December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Postal Inspection (was Common Carriers...)
by jdd＠aiki.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In message <9408082050.AA26145(a)smds.com> FutureNerd Steve Witham writes: > That reminds me. I once got a conference announcement from Europe > in the mail. Printed on the envelope was a little icon showing a > profile of the head of a guy wearing a hat (like a policeman or > mailman's hat), and an arrow pointing from about his eye level to a > picture of an open envelope. This looked like the original envelope, > untouched, and the icon seemed to have been there from the start. What was the conference about? (If the icon was printed on the envelope, I suspect that it represented the topic of the conference or the group sponsoring it.) -- Jim Dixon

1 0

Re: e$
by jdd＠aiki.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In message <9408072158.memo.40958(a)BIX.com> peace(a)bix.com writes: > I can recall that many years back the casinos in Las Vegas all > accepted the chips from the other ones and then had a great > exchange each day where the accounts were settled up. Even the > gift shops took chips in place of cash. The US Treasury put a stop > to this as it was considered to be a replacement for cash. > > Also I hear a lot about bearer bonds, but never in the US. OTOH > the NYC subways have started a cash card that they expect merchants > to accept in lieu of coins. It would be nice to know what the Feds > will or won't accept. BTW, does it matter if the e$ are US denominated? > Could e$ be presented as travelers checks? The possibilities here are > extremely interesting. There is a small point to be made here which I think is really a big point. The US government does not object to the use of financial instruments so long as they are backed by the US $ (or another accepted currency). Most of us use such financial instruments daily -- checks and credit cards, for examples. Most financial transactions involve no cash at all. If an e$ is backed by US $1.00, the government will not object. The government objects if you create an alternative currency. Barter systems based on scrip are an alternative currency, and therefore illegal. If you had $1,000,000 in the bank and wrote out and signed 1,000,000 checks for $1.00 each, I think that these could be traded without violating any laws. But if you issue $e carelessly, you will probably find that you are acting as a bank, and therefore violating several Federal laws. You also need to be concerned about Federal regulations covering the import and export of money. I think that at $5,000 or $10,000 you have to report the transaction. I believe that the forms issued on airplanes make it clear that checks and other financial instruments are included. The action taken to stop the exchange of tokens between casinos would seem to contradict this. It would be useful if someone were able to find more information on this. The legal point might be that the tokens simply had an amount written on them ("$100) with no currency specified and without the name of a bank directed to pay this amount -- having said this, I am reasonably sure that they would not allow banks to pay out against their tokens, and so therefore they would definitely represent an alternative currency, and not an IOU. -- Jim Dixon

3 2

Re: <null>
by merriman＠metronet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>In article <199408062304.AA24750(a)xs4all.hacktic.nl> you wrote: > >: The jurisdiction where this remailer could be located, preferably >: shouldn't care about pornografy. [Holland, Scandinavia ?] > >Pornografy isn't illegal in the Netherlands, but -contrary to popular >believe- child pornografy *IS* illegal in the Netherlands. > But what is the age of consent for such in the Netherlands? I believe I saw on an educational TV program here in the U.S. that the age of consent in the Netherlands was 14. If so, what affect does that have on what is considered "child pornography"? [before the flames start, I would like to point out that my question is 'scholarly' :-] Dave Merriman

