Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Giving Carnivore the Slip

By Jon Matonis, President and CEO, Hush Communications Corp.
Special to ZDNet.com
Friday, August 25, 2000

There has been much debate recently surrounding the FBI's latest snooping software, Carnivore.

Carnivore is a type of information-gathering software housed in a computer that can be connected to your ISP's servers. It mines all incoming and outgoing mail for information. It's like a wiretap that cuts through all the other phone noise except for the phone of the person under surveillance.

A wide net: The FBI intends to use the software to locate and monitor specific e-mail addresses for evidence of criminal activity. In the process of monitoring one account, Carnivore must sift through all available account information on a given server.

Because Carnivore must be hooked directly to an ISP's servers, the government essentially would have the ability to eavesdrop covertly on all digital communications by the ISP's customers.

As an advocate for personal privacy, I believe we have a fundamental right to protect our personal data and communications from unwanted third-party intruders.

This new technology raises many important Internet legal issues and privacy concerns. One such question is: "Can we, as individuals, maintain our right to privacy in cyberspace?"

The answer is yes. There are several secure e-mail and anonymous browsing options available in the marketplace that have the ability to keep intruders at bay. These products make the transfer of personal communication and information on the Internet as secure as transferring it via a heavily guarded armored car.

A good example is our own HushMail.Com, an easy-to-use, Web-based e-mail service that encrypts or scrambles a message guaranteeing that only the sender and the receiver are able to read it.

The service is free and makes a user's encrypted messages untouchable, so no ISP, employer, snoop or government can decode messages. Several other quality security products are also available on the market.

Technology to protect our e-mail from unwanted intruders such as Carnivore does exist. Most often, Internet security products are free of charge and accessible to all. In fact, technologies like Hush's are available for a wide variety of applications, not just e-mail.

Unfortunately, many people, even leaders in the field of technology, fail to take advantage of the tools that can so easily protect them. In a survey conducted by the Computer Security Institute, 64 percent of companies who responded said that they had experienced an e-mail security breach during the past 12 months. Respondents added that losses sustained from such security breaches ranged from $300,000 to $25 million. Had these companies been using a secure e-mail service, their e-mail would have been undecipherable.

I believe that we have an innate right to personal privacy, and with this freedom, a duty to act responsibly. The technology needed to ensure an individual's right to privacy on the Internet is available.

However, it is up to each individual to access it. My goal is to give people the tools they need to protect themselves so that, someday, debates about Internet privacy will be unnecessary.

Jon Matonis, President and CEO of Hush Communications Corp., has more than 15 years' management experience in the areas of security and encryption technology, embedded software systems, international payment systems, and foreign exchange.

Friday, May 15, 2009

Welcome to Sealand, Now Bugger Off

By Simson Garfinkel
Wired
July, 2000

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.07/haven.html

Hunkered down on a North Sea fortress, a crew of armed cypherpunks, amped-up networking geeks, and libertarian swashbucklers is seceding from the world to pursue a revolutionary idea: an offshore, fat-pipe data haven that answers to nobody.

Ryan Lackey, a 21-year-old MIT dropout and self-taught crypto expert, sees fantastic things for himself in 2005. For starters, he'll be filthy rich. But his future is animated by more than just money - to wit, the exploration of a huge idea he thinks will change the world. Lackey's big concept? That freedom is the next killer app.

Before you get too choked up, you should know that Lackey means giving corporations and frisky individuals the "freedom" to store and move data without answering to anybody, including competitors, regulators, and lawyers. He's part of a crew of adventurers and cypherpunks that's working to transform a 60-year-old gunnery fort in the North Sea - an odd, quasi-independent outpost whose British owner calls it "the Principality of Sealand" - into something that could be possible only in the 21st century: a fat-pipe Internet server farm and global networking hub that combines the spicier elements of a Caribbean tax shelter, Cryptonomicon, and 007.

This summer, with $1 million in seed money provided by a small core of Internet-fattened investors, Lackey and his colleagues are setting up Sealand as the world's first truly offshore, almost-anything-goes electronic data haven - a place that occupies a tantalizing gray zone between what's legal and what's ... possible. Especially if you exist, as the Sealanders plan to, outside the jurisdiction of the world's nation-states. Simply put: Sealand won't just be offshore. It will be off-government.

The startup is called, fittingly, HavenCo Ltd. Headquartered on a 6,000-square-foot, World War II-era antiaircraft deck that comprises the "land" of Sealand, the facility isn't much to look at and probably never will be. It consists of a rusty steel deck sitting on two hollow, chubby concrete cylinders that rise 60 feet above the churn of the North Sea. Up top there's a drab building and a jury-rigged helicopter landing pad.

Soon, Lackey believes, powerful upgrades will transform Sealand into something amazing. The huge support cylinders will contain millions of dollars' worth of networking gear: computers, servers, transaction processors, data-storage devices - all cooled with banks of roaring air conditioners and powered by triple-redundant generators. HavenCo will provide its clients with nearly a gigabit per second of Internet bandwidth by year's end, at prices far cheaper than those on the overregulated dry land of Europe - whose financial capitals sit a mere 20 milliseconds away from Sealand's electronic nerve center. Three speedy connections to HavenCo affiliate hubs all over the planet - microwave, satellite, and underwater fiber-optic links - will ensure that the data never stops flowing.

HavenCo's onboard staff will come and go on helicopters and speedboats. Four security people will be on hand at all times to maintain order; six computer geeks will run the network operations center. The security personnel, heavily armed and ready to blast anybody who shouldn't be around, will make sure that unauthorized boats and aircraft keep their distance. The geeks will perform maintenance tasks like replacing failed hard disks and installing new equipment. These routine chores will be a little more challenging than usual, given the maritime setting and Sealand's obsession with privacy. Fall over the edge of Sealand's deck, for instance, and you'll probably drown. Simply entering one of the machine rooms will require putting on scuba gear, because the rooms will be filled with an unbreathable pure nitrogen atmosphere instead of the normal oxygen mix - a measure designed to keep out sneaks, inhibit rust, and reduce the risk of fire.

HavenCo will be "offshore" both physically and in the sense that its clients - who will purchase preconfigured "colocation" computers maintained and secured by HavenCo - will basically be able to tell the rest of the world to shove it. The essence of offshore Internet services, as defined by sort-of-offshore places like Anguilla and Bermuda, is that when you base an operation in such a locale, you can claim to be governed only by the laws that prevail there. So if Internet gambling is legal (or overlooked) in Country A but not in Country B, you set up in A, and use the Web to send your site to B - and to the rest of the world.

Similarly, companies using Sealand to house their data can choose to operate according to the special laws of Sealand, and those laws will be particularly lax - though not quite anarchic. Lackey says the general idea is to allow a little naughtiness, while forbidding criminal activity that could generate international outrage.

Meaning? Basically, that HavenCo wants to give people a safe, secure shelter from lawyers, government snoops, and assorted busybodies without getting tangled in flagrant wrongdoing. So if you run a financial institution that's looking to operate an anonymous and untraceable payment system - HavenCo can help. If you'd like to send old-fashioned, adults-only pornography into a grumpy country like Saudi Arabia - HavenCo can help there, too. But if you want to run a spamming operation, launder drug money, or send kiddie porn anywhere - forget it.

To visualize a typical HavenCo customer circa 2005, imagine a company we'll call MacroMaxx, a Berlin-based construction giant that has offices throughout the world. MacroMaxx wants a secure new data center for its European offices, so the firm clicks on to the www.havenco.com Web site and purchases access to a Sealand-based server hooked up to an IBM RAID machine, which gives it a terabyte of online storage. The system is already installed and running in HavenCo's machine room. After putting through a confirmed bank transfer, MacroMaxx instantly gets the computer's password. Its technicians configure the standard set of server applications, then start building user accounts. Within an hour, email is moving.

The server's location on Sealand means MacroMaxx won't have to worry about fires, earthquakes, tornadoes, thefts, bomb threats, industrial sabotage, or killer-bee attacks. Or, for that matter, the discovery process in civil suits. If MacroMaxx is embroiled in a legal tussle and doesn't feel cooperative, it could use Sealand's unique status as a way to dig in its heels. Say, for example, that a pesky court official shows up at the company's Berlin office with a disk-duplicating device, demanding all company email for the past year. MacroMaxx execs could say, "Gee, we don't have that here." The official would be stymied, because the email simply wouldn't be on the premises, and it's up to MacroMaxx whether it keeps any backups around. The primary data would be housed only at Sealand.

