- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Is 1024-bit PGP key enough?
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is security provided by 1024-bit PGP key sufficient against most powerful computers that are available today? Say if smoe organization spent 10 billions of dollars on a cracking machine, would it be possible to crack the keys in reasonable time?

4 3

(Un)Freeh makes claims on wiretapping
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The usual governmental rhetoric. Again, I'm not seeing achnowledgement from anyone except maybe the ACLU that there's no evidence that such tactics would have stopped the TWA bombing - not that they would be justified even if it would have. Legalized drugs, etcetera would free up quite enough law enforcement to take care of the problem. -Allen > Cobb Group - Netscape > FBI DIRECTOR: WIRETAP PROPOSALS WON'T THREATEN LIBERTIES > Copyright &copy 1996 Nando.net > Copyright &copy 1996 The Associated Press > WASHINGTON (Aug 1, 1996 1:41 p.m. EDT) -- FBI Director Louis Freeh > said today Americans are under increasing attack by terrorists and > proposed new wiretapping authority would not greatly expand > government's powers. > "The country and the American people have been experiencing an > increasing war against them by terrorists and terrorist-supported > activities," Freeh told a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing. > Americans "are clearly under attack and we are the prime targets for > this kind of terrorism." [...] > Freeh said the wiretap proposals do not involve "expansive powers" for > the government and would not lead to "an avalanche of new electronic > surveillance." > A leading GOP opponent of an earlier, more sweeping anti-terrorism > bill said today he didn't believe Congress could enact a new package > before its recess this weekend. > "I think it would be very difficult to do in light of the logistics > and the opposition," Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., told reporters. "The > (anti-terrorism) funding is there. No new laws are needed." > Asked about Barr's comments, Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, head of a > bipartisan task force that has been negotiating with administration > officials on the anti-terrorism proposals, said, "That's part of the > obstacle. It's what we have to deal with. What we do has to reach the > level of consensus." > The negotiators, led by Craig and White House chief of staff Leon > Panetta, said they hoped to have a package ready for a vote by week's > end before Congress leaves for its August recess.

1 0

Looks like they may actually pass something... hell.
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I had hoped that normal government incompetence would prevent them from passing something. Well, there's still hope that it'll get clogged up, or that the courts will toss it out - somehow I think they won't like the idea of taps without a court order, for instance (giving up a judicial prerogative). I am also somewhat puzzled by the racketeering law reference - I had thought that federal racketeering laws allowed civil forfeiture sans conviction (shudder)? The "funding" for telephone companies sounds suspiciously like funding Digital Telephony. -Allen > School House > WHITE HOUSE, KEY LAWMAKERS AGREE ON ANTI-TERRORISM PROPOSALS > Copyright &copy 1996 Nando.net > Copyright &copy 1996 The Associated Press > WASHINGTON (Aug 1, 1996 09:53 a.m. EDT) -- After wrangling with key > Republican lawmakers, the White House has won agreement on a package > of anti-terrorism measures that would expand wiretapping authority and > tighten airport security. [...] > But omitted from the agreement was a central part of Clinton's > proposals, a study of chemical markers in explosives, called taggants, > which had been heavily criticized by some Republicans. Also rejected > was a provision to allow the FBI to get information on suspected > terrorists from hotels, telephone companies and storage facilities. [...] The agreement also would allow prosecution of suspected terrorists under federal racketeering laws, which would make anyone convicted subject to asset forfeitures and longer sentences. > The negotiators, led by Panetta and Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, said > they hoped to have a package ready for a vote by week's end, before > Congress leaves for its August recess. > But Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., said earlier in the > day that final passage before the recess appeared unlikely. "I don't > see how in the world we can get it done" by then, Lott told reporters. > Lott and other GOP leaders summoned Attorney General Janet Reno, > Panetta and FBI Director Louis Freeh to a meeting today to explain why > some of the FBI's anti-terrorism funds haven't been spent. > "We are increasingly concerned that monies and authorities already > granted to the administration are not being used effectively or at > all," Lott, House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., and House Majority > Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, wrote in a letter to Clinton. > Justice Department spokesman Myron Marlin said the Republican > assertions were "misleading." > Gingrich and Lott also proposed that a blue-ribbon commission review > the government's anti-terrorism policy -- a move that would delay > congressional action. The new package includes such a commission for > longer-term legislative proposals, Craig said. > He said the lawmakers' aides planned to work through the night to > draft the proposals into a package that could be put to a vote before > week's end. > "I feel very positive at this moment," Craig told reporters Wednesday > night. > Craig said the proposals included multipoint wiretaps, which allow law > enforcement agents to monitor all phone calls made by a suspected > terrorist, rather than just those from a specific telephone, as well > as emergency wiretaps, which are valid for 48 hours without a court > order. [... yeah, right] > Craig stressed that the new wiretap provisions would include "some > privacy language that will protect people." > Other proposals on which accord was reached include the use of special > technology to make it easier to trace telephone numbers called by > suspected terrorists and a trust fund to reimburse phone companies for > expenses they incur in that area. > Craig listed the proposals but gave few details, which had yet to be > worked out. > Copyright &copy 1996 Nando.net

