December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Risk v. Charity (was: RE: Workers Paradise. /Political rant
by craigw＠dg.ce.com.au 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Personally, I paid my way through uni...full fees. I took out a loan when I developed cancer to pay for it (as the health insurance was not finalised for aproval - so they got out of paying). The few months I was unemployed after I left the military because of a confict of interests I earned money by doing whatever I could get (even though I am an engineer I have worked in a petrol station). So why and for what reason sould I have to pay several 10's of thousands each year to support others. I have never taken help from the govenment, I do not feel I should have to pay as well. And what am I paying for...to protect the status quo. I believe that there is more than enough help for ppl available. They just need to get off their butts and work. > > tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May) wrote: > > >"Saving for a rainy day," whether saving, investing, getting an education > > (while others are out partying), preparing, etc., all takes effort and > > commitment. If those who save and prepare are then told they have to pay > > high taxes to support those who partied....well, the predictable effect > > [...] is _more_ people in agony. When you tell people that a compassionate > > society will meet their basic needs, a predictable fraction of them will choose > > not to work hard and prepare themselves. > > > > Two questions, two observations: > > Do you have health insurance? > > Do you have life insurance? > > Yes, so? > Yes, so? Myself also yes,yes > > I have commented on your line of reasoning before and and it still > > seems to me that an important part of the discussion is missed. > > Specifically, that anyone can "save for a rainy day" and still not be > > able to provide for events that can always happen: Heart attack, stroke, > > car accident, pinched nerve that leaves you in excruciating pain and > > unable to work for several years. > > Understand what it is you are saying. > ,'~``. \|/ ,'``~. (-o=o-) (@ @) ,(-o=o-), +--.oooO--(_)--Ooo-----oOO-(_)-OOo-------oooO--(_)--Oooo.------+ | | | Soon, we may all be staring at our computers, wondering | | whether they're staring back. | | | | [Network Admin For WPA Business Products. aka doshai >;-) ] | | .oooO http://pip.com.au/~doshai/ Oooo. | | ( ) Oooo. .oooO ( ) | +-----\ (----( )-------oooO-Oooo--------( )--- ) /---------+ \_) ) / \ ( (_/ (_/ \_) Key fingerprint = 2D F4 54 BB B4 EA F1 E7 B6 DE 48 92 FC 8D FF 49 Send a message with the subject "send pgp-key" for a copy of my key. (if I want to give it to you)

3 2

Re: common sense
by Adamsc＠io-online.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Thu, 12 Sep 1996 16:04:14 -0700, HipCrime wrote: >> And rather than "dispensing drugs in clinics," why not simply >> scrap the drug laws entirely? People have a *right* to do as >> they please with their bodies. >Let's hear it for common sense. It's the first decent posting I've >seen to this list. Tell me, how do you walk with that huge chip on your shoulder? # Chris Adams <adamsc(a)io-online.com> | http://www.io-online.com/adamsc/adamsc.htp # cadams(a)acucobol.com | V.M. (619)515-4894 "I have never been able to figure out why anyone would want to play games on a computer in any case when the whole system is a game. Word processing, spreadsheets, telecoms -- it's all a game. And they pay you to play it." -- Duncan Frissell

