spot

[Bud Joseph]

Dear Client:

Your profile has returned 4 new local matches for you to choose from for 
potential encounters within the next two weeks. 

#0209 'Tessa' 36c 120lbs - I'm your typical desperate housewife...
#0908 'Katherine' 32b 105lbs - ...looking for a little something on the side 
:-)
#1054 'Suzie' 38d 145lbs - my husband is away often during the week... 
#1263 'Shannon' 36b 130lbs - afternoons  weekends work for me...

http://s-e-x-club.com/ora/enter.php

Season's Greetings from the most exclusive private local meeting place online.

Mind-Blowing G-Spot Orgasm!

[Mark Lowes]

<22007>

<22007>






Discontinue<22007>

Your new penis will finally reach the elusive G-Spot... qdji

[Stevie Medina]

How to Enlarge Your Penis
 Stop Premature Ejaculation
100% Guaranteed to Work!Order Now



NEW MEDICAL BREAK-THROUGH:
Our Male Enlargement Pill is the most effective on the medical market
today with over a Million satisfied customers worldwide Our product is doctor recommended and made from 100% natural ingredients.
Click Here to Learn More
ONE PILL A DAY IS ALL YOU NEED TO
 Enlarge your penis by 2 to 5 inches
 Stop Premature Ejaculation
 Increase Self Confidence  Self Esteem
 Make your penis longer and harder
FREE Bottle Offer Expires Today
Click Here to Learn More


 100% MONEY BACK GUARANTEE:
We Guarantee our doctor approved pills to enlarge, harden and stop premature ejaculation or your money back.
DISCREET SHIPPING:
Your purchase is discreetly shipped in a plain package.
Click Here to Learn More

stop it already.

s boh tsjrmqjrso

Hot Spot 4297AgJH7-227rtRS8747FQFG2-145D-29

[Lonely Spouse]

What have you been up to? This site i found is unreal.  There is a site for people 
to talk, chat,see each others pictures, and even meet each other as close as 
next doorthat I found.But that's not the best part, hereis why it's so unreal, not
 all the people are single, in fact, a lot of them are even married, looking to
satisfy their wildest desires.


I can't wait to meet

5086sMFL4-368DlrV2627ascD9-57l27

Re: Smart ID Cards Planned for Sailors to Spot Terrorists

[R. A. Hettinga]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

At 1:22 PM -0700 on 7/7/02, John Young seems a little irony-impaired
today:


 Bob Open Mike Hettinga  kariokaed:

I try not to post news to cypherpunks. :-). I post *lots* of news
to the dbs list, of course...

To prevent spamming DCSB is subscriber only, as are all my own
lists.
 Rolling in the phsst-shot EVA, shitting my spacesuit, wailing for
 yo  momma's impaired irony: gameboy, that's not a joystick.

My Younglish parser is a bit rusty, but methinks the gentleman doth
defecate too much.

I seem to remember someone who boosted his own karma rating around
here for a while by posting full NYT articles to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Young stopped. I did too.

Of course, it took a nastygram from NYT's lawyers to stop him. And,
since the NYT doesn't read cypherpunks anymore, :-), it took a
surprisingly polite request from Mr. May to (more or less :-)) stop
me a few years back. I believe he actually said please, and
included no threat of physical force, which was, frankly, shocking,
given our relationship at the time. So, I continued to send stuff to
e$pam, which we folded, and DCSB, which got the same reaction as
cypherpunks so I quit there, and, later, dbs, which doesn't matter
because I own the list. Oddly enough, dbs' subscribership has
stabilized and gone up a smidge since, which is nice. I also send
crypto-relevant bits to cryptography, which Perry moderates, sending
along what he thinks the readership wants to see, which might be what
John's mewling about above.


Of course, I haven't checked my killfile, but I bet Choate still
persists in posting un-contexted links here, which are, for the most
part much more annoying, though considerably more parsimonious of
bandwidth.

It must be all that hard groundwater in Texas causing extreme
hard-headness in character. In Young's and my case, it got diluted by
all that acid rain up here in the NE, and we eventually learned to
listen to reason, if not threats of impecuniosity and/or bodily harm.

For Choate, of course, who's still drinking the stuff, there's
apparently no hope.

Anyway, John, for old time's sake, a little Spanglish aphorism is in
order: Y tu mama tambien, Cabron.

Cheers,
RAH


-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGP 7.5

iQA/AwUBPSm9r8PxH8jf3ohaEQL/GgCg9G1Vr130geUAVn3BrqD8Vp1QykgAniJ8
OuY/1rqCI4BzWEwGgVusKowt
=E4kl
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

-- 
-
R. A. Hettinga mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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'

Re: Smart ID Cards Planned for Sailors to Spot Terrorists

[R. A. Hettinga]

At 10:16 AM -0700 on 7/6/02, Bill Stewart wrote:


 Bob - This isn't really cryptography-related, and I can't post to DCSB,
 but this does seem like Cypherpunks material

I try not to post news to cypherpunks. :-). I post *lots* of news to the
dbs list, of course...

To prevent spamming DCSB is subscriber only, as are all my own lists.

Cheers,
RAH

-- 
-
R. A. Hettinga mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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'

Re: Smart ID Cards Planned for Sailors to Spot Terrorists

[John Young]

Bob Open Mike Hettinga  kariokaed:

I try not to post news to cypherpunks. :-). I post *lots* of news to the
dbs list, of course...

To prevent spamming DCSB is subscriber only, as are all my own lists.

Rolling in the phsst-shot EVA, shitting my spacesuit, wailing for yo 
momma's impaired irony: gameboy, that's not a joystick.

Re: Smart ID Cards Planned for Sailors to Spot Terrorists

[R. A. Hettinga]

At 10:16 AM -0700 on 7/6/02, Bill Stewart wrote:


 Bob - This isn't really cryptography-related, and I can't post to DCSB,
 but this does seem like Cypherpunks material

I try not to post news to cypherpunks. :-). I post *lots* of news to the
dbs list, of course...

To prevent spamming DCSB is subscriber only, as are all my own lists.

Cheers,
RAH

-- 
-
R. A. Hettinga mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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'

Re: Smart ID Cards Planned for Sailors to Spot Terrorists

[John Young]

Bob Open Mike Hettinga  kariokaed:

I try not to post news to cypherpunks. :-). I post *lots* of news to the
dbs list, of course...

To prevent spamming DCSB is subscriber only, as are all my own lists.

Rolling in the phsst-shot EVA, shitting my spacesuit, wailing for yo 
momma's impaired irony: gameboy, that's not a joystick.

Re: Smart ID Cards Planned for Sailors to Spot Terrorists

[Bill Stewart]

Bob - This isn't really cryptography-related, and I can't post to DCSB,
but this does seem like Cypherpunks material.
What an insert several paragraphs of sailor-type language here/
outrageous proposal!   Can't sail without some government
fingerprinting you, laser-scanning your eyes, and
throwing you in a huge database?  more nautical language/.

I'd expect the ILO to be socialist - they are a big union after all -
but I wouldn't expect them to be totalitarians.
Sure, it's a way to create a harder-to-avoid union card,
and a way for their biggest customers to be forced to hire their people
by using government pressure to enforce it.  It's also a surveillance
mechanism to let management keep track of sailors they dislike,
prevent politically incorrect people from getting jobs as sailors,
give governments additional control over sailors in port,
private sailors, and refugees who can't afford to travel on airplanes,
and gives large governments an increased excuse to interfere with
high-seas traffic between other countries under the pretense of
checking whether all the sailors are documented.

 From a technology perspective, the interesting paragraph is
 The plans have drawn criticism from seafarer's groups
 concerned that port authorities may insert information in
 so-called ``smart'' identification
 documents without the cardholder's knowledge.
Sure, smart cards with non-user-viewable data can easily have
extra data in them saying the user is a Communist or union organizer
or did scab labor or is a Muslim or a Jew or a Rastafarian.
And it's easy for port authorities to send copies of sailors' photos
to their local police in case they're wandering around town.

But with the Internet reaching everywhere, either by wire or satellite,
the information doesn't need to be hidden in the card.
The card says that you're Sailor #12345678, so they can look you up
on any website they want - not just the ILO's paid their union dues
database, and Interpol's Never been caught smoking dope database,
and the shipping companies' Not a union troublemaker database,
and the originally from _this_ country even though they're now American 
database,
and Blacknet's databases on gets in Bar Fights and scab laborers.

 Bill Stewart

At 06:10 PM 07/03/2002 -0400, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
http://quote.bloomberg.com/fgcgi.cgi?ptitle=Top%20World%20Newss1=blktp=ad_topright_topworldT=markets_box.hts2=ad_right1_windexbt=ad_position1_windexbox=ad_box_alltag=worldnewsmiddle=ad_frame2_windexs=APSMyZRY2U21hcnQg

Bloomberg News

Top World News

07/03 13:20
Smart ID Cards Planned for Sailors to Spot Terrorists (Update1)
By Amy Strahan Butler

Washington, July 3 (Bloomberg) -- The identities of more than 500,000
commercial sailors worldwide would be verified through thumb or iris scans
under tough, new anti-terrorism standards backed by the U.S. and other
industrialized nations.

``The whole idea is to come up with a worldwide system for positive,
verifiable identification of seafarers,'' said Mary Covington, associate
director of the Washington office of the International Labor Organization,
a United Nations-affiliated group that's developing the standards.

The labor organization got a big boost when representatives of the Group of
Eight nations -- the U.S., Japan, Germany, the U.K., France, Canada, Italy
and Russia -- endorsed the standards during a meeting in Canada last week.

The plans have drawn criticism from seafarer's groups concerned that port
authorities may insert information in so- called ``smart'' identification
documents without the cardholder's knowledge.

Those concerns are being swept aside as the drive to close loopholes in
shipping security has gained momentum since Sept. 11 in the U.S., where
less than 2 percent of cargo entering ports is inspected by the U.S.
Customs Service.

After the terrorist attacks, the Coast Guard began requiring ships to
notify ports 96 hours prior to arrival and to submit a list of crew members.

Card-Carrying Sailors

Commercial sailors in countries that ratify the ILO standards would be
required to carry identification cards similar to driver's licenses that
also contain biometric information, such as a thumbprint or iris scan.
Under the proposal, port authorities would be able to verify the identity
of the card bearer by scanning his thumb or eye.

The credentials could be issued to more than a half-million shipping
employees as governments attempt to tighten port security to prevent
terrorist activities.

``This would help produce uniform treatment of seafarers,'' said Chris
Koch, president of the World Shipping Council, a trade association
representing more than 40 shipping companies, including Atlantic Container
Line AB and Crowley Maritime Corp. ``That's in the interest of not only
seafarers but of commerce.''

The current ILO convention for identifying shipping employees entering
foreign ports asks that countries to provide seafarers

Who passes laws in the wet spot?

[matthew X]

Unparliamentary behaviour reported in the house
By Ian Munro
March 14 2002
The English have long demonstrated that sex and politics do mix, if not 
quite in the manner demonstrated last week in the Northern Territory 
Parliament.
The territory's honourable members, at least, were in recess late on Friday 
when a government staffer and his girlfriend are believed to have had sex 
in the parliamentary chamber.
Initially their coupling occurred in the Speaker's chair, but they also 
pushed aside the Despatch Box to make room on the chamber's central table 
according to claims made in Darwin yesterday.
The Clerk of the NT Parliament, Ian McNeill, yesterday examined security 
video footage and security access records to determine who had access to 
the chamber about 10.30pm on Friday in order to prepare a report to the 
Speaker Loraine Braham.
Ms Braham said that after confirming a former ministerial staff member had 
made an unauthorised entry to the chamber, she was considering asking the 
Director of Public Prosecutions if there was a case to answer
I am investigating my powers as Speaker under the Powers and Privileges 
Act to prohibit the offenders from entering the parliamentary precinct 
again, she said.
The Opposition Whip first raised concerns about the claims that were aired 
on Darwin radio yesterday morning, Mr McNeill said.
It appeared the couple gained access to the chamber through an area 
occupied by the opposition. (This) is one of those days you reckon you 
should have played golf, he said.
He said security cameras outside the chamber, and coded access cards would 
register who was in the surrounds of the chamber late on Friday.
We have a few members to talk to, Mr McNeill said.FROM
http://theage.com.au/articles/2002/03/13/1015909868787.html
On TV this morning was leaders press secretary,said he wanted to go out 
with a bang.

Can YOU Spot an Opportunity? Don't Miss This One !! (3534ZXAY3-761@12)

[etechm740046]

Title: Untitled Document




  
  

  Do you need MONEY???
  

  Earn 
  $3,375 Over And Over Again !!!
  


  
 

  New Program Just Entering Pre-Launch! 
  Now Is The Time For You To 
  Grab Your Piece Of The Pie!!
  For Once In Your 
  Life Be At The Top 
  Of Something Really Big!
  Click 
  To Get Your Pre Launch Spot Now
  We have just placed 
  100 industry leadersat the top 
  of the single most dynamic payplan available 
  ANYWHERE.
  Why do YOU 
  care?
  Act NOW and your super 
  low, one-time membership will put You on EASY 
  Street.
  Join right 
  this minute and you will be FRONTLINE to the HUNGRIEST LEADERS in 
  anynetworking opportunity.
  They want to get YOU FIRED UP! They will do WHATEVER it 
  takes to MAKE YOU SUCCEED.
  Click 
  To Get Your Pre Launch Spot Now
  Why? 
  Because our pay plan 
  splits the commissions between YOU and your 
  sponsor.
  The more YOU make, the MORE 
  they make, so …
  They want to get YOU FIRED UP! They will do WHATEVER it takes 
  to MAKE YOU SUCCEED.
  Click 
  To Get Your Pre Launch Spot Now
  Whether you are 
  completely new to networking, have tried other programs and 
  failed, or are a hot-shot networker yourself . . .
  YOU 
  MUST NOT MISS OPPORTUNITY!
  The Info Is FREE, Sign-Up Is EASY DO IT NOW!!
  Click 
  To Get Your Pre Launch Spot Now
  Your Personal Trainer 
  Is In Place And Ready To Help You All The Way To The Bank!
  Do Not Wait Another MinuteTo Improve YOUR 
  Life!
  
