- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: SEVERE undercapacity, we need more remailer servers FAST
by Hal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The problem that I think the Scientology postings raise is that the remailers cannot really be used to post copyrighted material. That is what got the netherlands hacktic remailer shut down. This shows, BTW, that being outside the United States is no guarantee of immunity. Most Western countries support copyrights. Maybe the operators can try to plead that they are like "common carriers" and should not be blamed for what people post. Still it is going to take deep pockets at best to prevail in this dispute, and it isn't even clear that the remailer will win. Maybe the lawyers on the list could comment on legal liability of a remailer used to repeatedly post copyrighted material, whether Scientology scriptures or Microsoft Word binaries. I don't see how it can happen. (This ties in, BTW, with my posting yesterday about problems with the "anonymous company" concept. It is not clear that any of the technologies we have discussed will allow continuous, long-term and reliable broadcasting of illegal material.) Presently all the remailers operate for free, which makes it even harder to justify taking the chance of facing an expensive lawsuit. On the other hand, at least if no commercial gain is involved the operator might escape some forms of damages if he loses. A for-pay remailer which is posting copyrighted material could be in even more trouble, it seems to me. Again, legal opinions would be welcome. This was the basis for my suggestion that remailers may have to stop supporting posting of messages, and instead be used for private mail between consenting individuals. Granted, this would probably eliminate 99% of non-cover remailer traffic. But I would argue that as long as the core functionality is there of letting people communicate with each other anonymously and consensually, we would still offer an important service. After all, what is the purpose of anonymous remailers? It isn't really to allow harrassing and abusive messages to be sent to one's enemies. And it isn't to defeat intellectual property laws by proving that no one can stop this material from being posted (remailers can't succeed in doing this, as I said above). Rather, I view remailers as a natural extension of encryption. Encryption hides the contents of the messages you send from eavesdroppers. But they can still see who you are communicating with. Remailers extend privacy protection beyond "what you say" to "who you say it to". When used with pseudonym servers and some of the extensions we have discussed here over the years (maildrops, etc.), they can allow the anonymous two-way communication that is needed for real privacy. This has nothing to do with tweaking Microsoft or Scientology by posting information they own. If people want to do that, they need to find another method. Maybe they can get usenet shut down if they try hard enough. I don't know how that battle is going to come out. But I don't see the remailers as playing an important role there. Hal

