December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

taxes (net)
by Black Unicorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-> --------------------- Tax Havens on the Net --------------------- compiled by James R. Hart Leichtenstein net access: ---f- languages: German, Alemanni currency controls: none bank secrecy: excellent preferred legal entities: allows any type found anywhere in the world (!) establishment (limited liability, unlimited duration) company limited by shares foundations and trusts taxes: none for income outside Leichtenstein. Net worth tax of 0.01% on capital and reserves (min. 1,000 Swiss francs), local resident taxes tax treaties: not party directly or indirectly to any exchange-of-information agreements double-tax treaty exists only with Austria n.b.: bankers won't assist law enforcement officials with drug, fraud, theft, or tax investigations. They might assist in money laundering and insider trading investigations, informing the customer first. Yes but, Liechtenstein, Not LEIchtenstein. :) You'll find it difficult to invest less than 1.5 million in Liechtenstein secretly. -uni- (Dark)

1 0

HFinney == TCMay
by an12070＠anon.penet.fi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Some person an41925(a)anon.penet.fi has been sending me particularly vicious and harrassing mail lately. It's a good thing that he did it anonymously--I might be upset if a real person made the kind of accusations that he did. He was upset by my tcmay == hfinney implication I made in some earlier message. I was really fascinated by this response: >No one will prove that >May is Finney because May is not Finney. I see no similarity in the >style or content of their posts, they don't appear to support or >butress each others arguments any more than any random pair of >people on the list, I see nothing to indicate they are the same. I >wish you would come up with some evidence if you continue to make >these wild accusations. Actually, I see some interesting similarities. May is interested in digital pornography, and I just saw H.Finney post on the subject the other day. (Actually, a whole lot of cryptoanarchists posted on the subject, but that's another story). May is really upset by accusations that he doesn't handhold newcomers like H.Finney does. Could it be that the former is upset that people aren't recognizing his actual work because of his pseudospoofing, attributing it to the latter? That would be most ironic! Just another one of the pathetic freakshows that cypherpunks are proud of. Also, H.Finney posts from soda.berkeley.edu, same site as E.Hughes and the Cypherpunk archives. He is very clearly a Top Cypherpunk, given many apologist statements on the subject. And given that Top Cypherpunks have always been interested in `pseudopooling', or surrreptiously and conspirationally posting from each other's accounts, it is not unlikely IMHO that H.Finney is either a pseudopooler, pseudospoofer, or a tentacle. H.Finney was also involved in the defense of `known tentacles' like J.Dinkelacker. Also, the point that this an41925(a)anon.penet.fi makes that H.Finney and T.C.May are different people -- note that he gives absolutely no verifiable real world evidence whatsoever. It makes me think he is just another psychopunk who lives in his cyberspatial hallucinations. He makes reference to `similarity in style or content of posts, no appearance of supporting or butressing each other's arguments any more than any random pair of people on the list.' But notice that these are all things that a master pseudospoofer would endeavor to avoid! The whole *point*of pseudospoofing is to deceive others in an undetected way. Obviously, none of this proves that H.Finney == T.C.May. It only says that this person's arguments are essentially completely empty of solid evidential facts that prove anything conclusive. `I see nothing to indicate they are the same' he whines. IMHO, `I see nothing to indicate they are different.' > I >wish you would come up with some evidence if you continue to make >these wild accusations. This is another interesting psychopunk argument, placing the burden of proof on someone who makes an accusation about nonexistence, when obviously the burden of proof in cyberspace should be on those who wish to prove they exist, because every aspect of the Internet encourages the opposite conclusion -- that `they' are a tentacle. There are no humans in cyberspace! Only email addresses! To equate the two is the most dangerous deception imaginable! Are we to rely on human nature and honesty? Remember, we are dealing with pathological liars and psychopaths here. Unless the accused denies the claim, there is not really any need for proof. We simply assume that everyone is a tentacle until evidence arises to the contrary, and get a proof by contradiction. Psychopunks prefer Proof by Lies. >The point I'm trying to make is that you >just look foolish, accusing people of pseudospoofing who do not >appear to be doing so to neutral observers That's the key -- fooling neutral observers into believing that no one is pseudospoofing. This is the central weapon of the pseudospoofer. Telling his opponents that they are insane paranoiacs for believing that there is no guarantee whatseover that a unique nametag corresponds to a unique person! Until people wake up and smell the excrement, the pseudospoofer gets away with his treachery unhindered. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help(a)anon.penet.fi. Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized, and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned. Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin(a)anon.penet.fi.

