December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Rural Datafication (Was Re: Edited Edupage, 9 May 1996)
by mccoy＠communities.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May writes: > At 3:57 PM 5/14/96, Doug Hughes wrote: > > >I wouldn't normally respond to such an offtopic post, but this post is > >so egregious I couldn't let it pass. Who says they make a choice to live > >in rural areas? Do they also choose not to have enough money to pay > >for shoes? So, because they live in a poor district they are not entitled > > Your shoe example is apt. Fact is, we *don't* pay for people's shoes. Why > should we pay for their Net access when we don't pay for their shoes, or > their food, or their electricity, or their phone bill, or their cable t.v. > subscription? Many of these things seem like higher priorities than being > able to "surf the Net." Well, this sort of subsidization is in the grand tradition of the Rural Electrification Act of the new deal era and it seems to have worked out pretty well. The point being that we, as a social group, benefit when everyone has access to certain pieces of the general infrastructure: if everyone has electricity then appliance manufacturers can sell to everyone, etc. This is particularly true when it comes to services like electricity, phones, etc. where it is much easier to wire up the cities than areas with a lower population density. BTW, while there may have been a decent argument against the electrification act, I think that you are paddling upstream when it comes to net connections. The value of your net connection (or any connection to the net) _increases_ according to the number of people who are connected to the network. Unlike all of the other rural subsidies you pay for as an urban dweller (with the possible exception of the phone subsidy), this is one which has direct benefit to you. Oh yeah, and you are already subsidizing their phone bill (at least the increased cost of running a line out to them and maintaining that line), and their electricity bill, and satellite TV took care of any need to run cable TV lines out there or else you would also be subsidizing their cable TV by now. So what was your point? jim

1 0

Re: Why does the state still stand:
by Hal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

James Donald writes a very interesting essay but I want to clarify one aspect. Let me quote just the summary: > So guys, that is the plan: We destroy the state through higher mathematics. > We do this by replacing the current institutional mechanisms of corporations > with cryptographic mechanisms. This will give more people the opportunity > to evade and resist taxes. I think the intention then is to create "fully anonymous" companies. These would be organizations whose principals and employees are known only by pseudonyms, even to each other. Their only contact is electronic, via an anonymous network. And the employees are paid in anonymous ecash, which they don't pay taxes on since it is unreported income. These companies produce products or services which they offer for sale across the net. They accept payment in ecash, either from end users or from other companies. Such companies would be illegal, with everyone involved subject to criminal penalties for tax evasion (and no doubt a myriad of other violations). But because the anonymity is protected cryptographically, the government is helpless to learn the true identities of anyone involved. The companies continue to successfully sell their products and services, advertising and recruiting openly from anonymous sources, and there is nothing the government can do about it. This is, I think, the model we have been talking about for several years on this list. There are obvious and non-obvious problems which many people have brought up over the years. It is still not clear to me that it can really work in this form. Still it will be interesting to see when someone actually tries to do this, to see how it works. James mentioned the issue of groupware to allow these people to coordinate their efforts. That is an interesting aspect that we haven't considered much. One trend which may be relevant is the increase in telecommuting. Once people are accustomed to working mostly from home, interacting with co-workers and management by email, they would be good candidates for recruitment by the anonymous firm. It might be interesting to make a list of all the problems people can think of why this idea won't work, paired with proposed solutions and workarounds - sort of a mini FAQ for this important (some might say ultimate) cypherpunk model. Hal

