- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
by George A. Stathis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:34 ìì 13/11/1996 -0500, Mark M. wrote: (in response to): >> 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?) >Governments maintain a monopoly on land, so the "love it or leave it" mentality >is flawed. Virtual space does not have the same limitations as physical >space. Starting your own mailing list is relatively easy. Not at all easy, for a lot of people. Moreover, it's very time-consuming. It's only easy if you are prepared to put up with costs of time, money, and also... service providers (who don't always agree with you)... In a lot of places in the world, starting mailing lists is almost impossible unless you can be _inside_ an Internet Provider Company (and use Unix or whatever they use, in their own machines). >> 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. > >The EFF protects against government censorship, not against "editorial >control", "censorship", or whatever else you want to call it. I don't >see this as hypocritical at all. Perhaps cynical, though? :-) >> 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? > >And just how plausible do you think this is? I believe it is next to >impossible, unless it is the result of government regulation. Man you're nutts. There are very few and quite vast Media Companies in the world, and they're on the verge of becoming monopolies. Even your American President is in reality a puppet of the Trilateral Commission, who effectively also control CNN, the Washington Post, and many many many other things all over the world. And you are saying that control of the media by ownership is impossible? You're far out maaan! :-) Only in America such a naive opinion could actually be _believed_. (here I go again... aga! :-) ) George P.S. Even if you offered me a million dollars I'd stay away from your country. My sanity is much more valuable. :-) (The Immigration Authorities in the U.S. have missed the point: We DON'T want to come to you guys. It's the last thing we'd want!)

3 2

Re: Secrecy: My life as a nym. (Was: nym blown?)
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:14 PM 11/11/96 -0600, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: >This is an interesting topic. I apologize if my questions are too trivial, >but here they are: > > 1) Can a person without an SSN have a credit record? Some > may say that a credit record is a bad thing to have, > but I am still interested in a possibility. If you have a credit history you can have a credit record with or without an SSN. Millions of foreigners have credit histories without SSNs BTW. Millions of people with wrong or false SSNs also have credit histories. The SSA decided a few years ago not to let the credit reporting agencies check the validity of the SSNs in their records with the SSNs in the SSA database. > 2) Will private lenders (such as credit card issuers or > mortgage companies) agree to extend credit to a person > without an SSN or to someone who refuses to give out his SSN? Not if they are in America but those outside America will. False SSN's may work though falsifying mortgage applications (with a federally insured bank) may be a crime. Individuals can also grant mortgages however and are free to do so without using an SSN. > 3) Will the state issue a driver's license to someone who does not > have/does not wish to give out their SSN? Those states that don't require SSNs will of course. Some (most?) states that require SSNs don't validate them. Canadian provinces don't require US SSNs to issue licenses. > 4) Will states' police (where applicable) approve purchases of > firearms if purchasers do not state their ssn (misstating it > may be a crime) on an application? It's been so long since I bought from a dealer. Do the current federal forms have a place for SSN? > 5) Employers are required to pay certain taxes and therefore > they, in my understanding, need to know their employees SSNs. > How can people get around that (unless they do not need to work)? Lie, be self employed, or be employed by a foreign entity. They won't be able to verify until the new Instant Check Right to Work Verification scheme that the Feds are testing breaks wide. Then it's self-employment -- better for you in any case. > 6) Can someone without an SSN obtain various kinds of insurance? Some kinds. Again, the numbers are rarely verified. Over the years, I've only seen one number be bounced back and that was submitted to a bank by a person who did not vet the number for facial validity. If one institution turns you down, go to another. >Say, John Anonymous is a young 15 years old who anticipates to become an >engineer and have a middle class life. He wants to get married, No problem (unless his fiance wants to run a credit check). Even if the marriage license app wants an SSN, just say you're a foreigner with no SSN. Foreigners can still marry in America. Even if you also state on the same form that you were born in the US, you could still be a foreigner who's never really lived here. "My father was the Canadian Ambassador at the time." >have children Still accomplished by unskilled labor totally without an SSN. >drive a car Put hands on wheel and foot on gas. Trivial. Lie or get a foreign license. UK licenses are good for decades. A dozen states (or so) still let you operate a motor vehicle sans public liability insurance BTW and non-drivers, corporations, other entities, in fact anyone or anything can own a car. You can drive a car owned by something/someone else. >obtain insurance Lie. Or get insurance from a nice Swiss company. >work at some big company, A lot less of that going around these days. Giving a false SSN may or may not be caught. Large companies often do credit checks these days but you will probably survive. If you're working at a large company as a contractor or temp of course, your small agency may not have checked you out much. You can satisfy the I9 form requirements for proving right to work by flashing your passport BTW and you can still get a passport without supplying an SSN (in spite of the law). >travel around the world No problem. The ICAO record format for the nice little machine readable strip on passports *does* have space to place a National ID Number, but the standards do not require that a nation issue a National ID Number and fill that block. The UK and the US and others have (so far) not done so. The US legislation (effective January 1988) that the Passport Office's Application ask you for your SSN and forward info on refusenicks to the Treasury Department for a possible $500 fine, specifically says that failure to provide the number shall not be grounds for refusal by State to issue a passport. In practice, Treasury has not fined anyone. >invest in mutual funds or buy stocks Lie, have a corporation or trust you control buy, buy overseas or via Canada, etc. >Reliance on government help is not important to him, so he would not >apply for an SSN solely to get Social Security, welfare and such. > >His parents are cypherpunks and did not obtain an SSN for John. How much >effort would it cost him to live a life outlined above? Less effort that cross country skiing (in calories burned). May even provide similar recreational value depending on John's ideology. DCF "You're real smart. I bet you never forget your Social Security Number. What's your Social Security Number"? -- The Susan Sarandon character in "Atlantic City" "I don't have a Social Security Number." -- The Burt Lancaster character in "Atlantic City"

