have long suspected that some "low status" class of individuals would be the first to find itself subjected to RFID chip implants under government edict, after which the range of included persons would gradually expand to cover more and more of the general population. These chips in their present form cannot be controlled by the implanted individual, and so are subject to interrogation at any time with or without the knowledge of the "chipee." I've speculated in the past that persons convicted of sex crimes might be among the likely initial targets by the proponents of this technology, possibly as a requirement for parole. However, it appears that VeriChip (the main player in the human RFID implant space) may have their sights on a significantly larger demographic. VeriChip's chairman was on Fox News last Tuesday promoting the concept of "chipping" immigrants, "guest workers," and the like. Here's the transcript: http://www.spychips.com/press-releases/silverman-foxnews.html Hold out your arm -- this won't hurt a bit, eh? --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, IOIC - International Open Internet Coalition - http://www.ioic.net Moderator, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com DayThink: http://daythink.vortex.com ------------------------------------- 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

[IP] VeriChip chairman promotes RFID "chipping" of immigrants
by David Farber 05 Jul '18

05 Jul '18

Begin forwarded message:

1 0

Re: [drone-list] NYT: How much UAV surveillance are you comfortable with?
by Harley_Geiger 05 Jul '18

05 Jul '18

There is no real Constitutional question with regard to prohibiting individual or corporate surveillance carried out via drones. On the contrary, private individuals/companies using drones to video or photograph people and objects in public places could argue they have a First Amendment right to do so. There are some laws (i.e., state voyeurism laws) that prohibit taking footage of individuals in places in which they may expect privacy, but generally not in public places. I'm not as clear on this, but I believe private entities can use drones to take footage of private property as well, though, again, with some restrictions (i.e., CA Civ. Code 1708.8). The Fourth Amendment applies to government surveillance via drones, but in a limited (I would say anachronistic) fashion under Supreme Court interpretations. In Florida v. Riley, police did not need a warrant to conduct aerial surveillance of private property from a helicopter; essentially the Court ruled that private citizens do not own or have privacy rights to airspace roughly 400ft above the property. In Kyllo v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled police did need a warrant to use a thermal imaging camera to peer inside an individual's home. Taken together, these cases suggest the government generally does not need a warrant to use a drone to conduct aerial surveillance over a broad area that includes both public and private property, so long as the drone is not equipped with sensors that can penetrate the walls of homes and other legally recognized private areas (sheds, possibly car interiors, etc.). Why are people uncomfortable with drone surveillance? Because drones can quietly watch an entire town for many hours without refueling, enabling a pervasive, secret surveillance that helicopters or traffic cameras cannot match. Low-end models are cheap enough that anyone b a global corporation, your homeowner's association, your creepy neighbor b can purchase a drone (a parrot drone is $300 on Amazon). Importantly, you cannot really avoid a drone, at least not if you're outside. I think people realize there are very few limits on what information can be collected and shared via drones b so what if every time stepped out of the house you were on YouTube? Privacy law is not ready for drones. If you're interested, I've written two blog posts on drones and privacy. This is the first one: https://www.cdt.org/blogs/harley-geiger/2112drones-are-coming This is the latest one: https://www.cdt.org/blogs/harley-geiger/092congress-demands-drones-over-ame… - Harley Geiger Policy Counsel Center for Democracy & Technology 202-407-8825 harley(a)cdt.org On Feb 19, 2012, at 6:54 PM, M Edward Borasky wrote: > On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Martyn Williams <martyn(a)stanford.edu> wrote: >> I'm interested in this privacy question and would like to look a bit >> more closely at it. >> >> Law enforcement, public safety, news organizations, and private >> companies are already flying over our backyards and taking pictures. >> >> Depending on where you live, Google has even put this online (zoom in on >> Google Maps and at max zoom it changes from satellite imagery to photos >> captured by aircraft). >> >> I'm not suggesting everyone is happy with that, but it doesn't seem to >> provoke the same reaction as the issue of drones. > > I for one am not happy that Google is allowed to perform aerial > surveillance on citizens of any democracy. It seems to me there's a > Constitutional question in the USA. The government in theory can't do > that without a court order. and journalists can in theory be shielded > by the First Amendment if they keep their act together. But a > for-profit corporation apparently has to be in violation of some other > law to incur even a Congressional inquiry, and a private citizen must > have a *lot* of money to mount a successful civil action against a > business as huge as Google. > > Some places - Germany, IIRC - have attempted to rein in Google's > "Street View" surveillance, but I don't think anyone has even broached > the subject in the USA. We should. >> >> So, what exactly makes us uncomfortable about drones? >> >> Is it that they're anonymous and remote-controlled? That they can stay >> up for hours? Perhaps it's the link with what we've seen the military >> doing? Or perhaps it's that they are capturing video and not >> photographic images. >> >> I don't have any great insight into this, but I think we need to figure >> out the objections before we can talk about legislation and regulation. > > All of the above. The Constitution protects us from our government in > theory, but apparently not from corporations large enough to implement > surveillance for profit. >> >> Personally, I have less problem with a drone being used to follow and >> catch a criminal after a crime takes place (much like a helicopter is >> used today) than one patrolling my neighborhood for hours on end >> monitoring what's happening. >> >> Similarly, I don't want my neighbor hovering a drone above my garden, >> but if they can get pretty much the same view from hovering near the >> boundary line then an airspace restriction might be ineffective. >> >> Martyn >> >> >> On 02/18/2012 03:55 PM, M Edward Borasky wrote: >>> The question is not "How Much Am I Comfortable With?" It's "What >>> actions can I *legally* take to protect my privacy? I'm guessing I >>> can't block law enforcement drones or interfere with them in any way, >>> but private sector operation over my property is quite another matter. >>> >> >> -- >> Martyn Williams >> 2012 John S. Knight Journalism Fellow >> Stanford University >> @martyn_williams >> _______________________________________________ >> drone-list mailing list >> drone-list(a)lists.stanford.edu >> >> Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to: >> >> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/drone-list >> >> If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you click above) next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily digest?" >> >> You will need the user name and password you receive from the list moderator in monthly reminders. >> >> Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator. > > > > -- > Twitter: http://twitter.com/znmeb Data Journalism Developer Studio > 2012LX http://j.mp/DJDS2012LX > > "A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into theorems." -- Paul ErdEs > _______________________________________________ > drone-list mailing list > drone-list(a)lists.stanford.edu > > Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to: > > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/drone-list > > If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you click above) next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily digest?" > > You will need the user name and password you receive from the list moderator in monthly reminders. > > Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator. _______________________________________________ drone-list mailing list drone-list(a)lists.stanford.edu Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/drone-list If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you click above) next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily digest?" You will need the user name and password you receive from the list moderator in monthly reminders. Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator. ----- 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: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Book Review: Peter Wayner's "Translucent Databases"
by Peter Wayner 05 Jul '18