And should the authorities find out and call Sealand demanding to come aboard and access MacroMaxx's machines? No problem, says Lackey: They'll be told to bugger off.

That's the vision, anyway. The current reality is more mundane. Sealand does exist - it's a real, live, passport-issuing, artificial micronation that's been around since 1967, arguably the only remotely credible place like it in the world. But there's a lot of work left to be done, as I saw firsthand on a dim and stormy day in March.
HavenCo will allow online gambling, pyramid schemes, and adult pornography - but spamming and corporate cybersabotage are out.
Sealand was originally called Roughs Tower; it was built as part of a complex of no-frills antiaircraft forts designed for shooting down Nazi planes on bombing runs to England. The old battle station stands in 24 feet of North Sea brine, 6 miles east of Felixstowe, an industrial port on the southeast coast of England. Abandoned after the war, the structure was occupied in '67 by Roy Bates, a British war veteran who renamed it Sealand, declared its independence from Great Britain, and appointed himself its "prince."

He got away with it, too - sort of. Officially, the UK doesn't recognize Sealand, but except for a few dustups now and then, the government has left the strange little fief alone.

The bigger challenge for Bates has been figuring out what to do with it. Over the years, Roy (the royal patriarch, now 78), his wife, Joan (also known as Princess Joan, 70), and his son, Michael (the dauphin-style heir apparent, 47), have earned their livings through fairly ordinary pursuits - like commercial fishing and fish processing - while shuttling back and forth between the platform and the mainland and styling themselves dual citizens of Sealand and the UK. They've theorized about various moneymaking plans - pirate radio outposts, tax havens, pleasure dens, casinos - but in the end, Sealand has been a money pit. The Bateses say they've spent huge amounts on upkeep, supplies, legal fees, and improvements.

When Sealand does blip on the geopolitical radar, it usually involves a brand of low comedy that has made it a favorite of Fleet Street journalists. In 1997, for example, an Andrew Cunanan/Sealand connection surfaced. After Gianni Versace's killer committed suicide on a Miami houseboat, police discovered that the man who owned the boat was in possession of a purported Sealand passport. Nothing more came of it, but as it turns out, lots of people have Sealand passports who shouldn't - the things apparently self-replicate without the Bateses' knowledge. This past spring, Sealand made the news again: Law-enforcement officials in Spain busted a Madrid-based gang allegedly tied to international drug trafficking and money laundering. The gang appeared to be using a fake Sealand Web site and thousands of phony Sealand passports as part of its criminal activity.

Questioned by Interpol, Roy wailed about the injustice of anyone using the Sealand name for black deeds. "[Sealand] has all been a game, an adventure, and it is very unfortunate to see it take this turn," he told one reporter.

"Nobody is more honest than my husband," Joan said at the time. "He's so honest he creaks."

Whether or not HavenCo counts as creakingly honest, it isn't the sort of enterprise you'd expect to come from a 78-year-old fisherman, and it didn't. In this deal, Roy is a cheerful cosignatory, but it was Michael who forged the pact with the cypherpunks. Michael is also the only "royal family" member on board when I go along for the weekly resupply mission to Sealand, which shoves off from the town of Southend-on-Sea - where Michael and a partner run a shellfish-processing factory - at 4:30 am sharp.

Our boat, the Paula Maree, pulls away from the coast toting enough canned food and drinking water to feed Sealand's current two-man crew for another week. Today the vessel is carrying more interesting stuff, including steel girders, a winch, an electric arc welder, an oxyacetylene torch, and a welding tank. The construction materials are for use in building a new crane that will hoist aboard still more building supplies, generators, power conditioners, batteries, and fuel tanks. If all goes according to plan, Sealand will support millions of dollars worth of networking equipment and computer racks by late summer.

It takes 15 minutes to get to Sealand by helicopter, but our trip will take five hours because we're starting 45 miles southwest of the site. The Paula Maree's captain, a clean-shaven, compact fisherman named Mason West, guides the vessel using a combination of navigational beacons and GPS. Ryan Lackey and Michael Bates are on board, along with two burly security guards, Alan Beale and Bill Alen, who will spend the next week doubling as construction workers.

The cockpit is jammed, so Bates sends Lackey and me down below. Lackey is short and pudgy, with the requisite shaved head of a new media hipster. He's obviously intelligent, and seems driven to do something major before he's 25. After scoring 1,580 on his SATs, he skipped his last year of high school and entered MIT in 1996. But he quit after three years for lack of tuition money - he now describes himself as a "crypto-hacker/crypto-anarchist who happened to be attending MIT" - and went to work as a programmer for a highly secretive electronic payments startup that he cofounded, then abandoned, on the Caribbean island of Anguilla. After his failed stint there, he moved to San Francisco, his home base during the busy period leading up to the HavenCo launch.

Michael Bates comes down the ladder. He and Lackey start talking about pending renovations to Sealand's electrical system. Lackey, thinking big, wants to buy three large generators, a couple of industrial-size power conditioners, and a hefty bank of batteries to run the computers in an emergency. "I'd like to shoot for five minutes of battery backup," he says, explaining that if two of the running generators simultaneously fail, five minutes should be enough time to get the third operational. "We'll use gel cells."

"How many thousand pounds?" Bates asks. He means the weight, not the price: HavenCo's existing crane can barely lift 800 pounds.

Lackey shrugs: dunno. He shrugs again when I recommend conventional lead-acid batteries, because gel cells have a limited shelf life. "Five years from now," he says, hitting me with a serious gaze, "we are either going to be completely broke or we're going to be fantastically wealthy."

Sounds far-fetched, but who knows? HavenCo has collected its key employees, studied the relevant (and confusing) international law, and scooped up the money needed to get going. Along with Lackey, major personnel include Sean Hastings and his wife, Jo, who have experience in programming, offshore financing, and online gambling. Another important player is Sameer Parekh, a computer security specialist who launched the crypto software company C2Net and is now HavenCo's chair. Parekh confidently predicts HavenCo will pull in between $50 million and $100 million in profits by the end of its third year in business.

That remains to be seen - Lackey says he has plenty of clients lined up, but for "security reasons," he can name only one of them: Tibet Online, the Net presence of Tibet's exiled government, which is eager to escape the clutches of the Chinese government. Lackey also intimates an impending partnership with a major corporation he expects will resell HavenCo colocation space to customers with the highest security demands. Before HavenCo had even signed any clients, the project attracted decent investment money from serious people. Two Internet millionaires have publicly jumped aboard: Avi Freedman, Akamai's 30-year-old VP of network architecture, is investing $500,000; and Joichi Ito, the 34-year-old chair of Infoseek Japan, is kicking in $200,000. (A group of anonymous backers has also ponied up $400,000.) That's not a lot as startups go, but HavenCo doesn't need much to get off the ground. Both public investors are serious about HavenCo, complete with its dicier aspects. "I think it's a great project and I hope to see it test some of the edges of our geopolitical economy," says Ito. "The idea has great potential to force governments and other organizations to look at issues surrounding the regulation of commerce and the Internet."

Freedman says he's fully on board and enthused about the project. "If this was just about secure colocation, I wouldn't be investing," he says. "I have a firm belief that countries that encourage and foster open communication will prosper. Those that don't, won't. I see the establishment of a company to focus on the data haven aspect as an important first step. There is idealism involved. This is not strictly economic."

As the principals sketch it out, HavenCo will succeed because it has an unbeatable two-pronged business plan. First, it will operate as a traditional colocation facility - that is, a company that rents space to store servers and provides Internet connections to companies' computers and servers. Colocation is a multibillion-dollar-a-year business currently dominated by outfits like Santa Clara, California-based Exodus Communications, which builds large, earthquake-proof buildings with redundant power supplies, speedy Internet connections, and rows and rows of equipment racks housed in a secure setting. These enterprises put a premium on security, because that's exactly what clients demand. Last spring I visited an Exodus facility in Santa Clara, and my guide proudly pointed out the multiple video cameras, bulletproof glass, and palmprint readers used to verify the identity of people coming to service their equipment. Business is booming: Exodus earned $134 million during the first three months of 2000, a 32 percent increase over the previous quarter.

Nevertheless, Lackey believes HavenCo can do the job better. "Exodus looks secure, but it isn't," he insists, comparing it to a walled city that's protected against outsiders but not insiders. Neither customers nor computers entering Exodus are physically searched or x-rayed, he says, so it would be possible to smuggle in a bomb or simply walk in and shut off the power.

