Barton L. Phillips wrote:

> responder wrote:
>> Kevin the Drummer wrote:
>>
>>> responder wrote lots of good observations about
>>> unconstitional and illegal NSA wiretaping which is one form of computer
>>> insecurity.
>>>
>>> One thing that the US administration has been very lax in is improving
>>> cyber security. With so much relying on a working Internet, we need to
>>> keep it working. What can we do, as people who presumably care about
>>> this stuff enough to read this newsgroup? I don't think we have the
>>> luxury of waiting for someone else to do it for us. Maybe they don't
>>> even want to do it for us? If the Internet were more hardened against
>>> cyber terrorists, maybe the same hardening would lessen their ability
>>> to do their own spying?
>>>
>>> So, what can WE do?
>>
>> I'm glad you asked.
> I personally like your idea. I have advocated something like that for
> quite a while. I actually think that the ISP should be happy that bogus
> traffic that is hurting everyone is removed from the net (but then again I
> may be way too naive).
>
> The biggest problem with your suggestion is the "new law" part of it. I
> don't think lawmakers can 1) grasp the issue and 2) create a law sans all
> the obvious political baggage. At the end the law would probably be
> counter productive and cause more problems than it fixes (but then again I
> have very little respect for our current croup of lawmakers).
>
> It seems to me that at the ISP level it should be pretty easy to identify
> and enforce "good behavior". The economic implications are enormous and
> should help to make ISP's more interested. I for one would be willing to
> pay a small fee for the extra service, after all I have to buy anti-virus,
> anti-spyware software now which ends up costing about $100 per year. The
> current spyware/virus protection software is just working at the wrong
> place and is therefore not very effective.
>
> I am sure there will be those that think your idea is way way to invasive
> but then the problem is very invasive too.

Thanks for writing so kindly and supportively. Please read my other
messages.

I am going to take a short break. Everything you wrote is intelligent and
correct, and I agree with it. I would prefer to literally support and
re-enforce each and all of the perspectives that you have advanced. They
are all good perspectives. But it all deserves a response that I cannot
write now. Please excuse and forgive.

If I can come back in a reasonable time, I will be very pleased and proud
to try to answer properly. Your good thoughts and considerations deserve
that. I wanted to convey my appreciation.

Thanks again.

"Jay C. James" wrote in message
news:edq30m$oo1$1@home.itg.ti.com...
>
> "Kevin the Drummer" wrote in message
> news:slrnefto6c.t1m.nobody@lwe125529.cse.tek.com.. .
>> So, what can we do to keep our information out of the hands of anyone,
>> including the gov't, that we don't trust with that knowledge? Now that
>> we know that they're going to spy on us, or at least someone is going to
>> spy on us.
>>
> Move to a backwards country that has a lack of technology.
>

snipped

> If using technology, encrypt.
> If your technology does not support it, dont use it.
>
>
>
> jcj
>
>
>


To 'responder' --

Apologies for responding to my own post, but viewing this newsgroup
in another newsreader (trying out "pan" if you are interested -- updated
today via freshmeat.net) I noticed a response claiming that a quote or
idea was stolen. Since the poster has been plonked by me for some time
via the mutually agreed crappy Outlook newsreader, theres no possible
way I could have nicked the idea. Regardless, its not an original idea
anyway.

Its merely common sense. Just encrypt whenever you can, mmmkay?

Dude, please put me on -your- ignore list so we can both sleep better at
night. Me for the safety of my family, and you so you can concentrate
your efforts on someone else more deserving, and not someone who
has a pedigree in this industry likely 5 or 6 times that of yours.
Yes, that includes Linux. That includes the BSD's, most of the commercial
Unixes and guaranteeing 1 or 2 you have never heard of as well.
This also includes source code contribution to open source projects,
alongside material and financial support too, and efforts on a handful of
closed technical mailing lists you have no access to.

I mean, for someone so adamantly against this grand Microsoft juggernaut,
you should have ignored me with flair when you first saw the header info.
What kind of elitist are you, anyway?! Why, in the old days not only did
we ignore anyone who posted anything from a Windows box, but we
blacklisted the entire Class C, I tell you! :P What the heck has happened to
this generation, anyway?


jcj -
not a republican, democrat, moderate or anything political, period, so if
you are going to refer to me in the future, please do not attempt categorize
me politically. You dont have access to my voting records or personal
feelings on anything even remotely political.

Seriously, I apologize if you think I nicked your idea after reading it
here.
Thats an impossibility, you were plonked until today when I fired up the
new version of pan.

