December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Removing Tyranny from Democracy (Part II), (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: amp(a)pobox.com > Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 09:26:21 -0500 > Subject: Re: Removing Tyranny from Democracy (Part II), > was Democracy is the true enemy... > > > I don't believe there are intrinsic flaws in democracy, so much as > > there are intrinsic flaws in *human*nature* that are coming to light > > after decades. government is a reflection of our human natures. > > one cannot really expect a government to correct the flaws of its > > users, any more than software could do the same. > > No intrinsic flaws in democracy? > > Surely you jest. Please be so kind as to detail your top three flaws... ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http:// www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

2 1

Re: The "Vision" Thang, and Tales out of School...
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Tim May :+AD4-Nonetheless, people who didn't share his +ACI-vision+ACI-, like IBM, and DEC, and :+AD4-now Apple, and all the rest of his competition, got their clocks cleaned. : :Utter nonsense. I lack the time to write about the early history of MS, :Seattle Computers, and Gary Kildall, but to make this claim above indicates :Bob is sacrificing objectivity for some sort of cheap shot in favor of MS. : :I used to know Kildall, when he was hanging around Intel in the mid-70s, :and up until two weeks before his death. The situation was a lot more :nuanced than this +ACI-vision of Bill+ACI- argument suggests. .................................................... Sometime when you do have some time for it, I for one would be interested what you mean by this+ADs- what sort of nuances you are referring to. Billg had some skills, some vision, some luck, some advantages of background (his knowledgeable, socially-connected parents), some advantages of circumstance (the developing computer industry), the advantages of intellect (like a photographic memory), and some very good partners (beginning with Paul Allen) who also contributed their business judgments and decisions to the success of the company. He receives most of the attention, but there are many parts to this story. .. Blanc

1 0

Re: Stanford on Sept. 19th (Re: Nuclear Hedge Funds)
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Tim May :I can't promise anything, but I plan to be advancing the cause of crypto :anarchy on the Stanford campus on Friday, September 19th. After that I may :be off the list for a while, as I'm heading north. ....................................................... To nuke Toto? (ah-ha-ha-ha-ha) .. Blanc

1 0

Credit Card might-as-well-equal SSN
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Resent-Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 15:18:47 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: qnx.com: localhost [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol To: 0xdeadbeef(a)substance.abuse.blackdown.org Subject: Credit Card might-as-well-equal SSN Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 15:17:52 -0400 From: glen mccready <glen(a)qnx.com> Resent-From: 0xdeadbeef(a)substance.abuse.blackdown.org X-Mailing-List: <0xdeadbeef(a)substance.abuse.blackdown.org> archive/latest/2196 X-Loop: 0xdeadbeef(a)substance.abuse.blackdown.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: 0xdeadbeef-request(a)substance.abuse.blackdown.org Forwarded-by: Nev Dull <nev(a)bostic.com> Forwarded-by: Jon Loeliger <jdl(a)jdl.com> PRIVACY Forum Digest Monday, 8 September 1997 Volume 06 : Issue 12 Moderated by Lauren Weinstein (lauren(a)vortex.com) Vortex Technology, Woodland Hills, CA, U.S.A. ===== PRIVACY FORUM ===== ------------------------------------------------------------------- The PRIVACY Forum is supported in part by the ACM (Association for Computing) Committee on Computers and Public Policy, "internetMCI" (a service of the Data Services Division of MCI Telecommunications Corporation), and Cisco Systems, Inc. - - - ------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 21:38:55 -0500 From: MSproul <msproul(a)arnet.arn.net> Subject: U-Haul/Credit Cards/Social Security Numbers Today I went to the local U-Haul to rent a small trailer to move a lawn tractor. In the course of filling out the rental agreement I was asked for my drivers license then asked for my social security number which I refused to give. (Texas does not have SSN on the driver's license) The agent then asked for a credit card, which I was planning to use to charge the rental. During the subsequent discussion the agent told me that since the Oklahoma bombing if they don't get a SSN they are required to to get a credit card number as a second form of identification. They can then get the SSN from the credit card issuer. Questions: Is this for real? How wide spread is this? What does U-Haul do with your SSN? How difficult is it for someone (company) to get your SSN when you use your credit card? M. L. Sproul Amarillo, TX [ Under current law, your SSN is part of what's called "credit header" data, and is (no longer) protected under the FCRA (Fair Credit Reporting Act). This means that for all intents and purposes, your SSN is public information. -- MODERATOR ] --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/

