From: roc-owner@xmission.com To: roc-digest@xmission.com Subject: roc Digest V2 #14 Reply-To: roc@xmission.com Errors-To: roc-owner@xmission.com Precedence: roc Digest Saturday, 29 June 1996 Volume 02 : Number 014 In this issue: Re: Churches burning What new world order? Re: long dist carrier Re: Churches burning Re: What new world order? Re: What new world order? Re: What new world order? Re: FEMA -- BOSNIA connection RE: What new world order? Respond to U.S. News Re: Respond to U.S. News Re: Respond to U.S. News Re: Churches burning RE: Libertarians Re: communication privacy in gun-banning Britain See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the roc or roc-digest mailing lists and on how to retrieve back issues. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David LeVine" Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 08:57:48 +0000 Subject: Re: Churches burning > I never mentioned my faith, if any..... ;-) > > My feeling (solely subjective) is that whomever is doing this, if it > IS even one person or group, has no religious faith/affiliation > whatsoever.... Another point of view is that the religious affiliation of the person(s) involved in these atrocities doesn't matter. Did the affiliation of each Federal Agent at Waco matter? The responsible person(s) probably feel that these burnings are acceptable within the moral framework they have (if any) and thus religion is not relevant. While most Judeo-Christian groups are not hate driven, there are many famous examples of groups who are, and even Judeo-Christian groups have been to rain havoc on churches (look at WWII for example.) Sometimes violence and destruction are not related to anything but the need to hurt or harm one's opponents. As in war. Dave ------------------------------ From: Donald Silberger Date: Fri, 28 Jun 96 11:53:13 EDT Subject: What new world order? My letter, immediately below to Larry Tate, is in reaction to Larry's recent post to ROC. For those who may have missed Larry's post I have included it below my answer to it here. Specifically, my own post here is in reference to the concluding paragraphs of this post of Larry's, which itself is only one of the more recent contributions to an ongoing ROC debate in which Sarah Thompson too has been an exciting participant. Best wishes. --Donald Silberger ======================================================================== 29 Date: Fri, 28 Jun 96 11:34:13 EDT From: Donald Silberger Subject: sorts of new world orders To: Larry Tate I concur with what I took to be your view expressed in your post to ROC (or was it to NoBan?) in which I believe you suggested that it should not be the notion of a peacefully and freely "unified" world which one ought to deplore but the notion specifically of worldwide totalitarianism. I like the idea of an earth's surface from which governmental barriers to the movement of people, of goods, and of thoughts have been torn down, and where what "government" there is overall is there with the specific purpose of implementing liberties of the sort indicated as fundamental in the United States Bill of Rights. Instead of our constantly writing like xenophobic troglodytes in our complaints about *THE* impending New World Order, I believe it may be profitable for us to propose a truly libertarian internationalism, and to promote structural alterations in that direction via the UNO itself. The current assaults on "rights", i.e., of the U.S. First Amendment sort, on the internet occur not only in the United States but also in Australia, Indonesia, Germany, etc. The attacks on "free speech" dovetail with the parallel assaults in all such places against the (again American) Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Having abandoned the United Nations to socialist ideologues and authoritarians, we surrendered opportunities to bore into the United Nations and to transform it into a body supportive world wide of the American concept of individual liberty. Let's seize that chance! Best wishes. Donald Silberger ========================================================================= Return-Path: <@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU:owner-roc@MAIL.XMISSION.COM> Received: from CUNYVM (NJE origin SMTP5@CUNYVM) by CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 4542; Fri, 28 Jun 1996 01:02:18 -0400 Received: from mail.xmission.com by CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with TCP; Fri, 28 Jun 96 01:02:17 EDT Received: (from daemon@localhost) by mail.xmission.com (8.7.5/8.7.5) id WAA11998 for roc-goout; Thu, 27 Jun 1996 22:35:18 -0600 (MDT) Received: from ns1.computek.net (root@ns1.computek.net [204.96.11.2]) by mail.xmission.com (8.7.5/8.7.5) with ESMTP id WAA11988 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 1996 22:35:14 -0600 (MDT) Received: from ltate ([204.181.96.3]) by ns1.computek.net (8.7.