- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

$$Money Saving Ideas, Forward to HR, Operations/Engineering Departments$$
by bruce＠3d-cellular.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

3D Cellular provides money-saving solutions with wireless Data-Base Maintenance Services (Lucent). Click on http://www.3d-cellular.com/DBMaint.htm We handle all Lucent Data-Base Maintenance's: Crisis 24hr Resolution guaranteed Short Term Weekly / Monthly / Quarterly Maintenance Long Term Maintenance on-going Database Optimization / Audit Satisfaction Guaranteed Bruce Shaffstall mailto:bruce@3d-cellular.com

1 0

IP: Attn Should Turn to 'Buying of Congress'
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: believer(a)telepath.com Subject: IP: Attn Should Turn to 'Buying of Congress' Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 09:17:32 -0500 To: believer(a)telepath.com Source: US Newswire http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/Current_Releases/0929-125.txt Author: Attention Should Turn to 'Buying of Congress' U.S. Newswire 29 Sep 14:54 Nation's Attention Should Turn to 'Buying of Congress' Says Author Charles Lewis To: National and Assignment Desks Contact: Marie Elena Martinez of Avon Books, 212-261-6903 News Advisory: "America's citizens have been so distracted by the barrage of commentary, testimony and endless supposition about the President Clinton/Monica Lewinsky saga that Capitol Hill lawmakers have had a reprieve from even the limited amount of scrutiny that normally surrounds their activities," says Charles Lewis, whose THE BUYING OF THE CONGRESS: How Special Interests Have Stolen Your Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, written with The Center For Public Integrity, has just been published. He points out that while the nation focuses on whether or not President Clinton should be impeached, no one is scrutinizing the acts of grand larceny committed by Congress every day. "The attention being paid to the current scandal means that nobody's minding the store, and the store -- Congress -- needs minding," says Lewis pointing to the ever-increasing influence of big-money special interests and the impact this has on people's lives every single day. Just a few of the detrimental results of Congress's love affair with special interests, as detailed in THE BUYING OF THE CONGRESS, are: little or no action on Social Security, the continued threat to life from e-coli contamination and other poisoned foods, the loss of full health benefits, the number of people who must hold two jobs to make ends meet, the enormous drop in the percentage of federal tax revenue paid by corporations, and low voter turnout. "We've found that members of Congress moonlight for themselves and their wealthy patrons more than they work for us," says Lewis who then enumerates "employers" as varied as Lockheed-Martin, Ameritech, the National Right to Life PAC, and the National Rifle Association. Among the people who are most vocal in their condemnation of President Clinton during this tumultuous time are several whose career patrons are publicly identified for the first time in THE BUYING OF THE CONGRESS, including Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-GA), and Minority Leader Dick Gephardt (D-MO). "With the elections just six weeks away, we can't afford to overlook Congress's own misdeeds," says Lewis. ------ FOR INTERVIEWS OR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONTACT: Marie Elena Martinez, 212/261-6903 -0- /U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/ 09/29 14:54 Copyright 1998, U.S. Newswire ----------------------- NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ----------------------- ********************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address ********************************************** www.telepath.com/believer **********************************************