1 0

CU foward post, netcopped again!
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> >what is being punished here is not the exploitation of children, which is > > wrong and must be prevented, but the private thoughts of those who > > produce and recieve this material, which are totally private and > > legitimate. > > There is nothing "legitimate" about fucking children, fantasising about > fucking children, or looking at pictures of people fucking children. > > The dangers of this debate are all too apparent, and if this sort of > quote were to reach the tabloid audience I hardly think it would be a > positive contribution to the image of CommUnity... Oh no! - I`ve been netcopped on the CommUnity list *AGAIN*, long live cypherpunks, the last bastion of free speech on the net!!!! ;-) But seriously, this does highlight what we are up against, when CommUnity (for US readers CommUnity, abreviated CU sometimes, is like a UK version of the EFF), supposedly a free speech and online liberties organisation, has posters (and this one is pretty typical) like this which clearly cover all debate on a subject area as "padophilia" if they try to explore the issues any more deeply than saying that fucking children is wrong... Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Http://www.fatmans.demon.co.uk/crypt/ "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.3ia mQCNAjH9j+cAAAEEAMBvREiQR0ot9dFCO0TiSCSunAYLv2g1Bc6I3bz8FzKXNH53 6mieJf/W4rD+CxJpT0q9RQaaoRtkHJLwbjfK2il3D7mEahMAyqvF/xRJNqkXfhM3 sRJM0Jh43l+W0M5vwokbEbk25/bxWWGspTsLD3YHbzKnG6pOcL5OPIRbv66xAAUR tCdQYXVsIEJyYWRsZXkgPHBhdWxAZmF0bWFucy5kZW1vbi5jby51az6JAJUDBRAy NwfvNkCBjDT0xHEBATQPA/9TORmN/UjNecj03q4anpvdyCLiez5sKuNbnYK50RiP Jj4QpWWvST3smyQ0A86DrZY/re056MXwQmARESx0rFZxdnD0oORICl5r8dJLIy3b j8rbA5olXwZwKz73/X5s13v/pvHYX4cIsbVK8NHXqh5llSKt6TBAuGgkIGF29z5k C4kAlQMFEDI3B9mdtf/umVkv7QEBcRYD/1FBteLqsUmr81euxqqnnrpLlyHb58B/ 9sdATuua4uSjX46hXDZ264YozspNrzSB4NEdrmXOWVX3fiE0ga6XkSSkIeF23V90 En37Z0BdbFzgF00FRYTFyTq8eezQrdg/+rBPUsZUmG5wpq3e12FKHQsX01i+1mB2 YmqqwCV5e95eiQCVAgUQMh8uSb5OPIRbv66xAQEqJwP/fxQyiCasjFcbDpsFfsYp put5cCC/9pOx6X3DlbKShPMpUOS+A9HsTEmJQN8Iawv1nSwPdtc2cR/GhW6ilVjW LSloGdMVLabm9pGpZZMkRaZlXFUkOv7VhfgsUiL+vIDryBCAwUZCzQiWycjt/cPi mUqFH41Z7NkyO8ZFdi5GGX0= =CMZA -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

1 0

no internet gambling
by Jüri Kaljundi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From todays Baltic News Service newswire (my free translation): According to the ministry of finance of Estonia, they will not give any licences or permission to organize Internet gambling or lotteries in Estonia. The reason given was, that arranging lotteries on the Internet would take the activity outside from Estonia. According to the news, the only Internet gambling licences given out are in Liechtenstein and Ahvenamaa (part of Finland). My question is: how easy it is to get a licence for Internet casino in either Liechtenstein or some off-shore country (Belize, Bahamas etc) ? I believe Belize was one of the first to sign legislation on Internet gambling, does anyone have more information about the costs and requirements? Jüri Kaljundi AS Stallion jk(a)stallion.ee

2 1

Re: really undetectable crypto
by Adamsc＠io-online.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Thu, 12 Sep 96 19:26:56 -0700, Jim Miller wrote: >Most everybody on the list is familiar with the technique of hiding >encrypted messages in the LSBs of image files. Personally, I would not >use such a technique because don't I believe it's really undetectable. I >assume, without proof, that the LSBs of images files have statistical >properties that are sufficiently different from encrypted data that a >clever person could determine whether or not an image file contained an >imbedded encrypted message. Actually, if you use only a few bits - and not, say, bit 15 of *every* pixel - you can feel secure *IF* you are writing truly encrypted data. A regular PGP message has a bunch of header material that most certainly is not random-looking. OTOH, if you only write the raw data, then there is no way to differentiate from the random noise added by any scanner - in most cases, the last couple bits in each RGB triplet of a truecolor image are random. # Chris Adams <adamsc(a)io-online.com> | http://www.io-online.com/adamsc/adamsc.htp # cadams(a)acucobol.com | V.M. (619)515-4894 "I have never been able to figure out why anyone would want to play games on a computer in any case when the whole system is a game. Word processing, spreadsheets, telecoms -- it's all a game. And they pay you to play it." -- Duncan Frissell

1 0

DIMACS Trust management workshop, Sept 30 - Oct 2.
by Matt Blaze 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

