- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

RE: Taxation Thought Experiment
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>azur(a)netcom.com (Steve Schear) wrote: >>The crypto-relevance is via crypto anarchy: we need to undermine the tax >>system enough that _everyone_, not just us, loses faith in it. >> >>--Tim May >> > >I've posed similar questions to friends and aquaintences. The >working-class stiffs (who can't easily hide from the IRS) feel taxes are an >unwelcome but necessary burden in order to provide the blanket of >government protection they feel exists. They resent and oppose widespread >tax fraud. Self-employed tend to be more open to 'alternative' income >structuring. And in the meantime, it would seem prudent to use the existing system to maximum advantage. In Canada, you can set up a personal trust called a Registered Retirement Savings Plan (similar to an IRA?) wherein you can trade securities without tax liability until you withdraw the money into your hands. As long as you aren't trying to spend it, no taxes are owing. There is a withholding tax of 25% if you eventually leave the country, but the tax free compounding effect over a decade or two will make this virtually irrelevant. There are also tax credits for venture capital (especially if it relates to R&D) or scientific research investments. Since we are in fields that likely are related to this type of work, it seems that we would be able to take advantage of these types of credit. In Canada, they can pay 80-90% of the related payroll. Add NRC (National Research Council) grants available for R&D projects and you can run a company with a dozen people for NO money. This is not fantasy since I know at least two companies that do this. The only caveat is that you need a good idea to start with. It is also not hard to have a nominal 50+% marginal tax rate yet pay 15% net income taxes. Since I can use the Canadian tax system to advantage, I'm not sure that I want to get rid of it just yet. So, while you are waiting for that anarchy, you may want to retain a good tax accountant. Ciao, James The grass is always greener over the septic tank.

1 0

RE: Remailer Abuse Solutions
by Mullen Patrick 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sounds like another attempt to raise the cost of using the Net, nothing more. Sure, paying postage (Is $1 really necessary? Why email when snailmail's cheaper??) may reduce general spamming done by local punks, but it does nothing against corporations which already spend millions on snailmail spamming. Also, what happens when your long-lost friend comes across your addy and tries to email you? Surely you don't want to charge postage for an otherwise free service to him/er. Maintaining a list of "accepted sources" would be a hassle not many people would accept. Slight variation is to generate a list of "toll these entities." A smaller list (hopefully :-), and generally easier because then it defaults to no-bill. Or, to accomodate superstars/actors/etc, generate files like rhosts.accept rhosts.deny in UNIX. That way, the user may use either/both types of filtering. Again, the average user wouldn't want to deal with this hassle, everyone's mail software would have to be rewritten, and I basically oppose any ideas that cost me money for something I already get for free... :-) PM _______________________________________________________________________________ From: Peter Hendrickson on Wed, Nov 13, 1996 4:10 Subject: Remailer Abuse Solutions To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com What do you do if you are operating a remailer and somebody complains they are getting spammed? That's easy, you keep a list of people that you don't send mail to. What's hard is if that person wants to receive other anonymous mail. The solution is easy: charge e-cash to send mail to certain addresses and send the money to the owner of the account. Never put an address on a kill list, just raise the price of sending mail to it. This generates lots of positive publicity for your remailer. People will beg to be spammed! And, since the remailer operator handles the financial parts of the deal, the technically naive "victim" does not have to have specialized knowledge or even an e-cash account. This also eliminates the spam problem generally. If you are plagued by spam, create a list of names you will accept mail from. When a message comes in that is not on the list, return a message directing them to send you the mail through a paying remailer. This solves a problem for famous people, too. They get lots of mail but they don't have time to read it all. How to sort it? Raise the price of sending a message. (I heard that Arnold Schwarzeneggar was once paid $1 million just to read a script and look at the set of a movie with no obligation to act in it.) Okay, now lets go to mailing lists. We like to read anonymous mail on this list, but we don't like getting spammed. It's hard to filter anonymous mail for obvious reasons. The solution: don't accept anonymous mail. Only people on the "approved" list would be allowed to post. People who wish to post anonymously could then send mail through the paying remailer to people on the "approved" list and request that their message be relayed. Most people on the list would be happy to accept a dollar or two to provide this service. This would eliminate inappropriate mail while allowing anybody to post. For that matter, postings to the list itself could be priced at, say, a dollar to cut down on the noise levels. Payments, and addresses which complicate payment, make it harder to rely on the remailer network. When you send a message through a few remailers and make a faux pax on the last one, you won't know what happened. Did one of the remailers go down? Did you make a mistake? I think I know a solution to this one, too. If somebody wants to get error messages, they include a random 128 bit number with their message. This is a different number for each remailer in the chain. When an error occurs, the remailer distributes an error message with the number attached. Error message distribution is pretty easy. The remailer operator could publish a web page with the errors. Or, the messages could be bundled and made available through anonymous ftp, or mailed to an error message mailing list, or posted to a newsgroup. Peter Hendrickson ph(a)netcom.com ------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------ Received: by mail.ndhm.gtegsc.com with SMTP;13 Nov 1996 04:10:17 -0400 Received: from toad.com by delphi.ndhm.gtegsc.com with SMTP; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 9:06:01 GMT Received: (from majordom@localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id RAA13602 for cypherpunks-outgoing; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 17:07:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from netcom19.netcom.com (root(a)netcom19.netcom.com [192.100.81.132]) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA13594 for <cypherpunks(a)toad.com>; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 17:07:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.0.2.1] (ph(a)netcom21.netcom.com [192.100.81.135]) by netcom19.netcom.com (8.6.13/Netcom) id RAA03014; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 17:07:31 -0800 X-Sender: ph(a)netcom15.netcom.com Message-Id: <v02140b04aeaec9f1fa9b(a)[192.0.2.1]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 17:07:41 -0800 To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com From: ph(a)netcom.com (Peter Hendrickson) Subject: Remailer Abuse Solutions Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com Precedence: bulk