2 1

Re: What are Appropriate Topics?
by snyderra＠dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 2:58 AM 8/5/94, Timothy C. May wrote: >First off, my sincere apologies to Bob Snyder for quoting and >responding to his e-mail to me, without realizing he had not cc:ed it >to the list as well. I'm so used to replying to the author and then >having to manually cc: the Cyherpunks list that it was not until I got >the message quoted below that I realized his comments were private. I >will try to be more careful. > >Partly it was his civil tone that misled me--it read like a post to >the list, and not a personal note. In any case, my apologies to Bob. No problem. I'll try to remember to flame you next time. :-) >At least in my messages, I was not arguing merely statism vs. >libertarianism, or some such stale abstraction, but the specific issue >of taxation in the face of strong crypto and privacy, and the >oxymoronic nature of "volunteer governments." (I also think there are >issues related to privately-produced law which folks on this list >ought to know about, as it is the likely form of crypto anarchic law, >such as it is. The connections with crypto are quite strong, as it is >untraceable communication and commerce which makes these discretionary >communities possible.) OK. Perhaps I misread your article. I appear to have erased it from my Cypherpunks mailbox, or I'd reread it. I was reacting primarily to your initial comments on why you felt it should be on the list. I don't object to (and am happy to see) discussions of "applied" cryptography on the list, such as tax laws in the presence of cryptography. I would only object to the discussion of government in the abscence of either a (preferably) cryptological reference, or a privacy one. >As for pure crypto being discussed on the list, there's a fair amount >of that. I've posted my share of explanations of zero knowledge proof >systems, dining cryptographers protocols, complexity theory, etc. I'm >not saying this to defend myself, per se, but to note that these >topics produced almost no discussion, almost no interest. Make of this >what you will. Yes, and I appreciate you doing so. I try to work though such postings, and often check with _Applied Cryptography_ for more background. But I usually don't have any response for it. "Oh, no, that's completely wrong"? :-) Such postings are often a stretch for me, with my limited math background, and this isn't an appropriate place to ask the kind of math questions that would bring me up to speed. >And a dozen other juicy topics. If people want to debate these and >similar issues, we should *encourage* them to, not announce that the >topics are deviating from some imagined idea of the charter. I agree. I should apologize then, for misunderstanding your posting. My only concern was that the thread was going to start out without any cryptological reference, and who knows where it could veer from there. :-) The topics you listed (and I deleted in this response) appear to me to be perfectly legitimate topics. >It's generally best, I think, to lead by example. Instead of >pronouncing a topic to be off-limits or not consistent with the >charter, why not find a way to make what you *are* interested in also >interesting to others? That's how we'll move forward into new areas. I don't disagree with this. But this takes a skill set I'm still working to acquire; enough knowledge of cryptological concepts to start a discussion. And I don't mean to sound like I'm trying to set the Cypherpunks' agenda. I know what I would like to see here, and I phrase my responses as such. I hope I'm not one of the "complainers and the enforcers of dogma" Eric Hughes mentioned in his post. Bob -- Bob Snyder N2KGO MIME, PGP, RIPEM mail accepted snyderra(a)post.drexel.edu PGP & RIPEM keys on key servers When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl.

1 0

(fwd) Anonymous posters & Misinformation = Net pollution
by nzook＠math.utexas.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Path: math.utexas.edu!news.dell.com!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!reuter.cse.ogi.edu!netnews.nwnet.net!news.u.washington.edu!mcdaniel From: mcdaniel(a)u.washington.edu (McDaniel) Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,news.admin.policy Subject: Anonymous posters & Misinformation = Net pollution Date: 7 Aug 1994 08:13:45 GMT Organization: University of Washington Lines: 39 Message-ID: <32253p$220(a)news.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: stein4.u.washington.edu Keywords: misinformation disinformation propaganda net anon anonymous Xref: math.utexas.edu talk.politics.misc:239273 news.admin.policy:19179 The problem: Anonymous posters supplying pseudo-news reports or otherwise wasting bandwidth in groups more concerened with fact or atleast genuine concerns (such as political talk groups and sci groups.) The soultion: Limited anonymous posters to forums where accountability for what one says is of little concern (such as rec groups where applicable.) OR provide the owners of moderated groups with detailed accounts of the true identity of any anonymous poster who post to a serious newsgroup and make that procedure known to the would-be anonymous user. I attempted recently to secure the actual address of an anon poster who deliberetly spread misinformation concerning a non-existant U.S. Presidential Executive Order and a news-look-alike story dealing with proven falsehoods. Needless to say the administrator of the popular anon.penet.fi server has not been cooperative. I suggest that groups wishing to deal with issues based a little stronger in reality ban anonymous posters and encourage their posters NEVER to repeat information supplied by anonymous posters elsewhere. Some groups have already come to that same conclusion. I believe that anonymous posting is a valuable service in many forums. However, it seems that service is being abused in political and technical newsgroups. I suppose yet another solution would be to make widely known the general untrustability of anonymous posters in groups where truth and fact are paramount. But this letter should go a tiny ways towards that goal. Opinions? -McDaniel

