- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

clinton body count
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

the sheeple shearing continues... ------- Forwarded Message Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 10:50:33 -1000 From: Jonathan David Boyne <boyne(a)hawaii.edu> To: Undisclosed recipients:; Subject: [earthchanges] Re: The Clinton 'body count' - New alarm.. (fwd) http://www.worldnetdaily.com/exclusiv/980924.exrivero_clinton_bo.html THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 24, 1998 ------------------------------------------ [WorldNetDaily Exclusive] ------------------------------------------ The Clinton 'body count' New alarm over growing list of dead close to president By Michael Rivero Copyright 1998, WorldNetDaily.com "Dear Sir," began Monica Lewinsky's somewhat peevish letter of July 3rd, 1997. In it, according to the recently released report by Kenneth Starr, the former intern chided the president for failing to secure for her a new White House job, and hinted that continued stalling would result in word of their affair leaking out. The next day, Monica confronted Bill Clinton in an Oval Office meeting she described as "very emotional"; a meeting which ended when the president warned her, "It's illegal to threaten the president of the United States." Three days later, another former White House intern, Mary Mahoney, was shot five times in the back of the Georgetown Starbuck's she managed. Two of her co-workers were also killed. Even though cash remained in the register, the triple murder was quickly dismissed as a botched robbery. No suspects have ever been arrested. Coincidence? Maybe. Former Democratic National Committee fundraiser and Commerce Secretary Ron Brown was under criminal investigation. Indictments seemed imminent. Ron Brown had reportedly told a confidante that he would, "not go down alone." Days later, his plane crashed on approach to Dubrovnik airport during a trade mission excursion to Croatia. Military forensics investigators were alarmed by what appeared to be a .45-caliber bullet hole in the top of Brown's head. Coincidence? Maybe. Yet another fundraiser was Larry Lawrence, famed for his short residence at Arlington National Cemetery. Less well known is that he had been under criminal investigation by the State Department for three weeks when he died. Coincidence? Maybe. But for a growing number of Americans, the sheer numbers of strange deaths surrounding the career of Bill Clinton has begun to raise serious questions. In a meeting with Vernon Jordan, Monica Lewinsky reportedly expressed fears that she might, "end up like Mary Mahoney," and began to make sure that others knew of her affair with Bill Clinton. Of all the strange deaths surrounding the Clintons, none has come under more renewed scrutiny than the fate of White House Deputy Counsel Vincent Foster, who was found dead in Fort Marcy Park on July 20, 1993. The official investigation concluded that Foster inserted a gun into his mouth and pulled the trigger. Yet according to the lab results neither Foster's fingerprints nor blood was on the gun, nor were powder granules or bullet fragments traceable to that gun in his wounds. The purported "suicide note" was found to be a forgery by three independent experts. The record of a second wound on Foster's neck, and an FBI memo that contradicts the official autopsy, strongly suggests that Foster's wounds were misrepresented in the official report. The FBI's own records revealed that deliberate deception was used to link Foster with the gun found with his body. Partly on the basis of that evidence, the FBI is now in federal court on charges of witness harassment and evidence tampering in the case. In normal police procedure, homicide is assumed right from the start. Suicide must be proven, because homicides are often concealed behind phony suicides. Yet in the case of Foster, serious doubts persist regarding the credibility of the evidence offered up in support of the claim of suicide, and a recent Zogby Poll revealed that more than two-thirds of all Americans no longer think the official conclusion of suicide is believable The official conclusion regarding Commerce Secretary Ron Brown's death was that his plane was brought down by, "the worst storm in a decade." However, the Dubrovnik airport weather office, just two miles from the crash site, could not confirm the existence of any such storm, nor did any other pilots in the area. According to the April 8, 1996, Aviation Week & Space Technology, three separate radio links to the aircraft all quit while the aircraft was still seven miles from the crash, evidence that the plane suffered a total electrical failure in flight which was never investigated. The perfectly cylindrical hole in Ron Brown's skull never triggered an autopsy. After Ron Brown's death, his co-worker, Barbara Wise, was found locked in her office at the Department of Commerce, dead, bruised, and partially nude. Following Brown's death, John Huang's new boss at Commerce was Charles Meissner, who shortly thereafter died in yet another plane crash. These and other questionable deaths have been collected together in a document known as the "Dead Bodies List," which can now be found in many locations on the World Wide Web. Some of the cases are poorly documented and have been dismissed until now as "conspiracy theory." However, analysis of the "Dead Bodies List" by experts on the Internet revealed that in many cases, deaths whose circumstances demanded an investigation had been ignored. Some events officially declared to be accidents seem to stretch the bounds of credulity. In one case, Stanley Heard, member of a Clinton advisory committee and chiropractor to Clinton family members, and his lawyer Steve Dickson were flying to a meeting with a reporter. Heard's private plane caught fire, but he was able to make it back to his airport and rent another plane to continue his journey. The rented plane then caught fire. This time, Heard did not make it back to the airport. Gandy Baugh, attorney for Clinton friend and convicted cocaine distributor Dan Lasater, fell out of a building. Baugh's law partner was dead just one month later. Jon Parnell Walker, an RTC investigator looking into Whitewater, interrupted his inspection of his new apartment to throw himself off of the balcony. Nor does the pattern of suspicious deaths discriminate by gender. Susan Coleman was reportedly a mistress to Clinton while he was Arkansas attorney general; she was seven months pregnant with what she claimed was Clinton's child when she died. Judy Gibbs, a former Penthouse Pet and call girl, reportedly counted Bill Clinton among her clients. Shortly after agreeing to help police in an investigation into Arkansas cocaine trafficking, Judy burned to death. Kathy Ferguson, a witness in the Paula Jones case, was killed with a gunshot behind the ear and was declared a suicide, even though her suitcases had all been packed for an immediate trip. One month later, Bill Shelton, Kathy's boyfriend and a police officer who had vowed to get to the bottom of Kathy's murder, was also dead of a gunshot, his body dumped on Kathy's grave. Another alarming trend observed in these deaths is how society's safeguards against murder appear to have been compromised. Many of the questionable deaths involved either negligence or the complicity of medical examiners. Dr. Fahmy Malek was the Arkansas medical examiner under then-Gov. Bill Clinton. His most famous case involved his ruling in the "Train Deaths" case of Don Henry and Kevin Ives in which Dr. Malek ruled that the two boys had fallen asleep on the railroad tracks and been run over by a train. A subsequent autopsy by another examiner found signs of foul play on both the boys' bodies and concluded that they had been murdered. According to Jean Duffey, the prosecutor in the Saline County Drug Task Force, the two boys accidentally stumbled onto a "protected" drug drop and were killed for it. Dan Harmon, the Arkansas investigator who concluded there was no murder, is now in prison on drug charges. Despite the evidence for murder and national exposure, the Henry/Ives case has never officially been re-opened, and Jean Duffy has since left Arkansas out of fear for her life. Several witnesses in the Henry/Ives case