DZBone

"Less of a vinegar taste than I expected." Friend faints. _________________________________________________ If you hadn't read this, would it have made a sound?

How about: "I'm a dot." _________________________________________________ If you hadn't read this, would it have made a sound?

You could borroe from this: "In the interest of pursuing the best possible agenda for the future of our country, I will not seek to remain as majority leader of the United States Senate for the 108th Congress, effective January 6, 2003. To all those who offered me their friendship, support and prayers I will be eternally grateful. I will continue to serve the people of Mississippi in the United States Senate." _________________________________________________ If you hadn't read this, would it have made a sound?

Ew, no! Just that it's an "acquired taste". _________________________________________________ If you hadn't read this, would it have made a sound?

Save the endangered poisonous biting insects! _________________________________________________ If you hadn't read this, would it have made a sound?

Um, you know. Down there... _________________________________________________ If you hadn't read this, would it have made a sound?

Had a friend who went shopping in London for a "belt for his pants". Got some odd looks... _________________________________________________ If you hadn't read this, would it have made a sound?

No, the keys are 128 bits long, they have 2^128 permutations. A 2^128-bit key would be about 4*10^28 TeraBytes long... A tad inconvenient, but highly effective. Anyone know what the total information content of the universe is (other than zero)? _________________________________________________ If you hadn't read this, would it have made a sound?

Well, you are referring to undirected brute-force approaches. They would most likely use more established means, like guessing likely passphrases (or coercing/torturing them out of you). 56-bit DES has long been easily cracked by amateurs. I would think 128-bit wouldn't be beyond the capabilities of the NSA at this point, especially given the high-end hardware they have access to. Granted, it still probably takes on the order of weeks, but like you say, they will do it for targeted messages. But, it's really only the fact that they have the power and can threaten to use it that matters. The rest is just an implementation issue. _________________________________________________ If you hadn't read this, would it have made a sound?

Unless they just assume that encryption is by definition suspicious activity, then there won't be the ramp-up of people using it. People on the forefront will be hassled and scrutinized, scaring the gen pop from adopting it. _________________________________________________ If you hadn't read this, would it have made a sound?

As long as it stays legal. That domino is a few more down the row... _________________________________________________ If you hadn't read this, would it have made a sound?

Sorry about that. Try this: Bush Administration to Propose System for Monitoring Internet By JOHN MARKOFF and JOHN SCHWARTZ The Bush administration is planning to propose requiring Internet service providers to help build a centralized system to enable broad monitoring of the Internet and, potentially, surveillance of its users. The proposal is part of a final version of a report, "The National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace," set for release early next year, according to several people who have been briefed on the report. It is a component of the effort to increase national security after the Sept. 11 attacks. Advertisement The President's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board is preparing the report, and it is intended to create public and private cooperation to regulate and defend the national computer networks, not only from everyday hazards like viruses but also from terrorist attack. Ultimately the report is intended to provide an Internet strategy for the new Department of Homeland Security. Such a proposal, which would be subject to Congressional and regulatory approval, would be a technical challenge because the Internet has thousands of independent service providers, from garage operations to giant corporations like American Online, AT&T, Microsoft and Worldcom. The report does not detail specific operational requirements, locations for the centralized system or costs, people who were briefed on the document said. While the proposal is meant to gauge the overall state of the worldwide network, some officials of Internet companies who have been briefed on the proposal say they worry that such a system could be used to cross the indistinct border between broad monitoring and wiretap. Stewart Baker, a Washington lawyer who represents some of the nation's largest Internet providers, said, "Internet service providers are concerned about the privacy implications of this as well as liability," since providing access to live feeds of network activity could be interpreted as a wiretap or as the "pen register" and "trap and trace" systems used on phones without a judicial order. Mr. Baker said the issue would need to be resolved before the proposal could move forward. Tiffany Olson, the deputy chief of staff for the President's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board, said yesterday that the proposal, which includes a national network operations center, was still in flux. She said the proposed methods did not necessarily require gathering data that would allow monitoring at an individual user level. But the need for a large-scale operations center is real, Ms. Olson said, because Internet service providers and security companies and other online companies only have a view of the part of the Internet that is under their control. "We don't have anybody that is able to look at the entire picture," she said. "When something is happening, we don't know it's happening until it's too late." The government report was first released in draft form in September, and described the monitoring center, but it suggested it would likely be controlled by industry. The current draft sets the stage for the government to have a leadership role. The new proposal is labeled in the report as an "early-warning center" that the board says is required to offer early detection of Internet-based attacks as well as defense against viruses and worms. But Internet service providers argue that its data-monitoring functions could be used to track the activities of individuals using the network. An official with a major data services company who has been briefed on several aspects of the government's plans said it was hard to see how such capabilities could be provided to government without the potential for real-time monitoring, even of individuals. "Part of monitoring the Internet and doing real-time analysis is to be able to track incidents while they are occurring," the official said. The official compared the system to Carnivore, the Internet wiretap system used by the F.B.I., saying: "Am I analogizing this to Carnivore? Absolutely. But in fact, it's 10 times worse. Carnivore was working on much smaller feeds and could not scale. This is looking at the whole Internet." One former federal Internet security official cautioned against drawing conclusions from the information that is available so far about the Securing Cyberspace report's conclusions. Michael Vatis, the founding director of the National Critical Infrastructure Protection Center and now the director of the Institute for Security Technology Studies at Dartmouth, said it was common for proposals to be cast in the worst possible light before anything is actually known about the technology that will be used or the legal framework within which it will function. "You get a firestorm created before anybody knows what, concretely, is being proposed," Mr. Vatis said. A technology that is deployed without the proper legal controls "could be used to violate privacy," he said, and should be considered carefully. But at the other end of the spectrum of reaction, Mr. Vatis warned, "You end up without technology that could be very useful to combat terrorism, information warfare or some other harmful act." _________________________________________________ If you hadn't read this, would it have made a sound?

