Real issue of crypto controls: security or taxation loss?

Hi.

I've been lazily following the crypto-control issue through e$pam 
list.

Somebody posted a question asking how many peoples would eventually 
be victims of crypto-enhanced crime.

Then, TM came to say that this is irrelevant.  TM was right in the 
context of the post, but it led me to ask myself this 
(vague) question:

	What is the real issue here, what makes the govt so insistent about 
	wanting to ban crypto?  What is such a threat to them that it makes 
	them pass laws that are profoundly against the US constitution?  

	What causes their panic?

To this, all I can find of enough magnitude to put them in such state 
is that they just recently *truly* realized that crypto will, 
infinitely more than to threaten the security of the state,
threaten their very existence by putting them outside of the money 
loop.

To paraphrase somebody, "individuals recognize taxation as damage and 
routes their e$ around"

I think that *this* debate should be injected in the population and 
the *bogus* "national security" debate should be dismissed as, 
just that : bogus.  

*Everybody* not living on govt taxated money gets a sparkle in their 
eyes when I introduce them to crypto via the e-$ topic.  And all of 
the others gets pale...  ;-)

For most peoples, privacy in itself is worth something only if 
if they have some *value* they want to preserve.  Most of the 
time, this value concretizes itself as "money".  So if we talk to 
them in terms *they* understand, we run a much better chance to make 
them understand why spreading crypto is a tool we believe will 
greatly enhance human's life quality.

Any comments about why we should *not* put most emphasis on the 
financial aspect of crypto?

Ciao

jfa
-- 
Jean-Francois Avon, Pierrefonds(Montreal) QC Canada
  JFA Technologies, R&D physicists & engineers
  Instrumentation & control, LabView programming.
PGP keys: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon
     and: http://bs.mit.edu:8001/pks-toplev.html
PGP ID:C58ADD0D:529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891 
PGP ID:5B51964D:152ACCBCD4A481B0 254011193237822C

On 13 Sep 97 at 12:16, Black Unicorn wrote:


> >To this, all I can find of enough magnitude to put them in such state 
> >is that they just recently *truly* realized that crypto will, 
> >infinitely more than to threaten the security of the state,
> >threaten their very existence by putting them outside of the money 
> >loop.

> Strongly disagree.

> In fact, the forces driving the current legislation, FBI, DoD, are more
> concerned not with being unable to decrypt in realtime than they are about
> being unable to distinquish, en masse, the bad actors encrypted
> communications with the paranoid but harmless crypto user.  If crypto gets
> widespread enough there is no way to filter one from the other any longer.

Your last sentence means that they can read crypted text.  They even 
hinted at it recently.  But then, why the proposed law?

Do they indulge in statistical efficiency or do they want 99.9999+% 
efficiency at their "filtering"?  I'd say if they "filter" only, say, 
90% of all communications and an Oklahoma City plan passes by in the 
10% remaining, it won't be good enough for them.  So, why the law if 
they already can decrypt?  Can you reasonnably expect the vilains 
to use the most easy-to-crack and/or GAKed schemes? 

> The "private currency and taxation loss" is not even on the radar screens.
> Oliver Ireland, of the fed, thinks its just silly to think that way.  Also
> see Kendall Houghton, (Committee on State Taxation) remarks on the subject.
> The powers that be just roll their eyes at the "no more taxes"
> crypto-radical crowd.

If you were in their shoes, what would you say to the public?  Ever 
heard about the game called Poker?  Did Santa told you they would 
never lie to you?

In the last few weeks, I've been thinking about the utility and 
security risk of using PGP if it can be cracked easily.

And then, I realized that my reaction was probably just what they 
expected: FUD to have people limit by themselves their use of strong 
crypto.  Coupled with the cops saying that "of course, we can decode 
them, but just a tad too slow to protect your childs...", I now 
believe they just can't crack it.

