🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 06 Oct 2000 14:26:28 GMT, snorri@my-deja.com wrote:

>In article <39de04ee.80468505@jumbo>,
>  bogie@xs4all.nl wrote:
>>
>> I'm willing to help you see and demonstrate to others that your
>> 'reality' is flawed, and your statements are unreliable even for that
>> reason alone. I'm not going to tell you what your memories should tell
>> you. Thus I will try not to go to deeply into irrelevant details and
>> old history.
>>
>Well thanks Boudewijn, let's see what you come up with.
>
>>
>> I would have thought that any questions about that law would be easy
>> enough answered if the embassy would have asked the relevant
>> politicians? This wasn't some 'national security' issue in The
>> Netherlands. In fact there was plenty discussion about that law going
>> on at the time. Simply reading the papers would have kept anyone
>> informed sufficiently. Or did the embassy not read and follow Dutch
>> newspapers?
>>
>No worry, loads of people read newspapers.  The problem was not so much
>the lack of press coverage, but rather would this law be sufficiently
>effective.
>
>> If you at that time were indeed a system administrator in the employ
>> of the US embassy, what was the reason you were asked to become
>> involved in gathering information about that new law?
>>
>
>For the record I was a programmer at the Embassy who did perform system
>administration tasks on certain systems.
>
>The reason for getting into the law issue was to obtain advance
>knowledge on certain aspects of that law.
>
>>
>> There we have it. Distortion of what happened. There never was any
>> 'obstruction'. I haven't seen the paperwork, but I heard the rumors
>> about the extradiction request. There could not have been a case to be
>> made for extradiction of anyone. There were no laws broken, so there
>> was absolutely no reason to extradite any Dutch citizen to the US,
>> merely to allow a fishing expedition by the US. Anyone with a sound
>> mind would have realized that.
>
>Wrong Boudewijn, we are not merely talking about gaining access to
>defense systems, about which you  rightly state that there were no laws
>broken given there was no law, what we are talking about is espionage.
>
>Technically you could maintain, as the Dutch in fact did, that hacking
>was not unlawfull. However, like I stated before, there was a National
>Security aspect to this particular case(s) which gave it an added
>dimension.
>
>It indeed has been attempted to get some individuals extradited, the
>attempt failed which prompted some agencies to take another approach to
>the problem.
>
>> You have to have a problem
>> understanding the concept of 'sovereignty' to even consider this as
>> 'obstruction' privately. If you describe these events as 'obstruction'
>> in public, that demonstrates your lack of understanding of the world
>> around you. If you would have done so back then, that would have been
>> enough legitimate reason for the embassy to end your contract ASAP,
>> AFAICS.
>>
>
>Given the fact that the Netherlands are a part of NATO the application
>of the concept of sovereignty in the manner in which it was, must be
>considered questionable to say the least.  You may well have a point in
>respect to the use of the term "obstruction" in my account, I probably
>should scale it down to "severe lack of cooperation."
>
>>
>> Why has the embassy never tried to register a complaint about theft
>> and the selling of stolen goods in the Dutch courts? Could it be that
>> they never had anything solid to go on? Did you see any proof of the
>> allegations? You didn't did you? Yet you did have access to most of
>> the communications of the embassy, or so you imply...
>>
>I cannot comment on this other than stating that there were very solid
>leads.  Clearly there would not have been any need to
>investigate/gather information if those leads would have been fit for
>court.
>
>>
>> So you started to work for Parker, not the CIA. What was agreed about
>> your compensation for this 'work', exactly?
>
>For the CIA where Parker was my boss.
>
>I am Boudewijn but about compensation I will expand.
>
>>You were to work outside
>> of your normal hours as a system administrator for the embassy, were
>> you not? Or were you given time off your normal duties to do this
>> 'work'? Initially, I mean.
>>
>Initially, given I was formally working for the State Department, I was
>working outside of normal hours, such that there would be no conflict
>with State.
>
>>
>> Please explain to me what the problem was here. Was Mr Gewecke
>> involved in anything illegal? Or were you doing something illegal?
>> What was the exact substance of this 'shit' that alledgedly would have
>> 'hit the fan'?
>>
>Neither me or Gewecke were doing anything illegal, nevertheless it
>should be obvious that a DCM of the American Embassy The Hague going
>round asking questions on hacker boards while there was a problem in
>regards to extradiction requests against for example the comsat sysop
>could very well be misinterpreted, don't you think.
>
>>