1 0

Re: A funny thing happend to my data on the way to the bank
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:45 PM 8/1/96, anonymous-remailer(a)shell.portal.com wrote: >The Prime Minister's Social Security Number >Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's US Social Security Number is >172-42-6111, according to the Boston Consulting Group in Massachusetts, >which employed Netanyahu for about one-year during 1979-80.=20 > >The number indicated by the marketing firm contradicts information contained >in a credit report by the US federally-regulated Transunion Company, pulled >from company files during the first days of July. According to that report, >Netanyahu and an American named John J. Sullivan both used Social Security >number 020-36-4537. > >Questions were raised in the reports as to whether Netanyahu had attempted >to create a false identity or had used a number which was not his. >Publication of the credit report findings, and later reports indicating >that Netanyahu's name had suddenly been deleted from Transunion's files, >raised additional questions about possible computer break-ins into the >company's records. It is not likely to be a "break-in." Rather, the Big Three credit reporting agencies, Transunion, TRW Credit, and Equifax, routinely are complicit in creating false credit histories as part of the "legends" of agents, persons in the Federal Witness Security Program, etc. (Do you not think Equifax would "notice" a new identity which popped into existence in 1995, complete with a 10-year credit history, a high school diploma, a record of past employment, etc.? There is a good reason these companies have close ties with the TLAs in the D.C. area...where, perhaps coincidentally, they have major offices.) My Cyphernomicon has more information about the roles the credit agencies have played in creating false identities and maintaining their cover, and the role of FinCEN and its ties to these nominally-private agencies. What this report about Net-n-Yahoo has confirmed is his almost certain role as an agent of the U.S. intelligence agencies. His role in the Pollard case is likely to come out in the next few months. (Look for legislation from Feinswine and others making it a felony to disclose Social Security numbers....) --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Progress on online stock markets
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anyone know how secure this company's web servers, etcetera are? -Allen > Avis > E-TRADE WANTS TO SELL IPOS OVER THE INTERNET > Copyright &copy 1996 Nando.net > Copyright &copy 1996 San Francisco Examiner > SAN FRANCISCO (Aug 1, 1996 00:05 a.m. EDT) -- E-Trade Securities Inc., > the Palo Alto, Calif., company that sells stocks over the Internet, > has asked the National Association of Securities Dealers for > permission to form an investment banking division to sell initial > public offerings over the Internet. > E-Trade executive vice president David Traversi said if the NASD > approves his request, the company would start bringing small firms > public and would also seek to co-underwrite big deals brought by large > investment banks. > Traversi said E-Trade's two-fold objective aimed to create a new way > to bring small companies public and give small investors a chance to > buy new stock issues that usually get bought by institutional > investors. [...] > Traversi said E-Trade would also try to get listed as a co-underwriter > for big IPOs, like last September's Netscape offering. In the past, > small investors have complained that such big deals are sold to > institutional investors, who rake in huge profits before small > investors get a crack at the offering. To offer such deals online, > however, E-Trade would have to get the approval of the lead > underwriter on each offering. > "Right now, without naming names, there are large investment firms > that have indicated an interest in having us as a co-manager" of their > IPOs, Traversi said. > But before E-Trade can do anything more, its pending application to > form an investment bank has to be approved by the NASD, which > regulates small securities dealers. Traversi said he expected NASD > approval this fall.

