NUMBER:
1056
AUTHOR:
Benjamin Franklin (1706–90)
QUOTATION:
Those who would give up essential
Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty
nor Safety.
ATTRIBUTION:
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN,
Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor, November 11, 1755.—The
Pape
"
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2005 3:12 AM
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] complaints about the governemnt spying!
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Stan Bubrouski wrote:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety, deserve neither liberty
--On December 30, 2005 8:12:10 PM +1100 Dave Horsfall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
In the meantime, perhaps some, umm, US patriot could tell me who authored
these particular aphorisms:
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood
of patriots and tyrants."
"The Tree of
See comments below. -rad
- Original Message -
From: "Dave Horsfall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Full Disclosure List"
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2005 3:12 AM
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] complaints about the governemnt spying!
> On Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Stan B
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Stan Bubrouski wrote:
> > "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
> > safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Jefferson, 1759).
>
> That's actually a Benjamin Franklin quote, which is worded about 1000
> different ways depending on the sour
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> How does a US citizen know they are doing "nothing illegal", when the
> government apparently feels that secret laws are acceptable, and thus
> could be in violation of some Kafka-esque law that won't be revealed to
> the guilty party?
Look up the
On Thursday 29 December 2005 22:21, J.A. Terranson wrote:
>
> On Fri, 30 Dec 2005, Pete Simpson wrote:
>
> > Some facts and logic may prove useful.
>
> Agreed: we're still waiting for some...
Devolution into a bottomless cesspool of contrived and meandering arguments is
a painful (okay, perhap
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Dec 30, 2005 at 03:36:05AM -, Pete Simpson wrote:
> Nineteeen Islamo-terrorists changed the world irrevocably in September 2001.
Changed the world ? Wow. How american of you to think that the USA is the
world.
Ok, wait. Let me look around
to sum it all up...
1 giant catch 22.
You are damned if you do and you are damned if you do not.
--l
On Thu, 2005-12-29 at 16:35 -0500, bkfsec wrote:
> Leif Ericksen wrote:
>
> >It comes back to ignorance of the law is no excuse.
> >
> >
> >
> Ahh, but there's a BIG difference between willful
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005, Pete Simpson wrote:
> Some facts and logic may prove useful.
Agreed: we're still waiting for some...
> Why do you think that the US government would wish to spy on its own
> citizens?
Because it is currently inhabited by a fascist neocon.
> Ah-ah - Islamo-terrorist sleep
Some facts and logic may prove useful.
Why do you think that the US government would wish to spy on its own citizens?
Ah-ah - Islamo-terrorist sleeper cells have infiltrated the US for possibly a
decade. First examine the terrorist angle and then return to the necessity for
internal spying.
Ni
--On December 29, 2005 10:22:12 PM -0500 Stan Bubrouski
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Especially when "the enemy" is anyone who publicly or *privately*
disagrees with the president. Worse now US citizens are enemies with
no civil rights and are imprisoned indefinately like rats...exactly
what are
On 12/29/05, Michael Holstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The security directives are secret because you don't
> > show your hand to the enemy (except if you work for the New York Times.)
>
> Uh huh .. so the newspaper informing the public about an illegal
> government program (after holding the
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Benjamin Krueger wrote:
* Leif Ericksen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [051229 12:47]:
That is a good question... but showing and ID is good enough for you to
purchase alcohol if you are 21 or over in the US. Folks are supposedly
trained to be able to spot fakes as well they have a
Technica Forensis escribió:
Or have you already forgetten that terrorists have been killing us (and
many others around the world) since the 1970's without pause?
So, is it a must to read all this in a technical mailing list? If we
want to start a political thread I can put my piece...
___
> Or have you already forgetten that terrorists have been killing us (and
> many others around the world) since the 1970's without pause?
It's been going on for A LOT longer than that.
___
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.or
--On December 29, 2005 4:20:51 PM -0500 gboyce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mr. Gilmore, who is an activist civil libertarian, deliberately entered
an airport without an form of ID, then refused to produce ID when
requested. When he was then asked to undergo a more thorough screening,
he refused
--On December 29, 2005 4:14:12 PM -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Paul Schmehl wrote:
Yes, because 1) the program isn't illegal
Well, about five years ago a lwa was passed forbidding *any*
government employee including the president from such spying seems to
make it il
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 14:37:44 CST, Paul Schmehl said:
> And the funniest thing of all is that they got stupid Americans all riled
> about about civil and privacy rights in the process, completely losing
> track of what's really important - preventing another attack on our soil.
You have this so
Paul Schmehl wrote:
Yes, they have. Especially the anti-war bozos who think they can tame
a Zarqawi by giving in to his demands. And apparently many more who
think terrorism is no menace at all.
Hey Paul!
What do you think about obeying the list charter and at least try
to tie your
Leif Ericksen wrote:
It comes back to ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Ahh, but there's a BIG difference between willful or unwillful ignorance
and intentional ignorance.
It's one thing to not know a law that you should know; it's a completely
different thing to be blocked from knowing
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Paul Schmehl wrote:
That's a silly misrepresentation of the facts of the case. There *is* no law
requiring the presentation of ID at an airport. There *is* a law that makes
it illegal to hijack a plane, and there *are* security directives, issued by
the FAA, which define
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Paul Schmehl wrote:
Yes, because 1) the program isn't illegal
Well, about five years ago a lwa was passed forbidding *any* government
employee including the president from such spying seems to make it
illegal. This is will be determined by the legal and political proce
On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 02:37:44PM -0600, Paul Schmehl wrote:
> We could remove the ID checks for airports and
> just let the terrorists blow planes up willy-nilly.
