Re: pipe bombs

[John Galt]

Explosives in pipes can be fun, just make sure to smoke it in a large open
area and tamp it down REAL tight...

On Mon, 27 Mar 2000, kevin colborne wrote:

> hi i was looking for some info on pipe bombs please
> email me back on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> __
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
> http://im.yahoo.com
> 

Armageddon means never having to say you're sorry.

Who is John Galt?  [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!

Danish minister of trade: Abolish Wassenaar. EU: Investigate Echelon

[Bo Elkjaer]

This just in: The danish minister of trade Pia Gjellerup has
announced that Denmark will work for the abolishment of the part 
of the Wassenaar Arrangement that concerns restriction on export of
encryption. More: The EU parliament will demand that an investigative
committee will be established to research Echelon.
Developing...

Yours
Bo Elkjaer, Denmark

(The following garble is the news article from danish newssite Comon.dk
regarding Pia Gjellerups announcement. I'm afraid I don't have the time to
translate at the moment. If nothing else, it will be of interest to the
lists scandinavian readers.)

Den meget omtalte Wassenaar-aftale, der blev indgået i december 1998
mellem 33 europæiske lande, heriblandt Danmark, skal afvikles hvis det
står til den danske regering. I et brev til blandt andet Dansk 
Dataforening skriver erhvervsminister Pia Gjellerup, at regeringen 
vil arbejde for en afvikling af aftalen, der begrænser eksporten af
krypteringsnøgler på mere end 56 bit. Erhvervsministeren erklærer sig
enig i, at sikker kryptering er en forudsætning for at udnytte fordelene 
i den elektroniske kommunikation. En ændring af aftalen kræver dog, at 
alle 33 lande når til enighed først.  (Kilde: Thomas Eriksen, Dataposten) 

>>Bevar naturen: Sylt et egern.<<
>>URL: http://www.datashopper.dk/~boo/index.html<<
>>ECHELON URL:<<
>>http://www1.ekstrabladet.dk/netdetect/echelon.iasp<< 

AMD to incorporate EMBASSY technology (maybe)

[Peter Gutmann]

Looks like AMD fell for Wave's sales pitch:
http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/news/0,4153,2475693,00.html.

Note though that it remains to be seen how real this is, the amount of hype
pouring out of Wave means you have to take this with a grain of salt, it looks
like a Wave press release rather than an AMD one since they mostly quote Wave 
people.

(For people who don't know what EMBASSY is, it's a kind of combination of
 Clipper and DIVX, although recently they've tried to deemphasise this since
 noone was buying it - see earlier posts to cypherpunks on this topic.  Maybe 
 the press release wasn't by Wave after all but set up by Intel to make their 
 PIII serial number look good in comparison).

Peter.

Judge puts brakes on Census Bureau

[Bilgates Remailer]

Judge puts brakes on Census Bureau
Attorney: 'Huge victory for the Constitution and for privacy-loving
   Americans'

   By Sarah Foster
   © 2000 WorldNetDaily.com

   Americans who refuse to answer questions they consider invasive on
   their Census questionnaires will be able to sleep a little easier --
   at least for now.
   
   A federal judge ruled yesterday that the Census Bureau has no
   automatic right to ask questions felt to be personal or intrusive and
   that it cannot threaten or prosecute citizens who refuse to answer
   such questions.
   
   U.S. District Judge Melinda Harmon granted attorney Mark Brewer, of
   the Houston-based firm of Brewer and Pritchard, a temporary
   restraining order in a Census suit filed by five Houston, Texas,
   residents. Attorneys for the government conceded that none of the five
   plaintiffs will be subject to actual or threatened prosecution during
   this litigation which is expected to go to the U.S. Supreme Court.
   
   The ruling is especially far-reaching.
   
   "For the moment, this will prevent prosecution against any American
   who chooses not to answer questions other than the number of people
   living at their address -- that's all that's required by the
   Constitution," Brewer told WorldNetDaily. "It's a huge victory for the
   Constitution and for privacy-loving Americans, because we now have a
   ruling in a federal court case.
   
   "The Census Bureau cannot extract this information under threat of
   criminal prosecution -- that was the issue I presented to the court,"
   he said.
   
   The penalty for not answering each question asked on the forms is
   $100. False answers can cost up to $500 in fines.
   
   The five -- Edgar Morales, Laique Rehman, Nouhad Bassila, George
   Breckenridge and William Jeffrey Van Fleet -- are American citizens.
   
