December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Check out today's Salon
by Martin Minow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There's an article on Phil Zimmerman in today's Salon http://www.salon1999.com/news/newsreal.html Martin.

2 1

Commerce Crypto Export Regs
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forward from: cyberia-l(a)listserv.aol.com Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 11:55:52 -0800 From: Cindy Cohn <Cindy(a)MCGLASHAN.COM> Subject: Draft of Commerce Department Crypto Regs Steptoe and Johnson have kindly posted the draft Commerce Department regulations on encryption exports at http://www.steptoe.com/commerce.htm. [Snip] If you have trouble getting through, we've mirrored this document at: http://jya.com/commerce.htm

1 0

Credentials without Identity--Race Bits
by Timothy C. May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

By the way, on this oftentimes off-topic issue of "bigotry" and "racism," here's a zinger some of you may not have thought much about. And it's certainly related to the themes of Chaumian "credentials without identity," which is very much on-topic. While it has been claimed by some that "crypto anarchy" means that race won't matter, that cyberspace interactions will be color-blind, this is misleading. While many--probably most--users will care only for cyberspace personna issues, and not meatspace personna issues of race, color, height, weight, etc., this is not something built in to anonymous transactions. Consider a "race credential" offered by some entity. Perhaps one goes down to the local Aryan Nations office and gets one's genetic heritage stamped, or down to the Kwanzaa Youth Center to be similarly stamped.... (Why some groups might want this is left as an exercise for the reader. Perhaps a less-inflammatory example (to some of the sensitive amongst you) might be that some women want to interact in "women only" forums--a clear case of discrimination, no?--and may want a "gender bit" avaiable to display as a credential.) But, you may ask (if you are new here or haven't been following the work of Chaum and others), won't display of such a race or gender bit compromise one's identity or be easily forged? The simple answer is "No." Hal Finney has written several good articles for this list about "credentials without identity." And of course David Chaum wrote the originals. The canonical example is that of an "age field" in an unforgeable ID card, granting one access to, say, a bar, without revealing identity. (This become especially important in an age of smartcards and wide use of cardreaders at entr points to various places...without a "credentials without identity" system, every passage through such a portal provides too much information to those compiling surveillance records, dossiers, customer preference lists, etc.) But a "race field" would allow those who wish to only communicate with certain races to do so. Just to set the record straight, and one reason ethnic separatist groups are likely to become intensely interested in crypto anarchy. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I 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, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1

Draft of Commerce Department Crypto Regs (fwd)
by David Lesher / hated by RBOC's in 5 states 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Cindy Cohn <Cindy(a)MCGLASHAN.COM> Subject: Draft of Commerce Department Crypto Regs via: CYBERIA-L(a)LISTSERV.AOL.COM Steptoe and Johnson have kindly posted the draft Commerce Department regulations on encryption exports at http://www.steptoe.com/commerce.htm. Of most interest to those of us concerned about the First Amendment is the provision which eliminates the "publicly available" exception to the EAR and states "controlled software will not be eligible for "publicly available" treatment, even if the source code or object code is published in a book or other mdia." It also eliminates the exceptions for educational information and fundamental research contained in the EAR for source code and object code. I haven't had a chance to review the rest in any detail. Cindy ************************ Cindy A. Cohn McGlashan & Sarrail, P. C. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz(a)nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

1 0

Silly me ...
by Ernest Hua 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

About 2 years ago, I attended CFP in San Francisco (really San Mateo, but who's counting), and I ran across a presentation by an ex-Justice Department dude named Kent Walker presenting the government's side of the encryption/wiretap debate. He really seemed nice enough, and I tried to chat with him. My topic was how could a good meaning hacker help good meaning government dudes figure out details to policies so that everyone is happy. Little did I know at that time that this is the same Walker that was quoted by Meeks as saying cute lil' gems like ... "If you ask the public, 'Is privacy more important than catching criminals?' They'll tell you, 'No.'" ... and ... "It's easy to get caught up in the rhetoric that privacy is the end all be all." After a little bit of frustration, I wrote him off as someone cashing in on his Justice days to be some VP of government relations (a.k.a. lobbyist) with Air Touch. Perhaps there is something slightly more spooky with this character than I originally thought. Ern

2 2

Why PICS is the wrong approach
by Timothy C. May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

PICS is the wrong approach becuase it oversimplifies the ratings of content, because it places the ratings made by the author in the payload itself, and because third-party ratings systems are cut out of the loop (effectively). One computerish way to think of this is that the "binding" is too early. At the time of distribution, say, I mark my work something with some PICS label, based upon my best understanding of the PICS labels, ratings, agencies, and laws. But once set, the "binding" has been made. Later reviews or reviews by other entities cannot affect the binding, at least not for this distributed instance. And of course it is quite likely that things important to others in their ratings are not as important to me. I might even ignore certain points, not even seeing the need to point out things in the work. This is inevitable, as there is no uniform view of truth, no uniform set of values and priorities, and no hope there ever can be such a monistic view. Consider the recent example of AOL's lists of banned words, even words in "harmless situations" (e.g, the example someone cited of "tits" being banned, despite being the name of a bird...would an animal-lovers Web page or posting with "Tits and Asses!!!" prominently in the title be PICS labelled as obscene? Some would surely think so.). A much better solution is to let the unique ID block of an article--the Usenet article ID, or some hash of the headers, whatever--be a pointer that other ratings servies could then use to provide for their customers or clients as a filtering mechanism. This would allow as many ratings services to exist as clients would be willing to support. Sure, there are _time delays_ in the evaluation process, as, for example, the Catholic Index reviews Web pages and Usenet posts, but all evaluation causes delay. This puts the burden on those proposing to filter content. More importantly, the "payload" does not carry some particular set of fairly-arbitrary PICS evluations. Binding by the censors instead of by the originator, which is as it should be. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I 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, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

