Off-the-Record Messaging (IM plugin)
Nikita Borisov and Ian Goldberg have released Off-the-Record Messaging (http://www.xelerance.com/mirror/otr/), an IM plugin for private communication providing not only the usual encryption and authentication, but also deniability and perfect forward secrecy. Deniability avoids digital signatures on messages (while preserving authenticity and integrity), so there is no hard-to-deny proof you wrote anything in particular; in fact, there is a toolkit to help people forge messages, making it extra-hard to pin things on you. Perfect forward secrecy means that your past messages and conversations remain protected even if your keys are compromised. You can read the OTR protocol description, download the source code for the gaim-otr plugin, or grab a gaim-otr binary package for Debian or Fedora Core.
Re: An attack on paypal --> secure UI for browsers
Adam Shostack writes: > Actually, most of the features of Nogsuccob are features that I > want, like integrity protected, authenticated boot. The problem, > bundled with those features, is the ability of the system to attest to > its secure boot. This can be fixed by not letting the host know if > you've exported its host key or not, which makes it possible to run a > virtualized, trusted copy in your emulation environment. Nothing forces you to tell anyone else that you booted securely. At most someone may offer to give you something in exchange for such a proof, but you're not obligated to take them up on it. It's not clear what you're getting at about exporting the host key. These systems (TCs) are generally designed to make that difficult or impossible to accomplish. The security of the whole system is built on that assumption. If you actually did manage to pull out the host key then you could make it attest to any falsehood you wanted, although you might get caught eventually. Trusted Computing lets people convincingly tell the truth about what software they are running. This is seen as a horrific threat in certain circles. It's easy to see why liars wouldn't like it. What does an honest man have to lose?
RE: Slashdot | RIAA Seeks Estimated $97.8 Billion From MTU Student (fwd)
"RIAA senior vice president for business and legal affairs Matthew Oppenheim said the suits are intended to send a clear message to anyone running these types of services that punishment will be swift and severe." Is there an "Assasination Politics" board up-and-running? I have a few dollars I WAS going to spend on the lottery... You know, a fake assasination politics board might go a long way towards sending a "clear message" also.
Re: Missile -launchers in iraq
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 22:35:55 -0800 (PST), you wrote: > > hi, > > > on the first or second day of the war-iraqi missiles > hit kuwait-4 to 5 of them. > > After that there is no word of any more strikes in > kuwait or else where.What is Iraq waiting for? What's the US line on why Iraq hasn't shot nukes, chems and bio weapons at them? If an invasion and missile bombardment of Badhdad by the world's sole remaining superpower isn't enough, maybe they were saving them to repel Martians? Or what?
Type III Anonymous message
=== TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE BEGINS === remember to email [EMAIL PROTECTED] a ssh2 key... below is gpg key -BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (OpenBSD) mQGiBD4I1qARBADVJq/hf1mec9Ac+L/J1ZJcngJkw6REiOdLD5IOtO18SB2UxDMN Tait4AdhR7O1zHxmxUctNaiypdJwhEZhGDDBlY/k8h0tHNVoa7utUMOWgmtOe+gO hS4LjyfBGX4ExBw6ofdLTrkIkjVz+sDIlJFb4Y4IluDidfrDUPg1/qGkewCg/kK4 dq1W3ntl/PwsmOG1VztbTgUD/i0p95JMxfuAalS9VycYnXaGywFVEsDJDJdIOLYP kVzpimrh25mvf3h9BZpnb4+XFhlWr1NVEA30YWQQGkSYAoOzMfxzk8nXvxBExX+j b/6RZWqfW2/YEv5jUbu6Ud91KubMmfjTjnepuo+q1ZjKO4vZSJhUYs0cLx1lgyVZ lNgKBACYpp+cEsZMU/6JHGY/8Wbo9y+8MLrNkvno+d7QJ0i3u97k2mBe/9Ie9J+5 tiam9gx9CqhKfLM3ikFouJpNoW2mv+1FzSyXb7U4ijGcJx6dXN03wTAs+txVNbOx m/hvR+/UitIFLXSo37CDS9Ba6Pr/cPtgBMzPbg3NVmMtE/nk9rRgR3dlbiBIYXN0 aW5ncyAoUHJpdmF0ZSBkaXN0cmlidXRpb24gbG9uZyBrZXkgZG8gTk9UIHVwbG9h ZCB0byBrZXlzZXJ2ZXJzISkgPGd3ZW5AY3lwaGVycHVua3MudG8+iGAEExECACAF Aj4I1qAFCQeEzgAFCwcDAgEDFQIDAxYCAQIeAQIXgAAKCRBFSNreUZWDz/sBAKC1 jLhll2R4hJ2I7kDlDCzFH8WLGACgsVBDT/7kXP9Xw5xAwlFQgXCuJ3S5BA0EPgji uRAQAMTLx30NTz0ATg/83u1AKoYY3e/dVGcTn4+KTEJIws5d6j2UUR6zm0bT23jw N4lA2zRT5k988lwKtiSnFesV7Ezoe04pmQtD/k5vMaiEPgYoiUHZhCfySYt/dYf/ lvkbhpcLN8cEY38dGk1t2QcK5IeIsJSqOiKQY53932KRcU/xLlRZrjLrkM6Dg2D0 0C3484xMJYdXgaByg91DlJ6csY9w6FQnuxPM9e+pgLj7sv5mDESuUUAHPcwIZFQ3 sKAvSxwa0lc3E/MjeHld50NYB4Fn2cqMwi5Em2m4NqUrO0DgoOBlVJhtZGz5dgZ4 nqP1NpaVR1tc2GcHiTrj5Tr91Q0uOO8e6WpWdt2PjIUsC2OJLDaHgngPRKXKIH63 6V2qu5LPY/jnJABPWWlhU0ZDekbYF14H6buohiSXBHRYrflLwQlUpPA7wJlVlUig sAwiwugV6xrKa4gPEFB7sS7xhqhT8E0UC6I6s6LWoauCthCg4mjDcpEzupeW/vn9 VuUs5BEEokKm+lXg6n8UCFJa6Gtf5TGjpmTtVmRejVs3cft1QUxJ6kJjqlEm7iPU NmqEsGSbT6nkYQILWUrAabc4meQGJf3I/VZ5UUWtBeHA77IhOp56YogNYp0kl9SX mfVhRqsFhhiIpL+GYjTBuawjV/GB+kQQrTynm0Jq5ditErjPAAMHD/9a4mlrQqWR A6G5wgrfevg2axAhaJrl0CgnAT/ulUWF8iHNeq9LXkkNE0J1yQzWicOU4a+9TFat 8vo4MqFiUkyWfnI/683RUnUldGU9tZ9Skab6rBy9QWUqorqRfudiYKqZKhX44nmj vYb53DZg3VlfVN7X7kG2ZJkFNO9YeqB63Ah503LR7ArT2u8fwoXZ2gxYDFK+zd8o BgDW0hhHj6leV5pJeEYqd1uX7cN07gtmjGd3fPEzI7xSGqj5ottipSpyQlZZVcGH prSY1fuPh0KSrakvmEfK+I4dfe7Mb+rwu5rz6TYR5wpo56/F0Ikv5QjQX6k9J2YE 4K1+Uu1APg/LixJZVodTeV5CXZLwz+zwycP8hOw5mg0ngHCu8HimTIEI5/LxSWqD TlqfcKR72taJH9tiYByMA6uAV7XMrTmlE301LqoCYUc4EYKwWZZq+Xg0RTKIRasX adw1bBFkE1KrXKr78XbtLO8p2L28qMiyCfBy+N3V41iYcQStiJRG85gZD7KaHrUV UobSYWLbKr7KUue72fsdle8Ha6Ss5yOrD2AK5vWSLo+SbABY4Pjhw/GVWSJ3xihw ITAiSWRKqgWfPwwiOoIqrOi59wcPL+nCkNqLlVpHz2FCxkM1Ym5Cc8nSJSqR7vHy 4HXCwV6Vy/sAUU4y+NjucjdW+hmeqhUF+4hMBBgRAgAMBQI+COK5BQkHhM4AAAoJ EEVI2t5RlYPPbMwAoM7SrL6F1ql2M30o1p0noSbtAWniAKCcT5EBe3wTIjKaf3k0 RlQesjpsbg== =OFmm -END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE ENDS
Re: terror alert red
On Thu, 20 Mar 2003 08:31:59 -0600, you wrote: > >Has anyone heard any more about the announcement made by the NJ gov that if > we go to the next level -- red -- that everyone is confined to their houses? > Nope, but it's not surprising since there was NO announcement by the NJ gov that red means confinement to the house. If someone want to confine NJ residents to their homes, they need a conviction and sentence or a bond order from a judge that specifies that, or a legal declaration of martial law followed by such an order to the people. Surely you don't think some press announcement by a governor is sufficient to place millions of people under house arrest without due process, indictment, arraignment, etc.