later died and were ruled as either suicides or natural causes by Dr. Malek, whose willingness to provide an innocuous explanation for these deaths is illustrated in one case where he claimed that a headless victim had died of natural causes. Malek claimed that the victim's small dog had eaten the head, which was later recovered from a trash bin. When pressed to fire Dr. Malek, Gov. Clinton excused the medical examiner's performance as the result of overwork and gave him a raise. Dr. Malek's Washington D.C. counterpart was Fairfax, Virginia, Medical Examiner James C. Beyer. Long before his autopsy on Vincent Foster, Beyer's work was disputed. In the case of Tim Easely, Beyer ignored obvious defensive wounds, and eyewitness reports of an argument between Easely and his girlfriend, to conclude that Easely had committed suicide by stabbing himself in the chest. When an outside expert called attention to the fact that Easely had been stabbed clear through one of his palms, the girlfriend confessed to the murder. In the case of Tommy Burkett, Beyer ignored signs of violence done to Burkett to rule it was a simple suicide. A subsequent autopsy showed that Beyer had not even done the work he claimed in his original autopsy. Even though Beyer showed X-rays to Burkett's father, Beyer later claimed they did not exist. When Beyer performed the Foster autopsy, he wrote in his report that X-rays had been taken, then again claimed they never existed when asked to produce them. In some cases, the deaths simply have no innocuous explanation, One witness, Jeff Rhodes (who had information on the Henry/Ives murders) was found with his hands and feet partly sawn off, shot in the head, then burned and thrown in a trash bin. Another obvious murder was Jerry Parks, Clinton's head of security in Little Rock. Immediately following news of Foster's death, Parks reportedly told his family, "Bill Clinton is cleaning house." Just weeks after the Parks' home had been broken into and his files on Clinton stolen, Parks was shot four times in his car. Ron Miller, on whose evidence Nora and Gene Lum were convicted of laundering Clinton campaign donations, went from perfect heath to death in just one week in a manner so strange that his doctors ordered special postmortem tests. The results of those tests have never been released, but toxicologists familiar with the case suggest that Miller's symptoms are consistent with Ricin, a cold war assassin's poison. For a fortunate few the murder attempts have failed. In the case of Arkansas drug investigator Russell Welch, his doctors were able to identify that he had been infected with military anthrax in time to save his life. Gary Johnson, Gennifer Flowers' neighbor whose video surveillance camera had accidentally caught Bill Clinton entering Flowers' apartment, was left for dead by the men who took the video tape. Gary survived, although he is crippled for life. L.J. Davis, a reporter looking into the Clinton scandals, was attacked in his hotel room but survived (his notes on Clinton were stolen). Dennis Patrick, whose bond trading account at Dan Lasater's company was used to launder millions of dollars of drug money, has had four attempts on his life. But the real importance of the "Dead Bodies List" isn't what it tells us of modern political intrigues, but what it tells us of ourselves, in how we respond to it. The list has been around for quite some time, largely ignored by the general public, completely ignored by the mainstream media. The common reaction has been that such a list is unbelievable, not for its contents, but for its implications. For that reason, most Americans have, until recently, accepted at face value the official assurances that all these deaths are isolated incidents with no real meaning; that all the indications of foul play and cover-up are just an accumulation of clerical error and "overwork"; that it's all just "coincidence." On Aug. 17, as Bill Clinton admitted his "inappropriate relationship" with Monica Lewinsky on nationwide television, Americans began to confront the unavoidable fact that this president and his administration had lied to the public about a rather trivial matter. Americans came to realize that this president and his administration could no longer safely be assumed to have told the truth on more serious matters. In this new climate of doubt, the "Dead Bodies List" has enjoyed a new vogue, albeit a dark one. Talk radio discusses it. Total strangers e-mail it to each other. What was unthinkable a few months ago has become all too plausible. Political murder has come to America. Those cases on the "Dead Bodies List" where hard evidence directly contradicts the official conclusion have come under renewed scrutiny. It takes courage for the average citizen to accept that the government has lied to them, for by doing so, the citizen also accepts the obligation to do something about it. Americans know beyond a doubt that they have been lied to. Americans are discovering that they cannot ignore the fact of being lied to without sacrificing that part of the American self-image that holds honor and justice as ideals. But as the above poll would suggest, such a sacrifice is no longer acceptable. ----------------------------------------------------------- [WorldNetDaily.com] --------------------------------------------------------- © 1998 Western Journalism Center --------------------------------------------------------- This page was last built 9/24/98; 11:51:28 Site: matlanta(a)mindspring.com *** A List of Strange Deaths of Individuals Who All Had Verifiable Ties with Bill Clinton http://www.devvy.com/death_list.html VINCE FOSTER FIVE YEARS AFTER Unsolved Mystery Hampers All Starr's Probes By Carl Limbacher http://www.esotericworldnews.com/vince.htm VINCE FOSTER INVESTIGATIONCHRIS RUDDY, (PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE) http://www.ruddynews.com Christopher Ruddy's New Web Site <NewsMax.com> http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover.shtml Vince Foster - Patrick Knowlton v. FBI Agent Bransford http://www.monumental.com/lawofcjc/pk/ *** Foster "J'Accuse!" http://www.angelfire.com/fl/pjcomix/zola1.html EENIE MENA MINIE MOE... http://www.esotericworldnews.com/eenie.htm The Mena Coverup http://www.esotericworldnews.com/mena.htm THE "SECRET" CHEMICAL FACTORY THAT NO ONE TRIED TO HIDE http://www.esotericworldnews.com/london.htm American Patriot Friends Network (APFN) APFN EMAIL LIST SUBSCRIBE/UNSCBSCRIBE IN SUBJECT LINE TO APFN(a)netbox.com APFN ONELIST: http://www.onelist/subscribe.cgi/apfn http://w20.hitbox.com/wc/index.cgi?W50887524 http://esotericworldnews.com/apfncont.htm http://www.freeyellow.com/members5/apfn/ ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: <pamrobin(a)caliente.igate.com> Received: from rly-za04.mx.aol.com (rly-za04.mail.aol.com [172.31.36.100]) by air-za04.mail.aol.com (v50.11) with SMTP; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 22:49:20 -0400 Received: from heather.greatbasin.com (heather.greatbasin.net [207.228.35.41]) by rly-za04.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0) with ESMTP id WAA15772; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 22:46:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from caliente.igate.com ([207.228.53.226]) by heather.greatbasin.com (8.9.0/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA08413; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 18:38:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <360AF264.C0288E60(a)caliente.igate.com> Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 18:31:16 -0700 From: American Patriot Friends Network <pamrobin(a)caliente.igate.com> Reply-To: APFN(a)netbox.com Organization: American Patriot Friends Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "\"apfn(a)onelist.com\"" <apfn(a)onelist.com> Subject: The Clinton 'body count' - New alarm.. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >> - - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe from this mailing list, or to change your subscription to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at http://www.onelist.com and select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left. - - --------------0F193EECF4CB9441348B1B97-- - ------- End of Forwarded Message ------- End of Forwarded Message

