Military Collector Group Post Oct.9/97 PRC-17 & TWA? CQ LOST THEIR AUTHOR. MORE ON AOL & COOKIES. BIG BROTHER OR NO! ********************************************************* Dennis, I just got a PRC-17 with TWA markings. Have you ever heard of civilian aircraft carrying military equipment? Tom ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom, Yes it is common for military radios of this type to have been used by commercial aircraft. Note, it also includes the 121.5mc(the civil gaurd freq). Accualy many of these type radios began life as commercial equipment adopted as-is by the military. Even in recent years examples can be found such as the ACR-RT-10(adopted as the URC-10A, though feu are marked as such), & the KEL ASR-100, among others. Even non-emergancy types saw widespread use like the ART-13,& 618T, the latter is still in use by some third world small airlines. Post WW-II years saw the use of the Gibson Girl, CRC-7, & the URC-4. Bellow is a complete discription of your radio, should you ever deside to get rid of it, let me know as it's one I don't have. Dennis PRC-17;Handheld,VHF/UHF,AM transceiver intended for search & rescue service & used by the US Navy. Ops on 121.5 & 243mc AM/MCW,with an RF power output of 50mw.Requires 135v & 1.5v supplied by internal batteries.Size 14 3/4 x 2 5/8 x 2 7/8".Original cost circa 1951-1953 $210.00. Ref.#3 ******************************************************* CQ LOST THEIR AUTHOR. Dennis, I just got a letter from editor of CQ magazine. Somebody wrote an article about a Tank coil Former and it got separated from its envelope and landed on mine. So I got a letter about it. Called them up to find out what was going on. They are trying to find out who wrote the article. Please ask the group if anybody wrote such an article for CQ. If so, better contact CQ magazine and let them know who you are. Hell of a way to run a railroad! Bill Howard ******************************************************* Dennis, I don't profess to be an expert, but here's my two cents... If you are paranoid about cookies, you can set Internet Explorer and Netscape to alert the fact a web page wants to set a cookie flag and accept or reject the setting. I do this on my browsing of the web. Most sites just want to set a flag that you've been there before and ask only once. But some web sites are insistent little buggers and keep asking repetitively. I either cave in or meander off to another site somewhere else. These browser packages dont like you to touch the cookies.txt file. But I've heard of ways to clean it out and have seen software coming onto the market to do this for you. In looking at the 'cookies.txt' file, companies are setting up a single line item in this text file. It's just a text file. It's not a storage area for executable evil exe code or viruses. Most cookies have an expiration date so that the system will eventually kill it later. This isnt the first time I've heard of companies snooping on your system though. I've heard reference to this same activity when you call up and electronically register your 'new' shiny software with a company. They take that opportunity to do a little 'on-line' market research and see what else you have installed in hardware and software. I take exception to this activity, especially when permission is not asked for first. If your disk drive access led comes on and stays on while it thrashes around on the whole disk, you can bet they are poking where you dont want them to. I recently accessed a web page on computer security and it blurted back all kinds of stuff about me and my system nust by accessing the web site. What are web site vendors doing with all this 'free' information? The final thing to worry about is the newer html code like Java. This is executable html code you download into your cpu and execute. It wont be long till we have to worry about viruses from browsing the web. The old standard HTML hasnt presented a viral problem yet. (of course the old rumors about viral html have circulated for some time, but havent been true as of yet...) Just my two cents, Be careful out there! Ralph Hogan VMIC VME Microsystems International Corp Huntsville, AL 205-650-8161 wk 1-800-322-3616 205-882-0859 fax email: ralph.hogan@vmic.com wk ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subj: AOL FM: George Wallner I believe that there is an element of truth in the message. I have heard from other sources about the "cookie", although it is supposed to be a lot more bening than described in the e-mail. Generally speaking, digruntled ex-amployees tend to overstate things. Whatever the truth may be, the best you can recommend people who want to use AOL, is to ask AOL for an official letter that states that no such "cookie" is, or planned to be included, in AOL 4.0, and if there is anything resembling a "cookie" to explain its function. No publicly traded corporation will take the risk of making the above statements if they could be misleading; not even on behalf of the gevernment! The most likely outcome of a widespread request for official denial would be that if such project existed it would be quietly killed. AOL is most likely OK. But asking them to confirm it in writing is