December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Anguilla - commercial and mailbombing policies
by Vincent Cate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM <dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com> > > A while back, when Vince first started advertizing his site, I asked him >a few hypothetical questions, and he said roughly this: If client X posts >something to Usenet from Vince's site, and if Y dislikes X's article so >much that he mailbombs X, then Vince would pull X's plug. (I have the >exact quote saved.) I lost interest right then. I'm not surprised that >Vince acted dishonorably by pulling a client's plug with no warning for a >very flimsy reason. That question was about commercial ads, and I said "As long as I am not mailbombed I don't care about how you post.". I did *not* say I would pull the plug (full exchange below). From your other questions it looked like there was no chance of you being a customer so I did not fully explain. I have been mailbombed around a dozen times in the last year and never cut anyone off. Details below (I too have the exact quote)... Dimitri: > e) to spam usenet with commercial ads. Vince: >e) I think you would have to spam more than 100 groups to get my >system mail bombed. As long as I am not mailbombed I don't >care about how you post. First, yes, that 100 groups is off the wall. What I meant was you can send out commercial ads and I don't care at all. If you get mailbombed, that is another issue. If mailbombed then it goes toward your traffic. You get 100 MB/month of traffic with a domain name, and if you go over that amount of traffic the cost is $1/MB. If you have prepaid by check, and I don't know who you are, and your account goes below $0, I would cut you off till more money came in. Sorry for not explaining that. -- Vince ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Vincent Cate vince(a)offshore.com.ai http://www.offshore.com.ai/vince/ Offshore Information Services http://www.offshore.com.ai/

2 1

Anguilla - legal action or lack thereof
by Vincent Cate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM <dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com> > > "Greg Kucharo" <sophi(a)best.com> writes: > > While Tim may be right that nobility is lost when backing down to the > > authorities, the fact is that this game has little to do with noble > > purposes. ... > > Nor was there any activity from the authorities. There were activity from the authorities. They had copies of the article and were very concerned about it and calling around asking people who knew me about this. They have not started any legal action about this. However, my work permit is up for renewal. They would not ever have to take legal action to shut me down, just decide not to renew my work permit, and I would have to leave the island. My lawyer says it is illegal to sell fake passports in Anguilla. So defending this guy could easily have been a fight to my death as an Anguilla ISP. Not defending him means he relocates to another ISP. This is the Internet guys, relocating a domain is not such a big deal. Taxbomber is using it as a reason for publicity, but he lost no email and his web pages were not down long. Remember regulatory arbitrage. If one country does not want something, there are other countries. I am going to apply for a 3 year work permit next time (they only gave out 1 year ones till very recently - since I applied). Assuming I get this, I will be in a somewhat more secure position. -- Vince ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Vincent Cate vince(a)offshore.com.ai http://www.offshore.com.ai/vince/ Offshore Information Services http://www.offshore.com.ai/

2 1

Re: National Socio-Economic Security Need for Encryption Technology
by Bart Croughs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Joel Morgan wrote: >It seems clear that capital investment in tools will contribute to the -productivity- of workers. (Tools here meaning whatever machinery/ infrastructure is used to get work done.) Bart Croughs quotes a number of economists who seem to be saying that when capital investment leads to increased productivity (per worker) this also leads to higher wages. I'm not sure I understand -why- this should necessarily be so. It's my impression that in manufacturing industries, the more mechanized production is, the more workers will get paid. Then again, perhaps a more mechanized industry will pay more because more mechanized industries hire workers with higher skills (albeit fewer workers). It's my impression that when a company makes capital investments which increase productivity, the fruits of this increased worker productivity are shared (to some extent) with the workers. I can imagine a number of reasons why this might be done, but it's not absolutely clear to me that this would be a direct result of market forces.< Increased productivity of workers leads to higher wages for workers because of competition between employers. If a worker produces the worth of $3000 per month for his boss, and his boss is only willing to give him $2000 salary, then there are other employers who would be happy to give this man a job at a higher wage. They still profit if they give him a wage of $2100 instead of $2000. This process goes on until the salary of the worker equals his marginal productivity. Bart Croughs