1 0

CDT
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- _____ _____ _______ / ____| __ \__ __| ____ ___ ____ __ | | | | | | | | / __ \____ / (_)______ __ / __ \____ _____/ /_ | | | | | | | | / /_/ / __ \/ / / ___/ / / / / /_/ / __ \/ ___/ __/ | |____| |__| | | | / ____/ /_/ / / / /__/ /_/ / / ____/ /_/ (__ ) /_ \_____|_____/ |_| /_/ \____/_/_/\___/\__, / /_/ \____/____/\__/ The Center for Democracy and Technology /____/ Volume 2, Number 29 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A briefing on public policy issues affecting civil liberties online ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CDT POLICY POST Volume 2, Number 29 August 1, 1996 CONTENTS: (1) Clinton Administration, Congress Propose Sweeping Anti-Terrorism Initiatives (2) How to Subscribe/Unsubscribe (3) About CDT, contacting us ** This document may be redistributed freely with this banner intact ** Excerpts may be re-posted with permission of <editor(a)cdt.org> ** This document looks best when viewed in COURIER font ** ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) CLINTON ADMINISTRATION, CONGRESS PROPOSE SWEEPING ANTI-TERRORISM INITIATIVES In the wake of the recent bombing at the Olympics and the suspected terrorist involvement in the TWA crash, the Clinton Administration and members of Congress are proposing a set of sweeping counter-terrorism initiatives. If enacted into law, these proposals will dramatically increase law enforcement surveillance authority over the Internet and other advanced communications technologies. An outline of the Administration's proposal was circulated on Capitol Hill on Monday July 29. President Clinton has urged Congress to pass new counter-terrorism legislation before the Congressional recess at the end of this week. While several prominent Republican members of Congress, including House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA), have said publicly that Congress should not rush into any new counter-terrorism legislation, most observers believe there is a strong possibility that some or all of the Administration's proposal will be enacted before the August recess. The draft proposal contains several measures which were rejected by Congress as part of the previous counter-terrorism initiative proposed last year after the Oklahoma City bombing, as well as several new measures including as-yet unspecified changes to U.S. encryption policy and funding for the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA, a.k.a. Digital Telephony). CDT is concerned that the latest counter-terrorism efforts on Capitol Hill are occurring without appropriate deliberation. Major policy decisions expanding the surveillance powers of law enforcement should not be made without careful consideration of the necessity of such proposals and the relative benefit to society. In the coming days and weeks, CDT will work with Congressional leaders, privacy advocates, and the net.community to ensure that constitutional civil liberties and the openness of the Internet are protected as Congress considers counter-terrorism measures. ________________________________________________________________________ MAJOR POINTS OF THE COUNTER-TERRORISM PROPOSALS CIRCULATING ON THE HILL The administration's new counter-terrorism initiative and other amendments circulating this week in Congress contain numerous provisions, but four are of particular concern to the net.community: * New Threats to Encryption, Opposition to the Pro-CODE Bill * Funding for Digital Telephony Without Public Accountability * Amendment to Criminalize 'Bomb-Making' Information on the Internet * Expanded Authority for Multi-Point, "Roving" Wiretaps The full text of the Administration's proposal and background information are available at CDT's counter-terrorism Web Page: http://www.cdt.org/policy/terrorism/ -------------------------------------------------------- I. NEW THREATS TO ENCRYPTION, OPPOSITION TO THE PRO-CODE BILL The Administration's outline contains the following statement on encryption: "* Encryption -- We will seek legislation to strengthen our ability to prevent terrorists from coming into the possession of the technology to encrypt their communications and data so that they are beyond the reach of law