December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

History of radio regulation; scrutiny of elected officials
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 18:31:25 -0800 (PST) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: politech(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: History of radio regulation; scrutiny of elected officials Attached below are excerpts from two Supreme Court cases. The first, NBC v. U.S. (1943), I read this week for a communications law class I'm auditing. The portion I'll include here deals with the history of radio (and I'm aware that there are revisionist histories that appear to be more accurate, or at least tell more of the truth). But I couldn't help thinking of the domain name disputes while reading it. Excerpt from National Broadcasting Co. v. U.S. (1943) ...The number of stations multiplied so rapidly, however, that by November, 1925, there were almost 600 stations in the country, and there were 175 applications for new stations. Every channel in the standard broadcast band was, by that time, already occupied by at least one station, and many by several. The new stations could be accommodated only by extending the standard broadcast band, at the expense of the other types of services, or by imposing still greater limitations upon time and power. The National Radio Conference which met in November, 1925, opposed both of these methods and called upon Congress to remedy the situation through legislation. The Secretary of Commerce was powerless to deal with the situation. It had been held that he could not deny a license to an otherwise legally qualified applicant on the ground that the proposed station would interfere with existing private or Government stations. And on April 16, 1926, an Illinois district court held that the Secretary had no power to impose restrictions as to frequency, power, and hours of operation, and that a station's use of a frequency not assigned to it was not a violation of the Radio Act of 1912. This was followed on July 8, 1926, by an opinion of Acting Attorney General Donovan that the Secretary of Commerce had no power, under the Radio Act of 1912, to regulate the power, frequency or hours of operation of stations. The next day the Secretary of Commerce issued a statement abandoning all his efforts to regulate radio and urging that the stations undertake self-regulation. But the plea of the Secretary went unheeded. From, July, 1926, to February 23, 1927, when Congress enacted the Radio Act of 1927, 44 Stat. 1162, almost 200 new stations went on the air. These new stations used any frequencies they desired, regardless of the interference thereby caused to others. Existing stations changed to other frequencies and increased their power and hours of operation at will. The result was confusion and chaos. With everybody on the air, nobody could be heard. The situation became so intolerable that the President in his message of December 7, 1926, appealed to Congress to enact a comprehensive radio law... Which gave us the predecessor of today's FCC. The question, of course, is if the justification for the FCC was to eliminate chaos, why did the agency not just stop there? Why the indecency rules, must-carry regs, fairness doctrine, overseeing network-station relationships, and so on? -Declan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 14:41:10 -0500 From: Marc Rotenberg <rotenberg(a)epic.org> To: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> Subject: From the Brandeis File Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizens. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperilled if it fails observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, omnipresent teacher. For good or ill, it teaches the whole people by example. Crime is contageous. If the government becomes a lawbreaker; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means -- to declare that the government may commit crimes to secure the conviction of a private criminal -- would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face. Olmstead v. US (1928) You remember Brandeis. He's the person who argued for the *right* of privacy. Hardly a surprise, therefore, that he would be so outspoken on the abuse of government authority. Marc.

