CDR: Re: why should it be trusted?
<fontfamily><param>Helvetica</param> On Tuesday, October 17, 2000, at 08:19 PM, Tim May wrote: <italic>At 5:50 PM -0700 10/17/00, Nathan Saper wrote:</italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param> <italic></italic></color><italic>
On Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 12:07:00PM -0400, David Honig wrote:</italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>
<italic></italic></color><italic>
Not yet. But I believe the UK takes samples of everyone</italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>
<italic></italic></color><italic>>> arrested (not necessarily guilty) of minor crimes, and some</italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param> <italic></italic></color><italic>>> US states and cities do or periodically propose doing this</italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param> <italic></italic></color><italic>>> or more.</italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param> <italic></italic></color><italic>
The next question is: What do they do with this info? Insurance</italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>
<italic></italic></color><italic>>companies and the like use it to justify discrimination against people</italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param> <italic></italic></color><italic>>likely to develop certain medical conditions.</italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param> <italic></italic></color><italic>Are you claiming that DNA collected by the police is then given to </italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param> <italic></italic></color><italic>insurance companies?</italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param> <italic></italic></color><italic>An audacious claim. Do you evidence to support this extraordinary claim?</italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param> <italic></italic></color><italic>I will be very interested to hear which communities, which states, </italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param> <italic></italic></color><italic>are doing this. So will many journalists, I hope.</italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param> <italic></italic></color><italic>On the other hand, having heard that even getting a simple blood or </italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param> <italic></italic></color><italic>saliva sample requires court action, I expect you are once again </italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param> <italic></italic></color><italic>merely hand-waving.</italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param> In the UK? I heard that in one community in the UK, in order to catch a rapist or somesuch, the police went around collecting DNA samples and arresting anyone who refused. After all, only someone with something to hide would refuse. Of course, this was television. <italic></italic></color><italic>As for insurance companies "discriminating," this is what I hope for. </italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param> <italic></italic></color><italic>Those of us who don't engage in certain practices--smoking, sky </italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param> <italic></italic></color><italic>diving, anal sex, whatever--should not be subsidizing those who do. </italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param> <italic></italic></color><italic>This is the beauty of "opt out" plans.</italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param> Yes, only the genetically pure deserve health care. And you are sure that the insurance companies won't opt you out when they get a good look at your DNA? <italic></italic></color><italic>But the first order of business is for you to support your claim that </italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param> <italic></italic></color><italic>DNA is collected by the police and then shared with insurance </italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param> <italic></italic></color><italic>companies.</italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param> Actually, that's your claim. But I'm surprised that you'er so ignorant of cooperation between government and corporations. Maybe you don't actually work for a living. You are aware of drug testing in the work place, aren't you?
At 10:20 PM -0500 10/17/00, Allen Ethridge wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2000, at 08:19 PM, Tim May wrote:
As for insurance companies "discriminating," this is what I hope for. Those of us who don't engage in certain practices--smoking, sky diving, anal sex, whatever--should not be subsidizing those who do. This is the beauty of "opt out" plans.
Yes, only the genetically pure deserve health care. And you are sure that the insurance companies won't opt you out when they get a good look at your DNA?
Actually, that's not at all what he said.
But the first order of business is for you to support your claim that DNA is collected by the police and then shared with insurance companies.
Actually, that's your claim. But I'm surprised that you'er so ignorant of cooperation between government and corporations. Maybe you don't actually work for a living. You are aware of drug testing in the work place, aren't you?
I can't speak for Tim, but I work for a living. I am aware of drug testing in the workplace, and have never chosen to work for a company that requires it. P.S. I too would be interested in documented cases where DNA collected by the police was given to insurance companies. -- -- Marshall "The era of big government is over." Bill Clinton, State of the Union Address, January 23, 1996 Marshall Clow MusicMatch <mailto:mclow@mailhost2.csusm.edu>
P.S. I too would be interested in documented cases where DNA collected by the police was given to insurance companies.
It's (apparently) England where there is wide spread DNA collection for use in finding certain types of criminals. In England both the Police and the Health Care System are run by the government, so in a sense the "Insurance Company" already has it. They also can't do anything about it since they have to cover everyone. Note: I am not claiming that the Police share the DNA with the Health Care Providers, but once the database is there... -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ********************************************** Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural
Petro wrote:
P.S. I too would be interested in documented cases where DNA collected by the police was given to insurance companies.
It's (apparently) England where there is wide spread DNA collection for use in finding certain types of criminals.
The database exists but so far it is supposedly restricted to convicted criminals (all nearly a million of them), and DNA collection is not universal in criminal investigation in England. There is a move (which will possibly fall foul of the new Human Rights laws) by some bits of the Labour government to make it routine for people who are actually arrested, but not for a trawl through random members of the public . The opposition Conservative party says the proposals are too weak - they want to give the police even more powers. Presumably they want everyone on the database, convicted or not. They seem proud of their database (you can even pay them to "fingerprint" you) http://www.forensic.gov.uk/forensic/news/press_releases/10_04_00_2.htm
In England both the Police and the Health Care System are run by the government, so in a sense the "Insurance Company" already has it. They also can't do anything about it since they have to cover everyone. Note: I am not claiming that the Police share the DNA with the Health Care Providers, but once the database is there...
If they aren't keeping the DNA but just storing the results of the "profile" in the database then the data will *not* be generally useful for medical purposes. You have to know what you are looking for. If you suspect that a particular allele makes a disease more likely you have to look for that allele. The kind of stuff that is important here is the SNP lists coming out of the HGP - which is why annotations to them are getting bogged down in intellectual property squabbles between academics & drug companies. Also, as you pointed out, the UK National Health Service isn't an insurance system. Of course that doesn't mean that the doctors wouldn't be interested in DNA evidence for hereditary diseases or whatever. If anything leaks might be the other way - law enforcement might want to find confidential patient information from the NHS (which doesn't keep centralised patient records, yet - there is an interminable thread about this on the UKcrypto list which a few folks who are here also read - Ross Anderson has strong opinions on the competence of the NHS to keep centralised confidential records) A recent news item at http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid%5F906000/906538.stm and some background: http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid%5F541000/541529.stm http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/audio%5Fvideo/programmes/panor...
[forking the DNA discussion slightly] On giving blood samples to police: I believe the supremes are going to hear a case about a hospital taking blood samples after delivery of a baby, running drug checks, and turning her over to the police immediately for child abuse. In a case within the last year, some local woman had her baby taken immediately after birth because they drug tested her and found a sedative that her doctor had given her, but wasn't recorded so they figured it was recreational. She should be suing their asses off but only wanted an apology in the broadcast I intercepted. Maybe her kid will sue in 18 years, one hopes. ..... [back to DNA] Recently read about a website where you can offer to donate your blood for a disease-oriented DNA bank. [No, I am not mixing this with the donate-cat-hair-for-feline-DNA-bank story of a month ago.] They are interested in a list of diseases you or your immediate family have had. Some scandanavian countries have complete health records on all their citizens and some are working on national DNA banks. Some of these will be made available for research after some form of anonymization.
At 12:25 PM -0400 10/18/00, David Honig wrote:
[forking the DNA discussion slightly]
On giving blood samples to police: I believe the supremes are going to hear a case about a hospital taking blood samples after delivery of a baby, running drug checks, and turning her over to the police immediately for child abuse.
In a case within the last year, some local woman had her baby taken immediately after birth because they drug tested her and found a sedative that her doctor had given her, but wasn't recorded so they figured it was recreational. She should be suing their asses off but only wanted an apology in the broadcast I intercepted. Maybe her kid will sue in 18 years, one hopes.
