December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re- PGP
by Bjorn E. Andersson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sorry for the noise, I did a Cc by mistake. Bjorn A.

1 0

Anguilla - commercial and mailbombing policies
by Vincent Cate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM <dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com> > > A while back, when Vince first started advertizing his site, I asked him >a few hypothetical questions, and he said roughly this: If client X posts >something to Usenet from Vince's site, and if Y dislikes X's article so >much that he mailbombs X, then Vince would pull X's plug. (I have the >exact quote saved.) I lost interest right then. I'm not surprised that >Vince acted dishonorably by pulling a client's plug with no warning for a >very flimsy reason. That question was about commercial ads, and I said "As long as I am not mailbombed I don't care about how you post.". I did *not* say I would pull the plug (full exchange below). From your other questions it looked like there was no chance of you being a customer so I did not fully explain. I have been mailbombed around a dozen times in the last year and never cut anyone off. Details below (I too have the exact quote)... Dimitri: > e) to spam usenet with commercial ads. Vince: >e) I think you would have to spam more than 100 groups to get my >system mail bombed. As long as I am not mailbombed I don't >care about how you post. First, yes, that 100 groups is off the wall. What I meant was you can send out commercial ads and I don't care at all. If you get mailbombed, that is another issue. If mailbombed then it goes toward your traffic. You get 100 MB/month of traffic with a domain name, and if you go over that amount of traffic the cost is $1/MB. If you have prepaid by check, and I don't know who you are, and your account goes below $0, I would cut you off till more money came in. Sorry for not explaining that. -- Vince ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Vincent Cate vince(a)offshore.com.ai http://www.offshore.com.ai/vince/ Offshore Information Services http://www.offshore.com.ai/

2 1

Anguilla - legal action or lack thereof
by Vincent Cate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM <dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com> > > "Greg Kucharo" <sophi(a)best.com> writes: > > While Tim may be right that nobility is lost when backing down to the > > authorities, the fact is that this game has little to do with noble > > purposes. ... > > Nor was there any activity from the authorities. There were activity from the authorities. They had copies of the article and were very concerned about it and calling around asking people who knew me about this. They have not started any legal action about this. However, my work permit is up for renewal. They would not ever have to take legal action to shut me down, just decide not to renew my work permit, and I would have to leave the island. My lawyer says it is illegal to sell fake passports in Anguilla. So defending this guy could easily have been a fight to my death as an Anguilla ISP. Not defending him means he relocates to another ISP. This is the Internet guys, relocating a domain is not such a big deal. Taxbomber is using it as a reason for publicity, but he lost no email and his web pages were not down long. Remember regulatory arbitrage. If one country does not want something, there are other countries. I am going to apply for a 3 year work permit next time (they only gave out 1 year ones till very recently - since I applied). Assuming I get this, I will be in a somewhat more secure position. -- Vince ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Vincent Cate vince(a)offshore.com.ai http://www.offshore.com.ai/vince/ Offshore Information Services http://www.offshore.com.ai/

2 1

Re: National Socio-Economic Security Need for Encryption Technology
by Bart Croughs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Joel Morgan wrote: >It seems clear that capital investment in tools will contribute to the -productivity- of workers. (Tools here meaning whatever machinery/ infrastructure is used to get work done.) Bart Croughs quotes a number of economists who seem to be saying that when capital investment leads to increased productivity (per worker) this also leads to higher wages. I'm not sure I understand -why- this should necessarily be so. It's my impression that in manufacturing industries, the more mechanized production is, the more workers will get paid. Then again, perhaps a more mechanized industry will pay more because more mechanized industries hire workers with higher skills (albeit fewer workers). It's my impression that when a company makes capital investments which increase productivity, the fruits of this increased worker productivity are shared (to some extent) with the workers. I can imagine a number of reasons why this might be done, but it's not absolutely clear to me that this would be a direct result of market forces.< Increased productivity of workers leads to higher wages for workers because of competition between employers. If a worker produces the worth of $3000 per month for his boss, and his boss is only willing to give him $2000 salary, then there are other employers who would be happy to give this man a job at a higher wage. They still profit if they give him a wage of $2100 instead of $2000. This process goes on until the salary of the worker equals his marginal productivity. Bart Croughs

