December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Government vs. Markets
by Amanda Walker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> A geographical monopoly with *guns*, and a mandate from the masses to > use them. I can't say that I've ever seen a Niagara-Mohawk or NYNEX > tank. The government does not have a monopoly on military force. In fact, the 2nd amendment explicitly prohibits such a monopoly, however much it has become eroded in recent decades. However, I will agree with you that a certain amount of corporate coercion goes on with government collusion (not all, however: look at Westlaw or Equifax for examples). Amanda Walker InterCon Systems Corporation

2 1

Digital Cash: Impact of Interstate Banking Act of 1994
by Black Unicorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- The Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branch Efficiency Act of 1994, Electronic Banking and Digital Cash: A brief impact survey. +++ Last month the President signed into law the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branch Efficiency Act of 1994. The act is the result of almost sixteen years of attempts to revise and ease long standing restrictions on commercial banking entities. The aspects of the bill which in my opinion hold the greatest implications for electronic banking, internet banking and digital cash are the lifting of basic geographic restrictions on commercial banking are outlined below. Commenting after the bill cleared the Senate, Secretary Bentsen indicated the following: ++ Begin excerpt This legislation represents a major step forward for the American banking system that has been sought by both parties for years. Efforts to ease interstate banking and branching restrictions were proposed by the last four administrations. I applaud the bipartisan effort to enact this important legislation. Interstate banking and branching will be beneficial to banks and their customers as well as the nation's economy as a whole. This bill will allow banks to reduce expenses by structuring themselves more efficiently. It will also promote the safety and soundness of the banking system through geographic diversification, which will enable banks to better withstand regional recessions and meet the needs of customers in times of stress. Customer convenience will be greatly enhanced by eliminating arbitrary restrictions on interstate deposit taking. Competition among banks will be encouraged by making it easier for them to enter markets that are not now full competitive. [...] The [Act]: * Permits a bank holding company to acquire a bank located in any state, beginning one year after enactment. * Allows a bank to merge with a bank in another state, beginning June 1, 1997, so long as neither state has taken legislative action to prohibit interstate mergers.... [...] * Allows foreign banks to establish branches, either de novo or by acquisition and merger, in any state outside the state in which the bank has its U.S. headquarters to the same extent that a domestic bank may establish such branches.... [...] ++ End of excerpt. Since the Glass-Stegall Act, which established strict separation of commercial and investment banking services, commercial banking has suffered in the marketplace due to investment services and investment banking competition. Investment banking and banking services could often offer services resembling those offered by traditional banking without enduring the strict geographical restrictions imposed on banks. At the same time, reduced deposit insurance regulation made the cost of these services lower. Even entities like insurance companies could offer loan services, and often offer them at better rates, that banks could no longer soundly approach. The most obvious impact of geographical restrictions to the average consumer was the restriction on traditional banks in regard to accepting out of state deposits. Most readers will recognize this manifest in the inability to deposit to an account from an out of state automatic teller. While withdrawals are possible through interstate networks like Cirrus, Most, NYCE and the Military Financial Network, deposits are restricted to in state entities only and as a result associated fees of any interstate transactions are a function of the number of financial institutions which the transaction must bridge, as the local banks are institutions unable to structure their own networks to avoid middleman cost. Similarly, wire transfers are presented with an identical cost bridge, as geographic restrictions have often required the adoption of several different networks between banks instead of a single network. Costs are predictably affected. With the introduction of the Interstate Banking Act banks will be free to expand their deposit taking functions across state lines (within the general restrictions of the Act). As a result Automatic Teller Machines may soon be able to provide many of the same services as a "Full Service Bank" provided merely that they have a customer service phone attached. The foreseeable impact on Digital Cash projects as well as online and offline cash and banking systems falls within a few brackets. 1> Positive effects for start up domestic efforts associated with geographic deregulation. 2> Positive effects for depositors in general. 3> Negative effects for start up overseas efforts. 4> Negative effects for overseas expansion efforts. 5> Negative effects for digital cash generally. 1> Domestic efforts: Because limitations on interstate banking are being lifted, those projects intending to start up a full or partial service financial institution with advanced electronic transaction services will obviously be more feasible on a nation wide scale. Prospects for nation wide, fully automated and cost effective electronic banking are greatly increased with the removal of the restrictions on geographic expansion. Look to see increased interest in long term banking customer relations as banks and depositors recognize that it may no longer be necessary to change institutions when changing domiciles. An immediate expansion of automatic teller networks and associated agreements with service providers is likely. 2> Depositors in general: Can expect to transact all types of basic banking functions nationally without the necessity of a local branch of their bank being accessible. As banks begin to realize the profits from interstate banking fees directly without dilution to the institution local to the transaction, expansion of electronic networks is a likely reaction. 3> Overseas efforts: Efforts to provide depositors with access to overseas institutions will be hampered in two ways: A> Investment prospects will decrease. Investors recognizing that overseas institutions which offer services in the United States have one less advantage over domestic banks will be less likely to participate in such a venture. B> Customers recognizing that overseas institutions offering services in the United States provide few, if any, needed services that local banks cannot also accommodate will reduce depositor interest in overseas electronic banking. (Note the cyclic effect of this on potential Investors in A) 4> Overseas expansion of existing institutions to the United States. Is less likely in so far as competition among domestic banks is stronger, and the potential market share is reduced. 5> Impact on digital cash. A> Because of the depositor interest in new local banking services, depositors are less likely to be interested in digital cash potential where a domestic checking account accomplishes the same basic goal. In so far as digital cash ventures depend on the general populations interest, as compared with the interest of the "enlightened population" (in my meaning, those who understand the privacy and liquidity advantages of digital cash over traditional banking services), the market share of digital cash ventures is reduced by the number of general population more comfortable with traditional banking services. (I feel this to be a significant number). B> Note the impact on potential investors in digital cash ventures of A. Not the end of digital cash by any means, but a blow for start up efforts. Anyone interested in a much more detailed analysis of the Act, I will provide one to the list if enough e-mail interest is shown. - -uni- (Dark) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6ui iQCVAgUBLpRCzBibHbaiMfO5AQE+6gP+MskAjaFyAeUKz2XjWBV7nSSttejTxkOL wkAW4jnrFBZJZCfsvRg+UGlnTRJzzdCHdpN0k/eKDnmTpO44p9kNt4MaLyh1nOG5 OpvfTcoaFevZLIqK1PUX2xRYVCHqKOHeSmzHv8j8BfQaXAUuLncDkiL2jPqwP8+n t4IfT8zwBsQ= =l3zV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Please report signature failures. -- 073BB885A786F666 nemo repente fuit turpissimus - potestas scientiae in usu est 6E6D4506F6EDBC17 quaere verum ad infinitum, loquitur sub rosa - wichtig!

