- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

recent brute-force work factor calculations
by Eric Murray 11 Jun '04

11 Jun '04

Does anyone know of a recent brute-force work factor calculation for the various common symmetric ciphers? I.e. it'll take X 3.2gh Xeons Y years to brute cipher Z. I know there's a table of these in Schneier and there's the "Seven Cryptographers" paper but they're both pretty old at this point. I'm just looking for an approximation. Thanks. Eric

1 0

The life of a Kiwi contractor in Iraq
by pgut001＠cs.auckland.ac.nz 22 May '04

22 May '04

There's an interesting look at the situation in Iraq from the point of view of a third-party contractor, in an article in the Sunday Star Times, http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/sundaystartimes/0,2106,2908644a6442,00.html. Most quotable quote: The thing that pisses us off is the Yanks had no idea what to do after they'd taken out the Iraqi army. They rocked on in, took them out and then thought: OOh shit, what do we do now? Peter.

1 0

Financial Cryptography: FC05 - Dominica - March 2005
by R. A. Hettinga 21 May '04

21 May '04

<http://www.financialcryptography.com/mt/archives/000142.html#more> Financial Cryptography mixing Finance, Cryptography and a whole bunch of other things + Mutual Funds - Timestamping | Main May 21, 2004 FC05 - Dominica - March 2005 FC'05 is announced with a new title "Financial Cryptography and Data Security." Vital statistics are 28th Feb to 3rd March, 2005, in Roseau, Dominica, East Caribbean, and submissions in the Call for Papers are due by 10th September, 2004. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [fc-announce] CFP: FC'05 - Financial Cryptography and Data Security Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 16:59:41 -0400 From: Stuart Schechter <stuart(a)eecs.harvard.edu> Organization: Harvard University To: <fc-announce(a)ifca.ai> FC'05 Financial Cryptography and Data Security http://www.ifca.ai/fc05/ CALL FOR PAPERS Ninth International Conference February 28-March 3, 2005 Roseau, The Commonwealth Of Dominica Submissions Due Date: September 10, 2004 Financial Cryptography and Data Security (FC'05) is the premier international forum for research, advanced development, education, exploration, and debate regarding security in the context of finance and commerce. We have augmented our conference title and expanded our scope to cover all aspects of securing transactions and systems. These aspects include a range of technical areas such as: cryptography, payment systems, secure transaction architectures, software systems and tools, user and operator interfaces, fraud prevention, payment systems, secure IT infrastructure, and analysis methodologies. Our focus will also encompass legal, financial, business and policy aspects. Material both on theoretical (fundamental) aspects of securing systems and on secure applications and real-world deployments will be considered. The conference goal is to bring together top cryptographers, data-security specialists, and scientists with economists, bankers, implementers, and policy makers. Intimate and colorful by tradition, the FC'05 program will feature invited talks, academic presentations, technical demonstrations, and panel discussions. This conference is organized annually by the International Financial Cryptography Association (IFCA). Original papers and presentations on all aspects of financial and commerce security are invited. Submissions must have a visible bearing on financial and commerce security issues, but can be interdisciplinary in nature and need not be exclusively concerned with cryptography or security. Possible topics for submission to the various sessions include, but are not limited to: * Anonymity and Privacy * Auctions * Audit and Auditability * Authentication and Identification, including Biometrics * Certification and Authorization * Commercial Cryptographic Applications * Commercial Transactions and Contracts * Digital Cash and Payment Systems * Digital Incentive and Loyalty Systems * Digital Rights Management * Financial Regulation and Reporting * Fraud Detection * Game Theoretic Approaches to Security * Infrastructure Design * Legal and Regulatory Issues * Microfinance and Micropayments * Monitoring, Management and Operations * Reputation Systems * RFID-Based and Contactless Payment Systems * Risk Assessment and Management * Secure Banking * Secure Financial Web Services * Securing Emerging Computational Paradigms * Security and Risk Perceptions and Judgments * Security Economics * Smart Cards and Secure Tokens * Trust Management * Trustability and Trustworthiness * Underground-Market Economics * Usability and Acceptance of Security Systems * User and Operator Interfaces SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS ======================= FC'05 is inviting submissions in three categories: (1) research papers, (2) systems and applications