1 0

Re: National Socio-Economic Security Need for Encryption Technology
by Bart Croughs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Arun Mehta wrote: >>Bart Croughs wrote: >I don't assume that the *total amount* of capital will be lowered in the US when US capital moves abroad. I assume that the amount of capital in the US will be *relatively lower*. So the wages will be *relatively* lower (lower than when the capital wouldn't have left the US), but not necessarily lower in any absolute sense. I thought this was obvious, but since Arun Mehta also misunderstood me, maybe I should have been more explicit here. > Henry Hazlitt in 'economics in one lesson' (p. 139): "The best way to raise wages, therefore, is to raise marginal labor productivity. This can be done by many methods: by an increase in capital accumulation - i.e. by an increase in the machines with which the workers are aided..." Pardon me, but I'm still confused. When Hazlitt talks about how many machines are employed, surely that's "absolute" capital, not relative. If US capital is invested abroad sensibly, such that it enriches the investors, they have more money to invest in machines at home and thereby increase local productivity (and wages). << If investors use their capital to invest abroad, this capital cannot at the same time be used to invest at home. Only after the investors decide not to invest abroad any more, they can invest it at home. But I was not talking about investors who decide to stop investing abroad and start investing at home. I was talking about investors who decide to invest abroad instead of at home, and the effect of such a decision on the wages in the US. Maybe in the future these investors will have more money, and will decide to stop investing abroad and start investing at home. But in the mean time, all the capital that's invested abroad diminishes the amount of capital invested at home, and so causes the wages at home to be less than they otherwise would have been (but not necessarily less in any absolute sense). Bart Croughs

1 0

Re: National Socio-Economic Security Need for Encr
by Bart Croughs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Chris Adams wrote: >On 12 Aug 96 19:17:00 -0800, bart.croughs(a)tip.nl wrote: >Now I will explain why the austrian economists are right. Imagine Robinson Crusoe. In the beginning, he catches fish with his bare hands. He has no capital investment, and consequently he is not very productive. His wage will be low (he will not catch much fish). If there is more capital investment - if, for example, he has a fishing rod - he will catch more fish in less time. His productivity is higher. His wage is higher (more fish). If there is still more capital investment - if, for example, he has a boat and fishing nets - he will catch even more fish. His productivity is higher. His wage is higher. Etcetera. So, it's really not difficult to see that the Robin's standard of living depends on the amount of capital available on his island. The same goes for the rest of humanity.< To a limited extent, that holds water. However, how would you explain, say, some of the construction work around here where a huge, expensive piece of equipment is being run by some guy making less than the Cal Trans worker with the flags? Or guys I know who are making low-middle class wages working on a $10,000 computer hooked up to a $1,500,000+ molding machine? Also: lawyers - You're getting charged $200 a billing hour by someone who probably doesn't even use a typewriter (After all, secretaries aren't just for oggling). Although legal references might be somewhat expensive, it doesn't compare to the money gained. Also: computers. I know people who are making an incredible amount on old machines. They might be using a few dollars in software (probably 2-3 hours worth at most) and are working on a cheesy old machine. However, because some of these $6.25/hr typists have been putting useful information into it, it is worth the trouble to pay someone $50/hr to fix it. Neither of them has invested much compared to what they're getting in return.< When economists say that wages depend on the amount of capital invested, they mean on a regional/national level, not on the level of individuals. >Your argument only works with 2 givens: 1) A larger investment will return at least a corresponding increase in productivity.< This tends to be the case. If a larger investment doesn't return a corresponding increase in productivity, the investment will generally not be made. Happily, no one wants to waste his money on investments that are not productive. >and 2) the worker is self-employed - otherwise there are too many factors involved. If #1 is true, *someone* will be making more money, but not necessarily the worker.< Yes, it's the worker who will make more money. Why? As I explained in another post on this subject: "Increased productivity of workers leads to higher wages for workers because of competition between employers. If a worker produces the worth of $3000 per month for his employer, and his employer is only willing to give him a wage of $2000 , then there are other employers who would be happy to give this man a job at a higher wage. They still profit if they give him a wage of $2100 instead of $2000. This process goes on until the salary of the worker equals his marginal productivity." Bart Croughs

1 0

Re: National Socio-Economic Security Need for Encryption Technology
by Bart Croughs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Blanc Weber wrote: >>From: Bart Croughs > >You haven't answered this question yet. I don't claim that the U.S. is worse >off when US capital moves abroad. I only ask: how can you proof that the US >isn't worse off when US capital moves abroad? ............................................................. You have to be able to imagine the advantages, and you can only imagine them when you have the background to understand the difference between having fewer choices rather than more, a limited market base rather than an open one full of unlimited opportunity, and the increased domestic tensions from frustrated consumers who are likely to set up blackmarkets as work-arounds to the lack of desired goods & services. Essentially, you have to want to see, and work for, the difference resulting from unprotected markets. I think people who put up a lot of objections are afraid and do not want any proof of their error. You'd have to hold their nose to the figures, and even then they might close their eyes....< You are wrong. I'm not in error; I don't think the US is worse off when US capital moves abroad. I just want to know how you can proof it, so I would be able to rebut protectionist arguments. I don't know how to prove it. And, unfortunately, neither do you. Rhetoric is no proof. Bart Croughs

