December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Cyberspace, Crypto Anarchy, and Pushing Limits
by Hal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A thought-provoking essay as usual from Tim. However, I see a contradiction between: > * Crypto means access to "regions" can be controlled by "owners": > > - "my house, my rules" enforced locally, without central State > authority and: > * Physical location of cyberspace locations will be increasingly hard > to pin down. A vast "labyrinth of rooms and corridors" might be > physically instantiated on a computer in Malaysia, while a "virtual > gambling hall" is being run via cryptographic cutouts (remailers) from > someone's bedroom in Provo, Utah. The problem I have is that it is not clear that cyberspace is a space, that one can identify regions which have boundaries, and which can be patrolled by owners. These physical, 2-D and 3-D concepts do not map well to cyberspace. Cyberspace is more of a mental conception, a meeting of the minds. It's not clear that it can be owned. For a concrete example, who owns the Cypherpunks list? Tim and Eric started it, Eric keeps the software working, and John Gilmore supplies the machine, as I understand it (apologies if I am leaving someone out). Do they own the list? What about the role of the contributors? Aren't they the ones who give the list value? (Granted, Tim, Eric and John have been some of the best contributors, but that is separate from their role, if any, as owners of the list.) Suppose, as Tim implies, that the list someday evolved to be some kind of virtual list, hosted on a flexible network of machines around the globe. Who would the owners be then? I would suggest that there would not nec- essarily be any. The list would be a voluntary meeting place for people who had certain interests. Its existance would be essentially defined by the commonality of that interest. It exists not in a cyberspace thought of as machines on a net of wires and fiber, but in a conceptual space that transcends the physical machines which support it. The issue of the ownership of cyberspace has similarities more to the ownership of intellectual property than of houses and roads and other physical objects, IMO. And the problems which arise when you try to fence off part of intellectual property space will also be a part of attempts to own cyberspace. Just another view - Hal

4 3

Re: PHILIP ZIMMERMAN ARRESTED [NOT!]
by dmandl＠lehman.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: Stewart Brand <sbb(a)well.sf.ca.us> > > The Zimmerman prank---I'm sure not funny for him---hardens my line > further against anonymity online. At its best, as here, it is an > unholy nuisance. People have gotten anonymous death threats over the telephone and poison pen letters by mail. Are you against phone and mail anonymity? And this wasn't even such a destructive prank! And it was perpetrated on April 1. Doesn't seem like such a big deal to me. --Dave.

1 0

Re: Bekenstein Bound
by Jim choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > I know this is off topic, but as an astrophysicist I can't let it lie. > >First off, Black holes are singularities or points and have no volumes. > > Black Hole refers to the event horizon, the geometry is not nice inside that. > > > >Second, the 'surface' of the event horizon is a fractal and is therefore > >better represented by a volume. > > The 'surface' is not fractal. It is a simple bounded spheroid of finite area. > > > >Third, Black holes are not de-coupled from the rest of the universe, they > >emit 'Hawkings Radiation' which eventually leads to the evaporatio of every > >black hole, the bigger the faster. > > Blackholes evaporate through Hawking radiation the SMALLER the faster. > Stellar mass black holes will not evaporate in the age of the universe. > This radiation does not carry information about the interior. It is formed > from the quantum field just above the surface. > > > >Fifth, volume is not an issue because several accepted theories imply a > >'many worlds' type of reality. Some of these theories even allow a certain > > > >amount of information to leak between them. This occurs because when the > >Hamiltonian is constructed some states prevent or exclude other states and the > >state space turns out to be smaller than at first apparent. > > This is philosophy not physics. > > > >Sixth, everyone (incl. me initialy) was discussing QED in exclusion. This is > >completely incorrect. You must include QCD and it is a complete unknown at this > >point. When QED succeded because of Feynmann the tools were applied to the > >Quantuam Chromodynamics of Quarks and it has not solved any problems. > > I have no idea what you are trying to say here. > > -------------------------------------------------- > Lance Cottrell who does not speak for CASS/UCSD > loki(a)nately.ucsd.edu > PGP 2.3 key available by finger or server. > > "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra. Suddenly > it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night the ice > weasels come." > --Nietzsche > > > I appreciate your feedback. From what I have read of Hawkings and others work I would have to disagree w/ your statements that a black hole is equated w/ the event horizon. In every text (incl. the Hawkings book from the 70's on the subject) to makes a clear distinction. Several years ago (around '90) there was a whole raft of work dealing w/ the event horizon and the consensus that I got was that the event horizon was a fractal. Perhaps you would site some references where this theory is not accepted and a argumetn as to why it fails? What I am saying as far as QED/QCD is that w/o discussing both then the actions of electrons and photons are not quantum mechanical in the sense that they require statistical terms to describe their behaviour. Nowhere in Maxwells Equations is there a statistical term. If you know of a hole in the equations please let me know of it. I am not aware of any behaviour of electrons/photons which are not covered by these equations until hadrons are introduced.

