The threat of privacy
http://www.kahnfrance.com/cmk/The%20threat%20of%20privacy%20distribution%20v... The Threat of Privacy By Charles M. Kahn1 Like artists, we academics want to believe that if one of our works doesn’t get enough attention it’s because we’re ahead of our time. I’d like to pretend that everything I’ve written is pathbreaking, and will eventually be recognized for its true importance. But I have to admit that there are really only a couple of cases where I can say with hindsight that something I wrote has been ahead of its time. One of them2 is a paper written with Jamie McAndrews and Will Roberds, published in 2005, and titled “Money is Privacy.” We wrote it partly as a response to Narayana Kocherlakota’s famous paper “Money is Memory,” which could be taken as arguing that cash is essentially a record‐keeping device, tracking who was a net creditor and who a net debtor to society with respect to resources provided or consumed. The implication was that if it became easy to keep credit records directly, cash could wither away. In our paper we argued instead that a key role of cash was its ability to protect the purchaser’s identity. So we predicted that, even while the reductions in costs of record keeping and increases in the speed of data transmission were expanding the usage of credit‐ and deposit‐account‐ based payments arrangements, cash would survive. Because the desire for privacy would always generate demand for cash, it would be a mistake—and ultimately futile—to attempt to abolish it. At the time, people were attuned to many of the problems of privacy, but there had not yet been a clear recognized link between the value of privacy and the role of payments systems. (Remember, bitcoin was only released in 2009). [...] 1 Keynote address at “Financial Market Infrastructure Conference II: New Thinking in a New Era” at De Nederlandsche Bank, Amsterdam, 7‐8 June 2017. 2 The other was my dissertation, back in 1980. It was on liquidity and the pricing of illiquid assets. At that time, no one thought this was an important issue in finance: financial markets were liquid; everybody “knew” that. So the work went nowhere. Oh well.
Good stuff. Thanks. Reminds that cryptography has led to the loss of privacy by tagging crypto users, coders, rebels!, promoters, investors. So too cryptocurrency, the Internet, anonymizers, TOR, drop boxes, secure drops, Signal, Telegram, burst transmissions, privacy policies, pro-encryption advocates, comsec wizards, the array of promissories one by one gobbling gullible adopters urged on by lists like this and social media, MSM. financial greeders, hackers, leak sites, turncoats needing pensions. To be sure, "cash' the imaginaire of economists, is not the same as paper money which can also be tracked by human residue, transactional spoors, aggrieved victims, informers, world bank scholars under contract to finger malefactors, family members eager to payback those who fucked them, dear Mary tell what you know. At 10:38 AM 8/3/2020, you wrote:
http://www.kahnfrance.com/cmk/The%20threat%20of%20privacy%20distribution%20v...
The Threat of Privacy By Charles M. Kahn1
Like artists, we academics want to believe that if one of our works doesnât get enough attention itâs because weâre ahead of our time. Iâd like to pretend that everything Iâve written is pathbreaking, and will eventually be recognized for its true importance. But I have to admit that there are really only a couple of cases where I can say with hindsight that something I wrote has been ahead of its time.
One of them2 is a paper written with Jamie McAndrews and Will Roberds, published in 2005, and titled âMoney is Privacy.â We wrote it partly as a response to Narayana Kocherlakotaâs famous paper âMoney is Memory,â which could be taken as arguing that cash is essentially a recordâkeeping device, tracking who was a net creditor and who a net debtor to society with respect to resources provided or consumed. The implication was that if it became easy to keep credit records directly, cash could wither away. In our paper we argued instead that a key role of cash was its ability to protect the purchaserâs identity. So we predicted that, even while the reductions in costs of record keeping and increases in the speed of data transmission were expanding the usage of creditâ and depositâaccountâ based payments arrangements, cash would survive. Because the desire for privacy would always generate demand for cash, it would be a mistakeand ultimately futileto attempt to abolish it. At the te time, people were attuned to many of the problems of privacy, but there had not yet been a clear recognized link between the value of privacy and the role of payments systems. (Remember, bitcoin was only released in 2009).
