December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

RE: A Libertine Question
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:13 PM 7/29/96 -0400, Duncan Frissell wrote: >Perhaps the communitarians in the audience will have to fall back on >disfellowship as the ultimate sanction (like the early Christians). They >won't be able to apply any more advanced weaponry. Just as the ultimate net sanction is excommunication (usually via the ISP, killfiles etc.), the ultimate communitarian sanction is shunning. Anything more takes force, and government reserves the use of force to itself. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | Cave ab homine unius lebri | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | [Beware the man of one | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | book] - Anonymous Latin | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

2 1

Taxes in the digicash world
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi Suppose that digital cash becomes easy enough to use and becomes the mainstream medium in most [or at least many] economic transactions. The question is, how can the government TECHNICALLY collect taxes? I do not mean to start `libertarianism vs. socialism' discussion, I am more interested in the technical aspects of tax collection when transfers of money are protected by strong crypto.. Let's say, maybe this tax would work: every time someone verifies that a piece of digital cash is valid, s/he has to pay the government a little percentage of the amount. Since digital banks are easier to control than other participants of the market, this kind of tax legislation is easier to enforce. Of course these banks may be offshore, and then such collection becomes problemstic. Another alternative that I see is property taxes and poll taxes,or taxes on some commodities such as oil. But incomes seem to be hard to track. What else? - Igor.

4 3

Re: NBC
by Martin Minow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>So how was the tv hacker presentation? I was one interveiwed and was in >las vegas at defcon when it aired. I never saw the final product. > >se7en About what I expected: "We're only exploring, we're not trying to damage anything, etc." -- I didn't tape it so I can't give you more than that impression. Since I've been in this business for well over thirty years and, about ten years ago, had one of my systems infested by Kevin Mitnick, I'm not particularly sympathetic to the "we're just trying to learn" mentality -- if you want to learn, buy a PC and a Linux CD, write some code, give it away, and make a real contribution to the community. Martin.

2 1

Paranoid Musings
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sometimes paranoia strikes. Since these musings are crypto related, I thought I would share them. (1) Now everyone knows that 40 bit RC4 is weak, but just how weak is it? We know that a university CS student can break one message in a week using the universities farm of workstations. But, our foremost reputation agency for crypto strength, the ITAR, allows systems with RC4-40 to be exported. What does this mean? I combine the above with Whit Diffie's observation that, while crypto users are interested in the security of *each* message, organizations which monitor communications want to read *every* message. A TLA interested in monitoring communications would need to crack RC4-40 much faster than 1/week. Now expensive specialized cracking equipment can certainly speed up the process, but there may be a better way. If cryptanalysis of RC4 yields techniques which make the process much easier, then it is the ideal cypher to certify for export. The paranoid conclusion is that there is a significant weakness in RC4. (2) What did Microsoft give up to export its crypto API? Well, if you were a TLA, what would you want. I think I would want an agreement to be able to insert my own code in that vendor's products. Then I would be able to have widely distributed Trojan horses signed by the vendor. I would have the opportunity to significantly weaken standardized crypto systems installed world wide. Conspiracy theorists, start your mailers. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | Cave ab homine unius lebri | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | [Beware the man of one | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | book] - Anonymous Latin | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

2 1

RE: A Libertine Question
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I find it funny that I'm considered Conservative by most people who know me. Your opinion may vary. ;-) tcmay(a)got.net wrote: >Who takes responsibility when people fail to save enough of their >paycheck to last them through the month? Who takes responsibility when >people drink too much, miss work, and are fired? And so on. One common thread in many of these discussions is the ease with which moral judgements are made about the situation: "fail to save", "drink too much". I know the social psychology explanation that people who view the world as ordered attach these types of judgements to situations which violate their ordered view of the world. "She was just asking for it dressed like that..." However, now I'm puzzled. From what I've read of Tim May, he does not hold such an orderly view of the world. The "rules" of existence may prove to be deterministic, but the results are chaotic. So Tim, where are these moral judgments coming from? >The issue of "who takes care of" people who can't hold their liquor, or >who overeat, or who smoke too much, does not enter into the equation. Think of how many of our laws are being enacted that tacitly make being poor or indigent a crime. Curfews being a recently discussed example. If the equation is one of economics, then "who takes care of" people does indeed enter the equation. I suggest that it is more economical to provide for a minimum quality of life- if only as a form of insurance for myself. Think: Rawls. The alternative is to have garbage collectors to "take care of" those that fall behind. Think: Soylent Green. Better twisted than bitter, as Tiny Tim Cratchet used to say. James

