- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: How did these people find our list? (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 10:30:11 -0400 > From: Duncan Frissell <frissell(a)panix.com> > Subject: Re: How did these people find our list? (fwd) > June 21, 1942, Fort Stevens at the mouth of the Columbia in Oregon is fired > upon by the deck gun of a Japanese submarine. The first continental costal > battery to be attacked by a foreign enemy (not counting those Southerners) > since the War of 1812. The Japs fire 17 shells. No apparent damage. Fort > Stevens is unable to depress its guns sufficiently to hit the submarine. A > draw. Two Jap subs were sunk in San Francisco harbor. Unfortunately I can't find the dates, will keep looking. > Oregon also suffered the U.S. Mainland's only domestic casualties due to > enemy action when a teacher and members of her family on a hike in southern > Oregon were killed by a Japanese balloon bomb. (These bombs were attached to Actualy it was a man, his wife, and two children. The two kids were playing with it when it went off. My memory tells me that the women and two kids were killed. Don't remember if she was a teacher or not. There was an interesting video recreation on TDC last month on this incident on a special on the Japanese balloon bombs. > balloons released from Japanese submarines off the coast.) Actualy most of them were released from the Japanese mainland at specific points. If you do further research on this you will learn how they used the ballast sand in the balloons (mechanicly complicated) to track their source. All the sites were bombed and the baloons ceased. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http:// www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

SAFE clears House subcommittee, with amendments
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

*************** Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 21:09:41 -0400 To: fight-censorship-announce(a)vorlon.mit.edu From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> Subject: FC: SAFE clears House subcommittee, from LEGI-SLATE [Since I showed up late today and missed some of the early discussion, I asked my friend Amy for permission to pass along her report. She graciously agreed. --Declan] ***************** SAFE Act Nears Home in House After Subcommittee Tosses It Out Favorably By Amy Branson LEGI-SLATE News Service WASHINGTON (June 24) -- Casting the only opposing vote to H.R. 695 -- the "Security and Freedom Through Encryption Act" -- Rep. Doug Bereuter, R-Neb., knew his position was the lonely one at a subcommittee markup Tuesday. "The goal must be to balance between the competitiveness of U.S. companies and U.S. national security goals," Bereuter began. "However, this bill fails that balance because it significantly relaxes U.S. export control of encryption without requiring a key recovery policy ... to those exports." Despite Bereuter's problems with the bill, the House International Relations Subcommittee on International Economic Policy and Trade passed H.R. 695 by a recorded vote of 14 yeas and 1 nay [Vote 1]. H.R. 695 lifts export restrictions on many kinds of strong encryption products, prohibits federal or state governments from requiring anyone to give up the key to their encrypted communications, and establishes criminal penalties for using encryption to further a criminal offense. "This is a vitally important piece of legislation if we're going to continue to promote the United States dominance of the software industry worldwide," the bill's sponsor, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., said Tuesday afternoon. Goodlatte, who does not sit on the International Relations Committee, spoke on behalf of his bill at the markup session. "This legislation is also very important from the standpoint of promoting the safety and security of American citizens and others in the use of the Internet," he added. Subcommittee members also adopted by voice vote an "en bloc amendment" that made what they described as mostly "technical" changes to the bill. Subcommittee aides emphasized that the purpose of the amendment language was to close loopholes and fix unintended omissions contained in the underlying legislation. For example, the amendment expands the kinds of products that do not have to have a validated license for export or re-export to include "any consumer product commercially available in the U.S. or abroad using encryption capabilities which are inaccessible to the end user and is not designed for military or intelligence end use." The amendment also expands the term "generally available" as it is used in the bill to include hardware with encryption capabilities. As the bill now is written, only software with encryption capabilities is covered. Also, the en bloc amendment added a "Sense of Congress" section to the end of the bill. In addition to "finding" that the president "has not been able to come to agreement with other encryption producing countries on export controls on encryption," the amendment suggests the president immediately should call an international conference to reach a policy agreement with other encryption exporting countries. Administration officials disapprove of this language because they say they are "close" to reaching an encryption export policy agreement with these countries, one House aide said. But the administration has been making this claim for several years, the aide said. This legislation already has been reported favorably by the House Judiciary Committee, which did not have jurisdiction over the export language. The International Relations subcommittee, however, had jurisdiction over the most controversial parts of the bill: the export provisions. The bill still faces a markup in the full International Relations Committee where there likely will be another technical amendment, the aide said. Meanwhile, the Senate Commerce Committee recently adopted a so-called "compromise" encryption bill that satisfies Clinton administration concerns about the availability of strong encryption technology overseas. But industry officials decry the legislation, sponsored by Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sen. Robert Kerrey, D-Neb. Senate legislation [S. 377] that more closely resembles Goodlatte's SAFE Act has been put on the back burner because of Clinton administration objections. Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., is sponsoring that bill, which also is known as Pro-CODE, or Promotion of Commerce Online in the Digital Era Act of 1997. -30- TYPE*MARKUP BILL*HR695 DATE*6/24/97 ------------------------- Declan McCullagh Time Inc. The Netly News Network Washington Correspondent http://netlynews.com/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is public. To join fight-censorship-announce, send "subscribe fight-censorship-announce" to majordomo(a)vorlon.mit.edu. More information is at http://www.eff.org/~declan/fc/

