- cypherpunks-legacy@lists.ogf.org

subscribe
by Bill Garland 13 Sep '93

13 Sep '93

Please add me to your mailing list. Thanks. Bill Garland bill(a)kean.ucs.mun.ca

1 0

unsubscribe
by Michael Kelly Larsen 13 Sep '93

13 Sep '93

unscubscribe

1 0

A CYPHERPUNK VISION
by Sandy 13 Sep '93

13 Sep '93

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT Reply to: ssandfort(a)attmail.com . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cypherpunks, At the Bay Area physical meeting on Saturday, I gave a slightly longer version of the following presentation. Please make sure you read the "call to arms" at the end. Uncle Sandy wants you. S a n d y >>>>>> Please send e-mail to: ssandfort(a)attmail.com <<<<<< * * * A CYPHERPUNK VISION We are fond of saying, "Cypherpunks write code," but what does that really mean? "Writing code" isn't just programming. To me, it is a metaphor for direct, personal action. That's what Phil Zimmermann did when he wrote the code for PGP. But, it is also what John Gilmore did when he sued the NSA. Cypherpunks don't wait for other people to grant them freedom or privacy; they do it themselves. They use their wits and talents to create innovative defenses and bold counter-attacks. Cypher- punks are the ultimate practitioners of "self-help." So what should YOU do, to be a "real" Cypherpunk? The answer is: Whatever interests you. Are you good with electronics? How about breadboarding a voice compressor/encrypter. Can you write code? Maybe you can make a Windows shell for PGP. Mathematically inclined? Tweak the algorithms. Find the weak- nesses; find the improvements. Do you have a flare for writing? Write articles or stories that popularize the Cypherpunk world-view. Is business or law your cup of tea? Start a privacy consultation business and make a buck while fighting the good fight. Whatever you WANT to do, is what you SHOULD do. There is more work to be done than Cypherpunks to do it. Any area of the struggle that is important to you, is also important to others. The battle for freedom and privacy is a target-rich environment. As Marine general "Chesty" Puller said when he was told that the North Koreans had surrounded his position, "Great, we've got them right where we want them. We can fire in any direction!" So where have I decided to fire? As many of you know, I have a background in the law and offshore business. Naturally, I want apply that training and experience to fighting the technological threats to freedom and privacy that gave rise to the Cypherpunks. To that end, I give you my vision: A Bank in Cyberspace. A BANK IN CYBERSPACE Protecting one's privacy is nothing new. For hundreds of years, people have protected their wealth and financial privacy by transnationalizing themselves. In today's world, this means "offshore" banks and other international techniques. In simple terms, by diversifying internationally, you can "forum shop" for the best deals offered by each country's laws. Since all nations are in competition for foreign capital, one can be played off against another. Low taxes and banking secrecy are two services even the poorest of countries can offer. As a result, tax, banking and privacy havens are quite numerous and affordable. Take your pick. The trouble is, tax haven banks are often located in the world's backwaters. Using them just isn't convenient for most people. The obvious answer is technology, but bankers, being conserva- tive, have failed to plumb its enormous potential. It's time for a change--a Cypherpunk change. To that end, I am introducing The Internet Digital Security Bank and Escrow, the first bank founded in cyberspace. The Bank would offer interest bearing checking accounts to the 10-15 million Internet users, plus anyone else with access to e-mail. Unlike traditional banks, there would be no paper checks. All checks would be written as encrypted and digitally signed e-mail messages. In the future, digital cash would also be made available to Bank customers. The escrow services of the Bank would be used to protect both parties to electronic business exchanges. The escrow services would facilitate a wide variety of anonymous transactions. A team of entrepreneurs, computer programers, lawyers and financiers is currently being assembled. If you would like to participate in this project, please contact: Sandy Sandfort, ssandfort(a)attmail.com. Please include your resume or other info about your education, skills and interests. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

