- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Market Failures, Monocultures, and Dead Kids (Oh My!)
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

snow <snow(a)smoke.suba.com> writes: > > The parents are the ONLY ones who have a right to determin the welfare of > > their childern. If the parents determin that the risks of reaction to the > > innoculation outways the benifits that choice is their's and their's alone. > > So, parents should be allowed to: > > 1) Beat their children on a daily basis, because it is good for them. Indeed, in most cultures beating the shit out of one's children 9and women) every day is the norm. "Spare the rod, spoil the child." Western Civ is a rare exception. > > 2) Refuse to educate their children _at all_ because Knowlege is the > devils work. Indeed, in most cultures until recently most people were never taught to read unless they intended to become priests. > > 3) Not clothe their children at all beause God Will Provide. > > 4) Teach their children how to perform Oral, Anal, and "straight" sex > because they need to learn it someday? Still very common in midwestern U.S.; less accepted elsewhere. > > Extreme examples, true, but it is what you are saying. > 5) castrating one's male children if they show any propensity to sing - in hopes that they'll become one of the few famous and successful male sopranos - viewed favorably in 18 and 19 centiry Italy. 6) teaching children bullshit about "god". What market force or natural selection discourages "abuse"? --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

2 2

Re: Market Failures, Monocultures, and Dead Kids (Oh My!)
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Toto <toto(a)sk.sympatico.ca> writes: > Dale Thorn wrote: > > > > Really? Define _common_. I have lived in the Mid West for about 85% of > > > my life, and I know no one who learned these things from their parents. > > > > C'mon guys. Parents diddling with their kids is more than common - > > probably 1/3 of all fathers do something sexual with one or more > > of their children at some point. People just suppress it. > > I can't believe it could be that common without the government > finding a way to 'tax' it. Def: relative humidity - the sweat on snow's balls as he fucks his sister. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Re: Web Exon A-rate
by dsc＠swcp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Somebody passed this along: >WS Journal, Sept. 8, 1995. > >Cleaning the Web: Companies to Seek Pornography Blocker > >Array of Technology Firms Will Join in Effort to Let >Parents Screen the Internet > >By Jared Sandberg [snip] This is a good idea. And maybe cryptography can get involved--see below. As a parent it is my responsibility to control what comes into the house and to determine what limited view of the net my kids see. The screening software to do this could be in my home or part of a service of my service provider. A few companies have some simple products for doing this. Most are discouraged by threats from congress to reduce the market need. Most products use a simple red list to block access according to literature sent me. Some look for key words. Normally, I would say that it is very premature for standards work. It would be good to see more ideas tried. The Exon threats probably do not allow this, so I see this news as a good thing. One place to start is the web. Depending on the kid's age and other factors I would want to have different limitations on what the kid sees. Older kids might just get warnings. I would like--for the little ones--to limit the view to some combination of sites listed on green lists. The view for slightly older kids might use red lists to exclude sites instead. (I really would want to create some logical combination of lists for each kid.) Organizations can compete for the list market. I might use these in what ever combination I like and also add my own. It is important to note that the kinds of things I would like to screen out or in might be different from what the next person would like to screen out or in. (I put little faith in content screening.) The problem might be in getting huge lists every week. And pages that seemed fine once could have changed. Current red list subscriptions are expensive--it is easier to keep kids off the computer. >>>>>> the part that mentions cryptography >>>>> As an alternative to green lists consumer organizations and do-gooder organizations might certify pages. These might be virtual green lists. Each web page would have the cert built in--perhaps in comments to allow most viewers to work. Instead of checking a list in this case, the screening software would ask the page to verify itself. If the cert was PGP based, then every home doing this would have to have PGP. The screening product could use PGP. Perhaps PGP would be slow. There might be some way to check signatures that is faster and does not have patent limitations. It would be nice if it was possible for the browser to see the first screenful without waiting for the screener to see the entire page. Only those that especially want to make their sites available to kids of picky parents would get the pages certified. Maybe just sending in e$3 would do it. Or e$50 to get to the head of the list. In whatever standards that come about, it is important that only those involved in the screening process pay the price ($, delays). Everybody else should be able to carry on. I do worry that some quick standards would be put into place and that innovation in this area would then become arrested. Dar =========================================================== Dar Scott Home phone: +1 505 299 9497 Dar Scott Consulting Voice: +1 505 299 5790 8637 Horacio Place NE Email: darscott(a)aol.com Albuquerque, NM 87111 dsc(a)swcp.com Fax: +1 505 898 6525 http://www.swcp.com/~correspo/DSC/DarScott.html ===========================================================