1 0

Underground extract: System X
by proff＠iq.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anyone read this book? Apparently the first in-depth investigation into the international computer underground to come out of the Southern-Hemisphere - or so I'm told ;) - J.A Extracts from Underground - The true nature of System X Extracted from Chapter 10 - "Anthrax - The Outsider" Note: System X's name has been changed for legal reasons. Sometimes the time just slipped away, hacking all night. When the first hint of dawn snuck up on him, he was invariably in the middle of some exciting journey. But duty was duty, and it had to be done. So Anthrax pressed control S to freeze his screen, unfurled the prayer mat with its built-in compass, faced Mecca, knelt down and did two sets of prayers before sunrise. Ten minutes later he rolled the prayer mat up, slid back into his chair, typed control Q to release the pause on his computer and picked up where he left off. This company's computer system seemed to confirm what he had begun to suspect. System X was the first stage of a project, the rest of which was under development. He found a number of tables and reports in System X's files. The reports carried headers like 'Traffic Analysis', 'calls in' and 'calls out', 'failure rate'. It all began to make sense to Anthrax. System X called up each of the military telephone exchanges in that list. It logged in using the computer-generated name and password. Once inside, a program in System X polled the exchange for important statistics, such as the number of calls coming in and out of the base. This information was then stored on System X. Whenever someone wanted a report on something, for example, the military sites with the most incoming calls over the past 24 hours, he or she would simply ask System X to compile the information. All of this was done automatically. Anthrax had read some email suggesting that changes to an exchange, such as adding new telephone lines on the base, had been handled manually, but this job was soon to be done automatically by System X. It made sense. The maintenance time spent by humans would be cut dramatically. A machine which gathers statistics and services phone exchanges remotely doesn't sound very sexy on the face of it, until you begin to consider what you could do with something like that. You could sell it to a foreign power interested in the level of activity at a certain base at a particular time. And that is just the beginning. You could tap any unencrypted line going in or out of any of the 100 or so exchanges and listen in to sensitive military discussions. Just a few commands makes you a fly on the wall of a general's conversation to the head of a base in the Philippines. Anti-government rebels in that country might pay a pretty penny for getting intelligence on the US forces. All of those options paled next to the most striking power wielded by a hacker who had unlimited access to System X and the 100 or so telephone exchanges. He could take down that US military voice communications system almost overnight, and he could do it automatically. The potential for havoc creation was breathtaking. It would be a small matter for a skilled programmer to alter the automated program used by System X. Instead of using its dozen or more modems to dial all the exchanges overnight and poll them for statistics, System X could be instructed to call them overnight and reprogram the exchanges. --- No-one would be able to reach one another. An important part of the US military machine would be in utter disarray. Now, what if all this happened in the first few days of a war? People trying to contact each other with vital information wouldn't be able to use the telephone exchanges reprogrammed by System X. THAT was power. It wasn't like Anthrax screaming at his father until his voice turned to a whisper, all for nothing. He could make people sit up and take notice with this sort of power. Hacking a system gave him a sense of control. Getting root on a system always gave him an adrenalin rush for just that reason. It meant the system was his, he could do whatever he wanted, he could run whatever processes or programs he desired, he could remove other users he didn't want using his system. He thought, I own the system. The word 'own' anchored the phrase which circled through his thoughts again and again when he successfully hacked a system. The sense of ownership was almost passionate, rippled with streaks of obsession and jealousy. At any given moment, Anthrax had a list of systems he owned and that had captured his interest for that moment. Anthrax hated seeing a system administrator logging onto one of those systems. It was an invasion. It was as though Anthrax had just got this woman he had been after for some time alone in a room with the door closed. Then, just as he was getting to know her, this other guy had barged in, sat down on the couch and started talking to her. It was never enough to look at a system from a distance and know he could hack it if he wanted to. Anthrax had to actually hack the system. He had to own it. He needed to see what was inside the system, to know exactly what it was he owned. The worst thing admins could do was to fiddle with system security. That made Anthrax burn with anger. If Anthrax was on-line, silently observing the adminsÕ activities, he would feel a sudden urge to log them off. He wanted to punish them. Wanted them to know he was into their system. And yet, at the same time, he didnÕt want them to know. Logging them off would draw attention to himself, but the two desires pulled at him from opposite directions. What Anthrax really wanted was for the admins to know he controlled their system, but for them not to be able to do anything about it. He wanted them to be helpless. Anthrax decided to keep undercover. But he contemplated the power of having System X's list of telephone exchange dial-ups and their username - password combinations. Normally, it would take days for a single hacker with his lone modem to have much impact on the US military's communications network. Sure, he could take down a few exchanges before the military wised up and started protecting themselves. It was like hacking a military computer. You could take out a machine here, a system there. But the essence of the power of System X was being able to use its own resources to orchestrate widespread pandemonium quickly and quietly. Anthrax defines power as the potential for real world impact. At that moment of discovery and realisation, the real world impact of hacking System X looked good. The telecommunications company computer seemed like a good place to hang up a sniffer, so he plugged one into the machine and decided to return in a little while. Then he logged out and went to bed. When he revisited the sniffer a day or so later, Anthrax received a rude shock. Scrolling through the sniffer file, he did a double take on one of the entries. Someone had logged into the company's system using his special login patch password. He tried to stay calm. He thought hard. When was the last time he had logged into the system using that special password? Could his sniffer have logged himself on an earlier hacking session? It did happen occasionally. Hackers sometimes gave themselves quite a fright. In the seamless days and nights of hacking dozens of systems, it was easy to forget the last time you logged into a particular system using the special password. The more he thought, the more he was absolutely sure. He hadn't logged into the system again. Which left the obvious question. Who had? ________________________________________________________________________ [This extract may be reposted non-commercially and without charge only] Underground; Tales of Hacking, Madness and Obsession on the Electronic Frontier, by Suelette Dreyfus; published by Mandarin (Random House Australia); (P) 475 pages with bib. http://www.underground-book.com/ or http://underground.org/book