1 0

Re: National Socio-Economic Security Need for Encryption Technology
by Bart Croughs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Arun Mehta wrote: >>Bart Croughs wrote: >I don't assume that the *total amount* of capital will be lowered in the US when US capital moves abroad. I assume that the amount of capital in the US will be *relatively lower*. So the wages will be *relatively* lower (lower than when the capital wouldn't have left the US), but not necessarily lower in any absolute sense. I thought this was obvious, but since Arun Mehta also misunderstood me, maybe I should have been more explicit here. > Henry Hazlitt in 'economics in one lesson' (p. 139): "The best way to raise wages, therefore, is to raise marginal labor productivity. This can be done by many methods: by an increase in capital accumulation - i.e. by an increase in the machines with which the workers are aided..." Pardon me, but I'm still confused. When Hazlitt talks about how many machines are employed, surely that's "absolute" capital, not relative. If US capital is invested abroad sensibly, such that it enriches the investors, they have more money to invest in machines at home and thereby increase local productivity (and wages). << If investors use their capital to invest abroad, this capital cannot at the same time be used to invest at home. Only after the investors decide not to invest abroad any more, they can invest it at home. But I was not talking about investors who decide to stop investing abroad and start investing at home. I was talking about investors who decide to invest abroad instead of at home, and the effect of such a decision on the wages in the US. Maybe in the future these investors will have more money, and will decide to stop investing abroad and start investing at home. But in the mean time, all the capital that's invested abroad diminishes the amount of capital invested at home, and so causes the wages at home to be less than they otherwise would have been (but not necessarily less in any absolute sense). Bart Croughs

1 0

Re: National Socio-Economic Security Need for Encr
by Bart Croughs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Chris Adams wrote: >On 12 Aug 96 19:17:00 -0800, bart.croughs(a)tip.nl wrote: >Now I will explain why the austrian economists are right. Imagine Robinson Crusoe. In the beginning, he catches fish with his bare hands. He has no capital investment, and consequently he is not very productive. His wage will be low (he will not catch much fish). If there is more capital investment - if, for example, he has a fishing rod - he will catch more fish in less time. His productivity is higher. His wage is higher (more fish). If there is still more capital investment - if, for example, he has a boat and fishing nets - he will catch even more fish. His productivity is higher. His wage is higher. Etcetera. So, it's really not difficult to see that the Robin's standard of living depends on the amount of capital available on his island. The same goes for the rest of humanity.< To a limited extent, that holds water. However, how would you explain, say, some of the construction work around here where a huge, expensive piece of equipment is being run by some guy making less than the Cal Trans worker with the flags? Or guys I know who are making low-middle class wages working on a $10,000 computer hooked up to a $1,500,000+ molding machine? Also: lawyers - You're getting charged $200 a billing hour by someone who probably doesn't even use a typewriter (After all, secretaries aren't just for oggling). Although legal references might be somewhat expensive, it doesn't compare to the money gained. Also: computers. I know people who are making an incredible amount on old machines. They might be using a few dollars in software (probably 2-3 hours worth at most) and are working on a cheesy old machine. However, because some of these $6.25/hr typists have been putting useful information into it, it is worth the trouble to pay someone $50/hr to fix it. Neither of them has invested much compared to what they're getting in return.< When economists say that wages depend on the amount of capital invested, they mean on a regional/national level, not on the level of individuals. >Your argument only works with 2 givens: 1) A larger investment will return at least a corresponding increase in productivity.< This tends to be the case. If a larger investment doesn't return a corresponding increase in productivity, the investment will generally not be made. Happily, no one wants to waste his money on investments that are not productive. >and 2) the worker is self-employed - otherwise there are too many factors involved. If #1 is true, *someone* will be making more money, but not necessarily the worker.< Yes, it's the worker who will make more money. Why? As I explained in another post on this subject: "Increased productivity of workers leads to higher wages for workers because of competition between employers. If a worker produces the worth of $3000 per month for his employer, and his employer is only willing to give him a wage of $2000 , then there are other employers who would be happy to give this man a job at a higher wage. They still profit if they give him a wage of $2100 instead of $2000. This process goes on until the salary of the worker equals his marginal productivity." Bart Croughs