05 Jul '18

<x-flowed>> I think Bob made some great points about my book, but it's clear that this debate is revolving around a few sentences in Bob's review. Perhaps he miscategorizes Brin, perhaps he doesn't. I haven't read _Transparent Society_ in some time. Still, it's important to realize that this isn't just a battle between the state and its citizens. Encryption can provide a practical tool and a great option for the data management engineers. Brin has a good point about the value of openness, but I'm sure he doesn't extend it to things like people's credit card numbers. Brin would probably be interested in the book and the way it leaves some things in the clear. It's all about translucency, which is, after all, partially transparent. The glass is half empty or full. So maybe there's something in common here? The right use of encryption (and any anonymity that comes along with it) can protect businesses, customers, clients, employees and others. I'm sure it might also be used to by a few elites to avoid scrutiny, but that doesn't have to be the case. For me, the mathematics of on-line anonymity are essential parts of on-line security. While I think that there are plenty of personal and emotional reasons to embrace anonymity, one of the best is the higher amount of security the systems offer. Simply put, identity-based systems are more fragile because identity theft is so easy. Systems designed for anonymity avoid that weakness because they're designed, a priori, to work without names. So I think they're just bound to be a bit safer. It should be noted that the anonymous techniques developed by Chaum, Brands and others do not have to be used to avoid scrutiny. You can always tack on your true name in an additional field. To me, the systems just avoid relying on the the name field to keep people honest. I'm glad Bob sees the resonance between _Translucent Databases_ and the world of cypherpunk paranoia, but I would like to avoid a strong connection. It's not that there's no relationship. There is. But the book is meant to be much more practical. It explores how to use the right amount of encryption to lock up the personal stuff in a database without scrambling all of it. In the right situations, the results can be fast, efficient, and very secure. So the techniques are good for the paranoids as well as the apolitical DBAs who just want to do a good job. > > >>It is particularly dishonest of a so-called reviewer not only to >>misinterpret and misconvey another person's position, but to abuse >>quotation marks in the way Robert Hettinga has done in his review of >>Translucent Databases By Peter Wayner. Openly and publicly, I defy >>Hettinga to find any place where I used the word "trust" in the fashion or >>meaning he attributes to me. >> >>In fact, my argument is diametrically opposite to the one that he portrays >>as mine. For him to say that 'Brin seems to want, "trust" of state >>force-monopolists... their lawyers and apparatchiks." demonstrates either >>profound laziness - having never read a word I wrote - or else deliberate >>calumny. In either event, I now openly hold him accountable by calling it >>a damnable lie. This is not a person to be trusted or listened-to by >>people who value credibility. >> >>Without intending-to, he laid bare one of the 'false dichotomies" that >>trap even bright people into either-or - or zero-sum - kinds of >>thinking. For example, across the political spectrum, a "Strong Privacy" >>movement claims that liberty and personal privacy are best defended by >>anonymity and encryption, or else by ornate laws restricting what people >>may know. This approach may seem appealing, but there are no historical >>examples of it ever having worked. >> >>INdeed, those mired in these two approaches seem unable to see outside the >>dichotomy. Hettinga thinks that, because I am skeptical of the right >>wing's passion for cowboy anonymity, that I am therefore automatically an > >advocate of the left wing's prescription of "privacy through state >>coercive information management'. Baloney. A plague on both houses of >>people who seem obsessed with policing what other people are allowed to know. >> >>Strong Privacy advocates bears a severe burden of proof when they claim > >that a world of secrets will protect freedom... even privacy... better > >than what has worked for us so far - general openness. > > > >Indeed, it's a burden of proof that can sometimes be met! Certainly there >>are circumstances when/where secrecy is the only recourse... in concealing >>the location of shelters for battered wives, for instance, or in fiercely >>defending psychiatric records. These examples stand at one end of a >>sliding scale whose principal measure is the amount of harm that a piece >>of information might plausibly do, if released in an unfair manner. At >>the other end of the scale, new