7 7

Re: Fingerprinting annoyance
by pjb＠ny.ubs.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sometimes it has nothing to do with the employer. For example, for those of us who work on Wall Street, that is to say, in the financial services industry, the SEC requires that all employees submit to a background check, drug test and fingerprint check (National Agency Check) before you can be hired. Failure to require these checks, and to refuse employment to those that don't pass these test, results in a very large fine for the employer. This is not a one-time thing. You must undergo these test everytime you change jobs, even when moving from one firm to another in the same business. Many of us find this an onerous process, but for the compensation, (top grade Sys Admins and developers can make >$250,000 per year), many of us put up with it. This, BTW, does not apply just to traders, etc, but to everyone. Not only must you put up with all this bull shit, but you must also deal, on a daily basis, with some of the biggest assholes on the face of the earth. Suffering fools is just the beginning. We do it all for, $$$, of course. As someone once said, we are all whores, it's just a matter of determining our price. Cheers, -paul > From cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com Wed May 15 03:05:51 1996 > Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 22:28:38 -0700 > X-Sender: tcmay(a)mail.got.net > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type> : > text/plain> ; > charset="us-ascii"> > To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > From: tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May) > Subject: Re: Fingerprinting annoyance > Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Content-Length: 3095 > > At 6:26 PM 5/13/96, Mark O. Aldrich wrote: > >On Mon, 13 May 1996, Senator Exon wrote: > > > ><snip> > >> i can fill out and manipulate the card myself i just need a > >> working method. > >> is there no privacy advocate who can help me? > >> > > > >I think most privacy advocates would advise, "Refuse to submit." It > >sounds like you're looking for more of a hack on the fingerprinting process. > > And if you are working for me, and I ask for a fingerprint, and you refuse > or "smear" the results (repeatedly, as the first smearing I may just take > as your token protest and have you printed again), you'll be out the door > by the end of the day. > > (Personally, I've never worked for a company which demands fingerprints, > but I've worked for companies which demanded ID badges and signatures, and > these are effectively as intrusive. And I suspect that my former employers > are now using thumbprints, and maybe full prints.) > > What one "doesn't like" and considers an "invasion of privacy" varies from > person to person. Some people think having their picture taken is a > stealing of their soul. Others fear nefarious things will be done with the > DNA from their blood samples. > > Trying to convince a company that photo ID badges and fingerprints are Bad > Things is perhaps admirable, just realize that in a free society that > employer is under no obligation to hire someone who refuses to go along > with the company's security policies. (This relates to the "civil rights" > thread.) > > > >of like a key certificate. If you really can dork the card, have ten > >different people volunteer one print each. There's no way that they'll > >ever be able to use that as evidence in a court or for any other purpose, > >either. > > A stupid idea. As the employer, I wouldn't have to prove it a court of > law...suspicion alone that some of my employees were fucking up a security > system might be enough for me to either a. promote them to the Tiger Team, > or b. fire their asses. > > (I just can't understand where this pervasive meme is coming from here on > this list, the notion that employers are severely limited in what they can > do to employees unless they can "prove it in court. Like it or not, most > employees in the United States are still employed "at will," and are not > covered by employment contracts such as some executives and the like get.) > > >If you're forced to do this in person with a tech, you can continuously > >"fight" the grip they have on your hand and smudge the card. However, > > Sure. It makes it easy for the employer to simply say "Next candidate." > > > --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." > > > > >

1 0

RE: Why does the state still stand:
by Jean-Francois Avon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 14 May 96 at 22:01, blanc wrote: > From: Hal [on the idea of companies operating fully anonymously] > > It might be interesting to make a list of all the problems people > can think of why this idea won't work, paired with proposed > solutions and workarounds - sort of a mini FAQ for this important > (some might say ultimate) cypherpunk model. > .................................................................... > > > I think this is a much needed discussion - in particular as it > comes at a time when Uni is is "somewhat disconcerted" at the > defeatist attitude of some cypherpunks and since TCMay is getting > ready to read us the Cypherpunks Bill of Rights regarding the > subsidizatoin of other's people's cyber existence (heh). > > 3 problems which immediately come to mind: > > . What if someone, hired on one occasion but fired at another, > decides in anger to "turn coat" and report everyone to the IRS (or > other fine government agency)? > > . What if a company does not pay as expected - other than adopting > Assassination Politics, what method could an employee use towards > getting their expected remuneration for work done? The nature of anonimity, IMO, precludes any legal mechanism since the anonymity structure was established precisely to avoid any legal consequences. Here, I might be tempted to differeciate between two cases: 1) the entity who wants to get out of the reach of the governmental system 2) the entity who wants to get out of the reach of everybody (to con others) The only problem is, how will you differentiate between 1) and 2) *before* a conflict arises? The involved party would then have to resort to use some sort of unofficial tribunal. It would create a set of parrallel law system, and as much of them as there would be groups doing business together. Again, depending on the context, AP might wery well be the only solution or be no workable solution at all. But here, I think that AP would be the single most important factor ruling the socio-economical behavior of individuals or entities in the world. It already works that way in many countries of the world, especially in south america. In many places, you don't screw around too much or you get killed. As a friend of mine who lived in the jungle told me "if a guy fools around with you wife, you just shut up and take it, but if a guy fools around with your girlfriend, you have the sorcerer mix you a beverage... One of my friend had one and he died within ten days..." He said: "This system might very well go against our common moral principles, but in theses places, you can leave anything on the public place for several days and when you come back, it'll still be there. In theses countries, when you give your word, it *is* binding. Most business deals are simply verbal and there is an astonishing low level of defaulting on them. Thoses who tend to default dishonestly tend very much to die quickly. In thoses countries, no con man ever survives." > . Wouldn't everyone need to have two jobs (or source of regularly > accepted cash), in order to be able to pay for services where > suppliers do not accept virtual cash transactions? (TCM has > mentioned before about the need to pay for some things in tiny > quantities - like quarters for a phone call, etc.) Any physical currency can be made traceable (put a chemical or radioactive tracer or a zillion other tricks...) JFA PLEASE NOTE: THIS POST DOES NOT MEAN THAT I ENDORSE MR. BELL'S SYSTEM. MY RATIONNAL CONCLUSIONS ABOUT IT'S INTERNAL MECHANICS AND IT'S INTRINSIC LOGICS DOES NOT MEAN THAT I LIKE NOR ENDORSE THE SYSTEM. I SIMPLY CONCLUDED THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PREVENT THE SYSTEM FROM BEING IMPLEMENTED. IMO, IT IS UNAVOIDABLE. DePompadour, Societe d'Importation Ltee Limoges porcelain, Silverware and mouth blown crystal glasses JFA Technologies, R&D consultants. Physists, technologists and engineers. PGP keys at: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon ID# C58ADD0D : 529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891