HavenCo won't have these vulnerabilities, Lackey says, because even its customers won't be allowed to visit Sealand or to provide their own equipment. Instead, HavenCo will offer a range of standardized, preconfigured machines, purchased directly from the manufacturer and installed by HavenCo employees. "For us," says Lackey, "security means ensuring customers that their data will be safe from anyone and everyone, even themselves and our own employees."

It also means a willingness to laugh off legal challenges, which is part two of the master plan. For people wanting more than just colocation - who salivate over the tangy protections that a real data haven allows - HavenCo is ready to serve. Having spent time working in Anguilla, Lackey went away unimpressed, because a company operating there can still be shut down by court order if the local government decides to intervene. "Among the things that are illegal in Anguilla are pornography and any type of gambling," he sniffs. "As it stands today, Anguilla is useful only for incorporating nonresident companies and relaxing on the beach."

HavenCo will allow for gambling, pyramid schemes, adult porn, subpoena-proof email, and untraceable bank accounts. But not everything will fly. In addition to the spam and child-porn ban, corporate cybersaboteurs are forbidden. The reason, says Jo Hastings, HavenCo's chief marketing officer, is a policy dictated by Avi Freedman: Don't do anything that would inspire law enforcement officials or ISPs to shut down HavenCo's mainland Internet connections. "We will reserve the right to drop any Web site or service that would threaten our access to the Net," Hastings says.

Still, it's obvious from Lackey's gung-ho pronouncements that HavenCo will stand tough when clients need it most. Consider a real-life example from the mid-'90s, when the Church of Scientology convinced Finnish police to raid the home of a Helsinki resident, who was hosting an anonymous remailer service, anon.penet.fi. (See "alt.scientology.war," Wired 3.12, page 172.) The Scientologists wanted to know who was posting church documents on the Internet. The police showed up at the host's door and forced him to give up the name. If that remailer service had been located on Sealand, the Sealanders simply would not have complied.

But what if the church sent in a private gunboat and demanded the data? "This is how we'd deal with any battle group threatening to destroy us over a server," says Lackey, emphasizing Sealand's foursquare commitment to customer satisfaction. "We'd power off the machine, optionally destroy it, possibly turn over the smoking wreck to the attacker, and securely and anonymously refund payment to the owner of the server."

Two hours from Sealand, the water turns muddy and starts to get rough. The North Sea forecast calls for a very windy morning with rain in the afternoon; soon there are so many waves breaking over the bow that we can't see out the windows.
For "security reasons," HavenCo will mention the name of only one client: Tibet Online, the Net presence of the exiled government, which is eager to escape the clutches of China.
"I see that we are coming up against Sealand's defenses," jokes Alan Beale.

As we get closer, the water calms down and, back upstairs in the pilot's cockpit, I get my first glimpse of Sealand in the distance: Looming taller and taller as we approach, dwarfing our tiny boat, it looks like an industrial-age Stonehenge. Clearly, the structure's best defense isn't the weather, but its height. When I visit, there are only two ways onto Sealand: landing by helicopter or getting hoisted up in a bos'n chair. I'll be taking the chair express, and, as I admit to Michael Bates, I'm nervous.

"Don't worry, you'll love it!" he roars, laughing. Beale hands me a white hard hat and a self-inflating life vest. He doesn't use these himself, but he brought them along especially for Lackey and me. "It seemed a good idea," he says gently.

High above us on the deck, two men lower what looks like the red seat from a child's swing set attached to the end of a long cable. Bill Alen takes his place on the plank of wood, grabs the ropes, and is winched 60 feet into the air and lowered onto the platform's deck.

When my turn comes I sit, hold on tight, and watch the boat fall away underneath me as I'm jerked skyward. Halfway up, the wind gains force and I'm tossed around violently. The hard hat, I realize, is there to protect my skull in case the wind bops me against the platform. It's blowing so furiously that the crew stops the winch until I stabilize. They start the motor again and soon I'm level with the railing that surrounds the deck.

"Raise your legs!" somebody shouts. I do, the crane swings around, and I'm momentarily suspended a few feet over the deck. I jump down and come face-to-face with a menacing sight: Sealand's 3.7-inch antiaircraft gun. It's covered with rust and will never fire again, but it seems like an apt symbol of the micronation's defiant future.

Not to mention its certifiably defiant past: Sealand wouldn't be what it is today without the hotspur energies of Roy Bates, who rose to the rank of major in the British army, fought in North Africa, Sicily, and Italy, and was wounded in action several times. After the war, he started various enterprises, including an import-export business, a wholesale meat business, and a 30-boat fishing fleet.

In 1965, the Bates family embarked on a project that Joan cheerfully describes as "pioneering commercial radio." Others called it pirate radio, because at the time the BBC was the only licensed broadcaster in England. Inspired in part by the success of another radio pirate, and ignoring the law, Roy set up a station on Fort Knock John, one of the abandoned WWII sea forts where he started broadcasting music and advertisements.

Called Radio Essex, the station's 5-kilowatt broadcast blanketed roughly a quarter of England. But the British government wasn't a fan: Bates received a summons in September 1966 for operating a transmitter without a license. Unfortunately for him, he had picked a tower that was just inside England's territorial limit, which was then set at 3 miles out from the coast. He was fined £100 and forced to shut down.

Roy wouldn't make the same mistake again. On Christmas Eve that year, he and Michael, 15 at the time and home from boarding school, dismantled their station and hauled everything to Roughs Tower, which was 6 miles out and therefore beyond the existing territorial limit. There wasn't much the British government could do to stop them, but the military did blow up another fort that stood beyond the 3-mile boundary, to prevent a similar takeover there.

A few months later, Roy and Joan were out with friends in a local pub. Joan mentioned casually that she wanted to have "a flag and some palm trees" to go with the "island" her husband had won for her. Their friends started listing all the things Roy and Joan could do with a sovereign property. Roy hired an attorney to do further research, and learned that a loophole in international law left room for the Bates family to claim Roughs Tower as its own.

"It's called dereliction of sovereignty," explains Michael. "We took over the sovereignty that the British government had derelicted."

On September 2, 1967, Roy proclaimed the independence of Sealand. He pegged the country's currency to the US dollar, minted gold and silver coins, issued passports, and printed a series of stamps honoring great discoverers like Christopher Columbus and Sir Walter Raleigh.

Britain basically ignored the "country" until 1968, when, in a move that helped force the sovereignty issue, Michael fired warning shots at workmen who were servicing a navigational buoy near the platform. The next time Michael and Roy set foot on British soil, they were promptly arrested for weapons violations. But in October of that year, a British court acquitted them, ruling that since Sealand was "about 3 miles outside territorial waters," the Crown's firearms laws didn't apply there. The authorities, perhaps sensing that an embarrassing precedent was taking shape, decided not to appeal.

The British government extended its territorial limit to 12 miles in 1987, but Sealand has been allowed to plod on. Over the years, other legal cases have seemed to bolster the Bateses' sovereignty claim, though the government's stance is still nonrecognition. In 1984, the British Department of Health and Social Security issued a written ruling that Michael Bates did not have to pay his national health insurance for the periods he resided on Sealand. In 1990, Sealand once again fired shots at a boat that came too close. Local authorities investigated, but the matter was quickly dropped.

Sealand itself was never used for pirate broadcasting, due to changes in English law and a broadcasting environment that caused Roy to lose interest in pirate radio by the late '60s. Roy looked around for outside investment in the '70s and '80s, but little came of it except misadventure. Michael says that a number of "undesirables" have contacted the family over the years hoping to use the place for various schemes - from setting up some sort of "pleasure island" to smuggling. Roy claimed he was approached during the Falklands War by a group of Argentineans who wanted to buy Sealand and set up camp "right on Britain's doorstep."

"Of course I sent them away," he told The Independent in 1990. "I'd never do anything that would pose a threat to the UK."

The most raucous moment in Sealand's history occurred in 1977, when the Sealanders were approached by a German and Dutch consortium of shadowy lawyers and diamond merchants.

"They wanted to be part of what we were doing, and they wanted to develop it as well," Joan recalls. "Then they asked us to go to Austria" for a meeting. Roy was wary, but Joan persuaded him, saying, "What have we got to lose?"

