- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Arguments _against_ privacy, anyone?
by attila 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 15:58:03 -0700 (PDT) ***where do some of these people get off the bus? >From: Phil Agre <pagre(a)weber.ucsd.edu> Subject: Call for bad arguments against privacy * "We've lost so much of our privacy anyway." ***and that justifies stripping you of the rest, correct? * "Privacy is an obsolete Victorian hang-up." ***arrest that man for public nudity! * "Ideas about privacy are culturally specific and it is thus impossible to define privacy in the law without bias." ***let me ask you, boy, just what the fuck you mean? * "We have strong security on our data." ***yawn... * "National identity cards protect privacy by improving authentication and data security." ***you must like to mutilate your body when they insert the chip? * "Informational privacy can be protected by converting it into a property right." ***yes, if you not consider that the concept of property rights, i.e. title, must be defined byins contents? * "We have to balance privacy against industry concerns." ***what's good for General Motors is good for the country. * "Privacy paranoids want to turn back the technological clock." ***yes, number 4078956898346, your comment has been registered. * "Most people are privacy pragmatists who can be trusted to make intelligent trade-offs between functionality and privacy." ***yes, just like people are inherently good, unless the issue is money. * "Our lives will inevitably become visible to others, so the real issue is mutual visibility, achieving a balance of power by enabling us to watch the people who are watching us." ***yes, you do not throw stones at others who live in glass houses. * "Once you really analyze it, the concept of privacy is so nebulous that it provides no useful guidance for action." ***oh, it is better that government take no action??? * "People *want* these systems, as indicated by the percentage of them who sign up for them once they become available." ***dale carnegie: will you ever quit selling your ideas! * "Concern for privacy is anti-social and obstructs the building of a democratic society." ***aaaah, taxation by representation? * "Privacy regulation is just one more category of government interference in the market, which after all is much better at weighing individuals' relative preferences for privacy and everything else than bureaucratic rules could ever be." ***huuh? * "There's no privacy in public." ***no? try screaming 'rape' in NYC * "We favor limited access." ***to just the thought police? * "Privacy in these systems has not emerged as a national issue." -- Overseeing first-rate programmers is a managerial challenge roughly comparable to herding cats. cc: Cypherpunks <cypherpunks(a)toad.com> Phil Agre <pagre(a)weber.ucsd.edu>

1 0

Re: Arguments _against_ privacy, anyone?
by attila 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 15:58:03 -0700 (PDT) ***where do some of these people get off the bus? >From: Phil Agre <pagre(a)weber.ucsd.edu> Subject: Call for bad arguments against privacy * "We've lost so much of our privacy anyway." ***and that justifies stripping you of the rest, correct? * "Privacy is an obsolete Victorian hang-up." ***arrest that man for public nudity! * "Ideas about privacy are culturally specific and it is thus impossible to define privacy in the law without bias." ***let me ask you, boy, just what the fuck you mean? * "We have strong security on our data." ***yawn... * "National identity cards protect privacy by improving authentication and data security." ***you must like to mutilate your body when they insert the chip? * "Informational privacy can be protected by converting it into a property right." ***yes, if you not consider that the concept of property rights, i.e. title, must be defined byins contents? * "We have to balance privacy against industry concerns." ***what's good for General Motors is good for the country. * "Privacy paranoids want to turn back the technological clock." ***yes, number 4078956898346, your comment has been registered. * "Most people are privacy pragmatists who can be trusted to make intelligent trade-offs between functionality and privacy." ***yes, just like people are inherently good, unless the issue is money. * "Our lives will inevitably become visible to others, so the real issue is mutual visibility, achieving a balance of power by enabling us to watch the people who are watching us." ***yes, you do not throw stones at others who live in glass houses. * "Once you really analyze it, the concept of privacy is so nebulous that it provides no useful guidance for action." ***oh, it is better that government take no action??? * "People *want* these systems, as indicated by the percentage of them who sign up for them once they become available." ***dale carnegie: will you ever quit selling your ideas! * "Concern for privacy is anti-social and obstructs the building of a democratic society." ***aaaah, taxation by representation? * "Privacy regulation is just one more category of government interference in the market, which after all is much better at weighing individuals' relative preferences for privacy and everything else than bureaucratic rules could ever be." ***huuh? * "There's no privacy in public." ***no? try screaming 'rape' in NYC * "We favor limited access." ***to just the thought police? * "Privacy in these systems has not emerged as a national issue." -- Overseeing first-rate programmers is a managerial challenge roughly comparable to herding cats. cc: Cypherpunks <cypherpunks(a)toad.com> Phil Agre <pagre(a)weber.ucsd.edu>

1 0

Attorney General wants to "expand crypto laws"
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I just heard parts of a speech by J. Reno on KCBS. The speech was given in San Francisco either today or yesterday. According to the announcer, Reno is calling to "expand the use of cryptography laws". IMHO, this can only mean restrictions on the domestic use of crypto. Does anybody on this list have a transcript of her speech? Disclaimer: My opinions are my own, not those of my employer. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred.

