December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Parsing JYA; now others?
by Damaged Justice 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Say, Duncan - you can do John Young, but can you make any sense of this? >From: doghead(a)psyclone.com (Blowjob Jesus) Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.misc,news.admin.misc Subject: Re: ! Blacklist Spammers and Rogue ISP's !!!!!!!!!! Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 01:08:56 GMT Organization: The Mighty Psyclone - Gonna Blow Yer Mind Lines: 56 Message-ID: <31f6c6d2.439333(a)news.alpha.net> References: <4t59aq$3n0(a)park.interport.net> Reply-To: doghead(a)psyclone.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 156.46.104.253 X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99e/32.227 On Wed, 24 Jul 96 13:41:28 GMT, tonyb(remove this garbage to email me)(a)interport.net (tony brower) wrote: >Conventional response to spam is completely ineffective. Farflung was the offense, easy is the time spent drinking salad dressing. Christian Dior, well-known parking ticket, adds his pickle fork. >Nothing currently prevents the abuser from getting another account in >another name and continuing the practise. Wendigo spake in gruff pebbles, like unto a Timex! Reginald Denny left the room with scanners on full auto. >Even ISP's spam their adverts across newsgroups. Freedom, paged in 4k chunks, permeates UDP. There never was a governor. The double nickle blowed up good. >Why can't people who spam and otherwise abuse Usenet for commercial purposes >be blacklisted? Approved for your convenience, in sterile jello molds. The Lawnboy nods assent. >e.g. after first warning, no more accounts allowed from that Credit Card or >other payment source. The sun, a gaseous ball of tomato paste and model trains, is lost among clouds of thankfullness. >Why can't providers who refuse to curtail abuse from their customers also be >blacklisted and shut out from the net? >e.g. If ISP's are held responsible for abuse by their customers they'll >enforce nettiquette ("abide by the rules or lose your account here and >anywhere for one year"). Irresponsible ISP's will lose customers to those >ISP's who care. Hell, let them make their own net for cycling and recylcing >commercial, make money fast and sex #'s posts. OJ Simpson skirvined the net and was clarified. When failed and not sanguine, there was no response to the 'sturm und drang.' >Isn't this the fastest way to clean out all the junk that has permeated the >newsgroups posted by inconsiderate, greedy assholes (who have NOTHING to fear >by conventional response)? Response time is minimal. Lost among oceans of billiard balls made of styrofoam - tiny marmots build complicated nests of velveeta. Regroup? --

2 1

RE: A Libertine Question
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I find it funny that I'm considered Conservative by most people who know me. Your opinion may vary. ;-) tcmay(a)got.net wrote: >Who takes responsibility when people fail to save enough of their >paycheck to last them through the month? Who takes responsibility when >people drink too much, miss work, and are fired? And so on. One common thread in many of these discussions is the ease with which moral judgements are made about the situation: "fail to save", "drink too much". I know the social psychology explanation that people who view the world as ordered attach these types of judgements to situations which violate their ordered view of the world. "She was just asking for it dressed like that..." However, now I'm puzzled. From what I've read of Tim May, he does not hold such an orderly view of the world. The "rules" of existence may prove to be deterministic, but the results are chaotic. So Tim, where are these moral judgments coming from? >The issue of "who takes care of" people who can't hold their liquor, or >who overeat, or who smoke too much, does not enter into the equation. Think of how many of our laws are being enacted that tacitly make being poor or indigent a crime. Curfews being a recently discussed example. If the equation is one of economics, then "who takes care of" people does indeed enter the equation. I suggest that it is more economical to provide for a minimum quality of life- if only as a form of insurance for myself. Think: Rawls. The alternative is to have garbage collectors to "take care of" those that fall behind. Think: Soylent Green. Better twisted than bitter, as Tiny Tim Cratchet used to say. James