1 0

IP: Secrecy might be weak link in wiretaps
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: believer(a)telepath.com Subject: IP: Secrecy might be weak link in wiretaps Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 10:57:09 -0500 To: believer(a)telepath.com Source: USA Today http://www.usatoday.com/news/nds1.htm 09/29/98- Updated 11:55 PM ET The Nation's Homepage Secrecy might be weak link in wiretaps ALEXANDRIA, Va. - Intelligence officials increasingly rely on wiretaps authorized by a secret federal court to keep track of foreign spies and potential terrorists. But an espionage trial set to begin in federal court here next Tuesday highlights what even the secret court's supporters admit is its weakness: The court's secrecy can make it very difficult for defendants caught on the wiretaps to defend themselves. "If my client had been wiretapped based on (an ordinary federal) warrant, you can bet I'd be all over it," says Richard Sauber, a Washington, D.C., lawyer defending accused spy Kurt Stand. "But this isn't an ordinary warrant. Under law I can't find out what the wiretap was based on, whether the information was flawed, whether the judge was correct to authorize it. There's a fundamental issue of fairness here," Sauber says. Ironically, fairness was cited as the issue in 1978, when the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) created a special secret court for authorizing wiretaps on suspected spies. The FISA court was created by Congress as a check against the power of presidents, who until then had authorized wiretaps and warrantless searches on their own say so in the interest of national security. The law requires the Justice Department, and usually the FBI or the National Security Agency, to show a judge that the target is a foreign government or agent engaging in "clandestine intelligence gathering activities" or terrorism. "The spirit of the thing is to hold the (wiretap requests) to a high legal standard," says William Webster, director of the FBI when FISA was passed. "That's a large departure from the way things had been done." Now, investigators prepare a written request and run it by Justice Department lawyers. Justice certifies that the tap's primary purpose is to gather intelligence, though information gleaned can be used in criminal cases. The request then is presented to one of seven FISA judges, who are U.S. district court judges appointed by the chief justice to authorize intelligence wiretaps. Many of the requests are heard in a soundproof sixth-floor conference room in the Justice Department's main headquarters. The target of the search is not represented. Says David Banisar, researcher for the Electronic Privacy Information Center: "There are mistakes made in ordinary warrant processes, from getting the wrong address to not having probable cause, and they can be corrected when lawyers attack the warrant. " "That can't happen here," he says. "We'll never know how many mistakes are made because the (secret) court's proceeding isn't public." By Richard Willing, USA TODAY ©COPYRIGHT 1998 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc. ----------------------- NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ----------------------- ********************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address ********************************************** www.telepath.com/believer **********************************************

1 0

Re: VANGUARD: An Election About Nothing? (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: Eric Murray <ericm(a)lne.com> > Subject: Re: VANGUARD: An Election About Nothing? (fwd) > Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 09:00:34 -0800 (PST) > Not voting tells the current politicians that you don't care > what they do to you. They'd be happier if only 5% of the electorate > bothered to vote- that's fewer people to market to. That should set off flags for truly honest politicians (talk about a non sequeter). > If you don't like the Republicrats in office, then vote for > what the media denigrates as a 'fringe cantidate'. If they > lose, which is likely because Americans tend to want to vote > for the winner, then you'll be satisfied because you voted > against the idiot in office. If they happen to win, then > you'll either get someone wiht some new ideas which (hopefully) you > agree with, or someone so seriously wierd that they paralyze > government for their entire term. This of course assumes that there is some faith in the system. > The Natural Law people are so wierd that it's very tempting to Weird? You're talking to somebody who lives in Austin, Tx. The capital of weird amond weird....;) But the point isn't to vote for just anybody. I keep having this echo of Federalist #5 (I think that's the one about political parties) going through my head. The problem with our system is that we need a more representative form of government. It shouldn't be simply a football game (which leads to a related but deep issue about American psychology itself) but a fair and honest representation of the peoples desire. The only things I can find that would make such '3rd party' strategies work is if the representation was done by percentage as in Englands parliament. > That's my point. Absurdisim sends a much stronger message > than just not voting. Voting for serious 'fringe' candidates > (i.e. Libertarians) also sends a message. Not voting just > says "I don't care what you do to me". I'll think about this one. Several points come to mind and I'm not sure how to express them at this point. The point I can address is that it isn't that people voted for a drunk dwarve. It was the issue was so trivial or irrelevant that it didn't matter who goes in there, it simply doesn't matter. In that case the only answer is to opt out and spend ones time dealing with the issues and problems that do matter. The question is deeper than simply participation, it's addresses the entire point of the system that needs our participation in the first place. > last night the ABC web site had pages up with _today's_ > voting results, with 100% of the "precincts reporting". I'd guess they were testing. ____________________________________________________________________ To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

EVENT: FCC Universal Service Hearing to be cybercast online!
by Shabbir Safdar 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

