- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Airport insanity.."Ethnicity" is Bullshit
by Tyler Durden 18 Oct '04

18 Oct '04

> > > You also seem to forget there is another potential factor - > > > not only the visible one (ethnicity), but also one that isn't > > > obvious to visual evaluation - religion. There is a > > > significant black minority that inclines to Islam, some of > > > them potentially radical. Do you want to suggest banning > > > blacks from flying too? > > > > Seen any black suicide bombers? OK, let's just say it outright. In this case "Ethnicity" is just pure camaflauge for "People who don't agree with my right-wing American Century politics". Just to remind us of the basics: Afghans and Iranians are not Arabs. Sub-saharan Africa has tens of millions of fully black Muslims. Arabs are Semites. > > Black Muslim radicalism tends to express itself by mugging Jews and > > stealing television sets. Strapping dynamite to one's chest just does > > not seem to be a black thing. Uh...what? If you're talking about the Nation of Islam (in the US), you almost NEVER find members in good standing "mugging Jews or stealing TV" sets here in New York, and any other location is going to be a statistical blip. Let's also remember that we don't have US-backed/paid-for tanks rolling through black neighborhoods every day. If we did I suspect Black Muslims might start fighting back. Let's just state the obvious: September 11th occurred not because we had a few "crazy Muslim fundamentalists" out there that decided they "hate our freedoms". The struck us because we've been fuckin' over a large swath of the Muslim (not only Arab) world for 100 years or so now. They're tired of us being there and muckin' around in their politics, and they want it to stop. The "fundamentalist" part is sort of a 'strengthener', let's say...here's people who know they're probably going to have to kill large numbers of civilians to get their point across, so how can they justify this? Well, a nicely-tuned Wahabism will do just nicely thank you. Seems fairly predictable, really. -TD _________________________________________________________________ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/