3 4

Re: Redlining
by Matthew J. Miszewski 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- My point, Red, at the outset was that your tendency to address each point in turn was not being fruitful to me (my time is a scarce resource). Surely you do not make policy decisions based upon how much time someone has to address your concerns. >>My question was a real one. The basis of it comes from my work with >>the homeless in which they have a difficult time getting a job >>because they have no "home address" to put on the forms, some do not >>have or remember their SSNs, etc. This causes a cyclic problem for >>the homeless. My question to Tim was, in the real world, how is the >>protection of this data feasible. > >The way you protect your home address is by using another address for >work which is not your home. The way I would do this is to find a >mail box service which offers addresses that look like a home. > >A homeless person might find somebody with a home (like you) who will >receive their work related mail for them. > >A "phone" is easy to get, too. You can get a telephone number which >is linked to a voicemail box. You can even get this number listed in >the telephone book, if you like. The cost of this service should be >less than twenty dollars a month. If you want to go wild, you can get >a pager linked voicemail number. This means your pager goes off when >you get a message. Handy. > >But, even this small expense may be out of reach of a homeless person >or a homeless advocate. This is a good attempt at intellectual honesty which was present in your original reply but lacking thereafter. That aftermath explains my tone in my later replies. I apologize. >What you can do is get a second line for your >home and keep it unlisted. Then, give it to your homeless friends for >work related purposes. If the number is only used for work messages, >you could probably handle over a hundred people on this one line. This is actually a great idea. In my real world, I am criticized for taking on the problems of others before myself. While I could work this out, I border on the problem of ignoring (or bypassing) the concerns of my family, which is my prime motivator. I am not saying this is not a great idea. >As for the social security number, it has been claimed many times on >this list that nobody checks them anyway. There are programs which >generate real-appearing numbers. (I think one was called "ssn.exe".) While I understand the greater social good, I, personally, am not interested in violating applicable fraud statutes. This is a borderline case in which consideration to the idea, of course, should be given. I would hesitate to expose these people to that risk. >And, you can go to the SSA to find out somebody's SS number or to have >one issued. It will take awhile. This is the best way to address the problem. But, it leads to my original quandry (not redlining) which was how some people can, realistically, protect this data. You do give some good opportunities. For me they are unacceptable and on balance, I would suggest that people go the latter route and attempt to comply with the statist regulations. Maybe in a more perfect society, they would have an interest in privacy. In the world today, however, I think they would choose to eat. >>I do have responses to each of your "points" in your last post, but have >>found the process of responding point-by-point tedious and non-productive >>(maybe less productive than the time I have to give to the exercise, I was >>not intending on placing a value judgement on it). > >This gives the appearance that you are avoiding the points I raised. >My conclusion is that your views are indefensible. Having described >my views on the poor as "idiotic", I think it is in poor taste to >withdraw from the field without justifying your claim. I claimed that well after your posts became far more condescending than fruitful. You stated your assumptions as fact and dismissed my points with several fininely tuned snips. I really dont care if you find it in poor taste here, because this list is as close to an anarchy as we will get. I do not have to abide by your construct of good argument if i dont want to. If I wanted to I could repeatedly issue heart-wrenching stories of poverty in America (similar, of course, to politicians using "real world examples" in speeches). You seem to assume that this would be "wrong". I have said, repeatedly, that we disagree. Apparently, now I have to *reiterate* why. I am not trying to convert you, Red. I have no reason to. My response, on which you jumped, was a pointed question to Tim about the reality of privacy protection. Once again, we disagree. You do not favor any form of government regulation. I do favor some forms of government regulation. It seems that the turning point for you is your belief that racism causes no real harm. I disagree. If you really want to have a list of the harms caused by racism, I will list them in a seperate note to you. I wish you could be intellectually honest enough to realize these harms. I fear, however, you will not be. >>As the topic quickly wandered from the original post on privacy >>concerns to racial discrimination, I will address that. I apologize >>to the list (for those that find it irrelevant), but I can not reply >>directly to Red. > >Cryptoanarchy is not friendly to schemes to prohibit racial >discrimination. Indeed, it is unfriendly to any scheme which attempts >to control the relationships between people. I do not know where you live, but I live in the US. Cryptoanarchy has not taken hold here yet. As such, my discourse is regarding the political system in which I live. As such I favor regulating behavior between the small number of protected classes and the small number of covered transactions (employment, housing, etc.). You, OTOH, do not. >>I, personally, find racial discrimination to be a problem in the USA. > >It would be nice if everybody in the U.S. was not a racist. It would >be nice if all the bad people just left. Actually, it would be preferable if they would become enlightened. It is difficult to do. I try every day. BTW, if the comment above was supposed to be aimed at me, once again i *never* made any such assertion. >>Not only do I find it a moral problem, but it has adverse effects on >>markets and the efficiency of these same markets. It is costly not >>only in personal measures, but in economical terms as well. >But, of course, I don't subscribe to the notion that market efficiency >is the best means of determining policy. For one thing, concepts such >as efficiency and production are politically defined. If I grow food >for myself, it does not affect GDP figures. If I trade the food for >money and buy something, then the same production increases GDP. This >is not sensible. I subscribe to the notion that policy should be determined by the best balance of several concerns. Among these are market efficiency, social justice, budget constraint and liberty. I am unsure how you would determine policy. >More importantly, I don't believe that market efficiency, however >measured, is sufficient justification for dictating other people's >actions. "Market efficiency" is a gambit to conceal dictatorial >powers in a scientific cloak. Maybe for some, but if you have assumed that is how I act you are mistaken. As I said, I would determine policy based upon a wide range of competing interests. You seem to be violating your own "rule" about not utilizing concepts such as the "libertarians wet dream". Many believe the same about the "gambit to conceal dictatorial powers in a scientific cloak." Apparently those "rules" only apply to others. >Discussions of market efficiency typically overrule the preference >that citizens have. One could imagine that a study that concluded >alcohol consumption reduced national efficiency and should therefore >be banned. Yet, this completely