- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Kellstrom Calls for DT Funding
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:33 PM 7/19/96 -0400, Duncan Frissell wrote: >In a "briefing" on TWA 800 when one of the reporters tossed Big Jim >Kellstrom (Deputy Director in Charge of the New York Office) of the FBI a >softball question about what he needed to fight terrorism; he took the >opportunity to call for full funding of the Digital Telephony Bill. He said >the usual about how bad guys conspire and we need to tap. Too bad these people aren't required to show specific examples where the "bad guys" got away as a result of their failure to be able to do wiretaps. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Responding to Pre-dawn Unannounced Ninja Raids
by Chris Adams 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 18 Jul 96 01:20:16 -0800, tcmay(a)got.net wrote: >I wonder when and how raids in the U.S. moved from the "Come out with your >hands up" verbal announcement (for the cases that needed more than a knock >on the door) to this blast-in-the-doors approach, where the raiders are >dressed in "tactical black" and are wearing black Nomex hoods and carrying >MP-5s and blast any "perp" who looks at them cross-eyed? OTOH, you have to admit that the possibility of being attacked by a (most likely) better armed criminal has bothered many cops - it has to be a rather stresful job. Sadly, they seem to either a) overreact as noted above or b) be led by idiots who order the above... I used to be a fidonet point off of a board run by a cop. He was very reasonable, and unfortunately seemed to be right at the point where he had enough "empowerment" to be blamed but not enough to shine a little common sense into things... Almost like Vietnam - the grunts get shot and ridiculed because the desk-pilots can't make a valid policy. I liked Tom Clancy's description of the CIA: "We have a lot of people who are good at ordering their martninis shaken, not stirred." >As people as diverse as Marine Colonel Jeff Cooper and Watergate felon G. >Gordon Liddy have noted, any black-clad "ninjas" entering a home at 4 a.m. >without clearly announcing themselves are asking for trouble. (Liddy got in >a lot of trouble for calling for "head shots" on rampaging BATFags. >Frankly, I'm not a good enough shot--especially in high-stress >situations--to make head shots with my H & K .45, so I can only hope to >make torso shots.) See, you need to use that computer - automated defense systems. Bet it could do okay with a ballistics module... <g> >least two of them with me. (Interestingly, the same class of folks who want >to ban "military-grade crypto" are also seeking to ban Kevlar vest-piercing >rounds. Fortunately, though KTW ammo is no longer available to "marks" (= >civilians), .45 ACP +P does a pretty good job. Certain +P .357 Magnum What's really funny is that nobody seems to notice that criminals aren't that concerned with breaking laws. I think some people need to go to Dogbert's school of Common Sense... // Chris Adams <adamsc(a)io-online.com> - Webpages for sale! Se habla JavaScript! // Automatically receive my resume or PGPKEY by sending email with a subject // of 'send PGPKEY' or 'send resume'. Capitalization counts so be careful!

