SJG-BBS weirdness
Walter Milliken
would be of interest anyway.]
For those who call the Steve Jackson Games Illuminati-BBS, and have
been wondering why it's been down the last few days, the reason is
pretty odd....
It seems that the Secret Service showed up and carted the BBS machine
away. I kid you not -- I got this news from a post by the SJG-BBS
sjsop (Fearless Leader) on another BBS in Austin.
Apparently, the Secret Service was not interested in SJG, but believed
the SJG-BBS contained some sort of information relevant to a
data-piracy case they were working on. Nothing other than the BBS was
taken from SJG.
One followup poster on the Austin board mentioned that the Secret
Service was involved in an AT&T "sting" operation that just happened
down there -- something to do with catching people illegally copying
Unix sources. SJG-BBS was not a Unix machine, so any relation to that
sting would have to be peripheral.
It's rather funny that SJG-BBS would be involved, since the folks at
SJG are *very* concerned about copyright rights (not surprising in a
publisher), and have been exceedingly careful to not post or
distribute anything they knew or suspected to be copyrighted or
otherwise protected. Several unattributed but known copyrighted posts
have been deleted by the sjsops, and they recently decided not to
distribute a certain MS-DOS compression program due to its dubious
copyright status.
Not doubt the Secret Service will not be amused by some of the
material on the BBS disk -- GURPS Cyberpunk was posted on the BBS for
playtesting, including netrunning rules. Is this a case of real life
catching up with gaming?
It must be the work of the Illuminati...
BTW, I'll try to post a notice here when the BBS comes back up. That
will be whenever the Secret Service gives the hardware back.
---Walter
Michael O'Connor
call, provided that there would be...say...Champions stuff on there.
They took the BBS? You mean... the computer that ran the BBS, or just the
BBS itself?
Walter Milliken
>Was the BBS strictly for Steve Jackson's games? It would be interesting to
>call, provided that there would be...say...Champions stuff on there.
Essentially, it is only for games published by SJ Games, though
there've been a few discussions on Champions vs. GURPS Supers on the
Supers board. There was also a TFOS online game there for a while,
and the Cyberpunk board had a whole bunch of Shadowrun stuff on it for
a while. They aren't religious about it, but the board traffic is
mostly related to their stuff, plus a few general-interest boards,
like reviews. I seem to recall hearing that there was another Austin
board that specialized in Champions stuff, but I don't have any name
or number for it.
>They took the BBS? You mean... the computer that ran the BBS, or just the
>BBS itself?
Yes, they took the hardware for the BBS, among other things.
---Walter
Chris Lang
>There's some discussion of this matter in the comp.dcom.telecom
>newsgroup. (Hope I got that right--it's a group I didn't even know
>existed until this affair came up.) Apparently there aren't a lot of
>precedents regarding email privacy rights. This case could be a
>trailblazer.
Well, this isn't the first time the Secret Service/FBI has confiscated a
BBS system...I believe they are well within their rights, and anything posted on
a BBS is "fair game". That's the reason all BBSes are supposed to put up little
warning messages saying that "private" email is not necessarily private, etc.
-Chris
-----
Chris Lang University of Michigan, College of Engineering
home: 4622 Bursley work: National Center for Manufacturing Sciences
Ann Arbor, MI 48109 900 Victors Way, Suite 226
(313) 763-1832 Ann Arbor, MI 48108
chr...@caen.engin.umich.edu (313) 995-0300
"I hate quotations. Tell me what you know." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Troy Kammerdiener
I was thinking about the SJ Games raid by the U.S. government, and the
fact that apparently the intention of the investigators was to examine private
correspondence in the bulletin board's email system (possibly among other
sources) looking for evidence to incriminate somebody.
Now, I don't know what laws (if any) cover what they can do with such
information, but I have sent private mail over that system (nothing illegal,
but _private_), and it greatly distresses me that big brother may be examining
it without so much as a warrant!
It seems to me that the same laws should cover electronic mail, no matter
who the carrier is, that cover phone lines or U.S. mail. That is, they should
be forced to establish probable cause before they can examine my correspon-
dence. Maybe someone out there with some legal background could comment on
the question. I know that I would like to cause some discomfort to the
government agencies responsible for this; perhaps a lawyer would be interest-
ed in prosecuting a class-action suit on behalf of the users of the Illuminati
Email sjstem for unlawful search and seizure (of private correspondence)?
