From: "L. Detweiler" <ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 93 22:12:58 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: DSS: `Stamp Tax'?
Message-ID: <9307280511.AA26685@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Interesting comparison of NIST-PKP-DSS licensing arrangement as `stamp
tax' with proceeds to `private company'. Originally in RISKS.

- ------------------------------

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 93 17:05:57 -0700
From: Mark Seecof <marks@wimsey.latimes.com>
Subject: DSS as a stamp tax

Many people raised in the U.S. are unfamiliar with general stamp taxes.  We
know about excise taxes (e.g., liquor) with payment evidenced by stamps, and
tax stamps to validate specific documents (e.g., hunting licenses).  But (to
my perhaps inadequate knowledge) the U.S. hasn't had a general stamp tax since
the War of Independence.  England had one years ago... most signatures on
receipts for money or bills of sale were invalid unless scrawled across
postage stamps.  England still imposes stamp taxes on some business
transactions, e.g., transfer of real property.

NIST's proposal to "license" the DSS to PKP, forcing "the rest of us"
including all who wish to transact business with the U.S. government to pay
PKP every time we sign something digitally amounts to the imposition of a
general stamp tax.  Worse, it is a tax imposed by the government for the
benefit of private persons (those who are paid by PKP).

Attempts by George III's government to impose various stamp taxes on American
colonists 200-odd years ago fueled revolutionary sentiment among them...




------- End of Forwarded Message