4 4

Re: Just some comments on what I've read here
by Ryan Russell/SYBASE 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sure, we'll just set up our own [i/I]nternet...(We need a letter between upper and lower case...) It won't be that expensive...lesse....my WAN, for about 5000 people and 15000 machines, only runs me about $400,000 US per month. That's just circuit charges, of course... doesn't include any of the networking equipment or cost of the machines....is this a troll or what? Ryan ---------- Previous Message ---------- To: cypherpunks cc: From: Scottauge @ aol.com @ smtp Date: 07/28/96 04:39:39 PM Subject: Just some comments on what I've read here 1) Seems to be some excitment about banning information on the internet here... Setting up a set of computers for a private net is not that big a deal (just some money involved and with the availability of Linux - a UNIX variant - for free make it hardware and telephone costs.) Do it for companies all over (hence the aol address - just a local phone call from anywhere!) and it works just fine. So if people want to play by different rules.. it's possible. Think of it as a members only social club. (I can make computers real hard to get into, but social engineering kicks my butt all the time.) 2) Whats wrong with America? I've been leaning towards Libertarian for some time now. Voted for Ross last time as a message I ain't happy with how things are going over there. Likely gonna vote Harry Brown - my first vote for a Libertarian. (He is seems to have it together versus the others) - but hey, gettin off the subject here.... Seems we are no longer United in these United States... A stranger is not a potential friend or ally but a potential robber, baby raper... you fill in the blank. We're all scared of each other! Something has been happening where rich are pitted against the poor, the working against the non-working, races vs other races. Is it a conspiracy as some of my friends who look for black helicopters say, or a natural reaction of politicians and "leaders" seeing a formula that works and then implementing it. To much Hard Copy and Extra reporting out there too. I don't give a rat's a*s about most of the sh*t their putting out (censorship mine for those with delicate eyes). But US culture has become very valuable and ya gotta get them foreign markets ya know. There was a time when a famil could have a picnic on the white house lawn. Then it got gated, now the street is closed. Our leaders seem to be no longer among us. But it doesn't matter. Some beuracrat (sp) gets a bug up their butt to give you trouble, your f*cked. With a seconds thought and a signature on a peice of paper ya can have your land gone or your bank account cleared or you name it. One second and on to the next thing as far as they are concerned. Can we impeach them? Can we vote for someone else next time? They're a buffer between the ones we can give trouble too. Plus Laws are so damn big these days. It takes a ream of paper (sometimes a whole 3000 page box of paper) to print these things out. You can bet the leg. not reading these things! They got advisors to read over sections and say this is good, this is bad. The real representatives and senators are out looking for campaign money. So damn, I now speculate these guys and gals are letting the advisors put the laws together - again someone not answerable (or even known) to the public. So now, you got legislators not reading the bills they are working on and there is a whole army of serfs ready to make some regulations that are in effect the same as law and ready to start looking for people to bother so they can look busy - and these serfs are not answerable to the public. Sorry, but congress is a part time job as far as I'm concerned. These laws are the result of people with nothing to do. I listen to the TV set and I hear "Oh we gotta law comin to fix this". Bullsh*t. There are plenty of other laws out there to hassle trouble makers with. They didn't nab Capone on murder, but on tax evasion. People fix stuff, not laws. Somebody is measuring their prouctivity by the amount of paper they can spew out of their office. 3) I'm a keen believer in Social Evolution A quick definition: If your a drug addict and your stupid enough to OD, you deserve to die. Another example: Your a drug dealer and ya get shot - oh well. Goes with the choice , dude. We keep protecting people from their choices. We think we are doing a favor for ourselves but I POSTULATE we are not. We keep on fightin nature and it just ain't possible. There just might be a reason for this weedin out process. But I'll admit it - I have a prejudice against stupid people - not mentally hadicapped, but stupid people. Well, thanks for reading my ranting and raving....