1 0

RE: Question on non-repudiation
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 04:11:08 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: field(a)pop.pipeline.com Mime-Version: 1.0 To: John Lowry <jlowry(a)BBN.COM> From: "Richard L. Field" <field(a)pipeline.com> Subject: RE: Question on non-repudiation Cc: set-discuss(a)commerce.net Sender: owner-set-talk(a)commerce.NET Precedence: bulk +----------------------------------------------------+ Addressed to: set-discuss(a)commerce.net +----------------------------------------------------+ As chair of the ABA's Electronic Commerce Payment Committee and a member of the drafting team for its Digital Signature Guidelines, I suppose I am one of the people expected to "solve" the non-repudiation problem through legal means. Notwithstanding any technical or procedural proofs, there is no absolute non-repudiation, as a legal matter, unless a statute is enacted to that effect. For consumers in the U.S., there is no indication that this will happen. The applicable laws governing credit cards and the consumer use of debit cards specify that the customer can repudiate any unauthorized transaction, and that it is left to his bank/issuer to prove that the transaction was actually performed by that customer or under his authority. Even if technical means are used to ensure that the customer will always retain solitary access control to the account (by biometric means, for example), he can still claim coercion, error with respect to legal capacity, etc. Where software-based keys are used to confirm identity and/or authority to enter into a transaction, there are additional risks of error or fraud associated with initially obtaining a key and tying it to an identity, as well as the ongoing association between the key and the identity and/or authority. In these cases some third party ("trusted" CA, etc.) could step in and contractually agree to bear all risk of customer repudiation, but given the relatively low value of the average transaction that would be unlikely. Additionally, in some countries laws may shift the risk of loss absolutely to the customer or otherwise prevent him from repudiating a transaction. To some degree, this is the direction taken in the U.S. laws governing commercial wire transfers. If there are any countries contemplating the enactment of laws that would absolutely bind a person whenever his private key has been used, I would be most interested in hearing about them. - Richard Field At 11:35 AM 11/12/96 -0500, you wrote: >+----------------------------------------------------+ >Addressed to: set-discuss(a)commerce.net >+----------------------------------------------------+ > >Not to be argumentative but non-repudiation can be established >technically. The formal definition requires that through technical >and procedural proofs a party cannot repudiate a transaction. The >law may not recognize those techniques and procedures for contractual >purposes today but the ABA is working on it.... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent by set-discuss(a)commerce.net. For a complete listing of available commands, please send mail to 'majordomo(a)commerce.net' with 'help' (no quotations) contained within the body of your message. --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "The cost of anything is the foregone alternative" -- Walter Johnson The e$ Home Page: http://www.vmeng.com/rah/

