December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

FTC online workshop on privacy
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Pointing out encryption, anonymnity, etcetera as means couldn't hurt... BTW, at the end of the message is something from this Adam Starchild fellow, with a web address for "Asset Protection & Becoming Judgement Proof." I'd be interested in a review of it. -Allen From: IN%"rre(a)weber.ucsd.edu" 22-MAY-1996 01:05:58.45 From: Phil Agre <pagre(a)weber.ucsd.edu> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help(a)weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 14:41:06 -0700 From: Adam Starchild <taxhaven(a)ix.netcom.com> To: privacy(a)ftc.gov Subject: FTC Workshop on Consumer Privacy in Cyberspace FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION WORKSHOP ON CONSUMER PRIVACY IN CYBERSPACE TO BE HELD IN JUNE 1996 The Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Consumer Education will hold a public workshop on June 4 and 5 to focus on privacy issues in the online marketplace. The development of technologies such as the Internet and the World Wide Web has allowed online businesses to collect and use personal information about consumers, often without consumers' knowledge or consent. The workshop will examine consumer privacy issues in this new marketplace, consumer and business education about the use of personal information online, and ways to enhance the growth of the online marketplace by fostering consumer confidence. Workshop topics will include the use of consumer information, the use of medical and financial information online, the collection and use of information about children, electronic approaches to protecting consumer privacy online, and the European Union's directive on the protection of personal data. The workshop will be open to the public and will be held on June 4, 1996 from 9:00AM to 5:00PM in Room 432 of the FTC headquarters building, 6th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., in Washington, D.C. On June 5, 1996 the workshop will be held from 9:00AM to 12:30PM in Room 332 of the FTC headquarters building. The Bureau invites representatives of consumer groups, industry, government agencies, and other groups to take part in the workshop. Any person wishing to be considered for participation in the public workshop must file a written request, on or before May 24, 1996, to Martha Landesberg, Division of Credit Practices, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC 20580. Posted by Adam Starchild Asset Protection & Becoming Judgement Proof at http://www.catalog.com/corner/taxhaven The privacy list is run automatically by the Majordomo list manager. Send a "help" command to majordomo(a)ftc.gov for assistance.

5 6

Re: The Crisis with Remailers
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"bruce(a)aracnet.com" "Bruce Baugh" 19-MAY-1996 04:10:44.56 >a point here. I don't think most cypherpunks realize how anonymity is >perceived out in the net at large. >Take news.groups, a fairly important group I happen to read regularly. With >the exception of Rich Graves' presence, _all_ the uses I see there are for >cowardly abuse in a way that lets the poster escape having to answer for his >views. I'm not talking about presenting important information where >wrong-headed authorities could engage in reprisals, either, but baseless >accusations of theft, child abuse, and just plain torrents of obscenity. Would you suspect that having more warning labels (before & after, not just in the headers) would help with any negative reputation thus generated? >That's _all_ it's used for (again, with the exception of Rich). >There's a problem here. It's one thing to say that the benefits of anonymity >outweigh the problems. I'm inclined to that view myself. But it's much >harder to defend that view in a forum where anonymity is used so commonly >for problematic ends, and to offer anything in the way of constructive >solutions. It would be pleasing to see more cypherpunks actively dealing >with these problems out there in net.land. You might try pointing out that the only remailing that people see is for allegedly illegitimate reasons. Psychiatrists who are beginning to interact with patients over the net certainly have a good cause to use such remailers... including to prevent governmental tapping, given A. authoritarian governments such as China (blackmail for espionage purposes, for instance); and B. insane U.S. legal decisions like the one I heard about on NPR on 5-21, in which a judge ruled that there was no confidentiality protection prohibiting turning over psychiatric notes. One wonders what that judge's reaction (and the lawyer who asked for the notes) would be to having their confidential documents put into public view... I see no reason to give lawyers more of a privilege than religious/psychiatric individuals. -Alle

1 0

Re:
by Jean-Francois Avon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 21 May 96 at 19:43, Bad Message trolled: > ! Theses peoples refuse to register their guns, although it is > ! mandatory in canada (to be registered within 7(?) years...) > > There has been total firearm registration since 1968. Absolute BS. Since the late seventies, the mandatory registration of all firearms purchased is in effect and you must hold a valid (in french) A.A.A.F. But you did not have to report firearms you already owned. But with our new law, you *have* to register them within 7 years. And apparently, you have to show proof of ownership of a registered firearm to buy ammunitions. But I must read about this aspect a little more... jfa DePompadour, Societe d'Importation Ltee; Limoges porcelain, silverware and crystal JFA Technologies, R&D consultants; physists, technologists and engineers. PGP keys at: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon ID# C58ADD0D : 529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891 I reserve the right to post publicly any private e-mail sent to me. 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.