1 0

Re: Secrecy: My life as a nym. (Was: nym blown?)
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:31 PM 11/12/96 -0800, Detweiler/VZ Nuri wrote: >actually, there are some amusing things going on here with cpunk >"rules." are cpunks in favor of pseudonyms or not? one famous >cpunk madman wrote under a pseudonym to the list, and many >cypherpunk went to great lengths to try to derive his identity. >is this a case of respecting pseudonyms? or is it more a case of >the double standard at best, hypocrisy at worst, >"respect my pseudonyms, but yours are fair game"? You've neglected to mention that your (e.g., "the madman's") messages were criticizing the use of pseudonyms, and the use of more than one identity by an individual person. You've also neglected to mention that you (a single person) were using multiple identities to argue that multiple identities were harmful. In general, you're conflating several positions: 1. Fluid identities (e.g., imprecise or unregulated mapping between personas and flesh-and-blood bodies) cannot be prevented; 2. Fluid identities should be tolerated; 3. Fluid identities should be encouraged. >one noted proponent of pseudonymity, whom we will merely call "Timmy", >regularly takes great glee in misattributing my own posts to some >deranged crackpot running loose in cyberspace. is this a case >of respecting my identity? suppose I really was this person-- >shouldn't Timmy's position be one of respect for my use of >a pseudonym? I can't speak for Tim, but your messages do cause me to consider these ethical questions - e.g., is it more important to focus on what you've argued (that multiple identities are bad), or what you're doing (using multiple identities), or on a "politeness" principle, e.g., that gentle[wo]men don't reveal each other's identities. Arguments about a "right to be pseudonymous" are as problematic as the recent "free speech" arguments, where the identity of the right isn't so much in question as is who it is enforceable against - e.g., I can't force someone else to let me use their stuff to speak freely. Can I force someone else (not only with law, but with appeals to morality or contract or politeness or other forms of nongovernmental regulation) to address me by a chosen pseudonym, or prevent them from linking multiple identities? I think there is (or should be) a "politeness norm" which limits linking between identities, just as I see one which limits the disclosure of other personal data; I don't give out other people's home phone numbers to third parties, I don't pass along the identity of a person's "significant other" or home address, and otherwise try to let each person choose how much they want to disclose about their personal lives to the rest of the world. And I hope that they will do the same for me. It's not especially unusual for folks on the list to use abbreviated or pseudonymous identities; but the "strength" of these is limited as we meet each other in person, do business with each other, etc. It's difficult to form a strong relationship without getting to know others, but it's difficult to preserve privacy and let someone get to know you. A principle which preserves both values (privacy and disclosure) seems useful. But I also think that politeness norms are limited in their applicability - in particular, I also think it's useful to subject other people to the rules they propose should be applicable to everyone. This is a good way to try out proposed rules, and in some cases to help people understand why their rules are stupid. You have written that the use of pseudonyms and multiple identities is wrong. So I think it's reasonable to expect you to live up to the standards you've argued should be applied to all people. So you don't get the benefit (at least from me) of the politeness norms about pseudonyms. If you've changed your mind about the morality of "pseudospoofing", by all means, let me know. I believe that you are familiar with the "subject others to their own rules" rule, because it is the rule you're using/have used to justify your use of multiple identities, hmm? >the basic >cpunk philosophy, as amply illustrated by 2/3 of its founders, is >"look out for #1 only, and don't waste time on something as >inane as selfless public service or leadership" I suspect you intended this as some sort of indictment, but I don't know if you'll get a lot of disagreement (or even surprise). This philosophy seems to be at the core of much libertarian thought and free-market economics, two themes which are popular on the list. I think it's far too old-fashioned to qualify as "cypherpunk", but you're in the wrong place if you're hoping to insult someone by saying that. -- Greg Broiles | "In this court, appellant and respondent are the gbroiles(a)netbox.com | same person. Each party has filed a brief." http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Lodi v. Lodi, 173 Cal.App.3d 628, 219 Cal. | Rptr. 116 (3rd Dist, 1985)