2 1

wrong place at wrong time...
by tmp＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

hello, whoever this `detweiler' person is you really seem to hate him. i appear to have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. would you like me to change my login name to something different so you don't confuse me with him? i think i heard it only costs $10 or so. yes, i do post from denver but i thought i heard detweiler was posting from somewhere else in colorado. (of course, geography is pretty meaningless in cyberspace.) yes, i am something of a newbie to this list. i heard about it out in talk.politics.crypto or something like that. i have also been reading up on your remailers from the public domain stuff out there (soda.berkeley.edu, etc.) the issues of `detweilering' do bring up some interesting questions. it seems to me that merely charging for access to remailers is not a sufficient deterrent (although it would have some effect). consider this argument: top-notch explosives can be very expensive, but that doesn't prevent terrorists from using them. in fact, it just has the effect of deterring the use of them by `casual' terrorists. wouldn't it be simpler to put limits on message propagation through a remailer? for example, limiting the volume of mail from a given source address? other interesting issues raised by `detweilering': hal finney forbids detweiler from using his remailer at any time. but (hello? is anyone home?) remailers operate on precisely the principle that names are irrelevant. how can you forbid anyone from doing something when you have no way of *identifying* them? how do you know what their mail aliases are? i wouldn't be surprised if hal finney censors *me* from his mailers just because he *suspects* that i am detweiler (ouch!). i think everyone here needs to be reminded why names were *invented*-- so that people can attribute actions to various individuals. it is `social ettiquete'. now, in some cases you may say that there is no need to attribute a name to an action (such as a posting) but then it seems you have no right to complain about `detweilers'. consider this-- suppose that i really hate t.c.may (this is just an example). i would like to screen my mailbox of everything he writes. but if he has dozens of imaginary aliases on netcom.com, each individually pretending to be a real person, how can i do this? it would be impossible. and don't say that the cost of multiple addresses would be a deterrent. what if he is a bored millionaire with nothing better to do? what if detweiler is a bored millionaire as well? apparently (from what i can determine) he seems to be endlessly entertained by harassing cypherpunks. and the criteria `that's an annoying post' is obviously not a very effective way of identifying him. so, `cypherpunks', you might consider the following problem. is it possible to have a system where there are multiple aliases allowed to a given person, and comparison between aliases (does alias1 == alias2) is permitted, but anonymity is generally preserved? one possibility is to remove screening one level from the users. that is, i tell a central server `stop sending me all posts generated by [alias1]'. if certain people suddenly disappear from my view that would be highly incriminating but not conclusive that they are all the same person. p.s. if detweiler is using the initials `tmp' (which he is judging by the FAQ piece that was reposted here) does anyone know what they stand for? p.p.s. can anyone tell me of recent press or media accounts of cypherpunk activity? thanks. p.p.p.s. try not to be so paranoid about `detweilers'. seems to me that if all he does is bang on a keyboard he is probably quite harmless. but then again, that's all that mitnick and morris did <g>

