- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Nationalized Public Radio
by x 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Exceprts from: " Text of RFE/RL President Kevin Klose's Statements Prague, July 4 (RFE/RL) -- The following is a text of introductory remarks by RFE/RL President Kevin Klose today at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty: .... On this Independence Day, 1996, the two-hundredth twentieth celebration of the United States, we are also celebrating the second anniversary of the decision to move Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty to the former federal parliament building here in Prague. We are deeply honored that Mrs. Clinton has chosen our headquarters from which to make an historic, Indpendence Day address. .... History has taught that democracy cannot live in an information vacuum. indeed, a well-informed citizenry is essential for democracy and free-market economies to flourish. This powerful historic truth guides our radios each day. Our servces in 23 languages provide accurate, objective news and information to millions of people across 11 time zones. Citizens in newly-emancipated lands can be freed from the past by the power of information itself to establish civil societies. The stakes are enormous. Civil societies that guard human freedoms across our broadcast regions can guarantee a stable, peaceful future for all of Europe and the world. Our mission to assist democratic change, to combat nationalism and racism, must not falter. .... Here at the radios you will find 350 Czechs and Americans, and men and women from more than 20 other countries, working in harmony and partnership to broadcast truthful information for the sake of our homelands and the futures of our children. Thank you, one and all. Thank you, Mrs. Clinton, for joining us to celebrate our Independence Day. © 1996 Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty, Inc. All Rights Reserved. " ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------- Disclaimer: This is a review and fair use, thank you very much, or should I pack my prison garb now? Since freedom cannot flourish in an information vacuum this posting is probably illegal. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------- At 06:51 PM 11/11/98 -0500, Frederick Burroughs wrote: > >National Public Radio (NPR) today announced the appointment of Kevin >Klose as the next President and CEO of NPR. His stint at The Washington >Post included a position as Moscow Bureau Chief. He is currently >Director of the US International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB). > >No need to hide your shortwave under the floorboards anymore, Voice of >America is now on the FM airwaves. Story at: > >http://www.npr.org/inside/press/981111.klose.html > > >

1 0

acceptable user policies
by Duncan Licence 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

hey there, I am having to formulate an acceptable user policy for the users. Does anybody know of any online references, or examples of such policies. This would have to include specifications like email use, internet access, games over the LAN - anything that you can get your head around pertaining to such. This of course would have to weigh up between the rights of the users and protection of the network and PCs Your help would be greatly appreciated Duncan

1 0

acceptable user policies
by Duncan Licence 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

hey there, I am having to formulate an acceptable user policy for the users. Does anybody know of any online references, or examples of such policies. This would have to include specifications like email use, internet access, games over the LAN - anything that you can get your head around pertaining to such. This of course would have to weigh up between the rights of the users and protection of the network and PCs Your help would be greatly appreciated Duncan

1 0

100S OF FREE PICS'N'LINKS EVERY DAY!
by STUFFED FRI NOV 13 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

+ 30 SUPERB, HI-RES, HOT PHOTOS + 5 SUPER SEXY STORIES + ISLAND EROTICA + BIGGINS + WET WET WEB + INDIAN PORN + PURE PIX + WHITE CHOCOLATE + XXX FEMALES + HARDCORE SEX WITH ZOOM + CUMSHOT QUEENS + XXX 4 FREE + BONUS PIC 1 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/31225.htm + BONUS PIC 2 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/15219.htm + BONUS PIC 3 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/6401.htm + BONUS PIC 4 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/9541.htm + BONUS PIC 5 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/9140.htm + MUCH, MUCH MORE! ----> http://stuffed.net/home/ <---- This email is never sent unsolicited. Stuffed is the supplement for the Eureka newsletter you subscribed to. Full instructions on unsubscribing are in every issue of Eureka! ----> http://stuffed.net/home/ <----

