RE: [linux-elitists] LOCAL Stanford University: face down the DMCA enfo (fwd)

[Anonymous]

>Cops have a tough job.  They deserve our thanks for doing a tough job.

This one simple word - "our" - reveals your agenda. When did I give you permission to 
include me into your cabal ?

So first you steal the affiliations, and then use them to promote your proteges. This 
is a basic propaganda technique.

Fuck you and your friends.

Cops probably deserve *your* thanks, since they maintain *your* cash flow.

One small thing I can do is to make sure that you don't get contracts. And people ask 
me these things.

TSA's TIA Secret Spying on Air Passengers

[Steve Schear]

Source: 

[Federal Register: January 15, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 10)]
[Notices]
[Page 2101-2103]

From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

[DOCID:fr15ja03-104]

---

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Privacy Act of 1974: System of Records

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.

ACTION: Notice to amend a system of records.

---

SUMMARY: DOT intends to establish a system of record under the Privacy
Act of 1974.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 24, 2003. If no comments are received, the
proposal will become effective on the above date. If comments are
received, the comments will be considered and, where adopted, the
documents will be republished with changes.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yvonne L. Coates, Department of
Transportation, Office of the Secretary, 400 7th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-6964 (telephone), (202) 366-7024 (fax),
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Internet address).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of Transportation system of

[[Page 2102]]

records notice subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as
amended, has been published in the Federal Register and is available
from the above mentioned address.
DOT/TSA 010

Security Classification:
Classified, sensitive.

System Name:
Aviation Security Screening Records.

System Location:
Records are maintained at the Office of National Risk Assessment,
Transportation Security Administration (TSA), 400 7th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590.

Categories of Individuals Covered by the System:
Individuals traveling to, from, or within the United States (U.S.)
by passenger air transportation; individuals who are deemed to pose a
possible risk to transportation or national security, a possible risk
of air piracy or terrorism, or a potential threat to airline or
passenger safety, aviation safety, civil aviation, or national
security.

Categories of Records in the System:
Passenger Name Records (PNRs) and associated data; reservation and
manifest information of passenger carriers and, in the case of
individuals who are deemed to pose a possible risk to transportation
security, record categories may include: risk assessment reports;
financial and transactional data; public source information;
proprietary data; and information from law enforcement and intelligence
sources.



Record Source Categories:
This system contains investigative material compiled for law
enforcement purposes whose sources need not be reported.

Exemptions Claimed for the System:
This system is exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1),
(e)(4)(G), (H) and (I), and (f) of the Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
552a(k)(1) and (k)(2).


Its pretty clear that the State has decided to try and remove yet another 
Constitutionally acknowledged right: the right to travel unimpeded.  Yes, 
they'll claim that there is no right to travel by plan, or train or 
bus.  You want to travel unimpeded, walk.

What I don't understand is why anyone who wished privacy for any reason 
would travel using their own name or valid government issued ID.  I don't.

I think what we need are tens or hundreds of thousands of people who object 
to this illegal treatment and rarely if ever need to travel to offer hi-res 
scans of their driver's licenses (or other similar IDs) and make them 
available from an offshore hosting service.  I extend an offer to purchase 
electronic airline tickets on my credit card for anyone in exchange for 
e-gold or ALTA/DMT and a 5% service fee ($5.00 minimum).

steve

Re: TSA's TIA Secret Spying on Air Passengers

[Mike Rosing]

On Sun, 19 Jan 2003, Steve Schear wrote:

> >>Record Source Categories:
> >> This system contains investigative material compiled for law
> >>enforcement purposes whose sources need not be reported.
> >>
> >>Exemptions Claimed for the System:
> >> This system is exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1),
> >>(e)(4)(G), (H) and (I), and (f) of the Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
> >>552a(k)(1) and (k)(2).
>
> Its pretty clear that the State has decided to try and remove yet another
> Constitutionally acknowledged right: the right to travel unimpeded.  Yes,
> they'll claim that there is no right to travel by plan, or train or
> bus.  You want to travel unimpeded, walk.

