December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Louis Freeh calls for communication crackdown
by nobody＠neva.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Robert Hettinga wrote that David Kaufman wrote that Reuters wrote: >``It could take a $30 million supercomputer a year to figure out the >simplest encrypted message without this feature,'' Freeh said. ``And >that message might be 'we have the victim and will kill him in an >hour'.'' This seems like a good time to try out The Cypherpunk War Cry: Shine Shine!! Bakayarou!! Aho!! Manuke!! Anpontan!! (Hope it means something bad!) Jonathan Wienke correctly pointed out the absurdity of Freeh's example. But, there are two ways Louis and his supporters can wriggle out of this point. One is that the friends and relatives of the kidnap victime are sometimes tempted to conceal the crime as they may believe that a quiet negotiation and ransom payment will be more likely to secure the hostage's release than involving the authorities. (In many countries it is illegal to do this.) However, if the all knowing and all seeing secret police agency can intercept all communications they will be able to find out and interfere with plans to make ransom payments and jail the friends of the victim. That might be a little rough on the trophy, it is true, but it will be said that this will generally discourage other kidnappings in the future. The second is that encryption makes remailers possible. Remailers make it possible for kidnappers to untraceably send messages. What Louis and his supporters are neglecting is that kidnappers are already able to do this without encryption. The unabomber, while not a kidnapper, is an especially good example. For the at least a decade he was communicating with the FBI itself on a regular basis without facing any consequences. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNFbKiJaWtjSmRH/5AQFNngf+Jly6DbqAU2JFPsF2gghY4tXHmp8XkVx3 t7F2IlBterhE99wxEbs+B6Nm4e0MvOCoTNbKly+XJi4If/3llFbcqBEisiib511N eX7ttczuV+ne5I2yNmt0M5vPwqRG/iaOSvwyDNbKQw72Y19PsMhZLfTp1WXYcYTC y/FcQa7JZKcf0/17kvVTgOq20XB4qxfPVMI6j7L4Dh7qRKl7Ph9CENaUq/uJtbBq NSDgsK64KFktTrERtnisJJA6RtDO+ZKUPU93vyoRuttST34EUDOcUq0QP566BAlw OKfi28+12AJtEqSUD2MEh0EgwLkKWUIkDNUp8yXzgI7BZeSSeoPbDg== =FPRq -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Private Health Care [On topic, please read.]
by Mix 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Michael Sims wrote: [Ed. note: Declan wrote?:] > >>The free market approach won't keep medical records private. > > > In other words, the reason a "free market" approach may not work > > right now is because the market isn't free. > Declan, every part of the "health-care market" that people are > complaining about, the parts of it that routinely and for fiscal > reasons violate people's privacy, are completely and utterly > dollar-driven and do not result from big nasty government making any > laws. This greatly underestimates the influence and involvement of the government. The medical profession uses the government to keep out competitors and keep their prices high. In many areas, the majority of the money spent on legislative campaigns is provided by various professional medical organizations. The flip side is that the medical profession will have a powerful incentive to remain in the good graces of the established political powers, whatever they may be. That means no weird experiments in protecting people's privacy. Doctors are also terribly vulnerable to liability suits. As patients, we are unable to agree to waive most liability. This makes it harder to walk into a doctor's office with a sheaf of bills and ask for service. The doctor has a strong incentive to have everything documented and ship shape because to do otherwise would make him or her look poorly in court. This may also endanger the doctor's liability insurance policy. And, because the medical market is tightly controlled, it is not possible to legally enter the market as an outsider. IMNSHO, I should be able to consult my drug dealer about ailments and their proper medication. The fact is, many people have much greater rapport with their drug dealers than with their doctors and there is often greater concern by the drug dealer for his client's welfare, at least in terms of obvious problems such as pain. Similar things can be said for health insurance companies. They are very greatly constrained in the types of policies they can offer and the sorts of agreements they can make with their customers. You could imagine an anonymous policy which opens with a medical exam which is repeated every so often for couple of years before taking effect. After, say, two years of good health, full coverage on the policy kicks in. Ironically, some states have rules very much like this, minus the anonymity. After a certain number of years all illnesses are covered regardless of whether the customer had the illness previously and lied about it on their application. (Some states even forbid life insurance issuers from excluding suicide for coverage for long term customers! Not only does this raise the price of life insurance, but in certain instances it compels people to kill themselves "for the good of their family". ) Given this legal environment, you would expect some company some where to try to corner the market on anonymous health insurance. There are a few reasons why this does not happen. One is the extreme discretionary power of insurance commissioners. This power is probably even greater than in most industries because the insurance industry is, absurdly, widely hated. No insurance company is going to rock the boat. Insurance regulation also creates a barrier to entry. Many states limit the amount of profit an insurance company can make. These limits are often very low and do not justify new entrants or new and interesting product offerings. Finally, in practice very few people choose their own insurance. The purchase decision is made indirectly by the company they work for. The feedback between what the user of insurance wants and what he or she gets is attenuated by this structure. This structure is required by law in many places because employers are required to provide "free" health insurance to their employees. The federal tax code strongly encourages companies to provide health insurance as it is a benefit which is not taxed as income. There is more to be said on this topic, I am sure. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNFbSfZaWtjSmRH/5AQHP0Af/SiXKivk8zzUlvKgcYw3AFaHx2nad1ezl E/i7mYi887mx5bMhaHKQfcD2l7oXKM/tkU3ym9PXOdngMxdVvZj96XxazDpQMW8o MIhEIwMPlwQsoNylyD0+UraWCX9X/SsyFchTJqlodmn9QH7OrtLtOcnX+ibMB/Wl 3WkvHAIZeEQaSjMYhbEqEZA/N7ojz6WFsY3jQWRmsFbAKmwn0tr+3ncbuzxZP0h+ 6Bq97xnS+17wRPX1hVp04qq+gtgmnDzEmCI1wDqUrGGJXmDHiTYNurOy1mcNUU+L RaguGy69kSBNqOzLen4sV0xL+w2nw8iMVWTQ0Xg1Zo6QgLnAIv+k8w== =DdvV -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2

