- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: corporate bashing
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Fred seems to have been slipping through my filters in recent days. Though I usually trash any message containing a reference to him, I thought that this latest escalation into the ionosphere of net-sillies begs to be brought to heel... On 24 Dec 95 at 17:20, Fred Cohen wrote: > and that anonymity should be used as an escape from > responsibility for what they do and say. If you want to > remain free to speak your mind, you have to become > responsible in at least two ways: > > 1 - You must top slandering people. > 2 - You must stop using anonymity as a way to avoid being > responsible. > > When I say must, I am not intending to mean anything less. > If the cypherpunks continue to do these two things, they will > rapidly find that they are doing more to destroy all of our > rights to free speech in the Internet than they ever did to > encourage freedom of expression. There are several things wrong with this, but first, just on the surface: Fred has now dropped his cyberdrawers and stands before us displaying the ugly engine of his manhood, the handle by which he maintains a grip on his pointless existence. He reveals himself to be yet another in that small, tired parade of self-appointed lightning rods -- people with so little of import in their lives that they have to resort to trolling for what they can claim are offenses against them, then flex the borrowed, imagined musculature of mindless law to rise in self-righteous threats of exercise of vindictive wrath. This is worse than "My big brother will kick your ass!" It is like a 90-pound weakling going to the beach with a large but retarded cousin in tow. The idea is to troll to get sand kicked in his face, then to point to the drooling cousin and use him as a lever to gain and exercise control over the hapless dupes of the ruse. Freds have existed on BBS's, and before the technological age in most small clubs and societies. In the Internet they show up in newsgroups and on mailing lists, and when crossed they ALWAYS descend to threats of legal action. So predictable, so utterly dull and unimaginative, they are like the party guest who has that inappropriate laugh, who doesn't seem to notice that pairs of people are together, who approaches people oddly and, in the end, makes a scene and reveals himself to be a complete fruitcake. Unmoderated fission looking for a place to fulminate. Fred, you've come to the wrong place. If you want to be ignored, just pack your terminal and stay home with the sitcoms. Noone asked you to interject your trolls and threats here. You invited yourself, and whatever you are suffering is of your own creation. Speaking of Freds brings me to a more interesting aspect of this nonsense: How do we know there is only one Fred? Fred doesn't sign his messages... oh-oh. This attack of deja vu feels like I've had it before. Why do I get the feeling that Fred is about to embarrass himself terribly by blurting out some of the poison that fills his soul? Let him who hath not slandered cast the first suit. We Jurgar Din (that will have to suffice: I do not yet live in a free country) +"The battle, Sir, is not to the strong alone. It is to the+ +vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, Sir, we have no + +election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now + +too late to retire from the contest." -Patrick Henry 1775 + -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQBVAwUBMN8TVEjw99YhtpnhAQFDngH/cTzEDHzxYZ7Z9jOmoALxaIdxpgpvlIr+ /zsZndz1KfQlqUunH5i7YsJS7tm/XOsrRcWQgKQEr9WaI8wRgrqh5g== =Hl/v -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2