------- Forwarded Message Received: from amontillado.research.att.com (amontillado.research.att.com [135.205.42.32]) by nsa.research.att.com (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA24206 for <mab-local(a)nsa.research.att.com>; Tue, 17 Sep 1996 11:52:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from research.research.att.com (research.research.att.com [135.205.32.20]) by amontillado.research.att.com (8.7.5/8.7) with SMTP id LAA14378 for <mab(a)issr.research.att.com>; Tue, 17 Sep 1996 11:52:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ns.research.att.com by research; Tue Sep 17 11:48:17 EDT 1996 Received: from henson.rutgers.edu by ns; Tue Sep 17 11:06:01 EDT 1996 Received: (from bquigley@localhost) by henson.rutgers.edu (8.6.12+bestmx+oldruq+newsunq+grosshack/8.6.12) id LAA26298; Tue, 17 Sep 1996 11:02:41 -0400 Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 11:02:41 -0400 From: Barbara Quigley <bquigley(a)dimacs.rutgers.edu> Message-Id: <199609171502.LAA26298(a)henson.rutgers.edu> To: dimacs-members(a)dimacs.rutgers.edu, local-list(a)dimacs.rutgers.edu, dimacs-dimacs(a)dimacs.rutgers.edu, dimacs-current-postdocs-industry(a)dimacs.rutgers.edu, dimacs-current-postdocs-univ(a)dimacs.rutgers.edu, dimacs-current-visitors(a)dimacs.rutgers.edu, rutgers-list(a)dimacs.rutgers.edu, theorynt(a)vm1.nodak.edu, finite-model-theory(a)informatik.rwth-aachen.de Subject: DIMACS Workshop on Trust Management in Networks, Rutgers University, September 30 - October 2, 1996 DIMACS Workshop on Trust Management in Networks September 30 - October 2, 1996 DIMACS, Rutgers University - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Organizers: Ernie Brickell brickell(a)btec.com Joan Feigenbaum jf(a)research.att.com David Maher dpm(a)allegra.att.com Theme: The use of public-key cryptography on a mass-market scale requires sophisticated mechanisms for managing trust. For example, any application that receives a signed request for action is forced to answer the central question ``Is the key used to sign this request authorized to take this action?'' In certain applications, this question reduces to ``Does this key belong to this person?'' In others, the authorization question is considerably more complicated, and resolving it requires techniques for formulating security policies and security credentials, determining whether particular sets of credentials satisfy the relevant policies, and deferring trust to third parties. This workshop covers all aspects of the trust management problem. Relevant topics include but are not limited to: * General approaches to trust management * Languages, systems, and tools * Certificates and public-key infrastructure * Formal models and analysis * Trust management in specific application domains; including but not limited to: o Banking o E-mail o Internet commerce o Licensing o Medical information systems o Mobile programs and ``code signing'' o Revocation of cryptographic keys For more information: Information about local arrangements, travel, lodging and registration can be found at http://dimacs.rutgers.edu/Workshops/Management. Those without WWW access can contact Pat Pravato at 908-445-5929 or pravato(a)dimacs.rutgers.edu. This workshop is part of DIMACS Special Year on Networks. Information about the Special Year on Networks can be found at DIMACS WWW site: http://dimacs.rutgers.edu or by contacting the center. __________________ Program: Monday, September 30, 1996 8:15 Continental breakfast 9:00 Welcome to DIMACS Fred Roberts, DIMACS Director 9:15 What is "Trust Management," and what are the Workshop Goals? Joan Feigenbaum, AT&T Laboratories 9:45 Let a Thousand (Ten Thousand?) CAs Reign Stephen Kent, BBN Corporation 10:45 Break 11:00 The PolicyMaker Approach to Trust Management Matt Blaze, AT&T Laboratories (Joint work with J. Feigenbaum and J. Lacy) 12:00 Lunch 1:15 SDSI: A Simple Distributed Security Infrastructure Butler Lampson, Microsoft (Joint work with R. Rivest) 2:15 SPKI Certificates Carl Ellison, Cybercash 3:15 Break 3:45 Panel Discussion Moderator: David Maher, AT&T Laboratories Panelists: Blaze, Ellison, Kent, and Lampson 5:30 Wine and cheese Tuesday, October 1, 1996 8:15 Continental Breakfast 9:00 Using PICS Labels for Trust Management Rohit Khare, World Wide Web Consortium 9:30 Managing Trust in an Information-Labeling System Martin Strauss, Iowa State University (Joint work with M. Blaze, J. Feigenbaum, and P. Resnick) 10:00 Trust Management in Web Browsers, Present and Future Ed Felten, Princeton University (Joint work with D. Dean and D. Wallach) 10:30 Break 10:45 IBM Cryptolopes, SuperDistribution, and Digital Rights Management Marc A. Kaplan, IBM Watson Research Center 11:15 Requirements and Approaches for Electronic Licenses David Maher, AT&T Laboratories 11:45 PathServer Michael Reiter, AT&T Laboratories (Joint work with S. Stubblebine) 12:15 Lunch 1:30 Inferno Security David Presotto, Bell Labs -- Lucent Technologies 2:00 Transparent Internet E-mail Security Raph Levien, University of Calfornia at Berkeley (Joint work with L. McCarthy and M. Blaze) 2:30 Secure Digital Names Stuart Haber, Bellcore (Joint work with S. Stornetta) 3:00 Break 3:30 Untrusted Third Parties: Key Management for the Prudent Mark Lomas, Cambridge University (Joint work with B. Crispo) 4:00 Distributed Trust Management using Databases Trevor Jim, University of Pennsylvania (Joint work with C. Gunter) 4:30 Distributed Commerce Transactions: Structuring Multi-Party Exchanges into Pair-wise Exchanges Steven Ketchpel, Stanford University (Joint work with H. Garcia-Molina) Wednesday, October 2, 1996 8:15 Continental Breakfast 9:00 Policy-Controlled Cryptographic Key Release David McGrew, Trusted Information Systems, Inc. (Joint work with D. Branstad) 9:45 An X.509v3-based Public-Key Infrastructure for the Federal Government William Burr, Nat'l. Inst. of Standards and Technology 10:15 Break 10:30 The ICE-TEL Public-Key Infrastructure and Trust Model David Chadwick, Salford University 11:00 A Distributed Trust Model Alfarez Abdul-Rahman, University College, London (Joint work with S. Hailes) 11:30 On Multiple Statements from Trust Sources Raphael Yahalom, Hebrew University and MIT 12:00 Lunch 1:00 Off-line Delegation in a Distributed File Repository Arne Helme, University of Twente (Joint work with T. Stabell-Kul) 1:30 Operational Tradeoffs of Aggregating Attributes in Digital Certificates Ian Simpson, Carnegie Mellon University 2:00 Trust Management for Mobile Agents Vipin Swarup, Mitre (Joint work with W. Farmer and J. Guttman) 2:30 Break 3:00 Trust Management in ERLink Samuel Schaen, Mitre 3:30 Linking Trust with Network Reliability Y. Desmedt, University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee (Joint work with M. Burmester) 4:00 Trust Management Under Law-Governed Interaction Naftaly Minsky, Rutgers University (Joint work with V. Ungureanu) 4:30 Tools for Security Policy Definition and Implementation Polar Humenn, Blackwatch Technology, Inc. ------- End of Forwarded Message