========================================================================= _ _ __| | ___ _ __ ___ ___ ___ _ __ __ _ ___ _ _ _ __ ___| |_ / _` |/ _ \ '_ ` _ \ / _ \ / __| '__/ _` |/ __| | | | | '_ \ / _ \ __| | (_| | __/ | | | | | (_) | (__| | | (_| | (__| |_| |_| | | | __/ |_ \__,_|\___|_| |_| |_|\___/ \___|_| \__,_|\___|\__, (_)_| |_|\___|\__| |___/ Government Without Walls Update No.6 http:/www.democracy.net/ May 1 1997 _________________________________________________________________________ Table of Contents - Sit in on live FCC Universal Service hearing: May 7, 9:30am Eastern - Live Town Hall Meeting with FCC Chairman Reed Hundt: May 13, 7pm Eastern - In our archive - About democracy.net / Subscription Information ___________________________________________________________________________ SIT IN ON LIVE FCC UNIVERSAL SERVICE HEARING: WEDNESDAY MAY 7, 9:30AM ET The future of Universal Service in the nation's telecommunications network is one of the key elements of our nation's communications infrastructure. At issue - how to ensure that citizens who live in rural and inner city areas have access to advanced telecommunications services, and how to pay for it. The 1996 Telecommunications Reform Act directed the FCC to answer these questions. After nearly a year of investigation, hearings, and public comment, the FCC will announce its rules on Wednesday May 7th. You can join the proceeding live. Be present, ask questions, and get answers from FCC staff after the hearing. (FCC staff are not allowed to comment on a matter before the Commission before the commissioners have made their ruling.) Best of all, FCC Chairman Reed Hundt will join democracy.net on Tuesday May 13 for an online town hall meeting. Hundt will discuss the Universal Service proceeding and respond to questions from Internet users. * Universal Service Hearing - How To Participate * DATE: Wednesday, May 7, 1997 TIME: 9:30 am Eastern / 6:30 am Pacific (Event will last +/- 3 hours) LOCATION: http://www.democracy.net In advance of the hearing, please visit http://www.democracy.net for background information on the Universal Service issue, including links to various sides of the debate. You can also submit questions in advance. _____________________________________________________________________________ LIVE TOWN HALL MEETING WITH FCC CHAIRMAN REED HUNDT: TUESDAY MAY 13, 7PM ET During the May 7th Universal Service Proceeding, Internet users can submit their questions and comments via democracy.net. On Tuesday May 13, FCC Chairman Reed Hundt will join democracy.net for a live Virtual Town Hall meeting to discuss the Universal Service proceeding, respond to Internet users questions, and discuss other Internet-related issues before the FCC. This is a great opportunity for Internet users to talk with one of the key telecommunications policy makers. * Online Town Hall Meeting with FCC Commissioner Reed Hundt * * How To Participate * DATE: Tuesday, May 13, 1997 TIME: 7:00 pm Eastern / 4:00 pm Pacific LOCATION: http://www.democracy.net Visit http://www.democracy.net/ in advance of the event to submit questions. Additional information can be found at the FCC home page: http://www.fcc.gov _______________________________________________________________________________ IN OUR ARCHIVE * ONLINE TOWN HALL MEETING WITH REP. RICK WHITE NOW AVAILABLE IN OUR ARCHIVE! "I don't want to minimize the National Security concerns -- these concerns are real - but I think we've reached the point where the National Security community is going to have to solve these problems in a new world. You can't delay the arrival of the new world forever." -Rep. Rick White on encryption at 4/10 democracy.net town hall meeting You can listen to the entire transcript of the online town hall meeting, or selected excerpts, at http://www.democracy.net/archive/04101997/ * ONLINE TOWN HALL MEETING WITH REP. ANNA ESHOO NOW AVAILABLE IN OUR ARCHIVE! "I don't think Congress should rush into making decisions about the Internet. There are still far too many Members that are not users themselves, and therefore do not understand the medium." -Rep. Anna Eshoo on Congress and the net at 4/16 democracy.net online town hall meeting You can listen to the entire transcript of the online town hall meeting, or selected excerpts, at http://www.democracy.net/archive/04161997/ _______________________________________________________________________________ ABOUT DEMOCRACY.NET / SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION The democracy.net is a joint project of the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) and the Voters Telecommunications Watch (VTW) to explore ways of enhancing citizen participation in the democratic process via the Internet. To this end, democracy.net will host live, interactive cybercasts of Congressional Hearings and online town hall meetings with key policy makers. democracy.net is made possible through the generous support of WebActive (http://www.webactive.com) Public Access Networks (http://www.panix.com) the Democracy Network (http://www.democracynet.org) and DIGEX Internet (http://www.digex.net) More information about the project and its sponsors can be found at http://www.democracy.net/about/ To receive democracy.net announcements automatically, please visit our signup form at http://www.democracy.net/ or send mail to majordomo(a)democracy.net with "subscribe events" in the body of the message. To stop receiving announcements on the democracy.net "events" mailing list, please send mail to majordomo(a)democracy.net with the phrase "unsubscribe events" in the message body. _____________________________________________________________________________ End update no.6 05/01/1997 =============================================================================