When Roy and Joan arrived in Austria, five men greeted them and arranged a meeting for later. The men never showed. Suspicious, Roy and Joan tried to contact Sealand. "In those days it was very difficult," says Joan. "We had no radio communication and no telephone communication. We phoned different people who worked in the area - fishermen and the Coast Guard. One of them said, 'I saw a big helicopter hovering over Sealand.' It didn't feel right."

It wasn't. Michael was at Sealand when the helicopter showed up. As he remembers it, the mystery party lowered a man who claimed to have a telex from Roy confirming that a deal had been made. Michael didn't buy that. Then the helicopter lowered a man who whimpered that "he was sick and needed a glass of whiskey." Michael let the helicopter land, but it was all a trick. Once on the deck, the men locked Michael up without food or water for three days. He says his attackers finally put him on a Dutch fishing boat that they "controlled," took him to Holland, and left him there without a passport or money.

Michael made his way back to Southend, where he met up with Roy and Joan. They hired a helicopter (and a dashing pilot who'd worked on a few James Bond flicks), assembled some men, and set out to recapture their country. When they arrived, Michael, shotgun in hand, slid down a rope and fired a shot - apparently by accident - and the intruders surrendered.

Swashbuckling stuff. But as the Bates admit, life on Sealand hasn't always been a thrill, and in recent years the tiny country has been sliding into obscurity. Michael lives in Southend, where he runs his business. Roy spent most of the '90s living on Sealand by himself, ready to defend its sovereignty with rifle and shotgun. Joan, afflicted with arthritis, retired to Southend, keeping in touch with Roy by cell phone. All these changes have made Sealand more than a little depressing: a geriatric experiment in nation-building, doomed to die a slow death, beaten into the sea by wind and waves.

And then came the cypherpunks.

The idea for a data haven has been around in science fiction for a while," says Sean Hastings, HavenCo's 32-year-old CEO. John Brunner's 1975 novel, The Shockwave Rider, features a communications haven that is invulnerable to the US government. More recently, Neal Stephenson's 1999 novel, Cryptonomicon, is the story of a fictional data haven on a Pacific atoll, unbreakable codes, and a brilliant protagonist coincidentally named Avi. HavenCo's founders say their inspiration didn't come from a novel, but from a chance meeting at a financial cryptography conference held in 1998.

Sean Hastings dropped out of the mathematics undergraduate program at the University of Michigan in 1989 with one semester to go because he didn't care to meet his humanities requirements. He spent eight years kicking around New York and San Francisco, where he played poker and did some programming. By 1998, he and Jo were living in New Orleans, where he wrote order-entry and automated voice-response software for legal sports-betting operations, while Jo did market studies for riverboat and tribal casinos all over the US. One day they got a call from a group of gamblers Sean knew in New York. The gamblers said they wanted to set up their own touch-tone sports-betting system - but this one would be offshore.

"They were looking for people who knew computers and knew the gambling industry," Sean says. "We said, 'That sounds fun.' So we went all through the Caribbean - went to various places - and then made our recommendation."

Sean and Jo decided that the combination of cheap telephone rates, high tech infrastructure, and easy regulations made Costa Rica an ideal spot. "Then we were told that there was this 'Cousin Bob,' and he said, 'Go to the Dominican Republic,'" and so Costa Rica was out. In the end, Cousin Bob screwed things up by insisting that the operation be headquartered at his favorite resort, which had lousy telephone connections. Eventually the project fell apart.

The Hastingses had already put their stuff in storage, rented out their New Orleans home, and bought plane tickets, so they decided to go to the Caribbean anyway. They contacted Vince Cate and Bob Green, two expatriates and high tech entrepreneurs on Anguilla, a hot spot for foreign businesses eager to take advantage of the country's tax haven status. (See "Plotting Away in Margaritaville," Wired 5.07, page 140.)

"Vince and Bob were really excited that two other people with computer knowledge might come to Anguilla," recalls Sean, who partnered with Cate on a secure payment firm. Cate, who eventually bought out Sean's share of the company and remains on amiable terms, adds that while the HavenCo idea sounds risky, he thinks Sean and Lackey might be able to pull it off.

Anguilla turned out to be a lousy location for running offshore data services. The government prohibits gambling and pornography - even on Internet servers. Sean ended up quitting because he couldn't get a work permit, but not before he found time to attend that year's Financial Cryptography Conference, an annual event that attracts bankers and cypherpunks. There, he and Jo met Ryan Lackey and Sameer Parekh.

The four decided that running Internet services from an offshore location was a fundamentally sound notion, but that Anguilla was all wrong. They needed a place with no laws regulating the Internet, cryptography, finance, or labor. Their idea was to find a small nation - some place like Tonga - whose government could recognize the wisdom of setting up a "free Internet zone."

But where? After the conference, Sean came across How to Start Your Own Country, a 1984 book about "new-country projects" by fringe-history buff Erwin S. Strauss. Over the years, various people have made stabs at creating a new nation out of thin air - some people have tried to do it on existing-but-unclaimed land masses, others have hatched far-fetched plans like building artificial islands and tethering them to sea mounts. Strauss catalogs them all. His book's cover shows a picture of Prince Roy and Princess Joan standing on the deck of Sealand, which he describes as "perhaps the most successful new-country venture known."
The Sealanders are arming themselves for self-defense: Plans call for "50-caliber heavy machine guns, 5.56 automatic rifles, and 12-gauge shotguns."
Sean and Jo went back to the United States intrigued by Sealand. In July 1999, Sean sent an appropriately statesmanlike email - addressed to "the royal family of Sealand" - in which he invited Sealand to participate in "a data haven project which seeks to locate servers in as many different free information jurisdictions and extranational areas as possible."

The response came four days later from Michael Bates, who was primed for a meeting, but, as a self-described "computer philistine," wanted to know more. Sean and Michael started swapping email. At the same time, Sean studied the history of Sealand and its pirate radio past. "I told Michael we were basically doing pirate Internet, which meant doing whatever people want to do, without government restrictions."

That fall, negotiations started in earnest with a face-to-face meeting involving Michael, Ryan, Sean, and Jo. What emerged was an arrangement in which the Bateses would receive an initial payment of $250,000 in cash and stock for leasing Sealand to HavenCo. And included in the deal was an option to purchase the platform at some point in the future. The Bates family members would continue to provide for Sealand's security and contribute their expertise to the endeavor. Things moved quickly after that. By this February, HavenCo had its first investor.

In March, Sean and Jo Hastings packed their possessions into a shipping container and sent it to the Sealand platform. With more than a million dollars in first-round funding - and $2.5 million more in the pipeline - they've been slowly transforming the dingy hulk into a high tech facility. The plan is to relocate there permanently by early summer, so they've been sprucing things up with creature comforts, including exercise machines, a satellite TV receiver, DVD players, and a library.

Michael Bates and Ryan Lackey, meanwhile, have been assembling new hoists for lifting heavy objects onto Sealand's deck, bringing in generators, building a fuel tank large enough to hold a year's supply of diesel, and setting up the machine rooms in the platform's cylinders.

To be sure, the old fort needs work. During my visit, Lackey and I take a quick tour. Lackey wanders around exhibiting both awe and surprise - this is his first visit, and Sealand is smaller than he expected. A steep staircase leads down each cylinder, making it difficult to imagine bringing computers in and out. Each of the seven floors in each cylinder is actually a single concrete room, 22 feet in diameter, without storage areas or even electrical outlets. In many rooms, lighting is provided by a single bulb. The south cylinder's rooms are almost completely empty. The north cylinder contains a generator, a machine shop, and a lot of junk - mostly scrap metal.

HavenCo will start by renovating the cylinders and packing them full of computer equipment and racks. Heavier stuff like generators will sit on deck. The cylinders - the plan is to fill the south one first - are already equipped with "blast doors" to withstand explosive charges.

Internet connectivity will come from a combination of fiber, microwave links, and satellite connections. The links will carry data from Sealand to London's Telehouse and the Amsterdam Internet Exchange - two colocation providers where HavenCo itself has already rented several racks of equipment space and installed high-powered routers from Juniper Networks. At the exchanges, HavenCo can easily purchase "transit" - basically, a promise from one Net provider to another to carry its packets to their destinations - from practically any provider in Europe.

