December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Why should we trust the system?
by an681132＠anon.penet.fi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> Previously, jonathon <grafolog(a)netcom.com> wrote: >> >> I know of a very good way to ensure that judges do follow >> the standards that they claim to follow. >> >> It works even better at making politicians keep all the >> election promises the make. >> >> Has one drawback --- it reduces the number of people willing >> to carry out those two functions to virtually zero. OTOH, that >> probably would be a very good thing. > Previously, jim bell <jimbell(a)pacifier.com> wrote: > That's odd...I know of one also! B^) Ok, please clue in the clueless. --****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--***ATTENTION*** Your e-mail reply to this message WILL be *automatically* ANONYMIZED. Please, report inappropriate use to abuse(a)anon.penet.fi For information (incl. non-anon reply) write to help(a)anon.penet.fi If you have any problems, address them to admin(a)anon.penet.fi

1 0

Re: National Socio-Economic Security Need for Encryption Technology
by Bart Croughs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Duncan Frissel wrote: >In the long run, employers will bid wages up to the level of discounted value of marginal product of the labor -- the present value of the future "price" of the increase in output ascribable to the added worker.< You are right. Wages are determined by the productivity of labor. But the productivity of labor in its turn is for a large part determined by the amount of capital invested. So, there is no contradiction here. >It never ceases to amaze me that there are people in this country who actually believe that the average American in poorer now than in 1970. I can only be those who were unconscious in 1970.< I think you're probably right again, but I never said that the average American is poorer now than in 1970. Again, no contradiction here. Bart Croughs

1 0

Re: Anguilla story...
by Vincent Cate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: sasa.roskar(a)uni-lj.si > > Can someone please tell me the origin of this whole Anguilla story > that's been going around a lot for the past few days... I just > got onto the list two days ago, and I didn't catch the beginning > of it... thanks, In a nut shell, taxbomber.com was on my system in Anguilla. He was selling "camoflauge passports". One David Evans of Bloomberg Business News wrote an article where he quoted taxbombers page saying something like "it is illegal to use these passports to open up bank accounts, but there is little chance of getting caught". I got a call from my lawyer who had seen the article (along with just about everyone else in Anguilla) and he told me that was illegal in Anguilla and I should cancle the account. I did and taxbomber moved to another provider in another country. 1) A number of cypherpunks are dissapointed that I did not fight to my death to defend this guy. 2) If the guy did not mention where his site was, the reporter probably would never have mentioned Anguilla and me in the article. 3) If something is illegal in one country and legal in another, the guy can move. Going after the provider in one country will not stop him. 4) Anguilla is a taxhaven. Anything that gives the country a bad name hurts the clean business, where most of the money is. -- Vince ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Vincent Cate vince(a)offshore.com.ai http://www.offshore.com.ai/vince/ Offshore Information Services http://www.offshore.com.ai/

1 0

Re: (Off Topic) Re: FCC_ups
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:34 AM 8/12/96 -0400, Rabid Wombat wrote: > Anyone that wants to carry a large volume of traffic via the 'net will > find that either the market will dictate that they pay for the bandwidth > they use, or the FCC will. I don't see the FCC getting involved, unless > the "phone service via internet" providor tries to use the courts to get > out of paying for the bandwidth they use. Bandwidth costs almost nothing, unless you are doing full motion video. What is expensive is cutting that bandwidth up into little pieces and delivering those pieces to the people who want to use it at the time that they want to use it. Thus those who retail bandwidth will have the bulk of the revenue, rather than those who wholesale it. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