1 0

coolness
by Staff 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

nice site. why not add your url to ours?! visit http://212.net thanks. staff at http://212.net

1 0

counterTCM post
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

in the continuing series of counterTCMeme posts, I would like to address a recent TCMeme on the subject of government. TCM asserts that the president and congress have absolutely nothing to offer american citizens, that any attempt to deal with them is a total waste of time. I generally agree that our democratic system has degenerated over the decades, to the point of being scary and dangerous in places. however, we can ask, why did it get to that point? I believe it is not because of an inherent impracticality of the government or congress. rather, it is a failure of the citizens to maintain the authority over their congressmen and president. once upon a time, citizens saw congress and the president as their servants. it led to a particular kind of ideology reflected in the policies of the country. over time, people gradually gave away this authority. they saw the president and congress as having authority over citizens, instead of vice versa. TCM's idea of telling congress and the president to f*** off is actually, in my opinion, an extreme case of people giving away their authority. it is more of the same problem, not the solution. it is failing to address the root of the problem-- that the president and congress must be put in a subservient relationship to the desires of the citizens. citizens are failing to exercise their ability to remove and replace those in power. TCM quotes De ToqueVille, "the american experiment in democracy will last until people begin to realize they can pick each other's pockets at the voting booth". there is a fallacy and a truth in this at the same time. the truth is that the citizenry is beginning to discover that the government is the greatest pickpocket of all. if it redistributed its wealth, our economy would be better off. but instead the government ties up vast amounts of wealth into (1) social programs that redistribute only a fraction of the wealth they take in, the rest caught up in bureacracy (2) weaponry that sits idle, and is so horrific that it should never be used, and (3) a national debt of borrowed money. so people are no longer trying to pick each other's pockets at the voting booth, in my opinion, but realizing that the government itself is picking everyone's pockets at tax time. everyone who pays money via taxes to the government is the employer of those in government. when was the last time you exercised some control over this money? or do you just sign it off? there are many ways that individual citizens can create leverage over their government, and increase their power over it. it is the opposite of the process by which they have given their power away. it is reversable. but to unplug oneself from the monster one has created is not possible as TCM is always campaigning. the monster will run around some more. one must uncreate the monster in the same ways it was created. I commend CDT and all other online groups for their organizational motives and drive, and condemn TCM for his pissing on them. what is he doing? he is just unplugging himself and asserting that the monster will no longer exist if he refuses to believe in it. the road to greater power is greater organization and unity while preserving individuality. the individualism that TCM promotes is actually ultimately disempowering and dangerous. the individual has no power. the solution to an oppressive society is to fix the society, not to try to find increasingly ingenious ways of hiding from it. the society will always has means of becoming more orwellian and surmounting whatever obstacles individuals place in it. if something is broken, do you fix it, or abandon it? or shoot it? TCM is always advocating the latter two. it's not a solution, and he knows it, and everyone else here knows it too.

