December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

US ID Manual
by killbarny＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The manual below has info on old, current, and proposed info on all D/Ls and IDs. It also contains info on Credit Cards, Alien, Miolitary, and other various types of Federal Identification. There are no PICs of FBI, DEA, CIA, etc--except for 1-800 numbers to confirm who they are. For those that can't find a way to get this, there is the ID Checking Guide for 17.95; send to: Drivers License Guide Co., PO Box 5305-Dept. 94, Redwood City, CA 94063. You can call 1/800-227-8827. This is the one bouncers use at nightclubs. Not as detailed as the one below. For US $149.00, one can purchase the US Identification Manual, on the condition that: 1) Be a previous purchaser of the US ID Manual. 2) Purchase Order or Department letterhead from a government agency or recognized business entity. 3) Proof of licensing with a professional board regulating private investigators, guard services, etc. 4) Xerox of Identification issued to an individual member of a law enforcement department. Send Name, Telephone, Title, Organization, Dept. within Organization, Address, City, State, Zip TO: U.S. Identification Manual, Division Driver's License Guide Company, Dept. 1A 1492 Oddstad Drive Redwood City, CA 94063

1 0

Driver's License info
by trestrab＠GVSU.EDU 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

uni writes: >What might be really useful is a list of the different measures >used on all the states ID's. > >For example: > >Maryland uses a magnetic strip, Digitized Photo and a bar code. >All that is printed on a credit card like card and not laminated. >Military ID's are green and white paper with a polaroid and a >signiture, normal lamination. >Illinois is a normal lamination with a complete photo within, >no bar code or strip, no digitized photo record. > >Anyone want to further the list? I wouldn't mind compiling the >information. > Michigan DLs have a Poloroid photo in the lower left corner and are laminated in plastic embossed on the front with the state seal. Jeff trestrab(a)gvsu.edu

2 1

Re: Remailer Musings
by trestrab＠GVSU.EDU 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

kitten writes: >On the other hand, part of the rules of being a common carrier are >that one is *required* to cooperate with appropriate >authorities to prevent this sort of abuse and to catch said >abusers if/when it happens. I suspect that Mr. Templeton's >lawyer could make a case that by setting up a remailer >where one cannot "trace calls," one is violating the >requirements of being a common carrier, and thus is >responsible for content. The PO delivers mail whether or not it has a return address, let alone whether it has a _correct_ return address, so I suspect that Mr. Templeton's lawyer would have to be very creative indeed to pass that analogy by anyone who isn't asleep at the wheel. I think his thinly veiled warnings re: remailer operator legal liability are an attempt to intimidate, as it can get expensive to defend yourself even from a very weak claim ....... just ask Phil Zimmerman. Jeff trestrab(a)gvsu.edu

1 0

Side question on money laundering...
by trestrab＠GVSU.EDU 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Phil Fraering writes: >Given that even I, in my isolated little backwater of South >Louisiana, find myself withing 20 miles of a casino, is it >possible that the market is saturating to the point where >an internet casino would not neccesarily be a good idea? > >If there is real anonymous untraceable digital cash for money >laundering with, will "real" casinos see their profits decline >as digital money sucks away that part of their business? > The most likely use of the Internet for gambling is for bookmaking, not casino games. Encryption and untraceable digital cash will allow even those "in [an] isolated little backwater of South Louisiana" to compete for biz with the books in Lost Wages, NV and the larger cities. The only real barrier to entry will be capital sufficient to render the risk of ruin insignificant; thats not a _small_ barrier, though. Jeff trestrab(a)gvsu.edu

1 0

Re: Remailer Musings
by trestrab＠GVSU.EDU 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Lefty writes: >There is not, to the best of my knowledge, any such thing as "a legal >pseudonym". DBAs (doing business as) registrations are "legal psuedonyms", although they don't have any bearing on the discussion at hand. (Just a FYI.) Jeff trestrab(a)gvsu.edu