Type III Anonymous message
=== TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE BEGINS === hi jim, So I tell you about VONU and here you wind up with the domain vonu.net gwen -- hacking coughing flying :) TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE ENDS
Type III Anonymous message
=== TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE BEGINS === What the Fuck>??? maybe people shoudlnt have shown the feebs how to warfly... what about the 4th amendment anon FBI acknowledges mystery flights Friday, February 28, 2003 Posted: 6:32 PM EST (2332 GMT) BLOOMINGTON, Indiana (AP) -- The FBI acknowledged that a small plane whose frequent, unexplained flights over the city had raised fears among some residents is being used by the agency to monitor people who might have terrorist connections. Residents in this city of 69,000, home to the flagship campus of Indiana University, where more than 3,300 foreign students attend, have seen the white, single-engine Cessna 182 at least since February 19 making passes overhead about noon, in the late evening and after midnight. Earlier in the week, when aviation officials disclosed that the aircraft was conducting surveillance, the FBI had denied any link to the plane. Agent Thomas V. Fuentes said the FBI issued the denial because a reporter asked if the airplane is doing electronic surveillance, which it is not. Fuentes and agent James H. Davis said the FBI is not aware of any threat to Bloomington or the state, but is watching many foreign nationals. Several students at Indiana University have been questioned by FBI agents, university and agency officials confirmed. Agency spokesman Doug Garrison, however, would not say if those interviews were related to national security or the airplane's flights. Besides individuals, Fuentes and Davis said, the aircraft is monitoring vehicles and businesses -- particularly those open late at night from which faxes or e-mails can be sent. Fuentes said the aircraft is conducting surveillance flights over several communities near Indianapolis, the state capital. Bloomington is about 40 miles (65 kilometers) south of Indianapolis. TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE ENDS
Type III Anonymous message
=== TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE BEGINS === What the Fuck>??? maybe people shoudlnt have shown the feebs how to warfly... what about the 4th amendment anon FBI acknowledges mystery flights Friday, February 28, 2003 Posted: 6:32 PM EST (2332 GMT) BLOOMINGTON, Indiana (AP) -- The FBI acknowledged that a small plane whose frequent, unexplained flights over the city had raised fears among some residents is being used by the agency to monitor people who might have terrorist connections. Residents in this city of 69,000, home to the flagship campus of Indiana University, where more than 3,300 foreign students attend, have seen the white, single-engine Cessna 182 at least since February 19 making passes overhead about noon, in the late evening and after midnight. Earlier in the week, when aviation officials disclosed that the aircraft was conducting surveillance, the FBI had denied any link to the plane. Agent Thomas V. Fuentes said the FBI issued the denial because a reporter asked if the airplane is doing electronic surveillance, which it is not. Fuentes and agent James H. Davis said the FBI is not aware of any threat to Bloomington or the state, but is watching many foreign nationals. Several students at Indiana University have been questioned by FBI agents, university and agency officials confirmed. Agency spokesman Doug Garrison, however, would not say if those interviews were related to national security or the airplane's flights. Besides individuals, Fuentes and Davis said, the aircraft is monitoring vehicles and businesses -- particularly those open late at night from which faxes or e-mails can be sent. Fuentes said the aircraft is conducting surveillance flights over several communities near Indianapolis, the state capital. Bloomington is about 40 miles (65 kilometers) south of Indianapolis. TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE ENDS
Type III Anonymous message
=== TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE BEGINS === What the Fuck>??? maybe people shoudlnt have shown the feebs how to warfly... what about the 4th amendment anon FBI acknowledges mystery flights Friday, February 28, 2003 Posted: 6:32 PM EST (2332 GMT) BLOOMINGTON, Indiana (AP) -- The FBI acknowledged that a small plane whose frequent, unexplained flights over the city had raised fears among some residents is being used by the agency to monitor people who might have terrorist connections. Residents in this city of 69,000, home to the flagship campus of Indiana University, where more than 3,300 foreign students attend, have seen the white, single-engine Cessna 182 at least since February 19 making passes overhead about noon, in the late evening and after midnight. Earlier in the week, when aviation officials disclosed that the aircraft was conducting surveillance, the FBI had denied any link to the plane. Agent Thomas V. Fuentes said the FBI issued the denial because a reporter asked if the airplane is doing electronic surveillance, which it is not. Fuentes and agent James H. Davis said the FBI is not aware of any threat to Bloomington or the state, but is watching many foreign nationals. Several students at Indiana University have been questioned by FBI agents, university and agency officials confirmed. Agency spokesman Doug Garrison, however, would not say if those interviews were related to national security or the airplane's flights. Besides individuals, Fuentes and Davis said, the aircraft is monitoring vehicles and businesses -- particularly those open late at night from which faxes or e-mails can be sent. Fuentes said the aircraft is conducting surveillance flights over several communities near Indianapolis, the state capital. Bloomington is about 40 miles (65 kilometers) south of Indianapolis. TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE ENDS
Type III Anonymous message
=== TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE BEGINS === you mean I could be interrogated ?? for wishing for another Lee Harvey Oswald in public killing John Kennedy was an act of heroism.. what could trimming the bushes back be? anon ps. Bush is a FLIPPING IDIOT NYAH NYAH NYAH!! just say no to adolf!! want to stop the war?? dont pay your taxes!! TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE ENDS
Re: pledge of allegiance in schools
On Sat, 1 Mar 2003 06:17:25 +, you wrote: > > Look at this shit on fox news, look how they bias the question and > mis-represent the issue. > > They ask "Should children be allowed to say the Pledge of Allegiance > in school?". As if the children wanted to, and were being prevented! > > http://q13.trb.com > > and the stats after voting no -- 88% yes. > > Adam The "polls" done by these news sites are not designed to gain an accurate, statistically valid measure of opinion, rather they are designed as "user participation" devices to get involvement by the user with the web site. Like Rush Limbaugh or Donahue, the networks magnify controversy to gain interest. Probably the same group that watches professional wrestling, thrives on this kind of rabble rousing. No one takes them seriously. They are about building readership and money, not learning and conveying the truth. ~~
Re: cryptome log downloads
On Wed, 26 Feb 2003 23:50:06 +0100 (CET), you wrote: > > These IPs downloaded access log from cryptome during hacked state. Didn't everybody who wanted to know who had downloaded the log, which includes you, have to download the log? Idiot.
