December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

the theory of split currency
by James A. Donald 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

Fred Foldvary <ffoldvar(a)jfku.jfku.edu> wrote: > Is there a name for a dual or split currency, in which > there is one currency for domestic use and another, different > appearing, currency for foreign usage? > > Does anyone know of any country which has had such a > split currency? Many third world nations employed this system, one currency for internal use only, and one currency for international transactions. The international currency was sometimes denominated in hard currency, and reasonably convertible into it. This strategy was frequently associated with police state tactics, lawless imprisonment, and swift execution, for vaguely defined economic crimes. It has become substantially less common in the nineties. The external currency tended to spread into the internal economy, despite police state measures to prevent this from happening, and the internal currency tended to become worthless and could only be spent while holding a gun to the head of the person accepting it. In countries employing this system, women, and often children of both sexes, are often cheaply available for sexual purposes if you have foreign currency. I speculate that this is because people find that they *must* obtain foreign currency, the internal currency being unspendable, and any method available to them for obtaining foreign currency is a criminal offense. A retreat from this system, usually by allowing the international currency to freely penetrate the internal economy, tends to be associated with a substantial reduction in the availability of young girls, as for example in Cuba recently. > This scenario is not entirely hypothetical. I have read that > Senator Patrick Leahy introduced Senate Bill #307 to create > such a split currency. Why am I not surprised that it was Senator Patrick Leahy of crypto bill fame? --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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

2 1

Re: Public Schools
by snow 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

> On Sat, 28 Sep 1996, Adamsc wrote: > able to learn from their experiences, and will probably find working for > them less frustrating than working for a "Dilbert Zone" manager. Sooner > or later, though, you will encounter Dilbert's boss in the workplace, and > not everyone can leave to become a famous cartoonist. You may need to Well, there is always AP. > become (eeek!) a technical manager. You won't fare well if you've > completely neglected those non-technical skills. You'll be forced to > communicate with mundanes ... > Work to succeed in that creative writing course. Someday you will have a > Great Idea, and no matter how well you know you can implement the Great > Idea, you will need to convince others to believe, too. You will need > funding, or staffing, or equipment, and you will need to make others > understand the Great Idea, even if they do not have the technical > background to do so. You will be a sad and frustrated individual if you > cannot convince them. You get hold of a technical writer, explain it to them (they are use to translating geek to mundane). > Pack in all the math and comp sci you can, but take a real English course > or two, and not "pocket protector comp. 101", either. Dabble in eastern > philosophy, art history, or whatever catches your fancy, and see a bit of > the world outside the computer lab. Your technical skills will take you > much farther if you can understand their impact on the world. Good luck. While this is all true, most of it could be aquired in a competent High School. Petro, Christopher C. petro(a)suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff> snow(a)smoke.suba.com

1 0

Re: More proposals for European censorship
by E. Allen Smith 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

From: IN%"trei(a)process.com" 24-SEP-1996 07:54:10.53 >Or are you suggesting that this particular gang of sub-humans was >exposed at this time in an attempt to influence policy, implying that >the Belgian LEAs knew about, but did not stop the ring until they >needed a publicity coup? How about "The LEAs put more effort into solving cases which can get a political benefit than ones that don't"? Given limited police resources (fortunately), they've got to prioritize somehow... and given politically-appointed higher-ups, some form of concentration on helpful-publicity cases is inevitable. -Allen

1 0

Re: Utah as a Religious Police State
by Ryan Russell/SYBASE 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

