Re: legally required forgetting
At 07:20 PM 4/10/04 -0400, An Metet wrote: .. BlackNet thwarts such limitations on the reporting of consumer credit. Clearly, providing access to this data harms individual privacy. Yet Cypherpunks traditionally have supported this concept. A privacy advocacy group promotes technology which would aid the compilation of individual dossiers and allow access to personally identifying data about past financial transactions. All that's needed is for a creditor to publish the names and addresses of his 180-day overdue accounts in some public forum, or to file lawsuits that become public record. Web-accessible archives will do the rest. It's not like the credit reporting rules would necessarily keep a private investigator now from finding out that you declared bankruptcy twenty years ago. .. Today, the Cypherpunks list is but a shadow of its former glory, with anarcho-capitalism all but forgotten in favor of fashionable nihilism, libertarians replaced by liberals. Perhaps it is not too late to resurrect the ideals of the past, but it will require hard work and open mindedness on the part of all. Well, some of the ideals, or at least assumptions, haven't survived encounters with the facts too well. Moore's law has continued apace, strong crypto is widely available, but would anyone claim we have more privacy now than in 1990? Nor is this only because of 9/11 (asymmetric warfare apparently *does* work pretty well, though it's hard to see how that's done anything for the cause of freedom in the US); surveilance cameras, OCR, biometric readers and data mining techniques are all getting cheaper. The split seems to be that most people lose privacy, while those who really care a lot gain a little privacy, albeit by standing out as obvious people-with-something-to-hide, activists, or cryptographers. The math behind anonymous payment schemes is well-understood, and processors are fast enough to do signatures and blinding and all the rest pretty painlessly, now. But e-commerce is still all about credit cards over SSL (on a browser that is manifestly *not* a piece of security software!), if that. It's ironic. All the things that seemed like barriers to serious privacy for the masses--Clipper, export controls, the RSA patent, processors barely powerful enough to do serious public key operation before the user lost patience--are either gone or much-diminished. But we still don't have serious privacy for the masses, or even widespread use of crypto in a way that protects communications privacy. It's not like I expected my mom to be making her money trading gold-denominated Burmese opium futures[1] by now. But I at least expected my phone calls and e-mails to her not to be trivially tapable! [1] Classical reference --John Kelsey, [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP: FA48 3237 9AD5 30AC EEDD BBC8 2A80 6948 4CAA F259
Re: legally required forgetting
On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 10:33:39AM -0700, Major Variola (ret) wrote: Thanks for the distinction, however it still makes CC folks slaves of the State. Suppose Joe Badcredit finds a blank application and applies? The State then uses violence to coerce the CC into non-consensual transactions. No. AIUI the CC company is not obligated by the state to offer joe any credit at all in response to his application. They may reject him based on his nonpayment twenty years later. They simply may not attempt to collect the old debt. Also, in practice, the people who aggregate such information from other creditors will have a hard time reporting on the old default. But you are not obligated to extend any credit that you do not wish to extend.
RE: Gmail as Blacknet (legally required forgetting)
At 05:16 PM 4/9/04 -0400, Tyler Durden wrote: (As an aside, although debt has to be -forgiven- after 7 years, contrary to popular belief it is not true that a debt has to be -forgotten-...I know of one credit major card company that will not accept 'new' cardmembers that didn't pay back what they owed, even if that's 15 years ago. That's actually perfectly legal.) I don't know about your anecdote, but Mr. May's original point was that the law *requires* companies to forget. Which is of course an illegitimate intrusion of the state into private affairs. And the responsibles need killing. Ahhh, that feels better. - When I was your age we didn't have Tim May! We had to be paranoid on our own! And we were grateful! --Alan Olsen
RE: legally required forgetting
At 11:18 AM 4/10/04 -0400, Tyler Durden wrote: What the law actually states is (basically) a defaulted loan must be forgiven after seven years. In other words, it is illegal to continue to attempt to collect on a loan, 7 years after the default. However, it is perfectly legal to remember that an individual failed to pay back a loan. In practice, this means that a large brand-name Credit Card company can choose not to send an offer to someone that defaulted 10 years ago. Thanks for the distinction, however it still makes CC folks slaves of the State. Suppose Joe Badcredit finds a blank application and applies? The State then uses violence to coerce the CC into non-consensual transactions. And the responsibles need killing. Well, in a lot of cases I agreed with May's sentiment, even if I'm not entirely sure this would do much. However, as for putting the Jews and blacks up chimneys, well add to that what appears to be an almost State Corporatism stance, First, no one (but you) mentioned subcultures, which is what TM typically referred to (not subraces). Second, corporations generally welcome anyone with money to buy their stuff, even if the corp folks don't condone the culture of the buyers. Not sure what you mean by 'state corporatism', which sounds like euphemized state collectivism. But those are side issues. At least, aside from the technical content, I still view May's harshest rantings as a sort of Fredom of Speech acid test...if one would try to forcibly or legally shut him down, then one probably needs killing. Freedom is only tested when you find it objectionable. (And BTW you're the one injecting some of Tim's other rants; why?) Those who use violence against others (deprivation of freedom) have earned the same. Especially if its state violence. Dig? PS: I saw a bit of news on pills to help people forget. Eg to help avoid post traumatic stress. One of the more objectionable objections to this was that witnesses might become unreliable. As if the state had some right to force you to remember something. (And tequila works pretty well although you need to get inside the consolidation window.)