Heroic Airport Screeners, hospital shut down
Cologne Mist Sparks Pa. Airport Probe By DAVID B. CARUSO Associated Press Writer February 20, 2003, 10:33 AM EST PHILADELPHIA -- A Saudi Arabian traveler set the city's anti-terrorism machine into full gear when he sprayed three airport guards with cologne while trying to demonstrate that the liquid wasn't dangerous. The [heroic] security screeners were rushed to Methodist Hospital after being spritzed Wednesday as the [swarthy complexioned] student passed through a [fatherland] checkpoint at Philadelphia International Airport. Unsure whether they had a [vicious, freedom hating terrorist] biological attack on their hands, [heroic] hospital officials ordered a full quarantine. Ambulances inbound to the [freedom loving people's] emergency room were diverted to other hospitals. Patients and staff who had contact with the [heroic, crusading] guards were quarantined for nearly three hours. "We didn't know what the [atomized chemical or bioweapon] substance was," said hospital spokeswoman Nan Myers. [Heroic] FBI spokeswoman Linda Vizi said the 22-year-old [so called] student, whose [arabic sounding] name was withheld by authorities, was detained and [interrogated under duress and coercion and] questioned, then released [for further, secret surveillance] hours later after [the people's] chemical tests confirmed that the [terroristic] vapors were harmless [probably due to an oversight on the part of the freedom hating terrorist swarthy complexioned so called student]. "He was here legally. All his papers were in order. His flight plans were in order. ["Shit, we tried like hell for three hours to pin some kind of heavy shit on the kid, but the FBI newbies kept talking about 'facts are stubbord' or some such shit."] No federal law was violated. He was released," Vizi said. "He missed his flight to Europe." [We tried to fuck with him as much as we could, but time just ran out.] Initially, even the [heroic] screeners themselves didn't consider the [terrorist] incident worth reporting, Vizi said. But they had second thoughts about the sweet-smelling spray and called police [after we told them this was a free ticket to fucking with an A-rab, why not have some fun?], she said. Flights weren't disrupted and no one was evacuated from the terminal, said [people's] airport spokesman Mark Pesce. Copyright ) 2003, The Associated Press
Re: Blood for Oil (was The Pig Boy was really squealing today
On , you wrote: > > On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 11:53:42 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ruger9) > Wrote: > > >On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 19:48:36 -0700, Chaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >[a bunch of crap snipped] > > > >... > >You are anti-Bush & anti-Iraq invasion. We got it. > > > He's just trying to convince us that he's *really* serious about it. > Hey Chaka: everybody here has already formulated their own opinion on > Iraq some time ago - but we're not going on & on & on about it. > Remember when our whole 'real' reason for going into Afghanistan was > all about oil too? Look how much we're getting from them nowadays. > --- > JLG No, the real reason was because terrorists hate freedom and democracy, and the US wanted Afghanistan to be free and democratic. So the US killed a lot of people there, so as to spread respect for freedom and democracy, and installed another dictator without elections, or any plan for elections. And if you will check out a little geology, you'll learn that Afghanistan doesn't have any substantial oil.
Re: The Train Wreck is Proceeding Nicely
On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 23:02:41 -0800, Tim May wrote: > I'm quite happy with the way the train wreck/clusterfuck is developing. Consider >some trends/outcomes: > > * dissatisfaction with NATO, tensions within the U.N. They just voted unanimously to send the weaponry to Turkey, just like the US wanted. > > * American statism revealed nakedly: an America that _starts_ a war (never again can >children be taught that the U.S. never initiates wars) Really? They teach children that the Civil War was about slavery, don't they? Most people believe it. They teach that the second amendment is about duck hunting, don't they? > > * the possibility that a clusterfuck in Iraq will spin out of control, possibly even >resulting in nukewar over and around Israel. Israel will come out smelling like roses, regardless. They have nukes, a large military, and the total protection of the US military. It would just be an excuse to sterilie once and for all Ramallah and the West Bank. > > * increasing anarchist sentiments They can't get organized. > > * rising sentiment against Total Information Awareness, Homeland Security, the >Reichsprotektorate, etc. Sentiment and $1.50 will get you a cup of starbucks. > > I never saw this much hatred toward the U.S Government by Europeans and Middle >Easterners, even during the height of the Vietnam War and then the Cold War (where >European pacifists were upset at the Pershing missile deployment, military bases, >etc.). Like Bush cares. No effect, unless you are still hanging on to that "will of the people" bullshit. > > (BTW, we can help to feed this hatred in various ways. I've been spreading reports >on Usenet groups and European chat rooms from a "pro-U.S." point of view, talking >about the SIOP nuke targetting plans for Iraq and Iran, mentioning CIA plans to >implement "regime change" in France, etc. The astute in these newsgroups may realize >I am yanking their chain, but it still inflames things. Which is good, for our goals.) Wow, that will motivate maybe 16 easily delluded people. > > Disorder is on the rise. If a war happens, lots of opportunities. For residential B&E maybe. > > If the war is over too quickly, or fizzles, or the U.S. backs down, much is lost. >The "good war" will have massive scenes of Iraqi casualties, graphic images of dead >babies and women, and at least a few thousand dead American soldiers. An even better >war will have the conflict lasting for many months, with U.S. stormtroopers occupying >Baghdad. This will inflame the Arab street. Easy to keep CNN out. And the news media is the new lapdog of the war machine. > > NATO will unravel (which is good, as its mission ended when the Cold War ended). The >U.N. may relocate its HQ to Wien or Geneve, which is appropriate...it is absurd that >a world body be located in the heart of America. (This will be good for NYC, >actually, though not economically.) Who cares. > > Fuck NATO. Fuck the U.N. Fuck the U.S. Security State. > > This train wreck is going better than I thought it would. That's strange.
Re: Supressed? speech by Sen. Robert Byrd
On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 15:29:57 -0800, Tim May wrote: > About Byrd's speech, he is protected by the same Bush doctrine. If a less powerful >person made these charges, he'd face a "talking to" by the FBI. And after PATRIOT II >passes with an overwhelming majority, but after no debate, he'd face having his DNA >removed with extreme prejudice at the least, deportation as the middle option, or a >life sentence for violations of the Reich Protektion Act as the most severe (assuming >he wasn't simply disappeared). > > We live in fascist times. > > --Tim May Well Tim, you are my canary. If the feebs ain't working you over, they sure as hell ain't coming for me yet. I mean when you write about people who need to be killed and lather people up with talk about fascists and stuff like that, you at least work your way above me on the list, if you know what I mean.
Re: Degenerate Political Pressure (was RE: The Wimps of War)
These guys were probably CIA. Now, since they are non-uniformed and not carrying arms visibly, and not engaged in hostilities qualifying under the Geneva Convetions, they are enemy combatants. They don't fall under the Geneva Conventions since they were not in qualifying hostilities. The torture and "detention" until they turn to fragments of dust, will begin now. Nice example the US govt sets. May God have mercy on them. "BOGOTA, COLOMBIA A U.S. government plane with five people on board crashed Thursday in rebel territory in southern Colombia, and those aboard may have been taken away by leftist rebels, a Colombian official said. The Cessna had been headed from Bogota to the Florencia area, 235 miles (380 kilometers) to the south, when radio contact was lost eight minutes before its scheduled landing, said a Colombian Civil Aviation official, speaking on condition of anonymity. The official told The Associated Press that he had received reports that Colombian army troops had located the plane but found no one on board, and that it was feared they had been taken by rebels. A U.S. Embassy spokesman told the AP that the U.S. government plane, a single-engine Cessna 208, "crashed near Florencia during an attempted emergency landing shortly before 9 a.m. this morning. The cause of the crash was apparently engine failure." The embassy spokesman said the fate of the pilot, co-pilot and three passengers aboard was unknown. The Colombian Civil Aviation official said all five aboard were believed to be American, but the U.S. Embassy spokesman said he was unable to confirm the nationalities."