2 1

Re: Rural Datafication (Was Re: Edited Edupage, 9 May 1996)
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:27 AM GMT 5/15/96, Jim McCoy wrote: >BTW, while there may have been a decent argument against the electrification >act, I think that you are paddling upstream when it comes to net connections. >The value of your net connection (or any connection to the net) _increases_ >according to the number of people who are connected to the network. Unlike Au contraire! Speaking for myself, the value of _my_ net connection has been going _down_ these past few years as more yahoos (TM of The Yahoo Corporation) got connected and as congestion clogged the networks. So, on this basis alone I am opposed to the "Rural Datafication" public works project! But seriously, Internet connections are already quite cheap. We've had this debate a couple of times before here on Cypherpunks, and each time many of us remain unconvinced that something like Net connections, which are so well-handled by private enterprise and which depend so heavily on technological innovation, are best handled by a socialized effort. There are deep reasons why such government-led programs tend to freeze progress...this is a longstanding debate topic in many forums, so I won't argue this point right now. ... >Oh yeah, and you are already subsidizing their phone bill (at least the >increased cost of running a line out to them and maintaining that line), and >their electricity bill, and satellite TV took care of any need to run cable >TV lines out there or else you would also be subsidizing their cable TV by >now. So what was your point? In point of fact, whether or not these things (electricity, phones) *are* in fact being subsidized by urban dwellers (and there is some doubt that this is the case, as it's frequently _much_ cheaper to string electrical and phone lines in rural areas than in congested urban areas), this is no reason to socialize Internet connections. (And my local ISP is certainly not being taxed to pay for lines in Mendota and East Gittyup, and I won't vote for any scheme which taxes _me_ to subsidize those locales.) Socializing Net connections would likely have various bad side effects, such as freezing the state of development of certain services. (And socializing access also plays into the hands of those who seek "democratic control" of content, always a bad thing.) By not socializing the deployment of Net connections, the eventual (and ever-evolving) solutions can be cleaner and better than if the deployment is done by government action, or with government complicity. Look at cable t.v. for an example of how local community government sought "universal access" by granting franchises for universal connections and forcing cable companies to provide service to uneconomical areas. The result is that most community cable systems are very limited, with a decaying infrastructure and heavy price regulation. (I should remind readers that a "Datification" program also implies rate regulation, endless hearings before rate increases are granted, and so forth. Before deregulation of several industries, this was how things happened. In cable t.v., it still happens this way.) A consequence is that many customers leapfrog right over local cable and go directly for satellite dishes. While the local community cable systems and their government partners could (and did) keep out other cable competitors, this became less and less possible with satellite dishes. Zoning laws were used to limit BUDs (Big Ugly Dishes, the big 8-foot and larger C-band dishes). But as the Ku-band dishes (mentioned favorably in my 1988 Crypto Anarchist Manifesto, interestingly enough) became available, even the most restrictive zoning ordinances became unenforceable....dishes could be in attics, on balconies, even covered with fake boulders! The cable companies and "community access" adovcates are having conniption fits. (This is having yet another interesting side effect: the wealthy who can afford digital DSS dishes are suddenly very uninterested in local cable problems, and the impetus for improvement is lost. Obviously the "poor" are then left with a decaying, outmoded infrastructure. Even as a Darwinian, I have to feel for them. They got sold a bill of goods, about how awarding "the franchise" to TCI or Sonic or Galactronic Cable would result in "universal access," and now they're stuck.) In my own case, I skipped cable and installed a DSS dish...150 or more channels, at least 20 movies on at any given time (not even counting the Pay Per View movies, of which there are at least 30-40), financial news, CNN, etc. Plus, a digital output connector for (Real Soon Now, they claim) a PageSat-type Usenet and Web page feed, using phone links for the back link. I submit this as an example of where the free market is providing a better solution than "community access cable" did. In fact, the socialization of cable held cable back. I don't want "Rural Datification" when there is no compelling need, and a lot of free market alternatives emerging. I doubt many farmers or Montana cabin dwellers want it either. --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, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: Rural Datafication (Was Re: Edited Edupage, 9 May 1996)
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"mccoy(a)communities.com" 15-MAY-1996 00:55:57.23 >BTW, while there may have been a decent argument against the electrification >act, I think that you are paddling upstream when it comes to net connections. >The value of your net connection (or any connection to the net) _increases_ >according to the number of people who are connected to the network. Unlike >all of the other rural subsidies you pay for as an urban dweller (with the >possible exception of the phone subsidy), this is one which has direct benefit >to you. If it was a direct benefit, we'd chose it freely without being drafted by the use of phone bills. Look at Juno et al - that's a circumstance in which interconnection is taking place via the free market. Moreover, you're assuming that there's some reason that I _want_ to be connected to those with insufficient education, etcetera to move out of the rural areas we're talking about. I know these places; I grew up in a town surrounded by hillbillies (Middlesboro, KY). Believe me, I have no desire to have further contact with them - via the net or any other method. >Oh yeah, and you are already subsidizing their phone bill (at least the >increased cost of running a line out to them and maintaining that line), and >their electricity bill, and satellite TV took care of any need to run cable >TV lines out there or else you would also be subsidizing their cable TV by >now. So what was your point? My tax dollars (and that's what the proposed phone bill changes are in many ways - they're government requirements for people to pay money) are also paying for a lot of other things I don't approve of, such as the drug war. This isn't a reason to fund more of it. -Allen