3 2

REMAIL: Ray's improved anonymous remailer
by Hal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I meant to reply to this several weeks ago, but was too busy then, so here are some comments now. From: rjc(a)gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray) > Seeing as how everyone else is announcing their anonymous remailers, > I may as well announce mine which is nearing completion. The remailer > is written in Knuth's WEB using Perl so there is nice documentation. This sounds like an interesting approach. WEB is Knuth's methodology for creating self-documenting programming projects. You run them through a filter to create the executable code, Perl in this case. This should help portability and ease of support. > The remailer includes among other things, virtual addresses (handles), > padding/packetizing messages (splitting them up and sending pieces through > multiple remailer chains), chaining, mixing, a key-server, a list of > remailers server, a socket-server to bypass the sendmail queue and > get immediate error return, a stealth mode (delivery via direct SMTP or > socket instead of through the local sendmail), secure remailer network > (remailers sign and encrypt chained messages between each other), > fake remailer traffic, and other small features. The virtual handles are > fairly secure. They can be stored in the database as either plaintext real > email addresses, virtual addresses located elsewhere on the remailer network, > or SAEE cypherpunk remailer blocks (self-addressed encrypted envelope) These mostly sound like great features. The virtual addresses are something we have needed for a long time. The idea of keeping records of which remailers are responding should help with the use of the network, too. The one problem with this is that it might be tempting for the users to just trust the remailers to choose their chain paths. It would be much better for the user's own software to hook up, find out which remailers are operating, then choose a chain. Ray's software will allow this, but this function could be split off from the remailers to a specialized server, perhaps. I'm not sure about the advantages of remailers signing and encrypting messages between themselves. It seems to me that the network should work even without this. Ideally we don't want the remailer network to be too centralized and close-knit. It's better for them to be strangers to each other since if they coordinate their efforts they can defeat anonymity. > p.p.s. e-mail commands are of the same form as the extropian's mailing > list, backwards compatibility with the cypherpunks pasting token is not > supported. Why? All headers in the message are ignored (and in socket-mode, > there is no header anyway) and the prefered mode of operation is to encrypt > the body and the commands so no outside eyes can see the remail request > destination nor the message subject. This was one reason I suggested supporting both old-style CP and the extropians-style syntax ("::Anon-To"). As Ray suggests, in some cases we might not have message headers in the RFC822 sense. I think it is simpler to think about a message which has remailer commands at the top. > Socket mode provides a more secure form of operation by bypassing the > standard sendmail delivery mechanism allowing a message to be > piped directly to the remailer. In addition, the socket mode remailer > functions as an information server allowing clients to request > a publically networked list of public keys and up-to-date list of > \rem servers. The port number can be anything but I'm suggesting we all > agree to use port 2258. The number of sites which allow users to run socket servers is far smaller than the number which allow mail filters, so not many people will be able to use this feature. OTOH the mail-only sites are generally of low security and an owned-and-operated system should be able to use this feature. So it is definately a plus for those who can use it. > Upon connection to the remailer port, a greeting message will be sent to you > of the following form. On the first line is a general greeting message > which can be any string. On the next line is status information separated > by ``/''. The status information in order is: \verb|remailer_name|, > version, administrator e-mail address, and finally a list of flags. > The flags are single character upper case letters specifying > the following options. {\bf P} to specify that the machine is > privately owned and single-user, {\bf M} for mixing enabled, {\bf C} for > chaining, {\bf K} if the keyserver is turned on, {\bf E} if this remailer > only accepts encrypted messages, and {\bf S} if stealth mode is on. This is a good feature, but it should also be available from non-socket remailers. There should probably also be a "Help" command to tell how to use the remailer. (A lot of people already have these features.) > Virtual Addresses consist of a {\bf user handle} and an optional > {\bf remailer name} separated by `{\bf \#}' I used `\#' because I wanted > to differentiate virtual addresses from internet style addresses. > An example of a virtual address is ``darkmodem\#deepanon'' which > means that the message should be sent to the user connected with the > handle ``darkmodem'' through the remailer named ``deepanon'' You can > chain your own remailers by simply adding multiple remailer names to the > virtual address. For example, ``user\#remailer1\#remailer2\#remailer3'' > which will send the message first through remailer1, then remailer2, > then remailer 3, and finally to whoever happens to be connected with > ``user''. A special remailer name ``*'' is provided. Each instance of > ``*'' in a remailer chain will be replaced by a random remailer. > For example, ``darkmodem\#*#*#deepanon'' will first chain the message > through two random remailers and then finally to deepanon. The random > remailers chosen are not guaranteed to be unique. Ray had mentioned above that these user handles can also map to encrypted remailer strings. This way users don't have to trust any one remailer op- erator to keep their identity secret. This need for trust is one reason I am not enthusiastic about user#remailer1#remailer2#remailer3 as an address, although it is admirably concise and easy to use. The problem is that it exposes the path to the first remailer in the chain. I really feel that paths must use nested encryption to be of much value. Similarly, the darkmodem#*#*#deepanon requires the user to really trust the first remailer in the chain. Perhaps it deserves such trust, but I feel that a system which does not require such trust would be superior. (Again, Ray's proposal is broad enough that it will allow non-trust modes of operation, as I understand it; my main concern is that these other options are so easy that they will tempt people to be lazy and slip into modes where they are vulnerable to unscrupulous remailer operators.) I am really looking forward to seeing Ray's software. It sounds like a good package of functions. Hal

1 0

Re: THOUGHT: International Electronic Declaration of Rights
by wcs＠anchor.ho.att.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Doesn't the U.N. have some kind of list of basic human rights? (Un- > enforceable, of course.) I thought I saw it in a story about Elanor > Roosevelt. I don't have the UN rights stuff handy, but most of it's non-useful, and is a good example of what happens when you let a committee of governments "define" your "rights" for you. I've spent more time looking at the UN treaty on the Rights of the Child (my church was lobbying our senator about getting the US to sign it, which I had problems with.) Typical "rights" included the right to free speech, subject to the needs of a society to preserve public order, the right to freedom of religion, subject to the needs of a society to preserve public order, the right to free compulsory education through 5th grade, without any particular identification of who would be forced to pay for "free", or acknowledgement of the more important right not to be compelled to be indoctrinated in whatever the government wants to force you to believe (e.g. South Africa forbidding public school students to use their native languages leading to Soweto massacre or France forbidding female public-school students to wear traditional Arab head-coverings), the right to national identity cards, etc. It's a mixture of "rights" that apply unless the government doesn't want them to, "rights" to have other people do things for you, rights that are too watered down to be worth the name, and rights that don't really include enforcement when governments don't honor them. It did have some meaningful parts - forbidding execution of children, forbidding drafting children under some age (I think it was 15 or 16) - and for many governments it would mean positive changes in spite of all the concessions to letting governments do whatever they want in the name of "social order". We can do better than that. Bill Stewart

1 0

Re: Cyberspace, Crypto Anarchy, and Pushing Limits
by wcs＠anchor.ho.att.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sameer writes, in response to Tim: > > - a general move away from "commons"-oriented systems, which breed the > > notions of "fair access" and such. If the "problem" is that poor > > people cannot--it is alleged--afford a $17 a month Net connection > > (what Netcom charges, in about 25 cities and growing), then my > > solution would be to simply _subsidize_ their bill. (I'm not > > advocating this, nor do I think it wise to subsidize anyone's phone, > > Net, or dinner bills, but better this than "nationalizing" networks > > and thus creating more confusion and less efficiency for all.) > > We don't need subsidized bills for cheaper access. > Just cheaper access. It'll happen. Market pressure + all that. Tim's point, though was that we don't "need" cheaper access, and government-regulation solutions to achieve this pressing social need are not only bad, but unnecessary - if the government really wants to provide people with cheaper net access, it can hand them money, with less distortion of the market than regulation. One of the problems with the EFF open access proposals is that they tend to favor, or at least tolerate, regulation of the networks, which is an invitation to disaster, however well-intentioned it may be. Bill Stewart