<<Vitamin B>>(October 28, 1997) The Power of Ecobabble
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text X-Lotus-FromDomain: ILGW @ BIONOMICS@INTERLIANT @ OUTBOUND From: "VitaminB"<VitaminB(a)bionomics.org> To: "DAILY DOSE"<DAILY_DOSE(a)maxager.com> Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 17:37:57 -0800 Subject: <<Vitamin B>>(October 28, 1997) The Power of Ecobabble Mime-Version: 1.0 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by pop.sneaker.net id VAA29180 Vitamin B: Your Daily Dose of Bionomics October 28, 1997 The Power of Ecobabble Paul Krugman is, without doubt, a well known economist. With a professorship at MIT and a publication list long enough to impress Stephen King, those Nobel guys in Sweden are really the only ones he hasn't impressed. In other words, just the kind of successful, mainstream economist who wouldn't give Bionomics the time of day. Until last week, that is. We don't know why, but out of the blue, Paul Krugman chose to devote his entire _Slate_ column to an analysis of Bionomics (much like a shark will analyze a tuna). Maybe he was wondering why he, a clear expert in the field of evolutionary economics, wasn't invited to speak at our conference (Nov 13-15 in San Francisco plug plug plug). Maybe he actually doesn't think that language and metaphors matter to our mental maps of the economy. Or, maybe he got asked just one too many times, "So, Prof. Krugman, what do you think of _Bionomics_, and this guy Rothschild? He's been talking about biology and economics since 1990." In any case, we're genuinely pleased to see he's spending so much time thinking about Bionomics -- you simply can't write this forcefully about something off-the-cuff. For those who haven't read it yet, the article is included below: The Power of Biobabble Pseudo-economics meets pseudo-evolution. By Paul Krugman The invitation came, rather disappointingly, by conventional mail. Still, it sounded enticing: "The Cato Institute and the Bionomics Institute invite you to Now What? Living With Perpetual Evolution, the fifth annual Bionomics Conference." Leading the list of speakers for the Nov. 13-15 conference was Gregory Benford, one of my favorite science-fiction writers. And at the top of the card was a stirring quotation from Bionomics Institute founder Michael Rothschild: ?Like a deep-sea volcano bursting to the surface, spewing out vast new lands soon to be inhabited by a complex ecosystem, the Web is creating a virtual landscape that will soon be occupied by an awesome array of economic organisms. ... It's evolution at warp speed. Strap yourself in.? The Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank noted mostly for its adamant opposition to government regulation. But what on earth (or in cyberspace) is bionomics--and why is Cato (and _Forbes ASAP_, which is a co-sponsor of the conference) promoting it? Although you have to look at Rothschild's 1990 book, _Bionomics: Economy as Ecosystem_, to get the full flavor, the essential tenets of the movement are spelled out on the Bionomics Institute home page, which offers a primer called "Bionomics 101." The primer explains: [A]ll traditional schools of economics are based on the concepts of classical physics, while bionomics is based on the principles of evolutionary biology. ... [O]rthodox economics describes the "economy as a machine." ... Instead, bionomics says that an economy is like an "evolving ecosystem." A modern market economy is like a tropical rainforest. Sounds good, doesn't it? Bionomics has won converts not only at the Cato Institute but also among a wide variety of influential people ranging from Newt Gingrich to Clyde Prestowitz. (Fortune has described it as "a policymakers' version of The Celestine Prophecy.") And Rothschild is certainly a bright, energetic fellow. There are, however, two big weaknesses in his thinking: He doesn't know much about economics, and he doesn't know much about evolution. When I say that Rothschild doesn't know much about economics, I don't mean that conventional economics is right and his ideas are wrong--although where they differ that is generally true. I mean that his description of what conventional economics is all about bears no relation to what actual economists believe or say. Take, for starters, his assertion that "orthodox economics describes the 'economy as a machine.' " You might presume from his use of quotation marks that this is something an actual economist said, or at least that it was the sort of thing that economists routinely say. But no economist I know thinks of the economy as being anything like a machine--or believes, as Rothschild asserts a bit later, that because the economy is like a machine, it is possible to make precise predictions. (In fact, it was economists who came up with the famed "random walk" hypothesis about stock prices, which says that they are inherently unpredictable.) It gets better. Rothschild tells us, "I know this is hard for non-economists to believe, but orthodox economics essentially ignores technological change." That is even harder for economists to believe. In fact, I don't know how I'm going to break the news to the guy in the next office. You see, poor Bob Solow is under the impression that he got the Nobel Prize for his work on technological change, in particular for his demonstration that technology, not capital accumulation, historically has been the main driving force in economic growth. On a different subject, it's going to be a shock to environmental economists--who have spent decades arguing that one good way to control pollution is to create a market in emission permits--to learn that this is an idea unique to bionomics and totally at odds with orthodox economic thinking. And I'm not feeling too good myself: Rothschild insists that conventional economics depends on the assumption of diminishing returns and that, as a result, economists have completely ignored the possibility of increasing returns. Does this mean I have to give back that medal the American Economic Association gave me for my work on increasing returns and international trade? Well, all this is more or less the usual. Whenever a manifesto about economics contains a sentence that begins, "Orthodox economics assumes that ..." it almost always completes that sentence with something strange and unfamiliar. In just the last two years, I've learned that I believe that gross domestic product is the sole measure of economic welfare, that growth at more than 2.5 percent always causes inflation, and that sudden speculative attacks on currencies can't happen. I've also learned that the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences keeps going to supply-siders--or should that be Marxists? What is surprising, however, is that a man who proposes to replace what he imagines to be the mechanistic worldview of conventional economics with a new view based on evolutionary biology should know so little about the discipline that supposedly inspires him. Rothschild's lack of familiarity with evolutionary theory may not be obvious to uninformed readers--his book bristles with ostentatious footnotes and seemingly learned references. It happens, however, that I am an evolution groupie. I started as a fan of great popularizers like Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker, and I have since graduated not only to hero worship of the leading evolutionary theorists but also to reading textbooks and even journal articles. And so when I picked up a copy of Bionomics, the first thing I did was check out the author's treatment of my heroes and of what I knew to have been the important developments in evolutionary theory since Darwin. His record was perfect: Not one of the right people was mentioned, not one of the key developments discussed. The bionomics version of what evolutionary theory is about has as little to do with the real thing as its version of what economics is about does. What the bionomics guys apparently think evolution is about is constant, breathless change--strap yourself in!--change so rapid that everything is unpredictable, that the rules themselves are constantly changing. Rothschild seems, in particular, to view evolutionary thinking as the antithesis of "equilibrium economics." Apparently nobody told him that equilibrium thinking--the idea that in order to understand how individuals interact, it is often useful to ask what would happen if each individual was doing the best he or she could given what everyone else is doing--is almost as prevalent in evolutionary theory as it is in economics. In fact, the really funny thing is that for the most part the bionomics program has already been implemented: Economics already is very similar to evolutionary theory, and vice versa. However, neither field looks anything like bionomics. OK, enough already. The really interesting question is why the Cato Institute and other free-market conservatives should be willing to squander their intellectual credibility by associating their names with this sort of thing. After all, conventional economics already has lots of nice things to say about free markets. Why not stick with Adam Smith? Part of the answer, I suspect, is sociological. Traditional conservative causes like the gold standard tend to have a musty, old-fashioned feel. They sound like the sort of thing that appeals mainly to rich old men (and conservative think tanks are, of course, mainly funded by rich old men). Young, vigorous conservatives are therefore always looking for ways to seem more fashion-forward. Some of them parade their knowledge of pop culture, some make a point of being photographed wearing miniskirts, and some go for what we might call the Wired style of economic rhetoric--the continual assertion that things are changing! so fast! that we have to use lots! of exclamation points!!! But there is also a more serious reason that bionomics appeals to the free-market faithful: They find the conventional case for laissez-faire too modest, too conditional, for their tastes. Standard economic theory offers reasons to believe that markets are a good way to organize economic activity. But it does not deify the market system, and it even offers a number of fairly well-defined ways in which markets can fail, or at least could be helped with government intervention. And that, for some conservatives, is just not good enough. Bionomics doesn't actually provide any coherent argument in favor of free markets. In fact, Rothschild's original book seems to hedge its bets: It spends a full chapter ("Japan's Secret Weapon") explaining how government-business cooperation makes the Japanese economy invincible (remember, the book was published in 1990). But what the doctrine lacks in serious argument it makes up for in rhetoric. The economy is an ecosystem, like a tropical rain forest! And what could be worse than trying to control a tropical rain forest from the top down? You wouldn't try to control an ecosystem, wiping out species you didn't like and promoting ones you did, would you? Well, actually, you probably would. I think it's called "agriculture." What do we learn from the willingness of extreme free-market conservatives to associate themselves with crank doctrines like bionomics? I think the main lesson is that their faith in free markets is just that: a faith, which does not rest on either logic or evidence. Belief comes first; then they look for arguments to justify that belief. And they are therefore not too scrupulous about the quality of those arguments, or of those who produce them. Anyway, I guess I won't attend the conference. I would have liked to meet Benford; but I couldn't stand to watch the author of _Great Sky River_ demeaning himself by consorting with such disreputable company. Paul Krugman is a professor of economics at MIT whose books include _The Age of Diminished Expectations_ and _Peddling Prosperity_. --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/ Ask me about FC98 in Anguilla!: <http://www.fc98.ai/>

1 0

Freeh agitating again
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From Infobeat (http://www.infobeat.com) *** FBI chief calls for computer crime crackdown FBI director Louis Freeh said Tuesday that criminals were moving increasingly into cyberspace and without new laws "drug dealers, arms dealers, terrorists and spies will have immunity like no other". Freeh told the International Association of Chiefs of Police that software manufacturers should be required by law to include a feature that allows police to descramble encrypted communications. Freeh said he supported a cyber surveillance law with these features which passed out of the House Intelligence Committee. For the full text story, see http://www.infobeat.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=5663807-3cc

