Anarcho-capitalist buys space station

2000-08-17 Thread Lucky Green

The other day, somebody posted a pointer to an article about the investor
that purchased MIR. Having read the article, I believe it warrants posting
in its entirety.

--Lucky Green [EMAIL PROTECTED]

  "Anytime you decrypt: that's against the law".
   Jack Valenti, President, Motion Picture Association of America in
   a sworn deposition, 2000-06-06

8888
  The New York Times


  July 23, 2000, Sunday, Late Edition - Final

SECTION: Section 6; Page 37; Column 1; Magazine Desk

LENGTH: 4387 words

HEADLINE: American Megamillionaire Gets Russki Space Heap!

BYLINE:  By Elizabeth Weil; Elizabeth Weil is working on a book about the
Roton
rocket.

BODY:

   This is a story about wealth and space and America and Russia, and it
begins with one man, Walter Anderson -- a man with white hair and pale
skin, square, gold-rimmed glasses and a physical presence so profoundly
unprepossessing it's almost impossible to remember what he looks like.
Anderson is 46 and worth almost a billion dollars. He lives in Washington
-- the city he grew up in, a city he hates; his hatred of the government
is, as he puts it, "personal" -- in an apartment adorned with a painting
he commissioned based on a Smashing Pumpkins lyric, "I am still just a rat
in a cage." "That's what we are," Anderson explains, "rats in a cage. And
we're going to gnaw through the bars because we've got about a 30-year
window here, and we'll starve if we don't get out." The cage Anderson
refers to is the planet earth itself, and he has taken it upon himself to
ensure we get off. In 1989, Anderson gave $80,000 to finance the
International Space University; in 1991, $100,000 to found the Space
Frontier Foundation; in 1994, $5 million to start the Foundation for the
International Nongovernmental Development of Space; and between 1996 and
1999, $40 million to build the Roton, a manned, reusable spaceship. Then a
few months ago, in one of his eriodic calls to me, he rang me up: "I'm in
Russia!" Anderson was midway through three days of talks with Yuri
Semyonov, president of the private Russian space corporation Energia, and
in a move that would later marginalize NASA from the
Anderson-Russia-America love triangle, he was arranging for a new company,
called MirCorp, to lease the space station Mir.

   It was not an act of open defiance. In most ways it was an act of
trust, devotion and faith. Anderson had been dreaming of leaving Earth
since he was a little boy. He wired the Russians $7 million before he even
signed Mir's lease. Anderson put up $31 million toward the lease, which
will eventually cost $200 million a year. It will give MirCorp the rights
to Mir for the remainder of its lifetime, the use of two or three manned
Soyuz rockets annually, as well as two or three unmanned Progress rockets,
the exclusive control over Mir's visitors and technologies, 40 days of
active operation and the privilege of fixing Mir up. All of this has put
Anderson more cozily into bed financially with Energia, thereby creating a
situation highly threatening to NASA. The American space agency, after
all, was already embroiled with the Russians in the way-over-schedule,
way-over-budget, politically Pollyanna-ish International Space Station, a
project that was announced 17 years ago under President Ronald Reagan,
that had already incurred several Congressional hearings and that space
patriots in Washington were determined to make "the only space in space."
Specifically, at the time Anderson leased Mir, NASA was blaming the
Russians for being two years behind in launching the service module, or
living quarters, for the International Space Station. (It was finally
launched on July 11.) Worse, rumor had it among space experts that NASA
could not technically complete the International Space Station without
Russian help. And many inside the agency feared that the Russians would
lose interest in the International Space Station altogether if they kept
their own space station up.

A less brusque man than Anderson might have chosen to sweet-talk and
pacify the NASA brass out of their TKTK. But Anderson, arrogant in such
matters, is, as he terms himself, an anarcho-capitalist. He flies around
the world in his private jet pledging allegiance first and foremost to the
laws of GATT. Thus instead of calling NASA, Anderson called his friend
Chirinjeev "Baboo" Kathuria, a 35-year-old megamillionaire Sikh. Kathuria
told Anderson that he, too, was "interested" in Mir, which in
megamillionaire-speak meant he was willing to chip in $4 million, to form
MirCorp, and start upending last century's notions of relations in space.