1 0

Re: THOUGHT: Internation
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com T >Yes, the U.N. has quite a fascist declaration of rights. It includes T >such chestnuts as a right to a job, a right to shelter, a right to T >medical care, and the right of a country to control its press (cf. T >the UNESCO fiasco). No thanks. Also, the right to two weeks paid vacation a year. As a self-employed individual, I want all you UN advocates out there to pay for my two-week vacations since I've never had one. <g> DCF --- WinQwk 2.0b#1165

1 0

Re: How many games of chess?
by GRABOW_GEOFFREY＠tandem.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

When "different games" are mentioned, are we talking about any difference a significant difference. Are two 1000 move games different just because they have one move difference, or does the outcome need to be different? And, bye the outcome being different, does that just mean that the King i captured in a different square or does it require more? G.C.G. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | Geoffrey C. Grabow | "What we demand are rigidly defined | | Oyster Bay, New York | areas of doubt and uncertainty!" | | | -------------------- | | grabow_geoffrey(a)tandem.com | Clipper, SkipJack & Digital Telephony | | | JUST SAY NO!!! | |----------------------------------------------------------------------| | PGP fingerprint = C9 95 0F C4 E9 DD 8E 73 DD 99 4E F5 EB 7A B6 1D | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

Economic assumptions
by hughes＠ah.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I just read (after a reference by Duncan Frissell on this list) an essay by Nobel-prize economist R. H. Coase. The essay is called "The Nature of the Firm". I have it in a collection called _The Firm, the Market, and the Law_, published by University of Chicago Press. This is a sure-fire antidote to the idea that "the market is the best solution for everything". This is the essay, evidently, that introduced the idea of transaction costs. Some of his basic points are the following: -- There is a cost to using the price mechanism. -- Not all economic allocations use the price mechanism. -- Firms exist because they have lower transaction costs than the market. I can imagine that bandwidth in the fibersphere for text transmission will be too cheap to meter, which means that the cost of metering would more than the marginal revenue. In this case, and this is not the near future, there aren't any delivery charges per message. Suppose 5 billion people are all typing continuously at 300 bps. That's 1.5 Tbps, certainly within the conceivable for a single transmission line. So that's everything everyone in the world types, delivered at flat rate to your computer. The assumption of scarcity for bandwidth, while true now, may not generalize to the future. We should also not assume that every commons is subject to the tragedy of overuse. Eric

4 5

Important Financial Information...
by 68864320＠canma.dyn.ml.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>>> PAY OFF ALL YOUR BILLS! <<< Including your mortgage in 3-7 years... Using your current income! People have become slaves to their debts. It's a never ending circle of go to work - pay the bills - go to work... >>> NOW THERE IS A WAY OUT! <<< A proven system used by more than 150,000 people in the USA and Canada. Find Out How - With Our FREE Information You have nothing to lose (except your debts) by requesting the FREE information! For immediate FREE information, send any message to freeinfo6(a)answerme.com, and our automatic response E-mail address will send you a FREE report within minutes. Get started on your debt-free journey today. Also, you'll learn how you can... JOIN OUR TEAM & EARN A FANTASTIC RESIDUAL INCOME! ********************************************************************** If you would like to learn about advertising your own product or service on the internet then please visit this Web site: http://www.amv-inc.com ********************************************************************** If you wish to be removed from this mailing list, please write us at: remove(a)alderney.dyn.ml.org Thank you. **************************************************************************

