Re: Sander Franklin presentation @ CFP
The basic objective, for campaign financing, is highly bogus - there's this First Amendment thing that, while sometimes honored more in the breach than the observance, protects freedom of speech and the press. When you're talking about commerce or obscenity on the net, pro-censorship types say "oh, no, the First Amendment isn't about them - it's about Political Speech!". So when we ARE talking about political speech, they shouldn't be allowed to get away with saying "But electoral politics is too important to let *everybody* print what they want about it." Philosophy aside, cypherpunks technology makes it easy for Alice to bribe Bob The Politician to send him the money by one channel, and send a message by another channel claiming to have paid the bribe. (Bribe, independent campaign finance expenditure, whatever. :-) The issue is whether you can do it in a way that Bob knows that Alice isn't lying about having sent the money (either because nobody sent the money, or because somebody else sent the money and she's taking credit for it.) Bearer payments help a lot with this. Of course, it's nice if Alice can know Bob received the money, and that once he's been bribed he'll stay bribed. Sending the bearer payment encrypted, and following it with the key in response to a receipt can be helpful. If you use the proposed "mandatory anonymous donation" protocol, you can still send a message saying you paid the bribe - it's just easier to claim that you've done it when you haven't. Bill At 12:06 PM 04/14/2000 -0400, dmolnar wrote: Hi, The recent article reminds me -- did anyone see Tomas Sander and Matt Franklin's presentation at CFP on "Deniable Payments and Electronic Campaign Finance"? What did you think? http://www.cfp2000.org/papers/franklin.pdf Their idea is to take the "mandated donor anonymity" proposed by Ian Ayres Jeremy Bulow http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/faculty/bulow.pdf and build a protocol which allows everyone to ensure that donations are going to the correct candidate, without revealing anything about who donated to whom. Thanks, -David Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639
Sander Franklin presentation @ CFP
Hi, The recent article reminds me -- did anyone see Tomas Sander and Matt Franklin's presentation at CFP on "Deniable Payments and Electronic Campaign Finance"? What did you think? http://www.cfp2000.org/papers/franklin.pdf Their idea is to take the "mandated donor anonymity" proposed by Ian Ayres Jeremy Bulow http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/faculty/bulow.pdf and build a protocol which allows everyone to ensure that donations are going to the correct candidate, without revealing anything about who donated to whom. Thanks, -David
Re: Sander Franklin presentation @ CFP
David Molnar asks: The recent article reminds me -- did anyone see Tomas Sander and Matt Franklin's presentation at CFP on "Deniable Payments and Electronic Campaign Finance"? What did you think? http://www.cfp2000.org/papers/franklin.pdf Their idea is to take the "mandated donor anonymity" proposed by Ian Ayres Jeremy Bulow http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/faculty/bulow.pdf and build a protocol which allows everyone to ensure that donations are going to the correct candidate, without revealing anything about who donated to whom. You should ask on one of the real crypto lists, [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Most cypherpunks subscribers are too stupid to have an opinion (that means you, Choate). Actually these proposals were discussed a few months ago on one of the lists. There are philosophical issues (you can't stop under the table payments without invasive monitoring of campaign activities which inherently infringe on free speech), and technical issues (large donors are the only ones who can buy influence, and their contributions tend to be noticeable even if they are anonymized, requiring elaborate smoothing mechanisms which undercut campaign effectiveness). Cypherpunks would generally prefer a laissez faire approach to campaign donations, rather than more regulations on how money can be given, even if the restrictions use cryptography.
Re: Sander Franklin presentation @ CFP
At 8:28 PM -0400 4/14/00, dmolnar wrote: On 14 Apr 2000, lcs Mixmaster Remailer wrote: You should ask on one of the real crypto lists, [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Most cypherpunks subscribers are too stupid to have an opinion (that means you, Choate). OK. I still have this naive notion that coderpunks is supposed to be for discussions of coding (so this wouldn't be appropriate). and I hadn't realized [EMAIL PROTECTED] existed until very recently. Actually these proposals were discussed a few months ago on one of the lists. There are philosophical issues (you can't stop under the Thanks for the pointer. I'll go check archives. You're naively accepting what this anonymous poster claimed. The two lists mentioned above were created by folks unhappy with the anarchic nature of Cypherpunks. Lewis McCarthy created his list, coderpunks, and Perry Metgzer created his list, cryptography. These lists date back to around 1994-6...not sure exactly when. I knew that I did not either Perry or Lewis telling me what I could post and what I could not post, so I ignored them. If you retreat to one of these lists, David, it is...a good thing. People who elect to be in censored lists have made the right decision. Sounds fair to me. Good bye. I enjoyed your comments when you were here. --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.
Re: Sander Franklin presentation @ CFP
At 10:58 PM -0400 4/14/00, dmolnar wrote: On Fri, 14 Apr 2000, Tim May wrote: You're naively accepting what this anonymous poster claimed. At this point I accept that it might be a good idea to ask on those lists as well. As far as I'm concerned, I've already raised my question about digital donations here and I'm looking for responses. (I suppose I should respond to the rest of the anonymous poster's points, but that's in progress. Short summary : this kind of protocol is not particularly "cypherpunk" - no restrictions on donations are. It still strikes me as an interesting question with a fun adversary model. Think about the parties involved for a minute -- the donor, the candidate, some third party or a payment mix, maybe the IRS if we're giving tax credits for donations... Oh, I think it's a "fun" adversary model, too. There are zillions of interesting crypto protocols involved between Alice, Bob, Charles, Dorothy, Elizabeth, Fred, etc., when these persons are in various roles as citizens, tax collecor, political campaign monitors, policemen, censors, et. Spending a lot of effort on one of these zillions of possiblies, e.g., how crypto protocols can be used to implement limits on free speech, seems bizarre, however. Thanks for the history and framing. I vaguely remember coderpunks forming when I first started lurking on cypherpunks... If you retreat to one of these lists, David, it is...a good thing. People who elect to be in censored lists have made the right decision. I have no intention of "retreating." Thanks! It's just that if the topic has already been discussed there, I'd like to know what was said. If I can avoid retreading tired arguments, this strikes me as a plus. The problem, aside from the censorious nature of those other lists, lying in the fact that they don't _like_ political discussions. Perry likes what Perry likes, and Lewis (or his succesors) likes what he likes. Their lists, their rules. 'Nuff said. --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.