5 4

Re: National Socio-Economic Security Need for Encryption Technology
by Bart Croughs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timothy May wrote: >The problem with the "Croughs Axiom" is not that there is not a _general_ correlation between average national wages and average national capital investment--there is. < As I said, I would be proud if the axiom that wages are determined by the amount of capital invested was discovered by me, but it really isn't, so there is no reason to keep calling it the "Croughs axiom". This is no display of false modesty. This axiom was already accepted by Austrian economists when I wasn't even born. See my quotes of Rothbard, Hazlitt, etc. in one of my previous posts on this subject. >A scatter plot of wages vs. capital investment for the 200 or so nations would almost certainly show that the Ivory Coast has low per capita wages and low per capita wages, Sweden has both higher wages and higher capital investment per capita, and so on.< I couldn't agree more. > Correlation, of course, is not causation.< Sometimes correlation and causation don't go together; sometimes they do. In this case, they go together. I mentioned the reasoning behind this in a previous post on this subject, but maybe you didn't read this, so I will repeat it here: "Imagine Robinson Crusoe. In the beginning, he catches fish with his bare hands. He has no capital investment, and consequently he is not very productive. His wage will be low (he will not catch much fish). If there is more capital investment - if, for example, he has a fishing rod - he will catch more fish in less time. His productivity is higher. His wage is higher (more fish). If there is still more capital investment - if, for example, he has a boat and fishing nets - he will catch even more fish. His productivity is higher. His wage is higher. Etcetera. So, it's really not difficult to see that Robin's standard of living depends on the amount of capital available on his island. The same goes for the rest of humanity." :>No, the problem was that Croughs invoked this general _correlation_ (which can arise for various reasons) to support his mercantilist protectionist ideas.< This general correlation between wages and the amount of capital invested does not arise for various reasons; it arises for the reason explained above. But of course there are reasons why there is more capital investment in the U.S. than there is in Third World countries. The main reason is that economic activities were and are hindered by the Third World governments more than by the U.S. government. As I already explained in a previous post on this subject, I have no mercantilist protectionist ideas. Even when the movement of US capital abroad would lead to a drop in wages for US workers, I would still support the free movement of capital, simply because I subscribe to the libertarian non-aggression axiom. (And no, I didn't discover this axiom either. Alas.) > (He also didn't say he was talking of nations, which is why some of us found the examples we did, e.g., MacDonald's vs. law firms, which have the opposite correlation he described.)< I didn't say I was talking about nations, because I thought this would be obvious for anyone who knows a bit about economics. Maybe I should have been more explicit here. >And the cloud of ideas connected with somehow forcing capital investment to remain in the U.S....well, the best way to do this is to alter the tax laws so that America (for example) becomes a magnet for investment. (If one is looking to help America, that is.)< I couldn't agree more. But this still doesn't answer the question I asked in my original post. >In any case, the original notion, of somehow using cryptography policy to support U.S. interests....well, I rather doubt that Menger, Von Mises, Hayek, Hazlitt, or any of the others connected with the Austrian School would buy Crough's protectionist arguments.< I don't understand. Do you mean to say that I had the notion of using cryptography policy to support U.S. interests? Read my posts again, I can't find this notion in my posts. It agree that Menger, Von Mises, Hayek or Hazlitt could probably answer the question I asked in my original post, which I will repeat here for the sake of clarity: "If American companies are moving capital to Third World countries because of the low wages in these countries, then the workers in the Third World will of course be better off. But in the US, the amount of capital will be lowered. So the American workers will be able to get other jobs, but these jobs will pay less, because of the diminished amount of capital in the US. (As I said in another post on this subject, I mean that these jobs will pay *relatively less*, that is: less than they would have been paid if the American capital wouldn't have left the U.S.) Of course there are advantages also for the US (shareholders will get higher returns, trade will increase), but how can you proof that these advantages will offset the disadvantage of the lowered amount of capital in the US? " So I agree that the Austrian economists could probably answer my question, but in their books I wasn't able to find the answer, and these economists are not on this list. So I hoped that others on this list who had knowledge of Austrian economics could answer this question. That's really the only reason I asked my question: I wanted to be able to rebut protectionist arguments more effectively.You seem to be acquainted with the Austrian economists, but so far, you didn't answer my question. >And I certainly know that jingoistic appeals to "America First!" are inconsistent with the sentiments of many or even most on this list.< I know, that's why it's so disappointing that nobody has been able to answer my question thus far. And, as I said earlier, I share this sentiment; that's why I'm on the list. I just want to be able to defend my sentiments better against protectionist arguments. Bart Croughs

