December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Validating SSNs
by smith＠sctc.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 4:13 PM 11/13/96, Black Unicorn wrote: >Exercise for the reader: How does the bank verify SSNs? OK, I'll bite. My guess is that the bank sticks the SSN in a report to the IRS and the bank is happy with the SSN as long as the IRS doesn't complain about it. Now, does the IRS check? I suspect that they don't, either. Their objective is to look for "matches" with SSNs that show up on filed tax forms, since they want to verify the data on the tax form. Given the behavior of every other large database I've ever seen, I'd guess that there would be a huge number of SSNs that don't in fact associate with tax forms. If someone High Up hasn't decreed that they should chase such things down (and allocated heaps of money to do it), they'll ignore the mismatches. This seems consistent with the reports of people who use bogus SSNs for decades at a time. Rick. smith(a)sctc.com

3 2

RE: Remailer Abuse Solutions
by Hal Finney 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I had a similar thought a few months ago. Actually with DigiCash there is a specially nice feature from the point of view of the remailer. Suppose the cash is embedded in the message headers itself. The remailer receives the message with the cash in it, turns it in at the bank to make sure it is good, and withdraws a new blinded coin which it sticks in the headers of the outgoing message. The eventual recipient of that message can then have his software turn in that coin and if it is good that raises the priority of the message for him to read. The nice thing is that if the recipient doesn't have the DigiCash software, he will never cash the coin. That means that the remailer can, after a delay, reclaim uncashed coins for its own use. It doesn't have to charge postage explicitly, but it benefits as a middleman from unclaimed postage. This would also of course encourage people to learn to use digital cash so they could take advantage of these pennies from heaven in their mailboxes. Hal

1 0

Re: Taxation Thought Experiment
by Gary Howland 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> o TAXES THOUGHT EXPERIMENT > > 1) I generate $100 of productivity for my company > 2) Company is taxed %30, $70 left > 3) Company pay shareholders and costs, $30 is left > 4) Company pays me > 5) I pay 40% in taxes, so $18 left > 6) With $18 I can buy a $16.82 object (%07 sales tax). > > Results: > 1) I see $16.82 realization from $100 productivity increase. > * Govt. gets $49.26 of my productivity, or nearly 3 times the amount I get. The government gets $59.26, not $49.26 (30+16+12+1.26). That leaves you with 16.74 (not 16.82) - they get nearly four times as much. In other countries the situation may be worse, not only due to different rates of tax, but because of social security contributions, employers tax, and the like. Then if you spend your money on beer or fags, you may be paying even more tax, due to taxes on alcohol and tobacco, leaving the government with perhaps 10 times as much money as you. Many imported goods also have a tax on them (eg. motorcycle import tax is around 50% in the UK). It is probably more fun to do these calculations without involving the shareholders, since they are, after all, earning their "cut". [ Crypto relevance? Assasination taxation? ] Gary -- "Of course the US Constitution isn't perfect; but it's a lot better than what we have now." -- Unknown. pub 1024/C001D00D 1996/01/22 Gary Howland <gary(a)systemics.com> Key fingerprint = 0C FB 60 61 4D 3B 24 7D 1C 89 1D BE 1F EE 09 06

4 3

Re: Secrecy: My life as a nym. (Was: nym blown?)
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:26 AM 11/11/96 -0800, Hal Finney wrote: ... >I have two kids entering their teens, and I'm sure other list members are >parents as well. What can we do for our children to help them enter their >adult lives with better chances to retain privacy? Unicorn mentions keeping >them absent from school on picture day, although I'm not sure how much this >helps. I suppose it makes it harder for an investigator to find out what >they look(ed) like. Then when they get old enough to drive you have a new >problem avoiding the photo (and thumbprint) on the license. ... As far as the drivers linscense goes, there are religions that do not allow its members to be photographed, and the government honers this,(at least the Tag Offices do). I don't know the name of the religion but I believe it is a Christian one. Convert once every four years to get your drivers liscense, and convert back within the week. No photograph on that little piece of plastic. P.S. In Oklahoma, there is no thumbprint on the current liscense. P.P.S You can always send your child to school with a note saying that you do not want your child in the class picture, I know of someone who did that, (on a side-note, we always wondered why.)

