Re: Federal Control of Financial Transactions

[nym@netcom.com (Sue D. Nym)]

OK, I will try a new tact of replying to an *existing* message
so no one can accuse me of being off charter.

frissell@panix.com (Duncan Frissell)
>The major concern is the same one mentioned in the Book of Revelations:
>
>"REV 13:16  And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free 
>and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
>
>REV 13:17  And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, 
>or the name of the beast, or the number of his name."

I have been reading some fascinating interpretations of these and 
other prophecies lately. Some interpretations that impress me deeply
claim that the Antichrist ("Beast") will use the international 
communications infrastructure in exactly the way that Duncan is 
implying: enforced identity on all participants to participate in
economic transactions. And he will "cut off" the nations that don't 
participate in his deification. How? Apparently, from what I can
figure, seizing satellite communications control.

Something struck me about Duncan's next comment, though:

>So the Feds deploy a card (smart or dumb) that has to be used for most
>transactions and lets them track everything we do.  Tourists are brought
>into the system through the use of temporary cards (or the machine-readable
>strip on their passports which already includes a space for a national ID
>number.)

Actually, cypherpunks, I am going to become a human lighting rod 
and propose the following (I just haven't received enough eyeball-melting
flames today yet). I think your cause for privacy would actually be
*advanced* by promoting an ID *card* under the following condition:

Anyone can obtain as many ID cards as they want. The *individual* can
maintain the connection that "This is my card". But the government
cannot draw the conclusion "This card belongs to so-and-so". From 
what I can figure, some of your technology like remailers and
codes might be able to support such a scheme (maybe some of the hard
core genious could expound on this).

Now, suppose that the government did all its taxes through the use
of the cards, instead of through *individuals* (as is the case with
the current income tax system). That is, they might tax transactions
on the cards slightly.

The point I want to get at is that one can have a system that supports
"identity-related" transactions without actually allowing the government
to trace to a given identity. The absolute worst case scenario I agree
is as described in the Revelations--having an "identity stamp" on your
forehead or something. But note that the correspondence between humans
and cards is wholly unrestrained. 

Before you accuse me of heresy, consider the system of email address
privacy that was championed earlier by Perry Metzger: you can get any 
account on any system with any alias, and this protects you from people
tracing you. And you can use the system. Would it be an OK compromise
if a government was set up under the same system? I.e. you can get any
cards you want, and you can "use the system", but the government can
never trace you?

I see discussions about tax avoidance and I wonder if people are really
trying to just avoid taxes through privacy. This I think is a very 
dangerous possibility. It seems to me  that governments
have been around as long as people have and while it can get dangerous or
oppressive with some variations of them, it can also get extremely
dangerous *without* them. Do you want privacy, i.e. the government
does not know who you are, but you still participate in a social
system with government? Or do you just want to get rid of governments,
and use "privacy" as the reason? Yikes.

I agree that there is a possibility of a police state using identity 
"stamps" in a negative way. It allows them to correlate activities 
with people and target them. But if they cannot trace people, 
as would be the case with "multiple cards", do they really have any 
power over you? It seems like it could work to me.

It seems to me the real danger is correlating business activities with
individuals, not necessarily so much that those activities
are taxed. Imagine a system like we have today, where you can have
credit cards without actually revealing your identity to anyone.
What if we had credit cards with all kinds of different "names"
(IDs) and could pay the bank secretly? That would be a system
that supported privacy but also supported the ability to interact in
an economy.

I think some attempt should be made to discriminate between 
mere "cards" for transactions that don't enforce identity but still
allow transactions, vs. the requirement that transactions be
traceable to particular human "vessels" (i.e., the Stamp of the Beast).

>Clipper and the Post Office agitprop on the US Card give us a possible
>scenario.  The P.O., desperate to find a reason to exist as its core
>business drains away to the wires and private carriers, would like to become
>the primary digital signature authorizers for the U.S. 