1 0

Re: don't say "bomb" on the internet
by an681132＠anon.penet.fi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Previously "I=(!isnum(self))" <geeman(a)best.com> wrote: <snip> > `(l) It shall be unlawful for any person to teach or demonstrate the >making of explosive materials, or to distribute by any means information >pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture of explosive materials, --****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--***ATTENTION*** Your e-mail reply to this message WILL be *automatically* ANONYMIZED. Please, report inappropriate use to abuse(a)anon.penet.fi For information (incl. non-anon reply) write to help(a)anon.penet.fi If you have any problems, address them to admin(a)anon.penet.fi

1 0

re: National Socio-Economic Security Need for Encryption Technology
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:29 AM 8/13/96 +-200, Bart Croughs wrote: > In several posts I gave quotes from famous Austrian economists > that support my statement that according to Austrian economists > wages depend on the amount of capital invested. You are wrong, and Perry is wrong, or rather you are misleading, and Perry is wrong. The statement "wages depend on the amount of capital invested". can have several meanings. In the hands of the Austrians, it does not have the implications that you force on it, and this is what Perry ought to be complaining about, though instead he is saying something quite different. Obviously if everyone saves more money and invests it those things that they find most profitable, this will raise both total income and wages. Obviously if the government takes control of other peoples capital, and directs it to those places it finds most socially desirable, this will lower both total income and wages. I assume we are in agreement so far. Next question: If the government restrains american businessmen from investing outside America, will this alter the balance of power between capital and labor inside America, in favor of labor, while altering it against labor outside America. Well if nothing else changed, yes it would, and if Perry denied this he was wrong. But of course capital is international, because it belongs to individuals, not to nations. Since large amounts of money flow in and out of the US, a bureaucratic intervention that aimed to have the desired effect would have to be extensive and drastic, amounting to fascist style socialism. Again, I assume we are in agreement on this. Next question: Competition between labor in the third world, and labor in the US. In those cases where labor is a minor factor in production, then the price of labor would be dominated by the cheapest source of labor. Or rather the cheapest source of labor that is not controlled by a government that capriciously robs and enslaves. At present the cheapest such labor source is probably Thailand, which is not actually all that cheap these days, but is one hell of a lot cheaper than the US. But for *desirable jobs*, such as software engineering, the jobs that people are getting excited about, the cost of labor in Thailand is roughly comparable to the cost in America. The kind of jobs that are being taken by cheap unskilled Thai labor, are the jobs you cannot get anyone to do in America except for illegal immigrants. We would expect this, because in any area where labor is the dominant factor of production (such as engineering) a large supply of cheap labor will very swiftly CREATE the necessary capital. Again, you might point to India as an infamous counter example, since engineering labor is vastly cheaper in India. But this is not a result of supply and demand causing an extreme misdistribution of wealth between capital and labor, but is a reflection of the fact that an engineer who is subject to the power of the Indian government is not worth very much, as is demonstrated by the fact that companies with Indian engineering teams often spend a lot of money to get their employees out of India. Demand for Indian programmers is less than supply not because capital has somehow failed to flow to India, but because an engineer in India is not free to produce the value that engineers elsewhere are free to produce. To say the same thing another way: The primary capital for engineers is that held within engineers heads. Therefore controls on capital flows are controls on engineers, which are likely to benefit those doing the controlling, not those controlled. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