1 0

Re: Long-Lived Remailers
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 4:07 PM 5/21/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: >Sure, Alice can always herself add remailer steps. I explicitly mentioned >this in my message last night, when I wrote: "(Hal, to use him as the >example, could start using his own choice of remailer hops to accomplish >much the same result. We've talked about this for a long time, too...." > >But this is just using more remailers. We know this works. What Mark Grant >was suggesting was something different, a kind of "disposable final >emanation point," designed to go away easily under legal pressures. Ideally the final emanation point will be epherimal indeed. Perhaps only a few minutes or an hour or two. That will protect Alice against attacks of the form, "I sent something to Alice and it was posted from the same place as that attack on my dictitorial rule." ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bill Frantz | The CDA means | Periwinkle -- Computer Consulting (408)356-8506 | lost jobs and | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | dead teenagers | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

Re: Hiding remailers behind nymservers...? (fwd)
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"tcmay(a)got.net" 21-MAY-1996 15:27:09.74 >Now it may be that operating a remailer may be interpreted by some courts >as being a "public nuisance," a theory I credit to Brad Templeton, but this >has not yet come even close to happening. Interesting. Let me guess, on the copyright grounds? Kinko's and library copy machines appear to do fine with warning labels; some equivalent should be possible. -Allen

1 0

Re: Toastmasters?
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"unicorn(a)schloss.li" "Black Unicorn" 20-MAY-1996 22:30:15.23 >Ask every state which has such reporting requirements (which is every >state in the union). >If you wanted to form an offshore corporation you'd have to form an >exempted one. IIRC, there was some discussion of some form of blind trusts a bit back... it was used under English common law to enable stuff before the actual invention of corporations. The ownership of the stock of such an offshore company by one or more such trusts might get around such problems, especially if the trusts had those (very interesting) flight provisions I believe you mentioned a bit back. >That would clearly change the analysis. RE: making a profit. Well, yes, it is a pretty good argument that you aren't just going for lack of liability, since that's part of what corporations are _for_... -Allen

1 0

Re: An alternative to remailer shutdowns
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"markm(a)voicenet.com" "Mark M." 21-MAY-1996 02:41:22.53 >One problem I see with this is that if even one remailer operated using the >block lists instead of permit lists, then every other remailer in the chain >could hypothetically be held accountable for the contents of the message. >This idea of permit lists makes sense, but I am not sure it would really solve >anything. Well, that would depend on the traffic analysis defeating features not working right. Admittedly, for the next-to-last or so remailer, they may not work well enough anyway... but proof beyond a reasonable doubt would be difficult. Civil suits unfortunately don't follow that standard (even for the punishment done through punitive damages), but they do require some proof. -Allen

1 0

Re: An alternative to remailer shutdowns
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"droelke(a)rdxsunhost.aud.alcatel.com" 21-MAY-1996 22:04:32.30 >Heaven forbid that I use spammers as an idea base, but >to borrow something from them.... Set up the headers >on an anonymous message such that a Reply would result in >the user automatically being placed on the "deny" list. Automatically placing someone on the deny list from an email to an address added to the _body_ would be a good thing, in this context, although would mean having to have more than one email address for the remailer. -Allen

1 0

Re: The Crisis with Remailers
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"adam(a)lighthouse.homeport.org" "Adam Shostack" 21-MAY-1996 15:23:24.24 >Lance Cottrell wrote: Oops, I just misremembered your name. Sorry. >| >| An interesting problem with anonymous postage is that it is likely to kill >| cover traffic generators. >| >Postage is most needed at the point of delivery. >That is the node that will be taking the heat/paying the lawyers. I'd >operate a remailer if I was never the last node, becuase I don't have >a site that can take the heat/seizure of machines for me. If we pay >those final nodes to do more, than intermediate nodes can still carry >cover traffic for free. One difficulty with this on cover traffic is that one use of it is to send to dummy addresses, with mail that looks PGP encrypted but is actually garbage. Perhaps mail received without postage should be replaced with garbage by the remailer, then sent to a dummy address chosen by the remailer? -Allen

1 0

Re: An alternative to remailer shutdowns (fwd)
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"tcmay(a)got.net" 21-MAY-1996 05:18:04.13 >This is one reason we often talk about the dangers of remailers looking at >what flows through their systems. Not so much to establish "common carrier" >status, especially as that kind of status is just not something one sets >out to establish!, but because the protection of being ignorant gets tossed >out as soon as one admits to screening, or editing. Exactly how little can a remailer log and still keep adequate functionality? I may be setting up one or two Mixmaster-type to-other-remailers-only remailers sometime this summer (with one at Lance Cottrell's company so I can get his help easier...), so it is a practical question.... and one the answer to which may depend on whether one is remailing to another remailer, or to a public setting, or to an email address, or from an email address, etcetera. -Allen

1 0