1 0

_Digital Cash_ info...
by pcw＠access.digex.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

As John Young noted the other day, the publisher is finally shipping my book called _Digital Cash_. If you're curious, you can see the table of contents from my home page: http://access.digex.net/~pcw/pcwpage.html You should be able to get the book at fine bookstores like Computer Literacy or through the publisher's 800 number (1-800-3131-APP). If you like, you can order the book directly from me at the list price of $34.95. Shipping is free. You can either snail mail me a check or get a First Virtual account. Let me know if you have any questions or comments. I would like to thank the many members of the cypherpunks mailing list who contributed to my knowledge in the subject. Really. Thanks. -Peter Wayner

1 0

Open letter to Geoff Greiveldinger, DoJ
by Carl Ellison 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I just posted the following. I'll have to wait to see if the moderator accepts it. Date: Sat, 9 Sep 1995 01:11:06 -0400 From: Carl Ellison <cme> To: risks(a)csl.sri.com Subject: Open letter to Geoff Greiveldinger, DoJ NIST (the National Institute of Standards and Technology) held a two day public meeting on September 6 and 7, 1995 to discuss Software Key Escrow as a possible means of achieving export of cryptography. In the morning of 9/7, Goeff Greiveldinger of the Department of Justice gave a description of the kinds of crimes which DoJ wants to use wiretapping to solve. He closed this litany of lawbreaking with the assertion that software manufacturers don't want to provide products which allow such lawbreakers to keep their criminal evidence hidden from law enforcement. I'm sorry to disillusion you, Geoff, but I *do* want to make such systems. Would you have Ryder stop renting trucks because some terrorist decided to fill one with explosives and kill many innocent children? Would you have Americans stop making automobiles because bank robbers have been known to use cars for getaways? Would you have all new buildings constructed with FBI microphones in every wall because some criminals meet in private rooms in order to plan crimes? When an American company sweeps its conference room for bugs, finds some and destroys them, it doesn't matter whether those bugs were planted by industrial spies or the FBI. The company has a right to eliminate them. When that company ties two such conference rooms together by video-conference equipment and encrypts the line between them using strong link encryption, it is performing the same defensive operation in cyberspace. It is protecting itself from spies and it doesn't matter that the wiretaps it frustrates might be illegal ones by industrial spies or legal ones by the FBI. The right to attempt to achieve privacy is a long-standing one in this country and not one to allow to be lost. When I design and build systems for privacy for my customers, I am providing products for law-abiding, honest people. I am aware of criminals, of course. Criminals are the threats against whom I protect my customers. These criminals are usually not in the government but that doesn't mean that I believe I should offer my honest customers up for a strip-search in cyberspace. The law enforcement agencies of this free country have no right to expect blanket access to the ciphertext of citizens. It will take legislation to get that right and I will do everything in my power to keep such legislation from passing. Barring such legislation, I will make sure that honest American citizens have cryptography with which to attempt to maintain their privacy, even from the government. We have the right to attempt to keep a secret from government agencies and continuous demonstration of that right is an important part of this free country. On the other hand, I am sympathetic to law enforcement officers. I have several friends in that business. I have asked my friends and acquaintances who do surveillance (2 IRS agents investigating organized crime for tax evasion; 2 undercover cops in Boston's highest drug neighborhood; 1 DEA agent in the midwest) if they ever encounter encrypted communications or files. They don't. Neither does anyone in their offices. Of course, even if they did it would remain so important to preserve our right to attempt to keep secrets from the government that their frustration would just have to be accepted. The fact that this isn't a real problem makes my decision that much easier. I am left with no moral qualms at all. In summary, criminals are so few that I will not design for them. I will not treat my vast majority of honest users as if they were criminals just because some criminal might someday use my product and frustrate you. ObRisk: We run the risk of losing our fundamental right to attempt to keep a secret from the government -- a practice we need to preserve in order to protect ourselves from criminals in cyberspace. There are powerful forces in the US government attempting to cajole us into giving up that right. [see http://www.clark.net/pub/cme/html/nist-ske.html for more on this subject]