  

   
  
  
  
 

  
  TO BE REMOVED FROM THIS LIST PLEASE SEE BELOW:
  If you have been added to this list by mistake and no 
  longer wish to receive email from us, send a email with "remove" in 
  the subject line to: Click here to be 
  removed PLEASE BE SURE TO TYPE ONLY "REMOVE" IN THE SUBJECT 
  LINE, OR YOU MAY NOT BE REMOVED ASYOUR REQUEST MAY BE MISSED BY 
  US.



[2522zUWl8-568VIJs3470i@21]

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[jamesd]

James A. Donald:--
James A. Donald:
  Hitler won an election.  Elections are not revolutions.

Jim Choate
 The election alone didn't make him Fuhrer

The fact that a majority voted for totalitarianism and plurality
voted for Hitler did make him fuhrer.

And regardless of what made him Fuhrer, it was not a revolution. 

--digsig
 James A. Donald
 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
 RpelMIrX2K4QW9RrV+FQSoasyeDmQ2AZiYJRqChp
 4ZIDF43ciehEL5FHHjzW8DkYtOVIkC89UFJ3r8Y4c

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[Jim Choate]

On Sat, 1 Sep 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 And regardless of what made him Fuhrer, it was not a revolution. 

It wasn't? They passed a law moving all the presidents power to Hitler
against the constitution. Then they got the military to swear an oath to
Hitler, not Germany. In other words in the space of two years they went
from a democracy to a tyranny.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...


 --


natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato
summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks

Matsuo Basho

   The Armadillo Group   ,::;::-.  James Choate
   Austin, Tx   /:'/ ``::/|/  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   www.ssz.com.',  `/( e\  512-451-7087
   -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[jamesd]

--
James A. Donald:
  And regardless of what made him Fuhrer, it was not a
  revolution.

Jim Choate:
 It wasn't? They passed a law moving all the presidents power to
 Hitler against the constitution.

They passed a law is not a revolution, even if the law was
unconstitutional, and it was far more plausibly constitutional
than many recent acts of congress and recent supreme court
decisions.

--digsig
 James A. Donald
 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
 sCjb3FyPkIA3ccCv1Edyms5TE8T8r5azQl1n/vTC
 4ZUWu+8KwHCZrQsD98OEVKe12WiTrkmV15ORw/BkG

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[Jim Choate]

On Fri, 31 Aug 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 When Hitler authorized Krystalnacht, that was a revolution? 

No, that was the consequence of one that had already worked. They were
just cleaning up the left overs. Had Hitler not already won the power then
it wouldn't have been necessary.


 --


natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato
summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks

Matsuo Basho

   The Armadillo Group   ,::;::-.  James Choate
   Austin, Tx   /:'/ ``::/|/  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   www.ssz.com.',  `/( e\  512-451-7087
   -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[georgemw]

Having read Tim's reply already,  I'll confine myself to a point he
didn't address.


On 1 Sep 2001, at 22:30, Nomen Nescio wrote:


 It's true that this does not directly impact the design.  But we can't
 ignore the question, is this a market we want to pursue.  For example,
 there are any number of papers on key escrow systems, or fair electronic
 cash (where only the government can trace it).  Legitimate businesses
 might well be willing to use such systems.  So there is profit to be made,
 all the more profit since the government is less likely to hassle you.

Note,  however,  that this IS a question of design,  not merely one 
of marketing. 

The system doesn't know terrorists from freedom fighters.  The
system doesn't know pornographers from Falun Gongers.  

A system does (or at least could) know clients who want to send 
megabytes of data from ones who only want top send a few bits.  It 
does know clients who insist on real-time or near real-time 
transmission from ones who would accept substantial transmission 
delay times.  It knows clients who insist their system be free and 
trivial to use from those willing to spend a fair amount and go to a 
certain degree of effort to make damn sure they're doing things 
right.
It knows the difference between broadcasting and person-to-person 
communication.  And it knows whether clients are willing to accept 
the idea that some trusted third party could compromise their
identity,  or whether they trust no one.

 Would you say that discussions of such technologies would and should be
 encouraged on the cypherpunks list?  

Certainly they should be discussed, if only to point out what's
wrong with them,  or speculate how the escrow mechanism
might be defeated or compromised.
 
That it doesn't matter whether this
 helps us in or long-term goal or not?


Long-term consequences are notoriously hard to predict.  For 
example, it's quite possible somebody who develops
and implements a digital cash system with some sort of
key escrow mechanism might be doing the world a big favor,
since cloning it and cutting out the escrow part might be a lot
easier than developing a similar system from scratch.  Or maybe 
not,  as I said, hard to say.

 Surely not.  Morality plays a part in everything we do.  We have goals
 in common.  We should structure our efforts so that they are in accordance
 with our highest goals.  Having principles is nothing to be ashamed of.
 We all have them, and we should be proud of that.

OK.  Freedom=good.  Tyranny=bad.  Now that we've agreed on 
moral principles, time to move on.

George 

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[jamesd]

--
On 28 Aug 2001, at 7:13, Jim Choate wrote:
 What makes you think that new regime who used your tool to take 
 over won't then shoot you and take 'your profits'. By 
 participating you may in fact be signing your own death 
 warrant.

All the liberty that there is in the world today results from the 
Dutch revolt, the Glorious Revolution, and the American 
Revolution.  No oppressive regimes, with the exception of the 
Chinese, were produced by revolution.

Every successful revolution has been a major step forward for 
human liberty (the Russian communist revolution was not a 
revolution, but merely a coup by a little conspiracy.  Same for 
the Sandinista revolution).  Even in revolutions that failed,
like the french, were the old system was swiftly restored by
Napoleon, the power of the old regime was fatally undermined.

The outcome of the recent revolutions in Somalia and Ethiopia may 
be piss poor by Western standards, but compared to the rest of 
Africa they are pretty good, and compared to the previous 
regimes, they are wonderful. 

--digsig
 James A. Donald
 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
 bstOJvcE7yZ9wE8/TgMBfXDE6jExhrBCsGAb/NnK
 4Y74xyXZqu/wy4YGqo28RkMUFEWDhUUMk7L9BBPRe

RE: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[jamesd]

--
  Many people however believe that we [read: our government(s)]
  are in a downward spiral that is converging on
  police-and-welfare-state.  In the US for example, we long ago
  abandoned our constitution.  We still give it much lip
  service and we still have one of the more free societies
  but things are trending in the wrong direction.
 
  Each year more oppressive laws are passed, more things are
  made illegal to say or write or - if some have their way -
  think.  (And of course it goes without saying that these
  things that are prohibited to us are available to authorized
  users: those in intelligence, law enforcement, etc. - the
  usual more equal individuals.)

On 28 Aug 2001, at 10:42, Aimee Farr wrote:
 I might understand this better than you think.

No you do not.  You suggest we should not only obey all
legislation that currently exists, but also legislation that does
not currently exist, but that might be deemed to exist through
failure of a judge to be amused, or legislation that might soon
exist.

This is of course completely impossible.  Everyone has committed
many serious crimes, often felonies, usually without ever being
aware of it.  I have committed hundreds of major felonies that
could in theory give me many centuries of jail time, without ever
doing anything dishonest, or doing anything particularly unusual
for a respectable middle class person.  Most companies I have
worked for have knowingly committed many serious illegalities.
My current company is making an honest effort to comply with all
relevant legislation, but this effort appears to me ridiculous
and doomed, since no one can really figure out what, if anything,
the legislation we are attempting to comply with means, and what
constitutes compliance. 

--digsig
 James A. Donald
 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
 liVZOuTfoRZ0JfmM+NJZXhvgw6giwPDJ1L/iolQ7
 4Q4yppLHxuZ/KDqZq2JgBqyRN3uKcX6lKlG7pjKDM

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[measl]

On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:

 On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 09:12:50PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
  
  much true stuff snipped
  
   But
   even given the tattered First Amendment, there is still a difference
   between speech and action.
  
  Complete and utter bullshit.
 
 Measl sometimes posts worthy stuff, 

Today must be my day!  I get a tahnk you for the cite from Tim, and a
semi-nod from Declan.  Shit, a guy could have a heart attack this
way giggle!

 so instead of flaming him, I'll
 just say that much of First Amendment jurisprudence is based on the
 distinctions between speech and action. It is not an absolute line,
 of course, speech (give me your money or else, falsely shouting
 fire in a crowded theater, fighting words) can be suppressed, but it
 is a useful distinction nonetheless.

I will grant that in my red-flag state (above), I was obviously not clear,
so let me make my argument clearer.

My point was that we have long since departed from the long line of
jurisprudence to which you refer above.  In real terms, in the USA
today, there is no difference between speech and action (from the legal
point of view).  I am not talking here of the theoretical way that things
should be (and that are taught in larvae school as the way things
_are_), I am talking about how it really *is*, when you are actually in
the courtrooms, at the mercy of the fascists who are to judge you.

Remember Mr. London: He has not recanted, and Its still posted on the
internet today...

*Perfect* example.

Other interesting examples are most certainly familiar to many of the
members of the list - certainly I cannot be the only one of us who has had
personal visits from federal badge holders because of political views
expressed here?

 -Declan

-- 
Yours, 
J.A. Terranson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they
should give serious consideration towards setting a better example:
Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of
unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in
the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and 
elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire
populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate...
This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States
as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers,
associates, or others.  Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of
those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the
first place...

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[Declan McCullagh]

On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 09:12:50PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
 
 much true stuff snipped
 
  But
  even given the tattered First Amendment, there is still a difference
  between speech and action.
 
 Complete and utter bullshit.

Measl sometimes posts worthy stuff, so instead of flaming him, I'll
just say that much of First Amendment jurisprudence is based on the
distinctions between speech and action. It is not an absolute line,
of course, speech (give me your money or else, falsely shouting
fire in a crowded theater, fighting words) can be suppressed, but it
is a useful distinction nonetheless.

-Declan

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[jamesd]

--
On 28 Aug 2001, at 23:00, Nomen Nescio wrote:
 The objection was raised, yes, it is moral, but is it
 profitable? There are not many communist-opposed freedom
 fighters around today, not much money to be made there.

Most regimes on President Bush's shit list have an insurrection
going against them.

Most regimes with an insurrection going against them are on
somebody's shit list. 

--digsig
 James A. Donald
 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
 WtUFPNpsQLNxGP/qSqH2izBzHMq4ngVAAPohWVoX
 4CIpMqIv/O63htMja6C1aD1cwbxzhNTB3Far6yVf8

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[Nomen Nescio]

Tim May writes:
 And in both of these examples I gave, Nomen Nescio took a literal 
 reading of the examples. But Ireland is not a communist regime! But 
 they are not Jews!

 Examples, like the half dozen I gave, are designed to convey to the 
 reader the range of uses, needs, and justifications. The specific stands 
 for the general.

 Both Nomen and Aimee are remarkably block-headed in seeing the big 
 picture.

You need to read your own posting more carefully:

 Draw this graph I outlined. Think about where the markets are for tools 
 for privacy and untraceability. Realize that many of the far out' sweet 
 spot applications are not necessarily immoral: think of freedom fighters 
 in communist-controlled regimes, think of distribution of birth control 
 information in Islamic countries, think of Jews hiding their assets in 
 Swiss bank accounts, think of revolutionaries overthrowing bad 
 governments, think of people avoiding unfair or confiscatory taxes, 
 think of people selling their expertise when some guild says they are 
 forbidden to.

You yourself were the one who raised the issue of morality.
Your examples were intended to be cases of sweet spot (that is,
profitable) applications which were also morally acceptable.  It is
entirely appropriate in that context to examine whether these examples
meet the test of both being profitable and moral.

When you were asked where were all the supposed wealthy freedom fighters
in communist controlled regimes, you came back with Osama bin Laden.

Do you think that bin Laden, if he succeeded, would bring in an era of
enlightened government supporting individual liberties?  The man is a
religious fanatic.  He is associated with the Taliban in Afghanistan,
which he helped put into power.  This is the same Taliban which has
destroyed priceless cultural treasures because they were not Islamic,
forbids women to work or attend school, and sends armed police to attack
when men and women eat in the same room behind closed doors.

Oh, and last week they banned the Internet.

Osama bin Laden, a perfect poster child for the cypherpunks.

We're definitely not seeing the same big picture if you think he is
a good example of someone cypherpunks should support.

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[Paul Pomes]

At 09:12 PM 8/30/01 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 But
 even given the tattered First Amendment, there is still a difference
 between speech and action.

Complete and utter bullshit.

And complete and utter loss of reputation capital on your part. It disagrees
100% with my interactions with law enforcement. If you wish to make point, at
least make it believable.

/pbp 

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[Fisher Mark]

When you were asked where were all the supposed wealthy freedom fighters
in communist controlled regimes, you came back with Osama bin Laden.

Tim's point, which many seem to have missed, is that by design a tool that
enforces the privacy, anonymity, and pseudonymity of a women striving for
equal rights in Afghanistan can also be used by the Taliban in their quest
to track down and kill Afghans who converted to Christianity and are now
preaching the Word.  Tools are tools -- the uses are what we make of them.
If you don't want to create tools that can be used for evil, then you must
forgo the making of tools.

Crypto anarchy is coming -- we had best prepare for it, lest it overwhelm
us.  In the end, I believe that it will result in more freedom for more
people, by restraining those in government from doing any silly thing they
like to us.  Although I see many people complain about the excesses of
corporations, in about every case I can think of the harm they did was
enabled by the collusion of government officials.  If you can restrain the
actions of government (by crypto anarchy, voting the rascals out of
office, or whatever), you will generally improve the amount of freedom
people have to live their lives.
===
Mark Leighton Fisher[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thomson multimedia, Inc.Indianapolis IN
Display some adaptability. -- Doug Shaftoe, _Cryptonomicon_

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[Ken Brown]

Nomen Nescio replied to Tim May:

[...]

