- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Money Laundering Conference with Government Types
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"unicorn(a)schloss.li" "Black Unicorn" 5-MAY-1996 18:25:57.83 >I think that should be >http://www.oceanalaw.com/20/conf/ml.htm ^ Yes; thank you. Weird spelling. -Allen

1 0

Re: FW: Why I Pay Too Much in Taxes
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 18:27 5/5/96, blanc wrote: >I have a great idea - let's start a closed, elite mailing list for >"Offshorepunks". >Uni, Sandy, & Duncan et al could "show us how it's done". The list already exists. It was supposed to contain essays by Sandy and Duncan. It was called "Privacy 101". After two articles hyping the great info about to follow... nothing. Utter silence. [What ever happend, anyway?] Disclaimer: My opinions are my own, not those of my employer. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred.

1 0

Re: FW: Why I Pay Too Much in Taxes
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:27 PM 5/5/96 -0700, blanc wrote: >From: Black Unicorn (in reply to TCMay): > >> I have no doubt that "tax planning" works for some people, and I think >> certain people like Vince Cate may do well in places like Anguilla, >> essentially starting a business from scratch. I even have longterm hopes >> for tax havens, cyberspace tax havens, anonymous systems, etc. But this >> ain't happening soon. > >Here I'm not so sure I agree. Several of us are working on making it >happen, soon. >.................................................................................................. > > >I have a great idea - let's start a closed, elite mailing list for "Offshorepunks". >Uni, Sandy, & Duncan et al could "show us how it's done". Let's turn this around, shall we? I have a theory that within the next few years, one of the biggest users of these off-shore accounts will be government employees who see their worlds crashing down around them, and they want to be able to escape the country with their loot. Maybe the most useful task we could accomplish would be to identify them for later targeting. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Pearl Harbor Aggression (Was: 6 USAF Crashes in 7 days = InfoWar? (fwd)
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate wrote: >Now consider, if you will, the requirements if we assume that we are under a >concerted Pearl-Harbor attack from a rival 1st World power. How would that >effect the issues discussed above? For answer to this consider: There a number of countries who believe they are under just that kind of Pearl harbor attack from the US through high-tech information warfare, electronic surveillance and related crypto control demands, especially the requirement for GAK in US and foreign-made products. US leaders insistence that the US be 1st before all others in information technology, rightfully scares the shit out of our allies who are distrusting the US more and more, perhaps even giving them ideas about getting together with US enemies to beat back the Microsoft of nations. A counter-strike Pearl Harbor may be in the offing because of US belligerence and threat of Pearl Harboring others. (Recall the frequent invocation of this term by US reps, perhaps a clue to pre-emptive aggression in the works.) The harping of US leaders on unidentified threats is making non-US folks rather nervous, not being sure that the US may not turn on its allies for the slightest of missteps or demurs, and cut off the bountiful flow of global intel -- as the TLAs are now threatening Congressional committees. Crypto Czar Arons world consultations were apparently thinly veiled threats to compel GAK compliance. For an example, see a recent exchange on theukcrypto mail list between Ross Anderson and two DTI reps about the impact of US GAK policy: http://jya.com/dti-words.htm

2 1

Re: Key
by Black Unicorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Sun, 5 May 1996, Lance Cottrell wrote: > Why did you decide to create this additional key. What role are you > reserving the other one for? It's more convenient for me to sign on a multi-user system. As I don't want to compromise my main key, a lower security document signing key would seem in order. Feel free to copy this to the list. --- My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:unicorn@schloss.li "In fact, had Bancroft not existed, potestas scientiae in usu est Franklin might have had to invent him." in nihilum nil posse reverti 00B9289C28DC0E55 E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information Opp. Counsel: For all your expert testimony needs: jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: [History] USPS tried to monopolize email? (c. 1981)
by Erik E. Fair 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The U.S. Postal Service's first attempt at E-mail was called "E-COM" (ca. 1984), and it amounted to an electronic submission system for mail that would then be printed, stuffed into envelopes, and delivered in the usual way - but done so at the regional centers. It was geared toward 3rd class mass mailings, and was a dismal failure. While it was cheaper than standard 3rd class mailings, the mailings were output on Printronix dot-matrix line printers, and they looked terrible. Who knows? If they'd invested in laser printers instead... Some of you who were on the UUCP/USENET at the time may remember a small company on the UUCP network in Rockville, MD called "netword", which would accept E-mail for E-COM and deliver it for free; the deal was that the input batches to E-COM had to be of a certain size, and the "netword" folks rounded out their batches with the stuff from the net. Eventually, E-COM was sold (I seem to recall the Netword people bidding on it), and it disappeared shortly thereafter. I know about this story because Netword was a customer of another company which has also since disappeared: Dual Systems of Berkeley, California, makers of a Motorola 68000-based, Version 7 (and later System V) UNIX system on the S-100 (IEEE-696) bus. I worked for Dual from March '83 to June '85 - my first job out of college. Erik Fair fair(a)clock.org

1 0

Re: Why I Pay Too Much in Taxes
by loki＠infonex.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