Re: Something conspicuously missing from the media survival lists
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 12:00:38 -0800, you wrote: > > At 10:44 AM -0800 2/11/03, Tim May wrote: > >But in postmodern America mentioning guns is simply NOT DONE. Not even > >on the Fox Network, a more rightward network than the others. (Being > >right no longer means mentioning guns, as Ashcroft and Cheney and the > >like would prefer that guns be in the hands of der polizei. There's a > >reason Hitler confiscated guns held privately by Germans.) > > Firearms permits were instituted in the late 1920s and were required for ownership >of firearms, ammunition, or the legal ability to manufacture either. > > When Hitler came to power, he had the laws changed so that only members of the Nazi >party could obtain a firearms permit. > -- > J. Eric Townsend -- jet spies com > buy stuff, damnit: http://www.spies.com/jet/store.html This one just won't die. People keep repeating it. Not much different from Bush's "Time is running out" or "They hate us because we love freedom". Would you like to show us the part of the twelve page German law of March, 1938 that limits gun permits to members of the Nazi party? Uh huh, I didn't think so.
Re: Something conspicuously missing from the media survival lists
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 10:44:13 -0800, Tim May wrote: > > But in postmodern America mentioning guns is simply NOT DONE. Not even on the Fox >Network, a more rightward network than the others. (Being right no longer means >mentioning guns, as Ashcroft and Cheney and the like would prefer that guns be in the >hands of der polizei. There's a reason Hitler confiscated guns held privately by >Germans.) You are correct about the conspicuous absence of the mention of guns. Just not politically correct. Too much connection to individual action and power, which whether good, bad or indifferent is the enemy of passive submission to the state. But you damage your accurate point by accompanying it with the erroneous, but often repeated claim about Hitler confiscating guns. The Waffengesetz of March 18, 1938 did not confiscate guns from German citizens. (Of course, Jewish people were not considered German citizens under the law at that time.) There was no need to confiscate guns from the population in general. Hitler was immensely popular with Germans, and the Weimar Republic had enacted some gun control in 1928, before Hitler gained power in 1933. The "Hitler Confiscation of Guns" is pure urban legend, that attempts to link gun registration and confiscation with evil's 20th Centure poster boy. It's bogus. "The German law certainly was not an ideal one from the viewpoint of today's beleaguered American patriot, because it did have certain licensing requirements. A permit (Waffenerwerbschein) was required to buy a handgun (but not a long gun), and a separate license (Waffenschein), good for three years, was required to carry any firearm in public. Actually, the German law was less restrictive than most state and local laws in the United States were before the current campaign to nullify the Second Amendment shifted into high gear in 1993. More significantly, it ameliorated a law which had been enacted ten years earlier by a Left-Center government hostile to the National Socialists (the government headed by Wilhelm Marx and consisting of a coalition of Socialists and Catholic Centrists). The 1938 law irritated the Jews by pointedly excluding them from the firearms business, but it clearly was not a law aimed at preventing the ownership or use of firearms, including handguns, for either sporting or self-defense purposes by German citizens. As noted above, it actually relaxed or eliminated the provisions of a pre-existing law. The facts, in brief, are these: The National Socialist government of Germany did not fear its citizens. Adolf Hitler was the most popular leader Germany has ever had. The spirit of National Socialism was one of manliness, and individual self-defense and self-reliance were central to the National Socialist view of the way a citizen should behave. The notion of banning firearms ownership was alien to National Socialism. Gun registration and licensing (for long guns as well as for handguns) were legislated by an anti-National Socialist government in Germany five years before the National Socialists gained power. Five years after they gained power they got around to rewriting the gun law enacted by their predecessors, substantially ameliorating it in the process (for example, long guns were exempted from the requirement for a purchase permit; the legal age for gun ownership was lowered from 20 to 18 years; and the period of validity of a permit to carry weapons was extended from one to three years). They may be criticized for leaving certain restrictions and licensing requirements in the law, but they had no intention of preventing law-abiding Germans from keeping or bearing arms. The highlights of the 1938 German Weapons Law (which in its entirety fills 12 pages of the Reichsgesetzblatt with legalese), especially as it applied to ordinary citizens rather than manufacturers or dealers, follow: Handguns may be sold or purchased only on submission of a Weapons Acquisition Permit (Waffenerwerbschein), which must be used within one year from the date of issue. Muzzle-loading handguns are exempted from the permit requirement. Holders of a permit to carry weapons (Waffenschein) or of a hunting license do not need a Weapons Acquisition Permit in order to acquire a handgun. A hunting license authorizes its bearer to carry hunting weapons and handguns. Firearms and ammunition, as well as swords and knives, may not be sold to minors under the age of 18 years. Whoever carries a firearm outside of his dwelling, his place of employment, his place of business, or his fenced property must have on his person a Weapons Permit (Waffenschein). A permit is not required, however, for carrying a firearm for use at a police-approved shooting range. A permit to acquire a handgun or to carry firearms may only be issued to persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a permit. In particular, a permit may not be issued to:
Re: Trap guns, black baggers, and "Arlington Road"
On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 18:43:26 -0800, you wrote: > -- how does a property owner "authenticate" a person or group claiming to be cops? > Flashing a badge is not enough, as badges for hundreds of jurisdictions are for > sale by mail order, gun shows, and probably lots of other shops. (For the > uninitiated, these are _actual_ badges and/or nearly perfect replicas...they > are absolutely undistinguishable from real badges, so say concerned cops.) "Apart from constitutional considerations, no-knock laws are bad. If its people are to have a respect for law, a nation must have respectable laws, and no law is respectable if it authorizes officers to act like burglars, and robs the people of the only means they have for determining whether those who seek to invade their habitations violently or by stealth are officers or burglars." United States Senator Sam Ervin of Watergate fame.
Re: Patriot II would outlaw encryption
> actually..noit isn't my bust. it is yours. > > it says: > > "knowingly and willfully uses > encryption technology to conceal any incriminating > communication" relating to a federal crime that they're > committing, or attempting to commit". > > Thus, after the fact.I can send you an ecrypted email detailing my > crime and I won't be "upping the ante" another five years. Sure you will. The "ongoing conspiracy" (an agreement to commit a felony) continues after various events. For example, if Ted and Alice have an ongoing implicit understanding that they will meet in the shed behind her house occasionally to tend the five marijuana plants growing there, that is an ongoing conspiracy to commit a federal felony. So if, a week after Ted's last visit, Alice sends him an encrypted email saying "Come over and watch a video, or whatever", the prosecutor can clearly use that (if he can decrypt it) as 5 more years in prison, since it used encryption technology and concealed an incriminating communication (the crime being conspiracy) that they are commiting (ongoing). The prosecutors can get Ted's passphrase by granting him immunity (probably ONLY immunity from the encryption enhancement penalty, or best case, from that and conspiracy, still nailing him for the pot felony, or getting Alice to roll over on him for the whole deal) and forcing him to disclose it having eliminated his 5th amendment defenses. Then they have Alice for the pot felony, conspiracy, and the 5 year encryption booster. Of course, they will simply hang all of this draconian punishment over her head, her attorney will say they can fight for $75,000 and 2 years, during which she is in jail, or they can plead it out and become a felon with few further rights of citizenship. And if you "detail a crime" after the event in an encrypted communication, you've essentially included another person in the knowledge of a past crime in the expectation that such disclosure will remain secret from law enforcement. That is conspiracy to avoid prosecution and probably obstruction of justice. Conspiracy and obstruction are crimes, you've just used encryption in a federal felony, 5 year enhancement. Bye. For arguments re: protections from forced disclosure of keys, see http://www.rubberhose.org/current/src/doc/sergienko.html
Re: DoD badly protected web form lets "users" administer .mil domain names.