   On a Friday evening late in March, Anderson and I sit on the dully
plush mezzanine of the American Hotel in Amsterdam, prepping for the
coffeehouses, where Anderson likes to smoke and cavort with disaffected
world youth. I first met Anderson two years ago while researching a book
on the Roton spacecraft. Among his 

Firm Tracks Access of Medical Info

2000-08-17 Thread A. Melon

BOSTON (AP) -- Internet privacy advocates raised concerns Tuesday about a technology 
firm that is quietly tracking the information consumers are getting from 
pharmaceutical companies' Web sites. 

By using tiny computer files such as ``cookies,'' Pharmatrak can track people's 
movement throughout the site on impotence, AIDS, or any other medical condition. 
Pharmatrak then shares that information with the drug companies -- and the Web surfer 
may never know. 

The Boston-based company is not subject to the restrictions put in place last month by 
online advertising services to protect consumer privacy. Advertisers agreed to inform 
computer users when they are being monitored, but because Pharmatrak isn't an 
advertiser, it doesn't need to. 

Mikki Barry, an attorney with Great Falls, Va.-based Internet Policy Consultants, said 
she's worried there are no laws to prevent Pharmatrak or other similar companies from 
passing around individuals' private information. 

On its Web site, Pharmatrak says ``in the future, we may develop products and services 
which collect data that, when used in conjunction with the tracking database, could 
enable a direct identification of certain individual visitors.'' 

Pharmatrak officials did not immediately return several calls or an e-mail sent 
Tuesday to the company president and chief executive Michael Sonnenreich. 

Sonnenreich told The Washington Post in Tuesday's edition his company is ``absolutely 
rock-solid in protecting the integrity and privacy of these people.'' He also said 
computer users who don't want to be tracked can disable the company's ``cookies,'' a 
string of computer codes that identifies visitors to a site. 

But Sarah Andrews, a policy analyst with the Washington D.C.-based Electronic Privacy 
Information Center, said that's not a realistic solution. 

``It's unfair to actually expect an average consumer to do that, even though its a 
very easy thing to do,'' Andrews said. ``But people are intimidated, and they don't 
know how.'' 

Many don't even know the cookies are there. Browsers aren't always set in a way to 
alert users to their presence. 

Pharmatrak shares the information it gathers with 11 of the largest drug companies in 
the world, including American Home Products Corp., Aventis S.A., Glaxo-Wellcome PLC, 
Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., Pfizer Inc., and SmithKline Beecham PLC. 

Aventis spokesman Lisa Kennedy confirmed her company uses Pharmatrak, but wouldn't 
comment on the information that Aventis receives or about Aventis' views on computer 
user's privacy rights. 

Like many of its competitors, the Aventis Web site privacy statement does not mention 
that Pharmatrak monitors its site and shares the information with other companies. 

Richard M. Smith at Denver's Privacy Foundation calls the system of tracking that 
Pharmatrak uses ``invisible Web bugs,'' and said his organization will be lobbying the 
Federal Trade Commission and the Internet industry to only use Web bugs that are 
visible to the average computer user. 

``Web bugs are like the old subliminal ads thing from the '50s when they flashed a 
Coke bottle on the screen for a fraction of a second,'' Smith said. ``We're not crazy 
about them being used at all, but if they are used, then they should at least be 
visible.'' 







Re: mail list server with PGP

2000-08-17 Thread Adam Langley

On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 02:27:11AM -0400, Anonymous wrote:
 Functionality: posters send e-mail encrypted with the (single) server's key.
 Server decrypts, then encrypts with each recipient's key as it
 explodes the mail.

Sounds a little pointless. I guess it must be a closed list otherwise people
could just subscribe and read all the posts. Even then you must be sure that
every subscriber keeps mail secure - something that is very difficult as soon
as you get more than a few subscribers and someone could attack the list server.

I might work with very small lists - but then you might as well not use a 
list server at all

AGL

-- 
The herd instinct among economists makes sheep look like independent thinkers

 PGP signature


notes on eweek's bank audit

2000-08-17 Thread David Honig


eweek's 14 Aug issue had a description of a bank's hired
blackhat audit.  Interesting highlights (p 55): 

1. the bank's ISP, upon discovering that the bank had caused
a security alert, thereafter changed its policy to ban security
probes without telling the ISP.  (Which kinda defeats the purpose..)

2. The bank's web server had services open that it shouldn't have, most
interesting is symantec's pcAnywhere, which is merely listed with
ftp, ping, etc. in the article.  If Back Orifice had been found, 
you know it would have been played up as scary, even though its equivalent
to Symantec's remote-control wares.

dh