John Levine is an owner/direcot of Whitehat. Whitehat is a spam company. Levine is head of the ISOC Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Anti Spam Research Group (ASRG)

http://www.iadl.org/whitehat/whitehat-story.html
http://www.av8.net/IETF-watch/People/JohnLevine/index.html

Other owner/directors of Whitehat include Rodney Joffe and Paul Vixie (or MAPS fame)

http://www.iadl.org/vixie/index.html
http://www.iadl.org/maps/maps-story.html
http://www.iadl.org/RodneyJoffe/rodneyjoffe.html

Vixie's ISC (root server F operator) is currently being funded by Rick Adams (uunet founder)
It turns out the Vint Cerf (widely recognized as father of the internet, along with others) has been connected to Vixie through Adams. Cerf is also connected to the SEX.COM thief Stephen Cohen, as a childhood friend. Cerf apparently also induced Ray Plzak to assist Cohen's flight from justice. Plzak formerly worked with Cerf in the early days of the internet. Plzak was CEO of ARIN and used ARIN funds to resist court orders to transfer number resources belonging to Cohen in the SEX.COM case. ARIN transfered Cohen's resources to LACNIC, where they were no longer under US Court jurisidiction, even though ARIN remained in control of LACNIC, and could have transfered the resources back if the transfer was in error.

DNSSEC Cache Poisoning has been confirmed just as I described. Note that many people are now advising to turn off DNSSEC validation.

    Most officially, I discussed it in my DNSSEC NTIA comments:
    http://www.ntia.doc.gov/dns/comments/comment027.pdf
    in the section on Cache Poisoning. Notably, Vixie et al disputed
    this when discussed on DNSOP and namedroppers. Guess they were wrong
    again.

    If you want to engage in honest uncensored discussion of DNS issues,
    subscribe to dnsop-honest or namedroppers-honest through the interface
    at lists.iadl.org

    [*] See DNSSEC cache poisoning links contained in
http://lists.iadl.org/pipermail/namedroppers-honest/2010-January/000074.html
    The IETF has known of these problems for a long time, and silenced me
    to keep these problems quiet.

Vixie and the IETF have known about the DNSSEC Cache Poisoning problem
and other DNSSEC problems for a number of years, but they have covered
it up by threatening and silencing critics. Inquiry reveals that DNSSEC
is a scam that threatens the stability of the Internet.

Please be sure to credit me with discovering the DNSSEC flaws. And
please forward this message widely.

If you don't get contributor agreements you didn't get ownership of the contributed code. You can't assert a copyright on code you don't own. This was a key element in the SCO/Linux suit. SCO didn't own the code it was claiming infringement on.

I agree that this is wrong. But its hardly original. The major leagues do essentially the same thing on hundreds of sporting events and for thousand+ of professional athletes. Though, they have a myriad of other ways to make people "play ball" (forgive the pun)

An interesting turn of law is that facts can't be copyrighted in the US. This was also held by Australia recently.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/02/14/0857256/Australian-Judge-Rules-Facts-Cannot-Be-Copyrighted
I"m not certain about Canada and Europe, but it seems the trend of the law is against the IOC.

Very well said. A couple of points:

Some of the climate scientists are accused of covering up contrary data, deleting emails, etc. This doesn't look good for the science. Its not just the crackpots who aren't adhering to standards of truth. The presence of crackpots doesn't justify a cover up of contrary data. This is a cancer that affects science as well. I think problem is systemic because it is experienced by scientists and society alike.

I see this problem as a combined effect of the relativism you mention, but also the internet, where any "opinion" is asserted as fact. I've seen this over and over again. Some call it the wikipedia effect (e.g. 20000 polar bears). I see the effect being mocked in car commercials recently, even. (a certain car manufacturer has a commercial running recently with a story about the models purchased by George Washington. At the end it says "that's what it said on the internet"). But the lack of rationality and lack of "factuality" and lack of truth is a serious problem that has to change and change quickly. A complex planet-affecting society cannot be run by idiots.