A couple of people have pointed out what he was talking about, one of which is below. I haven't been able to find an article on the web that does more than reference the event. I'll try to hunt up one of the books. If anyone cares, I'll post what I find later. Ryan ---------- Previous Message ---------- To: cypherpunks cc: From: mirele @ xmission.com ("Deana Holmes") @ smtp Date: 09/30/96 06:53:41 AM Subject: Re: Utah as a Religious Police State On 29 Sep 96 at 17:36, Ryan Russell/SYBASE wrote: > Hmm...never heard that one before. Care to produce > a reference? > > (Or am I supposed to be ignoring this guy when he > makes ridiculous claims?) > > Ryan I suspect that Dmitri is referring to the Mountain Meadows Massacre. It's not a pretty story and is one of the low points of Mormon history. The late historian Juanita Brooks wrote about the masscre, and about the leader, John D. Lee, in a couple of books. > ---------- Previous Message ---------- > To: cypherpunks > cc: > From: dlv @ bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) @ smtp > Date: 09/29/96 05:54:09 PM > Subject: Re: Utah as a Religious Police State > > Ryan Russell/SYBASE writes: > > I guess that depends on your definition of liberty. The Mormons > > originally moved there to have a place to practice their religion, > > and have freedom from persecution. I suppose one could extend that > > to wanting a place to have the freedom to have a set of rules consistant > > with their beliefs. Should that include freedom from interferance from > > folks such as yourself who want to change their rules, even though > > you're not presently effected? > > It's worth noting that one of Utah mormons favorite pastimes was to ambush > the settlers heading for California, kill them all, and take their property. > However the mormons were dealt with much less severely than the local Indians > who tried the same tricks. Pity. ===end vulis rant=== Deana Deana M. Holmes April 1996 poster child for clueless $cientology litigiousness alt.religion.scientology archivist since 2/95 mirele(a)xmission.com

1 0

Minor wording error in Snake Oil FAQ
by rjasonc＠pobox.com 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

>Date: Mon, 30 Sep 96 11:05 EST >From: "Robert S. Powers" <@mcimail.com> >To: rjasonc <rjasonc(a)pobox.com> >Subject: Wording error in your email > >Minor wording error. Your paragraph: > > random session This is a temporary key that is generated specifically for > key one message. Typically, in public key cryptosystems, the > message to be sent is encrypted with a symmetric key that > was specifically generated for that message. The encrypted > version of that message, as well as the associated session Wording error here > < > key can then be encrypted with the recipient's public key. > When the recipient decrypts the message, then, the system > will actually decrypt the message it gets (which is the > ciphertext message and the symmetric key to decrypt it), > and then use the symmetric key to decrypt the ciphertext. > The result is the plaintext message. This is often done > because of the tremendous difference in the speed of > symmetric vs. asymmetric ciphers. > > >...says that BOTH the message and the secret key are encrypted >using the public key system. I'm sure it's just a wording error; >but clearly the public key system is NOT generally used to encrypt >the full message. That would take too long, as you point out; >and that's why the secret key is used at all! > >bp

1 0

Lucent & Internet Phone
by E. Allen Smith 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

> _________________________________________________________________ > PC Travel > _________________________________________________________________ > LUCENT VOWS TO MAKE INTERNET PHONES EASY TO USE > __________________________________________________________________________ > Copyright &copy 1996 Nando.net > Copyright &copy 1996 Reuter Information Service > NEW YORK (Sep 17, 1996 7:53 p.m. EDT) - Lucent Technologies Inc., > vowing to make voice and video communication over the Internet as > easy-to-use and accessible as the telephone, unveiled Tuesday a new > business venture and several products designed to bring Internet > communication into the mainstream. [...] > The venture is charged with commercializing several ground-breaking > Internet software commpression technologies developed at Lucent's Bell > Laboratories research unit. Such technology shrinks the capacity > required to transmit information over communications networks. > Internet-based communications typically requires access to a personal > computer, but Lucent envisions using the telephone or other consumer > electronics device for the same purpose. > Murray Hill, N.J.-based Lucent said its new Elemedia Internet business > is now offering software that allows callers to hold > "telephone-quality" conversations over the Internet. Has anyone taken a look at this software with a view to an encryption patch? > Lucent said its strategy was to capitalize on software component > technology developed by Bell Labs by licensing it to other Internet > phone makers and established telephone carriers for use in their own > products. Lucent does not intend to sell its products directly to the > public. As I recall, Jeff Weinstein mentioned that he was looking into encryption for the Netscape Internet Phone. I would be curious if Netscape is considering integrating the Lucent software. > It said its products would be compatible with all major computer > operating systems and Internet browsers software. [...] > Lucent will introduce a means for callers using standard telephones to > place calls via the Internet to callers at conventional phones or to > newer PC-based phones. > "We believe voice communications between Internet PCs is much more > valuable if those voice conversations can happen with people who have > telephones," Pavarini said. > Lucent officials said these new business-oriented products will become > commercially available beginning in the first quarter of 1997 in the > United States and be rolled out to selected overseas markets through > the second quarter of 1997. [...] > Copyright &copy 1996 Nando.net