3 2

Cypherpunks Shooting Club II
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Last Sunday, only four Cypherpunks participated in the first field trip organized by the Cypherpunks Shooting Club. Though I dare say that we had loads of fun. Anybody interested in participating next Sunday is encouraged to contact me. A wide range of firearms will be provided. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred Member JPFO. "America's Aggressive Civil Rights Organization"

1 0

Validating SSNs
by putney 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>At 4:13 PM 11/13/96, Black Unicorn wrote: >>Exercise for the reader: How does the bank verify SSNs? >OK, I'll bite. >My guess is that the bank sticks the SSN in a report to the IRS and the >bank is happy with the SSN as long as the IRS doesn't complain about it. >Now, does the IRS check? I suspect that they don't, either. Their objective >is to look for "matches" with SSNs that show up on filed tax forms, since >they want to verify the data on the tax form. Given the behavior of every >other large database I've ever seen, I'd guess that there would be a huge >number of SSNs that don't in fact associate with tax forms. If someone High >Up hasn't decreed that they should chase such things down (and allocated >heaps of money to do it), they'll ignore the mismatches. >This seems consistent with the reports of people who use bogus SSNs for >decades at a time. >Rick. >smith(a)sctc.com Yup - You've got it right. A bank's responsibility is to make the SSN match on tape with what the IRS has - thats it. It was part of the big stink in the 80's when congress first said that all banks had to withhold on all interest, the banks yelled, and then the SSN match program was instituted. There are significant fines for banks that do not follow up on mis-matches, or do not begin "back-up" withholding. One person is no big deal, but they add up fast! The IRS's job is to collect income so if the number matches with a filing then a-okay! Yo. Putney

2 1

Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
by George A. Stathis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:34 ìì 13/11/1996 -0500, Mark M. wrote: (in response to): >> Just as suddenly, the classic anti-free-speech arguments of "if you >> don't like it, start yer own" begin to surface. (Anyone ever notice >> how this resembles the "love it or leave it" mentality of certain >> American patriotic organizations?) >Governments maintain a monopoly on land, so the "love it or leave it" mentality >is flawed. Virtual space does not have the same limitations as physical >space. Starting your own mailing list is relatively easy. Not at all easy, for a lot of people. Moreover, it's very time-consuming. It's only easy if you are prepared to put up with costs of time, money, and also... service providers (who don't always agree with you)... In a lot of places in the world, starting mailing lists is almost impossible unless you can be _inside_ an Internet Provider Company (and use Unix or whatever they use, in their own machines). >> It is sad to note that this is the leader of one of America's >> forerunning organizations of freedom who says these words. For all >> *his* ideology of free speech, this statement reveals the hypocrasy he >> lives with for all to see. The true litmus test of free speech is to >> encounter speech that you *want* to censor. > >The EFF protects against government censorship, not against "editorial >control", "censorship", or whatever else you want to call it. I don't >see this as hypocritical at all. Perhaps cynical, though? :-) >> Mr. Gilmore, and other like minded parties, might want to consider >> what would happen if one parent company owned *all* communications >> media. Would they they be so supportive of the ideology of ownership >> and communciation they espouse? > >And just how plausible do you think this is? I believe it is next to >impossible, unless it is the result of government regulation. Man you're nutts. There are very few and quite vast Media Companies in the world, and they're on the verge of becoming monopolies. Even your American President is in reality a puppet of the Trilateral Commission, who effectively also control CNN, the Washington Post, and many many many other things all over the world. And you are saying that control of the media by ownership is impossible? You're far out maaan! :-) Only in America such a naive opinion could actually be _believed_. (here I go again... aga! :-) ) George P.S. Even if you offered me a million dollars I'd stay away from your country. My sanity is much more valuable. :-) (The Immigration Authorities in the U.S. have missed the point: We DON'T want to come to you guys. It's the last thing we'd want!)

3 2

Federal Reserve Bank is ILLEGAL?
by Doug Renner 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://feustel.mixi.net/GOV/DEPTS/fedres.html Most list members would be very interested in the above link.