On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 19:05:45 -0800, you wrote: > Care to register a .mil Web site of your own for free? The DoD has gone out of its >way to make it a snap. An unbelievably badly-protected admin interface welcomes you >to register whatever domain you please (http://Rotten.mil anyone?), or edit anything >they've already got. That's great. How about "kill-iraqis-regardless.mil" or "want-to- buy-some-oil-in-iraq.mil" or "we-lust-for-another-war.mil"
Re: Deniable racial (etc) profiling coming to TSA, thanks to neural nets
On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:20:27 -0800, you wrote: acting on hunches vexes Tien. > > "The holy grail is that these systems will learn and adjust their > suspicion calculators on their own, untethered from human input," he > said. "But if you can't document the > basis for a score or a decision, then you have a serious due process > problem." How pre-911 can you get? There ARE no due process problems anymore. And no 6th amendment problems.
Re: Forget VOA -- new exec order creating Global Communications Office
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 10:01:09 -0500, you wrote: > This is also pretty clear, no? It basically says > "The truth is, our goal is to dominate the world, > and we have operatives and cronies everywhere who > share our goals, so stay out of our way and Don't > Fuck With Us". Actually, it is reality not a goal. A better statement would be "The US dominates the world, and if you act otherwise, we will kill you. If you think otherwise, we will find out and you will become a "person of interest" and placed on the "no-fly" and TIA watch lists. And if you are a US citizen, remember you are a check mark away from being an "enemy combatant" in a military prison of our choosing, with no lawyer, no judge, no appeal to anyone, anywhere, forever." The US is no longer content to be #1. It demands respect for being #1 thru #200, inclusive.
Re: Supremes and thieves.
On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 21:26:22 +0800, you wrote: > > Alif The Terrible wrote: > > > > On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Marc de Piolenc wrote: > > > > > The US Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws. > > > > Which has not stopped them yet. > > Actually, that provision has held quite well so far. I can't think of > one exception...unless it's this latest copyright extension. > > Marc Tax increases by the Clinton administration, passed well into the tax year, affecting income received prior to the passage of the increase. Avoidance of such taxes would be punished with criminal penalties. Or "Being a US citizen of Japanese Ancestry". Lots of them.
Re: Supremes and thieves.
On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 11:51:46 +0800, you wrote: > > The US Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws. > > Marc First, the US Constitution is a piece of paper currently being ignored by this administration, and most likely any administration going forward. The current stance of the US government is that power comes from the barrel of a gun, not from a grant of limited powers to the government by the people. Second, the now defunct prohibition of ex post facto laws regards criminalizing today what someone did yesterday, and imposing criminal penalties on that person for it. > > Bill Stewart wrote: > > > There were documents that were _going_ to become public domain soon > > that will now stay copyrighted for another 20 years, > > and one of the issues addressed by the Supremes in Eldred was > > whether the grant of an extra 20 years of copyright monopoly to > > documents that already had expiration dates assigned under the > > old laws was appropriate, as distinguished from granting a > > longer monopoly to new documents, but I thought it was established law > > that if something once became public domain it stayed that way.
Re: Pigs Kill Family Pet
On Thu, 9 Jan 2003 12:35:38 -0500, you wrote: > > No they don't; or they wouldn't have had the balls to stop the car in the > first place. Most cops in Cookeville, TN have dogs. I wonder if they would mind them being shotgunned to death. If the dog presents a threat of any type like running up wagging its tail like it did on the cop's video it is "procedure" to shoot them. If it's good enough for passing motorists pets it's sure good enough for cop's dogs seems to me. You just can't allow that threat to go unstopped you know? Buck shot is best according to the cops.
Re: No Ex Post Facto Laws, No Easy Loss of Citizenship
On Wed, 8 Jan 2003 23:07:50 -0800, you wrote: > "This man was and is a citizen. His presence overseas > did not cause him to lose his citizenship. If he faces > charges, he faces them in a U.S. court with full access > to lawyers, full habeas corpus rights, full rights to face > his accusers, and so on." But isn't the point of the Bush-Military that he does not face "charges", he is like a captured German Luftwaffe Pilot in 1944 in France -- he is to be held in a prisoner of war prison until the end of hostilities (never, since you can't defeat a method like "Terror"), and repatriated to the country of his military commanders (never, since it is a group, not a country, and they will all be killed)? But the point is more dangerous. The point is that the military alone can decide if you are an enemy combatant, and if they do, you can be held in secret anywhere, without notice to anyone, with no legal representation, until the day you die. A person disappears. That's all we would know, if that's the way the military wants to play it. Land of the free, home of the brave.
Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants
On Wed, 8 Jan 2003 20:35:36 -0800, you wrote: > > I think you're overreacting a bit. The actual case involves someone > who was in a foriegn country for years, and was in the war zone at the > time he was fighting the US. > > The ruling says that he was "squarely in teh war zone" and discusses > the issue that he hda been out of the US for a long time. Where in the Constitution do we learn that "being in a foreign country for years" separates a United States Citizen from the rights provided by the Constitution? Exactly what period of years triggers this denial of Constitutional rights? Please provide a map of the boundaries of the "war zone" for Mr. Bush's "War on Terror". If the President may deny habeas corpus in the absence of a declared war, and if the geography of a war zone is fluid and undefined by the government, and if the time period of absence from the US and relationship to time of "capture" is undefined, please show how denial of habeas corpus cannot be applied to every US Citizen who has ever been abroad, upon declaration of "enemy combatant" status by the United States Military, solely, under this ruling. Last, if well established bedrock rights written into the highest law of the land like habeas corpus are denied by a government, please describe the moral authority underwhich that government may claim a right to be obeyed. Describing the power to capture, torture, imprison and kill, and the willingness to do so is not considered a "moral authority" in this question. I guess Citizens should "wait on events, while dangers gather"? Citizens should forgo any "preemption of those who would attack freedom"?
Re: Singularity ( was Re: Policing Bioterror Research )
>BTW, I think I read somewhere that when the water gets too hot the frog just >leaves. Like someone already mentioned, all that is needed for the total collapse of the US government is that 90+% of sheeple abstains from TV and newspapers for 30 consecutive days (externally induced psychosis needs constant maintenance.) Such detox event would be the most dramatic social phenomenon in the last hundred years. But it's impossible promulgate even that simple idea and therefore the frog stays. ribbit
The Two Towers....