1 0

RE: Risk v. Charity (was: RE: Workers Paradise. /Politica...
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Subject: RE: Risk v. Charity (was: RE: Workers Paradise. /Political rant) Black Unicorn <unicorn(a)schloss.li> >On Mon, 16 Sep 1996 jbugden(a)smtplink.alis.ca wrote: >> Specifically, that anyone can "save for a rainy day" and still not be >> able to provide for events that can always happen: Heart attack, >> stroke, car accident, pinched nerve that leaves you in excruciating >> pain and unable to work for several years. > >Understand what it is you are saying. > >You are saying that everyone on the planet has a right to health > insurance and disability insurance whether they can afford it or not. > This is folly. The result is serious moral hazard problems. Almost, but not quite. I'm saying that within our two countries at least (Canada, U.S.) everyone could have access to medically necessary procedures because the *society as a whole* can afford it. I understand moral hazard and risk pool seperation. I also understand that the insurance bureacracy required to manage much of the U.S. health care system absorbs much of the money going into the system. Managing risk pool seperation proves to be expensive, or perhaps just very profitable. > Social safety nets prevent rioting by the lower classes, revolution and > general civil disorder because they appease the masses. Indeed this > is a form of health and life insurance for the middle and upper classes. Absolutely. And it is a scheme that many of the lower classes pay into. Since it is to our mutual benefit (yours and mine), I choose not complain about it. > Spreading the risk, by itself, does NOT reduce cost. > You must properly PRICE risk. Agreed. But there is a balance between accurately pricing the risk and minimizing the cost of the bureacracy that polices this pricing. There are also many ways to modify behaviour, not all of them direct. We only need a correlation here, not causation. For example, high taxes on smoking and drinking or spot checks for drunk driving. All of these correlate with a reduction in high risk behaviour and a reduction in health costs. Yes, there are people who will engage in high risk behaviour. Yes, they will still receive treatment. No, it is not worth tracking down all of these people. You may also get better privacy because no insurance company is collecting personal data in order to minimize their risk. A Suspicious Persons List is only one manifestation of this type of intrusion. This privacy issue may only increase as genetic screening becomes widespread. There is much potential for moral hazard when the PRICE for your insurance is affected by the accuracy of your disclosure. How will they ever know... Fact: Canada spends less than the U.S. per capita on health care, while covering more people in percentage terms. Ciao, James, qui pete les bretelles du Canada. And he brought the present unto Eglon king of Moab: and Eglon was a very fat man. [Judges 3:17] "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_ "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." - Emerson