The leap from A to B in that statement could make it to the moon.
--
Stephen J Friedl | Security Consultant | UNIX Wizard | +1
This one I could not leave alone
Speaking of the terrorist COWARDS. If their cause is so just and noble
to their God, how come they have to hide their faces under a black hood.
I equate them to nothing less the a group we had in and sadly still can
find here in the US at times. I might make
* Leif Ericksen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [051229 12:47]:
> That is a good question... but showing and ID is good enough for you to
> purchase alcohol if you are 21 or over in the US. Folks are supposedly
> trained to be able to spot fakes as well they have a book available to
> compare them against if
Now with air travel how hard is it for an East German or say a
Palestinian to travel on the Israeli Airlines (what is its name again)
How about even a US citizen of E German decent or has a VISA stamp from
a country that Israel considers hostile. Personally I would only know
from what I have seen
How does showing ID to an official make anyone safer?
It doesn't. Any kid with Photoshop and some time can download templates
for any state driver license on the Internet and print one that would
easily fool the bean counters at the airport.
/mike
That is a good question... but showing and ID is good enough for you to
purchase alcohol if you are 21 or over in the US. Folks are supposedly
trained to be able to spot fakes as well they have a book available to
compare them against if they are unsure.
So with a good fake ID a person can mak
--On December 29, 2005 3:06:35 PM -0500 Michael Holstein
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The security directives are secret because you don't
show your hand to the enemy (except if you work for the New York Times.)
Uh huh .. so the newspaper informing the public about an illegal
government program
* Leif Ericksen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [051229 12:29]:
> Actually MOST states in the US require that you have a photo ID if you
> are over the age of 18. It can be A Driver License or it can be a
> generic state issued ID. As far as air travel is concerned, a quick
> looks see gave me this:
> http://
Actually MOST states in the US require that you have a photo ID if you
are over the age of 18. It can be A Driver License or it can be a
generic state issued ID. As far as air travel is concerned, a quick
looks see gave me this:
http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?content=090005198004a900
Personall
Uh, not even close.
--On December 29, 2005 12:06:45 PM -0800 Blue Boar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Paul Schmehl wrote:
So, while everybody eagerly portrays Mr. Gilmore as an innocent citizen
just trying to about his daily life, he was far from it, knew when he
entered the airport he was going
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Paul Schmehl wrote:
--On December 29, 2005 2:05:23 PM -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's a silly misrepresentation of the facts of the case. There *is* no law
requiring the presentation of ID at an airport. There *is* a law that makes
it illegal to hijack a plane, and
It comes back to ignorance of the law is no excuse.
So depending on the Lawyers, and the judges and possible jury you are
either boned or get a slight slap and are told do not do it again!
--
Lhe
On Thu, 2005-12-29 at 14:14 -0500, bkfsec wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 29 Dec 2005
The security directives are secret because you don't
show your hand to the enemy (except if you work for the New York Times.)
Uh huh .. so the newspaper informing the public about an illegal
government program (after holding the article for a year at the
government's request) is "helping the e
Paul Schmehl wrote:
So, while everybody eagerly portrays Mr. Gilmore as an innocent citizen
just trying to about his daily life, he was far from it, knew when he
entered the airport he was going to cause trouble, deliberately chose to
do so anyway and now whines about his rights being violated.
--On December 29, 2005 2:05:23 PM -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 08:04:43 CST, Leif Ericksen said:
There are those laws that are direct and clear cut, and there are the
ones that takes an act of congress to decide what is legal or not. ;)
And then there are those you're n
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 08:04:43 CST, Leif Ericksen said:
There are those laws that are direct and clear cut, and there are the
ones that takes an act of congress to decide what is legal or not. ;)
And then there are those you're not allowed to even *see*. In Gi
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 08:04:43 CST, Leif Ericksen said:
> There are those laws that are direct and clear cut, and there are the
> ones that takes an act of congress to decide what is legal or not. ;)
And then there are those you're not allowed to even *see*. In Gilmore v.
Ashcroft,
the Department
There are those laws that are direct and clear cut, and there are the
ones that takes an act of congress to decide what is legal or not. ;)
Regulations of HIPPA as I understand it are very confusing, and can lead
to a person being a law breaker if they do not follow the regs
correctly, same can b
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 18:28:16 +0100, GroundZero Security said:
> your last point was "*IF* you are not doing *nothing illegal*
How does a US citizen know they are doing "nothing illegal", when the
government apparently feels that secret laws are acceptable, and thus
could be in violation of some K
your last point was "*IF* you are not doing *nothing illegal* and have nothing
to hide no big deal."
thats what i responded on. try to stick to your points :-)
- Original Message -
From: "Leif Ericksen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 6:08 PM
Subject: [Full-di
Ah yes my archaic thinking bites me the the ASS often ;)... I know
that there are those out there that follow what I am saying and are most
likely ROTFL. Then there are the shallow minded folks that can not
follow me at all. GroundZero You seem to have followed some of the
archaic thoughts, and
44 matches
Mail list logo