 You need to read your own posting more carefully:
 
  Draw this graph I outlined. Think about where the markets are for tools
  for privacy and untraceability. Realize that many of the far out' sweet
  spot applications are not necessarily immoral: think of freedom fighters
  in communist-controlled regimes, think of distribution of birth control
  information in Islamic countries, think of Jews hiding their assets in
  Swiss bank accounts, think of revolutionaries overthrowing bad
  governments, think of people avoiding unfair or confiscatory taxes,
  think of people selling their expertise when some guild says they are
  forbidden to.
 
 You yourself were the one who raised the issue of morality.
 Your examples were intended to be cases of sweet spot (that is,
 profitable) applications which were also morally acceptable.  It is
 entirely appropriate in that context to examine whether these examples
 meet the test of both being profitable and moral.

[...]

You miss the point. All that is needed is for someone, somewhere, to
find these things desirable. It doesn't have to be you or me. We might
think they are immoral but that changes nothing in practice. Or do you
think that Muslims or Socialists or Greens or Zionists or the IRA or the
CIA or the ETA or Presbyterians or Monsanto or whoever *you* dislike
this week are incapable of choosing technology appropriate to their own
perception of their needs?
 
 When you were asked where were all the supposed wealthy freedom fighters
 in communist controlled regimes, you came back with Osama bin Laden.
 
 Do you think that bin Laden, if he succeeded, would bring in an era of
 enlightened government supporting individual liberties?  The man is a
 religious fanatic.  He is associated with the Taliban in Afghanistan,
 which he helped put into power.  This is the same Taliban which has
 destroyed priceless cultural treasures because they were not Islamic,
 forbids women to work or attend school, and sends armed police to attack
 when men and women eat in the same room behind closed doors.
 Oh, and last week they banned the Internet.

All true, they are shits. And violent, well-armed, cruel, frightened,
shits at that. But, in this context,  so what?
 
 Osama bin Laden, a perfect poster child for the cypherpunks.

Said who? Actually he is a bit of a bogeyman  90% of what he is accused
of is just US propaganda looking for a new enemy to justify the
continuation of cold-war military budgets - but there are other guys,
like the Taliban, who really are that  nasty - one of the endearingly
cute things about US politics is that you get collectively confused when
people don't like you so you assume they are being duped by evil
criminal masterminds, so you find it much easier to deal with the
concept of a Dark Lord in the East than you do with the idea that
millions of people actually hate and fear the USA for good reason. And
it was the US government that funded the Taliban to start with (with a
little help from their friends in Pakistan).
 
 We're definitely not seeing the same big picture if you think he is
 a good example of someone cypherpunks should support.

You aren't seeing the picture at all if you think anyone much here was
suggesting that you should support him.  All that is being proposed is
that people in that position really want the kind of technology we've
been talking about, some of them are able to pay for it, so the chances
are they are going to get it, and someone might make money out of it,
and that will fund further developments. You don't have to think that is
a *good* thing, you might think it is a very bad thing indeed, but you
do have to deal with it.

Ken

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[Declan McCullagh]

Is it necessary to send this message to cypherpunks twice?

-Declan

---
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 08:21:45 -0500 (CDT)

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[jamesd]

--
James A. Donald:
  (the Russian communist revolution was not a revolution, but
  merely a coup by a little conspiracy.  Same for the
  Sandinista revolution).

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 I'm curious how you draw the line?  I.e., what defines a
 genuine revolution as opposed to a mere coup?

A revolution involves mass participation, and widespread
spontaneous defiance of state authority.  A coup involves a tiny
little secretive conspiracy.   A coup is announced, a revolution
experienced.  Few proletarians in Russia had heard of the
communists, until they learnt they were the government.  There
was a real revolution in Russia, but many people felt the
revolution had failed, since the new government was still trying
to prosecute the war, and was still dominated by the rather small
group that had been dominant under the Tzar.  Then there was a
coup by an even smaller group against this new regime. 

--digsig
 James A. Donald
 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
 OB/GOuA4JAkfxP4knqOf5CtzmUwMdXLvcPtU4zod
 4lAQXXdyE53P/QtVYnhCF2kjXLT0G14uFiMkmFHZE

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[Jim Choate]

On Fri, 31 Aug 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 A revolution involves mass participation, and widespread
 spontaneous defiance of state authority.

A revolution is when one part of a populace takes up arms against another
part of the populace. The argument is over who gets the final say. It's
worth saying that there are actually a wide range of shades to this word
(eg rebellion v revolt v mutiny).

 A coup involves a tiny little secretive conspiracy.

A coup is the sudden overthrow of a government by force. It may be by a
small fraction or a large one.

 A coup is announced,

Yeah, when the guns start going off...

 a revolution experienced.

Yeah, when the guns start going off...


 --


natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato
summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks

Matsuo Basho

   The Armadillo Group   ,::;::-.  James Choate
   Austin, Tx   /:'/ ``::/|/  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   www.ssz.com.',  `/( e\  512-451-7087
   -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[Nomen Nescio]

Mark Leighton Fisher writes:

 Tim's point, which many seem to have missed, is that by design a tool that
 enforces the privacy, anonymity, and pseudonymity of a women striving for
 equal rights in Afghanistan can also be used by the Taliban in their quest
 to track down and kill Afghans who converted to Christianity and are now
 preaching the Word.

That's absurd.  The Taliban doesn't need crypto anonymity.  They hold
the reins of power.  If they want to go after Christians, they just issue
an edict.  Their Islamic police stalk the streets of Kabul armed with guns
and whips.  They assault who they will, go where they wish.  What would
they need with anonymous remailers and pseudonym based credentials?

The larger mistake, which others have made as well, is that
these technologies are tools which, once created, may be used
by everyone.  Granted, with a basic encryption program this may be
the case.  (And indeed bin Laden is already using this technology,
http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/2001-02-05-binladen.htm.)

But the more sophisticated technologies are not self-contained tools.
They require a supported and maintained infrastructure to operate.
Anonymous posters are painfully aware of how inadequate the current
remailer system is.  A truly reliable and effective anonymity technology
will be more like a service than a tool.  This means that the operators
choose to whom they will market and sell their services.

This was one of the main points of the original message.  You can't just
deploy a technology and hope that someone finds it useful.  You need to
identify and target a market segment where the value exceeds the cost.
And Tim May himself raised the issue of further looking for profitable
markets which are morally acceptable.  He sometimes seems reluctant
to admit it, but the point of crypto anarchy is to improve the world
by reducing the impact of government coercion.  It's not supposed to
be a nihilistic attempt to tear down institutions just for the sake
of destruction.

Any cypherpunk who creates a privacy technology which targets bin Laden
and his cohorts as a market is deluding himself if he thinks he is making
the world a better place.  You can say all the nasty things you like
about Western civilization, but crypto anarchy has the best chance of
survival under a democratic government that pays at least lip service to
values of individual freedom.  You who believe that the U.S. government
is the epitome of evil should spend some time living in Afghanistan.
See how far you get with your crypto technologies in a country which has
banned the internet, vcrs, satellite dishes, television, movies and music.

The point is that cypherpunks have a goal.  The technology is not the
end, but the means to the end.  The end is a world with more freedom
and more privacy.  Getting there is not easy, the path is not obvious.
And it is certainly not inevitable, as the past ten years of failure
should have made clear.

It is important to identify markets which will advance the cause rather
than set it back.  Tim May made a good start on this in his earlier
posting.  Those who reject the idea of judging groups and markets by
their morality are the ones who are missing the point.

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[georgemw]

On 31 Aug 2001, at 19:50, Nomen Nescio wrote:


 But the more sophisticated technologies are not self-contained tools.
 They require a supported and maintained infrastructure to operate.
 Anonymous posters are painfully aware of how inadequate the current
 remailer system is.  A truly reliable and effective anonymity technology
 will be more like a service than a tool. 

I agree completely.

 This means that the operators
 choose to whom they will market and sell their services.


Here I disagree completely.  I think in a properly designed 
anonymity system the users will be, well, anonymous, and
it should be impossible to tell any more about them than that they
pay their bills on time. Certainly most potential users would balk at
requirements that they prove who they were and justify their desire
to use such a system, since that would tend to defeat the purpose. 
  
 This was one of the main points of the original message.  You can't just
 deploy a technology and hope that someone finds it useful.  You need to
 identify and target a market segment where the value exceeds the cost.
 And Tim May himself raised the issue of further looking for profitable
 markets which are morally acceptable.  He sometimes seems reluctant
 to admit it, but the point of crypto anarchy is to improve the world
 by reducing the impact of government coercion.  It's not supposed to
 be a nihilistic attempt to tear down institutions just for the sake
 of destruction.
 
Well, Tim hasn't been excessivly shy about expressing his political
opinions IMO, but that's not really relevant. I don't think it serves 
any purpose to discuss who constitute valiant freedom fighters
resisting a tyrannical government and who are bloody terrorist
fanatics attempting to overthrow a benign legitimate government
and replace it wth a worse one in this forum.  We may have strong 
opinions on this matter as individuals, but it is completely 
unreasonable to expect us to come to any kind of consensus as a 
group.  Nor is it necessarily beneficial to do so. Would a system 
useful to the virtuous seperatist Kurds in Iraq be different in any
technical way from a system used by the evil seperatist Kurds
in Turkey? 
  

 Any cypherpunk who creates a privacy technology which targets bin Laden
 and his cohorts as a market is deluding himself if he thinks he is making
 the world a better place.  You can say all the nasty things you like
 about Western civilization, but crypto anarchy has the best chance of
 survival under a democratic government that pays at least lip service to
 values of individual freedom.  You who believe that the U.S. government
 is the epitome of evil should spend some time living in Afghanistan.

I haven't noticed anyone actually saying anything complimentary
about Bin Laden or the Taliban.  But it's pretty pointless to say,
hey, I've got this great idea, but it's not for Islamics, it's for
anti-Castro Cubans. (We like them, right?  And some of them have
lots of money, right?)  Any discussion along those lines is only 
productive way down the line when you're actually near deploying 
something. Or at least soliciting genine bids for developement
contracts.


 It is important to identify markets which will advance the cause rather
 than set it back.  Tim May made a good start on this in his earlier
 posting.  Those who reject the idea of judging groups and markets by
 their morality are the ones who are missing the point.
 
 
Wrong.  When discussing design of a system, it makes sense to 
limit discussion to parameters relevant to system design.  How
much individuals might be willing to pay to protect their privacy,
how great of injuries they might suffer if their privacy is 
compromised, is relevant to system design.  Why they
want privacy, whether you or I as individuals would think of them
as good guys or bad guys,  really isn't.

Unless you want to make a bizzare assertion like anyone 
potentially willing to spend upwards of 50 bucks a message
is almost certainly a bad guy, so it's manifestly immoral to design 
a system with that kind of marke6t in mind.  Forgive my close-
mindedness, but I think that kind of argument is sufficiently absurd 
to be unworthy of consideration.

George   

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[Morlock Elloi]

 There are *no* tools which are useful *only* for powering down
 government.

Well, there are some *biased* tools.

Anuthing that builds real or virtual walls impedes the spread of monocultural
fungal infection (aka the government). The more power an entity has, the less
walls it needs. So wall-building tools inherently help smaller/weaker entities.

Crypto is one of these.


=
end
(of original message)

Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows:
Get email alerts  NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
 The cypherpunk world replaces coercion with cooperation.  It
 provides the shield of anonymity against those who would offer
 violence and aggression.  As we move into the information age,
 control of information is control of the individual.  Thus, privacy,
 control of information about one's self, is freedom.
 
 And as Eric Hughes points out, cypherpunk technologies are
 ultimately based on social cooperation.  By definition, anonymity is
 meaningless unless it is attained as part of a group.  People must
 come together and deploy these systems for the common good.

Yes!  The pacificism which underlies most cypherpunk ideas has always
been attractive.  It's cheaper to be hard to track than to have to
defend yourself.  (Maybe this is why so many animals use camouflage.)

 Any message posted to cypherpunks via an anonymous remailer gets an
 automatic +2 on hit points, for it practices what it preaches.
 -- Anonymous

Sing it, brother, sing it!

RE: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[jamesd]

--
Reese
  You [Aimee Farr]are entirely too smug and happy, at the 
  thought of these various mechanisms useful for preserving 
  privacy and anonymity going the way of the dodo.

Aimee Farr
 That is not my attitude at all, Reese.

It is your attitude.  You keep telling us privacy is illegal. 
Most highly profitable uses of privacy are illegal somewhere, but 
they are never illegal everywhere.  If you had your way we would 
all be obeying all US law, including those seldom or never 
enforced, or only enforced against black people and political 
subversives, all french laws, all Iranian laws, etc.

Concerning your example of the IRA -- I recollect that for a long
time the US government allowed IRA fundraising, and use of the US
banking system for transfers to the IRA. 

--digsig
 James A. Donald
 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
 LnyQwbLjSabEa0Lh4Qp314B6OXVNHjgvV/V5Hg5j
 4ZtCxKVTkBd+heS8NdJoqew13kDVoqFasM3tTo/Qb

RE: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[jamesd]

--
On 27 Aug 2001, at 16:00, Aimee Farr wrote:
 Your idea does seem to offer promise as a vehicle for treason,
 espionage, trade secrets, malicious mischief, piracy, bribery
 of public officials, concealment of assets, transmission of
 wagering information, murder for hire, threatening or
 retaliating against Federal officials, a transactional 
 environment for nuclear and biologic weapons, narcotic and arms 
 traffickingsweet spots. *shakes head*

Sounds good to me.  I am sure it will sound pretty good to
President Bush if the primary targets are in Sudan or Borneo,
rather than the target being Bush.

And it will probably sound pretty good to some guy in Sudan if
the primary target is Bush.


--digsig
 James A. Donald
 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
 cP6zSfn46m6Tcs5LHfHssOmejDBq3DjqNkpEEtbY
 43ILLkFOVdn0istQ5ydYLv94EZa/2p9G2WsMUao2i

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[jamesd]

--
On 26 Aug 2001, at 10:46, Tim May wrote:
 Anyway, it is not easy to create a public company, a public
 nexus of attack, and then deploy systems which target that
 high-value sweet spot. The real bankers and the regulators
 won't allow such things into the official banking system. (Why
 do people think the banking system will embrace digital bearer
 bonds having untraceability features when true bearer bonds
 were eliminated years ago?)