1 0

Malaysia ranting about the Internet
by E. Allen Smith 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

Rack up another country likely to start censoring the Net (or trying to, at least). What degree of Internet connectivity does Malaysia have, anyway? > _________________________________________________________________ > Centura > _________________________________________________________________ > MALAYSIA SAYS WEST SPREADING SMUT AND VIOLENCE > __________________________________________________________________________ > Copyright &copy 1996 Nando.net > Copyright &copy 1996 Reuter Information Service > UNITED NATIONS (Sep 28, 1996 02:12 a.m. EDT) - Malaysia's prime > minister accused the West Friday of spreading smut and violence, > particularly on the Internet. And what, pray tell, is wrong with this? > In his speech to the U.N. General Assembly, Mahathir bin Mohamad said > that although the information age facilitated worldwide knowledge, it > also demeaned moral values. > "Smut and violence gratuitously distributed by criminals in the North > is no less polluting than carbon dioxide emissions nor less dangerous > than drug trafficking." All three of them things that probably shouldn't be limited, noticeably, and things that are classically used to discourage human freedom & progress. > In a reference to the United States he said if one great power could > apply its laws to citizens of another country for drug trafficking > "why cannot countries with different moral codes extradite the > traffickers of pornography for legal action?" > "Before the whole world sinks deeper into moral decay, the > international community should act. Abuse of the ubiquitous Internet > system must be stopped," he said. > Politically, he said the monopoly of the West's electronic media > should be broken on so-called world news networks. > "Not only are distorted pictures of our countries being broadcast but > our own capacity to understand what is happening is being undermined," > he said. Translation: people are finding out true information that local governments don't like - such as what goes wrong. > "In the past, Western missionaries spread the gospel. Today the media > has taken over and all our cherished values and diverse cultures are > being destroyed," he said. Translation: our culture that promotes censorship and other civil liberties violations is being destroyed. [...] > The prime minister also lashed out at U.N. forums where nations > lamented poverty, debt, human rights abuse, conflicts and war without > doing much about them. > "It is boring almost. And yet nothing much has been done which could > bring about amelioration of this sad state of affairs," he said. Translation: Give us money. > Copyright &copy 1996 Nando.net

1 0

Another briefing in Atlanta on the NRC crypto report,... (fwd)
by Stanton McCandlish 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

CRYPTO typed: >From crypto(a)nas.edu Mon Sep 30 07:32:49 1996 Date: Mon, 30 Sep 96 10:26:00 EST From: "CRYPTO" <crypto(a)nas.edu> Encoding: 27 Text Message-Id: <9608308441.AA844104704(a)nas.edu> To: crypto(a)nas.edu Subject: Another briefing in Atlanta on the NRC crypto report,... Subject: Another briefing in Atlanta on the NRC crypto report, October 21, 1996 Cryptography's Role in Securing the Information Society A Public Briefing in Atlanta, Georgia Monday, October 21, 1996, 1:30-3:30 pm There will be a public briefing in Atlanta, Georgia by the National Research Council on this report. The briefing will be held at the Manufacturing Research Center on the campus of the Georgia Institute of Technology on Monday October 21, from 1:30 to 3:30. Dr. Herbert Lin, director of the NRC study will conduct the briefing. Questions from the audience will be entertained. For further information, please contact Dr. Myron L. Cramer (404) 894-7292, <myron.cramer(a)gtri.gatech.edu> at the Georgia Tech Research Institute. The event is open to the press and the public. Directions: From I-75/85 exit on Tenth Street and head West. Turn left on Hemphill Street and follow it to where it ends on Ferst Street. The Manufacturing Research Center is the modern building in front of you. Parking is limited; use public transportation or allow yourself extra time. If you have suggestions about other places that the committee should offer a public briefing, please send e-mail to crypto(a)nas.edu. -- <HTML><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/~mech"> Stanton McCandlish </A><HR><A HREF="mailto:mech@eff.org"> mech(a)eff.org </A><P><A HREF="http://www.eff.org"> Electronic Frontier Foundation </A><P> Program Director </HTML>

