December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Escrowing signing vs. encryption keys
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"JMKELSEY(a)delphi.com" 7-MAY-1996 01:22:19.14 >this is seen by the Feds to balance out the downside that, if I have >the ability to do secure signatures with certificates, I can always >use Diffie-Hellman to establish a secure session with someone else. This apparant opinion on their part is made more understandable with the headaches involved in using Diffie-Hellman, as I understand it (multiple back-and-forth transfers, et al). -Allen

1 0

Re: Why I Pay Too Much in Taxes
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:30 PM 5/7/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote: >On Tue, 7 May 1996, jim bell wrote: > >> At 04:46 PM 5/7/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote: > >> >I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I sent the text of the law to >> >the list. The position that you take (that increse in inflation can send >> >you into the next tax bracket) is incorrect. >> >> You seem to be forgetting that one of the provisions of (I believe) the 1986 >> tax act was that capital gains would be indexed for inflation. However, >> the sleazy politicians only scheduled it (the indexing process) for about >> 1990 or so, and by 1990 they managed to get that idiot Bush to agree to drop >> it. > >Considering that there is one bracket for capital gains income (namely >28%) what does this have to do with bouncing you into the next income tax >bracket? Well, you can play all the word-games you want, but many people use the term "tax bracket" to mean the amount of tax they pay as a proportion of income. (Too bad the IRS hasn't yet defined the term "income"!) Since inflationary gains on assets shouldn't be counted as "income" at all, people end up paying a larger proportion of their income as taxes due to this. Go ahead, play games, but ultimately the amount they write on the check will be increased as a result of inflation. I doubt whether they would be in any mood to accept a picky technical definition. It is these people that will eventually decide that it's better to pay money to go to government employees' detriment, rather than benefit. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: Police tactics question
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:33 PM 5/7/96 -0400, Joseph M. Reagle Jr. wrote: >At 11:26 PM 5/6/96 -0400, Michael Froomkin wrote: >>One of my students has written a paper that may answer some of your >>questions, Online Stings: High Tech Entrapment or Innovative Law >>Enforcement?, by Jeffrey D. Weinstock >>http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/seminar/papers/weinstock.htm > > Also, I'll stick in a plug for a paper I wrote a year ago for Mitch >Kapor's "Political Economy of the Digital Infrastructure" class at the Media >Lab: > > >Entrapment in Cyberspace -- On The Likelihood of Digital Stings Here's a question: Why can't we do stings OF POLICE, not by police? If they can mail porno to people and have them arrested, why can't we identify thug-types on the net, email them porno (perhaps from out of the country, to keep the sender legal) and then break into their houses and arrest them? What? What's sauce for the goose ISN'T sauce for the gander? Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Transitive trust and MLM
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"frantz(a)netcom.com" 7-MAY-1996 23:02:33.09 >Some of the solution to this problem may come from the answer to the >question, "What am I trusting the receiver with?" I can see a number of >possibilities: I think you've forgotten to allow for the signature use. I may want to know if someone who's posting is indeed the usual/proper person posting from that address, and in most situations without transitivity I won't be able to tell. -Allen

1 0

Re: Is the network layer geodesic?
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"fair(a)clock.org" "Erik E. Fair" 7-MAY-1996 02:06:23.16 >The Internet is amorphous. It ain't a star, exactly, but it still not too >far from that. However, to get away from this situation into the rich and >more fully amorphous connectivity we used to take for granted in the UUCP >network, we're going to have to see a lot more cooperation on the part of >the small ISPs in agreeing to talk *directly* to each other to exchange >traffic, and more small exchange points, instead of the small number of >large ones. One thing that may make a difference in this is that the major providers are getting overloaded. We're currently having problems here (in terms of slowdowns, failures to connect, et al) because MCI's trunk lines are majorly overloaded, and that's who _all_ the local ISPs go through. I am currently attempting to persuade them to at least get contacts with another ISP (and to serve as a router) in order to speed up local stuff. -Allen

