- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Jimbelling the Sheep
by Eric Cordian 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The FBI informant who orchestrated the capture of the recent "Anthrax Terrorists" turns out to be a man twice convicted of felony extortion. He presently markets something called "The AZ-58 Ray Tube Frequency Instrument Prototype" which he advertises as being able to somehow purify the body of bacteria and viruses. Sounds like a rehash of Radionics. You may view the contraption at its very own web site, http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/jmckenzie ----- LAS VEGAS (AP) -- Far from planning an anthrax attack, William Leavitt Jr. was involved in a bizarre deal to buy a $2 million germ-killing machine from an FBI informant who double-crossed him, Leavitt's lawyers said Friday. Leavitt was described by his attorneys as a well-meaning, if gullible scientist. He and Larry Wayne Harris, both microbiologists, were arrested in suburban Henderson Wednesday outside a medical office and charged with conspiracy to possess and possession of a biological agent. His lawyers said Leavitt was operating under the assumption that what Harris had was Anthrax vaccine, which is legal and safe. The FBI was awaiting tests Friday to determine if it was vaccine or material grade anthrax, which is potent enough to kill thousands of people. Leavitt is married with three children and runs his own fire-protection business. The FBI says he also owns microbiological laboratories in his hometown of Logandale, Nev., and Frankfurt, Germany. His criminal attorney, Lamond Mills, said the FBI's informant, Ronald Rockwell, was trying to ``scam'' Leavitt into buying a germ-killing machine. ``When he couldn't scam 'em, he went the other way. He became a good guy for the FBI,'' Mills said. Leavitt's business lawyer, Kirby Wells, said the machine was called the AZ-58 Ray Tube Frequency Instrument Prototype, and was hyped by Rockwell in glossy brochures as being able to flush the body clean of bacteria and viruses. ``It looked like a bunch of bells and whistles,'' said Wells, who said he saw a picture of the machine. ``What made my client believe there was substance to that thing, I don't know. I wish I did.'' A promotion on the Internet has a bold headline: ``ANTHRAX,'' and goes on to say the AZ-58 ``can treat large numbers of people at the same time.'' ``Has the greatest health discovery in history been suppressed?'' the ad asks. Leavitt was close to buying the machine in a $2 million deal, but wanted to test it before making a $100,000 down-payment and arranged to fly Harris to Las Vegas about a week ago to help, said Wells. Leavitt believed that Harris was transporting anthrax vaccine, Mills said. But Rockwell told the FBI that Leavitt described it as military-grade. On the''NBC Nightly News'' Friday, Rockwell reiterated that Leavitt and Harris said they had military grade anthrax. ``They lied on what they were going to do,'' Rockwell said. ``It scared me so bad.'' There is no phone listing for Rockwell in the Las Vegas area. His attorney has not returned calls to The Associated Press. Leavitt and Harris were arrested Wednesday night after the FBI, with Rockwell's help, tailed the men to a medical office in suburban Henderson. Authorities removed a cooler and petri dishes from the office, and sealed the men's beige Mercedes in plastic before transporting it to an Air Force base. Leavitt, 47, and Harris, 46, of Lancaster, Ohio, are being held without bond. In an affidavit, the FBI said described Rockwell as a cancer research scientist who was convicted of felony extortion in 1981 and 1982. But the FBI has vouched for his credibility, saying he came forward without getting a deal and was a ``citizen performing his civic duty.'' Harris' attorney, Michael Kennedy, said Thursday that Rockwell's credibility ``is something we're going to look into.'' It was unclear how Leavitt, a Mormon bishop with strong political ties, got hooked up with Harris, an alleged white supremacist who has been plugging his self-published book about germ warfare. The FBI has said Harris met Rockwell last summer at a Denver science conference, while Leavitt's attorneys said they believed Rockwell got the men together. Mills said the results of the FBI tests will determine if they remain united in their defense. ``If the tests come back non-toxin, there is no case,'' said Mills. ``If it comes back military grade, then whoa, time out, that's not our fault. We separate from (Harris) completely.'' -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