1 0

Internet knuckle-dragging from the New York Times
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 22:03:20 -0400 From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship-announce(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: FC: Internet knuckle-dragging from the New York Times Wired's Todd Lappin started the flamefest last Friday. A bit uncharacteristic, perhaps, since Todd is generally mild-mannered both online and offline -- but then again, he had a good point and a juicy target. It was the New York Times, which had front-paged a scaremongering above-the-fold article by Christopher Wren: http://www.nytimes.com/library/cyber/week/062097drug.html Todd posted on fight-censorship: The article, headlined "Seductive Drug Subculture Flourishes on the Internet," notes that the Net has become "a virtual do-it-yourself guide to drug use, at a time when adolescents' experimenting is on the rise." Our intrepid reporter then goes on to assert that "partly owing to free-speech protection, the Internet lacks a quality control mechanism to separate fact from hyperbole or from outright falsehood." Indeed, it is also because of those nettlesome free-speech protections that the New York Times is able to publish such drivel -- replete with it's schoolmarm fearmongering, silly correlations, and ankle-deep analysis. Then the Boston Globe's technology reporter, Hiawatha Bray, leaped in... -Declan *********** Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 15:44:55 -0400 From: Hiawatha Bray <wathab(a)tiac.net> Awright. The lurking is over. What IS your problem? Can you point to any inaccuracies in Mr. Wren's story? If not, tough luck. I'm tired of listening to so-called "free speech advocates" going ballistic when they don't like what someone has to say. Every time a journalist writes a story about the seamier side of the Net, somebody complains that this will give outsiders the wrong idea. Nonsense. I think what really worries you is that such stories give people the RIGHT idea--that there are sex fiends, dope smokers and would-be Unabombers on-line. Well, there are. And as long as there are, journalists will write about the fact. Don't like it? Too bad. Deal with it. Hiawatha Bray 617-929-3115 voice Technology Reporter 617-929-3183 fax Boston Globe wathab(a)tiac.net P.O. Box 2378 Boston, MA, 02107 http://members.tripod.com/~krothering/index.html ********** Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 15:18:34 -0500 From: Jon Lebkowsky <jonl(a)onr.com> Subject: RE: Internet Knuckle-dragging from the NYTimes At 03:44 PM 6/20/97 -0400, Hiawatha Bray wrote: >Awright. The lurking is over. > >What IS your problem? Can you point to any inaccuracies in Mr. Wren's >story? If not, tough luck. > >I'm tired of listening to so-called "free speech advocates" going ballistic >when they don't like what someone has to say. Every time a journalist >writes a story about the seamier side of the Net, somebody complains that >this will give outsiders the wrong idea. Nonsense. I think what really >worries you is that such stories give people the RIGHT idea--that there are >sex fiends, dope smokers and would-be Unabombers on-line. Well, there >are. And as long as there are, journalists will write about the fact. > Don't like it? Too bad. Deal with it. > You missed the point. We all know that there are sex fiends, dope smokers, and would-be Unabombers in this world, on the net and elsewhere. What we're saying is that they have free speech rights, just like you. This isn't about blowing people up. This isn't about molesting children. This isn't about doing drugs. You don't *do* any of those things online. But you may talk about them. This is about SPEECH. *********** Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 13:28:27 -0800 To: Hiawatha Bray <wathab(a)tiac.net>, <Fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu> From: "--Todd Lappin-->" <telstar(a)wired.com> At 11:44 AM -0800 6/20/97, Hiawatha >What IS your problem? Can you point to any inaccuracies in Mr. Wren's >story? If not, tough luck. > >I'm tired of listening to so-called "free speech advocates" going ballistic >when they don't like what someone has to say. Every time a journalist >writes a story about the seamier side of the Net, somebody complains that >this will give outsiders the wrong idea. Nonsense. I think what really >worries you is that such stories give people the RIGHT idea--that there are >sex fiends, dope smokers and would-be Unabombers on-line. Well, there >are. And as long as there are, journalists will write about the fact. > Don't like it? Too bad. Deal with it. This is complete and utter bullshit. I didn't say Wren's article was inaccurate... I said it is a load of sensationalist crap, laden with half-baked innuendo and unsubstantiated correlations. Don't pull the "so-called 'free speech advocate'" horsepucky with me either. I'm not calling for censorship of the Times... I'm simply saying that their story was garbage. Of course, they have a right to print garbage... but I also think they have an obligation to recount the facts accurately, and in proper context. This article failed to to that. Instead, it implies that Websites use cartoons to tempt the young (as if cartoons are only for the young), and that the availability of drug info online somehow ties in to the fact that "adolescents' [drug] experimenting is on the rise. That's both absurd and factually