1 0

RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 20:34:10 -0500 > From: Petro <petro(a)playboy.com> > Subject: RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone > (fwd) > There is an expectation that when one travels, one is protected by > certain laws, at least the laws of the country that one is traveling to. Absolutely, that concept does not proscribe them from making a law to recognize the laws of other countries. It doesn't make it right but then again the freedom of choice implies the freedom to make mistakes. It figures that on occassion it'll be a whopper (TM). If Penoche didn't know that Spain could extradite him from England then he needs to hire a new lawyer. There is absolutely no expectation in the concept of freedom that prohibits one from walking into a police station and admitting a crime. This isn't even an issue, neither the British or the Spanish forced him to England. And the Spanish didn't force Britian to sign the treaty recognizing extradition. He got what he deserves. He was stupid to have treated anyone like that and he was stupid to go to England. He is a stupid man. My personal view is I don't care unless I am in that country. If I have an expectation to go somewhere I check on the laws before I'd go. > There are also certain types of crimes that are so morally > reprehensible that to allow them to continue is not possible. Absolutely, and each country should have it's right to choose it's own particular brand of reprehensibility recognized. > Or are you willing to go on record as stating that what Stalin did > to the Jews (or Hitler for that matter) was acceptable, since we shouldn't > have a say in their laws? Well, you have to understand I'm a pantheist. I know it's easy to shrug off and say "so what" but I can't answer this exactly unless you fundamentaly understand literal pantheism. But I'll try. I believe there is no transcendence. As a result everything is divine because that's all there is. To disrespect the uniqueness in anything is a disservice to self. However, concepts of literal sin to my view simply don't exist. The killing of a human by a human is not fundamentaly (think of it as outside of human society, it's close but not close enough) different than a human killing a rabbit, or crushing a rock, or painting a picture. It's an activity, in and of itself it is nothing more than a cold, cosmic event mediated by complete and utter indifference. The universe does not act with anthropocentric motives or mechanations. However, within the concerns of human biology, psychology, and society there is a very real distinction. As a matter of fact there are quite a few. Since they are all a construct of human existance they deserve some level of respect, the freedom of expression in speech and press, not necessarily in action. Because of the fundamental uniqueness of anything, to destroy or change it with willful intent (I wish I could express this better, all I can say is it isn't what normal English means by those two words exactly enough) except in self-defence or survival (eg killing an animal for food) is not moraly (permissible at the level of individual) or ethicaly (the range of permissible acts related to an activity, say a doctor or lawyer) supportable. I am willing to go on record stating that what they did from a national level should concern no nation that is not directly involved. Nations do not have the right to impose their will on other nations, period. Nations may of course dissolve and reform of their own free will and whim. From a personal level everyone should have run over there in about 1936 and kicked their stinking ass as volunteers (the fact that it is not in human nature to participate in mass exhibitions like this voluntarily is another reason that anarcho-whatevers won't work). From a fundamentaly cosmic perspective what they did is completely and utterly irrelevant and of no consequence. At the same time I'm horrified that human beings can do that to other people and live with themselves. The total lack of empathy I find utterly chilling. Poppy Z. Brite in carnate. Let me give you another example, unless the US is attacked directly by Iraq we have no business threatening, let alone initiating, violence. But I'll do what I did the last time we got in a scrap with the rag-head, whatever I can. To do any less might cost somebody their life through my negligent short-term unprincipled self-interest, a sin of ommission for a man of no sins, I won't stop bitching about it either. Does that help any better? Life is a contradiction in motion. > >Do you want Germany having a say in our laws (for example)? > > They do already, it's called international trade. Me selling apples to a German doesn't involve their having a say in my law making unless I'm an idiot in making the laws I operate under. There are treaties, but the assumption is that they are entered into freely and with comprehension. If they don't and do well that's their problem. > Also, if I were a Catholic in a death camp because Jesse Helms > ramed thru legislation blaming the Y2K bug on the Holy C, I'd hope someone > would intervine. Congress can't make laws respecting establishments of religion. Not only can't they support any, they can't prohibit any, they can't even constitutionaly decide what a religion is. Per the 10th that is left to the individual states and their respective representative constitutions. > But you claimed it started in the early 1900's in response to > deaths and blindness. The regulation of the manufacture and sales of alcohol started after the civil war, late 1800' and early 1900's depending on your geography. It's impossible to set a single date since the various laws were'not all initiated at the same time. I believe somebody else is the person who equated prohibition with regulation. In general the laws were put in place because either there was a problem with tainted alcohol (this was a real problem in the very early 1900's because of the use of lead pipes and other amalgams that don't treat people nicely) or excessive consumption by the youth usualy (ala The Great Gatsby). The laws got a lot more draconian after prohibition was renounced. This is when many states really jumped on the taxation band-wagon. The reasoning behind the taxation of alcohol is the same today as it was in Jeffersons day. He said that the taxation was intended to reduce the use because of its debilitating effects. Then of course there is the consideration of what a government can do with that money as well. This taxation is what started the Whiskey Rebellion in the late 1790's. Jefferson finaly repealed it after quite a string of violence in the early 1800's (sorry I don't remember the actual dates, a web search on Whiskey Rebellion would probably turn something up). During the whole thing Washington was riding his