I think the safest convenient path to development is to develop
untraceable cash in the US with restrictions on any large
transfers.  Then, once the technology is working, set up a
complete new company in a jurisdiction such as Nauru or Antigua
which allows bearer instruments of large value. 

--digsig
 James A. Donald
 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
 IfH9fDFYT0gsZzF8W1c6SeYfXhieAuGmfGuJbr3e
 4HmU02MVm3Sjt7wzdrSI7p7LHwBjt/+HG3dwDeuYD

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[Tim May]

On Thursday, August 30, 2001, at 06:39 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Duncan Frissell wrote:

 Is Tom Clancy going to spend much time in stir for machine gunning the 
 US
 Congress at the end of Debt of Honor?

 Possibly: see the campaign to put away John Ross, author of Unintended
 Consequences.

   www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39696d3b3c7b.htm



Thanks for the cite!

It shows how far down the path to destroying even the First Article of 
the Bill of Rights we have gone. Several cases of BATF harassment, even 
an attempt to recruit John Ross' ex-wife to help put him away.

Thanks again.

P.S. I see you have copied Ray Dillinger in the cc: field (which I have 
blanked in this reply, as is my custom). Be advised that Ray Dillinger 
has covered his ears and doesn't want to hear about this kind of icky 
stuff.

--Tim May

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[jamesd]

--
On 27 Aug 2001, at 21:40, Nomen Nescio wrote:
 Freedom fighters in communist-controlled regimes.  How much
 money do they have?  More importantly, how much are they
 willing and able to spend on anonymity/privacy/black-market
 technologies?  These guys aren't rolling in dough.

Freedom fighters are generally funded by expatriates resident in
sympathetic foreign countries.   These expatriates need C3
equipment to ensure that their money is not being embezzled or
misused.  By and large they are not using it, and should be.

 Jews hiding their assets in Swiss bank accounts.  Financial
 privacy is in fact potentially big business, but let's face it,
 most of the customers today are not Jews fearing confiscation
 by anti-semitic governments. That's not in the cards.  Most of
 the money will be tainted

I find this unlikely.  The powerful confiscate from the
vulnerable because they want the money, not because the
vulnerable are sinners deserving to have their money confiscated.

It is always loudly proclaimed that the money is tainted.  When
the Swiss banks were receiving the money from jews it was
supposedly tainted because it came from jews.  Later it was
supposedly tainted because it came from nazis.  Any money is
tainted when someone else wants it. 

--digsig
 James A. Donald
 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
 N9AHhvoqlS9Irm/IDeEE6I1kYHYUm+CQGmeXPy82
 44sVXA0FdW2m4055Ed20ew+iE84uYRYERsDpl8PjJ

RE: Agents kick crypto ass....was The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[jamesd]

--
On 27 Aug 2001, at 23:22, Aimee Farr wrote:
 Considering the incredibly bad timing of this discussion in 
 light of world events, I don't see how you could call ME a 
 provocateur. My jibe was good-natured. You keep posting the 
 equivalent of classified ads. I know who wants this shit now, 
 and it's not little bad men.

The main world events that I have noticed is that President Bush 
has deballed the world gun control treaty, in part because it 
would hinder aid to revolutionary movements that have interests 
in common with the US, and that Bush is making unkind noises 
about the world treaty against tax havens and financial secrecy, 
in part because it would give the EEC too much control over 
international money flows.

The state has always been repressive -- and different states have 
always disagreed strongly over what needs to be repressed.

In 1376 the Holy Roman Church declared itself supreme in all 
matters of thought, and declared that any thinking not first 
approved and authorized in advanced by the church, and conducted 
in proper church channels, was heresy and/or witchcraft 
punishable by burning at the stake.  However, under the original 
treaty between Pope and holy roman empire, any such burnings 
required both the Pope's judges and the King's goons
(oversimplification, but that is essense of it).  Since Pope and
King were usually trying to kill each other, freedom survived,
though not easily. 

--digsig
 James A. Donald
 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
 ulrWnHbYmYLr1ALq5yaAlnuwr5SRSzH8gTSgtzmj
 4dYLsf/2UwXTPBn4+ZQRxpjVyJJWsQWAYxEuZEWiN

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[mmotyka]

Declan McCullagh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote :
On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 05:28:24PM -0700, Ray Dillinger wrote:
 For Tim: 
 Why are you attempting to provoke public discussion about things 
 that could get people jailed or worse for discussing them?  It's 
 interesting to see you post your sweet spot message and then call 
 someone *else* an agent provocateur.

I suspect Bear has good intentions and may even honestly believe this,
but it is nevertheless misleading. 

Talking about the political implications of technologies -- and taking
no actions! -- is protected by the full force of the First Amendment.

Johnson got in trouble for allegedly making direct threats of physical
violence. Bell is in jail for most of the next decade because he
crossed state lines and showing up at homes of current or former
federal agents.

It is true that the Feds are monitoring cypherpunks closely, and it is
also probably true that without the stalking charges, they may have
found other charges to levy against Bell. It is also true that if you
embrace AP-type concepts, they may pay closer attention to you. But
even given the tattered First Amendment, there is still a difference
between speech and action.

-Declan

Bear may not be as far off the mark as you think. Remember back when the
hot news of the day was militia groups how advocating the violent
overthrow of the government and playing soldier in the woods could
constitute intent? Can that twisted reasoning be applied to advocating
the use of code to obsolete the government and then actually creating
code? Should the political speech and coding action be separated? Is
participating in both risky? I consider code to be publishing and speech
but look at some of the recent GRUsa activity that addresses that issue.

Get ready for to code is to act. Whoops, it's here. Just title your
application Espionage Communications Suite with Government Overthrow
Features and package the speech and the act up nice and neat for the
GRU. 

This can't really be the case, can it?

Mike

This little gizmo is not new but I like it and it's only $30 at an ATT
Wireless store. It looks like it would be a nice companion ( assuming
one could make a very tiny uP-based adapter ) for an iPaq. I find those
folding kybs to be ugly.

http://www.ericsson.com/infocenter/news/The_Chatboard.html

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[Tim May]

On Thursday, August 30, 2001, at 12:42 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Bear may not be as far off the mark as you think. Remember back when the
 hot news of the day was militia groups how advocating the violent
 overthrow of the government and playing soldier in the woods could
 constitute intent?

Before going further, let's examine your could constitute intent point.

Do you know of any prosecutions, successful or not, of groups who 
played soldier in the woods? Assuming, of course, that the 
prosecutions were not for weapons law violations, trespassing, hunting 
out of season, possession of illegal explosives, noise violations, etc.

If you know of any such cases, I would like to hear about them.

Note, by the way, that the Aryan Nation(s) routinely does as you say, 
i.e., they practice in the woods, but the only thing that they have been 
charged (as individuals or as an organization) were connected with 
actual crimes (the murder of radio talk show host Alan Berg in Denver, a 
couple of bank robberies) or political thoughtcrimes involving supposed 
harassment (a woman who claims she was chased and terrorized by AN 
thugs after driving past their compound several times.

Do you know of any actual cases where this confluence to create intent 
(not even clear what that means in this context, though) was claimed?


 Can that twisted reasoning be applied to advocating
 the use of code to obsolete the government and then actually creating
 code? Should the political speech and coding action be separated? Is
 participating in both risky? I consider code to be publishing and speech
 but look at some of the recent GRUsa activity that addresses that issue.

Assuming your hypo, there is little protection in the Alice talks, Bob 
codes solution, if Alice and Bob associate. For a conspiracy charge, 
the fact that some talk and some build things is not important.


 Get ready for to code is to act. Whoops, it's here. Just title your
 application Espionage Communications Suite with Government Overthrow
 Features and package the speech and the act up nice and neat for the
 GRU.

 This can't really be the case, can it?

No, it can't.


--Tim May

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[measl]

On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:

much true stuff snipped

 But
 even given the tattered First Amendment, there is still a difference
 between speech and action.

Complete and utter bullshit.

 -Declan


-- 
Yours, 
J.A. Terranson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they
should give serious consideration towards setting a better example:
Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of
unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in
the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and 
elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire
populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate...
This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States
as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers,
associates, or others.  Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of
those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the
first place...

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[mmotyka]

Declan McCullagh wrote:
 
 On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 12:42:24PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Bear may not be as far off the mark as you think. Remember back when the
  hot news of the day was militia groups how advocating the violent
  overthrow of the government and playing soldier in the woods could
  constitute intent? Can that twisted reasoning be applied to advocating
  the use of code to obsolete the government and then actually creating
  code? Should the political speech and coding action be separated? Is
  participating in both risky? I consider code to be publishing and speech
  but look at some of the recent GRUsa activity that addresses that issue.
 
 Can you get put in jail for writing code? Sure. Just ask Dmitry Sklyarov.
 Or read the old crypto regs. Or write a bot that posts child porn and
 start it going. Lots of ways to run afoul of the law -- and that's in
 the U.S., where we may even be a bit more liberal about such things,
 and where some circuits even believe source code is free speech.
 
 But it does not logically follow that just because you code something,
 such as an anonymous mix or similar system, that you have broken the
 law. In fact, you probably haven't.
 
 -Declan

Agreed, but the parallel is noticeable.

Mike

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[Nomen Nescio]

Ray Dillinger writes:

 I've composed a dozen responses, considered the subpeona and the trial 
 that could result from posting each, and wiped them.  There's your 
 chilling effect on political discussion if you're interested. This 
 one, I'm going to post, so I'm being very careful what I say. 

If only there was some technology that would let you post, and say
whatever you wanted... something that cypherpunks might have invented...
something that would provide you a shield so that even unpopular speech
can be presented with little fear of retribution.

If only.  Well, maybe someday.

 The focus of the US intel community is shifting, at the current time, 
 to domestic terrorism.  That makes political speech of the kind 
 which has in past years been entirely normal on this list orders 
 of magnitude more dangerous to the participants than it was at that 
 time.  Taking part in this discussion in a style traditional for 
 this list could be very dangerous.  Remember, one out of every 
 fifty Americans is in jail, and if you think you're in the most 
 radical two percent of the population, there are implications, 
 aren't there?

According to http://www.msnbc.com/news/602062.asp: Between 1990 and
2000, the rate of Americans who were imprisoned skyrocketed -- from 1
in every 218 Americans to 1 in every 142. That translated to over 1,500
additional inmates each week. Over 3 percent of the U.S. population was
in the corrections system.  Most of these are black, so if you're white
you're not affected so much.

 Now, I shan't be participating in the rest of this thread, I don't 
 think.  Instead, I shall spend my time writing code.  Code which I 
 do not intend to release in a form traceable back to me.  I encourage 
 those who can, to do the same.

And who is the one posting under his own name?

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[Tim May]

On Tuesday, August 28, 2001, at 05:52 PM, Aimee Farr wrote:

 Didn't you already sign on?  Surely through your careful study of the
 archives you know that one of the founding documents for this list is
 Tim's Crypto Anarchist Manifesto.  It's practically the charter.
 See, for example,
 http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Crypto_misc/cryptoanarchist.manifesto

 - GH

 No.

 There wasn't even a clickwrap.



Works for me.

And, besides, it's available at a dozen other sites just by entering the 
phrase into a search engine.

You've been told about these sources. You've been told about the Ludlow 
books, the Cyphernomicon, the Levy book. And you would have encountered 
these ideas with the most cursory of examinations of the archives.

Yet you profess ignorance.

Well, no surprise, as you _are_ ignorant.

--Tim May

RE: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[Aimee Farr]

Tim: 

 On Tuesday, August 28, 2001, at 05:52 PM, Aimee Farr wrote:
 
  Didn't you already sign on?  Surely through your careful study of the
  archives you know that one of the founding documents for this list is
  Tim's Crypto Anarchist Manifesto.  It's practically the charter.
  See, for example,
  http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Crypto_misc/cryptoanarchist.manifesto
 
  - GH
 
  No.
 
  There wasn't even a clickwrap.
 
 
 
 Works for me.
 
 And, besides, it's available at a dozen other sites just by entering the 
 phrase into a search engine.
 
 You've been told about these sources. You've been told about the Ludlow 
 books, the Cyphernomicon, the Levy book. And you would have encountered 
 these ideas with the most cursory of examinations of the archives.
 
 Yet you profess ignorance.
 
 Well, no surprise, as you _are_ ignorant.
 
 --Tim May

Sen gene sarho`s musun?! 

~Aimee

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[Tim May]

On Tuesday, August 28, 2001, at 05:28 PM, Ray Dillinger wrote:

 On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Aimee Farr wrote:

 It wasn't serious, Mike!

 Yes. It is serious.  It is, in fact, dead serious.  Starting with the
 Sweet spot discussion, and well into the pissing contest that you
 and Tim seem to have started over it,

Nonsense. I wrote a very long essay. Aimee twittered about her prime 
rib SS contacts, muttered about going out to talk to the snails, and 
gibbered about how my mention of BlackNet could expose me to suicide 
and was a generally scary idea.


 I've composed a dozen responses, considered the subpeona and the trial
 that could result from posting each, and wiped them.  There's your
 chilling effect on political discussion if you're interested. This
 one, I'm going to post, so I'm being very careful what I say.

You're being overly paranoid. I was stopped by the SS a few years ago 
and accused of planting a bomb to kill the First Criminal, his 
traitorous wife, and their (mostly innocent, insipidly so) daughter 
Chelsea. When they couldn't make their charges stick, they had to let me 
go.

(This is why I take bomb-making discussions pretty seriously.)

 For Tim:
 Why are you attempting to provoke public discussion about things
 that could get people jailed or worse for discussing them?  It's
 interesting to see you post your sweet spot message and then call
 someone *else* an agent provocateur.

Get an education. Do some reading. These ideas have been discussed many 
times. Aimee's all atwitter over being exposed to ideas that were old 
even in 1992, and you, the sensitive male (so I gather from you 
airy-fairy, probably polyamoristic, twit site), are enabling her 
fluttering by saying Tim, you should not even mention such dangerous 
ideas!

