December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Secrecy: My life as a nym. (Was: nym blown?)
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:31 PM 11/12/96 -0800, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote: ... >actually, there are some amusing things going on here with cpunk >"rules." are cpunks in favor of pseudonyms or not? one famous >cpunk madman wrote under a pseudonym to the list, and many >cypherpunk went to great lengths to try to derive his identity. >is this a case of respecting pseudonyms? or is it more a case of >the double standard at best, hypocrisy at worst, >"respect my pseudonyms, but yours are fair game"? ... Cypherpunks try to break each others crypto as well, in an attempt to evolve crypto to the point that it is not crackable. Perhaps you would like to make pseudonyms easier to protect. If you developed a pseudonym and gave it its own public/private key pair, and if people bothered to check your signatures with the appropiate sources, then you should be able to protect it. Of course, I just assume that those on the list are who they say they are, I have e-mail access on the schools LAN, and PGP on the machine in my room. There is an air gap between the two, so getting a key requires a two way trip. I may start validating in the future, but I don't now. The point I was trying to make is, is "cracking" of pseudonyms any different than cracking of algorythims?

2 1

Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
by Dave Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> I am amused. I gave Dave Hayes about an 8.5 out of 10 on the scale of > meaningless political rants. Is this another way of saying you do not understand, since you can attribute no meaning? > * "Political safety?" I stand by my record as a writer. Check out > http://www.eff.org/pub/Publications/Declan_McCullagh/ for some of my > recent articles. Political safety? Hardly. It never ceases to amaze me how human beings think in terms of indoctrination and repetition. (Isn't that repetitive too?) In this example, previous works are cited as reasons why a current work is or is not something. As most people in probability theory can tell you, the chance of something being true has nothing to do with the results of previous trials. In other words, your record is irrelavent. I calls 'em as I sees 'em. > * Dave says "Notice that the net is compared to a home or private club." > Wrong. I never compared the Net to such. However, a mailing list run on a > computer in someone's home with his own cash is very similar to a private > club. And you say you aren't comparing the net to a home or club? Aren't mailing lists on the net? Aren't you comparing them to a club? Or are you merely being unclear about your comparisons? > * Contrary to what you seem to be asserting, Gilmore hasn't blocked Vulis > from posting. What seems to be often isn't. I am not asserting any such thing. In fact, Mr. Gilmore hasn't done anything of note since Vulis still gets mail off the list...it's more symbolic. Interestingly enough, the only "damage" I see is to Mr. Gilmore's reputation. This is hardly a loss in my opinion, but I assume it means something to a reporter... > * Dave warns us to consider "what would happen if one parent company owned > *all* communications media." Then we have problems. I've written about > this in an Internet Underground magazine column. However, this is not the > case now. It does not have to be the case for you to see the intended point, which you apparently missed. I'll say it again: Ownership should not be a license for censorship. > Or are you arguing the government should get involved and force > Gilmore to allow Vulis on his list? No. That would be the same thing in a different guise. Please read my article again and attempt to comprehend what I am saying. It would truly help your comprehension if you failed to react in a Pavlovian manner to it. > By the way, if you haven't figured it out yet, Mr. "Freedom Knight of > Usenet," a private mailing list is NOT Usenet. Get a clue. The clue to be gotten is yours. I never implied or intended such a misunderstanding. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet A philosopher called on Nasrudin and found him away from home. Infuriated, he wrote 'Stupid Oaf' on his door. As soon as Nasrudin got home and saw this, he rushed to the philosopher's house. "I'd forgotten", he said, "that you were to call. And I apologize for not having been at home. I remembered our appointment as soon as I saw that you'd left your name on my door..."