Maybe it's just me, but "suing their asses off" would hardly suffice...there's a long, and getting longer every day, list of abuses for which the only remedy I can imagine would be a car bomb incinerating one or all of the offenders. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Tim May wrote:
Maybe it's just me, but "suing their asses off" would hardly suffice...there's a long, and getting longer every day, list of abuses for which the only remedy I can imagine would be a car bomb incinerating one or all of the offenders.
You live in a universe much more interesting than mine, I suppose... Sampo Syreeni <decoy@iki.fi>, aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university
----- Original Message ----- X-Loop: openpgp.net From: David Honig <honig@sprynet.com>
[forking the DNA discussion slightly]
On giving blood samples to police: I believe the supremes are going to hear a case about a hospital taking blood samples after delivery of a baby, running drug checks, and turning her over to the police immediately for child abuse.
I seem to recall a news item which indicated that the arguments for this case have already been made. The claim was made by the cops that it was to protect the fetus' health, to which one SC Justice (female; don't recall which one) responded by. in effect, saying that by the time the test was made (presumably, shortly before birth) the damage, if any, had already been done. I think this practice will fail, for the predictable reasons.
At 3:05 PM -0400 10/18/00, jim bell wrote:
----- Original Message ----- X-Loop: openpgp.net From: David Honig <honig@sprynet.com>
[forking the DNA discussion slightly]
On giving blood samples to police: I believe the supremes are going to hear a case about a hospital taking blood samples after delivery of a baby, running drug checks, and turning her over to the police immediately for child abuse.
I seem to recall a news item which indicated that the arguments for this case have already been made. The claim was made by the cops that it was to protect the fetus' health, to which one SC Justice (female; don't recall which one) responded by. in effect, saying that by the time the test was made (presumably, shortly before birth) the damage, if any, had already been done.
I think this practice will fail, for the predictable reasons.
I also heard coverage of this when it was being argued. The attorney for the woman also pointed out to the Court that the drug tests were not used to intervene AT THE TIME, so no possible causation issues were involved. The blood/drug test was done only FOR THE PURPOSES OF PROSECUTION. The authorities tested everyone, filed the results away, waited until the births had occurred, then filed drug charges. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
David Honig wrote: [...]
Some scandanavian countries have complete health records on all their citizens and some are working on national DNA banks. Some of these will be made available for research after some form of anonymization.
For values of "some" which are in the set of all nation-states known as "Iceland". There is a lot of controversy about it over there (see various news reports in Scientific American, Nature, New Scientist et.c over the past couple of years). AFAIK it is going ahead. The point about Iceland is that almost all the population is descended from a comparatively small number of Norse (& even fewer Irish) colonists in historical times & they keep good births-marriages-and-deaths records. So their traditional genetics is well-known & some quite deep family histories are retrievable. So the DNA data can maybe be matched with that to produce lots of interesting test cases about hereditary diseases. Ken Brown
At 12:25 PM 10/18/00 -0400, David Honig wrote:
Some scandanavian countries have complete health records on all their citizens and some are working on national DNA banks. Some of these will be made available for research after some form of anonymization.
Specifically Iceland - the population is small, and hasn't had much mixing with other people since the decline of Viking raiding, and most of the mixing since then was with Norwegians who were relatively similar. There were Irish monks in Iceland when the Vikings got there, and there's some DNA evidence that many of the early women were from England and Ireland, presumably kidnapped in Viking raids. Also, while the earlier saga periods have mixed-quality record keeping, there's been enough history of land-ownership records and church and family records of births to make studies easier. Other Scandinavian countries would be much more difficult - larger populations, much more trade and travel and viking, lower literacy, nomadic Lapps in the north, etc. Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639
At 05:31 PM 10/19/00 -0400, Bill Stewart wrote:
At 12:25 PM 10/18/00 -0400, David Honig wrote:
Some scandanavian countries have complete health records on all their citizens and some are working on national DNA banks. Some of these will be made available for research after some form of anonymization.
Specifically Iceland - the population is small, and hasn't had much mixing with other people since the decline of Viking raiding,
Yes Ken Brown mentioned Iceland... I haven't been able to find the article wherein other countries were thinking of similar DB for their populations... I've been too busy getting my naif tech-history reworked by Lucky et al. :-)
Yes, I can see it now. "I'm sorry I have to tell you this Mr. & Mrs. May, but the genetic tests required by your insurance company have revealed that your unborn child has a 65% chance of developing an expensive to treat and possibly severely debilitating condition requiring many operations, doctor visits, therapy, special equipment, round the clock nursing. etc. Since we have already passed this information on to your insurance company as required by the terms of your policy, they are recommending and will pay you to terminate the pregnancy and to have both you and your husband sterilized. Otherwise they will not pay for your pre-natal care, the delivery, or any future treatment of your child. Of course you can opt for our "High Genetic Risk Policy" at $XXXXX thousands of dollars a month (which is probably equal to or more expensive than the cost of paying for the possible medical costs on your own IF the condition occurs. Which you would, since Medicare/Medicaid was ended in the last round of "Compassionate Conservatism"). We will be passing this information onto your brothers, sisters and other relatives insurance companies so they can require their sterilization. Frankly, your entire family tree needs to be "pruned" to coin a phrase. If you disagree with this decision you can appeal by our completely fair and unbiased arbitration process of course." Neil M. Johnson njohnson@interl.net http://www.interl.net/~njohnson PGP Key Finger Print: 93C0 793F B66E A0C7 CEEA 3E92 6B99 2DCC ----- Original Message ----- From: Allen Ethridge To: Cypherpunks Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 10:20 PM Subject: CDR: Re: why should it be trusted? On Tuesday, October 17, 2000, at 08:19 PM, Tim May wrote: At 5:50 PM -0700 10/17/00, Nathan Saper wrote:
On Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 12:07:00PM -0400, David Honig wrote:
Not yet. But I believe the UK takes samples of everyone arrested (not necessarily guilty) of minor crimes, and some US states and cities do or periodically propose doing this or more.
The next question is: What do they do with this info? Insurance companies and the like use it to justify discrimination against people likely to develop certain medical conditions.
Are you claiming that DNA collected by the police is then given to insurance companies? An audacious claim. Do you evidence to support this extraordinary claim? I will be very interested to hear which communities, which states, are doing this. So will many journalists, I hope. On the other hand, having heard that even getting a simple blood or saliva sample requires court action, I expect you are once again merely hand-waving. In the UK? I heard that in one community in the UK, in order to catch a rapist or somesuch, the police went around collecting DNA samples and arresting anyone who refused. After all, only someone with something to hide would refuse. Of course, this was television. As for insurance companies "discriminating," this is what I hope for. Those of us who don't engage in certain practices--smoking, sky diving, anal sex, whatever--should not be subsidizing those who do. This is the beauty of "opt out" plans. Yes, only the genetically pure deserve health care. And you are sure that the insurance companies won't opt you out when they get a good look at your DNA? But the first order of business is for you to support your claim that DNA is collected by the police and then shared with insurance companies. Actually, that's your claim. But I'm surprised that you'er so ignorant of cooperation between government and corporations. Maybe you don't actually work for a living. You are aware of drug testing in the work place, aren't you?
At 11:06 PM -0500 10/17/00, Neil Johnson wrote:
Yes, I can see it now.
"I'm sorry I have to tell you this Mr. & Mrs. May, but the genetic tests required by your insurance company have revealed that your unborn child has a 65% chance of developing an expensive to treat and possibly severely debilitating condition requiring many operations, doctor visits, therapy, special equipment, round the clock nursing. etc.
Since we have already passed this information on to your insurance company as required by the terms of your policy, they are recommending and will pay you to terminate the pregnancy and to have both you and your husband sterilized. Otherwise they will not pay for your pre-natal care, the delivery, or any future treatment of your child.