fails to take into account the strong >preference many people have to drink. Some even consider it to be a >religious sacrament. I don't believe such preferences should be >ignored. They should be respected. And neither do I. On balance, I would not have accepted prohibition then, and I do not accept it now. People also have a preference not to hire blacks. I feel that that should not be an acceptable means of interaction between an employer and a prospective employee. You do. That is what I meant by drawing lines. You feel that every employer (a creation of the state) should have the ability to act in a discriminatory fashion. I disagree. You and I do agree that when the personal excercise is for a drink, the government should not respond. This is because, on balance, I believe that the excercise of that freedom is more important than the adverse effects of alcoholism. And vice versa for employment discrimination. >Likewise, if somebody just cannot stand Albanians, we should respect >their preference even though we may personally disagree with it and >even though we may believe it makes the annual GDP number lower. Once again, I would determine policy based on several competing interests. Aparently you would determine it on a notion of absolute freedom. I am trying not to assume anything. And for the record, I have only supported governmental intervention in currently accepted transactions, which do not cover individuals wanting to hold racist beliefs. >I am not sure exactly what "costly ... in personal measures" means. >If you mean that somebody who will not speak with Albanians is >deprived of rewarding friendships they might otherwise have, that is >probably true. On the other hand, the Albanian-hater will not see it >that way. That is his or her tough luck. Actually I was referencing the effects upon the discriminated against. >>I do expect many on the list to disagree with me....They will >>disagree that it affects markets in any way. > >Just for the record, I can imagine that racial prejudice could have a >slight effect on mortgage prices (i.e, interest). But, since the CMO >revolution, I am inclined to believe that effect will be quite small >and is probably unnoticeable. > >>They will assert that legislative restrictions are far worse than >>industry self-policing. > >Just for the record, I am not advocating "industry self-policing". >Policing is what I disagree with. > >>More will disagree that the government has any business regulating >>the area. As I had stated simply before, I disagree. > >All you have really said is "I believe X." Should we take your belief >on faith or are there reasons which underly your beliefs? > I believe in regulating, in one instance, employment discrimination. I do so because I have personally seen the economic impact on the Greater Milwaukee Area of such discrimination - both past and present. I believe X also because I have been witness to the personal impact that such discrimination has upon people. To take advantage of practices effective against poverty, several of which you have mentioned, it helps to have self-confidence and a degree of self-worth. These are directly damaged by employment discrimination. I believe that the elimination of redlining would help to increase capital flows into some of these affected areas. Even if, as you stated, the elimination would allow for a few token investments in order for banks to appear to be in compliance, that is a willing trade off for me. It is not for you. >>Thru painful learning experiences and reality checks - long arguments >>over several months and too much coffee - I decided that I would not >>want to live in a libertarian's ideal society. This decision was >>based on my perception that it just wouldnt work in reality. ^^^^^^^This was, of course, my explanation before. Apparently you didnt see it. I was not using libertarian's ideal society in any derogitive way. At one time I believed in it. Through self-examination I decided that it couldnt work. Is your point that you disagree with me or that Anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong? >>>I'm sure many readers of this list have had conversations which >>>abruptly end with "Are you a Libertarian?", which is generally >>>completely irrelevant to the point under discussion. What is >>>happening is that the other person is more interested in knowing your >>>tribal identification than what you believe. A pity. >> >>As strange as it may sound to you, most of my conversations go this >>way. It is ironic to me that I have been placed on this side of an >>argument. > >Yet, you are doing something very similar when you raise the issue of >"a libertarian's ideal society". Likewise, you criticized Tim May for >having (roughly) "too absolute a theory". In either case, you are >avoiding substantive discussion, preferring to make prejudicial >remarks. Actually that is the substance of my dissention. I do not believe in those theories which results in my favoring X. You disagree and favor an absolute theory of freedom (I may be wrong, but you have never asserted your underlying political theory). My policy decisions are based upon my political philosophy. As are yours, I assume. I never said, Tim was "bad" because of his theory. I was simply pointing out that I did not agree with it. >Here we are discussing some very specific policies and their ethical >implications. There is no need to raise the specter of the >"libertarian ideal society". You have labeled it a specter, not me. I have the utmost respect for libertarians. It was simply a way to reference the subject matter. >One nice thing about Libertarian-style >discussions is that most of the policies are separable; that is, we >can discuss redlining without discussing highway privatization. This >makes a nice contrast to other styles of discussion in which the >proposed scheme only works if everybody participates. The most >extreme example was Marxism where it was claimed that it would fail if >the entire world was not Marxist. You appear here to admit that it is possible to favor one libertarian policy while disagreeing with another. That is what I am doing. >>Do you tend to think of me now as "less of a Libertarian" much as >>your forewarned "In the House" black reference? > >"In the house"? This appears to be an American idiom which I haven't >learned yet. Sorry. Mixing my replies. That was someone else. ;-) >I used the word "forewarned" once. I said that it would be hard to >believe that even wealthy African-Americans were racist in their >lending practices. I still find it hard to believe. > >It may surprise you to know that I am not all the interested in >whether you call yourself a Libertarian. Doesnt suprise me at all. You are only interested in your political philosophy. When it is relevant to my political philosophy and the way in which I would make policy decisions apprently it is irrelevant. It is not to me. >>>Do we then believe that we should outlaw the actions they take based >>>on these beliefs? So long as the people in question are doing no >>>harm, I propose we leave them alone to live their lives. >> >>This is the essence of, at least, my disagreement with you Red. I >>dont agree that redlining doesnt harm people. You see no harm. I >>do. > >Your reluctance to discuss the nature of the harm you perceive does >not give the impression that you have good reasons for your >perception. Much as the line of Don Wood argument, I have no interest in educating you. If you are really interested I will roll out what I perceive as the many harms caused by racism. Unlike you, I am in no rush to call your reasons for your beliefs "good" or "bad". You believe as you do. You do so because of personal reasons. I believe as I do, that racism harms people. I do so because of my personal experiences. Among these are employees explaining to me the nature of the discrimination that they have suffered, their inability to pursue any such claims because of a lack of both self-confidence as well as capital, the faces of their children that do not yet understand the nature of the world they have been brought into and the immense stress on familial relationships caused by the lack of a job caused by employment discrimination. Ill even discard the borderline cases and refer to the slam dunk cases out there. I live and work in Milwaukee, Red. People are fired and told they are fired because they are black. I have settled cases with no dispute of these facts. All of the personal harm and more was suffered by my clients. This is part of the reason for my perception. I wish I lived where you did where racism hurts nobody. Just give me a general location and Ill start to move my clients there ;-|. > >Red Rackham Matt -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMq8kIrpijqL8wiT1AQHNlgP8CoLXjtvPukDuNKu0hi7JHp7ev8HoKVo9 1sMWS5ycOaUvHW/LK81TvmZ15ViCSlqz17TCgkXEw0uvFoaFXkjVcheyBF891blF MuAiBWe+O+R/ZkZ9GcD0tiO9bdk+MBYxLiNTffcQJZnEvV8obxi9zG5l5s4rcd/J Y1JYNtaYTkk= =EqBg -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Redlining
