December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Pappieren, bitte! (and Taxes, National Debt)
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:18 PM 8/20/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: >One estimate I have seen places the overall national debt, counting >obligations and promised payments, at $20 trillion, or four times the >official number. And it is still increasing every year. To see how large >this is, there are 100 million taxpayers in the U.S., roughly. This means >each of these taxpayers has an average indebtedness of $200,000. Most >American households do not have this amount of money in total net worth, >obviously. Thus, they "owe" much more than they are worth. > >Obviously enough, the portion of this debt is not distributed uniformly >amongst households, or won't be if it is ever collected. But you get the >drift. The country has been spending far more than it has been taking in >for many years, and is far worse shape than "official" figures about the >National Debt would tend to suggest. > >Neither Dole nor Clinton appear to want to talk about this, both having >done their parts to make the situation what it is today. This is exactly why I'm astonished when a few people occasionally (and, prematurely) reject my "Assassination Politics" idea. If the problem is as big as all that (and it is!) then these people are well and truly guilty of way more than enough crimes to merit their deaths. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Husband/Wife jailed for saying Clinton Sucks
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Or About 20 Aug 96, 18:36, Scottauge(a)aol.com wrote: > Rush Limbaugh reports: Well, if Rush was a reporter this might have some meaning. > > That a husband and wife are being jailed for yelling to Clinton "You > Suck". How long were they in jail? And many other questions come to mind. > > The Secret Service states additional words (yet un-uttered to the > rest of us) were mentioned that they deemed threatening. I'd wonder about that. > > Ahhh, good to live in a free country.... > This is as free as it gets these days. Ross =========== Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906

1 0

Re: Spamming (Good or Bad?)
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Or About 21 Aug 96, 4:07, Vipul Ved Prakash wrote: > I don't know if there has been much discussion on the ethics of > spamming here? Is spamming free speech? > > - Vipul The way I see it: if you narrow your targeting, by research, you can send SPAM to people who may really have a need for your products and services. I send spam. I am very apologetic, but I send only to software manufacturers. I sell software media and duplication, so most software makers can relate to a request for me to quote on their needs. BUT I OBJECT to spamming of usenet, and my mailing lists that I read. Ross =========== Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906

1 0

Re: Hackers invade DOJ web site
by Frank Stuart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[...] Will Day (willday(a)rom.oit.gatech.edu) wrote: >I understand how it affects their claim for the security of escrowed >keys, but I'm afraid I don't follow the other argument. How would the >wide availability of strong encryption have helped prevent the breakin? >How would encryption in general prevent breakins? I'd love to use this >as an argument for strong encryption, but I don't see how it really >applies. Since we don't know how the intruders broke in, we can only speculate. I can think of several scenarios where cryptographic techniques could help. I can also think of several where they wouldn't. When you've only got 20 seconds to explain to a non-technical audience, I don't think it's dishonest to say that it might have prevented it. Off the top of my head, here are a couple examples: 1. It's possible that a DOJ employee logged in from a remote site while the intruders were snooping somewhere along the way. If the link had been encrypted, that would have made things much more difficult or impossible for the attackers. 2. Perhpas the intruders used IP spoofing and .rhosts to break in. If machines had to be cryptographically authenticated, a rsh from the wrong machine wouldn't work. I think my 20 seconds are up. :> | (Douglas) Hofstadter's Law: | It always takes longer than you expect, even Frank Stuart | when you take into account Hofstadter's Law.