Of course you can opt for our "High Genetic Risk Policy" at $XXXXX thousands of dollars a month (which is probably equal to or more expensive than the cost of paying for the possible medical costs on your own IF the condition occurs. Which you would, since Medicare/Medicaid was ended in the last round of "Compassionate Conservatism").
And what is wrong with this? Nothing that I can see. Alice the Insurer is free to set her rates as she wishes, and even to require tests. Bob the Prospective Insured is free to shop elsewhere. What has drawn so many of you socialist creeps to this list in the past few months? Did "Mother Jones" give out subscription information recently? Wait until you finally grasp the full implications of crypto anarchy. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
Cryptome has copies (http://cryptome.org/s3202.txt) of a speech by an elected US politician of some stripe about a proposed "Dangerous Biological Agent and Toxin Control Act of 2000" who makes this point: "Third, the legislation makes it unlawful to knowingly communicate false, but believable information, concerning an activity which would constitute a violation of this statute." So is the sentence "This sentence is a violation of the Dangerous Biological Agent and Toxin Control Act of 2000" true or false? Ken
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 11:53:36PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
At 11:06 PM -0500 10/17/00, Neil Johnson wrote:
Yes, I can see it now.
"I'm sorry I have to tell you this Mr. & Mrs. May, but the genetic tests required by your insurance company have revealed that your unborn child has a 65% chance of developing an expensive to treat and possibly severely debilitating condition requiring many operations, doctor visits, therapy, special equipment, round the clock nursing. etc.
Since we have already passed this information on to your insurance company as required by the terms of your policy, they are recommending and will pay you to terminate the pregnancy and to have both you and your husband sterilized. Otherwise they will not pay for your pre-natal care, the delivery, or any future treatment of your child.
Of course you can opt for our "High Genetic Risk Policy" at $XXXXX thousands of dollars a month (which is probably equal to or more expensive than the cost of paying for the possible medical costs on your own IF the condition occurs. Which you would, since Medicare/Medicaid was ended in the last round of "Compassionate Conservatism").
And what is wrong with this? Nothing that I can see.
Alice the Insurer is free to set her rates as she wishes, and even to require tests. Bob the Prospective Insured is free to shop elsewhere.
Where elsewhere? What alternative does Bob have? If it is cheaper for companies to not insure him, they won't. And then we have a public health crises.
What has drawn so many of you socialist creeps to this list in the past few months? Did "Mother Jones" give out subscription information recently?
I came because I'm interested in (though admittedly naieve about) cryptography, and I like debating with people who hold different opinions than I do.
Wait until you finally grasp the full implications of crypto anarchy.
- -- Nathan Saper (natedog@well.com) | http://www.well.com/user/natedog/ GnuPG (ElGamal/DSA): 0x9AD0F382 | PGP 2.x (RSA): 0x386C4B91 Standard PGP & PGP/MIME OK | AOL Instant Messenger: linuxfu -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE57kfU2FWyBZrQ84IRAsydAJ9AAj8WFVKM0WvkGHHK0wnN9+DipwCcDlqA Rr6p2gKyfRsjtfYwzQpPJmU= =oF56 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
At 6:01 PM -0700 10/18/00, Nathan Saper wrote:
And what is wrong with this? Nothing that I can see.
Alice the Insurer is free to set her rates as she wishes, and even to require tests. Bob the Prospective Insured is free to shop elsewhere.
Where elsewhere? What alternative does Bob have? If it is cheaper for companies to not insure him, they won't. And then we have a public health crises.
"What if nobody will sell Bob the food he wants for the price he is willing or able to pay? Then he'll starve to death!!!!!" Bob is seeking to pay less money in insurance premiums that he expects to receive in benefits. Insurers are seeking to get Bob to pay more in premiums than they pay out in benefits. Insurance is gambling. Get it through your thick skull.
What has drawn so many of you socialist creeps to this list in the past few months? Did "Mother Jones" give out subscription information recently?
I came because I'm interested in (though admittedly naieve about) cryptography, and I like debating with people who hold different opinions than I do.
Sadly, you don't know enough to actually carry on a debate. Warmed-over socialist platitudes have been your stock in trade. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
I almost never participate in this group, but here it's hard to resist. On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Tim May wrote:
At 6:01 PM -0700 10/18/00, Nathan Saper wrote:
And what is wrong with this? Nothing that I can see.
Alice the Insurer is free to set her rates as she wishes, and even to require tests. Bob the Prospective Insured is free to shop elsewhere.
Where elsewhere? What alternative does Bob have? If it is cheaper for companies to not insure him, they won't. And then we have a public health crises.
"What if nobody will sell Bob the food he wants for the price he is willing or able to pay? Then he'll starve to death!!!!!"
Bob is seeking to pay less money in insurance premiums that he expects to receive in benefits. Insurers are seeking to get Bob to pay more in premiums than they pay out in benefits. Insurance is gambling. Get it through your thick skull.
It's no longer gambling if the insurances get to see through the back of the cards. I think this is what the objection is about. -- cg
At 6:54 PM -0700 10/18/00, Yardena Arar + Christian Goetze wrote:
I almost never participate in this group, but here it's hard to resist.
On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Tim May wrote:
At 6:01 PM -0700 10/18/00, Nathan Saper wrote:
And what is wrong with this? Nothing that I can see.
Alice the Insurer is free to set her rates as she wishes, and even to require tests. Bob the Prospective Insured is free to shop elsewhere.
Where elsewhere? What alternative does Bob have? If it is cheaper for companies to not insure him, they won't. And then we have a public health crises.
"What if nobody will sell Bob the food he wants for the price he is willing or able to pay? Then he'll starve to death!!!!!"
Bob is seeking to pay less money in insurance premiums that he expects to receive in benefits. Insurers are seeking to get Bob to pay more in premiums than they pay out in benefits. Insurance is gambling. Get it through your thick skull.
It's no longer gambling if the insurances get to see through the back of the cards. I think this is what the objection is about.
Gambling is about assessing risk and rewards and payoffs. A person seeking insurance knows things about his or her health that the prospective insurer may not know about. Likewise, the prospective insurer may come to know things about the candidate. This is the way markets in general have always worked. Economists talk about "preference revealing" and "selective disclosure of information." In this context, if either side wishes to reveal less than required by the other side, it can walk away from the deal. I can see why you have tended to not participate in this group. Keep it that way. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
--- Original Message ----- From: "Tim May" <tcmay@got.net> To: "Yardena Arar + Christian Goetze" <kitties@best.com> Cc: "Nathan Saper" <natedog@well.com>; "Cypherpunks" <cypherpunks@cyberpass.net> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 9:00 PM Subject: CDR: Re: Re: why should it be trusted?
Gambling is about assessing risk and rewards and payoffs. A person seeking insurance knows things about his or her health that the prospective insurer may not know about. Likewise, the prospective insurer may come to know things about the candidate.
This is the way markets in general have always worked. Economists talk about "preference revealing" and "selective disclosure of information."
But the Bob has no control of his risk (genetics), or at least not yet :). The insurance company does. I don't have a problem with insurance companies raising rates for people who smoke, are overweight (cough, cough), or have high cholesterol (cough, cough, cough). That's behavior that can be changed. Neil M. Johnson njohnson@interl.net http://www.interl.net/~njohnson PGP Key Finger Print: 93C0 793F B66E A0C7 CEEA 3E92 6B99 2DCC
At 9:20 PM -0500 10/18/00, Neil Johnson wrote:
--- Original Message ----- From: "Tim May" <tcmay@got.net>
This is the way markets in general have always worked. Economists talk about "preference revealing" and "selective disclosure of information."
But the Bob has no control of his risk (genetics), or at least not yet :). The insurance company does.