3 2

Chelsea Clinton's PGP
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Stanford Newspaper Promises to Help Chelsea Clinton Keep Low Profile AP 08-SEP-97 STANFORD, Calif. (AP) Don't look for news about Chelsea Clinton in Stanford University's school paper: The editor is promising to treat the first freshman like any other student. Chelsea, accompanied by her parents, is expected on campus Sept. 19, when 1,600 first-year students move into their dormitories and begin several days of orientation. Like the mainstream media, the Stanford Daily plans to cover the Clintons' arrival and their participation that day at a welcoming ceremony for freshmen and their parents. But after that, said Carolyn Sleeth, the Daily's editor in chief, Chelsea "will be treated by us as a student, a regular student." That means her classroom and social life will largely go unreported. "Of course, if she involves herself in a newsworthy event, we'll cover it for example, if she founds a Stanford Democratic Club," Sleeth said. On the other hand, the student editor said if Chelsea were to get a speeding ticket or violate some minor campus rule, it would be ignored. "We wouldn't do a story if another student got a speeding ticket," Sleeth said. Sleeth also said a gag order of sorts will be imposed on Daily employees, barring them from talking or as she put it, "punditing" with the "outsider press" about Chelsea. Anyone who does so will be fired, she said.

3 2

[NOISE] Re: Suitcase for sale
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:32 PM 9/9/97 +0200, Anonymous wrote: > >Weight of suitcase: 80 lbs. > >Scheduled to check in; check the weight. > >For details contact: toto(a)sk.sympatico.ca > SWAPSHOP: Interested in one luggage carrier capable of holding 80 pound suitcase to underside of wing of unmarked private plane that can be jettosoned remotely. Looking for good offer as 1,000,000 already spent on suitcase.

2 1

Re: Removing Tyranny from Democracy (Part II), (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 19:02:37 -0700 > From: Steve Schear <azur(a)netcom.com> > Subject: Re: Removing Tyranny from Democracy (Part II), (fwd) > >> No intrinsic flaws in democracy? > >> > >> Surely you jest. > > > >Please be so kind as to detail your top three flaws... > > I think my Parts II and III detailed a number of shortcomings of democracy, > at least when the franchise goes to 'employees' as opposed to 'customers' > of government. I have read 'The Sovereign Individual' as well so am somewhat familiar with the thesis they propose. I will ask you the same question I would ask of Davidson & Rees-Mogg... Assume that we accept this thesis that the best way to run a government is to structure it such that customers set policies and procedures. What inherent protections does that give me regarding abuse by the system? How do you propose to keep the majority from deciding that it is uneconomical to protect my rights as some minority group? A careful study of business practices versus race or socio-economic group (as expressed by dress) will quickly show that persons of the wrong 'type' receive less service than those of more acceptable groups. The sort of service the customer receives is after all in the hands of the salesperson, not the customer. Let's look at an admittedly contrived example but I believe it will suffice. There are two fires at opposite ends of the coverage area for a fire house. On Saturday they receive a call to go to one end, where the wealthy live. Would you have the owner pay prior to the firemen putting the fire out? Would they pay some premium beforehand? Now on Sunday a fire occurs on the other end where the poor are. Assuming they can't pay the bill would the firemen drive away? If so, wouldn't this in fact pose a threat not only to the other poor but also the wealthy since the fire might spread if it got large enough. Would the wealthy then be asked to pay for that run of the fire truck? What if they refused, how would the firemen pay for the food to feed their family? Perhaps go out and burn down more rich houses... If there are not some inherent or explicit checks in place then such a econo-government would reduce to mob-rule just as happens with democracy without explicit bills of rights. Neither you or Davidson/Rees-Mogg address this issue sufficiently. Furthermore, neither you or the authors address exactly why such a government would abandon the use of force totaly. Exactly why would this form of government reduce say burglary, thereby eliminating the need for police. Is this form of government going to do away with bomb weilding weenies, I doubt it, so we clearly have a need for federal or national level law enforcement fully armed. Since it is clear that all 200+ world governments would not abandon their current forms of government there is a clear and present danger from outside our borders. How do we protect ourselves from this threat? You can't pay them not to attack you, otherwise you are doing exacly what the system was supposed to avoid doing - paying tributes. You want a government with minimal intervention, the issue is not whether it is a democracy or a econo-government or even a communism. What measures that is the rights of the people recognized by the government and how the government respects those rights. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http:// www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