2 1

Schlafly on crypto
by Brad Dolan 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Subject: Clinton Is Trying to be Big Brother -- Phyllis Schlafly Column 8/8/96 Clinton Is Trying to be Big Brother August 8, 1996 by Phyllis Schlafly We hope the appropriate government agencies will soon solve the recent terrorist crimes and punish the criminals. But all Americans who care about civil liberties should vigorously resist President Clinton's attempt to use the terrorist attacks as an excuse to carry on his all-out war against the personal privacy of law-abiding Americans. This mind-set was first revealed in the Clinton health care bill, which would have given the government computer access to the medical records of all Americans. Fortunately, that totalitarian takeover of the health care industry was rejected. The Clinton Administration's education legislation now pending in Congress would put personal information about all schoolchildren -- academic, medical, attitudinal, behavioral, and family -- into an expanded Labor Market Information database available to the government, as well as to prospective employers. Now the Clinton Administration is trying to make it illegal for individual Americans to have private conversations with one another. That's the real meaning of its effort to control encryption technology, and it's a direct assault on the First Amendment. It would be downright ridiculous to assert that the First Amendment guarantees our right to speak in public but not in private. It would be just as ridiculous to say that we have freedom to speak in words that the government can understand, but not in words the government can't decipher. Americans have the right to speak to one another in private, behind closed doors, and we should likewise have the right to speak to one another in code and to put our coded messages on computer in a process called encryption. Americans would not tolerate the government opening and reading the letters we send through the mails, and we should not tolerate the government opening and reading our encrypted, or coded, messages sent via computer. Yet, Attorney General Janet Reno, FBI Director Louis Freeh, and Vice President Al Gore are all demanding the authority to read our encrypted messages. In a speech to the Commonwealth Club of California, Reno bluntly stated her demand for "ensuring law enforcement access to encrypted data.'' Reno boasted that there is "a consensus'' that the government should create a system known as "Key Escrow'' (i.e., a supposedly "neutral third party''), to which all Americans should be forced to "entrust'' the keys to their encrypted messages, and to which the government would have access. On the contrary, there is no such consensus. Do you trust Janet Reno with access to your private messages? Do you trust the FBI to keep your files confidential? The Clinton Administration is already doing 30 to 40 percent more federal telephone wiretaps and other electronic surveillance than the last year of the Bush Administration. Those figures don't even include national security wiretaps or the hundreds of extensions granting more time for wiretap orders already issued. FBI Director Freeh wrote the New York Times last November that "There is no intention to expand the number of wiretaps or the extent of wiretapping." Four months later, FBI documents revealed that the FBI does, in fact, plan to increase electronic surveillance 54 percent by 1998 and 130 percent by 2004. On July 12, Al Gore announced that the Administration will continue to push for the adoption of a massive public key infrastructure to give the government access to all encrypted communications. In a blatant bid for a police-state surveillance society, Gore warned about "the dangers of unregulated encryption technology." A neutral panel of the National Research Council was set up to make policy recommendations about encryption. The panel called on the government to abandon its efforts to restrict encryption. The NSC panel concluded that increased use of encryption would enhance our national security, not diminish it. Thirteen out of its 16 members had security clearances with access to secret information, and they saw no national security reason to justify the Clinton policy. The Clinton Administration bases its campaign to control private encryption on the alleged need to fight crime through wiretapping. However, the NSC panel concluded that the ability of the private sector to transfer confidential financial and other data over the information highway without interception is far more important. New technologies have given government awesome power to spy on individuals. The Filegate investigation accidentally uncovered the shocking news that, as soon as Bill Clinton entered the White House in 1993, he secretly spent $400,000 on software to create a highly sophisticated computer database to track detailed political, financial, attitudinal, and personal biographical information on 200,000 people, including members of Congress and the media. Known as WHODB for White House Office Data Base, the system was nicknamed Big Brother. Encryption is a First Amendment issue, not a crime issue. If the Clinton Administration is allowed to control encryption, it would be the biggest expansion of federal power since the passage of the Income Tax Amendment in 1913. EAGLE FORUM -- eagle(a)eagleforum.org PO Box 618 Alton, IL 62002 Phone: 618-462-5415 ---------------------------------------------- Are you on our E-mail list? Tell a friend about us! http://www.eagleforum.org