2 1

More on U.S. government and domain names
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 18:40:07 -0800 (PST) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: politech(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: More on U.S. government and domain names [In the way of self-promotion: Yesterday I taped a CSPAN program on online journalism and Internet regulation. It's airing on CSPAN 1/30 at 7 pm, CSPAN2 at 1/31 at 10 am, and CSPAN 2/2 at 5 pm. I'll also be on National Empowerment Television (NET-TV) on Monday 2/2 around 10:15 pm to talk about encryption regulation. Also tomorrow on PBS Technopolitics (airing here at 11:30 am on WETA 26), the topic is crypto. I believe the guests are NAM's David Peyton and Commerce Dept's William Reinsch. --Declan] ********** Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 12:58:11 -0800 From: John Gilmore <gnu(a)toad.com> To: declan(a)well.com, gnu(a)toad.com Subject: Netrape Screwlootions begins operations under US Government plan In response to the publication of the US Government's plan to provide long-term stable operation of the Internet domain name system, we have an announcement. Today we are forming a new company, Netrape Screwlootions, Inc. We claim the domain names ".net", ".rape", ".screw", ".lootions", and ".inc", but will settle for ".screw" in the short term. We have a climate-controlled 24-hour operation center deep in the bowels of the earth, with plenty of spare energy. Though there are no ethical standards required for assignment of a government-controlled domain name, we assure you that we meet the highest ethical standards for the lowest place. We have extensive connections in all parts of the Government, especially the White House, which will guarantee our rightful place in the selection of appropriate organizations to manage the transition from public service to throttled competition and then to the heavenly free Internet envisioned by the plan. We meet all the necessary requirements. Everyone is welcome, and we are open 24 hours a day and 365 days a year. We have standardized on high-quality Lucifer encryption for all our accesses. We have multiple high-speed connections to the upper world, and we daily make an archive of all our customers so that they can be resuscitated for continuing operations if they are accidentally destroyed. Our searchable database of customers is maintained by the Perl-y Gates himself. The first one is always free with us, including our software. Our number of global zones of service is completely adequate, providing non-denominational worldwide access to our facilities. Our management policies have been reviewed by the very highest authorities. We assure you that our technical staff is very expert in its machinations, and we offer them constant practice to refine their skills. We have created alternate dispute resolution for trademark-related complaints. This process does not involve the time, expense, and pain of litigation. Instead, our process involves sending trademark lawyers and domain scammers to the deepest part of our operations center, where their thresholds will be studied by the application of delicate instruments that have taken centuries to perfect. The party who screams the loudest will prevail, as usual. Innocent domain users would be inconvenienced by the use of this procedure, but we do not expect any innocent users to actually register domain names. Both sides in the trademark debate assure us that all domain names infringe trademarks and that all trademark owners are slavering monsters. Our level of security is the best. No-one gets past the guards who protect our portals, and we have been in operation for millennia. No malicious hacker has ever escaped us in the long term. We definitely provide a "hot switchover" capability. We have extensive experience with fires, earthquakes, tornadoes, arson, bombs, and other acts of God and War. It is often said that one's soul is visible in one's face, and what else could be called the public face of a company but its name? Your name will be safe with us. Our prices are quite low, certainly no more than the price of a small mass of pottage. We will be glad to register your ...name with us, and when the appropriate time comes, you will then know our true prices. We are looking forward to it. Moo-haa-haaaaaaaaaa....... ************ Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 12:00:01 -0500 From: Keith Dawson <dawson(a)world.std.com> To: declan(a)well.com Cc: politech(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Re: FC: U.S. gvt plan to fully privatize the Internet At 10:15 AM -0500 1/30/98, Declan McCullagh wrote: >The Clinton administration has released its long-awaited >plan to privatize the central nervous system of the >Internet. Declan -- nice summary. See my initial analysis at http://www.tbtf.com/index.html#tbotoday . **** Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 14:43:22 -0500 From: Mikki Barry <ooblick(a)netpolicy.com> Subject: A-TCPIP/DNRC Press Release Re: Green Paper Press Release January 30, 1998 Contacts: Mikki Barry President, A-TCPIP/ Domain Name Rights Coalition P.O. Box 25876 Alexandria, VA 22313-5876 703.925-0282 Email: ooblick(a)netpolicy.com Harold Feld, Esq. c/o Covington & Burling 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. P.O. Box 7566 Washington, D.C. 20044-7566 202.662-5132 Email: hfeld(a)domain-name.org or hfeld(a)cov.com HERNDON, VA - The Association for the Creation and Propagation of Internet Policies (A-TCPIP) and its working group the Domain Name Rights Coalition (DNRC) welcome the release of the Commerce Department's Green Paper this morning. This paper marks the first time there has been a real effort to capture the diversity of interests in the Internet community on the issue of Internet Governance. "The Internet community should be grateful to Ira Magaziner and his staff for sorting through the hundreds of pages of comments and ideas and producing this well thought out paper," said Mikki Barry, president of A-TCPIP/DNRC. "Now is the time for all small business and public interest organizations who wish to be heard to join with us in helping the Commerce Department focus on ensuring the Internet's continued role in communications and the free flow of information" Harold Feld, Assistant General Counsel of the A-TCPIP/DNRC stated "This is a good first step, but more must come. The Internet is a medium of communications and communities, not just commerce. The vast majority of Internet uses are for communications rather than commerce. We need a clear statement that communications and free speech, including personal and political speech and parody, is valued and protected above all other interests including commerce and intellectual property. The policies of this paper need to reiterate that fact." While applauding the paper's recognition of the role of free market innovators, A-TCPIP/DNRC Vice President and Internet entrepreneur Mike Doughney worried that the paper also contained provisions that would shut out small businesses and people with new ideas. " Dual T1 connections and 24 hour guards make registration services prohibitive for smaller business concerns to enter the marketplace," said Doughney "and allowing one company (even through separate subsidiaries) to be both registry and registrar further stifles the competitive nature inherent to the Internet." Specific points of the paper that the A-TCPIP/DNRC feel need to be addressed include: The make up of the non profit oversight corporation does not include enough seats for small business or for individual users. One seat for each is not enough given that the vast majority of Internet use is by small business, individual users, non profit entities, and others who use it as a forum for communication. The role .us Top Level Domain needs to be clarified. "The .us domain is a valuable resource that is woefully under utilized," said Kathryn Kleiman, General Counsel of the organization. "We are highly encouraged that Mr. Magaziner addressed it in his paper. We stand ready to assist in formulating a coherent policy for its use." Registrars should not be forced to have a domain name dispute policy. Domain name disputes, as with all other disputes involving trademark law need to be settled by court proceedings. Trademark owners should have no superior rights in cyberspace than they have in any other medium of communications. Registrars should not be forced to suspend domain names if an objection (baseless or not) is lodged within 30 days of that name's registration. Doing so would prohibit timely personal, political and commercial speech, and is essentially a 30 day waiting period that would be particularly injurious to small business interests.Further, the automatic suspension is contrary to trademark law because it effectively grants an automatic injunction against the domain name owner where the trademark owner has not proven any likelihood of confusion or infringment. A-TCPIP/DNRC has represented entrepreneurs, small businesses and individuals on issues of Internet governance and domain name concerns since 1995. Its Internet website can be found at http://www.domain-name.org and includes the organization's comments to the Department of Commerce in this proceeding. _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 21:21:48 EST From: von Kriegsherr <kriegsherr(a)juno.com> To: declan(a)well.com Cc: politech(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: U.S.Gov.To Turn `Net over to Moguls Who are we kidding? Ourselves. Keeping the `Net under the protection of U.S. soil, so to speak, is the ONLY guarantee that some international Cabal does not decide for us what we will be able to write or research. It's a few short steps from a total control of all information which is declared, "sensitive."