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id VAA02582 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 1996 21:47:42 -0500 Received: by ltate with Microsoft Mail id <01BB6481.3BBE32E0@ltate>; Thu, 27 Jun 1996 23:34:49 -0500 Message-ID: <01BB6481.3BBE32E0@ltate> From: "Larry A. Tate" To: "'roc@xmission.com'" Subject: RE: Libertarians Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 23:34:48 -0500 Encoding: 66 TEXT Sender: owner-roc@xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: roc@xmission.com On Thursday, June 27, 1996 5:57 AM, righter@aros.net wrote: > > >On Tue, 18 Jun 1996, Larry Tate wrote: >>On Tuesday, June 18, 1996 7:05 AM, berg stephen >erik[SMTP:z931086@corn.cso.niu.edu] wrote: >>[snip] >>>Yes, Jefferson was a radical, and he would be >>>hated and feared today for his clarity of thought and republican >>>principles, if his ideas were still publically taught and discussed. >>> >> >>"if his ideas were still publically taught and discussed" >> >>This should be the core of any curriculum... public or private. > >Well, OF COURSE it SHOULD be. But American governement is no longer a required >course, seeing as it reeks of Eurocentrism and DWM syndrome. No, the required >course here is "Diversity". >(Whimper) > >Sarah > >Sarah Thompson, M.D. >The Righter We can change this. It is still within our power. The power of truth over lies... The power of good over evil... I have seen evidence recently that we CAN win. I was getting to the point where I thought that the side of right could NOT win without resorting to lies. But, the capacity to lie was not in us. And I think that this absolute lack of capacity for lying will see us through. I think that this November will be the bellwether of our resolve. First we have to make the superficial change... then we need to continue to see that the REAL change comes. Sarah made a comment (of which I agree) that brings a new subject: I'm going to go out on a limb here. There has been a lot of talk of fear of the "New World Order". Why do we fear a "New World Order"? Why do we fear a "United Nations"? I submit that it is not a "New World Order" we fear. What we DO fear is THE "New World Order" as envisioned by those who are currently shaping what that "New World Order" looks like. What about a "New World Order" that is based upon the liberty and responsibility that we are all seeking? What about a United Nations that adopts a Constitution based upon ours? What about a United Nations that enforced the Constitution as it was meant to be and not enforced as the "modern liberal" would like it to be? First we have to get our own house in order before we let the world in. I am talking about implementing a "New World Order" as WE (you and I who participate on this list) would have it. If you think that isolationism and protectionism is the only possibility, even given having it the way we want it, I would like to hear why. I stand here (in my asbestos suit) asking to be enlightened. - ---------------------------------------------- Larry Tate ltate@computek.net "Necessity is the excuse for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of the tyrant and the creed of the slave." - -- William Pitt, 1763 - ---------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: caps@visigenic.com (Cap Schwartz) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 09:20:37 -0700 Subject: Re: long dist carrier A > >They're called TransNational Communications Inc. I don't know if you have to >join Second Amendment Foundation first or not. SAF gets a percentage of what >I pay them. > >Callemup - 1-800-435-6832 > >- Monte I use them, as well. You *do* need to tell them you're affiliated with the SAF, so the % goes to the right place & so you'll get this cool calling card with the SAF logo on it, but you needn't join the SAF, per se. Cap o caps@visigenic.com JPFO NRA GOA K6JHR O- PFLAG / \ [who's looking for a Remington Classic in 6.5x55mm Swedish] /___\ What good's it being king, if I can't kill him, Papa? (_____) --Charles Schumer, Jr. ------------------------------ From: boydk Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 09:55:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Churches burning On Thu, 27 Jun 1996 sabutigo@teleport.com wrote: > At 05:28 AM 6/27/96 -0600, you wrote: > > > > > >On Wed, 19 Jun 1996, "Donna J. Logan" wrote: > >>On Tue, 18 Jun 1996 sabutigo@teleport.com wrote: > >>> I noticed on the news that so far this year a total of 58 churches > >>> have been burned down south -- 29 black and 29 white. Insurance figures show > >> > >>Speaking solely from my experience with people considering themselves > >>"pagan" and/or "wiccan" (NOT "satanists"), they'd be the last to set fire to > >>churches of any faith, and are usually victims of desecration and violence > >>themselves. And I sincerely doubt anyone of the Jewish faith is > >>systematically torching Christian churches. > > It's interesting that Donna sounds like most Christians on this. "Who, me? > Not us