Know Your Customer
from http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/10/national/10PESO.html October 10, 2000 U.S. Companies Tangled in Web of Drug Dollars By LOWELL BERGMAN On a rainy day last June, a group of corporate executives gathered in a conference room at the Justice Department for a meeting with Attorney General Janet Reno and other top government officials. The executives represented some of the pillars of corporate America - Hewlett-Packard, Ford Motor Company, Whirlpool. The session was not publicized because those at the meeting shared an unlikely and potentially embarrassing problem: their companies, they feared, were being singled out in the nation's war on drugs, and neither they nor the government was quite sure what to do. With the intensifying federal crackdown on money laundering, agents had been tracking drug money into the accounts of American corporations and their distributors and dealers. In fact, federal officials said, about $5 billion a year in Colombian drug money is used to buy goods and services - from cigarettes to computer chips - from American companies. What makes that possible is a system known as the black-market peso exchange, a complex money trade that law enforcement officials say has become increasingly important to the Colombian narcotics trade. The system - really a network of currency brokers with offices in New York, Miami, the Caribbean and South America - is essentially an underground money market that lets the traffickers exchange American dollars for Colombian pesos. Those dollars, which stay in the United States, are then bought by Colombian companies that use them to buy American goods for sale back home. But the government's efforts to seize that money have put it on a collision course with corporations, which say they are victims with no way of knowing that they and their distributors are being paid with drug money. As they met on June 6, those executives, lawyers and law enforcement officials found themselves grappling with a conundrum: when does drug money stop being drug money? How far does a company's responsibility go? The questions have been confronting law enforcement officials for years. "What are we going to do?" asked Greg Passic, a former drug enforcement agent who now advises the government on the economics of the narcotics industry. "We've got the Fortune 500 involved in our drug- money laundering process." For a long time, because of lax enforcement of United States currency laws, the drug traffickers were able to launder billions of dollars through American financial institutions. A crackdown in the 1980's pushed traffickers to what they saw as a virtually fail-safe system for getting back their profits - the black-market peso exchange. Their growing reliance on that system shows how deeply the drug trade has become entwined in the legitimate economies of the United States, Colombia and other nations. Colombian officials said that as much as 45 percent of their country's imported consumer goods are bought with money laundered through the peso exchange. On the American side, law enforcement officials said the exchange has largely eliminated the trade deficit with Colombia. The market, said the customs commissioner, Raymond W. Kelly, "is the ultimate nexus between crime and commerce, using global trade to mask global money laundering." So far, no large American company has faced criminal charges. And companies have almost always been able to prevent federal officials from keeping money that has been seized. But in the last few years, as frustration has risen, the government has taken a tougher line. There have been Congressional hearings intended to put companies on notice by name. Prosecutors have issued warnings and stepped up efforts to seize laundered money. At the same time, the government has encouraged companies to institute "know your customer" policies similar to those used in the financial industry. The policies gave dealers and distributors techniques for recognizing money laundering. Thus educated, the government thought, the companies would be less able to argue that they simply could not have known. In drawing the line between legitimate and illegitimate profits, the government must not only prove that the money came from drug deals; it must show that the recipient "knew or should have known" its source. In the war on drugs, that line has proved very fuzzy. Trading Dollars for Pesos Congress passed the first money- laundering laws in the early 1970's - requiring, among other things, that banks report any cash transaction over $10,000 - but the laws were loosely enforced. By 1979, the Federal Reserve Bank in Miami had more cash than the other federal reserve banks combined. It took the uproar over the cocaine epidemic in the early 80's for banks to comply with the law. And with the resulting crackdown, traffickers resorted to the black market, which for
Its called Staballoy(possible mispelling) in sail boat keels
Hi Lucky, went looking myself once so I could machine some .308 bt in DU found it in an industrial catalogue catering to the large oceangoing sailboat industry... this was circa 1986... if I would still interested that is where I would start my research...(i.e. lee lapin and scott french( "whole spy cataloge, bigbrother game" etc ) is where I got that hint... cheers a cypherpunk