Fuck that. Read what we were talking about 10 years ago. Not talking 
about things doesn't make them disappear.

You're a disgrace to this list. At lease Aimee has the excuse of being a 
confused chick.


--Tim May

RE: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[Aimee Farr]

Bear wrote:

 On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Aimee Farr wrote:

 It wasn't serious, Mike!

 Yes. It is serious.  It is, in fact, dead serious.  Starting with the
 Sweet spot discussion, and well into the pissing contest that you
 and Tim seem to have started over it, we've been seeing nothing but
 absolutely dead serious opportunities to get roped in on some thought-
 crime charge or other, a couple of months or a couple of years or a
 decade from now.

Yep.

 I've composed a dozen responses, considered the subpeona and the trial
 that could result from posting each, and wiped them.  There's your
 chilling effect on political discussion if you're interested. This
 one, I'm going to post, so I'm being very careful what I say.

 For most of the list participants, a simple, direct word:

 The focus of the US intel community is shifting, at the current time,
 to domestic terrorism.  That makes political speech of the kind
 which has in past years been entirely normal on this list orders
 of magnitude more dangerous to the participants than it was at that
 time.  Taking part in this discussion in a style traditional for
 this list could be very dangerous.  Remember, one out of every
 fifty Americans is in jail, and if you think you're in the most
 radical two percent of the population, there are implications,
 aren't there?

 For Tim:
 Why are you attempting to provoke public discussion about things
 that could get people jailed or worse for discussing them?  It's
 interesting to see you post your sweet spot message and then call
 someone *else* an agent provocateur.

 For Aimee, a message couched in her own style of bafflegab:

:)

 I both read, and Read, your more oblique communications.  Nice work,
 and fun, but not useful on this list.  You are playing a game where
 the white chips count for houses, and the red chips count for lifetimes.
 Don't ask directly about the blue chips, because you run the risk that
 someone will answer you just as directly.  And *especially* don't ask
 about the markers; you don't have time.  The only way to win this game
 is to be the dealer.  Oh, you may go a ways as the dealer's moll, but
 I'm talking about winning, not just amusing yourself.  Look out for
 confusing mirrors; some of the players may have looked into your hand
 and seen their own.  Be careful not to make the same mistake.

You have good eyes, Bear.

I'll be a good girl from now on. I just watched Hannibal: the brain scene.

Quid pro quo, Clarice...quid pro quo. *shiver* reminds me of
somebody in here.

 Now, I shan't be participating in the rest of this thread, I don't
 think.  Instead, I shall spend my time writing code.  Code which I
 do not intend to release in a form traceable back to me.  I encourage
 those who can, to do the same.

   Bear

I support strong crypto. Again, I find Steele's arguments persuasive and
legitimate.

~Aimee

RE: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[Gil Hamilton]

Idiot bimbo writes:
[GH writes:]
  Didn't you already sign on?  Surely through your careful study of the
  archives you know that one of the founding documents for this list is
  Tim's Crypto Anarchist Manifesto.  It's practically the charter.
  See, for example,
  http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Crypto_misc/cryptoanarchist.manifesto

No.

There wasn't even a clickwrap.

My point of course - which through either duplicity or rank ignorance
seems to have gone right over your head - is that your mere presence
on this list as a reader and especially poster of messages is sufficient
to associate you with Tim and his Crypto Anarchist Manifesto brush, and
with Jim Bell and his Assassination Politics, and with CJ and his plot
to plant bombs and terrorize federal judges and Bill Gates, and with
Eric Michael Cordian and his defense of BoyNet and NAMBLA, [and lions,
tigers and bears, oh my!]


So let me get this straight, Ms. Farr, you hang out and cyber-chat
with these hackers and copyright thieves, and with known anti-government
extremists, anarchists, and convicted chemical-weapon terrorists, and
with pedophiles and child pornographers about how to hide their illegal
acts with this 'encryption technology'.  What did you say your purpose
in that was again?


Everyone on this list who isn't already working for the govt can
easily be tarred with the same brush that painted Jim Bell and CJ.

If you are really too dense to see this, it's time someone spelled it
out for you.  And if not, then you clearly are not the disingenue you
profess to be.

- GH


_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[Nomen Nescio]

Gil Hamilton (great nym!) wrote:
 Didn't you already sign on?  Surely through your careful study of the
 archives you know that one of the founding documents for this list is
 Tim's Crypto Anarchist Manifesto.  It's practically the charter.
 See, for example,
 http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Crypto_misc/cryptoanarchist.manifesto

Equally relevant is the companion Cypherpunk's Manifesto,
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Crypto_misc/cypherpunk.manifesto, by Eric
Hughes.  Hughes was co-founder of the cypherpunks, with Tim May, although
May has maintained a larger presence on the list.

Eric Hughes' document is largely forgotten other than Cypherpunks write
code.  But let us look at one of its concluding points:

   For privacy to be widespread it must be part of a social contract.
   People must come and together deploy these systems for the common
   good.  Privacy only extends so far as the cooperation of one's
   fellows in society.  We the Cypherpunks seek your questions and your
   concerns and hope we may engage you so that we do not deceive
   ourselves.  We will not, however, be moved out of our course because
   some may disagree with our goals.

List subscribers may be surprised to see such sentiments from a
cypherpunks founder.  Privacy as a social contract?  Depending on the
cooperation of one's fellows in society?  Seeking engagement with those
who disagree?

Where is the hatred, the aggression?  Where is the applause for shooting
policemen in the face, or killing innocent children to make a political
point?  Where is the disdain and thin-skinned, spiteful resentment
at criticism?

None of these are inherent characteristics of the cypherpunk philosophy.
It is often forgotten that the cypherpunks movement is not primarily
political or legal or even technical.  It is moral.  Cypherpunks have
a vision of a morally superior society, and they seek to achieve it
through technology.

The cypherpunk world replaces coercion with cooperation.  It provides the
shield of anonymity against those who would offer violence and aggression.
As we move into the information age, control of information is control of
the individual.  Thus, privacy, control of information about one's self,
is freedom.

And as Eric Hughes points out, cypherpunk technologies are ultimately
based on social cooperation.  By definition, anonymity is meaningless
unless it is attained as part of a group.  People must come together
and deploy these systems for the common good.

If it sounds ironic or paradoxical that cypherpunks are motivated for
the common good and bound by a social contract, you've been mixing
with the wrong cypherpunks.  Learn to see the cooperative philosophy
behind the movement and you will come to a better understanding of its
potential and its problems.

Cypherpunks don't have to be misanthropes and curmudgeons.  There is
need for idealists, for visionaries, for those who want to make the
world a better place than they found it, who want to improve the lives
of all classes of people.  Only in this way will the full potential of
the cypherpunks philosophy be reached.

===

Any message posted to cypherpunks via an anonymous remailer gets an
automatic +2 on hit points, for it practices what it preaches.
-- Anonymous

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[Declan McCullagh]

At 10:10 PM 8/28/01 +0200, Nomen Nescio wrote:
Apparently ability to spell crypto does not imply political sapiense beyond

One should not attempt spelling flames -- almost always in poor taste, 
anyway --- if one does not know how to spell.

Hint to NN: Sapience.

-Declan

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[Nomen Nescio]

On Monday, August 27, 2001, at 12:56 PM, Tim May wrote:
 On Monday, August 27, 2001, at 12:40 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote:
  Freedom fighters in communist-controlled regimes.  How much money
  do they have?  More importantly, how much are they willing and able to
  spend on anonymity/privacy/black-market technologies?  These guys aren't
  rolling in dough.

 The IRA and the Real IRA have a lot of money, as the Brits have been 
 complaining about recently. Osama bin Laden is said to control more than 
 a billion dollars. And so on. I disagree with you assertion that these 
 guys aren't rolling in dough.

Members of the IRA are not freedom fighters in a communist-controlled
country.  bin Laden did fall under that definition when he was fighting
to get the Russians out of Afghanistan but that was a long time ago.
Now he's opposing American influence in Saudi Arabia.

Some developers may nevertheless sympathize politically with such these
groups and so could work on technology for them with a clear conscience.

  Revolutionaries overthrowing bad governments.  The main 
  revolutionaries
  who will be willing to pay money are those who expect to get rich from
  their revolution.  These are the ones who want to throw out the tyrants
  so they can set themselves up as new tyrants.  It is people like this
  who would be the best customers of cypherpunk technology.  You're not
  making the world a better place by giving them tools.

 You make the assumption that overthrowing, say, the PRC or USSR 
 governments, would result in a worse or just as bad regime. I 
 disagree. And the same tools are still available to deconstruct interim 
 replacement regimes.

The point is that those who will pay large sums to acquire access to
these technologies, even for the purpose of overthrowing an evil regime,
are not doing it out of altruism.  They're not good-guy libertarians
who only want to set up a John Galt state.  Realistically they're more
likely to be interested in taking over the reins of power themselves.

And it's pretty questionable to salve your conscience by saying that
even if these guys use the tools to bad ends, someone else will then
be able to use the same tools against them.  The problem is, we're
doing this for profit, right?  We won't give the tools away once
the first generation uses them to take over.  We should sell them to
the highest bidder.  (Better to think of a service than a tool here.
Most cypherpunk technologies require a distributed infrastructure that
you can charge for.)  The high bidders are once again going to be the
bad guys who want to take over for selfish reasons.

  Distribution of birth control information in Islamic countries.  
  Again,
  selling to Planned Parenthood is not a business plan which will make
  anyone rich.

 Planned Parenthood is not envisaged as the user

Pray tell, who exactly will pay large sums to be able to distribute birth
control information in Islamic countries?

  The conclusion is that you need to add a third axis to Tim's graph:
  morality, in addition to value and cost.  Many of the most lucrative
  potential uses of anonymity technologies are morally questionable.
  If you add this additional filter you are forced to focus on just a
  few application areas (with the additional complication that few people
  will agree on morality, and that morality and legality often have little
  overlap).

 The technology is agnostic to morality.

This is trivial; the same can be said for any technology.  It is the users
and implementors who are moral actors, and that is who we are considering.

 Choate argues that at least 5 or 6 axes are needed. Ever the nitwit, he 
 fails to realize that the main debate doesn't even use the _two_ that I 
 have outlined. Yes, I know about phase spaces and multi-dimensional 
 diagrams. But given that the debate about privacy tools is mired at the 
 1D level (untracebility good, traceability bad...why don't the proles 
 see this?), graphing the major users and suppliers on the 2D graph I 
 outlined is a step in the right direction. It goes a long way to 
 explaining why people will spend thousands to fly to the Caymans to set 
 up a bank account while others won't even bother using PGP.

Fine, if the only point you want to make is that costs must be considered.
But eventually we need to move beyond that simplistic analysis.  At that
point we do need to consider morality and other issues.

 You want to add morality to the chart. Fine, except I don't see how it 
 gives different answers than my chart gave.

The answers it gives depends on the questions you ask.  If your questions
are simple enough (untraceability good?) then your chart will answer
them.  If your questions are more interesting (what technologies can
be practically implemented and make a positive difference in the world)
then you need a better chart.

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[Jim Choate]

On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Nomen Nescio wrote:

 The point is that those who will pay large sums to acquire access to
 these technologies, even for the purpose of overthrowing an evil regime,
 are not doing it out of altruism.  They're not good-guy libertarians
 who only want to set up a John Galt state.  Realistically they're more
 likely to be interested in taking over the reins of power themselves.
 
 And it's pretty questionable to salve your conscience by saying that
 even if these guys use the tools to bad ends, someone else will then
 be able to use the same tools against them.  The problem is, we're
 doing this for profit, right?  We won't give the tools away once
 the first generation uses them to take over.  We should sell them to
 the highest bidder.  (Better to think of a service than a tool here.
 Most cypherpunk technologies require a distributed infrastructure that
 you can charge for.)  The high bidders are once again going to be the
 bad guys who want to take over for selfish reasons.

Jeesus that's naive.

What makes you think that new regime who used your tool to take over won't
then shoot you and take 'your profits'. By participating you may in fact
be signing your own death warrant.

The highest bidders are going to be the ones with the most money at the
tiem of the auction. Whether they gained that money by selfish/altruistic
or good/bad reasons is relativistic. Further, to assume that the profits 
go to the 'bad guys w/ selfish reasons' a priori is just begging the
question. Or is your thesis that the optimal market strategy is to be a
'bad guy w/ selfish reasons'? If so, you need to review that Galtian
utopia.


 --


natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato
summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks

Matsuo Basho

   The Armadillo Group   ,::;::-.  James Choate
   Austin, Tx   /:'/ ``::/|/  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   www.ssz.com.',  `/( e\  512-451-7087
   -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-

RE: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[Aimee Farr]

GH wrote:

 Nomen Nescio wrote:
 [snip]
 The answers it gives depends on the questions you ask.  If your questions
 are simple enough (untraceability good?) then your chart will answer
 them.  If your questions are more interesting (what technologies can
 be practically implemented and make a positive difference in the world)
 then you need a better chart.

 You (and Aimee) make the mistake of assuming that all of us believe that
 we are living in the best of all possible worlds.

*sigh*

 Many people however
 believe that we [read: our government(s)] are in a downward spiral that
 is converging on police-and-welfare-state.  In the US for example, we
 long ago abandoned our constitution.  We still give it much lip service
 and we still have one of the more free societies but things are
 trending in the wrong direction.

 Each year more oppressive laws are passed, more things are made illegal
 to say or write or - if some have their way - think.  (And of course it
 goes without saying that these things that are prohibited to us are
 available to authorized users: those in intelligence, law enforcement,
 etc. - the usual more equal individuals.)

I might understand this better than you think.

 At the same time, more twits like you and Aimee spring up, always ready
 to say no, you mustn't say such things - you don't really mean that, do
 you?  How could anyone even think such things?

Twit: my pet name in here.

 As Tim has pointed out over and over, you need to read up on cypherpunks
 themes, goals and history.  His signature has included this inscription
 for years (though he seems not to be using it lately):

   Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
   anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
   knowledge, reputations, information markets,
   black markets, collapse of governments.