One should also note that the surplus beyond subsistence was much smaller at that time. A more useful figure might be the percent tax on surplus. If the serf was taxed at 10%, but only had a 5% surplus above survival needs, then he was in a difficult position. Unfortunately I see no chance of an agreement on how to define surplus. -Lance At 7:20 AM 5/6/96, jamesd(a)echeque.com wrote: >At 11:16 PM 5/5/96 -0700, Sandy Sandfort wrote: >>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> SANDY SANDFORT >> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> >>C'punks, >> >>On Sun, 5 May 1996, Alan Horowitz wrote: >> >>> didn't the feudal vassels only pay 33% ? >> >>Actually, no. When I used to edit a magazine, I commissioned an >>article about how much "tax" slaves, serfs, etc. paid. That is, >>how much of what they produced, did they get to keep; how much >>went to their masters. The surprising, cross-cultural answer my >>researcher/writer found was that they got to keep everthing they >>produced except 5-10%. That's a lot better, percentage-wise, >>than for modern "tax slaves." > > >In the early feudal period, ordinary knights did not live well. >They were only moderately better off than peasants, and yet to support one >knight, you needed a startlingly large number of peasants, a fact >that kings were continually unhappy about and continually trying >to fix. > >While it is difficult to assess the tax rate, because taxes were >in kind, it was clearly very low by modern standards. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > | >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 ---------------------------------------------------------- Lance Cottrell loki(a)obscura.com PGP 2.6 key available by finger or server. Mixmaster, the next generation remailer, is now available! http://www.obscura.com/~loki/Welcome.html or FTP to obscura.com "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra. Suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night the ice weasels come." --Nietzsche ----------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Arguments _against_ privacy, anyone?
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"rre(a)weber.ucsd.edu" 6-MAY-1996 01:21:22.00 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help(a)weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Date: Sun, 5 May 96 02:28 PDT From: privacy(a)vortex.com (PRIVACY Forum) Subject: PRIVACY Forum Digest V05 #10 PRIVACY Forum Digest Sunday, 5 May 1996 Volume 05 : Issue 10 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 15:58:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Phil Agre <pagre(a)weber.ucsd.edu> Subject: Call for bad arguments against privacy In my online newsletter, The Network Observer, I periodically summarize and rebut bad arguments against a broad right to privacy. At the end of this message I've included a partial list of the arguments I have discussed so far. I would like to gather another batch of arguments, probably for the July 1996 issue of TNO, and I am hoping that you can help me. Please send me any bad arguments against privacy rights that you have encountered, even if you can't quite figure out what's wrong with them, and even if you don't have a specific example ready to hand. Arguments concerning specific issues such as government records, medical privacy, and video surveillance are particularly welcome. Once I finish this next set of arguments and rebuttals, I'll gather the whole set into a "handbook" that can be distributed freely on the Internet. Thanks very much. Phil Agre Encl: The Network Observer can be found on the Web at: http://communication.ucsd.edu/pagre/tno.html The privacy articles can be found indexed a little ways down the page. Here are most of the arguments that I have discussed in past issues: * "We've lost so much of our privacy anyway." * "Privacy is an obsolete Victorian hang-up." * "Ideas about privacy are culturally specific and it is thus impossible to define privacy in the law without bias." * "We have strong security on our data." * "National identity cards protect privacy by improving authentication and data security." * "Informational privacy can be protected by converting it into a property right." * "We have to balance privacy against industry concerns." * "Privacy paranoids want to turn back the technological clock." * "Most people are privacy pragmatists who can be trusted to make intelligent trade-offs between functionality and privacy." * "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." * "Once you really analyze it, the concept of privacy is so nebulous that it provides no useful guidance for action." * "People *want* these systems, as indicated by the percentage of them who sign up for them once they become available." * "Concern for privacy is anti-social and obstructs the building of a democratic society." * "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." * "There's no privacy in public." * "We favor limited access." * "Privacy in these systems has not emerged as a national issue." [ Submissions that would be interesting to the general readership of the PRIVACY Forum would also be very welcome here. -- MODERATOR ] ------------------------------ End of PRIVACY Forum Digest 05.10 ************************

1 0

Re: Nando.net on expatriate tax issue
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"unicorn(a)schloss.li" "Black Unicorn" 29-APR-1996 02:16:40.69 >On Sun, 28 Apr 1996, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: > >Billionaires' tax loophole could complicate passage of health reform >What precisely does this reporter think is being "tightened" in his or her >version of the House bill? (Note that in current law there is no $500,000 >floor). In fact the reporter hasn't bothered to describe what the >provision really does. (Imposes a expatriation is taxable event >analysis). Talk about a snow job. I won't say it is or is not advertant, >but it's bloody annoying. Fascinating. One wonders how the House managed to convince the CBO that it would gain money... it did. > >The House version would be extremely difficult to enforce and would allow > >patient expatriates to avoid the tax by holding their assets for 10 years > >before selling, they say. In the interim, they could raise cash by > >borrowing against the assets. >Which is the law today. What is with this guy? Get your facts straight >media. I have relatives who went to journalism school during the Depression. I begin to see why they complain about modern media, and why Heinlein said that Time _never_ got the story right on anything he saw in person. Modern journalism schools are going more and more to communication theory courses as opposed to how to write and how to get the facts straight. -Allen

1 0

Re: Why I Pay Too Much in Taxes
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"frissell(a)panix.com" "Duncan Frissell" 5-MAY-1996 08:56:32.33 >Even though the population of those who regularly violate federal tax laws >is smaller (20 million?) the records show that even for this population the >odds of being convicted are approximately the odds of being nurdered. However, are you controlling for level of income? The IRS is a lot more worried about TCMay committing tax fraud than they are about me committing tax fraud; my income taxes are a lot closer to 0 than his. -Allen

1 0