December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

LP Press Release about Digital Telephony Act and Clipper (fwd)
by Stanton McCandlish 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: Date: Tue, 19 Apr 1994 00:58:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Libertarian Party Headquarters <lphq(a)access.digex.net> Subject: LP Press Release about Digital Telephony Act and Clipper To: eff(a)eff.org NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY 1528 Pennsylvania Avenue SE Washington DC 20003 For immediate release: April 18, 1994 For additional information: Bill Winter, Director of Communications (202) 543-1988 Libertarian Party Announces Opposition to Digital Telephony Act Calling it a "serious infringement of civil liberties and a gross violation of property rights," the Libertarian Party National Committee unanimously voted to oppose the Digital Telephony and Communications Act of 1994. At their quarterly meeting in Kansas City, Missouri, the governing body of America's third-largest political party charged that "the Digital Telephony Act would make furnishing the FBI with easy wiretapping capability the overriding priority for designers of telephone equipment and related software." "It is a lie to call this legislation a 'Privacy Improvement Act,'" said Bill Evers, the National Committee member from California who sponsored the resolution. The Digital Telephony Act, noted the resolution, "requires telephone, cable television, and computer network companies to ensure that the government can conduct surveillance while private communication is going on. It requires the installation of surveillance-facilitating software in telephone switching equipment to expose personal information - such as telephone-calling patterns, credit card purchases, banking records, and medical records - to the view of the government." "Such personal information should be the private property of either the company that assembles it or the individual to whom it pertains," said Evers. Libertarians also oppose the Digital Telephony Act because it "would require a fundamental re-engineering of the communications infrastructure at great expense to American taxpayers, and to the owners of private communications systems," said Evers. The Libertarian National Committee also unanimously voted to oppose the National Security Agency's Escrowed Encryption Standard - the so-called Clipper Chip system - or any "government policies promoting or requiring specific encryption methods for civilian use." The party also urged the "repeal of the U.S. ban on export abroad of Clipper-free encryption devices produced by American companies." "Government-mandated encryption standards will foster indiscriminate surveillance of private communications by the government," charged Evers. The resolution said "the Clinton Administration plans to induce American manufacturers to install government-readable encryption devices in every telephone, fax machine, and computer modem made in the United States." "The Clinton Administration is explicitly denying that the American people have the right to communicate in private," said Evers. By contrast, he said, "The Libertarian Party has long upheld the civil liberties of the American citizen." Approximately 120 Libertarians serve in elected and appointed office around the country, including four State Representatives in New Hampshire and two mayors in California. The Libertarian Party platform calls for vigorous defense of the Bill of Rights, free enterprise, civil liberties, free trade, and private charity. # # # The Libertarian Party America's third largest political party 1528 Pennsylvania Avenue SE (202) 543-1988 Washington DC 20003 Internet: LPHQ(a)digex.net ***Send email or call 1-800-682-1776 for free information package by mail***

1 0

Re: Money Laundering thru Roulette
by tcmay＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I neglected to cc: the list on this reply to David Rees, and he was kind enough to send me back the message so I could post it here. This is me speaking: > > Maybe I'm just misunderstanding the point David Rees is making: > > > Of course, as several people pointed out, there are a large number > > of ways to break even in roulette. So if you have bad money that > > needs laundered, why not bet evenly on red and black each time. Or even > > easier, buy 10,000 dollars worth of chips and then cash them in immediately. > > New and different money on demand. > > I get the impression though that I am missing something in the > > discussion since no one has mentioned something like this and that merely > > replacing the money isn't the objective here. > > No, converting one wad of, say, $100,000 into another wad of $100,000 > is not the goal. > > Let us suppose "Hillary" (much more interesting than our usual > cryptographic stand-in, Alice) want to be able to spend $100,000 given > to her by a friend at Tyson Foods in exchange for regulatory favors. > > He gives her a wad of $100,000. She takes this wad to Las Vegas (or, > now, to the nearby Mississippi River gambling boats) and "exchanges" > it. What has been accomplished? Nothing, except the comparatively > trivial change in serial numbers (which _can_ be an issue if the bills > are marked, as in a sting, but this is rarely an issue). > > This is a _kind_ of money laudering, as is literally running currency > through washer-dryer cycles (yes, this is done), but this is not the > common meaning of "laundering," and the one which we're focussing on here. > > No, one of the main goals of money-laundering is to make the > bribe/whatever money appear to be "legitimately earned," so that taxes > may be paid on it (yes) and the money then used for other investments, > buying houses, etc. "Legitimately earned" can mean won in Las Vegas, > or in cattle futures, etc. Hence the schemes here. > > (In Hillary's case, suddenly having $100K that the IRS and other > agencies can find no "paper trail" for would be evidene of bribery, > for example. I suppose Hillary could claim it came out of her > mattress, where she'd been saving money for years, but I doubt this > would fly.) > > U.S. casinos are closely watched for this kind of thing, of course. I > wonder if the IRS looks suspiciously at money won at the casinos on > Paradise Island, Bahamas? Or elsewhere. > > And, germane to our list, the "Internet Casino" that Nick Szabo and > others have talked about someday building. > > --Tim May > > > -- > .......................................................................... > Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, > tcmay(a)netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero > 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, > W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. > Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. > "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: Remailer Musings
by juola＠bruno.cs.colorado.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I disagree with Brad's interpretation. For example, if I photocopy a book and anonymously snail mail it to people, do you think the postal service is going to take the fall? Nope - they are just a carrier, and are not responsible for content. Like the common carriers - they just receive a message and pass it along. They aren't responsible for message content. If Brad Templeton's view of the world was the prevailing (or correct) one, then every common carrier in the country, including Ma Bell and the US Postal Service, would not exist, because they would've been sued out of existence long ago. On the other hand, part of the rules of being a common carrier are that one is *required* to cooperate with appropriate authorities to prevent this sort of abuse and to catch said abusers if/when it happens. I suspect that Mr. Templeton's lawyer could make a case that by setting up a remailer where one cannot "trace calls," one is violating the requirements of being a common carrier, and thus is responsible for content. - kitten