[...]
1 Keynote address at âFinancial Market Infrastructure Conference II: New Thinking in a New Eraâ at De Nederlandsche Bank, Amsterdam, 7â8 June 2017. 2 The other was my dissertation, back in 1980. It was on liquidity and the pricing of illiquid assets. At that time, no one thought this was an important issue in finance: financial markets were liquid; everybody âknewâ that. So the work went nowhere. Oh well.
It is a human right to participate in any financial system imposed / instituted upon us. We have the right to financial agency. Participation in our community requires that we have the right to participate in the financial system of the day. Privacy is another fundamental human right. Folks need to live their human rights. Use it or lose it. On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 12:01:20PM -0400, John Young wrote:
Good stuff. Thanks.
Reminds that cryptography has led to the loss of privacy by tagging crypto users, coders, rebels!, promoters, investors. So too cryptocurrency, the Internet, anonymizers, TOR, drop boxes, secure drops, Signal, Telegram, burst transmissions, privacy policies, pro-encryption advocates, comsec wizards, the array of promissories one by one gobbling gullible adopters urged on by lists like this and social media, MSM. financial greeders, hackers, leak sites, turncoats needing pensions.
To be sure, "cash' the imaginaire of economists, is not the same as paper money which can also be tracked by human residue, transactional spoors, aggrieved victims, informers, world bank scholars under contract to finger malefactors, family members eager to payback those who fucked them, dear Mary tell what you know.
At 10:38 AM 8/3/2020, you wrote:
http://www.kahnfrance.com/cmk/The%20threat%20of%20privacy%20distribution%20v...
The Threat of Privacy By Charles M. Kahn1
Like artists, we academics want to believe that if one of our works doesnât get enough attention itâs because weâre ahead of our time. Iâd like to pretend that everything Iâve written is pathbreaking, and will eventually be recognized for its true importance. But I have to admit that there are really only a couple of cases where I can say with hindsight that something I wrote has been ahead of its time.
One of them2 is a paper written with Jamie McAndrews and Will Roberds, published in 2005, and titled âMoney is Privacy.â We wrote it partly as a response to Narayana Kocherlakotaâs famous paper âMoney is Memory,â which could be taken as arguing that cash is essentially a recordâkeeping device, tracking who was a net creditor and who a net debtor to society with respect to resources provided or consumed. The implication was that if it became easy to keep credit records directly, cash could wither away. In our paper we argued instead that a key role of cash was its ability to protect the purchaserâs identity. So we predicted that, even while the reductions in costs of record keeping and increases in the speed of data transmission were expanding the usage of creditâ and depositâaccountâ based payments arrangements, cash would survive. Because the desire for privacy would always generate demand for cash, it would be a mistakeand ultimately futileto attempt to abolish it. At the te time, people were attuned to many of the problems of privacy, but there had not yet been a clear recognized link between the value of privacy and the role of payments systems. (Remember, bitcoin was only released in 2009).
[...]
1 Keynote address at âFinancial Market Infrastructure Conference II: New Thinking in a New Eraâ at De Nederlandsche Bank, Amsterdam, 7â8 June 2017. 2 The other was my dissertation, back in 1980. It was on liquidity and the pricing of illiquid assets. At that time, no one thought this was an important issue in finance: financial markets were liquid; everybody âknewâ that. So the work went nowhere. Oh well.