1 0

[NEWS] More internet-tax proposals
by E. Allen Smith 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

> _________________________________________________________________ > Centura > _________________________________________________________________ > INTERNET BEWARE: GOVERNMENTS ARE SMELLING A RICH NEW SOURCE OF TAXES > __________________________________________________________________________ > Copyright &copy 1996 Nando.net > Copyright &copy 1996 The Boston Globe > (Sep 25, 1996 8:06 p.m. EDT) If taxes are the price we pay for > civilization, the Internet is about to become a lot more civilized. > State and local governments are coming to see on-line computer > networks as a rich, new revenue source, and they want to cash in. > An official of the Massachusetts Department of Revenue said this month > on-line service providers that do business in the state should be > paying a 5 percent sales tax. Those who haven't been paying could face > audits, penalties and demands for back taxes. > The state of Tennessee has demanded on-line services doing business > there turn over their tax records and a count of how many customers > they have in the state. Cities in Texas and Colorado are considering > special on-line taxes. And a recent effort to slap a 6 percent tax on > Internet users in Tacoma, Wash., aroused so much public outrage that > city officials were forced to back off. > Many Internet experts agree that Internet taxes are inevitable. After > all, connecting computers to the Internet is now a $2 billion > business, and people use these networks to buy and sell millions of > dollars in goods and services. [...] > But some also fear the chaos that could result as 50 state governments > and thousands of cities and counties each make their own rules about > taxing computer networks and the transactions that occur on them. > The issue may be given new prominence, thanks to a surprising decision > by a major Internet service provider. In late August, Netcom On-Line > Communication Services Inc. began notifying its Massachusetts > customers the company would start adding the state's 5 percent sales > tax to its bills. Netcom typically charges $19.95 a month for a > personal Internet account, so the tax would amount to $1. Similar > notices were sent to Netcom customers in several other states, > including Illinois and Pennsylvania. > Did the taxing authorities in these states demand their money? Guess > again. Netcom has decided to begin paying the taxes voluntarily. > Thomas Weatherford, Netcom's chief financial officer, said its > accounting firm, Ernst & Young, warned them early this year that > Netcom might be liable for the taxes. [...] > So Netcom contacted state tax officials for clarification. Netcom's > 500,000 customers are scattered throughout the United States, but the > company is focusing on tax laws in Massachusetts and 14 other states > where most of its customers dwell. Weatherford said he still had > received no official word from Massachusetts, but Netcom attorneys had > concluded the company is subject to the state's telecommunication > sales tax. To play it safe, it will begin collecting the tax this > month. Remind me not to sign up with Netcom. > It's probably a smart move. At the Massachusetts Department of > Revenue, acting general counsel William Hazel told the Globe that > Netcom and every other on-line service provider should be paying the > sales tax. > "To the extent that folks are being charged for the ability to > telecommunicate through the Internet... that's taxable," he said. > This situation could change. The state has set up a legislative > commission to review its telecommunications tax policy, with a final > report due next year. But for now, Hazel said, Massachusetts wants its > money, including back taxes from up to seven years ago. Hazel said > some Internet access providers are paying the tax already. > But plenty of others are not. For example, Kristopher Hill, president > of NetWorx Internet Services Inc. in Newburyport, said he believed his > firm didn't have to pay sales tax in any of the dozen states in which > it operates. He wasn't thrilled to hear that he may be wrong. "If we > have to start dealing with Chicago tax law, that'll be a major pain in > my butt," he said. Chicago imposes a tax on telecommunications > services over and above the Illinois state tax. > Hill is even more annoyed by the prospect of being ordered to pay > years of back sales taxes in Massachusetts. He said state officials > never told Internet service providers they were liable for the money, > and to try to collect it now would be unfair. "We would sooner leave > the commonwealth than be subjected to seemingly arbitrary and > ill-defined taxes," Hill said. [...] > Netcom's Weatherford opposes taxes on Internet services but says if > his company pays voluntarily, tax officials should demand payment from > Netcom's competitors. That could mean trouble for America's 3,700 > Internet service providers, many of which are shoestring operations > that will have to set up tax collection procedures. Translation: Netcom is attempting to use regulations to shut down its competitors. > The fuss over Internet service taxes is just the beginning. Another > sticky controversy awaits: How do you tax sales of goods and services > over the Internet? [...] > And then there's the question of which government is entitled to > collect the tax. Say you log on to Ohio-based CompuServe, where you > buy a fruit basket from a firm in California and have it sent to your > mother in Chicago. Which state gets to collect tax on the transaction? > The experts say right now, the answer is unclear. If they think that's "unclear", wait until they start dealing with multinational transactions.... > But tax-hungry governments are hard at work trying to figure it all > out. According to KPMG Peat Marwick, sales of goods and services over > the Internet will reach $125 billion by the year 2000. One way or > another, governments intend to get their share. Note the typical biased phrasing. [...] > Copyright &copy 1996 Nando.net