beOutdoors spam scam exposed
I know the beOutdoors spamming incedent is an old issue, but I thought you might be interested in reading this message I posted on n.a.n.e. Also, I got the original lie they told mixed up, but please note that no one was fired as a result. (The original beOutdoors lie is at the bottom as a refresher.) Hello! Boy are you going to be glad that you are reading this. I used to work at beOutdoors.com until very recently. I know the real story about what happened with that whole spamming incident. There was never a young IT guy who was fired and broke into the building and spammed a bunch of people, but I think you already knew that. Karla Story is the Director of Business Development, but more importantly, she is the best friend of the wife of Randy Hoffman, President of beOutdoors.com and former Republican candidate for the U.S. House of Represenstatives. Karla purchased a CD containing 30 million names and email addresses for $110 for the express purpose of spamming them. Apparently, it seemed like a viable advertising campaign at the time. Geng (James) Qu, formerly of KPMG, now Director of IT at beOutdoors.com, wrote a program for Randy that would automatically send a mass email to batches of about 25,000 addresses at a time. They specifically pulled out AOL addresses since they were a Gold Anchor tenant in AOL Shopping. Randy would come into the back room (Oh, I forgot to mention that at the time they were located in a strip mall and 14 people worked there - so much for their "very secure location". Also, some of the servers were down in the LA area at a place where there is no way in hell this would happen.) and say, "Let's run off the next 25,000." The rest of us knew they were doing a big mailing, but we thought that they were sending things only to registered users. Besides, the Director of IT was our entire IT department at the time. Later when James noticed that we were getting a lot of bounce backs, he attributed it to server problems. Another employee showed him the thread (yours) regarding this spamming incident. James had no idea that Randy had put out that bogus story about a break-in. Right away he knew that it would come back to haunt them. As I mentioned, they had no IT people other than the Director of IT. Also, the only person who had been fired prior to that was a graphics person, and it hadn't been a recent firing. I know that this is an old issue, but as you are the self-proclaimed blight upon all spammers, or something similar, I thought that you might still be interested. By the way, just so that you don't think I am a disgruntled employee who is making this up, I wasn't fired. I gave them a full two weeks notice like a good employee would. However, if you are interested in hearing many more examples of the lack of integrity at beOutdoors.com, I would be more than happy to oblige. I never signed a non-disclosure agreement. Enjoy! From Exodus: We have contacted our customer regarding your "beoutdoors.com" spam complaint. Below is their explanation describing the situation. Between Friday evening May 5, 2000 and Monday morning, May 8, 2000 there was unauthorized use of beOutdoors assets and its Internet access that resulted in the sending of unsolicited commercial email to an unknown number of email addresses. This was done without any authorization or knowledge of any company manager. Specifically sometime Friday evening May 5 one of our young technical employees (now ex-employee) and a friend of his entered the beOutdoors facility (without authorization) and set up an email program on an internal server to send our cash sweepstakes announcement to email addresses contained on a CD the employees friend had acquired. We are unable to determine the number of emails sent or to whom they were sent since three of our internal servers crashed as a result of the individuals unauthorized use. Based upon complaints we do know that many individuals received several copies of the email. Due to the crash of our internal servers it has taken us a little over a week to become fully operational again and complete our investigation to determine if there was criminal intent. After a discussion with the District Attorneys office and the individuals who perpetrated the email disaster it appears that there was no criminal intent just misguided, unauthorized actions by two very immature individuals. The employee was terminated but not prosecuted. We want to apologize to Exodus and any others that may have been impacted in anyway by the unauthorized actions of a now former employee. --- -- Eric Uratchko Policy Enforcement Specialist Exodus Communications, Inc. 1-888-2EXODUS, Ext. 7700 -- Kathleen Policy Enforcement Manager Exodus Communications, Inc. 1-888-2EXODUS, Ext. 3984 __ Do You Yahoo!? Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can
Damn its good having you back Jim!!
Its good to have you back Jim... one of your anonymous fans... BTW in a small startup I worked for for 2 years(it never came to fruition) developing anonymous digital cash technologies with chaumian technologies, the expression "good enough for Assasination Politics" came to be regarded as high praise for digital cash systems that were tight enough for privacy/anonymity...