unsubstantiated. I have no problem discussing the darker side of the Net... I do so regularly and openly. But I'm fed up with the "Internet Did It" genre of newspaper reporting. It's shoddy, and worse, it's dangerous -- because it promotes public hysteria through techno-fearmongering. Deal with it. --Todd--> PS: Jon Lebkowsky's last point was excellent. ************ Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 13:35:46 -0700 (PDT) From: baby-X <baby-x(a)millennium-cafe.com> On Fri, 20 Jun 1997, Hiawatha Bray wrote: > I'm tired of listening to so-called "free speech advocates" going ballistic > when they don't like what someone has to say. Every time a journalist > writes a story about the seamier side of the Net, somebody complains that > this will give outsiders the wrong idea. Nonsense. I think what really > worries you is that such stories give people the RIGHT idea--that there are > sex fiends, dope smokers and would-be Unabombers on-line. Well, there > are. And as long as there are, journalists will write about the fact. > Don't like it? Too bad. Deal with it. Either educate yourself about the fact that what these stories portray as some virulent epidemic of "bad" information is never anywhere near as severe as the hysteria said stories try to foster (for example, go spend this weekend reading all of Jon Katz over at the Netizen), or go back to lurking. ************ Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 16:57:49 -0400 From: freematt(a)coil.com (Matthew Gaylor) >Awright. The lurking is over. > >What IS your problem? Can you point to any inaccuracies in Mr. Wren's >story? If not, tough luck. > >I'm tired of listening to so-called "free speech advocates" going ballistic >when they don't like what someone has to say. Every time a journalist >writes a story about the seamier side of the Net, somebody complains that >this will give outsiders the wrong idea. Nonsense. I think what really >worries you is that such stories give people the RIGHT idea--that there are >sex fiends, dope smokers and would-be Unabombers on-line. Well, there >are. And as long as there are, journalists will write about the fact. > Don't like it? Too bad. Deal with it. Rather than write sensationalist stories on rather rare crimes in tabloid fashion- [Not that you are guility of this.] I'd personally rather see journalists mention that in comparison to kids swimming, riding a bike, or even playing a game of summer baseball- The chances of harm to children surfing the net is infinitesimal. Regards, Matt- ******** From: Hiawatha Bray <wathab(a)tiac.net> To: "Fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu" <Fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu> Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 17:07:08 -0400 Hmmm...how can I put this? The quality of the responses to my previous message was, well...lame. I don't do flame, so I'm trying to be courteous about this. But folks--you need to grow up. ******** Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 14:05:31 -0700 To: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu From: Lizard <lizard(a)dnai.com> At 03:44 PM 6/20/97 -0400, you wrote: >Awright. The lurking is over. > >What IS your problem? Can you point to any inaccuracies in Mr. Wren's >story? If not, tough luck. > If every week, all you saw in the papers were stories of journalists who beat their wives, jounalists who were arrested on drunk driving charges, journalists who falsified facts, and journalists who were late on their child-support payments, would you simply be content to know that all the stories were accurate? Or would you beging to think that maybe, just maybe, there was a slant? What you choose to report on is as important as the accuracy of the report. What makes this story newsworthy? Why the snide reminder that it's that darn ol' Free Speech thing that keeps these sites from being shut down? Why the emphasis on how 'anyone' can post stuff to the net, since there's no business interest to keep them controlled? It's 100% pure propaganda, designed to stir up calls for a law to prevent distributing 'drug information' to minors, what with the pending (we hope -- well, *I* hope -- you probably don't) collapse of the CDA. You know it is, too. why are you defending it? *********** Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 14:15:31 -0700 (PDT) From: baby-X <baby-x(a)millennium-cafe.com> To: "Fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu" <Fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu> Subject: RE: Internet Knuckle-dragging from the NYTimes On Fri, 20 Jun 1997, Hiawatha Bray wrote: The following is an example of why we don't hold your opinions to be of very much worth: > At no point does Mr. Wren say that Internet use among the young causes > increased drug abuse. He merely notes that a communications medium very > popular with young people is laden with messages that encourage drug use, Laden? Here is the definition of laden from the Hypertext Webster Gateway: Definition for Laden from database web1913 (web1913) Laden \Lad"en\, p. & a. Loaded; freighted; burdened; as, a laden vessel; a laden heart. Loaded? Freighted? Burdened? It's the use of this sort of hysteria-tinted language that causes so many problems in establishment media ocverage of cyberspace. We know, from use of words like this one, what YOUR bias is in these cases. We're just trying to keep that bias from