enforcement. We oppose legislation that would eliminate current export barriers and encouraging the proliferation of encryption which blocks appropriate access to protect public safety and the national security." While no specific legislative language has yet been proposed, this represents the first statement by the Administration that they will seek legislation to further restrict encryption. Even more troubling, the Administration is clearly attempting to use the recent suspected terrorist incidents to push for a new and more restrictive encryption policy. This new proposal comes as Congress is finally beginning to seriously consider major changes in U.S. encryption policy. Bipartisan legislation in both the House and Senate to relax encryption export controls is gaining momentum. The Senate Commerce Committee has held 3 hearings in the last 6 weeks, and is preparing to vote to send the Burns/Leahy "Pro-CODE" bill (S. 1726) to the floor of the Senate. The Administration's attempt to leverage the public's concern about terrorism to block passage of the Pro-CODE bill is disturbing, and poses a significant threat to privacy and security on the Internet. CDT is working with members of Congress, privacy advocates, and the communications and computer industries to oppose any attempt by the Administration to impose new restrictions on encryption, and we continue to work to move the bipartisan export relief legislation through Congress. -------------------------------------------------------- II. FUNDING FOR DIGITAL TELEPHONY WITHOUT PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY The Administration is also seeking to override the public accountability provisions of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA - a.k.a. 'Digital Telephony') by providing a funding for the law in a way that prevents public oversight of the FBI's surveillance ability. Enacted in October of 1994, granted law enforcement new authority to influence the design of telecommunications networks (the Internet, Commercial online services, and BBS's were exempted) in order to preserve their ability to conduct court authorized electronic surveillance. Congress balanced this new authority with a number of mechanisms to ensure public accountability over law enforcement surveillance ability. While complicated, the public accountability mechanisms are designed to work as follows: * Law enforcement provides telecommunications carriers, the Congress, and the public with notice of its surveillance capacity needs (i.e., the number of simultaneous wiretaps in a given geographic location) with an opportunity for public comment. * Based on an assessment of the reasonableness of the law enforcement surveillance capacity request, Congress appropriates money to cover the cost of modifications. If Congress does not believe law enforcement has adequately justified its request, money will not be appropriated. * Telecommunications carriers are not obligated to comply with the statute or make any capacity modifications without government reimbursement. In October 1995, the FBI published its first notice of surveillance capacity (see CDT Policy Post Vol. 1, No. 26). The telecommunications industry and privacy advocates used the public accountability provisions of CALEA to respond to the FBI's request and argued that the FBI had not adequately justified the extensive surveillance capability contained in the request. As a result, Congress has not yet appropriated funds and no modifications have been made. The FBI clearly believes that the public accountability provisions of CALEA are working **too well**, and appears to be using the recent focus on terrorism to push for a new funding mechanism which does not contain public oversight. CDT is fighting hard to ensure that the public accountability provisions of CALEA, which have until now prevented the FBI from acquiring unnecessary surveillance capacity, remain a part of the law, and will vigorously oppose any effort by the FBI and the Clinton Administration to remove the last opportunity for public oversight over law enforcement power. -------------------------------------------------------- III. THE AVAILABILITY OF 'BOMB-MAKING' INFORMATION ON THE INTERNET Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has