December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Check out today's Salon
by Martin Minow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There's an article on Phil Zimmerman in today's Salon http://www.salon1999.com/news/newsreal.html Martin.

2 1

Re: Redlining
by Matthew J. Miszewski 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 03:05 AM 12/11/96 -0700, drose(a)azstarnet.com wrote: >Many people of good will find racial discrimination to be abhorrent. OTOH, >I'm sure that as an attorney you are cognizant of the fact that financial >institutions have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. Are you suggesting that a fiduciary responsibility is violated by *not* redlining? I stated before that all *real* qualifying factors remain in force. The only irrelevant method to be eliminated is place of residence. Granted, if a certain bank only made loans through direct mail campaigns or some such, an argument *might* be made that risks are higher in certain residential neighborhoods. Breach of fiduciary duty would be thrown out almost immediately as a claim. > >In any case, have you given any consideration to taking your well-meaning >but off-topic thoughts to any one of a number of perhaps more appropriate fora? > Actually, I mentioned redlining as an aside to a totally different point. Red has asserted, and I tend to agree, that this is actually on point. We are discussing the possibilities of crypto anarchy. Matt -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMq8U4bpijqL8wiT1AQG+KgP9GOTcxgKTqR+AgUf2qiRjO97kV+QdQ7Tq 6PZIjQYmgSM6YS5Yg75A8iSD2soi9ZFfEM++6TGHqCZ1ViLpNTuQZJGjxB3mUs8D U5eYiPmUEw9NC0z0CCwIPFyxouWtL4lhG3rUEopLuUuqB1OwPkbShIddkGxYRnqt prsuIc6m314= =zUqA -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

The Redlining Topic
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:05 AM 12/11/1996, drose(a)AZStarNet.com wrote: >Matthew J. Miszewski wrote: >Many people of good will find racial discrimination to be abhorrent. >OTOH, I'm sure that as an attorney you are cognizant of the fact that >financial institutions have a fiduciary responsibility to their >shareholders. > >In any case, have you given any consideration to taking your >well-meaning but off-topic thoughts to any one of a number of perhaps >more appropriate fora? A discussion of redlining is very much on topic for cypherpunks. Capital markets and their (alleged) inefficiencies are very close to the heart of cypherpunk thinking. A thread we haven't pursued, but will likely get to, is the ways in which inefficiencies are typically introduced by the government, even in the case of redlining. After that point is made, a discussion of the ways in which cryptoanarchy will circumvent governmental scheming will certainly be germane to this forum. Discussions of the nature of bigotry and racial discrimination lie very close to the cypherpunk thinking. In a cryptoanarchy it will be very hard to enforce our ideas of what other people should think. Affirmative action, anti-redlining laws, etc., will likely become far less effective. Disaster? No, a blow struck for human dignity and freedom. Similarly, allegedly well-meaning programs to help the poor through seizure of other people's assets will not do well in a cryptoanarchy. Is this a terrible outcome? Not really. The reasons why are worth discussing and they are worth discussing in this forum. The cypherpunks list benefits from a wide ranging discussion. This was one of the original ideas of the group and is, presumably, why it is a completely open mailing list. These sorts of complaints are particularly inappropriate now that there are two other restrictive mailing lists available for those who want them. One is coderpunks. The other is Perry Metzger's cryptography list. A wide ranging discussion is beneficial because it allows us to truly explore our ideas. Not only do we then achieve a deeper understanding, but completely new ideas also arise. "Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools of thought contend." I note that in your comments above, you couldn't resist making a comment which is, apparently in your view, off topic. I would encourage you to pursue these ideas. You obviously find them interesting. Rather than making killjoy comments, which do nothing to promote the discussion, perhaps you should consider posting long thoughtful posts which you believe would raise the level of discourse in this forum. Barring that, learn how to use a killfile. You can killfile on subject line. You can killfile on origin. (I sign my posts consistenly, so they can be killfiled, even though I am posting through the remailers.) Red Rackham

1 0

Re: Redlining
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 9:04 AM 12/10/1996, Black Unicorn wrote: >On Tue, 10 Dec 1996, Huge Cajones Remailer wrote: >> I believe that ten, or a hundred, or a thousand people should be able >> to pool their money and lend it to whomever they please for whatever >> reason they like. >> >> That, essentially, is what a bank is. I do not believe the government >> should dictate which people you, or your bank, are allowed to lend to. > >Create a bank where the identity of the customers are unknown and you >solve the redlining problem. I can imagine a bank whose depositors are not known. I can also imagine a bank which itself operates anonymously. How would people borrow money against real estate and remain anonymous? It seems to me that the borrower cannot do so if the real estate will act as collateral. Also, how would an anonymous bank foreclose on a mortgage? Red Rackham

