Re: jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway)
I share many of these same concerns. Ultimately, it's an arms race. One thing is clear: the ways around restrictions lower bandwidth. Examples: steganography and covert channels are low-bandwidth. By analogy, successive transfers of small amounts of money gets around the reporting to the "Benevolent Caretaker" is also a lowering of bandwidth. However, it should be remembered that authorities attempted to outlaw the printing press after its invention. I'm not sure how long that lasted, but since the Soviet Union kept tabs on all copiers, in some sense, such repression lasted a long time. (And in the U.S., it has been said that color copiers are tracked, but this sounds like a bluff to me since a color scanner+color printer is sufficient to duplicate that capability. Is it possible to buy a color copier anonymously?) Given this, it *is* possible that freedom of expression is going to win eventually. Anonymous digital cash is more likely to be compromised since, as you note, even the Swiss have been pressured into opening up their records of anonymous bank accounts. Paul E. Baclace peb@procase.com P.S.: Prodigy is not yet profitable, last I heard. ``Is that a real network or is that a Sears network?'' --Frank Zappa paraphased.
Paul Baclace says:
However, it should be remembered that authorities attempted to outlaw the printing press after its invention. I'm not sure how long that lasted, but since the Soviet Union kept tabs on all copiers, in some sense, such repression lasted a long time. (And in the U.S., it has been said that color copiers are tracked, but this sounds like a bluff to me since a color scanner+color printer is sufficient to duplicate that capability. Is it possible to buy a color copier anonymously?)
Go to you local copier store. Pay cash. No one will care.
Anonymous digital cash is more likely to be compromised since, as you note, even the Swiss have been pressured into opening up their records of anonymous bank accounts.
Others have not. Perry
Paul writes:
Anonymous digital cash is more likely to be compromised since, as you note, even the Swiss have be>en pressured into opening up their records of anonymous bank accounts.
I believe you are confusing cash with deposits. Cash (either paper or digital) can be passed untraceably from palm to palm (or palmtop to palmtop, if you will). Deposits, on the other hand, require a method for the bank and the depositor to authenticate each other. In the past, anonymous authentication was rife with problems, but cryptography might solve these problems. However, I think the deeper question is worth considering: what is the justification for anonymous bank accounts? Avoiding taxes just doesn't cut it for me; much as I hate to pay them, I recognise the need to do so.
writes Robert J. Woodhead:
Paul writes:
However, I think the deeper question is worth considering: what is the justification for anonymous bank accounts?
Avoiding taxes just doesn't cut it for me; much as I hate to pay them, I recognise the need to do so.
A while back someone posted a message about being immune to having property, etc taken in law suits. Imagine if all your money (or nearly all) was tied up in anonymous accounts and that all your property was owned by digital pseudonyms (from whom you rented the property). This would be a nice defense if you were scared that the government (in protecting National Security, of course) would take all your posessions and make life a living hell for you and your family. -nate -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Nate Sammons email: nate@VIS.ColoState.Edu | Colorado State University Computer Visualization Laboratory | Finger nate@monet.VIS.ColoState.Edu for my PGP key | #include <std.disclaimer> | Title 18 USC 2511 and 18 USC 2703 Protected --> Monitoring Forbidden +--------+ Always remember "Brazil"
Nate writes:
A while back someone posted a message about being immune to having property, etc taken in law suits. Imagine if all your money (or nearly all) was tied up in anonymous accounts and that all your property was owned by digital pseudonyms (from whom you rented the property). This would be a nice defense if you were scared that the government (in protecting National Security, of course) would take all your posessions and make life a living hell for you and your family.
I think you are being dangerously naive if you think that such actions would prevent someone (not necessarily the government, btw) from making your life a living hell. If you are a parent, for example, think what an accusation of child abuse might do. Do not be so quick to assume that these wonderful and interesting techniques we discuss will solve long-standing problems. Most likely, they will merely solve new problems (ie: the increased ability of third parties to intercept communications) that are created by the very technologies that make the solutions possible. Best R
However, I think the deeper question is worth considering: what is the justification for anonymous bank accounts?
How about: it's no one's damn business what my acct. number is, that I have one at all, what bank I use, how much money I have, etc.
Avoiding taxes just doesn't cut it for me; much as I hate to pay them, I recognise the need to do so.
Need? Need to keep from being arrested or fined, yeah I can see that. -- -=> mech@eff.org <=- Stanton McCandlish Electronic Frontier Foundation Online Activist & SysOp "A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood of ideas in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." -JFK NitV-DC BBS 202-232-2715, Fido 1:109/? IndraNet 369:111/1, 14.4V32b 16.8ZyX
Stanton writes:
Avoiding taxes just doesn't cut it for me; much as I hate to pay them, I recognise the need to do so.