It's not impeding travel.  It's just keeping track of who goes where,
and they don't have to say how they got the info.  It doesn't say if
there's any "quality" to stored info, i.e. a probability of truth.

If there's 100,000 terrorists constantly on the move, they'll have a hard
time with the tracking.  The assumption is that it's a lot less than that.

Just mess up their assumptions :-)

It's better to laugh at incompetent stupidity, you'll live longer being in
a good mood than by being in a bad mood.  (I've been reading some stats on
this, there's a major longitudinal study here in Wisconsin that gives some
proof to the good mood theory.)  Knowing how to dodge bullets helps too
:-)

Patience, persistence, truth,
Dr. mike

RE: [linux-elitists] LOCAL Stanford University: face down the DMCA enfo (fwd)

[Tyler Durden]

Nobody said...

"Cops probably deserve *your* thanks, since they maintain *your* cash flow."

Are you sayin' this guy's growing some grade-A hydroponic sensimilla?

-TD








_
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

Re: CDR: Polygraphs and Phrenology.

[Marc de Piolenc]

The key ingredient in successful polygraph use is a trained, experienced
operator; the machine really has very little to do with "detection."
Unfortunately it is impossible to train a sufficient number of operators
to the necessary level of proficiency for mass screening, so most
polygraph users simply lower the proficiency standard and go ahead
anyway... with predictable results.

My favorite true story is of an Army Intel Major with the highest
security clearances who applied to the CIA. The idiot who "boxed" him in
New York for the CIA decided that he was "probably concealing illegal
drug use." After three retests and five interviews the folks at Langley
decided he was probably okay (he was), but by that time he had decided
that THEY weren't...

Marc de Piolenc

Matthew X wrote:
> 
> Lie detectors can be fooled
> January 17, 2003 Lie detectors can work in specific cases, but are of
> little use in general screening, a study has found.
> The over-reliance on polygraph tests for screening can create a false sense
> of security that may lead to less vigilance or the relaxation of other
> methods of ensuring security, the committee found. – (Health24)

Re: Small taste of things to come if the war on Iraq happens.

[Harmon Seaver]

  Hmm, I thought it was satire. 


On Sun, Jan 19, 2003 at 02:36:33PM -0600, Alif The Terrible wrote:
> This is about the lamest thing I have read in years.
> 
> On Sun, 19 Jan 2003, Tyler Durden wrote:
> 
> > Well, our offensive against Starbucks wasn't so much against Starbucks per 
> > se. We wanted to utilize some crappy generic corporate "art" to auto-destroy 
> > another establishment that, at the time, was rapidly crystallizing "brand 
> > consciousness" in the minds of consumers. 
> 
> So, to put this in a language other than "Dot-Com Drivel", you picked on the
> first thing that came to mind, blindly, and then tried to figure out how to
> justify it later.
> 
> > By destroying a Starbucks, we 
> > wished to introduce a crystal imperfection, so that alternate, 
> > non-corporate-driven considerations of "branding" might be catalyzed. 
> > We continue to maintain the right to develop truly populist forms of conception 
> > towards consumer items, independent of the desire of the coporate state.
> 
> Yet more Dot-Com Drivel.  Do you write web pages for living?
> 
> > Unfortunately, we incurred our first casualty, one Robert Paulson. Note the 
> > willingness of rentacops to use deadly force to stop someone who was 
> > finished in the destruction of mere property. This, according to the 
> > establishment, was justified as an act of "violence against violence".
> 
> I agree that death was an inappropriate sentence here, while I also realize
> that there is an delicious Darwinian twist as well.
> 
> > As for Starbucks itself, we have no particular qualm.
> 
> And with this one sentence, you have utterly destroyed your credibility.
> 
> > -Tyler Durden
> 
> 
> -- 
> Yours, 
> J.A. Terranson
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they
> should give serious consideration towards setting a better example:
> Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of
> unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in
> the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and 
> elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire
> populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate...
> This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States
> as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
> 
> The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers,
> associates, or others.  Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of
> those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the
> first place...
> 

-- 
Harmon Seaver   
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com

Re: Small taste of things to come if the war on Iraq happens.