2 2

RE: Airport insanity
by Tyler Durden 18 Oct '04

18 Oct '04

First of all, the guy is a major dumbass... >My profile is radically different from all those who killed nearly 3,000 of >my countrymen on September 11, 2001. My "holy book" of choice is the Bible. >My race is Caucasian. I am a loyal, taxpaying, patriotic, evil-hating, >English-as-first-language, natural-born American. If profiling were >allowed, I wouldn't be the one filling out government forms to prove I'm >not a terrorist. The other guys would. I'm thinking that the state-of-the-art on Cypherpunks is such that no real comment here is necessary. >The arbitrariness of all of this makes me think the "security" system isn't >very secure and that it is all a sham created by politicians to fool the >public into believing they are protecting us. Meanwhile, millions cross our >borders illegally, including untold numbers from countries that hate us. This is precisely why Al-Qaeda sent 19 (or probably more) true-believers. Even if TSA lowers the odds, all you have to do is roll the dice many more times, and a few of the faithful will definitely get through the checkpoint. Security measures might stop a lone crazy, but the odds don't stand up if they send dozens of people into airports all around the country. And Iraq II is promising us a bumper crop of new 'terrorists'. Seems to me it's going to be much easier for the US to stop fucking around over there. Oh wait, we can't do that because "then the terrorists have won". Waitaminute...doesn't Algeria prove that terrorism wins, eventually? -TD >From: "R.A. Hettinga" <rah(a)shipwright.com> >To: cypherpunks(a)al-qaeda.net, cryptography(a)metzdowd.com >Subject: Airport insanity >Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 19:08:59 -0400 > ><http://www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/printct20041013.shtml> > >Townhall.com > >Airport insanity >Cal Thomas (back to web version) | Send > >October 13, 2004 > >Ted Kennedy and I have something in common. We are both on airline lists as >potential terror suspects. > >Kennedy was recently denied access to a US Airways flight out of >Washington, one he has taken for 40 years. > >I am on a US Airways list of some type that apparently requires airline >employees to take my driver's license behind closed doors, have a >conference and then stamp my ticket with a code that mandates my person and >my carry-on bag be searched. Every time I fly, which is sometimes several >times a week. I especially appreciate the crotch grab to make sure I'm not >hiding any weapons of mass destruction. How would you like to be the >trainer for this procedure? > >The idiocy virus is now spreading to other airlines. It seems someone who >shares my name is wanted by authorities. I hope he is getting some of my >hate mail. Logic should dictate that once I prove I am not the guy they are >looking for, they would take me off the suspect list. But, no, our misnamed >Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is anything but logical. > >US Airways gives me a TSA phone number to call. I am not surprised when a >machine answers. The machine promises a "prompt" response. I leave a >message. There is no response. A few days later, I call again. Same >recording, same message, same non-response. I send an e-mail to TSA. This >time I receive an "automated reply," assuring me of a prompt response. Two >days later, I receive another e-mail informing me I will have to fill out a >form to prove I am not a terrorist. This is an interesting twist on the >"innocent until proven guilty" standard in law. > >The confusion plot thickens. Two weeks ago, TSA approved my application for >"registered traveler" status as part of an experimental program at some >airports for frequent travelers. I recorded my "eye print" and fingerprint, >and now a machine can identify me and allow me to go to the head of the >security line, but only at the airport where I applied. > >Other participating airports require applications to be made at each of >those airports, even though the paperwork presumably goes to TSA >headquarters. Why can't TSA look at that one application that has been >approved and take me off their "watch list," or whatever they call it? Is >"logic" not in government dictionaries? > >Things have become so ridiculous on the road that a TSA screener in Duluth, >Minn., last week required me to open my computer bag, whereupon she used >one of those devices that resemble a deodorant pad and wiped every >electrical cord. When I asked why, she responded, "The downed Russian >airliners." When I noted that Duluth was the only airport in the country >where my electrical cords had been wiped, she replied, "Everyone is >supposed to." > >The arbitrariness of all of this makes me think the "security" system isn't >very secure and that it is all a sham created by politicians to fool the >public into believing they are protecting us. Meanwhile, millions cross our >borders illegally, including untold numbers from countries that hate us. > >Why isn't the Bush administration doing something about illegal immigration >instead of pretending these people are coming here solely to do manual >labor we native Americans don't want to do? Wouldn't we be safer if we >prevented those who wish us harm from getting into the country? > >Thanks to Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta's misguided policy of >refusing to profile travelers, we get equal opportunity inconvenience and >stupidity. Imagine if cops were prohibited from describing gender, race or >other physical characteristics when broadcasting an all-points bulletin for >a suspect. > >My profile is radically different from all those who killed nearly 3,000 of >my countrymen on September 11, 2001. My "holy book" of choice is the Bible. >My race is Caucasian. I am a loyal, taxpaying, patriotic, evil-hating, >English-as-first-language, natural-born American. If profiling were >allowed, I wouldn't be the one filling out government forms to prove I'm >not a terrorist. The other guys would. > >This is an outrage! The form will soon be in the mail. They'll probably >send me a note assuring me of a prompt reply, before misplacing the >application. Senator Kennedy, can you help? > > >-- >----------------- >R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> >The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> >44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA >"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, >[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to >experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' _________________________________________________________________ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/

11 18

Re: Airport insanity
by John Kelsey 18 Oct '04

18 Oct '04

>From: "James A. Donald" <jamesd(a)echeque.com> >Sent: Oct 16, 2004 7:22 PM >To: "cypherpunks(a)al-qaeda.net" <cypherpunks(a)al-qaeda.net> >Subject: Re: Airport insanity ... >> Oh, and every white American (recall numerous references to >> Mr. McVeigh) >Mc Veigh did not target innocents, and if he did target a plane >full of innocents, perhaps in order to kill one guilty man on >board, there is no way in hell he himself would be on that >plane. Well, he targeted a building full of innocents, so he could get some BATF people in one part of the building, right? I guess I'm missing the part where he took especial care not to blow up people who had no connection with the Waco disaster. How would you differentiate his target selection from that of the 9/11 attackers who hit the Pentagon? Though you're right, he didn't do the suicide bomber thing. Does that constitute a guarantee that no white terrorist ever will do so? (After all, an awful lot of Arab terrorists also plan on living to fight another day.) > --digsig > James A. Donald --John

2 1

Negroponte Evangelizes Internet Bearer Transactions in InformationWeek (was re: Peer-To-Peer Payoff)
by R.A. Hettinga 18 Oct '04

