- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

24 Sep '01

ÄúºÃ£¬ Õâ·âÐÅÈç¹ûžøÄúÔì³É²»±ã£¬Çë¶àÔÁÂ²¢ÉŸ³ýŽËÐÅ¡£ =========================================== 1¡¢ »šÄŸ¹«ËŸ×ª²ú£¬ŽóÐÍÓÅÖÊ»šÄŸµÍŒÛ³öÊÛ 2¡¢ ±±Ÿ©ÉÏµØ¿ª·¢ÇøžœœüµØ²úÑ°ÇóºÏ×÷ 3¡¢ Ñ°ÇóÍ¶×ÊÏîÄ¿¹²Í¬¿ª·¢£šÎÒ·œÍ¶×Ê50-100Íò£© =========================================== 1¡¢ ¹úÇìœ«ÖÁ£¬¹ó¹«ËŸÊÇ·ñÐèÒªÔÚµ¥Î»ÃÅ¿Ú°ÚÐ©ŽóÐÍ»šÄŸ£¿ Ò»°ãÃ¿ÔÂ×âŒÛžßŽï100ÔªµÄÃû¹óŽóÐÍ»šÄŸ£¬µÍŒÛ³öÊÛ¡£ ÊÊºÏÓÚŽóÂ¥Ç°Í¥£¬¹«ËŸŽóÌÃµÈ³¡ºÏ£¬žß¶È1-3Ã×¡£ ÌúÊ÷ 21¿Ã£¬ žß¶ÈŒ°¹ÚŸ¶1.5*200, ºÚÉ«ŽóžÖÅè µ¥ŒÛ£º400Ôª ÈýœÇÃ· 33¿Ã£¬ 1.3*1.3, ¹úÇì¿ª»š£¬200Ôª ŒŠµ°»š 5 ¿Ã 1.7*.14 100Ôª ÂÞººËÉ 12¿Ã 1.2*1.1 280Ôª œðÉœ×ØÖñ 12¿Ã 1.6*1.0 680Ôª É¢Î²¿û 9 ¿Ã 3.0*2.2 200Ôª ¡ª¡ª¡ª»¹ÓÐÆäËûŽóÁ¿»šÄŸ£¬ÃæÒé¡ª¡ª¡ª 2¡¢»šÄŸ¹«ËŸÍÁµØ³ö×â»òÑ°ÇóºÏ×÷£ºÕŒµØ8000ÆœÃ×£¬Â¥·¿ºÍÆœ·¿1000ÆœÃ× ŸàÀëÉÏµØ2¹«Àï£¬ŸàÀëžßËÙ¹«Â·200Ã×£¬œ»Íš·œ±ã£¬ŸàÀë±äµçÕŸ300Ã×£¬ µçÁŠ³ä×ã¡£ ÊÊºÏ×öžß¿ÆŒŒ¹«ËŸµÄÉú²ú¿ª·¢»ùµØ»òÕßÔ±¹€Éú»î»ùµØ¡£ Äê×âœð£º20-50Íò£¬ÊÓÐèÒªÍ¶ÈëžÄÔìÇé¿ö¶ø¶š£¬»¶ÓÇ°ÀŽ¿Œ²ì¡£ £šÎ÷ÈýÆìžßËÙ¹«Â·³ö¿ÚÏòÄÏ50Ã×£¬Â·¶«200Ã×£© 3¡¢Ñ°ÇóÏîÄ¿£¬ÎÒ¹«ËŸÓÐ³ä×ã×Êœð£¬ÄâÑ°Çó¶ÌÆœ¿ì¡¢ÓÐÒ»¶šŒŒÊõº¬Á¿µÄ ¿ÆŒŒÏîÄ¿œøÐÐ²úÒµ¿ª·¢»òÕßÀûÓÃµØÀíÓÅÊÆ·¢Õ¹·þÎñÒµ¡£³õÆÚÍ¶×Ê 50-100ÍòÔª¡£ ÁªÏµ·œÊœ£º010-62944979 13001251155 ¹ùŸÀí ÀîŸÀí ºô»ú£º96301117571 £š×Ô¶¯Ñ°ºô£© ( ! Îñ±ØÇë²»Òª»ØžŽŽËÓÊŒþÁªÂç ) ------------------------------------------------------- ±ŸÓÊŒþÓÉwebdatabase(a)sohu.xn--com12ss2-8iaal2iva2k7by2axk1a2b3f1e6140g ÄãÈç¹ûÓÐÀàËÆÒµÎñÐèÒªÐûŽ«£¬Çë»ØžŽŽËÓÊŒþºÍÎÒÃÇÁªÂç ------------------------------------------------------- / / / / ----------------------------------------------------------- žÃÓÊŒþÓÉ¡¶œð·æÓÊŒþÈº·¢ 2.4¡··¢ËÍ£¬ÓÊŒþÄÚÈÝÓëÈíŒþ×÷ÕßÎÞ¹Ø ----------------------------------------------------------- œð·æÈíŒþ£¬ÖµµÃÐÅÀµµÄÈíŒþ http://www.jinfengnet.com

