- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

SF South Bay: So WhoWhere wants to meet with people interested in online privacy and security...
by Rich Graves 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The people who run www.whowhere.com (a knockoff on the excellent www.four11.com, with a database partly based on a script they wrote to extract addresses from okra.ucr.edu) want to discuss how they can serve the Internet community better while protecting privacy. I suggested "shut down your site and become cloistered monks," but they didn't find that consistent with their business plan. So they suggested we do lunch early next week. Either Monday or Tuesday would work, and we'd be meeting in downtown Palo Alto. Anybody else interested in coming? For a good demonstration of why WhoWhere? is not necessarily the greatest thing since spice racks, look up "Louis Freeh," "Fuck You," "Asshole," "System Privileged User," and "Stephen Hawking." I keep telling them that they'd better remove this last, but they don't consider it a priority. -rich http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~llurch/ P.S. Yes, I just resubscribed. I just love you too much to stay away. P.P.S. If anyone wants to carpool from the Palo Alto vicinity to Joe & Cindy's beach volleyball shindig this Sunday with an alleged FUCKING STATIST CAPITALIST SOCIALIST NAZI J*W ANARCHIST, send me a note.

3 2

Batman on the Internet??? CyberAngels info
by Terry.Liberty-Parker＠804.ima.infomail.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-=> Note: Forwarded (from: netmail) by Terry Liberty-Parker using timEd. Originally from Matthew Gaylor (1:382/87.0) to terry liberty-parker. Original dated: May 01 '96, 13:50 e-Id: <v0213050eadad22805e60(a)[198.4.94.223]> From: freematt(a)coil.com (Matthew Gaylor) From: angels(a)wavenet.com (CyberAngels Director : Colin Gabriel Hatcher) Subject: CYBERANGELS Thanks for your interest in our group. We apologize for any delay in answering your enquiry. Our service is not automated, and we have a huge quantity of enquiries to deal with. Briefing papers about our work are still in preparation. Keep in touch with us till then. If you have any personal problems on the Internet, or if you find an interesting and relevant website, then write and tell us. We will shortly be opening a new WWW site, and we will send a release when that is ready. Till then, take care, and keep your eyes open while you are cruising! Let us know if you find any material or activity that you think should be investigated! Let us know also if you find any interesting websites that share our mission! You are now on our rmailing list! Stand by for regular information and alerts for CyberAngels missions. Gabriel ************************************************************** THE INTERNET IS OUR NEIGHBORHOOD - LET'S LOOK AFTER IT! CYBERANGELS - WHO ARE WE? We are an all-volunteer Internet safety patrol and monitoring project started in June 1995 by senior members of the world famous crime prevention organization The International Alliance of Guardian Angels. CyberAngels membership currently numbers more than 1000 users worldwide in15 countries, who share a common mission - to be a Cyberspace Neighborhood Watch and to fight Internet crime. Our numbers are growing daily. We are working to make the Internet a safer and more enjoyable place to work and play, by being role models for self-regulation and responsibility. We are dedicated: TO FIGHT CRIME ON THE INTERNET in particular criminal activity where there are clear personal victims and/or at-risk users. TO PROTECT OUR CHILDREN FROM ONLINE CRIMINAL ABUSE by fighting against the trade in child pornography and by working to deter sexual predators online. TO GIVE SUPPORT, ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE TO INTERNET VICTIMS OF HATE MAIL, HARASSMENT AND SEXUAL ABUSE ONLINE by referring them to professional assistance and by helping to guide them through the compaints and reporting processes. TO PROMOTE, PRESERVE AND PROTECT NETIQUETTE that is, the rules of polite conduct that govern our use of the Internet. We believe in courtesy and respect for others. We support Internet Service Providers who have clearly defined Terms of Service for the User, and who are prepared to enforce it. TO HELP TO PRESERVE INTERNET FREEDOM OF SPEECH by showing Governments that the Internet Community is prepared to take both responsibililty and actions to preserve the personal safety of all its members, and particularly its children. HOW DO WE FIGHT CRIME ON THE INTERNET? Crime on the Internet is a tiny percentage of everything that is there. But it is real and it is claiming victims with increasing regularity. We believe that we the Net Community should take the responsibility for the problem - after all it is our fellow users who are the criminals - and also that we should assume the responsibility for crime prevention measures. CyberAngels don't just talk about it. WE ACT. EDUCATION / ADVICE / CYBERSTREETSMARTS The Internet to us is like a vast city: public and private areas, kids and adult areas, safe areas and crime areas. To travel it safely you need some CyberStreetsmarts. One of our main methods of crime prevention on the Net is by educating users about the possible problems they may encounter, and