infecting too much media coverage. baby-X <baby-x(a)millennium-cafe.com> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- BitBurn Access - CyberPOLIS - Millennium Cafe - Sluggish Canine ----------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.millennium-cafe.com/~baby-x/ ************* Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 17:19:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Rebecca Daugherty <rebeccad(a)CapAccess.org> To: Hiawatha Bray <wathab(a)tiac.net> I think it's at least philosophically inaccurate to blame the net for the action. It's like killing the messenger, cursing the pen. And it's too sure 'n easy a spin -- bad ole technology has done this too us. um.um.um. There are changes to note -- there are new kinds of technologically proficient pedophiles and they merit some ink so they can be combatted. But the net is the same old net and a benign one with no seamy side at all in my thinking. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rebecca Daugherty <rebeccad(a)capaccess.org> Director, FOI Service Center, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press Visit our web site for media law information: http://www.rcfp.org/rcfp/ ************** Subject: Re: Internet Knuckle-dragging from the NYTimes Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 18:07:19 -0400 From: Thomas Grant Edwards <tedwards(a)isr.umd.edu> In fairness, I don't see many stories in the media about guns except in consideration of their use for murder or suicide. Infact, the Net gets off much easier than guns! -Thomas ************** Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 15:54:47 -0700 To: Hiawatha Bray <wathab(a)tiac.net> From: Lizard <lizard(a)dnai.com> Subject: RE: Internet Knuckle-dragging from the NYTimes Cc: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu At 06:22 PM 6/20/97 -0400, Hiawatha Bray wrote: >I gotta admit, I find your reply irresistible! Much too much fun to argue >with. Okay. You win. You get to be Lizard. > >But you're still talking nonsense about the Times story. Just because it >makes you nervous to read nastiness about the Net, doesn't make it wrong >for journalists to write the truth. Besides, have you ever kept count of >how many pro-Net stories there are? If anything, we reporters have been >guilty of shamelessly hyping the Internet. I could probably show you 10 >positive stories about the Internet for every negative one. Trust me--I >end up reading nearly all of them...it's the cross I must bear! > Very few 'pro internet' stories deal with the REAL benefits of the Internet -- the breakup of the media monopoly, the 'everyone is a reader, everyone is a writer' concept, the building of communities of interest rather than coincidence. We all know about children meeting Evil Predators on the net -- why not stories about children meeting mentors, teachers, or counselors? Rather than "My wife left me for her cyberlover!", why not "I met my wife thanks to our shared interest in barbed-wire collecting"? Let's look at that drug story. Why not write it like this? ==================================================== "After decades of getting only one side of the story from teachers, government, and a lapdog media, teenagers are now able to easily access both pro- and anti- drug information on the Internet, and chat with each other about their drug experiences in secure anonymity, permitting them to make up their own minds on this complex issue. Because Internet access is so inexpensive, people do not need the support of advertisers or subscribers to post any information they wish -- so views outside the mainstream, which would never be aired in traditional forums, can reach anyone with a modem, anywhere in the world. Further, the interactive nature of the net makes it easy for people on all sides of a debate to fire off points and counterpoints, so that the audience (who can become participants at will) can make up their own minds, ask questions, and raise issues that neither side might choose to raise on their own. "It's wonderful for kids", says Mr. Fictional, teacher at Utopia Public School. "We don't want them to 'Say No to Drugs' out of fear or ignorance, but out of a reasoned understanding of the harm drugs can do to them -- and that means they need to get the facts, not a lot of scare tactics. The government would never let us teach the 'straight dope', if you will, but we can turn kids on to the net and let them learn for themselves." ==================================================== There. There's all the "facts" -- but a very different spin, no? ************ Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 16:53:29 -0500 From: Jon Lebkowsky <jonl(a)onr.com> Subject: RE: Internet Knuckle-dragging from the NYTimes >Very nice. But so what? Mr. Wren simply reported what's going on. He >never called for censorship of the Internet. Were you reading the same >article I was, or what? Yeah, the article that said "partly owing to free-speech protection, the Internet lacks a quality control mechanism to separate fact from hyperbole or from outright falsehood." While not exactly a call for censorship, this is certainly dismissive of free speech. ************ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is public. To join fight-censorship-announce, send "subscribe fight-censorship-announce" to majordomo(a)vorlon.mit.edu. More information is at http://www.eff.org/~declan/fc/

