- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Bulletin: Cypherpunks say no taxes owed by moneychangers!
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:23 AM 4/8/96, jim bell wrote: >At 12:53 PM 4/7/96 PDT, Jim Gillogly wrote: >> >>jim bell <jimbell(a)pacifier.com> writes: >>>FWIW, I think that there is no capital-gains-type tax on currency >>>conversions. In other words, if I take dollars and buy yen today, and the >> >>I bounced this off a CPA, who said she would be very suprised if this is >>really the case: in general the IRS considers increases in wealth to be >>taxable, and unless there's a specific exclusion for currency transactions >>that she doesn't know about, she suspects this is not the case. As a >>conceptual counterexample she points out that you are responsible for any >>profit you make from selling your car for more than you pay for it (but, >>as you might expect, you don't get to take a loss if you sell it for less). > >That assumes that there is "profit" from exchanging currencies. On any >given transaction, there is never any "profit." The only thing that might >be called a profit is a difference in exchange rates, and that really isn't >an increase in wealth at any point. Ask that CPA to look it up. There are people and companies who make a nice business in currency exchange, ranging from the large companies one finds in international airline terminals and banks to the smaller, "Mom and Pop" moneychangers one finds in barrios and other such places. These moneychangers attempt to make a "profit" on each exchange (else they'd hardly stay in business). It will probably come as a surprise to them that, according to both a CPA and Jim Bell, no taxes are owed on their businesses, as "no wealth was created." Don't believe everything you read on this list, folks. --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, Higher Power: 2^756839 - 1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1

International Net-Censorship Efforts Update
by Declan B. McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've just doubled the number of international net-censorship efforts that I track on my web page: <http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~declan/zambia/>. Included are new updates reporting on Germany, France, Australia, Singapore, Canada, and China, among others. Please send me reports on countries I've missed! -Declan -------------------------------------------------------------------------- OTHER INTERNATIONAL NET-CENSOR EFFORTS By Declan McCullagh declan(a)well.com http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~declan/zambia/ France, China, Germany, Singapore, Jordan, the U.S., and many other countries are moving towards tighter control of the Internet. France and Germany want to see an international agreement of information controls emerge. Recently China required all of its estimated 40,000 Internet users to register at the local police station. This international crackdown marks a turning point in the development of the Net. Germany Germany cuts off access to holocaust revisionist web site (1/96) German Internet update, new laws planned (3/29/96) Los Angeles Times on German vs. U.S. netcensorship (3/13/96) German minister predicts collapse of governments (3/12/96) Germany's CompuServe net-censorship (12/31/95) France French government bans controversial book (1/96) French Jewish students sue ISPs for revisionist materials (3/14/96) French Jewish students sue ISPs for revisionist materials (3/15/96) France calls for "global Internet rules" (2/3/96) Europe Swiss statement on voice over Internet (3/16/96) Sweden proposes CDA-type law to control Internet (4/3/96) Italian net-censorship necessary, says Simon Wiesenthal Ctr (1/11/96) Turkey cracks down on Internet (2/18/96) Belgium bans non-escrowed encryption (1/10/96) Asia and Pacific Rim Singapore leader condemns Net (3/7/96) Indonesia attacks Net (3/11/96) Malaysia complains about uncensored Net, censors it (3/11/96) Singapore censors political, religious net.info (3/6/96) China China cracks down on Internet, "state security" cited (1/24/96) China's anti-cyberporn efforts (2/4/96) New York Times on China's net.crackdown (2/5/96) China's history of Net-regulation, cyberporn concerns (1/1/96) China requires Internet users to register with police (2/16/96) U.S. State Dept criticizes China's net.censorship (3/8/96) China applauds German net.censorship (1/11/96) Australia Australia considers net.legislation (2/13/96) New South Wales tries net-censorship (4/3/96) Australians upset by German Zundelcensorship (4/7/96) Canada Letter to Canadian minister (3/19/96) Canada needs to regulate Net, says Simon Wiesenthal Ctr (2/20/96) Middle East Persian Gulf States reluctant to move online (4/6/96) Jordan installs Internet screening facility (1/8/96) Saudi Arabian government says no unrestricted Net access (1/10/96) --------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