>> So you did not learn anything useful yourself, from your 'operations'?
>>
>There were most certainly results which justified continuing the
>project.
>>
>> I tend to believe that that could not have been too difficult, since
>> you actually were (and still are) a "newbie who didn"t really know
>> Jack Shit about computers and Unix in particular". How many years of
>> experience did you have at that time, doing what with what kinds of
>> systems?
>>
>Nice try Boudewijn, but okay at that time approx 10 years.
>>
>> Why did you choose this particular 'goal'?
>>
>Nice one, this particular identity had a vested interrest in finding
>information about some of Peabody Coal Minning Corp's activities at
>Black Mesa.  Native land issues and slurry mining depleting water
>reserves.
>
>
>> But it wasn't the 'hacking' that was referred to, was it? Please
>> explain to the current readership what these 'enormous risks' were,
>> exactly?
>>
>The female alter-ego's profile was built and based on somebody who
>needed to physically break in to guarded locations in order to obtain
>information/materials. Hacking would offer a more save way to obtain
>what she was looking for.
>
>>
>> Of course. That would not have been very useful for you. What would
>> any hacker have found if he/she would have gained access to the
>> "Peabody Coal Mining Corp"? Wouldn't your cover story been in jeopardy
>> if they did?
>>
>No certainly not as the problem addressed was an actual one.  The
>hacker in question would at least find materials/leads confirming the
>scenario.
>
>Apart of it not being useful it would have meant setting somebody up to
>gain illegal access to a system.
>
>>
>> Who are these "we"? And why did you "discover" these things only
>> *after* you had started using this 'technique'? Have you ever heard of
>> the term 'risk management'? Did you really work for the CIA?
>>
>What I say that it worked better than initially anticipated.
>Risk management, don't worry Boudewijn there is no need for you to
>explain it to me.
>
>>
>> So are you happy with your alleged 'acquired multiple personality
>> disorder'? Why have you not been getting proper treatment for it?
>> Shouldn't you sue someone about giving you this disease?
>>
>At least part of my motivation for opening up about what happend
>derives from the fact that I have been used.
>
>So no I am not a happy puppy in that respect.
>
>>
>> So you wanted to have your own BBS. You hoped be able to gain some
>> more credibility that way. And apparently you were not aware of the
>> fact that using altered logs was -even at that time- very much
>> illegal. It would have been called fraud. Or were you perhaps aware of
>> that, and was that the reason that Mr Gewecke had to disappear from
>> the BBS scene?
>>
>This was indeed one of the reasons.
>
>>
>> Fortunately, there would be no chance in hell that you could ever gain
>> unauthorized access to any system at all, so there was no real problem
>> there, now was there? ;-)
>>
>Well in fact I feel it it a little ridiculous to answer.  No Boudewijn
>you cannot talk me into proofing you wrong.
>
>Are you maybe trying to invite me to do something illegal, gambling
>that my Ego will start playing up?
>
>>
>> Mr 'Onderwater' did his best. AFAIK, he *was* the CRI's effort on the
>> BBS network. And I think he did much of this as a private effort, just
>> to keep the kids from committing crimes.
>
>Well here we agree for once.
>
>>Of course, he didn't reach 'kids' like "snorri".
>>
>LOL
>
>> >Contrary to what people like Felipe Rodriguez and Rop Gonggrijp tend
>to
>> >claim much of that attraction resulted from publications in Hacktic
>> >Magazine.
>>
>> I think there is absolutely no possibility that there will result even
>> one real 'hacker' from only reading all the available literature on
>> the subject.
>
>Valid point.
>
>> I'm not going to enlighten you or anyone on how to become
>> effective in cracking computer systems, but reading underground
>> material would be only a very tiny part of your curriculum.
>
>Boudewijn don't play little Ego games, those are too transparent.
>
>>Anyone
>> that takes that stuff as a starting point for a career as 'hacker' is
>> doomed for failure.
>>
>
>You are absolutely right.
>
>> Given that you have been voluntarily 'involved' in matters of this
>> kind, I must assume that you are very much aware of that. Especially
>> since you have your own experience, which supports my contentions.
>>
>> So the only question that is left to be answered is: Why do you keep
>> wanting to publicly smear some (particular) people? Why can you not
>> admit that you are wrong?
>>
>No I will not, in spite of the fact that Hacktic magazine can most
>certainly not be considered a manual on how to become a "real hacker."
>
>It did however invite people to try it nevertheless.
>
>> >The choice we had made for political activism seemed to work pretty
>> >well and as it dragged on both a number of my own alter egos as well
>as
>> >other individuals from within MPP became involved in firing things
>up.
>>