Sealand's Net connection will consist of a trio of high-speed data pipes. The first will be the satellite link - significantly slower and with a higher latency than a terrestrial connection, but a useful backup all the same. This was installed in mid-May. The second, slated for mid-June, will consist of a pair of 155-Mbps microwave links operated by Winstar Communications, which will send the data across the water to the English coast, where a line leased from British Telecom will take it to Telehouse. The third link will be a ring of high-speed fiber-optic cables installed by Flute, a UK-based corporation that builds undersea optical cable rings and then sells the fiber to its customers. According to Avi Freedman, the cable from Telehouse to the shore should be installed by June, and the fiber to the platform will be in place by September.

Obviously, any equipment located in England or the Netherlands could open up HavenCo to legal action in those countries, maybe even forcing a clampdown on its terrestrial links. But HavenCo's execs don't seem particularly worried. The important point, says Sean Hastings, is that HavenCo won't be running the servers - as is the case with Exodus, HavenCo will simply be running the colocation facility and providing the Internet connectivity. The computers on Sealand will be owned by HavenCo's customers, who are responsible for their own actions.

And even if some angry third party convinced Telehouse to cut HavenCo's link, Sealand will be rigged to instantly reroute the data. "With three satellite connections, many transit providers, and lots of peering," says Freedman, "it's going to be very hard to shut HavenCo down."

Hastings and Lackey believe they can deal with any threat to their system that might be mounted over the Internet. But physical attacks are another matter. Lackey talks tough - telling me that plans call for "50-caliber heavy machine guns, 5.56-mm automatic rifles, and 12-gauge shotguns." But so what? A handful of guns wouldn't do much against an assault by a real nation. Which raises the biggest question of all: Can Sealand really get away with this?

Only time will answer that one, but opinions are all over the map.

Great Britain continues to maintain there is no Sealand - the 1987 expansion of her territorial limit ended the whole charade. "Although Mr. Bates styles the platform as the Principality of Sealand, the UK government does not regard Sealand as a state," says Dewi Williams, a press officer with the British Consulate in New York.

The US concurs. According to a US State Department official, who declined to be identified, "There are no independent principalities in the North Sea. As far as we are concerned, they are just Crown dependencies of Britain."

Jim Dempsey, senior staff counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology, a Washington, DC-based civil liberties think tank, says the Sealanders are living in a dream world. "Any attempt to avoid the geographical jurisdiction of governments is ultimately futile," he insists. "There are a handful of people on Sealand who, at the very least, are nationals of some country, and that country can assert jurisdiction over them - or just send someone out to arrest them. If they are violating US laws, you wouldn't send out an Exocet missile, you'd send out a Coast Guard cutter with five policemen."

Erwin Strauss, the author of How to Start Your Own Country, isn't so sure. He says Britain's 1987 expansion does not change Sealand's status: If Sealand was sovereign before the change was made, it should be sovereign after. You can't take away its independence just by moving the goalposts. "From a strictly legal point of view," he says, "Roy Bates was there and claimed sovereignty, so that takes precedence."

Clearly, there's a difference of opinion, but both Michael Bates and Sean Hastings are quick to point out that there is a big difference between what Britain is saying and what it is doing. "If Britain thought they had jurisdiction over Sealand, they have been ignoring serious weapons violations under British law all this time," says Hastings. "They're pretty much saying that 'Sealand is not part of our country,' because England is normally very hard on weapons."

Ultimately, this constructive ambiguity might play to Sealand's advantage. If the UK doesn't enforce laws or collect taxes on the platform, Sealand's residents can basically do as they wish as long as they don't overly anger their nearest neighbor. On the other hand, if China, Russia, or whoever sends a destroyer to shut the place down, that boat (or at least its weapons) would have to enter British territorial waters, which would likely set off a military response from the UK.

Caroline Bradley, a professor at the University of Miami School of Law who has closely studied the international statutes affecting micronation schemes, says Sealand is in a stronger position than most new micronations, whose struggles usually involve scams or libertarian bluster that don't amount to anything. Unlike all the other wannabes chronicled by Strauss, Sealand has a population - albeit a small one - and it's about to start having an economy.

"So the question is whether other countries are going to be able to exercise any jurisdiction over Sealand to shut it down," says Bradley. She expects a bumpy road. "Countries don't like data havens. They don't like any sort of secrecy, because people who want to take advantage of such secrecy must be up to no good."

Avi Freedman responds to such criticism with a smile, arguing that if the legal going gets rough, Sealand can always fall back on being a first-rate colocation facility. "Even if you factor out all the questions about jurisdiction and history, you still have a damn fine, secure colocation business with a good economic model."

Ryan Lackey's response is, well ... Ryan Lackey-like. Whatever happens, he's ready to go for it, and true to form, he's already looking ahead and thinking big. No, bigger.

"In 10 years, we'll be investing profits in turning Sealand into a larger island," he says. "It's unclear right now whether it will be a hotel/casino space or purely a larger secure colocation facility. We hope to be in operation everywhere by then ..." Everywhere?

"By then I hope any free country in the world will have a HavenCo secure facility in major cities of commerce," Lackey continues. "No doubt we'll also have servers on ships, on the moon, and on orbiting satellites. Assuming computers continue to get smaller, a single box on the moon could serve a huge bunch of customers!"

Simson Garfinkel is the author of Database Nation: The Death of Privacy in the 21st Century.

For further reading:
"Sealand on the Roughs Navel Fort", Bob Le-Roi, Photo Archive, August 2003 - October 2006
"Has 'haven' for questionable sites sunk?", Declan McCullagh, August 4, 2003
"HavenCo: what really happened", Ryan Lackey, Defcon 11, August 3, 2003
"Another Country", NPR, August 11, 2001

Saturday, May 9, 2009

The Malicious Myth of the 'Libertarian' Fed

By Thomas J. DiLorenzo
LewRockwell.com
Friday, May 8, 2009

http://lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo171.html

In the history of American politics the statists have always been advocates of a central bank, whereas the defenders of liberty – libertarians – have opposed it. Legalized governmental counterfeiting has always been every totalitarian’s dream and every right-minded libertarian’s nightmare.

A Federal Reserve publication entitled "A History of Central Banking in America" correctly calls Alexander Hamilton "the founding father of central banking in America." His nemesis, Thomas Jefferson, strongly opposed Hamilton’s Bank of the United States as a mortal threat to liberty and economic stability. So did Jefferson’s political heir, Andrew Jackson, who vetoed the re-chartering of Hamilton’s Bank of the United States. By that time (the late 1830s) the face of the Hamiltonian/statist cabal in American politics was the face of the Whig Party, and no one was a more strident advocate of a central bank than the young Whig Abraham Lincoln. After being snuffed out by the 1840s, central banking was revived by Lincoln’s National Currency Acts in the 1860s, and then finally cemented into place fifty years later with the creation of the Fed.

The great libertarian Austrian School economists Mises, Rothbard and Hayek (among others) all opposed central banking, whereas the "mainstream" of the economics profession has always played the part of court historian, assuring the public in their publications that the Fed – a secret organization that is responsible to no one and which has never been audited – always acts purely in "the public interest" by "stabilizing" the economy. Read any edition of Paul Samuelson’s famous textbook, Economics, if you’re skeptical of this claim. Or read any "mainstream" introductory economics textbook for that matter.

So it is curious, if not outright bizarre, that several commentators are now blaming the current economic crisis on the "libertarian" Fed! Business historian John Steele Gordon absurdly argued in the Wall Street Journal several months ago that the cause of the current crisis is "the baleful influence of Thomas Jefferson" and his anti-central bank philosophy, which lives on to this day. The Fed is "too libertarian," in other words, and not enough of a central planning institution according to Gordon. That would certainly be news to the most famous libertarian political figure in the world, Congressman Ron Paul.

Stockbroker Henry Kaufman of Henry Kaufman and Company recently wrote in the Financial Times that "libertarian dogma led the Fed astray." This absurd claim is being repeated by other Wall Street establishment mouthpieces, even including the disgraced former governor of New York, Eliot Spitzer. Spitzer recently went on MSNBC to argue that because Alan Greenspan associated with "Ann Rand" fifty years ago, the Fed is a "libertarian" institution. All of these commentators conclude that what is needed, therefore, is even more central planning and regulation by the central bank.

