- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

number of 2-way radios
by Carl Ellison 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Does anyone have rough figures on the number of cellular phones produced versus the number of military 2-way radios ever produced? I'd be willing to bet the former far exceeds the latter, but it would be nice to have real figures. - Carl

1 0

e$: Economic Development of the Caribbean
by rah＠shipwright.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In article <CuIyqC.MHA(a)ecf.toronto.edu>, francis(a)ecf.toronto.edu (FRANCIS ALVIN CYRILLE) wrote: > What are the major factors hindering economic development in the Caribbean..? I've been interested in this for a long time. I've started to form some ideas about it, and here they are. 1. No effective public health system. (Not really socialized medicine, just sanitation, epidemiology, etc.) 2. No educational infrastructure. 3. Monopolistic control of political structures. 4. Monopolistic control of critical markets. The above are interrelated, thus the ranking is only superficial. As island states with few resources, the nations of the caribbean can't afford to have political and economic monoculture. Small islands with few resources (Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan and the British Isles) must trade or die. Uniparty states, with sweetheart deals to extract resources and ship them away, tend to make their people poorer, unless there's an extreme premium on the resource (oil, guano, etc). Brunei, where the sultan owns everything and is the country's the richest in the world anyway (per capita) is a great example of being able to "afford" monopolistic political and market control. They have enormous oil reserves with which to pay for all the eggregious excesses of the government/theocracy, and still have lots left over for education, public health, and universal health access. It's interesting to think that that's pretty much what Fidel did in Cuba. His "premium resource" was a strategic position 90 miles off of Florida that was very very valuable to the USSR. Life gets better someplace only as the life expectancy goes up. This is called the Demographic Transition, and it is marked by a sharp decline in population growth as life expectancy crosses 50 years. People won't have children as a substitute for retirement pensions when they can see that they will be healthy enough to take care of themselves for most of their whole life. Children become a want rather than a need, and population growth tapers off. Most of the USA's population growth comes from immigration. Singapore has state-sponsored latin dance classes to get their citizens interested in having families earlier. (Go figure) The quickest way to drive up life expectancy is through public health. If people won't die from malaria or typhus or cholera or diptheria, or river blindness, or whatever, because their water's clean, and their wastes don't get back into their food chain, then their life expectancy doubles overnight. I stayed in the Galleon House in downtown Charlotte Amalie for a week a few years ago, and the open sewers are still right there out on the street. I remember seeing a "creek" running through an alluvial plain of shacks just outside St. John in Antigua, and the water was purple-green with raw sewage. The reason that this hasn't changed is because the population hasn't demanded it, and the reason for that is that they're not given enough education. The reason for that is that the governments are filled with people who want to line their own pockets, and can do so because they hold generational political dynasties. This is usually because of some sweetheart deal with an extractive monopoly/oligopoly, which can "contribute" large piles of cash to whoever does them a favor. If there was more of a trading tradition in the caribbean it would help drive growth. There are a few places where that has happened before and can happen again. St. Thomas, unencumbered by US government subsidy and regulation might be one, if those if monoparty cronyism didn't kill it. It had been a huge shipping and trading port for centuries. Now its primary function seems to be shaking down tourists. Trade of a sort, I suppose. Which leads me directly to another reason I'm interested in the small island nations of the caribbean. The idea of internet commerce. There are people in some circles in the net who think that the internet provides a perfect opportunity for people to buy and sell software and information securely and even anonymously. To do this properly one would need to reduce restrictions on cash transactions, the transfer of capital, and the use of strong cryptography. Cryptography is the enabling technology for the transfer of assets and money in a secure fashion over unsecure networks. The first result is that people can work anywhere they want. Personally, I think Boston is nice, but I'd rather hang in Cruz Bay for most of the year if I could get away with it. We just had a discussion in soc.culture.caribbean about the lack of full-blown USVI internet access which talked about that. You could have a whole class of "lifestyle refugees" coming from the developed world to the caribbean because they can work anywhere they want. This literally foriegn trade, only now a nation is re-exporting intellectual property. Sort of like a fair-weather maquilladora with imported gold-collar workers. Think about the development of america in the 19th century. The railroads brought immigrants from europe, who then homesteaded land and sold the agricultural products they grew to people who processed them into goods which generated foriegn exchange, which paid for interest on bonds that J.P. Morgan & Co. sold to the european money centers. Some of those bonds were then used to build more railroads, which brought in more settlers, etc. The other neat thing about this process is that it automatically brings in foriegn exchange and development capital which is independent of monopolistic controls. These "refugees" have to buy things, but they buy them from local, distributed sources: shops, builders, tradesmen, etc. Those people automatically have an independent entrepreneurial outlook, which is reflected eventually in the political and economic structure of the nation. You get a quasi-Jeffesonian nation of shopkeepers, tradesmen, and as their children are educated, technical/information professionals who work on the net for a living. This is how a nation can build a trading tradition from the ground up. Finally, the electronic money (e$ for short) which enables this commerce has to be denominated in something, probably dollars. The entities (call them banks, for the time being) have to live somewhere. These entities are responsible for moving assets and money on and off the internet and make their money by either taking a small fee (called a spread) when converting money from one form to another, or from collecting the interest (called the float) on the dollars that were converted into e$, but haven't been converted back to other dollars yet. The cool thing is that some caribbean nations have figured out offshore banking already. The reason this kind of banking is valuable is the concept of regulatory arbitrage. Regulations impede the flow of money. The Netherlands Antilles have made a reasonable living domiciling corporations whose sole purpose is to keep money out of the american banking system and thus its tax mechanism. Money made offshore which stays offshore doesn't get taxed as easily by the IRS. Regulatory Arbitrage is also exemplified by the banking and insurance industries of the Bahamas, the Caymans, Bermuda, and to a lesser extent, Antigua and the EC (Eastern Caribbean) nations. In those cases, those nations have modeled bank secrecy laws like those of the swiss. In order for a nation to become an e$-center, they would have to allow the creation of e$, particular dollar-denominated e-cash on their shores. There are enourmous regulatory hurdles in the US, but with a sufficiently arbitrary and capricious political infrastructure, it could happen pretty soon in the caribbean, if it was worth someone's while... Ah, the ironies of economics... Cheers, Bob Hettinga -- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) "There is no difference between Shipwright Development Corporation someone who eats too little 44 Farquhar Street and sees Heaven and someone Boston, MA 02331 USA who drinks too much and sees (617) 323-7923 snakes." -- Bertrand Russell