Blah blah blah wrote... "My hunch is that the new towers will never be filled and will turn out to be a business catastrophe" Who gives a crap? Despite the fact that the original towers were as ugly as hell, they were a giant "Fuck You" to the rest of the world and we New Yorkers loved 'em. (I still say to NJ-based relatives that "All of you" conspired to knock down the towers...I refuse to distinguish between bin Laden, gov Florio (or whoever), and George Bush. All I know is that it was you non-New-Yorkers who did it 'cause you hate us and all our cool food, culture, filth and crime.) And until I stop paying taxes entirely, I might as well SEE something my tax $$$ may have been used to build, as opposed to stealth buildings and giant storage "schools". (I always used the same argument to support the superconducting supercollider) "oops, I said "business," when in fact it is the Port Authority, a weird melange of jurisdictions which is probably constitutionally invalid)." The PA is certainly one of the more lecherous groups in these parts, including the mob. They were supposed to dissappear after the tolls paid for roads and bridges to be built. But using that ole' loophole (something to do with refinancing), they've maintained their incpometant and corrupt stranglehold on most of our major thoroughfares for lo these many years (increasing the pollution like crazy, too). "I wasn't sorry to see those Bauhaus boxes go." Bauhaus? I guess. More like that 70s warmed over post-Bauhaus fascist crapola. Nobody in NYC really thought they were beautiful, but we do miss 'em (see above!). And Peter Trei wrote... "One thing I liked in particular was that most of the designs weren't afraid to go high into the sky this time around. Building high is an expression of confidence." This I more or less agree with. And it's not a government thing, not a business thing, just a New York thing. We need replacement towers for sure, and that design by David Rockwell & Co (with those odd empty tower-structures) might be good. They have the additional advantage of not casting such a dark shadow over downtown and Brooklyn Heights. PT wrote... "The WTC was a landmark for a huge part of the city; you could see it easily from most of midtown and downtown." but Blah Blah Blah wrote... "Hideous boxes." Again, you miss the point. We New Yorkers navigated by them, and when traveling out in th'sticks (ie, New Jersey and west of the hudson) those ugly boxes would come popping up over the horizon welcoming you home, just like your ugly ole' Mom. Somebody wrote, and I really don't remember or care who. Hell, let's say Tim May wrote it just to piss him off... "My own initiial idea was to rebuild the towers as they were, but in goldtone instead of silver. Now, I'd like to be a little more respectful of the pre-WTC street grid (If you weren't actually going to the WTC, it was a huge obstacle to get around, either driving or on foot). But I still want towers which rise far above the skyline." That original twisty-towers design brought forward in response to how shitty the original official designs were by that Amalgamated Architects was the best design, but for some reason it didn't make it into the official final round. "One hopes not a single fucking dime of taxpayer money will go into rebuilding anything on that site. (Oh, I won't scream if $25,000 is allocated to hire that Chinese architect to replicate her Vietcong wall with the names of the dead so that the weepy ones can do their tracings and all. But nothing more should be spent out of the taxpayer's pocket.)" Like I said, you can either SEE your tax dollars build something (even if its useless), or else they'll just dissappear up some buereucrats (I can never spell that word) nose. Unless you pay zero taxes of course. "(Ayn Rand loved the Twin Towers, ironically, and typically, and disgustingly. But, then, she thought cigarette smoking was a symbolic affirmation of Man's control of fire and his striving to reify A or Not-A through purity of essence!" A read through a couple Ayn Rand books and none of this should be suprising. As far as I'm concerned she wasn't exactly von Neumann. Tyler Durden
RE: The Original SSSCA
P. Trei writes: > I've been watching the entertainment industry's approach to computers > with what I can only think of as Kafkaesque horror. The solution to the current problem is so simple that it is hard to believe that no one is pushing it forward. It involves purely voluntary actions, with no legislation at all required. The proper solution is to encourage DRM (digital rights management) software and hardware developers to offer solutions in the marketplace. Let computer manufacturers include so-called "trusted computing" features in their systems. These will allow content to be personalized to a particular computer and only display on that computer. Let them continue to work towards encrypting as much of the data path as possible, so that only analog signals will be available unencrypted. Systems like HDCP, once improved by the cryptographic community, will lead to speakers and video displays that have only digital inputs, on which the data is encrypted. Sampling of images and sounds will only be possible in the analog domain, requiring a re-digitization phase and a single-generation loss in quality. The marketplace will then consist of several types of content. Some will be sold by the content providers in encrypted form, customized for display on a single device (or a specific set of devices). This will be high quality. Some will be pirated versions of such content, taken from the analog domain. These will be slightly lower quality. And some will be conventional and pirated content made available for display on ordinary systems not requiring trust-management features. These will be created by content providers who don't care much about piracy. Consumers will have a choice of purchasing systems with and without DRM features. Or if they get a system with DRM chips and software, they will have a choice about whether to purchase content for use with those features. Anyone who creates or distributes content will likewise have a choice about whether to make it freely available or to use DRM features. Everyone wins in this system. Each participant is able to make his own choices about what to do, with no way to coerce or force anyone else to behave differently than they desire. Yet both privacy advocates and content owners fear this solution. Content owners are afraid consumers would reject DRM technology, forcing owners to continue to make their content freely available. Privacy advocates are afraid that equipment manufacturers will stop making systems without DRM technology, forcing consumers to accept whatever limitations and prices content owners choose to dictate. Each side feels that it must use force to make sure that its own desires are met. Neither is willing to accept the risk that the solution found by the marketplace will not be their ideal. Both sides are part of the problem, not part of the solution. The solution is to reject legislative approaches and to encourage development of a variety of approaches to managing content. DRM systems may or may not be a good solution, but they should not be rejected out of hand. A competitive marketplace with a multiplicity of options will provide the most robust foundation for the future of digital content.
Re: Linux on your PS2
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (xganon) writes: > cryptorelevence: a new platform running an inspectable OS > > http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20020130/tc/tech_sony_linux_dc_1.html > > Sony to Sell Linux Kits for Playstation 2 > > TOKYO (Reuters) - Sony Corp (news - web sites). said on Wednesday it > would start selling Linux (news - web sites) operating system kits for > Linux programmers around the globe in coming months to allow Linux > applications to run on its PlayStation 2 (news - web sites) game > console. > > The consumer electronics giant said it would begin selling disks to > install the Linux operating system (OS) on PlayStation 2 and tools to > develop Linux applications. > > The kits will go on sale in Japan in May and in the United Sates and > Europe in June. > > ``Many Linux fans have requested that they would like to execute > applications not only on personal computers but also on PlayStation > game consoles,'' a Sony spokeswoman said. > > The kits will cost $188.30 in Japan, $299 in the United States and > $215 in Europe. > > Linux, which competes with Microsoft Corp.'s (Nasdaq:MSFT - news) > Windows, is an open-source model and has become a popular master > computer program. > > Sony aims to expand the role of PlayStation as a platform and allow > more applications such as word-processing. > > Sony said the kits also included a internal hard disk drive with 40 > gigabytes and USB keyboard and mouse. > > Sony shares closed down 2.2 percent at 5,790 yen on Wednesday, in line > with the benchmark Nikkei (^N225 - news) which ended down 1.3 percent, > breaking below the 10,000 yen level for the first time since October > 10.