4 6

The Key for the IPG 200 Megabytes at NETPRIVACY.COM
by wichita＠cyberstation.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In response to the numerous requests for us to post the key that we used to produce the almost 200 megabytes of raw encryptor stream at our web site, we are pleased to provide the ASCII values of same as follows: OFFSET 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 237 55 181 123 98 190 172 218 32 95 1 76 254 70 151 109 109 115 87 146 142 2 233 129 176 197 154 22 122 168 96 9 3 115 234 241 54 78 120 81 33 128 196 4 177 8 69 53 71 116 0 245 126 158 5 29 239 80 219 86 236 193 50 7 31 6 84 188 5 215 175 213 222 4 180 144 7 187 162 205 215 60 144 120 75 195 66 8 178 81 212 56 123 177 189 113 101 91 9 211 194 48 171 17 64 197 118 148 24 10 32 67 114 171 26 131 19 149 121 32 11 235 112 114 45 28 80 37 142 138 15 12 229 228 155 214 66 246 174 195 224 215 13 116 233 106 209 66 233 175 229 244 245 14 74 81 136 163 100 21 114 240 48 184 15 124 151 145 74 34 33 14 70 132 37 16 82 253 70 97 72 20 106 41 162 30 17 136 18 105 227 219 232 121 49 119 218 18 6 97 193 180 228 204 92 158 116 222 19 145 91 34 200 199 235 178 116 103 196 20 79 104 90 22 69 212 91 65 171 133 21 92 208 76 127 37 83 92 140 27 249 22 229 22 132 205 5 67 203 8 196 141 23 136 80 68 156 228 38 254 97 170 179 24 43 152 124 172 91 52 79 94 248 131 25 202 82 36 41 11 229 As explained at the web site, that key is expanded to an 8192 byte key and used as described therein. www.netprivacy.com In order for those few who have not had the opportunity to check it out, we will leave it up another week and then take it down and put up a new shorter one, maybe a 2,560,000 byte one permanently and a monthly 2,560,000 byte one where we publish the key each month. Of course, no university, coderpunk, or cypherpunk, or any collection of same, has broken the system, nor will they ever. As most of you now know, it is absolutely unbreakable. We have had over 100 universities, IBM, Microsoft, Intel, hundreds of other corporations, several dozen different government agencies, and thousands of other individuals to download the data and look at the algorithm. Of course, like everyone else, they have been benighted, even if some of them will not own up to it. Several people have requested me to provide a narrative description of the algorithm explaining why the raw encryptor output stream seems to be so remarkably random. I am preparing such a document and it should be ready next week, or the week after. I will post it accordingly. Thanks so very much, Don Wood

1 0

Re: A Disservice to Mr. Bell
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:19 PM 11/13/96 -0500, Phillip M. Hallam-Baker wrote: >Jim Bell writes > >> There are, I think, two reasons that the equity court system (and their >> sleazy lawyers, both on and off the bench) are worried. First, what they >> have now is, effectively, a monopoly on "justice." The re-emergence of >> commonlaw courts would provide competition that has been long gone. >Think >> of it like any monopoly that suddenly has to accept competition. > >A bunch of self selected whackos running a kangeroo court does not mark a >return to "commonlaw courts". As for the "self-selected" issue: In almost all areas of human endeavor, things are (often? usually?) done by people who are "self-selected." I suggest that there is simply no reason that even "self-selected" courts cannot work. And for the "wacko" part: To a great extent, the people who would tend to oppose the re-emergence of commonlaw courts are those who are the ones who most benefit from the monopoly (oligopoly?) on justice which has developed over many decades. Judges, prosecutors, and lawyers of course profit directly. But psychologically, people wedded to a statist philosophy would have their precious worlds overturned. They're not happy. Also: The reason for an (apparent, implied) association with extremism is, simply, because the system has been suppressed (actively or passively) for so long that it tends to be the "extremists" which most notice the possibilities of a commonlaw court. This is quite analogous with the fact that the label "extremists" was almost certainly applied to the revolutionaries who proposed the American Revolution, the abolition of slavery, giving the vote to women, pushed civil rights in the US during the 50's and 60's, etc. By definition, people proposing a change in the status quo are "extremists," if they weren't they wouldn't be proposing a change, huh?!? And this goes back to the "self-selected" issue above as well. While the main work of commonlaw courts, today, is the reversal of the abuses of the equity court system, as the commonlaw courts become once again well accepted they will simply not need to stand out and look "extreme" as they may look to you, today. > Such courts do not exist within the constitution >of the United States. Unlike the UK the US has a written constitution, if >it isn't written down on paper then it does not exist. You're obviously confused. 1. Commonlaw courts predate the US Constitution by a few hundred years. The former does not depend on the latter for authority or credibility. 2. The US Constitution is, at most, a statement of the authority of the FEDERAL portion of government. It is, arguably, only a statement of the powers granted to the Feds by the people; it is most certainly not intended to be a statement of every right retained by the people. (In fact, the 9th and 10th amendments make it clear that non-enumerated rights exist.) No authority over commonlaw courts (such as appointing judges) was given to the Feds by the people. 3. The Federal Constitution only references states, and I don't think it references state Constitutions at all. Yet clearly state Constitutions exist. Clearly, it isn't correct to say "if it isn't written down on paper then it does not exist." For example, people are not "written down on paper," yet they exist... > The structure of the courts, You should have said, SOME courts. Not "the courts," implying ALL the courts. Notice that the US Federal Constitution (at least, to my recollection) does not describe or regulate state courts, or for that matter local courts. Just Federal, which is as was intended. Given this, there is no reason to assume that commonlaw courts need to be described, authorized, or regulated by the Feds. If your argument is, "if it isn't defined by the Federal Constitution it doesn't exist," then you'd just destroyed your own argument. >the legislature and such was the principle task of the constitution, >that is why the bill of rights is a set of ammendments - they were an >afterthought. This has absolutely nothing to do with the commonlaw court system. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1