The comments to date seem to ignore the fact that Childs was being fired, and THEN refused to hand over the passwords. Suppose a police officer refuses to hand over his gun and badge, and keys to the jail when fired, but decides to hold the whole town hostage to his physical control over the gun and jail? We would pretty quickly label that (former) police officer a terrorist, and pretty quickly get state and federal aid to retake control of the town. Similarly, Childs has held the City hostage by refusing to turn over the passwords. I'd call that cyber-terrorism. I wouldn't feel too sorry for him if they put him in Guantanamo. I've been in this industry for 20+ years, and its just crazy to think that one can prevent being fired (and force firing the supervisor instead) by refusing to turn over the passwords. That nonsense about the "Mayor" is just nonsense: Child's supervisor is the authorized, delegated representative of the Mayor. This dispute wasn't about getting an audience with the Mayor. My view is that Childs was trying to force them to fire the supervisor and to employ him. The City's only mistake was to allow the situation that only one person has the passwords. One person is just not that trustworthy.

Maybe thats where all the dark matter came from.

The point about not clicking on the content is good but irrelevant to antivirus scanning. Anything that embeds a suitably powerful scripting language is going to be subject to malware in the scripts. PDF's and MS Word, MS Excel files are prime examples. You can't fix this by changing the player, reader, or MS Word programs, except by turning off the script language. It really has to be fixed by anti-virus and malware detection.

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1430956&cid=29990734

Your congresspeople may not be involved yet, but that is no matter. Ask them to get involved to see that there is an opportunity for fair, democratic input into the treaty. Tell them you don't like this abuse of the national security classification system to hide what should be open, honest, fair negotiations with an opportunity for public participation.

The trade reps have a staff that will trashcan your letters, and they aren't accountable to the voters anyway. They are accountable to the state department, which is accountable to the president and oversight by the congress. The tradereps are there to carry out the will of the President, articulated through the Sec. of State and so on down. Its just a matter of getting their bosses to tell them to do something else. (simpler said than done). The office of Sec. of State will record the letters, The congresspeople will record the letters, and it helps groups like the LPF to have a copy to wave around if the letters don't get action.

    --Dean

I suppose that the treaty is only secret while its being negotiated, since if people knew about there would be a tremendous opposition developed. When the treaty is finalized, it will be made public, well after its too late to change, and contains too many other things to refuse entirely. This is how unsavory deals are made. There is no "national security" involved.

But refuse is precisely what we must do. Write to your congressman (via snail mail), and tell them to refuse the provisions this treaty. And tell them to get public input on the treaty terms, rather than hiding behind false claims of "national security". They aren't negotiating a nuclear agreement, they are negotiating OUR rights, and we have a right to have a say in that.

Sometimes these things can be turned into a positive. Sometimes they can't. But we absolutely have to know about them to have any fair, democratic input.

Send a written, signed letter to your congressman, to your senator, and to the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Send a copy of the letter to the LPF at
League for Programming Freedom
60 Thoreau Street #299
Concord MA 01742-2411

Dean Anderson
President
League for Programming Freedom

How does that practice lessen complaints? More IPs, more domains will still gets the same number of complaints if they send out the same amount of spam.

As was pointed out, botnets have been doing this for years. They did it so that they didn't trigger automatic volume based filters run by the ISPs with the infected hosts. The purpose of those filters was to detect a virus-host. But using volume based filtering on //receiving// email has been useless since forever because of the virus detection tactics. So, Spamhaus' whole premise just falls apart.

Spot on. I rather doubt that ISPs are selling this. Spamhaus offers no evidence of that. Furthermore, it would take a ton of IP resources, which would turn into big costs for the ISP. The big money to ISPs is in genuine commercial bulk emailers, not the scammers who already use botnets. There is never going to be big money in scam sites (those that change names every day). Such scam or no-reputation sites are just modern grifters using the internet. This just another media hack from the Spamhaus/SORBS/MAPS crew. Its very similar to the Dan Kaminsky thing, where they also took old news and "sold" it as new. See pages on spamhaus et al at www.iadl.org,