1 0

(fwd) Re: Anonymous posters & Misinformation = Net pollution
by nzook＠math.utexas.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Path: math.utexas.edu!news.dell.com!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!usc!rand.org!usenet From: Jim Gillogly <jim(a)acm.org> Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,news.admin.policy Subject: Re: Anonymous posters & Misinformation = Net pollution Date: 7 Aug 1994 15:17:31 GMT Organization: Banzai Institute Lines: 51 Message-ID: <2o7sni$4!nb(a)bogus-site.org> References: <32253p$220(a)news.u.washington.edu> Reply-To: jim(a)acm.org NNTP-Posting-Host: mycroft.rand.org Keywords: misinformation disinformation propaganda net anon anonymous Xref: math.utexas.edu talk.politics.misc:239321 news.admin.policy:19182 In article <32253p$220(a)news.u.washington.edu>, McDaniel <mcdaniel(a)u.washington.edu> wrote: >The problem: Anonymous posters supplying pseudo-news reports or >otherwise wasting bandwidth in groups more concerened with fact >or atleast genuine concerns (such as political talk groups and >sci groups.) .. >Opinions? Since you asked: my opinion is that there are more non-anonymous posters supplying pseudo-news reports or otherwise wasting bandwidth in serious groups. For example, in sci.crypt one poster consistently posts off-topic flamebait, and others consistently take the bait; while there's widespread consternation and killfiling, so far as I know nobody's suggested retroactively moderating him. On the other side, a consistent anonymous poster has produced and released useful crypto and digicash code... I assume his/her identity is masked to avoid ITAR prosecution for sending crypto out of the US without a license. In short, anonymity isn't the problem: cluelessness is the problem. In sci.crypt we may to eventually get rid of off-topic posts by moderating. I would hope the moderators will let anything clueful through, whether it's anonymous or not. I'll point out in passing that an anonymous poster can build up a reputation the same way as anybody else simply by signing articles with the same PGP key each time -- I'd be more confident that a signed message is from Pr0duct Cypher (i.e. the same person who posted as Pr0duct Cypher <last> month) than that an unsigned one is from McDaniel... I could forge one of the latter in a trice. McDaniel also said: >applicable.) OR provide the owners of moderated groups with detailed >accounts of the true identity of any anonymous poster who post to >a serious newsgroup and make that procedure known to the would-be >anonymous user. This sounds challenging. Many of the for-profit services allow the users to pick their own net identity... it's a feature. Do you know the True Name of the person behind the account evidence(a)netcom.com? Do you think Netcom would cough it up without a court order? Either AOL or Delphi -- I forget which, now -- allows users to have several different identities for their Net traffic. How would <I> prove <my> identity to this moderator? Maybe by signing my application to post with my PGP key, which is in turn signed by somebody they trust? Seems quite difficult. <I> certainly wouldn't want that burden as a moderator. I suggest you devote your time to finding a way to suppress idiocy and cluelessness on the Net in general... and if you can have it in place before the fall quarter starts, that would be lovely. Jim Gillogly Trewesday, 15 Wedmath S.R. 1994, 15:17

1 0

(fwd) Re: Anonymous posters & Misinformation = Net pollution
by nzook＠math.utexas.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Path: math.utexas.edu!news.dell.com!tadpole.com!uunet!news.sprintlink.net!sun.cais.com!cais2.cais.com!jdfalk From: jdfalk(a)cais2.cais.com (J.D. Falk) Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,news.admin.policy Subject: Re: Anonymous posters & Misinformation = Net pollution Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,news.admin.policy Date: 8 Aug 1994 20:27:54 GMT Organization: Capital Area Internet Service Lines: 2 Message-ID: <3264ga$adk(a)sun.cais.com> References: <32253p$220(a)news.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: 199.0.216.200 X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Xref: math.utexas.edu talk.politics.misc:239596 news.admin.policy:19191 What you propose would involve rewriting news and mail software at every site. This will not happen.

1 0

(fwd) Re: Anonymous posters & Misinformation = Net pollution
by nzook＠math.utexas.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Path: math.utexas.edu!news.dell.com!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!usc!nic-nac.CSU.net!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!olivea!decwrl!decwrl!amd!amdahl!svpal.org!svpal.org!not-for-mail From: billy(a)svpal.org (Bill Yeakel) Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,news.admin.policy Subject: Re: Anonymous posters & Misinformation = Net pollution Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,news.admin.policy Date: 7 Aug 1994 09:42:21 -0700 Organization: Silicon Valley Public Access Link Lines: 30 Message-ID: <3232td$qe7(a)svpal.svpal.org> References: <32253p$220(a)news.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.svpal.org X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Xref: math.utexas.edu talk.politics.misc:239317 news.admin.policy:19181 McDaniel (mcdaniel(a)u.washington.edu) wrote: : The problem: Anonymous posters supplying pseudo-news reports or : otherwise wasting bandwidth in groups more concerened with fact : or atleast genuine concerns (such as political talk groups and : sci groups.) : I believe that anonymous posting is a valuable service in many forums. : However, it seems that service is being abused in political and technical : newsgroups. : I suppose yet another solution would be to make widely known the : general untrustability of anonymous posters in groups where truth and : fact are paramount. But this letter should go a tiny ways towards that : goal. : Opinions? Nice in theory, but.... How do know if someone is anonymous? Doesn't the act of checking itself show that you have doubts? What if someone using their real name posts that they have seen a flying saucer? Or posts an astrological prediction? If someone believes everything they are told, the consequence is their responsibility. Just my $2.00 worth. (I value my opinion 100 times greater than other's) Bill