1 0

Anguilla - A DataHaven?
by Vincent Cate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim: > Rather, there is an "archetype," if you will, of what a "remailer" is, what > a "data haven" is, what a "tax shelter" is, etc. While we cannot reasonably > expect a remailer to exactly match the archetype, we can point out obvious > deficiencies. 1) Anguilla has secrecy laws. Professional relationships are confidential. There are strong secrecy laws. I have not given out taxbomber's name, nor will I as I could face legal action if I did. 2) Anguilla has no sales or income taxes. A business does not need to report anything about income, sales, etc, to the government (or anyone else). If a guy wants to sell his data and keep 100% of the profits instead of 50% or 60%, then Anguilla would be a haven for him. 3) We don't have the same laws as other countries, so there are things that can be done here. For example, we can export encryption software. Also, we will have bingo.com in Anguilla. There are deficiencies from a cypherpunk or Libertarian point of view. And these are interesting. And exactly what I want to do is changing. As I said, Anguilla is not the datahaven of cypherpunks wet dreams. I am sure there are no datahavens that match the cypherpunk concept of an ideal datahaven, yet. But I think the term DataHaven applies as well to Anguilla as any other place I know of. Tim, we would all be very happy if you were to locate a country that could be the site of the ideal datahaven, and finance a couple cypherpunks to setup there. It would be a big help to our cause. Could you do this? In the mean time, people may have to exist in cyberspace (like www.taxbomber.com) without having a totally secure physical location. This is not the end of the world, or really even that painful. If done right you could be down for only an hour - just long enough for nameservers to change. Taxbomber is now setup to do it very fast next time, if the need ever comes. Tim, I think you have even advocated this approach, not stressing the physical location, just the cyberspace location. No? -- Vince ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Vincent Cate vince(a)offshore.com.ai http://www.offshore.com.ai/vince/ Offshore Information Services http://www.offshore.com.ai/

2 2

re: National Socio-Economic Security Need for Encryption Technology
by Arun Mehta 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:33 13/08/96 -0700, James A. Donald wrote: >the fact that an engineer who is subject to the power of the Indian >government is not worth very much, as is demonstrated by the fact >that companies with Indian engineering teams often spend a lot of money >to get their employees out of India. > >Demand for Indian programmers is less than supply not because capital >has somehow failed to flow to India, but because an engineer in India >is not free to produce the value that engineers elsewhere are free >to produce. > Whoa! In economies that are highly de-coupled, incomes and prices can easily find quite different equilibria. Of course, the situation changes when trade increases. If you visited Italy in the mid-'70s, prices were much lower than, say, in Germany. Somewhere in the late '70s and early '80s, prices (and I hope wages too) rose to "international" levels. Why hasn't it happened in India? One reason for sure is that despite all the talk of free trade, free movement of people does not take place. Otherwise, plumbing, gardening, and all kinds of services could have been provided in Western countries by Indians, reducing supply and raising wages in India. It really doesn't have much to do with "the power of the Indian government" (except that I wish they had negotiated better at GATT so that when the free flow of goods was talked about, the flow of services was also treated at par). India has its faults, but it still is a relatively democratic and free country. And yes, capital has "somehow failed to flow to India," and for this the restrictive policies of government are to blame. Arun Mehta Phone +91-11-6841172, 6849103 amehta(a)cpsr.org http://www.cerfnet.com/~amehta/ finger amehta(a)cerfnet.com for public key

1 0

Re: [NOISE] Re: photographed license plates
by Arun Mehta 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 16:04 13/08/96 -0800, Jim McCoy wrote: >Here in the states the easy challenge to >such a ticket would be "it was not me driving when that photo was taken" and >the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that you were the driver. In Germany, as I recall, if you use this argument, the cops require you to thereafter maintain a log of who drives the car when. Arun Mehta Phone +91-11-6841172, 6849103 amehta(a)cpsr.org http://www.cerfnet.com/~amehta/ finger amehta(a)cerfnet.com for public key

