December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Financial Cryptography and the Theory of International Relations
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 15:32:34 -0500 From: Robert Hettinga <rah(a)shipwright.com> Subject: Financial Cryptography and the Theory of International Relations X-Sender: rah(a)pop.tiac.net To: IRTHEORY_LIST <irtheory_list(a)unimelb.edu.au> MIME-version: 1.0 Somebody asked me, regarding my posting here of the Digital Commerce Society of Boston meeting announcement (DCSB: Money Laundering -- The Headless Horseman of the Infocalypse): >Yes, I would like you to explain. Just what does this have to do with the >theory of international relations? People like the attorney "Black Unicorn" are interested in the international application of the technology of strong cryptography; in particular, strong financial cryptography. See <http://www.vmeng.com/rah/>, for pointers to more information on this, which I include here by reference. The short answer is, what happens if nation states can't fund themselves anymore because the cheapest transaction method available (cheaper by several orders of magnitude in lowered transaction and distribution costs) involves anonymous digital "cash" settlement? To quote something someone said in a Harvard Law seminar list a couple of years ago, "What happens when taxes become a tip?". The strongest financial cryptography protocols (like those invented by David Chaum of Digicash, or Mark Manasse of DEC, or Adi Shamir of RSA) use no book-entries whatsoever, which means no audit trails, which in turn means no book-entry taxes, like, say, those on income, or capital gains, or sales. In addition, what happens when we can effect the sale of financial assets with the digital equivalent of old-fashioned bearer certificates, which use the same cryptographic technology? The centralization of capital markets may become a thing of the past. Centralized markets for *anything* may become a thing of the past. The nation-state's ability to reallocate income, criminally, ala Amin or Mobutu, or otherwise, is severely limited in this scenario, certainly. :-). With anonymous voting protocols, you can have anonymous (or, more correctly, perfectly pseudonymous) control of financial assets. Possible damage to one's reputation (pseudonymous or not) works just fine to prevent the non-repudiation of cash-settled transactions, so the power of nation states aren't even necessary to regulate commerce, really. The only thing left that nation states do is physical security, or the "rational" application of force, which can probably be handled privately, particularly if nation states can't command the payment of taxes for this service anyway. Which brings me to the current discussion here about the imploding pseudo-states of Africa. What we're witnessing right now is the re-emergence of tribal groups as the common political denominator. Nation states based on those groups are likely. However, I also expect that this process of literal dis-integration will continue, but recursively, as it becomes more and more possible for ordinary people to use information (like asset pricing, the returns on those assets, or the technical knowlege to profitably control those assets) once only found at the top of large industrial hierarchies like multinatioal corporations and nation states. That information will be applied to smaller and smaller economic units as processor prices continue to fall. That is, large groups of the same ethnic nationality will be created on the rubble of the old colonial boundries, which the cold war propped up for the last 50 years. However, those large groups will continue to factionalize as access to western-style economic activity increases. The continuing ubiquity of the internet can only increase this process, especially if the promise of financial cryptography survives the test of economic reality. I expect that as financial technology like the above is introduced, the ability of political and business elites to hold together large hierarchical entities, like the modern nation-state or multinational corporation, will continue to deminish. The ability for anyone to get paid for their work, no matter where they are, and to work where they live, probably in a peer-to-peer economic relationship with the buyer of their work, who may well live on the other side of the world, will create much less reliance on geography as capital, which were the hallmarks both agrarianism and industrialism. Both of which, by the way, created cities, and then the nation state, in the first place. Whew. Clear as mud. Oh, well. Besides stirring things up more than a little bit, does that answer your question? ;-). Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "The cost of anything is the foregone alternative" -- Walter Johnson The e$ Home Page: http://www.vmeng.com/rah/ --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "The cost of anything is the foregone alternative" -- Walter Johnson The e$ Home Page: http://www.vmeng.com/rah/