3 2

Stegno and DAT and digital music...
by Peter Wayner 13 Sep '93

13 Sep '93

In this week's Sunday NYT, Hans Fantel, their music guy, writes at length about the new "dithered" CD's and how the guys have improved the sound. He says that the original CD format was limited to 16 bits of sound because of costs. But many audiophiles reacted very negatively to the tinny, metalic quality to the music. For this reason, the companies have developed 20 bit DAT recording tape and then come up with ways to "dither" this into 16 bits. I am curious if anyone knows the details of these algorithms. Also, his point suggests that flipping the least significant bit of 16 bit music may not be imperceptable to some ears. If the classical music starts to sound tinny then there might be something subversive in the least significant bits. -Peter Wayner

1 0

SUBSCRIBE
by Alan Hunter 13 Sep '93

13 Sep '93

Please SUBSCRIBE A.Hunter(a)dunaad.co.uk Thanks

1 0

WACO: FBI & BATF used *flamethrower*?!
by an12070＠anon.penet.fi 13 Sep '93

13 Sep '93

edited, from alt.activism === This editorial was in the Arizona of 8/22. It was written by William P. Cheshire, Senior Editorial Columnist. LOOKING BEYOND THE WACO SMOKE An anonymous tipster sent me a videotape the other day describing in startling detail the government's shootout, siege and ultimate destruction - possibly deliberate - of the Branch Davidian compound outside Waco, Texas. The tape is the production of Linda D. Thompson, an Indianapolis lawyer who traveled to Waco to protest the government's initial assault on the compound, which left four agents dead, and now devotes most of her time to investigating how 80 or so people died 50 days later when the place was torched. According to agents of the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, the followers of guru David Koresh set fire to their own building when it was stormed by tanks and a small army of heavily armed governments agents. But the videotape, assembled from the government's own film, clearly shows one of the tanks crashing into the building, then backing out again, fire belching from its turret. EYEWITNESSES LACKING This received virtually no publicity because the media were kept under wraps. On a story of this magnitude, reporters and cameramen normally would have been on the scene providing first- hand coverage. But in this instance the press acquiesced in extraordinary restraints. Search and arrest warrants were sealed, and when government agents settled down for what was to be a seven-week siege, the press was allowed to get no closer than two miles from the Branch Davidian compound. As the tanks rolled and the feds broke out their grenades and submachine guns for the final assault on April 19, reporters and cameramen gathered behind distant roadblocks, waiting for government handouts. Miles away the compound was being burned to the ground. A school board can't meet in secret without the media going ballistic, Thompson says, but here the government conducted a massive armored assault on civilians, unencumbered by witnesses. "I'm very discouraged that reporters weren't being more aggressive in Waco," Phil Record, ombudsman for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, told Mark Holmberg of the Rutherford Institute in Charlottesville, VA. "If there had been a few neutral eyes up there, I would feel much better about it". Thompson is more blunt. "Reporters sucked up everything the ATF and FBI told them," she says. "They're a bunch of weenies and sheep. None of them had the guts to ask challenging questions or the intelligence to ask constitutional questions." FLAME THROWER IDENTIFIED I reached Thompson by phone at the American Justice Federation, a civil liberties group she operates. She now has identified the tank seen backing out of the Branch Davidian building, she told me. "It was an M67A1 tank manufactured by Chrysler," she said. This tank, equipped with a flamethrower, is no longer in service and, according to Thompson, had to be taken from "the graveyard" for the Waco assignment. The clear implication is that the government deliberately set fire to the Branch Davidian compound, killing some 17 children and 69 adults. I asked how she found out about the M67A1, a little-know weapon to which even Jane's Armour and Artillery gives only brief mention. "The driver who drove it from Fort Hood called me," she said. At the end of the Waco madness, President Clinton said the Branch Davidians had "burned themselves up" - and allegation that, in the light of Linda Thompson's allegations, Congress needs to investigate. Already, The Washington Post reports, the Waco embarrassment has prompted a major reshuffle at the ATF. Some officials may be forced to retire, the Post says, and the chief of the intelligence division could be denied "future promotions." Such punishments seem hardly proportionate. As a consequence of the Rodney King beating in Los Angeles, two police officers were tried for the assault and acquitted, then tried again for civil rights violations and sentenced to two and a half years in the federal penitentiary. How is it that federal agents responsible for the death of more than 80 men, women and children may be permitted to retire or even to keep their present jobs? ------------------------------------------------------------------------- To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help(a)anon.penet.fi. Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized, and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned. Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin(a)anon.penet.fi.