2 1

Re: Comdemnation of 'The Sovereign Individual'... (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii(a)invweb.net> > Date: Wed, 10 Sep 97 01:07:15 -0400 > Subject: Re: Comdemnation of 'The Sovereign Individual'... > You sense of "morality" does not give you the right to steal from me to > support it. In a free society you are more then welcome to spend as much First it isn't morality in the sense of personal decisions of right and wrong but rather a question of professional ethics akin to a doctor or engineer. It is basic questions about the limits and responsibilities involved in specific activities. Your 'free society' is a euphamism for anarchy. You are promoting a system where all activity is voluntary. In such a system nothing higher than unshaven naked peole with a rock and the rabbit they just killed exists. There is no motivation in such an environment to build higher infrastructures because there is no mechanism to provide environmental stability. In such a system individuals don't have time to do anything but protect what they have and take as much of their neighbors environ as possible. They don't have time for anything else, if they go off and spend 8 hours building that nice pretty public road for that new auto plant their neighbors take what they have and tomorrow they discover they don't have time for that public road after all. You might say, well let your wife and kids watch it. To that I say, isn't that the same as letting elected officials build a infrastructure - there is an implied taxation taking place. Furthermore you have about the same amount of security in both systems - I doubt you would be brash enough to propose that all husbands can trust all wives and kids. > you want on the children of others. You *DO NOT* have the right to spend > my money on them. That is a decision that I and I alone have the right to > make. Not if you are a citizen and abiding by the contractual agreement between you and the n-1 citizens of your nation. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http:// www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

USACM APPLAUDS CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE (fwd)
by Cypherpunks Maintenance Account 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

----- Forwarded message from ACM US Public Policy Office ----- >From cpunks Wed Sep 10 06:16:47 1997 Message-Id: <v03110704b03c203ab0f0(a)[204.91.138.81]> Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 06:02:32 -0400 To: list <usacm_dc(a)acm.org> From: ACM US Public Policy Office <usacm_dc(a)acm.org> Subject: USACM APPLAUDS CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com Precedence: bulk PRESS RELEASE Association for Computing U.S. Public Policy Office September 8, 1997 USACM APPLAUDS CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE FOR UNANIMOUSLY ENDORSING RELAXED EXPORT CONTROLS ON ENCRYPTION As the Congress prepares to address the issue of computer security and privacy, the California legislature has sent a clear message that relaxing controls on cryptography is a critical first step. On September 5, the California legislature passed a resolution that calls on the California members in Congress to support legislation that would make it easier for US companies to develop and market strong cryptography products. The resolution was sponsored by Representative Vasconcellos (D. San Jose) and passed without opposition. Dr. Barbara Simons, chair of the policy committee for the Association for Computing (USACM), said that the California resolution makes clear that industry and users are united in support of good cryptography. "We believe that Congress should support the Security and Freedom Act, sponsored by Representative Goodlatte. The legislation will help protect security and privacy on the internet. It will be a serious mistake for the administration to oppose the development of this technology," said Dr. Simons. On August 26, USACM Chair Barbara Simons spoke in support of the Vasconcellos resolution before a California Senate committee. Also participating at the Committee hearing were Dr. Whit Diffie from Sun, Kelly Blough from PGP, Jack Wilson of ACL Datacom, Chuck Marson representing the California Internet Industry Alliance (Netscape, Microsoft, AOL, CompuServe and Netcom), and a representative of the Software Publishers Association. Undersecretary of Commerce Reinsch wrote a letter opposing the resolution. The Association for Computing (ACM) is an international non-profit educational and scientific society with 76,000 members worldwide, 60,000 of whom reside in the U.S. USACM, the Association for Computing's U.S. Public Policy Office, serves as the focal point for ACM's interaction with U.S. government organizations, the computing community and the U.S. public in all matters of U.S. public policy related to information technology. The USACM web site is located at http://www.acm.org/usacm/ For more information, please contact USACM Chair Barbara Simons at 408/256-3661 or USACM Associate Director Lauren Gelman at 202/544-4859. /\ /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ Association for Computing, + http://www.acm.org/usacm/ Office of U.S. Public Policy * +1 202 544 4859 (tel) 666 Pennsylvania Ave., SE Suite 302 B * +1 202 547 5482 (fax) Washington, DC 20003 USA + gelman(a)acm.org To subscribe to the ACM Washington Update, send e-mail to: listserv(a)acm.org with "subscribe WASHINGTON-UPDATE name" (no quotes) in the body of the message. ----- End of forwarded message from ACM US Public Policy Office -----