1 0

This List--Public, Private, or Other?
by tcmay＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have a few more things to say on the question Hal raised: is this list privately owned, publically owned, or is it something else? * It's effectively under the control of the folks mentioned (Huhges, Gilmore, Daniel, etc.), but.... * anyone with access to the mailing list names (cf. majordomo) could "invite" subscribers to try another list. Detweiler tried something like this with his "cypherwonks" group. The point: the "list" could move around. * sufficiently bizarre management practices on the List, such as if Eric decided to really crown himself King, would cause folks to leave. The point: the "list" is not permanent. * anyone trying to create their own Cypherpunks-type list would have to deal with inertia, head starts (by us), and so on. The point: sometimes inertia wins. In different words, the list exists as an "emergent phenomenon," like a popular trend or a fad. It's "official" existence is not crucial, as that could evaporated, change, etc. The hundreds of subscribers (can it really be 700?) find this list presumably more convenient than forming their own list, recruiting members, and achieving some critical mass. Call it a "Schelling point" in cyberspace, a meeting place. (A Schelling point is named after the game theorist, and can best be quickly described by an example: if Hal Finney and I agree to meet in Washington, D.C., without making further plans as to place, where might we meet? The Air and Space Museum? The base of the Washington Monument, the EFF offices? A limited number of points are likely to be independently picked by us--these are Schelling points for us. Prices are often Schelling points.) If enough of us "moved" to another list, or another machine, then that's "where" the Cypherpunks list would move to (it didn't happen with "Cypherwonks," for various and obvious reasons). The concept of "ownership" is thus tenuous. I would liken it to the "ownership" by a store of its customer base. Fry's Electronics "owns" the hacker-technophile customers it attracts in such throngs throughout the Bay Area, and no one (except the State, of course) can come in and command them to change their policies. But Fry's must be careful to not lose its customer base, which could easily happen (and will eventually, in all likelihood). To wrap it up: Cyberspace ownership has more similarities to the voluntary asssociations desscribed here--customer bases, clubs, subscriptions to magazines, etc.--than to conventional ideas of "public" and "private" property ownership. --Tim May -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Electronic Purse Press Release (Originally Re: VISA's digital cash)
by Christopher Allen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:25 PM 4/3/94 -0400, Pat Farrell wrote: >Today's (April 3) Washington Post business section has an article on >a consortium of VISA and banks working on a digital cash card. > >Did I sleep thru the messages, or has the list been scooped? > >Basic story is that the card is a smartcard, designed to be reused, >and suitable for small quantities. Nothing in the article about what would >prevent it from storing large amounts. No serious technical discussion >either, but I infer that it is an online cash card. > >Pat > >Pat Farrell Grad Student pfarrell(a)gmu.edu >Department of Computer Science George Mason University, Fairfax, VA >Public key availble via finger #include <standard.disclaimer> I was sent this by a friend today. It is the original press release: PR NEWSWIRE 03/22 VISA ESTABLISHES INTERNATIONAL CONSORTIUM FOR ELECTRONIC PURSE SPECIFICATIONS SAN FRANCISCO, March 22 /PRNewswire/ -- Visa today formed an international consortium of market leaders in the consumer payments industry to develop common specifications for a new way to pay -- an "Electronic Purse," a card with a micro chip that can be used instead of cash and coins for everything from vending machines to public transportation. The Electronic Purse would consist of a micro-chip embedded in a credit card, debit card, or stand alone card to store value electronically. The card would replace cash and coins for small-ticket purchases (less than U.S. $10), such as gasoline stations, pay phones, road/bridge tolls, video games, school cafeterias, fast food restaurants, convenience stores, and cash lanes at supermarkets. Cardholders can "reload" the micro-chip and control the amount of value stored in the card's memory. The Electronic Purse provides cardholders with the security and convenience of carrying less cash and coins, eliminating the need for exact change. Many participants in this worldwide effort are currently pilot testing electronic purse products, additional pilots are expected in late 1995. Joining forces with Visa to develop international technical specifications for the Electronic Purse are: Banksys; Electronic Payment Services, Inc., (EPS); Financial Information Systems Center, (FISC); Groupement des Cartes Bancaires, (CB); NationsBank Corporation; Sociedad Espanola de Medios de Pago, (SEMP); Sociedade Interbancaria de Servicos, S.A., (SIBS); and Wachovia Corporation. To ensure worldwide representation, limited additional payment systems that have invested energies in open-market electronic purse projects, will be invited to join. In addition, Visa will form a parallel group with technology companies to ensure the specifications support low-cost, efficient production of necessary equipment. "The goal of our combined efforts is to lead the market into the next frontier of payment processing -- the automation of cash and coins," said Ed Jensen, president and chief executive officer, Visa International. "The highly complementary capabilities of the participating companies will allow us to address issues for all aspects of smart card-based electronic purse solutions, including the cards themselves, point-of-sale systems, networks and back-end interchange and settlement systems." This announcement reflects Visa's commitment to providing superior, convenient payment services to its member financial institutions who serve consumers and merchants around the globe. The consortium was formed in response to member requests that Visa take the lead in facilitating the addition of an electronic purse to existing credit and debit cards, as well as the introduction of a stand alone card. Visa will leverage its global brand presence by teaming up with strategic partners to develop common standards. "The most critical step in making this concept a global market reality is the definition of open standards that can be shared among all participants," said Wesley Tallman, president, Visa Products and Information Services. "Recognizing that important domestic electronic purse developments are underway, the consortium will leverage the expertise of all participants. Group 'knowledge sharing,' especially with our European participants that have made significant advancements in the chip card arena, will facilitate the development of a specification that is relevant to markets worldwide." The technological specifications will govern the standards needed to establish an infrastructure that supports electronic purse payments. The worldwide market for automating cash transactions remains virtually untapped. According to the Bank for International Settlement, consumer cash transactions in the U.S. alone exceed 300 billion per year. By contrast, bank-facilitated consumer transactions, such as credit and debit cards, checks, and wire transfers total only 60 billion per year. As these figures indicate, there is a vast market potential for automating cash transactions. "EPS has been investing significant resources to develop smart card solutions since 1991," stated David Van Lear, chairman and chief executive officer of Electronic Payment Services, Inc. "Combining the resources of these industry leaders will accelerate market acceptance." Just as the standard operating environments have fueled the growth of the personal computer industry, the specifications that emerge from this collective effort will provide the essential framework to ensure compatibility, reduce development time and cost, and open up the market for others. International payment system participants included in this cooperative effort are: Banksys -- based in Brussels, Belgium, is a leading European specialist in electronic funds transfer (EFT) and payment security. Banksys operates the automated teller machine (ATM) and point-of-sale (POS) network on behalf of all card issuing banks in Belgium. Besides Belgium, 10 other countries are equipped with the Banksys system. Banksys is entrusted with the development of the Belgian Electronic Purse project, with pilot testing expected to begin in December 1994. Electronic Payment Services, Inc.