December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Brock Meeks summary of Gore speech
by Stanton McCandlish 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[This report from Brock Meeks first appeared on the WELL, and is redistributed with permission. Further redistribution/republication should be cleared with the author first, at brock(a)well.sf.ca.us.] __________ begin forward _____________ Jacking in from the Policy port: Vice President Gore today outlined the Administration's plan for revamping the regulatory regime that will guide the converging telecommunications industry into the next century. Gore said the Administration will propose lifting all restrictions on local telephone companies imposed during the breakup of AT&T, allowing them to enter the long distance and manufacturing markets. But buried deep in his speech, in a single ominous sentence, Gore made a pledge that is sure to a chill into privacy advocates everywhere: "We'll help law enforcement agencies thwart criminals and terrorists who might use advanced telecommunications to commit crimes." In laymen's terms: We're fucked. Gore didn't elaborate on his statement, but his comment hinted that the White House will throw its full behind two of the most controversial policies the Clinton Administration inherited from the Bush presidency: The FBI Digital Wiretap Proposal and the so-called "Clipper Chip," government mandated encryption program. Both policies have been publicly trashed by the computer and telecommunications industry as well as civil liberty groups. The White House is currently working to overhaul the entire U.S. security policy. Earlier this year, in a little noticed speech, FBI Dir. Freeh renewed his push for the ill-conceived Digital Wiretap proposal. It now appears that the White House will back that proposal when it issues new security guidelines due sometime in the Summer. Changing the Playing Field ========================== Gore also challenged the nation to bring every classroom and library online by the year 2000. He outlined 5 broad principles for restructuring the telecommunications industry, leading to a National Information Infrastructure: -- Encourage private investment -- Provide and protect competition -- Provide open access to the network -- Avoid creating information "haves" and "have nots" -- Encourage flexible and responsive government action Gore said the Administration's plan would "clear from the road the wreckage of outdated regulations and allow a free-flowing traffic of ideas and commerce." Administration plan would allow telephone companies to get into cable business and let cable companies into the telephone business, preempting state regulations that for the most part ban such businesses. Although the White House plan allows local telephone companies to provide video, they must also allow any programmer access to those video delivery systems on nondiscriminatory basis. The plan also seeks to stop telephone companies from buying cable systems in the areas where they offer telephone service. But the plan also gives the FCC the authority to revamp that rule within 5 years if "sufficient competition" has risen. The plan also would implement a new flexible regulatory regime called Title VII that encourages firms to provide broadband, switched digital transmission services. Like the Cable reregulation act, the FCC will have the ability to provide for rate regulation on these new companies until "competition is established." One of the trickiest issues facing the Administration was how to define and ensure the concept of Universal Service. The White House plan proposes to make that policy "an explicit objective the Communications Act" in order to make sure that advanced information services are available to rural and low-income urban areas. But the Administration bailed on how to insure the concept, opting to lay that burden at the feet of the FCC. Also, all telecommunications providers, not merely telephone companies as is the current policy, will have to start contributing to universal access subsidies. But the FCC will be responsible for determining a kind of "sliding scale" for how much each company will be required to pay. In fact, if smaller firms can't pony up the cash to help out with the universal service commitment, they can make "in-kind" contributions instead. This might be in the form of free service to school, hospitals, etc. Meeks out.... __________________ end forward ____________ -- Stanton McCandlish * mech(a)eff.org * Electronic Frontier Found. OnlineActivist F O R M O R E I N F O, E - M A I L T O: I N F O @ E F F . O R G O P E N P L A T F O R M O N L I N E R I G H T S V I R T U A L C U L T U R E C R Y P T O

1 0

CRYPTO & TAXES
by Sandy 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT Reply to: ssandfort(a)attmail.com . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'Punks, I was asked in private e-mail: So how does the average US citizen go about starting a Cayman Islands (or similar) corporation? . . . Look in the advertising sections of international publications such as THE ECONOMIST, THE EUROPEAN and THE INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE. Every issue will contain several ads for incorporation services. These services exist everywhere, but for historical and legal reasons, many have offices in the UK or Isle of Man. Request information from every company with an ad. You can save big by doing a little comparison shopping. Follow the ads for several months, if possible, to see which companies stay around and which are fly-by-night operations. Even better, check back issues from previous years to see if the same folks are still in business. The following, is a fee schedule from just one such company: ____JURISDICTION_________ANNUAL_FEES_________FORMATION_FEE_______ United Kingdom B# 32 B# 150 Hong Kong HK$ 1200 HK$ 2500 Ireland IR# 10 IR# 195 Isle of Man B# 285 B# 250 Gibraltar B# 250 B# 250 Jersey/Guernsey B# 600 B# 500 Turks & Caicos US$ 300 US$ 500 Brit. Virgin Is. US$ 300 US$ 500 Bahamas US$ 100 US$ 500 Liberia US$ 100 US$ 750 Panama US$ 150 US$ 750 Of course, these companies offer lots of other interesting services, as well. Come the crypto-anarchy--or just a simple bank in cyberspace--and everything gets a lot easier, a lot cheaper. (If Detweiler thinks things are "bad" now . . . ) S a n d y >>>>>> Please send e-mail to: ssandfort(a)attmail.com <<<<<< ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBK1MwR05ULTXct1IzAQGxngP/azAd7kcstUoiohyWqE1JEHASptoo/WY6 W+FfiHTguaiaWn0m7EtR0CGIgUVZFrEWASiOboEYlkS6xnhk7TEK+pkfHw1BXprA oMnObtqn4sxsvRc3bSkGFzLrHa00Kg3KeRT9VUcc76Ds3sSC04lleQFVv/1MFjM9 U0hpjQw+qAY= =viLe -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