18 Oct '04

Negroponte sat on the board of DigiCash, once... Cheers, RAH ------- <http://www.informationweek.com/shared/printableArticle.jhtml?articleID=4990…> Peer-To-Peer Payoff By Nicholas Negroponte, InformationWeek Oct. 18, 2004 URL: http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=49901099 The next 25 years of information technology will blur boundaries between previously well-formed and discrete concepts, entities, or states of being. For example, work and play, nation and individual, rich and poor will be interpreted differently, with more overlaps than differences because of the porous nature of "being digital." A fully interconnected world with a common language is a very different place than one delimited by distance and Newtonian physics. Without question, the generation of kids born a quarter of a century hence will have totally different views about some of the most basic tenets of society, from love and family to business and pleasure. Of these basic elements, I have chosen to focus on one: money. How will transactions change over the next 25 years? Perhaps surprisingly. Cattle are widely considered the oldest form of money, used over 10,000 years ago to make payments and to account for debts and credits. The inherent value was in the cow itself. Only much later, after the Stone Age, did currency emerge in which its worth was established by convention and trust, using objects like shells and shell imitations. Modern coinage and paper money can be traced to China 500 B.C. and 100 B.C., using metal and leather, respectively. Paper banknotes emerged at the end of the 17th century as a promise to pay the bearer a sum on demand. These were handwritten and signed by cashiers. Only in the middle of the 18th century did printed, fixed denominations start to appear. It then took another 100 years for fully printed notes to emerge without need for filling in the name of the payee and signing each one individually. We call this stuff cash. Today, cash has been replaced increasingly by electronic credit and debit. In excess of three trillion dollars is moved around the planet daily. Conversions occur, accounts are changed, addressers and addressees are modified. But no money moves in the sense of coins or pigs going from my pocket or pen to yours. Everything is a scheme of pointers. The bits used to achieve such accounting don't have value unto themselves. They're only the means. Some people, including myself, believe the next step is for some of those bits to have value. That is to say, consider a string of bits to be like a virtual cow or shell. In order to distinguish these bits (like telling the difference between a beautiful seashell and a piece of coal), they would need an agreed identity. To avoid forgery, they would need a unique and secure ID. And to stop multiple spending of the same bits, there would need to be a clearing process or a means to reveal the identity of anybody who tries to double-spend. All of these requirements are easily achieved in both traceable and anonymous systems of E-cash. In these cases, the money does move. The bits are money. The more you have, the richer you are. This is the future, though maybe only in part. A parallel and more intriguing form of trade in the future will be barter. Swapping is a very attractive form of exchange because each party uses a devalued currency, in some cases one that would otherwise be wasted. Many of us are too embarrassed to run yard sales or too lazy to suffer the inconvenience and indignity of eBay. But imagine if you weren't. The unused things in your basement can be converted into something you need or want. Likewise, the person with whom you're swapping is giving something of value to you which is less so to them. With minimal computation, three-way, four-way, and n-way swaps can emerge, thereby removing the need for any common currency. Swapping is extended easily to baby-sitting for a ride to New York, a mansion for a two-hundred-foot yacht, or leftover food for a good laugh. In some cases, people will swap for monetary or nonmonetary currencies. Without question, we'll see new forms of market-making and auctions. But the most stunning change will be peer-to-peer, and peer-to-peer-to-peer- ... transaction of goods and services. If you fish and want your teeth cleaned, you need to find a dentist who needs fish, which is so unlikely that money works much better. But if a chauffeur wanted fish and the dentist wanted a driver, the loop is closed. While this is nearly impossible to do in the physical world, it's trivial in cyberspace. Add the fact that some goods and services themselves can be in digital form, and it gets easier and more likely. An interesting side benefit will be the value of one's reputation for delivering on your promises--thus, identities will have real value and not be something to hide. The point can be generalized beyond money. Peer-to-peer is a much deeper concept than we understand today. We're limited by assumptions rooted in and derived from the physical world. Information technology over the next 25 years will change those limits through force of new habits. Let me cite just one: I think nothing of moving millions of bits from one laptop to another (inches away) by using the Internet and transferring those bits through a server 10,000 miles away. Imagine telling that to somebody just 25 years ago. Nicholas Negroponte is the founding chairman of MIT's Media Laboratory and the author of the seminal work on the digital revolution, "Being Digital" (Knopf, 1995). Illustration by Dan Brown Return to: 25 Years Of InformationWeek -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