Christians." Just insert Wiccan or pagan or Jewish. I guess nobody > did it. > > S. Well, if demographic characterizations are adequate descriptions then I can tell you precisely who dunnit: Most were done by defects. Humans often create errors and when working with things like: electricity, anything connected to electricity, natural or propane gas. And all other energy sources including but not limited to things like: cedar shake roofs, large open ceilings of combustible material, wind & corrosion etc. Some were done by arsonists. People who for a vast (really really big) array of reasons choose to deliberately burn things. Like the rest of humanity, some but not all are racist, some but not all are of minority ethnic origin and some but no all simply have a sick attraction to the pretty colors. Now, being human, I could be wrong here. It's entirely possible that recent church burnings are way out of the statistical norm so that most are done by arsonists. It's even possible that most of those arsonists are racist (there is certainly a history of this in the south, since churches were often social gathering places as well as houses of worship and thus more of a "target" for racists). BUT because of the -amazingly- emotional bias of news coverage (helped along no doubt by poltical motivation IMO) we may never know. And IMHO that's a damned tragedy. I don't have any problem -feel-ing the pain of people who are burned out of their homes/possessions/places of worship, being a human it's real easy for me to empathize with people in that situation. What I need help with is the facts surrounding whats going on. To bad the media and our political leadership seem so intent on pushing that information out of the bandwidth with the emotive power of short clips of flames and longwinded sound bites of sympathy. Sympathy like that, I submit, serves no one. Boyd Kneeland > > > >THANK YOU DONNA!! > > > >Sarah Thompson, M.D. > >The Righter > >PO Box 271231 > >Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231 > >801-966-7278 - fax & voice mail > >righter@aros.net > >Dedicated to ALL Civil Liberties > > > > > > ------------------------------ From: Jack@minerva.com Date: Fri, 28 Jun 96 10:04:42 PDT Subject: Re: What new world order? roc@xmission.com wrote : > >My letter, immediately below to Larry Tate, is in reaction to Larry's >recent post to ROC. For those who may have missed Larry's post I have >included it below my answer to it here. Specifically, my own post here >is in reference to the concluding paragraphs of this post of Larry's, >which itself is only one of the more recent contributions to an ongoing >ROC debate in which Sarah Thompson too has been an exciting participant. > >Best wishes. --Donald Silberger > There is an interesting book that relates very well to your thoughts. It is called: The Origins of Order by Stuart Kauffman ISBN 0 19 505811 In particular with thousands of computer simulations it points out that order rather than being difficult to obtain is an inherent goal of all structures. Of significance to your post on New World Orders is that the more complicated the structure the greater the inherent desire of order: that is to protect the structure as a whole at the expense of its component parts. In other words an international libertarianism is as unlikely as *FALLING UP*. Libertarian goals / freedom are best and probably only found in the smallest structures: maybe even only a single individual. The larger the structure the more likely / necessary the absolute control of a police state. I should like to point out that we xenophobic troglodytes are not the least bit afraid of the *unown / xenophpbic*. We just understand the basic structure of creation enough to know exactly what we are afraid of. Read! But I seriously doubt you will enjoy Jack Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 818-798-6574 | ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | ------------------------------ From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 96 11:43:19 PST Subject: Re: What new world order? I agree completely. It's long past time that the UN became something besides a Communist plaything, (including the CEO's), and got itself reformed. - -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------ From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 96 12:18:34 PST Subject: Re: What new world order? In <199606281735.LAA26076@mail.xmission.com>, on Jun 28, Jack@minerva.com wrote: >roc@xmission.com wrote : > >>My letter, immediately below to Larry Tate, is in reaction to Larry's >>recent post to ROC. For those who may have missed Larry's post I have >>included it below my answer to it here. Specifically, my own post here >>is in reference to the concluding paragraphs of this post of Larry's, >>which itself is only one of the more recent contributions to an ongoing >>ROC debate in which Sarah Thompson too has been an exciting participant. >> >>Best