🚀 go-pugleaf

achn@cs.mu.oz.au (Alwin Chi Ho NGAI) wrote:

:pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz (Peter Gutmann) writes:
:
:>After a few weeks of delays they're finally here: Detailed instructions on
:>the manufacture of a variety of explosives and bombs, available from:
:>http://search.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/idxref/7/0,5716,93939,00.html.
:
:This kind of junk has been available on BBS's for yonks, no news to
:anyone.
:
:>Anyone know what the Australian government's position is on this?  What 
:
:Don't think anyone cares.
:
:>would happen if someone were to include a pointer to Britannica on their
:>web pages?  How about mirroring excerpts (while staying within the fair use
:>limits)?
:
:What exactly do you mean by that?
:
 It sometimes puzzles me, that the censorship lobby gets up about
"bombs on the Net". Back when I was a kid, the Net wasn't invented. I
got more dangerous knowledge from my high school's chemistry library,
than I've seen on the Net. And that knowledge was accurate, unlike
most of the "recipes" on the Net. I've more than once seen recipes
that are in error in just one small, but vital point (eg the reaction
temperature). It's enough to make one wonder if the recipes aren't a
"sting", posted by the US BATF or the like.

 There were also some yet older books still in circulation, dating
from either WW1 or 2. Many people took an interest in military
technology during those periods, for obvious  reasons. Books were
issued to satisfy this interest. Often they gave real solid detail,
right up to the limit imposed by military secrecy regarding (then)
current weapons.
 As an example, I came across one such from just after WW2, which
described the hollow-charge principle, declining only to say what the
ideal charge liner material might be, although it did indicate the
desirable qualities. The rest was there, angles, distances, etc.