[Alif The Terrible]

Could be.  If it is, that'll teach me (again...) to read the whole thread
rather than try to just empty my [overflowing] mailbox...

On Sun, 19 Jan 2003, Harmon Seaver wrote:

> Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 14:50:35 -0600
> From: Harmon Seaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Alif The Terrible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Small taste of things to come if the war on Iraq happens.
> 
>   Hmm, I thought it was satire. 
> 
> 
> On Sun, Jan 19, 2003 at 02:36:33PM -0600, Alif The Terrible wrote:
> > This is about the lamest thing I have read in years.
> > 
> > On Sun, 19 Jan 2003, Tyler Durden wrote:
> > 
> > > Well, our offensive against Starbucks wasn't so much against Starbucks per 
> > > se. We wanted to utilize some crappy generic corporate "art" to auto-destroy 
> > > another establishment that, at the time, was rapidly crystallizing "brand 
> > > consciousness" in the minds of consumers. 
> > 
> > So, to put this in a language other than "Dot-Com Drivel", you picked on the
> > first thing that came to mind, blindly, and then tried to figure out how to
> > justify it later.
> > 
> > > By destroying a Starbucks, we 
> > > wished to introduce a crystal imperfection, so that alternate, 
> > > non-corporate-driven considerations of "branding" might be catalyzed. 
> > > We continue to maintain the right to develop truly populist forms of conception 
> > > towards consumer items, independent of the desire of the coporate state.
> > 
> > Yet more Dot-Com Drivel.  Do you write web pages for living?
> > 
> > > Unfortunately, we incurred our first casualty, one Robert Paulson. Note the 
> > > willingness of rentacops to use deadly force to stop someone who was 
> > > finished in the destruction of mere property. This, according to the 
> > > establishment, was justified as an act of "violence against violence".
> > 
> > I agree that death was an inappropriate sentence here, while I also realize
> > that there is an delicious Darwinian twist as well.
> > 
> > > As for Starbucks itself, we have no particular qualm.
> > 
> > And with this one sentence, you have utterly destroyed your credibility.
> > 
> > > -Tyler Durden
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Yours, 
> > J.A. Terranson
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
> > If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they
> > should give serious consideration towards setting a better example:
> > Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of
> > unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in
> > the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and 
> > elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire
> > populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate...
> > This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States
> > as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
> > 
> > The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers,
> > associates, or others.  Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of
> > those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the
> > first place...
> > 
> 
> 

-- 
Yours, 
J.A. Terranson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they
should give serious consideration towards setting a better example:
Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of
unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in
the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and 
elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire
populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate...
This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States
as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers,
associates, or others.  Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of
those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the
first place...

Stanford Talk - Solving High Technology Crime * 4:15PM, Wed Jan 22, 2003 in Gates B03

[Bill Stewart]

[Stanford's ee380 class often has interesting talks.
This one sounds like it's by the Bad Guys :-)
There's a parking building nearby where the public can park after 4:00,
but construction has eaten most of the other parking lots.]

Subject: [CSL Colloq] Solving High Technology Crime * 4:15PM,
Wed Jan 22, 2003 in Gates B03
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 22:34:55 -0800 (PST)


  COMPUTER SYSTEMS LABORATORY COLLOQUIUM
 4:15PM, Wednesday, Jan 22, 2003
   NEC Auditorium, Gates Computer Science Building B03
   http://ee380.stanford.edu[1]

Topic:Solving High Technology Crime
  Academic Partnership in Crime Fighting

Speaker:  Gregory S. Crabb
  United States Postal Inspector
  San Francisco Electronic Crimes Task Force

Other participants include:
Robert Rodriguez, Assistant Special Agent in Charge, United States Secret 
Service
Richard Perlotto, Cisco Systems
Chris Lalone, Network Security, eBay
Mike Miravalle, CEO, Dolphin Technologies
Fred Demma, Dolphon Technologyies

About the talk:

The San Francisco Electronic Crimes Task Force seeks to
engage
the academic community to help us address the technology
crimes
affecting our community, our corporate partners and law
enforcement. The crimes affecting our corporate partners include
computer hacking, intellectual property crimes (criminal
trademark and copyright infringement) and identity theft. These
crimes are costing the high technology community billions of
dollars and stunting the acceptance and growth of these
technologies to support our economy. Antiquated investigative
methods and poor individual accountability for Internet
communications are some of the greatest challenges facing law
enforcement. The solution to some of these challenges may lie
within the academic community.