1 0

<sigh>
by William H. Geiger III 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Due to a misbehaving mailing list I have lost some mail this morning. :( If you have sent any message to me between 00:00-13:00 GMT-0400 today please resend the message. Also could someone from the mailing list send me copies of the messages that I have missed. Thanks, - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: cp850 Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 iQCVAwUBM85dN49Co1n+aLhhAQF3fAP8Db4z+7GLaSsst8ZkGVG151NO4lIt0wbR S5oRTbLWRQbuAGccvGvKJSLtu3QPzn1wwp3khVJiVvz6QvweMTXBd6IV7QNvhE5o An519HaatiAICAgkPcBC5/l1SkTfcRxX8GYk1SUWI8Ockw9zyLZtY9VsbgtgD3Yk QFqprV7VQrQ= =fiQQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Utlimate spying machine
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Pointers: John Markoff writes in today's NYT about NSA's contract with Cray Computer Corporation for development of "ultimate spying machine", p. D3. May be related to full-page coverage today on threat of uncontrolled Russian nuclear material and another article about Energy Department's denial that the issue is being pumped for funding reasons.

1 0

Re: EFF on why they did it.
by wcs＠anchor.ho.att.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

David Lesher writes: > > Paid for "by the government"?!! And just where does the EFF think the > > government gets its money? > > One difference -- the Hill must allocate money for "paid for by the > government" as compared to "just rape the switch designer" financing. > > No money, not wiretaps. That may {or may not} limit the effect of FBI > Wiretap, depending on how [much/little] the Hill loosens the > pursestrings. It's certainly a good start, but the government *does* have other money. For instance, when Clipper was first announced, they said they wouldn't need Congressional permission, because they were paying for it out of the DoJ Super Forfeiture Fund, which had about $2B in money stolen from users of politically incorrect substances. I realize that doesn't go very far when you're talking about restructuring the Global Information Infrastructure. But it's a lever to get stuff started, then they can go demanding tax money because you *can't* shut down the Phone Companies! Bill