1 0

IP: Why is This Important? Read: The Politics of Hacking
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: believer(a)telepath.com Subject: IP: Why is This Important? Read: The Politics of Hacking Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 04:19:59 -0500 To: believer(a)telepath.com ---------------------------- NOTE: Here is why the issue is important: "Mitnick has been incarcerated for three and a half years without a hearing and has had the evidence to be brought against him withheld from discovery." No habeas corpus. No hearing. No evidence. This man is a political prisoner to whom justice has been denied. Is he guilty? No one will ever know if there is never a trial. Presumption of innocence is obviously a thing of the past. ---------------------------- Source: Online Journalism Review http://olj.usc.edu/indexf.htm?/sections/ September 16, 1998 The Politics of Hacking By Doug Thomas, Online Journalism Review Staff Columnist Over the past few years there has been a decided shift in the way hackers think about the world. Born from an idealistic model of personal, individual achievement, the very idea of hacking has always been a singular and isolated phenomenon. In the early days, hackers rarely worked in groups or teams, preferring to hand programming solutions off to one another in the process of what they called "bumming code." Each time a program was handed off, it would be improved slightly and then passed along to the next hacker, and so on. Hackers of the 1980s and 1990s, who began to form loosely knit groups such as the Legion of Doom and Masters of Deception, practiced a similar ethic, whereby hackers would learn from one another, but generally the understanding was everyone for themselves (especially whenever someone got arrested!). That ethic, which began with the hackers of the 1960s and 1970s, is beginning to dissolve in the face of politics. Old school hackers are oftentimes disgusted by the antics of their progeny (and make no mistake they are their offspring). Indeed, many old-timers insist that today's hackers are unworthy of the moniker "hacker" and prefer to terminologically reduce them, calling them "crackers" instead. That distinction has never held much truck with me. It denies too much history, too many connections, and is often nothing more than a nostalgic, and very convenient, recollection of their own histories. The earliest hackers did most of what they criticize today's hackers for. Let's face it, they stole (the Homebrew Computer Club was famous for pirating code), they regularly engaged in telephone fraud (even Jobs and Wozniak built and sold blue boxes), they used all sorts of hacks to avoid paying for things (remember TAP? TAP stands for Technological Assistance Program; it was a newsletter put out by the Yippies that taught people how to use technology to avoid paying for things.), and they had no problem with breaking and entering or hacking a system if it meant they could spend more time on the mainframe. They also tended to forget a lot of things. Who paid for all those computers at Harvard, Cornell and MIT? Who funded ARPAnet? Could it be the same folks who were busily napalming indigenous persons halfway around the globe? And why were those computer labs shielded by 1" thick bullet-proof plexiglass during the 1960s? The old school history is not as simple as it sometimes appears. Yes, they were the geniuses who gave us the first PCs, but along the way, they tended to be implicated in a lot of nasty business, to most of which they were all too willing to turn a blind eye. I don't mean to suggest that old school hackers were not hackers, only that they weren't all that different from the new schoolers that they like to brands as criminals, crackers and the like. Where the old school seems to come off as (at best) forgetful, the new school has shown a new kind of commitment, something that is virtually unthinkable to hackers of yesteryear. The hackers of the late 1990s are becoming political. There is a new move to group action, political involvement and intervention. Recently, seven members of the Boston hacker collective, the L0pht, testified on Capitol Hill before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. As Peter the Great described in his write-up of the testimony: "Mudge gave a short, elegant statement which set the tone for the rest of the day's talks. He expressed his hope for an end to the mutual animosity that has long existed between the hacker community and the government and his sincere desire that the ensuing dialogue would pave the way towards civility and further collaboration between the two sides. This was a beautiful moment. It was as if a firm hand of friendship was being extended from the hacker community to the senate. I was moved, truly." This is a gesture that would have been virtually unthinkable only a few years ago. Even more dramatic is the fact that the Cult of the Dead Cow has a policy on China. In part, that policy was used in their justification for the release of Back Orifice, a computer security program that exploits vulnerabilities in Windows 95 and 98 operating systems. According to the cDc, Microsoft's decision to choose profit over human rights in supporting trade with China implicates them in the politics of oppression. The cDc has been working to support a group of Chinese dissidents, the Hong Kong Blondes, who are learning to use encryption and hacking techniques to stage interventions in Chinese governmental affairs to protest Chinese human rights violations. Most recently, at home, hackers have begun to band together in an effort to raise public awareness about the imprisonment of Kevin Mitnick, a hacker facing a 25-count federal indictment. Mitnick has been incarcerated for three and a half years without a hearing and has had the evidence to be brought against him withheld from discovery. In response to Miramax's decision to film Mitnick's story, hackers have banded together, launching a full-scale protest (among other things) in front of Miramax's offices in New York. Their campaign also includes letter writing initiatives, the distribution of "FREE KEVIN" bumper stickers, Web sites, T-shirts and even an online ribbon campaign. Another group recently hacked the New York Times Web site. The late 1990s marks a point in time when computers have begun to affect us in undeniably political ways. The globalization of technology, coupled with the power that the computer industry wields, makes hacking, in this day and age, essentially a political act. Some of the effects can be seen in the highly politicized trial of Kevin Mitnick and in the efforts to pass the WIPO treaty, legislation that makes hacking (even legal experimentation) a criminal act. The differences between old school and new school hackers are not as great as they might appear or as they are often made out to be. If there are differences, they reside in the fact that hackers today are stepping up and taking a kind of political responsibility that was altogether alien to their predecessors. The future of hacking goes hand in hand with the future of technology. In today's society we have passed the point where we can deny the import of such action based on some nostalgic vision of our relationship to computers and the world. It is high time that the hackers of yesterday take a long, hard and sober look at their own history and begin to recognize the ways in which the hackers of today are picking up and championing an agenda which the old school hackers can no longer hide from. © Copyright 1998 Online Journalism Review Doug Thomas is an Online Journalism Review staff columnist and a professor at the Annenberg School for Communication. ----------------------- 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: Here it Comes! E-Privacy Dispute Could Go to WTO