1 0

Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
by Dave Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> It's not a way of saying I don't understand. Instead, I find your > viewpoint incomprehensible and internally inconsistent. Which, of course, means that there is nothing to understand...for you. However, I do observe that there are meanings in things I, myself, find both incomprehensible and inconsistent. Just because I am unable to understand does not mean that there is no understanding to be had. I am not that important. Are you? > In fact, you Freedom Knight folks seem to be closet censors yourself. Why > do you support not carrying newsgroups like alt.config? I never have supported or opposed alt.config. I have said that it is meaningless, but that was after I understood its purpose. ;-) > Yes, ownership gives you a license to censor. I'm going to have a party in > my home a few weeks from now. If I don't like what someone is doing, I'll > kick 'em out. I won't do it lightly, but I will fight for my right to do > so. Of course, you may invite anyone you choose, since a party is usually had by inviting people whom you select. If you invite them and then subsequently kick them out when they do things you do not want them to do, I will chastise -you- (if I am present) for your lack of judgement in whom to invite. Their behavior would merely something to learn from, yours would be fashionably dishonorable. BTW, "Kicking them out" is not censorship. A party and a mailing list are usually two different things. The former may include the latter, but the latter is not anything like the former. > Oh, and I plan to subscribe to the freedom-knights mailing list and infest > it the way Vulis did cypherpunks. Every hour, on the hour, a crontab > script will flood it with rants about Dave (fart) Hayes. You won't do this, because I won't let you on the list. I, unlike you or Mr. Gilmore, have the judgement on whom to invite to my list. > What will you do then? Even if you did such a thing, I have a mail filter. Your messages would be unceremoniously discarded. Have you learned nothing from USENET? ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet Ask the American public if they want an FBI Wiretax and they'll say 'no.' If you ask them do they want a feature on their phone that helps the FBI find their missing child they'll say, 'Yes.'" - FBI Directory Louis Freeh, on Digital Telephony, US House (Subcmte. on Telecommunications & Finance) hearing on the Digital Telephony bill, 09/13/94).

3 2

Re: take me off your mailing list
by AwakenToMe＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 96-11-13 18:35:35 EST, FWJZ05A(a)prodigy.com (CLERK PHILLIP G ROBERTS) writes: << unsubcribe cypherpunks >> Ok.. thisd is IT! Im going to start keeping a log of how many people actually spell unsubscribe wrong. God.. I thought the average person was more literate. Id HATE to ask these people how to spell wednesday or arkansas

1 0

Re: [TEST] [IGNORE] [NOISE]
by Bryondp＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