technologies seem to make it likely that >>we'll just have to get used to changes in our definition of privacy. What >>salad dressing you use may be as widely known as what color sweater you >>wear on the street... and just as harmlessly boring. >> >>The important thing to remember is that anyone who claims a right to keep >>something secret is also claiming a right to deny knowledge to >>others. There is an inherent conflict! Some kind of criterion must be >>used to adjudicate this tradeoff and most sensible people seem to agree >>that this criterion should be real or plausible harm... not simply whether >>or not somebody likes to keep personal data secret. >> >> >>The modern debate over information, and who controls it, must begin with a >>paradox. >> >>(1) Each of us understands that knowledge can be power. We want to know as >>much as possible about people or groups we see as threatening... and we >>want our opponents to know little about us. Each of us would prescribe >>armor for "the good guys" and nakedness for our worst foes. >> >>(2) Criticism is the best antidote to error. Yet most people, especially >>the mighty, try to avoid it. Leaders of past civilizations evaded >>criticism by crushing free speech and public access to information. This >>sometimes helped them stay in power... but it also generally resulted in >>horrific blunders in statecraft. >> >>3) Ours may be the first civilization to systematically avoid this cycle, >>whose roots lie in human nature. We have learned that few people are >>mature enough to hold themselves accountable. But in an open society where >>criticism flows, adversaries eagerly pounce on each others' errors. We do >>each other the favor of reciprocal criticism (though it seldom personally >>feels like a favor!) >> >> >>Four great social innovations foster our unprecedented wealth and freedom: >>science, justice, democracy & free markets. Each of these "accountability >>arenas" functions best when all players get fair access to information. >>But cheating is always a problem because of (1) and (2) above. It's a >>paradox, all right. >> >>While new surveillance and data technologies pose vexing challenges, we >>may be wise to pause and recall what worked for us so far. Reciprocal >>accountability - a widely shared power to shine light, even on the mighty >>- is the unsung marvel of our age, empowering even eccentrics and >>minorities to enforce their own freedom. Shall we scrap civilization's >>best tool - light - in favor of a fad of secrecy? >> >>Across the political spectrum, a "Strong Privacy" movement claims that >>liberty and personal privacy are best defended by anonymity and >>encryption, or else by ornate laws restricting what people may know. This >>approach may seem appealing, but there are no historical examples of it >>ever having worked. >> >> >>Here are a few themes discussed in The Transparent Society: >> >>* Cameras and surveillance devices swarm our technological world, >>multiplying and getting harder to spot each day. A "Moore's Law of >>Cameras" shows them halving in size, doubling in acuity and movement >>capability and sheer numbers, every year or so. Passing laws won't stop >>them. Robert Heinlein said: "Privacy laws only make the bugs smaller... > >and limit their use to some elite." >> >>But there may be another solution. >> >>* Knowledge is the ultimate drug, and forbidden knowledge is craved above >>all. Credit companies, banned from holding bankruptcy records beyond 7 >>years, now ship the taboo information to offshore 'data havens.' Shall we >>create an underground economy in contraband information, as we have done >>with drugs? Who will benefit? >> >>* One wing of the Strong Privacy crusade wants Euro-style privacy >>commissions with a myriad laws and clerks to police what may be known by >>doctors, corporations, and individuals. Dataflow controls may indeed be >>needed at times! But this solution should be a last resort, not the first >>place we turn. >> >>* Another wing of wing of Strong Privacy likes libertarian techno-fixes -- >>empowering individuals with encrypted cybernetic anonymity. But scientific >>and social flaws may render these panaceas no more effective than 'ghost >>shirts'. Even if they can be made to work, it may just empower a new >>elite - those who best know-how to use the new masks and armor. >> >>* Is government the chief enemy of freedom? That authority center does >>merit close scrutiny... which we've been applying lately with >>unprecedented ardor. Meanwhile other citizens worry about different power >>groups -- aristocracies, corporations, criminal gangs, and technological >>elites. Should 'suspicion of authority' apply in all directions? Can >>anyone justifiably claim exemption from accountability? >> >>* Privacy and personal safety are better safeguarded by catching peeping >>toms. Freedom thrives when we