presentations, (3) panel sessions. For all accepted submissions, at least one author must attend the conference and present the work. Research Papers =============== Research papers should describe novel scientific contributions to the field, and they will be subject to vigorous peer review. Papers can be a maximum of 15 pages in length (including references and appendices), and accepted submissions will be published in full in the conference proceedings. Submission of previously published material and simultaneous submission of papers to other conferences or workshops with proceedings is not permitted. Authors of research papers found to be doubly submitted risk having all their submissions withdrawn from consideration as well as other appropriate sanctions. Systems and Application Presentations ===================================== Submissions in this category should describe novel or successful systems with an emphasis on secure digital commerce applications. Presentations may concern commercial systems, academic prototypes, or open-source projects for any of the topics listed above. Where appropriate, software or hardware demonstrations are encouraged as part of the presentations in these sessions. Contributions must reflect careful thought and effort and provide valuable, up-to-date experience that is relevant to practitioners in the fields of financial cryptography and data security. Submissions in this category should consist of a short summary of the work (1-6 pages in length) to be reviewed by the Program Committee, along with a short biography of the presenters. Accepted submissions will be presented at the conference (25 minutes per presentation), and a one-page abstract will be published in the conference proceedings. Panel Sessions ============== Proposals for panel sessions are also solicited, and should include a brief description of the panel as well as prospective participants. Panel proposals should be submitted via e-mail, in plain ASCII format, to the Program Chairs. Accepted panel sessions will be presented at the conference, and each participant will contribute a one-page abstract to be published in the conference proceedings. The Rump Session ================ FC'05 will also include the popular "rump session" held on one of the evenings in an informal, social atmosphere. The rump session is a program of short (5-7 minute), informal presentations on works in progress, off-the-cuff ideas, and any other matters pertinent to the conference. Any conference attendee is welcome to submit a presentation to the Rump Session Chair (to be announced). This submission should consist of a talk title, the name of the presenter, and, if desired, a very brief abstract. Submissions may be sent via e-mail, or submitted in person through the Monday of the conference. Preparation Instructions ======================== Submissions to the research papers and systems/application presentation categories must be received by the due date. Papers must be formatted in standard PostScript, PDF format, or MS Word. Submissions in other formats will be rejected. All papers must be submitted electronically according to the instructions and forms found on this web site. (Specific instructions for electronic submissions will be published in the near future.) Author names and affiliations on submissions must be explicit. In other words, submitted papers should not be anonymized. Submissions must include on the first page the title of the paper, the names and affiliations of all authors, a brief abstract, and a list of topical keywords. Accepted submissions will be included in the conference proceedings to be published in the Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS) series after the conference, so the submissions must be formatted in the standard LNCS format. Authors of accepted submissions will be required to complete and sign an IFCA copyright form. A pre-proceedings volume containing preliminary versions of the papers will be distributed at the conference. Questions about all conference submissions should be directed to the Program Chairs. IMPORTANT DATES =============== Submission Deadline: September 10, 2004 Author Notification: November 1, 2004 Pre-Proceedings Version Due: TBA Conference: February 28 - March 3, 2005 Final Proceedings Version Due: TBA CONFERENCE ORGANIZERS ===================== Conference Website: http://www.ifca.ai/fc05/ General Chair: Stuart Schechter, stuart(a)eecs.harvard.edu Program Chairs: Andrew Patrick, Andrew.Patrick(a)nrc-cnrc.gc.ca Moti Yung, moti(a)cs.columbia.edu Program Committee: TBA _______________________________________________ fc-announce mailing list fc-announce(a)ifca.ai http://mail.ifca.ai/mailman/listinfo/fc-announce Posted by iang at May 21, 2004 12:49 PM | TrackBack Comments Post a comment Name: Email Address: URL: Remember personal info? YesNo Comments: -- ----------------- 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