2 1

[NOISE] Re: Edited Edupage, 9 May 1996
by mccoy＠communities.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Doug Hughes writes: > "Jean-Francois Avon" <jf_avon(a)citenet.net> wrote: [... regarding the unfortunate poor who Mr. Avon hates...] > >You got to choose to do what is needed to live a better life. And > >most of them ain't doing what it takes. > > Are you saying those poor people in rural West Virgina only live > there because they are not trying hard enough to get out? Yes he is. They are poor and it is all their fault. [flame-bait approaching...] There are two kinds of libertarians, those who hate the poor and those who don't. I always seem to meet the former, I am beginning to suspect the latter don't exist. [...] > >> Education is one > >> thing (perhaps the only thing) that deserves to be subsidized in > >> this country. > >I think that it should not be subsidized. > >If you feel like subsidising education, then by all means, do it. > >But why should you stick a gun in my back to do the same? What if I > >do not want to do the same as you? > > > Then you will be living in a country with lower education standards, > increasing illiteracy, and a pretty pitiful base with a declining > socio-economic structure. Are you arguing that people are not equal > and those with more money should of necessity get better education? Yes, he is. It is times like this that I must count myself among the pitchfork and torch wielding mob, if only because I have been cursed with a small amount of compassion for those who were not as lucky as I. BTW Mr. Avon, the reason we, the unruly mob of collectivists, socialists, and [insert libertarian/anarchist buzzword here] should stick a gun in your back and make you cough up money for education is because we can. If you don't want to do so, they why don't _you_ move? Are your feet cast in concrete blocks? Welcome to the real world. jim