>> I notice that you speak about "I" when things go well for you, but you
>> use the word "we" as soon as you talk about things that do not turn
>> out very well. Are you sure that that AMPS is 'acquired'?
>>
>Again nice try again, would solve your whole problem wouldn't it.
>
>We is Parker and myself, I use the "we" when making a statement or am
>reporting about something which is the result of a dialog.
>
>> So you *got* the information you wanted, but it proved useless. A
>> fairly common occurrence in the 'intelligence' business. What is not
>> so common is the way that you proceeded with all of this this, despite
>> of that.
>>
>There were reasons to go in on hold for a while, after the Rotterdam
>thing early 95 things got picked up again. I said this earlier.
>
>>
>> And he never had any evidence for this. If he would have any such
>> evidence, and presented it to the proper authorities, this whole
>> matter would have been solved very quickly, I'm sure. It would of
>> course not result in any extradiction, but a clever lawyer can do a
>> lot with any law (refer to $cientology, if you need more details on
>> "ruin utterly").
>>
>Obviously the choice was to expand on the evidence such that
>extradiction would become possible.  Espionage and treason.
>
>> So in spite of the fact that he couldn't deliver any convincing
>> evidence, this "Parker" is alledged to continue his vengeance towards
>> some Dutch 'hackers'. This alleged "Parker" is supposed to have some
>> 'clout' at the US embassy in The Hague, even. That should mean that he
>> is selected to keep one eye on International relations at all times.
>> Yet we're told that this "Parker" inspires "snorri" to commit more and
>> more libel over the years, towards certain people. Yeah, riiight. (1)
>>
>Parker was not part of the State Department but rather the CIA.
>Priorities can be very different.
>
>>
>> Get it through your thick skull that *NOBODY* *EVER* had *ANY*
>> evidence. The fact that people like you were employed to get it didn't
>> really help, don't you think?
>>
>LOL
>
>> >From ongoing talks with
>> >Mr. Shultz, it becomes obvious that apart of tribal wars between
>> >different agencies involved it seems that it was the CIA who was out
>to
>> >get Gonggrijp implicated in the affair.
>>
>> It would be very interesting to know why they wanted so much to
>> implicate particular people. And if there were provable allegations
>> that could be made why weren't they publicised? Even though they might
>> not have resulted in criminal persecution or extradiction, surely the
>> media attention would have been devastating? It's true, perhaps that
>> media attention would have laughed about the standards for computer
>> security at the CIA, but what the heck? Or is *that* the reason that
>> alleged people like "Parker" and "Shultz" made you commit crimes?
>>
>Hold on, I spoke with Shultz at a much latter date and in relation to
>the BBC thing.  Shultz never made me do anything, you are trying to
>distort.
>
>"commit such crimes" again you are distorting.  Tell me your reasons
>for doing so.
>
>> >From my own contacts in the
>> >scene Rop nevertheless did play a role and did obtain logs and copies
>> >of files obtained.
>>
>> It's too bad that I lost most of my archive of those times. But I'm
>> sure I got portions of the -quite useless looking to me- information
>> too. I'm sure many, many others saw the samples as well.
>>
>Sure Boudewijn, logs are lost, you remember seeing  "-quite useless
>looking to me (hell who wonders)- information." Hey look there is a pig
>flying by.
>>
>> So who was? Apart from you?
>>
>Read about it no need for me to repeat this now.
>
>>
>> Why didn't the CIA offer immunity to him, and ask him to cooperate in
>> catching the rest of the chain, if there ever was any such thing?
>>
>Probably that is not what was intended.  Just for the record, I wasn't
>the director of the CIA at that or nay other time :-)
>
>>
>> Yeah, Riiiight. (1)
>
>Expand please.
>>
>> What you are saying here is that you never learned anything from your
>> "infiltration period" but in stead listened exclusively to the spy
>> stories you were fed.
>>
>Wrong. Answered to this before
>
>>
>> It's amazing Rop was not my friend. ;-)
>>
>That is a sad thing to say.
>
>>
>> I'm sure that the evidence for this is available somewhere. When was
>> this man extradited from Germany to be punished for his evil deeds in
>> the wholy US?
>>
>> >There is no direct
>> >link between people like Marcel Katz and this Hordik however within
>> >Gonggrijps environment such links did exist.
>>
>Don't be too optimistic
>
>> Heck, you missed the fact that one of my close friends during those
>> years came from Iraq.
>>
>> I had by that time been active -on and off- in the squatter movement
>> for years. I built my very own computer at the age of fourteen. By the
>> time were talking about I had already written my own OS and several
>> compilers and other stuff. I had my own BBS. I wasn't speaking out so
>> very loudly about what I was doing, I was mostly lurking, as most