And with it, comes their crackdown on crypto users, their e-$ and 
their crypted love letters.


jfa
-- 
Jean-Francois Avon, Pierrefonds(Montreal) QC Canada
 DePompadour, Societe d'Importation Ltee
    Finest of Limoges porcelain and crystal
 JFA Technologies, R&D consultants
    physicists and engineers, LabView programing.
PGP encryption keys at:
   http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon
   http://bs.mit.edu:8001/pks-toplev.html
ID# C58ADD0D  : 529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891 
ID# 5B51964D  : 152ACCBCD4A481B0 254011193237822C

(JF won't see this, unless Bob H. chooses to pass it on, Sandy-style. This
is why those who want to participate in the debate should actually do so,
on unedited, undelayed lists, not on digests and delayed condensations.)


At 9:57 AM -0700 9/13/97, jf_avon@citenet.net wrote:
>Hi.
>
>I've been lazily following the crypto-control issue through e$pam
>list.
>

Read the real list.

As a comment, sometimes when I try to "reply to all" to these messages from
folks reading digests, I get "you are not a member of this list" or "this
is a private list" messages.

Fine, but it's why I won't waste time on folks who may not even see what I
write unless I address it to them personally.

JF, get a decent mailer and get on the real list if you want to participate.

(Oh, and "cypherpunks@toad.com" is NOT the proper list address. It may
work, for a while, but it has been replaced by 2-3 other names.)

--Tim May

There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws.
Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

>I think that *this* debate should be injected in the population and 
>the *bogus* "national security" debate should be dismissed as, 
>just that : bogus.  

Never underestimate how weirded out people can get about "security". 
You don't know about this, living in Canada, but nobody in America can
use a mailbox to mail a package now, just because one guy mailed a few
bombs.   We live in a time in which rocks in the parks have warning
labels bolted to them ('Caution: Slippery when wet').  I could go
on forever and so could you.  Health and security are the governing
superstitions of our age. 

Allowing uncontrolled encryption not only seems to open the door to
specific bogeymen, but frustrates the power of the 'security
apparatus' in general and across the board.  Nothing is scarier than
rhetoric about the police being helpless to protect you.  Few
politicans are willing to leave themselves open to the charge of not
standing by the police or tying the police's hands. I think 99 out of
a hundred politicians 'thinking' about encryption never get past this
point.  Most of them don't know enough to know that tax collection is
even an issue.  (Not that it probably is; governments used to raise
most of their money by taxing atoms -- real property and capital goods
-- and nobody I know has thought of a reason why they can't do it
again.)  

>
>For most peoples, privacy in itself is worth something only if 
>if they have some *value* they want to preserve.  Most of the 
>time, this value concretizes itself as "money".  So if we talk to 
>them in terms *they* understand, we run a much better chance to make 
>them understand why spreading crypto is a tool we believe will 
>greatly enhance human's life quality.
>
>Any comments about why we should *not* put most emphasis on the 
>financial aspect of crypto?


What are you saying here?  That we should be arguing that encryption
should be permitted because it will allow people to avoid paying
taxes?  I'm afraid the set of people that would respond well to that
argument is not was large as you would hope.

Fred
www.pobox.com/~hapgood

At 5:02 pm -0400 on 9/13/97, Fred Hapgood wrote:


>  Health and security are the governing
> superstitions of our age.

Hmmmm... "My country 'tis of thee, land of gerontocracy"...

:-).

> What are you saying here?  That we should be arguing that encryption
> should be permitted because it will allow people to avoid paying
> taxes?  I'm afraid the set of people that would respond well to that
> argument is not was large as you would hope.

Amen. I, for one, say that the only hope is technological. If you make
commerce and finance cheaper without book entries, then book entry taxation
and regulation go away.

Hope we don't get fooled again, and all that, but at least you don't have
Archie* looking up your dress anymore...

Cheers,
Bob Hettinga

*WWI pilot expression for anti-aircraft fire. Named for a music hall
character with very shiny shoes. Hmmm^2. A cypherpunk neologism, anyone?
I'll use it if you will...



-----------------
Robert Hettinga (rah@shipwright.com), Philodox
e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/

> Then, TM came to say that this is irrelevant.  TM was right in the 
> context of the post, but it led me to ask myself this 
> (vague) question:
> 
> 	What is the real issue here, what makes the govt so insistent about 
> 	wanting to ban crypto?  What is such a threat to them that it makes 
> 	them pass laws that are profoundly against the US constitution?  
> 
> 	What causes their panic?

They want to read your mail.  They would like to read your mind too.
 