1 0

Re: Just some comments on what I've read here
by Scottauge＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 96-07-29 18:28:06 EDT, you write: > It won't be that expensive...lesse....my WAN, for about 5000 > people and 15000 machines, only runs me about $400,000 US > per month. That's just circuit charges, of course... doesn't > include any of the networking equipment or cost of the > machines....is this a troll or what? > I dunno, are you a nob? As I recall I said the expenses where going to be in the switches (or public networks). Plus I'm thinking the most basic services of telnet, ftp, smtp, and some nnp... Plug two network boards (whether ethernet or X.25 or ATM) into a UNIX computer and you have a router. You cannot tell me that hardware (minus the hardcore ATM/X.25 stuff) is not inexpensive enough to put something together. At least for a few thousand users all sophisticated enough to know how to install a UNIX or Linux system... I'm talking about a club here - not a replacement for the internet. Open up your mind, dude....

1 0

Denning vs. Gilmore
by rod＠wired.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Today, Monday, July 29, Dorothy Denning begins her debate vs. John Gilmore over The Absolute Right to Privacy on Wired Online's Brain Tennis site. Do citizens of the world have an "unalienable right" to privacy - or are there reasons why governments ought to have access to our communications? This debate will run daily through August 7. Follow along at http://www.wired.com/braintennis/. To get into the debate yourself, go to: http://www.hotwired.com/cgi-bin/interact/replies_all?msg.21655 An excerpt of Dorothy's first post today: "I'm not ready to accept 'the cat is out of the bag.' Let's look for a way of enjoying the benefits of encryption without unnecessarily hindering the ability of law enforcement to perform its mission. Let's use encryption for privacy, but also give law enforcement access to communications and computer files when there is probable cause and a judge has issued a court order. In some cases, that access must be surreptitious. Imagine the FBI calling a family boss and saying 'Give me your keys so I can wiretap your phone!'" John Gilmore's first post follows tomorrow. See you there. Best, Roderick Simpson rod(a)wired.com Wired Online

1 0

RE: A Libertine Question
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mike McNally <m5(a)vail.tivoli.com> wrote: >Uhh, "fail to save" isn't a moral judgement; it's an observable >phenomenon. Either somebody does save money or they don't. I >don't see in Tim's wording any judgement being made. It's a >numerical thing. >If you replace "drink too much," with "drink enough that they", you >get another observable phenomenon. As is the observable phenomenon that some people focus on the details and miss the point. You may also consider this to be a moral judgement. To argue that the cited examples - out of the universe of possible examples - did not imply a moral judgement is an argument useful only for its humour. James

2 1

Re: Just some comments on what I've read here
by Ryan Russell/SYBASE 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

And my point is that you obviously have no clue about running a sizeable net. It looks like you are trying to propose Fidonet. Go ask one of them how much it costs for them to run a node. Any sort of dialup service is pretty much going to limit you to store-and-forward items. Any full-time links attempting to mesh "a few thousand" users is going to quickly exceed my paltry $400K. You might want consider using the main Internet, and looking into encryption... Ryan ---------- Previous Message ---------- To: Ryan.Russell, cypherpunks cc: From: Scottauge @ aol.com @ smtp Date: 07/29/96 06:49:45 PM Subject: Re: Just some comments on what I've read here In a message dated 96-07-29 18:28:06 EDT, you write: > It won't be that expensive...lesse....my WAN, for about 5000 > people and 15000 machines, only runs me about $400,000 US > per month. That's just circuit charges, of course... doesn't > include any of the networking equipment or cost of the > machines....is this a troll or what? > I dunno, are you a nob? As I recall I said the expenses where going to be in the switches (or public networks). Plus I'm thinking the most basic services of telnet, ftp, smtp, and some nnp... Plug two network boards (whether ethernet or X.25 or ATM) into a UNIX computer and you have a router. You cannot tell me that hardware (minus the hardcore ATM/X.25 stuff) is not inexpensive enough to put something together. At least for a few thousand users all sophisticated enough to know how to install a UNIX or Linux system... I'm talking about a club here - not a replacement for the internet. Open up your mind, dude....