take me off this fucking list

2 1

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

17 Dec '03

At 07:31 PM 11/12/96 -0800, Detweiler/VZ Nuri wrote: >actually, there are some amusing things going on here with cpunk >"rules." are cpunks in favor of pseudonyms or not? one famous >cpunk madman wrote under a pseudonym to the list, and many >cypherpunk went to great lengths to try to derive his identity. >is this a case of respecting pseudonyms? or is it more a case of >the double standard at best, hypocrisy at worst, >"respect my pseudonyms, but yours are fair game"? You've neglected to mention that your (e.g., "the madman's") messages were criticizing the use of pseudonyms, and the use of more than one identity by an individual person. You've also neglected to mention that you (a single person) were using multiple identities to argue that multiple identities were harmful. In general, you're conflating several positions: 1. Fluid identities (e.g., imprecise or unregulated mapping between personas and flesh-and-blood bodies) cannot be prevented; 2. Fluid identities should be tolerated; 3. Fluid identities should be encouraged. >one noted proponent of pseudonymity, whom we will merely call "Timmy", >regularly takes great glee in misattributing my own posts to some >deranged crackpot running loose in cyberspace. is this a case >of respecting my identity? suppose I really was this person-- >shouldn't Timmy's position be one of respect for my use of >a pseudonym? I can't speak for Tim, but your messages do cause me to consider these ethical questions - e.g., is it more important to focus on what you've argued (that multiple identities are bad), or what you're doing (using multiple identities), or on a "politeness" principle, e.g., that gentle[wo]men don't reveal each other's identities. Arguments about a "right to be pseudonymous" are as problematic as the recent "free speech" arguments, where the identity of the right isn't so much in question as is who it is enforceable against - e.g., I can't force someone else to let me use their stuff to speak freely. Can I force someone else (not only with law, but with appeals to morality or contract or politeness or other forms of nongovernmental regulation) to address me by a chosen pseudonym, or prevent them from linking multiple identities? I think there is (or should be) a "politeness norm" which limits linking between identities, just as I see one which limits the disclosure of other personal data; I don't give out other people's home phone numbers to third parties, I don't pass along the identity of a person's "significant other" or home address, and otherwise try to let each person choose how much they want to disclose about their personal lives to the rest of the world. And I hope that they will do the same for me. It's not especially unusual for folks on the list to use abbreviated or pseudonymous identities; but the "strength" of these is limited as we meet each other in person, do business with each other, etc. It's difficult to form a strong relationship without getting to know others, but it's difficult to preserve privacy and let someone get to know you. A principle which preserves both values (privacy and disclosure) seems useful. But I also think that politeness norms are limited in their applicability - in particular, I also think it's useful to subject other people to the rules they propose should be applicable to everyone. This is a good way to try out proposed rules, and in some cases to help people understand why their rules are stupid. You have written that the use of pseudonyms and multiple identities is wrong. So I think it's reasonable to expect you to live up to the standards you've argued should be applied to all people. So you don't get the benefit (at least from me) of the politeness norms about pseudonyms. If you've changed your mind about the morality of "pseudospoofing", by all means, let me know. I believe that you are familiar with the "subject others to their own rules" rule, because it is the rule you're using/have used to justify your use of multiple identities, hmm? >the basic >cpunk philosophy, as amply illustrated by 2/3 of its founders, is >"look out for #1 only, and don't waste time on something as >inane as selfless public service or leadership" I suspect you intended this as some sort of indictment, but I don't know if you'll get a lot of disagreement (or even surprise). This philosophy seems to be at the core of much libertarian thought and free-market economics, two themes which are popular on the list. I think it's far too old-fashioned to qualify as "cypherpunk", but you're in the wrong place if you're hoping to insult someone by saying that. -- Greg Broiles | "In this court, appellant and respondent are the gbroiles(a)netbox.com | same person. Each party has filed a brief." http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Lodi v. Lodi, 173 Cal.App.3d 628, 219 Cal. | Rptr. 116 (3rd Dist, 1985)

1 0

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

Re: Dossier on Tim May is Easily Obtainable
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:11 PM 11/13/96 -0600, Rick Smith wrote: ... >Records retrieved from [SOURCE DELETED] also show that the young Timothy >Christopher May exploited his interest in physics for destructive purposes, >like elaborate pranks involving fictious weaponry and national security >information. [INFORMATION DELETED FOR NATIONAL SECURITY REASONS -- ORCON >U31 -- OADR FOR RECLASSIFICATION] > >However, more careful investigators have uncovered evidence to suggest that >this was not entirely a prank. Records from [SOURCE DELETED] indicate that >the young Timothy Christopher May purchased a huge gap magnet from Edmund >Scientific Company and also produced science fair project titled "Ball >Lightning: A Stable Plasma?" Investigators suspect the timing of these >events is not a coincidence. ... Ball lightning? Plasma weapon? Could I have a copy of the schematics? I've long been interested in obtaining (purchasing, building) a plasma weapon. (I'm also been interested in obtaining a EM pulse cannon, but that's a different story.)