1 0

Re: Edited Edupage, 9 May 1996
by Jean-Francois Avon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 14 May 96 at 10:57, Doug Hughes wrote: > I wouldn't normally respond to such an offtopic post, but this post > is so egregious I couldn't let it pass. You should have... > Who says they make a choice > to live in rural areas? Why? were they lobotomized? > Do they also choose not to have enough money > to pay for shoes? You got to choose to do what is needed to live a better life. And most of them ain't doing what it takes. > So, because they live in a poor district they are > not entitled to the same level of education as a rich city suburb? > The illiteracy rate in Alabama is 40%! This is just plain sick! When I was a kid, everything that had characters printed on it was readable. Who is *preventing* them from reading? > But the statement that we shouldn't subsidize > rural customers because they CHOOSE to live there (even though some > are poor and can't afford to live anywhere else) is just plain > fallacious. Please, substantiate your claims with in-context arguments. > Just because you choose to live in the city does not > mean people always choose to live where they live. Who cast their feet in concrete blocks? > Education is one > thing (perhaps the only thing) that deserves to be subsidized in > this country. I think that it should not be subsidized. If you feel like subsidising education, then by all means, do it. But why should you stick a gun in my back to do the same? What if I do not want to do the same as you? > the tone of > the above message is callous, besides being wrong. In *my* opinion, it is right on the money. But if you can stand reality, then I understand why you rant... BTW, I do not understand the "logics" that want to bring everybody down because some individuals are down. This is a system that punish achievement for being achievement and value meekness for itself. A total, anti-life aberration. JFA The damn collectivists, thoses with the psycho-epistomology of a leech and lamprey, be absolutely damned! DePompadour, Societe d'Importation Ltee Limoges porcelain, Silverware and mouth blown crystal glasses JFA Technologies, R&D consultants. Physists, technologists and engineers. PGP keys at: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon ID# C58ADD0D : 529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891 Unsollicited commercial e-mail will be proofread at US165 $/h Any sender of such material will be considered as to have ac- cepted the above mentionned terms.

3 2

Re: Fingerprinting annoyance
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"unicorn(a)schloss.li" "Black Unicorn" 14-MAY-1996 13:21:35.36 >All this "suck it up and get printed" talk has me somewhat disconcerted >with the list. Have many here not consistantly indicated that privacy is >something that must be self assured? In most cases, such invasions of privacy are voluntary on the employee's part - because he/she chose to be employed there. There are some cases in which the employee doesn't have much other choice: A. The employer is required by the government to collect this information. Such requirements can be direct (laws to do this or else) or indirect (laws to do this or not get government contracts - rather like Clinton's attempt to force contractors to give in to all union demands by forbidding replacement workers). B. The employer is a monopsonic or ogliosonic buyer of the services that the employee can practically provide. While an ogliosonic or monopsonic corporation (including a group of employers that has decided to all follow one policy on such cases) isn't a full-scale government, it's still got enough power to qualify for limits in my book. C. The employer is a government, and thus shouldn't be allowed to go beyond the minimal necessary intrusion to do its job of protecting individual choices. >I think that unless proper means are taken to safeguard information, >social security number, license plates, and fingerprint records included, >that the individual is perfectly within rights to take his or her own >safeguarding initiatives. Social security numbers and license plates are forced upon one by a government. One did not choose to have these pieces of identification; these are therefore exceptions to the above rule. >Where those methods are not intended to simply evade prosecution, but >rather to foil extreme recordkeeping, I believe them legitimate. I would hope that you would also count evading illegitimate prosecution (drug laws, censorship laws, et al) as legitimate uses of them. I would. -Allen