1 0

Another CP Meeting request
by Charley Sparks 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Date: Wed Aug 14 10:54:01 1996 Anyone Interested in a DC Metro meeting ?? ( VA, MD, DC ) > The South Florida Cypherpunks will meet at Hops Grill & Bar > in Boynton Beach, FL on Saturday, August 17 at 2:00 PM. As > always, our meeting place is at a microbrewery, and this one > has some very fine brews. Is there anyone who would be interested in a Paris(France) cpunks meeting? Ben. ____ Ben Samman.................................................ben(a)edelweb.fr Paris, France Illudium Q36 Explosive Space Modulator -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCXAwUBMhHoi+J+JZd/Y4yVAQHM3AQMDkTqRIAigy6G5GggdRaXrlBpQrypoXJV sbODRhUFxeP5+mHONfIIntyT+2AO7bW7RA+nSBMF6b/wNT779fGQ2/dZ7rPTzeAL Ob9ltsTr1tdf0T9zMmM+szZER9qJ9bGQ8w6tCektO+BbuV3x/OCwBXAzFS5t1yax 1w1A2+Z9dViyVw== =88D0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Capital and Taxes
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:01 AM 8/14/96 -0400, Brad Dolan wrote: >On Tue, 13 Aug 1996, Timothy C. May wrote: >> Yes, taxes will _someday_ have to be paid...but many of us are hoping, >> praying, and pleading for a cut in the capital gains tax rate...at least a >> rollback to the 22% rate of yesteryear (and 4% or less in states). This >> huge "backlog" of unrealized capital gains (aka gains on paper, but not yet >> taxable) is what is being spoken of when people like Jack Kemp and Steve >> Forbes speak of "unleashing" the capital gains now tied up due to the high >> tax rates. > > >Now imagine that I want to make that $100K investment or, more >realistically, that I want to invest $100K in my kid's college education. >I'm going to have to earn wages of $160K and pay $60K in tax. It would >make me cranky if the guy next door could just clip $100K of coupons, tax >free, to pay for his kid's education. > >While I'm sure Steve Forbes could, I can't think of a moral argument why >income from selling stock should be taxed at a rate lower (or higher) than >than income from wages. Perhaps you've forgotten double-taxation. When a company makes a profit, it is taxed at the full corporate tax rate. Paid to a stockholder, it is AGAIN taxed at the citizen's rate. It's a ripoff, and the strange thing is a lot of citizen-dolts don't understand this or understand its implications. It would be fairer to tax either once the corporation, or the individual, but not both. Now, capital gains is merely the effect of increased value that hasn't yet been paid in dividend. It would make sense, therefore, to simply not tax "income from selling stock" since the taxes have already been paid. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Schlafly on crypto
by Jim Legg 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Subject: Clinton Is Trying to be Big Brother -- Phyllis Schlafly Column 8/8/96 > [snip!] Beware when politicos speak! Phyllis Schlafly would think nothing of trying to ban speech on the internet when it is something that she doesn't agree with. -jim-

4 3

Stopped Clock. Was: Schlafly on Crypto
by Marc J. Wohler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:59 AM 8/14/96 -0400, you wrote: >Subject: Clinton Is Trying to be Big Brother -- Phyllis Schlafly Column 8/8/96 It makes me ill to agree with Schlafly on any issue, but 'Even a stopped clock....... Unrepentant Liberial

1 0

Citation for NSA Type III & IV Crypto products
by Mark O. Aldrich 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

C'punks: Most who are familiar with the Fed's crypto products are aware that the NSA categorizes crypto products by "type." Type I is specified as being for classified protections (and relying upon classified key) and Type II being for SBU/other (with unclassified-only key). I recall, however, that there were also categories called Type III and Type IV. I think that Type III had to do with industry use, with Government-generated key. Type IV I can't recall at all. Now, I can't find the citation where these things were described. The EPL cites only Type I & II, Dockmaster has proven of no use, and the search engines can't find anything on the Net. Does anyone recall where a discussion of these types can be found? TIA. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Just as the strength of the Internet is |Mark Aldrich | |chaos, so the strength of our liberty |GRCI INFOSEC Engineering | |depends upon the chaos and cacophony of |maldrich(a)grci.com | |the unfettered speech the First Amendment|MAldrich(a)dockmaster.ncsc.mil | |protects - District Judge Stewart Dalzell| | |_______________________________________________________________________| |The author is PGP Empowered. Public key at: finger maldrich(a)grci.com | | The opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the author | | and my employer gets no credit for them whatsoever. | -------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: [SIGNAL] Microsoft's Internet Explorer
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:22 8/14/96, Jüri Kaljundi wrote: > Wed, 14 Aug 1996, Frank Stuart kirjutas: > >> According to C-Net Radio (http://www.cnet.com/) Microsoft will be including >> 128-bit SSL encryption in their Internet Explorer 3.0 for Win 95 and NT 4.0. > >As M$IE 3.0 is now available for download from www.microsoft.com, I did >notice there is also a 128-bit version there, which requires you to first >fill in data about you. Unfortunately microsoft.com is so slow right now, >that I did not have a chance to try to download 128-bit version by filling >in my favourite US politicians name. I don't see the 128 bit version. URL? -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred. Defeat the Demopublican Unity Party. Vote no on Clinton/Dole in November. Vote Harry Browne for President.