reintroduced an amendment to make it illegal to disseminate information on how to construct explosives knowing that the information will be used in furtherance of a federal crime. The amendment was adopted by the Senate earlier this month as part of a Department of Defense Appropriations bill. CDT believes that the vague provisions of the Feinstein amendment could have a chilling effect on online speech, needlessly duplicate existing criminal statutes, and should be removed. Feinstein first proposed the amendment as part of the 1995 counter-terrorism bill. The initial Feinstein amendment was extremely broad and would have resulted in a flat ban on certain constitutionally protected speech online. After civil liberties advocates objected, Feinstein narrowed her amendment substantially, although it was ultimately dropped from the final terrorism bill signed in April 1996. -------------------------------------------------------- IV. EXPANDED WIRETAP AUTHORITY The Administration's proposal would also significantly expand current wiretapping authority to allow multi-point (or "roving") wiretaps. This would dramatically change surveillance authority to include wiretaps of INDIVIDUALS instead of LOCATIONS. This proposal would do away with the delicate balance between privacy and law enforcement that Congress has struck over 30 years of wiretapping legislation. Federal law has always required that wiretaps issue for a specific location, to meet Fourth Amendment requirements. In 1986 Congress introduced a narrow exception to this rule, only for cases where it could be shown that the target was intentionally evading wiretaps by changing facilities. The Administration proposal would completely remove this standard, allowing so-called "roving taps" for any persons whose behavior makes wiretapping difficult for law enforcement. The administration proposed similar provisions in the spring of 1995 in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing. These provisions proved controversial in Congress and were dropped from the final bill. ________________________________________________________________________ FOR MORE INFORMATION For more information on the counter-terrorism proposals and their impact on the Internet check out: CDT's Counter-Terrorism Page: http://www.cdt.org/policy/terrorism/ CDT's Encryption Policy Page: http://www.cdt.org/crypto/ CDT's Digital Telephony Page: http://www.cdt.org/digtel.html Encryption Policy Resource Page: http://www.crypto.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ (4) SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION Be sure you are up to date on the latest public policy issues affecting civil liberties online and how they will affect you! Subscribe to the CDT Policy Post news distribution list. CDT Policy Posts, the regular news publication of the Center For Democracy and Technology, are received by nearly 10,000 Internet users, industry leaders, policy makers and activists, and have become the leading source for information about critical free speech and privacy issues affecting the Internet and other interactive communications media. To subscribe to CDT's Policy Post list, send mail to policy-posts-request(a)cdt.org with a subject: subscribe policy-posts If you ever wish to remove yourself from the list, send mail to the above address with a subject of: unsubscribe policy-posts ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (5) ABOUT THE CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY/CONTACTING US The Center for Democracy and Technology is a non-profit public interest organization based in Washington, DC. The Center's mission is to develop and advocate public policies that advance democratic values and constitutional civil liberties in new computer and communications technologies. Contacting us: General information: info(a)cdt.org World Wide Web: URL:http://www.cdt.org/ FTP URL:ftp://ftp.cdt.org/pub/cdt/ Snail Mail: The Center for Democracy and Technology 1634 Eye Street NW * Suite 1100 * Washington, DC 20006 (v) +1.202.637.9800 * (f) +1.202.637.0968 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- End Policy Post 2.29 8/1/96 -----------------------------------------------------------------------