(EPS) -- based in Wilmington, Del., is the leading electronic funds transfer company in the United States with an annual transaction volume of 1.7 billion. EPS is the holding company for BUYPASS Corporation and MONEY ACCESS SERVICE INC., operator of the MAC(R) network. Financial Information Systems Center (FISC) -- based in Taipei, Taiwan, is a government organization that supports electronic purse initiatives in that country. Through its members, FISC has issued 80 thousand integrated circuit cards and has installed more than one thousand point-of-sale systems with integrated circuit card readers. Groupement des Cartes Bancaires (CB) -- based in Paris, is the country's payment cards organization that has succeeded in launching the world's largest integrated circuit card program, with more than 22 million cards in circulation generating 2.2 billion transactions per year. NationsBank Corporation -- headquartered in Charlotte, N.C., is the third largest banking company in the United States with approximately $158 billion in assets, more than 1,900 retail banking centers in nine states and the District of Columbia, and consumer offices in 33 states. NationsBank is a financial services company providing products and services nationally and internationally to individuals, businesses, corporations, institutional investors and government agencies. Sociedad Espanola de Medios de Pago (SEMP) -- based in Madrid, SEMP is a sister company of Visa Espana, a group member of Visa banks in Spain. SEMP operates Sermepa, the card processing company of Visa Espana. Sociedade Interbancaria de Servicos, S.A., (SIBS) -- based in Lisbon, Portugal, is the country's leading bank payments company which provides electronic clearing services and operates the national Multibanco ATM and EFT/POS networks. As an extension to its service offerings, SIBS, is introducing the Multibanco Electronic Purse, (MEP). Visa International -- headquartered in the United States, is the world's leading consumer payments system with more than 333 million cards issued, more than 11 million acceptance locations, and the largest global ATM network. Wachovia Corporation -- with dual headquarters in Atlanta, and Winston-Salem, N.C., is one of the United States' leading debit card issuers and provides credit card services to three million cardholders nationwide. /NOTE TO EDITORS: In December 1993 Visa International, MasterCard International and Europay announced an agreement to form a joint working group to develop a common set of technical specifications for the integration of microprocessor chips in payment cards -- commonly known as "Integrated Circuit," "Chip," and "Smart" cards. The electronic currency specifications referenced in this release will enable the electronic purse application to be added to the integrated circuit cards./ /CONTACT: Albert Coscia of Visa, 415-432-2039/ 09:05 EST PR NEWSWIRE 03/28 VISA TECHNOLOGY GROUP SUPPORTS ELECTRONIC PURSE SPECIFICATIONS SAN FRANCISCO, March 28 /PRNewswire/ -- Visa today announced the formation of a technology group of international manufacturers to support the adaptation of specifications for a variety of technologies that will facilitate the issuance and acceptance of the "Electronic Purse" -- a payment card that stores value electronically and is designed to replace cash and coins for a wide range of low-value (under U.S. $10) consumer payments. The technology group will work with Visa who recently formed an international consortium of payment systems that will develop common specifications for Electronic Purse programs. Because plans are underway for the card to be used globally in a variety of venues -- including, gas/petrol stations, grocery stores, convenience stores, fast food restaurants, school cafeterias, and for such routine items as telephone calls from pay phones, road/bridge tolls and video games -- a number of technologies required to support card acceptance in global markets will be examined by the group. The first suppliers to join the international technology group are VeriFone, Inc., the leading global provider of point-of-sale transaction systems, and Gemplus, SCA, the world's leading manufacturer of smart cards. VeriFone and Gemplus have formed a joint venture, called VeriGem, to pursue electronic purse opportunities. To ensure worldwide representation, additional technology leaders who have invested energies in electronic purse applications will be invited to join the group. In addition to acceptance technologies, "loading" systems that enable cardholders to restore currency value into the micro chip will also be analyzed. Automated Teller Machines (ATMs) are expected to play an important role in loading value into the electronic purse. Future loading methods, such as specialized devices located at merchant locations or in the home, will also be explored. Operating both the largest international consumer payment network, VisaNet, and the world's largest ATM network puts Visa in a unique position to lead this global effort. "As with all emerging technologies, consultation with suppliers responsible for physically implementing the technology is critical to ensuring the viability of the product design," said Wesley Tallman, president, Visa Products and Information Services. "As market leaders in the payment systems field, all of those who have joined us in this initiative are truly partners in paving this 'express lane' of the electronic payment superhighway." Tallman emphasized that the technology group will be charged with ensuring that the specifications developed by the consortium support low-cost, efficient production of necessary systems and equipment. This group approach has been a key tool in support of Visa's product and market development efforts. In December 1992, Visa formed a manufacturer's group to support development efforts for security specifications of integrated circuits on payment cards. Still active today, this group lends critical on-going support and expertise to Visa's chip card efforts. Participants in this international group include: Bull, CPS (France); Gemplus, (France); Giesecke and Devrient (Germany); Schlumberger Industries (France); and Toshiba Corporation (Japan). Visa expects and welcomes the participation of these and other technology partners in the electronic purse effort. Hatim Tyabji, chairman, president and chief executive officer of VeriFone, agreed with the need for a supplier's group that would lend systems expertise to this effort. "Establishing worldwde specifications is the essential first step in the global standardization of the electronic purse, uniting all industry participants on a common playing field with a common set of rules. The endorsement and support of the electronic purse by Visa, its member banks and leading worldwide payment systems send a strong message to the industry -- the electronic purse is no longer merely a possibility, but a real market direction," said Tyabji. "With their high storage capacity, programmability and increasing affordability, smart cards are now poised to move beyond specialized applications and become a truly universal payment medium," said Dr. Marc Lassus, president and chief executive officer of Gemplus. "We share the consortium's vision of the electronic purse, and are excited about helping to bring speed, reliability and efficiency of smart card-based electronic cash to markets around the globe." Visa International, headquartered in San Francisco, California, is the world's leading consumer payments system with more than 333 million cards issued, more than 11 million acceptance locations, and the largest global ATM network. VeriFone, Inc., based in Redwood City, California, is a leading global provider of Transaction Automation solutions used to deliver payment processing and other transaction services to various retail market segments, as well as the healthcare and government benefits market. The company has more than 30 facilities located throughout Asia, Europe and the United States. To date, VeriFone has shipped more than 3.4 million Transaction Automation systems, which have been installed in more than 70 countries. Net revenues in 1993 were U.S. $258.9 million. Gemplus Card International, based in Gemenos, France, is the leading worldwide manufacturer of smart cards. Gemplus' cards are used for secure transactions in public and cellular telephone, banking, pay TV, transportation, healthcare and defense applications. The company has three manufacturing facilities: two near Marseilles, France, and one near Stuttgart, Germany. Current Gemplus production exceeds 14 million cards per month. The company has direct sales offices in 12 countries and a distribution network covering an additional 50 countries worldwide. The company's 1993 revenues were U.S. $130 million. NOTE: Gemplus is a registered trademark of Gemplus Card International. VeriFone is a registered trademark of VeriFone, Inc. Visa is a registered trademark of Visa International, Inc. /NOTE TO EDITORS: On March 22, 1994, Visa announced the formation of an international consortium to develop worldwide technical specifications for the Electronic Purse. The supplier's group discussed in this release is a complementary effort, serving Visa in a consultative or advisory capacity. /CONTACT: Albert Coscia of Visa, 415-432-2039/ 08:45 EST ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ..Christopher Allen Consensus Development Corporation.. ..<consensus(a)netcom.com> 4104-24th Street #419.. .. San Francisco, CA 94114-3615.. .. o415/647-6383 f415/647-6384.. ..Mosaic/World-Wide-Web Front Door: .. ..ftp://netcom7.netcom.com/pub/consensus/www/ConsensusFrontDoor.html ..