1 0

Re: Infoworld and Denning's study (fwd)
by Cypherpunks Maintenance Account 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

----- Forwarded message from Peter Gutmann ----- >From cpunks Tue Sep 9 00:08:29 1997 From: pgut001(a)cs.auckland.ac.nz (Peter Gutmann) To: cryptography(a)c2.net Subject: Re: Infoworld and Denning's study Reply-To: pgut001(a)cs.auckland.ac.nz X-Charge-To: pgut001 X-Authenticated: relaymail v0.9 on cs26.cs.auckland.ac.nz Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 15:58:02 (NZST) Message-ID: <87377748221122(a)cs26.cs.auckland.ac.nz> Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com Precedence: bulk >Infoworld NZ has just published an awful article (written by US reporter Sari >Kalin and titled "Criminals Eyeing Encryption"), which emphasises repeatedly >that encryption is a major problem just waiting to happen, using Dorothy >Dennings report as a basis. This represents a rather ugly way to interpret >the report (and, presumably, an attempt by the USG to recover something from >a report which was supposed to come down firmly in favour of crypto >restrictions but didn't). Due to the late hour I got that wrong, it's Computerworld NZ, not Infoworld (slight difference in naming). Even later last night I wrote a letter to the editor which, I gather, will appear in the next issue. I've included it below in case anyone finds it useful, it's written for a general audience who probably aren't aware of the deeper issues apart from the fact that the USG has a peculiar attitude towards crypto, due to length constraints I couldn't go into too much detail. If you feel the need to circulate this, please don't do so until after next Monday when it's officially published. Peter. -- Snip -- The article "Crims eyeing encryption" in the September 9 Computerworld presents an extremely peculiar view of the study "Encryption and Evolving Technologies in Organised Crime and Terrorism". The final conclusion of the study was that there is no real "encryption problem" which justifies placing limitations on the use of encryption, and yet the article, by more or less ignoring the conclusion and concentrating instead on a number of scaremongering quotes, manages to create exactly the opposite impression. To understand what's involved here, it might be useful to know a bit about the background of the study. For a number of years the US government has held that it needs to strongly restrict peoples access to encryption. They can't actually provide you with any supporting facts for this because they're all classified, but if they were allowed to tell you, they're certain you'd agree with them. Now over the years they came to the realisation that people weren't really buying this argument, and so they decided to create a study which would provide proof, once and for all, that they were right. The two people who worked on this study were Dorothy Denning, virtually the only supporter of the US governments policy apart from the US government itself, and a vice-president of SAIC, a large defence contractor. They toiled away for quite some time, and finally announced their results a month or two back. Unfortunately the findings put them in a rather awkward position: Although the study was supposed to provide proof that there was some sort of "encryption problem" which needed to be countered, it instead showed that there wasn't really a problem at all. Sure, it showed that criminals occasionally use encryption, just like criminals also drive cars, eat pizza, drink Coke, and (quite probably) read Computerworld. The important point - which was almost completely ignored in the article in favour of running scaremongering quotes from a variety of US government officials - was that the "encryption problem", the whole reason for the governments' claimed need to restrict encryption, by and large didn't exist. It got even worse for the government though. So convincing was the evidence in the study that Denning - for years a very outspoken supporter of their policies - did an about-face and declared that she was no longer prepared to back government plans for restricting encryption until someone proved to her that there was a very good reason for it (this was reported in a number of US papers and publications which cover computer issues, so it was reasonably well known, eg "Denning unable to confirm FBI Assertions; alters her position" in the Mercury News, the largest silicon valley paper). Although the governments star technical witness was unable to find any evidence that their position was valid, the Computerworld article, by resorting to selective quoting and innuendo, paints a very different, and quite inaccurate, picture. (As a side-note, I find it amusing to read that the government policy relies on people handing over their encryption keys to them. Quite apart from the question of why anyone would trust the US government with their keys, there's also the small problem that no criminal will ever do this - that's why they're criminals after all. The only ones who'll ever get caught by this cunning plan are you and I). -- Snip -- (I'm assuming most readers will get the Baldrick/Blackadder reference in the last sentence :-). ----- End of forwarded message from Peter Gutmann -----

1 0