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: believer(a)telepath.com Subject: IP: Here it Comes! E-Privacy Dispute Could Go to WTO Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 15:12:58 -0500 To: believer(a)telepath.com Source: USIA http://www.usia.gov/current/news/latest/98092502.clt.html?/products/washfile /newsitem.shtml 25 September 1998 ELECTRONIC PRIVACY DISPUTE COULD GO TO WTO, EXPERT SAYS (U.S., EU still working for resolution) (510) By Bruce Odessey USIA Staff Writer Washington -- The U.S. complaint against European Union (EU) policy on electronic privacy could eventually wind up in the World Trade Organization (WTO), a Brookings Institution scholar says. Robert Litan, director of Brookings' economic studies program, said he could not predict what action the EU will take when its directive on data protection -- opposed by the United States -- enters into force in October. At a September 24 meeting of the Coalition of Service Industries (CSI) he speculated on some of the potential outcomes, however. At issue is the EU directive restricting the collection and use of personal information on the Internet. Most contentious is a provision prohibiting electronic transmission of personal information about EU citizens to countries that lack "adequate" privacy protection. Enforcement of that provision might mean, for example, that EU authorities might block U.S. companies in Europe from communicating electronically with their offices in the United States. Co-author of a forthcoming book on the electronic privacy issue, Litan guessed that, if the two sides cannot resolve the dispute, the EU might test its directive by imposing data embargoes on specific U.S. business sectors or on certain business practices. He noted that EU authorities have requested staff reports on four sensitive related issues: medical information, electronic commerce, airline reservations and personnel records. Litan also identified four service sectors he considered especially vulnerable to the directive: banking, insurance (especially health insurance), investment banking (especially merger and acquisition financing) and accounting. If the dispute ends up before a WTO panel, he said, the two sides could pick their arguments from different parts of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). He said the EU could base its argument on Article XXIV, which allows governments to protect the privacy of their nationals. The United States could base its argument on Article XXII, which prohibits discrimination against foreign providers, he said. In contrast with the EU, the Clinton administration has been pressing in the WTO and other multilateral and regional groups for minimal government regulation of electronic commerce. The administration has encouraged the emerging U.S. industry to engage in self-regulation instead. Litan said EU authorities have choices on whether to enforce the EU directive in a more or less intrusive way. For one example, they could distinguish between business and other personal information, he said. For another, he said, they could offer "safe harbor" exemptions for corporate communications, or for certain industries, or for certain equipment like laptop computers. He said big multinational companies will somehow cope with the EU directive, however it is enforced, possibly by entering into contracts with the EU. But Litan could not guess how small and medium-sized U.S. companies could afford the expense of working out special arrangements with EU authorities or how those authorities could enforce the directive against small companies doing business in cyberspace. "It's hopeless," he said. ----------------------- 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: ISPI Clips 4.70:Canadian Internet Providers Draft Privacy Code
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: "ama-gi ISPI" <offshore(a)email.msn.com> Subject: IP: ISPI Clips 4.70:Canadian Internet Providers Draft Privacy Code Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 01:11:35 -0700 To: <Undisclosed.Recipients(a)majordomo.pobox.com> ISPI Clips 4.70:Canadian Internet Providers Draft Privacy Code News & Info from the Institute for the Study of Privacy Issues (ISPI) Friday September 25, 1998 ISPI4Privacy(a)ama-gi.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This From: The Canadian Press (CP), September 17, 1998 http://www.cp.org Net Privacy Code Drafted OTTAWA (CP) -- Internet providers have released their own draft privacy code just as the government prepares to introduce legislation this fall on the matter. The Canadian Association of Internet Providers, which represents more than 120 providers, hopes industry efforts to regulate itself will stave off government action it says could lead to onerous and potentially harmful national regulations enshrined in law. "If it's extremely onerous for an international company to do business in Canada, they will not do business in Canada," Julie Garcia, senior counsel at America Online Inc. who helped develop the draft code, said. The code, intended to be voluntary, addresses concerns such as control and disclosure of users' personal information. It was drafted to ensure it complies with the Canadian Standards Association Model Code for the Protection of Personal Information. The Internet providers code sets out 10 privacy principles for the industry, including: * Internet providers are responsible for personal information under their control. * Providers must disclose reasons for collecting personal information. * Consent of users is mandatory for collection, use or disclosure of information. * Personal information can be disclosed without consent only as required by law. "The majority of CAIP members already have some kind of a privacy policy," said Margo Langford, chairwoman of the Internet association. "What we're really trying for here is uniformity. I don't think you'll find anybody that objects to the notion. Privacy is good for business." The Internet providers association says U.S. experience has shown that voluntary regulation works better than government law because it fosters competition among providers to meet user demands. Surveys have shown consumers are wary about using the Internet because of concerns about the privacy of their personal information. The federal government wants to introduce legislation early this fall to protect Internet privacy, especially for electronic commerce purposes, before Canada is host of an Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development conference in October. Ottawa established a group to study electronic commerce and it produced a paper on privacy that recommends legislation to address the very issues the Internet association's draft code covers. In addition, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission announced in July it would hold public hearings in November on whether it should get involved in regulating new media, including the Internet. Story Copyright © 1998 The Canadian Press (CP) --------------------------------NOTICE:------------------------------ ISPI Clips are news & opinion articles on privacy issues from all points of view; they are clipped from local, national and international newspapers, journals and magazines, etc. Inclusion as an ISPI Clip does not necessarily reflect an endorsement of the content or opinion by ISPI. In compliance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed free without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ISPI Clips is a FREE e-mail service from the "Institute for the Study of Privacy Issues" (ISPI). To receive "ISPI Clips" on a regular bases (up to 3 - 8 clips per day) send the following message "Please enter [Your Name] into the ISPI Clips list: [Your e-mail address]" to: ISPIClips(a)ama-gi.com . The Institute for the Study of Privacy Issues (ISPI) is a small contributor-funded organization based in Victoria, British Columbia (Canada). ISPI operates on a not-for-profit basis, accepts no government funding and takes a global perspective. ISPI's mandate is to conduct & promote interdisciplinary research into electronic, personal and financial privacy with a view toward helping ordinary people understand the degree of privacy they have with respect to government, industry and each other and to likewise inform them about techniques to enhance their privacy. But, none of this can be accomplished without your kind and generous financial support. If you value in the ISPI Clips service or if you are concerned about the erosion of your privacy in general, won't you please help us continue this important work by becoming an "ISPI Clips Supporter" or by taking out an institute Membership? We gratefully accept all contributions: Less than $60 ISPI Clips Supporter $60 - $99 Primary ISPI Membership (1 year) $100 - $300 Senior ISPI Membership (2 years) More than $300 Executive Council Membership (life) Your ISPI "membership" contribution entitles you to receive "The ISPI Privacy Reporter" (our bi-monthly 12 page hard-copy newsletter in multi-contributor format) for the duration of your membership. For a contribution form with postal instructions please send the following message "ISPI Contribution Form" to ISPI4Privacy(a)ama-gi.com . We maintain a strict privacy policy. Any information you divulge to ISPI is kept in strict confidence. It will not be sold, lent or given away to any third party. ********************************************** 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