2 1

Imprisoned Capital
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:12 PM 8/14/96 +-200, Bart Croughs wrote: >If investors use their capital to invest abroad, this capital cannot at the same > time be used to invest at home. Only after the investors decide not to invest > abroad any more, they can invest it at home. But I was not talking about > investors who decide to stop investing abroad and start investing at home. I > was talking about investors who decide to invest abroad instead of at home, > and the effect of such a decision on the wages in the US. There is no straightforward link between amount of capital invested and productivity or wages. If there were, some steel plants in the Soviet Union would have had the best paid and most productive workers on earth. Additionally, countries which prevent capital outflows don't receive capital inflows and thus become poorer. DCF

1 0

Thursday, 15 August: Join Matthew Gaylor in Club Wired's Electronic Frontiers Chat
by freematt＠coil.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thursday, 15 August 6 p.m. PDT Matthew Gaylor, in Electronic Frontiers Join Gaylor and host Jon Lebkowsky on Thursday, 15 August at 6 p.m. PDT (Friday 01:00 GMT) in Electronic Frontiers. http://www.hotwired.com/eff/ [Note from Matthew Gaylor: I'll be online at ClubWired discussing cyberlibertarianism and other pro-individual rights issues. I'm sure you'll want to join the discussion. I hope to see you there.] **************************************************************************** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt(a)coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week) Matthew Gaylor,1933 E. Dublin-Granville Rd.,#176, Columbus, OH 43229 ****************************************************************************

1 0

Re: key escrow idea from David Satelin of MIT Lincoln Labs
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:48 AM 8/14/96 -0400, Matt Blaze wrote: >>Remember, since the phoneco has had no competition, they've never been at >>risk from being shunned by customers who object to this secret cooperation. >>A more "realistic" position, I think, would be to conclude that if there was >>true competition, customers would be able to negotiate varying levels of >>non-cooperation in order to win customers. I suspect that post-Ruby >>Ridge/post-Waco, there would be a substantial fraction of the public who >>would conclude that it cannot trust its own government. >> > >Well, I don't know what went on before 1968, but these days phone companies >don't keep wiretap orders secret because they are being nice to the police, >they keep them secret because the court order for the weretap also orders >them to. Perhaps you aren't aware of this, but when a third party is >ordered to turn over records or access to something, the order often >includes a provision that prohibits them from revealing the order to the >subject. This is not unique to phone records; orders for bank records >frequently have secrecy provisions as well. Well, that's just the problem. These are clear violations of the 1st amendment. The law may authorize a search, but the Constitution is supposed to limits them to "reasonable" ones. And it says nothing about _secret_ ones, either. The effectiveness of the search itself can't possibly be compromised by releasing the fact of the search AFTER it occurs, which means that the inclusion of such a secrecy order can't even conceivably be supported under the US Constitution. Think of this as a two-pan balance: On the one side is the 1st amendment, a very important issue. One the other side is...nothing. Or, perhaps more accurately, no _constitutional_ issues. Remember, the Constitution does not guarantee the effectiveness of the entire investigative process; it merely addresses one portion of it, the search. (and even there, it doesn't guarantee a successful search!) If the government claims that the process is crippled by releasing the fact of the search, then I'm afraid that this is not an adequate reason to violate free-speech rights. (When the famous Miranda warning decision was made by the Supreme Court, cops said that it would cripple their investigations.) You may say, of course, "that's not how they currently interpet it," but my response is simple: Any talk of tolerating any sort of key-escrow (GAK) system must presume that the people running it are no more honest than they are today. If the cops (and the government in general) so generously misinterprets the government's "rights" with regard to wiretapping, there is simply no reason to believe that any restrictions they claim to be willing to respect now will actually be followed once such a plan is approved. Don't try to get out of this: You can't ignore past abuses. And if they were willing to do illegal taps before 1968, this tells you how inclined they are to obey the law. We've been handed an opportunity: The government wants to change its wiretap powers, and unlike previous times the public is actually aware of what's happening and can object. I think we must take this opportunity to entirely re-think the search-warrant/wiretap process. Rather than blindly accept the opinions of crooked judges who got where they are by demonstrating their willingness to "get along by going along," we should strip away all the decades of scheming, and delete the entire process. My opinion is that wiretaps are, inherently, unreasonable searches within the meaning of the Bill of Rights. Interestingly, support for this interpretation was shown when the media stated that Japan's Constitution prohibited wiretapping. This was portrayed as being somewhat of an oddity. But in reality, that Constitution was forced on Japan after WWII, by the US. Curiouser and curiouser, that happened during a time frame (pre 1968) in which wiretapping was illegal in the US, and probably believed to be unconstitutional as well. Since the US Constitution hasn't changed since then, at least with respect to searches, the only realistic conclusion is that the thing that's changed is the interpretation of the US Constitution, and not for any sound reasons either. (That Japanese Constitution, apparently not subject to such convenient re-interpretation, stands as it was when adopted, at least on this one issue.) In fact, the timing for this change is suspicious: 1968 was certainly a rather tumultuous year, what with anti-Vietnam war protests, assassinations and such. Not only in the US, but even more so in France, with the student riots. The motivation to adopt an unconstitutional wiretapping law must have been substantial. And given the fact that public polls on the concept of wiretaps repeatedly show it to be opposed by a majority of the population, I think the burden of proof is on the Denning-types to show that they're appropriate. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