1 0

digital cash & politics
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

------- Forwarded Message Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 11:40:46 -0500 (CDT) To: believer(a)telepath.com From: believer(a)telepath.com Subject: IP: End of National Markets Forwarded: - ----------- >From the USIA Daily Washington File >http://www.usia.gov/products/washfile.htm > >15 October 1997 > >THE END OF NATIONAL MARKETS (Electronic cash makes regulation difficult) > >by Stephen J. Kobrin > >(Copyright (c) 1997 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. >Reprinted with permission from FOREIGN POLICY magazine, Summer 1997. >Permission has been obtained covering >republication/translation/abridgment by USIS and the local press >outside the United States.) > >---------------------------- > >Twenty-six years ago, Raymond Vernon's "Sovereignty at Bay" proclaimed >that "concepts such as national sovereignty and national economic >strength appear curiously drained of meaning." > >Other books followed, arguing that sovereignty, the nation-state, and >the national economy were finished -- victims of multinational >enterprises and the internationalization of production. While >sovereign states and national markets have outlasted the chorus of >Cassandras, this time the sky really may be falling. The emergence of >electronic cash and a digitally networked global economy pose direct >threats to the very basis of the territorial state. > >Let us begin with two vignettes. Fact: Smugglers fly Boeing 747s >loaded with illicit drugs into Mexico and then cram the jumbo jets >full of cash -- American bills -- for the return trip. Fiction: Uncle >Enzo, Mafia CEO, pays for intelligence in the digital future of Neal >Stephenson's novel Snow Crash: "He reaches into his pocket and pulls >out a hypercard and hands it toward Hiro. It says 'Twenty-Five Million >Hong Kong Dollars.' Hiro reaches out and takes the card. Somewhere on >earth, two computers swap bursts of electronic noise and the money >gets transferred from the Mafia's account to Hiro's." > >The 747s leaving Mexico are anachronisms, among the last surviving >examples of the physical transfer of large amounts of currency across >national borders. Most money has been electronic for some time. >Virtually all of the trillions of dollars, marks, and yen that make >their way around the world each day take the form of bytes -- chains >of zeros and ones. Only at the very end of its journey is money >transformed into something tangible: credit cards, checks, cash, or >coins. > >Hypercards are here. Mondex, a smart card or electronic purse, can be >"loaded" with electronic money from an automatic teller machine (atm) >or by telephone or personal computer using a card-reading device. >Money is spent either by swiping the card through a retailer's >terminal or over the Internet by using the card reader and a personal >computer. An electronic wallet allows anonymous card-to-card >transfers. > >It is not just the current technology of electronic cash (e-cash) or >even what might be technologically feasible in the future that >presents policymakers with new challenges. Rather, policymakers must >confront directly the implications of this technology -- and, more >generally, the emergence of an electronically networked global economy >-- for economic and political governance. As the U.S. comptroller of >the currency, Eugene Ludwig, has noted, "There is clearly a freight >train coming down the tracks...Just because it hasn't arrived yet >doesn't mean we shouldn't start getting ready." > >ELECTRONIC MONEY > >Many different forms of "electronic money" are under development, but >it is useful to look at three general categories: electronic debit and >credit systems; various forms of smart cards; and true digital money, >which has many of the properties of cash. > >Electronic debit and credit systems already exist. When a consumer >uses an ATM card to pay for merchandise, funds are transferred from >his or her account to the merchant's. Credit cards are used to make >payments over the Internet. Computer software such as Intuit provides >electronic bill payment, and it is but a short step to true electronic >checks --authenticated by a digital signature -- that can be >transmitted to the payee, endorsed, and deposited over the Internet. > >Electronic debit and credit systems represent new, more convenient >means of payment, but not new payment systems. A traditional bank or >credit card transaction lies at the end of every transaction chain. >Smart cards and digital money represent new payment systems with >potentially revolutionary implications. Smart cards are plastic >"credit" cards with an embedded microchip. Many are now used as >telephone or transit payment devices. They can be loaded with currency >from an atm or via a card reader from a telephone or personal >computer, which can then be spent at businesses, vending machines, or >turnstiles that have been equipped with appropriate devices. At this >most basic level, a smart card is simply a debit card that does not >require bank approval for each transaction; clearance takes place each >day and the value resides in third-party accounts. There is no reason, >however, that smart cards have to be limited in this way. > >Banks or other institutions could provide value on smart cards through >loans, payments for services, or products. The immediate transfer of >funds between bank accounts is not necessary; units of value can >circulate from card to card -- and from user to user -- without >debiting or crediting third-party accounts. Assuming confidence in the >creating institution, "money" could be created on smart cards and >could circulate almost indefinitely before redemption. > >Finally, electronic money can take true digital form, existing as >units of value in the form of bytes stored in the memory of personal >computers that may or may not be backed up by reserve accounts of real >money. The money could be downloaded from an account, supplied as a >loan or as payment, or bought with a credit card over the Internet. As >long as digital cash can be authenticated and there is confidence in >its continued acceptance, it could circulate indefinitely, allowing >peer-to-peer payments at will. These are big "ifs," but they are well >within the realm of the possible. > >Imagine a world where true e-cash is an everyday reality. Whether all >of the following assumptions are correct or even immediately feasible >is unimportant; some form of e-cash is coming, and we need to begin >the process of thinking about its as-yet-unexplored consequences for >economic and political governance. > >The year is 2005. You have a number of brands of e-cash on your >computer's hard drive: some withdrawn from a bank in Antigua, some >borrowed from Microsoft, and some earned as payment for your services. >You use the digital value units (DVUs) to purchase information from a >Web site, pay bills, or send money to your daughter in graduate >school. Peer-to-peer payments are easy: You can transfer DVUs to any >computer anyplace in the world with a few keystrokes. > >Your e-cash is secure and can be authenticated easily. It is also >anonymous; governments have not been able to mandate a technology that >leaves a clear audit trail. Public-key encryption technology and >digital signatures allow blind transactions; the receiving computer >knows that the DVUs are authentic without knowing the identity of the >payer. Your e-cash can be exchanged any number of times without >leaving a trace of where it has been. It is virtually impossible to >alter the value of your e-cash at either end of the transaction (by >adding a few more zeros to it, for example). > >DVUs are almost infinitely divisible. Given the virtually negligible >transaction cost, it is efficient for you to pay a dollar or two to >see a financial report over the Internet or for your teenager to rent >a popular song for the few minutes during which it is in vogue. >Microtransactions have become the norm. E-cash is issued -- actually >created -- by a large number of institutions, bank and nonbank. >Electronic currencies (e-currencies) have begun to exist on their own; >many are no longer backed by hard currency and have developed value >separately from currencies issued by central banks. DVUs circulate for >long periods of time without being redeemed or deposited. Consumer >confidence in the issuer is crucial; as with electronic commerce >(e-commerce) in general, brand names have become critical. > >The early 21st century is described as a world of competing >e-currencies, a throwback to the 19th-century world of private >currencies. The better known brands of e-cash are highly liquid and >universally accepted. It is a relatively simple matter for you to set >up filters in your electronic purse to screen out e-currencies that >you do not want to accept. > >GOVERNANCE IN THE DIGITAL WORLD > >E-cash and the increasing importance of digital markets pose problems >for central government control over the economy and the behavior of >economic actors; they also render borders around national markets and >nation-states increasingly permeable -- or, perhaps, increasingly >irrelevant. In a world where true e-cash is an everyday reality, the >basic role of government in a liberal market economy and the relevance >of borders and geography will be drastically redefined. > >While at first glance this concern appears to reflect a traditional >break between domestic and international economic issues, in fact the >advent of e-cash raises serious questions about the very idea of >"domestic" and "international" as meaningful and distinct concepts. >The new digital world presents a number of governance issues, >described below. > >-- Can central banks control the rate of growth and the size of the >money supply? Private e-currencies will make it difficult for central >bankers to control -- or even measure or define -- monetary >aggregates. Several forms of money, issued by banks and nonbanks, will >circulate. Many of these monies may be beyond the regulatory reach of >the state. At the extreme, if, as some libertarians imagine, private >currencies dominate, currencies issued by central banks may no longer >matter. > >-- Will there still be official foreign exchange transactions? E-cash >will markedly lower existing barriers to the transfer of funds across >borders. Transactions that have been restricted to money-center banks >will be available to anyone with a computer. Peer-to-peer transfers of >DVUs across national borders do not amount to "official" foreign >exchange transactions. If you have $200 worth of DVUs on your computer >and buy a program from a German vendor, you will probably have to >agree on a mark-to-dollar price. However, transferring the DVUs to >Germany is not an "official" foreign exchange transaction; the DVUs >are simply revalued as marks. In fact, national currencies may lose >meaning with the development of DVUs that have a universally accepted >denomination. Without severe restrictions on individual privacy -- >which are not out of the question -- governments will be hard-pressed >to track, account for, and control the flows of money across borders. > >-- Who will regulate or control financial institutions? The U.S. >Treasury is not sure whether existing regulations, which apply to both >banks and institutions that act like banks (i.e., take deposits), >would apply to all who issue (and create) e-cash. If nonfinancial >institutions do not accept the extensive regulatory controls that >banks take as the norm, can reserve or reporting requirements be >enforced? What about consumer protection in the event of the >insolvency of an issuer of e-cash, a system breakdown, or the loss of >a smart card? > >-- Will national income data still be meaningful? It will be almost >impossible to track transactions when e-cash becomes a widely used >means of payment, online deals across borders become much easier, and >many of the intermediaries that now serve as checkpoints for recording >transactions are eliminated by direct, peer-to-peer payments. The >widespread use of e-cash will render national economic data much less >meaningful. Indeed, the advent of both e-cash and e-commerce raises >fundamental questions about the national market as the basic unit of >account in the international economic system. > >-- How will taxes be collected? Tax evasion will be a serious problem >in an economy where e-cash transactions are the norm. It will be easy >to transfer large sums of money across borders, and tax havens will be >much easier to reach. Encrypted anonymous transactions will make >audits increasingly problematic. Additionally, tax reporting and >compliance relies on institutions and intermediaries. With e-cash and >direct payments, all sorts of sales taxes, value-added taxes, and >income taxes will be increasingly difficult to collect. More >fundamentally, the question of jurisdiction -- who gets to tax what -- >will become increasingly problematic. Say you are in Philadelphia and >you decide to download music from a computer located outside Dublin >that is run by a firm in Frankfurt. You pay with e-cash deposited