 Did you think he didn't really mean it?

I'm not sticking my head in that noose.

 As a start on getting up to speed on alternatives to our current system
 of government (and excellent entertainment besides), I recommend you
 read these works:
 Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson
 The Ungoverned by Vernor Vinge
 There are many others that could be added to this list but just reading
 these will give you a taste of some alternative societies that might be in
 many ways preferable to the current kleptocracy.

 - GH (who admits he's been heavily influenced by Mr. May)

So, now, it's...

BlackNet; Case History of a Practically Untraceable System for Buying and
Selling Corporate and National Secrets to foreign adversaries, and to
spur the collapse of governments.

Just out of curiosity, how many of you would sign on to a project like that?
Would you please post a statement of interest, and detail how you would
contribute to such a project?

~Aimee

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[David Honig]

At 09:40 PM 8/27/01 +0200, Nomen Nescio wrote:
People selling their expertise when some guild says they are forbidden
to.  Morally this one seems OK.  In a net already filled with bogus
medical and legal advice it can't make things much worse.  On the other
hand it's not clear that the existing prohibitions are hurting anyone's
bottom line.  

In some US states, you can be prohibited from working for a competitor
for some time after you leave.  Combine that with telecommuting.

RE: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[David Honig]

At 01:02 AM 8/28/01 -0500, Aimee Farr wrote:
That is not my attitude at all, Reese. I obviously like Tim's Blacknet.
However, I don't like it being characterized as a subversive tool, and damn
sure not in terms that might indicate a criminal conspiracy for shopping out
secrets to Libya.

The point is, if its not *good enough* for taboo 
activity, its not good enough for everyday uses.

And of course, tools are neutral; the knife OJ dressed his ex
with was not an 'evil' piece of metal.   Neither are guns.

As metalsmiths, we might regret how we make it easier to slice
members of our species, much as as technologists we might regret
that nets+crypto makes some copyright unenforcable, or how networked
boxes have an unintended side-effect of lessening privacy.

As the first metalsmiths might have observed, no matter the pros
and cons of this development, its out there, its possible, 
folks will be competing to refine it, so get used to it.

You can always write a tome afterwards like Albert Hoffman's My Problem
Child if you need to explain later.

That being said, if you object to dark 'marketing' on a personal
level, well, sure, but that's merely your personal taste.

Aimee's sweet spot

[Subcommander Bob]

At 10:42 AM 8/28/01 -0500, Aimee Farr wrote:

BlackNet; Case History of a Practically Untraceable System for Buying
and
Selling Corporate and National Secrets to foreign adversaries, and
to
spur the collapse of governments.


BlackPowder: Applied Chemistry for Defeating Knights With Swords
With Application to Selling Bibles in venaculars and other Vatican
Secrets
allowing oppressed foreigners to join us, and to spur the collapse of
feudalism.

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[Nomen Nescio]

Members of the IRA are not freedom fighters in a communist-controlled
country.  bin Laden did fall under that definition when he was fighting

The naivety of poster is appaling. I hope that freedom fighters in a 
communist-controlled country is used as a placeholder for something good as 
positive but I wouldn't bet on it.

Apparently ability to spell crypto does not imply political sapiense beyond that of 
inbred pigfucking redneck from Alabama (this is a place holder). You guys just want to 
do good things, like spreading crypto, right, without bothering much to figure out 
who's who on the planet. I have seen more intelligent dicourses on global politics and 
society on late night shopping channel shows than here.

Fortunately crypto is good in itself. Any crypto anywhere is a good crypto.

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[Nomen Nescio]

On Tuesday, August 28, 2001, at 8:04 AM, Tim May wrote:
 On Monday, August 27, 2001, at 11:20 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote:
  On Monday, August 27, 2001, at 12:56 PM, Tim May wrote:
  On Monday, August 27, 2001, at 12:40 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote:
  Freedom fighters in communist-controlled regimes.  How much money
  do they have?  More importantly, how much are they willing and able to
  spend on anonymity/privacy/black-market technologies?  These guys 
  aren't
  rolling in dough.
 
  The IRA and the Real IRA have a lot of money, as the Brits have been
  complaining about recently. Osama bin Laden is said to control more 
  than
  a billion dollars. And so on. I disagree with you assertion that these
  guys aren't rolling in dough.
 
  Members of the IRA are not freedom fighters in a communist-controlled
  country.  bin Laden did fall under that definition when he was fighting
  to get the Russians out of Afghanistan but that was a long time ago.
  Now he's opposing American influence in Saudi Arabia.

 Your reading comprehension sucks. I gave half a dozen _examples_, one of 
 them freedom fighters in communist-controlled regimes and you assume 
 this is the only kind of freedom fighter being talked about. No point in 
 carrying on a conversation with this breathtaking display of literalism.

The reason why in communist-controlled regimes is relevant is because
you advanced it as an example of MORALLY acceptable use of technology
(presuming that most readers will oppose communism).

The objection was raised, yes, it is moral, but is it profitable?
There are not many communist-opposed freedom fighters around today,
not much money to be made there.

You came back and mentioned the IRA and bin Laden.  It is true, both of
these are well funded.

But this does not answer the objection.  The point was, can you find
groups that are both profitable to sell to, and morally acceptable?
The latter consideration is what led to the in communist-controlled
regimes limitation in the first place.  You can't just throw that part
out without losing the moral acceptability which motivated the example
in the first place.

bin Laden and the IRA have plenty of money, but will many cypherpunks
agree with their politics?  It's hard to believe that anyone thinks that
if the IRA or bin Laden were to succeed in their goals, that they would
put in place a kindler and gentler state.

It remains a challenge to identify groups that are both (A) wealthy, (B)
in need of anonymity technologies, and (C) morally acceptable to support.
Freedom fighters don't fit all that well, in today's world.

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[Duncan Frissell]

 It remains a challenge to identify groups that are both (A) wealthy, (B)
 in need of anonymity technologies, and (C) morally acceptable to support.
 Freedom fighters don't fit all that well, in today's world.

Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hutus, Tutsis, Vietnamese, Chinese, Russians,
Commodities traders, Branch Davidians, homosexuals, hetrosexuals

I could go on for pages but I'm telnetting.

Some members of all of those groups have satisfied your somewhat
arbitrary requirements at various times and in various places in the last
60 years.

DCF

If you want to get rid of communists in government jobs; get rid of
the government jobs. - Frank Chodorov.

RE: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[Aimee Farr]

 Didn't you already sign on?  Surely through your careful study of the
 archives you know that one of the founding documents for this list is
 Tim's Crypto Anarchist Manifesto.  It's practically the charter.
 See, for example,
 http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Crypto_misc/cryptoanarchist.manifesto
 
 - GH

No. 

There wasn't even a clickwrap.

~Aimee

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[Nomen Nescio]

Nomen says:

 bin Laden and the IRA have plenty of money, but will many cypherpunks
agree with their politics?  It's hard to believe that anyone thinks that
if the IRA or bin Laden were to succeed in their goals, that they would
put in place a kindler and gentler state.

It remains a challenge to identify groups that are both (A) wealthy, (B)
in need of anonymity technologies, and (C) morally acceptable to support.
Freedom fighters don't fit all that well, in today's world.


   What total bullshit --   
   And what's that previous bs about drug cartels being morally
unacceptable? Drug dealers are heros in today's world, we need to take
lessons from them. Look how they deal with judges and prosecutors down
in Columbia -- works for me! Seems like a real Good Thing@ in light of
Jim Bell, Brian West, etc. 
   Why do you say Osama bin Laden is not our friend? The enemy of my 
enemy is my friend, not so? Osama has no interest in taking over the
US, just in cutting off the head of the snake. Sounds like a great 
idea. The IRA wants to kick the Brits out of Ireland, another good
idea, should have happened long ago. IRA are great patriots. So is
bin Laden, so am I. 
   Maybe we could develop tools that the drug cartels would pay for,
or bin Laden, and that all mankind would benefit from. Maybe they
could pay for them by killing judges and prosecutors here for us.
Seems like a fair trade. 

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[Tim May]

On Tuesday, August 28, 2001, at 02:37 PM, Duncan Frissell wrote:

 It remains a challenge to identify groups that are both (A) wealthy, 
 (B)
 in need of anonymity technologies, and (C) morally acceptable to 
 support.
 Freedom fighters don't fit all that well, in today's world.

 Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hutus, Tutsis, Vietnamese, Chinese, Russians,
 Commodities traders, Branch Davidians, homosexuals, hetrosexuals

 I could go on for pages but I'm telnetting.

 Some members of all of those groups have satisfied your somewhat
 arbitrary requirements at various times and in various places in the 
 last
 60 years.

I posted a list half a dozen years ago of enemies of the people. 
Quakers, Mormons, homosexuals, Protestants, Catholics, and on and 
on...my CFP slide listed about a hundred.

Search engines may turn it up. I would do the search myself, except I'm 
fed up with posting such information and not even having twits like 
Aimee Farr even read the oldest and most basic documents. (Her recent 
horrified reaction to very basic points is illustratative of her 
ignorance.)

--Tim May

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[Nomen Nescio]

Tim May writes:
 Draw this graph I outlined. Think about where the markets are for tools 
 for privacy and untraceability. Realize that many of the far out' sweet 
 spot applications are not necessarily immoral: think of freedom fighters 
 in communist-controlled regimes, think of distribution of birth control 
 information in Islamic countries, think of Jews hiding their assets in 
 Swiss bank accounts, think of revolutionaries overthrowing bad 
 governments, think of people avoiding unfair or confiscatory taxes, 
 think of people selling their expertise when some guild says they are 
 forbidden to.

It is good to see some frank discussion of morality here.  Too often
cypherpunks seem to assume that anything that can be done, should be done.

However on closer examination it's not clear that many of the examples
above satisfy both financial and moral constraints.

Freedom fighters in communist-controlled regimes.  How much money
do they have?  More importantly, how much are they willing and able to
spend on anonymity/privacy/black-market technologies?  These guys aren't
rolling in dough.

Revolutionaries overthrowing bad governments.  The main revolutionaries
who will be willing to pay money are those who expect to get rich from
their revolution.  These are the ones who want to throw out the tyrants
so they can set themselves up as new tyrants.  It is people like this
who would be the best customers of cypherpunk technology.  You're not
making the world a better place by giving them tools.

Distribution of birth control information in Islamic countries.  Again,
selling to Planned Parenthood is not a business plan which will make
anyone rich.

Jews hiding their assets in Swiss bank accounts.  Financial privacy is
in fact potentially big business, but let's face it, most of the customers
today are not Jews fearing confiscation by anti-semitic governments.
That's not in the cards.  Most of the money will be tainted, and even
if it is largely drug money and you don't think drugs should be illegal,
much drug money is dirty even by libertarian standards.  It is used for
bribes, for coercion, even for murder.  Facilitating such activities
does not help to make drugs legal, it just gives murdering drug lords
more wealth and power and provides justification for increasing military
funding to fight the drug war.

People avoiding unfair or confiscatory taxes.  This is a good one,
lots of customers, plenty of money, few moral problems.  Even if you
support some government programs, it will take a long time before enough
people adopt privacy protection tools that it could have a significant
impact on government tax revenues.  The big problem here is coming up
with the a technology that can do the job.

People selling their expertise when some guild says they are forbidden
to.  Morally this one seems OK.  In a net already filled with bogus
medical and legal advice it can't make things much worse.  On the other
hand it's not clear that the existing prohibitions are hurting anyone's
bottom line.  How much can you really expect to make by selling forbidden
advice?  It's not clear that there is much of a market for this technology
but possibly someone could find a killer app here.


The conclusion is that you need to add a third axis to Tim's graph:
morality, in addition to value and cost.  Many of the most lucrative
potential uses of anonymity technologies are morally questionable.
If you add this additional filter you are forced to focus on just a
few application areas (with the additional complication that few people
will agree on morality, and that morality and legality often have little
overlap).

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[Tim May]

On Monday, August 27, 2001, at 02:00 PM, Aimee Farr wrote:

 Tim May:

 So I guess my candidate submission for the P.E.T. workshop might not be
 well-received: BlackNet; Case History of a Practically Untraceable
 System for Buying and Selling Corporate and National Secrets.

 No, you want E.E.T. -- Espionage-enhancing Technologies.

 Some of you need a lawyer on your shoulder. Like a little parrot. 
 *squawk!*
 ECPA Section 2516(1)(p); FISA, if that includes being controlled by 
 aliens
 from outer-space; USC Title 18 1831.
 Section 1831 Economic espionage
 (a) In General - Whoever, intending or knowing that the offense will 
 benefit
 any foreign government, foreign instrumentality, or foreign agent,
 knowingly -
 (1) steals, or without authorization appropriates, takes, carries away, 
 or
 conceals, or by fraud, artifice, or deception obtains a trade secret;
 (2) without authorization copies, duplicates, sketches, draws, 
 photographs,
 downloads, uploads, alters, destroys, photocopies, replicates, 
 transmits,
 delivers, sends, mails, communicates, or conveys a trade secret,
 (3) receives, buys, or possesses a trade secret, knowing the same to 
 have
 been stolen or appropriated, obtained, or converted without 
 authorization,
 (4) attempts to commit any offense described in any of paragraphs (1)
 through (3), or
 (5) conspires with one or more other persons to commit any offense 
 described
 in any of paragraphs (1) through (3), and one or more of such persons 
 do any
 act to effect the object of the conspiracy, shall, except as provided in
 subsection (b), be fined not more than $500,000 or imprisoned not more 
 than
 15 years, or both.

 Section 1837 Applicability to conduct outside the United States
 This chapter also applies to conduct occurring outside the United 
 States if
 (1) the offender is a natural person who is a citizen or permanent 
 resident
 alien of the United States, or an organization organized under the laws 
 of
 the United States or a State or political subdivision thereof-, or
 (2) an act in furtherance of the offense was committed in the United 
 States.