   Brewer said his clients are not part of any organized group, "though
   that is what people have assumed. They are just ordinary people who
   want to be counted, but who do not want to give up their privacy to do
   so. That's the bottom line."
   
   "What the court did today," Brewer explained, "was to order that the
   Bureau could neither threaten nor actually prosecute these people for
   not answering any question other than how many folks live at that
   address. It's the first time to my knowledge that this has happened in
   the 213 years since we've had a Constitution."
   
   As he put it, "We hit a home run."
   
   Recalling his day in court, Brewer said he told the judge she was "the
   only barrier standing between government on the one hand and these
   five -- I think very brave -- people and the American people generally
   on the other. I pointed out that the government lawyer had just told
   her that he can ask anything he darn near pleases -- where does it
   stop?"
   
   Almost as important as the ruling itself is that the government
   conceded that the plaintiffs have "standing," meaning they had a right
   to bring an action against the Census Bureau in the first place.
   
   "This removed what was potentially the biggest impediment to the case
   moving forward," said Brewer. "We're now looking forward to phase two,
   which is when the case will be submitted on summary judgement in two
   weeks."
   
   "This is what they call a three-judge court case," he explained. "It's
   federal, but it's a very unusual procedure. There are only a few
   instances where it's permitted by federal law, this being the primary
   one: pertaining to census and apportionment. The case is filed like
   any other case in federal court, then it is referred by the chief
   judge of the circuit."
   
   In this case, that's the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans, headed by Judge
   Carol King.
   
   Said Brewer, "The way it works is that when a motion of temporary
   restraining order is filed, which we did on March 23, the single judge
   that gets the initial assignment of the case can hear it. That's
   really about the only thing the judge can hear and rule upon. Then the
   three-judge court is convened and the case is submitted on trial --
   and here it's for a summary judgment because there's no dispute of the
   facts.
   
   "Both sides have the right of appeal," Brewer continued, "and we're
   assuming they (the Census Bureau) will appeal it. And if we lose --
   we'll appeal it. Either way, it's on its way to the Supreme Court."
   
   Brewer is handling the case pro bono -- that is, without charge, but
   and for the public good.
   
   "One of the things I stressed to the judge," said Brewer, [is that]
   neither the plaintiffs nor I want to interrupt the census. To the
   contrary. I want to ensure its constitutional integrity and validity.
   But when you look at the lowered response rate, which by the Census
   Bureau's own admission is going to occur with the use of the lon

Defend Your Privacy before It's Too Late

[Bill Scannell]

http://www.pioneerplanet.com/business/per_docs/027357.htm

Re: could you tell me how to make a b**b from domestic appliances

[R. A. Hettinga]

First, you need a vaccuum cleaner with the hose on the exhaust instead of
the intake. Then you take two large, teadrop baloons, and, um, blow them up.

What?

Oh. I thought you said "boob".

Never mind.

Cheers,
B*b Hettinga
-- 
-
R. A. Hettinga 
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation 
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

Boston judge rules on Cyberpatrol decryption utility

[Declan McCullagh]

Judge Harrington ruled today in the case brought by Mattel over the cphack 
program that decrypts Cyberpatrol's poorly-encrypted blacklist:
http://www.politechbot.com/cyberpatrol/final-injunction.html

He seems to be inviting Mattel to file contempt of court charges against 
cphack mirror sites:
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,35244,00.html

Some mirror sites have shut down as a result.

But although Mattel can still argue its original claim (reverse engineering 
bad, etc.) it may not have been able to acquire exclusive copyright in the 
cphack utility since it was released under the GPL:
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,35226,00.html
http://www.politechbot.com/cyberpatrol/cphack-gpl.txt

-Declan
(who was in Boston for the hearing yesterday)

Re: Canadian parliament about to vote on major privacy legislation

[Bill Stewart]

MIME-ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND: Blame_Canada.mp3

Sigh.  Privacy laws almost always assume that computers are
owned by Big Scary Corporations, not by people.
On my pocket organizer, I have a list of over 200\\\94 people and companies,
most of whom have not given informed consent to be entered in my database.
Will that make it illegal for me to bring into Canada?
On my company-owned cell phone, I've got a similar list of ~30 people -
does that mean that I will have to register it with the Canadian authorities
if I take it into Canada?  What if I'm just _calling_ Canada?
What if I'm going to a Computers, Freedom, and Privacy conference?
(I'm not going to CFP, but it'd be a good topic for the CFP Cpunks meeting.)