by Matthew J. Miszewski 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 11:31 AM 12/11/96 EDT, E. Allen Smith wrote: >From: IN%"mjmiski(a)execpc.com" "Matthew J. Miszewski" 11-DEC-1996 03:52:03.23 > >>This is the essence of, at least, my disagreement with you Red. I dont >>agree that redlining doesnt harm people. You see no harm. I do. > > Of course redlining causes harm to those who are redlined... they >can't get credit. But the same can be said of any system of keeping >track of who is likely to repay credit; it means that someone who has >defaulted on past loans won't get future ones. Quite simply, while I >would agree with you that racism certainly persists (it would be >difficult for me to grow up in the South and not see this), I would >argue that you have no evidence for that the basic motivation behind >redlining is that the people in such areas are less likely to repay >credit. Actually, my assertion was that the basic motivation was racism and ignorance. My example of student loan default rates should clear that up. College graduates generally live outside of redlines and yet are regularly offered credit. And yet default rates on student loans are outrageous (the government backing of these loans is irrelevant to individual creditworthiness). > -Allen Matt -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMq8lWbpijqL8wiT1AQF+HQQApA1oGLXhfaxKH8MyDi3HCH2sk2LzKqSB 3DDgKPfyU0nRtGvaLk5xN+8LqmKoQsccJX9Z50+c6Tj+ENE8NAALw9NUsb8ZjV0a zB1iKG0eXgvm4X9Hvg9em/rjA6NlzXW037TJkyg9BCfhgUJN2bRF4J9wupTZJlI3 rzrXV9pgBN0= =/DwJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Redlining
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:05 AM 12/11/1996, drose(a)AZStarNet.com wrote: >Many people of good will find racial discrimination to be abhorrent. Abhorrent? To the extent that stupidity is repugnant, I suppose you are right. However, I find it interesting that we are taught to see racism in terms of morals. The basic tone seems to be "Oh, we really shouldn't say such things ... even if they are true." What you don't hear very often is how racists miss out on friendships and valuable life experiences. Why not? Because typically the people condemning racism do not, in their hearts, believe it is worth knowing people in certain racial groups. Imagine a company which avoided hiring good people for dumb reasons. Why is this any different from any other foolish decision? Leave the abhorring to the company's poor stockholders. But, of course, many of the people who are doing the abhorring are unable to picture members of certain racial groups being great people to hire. (My comments are directed to the world at large and not drose(a)AZStarNet.com) Rather than promoting abhorrence for racism, it would be more constructive to discuss reality itself. This happens infrequently. Instead, we are encouraged to pretend reality is something other than what we believe. Topics of the African-American crime problem are considered to be inappropriate, yet it is a very real component of American urban life. Discouragement of thought and discussion is another hallmark of a totalitarian society. Thought and discussion are not conducive to blind obedience. Ironically, most African-Americans are better equipped to discuss their beliefs about racial groups than their "educated" "defenders". For example, check out the "Last Poets". You won't agree with everything these people have to say, but there is no question that they are speaking their minds, often brilliantly. (I consider the poem "Niggers Are Afraid of Revolution" to be their chef-d'oevre.) Another example can be found in the movie "Crumb". Much, if not all, of Crumb's work is unpopular amongst the "politically correct", often on the grounds that he is racially prejudiced. Crumb reports that African-Americans never object to his work and often give him positive feedback. Clearly, the people Crumb is talking to have the sophistication to recognize his advanced use of satire and courageous exploration of topics forbidden for discussion in American society. (Let me add that remailers are great. I would be reluctant to express these ideas in any other way for professional reasons.) African-Americans have clearly added a great deal to American culture. The great musical achievement of the 20th century is jazz and it was primarily developed by African-Americans. Jazz holds its own intellectually against any other genre of music from any time. Interestingly, jazz did not originate in an elite, like most great cultural achievements. It was developed by an oppressed minority which had only limited access to surplus resources. Jazz was developed in an astonishingly short time, really just a few decades. Most "cultured" Americans would give their eye teeth to go back in time and meet Mozart and his friends. Yet, a short time ago people capable of comparable achievements were available in the United States. Jazz has not received the recognition that it deserves in the United States. In Europe, jazz musicians are given something more like the respect they have earned. This is not to the credit of the United States. (Those who don't believe me should get "Love Supreme" by John Coltrane and listen to it carefully about 20 times. There are layers and layers of depth and meaning. Those who are accustomed to more organized forms of music will initially hear a sloppy performance. This is hard to understand because these are some of the most technically accomplished musicians who have ever lived. hat they are doing is stretching medium and extending the range of meaning which can be expressed. Particularly fascinating is how well the apparent sloppiness of each musician dovetails so well with what the others are doing. This is challenging, to say the least. The relationship with his God that Coltrane expresses is quite different from the one usually hears. Mozart, Bach, et al, have a tendency to fawn. Coltrane expresses a more intimate (dare I say "anarchistic"?) vision.) The canonical jazz musician spends hours and hours of work every day developing his technique, mostly through the love of the art, much like many of us do with computer programming. At any rate, those who wish to enlighten their fellows on the subject of racism can do better than "it's just wrong." >OTOH, I'm sure that as an attorney you are cognizant of the fact that >financial institutions have a fiduciary responsibility to their >shareholders. I'm afraid this misses the points that Matt and I have been discussing. Matt believes that redlining betrays the fiduciary responsibility of the banks. I believe that it doesn't matter. That is, if you want to go to a bank which is riskier and pays lower interest because it avoids good business, that is your problem. Red Rackham