2 1

Re: THOUGHT: Internation
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Jamie Lawrence "....... I just would like to know if those who object to this object on grounds of practicality or ideology (in other words, for example do you object because you don't believe everyone is *entitled* to a job......." having a job = making a living using $ "a living": having an idea of a kind of life to live pre-requisite: having a purpose in life requisite: arranging your life to realize (achieve) that purpose following-through on the work required adjusting things around you to suit your interest/sensibilities It would be impractical for another person to deliver all of these things for me at their expense, when they should be spending time on their own dreams & plans. It does not represent an ideal method to me to have my lifestyle delivered to me, while aiming to be an independent, autonomous individual with a mind of my own. Otherwise I would be obliged to serve the purposes & interests of those who supply the means, the job, the money, on their schedule; that is, whenever they could think of something for me to "do" on the entitled job list. Blanc

1 0

Re: Economic assumptions
by jamiel＠sybase.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:04 PM 04/04/94 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: >(If the answer is "No fees, no quotas, use as much as you can," then I >maintain it will be relatively easy to continue to flood sites. Flood >them worse than anything we've seen so far, in fact. I'll go out on a >limb and speculate that cheap delivery makes a fee schedule of some >sort _more important_, not less important. Of course, this is up to >the service providers; anyone who wishes to provded a free bandwidth >link should be free to do so!) Obviously it doesn't map directly, but phones can provide a good example. people can phone-bomb people, but it gets boring. Most prank callers ger sick of it by the time they hit highschool. There are cases of prank callers getting scary but these are pretty few and fall between. You may say that the difference is that I have to have to be on the phone to do this, which doesn't apply to computers- well, I can, using a Macintosh and phone set up a pretty good combination war dialer/recorded message to bomb everyone in my local access range. How often does this happen? and what would happen to me if I did this? *There's* the key. You slap people's hand for this kinda thing. If I send a 200 meg binary file to a site once every 15 seconds for a couple of hours, I get in trouble. Easy. People talking about the future with computers always talk about ways to make things impossible for someone to do- this has never worked in the real world, and won't in the virual one. You just make it not worth doing. >I can think of certain malicious persons--and I expect more of them in >the future, not fewer--who would mount "denial of service" attacks on >sites they didn't like by turning the firehoses of data on them. See above- If I mount a denial of service attack on you via phone- tell my computer to call you once every 15 seconds, forever, how long would it take to get the cops to pay me a visit? About as long as it took you to find a phone that isn't tied up by me ;) >TANSTAAFL--There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Link I still agree- Whoever ends up standing to profit from this ain't gonna give it way... >--Tim May