1 0

===>> FREE 1 yr. Magazine Sub sent worldwide- 315+ Popular USA Titles ===>> FREE 1 yr. Magazine Sub sent worldwide- 315+ Popular USA Titles
by janetdove＠infosat.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi fellow 'netters, My name is Janet Dove and I recently started using a magazine subscription club in the USA that has a FREE 1 yr. magazine subscription deal with your first paid order- and I have been very pleased with them. They have over 1,500 different USA titles that they can ship to any country on a subscription basis. As for computer magazines from the USA, they more of a selection than I ever knew even existed. They have magazines for most every area of interest in their list of 1,500 titles. Within the USA, for their USA members, they are cheaper than all their competitors and even the publishers themselves. This is their price guarantee. Overseas, on the average, they are generally around one-fourth to one-half of what the newstands overseas charge locally for USA magazines. On some titles they are as little as one-tenth of what the newstands charge. They feel that mgazines should not be a luxury overseas. In the USA, people buy magazines and then toss them after reading them for just a few minutes or hours. They are so cheap in the USA! Well, this company would like to make it the same way for their overseas members. They are also cheaper than all their competitors in the USA and overseas, including the publishers themselves! This is their price guarantee. Around one-half their business comes from overseas, so they are very patient with new members who only speak limited English as a 2nd language. Their prices are so cheap because they deal direct with each publisher and cut-out all the middlemen. They will send you their DELUXE EMAIL CATALOGUE (around 400K-big and juicey) !)...if you completely fill out the form below. It has lists of all the freebies, lists of all the titles they sell, titles broken down by categories and detailed descriptions on nearly 1000 of the titles that they sell. Please do not email me as I am just a happy customer and a *busy* student. I don't have time to even complete my thesis in time, let alone run my part-time software business! Email them directly at: munish(a)grfn.org *------------cut here-----------------------------------------------* REQUEST FOR MORE INFO: please copy this section only and email to: munish(a)grfn.org (sorry, but incomplete forms *cannot* be acknowledged) Name: Internet email address: Smail home address: City-State-Zip: Country: Work Tel. #: Work Fax #: Home Tel. #: Home Fax #: Name of USA mags you currently get on the newstand or in the store: Name of USA mags you currently get on a subscription basis, through the mail: Name of USA mags you would like price quotes on when we call you: Catalogue format desired from below 2 choices (list "1" or "2"): (1. 22-part email message; 2. atttached file by email) {{{Note- 22-part email can be received by anyone with any computer. Attached file format may not be for you: it is sent as an uncompressed 400K file formatted in Microsoft World text only format, on a Mac; if you don't use Microsoft Word on a Mac - you will have to know how to convert into a usable text format. We cannot help you with this. If in doubt, we suggest you go with the universally acceptable 22-part email message. You can always manually spend a few minutes pasting the parts into one whole.}}} If you saw this on a newsgroup, which newsgroup did you see it on?: How did you hear about us (name of person who referred you or the area of the internet that you saw us mentioned in): Janet Dove 090895BGV *------------cut here-----------------------------------------------* They guarantee to beat all their competitors' prices. Sometimes they are less than half of the next best deal I have been able to find and other times, just a little cheaper - but I have never found a lower rate yet. They assured me that if I ever do, they will beat it. They have been very helpful and helped me change my address from the USA to Finland and then back again when I moved last month. They are very knowledgeable about addressing mags worldwide. They have a deal where you can get a free 1 yr. sub to a new magazine from a special list of over 300 popular titles published in the USA. They will give you this free 1 yr. sub when you place your first paid order with them to a renewal or new subscription to any of the over 1,500 different popular USA titles they sell. They can arrange delivery to virtually any country and I think they have clients in around 35 or 36 countries now. Outside the USA there is a charge for foreign postage and handling (on both paid and freebie subs) that varies from magazine to magazine. I have found their staff to be very friendly and courteous. They even helped me with an address change when I moved from one country to another. The owner thinks of his service as a "club" and his clients as "members" (even though there is no extra fee to become a member - your first purchase automatically makes you a member) and he is real picky about who he accepts as a new member. When he sets you up as a new member, he himself calls you personally on the phone to explain how he works his deal, or sometimes he has one of his assistants call. He is kind of quirky sometimes - he insists on setting up new members by phone so he can say hi to everyone (I sure wouldn't want to have his phone bills!), but you can place future orders (after your first order) via E-mail. He has some really friendly young ladies working for him, who seem to know just as much as he does about this magazine stuff. If you live overseas, he will even call you there, as long as you are interested, but I think he still makes all his overseas calls on the weekends, I guess cause the long distance rates are cheaper then. He only likes to take new members from referrals from satisfied existing members and he does virtually no advertising. When I got set-up, they had a 2-3 week waiting list for new members to be called back so that they could join up. (Once you are an existing member, they help you immediately when you call. ) I think they are able to get back to prospective new members the same day or within a few days now, as they have increased their staff. I am not sure about this.........but if you email the above form to them, that is the way to get started! They will send you some FREE info. via E-mail (the short version (around 40K) of their catalogue, or if you request it the DELUXE LONG VERSION (around 400K-big and juicey) !)...if you fill out the form near the top of this message. They then send you email that outlines how his club works and the list of free choices that you can choose from, as well as the entire list of what he sells; and then they will give you a quick (3-5 minute) friendly, no-pressure no-obligation call to explain everything to you personally and answer all your questions. Once you get in, you'll love them. I do. For more info, just fill out the form near the top of this message and email it to: munish(a)grfn.org Sincerely, Janet Dove