Re: Burglar Politics, Tempesting PC's that watch TV and DVD regions
On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, jim bell wrote: A popular, but false, myth. The video cards radiate more than the CRT's. Laptops tend to be the worst offenders. --Lucky Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] As to the video cards... Sorry, Lucky, but you're going to have to support this a little better. Emissions are a function of the signal voltage in a conductor, and the extent that this conductor is free to emit. Given that a laptop uses an LCD display, there's really no good reason, electronically speaking, why its video hardware should have to do the ((scan+horizontal_retrace)*+vertical_retrace) sequence that the technology for getting a coherent signal relies upon. But the fact is, laptop hardware does write bits in a predefined order, (in fact the same order as CRT-based machines) so it's a worthwhile question whether anyone can figure the order and pick up the emissions from the video hardware. This looks like the sort of thing that can be resolved by experiment though; Anybody got enough DSP smarts to put an induction coil next to a laptop monitor and *see* whether they can read the darn thing? Also, it looks like the sort of thing that could be designed around. If someone were building a "secure laptop" they could make a video system and drivers that wrote the bits in a different, randomized order each time, and which only wrote the changed bits. If anybody is actually making a product like this, it would be a strong indication that *somebody* with money to spend on RD considers it a valid threat model, because nobody makes products without a market. Bear
RE: Non-Repudiation in the Digital Environment (was Re: First Monday August 2000)
Title: RE: Non-Repudiation in the Digital Environment (was Re: First Monday August 2000) I'll add two words to the list: support (as opposed to provide), and accountability. I prefer to say that a digital signature is a tool that supports accountability. I suppose that supports non-repudiation would be fine as well. My concern is when the phrase provides non-repudiation is used it implies that complete non-repudiation can be provided technically (which I don't believe is the case). Mike J. -Original Message- From: David Jablon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 10:29 AM To: Arnold G. Reinhold Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Non-Repudiation in the Digital Environment (was Re: First Monday August 2000) Anti-repudiation sounds good to me. ... even if does remind me of antidisestablishmentarianism. Come to think of it, now even that term sounds appropriate here -- as our belief in the value of methods that deter key dis-establishment. Pretty scary. -- dpj At 09:08 AM 10/11/00 -0400, Arnold G. Reinhold wrote: My concern is that the vast majority of informed lay people, lawyers, judges, legislators, etc. will hear non-repudiation and hear absolute proof. If you doubt this, read the breathless articles written recently about the new U.S. Electronic Signatures Act. I don't think technologists should be free to use evocative terms and then define away their common sense meaning in the fine print. Certainly a valid public key signature is strong evidence and services like that described in the draft can be useful. I simply object to calling them non-repudiation services. I would not object to anti-repudiation services, counter-repudiation services or repudiation-resistant technology. Would the banking industry employ terms like forgery-proof checks, impregnable vaults or pick-proof locks to describe conventional security measures that were known to be fallible?
RE: Think cash
-- Marcel Popescu[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: An interesting idea has surfaced on the freenet-chat list: is it possible to build a program that creates some sort of a puzzle, whose answer the generating computer knows (and can verify), but which can only be answered by a human being, not by a computer? [Additional requirement: it should be easy for the human to answer the puzzle.] My proposal was to randomly create an image, which should be 1) easily recognizable by a human (say the image of a pet), but 2) complex enough so that no known algorithm could "reverse-engineer" this. [You need a randomly-generated image because otherwise one could build a large database of all the possible images and the correct answers.] Background information would also be very useful - see http://www.digitalblasphemy.com/userg/images/969403123.shtml - it's easy for a human being to identify the animal in the picture, but (AFAIK) impossible to write a program to do the same thing. Ideas? Mark That's a really interesting question. My off-the-cuff answer would be 'no'. The constraints which say that the problem is randomly generated by a computer and the answer also evaluated by a computer are the killers. Any problem which one computer can create, and solve, can also be solved by another. Perhaps one could generate the solution, and find a problem which is solved by that solution, but finding a type of problem which humans will always solve one way, and computers another is the rub. You refer the the problem of recognizing a photo of an animal. It used to be said that no computer program could reliably distinguish between a dog and a cat, but I'm not sure that's the case since the development of neural networks. Almost any question which has a solution which is clear, unambiguous, and easy determined by a human can probably also be solved by either a regular program or a neural net. What you are really attempting to find is a reliable, fast, single-question Turing test. I'm far from sure this is possible. Peter Trei