how to avoid them Education means educating parents realistically about the Internet so that they areaware of the dangers, but are not overreacting. It's important that parents and kids cooperate in this area. The Internet is such a wonderful learning environment that we wish to encourage kids to use it - but adults must take responsibility for making sure our kids do not wander into areas that are not appropriate. We act as an advisory service for any user with problems of personal safety and / or personal security on the Net. This advice ranges from how to deal with mailbombs, forged email, mailing list spams, virii, impersonation and other electronic sabotage and harassment methods, to information about how to deal with hate mail, sexual harassment, kids' safety online and unsolicited email. Many users do not know how to report abuse nor to whom they should report it. CyberAngels can usually help. SAFETY PATROLS CyberAngels volunteers run regular Safety Patrols on the Net. Safety Patrols on the Internet means cruising the electronic highways, keeping your eyes open for problems. The main areas we patrol are the Usenet (Newsgroups) and the live channels (IRC / Chat rooms etc). We read Newsgroups, especially the binaries groups on the Usenet, and if we find images of child pornography posted up there we refer those files to federal law enforcement authorities, eg US Customs Service. We also check out fraud schemes on the Usenet, and if necessary report them to the National Fraud Centre. We also keep track of Spam developments - who is mass mailing unsolicited mail and what they are offering. We travel the live channels of IRC / MUDS or the chat rooms in the big Providers, looking out for sexual predators searching for children, or pedophiles trading child pornography in the live talk areas. This is a major source of child pornography on the Net. If we find it we report it to Sysadmins and Federal authorities. We cruise the World Wide Web, checking sites to make sure child pornography is not being used to attract visitors, and checking that a site that says it is Kidsafe really is suitable for children. We visit and read websites and FTP sites of Racist and other Hate Organizations, keeping a check on their activities. There is a very close relationship between Racist material and Racist activities (eg Hate mail and harassment, violent threats and intimidation). We don't believe in the philosophy that "anything goes" on the Net. The Internet is a society and in societies where "anything goes" then crime and violence dominate, and the stronger consume the weaker. The Internet is a newly developing global nation - and we need Cyberspace law and law enforcement if users rights are to be protected. We believe in FREEDOM AND JUSTICE UNDER LAW. And although we recognize the problems of how National Laws can be applied to an International society, we believe that the first step is that Netizens CARE about Cybercrime and the victims of Cybercrime. YOU CAN HELP US! WE NEED VOLUNTEERS! The Internet Community is huge - a worldwide network of around 40 million people, 11 million Websites, 3500 Service Providers - and it's growing every day. The more volunteers we have, the more effective we can be. And by giving a little of your time to looking after the welfare of the Net, you can make a real difference! Anyone can be a CyberAngel. The only requirement is that you commit a minimum of 2 hours per week to the project. No previous experience or special skills are necessary, .although a computer and an Internet account would be useful! :) Being a CyberAngel involves no risk or danger. You are volunteering only to be eyes watching the Net, looking out for the welfare of others. CAN YOU HELP US? You may be able to help us in other ways - we are a Division of Guardian Angels and we are a 501 (C)(3) Non-profit organization. Our membership is voluntary and we are in desperate need of more resources. All of your donations are tax-deductible. You can help us by donating money, computers, Internet access accounts, design skills, or websites. Alternatively you may like to consider sponsoring our work on the Internet. Contact us for details. * Cyberangels support SAFESURF in their campaign for child safe areas on the Net * Cyberangels support WEBSAFE and their work with kids, teens and parents. * Cyberangels support the BLUE RIBBON Freedom of Speech campaign * Cyberangels support PICS, other rating systems and screening software *Cyberangels support CYBERSPACE LAW AND LAW ENFORCEMENT. CYBERSPACE NEEDS CYBERANGELS! ********************************************************* Colin Gabriel Hatcher - CyberAngels Director angels(a)wavenet.com "Freedom and justice, under law" ********************************************************* **************************************************************************** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt(a)coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-20 messages per week) Matthew Gaylor,1933 E. Dublin-Granville Rd.,#176, Columbus, OH 43229 **************************************************************************** ___ -- |Fidonet: Terry Liberty-Parker 1:382/804 |Internet: Terry.Liberty-Parker(a)804.ima.infomail.com | | Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly their own.