1 0

No Subject
by Bovine Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Foulmouthed Timothy May rehashes his lies like a rabid parrot choking on a stale mantra stuck in its poisonous beak.

3 2

80% of cash is in underground economy!
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A surprising finding from New York Times: Economists once believed that just 10 percent of all currency in circulation was tied up in the underground economy. Now it turns out that 80 percent is closer to the mark. Most of it is in $100 bills, which are the largest available and now account for well over half the value of the nation's paper money. American banks and businesses hold very little cash. American households are also loath to keep much of it lying around. Yet according to the Federal Reserve there is enough currency floating around to make it appear that every American family of four has $6,000 or so in cash stashed under the mattress, including three dozen $100 bills. And despite the ubiquitousness of credit cards, ATMs and electronic transfers, the sea of cash has been growing much faster than the nation's gross national product. - Igor.

1 0

The TRILATERAL COMMISSION -was: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on...
by George A. Stathis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:34 ðì 14/11/1996 -0500, Mark M. wrote: (in response to me saying): >> Man you're nutts. There are very few and quite vast Media Companies >> in the world, and they're on the verge of becoming monopolies. >> >> Even your American President is in reality a puppet of the Trilateral >> Commission, who effectively also control CNN, the Washington Post, >> and many many many other things all over the world. >> >> And you are saying that control of the media by ownership is >> impossible? You're far out maaan! :-) >> >> Only in America such a naive opinion could actually be _believed_. >> (here I go again... aga! :-) ) > >Is this a troll? Nope; It's the truth. Expressed like a sarcastic joke as well, but it's _true_. And not intended to be a troll at all. As regards the "gullibility", it's plainly dangerous; And cultivated by the Media, apparently stronger in the U.S. than in many other places. But: How many times do I have to state explicitly that my grumbles about America are not "anti-American" (troll) propaganda? Nope; They're grumbles about _freedoms_, that if you Americans lose, the rest of the world will _also_ lose, (even quicker, I think)... Here is a REAL example: (written by E. Francis, on the "Trilateral Commission", and distributed to all members of his own -private- mailing list, of which I'm a part). >THE LAND OF SHADOWS > > Early this month is the last presidential >"election" before the year 2000. As of this writing and >long before, the election was decided in favor of Bill >Clinton. It works out astrologically, but the real >reason is because Clinton's bosses control the >corporations that control the nation, and they also >happen to own the major media which, shall we say, help >the public make up its mind about who to vote for -- >media like CNN, NBC, The Washington Post, The New York >Times, Tribune Co., Time-Warner and others. > This is not speculation, and if you would allow me >to pre-empt this astrological column with a brief >exposé, I will explain. All of these news organizations >are members of an international institution called the >Trilateral Commission (which is listed in the Manhattan >phone book, by the way). Bill Clinton and more than 20 >of his cabinet ministers are also on the list. Bob Dole >isn't a member, and neither is Jack Kemp, so in a very >real sense, they are the outsider candidates. > Since the organization's creation in 1973, every >White House has had Trilateral Commission >representation, starting with former Vice President >Nelson D. Rockefeller, the brother of the Commission's >co-founder, David Rockefeller. In 1976, Jimmy Carter, a >member of the Commission and close associate of the >Rockefellers, was "elected" president, and so on down >the line in an unbroken chain through Bill Clinton. In >one presidential election in the 1980s, all three >candidates were Trilateralists! And in the election >right before the current one, it was Trilateralist >George Bush versus Trilateralist Bill Clinton. It's a >little like both candidates in the old Soviet elections >coming from the Communist party. > You may wonder, "What's the big deal?" But look at >it this way. What if every president or vice president >for the past 22 years had been an executive of Grumman >Aerospace or a graduate of Harvard University? You >might suspect that Grumman or Harvard had a little >extra influence and was getting its