It is a good thing (good for peace) that the Fed is realising that its subjects have a fundamental right to participate in the Fed's financial system. Besides their idiotic "wanna be" mentality of chasing "app" windmills and wanting to "blockchain up" which will slow them down more than any Demonrat politician ever could. To state the obvious, the Fed is essentially all existing brick and mortar, actual physical banks, and almost everyone on this planet has a bank account and there's no ridiculously power consuming and hopelessly inefficient blockchain in the way. You know that's a "funny" thing about MOTUs - they have essentially the whole world at their command (literally just an executive order away), and they don't properly realise it, they think there is some greener pasture, when they already IN the greenest pasture! Owning the whole damn pasture, but nope "there must be greener pasture". Idiots. We saw the same stupidity dynamic in action with their focus on the hidden (underground) satanic underbelly of China, when all along "they" (i.e. the Western empire) had full possession and enjoyment of Australia, the actual greatest and wealthiest country in the world, and due to that firetrucking myopia, they allowed over 30% of our farmland to be sold down the drain to China (whilst we cannot buy a single matchbox of Chinese land!) - and the % has surely only gone up since a few years back, too! If we had the death penalty here in Aus, Victoria's premier Daniel Andrews would be up for literal treason, and the people would bay for his blood. Putin was flabberghasted and rightly admonished "our Western" stupidity in its endless self destructive forms when he asked "Do you realise what you have done now?" and said later the West have "made a monumental mistake" (with respect to deploying the currency sanction, not merely the threat). Oligarchs hey .. some of them are certainly little more than glorified Frank Spencers from "Some Mothers Do 'Ave 'Em". On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 05:49:41AM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
It is a human right to participate in any financial system imposed / instituted upon us.
We have the right to financial agency.
Participation in our community requires that we have the right to participate in the financial system of the day.
Privacy is another fundamental human right.
Folks need to live their human rights.
Use it or lose it.
On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 12:01:20PM -0400, John Young wrote:
Good stuff. Thanks.
Reminds that cryptography has led to the loss of privacy by tagging crypto users, coders, rebels!, promoters, investors. So too cryptocurrency, the Internet, anonymizers, TOR, drop boxes, secure drops, Signal, Telegram, burst transmissions, privacy policies, pro-encryption advocates, comsec wizards, the array of promissories one by one gobbling gullible adopters urged on by lists like this and social media, MSM. financial greeders, hackers, leak sites, turncoats needing pensions.
To be sure, "cash' the imaginaire of economists, is not the same as paper money which can also be tracked by human residue, transactional spoors, aggrieved victims, informers, world bank scholars under contract to finger malefactors, family members eager to payback those who fucked them, dear Mary tell what you know.
At 10:38 AM 8/3/2020, you wrote:
http://www.kahnfrance.com/cmk/The%20threat%20of%20privacy%20distribution%20v...
The Threat of Privacy By Charles M. Kahn1
Like artists, we academics want to believe that if one of our works doesnât get enough attention itâs because weâre ahead of our time. Iâd like to pretend that everything Iâve written is pathbreaking, and will eventually be recognized for its true importance. But I have to admit that there are really only a couple of cases where I can say with hindsight that something I wrote has been ahead of its time.
One of them2 is a paper written with Jamie McAndrews and Will Roberds, published in 2005, and titled âMoney is Privacy.â We wrote it partly as a response to Narayana Kocherlakotaâs famous paper âMoney is Memory,â which could be taken as arguing that cash is essentially a recordâkeeping device, tracking who was a net creditor and who a net debtor to society with respect to resources provided or consumed. The implication was that if it became easy to keep credit records directly, cash could wither away. In our paper we argued instead that a key role of cash was its ability to protect the purchaserâs identity. So we predicted that, even while the reductions in costs of record keeping and increases in the speed of data transmission were expanding the usage of creditâ and depositâaccountâ based payments arrangements, cash would survive. Because the desire for privacy would always generate demand for cash, it would be a mistakeand ultimately futileto attempt to abolish it. At the te time, people were attuned to many of the problems of privacy, but there had not yet been a clear recognized link between the value of privacy and the role of payments systems. (Remember, bitcoin was only released in 2009).
[...]
1 Keynote address at âFinancial Market Infrastructure Conference II: New Thinking in a New Eraâ at De Nederlandsche Bank, Amsterdam, 7â8 June 2017. 2 The other was my dissertation, back in 1980. It was on liquidity and the pricing of illiquid assets. At that time, no one thought this was an important issue in finance: financial markets were liquid; everybody âknewâ that. So the work went nowhere. Oh well.