1 0

BIRD BRAINS
by samuel.kaplin＠warehouse.mn.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- :the bomb's aim. Just before the bomb hit, the pigeon would :parachute to safety. (I made that last part up.) Could you imagine the ruckus if we were to try to implement something like this today? P.E.T.A would have a stroke!! They already are in a snit over the Navy's use of dolphins. Me, I just can't equate an animals life to a human life...use the animal, save a human. I wonder if we could create an Enigma machine based on biological organisms. Genetically alter something to act as an encryption machine. Hmmm..... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fido: Sam Kaplin 1:282/1018 | "...vidi vici veni" - Overheard Compuserve: 75240,131 | outside a Roman brothel. samuel.kaplin(a)warehouse.mn.org | 75240,131(a)compuserve.com | Change is the only constant in the For confidential communications use PGP | Universe..."Four quarters, please." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.1 iQCVAgUBLpOOmApnimeWAf3FAQF4HwP8C62qhT7VnMdmUjW2TgiDpKXTghd49Jss DqBEYcuK2QqIOZCYHJMyQMmsQD+JKZAsjstf/IaneGZvERHRCbvi361pB/2I6Onw 0kCk9K2DZ/b77H9HB2F2t0nDnGtqu2th1419Y+WaX0Kxof3xMzER2ScFIisxVLnR lNL98Oo+lCQ= =OKTA -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: BIRD BRAINS
by jamiel＠sybase.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:37 PM 10/5/94, Samuel Kaplin wrote: >human life...use the animal, save a human. I wonder if we could create an >Enigma machine based on biological organisms. Genetically alter something to >act as an encryption machine. Hmmm..... I wonder if ITAR has provisions for crypto walking out of the country of its own accord. -j -- "It's a question of semantics, and I've always been rather anti- semantic." -Gene Simmons ___________________________________________________________________ Jamie Lawrence <jamiel(a)sybase.com>