EPIC sues big brother
http://www.fcw.com/fcw/articles/2002/0114/web-epic-01-16-02.asp Privacy advocates have filed a lawsuit in federal court to force the Justice and Treasury departments to disclose details about buying information about individuals from commercial databases. The agencies are generally banned from amassing such information on their own. Electronic Privacy Information Center officials said Jan. 15 that the two agencies have illegally failed to respond to Freedom of Information Act requests for details about their information purchasing practices. Lawyers for EPIC sought the information after seeing news reports and obtaining documents that indicate at least six federal law enforcement agencies buy personal information from database companies. The companies include ChoicePoint Inc., which gathers and sells information for purposes ranging from employment background checks to insurance fraud investigations, and Experian, which claims to have information gathered from "hundreds of public and proprietary sources" on 215 million consumers. The Privacy Act of 1974 banned federal agencies from collecting personal information about individuals unless they are actively investigating the individual. But no such prohibitions apply to database companies. The companies collect data from a wide range of commercial and government sources, such as credit card records, motor vehicle and property records, license records, marriage and divorce data, bankruptcy and other court databases, product warranty registrations, loan applications and other sources. Government agencies that buy the information include the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the U.S. Marshals Service, the Internal Revenue Service, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, according to EPIC. A key concern for privacy advocates is how accurate the data is, said Chris Hoofnagle, EPIC's legislative counsel who filed the suit. ChoicePoint, for example, provided inaccurate data to Florida election officials, who denied thousands of voters access to the polls in 2000. Hoofnagle said EPIC obtained documents that show that information the IRS bought from ChoicePoint and Experian included "credit header data," which includes a person's name, current and prior addresses, Social Security number, date of birth, telephone number, information from property records, motor vehicle records, marriage licenses and divorce papers, and records of international asset location. IRS employees have access to this data through their desktop computers, Hoofnagle said. It is not clear whether the agencies buying information are violating the law, "but if they are buying information without real investigations going on, then there are going to be problems," he said. The Privacy Act was passed to stop information collection abuses that were common during the 1960s and 1970s, when the FBI and other agencies compiled detailed dossiers on Vietnam War protesters, civil rights activists, political "enemies" of the president, celebrities and others. Hoofnagle said recent cases show that the abuse of information by government employees has not ended. Recent abuses include police employees using information to track women for dates and to rob rental cars and federal employees selling DEA data, he said. "You don't have to have a rogue government, just a rogue civil servant," he said. The Justice Department has 30 days to respond to the suit.
cryptography within 1000 ft of churches, schools, playgrounds, city-ow
http://latimes.com/news/local/la-03663jan14.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dcalifornia Civic leaders have been presented with a proposal that would be among the toughest gun laws in the state, making it nearly impossible for new retailers to sell firearms. All in a city where gun violence is minimal. The proposed law, drafted by Councilman Chris Mears, would make it illegal to sell firearms within 1,000 feet of churches, schools, playgrounds or city-owned buildings. In Irvine, almost every commercial center is within a short walking distance of one or more of those. ... We can't shoulder a gun to fight the enemy," said Chris Mears, an Irvine attorney leading the campaign http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-093001voices.story Mr. and Mrs. Chris Mears 18 Wandering Rill, Irvine, CA 92612 They have two children, Ben and Sophie, attending Vista Verde Middle School in Irvine. FAX (949) 724 6045 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Some folks just need killin'
info restriction: reclassifying declassified docs
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20020113/ts/us_germ_weapons_1.html Bush May Limit Germ Weapons Info By SCOTT LINDLAW, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration is considering whether to restrict distribution of government documents that describe how to make germ weapons, White House officials said Sunday. U.S. stockpiles of offensive germ warfare agents were destroyed nearly three decades ago as part of the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. But the government kept the blueprints for manufacturing such weapons, and continues to sell them. ``The administration is generally conscious of this issue,'' John H. Marburger III, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, said in a telephone interview Sunday. ``There are obviously people thinking about what to do about it.'' The administration is likely to take action on the matter, Marburger said, adding that he did not know what action would be taken nor when. Homeland Security director Tom Ridge hinted that the administration is strongly considering placing new restrictions on the information. ``We are a very open society and we're very much an information society, and there are a lot of us that think that some of the information we share with the public probably should be restricted in some fashion,'' Ridge said on CNN's ``Late Edition.'' Marburger and other administration officials are ``looking to see what kind of information should be so easily available in the public domain,'' Ridge said. Members of Congress have also aired concerns about the issue, he said. ``We are open, we are trusting, but we have to be a little bit more careful and a little bit more vigilant,'' Ridge said. ``And we may have to take a look at these kinds of issues from a different perspective because of the tragedy of September 11 and the follow-on incidents that we've had to deal with.'' Several agencies are weighing the level of danger and possible action, Marburger said. A spokeswoman for the Defense Department said Sunday she could not comment, as did a White House spokesman. Representatives of the Justice Department (news - web sites) and the White House Office of Homeland Security did not return calls. Marburger said he had not personally seen the documents on assembling such weapons. Among the questions is how dangerous they are, he said. ``It is clear that they are based on a picture of biology that's almost 50 years old,'' he said. ``It's not clear to me how useful they are.'' The New York Times first reported on the documents and the debate in Sunday editions, and said despite their age, the manuals contain information that could help produce the kind of anthrax powder infected at least 18 people and killed five in the United States last year. According to the newspaper, federal agencies routinely sell the now-declassified documents to historians and researchers. The government provides more sensitive papers on the subject after Freedom of Information Act requests. Dr. Harry G. Dangerfield, a retired Army colonel, is preparing a report for the military that will call for the reclassification of more than 200 reports that he told the newspaper are cookbooks for turning germs into weapons. Any such move to reclassify the manuals would run into resistance from advocates of public access to government documents. Moreover, an executive order signed by then-President Clinton (news - web sites) in 1995 bars reclassification, the Times said. The Bush administration is considering its own order allowing the documents to once again be kept from public view, it reported. Marburger said Sunday he did not know about any such move. I found http://www.oie.int/eng/normes/mcode/A_00044.htm to have enough info to culture and sporulate, though you'd have to look elsewhere for freeze drying and milling tech.