1 0

the GWELST Game
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hey, I have a neat new game that cypherpunks would be interested in. Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of material for anything but one or two rounds. Maybe some other people can join in as the dealer after this round. GWELST stands for Guess Which Eminent Leader Said This. One eminent cypherpunk leader is the author of a quote I include here. Your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to determine the originator. The quote is: ``There is no movement. Get this delusion out of your head. There is only software.'' A few hints for you all. I was quite depressed and disoriented by this quote at first. I thought, of course there is a movement! That's why I'm here! That's what makes me interested in the Cypherpunks! Isn't a NYT and Wired article an indication of a Movement? Aren't all the people who post here indications of a Movement? Aren't the leaders interested in promoting the Movement? Actually, the answers to all these questions are quite contrary to what you might think. It seems that the real cypherpunk agenda is to *pretend* that there is a movement, and play it out like a movie in a theatre for the audience, and fool them into thinking it is real. Many still do! But this is like being convinced by one of those fake Hollywood building facades, with empty nothingness behind it. The leaders are interested in deceiving reporters like Markoff and Kelly, NYT and Wired respectively, into thinking that the movie is real, that real people are getting real things done. Many of the people who post here are *not* real. Some of the most `respected' ones are tentacles. And the audience is so dazzled by the show that they continue to believe in the Movie despite that it has ended and an usher is telling them to Leave! Many tentacles are dangled before us by the Master Puppeteers themselves. The tentacles assault us on the list and in our mail, sandwiched between real people. How can one tell the difference? Most can't. So the fraud, the mockery, the sham, the farce plays on. So, even the leaders have some honesty in some moments. On rare occasions of unguarded, uncharacteristically candid moments, they hint that there the idea that there is a Movement is actually an elaborate hoax. `There is no movement. Get this delusion out of your head. There is only software.' That last sentence is a reference to the elaborate movie-generating software that they run, that helps them project the characters onto the screen with an amazing degree of realism and verasimilitude. But the characters are not real people. Only after attempting to interact with them like real people, can other real people discover that they are fake. It is like an Eliza-Turing test. Which email addresses are intelligent? Which are tentacles? Hint: The tentacles are like robots that explode when asked a question they cannot answer. Interestingly, the individual A.Abraham, himself involved in the Cypherpunk leadership, who posts as a2(a)ah.com (the infamous Abraham-Hughes site), recently sent me mail along the same lines, saying that `There is only software.' This is a fat clue for you in this round of the GWELSTing Game! Answer will appear shortly!