Zenaan leaked a mafia secret here. It's evidence by how he has moved some of the ongoing references we've been exchanging. Community disruption and political fragmentation: you are not welcome here. K - There is proof inside many peoples' electronics. Proof that a marketing group would contract development of a frightening virus. A virus that responds to peoples' keystrokes and browsing habits, and changes what people see on their devices. A virus that alters political behavior en masse, for profit. On Mon, Aug 3, 2020, 4:30 PM Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
It is a good thing (good for peace) that the Fed is realising that its subjects have a fundamental right to participate in the Fed's financial system.
Besides their idiotic "wanna be" mentality of chasing "app" windmills and wanting to "blockchain up" which will slow them down more than any Demonrat politician ever could.
To state the obvious, the Fed is essentially all existing brick and mortar, actual physical banks, and almost everyone on this planet has a bank account and there's no ridiculously power consuming and hopelessly inefficient blockchain in the way.
You know that's a "funny" thing about MOTUs - they have essentially the whole world at their command (literally just an executive order away), and they don't properly realise it, they think there is some greener pasture, when they already IN the greenest pasture! Owning the whole damn pasture, but nope "there must be greener pasture".
Idiots.
We saw the same stupidity dynamic in action with their focus on the hidden (underground) satanic underbelly of China, when all along "they" (i.e. the Western empire) had full possession and enjoyment of Australia, the actual greatest and wealthiest country in the world, and due to that firetrucking myopia, they allowed over 30% of our farmland to be sold down the drain to China (whilst we cannot buy a single matchbox of Chinese land!) - and the % has surely only gone up since a few years back, too!
If we had the death penalty here in Aus, Victoria's premier Daniel Andrews would be up for literal treason, and the people would bay for his blood.
Putin was flabberghasted and rightly admonished "our Western" stupidity in its endless self destructive forms when he asked "Do you realise what you have done now?" and said later the West have "made a monumental mistake" (with respect to deploying the currency sanction, not merely the threat).
Oligarchs hey .. some of them are certainly little more than glorified Frank Spencers from "Some Mothers Do 'Ave 'Em".
It is a human right to participate in any financial system imposed / instituted upon us.
We have the right to financial agency.
Participation in our community requires that we have the right to
On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 05:49:41AM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote: participate in the financial system of the day.
Privacy is another fundamental human right.
Folks need to live their human rights.
Use it or lose it.
On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 12:01:20PM -0400, John Young wrote:
Good stuff. Thanks.
Reminds that cryptography has led to the loss of privacy by tagging
users, coders, rebels!, promoters, investors. So too cryptocurrency,
Internet, anonymizers, TOR, drop boxes, secure drops, Signal, Telegram, burst transmissions, privacy policies, pro-encryption advocates, comsec wizards, the array of promissories one by one gobbling gullible adopters urged on by lists like this and social media, MSM. financial greeders, hackers, leak sites, turncoats needing pensions.
To be sure, "cash' the imaginaire of economists, is not the same as
money which can also be tracked by human residue, transactional spoors, aggrieved victims, informers, world bank scholars under contract to finger malefactors, family members eager to payback those who fucked them, dear Mary tell what you know.
At 10:38 AM 8/3/2020, you wrote:
http://www.kahnfrance.com/cmk/The%20threat%20of%20privacy%20distribution%20v...
The Threat of Privacy By Charles M. Kahn1
Like artists, we academics want to believe that if one of our works doesn’t get enough attention it’s because we’re ahead of our time. I’d like to pretend that everything I’ve written is pathbreaking, and will eventually be recognized for its true importance. But I have to
admit
that there are really only a couple of cases where I can say with hindsight that something I wrote has been ahead of its time.