3 2

Re: Past one terabit/second on fiber
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:44 AM 5/15/96 CDT, Daniel R. Oelke wrote: >> "Wow", I said. Far faster than the 2.5 Gb/sec transmission that is >> currently fairly standard for long-haul fiber trunks. > >The ads say they are selling it - that doesn't mean shipping it... yet >at least. (Note that my employer is a direct competitor of Lucent >so I have a vested interest in setting the facts straight) Yes, I should clarify that the article indicated that the whole system will be available in the "second quarter of 1996." They say the fiber itself, "TrueWave" is available now. > >> I wasn't prepared, however, for page 38, in an article titled "Research >> Teams Achieve 1 Trillion bits a Second." In fact, three separate groups did >> this. I copy the article below. > >Yes - this is still very much a lab situation only though. >It will be quite a few years before we hit that in real systems. True. In fact, it may be that we simply don't need that rate of transmission yet. Maybe somebody familiar with routers can tell us what kind of CPU horsepower would be required to do that effectively. Economics dictates that such an extraordinarily fast and multiplexed system would only be used when it is cheaper than the alternative, using multiple lower-speed fibers. If anything, I think the main impediment to the use of the higher rates is fact that fiber signals must be broken down whereever the fiber is terminated, and the cost of that termination would be astronomical if it had to handle 1 Tb/s. Chances are good that one of the few places that such a system would be economical would be long-haul undersea cables where breakouts are rare and terminations are few. >> Even if we only consider that 20 Gb/second fiber from Lucent, that is >> equivalent to about 300,000 simultaneous voice calls. > >An OC48 signal (~2.5 Gb/sec) will handle 48 T3's or 48 * 672 voice calls. >Multiply by 8 for 20 Gb/second and you get 258048 voice calls. >Pretty close to 300k I guess. I was figuring they'd cut out silences...as well as echo-suppression cutouts. Do they still do this? Given modern fiber's capacity, I wonder if they bother. >I don't know that any number fiber cable is "standard" but >36-fiber cable is not unusual. To find the capacity of a cable, you >have to cut the number of fibers in half (as you did) because >generally each fiber is used only for a single direction of traffic. >You then have to cut it in half again because phone companies have >everything redundant. So, for a connection between two cities, >there are generally 2 cables in different locations (so one backhoe >doesn't get both), with on average only 1/2 the fibers in each carrying >paying traffic. There's also a lot of 'dark fiber' out there, right? Fiber laid as part of a cable but not activated, because it's not yet needed. I got a look at a segment of the operation that laid a cable from Seattle (Vancouver BC?) to around San Francisco, about 5 years ago. Got a chance to talk to an engineer, and ask a bunch of technical questions. They laid three smaller (2" or so) plastic tubes in a larger outer tube, and the engineer said they'd later blow a cable through a single tube with compressed air. He said they had no current plans to fill the other two tubes, because of lack of need. And at the rate the fiber companies are improving transmission rates, it is unclear whether they will ever run out of capacity in such situations. >> If we assume that the fiber cable costs $1/meter per fiber, and the cost of >> trenching, burial, and interconnects raise this to $10/meter/fiber, and if >> we generously assume that the average LD call goes 3000 miles (5,000,000m), >> that call occupies 1/150,000th of a $50 million fiber for a few minutes. If >> we suppose that the fiber has to gross $100,000,000 per year to pay for >> itself, and even if it's only operating at an average 10% load level(both >> assumptions are pessimistic, that only works out to a cost of 1.3 cents per >> minute per call. That's why these LD phone companies are so scared: If we >> can transmit Internet on fiber, that fiber can accept this extra traffic at >> very low marginal cost. > >I can't vouch much for your cost numbers - other than to apply the >factor of 2 adjustment noted above. My numbers are not totally a WAG (wild-ass guess) but they are probably out of date even if they had any resemblence to the truth a few years ago. I'd appreciate hearing more accurate figures if you know them. Don't divulge company secrets or anything; I'm only interested in ballpark figures for the industry as a whole. > I would add that much of a >phone companies cost is in billing and customer service, etc. >Not the cost of installing and maintaining the fiber and equipement. This suggests that there would be a market for a LD phone company that charged, say, a yearly payment of $200-300 for essentially unlimited use. (The main impediment to this would be regulatory; as I understand it LD companies have to pay local telco's for connections on a per-minute connect basis. Is that right? This needs to get fixed.) Their billing costs would be very small. >Internet telephony should make the use of bandwidth even more >efficient - thereby cutting costs. The big guys who own >the fibers will still make money - the pipes that carry internet >traffic are still needed. But the little guys will get squeezed out. >(until they become ISPs ;-). Internet traffic could theoretically >be carried over this large amount of protection fiber (mentioned above) >that is out there for a much lower marginal cost than the current >T3 or OC3 pipes that are being used. The only "problem" being that these >are lower priority channels, so that if a failure occurs anywhere, >the traffic on them is dropped. Most customers are demanding >high uptimes so much that the idea of a very lost cost, >but much less reliable service hasn't caught on yet. I think the market will have to migrate towards such services. A backup fiber is an asset whose capacity can be easily "mined" for a substantial payback. True, its availability is not particularly reliable, but that's exactly what the Internet was intended to be able to use, right? I suspect that the real reason Internet hasn't migrated to such transmission systems is simply that its needs still don't demand anywhere close to the current-available fiber technology. However, if traffic is tripling per year we'll need to see a substantial migration to full-fiber links within 3-5 years. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