Test - Ignore
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ping

1 0

IP: Oh, I feel sooooo much better now.....
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: believer(a)telepath.com Subject: IP: Oh, I feel sooooo much better now..... Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 07:38:34 -0500 To: believer(a)telepath.com Source: Nando Net http://www.nando.net/newsroom/ntn/politics/092498/politics4_13127_noframes.h tml IRS embarks on new era with taxpayer-friendly mission statement Copyright © 1998 The Associated Press WASHINGTON (September 24, 1998 4:13 p.m. EDT http://www.nandotimes.com) -- The Internal Revenue Service adopted a new official mission statement emphasizing that "service" is its primary job. In another step toward becoming more taxpayer-friendly, the IRS announced Thursday a new statement that will be featured on its 1998 tax publications, displayed at IRS offices and put on its Internet Web site. The statement says that the IRS mission is to "provide America's taxpayers top quality service by helping them understand and meet their tax responsibilities and by applying the tax law with integrity and fairness to all." This replaces a 1980s statement in which the first line stated that the IRS's main job was to "collect the proper amount of tax revenue at the least cost." "Words alone aren't going to change the IRS, but this serves an important purpose," said IRS Commissioner Charles O. Rossotti. "The mission statement will be a reminder that we must be dedicated on a day-in, day-out basis to serving taxpayers." The change is one of many that have followed passage in Congress of an IRS reform law aimed at moving the agency away from its heavy-handed past. Copyright © 1998 Nando.net ----------------------- 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 **********************************************