[long irrelevant post] Edited Edupage, 9 May 1996
by Jean-Francois Avon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Apologies to other CPunks. I hate theses posts, but I just couldn't let it pass by. On 15 May 96 at 9:09, Doug Hughes wrote: > No, because they are too poor to live in your neighborhood. > Sure, they can live in the same geographic region, but it's still > rural and poor. People live where they can afford to live. Just like volition-free cows? > Are you saying those poor people in rural West Virgina only live > there because they are not trying hard enough to get out? Maybe they lack the knowledge. But does that justify turning me into a milk cow for them? Should I break my leg because somebody else did? Should the common euphemism "to provide" justify the common euphemism "to redistribute wealth"? Or in straight talk, should we distribute free-lunches that were took away at the point of a gun from peoples who produced them by their own work? > >> So, because they live in a poor district they are > >> not entitled to the same level of education as a rich city > >> suburb? Not because they don't live in a rich suburb, simply because they cannot pay for it. Breathing air does not entitle you to anything that is produced by another breather of air... > environment, lack of education, lack of money, lots of factors. Who is responsible for it, who should be considered "response-able"? > Nobody is holding a gun to anybody's head saying "Don't Read". Here is an example of "creative mis-reading". What I meant by gun is why hold a gun to *my* head for having them to read? > improving literacy is a goal that needs to be undertaken. You are free to donate as much of your *own personnal* earnings to them. Feel free to do! I, for one, like to help kids to learn to read, to use a microscope, to learn chemistry and physics and maths and sciences in general. I always give my time to any kid that needs help, wether he is 5 years old in first grade or 25 in university. But why stick a gun in my back to get part of my paycheck? > agree that low literacy is a bad thing Yes, absolutely. > and needs to be taken care > of? At whose expense? > But, why, given a good learning environment and an > inspiring teacher would you not want to? You'd be surprized how so many peoples just don't care. We have here a *free* education system up to high school. Then college, which is not very expensive. Then university that cost around 2000$(US) per year. But still, we have one of the highest rate of dropping out in the world. And all collectivists their with grand schemes wonder why... > But the statement that > we shouldn't subsidize >> rural customers because they CHOOSE to > live there (even though some >> are poor and can't afford to live > anywhere else) is just plain >> fallacious. Agreed. But you are building a worst straw man. The only reason is that we should not turn some productive individuals into a milk cow for thoses that are less productive. And the source of the whealth necessary for your grand schemes are those most productive individuals turned into sacrificial animals. Under any governmental red tape pile of paper lies a GUN. > Some people on this list argue that the current representative govt > system is bad, and that true democracy is better. But again, some other peoples think that true democracy, i.e. the dictature of the majority, wouldn't be better, mainly because the issues are too numerous and the individual's knowledge is too limited. Some Cypherpunks want, is "Live and let live", some other "Live and let die" and a few even proposed "Live and let live, of get killed" or "mind your own business or get a prize on your head"... > True democracy relies on people being educated, the more the > better. (Actually, education benefits the entire society.) > >> Just because you choose to live in the city does not > >> mean people always choose to live where they live. > >Who cast their feet in concrete blocks? > Where is somebody making less than $5000/year going to move to? > (Answer: somewhere rural and poor). Or, if you prefer, they can > move into tax-payer subsidized housing? (I'd prefer not, thanks) I lived on that for several years. It was not easy but I could still learn and read. Actually, it is almost the sole thing I did during theses years. And I am not talking about our almost free education system. > >> Education is one > >> thing (perhaps the only thing) that deserves to be subsidized in > >> this country. > >I think that it should not be subsidized. > >If you feel like subsidising education, then by all means, do it. > >But why should you stick a gun in my back to do the same? What if > >I do not want to do the same as you? > Then you will be living in a country with lower education standards, > increasing illiteracy, and a pretty pitiful base with a declining > socio-economic structure. > Are you arguing that people are not equal Absolutely. Why is it that my friends always got straight A's while I got C's or D's... > and those with more money should of necessity get better education? What somersault of rationalization made you conclude that? Thoses with more money can *afford* more. Only that fact. > You can vote that poor people shouldn't be > educated at all What you are telling here is that education is *only* a direct function of wealth and that wealth is strictly a direct function of education. I am sorry to tell you that reality clearly show that this basic premise is not true. > You don't understand at all. It's not about being people down, it's > about bringing them 'UP'. Dear Doug, would you please tell me where you will take the ressources to bring peoples up? I have no objection if you were setting up some sort of charity fund. > I'm not talking about being meek. > I'm talking about learning to read and multiply 4*9. It was done in the days of non-mandatory, non-subsidized education. Actually, the country (USA) had it's biggest growing period in thoses days. The improvement slowed down with the advent of collectivist schemes. > I'm not getting into this anymore. It's totally off topic of the > list, but I felt I had to respond to your > let-the-poor-be-poor-and-uneducated posting. Not at all. The essence of my post is "do not treat productive individual as sacrificial animal for the unearned benefit of the less productives". You see, I do not believe in sacrifice nor in original sin... > We're straying far off even my point. My point was not that I agree > with subsidizing internet connections for every school in america. > I'd have to be convinced that that is a good thing. However, making > sure everybody has a good education is of paramount importance to > any society. I am of the opinion that giving the country a thorough coverage of the net is of paramount importance. But I do not think that the govt is thinking the same, notwithstanding what it says. I suggest you try to set up a foundation to promote the private setup of inter-villages links in rural areas. It would be great. But to tax for that, to confiscate money from producers against their best judgment and will? OTOH, you might be operationnally (while not ethically) right. I'd rather be taxed for the installation of the net than for some museum... JFA DePompadour, Societe d'Importation Ltee Limoges porcelain, Silverware and mouth blown crystal glasses JFA Technologies, R&D consultants. Physists, technologists and engineers. PGP keys at: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon ID# C58ADD0D : 529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891 Unsollicited commercial e-mail will be proofread at US165 $/h Any sender of such material will be considered as to have ac- cepted the above mentionned terms.