1 0

Scientology/Wollersheim as test case for key disclosure
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Andrew Loewenstern writes: > > Modemac writes: > > Mr. Wollersheim has stated that he will go to jail before he reveals > > his encryption key. > [...snip...] > > Call this one: BIG WIN FOR PGP! > > Could this be it? The test case for forced key disclosure? The > Scientologists seem very determined and already have a grudge against > Wollersheim (according to a web page I saw Co$ owes him several million from > a settlement). Has Co$ filed against Wollersheim over this yet? > > If this does go to court and forcing Wollersheim to reveal the key becomes a > central issue, is this the test case "we" want? Is this a "BIG WIN FOR PGP!" > or not? Well, since it's (apparently) a civil case against Wollersheim, the potential Fifth Amendment self-incrimination issues may be murkier, so this may not be a good test case for the criminal context. In federal civil trials, material reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence is discoverable unless there's an applicable privilege - this means that in a civil case, a defendant may be forced to hand over material likely to expose them to liabilty. (The Fifth Amendment privilege against criminal self-incrimination still applies). I'm not sure that key disclosure will even be necessary - the Church (or whatever annoying tentacle of it is suing Wollersheim) is entitled to, for example, "a copy of . . . all documents, data compilations, and tangible things in the possession, custody, or control of the party that are relevant to disputed facts alleged with particularity in the pleadings" (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B)). I don't see why Wollersheim couldn't comply with the discovery rules by providing plaintext copies of all relevant information, unless for some reason the passphrase is itself relevant. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMFFFG33YhjZY3fMNAQGmLAP/S412cBRTRFRWou6mVjh7jbT9O3CIUPEB oFuDLNy7pQR2ZaR5JOzSsCv9d96CpGdVjIWUxhP/Fz6tN3ZP7LuCXBssoIuiyuEp z2e+LQthjcksUDqipR+QggIhN3hU66esg14WCF61yjwpXCukn13cOISYtBHRjc9g sEiN0SXZ4tw= =knU6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