4 4

Dry Under the Waterfall
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

If I read *one* more bit of blather about the "information haves and have nots" I am going to take my Streetsweeper down to my local McDonalds and decrease the imbalance between these two groups by reducing the quantity of the latter. It would work just as well as any other solution. The latest blather was in a parting shot in David Kline's last "Market Forces" column in Hot Wired (www.wired.com) "How can we assure that the tired, poor, huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore, the homeless, and tempest-tossed get onto the Net"? (My formulation -- not his.) The answer is we can't. I have been online every day since 1987 or so. Since that time I have begged, pleaded, cajoled, and threatened friends, relatives, casual acquaintances, and total strangers to get them on line. (We are talking here about people who have the cash to easily get wired if they care to.) Sometimes it has worked. Mostly it has not. It has gotten easier to dragoon people onto the net recently but it is still hard. I have taken to telling people who ask me for help setting up their computer systems that I will only help them on the condition that they obtain an ISP account and use it. The usual reason for resistance (beyond a reluctance to spend money) is a failure to appreciate the value of the online experience. No matter how much I plead, many people have not (in the past) been able to see what this all was good for. This was particularly true when online computing was a text-only experience. Non-readers have a problem with text. Now, even though the net is more graphical, it still lacks appeal for 95% of the population (or at least enough appeal to get them on to it). Even though we may know that many people could improve their lives and economic standing by learning to compute and telecommunicate, they don't *know* it and so they are not wired. Par example -- an auto mechanic of my acquaintance was assigned to the office where he worked to handle advanced paper shuffling involving auto parts. He started to use an XT to track parts and got to like it. He asked me for some advice and over the years bought an XT and other machines until he now has two desktops and a laptop networked at home. He's on the net as well. At work, he has become a supervisor in part because he can use computers. The original purchase of a computer has been paid for many times over by increased income. There is nothing new about this, of course. Even without computers, it is obvious that someone who can read and write can average more money in the modern world than one who can't. And yet many people refuse to learn to be good readers. Because they don't read, they also know less. Sans books and periodicals, you simply can't encounter a critical mass of ideas and information sufficient to achieve a self-sustaining intellectual life and the flexible abilities necessary to survive in the current economy. For readers, the modern economy is a piece of cake. And reading is not a "certification" it's a skill. You can get it with minor help. It takes no money and it can't be denied to you by a racist society. Without so much as a high school diploma, a good reader can succeed easily in today's America (credential-happy Europeans have to fend for themselves). Do you doubt this. Assume you are a good reader without credentials. 1) Learn to type. (Used manual portables cost $12 at the Sally Army.) 3) Get a temp job that requires typing. (Lie about your high school diploma. Since you are well dressed from the same Sally Army where you got your typewriter and have excellent communication skills -- these things are under your control -- it shouldn't be much trouble.) 2) Learn to word process. (Commodore 64's and used b/w TV sets cost $25 or less at flea markets. Running the tutorials at hourly PC rental places are pretty cheap as well. If you are a good typist, temp agencies will cross train you on PCs so they can rent your rear end out for more dough.) 4) Become an experienced (permanent) temp word processor on the night shift in the financial district of NYC making $22.50-$27.00/hour. ($18.00/hour -- days.) 5) Then become a (contract) tech writer and start to make more money. All that is necessary for the above is the ability to read and write fluently which is open to all persons of normal intelligence. But most choose not to learn those skills (which is why they pay so much in today's market). Similarly, most people are not interested in learning to compute and in getting wired. Instead they stand around an bitch about how their incomes are flat and they can't find work when they get laid off at 50. Hardly surprising. They've already established that they're dead from the neck up. I wouldn't hire them, why should anyone else. This is the phenomenon of the modern world. So many people one meets are pig ignorant. They are sitting under a waterfall of knowledge cascading over them in a volume unprecedented in human history and yet they contrive not to get wet. Meanwhile, we are told that the information have-nots are being denied access to the wonders of the information age. I'm very sorry but they have already rejected the wonders of the last information age that started 541 years ago with the publication of the Mazarin Bible. People who can't even bother to read and write will not be helped by our cash and Al Gore's preaching. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think. DCF "So Louis Freeh wants expanded wiretap authority. What's the matter? Craig Livingstone short of reading material"?