1 0

IP: [Part 1 & 2] THE IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY By David M. Bresnahan
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Kepi <kepi(a)netdoor.com> Subject: IP: [Part 1 & 2] THE IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY By David M. Bresnahan Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 23:37:09 -0500 To: ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com For those who may have missed this report; all others, please disregard. Kepi <>< ...........<Begin Forwarded Message>........... >X-Sender: cabhop(a)mail.highfiber.com >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) >Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 11:57:22 -0600 >To: (Recipient list suppressed) >From: Robert Huddleston <cabhop(a)highfiber.com> >Subject: THE IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY [ Part 1 & 2 ] By David M. Bresnahan > > >http://www.worldnetdaily.com/exclusiv/980929.exbre_clintons_secr.html >http://www.worldnetdaily.com/exclusiv/980930_exbre_clintons_secr.html > >SEPTEMBER 29 & 30, 1998 > > >THE IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY >Clinton's secret war games >He's scheming for strike to make him international hero > > >This is the first of a two-part series on the >revelations of military computer expert Curt Tomlin. > >By David M. Bresnahan >Copyright 1998, WorldNetDaily.com > >President Bill Clinton is playing war games >on a top secret computer to come up with a >way to be an international hero, according to >the man who designed the system. > >According to Rev. Curt Tomlin, a former >member of the battle staff of both presidents >John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, >Clinton is a desperate man who is like an >animal trapped in a corner. He will do >anything to regain his credibility and deflect >criticism from his impending impeachment >hearings, he says. He also is driven by his >desire to create a positive legacy of his time in >the White House, according to various >reports. > >Clinton's motivations are dangerous to the >security of our nation, according to Tomlin. It >was Tomlin who designed and perfected the >Pentagon's first war games computer system, >the top secret "Single Integrated Operating Procedure." > >The "SIOP" computer is a method of targeting >a military attack and evaluating the most >likely response to that attack, according to >Tomlin. Highly classified intelligence >information is gathered from all over the >world by the CIA and other sources, placed in >the computer, and then accessed by Clinton to >play his own personal war games. > >"The decisions he's making right now are >totally illogical and irresponsible," Tomlin >told WorldNetDaily in an exclusive interview. >"Looking at the power and everything he's got >at his finger tips. That's a dangerous situation >for a spastic individual." > >Tomlin has maintained silence about the top >secret program for many years. He has been >called out of retirement three times and has >served in the Navy, Air Force, and Army for a >combined total of just over 24 years. He has >also been hired by government contractors to >assist in computer intelligence systems >designed to improve security for military >computer systems. > >"I could be sticking my neck on the chopping >block for a number of reasons," said Tomlin of >his decision to make his information public. >"Number one is, I'm still under some lifetime >restrictions on security clearances. For >example two of the clearances I had above top >secret was ESI and category 7 and 9. That was >three above that. Those are lifetime. So I have >to be a little bit careful about what I put in >print. I think people have to be aware of this, >regardless of the consequences on my end. I >feel that I would be guilty of the military >crime of negligence of duty if I did not bring >this to somebody's attention," explained >Tomlin. > >Clinton had tried to become an international >hero by destroying hundreds of terrorists >being trained by Osama bin Laden in >Afghanistan and a chemical weapons plant in >Sudan. Those two missile attacks were chosen >through use of the SIOP computer to which >Clinton has access, according to Tomlin. > >The computer predicted the result of the >attacks would bring about the death of >hundreds of terrorist forces and eliminate a >chemical weapons factory. Someone >intervened to change the results, according to >an intelligence source who spoke only on >condition of anonymity. > >Reports in European newspapers after the >attacks by Clinton corroborate what that >source claimed. "There were no dead >terrorists, and the chemical weapons plant >was an innocent pharmaceutical plant. Instead >of being a hero, Clinton is an international >laughing stock. The terrorists were tipped off >and cleared the area. The real chemical >weapons plant was two miles away. It was a >combination of bad intelligence and >purposeful intervention," said the source. > >Clinton has been searching the SIOP system >ever since the failure in an effort to find >another opportunity to prove himself to the >world and become the international hero he >envisions for his legacy, according to the >source. Tomlin agrees. > >"There's no choice. He's either going to sink or >try again. We can look for some very >unpleasant responses, depending on the >target he chooses," says Tomlin. > >When Clinton actually succeeds at inflicting >damage to a group of international terrorists, >many experts believe there will be swift and >deadly retaliation. Americans are in danger of >massive chemical and biological attacks in >major metropolitan areas, as well as similar >attacks on large military bases. >Tomlin says he is personally aware of >unprotected water supplies to domestic >military bases that could provide terrorists an >opportunity to poison the drinking water >used by most of the nation's military. >"When you contaminate a water supply ... >that's almost beyond my comprehension," he >remarked. The open borders of the United >States make it a simple process for terrorists >to come into the country and bring their >weapons of mass destruction with them >without detection," he says. "They can come >and go as they please with any kind of cargo. >That border is literally wide open, regardless >of what INS tells you," warned Tomlin. > >Tomlin believes there are many terrorist >agents already located in the United States >waiting for orders to strike. Other sources >have independently confirmed that claim but >were unwilling to be identified. > >"There's no doubt that the U.S. is currently in >the greatest danger of massive domestic >attack from an external enemy than ever >before in our nation's history," agreed one >intelligence source who is equally concerned >about Clinton pushing such terrorists to the >point to massive