T
H
E

L
I
B
E
R
T
A
R
I
A
N

E
N
T
E
R
P
R
I
S
E


I
s
s
u
e

112

L. Neil Smith's
THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 112, March 12, 2001
Ides of Millenium

From: "Dan" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: response to a letter in TLE #111
Date: Sunday, March 04, 2001 11:00 AM

Jack Jerome wrote in TLE#111:

Just a quick note that someone more learned among your readers may want to expand on. Visitors to submarines, tanks, helicopters, and jet fighters are exceedingly rare under the best of circumstances. Now, due in no small part to a sad incident in the Pacific, they may now be unheard of. ...

I'm not in the military myself. I do have a few friends that are in the Navy. They're in the subforce to be specific, and are stationed at New London Naval Base. According to them, in a submarine, safety is the upmost concern. It's drilled into their heads from day one in sub school. Any claim by the officers and crew that they were distracted and unable to do their job means that they (the officers and crew) have forgotten their early training. And should NOT under any circumstances be allowed on a submarine again. I also think that making such a claim should be enough for a court martial.

Another friend of mine had a brother who was a chief engineer on an Ohio-class submarine. I believe the guy's still in the Navy, but not on subs anymore. According to my friend, Christmas cruises weren't all that unusual. A Christmas cruise is where the officers (And possibly crew) can invite close male relatives to take a trip on a submarine (pending security approval).

Dan

From: "Roy J. Tellason" <roy.j.tellason%[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: MS's RPCSS.EXE
Date: Sunday, March 04, 2001 2:08 PM

Since darn near the first stuff I see in this latest TLE to arrive here is seeming to talk about who's side M$ is on, and since I ran across this just a few minutes earier, I thought I'd forward this for your (and the readers) consideration:

* Forwarded (from: SURV_COMM) by Roy J. Tellason
* Originally from Lee Knoper (9:2800/4) to All
* Original dated: Mon Feb 19, 08:25

And here's one of the better followup messages from the ZA Trojan thread.

RPCSS.EXE is presumably a throttled variant of the infamous Microsoft "sniffer virus" that first appeared in Win 95 beta. Recall that this pathogen inventoried the contents of your HD, then transmitted them (or any changes, at least) to MS whenever you logged in to MSN. It was classified as a virus because it self-replicated; if you had the sniffer virus on one machine on a LAN or WAN, then it quickly propagated to other machines on that network - even if they were running a different Windows release. The article below tends to explain why MS embeds unique designators in strange places, such as in hidden areas of documents, and in hidden directories and files.
-LK
��������������
>Newsgroups: alt.privacy
>Date: 16 Feb 2001 03:26:39 GMT
>Subject: Re: Aureate/Zone Alarm-Steve Gibsons-Spyware-et al

All this can be verified with a "packet sniffer" mind you.

Just go back to a "window" in time to 1995 when BILLG gave us that wonderous little "registration wizard". You know his version of "TATTLETALE" (a fav MAC ut).

Merlin Lives - in your Wintel machine :-)

(from a sh%t webpage just recently adverted in this here NG I quote)

As a former employee of Microsoft in the know(?), I can testify that the Distributed COM (Component Object Model) Services are used to profile product key and other registration data as a future means to enforce software piracy laws that have yet to be adequately enforced at a Federal level.

Microsoft has been compiling a massive database of names, registration codes, product keys, and linking them with data pulled from e-mail addresses stored in Outlook, Outlook Express, etc. as well as the serial numbers that can now be easily obtained from any Pentium-III CPU.

Microsoft has been coordinating their efforts clandestinely with other software manufacturers and predict law enforcement will be to a point where they can finally enforce copyright and anti-piracy laws by around 2005.

Needless to say, anyone who hasn't disabled RPCSS.EXE as mentioned above(?), has already been added to the database, via data that is encrypted and randomly submitted back to Microsoft upon access of the Internet. Offenders will eventually be notified if any of their software's serial codes or product key numbers match the central database of legitimate codes which there should be no duplicates of.

If you feel this is an invasion of your privacy, you'd better reconsider.

You GAVE UP your privacy when you agreed to the EULA (End User Legal Agreement) at the beginning of the install of all Microsoft products. By voluntarily using Microsoft's copyrighted intellectual property, you give Microsoft the permission to track registration and product key info of its products.

(He spoketh da truth!)

That answer ya?

Nuthin to werry bout tho - MS goes up in flames along with the rest of the country long before 2005. Kant persekute ashes!

I ditchey Rpcss.exe and everyting phine cept mi spill chekkur.
��������������

From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: TLE #111
Date: Sunday, March 04, 2001 2:46 PM

In a message dated 03/04/2001 10:01:27 AM Eastern Standard Time, [email protected] writes:

<<
To sum, I think it feasible that every necessary product of government can be done privately, which re-orders the incentives (no such thing as Sovereign Immunity, for instance! How's that for dis-incenting the egregious behavior of some cops, prosecutors, and other vermin). If coercion is to be minimized, it is through private organizations which lack the mysticism of government. Thus, to me, government is an unnecessary evil.
>>

Someone has to be in a position to stop people from murder, robbery, arson, rape, robbery, fraud, embezzlement, etc. At the very least, someone has to be in a position to take down evidence and hunt for the perpetrator of such crimes after the fact. Do you think that private organizations can do all of that?