1 0

Re: Why I Pay Too Much in Taxes
by nobody＠replay.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timothy C. May wrote: >Indeed, I am extremely limited in how I can avoid complete traceability of >my major income sources. Not rich enough to shelter income in a really big >time way That's just lack of creativity. Try this: Get a friend of yours to setup a consulting company and hire you (and maybe a few more people who pay too much taxes,acting like a mixmaster). The company pays you salary to cover your cost of living. Anything above that, i.e. money that you would otherwise save, is paid to an offshore company as license fees (or something, this is the creative part). This is really legal as long as you don't receive any money from offshore without paying the taxes. If you borrow the money back it gets a little fuzzy. Thousands of people in upper middle class are doing exactly this, so the mixmaster is really in place already. The local mix is just an extra precaution for deniability (it was my friends company, I had no idea what he was up to!). For the friend to accept the (very minor) risk of jail, he/she should probably be much poorer than you, or have a *lot* of clients, to make his pay outweight the risk. By the way, are there any PGP encrypted mailing lists for discussing serious tax fraud? Mr.X

4 4

No Subject
by Black Unicorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Tue, 7 May 1996, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: > From: IN%"unicorn(a)schloss.li" "Black Unicorn" 29-APR-1996 02:21:48.23 > > >On Sun, 28 Apr 1996, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: > > >> Given discussions as to attorneys holding passphrases, et al, perhaps > >> a tutorial from the lawyers on the list (yourself and others, since > >> disagreements among J.D.'s have been known to happen) on what attorney-client > >> confidentiality does cover? > > >Proposed FRE 503 probably has the best codification of the prevailing > >common law on the subject. I reproduce it in part below. Typos are mine. > > Thank you. Sure. > >The identity of the client and the existance of the attorney client > >relationship are not confidential. There are some exceptions. > > What are the exceptions? When a client wishes to make anonymous restitution. Baird v. Koerner, 279 F.2d 623 (9th Cir. 1960) (Wherein attorney was retained to organize anonymous payment of delinquent taxes and IRS demmanded identification of clients by attorney). The so called "missing link" exception, where where disclosure of the identity of client, in conjunction with already available information, would have the effective result of disclosing a privileged communication or violating the privilege against self incrimination. In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 517 F.2d 666 (5th Cir. 1975); C.f., U.S. v Pape, 144 F.2d 778 (2nd Cir. 1944) (Holding that client's identity was not so protected, but which may or may not still be good law); See Generally, Cleary et al, McCormick on Evidence (3rd edition 1984). > >Stolen property may be held by an attorney for a reasonable time for > >inspection purposes, but must be returned to the rightful owner or the > >attorney will be a receiver of stolen goods and participating in an > >ongoing crime. Privilege will thus not apply. In re Ryder, 263 F.Supp. > >360 (E.D.Va 1967). (Some courts will permit the attorney to refuse to > >disclose the source from which he obtained the property, however). > >Consider this in the context of trade secrets. > > A good point... although if it hasn't been proven whether something is > stolen (e.g., an encrypted piece of data sent to the attorney), I would hope > that privilege would still obtain. Of course, there would be the question > (also important for First Amendment issues) of whether information that the > recipient can't understand is communication. Generally speaking, if the attorney believes or should reasonably know that the item was stolen, privilege will not apply. > >All states have laws against destroying or concealing evidence. The > >attorney who advises his client to destroy evidence is a co-consiprator. > >Privilege does not apply. Clark v. State, 261 S.W.2d 339 (Crim. App Tex. > >1953). (Interesting to wonder if advising a client to encrypt evidence is > >'concealing' it). > > A good question. Of course, again there's the point of what if the > attorney has investigated the matter and decided that no crime is being > committed, but that the material should be destroyed because it could be > embarrasing, lead to other problems (e.g., civil lawsuits), etcetera. If a > court later decides that the attorney was wrong, would privilege still obtain, > and would the attorney be a co-conspirator? I would hope the answers would be > yes and no. First question, I can think of few attornies who would actually advise a client to destroy something that might even