2 1

alt.politics.org.[cia,nsa] and anon posting
by jet＠netcom.com 13 Sep '93

13 Sep '93

would one of the anon posting/remailer gurus post a faq to one of these groups? They could probably use it. -eric

1 0

NY cyberspace tax analyses
by ld231782＠longs.lance.colostate.edu 13 Sep '93

13 Sep '93

These msgs were taken from miscellaneous mailing lists. Most importantly, this tax does *not* simply affect `phone sex' 900 lines, as a sort of `sin tax' as supposed by some. To the contrary, BBSes, online services, even *shareware* is affected by the tax. Authors below report - BBSes *are* subject if computer & users are in NY - CompuServe, Prodigy, America Online *subject* to tax (Newsday 9/6) - SHAREWARE is *taxed* under the rate if downloaded from NY board - relevant court cases that struck down similar taxes based on 1st amendment - one person complains of `poor wording' in law -- no kidding. I propose that a mailing list dedicated to the topics of cyberspatial regulation and taxation be created ASAP. ===cut=here=== Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1993 23:01:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Jean Armour Polly <jpolly(a)nysernet.ORG> Subject: Re: NY tax on information services [...] I called the NYS Tax and Finance folks on Friday and they faxed me info on this bill. Briefly (though I am not a lawyer, pun intended), based on a phone conversation with them: There is a tax if -- the "bbs operator" charges a membership fee AND -- the host computer is in NYS AND -- the operator sells to NYS residents. If the host computer is out of state it does not apply at all. If the host is in NY but the customer is out of state it does not apply. If the service is run by a non-profit it does also not apply. Also, SHAREWARE is affected. If you download shareware and subsequently send in the registration fee, the software producer has to charge you NYS tax-- if he's in NY and the customer is in NY. This particular part is written very poorly IMHO. Hope this helps. I have the text of the memo and some examples I can send to you monday if you want. Best, JP Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1993 19:50:35 -0500 From: farber(a)central.cis.upenn.edu (David Farber) Subject: NY tax on information services Russell Nelson writes: >> September 1, 1993 New York Newsday >> By Joshua Quittner >> >> Starting today, metropolitan New York residents will pay a hefty >> 13.25% sales tax on information services they get over phones and >> computers - the highest tax on information services in the country, >> experts say. > > IMHO, this is not true (but it sure makes good press). > Reading over the text of the law, it appears to be > targetting the 900/800 oral information providers. It > specifically excludes anything customized for the particular > user, and it specifically excludes written materials. Yes, but apparently the New York authorities disagree with you. See _Newsday_, 9/6: " The Budget Division and the Department of Taxation and Finance agree that the 5-percent surcharge also applies to such wildly popular computer services as CompuServe, Prodigy and America on Line. So, in addition to taxing the poor souls who use those sex-phone services, the new law goes after a more sophisticated and altogether more resourceful crowd, the computer literate." Steve Haynes * Stephen L. Haynes Internet: shaynes(a)research.westlaw.com * Manager, WESTLAW Research MCI Mail: 221-3969 * & Development Compuserve: 76236,3547 * West Publishing Company Phone: 612/687-5770 * 610 Opperman Drive Fax: 612/687-7907 * Eagan, MN 55123 Date: Sat, 11 Sep 93 23:45:14 -0700 From: djb(a)silverton.berkeley.edu (D. J. Bernstein) Subject: Taxing the First Amendment The First Amendment _does_ prohibit taxes aimed at the press. See, for example, Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233 (1936). A law whose effect was to impose fees on several large newspapers was declared void on its face. This protection is not limited to the press; it is a common theme in many First Amendment cases. See, for example, the important case of Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51, footnote 3 (1965): ``Appellant also challenges the constitutionality of Sec. 6, establishing standards, as invalid for vagueness under the Due Process Clause; Sec. 11, imposing fees for the licensing and inspection of a film, as constituting an invalid tax upon the exercise of freedom of speech; and Sec. 23, allowing exemptions to various classes of exhibitors, as denying him the equal protection of the laws.'' The Supreme Court didn't rule on these issues---it didn't have to, because it struck down the entire Maryland film censorship statute as an invalid prior restraint. But Freedman's appeal would probably be a good model for an attack on the New York cyberspace tax. The latter tax is, after all, aimed directly at the exercise of freedom of speech, and its exemptions deny equal protection to certain information providers. (Note that the aim of a law is judged by its operation and effect, not by the motives of the legislators, at least for First Amendment purposes.) ---Dan