>> sensible 'hackers' would do.
>>
>> I also had contacts with the guy that arranged for the security of the
>> computer systems at the office of the prime minister. That guy was an
>> employee of the BVD. During those days I got an offer for 10000
>> guilders to 'test' their security. I refused, because I felt I had
>> better ways to earn money.
>>
>> In a completely separate occurance, I had inadvertantly been given
>> access to the records that the BVD kept (and presumably keeps) on me.
>> A nice, approximately two inches think file.
>>
>> I'm just wondering why the CIA never even investigated me? There has
>> been "no direct link between me and this Hordik" too. I knew about
>> Gongrijp, though. So why wasn't I investigated?
>>
>Woow Boudewijn is this an Ego hurting.  My apologies for not mentioning
>you by name.
>
>But before you decide to jump in front of a train, who said that you
>were not?
>
>>
>
>> It is very interesting to see that you apparently were never able to
>> build your own picture, given the opportunity you got to gather
>> information for yourself.
>>
>That is not the issue, what I was saying is that information was spread
>on a need to know basis.  Again I never said that I was a Director of
>the CIA.
>
>> >What however can be said is that
>> >Joost Flint, who currently is the coordinator of dds.dds.nl , and a
>> >close associate of Gonggrijp does qualify as a chain in the link to
>> >Hordik. Joost is a former member of Onkruit a fanatic anti-
>militaristic
>> >action group. Onkruit, which in turn was the breeding ground for
>RaRa,
>> >was involved in break-ins into military installations with the
>> >objective to cause damage, stealing weapons and collecting
>information
>> >for subsequent publication. Joost Flint was one of the people who did
>> >pretty much fit the profile to be involved in the theft of missile
>> >related data with the objective to forward it to the Iraqi
>Government.
>> >Not so much for the money or out love for Saddam but plain and simple
>> >to damage the military establishment. In his response to the Svenson
>> >posting Gonggrijp pointed out that given his age he could not
>possibly
>> >have been involved in some of the groups and actions mentioned in the
>> >posting. I tend to agree with him that in the context of the Svenson
>> >posting some degree of overkill was applied in order to demonize him.
>> >Nevertheless, much of the connections described are accurate and
>> >verified.
>>
>> So, you think that any leftwing activist is "fair game", don't you?
>
>Nice try again, it is really all depending on what the nature of the
>actions are.
>
>> Forget about 'facts'? If you don't like the man, you have a license to
>> kill?
>>
>Don't be ridiculous
>
>> I understand you were not inspired by Hacktic Magazine to become a
>> 'hacker'. But what Bond-movie inspired you to become a luser?
>>
>Not worth answering
>
>>
>> So, according to what you are saying here:
>> - It wasn't you that wrote it.
>> - You were not the "friend" that was spoken about.
>> - You could have written the article.
>>
>That is correct.
>
>>
>> Who are these "we"?
>>
>Parker and myself.
>
>>
>> To *WHAT* extend? Are you "in a condition of doubt"?
>>
>I cannot be certain as it wasn't me who wrote or inspired it, it could
>be that OSA published it.
>
>>
>> Excuse me, but "for now it suffices" does not, in fact, "suffice". It
>> did not when I originally read that, coming from you, and it does not
>> now.
>>
>In the context of the article it did, in respect to you okay so ask on.
>
>>
>> And the fact that nobody ever was willing to come up with any proof of
>> their wild theories shows that this bidding contest between 'agencies'
>> -if ever there was such a show- was all based on hot air. A conclusion
>> that the distinguished reporters who work for the BBC seemed to
>> support. The mighty US was called upon to 'put up or shut up'. It
>> chose to shut up. You should have learned from that.
>>
>That is the way you would like to see it.
>
>> As I said, why wasn't he offered immunity, so all the other 'really
>> bad persons' could get caught? That is a more or less 'normal'
>> practice in the US, is it not? Why wasn't it applied here?
>>
>I answered this.
>
>>
>> OK. So everybody made notes. They all took their information from the
>> US representatives, since no information could be turned up by the
>> 'infiltrator', being "snorri". What surprise! Their 'information'
>> matched! What a team!
>>
>Dream on kiddo
>
>>
>> Who's "we" in this instance? <sigh>
>
>We in this case is Shulz and myself.
>
>> In this case the "we" refers to your multiple personalities, doesn't
>> it?
>>
>You begin to bore me with this line.  Clearly your insistence on asking
>about "we" is aiming at creating the impression that it is all madness.
>
>Boudewijn you are not very good at it.
>
>> OK.
>>
>> So for the moment, I think I have spent too much time on this already.
>>
>Well thanks for the time you did spend on it, at least your responds
>had some substance. Pitty for those instances where it got lost.
>
>Cya -Snorri