1 0

New Internet
by Scottauge＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 96-07-29 19:16:30 EDT, you write: > Any sort of dialup service is pretty much going to > limit you to store-and-forward items. Any full-time > links attempting to mesh "a few thousand" > users is going to quickly exceed my paltry $400K. I agree... but I am also thinking that not one person is picking up the tab. Undoubtedly some systems are going to go up and down also... so - at the beginning - it could be like fidonet. But hopefully it would be more than a bunch of machines calling each other up an bursting information, some may backbone for a while.

1 0

RE: e$: The Demographic "Transaction"
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May) wrote: >Let them eat cake. Earlier, in: Re: "Soft Targets" as Schelling Points tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May) wrote: >Keep your head down. Are you consciously trying to compare yourself with Marie Antoinette? With so many sans-culottes around, you could succeed. I'd rather be left than dead right. James

1 0

RE: A Libertine Question
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May) wrote: >The issue of "who takes care of" people who can't hold their liquor, or who overeat, or who smoke too much, does not enter into the equation. Perhaps the judgemental tone of these descriptions are clearer to you. Mike McNally <m5(a)vail.tivoli.com> wrote: >So you're saying that you made a response to Tim questioning his use of moral judgements just to introduce your own moral judgement? Tim can and does make moral judgements. So do I. So do you. I was curious as to why Tim brought them into an argument that did not need moral judgements to make its point. I suspect that it is more reflexive than carefully thought out, and I think may reflect on some of his core assumptions about society in general. But I don't know, so instead of making my own assumptions, I asked. James Feel free to respond by private e-mail.

1 0

Re: International Standards
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 29 Jul 96 at 6:38, Duncan Frissell wrote: > Mr. Freeh, [..] > clearly impossible -- but to prevent such high-level code > from becoming the international standard, with architecture [..] > Looks like the fibbies (FBI) haven't been reading the "Proceedings of the > IETF". Strong crypto is already an international standard. Methinks they regard as international standards what's built into something like MacOS or Windows. Rob --- No-frills sig. Befriend my mail filter by sending a message with the subject "send help" Key-ID: 5D3F2E99 1996/04/22 wlkngowl(a)unix.asb.com (root@magneto) AB1F4831 1993/05/10 Deranged Mutant <wlkngowl(a)unix.asb.com> Send a message with the subject "send pgp-key" for a copy of my key.

1 0

RE: A Libertine Question
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:19 PM 7/29/96 EST, jbugden(a)smtplink.alis.ca wrote: >I suggest that it is more economical to provide for a minimum quality >of life- if only as a form of insurance for myself. Think: Rawls. > >The alternative is to have garbage collectors to "take care of" those that fall >behind. Think: Soylent Green. > >Better twisted than bitter, as Tiny Tim Cratchet used to say. > >James But many of us believe that coercive "solutions" to life's problems whether right or wrong are no longer possible because technology is in the process of making individuals and small groups "ungovernable" by force. If this is true, whatever the morality of coercive solutions, they will not be able to be applied to the real world. Thus if we designed the Internet (Ver.6) rather than Louis Freeh, his opinion of our design is meaningless. Perhaps the communitarians in the audience will have to fall back on disfellowship as the ultimate sanction (like the early Christians). They won't be able to apply any more advanced weaponry. DCF

1 0

RE: A Libertine Question
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Duncan Frissell <frissell(a)panix.com> wrote: >But many of us believe that coercive "solutions" to life's problems whether >right or wrong are no longer possible because technology is in the >process of making individuals and small groups "ungovernable" by force. Basically, I agree. But as earlier essays have suggested, our current government may just be a Schelling point of sorts among the possible social organizations that can exist. Thus, technology is mearly a different lens to view the same basic interaction among players. The players may move into different equivalence classes, but the basic roles are the same. In other times, alphabets, industrialization, and nuclear weapons could have played similar roles in the upsetting of the status quo. In this context, right and wrong do not need to enter the discussion. However, optimizing each individual's situation does not necessarily result in an optimal situation for the group. This is the basis of the classic prisoner's dilemna from game theory. I understand that for the iterated version, Tit-for-Tat is a stable strategy in that no other strategy will do better and thereby displace it over time in a large population. Tit-for-Tat: Start co-operating. Co-operate if the other party co-operated on the last round. Defect if they defected on the last round. So, how do *we* get crypto widespread? James