1 0

Re: Redlining
by Matthew J. Miszewski 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 11:25 AM 12/11/96 -0800, Douglas Barnes wrote: [snipped] >The more enlightened answer is to back off enough on the regulation so >that marginal loan markets become attractive business opportunities, >and any truly irrational lending practices (e.g. based on race) lead >directly to losing business to a competitor. This does appear to address both my moral concern (raced-based lending) as well as my liberty concern (favorability of less regulation). I support the repeal of much of the over-burdensome banking regulation already in existence. I continue to work closely with a Congresscritter who satrted off on the Banking Committee (Now has a good Ways and Means seat) whom I have expressed my concerns to. What helps is to have concrete deregulation proposals. In Wisconsin I have supported the extension of personal property tax exemptions to business computers (and an elimination of the personal property tax in total.) While discussions on the list often deal with theory it is important for those with the inclination, to act. Cypherpunks write Code (as in USCA? ;-) > >Doug > Matt -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMq8417pijqL8wiT1AQG6oQP/R8FyZkLz7e6BanUVtP5cQnnwG6FpbupS OWVm/flpKhBOx5T/FL61z8GXbcmqfxqbeBju0MB0WpPJIl1p1nLXqAqsA30ffofY yj3CLN3MXPOYXipttuxYMQoFBjwr99C0kl6kIBYwfvOarR/fffNvoPTXKigM8tCX kpJnEV0Eufg= =MYuQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Redlining
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:25 AM 12/11/1996, Douglas Barnes wrote an excellent article: >Another interesting aspect -- there's been huge growth in the "making >loans to folks with non-traditional or bad credit histories" market >recently, as the market for folks with good credit histories has >become saturated. This has been done largely by various NBFIs operating >outside of the normal "bank" structure, and specializing in certain >kinds of consumer loans. > >It is vitally important to realize that to a bank, a loan is a "product," >that they "sell" to customers. It is how the bank makes money. If >the market is operating properly, irrational refusals to loan on the >part of some institutions will create a market opportunity for other >institutions. This more true than ever before. Nowadays, banks commonly find themselves in the mortgage origination business. Once a mortgage is originated, it is packed up with many similar mortgages and sold off as a CMO. This means the bank can specialize in what it is good at, rather than speculating in interest risk. The CMO market is intensely competitive. Many people spend a lot of time looking for misperceptions of default rates and the like. Traders are not racists when they are trading, God bless their greedy souls. If it is really the case that mortgages are not being originated irrationally, there is an unbelievable opportunity. Originating mortgages does not require a great deal of capital and the turn around of what investment is needed should be well under a year. >The problem with banking & financial services is that they are already >so heavily regulated, and the barrier to entry is so high, that the >market seldom operates properly. Thus we see _more_ regulation piled >on (such as the CCRI) to address the problems that come about from the >previous piling-on of regulations. > >When there is little competition between banks, this creates a situation >which, viewed in isolation, seems "unfair" to those at the fringes of the >loan market. The superficial answer to this problem is to force banks >to lend in areas that are less profitable for them than their traditional >areas -- at this point banks almost begin to resemble monopoly public >utilities, which, when you look at the regulations they operate under, >is almost the case. > >The more enlightened answer is to back off enough on the regulation so >that marginal loan markets become attractive business opportunities, >and any truly irrational lending practices (e.g. based on race) lead >directly to losing business to a competitor. I would add that the purpose of the regulation is generally not to the benefit of customers, but the banking guild. Increased legislation and control favors people who can afford lawyers or have the political connections to prevent the need for lawyers. Regulation favors the established and not the poor Albanians. Opening a bank should be as easy as forming a corporation. There have been brief periods in U.S. history when this was the case. I have heard it worked quite well. Curiously, preferred stock in the banks was such a liquid market that it became treated as cash. Instead of making a deposit, you could buy some preferred stock. Note that this solves rather elegantly the problem of bank runs. Red Rackham

1 0

I am a stupid cocksucker
by Secret Squirrel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This Christmas Cypherpunks get a special discount: I will suck you off for only $5. Red Rackham PS: I always sign my posts. I am so stupid. PPS: Please killfile me.

1 0

"Bigotry" and related topics...a brief comment
by attila＠primenet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <v03007801aed4bbe064e3(a)[207.167.93.63]>, on 12/11/96 at 11:47 AM, "Timothy C. May" <tcmay(a)got.net> said: ::The racial and ethnic groups which are most into "victimology" ::are the least successful--which is _cause_ and which is _effect_ may be ::debatable to many of you, but the correlation is very clear....maybe it's ::time they try something different, like getting their culture to embrace ::learning, reading, science, math, and business success, instead of glorifying ::victimization, crack cocaine, basketball stars, and pimps.) Not to harp, Tim, but the summation thought in and of itself is probably "discriminatory" to many as it, intentionally or not, appears to single out a specific ethicnic group. OTOH, without or without the description, the indicated class best fits your model above --and I agree with the thesis; even so far as to say that the implentation of CA's anti-affirmative action, which is now blocked by yet another bleeding heart liberal Federal judge, will reduce tension vis a vis ethnic relations --if the supposed victims (of the what was at one time the ethnic majority in CA), will stop crying. and so that everyone can see bigotry: when the demographic changes brought along their ethnic gangs, I moved the children to other schools. when the billboards in the far NW corner of LA city/county were converted to Spanish a couple years ago-- "...that's it; we're leaving! now, regardless of the cost!" -attila - -- Now, with a black jack mule you wish to harness, you walk up, look him in the eye, and hit him with a 2X4 over the left eye. If he blinks, hit him over the right eye! He'll cooperate. --so will politicians. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: Encrypted with 2.6.3i. Requires 2.6 or later. iQCVAwUBMq884704kQrCC2kFAQGjvwP/eBEPNRxueY4OOsaTfUAUGctQqdaCSOyn DK5i3u581RTAqixccIgQbC7UpWhlmMwM4/Ildp0kcjxILUsBhoiPc2jnTbKNAejy dI+vONbPlduWsHWAB7xIZjl7lgNqawbD7kHnm3ivGA9UNqe6NSESobgNRNy1agyI NtgBWavsjQE= =IZOR -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Redlining
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:47 AM 12/11/1996, Timothy C. May wrote: >1. The _general_ subjects of "bigotry" and "redlining" are not >closely related to themes of this list, though the implications of >strong privacy for these issues is certainly on topic. (And my views >on these implications are well known...I've seen no point to step in >to the debate to repeat them, and don't plan to argue with Matt M. >about the "evils of bigotry.") > >2. Many of the posts by Matt M. and "Red Rackham" and others have >been so massive, containing paragraph-by-paragraph rebuttals of >political and ethical points, that I've just given up on trying to >follow the points. > >If anyone has well-formed questions about how redlining and "bigotry" >is affected by strong cryptography and crypto anarchy, fire away. >Just don't bury them deep in a long diatribe about the evils of >"prejudice" and "discrimination." Didn't Tim May originate the "Generation of Science" thread or, earlier, the sliderule thread? I don't think either topic can said to be strictly cypherpunk unless a discrete logarithm sliderule has been invented. The truth is that I enjoyed those threads as did most others on the list. I would like to see more like them. And, I dare say that my posts are more worthwhile than 7 out of 8 posts we've been seeing on the list lately. >(Personally, and off-topic for the list (so I'll be brief),... Point 1: You obviously find the subject interesting enough to comment on it. Others probably also find it interesting. Point 2: Excuse me if I am wrong, but your comments look to me to be precisely on topic for this list, anyway. >...the ills of our society seem to me to have _very little_ to do >with "prejudice." In fact, most people are not "discriminating" >enough, in the sense that discrimination implies value judgements and >assessments of probable success based on data available. As someone >noted, the Asian communities in the U.S. are doing well and are quite >"discriminatory" in lending policies. Get used to it, as crypto >anarchy will make coerced transactions even more difficult. The >racial and ethnic groups which are most into "victimology" are the >least successful--which is _cause_ and which is _effect_ may be >debatable to many of you, but the correlation is very clear....maybe >it's time they try something different, like getting their culture to >embrace learning, reading, science, math, and business success, >instead of glorifying victimization, crack cocaine, basketball stars, >and pimps.) This obsession of "on topic/off topic" is not healthy for the list. It stifles brainstorming and the free exchange of ideas. Red Rackham P.S. Sorry for the length of some of the messages. That Miszewski had the temerity to actually stand up for his beliefs, so it was unavoidable.