Re: Rijndael Hitachi
No, you're right. Medeco should certainly work on a better lock. Except there comes a point at which, relatively speaking, ALL doors are "glass" doors compared to the security of this new medeco++ lock. At which point no, it doesn't make sense to develop an even better lock until you come up with better doors. :) -derek "Arnold G. Reinhold" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Derek Atkins adds: Why try to pick a Medeco when it's locking a glass door? :-) The fact that some people put Medeco's in glass doors, doesn't mean Medeco should never develop a better lock. Arnold Reinhold -- Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board (SIPB) URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/PP-ASEL-IA N1NWH [EMAIL PROTECTED]PGP key available
RE: New OLD cryptograph patent for NSA
My question is this; why would they patent something that is 64 year old technology? This is like the Enigma machine no?! On Wednesday, October 11, Bo Elkjaer Wrote: Yesterday oct. 10 NSA was granted another patent for a cryptographic device invented by William Friedman. The application for the patent was filed oct. 23 1936 -- 64 years ago.
Re: Rijndael Hitachi
On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, Arnold G. Reinhold wrote: The fact that some people put Medeco's in glass doors, doesn't mean Medeco should never develop a better lock. I don't have a problem with people who manufacture locks. I have a problem with the people who sell them. A sign of irrational fear is when the thing that is the *symbol* of security -- in this case the lock, or the cipher, is made very strong -- but used in a way that does not afford good *actual* security. If the fear of being burgled weren't at least partly irrational, meaning if it were based mostly on experience rather than mostly on fear -- we'd be seeing doors with half-inch thick steel plates in them to provide the same level of security as the medeco lock -- and reinforced concrete walls to provide the same level of security as the door. Ditto ciphers. A strong cipher is like that Medeco lock, or even better - but if the "door" is a dumb key management policy, or the key is easily guessable, then what has been gained? Because what is a lock, really? It makes it harder to get in *without breaking anything*. But actual burglars could really care less whether they break some of your stuff -- provided it's stuff they can't steal. So if actual burglars were as common as the people who sell these fancy locks tend to make out in their sales pitches, most folks would know, from experience, that burglars who break a window or a door are far more common than burglars who pick a lock -- and would be demanding *actual* security, meaning windows, doors and walls made of unbreakable stuff, rather than just *symbolic* security, of a strong lock or a strong cipher. If you want to propose a "Paranoid Encryption Standard", IE, a system for people who actually *DO* expect people to spend several million bucks and hundreds of man-years and thousands of CPU-years trying to break it, then it's going to have to encompass a hell of a lot more than ciphers. Start with physical machine security -- put the box in a concrete bunker with armed guards, give it a flat-panel monitor and roll your own drivers and video hardware. Stick a thermite grenade with a photosensitive fuse in the hard drive box. Make a continuous circuit through all the case components, that will detect anybody taking the case off, and blow the HD if the circuit's broken. Do a couple dozen other things along this line, and you'll have the physical security thing covered about as well as your cipher protects the data. But you're not through yet -- you've got the lock and the door, but burglars can still come in through the windows and the walls. You've got to do some real serious data security as well. First of all, nothing unencrypted is EVER written to the hard drive except a bootstrap loader that prompts for a cipher key. When it gets the cipher key, it reads and attempts to unencrypt the rest of the boot record. There is NO swap partition, and no swapping OS is to be used. The system computes a new cipher key every day using a cryptographically strong random number generator, and notifies you of it in a pencil-and-paper cipher that you can solve. (on high-entropy binary data, pencil-and-paper ciphers are actually quite strong) That's the key you would need to use the following day. If you don't log on for one day, you will not have the key for the following day, period. Thus, if someone seizes your box and you can hold out for *one* day, the data is GONE. But the burglars can still come in, maybe, through the roof. So just to make sure of it, put a timer in there that blows the HD if it's ever been more than 24 hours since you were last logged on. *There's* your paranoid encryption standard. Use blowfish for the cipher, and the cipher won't be the weakest point. Bear