3 2

IP: Europe May Block Flow of Internet Data With US
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: believer(a)telepath.com Subject: IP: Europe May Block Flow of Internet Data With US Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 09:45:04 -0600 To: believer(a)telepath.com Source: Christian Science Monitor http://www.csmonitor.com/todays_paper/reduced/today/intl/intl.3.html International - Monday October 26, 1998 Europe May Block Flow of Internet Data With US Peter Ford, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor PARIS -- Radically different American and European notions of privacy and how to protect it are threatening to curb the worldwide boom in electronic commerce. New European Union rules governing international transfers of personal data over the Internet go into effect today. They commit EU governments to strict new privacy standards in electronic databases storing citizens' personal details. And they oblige governments to block data transfers to countries that fail to uphold "adequate" privacy provisions. That, in the European Commission's view, includes the United States. Year-long efforts by senior US negotiators to convince the EU otherwise have shown how "in Europe, privacy is seen as a human right ... while the Americans are saying that the market should look after it," says Christiaan van der Valk, an expert in electronic privacy issues with the Paris-based International Chamber of Commerce. Unless European and US negotiators reach agreement, the EU directive "could have pretty severe long-term effects, hindering the extension of e-commerce and the globalization of industry generally," warns IBM spokeswoman Armgard von Reden. The new rules give European citizens the right to access personal data held on them by private corporations and to correct it if it is false. Individuals must give consent to the processing of sensitive data such as medical records or details of ethnicity. Web-site operators routinely capture personal information about users who visit their sites and sell it to direct marketing companies and other clients. "Privacy safeguards in the United States have not kept up to date," argued Marc Rotenberg, a teacher of privacy law at Georgetown University in Washington, in testimony to the US House of Representatives earlier this year. If data protection officials in European countries were to start forbidding the transfer of personal data to the US this week, or demanding individual notification of such transfers from data processors, "everything would grind to a halt," says Philip Jones, assistant registrar at Britain's Data Protection Registry, a government body. Every day companies such as airlines, banks, and insurance firms transfer millions of bits of information - like names, addresses, and phone numbers - on clients or potential customers. But "nobody is going to go down to some basement in European Union headquarters to throw a switch that will shut off all data flows on Monday morning," adds Professor Rotenberg. Only a handful of the 15 EU countries have passed the legislation to implement the Commission's directive. The Commission is still negotiating with the US on how the rules will be enforced. Washington, reluctant to legislate, is seeking EU approval for a voluntary system. US companies wishing to process Europeans' personal information would adhere to a set of principles laid down by the Department of Commerce. How they would be enforced, however, and how European citizens could seek redress for any grievances, is not yet clear. Alternatively, US negotiators are suggesting companies could join systems such as the Online Privacy Alliance, set up by IBM and Time-Warner, among others. Members commit themselves to respect the alliance's privacy standards and to submit to checks by Trust-e, an independent verification organization. Data-importing companies in the US could also sign contracts with the exporter, pledging to treat information with the same degree of confidentiality it would enjoy in Europe. "Most global companies are heading in this direction," says Ms. von Reden. EC officials were to meet European representatives today to discuss the American proposals and Washington's request for a 90-day extension of the application of the new rules. Nobody expects dramatic changes this week, but privacy activists are expected to test the directive as soon as it comes into force by laying a complaint against a high-profile company such as Visa International or Citigroup. At the moment, says one executive with an international financial services group, "I am not sure that anyone can say how this is all supposed to work in real life." ----------------------- 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 or (un)subscribe ignition-point-digest email@address **************************************************** www.telepath.com/believer ****************************************************