3 2

Copyright violations
by alzheimer＠juno.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Financial Times: Friday, November 8, 1996 Credit Card Group Set for Control of Mondex By Tim Burt MasterCard International, the credit card consortium, has stepped up its bid to take a leading position in the embryonic cash card business by agreeing to acquire a majority stake in Mondex International of the UK. Mondex is a leading developer of "electronic purses" -- plastic cards with memory chips that can be "loaded" with cash and used for small purchases. The deal is expected to give MasterCard 51 per cent of Mondex, set up by National Westminster and Midland of the UK but now jointly owned by 17 banks. Under the agreement, MasterCard would promote the Mondex electronic cash card through banks which carry its franchise. The Mondex system has been piloted in Swindon, Wiltshire, and Hong Kong. It works by storing cash on a microchip card, which can be loaded using automatic telling machines or specially equipped telephones. Cards -- including credit, debit and store cards -- are used for payments worth an estimated #2,000bn a year. MasterCard believes Mondex could give it a greater share of that market, although some industry observers doubt the appetite for such electronic cash cards. The acquisition could exacerbate tensions between MasterCard and Visa, its main rival, in attempts to establish an industry-wide standard for chip cards. Visa has already done pilot tests of its electronic purse at the Atlanta Olympic Games last summer and in Spain, Australia and Argentina. It is understood Mondex would become a free-standing subsidiary of MasterCard, and its existing management is expected to remain. Banking analysts said the deal could signal an admission by MasterCard that trials of its own electronic purse had not proved an unqualified success. Yesterday, however, MasterCard said it would be conducting a full-scale trial of its own smart card in New York next March. Electronic purses are undergoing trials elsewhere in Europe and North America, and some of Mondex's rivals claim it does not conform to the international standards for chip cards developed by companies such as Visa and Europay. Mondex has had a mixed reception among UK customers and retailers but said this week that it had been received enthusiastically in the Far East. In Hong Kong -- where Mondex was launched last month in conjunction with HongkongBank and Hang Seng Bank -- more than 20,000 customers and 400 stores have signed up to join the scheme at the two malls where it is being tested. The card is also being tested in Canada and is expected to be launched in Australia next year. Financial Times: Friday, November 8, 1996 World Tries Out New Electronic Purse Systems By George Graham Ever since inventors figured out how to implant a miniature computer chip in the thickness of a standard payment card, banks have been toying with the possibilities opened up by this extra memory and processing power. Top of most lists is the electronic purse: a way of loading money on to the card so that it can be used as a direct substitute for cash in small transactions such as buying a newspaper or a bus ticket. Mondex is among a host of electronic purses now on trial around the world. Originally piloted in Swindon, England, it is also being tested in Canada and was launched this week in Hong Kong. The arrival of MasterCard, the international payment card consortium, as its prospective majority shareholder will give Mondex the opportunity to move beyond local and national trials to, potentially, worldwide use. MasterCard had run trials of its own electronic purse in Canberra, though reports that these proved unsatisfactory would appear to be borne out by its imminent new link with Mondex. But Mondex is not alone in the electronic purse contest. Visa, MasterCard's great rival, piloted its Visa Cash electronic purse at the Atlanta Olympics, and in such countries as Spain, Australia, and Argentina. It will be launching a trial in the UK next year. Europay, despite being MasterCard's partner in Europe, has already launched its own purse called the Clip. Other national electronic purses range from the disposable Danmont card in Denmark -- sold for face value and thrown away when used up, like a phone card -- to the reloadable Quick chip in Austria, which is integrated into the customer's regular cash card. The most heavily used electronic purse so far, and arguably the only one that can yet claim to be a commercial success beyond a closed circuit such as a university, is the PMB card in Portugal. It has 170,000 cards in active use, and an expected 50,000 point of sale terminals installed by the end of this year. But no winner has yet emerged. "The reason for all of these pilots is that no one has proven the business case. I'll be really interested to see if anyone makes money out of this," Mr Eugene Lockhart, president of MasterCard International, said earlier this year. Banks generally like the idea of an electronic purse, which cuts out the risk they run on a credit card payment of not getting paid. It is also cheaper to operate than a debit card: because the money is already loaded on the card, there is no need for each transaction to be authorised by a central computer. 'The reason for all these pilots is that no one has proven the business case' weighs particularly with late night shops and with bus and taxi drivers who do not want to have to carry change around with them. But they do not want to install new card terminals until they are sure what the standard will be. The gains are much less obvious for consumers. To compete with cash, an electronic purse has to be not only free but very widely accepted. That threshold has so far been crossed usually in very limited geographical areas, such as the Sydney suburb where an electronic purse accepted at petrol stations, shops and fast food outlets has been successfully married with a bus pass. Mondex's technological features make it a closer replica of cash than most competitors. Mondex money moves anonymously from one person to the next, and can even be transferred to another individual's Mondex card, instead of only to a shop with a special terminal. In most other systems each transaction ends up being processed through a central computer. That leaves more of an audit trail -- a plus point with police. But Mondex's biggest shortcoming has been that it stood alone, raising questions on whether it would gain acceptance beyond the confines of Swindon. Rivals say it does not conform technically to the international standards for chip cards developed by Visa, MasterCard and Europay, although Mondex officials have demonstrated its cards will work in standard terminals. Mondex took a big step towards wider acceptance this summer, when National Westminster Bank, its creator, sold control to a broad international consortium of banks. With MasterCard expected to take control, the Mondex card has will be crossing another threshold toward worldwide acceptance.

