|  |
|
| |
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 2/25/99 5:14:38 PM
# Replies: 102
Just a little update I got from The Center for Democracy and Technology on the SAFE Act for you information.
=====================================================================
(1) BILL LIFTING ENCRYPTION CONTROLS RE-INTRODUCED IN CONGRESS
Reps. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) and Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), joined by over 200 other Members of the House of Representatives, today re-introduced the Security and Freedom through Encryption (SAFE) bill, HR 850.
Like its predecessors in prior years, HR 850 promotes privacy and security online by lifting export controls on encryption. The bill also affirms the right of all Americans to use whatever form of encryption they choose and prohibits the government from imposing domestic controls on encryption through mandatory "key-escrow" or "backdoor" systems.
The unusually large number of original co-sponsors signing onto the bill at
the outset demonstrates bipartisan opposition to Clinton Administration
policy and widespread support for promoting the availability and use of
strong encryption. The co-sponsor list includes the entire House Republican
leadership (with the exception of the Speaker who, by tradition, does not
co-sponsor bills), as well as Democratic leaders Richard Gephardt (D-MO)
and David Bonior (D-MI).
_____________________________________________________________________
(2) SUMMARY OF SAFE ACT, H.R. 850
* Guarantees all Americans the freedom to use any type of encryption anywhere in the world, and allows the sale of any type of encryption domestically.
* Prohibits the government from requiring a backdoor into peoples' email and computer files ("mandatory key recovery").
* Modernizes U.S. export controls to permit the export of generally available software and hardware if a product with comparable security is commercially available from foreign suppliers (creates a level playing field).
* Creates criminal penalties for the knowing and willful use of encryption to conceal evidence of a crime, BUT specifies that the use of encryption does not constitute probable cause of a crime.
* Calls upon the Attorney General to compile examples in which encryption has interfered with law enforcement.
* Calls upon the President to convene international conference to draft
encryption policy agreement.
______________________________________________________________________
(3) BACKGROUND ON ENCRYPTION FIGHT
By the end of the 105th Congress (1997-98), the SAFE bill had 249 co-sponsors in the House. The bill was reported with widely divergent amendments by 5 committees: Judiciary, International Relations, National Security, Intelligence, and Commerce, and was not brought before the full House for a vote, partly because of the opposition of then-Rules Committee Chairman Gerald Solomon (R-NY). Solomon has retired and SAFE Act co-sponsor David Dreier (R-CA) now chairs the Rules Committee.
A hearing on the SAFE Act has tentatively been scheduled for March 4, before the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property.
Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT) has announced plans to introduce in the Senate similar legislation lifting encryption export controls.
Meanwhile, the Clinton Administration continues to review incremental changes to the export control regulations.
For more information on the SAFE bill, including the text of the legislation
and relevant background information on the encryption policy debate, please
visit CDT's encryption policy issues page.
======================================================================
Response #1
By: Gowan McGland
Date: 2/26/99 1:37:59 PM
Does anyone have a Government-to-English dictionary?
Response #2
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 2/26/99 10:05:45 PM
Awww c'mon, it's not THAT bad.
It's a bill with strong support among Republicans and Democrats in the House. It (H.R. 850) basically protects an American's right to use any form of encryption they choose; they aren't restricted to using only a form of encryption that is built such that the government will always has a "key" that lets them decrypt it. This is counter the administration's plan/desire to outlaw all forms of encryption that don't provide a backdoor for the government.
It also maintains the rights of U.S. companies and individuals to sell their encryption products internationally, as long as those forms are already available internationally from other legitimate sources.
It affirms that the fact that you encrypt something is not probable cause to suspect that you are up to something illegal. But it allows additive penalties for people who knowingly and willfuly use encryption to conceal evidence.
Also, it calls for the Justice Department to start keeping statistics on cases where encryption has actually interfered with law enforcement since they have been claiming without proof that freely available encryption without a backdoor "ties their hands."
Make sense?
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #3
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 2/27/99 2:50:55 AM
Clinton signed a bill called the Food Quality Protection Act into law in 1996. One of the things it did was overturn the Delany Act of 1958, which prohibited the introduction of known carcinogens into processed foods.
So, I have to ask, Sorc: Are you reading the talk or the doubletalk when you offer this interpretation? :-)
Response #4
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 2/27/99 7:50:30 PM
Homer Sez:
==========================================
Clinton signed a bill called the Food Quality Protection Act into law in 1996. One of the things it did was overturn the Delany
Act of 1958, which prohibited the introduction of known carcinogens into processed foods.
So, I have to ask, Sorc: Are you reading the talk or the doubletalk when you offer this interpretation? :-)
==========================================
Ok, call me an idiot. I don't get the point you're wanting me to make for you here? The connection between this and the encyrption legislation is????
Or was that a very round-about way of asking if I have read the Bill in question?