turn 'henchmen' into >>whistle-blowers. Elites will always have some advantages, but we're all >>better protected by knowing than by forbidding others to know. (It is far >>easier to verify that you know something, than to verify that someone else >>is ignorant.) >> >>* Why do our "accountability arenas" work so well? Science, justice, >>democracy & free markets are direct products of openness... most of the >>people knowing most of what's going on, most of the time. Even individual >>eccentricity seems to flourish best in light. Closed societies have >>always been more conformist than open ones! >> >> >>Many of these points may seem counter-intuitive... but so is our entire >>rambunctious, argumentative, tolerant, eccentric, in-your-face culture! >>The Transparent Society explores underlying issues, from the technological >>(cameras, databases and the science of encryption) to the startling (why >>all our films preach suspicion of authority), helping foster a new >>appreciation of our unique civilization. >> >>Defying the temptations of secrecy, we may see a culture like no other, >>filled with boisterous amateurs and individuals whose hunger for >>betterment will propel the next century. This will happen if we stick to a >>formula that already works... most of the people knowing most of what's >>going on, most of the time. >> >> >>==================================================================== >> >> >>"New tech is handing society tough decisions to make anew about old issues >>of privacy and accountability. In opting for omni-directional openness, >>David Brin takes an unorthodox position, arguing knowledgeably and with >>exceptionally balanced perspective." >> - Stewart Brand, Director, Global Business Network >> >>"As David Brin details the inevitability of ubiquitous surveillance, your >>instinct, as an individual facing this one-way mirror, is to hope that he >>is wrong about the facts. As you follow his argument for two-way social >>transparency, you realize your only hope is that he is right." >> - George B. Dyson, author, Darwin Among the Machines >> >>"Where, in the information age, do we draw the line between privacy and >>openness? David Brin's answer is illuminated by his insistence that >>criticism is as vital to eliminating our errors as the T-cells of our >>immune system are to maintaining our health. . . . Brin's informed and >>lucid advocacy of fresh air is very welcome." >> - Arthur Kantrowitz, Professor of Engineering, Dartmouth College >> >>"David Brin is one of the few people thinking and writing about the social > >problems we are going to face in the near future as the result of new >>electronic media. The Transparent Society raises the questions we need to >>ask now, before the universal surveillance infrastructure is in place. Be >>prepared to have your assumptions challenged." >> - Howard Rheingold, author, The Virtual Community >> >>"The Transparent Society reframes the debate on what our world can >>become-and the choices aren't what they may seem." >> - K. Eric Drexler, author, Engines of Creation >> >>"David Brin's nonfiction marvel, The Transparent Society, is what Lewis >>Mumford or Thorstein Veblen might write, could they contemplate our >>increasingly webbed world and its prospects for social change. It's what >>Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Jefferson would be writing these days about >>technology and democracy. Brin's book is full of imaginative, far-sighted >>concern for how fluid information is going to transform our civil society. >>Knowledge only occasionally leads to wisdom, but here we see some, and the >>book is so wonderfully entertaining that it's bound to be widely read." >> - William H. Calvin, neurophysiologist and author of How Brains >> Think. >> >> >> For more >> information, see: <http://www.davidbrin.com/>http://www.davidbrin.com/ >> > > >-- >((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com)) > God is silent. Now if we can only get Man to shut up. ></x-flowed> > >--- end forwarded text > > >-- >----------------- >R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> >The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> >44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA >"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, >[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to >experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' >-- >----------------- >R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> >The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> >44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA >"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, >[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to >experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' </x-flowed> --- end forwarded text -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