Re: CDR: RE: New OLD cryptograph patent for NSA
On 11 Oct 2000, raze wrote: My question is this; why would they patent something that is 64 year old technology? This is like the Enigma machine no?! Note that the patent-application was filed in 1936. Obviously they were interested in keeping any info relating to the invention confidential. But theres no need for that anymore, given that the technology in the patent is completely obsolete by now. Yours Bo Elkjaer, Denmark On Wednesday, October 11, Bo Elkjaer Wrote: Yesterday oct. 10 NSA was granted another patent for a cryptographic device invented by William Friedman. The application for the patent was filed oct. 23 1936 -- 64 years ago. Bevar naturen: Sylt et egern. URL: http://www.datashopper.dk/~boo/index.html ECHELON URL: http://www1.ekstrabladet.dk/netdetect/echelon.iasp
Re: Burglar Politics, Tempesting PC's that watch TV and DVD regions
- Original Message - X-Loop: openpgp.net From: Steve Furlong [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Burglar Politics, Tempesting PC's that watch TV and DVD regions Lucky Green wrote: Sunder wrote, quoting It's my understanding that TV detector vans work by picking up the radiation emitted by cathode ray tube TVs - which should mean that, if you're rich enough to run an LCD monitor they'll never know you're a secret Paxman admirer. A popular, but false, myth. The video cards radiate more than the CRT's. Laptops tend to be the worst offenders. Cables are a problem, too. Video signals from a fully-shielded computer connected to a fully-shielded monitor by a regular, unshielded cable can be read. Effective snooping distance goes down, though I don't remember by what factor. Which is a good reason to use a shielded cable, of the lowest practical length.. (check the resistance from one cable-end-housing to the other. If it's open it's NOT properly shielded. If it's shorted it MAY be properly shielded.) Further, whether or not the cable is shielded, putting one of those snap-on ferrite core filters at each end of the video cable, plus one each foot or so, does an excellent job preventing RF from propagating along the cable shield and radiating. Jim Bell, N7IJS.
InformIT Member Password Information
Dear cypher punk, This message has been sent to you to ensure that you can take full advantage of our new site. Please note the following change with regard to our log in procedure, and keep this message for future reference. When logging in to InformIT, you now need to use your *e-mail address* and password instead of your user name and password. Here is your current account information, for your reference. First Name: cypher Last Name: punk User Name: cypherpunk E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Password: cypherpunk When asked to log in, please enter your *e-mail address* and password as listed above. We've already moved all of your account information and the content of your MyInformIT page to the new site. If you have any problems, please e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks, Mel
Are your bills too high?...we can help!!!
Title: Click Here Now Click Here Now! GET OUT OF DEBT!!! THIS IS NOT A LOAN!!! YOU WILL NOT BE TURNED DOWN!!! Are you thinking about borrowing money to consolidate your bills? Are you approaching or already past due on your credit cards? Do you usually only pay the monthly minimum on your credit cards? Are your creditors harassing you about late payments? Are family disputes over money taking place on a daily basis? DON'T GO FURTHER INTO DEBT BY BORROWING MORE MONEY For FREE information CLICK HERE We can reduce your monthly payments by consolidating your unsecured debt. * credit cards * department store accounts * medical bills * collection accounts* unsecured loans IT'S TRUE! Save 20% - 60% on your debt by consolidating everything into one low monthly payment! THIS IS NOT A LOAN You must have at least $5,000 of unsecured debt For FREE information CLICK HERE How do we do it? We reduce or eliminate the high interest that you are currently paying. Not only does this save you money, your debts will be paid off up to 70% sooner because of the reduction or elimination of the interest. a non-profit organization we believe in people, not the bottom line. Let us help you help yourself!! For FREE information CLICK HERE
Re: Think cash