1 0

TheRegister on anti-crypto/stego-hype in US media; UMich report
by Xeni Jardin 24 Sep '01

24 Sep '01

The Register (UK) published this snarky article, below, poking fun at recent anti-stego/crypto-hype in the American press in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. "USA Toady" is either a pretty funny typo, or a pretty funny dis. The article references a CITI/U.Mich. report from 31 August, "Detecting Steganographic Content on the Internet" -- apologies in advance if the report url (or analysis thereof) was previously posted onlist, I may have missed it. from the UMich report (url below): "We have analyzed over two million images downloaded from eBay auctions, and have not been able to find a single hidden message." ------------------------------------------------ "THE REGISTER - 09.22.01 Research slaps crypto-banning Feds http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/21829.html While America's own fundamentalists - led by US Attorney General John Ashcroft - prepare the most draconian assault on Americans' civil liberties since the second world war, their very own causus beli seems to be vanishing. The enormous increase in surveillance has been justified by claims that terrorists are using cryptography, and in particular steganography: the art of hiding information. USA Toady has run a series of articles on the theme, all predictably quoting 'anonymous' security sources, describing how messages are passed hidden in picture innocuous picture files on sites such as eBay. Or maybe, not so innocuous. The tabloid even managed to score a tasteless bullseye last week with an article that combined pornography, cryptography, terrorism and sport in the same article. For any readers who doubted the message, it was illustrated with a picture of /bin/laden himself. <...>" ------------------------------------------------ <"Detecting Steganographic Content on the Internet" 800K, PDF Center for Information Technology integration University of Michigan http://www.citi.umich.edu/techreports/reports/citi-tr-01-11.pdf> ------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: ID cards+law history
by keyser-soze＠hushmail.com 24 Sep '01

24 Sep '01

At 08:00 PM 9/23/2001 -0700, citizenQ wrote: >The scholarly informed citations are useful and interesting. But haven't we been put on notice that "a rebalancing" is going to occur, "it's a new world" and we will "use every measure at our disposal to combat terrorism" ?? - I fear it is naive to imagine that case law and legal precedent can combat the legislative onslaught to come. Indeed it may have to be fought through the crosshairs...

1 0

From Washington Times
by measl＠mfn.org 24 Sep '01

24 Sep '01

WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 (UPI) - U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said Sunday the Bush administration would soon offer proof of Osama bin Laden's alleged involvement in the recent terror attacks on New York and Washington. "In the near future, we'll be able to put out on paper a document, that will describe quite clearly the evidence that we have linking him to this attack," Powell told NBC television. Sheesh! It takes them this long to manufacture something this simple? -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin(a)mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Is there still a chance for us?
by A Fellow Human 23 Sep '01