2 1

Re: Redlining
by E. Allen Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"ichudov(a)algebra.com" 11-DEC-1996 14:01:18.43 >The problem is, people can choose what credit history they want to have >(I can be a saver or a spender, for example), but nobody can change the >color of their skin. >This is central point of the theory why discrimination based on credit >histories is OK, while the discrimination based on race is not. First, I would point out that redlining does not necessarily equal credit discrimination based on race; it may mean credit discrimination based on poverty, which has an unfortunately high correlation with being a member of some races. (I won't go into the explanations for why this is the case here; most people who try to explain it don't take enough factors into account.) Second, let's take a look at whether inequalities based on factors that people cannot change is something that is wrong. This topic is wider in its application than redlining and credit; one example important to me in my field is in genetic screening usage for insurance purposes. (In that case, you've also got that limits on insurance uses of data when individuals can gather the data in question mean that someone can predict their own chances of needing insurance... leading to those who are healthy not purchasing it, and those who aren't purchasing it.) The first topic to mention in this regard is that of privacy. I believe I am among most people in finding a question about my behavior (e.g, my sexual activities) significantly more intrusive than a question about my personal characteristics (e.g., my gender). But I would hope that everyone would agree that it would be idiotic and irresponsible not to have someone's payments for insurance vary with their behavior; this would encourage irresponsible behavior and discourage responsible behavior. The second topic to mention in this regard is that inequality due to factors one cannot change is a fact of life. This is particularly true of capitalism (e.g., someone who has a genetic tendency toward large size will consume more food and thus spend more money on food), but it is also a problem in any other economic system - economics is not all of life. Even if one concludes that inequality is wrongful and needs to be "alleviated", there are many areas more important than credit on which one would logically start... such as forbidding merit-based admissions, which are biased in favor of those with higher IQs. I trust that my audience sees exactly why this idea, and similar ideas, are ultimately nonsense? The third topic is that one commonly applied idea used by the proponents of absolute equality is that found in Rawls' _Theory of Justice_, under which the just outcome is said to be found by a group of people who do not know what situation they will be in. (This is a vast oversimplification of the book(s) in question, which upon closer examination may realize the idea I am about to write down.) The simplistic conclusion is that everyone will want everything to be the same, since any individual might be in a bad or good situation. But if you have a choice between 49 dollars and a 50/50 chance of 0 or 100 dollars, you should take the latter. In other words, a situation in which inequalities exist can still be one that is overall better than a fully equal situation. There are a number of respects in which the insurance and credit markets fall under this category. The most obvious is the direct cost of regulation. Less obvious but perhaps more important is the uncertainty factor; the use of more data (for an insurance or credit decision) leads to less uncertainty in the ultimate outcome, and thus to less risk of unexpected claims (for insurance) or defaults (for credit). Thus, smaller businesses (which are also made more possible by lowering other regulatory costs) can exist in a deregulated insurance or credit market. The removal of the current ogliopolistic situation in such markets for the initial insurance or credit grantor would improve prices. -Allen

3 2

PGP Public Key Server beta release available!
by Marc Horowitz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- The new PGP Public Key Server which has been running on pgp.ai.mit.edu for the past several months is now available as a beta release. This is the first public release of the code, and while it has proven mostly reliable, it is not guaranteed to be perfect. Because it uses hash tables and balanced trees instead of a flat file format, it trades a disk space for a substantial performance improvement over the old pgp-based key server. The PGP Public Key Server home page can be found at <http://www.mit.edu/people/marc/pks/>. This page contains links to the sources, the server running on pgp.ai.mit.edu, and my thesis, which documents the specification and design of the key server. If you have any problems, questions, or comments, I read comp.security.pgp.tech. That's probably the best forum for discussion and questions, but you can send me email, too. In order to have an idea how how many people are using this key server, if you install it, for public use or not, please let me know. Marc Horowitz marc(a)mit.edu -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMq85Ce/JP4Ec8n/VAQE+pQP+OOKf9dC06RR/oL+wRPSVBg9TFOrnGhDu AT+qz2pAOchTnVZqPQKEDUr0mfDqmMhC9CU5oAjS36N3OFJoUwuwHSlt+4Ixnj9A ld0fVHKhyME4v+F6X/O7g6LOj07y6qIWcQqoGEqyFH08Keso8wXdH83BLjbN/8tl bwBpSZMUL7E= =Aqyq -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Redlining
by E. Allen Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"mjmiski(a)execpc.com" "Matthew J. Miszewski" 11-DEC-1996 16:21:56.21 >Actually, my assertion was that the basic motivation was racism and >ignorance. My example of student loan default rates should clear that up. >College graduates generally live outside of redlines and yet are regularly >offered credit. And yet default rates on student loans are outrageous (the >government backing of these loans is irrelevant to individual >creditworthiness). That some groups not within redlines have high default rates is not an argument against groups within redlines having high default rates. The market distortion caused by government sponsorship is certainly relevant to whether individuals are offered credit; I would suggest that in many cases the students in question would not be offered credit, as per their high default rates, if it were not for government sponsorship removing the risk from the lender. You have also not bothered to answer the criticisms from Mr. Rackham about why, if the sole motivations were racism and ignorance, people would not be offering the residents of such areas loans; as (he?) pointed out, this would appear to be a particularly attractive move for middle-class blacks, if your assertion was the case. -Allen