1 0

Re: "Soft Targets" as Schelling Points
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:05 PM 7/29/96, eli+(a)gs160.sp.cs.cmu.edu wrote: >Tim May writes: >>The connection should be clear, but in case it is not: many soft targets >>are Schelling points for terrorist actions. > >I see no coordination problem here. Schelling points are a useful >concept when you have several actors, each of whom benefits from >making the same choice as the others. Here, I think you want to say >"soft targets are easy to attack". There are _many_ "soft targets," of course. Millions, in fact. But some are "more likely" than others to be hit, a la Schelling points. Schelling points need not involve "coordination" between actors, though Schelling points provide one means of coordination without communication (e.g., where does each think a meeting will occur). Schelling points are like "The Match Game" (an old t.v. show largely written by one of the main contributors to "Mad Magazine"). Namely, "Name a place likely to be attacked by terrorists." Coordination is not the issue. Rather, the Olympics was (obviously) a likely target, for a variety of reasons. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Clinton must like terrorists...
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Clinton must like terrorists... because his most recent proposals will end up making more of them. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

RE: A Libertine Question
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: jbugden(a)smtplink.alis.ca > >In this context, right and wrong do not need to enter the discussion. >[. . .] >So, how do *we* get crypto widespread? ............................................................... Interest in crypto will spread when everyone's files are by law made available to anyone working in a government agency and people begin to get this growing feeling that there is something terribly wrong. . . . .. Blanc

1 0

RE: A Libertine Question
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:19 PM 7/29/96, jbugden(a)smtplink.alis.ca wrote: >I find it funny that I'm considered Conservative by most people who know me. >Your opinion may vary. ;-) I don't find it surprising (a different word from "funny") that you are a kind of "conservative." Many folks calling themselves conservatives actually want various kinds of laws, safety nets, social order, etc. (Many "conservative farmers" want government price guarantees, for example.) >tcmay(a)got.net wrote: >>Who takes responsibility when people fail to save enough of their >>paycheck to last them through the month? Who takes responsibility when >>people drink too much, miss work, and are fired? And so on. > >One common thread in many of these discussions is the ease with which moral >judgements are made about the situation: "fail to save", "drink too much". This is quibbling. Use whatever other word or weasel phrase for "fail to save" and "drink too much." Common euphemisms are: "became a victim of ethanol addiction," "lacked personal financial skills," etc. My point was an obvious one, clearly made, which I won't repeat here. >I know the social psychology explanation that people who view the world as >ordered attach these types of judgements to situations which violate their >ordered view of the world. "She was just asking for it dressed like that..." This is fatuous nonsense. I made no comment even remotely similar to this. (In fact, in my view, a woman can wear a tiny string bikini and, if attacked, blow away her attacker; though the bikini may make concealed carry a bit harder.) >However, now I'm puzzled. From what I've read of Tim May, he does not hold such >an orderly view of the world. The "rules" of existence may prove to be >deterministic, but the results are chaotic. So Tim, where are these moral >judgments coming from? The likely reason you are confused is that you set up a straw man, found it conflicted with other things I have argued, and now wish me to "explain." >Think of how many of our laws are being enacted that tacitly make being >poor or >indigent a crime. Curfews being a recently discussed example. If the >equation is >one of economics, then "who takes care of" people does indeed enter the >equation. I suggest that it is more economical to provide for a minimum quality >of life- if only as a form of insurance for myself. Think: Rawls. I have strongly argued against curfews, as I don't want cops telling my 15-year-old child when she or he can and can't be on public roads. As to "insurance," be my guest. That is, you and others are perfectly able to form insurance pools, old age retirement funds, etc. These are usually called "pension plans." However, please don't hold a gun to my head and demand that I contribute to a plan, especially one which is a Ponzi scheme like Social Security (SS is not self-funding, and "IOUs" are being placed in the pot for the future, as is well-known.) Sounds fair to me. >The alternative is to have garbage collectors to "take care of" those that fall >behind. Think: Soylent Green. A bad form of argument, citing bad SF movies to prove your points. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: what's a weapon? (fwd)
by Wayne H. Allen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 13:33 96.07.29 -0400, David Lesher wrote: >------- Forwarded Message > >Drawing an analogy with encryption and US ITAR, a poster reported that >A piper is being taken to court for practicing on Hampstead Heath, >which has a by-law forbidding music. Mr Brooks, the piper, has denied >the charge. He claims he wasn't playing a musical instrument, but >practicing with a weapon. In 1746 in England, bagpipes were declared to >be instruments of war, not musical weapons, and a subsequent Act of >Parliament specifically stated that they were weapons. > >> If you have ever heard the pipes being practiced you'll know why. Wayne H.Allen whallen(a)capitalnet.com Pgp key at www.capitalnet.com/~whallen