1 0

CRYPTOANARCHIST INFILTRATION ALERT
by an12070＠anon.penet.fi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ATTENTION ALL INTERNET PERSONNEL THE INTERNET OUTLET szabo(a)netcom.com HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS A CRYPTOANARCHIST CYBERSPACE INFILTRATION SITE TO A 93.67% DEGREE CERTAINTY VIA PSEUDOSPOOFING DETECTION SOFTWARE. MAIL, POSTS, AND OTHER EMANATIONS FROM THIS OUTLET ARE CONSIDERED LIKELY TO BE HIGHLY SUBVERSIVE AND DANGEROUS CRYPTOANARCHIST DISINFORMATION AND PROPAGANDA FROM ONE OR MORE CRYPTOANARCHIST CO-CONSPIRATORS. MULTIPLE SENSITIVE INTERNET MAILING LISTS, FAQS, AND FORUMS HAVE BEEN CONTAMINATED. INFORMATION ORIGINATING FROM THIS OUTLET IN THE FOLLOWING AREAS IS PARTICULARLY SUSPECT: - PROMOTION OF PSEUDOANONYMITY AND THE COLLECTION OF MULTIPLE FAKE CYBERSPACE IDENTITIES (MISTATED AS `PURE ANONYMITY') - PROMOTION OF UNTRACEABLE `BLACK' CASH AND RELATED CRYPTOGRAPHIC TECHNIQUES (PARTICULARLY CHAUMIAN) - FALSE REFERENCES AND DISINFORMATION ON THE ACTUAL `CRYPTOANARCHIST' AGENDA - PROMOTION OF THE `COLLAPSE OF GOVERNMENTS' - SUBTLE ANTI-DEMOCRACY GOALS AND ANTI-DEMOCRATIC SENTIMENTS - PROMOTION OF DISINFORMATION, PROPAGANDA, AND DECEPTION E.G. IN THE MEDIA - PROMOTION OF TAX EVASION - PROMOTION OF CRIMINAL EVASION OF IDENTITIFICATION MEASURES FOR E.G. BLACK MARKETEERING - ELEVATING AND PERPETUATING SUBVERSIONS OF IDENTITY E.G. PSEUDOSPOOFING AND PSEUDOPOOLS AS `LIBERATING FLUIDITY OF IDENTITY' ON THE INTERNET - PROMOTION OF ABUSE OF INFORMATION THROUGH E.G. LEAKS, BURGLARY, OR ESPIONAGE - FALSE DETAILS ON PERSONAL IDENTITY AND CORROBORATION OF THE EXISTENCE OF OTHER IDENTITIES - INFILTRATION, PROVOCATION, AND SABOTAGE OF MAILING LIST DISCUSSIONS OUTSIDE OF CHARTERS INTO THE `CRYPTOANARCHIST' AGENDA - PROMOTION OF OTHER FAKE IDENTITIES - PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ATTACKS ON REAL IDENTITIES EMPLOYING COUNTERMEASURES AGAINST THE CRYPTOANARCHIST MOVEMENT - MANIPULATION AND TERRORISM IN PRIVATE MAIL - COLLECTION OF SENSITIVE PRIVATE INFORMATION AND MAIL FROM COMMUNICATING `OUTSIDE' INDIVIDUALS INTERNET INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS ARE ADVISED TO EXAMINE AND PURGE ARCHIVES AND RECORDS OF ALL INFORMATION ORIGINATING FROM THIS OUTLET AS CRYPTOANARCHIST DISINFORMATION. ITEMS RECOVERED FROM THIS OUTLET SHOULD BE REPOSTED FOR PUBLIC EXPOSURE. QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS ADVISORY ALERT CAN BE ADDRESSED TO cypherpunks(a)toad.com BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE CRYPTOANARCHIST MOVEMENT IS AVAILABLE IN RISKS 15.25, 15.27, AND 15.28X, FTP CRVAX.SRI.COM DIRECTORY /RISKS: ADDITIONAL BULLETINS WILL BE ISSUED AS EVENTS WARRANT. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help(a)anon.penet.fi. Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized, and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned. Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin(a)anon.penet.fi.