2 1

Re: (fwd) Email Robot draws fire from CypherPunkz
by Adamsc＠io-online.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Fri, 13 Sep 1996 09:02:19 -0700 (PDT), Declan McCullagh wrote: >The Cypherpunks gang has apparently attacked a San Francisco artist's ^^^^ No wonder the Feds want to close us down. Look at all the dangerous things we've done this week: 1. Shot the bull 2. (see #1) 3. (see #1) et cetra # Chris Adams <adamsc(a)io-online.com> | http://www.io-online.com/adamsc/adamsc.htp # cadams(a)acucobol.com | V.M. (619)515-4894 "I have never been able to figure out why anyone would want to play games on a computer in any case when the whole system is a game. Word processing, spreadsheets, telecoms -- it's all a game. And they pay you to play it." -- Duncan Frissell

1 0

The Expat Tax Is Law - The Door Is Now Closed!
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm forwarding this message to the list, as it relates to several themes we've been discussing recently. The imposition of draconian taxation policies effectively says that the U.S. is now doing what the Soviet Union did to emigrants: demand that they "pay back" various costs the government claimed they had incurred. Here, the U.S. is telling would-be expats that they cannot take their property with them, that they must effectively "escrow" (there's that horrid word again) their assets in a form and place that the tax collector can access, even if they no longer live in the United States and no longer use services, and even if they had paid their full taxes on income while they _were_ in the U.S. It makes me want to just put my stock certificates in my luggage and just drive on down to Mexico and cross the border (no border checks) and go from there to some safer haven. (However, I imagine the Feds can effectively block sales of my stock--the stock is still formally only an accounting entry, as stock certificates are not "bearer instruments." I could probably relocate to a foreign haven and sell the assets before the IRS would even notice...unless they computerize. I suspect this is coming.) Anyway, here's the article: > From: taxhaven(a)ix.netcom.com(Adam Starchild) > Newsgroups: alt.privacy > Subject: The Expat Tax Is Law - The Door Is Now Closed! > Date: 17 Sep 1996 01:30:43 GMT > Message-ID: <51kv03$d82(a)dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> > > The Expat Tax Is Law - The Door Is Now Closed! > > by > > Marc M. Harris > > After last year's failed attempt to pass an American > expatriate tax, the U.S. Treasury Department succeeded in > sneaking the provisions into the miscellaneous revenue positions > of the recently passed Health Coverage Availability and > Affordability Act of 1996. Given the failure of their high > profile campaign last year, the Treasury Department switched > strategies this year and undertook one of stealth. While the > press was talking about tax-deductible contributions to medical > savings accounts (MSAs), provisions tightening the expatriation > tax rules were implemented. Foreign grantor trust rules were > also tightened under the law. > In order to provide the health insurance and care benefits > provided under the law, a separate tax title adds certain revenue > raising provisions. In general, these revenue offsets add > provisions aimed at making certain the United States get their > fair share plus some when U.S. citizens and permanent residents > expatriate. In short, Uncle Sam would like to tell its > expatriates that they earned their money from the United States, > not in it. > A review of selected sections of the Congressional Record > provides some additional insight into the thinking behind these > new provisions. > > "It has come to the attention of Congress that some > very wealthy individuals have been relinquishing their > citizenship to avoid U.S. income, estate and gift tax. The > bill does not want to discourage citizens from exercising > their right to expatriate, but does not want to provide a > tax incentive for such an action..." > > If Congress truly wanted to eliminate the incentive for > expatriation, it might be better to eliminate high taxation and > put an end to the litigation crisis rather than creating another > layer of government regulation and bureaucracy. > > "Congress believes the changes are consistent with > existing tax treaties in conferring a tax credit for taxes > paid in the foreign country, and to the extent they are > inconsistent, the Treasury Department will re-negotiate the > treaties to account for the changes. The new provisions > take precedence over any treaties..." > > To make certain that other countries will not benefit from > America's brain drain, the United States will once again embark > on a campaign to bully other nations into accepting America's > oppressive system of taxation and regulation. > > "This bill would subject former citizens to the > expatriation provisions with no inquiry into their motive > and requires individuals who exchange property that would > otherwise be exempt from U.S. taxation as foreign source > income must immediately recognize U.S. source income on any > gain from such a transaction. The Secretary is authorized > to issue regulations to treat removal of tangible property > from the U.S. and other conversions to foreign source > income. For example, any income from stock transferred to a > foreign