3 2

Re: take me off your mailing list
by AwakenToMe＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 96-11-13 18:35:35 EST, FWJZ05A(a)prodigy.com (CLERK PHILLIP G ROBERTS) writes: << unsubcribe cypherpunks >> Ok.. thisd is IT! Im going to start keeping a log of how many people actually spell unsubscribe wrong. God.. I thought the average person was more literate. Id HATE to ask these people how to spell wednesday or arkansas

1 0

Re: pgp3
by Gary Howland 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Gary Howland wrote: > > > > > Someone suggested to me that Derek posted a draft spec for PGP 3.0. > > > Anyone know of the whereabouts of this document. > > > > Yes. That document has evolved to RFC 1991: > > > > 1991 I D. Atkins, W. Stallings, P. Zimmermann, "PGP Message Exchange > > Formats", 08/16/1996. (Pages=21) (Format=.txt) Hmm - I don't know I managed to make this post - I had started writing a reply, but exited my mailer, and for some reason it decided to send a cut down version of the unfinished mail anyway ... > Nope. This RFC is merely a rehash of the pgformat.doc file in the PGP > 2.6.? distribution. I'm doing an independent implementation of the PGP > 2.6 message formats, and found this document unclear in a few spots. For > example, can anyone else figure out the weird CFB variant mode from this > document? I used a debugger on the PGP code to help me figure it out. Exactly - I spent ages on the same thing. Then there's the problem that packet length headers must be specific lengths for various types (eg. key certificates must have a 2 byte length, even if only one is required). It is also not clear what the exported key certificates should contain, the spec simply mentioning that there should be no trust packets etc. etc. > The PGP 3.0 "spec" that you're referring to is actually a draft for a > PGP library API. A couple of those got circulated on some PGP mailing > lists, but none have been publicly released, another example of the > secrecy surrounding the whole PGP effort. > > Now that PGP Inc. is happening, it's not exactly clear whether the PGP > 3.0 release is going to include an API closely resembling these drafts. I agree with your comments. For example, we are developing PGP compatible libraries in both Perl and Java, and are going to add SHA, Blowfish, T-DES, etc., along with a better key ring format, encrypted key rings, and features such as key generation from a passphrase, and we would very much like to remain compatible with the new PGP, but how can we when there is so little information available? I think we need a forum to discuss PGP development issues - I would be happy to set one up if there was interest. Best regards, Gary -- pub 1024/C001D00D 1996/01/22 Gary Howland <gary(a)systemics.com> Key fingerprint = 0C FB 60 61 4D 3B 24 7D 1C 89 1D BE 1F EE 09 06