fat ass around buying cheap land and forceably moving people who had lived there, in general acting the little tyrant. He was involved in at least two related deaths and had invested in the business and supported the taxation. What's really interesting is that when these taxes were intiated in the early 1700's (originaly by the British) they were imposed on the manufacturer not the consumer even though they were to limit the consumption and not the manufacture. The history of alcohol is long and twisted. > It prevents the press from manipulating the government because > there ISN'T ONE, or if there is (in the case of extreme > libertarian/minarchist) it is so restricted and powerless it can't do > anything execpt try to gather more power. True, but then the news papers (they are not the same as the press - where that commen misconception is from is beyond my keen) would just pander to their extant major supporter, advertisers. How honest do you think that would make them? Not very. If given the choice between the truth or a fatter check newspapers (and their reporters) have in general chosen the way of the greenback. Jefferson said he would never write a line in a newspaper, and didn't. He thought them vile. He however held the free press (he meant unrestrained communication between individuals) in high regard (obviously). > Yes, businesses can manipulate the press, and do-gooders can always > start their own press and fight back. Who do they buy the press parts from? The ink and paper? The distribution channles? Etc. You might be able to start one up but you won't last long in a monotonicly profit driven free-market. If they rake muck too much they won't have a rake anymore. > Yeah, and there are laws against Drug Dealing which work real well. There's probably a lesson in there somewhere... > I wanna say Karen something or other as one case--Silkwood? That was one of the ones I was thinking of. > Point still holds, you speak out, you get in trouble, legal or no. > Laws don't prevent things from happening, they simply give society the > moral authority to say "We Warned You, Now Off With His Head" or some such. They moderate and mediate those actions and in fact do set a limit on what can occur at the social level. I'll say it again, government isn't for regulating individual interactions at the daily level. It's simply too fine grain. It will control trends and behaviours with a good deal of aplomb (if it's not abused) - and I'm talking specificaly of a republican democracy like the US has. Governments address the general parameters of a society. > When was the last time you _didn't_ kill someone just because it is > illegal? Every time. I can think of three times. Two accidents hunting and the third a crazy with a knife. On a personal level I felt my sense of justification from committing such an act didn't equate to me spending time in jail. They're still alive, and I didn't do time. Works for me. In all three times I could have shot them and walked off, I wouldn't have been found and there were no connections. All three times were completely random events, hapinstance. I quit hunting after the second hunting event. I also don't go for long walks on the other side of the tracks at 2am anymore when I can't sleep. Some junior high kid tried to rob me. > It's expected, but illegal? How can it be illegal if there are no bodies to create them, courts to ejudicate them, supposedly unbiased police to enforce them. Now if we agree that human nature isn't going to change then there is still the unanswered (but asked a few dozen times) as to what the exact mechanism is that prevents abuse. Simply saying that people will find out is not historicaly reliable, people just don't volunteer for those sorts of things. Their first reaction is to stay out of it. Even if they find out what do they do about it? Go to a similar business down the street that operates identicaly? > It prevents government abuse, it prevents systemic abuse of power > and authority. Rape is rape, the point is to prevent it. Not just prevent it from your father. > It also makes it easier to get people to resist abuse & to fight > back, since the abuse isn't built in, nor do the abusers have any sort of > "authority" to fall back on. People are more likely to suffer injustice as long as its sufferable. It's a rare event to incite a large population to violence. > Which is different from now HOW? At least now there are limits to how ruthless they may be. You don't see tanks on your street corner, there aren't troops of men running around dragging people out of their homes because they're catholic or read 'Catcher in the Rye' or 'Atlas Shrugged' and shooting them. And people (like us right now) get to bitch about it with as near complete impunity as is possible in a real world. Hell through the amendment process we can concievably bypass the federal government completely. All that is required is the calling of a convention, which the federal government have no authority over (especialy since the right to peaceably assemble is protected and it don't get much more peaceable than a constitutional convention). > Isn't Billy Gates one of your poster boys for being ruthless? Isn't > he so far head of the rest of us that he could be in court for the rest of > his life and not spend everything? What makes Bill Gates reprehensible is not what he did with Microsoft, though the company as a whole should suffer. They certainly made profit together, they should share the flip side of the coin. Why I hold Bill Gates in so low esteem is his moral standing. A perfect example is hurricane Mitch. The World Bank came up with a tad over $100M for releif. Bill makes that in a few days. Here is a man with the means to institute huge social, political, and economic change that at his level is a pittance and he does nothing. He is scum. He made his bed, let him lie in it. He didn't help others when they could have used it at little to no impact to him, why should they extend a helping hand in return? This is another excellent example of why anarcho-whatevers won't work. The psychology of the truly wealthy is so self-interested and goal-oriented instead of principled that they almost become pathological in their lack of empathy. The claim is that succesful business will be some sort of utopic, empathetic social force. It won't be, it isn't in human nature. > Greed is not an agenda, it is an emotion, Profit is an agenda. True, but there are many potential motives that drive profit, greed is the most base one and as a result drives the lower levels of human activity. I gotta stop now, I'm sleepy. If I didn't get around to answering all the questions it's because there are lots of you and only one of me...ask again in a few days and I'll answer it then. Good night. ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