In the US, there are Constitutional protections against unreasonable
searches and seizures of people's papers; the government has tried to
minimize the extent to which this applies to electronic records,
but it's still difficult to do European-style invasive computer searches
except perhaps against corporations (who are creations of the state,
unlike non-corporation businesses like partnerships.)
What triggers a Canadian Privacy Protection Search?

Emailed subpoenas are particularly dangerous, unless implemented carefully -
paper-mailed subpoenas are bad enough.  I get mail at enough paper mailboxes
and don't get around to opening all of it, especially junk-looking mail,
and the US Post Office has a habit of bouncing mail that isn't in the correct
Inhibit-Competitive-Mailbox-Service address format.
Email is even less reliable, and more likely to be lost without being read
by a responsible human.  

One of the people in my Secret Corporate-Controlled Telephony Database
is a cypherpunk.  He once called me, and I answered "Hi, [Pseudonym]"
"How did you know it was me?" "I saved it in my phone the last time you
called".
On the other hand, TPC doesn't have his True Name, unless it's in
my personal email archives on this TPC-owned laptop,
which might also become susceptible to Canadian Privacy Protection Searches.

Bill Stewart


>Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 10:04:17 -0500
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: Declan McCullagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: FC: Canadian parliament about to vote on major privacy legislation
>
>>Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 07:52:53 -0800
>>From: Chris Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Subject: new Canadian law on e-privacy
>>
>>Hey there!
>>
>>I've been enjoying your stuff in Wired; and am delighted to discover
>>politech. You tackle the same kind of issues I hope to target as newly
>>appointed national tech correspondent for Maclean's magazine (rather the
>>equivalent in Canada to Time+Newsweek; see www.macleans.ca). ]
>>
>> Are you aware that the Canadian parliament is to vote shortly (as
>>soon as this week) on a major piece of legislation that will extend
>>Euro-style definitions and obligations of privacy protection to
>>federally regulated businesses and to health providers in Canada. It
>>will also enable e-filing of legal documents (such as your Mattel
>>subpeona) and permit (with tech definitions to come) e-signatures. It
>>will oblige companies collecting personal data to get informed consent
>>for the collection and allow complaints about abuse of personal
>>information to be submitted for investigation to Canada's Privacy
>>Commissioner. A full text of the proposed law, Bill C-6, is at
>>
>>http://www.parl.gc.ca/36/2/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/government/C-6/C-6_
3/C-6_cover-E.html
>>
>>note: as this indicates, the bill passed the Commons (Canada's lower
>>house) but was sent back after being amended in the Senate; it now needs
>>to be voted on again by the Commons to become law.
>>
>>Hope this is of interest. Cheers,
>>
>>Chris Wood
>>National Technology Correspondent
>>Maclean's Magazine
>>(you can also e me at [EMAIL PROTECTED]; my 'work' laptop is ill and my
>>e-mail is forwarded to my private account/cw)
>--
>POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology
>To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
>This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
>--

Re: could you tell me how to make a b**b from domestic appliances

[Frog]

A "b**b"?

Do you mean a boob?  You could try filling a Ziploc bag with warm water or
peanut oil, I suppose.

A blob?  Well -- nearly anything you can fit into a blender and puree
would probably work.  You'd have more luck in a zero-gravity environment.

A bulb?  They're difficult to manufacture from domestic appliances.  Why
not buy one at the store?  Or the nursery?  I like tulips.

A blab?  I'm not sure how to make such a thing, even with imported
appliances.

A barb?  Just wrench open your standard toaster and pull out the wire
rack.  Grab a pliers and a file and you should be able to make all kinds
of barbs.  'Better ask mommy's permission first.

procmail is a wonderful thing.  bye bye.

RE: could you tell me how to make a b**b from domestic appliances

[Oellermann, A. (Adam)]

Title: RE: could you tell me how to make a b**b from domestic appliances





1) Get an old microwave oven or refrigerator
2) Open the door
3) Unfasten, disassemble and remove the lamp housing.
4) Remove the light bulb - usually either bayonet or screw-type fitting.


You now have your very own light b**b, made exclusively from domestic appliances. Don't know why you wanted to put asterisks in 'bulb', though.

Cheers
Adam


-Original Message-
From:   [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent:   Tuesday, March 28, 2000 7:47 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:    could you tell me how to make a b**b from domestic appliances