1 0

(fwd) Re: Anonymous posters & Misinformation = Net pollution
by nzook＠math.utexas.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Path: math.utexas.edu!news.dell.com!tadpole.com!uunet!spool.mu.edu!news.clark.edu!netnews.nwnet.net!news.u.washington.edu!mcdaniel From: mcdaniel(a)u.washington.edu (McDaniel) Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,news.admin.policy Subject: Re: Anonymous posters & Misinformation = Net pollution Date: 9 Aug 1994 14:27:30 GMT Organization: University of Washington Lines: 16 Message-ID: <3283oi$nt7(a)news.u.washington.edu> References: <32253p$220(a)news.u.washington.edu> <3264ga$adk(a)sun.cais.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: stein3.u.washington.edu Xref: math.utexas.edu talk.politics.misc:239698 news.admin.policy:19195 jdfalk(a)cais2.cais.com (J.D. Falk) writes: > What you propose would involve rewriting news and mail software >at every site. This will not happen. Oh? All it would require is for anonymous posting services to keep a list of the onwers of moderated newsgroups and notify the individual moderator on a periodical basis, as to what the real e-mail address of the anonymous poster is (and what message the posted.) Right now many moderated groups have banned anonymous posting. I only hope that trend continues in groups where misinformation is very destructive (political and sci groups for instance.) -McDaniel

1 0

(fwd) Re: Anonymous posters & Misinformation = Net pollution
by nzook＠math.utexas.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,news.admin.policy Path: math.utexas.edu!news.dell.com!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!news.alpha.net!mvb.saic.com!eskimo!wix From: wix(a)eskimo.com (Dennis Wicks) Subject: Re: Anonymous posters & Misinformation = Net pollution Message-ID: <Cu6FzE.4B3(a)eskimo.com> Keywords: misinformation disinformation propaganda net anon anonymous Organization: Eskimo North BBS - The BEST! (206) 367-3837 References: <32253p$220(a)news.u.washington.edu> Date: Sun, 7 Aug 1994 18:13:59 GMT Lines: 55 Xref: math.utexas.edu talk.politics.misc:239350 news.admin.policy:19183 In article <32253p$220(a)news.u.washington.edu>, McDaniel <mcdaniel(a)u.washington.edu> wrote: >The problem: Anonymous posters supplying pseudo-news reports or >otherwise wasting bandwidth in groups more concerened with fact >or atleast genuine concerns (such as political talk groups and >sci groups.) > >The soultion: Limited anonymous posters to forums where accountability >for what one says is of little concern (such as rec groups where >applicable.) OR provide the owners of moderated groups with detailed >accounts of the true identity of any anonymous poster who post to >a serious newsgroup and make that procedure known to the would-be >anonymous user. > >I attempted recently to secure the actual address of an anon poster >who deliberetly spread misinformation concerning a non-existant >U.S. Presidential Executive Order and a news-look-alike story dealing >with proven falsehoods. > >Needless to say the administrator of the popular anon.penet.fi server >has not been cooperative. I suggest that groups wishing to deal with >issues based a little stronger in reality ban anonymous posters and >encourage their posters NEVER to repeat information supplied by anonymous >posters elsewhere. Some groups have already come to that same conclusion. > >I believe that anonymous posting is a valuable service in many forums. >However, it seems that service is being abused in political and technical >newsgroups. > >I suppose yet another solution would be to make widely known the >general untrustability of anonymous posters in groups where truth and >fact are paramount. But this letter should go a tiny ways towards that >goal. > >Opinions? Non-problem. Anonymous posters don't propogate any more disinformation, lies, or junk than "real" posters. I could post my kill file for t.p.g in support of this, but I won't. Anyone who belives anything posted to the net without verification has only themselves to blame. A well-known person posting from a prestigious .edu site has no more authority than any anon poster. The credence you place on the content has to be determined by the posters previous statements. Indeed, I find that several people post very accurate and insightful articles in some groups, but in others their personal biases are very obvious and their posts are worth no more than the typical TV news "man on the street" interview. -- My own opinions E-mail responses to On my own time Articles may be On my own dime Posted at my option

1 0