Need? Need to keep from being arrested or fined, yeah I can see that.
Not at all. I recognise that, however inefficient, taxes pay to maintain the legal and physical environment that makes my life more comfortable. There are many oppressive things about governments, but _by_and_large_ the US government is one of the least oppressive, and the vast majority of the people who work in it are honest and well-intentioned. What I hope comes out of groups like cypherpunks are ways to make the government better and more responsive to the needs of the citizenry (in other words, some good checks and balances), rather than petty ways to avoid a few bucks in taxes. Rather than aspire to join the alleged clique of rich and powerful tax evaders, might it not be better to aspire to develop techniques that both maintain privacy but guaran- tee that they have to pay their share of the load. Hint: develop something that makes it worth their while.
Robert J. Woodhead () writes:
Need? Need to keep from being arrested or fined, yeah I can see that.
Not at all. I recognise that, however inefficient, taxes pay to maintain the legal and physical environment that makes my life more comfortable. [...] ways to avoid a few bucks in taxes. Rather than aspire to join the alleged clique of rich and powerful tax evaders, might it not be better to aspire to develop techniques that both maintain privacy but guaran- tee that they have to pay their share of the load. Hint: develop something that makes it worth their while.
Simple. Privatize those parts of government so they can chose the services they want to buy. Rather than confiscate their money for whatever subjective "share" is in vogue. (I've never seen this share defined objectively. Just rants "they must pay more!!! wah!!" Even in other countries with much higher rates than our 36%, people are still demanding more. ) -- Ray Cromwell | Engineering is the implementation of science; -- -- EE/Math Student | politics is the implementation of faith. -- -- rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu | - Zetetic Commentaries --
Ray writes:
Simple. Privatize those parts of government so they can chose the services they want to buy.
An admirable solution, but it does not take into account the vested interests involved. The only way to deal with them is to design a new system that is sufficiently more efficient (and/or wealth generating) that they are better off supporting it than opposing it. The U.S. Government has been under construction for over 200 years; you are not going to break it apart so easily.
Robert J. Woodhead said:
Ray writes:
Simple. Privatize those parts of government so they can chose the services they want to buy.
An admirable solution, but it does not take into account the vested interests involved. The only way to deal with them is to design a new system that is sufficiently more efficient (and/or wealth generating) that they are better off supporting it than opposing it. The U.S. Government has been under construction for over 200 years; you are not going to break it apart so easily.
I'd suggest that the politics discussion be taken to another forum? -- Sameer sameer@netcom.com
"Robert J. Woodhead" says:
Ray writes:
Simple. Privatize those parts of government so they can chose the services they want to buy.
An admirable solution, but it does not take into account the vested interests involved. The only way to deal with them is to design a new system that is sufficiently more efficient (and/or wealth generating) that they are better off supporting it than opposing it. The U.S. Government has been under construction for over 200 years; you are not going to break it apart so easily.
Who needs to break it? At the current rate, it will have destroyed itself within a decade. "Stability" in our fair land is an illusion. The government cannot possibly pay for all the services it pretends it can. The deficit is going to rise another $1 Trillion in the next four years under Bill Clinton's very optimistic projections -- my suspicion is that the slowdown in economic activity he is creating will make it rise more like $2 Trillion or more. At some point, the bond buyers stop buying, and thats the end of the game. The Clinton Administration is currently pretending to itself that it can add the most expensive government program of all time, a trillion dollar socialized medicine program, while all this is happening. Well, let them dream. Raising taxes at this point will only DECREASE revenue. They cannot raise more money than they already consume. They can only lower the deficit by cutbacks, and they are pressing ahead with more new spending each year in spite of the claims. (When you hear them say "budget cuts", that means "we are going to spend less than we wanted to, not less than we spent last year".) There are also trillions of dollars in off-books unfunded debt, such as federal obligations to federal retirees, the invisible "social security trust fund" (hah!), federal obligations associated with loan guarantees, banking insurance schemes, etc. The party will be over soon enough. Humpty Dumpty doesn't need to be pushed. Perry
participants (7)
-
nate＠VIS.ColoState.EDU -
peb＠PROCASE.COM -
Perry E. Metzger -
rjc＠gnu.ai.mit.edu -
Robert J. Woodhead -
sameer＠netcom.com -
Stanton McCandlish