in a >Cayman Islands account. In which jurisdiction does the transaction >take place? > >-- Will e-cash and e-commerce widen the gap between the haves and the >have-nots? Participation in the global electronic economy requires >infrastructure and access to a computer. Will e-cash and e-commerce >further marginalize poorer population groups and even entire poor >countries? This widened gap between the haves and the have-nots -- >those with and without access to computers -- could become >increasingly difficult to bridge. > >-- Will the loss of seigniorage be important as governments fight to >balance budgets? Seigniorage originally referred to the revenue or >profit generated due to the difference between the cost of making a >coin and its face value; it also refers to the reduction in government >interest payments when money circulates. The U.S. Treasury estimates >that traditional seigniorage amounted to $773 million in 1994 and that >the reduction in interest payments due to holdings of currency rather >than debt could be as much as $3.5 billion per year. The Bank for >International Settlements reports that the loss of seigniorage for its >11 member states will be more than $17 billion if smart cards >eliminate all bank notes under $25. > >-- Will fraud and criminal activity increase in an e-cash economy? At >the extreme -- and the issue of privacy versus the needs of law >enforcement is unresolved -- transfers of large sums of cash across >borders would be untraceable. There would be no audit trail. Digital >counterfeiters could work from anywhere in the world and spend >currency in any and all places. New financial crimes and forms of >fraud could arise that would be hard to detect, and it would be >extremely difficult to locate the perpetrators. The task of financing >illegal and criminal activity would be easier by orders of magnitude. >E-cash will lower the barriers to entry and reduce the risks of >criminal activity. > >Most of the issues raised in the recent National Research Council >report on cryptography's role in the information society apply >directly to electronic cash. Secure, easily authenticated, and >anonymous e-cash requires strong encryption technology. Anonymous >transactions, however, cannot be restricted to law-abiding citizens. >Encryption makes it as difficult for enforcement authorities to track >criminal activity as it does for criminals to penetrate legitimate >transmissions. Should privacy be complete? Or should law enforcement >authorities and national security agencies be provided access to >e-cash transactions through escrowed encryption, for example? What >about U.S. restrictions on the export of strong encryption technology? >E-cash is global cash; how can governments limit its geographic >spread? Can they even suggest that strong encryption algorithms be >restricted territorially? > >GEOGRAPHIC SPACE VERSUS CYBERSPACE > >A recent U.S. Treasury paper dealing with the tax implications of >electronic commerce argues that new communications technologies have >"effectively eliminated national borders on the information highway." >It is clear from the paper's subsequent discussion, however, that the >more fundamental problem is that electronic commerce may "dissolve the >link between an income-producing activity and a specific location." >The source of taxable income, which plays a major role in determining >liability, is defined geographically in terms of where the economic >activity that produces the income is located. Therein lies the rub: >"Electronic commerce doesn't seem to occur in any physical location >but instead takes place in the nebulous world of 'cyberspace.'" In a >digital economy it will be difficult, or even impossible, to link >income streams with specific geographic locations. > >Digitalization is cutting money and finance loose from its geographic >moorings. The framework of regulation that governs financial >institutions assumes that customers and institutions are linked by >geography -- that spatial proximity matters. E-cash and e-commerce >snap that link. What remains are systems of economic and political >governance that are rooted in geography and are trying nonetheless to >deal with e-cash and markets that exist in cyberspace. The obvious >disconnect here will only worsen over time. > >The geographical rooting of political and economic authority is >relatively recent. Territorial sovereignty, borders, and a clear >distinction between domestic and international spheres are modern >concepts associated with the rise of the nation-state. Territorial >sovereignty implies a world divided into clearly demarcated and >mutually exclusive geographic jurisdictions. It implies a world where >economic and political control arise from control over territory. >The international financial system -- which consists of hundreds of >thousands of computer screens around the globe -- is the first >international electronic marketplace. It will not be the last. E-cash >is one manifestation of a global economy that is constructed in >cyberspace rather than geographic space. The fundamental problems that >e-cash poses for governance result from this disconnect between >electronic markets and political geography. > >The very idea of controlling the money supply, for example, assumes >that geography provides a relevant means of defining the scope of the >market. It assumes that economic borders are effective, that the flow >of money across them can be monitored and controlled, and that the >volume of money within a fixed geographic area is important. All of >those assumptions are increasingly questionable in a digital world >economy. > >Many of our basic tax principles assume that transactions and income >streams can be located precisely within a given national market. That >assumption is problematic when e-cash is spent on a computer network. >It is problematic when many important economic transactions cannot be >located, or may not even take place, in geographic space. > >The increasing irrelevance of geographic jurisdiction in a digital >world economy markedly increases the risks of fraud, money-laundering, >and other financial crimes. Asking where the fraud or money-laundering >took place means asking "Whose jurisdiction applies?" and "Whose law >applies?" We need to learn to deal with crimes that cannot be located >in geographic space, where existing concepts of national jurisdiction >are increasingly irrelevant. > >The term "disintermediation" was first used to describe the >replacement of banks as financial intermediaries by direct lending in >money markets when interest rates rose. It is often used in the world >of e-commerce to describe the elimination of intermediaries by direct >seller-to-buyer transactions over the Internet. Many observers argue >that e-cash is likely to disintermediate banks. Of more fundamental >importance is the possibility that e-cash and e-commerce will >disintermediate the territorial state. > >To be clear, I argue that we face not the end of the state, but rather >the diminished efficacy of political and economic governance that is >rooted in geographic sovereignty and in mutually exclusive territorial >jurisdiction. Questions such as: "Where did the transaction take >place?" "Where did the income stream arise?" " Where is the financial >institution located?" and "Whose law applies?" will lose meaning. >E-cash and e-commerce are symptoms, albeit important ones, of an >increasing asymmetry between economics and politics, between an >electronically integrated world economy and territorial nation-states, >and between cyberspace and geographic space. How this asymmetry will >be resolved and how economic and political relations will be >reconstructed are two of the critical questions of our time. > >WHAT IS TO BE DONE? > >The question asked here is not "What is feasible?" but "What are the >limits of the possible?" Whether the picture presented here is correct >in all -- or even some -- of its details is unimportant. A digital >world economy is emerging. Imagining possible scenarios is necessary >if we are to come to grips with the consequences of this revolution. >The purpose here is to raise problems rather than to solve them and to >imagine possible futures and think about their implications for >economic and political governance. A digital world economy will demand >increasing international cooperation, harmonizing national regulations >and legislation, and strengthening the authority of international >institutions. > >The harmonization of national regulations will help to prevent >institutions, such as those issuing e-cash, from slipping between >national jurisdictions or shopping for the nation with the least >onerous regulations. However, it will not address the basic problem of >the disconnect between geographic jurisdiction and an electronically >integrated global economy. > >If it is impossible to locate transactions geographically -- if the >flows of e-cash are outside of the jurisdictional reach of every >country -- then the harmonization of national regulations will >accomplish little. The basic problem is not one of overlapping or >conflicting jurisdictions; it stems from the lack of meaning of the >very concept of "jurisdiction" in a digitalized global economy. >The erosion of the viability of territorial jurisdiction calls for >strengthened international institutions. It calls for giving >international institutions real authority to measure, to control, and, >perhaps, to tax. The Basle Committee on Banking Supervision -- an >international body of bank regulators who set global standards -- >could perhaps be given the authority to collect information from >financial institutions wherever they are located and formulate and >enforce regulations globally. Interpol, or its equivalent, may have to >be given jurisdiction over financial crimes, regardless of where they >are committed. That does not mean a world government; it does mean a >markedly increased level of international cooperation. > >The questions we must face are whether territorial sovereignty will >continue to be viable as the primary basis for economic and political >governance as we enter the 21st century, and what the implications >will be for the American economy -- and Americans in general -- if we >refuse to cooperate internationally in the face of an increasingly >integrated global economy. > > --------------------- > >ELECTRONIC CASH: A GLOSSARY > >DIGITAL DATA: Information coded into a series of zeros and ones that >can be transmitted and processed electronically. > >DIGITAL SIGNATURE: A code that allows absolute authentication of the >origin and integrity of a document, check, or electronic cash that has >been sent over a computer network. A blind signature allows >authentication without revealing the identity of the sender. > >DISINTERMEDIATION: The substitution of direct transactions for those >that are mediated. The term originated when rising interest rates >caused savings to be withdrawn from banks -- whose interest rates were >capped -- and invested in money market instruments that were the >direct debts of borrowers. Banks were disintermediated. In electronic >commerce, the term refers to the rise of direct buyer-to-seller >relationships over the Internet, disintermediating wholesalers and >retail outlets. > >ELECTRONIC MONEY: Units or tokens of monetary value that take digital >form and are transmitted over electronic networks. Digital Value Units >are the basic units of denomination of electronic money; they may or >may not correspond to units of national currency. > >ENCRYPTION: The coding of information for security purposes, such as >credit card numbers or electronic cash used over the Internet. >Public-key encryption uses a mathematical algorithm comprising a pair >of strings of numbers to encrypt and decrypt the data. For example, >the sender would encrypt the data with the receiver's public key and >the receiver would decrypt with his or her private key. > >INTERNET: A global network of linked networks that allows >communication and the sharing of information among many different >types of computers. The World Wide Web is a graphical system on the >Internet that allows rapid movement between documents and computers >through the use of embedded (hypertext) links. > >SMART CARDS: A plastic card, similar to a credit card, containing a >microchip that can be used to retrieve, store, process, and transmit >digital data like electronic cash or medical information. > ----------------------- > >(Stephen J. Kobrin is the director of the Lauder Institute of >Management and International Studies and the William Wurster professor >of multinational management at the Wharton School of the University of >Pennsylvania. This paper develops themes raised at a discussion of >electronic money at the 1997 annual meeting of the World Economic >Forum in Davos, Switzerland.) ********************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: subscribe ignition-point email@address or unsubscribe ignition-point email@address ********************************************** http://www.telepath.com/believer ********************************************** ------- End of Forwarded Message