1 0

Re: Japan & bombing the US (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 18:20:17 -0700 > From: Tim May <tcmay(a)got.net> > Subject: Re: Japan & bombing the US > No, this is incorrectly paraphrasing what I wrote. What I said, very > precisely, was "as there has been no credible threat of attack or invasion > of the states in America in at least 170 years." I was careful to say > "states in America." Distinction noted. I suppose the fact that American laws govern these areas, and they pay taxes, and can be drafted into our military, get citizenship at birth, etc. are totaly and completely irrelevant and completely unrelated to issues such as these. Thinking like yours is why McArthur got such support when he promised to return to the Phillipines when even his bosses were ready to write it off. It's why the Japanese have such a high regard for him respecting his tenure as military dictator of Japan during their rebuild. If you haven't read it you might consider reading his biography American Ceaser for its insight into the politics of these two periods. > And I also limited my comments to the events leading up to wars...my > context was clear: that had the U.S. not chosen to enter wars, no states > would have been attacked even later. That the U.S. has entered wars and had > states attacked hardly disputes my point. The US didn't choose to enter the war however, that is the issue not your nit-picking over some irrelevant boundary distinction. One thing is clear to anyone who lived in that period as an adult or studies it carefuly, the distinctions that Tim is claiming to be relevant were not important to the people living at the time. When it came to shooting 'Americans' (not Americans in a state, or not on vacation, etc. noise) it was the shooting of Americans that was at issue and not whether Alaska or Hawaii really would become a state in 1959. It is not reasonable to expect the United States of America could have 'sat out' the war. It was and is clear that American MUST enter the war at some point. The British were down to their last $750M in a S. African bank that went walkaround on an American transport to pay outstanding bills. Because of the economic and social ties between American and Britian any thesis claiming America could (let alone should) have remained neutral is pure meta-history. Consider the unrestricted German submarine warfare occuring as close as 30 miles from the Eastern seaboard. How long would people put up with bodies washing up on their beaches regularly? What would have been the impact of doing business with Europe under the German helm in the US (which couldn't exist at anything close to todays tech/social level without strong economic markets)? The Germans and Russians managed to arrive at a commen goal in the invasion of Poland. Without the drain of the African and Cicilian campaigns (which required the support of the US on a military footing to succeed) it is just possible that Russia could sue for peace with Germany causing at least a temporary breathing spell for the marshalling of forces. It is also clear at this point that Germany had a much larger technology lead over the Russians (research where the tubes for Russian radios came from) and such weapons as the ME-262, V1, V2, etc. Under this light it is clear that given a breathing space Germany allied with Japan (assuming the successful invasion of Australia, with no Britian and no US how long would they last?) would pose a real threat to the US, including the direct assault on the continental US. If we can do it in Europe and Africa what in the world makes you think somebody else can't do it? Without US intervention in the war Italy would own Africa now. Those folks were predators, they didn't back down. The Japanese would have gone for the west coast. The Russians would look at the Alaskan peninsula (bought from Russia in the 1800's) and lick their chops. The South American continent would have been Germanic/Japanese without US intervention. The influx of Germans into Argentina and Japanese to Peru started in the 20's and not the 50's. Germany was building a bomber to hit New York and long range fast transport subs, their intent was clear. Why the United States entered WWII can't be attributed to ANY single simplistic thesis such as this. It is also clear that the Japanese and German decision making processes were not motived this simply either. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http:// www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________| ps legaly US military bases are US soil in the same class as DC, clearly a part of the United States. An attack upon such is treated legaly as an attack upon one of the 48 states.