The insurance company does NOT have any control over Bob's risks! Whatever gave you that idea? All the insurance company can do is to estimate the risks and costs of treatment as best they can and then make Bob an offer on how much they will charge to promise to treat him if and when he gets sick or is injured. I am unable to find any gentler way to say this: a lot of you (Neil, Yardena, Nathan, Robert, etc.) are woefully ignorant of economics, markets, and the nature of a free society. In this insurance debate, several of you seem to think that Bob has some "right" to insurance...at the price _he_ or some committee thinks is "fair." Please read up on some basic economics--preferably not Marxist economics. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim May" <tcmay@got.net> To: <cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com>; "Yardena Arar + Christian Goetze" <kitties@best.com> Cc: "Nathan Saper" <natedog@well.com>; "Cypherpunks" <cypherpunks@cyberpass.net> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 9:56 PM Subject: CDR: Re: Re: Re: why should it be trusted?
I am unable to find any gentler way to say this: a lot of you (Neil, Yardena, Nathan, Robert, etc.) are woefully ignorant of economics, markets, and the nature of a free society.
In this insurance debate, several of you seem to think that Bob has some "right" to insurance...at the price _he_ or some committee thinks is "fair."
Please read up on some basic economics--preferably not Marxist economics.
As a matter of fact I'm studying it right now (for my Software Engineering Economics Class). Heaven forbid Here's a good quote even: "The use of dollar profit as the only criterion to be used in decision making often leads to decisions with good short-term profit properties, but poor social outcomes for the people involved (and often, as a result, poor long-term profit prospects)." . . . "The net value approach used in this book assumes that ALL [Author's emphasis, not mine] the relevant components of effectiveness--employee's need-fulfillment, customer's good will, users' information privacy, operator's ease of use--have been translated into dollar values and incorporated as such in the total value function". (p 212 - Software Engineering Economics by Barry W. Boehm) In other words the Alice should take into account more than just what it is going to risks/cost to treat Bob. But most companies are going to only consider their short-term interests (There's that "Tragedy of the commons" again) unless they are forced otherwise. Neil M. Johnson njohnson@interl.net http://www.interl.net/~njohnson PGP Key Finger Print: 93C0 793F B66E A0C7 CEEA 3E92 6B99 2DCC
Tim May wrote:
At 9:20 PM -0500 10/18/00, Neil Johnson wrote:
But the Bob has no control of his risk (genetics), or at least not yet :). The insurance company does.
The insurance company does NOT have any control over Bob's risks! Whatever gave you that idea?
At most, an insurance company would have some information Bob didn't have. Bob could reasonably demand a copy of the results of his DNA test. If the insurance company refused, he could shop elsewhere. Or self-insure, as many of us choose to do.
I am unable to find any gentler way to say this: a lot of you (Neil, Yardena, Nathan, Robert, etc.) are woefully ignorant of economics, markets, and the nature of a free society.
If they're Americans, they've probably been socialistized by the public school system. In addition to the inculcation of a belief system the public schools seem to actively discourage critical thought and the use of, gasp, shudder, numerical data. (I'm speaking in broad terms, of course; there are many isolated exceptions.) Not that I don't contemn the ignorant. An adult must take responsibility for his education, no matter how badly mangled it was during his childhood.
In this insurance debate, several of you seem to think that Bob has some "right" to insurance...at the price _he_ or some committee thinks is "fair."
You've probably noticed, Tim, that most of those who claim a right to affordable insurance are those who expect to _need_ a lot of insurance benefits. I'm not sure that those people realize it themselves, even when it's pointed out to them. (That may simply reflect on my skill at oratory, but I should think that a huge collection of data points speaks for itself.) I concluded long ago that medical insurance is a bad idea for society. It encourages irresponsible behavior to the extent that prices are spread to other people. And of course attempting to adjust premiums based on expectation of irresponsible behavior in well on its way to being labeled a crime against humanity.
Please read up on some basic economics--preferably not Marxist economics.
Or Hillaryomics. Oh, wait, you already excluded Marxist economics. -- Steve Furlong, Computer Condottiere Have GNU, will travel 518-374-4720 sfurlong@acmenet.net
At 11:38 PM -0400 10/18/00, Steve Furlong wrote:
Tim May wrote:
At 9:20 PM -0500 10/18/00, Neil Johnson wrote:
But the Bob has no control of his risk (genetics), or at least not yet :). The insurance company does.
The insurance company does NOT have any control over Bob's risks! Whatever gave you that idea?
At most, an insurance company would have some information Bob didn't have. Bob could reasonably demand a copy of the results of his DNA test.
"Bob, I see here that you are "demanding" a copy of this test that I paid for, that you voluntarily provided a sample for, or that you were careless enough to leave some skin flakes for on my sofa over there in the office. Well, you know what, Bob? Maybe I'll let you have a copy of the results, maybe I'll tell you to get the hell out of my office. But if you keep "demanding" something that isn't yours to demand, I may just have to take stronger measures."
If the insurance company refused, he could shop elsewhere. Or self-insure, as many of us choose to do.
Indeed. But let's drop the use of the word "demand." I was taught that a "demand" is a "demand," not a request.
I am unable to find any gentler way to say this: a lot of you (Neil, Yardena, Nathan, Robert, etc.) are woefully ignorant of economics, markets, and the nature of a free society.
If they're Americans, they've probably been socialistized by the public school system. In addition to the inculcation of a belief system the public schools seem to actively discourage critical thought and the use of, gasp, shudder, numerical data. (I'm speaking in broad terms, of course; there are many isolated exceptions.)
Not that I don't contemn the ignorant. An adult must take responsibility for his education, no matter how badly mangled it was during his childhood.
Indeed. And those who arrive here on this list and natter on about insurance as a right, about how corporations, not government, are the real danger, and who spout about the evils of capitalism should be rebuked.
In this insurance debate, several of you seem to think that Bob has some "right" to insurance...at the price _he_ or some committee thinks is "fair."
You've probably noticed, Tim, that most of those who claim a right to affordable insurance are those who expect to _need_ a lot of insurance benefits. I'm not sure that those people realize it themselves, even when it's pointed out to them. (That may simply reflect on my skill at oratory, but I should think that a huge collection of data points speaks for itself.)
I concluded long ago that medical insurance is a bad idea for society. It encourages irresponsible behavior to the extent that prices are spread to other people. And of course attempting to adjust premiums based on expectation of irresponsible behavior in well on its way to being labeled a crime against humanity.
And it increases overall costs by making people less sensitive to prices. Imagine what would happen if "dietary insurance" existed, with every person having state-funded budgets for food and restaurant meals. (Don't laugh: food stamps already work this way for a significant subpopulation.) The probable effect would be an overall rise in prices. This has happened with health care. Too many examples to even begin to list. The ultimate solution for dealing with all of these folks who demand money from me to pay for their insurance is to kill them. Crypto anarchy offers many interesting options. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
Tim May wrote:
At 11:38 PM -0400 10/18/00, Steve Furlong wrote:
At most, an insurance company would have some information Bob didn't have. Bob could reasonably demand a copy of the results of his DNA test.
...
If the insurance company refused, he could shop elsewhere. Or self-insure, as many of us choose to do.
Indeed. But let's drop the use of the word "demand." I was taught that a "demand" is a "demand," not a request.
Yep, I wrote carelessly. I _said_ "demand" but I _meant_ that Bob would refuse to deal with the insurance company unless they share what they find. And I'm not so confident that the insurance company would be paying for the test, as you suggested in your (snipped) scenario. I have no experience with insurance plans which required you to get a physical before they take you on; I've always had HMOs (or self insurance) since I left the military. Who normally paid for the exams?
I concluded long ago that medical insurance is a bad idea for society. ...
And it increases overall costs by making people less sensitive to prices.