retaliation. "They just need >an excuse," he said. > >"Of course, the president has available to him >an awesome military force that he can use to >launch a first strike on any target in the >world," explained Tomlin of the top secret >system available to Clinton. "One of the things >I have been real concerned about recently is >the type of response that we can expect from >these various targets that the president can >choose from. For example, if he chose to hit >target A, the computer system would come >back and tell him what kind of response he >can expect. Will that response be in the nature >of an explosive response like blowing up an >embassy? Will it be in the form of a chemical >or biological response, or a combination of the >two? And it will also tell him, will the >response be a psychological or political >response, or a combination of any of these? In >other words, the system will come back and >tell him exactly what he can expect the owners >of that target to do in retaliation," explained >Tomlin, the father of that real-life computer >war game. > >"We got an awful lot of our information >through CIA on site sources where these >various targets were located," Tomlin says. >"We could tell you anything you wanted to >know about that target. How thick the walls >were, if it were a structure, how far under >ground it goes. How many megatons of >explosives it would take to wipe it out totally, >or give you 50 percent destruction, or 75 >percent destruction. We could just tell you >anything you wanted to know about that >target." >The highly advanced computer system as >well as the automated launch and attack >systems enable Clinton to initiate an attack >without the knowledge of very many other >individuals. Such decisions could be made by >Clinton alone, or with just a few political >advisers. Military and security advisers could >be left in the dark. > >"That's what bothers me today," says Tomlin. >"Given the fact that the man in the White >House now has his finger on the trigger, and >he can launch those forces which still consist >of atomic warheads on any intercontinental >ballistic missile. He can create a situation that >could be very detrimental to this country. >There are certain things that I'm really >concerned about at this point in time >concerning the highly probable responses that >the president can expect as the result of >striking certain targets." > >With SIOP, Clinton can sit at his private >computer and play war games until he finds >the situation he likes best. He can literally >type in various attacks around the world and >the SIOP computer will tell him what will be >the likely results of such an attack. With the >push of a button he can turn the computer >simulation he likes best into reality. > >"The ones I am concerned about now is the >possibility of a chemical or biological >response to a specific strike that he would >initiate," said Tomlin of his fear. "Simply >because an explosive response is limited in >scope. It's a token. It's a warning. But when >you drop a very small amount of biological or >chemical agents into the water supply of a >large city of Dallas or Houston, my friend, we >have a problem in that area. You can bring >these agents through customs on our southern >border almost undetected. There's just very >little possibility of these things being detected >coming through Customs or just walking >across the border in a deserted area." > >Tomlin created the SIOP computer back in >1963 when he served on the Kennedy battle >staff. He continued to serve on the Johnson >battle staff as well. Since then he has helped >the military work on numerous top secret >defense projects and information systems. > >Tomlin did his work in the top secret >underground "site R," as well as in the >Pentagon war room. His work was considered >so critical that he had a 24-hour armed Marine >guard watching over him. > >Although Tomlin is now retired, he still lives >by Fort Hood in Texas and has many >neighbors who are current and former >military. He claims there are many who are >getting out of the service because of Clinton. > >"Unfortunately," says Tomlin, "that's the >sentiment that is running rampant among >military people in this area. If you cannot >trust your leader, then we have a problem. >This man cannot be trusted. They are >deserting (their careers). I'm talking about our >combat experienced veterans. They're giving >up 18 years, 17 years and so forth and getting >out because they can no longer trust their >leader. They don't want to be a part of what he >might create." >Tomlin expects Clinton to launch an attack >very soon that will bring devastating >domestic retaliation to the U.S. >"If I were still on active duty, either as an >enlisted man or as a commissioned officer, >knowing what I know now, looking at all of >the information I have available to me, I >would have no choice but to resign my >commission or terminate my enlistment >simply because there is no way that I could >now trust my commander in chief," said Tomlin. > >THE IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY >Clinton's secret war games -- part 2 >He has the power to disable electronics >anywhere in the world > >This is the second of a two-part series on Clinton's secret >war games and the concerns of the man who helped invent >them. > >By David M. Bresnahan >Copyright 1998, WorldNetDaily.com >We are living in a new age of electronic warfare >which could make every electrical device from >military tanks to clock radios inoperative, according >to one of the people responsible for such weapons >systems. > >President Bill Clinton could enter a few key strokes >on a computer and selectively disable all electronics >anywhere in the world, including within the U.S., >using a top secret satellite system known as "LEO." >That ability is not unique to the U.S., however. Other >countries and even terrorists could knock out >electronics equipment anywhere in the world. > >Rev. Curt Tomlin, 65, is a retired Army major with 24 >years combined service in the Navy, Air Force, and >Army. He was a member of the battle staff for the >Kennedy and Johnson administrations and >developed top secret computer systems for the >Pentagon. His unique expertise prompted the >military to bring him out of retirement three times to >put his skills to use in the development of war >games computers, security computer systems and >the testing of electronics warfare. >Tomlin gave an exclusive interview to >WorldNetDaily to express his concerns about >national security. He says the U.S. is in grave danger >because of a president who is desperate to hang on >to his position of power at all cost. > >In an exclusive WorldNetDaily article yesterday, >Tomlin detailed his fears that Clinton is using a war >games computer to find a new target he can