GOST
by scoops 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jetico <www.jetico.com> a Finnish company (I believe) offers a number of encryption algorithms in its BestCrypt package, among which is GOST which it reports having a 256 key (it also sports Blowfish and DES as I recall). I also remember a few weeks ago reports in the press and on the List of a porn ring broken up and some agent involved saying that the some porn was encrypted in an old KGB program which sounded much like GOST. The implication is that it's transparent to the feds. However I have no idea about various levels at which it might be implimented. I'm sure the real experts on the List will fill you in.

1 0

ANNOUNCE: SATURDAY Bay Area Cypherpunks Meeting - Stanford University
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The November Cypherpunks Meeting will be Saturday 11/14 from 1-5pm at Stanford, at the tables outside Tresidder Union, near the bookstore. The tables are on the west side, which is the inside of the U-shape. Coffee and food are available in the building. If the weather is uncooperative, we will also be inside the building. Lucky Green will be talking about his latest work. Bagels and Bagel Parephrenalia will be provided. Directions to Stanford Tresidder Hall Stanford is between El Camino Real and Junipero Serra Blvd, which are between 101 and 280. The Tresidder Parking Lot is on Mayfield Ave, off Campus Drive East. http://www.stanford.edu/home/map/search_map.html?keyword=&ACADEMIC=Tresidde… http://www.stanford.edu/home/map/stanford_zoom_map.html?234,312 The upside-down map of Stanford&Vicinity is at http://www.stanford.edu/home/visitors/vicinity.html Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart(a)pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