DCSB: The Transnationality of Digital Cash
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----BY SAFEMAIL 1.0----- The Digital Commerce Society of Boston Presents Tatsuo Tanaka Center on Japanese Economy & Business Columbia University "The Transnationality of Digital Cash" Tuesday, September 3, 1996 12 - 2 PM The Downtown Harvard Club of Boston One Federal Street, Boston, MA Tatsuo Tanaka is from the Center for Global Communications at the International University of Japan. He is currently a Visiting Research Fellow at Columbia University's Center on Japanese Economy & Business. Government analysts like to stress the anonymity and security concerns of digital cash, particularly money laundering and tax evasion. However, probably the most important economic consequence of digital cash to nation-states is its transnationality. Theoretically speaking, any bank can issue digital cash any country's currency, even on a fractional reserve basis, without permission from that nation-state's central bank, and everybody in the world can use it as if that cash were issued by the country itself. This unprecedented transnationality could make a country's financial system unstable in terms of money supplies or exchange rates. Tanaka goes through a possible scenario in which nation-states and cyberspace conflict over the authority to issue digital cash, including a possible resolution of the problem. This meeting of the Digital Commerce Society of Boston will be held on Tuesday, September 3, 1996 from 12pm - 2pm at the Downtown Branch of the Harvard Club of Boston, One Federal Street. The price for lunch is $27.50. This price includes lunch, room rental, and the speaker's lunch. ;-). The Harvard Club *does* have dress code: jackets and ties for men, and "appropriate business attire" for women. We need to receive a company check, or money order, (or if we *really* know you, a personal check) payable to "The Harvard Club of Boston", by Saturday, August 31, or you won't be on the list for lunch. Checks payable to anyone else but The Harvard Club of Boston will have to be sent back. Checks should be sent to Robert Hettinga, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, Massachusetts, 02131. Again, they *must* be made payable to "The Harvard Club of Boston". If anyone has questions, or has a problem with these arrangements (We've had to work with glacial A/P departments more than once, for instance), please let us know via e-mail, and we'll see if we can work something out. Planned speakers for DCSB are: October Philippe LeRoux Stock Exchanges and the Web November Philip S. Corwin Regulatory Barriers to Internet Commerce We are actively searching for future speakers. If you are in Boston on the first Tuesday of the month, and you would like to make a presentation to the Society, please send e-mail to the DCSB Program Commmittee, care of Robert Hettinga, rah(a)shipwright.com . For more information about the Digital Commerce Society of Boston, send "info dcsb" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)ai.mit.edu . If you want to subscribe to the DCSB e-mail list, send "subscribe dcsb" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)ai.mit.edu . Looking forward to seeing you there! Cheers, Robert Hettinga Moderator, The Digital Commerce Society of Boston -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----BY SAFEMAIL 1.0----- Version: 2.6.i iQCVAwUBMhHz1/gyLN8bw6ZVAQGJlQQApgYjtBSEW+g3cF9qsO3SVF3dFn5ObPa6 WoP7nhldO2XbLgFQOsBqXWv+pUHu9aAxo2TaHFtqegCrr5eEbVutjKhFGdOCZqRT QoFElygD3hKE7sITW6VM9hQaq37eylRapNuvMLo6Q49/BwuDYcWQSkCVQsBlKkP7 lp7JBVIHkMY= =WlRo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "'Bart Bucks' are not legal tender." -- Punishment, 100 times on a chalkboard, for Bart Simpson The e$ Home Page: http://www.vmeng.com/rah/