Plus the overhead and profits of the insurance company. I've stumped several insurance salesmen, who claimed that I'd be saving money by going with them, by asking how the total costs would go down if salesmen and executives and other non-medical drones are getting paid. And the wasted staff time in the doctors' office, filling out the five hundred distinct insurance forms, contrasted with taking a handful of 20s and giving me a receipt. No satisfactory answer in a couple dozen contestants. The tax code in the US is the only thing which makes medical insurance cost less to consumers than self insurance. This is an argument, as if another were needed, against the five million page federal tax code, or whatever it's up to now. -- Steve Furlong, Computer Condottiere Have GNU, will travel 518-374-4720 sfurlong@acmenet.net
Tim May wrote:
At 11:38 PM -0400 10/18/00, Steve Furlong wrote:
At most, an insurance company would have some information Bob didn't have. Bob could reasonably demand a copy of the results of his DNA test.
...
If the insurance company refused, he could shop elsewhere. Or self-insure, as many of us choose to do.
Indeed. But let's drop the use of the word "demand." I was taught that a "demand" is a "demand," not a request.
Yep, I wrote carelessly. I _said_ "demand" but I _meant_ that Bob would refuse to deal with the insurance company unless they share what they
Anybody who would take such a test (assuming that it wasn't from "skin flakes left behind on the couch") without being able to see the results as a pre-condition would be lucky not to get what they disserved.
find. And I'm not so confident that the insurance company would be paying for the test, as you suggested in your (snipped) scenario. I have no experience with insurance plans which required you to get a physical before they take you on; I've always had HMOs (or self insurance) since I left the military. Who normally paid for the exams?
For at least some plans, they send a nurse-like person around with a stethoscope and a sphygmomanometer to give you a health questionnaire and take certain vitals. It's amazing what can be inferred from some very basic measurements. i.e. you're 27, have high blood pressure, a high pulse rate, high respiration rate, are 5'9 and weigh over 200 pounds. I don't need to know all that much about your family medical history, or your individual one. You are a big risk for some *very* expensive treatments over the next 20 years, but will probably be fine for the next 5. I really think that DNA testing for insurance is being overblown--I don't believe that it's going to catch all that much that family history, and there are a *LOT* more environmental factors that lead to health problems. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ********************************************** Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural
On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Tim May wrote:
"Bob, I see here that you are "demanding" a copy of this test that I paid for, that you voluntarily provided a sample for, or that you were careless enough to leave some skin flakes for on my sofa over there in the office.
The first two parts: ok by all means. People simply shouldn't submit to such shitty treatment. It's too bad more of us do not refuse. About the last part: how is this different from the government using IR scanning to invade your privacy? This is about a reasonable expectation of privacy. And don't tell me the Men with Guns make a difference - the government could achieve its goals quite well purely through economic means. Zaibatsu-like company states offer prime examples of how to structure this. Sampo Syreeni <decoy@iki.fi>, aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university
On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Neil Johnson wrote:
But the Bob has no control of his risk (genetics), or at least not yet :). The insurance company does.
Say What?! Sorry, no insurance company has the power to say who is and is not born with particular genetics.
I don't have a problem with insurance companies raising rates for people who smoke, are overweight (cough, cough), or have high cholesterol (cough, cough, cough). That's behavior that can be changed.
You speak as though the insurance companies business where arbitration of morals rather than arbitration of risks. They can't make money arbitrating morals -- at least not without becoming religions. Bear
On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Neil Johnson wrote:
But the Bob has no control of his risk (genetics), or at least not yet :). The insurance company does.
Say What?! Sorry, no insurance company has the power to say who is and is not born with particular genetics.
I don't have a problem with insurance companies raising rates for people who smoke, are overweight (cough, cough), or have high cholesterol (cough, cough, cough). That's behavior that can be changed.
You speak as though the insurance companies business where arbitration of morals rather than arbitration of risks. They can't make money arbitrating morals -- at least not without becoming religions.
Sure they can. Moral!=religious. It is "immoral" to commit murder. Is this because God Says So, or because it's generally better for society if we can assume that the vast majority of people *won't* be trying to shoot us? It is "immoral" to steal. See above. When you look at many things that are "traditionally" immoral (by that I mean before modern socialism), they tend to have 1 thing in common. It is wrong to take what isn't yours (property, life etc.) without the blessing of the state. If we eliminate the state (Go state!, Go away!), we get "it is immoral to take what isn't yours". Consuming more than you produce is functionally the same thing. Short term illness and youth can be excused that in the long term you wind up either producing the same as you consume, or producing more. If it lasts long enough, illness can reverse that, as can things like certain addictions etc. Insurance companies--in a free market--would reward those who acted "morally"--those who took steps to minimize their non-productive times, and refuse to reward (or punish depending on your perspective) those who did things that tended to increase their non-productive times. Genetics plays only a small part in this. Most of the truly devastating genetic problems really are a drop in the bucket, and are often fairly educational in medical knowledge--which the medical establishment should pay for. The less obvious genetic problems are usually manageable if the individual knows about it, and is willing to do those things--or not do those things--as their condition demands. Case in point, I have a friend who is diabetic. Not a major issue with modern medicine. He can easily afford (given his profession) the insulin and medical checkups necessary. However he likes to drink, and drink heavily. This will bite him in the future. He knows this, and still drinks. Should the insurance companies be forced to support him? I say no. He knows what to do. He doesn't do it. As much as I like him, it's his life. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ********************************************** Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural
At 05:08 AM 10/20/00 -0400, petro wrote:
It is "immoral" to commit murder. Is this because God Says So, or because it's generally better for society if we can assume that the vast majority of people *won't* be trying to shoot us?
Neither are worthwhile reasons. Others' right to exist (whether good or bad for the gods or whoever claims to be speaking for society) is enough.
At 10:34 PM 10/18/00 -0400, Neil Johnson wrote:
I don't have a problem with insurance companies raising rates for people who smoke, are overweight (cough, cough), or have high cholesterol (cough, cough, cough). That's behavior that can be changed.
How silly. Weight and cholesterol (and intelligence and lifespan) have strong genetic factors, as does smoking and drinking, how you respond to stress, etc. You might start by looking up 'dopamine receptors' or 'self medication'
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 06:36:52PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
At 6:01 PM -0700 10/18/00, Nathan Saper wrote:
And what is wrong with this? Nothing that I can see.
Alice the Insurer is free to set her rates as she wishes, and even to require tests. Bob the Prospective Insured is free to shop elsewhere.
Where elsewhere? What alternative does Bob have? If it is cheaper for companies to not insure him, they won't. And then we have a public health crises.
"What if nobody will sell Bob the food he wants for the price he is willing or able to pay? Then he'll starve to death!!!!!"
Bob is seeking to pay less money in insurance premiums that he expects to receive in benefits. Insurers are seeking to get Bob to pay more in premiums than they pay out in benefits. Insurance is gambling. Get it through your thick skull.
1) Insurance is a very profitable business. I don't feel sorry for a CEO of an insurance company making millions each year. They can afford to insure people that MAY develop certain conditions later in life. 2) Notice the "MAY" above. Insurance companies consider even the slightest risk grounds for denying coverage. 3) Your food analogy above is flawed for several reasons. a) If Bob has as much money as everyone else, he will be sold the food. b) If Bob, on the other hand, has a genetic abnormality that could later lead to heart disease, he can be denied health coverage regardless of his ability to pay the premium. c) In the food example, charities, etc. can help Bob out. In the insurance area, he has no such help to fall back on.
What has drawn so many of you socialist creeps to this list in the past few months? Did "Mother Jones" give out subscription information recently?
I came because I'm interested in (though admittedly naieve about) cryptography, and I like debating with people who hold different opinions than I do.