1 0

Re: Police prepare stunning end for high-speed car chases
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:15 PM 8/12/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: >At 4:43 AM 8/13/96, jim bell wrote: >>At 09:54 AM 8/12/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: >> >>> >>>(And I'm not ignorant of such technologies, having attended several of the >>>Nuclear and Space Radiation Effects Conferences. I also played around with > >>Why would you need an "EM Cannon" for this? Just string a 1-car-sized loop >>of wire on the surface of a road, and off in the bushes hide a battery, >>DC-to-Hi voltage DC converter and 20kv+ capacitor, and a vacuum switch or >>some other switch arrangement. When the car in question traverses the loop, >>short the switch and the car will be blasted with 20,000 volt-turns of >>induction. Sure, most of it will pass harmlessly through the car's steel, >>but even iron has a limited "mu" which means that every electrical device in >>the car will be subjected to a certain amount of induced EMF, probably >>enough to at least reset a few microprocessors and possibly even destroy them. > >Well, we're all operating based on speculation, as to intended modes of >operation, what the contracts may ask for, what may eventually get >delivered, etc. > >Certainly the described mode, that of a police car _pursuing_ another car, >suggests a car-launched signal. Rewiring the nation's roads to include >buried cables in anticipation of a future use would be pretty expensive! Yes, it would be rather impractical for _that_ particular application. >(And if the cops can plan for a suspect/fleeing car to pass a specific >location, low-tech solutions like laying a row of caltrops across the road >will do much the same thing as "zapping" (which may not even work.)) The one place where this might be practical is on highways where these units can be placed fairly sparsely and still have a Even so, I think that non-police applications are more "interesting." >As to high-voltage zapping, on this I am _extremely_ skeptical, at least as >Jim's proposal above goes. Modern chips are equipped to deal with >high-voltage, having electrostatic discharge (ESD) provisions. Voltages a >lot higher than 20kv. That's based on a certain source model. You know, a specific capacitor in series resistance to limit the current. However, if the current was induced from a low-impedance circuit, damaging currents might flow even if the EMF within a certain shielded loop in the car never exceeded a few tens of volts. > >And getting this hv signal in to the interior of the engine compartment, >and past the various thermal and other shields would be a chore. Certainly >the rubber tires will provide an _awful_ lot of insulation! No, Tim, remember that I'm postulating an _inductively_ coupled system. Loop on ground, loops in the car, etc. Magnetic coupling. Conduction through car tires would be irrelevant the the functioning of this system. Wouldn't hurt it; wouldn't help it. (Side note: BTW, car tires are not non-conductive. Check it out someday with a ohmmeter.) Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Fw: Re: Free Pronto Secure Offer
by geoff＠commtouch.co.il 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Date: Tue Aug 13 18:39:12 1996 on Aug 13 Sean Sutherland wrote: > Whatever happened to that free offer for ProntoSecure for members of > the Cpunk list? Remembered hearing something about it awhile back, > but I don't know exactly what it is. Thanks. The offer is still on. A free copy of Pronto Secure in exchange for feedback. Open to anyone on the c'punk list. http://www.commtouch.com/p1.htm for download. http://www.commtouch.com/testers.htm for users' impressions. http://www.commtouch.com/s-mail.html for description. Announcement: Effective immediately. New list price for Pronto - ------------ Secure is $99. Contact secure(a)commtouch.com if group discounts required. - --------------------------------------------------------------- Geoff Klein, Pronto Secure Product Manager; www.commtouch.com My PGP public Key 1814AD45 can be obtained by sending a message to geoff(a)commtouch.co.il with "Get PGP Key" as the subject. - ---------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBMhChpkLv5OMYFK1FAQFE/gP+NVaU5a+fdU5YuGLPDrD02DuXgfc/skZP sKUuE2yJcBV1N7ITjWJEkf98hgWr688G71lJ2+1JGob1bLBF5bBDT3M2ag5eX5Dl dARvhjtcU4+bDxOrnOsJ4wlAyTZ1WmfmaDoe5IPKdgAu+6gTDS+3dq31vm2oFaud /2qazWTTUwA= =jFNk -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2

Econopunks FAQ, Ver. 0.98
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

What is a Fair Price for a good or service? There is no such thing as a Fair Price. There are only the prices paid by willing buyers and sellers. These are generally called market prices. Many factors influence price including cost of production and product characteristics but the only determinants are the desire of market actors to complete transactions at given prices. You may think that you are smart enough to decide what a good or service should sell for, but if you're not putting cash on the barrel head, you're not even part of the process of arriving at the "price". ******* Just a suggestion to future Econopunks posters: Try not to post the economics equivalent of the "Can't you make an unbreakable code by running the plaintext through a Caesarian Cypher 7500 times?" question. DCF "No good or service should be sold for more than its cost of production -- therefore, all you folks who are ripping off your employers must report to the slave barracks where you will be provided with triple bunks (hot bunked), all the rice and beans needed to sustain life, a multivitamin tablet daily, and loads of clean water."

2 1