The talk will focus on several brief case studies relating our
greatest challenges in fighting high technology crime. Each case
study will be presented by a law enforcement agent and/or
corporate partner of the task force.

About the speaker:

The San Francisco Electronic Crimes Task Force is a group of
Federal, state, local investigators and corporate partners, lead
by the U.S. Secret Service, focused on attacking high technology
crime affecting Bay Area companies, locally and globally. The
task force is part of the Secret Service's nation-wide network of
electronic crimes task forces, see http://www.ectaskforce.org[2].

Contact information:

San Francisco Electronic Crimes Task Force
345 Spear St
San Francisco, CA
(415) 744-9026

Acknowledgements:

Thanks to the Computer Forum[3] and to Professors Dan Boneh
and
John Mitchell for assistance in organizing this event.


Embedded Links:
[ 1 ]http://ee380.stanford.edu
[ 2 ]http://www.ectaskforce.org
[ 3 ]http://www-forum.stanford.edu

- End forwarded message -

Freak show of fags, dykes, and persyns of transgender at Starbuck's

[Tim May]

On Sunday, January 19, 2003, at 04:45  AM, Jay h wrote:


-- Original Message --
From: Matthew X <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date:  Sun, 19 Jan 2003 20:47:49 +1100


street, and through the windows of a Starbucks and a Victoria's 
Secret.

Yes all those evil weapons of mass destruction made by Victoria's 
Secret... they MUST BE STOPPED!

The obsession with Starbucks really puzzles me. Starbucks is one of 
the few mass retailers that actually offers medical coverage to even 
part timers, it allows people to move from place to place and pick up 
employment at another store, their policies have always been actively 
supportive of people discriminated against elsewhere such as lesbian 
and gay,

One of several reasons I avoid Starbuck's: the freak show of persons of 
piercing, incipient AIDS fags, and bald-headed lesbians.

Another reason is that I despise the "theater" of Starbuck's: wait in a 
long line (the times I've been, always because friends wanted to go), 
be "dissed" by the Persyns of Transgender, and end up paying $3 for a 
cup of coffee ("tips appreciated").

No-Doz and Vivarin do the job better, for less than a dime, and with no 
stomach acid side effects.

But for those who like the theater, the presentation, Starbuc'ks is its 
own punishment.

--Tim May

RE: [linux-elitists] LOCAL Stanford University: face down the DMCA enforcers (fwd)

[John Young]

Based on Larry Augustin's apology for cops and his avowed closeness to them, a protest 
is even more deserved against him if not the other participants.

Larry appears to be quoting from the COPS PR manual for garnering public support to 
offset deserved criticism of official misbehavior.

Larry is not alone in seeing the lucrative benefits of defending the giant law 
enforcement and national security industries, why you can read the turncoats all 
around the world of digital opportunity going on about the need for vigilance on the 
dangerous Net and worse, advocating prowling Intel-inside private computers networks 
to spot looming threats.

As just one example see Counterpane's recent crowing about success, one of its 
lengthening series of warnings about the need for more and more security against the 
dangerous digital hordes, and less and less warnings about the need to protect against 
official and commercial invaders who are handing out lucrative contracts to Net 
security firms and professionals.

Nothng like a fat bribe to convert pagans to organized terrorists screaming beware the 
sinners. Hmm, wasn't St. Augustine a prime role model for that crossover, as if Larry 
Augustin is a namesake.

To be sure, informers are best recruited from the pagans for they know how to magnify 
the hazards of their clan.

