December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: e$
by jdd＠aiki.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In message <9408101407.AA24943(a)ah.com> Eric Hughes writes: > When you fly into the US, you must fill out a customs declaration. > You are required to declare money in various forms (cash, checks, > etc) > > What they ask for and what is required by law are two different > things. It's not generally illegal to allow people to volunteer > information that increases the power of the state. As I recall, you are not asked to volunteer information, you are required to provide it, and the form specifies penalties if you do not. But I will have someone who is going to the States in the next week or two get me a copy of the form. -- Jim Dixon

1 0

Re: e$
by jdd＠aiki.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In message <9408101428.AA26732(a)snark.imsi.com> perry(a)imsi.com writes: > > My point is that checks made out to cash are not regarded as an > > alternative currency. > > My point is that the government doesn't give a flying fuck. They are > simply trying to stop you from playing games. The law isn't like > geometry -- there aren't axioms and rules for deriving one thing from > another. The general principle is that they want to track all your > transactions, and if you make it difficult they will either use > existing law to jail you, or will produce a new law to try to do the > same. On what experience or observation do you base these rather extreme remarks? > Your hair spliting is really completely irrelevant. If you are saying that any form of legal argument is irrelevant to the issues being discussed, then you are simply wrong. The government is staffed by a population which has more or less the same distribution of attributes as the rest of the population of the US, except that, probably they are on average somewhat better educated, somewhat more intelligent, somewhat, generally, more middle class. There are thugs working for the government who will speak and reason much as you do. There are also many reasonable and intelligent people. And there are real, genuine lawyers who understand precisely what they are doing and are moved by legal arguments. Demonization of the government is simply silly, as is dismissing all logical argument. -- Jim Dixon

1 0

Re: e$
by Perry E. Metzger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Dixon says: > In message <9408101428.AA26732(a)snark.imsi.com> perry(a)imsi.com writes: > > They are simply trying to stop you from playing games. The law > > isn't like geometry -- there aren't axioms and rules for deriving > > one thing from another. The general principle is that they want to > > track all your transactions, and if you make it difficult they > > will either use existing law to jail you, or will produce a new > > law to try to do the same. > > On what experience or observation do you base these rather extreme > remarks? Plonk. .pm

1 0

Re: e$
by frissell＠panix.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:51 PM 8/9/94 -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote: > >> > Yes it does. Bearer bonds are illegal in the US. >If the check is written to "cash" and is used to avoid federal >transfer reporting requirements, it is CURRENTLY illegal. I suspect >that checks made out to "cash" would be illegal in all cases if they >were widely used to avoid reporting requirements. > >Perry > Bearer bonds are not illegal in the US. Under the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), any interest payments made on *new* issues of domestic bearer bonds are not deductible as an ordinary and necessary business expense so none have been issued since then. At the same time, the Feds administratively stopped issuing treasury securities in bearer form. Old issues of government and corporate debt in bearer form still exist and will exist and trade for 30 or more years after 1982. Additionally, US residents can legally buy foreign bearer securities. DCF "Who promises the Black Caucus that if they will help kill the Crime Bill, he will support affirmative action in executions -- starting with the White Guys responsible for the Waco Massacre."

2 1

soda.csua.berkeley.edu
by pstemari＠bismark.cbis.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Does anyone know what the status of soda.csua.berkeley.edu is? Neither soda.csua.berkeley.edu or soda.berkeley.edu seems to be accepting anon ftp connections today. --Paul

2 1

future existence of free remailers?
by Jonathan Rochkind 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

People often like to postulate on the list that eventually there won't be any more of these philantropic free remailers, and people will be charging small amounts for every remailed message, to make some money off it. I've thought of a pretty good reason why this might not ever happen. Hal Finney (or maybe it was Jim Dixon. Probably both) recently realizd and revealed to us that if one operates a remailer oneself, you effectively hide your identity from even the _first_ remailer on your chain, because it doesn't know if the mesage is in fact from _you_, or from someone using your remailer. In practice, simply having some remailer software running that no one other then you uses wont' work. You've got to have a busy remailer running with lots of traffic coming in as well as going out. This means that if someone wants to send secure anonymous mail using remailers, it's in his best interest to operate a remailer himself, and to try and get as many people to use it as possible. So philanthropy or profit aren' the only reasons to run a remailer; one's primary reason might be to ensure oneself anonymity. You could try to get some profit out of it too, but the more people who use your remailer, the better for you, so it's in your interest to make it free so many people will use it. This motivation could provide us with lots of free remailers for years to come. Maybe. It's an interesting thing to think about, anyhow.

2 1

ANNOUNCE: August Bay Area physical meeting is CANCELLED
by hughes＠ah.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ANNOUNCEMENT ============ What: nothing When: would have been Saturday, August 13 Why: summer doldrums So I'm going to be out of town, and one of our main speakers cancelled, and our host at SGI would just as soon have the day off, and so, hey, we're cancelling for Saturday. That means you can stay up until all hours on Friday and watch the Perseids. Cool. Eric

1 0

Re: e$
by frissell＠panix.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:53 PM 8/10/94 GMT, jdd(a)aiki.demon.co.uk wrote: >> What they ask for and what is required by law are two different >> things. It's not generally illegal to allow people to volunteer >> information that increases the power of the state. > >As I recall, you are not asked to volunteer information, you are >required to provide it, and the form specifies penalties if you do >not. The instructions on the back of the "Landing Card" given to travelers entering the US *are* deceptive. The law on reporting the import/export of currency requires that anyone who imports or exports more than $10,000 in "currency or monetary instruments" has to file a report with the Feds. "Currency" is currency. "Monetary instruments" are monetary instruments in bearer form such that their value can be transfered to *any* other person just by handing them over. Examples include: 1) Checks or other drafts made payable to 'cash' or 'bearer'. 2) Checks endorsed by the payee without restriction (that means just signed on the back.) 3) Blank travelers checks. 4) Double signed travelers checks. These are all "cash substitutes." Checks made payable to a specific party (Bank of Butterfield, Bermuda for example); travelers checks with just your single signature on them; $100,000,000 SWIFT wires from Citicorp in NYC to Swiss Bank Corp, Panama City, Panama need *not* be reported. The instructions on the back of the Landing Card, however, mention checks and travelers checks in such a way that they unwary might think that they have to file reports on their travelers checks they are carrying along or on the $50,000 that they just wired to Switzerland. The Feds are trying to get banks to report wire transfers but the banks are resisting. Just a note further on the discussion about checks made payable to 'cash'. These are no different than checks endorsed by the payee without restriction (signed on the back). Every time you just endorse a check, you have converted it into a bearer instrument. Perfectly legal. Note too that there are currently no restrictions on the use of cash in transactions or the transfer of unlimited amouts of cash into and out of the country. There are reporting requirements and if the cash represents 'unlawful proceeds' money laundering laws may apply. The acts themselves are legal though. DCF "A 'violent fanatic' who opposes the Health Security Act."

2 1

anonymous settlement
by hughes＠ah.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Also, for anonymous > payment for such overseas services, anonymous transfer in at least one > of the two currencies is necessary. The last point is certainly not true. If user X communicates with service A (a gateway) in one country to purchase something from service B in another country, X can settle accounts with A anonymously (say in US$) and then A and B can settle accounts with one another (say in sterling) openly. May I point out that that in your example that X and A are performing an anonymous transfer in dollars, which is one of the two currencies? Eric

1 0

EDDB/RN
by hughes＠ah.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We won't have a copy of Schneier here for three weeks or so. Can you elaborate? I can, but I won't. Have patience, and wait for the book to arrive. Eric

1 0