questions about bits and bytes
by Jack Mott 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This may be a bit of a no brainer, but everything I have read sorta skips over this point. a bit is 1 or 0 8 bits make up a byte (0-255) If I have a 5 byte key, does that make it a 40 bit key? The only reason this doesn't make sense to me is it seems useless to use 5 byte keys, yet that is what companies export since the government limits keys to 40 bits. -- thecrow(a)iconn.net "It can't rain all the time" RSA ENCRYPTION IN 3 LINES OF PERL --------------------------------------------------------- #!/bin/perl -sp0777i<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<j]dsj $/=unpack('H*',$_);$_=`echo 16dio\U$k"SK$/SM$n\EsN0p[lN*1 lK[d2%Sa2/d0$^Ixp"|dc`;s/\W//g;$_=pack('H*',/((..)*)$/)

1 0

Re: "Contempt" charges likely to increase
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:23 PM 4/8/96 -0800, david friedman wrote: >Have you read _The Hacker Crackdown_? I think it is pretty clear that part >of what was going on there involved law enforcement people deliberately >punishing BBS operators for behavior that was wicked but not >illegal--basically facilitating communications involved in committing >crimes (credit card number theft and the like). The punishment consisted of >seizing the computer and backups and holding it for a year or so as >"evidence"--without ever filing charges. > >Conceivably the owner could have taken legal action--but doing so would >give the law enforcement people an incentive to file charges, thus imposing >large costs on the owner even if he was innocent of any crime and could >eventually prove it. > >I suspect that a good deal of this goes on in most law enforcement systems, >in one form or another. Charging and convicting people is costly, even if >they are guilty--and there is often behavior that law enforcement people >want to prevent that is not even illegal. On the other hand, there are lots >of things police can do that impose sizable costs but do not require a >conviction, such as arresting you, holding you in a cell overnight, but >never actually trying you for anything. >David Friedman >School of Law >Santa Clara University This is yet another one of the many reasons I advocate a system, AP, that some people around here call "extremely radical." (By today's standards it _is_ "extremely radical," but only in the sense that many sheeple seem ready to continue to tolerate the status quo.) I assert that if there is a mechanism in existence over the medium to long term to allow officialdom to punish people without conviction for things that are not even crimes, then I see nothing wrong with setting up a different system to punish these _officials_, without conviction, for things that THEY would claim are not crimes. If those officials wish to avoid this punishment, they should resign or even better, use their powers to immediately eliminate that unfair and unjustified punishment for ordinary citizens. But I guess this solution is a bit too obvious for some, huh? B^) Maybe we should call it "Contempt of Citizenry." Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Australia's New South Wales tries net-censorship
by Robert A. Rosenberg 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 9:01 4/8/96, Mike Duvos wrote: >I'd be interested to know if the courts have ever had a case in >which a person has been declared to have been in "possession" of >illegal material merely by virtue of its momentary presence in >their cache, screen buffer, or usenet spool. If you want a real world analogy, there are cases where overeager USPS Inspectors who want to "get" someone have sent them porno as a Return Receipt Requested Item and then raided before the person had had a chance to open the package. That is possession under the Law.

2 1

Re: BATFC -- Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Cryptography
by Brian B. Riley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 3/10/98 7:22 AM, John Young (jya(a)pipeline.com) passed this wisdom: >It worth noting that Microsoft and the Justice Department are >perfect twins of technology and law monopolies, using brute force >and contracts to get their way, both clothed in self-righteousness >and both led by charming weirdos, both totally obsessed with each >their own mad view of law and technology in the "public interest." John, would you really refer to Janet Reno as a 'charming weirdo'???? I can think of lost of names, epithets, and descriptions, but that surely would be far down my list.