 Your idea does seem to offer promise as a vehicle for treason, 
 espionage,
 trade secrets, malicious mischief, piracy, bribery of public officials,
 concealment of assets, transmission of wagering information, murder for
 hire, threatening or retaliating against Federal officials, a 
 transactional
 environment for nuclear and biologic weapons, narcotic and arms
 traffickingsweet spots. *shakes head*

Despite frequently urging newcomers to read the archives--or at least 
use some search engines!, nitwits like Aimee are only just now figuring 
out what was crystal clear in 1992-3.

No wonder she's doing scut work for the SS outpost in Waco, near Bush's 
Crawford ranch.


--Tim May

Agents kick crypto ass....was The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[Aimee Farr]

 Despite frequently urging newcomers to read the archives--or at least
 use some search engines!, nitwits like Aimee are only just now figuring
 out what was crystal clear in 1992-3.

The EEA wasn't passed until 96. I failed to mention Title 18 United States
Code, Section(s) 794(c).

Agents kick crypto ass.
http://www.fas.org/irp/ops/ci/regan_complaint.html

His training in the Air Force included cryptanalysis...In the Fall of 2000,
reliable source information indicatedAlso in the Fall of 2000, reliable
source information The encrypted messages, which were decrypted by the
U.S. government, On June 21, 2001, Regan sent an email from an account
registered in his own name to an email account in the name of his wife. The
email attached one page of alphanumeric encryption key that appears to be
similar to the encryption technique described in paragraphs 10, 11 and 12,
aboveRegan was confronted by FBI special agents at the airport at
approximately 5:35 p.m. In response to a question from this affiant, Regan
denied knowledge of cryptology, coding and decoding. However, when shown
photographs of the alphanumeric tables, which appear to be related to
cryptology, which tables had been in his carry-on bag, he stated This is my
stuff. Regan was arrested shortly thereafterAlso in Regan's carry-on
bag when he was stopped by the FBI at Dulles Airport on August 23, 2001, was
a hand-held global positioning system (GPS). Based on my training and
experience in intelligence matters, I know that a GPS unit can be used to
locate a specific site for drop or signal sites.

That wouldn't be what has your little mice running in their wheels, would
it?

 No wonder she's doing scut work for the SS outpost in Waco, near Bush's
 Crawford ranch.


 --Tim May

Ah, Tim makes a funny.

~Aimee

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[Tim May]

On Monday, August 27, 2001, at 12:40 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote:

 Tim May writes:
 Draw this graph I outlined. Think about where the markets are for tools
 for privacy and untraceability. Realize that many of the far out' 
 sweet
 spot applications are not necessarily immoral: think of freedom 
 fighters
 in communist-controlled regimes, think of distribution of birth control
 information in Islamic countries, think of Jews hiding their assets in
 Swiss bank accounts, think of revolutionaries overthrowing bad
 governments, think of people avoiding unfair or confiscatory taxes,
 think of people selling their expertise when some guild says they are
 forbidden to.

 It is good to see some frank discussion of morality here.  Too often
 cypherpunks seem to assume that anything that can be done, should be 
 done.

 However on closer examination it's not clear that many of the examples
 above satisfy both financial and moral constraints.

 Freedom fighters in communist-controlled regimes.  How much money
 do they have?  More importantly, how much are they willing and able to
 spend on anonymity/privacy/black-market technologies?  These guys aren't
 rolling in dough.

The IRA and the Real IRA have a lot of money, as the Brits have been 
complaining about recently. Osama bin Laden is said to control more than 
a billion dollars. And so on. I disagree with you assertion that these 
guys aren't rolling in dough.

(Note that I am _not_ saying they are likely to start using a student 
project remailer operating out of dorm room in Schenectady. A different 
issue.)

 Revolutionaries overthrowing bad governments.  The main 
 revolutionaries
 who will be willing to pay money are those who expect to get rich from
 their revolution.  These are the ones who want to throw out the tyrants
 so they can set themselves up as new tyrants.  It is people like this
 who would be the best customers of cypherpunk technology.  You're not
 making the world a better place by giving them tools.

You make the assumption that overthrowing, say, the PRC or USSR 
governments, would result in a worse or just as bad regime. I 
disagree. And the same tools are still available to deconstruct interim 
replacement regimes.

 Distribution of birth control information in Islamic countries.  
 Again,
 selling to Planned Parenthood is not a business plan which will make
 anyone rich.

Planned Parenthood is not envisaged as the user


 The conclusion is that you need to add a third axis to Tim's graph:
 morality, in addition to value and cost.  Many of the most lucrative
 potential uses of anonymity technologies are morally questionable.
 If you add this additional filter you are forced to focus on just a
 few application areas (with the additional complication that few people
 will agree on morality, and that morality and legality often have little
 overlap).

The technology is agnostic to morality.

Choate argues that at least 5 or 6 axes are needed. Ever the nitwit, he 
fails to realize that the main debate doesn't even use the _two_ that I 
have outlined. Yes, I know about phase spaces and multi-dimensional 
diagrams. But given that the debate about privacy tools is mired at the 
1D level (untracebility good, traceability bad...why don't the proles 
see this?), graphing the major users and suppliers on the 2D graph I 
outlined is a step in the right direction. It goes a long way to 
explaining why people will spend thousands to fly to the Caymans to set 
up a bank account while others won't even bother using PGP.

You want to add morality to the chart. Fine, except I don't see how it 
gives different answers than my chart gave.


--Tim May

RE: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[Aimee Farr]

Tim May:

 So I guess my candidate submission for the P.E.T. workshop might not be
 well-received: BlackNet; Case History of a Practically Untraceable
 System for Buying and Selling Corporate and National Secrets.

No, you want E.E.T. -- Espionage-enhancing Technologies.

Some of you need a lawyer on your shoulder. Like a little parrot. *squawk!*
ECPA Section 2516(1)(p); FISA, if that includes being controlled by aliens
from outer-space; USC Title 18 1831.

Think about where the markets are for tools for privacy and untraceability.

Believe me, I am.

Section 1831 Economic espionage
(a) In General - Whoever, intending or knowing that the offense will benefit
any foreign government, foreign instrumentality, or foreign agent,
knowingly -
(1) steals, or without authorization appropriates, takes, carries away, or
conceals, or by fraud, artifice, or deception obtains a trade secret;
(2) without authorization copies, duplicates, sketches, draws, photographs,
downloads, uploads, alters, destroys, photocopies, replicates, transmits,
delivers, sends, mails, communicates, or conveys a trade secret,
(3) receives, buys, or possesses a trade secret, knowing the same to have
been stolen or appropriated, obtained, or converted without authorization,
(4) attempts to commit any offense described in any of paragraphs (1)
through (3), or
(5) conspires with one or more other persons to commit any offense described
in any of paragraphs (1) through (3), and one or more of such persons do any
act to effect the object of the conspiracy, shall, except as provided in
subsection (b), be fined not more than $500,000 or imprisoned not more than
15 years, or both.

Section 1837 Applicability to conduct outside the United States
This chapter also applies to conduct occurring outside the United States if
(1) the offender is a natural person who is a citizen or permanent resident
alien of the United States, or an organization organized under the laws of
the United States or a State or political subdivision thereof-, or
(2) an act in furtherance of the offense was committed in the United States.

Your idea does seem to offer promise as a vehicle for treason, espionage,
trade secrets, malicious mischief, piracy, bribery of public officials,
concealment of assets, transmission of wagering information, murder for
hire, threatening or retaliating against Federal officials, a transactional
environment for nuclear and biologic weapons, narcotic and arms
traffickingsweet spots. *shakes head*

This is not legal advice. It's an obituary. :)

 think of people selling their expertise when some guild says they are
 forbidden to.

I talked about this before, as an OSINT channel for the U.S. Government.

o BlackNet has legitimate intelligence applications.

o For it to work in a secrets market, you would need to tap the ground
channels and have the analytics. Intelligence isn't a Chia pet...just add
BlackNet and watch it grow! Surely, untraceability does not equivocate to
instant source cultivation.

o You can get what you need by listening to the right person. Once you've
spotted and recruited the right person, THEN you need a transactional
channel, but only if you want to pursue a source relationship -- and you
usually do. You need analysis, not information. The problem isn't the lack
of a fence -- but the difficulty in defining your collection goals, spotting
the right person, knowing what to elicit, and having the analytics to refine
an intelligence product. Self-offerings are viewed with suspicion. Can a
third-party spot talent for you?  Talent: businessmen, academics and
informants. That's a very HUMAN high-touch problem.

o A holistic solution would cut down the costs of stealth, transfer risk,
and possibly would assist in spotting, but I don't know that zero-contact is
all it is represented to be. Is the equivalent of an anon e-bay going to
answer your strategic issues? You have to define and meet your collection
goals.

o Anonymity can be a problem. You need authentication. You would like
blinded biometrics.

o I would think the ROI would be where you can shoehorn into existing
intelligence channels and groundwork. That's either a sovereign, an
intermediary wrapped in the skirts of a sovereign, a defense contractor, or
an untouchable intermediary. If not bona-fide intelligence, you're left with
the criminal element, IRA and so forth. Most move product and still have
distribution channels. Yeah, the IRA would like digital cash, they are
buying arms with offshore debit cards.

o It seems like _damn bad timing_ for a discussion in this context. This
should be couched in terms of a beneficial application, rather than
something subversive. It's like the fall of Knights Templar in here. What
happened to the pilgrims' safe passage?

~Aimee
L'Empireur doit jtre considiri comme le messie des idies nouvelles.

RE: Agents kick crypto ass....was The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[Aimee Farr]

 Your role as an agent provocateur here is noted.

Your role as a son-uv-a-bitch to me is noted.

Trying to keep people out of trouble is a provocateur? Gee, sorry to
dampen your conspiracy.

I posted Regan because it was directly relevant to this discussion, and it
makes a couple of points -- some of which run in your favor.

Considering the incredibly bad timing of this discussion in light of world
events, I don't see how you could call ME a provocateur. My jibe was
good-natured. You keep posting the equivalent of classified ads. I know who
wants this shit now, and it's not little bad men.

 Not so bright, though. And you've outed yourself by not-so-subtle hints
 about the SS prime rib.

I have not tried to sex the SS. This is not to say I don't pay attention to
detail.

 People like you deserve what you get.

 --Tim May

My AP# is on file with your organization.

~Aimee

Re: Agents kick crypto ass....was The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[Tim May]

On Monday, August 27, 2001, at 09:22 PM, Aimee Farr wrote:

 Your role as an agent provocateur here is noted.

 Your role as a son-uv-a-bitch to me is noted.

 Trying to keep people out of trouble is a provocateur? Gee, sorry to
 dampen your conspiracy.

 I posted Regan because it was directly relevant to this discussion, and 
 it
 makes a couple of points -- some of which run in your favor.

 Considering the incredibly bad timing of this discussion in light of 
 world
 events, I don't see how you could call ME a provocateur. My jibe was
 good-natured. You keep posting the equivalent of classified ads. I know 
 who
 wants this shit now, and it's not little bad men.

You complained a few weeks ago about the timing of the help me make 
bombz posts...as if we have any choice about when AOL-accounted narcs 
post such requests.

And now, bizarrely, you think the timing of a reference to Blacknet, 
which was deployed in 1993, is bad timing.

Fuck off, twit.


--Tim May

RE: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[Aimee Farr]

Reese wrote:

  This is not legal advice. It's an obituary. :)

 Owning a vehicle that will exceed the speed limit is not a crime.
 Driving a vehicle that will exceed the speed limit is not a crime.
 Exceeding the speed limit is a crime and is a ticketable offense,
 at the least.

 Mechanisms to maintain privacy and anonymity are no different, use of

Damn it, Reese, I didn't say that. Can anybody here read between the lines?
Hell? *echo-echo-echo*

 those same mechanisms to commit crime is not a death knell for those
 mechanisms just as manufacturers do not stop producing and selling
 vehicles that are capable of exceeding the speed limit, even though
 some people do speed and are ticketed or given warnings, at least.

 You are entirely too smug and happy, at the thought of these various
 mechanisms useful for preserving privacy and anonymity going the way
 of the dodo.

That is not my attitude at all, Reese. I obviously like Tim's Blacknet.
However, I don't like it being characterized as a subversive tool, and damn
sure not in terms that might indicate a criminal conspiracy for shopping out
secrets to Libya.

 Tim may be correct, in his assessment on your deserving
 what you receive.

Oh, Noo!

   think of people selling their expertise when some guild says they are
   forbidden to.
  
  I talked about this before, as an OSINT channel for the U.S. Government.
  
  o BlackNet has legitimate intelligence applications.

 It also has legitimate applicability for Joe Sixpack and Suzy Winecooler,
 who don't want a zillion ads and cookies clogging their bandwidth and
 cache, who don't want targetted ads or their surfing habits tracked and
 monitored, who certainly don't want their health insurance premiums to
 go up after they do research on some rare, incurable disease they are
 mildly curious about or after researching a more common ailment when a
 friend happens to be diagnosed - to lean on those old standbys.

No shit.

  o Anonymity can be a problem. You need authentication. You would like
  blinded biometrics.

 The maintenance of privacy can be a problem, from a marketers POV, other
 things can be viewed as problems too, when the end consumer has proper
 control of self-identifying information.  If the money is good, that
 level of authentication can be conducted in meatspace if it is truly
 needed - most times, it is not.

Again, I was speaking within the confines of a very limited application
where authentication can be rather critical.

  o I would think the ROI would be where you can shoehorn into existing
  intelligence channels and groundwork. That's either a sovereign, an
  intermediary wrapped in the skirts of a sovereign, a defense contractor,
  or an untouchable intermediary. If not bona-fide intelligence, you're
  left with the criminal element, IRA and so forth.

 You leave many possible things out, you present a false summation of all
 the possible uses of Blacknet and maintenance of anonymity.

As I stated, I was examining it in the context of an _intelligence
application_. I wonder if that's a good contract, but obviously notwhy
do I even bother? *sigh*

  Most move product and still have
  distribution channels. Yeah, the IRA would like digital cash, they are
  buying arms with offshore debit cards.

 This event by people acting criminally in another country (according to
 the rules imposed by past-rulers of that other country, heh) should be
 used to shape and mold US domestic policy and legislation for the care
 and feeding of US citizen-units how, exactly?