1 0

SAFE Bill is a Good Thing--"Crypto For The Masses"
by Alan Davidson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The SAFE encryption bill would put more non-escrow, strong encryption in the hands of many more people -- and mark the death knell for government regulation of encryption. That's why CDT supports it. That's why we hope that people who care about privacy and security online will support it too. 1. The SAFE Bill Will Bring More Strong Crypto To More People There is a right we don't have now: The right to export strong cryptography. The result is that strong, easy-to-use encryption is not seamlessly integrated into most popular products, and is not accessible to most people (who are not as technically sophisticated as the members of this list.) SAFE would legalize the export (to all but a few countries such as Iran, N. Korea, and Cuba) of non-escrow encryption *of unlimited strength* that is designed for the mass market or is in the public domain, i.e.: "(i) that is generally available, as is, and is designed for installation by the purchaser; or "(ii) that is in the public domain for which copyright or other protection is not available under title 17, United States Code, or that is available to the public because it is generally accessible to the interested public in any form;" (See also Footnote below) Translation: If it's sold in Egghead Software, it's exportable. If it's available on the Web: exportable. PGP: exportable. 3DES, IDEA, or Blowfish in mass-market products or public domain toolkits: Exportable. Exportable. Exportable. So the export control provisions in SAFE would put a lot more strong crypto -- and the freedom to use it -- in the hands of a lot more people. SAFE's export control relief is not unlimited. The bill does not allow export to Iran, Iraq, Cuba, or N. Korea (that's what the "Trading With The Enemy" provision is about); Congress is not likely to pass a law saying you can export strong crypto to Saddam Hussein. Relief is also limited for non-mass-market hardware and software (e.g., custom systems not available to the public). Non-mass-market hardware is exportable if "commercially available" in the destination country; such software is exportable according to a hard-to-parse "financial institutions" standard that roughly translates into DES. Less than ideal -- but these provisions do not apply to most of the hardware and software that most people use. What SAFE does legalize is strong, non-escrow encryption in the products that are most widely used, in almost all countries worldwide. Once *ordinary people* have strong crypto built in to the products they use every day, it will be much harder for governments to take it away or restrict it. SAFE is "strong crypto for the masses." SAFE is a huge step forward. 2. CDT Does Not Support The Criminal Provision in SAFE CDT is actively working to get the criminal provision taken out of the SAFE bill. We are not alone: CDT signed a letter with other groups including EPIC, EFF, ACLU, VTW, PGP, IEEE, and ACM, urging Congress to remove the provisions -- "while expressing our support for the measure." Contrary to reports, the SAFE bill does not say: "Use a cipher, go to prison." It does say: "Use cryptography TO COMMIT A CRIME, go to prison": 2805. Unlawful use of encryption in furtherance of a criminal act "Any person who willfully uses encryption in furtherance of the commission of a criminal offense for which the person may be prosecuted in a court of competent jurisdiction... [may be imprisoned or fined]" The Leahy bill version is narrower. It says: "Use cryptography to willfully obstruct justice in furtherance of a felony, go to prison." "Whoever willfully endeavors by means of encryption to obstruct, impede, or prevent the communication to an investigative or law enforcement officer of information in furtherance of a felony that may be prosecuted in a court of the United States shall...[may be imprisoned or fined]" CDT opposes both these provisions because they are unnecessary and could chill the use of encryption (especially by self-confessed felons like Tim May!). But they are not as sweeping as some on this list have said. On balance, CDT believes that SAFE's giant step forward of export relief and prohibitions on Executive Branch key escrow controls outweigh the problems created by these criminal provision. That is why we will fight to get criminal provisions removed, while we still support the bill. Passage of the SAFE Bill would put strong security tools in the hands of many more people. That's why CDT supports SAFE, and why we think people who care about privacy and security online should support it too. -- Alan Davidson, CDT FOOTNOTE: The Export Provisions in SAFE The export control provisions in SAFE differentiate between so-called mass-market and non-mass-market hardware and software. Mass-market software and hardware with non-escrow encryption of *unlimited strength* may be exported under the Act to all but a few countries (such as Iran, N. Korea, and Cuba): (2) ITEMS NOT REQUIRING LICENSES. -- No validated license may be required, except pursuant to the Trading With the Enemy Act or the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (but only to the extent that the authority of such Act is not exercised to extend controls imposed under this Act), for the export or reexport of-- "(A) any software, including software with encryption capabilities -- "(i) that is generally available, as is, and is designed for installation by the purchaser; or "(ii) that is in the public domain for which copyright or other protection is not available under title 17, United States Code, or that is available to the public because it is generally accessible to the interested public in any form; or "(B) any computing device solely because it incorporates or employs in any form software (including software with encryption capabilities) exempted from any - requirement for a validated license under subparagraph (A). [See http://www.cdt.org/crypto/legis_105/SAFE/hr695_text.html for the Bill's definitions of "generally available," "as is", etc.] Non-mass-market hardware and software -- suach as code not generally available to the public via the Internet, or custom implementations not generally available or sold "as is" -- receive less favorable treatment: "(3) SOFTWARE WITH ENCRYPTION CAPABILITIES. -- The Secretary shall authorize the export or reexport of software with encryption capabilities for nonmilitary end-uses in any country to which exports of software of similar capability are permitted for use by financial institutions not controlled in fact by United States persons, unless there is substantial evidence that such software will be -- "(A) diverted to a military end-use or an end-use supporting international terrorism; "(B) modified for military or terrorist end-use; or "(C) reexported without any authorization by the United States that may be required under this Act. This "financial institutions" standard is supposed to roughly translate into DES. "(4) HARDWARE WITH ENCRYPTION CAPABILITIES. -- The Secretary shall authorize the export or reexport of computer hardware with encryption capabilities if the Secretary determines that a product offering comparable security is commercially available outside the United States from a foreign supplier, without effective restrictions. So non-mass-market hardware can be exported *with any encryption algorithm* if a "comparable" product is available outside the U.S. from a foreign supplier without restriction.