1 0

Re: most of what govts do can be done by business, and done better (Re: How to solve the tax problem w/o anarchy or force)
by Soren 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Burnes - Denver wrote: On Wed, 11 Nov 1998, Soren wrote: > There is a real live example of this kind of transition. New Zealand. > much interesting info deleted What kind of constitution and bill of rights does New Zealand have? Check this out. Do I have the right of gun ownership to protect myself or stop tyrannical takeover? That's very funny. The US, the country that allows most gun ownership (in the 1st world), is the most in need of that right to defend against both illegal and legal criminals. So much for the value of the 2nd amendment. To answer your question though, yes you have the right to buy a gun, just as you have the right to buy a car (a far more lethal instrument in general). You are held to account for what you do with it however (irrespective of whether its a gun or car). If you kill someone, then you are generally arrested and tried for either murder or manslaughter. Manslaughter is the usual charge if you shoot someone who was threatening to kill you. It all depends on how successful they were in the attempt. Several cases of pissed off people shooting neighbours who were merely harassing them, and getting acquitted of any charges, exist. Something like 10 murders a year and climbing (fueled by the gangsta rap lovers amongst the maori, mostly. Thank you USA!!). When most violent crime is of the form of being beaten up in a bar, or surprizing a burglar and getting threatened with a club or knife, responding with lethal force is considered not to be very sporting. Hand guns are rare, but there are hand gun clubs. Seems a lot like a waste of energy to me, preparing for an event that is very unlikely to occur in your lifetime. Most gun owners are hunters, shooting pig, deer, possums, elk .... Permits are not required. Bow hunting is also quite popular. New Zealand is a parliamentary democracy in the english tradition, with only one house. Recently, MMP (similar to Germany's) system of representation, was passed by referendum. This means that any candidate and/or party that gets 5% of a popular vote, gets a seat in the parliament. The more 5%s you get, the more seats. Each citizen gets 2 votes. One for a candidate, and one for a party. There are currently 6(ish) major political parties. Under MMP, proportional representation means that the the elected candidates have to form a coalition government. I.e. they all get together and make/break friendships until a clear winner/majority is declared (a very public process). If a clear winner cannot be found, another election is held until something gells. Once that happens, the majority coalition designates a 'prime' minister and a cabinet of ministers, to call the shots. This is very unlike a presidential executive, in that these ministers are, in effect, hired by the coalition government and not directly elected to office. Prime ministers do not have to get impeached to remove them from office. If the majority coalition gets P.O'ed with any minister's track record, he gets fired. If the population gets P.O'ed with the winning coalition, the coalitions will change to form a new government and new cabinet, to suit the mood(swing) of the populace. This is a very adversarial system for a government to operate under. There are virtually no bi(multi-)partisan activities (the last was the economic revolution in 1986). Generally, the opposition is always angling to destabilize the current majority coalition, with lots of rhetoric flying in the press. Consequently, the majority coalition has to keep on their toes and please the population. Sometimes this leads to some skullduggery and dishonest activities. The population (and press) have exactly zero tolerance for crooked politicians. Typically, a Member of Parliament who gets out of line, is out of office within the month, often the week. Ergo, no real need for guns when you have a government that can be dissolved at any time by either a new majority being formed, or the population calling for an election. Unpopular laws are generally ignored, or become the cause for a new election. This happens on a regular basis. I always had a sneaking suspicion that basing the US republic on the roman model, was not such a good idea. Look what happened to them. (Hail Clinton!, long live the emperor! Only until the present emergency lasts, honest! Those huns (drug dealers) and vandals (terrorists) have to be defeated first). Its hard to compare, how NZ's system works in practise, with the self-aggrandizing and self-important poll-doll system in the US (bread and circuses). Mostly politicians in NZ are the guys who live next door, and who you go fishing with. They all have a distaste for overinflated egos. This is deeply ingrained in the national psyche, often to a fault (tall poppy syndrome). It is a nation of fiercely rugged individualism (even at its collectivist height in the 1970s). You are still considered to be a wuss if you didn't build your own home, or don't fix your own car or computer (or write your own crypto?), or have your own business, although this is changing under the onslaught of US cultural imperialism and hamburger diplomacy. As it's an island nation, 1 in 5 people has a boat, and generally use it to go fishing. Again, no permits necessary. A lot of people also build their own boats, although this is changing ... I suppose the closest comparison in the US, would be to think of it as a cross between Alaska and Hawaii. Hope that answers your questions. You should look around the NZ web sites for more detail, or better yet, take a month or two and go and check it out. Christmas is fast approaching, which is the start of summer and the holiday season, all rolled into one.