1 0

FCC want to unclog Internet [CNN]
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > FCC CHIEF WANTS TO UNTANGLE INTERNET CONGESTION > > January 30, 1998 > Web posted at: 6:59 p.m. EST (2359 GMT) > > WASHINGTON (AP) -- The nation's top telecommunications regulator > wants to help ease the world wide wait on the Internet. > > Federal Communications Commission Chairman Bill Kennard doesn't have > a plan yet but said Friday that he intends to start looking into > ways to give companies incentives to provide more high-speed > connections into homes. That would help ease congestion on the > Internet. > > "One issue that I'm particularly interested in is finding ways that > we can foster more investment in high-capacity bandwidth. I believe > that our nation will have an ever-increasing appetite for bandwidth > -- for high capacity data transmission capabilities," he told > reporters during a briefing on his top goals for the year. [text deleted] ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The most powerful passion in life is not love or hate, | | but the desire to edit somebody elses words. | | | | Sign in Ed Barsis' office | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Re: History of radio regulation; scrutiny of elected officials
by garbanzo＠worldnet.att.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> >Which gave us the predecessor of today's FCC. The question, of course, is >if the justification for the FCC was to eliminate chaos, why did the >agency not just stop there? Why the indecency rules, must-carry regs, >fairness doctrine, overseeing network-station relationships, and so on? > >-Declan > This is the nature of regulatory agencies. The FDA for example was originally just supposed to make sure that foods and drugs were labeled properly and did what they were supposed to do. Now it wants to ban cloning and tobacco. > Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that > government officials shall be subjected to the same > rules of conduct that are commands to the citizens. > In a government of laws, existence of the government > will be imperilled if it fails observe the law > scrupulously. Our government is the potent, > omnipresent teacher. For good or ill, it teaches the > whole people by example. Crime is contageous. If > the government becomes a lawbreaker; it invites > every man to become a law unto himself; it invites > anarchy. To declare that in the administration of > the criminal law the end justifies the means -- > to declare that the government may commit crimes > to secure the conviction of a private criminal > -- would bring terrible retribution. Against that > pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely > set its face. > > Olmstead v. US (1928) > >You remember Brandeis. He's the person who argued for >the *right* of privacy. Hardly a surprise, therefore, >that he would be so outspoken on the abuse of government >authority. > Jeez...expecting government officials to *obey* the *law*? Where do you think you live? So long as the economy is good you can do pretty much anything you want it seems.