1 0

Re: So how does the crypto crackdown go?
by Hal Finney 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin(a)law.miami.edu> > As Hal knows, but some newer members of the list may not, I discuss the > possibility of a ban on strong (unescrowed) crypto at some, ahem, length > in > > http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/clipper.htm > > Although the article is more than 18 months old, the law hasn't changed > in any material way as far as I know. > > Bottom line: they probably can't do it under the constitution, but it's a > closer call than it should be. This is a very helpful and thorough analysis. However it does not address the possibility of a ban on the sale/distribution of strong crypto, rather than a ban on its use. There are several reasons why I think the former is more likely: - PRECEDENT FROM ITARS The current bans on export of encryption software limit the distribution of the software itself, not of encrypted messages. Extending this ban to domestic distribution would imply banning distribution but not use of crypto software. - NOT A PRIVACY ISSUE The privacy issues would be much less relevant because it is no longer a matter of just what you do in the privacy of your own home. - OUT OF THEIR OWN MOUTHS The Clinton administration's original veiled warning, quoted in Michael's paper, denied that "every American, as a matter of right, is entitled to an unbreakable commercial encryption product." Noting the use of "commercial" this suggests a ban on sales rather than use. - COMMERCIAL REGULATION Not being a lawyer, I can only speculate that the interstate commerce clause would give more justification for a ban on distribution than on use. - FOOT IN THE DOOR Conceivably such a ban, if successful, would provide new arguments for advancing to the second stage of a ban on usage after some time. The impact of the usage ban would be less due to the lack of access most people would have to such software, and the (arguably) demonstrated effectiveness of the government approved software almost everyone would be using by that time. - BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING We have long speculated that the government's real interest is in making mass surveillance more practical, with the stated concerns about criminals being merely a convenient cover. Commercial restrictions would be consistent with such motives since they would have more impact on the innocent many than the motivated few. A ban on sales and distribution could still be opposed on First Amendment grounds, especially if it becomes established that software is speech. Still there are many restrictions possible on commercial speech so even a favorable precedent in this area would not preclude some regulation of software distribution. We could also argue that such a ban is de facto equivalent to restrictions on use, since most people would not then have access to privacy preserving software. In that case the many excellent arguments which Michael brings forward to oppose such restrictions would be relevant. And what would be the implications for freeware crypto? Could distribution of such software be subject to regulation in the same way as commercial programs? Then there are the issues relating to speech about crypto which are currently being litigated. Presumably domestic restrictions on such speech would have to reach a much higher standard of demonstrated need than restrictions on export. For these reasons I think that domestic regulations on the sales and distribution of strong crypto would not be a sure thing for the government, but would be a lot easier for them than restricting use. This suggests that it is a likely direction for them to take after the next terrorist attack. Hal