The Fingerprint As Password
by R. A. Hettinga 21 May '04

21 May '04

There's one born every minute, boys and girls. We should take bets on when the first digital robbery occurs spoofing the output of one of these things. Cheers, RAH -------- <http://www.forbes.com/2004/05/21/cx_ah_0521tentech_print.html> Forbes Ten O'Clock Tech The Fingerprint As Password Arik Hesseldahl, 05.21.04, 10:00 AM ET Active Web users have lots of passwords to remember. First there's the log-in information just to sign in to a computer. Beyond that, an increasing number of Web sites that used to let visitors browse unencumbered are now requiring registration user names and passwords. More people are doing their banking online as well. And ever more people are ditching traditional e-mail accounts for Web-based e-mail from Microsoft's (nasdaq: MSFT - news - people ) Hotmail or Yahoo! (nasdaq: YHOO - news - people ). Password overload is a common problem. Both Microsoft and Apple Computer (nasdaq: AAPL - news - people ) have added new software tools to keep track of all your passwords, and Web browsers are increasingly likely to remember them for you as well. APC's Biometric Password Manager But whatever happened to biometrics? That's the science behind using a part of the body, such as a fingerprint or the iris of an eye, to replace a password. Wasn't biometrics supposed to be the field that would save us all from the frustrations of faulty password memory? If you've been waiting for the right device that will allow you to use a fingerprint to sign in to your PC and access the many password-protected Web sites you use, then your time has come. This week we tested a little device called the Biometric Password Manager from American Power Conversion (nasdaq: APCC - news - people ). This company is better known for its numerous power products, such as surge protectors, uninterruptible power sources and the like. APC's Password Manager plugs into the USB port of your PC. It sits on the desktop and whenever a password would be needed, you use a fingerprint to sign in. Software running on the PC associates the fingerprint with the user name and password and automatically enters them both and signs in the user. The product more or less worked exactly as described. Installation was pretty easy. A simple software wizard took us through the process of scanning the fingerprint, first for practice and then for real. The software supports up to 20 individual fingerprints, allowing for multiple users. It integrates easily with a browser, too. Aside from the system log-in, we trained the software to remember the sign-in information for a Yahoo! mail account. Doing so was a little less clear than was the initial setup and took a few tries. But once it was set up correctly, the fingerprint signed us in smoothly and instantaneously to check e-mail. The software also allows encryption of files on a PC. Say you've got an Excel workbook containing data you'd rather people outside your company didn't see, but which you don't need to refer to very often. You can lock it up with a password, but after several months that password may be difficult to remember. The fingerprint system makes that process easy. The unit is available for about $50. The software supports Microsoft Windows, starting with Windows 98, but doesn't support the Mac operating system. Mac users who want fingerprint security should investigate a similar device from Sony (nyse: SNE - news - people ), called the Puppy, which we'll test sometime in the future. Overall, APC's Biometric Password Manager seems a good value, offering a relatively simple method to avoid password overload. -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "This Way to the Egress" -- Placard girl in P.T. Barnum's circus