3 2

Re: Redlining
by Douglas Barnes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Another interesting aspect -- there's been huge growth in the "making loans to folks with non-traditional or bad credit histories" market recently, as the market for folks with good credit histories has become saturated. This has been done largely by various NBFIs operating outside of the normal "bank" structure, and specializing in certain kinds of consumer loans. It is vitally important to realize that to a bank, a loan is a "product," that they "sell" to customers. It is how the bank makes money. If the market is operating properly, irrational refusals to loan on the part of some institutions will create a market opportunity for other institutions. The problem with banking & financial services is that they are already so heavily regulated, and the barrier to entry is so high, that the market seldom operates properly. Thus we see _more_ regulation piled on (such as the CCRI) to address the problems that come about from the previous piling-on of regulations. When there is little competition between banks, this creates a situation which, viewed in isolation, seems "unfair" to those at the fringes of the loan market. The superficial answer to this problem is to force banks to lend in areas that are less profitable for them than their traditional areas -- at this point banks almost begin to resemble monopoly public utilities, which, when you look at the regulations they operate under, is almost the case. The more enlightened answer is to back off enough on the regulation so that marginal loan markets become attractive business opportunities, and any truly irrational lending practices (e.g. based on race) lead directly to losing business to a competitor. Doug At 11:31 AM 12/11/96 EDT, you wrote: >From: IN%"mjmiski(a)execpc.com" "Matthew J. Miszewski" 11-DEC-1996 03:52:03.23 > >>This is the essence of, at least, my disagreement with you Red. I dont >>agree that redlining doesnt harm people. You see no harm. I do. > > Of course redlining causes harm to those who are redlined... they >can't get credit. But the same can be said of any system of keeping >track of who is likely to repay credit; it means that someone who has >defaulted on past loans won't get future ones. Quite simply, while I >would agree with you that racism certainly persists (it would be >difficult for me to grow up in the South and not see this), I would >argue that you have no evidence for that the basic motivation behind >redlining is that the people in such areas are less likely to repay >credit. > -Allen >

1 0

Harddisk encryption ??
by Pavel Korensky 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello, I am trying to post this message once more. It seems that my first message somehow didn't find the way to the mail-list. I have one problem which I would like to consult with you. I need to protect the data on the computer harddisk against physical theft. Current situation: Computer with several harddisks - approx. 9 GB. On this computer, the following OS are used: Linux, DOS, Windows NT. The data on this computer must be accessible from all operating systems. Encryption of files must be transparent to user and encryption algorithm must be "strong". Because I am not able to find any disk encryption software which is able to run on all these platforms, I decided to use the following temporary solution: Add one more computer with Linux OS. On this computer, there will be only a small root partition with necessary Linux components. All other disk space will be encrypted with IDEA, using the /dev/loop. This machine will be some kind of secure file server. On the second machine, where the user works, there will be partitions with operating systems, necessary utilities and the TCP/IP stack for DOS/Windows, NT and Linux. The data and application disks will be mounted via NFS and user will work with files from file server. The computers will be interconnected with Fast Ethernet. This mini-network is NOT connected to the Internet, so the NFS (in)security should not be a problem. Also, both computers will be placed in the same room (distance approx. 3 m), so there should be no problem with tapping/data capturing on the Fast Ethernet connection. I have the following questions. Can anybody see some major security hole in this system ? How fast will be this system ? Anybody has any idea if there is some more sophisticated solution for this problem ? Anybody heard about some strong disk encryption which is able to rund under Windows NT, Linux and DOS ? It seems that the Win NT are the major problem. I am not able to find any disk encryption for NT. Anybody is able to port Secure File System to Windows NT ? I am trying to port this program under Linux, but I am not the NT system programmer. Thanx for any comments, help, ideas etc. Best regards PavelK -- **************************************************************************** * Pavel Korensky (pavelk(a)dator3.anet.cz) * * DATOR3 Ltd., Modranska 1895/17, 143 00 Prague 4, Czech Republic * * PGP key fingerprint: 00 65 5A B3 70 20 F1 54 D3 B3 E4 3E F8 A3 5E 7C * ****************************************************************************

3 2

Re: Redlining
by E. Allen Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"mjmiski(a)execpc.com" "Matthew J. Miszewski" 11-DEC-1996 03:35:52.25 >My question was a real one. The basis of it comes from my work with the >homeless in which they have a difficult time getting a job because they >have no "home address" to put on the forms, some do not have or remember >their SSNs, etc. This causes a cyclic problem for the homeless. My >question to Tim was, in the real world, how is the protection of this data >feasible. And what institution ultimately requires the SSN and a considerable number of these other pieces of information? What institution puts a considerable number of roadblocks in the way of getting a post office box, for use as a home address, without a "home address"? >I do have responses to each of your "points" in your last post, but have >found the process of responding point-by-point tedious and non-productive If you've got such responses, please give them. They may very well be tedious; I'd disagree about them being non-productive, based on my past experience. Without such responses from you to some very well-reasoned arguments, we are left with the equivalent of the Feds on cryptography, i.e., "if you knew what we know you'd agree with us." -Allen

2 1

Commerce Crypto Export Regs
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forward from: cyberia-l(a)listserv.aol.com Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 11:55:52 -0800 From: Cindy Cohn <Cindy(a)MCGLASHAN.COM> Subject: Draft of Commerce Department Crypto Regs Steptoe and Johnson have kindly posted the draft Commerce Department regulations on encryption exports at http://www.steptoe.com/commerce.htm. [Snip] If you have trouble getting through, we've mirrored this document at: http://jya.com/commerce.htm