1 0

take me off your mailing list
by FWJZ05A＠prodigy.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

unsubcribe cypherpunks

1 0

take me off your mailing list
by FWJZ05A＠prodigy.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

unsubcribe cypherpunks

1 0

RE: Remailer Abuse Solutions
by ph＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:34 AM 11/13/1996, Mullen Patrick wrote: > Sounds like another attempt to raise the cost of using the Net, nothing more. I am curious which conspiracy you believe I am participating in, other than the Great Cypherpunk Conspiracy, that is. Keep in mind that nobody is forced to participate. > Sure, paying postage (Is $1 really necessary? Why email when snailmail's > cheaper??) may reduce general spamming done by local punks, but it does > nothing > against corporations which already spend millions on snailmail spamming. Many people would be happy to read spam mail at $1 a piece. Assuming you can scan at a very conservative 3 messages/minute, that's $180/hr. you can make in the privacy of their own home. Not enough for you? Raise the rate. One dollar is a nice schelling point. That's why I chose it for my example. In practice the people involved are welcome to choose any amount in any currency they like. > Also, > what happens when your long-lost friend comes across your addy and tries to > email you? Surely you don't want to charge postage for an otherwise free > service to him/er. Maintaining a list of "accepted sources" would be a hassle > not many people would accept. Absent highly intrusive global net monitoring techniques, that's what they are going to have to do anyway. E-mail is inexpensive. The advertiser can justify the expense even if generates a small number of leads. Expect more spam. The alternative to filtering the mail in some way is to create Internet licenses for every participant which may be revoked for infractions. These licenses would have to be global. Big Brother is Watching. Advertisers do not have a monopoly on spam. Many people - especially women - complain about harrassing mail they receive. > Slight variation is to generate a list of "toll these entities." A smaller > list > (hopefully :-), and generally easier because then it defaults to no-bill. Or, > to accomodate superstars/actors/etc, generate files like rhosts.accept > rhosts.deny in UNIX. That way, the user may use either/both types of > filtering. How will you construct your "toll these entities" list yet accept mail from any remailer? Why will spammers not figure out remailers? > Again, the average user wouldn't want to deal with this hassle, everyone's > mail > software would have to be rewritten, and I basically oppose any ideas that > cost me money for something I already get for free... :-) No, everybody's mail software would not have to be rewritten. That was the idea. For instance, it would be easy for users of Unix systems to use procmail to pre-filter their mail for whatever program they like. Nota bene: the remailer operator is not offering to filter the users mail. "Free" is not always the best choice. I would gladly pay $10/month to receive the cypherpunks list if it meant that messages were delivered immediately when sent. (I believe these delays hamper the discussion.) As it is, I can't complain because I am a recipient of John Gilmore's charity. I would be interested to hear more about your solution to this problem: People spam other people who don't like spam but like to receive anonymous messages. I would prefer to see solutions in keeping with the Cypherpunks spirit; that is, no use of force, no use of law, and no loss of anonymity will be acceptable. Peter Hendrickson ph(a)netcom.com

2 1

Dossier on Tim May is Easily Obtainable
by smith＠sctc.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The thorough investigator respects the value of physical records and interviews with those actually present. Bit rot is a tricky thing, and so are simple string matches. At 7:15 PM 11/12/96, Timothy C. May wrote: >To illustrate, let me call up my BlackNet Dossier Service entry on you. >www.black.net... I'll just pick _part_ of your entry, from exactly 30 years >ago: >[,,,,much stuff about Mr. Smith elided....] >So, Mr. Smith...is the dossier entry basically correct? Perhaps that was the Rick Smith in the class behind or before me who is or is not shown in yearbook photos with that blonde cheerleader. Or perhaps it was another Rick Smith who does or does not appear in yearbook photographs in the company of various brunette females. Could it have been the Rick Smith whose house got struck by lightning in our town a few weeks back? Or the Rick Smith who just got a building permit? Are these all the same person? Nope. On the other hand, a review of physical records from that important era of the mid 1960s *does* indicate the existence of one and only one young Timothy Christopher May in the vicinity of Langley, Va. Interviews with [SOURCE DELETED] indicate that this young Timothy Christopher May was known for a clever and abrasive style of discourse. Investigators note that the exact same style of discourse appears in the postings of one "Tim May" who is associated with that subversive cabal known as "cypherpunks." The interviews also indicate that young Timothy Christopher May was observed on numerous occasions to be reading Scientific American in the school library and didn't always "share." E-mail messages authored by "Tim May" and intercepted by [SOURCE DELETED] state that he has read Scientific American on numerous occasions. At this time there is no evidence as to whether or not "Tim May" willingly shares his magazines with others, though some investigators argue that it is unlikely. Records retrieved from [SOURCE DELETED] also show that the young Timothy Christopher May exploited his interest in physics for destructive purposes, like elaborate pranks involving fictious weaponry and national security information. [INFORMATION DELETED FOR NATIONAL SECURITY REASONS -- ORCON U31 -- OADR FOR RECLASSIFICATION] However, more careful investigators have uncovered evidence to suggest that this was not entirely a prank. Records from [SOURCE DELETED] indicate that the young Timothy Christopher May purchased a huge gap magnet from Edmund Scientific Company and also produced science fair project titled "Ball Lightning: A Stable Plasma?" Investigators suspect the timing of these events is not a coincidence. Unfortunately, the photographs of young Timothy Christopher May being escorted out of Earth Science class by agents of the Office of Naval Intelligence have somehow been tampered with and are difficult to reconstruct. Perhaps with modern technology... Hmmm, similarities in name, interests, style of discourse, and a history of technological subversion. Is this the same individual, thirty years later? Gentle readers, you decide. Rick. smith(a)sctc.com

