Re: jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway)

I share many of these same concerns.  Ultimately, it's an arms race.

One thing is clear: the ways around restrictions lower bandwidth.
Examples: steganography and covert channels are low-bandwidth.  By 
analogy, successive transfers of small amounts of money gets around
the reporting to the "Benevolent Caretaker" is also a lowering of 
bandwidth.

However, it should be remembered that authorities attempted to outlaw
the printing press after its invention.  I'm not sure how long that
lasted, but since the Soviet Union kept tabs on all copiers, in some
sense, such repression lasted a long time.  (And in the U.S., it has
been said that color copiers are tracked, but this sounds like a bluff
to me since a color scanner+color printer is sufficient to duplicate
that capability.  Is it possible to buy a color copier anonymously?) 

Given this, it *is* possible that freedom of expression is going to 
win eventually.  Anonymous digital cash is more likely to be compromised
since, as you note, even the Swiss have been pressured into opening up 
their records of anonymous bank accounts.


Paul E. Baclace
peb@procase.com

P.S.: Prodigy is not yet profitable, last I heard.  

``Is that a real network or is that a Sears network?'' --Frank Zappa paraphased.

Paul Baclace says:
> However, it should be remembered that authorities attempted to outlaw
> the printing press after its invention.  I'm not sure how long that
> lasted, but since the Soviet Union kept tabs on all copiers, in some
> sense, such repression lasted a long time.  (And in the U.S., it has
> been said that color copiers are tracked, but this sounds like a bluff
> to me since a color scanner+color printer is sufficient to duplicate
> that capability.  Is it possible to buy a color copier anonymously?) 

Go to you local copier store. Pay cash. No one will care.

> Anonymous digital cash is more likely to be compromised
> since, as you note, even the Swiss have been pressured into opening up 
> their records of anonymous bank accounts.

Others have not.

Perry

Paul writes:

>Anonymous digital cash is more likely to be compromised
>since, as you note, even the Swiss have be>en pressured into opening up 
>their records of anonymous bank accounts.

I believe you are confusing cash with deposits.  Cash (either paper or
digital) can be passed untraceably from palm to palm (or palmtop to
palmtop, if you will).  Deposits, on the other hand, require a method
for the bank and the depositor to authenticate each other.  In the
past, anonymous authentication was rife with problems, but cryptography
might solve these problems.

However, I think the deeper question is worth considering: what is the
justification for anonymous bank accounts?

Avoiding taxes just doesn't cut it for me; much as I hate to pay them,
I recognise the need to do so.

writes Robert J. Woodhead:
>
>Paul writes:
>
>However, I think the deeper question is worth considering: what is the
>justification for anonymous bank accounts?
>
>Avoiding taxes just doesn't cut it for me; much as I hate to pay them,
>I recognise the need to do so.
>

A while back someone posted a message about being immune to having
property, etc taken in law suits.  Imagine if all your money (or nearly 
all) was tied up in anonymous accounts and that all your property was
owned by digital pseudonyms (from whom you rented the property).  This
would be a nice defense if you were scared that the government (in
protecting National Security, of course) would take all your 
posessions and make life a living hell for you and your family.

-nate

-- 
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Nate Sammons   email: nate@VIS.ColoState.Edu
|   Colorado State University Computer Visualization Laboratory
|   Finger nate@monet.VIS.ColoState.Edu for my PGP key
|   #include <std.disclaimer>
|   Title 18 USC 2511 and 18 USC 2703 Protected --> Monitoring Forbidden
+--------+                          Always remember "Brazil"

Nate writes:

>A while back someone posted a message about being immune to having
>property, etc taken in law suits.  Imagine if all your money (or nearly 
>all) was tied up in anonymous accounts and that all your property was
>owned by digital pseudonyms (from whom you rented the property).  This
>would be a nice defense if you were scared that the government (in
>protecting National Security, of course) would take all your 
>posessions and make life a living hell for you and your family.

I think you are being dangerously naive if you think that such actions
would prevent someone (not necessarily the government, btw) from making
your life a living hell.

If you are a parent, for example, think what an accusation of child
abuse might do.

Do not be so quick to assume that these wonderful and interesting
techniques we discuss will solve long-standing problems.  Most likely,
they will merely solve new problems (ie: the increased ability of
third parties to intercept communications) that are created by the
very technologies that make the solutions possible.

Best
R

> However, I think the deeper question is worth considering: what is the
> justification for anonymous bank accounts?

How about: it's no one's damn business what my acct. number is, that I
have one at all, what bank I use, how much money I have, etc.

> Avoiding taxes just doesn't cut it for me; much as I hate to pay them,
> I recognise the need to do so.

Need?  Need to keep from being arrested or fined, yeah I can see that.