attack. >Clinton's goal, according to Tomlin, is to become an >international hero. Tomlin, who created the nation's >first computer war game system, known as "SIOP," >for the Pentagon, fears that Clinton's actions will >bring devastating retaliation from terrorists who are >just waiting for an excuse to activate their plan of >domestic attack against the U.S. > >Although Tomlin believes the greatest danger to the >U.S. is from biological and chemical weapons, he is >also concerned about electronic warfare. Tomlin >believes Clinton is very upset with a large portion of >the nation that wants him impeached. He says >Clinton is planning a way to get back at his enemies >in a big way. > >"This man (Clinton) is extremely vindictive and he's >going to get back at the country one way or another," >said Tomlin, who is also concerned about Clinton's >recent attempt to use the SIOP computer to attack >alleged terrorist sites in Afghanistan and Sudan. >Tomlin believes new attacks are imminent in order >to turn the previous failure to damage the terrorists >into a major victory that will make Clinton an >international hero. > >Tomlin expects domestic retaliation from the next >attack by Clinton to be devastating. He says terrorists >are already in the U.S. awaiting orders to attack, a >claim supported by a recently intercepted fax sent >world wide to 5,000 "soldiers" loyal to Osama bin >Laden. The faxed order, reported in London and >Jerusalem newspapers recently, tells the terrorists to >be prepared to attack U.S. and Israel in four ways >very soon. >According to the fax, the attacks would be designed to > >Bring commercial airlines to a halt >Stop all maritime traffic >Occupy U.S. embassies around the world >Shut down U.S. banking > >Such actions would seem difficult to achieve, but >Tomlin says it would actually be easy to accomplish >with access to electronics warfare devices. Although >his greatest concern is chemical or biological attack, >he said he would not be surprised if the attack came >through electronics. Virtually everything from >military aircraft to TV remotes would be disabled, >according to Tomlin. >Tomlin was called out of retirement in 1995 to >participate in a top secret project. He worked in the >10th Mountain Division as a senior test plan analyst. > >"You know that your automobile has an electronic >ignition in it," explained Tomlin. "It also has a >computer inside that. Did you know that we can >immobilize every moving vehicle in this country >with a few key strokes of a computer, all at the same >time? > >"By using the LEO satellites," he described, "you can >disrupt the computers. You can stop that electronic >ignition. It's all electronically based. You can >interfere with it and stop it dead in it's tracks." > >Tomlin also worked on tests dealing with laser >technology and the global positioning system, but he >did not provide details of those tests or their >purpose. He did say the testing was extensive and >was all for military purposes. >It is clear that China and other countries have this >same technology, agreed Tomlin. He believes the >recent intercepted bin Laden fax is evidence that >terrorists have this same ability. Electronic warfare >would make all four of the stated goals easily attainable. > >Tomlin is risking legal action by the Pentagon for >revealing top secret information. That's a risk he says >he is willing to take because of the danger he >believes has been caused by an out-of-control president. > >"The decisions he's making right now are totally >illogical and irresponsible," said Tomlin about his >concerns regarding Clinton. "Looking at the power >and everything he's got at his finger tips. That's a >dangerous situation for a spastic individual." Tomlin >has maintained silence about the top secret program >for many years, but now he feels compelled to speak >out. > >"I could be sticking my neck on the chopping block >for a number of reasons," said Tomlin of his decision >to make his information public. "Number one is I'm >still under some lifetime restrictions on security >clearances. For example two of the clearances I had >above top secret was ESI and category 7 and 9. That >was three above that. Those are lifetime. So I have to >be a little bit careful about what I put in print. >"I think people have to be aware of this, regardless of >the consequences on my end. I feel that I would be >guilty of the military crime of negligence of duty if I >did not bring this to somebody's attention," >explained Tomlin. > >Is this all part of a planned conspiracy? Or is this a >president gone mad? Tomlin said he would not be >surprised by either scenario. > >"If that's the way it turns out, I will not be at all >surprised," he said. "When you put all of the pieces >of the puzzle together you see how it all fits together. > >"The ultimate end product of these programs the >government has been working on is to create a >generation of people who will readily accept sudden >and radical change without question, without >objection, and without opposition. That's the goal of >these programs in a nutshell. This is headed toward >a one-world government without any question >what-so-ever, he warns. These programs have been >going on for a long time. People need to pay >attention to what Outcome-Based Education is all >about, what Goals 2000 is all about, and these other >socialistic programs that are leading in this direction. >It's upon us," warned Tomlin. > >In recent years Tomlin has been teaching and writing >college courses dealing with electronic data >processing. He tells his students, "If you can think of >it, you can do it. Your only limitation is your own >imagination. There are no limitations when it comes >to electronics. > >"Y2K is going to be one of the biggest problems >you've ever seen in your life, coupled with the other >intentional (electronic) interferences we're talking >about." > >Tomlin says he entered a Navy competition back in >1963 for a mystery computer assignment. After two >weeks of competition with many others who wanted >the top secret, undisclosed position, Tomlin was >notified to pack his bags and report to the Pentagon. >"I had no idea what I would be doing until I walked >into the front door. I had to compete for that job. At >that time there were 700 of us in the Navy who had >shown specific talent and progress for designing >information and processing systems. That was Navy >wide because data processing was so new at that >time," explained Tomlin. > >"There was three places we worked out of. Site R, >which was the underground command post, the war >room in the Pentagon -- the JCS war room. We also >had a facility on the North Hampton, which was a >light cruiser. That was also the Presidents alternate >battle site on that cruiser. Later we also had a facility >on the