1 0

Re: Exon Countdown Clock and farewell messages
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:59 AM 11/8/96 -0800, Michael Page wrote and Rich Graves forwarded: >> ... >> >We would attempt to send it via a Email, but the respected Senator does not >> >have Email. (The Irony). >> ... To Which, on Mon, 11 Nov 1996, I wrote: >> There is no irony here, Mr. Exon tried to control the internet for the very >> reason that he didn't understand it and one of his granddaughters did. >> Perhaps if he did understand the internet then he wouldn't be a threat. >> Remember, people fear that which they don't understand. To which, at 07:57 PM 11/12/96 -0800, Declan McCullagh wrote: >I disagree. I think people understand the printing press and still want >to control it. Morality police are morality police, no matter what the >medium or how well they understand it. A valid point, and Exon may have had designs of media control the whole time. The methods he used and the arguments he stated, however, suggested to me, that he was someone who did not comprehend the technology. Those who he was able to sway with the dossier of .GIF's certainly were ignorant, many of them were turned by that one display of images.

1 0

[REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
by Dave Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[This is a rebuttal to a misguided news article.] > Cypher-Censored > By Declan McCullagh (declan(a)well.com) Thank you for leaving your email address. It makes this easier. You people (read: the unaware and hypnotized masses, which includes reporters who's desire for attention and political safety holds them in line with the consensual illusion) keep missing the real issue, and substituting issues which only hold themselves in place. [Those of you who know, please excuse the mediaistic terms used in this rebuttal. One must use the symbols one is given to communicate at the level of understanding of those who use them.] > Thus began a debate over what the concept of censorship means in a > forum devoted to opposing it. Did Gilmore have the right to show Vulis > the virtual door? Or should he have let the ad hominem attacks > continue, encouraging people to set their filters accordingly? The > incident raises deeper questions about how a virtual community can > prevent one person from ruining the forum for all and whether only > government controls on expression can be called "censorship." "Cyberspace" is interacted with using tools under the control of the interactor. In person-to-person interaction, one's only real defense against what one decides to call "unwanted" is to remove oneself from the arena of interaction. It may not be possible to ignore or run away from certain sources of input. In cyberspace, however, it is not only possible but necessary and even desirable. Cyberspace allows one to interact with many more people then can fit in any given physical space. One simply -cannot- receive input from 2000 people and not employ some sort of filtering mechanism. Indeed, cyberspace has many buttons and switches (and even programmatic filters) which allow one to -completely- control whom one interacts with. Logically, we must conclude that those who frequently and repeatedly cry for the censorship or removal of any source of input from cyberspace are either: -quite clueless about the tools at their disposal -ideologically or personally opposed to the source of input or -in need of large amounts of attention from others Cluelessness can be overcome by appropriate teaching and interest in learning (the latter issue we can safely assume users of popular but ineffectual windowing OSes are not able to overcome). Such cluelessness, however, is not and should never be a reason for censorship. A need for attention can be overcome by refraining from the denial that the need exists, followed by careful observation of that need. More can be said on this, but this is not the forum. Such a need is not and should never be a reason for censorship. Idelological opposition is another matter entirely. To understand this better, we'll need to observe this in action. Here is an example: > Vulis portrays himself as a victim, but as I posted to the list > last week, I disagree. Anyone who's