2 1

Pappieren, bitte! (and Taxes, National Debt)
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:38 PM 8/20/96, Stephen Cobb wrote: >At 05:32 PM 8/19/96 -0400, you wrote: >>It sounds unfair, for sure. However, the whole thing is a fraud based >>upon a myth. FICA witholding is NOT credited to an individual's account, >>or even to Social Security benefits in general. By statutory law, all >>such receipts go into the Treasury's general fund. >> >>So, they are NOT "social security contributions". Period. >> >Very true...what I am saying is that, as far as my reading goes, LEGAL >aliens are going to be required to pay social security "taxes" while not >having any "entitlement" in return. They pay income taxes and get certain >things, like law and order, in return. They will be paying soc sec money to >the government without getting anything in return. This sounds not only >unfair but wrong, part of an isolationist, "we killed the natives so this >land is our land and the rest of you f@*k-off" revival that includes the >recent posting about requiring proof of citizenship before issuing drivers >licenses. Not only will they not be legally able to drive, but as we all have been discussing, driver's licenses are the de facto forms of identification demanded by most merchants, most airlines, etc. I think the "no driver's licenses to illegal aliens" makes a certain kind of sense, though. (Not that I don't have some compassion for them, being an open borders advocate.) If the State gives official documents to illegal aliens, what's the point of their being classified as illegal aliens? Ditto for the various taxes, income or SS or property or whatever. If the State says to someone, "OK, you don't have to pay taxes because you're an illegal alien," the chaos that would follow is clear. Employers cannot withold taxes (income, state, SS) from some employees and not from others. (Of course, employers are expected to get a SS number from all employees, so, in theory, illegal aliens would be unable to work without one....) One final note on the Social Security mess. Not only is it not a true insurance plan, with contributions being invested in a fund of some sort, it is much worse than this. Contributions are sent immediately into the "general fund," to be spent on B-2 bombers, new administrative buildings, salaries of government workers, pork for Congressvarmints, Seawolf submarines, space stations, welfare payments, foreign aid to Israel and Egypt, and so on and so forth. What the govenment does is to send an "I.O.U." to the Social Security people, promising to someday make good on the money already spent. Distressingly, but not surprisingly, these I.O.U.s are *NOT* counted as part of the National Debt. Thus, the national debt is much worse than the $5 trillion or so it is officially estimated to be. One estimate I have seen places the overall national debt, counting obligations and promised payments, at $20 trillion, or four times the official number. And it is still increasing every year. To see how large this is, there are 100 million taxpayers in the U.S., roughly. This means each of these taxpayers has an average indebtedness of $200,000. Most American households do not have this amount of money in total net worth, obviously. Thus, they "owe" much more than they are worth. Obviously enough, the portion of this debt is not distributed uniformly amongst households, or won't be if it is ever collected. But you get the drift. The country has been spending far more than it has been taking in for many years, and is far worse shape than "official" figures about the National Debt would tend to suggest. Neither Dole nor Clinton appear to want to talk about this, both having done their parts to make the situation what it is today. --Tim May 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: Husband/Wife jailed for saying Clinton Sucks
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:36 PM 8/20/96, Scottauge(a)aol.com wrote: >Rush Limbaugh reports: > >That a husband and wife are being jailed for yelling to Clinton "You Suck". > >The Secret Service states additional words (yet un-uttered to the rest of us) >were mentioned that they deemed threatening. > >Ahhh, good to live in a free country.... Ironically, at a recent Clinton rally the "person of poundage" comedienne Rosie O'Donnell led a "Dole Sucks!" cheer. (This was reported in the news because it apparently was an embarassment to the Clintons.) A double standard? Or is the crime the insulting of the monarch? --Tim May 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

PreRFD: comp.org.cypherpunks
by qut＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The Subject: line says it all. My suggestion number #1: No moderation. -- Skip, OBC

1 0

Re: License Plates
by qut＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

One method of protest against License Plate invasion of privacy is to simply not use license plates. When I bought my car six years ago the front license plate was never drilled for license plate holes, so I simply took off the rear plate too, and in six months I only got two tickets for it, one for twenty dollars in Walnut Creek which I only had to pay, not needing to "fix the defect," and another on the Richmond Bridge, costing seventy six dollars because it was a fix it ticket which I didn't want to fix, and pulled over another time with only a warning. Not bad at all for California, has any one else practised this form of protest? I had to put the rear plate back on though, because I acquired a drinking problem and I didn't want to get busted for drunk driving. Now that I'm sober, and with worse threats concerning license plates, it's time to pull off that rear plate again! Doing it tonight, join me! -- Skip, OBC

1 0

Re: "Utilization Review"
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 7:01 PM 8/20/96 -0400, Alan Horowitz wrote: >If you want to convince the masses - or even fashion elites such as myself >- to forego recourse to voluntary risk sharing.... you have your work cut >out for you. The insurance companies have every reason to perform "Utilization Reviews", since only they have incentive to contain costs. Our medical plans tend to insure for routine medical care and as a result, give the insurance companies the data about our routine care. If they only paid for catastrophic illness and accident care, they would only have reason to have data on that care. Do you want to share the risk of routine medical care? Or do you just want to share the risk of catastrophic illnesses and accidents? Or do you want to keep it all private. What you pay for, you can keep private. What they pay for, they can review. Your choice. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | Cave ab homine unius lebri | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | [Beware the man of one | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | book] - Anonymous Latin | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

2 1

[NOISE] Airport legal question
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I know that it is a violation of federal law to joke about explosives at the X-ray machine. Would an "I love Explosives" sticker on carry-on luggage violate any laws? TIA,

3 2