Just an idea.
--
Troy Kammerdiener /| "Joy is in the ears that hear..."
Dept. of Computer Science / | -- Saltheart Foamfollower --
Tulane University __/__| INTERNET & BITNET: kamm...@rex.cs.tulane.edu
New Orleans, LA 70118 /_____| USENET: [{ames,bionet}!]rex!kammerdi
Elliot Wilen
be a hacking manual is just speculation? If this turns out to be true,
then we may have just witnessed some kind of landmark in governmental
stupidity. I was just joking with a friend, "What if those Secret
Service people, who have no sense of humor, happen to take the
Cyberpunk MS seriously?" And now exactly that appears to be
happening. Oh well. Should make a good Wall Street Journal article;
with any luck, SJG may realize a silver lining in this cloud.
After living in Berkeley for two and a half years, I've become pretty
resistent to having my consciousness raised, but this sort of thing
really brings me back to my anarchist roots (and a tip of the hat to
Robert A. Wilson).
In article <24...@rex.cs.tulane.edu> kamm...@rex.UUCP (Troy Kammerdiener) writes:
>[His belief that private email should enjoy the same protections as
>"real mail.]
There's some discussion of this matter in the comp.dcom.telecom
newsgroup. (Hope I got that right--it's a group I didn't even know
existed until this affair came up.) Apparently there aren't a lot of
precedents regarding email privacy rights. This case could be a
trailblazer.
--Elliot Wilen
William Henry Timmins
(I'd say that raids of private property without explanation counts as
fairly tyrannical behavior!)
-Lord Teka
Philip Brown
Lawful evil??? Huh. I have always contended that the US government is Chaotic Evil.
Sometimes it pays attension to laws, sometimes it just writes them and ignores them.
Philip Brown
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Philip Brown pbr...@ocf.berkeley.edu
-=>-=>-=> -=> -=> -=> -=> -=> -=> -=> -=> -=> walk this way
Chris Lang
Well, assuming they had a search warrant, they DID have to make an
explanation...to a judge. And it is understandable why they would not want
to announce their intentions beforehand...the advantage of surprise is rather
lost in that case. Did they not say it was to be used as evidence in a
criminal case? Seems to me that is enough explanation to give them the right to
do it...whether it is enough to satisfy our curiosity (or SJG's, for that
matter) is another story.
(I'm not sure further discussion of this belongs in rec.games.frp...most of
the discussion of SJG's involvement seems to have ceased...what does everyone
else think?)
Bob Slaughter
>
> Lawful evil??? Huh. I have always contended that the US government is Chaotic Evil.
> Sometimes it pays attension to laws, sometimes it just writes them and ignores them.
> Philip Brown
>
Actually, the alignmet of the US is probably Lawful Stupid....
--
* Bob Slaughter * This space for rent *
* InterNet#1: r...@beach.cis.ufl.edu * Call 1-800-FOR-RENT *
* InterNet#2: Hal...@Pine.Circa.Ufl.Edu * Model Railroading *
* Bitnet: Haldane@UFPine * is Fun!! *
David Bank
This is in response to a message by Elliot Wilen (ichiro@@codon7)
in which he says "What if those Secret Service people, who have
no sense of humor. . . ." :
Having met in the course of professional duty a few agents of
the Secret Service (and talked with 2 or 3 for several short periods
of time), I can attest to the fact that they DO have a sense of
humor.
Granted, it tends to be dry or even macabre, and sometimes obtuse
to those not in the business of (potentially, anyway) being human
shields, but it does exist.
I kinda doubt that the agents themselves buy into the idea that
Cyberpunk is a hacker's guide. I lean toward the notion that some
government toadie has this idea and sicced the SS on it. Like all
good soldiers, they tend to do as they are told (no shame in that or
indictment of them, merely an observation).