1 0

Re: The Grand Compromise is Coming (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 20:56:33 -0500 (CDT) > From: Mac Norton <mnorton(a)cavern.uark.edu> > Subject: Re: The Grand Compromise is Coming > OK, Tim, I'll try: > The use of communication in furtherance of a crime shall add five years . > . .etc. > > The use of any device to enhance the speed of communication in furtherance > of a crime shall . . . etc. > > The use of any device to disguise a voice in furtherance of . . . etc. > > The use of any cryptographic means of communication in furtherance . . . > > Now, if two and three above are constitutional, why aren't one and four? The use of any printing press in the .... The use of speech in the ... Per the 1st, 9th & 10th; "The use of <blah> in the ...." is un-Constitutional. Now, I can see committing a crime using some facility or special skill might exacerbate the verdict, is that the intent? We could just do away with the preamble and go with exacerbating the verdict if a special skill or facility is required. If nothing else it eliminates any pretense of spontinaity, in effect pre-meditation or aggravation. From that perspective I don't see a Constitutional issue except regarding the punishment phase. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http:// www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Freeware Helps Keep Your Cruising Confidential
by Lou Zirko 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I thought I would pass this along. Just downloaded it and am looking at it. Interesting application for Win 95/NT users. The download page starts at http://www.luckman.com/anoncookie/anoncookie.html Lou Zirko >Freeware Helps Keep Your Cruising Confidential > > > >by Brian McWilliams, PC World NewsRadio > >June 24, 1997 >Concerns about Internet privacy are running hot since the recent privacy >hearings sponsored by the Federal Trade Commission. New laws as well as >technology standards may soon come to the assistance of Net users. In the >meantime, a California company is releasing a freeware tool to help users >gain some control over their online privacy. > >Luckman Interactive today posted a utility for Windows 95 and NT called >Luckman's Anonymous Cookie for Internet Privacy. > >According to chief technology officer Marco Papa, the beta software works >with browsers from Microsoft and Netscape. It installs in your Win 95 >system tray and enables you to switch in and out of "anonymizer mode," >that is, controlling whether or not a Web site can write to and read your >browser's cookie file. This file is used by some sites to personalize >their content and in some cases to track your activities online. > >"We save all your cookie files and replace them with either an empty >folder or a file that can't be overwritten," explains Papa. "When you turn >cookies back on, you actually replace whatever may have changed with your >original cookie files." > >Luckman's Anonymous Cookie program is actually technology that was >developed for the company's WebSweep utility, which is scheduled for >commercial release later this summer. But Papa says the firm decided to >pull the cookie piece out now to give users some much-needed control over >online privacy. > >Dierdre Mulligan of the Center for Democracy and Technology says cookie >files are at the heart of many privacy problems on the Net. Her group is >especially critical of companies like DoubleClick, which she says violates >the spirit of the cookie concept by passing user information on to third >parties. She welcomes tools like Luckman's, but she notes that add-ons >don't help protect the millions of less experienced Net users. > >"If you really want people to have an easy-to-use way to protect >information or to control what their kids are going to see on the Net, >build it into the browser. Everybody has one, and they don't have to go >buy an extra program or figure out how to install it," Mulligan said. > >Brent Luckman, chairman of Luckman Interactive, said that's a great idea, >but he doesn't see much impetus for browser makers to give up access to >valuable marketing information. > >If you're a privacy guerrilla, you can grab your free copy of the >Anonymous Cookie program from Luckman's Web site. > > Lou Zirko Key fingerprint =46 F8 6A 89 F1 4A 74 AB 2F 60 21 E3 FB 21 E4 E4 "Were all bozos on this bus", Nick Danger, Third Eye

