December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: "Contempt" charges likely to increase
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:27 PM 4/6/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >This model, is, I contend, the model with which courts are familiar. They >know that Alice can retrieve the funds, so they simply order her to. If she >does not comply, contempt of court. Q.E.D. > >What of a different model? What if, say, her funds are in a "time lock >deposit," with the bank unwilling or even unable (cryptographic protocols >involving multiple key holders) to retrieve the funds until, say, 2010? >Even if she is being tortured to death and pleading with the >Gemeinschaftbank of Zurich to please, pretty please, release her funds, >they cannot. > >It may take some convincing, and some education of the court (a la the >education that is slowly happening, as in the CDA case), but eventually it >will be realized that "contempt of court" is not applicable. I look at it this way: It is inappropriate to look just at the desire of the court and its sanctions, it is necessary to study what kind of "crimes" are normally dealt with in such a fashion, and why they need to be crimes in the first place. Over time, technology is dramatically increasing our protections: From locks to alarms to monitoring systems to remote cameras, with bank accounts that are secure from ordinary criminals, we are becoming less and less dependant on government for our security. Since the ostensible purpose of courts is nominally to protect us, if those protections begin to be replaced by technology the logical conclusion is that courts will become less numerous and less powerful. The problem is, that isn't happening, and the reason is that organizations tend to act in ways to protect their own power and influence. In fact, the average citizen is subject to far more theft of his assets BY THE GOVERNMENT than by common criminals, so at some point we have to realize that the government is now a net problem, rather than being a net solution. I think that most crimes that subpoenas would normally be used for are probably not crimes at all, and are probably "malum prohibitum," not "malum in se" crimes. And in the future, they would likely be used to harass political enemies, as harassment was done in the 1950's and 60's. This means, for anybody of a libertarian bent, that it would actually be better if the government could be rendered incapable of enforcing them. Naturally, governments and courts will resist, but that will be irrelevant. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: "Contempt" charges likely to increase
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:00 PM 4/6/96 -0500, Black Unicorn wrote: > To me this entire thread has threatened to suggest to people that they > need only thumb their noses at the authorities, be it by cryptographic > protocol or otherwise, and sit back in their easy chair and smile to > themselves. [...] > > I understand that direct confrontation with government is appealing to > the authority hater. (I happen to be one). Overt resistance, however, > of the character suggested by Mr. Bell and others, is going to cause > problems in two ways. Firstly, its going to cause the individual > resister a good deal of headaches. Secondly, its going to make bad law > eventually. On this you are simply wrong: As Jim Bell pointed out, the current level of repression would have been unthinkable thirty years ago, and it has occurred with very little actual violence. 99% pure bluff. The authorities are generally reluctant to risk their reputation capital by direct confrontation. Government projects an image of being all powerful, but in fact they are in the same position as the lion tamer bullying his lions or the Mahout commanding the elephant to drag logs. Somebody complained that the image I put in by CDA protest was not obscene, mererly indecent (due perhaps due to the lousy dithering which obscured certain crucial features of the image) -- so I amended it to one which is definitely obscene. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

1 0

Unicorn of Color
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 6:00 PM 4/6/96, Black Unicorn wrote: >On Fri, 5 Apr 1996, Timothy C. May wrote: >> >> Far be it from me to question the legal advice BU/Uni/Dirsec provides, > >Unicorn is fine, don't be snide. Not meant to be snide, even if sounded that way. I just get confused by your various nyms, as some call you "Uni," others call you by what I presume is your real name (rhymes with Galois), and you sometimes sign your messages "Dirsec." Also, I am hesitant to call you "Black Unicorn," as applying the adjective "black" to a person is illegal in some jurisdictions, and "Unicorn of Color" does not ring true. (But I grew up calling blacks "colored people," and gladly switched to the more noble-sounding "black" in the 1960s, and now I almost vomit everytime I hear some radfem lesbian claim "All wimmin are people of color!!!!" Yeah, colored people. My, how the worm has turned....) Hope this clears things up. --Tim Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 - 1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

3 2

Re: [NOISE] Unicorn of Color
by erc＠dal1820.computek.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

No, it's "womyn", you Fascist male oppressor pretending to be in sympathy with the cause ;) ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: [NOISE] Unicorn of Color Sent To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Author: pjm(a)spe.com Reply To: pjm(a)spe.com Date: 4/7/96 1:36:53 AM The spelling is "wymmyn", you neanderthal oppressor.

