December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Taxes in the digicash world
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi Suppose that digital cash becomes easy enough to use and becomes the mainstream medium in most [or at least many] economic transactions. The question is, how can the government TECHNICALLY collect taxes? I do not mean to start `libertarianism vs. socialism' discussion, I am more interested in the technical aspects of tax collection when transfers of money are protected by strong crypto.. Let's say, maybe this tax would work: every time someone verifies that a piece of digital cash is valid, s/he has to pay the government a little percentage of the amount. Since digital banks are easier to control than other participants of the market, this kind of tax legislation is easier to enforce. Of course these banks may be offshore, and then such collection becomes problemstic. Another alternative that I see is property taxes and poll taxes,or taxes on some commodities such as oil. But incomes seem to be hard to track. What else? - Igor.

4 3

DESZIP
by Julian Assange 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I am writing an historical piece on crypt(3) optimisation and password guessing heuristics. This naturally enough envolves tracking down and analysing various code/papers that have been seen as significant and/or infulential in those areas. In the late 80's Matt Bishop while at NASA, wrote DESZIP, which for a while was the seminal work. Matt has pointed me to a US summer 1987 article which describes some of the DES optimisations, however as I am an Australian national, Matt can not legally send me the actual implimentation to me due to idiotic ITAR restrictions. If someone not as constrained could address the problem described, I should be delighted. -- "Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies, The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis, _God in the Dock_ +---------------------+--------------------+----------------------------------+ |Julian Assange RSO | PO Box 2031 BARKER | Secret Analytic Guy Union | |proff(a)suburbia.net | VIC 3122 AUSTRALIA | finger for PGP key hash ID = | |proff(a)gnu.ai.mit.edu | FAX +61-3-98199066 | 0619737CCC143F6DEA73E27378933690 | +---------------------+--------------------+----------------------------------+

1 0

Returned mail.No such addressee
by Remo Pini 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Date: Tue Jul 30 14:55:00 1996 To: cpunks Date: Tue Jul 30 13:50:00 1996 Actually the archives from ftp.dsi.unimi.it have moved to: ftp://idea.sec.dsi.unimi.it/pub/ It's a very large repository and to hell with ITAR, it's italian. - --------< fate favors the prepared mind >-------- Remo Pini rp(a)rpini.com PGP: http://www.rpini.com/remopini/rpcrypto.html - ------< words are what reality is made of >------ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBMf4GJRFhy5sz+bTpAQHB7QgAo+IcNX+FIBW9bJsN3l9O7OIw5mFTQr+x LsvrNsSrTx0jVJaUIaLDh1BzBme9caBYDzdJl+LfAtjufvIBJPEl2+bYVz+aWoP1 BZtfVdmL7ZR4O+z2Q5/r+mnT+Q4OZSk78Zpo9dZd3syJZa2w89DUINA3CNcCoJ8G 33Y5coB5PJZluuywozJYcENneq41lDg5k2DxP79GHyXFLBHYKj7HwO2nUei0H9// FaXRcd9X0Qp0pKPm33lXiKNkAVSl+xtGk8F7BjYClL9F+WjZ1jaXMSKC3aImjRvP 1DeVlSsYF0Y2GYvubOTs45ueAPwVPAboDU3UXgRGblla0utlQ9kRTw== =UYHi -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: DESZIP
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 22:01 7/30/96, Julian Assange wrote: >In the late 80's Matt Bishop while at NASA, wrote DESZIP, which for a >while was the seminal work. Matt has pointed me to a US summer 1987 >article which describes some of the DES optimisations, however as I am >an Australian national, Matt can not legally send me the actual >implimentation to me due to idiotic ITAR restrictions. Did you try the Usual Suspects? There are numerous crypto sites in Europe. If none of them has DESZIP, would someone outside the US please upload it... -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred. Defeat the Demopublican Unity Party. Vote no on Clinton/Dole in November. Vote Harry Browne for President.

1 0

Re: Clinton must like terrorists...
by koontz＠netapp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Clinton must like terrorists... because his most recent proposals will end >up making more of them. Maybe he is trying to foment revolution?

1 0

Reno and G8
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

AG Janet Reno is meeting today with G-8 ministers in Paris to discuss anti-terrorism policies. Reports on those sessions from highly placed Euro subscribers would be appreciated. If needed, faxes of articles may be sent to 212-799-4003, anonymity assured. French, German or Spanish welcomed -- we've got translation software to garble them in English.