I was merely pointing out that people that crypto does not beam product.
Solve the ship-submarine ditching problem if you want to help that scum.

  o It seems like _damn bad timing_ for a discussion in this context.

 Bad timing?  Who is disadvantaged by the timing of this discussion?
 Your handler said to slow the conversation down while they run some
 numbers and gets some surveillance in place, or something?

They've caught on to our slow-the-conversation tactic!! Oh, whatever shall
we do now? *slap to side of face* Run some numbers? What?

I flag posts in here that might qualify for Title I interceptions. This
month is looking to be a record-breaker.

Excuse me, my handlers are calling.Sorry, I'm not allowed to talk
about this.

  This should be couched in terms of a beneficial application, rather
  than something subversive.

 Principle is like that.  You don't like what others have to say?  You
 should remove your own right to freedom of speech, before you attempt
 to censor others.  (Good luck, once you've effectively removed your own
 right to free speech, on censoring anyone else).

Damnit, I'm not censoring anybody. I believe in the First Amendment. It's
such a good source of intelligence and so often leads to probable cause.
*kidding*

 As a lawyer, you know or should know that most (if not all) of the most
 significant constitutional rights cases to be heard by the courts have
 involved criminals 

The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[Jim Choate]

On Sat, 25 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote:

 At the June meeting I drew a graph which makes the point clearly. A pity 
 I can't draw it here. (Yeah, there are ways. My new Web page should have 
 some drawings soon. But this list is about ASCII.)
 
 Plot Value of Being Untraceable in a Transaction on the X-axis. This 
 is the perceived _value_ of being untraceable or private. Start with 
 little or nothing, proceed to about a dollar then to hundreds of 
 dollars then to thousands then to tens of thousands and more.  (The 
 value of being untraceable is also the cost of getting caught: getting 
 caught plotting the overthrow of the Crown Prince of Abu Fukyou, being 
 outed by a corporation in a lawsuit, being audited by the IRS and them 
 finding evaded taxes, having the cops find a cache of snuff films on 
 your hard disk, and so on.)

Unfortunately the situation is more multi-variant than a simple two-axis
graph...

There needs to be at least a time axis added as well as splitting out the
'cost of transaction' from the 'cost of anonmymity'. By combining the two
a whole zoo of behaviours are ignored. Your graph, and any point from it,
isn't worth looking at in anything less thana 5-axis phase space.


 --


natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato
summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks

Matsuo Basho

   The Armadillo Group   ,::;::-.  James Choate
   Austin, Tx   /:'/ ``::/|/  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   www.ssz.com.',  `/( e\  512-451-7087
   -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[Jim Choate]

On Sat, 25 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote:

 RATIONAL ACTORS
 
 The obvious point is that rational actors never pay more for 
 untraceability than they get back in perceived benefits. Someone will 
 not pay $1000 for privacy/untraceability technology or tools that only 
 nets them $500 in perceived benefits.
 
 They won't spend $1.00 in tools to net them 10 cents in perceived 
 benefits.

If it's restricted to a single opportunity, yes. If one adds the boundary
condition of repeatability your thesis comes apart. Consider the cost of
using an anonymizing layer which is for almost all players equal. The
point to be gained here is there are different anonymizing layers. Each
with their own specific characteristics. A mouse doesn't look like an
elephant for a reason. Now if the anonymizing layer is digital, for
example, the cost is about the same across the board, irrespective of
other source/sink magnitudes. In those cases for example, assuming a
higher resourced player was involved would mean the cost of enforcement
would go up. They would have resources to spend on additional, and
distinct, anonymizing layers that lower layered players wouldn't have
available.

Most rational actors, instead of measuring 'perceived benefits', will only
pay a certain percentage of their gains to reap those gains. One can then
break the various layers (eg 10%, 20%, 30%, ...) into characteristic
behaviours. It's also worth noting that a specific relation between the
selection of that percentage and how much the player already has is
present.

A Markov Chain of behaviours would be a more apt model. Not everyone faced
with the same numbers will make the same choice. There is a limit to
'rationality'.


 --


natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato
summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks

Matsuo Basho

   The Armadillo Group   ,::;::-.  James Choate
   Austin, Tx   /:'/ ``::/|/  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   www.ssz.com.',  `/( e\  512-451-7087
   -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[mean-green]

At 09:56 PM 8/25/2001 -0700, Tim May [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 some really great stuff deleted

CONCLUSION:

To really do something about untraceability you need to be untraceable.

Draw this graph I outlined. Think about where the markets are for tools 
for privacy and untraceability. Realize that many of the far out' sweet 
spot applications are not necessarily immoral: think of freedom fighters 
in communist-controlled regimes, think of distribution of birth control 
information in Islamic countries, think of Jews hiding their assets in 
Swiss bank accounts, think of revolutionaries overthrowing bad 
governments, think of people avoiding unfair or confiscatory taxes, 
think of people selling their expertise when some guild says they are 
forbidden to.

Most of all, think about why so many efforts to sort of deploy digital 
cash or untraceability tools have essentially failed due to a failure of 
nerve, a failure to go for the brass ring.

Right on target.  There is one aspect to this loss of nerve not mentioned: the 
correlation between those with the means and interest to pursue these avenues and 
those with merely the interest.

One of this list's members shopped here and elsewhere a few years back for 
participation in building a DBC-based payment and value system.  He had assembled a 
team with the banking experience, needing the technology implementors.  None were 
willing to put their talents to the test.  They all nodded regarding the need for such 
a facility but none would expend any efforts.  

They were all being courted by the failed dot.bombs which waved generous salary and 
stock offers.  Now that the tulip market has evaporated along with the dreams of quick 
riches I wonder if any these pseudo-zealots were ever really interested or was it a 
merely a childish fancy from the start?  As Tim demonstrates the opportunity is still 
there it waits only for those with the right stuff to grab for the ring.
Free, secure Web-based email, now OpenPGP compliant - www.hushmail.com

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[Tim May]

On Sunday, August 26, 2001, at 09:13 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Right on target.  There is one aspect to this loss of nerve not 
 mentioned: the correlation between those with the means and interest to 
 pursue these avenues and those with merely the interest.

There are a couple of points to make on this issue:

First, the correlation of interests situation is a well-solved 
problem. Those with the financial means (and maybe some 
political/technical interest) set up a company and hire those with the 
technical abilities and interest. The company may be self-funded by the 
founders, or outside investors may be sought.

However, this is not so easy to do when it comes to these technologies. 
ZKS did it and raised, we hear, something like $60 million. Quite a 
warchest for untraceability tools. ZKS has been much-discussed here.

There are some major obstacles with such a public company:

1. Patents and IP in general. Doing digital cash without using Chaum's 
blinding patent may be tough. (Some of the agnostic approaches 
discussed here may work, technically, but will probably still be 
litigated. A public company is a public target. The current owners of 
the Chaum patent, a Canadian company IIRC, will not look dispassionately 
on other companies doing an end-run.)

2. A public company or traceable group of developers will become 
targets. The attacks could be just simple legal ones, but could range up 
to RICO and beyond. Pedophile-grade untraceability is powerful stuff. 
How long before Mojo faces lawsuits analogous to what Napster faced?

(Napster is a good example of this. Utter traceability, of both music 
traders and the company itself. Those who downloaded or uploaded music 
got nastygrams and threats of civil action, and the company itself was 
sued and now faces extinction. It may be that anyone developing such 
tools should just give up on the idea of becoming a dot com tycoon and 
instead release products untraceably...perhaps benefitting in other 
ways.)

 One of this list's members shopped here and elsewhere a few years back 
 for participation in building a DBC-based payment and value system.  He 
 had assembled a team with the banking experience, needing the 
 technology implementors.  None were willing to put their talents to the 
 test.  They all nodded regarding the need for such a facility but none 
 would expend any efforts.

If you are talking about Bob Hettinga, there are many things one could 
say about his schemes and plans.

I'm more impressed with what another person is actually doing: Orlin 
Grabbe. Do some Web searches. Orlin has good banking credentials himself 
(Wharton, coined the term regulatory arbitrage), good libertarian 
credentials (a powerful newsletter for many years), some technical 
abilities (writes code), has been willing to move to places like Costa 
Rica, and, most importantly, he UNDERSTANDS the sweet spot argument.

Bob H., in my opinion, got too fixated on coining new acronyms and in 
flitting around to various lists and focussed in on the wrong end of the 
cost/benefit continuum. He kept claiming the DBC or E$bux or whatever 
would be cheaper to use than real money.

Anyway, it is not easy to create a public company, a public nexus of 
attack, and then deploy systems which target that high-value sweet spot. 
The real bankers and the regulators won't allow such things into the 
official banking system. (Why do people think the banking system will 
embrace digital bearer bonds having untraceability features when true 
bearer bonds were eliminated years ago?)


 They were all being courted by the failed dot.bombs which waved 
 generous salary and stock offers.  Now that the tulip market has 
 evaporated along with the dreams of quick riches I wonder if any these 
 pseudo-zealots were ever really interested or was it a merely a 
 childish fancy from the start?  As Tim demonstrates the opportunity is 
 still there it waits only for those with the right stuff to grab for 
 the ring.



I know several list members who started or joined Mojo. I know several 
who started or joined C2. I know several who joined ZKS. I know several 
who joined Digicash.

The problem has not been that Cypherpunks were so greedy they went to 
work for Pets.com instead of ZKS, C2, Mojo, or Digicash. The problems 
were with the ability of those companies to make money, for lots of 
reasons.

My interest is not in doing a Cypherpunks Business Review dissection 
of these companies and their (possible) failings.

Frankly, I don't think the let's form a corporation!' model is the best 
one in all cases, particularly in this one. Maybe I'll say more about 
this in another post.


--Tim May

The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[Tim May]

 a paper trail. (Bet 
Justice Thomas wishes he had.)

And then at very low levels there are the cases where the benefits of 
untraceability are worth little or nothing to most people. I call this 
the millicent ghetto. Actually, the ghetto begins down at around a 
dollar or less. Sadly, a huge number of the proposed untraceable 
digital cash systems are targetted at uses deep down in this ghetto. 
(Perhaps because they have no hint of illegality?)

On the Y-axis. Plot here the _costs_ of achieving untraceability for 
these levels of achieved. This is the cost of tools, of using the tools, 
of delays caused by the tools, etc. For example, flying to the Cayman 
Islands to personally open a bank account may cost a couple of days in 
time, the airfare, and (more nebulously) the possible cost of having 
one's photograph taken for future use upon boarding that plan for 
Switzerland or the Caymans.

Lesser costs, but still costs, would be the costs of using Freedom (much 
frustration, say most of my friends who have tried to use it), the costs 
of getting a Mark Twain Bank digital cash account and actually having it 
work the way it should, and just the overhead/costs of using PGP.

Now on this X-Y graph plot the blobs where benefit/cost clouds of 
points are found. The 45-degree line is where the costs equal the 
benefits. (These values change somewhat in time, of course, but the 
general point is still clear I expect.) Anything _below_ this 45-degree 
line is cost effective: benefits  costs. Anything _above_ this line 
is NOT cost-effective: costs  benefits.

(In the economics of black markets, or illegal activities, we can expand 
these terms a bit. For example, costs = costs of being caught x chance 
of being caught. An illegal action which will result in a $100K fine 
but which is only expected to be caught 1% of the time has a resultant 
cost of $1K. This is the expected cost. Obviously, the idea of crypto 
and untracebility tools is to alter the equation by reducing the chance 
of being caught.)

RATIONAL ACTORS

The obvious point is that rational actors never pay more for 
untraceability than they get back in perceived benefits. Someone will 
not pay $1000 for privacy/untraceability technology or tools that only 
nets them $500 in perceived benefits.

They won't spend $1.00 in tools to net them 10 cents in perceived 
benefits.

THE SWEET SPOT

The sweet spot for privacy/untraceability tools is out of the 
millicent ghetto so much of the focus has beenon, and is even out of 
the private Web surfing to avoid company tracing ghetto, roughly at 
the tens of dollars levels. (It is hard to imagine how the cost of 
having Pillsbury know your baked good preferences is more than some 
trivial amount. This is the ghetto of low value transactions. However, 
not having the FBI know your are interested in Lolita images can be 
worth many hundreds of thousands of dollars in terms of avoided jail 
time, fines, loss of employability, etc.

(Do I think many pedophiles will, accordingly, pay hundreds of thousands 
for technologies to make them untraceable? Of course not, for reason 
psychologists are familiar with. But they'll pay some amount, and that 
amount may dwarf the aggregate value of what all of the millicent 
ghetto dwellers will pay. Interestingly, ZKS Freedom as ORIGINALLY 
SPECCED would have provide this pedophile-grade untraceabilty (to coin 
a phrase). Does it now? I don't think so, from what I hear from Wei Dai, 
Lucky Green, and from words coming out of ZKS. Apparently they are not 
planning to focus on these high value areas.)

Things start to get interesting at the thousands of dollars for tools 
for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in benefits. (By the way, 
the same applies to crypto per se. The military has crypto specialists 
and crypto shacks on board ships. But these cost a lot of money in 
training, procedures, and equipment. Millions of dollars a year for a 
ship, for example. Do the math. Real crypto is more than just strength 
of algorithms and keys: it's this economic trade-off. Too much of why 
don't people use crypto more? whines fails to see this basic point.)

The sweet spot often, practically by definition, involves putatively 
illegal activities: child porn, plotting revolution in Saudi Arabia, 
selling corporate secrets, distributing banned materials, etc. Only in 
these situations are the costs of failure to be untraceable high 
enough to make spending money and time learning to be untraceable 
worthwhile. It is not surprising that those with nothing to hide tend 
to put their money into their local bank branches under their own names 
while those with something to hide tend to open Swiss bank accounts.

Again, draw this region as a blob far to the right on the X-axis and, we 
hope, not very high up on the Y-axis. Meaning, advances in crypto, 
remailers, digital money, etc. will make this sweet spot truly sweet.

CORPORATIONS AND ACADEMICS FOCUS ON THE GHETTO NEAR THE ORIGIN

Still