1 0

LOSE MONEY FAST!!
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

not to encourage any paranoia or conspiracy theory, but this is an interesting warning I saw on another mailing list that I thought I'd pass on--- From: xxxxx Date: Tue Jun 24 21:49:18 PDT 1997 Subject: LOSE MONEY FAST!! I am writing this to WARN THE PUBLIC of a very DIABOLICAL SCHEME that is RIGHT NOW playing out in the market and ingeniously designed to separate GULLIBLE INVESTORS from their lawful returns. I cannot now reveal exactly the name of the company involved, but I will identify it by the initials "FRN". FRN directors are involved in a complex STOCK MANIPULATION SCHEME in which they are selling additional shares of the company beyond those in circulation, with only the hazy knowledge of the existing stockholders. This is being done IN COLLUSION WITH GOVERNMENT REGULATORS, who are receiving kickbacks from the operation! In other words, individual investors of FRN believe they own 1/n of the company, when in fact there are more shares in existence and they actually own far less than the fraction indicated on their certificates! The additional shares are owned by directors of the company who are secretly releasing the FRAUDULENT SHARES on the market with PRECISE TIMING, such that whenever the legitimate value of the company increases, they release new shares for sale at the current share price. The net effect is that market share prices creep up in value only marginally while the directors effectively INCREASE THEIR CONTROL of the corporation by STEALING FROM SMALLER SHAREHOLDERS. Some select shareholders are allowed to participate in the plan if they increase the profitability of the company, but in their BLIND GREED have not done the math and do not realize that they are in effect LOSING MONEY even though numerically their supposed shares are compounding regularly! In effect the corporation is COUNTERFEITING ITS OWN SHARES under the full knowledge and supervision of the topmost echelons, and the general ignorance of shareholders! This thievery is paid for courtesy of an ever-increasing percentage of the company's shareholders without their awareness! In fact, because so many shareholders are participating, the whole system can be thought of as a massive form of INVISIBLE SLAVERY! The energy of the shareholders that is successfully improving the company is being siphoned off by their "masters", while the masters insist that the company is not even breaking even! Perhaps you may scoff, but remember, THE PERFECT SLAVE IS THE ONE WHO DOESN'T REALIZE HE'S A SLAVE, and an even better one RIDICULES THE POSSIBILITY. And--some slaves THINK THEY ARE MASTERS when in fact they are really SLAVES. (Do you live in a "land of the free"? Are you sure?) FRN has been operating since 1913 and has sucked in huge masses of unsuspecting shareholders who do not realize that it is a massive pyramid scheme that must eventually collapse! Initially the effects were negligible but the disparities among shareholdings has been magnified exponentially over the years. Shareholders have not realized this EVIL TRICK because the company has been growing incredibly rapidly with massive profits that are never reaped by the DESIGNATED VICTIM SHAREHOLDERS but instead skimmed by the CONSPIRATOR'S ELITE. A sophisticated and well-funded PR Office of the company has hypnotized the shareholders into believing their shares are far more valuable than they really are, even in spite of OBVIOUS SIGNS OF DEPRECIATION! The grotesque nature of the beast is revealed in that eventually, with mathematical certainty, doing absolutely nothing, the SINGLE SHAREHOLDER who owned the greatest share at the beginning of this hoax will eventually OWN VIRTUALLY THE ENTIRE COMPANY, with all other shareholders owning virtually nothing! ("The rich get richer and the poor get poorer"-- with some of the poorer thinking they are getting richer!) But the system will collapse before then after enough shareholders FEEL THE SQUEEZE. Unfortunately, it is likely the shareholders will only realize they have been CHEATED and get ANGRY once the whole snake oil enterprise CRASHES! At that point, whoever will be left holding the bag will be mostly random! But what about the masters? Hopefully when the pyramid scheme FINALLY DOES CRASH, the shareholders will have learned their lesson, and go after those truly responsible instead of fighting among themselves, or at the very minimum STOP INVESTING IN PYRAMID SCHEMES! However, history has suggested that the current FRN owners have been using the same strategy in many prior shell games and escaped many previous company "bankruptcies" with their wealth unscathed, and are right now shrewdly planning their escape route by cashing out at precisely the right instant in their LATEST AND MOST GREATEST SKULLDUGGERY EPISODE as well! >From what I have heard, the plan is to then use the proceeds to erect the next, EVEN MORE CONSTRICTING WEALTH EXTRACTION AND SLAVERY SYSTEM. They have been doing this LIKE CLOCKWORK on a schedule of about every 60-70 years, which seems to be about the limit of the public's memory and the lifespan of the system. In fact, it has been going on so long the masters have convinced the population that it's a regular and unavoidable phenomenon! I don't know what will happen, but I am sending this warning to YOU PERSONALLY to check to see if you own shares in FRN, and if so, SELL THEM IMMEDIATELY and invest your hard-earned money into some LEGITIMATE ALTERNATIVE that doesn't steal from you merely by owning it. Also realize that TRADING FRN SHARES, while convenient, is PLAYING INTO THE SCAM! Quite insidiously, far more people own and trade shares in FRN than realize it due to indirect ownership! The MASS DELUSION is everywhere! Eventually the corruption in the government and greed in the population will have to be cleaned up so that companies such as FRN can never begin operating in the first place, and THE TEMPLE IS FOREVER RID OF THE MONEYCHANGERS. But your FIRST DEFENSE is your own intelligence. Remember, YOU CAN'T CHEAT AN HONEST PERSON! Part of the moral is to KNOW WHERE ALL THE SHARES ARE and to MAKE SURE THEY ADD UP TO 1! The TREACHEROUS HIGHWAY ROBBERS will invent elaborate, complicated, INCOMPREHENSIBLE reasons why they don't, such as talking about what paper the stock certificates are made out of, or how high government taxes are, or pointing at programs for share-trading among shareholders. But remember, this is all SMOKE AND MIRRORS--a certificate that says 1/n is a CONTRACT no matter what kind of paper it is printed on, the entire government recently became ANOTHER LOSING SHAREHOLDER, and the net result of the share-trades NEVER ESCAPES THE SHARE PARASITES! Please don't attack the losing shareholders! If you have problems identifying the thieves, remember, THEY'RE THE ONES WHO AUTHORIZED RELEASE OF THE FRAUDULENT CERTIFICATES in the first place, IN EXCESS OF FACE VALUE. And they'll likely be unscathed after the collapse, but keeping an extremely low profile! (But don't blame the printers! And don't believe it if the "authorizers" pretend to be the "printers"!) Take back your power and DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY, otherwise, you're just ANOTHER VICTIM FOR THE CON GAME! May God be with you--

2 1

Re: Bomb-making instructions....
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Paul Bradley wrote: > I personally know no chemistry at all, but what would be nice is if > someone who knows what they are doing wrote an "anarchists cookbook" type > set of files, but this time got them right so anyone attempting any of > the recipes wouldn`t be killed. People named "Lefty" need not apply...

10 14

GAH--Government Access to Humor
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From the News of the Weird: * Unclear on the Concept: In January, Bamrer Pong-insee, a spokesman for the Professional Comedians Association of Thailand, said its members will soon be prohibited by rule from being impolite on stage. Especially barred are obscene language, physical humor in which pain is implied, and being disrespectful to a colleague's parents. In reading the above, I realized that in order for the policy to work properly there will have to be penalties for audience members who laugh at inappropriate (illegal?) humor. A suitable agency will have to be formed to enforce these new regulations. Soon the Laughing Police will be no laughing matter. Politicians will be falling all over each other to show the voters that they are "hard on crime" and will eventually call for the death penalty for violators. (Sending them to the Laughing-Gas chamber.) SeriousMonger {I tried to make it in comedy, but everyone laughed at me.}

1 0