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #5
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 3/1/99 2:40:46 AM
Yah, I guess I should be a little more, you know, *obvious*. :-)
I don't know anything about the SAFE Act, other than what you mentioned. However, when bills get names like 'SAFE' (and 'Food Quality Protection Act'), my bullshit meter starts beeping at me. Politicians decide that no one reads these things anyway, so they give them a name that has nothing to do with the realities the bill brings into being, but which sounds nice and wonderful, for the purposes of marketing it towards the public. I have to wonder what SAFEty in regards to encryption means to the same people who believe that known carcinogens are part of 'food quality.'
So yes.. Have you read the bill? :-)
Response #6
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 3/1/99 5:56:00 AM
Homer Sez:
================================================================
I don't know anything about the SAFE Act, other than what you mentioned. However, when bills get names like 'SAFE' (and
'Food Quality Protection Act'), my bullshit meter starts beeping at me. Politicians decide that no one reads these things anyway,
so they give them a name that has nothing to do with the realities the bill brings into being, but which sounds nice and wonderful,
for the purposes of marketing it towards the public. I have to wonder what SAFEty in regards to encryption means to the same
people who believe that known carcinogens are part of 'food quality.'
So yes.. Have you read the bill? :-)
================================================================
Yeah well, Government Types like cute acronyms, whatcha' gonna do. It's like having that one uncle with a horrible corny sense of humor, but he thinks he's the next [Insert Comedic Hero of Choice Here].
In answer to your question, yes I did read it. And you need wonder no longer about what SAFEty in regards to encryption means to them. My original post has a link to the encryption policy issues page where you can download a copy of the Bill in .PDF format. It's only about 400 lines long, pretty straightforward, amends Title 18 and Title 50 U.S. Code. The part you'll most be interested in is Section 2. Sale And Use of Encryption. Section 3 deals with changes to the Export Adminstration Act (Title 50 U.S. Code).
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #7
By: sooz
Date: 3/1/99 3:09:13 PM
Shhh. Homer's much to busy critisizing to actually research the issue.
Pardon my cynicism here, folks, but I'm sensing a resounding theme.
Response #8
By: Seventh of Seven
Date: 3/2/99 5:09:16 PM
Homer: Here's some stuff you should know about the delaney clause. (ah, for once I feel entitled to argue about something I know!)
If I remember right, the delaney clause is the one that talks about food additives, and states that no additive is allowed if it is found a) to cause cancer in humans or b) to cause cancer in animals (not verbetim, but that's the main gist). Now here's a problem, yes? The problem is twofold. First of all, how do you "prove" that something causes cancer, whether it be in humans or animals? In humans, the problem is insurmountable--you can't just give away samples and hope that a statistically significant number die. The only way to trigger the delaney clause is through epidemiological studies, and only something on the order of smoking is going to do that. The other way is to use animals. However, this is also a problem. What happens when you have 100 rats, you feed them all saccharine, and two of them end up with tumors? Could you say that saccharine actually caused the cancers, when the chances of cancer in the rats normally was maybe .5 per 100? Mind you, if you had 1000 rats and you ended up with 20 cases, that might be reason to wonder. However, an experiment with 1000 rats is not cheap. (The actual problem of saccharine plugged up the courts for a while in the mid-80s. Lab results were of the sort mentioned, but the ruling was against saccharine and resulted in the extinction of products such as "Tab". (side note: Saccharine packets you find in restaurants were not pulled, since technically it's not a "food additive".))
The second problem is this. How many substances, fed in large enough quantities to highly sensitive lab rats, cause cancerous tumors? I tell you, it's a hell of a lot. Because the wording of the clause talks about banning additives "causing cancer" and not "causing a significant risk of cancer", you end up banning things whose value as a food preservative or even as a flavor enhancer might well outweigh the risk of cancer it causes.
The delaney clause was created in a time when there was a great political fuss about cancer, and very little understanding of the cause and effects of it. Things were thought either to cause cancer or not to cause cancer. We know better now. In fact, we knew better 20 years ago, but the clause has remained active, because it's not a good political move to attack a law that "prohibited the introduction of known carcinogens into processed foods." The FQPA, if you take a look, also has provisions against carcinogenic food additives, but takes a more realistic approach to their use.
So while we're on the topic of reading talk and double talk, I will agree with Homer's advice: you should all be sure to read the words inside a bill, and not just the title or a soundbite.
Response #9
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 3/4/99 12:28:11 AM
sooz, if you hadn't figured out that I'm a cynical fuck by this point... :-)
Thanks, 7. I got my info from another cynical fuck, you see.
Response #10
By: Seventh of Seven
Date: 3/4/99 8:39:33 AM
it's not often that I don't completely agree with homer :)
btw, what is the democratic reasoning for not supporting the SAFE bill? Are they still after the government key?
Response #11
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 3/4/99 11:29:37 PM
7o7 Sez:
==========================================
btw, what is the democratic reasoning for not supporting the SAFE bill? Are they still after the government key?
==========================================
Basically the administration is still strongly against allowing encryption that doesn't provide a backdoor for the government and that is usually the reason cited by those who are against the bill. I don't know if I would call it the Democratic reason for not supporting it. There are quite a few Democrats signed-on as co-sponsors of the SAFE bill in spite of the President and Vice-President being against it.