1 0

game theory
by Wei Dai 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I agree with Tim that game theory is very interesting and a potentialy useful tool in cryptography. However, game theory currently has a major limitation. An even moderately complex game is likely to have a very large set of equilibria (possible solutions where none of the players will deviate from their strategy if they knew the strategy of all other players). It takes a lot of work to calculate the equilibria set, and even if this is done, game theorists are hard pressed to explain or predict which equilibrium is the actual outcome. I have not read any of Schelling's work, but the notion of Schelling points seems to be closely connected to that of equilibria in game theory. If this is the case, then I don't see how it can be usefully applied to the complex interactions of an entire society. It is easy to say that current social conventions are an equilibrium in some game, but how much is this worth? What we would like to know is what is the entire set of possible equilibria, why we are in one of them (instead of the others), and how changes in the game (such as introduction of strong crypto) change that set. I find it unlikely that game theory will soon advance to such a state that it will give us the answers to these questions. Wei Dai P.S. Now that I've reread Tim's original messages, I realize that maybe Schelling points are not really the equilibria of game theory. If this is the case, Tim, can you please clarify its actual meaning? (Perhaps by quoting a definition from Schelling's book?) ObCrypto: Here is a simple cryptographic application of game theory. A fair exchange protocol allows two parties to reveal valuable secrets to each other one bit at a time. Modeled as a game, it goes like this: There are N (an even number) rounds. On odd rounds Alice decides whether to reveal a bit to Bob or to stop the game. On even rounds Bob decides whether to reveal a bit to Alice or to stop the game. The goal is to get as many bits as possible and secondarily to reveal as few bits as possible. Now using backwards inductions, we can show that the only subgame perfect equilibrium of this game is that Alice stops the game in round 1. The analysis goes like this: on the last round (if the game goes that far) Bob will have gotten all of the bits from Alice, so it makes no sense for him to reveal his last bit to Alice. On the next to last round, Alice knows that even if she reveals her bit, she cannot get Bob's last bit, therefore she would stop on that round. Therefore Bob would stop on round N-2, and on it goes. Wei Dai

1 0

RE: A Libertine Question
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:13 PM 7/29/96 -0400, Duncan Frissell wrote: >Perhaps the communitarians in the audience will have to fall back on >disfellowship as the ultimate sanction (like the early Christians). They >won't be able to apply any more advanced weaponry. Just as the ultimate net sanction is excommunication (usually via the ISP, killfiles etc.), the ultimate communitarian sanction is shunning. Anything more takes force, and government reserves the use of force to itself. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | Cave ab homine unius lebri | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | [Beware the man of one | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | book] - Anonymous Latin | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