Someone (Troy Kammerdiener aka kamm...@rex.cs.tulan.edu)
was worried about private electronic communications being broached
in this raid on the SJG-BBS. As I understand things, there was a
warrant served. Therefore, the SS had legal access to all materials
relevant to the warrant in the SJG building. Electronic records,
including E-Mail, are treated just the same as paper ones. If they
could (and they can, with a proper warrant) rife thru a collection
of paper letters sent to SJG (one of which could be yours) they are
just as legally able to view the electronic communications stored
in the BBS computer.
Unky Dave
unky...@shumv1.ncsu.edu
(aka DAVE THE DM)
DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer nor do I play one in an RPG. The above
legal opinion is just that...an opinion.
DISCLAIMER: The above message constitutes an honest effort by the author
to impart information he knows or reasonably knows to be
true. All other interpretations are in error.
Adam
Tyranny is in the eye of the beholder. The above would be tyranny,
certainly, IF it were true. But I rather doubt that. Since the FBI,
and yes, the secret service, have specified `rules of evidence', so
that the judge does not toss the case out on its ear, then I doubt
that there is no explanation forthcoming. Perhaps SJG is not entitled
to one presently (and, IMO, Cyberpunk and whatever is unimportant
compared to potential evidence. After all, to seize evidence there
MUST be something like a search warrant, meaning that the Secret
Service/FBI had to explain their rationale to a judge). You see, it
is quite possible that an `explanation' to peripheral parties may
damage the case by encouraging destruction of evidence. Sort of like
giving a drug dealer time to flush the coke down the toilet.
So, with all the assertations about the U.S. being LE and all that,
let us examine a few things about the U.S. justice system in
particular. 1) Based on _Common Law_ This means that precedents
hold more than codes 2) Rules of evidence, search & seizure, and
enough procedures to give law students headaches over their
Administrative Law course 3) Justice _is_ determined on a
case-by-case basis, with individual considerations as to the history
of the accused, mental status, and so forth. In Civil Law systems,
all this is replaced by a 'did he commit the offense, or not?' In
these cases, the penalty is automatically determined.
Therefore, after wading through a Jurisprudence course, one might note
that the justice system balances the rights of the individuals with
the necessary powers of society, i.e. Chaotic or Neutral; and
obviously there is an interest in human life, welfare, etc. as
elegantly stated in the U.S. Constitution. Sounds 'Good' to me.
So, with no sarcasm intended or implied, read up on the laws, and the
spirit of the laws, and then make a case for LE. Otherwise, I'd
suggest you reserve your judgement.
Adam
********************************************************************************
"No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades will seriously cramp his style"
-- Vlad Taltos
"God does not play dice with the universe."
-- Albert Einstein
"Albert, quit telling God what to do."
-- Neils Bohr
INTERNET: ccs...@pollux.ucdavis.edu
BITNET: acget...@deneb.ucdavis.edu
********************************************************************************
Disclaimer: "Forasmuch as the interested parties heretofore agree...
[9000 lines deleted] ... the UC Regents take no responsibility..."
Gary P Gray
Hmmm... I wonder if the Cyberpunk rules will have an expanded section on law
enforcement now...
--
-- WARNING!!! The above opinions may be HAZARDOUS or FATAL if swallowed!!! --
"It's big | Gary Gray -- gg...@wpi.wpi.edu
"It's scary | GEnie: GGRAY6
"It's been done before" -- tribe |
Walter Milliken
> Now, I don't know what laws (if any) cover what they can do with such
>information, but I have sent private mail over that system (nothing illegal,
>but _private_), and it greatly distresses me that big brother may be examining
>it without so much as a warrant!
SJG-BBS carried a warning message somewhere in the "new user" info
that BBS e-mail couldn't be considered truly private. I'm not sure
what the legal rationale for this was, but I know they put it there
because of some legal precedent involving another BBS. I suspect it
has something to do with the fact that BBSes aren't legally "common
carriers".
---Walter
Lang Zerner
> Someone (Troy Kammerdiener aka kamm...@rex.cs.tulan.edu)
>was worried about private electronic communications being broached
>in this raid on the SJG-BBS. As I understand things, there was a
>warrant served. Therefore, the SS had legal access to all materials
>relevant to the warrant in the SJG building. Electronic records,
>including E-Mail, are treated just the same as paper ones. If they
>could (and they can, with a proper warrant) rife thru a collection
>of paper letters sent to SJG (one of which could be yours) they are
>just as legally able to view the electronic communications stored
>in the BBS computer.
