Re: Killing Judges
On Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 03:49:52PM -0700, jim bell wrote: "Did the PI hear of this incident?". (There were presumably at least 100 people in the courthouse or nearby when this incident occurred: one might think that it would be very unlikely if ALL of them didn't call the news media.) Naturally, she had to point out that they were being "good citizens" by NOT reporting"every bomb threat".I should have asked her if I hate to defend my colleagues, but this is reasonable. I don't know if bomb threats that turn out to be fake are inherently newsworthy. I would probably have made the same decision, given limited resources. Unless there was some evidence that this was a pattern of threats, etc. At the time, though not publicly, I speculated that to try to counteract this, a small counter-media organization might be formed, containing as little as a sole individual.. I figured that it would announce itself as a sounding-board for this kind of thing. It would receive, anonymously, any sort of announcement, statement, threat, promise, warning, etc. It would combine these anonymous snippets, and deliver them (quite openly, in a recorded and documented fashion) to all the various news media organizations that might otherwise want to ignore what was being said.Since this What you're describing could well be a competing publication. You'd presumably have greater legal protection that way in any case. I can see it now: "CJ and JB's BombNewsWire" -Declan
Re: why should it be trusted?
At 10:35 PM -0700 10/22/00, Nathan Saper wrote: This is true in theory. However, from what I have read, it appears that the care given to these people is far from the quality of care given to those who can pay. Also, many diseases require very expensive treatments, and I do not believe the hospitals are required to pay for these. As I wrote in my previous article, IT IS NOT TRUE that private hospitals must accept all those who appear at their doorstep. This would be a "taking," and is not constitutionally permissable. It may be that _some_ private hospitals take in _some_ emergency room cases, but they are not "required" to. This may have been a state law in Missouri, but I swear I heard reference to a similar law in Illinois. I would be surprised that it was not the case in the peoples republic of California. *ALL* hospitals are required to provide at least stabilization and transport to an appropriate facility to critically wounded or ill patients. The are not required to admit them for inpatient treatment, but they are not allowed to let them die in the street either. These kinds of laws are good in at least one respect--they make sure that if you forget your insurance credentials, or are otherwise unable to present them, you get treated anyway. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** "We forbid any course that says we restrict free speech." --Dr. Kathleen Dixon, Director of Women s Studies, Bowling Green State University
Re: Gort in granny-shades (was Re: Al Gore goes cypherpunk?)
At 10:14 AM -0400 10/24/00, R. A. Hettinga wrote: http://www.rollingstone.com/sections/magazine/text/excerpt.asp?afl=rsnlngFeatureID=120lngStyleID At 2:08 AM -0400 on 10/24/00, Declan McCullagh wrote that Albert, "Gort" Gore, Jr., (a robot who would destroy the world to save it :-)) told the Rolling Stone: I loved The Matrix. Innumeracy is as innumeracy does, I guess. And, unlike another, and equally fictional, moron with a better clue about how the world works, "Gort's" liking the Keanu Reeves neo-Platonist adolescent-hacker power fantasy The Matrix is paradoxically, but utterly, consistent with his currently-closet Luddist Socialism. No accounting for taste, of course, but I _loved_ "The Matrix." I'll leave it to others to decide whether I'm innumerate or not, whether I'm a luddite or not, and so on. Overall, it's up there in my Top 5 of SF films, with "2001," "Terminator 2," and "Blade Runner." Not necessarily in that order. Ihre Meilenzahl variiert vielleicht. For some reason, the very cartoon physics which made it popular was the main thing which bugged me most about The Matrix, as it does in a lot of other movies these days. Given that the characters were clearly described as being in a VR, and given that they "learned" to use the new rules they could access, the "cartoon physics" was very consistently done. As a physicist, I had no problems with it. So, ultimately, I suspect that the real reason that the libertarians and crypto-anarchists I like to hang out with on the net rave about The Matrix so much is because Neo gets to blow away so many cops, and in such exquisite detail. Quake with better graphics. And, like Quake, what would normally be considered murder in the "real" world doesn't "matter" so much, because the cops are not "real", not actual human beings. They're just software. Then count _this_ crypto anarchist as a counterexample to your point. Maybe, frankly, that's also why Albert, "Gort", Gore, Jr., a died-in-the-hairshirt man-the-barracades Mailerian Crypto-Communist disguised in a blue suit, white shirt, red tie, and, more recently, a Ronald Reagan pomade -- when he's not disguised as a earth-toned plaid-shirted pseudo-Gomer, or something else -- liked The Matrix so much. M In the meantime, the Matrix's supposedly masterful special effects, its apparent main attraction, were, for the most part, pedestrian, and could have been found in any music video -- or even commercial -- of the time. Actually, not so. The so-called "bullet time" effects hit the ads about the same time as "Teh Matrix" only because the tools and methods spread to the ad business faster than the film could be finished and distributed; in many cases, the same folks were taking what they'd learned and applying it to television. In any case, the proof is in the pudding. I certainly thought the effects were far from pedestrian. As to your not liking "The Matrix," fair enough. But using it as some kind of touchstone for everything that is bad in modern America is a bit of a reach. --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: Gort in granny-shades (was Re: Al Gore goes cypherpunk?)