like an insurance policy. GW ******************************************************* BIG BROTHER OR NO! > The Daily Outrage! > ************************ > > > We're sending out Monday's Outrage a little early because we want to make > sure you have a chance to contact Congress and express your outrage over > this unprecedented potential online intrusion. > > Sunday, September 21, 1997 > > BIG BROTHER ONLINE! > > As faithful DO readers know, we're very concerned about privacy issues. > We > recently began an ongoing crusade to stop spam, and thus protect the > privacy of your e-mail inbox. > > But a much more pernicious danger looms immediately before us. This > coming > Thursday, September 25, the House side of the U.S. Congress is expected > to > vote on a bill that could give governmental law enforcement agencies like > the FBI the ability to read all of your e-mail, and monitor all of your > online transactions, without even informing you. > > The bill in question is HR 695, the "Security and Freedom through > Encryption Act" (SAFE). Sounds Orwellian, doesn't it? But the bill itself > is not the problem. The problem is a proposed amendment to the bill, the > Oxley/Manton Amendment, named after its congressional sponsors. > > You may recall George Orwell's novel 1984, in which Big Brother watches > you > from a television set. If this bill is passed, there is a very good > chance > that Orwell's nightmare will become your reality. > > The Daily Outrage is proud to join with The Center For Democracy and > Technology, The Electronic Frontier Foundation, Americans for Tax Reform, > Wired Magazine and many others in urging you to oppose the Oxley/Manton > Amendment. > > Think we're exaggerating? The Oxley/Manton mendment requires that every > part of the Internet be built so that the FBI can, at will, read any or > all > e-mail and any other communications going over the Net. Here are some key > features of this amendment: > > * Oxley/Manton is a dramatic expansion of government power. It would > give > the government immediate access to private online communications and > business transactions without any notice to the user. > > * Oxley/Manton strips Americans of their Fourth Amendment protection > from > unreasonable searches and seizures. > > * Oxley/Manton would give the Attorney General authority to dictate the > design of Internet services and software to fit the needs of the law > enforcement establishment. > > * Oxley/Manton would not stop crime. Strong encryption without immediate > access features is available today both in and outside the US. > > * Oxley/Manton would increase opportunities for cybercrime as criminal > hackers attack vulnerabilities in the key recovery access system. In > other > words, if you provide the government with a key to your e-mail > communications, you're also providing hackers with an opportunity to > steal > the key. > > For legitimate law enforcement, the government must now secure the > approval > of a judge before tapping your phone. The Oxley/Manton Amendment would > give > the government the equivalent of an open ticket to tap into your Internet > communications. > > Don't let it happen -- this is the time to use your phone to protect your > e-mail. Take action: > > 1. Call one or all of the following four members of the committee that > will > vote on this amendment: > > > Chairman Thomas Bliley > (Republican -- VA) > 202-225-2815 > > Rep. John Dingell > (Ranking Democrat -- MI) > 202-225-4071 > > Rep. Tauzin > (Republican -- LA) > 202-225-4031 > > Rep. Markey > (Democrat -- MA) > 202-225-2836 > > 2. Ask for the staff member who is handling the encryption issue. > > 3. Let them know, in no uncertain terms, that you oppose the Oxley/Manton > Big Brother Amendment. It's important to distinguish between the bill, > SAFE, and the amendment. We're not opposing the bill itself, just the > amendment. > > If you're looking for a simple way to express your Outrage, you might > tell > the staffer that you don't want to give the FBI the keys to your house or > your car, and you've got no intention of giving them the keys to your > e-mail. > > STAND UP FOR YOUR PRIVACY RIGHTS! > > Read more about today's Outrage in the site about the SAFE bill and this > site about encryption. > > > ************************ > > Quote of the Day > The free state offers what a police state denies -- the privacy of the > home, the dignity and peace of mind of the individual. > > -- Justice William O. Douglas, 1953. > > > ************************ > > If you have any comments about today's Daily Outrage, or if you want to > hurl vituperative insults at us (expletive-free insults, that is), then > please post them in the new RAGEBACK area on our web site. > > > Read Comments about This Outrage: > > > Post Your Own Comments about This Outrage: > > > If you're not getting your own Outrage every day, or if you have any > other > questions or concerns regarding the Daily Outrage mailing, please write > to > . > > > Thanks for listening, and stay outraged! > > Copyright 1997, The Daily Outrage is produced by Struan Communications. All rights reserved. When finished reading use browser back button or go to http://www.prc68.com/MCGP/MCGP.html