1 0

Dry Under the Waterfall
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

If I read *one* more bit of blather about the "information haves and have nots" I am going to take my Streetsweeper down to my local McDonalds and decrease the imbalance between these two groups by reducing the quantity of the latter. It would work just as well as any other solution. The latest blather was in a parting shot in David Kline's last "Market Forces" column in Hot Wired (www.wired.com) "How can we assure that the tired, poor, huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore, the homeless, and tempest-tossed get onto the Net"? (My formulation -- not his.) The answer is we can't. I have been online every day since 1987 or so. Since that time I have begged, pleaded, cajoled, and threatened friends, relatives, casual acquaintances, and total strangers to get them on line. (We are talking here about people who have the cash to easily get wired if they care to.) Sometimes it has worked. Mostly it has not. It has gotten easier to dragoon people onto the net recently but it is still hard. I have taken to telling people who ask me for help setting up their computer systems that I will only help them on the condition that they obtain an ISP account and use it. The usual reason for resistance (beyond a reluctance to spend money) is a failure to appreciate the value of the online experience. No matter how much I plead, many people have not (in the past) been able to see what this all was good for. This was particularly true when online computing was a text-only experience. Non-readers have a problem with text. Now, even though the net is more graphical, it still lacks appeal for 95% of the population (or at least enough appeal to get them on to it). Even though we may know that many people could improve their lives and economic standing by learning to compute and telecommunicate, they don't *know* it and so they are not wired. Par example -- an auto mechanic of my acquaintance was assigned to the office where he worked to handle advanced paper shuffling involving auto parts. He started to use an XT to track parts and got to like it. He asked me for some advice and over the years bought an XT and other machines until he now has two desktops and a laptop networked at home. He's on the net as well. At work, he has become a supervisor in part because he can use computers. The original purchase of a computer has been paid for many times over by increased income. There is nothing new about this, of course. Even without computers, it is obvious that someone who can read and write can average more money in the modern world than one who can't. And yet many people refuse to learn to be good readers. Because they don't read, they also know less. Sans books and periodicals, you simply can't encounter a critical mass of ideas and information sufficient to achieve a self-sustaining intellectual life and the flexible abilities necessary to survive in the current economy. For readers, the modern economy is a piece of cake. And reading is not a "certification" it's a skill. You can get it with minor help. It takes no money and it can't be denied to you by a racist society. Without so much as a high school diploma, a good reader can succeed easily in today's America (credential-happy Europeans have to fend for themselves). Do you doubt this. Assume you are a good reader without credentials. 1) Learn to type. (Used manual portables cost $12 at the Sally Army.) 3) Get a temp job that requires typing. (Lie about your high school diploma. Since you are well dressed from the same Sally Army where you got your typewriter and have excellent communication skills -- these things are under your control -- it shouldn't be much trouble.) 2) Learn to word process. (Commodore 64's and used b/w TV sets cost $25 or less at flea markets. Running the tutorials at hourly PC rental places are pretty cheap as well. If you are a good typist, temp agencies will cross train you on PCs so they can rent your rear end out for more dough.) 4) Become an experienced (permanent) temp word processor on the night shift in the financial district of NYC making $22.50-$27.00/hour. ($18.00/hour -- days.) 5) Then become a (contract) tech writer and start to make more money. All that is necessary for the above is the ability to read and write fluently which is open to all persons of normal intelligence. But most choose not to learn those skills (which is why they pay so much in today's market). Similarly, most people are not interested in learning to compute and in getting wired. Instead they stand around an bitch about how their incomes are flat and they can't find work when they get laid off at 50. Hardly surprising. They've already established that they're dead from the neck up. I wouldn't hire them, why should anyone else. This is the phenomenon of the modern world. So many people one meets are pig ignorant. They are sitting under a waterfall of knowledge cascading over them in a volume unprecedented in human history and yet they contrive not to get wet. Meanwhile, we are told that the information have-nots are being denied access to the wonders of the information age. I'm very sorry but they have already rejected the wonders of the last information age that started 541 years ago with the publication of the Mazarin Bible. People who can't even bother to read and write will not be helped by our cash and Al Gore's preaching. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think. DCF "So Louis Freeh wants expanded wiretap authority. What's the matter? Craig Livingstone short of reading material"?