All the layman has to do to recognize what a big fat lie the "libertarian Fed" story is, is to go online and Google a Fed publication entitled "The Federal Reserve System: Purposes and Functions." In addition to recklessly manipulating the money supply and causing boom-and-bust cycles for more than ninety years (including the Great Depression and the current one), the Fed "has supervisory and regulatory authority over a wide range of financial institutions and activities." That’s an understatement if ever there was one. Among the Fed’s "functions" are the regulation of:
  • Bank holding companies
  • State-chartered banks
  • Foreign branches of member banks
  • Edge and agreement corporations
  • U.S. state-licensed branches, agencies, and representative offices of foreign banks
  • Nonbanking activities of foreign banks
  • National banks
  • Savings banks
  • Nonbank subsidiaries of bank holding companies
  • Thrift holding companies
  • Financial reporting procedures
  • Accounting policies of banks
  • Business "continuity" in case of economic emergencies
  • Consumer protection laws
  • Securities dealings of banks
  • Information technology used by banks
  • Foreign investment by banks
  • Foreign lending by banks
  • Branch banking
  • Bank mergers and acquisitions
  • Who may own a bank
  • Capital "adequacy standards"
  • Extensions of credit for the purchase of securities
  • Equal opportunity lending
  • Mortgage disclosure information
  • Reserve requirements
  • Electronic funds transfers
  • Interbank liabilities
  • Community Reinvestment Act sub-prime lending demands
  • All international banking operations
  • Consumer leasing
  • Privacy of consumer financial information
  • Payments on demand deposits
  • "Fair Credit" reporting
  • Transactions between member banks and their affiliates
  • Truth in lending
  • Truth in savings
All of this financial market regulation and regimentation was in full force during the Greenspan era. None of it could conceivably be considered to be "libertarian" or "free market" in any way. The Fed is a government central planning agency, period. As such, it is as far away from being a libertarian institution as one can imagine. That’s why the Barney Franks of the political world are staunch Fed defenders whereas "Mr. Libertarian," Congressman Ron Paul, is its fiercest critic.

Thomas J. DiLorenzo is professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland.

Friday, May 8, 2009

Justice, Policing, and E-Gold

By Michael S. Rozeff
LewRockwell.com
Saturday, August 30, 2008

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff215.html

The criminal case of E-Gold, an internet company that allows users to make exchanges using gold as currency, highlights basic questions about both justice and the proper scope of policing.

America is very far from being a free country. Indeed, America is moving in the opposite direction. At some point – and I, for one, would say that point is now – the U.S. becomes a police state or, at the very least, a "soft" police state.

The E-Gold case dramatically illustrates the lack of monetary freedom in the U.S. and many other countries with similar laws. A person with monetary freedom can transact in any currency of his choice with anyone else willing to transact in that currency. He can transmit any amount of money in any form he wants to use to any place in the world where another party stands ready to accept it. A free person can use any available method of transmission to transmit the medium of exchange of his choice.

With monetary freedom, legal tender does not exist. People choose the media of exchange that they prefer to use, and no authorities force them to use the dollar, the euro, the won, the yen, the rupee, the renmimbi, the ruble, or any other money. They can use cowrie shells if they wish (used widely in Africa until the 20th century). Dr. Roger McCain writes that "The colonies were required to use European money, and they did – but when the European monetary systems collapsed in hyperinflation, the West African people went back to using their cowrie-money to get past the crisis. It was the cowrie-money that proved most reliable for many years of the twentieth century."

Monetary freedom also entails freedom for those in business who deal in money. They are free to provide the service of privacy to their clients who want it. Monetary freedom means that businesses are not compelled to spy on their clients. It means that they are not forced to report transactions to the authorities, and that they are not compelled to become part of a network looking for activities that the authorities have deemed to be suspicious. Monetary freedom means that if a business service permits it, a person can withdraw or deposit any amounts in any form he wants to without being subject to the prying and spying eyes of the authorities who have forced the business into being part of their police apparatus.

All of this can be re-stated in terms of rights. A free person has the right to choose the medium of exchange (money or currency) that he prefers. He has the right to choose any form of currency or money he prefers. His rights are being invaded when the State compels him to use a national currency, like the dollar, or not to use a currency like gold. His rights are being invaded when he is forced to accept a particular kind of money in transactions. A free person has the right to send any amount of money in any form whatever to wherever he wants to. He has the right to send it in secrecy and privacy if he can find an obliging carrier or transmitter. Conversely, his rights and those of financial institutions are being invaded if those businesses are forced by the authorities or anyone else into inspecting and reporting upon his financial dealings. Businesses that cannot operate or get licenses unless they agree to become spies for the authorities are having their rights invaded. They are being subject to extortion by the State.

This is by no means a complete catalogue of what monetary freedom entails. It serves as an introduction to the case of E-Gold.

The E-Gold Case

On July 21, 2008, the U.S. Department of Justice released a document with the headline: "DIGITAL CURRENCY BUSINESS E-GOLD PLEADS GUILTY TO MONEY LAUNDERING AND ILLEGAL MONEY TRANSMITTING CHARGES."

Paragraph one noted "E-Gold, Ltd., (E-Gold) an Internet-based digital currency business, and its three principal directors and owners, pleaded guilty to criminal charges relating to money laundering and the operation of an illegal money transmitting business..."

The principal person involved is the company’s founder, Dr. Douglas Jackson, 51, of Melbourne, Florida. He "pleaded guilty to conspiracy to engage in money laundering and operating an unlicensed money transmitting business."

Sentencing is due on November 20, 2008. "Douglas Jackson faces a maximum prison sentence of 20 years and a fine of $500,000 on the conspiracy to engage in money laundering charge, and a sentence of five years and a fine of $250,000 on the operation of an unlicensed money transmitting business charge." Additionally, as part of the plea, E-Gold and Gold & Silver Reserve have "agreed to forfeiture in the amount of $1.75 million in the form of a money judgment for which they are joint and severally liable." On top of that, at sentencing, the companies also face a maximum fine of $3.7 million.

Questions

The case raises such questions as these. Did E-Gold violate the rights of others? Or have the monetary rights of E-Gold been violated?

Suppose that a department store has a restaurant, and suppose that several criminals transact business at a table while having lunch there. Is the store guilty of a crime? Suppose that criminals communicate using newspaper ads. Is the newspaper company guilty of a crime? Did it violate the rights of the criminals’ victims? Suppose that criminals communicate secretly using some advanced telephone or internet communications device. Are the manufacturers of that device responsible for the crimes that these criminals commit? Are internet providers guilty of conspiracy?

Suppose that a bank receives deposits from criminals. Is the bank responsible for the crimes these criminals have committed? Is it responsible for knowing its customers and for detecting those who are criminals? Is it responsible for reporting monetary transactions to the authorities?

Should racetracks, gambling houses, and internet gaming companies be required to report large money bets and large winnings? Should stores, auto dealers, and real estate agents be required to report large purchases for cash?

Should every company be made to detect and report possible criminal activities on its premises or among persons using its products or services? Should every company be made to monitor everyone with whom it deals in order to detect possible criminal activities?

Answers

A free person is certainly not free if he is forced into becoming a police spy. A person is not free if he is forced to monitor all the people and their activities that he encounters. The same statements hold for a business. If there is a law against dealing in drugs, that becomes a matter for the police, not a bank or a stock broker or a mutual fund, all of whom are being forced into reporting to the authorities.

Everyone has a right to his life, liberty, and property. To be forced into using one’s time, money, and property in order to detect possible criminal behavior is clearly an invasion of one’s basic rights. It is one thing to ask people to be on the lookout for a suspected criminal. It is one thing to ask people if they will post wanted posters, or to ask a business to donate some space to alert people to a suspected criminal. The voluntary cooperation of common people in finding and apprehending criminals is one thing, but compelling them to police one another is entirely a different matter. This is the difference between a free country and police state. The U.S. has crossed the line, and so have many other countries.

Another answer to all of these questions is panarchy. You choose your society, and I will choose mine. And they can co-exist side by side on the same territory. Societies that are without territorial control, living side by side, intermingling, are what panarchy is about. You practice your religion or none, and I practice mine or none. We live in the same town and there is no problem.

If you want to live in a society in which no one has privacy and everyone spies on everyone else, then do so. Your members can report on each other all they like. But you have no right to impose your restraints and dictates on those who think otherwise and choose a society in which their banks do not have to report large cash transactions to the police. You may want to reduce drug-taking and attempt to do so by imposing all sorts of police-state methods. You may launch billion-dollar wars on drugs and build a prison in each locality to house, feed, and clothe drug users, or you may execute them. But you have no right to impose your methods (or taxes or regulations) on anyone else who chooses a different society, although they may live on the east side and you on the west side of town, or even if they live on the west side too.