1 0

Re: Disclosure of Public Knowledge to Foreigners
by cme＠acm.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:33 4/3/96, Timothy C. May wrote: >There is a reasonable chance the Supreme Court would see the overall >absurdity of a situation where the knowledge is freely available to 200 >million adult Americans, with no restrictions whatsover on publication, >discussion, etc., and yet uttering this knowledge in front of a foreigner >is a crime. > >I don't think this would pass Constitutional muster, as the lawyers like >to say. > >(The British at least have an Official Secrets Act. Much as I dislike that >Act, at least they are more consistent in the sense of classifying things >as being secret. How can the U.S. argue that knowledge available in any >large library or bookstore to anyone who wants it, citizen or not, may not >be "disclosed" to foreigners? If it's common knowledge, it's common >knowledge!) This assumes that the purpose of the ITAR restrictions is to keep a secret. To the extent that the gov't argues that, they have no case as you point out. However, the ITAR is there specifically to frustrate US businesses if they should want to sell or give away crypto overseas. The rules, despite their illogic, achieve that goal. I would like to believe that the Supremes would rule that the Gov't has no right to use what amounts to a secrecy provision just for harrassment -- but they might not. I had Mike Nelson say to my face, 1.5 years ago, that he knows good crypto is available to foreigners -- he just wants to make damn sure it doesn't come in shrink-wrapped packages from US companies. I can't judge the constitutionality of that position but it holds together logically. ["don't let American products hurt American interests" the battle cry runs] - Carl +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Carl M. Ellison cme(a)acm.org http://www.clark.net/pub/cme | | PGP: E0414C79B5AF36750217BC1A57386478 & 61E2DE7FCB9D7984E9C8048BA63221A2 | | "Officer, officer, arrest that man! He's whistling a dirty song." | +---------------------------------------------- Jean Ellison (aka Mother) -+

2 1

Re: Australia's New South Wales tries net-censorship
by tallpaul＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Apr 09, 1996 01:47:39, '"Robert A. Rosenberg" <hal9001(a)panix.com>' wrote: >At 9:01 4/8/96, Mike Duvos wrote: > >>I'd be interested to know if the courts have ever had a case in >>which a person has been declared to have been in "possession" of >>illegal material merely by virtue of its momentary presence in >>their cache, screen buffer, or usenet spool. > >If you want a real world analogy, there are cases where overeager USPS >Inspectors who want to "get" someone have sent them porno as a Return >Receipt Requested Item and then raided before the person had had a chance >to open the package. That is possession under the Law. > I think this is more "conspiracy" not "possession" under the law. Perhaps an attorney on the list could comment. But I am interested to read more about such "cases." Could R.A. Rosenberg post the case cites? --tallpaul

1 0

Subject: Re: They're running scared.
by attila 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