I'm in full agreement with you that they are within legal rights to seize
the information, and I understand that the privacy rights of the authors
are pretty much out the window when there is a warrant served. My concern
is for the property rights of the system administrators. Assuming that the
warrant servers had a warrant to seize any information generated by the
alleged computer criminals, they would have been within their rights to make
copies of the online materials, or perhaps even to remove all the recording
media. But to seize all the hardware and damage a legitimate business (SJG's
BBS was a valuable marketing and customer service asset for SJG) is equivalent
not to going in and seizing paper files, but to seizing the company's file
cabinets as well, along with all pens, pencils, blank paper and any other
legitimate supply which could be used to record information. The action
stopped a legitimate business activity because a single employee was subject
to warranted search and seizure.
If SJG is named on the warrant as well, forget I intruded on this conversation,
but if only the Mentor was named, then I would appreciate hearing from
the poster who is moving to get common carrier status for bulletin board
systems. Please let me know what I can do to support you. I'm not a little
upset at the apparent disregard by our serving governors of their duty to
protect our rights of free exchange of information.
Be seeing you...
--Lang Zerner
Be seeing you...
--Lang Zerner
"We lived in a shoebox in the middle of the road. We used to have to get up
at three o'clock every morning and LICK the road clean with our TONGUES!"
Elliot Wilen
relatively undetermined (according to comp.dcom.telecom, not me) is
not so much whether email enjoys the same privacy rights as U.S. mail,
but whether the carrier of the mail (i.e., the owner of the BBS) is in
any way liable for illegal activities carried out using the BBS.
In other words--if somebody uses US mail to send a pirated copy of
some software, the Post Office is in no way implicated. But if
somebody sends (or posts) pirated software on a BBS, (it is my
understanding that) the BBS owner *might* be subject to charges as an
accessory.
If I screwed that up, then someone kindly correct me.
--Elliot Wilen
William Henry Timmins
>spirit of the laws, and then make a case for LE. Otherwise, I'd
>suggest you reserve your judgement.
The `spirit' of the laws means diddly. It's the performance of law that
matters. If our laws were all in the spirit of freedom, equality, and
fairness, it would only matter if the courts actually performed in
accord to these laws.
Plus, a major point of laws restricting the government is to protect us
from abuses of power. If the SS <hmm, interesting initials...> broke
into my apartment and took everything I owned without explanation,
trashed the place, and held me at gunpoint, am I simply supposed to HOPE
that they have a legal reason and a warrant? And if they DO show me a
warrant, they don't have to tell me WHAT they're looking for or WHY my
place is being trashed! I would regard that as abuse of power and
Machiavellian tactics. (ie- Well, so we abused your rights. It was for a
very good reason. What was the reason? Sorry, that's classified.)
Just for some perspective, I have never been arrested and the only
thing I have on my record is a traffic warning about an illegal left
turn. (It was on a curve and a hill, with oncoming traffic from the left
almost impossible to see. I got hit just behind the rear wheel as I
pulled out) So I'm not someone saying all this because I resent
authority or something silly like that. It just scares me to think how
easily the behavior of the SS could fall into very dangerous corruption.
(I mean, think of Watergate and the Iran-Contra affair. People abusing
power in the name of what they regard as good.)
-Lord Teka
My opinions are absolutely and undeniably correct. If your opinions
differ, then they are wrong and stupid.
<For the sarcastically impaired, the above is a joke.>
Brett Slocum
>be a hacking manual is just speculation? If this turns out to be true,
>then we may have just witnessed some kind of landmark in governmental
>stupidity. I was just joking with a friend, "What if those Secret
>Service people, who have no sense of humor, happen to take the
>Cyberpunk MS seriously?" And now exactly that appears to be
>happening. Oh well. Should make a good Wall Street Journal article;
>with any luck, SJG may realize a silver lining in this cloud.
This conclusion is speculation based on what the SS/FBI agents said
and did at the time of the raid. The speculator was an eyewitness:
The Mentor.
--
Brett Slocum <uunet!hi-csc!slocum> or <hi-csc!slo...@uunet.uu.net>
Life isn't fair, but it sure is funny.
