From: hallam@w3.org
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 95 15:19:26 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Whitehouse "dissident" web site monitoring?
In-Reply-To: <199509132121.OAA05728@netcom23.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <9509132218.AA25328@zorch.w3.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



>I suspect that a lot of this Foster stuff is going to hit the media big
>time when the mud starts to sling during the presidential election,
>when it really counts. I think that someone is sitting on a lot
>of anti-clinton ammo. the 3rd candidate possibilities are very strong
>in 96, because of all the junk coating the Republicrats and Demopublicans.

I don't think that there will be anything on Foster, if anyone had anything they 
would have used it. All that has come up is that some of Fosters files marked 
secret were placed in a safe after he committed suicide. 

What is going to happen is that a lot of the mud is going to get rebutted, on 
both sides. Take the Hillary Clinton Cattle deals for example, the media claim 
was that Hillary invested $1,000 and made $100,000. This is not true. She was 
asked to put up $1,000 as margin by her broker. Margin is not invested, it is 
simply a down payment on risk capital. Her broker knew that Hilary could cover 
very much more if there was a margin call. Hillary was selling options not 
buying them. In the selling game you have unlimited liability but can only make 
a fixed profit. If you lose selling an option the money is only due at the end 
of the contract. So Hillary did not invest $1000, in fact she invested nothing, 
but she did put up her entire assets as risk capital just as a Lloyds name does 
in the insurance market.

The key question is whether the kooks win and the net just degenerates into 
conspiracy theories and so nobody takes any notice of really heinous stuff or 
whether the net injects some facts into the political debate. The net can be 
used for both allegations and rebuttal. That type of environment would 
constitute a genuine information democracy.


>the Whitehouse web hits are potentially interesting. I agree they
>don't imply any "dissident web monitoring program". the question of
>how high a staffer hit those pages and for what reasons is still
>unanswered.

High ups have better things to do with their time than watch conspiracy 
theorists blather on. Underlings as not net.enabled. 

If you think thats bad check out the Congress, they have a limit on the number 
of Internet enabled staffers per senator and congressbeing. I keep trying to get 
the message across about T3 lines but they don't seem to get the message. 

Ever wondered why these poor folks can't use email for their organisations..?


If you are wondering about the cypherpunkness of all this I think that these 
guys should all be using PGP. I'm very carefull to give them the url for the 
European distribution site however :-)

Adam writes:

>	That said, why should I respect the privacy of government
>employees?  There is a substantial difference between government and
>private companies, in that I am not compelled in any way to do
>business any private company.

Like I have a choice of going to Comonwealth gas or not having any lights in the 
appartment...


	Phill H-B

Not speaking for anyone else.