At 12:59 PM 10/11/00 -0400, Marcel Popescu wrote: Real-To: "Marcel Popescu" [EMAIL PROTECTED] An interesting idea has surfaced on the freenet-chat list: is it possible to build a program that creates some sort of a puzzle, whose answer the generating computer knows (and can verify), but which can only be answered by a human being, not by a computer? [Additional requirement: it should be easy for the human to answer the puzzle.] My proposal was to randomly create an image, which should be 1) easily recognizable by a human (say the image of a pet), but 2) complex enough so that no known algorithm could "reverse-engineer" this. [You need a randomly-generated image because otherwise one could build a large database of all the possible images and the correct answers.] Background information would also be very useful - see http://www.digitalblasphemy.com/userg/images/969403123.shtml - it's easy for a human being to identify the animal in the picture, but (AFAIK) impossible to write a program to do the same thing. I don't follow the other list you mentioned, so I don't know what the actual problem to solve is - my guess is that this is an anti-bot protection measure, intended to make sure that only human participants can engage in a conversation. If that's the problem - or if it's similar - you'll also need to make the puzzle difficult enough that it's hard to brute-force or solve statistically - let's say you provide the other party with 20 images, 19 cats and 1 dog, and ask them to identify the dog. What keeps a bot from answering the question 20 times? Let's assume the first arms-race countermeasure prevents answering the question more than once by generating puzzles on-the-fly from known cat and dog images - so the bot just picks an answer randomly, and keeps doing that until they hit. Can God create a rock so big he can't lift it? I think you're barking up the wrong tree, thinking about "known algorithms" and such - just like with crypto, the real way in isn't to attack the strong front door, but to just go around it. This sounds like maybe it's essentially a credentialling/ID problem, where you're generating credentials on the fly based on a short-form Turing test. Can you restate the problem so that instead of a Turing test it's a more familiar multi-channel authentication process? (e.g., require new participants to have "introductions" from existing participants, track introductions, and remove the access for accounts found to be bots, or found to have introduced bots .. or similar.) -- Greg Broiles [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Multi-part security solutions (Was: Re: Rijndael Hitachi)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Further thoughts on this matter... I think that we should escalate the level of liability a potential attacker has to face when attempting to compromise a security system. We should have laptops equipped with high explosives, such that the laptop detonates after a certain number of failed logins. Let's see how popular laptop theft is then. Booby-traps as a standard part of facility security. Let an intruder bypass the retina scanner if he wants, but have him face a nail gun as soon as he opens the door. Cyanide gas enabled car alarms. (I'm flexible on whether it is actually cyanide, or something better). Currently some cars won't start without a specific ignition key with an embedded chip. I say, let the car start if hot-wired... then a few minutes later, automatically roll the windows, force the locks, and gas the fucker who stole the car. No damage to the upholstery. As for computer systems, we should have IDS systems that retaliate to attacks. It seems to me to be perfectly rational to design a firewall/IDS that determines the source of the attack, and then neutralizes it. And I think this last suggestion would be the least likely to land people in jail. Though I still to see someone do a C4-enabled laptop with corresponding Win2K GINA. :) - -MW- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.3 Comment: No comment. iQEVAwUBOeUJPisFU3q6vVI9AQFHYAf+PdrnTEviE5vt5swkjoj0iVNcJOpyeSub NPEqy9HXOHp6nVJlPwrGHhlPTFzcAjWo/3uLx3tJ5XRvJG6IUhhzLqe4TLH7CstH aLQ79tu87im+083XcmoF9U+P3YRm4HTbhG24CQ3m7QhSZJHoIhJatpTXZBdGOvJ0 WvsuVt9vOd1c1v0gL/g/exxSIRE05M30gmvJ/sHp0nEiCSzXShvTqh7olX77lRMm y0DuMjlP2AyCbM38Kr8BdXyecRzJ9MV6ND1B+aaq5azu2ke6h1rIXlYGcbZHJF74 O488dxPEmTIcE5mXX9TqoTC3fpsL7JnPgXrokkXR2xt0oeAGP6q4FA== =8EvB -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Multi-part security solutions (Was: Re: Rijndael Hitachi)
Meyer Wolfsheim wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Further thoughts on this matter... I think that we should escalate the level of liability a potential attacker has to face when attempting to compromise a security system. I like where you're coming from, but there's one nit: Cyanide gas enabled car alarms. (I'm flexible on whether it is actually cyanide, or something better). Currently some cars won't start without a specific ignition key with an embedded chip. I say, let the car start if hot-wired... then a few minutes later, automatically roll the windows, force the locks, and gas the fucker who stole the car. No damage to the upholstery. Their sphincters would probably release at some point. You still need Scotchguard, or whatever replaced it. Other than that, great ideas. -- Steve Furlong, Computer Condottiere Have GNU, will travel 518-374-4720 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WHAT CAN YOU GET FOR $20???