Adam
>>So, with no sarcasm intended or implied, read up on the laws, and the
>>spirit of the laws, and then make a case for LE. Otherwise, I'd
>>suggest you reserve your judgement.
>
> The `spirit' of the laws means diddly. It's the performance of law that
>matters. If our laws were all in the spirit of freedom, equality, and
>fairness, it would only matter if the courts actually performed in
>
>My opinions are absolutely and undeniably correct. If your opinions
>differ, then they are wrong and stupid.
><For the sarcastically impaired, the above is a joke.>
I believe you have just completely changed the topic. I was
referring to considering the U.S. as Chaotic Good based upon the
intent of its laws to preserve Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of
Happiness, the system of Jurisprudence in individual trials
(individuals ARE considered case-by-case) and so forth. Within the
completely limited and artificial alignment system, that is what is
necessary. ALIGNMENT measures INTENT, and that is the issue here.
If, on the other hand, you wish to discuss jurisprudence et.
al., and so forth, then I would have to agree with you. But I don't
think that was what my original posting was about.
David Bank
This is in response to a Post by William Henry Timmins
(wt...@andrew.cmu.edu):
In your response to a gentleman named Adam, you were
talking about the Secret Service hypothetically breaking
into your apartment. At one point, you said "...if the DO
show me a warrant, they don't have to tell me WHAT they
are looking for or WHY my place is being trashed..."
Now quite. A warrant must, among other things,
specifically state who or what is to be seized. So when
they gave you your copy of the warrant (and they are legally
bound to give you a copy), you will know precisely what
they are looking for.
DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer nor do I play one in an RPG. The
above legal opinion is just that...an opinion.
DISCLAIMER: The above message constitutes an honest effort by
the author to impart information he knows or
reasonably knows to be true. All other interpretations
are erroneous.
Walter Milliken
> But to seize all the hardware and damage a legitimate business (SJG's
[rest deleted]
> The action
>stopped a legitimate business activity because a single employee was subject
>to warranted search and seizure.
Not only did they take the BBS, but also some of the office computer
equipment SJG could ill-afford to lose. As I understand it, though,
the worst loss to SJG was that the Feds took all extant copies of the
latest draft of GURPS Cyberpunk, seriously injuring that project.
Some of it has apparently been recovered from copies made by
playtesters from SJG-BBS, but some parts were never posted and were
lost. They now have to rewrite them, which set the release date back
several months.
>If SJG is named on the warrant as well, forget I intruded on this conversation,
>but if only the Mentor was named, .... [rest deleted]
I don't know what the warrant said. They searched all of SJG, but the
only things they took were related to Mentor and GURPS Cyberpunk.
---Walter
William Henry Timmins
differences of semantics, and this is an example.
SORRY! MY view of alignment is that it applies to ACTION, NOT intent,
or that there are TWO alignments, one for intent and one for action.
I won't argue that THEORETICALLY the US is CG, but what I am saying is
that it ACTS LE. (In other words, there is a very wide division between
the US in theory [and as some people believe it to be] and the US as it
actually performs.)
So I agree, the US is SUPPOSED to be CG. What I am saying is that the
US performs as a LE nation.
-Lord Teka
William Henry Timmins
that is), which YOU were responding to! (So don't make off like I
misunderstood you, you were misunderstanding me! And here I was, acting
all humble... well, misunderstandings happen... often.)
-Lord Teka
William Henry Timmins
>specifically state who or what is to be seized. So when
>they gave you your copy of the warrant (and they are legally
>bound to give you a copy), you will know precisely what
>they are looking for.
Sorry. I'm not a lawyer, either! I hope, though, you understood what I meant!
-Lord Teka
John Wilber
specify the object of the search. I heard of a guy's dorm room being
searched because he was suspected of being a drug dealer. No drugs were
found, but an unregistered handgun was. The authorities COULD NOT
prosecute the guy for for the unregistered handgun.