wishes. --Donald Silberger > >There is an interesting book that relates very well to your thoughts. >It is called: The Origins of Order by Stuart Kauffman ISBN 0 19 505811 > >In particular with thousands of computer simulations it points out that order >rather than being difficult to obtain is an inherent goal of all structures. >Of significance to your post on New World Orders is that the more complicated >the structure the greater the inherent desire of order: that is to protect >the structure as a whole at the expense of its component parts. In other words >an international libertarianism is as unlikely as *FALLING UP*. Libertarian >goals / freedom are best and probably only found in the smallest structures: >maybe even only a single individual. The larger the structure the more likely >/ necessary the absolute control of a police state. > >I should like to point out that we xenophobic troglodytes are not the least >bit afraid of the *unown / xenophpbic*. We just understand the basic structure >of creation enough to know exactly what we are afraid of. > >Read! But I seriously doubt you will enjoy It's, (the UN), still something we have to deal with. Realistically, the more we can get it to go our way, the less international crap we have to put up with in our own back yard. The more the holes in the dike get plugged, the less likely we are to get our pockets full of water. The more of us who can work the UN scene, the better, as this has allready blown up in the Clintonista's faces in Turkey. They may start trying to keep us out, but it can't be ignored that good people turned them on their ears. It could, (and should), happen again and again. - -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------ From: neil@geol.niu.edu (Neil Dickey) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 96 16:13:00 CDT Subject: Re: FEMA -- BOSNIA connection Liberty or Death wrote in response to me: >> [ ... Snip, stuff about NWO ... ] > >Please don't take what I wrote as really a response to wht you wrote. I just >meant it as a picture of where we're headed, and your post happened to set >it (me) off. OK, I won't! I'm sorry I misunderstood, Monte. >- Monte, who thinks the only Good Thing about the UN is how well their blue > helmets show up in a scope... I see another useful purpose: All those little minds are kept occupied with the politics of a singularly ineffective organization, instead of with notions involving the cutting of throats. The opinions which I have expressed herein are entirely my own, unless other- wise noted. No-one else should be held responsible for what I think. - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | D. N. Dickey | Virtuous motives, trammeled by inertia and | | Research Associate | timidity, are no match for armed and | | Northern Illinois Univ. | resolute wickedness. | | neil@earth.geol.niu.edu | - W. S. Churchill | | **Finger for public key** | | - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: Larry Tate Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 19:10:50 -0500 Subject: RE: What new world order? On Friday, June 28, 1996 12:04 PM, Jack@minerva.com wrote: > >There is an interesting book that relates very well to your thoughts. >It is called: The Origins of Order by Stuart Kauffman ISBN 0 19 505811 > >In particular with thousands of computer simulations it points out that order >rather than being difficult to obtain is an inherent goal of all structures. >Of significance to your post on New World Orders is that the more complicated >the structure the greater the inherent desire of order: that is to protect >the structure as a whole at the expense of its component parts. In other words >an international libertarianism is as unlikely as *FALLING UP*. Libertarian >goals / freedom are best and probably only found in the smallest structures: >maybe even only a single individual. The larger the structure the more likely >/ necessary the absolute control of a police state. > There is no doubt that anarchy is the ultimate in libertarianism. There is great doubt however about its practical viability. In all of recorded history there have been no examples of any anarchist (non-)society, let alone a viable one. Anarchy may be the ultimate in libertarianism but it would also be impossible to maintain. People will realize the advantages to the individual in pooling resources. As soon as you get a gang of two, anarchy is out the window. Pooling resources requires management of those resources. Management requires structure. Structure requires leadership. Leadership leads to politics and political struggles. This all leads to where we are now. Back to the grumbling and groping for answers. In order to force anarchy, you'd have to organize just to enforce the anarchy! I just don't see it working. I've yet to see a computer simulation successfully take into account human nature. I say, let's just resign ourselves that government is necessary. Let's