1 0

Re: (legal) Re: CDA Dispatch #10: Last Day in Court
by Joseph M. Reagle Jr. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:06 PM 5/14/96 -0400, you wrote: >You can appeal directly on the merits. And you do so. The higher court >decides all questions of law de novo (ie pays no deference ot tyhe >decision of the court below beyond whatever persuasive power it may >have), but must accept the factual record as presented ("found") by the >court below. Thus the importance of the trial testimony at this stage. Ok, thank you for clarifying that. One question regarding the "de novo," if a lower court decides to restrict its ruling to a specific aspect of the case ("indecency") can the higher court broaden the scope of its ruling, or must its ruling be with specific regards to the scope of the lower court. (I don't know if the appeal can be on the basis of the scope.) BTW: This is what a lawyer/professor was able to tell me. As you can see I was thinking of a garbled version of a jury trial: I'm not familiar with the case, so I cannot speak to its specifics, however here is the general concept of appeals in the U.S. Courts: At the trial of any case there are two categories of issues to be resolved--those called "factual" issues and those called "legal" issues. Only legal issues are subject to appeal in a higher court. If there is a jury trial, the "facts" are what the jury decides (including, en route to their decision, which witnesses to believe) and this is called the verdict. The verdict per se is not subject to appeal. The "law" is what the judge decides, and can include matters of procedure as well as matters of substance. Typically these are decisions about what evidence to admit, what instructions to give to the jury, what motions to grant or deny, etc. All of this is subject to appeal. If the appeal necessitates a new trial, the new jury starts over with new testimony, and reaches its own conclusion on the facts--but this is not really an "appeal" of the first jury's verdict. If there is no jury at the first trial, the trial judge wears both hats, finding the facts and making conclusions of law--but keeping these decisions separate in his or her opinion. Only the judge's conclusions of law in such trials are subject to appeal. _______________________ Regards, Men govern nothing with more difficulty than their tongues, and can moderate their desires more than their words. -Spinoza Joseph Reagle http://farnsworth.mit.edu/~reagle/home.html reagle(a)mit.edu E0 D5 B2 05 B6 12 DA 65 BE 4D E3 C1 6A 66 25 4E

3 3

(ALERT) Senators who introduce new crypto bill need support (5/14/96)
by Voters Telecommunications Watch 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