23 Sep '01

23 September 2001 Is there still hope left? We as human beings and inhabitants of earth are faced with one of the greatest moments in human history. Our world is on the brink of cataclysmic change. Many known and unknown civilizations that have come before us have been at this moment in time. Perhaps forces deep with inside the earth such as volcanoes or earthquakes have triggered these events. Maybe these events came from the deepest reaches of outer space or even from disease or divine intervention. Whatever the case as you read this, the human society in whole has the chance to choose it's own destiny. There have been some of the most horrific events in recent history that have occurred over the last year. From mothers killing their babies for no reason to the mass amounts of children killing out of control. All of this culminating with the suicide attacks that have been occurring around the globe and the infamous WTC attack of 11 September 2001. Lets face some facts here: Iran has no less than 38 intermediate range nuclear missiles ready to go. India and Pakistan have full nuclear capabilities. Israel is fully nuclear and willing to preempt any threat that they feel is real. Iraq. What do you think? And of course all the others. Lets not even talk about the biological and chemical weapons.. Anthrax is always a favorite when people talk about bio weapons. The thing is that it is very difficult to deliver affectively. Not to say that it isn't a real threat especially on the defined battlefields. To other places in the world it isn't affective unless it is delivered by someone like Russia or the USA who really has the means. God only hopes that Iraq can't deliver it yet via their SCUD Missile system. This would be a clear threat for Israel's population. The main threat is very realistic. SMALL POX. This deadly disease is extremely contagious and very resilient. Once it is out it doesn't just die and disappear. You are talking about one infected person could cause a wildfire affect across a nation and the globe. This viscous disease will kill within a week. The USA for example only has a total of 7 million vaccines available. And guess who they are for?? That's right the US military and the government officials. SMALLPOX escaped the controlled laboratories with the end of the Russian communist regime. Not to say it has infected anyone outside of their testing conditions; this is to say that the deadly disease is now in the hands of people who are not afraid to use it. If you believe anything less than this, don't confuse ignorance with hope. So this brings us back to choice. Yes it is our human obligation to stand up to and overcome evil. This has been the eternal human struggle. Whether those evils came from within ourselves or from outside forces. The perspective of good and bad and right and wrong is always been subject to the way in which you view it. There have been times in our human history where good and the better for all man kind have not prevailed. We as humans of this time and place have made tremendous achievements and monumental failures. We are at the cusp of discovery and surging our civilization into the outer reaches of space and time. The required resources, technology, and human endeavor are at our collective fingertips. As a world of one people (with many individual desires) working together for a common goal we can achieve things we haven't even imagined yet and things that we have. So here we are today. No ideas no matter how noble or evil ever works out the way we have them planned. This conflict is now already out of control and has reached critical mass. The question is how fast will this uncontrolled reaction take to explode. Days, weeks, months?? Make no mistakes, WE ARE THERE!! Here are the simple choices: 1) Let it ride; don't change anything.. Over 90% of the world human population will be gone. To be left after it is said in done wouldn't be a bad thing.. The opportunity to survive and be the seeds to the next civilization and help pickup where the last one left off. To have learned from the mistakes and be able to teach and grow again. Like a natural wild fire that clears out the old growth making way for the new and continuing cycle of an old growth forest (which there aren't many of those left). Of course the trick to this is surviving. Could be tough. Are you cut out for it? Are you the one in the 720,000,000 million people who will survive? 2) Make the change. Yes it is that simple. Make the change. This has to come collectively between every human. Sound like too big of an obstacle? Consider the other option. We are the people of earth. We are not all represented by Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Yasser Arafat, Tony Blair, George W. Bush. Etc. People everywhere need to make this choice. All things need to change. I want to quote John Lennon for some advice. Past this, you have to go back to choice #1. Imagine John Lennon Imagine there's no heaven It's easy if you try No hell below us Above us only sky Imagine all the people Living for today... Imagine there's no countries It isn't hard to do Nothing to kill or die for And no religion too Imagine all the people Living life in peace... You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the world will be as one Imagine no possessions I wonder if you can No need for greed or hunger A brotherhood of man Imagine all the people Sharing all the world... You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the world will live as one Congratulations and good luck to all of you. What a time to be alive. Embrace this life with all of its infinite possibilities and wonders. Love yourselves and your children. Please translate this in to as many languages and forward onto as many persons as you can. Remember, every end is just another beginning.