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #12
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 4/15/99 4:04:31 PM
New computer privacy legislation information guys.
Senators McCain (R), Burns (R), Wyden (D) and Leahy (D) introduced a new encryption bill this week expected to dramatically change the political dynamic of the encryption debate on Capitol Hill. The new bill does not include the immediate, broad changes in US encryption policy long sought by privacy advocates, but does lay out significant steps toward export relief by allowing the immediate export of 64-bit products and the export of 128-bit and higher Advanced Encryption Standard products by 2002.
The bill represents a major shift by Senator John McCain, the bill's author and Chairman of the powerful Senate Commerce Committee. Senator McCain was previously an important supporter of Administration encryption policy and opponent of encryption relief efforts. In the 105th Congress, McCain cosponsored the controversial Secure Public Networks Act (S.909), which included domestic key recovery provisions. In contrast, the new bill prohibits mandatory key recovery or other government access to plaintext and represents a significant shift away from Administration policy.
The new bill, the "Promote Reliable Online Transactions to Encourage Commerce and Trade (PROTECT) Act of 1999," is also cosponsored by Senators Spencer Abraham (R-MI) and John Kerry (D-MA).
Major Provisions of the PROTECT Act:
* Immediately decontrols 64-bit encryption products.
PROTECT raises the current 56-bit ceiling on key length to 64-bits, a moderate increase in strength that falls far short of 128-bit and "Triple-DES" worldwide standards for good security. A 56-bit key message was cracked this January by a group of researchers and encryption enthusiasts in 22 hours. While 64-bit keys are significantly stronger than these 56-bit products, experts have long argued that higher key lengths are needed to ensure security from brute-force attacks over time.
* Directs NIST to complete development of the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) and decontrols export of AES and equivalent products by 2002.
NIST is currently in the process of developing the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES), a strong new global standard based on encryption of 128 bits and higher. In January 1999, NIST advised the U.S. government to revise its current encryption standard, "DES," because "exhaustion of DES (i.e. breaking a DES encryption ciphertext by trying all possible keys) has become increasingly more feasible with technology advance."
The PROTECT Act gives NIST a deadline of Jan. 1, 2002 for development of AES. After Jan. 1, 2002, the US "may no longer impose United States encryption export controls on encryption products if the encryption algorithm and key length employed were incorporated in the AES, or have equivalent strength."
This significant provision would effectively sunset most encryption export controls by allowing wide export of the strongest security products by 2002. In doing so, however, the bill would place a great deal of pressure on the process of developing AES. Care will be needed to ensure that AES remains a secure standard that can be trusted by encryption users.
* Does not contain criminal provisions.
Several encryption export relief bills, including the SAFE Act, contain provisions that penalize the use of encryption in the furtherance of a crime. These provisions have long been a concern for privacy advocates because, while narrowly drafted, they represent the first domestic restrictions on that threaten to chill the use of encryption. The PROTECT Act does not contain any of these criminal provisions.
* Allows export of strong encryption products to certain trusted end-users, export of recoverable products, and export of "crypto-ready" products.
PROTECT allows immediate export through license exceptions of any encryption products to "legitimate and responsible entities," on-line merchants, and foreign governments that are U.S. allies. "Legitimate and responsible" entities broadly includes: firms with publicly traded shares; U.S. corporate subsidiaries or affiliates; firms required by law to maintain plaintext records; regularly audited organizations; and "online merchants who use encryption to support electronic commerce." It appears the bill would not necessarily allow export to non-profit groups like human rights organizations, or to individual users of mass market encryption.
PROTECT would allow export of any encryption that provides plaintext access capabilities, such as key recovery. The bill would also export of so-called "crypto-with-a-hole" encryption-ready systems.
* Allows export of generally available products over 64-bits.
The PROTECT Act gives the Secretary of Commerce authority to grant license exemptions to products over 64-bits if they are "generally available" or if a comparable product "is, or will be within the next 12 months" generally available from a foreign supplier. The bill creates an Encryption Export Advisory Board to make recommendations to the Secretary of Commerce regarding the availability of encryption products. While the Secretary's decision is subject to judicial review, the President may override the Board's determinations for purposes of national security without review.
* Prohibits domestic controls and mandatory plaintext access.
The PROTECT Act contains a sweeping provision prohibits any federal or state agency from requiring, setting standards, or providing incentives requiring key recovery "or any other plaintext access capability."
The bill also affirmatively allows the domestic use and sale of encryption of any strength. While this provision does not change current law, PROTECT makes a useful statement of principal by Congress that the Administration's export controls should not restrict the domestic use of encryption.
For those interested the text of the bill is available at http//www.cdt.org/crypto
Response #13
By: Gowan McGland
Date: 4/19/99 12:26:51 PM
Okay, who read all of that?
Response #14
By: sooz
Date: 4/20/99 12:46:09 PM
Not I, said the duck.