1 0

American People the relation to the Police
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello, Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 19:51:39 -0400 > From: Hallam-Baker <hallam(a)ai.mit.edu> > Subject: Re: Responding to Pre-dawn Unannounced Ninja Raids > > The people of the USA fortunately disagree. Its no coincidence that Limbaugh > has been unable to continue his tv show after his coverage of the OKC bombing. > It is not socially acceptable to call for the murder of Police officers in most > countries. By doing so you are discrediting yourself and those who support you. I am a US citizen. My family were French Heugonauts who came here to escape persecution on religious grounds in the late 1590's. One of my ancestors, Rufus Choate, was a lawyer who argued Women Suffrage to the Supreme Court (he lost AFAIK) in the 1890's. I am operating under two premises. First, that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. I am also interpreting it literally, under the assumption that our founding fathers were reasonably intelligent men and knew how to express their intents clearly. It is only our desire to avoid the uncertainty that some of the rights imply (eg speech) as well as the potential damage they might cause that clouds the issues for us. In short the uncertainty in constitutional law comes from us and not the Constitution. I disagree. This country fought two wars of liberation (you forgot about 1812) and a civil war to discredit this thesis in relation to a Democracy founded upon individual liberty. It is no coincidence that the Tree of Liberty needs watered with blood on occasion. It is how the value of human life and the pursuits thereof are measured. The entire point of the Second Amendment to the Constitution is to guarantee that the Federal Government does not have sole access to and use of deadly force. The Militia exists to fight the Federal government and other internal insurrections. The Army and Navy are pointed outward, from a constitutional point any use of these forces inside the border of the United States against US citizens is prohibited. At no point is the military given authority over any civil organization or individuals in the Constitution other than in times of war with declaration of Martial Law. I further contend that without Martial Law being called the current use of the military in civil law enforcement are unconstitutional. I will further contend that various parts of the Constitution clearly show intent on the part of the founding fathers to limit the ability of the Federal government to use force. We should recognize what they seemed to have understood viceraly. All rights stem from an individual being alive. Civilization and Democracy in particular should be to increase the ability of an individual to do this. They also understood that democratic government were entered into by the founders (at least, automatic citizenship clouds this issue down the road) voluntarily and with the clear intent to better their position in the world. To this end the avoidance of the use of violence at all costs short of losing your life is a major plus. The constitutional point is to reduce the need for violence. Revolution and War are not murder unless you lose. This is a basic tenet of civilization. I want to be sure you understand I am NOT calling for the use of force against anyone. I believe the only legitimate use of force is in the immediate and direct threat to ones life. I also think that the majority of our current problems can be resolved by the inclusion of the 9th and 10th Amendment in our legal system. > Do you support the "punishment beatings" performed by the IRA. So far this > year they have committed grievous bodliy harm against 270 people. They have > also murdered 4 people. There have been no deaths from police or army use > of firearms in that period. Your assertion is therefore false. How many of them died? Beaten? And from what? Seems I see a article now and again about somebody getting killed from rubber bullets, tear gas, beatings, etc. from police and other related forces. > If you want to discuss the politics of Ireland you should at least visit the > place. You don't have to fall off a mountain to understand the implications of a fall, understanding does not require direct experience in all cases. > You will find remarkably less sympathy for your romantic visions of > bloodshed amongst the people who have to live with the consequences. The > British people have little sympathy for either side and would quite happily > leave the two sides to slaughter each other if it wasnt for the fact that > the majority of the population wish to remain British and have voted to > remain so in regular referenda and national elections. If true, it doesn't speak very highly of the British people. Jim Choate

1 0

RE: Inventor of radio... (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: Gregory Ellison <gregorye(a)microsoft.com> > Subject: RE: Inventor of radio... > Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 12:02:00 -0700 > > I've heard this decision referred to many times but have been unable to > locate any specifics. Can anyone provide a pointer? You should be able to find it via the patent office webpage. I believe the year was 1985, but I could be wrong. Jim Choate

1 0

RE: CIA Trained Gorilla Femnists
by Kurt Buff 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 worst case of performance anxiety I've ever heard of... On Tuesday, March 24, 1998 5:23 PM, TruthMongrer [SMTP:tm@dev.null] wrote: | Male Gorilla, Released to Mate | with Females, Drops Dead | | AP | 24-MAR-98 | | TOKYO (AP) The excitement, or perhaps the pressure, apparently was too | much for Sultan. The 28-year-old male gorilla, specially moved to a | cage to mate with three females, instead dropped dead. | | The 400-pound lowland gorilla ran around briefly and played with his | new friends Monday, then suddenly collapsed, apparently after suffering | a heart attack, said Kunihiko Yasui, head of animal breeding at Kyoto | Muni -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNR188Q3xegzLXcRmEQKAmgCggAQiHNO9OLy+D87pgdF9HuqXm5wAoMOF nsU45G3tEXdRYQOojSZAi2qa =oaNe -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Political Test
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