The wife of a friend of mine is vegan, and does volunteer work for animal-rights groups. She also drives a big-ass SUV and bought a designer dog, had it shipped cross-country from the breeder and everything. WTF? _________________________________________________ If you hadn't read this, would it have made a sound?

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/20/technology/20MONI.html Another domino falls. I don't think the KGB had this much authority! _________________________________________________ If you hadn't read this, would it have made a sound?

I personally wouldn't call McCain a "nice" choice. I'm not that fond of him as a candidate. But I'd admit he has Bush beat in many areas. He's definitely glorious and scary at the same time. He would have made Chaney look like a dove, but man, I get get that picture of him diving out of his burning aircraft out of my mind. Plus, what he had the guts to say about campaign reform, despite its ultimate demise, still needs to be said... And it cost him, but he doesn't seem to care. _________________________________________________ If you hadn't read this, would it have made a sound?

No kidding. Time was, I would reject him because I disagree with a lot of his politics. Now, I would vote for him because he has proven himself to be strong and courageous as SoS, even against his bosses, prevailing social disorder, whatever. He seems to do what he thinks is right, even if Chaney, the NAACP, or the UN think it's right or not. What the hell, he's moderate enough...

You have got to be kidding...if Gore was so smart, he would have had wedged a wider rift in the popular vote in more of the states forcing the electoral college to elect him. You're right, I forgot to mention "integrity". _________________________________________________ If you hadn't read this, would it have made a sound?

It would make sense for me to jump there (45 minute drive vs 2+ hours), but round reserves are apparently illegal in RI (They at least don't allow them at B-P). Go figure... _________________________________________________ If you hadn't read this, would it have made a sound?

Chaney and Rumsfeld are not the US, they are only unfortunately holding political power right now. True patriots are working on changing that situation... Although the only one with any brains/guts just decided not to run for office. _________________________________________________ If you hadn't read this, would it have made a sound?

A friend suggests to check out http://www.zbone.com (no relation ) _________________________________________________ If you hadn't read this, would it have made a sound?

Did you or he ever try it driving? At rush hour? _________________________________________________ If you hadn't read this, would it have made a sound?

Calling a friend you haven't spoken to in a year (collect)... _________________________________________________ If you hadn't read this, would it have made a sound?

Amber, you've made all of us feel a little better, just knowing there are people like you in the world. Dammit, this is what the season is supposed to be about, not all that commercialism! Very cool. And that image is just the icing on the cake! _________________________________________________ If you hadn't read this, would it have made a sound?

I'll vouch for that. I've used them for years, traveling back and forth between RI and SoCal, and all over before that. I used to call them before I went on a trip, I'm not sure why. I think they used to request that at one point (before nationwide coverage). Now I can just go, and everything works great. During the integration with GTE (?), there was a period of a few months or so where I wouldn't get the voicemail indicator on my phone south of Ventura. That was it, everything else was transparent. One day, that too started working. I literally have never gotten "all circuits busy", if there is a signal, the calls go through, which is more than I can say for AT&T. The couple of times I've had one of their phones, it seemed to hit about 20% of the time! After 9/11, I drove east from LA to RI, and had coverage everywhere except through the desert(ed) southwest. This was also during the time they were struggling to right their infrastructure after its heart had been ripped out (along with each of ours). Having said that, I'm still not getting a decent signal at my home, or in a few other dead areas I have been complaining about for years. Oh, well. I can't compare the others (besides AT&T), as I haven't used them. My brother-in-law works for Cellular One, and he tells me about the layoffs and integration headaches they have, and when he's at my house, he gets a very strong signal (bastard!). _________________________________________________ If you hadn't read this, would it have made a sound?

Oh, how adorable. _________________________________________________ If you hadn't read this, would it have made a sound?