4 3

Jimbelling the Sheep (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: Eric Cordian <emc(a)wire.insync.net> > Subject: Jimbelling the Sheep > Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 23:20:51 -0600 (CST) > The FBI informant who orchestrated the capture of the recent "Anthrax > Terrorists" turns out to be a man twice convicted of felony extortion. In one of the news reports that I heard the informant was described as a cancer researcher who was approached with an offer to purchase some surplus lab equipment. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | When a man assumes a public trust, he should | | consider himself public property. | | | | Thomas Jefferson | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Re: Some children are rabid and need to be put down (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: Eric Cordian <emc(a)wire.insync.net> > Subject: Re: Some children are rabid and need to be put down > Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 23:18:04 -0600 (CST) > Now she may have a legitimate problem, and may have started biting and > scratching in response to the counselor saying - "Good morning. You look > lovely today." Apparently the girls problems had been going on for a while, if the reports are accurate. Which raises the question of why she was still in a regular school environment in the first place. If it was a 'all of a sudden' attack then perhaps the instructor needs some looking into as well. I'd like to know what the 'significant blood loss' from scratches was refering to, as well as what experience the teacher had with the child prior to this. > It is rarely useful to take things like this at face value, especially > given the spin control talents of school administrators and the teachers > union. Agreed. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | When a man assumes a public trust, he should | | consider himself public property. | | | | Thomas Jefferson | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Re: Should the Feds ban spam? (fwd)
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>At 16:36 -0600 2/15/98, Jim Choate wrote: >>Newspaper editors work according to policies and trusts empowered by the >>owners of the paper. They are allowed as a function of the views of the >>owners to express that choice as an *employee* of those owners. Those >>policies do not apply to the readers as would happen in the case of an ISP. >>Unless you propose that each person should have multiple accounts at >>multiple ISP's. At 06:43 PM 2/15/98 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote: >This is so incoherent that it's not possible to turn into a positive statement. I found it pretty easy to parse, though incorrect - Jim assumes that each person will only deal with one ISP, and that getting spam filtering from that ISP means turning over control of all your incoming mail/news to the ISP. It's a bad assumption (even if I'm mistaken in claiming Jim assumes it :-) -- of course everybody should have multiple Internet service providers. As a Silicon Valley geek, I deal with several different ISPs offering dialup IP service, not counting my employer's dial and LAN access, or Metricom if I get it, but for most people, that's an exception. Dialup IP packet forwarding isn't the only service provided on the Net! I subscribe to a bunch of mailing lists, and even if I used an ISP that provided filtering services, I'd expect it to leave the mailing list traffic alone (and expect some of the lists to try and reduce spam sent to the list.) I also use a couple of mail forwarders - I advertise pobox.com, since it's convenient to have a permanent address even if I change ISPs. Occasionally I'll use a nymserver if I want to keep separate reputations, or an anonymous remailer for non-persistent or non-replyable email services. Pobox offers spam filtering, and while I don't use it, I think it's the service that gives you a summary of all the email it rejected if you want, which makes it much more likely that I'd buy such a service. I've found that almost all the mail I get addressed directly to my netcom address is spam (some of it's mail from real people with my old address, or mailing lists I haven't reconfigured yet.) It's convenient to be able to tell, just as I know that junk snailmail addressed to "Wired Stewart" is from the subscription I had a few years ago... I also have a couple of free services that I play with, and one of my cats has a Juno account she's been using to experiment with remailers on. And for new people getting on the net, it really makes sense to use hotmail or juno for a while until you know what you're doing, so you don't have spam following you around your whole life. Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart(a)pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