** Reply to note from jim bell <jimbell(a)pacifier.com> 04/08/96 09:53am -0800 = At 04:33 PM 4/8/96 GMT, attila wrote: = >** Reply to note from jim bell <jimbell(a)pacifier.com> 04/07/96 8:32pm -0800 = > = >Jim: = > = > a very sensible article. = = And it is the kind of article that you would never have seen in the = "mainstream press" more than 2-3 years ago, and probably not before the = middle of 1995. One of the implicit functions of the press has been to make = it appear that there is no reasonable opposition to the government in total. = Now, they have begun to admit that ever larger proportions of the = population are soured on the whole concept. = Time's dual attack on Hillary, one orchestrated by someone she tried to control, the other just pure analysis of the situation is very surprising. they are part of the big-money NWO whose "duty" is to keep the sheep informed of the will of the government (and make it appear benevolent. However, let's face it, Hillary has guts: "Bill Gates is greedy because he has amassed a fortune of US$ 15,000,000,000 ($15 billion) but the US Government is a helpful Village because it takes US$ 1,400,000,000,000 ($1.4 trillion) from us each year and does good things with it." --Hillary Clinton that takes one bitch of a person to make that arrogant statement --and the cover picture tells it all --ridden hard and put away wet many, many times --and not in the conventional sense. Susan Thosases and she make a real pair. Their actions, or those of Bubba and the rest of the CFR of which george Bush is the hatchet man, show an absolute contempt for the Constitution. = = > not to be critical over your work in general, but your polemics and = too-far = >radicalism makes it hard to swallow. = = I admit to my polemics. However, saying my position is "too far radicalism" = is quite relative. The average person today is a product of a system which, = in effect, has brainwashed him (to use an old, out-of-favor term) to believe = in the idea that the government has the authority to run just about = everything it chooses to. I, and increasing numbers of people, disagree. = If you have an alternative solution to the "government problem" I'm anxious = to see it. Relative to the sheep, I am "radical," but compared to people = who do indeed see there is a problem, I think I fit right in. = = > I may be an anarchist at heart, but = >anarchy explicitely implies personal responsibility --which few people have. = >the trick is to figure how the idealism of anarchy can survive in a society of = >non-responsible individuals. = = With all due respect, I think I've already figured it out. At least, I = discovered a path that we must at least investigate, because it could lead = us to the goal. politics of assassination? hired guns? I do not think I would have any difficulty with the concept in theory; just that we would run out of targets too soon and be forced back to economic terrorism. I do know, WITHOUT A DOUBT, that I will NOT participate in such a matter. The prophet, Joseph Smith said: The Constitution is not a law, but it empowers the people to make laws... The Constitution tells us what shall not be lawful tender... The legislture has ceded up to us the privilege of enacting such laws as are not inconsitent with the Constitution of the United States... The different states, and even the Congress itself have passed many laws diametrically contrary to the Constitution of the United States. ...Shall we be such fools as to be governed by its laws, which are unconstitutional? No!... The Constitution acknowledges that the people have all the power not reserved to itself. I am a lawyer. I am a big lawyer and comprehend heaven, earth, and hell. to bring forth knowledge that shall cover up all lawyers, doctors, and other big bodies. This is the doctrine of the Constitution, so help me God.... Now, this may not agree with your thinking (and there are pages more of Joseph Smith's statements on defending the Constitution), but I think he hit it on the head. Secondly, Thomas Jefferson stated: "I hold it that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical... It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government" --Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) or maybe: Democracy is a form of government under which everyone has the freedom to elect officials to restrict his freedom. or to put in more succintly, I think an old Doonesbury cartoon that had Duke (representing the NRA) testifying before a Senate subcommittee summed it up nicely..... Senator: "And we and the American people have had enough of you and your fanatic organization!" Duke: "I see Senator, shall I put you down for a million postcards?" Senator: "Don't you threaten me, mister!" Politicians only understand one thing. I am not a pacifist; I do believe in fighting for what is right; I did my duty in the 60s (in spades) --I could have asked the Church for the CO form; after the way the government used us (particularly the "black" battalionsfor which I was the CO) solely to test new weaponry and build up the military-industrial economics, by 1980 it hit me as to the extent I, and the rest of us, had been betrayed, yes, our government has a problem: greed, and power. Joseph Smith, however, did say: The Constitution should contain a provision that every officer of the Government who should neglect or refuse to extend the protection guaranteed in the Constitution should be subject to caputal punishment, and then the President of the United States would not say, "Your cause is just, but I can do nothing for you." Anarchy which degenerates to mob rule is untenable. What I do not see in your treatises is any planning for the future --once mob rule reigns, the next step is tribal councils, chiefs, and chiefs of chiefs --and I do not mean elected chiefs. As it has been, it will be. Man never learns from history --he just repeats it. -- "Don't hunt wild game, hunt lawyers! They provide better sport, suffer from severe overpopulation, and besides, they taste just like chicken!! -- Obscenity is a crutch for inarticulate motherfuckers. Fuck the CDA! cc: Cypherpunks <cypherpunks(a)toad.com>

1 0

Singapore & the net
by Michael Froomkin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Reuters reports Singapore has issued new regulations relating to the Internet today. Anyone have a pointer or details? A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | U. Miami School of Law | froomkin(a)law.miami.edu P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm here.

2 1