VeriChip chairman promotes RFID "chipping" of immigrants
by Lauren Weinstein 05 Jul '18

05 Jul '18

Dave, Many of us who are concerned about the potential abuse of RFID systems have long suspected that some "low status" class of individuals would be the first to find itself subjected to RFID chip implants under government edict, after which the range of included persons would gradually expand to cover more and more of the general population. These chips in their present form cannot be controlled by the implanted individual, and so are subject to interrogation at any time with or without the knowledge of the "chipee." I've speculated in the past that persons convicted of sex crimes might be among the likely initial targets by the proponents of this technology, possibly as a requirement for parole. However, it appears that VeriChip (the main player in the human RFID implant space) may have their sights on a significantly larger demographic. VeriChip's chairman was on Fox News last Tuesday promoting the concept of "chipping" immigrants, "guest workers," and the like. Here's the transcript: http://www.spychips.com/press-releases/silverman-foxnews.html Hold out your arm -- this won't hurt a bit, eh? --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, IOIC - International Open Internet Coalition - http://www.ioic.net Moderator, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com DayThink: http://daythink.vortex.com ------------------------------------- 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

[IP] VeriChip chairman promotes RFID "chipping" of immigrants
by David Farber 05 Jul '18

05 Jul '18

Begin forwarded message:

