Re: Cyber PsyOps

[Black Unicorn <unicorn@access.digex.net>]

> 
> Black Unicorn sez..
> 
> >What you seem to be looking for is change NOW.
> >THIS SECOND.  If this is your time table, I hope you like bloodshed.
> 
> Change is happening now.  This is not something an individual can instigate,
> it just happens in predictible cycles.  I'm just spitting in the ocean with
> my $0.02.  I am committed to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution
> of the United States of America.

[Deletions]


> I opperate under the ASSUMTION that anything I release publicly, (email
> post cards included), is available to the intelligence community.  Here's
> a little personal Hx for you and cypherpunks.  I find it rather Pynchonesque.

Indeed, you have made it quite clear that you don't seem to care what 
leaks are attributed to you.

> 
> Between a high school friend of mine, Peter Anthony Zellner, and I, we have
> 3 Social Security #'s.  Two of them are consecutive and are mine.  The US
> Navy spent a years worth of investigation, (NIS), to find out why Pete's SS#
> didn't work.  He was given an "N" designation for Navy until they got it
> straightened out.
> 
> My mother has testified under oath in a court of law she signed my elistment
> papers when I was 17.  When I was 18, my draft classification was 1-H.
> 
> On 18 February 1983, an Air Force Lt Col stopped by my place in Denver on
> his way to a conference at Keystone that became SDI.  I refused a mission
> and was cashiered on the spot.  End of story.
> 
> I can offer circumstantial evidence and personal corraboration that the above
> is true.  FOIA is useless.  I always draw a blank- (which is indicative of
> an active file).  In the Fall of 1984, at the bequest of Robert Bragg, Petty
> Officer 1st Class, NIS ran a check on me.  The reason is because FTS
> clearances are "Q" clearances, and I gave Bragg the proper cue.  Bragg 
> informed me that NIS considered me questionble.

[Deletions]

> One may believe it, or disbelieve it.  I don't care.  If one tends toward
> disbelief, I'm sure the above will be used in an attempt to discredit me.
> If my personality and activism is disruptive to cypherpunks, I can always
> shut up and just read the damn thing.  I have no intention of becoming 
> involved in a Detweilerian flame war.

I don't intend to flame you, nor to begin a flame war.  I questioned your 
methods, and you respond with nothing but smoke.  You outline some broad 
goals but advance no theories about how they might be accomplished by 
your immediate actions except admitting that the individual can't affect 
much.

Your approach puzzles me.  I will, however, never advance the suggestion 
that you not participate.  I wouldn't bother to reply if you didn't seem 
worth the effort.  This is why I stopped bickering with tmp@netcom.com.

You seem too devoted to your cause to be dissuaded by me.  What is one to 
infer about your response to more compelling pressures?

> Especially with Black Unicorn.  I'm trained to determine potential harm of
> a classified leak.  I can tell by Unicorn's response that he is informed to
> an extent, yet has a limited paradigm of intelligence access by which he/she
> makes his/her judgements.

This from a "questionable" statured military type with three 
self-appointed SSN's?

I have always found civilian intelligence more agreeable.  Less regimented.
Less reactionary.  Less worry with the indoctrination of training.

I'm afraid personal attacks deserve personal attacks.

In addition, I question your analysis of the NSA security manual and its 
potential harm.  I might add that I think it suggests a poor CI ability, 
not a well defined one as you would have us believe.  To a person with 
your training, the damage of the manual should be clear to you.
If I'm wrong than Military Intelligence really needs some work indeed.
Back to the Walker days in the Navy?

> Carry on cypherpunks.  If rebuttal to my statements cloggs the group, I will
> do all I can to minimize it.  I can always sit here and read the damn thing.

I believe that what your doing is an key part of cypherpunks, 
discussing, absorbing, sharpening.  It's the DORK39's who are disruptive.
Just try not to be so judgemental on a personal level and stick to the 
argument.  You know nothing of me nor my education or experience, don't 
pretend to by citing some off the wall remark about CI training in the 
hopes that it might impress the less informed readers.

> -- 
> PGP PUBLIC KEY via finger!  JAFEFFM  Speaking & Thinking For Myself!
>  
> * eagle@deeptht.armory.com			email info@eff.org *
> *** O U T L A W S  On The  E L E C T R O N I C  F R O N T I E R ****
> ***** Committed to Free Public Internet Access for World Peace *****
> 
>