1 0

FRC's Cathy Cleaver bashes CDA ruling, online "anarchy"
by Declan McCullagh 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 07:49:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: FRC's Cathy Cleaver bashes CDA ruling, online "anarchy" This is a wonderful article by the Family Research Council's Cathy Cleaver. Her stategy: Rant about porn, rant about children. But ignore that the Internet is not radio or television so different standards should apply. And ignore that another three-judge panel in NYC came to similar conclusions as the Philly ones did. Obviously, the largely Bush- and Reagan-appointed Federal judiciary has been brainwashed by computer geeks. Or perhaps the judges, unlike Ms. Cleaver, actually logged on once or twice. -Declan ************ http://www.frc.org/townhall/FRC/perspective/pv96i3pn.html CYBERCHAOS: NOT FIRST AMENDMENT'S PROMISE by Cathleen A. Cleaver, Esq. The Department of Justice has announced that it will appeal to the Supreme Court the recent Philadelphia federal court's ruling against the Communications Decency Act. That appeal is the right thing to do, and here's why. Not long ago I debated Bob Guccioni, publisher of Penthouse, on the merits of restricting computer pornography and the Philadelphia ruling. Not surprisingly, he was elated by the three-judge panel's decision to strike the indecency provisions, the effect of which was to give a computer pornographer more "free speech" rights than any other speaker in any other forum. For the first time in the history of our country, a porn purveyor may intentionally show sexually explicit pictures to a child without legal jeopardy -- provided the purveyor uses the Internet. First in line to challenge the CDA was, of course, the ACLU and its cyberclones, followed by CompuServe, America Online, and others with a huge financial stake in the unenforceability of the CDA, like Playboy and Penthouse. Guccioni may finally claim the consumer market share which he has heretofore been denied. Not only did the Philadelphia panel strike provisions prohibiting adults from posting sexually explicit materials in public areas of the Internet that children frequent -- like teen chat rooms -- but it also struck the prohibition on e-mailing a Penthouse centerfold (or the like) directly to a specific child who is known by the sender to be a child. In the words of the Department of Justice: "Never before in the history of telecommunications media in the United States has so much indecent (and obscene) material been so easily accessible by so many minors in so many American homes with so few restrictions." To say the ruling is flawed is a double understatement. Not only is the decision based on legal theories directly contrary to Supreme Court precedent and incorrect assumptions about the capabilities of Internet technology, but it is less a ruling than a trio of separate opinions. Each judge took his turn chiding Congress for daring to inhibit the liberty of cyberspace pioneers, however ruthless, in the interest of children and the greater cybercommunity. Highlights from the lengthy trilogy include conclusions that it is "either technologically impossible or economically prohibitive" to comply with the CDA, that the term 'indecent' is altogether too vague, and that, "just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony of unfettered speech." These conclusions defy fact, law, and logic, respectively. Given that some on-line pornographers currently screen and restrict children from their sites, it cannot be said that compliance is impossible. Moreover, new technology is being developed at dizzying speed to address a variety of Internet challenges, such as consumer transaction security and the protection of property rights of amateur musicians who exchange their songs, making it all the more evident that it is really lack of will and not ability which makes Internet advocates cry "foul." As to expense, this callous court complains about the economic burden the CDA would impose on distributors of pornography, while finding it good and proper for parents alone to incur the costs, however great, of protecting their children. Outside the sacred realm of cyberspace, distributors of pornography routinely incur expenses to shield children. To cite just one example, "blinder racks" must be purchased and installed at newsstands so that children do not see offensive sex magazine covers. This economic burden flows directly from