1 0

UK Companies free to snoop on staff
by Somebody 05 Jul '18

05 Jul '18

http://news.ft.com/ft/gx.cgi/ftc?pagename=View&c=Article&cid=FT39YW11WDC&liv e=true&tagid=YYY9BSINKTM&useoverridetemplate=IXLZHNNP94C Companies free to snoop on staff By Jean Eaglesham, Legal Correspondent Published: October 3 2000 20:28GMT | Last Updated: October 4 2000 00:41GMT British companies will be able to snoop on employees' e-mails and phone calls following a government decision to grant industry greater freedom to monitor staff. Under rules announced on Tuesday, from October 24 companies will be permitted "routine access" to any business e-mail and phone call to check whether they are business-related. Patricia Hewitt, the minister for e-commerce and small business, said that proposals to force companies to obtain agreement for most monitoring from both the senders and recipients of e-mails and phone calls had been abandoned. Trade unions criticised the move, saying it gave companies carte blanche to snoop on virtually any workplace communication. Union officials vowed to use the Human Rights Act to challenge the snooping rules. Lucy Anderson, employment rights officer at the Trades Union Congress, said: "Employers should not be allowed to routinely screen e-mail and phone calls, and certainly not without consent". Ms Hewitt denied the rules would allow businesses a free hand to snoop. She said: "There are limits they must not go over, such as intercepting personal calls for unjustified scurrilous interest." The rules would give "any business following them comfort they are not in breach of the Human Rights Act or the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act [a new law on surveillance for law enforcement purposes]". It was complex balancing the needs of business with the rights of individuals in this area, Ms Hewitt said. "Because it's a complex issue, we have taken time to consult with business and I am confident the regulations will meet everybody's needs". Industry groups, which had condemned the earlier proposals as "totally impractical" and impossible to comply with, welcomed the government climbdown. Nigel Hickson, head of e-business at the Confederation of British Industry, said: "The changes are a big step forward. It is disappointing that the government did not consult business earlier as we would have liked to avoid unnecessary conflict". Lawyers pointed out that employers would have to contend with a mass of overlapping regulation on monitoring staff. The Data Protection Commissioner, a government regulator, will publish this week a draft code of practice on workplace surveillance, covering everything from e-mail monitoring to the use of CCTV cameras and drugs testing. Employers, particularly in the public sector, must also conform to the Human Rights Act. "Employers will have to juggle a lot of different provisions," said Eduardo Ustaran, a partner at Paisner & Co, a law firm. "All these changes have to be managed calmly and without panic - there's a lot of panic around." The TUC said an early union-backed legal challenge to the new rules was likely, on the basis that they breached employees' new right to privacy under the Human Rights Act. Some lawyers have predicted that the act, which came into force on Monday, would force companies that routinely screen calls to allow employees access to unmonitored phones and e-mail for private purposes. --- end forwarded text -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