Look, can we just agree to disagree and ignore the other into hopeful
obscurity?

Feel free to have the last word in case you need to clarify something,
correct me, agree to disagree or whatever.

*big hug*

-- for jcj:

In my opinion, you have not written anything constructive or helpful. You
have only attacked, belittled and/or ridiculed what others have written.
Usenet has always been a kind of "wild west show", where people can claim
to be anyone they want and write almost anything they want. But you can
be assured that regular readers make their own judgments about who is
writing and what they might potentially have to contribute. You have not
yet contributed anything useful, in my opinion.

Hey there jcj, this is the same "responder" whom you know and love. I
changed my nick for this message so that your "mutually agreed crappy
Outlook newsreader", == but wait, it was not Outlook, but the (even more)
wonderful, *free* Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 that you are
using == but so it wouldn't prevent you from seeing this. You do know of
course, that it wasn't your newsreader that (supposedly) "plonked" my
messages, but you. So your apologies are again hollow, and your message is
again insincere and untruthful.

Your last message was in response to Kevin, and you claimed to have not
seen mine. Yet you wrote:

> ... as some will obsess upon ad nauseum here, I will finally bring this
> thread to some semblance of on-topicness:

Kevin was not by any means "obsess[-ing] upon [anything] ad nauseum here".
I can't see how your attack on _his_ message was at all justified.

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 15:28:30 -0700, Jay C. James wrote:

> "Jay C. James" wrote in message
> news:edq30m$oo1$1@home.itg.ti.com...
>>
>> "Kevin the Drummer" wrote in message
>> news:slrnefto6c.t1m.nobody@lwe125529.cse.tek.com.. .
>>> So, what can we do to keep our information out of the hands of anyone,
>>> including the gov't, that we don't trust with that knowledge? Now
>>> that we know that they're going to spy on us, or at least someone is
>>> going to spy on us.
>>>
>> Move to a backwards country that has a lack of technology.
>>
> snipped

[... but previously answered properly.]

>> If using technology, encrypt.
>> If your technology does not support it, dont use it.
>
>> jcj


> To 'responder' --
>
> Apologies for responding to my own post, but viewing this newsgroup in
> another newsreader (trying out "pan" if you are interested -- updated
> today via freshmeat.net)

Super! pan is a good newsreader, though many prefer others. And
freshmeat is really cutting edge. But it's not your software to be
faulted so much as your lame brain and what you write.

> I noticed a response claiming that a quote or idea was stolen. Since the
> poster has been plonked by me

- by you, not your newsreader -

> for some time
> via the mutually agreed crappy Outlook newsreader, theres

Ahh, theres [or there is, or there's] the lame brain, again.

> no possible
> way I could have nicked the idea. Regardless, its not an original idea
> anyway.
>
> Its merely common sense. Just encrypt whenever you can, mmmkay?

As I said, it's good advice. Repeat it as often as you like, no charge.
But if you chose to "plonk" the poster, or otherwise not read the thread,
do expect to not be picked up on it.

> Dude, please put me on -your- ignore list so we can both sleep better at
> night. Me for the safety of my family,

That is a really rude implication. -- *YOU* "for the safety of your
family" ... Just where the hell do you get off, jcj. And I am not your
dude.

> and you so you can concentrate
> your efforts on someone else more deserving, and not someone who has a
> pedigree

Maybe your father or mother was smart and respectful, but you have
certainly not shown that. Respect is not hereditary, but rather earned.
Until now you have not written anything to earn you respect.

> in this industry

And what "industry is that supposed to be?

> likely 5 or 6 times that of yours.

Google Groups goes back many years now. It shows messages from you this
year. They are all apparently useless and derogatory. Apparently.

> Yes, that
> includes Linux. That includes the BSD's, most of the commercial Unixes
> and guaranteeing 1 or 2 you have never heard of as well.

Would that be like *secret* distros, failed distros, or maybe even
immaginary distros that never even existed outside of your immagination?
I am definitely impressed [NOT].

> This also
> includes source code contribution to open source projects, alongside
> material and financial support too, and efforts on a handful of closed
> technical mailing lists you have no access to.

So, those would be, ["like"] *"secret"* ? And how did you know that I,
particularly, had no access to them. Are you talking about "warez"?

> I mean, for someone so adamantly against this grand Microsoft
> juggernaut, you should have ignored me with flair when you first saw the
> header info. What kind of elitist are you, anyway?! Why, in the old
> days not only did we ignore anyone who posted anything from a Windows
> box, but we blacklisted the entire Class C, I tell you! :P What the heck
> has happened to this generation, anyway?