THE SACREDBULL BASIC ENGLISH AND MATH TEST FOR FEDERAL POLITICIANS SECTION I: Competency in English 1. The phrase, "Congress shall make no law..." means a. Congress shall make no law... b. Congress shall make some laws... c. Americans can do anything they want, except things my colleagues and I, or our largest contributors, personally dislike. d. Congress can do anything it damn well pleases, starting with stacking the courts with our toadies. 2. What is the correct interpretation of the phrase "...the right of the people...shall not be infringed"? a. The right of the people...shall not be infringed. b. The right of the people...shall be infringed, but only gradually, moderately and for the good of children and battered women (except the ones we batter). c. The right of the people is actually a state's right and the states are a bunch of wusses who'll put up with anything as long as we offer them enough tax-funded loot in return for selling out their citizens. d. The people are all sitting on their butts watching TV, so we can infringe any damn thing we feel like infringing, and we'll get the media to screw you if you think otherwise. 3. What is the meaning of the phrase, "The powers ... are reserved to the states, or to the people..." a. The powers...are reserved to the states, or to the people... b. The interstate commerce clause gives us the authority to do anything. Therefore there are no other powers left to reserve for those other twits. Too bad for them. c. Where'd you get a stupid idea like that? We're more powerful and have bigger guns than they do, and that's all that really matters, isn't it? d. Hahahahahahahahahaha! 4. Essay Question: Write a bill (a proposed law, you twit) in plain English, for once. We just want to see if you can do it. Extra credit if it's constitutional or can be read and understood in less than ten minutes by a high school student of average intelligence. SECTION II: Competency in Mathematics 1. A fugitive oil baron named Roger gives $300,000 to the Democratic National Committee for the specific purpose of gaining "access" to the president. For that, he is given six invitations to the White House, but does not get the pipeline he wanted. How much money should Roger give to the DNC next time? a. Nothing. People shouldn't be able to bribe their way into the presence of public officials. b. This is a trick question. Next time, a Republican president might be in office, and Roger should give his money to the RNC, instead. c. I know the president. If Roger gives me the money, I'll give Roger access. Heck, I'll even throw in some hot babes, since Roger said the babes at the White House were too busy stroking Clinton to pay any attention to him. d. $600,000. (Roger's answer, in testimony before Congress 9/18/97.) 2. According to the administration's own projections, Americans will soon face an 82 percent income tax rate if present entitlement programs and levels of federal growth persist. How many years before American citizens rise up in rebellion? a. Americans should never be driven to that kind of desperation. We should immediately begin rolling the federal government back to constitutional levels. b. Don't worry, we're going to reform the tax system and, as Rep. Mitch McConnell says, "virtually abolish the IRS as we know it"; we'll just have an 82 percent national sales tax, instead. c. As soon as my term in office is over and I can get an oceanside place in Costa Rica, complete with Uzi-toting bodyguards. d. What do we care? We'll just let Janet burn the little jerks and claim they committed suicide. 3. The federal budget is...oh...some great big figure in the gazillions. The national debt is probably about five trillion dollars, give or take. The annual deficit is, you know, billions and billions and billions (not counting off-budget stuff like Amtrak and the Post Office). Budgets for Social Security and Medicare are increasing at some really wowie-zow of a percent every year. (Not like you care what the actual figures are, anyway.) Congress and the president have just cooked up a tax cut package filled with goodies for favored special interests. Please explain how you can claim the budget will be balanced by 2002. a. We can't do it without extreme cutbacks in government. Anybody who says we can is lying like a congressman. b. Revenues will...uh...yeah...revenues will increase because of all those tax breaks and...uh...the economy will be just perfect forever and ever and...uh...maybe some plague or something will come along and kill off all those money-sucking old folks...or something like that, maybe. c. The media said it's true, didn't they? What more proof do you want? d. Hey, that's for the suckers who are here in 2002 to figure out. I'll be in Costa Rica by then. e. Well, actually, now that I think about it, I'll be in some other country with an army so they can fight off the U.S. troops who will be sent to take my loot like they did Noriega's. Like, hey, I stole mine fair and square! Correct answers: B, C, D and E (From the politicians' point of view, that is. Hey, you know, whatever we can get away with while the folks are watching TV...) Correct answer, in reality: L-E-A-D T-H-E-R-A-P-Y ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- ----- (c) 1997 Charles Curley and Claire Wolfe. Permission to reprint freely granted ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Return to Index to Writings of Claire Wolfe Return to Liberty Activist

1 0

CNN - DeathMonger
by TruthMonger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