Response #15
By: Ralf
Date: 4/20/99 11:42:10 PM
I'll probably regret it when the fascists confiscate my PC because I didn't read all that.
Response #16
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 4/25/99 5:14:33 AM
Oh, don't worry, Ralf. You're SAFE and PROTECTed.
Response #17
By: Ralf
Date: 4/26/99 7:13:52 AM
[fnord]
Response #18
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 4/27/99 11:43:19 AM
Guzuntiche!
Response #19
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 4/28/99 12:02:28 AM
OK OK! I can take a not so subtle hint!
Sheesh!
I'll not post anything more about online privacy issues. I PROMISE! If you care you can look into it yourself.
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #20
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 4/28/99 3:39:19 PM
Sorc: "OK OK! I can take a not so subtle hint!"
Where's that brick? :)
Actually, I quite liked the post. Good reading.
Response #21
By: Gowan McGland
Date: 4/29/99 12:31:49 AM
It's not that we're disinterested in the issue itself, it's that we don't care to read legal gobbledy-gook that reads like stereo instructions.
Personally, I'm all for open encryption methods. It's a method that could be used to encourage free speech. It's a powerful tool, so there are great things that can be done with it, but also bad ways of using it, as well. It's just a TOOL, though. It's not bad in and of itself.
Response #22
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 4/29/99 6:24:34 PM
Gowan Sez:
==============================
It's not that we're disinterested in the issue itself, it's that we don't care to read legal gobbledy-gook that reads like stereo
instructions.
==============================
What legal gobbledy-gook? Ok, maybe I've been reading "GovSpeak" and "Legalese" so long that I don't notice it alot of times. But I re-read the post, it was almost totally devoid of any "legalese". The only thing I could see that anyone might possibly get lost in was the concept of 56-bit vs 64 and 128-bit encyrption. If you want to see what REAL "legalese" looks like, take a look at the text of the Bill.
Besides, I've always been of the view that it is important for people to be able to read and understand the details of legislation that they are interested in or are taking a stand on. Too often people just let other people tell them what it says (which will include that other person's "spin" on the bill) or how they should feel about it. That's why I include links to help people find copies of the legislation in question.
My assumption from past comments and discussions is that people here might be interested in what is going on with respect to privacy issues, so I post a heads-up whenever I find out something. People who are interested can read it, research it themselves, and form their own opinions (sure it takes a little work but Democracy isn't easy). People who aren't interested can ignore it.
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #23
By: Ralf
Date: 4/30/99 12:26:02 AM
You're right. I *do* like to see the whole shebang if I'm going to talk intelligently about it.
Only, this venue is more like a bunch of folks sitting around a table at the Ale House yakking. If you stood up and read all that in one breath (great lung power, there) I'd listen politely but no matter how hard I tried to pay attention, inside I'd be drifting off to my internal Big Rock Candy Mountain, where the booze flows free beneath the cigarette trees and there are no mean dogs EVER.
This is kind of a rapidfire place. While the technology supports pasting a whole encyclopedia's worth of stuff into a message, I think a link would be more polite.
Response #24
By: Seventh of Seven
Date: 6/28/99 7:29:01 AM
well ralf, who says you can't reach your big candy mountain right there in front of your computer? let's face it, i'm sure more people than not have no desire to know autocad in sexually intimate detail, yet there's a whole thread of messages sitting on this board. us cadly deficient people, are we bored? do we pine for the old days when you could bonk a message in mid-load with a press of the space bar? unlike the alehouse, you have the opportunity to scroll past what doesn't relate to you and not just sit around in a drunken stupor watching barmaids until the topic changes. because if someone is passionate enough about something that they want to share the whole kit and caboodle of it with the world, far be it for us to begrudge them a soapbox, particularly when we have mopeds fast enough to zoom past if we should like. with any luck, yearning disciples will find their desired mentors and the world will be a better educated place.
free speech--love it or die.
Response #25
By: Gowan McGland
Date: 6/28/99 12:59:15 PM
"There ought to be limits to freedom." --Gov. G.W.Bush, Austin.
Response #26
By: Ralf
Date: 6/28/99 9:10:10 PM
You bastard! Stole my line.
I'm glad you feel that way, 7o7, since I have this here multimegabyte screed on UFO paranoia I'm gonna post to this thread. Should take, oh, two to three hours for the typical modemer to wade thru at telco speeds.
Ready?
Response #27
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 6/29/99 1:07:59 AM
7o7:
Thanks, but like I said back in April, I've learned my lesson. I'll not submit anymore of my boorish posts about online privacy issues. I PROMISE! If people care about it they can do the work of tracking the stuff down themselves. Or anyone ineterested can send me their email address and I'll pass the information I find along to them that way.
Sorc'(Rev) rljenkin@sprintparanet.com
Response #28
By: Seventh of Seven
Date: 6/29/99 7:21:40 AM
no man! you've gotta fight the power! if you don't, i'll have to start posting encryption legislation bills myself, on principle.