the legal responsibility these distributors bear to shield this material from minors. Software blocking programs, on the other hand, are initially expensive for parents, need frequent updating (at considerable expense), are easily circumvented by computer-savvy kids, and are simply incapable of screening much of the pornography. Surfwatch, the leading software blocker, admitted in the CDA hearing to missing up to 800 sexually explicit sites each month! Moreover, it goes without saying that a software blocking program can only work on a family's home computer where it is installed. What happens when the kids go next door or, for that matter, to the public library? The American Library Association proclaimed in the Philadelphia court that, as a matter of solemn principle, it will never employ software screening programs in its libraries' computers -- not even when children use them. This to-hell-with-children sentiment is reflected by the judges and echoes throughout their opinions. Chief Judge Sloviter's opinion even concludes that for "content providers . . . to review all of their material" to determine which of it is sexually explicit is surely "a burden one should not have to bear." What? The content provider is in the best position to determine whether his material contains patently offensive depictions of sexual or excretory activities, and that is why our laws have always required him to do just that. The allocation of this burden to the speaker, as opposed to the consumer of the speech, not only carries the weight of unanimous legal precedent, but also has the benefit of being practical. It is virtually a truism to say that, as between speaker and consumer, the speaker is in the better position to know the content of his speech. Judge Sloviter would remove a reasonable burden from content providers and replace it with the enormous and nearly impossible burden on parents to first locate, then evaluate, and then block pornographic material in an effort to protect their children. Their quarrel with the indecency standard reveals that the judges are either ill-informed or ill-intentioned. An indecent communication is one "that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs." This definition has been consistently upheld in every case in which it has been reviewed, including at the Supreme Court, which, most recently in the cable pornography case of Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, held the standard to be "not impermissibly vague." As if to justify their awkward conclusion, the court lists as examples of "threatened" speech material which simply could not fall within the definition of indecency, such as discussions of recent movies or ancient Indian statues or articles about human rights violations. To serve their end, the judges conveniently, but not subtly, ignore the requirement that the materials be evaluated "in context." No court has ever construed this standard to encompass, without any consideration of context, all material of literary or artistic value that is somehow related to sexuality. Not to be topped, Judge Dalzell proclaims: "Any content-based regulation of the Internet, no matter how benign the purpose, could burn the global village to roast the pig." Really? What about fraud -- may we not protect consumers in cyberspace? May we not ban child pornography or enforce copyright violations on-line? Would these content-based regulations burn the village, too? If the First Amendment's promise to this new technology is indeed chaos and anarchy, then perhaps Judge Dalzell is right. But before we too quickly agree with this visionary from the federal bench, we ought to ask ourselves how we have survived and thrived as a democracy for two centuries upon the bedrock of ordered liberty, the enemy of chaos and anarchy. The Supreme Court ought to roundly denounce this federal panel's decision. To affirm it would be to rob our children of the opportunity to participate in this great new communications medium, or worse, to sacrifice them to perversions and excesses for the convenience and pleasure of the worst malefactors on-line -- in effect, to preserve the pornographers' new found sanctuary known as cyberspace. -- 9/9/96 Cathleen A. Cleaver, Esq. is Director of Legal Studies at the Family Research Council, a Washington, D.C.-based research and educational organization. Miss Cleaver has extensive experience in pornography litigation and legislation. ###

1 0