What can you get for $20.00? A pizza A tank of gas A haircut Lunch with a friendA parking place How About FINANCIAL INDEPENDENCE Looking for that extra something, to help your life have that little extra comfort? Do you work to cover the bills? Fed up with paying out and not receiving the rewards you wish for? Then have an open mind And read all of this, before you make a decision- it will be worth your while. ___ Subject: MUST READ! ! ! ... TV Advertised! ! ! ... Fun-Lucrative Fellow Entrepreneur If you wish to learn about an exceptional opportunity in the Home Business arena...Read On. "Your living is determined not so much by what life brings to you as by the attitude you bring to life; not so much by what happens to you as by the way your mind looks at what happens." This is going to be a great New Year for you! Please read all of this! EARN $100,000 PER YEAR SENDING E-MAIL!!! You can earn $50,000 or more in the next 90 days sending e-mail, seem impossible? Read on for details (no, there is no 'catch')... "AS SEEN ON NATIONAL TV" Thank you for your time and Interest. This is the letter you've been hearing about in the news lately. Due to the popularity of this letter on the internet, a major nightly news program recently devoted an entire show to the investigation of the program, described below, to see if it really can make people money. The show also investigated whether or not the program was legal. Their findings proved once and for all that there are, absolutely no laws prohibiting the participation in the program. This has helped to show people that this is a simple, harmless and fun way to make some extra money at home. The results of this show have been truly remarkable. Since so many people are participating now, those involved are doing much better than ever before. Everyone makes more as more people try it out. It is very, very exciting to be a part of this plan. You will understand once you experience it. "HERE IT IS, BELOW" *** Print This Now For Future Reference *** The following income opportunity is one you may be interested in taking a look at. It can be started with VERY LITTLE investment and the income return is TREMENDOUS!!! If you would like to make at least $50,000 in less than 90 days! Please read the enclosed program...THEN READ IT AGAIN!!! THIS IS A LEGITIMATE, LEGAL, MONEYMAKING OPPORTUNITY. It does not require you to come into contact with people, do any hard work and best of all, you never have to leave the house except to get the mail. If you believe that someday you'll get that big break that you've been waiting for, THIS IS IT! Simply follow the instructions, and your dreams will come true. This e-mail marketing program works perfectly...100%, EVERY TIME. E-mail is the sales tool of the future. Take advantage of this non- commercialized method of advertising NOW!!! The longer you wait, the more people will be doing business using e-mail. Get your piece of this program now! MULTI-LEVEL MARKETING (MLM) has finally gained respectability. It is being taught in the Harvard Business School, both Stanford Research and the Wall Street Journal have stated that between 50% and 65% of all goods and services will be sold through multi-level methods by the late 1990's. This is a Multi-Billion Dollar industry and of the 500,000 millionaires in the U.S., 20% (100,000) made their fortune in the last few years in MLM. Moreover, statistics show 45 people become millionaires everyday through Multi-Level Marketing. You may have heard this story before, but over the summer Donald Trump made an appearance on the David Letterman Show. Dave asked him what he would do if he lost everything and had to start over from scratch. Without hesitating, Trump said he would find a good network marketing company and get to work. The audience started to hoot and boo him. He looked out at the audience and dead-panned his response - "That's why I'm sitting up here and you are all sitting out there!" With network marketing you have two sources of income. Direct commissions from sales you make yourself and commissions from sales made by people you introduce to the business. Residual income is the secret of the wealthy. It means investing time or money once and getting paid again and again and again. In network marketing, it also means getting paid for the work of others. The enclosed information is something I almost
Gov. Bush links Columbine massacre to Internet use