Response #29
By: Gowan McGland
Date: 6/29/99 11:06:27 PM
All this because I was flippant about not reading the whole thing.
Geez, you know, sometimes people take this Internet thing waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too seriously.
Response #30
By: sooz
Date: 6/29/99 11:37:29 PM
That's what you say now, Gowan, because you're not being taxed to death for each login.
I've recently started to make quite a bit of money off the silly ol' 'net, if you count $600 to $700 a week as "quite a bit". It's good beer money, anyway. If that were taxed, well, I'd have a problem with that.
Response #31
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 6/30/99 2:25:58 AM
7o7:
==========================
no man! you've gotta fight the power! if you don't, i'll have to start posting encryption legislation bills myself, on principle.
==========================
Heh...heh.... Well, if this were a public newsgroup or public forum full of people I didn't know I would agree with you 100%. But it isn't; its a gathering of friends and close acquaintances and that IMHO demands a different and more civil standard of behavior. Just because someone HAS the right and freedom to speak, doesn't mean that it is always proper to excercise that right. Being respectful, and not being purposely rude or impolite to your friends and acquaintances has to figure into it too. That's a matter of principle as well (IMHO).
I honestly was not aware that my posts on the subject were as distracting, impolite and out of place as they apparently were from reading this thread. I was just sharing something I'm interested in with the group. It's not something that really warrant's taking any sort of principled stand over. I'm not being censored, I'm just stopping because it's the polite thing to do.
Thanks for the support though. :)
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #32
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 6/30/99 2:37:34 AM
Gowan sez:
=============================
All this because I was flippant about not reading the whole thing.
=============================
Well...you ARE the EVIIIIL half of the Paul/Paul duo aren't you??!??!
:)
Don't sweat it, no harm done.
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #33
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 6/30/99 2:48:41 AM
Sooz Sez:
===========================
That's what you say now, Gowan, because you're not being taxed to death for each login.
I've recently started to make quite a bit of money off the silly ol' 'net, if you count $600 to $700 a week as "quite a bit". It's good beer money, anyway. If that were taxed, well, I'd have a problem with that.
===========================
Yeah, I've been reading about that. I'm not making any money over the net, maybe never will, but it still chaps my ass that their trying that. Scary thing is...the government as realized there's a whole new taxing frontier out there. The blood is in the water and everyone in congress with a pet project looking for funding is probably already drooling.
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #34
By: Ralf
Date: 7/1/99 7:37:02 AM
Never fear, there will always be a tax-free shadow economy.
Had they started this taxation thing when the first commercial internet site went online, it'd be different. Revoking a freedom once it's [granted|implied|asserted] is quite difficult.
If eTax legislation passes, look for a slew of off-shore web-hosting services to spring up, nominally for the use of non-American eCommerce, but hey who knows/cares anymore where the home office really lives? Collecting taxes in THAT situation could become kafkaesque.
This scenario is not necessarily a good thing... knock its taxbase out from under the U.S. Gov't, and suddenly it can't make payroll. Thousands of employees are laid off. Economic collapse wouldn't be unthinkable -- the largest employer in the US *is* the US.
The bureaucrats involved are employing 19th century tools to attack a 21st century problem, and will become baffled & angry when they make the situation worse.
The way to gain favor with an eTax would be to REPLACE an existing tax. If they waived sales taxes for items carrying an eTax, that'd make more sense.
No matter what happens though, it's going to be interesting.
Response #35
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 7/1/99 11:00:21 AM
I think the government should tightly control the production and selling of food. This way, they can only sell food to other countries. We in this country won't eat; we'll just pay a blood transfusion tax. Who needs a digestive system when we have the government?
Response #36
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 7/1/99 11:01:49 AM
"There ought to be limits to freedom." --Gov. G.W.Bush, Austin.
And so many of you people want to elect this guy!!!!!
Response #37
By: sooz
Date: 7/1/99 6:31:23 PM
I'd like to make rules about political comments.
1. Please say positive things about your preferred candidate.
2. Please refrain from slinging mud at the other candidates.
Of course, I know these will never be adhered to, as people generally think the best offense is a good defensed.
But if you can think of nothing to be FOR, and you simply MUST be against someone, please quote the Guvner in context. He talks about freedom ending where another person's nose begins. That saying's been around about 4 gazillion years.
Now, let's talk about the idiots that want to legislate Christianity... you know, freedom of religion, as long as it's Christian religion.
Response #38
By: Gowan McGland
Date: 7/1/99 7:17:25 PM
I know having the Ten Commandments on the wall at work has really made me think before bashing in my cubemate's head.
Response #39
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 7/2/99 4:36:03 PM
Tax:
Wave salestax for eTax.... Yeah, I think I might be able to go along with that, depending on the amount and details of how it would be applied.
10 Commandments in school:
Another silly notion by the Religous Right to use the killings in Colorado as a means to push their on-going agenda. Ya' know...the Ku Klux Klan has used the Bible and references the 10 Commandment and "Traditional Christian Values" in their organization and it doesn't seem to have done them a whole lot of good, or keep them from carrying out grusom acts of murder and brutality. I also seem to remember something about one of the gunmen in one of the previous school shooting being described and a "good kid" who was an eagle scout and always went to church and Sunday School....