2 1

[CYBERIA] 1st amendment protection of software
by Peter D. Junger 21 May '04

21 May '04

I have started a weblog, which is at <http://sasmara.law.cwru.edu/blog/>. One of the entries, which I enclose, about first amendment protection of software may be of interest to some members of this list. -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger(a)samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu NOTE: junger(a)pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists --Begin Enclosure Expression Has Nothing to Do with It If one is concerned, as I am, with extending the First Amendment's protection of free speech and of the press to the writings of computer programmers and to the publication of information in digital form, one needs to find some way not to couch one's arguments in terms of ``freedom of expression.'' Burning a flag to protest a war is protected by the First Amendment, even though flag-burning is not literally speech, because flag-burning is ``expressive.'' That extension of the First Amendment beyond its literal scope does not, however, in any way imply that the speaking or publishing of materials that are not expressive are not acts entitled to First Amendment protection. Saying that ``one and one is two'' is not, I submit, expressive in the sense that burning a flag is expressive. That, however, does not give the government absolute authority under the First Amendment to forbid saying ``one and one is two,'' even though saying that might endanger the success of the government's fiscal policies or its conduct of the war in Iraq. Random numbers are not expressive in any sense at all, yet that does not mean that the publication of a table of random numbers would not be protected by the First Amendment. That might seem obvious, but when some years ago I challenged the constitutionality of the government's export regulations that forbade the publication of computer programs in digital form, the Government's response was to argue that computer programs are ``functional'' and therefore not ``expressive'' and that the publication of computer programs is thus not protected by the First Amendment. Put that way, the government's argument may not seem very persuasive. The trouble was, however, that there are no judicial precedents holding, or even saying, that non-expressive (or functional) speaking and publication are activities protected by the First Amendment--a point that is so obvious that it never has been litigated--and there are lots of precedents saying that one can only obtain a copyright on expressive writings and that functional writings are not copyrightable. Of course, the issue of whether a computer program is copyrightable has no bearing on whether it is entitled to First Amendment protection, but this apparently is not easy to see if one does not have the slightest idea as to what a computer program actually is. How difficult it is for courts, and lawyers, to understand that computer programs are simply writings like the recipes in a recipe book or the mathematical tables in an engineering handbook, is illustrated by the holding of the Federal District Court judge in my case, Junger v. Daley: Source code is ``purely functional,'' in a way that . . . instructions, manuals, and recipes are not. Unlike instructions, a manual, or a recipe, source code actually performs the function it describes. While a recipe provides instructions to a cook, source code is a device, like embedded circuitry in a telephone, that actually does the function of encryption. At that point my long-suffering lawyers had little choice but to adopt the government's interpretation of the First Amendment and argue that computer programs--or at least their source code--are protected by the First Amendment because they are ``expressive.'' And that argument prevailed. The Court of Appeals held in my case that Because computer source code is an expressive means for the exchange of information and ideas about computer programming, we hold that it is protected by the First Amendment. That was a great victory. Junger v. Daley is now the leading case holding that computer programs, or at least their source code, are protected by the First Amendment. The fact remains, however, that there is a much simpler reason for holding that the publication of computer programs--and not just source code--is protected by the First Amendment. To publish a computer program is to publish information and it is the publication of information that is protected by the freedom of the press. It's that simple. Expression has nothing to do with it --End Enclosure ********************************************************************** For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request(a)listserv.aol.com ********************************************************************** --- 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

