December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: LACC: proposed anti-pseudospoofing law in Georgia
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:18 AM 5/4/96 -0500, you wrote: >Can you please post the text of the bill? It was posted to cyberia-l on April 19th, among other dates, by Mike Godwin, titled "Georgia's amazing new internet law". Use altavista to find it. It's probably on www.eff.org also. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com, +1-415-442-2215 # goodtimes signature virus innoculation

1 0

Re: PICS & CyberAngels
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"declan+(a)CMU.EDU" "Declan B. McCullagh" 4-MAY-1996 12:28:04.26 >Indeed. Under SafeSurf, I've rated the fight-censorship mailing list >archive site as suitable for all ages, which I believe it is, though the >CyberAngels think otherwise. I wonder what will happen now? SafeSurf is >supposedly sending me "an end-user license agreement" to sign... I believe this is another case, like that of the SafeSurf dislike of the mention of illegal drugs in any but the standard PDFA (sp?) manner, in which the Guardian Angels' politics are coming through. They may claim to be anti-CDA, but given their harrassment of various sexually-oriented businesses ("cleaning up Times Square" et al) their real opinions seem to be showing through. They'd make themselves even more unpopular if they were honest about it, of course. I have no doubt that, if the CDA is upheld (God forbid), they'll be secretly reporting violations to the DOJ. They already appear to have a policy of reporting allegedly "obscene" material. -Allen P.S. Feel free, anyone, to forward this (and my other stuff on the CyberAngels) to them. I'd like to see their defense, unless they're going to admit they don't have any.

1 0

Re: CryptoAnarchy: What's wrong with this picture?
by brerrabbit＠alpha.c2.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Sandy Sandfort <sandfort(a)crl.com> wrote: >A couple of generations ago, only multinationals and the super >rich could avail themselves of offshore banks, asset protection >trust, foreign incorporation, etc. Fifteen years ago, I was >helping members of the upper middle class do the same think. > >Today, virtually anyone on this list can afford these techniques. >Non-US people have been using them for years. The reason middle >class Americans aren't savvy that yet are ignorance and inertia. >Everyday, Americans are becoming less parochial (due in part, >ironically, to government hysteria about money laundering) about >such possibilities. As the Clintons and Doles turn up the tax >and regulatory heat, they will also overcome their inertia. Do tell. How would someone, just for instance, who is considering leaving a "permanent" job for the higher compensation available to contractors and consultants be able to structure a business in such a way as to benefit from these techniques? If we assume a rate of between $60/hour and $125/hour (typical in Boston, New York, and the Silicon Valley), how much can one save? How much effort and money is required? How much risk is involved? There are many books on the shelves claiming to show how to avoid taxes using these techniques. Most of them have the smell of "dangerous crackpot" about them. Can you recommend any in particular? If this is too far off topic for cypherpunks I'd be interested in learning of a more appropriate forum. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMYpJ68NGLex6dhF9AQHKLgQAh2/j23rG3RP0VFNVcsNIUphgWjTG0mlE ojXWJ29el616YCfKHpwXzT2v9+wThdQByp047qf8zXGqsjuf5ld2rkWxgap840JH S4Wf1GkxdcCFM9Vq3Ks955YtWdWIz4PrngxEpPU6lmXTIY2Vk17HTRJoZBKJLwW0 iAPchDVd+kg= =7bKv -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 3

Gemplus' Crypto Cards
by Ben 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Does anyoneknow anything about the Gemplus Smart Card systems? Specifically: http://www.gemplus.com/gpr400.html They claim that they're secure and can do things like 40Mbits/second in a PCMCIA form factor for Digital signatures and other uses. Thanks! Ben.