spent any time on the > 100-plus-messages-a-day list can read for themselves the kind of nasty > daily messages that came from Vulis's keyboard. "Nasty" is, of course, by this reporter's standard of "nasty". Granted this standard may in fact be shared by Mr. Gilmore, however a shared standard is not necessarily an appropriate or correct standard. > The list is on Gilmore's machine and he can do what he wants with > it; he can moderate the postings, he can censor material, he can > shut the whole thing down. By kicking off an offending user, a > list owner merely exercises his property right. There's no > government involvement, so the First Amendment doesn't apply. And > the deleted, disgruntled user is free to start his own mailing > list with different rules. Notice how, once the opposition is admitted to, the rationalization begins. Suddenly this is not a matter of censorship, but of ownership. Just as suddenly, the classic anti-free-speech arguments of "if you don't like it, start yer own" begin to surface. (Anyone ever notice how this resembles the "love it or leave it" mentality of certain American patriotic organizations?) What would ideological opposition be without the attempt at analogy? Here we witness another example: > But then the question is whether Gilmore should have exercised > that right, especially in such an open forum. Again, I think Gilmore's > actions were justified. Consider inviting someone into your home or > private club. If your guest is a boor, you might ask him to leave. If > your guest is an slobbish drunk of a boor, you have a responsibility > to require him to leave before he ruins the evening of others. Notice that the net is compared to a home or private club. Actually the net is neither, however that would not serve the purposes of this analogy, so this fact is convienently forgotton. The net is a wonderful place. Any ideology, no matter who disagrees or agrees with it, can be expressed and discussed here...assuming those who oppose this ideology do not have their way with the source of expression. There is a more refined and deeper truth to be found in the very existence of the set of all human ideologies, which is just beginning to show itself to some netizens. Unfortunately, this truth can be ruined when people equate some notion of value to sources which ignore all but a tiny subset of the set of all ideologies: > Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA, runs a number of mailing > lists and has kicked people off to maintain better editorial control. > Volokh says that the most valuable publications are those that > exercise the highest degree of editorial control. Value to whom and for what? If the editorial control produces one small element of the set of all ideologies, then this is only of value to the people who support this ideology. Given that the set of people who support an issue is smaller than the set of people who support and oppose an issue, would the value not increase by allowing both sides of an issue equal speaking time? > For his part, Gilmore calls removing the Russian mathematician "an > act of leadership." He says: "It said we've all been putting up with > this guy and it's time to stop. You're not welcome here... It seemed > to me that a lot of the posts on cypherpunks were missing the mark. > They seemed to have an idea that their ability to speak through my > machine was guaranteed by the Constitution." It is sad to note that this is the leader of one of America's forerunning organizations of freedom who says these words. For all *his* ideology of free speech, this statement reveals the hypocrasy he lives with for all to see. The true litmus test of free speech is to encounter speech that you *want* to censor. Mr. Gilmore, and other like minded parties, might want to consider what would happen if one parent company owned *all* communications media. Would they they be so supportive of the ideology of ownership and communciation they espouse? ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet Truth (n.) - the most deadly weapon ever discovered by humanity. Capable of destroying entire perceptual sets, cultures, and realities. Outlawed by all governments everywhere. Possession is normally punishable by death.

10 18