2 1

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

17 Dec '03

At 10:14 PM 11/11/96 -0600, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: >This is an interesting topic. I apologize if my questions are too trivial, >but here they are: > > 1) Can a person without an SSN have a credit record? Some > may say that a credit record is a bad thing to have, > but I am still interested in a possibility. If you have a credit history you can have a credit record with or without an SSN. Millions of foreigners have credit histories without SSNs BTW. Millions of people with wrong or false SSNs also have credit histories. The SSA decided a few years ago not to let the credit reporting agencies check the validity of the SSNs in their records with the SSNs in the SSA database. > 2) Will private lenders (such as credit card issuers or > mortgage companies) agree to extend credit to a person > without an SSN or to someone who refuses to give out his SSN? Not if they are in America but those outside America will. False SSN's may work though falsifying mortgage applications (with a federally insured bank) may be a crime. Individuals can also grant mortgages however and are free to do so without using an SSN. > 3) Will the state issue a driver's license to someone who does not > have/does not wish to give out their SSN? Those states that don't require SSNs will of course. Some (most?) states that require SSNs don't validate them. Canadian provinces don't require US SSNs to issue licenses. > 4) Will states' police (where applicable) approve purchases of > firearms if purchasers do not state their ssn (misstating it > may be a crime) on an application? It's been so long since I bought from a dealer. Do the current federal forms have a place for SSN? > 5) Employers are required to pay certain taxes and therefore > they, in my understanding, need to know their employees SSNs. > How can people get around that (unless they do not need to work)? Lie, be self employed, or be employed by a foreign entity. They won't be able to verify until the new Instant Check Right to Work Verification scheme that the Feds are testing breaks wide. Then it's self-employment -- better for you in any case. > 6) Can someone without an SSN obtain various kinds of insurance? Some kinds. Again, the numbers are rarely verified. Over the years, I've only seen one number be bounced back and that was submitted to a bank by a person who did not vet the number for facial validity. If one institution turns you down, go to another. >Say, John Anonymous is a young 15 years old who anticipates to become an >engineer and have a middle class life. He wants to get married, No problem (unless his fiance wants to run a credit check). Even if the marriage license app wants an SSN, just say you're a foreigner with no SSN. Foreigners can still marry in America. Even if you also state on the same form that you were born in the US, you could still be a foreigner who's never really lived here. "My father was the Canadian Ambassador at the time." >have children Still accomplished by unskilled labor totally without an SSN. >drive a car Put hands on wheel and foot on gas. Trivial. Lie or get a foreign license. UK licenses are good for decades. A dozen states (or so) still let you operate a motor vehicle sans public liability insurance BTW and non-drivers, corporations, other entities, in fact anyone or anything can own a car. You can drive a car owned by something/someone else. >obtain insurance Lie. Or get insurance from a nice Swiss company. >work at some big company, A lot less of that going around these days. Giving a false SSN may or may not be caught. Large companies often do credit checks these days but you will probably survive. If you're working at a large company as a contractor or temp of course, your small agency may not have checked you out much. You can satisfy the I9 form requirements for proving right to work by flashing your passport BTW and you can still get a passport without supplying an SSN (in spite of the law). >travel around the world No problem. The ICAO record format for the nice little machine readable strip on passports *does* have space to place a National ID Number, but the standards do not require that a nation issue a National ID Number and fill that block. The UK and the US and others have (so far) not done so. The US legislation (effective January 1988) that the Passport Office's Application ask you for your SSN and forward info on refusenicks to the Treasury Department for a possible $500 fine, specifically says that failure to provide the number shall not be grounds for refusal by State to issue a passport. In practice, Treasury has not fined anyone. >invest in mutual funds or buy stocks Lie, have a corporation or trust you control buy, buy overseas or via Canada, etc. >Reliance on government help is not important to him, so he would not >apply for an SSN solely to get Social Security, welfare and such. > >His parents are cypherpunks and did not obtain an SSN for John. How much >effort would it cost him to live a life outlined above? Less effort that cross country skiing (in calories burned). May even provide similar recreational value depending on John's ideology. DCF "You're real smart. I bet you never forget your Social Security Number. What's your Social Security Number"? -- The Susan Sarandon character in "Atlantic City" "I don't have a Social Security Number." -- The Burt Lancaster character in "Atlantic City"

1 0

Re: A Disservice to Mr. Bell
by hallam＠vesuvius.ai.mit.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

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". 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. The structure of the courts, 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. I think the courts are worried the way a truck driver is worried about roadkill. Its always the agent-provocateurs who are the loudest voices. If I was an FBI agent looking to snare a few pillocks I would be trolling in cypherpunks with an AP like story. I would also be boasting about my knowing about people in hiding... If Bell and Thorn are Freeh's agents then would they kindly bugger off and find another place to troll. Alternatively they could arrest each other. Phill

2 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