- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

alt.politics.org.[cia,nsa] and anon posting
by jet＠netcom.com 13 Sep '93

13 Sep '93

would one of the anon posting/remailer gurus post a faq to one of these groups? They could probably use it. -eric

1 0

NY cyberspace tax analyses
by ld231782＠longs.lance.colostate.edu 13 Sep '93

13 Sep '93

These msgs were taken from miscellaneous mailing lists. Most importantly, this tax does *not* simply affect `phone sex' 900 lines, as a sort of `sin tax' as supposed by some. To the contrary, BBSes, online services, even *shareware* is affected by the tax. Authors below report - BBSes *are* subject if computer & users are in NY - CompuServe, Prodigy, America Online *subject* to tax (Newsday 9/6) - SHAREWARE is *taxed* under the rate if downloaded from NY board - relevant court cases that struck down similar taxes based on 1st amendment - one person complains of `poor wording' in law -- no kidding. I propose that a mailing list dedicated to the topics of cyberspatial regulation and taxation be created ASAP. ===cut=here=== Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1993 23:01:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Jean Armour Polly <jpolly(a)nysernet.ORG> Subject: Re: NY tax on information services [...] I called the NYS Tax and Finance folks on Friday and they faxed me info on this bill. Briefly (though I am not a lawyer, pun intended), based on a phone conversation with them: There is a tax if -- the "bbs operator" charges a membership fee AND -- the host computer is in NYS AND -- the operator sells to NYS residents. If the host computer is out of state it does not apply at all. If the host is in NY but the customer is out of state it does not apply. If the service is run by a non-profit it does also not apply. Also, SHAREWARE is affected. If you download shareware and subsequently send in the registration fee, the software producer has to charge you NYS tax-- if he's in NY and the customer is in NY. This particular part is written very poorly IMHO. Hope this helps. I have the text of the memo and some examples I can send to you monday if you want. Best, JP Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1993 19:50:35 -0500 From: farber(a)central.cis.upenn.edu (David Farber) Subject: NY tax on information services Russell Nelson writes: >> September 1, 1993 New York Newsday >> By Joshua Quittner >> >> Starting today, metropolitan New York residents will pay a hefty >> 13.25% sales tax on information services they get over phones and >> computers - the highest tax on information services in the country, >> experts say. > > IMHO, this is not true (but it sure makes good press). > Reading over the text of the law, it appears to be > targetting the 900/800 oral information providers. It > specifically excludes anything customized for the particular > user, and it specifically excludes written materials. Yes, but apparently the New York authorities disagree with you. See _Newsday_, 9/6: " The Budget Division and the Department of Taxation and Finance agree that the 5-percent surcharge also applies to such wildly popular computer services as CompuServe, Prodigy and America on Line. So, in addition to taxing the poor souls who use those sex-phone services, the new law goes after a more sophisticated and altogether more resourceful crowd, the computer literate." Steve Haynes * Stephen L. Haynes Internet: shaynes(a)research.westlaw.com * Manager, WESTLAW Research MCI Mail: 221-3969 * & Development Compuserve: 76236,3547 * West Publishing Company Phone: 612/687-5770 * 610 Opperman Drive Fax: 612/687-7907 * Eagan, MN 55123 Date: Sat, 11 Sep 93 23:45:14 -0700 From: djb(a)silverton.berkeley.edu (D. J. Bernstein) Subject: Taxing the First Amendment The First Amendment _does_ prohibit taxes aimed at the press. See, for example, Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233 (1936). A law whose effect was to impose fees on several large newspapers was declared void on its face. This protection is not limited to the press; it is a common theme in many First Amendment cases. See, for example, the important case of Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51, footnote 3 (1965): ``Appellant also challenges the constitutionality of Sec. 6, establishing standards, as invalid for vagueness under the Due Process Clause; Sec. 11, imposing fees for the licensing and inspection of a film, as constituting an invalid tax upon the exercise of freedom of speech; and Sec. 23, allowing exemptions to various classes of exhibitors, as denying him the equal protection of the laws.'' The Supreme Court didn't rule on these issues---it didn't have to, because it struck down the entire Maryland film censorship statute as an invalid prior restraint. But Freedman's appeal would probably be a good model for an attack on the New York cyberspace tax. The latter tax is, after all, aimed directly at the exercise of freedom of speech, and its exemptions deny equal protection to certain information providers. (Note that the aim of a law is judged by its operation and effect, not by the motives of the legislators, at least for First Amendment purposes.) ---Dan

1 0

Re: Digital warfare
by Peter Wayner 13 Sep '93

13 Sep '93

People who are skeptical about Perry Metzeger's claim about tax avoidance might want to look at the files of Dave Dinkins, the mayor of New York. I believe that he failed to file for something like 12 years. Yet, the machine runs on in that city.... -Peter