4 3

Cell Phone Code Cracked
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

For details of the crack see the cryptographers' press release at: http://www.counterpane.com/cmea.html The New York Times, March 20, 1997, pp. A1, D2. Code Set Up to Shield Privacy Of Cellular Calls Is Breached By John Markoff San Francisco, March 19 -- A team of well-known computer security experts will announce on Thursday that they have cracked a key part of the electronic code meant to protect the privacy of calls made with the new, digital generation of cellular telephones. The announcement, intended as a public warning, means that -- despite their greater potential for privacy protection -- the new cellular telephones, which transmit streams of digital information in code similar to computer data, may in practice be little more secure from eavesdropping than the analog cellular phones, which send voice as electronic patterns mimicking sound waves, that have been in use the last 15 years. It was such eavesdropping, for example, that caused trouble for Newt Gingrich when a Florida couple listened to his cellular phone conversation in December about the Congressional ethics inquiry. Now that digital wireless networks are coming into use around the nation, the breaking of the digital code by the team of two computer security consultants and a university researcher confirms fears about privacy that were raised five years ago when the communications industry agreed under Government pressure to adopt a watered-down privacy technology. Several telecommunications industry officials said the pressure came from the National Security Agency, which feared that stronger encryption technology might allow criminals or terrorists to conspire with impunity by cellular phones. But independent security experts now say that the code is easy enough to crack that anyone with sufficient technical skills could make and sell a monitoring device that would be as easy to use as a police scanner is. Such a device would enable a listener to scan hundreds of wireless channels to listen in randomly on any digital call within a radius ranging from 1,000 feet to a number of miles. Or, as with current cellular technology, if a specific person was the target of an eavesdropper, the device could be programmed to listen for any nearby digital call to that person's telephone number. Other possible transgressions would include using the device to automatically harvest all calling card or credit-card data transmitted with nearby digital wireless phones. And, because of a loophole in the Communications Act of 1934, making and selling such devices would not be illegal, though actually using one would technically be against the law. These monitoring devices are not yet available, but security experts said that a thriving gray market was certain to develop. And with technical details of the security system already circulating on the Internet instructions for cracking it will almost certainly make their way into the computer underground, where code breaking and eavesdropping are pursued for fun and profit. Technical details of the security system were supposed to be a closely guarded secret, known only to a tight circle of industry engineers. But the researchers performed their work based on technical documents that were leaked from within the communications industry and disseminated over the Internet late last year. "The industry design process is at fault," said David Wagner, a University of California at Berkeley researcher who was a member of the team that broke the code. "We can use this as a lesson, and save ourselves from more serious vulnerabilities in the future." Communications industry technical experts, made aware of the security flaw earlier this year, have been meeting to determine whether it is too late to improve the system's privacy protections. Already the digital technology is in use in metropolitan areas, including New York and Washington, where either the local cellular networks have been modified to support digital technology or where new so called wireless personal communications services are being offered. "We're already in the process of correcting this flaw," said Chris Carroll, an engineer at GTE Laboratories, who is chairman of the industry committee that oversees privacy standards for cellular phones. But Greg Rose, a software designer for the Qualcomm Inc. a leader in digital cellular systems said that fixing the flaw would be "a nightmare." Tightening the security system, Mr. Rose said, would involve modifying software already used in the computerized network switching equipment that routes wireless digital telephone calls, as well as the software within individual phones. Currently, about 45 million Americans have cellular phones, though most of them so far are based on an older analog standard that offers no communications privacy. But cellular companies are gradually converting their networks to the new digital standard, and the new personal communications services networks going into operation around the country also employ the digital encryption system. Nearly a million P.C.S. phones have been sold in the United States, according to cellular industry figures. Besides Mr. Wagner, the other researchers who cracked the code were Bruce Schneier and John Kelsey of Counterpane Systems, a Minneapolis consulting firm. Mr. Schneier is the author of a standard textbook on cryptography. The new digital wireless security system, which was designed by cellular telephone industry engineers was never intended to stop the most determined wiretappers. But because digital calls are transmitted in a format corresponding to the one's and zero's of computer language, they are more difficult to eavesdrop on than conventional analog calls, which are transmitted in electronic patterns. And digital calls protected with encryption technology -- basically a mathematical formula in the software that scrambles the signal -- would be all the harder for a third party to listen to surreptitiously. Because the encryption system that the industry adopted in 1992 was deliberately made less secure than many experts had recommended at the time, privacy rights advocates have been warning since that the code could be broken too easily. An announcement Thursday that the code has indeed been cracked would seem to bear out those concerns. "This should serve as a wake-up call," said James X. Dempsey, senior staff counsel for the Center for Democracy and Technology, a public interest group. "This shows that Government's effort to control encryption technology is now hindering the voice communications industry as well as the data and electronic communication realm." Industry executives acknowledged that steps must be taken to address the problem. "We need strict laws that say it is illegal to manufacture or to modify a device which is designed to perpetrate the illegal interception of P.C.S. telephone calls," said Thomas E. Wheeler, president of the Cellular Telephone Industry Association, a Washington-based trade group. Mr. Wheeler said the weaker privacy technology had been adopted not just to appease the Government but because makers of wireless communications hardware and software wanted to embrace a technical standard that would meet export regulations. Those rules, based on national security considerations, sharply curtail the potency of American-made encryption technology. The three computer researchers who broke the code belong to an informal group of technologists who believe strongly that powerful data-scrambling technologies are essential to protect individual privacy in the information age. These technologists, who planned to release their findings in a news release on Thursday, argue that the best way to insure that the strongest security codes are developed is to conduct the work in a public forum. And so they are sharply critical of the current industry standard setting process which has made a trade secret of the underlying mathematical formulas used to create the security codes. "Our work shows clearly why you don't do this behind closed doors," Mr. Schneier said. "I'm angry at the cell phone industry because when they changed to the new technology, they had a chance to protect privacy and they failed." Mr. Carroll, head of the industry's privacy committee, said it planned to revise the process for reviewing proposed technical standards. [End]