people into >positions of power. But since the nation's most >powerful media are also represented on the Commission, >its existence rarely gets reported, and its true nature >is never accurately reported except in the alternative >media. Check the National Newspaper Index in any >library and you'll find, at most, one or two references >to the Commission, and both seek to belittle its >importance. > And people who are involved in the organization >don't like to talk about it. I recently caught up with >Secretary of the Interior (and Trilateral Commission >member) Bruce Babbit while he was on a speaking >engagement at the posh Mohonk Mountain House in my >area. A number of newspaper reporters were gathered >around him asking him the usual trivia. When I asked >him directly about his involvement on the commission, >and the president's, and that of some two dozen other >cabinet members, with the red light of a video camera >coming from behind me, Bruce cracked a joke about how I >would be a popular guy "out west" (ostensibly where >everybody has weird political theories), then he turned >tail and ran away from the news conference. > Commission membership also includes key federal >legislators, people on the incredibly powerful Federal >Reserve Board, major bankers and the CEOs of numerous >corporations of the General Electric and General Foods >ilk. And it's an international institution as well, >_majority-dominated by business and political interests >in other lands, particularly Germany and Japan_. >Consider the implications. It is arguable that the >Trilateral White House is dominated by government and >business interests of foreign nations, which is >clearly, blatantly unconstitutional. > The above-mentioned national media directly >involved with this organization, which set the national >news agenda here in the U.S. and for much of the >western world, are the same ones which are manipulating >the current election by sanitizing all the news that >should be coming out of Washington and elsewhere, by >not tallying the impressive pile of corpses collecting >around the President, and most of all, by bombarding us >with PR-generated trivia and commercials 24 hours a day >when there are somewhat more significant things to >concern ourselves with. > And of course, the economy keeps getting better. > But just in case you ever wondered just how it >happened that some unknown governor of Arkansas ended >up tooling around the globe aboard Air Force One, now >you have a clue. And in case you thought people were >stupid, well, this makes a good case for people just >being manipulated. But of course, you'd have no way of >knowing this if the only place you got your information >was a television set or newspaper. Perhaps this is why >big government is so interested in censoring the >Internet. > I don't believe that the Trilateral Commission is >a conspiracy, I believe it's just one fact of how the >ruling class of the Western world organizes itself. > There are other levels of aristocratic shadow- >government organization, and they're quite worth while >to study, but this one sure points to some interesting >possibilities, and boy, the fact that you never hear it >mentioned should make really you wonder. > Not that there isn't enough to wonder about >already, and not that any of it matters. > After all, nothing really happens nowadays. Flight >800 got shot down, but nobody did it. It just sort of >exploded and fell out of the sky. Not only wasn't there >a perpetrator, there wasn't even a cause determined for >the explosion! > We have wars -- safe ones, where nobody comes back >with their arms and legs blown off. The federal budget >deficit increased by a few billion dollars in the time >it took me to write this article, and yet it's >meaningless. There is no public mention of the >Constitutional amendment, the famous 14th Amendment, >which explicitly states, "The validity of the public >debt of the United States...shall not be questioned." >It's the law of the land! > So, lest I blow a few too many of my brain cells >thinking about this, I will now go back to being an >astrologer. > End of exposé >

2 1

Re: [TEST] [IGNORE] [NOISE]
by Bryondp＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

take me off this fucking list

2 1

Re: take me off your mailing list
by AwakenToMe＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 96-11-13 18:35:35 EST, FWJZ05A(a)prodigy.com (CLERK PHILLIP G ROBERTS) writes: << unsubcribe cypherpunks >> Ok.. thisd is IT! Im going to start keeping a log of how many people actually spell unsubscribe wrong. God.. I thought the average person was more literate. Id HATE to ask these people how to spell wednesday or arkansas