1 0

orlin grabbe on digital cash
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

from zolatimes, an interesting online newspaper also Orlin's site is an eyeful! ------- Forwarded Message From: Kris Millegan RoadsEnd <RoadsEnd(a)AOL.COM> Subject: Digital Cash and the Regulators To: CTRL(a)LISTSERV.AOL.COM from: http://zolatimes.com/ Laissez Faire City Times Newspaper - ----- Another fine issue, As always, . . . Om K - ----- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 29, 1998 - Volume 2, Issue 3 Editor & Chief: Emile Zola - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - - III-By J. Orlin Grabbe The City Times - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Digital Science Department Digital Cash and the Regulators by J. Orlin Grabbe """ Digital cash, like other forms of money, can be issued in any political or legal jurisdiction, or in any banking environment: Salt Lake City, the Cayman Islands, Cyprus, or Sidney. There is a great deal of flexibility available to the digital cash provider when viewed from a global perspective. Nevertheless, digital cash may operate locally under a set of rules and regulations similar to other forms of computer money such as bank deposits. ("Locally" can be almost any Internet-accessible country.) The question of how banking regulators view digital cash is a practical one, because the answers to the question demonstrate the sort of issues that arise in any banking context. All the examples here will involve the U.S., a country with a complex maze of banking regulations. >From the point of view of central bankers, digital cash generates three sorts of questions. Who issues it? How is it used as a means of payment? What impact does it have on the banking system balance sheet or bottom-line? Currency Competition and Seigniorage Digital cash is by design a partial substitute for ordinary cash. Hence it will be used in much the same fashion as ordinary cash--a context with which central bankers are familiar. To a certain extent, digital cash threatens the profitability inherent in central bank note issue. Consider traveler's checks. Traveler's checks are a form of private bank currency. They are analogous to the bank notes issued by private commercial banks in the U.S. prior to the Civil War. As such, they are very profitable to the banks and companies that issue them, because no interest is paid out on traveler's checks to the check holders, but the issuer earns interest on the funds that customers use to purchase them. When you purchase American Express Traveler's Checks, you are making an interest-free loan to American Express. That's why AMEX likes to sell them to you--apart from the fees involved in the transaction. As with traveler's checks, digital cash products such as electronic purses (a card with a memory chip on it) represent an attempt by commercial banks to capture part of the seigniorage earned by the central bank from issuing notes. Holders of currency (Federal Reserve notes) are making an interest-free loan to the government. The interest opportunity cost adds up. The approximate $20 billion that the Federal Reserve turned over to the U.S. Treasury in 1994, for example, represented about 5 percent of the $400 billion in Federal Reserve notes. The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) estimated that in the United States seigniorage is .43 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), while central bank (Federal Reserve) expenses are .03 percent of GDP, implying a profit of .40 percent of GDP. [1] These numbers can be used as a reference base to calculate the amount of seigniorage recapture available to providers of digital cash. Suppose that that digital cash was so successful for small purchases that it eliminated the U.S. $1, $5, $10, and $20 dollar bills. In that case, the BIS estimates the loss in seigniorage at .14 percent of GDP. Now it is highly unlikely that digital cash would replace all small denomination bills, as assumed in this calculation. But the calculation shows that up to one-third of current Federal Reserve seigniorage is potentially available to digital cash providers. And that's a lot of money. While some central banks may be concerned that digital cash will infringe on their monopoly of issuing bank notes (although most do not appear to be particularly alarmed), such a monopoly can be easily circumvented without computers and without telecommunications. All that is required for the success of any privately-issued currency is local acceptance as a means of payment for goods and labor. Consider, for example, HOURS, which is a local currency circulating in Ithaca, New York. Here is a brief (albeit dated) summary of the HOURS system. [2] HOURS is a local currency created and issued by citizens in Ithaca, New York. The organizers have issued over $50,000 in local paper money to over 950 participants since 1991. An estimated $500,000 of in HOURS-based transactions have taken place. The idea behind an HOUR is that it is a rough equivalent to a $10.00 bill. The unit was chosen because ten dollars per hour was the average wage paid in Tompkins County. HOUR notes come in four denominations, and have been used to buy goods and services like plumbing, carpentry, electrical work, roofing, nursing, chiropractic care, child care, car and bike repair, food, eyeglasses, firewood, and gifts. The local credit union accepts them for mortgage and loan fees. People pay rent with HOURS. Some of the best restaurants in town take them, as do movie theaters, bowling alleys, two large locally-owned grocery stores, and thirty farmer's market vendors. Everyone who agrees to accept HOURS is paid two HOURS ($20.00) for being listed in the newsletter Ithaca Money. Every eight months they may apply to be paid an additional two HOURS, as reward for continuing participation. This mechanism increases the per capita supply of HOURS. Ithaca Money contains 1200 member listings. HOUR loans are made without interest charges. Multi-colored HOURS bear serial numbers and are printed on hard-to-counterfeit locally-made watermarked cattail (marsh reed) paper. Naturally, HOUR payments are taxable income when received for professional goods or services. The organizers have created a guide to creating local currency, called a Hometown Money