At 12:00 PM 1/19/2003 +0100, Eugen Leitl wrote:
>Hold your fire for a moment. Could be hitting the wrong ones.
>
>-- Forwarded message --
>Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 00:25:10 -0800
>From: Larry M. Augustin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Cc: 'Don Marti' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 'Karsten M. Self' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: [linux-elitists] LOCAL Stanford University: face down the DMCA
>enforcers
>
>I think that it would be a big mistake to do anything that might be viewed
>as even the slightest bit disruptive in this venue.  Further, I think you're
>jumping to conclusions to assume that the DMCA is relevant to these
>speakers.
>
>Dennis Allison and John Wharton, both of whom I have known for years, are
>sympathetic to free software and sympathetic to the problems with the DMCA.
>Dennis regularly brings in Bruce, Eric, and Richard as speakers.  I've
>spoken at this seminar on 2 or 3 occasions.  Bruce was just there a few
>weeks ago talking about the RAND vs. RF patent policy issues.
>
>Cops have a tough job.  They deserve our thanks for doing a tough job.  I
>have a number of close friends who are cops.  I think they deserve more
>benefit of doubt than "Target the _speakers_ and _philosophy_".  It doesn't
>sound like these are people that write the laws or make policy.  Maybe they
>spend their time fighting real computer crime like identity theft and
>crackers.  They deserve our support in that job.
>
>Has anyone talked to Dennis?  Before jumping to any conclusions, or
>organizing any kind of protest or demonstration, talk to Dennis.
>
>Larry

Re: CDR: Re: Petro's catch-22 incorrect (Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants)

[Marc de Piolenc]

"Kevin S. Van Horn" wrote:
> 
> John Kelsey wrote:
> 
> > No policy toward anyone isn't possible once there's any kind of
> > contact.  There are terrorists who'd want to do nasty things to us for
> > simply allowing global trade, or for allowing trade with repressive
> > regimes like Saudi Arabia or Nigeria, or for selling weapons to
> > countries with bad human rights records.  Osama Bin Laden might not
> > hate us, but *someone* would.
> 
> Baloney.  The terrorists have made it pretty clear what their gripe with
> the U.S. Government is, and it has nothing to do with trade, the
> American lifestyle, or the elusive freedoms that Americans supposedly
> enjoy. 

Right. THIS group of terrorists has made ITS beef plain. But one thing
you learn about Terror with a capital T, which I've been studying since
1974, is that it has its own ideology completely separate from and
independent of the nominal Cause. That is, a "Muslim" terrorist has more
in common with a "Marxist" terrorist than with a rank-and-file Muslim,
which explains the fact that diverse terrorist groups with seemingly
irreconcilable ideological differences readily collaborate when it is to
mutual advantage. By the same token, schisms in terrorist groups
invariably occur based on disagreements over tactics and strategy - NOT
ideology (though ideological justification is often found and proclaimed
post facto). Appeasement definitely will not bring an end to terror -
quite the opposite, in fact.

So to the extent that Western governments pursue genuine anti-terrorist
measures, they should be supported. When they implement the terrorists'
own agenda by abridging the freedom of their own citizens, they must be
opposed.

Marc de Piolenc

Re: CDR: Re: Small taste of things to come if the war on Iraq happens.

[Alif The Terrible]

This is about the lamest thing I have read in years.

On Sun, 19 Jan 2003, Tyler Durden wrote:

> Well, our offensive against Starbucks wasn't so much against Starbucks per 
> se. We wanted to utilize some crappy generic corporate "art" to auto-destroy 
> another establishment that, at the time, was rapidly crystallizing "brand 
> consciousness" in the minds of consumers. 

So, to put this in a language other than "Dot-Com Drivel", you picked on the
first thing that came to mind, blindly, and then tried to figure out how to
justify it later.

> By destroying a Starbucks, we 
> wished to introduce a crystal imperfection, so that alternate, 
> non-corporate-driven considerations of "branding" might be catalyzed. 
> We continue to maintain the right to develop truly populist forms of conception 
> towards consumer items, independent of the desire of the coporate state.

Yet more Dot-Com Drivel.  Do you write web pages for living?

> Unfortunately, we incurred our first casualty, one Robert Paulson. Note the 
> willingness of rentacops to use deadly force to stop someone who was 
> finished in the destruction of mere property. This, according to the 
> establishment, was justified as an act of "violence against violence".