-- 
**=====================SHADOWFOX'S=SIGNATURE=========================**
To send me e-mail do not hit reply.  Cut and paste my sent from
address
and remove the second "o" from shadow in shadowfox. 

If you hate people getting your address from usenet to spam you: do
something similar to what I have done above. You can also configure
your
news reader to list the "contact for further information" e-mail
address
of the last person who spammed you as your "return to" address to get
spammers to spam each other, and update it often... share the joy of
Spam  :-)  

If you seek Kibo's n Bits for ADULT felines only.  I suggest the
following sites:

FOR SWINGING

NASCA International "What is swinging"

http://www.nasca.com/nasca_faq.html#whatis

"A Swingers Compass" 
http://home.i1.net/~tekctrl/p2&4.htm

Jeff & Kriss Booth Guide to Swinging:
http://eroticguide.com/swing/swingguide.html
See links for:
"Brief Introduction to Swinging"
"Myths about Swinging"
"Swinging Q&A"

Club Adventure "Frequently Asked Questions"
http://www.clubadventure.org/FAQ.html

The Velvet Swing  "The Basics :What is Swinging?" (note you need to
scroll down a tad)
http://home.netcom.com/~jonnall/information.htm

"A Modern Guide to Swinging"
http://www.sexuality.org/mgswing.html

Hide-N-Seek "Lifestyles FAQ"
http://www.hnslv.com/initial_frame_page.htm

PLN click on link for "New Couples" or "New AOL Couples"
http://www.swingnet.org/

Family Synergy "Frequently Asked Questions"
http://www.familysynergy.org/faq.html

FOR POLYMAORY
LIBERATED CHRISTIANS
http://www.libchrist.com/

Q: What is Loving More? 
A: A new vision of relationship.
http://www.lovemore.com/faq.html

If I fail to respond to a criticism, comment, or personal attack in
response to one my posts, it is probably because I have the person
killfiled.  Persons guaranteed to be on my killfile list at this time
are:  Le Jackal.    If you want an explanation of why I killfiled said
people, post the question and I will respond to it.  Aw fuck it, maybe
I'll read his posts for a laugh anyway, but respond... naaaaaaa. 
May you find usenet helpful in finding what you seek :-)
**===============================================================================**