work to make it what it should be... a tool for the support and the enhancement of the individual. We give power to the government only because we want the benefits that can be had from it. If the government starts to stray from that singular purpose, it must be corrected (since dismantling it is not a viable option). It really is very simple. Let's get the world moving in that direction also. - ---------------------------------------------- Larry Tate larryt@finsco.com (office) ltate@computek.net (residence) "Necessity is the excuse for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of the tyrant and the creed of the slave." - -- William Pitt, 1763 - ---------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: Ken Bien Date: Fri, 28 Jun 96 20:55:16 PDT Subject: Respond to U.S. News At the following URL http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/guns.htm from U.S. News regarding "GUNS, MONEY & MEDICINE." If you scroll down to the bottom where it says "Have a comment? Want to read what others have to say?" Click on it and see what 72 people have said, and while your there go ahead and post your own response. So far the score is RKBA "72" and U.S. News "0". Kind of reminds me of the good old days when Sara Brady had her own web page with only one problem. She had no followers! :-) Ken Bien chevelle@mc.net http://www.mc.net/virtdir/kens/index.htm - ---------------------------------------------------- We do have a problem with firearms in this society. It's not that too many criminals and lunatics have a gun handy when they need one, it's that too many victims don't! - ---------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: "Ed Lawson" Date: Fri, 28 Jun 96 21:56:02 -0500 Subject: Re: Respond to U.S. News On Fri, 28 Jun 96 20:55:16 PDT, Ken Bien wrote: >http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/guns.htm When I tried the site, I got 'TALKBACK NOT FOUND' ... we're obviously having an effect.. EL Ed Lawson Texoma Technical Sales, Austin (512)329-8574 fax (512)329-0475 ------------------------------ From: Kenneth Mitchell Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 22:23:44 -0700 Subject: Re: Respond to U.S. News At 09:56 PM 6/28/96 -0500, Ed Lawson wrote: >On Fri, 28 Jun 96 20:55:16 PDT, Ken Bien wrote: > >>http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/guns.htm > >When I tried the site, I got 'TALKBACK NOT FOUND' ... we're >obviously having an effect.. > >EL Worked for me just now, at 2130 PDT. Try it again. It's now 75-0...... - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken Mitchell |"The Arkansas phase of Whitewater is relevant 8037 Stone Canyon |because this is where the Clinton people learned Citrus Heights, CA |to behave this way. .... In its broadest sense, 95610 |from the Ozarks to the White House, WhiteWater kmitchel@netcom.com |is an endless web of lies and deceptions, abuse 916-449-9152 (vm) |of prerogatives and casual obliviousness to the 916-729-0966 (fax) |law." Wall Street Journal editorial Finger for PGP | public key |Number of times that Hillary said "I don't |remember" (or variations) during Congressional |Travel Office hearings: 57. - -------------------http://www.vpm.com/kmitchel/home.htm---------------- ------------------------------ From: berg stephen erik Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 00:27:34 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: Churches burning The problem with hate crimes is that it is still difficult to read the minds of the perpetrators. It would be far more consonant with the spirit and letter of the Constitution to regard arson as such, no matter what sort of building is damaged or destroyed, and leave it as the local crime that it is. Steve z931086@corn.cso.niu.edu My views only of course, and all other relevant disclaimers. ------------------------------ From: eschelon@eschelon.seanet.com (E. J. Totty) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 23:29:41 -0700 Subject: RE: Libertarians Larry, >>>>>>> I am talking about implementing a "New World Order" as WE (you and I who participate on this list) would have it. If you think that isolationism and protectionism is the only possibility, even given having it the way we want it, I would like to hear why. <<<<<<< One should _always_ *never* accept that which is put forth by _any_ politician, most especially that which promises to make things better that they are now, because if history is any gage or indicator of what 'better' is, then 'better' is always worse. Which prompts me to observe that perhaps that is exactly what politicians have in mind when they say 'better. The foregoing is to be tempered with the notion that if better is getting rid of law rather than adding more, then 'better' in all likelyhood will be 'better'. The measure of a *good* versus _bad_ politician, is how they speak of law. The 'good' politician will always aspire to reduce the law to its lowest common