> To this, all I can find of enough magnitude to put them in such state 
> is that they just recently *truly* realized that crypto will, 
> infinitely more than to threaten the security of the state,
> threaten their very existence by putting them outside of the money 
> loop.

I disagree.  I think they want to read your mail.  I don't believe they are 
scared of "digital bearer bonds" etc., although I do believe that this is the 
most hyped issue on these mailing lists ...


> Any comments about why we should *not* put most emphasis on the 
> financial aspect of crypto?

Because the financial aspects are hyped way out of proportion on these 
mailing lists?

Also, you will find that the govt does *not* want to ban financial crypto
- it only wants to ban encryption - so how can you argue that they are 
panicking because of the financial aspect of crypto?  You can't.  They panic 
because they can't read your mail.

Gary
-- 
pub  1024/C001D00D 1996/01/22  Gary Howland <gary@hotlava.com>
Key fingerprint =  0C FB 60 61 4D 3B 24 7D  1C 89 1D BE 1F EE 09 06

On 13 Sep 97 at 21:02, Fred Hapgood wrote:

> 
> >I think that *this* debate should be injected in the population and 
> >the *bogus* "national security" debate should be dismissed as, 
> >just that : bogus.  
> 
> Never underestimate how weirded out people can get about "security". 
> You don't know about this, living in Canada, but nobody in America can
> use a mailbox to mail a package now, just because one guy mailed a few
> bombs.

FUD.  There is quite a difference between what Joe and Jane Average 
are and what the Lie-Box with 500 channels and most Lie-Leaflets will 
tell you.  Sorry for my idealism, but I still believe that there is a 
quantum of Reason in the population.  But you may be right here.  

> What are you saying here?  That we should be arguing that encryption
> should be permitted because it will allow people to avoid paying
> taxes?

Duhhh, duhhhh, fucking duhhhh...

Why do you make me spend my resources (time, efforts) on having me 
defend myself on something I never said?  Just read my fucking text 
and this *is* what I said.  Go read Hettinga's rants on his web site 
about how e-$ will impose itself and why and consider that I agree 
with him on it.

[and here, I disregard the less-than-illuminated contradiction in 
terms]

And if you want to get emotionnal :-) , just as I also agreed and 
defended Jim Bell's opinion that AP was 
"not-possible-to-prevent-from-happening",  [unless they ban 
crypto, for legitimate e-$ scheme need authorities's tolerance of 
crypto] and backed my opinion with rational arguments. Thank you very 
much. 

Just like anybody describing and saying that the Ebola virus is 
mortal doesn't mean one loves to kill...  

So, DUHHHH squared.

Another time-wasting, word-twisting, fanatic-attracting, 
emotional-debate-inducing idiocy like that and [not a menace but 
simply a description of my quality-of-life enhancing measures] I 
will have one of my file past the terabyte mark...

Ciao

jfa
-- 
Jean-Francois Avon, Pierrefonds(Montreal) QC Canada
 DePompadour, Societe d'Importation Ltee
    Finest of Limoges porcelain and crystal
 JFA Technologies, R&D consultants
    physicists and engineers, LabView programing.
PGP encryption keys at:
   http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon
   http://bs.mit.edu:8001/pks-toplev.html
ID# C58ADD0D  : 529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891 
ID# 5B51964D  : 152ACCBCD4A481B0 254011193237822C

On 13 Sep 97 at 9:19, Tim May wrote:

> (JF won't see this, unless Bob H. chooses to pass it on, Sandy-style. This
> on unedited, undelayed lists, not on digests and delayed condensations.)

AFAIK, e$pam is not edited and not a digest.  But there might be 
parental control ...  :-)

> At 9:57 AM -0700 9/13/97, jf_avon@citenet.net wrote:
> >Hi.
> >
> >I've been lazily following the crypto-control issue through e$pam
> >list.
> 
> Read the real list.

Tim, there are a lot of important issues in life, and crypto is only 
one of them.  I value your opinion a lot and find most of your 
comments to be not only valid but even often wise.  But of course, 
as a CP highness, you seems to sometimes forget :-) that:

1) CP is carrier to so much things that I don't find interesting

2) every second wasted never comes back

3) some of my other interests requires as much time as CP, mostly 
Canadian Firearms Digest where locally, we Canucks, are fighting a 
battle you are no stranger with, only we got it worse than you 
Yankees.