2 1

Re: game theory
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:42 AM 7/30/96, Wei Dai wrote: >I agree with Tim that game theory is very interesting and a potentialy >useful tool in cryptography. However, game theory currently has a major ... >I have not read any of Schelling's work, but the notion of Schelling >points seems to be closely connected to that of equilibria in game theory. >If this is the case, then I don't see how it can be usefully applied to >the complex interactions of an entire society. It is easy to say that >current social conventions are an equilibrium in some game, but how much >is this worth? What we would like to know is what is the entire set of >possible equilibria, why we are in one of them (instead of the others), >and how changes in the game (such as introduction of strong crypto) change >that set. I find it unlikely that game theory will soon advance to such a >state that it will give us the answers to these questions. ... >P.S. Now that I've reread Tim's original messages, I realize that maybe >Schelling points are not really the equilibria of game theory. If this is >the case, Tim, can you please clarify its actual meaning? (Perhaps by >quoting a definition from Schelling's book?) I certainly make no grandiose claims that any _single_ facet of reality is guaranteed to be useful, as I'm sure Wei Dai would agree. I presented the theory of Schelling points because I've found the notion to be interesting, unifying, and helpful in my understanding of many phenomena. (Clearly, there are dozens or even hundreds of such "core concepts.") Schelling was addressing a different aspect of game theory than conventional equilibria (as in payoffs, I presume to be Wei's emphasis). The David Friedman paper I cited the URL for (http://www.best.com/~ddfr/Academic/Property/Property.html) has a fuller explanation of Schelling points than I can justify writing here. He writes: "Such an outcome, chosen because of its uniqueness, is called a Schelling point, after Thomas Schelling who originated the idea. It provides a possible solution to the problem of coordination without communication. As this example shows, it is relevant both to situations where communication is physically impossible and to situations where communication is impossible because there is no way that either party can provide the other with a reason to believe that what he says is true." My conjecture that game theory and cryptography have some natural and fruitful points of intersection is of course just a conjecture. I have long believed--though I cannot formally prove it--that many of the problems with digital cash and related ideas are "made to converge" by consideration of iterated games, e.g., reputations, expectations, expected payoffs, and so forth. I believe we see this in the "real world," where economies actually work in ways that the pure theory (absent game theory) would suggest problems. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: e$: The Demographic "Transaction" (was Re: Schelling Points...)
by Arun Mehta 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 19:37 29/07/96 +-200, Bart Croughs wrote: >The only effect of more stringent enforcement of anti child-labor legislation is to harm the children involved. You may think that the millions of families in Third World countries who are too poor to provide for their children, will be magically become rich enough to send their children to school once the anti child-labor legislation will be enforced. < This is getting off-topic, if there is such a thing on this list, but anyway... of course legislation alone is no good. Typically, it is accompanied by efforts to provide alternate livelihood to the older children or parents, free schooling, etc. > Child labour in the West didn't stop because of anti child-labour laws; it stopped the moment the people became rich enough to provide for their children, thanks to the capitalist revolution in the 18th & 19th century. The same path will have to be followed by the Third World countries today.< Take your point, though we may be talking chicken and egg here. If you have lots of children, you and your children never will become rich enough to change... >Instead of posting to the net to increase outrage about the violations of harmful child labour laws, you better begin posting to the net to increase outrage about the socialist governments in the Third World that keep their populations in poverty.< Socialism as an economic philosophy is fairly discredited, and is on its way out without my expressions of outrage needed to help it along. Yet, the capitalist economy seems to be no better at dealing with extreme poverty. Arun Mehta Phone +91-11-6841172, 6849103 amehta(a)cpsr.org http://www.cerfnet.com/~amehta/ finger amehta(a)cerfnet.com for public key

1 0

"Filter"software for money laundering
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