At 11:17 AM -0700 on 10/24/00, Tim May wrote: But using it as some kind of touchstone for everything that is bad in modern America is a bit of a reach. Sometimes people do that. :-). Seriously, I knew you liked it when I fired up the old rant-machine this morning, but I hope we can agree to disagree about a movie or two around here. In the meantime, The Matrix just drove me nuts, and more so because I was *supposed* to like it, I guess... Cheers, RAH -- - R. A. Hettinga mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation http://www.ibuc.com/ 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
FW: House Republicans consider Census database, from NY Times
The last time they did this, tens of thousands of law abiding American citizens were placed in prison camps, for no reason other than their ethnicity. Peter Trei -- From: Declan McCullagh[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 2:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: FC: House Republicans consider Census database, from NY Times ** From: Steve Hutto [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: politech submission Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 12:21:36 -0600 Hi Declan, love the list. Apologies if you're already tracking this... Op-Ed from the NY Times 10/23/2000 "My Data, Mine to Keep Private" by Linda R. Monk http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/23/opinion/23MONK.html Scary opinion about House Republicans looking at creating a "linked data set" between Census Bureau files and the IRS and SSA. Any meat to this one? Excerpt: "Under current law, census data on individuals can be used only to benefit the Census Bureau, which has balked at turning over files to the budget office without greater assurances of individual privacy. However, the Congressional number crunchers are not taking no for an answer. Republicans may tack an amendment allowing Congress access to census data onto an appropriations bill before Congress adjourns for the elections." - POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology You may redistribute this message freely if it remains intact. To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ -
RE: Wired News tech scorecard for U.S. House of Representatives
Title: RE: Wired News tech scorecard for U.S. House of Representatives Everyone, Just a quick observation here. According to the Wired chart, it appears that the Republicans average roughly 49.85058296 and the Democrats average roughly 47.27853081 on the Wired News scale, with one representative being independent (Bernard Sanders), and one representative with an A for their party designation (Spencer Bachus). Here's my Republicans vs. Democrats breakdown of the Wired News chart: Party | Republican | Democrat | --- HR2301 | 0.181818182 | 0.343137255 | --- HR3615 | 0.153846154 | 0.024509804 | --- HR3709 | 0.958715596 | 0.697115385 | --- HR3125 | 0.218009479 | 0.575129534 | --- HR1501 | 0.440909091 | 0.908653846 | --- HR10 | 0.522522523 | 0.058252427 | --- HR1714 | 0.986175115 | 0.695652174 | --- total | 3.381165919 | 3.203791469 | --- votes | 6.798206278 | 6.777251185 | --- score | 49.85058296 | 47.27853081 | --- These are all just averages, and I omitted the A and I designated representatives. In regards to the A designated representative, Spencer Bachus, I think the A is an error. I was under the impression that he was a Republican. If he is, in fact, a Republican, then that changes our averages slightly: Party | Republican | Democrat | --- HR2301 | 0.180995475 | 0.343137255 | --- HR3615 | 0.153110048 | 0.024509804 | --- HR3709 | 0.95890411 | 0.697115385 | --- HR3125 | 0.216981132 | 0.575129534 | --- HR1501 | 0.438914027 | 0.908653846 | --- HR10 | 0.520179372 | 0.058252427 | --- HR1714 | 0.986238532 | 0.695652174 | --- total | 3.375 | 3.203791469 | --- votes | 6.799107143 | 6.777251185 | --- score | 49.75558036 | 47.27853081 | --- Which still puts Republicans in more of a hands-off strategy for technology, according to voting history. If Spencer Bachus is not a Republican, then please tell me what the hell an A party designation stands for. If you are interested in seeing TOTALS as opposed to AVERAGES, here is your chart: Party | Republican | Democrat | --- HR2301 | 40 | 70 | --- HR3615 | 32 | 5 | --- HR3709 | 210 | 145 | --- HR3125 | 46 | 111 | --- HR1501 | 97 | 189 | --- HR10 | 116 | 12 | --- HR1714 | 215 | 144 | --- total | 756 | 676 | --- votes | 1523 | 1430 | --- Again, it is entirely possible that my information is incorrect. I do recommend that you do the research yourself, as relying too much on these numbers means relying on numbers collected by a media source and in turn sorted and re-calculated by some punk-ass on the cypherpunks mailing list. To the best of my knowledge, however, this looks right. What alarms me is that though there is a slight difference in the overall score between Republicans and Democrats, neither party has a