2 1

Re: Is the network layer geodesic?
by Ryan Russell/SYBASE 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Actually, MAE-WEST and much of the MCI net is now OC-3, and the remaining DS3 lines will be upgraded soon. And yes, it still doesn't take many T3's to fill that up, but don't forget that networks are designed with serious overbooking in mind, and IP's back-off algorithm seems to work real well in this situation. Ryan ---------- Previous Message ---------- To: rah cc: cypherpunks From: fair @ clock.org ("Erik E. Fair" (Time Keeper)) @ smtp Date: 05/06/96 07:58:46 PM Subject: Re: Is the network layer geodesic? The principle problem is that public exchange points do not scale beyond current LAN technology (i.e. half-duplex 100 Mb/s FDDI or Ethernet), and how many DS3 (T3; 45Mb/s full-duplex!) pipes does it take to fill that up? Two. Now, drop a DEC GIGAswitch in there (16 FDDI ports, 3.2Gb/s backplane), and now you can have sixteen peers on the exchange. Last count I saw, there are 1,800 ISPs operating in the USA alone, and *everyone* want to be at the exchange points. Oops. How many exchange points are there? Well: NSF Network Access Points (NAPs): New York (well, Pennsauken, NJ; Sprint), Chicago (Ameritech), San Francisco (Pac*Bell) MAE-EAST (D.C.), MAE-WEST (Mountain View-San Jose), MAE-LA, CIX (San Jose) FIX-EAST (D.C.), FIX-WEST (Mountain View; just for the Feds) SWAB (D.C., but almost no one left there). There are probably a few new ones that are forming that I am unaware of as yet, but the point is that they're small-fry. There are also probably exchange points outside the USA, but I bet they're being held up with PTT B.S. The Internet is amorphous. It ain't a star, exactly, but it still not too far from that. However, to get away from this situation into the rich and more fully amorphous connectivity we used to take for granted in the UUCP network, we're going to have to see a lot more cooperation on the part of the small ISPs in agreeing to talk *directly* to each other to exchange traffic, and more small exchange points, instead of the small number of large ones. Of course, this means that you, Mr. or Ms. Discriminating Internet Consumer, must educate yourself a little, and ask interesting questions like, "why do my packets have to go to California to get across town to the ISP my friend uses?" If the customers ask, the ISPs will serve. They just gotta know what you want (and you have to be willing, of course, to pay for it). Erik Fair

1 0

RSAREF and the Mac...
by Peter Wayner 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Has anyone ported RSAREF to Metrowerks's compiler for the Mac? The PGP project has converted it to run with Think C, but what about Metrowerks? Also, where can I get plain RSAREF? I couldn't find it at www.rsa.com. Do I need to sign something? Thanks, Peter Wayner

1 0

money laundering conference
by anonymous-remailer＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