[CYBERIA] 1st amendment protection of software
by Peter D. Junger 21 May '04

21 May '04

I have started a weblog, which is at <http://sasmara.law.cwru.edu/blog/>. One of the entries, which I enclose, about first amendment protection of software may be of interest to some members of this list. -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger(a)samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu NOTE: junger(a)pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists --Begin Enclosure Expression Has Nothing to Do with It If one is concerned, as I am, with extending the First Amendment's protection of free speech and of the press to the writings of computer programmers and to the publication of information in digital form, one needs to find some way not to couch one's arguments in terms of ``freedom of expression.'' Burning a flag to protest a war is protected by the First Amendment, even though flag-burning is not literally speech, because flag-burning is ``expressive.'' That extension of the First Amendment beyond its literal scope does not, however, in any way imply that the speaking or publishing of materials that are not expressive are not acts entitled to First Amendment protection. Saying that ``one and one is two'' is not, I submit, expressive in the sense that burning a flag is expressive. That, however, does not give the government absolute authority under the First Amendment to forbid saying ``one and one is two,'' even though saying that might endanger the success of the government's fiscal policies or its conduct of the war in Iraq. Random numbers are not expressive in any sense at all, yet that does not mean that the publication of a table of random numbers would not be protected by the First Amendment. That might seem obvious, but when some years ago I challenged the constitutionality of the government's export regulations that forbade the publication of computer programs in digital form, the Government's response was to argue that computer programs are ``functional'' and therefore not ``expressive'' and that the publication of computer programs is thus not protected by the First Amendment. Put that way, the government's argument may not seem very persuasive. The trouble was, however, that there are no judicial precedents holding, or even saying, that non-expressive (or functional) speaking and publication are activities protected by the First Amendment--a point that is so obvious that it never has been litigated--and there are lots of precedents saying that one can only obtain a copyright on expressive writings and that functional writings are not copyrightable. Of course, the issue of whether a computer program is copyrightable has no bearing on whether it is entitled to First Amendment protection, but this apparently is not easy to see if one does not have the slightest idea as to what a computer program actually is. How difficult it is for courts, and lawyers, to understand that computer programs are simply writings like the recipes in a recipe book or the mathematical tables in an engineering handbook, is illustrated by the holding of the Federal District Court judge in my case, Junger v. Daley: Source code is ``purely functional,'' in a way that . . . instructions, manuals, and recipes are not. Unlike instructions, a manual, or a recipe, source code actually performs the function it describes. While a recipe provides instructions to a cook, source code is a device, like embedded circuitry in a telephone, that actually does the function of encryption. At that point my long-suffering lawyers had little choice but to adopt the government's interpretation of the First Amendment and argue that computer programs--or at least their source code--are protected by the First Amendment because they are ``expressive.'' And that argument prevailed. The Court of Appeals held in my case that Because computer source code is an expressive means for the exchange of information and ideas about computer programming, we hold that it is protected by the First Amendment. That was a great victory. Junger v. Daley is now the leading case holding that computer programs, or at least their source code, are protected by the First Amendment. The fact remains, however, that there is a much simpler reason for holding that the publication of computer programs--and not just source code--is protected by the First Amendment. To publish a computer program is to publish information and it is the publication of information that is protected by the freedom of the press. It's that simple. Expression has nothing to do with it --End Enclosure ********************************************************************** For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request(a)listserv.aol.com ********************************************************************** --- 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

[CYBERIA] 1st amendment protection of software
by R. A. Hettinga 21 May '04

21 May '04

--- begin forwarded text

1 0

welcoming computer viruses
by Tyler Durden 21 May '04

21 May '04

Well, why can we use this to our advantage? As usual, this thought emerges from Tyler Durden's punch-drunk brain, but it's worth considering... Imagine I'm working for a large Fortune 100 Company. Now imagine I hear about a sasser-like worm that will install atself and spread, BUT "it has been confirmed" that the worm will proceed to vomit spam at X for a period of 48 hours. Depend on X (eg, the CIA, Microsoft, Re-elect George W...) I might be more than willing to download that virus, provided I had some kind of assurance that it wouldn't trash all my work (and if it closes down my company for a day or two, all the better 'cause I'm way overworked). Of course, I'll need plausible denial: "Oh, I thought that was my boss sending me a file..."). -TD >From: Eric Cordian <emc(a)artifact.psychedelic.net> >To: cypherpunks(a)minder.net >Subject: Re: Science: throttling computer viruses >Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 11:01:46 -0700 (PDT) > >Major Variola writes: > > > Computer viruses and worms are an increasing problem throughout the > > world. By some estimates 2003 was the worst year yet: > > Viruses halted or hindered operations at numerous businesses and other > > organizations, disrupted cash-dispensing machines, > >I have a dual boot system which normally runs Linux. Since it had been a >couple of months since I last ran XP, I booted it on Tuesday to run >Windows Update, and keep it current with critical patches. Within >minutes, before I had even downloaded the first update, my box ground to a >nearly screeching halt from Sasser, and some other piece of malware which >was trying to make thousands of connections to random IPs on port 5000. > >I've had Linux exposed to the Net for years, and have never had these >kinds of problems. You really wonder why someone doesn't arrest Bill >Gates for software malpractice. > >It's really silly when code can leap into your machine, install itself, >configure itself to start up again every time the system is booted, and >then sit there using all your system resources looking for other boxes to >victimize. Didn't we learn all we needed to know about provably correct >secure inpenetrable kernels with MULTICS in the 1960's? Why has the world >of computing been subjected to 20 years of Microsoft slowly reinventing >the wheel starting with DOS, and they still haven't gotten it right. > >We recall McDonalds toys with parts kids can bite off and choke on, but we >let millions of lines of closed source code that does Lord-knows-what on >various network ports run on nearly every machine in the universe with >impunity. > >-- >Eric Michael Cordian 0+ >O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division >"Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law" > _________________________________________________________________ Get 200+ ad-free, high-fidelity stations and LIVE Major League Baseball Gameday Audio! http://radio.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200491ave/direct/01/