1 0

Re: Sen. Patrick Leahy's PGP key now avail.
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:06 AM 5/3/96, Bill Stewart wrote: >One of the most important parts of any security analysis is the >threat models. In this case, we're talking about sending email >_to_the_government_. > >There may be something you want to tell the Senator or his staff that >you want kept private from the public or from rest of the government, >and Tim's phrase "Unless the information is 'secret'" seems to cover that. >Maybe you want to say "My company lost $X to competitor Y"; that's private. >Maybe you want to say "The FBI is reading your email, y'know..." >Maybe you want to attach a $20 MarkTwain DigiCash campaign contribution. And besides my explicit mention of "unless secret," which I suspect is not the case in the context of "communicating with Sen. Leahy," I also explicity mentioned that it is unlikely Sen. Leahy is doing the reading of e-mail or the encrypting. The PGP key is really "Leahy's office key." I'd say it's 99.95% likely that the PGP key was generated by a staffer--the resident e-mail geek--and that only staffers know how to use PGP. (In fact, probably only the one staffer who generated the key and knows the passphrase....) This gives new meaning to "man in the channel." When you send an encrypted message to "Senator Leahy," be sure to tell "Mitch" it's urgent that the Senator see it! (Don't misunderstand me, anyone. I'm not expecting perfect security, and the fact that secretaries and staffers may likely be the actual "keepers of the keys" is hardly new or surprising. They've always served this role. And until this changes, with PGP getting easier to use or with a more conventional key arrangement, I expect few senators will be typing in PGP stuff. (By "more conventional" I mean a model where some token or object is used, as with the crypto ignition keys, which I can imagine _some_ Senators actually carry and use, depending on their connections to the intelligence and military establishment. Or biometric security, etc.) >But usually, telling the government something is fairly similar to >publishing it, in terms of expectation of privacy, even in a republic. >The tradeoff is between using PGP to make a point, and getting the staff >to read it. Typically, Congressional Staffs are Your Friends, at least >more directly than the Congresscritters themselves. Lobby _them_; >making their job easier is a good start. I agree. My main point was that staffers are already extremely pressed for time, often quickly sorting incoming constituent mail into "yes" or "no" piles for later counting on some issue. It's unlikely in the extreme that a PGP-encrypted mail message will be looked at, unless the staffer thinks it must be spook-related. When the staffer finds it's just a position advocacy letter, and that he spent time decrypting it, it'll likely have the opposite effect we want. And it _still_ won't be the "real" Senator Leahy doing the decrypting! So, what is accomplished except "feel good" thoughts? --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1