1 0

DIGITAL WARFARE
by Duncan Frissell 13 Sep '93

13 Sep '93

To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com ************* Original From: FRISSELL * FORWARDED * To: CYPHERPUNKS(a)TOAD.COM * MESSAGE * Date/Number: 09/12/93 - Not Yet Posted ************* On: PANIX - 0000 - Email ----------------------------------------------------------------------- To: cme(a)ellisun.sw.stratus.com Here I innocently go away for the weekend and miss a hot thread on my favorite topic. Appropriate for the list because it's about what this list is about and what the results of its activities might be. Better late than never... CC> I have heard cypherpunks described as two groups under one label: CC> 1. those of us who advocate privacy in private hands CC> CC> 2. those who advocate anarchy CC> CC> I'm in the privacy camp and worry that CC> enough talk from the anarchists will cause the privacy to be CC> attacked. I fully expect total retaliation by the governments of CC> the world against any effective anarchy. The wilder the threats CC> (even if they're not real), the stronger the retaliation. We could CC> lose all privacy as a result. I try not to advocate anarchy but rather to observe it. It is difficult for large institutions to exercise control over ever more powerful individuals. Even though I like crypto, it is neither necessary nor sufficient for what I'll call "governmental downsizing" to avoid controversy. IBM didn't "rightsize" because sweet reason convinced it to. It righsized (and is still rightsizing) because markets convinced it to. We already see signs of governments becoming mere market actors particularly in the currency markets. The nets themselves are the most powerful technology which will reduce the role nation states have to play on the world stage. Crackdowns against strong crypto are not relevant. Since the nation state is bound to the nation and individuals are not, telecoms tends to liberate individuals from states. If I can live anywhere and work anywhere else, I am hard to find much less control. People need not have to even be aware of what they are doing to participate in this process. If they are hired as contingent workers over the nets because that's where the work is, they will be outside of the control mechanism and have to choose to bring themselves back in. Some will do so many will not. For years, those who became expats or invested money overseas have had to make an affirmative choice to file US tax returns or report their overseas income on their returns. Some did so. Many did not. 61% of US expats don't file US returns even though most have income. Everyone on the nets is effectively an expat. According to IRS studies, only *48%* of the income of small businesses is reported. Those are businesses physically located in the US. Since computers will be converting most of us into small business operators (selling ourselves as permanent temps at least) and since the nets encourage locational ambiguity, we will have to choose to cooperate with our rulers. What do we call a "voluntary government"? A church, a social club, a corporation, or a family but not (according to *my* poli sci profs) a government. "An institution that claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force in a given geographic area." Note that by the end of this year, some Continental Cable subscribers will have 100 mbs connections to Internet. Once more people do and they find that they can buy/obtain almost anything digitizable (including "free" international telephone calls) over this link, they will do so. They will have expanded their area of freedom by downloading porno from Zimbabwae (or whatever from wherever). A few more expansions of liberty and the state is reduced to just another club. CC> For example, crypto-anarchic banks -- cute idea -- but if CC> you ever want a cop to make your banker give you the money, the CC> banker can't be anonymous and neither can you account be. Bankers don't give you your money because of fear of cops but because of the desire for future business. Duncan Frissell What is the world's most toxic hazardous waste dump? -- Watch this signature line for the surprising answer. * RM 1.2 * Eval Day 1 * X

1 0

Re: The "Cypherpunk Melting Pot"
by Anonymous 13 Sep '93

13 Sep '93

Okay. I've gotten my collective thought processes back on track, how 'bout the rest of you? Can we move forward -together- on the front for strong crypto? Seeing as how Mr. P. (segway) Ferguson and Mr. Spooge(y) like to use dictionary entries, I suggest this one as an "end-all" for our current purposes - team - \teem\ 2 : a number of persons associated in work or activity; esp: a group on one side in a match. We should be working as a team and not vetting petty on issues outside of strong crypto.

1 0

Re: The "Cypherpunk Melting Pot"
by pmetzger＠lehman.com 13 Sep '93

13 Sep '93

Anonymous says: > Bullshit. Privacy is not inherently subversive at all. If you > take the time to browse back through the Bill of Rights, you might > recognize this paragraph - > > ARTICLE IV > > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, > houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and > seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but > upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and > particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or > things to be seized. I'll point out something about the history of that line most people forget. Our fine nation was founded by drug smugglers. The drug in question was Rum, admittedly, but none the less, the point remains -- the revolutionary war was financed by big time criminals like John Hancock who made their money in smuggling contraband and other similar acts. They made sure that the constitution they got was supportive of their particular business interests. History teachers don't like pointing this sort of thing out, but its none the less true. Our founders wanted a government that is very close in size to what minarchist libertarians think of as being the "right size" -- there was a scandal early on when the white house staff was expanded to four people -- so it shouldn't be suprising that a correct reading of the constitution leads to certain unpleasant conclusions for statists. Perry PS Thomas Jefferson once fretted heavily over whether a constitutional amendment was needed to make the Louisiana Purchase. Think of that image in your mind the next time you hear a congressman propose some new program that is plainly not authorized in the enumerated powers section of the constitution. (By the way, if your history teacher fed you the bull that the "escape clause" means congress can pass any law it likes, I suggest looking up the legal doctrine that the "exception proves the rule", and check out the history of FDRs administration, paying special attention to the early constutional battles like the so called Scheckter "Sick Chicken" case and to the phrase "Court Packing".)