[gsc] criminals arrest free market moneteers
by info 05 Jul '18

05 Jul '18

Dear Friends, Below is the latest news on Liberty Dollar. Regards, Jim *_LIBERTY DOLLAR ALERT:_* June 2009 Vol. 11 No. 06-A Urgent News for All Liberty Dollar Supporters! *FBI Arrests Bernard, Kevin, Sarah & Rachelle The battle for a value based currency has began!* The last two days have been amazing! Just shortly after midnight on Tuesday, the phone started ringing and I let the answering machine take the call. But very soon there was another call? with an even more urgent message! Very quickly, a friend of Kevin Innes, explained to me that Kevin had been "detained" by the local sheriff and was being held for the FBI to arrest him! Holy Cow!! The #2 supporter for the Liberty Dollar and co-instructor at the Liberty Dollar University training sessions was in deep trouble with the Feds! I was sure to be next. But would they arrive in a few minutes or would it be a pre-dawn Nazi style assault? Finally, I got up at 4:00 AM. I was very concerned for Kevin and wondered when the FBI would hit me. Fortunately the morning was quickly filled with a flurry of calls from Kevin's friend, other interested parties, the usual business calls and making preparations for the inevitable knock on the door. But nobody came. Then just after noon, Niles, who's wife, Rachelle, manages the Liberty Dollar Fulfillment Office, called to tell me that Rachelle had been picked up by the FBI at the LD Office and was due to be arraigned in just a few hours! The FBI strikes again! Luckily, I was able to talk to Rachelle via her cell phone while the FBI was holding her. I was pleased that the FBI agents were the friendly professional types and afforded Rachelle and I quite a few minutes of private conversation. Under the circumstances, Rachelle's demeanor and resolve was right on target. And very quickly, I learned that a warrant had been issued for my arrest. And just a quickly, Rachelle was off to court to be arraigned. Much later in the afternoon, I learned to my surprise that three big FBI agents had arrested Sarah at work. She and Rachelle were arraigned together and quickly released to on their own recognizance (OR) before the sun set on a very eventful day for the Liberty Dollar. The quick, professional effort with Sarah and Rachelle were gratifying and encouraging. Unfortunately, I was to learn that Sarah lost her job because of this event. By last afternoon it was clear that the Liberty Dollar would be best served by my turning myself in to the to the US Marshals, otherwise know as 'self reporting.' After a few calls, I found myself talking to Agent Andy (aka Agent F) who was his usual friendly, chatty self. He even recognized my voice although we had only spoken twice and that was over 18 months ago. Sure enough he confirmed that a federal arrest warrant for my arrest had been issued. And after a bit of gamesmanship with Agent Andy, I agreed to report to the US Marshal's office in Fort Myers, Florida at 9:00 AM on Thursday morning as it was too late to be arraigned, plus an overnight in jail would have wrinkled by clothes :) The following morning, Thursday, June 3, 2009, I actually arrived at the Marshal's office at 8:30 due to light traffic. As the saying goes, "If you gotta do time, do federal time." Quite simply, the federal boys are better educated, better trained and have better manners. I was immediately escorted to a holding cell. After an hour or less, I met with the Pre-Trila Service rep and made it to court at 11:00 in chains and handcuffs. The female judge was businesslike and granted my request to attend my son's graduation in Physics from UCLA next week. After fingerprinting, signing a $50,000 Appearance Bond, one final meeting with the Pre-Indictment Service rep, I was free. In general, the arraignment was a pleasant affair. The US Marshals did their job with very little attitude, as they should. After all, I am self reporting, and it is for anything violent, I just want to prove that I have a right to issue my own currency and if any body chooses to use it then it is a "private contract." It is certainly not a crime. *And so it came to pass,* 2009 years after the birth of Christ, that four regular Americans have taken a stand to defend the People's right to protect themselves from a government currency that has a long and unforgiving history of stealing the people's purchasing power. This is a test of individual rights, as protected by the Tenth Amendment. It is the deciding moment that a private voluntary barter currency (PVBC) is legal in the great United States of America. This is a test that the Liberty Dollar must and will pass, for that I have no doubt. But it will not be easy or cheap. Please, if you support our efforts, support us with any kind of money you have, including pro bono services. Now that the Liberty Dollar faces a federal criminal trial, it is the *US Government v Liberty Dollar* ala Bernard, Kevin, Sarah & Rachelle. Please help us win. Please help yourself win. Please help American win. Very simply this is a Win or Lose battle. In addition to money for this legal fight we need articles that reference non-government currency, such as Air Miles as currency, legal research assistance, expert witnesses, legal assistance, etc. If you support the ideals of the Liberty Dollar, this is the time to get behind the Liberty Dollar. We critically need your help! Please send your digital info to Legal(a)LibertyDollar.org <mailto:Legal@LibertyDollar.org> and your donations of value including other kinds of "currencies" to: LIBERTY DOLLAR 225 N. Stockwell Road Evansville. Indiana. 