one day possibly be evidence. Well, let me rephrase that. I can think of few attornies who would actually advise a client to destroy something that might even one day possibly be evidence if they thought they might be caught. Second question, If the court thinks it was a crime and evidence was destroyed it doesn't much matter what the attorney thought at the time. I'll have to check, but this is probably a "reasonably forseeable" question. On Confidentiality: See Generally, Fred Zacharias, Rethinking Confidentiality, 74 Iowa L. Rev. 351 (1989); Fred Zacharias, Rethinking Confidentiality II, 75 Iowa L. Rev. 601 (1990); Geoffrey Hazard, A Historical Perspective on the Attorney Client Privilege, 66 Calif. L. Rev. 1061 (1978); Developments in the Law: Privileged Communications, 98 Harv. L. Rev. 1450 (1985). -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMY//fmqgui0rHO4JAQGDXQQAvSuhnF5SAHTfGd/EhDH2DMNKd8IquqED FGvD0QrEU+3jzNlNKouqnG0SSsP6ILDpUnwDr6ZvGSrc147Kvf37fP6EIMeqGG6A 7wFfrDrr7Lo/96VXnY6Sd9mI5evxDoUDPr6PS+1rbW2le5s8q0mI6C+cFXM5TDEo jY4mQqePufc= =syxB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --- My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:unicorn@schloss.li "In fact, had Bancroft not existed, potestas scientiae in usu est Franklin might have had to invent him." in nihilum nil posse reverti 00B9289C28DC0E55 E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information Opp. Counsel: For all your expert testimony needs: jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: ecash payee anonymity, cpunk archives
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:36 PM 5/7/96 -0500, Alex Strasheim wrote: >A while back someone posted a note saying that an ecash protocol >garaunteeing payee as well as payer anonymity had been devised. I think that was about a week before Colby disappear, wasn't it? B^) Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Why I Pay Too Much in Taxes
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:46 PM 5/7/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote: >On Tue, 7 May 1996, Timothy C. May wrote: > >> At 1:17 PM 5/7/96, Clay Olbon II wrote: >> >At 5:34 PM 5/6/96, Timothy C. May wrote: >> >>Also, the effect of inflation has been to inflate salaries and thus inflate >> >>people into higher tax brackets, even when their "real wages" have not gone >> >>up. >> > >> >This used to be true. A bill passed during the Reagan administration >> >indexed the brackets to inflation to remedy this situation. I don't know >> >how succesful the bill was in eliminating "bracket creep", but that was the >> >stated purpose. >> >> No, it _still_ is true. One bill during one administration does not a major >> change make. > >I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I sent the text of the law to >the list. The position that you take (that increse in inflation can send >you into the next tax bracket) is incorrect. You seem to be forgetting that one of the provisions of (I believe) the 1986 tax act was that capital gains would be indexed for inflation. However, the sleazy politicians only scheduled it (the indexing process) for about 1990 or so, and by 1990 they managed to get that idiot Bush to agree to drop it. I don't know the details, but this is yet another of the reasons I have no qualms about advocating a system for solving the "politician problem" by putting them 6 feet under. Lawyers who profit from an abusive system may disagree, of course. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: Transitive trust and MLM
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:13 PM 5/7/96 -0400, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: >From: IN%"frantz(a)netcom.com" 7-MAY-1996 23:02:33.09 > >>Some of the solution to this problem may come from the answer to the >>question, "What am I trusting the receiver with?" I can see a number of >>possibilities: > > I think you've forgotten to allow for the signature use. I may want to >know if someone who's posting is indeed the usual/proper person posting from >that address, and in most situations without transitivity I won't be able to >tell. Indeed, signing is something I shouldn't forget (having harassed Senator Leahy on the same subject). I will offer two observations on the subject: (1) Many posts signed by the same key define a personality. The key is "key", not the email address, but they become associated. (2) When in doubt, ask the poster via private email. This method reduces to the levels of trust I described in, "What am I trusting the receiver with?" N.B. I don't sign my posts because I want "implausible deniability". Regards - Bill ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bill Frantz | The CDA means | Periwinkle -- Computer Consulting (408)356-8506 | lost jobs and | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | dead teenagers | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0