4 3

[REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
by Dave Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[This is a rebuttal to a misguided news article.] > Cypher-Censored > By Declan McCullagh (declan(a)well.com) Thank you for leaving your email address. It makes this easier. You people (read: the unaware and hypnotized masses, which includes reporters who's desire for attention and political safety holds them in line with the consensual illusion) keep missing the real issue, and substituting issues which only hold themselves in place. [Those of you who know, please excuse the mediaistic terms used in this rebuttal. One must use the symbols one is given to communicate at the level of understanding of those who use them.] > Thus began a debate over what the concept of censorship means in a > forum devoted to opposing it. Did Gilmore have the right to show Vulis > the virtual door? Or should he have let the ad hominem attacks > continue, encouraging people to set their filters accordingly? The > incident raises deeper questions about how a virtual community can > prevent one person from ruining the forum for all and whether only > government controls on expression can be called "censorship." "Cyberspace" is interacted with using tools under the control of the interactor. In person-to-person interaction, one's only real defense against what one decides to call "unwanted" is to remove oneself from the arena of interaction. It may not be possible to ignore or run away from certain sources of input. In cyberspace, however, it is not only possible but necessary and even desirable. Cyberspace allows one to interact with many more people then can fit in any given physical space. One simply -cannot- receive input from 2000 people and not employ some sort of filtering mechanism. Indeed, cyberspace has many buttons and switches (and even programmatic filters) which allow one to -completely- control whom one interacts with. Logically, we must conclude that those who frequently and repeatedly cry for the censorship or removal of any source of input from cyberspace are either: -quite clueless about the tools at their disposal -ideologically or personally opposed to the source of input or -in need of large amounts of attention from others Cluelessness can be overcome by appropriate teaching and interest in learning (the latter issue we can safely assume users of popular but ineffectual windowing OSes are not able to overcome). Such cluelessness, however, is not and should never be a reason for censorship. A need for attention can be overcome by refraining from the denial that the need exists, followed by careful observation of that need. More can be said on this, but this is not the forum. Such a need is not and should never be a reason for censorship. Idelological opposition is another matter entirely. To understand this better, we'll need to observe this in action. Here is an example: > Vulis portrays himself as a victim, but as I posted to the list > last week, I disagree. Anyone who's spent any time on the > 100-plus-messages-a-day list can read for themselves the kind of nasty > daily messages that came from Vulis's keyboard. "Nasty" is, of course, by this reporter's standard of "nasty". Granted this standard may in fact be shared by Mr. Gilmore, however a shared standard is not necessarily an appropriate or correct standard. > The list is on Gilmore's machine and he can do what he wants with > it; he can moderate the postings, he can censor material, he can > shut the whole thing down. By kicking off an offending user, a > list owner merely exercises his property right. There's no > government involvement, so the First Amendment doesn't apply. And > the deleted, disgruntled user is free to start his own mailing > list with different rules. Notice how, once the opposition is admitted to, the rationalization begins. Suddenly this is not a matter of censorship, but of ownership. Just as suddenly, the classic anti-free-speech arguments of "if you don't like it, start yer own" begin to surface. (Anyone ever notice how this resembles the "love it or leave it" mentality of certain American patriotic organizations?) What would ideological opposition be without the attempt at analogy? Here we witness another example: > But then the question is whether Gilmore should have exercised > that right, especially in such an open forum. Again, I think Gilmore's > actions were justified. Consider inviting someone into your home or > private club. If your guest is a boor, you might ask him to leave. If > your guest is an slobbish drunk of a boor, you have a responsibility > to require him to leave before he ruins the evening of others. Notice that the net is compared to a home or private club. Actually the net is neither, however that would not serve the purposes of this analogy, so this fact is convienently forgotton. The net is a wonderful place. Any ideology, no matter who disagrees or agrees with it, can be expressed and discussed here...assuming those who oppose this ideology do not have their way with the source of expression. There is a more refined and deeper truth to be found in the very existence of the set of all human ideologies, which is just beginning to show itself to some netizens. Unfortunately, this truth can be ruined when people equate some notion of value to sources which ignore all but a tiny subset of the set of all ideologies: > Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA, runs a number of mailing > lists and has kicked people off to maintain better editorial control. > Volokh says that the most valuable publications are those that > exercise the highest degree of editorial control. Value to whom and for what? If the editorial control produces one small element of the set of all ideologies, then this is only of value to the people who support this ideology. Given that the set of people who support an issue is smaller than the set of people who support and oppose an issue, would the value not increase by allowing both sides of an issue equal speaking time? > For his part, Gilmore calls removing the Russian mathematician "an > act of leadership." He says: "It said we've all been putting up with > this guy and it's time to stop. You're not welcome here... It seemed > to me that a lot of the posts on cypherpunks were missing the mark. > They seemed to have an idea that their ability to speak through my > machine was guaranteed by the Constitution." It is sad to note that this is the leader of one of America's forerunning organizations of freedom who says these words. For all *his* ideology of free speech, this statement reveals the hypocrasy he lives with for all to see. The true litmus test of free speech is to encounter speech that you *want* to censor. Mr. Gilmore, and other like minded parties, might want to consider what would happen if one parent company owned *all* communications media. Would they they be so supportive of the ideology of ownership and communciation they espouse? ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet Truth (n.) - the most deadly weapon ever discovered by humanity. Capable of destroying entire perceptual sets, cultures, and realities. Outlawed by all governments everywhere. Possession is normally punishable by death.