Re: [Complete NOISE] Re: aufweidersehn, * grave$
by Rich Graves 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- [ObCpherpunkRelevance: there's a good bit about bizness views of privacy and anonymity on the Internet on the home page of the class that gave birth to that Spawn of Satan WhoWhere?. See especially the Bulletins. The class lives at http://gsb-www.stanford.edu/class/M395/home.html] ROTFL!!!!! Many thanks to jamesd(a)echeque.com for forwarding me Skippy's original message. > Glad that lying anti-racist jerk is leaving. With all his/her's > nyms, rc graves is impossible to trust. Mike Beebe, Beowulf, > ezundel, nietzsche, ernstzundel and others to make transparent > trolls the ignorant anti-racist makes up. I've never even heard of Mike Beebe, but I'll look him up on DejaNews. Boewulf is the nym of a very real racist who is so over-the-top silly (and 1/4 Jewish) that some people don't believe he's for real. I once claimed to be "Beowulf" for laughs. "Nietzsche(a)gnn.com" was a real racist who spammed widely in early January with a message smearing MLK; he later posted a lot to news.groups about the rec.music.white-power troll, but seems to have closed his account once the free hours ran out. ezundel(a)alpha.c2.org is a friend of mine who reposts Ingrid's stuff to alt.fan.ernst-zundel. ernztzundl(a)aol.com was a really annoying AOL troll who has thankfully gone away. I've got enough email between him and me to prove that we're different people, and of course he knew a lot about DC that I couldn't. Wow. At first I didn't believe that Skippy "or" Dave Harmon were anything but anti-racist spoofs, and I'm still not entirely convinced, but they're so consistently malicious that they must have something against me. I swear that "Skippy" isn't me, but on second thought, I wouldn't really mind if other people thought I was harassing myself. That would be poetic justice indeed. Maybe if we don't believe he exists, he'll go away. So, Skippy, did you forge an unsubscribe message for tallpaul, or was that someone else? I'll take my answer OFF THE LIST, PLEASE. - -rich -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMYmgIY3DXUbM57SdAQGmwQP+MTp0UTFkSiMKYeIbmQGpAEaC/oMns0ly Md9IPXBraHAQsxAfWOKME4DUXMaDmL0nUPJ41lRjLH2UjaLYkjE7qEzTWAazLb9+ Ub/EwTNlqitSoOSdkxxQkgX/GXNffRr08pPUpYgcPIcrWelou6MnE2hgmf8aR2bz gM5eIm1A3Og= =rO9a -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Bit tax again?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I hesitate to write about this, but the old "bit tax" idea has surfaced again, this time reported in Electronic Engineering Times, page 1, April 29, 1996 issue. I include the article below. My comments will follow in another note shortly! Europe: Try to send it, we'll tax your bits By Peter Clarke Brussels, Belgium-- A report prepared for the European Commission (EC) urges it to consider levying a "bit tax" on information sent over the Internet and other networks. The recommendation runs counter to the reining sentiment among U.S. regulators, who have sought to avoid being cast as "bit cops." The EC report reasons that the value of the average cyberspace transaction will increase as time goes by, resulting in fewer physical transactions. The upshot, the report says, will be a shrinking government tax base. Evidence of such a trend may already have surfaced: Use fo the Internet to import goods and services electronically from outside the continent has allowed some Europeans to avoid payments under Europe's value-added-tax (VAT) system. Luc Soete--director of the Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (Limburg, Netherlands) and chairman of the high Level Expert Group (HLEG) that prepared the report on the social aspects of the information society--has examples at the read to prove the potential of Internet commerce to erode the tax base. Soete observed last week that sending his group's report by mail or courier, rather than electronically, would involve taxes on fuel purchases and on the profits fo the companies involved in physically shuttling the document to recipients. "As society moves toward the information society, tax revenue needs to shift emphasis from material goods to virtual goods and services," he said. I think we will see a very rapid introduction [of such a tax structure] in one or two years' time." Soete said he believes the tax "can be introduced in a very straightforward way. Every telephone operator and service provider has a record of the bytes moved. They can be the tax collectors." He acknowledged the prevailing "negative view about a bit tax" and attributed it in part of "concern that it could inhibit adoption of information technology. But once people have the technology, not many would go back. Whether the tax is 1 cent per bit or 1 cent per kbit is, of course, completely open." At the same time, U.S. regulators, who hope to expand Internet access to schools, libraries and low-income individuals, have resisted efforts to cast them in the role of bit cops charged with monitoring Internet traffic. Free Internet The Federal Communications Commission, which has conducted a series of highly profitable spectrum auctions for wireless and satellite services, last week proposed reserving some wireless spectrum for free Internet access for schools and libraries. Soete last week cast the bit tax as a progressive levy that would fall hardest on big business and that would not deter private individuals from joining the information society. Indeed, the potential of the information revolution to further polarize society is among the concerns expressed in the report. Soete believes the bit-tax should be used to fund social security or welfare. "Labor can no longer be the source of revenue for social security," he said. Steve Kennedy, business-development manager at the Internet service provider Demon Internet Ltd. (London) doesn't share Soete's positive view of the bit tax. "Such a tax would be very difficult to monitor and police," Kennedy asserted. "We transfer about 1.5 Gbytes of data a day, but we don't keep a lot of customer information. Who's going to pay for the equipment and software to log all this?" He added that if his company was "simply taxed on the data transfer, we would have to pass it on to the customers, and that would penalize the small user." The HLEG report is lavelled as an interim document that is intended to generate public comment. The final report will be published by year's end. The interim report can be accessed from http://www.ispo.cec.be/hleg/hleg.htmlJim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