1 0

IP: ISPI Clips 5.69: EU Law Aims to Protect Privacy of Personal Data
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: "ama-gi ISPI" <offshore(a)email.msn.com> Subject: IP: ISPI Clips 5.69: EU Law Aims to Protect Privacy of Personal Data Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 02:34:54 -0800 To: <Undisclosed.Recipients(a)majordomo.pobox.com> ISPI Clips 5.69: EU Law Aims to Protect Privacy of Personal Data News & Info from the Institute for the Study of Privacy Issues (ISPI) Tuesday October 27, 1998 ISPI4Privacy(a)ama-gi.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This From: The New York Times, October 26, 1998 http://www.nytimes.com European Law Aims to Protect Privacy of Personal Data http://search.nytimes.com/search/daily/bin/fastweb?getdoc+site+iib-site+45+ 0+wAAA+privacy By EDMUND L. ANDREWS FRANKFURT, Germany -- The European Union put into effect a law Sunday prohibiting U.S.-style buying and selling of personal data, a move that could interrupt electronic commerce with the United States if the two sides fail to resolve deep philosophical and legal differences over protecting privacy. The goal of the European law is to prohibit companies from using information about their customers in ways the customers never intended -- for example, selling it to other companies for use as a marketing tool. The new law affects an enormous range of information that companies collect about people in the course of daily business, from credit-card transactions to magazine subscriptions to telephone records, as well as the electronic footprints that people leave when they visit sites on the World Wide Web. The law was adopted three years ago by the European Union after a majority of its 15 member nations agreed to issue what is known as a directive. Under European law, each member nation is required to implement the directive by enacting its own law. Six nations have drafted or passed such laws so far. Beyond its impact on Europe, the directive has the potential to disrupt electronic commerce with the United States. A key provision of the new measure would prohibit any company doing business in the European Union from transmitting personal data to any country that does not guarantee comparable privacy protection -- foremost among them, at this point, the United States. American direct-marketing companies, which make money buying, selling and developing business strategies based on huge data banks of personal information about consumers, have lobbied hard against government regulation of their industry. As a result, the Clinton administration has adopted a more laissez-faire approach under which data industries would be allowed to police themselves through self-regulatory organizations. U.S. officials say they agree with Europe on the basic principle that privacy should be protected but they have big differences about the best way to carry it out. "They have privacy czars and bureaucracies, and that kind of top-down approach would probably be regarded as a violation of privacy rights by many people in the U.S.," David Aaron, undersecretary of commerce, said of European nations. Aaron, who held talks on the issue with European officials in Brussels, Belgium, earlier this month, added, "We say, 'Let's create a situation where, if companies agree to follow certain data practices, they can be held harmless under the new directive."' If the issue, which neither side paid much attention to until a few months ago, is not resolved, European officials could theoretically soon begin to block trans-Atlantic data transfers by multinational corporations and the growing number of Internet companies. European officials say they have no plans for any blockades soon, and are hopeful about reaching a peaceful resolution. Officials from the United States and Europe say they held constructive positive discussions earlier this month. The European Commission has scheduled a meeting on the issue for Monday, and it is expected to seek some kind of temporary solution while the two sides negotiate. Underlying the debate is a deeper political issue that is fraught with cultural baggage. For years, European nations have been far tougher than the United States about protecting privacy. Many countries essentially ban telephone marketing to people's homes, and that prohibition is now being applied to unsolicited sales approaches by fax and e-mail. Several nations, including Germany and the Netherlands, have government agencies devoted exclusively to protecting personal data. Acting as ombudsmen, these agencies investigate complaints from individuals who believe that companies have mishandled information about them. Companies that are accused of violating privacy laws can be prosecuted under criminal laws. "There is a great difference in attitudes about privacy protection between Europe and the United States," said Ulrich Sieber, a law professor at the University of Wuertzburg in Germany. U.S. privacy laws are far more lax and consist of a hodgepodge of statutes and regulations enforced by various state and federal agencies charged with oversight of other industries, like, for instance, those that regulate banks. In sharp contrast with Europe, an entire industry has arisen in the United States that specializes in trolling public and private sources for vast quantities of personal information, like birth records, drivers' license numbers and torrents of data accumulated by retailers about customers' individual purchases. The new European directive embraces several basic principles that national governments must now translate into their own laws. It requires that companies tell people when they collect information about them and disclose how that information will be used. In addition, customers must provide informed consent before any company can legally use that data. The law also requires companies to give people access to information about themselves. U.S. officials say they agree with those requirements in principle, but disagree with giving people unconditional access to information about themselves, saying access should be allowed only if it is reasonable or practical to do so. The more difficult issues are enforcement and policing. Aaron says the United States wants to give companies a variety of "safe harbors" to satisfy privacy protection. One idea is to create independent self-regulatory organizations that would monitor a company's data practices and would give well-behaved companies what amounts to a stamp of approval. Another option, they say, should be for companies to deal directly with European officials and demonstrate that their systems and practices are appropriate. But legal experts say the new law could easily take on a life of its own, because it gives individuals and private organizations the right to sue companies that they say fail to provide adequate privacy protections. Industry and government officials worry that independent privacy advocates in Europe will simply invoke the letter of the law and begin taking U.S. companies to court. "I'm not sure the idea of creating safe harbors will be practical, because people can still go ahead and sue a company regardless of whether the governments reach an agreement among themselves," said Christopher Kuner, a lawyer in Frankfurt who specializes in European information law. In the short term, government and industry officials predict that nothing much will happen. Most countries have yet to implement their own laws to carry out the directive. And several countries, including Germany, have had tough laws in place for years, and companies have found ways to deal with the requirements. One of the pioneering cases in Germany involved Citibank, which ran afoul of German data-protection authorities in 1995. But since Citibank, which has a major business presence in Germany, demonstrated to government officials there how its system protected data in the United States, it has operated without conflicts. Executives of American Express Co. said they had reached similar agreements in many countries and that they believed they could live with the new directive. "It is a crucial issue for us, but it has not been a burden so far," said James Tobin, an American Express spokesman in London. John Borking, vice president of the Data Protection Authority of the Netherlands, said, "We are not information police, and I expect that in the whole of Europe nothing will happen." But, added Borking, European governments will always take privacy protection seriously. "We are at the beginning of a new information society, and no one really knows the outcome," he said. "But privacy and trust are important parts of this society." Copyright 1998 The New York Times Company --------------------------------NOTICE:------------------------------ ISPI Clips are news & opinion articles on privacy issues from all points of view; they are clipped from local, national and international newspapers, journals and magazines, etc. Inclusion as an ISPI Clip does not necessarily reflect an endorsement of the content or opinion by ISPI. In compliance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed free without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ISPI Clips is a FREE e-mail service from the "Institute for the Study of Privacy Issues" (ISPI). To receive "ISPI Clips" on a regular bases (up to 3 - 8 clips per day) send the following message "Please enter [Your Name] into the ISPI Clips list: [Your e-mail address]" to: ISPIClips(a)ama-gi.com . The Institute for the Study of Privacy Issues (ISPI) is a small contributor-funded organization based in Victoria, British Columbia (Canada). ISPI operates on a not-for-profit basis, accepts no government funding and takes a global perspective. ISPI's mandate is to conduct & promote interdisciplinary research into electronic, personal and financial privacy with a view toward helping ordinary people understand the degree of privacy they have with respect to government, industry and each other and to likewise inform them about techniques to enhance their privacy. But, none of this can be accomplished without your kind and generous financial support. If you are concerned about the erosion of your privacy in general, won't you please help us continue this important work by becoming an "ISPI Supporter" or by taking out an institute Membership? We gratefully accept all contributions: Less than $60 ISPI Supporter $60 - $99 Primary ISPI Membership (1 year) $100 - $300 Senior ISPI Membership (2 years) More than $300 Executive Council Membership (life) Your ISPI "membership" contribution entitles you to receive "The ISPI Privacy Reporter" (our bi-monthly 12 page hard-copy newsletter in multi-contributor format) for the duration of your membership. For a contribution form with postal instructions please send the following message "ISPI Contribution Form" to ISPI4Privacy(a)ama-gi.com . We maintain a strict privacy policy. Any information you divulge to ISPI is kept in strict confidence. It will not be sold, lent or given away to any third party. **************************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address or (un)subscribe ignition-point-digest email@address **************************************************** www.telepath.com/believer ****************************************************