1 0

magnetic card technology
by Brian D Williams 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There is an interesting article on Magnetic card technology in Phrack37, I could send it to interested parties. It's about 46k. Brian Williams Extropian Cypherpatriot "Cryptocosmology: Sufficently advanced comunication is indistinguishable from noise." --Steve Witham "Have you ever had your phones tapped by the government? YOU WILL and the company that'll bring it to you.... AT&T" --James Speth

1 0

Re: Safeway + Your Privac
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com P >Hmmm... In this scenario, wouldn't Safeway wind up eating the bad P >checks? I realize that it would be a royal pain in the ass for the P >victim (the checkbook owner) to sort out the mess, but it would seem to P >me that the victim could prove that he/she didn't sign the checks, P >leaving Safeway in the position of having exchanged groceries for P >worthless paper. In the case of a forged drawer's signature (forged signature of the account holder) on a check, the bank that pays on the forgery is liable. This is because in theory a check is an order to your bank to pay on your order and a forgery is not a valid order from you. If a check is paid based on a forged *endorsement* on the other hand, the transaction can be walked back until the person who first accepted the forged endorsement is stuck with the loss. This is because everyone in the endorsement chain has a claim that is based on the validity of prior endorsements. DCF Privacy 101: If you don't want to answer the questions on the form because they invade your privacy -- don't. If you want to complete the form to get something out of someone -- lie. The best way to lie on a form is to select answers out of the "answerspace" of potential answers that give no useful information about you. Given the complexity of human existance, "answerspace" is large enough that you can usually select "true" answers about you that give no useful information. Name: Whatever Address: Mail Drop Phone Number: Voice Mail SS#:???-??-???? Something vetted by SSN.EXE Last Address: Somewhere Overseas Photo ID: Employment/Student ID Credit Card: Secured VISA card Health Security Card: Sorry, I'm a non-resident alien. *Netiquette Alert -- Signature longer than message.* --- WinQwk 2.0b#1165

1 0

Re: Banyan vine use by US Marine Corps...
by Jim Franklin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Well, it turns out that either there was a mass pranking, or our gateway here at apple had a moment of flatulence, because other coworkers have received random mailing list letters too. Thanks for the info though. jim

1 0

Re: Remailer Musings
by juola＠bruno.cs.colorado.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Does anyone have a cite to support the notion that common carriers are obligated to assist in the identification of users of their services? I got it at the January '94 USENIX tutorial on Internet and the Law. Given that it's still being taught, it should be no problem for anyone with interest to confirm that. I received annoying phone calls for a period of time, and the local phone company (US West) said they'd only get involved once I had an "incident number" (or some such) from the police department, and that information gathered would only be released to the police. I suppose if I actually filed a civil suit against the harassing party (even as a John Doe?) I could then use the discovery process to compel them to release their relevant records - but that's not really the scenario that Brad and 'kitten' seem to imagine. Um, speaking for myself and not Brad, that's exactly the situation where this sort of thing would be problematic. Copyright infringement is a criminal offence as well as a civil tort. So if Brad (or the newswire) wanted to push it, they could try to haul the remailer operator into court. And if he claimed to be a "common carrier," he's supposed to help. If he's unable (read, unwilling by design) to help, then it's possible that a judge could find that he's not a common carrier and therefore liable. Of course, I'm not a lawyer myself. And the law, in its infinite majesty, can do strange things. I personally believe that remailer operators should be considered to be common carriers, but that's a very tricky proposition to justify in a court. - kitten

2 1

Re: Black Net
by lefty＠apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>lefty(a)apple.com (Lefty) sez: >> Do _not_ mess with those BlackNet folks. You'll wind up face-down >> in a landfill, and spend eternity playing pinochle with Jimmy Hoffa. > >Do you have any evidence that the BlackNet people have committed >violence against someone, either before or after forming BlackNet? Pardon my asking, but Who Wants to Know, and Why Should I Tell You? >> Trust Me On This. > >Nothing personal, I don't trust anyone. Suit yourself, but don't have your next-of-kin come crying to me to tell them which batch of Little Friskies you wound up in. -- Lefty (lefty(a)apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

1 0