1 0

Is mixmaster dead?
by Russell Nelson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Lance hasn't updated his mixmaster page in over a year. Is mixmaster dead? -- -russ <nelson(a)crynwr.com> http://www.crynwr.com/~nelson | Freedom is the Crynwr Software supports freed software | PGPok | primary cause of peace. 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | Taxes feed the naked Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | and clothe the hungry.

5 6

6 weeks in jail for carrying vitamins [CNN]
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> MAN SPENDS 6 WEEKS IN JAIL AFTER VITAMINS MISTAKEN FOR HEROIN > > October 29, 1997 > Web posted at: 7:21 p.m. EST (0021 GMT) > > NORTH CHARLESTON, South Carolina (AP) -- For six weeks, Malvin > Marshall sat in jail because police thought he was carrying heroin > in his pocket. Police didn't believe him when he said it was mushy > vitamins. > > On Monday, the charges were dropped. Lab tests showed he was > carrying mushy vitamins. [remainder deleted]

6 6

Crypto FTP for NT?
by Evil Erik 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anyone know of a crypto based FTP for NT? At this point, freeware, shareware, commercial is fine.. We'd prefer not to have to roll our own.. (Yes, I know about F-Secure's SFTP, but that is still a few months off..) Thanks, -=erik.

1 0

PGP 5.5 available outside US
by Jeff A. Hale 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It seems that unknown Cypherpunks have yet again shown their disrespect of US export laws by exporting the latest version of PGP. The Windows version of PGP 5.5 is now available for your downloading pleasure at ftp://ftp.replay.com/pub/crypto/incoming/PGP55.zip PGP 5.5 features superior LDAP keyserver integration, multiple signature categories, and automatic decryption (set Preferences -> Email -> Automatically Decrypt). "You heard the rumors. Now try it yourself." :-) -- Lucky Green <shamrock(a)cypherpunks.to> PGP encrypted email preferred. "Tonga? Where the hell is Tonga? They have Cypherpunks there?"

1 0

[URGENT] Secure checksums
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Warning: if you fuck Timothy C[unt] May in the ass, a rabid tapeworm might bite your penis. \0/ \0/\ \ / / \0/ \0/ \0/\ \ / /\0/ \0/ Timothy C[unt] May | / /) | (\ | | / /) | (\ \ | / \__/\__/0\__/0\__/0\__/ \__/ \__/\__/0\__/0\__/0\__/\__/ \

2 1

WOMEN!! LIVE AND WAITING!!
by 1900＠qui.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

GUYS! WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU!!! WE'RE LIVE AND WAITING!!! 1-900-407-2273 Extension 4688 24 hr hotline USA ONLY $3.99 per min Must be 18 yrs. Procall Co. (602)631-0615 To be removed from this mailing list, auto-reply with remove in the subject field

1 0

The Anti-Privacy Agenda of Gary Burnore/DataBasix (was: Re: Netcom ripped me off)
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

moonman3(a)ix.netcom.com wrote: > > Close, except that you post under the pseudonym "moonman3" instead. > > So unless your "real name" is "Moonman", it's more of the typical > > hypocrisy that spews forth from Gary Burnore and the DataBasix gang. > > Since most of Gary's "supporters" (including you) seem to post from > > Netcruiser accounts with phony pseudonyms ("eridani", "moonman3", > > "wotan", "tweek", etc.) it's counter-productive for you to whine > > too loudly about posting with "real names". Could it be that Gary > > is pi**ed when he sees a post with which he disagrees and which > > doesn't have an address which he can "spam bait", mail bomb, etc.? > > moonman3(a)ix.netcom.com is my legitimate address. > > Too bad for you that you have to hide behind the skirts of a remailer. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Something about your childhood? > > > Gary Burnore could suddenly acquire even more "supporters" like you if he > > could only afford to pay for a few more throwaway Netcom accounts with > > cutesy "names". > > "eridani", "moonman3", "wotan", "tweek", etc. are all valid addresses. > We do not hide behind a remailer. More classic double-speak from the DataBasix Gang, I see... Nice try at changing the subject, but it's you, Gary Burnore <gburnore(a)databasix.com>, and Belinda Bryan <eridani(a)ix.netcom.com> that made such a pitiful whine about the need to post with "real names". It's irrelevant whether the pseudonyms you use at Netcom are "legitimate addresses" or not. Anonymity involves concealing your NAME, not your ADDRESS. Since your post does not contain your name, it's an ANONYMOUS post, just like mine is. Unless you're trying to claim that "moonman3" is your "real name", then you're a whining hypocrite. Personally, I don't care what your "real name" is. You have every right to "hide behind the skirts of" a pseudonym, if you so choose. But if you do so, you have no right to criticize someone who utilizes a remailer to protect his/her privacy rather than an ISP like Netcom. Like it or not, my e-mail address is my personal property. If I want someone to send e-mail to me, I'll give it to them. I need not broadcast it indiscriminately to accomplish that purpose. I need not subject myself to the abuse that seems to befall those who dare to publicly challenge Gary Burnore and his tactics as the price of free speech. Such abusive tactics are a form of de facto censorship. -- Without censorship, things can get terribly confused in the public mind. -- General William Westmoreland

1 0

Crypto-update: Magaziner on Clinton, Senate on crypto-czar
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Reminder: There //is// a DC cypherpunks meeting this Sunday afternoon! Email me for details if you don't have 'em yet. --Declan] ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 14:53:07 -0800 (PST) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship-announce(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Crypto-update: Magaziner on Clinton, Senate on crypto-czar Ira Magaziner, Clinton's Net-advisor, spoke today at the District of Columbia Bar Association, Computer and Telecommunications Law section conference. A brief report, as told to me by someone who was there: >Magaziner said Clinton and Gore specifically oppose mandatory >domestic key recovery. Said they're still fighting it >out within the administration and hope to work out a >reasonable compromise. Aligned himself pretty clearly >with the commercial, not the law enforcement side. Said >that when Freeh waves around the "four horsemen," he's >hard-pressed to come up with an informed answer. Said >NSA had been involved in lobbying on the Hill. Also, a Senate committee today approved the nomination of David "Crypto-Ambassador" Aaron to be Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade. Aaron has been for the last year trying to export the FBI's crypto-proposals for mandatory Big Brother cryptoware. (And unconfirmed reports say he's been getting into fights not just inside the OECD in Paris, but outside: apparently he's tussled with Parisian cabbies more than once...) Aaron's nomination now goes to the full Senate; no vote has been scheduled yet. -Declan

1 0

Swallow all liquids before reading this...
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

... as you may blow it all out your nose... Cheers, Bob Hettinga --- begin forwarded text Resent-Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 18:38:23 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: weber.ucsd.edu: procmail set sender to rre-request(a)weber.ucsd.edu using -f X-Authentication-Warning: weber.ucsd.edu: Processed from queue /usr/spool/mqueue/rqueue Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 18:31:31 -0800 (PST) From: Phil Agre <pagre(a)weber.ucsd.edu> To: rre(a)weber.ucsd.edu Subject: Appraising Microsoft and Its Global Strategy Conference Resent-From: rre(a)weber.ucsd.edu Reply-To: rre-maintainers(a)weber.ucsd.edu X-URL: http://communication.ucsd.edu/pagre/rre.html X-Mailing-List: <rre(a)weber.ucsd.edu> archive/latest/1714 X-Loop: rre(a)weber.ucsd.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: rre-request(a)weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help(a)weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= [I don't have the original header.] Appraising Microsoft and Its Global Strategy Conference November 13 and 14, 1997 The Omni Shoreham Hotel Washington, D.C. Please join Scott McNealy, CEO of Sun Microsystems, Roberta Katz, General Counsel for Netscape Communications and Christine Varney, Former Federal Trade Commissioner among others at the Appraising Microsoft and Its Global Strategy Conference cosponsored by Ralph Nader and Essential Information. The following is a list of confirmed speakers: Garth Saloner, Stanford University Morgan Chu, Irell & Manella Roberta Katz, General Counsel for Netscape Communications Audrie Krause, NetAction Bill Wendel, The Real Estate Cafe Scott McNealy, CEO of Sun Microsystems Christine Varney, Former FTC Commissioner Ralph Nader, Consumer Advocate Steve Susman, Susman and Godfrey Gary L. Reback, Esq., Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati Financial services: Bill Randle, VP Huntington Bancshares Consumer products: CEO and President Philip Monego, NetChannel Bryan Sparks, CEO Caldera, Inc. James P. Love, Consumer Project on Technology Graham Lea, Principal Analyst of Heterodox (London) Andrew Schulman, Consulting Editor O'Reilly and Association Steve Hill, Esq., Snow Christensen Rick Ross, Java Lobby Daniel Nachbar, Public Software Institute John Perry Barlow, Co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation Sam Goodhope, Texas Attorney General's Office. Wendy Goldman Rohm, author Please see our web page for more information and registration materials. If more than five people from your organization/company would like to attend, we will give a 30% registration discount. http://www.appraising-microsoft.org/ For more information please call Caroline Jonah or Donna Colvin at (202)387-8030. --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/ Ask me about FC98 in Anguilla!: <http://www.fc98.ai/>