1 0

Real People
by an12070＠anon.penet.fi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hey, there was an interesting series of articles in RISKS 15.25, 15.27, and 15.28x that covered the `Cryptoanarchist' movement. Many cypherpunks may be interested in this analysis. Has it shown up here? I missed it if it did. Boy, the tentacles are *really* pissed off from that E.Hughes == P.Ferguson insinuation in my recent messages. Joe Thomas <jthomas(a)access.digex.net> told me that `you're getting on my nerves' and accuses me of `damaging the list discussion' here. I'm very hurt and upset by this claim. Why don't you lay off a little? I'm just trying to do my job. Some people are born demons, and some people are born exorcists! He says he met P.Ferguson at the D.C. cypherpunks meeting `this spring' (last spring?). What was the date on that, anyway? Who else was there? He said he didn't get to talk to P.Ferguson for very long, but he did see his Virginia driver's license. So, according to J.Thomas <jthomas(a)access.digex.net> anyway, P.Ferguson exists! Thanks for this valuable entry in the Real People Trust Web. Would anyone like to vouch for Joe Thomas, <jthomas(a)access.digex.net>? BTW, I heard that access.digex.net had lax authentication standards like netcom.com. Could anyone send me mail clarifying what is actually required for authentication at these sites? BTW, many thanks to L.Detweiler for his lone help in helping me break a corrupt conspiracy and massive cyberspatial hoax. It's really tough going lately, and we're really being bombarded with some of the most vicious material the tentacles can muster. But we can stand the heat, and we're going to stay in the kitchen, and continue to fight the raging arson flames to make cyberspace safe for honest people. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help(a)anon.penet.fi. Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized, and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned. Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin(a)anon.penet.fi.

2 1

Re: Crypto Anarchy, the Government, and the National InformationInfrastructure
by tcmay＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Well, Mike Godwin and I have argued about NII/Data Highway before, and we see things differently. When I read the main position papers, and look to the "big picture," the future being envisioned, I get a differenct sense of it than Mike gets. The NII papers (ftp.ntia.doc.gov, in /pub as "agenda.asc") and the CPSR docs (distributed on this list) are clearly not leading to an anarchic net. For example, what will be the NII management's response to a "No blacks allowed" area? To a "women need not apply" on-line consulting situation? To a cyberspatial version of the "old boy's network" that Gloria Allred and her feminista compadres are constantly filing lawsuits against? (I go to a health club/gym that has a "women only" facility. There are no longer any "men only" gyms anywhere in California, but "women only" facilities are flourishing.) Please understand that I'm not proposing a "no blacks allowed" service, only arguing that freedom of association is a basic principle I support, and one on which free societies are based. Yes, I support the right of a store owner to hang a sign out that says "No straights allowed," or "No ragheads allowed." Of course, the general population would probably find this fairly offensive and the store owner would reconsider or go out of business. Sounds fair to me. (Sorry for a digresssion into Libertarianism 101.) Somehow I think the "fair access" and "nondiscriminatory environment" language used in many of these proposals is a clue about what's coming. >For what it's worth, I don't think this interpretation can be read into >EFF's Open Platform paper. EFF doesn't care about making money off the >Data Highway, nor does it think the debate should be about the number of >channels cable offers. > >Instead, EFF wants an infrastructure in which Tim May's anarchic vision >can flourish along with the visions of anarchophobes. On an Open Platform, >a hundred flowers can and will bloom, and a thousand schools of >thought will contend. EFF indeed has a more libertarian view than does, say, the CPSR (I almost typed CPUSA). Mitch Kapor, Mike Godwin, Stanton McClandish, and others certainly understand the dangers of a surveillance state. I've heard it argued by some of them (sorry for forgetting exactly who said what) that some form of data superhighway will be built regardless of our objections, so we might as well get involved and be helpful. The better to ensure our vision. Well, I take the more radical view that to get involved with them is to run the risk of getting co-opted by them, to be manouvered into accepting their views. I support the Open Platform ideas about ending the current local monopoly on cable and phone provision, but that's as far as I go. >Anarchists like Jack Kerouac and Neal Cassidy could find >individualistic redemption on the (government-built) road. >EFF thinks private-enterprise roads are better, but we also think >its promise is unfulfilled if it doesn't allow net.kerouacs and >net.cassidys to create there. Oh, to be sure, _literary anarchists_ like Cassidy and Kerouac will be tolerated. They're no threat, they're covered by artistic license standards (notwithstanding Mapplethorpe and his censors), and they're even a very useful social pressure releaf valve. I'm more concerned about the regulation of business transactions on the Net of the future, on the ease with which access to the Data Highway can be denied to anyone who fails to have the proper business license, the properly approved encryption algorithms, the "tax stamp" on data packets, and the wrong views about taxation and black markets. As commerce moves onto the Nets in an even large way, there is every reason to believe government and special interest groups will seek to use the state monopoly or regulation to control the types of transactions. Wonder how long the newsgroups on child porn will last when the Net is "the data interstate" instead of a loose anarchic collection? How about the White Aryan Resistance Net, featuring the latest in anonymous communication systems? We don't need no steenking data superhighway! --Tim May -- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: by arrangement Note: I put time and money into writing this posting. I hope you enjoy it.