Starter Kit. The Kit explains the start-up and maintenance of an HOURS system, and includes forms, laws, articles, procedures, insights, samples of Ithaca's HOURS, and issues of Ithaca Money. They've sent the Kit to over 300 communities in 45 states. To get one, send $25.00 (or 2.5 HOURS) to Ithaca Money, Box 6578, Ithaca, NY. 14851. HOURS, much like traveler's checks, are an attempt to recapture a part of the currency seignoriage usually given up to the central bank. Like HOURS, digital cash does not require the approval of some central authority to form a viable mechanism. And the presence of seigniorage means that digital cash products can be highly profitable, for they simply arbitrage the difference between the cost of producing digital cash and the return available to the issuers of the medium of exchange. As we saw previously, the Federal Reserve made $20 billion of this arbitrage in 1994, after payment of all expenses. Is Digital Cash (Stored-Value) a Deposit? U.S. banking regulations distinguish broadly between deposit-issuing institutions and others. Thus the question whether the digital cash liability of a private company represents a deposit or not determines who might attempt to regulate it or whether it is eligible for federal deposit insurance. Some of these questions here are more important in a non-anonymous digital cash system than in an anonymous one. A depositor who is anonymous, or who wishes his transactions to remain private, is probably not interested in being identified for insurance purposes, or receiving regular bank statements detailing his financial activities. But, that having been said, a look at some representative regulations is important for the purpose of understanding the political and legal barriers to the creation of an anonymous digital cash system. Digital cash is a balance sheet liability of the commercial banks or companies that issue it. Does it thus fall under the laws governing ordinary checking accounts? And what about discharge of debt? In the case of the U.S., federal law does not currently address obligations discharged by stored value cards--only those settled by cash, check, or wire transfer. FDIC deposit insurance, which applies to most bank deposits, can be easily extended to stored value cards under the guise of a general liability account. The FDIC General Counsel has issued an opinion [3] that divides stored-value cards into four categories: &middotBank Primary-Customer Account Systems--where funds stay in the customer's account until they are transferred to a merchant or other payee (as with a debit card). These are considered customer "deposits" and covered by FDIC deposit insurance. &middotBank Primary-Reserve Account Systems--where funds are downloaded onto a customer's card (or software), and the bank's obligation is transferred to a reserve or general liability account to pay merchants and other payees. These are also considered issuer "deposits", and covered by FDIC insurance. &middotBank Secondary-Advance Systems--where a card issuer is a third party, the bank makes the cards available to customers, and customers pay the third party for the stored value using funds from their bank account. The stored-value funds in this case are not considered deposits, and are not covered. &middotBank Secondary-Pre-Acquisition Systems--where the card is issued by a third party, the bank pays the third party for the card value, and subsequently sells the stored value to customers. Again, the stored-value funds are not considered deposits, and are not covered. Non-banks, meanwhile, are not eligible for FDIC deposit insurance. But the question remains, If non-banks issue stored-value products, are these stored-value funds "deposits"? For if stored-value is legally a deposit, then federal and state regulators might attempt to deny a company or other entity the right to issue the product, using the Glass-Steagall Act or similar provisions. If stored value-products are "deposits," then a non-bank might also become subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission (12 U.S.C.A. 1831 t(e)) or might be treated as a bank for the purposes of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C.A. 1841 (c)(1)). This is something to keep in mind before selecting Salt Lake City as your digital cash base. Nationally chartered banks are under the supervision of the Office of Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has explicitly approved national bank participation in one digital cash system, Mondex, and in stored value systems generally, stating "national banks may under 12 U.S.C. 24(Seventh) engage in the business of Mondex USA", and also that "national banks may under 12 U.S.C. 24(Seventh) engage in the business of operating a stored value system". [4] In addition, the Federal Reserve has authorized bank-holding companies who own ATM networks to provide stored-value card systems through these networks. A Closer Look at Mondex Mondex is known as a stored value card system. "Stored value" simply means the money is stored on a memory chip on the Mondex card instead of, say, being stored as pieces of paper in your wallet. This "stored value" will be used in everyday purchase and sale transactions just like cash. Hence the chief function of the "stored value" is as a medium of exchange (and not, as the name might imply, as intertemporal savings--which is the usual meaning of the phrase "store of value" in economic discussions of money). The rights to Mondex are held by Mondex International Ltd., a U.K. limited liability company. Fifty-one percent of Mondex International is owned by MasterCard International, while a consortium of global banks owns the other 49 percent. The U.S. rights to Mondex have been purchased by a group of nationally-chartered U.S. banks, listed below. These U.S. banks have in turn formed two Delaware limited liability companies to operate Mondex. One of these two companies will act as a bank. It will create, sell, and redeem the "electronically stored value" (ESV) on Mondex cards. That is, it will trade other forms of U.S. dollars for value stored on the Mondex card. It will issue (sell) ESV for dollars, and it will redeem (buy back) ESV in exchange for dollars. ESV is thus just another form of money: dollars, if denominated in