denominator and cause it to speak singularly of one need or purpose - not broadly and without distinct form, and if possible - to eliminate the law altogether. The 'bad' politician will connive to change the law to suit a special purpose or need, but almost never act to reduce or eliminate it. Their modus operandi (MO) is to subvert or pervert the law, or cause it to change in ways that will trap citizens - but never aid them. Their purpose is almost always to expand government function, and thereby increase their power. Isolationism and protectionism need to be defined in a way that precisely identifies their meanings. I know the classical definitions, but sometimes those difinitions get blured or even distorted in a 'modern' discussion. From my own standpoint, if we are to be involved then it should be on the understanding that it is for the purposes of mutual protection, and defense of our own citizens only, and not because some political buffoon in a foreign land went and picked a fight. The lives and blood of my fellows is worth more to me than someone else's pride and honor. Let them swallow their pride and move on, we have better things to do. And as for protectionism, if someone else can make a good thing better, for a fair price, then let the competition begin. I sure as hell am not going to pay an artificially high price just to keep the business here. The word is "balance". ------------------------------ From: righter@aros.net Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 01:55:11 -0600 Subject: Re: communication privacy in gun-banning Britain On Wed, 19 Jun 96, Donald Silberger wrote: > >======================================================================== 41 >Date: Wed, 19 Jun 96 17:19:00 EDT >From: Donald Silberger >Subject: Britain to... crypto-official... >To: Matthew Gaylor and others on the FreeMatt list > >The piece in FreeMatt I will discuss mentions that the British government >may license third parties to hold the decryption keys to communication of >a purportedly private character between individuals over the internet. >That reposted piece in FreeMatt suggests three supposed benefits to this >briefly reported governmental security measure: > >(1). The British government wishes to promote the security of business >communication over the internet in order to increase Britain's ability >to compete on the world market. > >(2). It wishes to safeguard the privacy of communication between two >individuals over the internet. > >(3). It wishes to preserve the ability of law enforcement to monitor >potential or actual criminal activity or terrorism. > >My curiosity was aroused because I immediately recalled a means already >in place for British subjects to be satisfied with respect to both (1) >and (2) above. Would those purposes not be served adequately by the >resort to PGP in order to secure the confidentiality of communications? >If the answer is, as I surmise, "Yes", then it would seem that only (3) >significantly interests the British government. > >Of course the vast majority of Britons - like the vast majority of Yanks - >want to discourage terrorism. But I wonder how much of the criminality of >interest to law enforcement in this matter pertains to the illegal drug >business and to the related financial transactions which are damned by >the words, "money laundering". I not only raise this question, but I >sense a bit of anxiety and pique at any soft-shoe escalation of the War >on Drugs world wide. I believe peace should be declared in this war. > >Law enforcement world wide ought to focus its attention against violence >to person and/or to property rather than against peaceable contracts, >willing exchanges of services or commodities, and choices of life style. > >I invite flames. --Donald Silberger Hi again! It seems like it's impossible to keep up with e-mail these days, especially when there's so much e-vil to keep track of! Flame? Why in the world would I flame you? This is e-chip all over again! Privacy is privacy. As for trusted third parties, I think maybe only my husband or my lawyer would do, since neither of them can be forced to violate confidentiality nor testify against me. Meanwhile, my other computer is trying (and failing) to download WinPGP. Sarah (public key available if I ever get one!) >========================================================================= >Message-Id: <199606112007.QAA01167@nrk.com> >Subject: Britain to control crypto - official (fwd from Usenet) >To: cypherpunks@toad.com (Cypherpunks) >Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 16:07:28 -0400 (EDT) > >The British government quietly announced yesterday that it will >legislate to restrict crypto. The details are in the attached >Reuters and PA newswires. > >Fuller details will no doubt be available at a one day workshop >that the Ministry of Defence is organising at the IEE in Savoy >Place on the 27th June. The speakers will include directors