Tolerance is what panarchy is about, that is, tolerance by people of those who live across the social divides that they wish to make for themselves. Social divides need not be territorial divides. There is plenty of room for everyone and plenty of ways to accommodate the different ways of others without compelling everyone to live under one set of laws in this vast region we call the United States of America. You may be as intolerant of drug-users as you like to all those within your society who have agreed to that intolerance, but you may not extend your intolerance to my drug use within my society and my ability to buy drugs without a doctor’s prescription or to my having them administered by an alternative healer of illness.

Is Dr. Jackson guilty of a crime?

The fact that Dr. Jackson pleaded guilty does not answer the question of whether he is guilty of a crime. He was forced into a corner. He is seeking to continue the company he began 12 years ago. He is revamping it to comply with the State’s edicts. A guilty plea was his least-cost choice, in his estimation. Dr. Jackson’s statement can be found here. It is a complete cave-in to all the demands of the State.

E-Gold was not a fly-by-night business. Its customers did not bring about the criminal indictment. It was not customer complaints about missing gold, embezzlement, theft, or poor service that brought on the indictments. E-Gold did not steal anything from anyone. If it has, why hasn’t the DOJ trumpeted that? However, the criminal complaint did have a large negative effect on E-Gold customers who encountered illiquidity in their accounts.

The Department of Justice [sic] news release goes on at great length about the supposed crimes that Dr. Jackson committed. In fact, the document suggests to me that the company committed no crimes at all! If it did commit crimes, did the victims appear in court? Did they document their damages?

If Dr. Jackson actually committed a crime, what was it? The fact is that he pleaded guilty to the nebulous crime of conspiracy to engage in money laundering. This only means that other people used E-Gold to transmit funds possibly obtained via illegal activities and that E-Gold was not equipped to detect who they were and report them. What kind of cockamamie crime is it when one fails to kowtow to the State’s edicts compelling one to work with the authorities to detect money laundering? For that is what is involved in the other conspiracy charge. I quote the DOJ: "E-Gold...will move to fully comply with all applicable federal and state laws relating to operating as a licensed money transmitting business and the prevention of money laundering which includes registering as money service businesses. Also as part of the plea agreement, the businesses will create a comprehensive money laundering detection program that will require verified customer identification, suspicious activity reporting and regular supervision by the Internal Revenue Services’ (IRS) Bank Secrecy Act Division..."

Dr. Jackson has pleaded guilty to the crime of not verifying who his customers were, not making sure that they were not criminals, not creating a comprehensive program to detect money laundering, not detecting and reporting suspicious activity, and not operating under the supervision of the Bank Secrecy Act Division of the IRS. In other words, he didn’t become part of the State’s spying apparatus, and that makes him and his operation a criminal conspiracy. The crime here is not the commission of a crime. Instead the State is demanding that you do what it tells you, and if you don’t, then that is a crime. If you stand up for your rights and do not obey the State’s demands, you are a criminal!

Conclusion

In Wikipedia, we read: "The Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 (or BSA, or otherwise known as the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act) requires U.S.A. financial institutions to assist U.S. government agencies to detect and prevent money laundering. Specifically, the act requires financial institutions to keep records of cash purchases of negotiable instruments, file reports of cash transactions exceeding $5,000 (daily aggregate amount), and to report suspicious activity that might signify money laundering, tax evasion, or other criminal activities. It was passed by the Congress of the United States in 1970. The BSA is sometimes referred to as an "anti-money laundering" law ("AML") or jointly as "BSA/AML". Several anti-money laundering acts, including provisions in title III of the USA PATRIOT Act, have been enacted up to the present to amend the BSA. (See 31 USC 5311-5330 and 31 CFR 103.)"

The rest of the article introduces the reader to the reporting requirements under these laws.

These laws infringe the monetary rights of all persons who either are made to obey them or who are forced to transact under the watchful eyes of financial institutions that are applying these laws to their persons and property.

These laws are one of the very many instances of the abysmal and wretched failure of Americans to have monetary freedom. Many other countries are in no better shape.

We have major laws that openly violate the rights of people. I protest! If I disobey one of these laws, then I am a criminal under these laws. If I am caught, then I will pay a price for my disobedience, that is, for exercising my rights. That is what happened to E-Gold. It’s a topsy-turvy world.

Michael S. Rozeff is a retired Professor of Finance living in East Amherst, New York.

For further reading:
"Money laundering and digital precious metals", BCS Australia, July 2008

Monday, May 4, 2009

A Short History of the Gold Cartel

By James Turk
Free Gold Money Report
Monday, May 4, 2009

http://www.fgmr.com/history-of-gold-cartel.html

This week Bill Murphy and Chris Powell, co-founders of the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee (www.gata.org), will be in London, England. Their trip is part of GATA’s ongoing effort to raise awareness of the gold cartel and its surreptitious intervention in the gold market.

Bill and Chris will meet with the British media to explain GATA’s findings. They will also attend an important fund raising event being held in support of GATA’s work. Their trip is another important step by GATA aimed at creating a free market in gold, one which is unfettered by government intervention.

Governments want a low gold price to make national currencies look good. Gold is recognizable the world over as the ‘canary in the coalmine’ when it comes to money. A rising gold price blurts the unpleasant truth that a national currency is being poorly managed and that its purchasing power is being inflated.

This reality is made clear by former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker. Commenting in his memoirs about the soaring gold price in the years immediately following the end of the gold standard in 1971, he notes: “Joint intervention in gold sales to prevent a steep rise in the price of gold, however, was not undertaken. That was a mistake.” It was a mistake because a rising gold price undermines the thin reed upon which all fiat currency rests – confidence. But it was a mistake only from the perspective of a central banker, which is of course at odds with anyone who believes in free markets.

The US government has learned from experience and taken Volcker’s advice. Given the US dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency, the US government has the most to lose if the market chooses gold over fiat currency and erodes the government’s stranglehold on the monopolistic privilege that it has awarded to itself of creating ‘money’.

So the US government intervenes in the gold market to make the dollar look worthy of being the world’s reserve currency when of course it is not equal to the demands of that esteemed role. The US government does this by trying to keep the gold price low, but this aim is an impossible task. In the end, gold always wins, i.e., its price inevitably climbs higher as fiat currency is debased, which is a reality understood and recognized by government policymakers. So recognizing the futility of capping the gold price, they instead compromise by letting the gold price rise somewhat, say, 15% per annum. In fact, against the dollar, gold is actually up 16.3% p.a. on average for the last eight years. In battlefield terms, the US government is conducting a managed retreat for fiat currency in an attempt to control gold’s advance.

Though it has let the gold price rise, gold has risen by less than it would in a free market because the purchasing power of the dollar continues to be inflated and also because gold remains so undervalued notwithstanding its annual appreciation this decade. These gains started from gold’s historic low valuation in 1999. Gold may not be as good a value as it was in 1999, but it nevertheless remains extremely undervalued.

For example, until the end of the 19th century, approximately 40% of the world’s money supply consisted of gold, and the remaining 60% was national currency. As governments began to usurp the money issuing privilege and intentionally diminish gold’s role, fiat currency’s role expanded by the mid-20th century to approximately 90%. The inflationary policies of the 1960s, particularly in the US, further eroded gold’s role to 2% by the time the last remnants of the gold standard were abandoned in 1971. Gold’s importance rebounded in the 1970s, which caused Volcker to lament the so-called mistakes of policymakers. Its percentage rose to nearly 10% by 1980. But gold’s percent of the world money supply thereafter declined, reaching about 1% in 1999. Today it still remains below 2%.

From this analysis it is reasonable to conclude that gold should comprise at least 10% of the world’s money supply. Because it is nowhere near that level, gold is undervalued.

So given the ongoing dollar debasement being pursued by US policymakers, keeping gold from exploding upward to a true free-market price is the first thing they gain from their interventions in the gold market. The other thing they gain is time. The time they gain enables them to keep their fiat scheme afloat so they can benefit from it, delaying until some future administration the scheme's inevitable collapse.

So how does the US government manage the gold price? They recruit Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase and Deutsche Bank to do it, by executing trades to pursue the US government’s aims. These banks are the gold cartel. I don't believe that there are any other members of the cartel, with the possible exception of Citibank as a junior member. The cartel acts with the implicit backing of the US government to absorb all losses that may be taken by the cartel members as they manage the gold price and further, to provide whatever physical metal is required to execute the cartel's trading strategy. How did the gold cartel come about?