source, such as dividends, would be converted to > U.S. source and immediately taxed..." > > Logic dictates that if this tax were to approach 100%, it > would look quite similar to currency controls and foreign > investment prohibitions. Since it only goes about half of the > way, we can assume that we are 50% down the road toward American > currency and foreign investment controls. > > "A new information reporting requirement has been added > requiring former citizens and long-term residents to > complete information reporting at the time of > expatriation..." > > Just to make certain that no one escapes from the United > States without leaving all their wealth behind, the new > information reporting requirements will make certain that the > Treasury Department always knows where your assets are placed. > Of course, if you fail to report, civil and criminal sanctions > will apply. The new treaty negotiations will most likely include > provisions to extradite those "expat tax evaders" back home for > their "criminal act" of leaving a country that was once known as > the home of the free. Our sources at the Internal Revenue > Service tell us this treaty provision will be known as the Hotel > California provision -- you can check out, buy you can never > leave. > > "The bill also requires that a U.S. person that > receives a distribution from a trust must report that to the > Service..." > > Now Uncle Sam is not only seeking to penalize those patriots > that have placed their funds out of harm's way, but now the > potential recipients of those receipts. If the logic of current > money laundering statutes apply as they do in most tax cases, the > bank that accepts the cashing of the beneficiary's distribution > check from a foreign trust will be a co-conspirator in this > "unpatriotic" affair. > > "Effective for transfers made after February 6, 1995, > if a non-resident alien becomes a resident within five years > of transferring property to a foreign trust, the transferor > will be considered to have transferred the property on the > date he became a resident..." > > The Statue of Liberty stands as America's great symbol of > open immigration with its famous inscription "give us your tired > and poor." With this provision, any person who hopes to emigrate > to the United States will definitely become tired of complying > with U.S. regulations and poor after he complies with them. > > "If a U.S. person receives more than $10,000 worth of > gifts from one foreign person during any tax year, he must > file a report with the Service. If he fails to file a > report, the Service has the sole discretion to determine the > taxation of the property received by the U.S. person and the > person is liable for a penalty of 5 percent of the value of > the gift for each month he fails to file a report..." > > Currency controls and foreign investment restrictions work > both ways. Not only will governments prevent you from sending > your money out, but they will also prevent you from sending your > money in without their fair share plus some. > > "The Service has the power to prescribe regulations to > prevent the avoidance of the Estate, Trust and Beneficiary > part of the Code..." > > This provision is known as an Abusive Transaction provision. > It is commonly referred to by international human rights > organizations as the arbitrary and capricious application of > laws. > > "Once the Secretary of the Treasury establishes a > reasonable belief that the expatriate's loss of U.S. > citizenship would result in a substantial reduction in > estate, inheritance, legacy, and succession taxes, the > burden of proving that one of the principal purposes of the > loss of U.S. citizenship was not avoidance of U.S. income or > estate tax is on the executor of the decedent's estate..." > > If these provisions were making you feel a bit suicidal, > please forget it. Uncle Sam is not only going to pursue you to > the grave, but also your executors and heirs. > > Other items in the Congressional Record provide an even > greater insight into Washington's motivations: > > "Because U.S. citizens who retain their citizenship are > subject to income tax on accrued appreciation when they > dispose of their assets, as well as estate tax on the full > value of assets that are held until death, the Committee > believes it fair and equitable to tax expatriates on the > appreciation in their assets when they relinquish their U.S. > citizenship. The Committee believes that an exception from > the expatriation tax should be provided for individuals > whose income and net worth are relatively modest..." > > If you are poor, you may leave; however, if you were a > productive American in the United States that no longer exists, > you must stay and pay or leave behind the fruits of your > productivity. America's Second Civil War has begun and it is > known as Class Warfare. > > "Exceptions from the expatriation tax are provided for > individuals. (An) exception applies to a U.S. citizen who > relinquishes citizenship before reaching age 18-1/2, > provided that the individual was a resident of the United > States for no more than 5 taxable years before such > relinquishment..." > > Since one cannot renounce their American citizenship prior > to their 18th birthday, the children of an American resident > overseas have only 6 months to renounce their