dollars; pounds, if denominated in pounds, and so on. From now on we will simply call the Mondex ESV "Mondex Dollars". The Delaware company acting as the bank is called an OLLC (Originator Limited Liability Company). Its liabilities will be the Mondex Dollars it issues against payment. The money the OLLC receives will be invested in U.S. government securities, and cash and cash-equivalents such as interbank deposits and overnight repurchase agreements. These are the OLLC assets. The holdings of cash and cash-equivalents is required in order to be able redeem Mondex Dollars on demand. The second Delaware company will act as a licensing and servicing entity. The equity in the two companies is divided up between Wells Fargo (30 percent), Texas Commerce Bank (20 percent), First National Bank of Chicago (10 percent), AT&T (10 percent), NOVUS (10 percent), and MasterCard (10 percent). In granting these nationally-chartered banks the right to operate a subsidiary which carries out digital cash operations, the OCC applied four criteria: (1) Is the operation related to banking? (2) Do the banks have sufficient control to disallow non-banking activities? (3) Is the banks' loss exposure limited? (4) Is the investment related to the banks' ordinary banking business? Since the OCC determined that the answers to these four questions were all "yes", it approved the Mondex proposal. Regulation E The Federal Reserve's Regulation E implements the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA). Under the guise of consumer protection, Regulation E requires various disclosures related to electronic funds transfer, as well as advance notice of changes in terms, transaction receipts, periodic statements, error resolution procedures, limitations on consumer liability, and restrictions on unsolicited giving of funds-transfer access-devices to consumers. On May 2, 1996, the Federal Reserve proposed to extend Regulation E to stored value cards. It would classify stored-value systems as "on-line", "off-line accountable", or "off-line unaccountable". On-line systems would be simple debit cards where accounts balances are stored in a central database, not on the card, and communication with the central facility is required for balance transfers. Off-line accountable systems are ones in which balances are recorded on the card, transactions do not have to be transmitted to a central facility to be pre-authorized, but where each transaction is stored and periodically transmitted to a central facility. Off-line unaccountable systems are those in which transactions are not pre-authorized, transactions are not traceable to a particular card, and the card's value is only recorded on the card itself. The Fed proposes to make both on-line and off-line accountable systems subject to Regulation E requirements on transaction receipts and dispute resolutions if the maximum value that can be loaded is greater than $100, but exempt if the maximum value is $100 or less. Off-line unaccountable systems allowing values greater than $100 would be subject to the Regulation E requirement on initial disclosure, but would be totally exempt with respect to payment transactions. On-line systems allowing values greater than $100 would have to meet all requirements of Regulation E, except for periodic statements, provided an account balance and account history is available on request. The Fed's proposal would thus seem to eliminate on-line anonymous systems (because of the transaction history requirement), but would allow for off-line anonymous systems under the "off-line unaccountable" option--as long as account withdrawals were recorded. A digital cash system like Mondex, operating out of Delaware, has to grapple with all these issues. This has the advantage that, having made the regulators happy, the Mondex owners can then aggressively market their product through all the usual banking and financial channels. But those who are looking to create a digital cash product where privacy and security are paramount will probably want to go off-shore and avoid the regulators to a great extent. But they will still be left with the more important, and practical, problem of making their customers happy. And they will still be looking to recapture some of the central bank seigniorage. Click for a Menu of Other Digital Cash Articles by J. Orlin Grabbe * * * [1] Bank for International Settlements, Implications for Central Banks of the Development of Electronic Money, Basle, October 1996. [2] Glover, Paul, "Creating Ecological Economics with Local Currency", undated manuscript. Glover's article contains a lot of grass-roots socialism that I don't agree with. But that is not material to the use of HOURS as an illustration of an alternative currency. [3] Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, "General Counsel's Opinion No. 8--Stored Value Cards," by William F. Kroener, III, General Counsel, FDIC, July 16, 1996. [4] Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, "Interpretations--Conditional Approval #220," published in Interpretations and Actions, December 1996. [30] Back to Home Page Quick Menu Visit the Button Shop - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Interactive Forum Digital Cash - Regulators E-mail the Editor - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ J. Orlin Grabbe is one of the leading experts in the expanding area of financial data encryption systems being developed for the new CyberEconomy. He is also one of the world's leading experts on international finance. His textbooks on the subject are ubiquitous in top universities worldwide. No serious student of international finance is unaware of who he is and what he has done. He is a Harvard Ph.D. While a professor at Wharton, he trained many of the top traders and derivatives experts as well as the "quants" who run Wall Street's automated computer trading systems. E-mail - ----- Aloha, He'Ping, Om, Shalom, Salaam. Em Hotep, Peace Be, All My Relations. Adieu, Adios, Aloha. Amen. Roads End Kris ========================================================================= To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] LISTSERV(a)LISTSERV.AOL.COM To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] LISTSERV(a)LISTSERV.AOL.COM Om ------- End of Forwarded Message