10 18

Re: Secrecy: My life as a nym. (Was: nym blown?)
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:31 PM 11/12/96 -0800, Detweiler/VZ Nuri wrote: >actually, there are some amusing things going on here with cpunk >"rules." are cpunks in favor of pseudonyms or not? one famous >cpunk madman wrote under a pseudonym to the list, and many >cypherpunk went to great lengths to try to derive his identity. >is this a case of respecting pseudonyms? or is it more a case of >the double standard at best, hypocrisy at worst, >"respect my pseudonyms, but yours are fair game"? You've neglected to mention that your (e.g., "the madman's") messages were criticizing the use of pseudonyms, and the use of more than one identity by an individual person. You've also neglected to mention that you (a single person) were using multiple identities to argue that multiple identities were harmful. In general, you're conflating several positions: 1. Fluid identities (e.g., imprecise or unregulated mapping between personas and flesh-and-blood bodies) cannot be prevented; 2. Fluid identities should be tolerated; 3. Fluid identities should be encouraged. >one noted proponent of pseudonymity, whom we will merely call "Timmy", >regularly takes great glee in misattributing my own posts to some >deranged crackpot running loose in cyberspace. is this a case >of respecting my identity? suppose I really was this person-- >shouldn't Timmy's position be one of respect for my use of >a pseudonym? I can't speak for Tim, but your messages do cause me to consider these ethical questions - e.g., is it more important to focus on what you've argued (that multiple identities are bad), or what you're doing (using multiple identities), or on a "politeness" principle, e.g., that gentle[wo]men don't reveal each other's identities. Arguments about a "right to be pseudonymous" are as problematic as the recent "free speech" arguments, where the identity of the right isn't so much in question as is who it is enforceable against - e.g., I can't force someone else to let me use their stuff to speak freely. Can I force someone else (not only with law, but with appeals to morality or contract or politeness or other forms of nongovernmental regulation) to address me by a chosen pseudonym, or prevent them from linking multiple identities? I think there is (or should be) a "politeness norm" which limits linking between identities, just as I see one which limits the disclosure of other personal data; I don't give out other people's home phone numbers to third parties, I don't pass along the identity of a person's "significant other" or home address, and otherwise try to let each person choose how much they want to disclose about their personal lives to the rest of the world. And I hope that they will do the same for me. It's not especially unusual for folks on the list to use abbreviated or pseudonymous identities; but the "strength" of these is limited as we meet each other in person, do business with each other, etc. It's difficult to form a strong relationship without getting to know others, but it's difficult to preserve privacy and let someone get to know you. A principle which preserves both values (privacy and disclosure) seems useful. But I also think that politeness norms are limited in their applicability - in particular, I also think it's useful to subject other people to the rules they propose should be applicable to everyone. This is a good way to try out proposed rules, and in some cases to help people understand why their rules are stupid. You have written that the use of pseudonyms and multiple identities is wrong. So I think it's reasonable to expect you to live up to the standards you've argued should be applied to all people. So you don't get the benefit (at least from me) of the politeness norms about pseudonyms. If you've changed your mind about the morality of "pseudospoofing", by all means, let me know. I believe that you are familiar with the "subject others to their own rules" rule, because it is the rule you're using/have used to justify your use of multiple identities, hmm? >the basic >cpunk philosophy, as amply illustrated by 2/3 of its founders, is >"look out for #1 only, and don't waste time on something as >inane as selfless public service or leadership" I suspect you intended this as some sort of indictment, but I don't know if you'll get a lot of disagreement (or even surprise). This philosophy seems to be at the core of much libertarian thought and free-market economics, two themes which are popular on the list. I think it's far too old-fashioned to qualify as "cypherpunk", but you're in the wrong place if you're hoping to insult someone by saying that. -- Greg Broiles | "In this court, appellant and respondent are the gbroiles(a)netbox.com | same person. Each party has filed a brief." http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Lodi v. Lodi, 173 Cal.App.3d 628, 219 Cal. | Rptr. 116 (3rd Dist, 1985)