But what if these signatures were not signatures in the sense today of
a one-to-one correspondence of people to signatures, but the indirect
relationship of people-to-email addresses? Wouldn't we want to *encourage*
such a system? I keep seeing this stuff about "digital signatures"--
if people want them, wouldn't you be in favor of getting a strong system
together? Maybe you should consider *supporting* the Post Office proposal
if you can twist in the favor of *privacy*, i.e. allowing anyone to
have multiple signatures as a basic prerequisite of the infrastructure.
Here is an opportunity to impose the Cypherpunk vision of privacy in
the real world, but instead you lambaste it.

>Similarly, the government might try to preempt the market for digital
>signature and commercial encryption technology by deciding to make anyone
>who wants to use a digital signature system in dealings with the government
>use the Post Office or some such agency as the signature authenticator.

Would this necessarily be a "bad thing" if it supported "fluidity of
identity" that I refer to? (Can't remember where I found that phrase;
apologies to whoever invented it.) In fact, wouldn't it be an extremely 
"good thing" for the cause of privacy to have your ideas implemented
in a massive, conservative (and therefore *entrenched*) bureacracy?

>Thus, all sorts of authentication transactions would pass through the
>powerful and efficient post office data network and the
>ex-countercultural/born-again control freaks Inside the Beltway could get
>their jollies tracking your employment and purchases.

Again, if the system allowed "fluidity" it would be FANTASTIC IMHO.

>Assuming that the government were to attempt to establish a Post Office
>mediated digital authentication system, there is no guarantee that it would
>work. 

There is no guarantee that *any* system will *ever* work. But it seems
to me there is an "authentication vacuum" in cyberspace. If you can't
find *something* to support, something you *don't* support will 
inevitably fill the vacuum. By criticizing the *reasonable* approaches
as Orwellian, you may leave no choice but the Orwellian ones.

---

"Someone" on "True Lies"
>6) Oh yeah, the women are unable to do anything except talk on the phone,
>get into catfights, give men blowjobs, and kill people by accident.  The
>only female villain is clever, but the screenplay is sure to point out
>that she has not principle other than the dollar (or yen, pound, mark,
>etc).  This is a very male film, even without getting into that old 60's
>cliche about missiles being penis extensions. 

ug. 

---

>Some words to "Sue":  If you have, in fact, been the subject of stalking,
>physical, net, or cyber, please accept my appologies on behalf of all
>honorable males for failing to properly limit the number/range of these
>monsters.

Well, I do not appreciate threats in my mailbox such as "Go away--I'm not
as gentle as Perry Metzger". I can't believe how torqued-up all you guys
are. This mailing list is like a firing range.

People, you may successfully get me to lose this account for no reason.
I hear that Netcom has an itchy "trigger finger" and frankly, no one
cares if anyone else loses a computer account. And some people have the
audacity to call this "freedom of speech". What could be better?

Just delete my messages if you find them irrelevant. Please, stop
bringing all of mankind's strife with you into cyberspace. It is a
"new baby" that is being stabbed with the sharp knives of your 
paranoia and hatred. I for one refuse to be intimidated by barbarians
in cyberspace.

You who say it is no big deal when an account is yanked, at that
the provider should always have the perogative to do this--do
you think this will ever happen on a global level? What if the 
provider of [x] satellite decides he doesn't like you? Your ideas
do not scale well. In fact, they scale disastrously. IMHO every
account that is yanked is another brick in the wall of the Antichrist's.
It encourages the "ho hum" attitude when a great injustice has
taken place. It is a subtle vice-press encroachment of liberty 
that happened in Nazi Germany as no one was looking--or, as everyone
was.

"Can we change the future"? It may be that in attempting to bring 
about a desired situation of suppressing the Beast we are actually 
playing into his goals. How can we know what to do? Well, for one, 
it seems to me that negative emotions like paranoia and revenge play 
into evil ploys.

bye
nym