�Susan Wells

From: "E.J. Totty" <[email protected]>
To: "John Taylor" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]> ; <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: TLE #111
Date: Sunday, March 04, 2001 3:24 PM

Dear John,

RE:

Is there any reason that the market could not address this? Couldn't some company arise that could mass-market devices that broadcast Muzak and white noise out of the windows of ordinary people? Are there any companies that make windows out of something other than glass? What about windows made out of something that doesn't conduct sound AND prevents people outside from being able to look inside? With all of this police-state activity going on you'd think that someone would devise a means of countering the snooping.
�Susan Wells

Actually, most American double and triple pane windows will counter the effect. It can be further nullified by placing a reflective coating on the outer panes, so that anything in the high RF (and light) spectrum will be reflected from the outer surface, and be prevented from focusing on the inner pane.

It takes a certain amount of energy to make things happen.

In order for tympanic resonance to occur, you must be speaking with a certain amount of acoustical energy. Anything before that amount of energy will be wasted in the glass itself, as the glass will absorb and reflect all the energy before the critical point at which it will start to 'resonate' in sympathy with the acoustical energy.

By way of example, most Americans listen to TV, RADIO, and their music at a levels very much greater than normal conversation.

So, about the only thing you might be privy to is what show or channel they are tuned in to, or their taste in music.

If you are worried about your conversations being recorded, low level conversations do not have the necessary amplitude to cause glass of normal thickness to vibrate sympathetically (tympanic resonance).

If a person is loud voiced all the time, their vocalizations will actually pass through the walls of most buildings 10 or more years old, due to air leaks in the structure. And, if you're that loud mouthed, then there really are no secrets worth keeping. <chuckle!>

Not mentioned here, but of significant interest, in that it was discussed on the net back around 1994 or so, is that all new telephones which are made by AT&T or any of its subsidiaries, have been made to allow phone conversations be eves dropped even with the phone on the hook. The necessary circuitry was mandated � if I recall correctly � by a proposed federal law, to be a part of all new phones, so as to allow the feds to tap any phone at will and listen-in to room conversations, without the phone even ringing. Whether that was signed into law remains to be seen, but AT&T took the measure of making sure its phones were already in 'conformance' to the proposed law.

Now, if you're really worried about being eves dropped? Why not learn an obscure language like Navajo, or Australian Aboriginal, or maybe even Klingon � which is actually a recognized language!

In Liberty,

ET

From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: TLE #111
Date: Sunday, March 04, 2001 4:26 PM

In a message dated 03/04/2001 3:25:06 PM Eastern Standard Time, [email protected] writes:

Not mentioned here, but of significant interest, in that it was discussed on the net back around 1994 or so, is that all new telephones which are made by AT&T or any of its subsidiaries, have been made to allow phone conversations be eves dropped even with the phone on the hook. The necessary circuitry was mandated � if I recall correctly � by a proposed federal law, to be a part of all new phones, so as to allow the feds to tap any phone at will and listen-in to room conversations, without the phone even ringing.

My GOD, what an abomination!! How can this be Constitutional? Has NO ONE bothered to take this to court?! Is ANYTHING left of the 4th Amendment at all?!?!

Whether that was signed into law remains to be seen, but AT&T took the measure of making sure its phones were already in 'conformance' to the proposed law.

What if you have a cordless phone? Can you be listened in on in only the room in which the plugged in base of the phone is located or can you be listened in on in any room into which you've introduced the portable receiver?

Now, if you're really worried about being eves dropped? Why not learn an obscure language like Navajo, or Australian Aboriginal, or maybe even Klingon � which is actually a recognized language!

In the first place, in a free country such a thing shouldn't be necessary. In the second place, it would severely limit the number of people you could talk to.

�Susan

Message the First:

From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: The anti-Libertarian FAQ
Date: Monday, March 05, 2001 11:41 AM

David D. Friedman, author of Machinery of Freedom, and frequent participant on libertarian/objectivist listserves has an excellent rebuttal to Huben's non-Libertarian FAQ. You can find it at:

http://www.best.com/~ddfr/Libertarian/response_to_huben.html

Harvey

Message the Second:

From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Response to Huben's critique
Date: Monday, March 05, 2001 1:55 PM

Mr. Curry writes:

The 'faq' is so full of half-truths and unexplored consequences, that it screams out for a paragraph-by-paragraph critique of the arguments presented therein. ...

David Freidman has such a thing which can be seen here:

http://www.best.com/~ddfr/Libertarian/response_to_huben.html

Morgath

Message the Third:

From: "Joel Gehman" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Date: Monday, March 05, 2001 6:23 PM

The 'faq' is so full of half-truths and unexplored consequences, that it screams out for a paragraph-by-paragraph critique of the arguments presented therein. ...

Actually, a handful of people have already done just that. And Huben actually links to them, though you have to go through his main site to get to the links. Oh, and he takes the opportunity to badmouth all of his critics.

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/critfaq.html

/Joel Gehman

Message the Fourth:

From: "Kevin J Tull" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Date: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 12:52 PM

Hello John,
These links are for Mike Curry :
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/Libertarian/response_to_huben.html
and
http://vaxxine.com/rational/anarchist/hubenstr.htm

[T]hey both seem to be good responses to the non-libertarian faq. I would also like to point out again as Mike did that Mr. NonLib-Faq Huben never asked "When is it proper and moral to use (or threaten to use) force against free human beings?". This one question is truly the defining principle that few if any of our critics touch on. They have to work around the edges calling us thieves for wanting to keep the fruits of our labor, saying we don't care about the elderly or the poor. We are the only political ideology that won't use force against people whenever it suits our whims.

Because Freedom Matters,
Kevin J. Tull
[email protected]

Message the Fifth:

From: "Brian Monahan" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Non-libertarian faq
Date: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 4:39 PM

John,

Having had a limited email debate with Huben, I can assure you he is deaf, dumb and blind and not worth debating.

Brian Monahan

Next to advance to the next article, or
Table of Contents to return to The Libertarian Enterprise, Number 112, March 12, 2001.