1 0

Re: Secrecy: My life as a nym. (Was: nym blown?)
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:14 PM 11/11/96 -0600, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: >This is an interesting topic. I apologize if my questions are too trivial, >but here they are: > > 1) Can a person without an SSN have a credit record? Some > may say that a credit record is a bad thing to have, > but I am still interested in a possibility. If you have a credit history you can have a credit record with or without an SSN. Millions of foreigners have credit histories without SSNs BTW. Millions of people with wrong or false SSNs also have credit histories. The SSA decided a few years ago not to let the credit reporting agencies check the validity of the SSNs in their records with the SSNs in the SSA database. > 2) Will private lenders (such as credit card issuers or > mortgage companies) agree to extend credit to a person > without an SSN or to someone who refuses to give out his SSN? Not if they are in America but those outside America will. False SSN's may work though falsifying mortgage applications (with a federally insured bank) may be a crime. Individuals can also grant mortgages however and are free to do so without using an SSN. > 3) Will the state issue a driver's license to someone who does not > have/does not wish to give out their SSN? Those states that don't require SSNs will of course. Some (most?) states that require SSNs don't validate them. Canadian provinces don't require US SSNs to issue licenses. > 4) Will states' police (where applicable) approve purchases of > firearms if purchasers do not state their ssn (misstating it > may be a crime) on an application? It's been so long since I bought from a dealer. Do the current federal forms have a place for SSN? > 5) Employers are required to pay certain taxes and therefore > they, in my understanding, need to know their employees SSNs. > How can people get around that (unless they do not need to work)? Lie, be self employed, or be employed by a foreign entity. They won't be able to verify until the new Instant Check Right to Work Verification scheme that the Feds are testing breaks wide. Then it's self-employment -- better for you in any case. > 6) Can someone without an SSN obtain various kinds of insurance? Some kinds. Again, the numbers are rarely verified. Over the years, I've only seen one number be bounced back and that was submitted to a bank by a person who did not vet the number for facial validity. If one institution turns you down, go to another. >Say, John Anonymous is a young 15 years old who anticipates to become an >engineer and have a middle class life. He wants to get married, No problem (unless his fiance wants to run a credit check). Even if the marriage license app wants an SSN, just say you're a foreigner with no SSN. Foreigners can still marry in America. Even if you also state on the same form that you were born in the US, you could still be a foreigner who's never really lived here. "My father was the Canadian Ambassador at the time." >have children Still accomplished by unskilled labor totally without an SSN. >drive a car Put hands on wheel and foot on gas. Trivial. Lie or get a foreign license. UK licenses are good for decades. A dozen states (or so) still let you operate a motor vehicle sans public liability insurance BTW and non-drivers, corporations, other entities, in fact anyone or anything can own a car. You can drive a car owned by something/someone else. >obtain insurance Lie. Or get insurance from a nice Swiss company. >work at some big company, A lot less of that going around these days. Giving a false SSN may or may not be caught. Large companies often do credit checks these days but you will probably survive. If you're working at