There was an abrupt change in government policy circa 1990. It was introduced by then Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan in order to bail out the banks back then, which like now were insolvent. Taxpayers were already on the hook for hundreds of billions to bail out the collapsed ‘savings & loan’ industry, so adding to this tax burden was untenable. He therefore came up with an alternative.

Greenspan saw the free market as a golden goose with essentially unlimited deep pockets, and more to the point, that these pockets could be picked by the US government using its tremendous weight, namely, its financial resources for timed interventions in the free market combined with its propaganda power by using the media. In short, it was easier to bail out the insolvent banks back then by gouging ill-gained profits from the free markets instead of raising taxes.

Banks generated these profits by the Federal Reserve’s steepening of the yield curve, which kept long-term interest rates relatively high while lowering short-term rates. To earn this wide spread, banks leveraged themselves to borrow short-term and use the proceeds to buy long-term paper. This mismatch of assets and liabilities became known as the carry-trade.

The Japanese yen was a particular favorite to borrow. The Japanese stock market had crashed in 1990, and the Bank of Japan was pursuing a zero interest rate policy to try reviving the Japanese economy. A US bank could borrow Japanese yen for 0.2% and buy US T-notes yielding more than 8%, pocketing the spread, which did wonders for bank profits and rebuilding their capital base.

Gold also became a favorite vehicle to borrow because of its low interest rate. This gold came from central bank coffers, but they refused to disclose how much gold they were lending, making the gold market opaque and ripe for intervention by central bankers making decisions behind closed doors. The amount lent by central banks has been reliably estimated in various analyses published by GATA to be 12,000 to 15,000 tonnes, nearly one-half of central banks total holdings and 4-to-6 times annual new mine production of 2500 tonnes. The banks clearly jumped feet first into the gold carry-trade.

The carry-trade was a gift to the banks from the Federal Reserve, and all was well provided the yen and gold did not rise against the dollar because this mismatch of dollar assets and yen or gold liabilities was not hedged. Alas, both gold and the yen began to strengthen, which if allowed to rise high enough would force marked-to-market losses on those carry-trade positions in the banks. It was a major problem because the losses of the banks could be considerable, given the magnitude of the carry-trade.

So the gold cartel was created to manage the gold price, and all went well at first, given the help it received from the Bank of England in 1999 to sell one-half of its gold holdings. Gold was driven to historic lows, as noted above, but this low gold price created its own problem. Gold became so unbelievably cheap that value hunters around the world recognized the exceptional opportunity it offered, and demand for physical gold began to climb. As demand rose, another more intractable and unforeseen problem arose for the gold cartel.

The gold borrowed from the central banks had been melted down and turned into coins, small bars and monetary jewelry that were acquired by countless individuals around the world. This gold was now in ‘strong hands’, and these gold owners would only part with it at a much higher price. Therefore, where would the gold come from to repay the central banks?

While yen is a fiat currency and can be created out of thin air by the Bank of Japan, gold in contrast is a tangible asset. How could the banks repay all the gold they borrowed without causing the gold price to soar, further worsening the marked-to-market losses on their remaining positions?

In short, the banks were in a predicament. The Federal Reserve’s policies were debasing the dollar, and the ‘canary in the coalmine’ was warning of the loss of purchasing power. So Greenspan's policy of using interventions in the market to bail-out banks morphed yet again.

The gold borrowed from central banks would not be repaid because obtaining the physical gold to repay these loans would cause the gold price to soar. So beginning this decade, the gold cartel would conduct the government’s managed retreat, allowing the gold price to move generally higher in the hope that, basically, people wouldn’t notice. Given its ‘canary in a coalmine’ function, a rising gold price creates demand for gold, and a rapidly rising gold price would worsen the marked-to-market losses of the gold cartel.

So the objective is to allow the gold price to rise around 15% p.a., while at the same time enable the cartel members to intervene in the gold market with implicit government backing in order to earn profits to offset the growing losses on its gold liabilities. Its trading strategy to accomplish this task is clear. The gold cartel reverse engineers the black-box trend-following trading models.

Just look at the losses taken by some of the major commodity trading managers on their gold trading over the last decade. It is hundreds of millions of dollars of client money lost, and gained for the gold cartel to help offset their losses from the gold carry-trade. All to make the dollar look good by keeping the gold price lower than it should be and would be if it were allowed to trade in a market unfettered by government intervention.

There are only two outcomes as I see it. Either the gold cartel will fail in the end, or the US government will have destroyed what remains of the free market in America. I hope it is the former, but the continuing flow of events from Washington, D.C. and the actions of policymakers suggest it could be the latter.

James Turk is founder and chairman of GoldMoney, which provides a convenient and economical way to buy and sell gold, silver and platinum online using the digital gold currency for which he was awarded four US patents.

Saturday, May 2, 2009

Book Review: The End of Money and the Struggle for Financial Privacy

Timothy Terrell of Liberty University published an excellent book review in The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics (Summer 1999) of Richard Rahn's The End of Money and the Struggle for Financial Privacy (1999).

Terrell writes:
"Two key technologies give the impetus to Rahn’s encouraging predictions. Only in the last five years have they both come into common use, and Rahn believes that they now will force major reductions in the size and scope of civil government."

"The first development was public-key cryptography, which appeared in the mid-1970s. Public-key cryptography is now easy to use, and allows secure transmissions over telephone lines. Rahn, in a primer on public-key cryptography, shows that it is relatively simple to make a code that is practically unbreakable even by governments."

"The second development was the Internet (which Vice President Gore apparently intends us to believe was his brainchild). In combination with strong public key cryptography, the Internet essentially allows any two modem-equipped computers in the world to trade information that is inaccessible by any government."

"Because of these complementary technologies, it is possible for digital money substitutes to be created (publicly or privately) and exchanged worldwide without the knowledge or consent of government regulators. Paper currency will become obsolete as privacy-seekers turn to secure, instantaneous digital transactions."
"International private exchange of money substitutes over the telephone allows businessmen to avoid some taxes and government regulations, which are typically geographically constrained. Many services, such as software development, architectural design, legal services, and banking services, can be provided from a distance over the Internet and service providers can move to free-market jurisdictions to avoid taxes."
Terrell rightly understands that laws against money laundering also reduce the financial privacy of non-criminals. Terrell states:
"Because financial privacy is absolutely essential to liberty, it is refreshing to see Rahn hopeful about the restoration of privacy to individuals worldwide. Governments have enjoyed the ability to monitor the slightest detail of electronic financial transactions, and in some places have legally required reporting of large cash transactions. The well-worn excuse that government snooping is necessary to suppress organized crime and money laundering is spurious, Rahn shows. Suppressing organized crime through money laundering statutes is ineffective, and any small benefit that may accrue is not worth the certain loss of privacy for non-criminals."

"Rahn opposes money laundering statutes and encryption controls of all sorts, declaring that, in any event, any attempt to limit financial privacy will soon become an absurdity."
From the Other Reviews:

"Richard Rahn is that rare, rare bird, an economist who can explain arcane matters in easy-to-understand language. Get the latest dope, in plain language, on the world banking and currency crisis, the techniques and importance of "foreign" bank accounts, and how modern technology may spell the ultimate demise to intrusive and totalitarian governments." -- Henry G. Manne, founder of the Law and Economics Center, and former Dean of George Mason University Law School

"Richard Rahn persuasively argues how the coming digital money revolution will make lower tax rates and radical tax simplification inevitable." -- Jack Kemp, Co-Founder of Empower America

"The End of Money is a call to arms to defend individual liberty. Than demonstrates how inextricably linked financial privacy is to our fundamental freedoms, and why we must fight for it." -- Mack F. Mattingly, former US Senator and Ambassador

For further reading:
"Report on Financial Privacy, Law Enforcement and Terrorism", Task Force on Information Exchange and Financial Privacy, March 25, 2002
"Don't Sacrifice Financial Privacy to the War on Terrorism", Veronique de Rugy, Cato Institute, October 25, 2001

"The Counter-Money Laundering Act: An Attack on Privacy and Civil Liberties", Scott C. Rayder, The Heritage Foundation, August 31, 2000
"Laundering Digital Money", Kristen May, June 1, 2000
"The Future of Money and Financial Privacy", Richard Rahn, The Future of Financial Privacy, December 31, 1999