citizenship and > avoid the application of these laws. Ho many 18 year olds are > capable of making this type of decision? > > "Under the provision, an individual is permitted to > elect to defer payment of the expatriation tax with respect > to the deemed sale of any property. Under this election, > the expatriation tax with respect to a particular property, > plus interest thereon, is due when the property is > subsequently disposed of. In order to elect deferral of the > expatriation tax, the individual is required to provide > adequate security to ensure that the deferred expatriation > tax and interest ultimately will be paid... In the event > that the security provided with respect to a particular > property subsequently becomes inadequate and the individual > fails to correct such situation, the deferred expatriation > tax and interest with respect to such property becomes due. > As a further condition to making this election, the > individual is required to consent to the waiver of any > treaty rights that would preclude the collection of the > expatriation tax." > > Only in Congress could one dream of a law that requires its > former citizens to waive their rights in a foreign country in > order to escape from the political, social, and economic tyranny > of the United States. > > "Under the provision, special rules apply to trust > interests held by the individual at the time of > relinquishment of citizenship or termination of residency. > In addition, an individual who holds (or who is treated as > holding) a trust interest at the time of relinquishment of > citizenship or termination of residency is required to > disclose on his or her tax return the methodology used to > determine his or her interest in the trust, and whether such > individual knows (or has reason to know) that any other > beneficiary of the trust uses a different method..." > > The latter provision is known as the "Stool Pigeon" clause - > - you are required to turn your fellow beneficiaries over to the > Internal Revenue Service. Similar laws existed in Nazi Germany > that encouraged children to turn their parents and neighbors over > to the authorities. > > "If the individual holds an interest in a trust that is > not a qualified trust, a special rule applies for purposes > of determining the amount of the expatriation tax due with > respect to such trust interest. Such separate trust is > treated as having sold its assets as of the date of > relinquishment or citizenship or termination of residency > and having distributed all proceeds to the individual, and > the individual is treated as having recontributed such > proceeds to the trust. The individual is subject to the > expatriation tax with respect to any net income or gain > arising from the deemed distribution from the trust. A > beneficiary's interest in a non-qualified trust is the basis > of all facts and circumstances. If the individual has an > interest in a qualified trust, a different set of rules > applies. In determining this amount, all contingent and > discretionary interests are resolved in the individual's > favor (i.e. the individual is allocated the maximum amount > that he or she potentially could receive under the terms of > the trust instrument)..." > > The United States is quite generous in calculating the tax > based on the maximum possible distribution. In their arrogance, > it appears that the law does not detail how to recover the excess > tax if the maximum level is never reached. Alternatively, > Congress never intended for former Americans to comply with this > law. > > "If the individual does not agree to such a waiver of > treaty rights, the tax with respect to distributions to the > individual is imposed on the trust, the trustee is > personally liable therefor, and any other beneficiary of the > trust will have a right of contribution against such > individual with respect to such tax." > > Based on the above, no foreign financial institution with > offices or business in the United States would accept the > trusteeship of an American's assets. > > "Under the provision, an individual is permitted to > make an irrevocable election to continue to be taxed as a > U.S. citizen with respect to all property that otherwise is > covered by the expatriation tax. This election is an "all- > or-nothing" election;..." > > Congress is quite generous with this provision in allowing > expatriating Americans to continue being chased by tax collectors > for the rest of their lives overseas. > > "Under the provision, an individual is treated as > having relinquished U.S. citizenship on the date that the > individual first makes known to a U.S. government or > consular officer his or her intention to relinquish U.S. > citizenship... A U.S. citizen who furnishes to the State > Department a signed statement of voluntary relinquishment of > U.S. nationality, confirming the performance of an > expatriating act with the requisite intent to relinquish his > or her citizenship is treated as having relinquished his or > her citizenship on the date the statement is so furnished > (regardless of when the expatriating act was performed), > provided that the voluntary relinquishment is later > confirmed by the issuance of a CLN (Certificate of Loss of > Nationality). If neither of these circumstances exist, the > individual is treated as having relinquished citizenship