1 0

Re: poverty traps (Re: Sa
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Harka wrote: > -=> Quoting In:anon@anon.efga.org (Monty Cantsin) to Harka <=- > > In> The government is not Janice's friend. It takes away $18,000 > In> from her each year and plunges her into poverty, sort of. If > In> you are appealing to the government to assist Janice, first > In> ask it to get the hell out of the way. (I realize you may > In> just be saying that Janice's plight is unavoidable, not that > In> she should be helped with government money.) > >Hmm, we all agree, that the government is not somebody to be trusted >to be your friend. However, we also know the amount of laws possible >to "violate" and the consequences that would have. And one of the >worst things you can do is evading taxes. At least when they clamp >down on you. Not something, I'd recommend to a mother of four kids >(that she really doesn't want to give up to >government-so-schill-workers). Jim Choate commented on that already, >so I save further words. Ignoring the ethical issues (Is it ethical to lie about your income? Is it ethical to break the law?), the consequences would probably not be too severe, if there were any consequences at all. We've seen several cabinet level people conspire to shield their employees from paying income tax and at least one of them (Ron Brown) did not even leave office. Nobody went to jail. Or, consider the record for prostitutes. How often do they go to jail for neglecting to pay income tax? Never, I believe. Prosecution would be hard after all, they receive cash and they spend cash. You could also do other low risk or even legal things like trading services. Maybe a discount is given to parents who will watch Janice's kids once in awhile. Maybe they trade services for food. Etc. Etc. > In> Janice should be baby sitting. Were she to take in 4 kids at > In> $500/month, she would make as much as her job and be able to > In> watch her own kids during the same time. > >True in short-term. But after 8 kids have been rummaging around in >your apartment every day (even without licence and off-the-books and >all that stuff) you can definitely expect to spend a couple of grands >on repairs in a matter of a month. You would be of more help to your friend Janice if you did not try to find reasons for her to fail. The reality is that 8 kids will not cause thousands of dollars of damage every month. Also, I left some play in my calculations. She doesn't actually have to make $2000 a month to break even because she already "makes" $1000 by watching her own kids. That means she only has to make $1000 each month to break even with her job. Let's say the tax rate is 50% (it's much lower), and she charges $500/month per kid. Then, 4 kids will result in an income of $1000/month. There's still some fat there. We haven't computed how much she'll save in work related expenses. You mentioned $120/month in mass transit costs. How much for clothing? If she has to dress professionally, $1000/year is quite a conservative figure. (Don't forget dry cleaning.) And we haven't considered the fact that she can charge more money because she is a babysitter and not a daycare center. > In> The food is generous because four of the five are kids, the > In> oldest only being 12. Kids don't each much. > >You're confirming my suspicion about not having kids :) Seriously, I don't think my figures are inaccurate. How much can a three year old eat? And, incidentally, I doubt very much that you or Janice even know with any accuracy what her actual expenses are. Janice should be tracking every expense to the penny. She should review her spending on a regular and scheduled basis to see where she could be spending it better. An adult who is not all that careful can comfortably buy enough food for $200/month. But, Janice should be more than careful. She should be fanatic about lowering this expense. This will work better if she looks at as an interesting puzzle to work out rather than a chore. She should practice vegetarianism. Not only that, she should be carefully studying other poor people for ideas on how to get by on just a little income. Peasants of India, Mexico, and China will all have interesting tricks. For instance, the stereotypical Mexican diet of corn and beans just turns out to be an optimal combination. The amino acids missing from the corn are found in the beans and vice versa. (How a bunch of "ignorant" peasants figured this out is a mystery to me.) There are many books on living inexpensively on a vegetarian diet. They tend to have titles like "Chinese Cooking on 25 Cents a Day". These books may be found at the library, or at a used bookstore, or even be borrowed. It is somewhat ironic that you can spend much less money and eat better than most Americans. Also, she should hunt up a food coop. I am sure there is one in her area. Usually you can volunteer some nominal amount of time and receive at least a 10% discount. Sometimes more. Also, buying staples in bulk can dramatically lower costs. (Best to make sure you like lentils before buying a fifty pound sack, though.) Food coops usually have people around who know a whole lot about living inexpensively. They may also have a lending library. Anyway, you will find (hopefully) that there are thousands of ways to improve one's situation. They (usually) aren't painful - when you find a new one it's fun. After awhile you discover you are not in a bad situation any more. Isn't that exciting? >Talking about freedom at the same time then is an oxymoron and you're >confirming my "criticisms about the free market" (Yes Tim, I have >re-considered my position without changing my perspective in the >end). Capitalism in it's current form does not allow for individual >freedom for most people (exceptions apply), because they have to make >the money to be free (independent). If that requires doing for >years, what you don't want to do (working in computers, although you >hate them and all you really want to do is paint and live as an >artist but can't afford to, for example), then that means by >definition, that freedom has to be given up. At least temporarely and >as mentioned before, that can be a _very_ long time for most people >(who have been born into the "wrong" families, for example). But of course you have to do things you don't want to do to put food on the table! This is true everywhere. The key question is this: why should somebody else labor all summer so you'll have food in the winter? All a "free market" advocate is saying is that you should not force the other guy to raise your food. You have to persuade him to do it for you, perhaps by doing something for him in return. If you think about it for awhile you will realize that this is a profoundly pacifistic belief. And a very reasonable and realistic one. If nobody else values your natural painting talent it won't be of much use getting food on the table. You'll have to find something else you can do for other people which they want and which you don't mind doing. How could this possibly be unjust? >Cypherpunks sometimes tend to become somewhat theoretical about >things, neglecting the possibility, that it may not apply on a >larger (real-life)scale. No, you don't understand the idea. You are looking at it like this: "How can we engineer this system so that everybody will do just fine (by my definition.)" The Cypherpunk point of view, to the extent there is such a thing, is something like this: "It is not right to dictate to other people what their life choices should be." People will make mistakes. People will get unlucky. Some people will get very unlucky and die (early). Most Cypherpunks prefer this to a world where we all live in little cells and have food brought every day. One way to solve the problems of the Janices in the world is to tell them what to do: Do not raise four kids. Do not get a lame degree. Do not get divorced. This would solve Janice's "problems". So what's wrong with the picture? Well, Janice apparently wanted four kids. She apparently wanted a degree in education instead of computer science. How can we judge whether getting married wasn't a worthwhile risk? How can we judge the value Janice places on her children? The answer is: we can not and should not. But, likewise, just because Janice took some chances and it led to minor problems, that does not mean that anybody else is obligated to worry about them. The problems Janice has are called "real life". Things may not be what she wants right now, but they result from her choices and her decisions. To me, and most Cypherpunks, that is preferable. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNFOteJaWtjSmRH/5AQFy4Qf9FwMV1Swp0YSwuaSNhaSnaUGpIe9B6Ndf m3eaSiiOhcQXaJH88CUUYUz2RvYqxqFpjfDp7Wzik9yncwuOHR1sd+LKzcAcD437 5DehzEhxnRSLBwVGVXy94FmLUXaEJCw5woedEhOa9GOPw2e8LUYkKOjG074Od1V1 Gs6XnBMnx/oa0lI1RNBi2oWbfBFzNSCiv24pp5PeMZVkb4e/MB51HOhv8FhH/f2J Te1SF/w2awXbv0BU8B4bZAc660DMVaXgi+uqMs2gUB6HRqmOjek3fuVK0cS8YRzC TMJSMehCZJbcoPEI+RkK2mnTqoivqdRdnYD4CnjiJ4KuSsqmGDWVNw== =oSqR -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Choices
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >However, having a choice in matters does not imply the guarantee of >making the _right_ choices. That is exactly correct. >In fact, even society acknowledges that fact by making certain >choices available only after a certain point in life, such as voting, >marriage, driving, drinking etc.etc on the ground, that making such >decisions requires a certain level of insight and maturity. FYI, these discussions are about free adults. Not about dependents like children. >But there's _still_ no guarantee for making right choices even after >the "magical" age of 18 (or 21). Yep! >The only thing one can do is to gather enough information in order to >make the best choice based on available information and conditions >_known_ to you _at that time_. Right on! >And here's also the catch. By making a certain choice, one does >usually _not_ choose the consequences of his/her actions consciously! >In fact, the possible consequences may not even be foreseeable, >predictable or expected in any way! I guess we have to do our best anyway! But, seriously, most of the possible outcomes we are aware of. You gave the example of driving. Everybody knows that having an accident is a possible outcome of driving. >Let's take the example of Janice one more time (violins for Monty:)): >certainly her decision to get married and have 4 kids was her >personal and free choice at that time. >But it was not foreseeable nor expectable for her, that her husband >would take off after a while for another chick, leaving her with the >kids and a bunch of bills to pay! She obviously knew it was a possibility. I mean, look around you! It happens all the time. This used to be the reason people formed marriage contracts. They used to be respected and when not respected enforced. (Incidentally, Janice's child support payment is absurdly low. This is a situation where a marriage contract would really have some value. Funny how the government isn't protecting women and children anymore - you would almost think they didn't really care.) >Thus she married him and later did what every wife would do: >supporting him while he went to school instead of keeping the money >for herself as a backup-cushion in case he leaves. Her decision, though. Too bad it didn't work out better. It is a great tragedy of our society that marriage contracts cannot be freely made and that the terms and conditions are not enforced. For the most part women and children pay the price. (Also, the fact that pre-nuptial agreements are not consistently followed by the courts is tragic. Obviously, if you are wealthy you should be able to marry without exposing yourself to gold diggers.) >Is that really so out of the ordinary a choice?? Just because you go with the herd does not mean you did not make a mistake. But, really, I'm not convinced that Janice did make a mistake. Some people really want to have children. Some people really want to have a nice stable marriage which lasts decades. To get that you have to take chances. Sometimes it won't work out. That's life. But that doesn't mean that it wasn't worth a try. >But even if one is able to make fairly good decisions overall in >life: you may not have previous conditions necessary to make certain >choices. > >If you're born into a poor family, who just can't afford to send you >to College, how much of a choice to study will you have in that >event? More likely is, that you'll have to work and aid in the >support of the family instead of going to College. > >But are you to be held responsible for the conditions that you are >born into or grow up under? Ummm....who else should be responsible? >Clearly not. As you go along in life, one's personal ability to >influence your surroundings, conditions and overall life increase >(with right effort). But to expect everybody to be able to make >certain choices in a certain (right) way, or even expecting those >choices being available, is not based on the realities of life but a >mere projection from _your_ reality onto "theirs". But, what you are on your way to imposing is your reality on everybody else. This is implied by your skepticism of the "free market". If people are not allowed to freely make choices and arrangements with each other, it is implied that somebody else will be making choices and arrangements for them. >So is the statement of "screw 'em all" (if they weren't able to make >certain choices for reasons we don't know about). The "screw 'em all" statements usually arise when people begin to claim that because somebody has done well they should help other people who have done poorly. Often, perhaps in Tim's case for example, the person making the statement also started in a less than ideal situation and through stubborness and years of hard work, investing, and luck managed to do quite well. To have some worthless rotter come along and claim they are somehow entitled to your hard work and perseverance can be known to cause great anger. Try putting yourself in somebody else's shoes. >Not only does it lack basic notions of humanity, such as caring for >other people,... Actually, most of humanity only mildly cares, at best, about people they do not know. Consider those poor people. Many of them spend many tens of hours each week watching television when they could be learning new skills, fixing up the house, or making their lives better. They could also be cleaning up their neighborhood, helping the people that live around them, or just volunteering in the soup kitchens. For the most part, poor people don't spend any time to speak of helping out other people. It isn't because they can't - it's because they are not inclined to do so. >...but also devalues the human ability to learn and change. I completely disagree with this. The "screw 'em all" statement is actually an exhortation for these people to take responsibility for their own lives. It's a recognition that people do have the ability to learn and change but that other people can't do it for them. It's also a recognition that if they will not learn and change that they better not show up at the May house looking for handouts! >Just because you were young and careless (out of lack of >understanding at that time) or you were born in a slum in Rio de >Janeiro (or NYC) shouldn't mean, that you should still get "screwed" >for it when you're fifty or you now deserve the dis-respect of >society and no chances anymore. You may have never had them... There are very few people who never had a chance. But, let's say you do manage to find somebody who fits that description. Who do you believe should help them? In my opinion, since you claim to care, you should help them. >While technically it is probably correct to say, that current >conditions are caused by previous actions (different people have >different expressions for that: karma, choices, fate etc.), there's >no justification for suffering and certainly none for watching it >passively and saying "they deserve it", IMHO. BTW, do you actually express your care for other people by helping them in any way? My guess is that you don't. (By "help" I mean actual help such as giving them food or shelter or something like that. I do not mean helping by belonging to some political party or other.) >While technically it is probably correct to say, that current >conditions are caused by previous actions (different people have >different expressions for that: karma, choices, fate etc.), there's >no justification for suffering and certainly none for watching it >passively and saying "they deserve it", IMHO. There is plenty of pain and suffering in the world and instead of working hard every day from morning to night alleviating it you are living in New York City and sending messages to the cypherpunks list. Wrong? By your standards it should be. In my case, I prefer writing these little essays to helping poor people. Most people make this sort of choice all the time. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNFPBeJaWtjSmRH/5AQHAzgf+LlwFk/ZuRwhF02fcnfmHqGyd5477FIkC FSYCdVBPX/g6270tgCJw0sGbJTOrpVncPWNQzVCQp8tQZAsWMfWDO6rMFmCthWQy CAnjA4xWbh6GlcV28wEGlv55C134FAin9GiJU+D87Zn+p1WRVzPKBPOAe8AXQtde a467+TGJtBDVLEcgI5GdjD2VLlo600oNti2kWSyr9G5yRTKhOglm9F0y8antP5Hq td9bjXEUX7Debd8Vb5Y4DJfkdQnYXQztsMDfdgr7XRLZKhdIVbrMbkXBcCVsyP7m Y7S2h3p/fdyDD8gPXrJWr3Dhm393MGW8BraO6zONz0TBf9cJI0Wsug== =jgE6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Kent Square and TiennaChinc State
by Yoshiwara Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