PGPShell Version 3.0
by James Still 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-------------------------------------------------------------------- FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE -------------------------------------------------------------------- PGPSHELL VERSION 3.0 PROGRAM RELEASE PGPShell, a front-end DOS program for use with Philip Zimmermann's Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) public-key encryption software, has just been upgraded and released as version 3.0. PGPShell incorporates easy to use, mouse-driven menus and a unique Key Management Screen to easily display all public key ring information in a flash. PGP encryption will never be the same again! Breeze through PGP UserID's, KeyID's, Fingerprints, E-mail addresses, Signature's, Trust Parameter's, and PGP's Validity ratings all in one screen, at one place, and with a single mouse-click. PGPShell is archived as pgpshe30.zip at many Internet sites including garbo.uwasa.fi:/pc/crypt and oak.oakland.edu:/pub/msdos/security and has been posted to the FidoNet Software Distribution Network (SDN) and should be on all nodes carrying SDN in a week or so. To immediately acquire version 3.0 by modem you can call the Hieroglyphic Voodoo Machine BBS at +1 303 443 2457 or the GrapeVine BBS at +1 501 791 0124. Questions or comments? Ping me at --> still(a)kailua.colorado.edu

1 0

No Subject
by Mark Brand 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

subscribe brandm(a)acfcluster.nyu.edu

1 0

Skepticism on the Detweiler Conspiracy Claims
by remail＠tamsun.tamu.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Detweiler says we don't understand that `all that is required for the spread of evil is for good people to do nothing' Understand it? Yes. Believe it completely, or even believe that it applies here? No. May's beliefs that pseudo-spoofing can lead to monetary and governmental anarchy have little connection in reality, despite the writings of Bruce Sterling and Vernor Vinge. In that context, May's pseudo-spoofing is little more than childish play-acting. In any event, we need far more evidence to come to light before Occam's razor can even be applied. ``in other words, `entertain me some more, detweiler. I don't believe you yet, but maybe, just maybe, you will find something that convinces me. for now, I simply don't give a damn either way, and most of all I am not going to post, even though there are some things I would like to post on, because I am a sheep like the rest of humanity, and while these people could be dangerous lunatics out for revenge on anyone who posts, how could these highly respectable people be behind a conspiracy?'' Take out everything above before "I don't..." and after "...not going to post", and you're close. You're right, they could be dangerous lunatics out for revenge on anyone who posts. So could you. Are they respectable? Who knows? Who cares, given that their sphere of influence is so incredibly small? Convince me. I'm a fairly hard-core skeptic -- I don't believe *anything* until I can weigh the facts on both sides. You've told me that Geoff Dale sent you mail implying that Nick Szabo was *not* his roommate, but something tells me that you believed Szabo wasn't real long before that. Why? What led you to that conclusion. Posting the evidence would help convince other skeptics, especially if it's concrete enough. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ``Death is the ultimate form of censorship.'' (author unknown) Jim Riverman Software Engineer jr(a)netcom.com (415) 941-4782 [work] ------------------------------------------------------------------------- To find out more about this anonymous remail service, send mail to remail(a)tamsun.tamu.edu with the word "remail help" as the only words in the subject field.

1 0

No Subject
by Ryan Snyder-Consultant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

subscribe cypherpunks

1 0

No Subject
by Ryan Snyder-Consultant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

subscribe cs000rrs(a)selway.umt.edu

1 0

Fascinated and wanting more...
by Hasan Bramwell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Uhhh? Hello in there...? Are you a person or some persons? :> I'm trying to get my hands on some encryption algorithms, and understand that this is the place to visit. Can you (or one of you) advise me? I would very much appreciate it. TIA Hasan ~~~~~~~ Hasan Bramwell Casilla 17-17-1004 Freehand Quito, Ecuador Internet: Ecuanet hasan(a)pi.pro.ec Compuserve: 70322,2617

1 0

Apology to Perry
by Hal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> I think you are > wrong in thinking that tax evasion is as little practiced and as > little desired as you apparently do. > > Perry I realize upon re-reading this comment that Perry was not suggesting that I did not desire tax evasion, but rather that I did not think tax evasion was widely desired, which is entirely different. I apologize to Perry for accusing him of impugning my motives and I will try to read more carefully next time. Hal

1 0

Crypto and Taxes
by Hal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I appreciate the thoughtful responses in this thread. Let me just make one point now, saving a more detailed response for this evening. Perry implied that I do not wish to see people avoid taxes, and that was why I was arguing that cryptography would not make this as easy as some had suggested. That is not a reasonable inference from my posts, and I am surprised Perry would suggest it given our two years of discussions on the extropians list. My primary motivation is of course simply to test what I see as a discrepency between the world I live and work in and that proposed in the crypto-anarchy model. I also want to question speculations that I see playing into the hands of law enforcement interests by making cryptography look more threatening than it is. Another reason is to discourage complacency that cryptography will solve our political problems by automatically ushering in a libertarian/anarchist utopia. This is a follow-on to the posts I made last week on this topic. Today, Sandy still says "We've won". >From my perspective, this declaration of victory is highly premature! The postings about life in Italy did provide an interesting portrait of a society of tax evaders, but at the same time the government response was chilling. The U.S. is not Italy, and I suspect that neither the widespread tax avoidance nor the draconian government measures could happen here. But it should give pause to those who suggest that our political battles are won. Hal

2 1