1 0

Re: Should the Feds ban spam? (fwd)
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim wrote: >>Absolutely they do, but the right is that *they* must do the filtering and >>*not* the ISP (it's a business and doesn't have fundamental rights). At 05:00 PM 2/15/98 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote: >1. No, they can delegate that authority to the ISP. This is part of the >freedom to contract. Yeah. Netcom doesn't have the right to decide what I'm allowed to read, but it can decide what materials that it will transmit, if it wants, and I can decide whether to do business with them, if I want. Two of the ISPs I use for receiving email offer spam-filtering services; I'm not currently buying either of them, but if spam goes from 5% to 50% of my mail, I'll certainly consider it. (And one of them gives a summary of what it's blocked, which is good.) Ray Arachelian and Eric Blossom can't decide what messages on Cypherpunks I'm allowed to read, but they can offer the most interesting 5-10% and maybe I'll use their editing capabilities instead of reading the whole firehose myself. (I alternate between FCPUNX and the full list.) >2. People acting together have rights. A corporation is an artificial legal >construct, but a necessary one, and it has rights. Think of The New York >Times Co. and the First Amendment. Corporations aren't a necessity, just a convenience; the big law firms and accounting firms are all partnerships, and do just fine without being corporations. Corporations do have artificial rights, but as constructs of the state, the state can decide which rights to give them and which rights not to give them in return for the favor of granting corporate charters. But Jim should know better than to say that businesses don't have rights. Businesses are activities that people engage in, either as individual proprietors, or as contractors, or as partnerships, or as employees, or as corporations. One of my ISPs is a sole proprietor, though he's now got an employee or two. Doesn't diminish his rights any. Another of my ISPs is a corporation; they're big and clumsy, but I can still hire them to perform services for me, including editing if I want to. >>No true Libertarian would allow any 3rd party to censor or limit the >>information available to them. Such actions are fundamentally >>non-libertarian which believes in individual choice. Nonsense - there's far more stuff written every day than you or I have time to read; even on Usenet, I had to stop reading every newsgroup sometime around 1984 (a few years before Henry Spencer stopped :-) Depending on other people to find interesting stuff is necessary; the question is how you pick your sources and filters, and how much you trust them to tell you everything. >>Oh really? It is clear from many examples that the press is not to be >>trusted because of its interactions in past political and criminal episodes. Of course they're not - do you think anybody actually believes everything they read or see on TV (well, yeah, there seem to be people who do :-) If you want to be well-informed, you need lots of sources; one of the cool things about the net is that you _can_ get lots of information that seldom got through the official channels before. Some of it didn't get through because it didn't match the political biases of the editors or newspaper corporate owners; other stuff didn't get through because it was boring or bogus, and if you're filtering all the news yourself, you'll need to do your own guessing and fact-checking. Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart(a)pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

1 0

Re: Should the Feds ban spam? (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 22:36:38 -0800 > From: Bill Stewart <bill.stewart(a)pobox.com> > Subject: Re: Should the Feds ban spam? (fwd) > >At 16:36 -0600 2/15/98, Jim Choate wrote: > >>Newspaper editors work according to policies and trusts empowered by the > >>owners of the paper. They are allowed as a function of the views of the > >>owners to express that choice as an *employee* of those owners. Those > >>policies do not apply to the readers as would happen in the case of an ISP. > >>Unless you propose that each person should have multiple accounts at > >>multiple ISP's. > > At 06:43 PM 2/15/98 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote: > >This is so incoherent that it's not possible to turn into a positive statement. It means the employee's of the paper act as agents of the owners and not as direct right-holders of the paper itself. In other word the job of the editor, not his civil right as an owner, is what gives them the privilige at the behest of the owners to edit what appears in the paper. The only people who have a right to 'freedom of the press' are the people who *own* the press. Employees don't have rights, per se, in this only duties and responsibilities to carry out the desires of the owners. Now if we address the issue, as some proposed, of ISP's having 'global filtering' rules (eg "All cyberpromo.com accounts are filtered") *and* the purchaser may for some reason *want* to recieve cyberpromo.com traffic they are left with the only option of going to a second (or third, or ...) ISP in order to get what they want. > I found it pretty easy to parse, though incorrect - > Jim assumes that each person will only deal with one ISP, Not at all, I assume that people can deal with as many ISP's as they have money for. What I do assume is that if we expect ISP's to filter spam they have only a single option open to them. That option is to impliment a filtering policy based upon an interview and oversight by the purchasers of that account. This will increase the costs of Internet access far above the current levels. This increase in cost will naturaly strain already limited budgets and force some people to drop secondary (or tertiary, or ...) accounts because of this basic access price increase. > and that getting spam filtering from that ISP means turning > over control of all your incoming mail/news to the ISP. Not at all, the purchaser defines a spam policy that the ISP impliments. Whatever filtering the recipient wants to do over and above this is left unremarked. However, for an ISP to filter ones email to determine if it fits the policy the purchaser/recipient has defined they *will* be required to review *all* incoming mail. Otherwise how do they determine if it fits one of the categories that were defined in the contract, whether we look at it from the perspective of what to filter or what to pass along and let the customer process on their own. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | When a man assumes a public trust, he should | | consider himself public property. | | | | Thomas Jefferson | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Public transportation open to terrorism [CNN]
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > STUDY: PUBLIC TRANSIT INVITES TERRORISM > > graphic February 20, 1998 > Web posted at: 6:59 p.m. EST (2359 GMT) > > WASHINGTON (AP) -- The arrests in Nevada of two men accused of > possessing anthrax or its precursor highlight the findings of a > recent federal report warning that public buses and trains are > vulnerable to terrorist attack. > > Indeed, an FBI affidavit said that one of the Nevada men had talked > about plans to spread bubonic plague toxins in the New York City > subway system. > > "For those determined to kill in quantity and willing to kill > indiscriminately, public transportation offers an ideal target," the > report said. > > The report was commissioned by the U.S. Department of Transportation > and written last year by terrorism expert Brian Jenkins. [text deleted] > Amy Coggin, a spokeswoman for the American Public Transit > Association, the trade group for public transportation authorities, > said in an interview: "There are multiple entry points (to transit > systems), most of them on a street. There's no way screen everybody > who walks down a street. Unless we're going to become a police > state, you won't see that thing happening." [text deleted] ____________________________________________________________________ | | | When a man assumes a public trust, he should | | consider himself public property. | | | | Thomas Jefferson | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Request for Web Browser Information
by dstoler＠globalpac.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I would like to know the information my browser makes available to web sites. I use both Netscape and Internet Explorer. Obviously web sites can determine my IP address for any given session; they can also look at cookies left by themselves and other sites. Can anyone point me to where I can learn exactly what other information is made available (browser version?, OS version?, system name?, user name?, etc.)? Thanks in advance. David