No Subject
by Ecafe Mixmaster Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: Brian D Williams <talon57(a)well.com> > Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 11:16:35 -0700 > > >From cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com Tue Apr 30 23:58:28 1996 > >Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 00:52:03 -0500 (CDT) > >From: snow <snow(a)smoke.suba.com> > >To: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry(a)piermont.com> > >cc: "L. Detweiler" <vznuri(a)netcom.com>, cypherpunks(a)toad.com > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >Subject: Re: Why I dislike Java. (was Re: "Scruffies" vs. "Neats") > >MIME-Version: 1.0 > >Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > >Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com > >Precedence: bulk > > Game, set, match...... No, probably done intentionally. Note the lower-case snow...

2 1

Re: CryptoAnarchy: What's wrong with this picture?
by brerrabbit＠alpha.c2.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Sandy Sandfort <sandfort(a)crl.com> wrote: >A couple of generations ago, only multinationals and the super >rich could avail themselves of offshore banks, asset protection >trust, foreign incorporation, etc. Fifteen years ago, I was >helping members of the upper middle class do the same think. > >Today, virtually anyone on this list can afford these techniques. >Non-US people have been using them for years. The reason middle >class Americans aren't savvy that yet are ignorance and inertia. >Everyday, Americans are becoming less parochial (due in part, >ironically, to government hysteria about money laundering) about >such possibilities. As the Clintons and Doles turn up the tax >and regulatory heat, they will also overcome their inertia. Do tell. How would someone, just for instance, who is considering leaving a "permanent" job for the higher compensation available to contractors and consultants be able to structure a business in such a way as to benefit from these techniques? If we assume a rate of between $60/hour and $125/hour (typical in Boston, New York, and the Silicon Valley), how much can one save? How much effort and money is required? How much risk is involved? There are many books on the shelves claiming to show how to avoid taxes using these techniques. Most of them have the smell of "dangerous crackpot" about them. Can you recommend any in particular? If this is too far off topic for cypherpunks I'd be interested in learning of a more appropriate forum. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMYpJ68NGLex6dhF9AQHKLgQAh2/j23rG3RP0VFNVcsNIUphgWjTG0mlE ojXWJ29el616YCfKHpwXzT2v9+wThdQByp047qf8zXGqsjuf5ld2rkWxgap840JH S4Wf1GkxdcCFM9Vq3Ks955YtWdWIz4PrngxEpPU6lmXTIY2Vk17HTRJoZBKJLwW0 iAPchDVd+kg= =7bKv -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 3

Here is some E-Commerce Info.
by Joseph M. Reagle Jr. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:47 PM 5/2/96 EDT, Sally D. McMillan wrote: >I am writing a paper on electronic commerce, and I wonder if anyone happens to >know of interesting URLs addressing the subject, including security issues? >If you know of a good location for electronic commerce/security information, >please email me directly >at the following address: >103007.3426(a)compuserve.com >THANKS A LOT!! Sally Tons of it on every topic: http://ccs.mit.edu/15967/groups.html _______________________ Regards, Men govern nothing with more difficulty than their tongues, and can moderate their desires more than their words. -Spinoza Joseph Reagle http://farnsworth.mit.edu/~reagle/home.html reagle(a)mit.edu E0 D5 B2 05 B6 12 DA 65 BE 4D E3 C1 6A 66 25 4E