-- 
-=> mech@eff.org <=-
Stanton McCandlish     Electronic Frontier Foundation Online Activist & SysOp
"A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood of
ideas in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." -JFK
NitV-DC BBS 202-232-2715, Fido 1:109/? IndraNet 369:111/1, 14.4V32b 16.8ZyX

Stanton writes:

>> Avoiding taxes just doesn't cut it for me; much as I hate to pay them,
>> I recognise the need to do so.

>Need?  Need to keep from being arrested or fined, yeah I can see that.

Not at all.  I recognise that, however inefficient, taxes pay to maintain
the legal and physical environment that makes my life more comfortable.
There are many oppressive things about governments, but _by_and_large_
the US government is one of the least oppressive, and the vast majority
of the people who work in it are honest and well-intentioned.

What I hope comes out of groups like cypherpunks are ways to make the
government better and more responsive to the needs of the citizenry
(in other words, some good checks and balances), rather than petty
ways to avoid a few bucks in taxes.  Rather than aspire to join the
alleged clique of rich and powerful tax evaders, might it not be better
to aspire to develop techniques that both maintain privacy but guaran-
tee that they have to pay their share of the load.  Hint: develop
something that makes it worth their while.

Robert J. Woodhead () writes:
> >Need?  Need to keep from being arrested or fined, yeah I can see that.
> 
> Not at all.  I recognise that, however inefficient, taxes pay to maintain
> the legal and physical environment that makes my life more comfortable.
[...]
> ways to avoid a few bucks in taxes.  Rather than aspire to join the
> alleged clique of rich and powerful tax evaders, might it not be better
> to aspire to develop techniques that both maintain privacy but guaran-
> tee that they have to pay their share of the load.  Hint: develop
> something that makes it worth their while.

   Simple. Privatize those parts of government so they can chose
the services they want to buy. Rather than confiscate their money
for whatever subjective "share" is in vogue. (I've never seen this
share defined objectively. Just rants "they must pay more!!!  wah!!" Even in
other countries with much higher rates than our 36%, people are still demanding
more. )

-- Ray Cromwell        |    Engineering is the implementation of science;    --
-- EE/Math Student     |       politics is the implementation of faith.      --
-- rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu  |                         - Zetetic Commentaries      --

Ray writes:

>   Simple. Privatize those parts of government so they can chose
>the services they want to buy.

An admirable solution, but it does not take into account the vested
interests involved.  The only way to deal with them is to design a
new system that is sufficiently more efficient (and/or wealth
generating) that they are better off supporting it than opposing
it.  The U.S. Government has been under construction for over 200
years; you are not going to break it apart so easily.

"Robert J. Woodhead" says:
> Ray writes:
> 
> >   Simple. Privatize those parts of government so they can chose
> >the services they want to buy.
> 
> An admirable solution, but it does not take into account the vested
> interests involved.  The only way to deal with them is to design a
> new system that is sufficiently more efficient (and/or wealth
> generating) that they are better off supporting it than opposing
> it.  The U.S. Government has been under construction for over 200
> years; you are not going to break it apart so easily.

Who needs to break it? At the current rate, it will have destroyed
itself within a decade. "Stability" in our fair land is an illusion.
The government cannot possibly pay for all the services it pretends it
can. The deficit is going to rise another $1 Trillion in the next four
years under Bill Clinton's very optimistic projections -- my suspicion
is that the slowdown in economic activity he is creating will make it
rise more like $2 Trillion or more. At some point, the bond buyers
stop buying, and thats the end of the game. The Clinton Administration
is currently pretending to itself that it can add the most expensive
government program of all time, a trillion dollar socialized medicine
program, while all this is happening. Well, let them dream.

Raising taxes at this point will only DECREASE revenue. They cannot
raise more money than they already consume. They can only lower the
deficit by cutbacks, and they are pressing ahead with more new
spending each year in spite of the claims. (When you hear them say
"budget cuts", that means "we are going to spend less than we wanted
to, not less than we spent last year".)

There are also trillions of dollars in off-books unfunded debt, such
as federal obligations to federal retirees, the invisible "social
security trust fund" (hah!), federal obligations associated with loan
guarantees, banking insurance schemes, etc. 

The party will be over soon enough. Humpty Dumpty doesn't need to be
pushed.

Perry

Robert J. Woodhead said:
> 
> Ray writes:
> 
> >   Simple. Privatize those parts of government so they can chose
> >the services they want to buy.
> 
> An admirable solution, but it does not take into account the vested
> interests involved.  The only way to deal with them is to design a
> new system that is sufficiently more efficient (and/or wealth
> generating) that they are better off supporting it than opposing
> it.  The U.S. Government has been under construction for over 200
> years; you are not going to break it apart so easily.
> 
> 
	I'd suggest that the politics discussion be taken to another
forum?

-- 
Sameer
sameer@netcom.com

Sameer Parekh says:
> 	I'd suggest that the politics discussion be taken to another
> forum?

Agreed. I'm partially responsible for continuing it, but I agree that
its irrelevant, no matter how interesting.

Perry