BillyJ, the sex criminal, picking up where RichardM, the B&E artist, left off, is badmouthing the Chinese over their version of Kent State. Our Ambassador to the Home of the Orange Mennace (Led + Yarrow) is badmouthing the Chinese forced-labor camps, ignoring the US pigmentation criminals working for the Telecos and the Silicos for dimes on the dollar of what they would have to pay non-prison labor. In private conferences, these world fuckers/leaders are undoubtedly sharing a monstrous laugh over their public rhetoric. BillyJ: "See, first we kick them off welfare. Then, after Sprint turns down their job application and they turn to dealing drugs to feed their children, we put them in prison. Then we sell their labor to Sprint for a fraction of what their work is worth. "Everyone wins! Except for the taxpayer....HAHAHAHAHA!" Bonus Question: "What do you call a fat Chink?" Bonus Answer: "A 'Chunk'!" RacistLibertarianMonger

3 2

Location of PGP 5.0
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Where can I find a copy of PGP 5.0 which handles this "SHA1" hash extension, and the new forced incompatabilities? I'm looking for a Linux distribution. All I've found are Windoze versions, really old betas which break *everything* which calls PGP from a script or command line, and betas which have a lame expired timebomb in them. Source is prefered for obvious reasons. Any ideas? (Yes, I'm in the U.S.)

4 3

Re: Killing those who need killing
by Killfile Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May wrote: > (Personally, were I to be arrested and held on such false charges, I'd > consider it necessary to kill those who illegally held me. Preferably from > a safe distance, with a sniper rifle. But then I'm a right wing libertarian > whacko.) Been there..done that...stole the T-shirt...got out of Dodge, without getting killed or caught. The Usual Suspect