1 0

Secure checksums
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timmy May sits at his terminal dressed in five-inch stiletto heels, fishnet stockings, a gold-lame mini-skirt, a purple halter with girdle underneath to keep in his flabby gut, a Fredericks of Hollywood padded bra also underneath the halter, a cheap Naomi Sims pink afro wig, waiting to yank his crank whenever a black man responds to one of his inane rants. o \ o / _ o __| \ / |__ o _ \ o / o /|\ | /\ ___\o \o | o/ o/__ /\ | /|\ Timmy May / \ / \ | \ /) | ( \ /o\ / ) | (\ / | / \ / \

1 0

County Mounties Spit on the 4th Amendment
by Gary Harland 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The Washington Post reported Jan. 30th that Prince George County (where dat?) police are collecting spit and fingerprints, not only from every suspect they interview in connection with the rape and murder of a nurse- administrator, but also from all 400 male hospital employees at the hospital the victim formerly worked at. The spit's for DNA testing and the fingerprints are just for the helluva it I guess. It's just a request mind you. If you refuse, you won't necessarily be con- sidered a suspect but the information you supply 'would certainly be under scrutiny' according to the Chief Thug of Prince George County. Oh! The 4th amendment? That dusty old thing? When the scumbags are kicking in your door which would you rather have protecting you: a raggedy old piece of paper or a Prince George County Mountie SWAT team in full ninja dress and the latest high-tech law-enforcement goodies? Thought so. Cup's at the end of the counter comrade. Have a nice day. ----------------------------------------------------------------- foggy(a)netisle.net lat:47d36'32" long:122d20'12" "Rather perish than hate and fear, and twice rather perish than make oneself hated and feared." -F. Nietzche- -----------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