[osint] Screening of Protesters Unconstitutional, Court Rules
by R.A. Hettinga 18 Oct '04

18 Oct '04

--- begin forwarded text To: "Bruce Tefft" <btefft(a)community-research.com> Thread-Index: AcS0kySSChdBPRLEQbu8o9ie8LOH1AAbmsxQ From: "Bruce Tefft" <btefft(a)community-research.com> Mailing-List: list osint(a)yahoogroups.com; contact osint-owner(a)yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list osint(a)yahoogroups.com Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 07:00:09 -0400 Subject: [osint] Screening of Protesters Unconstitutional, Court Rules Reply-To: osint(a)yahoogroups.com Screening of Protesters Unconstitutional, Court Rules By C.G. Wallace Associated Press Sunday, October 17, 2004; Page A13 ATLANTA, Oct. 16 -- Fears of a terrorist attack are not sufficient reason for authorities to search people at a protest, a federal appeals court has ruled, saying Sept. 11, 2001, "cannot be the day liberty perished." A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled unanimously Friday that protesters may not be required to pass through metal detectors when they gather next month for a rally against a U.S. training academy for Latin American soldiers. Authorities began using the metal detectors at the annual School of the Americas protest after the 2001 terrorist attacks, but the court found that practice to be unconstitutional. "We cannot simply suspend or restrict civil liberties until the War on Terror is over, because the War on Terror is unlikely ever to be truly over," Judge Gerald Tjoflat wrote for the panel. "Sept. 11, 2001, already a day of immeasurable tragedy, cannot be the day liberty perished in this country." City officials in Columbus, Ga., contended the searches were needed because of the elevated risk of terrorism, but the court threw out that argument, saying it would "eviscerate the Fourth Amendment." "In the absence of some reason to believe that international terrorists would target or infiltrate this protest, there is no basis for using Sept. 11 as an excuse for searching the protesters," the court said. Columbus Mayor Bob Poydasheff and Police Chief Willie Dozier did not return messages seeking comment Saturday. Michael Greenberger, law professor and director of the University of Maryland's Center for Health and Homeland Security, said the ruling could have broader implications if it is used to challenge aspects of the USA Patriot Act. It was surprising, he said, coming from the conservative-leaning 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, but the opinion was "very well reasoned" and reflected "conventional application of constitutional principles." The Rev. Roy Bourgeois, a priest who founded the protest group called School of the Americas Watch, praised the ruling for safeguarding essential rights. "I felt that they were using 9/11 as an excuse, along with the Patriot Act, to interfere with our First Amendment rights," he said. "They are using this to get around what the Constitution is really rooted in." The metal detectors caused long lines and congestion outside the protest area, he said, comparing it to routing 10,000 people through a single security gate at an airport. "It was not just an inconvenience, it was a nightmare. We couldn't get to the place of assembly in an orderly fashion," he said. About 15,000 demonstrators attend the annual vigil, demanding the closing of the center, formerly called the School of the Americas. The facility at Fort Benning was reopened in 2001 as the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation. The protests began in 1990. This year's demonstration is scheduled for Nov. 20-21. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38747-2004Oct16.html?referrer =email [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> $9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything. http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/TySplB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> -------------------------- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, discuss-osint(a)yahoogroups.com. -------------------------- Brooks Isoldi, editor bisoldi(a)intellnet.org http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint(a)yahoogroups.com Subscribe: osint-subscribe(a)yahoogroups.com Unsubscribe: osint-unsubscribe(a)yahoogroups.com *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: osint-unsubscribe(a)yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ --- end forwarded text -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

RE: Airport insanity
by Major Variola (ret) 17 Oct '04

17 Oct '04

At 07:42 PM 10/16/04 -0400, Adam wrote: >First of all, there were 19 children killed in the OKC bombing. Were >these children guilty of some crime worthy of being killed by a truck >bomb? They were being used as human shields by the fedcriminals in the building. They were collateral damage, in the modern parlance. Ask the Iraqis to explain it to you. >Second of all, you make it sound like McVeigh was just your average-Joe >American. How could a non-fundamentalist knowingly kill 168 people? He was a retired US soldier, carrying out his mission to protect the Constitution.