very strong leaning one way or the other, which illustrates the frustrations that a two-party system creates for those of us who would like to see a strong stance (either way) on the issue of government regulation of technology. I anxiously await any speculation that might take place on this list regarding how Libertarian representatives might have voted had they been in there, but the fact is that we live in a two-party system for the time being, and if we feel strongly about these issues, we need to accept that our representation may not be hearing us. Is it because we aren't speaking loudly enough on these issues? ok, Rush Carskadden -Original Message- From: Declan McCullagh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 11:15 AM To: Cypherpunks Mailing List Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Wired News tech scorecard for U.S. House of Representatives At Wired News, we've compiled a list of the technology voting records of each member of the U.S. House of Representatives. That meant picking seven tech bills and grading all 435 legislators -- at least the ones who showed up those days -- on their floor votes. If they chose to take a hands-off approach, they got a 1, while regulatory votes got a 0. (If you
Congress proposes raiding census records.
Let us remember that the last time the privacy of census records were violated on this scale, they were used to imprison tens of thousands of law abiding American citizens, whose only crime was to have Japanese ancestry. Peter Trei - http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/23/opinion/23MONK.html (free registration required) New York Times, 23 October, 2000 My Data, Mine to Keep Private By LINDA R. MONK WASHINGTON -- I was one of those paranoid Americans who chose not to answer all questions on the long form of the 2000 census. My husband and I decided that the government did not need to know, or had other ways of finding out, what time we left for work, how much our mortgage payment was or the amount of our income that came from wages. We were willing to risk the $100 fine to take a stand for individual privacy in an increasingly nosy and automated age. Editorial writers across the nation chided people like us for being so silly, insisting that only right-wing nuts with delusions of jackbooted federal invaders could possibly object to the census. Think of all the poor women who need day care and disabled people who depend on public transportation, we were told. And don't listen to the warnings of Trent Lott, the Senate majority leader - they're just another Republican ploy to get a low count on the census. Now, however, my concerns don't appear quite so ridiculous. The Congressional Budget Office, with the surprising help of some Congressional Republicans, is angling to get its hands on Census Bureau files. The budget office wants to create a "linked data set" on individuals - using information from the Internal Revenue Service, Social Security Administration and Census Bureau surveys - to help it evaluate proposed reforms in Medicare and Social Security. Under current law, census data on individuals can be used only to benefit the Census Bureau, which has balked at turning over files to the budget office without greater assurances of individual privacy. However, the Congressional number crunchers are not taking no for an answer. Republicans may tack an amendment allowing Congress access to census data onto an appropriations bill before Congress adjourns for the elections. The records the budget office wants are not themselves from the 2000 Census; they are voluntary responses to monthly surveys, with confidentiality promised. Forcing the bureau to give them up would set a disturbing precedent. Commerce Secretary Norman Mineta, who supervises the Census Bureau, warned Congress this month that amending the census law would "seriously compromise" the department's ability to safeguard taxpayers' privacy and "to assure continued high response rates of the American public to census surveys." Chip Walker, a spokesman for Representative Dan Miller, a Florida Republican who chairs the House subcommittee on the census, sees no problem with congressional access to census data. "The Census Bureau is the government, and Congress is the government," he said. Well, that's exactly what I'm afraid of. It's not surprising that a federal agency that stockpiles information would be raided by other federal agencies. If Congress changes the census law, the government will be well on its way to becoming another Amazon.com, which abruptly and retroactively weakened its privacy policy this year. I expected as much, because I don't believe either the government or businesses when they promise me privacy. That's why I routinely lie about personal information when applying for shoppers' discount cards and the like. And it's why I don't answer invasive questions on census forms. Keep your hands off my data set.