attacking *small* biz is low hanging fruit
JC forwarded: >* Unlike businesses with permanent security staff, most home users are >slow to secure their computers with the latest antivirus and firewall >software and to plug security holes by downloading the necessary fixes from >software makers such as Microsoft Corp. That should be qualified, you know: *small* businesses do not have security staff, nor particularly qualified network admins. When sharesniffing around, I found the 8 to 256 size netblock to be the most profitable; larger netblocks implied more clueful admins. Pax
[Refomatted] US neglects to include Saudi responsibility in 'translati
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, you write: > A new ABCNEWS translation of the Osama bin Laden videotape released > last week reveals information that may be embarrassing to Saudi > Arabia, a very important U.S. ally. Bin Laden Hunt Strains U.S-Saudi > Relations Excerpts of the Bin Laden Video Weigh In Poll: Americans > Believe Toughest Battles Ahead > > When the videotape of Osama bin Laden talking about the Sept. 11 > terror attacks was released by the United States government on Dec. > 13, administration officials spoke at length about the extensive > effort to achieve a full and accurate transcript. > > The translation commissioned by ABCNEWS, however, reveals new elements > that raise questions about what the government left out of the > official version and why. > > The new translation uncovers statements that could be embarrassing > to the government of Saudi Arabia, a very important U.S. ally. Bin > Laden's visitor, Khalid al Harbi, a Saudi dissident, claims that he > was smuggled into Afghanistan by a member of Saudi Arabia's religious > police. > > He also tells bin Laden that in Saudi Arabia, several prominent > clerics some with connections to the Saudi government made speeches > supporting the attacks on America. > > "Right at the time of the strike on America, he gave a very moving > speech, Sheikh Abdulah al Baraak," bin Laden said on the tape. "And he > deserves thanks for that." > > Sheikh al Baraak, to whom the visitor refers, is a professor at a > government university and a member of an influential council on > religious law. > > "It shows that bin Laden's support is not limited to the radical side > of Islam but also among the Saudi religious establishment," says Fawaz > Gerges, professor of Middle Eastern studies at Sarah Lawrence College. > "And that is bad news for Saudi Arabia." > > . US protecting foreign tyrants, but hey, gas is cheap, and it > only cost a spook, a marine's foot, a few thou newyorkers (and some > of them were traders ferchrissakes, like NYPD corpses they're divine > payback) and look at how the flag industry stimulated the economy > and enhanced trade with WTO-China Inc another great bunch of freedom > loving folks
Re: Surveillance by Design By Wendy Grossman
> Even without the proposed legislation, anonymity is increasingly fragile on > the Net. Corporations have sued for libel to force services to disclose the > identities of those who posted disparaging comments about them online. > Individual suits of this type are rarer, but last December, Samuel D. > Graham, a former professor of urology at Emory University, won a libel > judgment against a Yahoo user whose identity was released under subpoena. Actually the tide is turning on this issue. There have been two high-profile cases this year in which suits designed to reveal the identities of pseudonymous posters have failed. In May, Medinex dropped its lawsuit attempting to learn the identities of its online critics. http://www.eff.org/Legal/Cases/Medinex_v._Awe2bad4mdnx/20010522_eff_dismiss_pr.html Wonder why they were concerned? Take a look at http://quote.yahoo.com/q?s=MDNX.OB&d=c&k=c1&t=2y&l=on&z=m&q=l. The stock has fallen from almost 10 to about 0.2 in the past 18 months. Ouch. A month earlier, the EFF and ACLU were successful in quashing a subpoena by foundering auctioneer 2TheMart.com attempting to identify pseudonymous participants in an online bulletin board. http://www.eff.org/Legal/Cases/2TheMart_case/20010420_eff_2themart_pr.html The company is currently defending itself against charges of securities fraud. It seems that the same kind of people who run a company into the ground are the ones who want to muzzle their critics and who are least tolerant of anonymity. These two recent successes by the EFF will hopefully set precedents for better protection of identity. Of course, the real problem is the use of utterly inadequate technology for pseudonymous activities. People don't realize how risky it is to participate in an online financial discussion without adequate technological protection. When things go wrong, litigants will lash out at anyone who is a target. Financial chat without layered protection is like sex without a condom. The list posted earlier (thanks, Seth) provides a good starting point for online protection: http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/loophole.php. The gold standard for this technology is the Freedom software from Zero Knowledge Systems. But if you're not willing to pay, at least go through another site before trusting your identity to an online chat service. Practice Safe Chat!
Re: Cypherpunks, pay per use remailers, and the good ol' days
Declan wrote, quoting himself: > > Yet some form of PPU remailer could exist today: A remailer would find a > > cookie and an encrypted-to-PPU-public-key credit card in the body of the > > message it receives. It would then debit a credit card for, say, $3 and > [...] > > The usual objection to such a system would be that the feds would impose > > pressure on the banking system (or credit card companies would do it > > themselves) and prevent remailer ops from securing merchant accounts. That > > may be true, but remailers at least today aren't seen as a serious threat. > > They could get away with it for a while. > > Thinking through this a little bit more, such a system wouldn't work > well given today's technology. It would allow an attacker to know > with a high degree of certainty the truename (cardname) of someone > and link that with an encrypted message. By unwrapping it down the > chain with subpoenas and court orders, it would be possible to > get at least the last To: line if not the final text. An alternative is to pay the first remailer for the whole chain, and then to have that remailer pay the second remailer, the second remailer pay the third remailer, and so on. This way the follow-on remailers don't know who the original sender of the message was. The remailers can also batch up their payments when they are sending a bunch of messages to other remailers, perhaps even just pay the net clearing amount on a daily basis. Some discussion of this idea as a mechanism for anonymous payments is in the archives at http://www.inet-one.com/cypherpunks/dir.2000.02.28-2000.03.05/msg00302.html and follow-ups.
Re: Traceable infrastructure
All the more reason to morph freenet/mojo to mix duties, maybe even create a worm version that gives no evidence of it's existence, other than some increase in traffic. What happened to melontrafficers.com BTW? Declan McCullagh wrote: On Sun, Aug 05, 2001 at 04:07:14PM +0300, Sampo Syreeni wrote: > Now, the above is of course fiction, for now at least. But keeping such > widescale attacks on the infrastructure part of the threat model is not, > IMHO, a bad idea. The discussions on stego, disposable remailers, physical > broadcast technology and the like are part of that, and serve to lay the > groundwork in case shit one day does hit the fan. Last I checked, the vast bulk of remailers were in North America and Europe. Given sufficient provocation (Bush twins kidnapped, Osama talking biochemwomdterror in DC), I could easily see a coordinated set of pre-dawn raids to "gather evidence" and seize computers as part of a criminal investigation. Obviously the servers would have to be held as potential evidence for a trial - did they keep logs? our techs will find out - which could take a decade. This would cripple the current remailer network and generate almost no public outcry beyond the cypherpunks and such. -Declan
Re: Do not taunt happy-fun-court.
http://www.law.com/cgi-bin/gx.cgi/AppLogic+FTContentServer?pagename=law/View&c=Article&cid=ZZZV7P5HVPC&live=true&cst=1&pc=3&pa=0&s=News&ExpIgnore=true&showsummary=0 talks about the use of the Communications Decency Act to defend a private individual. (Sorry about the absurdly long URL; for a short while you will find it as the first article at http://www.law.com/professionals/iplaw.html.) The suit is a somewhat complicated battle, Quackwatch vs Quack. But basically the judge threw out a lawsuit against someone who re-posted a libelous article on a newsgroup: "[A]s a user of an interactive computer service, that is, a newsgroup, [the defendant] is not the publisher or speaker of [the] piece. Thus, she cannot be civilly liable for posting it on the Internet. She is immune," wrote Richman. He based this on the CDA's immunization of internet services when their users post offending material. Apparently the wording of the law can apply to private individuals as well, if they are not the original authors. This sounds questionable, since the private party is playing a much more active role in selecting what material to republish than an internet service. The article quotes a critic, "Someone could put libelous information on the Internet and duck court action by having someone else author it, Grell said." The relevance is of course to remailer operators. If someone is immune who personally selects a libelous article and reposts it, then surely a remailer operator who reposts articles en masse without any review of the data would be protected as well. The CDA should be a strong shield for remailers, especially if rulings like this stand which extend its protection even to private individuals.
Re: Killing the G8 Anarchists
>WHY AREN'T THE OWNERS OF THESE PROPERTIES DEFENDING THEIR PROPERTY? > >Why are't shop owners spraying the looters with automatic weapons fire? Your bigotry got some boost this morning (cypherpunk readers may be amused to know what nazi methods you advocate for homeless). You stupid american fuck, ownership is very relative term and enforced by guns, like you are owned by state of california and USG at the same time, and you do complain about that, don't you ? You really whine only because you are not on top - you do not really have problem with those below you (I understand you live on a farm .. must have some pigs there) suffering because they don't have guns.
Re: Meatspace anonymity manual
Sampo Syreeni wrote: > The only logical conclusion I can see to skirmishes between black-clad > anarchists, going on "street operations", and governmental riot control > forces, is that the police are eventually given the right to just gun the > protestors down, irregardless of whether they have *done* anything. Unless > the Bloc actually has enough muscle to overthrow something before then, > which I highly doubt, their raising the stakes seems fairly unwise. Maybe that would be a GoodThing@ -- violence by the government always radicalizes more people, and more people need to become aware that all those cops need killing. And things won't change until enough people are willing to pick up a gun.