1 0

Merry Christmas, You Punk-ass Mo'-fo's!
by Santa Claus 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

* * /|\ ///*\\\ * * * //\\ * //\\ * * * * * // \\ // \\ // \\ S A N T A * * * N O R T H P O L E | | \____/ Wherever you go, whatever you do, Remember that Santa is always with you. I live in your heart, I dance in your soul, I show you what love is, and good things to know. The Spirit of Christmas spreads all through the land, With joy and the giving of gifts you should have. But gifts are just one thing to give and to get -- We wish you much more, far more than that. My elves send you pride in whatever you do, My reindeer give strength on days you feel blue, My wife, Mrs. Claus, grants wisdom and grace, Belief in yourself and all you create. And me, what do I give? Is there much more? Plenty and plenty you won't find in stores. I give you the knowledge that you can do more Than you ever knew -- of that be quite sure. My sleigh's packed with toys, my list sweeps the floor, A cup of hot cocoa and I'm out the door. Just gaze high in the sky where Peace always soars, And you live in my heart as I live in yours. * * * * * * M e r r y C h r i s t m a s * * S a n t a C l a u s --------- This santa poem was sent to you from a person who visited the ReplyNet site (www.reply.net) and entered your name and address on our Santa page. Your e-mail address is NOT being collected.

1 0

In Defense of Anecdotal Evidence
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:09 AM 12/12/1996, E. Allen Smith wrote: >From: IN%"mjmiski(a)execpc.com" "Matthew J. Miszewski" 11-DEC-1996 19:43:51.88 >>If I wanted to I could repeatedly issue heart-wrenching stories of >>poverty in America (similar, of course, to politicians using "real >>world examples" in speeches). You seem to assume that this would be >>"wrong". > > As did Ronald Reagan in talking about "welfare queens"... as >could I in discussing how my grandparents got out of poverty and have >two children with MDs and one with a PhD. Statistics are preferable >to anecdotal evidence for just this reason; I've seen that over and >over again in science. Anecdotes are for lawyers talking to juries >and demagogic politicians talking to the masses. Statistics are a useful tool, but they have their problems. Their accuracy is often in doubt. Most scientific data comes with an error analysis so you can tell what the figure means. For some reason statisticians never do this so we cannot tell whether their numbers are accurate to within 0.1%, 1.0%, 10%, or even worse. There are many other problems. For instance, users of statistics assume they have a random sample, even in cases where that is far from clear. Social statistics are a black art. There was a study awhile back which claimed gun ownership reduced violent crime. That is a surprising result. It was apparently obtained by subtracting out all the other factors that could explain the differences in the areas studied. This process must involve some real stretches statistically. I can't imagine how cultural differences are determined and subtracted - I assume it is a subjective process. Another problem with statistics is that they are difficult to verify. We may wish to verify the information in cases of deception - sometimes well meaning - but also for cases of statistical incompetence. It is also hard to explore the details of the study if the authors are unavailable. The advantage of first hand experience is that it is primary evidence. You know it's true because you were there and saw it. The advantage of anecdotal evidence (in the sense we have been using it) is that the person who is telling you the anecdote was there and saw it. You can cross-examine them and get a full understanding of the evidence provided. Specific examples, that is anecdotal evidence, also provide a nice framework for discussing our abstract beliefs about what is morally right or wrong, or what various parties should be expected to do or say in particular situations. Specific examples also make it possible for the participants in the conversation to deepen their own understanding of their experiences. You might have seen something and interpreted it in a particular way. Somebody else might be able to show you how you misinterpreted what you saw. Red Rackham

3 2

Re: "Bigotry" and related topics...a brief comment
by E. Allen Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"tcmay(a)got.net" "Timothy C. May" 11-DEC-1996 18:12:33.87 >If anyone has well-formed questions about how redlining and "bigotry" is >affected by strong cryptography and crypto anarchy, fire away. Just don't >bury them deep in a long diatribe about the evils of "prejudice" and >"discrimination." Yes... an analysis of the ways in which an insurance or credit company could keep its disallowed data in secret, with sufficient incentives for the individuals with knowledge of it not to disclose this practice, is an interesting topic. One of the more obvious ways is to subcontract the risk analysis to businesses operating in countries without such limits, leaving the main insurance or credit company with just the claims process, reserves management, and paperwork. Unfortunately, as shown by the EU's attempts to make multinationals doing business there keep data inside EU borders and under EU privacy laws, countries are likely to clamp down on this process. >difficult. The racial and ethnic groups which are most into "victimology" >are the least successful--which is _cause_ and which is _effect_ may be >debatable to many of you, but the correlation is very clear....maybe it's >time they try something different, like getting their culture to embrace >learning, reading, science, math, and business success, instead of >glorifying victimization, crack cocaine, basketball stars, and pimps.) While I would fully agree with you that such cultural factors are a considerable amount of the problem, I'd have to call attributing all of the problem to them an oversimplification. I'd also point out the cultural factors caused by the development of cultures under uncivilized (in the sense of lacking cities) and unindustrial conditions, something that is not helped by the current PC multiculturalist wish to bring such cultures back. (The reasons for African cultures not developing in this route are an interesting debate; I find Sowell's argument of lack of navigable rivers and the presence of various diseases such as malaria reasonably convincing.) Other factors include the lack of parental education and nutrition resulting in lower parental IQs resulting in lower child IQs; interracial adoption, while opposed by the PC types, is one way to solve this problem. Another factor is lingering racism, which is regretably still present in subsections of the country. Hopefully, as various factors promoting large, noncompetitive corporations (and unions) disappear, the resulting companies will be forced to be sufficiently competitive to ignore such prejudices. -Allen