1 0

Re: CryptoAnarchy: What's wrong with this picture?
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ C'punks, At 11:31 AM 5/3/96 -0700, brerrabbit(a)alpha.c2.org wrote: >Do tell. How would someone, just for instance, who is considering >leaving a "permanent" job for the higher compensation available to >contractors and consultants be able to structure a business in such a >way as to benefit from these techniques? If we assume a rate of >between $60/hour and $125/hour (typical in Boston, New York, and the >Silicon Valley), how much can one save? How much effort and money is >required? How much risk is involved? > >There are many books on the shelves claiming to show how to avoid >taxes using these techniques. Most of them have the smell of >"dangerous crackpot" about them. Can you recommend any in particular? 1) Read as wide a variety of the stuff out there you can (even the books by "dangerous crackpots"). 2) Take a vacation to a tax haven you like because of what you've read about it. 3) Open a bank account with an established bank. 4) Ask your banker to recommend a trustworthy lawyer. 5) Tell the lawyer what you want to accomplish and do what he or she says, if it makes sense to you. 6) DON'T talk to anyone else--especially in your home country--about what you have done, are doing or are planning to do. 7) As your resources increase, repeat steps 2-5 in other tax havens. Don't put all your eggs in one basket if you have enough to spread around. 8) Send me $1000. If you follow my steps 1-7, you will save many times that amount. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2 2

Why Leahy is No Friend of Ours
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:34 AM 5/3/96, Black Unicorn wrote: >On Thu, 2 May 1996, Timothy C. May wrote: >> I'd say it's 99.95% likely that the PGP key was generated by a staffer--the >> resident e-mail geek--and that only staffers know how to use PGP. (In fact, >> probably only the one staffer who generated the key and knows the >> passphrase....) > >While I believe this correct, it's worth noting that Leahy is fairly >"into" the technology. He finds it entertaining and "fun." All of this >mostly thanks to his one time counsel John Podesta. Thanks Mr. Podesta! > >He's one of the more interested congress critters. > >> So, what is accomplished except "feel good" thoughts? > >Admittedly, not much. I'm at least pleased he has a decently on the ball >staff however who can tell him what the issues are. "Decently on the ball"? I hope you are being ironic. Leahy is no friend of ours. Recall that he chaired the hearings on the FBI's "Digital Telephony" massive wiretap proposal, and co-sponsored the legislation (with former FBI agent Don Edwards). This "sleeping giant" of legislation is still out there, and has not been consigned to the junk heap. It becomes operative--that is, the $10,000 per day penalties for noncompliance with the law mandating telecom systems be DT-compliant--in October 1997. (There is ongoing discussion of whether the $500 million to be paid to the phone companies is going to be allocated, and whether those companies (such as "Tim's Cheap Internet Phone Company") which fail to get some of this lucre as it is handed out are then exempt....the consensus seems to be that some of the $500 million will be allocated as a sop to the phone companies, but that large numbers of smaller companies will still be expected to be compliant when a wiretap order is presented to them. This even if they never got a dime. The implications for the Internet and for increasingly popular "Internet phone" systems are interesting. As I understand the DT language, such systems would have to be made compliant with wiretap requests, or face the $10K/day penalties. This could force many ISPs, in the U.S. of course, to take steps to immediately restrict certain programs, or even [speculatively] force them to become compliant by some form of key escrow, where they would keep a copy of a key for presentation to law enforcement. [More speculation by me: the combination of the Wiretap Act, the Anti-Terrorism Act, and the still-ongoing work on key escrow (TIS is still pushing their system, Lotus hasn't backed down, Denning still says it's needed, etc.) could mean that ISPs move to restrict use of crypto in various ways, possibly mandating escrowed encryption. Several of us (Black Unicorn, Duncan Frissell, me, etc.) may point out the practical difficulties involved in such enforcement, and the longterm dim prospects for success. But the fact is that ISPs are a kind of "choke point" for halting certain things. I have a feeling I know what my ISP will say if he gets a court order and a $10,000 per day penalty faces him. Those who access the Net directly, through their own companies and/or by having boxes hanging directly on the Net, will be less vulnerable to this kind of pressure. But the Netcoms, PSI, Earthlinks, AOLs, and such will likely run into trouble the first time a court order is presented to make certain Internet phone conversations tappable.... (I have long argued for this view that certain "choke points" will be identified. These are the points of leverage--often companies--which law enforcement can lean on. Whit Diffie made similar points a few years ago, that drug laws were "enforced" inside companies (who previously didn't care whether employees smoked dope on their time off, so long as they did the job), with urine tests, threats of civil forfeiture of company assets if even small amounts of drugs were found in the possession of employees, etc. The "War on Drugs" effectively pressed companies into service as soldiers.) Sure, a few services will decide to fight such penalties in court and seek to have Digital Telephony thrown out in court. Deep pockets will be required. Maybe they'll prevail. Maybe the Burns Bill will collide with Digital Telephony. Unclear at this time. But no Congressman who co-sponsors such legislation as the "National Wiretap Initiative," with its "1% of the engineering capacity" requirements and other such Big Brother Surveillance State clauses, is a friend of ours. --Tim May 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, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