OTC 05/06 1518 ADVISORY/International Money Laundering ... (May 6) BUSINESS WIRE -May 6, 1996--With attendees coming from across the United States and from Latin and South America, more than 200 people are expected to participate in the Third International Money Laundering Conference May 15 and 16 in Miami. The likely attendance is the largest since the conference was first held in 1993. "New federal rules and laws, as well as concerns about emerging techniques to launder money, such as using the Internet, are generating intense interest," said Charles A. Intriago, publisher of Money Laundering Alert and a leading authority on the subject. Money Laundering Alert is co-sponsoring the conference with America Lawyer Media, which publishes American Lawyer magazine and operates the Court TV network. ALM also publishes the Daily Business Review in South Florida. This year's conference will include panel discussions on sush topics as ways to detect and counter new forms of money laundering including so-called "cyberlaundering" and trade laundering; the "alphabet soup" of world money control rules, laws and organizations; cooperative blueprints for financial institutions and governments to prevent money laundering; hidden traps in U.S. laws, new suspicious reporting rules and the workings of the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control. Speakers include officials from the IRS, SEC, FBI, Federal Reserve, Office of the Comptroller, Justice Department and other government agencies, as well as private-sector bankers, lawyers and academic experts. Among the panelists this year are Senior U.S. District Judge William M. Hoeveler of Miami, the presiding judge in the federal government's money laundering case against former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega, Gerald F. McDowell, chief, asset forfeiture and money laundering section of the U.S. Justice Department, Richard A. Small, special counsel, Federal Reserve Board, and John J. Byrne, senior legislative counsel for the American Bankers Association. The two-day session will be held at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in downtown Miami. Information on conference attendance can be obtained by calling Money Laundering Alert at 800/232-3652, or 305/530-0500 (Fax 305/530-9434). Reservations can be made by calling the Hyatt at 305/358-1234. There are still a limited number of places available. Limited sponsorships for conference events are also available. Credentials for accredited members of the media will be extended. The conference is drawing interest from news media in this country, South America and Europe. --30--jd/mi CONTACT: Alert Publications Wendy Brown, 305/530-0500 or Daily Business Review Martin Donsky, 305/347-6617 KEYWORD: FLORIDA INDUSTRY KEYWORD: BANKING PUBLISHING ADVISORY REPEATS: New York 212-575-8822 or 800-221-2462; Boston 617-236-4266 or 800-225-2030; SF 415-986-4422 or 800-227-0845; LA 310-820-9473 BW URL: http://www.businesswire.com

1 0

No Subject
by anonymous-remailer＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Why not digitial "bearer" instruments be non-negotiable without a given signature? I suppose these wouldn't be "bearer" but whatever we call them, doesn't this solve the double spending problem somewhat? For example. Why not have the bank issue the note to an anonymous entity who has a public key on record with the bank. In the absence of a signature from the related secret key, the instrument will not be honored. The instrument can be converted to a bearer instrument by the holder at any time by signing it over to noone as opposed to signing it over to a named party or key. (Much like making a check payable to "cash") The double spending problem is solved to the degree the key of the intended payee is secure. No?

2 1

Re: Why I Pay Too Much in Taxes
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:46 PM 5/7/96, Black Unicorn wrote: >I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I sent the text of the law to >the list. The position that you take (that increse in inflation can send >you into the next tax bracket) is incorrect. I wrote my comment before I saw your message. Does this make it clearer? I agree that the fewer brackets have lessened the problem in the last couple of years, but, then, inflation has not been an issue in the last couple of years. (I seem to recall an explicit statement that the brackets would not be adjusted upward, as the bill called for, because the inflation rate had been below the threshold....). In any case, my larger point has been about the effect over the last decade or so, where significant numbers of people are now up at the 40-45% marginal tax rate (Federal plus state, in many states). ... >Rates will not change with respect to inflation (to the extent that >inflation is accurately measured by the CPI). > >I believe an exception was made for the top bracket in 1994, but I don't >recall how it was implemented. The top marginal rate was increased. As I recall, from around 38% to around 42%. (As the money runs out, as the so-called trust funds turn out to be empty, as "entitlements" expand, and as more and more people are too poorly-educated and -motivated to succeed in high-paying jobs, I expect the top marginal rate to continue to be ratcheted upward. Until other forces come into play, of course.) --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1

This is a good one!
by Edwin E. Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

If you have Microsoft Word (6.0 or later), and have a thesaurus installed, do the following: 1) Open a new, blank document. 2) Type in the words: I'd like to see Bill Clinton resign. 3) Highlight the entire sentence. 4) Click on the tools menu and select thesaurus (tools, language, thesaurus) Look what is immediately highlighted in the selection box.

1 0

Re: Transitive trust and MLM
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"hfinney(a)shell.portal.com" "Hal" 7-MAY-1996 18:58:41.28 >Unfortunately we are left with a choice between three not very good >possibilities: accept transitive trust and hierarchical key CA >structures; use very flat hierarchies where one signer validates huge >numbers of keys; or accept that only a small number of keys can be >validated by key signatures. I think all these are troublesome and in >fact it makes me question the whole notion of key signatures. I think the web-of-trust without transitivity of _some_ trust is too limited. If a lot of completely-trusted key signators have signed a key, and that person's key is self-signed and has signed the keys of those key then keys signed with that person's key are significantly more likely to be good than those without this signature. I wouldn't count the person as a completely-trusted signator, but I wouldn't count them at 0 either. However, the above is just my opinion. Have any studies been done of the likelihood of a key to be later discovered to not match up to the claimed nym? I suspect there isn't adequate data as yet, but it could still be a good thing to check. -Allen

1 0