Sadly, you don't know enough to actually carry on a debate. Warmed-over socialist platitudes have been your stock in trade.
You haven't answered a single one of my emails without including a personal attack of some sort. You're being an asshole, and that's not necessary.
- -- Nathan Saper (natedog@well.com) | http://www.well.com/user/natedog/ GnuPG (ElGamal/DSA): 0x9AD0F382 | PGP 2.x (RSA): 0x386C4B91 Standard PGP & PGP/MIME OK | AOL Instant Messenger: linuxfu -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE57np/2FWyBZrQ84IRAh1kAJ9J55wj34z4hyKPIIkjvIRxG74u9QCdHToH JW23aOeMFv4xEnH3PsKqXzc= =L476 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Nathan Saper wrote:
On Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 06:36:52PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
"What if nobody will sell Bob the food he wants for the price he is willing or able to pay? Then he'll starve to death!!!!!"
Bob is seeking to pay less money in insurance premiums that he expects to receive in benefits. Insurers are seeking to get Bob to pay more in premiums than they pay out in benefits. Insurance is gambling. Get it through your thick skull.
1) Insurance is a very profitable business. I don't feel sorry for a CEO of an insurance company making millions each year. They can afford to insure people that MAY develop certain conditions later in life.
General Electric's Power Systems division is very profitable. Should it start giving away its stock in trade to poor nations which "need" an electric generation plant, regardless of the nation's prior mismanagement which led to its inability to pay?
2) Notice the "MAY" above. Insurance companies consider even the slightest risk grounds for denying coverage.
Bull. The overweight still get coverage.
3) Your food analogy above is flawed for several reasons. a) If Bob has as much money as everyone else, he will be sold the food. b) If Bob, on the other hand, has a genetic abnormality that could later lead to heart disease, he can be denied health coverage regardless of his ability to pay the premium. c) In the food example, charities, etc. can help Bob out. In the insurance area, he has no such help to fall back on.
In re b), Bob won't be denied health _care_, regardless of his genetic abnormalities or actual medical history, provided that he pays for it. Also, food and medical coverage are apples and oranges, to torture a metaphor. There is an upper limit to what people spend on food, even given unlimited resources. There seems to be _no_ upper limit on what people will spend on medical care. This is exacerbated when costs are shared. In re c), what, you've never heard of free clinics? Hell, I've donated piles (in terms of my net worth) of cash to clinics, on the premise that helping to control VD will have a societal benefit in excess of many other uses of the money. For that matter, when my son was born I noticed that I had been assessed about $400 to help cover the medical costs of the indigent. (Which pissed me off, since I wasn't notified beforehand that the hospital would do that, nor given a chance to opt out, but that's another topic.)
Sadly, you don't know enough to actually carry on a debate. Warmed-over socialist platitudes have been your stock in trade.
You haven't answered a single one of my emails without including a personal attack of some sort. You're being an asshole, and that's not necessary.
Wow, you haven't been reading c-punks long. If Tim makes a personal attack on you, it'll usually involve an observation that you should be killed. I would say that Tim's comment, above, is more an observation than an attack. I agree with him completely, except that he doesn't go far enough. -- Steve Furlong, Computer Condottiere Have GNU, will travel 518-374-4720 sfurlong@acmenet.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, Oct 19, 2000 at 01:23:19AM -0400, Steve Furlong wrote:
Nathan Saper wrote:
On Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 06:36:52PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
"What if nobody will sell Bob the food he wants for the price he is willing or able to pay? Then he'll starve to death!!!!!"
Bob is seeking to pay less money in insurance premiums that he expects to receive in benefits. Insurers are seeking to get Bob to pay more in premiums than they pay out in benefits. Insurance is gambling. Get it through your thick skull.
1) Insurance is a very profitable business. I don't feel sorry for a CEO of an insurance company making millions each year. They can afford to insure people that MAY develop certain conditions later in life.
General Electric's Power Systems division is very profitable. Should it start giving away its stock in trade to poor nations which "need" an electric generation plant, regardless of the nation's prior mismanagement which led to its inability to pay?
That's a different situation. Insurance isn't a product, it's a service. Like someone said in an earlier post, insurance is a gamble. People put in money so, in the event of a sickness, they get more out than they put in. Denying coverage tips the scale in favor of the insurance company.
2) Notice the "MAY" above. Insurance companies consider even the slightest risk grounds for denying coverage.
Bull. The overweight still get coverage.
I was referring specifically to genetic abormalities.
3) Your food analogy above is flawed for several reasons. a) If Bob has as much money as everyone else, he will be sold the food. b) If Bob, on the other hand, has a genetic abnormality that could later lead to heart disease, he can be denied health coverage regardless of his ability to pay the premium. c) In the food example, charities, etc. can help Bob out. In the insurance area, he has no such help to fall back on.
In re b), Bob won't be denied health _care_, regardless of his genetic abnormalities or actual medical history, provided that he pays for it. Also, food and medical coverage are apples and oranges, to torture a metaphor. There is an upper limit to what people spend on food, even given unlimited resources. There seems to be _no_ upper limit on what people will spend on medical care. This is exacerbated when costs are shared.
I agree on the comment about medical spending, as well as apples and oranges. As to care, as I've said a lot before, care is most often more expensive than coverage.
In re c), what, you've never heard of free clinics? Hell, I've donated piles (in terms of my net worth) of cash to clinics, on the premise that helping to control VD will have a societal benefit in excess of many other uses of the money. For that matter, when my son was born I noticed that I had been assessed about $400 to help cover the medical costs of the indigent. (Which pissed me off, since I wasn't notified beforehand that the hospital would do that, nor given a chance to opt out, but that's another topic.)
I've heard of free clinics. But they're extremely hard to find in most areas, and they are often overbooked.
Sadly, you don't know enough to actually carry on a debate. Warmed-over socialist platitudes have been your stock in trade.
You haven't answered a single one of my emails without including a personal attack of some sort. You're being an asshole, and that's not necessary.
Wow, you haven't been reading c-punks long. If Tim makes a personal attack on you, it'll usually involve an observation that you should be killed.
Yeah, I think I've gotten one of those. ;-)
I would say that Tim's comment, above, is more an observation than an attack. I agree with him completely, except that he doesn't go far enough.
That's fine. I have no problem with being disliked. I just think that having an attack in every message is a waste of bandwith.
- -- Nathan Saper (natedog@well.com) | http://www.well.com/user/natedog/ GnuPG (ElGamal/DSA): 0x9AD0F382 | PGP 2.x (RSA): 0x386C4B91 Standard PGP & PGP/MIME OK | AOL Instant Messenger: linuxfu -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE57owU2FWyBZrQ84IRAuBPAJ9VaMGDP6eI7areGoeW2Xc+aABwVACgmUsr JIZcvVSK3ibIfrqmfa+HMTo= =/r7b -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
As to care, as I've said a lot before, care is most often more expensive than coverage.
Clearly this can't be true or every health insurance company would be going out of business. Coverage has to be more expensive than care of they wouldn't be in the business of providing coverage.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 04:14:29PM -0400, Matt Elliott wrote:
As to care, as I've said a lot before, care is most often more expensive than coverage.
Clearly this can't be true or every health insurance company would be going out of business. Coverage has to be more expensive than care of they wouldn't be in the business of providing coverage.
They make a profit because most people with insurance end up not getting terribly sick. - -- Nathan Saper (natedog@well.com) | http://www.well.com/user/natedog/ GnuPG (ElGamal/DSA): 0x9AD0F382 | PGP 2.x (RSA): 0x386C4B91 Standard PGP & PGP/MIME OK | AOL Instant Messenger: linuxfu -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE58MIo2FWyBZrQ84IRAsrVAKCjUfRWclcmIA1UTjhveo5T4QLgAwCfar/x HR+cVHcxKOfI8dl3HUiym34= =p15d -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
I need an estimate of the cost to break a 1024-bit PGP key in 1997, given then-existing algorithms and hardware, etc. Jim Bell
"jim bell" <jimdbell@home.com> wrote:
I need an estimate of the cost to break a 1024-bit PGP key in 1997, given then-existing algorithms and hardware, etc.