I agree that death was an inappropriate sentence here, while I also realize
that there is an delicious Darwinian twist as well.

> As for Starbucks itself, we have no particular qualm.

And with this one sentence, you have utterly destroyed your credibility.

> -Tyler Durden


-- 
Yours, 
J.A. Terranson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they
should give serious consideration towards setting a better example:
Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of
unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in
the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and 
elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire
populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate...
This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States
as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers,
associates, or others.  Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of
those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the
first place...

Re: Petro's catch-22 incorrect (Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants)

[James A. Donald]

--
On 18 Jan 2003 at 10:01, Kevin S. Van Horn wrote:
> The terrorists have made it pretty clear what their gripe 
> with the U.S. Government is, and it has nothing to do with
> trade, the American lifestyle, or the elusive freedoms that
> Americans supposedly enjoy.  It has everything to do with US
> troops stationed in nearly every country in the world
> (specifically, Saudi Arabia),

That was one indictment of many.  Another indictment was the
crusades.  Bin Laden seemed most strongly upset about the
reconquest of of what we call Spain, but which muslims call by
another name.

In the most recent communique (which may not be Osama Bin Laden
but his successor pretending to be him) he gave a Leninist rant
that the arabs are poor because the rich countries are rich,
espousing the Marxist argument that simply being a citizen of a
wealthy country is a crime deserving of death.  This makes me
suspect that the original Bin Laden is now a grease smear on
some Afghan rocks, since the original Bin Laden was a
Heideggerean, and would spit on any Marxist unless that Marxist
was dying of thirst in the desert.


--digsig
 James A. Donald
 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
 sV5AglG+l7RX7GtAdr2sqFU4waW0+YXAMUKk12Nm
 4LvMyqqmmLejQafyYLGOpTioRrPohNzS4GFkFqk6Y

Re: Small taste of things to come if the war on Iraq happens.

[Tyler Durden]

Well, our offensive against Starbucks wasn't so much against Starbucks per 
se. We wanted to utilize some crappy generic corporate "art" to auto-destroy 
another establishment that, at the time, was rapidly crystallizing "brand 
consciousness" in the minds of consumers. By destroying a Starbucks, we 
wished to introduce a crystal imperfection, so that alternate, 
non-corporate-driven considerations of "branding" might be catalyzed. We 
continue to maintain the right to develop truly populist forms of conception 
towards consumer items, independent of the desire of the coporate state.

Unfortunately, we incurred our first casualty, one Robert Paulson. Note the 
willingness of rentacops to use deadly force to stop someone who was 
finished in the destruction of mere property. This, according to the 
establishment, was justified as an act of "violence against violence".

As for Starbucks itself, we have no particular qualm.

-Tyler Durden






From: "Jay h" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Small taste of things to come if the war on Iraq happens.
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 07:45:56 -0500

-- Original Message --
From: Matthew X <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date:  Sun, 19 Jan 2003 20:47:49 +1100

>street, and through the windows of a Starbucks and a Victoria's Secret.

Yes all those evil weapons of mass destruction made by Victoria's Secret... 
they MUST BE STOPPED!

The obsession with Starbucks really puzzles me. Starbucks is one of the few 
mass retailers that actually offers medical coverage to even part timers, 
it allows people to move from place to place and pick up employment at 
another store, their policies have always been actively supportive of 
people discriminated against elsewhere such as lesbian and gay, and unlike 
Walmart, their prices pose no threat to the beloved 'mom and pop' stores in 
a community. It would seem there are better targets to attack as the evil 
tools of oppression.

j





Sent via the WebMail system at 1st.net


_
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online 
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

RE: [linux-elitists] LOCAL Stanford University: face down the DMCA enforcers (fwd)

[Eugen Leitl]

Hold your fire for a moment. Could be hitting the wrong ones.