This 10 Commandments bill was I believe pulled out by Congressman Bob Barr(R-GA), the same guy who has been having it out with the Pentagon because they recognize Wicca and other Pagan religions as forms of worship protected by the Constitution. Apparently Fort Hood (the largest US Army Base) has a very large and active coven which conducts services on base like any other religion with the full and open support of the base commanders and the military brass on up to the chairman of the Armed Forces Chaplains Board and the Joint Chiefs.
Allegedly Barr and some of his Congressional associates have tried to pressure the military to change its way or face retribution in their budget. He and the Christian Coalition and other Right Wing groups have issued a "Ban" on the military. Directing all "right thinking christians" to refuse to serve in the Army, to not re-enlist when their term of service is up, and to not allow their children to join the military. I can't help but find this a humorous move by these self-styled "Ultra-Patriotic" organizations....
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #40
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 7/2/99 4:46:28 PM
Alright goddamnit...does anyone have any complaints about THAT post?!?
:)
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #41
By: Ralf
Date: 7/3/99 6:30:15 AM
It's not long enough.
Response #42
By: Da Sissop
Date: 7/3/99 9:35:49 AM
Bob Barr... Bob Barr... wasn't he the feller who had sex with a pecadillo?
I think instead of the 10 Commandments (or 7 Edicts or 13 Babblings, depending on which state-endorsed religion wins the vote), I think they should push for a weekly "Town Meeting" kinda thing, where the schoolkids can assemble and talk about things with faculty and parents and maybe a certified shrink or two.... the stage could even be set up like the "Loveline" set so anyone with a particularly embarrassing question (or perhaps even a life-endangering confession) could zip off to the Anonymizer booth.
Response #43
By: sooz
Date: 7/3/99 11:17:12 AM
Passing legislation as a response to tragedy doesn't work.
Response #44
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 7/5/99 10:17:04 AM
Well, that depends on how you define 'work,' really. It certainly gets people re-elected.
Again, though, I must contend that the best solution to this problem is the blood transfusion tax. If you commit a felony, you wouldn't be allowed to pay the tax, and thus, you'd die. Violent video games, action movies, wearing trenchcoats... these would become non-issues.
Response #45
By: rorschach
Date: 7/9/99 10:49:24 PM
I say expand the death penalty to include rapists, repeat offenders, anybody getting more than say 20 years in prison.... and then chop those who are healthy up for organs and be done with it.....might give a few more felons pause.....
Response #46
By: Seventh of Seven
Date: 7/10/99 12:31:54 AM
if you were in a car accident and had to accept new body parts from a serial girl scout and librarian cannibalizer, what parts would you accept? what parts wouldn't you?
I think i'd be happy with any internal organs, minus the stomach. i might accept a left arm if the fellow worked out a bit in prison and had some interesting tatoos.
Response #47
By: Ralf
Date: 7/10/99 10:37:49 AM
Applying the "you are what you eat" maxim, the girl-scout/librarian cannibalizer would therefore *BE* a girl-scout/librarian and thus, squeaky clean morality-wise.
No problem accepting a nice liver or new set o'peepers.
Response #48
By: sooz
Date: 7/10/99 4:40:05 PM
Lungs. How badly could you mess up your lungs, provided you weren't a smoker?
Response #49
By: rorschach
Date: 7/10/99 10:45:53 PM
I dunno, I bet alot of older prisons were insulated with asbestos....
a heart wouldn't be too bad....(at least in my case anyway) or a pituitary gland (if such transplant were possible which I'm pretty sure it aint...) If the guy were a rapist at least the parts that make LH and FSH probably work pretty well.....
Response #50
By: Da Sissop
Date: 7/11/99 8:22:03 AM
Umm... okay well if I absolutely *had* to accept organs or tissues from a librarian girl scout cannibalizer, I would probably have to go with breast or thigh pieces, and a side of cole slaw. Are they still giving away the Jar Jar Binks toys?
Response #51
By: Ralf
Date: 7/13/99 10:12:03 AM
There's a joke in here somewhere about Girl Scout cookies, but I ain't goin there.
Response #52
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 7/14/99 2:28:31 PM
JarJar: "JarJar say that not funny!"
Yoda: "Up it give, JarJar. I convoluted grammar am master of!"
[Lightsaber battle ensues..]
Response #53
By: Da Sissop
Date: 7/15/99 7:25:55 AM
Response #54
By: Ralf
Date: 7/15/99 3:25:31 PM
Gah. Slorg. Erk... must... claw... eyes... out...
Response #55
By: Tess Trueheart
Date: 7/17/99 4:09:07 PM
I haven't seen the movie yet, but I do so love that tall guy..you know the one who gave the slow, wet kisses to ahh what's her name in that movie!
Response #56
By: Da Sissop
Date: 7/17/99 4:31:22 PM
Darth Maul?