1 0

re: National Socio-Economic Security Need for Encryption Technology
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:33 13/08/96 -0700, James A. Donald wrote: > > the fact that an engineer who is subject to the power of the Indian > > government is not worth very much, as is demonstrated by the fact > > that companies with Indian engineering teams often spend a lot of money > > to get their employees out of India. > > > > Demand for Indian programmers is less than supply not because capital > > has somehow failed to flow to India, but because an engineer in India > > is not free to produce the value that engineers elsewhere are free > > to produce. At 07:00 PM 8/14/96 +0600, Arun Mehta wrote: > Whoa! In economies that are highly de-coupled, incomes and prices > can easily find quite different equilibria. So? What does this have to do with the price of fish? Are Informix campuses "highly decoupled economies". The fact is a company like Informix has a campus in India, and it has campuses in the US that are largely staffed by Indian teams, and it will pay big bucks to get its people out of India, even though it has to pay them more than ten times as much in the US. An Indian programmer doing the same job for the same company is more than ten times as valuable to that company if he is not subject to the power of the Indian government, as proven by that companies actions. Plainly Informix does not like the power of the Indian government, which is no surprise as a few years ago just about every company on earth utterly detested the power of the Indian government and would not touch the place with a ten foot pole. > India has its faults, > but it still is a relatively democratic and free country. Under democracy, people get the government they deserve and get it good and hard. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

3 2

Toronto Signing Party (fwd)
by M. Plumb 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 04:10:26 -0400 From: Richard Outerbridge <outer(a)interlog.com> Newgroups: alt.security.pgp Subject: Toronto Signing Party -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- 1996/08/14 04:01:55 EDT Marc Plumb and I are trying to organize a "signing party" for anyone within range of downtown Toronto. The tentative date is the afternoon of Saturday September 7th. Location will depend on the size of the crowd: so RSVP to Marc or myself (<mp(a)the-wire.com> or <outer(a)interlog.com>) and one of us will get back to you during the first week of September with the precise details. Be patient! Richard Outerbridge -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMhGJcNNcQg4O6q8hAQE0LwP/WvmqDyLqqY28H0peWO/HJyhCInRITx7N aCCfDYdQxjym8/AAFBHy6Luye1DpRpok0RM9OFIMVMWOFzf7Ma7hYwD2KK56IJcy E9XDbak+DkbS/AKthxS5UXPN4Vy1VRUExxMGvXrcCIK2RvoxhT8ZbUp3pQAo/fn4 IYIHo/oTJ0Q= =qQOf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- "Just an eccentric soul with a curiosity for the bizarre." PGPpubkey 1024/0EEAAF21 1994/07/23 <outer(a)interlog.com> Fingerprint = 6A89 D49F D3DA 12E4 040A 273B F383 0127

1 0

Crypto Ban Talk @ G-7
by The Prisoner (tm) 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Well, even tho Tim's language was hypothetical here's this item. Was some of this on the cpunks and I missed it? Very possible, & if so, sorry. ===============================================[quote:]================= In article <X6k0RD1w165w(a)tanda.on.ca>, marc(a)tanda.on.ca (Marc Thibault) wrote: > I picked up a rumor that the G-7 has endorsed a resolution calling > for international cooperation to control private encryption. Does > anybody have solid information? > They've been discussing it. The US and some others want it. The Japanese and one other country won't go along. So far, talk but no action. Stay tuned. David [Sternlight that is ....]

5 4

Re: Capital and Taxes
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:26 PM 8/14/96, Llywarch Hen wrote: >Yep, we've adopted the fuzziest-headed of liberal ideas in promoting >government as an agent of change to improve things for Tim and his pals by >asking wage earners to subsidize his economic activities by distributing the >costs to the public so he can enjoy the profits. But this is just the result But there are no "costs" to be distributed. The government already taxed the corporation once, at 40-50%, and even taxed the gain due solely to devaluation to the currency (inflation), so all I am asking is that I not be taxed again. Of course, they will likely do so anyway. So I'm saying I probably won't sell assets I might otherwise have sold (not surprisingly, some folks even want unsold assets taxed). For the record, I paid a *lot* of taxes this year, much more (by a factor of several) than I putatively received in benefits. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0