1 0

Validating SSNs
by smith＠sctc.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 4:13 PM 11/13/96, Black Unicorn wrote: >Exercise for the reader: How does the bank verify SSNs? OK, I'll bite. My guess is that the bank sticks the SSN in a report to the IRS and the bank is happy with the SSN as long as the IRS doesn't complain about it. Now, does the IRS check? I suspect that they don't, either. Their objective is to look for "matches" with SSNs that show up on filed tax forms, since they want to verify the data on the tax form. Given the behavior of every other large database I've ever seen, I'd guess that there would be a huge number of SSNs that don't in fact associate with tax forms. If someone High Up hasn't decreed that they should chase such things down (and allocated heaps of money to do it), they'll ignore the mismatches. This seems consistent with the reports of people who use bogus SSNs for decades at a time. Rick. smith(a)sctc.com

3 2

Financial Cryptography and the Theory of International Relations
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 15:32:34 -0500 From: Robert Hettinga <rah(a)shipwright.com> Subject: Financial Cryptography and the Theory of International Relations X-Sender: rah(a)pop.tiac.net To: IRTHEORY_LIST <irtheory_list(a)unimelb.edu.au> MIME-version: 1.0 Somebody asked me, regarding my posting here of the Digital Commerce Society of Boston meeting announcement (DCSB: Money Laundering -- The Headless Horseman of the Infocalypse): >Yes, I would like you to explain. Just what does this have to do with the >theory of international relations? People like the attorney "Black Unicorn" are interested in the international application of the technology of strong cryptography; in particular, strong financial cryptography. See <http://www.vmeng.com/rah/>, for pointers to more information on this, which I include here by reference. The short answer is, what happens if nation states can't fund themselves anymore because the cheapest transaction method available (cheaper by several orders of magnitude in lowered transaction and distribution costs) involves anonymous digital "cash" settlement? To quote something someone said in a Harvard Law seminar list a couple of years ago, "What happens when taxes become a tip?". The strongest financial cryptography protocols (like those invented by David Chaum of Digicash, or Mark Manasse of DEC, or Adi Shamir of RSA) use no book-entries whatsoever, which means no audit trails, which in turn means no book-entry taxes, like, say, those on income, or capital gains, or sales. In addition, what happens when we can effect the sale of financial assets with the digital equivalent of old-fashioned bearer certificates, which use the same cryptographic technology? The centralization of capital markets may become a thing of the past. Centralized markets for *anything* may become a thing of the past. The nation-state's ability to reallocate income, criminally, ala Amin or Mobutu, or otherwise, is severely limited in this scenario, certainly. :-). With anonymous voting protocols, you can have anonymous (or, more correctly, perfectly pseudonymous) control of financial assets. Possible damage to one's reputation (pseudonymous or not) works just fine to prevent the non-repudiation of cash-settled transactions, so the power of nation states aren't even necessary to regulate commerce, really. The only thing left that nation states do is physical security, or the "rational" application of force, which can probably be handled privately, particularly if nation states can't command the payment of taxes for this service anyway. Which brings me to the current discussion here about the imploding pseudo-states of Africa. What we're witnessing right now is the re-emergence of tribal groups as the common political denominator. Nation states based on those groups are likely. However, I also expect that this process of literal dis-integration will continue, but recursively, as it becomes more and more possible for ordinary people to use information (like asset pricing, the returns on those assets, or the technical knowlege to profitably control those assets) once only found at the top of large industrial hierarchies like multinatioal corporations and nation states. That information will be applied to smaller and smaller economic units as processor prices continue to fall. That is, large groups of the same ethnic nationality will be created on the rubble of the old colonial boundries, which the cold war propped up for the last 50 years. However, those large groups will continue to factionalize as access to western-style economic activity increases. The continuing ubiquity of the internet can only increase this process, especially if the promise of financial cryptography survives the test of economic reality. I expect that as financial technology like the above is introduced, the ability of political and business elites to hold together large hierarchical entities, like the modern nation-state or multinational corporation, will continue to deminish. The ability for anyone to get paid for their work, no matter where they are, and to work where they live, probably in a peer-to-peer economic relationship with the buyer of their work, who may well live on the other side of the world, will create much less reliance on geography as capital, which were the hallmarks both agrarianism and industrialism. Both of which, by the way, created cities, and then the nation state, in the first place. Whew. Clear as mud. Oh, well. Besides stirring things up more than a little bit, does that answer your question? ;-). Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- 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/ --- 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