1 0

LSD|CFP
by Dave Del Torto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

All constructive comments, corrections & suggestions are greatly appreciated... <http://www.well.com/user/ddt/crypto/crypto.html> dave ___________________________________________________________________ Cryptography is the entertainment branch of the computing industry.

1 0

Re: the cost of untracability?
by hoz＠univel.telescan.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>One possible way to get around this is to have ecash issuers pay interest >on ecash. However it requires ecash to be timestamped and therefore >compromises its untraceability. (Think of the timestamp as a serial >number.) It wouldn't exactly have to be timestamped. By convention, all interest bearing currency could be denominated as of some fixed date. For instance, its future value as of Jan 1, 2200 A.D. The issuer could then pay interest without knowing the date the currency was issued. (Of course, some accounting rules are probably going to need changing, hehe) Neither the payee nor the issuer needs to know the actual issue date when settlement time comes. When you buy a t-bill, it is worth some amount on some date. You don't know when the previous owner bought it or how much (s)he paid. The denominated date could even vary if it were "blinded". As long as the present value of the ecoin is the same, the issuing institution should not care how it is expressed. A variable interest rate scheme could even prevent an announced fixed rate from conveying clues about the issue date. Rick F. Hoselton (who doesn't claim to present opinions for others)

2 1

Re: e$ seigniorage (and is this the cost of untracability?)
by Gary Howland 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Wei Dai wrote: > > On Sat, 6 Apr 1996, Gary Howland wrote: > > > - What will be the typical time between the withdrawal of ecash > > and it being deposited? > > I think this will depend on how easy it is to withdraw ecash. If the > client software includes an option of automaticly withdrawing ecash from > the bank when you don't have enough ecash to pay for the current purchase > (thereby reducing the time between withdrawal and deposit to zero), then I > suspect most people will use it, even though (anticipating your next > question) this compromises their untraceability. Interesting note - I think that if the time between withdrawal and deposit ever reaches zero, then we have a e-cheque system (which is fully traceable).

1 0

my apologies
by Perry E. Metzger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

My apologies about getting drawn into an argument about conspiracy theory and whether the fed is "privately owned" or some such bull. It isn't cypherpunks material. We all forget on occassion. Perry

1 0

NYT: Chaotic Encryption: a Solution in Search of a Problem
by Dan Haskovec 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The New York Times online site reports on a researcher at Oak Ridge National Labs who "devised and patented a new mathematical system for encrypting and authenticating digital data, based on the scientific concept of chaos." The article mention that people in industry were less than enthused about adopting it. Even the inventor says that it "isn't robust enough for military applications." It seems to use a chaotic system at both ends with a symmetric key. It almost sounds like the NYT covered it because chaos is "cool", not because this development is significant. Any insights? The story is online at http://www.nytimes.com/library/cyber/week/0407chaos.html

2 1

Re: Unicorn of Color
by tallpaul＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Apr 06, 1996 11:57:33, 'tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May)' wrote: > >Also, I am hesitant to call you "Black Unicorn," as applying the adjective >"black" to a person is illegal in some jurisdictions, and "Unicorn of >Color" does not ring true. (But I grew up calling blacks "colored people," >and gladly switched to the more noble-sounding "black" in the 1960s, and >now I almost vomit everytime I hear some radfem lesbian claim "All wimmin >are people of color!!!!" Yeah, colored people. My, how the worm has >turned....) > Don't go Grubor on us now Tim. Slip over the border and get some downers to handle the delusion of "some jurisdictions" that make it "illegal" to call someone "black." Your gorge is also a lot more steady than you think, so I wouldn't worry about it. If you can choke down nuclear bombings of civilians, surely you can handle the new "private dictionaries" of a few radical feminists who spell "adult female" w-i-m-m-i-n. --tallpaul PS: I identify with that section of the women's liberation movement who spell a different word b-y-t-c-h.

1 0