/********************************************************************\
* John J. Wilber * What is this crap about women not needing *
* wil...@nunki.usc.edu * men? You need us, and we need you. Let's *
* student, partier, and * stop arguing, and do something productive, *
* fun-loving guy. * dammit! *
\********************************************************************/
Thomas E. Young
>The stuff about the search warrants is correct. The warrant MUST
>specify the object of the search. I heard of a guy's dorm room being
>searched because he was suspected of being a drug dealer. No drugs were
>found, but an unregistered handgun was. The authorities COULD NOT
>prosecute the guy for for the unregistered handgun.
>
This is total rubbish. When a law enforcement agency is making a *legal*
search, i.e., with a search warrent, they can prosecute you for anything that
they find that is illegal whether or not it is specifically listed in the search
warrent. What they can not do, however, is search for an object in an area
that could not REASONABLY contain the listed objects, such as searching a
desk drawer if they are looking for a stolen car, nor can they search an
area that is not listed in the search warrent.
Here is the 4th Amendment as it applies to unreasonable searches and seizures:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
and no Warrents shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
person or things seized." (Proposed in 1789; Adopted in 1791)
Thomas
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Author assumes all responsibility for the contents (including misspellings).
UUCP: uunet!unrvax!young internet: yo...@tahoe.unr.edu
BITNET: AC34V38@UNEV
Darrin A. Hyrup
>In article <85...@chaph.usc.edu> wil...@sal-sun16.usc.edu (John Wilber) writes:
>>The stuff about the search warrants is correct. The warrant MUST
>>specify the object of the search. I heard of a guy's dorm room being
>>searched because he was suspected of being a drug dealer. No drugs were
>>found, but an unregistered handgun was. The authorities COULD NOT
>>prosecute the guy for for the unregistered handgun.
>>
>>* John J. Wilber
>
>This is total rubbish. When a law enforcement agency is making a *legal*
>search, i.e., with a search warrent, they can prosecute you for anything that
>they find that is illegal whether or not it is specifically listed in the search
>warrent. What they can not do, however, is search for an object in an area
>that could not REASONABLY contain the listed objects, such as searching a
>desk drawer if they are looking for a stolen car, nor can they search an
>area that is not listed in the search warrent.
Enough conjecture... You're both right. The law states that a warrant
must state the exact areas that are to be searched, and what the object of
the search is. In most cases Judges are unlikely to give "blanket"
warrants (that which says, "the entire house and all properties"), but they
have been known to do so in especially dangerous or sensitive matters.
Anyway, in a normal search the officers (or agents) are required to contain
their search to the areas listed in the warrant. But, if they happen to
see something that is in plain view, they can indeed take that as evidence.
(i.e., if the warrant says they can search the bedroom closet and dresser,
and they walk in and see a bag of cocaine on the bed, that can be used as
evidence. But if the same bag was in the medicine cabinet in the bedroom's
bathroom, and the door was closed, they would not be able to use that as
evidence even if they did happen to find it. This is where the cases of
legal and illegally obtained evidence comes in.)
There is also something called "probable cause" (or "just cause") which
means that if the officers (or agents), have reason to suspect that an area
contains evidence that is not covered by a warrant (or if they have no
warrant), they are allowed to search the area, but then they have to
demonstrate the reason (just cause) for the search to the court. (This is
why if you are pulled over by an officer for a speeding ticket or
something, and he smells booze on your breath, he can legally search the
inside of your car for open containers, etc.)
>Here is the 4th Amendment as it applies to unreasonable searches and seizures:
>
>"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
>effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
>and no Warrents shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
>affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
>person or things seized." (Proposed in 1789; Adopted in 1791)
That be the law allright. ;-)
>Thomas
I am not a police officer, or lawyer, but I am presently working on my law
degree, and think I have a pretty good idea of what the laws say. I don't
suggest that you take what I say as the last word. If you are really
worried about something, talk to a real lawyer. <grin>
Now lets get back to games!
Best wishes,
Darrin Hyrup
--
Darrin A. Hyrup // AMIGA Enthusiast rencon!esfenn!dah
magik%sor...@PacBell.COM \X/ & Software Developer pacbell!sorinc!magik
==========================================================================
"Speak little and well, if you wish to be considered as possessing merit."
Walter Milliken
>Hmmm... I wonder if the Cyberpunk rules will have an expanded section on law
>enforcement now...
Or maybe a section on the Illuminati....
---Walter