1 0

Re: Digital warfare
by Peter Wayner 13 Sep '93

13 Sep '93

People who are skeptical about Perry Metzeger's claim about tax avoidance might want to look at the files of Dave Dinkins, the mayor of New York. I believe that he failed to file for something like 12 years. Yet, the machine runs on in that city.... -Peter

1 0

DIGITAL WARFARE
by Duncan Frissell 13 Sep '93

13 Sep '93

To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com ************* Original From: FRISSELL * FORWARDED * To: CYPHERPUNKS(a)TOAD.COM * MESSAGE * Date/Number: 09/12/93 - Not Yet Posted ************* On: PANIX - 0000 - Email ----------------------------------------------------------------------- To: cme(a)ellisun.sw.stratus.com Here I innocently go away for the weekend and miss a hot thread on my favorite topic. Appropriate for the list because it's about what this list is about and what the results of its activities might be. Better late than never... CC> I have heard cypherpunks described as two groups under one label: CC> 1. those of us who advocate privacy in private hands CC> CC> 2. those who advocate anarchy CC> CC> I'm in the privacy camp and worry that CC> enough talk from the anarchists will cause the privacy to be CC> attacked. I fully expect total retaliation by the governments of CC> the world against any effective anarchy. The wilder the threats CC> (even if they're not real), the stronger the retaliation. We could CC> lose all privacy as a result. I try not to advocate anarchy but rather to observe it. It is difficult for large institutions to exercise control over ever more powerful individuals. Even though I like crypto, it is neither necessary nor sufficient for what I'll call "governmental downsizing" to avoid controversy. IBM didn't "rightsize" because sweet reason convinced it to. It righsized (and is still rightsizing) because markets convinced it to. We already see signs of governments becoming mere market actors particularly in the currency markets. The nets themselves are the most powerful technology which will reduce the role nation states have to play on the world stage. Crackdowns against strong crypto are not relevant. Since the nation state is bound to the nation and individuals are not, telecoms tends to liberate individuals from states. If I can live anywhere and work anywhere else, I am hard to find much less control. People need not have to even be aware of what they are doing to participate in this process. If they are hired as contingent workers over the nets because that's where the work is, they will be outside of the control mechanism and have to choose to bring themselves back in. Some will do so many will not. For years, those who became expats or invested money overseas have had to make an affirmative choice to file US tax returns or report their overseas income on their returns. Some did so. Many did not. 61% of US expats don't file US returns even though most have income. Everyone on the nets is effectively an expat. According to IRS studies, only *48%* of the income of small businesses is reported. Those are businesses physically located in the US. Since computers will be converting most of us into small business operators (selling ourselves as permanent temps at least) and since the nets encourage locational ambiguity, we will have to choose to cooperate with our rulers. What do we call a "voluntary government"? A church, a social club, a corporation, or a family but not (according to *my* poli sci profs) a government. "An institution that claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force in a given geographic area." Note that by the end of this year, some Continental Cable subscribers will have 100 mbs connections to Internet. Once more people do and they find that they can buy/obtain almost anything digitizable (including "free" international telephone calls) over this link, they will do so. They will have expanded their area of freedom by downloading porno from Zimbabwae (or whatever from wherever). A few more expansions of liberty and the state is reduced to just another club. CC> For example, crypto-anarchic banks -- cute idea -- but if CC> you ever want a cop to make your banker give you the money, the CC> banker can't be anonymous and neither can you account be. Bankers don't give you your money because of fear of cops but because of the desire for future business. Duncan Frissell What is the world's most toxic hazardous waste dump? -- Watch this signature line for the surprising answer. * RM 1.2 * Eval Day 1 * X

1 0