"There are some things that money can't buy." Would you like an estimate of the cost to break into somebody's house and copy the secret key in 1997?
----- Original Message ----- From: Anonymous <nobody@remailer.ch> To: jim bell <jimdbell@home.com> Cc: Cypherpunks <cypherpunks@cyberpass.net> Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2000 21:09 PM Subject: Re: Cost to "break" 1024-bit PGP (RSA) in 1997?
"jim bell" <jimdbell@home.com> wrote:
I need an estimate of the cost to break a 1024-bit PGP key in 1997, given then-existing algorithms and hardware, etc.
"There are some things that money can't buy."
"For those, there are thumbscrews."
Would you like an estimate of the cost to break into somebody's house and copy the secret key in 1997?
Wouldn't work, at least as stated. The "secret key" in PGP doesn't contain the passphrase, which is also necessary. Besides, "breaking in" would be illegal, wouldn't it? Imagine what would (will?) happen when that incident becomes public? Because it will. Jim Bell
Nathan Saper wrote:
I came because I'm interested in (though admittedly naieve about) cryptography, and I like debating with people who hold different opinions than I do.
Well, you came to the right place. Most of the posters on c-punks reject the notions of statism, redistributionism, and forced commercial compliance, and despise and lambaste those who hold them. If you don't have a thick skin, you might as well pull out now. Ignorance on crypto can be cured, if you have the brains to follow light math and protocols. I recommend _Applied Cryptography_ by Bruce Scheier for protocols, cyphers, and the like. Naivete is more problematic, as it often involves dearly-held notions. To bring the topic back to particulars (ie, you), you are going to have to dump some notions of how things "should" work. As Tim says, "Wait until you finally grasp the full implications of crypto anarchy." Some aspects of contemporary American life will not work in a world of widespread, strong crypto. See many of the recent posts for examples. -- Steve Furlong, Computer Condottiere Have GNU, will travel 518-374-4720 sfurlong@acmenet.net
Two Things: 1. It sounds like to me that there is no room for human compassion in crypto-anarchy. (Seems like we will all end up sitting in our "compounds" armed to the teeth and if anybody comes along we either blow'em to bits or pay them anonymous digital cash to go away). 2. I think that it's funny that ultra-conservatives who are for letting "competition" improve health care are setting themselves up for more abortions. How does crypto-anarchy/libertarian/anarchy propose to deal with the "tragedy of the commons" where by doing what is best for each persons own interests they end up screwing it up for everyone (Overgrazing land with to many cattle is the example I've been given). The "prisoner's dilemma" is another example. Neil M. Johnson njohnson@interl.net http://www.interl.net/~njohnson PGP Key Finger Print: 93C0 793F B66E A0C7 CEEA 3E92 6B99 2DCC ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim May" <tcmay@got.net> To: <cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com>; "Cypherpunks" <cypherpunks@cyberpass.net> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 1:53 AM Subject: CDR: Re: Re: why should it be trusted?
At 11:06 PM -0500 10/17/00, Neil Johnson wrote:
Yes, I can see it now.
"I'm sorry I have to tell you this Mr. & Mrs. May, but the genetic tests required by your insurance company have revealed that your unborn child has a 65% chance of developing an expensive to treat and possibly severely debilitating condition requiring many operations, doctor visits, therapy, special equipment, round the clock nursing. etc.
Since we have already passed this information on to your insurance company as required by the terms of your policy, they are recommending and will pay you to terminate the pregnancy and to have both you and your husband sterilized. Otherwise they will not pay for your pre-natal care, the delivery, or any future treatment of your child.
Of course you can opt for our "High Genetic Risk Policy" at $XXXXX thousands of dollars a month (which is probably equal to or more expensive than the cost of paying for the possible medical costs on your own IF the condition occurs. Which you would, since Medicare/Medicaid was ended in the last round of "Compassionate Conservatism").
And what is wrong with this? Nothing that I can see.
Alice the Insurer is free to set her rates as she wishes, and even to require tests. Bob the Prospective Insured is free to shop elsewhere.
What has drawn so many of you socialist creeps to this list in the past few months? Did "Mother Jones" give out subscription information recently?
Wait until you finally grasp the full implications of crypto anarchy.
--Tim May
-- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
At 9:11 PM -0500 10/18/00, Neil Johnson wrote:
Two Things:
1. It sounds like to me that there is no room for human compassion in crypto-anarchy. (Seems like we will all end up sitting in our "compounds" armed to the teeth and if anybody comes along we either blow'em to bits or pay them anonymous digital cash to go away).
Another socialist simp-wimp heard from. Lots of socialists to be dealt with and disposed of. I wonder who will stoke the furnaces? --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
Another socialist simp-wimp heard from.
Lots of socialists to be dealt with and disposed of. I wonder who will stoke the furnaces?
Not very many if enough of us "simp-wimps" gather enough e-cash to create our own "Imprisonment Betting Pool". I think languishing in jail with life-mate "Bubba" would be far better poetic justice than simple execution for those who display no compassion for their fellow man (I never said I was a socialist). Neil M. Johnson njohnson@interl.net http://www.interl.net/~njohnson PGP Key Finger Print: 93C0 793F B66E A0C7 CEEA 3E92 6B99 2DCC
Another socialist simp-wimp heard from.
Lots of socialists to be dealt with and disposed of. I wonder who will stoke the furnaces?
Not very many if enough of us "simp-wimps" gather enough e-cash to create our own "Imprisonment Betting Pool".
I think languishing in jail with life-mate "Bubba" would be far better poetic justice than simple execution for those who display no compassion for their fellow man (I never said I was a socialist).
It's not about "justice", it's about getting them out of the way so productive people can produce and grow. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ********************************************** Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural
On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Tim May wrote:
At 9:11 PM -0500 10/18/00, Neil Johnson wrote:
Two Things:
1. It sounds like to me that there is no room for human compassion in crypto-anarchy. (Seems like we will all end up sitting in our "compounds" armed to the teeth and if anybody comes along we either blow'em to bits or pay them anonymous digital cash to go away).
Another socialist simp-wimp heard from.
Lots of socialists to be dealt with and disposed of. I wonder who will stoke the furnaces?
Wow. The imagery! Actually the best way to deal with it is by a memetic vaccine (what would the equivalent be in memetics? mezzine? someone fluent in latin help me out here). I really think that humanity will discover that a lot of what humans call beliefs are really just widespread memetic plagues. When memetic engineering reaches the same stage in scientific development as biology has, much of the 'isms that regularly wipe out entire populations may be brought under control. And humanity can move on. (But not before memtic and nanotech warfare resurface the planet in some unpredicatable way, no doubt). jim -- Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural
At 9:11 PM -0500 10/18/00, Neil Johnson wrote:
Two Things:
1. It sounds like to me that there is no room for human compassion in crypto-anarchy. (Seems like we will all end up sitting in our "compounds" armed to the teeth and if anybody comes along we either blow'em to bits or pay them anonymous digital cash to go away).
Another socialist simp-wimp heard from.
Lots of socialists to be dealt with and disposed of. I wonder who will stoke the furnaces?
Robots? -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ********************************************** Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural
At 04:00 AM 10/20/00 -0400, petro wrote:
Lots of socialists to be dealt with and disposed of. I wonder who will stoke the furnaces?
Robots?