U.S. Wright, which was a converted jeep >carrier from World War II." > >When he first arrived he was the youngest, 30, and >lowest ranked, petty officer, member of the Kennedy >battle staff. No one on the team knew just what they >wanted or expected from Tomlin, so he just observed >and tried to find ways to put his skills to use. > >"Nobody on the battle team was capable of telling >me what they wanted me to do," he said. "So I >iddled around there for a couple of weeks just >watching what the rest of the battle staff did during >their exercises and their presidential briefings and >stuff like that. Kind of with my hands in my pockets. >We had a worldwide battle exercise and I wandered >around the war room and watched them post the >status boards, the maps, and process the 'twixes' as >we called them back then. That's all the messages >and the strikes and the targets. Finally, I concluded >that these guys were doing this the hard way." >Tomlin, accompanied by his armed Marine guard >who was with him 24 hours a day, went to work in >the seclusion of his underground war room at site R. >He began putting together some very simple >procedures using IBM punch cards on the latest and >greatest computer 1963 technology had to offer. >Within just a few weeks another war game was >called and Tomlin was ready to show off his >creation, which he created totally on his own. > >"We had a war game, and while they were doing >heir thing out there, nobody paid any attention to >me and nobody knew I was around. So I went back >and I got copies of all the incoming data and I did >my thing and I threw my shoulders back one day >and just started posting the status boards and >everybody else -- all these lieutenant colonels and >colonels and brigadier generals and everybody else >-- were all gathered around the conference table and >somebody said, 'Tomlin what the hell are you >doing?' I said, 'Well, I'm plotting the results of these >various strikes.' And they said, 'Who told you to do >that?' I said, 'Nobody did.' > >"They got to looking at their conclusions and my >conclusions and they were identical. What took 30 or >40 folks for them to do, well I did it by myself in just >a matter of minutes," described Tomlin of his first >war games computer program. So that got their >attention, and that's where everything started. So the >next time around they used my computerized war >game, which was the first one the Department of >Defense ever had. Then later I got tasked to build a >system for the targets, and then the rate of >production for atomic weapons storage and >accountability, and all that good stuff. It just kind of >exploded (military computer assignments) from >there." > >The military had never called retirees back into >full-time active duty until they needed Tomlin >during the Gulf War. They needed him and didn't >have a policy in place that enabled them to bring him >back, pay him, and give him credit towards his >retirement benefits. >Tomlin is listed as a military resource with critical >skills, so the government made the necessary >changes in policy and got him back for a full year of >service. During that time he worked in the national >records center in St. Louis, MO, to install new >computer systems and redesign internal security for >6.9 million records. The commercial company he >worked with to accomplish the task is owned by >Ross Perot, he pointed out. >As the pioneer of computerized war games, and >other information systems, Tomlin is obviously >proud of his work. He is speaking out because he >believes Clinton is a desperate man trying to save his >position of power at any cost. He believes Clinton is >not acting rationally and is about to subject the U.S. >to grave danger from international terrorists. Tomlin >says he is willing to accept the personal risk he is >taking by revealing sensitive information about >military systems and capabilities. > >Tomlin, is now a minister, and is the director of the >Christian Alert Network. He devotes his time to >informing pastors and concerned Christians of >problems he sees in government schools. He actively >promotes home schooling, private schools and >reform of public schools, which he says are being >used by the government to manipulate the beliefs of >children and take away parental rights. > >"The primary purpose of the Christian Alert Network >(TCAN)," states his web page, "is to inform >individual Christian citizens on specific situations >that adversely impact upon our basic Christian >doctrine, religious freedom and traditional families >and to encourage them to participate in the >governmental process, in obedience to the Holy >Scriptures and according to the intent of our >Founding Fathers." > > > > > > David Bresnahan, a WorldNetDaily contributing editor, >hosts "Talk USA Investigative Reports" and is the author >of "Cover Up: The Art and Science of Political Deception." > His email address is David(a)talkusa.com. > > > > > > <@{{>< <@{{>< <@{{>< <@{{>< <@{{>< <@{{>< <@{{>< > >SOCIALIST > 1. socialism > ( Noun ] > : social organization based on goverment control of the >production and distribution of goods. > ***** > "Gun registration is not enough." > Attorney General Janet Reno, > December 10,1993 (Associated Press) > > "Waiting periods are only a step. > Registration is only a step. > The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." > - Janet Reno > >************************************************* >"But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet to >warn the people and the sword comes and takes the life of one of them, that >man will be taken away because of his sin, but I will hold the watchman >accountable for his blood." >Ezekiel 33:6 (NIV) >___________________________________________________________ >New toll-free hotline to Congress >Congress is making a new toll-free number available for >citizens who would like to make their voices heard in >Washington. 1-800-504-0031 >Ask for your Congressman office and let him know >what you think............. >--------------------------------------------------------------- >Join Gun Owners of America [ GOA ] today. >Read more about GOA at : http://www.gunowners.org/ >-------------------------------------------------------------- >Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) >Become a JPFO member, go to: http://www.jpfo.org/member.htm >There you will see a printable member application, along with >info on membership Membership IS open to ALL Law >abiding citizens. >--------------------------------------------------------------- > > ><@{{>< <@{{>< <@{{>< <@{{>< <@{{>< <@{{>< <@{{>< > > > > > > ********************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address ********************************************** www.telepath.com/believer **********************************************