1 0

re: Sgt Russell
by Graham Toal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

: From: joshua geller <joshua(a)cae.retix.com> : I don't see any reason why sgt. harlow shouldn't be as welcome : as anyone else on the list. there are a large number of people : in the military, and any generalization drawn about them is : likely to be false (of course all generalizations are false, but : that is another matter). for those who enjoy paranoia, I would : point out that sgt. harlow is not the only person on this list : with past or present military associations. Quite right. This is ex Signals-Officer 23434072 Toal, G saying 'Roger out to you hello Charlie Papa come in over.' :-) G

1 0

Re: Money Laundering thru Roulette
by smb＠research.att.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There was a more interesting case in, I believe, Australia. Someone who wanted to bribe a politician instead libeled him. The politician sued, and they ``settled'' out of court.

1 0

Re: 15 out of 16 times (math, not laundry)
by collins＠newton.apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Actually, the casinos win in Las Vegas because the odds of almost >every bet are in their favor. In most cases the odds favor the house---I never claimed otherwise---and that certainly speeds up the inevitable process of cash extraction. >Larger capital allows you to affect the distribution of winnings, but >not whether or not the underlying bet is a good one. If the difference in bankrolls exceeds a tolerance related to the `odds', the quality of the bet is immaterial. The direct implication of the weak law of large numbers is: a) the longer you play, the more certain you will experience a `run of bad luck'; b) the party with less money goes broke waiting for their `run of bad luck' to end. When one part goes broke, the game is over, even if the distribution of winnings does not match the theoretical expectations (and in the case of going broke, it can't ... or you wouldn't have played). >Every casino, in effect, takes on the whole world. As all the bets >are independent, it doesn't matter if they are played by one player or >by a new player every time. The world has much more capital. Yet the >casinos consistently win. No. The whole world doesn't go broke as a unit. Individuals stop playing, leaving their money in an unexpected distribution, when they _personally_ go broke. In fact, most gambling decisions are related in some way to cash resources of the participants. For example, I propose a hypothetical game where you (the player) flip a fair coin. If it comes up heads on the first toss, I pay you $2; game over. If it comes up heads on the second, I pay you $4; game over. $8, $16... How much would you pay me (the house) to play this game? The theoretical value is infinite; you could win any amount of money at this game -- 1/2 the time $2 dollars, 1/4 of the time $4, 1/8 of the time $8... expectations = Sum_{n \goesto \infty}{n \over n}. Let's say I'm an actual casino, and could reasonably pay out winnings up to but not beyond $4.3 billion. You should pay no more $33 for a chance at that money. Derivation as an exercise for the reader. Consider this from the perspective of the house. The house is using the Martingale system against you, doubling its bet every time it loses until it gets that $33. That means that to launder $33, one party could conceivably lose $4.3billion. Obviously no mathematicians work at my casino. They all left to persue jobs that ensure a paycheck. These are _not_ my personal conclusions. This is sound, if disturbing, probability theory---known for at least 250 years. This particular effect goes by many names including "Gambler's Ruin". Given the odds, and the respective bankrolls, you can calculate the probability that any given party will go broke in extended play. The problem of "Duration of Play" was solved by Bernoulli and published posthumously in 1713. Scott Collins | "That's not fair!" -- Sarah | "You say that so often. I wonder what your basis 408.862.0540 | for comparison is." -- Goblin King ................|.................................................... BUSINESS. fax:974.6094 R254(IL5-2N) collins(a)newton.apple.com Apple Computer, Inc. 5 Infinite Loop, MS 305-2D Cupertino, CA 95014 ..................................................................... PERSONAL. 408.257.1746 1024:669687 catalyst(a)netcom.com