3 2

Re: the cost of untracability?
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"frantz(a)netcom.com" 13-APR-1996 01:00:57.74 >At 7:42 PM 4/12/96 -0400, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: >> Another method would be for ecash to have a label on it as to when >>the issuer would redeem it. Until then, if you want cash from it, find >>someone else to trade to. ... >And if you are using a "first to clear gets the money" system like >Digicash, the holders can race to see who gets the money. What I had in mind is that the bank would still process the ecash if you sent it to them - for an equal quantity of ecash with the same label. If you want to convert it into a normal bank account or other ecash, you have to send it to the bank at the time of labeling, or trade it to someone else. If you trade it to someone else, they will want to send it to the bank to change it for more ecash _before_ sending you your compensation. Admittedly, all this then gets into the standard digital receipt, etcetera problems. -Allen

1 0

Re: A MODEST PROPOSAL (fwd)
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com" "Bill Stewart" 13-APR-1996 02:38:40.77 >>From: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH(a)mbcl.rutgers.edu> >> In other words, majordomo is broken. I should have suspected as much, >No, it's not broken, it just interacts badly with anon.penet.fi. >Of the two of them, majordomo is doing the obvious unsurprising thing, >while anon.penet.fi needs a bit more complicated support because of >difficulties with its implication and the workarounds it uses. >Somebody did comment that they modified majordomo to handle this, >but presumably vanilla majordomo can at least pattern-match block an######, >and if it can't, you can always pre-process with egrep or sed. The reason I say majordomo is broken is that it shows up with the address of the original sender, not the address of the list, as the From address. Other mailing list software does not do this. -Allen

1 0

Re: [Political Rant] Was: examples of mandatory content rating?
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"hal9001(a)panix.com" "Robert A. Rosenberg" 15-APR-1996 03:46:01.05 >At 18:52 4/14/96, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: >>I'm not sure if the major use for ratings may not be searching for >>material that the raters don't like. I'd be interested in many things the >>fundys don't like, for instance. One could even do this via one of the >>"services" that mails out listings of places to be locked from kids - just >>sign up one of your anonymous employees, and get the data and put it on your >>anonymous web access site. Doing so - if you don't admit you've done it - may >>be cheaper than doing the research yourself. Of course, you'll need to check >>out each such site to make sure that it isn't a decoy that they've inserted. >When you do the checking, make sure it is from an IPN that does not point >back at you (or at least only points to a Server Supplied not a Dedicated >IPN). You might also want to watch out for "Canary Trap" Decoys (where each >list has an unique set of Decoys [or at least one unique Decoy] so they can >tell which copy was compromised). I'm assuming that the Decoy is a "valid" >[possibly virtual] domain address which is being logged. The way to get around the second problem is to sign up with such a "service" twice, then filter out anything not appearing on both. Since at least some of the parental censorship "services" have customization for the parent, doing more than one would also be a means to pick up more specific evaluations of the sites in question. -Allen

1 0

Re: CryptoAnarchy: What's wrong with this picture?
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>1) Read as wide a variety of the stuff out there you can > (even the books by "dangerous crackpots"). >2) Take a vacation to a tax haven you like because of what > you've read about it. What tax havens would you like, if you did business in tax havens, which of course you do not ;-) --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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

3 4