5 5

RE: Implementing KEA in Software
by geeman＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- From: source@iaccess.za[SMTP:source@iaccess.za] Sent: Monday, July 29, 1996 12:42 PM To: coderpunks(a)toad.com Subject: Re: Implementing KEA in Software The restricted hardware implementation of KEA classification does not affect us(people outside of the USA), and therefore is "unrestricted" to us in our minds, so please note, this request is only for those prepared to make it avalaible, not for those who want to let us know that it is restricted. You are asking if there;s someone around willing to commit espionage: releasing US Government Classified information? You are asking to illegally obtain US Government Classified documents? Ummmmm.... maybe you need to be a little more covert. Or perhaps you are just simply painfully unaware of the difference between US crypto export restrictions (ITAR), and laws pertaining to illegally obtaining and releasing Classified stuff. In ether case you don't look so good. Regards, The Power Team SMTP: source(a)iaccess.za HTTP: http://www.compusource.co.za FTP: ftp://ftp.compusource.co.za Tel: +27-21-75-9197 FAX: +27-21-72-8005 Postal: Building 6, Room 201, CompuSource (Pty) Ltd PO Box 510, Constantia, 7848, South Africa. (CompuSource reserves the right to change offers and methods of working without prior notice.) -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.3i mQCNAzHb6qsAAAEEANeS5gaRlnPTnxvGNB/TUQyOlEli+EYyWZIrpadIuSZgKBsP RZIDlPohrgGudg59EZNlvQpWkdJIqOyal5UV9Dooz+iqMvwcVix6v6K8iwibM4Pq US9YmTOKKzVR4ffkn1gzdp/IhXbCkFIIkEUB/3chYm1jYkQsZSUBO7R8HxhRAAUT tB9Db21wdVNvdXJjZSA8c291cmNlQGlhY2Nlc3MuemE+iQCVAwUQMdvqrCUBO7R8 HxhRAQGSBAQAwDekrPCEc4SFCuUMjuiloztaxR8/TLnQLTM7TlYIReLss10a3SYT 8YmMGIgnv5MsuIVP0gD8ZWPhxHtuM//fCT+4hSHJ0aJ0DOqkE8o5JGCauxLdwWez MI5nbwasVgX5Ah/nEuTLfBF0cK4ifSOZB7VrmxASiaDy5EWqA/qCrtA= =RuFP -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

1 0

RE: Implementing KEA in Software
by geeman＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- From: source@iaccess.za[SMTP:source@iaccess.za] Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 1996 2:37 AM To: coderpunks(a)toad.com Subject: Re: Implementing KEA in Software To make this quite clear...I am not anti any geographical space that has a name such as USA or any other name, as it is an inanimate substance. You would ONLY be right about classification and restrictions *IF* the information came from the USA, from a "restricted" or "classified" person, otherwise you are wrong. Remember not all info comes from the USA. No, but the KEA algorithms, the Skipjack algorithm used in the fortezza, etc. Were developed inthe US, by the NSA, with US dollars from taxpayers (for better or worse). THIS info does happen to be form, by and of the NSA, sorry. You are being childish.

1 0

New decency act court case
by Robin Powell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From the Nando Times. Formatted to my screen... Sorry about that. U.S. JUDGES DECLARE INTERNET DECENCY LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright ©1996 Nando.net Copyright ©1996 Reuter Information Service NEW YORK (Jul 29, 1996 11:35 p.m. EDT) - Federal judges Monday blocked enforcement of a new law aimed at regulating indecent material on the Internet because it bans constitutionally protected speech between adults. In its ruling, judges from the Southern District of New York granted an injunction sought by the editor of The American Reporter, an on-line newspaper, who argued that the law was too broad. The decision followed a ruling in June by a Philadelphia panel that also found a key part of the law to be unconstitutional. That ruling went farther than the one issued Monday by finding the law too vague as well as too broad. The Computer Decency Act of 1996 was passed overwhelmingly by Congress as part of the broader Telecommunications Act of 1996 and was signed by President Clinton on February 8. Because lawmakers expected immediate constitutional challenges they included provisions allowing swift appeals first through special panels and then directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. A key portion of the law, known as 223(d), makes it a crime to make indecent material available on computer systems that are accessible to children. The law provides for prison terms of two years and an $250,000 fine if indecent material is transmitted to minors. The New York panel said government attempts to limit offensive material to children would also place unacceptable restrictions on adults. It said the section not only regulates how pornographic material is sold and advertized, but "how private individuals who choose to exchange certain constitutionally protected communications with one another can do so. "The question presented is whether our Constitution tolerates this level of governmental intrusion into how adults speak to one another ... We reach the inescapable conclusion that 223(d) will serve to chill protected speech." The panel, which comprised Jose Cabranes of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and District Judges Leonard Sand and Denise Cote, discussed software designed to enable parents to limit children's exposure to inappropriate material. "Indecent content on the Internet ordinarily does not assault a user without warning: a child cannot gain access to Internet content with the touch of a remote control and while accidental viewing of indecent content is possible, there is no evidence in this record to suggest that it is likely," the panel wrote. It said that while parents can take steps to restrict access by their children, content providers have no way of guaranteeing that indecent material will not reach a minor. The judges said that the only way a content provider would comply with the section would be to refrain from sending out the objectionable material. "Because adults would lack means of engaging in constitutionally protected indecent communications over the Internet without fear of criminal liability, the statute would unquestionably be unconstitutional," the panel said.

1 0