1 0

Why Leahy is No Friend of Ours
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:34 AM 5/3/96, Black Unicorn wrote: >On Thu, 2 May 1996, Timothy C. May wrote: >> I'd say it's 99.95% likely that the PGP key was generated by a staffer--the >> resident e-mail geek--and that only staffers know how to use PGP. (In fact, >> probably only the one staffer who generated the key and knows the >> passphrase....) > >While I believe this correct, it's worth noting that Leahy is fairly >"into" the technology. He finds it entertaining and "fun." All of this >mostly thanks to his one time counsel John Podesta. Thanks Mr. Podesta! > >He's one of the more interested congress critters. > >> So, what is accomplished except "feel good" thoughts? > >Admittedly, not much. I'm at least pleased he has a decently on the ball >staff however who can tell him what the issues are. "Decently on the ball"? I hope you are being ironic. Leahy is no friend of ours. Recall that he chaired the hearings on the FBI's "Digital Telephony" massive wiretap proposal, and co-sponsored the legislation (with former FBI agent Don Edwards). This "sleeping giant" of legislation is still out there, and has not been consigned to the junk heap. It becomes operative--that is, the $10,000 per day penalties for noncompliance with the law mandating telecom systems be DT-compliant--in October 1997. (There is ongoing discussion of whether the $500 million to be paid to the phone companies is going to be allocated, and whether those companies (such as "Tim's Cheap Internet Phone Company") which fail to get some of this lucre as it is handed out are then exempt....the consensus seems to be that some of the $500 million will be allocated as a sop to the phone companies, but that large numbers of smaller companies will still be expected to be compliant when a wiretap order is presented to them. This even if they never got a dime. The implications for the Internet and for increasingly popular "Internet phone" systems are interesting. As I understand the DT language, such systems would have to be made compliant with wiretap requests, or face the $10K/day penalties. This could force many ISPs, in the U.S. of course, to take steps to immediately restrict certain programs, or even [speculatively] force them to become compliant by some form of key escrow, where they would keep a copy of a key for presentation to law enforcement. [More speculation by me: the combination of the Wiretap Act, the Anti-Terrorism Act, and the still-ongoing work on key escrow (TIS is still pushing their system, Lotus hasn't backed down, Denning still says it's needed, etc.) could mean that ISPs move to restrict use of crypto in various ways, possibly mandating escrowed encryption. Several of us (Black Unicorn, Duncan Frissell, me, etc.) may point out the practical difficulties involved in such enforcement, and the longterm dim prospects for success. But the fact is that ISPs are a kind of "choke point" for halting certain things. I have a feeling I know what my ISP will say if he gets a court order and a $10,000 per day penalty faces him. Those who access the Net directly, through their own companies and/or by having boxes hanging directly on the Net, will be less vulnerable to this kind of pressure. But the Netcoms, PSI, Earthlinks, AOLs, and such will likely run into trouble the first time a court order is presented to make certain Internet phone conversations tappable.... (I have long argued for this view that certain "choke points" will be identified. These are the points of leverage--often companies--which law enforcement can lean on. Whit Diffie made similar points a few years ago, that drug laws were "enforced" inside companies (who previously didn't care whether employees smoked dope on their time off, so long as they did the job), with urine tests, threats of civil forfeiture of company assets if even small amounts of drugs were found in the possession of employees, etc. The "War on Drugs" effectively pressed companies into service as soldiers.) Sure, a few services will decide to fight such penalties in court and seek to have Digital Telephony thrown out in court. Deep pockets will be required. Maybe they'll prevail. Maybe the Burns Bill will collide with Digital Telephony. Unclear at this time. But no Congressman who co-sponsors such legislation as the "National Wiretap Initiative," with its "1% of the engineering capacity" requirements and other such Big Brother Surveillance State clauses, is a friend of ours. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

3 2

Re: Why I dislike Java. (was Re: "Scruffies" vs. "Neats")
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"perry(a)piermont.com" 3-MAY-1996 16:14:04.28 >Money is not a problem, but space is. There is never any room on a >trading floor. Space is at an amazing premium. Would switchable monitors, mice, and keyboards be a possible solution (with placement of the CPUs in another location), or are your users too permanently technically incompetent? I would hope the latter would not be the case given the technological nature of the modern trading field. -Allen

2 1