Response #57
By: Tess Trueheart
Date: 7/18/99 7:03:00 AM
I not sure, but he was in that other movie.
Response #58
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 7/18/99 1:37:51 PM
Liam Neeson I bet. From Rob Roy or Michael Collins. Just a hunch.
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #59
By: Ralf
Date: 7/18/99 6:36:35 PM
From what I hear, there's gonna be smoochin-a-plenty in the next Star Wars movie. Young Skywalker and da Queen are supposed to get busy and start breeding plot complications for Episodes IV thru VI.
Response #60
By: Iguana
Date: 7/19/99 1:29:32 PM
Alright! We get to see some "gettin' it on!" sci-fi style...haven't seen that since Galaxina!
Response #61
By: Ralf
Date: 7/20/99 8:28:16 AM
Considering it's George Lucas at the helm, I'm not sure I wanna see it. I mean, what if it turns into a CGI spectacle?
Response #62
By: Da Sissop
Date: 7/21/99 6:42:26 AM
What, you mean, like, the midichlorian cumshot?
Response #63
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 7/21/99 11:20:20 PM
Ewww!!! Bad mental picture!!! Make it go away!!!
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #64 "The force is strong in THIS one..."
"Shut up and get me a towel!" Response #65 More Internet legislation..
This time, they wanna make it illegal to link to any "drug-related" site. So, you link to someplace that sells bongs or whatever and you can get 3 years in jail. Yippee!
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:s.01428: Response #66 Keep on rockin' in the free world! Response #67 So, like, I guess drugstore.com is doomed. Response #68 No, Ralf. Drugstore.com isn't doomed.
You see, in this day and age, if the Pharmaceutical Company isn't staffed with degreed Doctors, then obviously that Pharmaceutical Company is obviously staffed with Drug-Dealing Hoodlums. That's why we must make it illegal to transmit the instructions for making methamphetamines to other humans (a part of the act Gowan cited above).
Anyway, this is one of the many logical reasons why drugstore.com is not doomed. Response #69 I hate it when people say "In this day and age." Response #70 Perhaps you should see a psychiatrist about it. They have wonderful new drugs, you know... Response #71 Can I find them on wonderfulnewdrugs.com? Response #72 I just visited drugstore.com this morning...they are not doomed unless scented aromatherapy candles and hand santizing gel become outlawed! Response #73 Well then, only outlaws will...
nevermind. Response #74 Actually, hand sanitizing gel *is* rather addictive.
Must sanitize hands...must sanitize hands...hands are unclean...germs, germs, everywhere! Response #75 In this day and age, there are wonderful new drugs for treating OCD, you know...
Anyway. I want it to be illegal to teach anyone how to be a politician. Response #76 Really? Is there a school for that? I always thought it was some sort of regression in the evolution system... Response #77 He said "day and age" again. Response #78 That's a sign of getting old, isn't it?
Don't trust anyone over 30! Response #79 That's 210 in dog years. Response #80 The new axiom is "Don't trust anyone UNDER 30." (probably because they are a product of the current school system, television and other "rat out your friends and relatives" forces.) I don't trust the little buggers.
Response #81 And judging by the new ads for the Gap, they're all vest-wearing zombies. Response #82 I thought that was Old Navy... Response #83 "Gap" is one letter away from GOP.
"Old Navy" is a Skull-And-Bones term.
Coincidence? You be the judge.
(...and who the HELL are those people on the Old Navy commercials?? Morgan ("she's my wife") Fairchild & the Jeffersons are the only ones I ever recognize...) Response #84 The old lady with the wacky glasses is the new icon for kids. And I promise you, the ads work. Go to Jimmy's school (a snobby rich-kid school for brainiacs, where Jimmy gets to be the po' white trash), and you'll see lots of little Old Navy-ites running about. They're buyin' it. Response #85 Old Navy commercials are the Love Boat and Fantasy Island for the new generation. Response #86
Vest-wearing, MADONNA-SINGING Zombies.
Response #87 Are those bullet-proof vests they're wearing?
I don't trust the young whipper-snappers of this day and age either. Growing up in a mall and eating Corn Dog 7 everyday has got to have some effect on their brains. Those kids ain't right in the head, y'know? Response #88 Yeah, those kids today with their loud music and hula-hoops...
(I have the urge to break out in a song from Bye-Bye Birdie.) Response #89 In this day and age, all a kid has to look forward to is a pale imitation of the youth rebellion of decades past, played out as a marketing campaign, and an eventual descent into serfdom. Response #90 Did I mention that I'm feeling mighty cynical tonight? Response #91 I don't know... I was standing in line for a movie (The Iron Giant - very good, I highly reccomend it), when I overheard these two little girls - they couldn't have been older than 15 - talking about liquer, drugs and sex... the finer things in life... So, I don't think that the teenage rebellion has gone commercial - they just focus on things that are easier to hide from their parents.