1 0

RE: CRYPTOANARCHIST INFILTRATION ALERT
by dheck＠odo.cc.uakron.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

who appointed this guy Netcop status? If I wanted to receive info appropriate to alt.whistleblowing, I'd read Usenet...These self-appointed, self-important, self-inflated egos really get under my skin...take me off this list...the signal-to-noise ratio is getting a little out of hand. (By the way, my real name is Heck...) David

1 0

Re: HUMOR: Timothy C. May is the CONSPIRACY!
by freeman＠MasPar.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> [...] It is Tim's cat! [...] I hate to add to the horror of it all, but ... Tim has <*gasp*> TWO cats! We're doomed ... -- Jay Freeman

2 1

Re: Banning any subscriber
by plaz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I said: >>I personally disagree with censorship. It would be impossible to enforce >>anyway. A move of this type would simply drive Detweiler to use the >>Cypherpunk remailers which would be harder to detect. Then what do we do? >>Stop accepting mail from our own remailers? Eric replied: >Basically, yes, except for signed letters from previously >authenticated pseudonyms. This is a simple form of a positive >reputation system. A kill fill is a negative reputation--'not that >person'. A positive reputation rejects all but a particular set of >identities. I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you wanted to erect a barrier against anonymous newbies, such as "wonderer" and "Dark Unicorn" were recently. You know, Detweiler might get a new account under a new name, better seal the list to only postings from "previously authenticated" accounts too. Then we'd be all happy and safe from the dreaded Detweiler. Don't let this guy screw up the positive aspects of the list. His irritant is the by-product of the free world that we are trying to create. You can't stop his communication without comprimising our own goals. (You can delete it without reading it or kill file him or once we are on extropians list software, ::exclude him.) >Much of the debate on cypherpunks magically incants 'reputation >systems' to solve all sorts of sticky problems, but none have ever >been implemented in software, except for killfiles, which are not >effective against disruption in an anonymous environment. > >Necessity is the mother of invention. A motivated individual trying >to disrupt a communications forum and who has to avoid a kill file >will be necessary to create the need for a positive reputation system. >Once the need is there, the software will follow. LD could become the >most valuable participant in the endeavor of creating a positive >reputation system, namely, the irritant at the center of the pearl. > >Let us encapsulate him well. > >Eric I'm not entirely against positive reputation systems, but they really need to be implimented on the user end, or at least be user settings, as on the extropians list. But the main problem with positive reputation systems is dealing with the zero reputation newbies. I don't want to see these guys shut out. Think well, before you act on this impulse. _______________________________________________________________________ Geoff Dale -- insert standard disclaimers here -- plaz(a)netcom.com "Life is a sexually transmitted terminal disease." - Peter McWilliams