RE: Why does the state still stand:
by Jean-Francois Avon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 15 May 96 at 17:32, Black Unicorn wrote: > I disagree. The key is prior or on site clearing. Anonymous > businesses will have to depend more on reputation, and even > reputation has its limits when it comes to parties that obviously > have no accountabilty at all. > > Participants in such a market will have to be wary of the "last > shot" or "last round" problem. (Specifically that one party to the > transaction may no longer wish to participate in the market, and not > need to and thus is free to screw the market, "cash in" his > reputation and retire on the proceeds as a result. > > Still, escrows or multiple escrows will be the answer here. > > Again, depending on the context, AP might wery well be the only > > solution or be no workable solution at all. > > Now, tell me how AP is a solution if everyone in the corporation is > double blinded? Who do anonymous parties put out betting pools on? Agreed. I just supposed there might be some of the involved entities that are not totally anonymous. I don't think that you'd deliver completely anonymously a bulldozer or any other physical goods to some "anonymous" address. Somehow, if the transaction involves anything physical, there is potential for a anonimity breach. > > Any physical currency can be made traceable (put a chemical or > > radioactive tracer or a zillion other tricks...) > > And so? Because I possess or have received cash from someone does > not mean that it is mine, nor that I earned it, nor that I am not > merely holding it, nor that I am not acting as trustee. Agreed too. But still, it might attract troublemakers. > Income tax and currency taxes depend on realization events. Even in > the strictest sense, realization is a thin and vague concept. Since I am not a layer, would you care to elaborate a bit more on that? > Your only remaining option is to tax possession of currency. Good > luck. Why? Don't they already do that through Tax on Capital? > Again, who are you going to kill? Nobody. I thought that through you long law studies, you did learn to read... Or is it my english that is too imperfect? Dear Unicorn, what in the hell makes you concludes that my "disclaimer" means that I am going to kill somebody? I just say that after having turned the idea around for some time, I see it as ineluctable that *some* groups will implement it. Just bring me *one* single fact of reality that will show me that it is not possible to implement and you will have made my day. Even if it is implemented for any entirely wrong reason, I do not think that we can prevent it's implementation. BTW, since I was off from CPunks for a while, would you please tell me if you published the suite of you writings on assets concealement? I would then proceed to get it from the archives if it was published. Regards. JFA DePompadour, Societe d'Importation Ltee Limoges porcelain, Silverware and mouth blown crystal glasses JFA Technologies, R&D consultants. Physists, technologists and engineers. PGP keys at: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon ID# C58ADD0D : 529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891 Unsollicited commercial e-mail will be proofread at US165 $/h Any sender of such material will be considered as to have ac- cepted the above mentionned terms.