RIP, Carl Gorman, Code Talker
by Gary Harland 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mr. Carl Gorman, one of the few remaining Navajo 'Code-Talkers' of WWII fame, died yesterday of cancer at the age of 90. Along with his fellow Navajo, he encrypted military voice communication by using his native language over the radio in the Great American Imperialist Struggle against the Great Japanese Imperialist Initative. Just a few thoughts: - when asked why he helped America after all the abuse he took growing up as a Navajo, he basically said (my interpretation here) he was fighting to protect the Navajo, not particularily America, from the Japanese. A geographical dilemma. - aside from the NSA sucking up everything in sight relating to languages, doesn't Chomsky's theoretical 'Universal Syntax' (all human languages have an identical fundamental syntax) negate the effectiveness of the Code-Talker approach in the long run? - on the other hand, the lovely ambiguities of natural language would seem to be capable of effectively obscuring the meaning of the message even if the plaintext were revealed. For example, President Clinton's reference to 'blowjobs' not actually being a sexual act. While the President is innocently asking a normal person to provide him with a urgently needed act of personal hygiene, that person mistakingly would be thinking he wants oral sex. An effective obscuration of the Prez's message. - now-a-days of course, if the shoe were on the other foot, the Navy's NOSS satellite constellations would trianglate on the radio signal and feed the coordinates to one of the TDRS sat- ellites to target the crusie missles we just launched, effectively ending the conversation prematurely without regard to syntax. [Sexy Hi-Tech Option]. Using radio for passing encrypted comm seems to require a few non-traditional approaches. For example, using a repeater system that would present the NOSS satellites and any RDF equipment in the neighborhood with 'a thousand points of...' RF energy - the 'needle-in-the-haystack' approach. The source would be difficult to find amongst its many (presumedly cheap) clones. Oh well. Good bye Carl. Thanks for the help. Sorry we were such jerks. On the bright side - we're such third-rate fuckups it's a sure thing the Navajo will out-live us if they just hang in there a little bit longer. Your living to 90 was a fine example. Survival is always the best revenge. ----------------------------------------------------------------- foggy(a)netisle.net lat:47d36'32" long:122d20'12" "Rather perish than hate and fear, and twice rather perish than make oneself hated and feared." -F. Nietzche- -----------------------------------------------------------------

5 4

stupid test (virus warning)
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> .... you get an email from .ru address, with small .com file attached. > .... you think: "I shall run it!" > > .... you flunk. > > >DUUUUHHHH. >Hey, Mr. Lame .ru: give it up. The same could be said about anybody who actually thinks DOS/Windows machines have any semblence of security what so ever.

1 0

Electric Utility De-Regulation
by aurapro＠earthlink.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi ! January 1st was the official launch of the most powerful business opportunity in the history of networking. Here's your chance to get in on the ground floor and sieze an opportunity to take advantage of electric utility deregulation and realize some of those dreams you've been dreaming. When the telephone industry deregulated, millionares were made. At $215 Billion as an industry, Electric Utilities is 10 TIMES the opportunity that long distance telephone was. Don't delay! Get started now! We will provide full training and support. You are up and running within 48 hours - and low, low start-up costs! This IS the big one. You will have access to our advanced technology to help build your business because it is all in house as well as a generic website for you and all of those in your group! E-mail inquiries only - please leave your phone number and time to call (or call me) E-mail to: Electrifyme(a)juno.com OPPORTUNITIES ARE NEVER LOST ..... ........JUST FOUND BY SOMEONE ELSE !! Thanks for your time, John (413) 736-2442 /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// This Message was Composed using Extractor Pro Bulk E- Mail Software. If you wish to be removed from this advertiser's future mailings, please reply with the subject "Remove" and this software will automatically block you from their future mailings. ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

1 0