1 0

RE: Airport insanity
by Major Variola (ret) 17 Oct '04

17 Oct '04

At 04:01 PM 10/16/04 -0700, James A. Donald wrote: >Tim McVeigh did not target innocents, nor was he a suicide >bomber. Neither did M. Atta et al. target innocents, he targeted those who elected the Caesars. And they were not pursuing suicide (a Moslem sin), since they are enjoying a comfy afterlife for their martyrdom. >Nor, incidentally, was he a fundamentalist or a racist. Neither is Osama et al.; only infidels call him a fundie, and the Jihadists have no problem with lighter or asian folks who subscribe. In fact, they can be quite useful, as they don't fit the rascist profiling that the TSA goons practice...

1 0

Re: Airport insanity
by John Kelsey 17 Oct '04

17 Oct '04

>From: "James A. Donald" <jamesd(a)echeque.com> >Sent: Oct 16, 2004 2:27 PM >To: cypherpunks(a)al-qaeda.net >Subject: Re: Airport insanity >> For whatever reason, pictures of me always come out looking >> like some crazed religious fanatic. But that doesn't mean >> that I'm going to bomb anything. And I sure hope that I'm >> not going to be detained or denied entry because of how I >> *look*, alone. >If you really look like the shoe bomber, then you should have >to drive, or use public transport. > --digsig > James A. Donald Surely this is a matter best left to the private companies offering transportation, subject only to restrictions to prevent future 9/11 attacks. --John

1 0

RE: Airport insanity
by Major Variola (ret) 17 Oct '04

17 Oct '04

At 12:14 PM 10/15/04 -0700, James A. Donald wrote: > -- >> >My profile is radically different from all those who killed >> >nearly 3,000 of my countrymen on September 11, 2001. My >> >"holy book" of choice is the Bible. My race is Caucasian. I >> >am a loyal, taxpaying, patriotic, evil-hating, >> >English-as-first-language, natural-born American. As was Timmy McV, Zeus rest his soul. Got ANFO?

5 5

Google Desktop privacy branded 'unacceptable'
by R.A. Hettinga 16 Oct '04

16 Oct '04

<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/15/google_desktop_privacy/print.html> The Register Biting the hand that feeds IT Google Desktop privacy branded 'unacceptable' By Andrew Orlowski in San Francisco (andrew.orlowski at theregister.co.uk) Published Friday 15th October 2004 22:47 GMT Google's Desktop represents a privacy disaster just waiting to happen, a rival has warned. David Burns, Copernic CEO, says users should know that the giant ad broker intends to mix public and private queries in the future, leveraging its key moneyspinning product: contextual advertising. "If you lined people and said, 'Stick your hand up if you want Google to know what pictures you have, and what MP3 files you have,' I don't think many would." Burns had offered these capabilities to partners before, but received some pushback. "Major brands don't want to compromise their reputation. We've offered this in the past to potential partners, and had a major PC hardware company and major portals say 'No, we can't do this'", Burns told us. With the subpoena-happy RIAA getting support from state law enforcement in its war on copyright infringers, Google represents a single point of compromise for millions of file traders. Copernic offers a native Windows search application both as a free download and as a branded offering to partners, and has toyed with merging the two before. But it's realized personal archives are very different to Google's snapshot of the web - and the queries are different too. "I don't deny desktop and web on the same page is attractive," he added. "But we're not going to do it." Burns was former US chief of FAST, which created the All The Web search site before selling it to Overture. Yahoo! now owns both. Google Desktop Search allows users to opt out of sending the company back detailed usage data, but it isn't possible to firewall it completely. Much more ominously, reckons Burns, Google's product manager Marissa Mayer said she expected the private queries to generate more hits for google.com. Most people, she believed, would choose to combine personal and web searches resulting in more revenue for Google's ad business. "As a result, we will serve more Web results pages and more ads, and those ads have more chances of getting clicked on. So there will be incremental Web search revenue from this product," she told the Washington Post. In January, Eric Schmidt said the company's goal was to create a "Google that knows you". With the addition of personal information, it's just taken a giant step towards that goal. -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0