2 1

Re: Are "they" really the enemy?
by bshantz＠spry.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> Where do we start? If, or based on the words of many >> on this list, we tear down the government, will we understand the >> resultant human-made system any better? >You won't tear down the government without replacing it. And I would >argue that the more violent the means used to tear down the government, >the more repressive its successor. Governments exist in part because >we are such dangerous animals. Well said, Jim. However, I question the "more repressive its successor" part. (Note: I have nothing to back up that statement, except that it didn't hit me as being entirely true.) Brad >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>INTERNETWORKING THE DESKTOP<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Brad Shantz bshantz(a)spry.com Software Engineer Main #: (206)-447-0300 SPRY Inc. Direct #: (206)-442-8251 316 Occidental Ave, 2nd Floor FAX #: (206)-442-9008 Seattle, WA 98104 WWW URL: http://WWW.SPRY.COM ----------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

1 0

Public Key Encryption/RSA/Information Security
by Daniel Houser 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I understand that you run some sort of service (a "zine"?) relating to RSA and cryptography. I'm very interested in this kind of thing, and am currently doing some work on information security topics. Any information you could provide me with would be relished! Thanx Dan Houser, CSP ddhouser(a)freenet.columbus.oh.us

1 0

Re: Are \"they\" really the enemy? (Systems commentary)
by jdd＠aiki.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In message <199408180713.AAA28521(a)deepthought.pylon.com> the impostor "Jim.Dixon": @pylon.com:; writes: > System-makers typically expect automatic processes to determine > the character of the whole, and the operations themselves > become the purpose for which the system exists. [etc] This whole discussion, I think, begins with a misconception: the original writer was talking about the idea that a group has an existence separate from that of its members; you are talking about systems that people have designed, or think that they have designed. > When a system is designed to organize human behavior (as in > "governing" it) it has the inherent mistake of being based on > the presumption of complete knowledge of human nature (yet who > agrees on what that comprises). Only a philosopher could make such a statement. A family is such a system, but it is based on no such presumption. Families begin in what is usually a completely mindless activity. And any honest parent of teenage children will admit that he or she is almost totally ignorant of human nature. If the parent doesn't admit it, the child will let the parent know. Most of us just bumble along. We have little theories. We recognize that we do not have complete knowledge of anything. > Anyone who is circumscribed by > the system created is held within its confines, is judged by > its borders and by its limits upon their decisions. If someone > wants to try out an idea or method which does not fall within > the allowances set up within it, they must first go outside of > the system to have the freedom to act according to the new > idea. Or they must be willing to raise hell. Once again, look at any family with children. The parents set limits. The children throw themselves into challenging those limits with great abandon. Some kids leave when they see that the system cannot challenge them any more. They go to look for stronger limits. > ... > > No one is going to be agreeable to participating in a venture > in which they do not have some confidence about the reward; in Look at real systems. Look at the family. No one is asked to join: they just get born. That's how most of us become Americans (or whatever) too. The great systems that control most of our lives are simply _there_. > a ready-made system if someone has become dependent upon the > security it provides, they are going to be even less willing to > give up the comfort of pre-determined decisions and predictable > outcomes. Then there will be seen less of reason and more of > unimaginative automaticity. Ah, there is so much to disagree with. In the Middle Ages, people like Thomas Aquinas lived in societies and institutions which controlled thought and behaviour to a high degree. But Aquinas devoted his life to reason and he was no unimaginative automaton. Poetry is the result of forcing speech into predictable patterns. Reason depends upon the existence of accepted principles. > In a non-political system or manner of existence (not designed > to rule over human nature per se), individuals have to rely > upon their own abilities, upon the development of their own > judgement, rather than upon the "governance" of their behavior > by strangers. I think that you mean to propose this as an ideal, yes? But you fail to see that many situations are zero-sum games or even negative-sum gains, where someone must lose. And often it is in no one's particular interest to do that which is for the common good of all. One of the functions of politics and government is to limit the freedom of individuals where the exercise of that freedom can lead to harm to others. It is in everyone's interest that there be white lines down the middle of roads and that cars be forced to drive on one side or the other. > This doesn't mean that there could be no systems > in existence at all; there are still business enterprises which > call upon the coordination of efforts towards a specific goal. > But this does not obligate that they take on the quality of a > "perpetual picnic". The more that individuals look at systems > as relative to the accomplishment of particular, specific > goals, the less they will look to them as the means to > accomplish the re-shaping of mankind (i.e. the morality of the > neighbors). Such systems actually could accomplish a > "re-shaping" of some individuals, but as an accessory > contingent event, simply from the fact of those involved having > discovered a means of achieving some personal command over > "Nature". We have no choice about systems. Without the system called the English language, you and I would not be communicating. Without schools, you would have no education. And so forth. It is of course true that we can design small systems for specific purposes. But you cannot look only at the overt, rational, explicit, acceptable purposes of the group. > Trying to understand the system (whose system?) is really > putting the cart before the horse (first you need a problem, to > which the system is the solution). No. Systems exist and they have attributes which are independent of those who created them and those who staff them. You walk around the corner and there is a mob. The mob is a little system, like a dust devil. What it is a solution to is irrelevant. It is there, and it has an effect on you. You need to understand it to some degree if you want that effect not to be harm. The people in the mob may be carried away by what they see as noble motives and they may not even notice the harm that they do to things and passers-by. Motives are far less important than effects. > Trying to understand all of > human nature is a Major Enterprise. It's much more managable > to set up small systems based upon the control of those who > have cause to set one up, who are interested & willing to > participate, than trying to set up an all-encompassing system > which includes even unrully, ungrateful beasts with an attitude. The author of the original comments might say that when you set up your little system, call it the overt one, you will at the same time set up another, call it the covert one. The covert one arises in part out of private, unconfessed motives. It is just as real and often far more effective than the overt one. I knew this guy in Calcutta, in India. He was a Salvation Army major. He ran a group that distributed food to the very poor. Every day they went out in a jeep and fed thousands of people from a big pot in the back. This is the overt system. A selfless relief worker, a group of kindly saints bringing food to the starving. The number of starving people around Calcutta was always a good approximation to infinity, so the Sally Ann used a system of ID cards. These ensured that only deserving people got free food and that each person got only one meal. To many of the Bengalis, the major was the devil incarnate. They actually had no food and their families would starve without the daily visit from the Sally Ann. The major had many arbitrary rules which they could not understand. He also had a bad temper. So as they saw it, every so often, the soup god would blow up and yank someone's ID card for no reason. They were extremely careful when he was around. He terrified them. They propitiated their dark god daily. This was the covert system. -- Jim Dixon (the real one)