(Apparently the Poles are seeking tools for controlling the economic transactions of its citizen-units. Thanks to Bob for forwarding this to us. I am copying Andrzej Adamski on my response.) At 2:59 PM 7/29/96, Robert Hettinga wrote: >--- begin forwarded text >Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 16:06:53 +-200 >Reply-To: Law & Policy of Computer Communications > <CYBERIA-L(a)LISTSERV.AOL.COM> >Sender: Law & Policy of Computer Communications > <CYBERIA-L(a)LISTSERV.AOL.COM> >From: Andrzej Adamski <aadamski(a)CC.UNI.TORUN.PL> >Subject: "Filter"software for money laundering >Comments: cc: "comcri-l(a)man.torun.pl" <comcri-l(a)man.torun.pl>, > "lacc(a)suburbia.net" <lacc(a)suburbia.net> >To: Multiple recipients of list CYBERIA-L <CYBERIA-L(a)LISTSERV.AOL.COM> > >Sorry for cross-posting this message: > >Dear All, > > Are you familiar with any > software or any listing of producers of software to be used in > tracking money-laundering? > > If so, let me know. Yes, the Cypherpunks mailing list (send a request as described below) has software to defeat methods of tracking money-laundering. In particular, anonymous remailers, unbreakable cryptography, offshore data havens, digital cash, information markets, and a large body of thought about methods to defeat attempts by Central States to control and track the economic transactions of individuals and corporations. I realize our Polish correspondent may be seeking tools to _assist_ the Police of his country in stopping his countrymen from moving funds around without the approval and control of the apparatchniks who control such things in command economies, but I think he needs to know just how hopeless the task really is. The Polish state will crumble, though it may take a couple of generations. --Tim May, Crypto Anarchist Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: Denning vs. Gilmore
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:14 PM 7/29/96 +0100, Roderick Simpson wrote: >Today, Monday, July 29, Dorothy Denning begins her debate vs. John Gilmore >over The Absolute Right to Privacy on Wired Online's Brain Tennis site. Do >citizens of the world have an "unalienable right" to privacy - or are there >reasons why governments ought to have access to our communications? This >debate will run daily through August 7. Follow along at >http://www.wired.com/braintennis/. To get into the debate yourself, go to: > >http://www.hotwired.com/cgi-bin/interact/replies_all?msg.21655 > >An excerpt of Dorothy's first post today: > > "I'm not ready to accept 'the cat is out of the bag.' The Wicked Witch of the East wasn't "ready to accept" a house being dropped on her. Denning's personal desires are equally irrelevant. > Let's look for a way of enjoying > the benefits of encryption without > unnecessarily hindering the ability of law > enforcement to perform its mission. I consider the primary benefit of good encryption to be the "hindering the ability of law enforcement to perform" the particularly abusive "mission" they've chosen for themselves. > Let's use encryption for privacy, but also give > law enforcement access to communications and > computer files when there is probable cause > and a judge has issued a court order. Many if not most of us out here believe that the ("probable cause") system is abusive, and has all the prospects of continuing to be abusive in the future. > In some cases, that access must be > surreptitious. But some of us consider such access to be unconstitutional, however "useful" you may believe it to be. In the past, the government has had the extreme luxury of not being forced to convince the public of its "right" to wiretap. Now, the advance of technology is forcing the question of such approval to be answered, and the Denning-types are getting really worried that the public isn't going to give that approval. Tough! Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: cypherpunks vs hacker
by Allen Robinson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 29 Jul 96 at 6:06, pjn(a)nworks.com wrote: (in response to Tim's suggestion that:) > In> Rather than debate semantics of the definition of "hacker," or ask > In> others to suggest definitions, it might be better for interested folks > In> to read some of the various books on the topic and then decide for > In> themselves. Some of them are: > > In> - Levy, "Hackers," of course > > Very good history. > > In> - Haffner and Markoff, "Cyberpunk" > > In> - Sterling's book on hackers > > Hacker Crackdown. > > In> - any one (but not more) of the several Shimomura v. Mitnick books > > I think that Markoffs book on the incident was written beter then the > rest. > > I might also suggest: > > - Masters of Deception > > - The Cuckoos Egg by Stoll > Not to unduly belabor this, but I quite recently discovered another, somewhat less widely known book on the subject. _Approaching Zero_ by Paul Mungo & Bryan Clough. I've only skimmed it, but my 11 year-old son has promised to lend it to me when he finishes reading it. AR #%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#% "In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free." - Edward Gibbon ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Allen Robinson.........................sebago(a)earthlink.net PGP public key FE4A0A75 fingerprint 170FBC1F7609B76F 967F1CC8FCA7A41F

1 0