Re: Watermarking Utopia ...
I think I know what the SDMI "challenge" is really trying to accomplish. These people are not trying to seriously test their watermarking schemes -- those are broken from the getgo because the players will be in control of (and owned by) their adversaries, and they know it. Moreover, it should be possible to create a program that can render any all-instrumental music in a watermark-free form, by simply recognizing the instrument (from the watermarked sound) and substituting with the same instrument from a recorded library of sounds, plus standard filters for modulation and mixing, so the existence of a watermarked version is almost irrelevant except in cases of vocal music. Nor are they trying to impress stockholders with the security of their stuff. There is no competition in the watermarking business yet; as far as stockholders are concerned, you are doing it or you are not. Nobody's is "more secure" than anybody else's, hence effort spent convincing stockholders that the security is an advantage is a waste of time. What they are trying to do, I think, is to set up a legal status indicating that they "did their homework". That way, when the crack of their published system happens (and it will) they can more easily get a favorable judgement from a court and try to legislate and sue the crack program out of existence. I know that DeCSS had this happen to it even though the MPAA didn't really do their homework -- but given what happened with DeCSS, I don't think the SDMI group could make a really solid case that the crack was totally unexpected in their case - and the DeCSS case hinged on expectation. Security by siccing a herd of lawyers on the incursion may be ridiculous from a technical standpoint - but it is effective in restricting what a business enterprise can do, as long as that business is owned by someone using a True Name who must answer to the law. Bear
Re: Gort in granny-shades (was Re: Al Gore goes cypherpunk?)
At 10:37 AM 10/24/00 -0400, R. A. Hettinga wrote: At 10:14 AM -0400 on 10/24/00, R. A. Hettinga wrote: all depicted with deliberately cheezier CGIs to make it more "real" than the Matrix itself. *less* Sheesh. Edit twice, send once. Welcome to the net... :-). But Bob, I thought you usually did "Edit once, send three or four times" :-) This one only went to cypherpunks and dcsb (plus Declan), without also hitting two or three other lists, unlike most of your announcements. (I don't mind - Eudora's pretty good at sorting stuff, and it's easy to skip the excess copies since they've got the same date and Subject, though I do occasionally get bouncegrams for replying when some of the lists allow non-subscriber content and some don't.) Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639
Hi There!
Hi There! I thought I would drop you a quick note and let you know that there is an exciting and very profitable SELF-RUN online business which is exploding in 2000. This is the EASIEST and the HOTTEST online business today! Voted as #1 online business in a major business magazine! Company of the month twice in another major publication! Please check out my website below for more details: http://216.32.170.11/rants/inetx/ It takes only 30 seconds to find out. You will be glad that you did! Thank you and have a nice day!..Brian
Re: Paranoid Encryption Standard (was Re: Rijndael Hitachi)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
At 02:26 PM 10/20/00 -0400, Arnold G. Reinhold wrote:
At 8:13 PM -0400 10/11/2000, John Kelsey wrote:
...
I read the Massey and Maurer paper (One can find it at
http://www.isi.ee.ethz.ch/publications/isipap/umaure-mass-inspec-1993
1.pdf ) and I have a couple of comments on it.