1 0

Your Bid 4 Placement Account
by accountinfo＠bid4placement.com 23 Sep '01

23 Sep '01

1 0

Re: Your Bid 4 Placement Account
by Accountinfo＠bid4placement.com 23 Sep '01

23 Sep '01

1 0

ID cards+law history; Kolender v. Lawson, 1983
by Xeni Jardin 23 Sep '01

23 Sep '01

Some legal precendent on the matter, forwarded from the pho mailing list. The Supremes struck it down in '83, citing 4th amendment violations... // XJ ----- original message --------- If you are interested in national ID card issues, start with the 1983 Supreme Court decision in Kolender v. Lawson, aka "The Walking Man" case involving a California law that required you to stop and identify yourself upon request, struck down as unconstitutional with O'Connor writing the majority opinion and Brennan penning a broad warning for future attempts to legislate in this area. Brennan's opinion with this link to the whole enchilada (technical legal term for entire decision). In this case, the court thought the requirement vague? Would the same hold true for an ID card requirement imposed nationally? Brennan says yes, the others are less clear. By the way, a sidebar to this case that I found interesting. It was filed and briefed "pro se" (representing himself as a non-attorney) by Mr. Edward C. Lawson, a 36-year-old dreadlocked businessman, using the Boalt Hall Law Library as his source. The Supreme Court would not allow Mr. Lawson to argue his own case, as you will find at Kolender v. Lawson, 459 U.S. 964 (1982). -- Jim Griffin http://usff.com/hldl/courtcases/kolendervlawson.html Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983) CONCURRING OPINION Justice Brennan concurring. I join the Court's opinion; it demonstrates convincingly that the California statute at issue in this case, Cal.Penal Code Section 647(e), as interpreted by California courts, is unconstitutionally vague. Even if the defect identified by the Court were cured, however, I would hold that this statute violates the Fourth Amendment. [FN1] Merely to facilitate the general law enforcement objectives of investigating and preventing unspecified crimes, States may not authorize the arrest and criminal prosecution of an individual for failing to produce identification or further information on demand by a police officer. It has long been settled that the Fourth Amendment prohibits the seizure and detention or search of an individual's person unless there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime, except under certain conditions strictly defined by the legitimate requirements of law enforcement and by the limited extent of the resulting intrusion on individual liberty and privacy. See Davis v. Mississippi , 394 U.S. 721, 726-727, 89 S.Ct. 1394, 397-1398, 22 L.Ed.2d 676 (1969). The scope of that exception to the probable cause requirement for seizures of the person has been defined by a series of cases, beginning with Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), holding that a police officer with reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, based on articulable facts, may detain a suspect briefly for purposes of limited questioning and, in so doing, may conduct a brief "frisk" of the suspect to protect himself from concealed weapons. See, e.g., United States v. Brignoni-Ponce , 422 U.S. 873, 880-884, 95 S.Ct. 2574, 2579-2580, 2581-2582, 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975); Adams v. Williams , 407 U.S. 143, 145-146, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 1922-1923, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972). Where probable cause is lacking, we have expressly declined to allow significantly more intrusive detentions or searches on the Terry rationale, despite the assertion of compelling law enforcement interests. "For all but those narrowly defined intrusions, the requisite 'balancing' has been performed in centuries of precedent and is embodied in the principle that seizures are 'reasonable' only if supported by probable cause." Dunaway v. New York , 442 U.S. 200, 214, 99 S.Ct. 2248, 2257, 60 L.Ed.2d 824 (1979). [FN2] Terry and the cases following it give full recognition to law enforcement officers' need for an "intermediate" response, short of arrest, to suspicious circumstances; the power to effect a brief detention for the purpose of questioning is a powerful tool for the investigation and prevention of crimes. Any person may, of course, direct a question to another person in passing. The Terry doctrine permits police officers to do far more: If they have the requisite reasonable suspicion, they may use a number of devices with substantial coercive impact on the person to whom they direct their attention, including an official "show of authority," the use of physical force to restrain him, and a search of the person for weapons. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S., at 19, n. 16, 88 S.Ct., at 1879, n. 16; see Florida v. Royer, --- U.S. ----, ----, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 1324, 75 L.Ed.2d --- (1983) (opinion of WHITE, J.); United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554, 100 S.Ct. 1870, 1877, 64 L.Ed.2d 497 (1979) (opinion of Stewart, J.). During such an encounter, few people will ever feel free not to cooperate fully with the police by answering their questions. Cf. 3 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure Section 9.2, at 53-55 (1978). Our case reports are replete with examples of suspects' cooperation during Terry encounters, even when the suspects have a great deal to lose by cooperating. See, e.g., Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S., at 45, 88 S.Ct., at 1893-1894; Florida v. Royer, supra, --- U.S., at ----, 103 S.Ct., at 1326. The price of that effectiveness, however, is intrusion on individual interests protected by the Fourth Amendment. We have held that the intrusiveness of even these brief stops for purposes of questioning is sufficient to render them "seizures" under the Fourth Amendment. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S., at 16, 88 S.Ct., at 1877. For precisely that reason, the scope of seizures of the person on less than probable cause that Terry permits is strictly circumscribed, to limit the degree of intrusion they cause. Terry encounters must be brief; the suspect must not be moved or asked to move more than a short distance; physical searches are permitted only to the extent necessary to protect the police officers involved during the encounter; and, most importantly, the suspect must be free to leave after a short time and to decline to answer the questions put to him. "[T]he person may be briefly detained against his will while pertinent questions are directed to him. Of course, the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest, although it may alert the officer to the need for continued observation." Id., at 34, 88 S.Ct., at 1886 (White, J., concurring). Failure to observe these limitations converts a Terry encounter into the sort of detention that can be justified only by probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed. See Florida