1 0

Key Forfeiture, not Key Escrow
by Philip Zimmermann 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The Government seems to choose its terminology carefully in cases where that terminology can affect the politics of a situation. I suggest that we start referring to key escrow as "key forfeiture". Philip Zimmermann

3 2

Electronic Cash Site
by rah＠shipwright.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: eliot(a)globalx.net >Date: Thu, 6 Oct 1994 15:57:39 -0400 >X-Sender: eliot(a)gate.globalx.net >Mime-Version: 1.0 >To: www-buyinfo(a)allegra.att.com >Original-From: eliot(a)Globalx.NET (Eliot Burdett) >Subject: Electronic Cash Site >X-Mailer: <Windows Eudora Version 2.0.2> >X-UIDL: 781481771.029 >Status: U > >An application of DigiCash's ECash payment method can be seen by accessing >the Global-X-Change Communication's Bytown Electronic Marketplace at > > http://www.globalx.net/ > >Eliot Burdett >Senior Partner >___________________________________ >Global-X-Change Communications Inc. >709-170 Laurier Ave. West >Ottawa, ON K1P 5V5 >Tel 613-235-6865 >Fax 613-232-5285 > > ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) "There is no difference between someone Shipwright Development Corporation who eats too little and sees Heaven and 44 Farquhar Street someone who drinks too much and sees Boston, MA 02331 USA snakes." -- Bertrand Russell (617) 323-7923

1 0

Dorothy
by frissell＠panix.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:56 PM 10/5/94 -0700, Ed Carp wrote: >(BTW) violating every known law of security to do so. Denning, in a very >real sense, represents the attitudes of the NSA and the people controlling >this whole scheme and trying to foist it off onto people. Is she such an >idiot that she actually *believes* the nonsense she spouts? > >Is it wrong to suspect her motives, her judgement, her common sense, in >backing such a proposal? If we spend a little time thinking about it, I'm sure that we can figure out DD's psychology. If we can't understand her views (which are probably more mainstream than ours) we won't be able to understand anybody's. She is a conventional person and thinks that the monopoly of coercion exercised by the government must be maintained for the good of all. Many people share this view. As a cryptographer, she is aware of the same things that we are -- that unbreakable crypto combined with the "society on the nets" breaks this government monopoly of coercion. The point of Cypherpunks is not to change this almost universally held view of the legitmacy of "others" government (as opposed to self government). The point of cypherpunks is to *demonstrate* that the monopoly of coercion traditionally held by government has been *ended*. If you change the physical reality, people's views will change in turn. Don't be upset with DD. She hasn't killed anybody. If we're right about our analysis of the new balance of power between the individual and the state, her views don't matter. If we're wrong, her views *still* don't matter. DCF -- "Downsizing, Open Systems, and Distributed Networks for Berlin, London, Paris, Rome, Tokyo, & Washington, too." oops forgot Ottawa.

2 2

Re: Here's one for laughter
by Random Factor 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > From: Alexandra Griffin <acg(a)kzin.cen.ufl.edu> > Subject: Re: Here's one for laughter > Date: Wed, 16 Nov 94 18:27:20 EST > > > How about a rationale for shutting down the entire link for 15 minutes > > > instead of simply refusing to make the requested connection? > > > > the total shut down discourages exploring. > > > > randy > Am I the only one that finds it a bit sad and disturbing that > "discouraging exploration" is being presented as a worthwhile goal? i only meant to say that this is a rationale for shutting down the link. i don't think this is a worthwhile goal. i agree, it is disturbing when educators discourage exploration. unfortunately educators have traditionally done a lot to discourage exploration. randy "When I think back on all the crap I learned in high school, it's a wonder I can think at all." - Paul Simon -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQCVAgUBLsuND81Uod4Abd1NAQHtMQP/RzjAqAnO2Tba0bjvYAX936K4vSMChDZz cUReKWLzoHjtEbYnqo1ujrYGcjXSGWWO5kwB8UY8mprykeH328sEki+c9YdWxBC/ 0P7etVbfaXCoCcEmVbnLCKNnwIUVjjomvT98EaRVGdG82/+g7k0NAkYo/ILVl04I //NmrAunvqY= =oiSw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Random Factor <sq0nk(a)alt.anonymous.messages> to send me private mail, post an article pgp encoded for 0x006DDD4D to alt.anonymous.messages. my key is available from public servers.