1 0

NSA responds to criticism over weakening cellular crypto
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 15:50:40 -0800 (PST) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship-announce(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: NSA responds to criticism over weakening cellular crypto John Markoff writes in today's NYT: Several telecommunications industry officials said the pressure came from the National Security Agency, which feared that stronger encryption technology might allow criminals or terrorists to conspire with impunity by cellular phones. But independent security experts now say that the code is easy enough to crack that anyone with sufficient technical skills could make and sell a monitoring device that would be as easy to use as a police scanner is. Below the NSA's Clint Brooks responds to Dave Banisar. -Declan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 18:08:28 -0500 From: Dave Banisar <Banisar(a)epic.org> >Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 17:35:44 -0500 >From: Clinton Brooks <cbrooks(a)romulus.ncsc.mil> >Reply-To: cbrooks(a)romulus.ncsc.mil >MIME-Version: 1.0 >To: banisar(a)epic.org >CC: "Brooks, Clinton" <cbrooks(a)romulus.ncsc.mil> >Subject: Cellular Phone Flaw > >Dave, > > Re your comments on the flaw apparently found in cellular phones: > > We have released the following statement: > > "NSA had no role in the design or selection of the encryption >algorithm chosen by the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA). >NSA also had no role in the design or manufacture of the telephones >themselves. As we understand the researchers' claim, it appears that >the algorithm selected and the way it was implemented in the system has >led to the stated flaws. > >NSA provided the TIA with technical advice on the exportability of these >devices under U.S. export regulations and processes." > > > Clint > ========================================================================= David Banisar (Banisar(a)epic.org) * 202-544-9240 (tel) Electronic Privacy Information Center * 202-547-5482 (fax) 666 Pennsylvania Ave, SE, Suite 301 * HTTP://www.epic.org Washington, DC 20003 PGP Key: http://www.epic.org/staff/banisar/key.html =========================================================================