1 0

Re: Digital warfare
by cme＠ellisun.sw.stratus.com 12 Sep '93

12 Sep '93

>Date: Fri, 10 Sep 93 19:40:37 -0500 >From: ferguson(a)fiber.sprintlink.net (Paul Ferguson x2044) >Message-Id: <9309110040.AA09675(a)fiber.sprintlink.net> >Subject: Digital warfare >> So, if you see folks using BlackNet for advertising Intel >> chips.... > > That's an interesting point (images of "Wild Palms" conjured). > This _is_ the wave of the future, as Tim implies, and it's > unfortunate that instances such as this (segway) tarnishes what > it is that I think many of us are trying to espouse in the > cypherpunk movement. > >ferguson(a)icp.net | Privacy -- Use it or lose it. I have heard cypherpunks described as two groups under one label: 1. those of us who advocate privacy in private hands 2. those who advocate anarchy I'm in the privacy camp and worry that enough talk from the anarchists will cause the privacy to be attacked. I fully expect total retaliation by the governments of the world against any effective anarchy. The wilder the threats (even if they're not real), the stronger the retaliation. We could lose all privacy as a result. It's important not to give the government any excuse which would make the populace side with them against us. This is a political battle and we need the people on our side. For example, crypto-anarchic banks -- cute idea -- but if you ever want a cop to make your banker give you the money, the banker can't be anonymous and neither can you account be. ..so you have to *really* trust this banker. Maybe some people will trust such a banker enough. But, meanwhile, talk of total tax evasion by the more excited of our crypto-anarchy brethren might give the government the political ammunition it needs. In fact, if the FBI has planted agents on this list, I wouldn't be surprised to discover someday that they were among the vocal anarchists. - Carl

8 10

chaos.bsu.edu online (again)
by Chael Hall 12 Sep '93

12 Sep '93

Sorry about that... I will remember not to disklabel my swap partition again like that. Unfortunately, a lot of data was lost last week when I killed my 386BSD partition. One thing that I lost was the pseudonymous contact service that I had written. The remailer, however, has been enhanced a little bit (nothing noticeable) and is now running on chaos. The remailer address is <remailer(a)chaos.bsu.edu>. This is *not* a user account, so if you mess up a message to the remailer, your message will bounce with an appropriate error code. Please try it out and let me know if you have any problems with it. Accounts are available, the same restrictions apply as in my previous message. Telnet to chaos.bsu.edu and login as "guest" to apply for an account. There is a mail server named "plans" on here too. I created it with the intention of getting others' input on the direction that chaos should go. So, if you would like to help give some constructive criticizm, please send a subscription request to "plans-admin(a)chaos.bsu.edu" now! Chael Hall {nowhere|root}(a)chaos.bsu.edu nowhere(a)bsu-cs.bsu.edu 00CCHALL(a)bsuvc.bsu.edu chall(a)bsu.edu

1 0

Correction
by Chael Hall 12 Sep '93

12 Sep '93

Correction, that's plans-request(a)chaos.bsu.edu Chael

1 0

The "Cypherpunk Melting Pot"
by Anonymous 12 Sep '93

12 Sep '93

On Sun, 12 Sep 93 00:54:18 PDT, <uunet!alumni.cco.caltech.edu!nobody> wrote - > Some comments on the relationship between anarchy and > privacy: > > 1. There have been some recent posts suggesting that > privacy is not fundamentally subversive of > government, and that cypherpunks should emphasize > the privacy and keep quite about the anarchy. I > find these arguments disingenuous in the extreme, > and strategically unsound as well. Bullshit. Privacy is not inherently subversive at all. If you take the time to browse back through the Bill of Rights, you might recognize this paragraph - ARTICLE IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. > 3. The government has shown by its behavior that it > believes that privacy is fundamentally subversive. This is not necessarily true. I agree that Big Brother has gone to the extreme to violate individual privacy in the modern day, but just how does this tie into anarchy? To solely entwine these two idealisms is, in my opinion, a bankrupt strategy. I believe in strong crypto, I believe in privacy. Pinch-hitting for anarchy will damage work for privacy causes. > 4. I personally find privacy, in itself, only mildly > interesting. As a tool to undermine the government, > I find it VERY EXCITING INDEED. Excitement does not define the deed or the end result. Get your cheap thrills at someone else's expense. > 5. Cypherpunks' mission is to evangelize the use of > privacy. Sell the sizzle, not the steak! Privacy > is the steak. The sizzle is the possibility of > GETTING AWAY WITH SOMETHING. "Getting away" with privacy is an oxymoron in itself. Privacy should be something that we all have and enjoy as individuals, not simply as guaranteed under the Constitution, but as a human right that is owed each of us globally. I'll stand by you in a fight for privacy, but I won't be party to anarchic idealisms that I believe will do more damage to the privacy cause in the long run. -

1 0