1 0

Re: (cpx) Re: Bidzos on C-Span 2
by rah＠shipwright.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Oops. You can shoot me now... Sorry, folks! e$pam first and let god sort 'em out. Fixing that little problem this week, as a matter of fact. Cheers, Bob ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA (617) 958-3971 "Reality is not optional." --Thomas Sowell The NEW(!) e$ Home Page: http://thumper.vmeng.com/pub/rah/ >>>>Phree Phil: Email: zldf(a)clark.net http://www.netresponse.com/zldf <<<<<

1 0

"Ken and Brenda Kingston" <kingston@cheerful.com>: Telephone Scam Alert
by nibor55＠juno.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--------- Begin forwarded message ---------- From: "Ken and Brenda Kingston" <kingston(a)cheerful.com> To: "Bill Manago" <managob(a)primenet.com>,"Ken Kingston" <kingstob(a)fhu.disa.mil>,"Mark & Kay Barrett" <msblkb(a)primenet.com>,"Mike & Dianne Higgs" <homeys(a)primenet.com>,"Mike Roberts" <n9lem(a)aol.com>, "Rachel M Parker" <xyz987(a)juno.com>,"Robin Parker" <nibor55(a)juno.com> Subject: Telephone Scam Alert Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 20:07:14 -0700 Message-ID: <001601bd3375$82a232a0$b037c5a9@pc1> I want to let all my friends know about this scam going around. It does not matter who your local or long distance carrier is, this can cost you a lot of money. Please read and if you get a call like this, report it to the police and the FCC. If you have a caller ID, get the number too. Subject: High Priority message High Priority ** On Saturday, 24 January 1998, Naval Air Station, Joint Reserve Base, New Orleans' Quarterdeck received a telephone call from an individual identifying himself as an AT&T Service Technician that was running a test on our telephone lines. He stated that to complete the test the QMOW should touch nine (9), zero (0), pound sign (#) and hang up. Luckily, the QMOW was suspicious and refused. Upon contacting the telephone company we were informed that by pushing 90# you end up giving the individual that called you access to your telephone line and allows them to place a long distance telephone call, with the charge appearing on your telephone call. We were further informed that this scam has been originating from many of the local jails/prisons. Please "pass the word". Brenda --------- End forwarded message ---------- _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

1 0

Re: New release (v.1.3.2) of CFS Unix encrypting file system available
by anon-remailer＠utopia.hacktic.nl 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Source code for the latest version (release 1.3.2) of CFS, the Cryptographic >File System, is now available upon request for research and experimental >use in the US and Canada. Does anyone know if this code has made it across the pond yet? If so please post the ftp location to sci.crypt or comp.os.linux.misc. I don't read this list. Thanx.