1 0

Re: National Socio-Economic Security Need for Encryption Technology
by Bart Croughs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Blanc Weber wrote: >>From: Bart Croughs > >You haven't answered this question yet. I don't claim that the U.S. is worse >off when US capital moves abroad. I only ask: how can you proof that the US >isn't worse off when US capital moves abroad? ............................................................. You have to be able to imagine the advantages, and you can only imagine them when you have the background to understand the difference between having fewer choices rather than more, a limited market base rather than an open one full of unlimited opportunity, and the increased domestic tensions from frustrated consumers who are likely to set up blackmarkets as work-arounds to the lack of desired goods & services. Essentially, you have to want to see, and work for, the difference resulting from unprotected markets. I think people who put up a lot of objections are afraid and do not want any proof of their error. You'd have to hold their nose to the figures, and even then they might close their eyes....< You are wrong. I'm not in error; I don't think the US is worse off when US capital moves abroad. I just want to know how you can proof it, so I would be able to rebut protectionist arguments. I don't know how to prove it. And, unfortunately, neither do you. Rhetoric is no proof. Bart Croughs

2 1

Schlafly on crypto
by Brad Dolan 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Subject: Clinton Is Trying to be Big Brother -- Phyllis Schlafly Column 8/8/96 Clinton Is Trying to be Big Brother August 8, 1996 by Phyllis Schlafly We hope the appropriate government agencies will soon solve the recent terrorist crimes and punish the criminals. But all Americans who care about civil liberties should vigorously resist President Clinton's attempt to use the terrorist attacks as an excuse to carry on his all-out war against the personal privacy of law-abiding Americans. This mind-set was first revealed in the Clinton health care bill, which would have given the government computer access to the medical records of all Americans. Fortunately, that totalitarian takeover of the health care industry was rejected. The Clinton Administration's education legislation now pending in Congress would put personal information about all schoolchildren -- academic, medical, attitudinal, behavioral, and family -- into an expanded Labor Market Information database available to the government, as well as to prospective employers. Now the Clinton Administration is trying to make it illegal for individual Americans to have private conversations with one another. That's the real meaning of its effort to control encryption technology, and it's a direct assault on the First Amendment. It would be downright ridiculous to assert that the First Amendment guarantees our right to speak in public but not in private. It would be just as ridiculous to say that we have freedom to speak in words that the government can understand, but not in words the government can't decipher. Americans have the right to speak to one another in private, behind closed doors, and we should likewise have the right to speak to one another in code and to put our coded messages on computer in a process called encryption. Americans would not tolerate the government opening and reading the letters we send through the mails, and we should not tolerate the government opening and reading our encrypted, or coded, messages sent via computer. Yet, Attorney General Janet Reno, FBI Director Louis Freeh, and Vice President Al Gore are all demanding the authority to read our encrypted messages. In a speech to the Commonwealth Club of California, Reno bluntly stated her demand for "ensuring law enforcement access to encrypted data.'' Reno boasted that there is "a consensus'' that the government should create a system known as "Key Escrow'' (i.e., a supposedly "neutral third party''), to which all Americans should be forced to "entrust'' the keys to their encrypted messages, and to which the government would have access. On the contrary, there is no such consensus. Do you trust Janet Reno with access to your private messages? Do you trust the FBI to keep your files confidential? The Clinton Administration is already doing 30 to 40 percent more federal telephone wiretaps and other electronic surveillance than the last year of the Bush Administration. Those figures don't even include national security wiretaps or the hundreds of extensions granting more time for wiretap orders already issued. FBI Director Freeh wrote the New York Times last November that "There is no intention to expand the number of wiretaps or the extent of wiretapping." Four months later, FBI documents revealed that the FBI does, in fact, plan to increase electronic surveillance 54 percent by 1998 and 130 percent by 2004. On July 12, Al Gore announced that the Administration will continue to push for the adoption of a massive public key infrastructure to give the government access to all encrypted communications. In a blatant bid for a police-state surveillance society, Gore warned about "the dangers of unregulated encryption technology." A neutral panel of the National Research Council was set up to make policy recommendations about encryption. The panel called on the government to abandon its efforts to restrict encryption. The NSC panel concluded that increased use of encryption would enhance our national security, not diminish it. Thirteen out of its 16 members had security clearances with access to secret information, and they saw no national security reason to justify the Clinton policy. The Clinton Administration bases its campaign to control private encryption on the alleged need to fight crime through wiretapping. However, the NSC panel concluded that the ability of the private sector to transfer confidential financial and other data over the information highway without interception is far more important. New technologies have given government awesome power to spy on individuals. The Filegate investigation accidentally uncovered the shocking news that, as soon as Bill Clinton entered the White House in 1993, he secretly spent $400,000 on software to create a highly sophisticated computer database to track detailed political, financial, attitudinal, and personal biographical information on 200,000 people, including members of Congress and the media. Known as WHODB for White House Office Data Base, the system was nicknamed Big Brother. Encryption is a First Amendment issue, not a crime issue. If the Clinton Administration is allowed to control encryption, it would be the biggest expansion of federal power since the passage of the Income Tax Amendment in 1913. EAGLE FORUM -- eagle(a)eagleforum.org PO Box 618 Alton, IL 62002 Phone: 618-462-5415 ---------------------------------------------- Are you on our E-mail list? Tell a friend about us! http://www.eagleforum.org