1 0

Re: Redlining
by Matthew J. Miszewski 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Red, I will not re-quote and rehash the argument thus far. You do have a knack to ignore strong points (although admittedly not all) of your opponent in an argument. Additionally, I am not trying to show anyone that you are a "bad person". I was trying to carry-on civil discourse. I know you really feel that you had no part in disrupting the discourse we started out in, I disagree. My original point, in fact, was taken out of context and so: At 10:50 AM 12/3/1996, Matthew J. Miszewski wrote: >(snip) >>(Just for the record, what the hypothetical insurance companies and >>employers are doing by using data they have obtained should not, in >>a free society, be illegal in any way. All information contributes >>to decision-making, about loans, credit, insurance, employment, etc. >>In a free society, it is up to people to not disclose that which >>they do not wish remembered.) > >While the libertarians on the list have affected my way of looking at >regulation I, and others, do not subscribe (suscribe ;)) to Tim's >absolute theory. Unless, of course, by free society Tim is refering >to one where corporations hold themselves to a level of "personal" >responsibility, which in many realms is part of any definition of >"free". > >Take, for example, the practice of redlining. How are people who live in >"bad" neighborhoods supposed to not reveal that information. My question was a real one. The basis of it comes from my work with the homeless in which they have a difficult time getting a job because they have no "home address" to put on the forms, some do not have or remember their SSNs, etc. This causes a cyclic problem for the homeless. My question to Tim was, in the real world, how is the protection of this data feasible. As I discuss briefly at the end of this post, I also was pointing out my differing opinion on the meaning of "free society". You responded in your last post thus: >While you did not state it explicitly, in the context above I >interpreted this to mean that you supported laws which restricted the >use banks make of information they obtain from their clients. This is a factual summary of my opinion but has absolutely nothing to do with my post (I *never* mentioned support or opposition of such laws. It also has nothing to do with my opinions on cryptography or privacy (which you also criticized in your last post). I do have responses to each of your "points" in your last post, but have found the process of responding point-by-point tedious and non-productive (maybe less productive than the time I have to give to the exercise, I was not intending on placing a value judgement on it). So that you can understand my position (in case your sarcasm was not really turned up that high) I will outline it more succinctly below. You are quite right. We disagree. As the topic quickly wandered from the original post on privacy concerns to racial discrimination, I will address that. I apologize to the list (for those that find it irrelevant), but I can not reply directly to Red. - ----- I, personally, find racial discrimination to be a problem in the USA. Not only do I find it a moral problem, but it has adverse effects on markets and the efficiency of these same markets. It is costly not only in personal measures, but in economical terms as well. As a way to address these concerns, holistically, moral concerns as well as economic concerns, I do support limited regulation specifically tailored to address this problem. One of the means of addressing only one specific aspect of this problem is to legislatively restrict the practice of redlining. - ----- I do expect many on the list to disagree with me. They will disagree that racism exists (some). They will disagree that it is morally wrong. They will disagree that it affects markets in any way. They will assert that legislative restrictions are far worse than industry self-policing. More will disagree that the government has any business regulating the area. As I had stated simply before, I disagree. Personally, because of the life I have led, I draw my line here. Others draw it elsewhere. Some dont draw it. (at one time in my life, i fought for not drawing the line. Thru painful learning experiences and reality checks - long arguments over several months and too much coffee - I decided that I would not want to live in a libertarian's ideal society. This decision was based on my perception that it just wouldnt work in reality. I am well aware others will differ. Maybe we can pursue that thread.) Matt -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMq5T/7pijqL8wiT1AQEycgP/bo6zV8B+DySD62zLMz6jYHiJeiW2XYkH UVO+Ixyl8ogRuZOTo09pF1+6X8olT5mCY2SxYb6z43UUDZDHhwT+A/8qc8WdF3la HCiJ2scterzYdh113Jn3M4TQomakuU1wY36nZzldMN5B2iIyRmAvRynPRYA+0I51 q06tPm36eq8= =q3zf -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Draft of Commerce Department Crypto Regs (fwd)
by David Lesher / hated by RBOC's in 5 states 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Cindy Cohn <Cindy(a)MCGLASHAN.COM> Subject: Draft of Commerce Department Crypto Regs via: CYBERIA-L(a)LISTSERV.AOL.COM Steptoe and Johnson have kindly posted the draft Commerce Department regulations on encryption exports at http://www.steptoe.com/commerce.htm. Of most interest to those of us concerned about the First Amendment is the provision which eliminates the "publicly available" exception to the EAR and states "controlled software will not be eligible for "publicly available" treatment, even if the source code or object code is published in a book or other mdia." It also eliminates the exceptions for educational information and fundamental research contained in the EAR for source code and object code. I haven't had a chance to review the rest in any detail. Cindy ************************ Cindy A. Cohn McGlashan & Sarrail, P. C. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz(a)nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

1 0