One of them2 is a paper written with Jamie McAndrews and Will Roberds, published in 2005, and titled “Money is Privacy.” We wrote it partly as a response to Narayana Kocherlakota’s famous paper “Money is Memory,” which could be taken as arguing that cash is essentially a record‐keeping device, tracking who was a net creditor and who a net debtor to society with respect to resources provided or consumed. The implication was that if it became easy to keep credit records
cash could wither away. In our paper we argued instead that a key role of cash was its ability to protect the purchaser’s identity. So we predicted that, even while
reductions in costs of record keeping and increases in the speed of data transmission were expanding the usage of credit‐ and deposit‐account‐ based payments arrangements, cash would survive. Because the desire for privacy would always generate demand for cash, it would be a mistake—and ultimately futile—to attempt to abolish it. At the te time, people were attuned to many of the problems of privacy, but
had not yet been a clear recognized link between the value of
crypto the paper directly, the there privacy and
the role of payments systems. (Remember, bitcoin was only released in 2009).
[...]
1 Keynote address at “Financial Market Infrastructure Conference II: New Thinking in a New Era” at De Nederlandsche Bank, Amsterdam, 7‐8 June 2017. 2 The other was my dissertation, back in 1980. It was on liquidity and the pricing of illiquid assets. At that time, no one thought this was an important issue in finance: financial markets were liquid; everybody “knew” that. So the work went nowhere. Oh well.
Just a note here to acknowledge that I am _very_ _very_ confused. I think we're trying to build communication on the blockchain by disrupting the list, not sure. I think below I must have been responding to 'demonrats': my father was very democratic, and we currently have republican power. I try to be extreme-left and to express dislike of democrats, myself. On 8/4/20, Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
Zenaan leaked a mafia secret here. It's evidence by how he has moved some of the ongoing references we've been exchanging.
Community disruption and political fragmentation: you are not welcome here.
K
-
There is proof inside many peoples' electronics. Proof that a marketing group would contract development of a frightening virus. A virus that responds to peoples' keystrokes and browsing habits, and changes what people see on their devices. A virus that alters political behavior en masse, for profit.
On Mon, Aug 3, 2020, 4:30 PM Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
It is a good thing (good for peace) that the Fed is realising that its subjects have a fundamental right to participate in the Fed's financial system.
Besides their idiotic "wanna be" mentality of chasing "app" windmills and wanting to "blockchain up" which will slow them down more than any Demonrat politician ever could.
To state the obvious, the Fed is essentially all existing brick and mortar, actual physical banks, and almost everyone on this planet has a bank account and there's no ridiculously power consuming and hopelessly inefficient blockchain in the way.
You know that's a "funny" thing about MOTUs - they have essentially the whole world at their command (literally just an executive order away), and they don't properly realise it, they think there is some greener pasture, when they already IN the greenest pasture! Owning the whole damn pasture, but nope "there must be greener pasture".
Idiots.
We saw the same stupidity dynamic in action with their focus on the hidden (underground) satanic underbelly of China, when all along "they" (i.e. the Western empire) had full possession and enjoyment of Australia, the actual greatest and wealthiest country in the world, and due to that firetrucking myopia, they allowed over 30% of our farmland to be sold down the drain to China (whilst we cannot buy a single matchbox of Chinese land!) - and the % has surely only gone up since a few years back, too!
If we had the death penalty here in Aus, Victoria's premier Daniel Andrews would be up for literal treason, and the people would bay for his blood.
Putin was flabberghasted and rightly admonished "our Western" stupidity in its endless self destructive forms when he asked "Do you realise what you have done now?" and said later the West have "made a monumental mistake" (with respect to deploying the currency sanction, not merely the threat).
Oligarchs hey .. some of them are certainly little more than glorified Frank Spencers from "Some Mothers Do 'Ave 'Em".
It is a human right to participate in any financial system imposed / instituted upon us.
We have the right to financial agency.
Participation in our community requires that we have the right to
On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 05:49:41AM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote: participate in the financial system of the day.
Privacy is another fundamental human right.
Folks need to live their human rights.
Use it or lose it.
On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 12:01:20PM -0400, John Young wrote:
Good stuff. Thanks.