-- Forwarded message --
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 00:25:10 -0800
From: Larry M. Augustin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: 'Don Marti' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 'Karsten M. Self' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: [linux-elitists] LOCAL Stanford University: face down the DMCA
enforcers

I think that it would be a big mistake to do anything that might be viewed
as even the slightest bit disruptive in this venue.  Further, I think you're
jumping to conclusions to assume that the DMCA is relevant to these
speakers.

Dennis Allison and John Wharton, both of whom I have known for years, are
sympathetic to free software and sympathetic to the problems with the DMCA.
Dennis regularly brings in Bruce, Eric, and Richard as speakers.  I've
spoken at this seminar on 2 or 3 occasions.  Bruce was just there a few
weeks ago talking about the RAND vs. RF patent policy issues.

Cops have a tough job.  They deserve our thanks for doing a tough job.  I
have a number of close friends who are cops.  I think they deserve more
benefit of doubt than "Target the _speakers_ and _philosophy_".  It doesn't
sound like these are people that write the laws or make policy.  Maybe they
spend their time fighting real computer crime like identity theft and
crackers.  They deserve our support in that job.

Has anyone talked to Dennis?  Before jumping to any conclusions, or
organizing any kind of protest or demonstration, talk to Dennis.

Larry

on Friday, January 17, 2003 6:46 PM Karsten M. Self wrote
> on Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 05:08:47PM -0800, Don Marti ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> wrote:
> > Richard Stallman just passed this along to me.  I won't be around,
> > since I'll be in New York for LinuxWorld, but someone else might
> > want to organize a group of freedom-loving people to go and hand
> > out some anti-DMCA flyers, ask good questions, and so on.
> >
> > "How can you enforce laws that ban Academic Freedom in computer
> > science and then walk into a university and ask for help?"
> >
> > Remember, protests and demonstrations are GOOD FOR YOUR HEALTH.
> 
> 
> Note that the CSL Colloquia are a great opportunity to meet with all
> sorts of folks on all aspects of technology.  The faculty, particularly
> John Wharton, are very aware that they offer an opening for the public,
> and the range of viewpoints presented is large (Lessig spoke at the CSL
> a year ago).
> 
> Target the _speakers_ and _philosophy_, not the program itself.
> 
> That said -- go forth and make a joyous noise ;-)
> 
> >
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20021223/hl_nm/protests
> _demonstrations_dc
> >
> >
> >   COMPUTER SYSTEMS LABORATORY COLLOQUIUM
> >  4:15PM, Wednesday, Jan 22, 2003
> >NEC Auditorium, Gates Computer Science Building B03
> >http://ee380.stanford.edu[1]
> >
> > Topic:Solving High Technology Crime
> >   Academic Partnership in Crime Fighting
> >
> > Speaker:  Gregory S. Crabb
> >   United States Postal Inspector
> >   San Francisco Electronic Crimes Task Force
> >
> > Other participants include:
> > Robert Rodriguez, Assistant Special Agent in Charge, United
> > States Secret Service
> > Richard Perlotto, Cisco Systems
> > Chris Lalone, Network Security, eBay
> > Mike Miravalle, CEO, Dolphin Technologies
> > Fred Demma, Dolphon Technologyies
> 
> <...>
> 
> --
> Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
>  What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
>Geek for hire:  http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html
> ___
> linux-elitists
> http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-elitists

___
linux-elitists 
http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-elitists

Re: Small taste of things to come if the war on Iraq happens.

[Jay h]

-- Original Message --
From: Matthew X <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date:  Sun, 19 Jan 2003 20:47:49 +1100

>street, and through the windows of a Starbucks and a Victoria's Secret. 

Yes all those evil weapons of mass destruction made by Victoria's Secret... they MUST 
BE STOPPED!

The obsession with Starbucks really puzzles me. Starbucks is one of the few mass 
retailers that actually offers medical coverage to even part timers, it allows people 
to move from place to place and pick up employment at another store, their policies 
have always been actively supportive of people discriminated against elsewhere such as 
lesbian and gay, and unlike Walmart, their prices pose no threat to the beloved 'mom 
and pop' stores in a community. It would seem there are better targets to attack as 
the evil tools of oppression.

j 





Sent via the WebMail system at 1st.net