4 3

Re: SAFE Bill discussion
by Shabbir J. Safdar 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The Administration hates this bill, because it threatens their ability to roll out Key Recovery. They've said as much in the letter Declan forwarded: "The bill could be read as prohibiting the United States government from using appropriate incentives to support a key management infrastructure and KEY RECOVERY." [emphasis added] Do you think that if this bill helped the Administration, that they'd be out there urging the subcommittee chairman to stop it? I think not. I'm also puzzled by the fact that CDT is being criticized pretty much solely, even though the entire Internet Privacy Coalition, and several other groups all wrote a letter of support of the bill with only a criticism of one provision. However the overall statement was of support. (see http://www.privacy.org/ipc/safe_letter.html) As far as I can tell, everyone criticizing the bill either thinks that: a) CDT actually runs all these groups behind the scenes, or b) pretty much all of the Internet advocates believe that this bill is needed and are doing the best they can with what Congress has written. You're pretty hard on CDT, but EFF, EPIC, the ACLU, VTW, Americans for Tax Reform, the Association for Computing Machinery, Computer Professionals for Social Responsiblity, Eagle Forum, the National Association for Criminal Defense Lawyers, and PGP Inc all signed this letter. Can you consider, perhaps, for a second, that critics of SAFE are being unreasonable? I would think so, as critics of SAFE include the Clinton Administration. Is that the kind of company that cypherpunks keep? Here's a great excerpt from the Internet Privacy Coalition letter: The pending bill provides a positive framework for the reforms that are long overdue in this critical area. It makes clear that the sale or use of encryption, a vital technique to promote network security and individual privacy, should not be restricted in the United States. This is the view widely shared by users of the Internet and the computer and communications industry. It was also a central recommendation of the report of the National Research Council last year. Looks like widespread support from people who study this issue for living. I'm glad to be counted among them. -S -Shabbir

9 13

Gift taxes...
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > "The giver is responsible for paying any applicable tax on any large > gift," IRS spokesman Steven Pyrek said Monday. > > A baseball is owned by Major League Baseball until it leaves the > field. It is then owned by the fan who comes up with it. > > A gift tax applies to any property given away that is worth $10,000 or > more. The person receiving the gift owes no taxes. > > Under the federal tax code, the first $625,000 would be exempt because > of the lifetime tax credit provided to every individual. So if the > ball is deemed to be worth $1 million, the fan would owe at least 40 > percent of the remaining $375,000, or $150,000, to the government. ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0