From: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 95 14:24:10 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Whitehouse "dissident" web site monitoring?
In-Reply-To: <ac7b776f120210047e03@[205.199.118.202]>
Message-ID: <199509132121.OAA05728@netcom23.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



TCM:
> Although I am
>thought of as a "crypto anarchist," and basically am such a thing, the fact
>is that there aren't a lot of trials for thoughtcrime in this country. I
>have some doubts about the circumstances surrounding Danny Casolaro's
>death, though, so I don't say all is rosy and perfect. 

amusingly, on one of those web sites, the death of Casolaro is indeed
tied in with the conspiracy that "touched" (to say the least <g>)
Vince Foster.

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. if it was indeed just Joe Sixpack on a presidential
tour, playing with the machines, not even employed with the whitehouse, 
or perhaps some bored college intern, then I agree that nothing significant 
is going on. but it is fun to fantasize about Hillary or Bill getting
an eyeful and thinking that *pornography* on the internet pales in
comparison to *this* little problem!! <g>

now, those "dissident" web sites are not as innocuous as you might think. 
they are not run-of-the mill "I hate the president and republicans too" sites.
one of them is the absolute master repository on the internet for
all the rampant, hardcore Foster conspiracy theories talking about
NSA bank spying, whitewater, etc. these are *not* something you would find 
in a library, or expect anyone without an interest in conspiracy theories 
to be reading. and from what the article suggests, the browsing was
pretty thorough. it would be interesting to ask the site maintainer,
something I might do.

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.

recall that the "october surprise" suspicions regarding Reagan really
hit the media big time, and supposedly that was a highly secret 
intelligence operation. so I think that there is a kind of rough
government accountability, it's just that it only happens about every
4 years or so and is *awfully* messy.. <g>



--Vlad Nuri