1 0

Anguilla - A DataHaven?
by Vincent Cate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim: > Rather, there is an "archetype," if you will, of what a "remailer" is, what > a "data haven" is, what a "tax shelter" is, etc. While we cannot reasonably > expect a remailer to exactly match the archetype, we can point out obvious > deficiencies. 1) Anguilla has secrecy laws. Professional relationships are confidential. There are strong secrecy laws. I have not given out taxbomber's name, nor will I as I could face legal action if I did. 2) Anguilla has no sales or income taxes. A business does not need to report anything about income, sales, etc, to the government (or anyone else). If a guy wants to sell his data and keep 100% of the profits instead of 50% or 60%, then Anguilla would be a haven for him. 3) We don't have the same laws as other countries, so there are things that can be done here. For example, we can export encryption software. Also, we will have bingo.com in Anguilla. There are deficiencies from a cypherpunk or Libertarian point of view. And these are interesting. And exactly what I want to do is changing. As I said, Anguilla is not the datahaven of cypherpunks wet dreams. I am sure there are no datahavens that match the cypherpunk concept of an ideal datahaven, yet. But I think the term DataHaven applies as well to Anguilla as any other place I know of. Tim, we would all be very happy if you were to locate a country that could be the site of the ideal datahaven, and finance a couple cypherpunks to setup there. It would be a big help to our cause. Could you do this? In the mean time, people may have to exist in cyberspace (like www.taxbomber.com) without having a totally secure physical location. This is not the end of the world, or really even that painful. If done right you could be down for only an hour - just long enough for nameservers to change. Taxbomber is now setup to do it very fast next time, if the need ever comes. Tim, I think you have even advocated this approach, not stressing the physical location, just the cyberspace location. No? -- Vince ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Vincent Cate vince(a)offshore.com.ai http://www.offshore.com.ai/vince/ Offshore Information Services http://www.offshore.com.ai/

2 2

re: National Socio-Economic Security Need for Encryption Technology
by Arun Mehta 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:33 13/08/96 -0700, James A. Donald wrote: >the fact that an engineer who is subject to the power of the Indian >government is not worth very much, as is demonstrated by the fact >that companies with Indian engineering teams often spend a lot of money >to get their employees out of India. > >Demand for Indian programmers is less than supply not because capital >has somehow failed to flow to India, but because an engineer in India >is not free to produce the value that engineers elsewhere are free >to produce. > Whoa! In economies that are highly de-coupled, incomes and prices can easily find quite different equilibria. Of course, the situation changes when trade increases. If you visited Italy in the mid-'70s, prices were much lower than, say, in Germany. Somewhere in the late '70s and early '80s, prices (and I hope wages too) rose to "international" levels. Why hasn't it happened in India? One reason for sure is that despite all the talk of free trade, free movement of people does not take place. Otherwise, plumbing, gardening, and all kinds of services could have been provided in Western countries by Indians, reducing supply and raising wages in India. It really doesn't have much to do with "the power of the Indian government" (except that I wish they had negotiated better at GATT so that when the free flow of goods was talked about, the flow of services was also treated at par). India has its faults, but it still is a relatively democratic and free country. And yes, capital has "somehow failed to flow to India," and for this the restrictive policies of government are to blame. Arun Mehta Phone +91-11-6841172, 6849103 amehta(a)cpsr.org http://www.cerfnet.com/~amehta/ finger amehta(a)cerfnet.com for public key

1 0

Re: [NOISE] Re: photographed license plates
by Arun Mehta 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 16:04 13/08/96 -0800, Jim McCoy wrote: >Here in the states the easy challenge to >such a ticket would be "it was not me driving when that photo was taken" and >the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that you were the driver. In Germany, as I recall, if you use this argument, the cops require you to thereafter maintain a log of who drives the car when. Arun Mehta Phone +91-11-6841172, 6849103 amehta(a)cpsr.org http://www.cerfnet.com/~amehta/ finger amehta(a)cerfnet.com for public key

1 0