...When I was 15 it was pretty hard to hide all those 'satanic' AD&D books... I should've gotten into something concealable, like drugs! Response #92 hmmm. it all sounds pretty much the same as when i was a kid. yep, didn't trust them back then either Response #93 Adults are evil. Kids are Gap-vested zombies. Trust no one. Response #94 Speaking of privacy legislation, encryption, and trusting no one... You might want to learn about how Microsoft has put an NSA backdoor into every copy of Windows software. Response #95 First off, it's not really a "backdoor". An amazingly unlikely chain of events would have to transpire before anyone's PC could be compromised.
The issue is that Windows95 and newer uses public-key encryption to validate certain files before using them. In other words, if a malicious hacker sent you a software component (.DLL, .OCX, etc) intended to replace a critical Windows component, and that component's keys don't match Microsoft's, Windows will not load or use the new software. It's a safeguard built into Windows to prevent tampering.
Everyone's known since day one that Windows does this.
What people DIDN'T know is that some components are "keyed" by the NSA also... in other words, Windows won't load certain components unless the internal key matches the Microsoft AND/OR the NSA-provided keys.
So what? Why should I care?
If the NSA wants to snoop on my computer there are a zillion easier ways than trying to con me into downloading software and installing it. Response #96 Cut out the middle man. I regularly mail backup tapes for all of my computers directly to the NSA, and quite frankly they're tired of hearing from me.
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #97 Perhaps you didn't know that the Devil is now working for Gates, Inc.
You're playing with a lot of job security here by cutting out the middle man/daemon. Playing with fire, so to speak.
Response #98 Did I mention that I'm trying to get a job at Microsoft, testing O2K for Mac? Response #99 ...coff... sputter... ..tilt..
Response #100 Think about it:
I'd be getting paid by Microsoft to crash Microsoft products, and then tell them how easy it was to do. "And by the way, your programmers must be smoking CRACK if they think they know what they're doing..." A certain delicious irony, don't you think? Response #101 You, my friend, are pushing the envelope of irony. Response #102 Ralf Shoots...and scores!:
""The force is strong in THIS one..."
"Shut up and get me a towel!" "
Alright stop it!
I fell off my chair, and since I'm work, they weren't real happy about that.
"I thought that was Old Navy... "
Gap, Old Navy, Banana Republic...All the same company, the Gap owns them all.
"Adults are evil. Kids are Gap-vested zombies. Trust no one."
The gap is selling kids, adults are wearing Zombie vests. Anti-trust laws are #1. Film at 11:00.
By: Ralf
Date: 7/21/99 11:20:20 PM
By: Gowan McGland
Date: 8/10/99 3:55:00 PM
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 8/10/99 8:10:06 PM
By: Ralf
Date: 8/10/99 8:13:41 PM
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 8/11/99 3:50:58 AM
By: sooz
Date: 8/11/99 11:11:17 AM
Just thought you should know, so that when I go on my automatic weapson, kill-everyone-who's-not-like-me spree, you'll know what pushed me over the edge.
Well, that and online pharmaceuticals did it.
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 8/11/99 6:25:35 PM
By: sooz
Date: 8/11/99 11:29:54 PM
By: Roxanne
Date: 8/12/99 8:34:32 AM
By: Ralf
Date: 8/14/99 10:26:53 AM
By: Roxanne
Date: 8/14/99 11:05:42 AM
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 8/17/99 4:24:43 AM
By: Shadow Sprite
Date: 8/17/99 8:37:27 AM
By: sooz
Date: 8/17/99 9:37:40 AM
By: Roxanne
Date: 8/17/99 10:26:26 AM
By: Ralf
Date: 8/17/99 5:16:00 PM
By: Jerichos Burlap
Date: 8/18/99 1:42:42 AM
By: Da Sissop
Date: 8/18/99 7:09:18 AM
By: Shadow Sprite
Date: 8/18/99 8:41:55 AM
By: Ralf
Date: 8/18/99 9:04:51 AM
By: sooz
Date: 8/18/99 9:16:52 AM
By: Da Sissop
Date: 8/18/99 6:58:32 PM
By: Gowan McGland
Date: 8/18/99 11:32:52 PM
By: Roxanne
Date: 8/19/99 1:00:26 PM
By: Shadow Sprite
Date: 8/19/99 2:12:11 PM
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 8/20/99 12:35:54 AM
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 8/20/99 12:44:28 AM
By: Shadow Sprite
Date: 8/20/99 7:41:18 AM
By: grin
Date: 8/30/99 10:33:32 PM
By: Da Sissop
Date: 9/1/99 2:07:45 PM
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 9/5/99 6:46:16 PM
By: Ralf
Date: 9/7/99 10:04:30 AM
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 9/8/99 12:41:48 AM
By: Jerichos Burlap
Date: 9/8/99 4:42:58 AM
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 9/8/99 10:23:07 PM
By: Ralf
Date: 9/9/99 2:29:11 PM
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 9/11/99 3:12:05 AM
By: Ralf
Date: 9/11/99 7:52:09 PM
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 9/12/99 8:48:35 AM