Okay. I think it's a lot easier to understand their result
and all its implications like this:
Suppose we have two ciphers, E_{K}(X),F_{K}(X), and we
encrypt by computing
C[i] = E_{K1}( F_{K2}( P[i] ) )
Now, suppose I can break this composed cipher, when you
choose E and F's keys independently, in a known plaintext
attack. I have some algorithm, A(), into which I feed my
known plaintexts and the corresponding ciphertexts, and it
churns on them for awhile, and returns the keys K1,K2. This
algorithm can be used to break E in a known plaintext attack
as follows:
You encrypt a bunch of messages under E_{K1}(X). I know
nothing of K1, but I know the plaintexts and their
corresponding ciphertexts. I randomly choose a key K2,
encrypt all those ciphertexts with F_{K2}, and then feed the
original plaintexts and my ciphertexts into my algorithm for
breaking the composed cipher E_{K1}(F_{K2}(X)).
That means that a known plaintext attack on E(F()) leads to
a known plaintext attack on E().
I can also mount a chosen plaintext attack on F, when you
choose a random key K2. I randomly select a key K1,
randomly select a bunch of plaintexts, and encrypt them all
under E_{K1}. I then send you the ciphertexts and ask you
to encrypt them under F_{K2}. You do so, and send me back
the results. I now send my original plaintexts and the
ciphertexts you sent me into my algorithm for breaking the
composed cipher E_{K1}(F_{K2}(X)).
That means that a known-plaintext attack on E(F()) leads to
a chosen-plaintext attack on F().
All the result is saying is that you can always convert
breaking both ciphers to breaking either cipher
individually. The cool part of this isn't the worry about
which cipher comes first, it's the fact that, with
independent keys, you can show that composing the ciphers
gives you a cipher no weaker than the stronger of the two
ciphers.
The reason the keys have to be independent is because
otherwise, the proof doesn't work. If the keys are chosen
so that K1 == K2, then I can't build these attacks for my
proof, because I can't choose F_{K2} without knowing K1.
Now, we can also come up with examples of places where
choosing K1 and K2 to be related is a bad idea. For
example, imagine the following ``game:'' You define some
structure for putting N block ciphers together, and
then I get to choose the N ciphers, with the constraint that
at least one of the N must be strong against all attacks.
Now, in this model, it's clear that if the keys are all
equal, I can choose the ciphers so that a structure like
E1(E2(E2(X))) is easily broken. (Let E1 = 3DES encryption,
E2 = 3DES decryption, and E3 = the identity cipher.)
In this model, it's also clear that when the keys are
independent, I can't choose the ciphers to include one
strong cipher and N-1 ones specially designed to me to make
the composition weak. If I could, I could always convert
the algorithm into a chosen-plaintext attack on the strong
cipher.
But these are different arguments. The Massey and Maurer
argument, at least as I've understood it, is that the keys
have to be independent because otherwise the proof doesn't
work, and so we can't say anything about their security.
The game example I just gave argues that it's clearly
possible to choose strong ciphers that fit into this
multiple-encryption structure, and combine them in a way
that's weak, when the keys are not independent. (But it's
been five years or so since I read their paper, so I may be
forgetting some of what they said.)
...
However in the case of a chosen-plaintext attack, Massey
and Maurer's argument does not work. In fact the proof they
give of their "Proposition" can easily be adapted to prove
that a concatenated cipher C1*...*Cn is always at least as
difficult to break by chosen-plaintext as *any* cipher in
the concatenation.
Right. This falls out of the basic argument really nicely.
If you want to use an algorithm to break E1(E2(X)) to break
E1(X), it has to use a chosen-plaintext attack on E1.
My main question is how much weight should we give to this
result in designing a crypto system by combining AES
candidates?
Probably not too much, in terms of worrying about
known-plaintext vs. chosen-plaintext attacks. Though
honestly, I think designing your PES is like providing
really effective padlocks for screen doors. (But you could
say the same thing about AES with 256-bit keys.)
...
a. The keys need to be independent. (Otherwise, imagine if
cipher #1 is DES encryption, and cipher #2 is DES
decryption.)