v. Royer , --- U.S., at ----, 103 S.Ct., at 1325 (opinion of White, J.); id. , at ----, 103 S.Ct., at 1330 (opinion of Brennan, J.); Dunaway v. New York , 442 U.S., at 216, 99 S.Ct., at 2258. The power to arrest--or otherwise to prolong a seizure until a suspect had responded to the satisfaction of the police officers--would undoubtedly elicit cooperation from a high percentage of even those very few individuals not sufficiently coerced by a show of authority, brief physicaldetention, and a frisk. We have never claimed that expansion of the power of police officers to act on reasonable suspicion alone, or even less, would further no law enforcement interests. See, e.g., Brown v. Texas , 443 U.S. 47, 52, 99 S.Ct. 2637, 2641, 61 L.Ed.2d 357 (1979). But the balance struck by the Fourth Amendment between the public interest in effective law enforcement and the equally public interest in safeguarding individual freedom and privacy from arbitrary governmental interference forbids such expansion. See Dunaway v. New York, supra; United States v. Brignoni-Ponce , 422 U.S., at 878, 95 S.Ct., at 2578-2579. Detention beyond the limits of Terry without probable cause would improve the effectiveness of legitimate police investigations by only a small margin, but it would expose individual members of the public to exponential increases in both the intrusiveness of the encounter and the risk that police officers would abuse their discretion for improper ends. Furthermore, regular expansion of Terry encounters into more intrusive detentions, without a clear connection to any specific underlying crimes, is likely to exacerbate ongoing tensions, where they exist, between the police and the public. See Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders 157-168 (1968). In sum, under the Fourth Amendment, police officers with reasonable suspicion that an individual has committed or is about to commit a crime may detain that individual, using some force if necessary, for the purpose of asking investigative questions. [FN3] They may ask their questions in a way calculated to obtain an answer. But they may not compel an answer, and they must allow the person to leave after a reasonably brief period of time unless the information they have acquired during the encounter has given them probable cause sufficient to justify an arrest. [FN4] California cannot abridge this constitutional rule by making it a crime to refuse to answer police questions during a Terry encounter, any more than it could abridge the protections of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments by making it a crime to refuse to answer police questions once a suspect has been taken into custody. To begin, the statute at issue in this case could not be constitutional unless the intrusions on Fourth Amendment rights it occasions were necessary to advance some specific, legitimate state interest not already taken into account by the constitutional analysis described above. Yet appellants do not claim that Section 647(e) advances any interest other than general facilitation of police investigation and preservation of public order--factors addressed at length in Terry , Davis , and Dunaway . Nor do appellants show that the power to arrest and to impose a criminal sanction, in addition to the power to detain and to pose questions under the aegis of state authority, is so necessary in pursuit of the State's legitimate interests as to justify the substantial additional intrusion on individuals' rights. Compare Brief for Appellants 18-19 (asserting that s 647(e) is justified by state interest in "detecting and preventing crime" and "protecting the citizenry from criminal acts"), and People v. Solomon , 33 Cal.App.3d 429, 436-437, 108 Cal.Rptr. 867, 872 (1973) Section 647(e) justified by "the public need involved," i.e., "protection of society against crime"), with United States v. Brignoni-Ponce , 422 U.S., at 884, 95 S.Ct., at 2581-2582 (federal interest in immigration control permits stops at the border itself without reasonable suspicion), and California v. Byers , 402 U.S. 424, 456-458, 91 S.Ct. 1535, 1552-1553, 29 L.Ed.2d 9 (1971) (Harlan, J., concurring in the judgment) (state interest in regulating automobiles justifies making it a crime to refuse to stop after an automobile accident and report it). Thus, because the State's interests extend only so far as to justify the limited searches and seizures defined by Terry , the balance of interests described in that case and its progeny must control. Second, it goes without saying that arrest and the threat of a criminal sanction have a substantial impact on interests protected by the Fourth Amendment, far more severe than we have ever permitted on less than probable cause. Furthermore, the likelihood that innocent persons accosted by law enforcement officers under authority of Section 647(e) will have no realistic means to protect their rights compounds the severity of the intrusions on individual liberty that this statute will occasion. The arrests it authorizes make a mockery of the right enforced in Brown v. Texas, supra, in which we held squarely that a State may not make it a crime to refuse to provide identification on demand in the absence of reasonable suspicion. [FN5] If Section 647(e) remains in force, the validity of such arrests will be open to challenge only after the fact, in individual prosecutions for failure to produce identification. Such case-by-case scrutiny cannot vindicate the Fourth Amendment rights of persons like appellee, many of whom will not even be prosecuted after they are arrested, see ante, at 1857. A pedestrian approached by police officers has no way of knowing whether the officers have "reasonable suspicion"--without which they may not demand identification even under Section 647(e), id., at 1857, and n. 5--because that condition depends solely on the objective facts known to the officers and evaluated in light of their experience, see Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S., at 30, 88 S.Ct., at 1884; United States v. Brignoni-Ponce , 422 U.S., at 884-885, 95 S.Ct., at 2581- 2582. The pedestrian will know that to assert his rights may subject him to arrest and all that goes with it: new acquaintances among jailers, lawyers, prisoners, and bail-bondsmen, first-hand knowledge of local jail conditions, a "search incident to arrest," and the expense of defending against a possible prosecution. [FN6] The only response to be expected is compliance with the officers' requests, whether or not they are based on reasonable suspicion, and without regard to the possibility of later vindication in court. Mere reasonable suspicion does not justify subjecting the innocent to such a dilemma. [FN7] By defining as a crime the failure to respond to requests for personal information during a Terry encounter, and by permitting arrests upon commission of that crime, California attempts in this statute to compel what may not be compelled under the Constitution. Even if Section 647(e) were not unconstitutionally vague, the Fourth Amendment would prohibit its enforcement.