1 0

IP: WiredNews: Virus Thrives on HTML
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: believer(a)telepath.com Subject: IP: WiredNews: Virus Thrives on HTML Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 09:46:31 -0600 To: believer(a)telepath.com Source: Wired News http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/16206.html Virus Thrives on HTML by Chris Oakes 5:53 p.m.11.Nov.98.PST An old computer invader has found a new place to thrive. A virus-monitoring group this week posted a computer virus -- called "html.internal" -- that is the first to replicate itself through hypertext markup language, or HTML, the code that defines the common Web page. "Looks like the virus crowd has finally discovered the Internet," said Richard Smith of Phar Lap Software. "HTML pages are extremely mobile.... They're intended to be given out." Other observers point out the demonstration virus requires specific Windows scripting software to carry out its task. They maintain that the virus, therefore, exposes the vulnerability of the secondary software, VisualBasic Script, not plain vanilla Web pages. "It draws attention to the power that's available to the VBScript programmer," said Jimmy Kuo, director of antivirus research at Network Associates. A computer virus typically spreads through shared files, such as word processing documents or email attachments. It most often consists of a program or piece of code that runs invisibly on any computer it manages to infect. Like any virus, it replicates itself. That replication can be threatening in itself if the virus is large, since it will quickly fill a computer's memory and cause a crash. Viruses once depended mainly on floppy disks for their travels, but networks have introduced an easier path. The HTML virus, created by the Virus Information Center and released on Tuesday, was built as a demo and does not present a large security risk in and of itself. It works through Internet Explorer 4.0 and relies on the scripting feature, VBScript, built into the latest Microsoft PC operating system, Windows 98. If security warnings are ignored, the virus will load via a Web page and infect other Web pages on the host computer. Protections already built into Internet Explorer 4.0 would warn users if they encountered the virus, said a Microsoft spokeswoman. Copyright © 1994-98 Wired Digital Inc. All rights reserved. ----------------------- NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ----------------------- **************************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address or (un)subscribe ignition-point-digest email@address **************************************************** www.telepath.com/believer ****************************************************