5 5

Re: A Libertine Question (fwd)
by Cerridwyn Llewyellyn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate <ravage(a)EINSTEIN.ssz.com> argued: >As long as they have a license to operate a food dispencing facility (in >other words they are certifying they are aware of the correct processes for >such operations) then nobody should have the right to interfere with their >operation unless with probable cause (ie proof of danger such as bad weenies >in their hot dogs). This would not apply to individuals or families making >such food in the same place for their own and NOT public consumption. I believe the issue with Food Not Bombs is they didn't get the appropriate permits, etc, or were denied them, or something. However, I disagree with you on this point. I think they shouldn't be required to obtain a license, but everyone whom they serve food to should know that they don't have such a license. This would equal informed consent. Also, with Food Not Bombs, many of the people that the food is being served to is also involved in cooking, distributing food, and cleaning up. I've been told it's exactly like a big picnic, except for anyone is invited to help and/or eat.

1 0

Re: A Libertine Question (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 16:50:01 -0500 (CDT) > From: snow <snow(a)smoke.suba.com> > Subject: Re: A Libertine Question > > As long as you are enforcing it on everyone, I don't think you'd have a > problem, but to force some one from cooking food for homeless people, and > allow a family barbeque, is IMO wrong. Not at all. Businesses have no rights, individuals do. Businesses have a responsibility to protect their patrons (if you don't think so ask all the folks in Japan or the people here in Austin sick from Strawberries and Blueberries they bought at the local HEB). Individuals have a right to privacy, that includes cooking themselves food without harrassment. Business on the other hand are selling products of potentialy questionable quality. A reasonable person recognizes that such a business has two ways of fulfilling its responsiblities. They can either submit to regulation and quality control from the local municipality or else they can hang signs about their place of business declaring "Caveat Emptor: Our food may be tainted, eat at your own risk". Which do you think is the more reasonable? > If it is unsafe/unsanitary to cook > food in a certain way, it is unsafe/unsanitary. Selective enforcement is > wrong. Not at all. I have a right to kill myself with bad cooking if I choose. I do not have the right to kill another, especialy a stranger, without their prior consent. I guess it would be ok if a food vendor were to ask you if you minded being killed by their product, but I doubt many of them would be in business next week, let alone sell many hot dogs. People and businesses are not the same. Jim Choate

2 1

Re: VISA Travel Money
by Hallam-Baker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timothy C. May wrote: > I'm also skeptical of these "VISA Travel Money" cards. That is, they don't > seem to be too useful for anything. They are usefull for the one purpose for which they are designed. One can go off to a foreign country and obtain cash as required without having to pay often usurous fees from bureaux de change. Just because you are supposed to be able to use travel cheques as cash does not mean that you really can. > After all, cash works well. (It's rarely stolen, in my experience, or at > least this is not a major concern. Traveller's checks work well, and can be > "cashed" into the local currency. ATM machines fill the same function these > "VISA Travel Money" cards apparently do; at least when I was in Europe the > last time this is what I used, and my French francs were as untraceable as > could be. > > As I see it, yet another marketing solution looking for a problem. Its not a major VISA product but it is reasonably usefull. Its more convenient to carry a card than cash. If one gets mugged or looses the card there is a way of recovering the cash (sometimes). I don't think that there would be much use for such cards in the tourist belt but you might well want to have one if you were going on a trip to the hinterlands of a country. For most people VISA travel cheques or a cash advance is likely to be more usefull. > A real step would be a true privacy card, a card issued in a jurisdiction > unfriendly to U.S. investigators and offering various transaction-blinding > options. I have to wonder what pressures have been put on the major credit > card companies... See the Stored Value Card work that VISA have been working on, or MONDEX. MONDEX has almost every feature you would want from anonymous cash except you can't prove its anonymous. You can do purse to purse transfers however. Its a different level of privacy to that of e-cash. e-cash provides only purchaser unlinkability and its an online scheme. MONDEX makes it possible to trace certain withdrawal and deposit patterns of a user but little else. Phill

4 3

RE: Tolerance (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: jbugden(a)smtplink.alis.ca > Date: Fri, 02 Aug 96 11:19:52 EST > Subject: RE: Tolerance (fwd) > > Jim Choate <ravage(a)einstein.ssz.com> wrote: > >Libertarian views should be basicaly if it doesn't harm anothers person or > >property without their prior consent then it should be legal and >permissible. > > It is important to consider cultural factors when deciding how groups will react > to differing standards of legal and permissible actions. For example, a brief > summary of the basic tenets held by some different European cultures are given > below: > > British: Everything is permitted, unless it is forbidden. > German: Everything is forbidden, unless it is permitted. > France: Everything is permitted, especially if it is forbidden. > Culture has nothing to do with inherent civil liberities, you have them simply for being alive. People create social contracts to limit those rights. You have the cart before the horse. Jim Choate

1 0