on > the date a CLN is issued or a certificate of naturalization > is cancelled. The date of relinquishment of citizenship > determined under the provision applies for all tax > purposes..." > > Based on this provision, almost any American who now wishes > to undertake the expatriation route will be subject to the tax. > In short, the door has closed for most Americans. > > "Under the provision, the exclusion from income does > not apply to the value of any property received by gift or > inheritance from an individual who was subject to the > expatriation tax. Accordingly, a U.S. taxpayer who receives > a gift or inheritance from such an individual is required to > include the value of such gift or inheritance in gross > income and is subject to U.S. income tax on such amount..." > > This implies that if an American expatriate sends funds back > to support his aging parents, his parents will need to treat > these gifts as taxable income. If the parents fail to report > these amounts, they could also suffer civil and criminal > penalties associated with tax evasion. > > "Under the provision, an individual who relinquishes > citizenship or terminates residency is required to provide a > statement which includes the individual's social security > number, forwarding foreign address, new country of residence > and citizenship and, in the case of individuals with a net > worth of at least $500,000, a balance sheet..." > > Given the desire to obtain balance sheets from expatriating > Americans, it is only a matter of time before the IRS requires > the inclusion of personal balance sheets of individual taxpayers > with their Form 1040s or at least those they suspect might wish > to expatriate. > > "In the case of a former citizen, such statement is due > not later than the date the individual's citizenship is > treated as relinquished and is provided to the State > Department..." > > In short, this means that you cannot obtain your certificate > of loss of nationality without providing the information to the > United States government. > > "Further, the provision requires the Secretary of the > Treasury to publish in the Federal Register the names of all > former U.S. citizens with respect to whom it receives the > required statements or whose names it receives under the > foregoing information-sharing provisions..." > > Now your friends and neighbors can know that you have > expatriated. Although Congress respects the right of Americans > to expatriate, it will publish your name in the federal register > as if expatriation were a criminal act. > > "The provision directs the Treasury Department to > undertake a study on the tax compliance of U.S. citizens and > green-card holders residing outside the United States and to > make recommendations regarding the improvement of such > compliance. The findings of such study and such > recommendations are required to be reported to the House > Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on > Finance within 90 days of the date of enactment..." > > Uncle Sam has awoken to the fact that most Americans living > overseas are the most likely individuals to expatriate and as a > result, they are gearing up to create a machine to attack them as > well. > > The provision is effective for U.S. citizens whose date > of relinquishment of citizenship (as determined under the > provision occurred on or after February 6, 1995. U.S. > citizens who committed an expatriating act with the > requisite intent to relinquish their U.S. citizenship prior > to February 6, 1995, but whose date of relinquishment of > citizenship (as determined under the provision) does not > occur until after such date, are subject to the expatriation > tax..." > > This means that if you have not already relinquished your > citizenship or have only done so recently, you are subject to the > expat tax. The door has closed, but not completely. > > About the Author > > Marc M. Harris is a certified public accountant and > president of The Harris Organization. He has already developed a > strategy for legally avoiding the expat tax, which he discusses > only in personal appointments. > > Copyright 1996 by Marc M. Harris > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Posted by Adam Starchild > The Offshore Entrepreneur at http://www.au.com/offshore -- 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."

2 1

Re: 56 kbps modems
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>On Mon, 16 Sep 1996, Jay Gairson wrote: >> Speaking of ISDN, how many people, can afford to have a personal ISDN >> line in there house? And then afford to connect to something/someone >> else on a next to permanent basis monthly? It's Phone Company Dependent. Here in Pac Bell territory, an ISDN phone line costs about 2.5 analog phone lines, and gets you two phone lines plus some signalling. Connection costs are free at night, and 1 cent/minute daytime. That may change - the phone company is appalled that all these computer people interpret the phrase "free at night" as meaning "it's _free_ at night", so their holding time predictions were bogus :-) Night is defined as 7pm-7am for ISDN. ISDN-equipped ISPs start at about $30/month; don't know if that's unlimited connect time or not. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> # You can get PGP software outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto

2 1