Oh, yes. "The old days." Like from maybe April or May of this year? [ :P
back at you. ] Again, which generation are we asking about here, please?
Your references are very obscure and difficult to follow. Please try to
be clear in your writing for me and for other readers.

My message to you, that you made an excuse to not answer directly, was
that your *claim* to be the only one on topic in the thread -- was
entirely a figment of you imagination. You are the off-topic,
non-contributory poster. It was not Kevin and it was not me. It was you
that posted irrelevant text.

> jcj -
> not a republican, democrat, moderate or anything political, period, so
> if you are going to refer to me in the future, please do not attempt
> categorize me politically. You dont have access to my voting records or
> personal feelings on anything even remotely political.

If you are posting disruptive and off-topic, irrelevant attacks upon
people writing in a thread about NSA wiretaps, then you should expect to
be classified as a Rovian Republican. Else stop posting irrelevant text.
In my opinion, you are probably, actually a precocious child, with no
sense of history or politics or the consequences of where this country and
world might be headed, or what it might mean to your own life.

> Seriously, I apologize if you think I nicked your idea after reading it
> here.

Post it often. Post it clearly. Post it emphatically. Post it clearly,
helpfully and emphatically. I endorse it. But if you think it gets you
any *points* to post someone else's suggestions as your own, while
attacking them, then saying you didn't see it because you had them
"plonked", and blaming (of all things) your "mutually agreed crappy
Outlook newsreader" (which was in itself inaccurate), don't expect
respect. You only get respect back from people to whom you have already
shown respect. It is a life's lesson. Learn it.

Your apology is senseless and useless.

> Thats an impossibility, you were plonked until today when I fired up the
> new version of pan.

I'll help you by posting my responses under a new nick each time you
write. Any human will immediately know, but a machine never will. Plonk
me every time; if you post irrelevant, disrespectful messages in my thread
I'll make sure you have no excuse to say you don't see my response. Boy.

> Look, can we just agree to disagree and ignore the other into hopeful
> obscurity?

You are darn right that we will disagree, at least until you learn the
value of being constructive, at least until you learn the value of being
respectful. And there is no obscurity for rudeness. Listen, read and
learn. Swallow hard. Keep your words soft and palatable, because you
never know when you might have to eat them.

Alan Connor had some words for you on Fri, 19 May 2006 8:37 pm. If you go
to this web link and scroll up a message or three, you can read them all
again.

http://groups.google.com/group/comp....5a1f361d3396d9

> Feel free to have the last word in case you need to clarify something,
> correct me, agree to disagree or whatever.
>
> *big hug*

As if I wanted physical contact from you. Don't be gross.

You are getting a rep, boy. ... Not a good thing.

This message and this thread will be archived in google groups forever.
Hope you like it.

[:P]

Nathanael Hoyle wrote:

[... very irreverent but not disrespectful to snip all this good stuff.
... Please read the preceding message(s)]

> I s'pose I've rambled enough.
>
> Nathanael Hoyle

Dear Respected Nathanael Hoyle,

You should "ramble" some more. Everything you wrote made sense.
Everything you wrote was completely on topic. I appreciate every word of
it, even if I can't now respond to each thought. In fact, I believe we
are in agreement on almost everything.

I think you believe that ISP's should not be subjected to statutory
requirements re: disconnecting compromised hosts. I think that if every
ISP upheld the standards that you have outlined, that statutory
requirements would indeed be completely unnecessary. I think that this
view might be a little bit of a 'Utopisn' view. I think that I know that
my ISP does not hold to those high standards. I think that I know that
Verizon would be more than happy to scarf up any users who they (my ISP)
disconnected. And while I am no shareholder of this ISP, and in fact have
my own issues with them, I do support diversity.

I do not support a 'unitary executive' in the US Administration, and I do
not support a 'unitary ISP'. (...if I said that correctly...) The
standards should be clear and universally applicable. To wit:

If a connected computer is compromised, it should be disconnected.

Your high ISP (expressed) connection standards are admirable and very much
acceptable. They should be universal. When one ISP in any area offers
less stringent standards, they become a vector for compromise for the
entire network. That is why I advocated for a statutory standard. And
the statutory standard for which I advocated would pay the ('good') ISP's
for what they are doing now for free.

Please 'ramble" some more (in this thread or another) in the same
intelligent manner as you have. We have a long, long way to go to ensure
security in this 21st century world.
... And lots more issues to overcome before we can start to feel safe,
again (if we ever could, or can ever again.)

Rational discussion and intelligent consideration of issues is essential.
Please write again. Thanks for writing this time.