2 1

Re: Zimmermann on PGP 2.6 myths
by alano＠teleport.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >To: All Users of PGP >From: Philip Zimmermann, creator of PGP >Re: Misconceptions about PGP 2.6 from MIT >Date: 18 Aug 94 > >I'd like to clear up some widely held misconceptions about PGP >version 2.6 from MIT. I get a lot of email and phone calls from >people who report a lot of misinformation on many Internet newsgroups >about this MIT version of PGP. > [Stuff Deleted] >- --------------------------------------------------------------------- >Myth #2: PGP 2.6 is weaker than previous versions, with a back door. >- --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >This is not true. I would not allow MIT or anyone else to weaken PGP >or put a back door in. Anyone who knows me will tell you that. > >This is not to say that PGP doesn't have any bugs. All versions have >had bugs. But PGP 2.6 has no known bugs that have any net effect on >security. And MIT should be releasing a bug-fixed version of PGP 2.6 >Real Soon Now. In my opinion what helped to contribute to this assumption was the downreving of RSAREF from 2.0 in PGP 2.5 to 1.0 in PGP 2.6. (That with the "expiration date" seemed to make things look pretty evil.) What is the difference between RSAREF 2.0 and 1.0 and should I be concerned? /========================================================================\ |"I would call him a Beastialic Sadomasochistic | alano(a)teleport.com | |Necrophile but that would be beating a dead | Disclaimer: | |horse." -- Teriyaki (What's up Tiger Lily?) | As if anyone cares! | \========================================================================/

1 0

NSA Spy Machine and DES
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Responding to msg by pcw(a)access.digex.net (Peter Wayner) on Thu, 18 Aug 4:41 PM Peter, Thanks for posting your thoughts on this. A small note: The NY Times article today said that NSA will contribute $4.2 million toward *development*, along with $400,000 in software-consulting services, while Cray will invest another $4.8 million. Thus the overall cost, after full development, may be more than you assumed in your calculations and thus the power may be more. But, as the story said, Cray will need more than this initial contract to survive, so the machine may never be completed. John

1 0