of >both CESG (GCHQ's front operation) and DRA, as well as a policeman >and the data protection registrar. The IEE's phone number is 0171 >240 1871. > >Ross > >RTf 06/10 1355 UK to license information encryption services > > LONDON, June 10 (Reuter) - The British government unveiled proposals on >Monday aimed at meeting the demand for encryption services to safeguard the >confidentiality of electronic information transmitted on public >telecommunications networks. > > Technology minister Ian Taylor published a paper proposing a licensing >system for so-called "Trusted Third parties," or TTPs, to provide encryption >services. > "The TTPs would offer digital signature, data integrity and retrieval, key >management and other services for which there is a commercial demand," Taylor >said in a written parliamentary answer. > Taylor said encryption services would facilitate the development of >electronic commerce, thus helping to maintain Britain's competitiveness. > The licensing policy would aim to protect consumers as well as to preserve >the ability of intelligence and law enforcement agencies to fight serious crime >and terrorism, Taylor said. > This would be done by establishing procedures for disclosure to them of the >encryption keys, under safeguards similar to those which already exist under >the Interception of Communications Act, he added. > Taylor said officials in his department had already held preliminary >discussions with industry groups on the concepts set out in Monday's paper. > Following consultation by the Department of Trade and Industry on detailed >proposals, the government intends to bring forward legislation, Taylor added. > > >PA 06/10 1808 MOVE TO STRENGTHEN INFORMATION SECURITY > > By Parliamentary Staff, PA News > The Government tonight announced plans to strenthen the security of >information sent electronically over public telecommunications networks. > Technology Minister Ian Taylor, in a Commons written reply, disclosed >proposals to licence trusted third parties to provide encryption services -- >the process of transforming text into an unintelligible form that can only >subsequently be recovered by someone possessing the corresponding decryption >key. > These services cover the digital signature, an electronic equivalent of a >hand-written signature, of electronic documents and the protection of the >accuracy and privacy of contents. > Mr Taylor said: "There is a growing demand for encryption services to >safeguard the integrity and confidentiality of electronic information >transmitted on public telecommunications networks. > "The Government therefore proposes to make arrangements for licensing >trusted third parties who would provide such services." These would include >digital signature, data integrity and retrieval and key management services. > "The licensing policy will aim to protect consumers as well as to preserve >the ability of the intelligence and law enforcement agencies to fight serious >crime and terrorism by establishing procedures for disclosure to them of the >encryption keys, under safeguards similar to those which already exist for >warranted interception under the Interception of Communications Act." > Mr Taylor, who disclosed publication of a paper, said it was intended to >bring forward proposals for legislation after consultation on detailed policy >proposals. > The Trade and Industry Department said increased use of IT systems by >British business and commerce was a major factor in their improved competitive >position, but had brought increased security risks -- especially concerning >integrity and confidentiality of information passed electronically between >trading bodies. > Prime candidates to be trusted third parties could include banks, network >operators and trade associations. > >###*+ > > >**************************************************************************** >Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues >Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA >on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week) >Matthew Gaylor,1933 E. Dublin-Granville Rd.,#176, Columbus, OH 43229 >**************************************************************************** > > > Sarah Thompson, M.D. The Righter PO Box 271231 Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231 801-468-4637 - voice mail 801-966-7278 - fax righter@aros.net Dedicated to ALL Civil Liberties ------------------------------ End of roc Digest V2 #14 ************************ To subscribe to roc Digest, send the command: subscribe roc-digest in the body of a message to "majordomo@xmission.com". If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-roc": subscribe roc-digest local-roc@your.domain.net A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "roc-digest" in the commands above with "roc". Back issues are available for anonymous FTP from ftp.xmission.com, in pub/lists/roc/archive. These are organized by date.