1 0

5.9 CENT PER MINUTE
by danny58＠speedydelivery.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ S P E C T R U M C O M M U N I C A T I O N S !!! 5.9 CPM (cents per minute) LONG DISTANCE!! BRAND NEW --- JUST ANNOUNCED!! NO BLACK BOX NEEDED!! YOU DO NOT HAVE TO PRE-PAY FOR LD!! _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ FREE PERSONALIZED WEB PAGE WHEN YOU JOIN OUR SUCCESS TEAM ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Tag-Team Email support in place ready to go! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ => * 5.9 CPM LONG DISTANCE - 24 hours every day * Billed in 6 second increments * NO black box required! NO minimum usage! * NO pre-payment on LD required * ONE TIME $50 to sign up * Sponsor just 2 to recoup your $50 investment * NO Minimum monthly purchase required * Commissions paid WEEKLY, not monthly * Phone cards available for your convenience * Fantastic pay plan ===> $300/day and $1000/day ============================================ COMING SOON * PrePaid Cellular * Nationwide Internet Services * Virtual Office Technology * International Call Back Service * TV Internet Devices (Web TV) * Discount residential/business 800 numbers * Satellite TV Equipment programming ============================================ We've signed up folks EVERY DAY since we joined! All our top leaders and heavy hitters are fully qualified and waiting for our next batch of NEW sign-ups to place people under. You sign up with us ... and you'll have the BEST upline support you've ever dreamed of. We have already given away over 100 people to our downline already ... you can be next!! From day one you'll qualify for group volume on all your levels down through INFINITY!!! We are co-op advertising to huge amounts of people. Once you respond to this email ... you will see why folks are flocking to us for the sharpest web pages and tag-team script email support. Folks, this blows away everything else out there! Spearheaded by an accomplished attorney and full staff with over 18 years of telecommunications experience and major carriers on board. Currently 3,000+ daily application processing ability about to triple in capability. This offers all the security you could want with the best opportunity on the market!!! There will be many multimillionaires created literally almost overnight with this program! You've seen the incredible explosion created over 7.9 LD, you can imagine how fast this will spread at only 5.9 with none of the hassles!!!! DON'T MISS OUT ON THIS EXTRAORDINARY OPPORTUNITY!!! Get details NOW and join before everyone else you know does!!! => We'll send you the Fast Fax on Demand giving you all the details => We'll send you the Phone number for a 3 minute introduction => We'll send you the Company conference call info => We'll send you the info on OUR upline/downline conf calls => We'll show you how easy and fast YOUR web page can be up $$ Yes, we are already getting checks! $$ Yes, we already have our packets from the company Don't join any group til you see the web page they will offer you!! Our web pages are fantastically and beautifully designed. Our web masters have encorportated technologies in this web page that others only hope for. We have it NOW and ready for you to use! HIT THE REPLY BUTTON and we'll immediately send out details so you can sign up FIRST and get into the BEST POSITION POSSIBLE! You have never found a better time than NOW !!

1 0