a large company as a contractor or temp of course, your small agency may not have checked you out much. You can satisfy the I9 form requirements for proving right to work by flashing your passport BTW and you can still get a passport without supplying an SSN (in spite of the law). >travel around the world No problem. The ICAO record format for the nice little machine readable strip on passports *does* have space to place a National ID Number, but the standards do not require that a nation issue a National ID Number and fill that block. The UK and the US and others have (so far) not done so. The US legislation (effective January 1988) that the Passport Office's Application ask you for your SSN and forward info on refusenicks to the Treasury Department for a possible $500 fine, specifically says that failure to provide the number shall not be grounds for refusal by State to issue a passport. In practice, Treasury has not fined anyone. >invest in mutual funds or buy stocks Lie, have a corporation or trust you control buy, buy overseas or via Canada, etc. >Reliance on government help is not important to him, so he would not >apply for an SSN solely to get Social Security, welfare and such. > >His parents are cypherpunks and did not obtain an SSN for John. How much >effort would it cost him to live a life outlined above? Less effort that cross country skiing (in calories burned). May even provide similar recreational value depending on John's ideology. DCF "You're real smart. I bet you never forget your Social Security Number. What's your Social Security Number"? -- The Susan Sarandon character in "Atlantic City" "I don't have a Social Security Number." -- The Burt Lancaster character in "Atlantic City"

1 0

Validating SSNs
by smith＠sctc.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 4:13 PM 11/13/96, Black Unicorn wrote: >Exercise for the reader: How does the bank verify SSNs? OK, I'll bite. My guess is that the bank sticks the SSN in a report to the IRS and the bank is happy with the SSN as long as the IRS doesn't complain about it. Now, does the IRS check? I suspect that they don't, either. Their objective is to look for "matches" with SSNs that show up on filed tax forms, since they want to verify the data on the tax form. Given the behavior of every other large database I've ever seen, I'd guess that there would be a huge number of SSNs that don't in fact associate with tax forms. If someone High Up hasn't decreed that they should chase such things down (and allocated heaps of money to do it), they'll ignore the mismatches. This seems consistent with the reports of people who use bogus SSNs for decades at a time. Rick. smith(a)sctc.com

3 2

RE: Remailer Abuse Solutions
by Hal Finney 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I had a similar thought a few months ago. Actually with DigiCash there is a specially nice feature from the point of view of the remailer. Suppose the cash is embedded in the message headers itself. The remailer receives the message with the cash in it, turns it in at the bank to make sure it is good, and withdraws a new blinded coin which it sticks in the headers of the outgoing message. The eventual recipient of that message can then have his software turn in that coin and if it is good that raises the priority of the message for him to read. The nice thing is that if the recipient doesn't have the DigiCash software, he will never cash the coin. That means that the remailer can, after a delay, reclaim uncashed coins for its own use. It doesn't have to charge postage explicitly, but it benefits as a middleman from unclaimed postage. This would also of course encourage people to learn to use digital cash so they could take advantage of these pennies from heaven in their mailboxes. Hal

1 0