I don't think it is quite that clear. It might well be easier to
prove, say, that Twofish is not the inverse of MARS for the same
key than it
News from XBOX.com
Title: The Official XBox Newsletter Thanks for your interest in Xbox. If you haven't already heard, Microsoft has announced a partnership with Imagine Media to publish the Official Xbox Magazine. Although you'll have to wait a year to see the print incarnation, Imagine wants to whet your appetite with the attached sample of their e-newsletter. Check it out and sign up to get it sent to you. SUBSCRIBE To become a permanent subscriber to the Official Xbox Magazine Newsletter, please send an email to the following address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] UNSUBSCRIBE To cancel your subscription to Xbox.com News, please follow the instructions at the bottom of this page. Pick your language: Some staggering numbers from the actual constructing of the Xbox. Is approximately how many miles of cable that Microsoft is manufacturing for Xbox. That's roughly enough cable to plug an electric nose clipper in St. Louis, Missouri and trim the rampantly growing nasal hair of Woody Allen in New York City. The number of individual parts inside of an Xbox Number of those parts that are "unique" (i.e. not a screw) How would you like to have a gaming magazine that combines the power and authority of an Official Magazine with the spirit, independence, and irreverance of a well-produced fanzine? See what we've got planned for Summer 2001. What kind of magazine do you really want? Speak up now or forever keep it to yourself. Welcome to the Official Xbox Newsletter. Every month, you're going to get a complete blast of information right from the makers of the forthcoming Official Xbox Magazine and straight into your eyeballs. It could only get better if we were able to transmit the data straight into your cerebral cortex - and if we could, we would. DEVELOPING NEWS One-hundred and fifty-five of the best developers in the world have pledged allegiance to the Xbox - We've got the scoop, the games, and the rumors on 16 of the biggest. ASK SEAMUS He has a weird name, he loves to talk, and he knows more about the Xbox than anyone on this planet. See him talk, ask him questions, and generally marvel at his innate ability to tell you nothing and give away everything. BEHIND THE NUMBERS: Xbox vs. PlayStation 2 and what it means to you. BIG BROTHER: HE'S WATCHING YOU! Actual gossip or complete fabrications based on nothing more than one man's slide into insanity? Judge for yourself. TOP 10 THINGS TO DO WHILE YOU WAIT FOR THE XBOX 10 - Petition Fruit Of The Loom to bring back adult-sized Underoos ... And nine other perfectly good ways to waste ... err ... spend the time For daily news on Xbox visit: To cancel your subscription to this newsletter, either click here or reply to this message with the word REMOVE in the Subject line. You can also unsubscribe at http://www.microsoft.com/misc/unsubscribe.htm. You can manage all your Microsoft.com communication preferences from this site. THIS DOCUMENT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS PROVIDED PURSUANT TO THIS PROGRAM ARE FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. The information type should not be interpreted to be a commitment on the part of Microsoft and Microsoft cannot guarantee the accuracy of any information presented after the date of publication. INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS PROVIDED 'AS IS' WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND. The user assumes the entire risk as to the accuracy and the use of this document. microsoft.com newsletter e-mail may be copied and distributed subject to the following conditions: All text must be copied without modification and all pages must be included All copies must contain Microsoft's copyright notice and any other notices provided therein This document may not be distributed for profit
Verify Your $25,000 Entry
Dear fgjfgj, This email is to confirm and verify that you entered to the $25,000 prize at TroppoLotto recently. To verify that your entry please click the link below to and make sure your registration info is correct. We'll give you a bonus entry for the $25,000 prize for confirming your entry! http://www.easywinning.com/firsttime.asp?sl=troppolottomem[EMAIL PROTECTED] Once a member of EasyWinning, you'll be able to enter to win tons of prizes like Vacations, Cash, Computers, TVs, Home Electronics, Jewelry and much more! Plus as a member of EasyWinning you'll be able to play Slots of Cash - the FREE, progressive slots game that is making winner's every day! Check it out! http://www.easywinning.com/firsttime.asp?sl=troppolottomem[EMAIL PROTECTED] You have received this email as you indicated that you wanted an entry to win $25,000 from EasyWinning at TroppoLotto.com recently.