1 0

IP: ISPI Clips 5.68: No Data Flow Disruption Between EU & US--at Least for Now
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: "ama-gi ISPI" <offshore(a)email.msn.com> Subject: IP: ISPI Clips 5.68: No Data Flow Disruption Between EU & US--at Least for Now Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 02:33:46 -0800 To: <Undisclosed.Recipients(a)majordomo.pobox.com> ISPI Clips 5.68: No Data Flow Disruption Between EU & US--at Least for Now. News & Info from the Institute for the Study of Privacy Issues (ISPI) Tuesday October 27, 1998 ISPI4Privacy(a)ama-gi.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This From: CNET News.com, October 25, 1998 http://www.news.com European privacy deadline nears http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,27920,00.html By Tim Clark Staff Writer, CNET News.com The European Union will not disrupt the flow of data between Europe and the United States, even though strict new privacy protections took effect in Europe yesterday, a key Commerce Department official said today. The new European Union privacy directive prohibits sending personal data to nations whose privacy protections aren't as vigorous as in the 15-country bloc, but Commerce undersecretary David Aaron said today that the Europeans have agreed to open formal negotiations on how U.S. firms can comply with it. U.S. diplomats have been discussing the issue with the European Commission for six months, in talks described as discussions rather than as negotiations. "We believe we can reach a resolution, and we think it is imperative that we do so promptly," Aaron said, naming December 15 as a target to close the matter. "The U.S. premise is that the United States has effective privacy protection but that the approach here is different than in Europe," he said. "We will seek an arrangement that provides a workable framework on both sides of Atlantic, where data will be secured and disruption of transatlantic data flows will be avoided." The EU's privacy directive, if enforced, could prevent database marketing firms, Web sites, U.S. firms with European employees, and credit card companies from sending personal data back to the United States. That's because the privacy directive bars export of data to nations whose protection of personal data is not certified to be as strong as Europe's. The issue remains a sticking point despite earlier hints from the White House that the problem would be settled by now. Months of discussions have led U.S. officials to hope that the private sector-led approach favored by the Clinton administration can be reconciled with strict privacy laws in many European nations. The United States is proposing a concept dubbed "safe harbor:" In the absence of U.S. privacy legislation, American firms could voluntarily adhere to a set of privacy practices such as those from TRUSTe http://www.truste.org/ ], the business-backed U.S. privacy group pushing voluntary privacy guidelines on the Internet. The U.S. and the European Union will negotiate as to the content of privacy guidelines that would be considered acceptable protections to allow U.S. firms to send personal data on individuals from Europe to the United States. "If companies did that, privacy protections would be considered 'adequate,' and there would be a presumption that data would be able to flow," the U.S. official said. TRUSTe executive director Susan Scott has spoken favorably in recent weeks about the safe harbor concept, and she outlined the idea to the Europeans earlier this year. But privacy law advocate Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, isn't sure the safe harbor concept will fly. "The U.S. had been saying there was going to be some big agreement, but there isn't one," said Rotenberg, who favors strong U.S. privacy laws. "So there is still a question as to whether U.S. firms will be blocked by the EU directive." Copyright © 1995-98 CNET, Inc. --------------------------------NOTICE:------------------------------ ISPI Clips are news & opinion articles on privacy issues from all points of view; they are clipped from local, national and international newspapers, journals and magazines, etc. Inclusion as an ISPI Clip does not necessarily reflect an endorsement of the content or opinion by ISPI. In compliance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed free without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ISPI Clips is a FREE e-mail service from the "Institute for the Study of Privacy Issues" (ISPI). To receive "ISPI Clips" on a regular bases (up to 3 - 8 clips per day) send the following message "Please enter [Your Name] into the ISPI Clips list: [Your e-mail address]" to: ISPIClips(a)ama-gi.com . The Institute for the Study of Privacy Issues (ISPI) is a small contributor-funded organization based in Victoria, British Columbia (Canada). ISPI operates on a not-for-profit basis, accepts no government funding and takes a global perspective. ISPI's mandate is to conduct & promote interdisciplinary research into electronic, personal and financial privacy with a view toward helping ordinary people understand the degree of privacy they have with respect to government, industry and each other and to likewise inform them about techniques to enhance their privacy. But, none of this can be accomplished without your kind and generous financial support. If you are concerned about the erosion of your privacy in general, won't you please help us continue this important work by becoming an "ISPI Supporter" or by taking out an institute Membership? We gratefully accept all contributions: Less than $60 ISPI Supporter $60 - $99 Primary ISPI Membership (1 year) $100 - $300 Senior ISPI Membership (2 years) More than $300 Executive Council Membership (life) Your ISPI "membership" contribution entitles you to receive "The ISPI Privacy Reporter" (our bi-monthly 12 page hard-copy newsletter in multi-contributor format) for the duration of your membership. For a contribution form with postal instructions please send the following message "ISPI Contribution Form" to ISPI4Privacy(a)ama-gi.com . We maintain a strict privacy policy. Any information you divulge to ISPI is kept in strict confidence. It will not be sold, lent or given away to any third party. **************************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address or (un)subscribe ignition-point-digest email@address **************************************************** www.telepath.com/believer ****************************************************

1 0

Re:
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Paul H. Merrill wrote: > <<Heavily snipped to allow for those who don't like it otherwise.>> Yeah, if you quote back over a hundred lines after adding 6, 8, or whatever it happened to be. > > About a week ago somebody posted a copy or parts of most AOL > > postings which were sent here in the last months. Merrill ignores the part > > about how the posts were classified > > I read his classification criteria closely, and read the results of the > classification process. > > and sends back some vague flame accusing > > the author of classing posts he disagreed with as "clueless" then he quotes > > the entire thing back to the list. > > > Then commented that he had not followed his own criteria. And where did he not? A few could be debated. The rest were either written so badly that they were incomprehensible, were off-topic, or didn't include quoted material in a reply/followup. He also stated that he was counting postings which used that '<< >>' scheme as automatically bad, which is understandable. Either way, he seemed to be trying to show the statistics. Pull one or two postings off of one side and put them on the other and the statistics are still pretty bad for AOL. > > I don't know which is worse. At least the people flaming the AOL wimps are > > funny. > > If funny is all you want, may I recommend rec.humor.funny and, in case > you are up on no current events but Clinton, rec.humor.funny.reruns. No, I want a Cypherpunks list which discusses political issues, cryptography, and things related to that. Since this is the Cypherpunks list, we aren't going to censor on the basis of content or origin point. If all you want to do is defend AOL and their ilk, may I recommend comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy and alt.aol-sucks. > And to the brilliant person seeking muff diving pics, gee send a real > address and we'll see what we can do. (At least he didn't want it for > pre-muff variety.) Muff diving pics? Do we want to know? Serious questions.

2 1