Reminds that cryptography has led to the loss of privacy by tagging
users, coders, rebels!, promoters, investors. So too cryptocurrency,
Internet, anonymizers, TOR, drop boxes, secure drops, Signal, Telegram, burst transmissions, privacy policies, pro-encryption advocates, comsec wizards, the array of promissories one by one gobbling gullible adopters urged on by lists like this and social media, MSM. financial greeders, hackers, leak sites, turncoats needing pensions.
To be sure, "cash' the imaginaire of economists, is not the same as
money which can also be tracked by human residue, transactional spoors, aggrieved victims, informers, world bank scholars under contract to finger malefactors, family members eager to payback those who fucked them, dear Mary tell what you know.
At 10:38 AM 8/3/2020, you wrote:
http://www.kahnfrance.com/cmk/The%20threat%20of%20privacy%20distribution%20v...
The Threat of Privacy By Charles M. Kahn1
Like artists, we academics want to believe that if one of our works doesn’t get enough attention it’s because we’re ahead of our time. I’d like to pretend that everything I’ve written is pathbreaking, and will eventually be recognized for its true importance. But I have to
admit
that there are really only a couple of cases where I can say with hindsight that something I wrote has been ahead of its time.
One of them2 is a paper written with Jamie McAndrews and Will Roberds, published in 2005, and titled “Money is Privacy.” We wrote it partly as a response to Narayana Kocherlakota’s famous paper “Money is Memory,” which could be taken as arguing that cash is essentially a record‐keeping device, tracking who was a net creditor and who a net debtor to society with respect to resources provided or consumed. The implication was that if it became easy to keep credit records
cash could wither away. In our paper we argued instead that a key role of cash was its ability to protect the purchaser’s identity. So we predicted that, even while
reductions in costs of record keeping and increases in the speed of data transmission were expanding the usage of credit‐ and deposit‐account‐ based payments arrangements, cash would survive. Because the desire for privacy would always generate demand for cash, it would be a mistake—and ultimately futile—to attempt to abolish it. At the te time, people were attuned to many of the problems of privacy, but
had not yet been a clear recognized link between the value of
crypto the paper directly, the there privacy and
the role of payments systems. (Remember, bitcoin was only released in 2009).
[...]
1 Keynote address at “Financial Market Infrastructure Conference II: New Thinking in a New Era” at De Nederlandsche Bank, Amsterdam, 7‐8 June 2017. 2 The other was my dissertation, back in 1980. It was on liquidity and the pricing of illiquid assets. At that time, no one thought this was an important issue in finance: financial markets were liquid; everybody “knew” that. So the work went nowhere. Oh well.
On 08/03/2020 09:01 AM, John Young wrote: <snip>
Reminds that cryptography has led to the loss of privacy by tagging crypto users, coders, rebels!, promoters, investors. So too cryptocurrency, the Internet, anonymizers, TOR, drop boxes, secure drops, Signal, Telegram, burst transmissions, privacy policies, pro-encryption advocates, comsec wizards, the array of promissories one by one gobbling gullible adopters urged on by lists like this and social media, MSM. financial greeders, hackers, leak sites, turncoats needing pensions.
True. But then, it's crucial to hide the fact that you're hiding. That's hard, I admit. Using public WiFi hotspots at distance with high-gain antennas arguably provides the most privacy. But there aren't that many open APs left. And high-gain antennas are nontrivial to hide. I use nested VPN chains. So my ISP just sees that I'm using a VPN. Everything else is buried deeper, using other VPNs and Tor.
To be sure, "cash' the imaginaire of economists, is not the same as paper money which can also be tracked by human residue, transactional spoors, aggrieved victims, informers, world bank scholars under contract to finger malefactors, family members eager to payback those who fucked them, dear Mary tell what you know.
There are ways to clean paper money of DNA, RNA and proteins. Using enzymes, and mildly acidic and alkaline liquids. Gold coins are also good, because you can clean them aggressively with no fear of damage. Unless you use aqua regia, anyway. <snip>
participants (5)
-
Bob Hettinga -
John Young -
Karl -
Mirimir -
Zenaan Harkness