1 0

Re: [cpe:3185] Re: rescue Mrs Allen from the Feds (Re: Tim's worst nightmare.,..)
by nobody＠neva.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Adam Back wrote: >The Gandi style walk in, in numbers walk off with Mrs Allen :-) What are >they going to do, shoot 1000 unarmed citizens? You could probably do it with one church congregation's worth of people. >This kind of tactic works quite well for tyrants who have become too >civilised. Or, perhaps the basis of political power is a general acceptance of the rulers among the ruled and acts which would disrupt this acceptance are more dangerous to the government than you would think. Amnesty International has been successful just by organizing massive letter writing expressing disapproval of the treatment of particular political prisoners. The regimes affected could not reasonably be described as "civilized." For that matter, the U.S. and British governments have not always been so nice when they didn't think anybody was looking. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNFeNCpaWtjSmRH/5AQFadgf+KpU2Vb9nvVH4HZVz4wuRo+NQ+Z4mH6DS Z7OKthsTnikIOINtApRCyq9OhmwvQ/5mJa5mVFBj/GTH90DCK/vyajjF/61AOFsC 6np45kDapHlYp1naCDi3WZwuthbOgJfsCN/66s/1ql9FsaoBoMn7MAn6K81SauOW duZ8QpSIFhighF1f717Pj2vnypswJIwIGwr6XIRoyNLYZBUh/mFvMbHSoq6TH9FG lNuOV7ZSNMqKJji7yNHylQ6PtOZvH1wNJqNplzyfBumq1yenQ9I1kbq8udruDcRt Snn6kVuDfRwMHZ3Bihro+QvLmd89jCcOFh25DJMTMJf8eKJ6207Sww== =Laph -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: <<Vitamin B>>(October 28, 1997) The Power of Ecobabble
by nobody＠neva.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- While I know nothing of Bionomics, Professor Krugman's ill-tempered essay intrigues me. Robert Hettinga wrote that VitaminB(a)bionomics.org wrote that Paul Krugman wrote in Slate: > Take, for starters, his assertion that "orthodox economics describes > the 'economy as a machine.' " You might presume from his use of > quotation marks that this is something an actual economist said, or > at least that it was the sort of thing that economists routinely > say. But no economist I know thinks of the economy as being anything > like a machine--or believes, as Rothschild asserts a bit later, that > because the economy is like a machine, it is possible to make > precise predictions. "Methinks the lady doth protest too much." While hard core economists may not describe the economy as a machine, the popular literature, such as that found in news stories on "the economy", almost always uses machine metaphors. "The economy was in danger of becoming overheated, so the Fed raised interest rates." The metaphors which people choose often have powerful political implications. After all, if the economy is sort of like a machine, then it makes sense to have trained professionals who tune that machine to operate with optimal efficiency. It is not hard to figure out why the ruling elite prefers this metaphor to some others that could be chosen. For instance, you could say the economy is an elaborate network of relationships based on trust. You could say that employment occurs when two or more people agree to exchange goods or services. Let's say unemployment figures are up. If you believe the economy is like a machine, then you will believe that there should be a central planning organization like the Fed that should lower interest rates. If you believe that the unemployment goes down when people form employment relationships, you may think about ways to remove obstacles to the formation of these relationships. Note that the second more reasonable approach does not promote the interests of a national ruling elite. > In just the last two years, I've learned that I believe that gross > domestic product is the sole measure of economic welfare... In popular economics GDP is used almost exclusively as a measure of success. I strongly suspect that when Krugman says he himself does not believe this, that he has some other set of statistical measures which he considers to be better measures of success. If this is the case, then he has completely missed the point. Such statistical measures are sensible when one accepts that the purpose of economics is to best instruct the rulers of a society in their economic policy decisions. In such a framework, the rulers decide what is good and then decide how to cause that good to increase. The only problem with this is that it neglects to consider the preferences of individual people. It is highly unlikely that their economic behavior is dictated by the authorities for their own best interest because the authorities have no way of knowing what that best interest might be. People have their own beliefs and preferences on that subject. For example, a small island nation in the Pacific is highly regarded as an "economic success". One of the features of this society is that government provided or subsidized housing is widely available. People who wish to spend their money on having a nice apartment like this. But, many people may prefer to live in less expensive surroundings and spend the money they save on other things, or to simply work less. Krugman supports my theory about his beliefs later when he says: > But it does not deify the market system, and it even offers a number > of fairly well-defined ways in which markets can fail, or at least > could be helped with government intervention. And that, for some > conservatives, is just not good enough. We do not see any examples of "market failures" and, indeed, the people Krugman refers to would probably not see them as failure at all. It seems highly likely that Krugman has committed the sin he accuses the Bionomicists of committing: he doesn't truly understand the philosophy he is criticizing. Also interesting is Krugman's obvious discomfiture with people who would explore the ideas of the Bionomicists. It may be the case that the Bionomics crowd does not thoroughly understand classical economics or evolutionary biology. This would not be the first time that people on the fringes of several disciplines came up with new ideas which transformed the field. (Take J. Kepler, the professional astrologer. Kepler had many totally wacked out theories. He believed completely in astrology. He believed the Earth was a living organism and the tides were related to its breathing. He believed the orbits of the planets were distributed in relationship to the Platonic solids. And, get this, he believed that the area a planetary radius swept out in time was constant.) Obviously, Bionomics might be fraught with errors, oversimplifications, and misrepresentations. In spite of this, there may be ideas that would interest an open minded professional. Even Marxists occasionally come up with an interesting observation, after all. So, Krugman's hostility to the exploration of ideas strikes me as a little odd for a professor. Take his final paragraph for an example: > Anyway, I guess I won't attend the conference. I would have liked to > meet Benford; but I couldn't stand to watch the author of _Great Sky > River_ demeaning himself by consorting with such disreputable > company. Somehow I can hear an upper class Victorian mother telling her son: "You should not be seen with that girl. She's much too common." Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNFebtJaWtjSmRH/5AQEKUQf7B0XnUn1xwIbIcLFMDUDpL8HEaDb3bclO syR2QJCvMa4BsjPKHWGRa5pEDNLdXfiQt0bXYZ+9WzVrr18VlAFJ2pqWoxv3PW76 YqDbfhGCwmseo8EzoRen5PEnxkZuNN+KKN92dEaEfj8NJMwBVZ2V5443HlPXxTWA TXxZIeFYgldndpgIdqFxIc4qnVtrJbsGI1YrzbCNeeTgTKg8d1oZlDVDMbLDGeyx wyb3hwzTB2wiLiLsTjhlcONEdbu0bwGUu7F3l60+C9JZjn3DWgl/+y562kejfcKP LgdSplUSc8gFrR3bCFufpyOOGFDgp0keV3SRWOaO8i/N2N+l/XhI3w== =iy9O -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Clinton's Bigger Gun Ban
by Tim May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I wrote: --- The Klinton Klan has already effectively banned imported SKS ammo (7.62x29, as I recall, given that I don't have any rifles chambering this popular round). --- Before you rush to correct me, I _meant_ to write "7.62x39" of course. (A round used by the Chinese, Soviet, and East Bloc nations, and roughly equivalent to the American M-16 round, known either as the .223 or 5.56mm. The NATO "7.62" is in a longer case length. 7.62x54, as I recall. Known in America as .308. --Tim May The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^2,976,221 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1

Discount Full-Service Travel
by globaladventures＠alluwant.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Good Morning, We were given your name as someone who enjoys (or must) travel. Global Adventures Travel Service is a full service, wholesale and retail travel agency. Combining high-tech and high-touch to deliver an unparalleled level of customer service. We have divisions specializing in Domestic and International Leisure Tours, Cruises, Business, Corporate, Singles, Seniors, and Last Minute Adventures. Our prices are always low and service always high... For a few current .specials. (as of 10/06/97), please hit reply and put the word "SPECIALS." in the subject line and push send for an automated response. For a personal response, press reply, do not change subject, and just ask.... we will be glad to help! Thank You for your time... The Crew at Global Adventures Travel Service /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// If you would like to be taken off our mailing list....please hit reply and type the word 'remove' in the subject field and you will be omitted from Global Adventures future mailings.... ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

1 0

Where are another cypherpunk
by Nobuki Nakatuji 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Where are another cypherpunk mailinglist ? ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

2 1

Information Security Policies
by scannmann＠nevwest.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Security Policies To Go! Don't re-invent the wheel. Get the most comprehensive source of information security policies available. Information Security Policies Made Easy (version 6) is a collection of 840 already-written policies in book and CD-ROM. ISPME is the fastest and most expedient way to write new and /or revise existing information security policies. Use your favorite word processing package and cut and paste from these ready-to-go policies, justification statements, and other supporting materials. Generate a complete policy statement in five minutes or less. It Includes extensive instructions which provide practical advice about the policy development process. Applicable to organizations throughout the world, the book/CD-ROM provides policies covering a broad range of topics including: Internet, intranets, firewalls, network security, contingency planning, computer viruses, electronic payment systems, web surfing activity monitoring, Java, macroviruses, data classification, push information distribution, software development, intellectual property rights, password management, and much more. The latest version also includes ten skeleton policies which are ready-to-go complete policy statements. These skeleton policies can be used as is or expand them with other policies from the book. ISPME provides everything needed to write standards and communicate them in a clear, concise manner. Check out our web site for further details -- www.baselinesoft.com or contact us via e-mail info(a)baselinesoft.com or call us today (800) 829-9955 (USA & Canada) (415) 332-7763. Here are what people are saying about ISPME: "It saved me thousands of hours and thousands of dollars." -- J. P., Capital Blue Cross "An excellent source for policies on new technologies. Great to have it on CD." -- B. S. F., CISSP, The Vanguard Group "Excellent reference, I would recommend this book to all policy writers." -- R. M., Atlantic Lottery Corporation. "Wood has hit a home run with this one!" -- B. A., Rekam Graphics

1 0