======================================================================== Campaign for Secure Communications Online May 13, 1996 BI-PARTISAN SENATORS INTRODUCE NEW CRYPTO BILL S.1726 PROMISES TO FREE ENCRYPTION FROM COLD WAR REGULATORY STRANGLEHOLD Please widely redistribute this document with this banner intact until June 15, 1996 ________________________________________________________________________ CONTENTS The Latest News What You Can Do Now Crypto Factoid Chronology of Crypto Export Liberalization Bill For More Information ________________________________________________________________________ THE LATEST NEWS In an effort to improve privacy and security on the Internet, a bi-partisan group of legislators recently introduced a bill to encourage the widespread availability of strong, easy-to-use encryption technologies. The bill, known as the Promotion of Commerce Online in the Digital Era (Pro-CODE) act of 1996 (S. 1726), would relax Cold War era export controls which have constrained the development and use of strong privacy and security technologies. Encryption is one of the technologies that will allow us to visualize a secure Internet, an Internet useful for conducting all sorts of private business from communicating with one's doctor, loved one, or spouse, to checking one's bank balance. S.1726 is sponsored by Senators Burns (R-MT), Leahy (D-VT), Pressler (R-SD), Wyden (D-OR), Ashcroft (R-MO), Dole (R-KS), Faircloth (R-NC), McCain (R-AZ), and Murray (D-WA). The Pro-CODE Act resolves to: 1. Allow for the *unrestricted* export of "mass-market" or "public-domain" encryption programs, including such products as Pretty Good Privacy and popular World Wide Web browsers. 2. Requires the Secretary of Commerce to allow the less restricted export of other encryption technologies if products of similar strength are generally available outside the United States, roughly up to DES strength. 3. Prohibits the federal government from imposing mandatory key-escrow encryption policies on the domestic market and limiting the authority of the Secretary of Commerce to set standards for encryption products. A copy of the legislation can be found at each of the WWW sites listed at the bottom in the "For More Information" Section. ________________________________________________________________________ WHAT YOU CAN DO NOW As more and more people come online, the need for - and lack of - strong privacy and security is becoming increasingly critical. This legislation represents an important step towards ensuring that the Internet develops into a secure, trusted medium for political, commercial, and private speech. The co-sponsors of S. 1726 have taken a political risk and are challenging the White House, the NSA (National Security Agency, and the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) in a policy battle to protect your privacy. They need your support. Please familiarize yourself with the bill (pointers to background information are listed below), and then take a moment to call, write, or fax the sponsors of the bill and thank them for their leadership on this issue. 1. Call/Fax/Email Senate sponsors and thank them P ST Name and Address Phone Fax = == ======================== ============== ============== R MT Burns, Conrad R. 1-202-224-2644 1-202-224-8594 conrad_burns(a)burns.senate.gov D VT Leahy, Patrick J. 1-202-224-4242 1-202-224-3595 senator_leahy(a)leahy.senate.gov R SD Pressler, Larry 1-202-224-5842 1-202-224-1259 larry_pressler(a)pressler.senate.gov D OR Wyden, Ron 1-202-224-5244 1-202-228-2717 R MO Ashcroft, John 1-202-224-6154 na john_ashcroft(a)ashcroft.senate.gov R KS Dole, Robert 1-202-224-6521 1-202-228-1245 R NC Faircloth, D. M. 1-202-224-3154 1-202-224-7406 senator(a)faircloth.senate.gov R AZ McCain, John 1-202-224-2235 1-202-224-2862 senator_mccain(a)mccain.senate.gov D WA Murray, Patty 1-202-224-2621 1-202-224-0238 senator_murray(a)murray.senate.gov 2. Use sample communication SAMPLE PHONE CALL You:<ring ring> Sen:Hello, Senator Mojo's office! You:Hi, I'd like to thank the Senator for helping to introduce legislation to lift the export controls on encryption. I won't use Clipper and don't think there's enough strong encryption on the Internet to protect my messages. Strong, non-Clipper encryption is needed to secure communications with my doctor, bank, spouse, and attorney. Sen:Ok, thanks!<click> 3. Let VTW know what sort of response you got Just drop us a line at vtw(a)vtw.org and let us know how your phone call went! 4. Forward this to your friends and colleagues. Unlike the debate over free speech, many netizens still do not know much about the issues of security and privacy on the Internet. Take the time to explain to a friend why security on the Internet is important. ________________________________________________________________________ CRYPTO FACTOID According to a 1993 study of encryption products worldwide, there are 193 products in 18 countries overseas that are sold with DES-strength encryption built into them. American companies and American programmers are today restricted from selling products with DES-strength encryption to the overseas market, or even distributing them domestically on the Internet. It is becoming extremely difficult for American companies to compete in the global market against competitors who do not labor under such restrictions. Source: Joint study with Dr. Lance Hoffman, Trusted Information Systems (http://www.tis.com) and the Software Publishers Association (http://www.spa.org) Study updated December 1995 and is available at http://www.tis.com/crypto/survey.html. ________________________________________________________________________ CHRONOLOGY OF THE 1996 CRYPTO BILLS 5/2/96 Bi-partisan group of Senators introduce Pro-CODE Act, which would free public-domain encryption software (such as PGP) for export, free much commercial encryption for export, and reduce the government's ability to push Clipper proposals down the throats of an unwilling public. Original sponsors include: Senators Burns (R-MT), Dole (R-KS), Faircloth (R-NC), Leahy (D-VT), Murray (D-WA), Pressler (R-SD), and Wyden (D-OR). 3/5/96 Sen. Leahy (D-VT) and Rep. Goodlatte (R-VA) announce encryption bills (S.1587/H.R.3011) that significantly relax export restrictions on products with encryption functionality in them, as well as free public domain software such as PGP (Pretty Good Privacy). ________________________________________________________________________ FOR MORE INFORMATION There are many excellent resources online to get up to speed on crypto including the following WWW sites: www.privacy.org www.crypto.com www.eff.org www.cdt.org www.epic.org www.vtw.org Please visit them often. Several organizations are working hard to support your right to have access to strong, effective encryption. We have all collaborated on this alert, funneling it through a single editor. Please address any press queries DIRECTLY to the organizations directly. The editors *do not* speak for the coalition as a whole. Here is an alphabetical list of the coalition members: American Civil Liberties Union Center for Democracy and Technology Computer Professionals for Electronic Frontier Foundation Social Responsibility HotWired / Wired Magazine Electronic Privacy Information Center People for the American Way *Voters Telecommunications Watch *Editors ________________________________________________________________________ End alert ========================================================================

1 0

Fingerprinting annoyance
by remailer＠2005.bart.nl 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

in connection with a character and fitness report i have been asked to supply a review board with a set of my fingerprints i have never been fingerprinted before i am not very keen on the idea now of course refusing will attract suspicion short of getting someone else to put their fingers in ink for me does anyone have a cute method by which to obscure my prints on those cute little cards without it being obvious? i can fill out and manipulate the card myself i just need a working method. is there no privacy advocate who can help me?

9 20

Re: Defeating fingerprints
by droelke＠rdxsunhost.aud.alcatel.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > Burglars and safecrackers sand the ridges off. > > This sounds like it'd work, but quite tedious. > Two words - "power tools" !!! ;-) I've sanded my finger tips down rather well with a belt sander and a fine grit belt on numerous occasions. While I've speculated that I probably wouldn't leave much of a finger print, I've never actually tried to take prints after such an operation. Dan ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dan Oelke Alcatel Network Systems droelke(a)aud.alcatel.com Richardson, TX

1 0