Amusing cross-language double-entendre there, Petro. Robot is from "slave", in Czech IIRC.
At 12:31 PM -0400 on 10/20/00, David Honig wrote:
Amusing cross-language double-entendre there, Petro. Robot is from "slave", in Czech IIRC.
Slave, being, of course, an Anglo-Latin(Italian?) derivation of, heh, Slav. ;-). Cheers, RAH -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah@ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
(Seems like we will all end up sitting in our "compounds" armed to the teeth and if anybody comes along we either blow'em to bits or pay them anonymous digital cash to go away).
I should of added: "because they are afraid that person(s) is coming to collect their 'Assasination Betting Pool' Jackpot". Neil M. Johnson njohnson@interl.net http://www.interl.net/~njohnson PGP Key Finger Print: 93C0 793F B66E A0C7 CEEA 3E92 6B99 2DCC
At 9:11 PM -0500 on 10/18/00, Neil Johnson wrote:
How does crypto-anarchy/libertarian/anarchy propose to deal with the "tragedy of the commons" where by doing what is best for each persons own interests they end up screwing it up for everyone (Overgrazing land with to many cattle is the example I've been given).
The tragedy of the commons is that nobody owns it. :-). Cheers, RAH -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah@ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
On Thu, 19 Oct 2000, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
How does crypto-anarchy/libertarian/anarchy propose to deal with the "tragedy of the commons" where by doing what is best for each persons own interests they end up screwing it up for everyone (Overgrazing land with to many cattle is the example I've been given).
The tragedy of the commons is that nobody owns it.
The point is, there are certain things which cannot be exclusively owned without rendering the concept of rights, as most people understand them, for all practical purposes moot. Air is one. Sampo Syreeni <decoy@iki.fi>, aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university
On Thu, 19 Oct 2000, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
How does crypto-anarchy/libertarian/anarchy propose to deal with the "tragedy of the commons" where by doing what is best for each persons own interests they end up screwing it up for everyone (Overgrazing land with to many cattle is the example I've been given).
The tragedy of the commons is that nobody owns it.
The point is, there are certain things which cannot be exclusively owned without rendering the concept of rights, as most people understand them, for all practical purposes moot. Air is one.
You assume that most people understand "rights". I see no evidence of that. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ********************************************** "We forbid any course that says we restrict free speech." --Dr. Kathleen Dixon, Director of Women s Studies, Bowling Green State University
On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Neil Johnson wrote:
Two Things:
1. It sounds like to me that there is no room for human compassion in crypto-anarchy.
There is room for human compassion in any system. What is absent from crypto anarchy is a means to *compel* others to behave *as if* they were compassionate when in fact they are not.
2. I think that it's funny that ultra-conservatives who are for letting "competition" improve health care are setting themselves up for more abortions.
?? What has that got to do with anything? Are you saying that people who are the expectant parents of a child should be able to compel others to support the medical, educational, or other costs of having and rearing that child? Or that people who are the expectant parents of a child which they themselves are unable to raise should be compelled to carry to term?
How does crypto-anarchy/libertarian/anarchy propose to deal with the "tragedy of the commons" where by doing what is best for each persons own interests they end up screwing it up for everyone (Overgrazing land with to many cattle is the example I've been given).
First of all, it's not a proposal so much as it is a forecast. This is not something that we're fighting for, so much as something that is happening all around us and which we're looking ahead to the natural conclusion of. Morally, I don't defend it: I just think it's going to happen and we should be ready. Second, as far as I can see, there is no room for "commons" in the Keynesian sense in a fully crypto-enabled world. Everything will be owned. The best we can hope for is that ways to measure, charge, and pay for the benevolent effects of forests, grasslands, etc will be in place so that the free market can regulate these resources and keep them from overuse. Bear
At 10:25 PM 10/18/00 -0400, Neil Johnson wrote:
Two Things: 1. It sounds like to me that there is no room for human compassion in crypto-anarchy.
Compassion doesn't come from the state. Compassion comes from individuals. I don't see what difference a cryptoworld makes. Philanthropists exist there too. Before the state, and before the welfare state you've lived your life in, there were social networks ---families, friends, guilds, etc. They will exist after the state, too.
(Seems like we will all end up sitting in our "compounds" armed to the teeth and if anybody comes along we either blow'em to bits or pay them anonymous digital cash to go away).
Well, how reasonable that is depends on the social environment at the time. Ever been in a rioting area?
2. I think that it's funny that ultra-conservatives who are for letting "competition" improve health care are setting themselves up for more abortions.
Don't know what you mean by ultra-conservative, but its only the fundies who get their panties in a bind about abortion. If by ultraconservative you are trying to map cypherpunks' typical libertarianism into the demopublican left vs. right farce, you'll find you need a different dimension ---statism. [Of course, you could substitute religious authorities for state authorities, and there are some in the world who would consciously do that substitution. They are indistinguishable if they will also use violence to get their way. The only difference might be the noises they emit to justify it.]
Two Things:
1. It sounds like to me that there is no room for human compassion in crypto-anarchy. (Seems like we will all end up sitting in our "compounds" armed to the teeth and if anybody comes along we either blow'em to bits or pay them anonymous digital cash to go away).
There is plenty of room for human compassion. Forcing me (with threats of violence) to pay for something I don't believe in, or disagree with is not compassion. It's theft.
2. I think that it's funny that ultra-conservatives who are for letting "competition" improve health care are setting themselves up for more abortions.
Being "ultra-conservative" for certain values of that word, I think abortion laws ought to be changed. I don't think they should stop at birth, I think they ought to be allowed up until the tissue mass is willing and able to be self-sufficient. This would of course make it open season on many politicians.
How does crypto-anarchy/libertarian/anarchy propose to deal with the "tragedy of the commons" where by doing what is best for each persons own
The "tragedy of the commons" is only possible where there is something held in common by all people. If everything is owned by an individual or company, then it isn't a "commons", and they have the power to deny access to those who would abuse it, and the responsibility (to themselves, their share holders whatever) to take care of it. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ********************************************** Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural
At 10:20 PM -0500 10/17/00, Allen Ethridge wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2000, at 08:19 PM, Tim May wrote:
As for insurance companies "discriminating," this is what I hope for. Those of us who don't engage in certain practices--smoking, sky diving, anal sex, whatever--should not be subsidizing those who do. This is the beauty of "opt out" plans.
Yes, only the genetically pure deserve health care. And you are sure that the insurance companies won't opt you out when they get a good look at your DNA?
Insurers are bettors. They weigh all available information and then set a premium based on their expectations. Even those with "bad genes" can get insurance...they just have to pay more. Sounds fair to me. More to the point, "opt out" means that a person, call her Alice, can arrange for her own tests, done privately. For diseases to which she is not susceptable, she can "opt out." If she has vanishingly small expectation of contracting AIDS, for example, she can opt out. In an uncoerced society, yow else could it be.
But the first order of business is for you to support your claim that DNA is collected by the police and then shared with insurance companies.
Actually, that's your claim.
Stop your lying. I was responding to the point made earlier that DNA is being collected by the police and is shared with insurers.
But I'm surprised that you'er so ignorant of cooperation between government and corporations. Maybe you don't actually work for a living. You are aware of drug testing in the work place, aren't you?
Those who won't piss in a jar don't have to work for Megatronic Corporation. Employment is not a "right." And none of _my_ employees are drug tested. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
participants (18)
-
Allen Ethridge -
Anonymous -
Bill Stewart -
David Honig -
jim bell -
Jim Burnes -
Ken Brown -
Marshall Clow -
Matt Elliott -
Nathan Saper -
Neil Johnson -
petro -
R. A. Hettinga -
Ray Dillinger -
Sampo A Syreeni -
Steve Furlong -
Tim May -
Yardena Arar + Christian Goetze