1 0

Demonizing Denning (was: It's MEME time!!!)
by Allen Robinson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Since it appears that I helped to start this thread, let me do what I can to finish it. Responding to some facetiae posted by David Merriman, I suggested: > Very good. If I could offer one minor change, how 'bout: > Dorothy Denning? Clip 'er! Which prompted Phil Karn to inquire: > Uh, how come we can't stick to attacking the message, rather than the > messenger? To which Ed Carp replied: > Because in this case, the messenger is an integral part of the message. This kind of parallels my thinking when I offered that mostly-off-the-cuff suggestion. I thought David had hit upon a clever turn of phrase -- a slogan of exhortation to cypherpunks to truncate Dr. Denning's *influence*. I did not intend an ad hominem attack, nor did I expect something that would fit on a bumpersticker to substitute for rational debate. As Phil Karn observed elsewhere: > Dorothy Denning may > be a naive pawn of the government. She may hold beliefs that appall > the rest of us. She may have lost whatever credibility she had in the > crypto community by her position. But I still prefer to attack that > position and the (il)logic behind it rather than to resort to > attacking the person expressing it. Quite right. Granted, Dr. Denning has lost her credibility with certain elements of "the crypto community." Unfortunately, those folks are not the decision-makers who'll decide the fate of proposals such as Clipper. She remains a valuable tool to those in government who want to advance such agendas. As Ed Carp commented: > I think the reason people attack the messenger is because people in the > government listen to her, and I for one am exasperated beyond words to > know that my government is paying attention to such an idiotic scheme, and > (BTW) violating every known law of security to do so. Denning, in a very > real sense, represents the attitudes of the NSA and the people controlling > this whole scheme and trying to foist it off onto people. But what better way to blunt her effectiveness as an advocate than to demostrate the folly of that which she so wholeheartedly advocates? Still, as Tim May reminded us: > Practically speaking, a bumber sticker saying "Denning--Clip her" > might be understood by as many as one out of ten thousand of those who > read it....not a very convincing meme. (Yes, "crypto anarchy" is > equally arcane, vaguely disturbing, and equally unconvincing...but I'm > not sporting a bumper sticker on this, nor do I expect to convert the > masses.) He is, of course, correct. And this whole thread has become a bit of a tempest in a teapot. I apologize for my part in what I'm sure many regard as an improper consumption of bandwidth. AR

2 1

What does DD know?
by H Keith Henson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Duncan Frissell writes: > Don't be upset with DD. She hasn't killed anybody. If we're right about > our analysis of the new balance of power between the individual and the > state, her views don't matter. If we're wrong, her views *still* don't matter. Good analysis. However, DD (and a mess of other folks) have been fed some story from the very top. During the clipper non-debate there were several people, including (?) Denning who said to those not in the know "if you knew what I do, you would understand why we must have Clipper." This generates two possibilities. One, that the lot of them were fed a line of BS. And two, that there really *is* something to the official line. I have met DD and her husband maybe twice. Knowing the way married couples usually work, I rather imagine that he is in on the story as well (though it is possible he is not.) So, we have two rather bright (an understatement!) people who where taken in by a BS story?? Not very likely! So, what the hell *were* all these folks told about the need for Clipper? These stories never stay completely hidden forever. Thus I expect we will find out-- eventually. Is it something the readers of cyperpunks would agree is so badly needed that we must have "key forfiture? DD certainly has the ability to empathize with the way we feel. I think putting this question to DD would be profitable: If the cyperpunks list were to know what you know, would *they* support GAK? Keith Henson (who would post more often except for being up to his ears working on the old Xanadu code.)

1 0