1 0

RE: US airport fake ID study 'was found in al-Qaida cave'
by Tyler Durden 21 May '04

21 May '04

SO... This begs the question: Can we start issuing Cypherpunks LEO IDs? -TD >From: "R. A. Hettinga" <rah(a)shipwright.com> >To: cypherpunks(a)al-qaeda.net, cypherpunks(a)al-qaeda.net >Subject: US airport fake ID study 'was found in al-Qaida cave' >Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 08:30:51 -0400 > ><http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/20/us_airport_id_security/print.html> > >The Register > > > > Original URL: >http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/20/us_airport_id_security/ > >US airport fake ID study 'was found in al-Qaida cave' >By John Lettice (john.lettice(a)theregister.co.uk) >Published Thursday 20th May 2004 21:47 GMT > >The US House Aviation Subcommittee yesterday heard how congressional >investigators used false IDs to gain access to a series of federal >buildings and two commercial airports, and how a copy of the report >detailing their success was later found in an al-Qaida cave in Afghanistan. >The investigators were 100 per cent successful in getting past security, >but apparently less so in the case of their own report's security. > >Subcommittee Chairman John Mica told a hearing >(http://www.winonadailynews.com/articles/2004/05/20/ap/HiTech/d82lr3m00.txt) >on biometric ID in aviation that the deployment of more secure ID needed to >be accelerated, given that terrorists are interested in gaining access to >restricted airport areas. The congressional investigators had made their >fake IDs using software downloaded from the Internet, and apparently this >passed muster. > >Documentation presented to the hearing however included even more >comforting information about the security of the US aviation industry. If >you look down near the bottom of this document, >(http://www.house.gov/transportation/aviation/05-19-04/05-19-04memo.html) >in the section covering the Registered Traveler program you will find a >subsection dealing with Law Enforcement Officer (LEO) Credentials. As you >see, it says: "Currently, Federal LEO's can fly armed at any time, simply >by presenting their agency's credential. In addition, LEO's from 18,000 >separate State and local law enforcement agencies may fly armed if they >present their agency's credential and a letter on their agency's letterhead >stating that they have an official, work-related reason to fly armed. The >use of so many different types of law enforcement credentials increases the >risk that an unauthorized person could use a forged credential to carry a >gun on-board." > >Under the Registered Traveler Pilot program LEOs wishing to fly armed will >have biometric ID issued by the Transportation Security Administration >saying so, but it's not clear to us whether this will mean LEOs from the >18,000 non-Federal agencies will have to have this if they want to fly >armed, or whether the letterhead will still be enough. The pilot program >starts at five airports next month, and one would hope that the authorities >elsewhere will be taking extra special care in scrutinising LEO credentials >pending a wider rollout. . > > >-- >----------------- >R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> >The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> >44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA >"Several times a week, to enter a TV studio say, or to board a plane, I >have to produce a tiny picture of my face." -- Christopher Hitchens > _________________________________________________________________ Watch LIVE baseball games on your computer with MLB.TV, included with MSN Premium! http://join.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200439ave/direct/01/

1 0

[FoRK] Are you a potential terrorist? (fwd from jbone@place.org)
by Eugen Leitl 21 May '04

21 May '04

----- Forwarded message from Contempt for Meatheads <jbone(a)place.org> -----

1 0