2 1

Side question on money laundering...
by Phil G. Fraering 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This may sound like a stupid question to most of y'all, but Tim brought up the Internet Casinos concept in one of his statements following-up to the money laundering thread, so I thought I'd ask: Given that even I, in my isolated little backwater of South Louisiana, find myself withing 20 miles of a casino, is it possible that the market is saturating to the point where an internet casino would not neccesarily be a good idea? If there is real anonymous untraceable digital cash for money laundering with, will "real" casinos see their profits decline as digital money sucks away that part of their business? PHil

2 1

Re: Intolerance on the list
by Jim Sewell - KD4CKQ 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

<My computer told me that Russell Whitaker said:> >> My job is important to me. Learning about cryptography is going to >> help me protect my systems and my messages. I have no desire to eavesdrop on >> what you or anyone else is doing on this list. I merely want to learn, and > > Your motivations seem clear enough to me. Dig in! Enjoy yourself here, and I > look forward to your participation. I also agree with Russell. Although the organization for which you work may be unnerving to some, they should be willing to give you a shot at being an ok kinda guy as a freethinking individual. Besides that, has anyone considered this: If the good Sargeant here gets his system secured with PGP and Uncle Sam (via the President's efforts) says everything else is bad, you must use clipper... wouldn't it be good ammo to say 'Hey guys! Site x.y.z is secured to military satisfaction by using PGP. Clipper is somewhat weak and you even admit it by not allowing it to secure classified info. I think it would be great ammo in blowing up the Information Super-Highway-Patrol. Keep asking your questions and thinking freely! Jim -- Tantalus Inc. Bringing people together Jim Sewell-KD4CKQ 2407 N. Roosevelt Blvd. to have a little fun. Internet: jims(a)mpgn.com Key West, FL 33041 CIS: 71061,1027 (305) 293-8100 "We keep coding and coding and coding..."

1 0

Re: BEST Inc.
by Bill Garland 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

To: SGT=DARREN=S.=HARLOW%ISB%MCTSSA(a)nwsfallbrook3.nwac.sea06.navy.mil >> >> I was in a BEST store yesterday, and attempted to pay by check. They >> asked for ID to verify the check and when I handed them my military ID, they >> asked for my driver's license instead. I gave them my driver's license and >> they used it and the magnetic strip on the back of it to verify my check. I > >[stuff deleted] > >From what I know, there is no law that says you have to keep that >magnetic strip up to date. Just have a little meeting between it and Mr. >Refridgerator magnet and you could end up with some surprising results. What is not clear here is whether the information that comes up on the point-of-sale terminal is encoded on the card or is in their "neat little database" on the network into which they are tuned. I don't know, but I guess this might mean that the paper driver's licences we use here in the back woods are soon to go the way of the buggy whip. The military ID should have been enough - I would assume that, especially in the largest armed force ever assembled by man, it is easier to fake a drivers licence than a military id. But I've been wrong before... If the info is on the card, follow the refrigerator magnet idea if you don't want them to cash your cheque. Or do as the Sarge did. Then, instead of having a record that you purchased Pentouse Letters on April 14 at 10:33 pm in Mac's Milk on the corner of Broadway and 110th, they have a record of your withdrawal of 50 bucks from the atm and a picture in their video database as you did the withdrawal. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. If the info is in the database, and it is (even though _this_ pos terminal may not have access to it) then - well, if you object to this, keep up with cp and other fora, get yourself some fake or anonymous id's (?), write code, use pgp, become judgement proof, move and don't set up forwarding addresses, have your id killed, etc. Bill Garland, whose .sig just vanished

2 1

S Milgram & Authority Response
by Jeff Davis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >This shows that, in real situations, people will follow herd instincts >and obey orders. >rgds-- TA (tallard(a)frb.gov) Milgram had 66% go to the end of the board with the subjects believing they had killed a person with electric shock. I saw him present the paper. I asked him at the end, placing ethical questions aside, what he felt the most important finding of this research was. He paused thoughtfully, and said: We better be DAMN careful who we put in authority in this country. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLbRG11/ScHuGXWgVAQG+yQQAzEXu8jNbhMTXebcgEBuqlA9OCv9we2fK NnyfE8w+TVACgikfzWg2yMWVx99zdrx5g3dlbNvkgz9qhR7tdzLmuh0pRmbN8/gP MUm4B+siLmyeSp5qk9eAxvz9WttcLk5oy0+VCPFcv4EgNRp1Ce67YM4/A5uGqDP9 FyDIvssiWTQ= =+yb+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- PGP PUBLIC KEY via finger! JAFEFFM Speaking & Thinking For Myself! * eagle(a)deeptht.armory.com email info(a)eff.org * *** O U T L A W S On The E L E C T R O N I C F R O N T I E R **** ***** Committed to Free Public Internet Access for World Peace *****

1 0