47715 *The best news* is that the Liberty Dollar finally has the opportunity to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is legal. Over two years ago I sued the US government for a Declaratory Judgment to resolve the legality issue. And how did they respond, they raided the Liberty Dollar and confiscated over $4 million dollars in gold, silver and cash. The US government has done everything possible to kill the Liberty Dollar! And guess what? It has not worked. The mere fact that the Liberty Dollar is still in business is a testament to your demand for Real Money and the ideals that the Liberty Dollar represents. Thank you, thank you, thank you for your support! Trust me, the Liberty Dollar is not made up of any fat cats. We are all just regular Americans. And we all just want good money, a lot less government and no damn war! Click HERE <http://www.libertydollar.org/legal/pdf/ 06042009_doj_pr.pdf> for a stilted Press Release by the DOJ. Its three pages with a whopper by Owen Harris, Special FBI Agent in Charlotte who said, "When groups try to replace the US dollar with coins and bills that don't hold the same value..." WOW what a telling statement of pure spin. Click HERE <http://www.libertydollar.org/legal/pdf/05192009_indictment.pdf > for the 13 page Indictment. Click HERE <http://www.libertydollar.org/legal/pdf/06032009_warrant_sb.pdf > for Sarah's Arrest Warrant. *Guess what?! Liberty Dollar still in business and we need more business!* As there has been no Cease and Desist Order, Liberty Dollar remains *OPEN FOR BUSINESS*. Please visit our shopping cart for all the 2009 Liberty, Peace, Freedom, T-Dollars and more. Don't be bashful or stupid. Silver is going to the moon, just as sure as the US dollar is going to hell with your purchasing power. Now is the time to protect your purchasing with the "inflation proof" currency and help usher in a new monetary model that provides the only proven, peaceful, and profitable solution to the monetary cancer that has infected America. *OUTSTANDING ORDERS:* Please rest assured that we will fill all outstanding orders. Yes, after producing a sizable amount of pre-minted Silver Libertys and finally getting current with most orders, we changed mints and are now behind again. We apologize emphatically! Poor and/or slow delivery is not acceptable business. It hurts everyone. And just when we were about to get current again we were arrested. Please continue to support us with your patience too. We promise to get every order out ASAP. But as I hope you can understand, it is a struggle to run a business, any business, in such an environment and fight a major legal battle for our right to protect our purchasing power *The last few 2009 Arrest Dollars <http://www.silverlibertymarketing.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=… >*. Are you familiar with the Arrest Dollars? Starting in 2007 and continuing through this year the Arrest Dollar is one ounce Silver Liberty that is specially hand hallmarked with a micro "handcuffs" stamp and my federally registered mintmark. Issued only from the day of the raid to today. The last few 2009 Arrest Dollars are currently on the Shopping Cart <http://www.silverlibertymarketing.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=… >. After these are gone, they are gone to eBay for much more money. *The 2009 Tea Party Dollar <http://www.silverlibertymarketing.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=79>* (T- Dollar) is still available and we are still waiting confirmation on the shipment. We are still expecting to have the first batch order in the first 24 HOURS here for the July 4 events. The T-Dollar is still only a buck for an ounce of copper AND you can still get them for 10% discount to they $1 face value for a 100 or more. Hey, they are only a buck? you can't go wrong. Plus every copper issue has sold out. Get these while you can and help support our legal efforts tooJ *The 2009 Silver Libertys <http://www.silverlibertymarketing.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=77>!* The backbone of the Liberty Dollar model is the one ounce .999 fine silver Lib! Just in the last few days, silver has bounced back over $16, soon the 30 day moving average will be $16 and the Liberty Dollar will Move Up again to the $50 Silver Base. PLEASE don't be dumb and buy silver when it is high. Get it NOW!!! Sure it is not $5 per ounce any more, nor will it ever be again. $5 silver is just not possible with the government spending phony baloney fiat money like a drunken sailor. Please order silver now and protect your purchasing power and profit tomorrow! Stay tuned to the Liberty Dollar News as we vindicate and validate the legality of the Liberty Dollar. Please take an active role in this exciting and profitable time. Don't lose out. Get involved with the Liberty Dollar to make money, do good and have fun. I am having as much fun in my 60's and I did in The 60's and hope you are too. Thanks again for your support. Bernard von NotHaus Monetary Architect Editor(a)LibertyDollar.org <mailto:Editor@LibertyDollar.org> www.LibertyDollar.org <http://www.LibertyDollar.org> 888.LIB.DOLLAR 888.421.6181 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Click HERE <http://www.libertydollar.org/pommo/user/subscribe.php> to Subscribe to Future Mailings. To be removed from all future mailings follow the instructions HERE <http://www.libertydollar.org/pommo/user/update.php>.

1 0

FBI Adds to Wiretap Wish List
by brian-slashdotnews＠hyperreal.org 05 Jul '18

05 Jul '18

Link: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/12/2318251 Posted by: michael, on 2004-03-13 09:08:00 Topic: us, 146 comments from the can-we-hear-you-now? dept. [1]WorkEmail writes "A [2]far-reaching proposal from the FBI, made public Friday, would require all broadband Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire their networks to support easy [3]wiretapping by police. The FBI's request to the Federal Communications Commission aims to give police ready access to any form of Internet-based communications. If approved as drafted, the proposal could dramatically expand the scope of the agency's wiretap powers, raise costs for cable broadband companies and complicate Internet product development." References 1. http://www.tghclan.com/ 2. http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html 3. http://news.com.com/2100-7352-5137344.html?tag=nl ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]

1 0