1 0

IP: Clinton Point-Man on 'Y2K' is Low-Balling Magnitude of the Impending Crisis
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: believer(a)telepath.com Subject: IP: Clinton Point-Man on 'Y2K' is Low-Balling Magnitude of the Impending Crisis Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 11:12:41 -0600 To: believer(a)telepath.com Source: Center for Security Policy http://www.security-policy.org/papers/1998/98-C181.html Publications of the Casey Institute of the Center for Security Policy No. 98-C 181 PERSPECTIVE 5 November 1998 Whistling Past the Graveyard: Clinton Point-Man on 'Y2K' is Low-Balling Magnitude of the Impending Crisis (Washington, D.C.): Today's Washington Post features an article about a few of the problems besetting the U.S. government as it grapples, belatedly, with the Year 2000 (or Y2K) "bug." In a perfect (if unintended) metaphor for the trouble on this front now confronting the Clinton Administration -- and, thanks in no small measure to its absence of "leadership" on the issue, the Nation -- the Post headline reads "Y2K Problem Poses Staffing Challenges for Agencies." Yet, the caption on an accompanying photograph quotes John Koskinen, the President's "czar" for the Millennium bug, as saying: "Y2K staffing 'has not turned out to be a major issue at this point, but we are continuing to monitor it.'" Shorthanded Unfortunately, the article proceeds to detail myriad examples that suggest ways in which personnel problems are seriously interfering with the government's Y2K remediation program. For example, the Post reports: "In the scramble to fix computers for the Year 2000, federal agencies have regularly complained that their technology experts were being lured away by better-paying jobs and that qualified contractors were difficult to find." "Of the 24 large agencies required to file quarterly or monthly Y2K progress reports, 13 expressed worries about their computer staffing or staff availability, according to a new General Accounting Office report." "[According to the GAO] four agencies - the departments of Agriculture, Justice and State and the Patent and Trademark Office - [are] facing [acute] Year 2000 staff woes: project delays because of high turnover among contractor staff and losses of skilled information technology employees through retirements and increased recruitment by private-sector companies." A 'Major Issue', Indeed Mr. Koskinen's reassurances notwithstanding, the anecdotal evidence of problems of ensuring compliance of the federal agencies is of great concern for several reasons: The government has historically had a much more difficult time than the private sector hiring and retaining qualified workers in a competitive job market. More often than not, the workers the government does retain have skill sets deemed unimpressive (read, unemployable) by the private sector. Given the complexity of undertaking a comprehensive assessment of the extent of the Y2K-associated staffing problems, anecdotal evidence is all there is to go on in calibrating the magnitude of such problems. It is a well known fact that over 80% of all large high technology projects are completed behind schedule. That the Clinton/Gore Administration continues to assert that the job -- arguably, the largest high technology project ever undertaken with an altogether inflexible deadline -- will be done on-time defies historical experience, to say nothing of common sense. Panic Prevention? The truth of the matter is that, even if the federal government were experiencing no personnel problems in preparing for the Y2K "bug," the Clinton Administration would still be dangerously "behind the power curve." After all, far and away the toughest part of insuring federal agency compliance with Y2K requirements will be the testing, re-remediation and retesting phases -- work that has scarcely even begun in most agencies. In fact, what seems to be going on here is less crisis management than panic management. Unfortunately, Czar Koskinen's wishful thinking about the staffing problem is not an isolated incident. In public speeches, media interviews and through other vehicles, he has consistently understated the magnitude of the problem while substantially overstating the government's preparedness for dealing with it.(1) Koskinen has plenty of company in the Clinton Administration, however. Indeed, even on the one occasion last July, when (after months of refusing to issue public warnings about the Y2K crisis) President Clinton and Vice President Gore finally used the "bully pulpit" to raise an alarm about this impending danger, they failed accurately to describe the severity of the problem. They also refused to take any responsibility for the significant contribution their lack of leadership to date has made to the Nation's Y2K unpreparedness -- and, therefore, to the likely intensity of the coming crisis.(2) The Bottom Line An insert next to the aforementioned Washington Post article on Y2K staffing issues reports the Federal Reserve plans to release some $30-50 billion in additional reserves late in 1999. The reason: to ensure banks will have sufficient money on hand to satisfy depositors who want to hold their savings in cash on the 1st of January 2000. As of April of this year, there was $3.6 trillion on deposit in U.S. banks. Those banks hold only some $49 billion in cash reserves. Thus, even with the additional funds available for withdrawal, banks will have at most only $2.70 for every $100 on deposit. The Clinton-Gore Administration is sorely mistaken if it believes a potentially cataclysmic socio-economic crisis will be avoided if it persists in misleading the American people. The only hope of preventing such a panic-driven outcome is for the administration to provide steady, honest leadership -- addressing candidly the unknown and greatly increasing the priority given by both the private and public sector to accelerating Y2K remediation and damage limitation efforts. - 30 - 1. See the Center's Decision Brief entitled At Last, Clinton-Gore Publicly Address Year 2000 Bug -- But Continue to Lowball Problem, Duck Responsibility For It (No. 98-C 132, 15 July 1998) and the Casey Institute's Perspective entitled New Theory For Clinton-Gore Silence on Y2K Emerges As N.P.R., Gingrich Offer Contrasting Views Of The Danger (No. 98-D 106, 12 June 1998). 2. See the Center's Decision Brief entitled At Last, Clinton-Gore Publicly Address Year 2000 Bug -- But Continue to Lowball Problem, Duck Responsibility For It (No. 98-C 132, 15 July 1998). NOTE: The Center's publications are intended to invigorate and enrich the debate on foreign policy and defense issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of all members of the Center's Board of Advisors. © 1988-1998, Center for Security Policy ----------------------- NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ----------------------- **************************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address or (un)subscribe ignition-point-digest email@address **************************************************** www.telepath.com/believer ****************************************************

1 0