SITE SOURCES Contents Help! Search CNN Networks Two Saskatchewan Freemen Assassinated One of the Freemen holds a drink during the 81-second standoff on April 1, 1998 Assassination stemmed from Microsoft standoff? Bienfait, SASK (AP) TruthMonger I and TruthMonger II were assassinated in an 81-second standoff with an unidentified team of freelance assassins who accomplished their goal without firing a single shot. A few short minutes after the CoalDust Saloon opened for business, a limousine bearing Redmond, Washington, license plates pulled up outside the bar, and a half-dozen black-clad, heavily armed figures raced into the building, behind the cover of smoke and tear-gas grenades. They were met by a heavy fusillade of gunfire from a variety of surprised morning drunks who were onery as snot, not yet having finished their first beer of the morning. The assassins rushed into the bar and established strategic positions, only to find that the two TruthMonger entities who were the target of the raid already lay dead on the floor. They quickly rushed out of the CoalDust Saloon and piled into the limousine, which headed for the American border. The day-shift barmaid who investigated the scene--in the absence of local RCMP, who were busy on the reservation legally murdering WagonBurnersnoted that TruthMonger I and TruthMonger II had both been shot in the head from behind. Blanc Weber, a member of the Circle of Eunuchs who claimed to have been just passing through Bienfait, at the time, and who was reported to be standing behind the TwoMongers when the shooting began, theorized that the fatal shots came from the grassy knoll behind the bar. When confronted by an angry crowd of drunken losers who pointed out that Webers anger over the TruthMonger Cult of One Clan including references to her in their Death Threat!!!(s) against an unnamed billionaire from Redmond, Washington, she bought a round of drinks for the house, and the matter was quickly dropped. Jeff Sandquist, a Microsoft employee who had earned his bones by cleaning up the mess that Circle of Eunuchs founder, C.J. Parker had made of the computer systems at the offices of a local mobile home manufacturer, verified Blanc Webers claims about the shots coming from the grassy knoll, noting that three bums (Mark Hedges, Robert Canizales, and a shadowy figure known only as Sameer) had been picked up shortly after the incident by Estevan City Police, and taken for a free breakfast at the Husky Truckstop. Sandquist and Weber were picked up and spirited away by a strange figure who refused to reveal his identity, but noted that it was imperative for the group to leave quickly, because at night, the ice weasels come. TruthMongerI.jpg TruthMongerII.jpg Local members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Gestapo later indicated that their investigation into the matter revealed that local law enforcement personnel in Redmond, Washington, could not find any suspects in their files matching the description of a billionaire in a limousine. A follow up inquiry by CNN reporters proved to be unsuccessful, as all of the officers involved on both sides of the border had retired by the end of the day. At a wake held for the TwoMongers after a truckload of Olympia beer unexpectedly arrived at the bar, the massive crowd that suddenly appeared out of nowhere reminisced about their fallen drinking buddies. It was probably an act of mercy, since they had been suffering greatly since installing Win95 on their systems. ~Anonymous Ever since TM-Is cousin died of a mysterious heart-attack after being put in a cage with the female guerillas, we knew it was only a matter of time before Blanc Weber saw the light and decided to become a Claire Wolfe in Sheeple's clothing. ~Nobody I *love* this bar ~A visitor from Boston © 1998 Cable News Network, Inc. A Time Warner Company All Rights Reserved.

1 0

Re: Netscape 3.0B US version MD5 (was: Re: overseas PGPfone and Netscape)
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:27 AM 7/19/96 -0700, you wrote: >Roy M. Silvernail wrote: >> Anyone sniffing the link >> knows the filename from previous forms submissions, anyway. > You can't sniff the link, since the form submission and the > file download are via SSL. Presumably 40-bit RC4 for most users? :-) (It is still strong enought to reduce casual eavesdropping....) # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # http://www.idiom.com/~wcs # Confuse Authority!

1 0

WORD Mail: A Part of Our Lives...
by Your_Pal＠IConNet.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It's our birthday. Come blow out the candles at <URL:http://www.word.com>. Love, The Word Staff

1 0

RE: NSA response to key length report
by geeman＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

What I don't get is why the "report" is so semi-literate? The grammar errors are curious given the supposed source; it even makes me a little skeptical as to the source. My take on the bit about "high processing speeds -> I/O bound" isn't that they're talking IPC, but bus timing (??) I don't have the original paper handy and I don't recall what the proposed processor speeds are. "Total exhaust time" --- is this truly as meaningless as it sounds? ---------- From: Matt Blaze[SMTP:mab@crypto.com] Sent: Friday, July 19, 1996 2:10 PM To: Ernest Hua Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Subject: Re: NSA response to key length report Ernest Hua <hua(a)xenon.chromatic.com> writes: > > It sounds like most of their "counter-arguments" are just stalling tactics. > > If you are a lawyer for someone you know is guilty, you still would choose > to find every reason in the book to attack the prosecution's case. Here we > have precisely the same effect with the NSA. Any tactical manuveur to keep > stalling the impending collapse of ITAR. > > (It is human .. er .. rather .. bureaucrat-esque to claim innocence in the > face of overwhelming evidence of guilt.) Particularly impressive is that our key length report was hardly above criticism from several angles, but their rebuttal managed somehow to avoid them. What I find most disturbing about this is that their report was provided secretly to policymakers in the administration and in Congress, without independent technical review that would have quickly exposed the fallacy of the arguments. I never would have seen it had several of the recipients not faxed it to me. This is the first hard evidence I've seen of NSA providing anything less than the highest quality technical analysis to other parts of the government. A non-specialist reader would be easily misled by the technically dense, but completely irrelevant, "rebuttal". It smacks of either ill-informed sloppiness, or, perhaps worse, self-serving disingenuous cynicism. Either conclusion is scary, and, to me in fact, quite surprising. -matt

1 0