2 1

Re: Why does the state still stand:
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"hfinney(a)shell.portal.com" "Hal" 15-MAY-1996 00:14:06.38 >I think the intention then is to create "fully anonymous" companies. >These would be organizations whose principals and employees are known >only by pseudonyms, even to each other. Their only contact is >electronic, via an anonymous network. And the employees are paid in >anonymous ecash, which they don't pay taxes on since it is unreported >income. The anonymous network would appear to be a possible weak point. If governments keep shutting down remailers and other such devices, then it won't work. Therefore, I've been doing some preliminary work in this area. My first result is as follows. One subject that has come up recently is that of remailer operations in countries outside the United States, so as to chain them to produce jurisdictional headaches. The following is a preliminary list of companies and organizations that might be used to run an out-of-US remailer, assuming telnetting to a UNIX shell. In selecting these, I generally excluded: ones in authoritarian countries (e.g., China and Singapore); ones that appear to be government-run; ones where they didn't appear to understand English very well; ones in the European Community (except for a few such as Malta that don't cooperate very well with the European Community); ones that charge for mail volume; and ones that stated they did not run shell accounts. I did not include offshore.com.ai in Anguilla due to its high cost; I consider anything over 25$ a month to be impractical. _Country/Area_ _Name_ _Email_ Anguilla Cable & Wireless webmaster(a)candw.com.ai Antigua Cable & Wireless scholla(a)candw.ag Barbados CaribSurf webmaster(a)caribsurf.com Denmark cybernet.dk info(a)cybernet.dk Finland Clinet Ltd clinet(a)clinet.fi Finland Net People Ltd helpdesk(a)netppl.fi Finland Xgateway Finland Ltd* pal(a)xgw.fi Iceland Multimedia Consumer Services mmedia(a)mmedia.is Isle of Man Advanced Systems Consultants** info(a)advsys.co.uk Jamaica InfoChannel icquery(a)infochan.com Liechtenstein Ping Services afink(a)ping.ch Liechtenstein Online Store AG webmaster(a)onlinestore.com Malaysia MIMOS mal(a)mimos.my Malta maltaNET info(a)maltanet.omnes.net Sweden FX AB fx(a)uni-x.se Sweden Internet One** Support(a)one.se Sweden Kajplats 305 info(a)kajen.malmo.se * = This organization has on its main page a link to a document called the "Declaration of an Independent Internet." It thus may be possible to persuade them to support a remailer at reduced or no charge as part of this. ** = This organization's main page has the EFF blue ribbon, unlike others. I would appreciate comment on all aspects of this list. These include: additional companies and countries to add; companies or countries to take off (international politics & law is not my subject); and suggestions about where to look for more (it is quite possible that I did not locate all the lists of out-of-US ISPs). Once I have some feedback on which ones to check with, I'll email them and ask about prices (in US dollars), further information on policies, etcetera. -Allen

1 0

Re: Why does the state still stand:
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"blancw(a)accessone.com" "blanc" 15-MAY-1996 03:52:18.03 >. What if someone, hired on one occasion but fired at another, decides = >in anger to "turn coat" and report everyone to the IRS (or other fine = >government agency)? Well, full anonymnity should stop this one from being a problem, although one should still consider topics such as forensic stylometry - if someone squeals and starts keeping messages (plus any earlier kept innocently), it may be possible to figure out who's who from these. I'm currently checking into forensic stylometry; I can see the possibility of programs to run stylometry on one's own email/posting, with suggestions for alternative vocabulary, etcetera when you fall into too much of a pattern. A related problem is that of government agents signing on. Both of the above are made more acute by the possibility that some information, if revealed, might enable the government to disrupt activities - even if it doesn't enable prosecution. Making sure that the participants have a strong stake in behaving properly - e.g., shares in the outcome, ecash deposits, and - most importantly in dissuading governmental intervention - reputation riding on it. The last is most important in dissuading governmental intervetion because of the reserves of wealth the government is likely to have for some time; they can afford to pay (using your and my tax dollars) for the short-term costs to a subject. Paying for longer-term costs (e.g., the loss of the ability to work due to reputational diminishment) is not as practical, and is usually only done for very important cases (e.g., the Witness Protection Program). An additional aspect of the last is that if someone has a poor (or no) reputation, you shouldn't trust them with much damaging information or responsibility. If government agents keep blowing various covers, none of their covers will have much reputation capital. >. What if a company does not pay as expected - other than adopting = >Assassination Politics, what method could an employee use towards = >getting their expected remuneration for work done? A combination of escrow agencies and reputation capital appears to work here. It does have the problem for escrow agencies that they will either have to be above-board - and thus subject to governmental pressure - or anonymous - and thus not particularly trustworthy until they've built up reputation capital. But how do they build up reputation capital in the first place? Hmm.... what one needs is a way to transfer reputation from a public, identifiable source to a new pseudonymous source. Some cryptographic thought on this idea has been had; I will leave it up to the experts to discuss it. >. Wouldn't everyone need to have two jobs (or source of regularly = >accepted cash), in order to be able to pay for services where suppliers = >do not accept virtual cash transactions? (TCM has mentioned before about = >the need to pay for some things in tiny quantities - like quarters for a = >phone call, etc.) Intersections between the virtual and regularly accepted cash economies are an interesting subject; Sasha has written about this before on here. Essentially, money-changing is likely to be a significant enough source of profit that someone will be willing to do it. Now, regularly accepted cash will have the limit that the IRS et al will want to know its source. Thus, one should probably use as little of it as possible, and that only in untraceable ways - investments et al should be done via virtual cash. There is the problem of that one has a certain minimal reasonable spending, for the source of which the IRS is likely to look. -Allen