3 2

Re: Jewell is the Militia Bomber!!!!
by John Brothers 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:20 PM 7/31/96 -0800, Jim Bell wrote: >At 07:49 PM 7/31/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: >>2. They found a _shotgun_ in his cabin. > >No, no, Tim. The proper way to deliver this to a TV audience is, "They >found an ARSENAL in his COMPOUND!" >(see how much more exciting it is?!? BTW, how many wives does he have?) None! and he lives with his mother! Obviously a complete sicko! :) --- John Brothers Do you have a right not to be offended?

1 0

Re: A Libertine Question
by John Brothers 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:23 AM 8/1/96 -0400, you wrote: >John Brothers, > >Which locality do you live in? I've got all this toxic waste that I've >been collecting in return for receiving large sums of money, I'd like to >get rid of it as cheply as possible. I thought I might just burn it in a >good "true" libertarian neighborhood. > >You don't mind, do you? I live in the Alpharetta area of Georgia, a northern suburb of Atlanta. You're welcome to come here and burn whatever you like. Oh, of course, I assume that you'll be properly and safely capturing and disposing the toxic ash. Because, after all, if a single microgram of those toxins were to land on my property, I would be forced to sue you, take all of that money, and set up a legal robot to continue to sue your descendents for the next seven thousand generations. And, I guess if the investigation were to show that you were criminally negligent in the proper disposal of those toxins, you would have to be punished. Speaking for myself as a darwinist libertarian, the only fitting punishment to being criminally negligent on such a grand scale would be to execute you, and sterilize every known trace of your genetic code in the gene pool - i.e. all genetic children, brothers, sisters, parents and so forth. You may have some illegitimate/secret offspring or siblings which may survive, but we can't go around tracking everyone's genetic code.. It would be an affront to privacy, and libertarianism in general. I'm sure that your lawyer could probably argue the case down to the point where the only punishment would be your execution, and I guess that would have to suffice - your family wasn't directly involved in the planning and execution of this most heinous crime. But, I'm sure that you would be a properly responsible citizen, and clean up carefully after yourself. It might smell bad, and be a generally unpleasant place, but as a libertarian, I don't have a right to control what you do with your property, nor to object to bad smells - I can purchase filters and such to avoid that. And if it got unpleasant enough, I would just move away, and leave you and your bad smells alone. Have a nice day, --- John Brothers Do you have a right not to be offended?

1 0

Re: Brain Tennis with Dorthy
by David K. Merriman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 11:59 AM 08/1/96 -0400, Duncan Frissell <frissell(a)panix.com> wrote: >I'm following the Brain Tennis Match between Dorothy Denning and John >Gilmore on encryption and the right to absolute privacy on Hot Wired >(http://www.hotwired.com/braintennis/96/31/index0a.html) > >Were I a participant in this exercise, I would lob the following to Dorothy: > ... <good questions excised> ... One might wonder how Dorothy's opinions about privacy et al would change were it *her* communications/privacy/person at risk (be it through torture, GAK, etc.). Were a government - duly elected - to come into power similar to that in 30's Germany or 70's Viet Nam, so that intellectuals or the educated became the targets of oppression, would she be as adamant about the perceived "rights" of Government to intrude in her private life, monitor her communications, and so on? Inquiring minds want to know.... :-) Dave Merriman -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMgBe+MVrTvyYOzAZAQHoygP/ZeEn00d+uAuJXp29igeMTPe0U8muD3uy tIZItV2e05D9VLaCNdzZKiK9pqGsjA6VzB1sUd8uRUtPu0GKVGrylgjuA/QoK/m6 xOMGLNcvPZVhVbqGMCkFXwR6U5KifMd1mAb14Au25MR7hpfzpCwMBQZ5y495AhRx utMueAGDmIo= =OARQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Internal Passports
by drose＠AZStarNet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mike McNally wrote: >That reminds me: I thumbed through BiBi's terrorism book (the one D.S. >certified as prerequisite reading for particpation in intelligent >discussions about something-or-other) at B&N the other day. It's a >pretty thin book. Most of it seems to be about the rise of the Moslem >Menace and how the Sultan's hordes will soon be upon us all. The last >chapter outlines all the "necessary measures" governments must take >to stamp out the wildfire of terrorism. Same old same old, mostly, >like allowing suspects to be held without charges, allowing warrantless >searches (I think), thorough weapon registration, and so on. The last >one (or next-to-last; I think the last one is "brainwash the populace >into thinking this is all a good idea") is about establishing a >periodic "civil liberties review panel". > >Yeah right. OK. But I sure would like to have an automatic weapon for self/home/"national" defense w/o going through a tremendous amount of B.S. (as Israelis are excused from). I believe that you Texans and we Arizonans have the privilege; in "urban" states, where the need truly is, good luck. Also, I don't know what your experience in the Middle East is. Me, I worked in Iran and exited just before the Jan. '79 "revolution". Menace & murder. You *really* have no idea. Hint: I'm alive. If you still (I don't know your age) think that humans are all the same, but we juss gots diffrunt colors 'n' cultures, I *strongly* recommend an extended period of travel to the third world. In all sincerity, Dave

1 0