4) IMO, crypto has to be a useful tool to be interesting.  I am more 
interested in improving life than in building aesthetic mathematical 
algorithms.  And the most direct way to achieve this is anonymous 
e-$, not guns.

5) fighting for privacy rights will be irrelevant when govt will have 
been starved to extinction by e-$.

6) If I subtract from my awake time my working time, my eating time, 
my washing time, my ****ing time and my domestic chores time, it 
leaves me with time I can do whatever I want.  This remaining time is 
always too short.

7) After several weeks of being on CP and e$pam and e$ 
simultaneously, I found that I can read most of you posts on 
CP via e$pam, great thanks to RAH.  RAH seems to forward everything 
that is even remotely related to e-$.  Unless RAH has a 
Machielavelous plan to induce everybody in error, for the time being, 
he does a great job.  I subscribe from times to times to CP for 
random durations at random moments just to cross-check theses things. 
My last year long absence from CP was caused by entirely other 
things.  I had no time for any net stuff at all. 

> As a comment, sometimes when I try to "reply to all" to these messages from
> folks reading digests, I get "you are not a member of this list" or "this
> is a private list" messages.

Why don't you try jf_avon@citenet.net? :-)  Get a decent mailer and 
you'll find it's easy...  :-)

> Fine, but it's why I won't waste time on folks who may not even see what I
> write unless I address it to them personally.

So now, do you propose mandatory voluntary subscription to some 
mailing lists?  :-)  Never thought about telepathy? Or becoming a 
prominent TV figure so that *everybody* (well, almost...) would be 
force-fed to TM-Stuff (tm) ?   :-)  OK, OK, I push it a bit 
but why should I have to suffer the intelligent and down to the point 
discussions on CP if I consider that I have other better things to 
do?  The issue comes down to the respect of the Individual. Could I, 
pe-lease, have my own interests? Pe-lease?

As for your perception of "loosing time on folks [snip]", I opinate 
that it is an error from you.  Although I am off from CP, I recently 
ordered Applied Crypto (at last, I found the money...), and I plan to 
give a small introduction talk to various persons and groups.  I make 
*every* *damn* *efforts* to spread PGP with everybody I know, 
distributing software and keys.

But you see, if you say to somebody : this will encrypt your 
communications" they don't give a shit.  

If you explain to them the digital telephony bill, the current 
tapping capability, the various moves that the govt is currently 
doing, *and* crypto through the e-$ applications *and* political 
consequences of e-$, *then* they *really* do get interested.  

In my own experience, introducing the topic by the e-$/govt-intrusion 
door is what gets them the motivation to learn text-based 
plain-vanilla PGP.  And as I said in an earlier post, the more they 
get their money confiscated in the name of the Great Unwashed 
Happiness, the more they get interested.

So, "that folk" is one it is unwise to neglect, he just gets 
overwhelmed by the sheer volume of stuff on CP.  Most of the 
discouraged just unsubscribe and a few rare stick to it in diverse, 
indirect ways.  The ones who stick to it might just be the most 
persistent of them all.

> JF, get a decent mailer and get on the real list if you want to participate.

I use Pegasus Mail V2.53 with a kill file verging on the terabyte 
thank you.  And I don't want to "participate", I want to exchange 
ideas.  Peoples who want to do so with me will do so.  If it is too 
much work to include me in your replies, just don't bother.

> Oh, and "cypherpunks@toad.com"

Please send me a valid name so I can keep posting to CP without 
suffering the irrelevant-to-my-interests stuff, in full confidence 
that RAH will keep doing it's fantastic job of forwarding your 
most-of-the-time-interesting-to-me posts.

Ciao Tim
Ciao all

jfa

jf_avon@citenet.net writes:

>
> On 13 Sep 97 at 9:19, Tim May wrote:
>
> > (JF won't see this, unless Bob H. chooses to pass it on, Sandy-style. This
> > on unedited, undelayed lists, not on digests and delayed condensations.)
>
> AFAIK, e$pam is not edited and not a digest.  But there might be
> parental control ...  :-)

I tried to subscribe and was told that vnet doesn't like me.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps