- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

RE: Why does the state still stand:
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:01 PM 5/14/96 -0700, blanc wrote: >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)? I expect that as corporations move to the net, they will not have the highly centralized structure of existing corporations. In any case this structure is in large part imposed by the state in order to facilitate tax collection. For example the existence of the "Human resources department" is largely the result of state coercion of corporations. In web businesses ones primary relationship will be with ones immediate coworkers, rather than the greater corporation. They will consist rather of a network of relationships -- contracting will move up, and the Keiretsu structure will move down. I expect the institutional structure will resemble that of the mafia -- a loose confederation of networks rather than tight whole. Thus defection by one party can only cause limited damage. In my judgement the Keiretsu form of economic organization is growing in large part because of improved communications and lowered communication costs. The Keiretsu form does not in itself facilitate tax evasion, but it does mean that the state has to apply coercion more directly to more people in order to collect taxes, and that its coercion has to be more visibly arbitrary and disruptive. >. 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? In order to do business, one will need a good name (or good nym). If one does not have a good name, one will be poor. That is why I said "every man his own credit bureau". >. 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.) Existing forms of ecash are costly and inconvenient, hence unsuitable for spending in tiny quantities. I expect that in the not very distant future every shop will offer its own cash, and that some of these will be in the form of millicents -- suitable for automatic lightly supervised transactions between computers. I expect the transaction cost advantage will eventually be on the side of electronic money, rather than physical money. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

3 3

Re: crosspost re remailers
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:30 PM 5/14/96 -0700, Rich Graves wrote: >Actually, there hasn't really been any discussion on cypherpunks, which I >find a little surprising. I'd have thought that a remailer going down >because of political/legal pressure would raise more of a ruckus. People >seem jaded, but I'm not sure why. I thought the statement that remailers are supposed to be ephemeral and common was the answer. If one is shut down, a dozen spring up in its place. Advertising new remailers does become an issue. What mechanisms are in place for new remailers to advertise themselves? I find it interesting that this remailer is being shut down by private action and not by government. (Yes, they are threatening government action, but if they couldn't do that they would find some other threat.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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

Re: distributed keys
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:47 AM 5/15/96 -0600, Matt Smith wrote: >Has anyone heard of an algorithm for managing keys automatically in a >distributed system? > >For instance, if some low level security were to be implemented in a >a networking stack where authentication was to be implemented, you would want >to have each node have it's own signature so that signature checking can >take place when one node connects to another node. The trick is then >getting every node's keys distributed to every other node. > >... > (4) Have a machine responsible for generating the public-private keys for each node. It has its own public-private key pair. It uses it's private key to sign each node's public key. Every node gets three keys: it's public and private keys, and the public key generating machine. When nodes make contact they exchange signed public keys and verify the signature of their partner's key with the public key of the generating machine. This is a simple certificate hierarchy scheme as seen in SET, the US Post Office CA system, and VeriSign. Note that the generating machine does not need to be on any network. In fact, it could spend most of its time locked up in a safe since it is only needed when generating new keys. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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

Re: Fingerprinting annoyance
by Paul S. Penrod 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Tue, 14 May 1996, Black Unicorn wrote: > On Mon, 13 May 1996, Paul S. Penrod wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, 13 May 1996, Senator Exon wrote: > > > > > in connection with a character and fitness report i have been > > > asked to supply a review board with a set of my fingerprints > > > i have never been fingerprinted before > > > i am not very keen on the idea now > > > of course refusing will attract suspicion > > > short of getting someone else to put their fingers in ink for > > > me does anyone have a cute method by which to obscure my prints > > > on those cute little cards without it being obvious? > > > i can fill out and manipulate the card myself i just need a > > > working method. > > > is there no privacy advocate who can help me? > > > > > > > First off, if you were born in the US, they have your feet and/or hand > > prints on record. Secondly, fingerprints are not an absolute proof > > positive means of identification. They are sufficiently unique enough > > that it satisfies the statistical error acceptability for many > > governmental agencies. > > > > I wouldn't worry about it personally. There are more effective ways of > > getting around such things if you really need to. If you don't have any > > historical baggage, then don't make waves. > > More effective? Why not share them with the list? The guy obviously IS > worried about it, and maybe reasonably so. > Yes. No, and for obvious reasons. If the guy is worried because he is paranoid, then that is his reality. It's not as difficult as you might think to find someone if you really want to - with or without fingerprints. If he is paranoid because he has baggage, then that is also his problem. We live by our own choices everyday - both good and bad. There are some consequences that take time to catch up with us, and some of those are unavoidable. If the job is worth it to him, then he will submit - otherwise there are lots of other places to work that don't require printing. ...Paul

1 0

Re: (legal) Re: CDA Dispatch #10: Last Day in Court
by Joseph M. Reagle Jr. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:06 PM 5/14/96 -0400, you wrote: >You can appeal directly on the merits. And you do so. The higher court >decides all questions of law de novo (ie pays no deference ot tyhe >decision of the court below beyond whatever persuasive power it may >have), but must accept the factual record as presented ("found") by the >court below. Thus the importance of the trial testimony at this stage. Ok, thank you for clarifying that. One question regarding the "de novo," if a lower court decides to restrict its ruling to a specific aspect of the case ("indecency") can the higher court broaden the scope of its ruling, or must its ruling be with specific regards to the scope of the lower court. (I don't know if the appeal can be on the basis of the scope.) BTW: This is what a lawyer/professor was able to tell me. As you can see I was thinking of a garbled version of a jury trial: I'm not familiar with the case, so I cannot speak to its specifics, however here is the general concept of appeals in the U.S. Courts: At the trial of any case there are two categories of issues to be resolved--those called "factual" issues and those called "legal" issues. Only legal issues are subject to appeal in a higher court. If there is a jury trial, the "facts" are what the jury decides (including, en route to their decision, which witnesses to believe) and this is called the verdict. The verdict per se is not subject to appeal. The "law" is what the judge decides, and can include matters of procedure as well as matters of substance. Typically these are decisions about what evidence to admit, what instructions to give to the jury, what motions to grant or deny, etc. All of this is subject to appeal. If the appeal necessitates a new trial, the new jury starts over with new testimony, and reaches its own conclusion on the facts--but this is not really an "appeal" of the first jury's verdict. If there is no jury at the first trial, the trial judge wears both hats, finding the facts and making conclusions of law--but keeping these decisions separate in his or her opinion. Only the judge's conclusions of law in such trials are subject to appeal. _______________________ Regards, Men govern nothing with more difficulty than their tongues, and can moderate their desires more than their words. -Spinoza Joseph Reagle http://farnsworth.mit.edu/~reagle/home.html reagle(a)mit.edu E0 D5 B2 05 B6 12 DA 65 BE 4D E3 C1 6A 66 25 4E

3 3

Re: Fingerprinting annoyance
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"unicorn(a)schloss.li" "Black Unicorn" 15-MAY-1996 00:00:25.51 >On Tue, 14 May 1996, Timothy C. May wrote: >> At 3:22 PM 5/14/96, Matthew Williams wrote: >> >Although knowingly providing a fake social security number when one >> >has any expectation of gain is, I believe, a felony. >> >42 USC. sec. 408. >Note the key provisons, for gain, and when submitted to those entitled to >the number legally. But is "entitled to the number legally" meaning anyone who _must_ have the number legally (IRS & other government agencies, those dealing with the IRS, etcetera), or anyone who can require it as a condition of doing business? There is a difference between the two, at least according to the Social Security Number FAQ that I last read. -Allen

2 1

RE: Java & signed applets
by Gregg Weissman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Well,that day is not all that far off, when there is trusted h/w, or trusted components, on the desktop. This will be the usual two-edged sword .... ---------- From: Lyal Collins[SMTP:lyalc@ozemail.com.au] Sent: Thursday, May 16, 1996 8:02 AM To: E. ALLEN SMITH Cc: Cypherpunks(a)toad.com Subject: Re: Java & signed applets Signing anything is somewaht a waste of time, unless the verification siftware is highly trusted, and there is good intergity/authenticity control of the root public key(s). So, in geneal - ho hum - until trusted hardware is available on the desktop. lyal -- All mistakes in this message belong to me - you should not use them!

1 0

Re: RSAREF for Mac?
by timd＠consensus.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:26 PM 5/14/96, Jay Haines wrote: >It seems that I have seen this question asked before, but as I had no need for >the answer at that time, I trashed it. So, without further ado: > >Can anyone point in the direction of RSAREF for the Macintosh? Sorry for the delay. RSAREF for Mac is the same as any other RSAREF; RSAREF is distributed as fairly portable C source. For a recent project, I just added the sorce files to a Metrowerks project and built and it worked fine. It compiles without errors or warnings on all the Mac platforms I've tried thus far (it does generate "possible unintended assignment" warnings (for assignments inside of if statements) if you've got that turned on). If you're having problems, feel free to drop me a note. - Tim Tim Dierks -- timd(a)consensus.com -- www.consensus.com Head of Thing-u-ma-jig Engineering, Consensus Development

1 0

Re: SEVERE undercapacity, we need more remailer servers FAST
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:58 AM 5/15/96 -0700, Hal wrote: > The problem that I think the Scientology postings raise is that the > remailers cannot really be used to post copyrighted material. The major battle the net has faced is with the church of scientology. In this battle the net is clearly in the right, and the church clearly in the wrong, regardless of what copyright law says. Retreat on this issue would be politicaly inadvisable, for it would radically weaken us in the next battle, which will doubtless concern much more vital matters than a band of con men. What do I need to do to support a remailer that posts to non binary newsgroups? (I do not have root control on a unix machine other than my employers machine, for which I am unlikely to receive approval to use in this fashion.) --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

2 1

Re: Fingerprinting annoyance
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"unicorn(a)schloss.li" "Black Unicorn" 15-MAY-1996 19:40:34.88 >It means essentially the IRS and banks. Even banks have little recourse. >They make you sign a piece of paper that says you gave them the right SSN, >but practically speaking no one cares. >Equifax (a credit reporting agency) refuses to take bank records as >evidence of SSN's because they KNOW the banks don't care or enforce and >that people lie to or make mistakes to the bank on a daily basis. Fascinating. I would think the IRS would care - that's how they know how to tax interest. They don't put any pressure on the banks to get the right one? I seem to recall showing the bank a driver's license or some such with a SSN on it the last time I opened an interest-bearing account. As I recall, government branches are authorized to get SSNs - if they show you the privacy act paperwork. If they forget, I would suppose that lying to them is perfectly permissible. What about if they do? -Allen

1 0