1 0

Re: Assault presses with cop killer computers.
by tallpaul＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Dec 25, 1995 23:36:00, 'Kevin L Prigge <Kevin.L.Prigge-2(a)cis.umn.edu>' wrote: >According to rumor, James A. Donald said: >> >> While channel surfing around 6PM today on Christmas day, I saw >> President Clinton announce the grave international threat >> posed by terrorists, drug dealers and money launderers wielding >> computers (Only three horsemen -- he left out child pornographers.) > >Probably because child pornographers have been dealt with in >the recent bill signed by Bill, which mandates 24-30 months >for transmitting child porn, double if a computer is used. > see Reuters, "Clinton acts to tougher penalties" 23 Dec 95 08:40 clari.news.crime.sex Message-ID: <Rclinton-pornographyURN-1_5DN(a)clari.net> see AP, "Clinton signs porn bill," 23 Dec 95 09:40 clari.news.crime.sex Message-ID: <Aclinton-pornoURCBj_5DN(a)clari.net> What is most interesting is how far the four horsemen have rampaged and the destruction they have already done. The internet is not the *least* regulated as those pushing for "tougher penalties" claim. One can argue, using the new federal doubling of prison terms when computers are used, that it is the *most* regulated. One can also see how far the combination of sexual hysteria and fear of new technology has fed into and been used by politicians from throughout the political spectrum. It also shows how much of the government threat to privacy is a social, not a technological, issue. While people argue about heat-death-of-the-universe encryption algos, a different form of hot air is producing the heat death of civil liberties. While cyber-libertarians talk about how strong crypto algos are needed to protect property and how "the statists in Washington" are trying to take away their crypto, right-wing pro-capitalist politicians have already taken away civil liberties. While crypto-radicals talk about how strong crypto algos are needed to lead the revolution and how "the nazis in Washington" are trying to take away their crypto, sexual hysterics calling themselves "radical feminists" have already helped take away many civil liberties. I support strong crypto. I support powerful and secure algos. I see it as a wonderful development of technology to protect individual privacy. But privacy is only one right of the citizen; it is only one of the many civil liberties under attack. I am also disturbed by the number of discussions on the list that may be on topic but avoid *these* social issues, E.G. Army vs. Navy Captain? how cheap is AT&T? Bizdos: confused executive vs. conspiratorial swine? Are CFS programmers being treated nicely? Fred Cohen: nice guy victim or swine? Why Alice should use PGP. Ever heard of bit fiddlin' while Rome burns? --tallpaul

1 0

Re: Only accepting e-mail from known parties
by Robert A. Rosenberg 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 14:33 12/25/95, tallpaul wrote: >Thoughts? (I see one problem with this but it should be able to be worked >out once the basic method is agreed to). I assume that the "Problem" is that by only giving each corespondent ONE E-Stamp, you are single streaming your connections with them (ie: Are talking Half-Duplex). Not only are they restricted to one message "in-flight" but they can not start another message until they have done a capture run to acquire your ACK and get the new key.

1 0

Re: HRB Systems Data Storage Encryptor
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:45 AM 12/26/95 +0100, Anonymous wrote: >Check out http://www.hrb.com/encryption/ssp.html, your >exclusive source of the Ultron Crypto-Engine (tm) The web page proudly announces: "is the only NSA-approved Type I data encryptor available today." There are probably some people ignorant enough to regard that as a recommendation. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

1 0

Re: [Rant] Flame threads and factual accuracy
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:30 AM 12/25/95 -0500, you (Fred Cohen) wrote: >With rights come responsibilities. If you want the right of free speech, you >have to use it responsibly - otherwise, you will lose the right - and quite >possible lose it for me as well. This commentary is pure bullshit. If it were possible to quantify it throughout history, I strongly suspect that the vast majority of instances where "free speech" was LOST (or was never had in the first place) occurred NOT because of some objectively agreed-upon ABUSE (irresponsible use) of that free speech, but in fact merely because those in power WANTED there to be no free speech. In short, "losing the right" had NOTHING to to with abuse. (Though admittedly, that might be a common excuse given...in lieu of the truth!) Fred, you richly deserve your bad reputation.

1 0