http://www.cluebot.com/article.pl?sid=00/10/12/0326212mode=nested Bush Links Columbine Massacre to Internet Use posted by cicero on Wednesday October 11, @10:25PM from the sounds-a-lot-like-joseph-lieberman dept. George W. Bush may have bested Al Gore in tonight's presidential debate, but it sure wasn't because of the governor's tech-savviness. Warned the Texas Republican, in response to a gun-control question: "Columbine spoke to a larger issue, and it's really a matter of culture. It's a culture that somewhere along the line we begun to disrespect life, where a child can walk in and have their heart turn dark as a result of being on the Internet and walk in and decide to take somebody else's life." It was undeniably a good, mushy, appeal-to-the-softhearted line, but the sheer schmaltziness of it is in questionable taste. For instance: Was the Net really to blame? Shouldn't even a "compassionate conservative" want to hold miscreants responsible for their own actions? And would the guv have offered the same warning to millions of Americans if the Columbine killers had, say, been regulars at the public library? Transcript is at: http://www.cluebot.com/article.pl?sid=00/10/12/0326212mode=nested
Re: Gov. Bush links Columbine massacre to Internet use
At 11:20 PM -0400 10/11/00, Declan McCullagh wrote: http://www.cluebot.com/article.pl?sid=00/10/12/0326212mode=nested Bush Links Columbine Massacre to Internet Use posted by cicero on Wednesday October 11, @10:25PM from the sounds-a-lot-like-joseph-lieberman dept. George W. Bush may have bested Al Gore in tonight's presidential debate, but it sure wasn't because of the governor's tech-savviness. Warned the Texas Republican, in response to a gun-control question: "Columbine spoke to a larger issue, and it's really a matter of culture. It's a culture that somewhere along the line we begun to disrespect life, where a child can walk in and have their heart turn dark as a result of being on the Internet and walk in and decide to take somebody else's life." It was undeniably a good, mushy, appeal-to-the-softhearted line, but the sheer schmaltziness of it is in questionable taste. For instance: Was the Net really to blame? Shouldn't even a "compassionate conservative" want to hold miscreants responsible for their own actions? And would the guv have offered the same warning to millions of Americans if the Columbine killers had, say, been regulars at the public library? Transcript is at: http://www.cluebot.com/article.pl?sid=00/10/12/0326212mode=nested This was a very small, and inconsequential, part of the debate/discussion. Had George Bush called for _Internet licensing_ in some concrete way, comparable to the way Al Gore called for gun licensing, I would be more concerned about Bush's comments. But he did not. Throwing in a line about the Columbine creeps being influenced by the Internet (or by Quake and Doom and other games, or by "The Matrix," or by being spoiled suburban brats) is not the same as calling for unconstitutional abridgments of freedoms. Normally I vote Libertarian. This year I may vote for Bush as a vote for who will do me, us, and the Constitution the lesser damage of the two. (All voting is about bang for the buck, about effectiveness of a vote...an election is not about "voting for the best man," it is instead about minimizing damage.) --Tim May -- -:-:-:-:-:-:-: Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
Re: Gov. Bush links Columbine massacre to Internet use
Let me see if I understand this. It's okay to blame the Net for Columbine as long as you don't call for licensing. So it's OK to blame gunshows for gun murders as long as you don't call for licensing? Right? MacN PS: What part of this debate/discussion was *not* very small, and inconsequential? M On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, Tim May wrote: This was a very small, and inconsequential, part of the debate/discussion. Had George Bush called for _Internet licensing_ in some concrete way, comparable to the way Al Gore called for gun licensing, I would be more concerned about Bush's comments. But he did not. Throwing in a line about the Columbine creeps being influenced by the Internet (or by Quake and Doom and other games, or by "The Matrix," or by being spoiled suburban brats) is not the same as calling for unconstitutional abridgments of freedoms. Normally I vote Libertarian. This year I may vote for Bush as a vote for who will do me, us, and the Constitution the lesser damage of the two. (All voting is about bang for the buck, about effectiveness of a vote...an election is not about "voting for the best man," it is instead about minimizing damage.) --Tim May -- -:-:-:-:-:-:-: Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