2 1

A study of National Cryptography Policy
by ssteele＠eff.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Date: Mon, 29 Nov 93 12:23:02 EST >From: "Herb Lin" <hlin(a)nas.edu> >Encoding: 5789 Text >To: farber(a)cis.upenn.edu, editors(a)eff.org, alert(a)washofc.cpsr.org >Subject: A study of National Cryptography Policy > > >Please forward this message to any individual or mailing list >that you believe should receive it. Many thanks.. >********************* >As part of the Defense Authorization Bill for FY 1994, the U.S. Congress >has asked the Computer Science and Telecommunications Board >(CSTB) of the National Research Council (NRC) to undertake a study of >national policy with respect to the use and regulation of cryptography. >The report of the study committee is due two years after all necessary >security clearances have been processed, probably sometime summer >1996, and is subject to NRC review procedures. The legislation >states that 120 days after the day on which the report is submitted to >the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary shall submit the report to the >Committees on Armed Services, Intelligence, Commerce, and the >Judiciary of the Senate and House of Representatives in unclassified >form, with classified annexes as necessary. As of this date (November 29, >1993), the House and the Senate have agreed to this study, but the >President has not yet signed the bill. > >Assuming the legislation is signed by the President, this study is >expected to address the appropriate balance in cryptography policy >among various national interests (e.g., U.S. economic competitiveness >(especially with respect to export controls), national security, law >enforcement, and the protection of the privacy rights of individuals), >and the strength of various cryptographic technologies known today >and anticipated in the future that are relevant for commercial >purposes. The federal process through which national cryptography >policy has been formulated is also expected to be a topic of >consideration, and, if appropriate, the project will address >recommendations for improving the formulation of national >cryptographic policy in the future. > >This project, like other NRC projects, will depend heavily on input >from industry, academia, and other communities in the concerned >public. Apart from the study committee (described below), briefings >and consultations from interested parties will be arranged and others >will be involved as anonymous peer reviewers. > >It is expected that the study committee will be a high-level group that >will command credibility and respect across the range of government, >academic, commercial, and private interests. The committee will >include members with expertise in areas such as: > > - relevant computer and communications technology; > - cryptographic technologies and cryptanalysis; > - foreign, national security, and intelligence affairs; > - law enforcement; > - commercial interests; and > - privacy and consumer interests. > >All committee members (and associated staff) will have to be cleared >at the "SI/TK" level; provisions have been made to expedite the >processing of security clearances for those who do not currently have >them. Committee members will be chosen for their stature, expertise, >and seniority in their fields; their willingness to listen and consider >fairly other points of view; and their ability to contribute to the >formulation of consensus positions. The committee as a whole will >be chosen to reflect the range of judgment and opinion on the subject >under consideration. > >The detailed composition of the committee has not yet been decided; >suggestions for committee members are sought from the community at >large. Note that NRC rules regarding conflict of interest forbid the >selection as committee members of individuals that have substantial >personal financial interests that might be significantly affected by the >outcome of the study. Please forward suggestions for people to >participate in this project to CSTB(a)NAS.EDU by DECEMBER 17, >1993; please include their institutional affiliations, their field(s) of >expertise, a note describing how the criteria described above apply to >them, and a way to contact them. For our administrative >convenience, please put in the "SUBJECT:" field of your message the >words "crypto person". > >Finally, some people have expressed concern about the fact that the >project will involve consideration of classified material. Arguments >can and have been made on both sides of this point, but in any event >this particular ground rule was established by the U.S. Congress, not >by the CSTB. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the asserted >need for classification, the task at hand is to do the best possible job >given this constraint. > >On the National Research Council > >The National Research Council (NRC) is the operating arm of the >Academy complex, which includes the National Academy of Sciences, >the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. >The NRC is a source of impartial and independent advice to the >federal government and other policy makers that is able to bring to >bear the best scientific and technical talent in the nation to answer >questions of national significance. In addition, it often acts as a >neutral party in convening meetings among multiple stakeholders on >any given issue, thereby facilitating the generation of consensus on >controversial issues. > >The Computer Science and Telecommunications Board (CSTB) of the >NRC considers technical and policy issues pertaining to computer >science, telecommunications, and associated technologies. CSTB >monitors the health of the computer science, computing technology, >and telecommunications fields, including attention as appropriate to >the issues of human resources and information infrastructure and >initiates studies involving computer science, computing technology, >and telecommunications as critical resources and sources of national >economic strength. A list of CSTB publications is available on >request. > >

2 1