Re: legally required forgetting
Regarding the question of whether debt must be merely 'forgiven' or actually 'forgotten', see http://www.epic.org/privacy/fcra for information on the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970: The FCRA limits the length of time some information can appear in a consumer report. For instance, bankruptcies must be removed from the report after 10 years. Civil suits, civil judgments, paid tax liens, accounts placed for collection, and records of arrest can only appear for 7 years. BlackNet thwarts such limitations on the reporting of consumer credit. Clearly, providing access to this data harms individual privacy. Yet Cypherpunks traditionally have supported this concept. A privacy advocacy group promotes technology which would aid the compilation of individual dossiers and allow access to personally identifying data about past financial transactions. Of course, these were classical Cypherpunks, from the days when men were men and giants walked the earth. They understood that the way to keep data private was not to let it out in the first place. They believed in freedom: freedom of association, freedom of contract. They saw privacy as a means to achieve that freedom, not as an end in itself. Today, the Cypherpunks list is but a shadow of its former glory, with anarcho-capitalism all but forgotten in favor of fashionable nihilism, libertarians replaced by liberals. Perhaps it is not too late to resurrect the ideals of the past, but it will require hard work and open mindedness on the part of all.
RE: Gmail as Blacknet (legally required forgetting)
I don't know about your anecdote, but Mr. May's original point was that the law *requires* companies to forget. Which is of course an illegitimate intrusion of the state into private affairs. Well, this is not well understood by those outside the credit world. What the law actually states is (basically) a defaulted loan must be forgiven after seven years. In other words, it is illegal to continue to attempt to collect on a loan, 7 years after the default. However, it is perfectly legal to remember that an individual failed to pay back a loan. In practice, this means that a large brand-name Credit Card company can choose not to send an offer to someone that defaulted 10 years ago. Of course, they can't dunn that person anymore, but they don't have to offer a card. I know without any doubt that there is at least one that does this, and it's not like the Feds wouldn't notice! And the responsibles need killing. Well, in a lot of cases I agreed with May's sentiment, even if I'm not entirely sure this would do much. However, as for putting the Jews and blacks up chimneys, well add to that what appears to be an almost State Corporatism stance, and there's a discernable vector there...look up Boehrman Flight Capital Organization and I'm still not convinced the resemblance is coincidental. But those are side issues. At least, aside from the technical content, I still view May's harshest rantings as a sort of Fredom of Speech acid test...if one would try to forcibly or legally shut him down, then one probably needs killing. -TD From: Major Variola (ret) [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Gmail as Blacknet (legally required forgetting) Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2004 20:35:47 -0700 At 05:16 PM 4/9/04 -0400, Tyler Durden wrote: (As an aside, although debt has to be -forgiven- after 7 years, contrary to popular belief it is not true that a debt has to be -forgotten-...I know of one credit major card company that will not accept 'new' cardmembers that didn't pay back what they owed, even if that's 15 years ago. That's actually perfectly legal.) I don't know about your anecdote, but Mr. May's original point was that the law *requires* companies to forget. Which is of course an illegitimate intrusion of the state into private affairs. And the responsibles need killing. Ahhh, that feels better. - When I was your age we didn't have Tim May! We had to be paranoid on our own! And we were grateful! --Alan Olsen _ Get rid of annoying pop-up ads with the new MSN Toolbar FREE! http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200414ave/direct/01/
Re: Gmail as Blacknet (legally required forgetting)
Tyler Durden writes: What the law actually states is (basically) a defaulted loan must be forgiven after seven years. In other words, it is illegal to continue to attempt to collect on a loan, 7 years after the default. There are different levels of illegal. The most important one is the statute of limitations on suing the individual, and converting the delinquent debt into a judgment, with which assets can be forcibly seized. This varies by state, and also varies by whether there is a contracted for amount in writing, such as a loan or mortgage, or whether the debt is an open account, which would cover revolving charge accounts with retail establishments, and also in most states, credit cards. A typical statute of limitations for open accounts is 3 years. Contracts can go up to 10 years, depending on where you reside. You can still be sued over any debt, but you can move to dismiss if the statute of limitations has expired. The other axis of debt is reporting, which is how long the credit bureaus and other organizations which keep files on you can tell other people about the debt. This is typically 7 years for delinquencies, and 10 years for bankruptcies and judgments. This only applies to reporting for credit purposes. Nothing is ever expunged from your credit file. The file is simply redacted according to who is requesting it. LEAs, and also in certain cases employers, can see your entire credit file from day one, with information you have contested, and an audit trail of possibly successful attempts to have it removed. Now, as far as collection practices go, there is absolutely nothing to prevent your basic brand name credit card company with which you have a 20 year old delinquency, from offering you a financial product which includes re-affirming all or part of an old debt, even one which has been discharged through bankruptcy. For instance, they can offer you a new gold card with your charged off balance on it, forgive all the interest and fees since charge off, charge no interest, and give you 50 cents on every dollar paid off added to your credit line, and free tickets to the Super Bowl, all PRE_APPROVED. This can do this with money you owe them, or with a delinquent account they have purchased from someone else in the marketplace. THe only restriction is that they cannot report you paid off the old debt to the credit bureaus, if it is over 7 years delinquent. In almost all cases, you're an idiot to accept such an offer, of course. So, as you see, all of this is a bit more complex than it being illegal to collect on anything over 7 years. They can't win a lawsuit. They can't call you at 2 AM in the morning to bitch if you send them a cease and desist notice. But they can certainly trade your antique debt in the debt marketplace, and anyone who buys it is free to think up all the clever ways they can invent in order to seduce you to pay it off, before selling it at an even greater discount to the next lowest level of the delinquent debt food chain. Now, occasionally, states Attorneys General get after companies who try and collect on old debts. I remember a few years ago, American Express got some flack over its practice of letting people who went through bankruptcy keep their American Express Cards if they re-affirmed the balance. It is, however, a largely unregulated industry, aside from an occasional wrist-slapping. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law