1 0

Re: Credentials without Identity--Race Bits
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:38 PM 12/11/1996, Timothy C. May wrote: By the way, on this >oftentimes off-topic issue of "bigotry" and "racism," here's a zinger >some of you may not have thought much about. And it's certainly >related to the themes of Chaumian "credentials without identity," >which is very much on-topic. > >While it has been claimed by some that "crypto anarchy" means that >race won't matter, that cyberspace interactions will be color-blind, >this is misleading. > >While many--probably most--users will care only for cyberspace >personna issues, and not meatspace personna issues of race, color, >height, weight, etc., this is not something built in to anonymous >transactions. > >Consider a "race credential" offered by some entity. Perhaps one goes >down to the local Aryan Nations office and gets one's genetic >heritage stamped, or down to the Kwanzaa Youth Center to be similarly >stamped.... > >(Why some groups might want this is left as an exercise for the >reader. Perhaps a less-inflammatory example (to some of the >sensitive amongst you) might be that some women want to interact in >"women only" forums--a clear case of discrimination, no?--and may >want a "gender bit" avaiable to display as a credential.) Tim May is to be commended for making this fine point. I simply had not thought of this possibility. This is also empirical evidence of the worth of a wide ranging discussion. If Matt and I hadn't pursued our discussion, this excellent point would not have been made. As Tim has pointed out, it is time to reconsider our beliefs regarding the morality of discrimination. The fact is, sometimes we like to spend time with people who have a lot in common with ourselves. This often supports a higher level of communication because the parties involved really understand where the other is coming from. This is true of men in the locker room, women, Albanians, or whomever. And what is occuring is not even a bad thing. It's good for people to spend time with people they like and respect or at least know well. ("No man is a hero to his valet.") The "politically correct" fully recognize this. That is why they see gay groups, feminist groups, etc. as worthwhile. It is only people perceived as successful or powerful who are not supposed to associate with each other. Instead, they are expected to volunteer their time and personalities for everyone else's benefit. Somehow we never hear what they are supposed to receive in return for this, but I am guessing they are supposed to lovingly accept rudeness, abuse, and guilt for their services. Tim said in another message that there are times when discrimination is rational. I have no doubt this is true. How often do we look at a degree from MIT on a resume and hire? The degree to which we fear cryptoanarchy is the degree to which we fear leaving people alone to run their lives as they see fit. I do not greatly fear cryptoanarchy. Red Rackham

3 2

Re: Redlining
by drose＠AZStarNet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

M. Miszewski wrote: >Actually, my assertion was that the basic motivation was racism and >ignorance. My example of student loan default rates should clear that up. >College graduates generally live outside of redlines and yet are regularly >offered credit. And yet default rates on student loans are outrageous (the >government backing of these loans is irrelevant to individual >creditworthiness). Whoa! How 'bout backin' out minority-oriented "beauty" and other phony trade "schools" from your assertions? Looka-here: the moment that you exclude merit from scholastic and credit decisons, the more that you get into unfortunate decisons for society.

1 0

Re: Redlining
by drose＠AZStarNet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Matt Miszewski wrote: (snip) > I wish I lived where you did where racism hurts nobody. Just >give me a general location and Ill start to move my clients there ;-|. A general location? Hee hee!

1 0

Re: Redlining
by E. Allen Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"ichudov(a)algebra.com" 11-DEC-1996 18:34:46.50 >Thanks for an interesting reply. Quite welcome. Due to the links to my own field, I've been thinking about these issues for a bit. >It is the cross-section test that evidences discrimination: suppose >we have two large groups with the same credit-related parameters >(credit history, etc). If one group gets better treatment from a >bank, I see a discrimination. Is it the credit history that should be the same... or the outcomes? In other words, if two groups of different races are all granted credit and have equal credit histories, are the default rates greater for one group as opposed to the other? If so, then there _is_ a fiduciary responsibility by the bank's directors to not loan to the group that has greater default rates. Now, there's the problem in testing this that if a bank (or, more likely, some loan officers at the bank) is practicing discrimination, those of the discriminated-against races who do get credit evidently had _something_ that convinced the bank to still offer the people credit. This something may or may not be controlled for by the credit factors equalization I mentioned above. If it isn't controlled for, you'll get a bias in the outcome toward the discriminated-against race being _better_ credit risks than they actually are, on the average. This would remove any actual evidence of poor credit riskworthiness on the part of that race (such as for cultural reasons, to the (highly unfortunate) degree that race and culture are correlated). In other words, banks with prejudices (which I do fully admit are out there) will tend to make any actual differences much harder - close to impossible, in fact - to see. >The crucial question is: do we believe that the characteristic >that we are considering directly linked with future performance? As I point out above, studies on this topic are somewhat difficult, and are prone to being biased in favor of discriminated-against races. (This isn't even mentioning political biases...) You may or may not be able to say _why_ a given characteristic is linked with future performance; it's easy to come up with plausible explanations in most cases. >This is a valid concern. Quite... I seem to recall a story involving a "Handicapper General" - perhaps someone would recall the title and author? In it, those with higher IQs were forced to be less intelligent through distractions, those with greater beauty were forced to wear ugly masks, etcetera. >> The third topic is that one commonly applied idea used by the >> proponents of absolute equality is that found in Rawls' _Theory of >> Justice_, under which the just outcome is said to be found by a group >> of people who do not know what situation they will be in. (This is >> a vast oversimplification of the book(s) in question, which upon >> closer examination may realize the idea I am about to write down.) >> The simplistic conclusion is that everyone will want everything to be >> the same, since any individual might be in a bad or good situation. But >> if you have a choice between 49 dollars and a 50/50 chance of 0 or 100 >> dollars, you should take the latter. In other words, a situation in >Not necessarily. With the exception of needing <=49$ to live, under what conditions would the former choice be better than the latter choice? -Allen

2 1

Merry Christmas, HipXmas-SantaSpam!
by Santa Claus 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

* * /|\ ///*\\\ * * * //\\ * //\\ * * * * * // \\ // \\ // \\ S A N T A * * * N O R T H P O L E | | \____/ Wherever you go, whatever you do, Remember that Santa is always with you. I live in your heart, I dance in your soul, I show you what love is, and good things to know. The Spirit of Christmas spreads all through the land, With joy and the giving of gifts you should have. But gifts are just one thing to give and to get -- We wish you much more, far more than that. My elves send you pride in whatever you do, My reindeer give strength on days you feel blue, My wife, Mrs. Claus, grants wisdom and grace, Belief in yourself and all you create. And me, what do I give? Is there much more? Plenty and plenty you won't find in stores. I give you the knowledge that you can do more Than you ever knew -- of that be quite sure. My sleigh's packed with toys, my list sweeps the floor, A cup of hot cocoa and I'm out the door. Just gaze high in the sky where Peace always soars, And you live in my heart as I live in yours. * * * * * * M e r r y C h r i s t m a s * * S a n t a C l a u s --------- This santa poem was sent to you from a person who visited the ReplyNet site (www.reply.net) and entered your name and address on our Santa page. Your e-mail address is NOT being collected.

4 3