1 0

Yahoo - Newsweek Cover: The Trail of Terror
by Jim Choate 23 Sep '01

23 Sep '01

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/010923/nysu002a_1.html -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ Kill them all, take their land, and go there for vacation. Rage Against The Machine The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Larry Ellison volunteers to donate the S/W for Nat. ID Cards
by citizenQ 23 Sep '01

23 Sep '01

In the SJ Mercury News this morning: Ellison, (who doesn't think that laws pertaining to other people pertain to him, evidenced by his refusal to obey flight curfew laws regulating takeoffs and landings at SJ Airport) volunteers to donate all the Oracle-ware necessary to deploy National ID cards. For this act of patriotism he naturally gets lots of column inches of aggrandizement. He is quoted in the article as suggesting a card that stores your fingerprint, allowing authentication by a fingreprint reader. "'We're quite willing to provide the software for this absolutely free.'" "But Ellison said in the electronic age little privacy is left anyway" ... " 'This privacy you're concerned about is largely an illusion,' he said. 'All you have to give up is your illusions, not any of your privacy.'" "Howard Gantman, a spokesman for Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif, said that she would be interested in discussing the idea with Ellison." Fuckwits. I'm concerned the possibility of Nat ID cards is a more virulent threat than wiretapping and crypto restrictions. "May I see your papers please?"

5 6