1 0

Re: Rural Datafication (Was Re: Edited Edupage, 9 May 1996)
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"tcmay(a)got.net" 15-MAY-1996 02:31:15.60 >A consequence is that many customers leapfrog right over local cable and go >directly for satellite dishes. While the local community cable systems and >their government partners could (and did) keep out other cable competitors, >this became less and less possible with satellite dishes. Zoning laws were >used to limit BUDs (Big Ugly Dishes, the big 8-foot and larger C-band >dishes). But as the Ku-band dishes (mentioned favorably in my 1988 Crypto >Anarchist Manifesto, interestingly enough) became available, even the most >restrictive zoning ordinances became unenforceable....dishes could be in >attics, on balconies, even covered with fake boulders! The courts are also (sensibly) seeing zoning laws attempting to outlaw such small dishes as being completely ridiculous. >In my own case, I skipped cable and installed a DSS dish...150 or more >channels, at least 20 movies on at any given time (not even counting the >Pay Per View movies, of which there are at least 30-40), financial news, >CNN, etc. Plus, a digital output connector for (Real Soon Now, they claim) >a PageSat-type Usenet and Web page feed, using phone links for the back >link. I submit this as an example of where the free market is providing a >better solution than "community access cable" did. In fact, the >socialization of cable held cable back. I've gone even farther than that - I don't bother with having a TV, I just get my info from the net. There is the problem with the satellite net links that it tends to concentrate data production & distribution into relatively few hands, from which it can easier be taken by government and other forces. Larger corporation, despite the influence their size gives them, can be easier to pressure than the small ones. Look at Compuserve in Germany, for instance - they were having pressure from Christian Coalition types, etcetera, and used the German investigation as an excuse. On the other hand, this is also a very good argument against rural subsidies being necessary - if people want net access and are educated and smart enough to afford it (and thus be able to use it properly), they can get it even if they're in the wilds of Montana. -Allen

1 0

Re: Edited Edupage, 9 May 1996
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:11 PM 5/15/96 -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote: >As long as this is now CypherCesspit and not CypherPunks, I might as >well play the game. I've been trolled too. >Perhaps its this sort of thing, and the fact that the literacy rate >was higher BEFORE public education, that lead me to believe that we >don't need any more "assistance" from the friendly neighborhood >government. We need less, a lot less, and as fast as possible. Since I am basically conservative (small c, original meaning), I always look for ways to ease into change. In the case of public schools (and specifically in California), I see that the top 10% can stand proudly next to the best of the private schools, and the bottom 10% are cesspools. We should start by issuing education vouchers to the parents of students in the bottom 10% of the schools for the state aid their districts would have otherwise gotten. We can monitor indicators such as the juvenile crime rate and standardized tests to see how the experiment is progressing. If the experiment is wildly successful, it will be extended quickly by popular demand. If it is mildly successful, it should be extended to more schools, but more slowly (perhaps the lowest 25% next), and monitored. In any case, when it reaches the top 10%, it ain't broke, schools, they will have had time to adapt to the change in funding. I should note that if I were sending my children to primary/secondary school today, I would still send them to the local public schools in Los Gatos. >Do you prefer using the U.S. Postal Service, or Federal Express when >you absolutely positively have to get the package there? Actually I use the USPS. They deliver to places I have to send things that FX does not (Some rural parts of the USA). However, since I am not sending life-saving medicine, I really don't "absolutely positively have to get the package there". ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bill Frantz | The CDA means | Periwinkle -- Computer Consulting (408)356-8506 | lost jobs and | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | dead teenagers | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0