2 1

$:)$
by Kmiller＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

WARNING: THIS IS REAL !! Pass This Up Lightly And Youll Be Making One Of The Biggest Mistakes Of Your Life! ----FREE----FREE----FREE----FREE---- REGISTERED version of NetContact Retails for $300 and up This bulk E-mail software will EXPLODE your business ----FREE----FREE----FREE----FREE---- ALL I DO IS MAIL OUT 10 OF THE EXACT SAME SALES LETTER EVERYDAY !! That is all I do! I earn $140, $200, even $250 a day mailing out the exact same sales letter! There is absolutely no catch or crazy gimmick involved here, I promise you. This has nothing to do with any ridiculous envelope stuffing program, illegal chain-letter scam or worthless multi-level scheme! There is not an easier way to make $140 a day than this- if you would like to gain financial independence and success, listen up... I tried every moneymaking plan under the sun. After a couple years of constant attempts at striking it rich, I had done nothing but strike out. I tried multi-level marketing... I failed! I tried chain letters... They failed me! I tried envelope stuffing... What a joke! I figured I could afford the $30 or $40 for each of the programs I tried; until I realized not only does that build up, but I was making no money in the mean time. Bills piled up and the future started looking bleak. Luckily a friend informed me of this program, which turned my finances around. Not only is it profitable, but immensely profitable with only an hour or two a day worth of work! Here is what my 3 diskette program includes: 1) NetContact bulk mail software- REGISTERED 2) Master copies of my Special Sales Letters that make $140 per day 3)Complete business startup guides 4)Complete instructions and internet access to our secret website As you can see, for only $20, you are getting a complete business system with all the support you need! In the past I have licensed this system for $79.95. Available only for Windows95 and NT. cut here____________________________________________ I want to receive $140 every time I mail out 10 copies of the same sales letter that you will supply. Please rush me your Every-Day Cash Plan!! Enclosed is the $20 dollar cost. Send $20 cash or check to: HyperReal Box 136 2051 Richmond Road Suite 125 Lexington, KY 40502 Make checks payable to HyperReal Name_________________________________________________ Address_______________________________________________ City__________________________________________________ State/Province______________ Zip/Postal code_______________ Country if other than U.S._________________________________

1 0

Re: DLing from Replay.com
by Alex de Joode 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In article <a7a15ef0e0850cd6298e5b6f0dd20958(a)squirrel.owl.de> you wrote: : |Forbidden : |You don't have permission to access /security/browsers/128bit/CommunicatorUS-v401-Pro/windows/cp16d401.exe on this : |server. : |There was also some additional information available about the error: : |[Mon Feb 16 21:13:24 1998] access to : |/pub/WWW/www.replay.com/security/browsers/128bit/CommunicatorUS-v401-Pro/windows/cp16d401.exe : |failed for xxxxxx.xxxxx.xxxxx.xxx, reason: file permissions deny server execution My fault: the extension .exe is used for cgi-scripts @replay, so the webinterface thinks that the file is a cgi script, and not a downloadable archive so it tries to execute it which ofcourse doesnŽt work. try the following URL: ftp://ftp.replay.com/pub/crypto/browsers/128bit/ Sorry for the mess .. -- Alex de Joode | adejoode(a)REPLAY.COM | http://www.replay.com Replay Associates: Your Internet Problem Provider.

1 0