1 0

Re: Economic assumptions
by fnerd＠smds.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Eric says- > I just read (after a reference by Duncan Frissell on this list) an > essay by Nobel-prize economist R. H. Coase. The essay is called "The > Nature of the Firm". I have it in a collection called _The Firm, the > Market, and the Law_, published by University of Chicago Press. ... > -- There is a cost to using the price mechanism. > -- Not all economic allocations use the price mechanism. > -- Firms exist because they have lower transaction costs than the market. There's a piece by Kevin Kelly called "Network Economics" in the latest Whole Earth Review, about how better communications tech and changed business practices lower transaction costs and (along with competition and the pace of things these days) are pushing down the optimum size of businesses. -fnerd quote me - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - `We want information.' `You won't get it!' `By hook or by crook, we will.' -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a aKxB8nktcBAeQHabQP/d7yhWgpGZBIoIqII8cY9nG55HYHgvt3niQCVAgUBLMs3K ui6XaCZmKH68fOWYYySKAzPkXyfYKnOlzsIjp2tPEot1Q5A3/n54PBKrUDN9tHVz 3Ch466q9EKUuDulTU6OLsilzmRvQJn0EJhzd4pht6hSnC1R3seYNhUYhoJViCcCG sRjLQs4iVVM= =9wqs -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: This List--Public, Private, or Other?
by Hal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I can find a lot more to agree with in Tim's clarification of his views on ownership of cyberspace: > In different words, the list exists as an "emergent phenomenon," like > a popular trend or a fad. It's "official" existence is not crucial, as > that could evaporate, change, etc. > > [...] > > To wrap it up: Cyberspace ownership has more similarities to the > voluntary asssociations desscribed here--customer bases, clubs, > subscriptions to magazines, etc.--than to conventional ideas of > "public" and "private" property ownership. > > --Tim May Getting back to the original discussion, though, I think the point remains that such a tenuous and abstract form of ownership does not serve as a good foundation for a model of cyberspace as private property. Cyberspace, in my view, is essentially a conversation. Its value comes from the interplay between different people who contribute, each bringing their own expertise and points of view. It seems odd to me for someone to lay claims to the ownership of the conversation, especially someone who is not participating. One problem in thinking about these issues is focussing too closely on cur- rent software in the form of mailing lists and usenet. Already newer forms of communication such as IRC, MUDs, etc. are breaking out of these molds. Other possibilities include more fluid communications models where organization is provided by links between messages. In such a system, there would be no "cypherpunks list" as such; rather, messages on the kinds of topics we find interesting would be linked together in various ways, with side ties to messages on related topics as well. Who would "own" this kind of cyberspace? One possible unambiguous answer is to simply say that people own their own words, and to leave it at that. In that sense nobody owns the cp list; rather, each poster owns his postings. This is pretty uncontroversial, I think. But even then the value of a posting depends heavily on the context in which it appears, and this simple ownership model does not particularly capture that. Because of these considerations, I think cyberspace is not really subject to the kinds of ownership and control that we associate with private property. Look at the Extropians list as an example. They try to say that the list is private property and feel free to kick people off. But sometimes people get disgusted with their autocratic practices and leave. The list ends up losing value. The more they tighten their iron fist of ownership the more individuals slip out of their grasp, to paraphrase noted cyberspace pundit Princess Leia. (I say this not to disparage members of that list, which has a lot of talented people, but because to me it is a good example of the mis- application of the idea of private property.) My model of the ultimate future of cyberspace emphasizes selectivity and filtering of a huge corpus of messages, articles, essays, debates, etc. The hard part is going to be picking out what is interesting to you, and making your contributions in such a way that interested people see them. I really don't think our current infrastructure of mailing lists and usenet does a very good job of this, and I hope that in the future better approaches will be possible. It's not clear what role ownership will play in that system. Hal

2 1

rights in cyberspace
by tmp＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

t.c. may argues against codifying a sort of `bill of rights' or `magna carta' for cyberspace, saying that these documents tend to become meaningless from empty promises. but, on the other hand, what is the point of the nation's bill of rights? we could argue that the concept of `free speech' is meaningless in the realm of private industry, yet we still have a bill of rights that guarantees us certain rights. where, precisely, are we guaranteed these rights to e.g. free speech, freedom of assembly, etc? do the cypherpunks believe in the u.s. constitution as sacred or not? i think something that `cypherpunk' ideology often misses is the concept of a community. this mailing list is a community. most of cyberspace is a community. when you yell at a site administrator to censor e.g. detweiler, you are exercising a role in that community (as is he). and the bottom line is that communities *demand* rules. otherwise, one only has anarchy. do you really *like* anarchy? keep in mind that `detweilering' seems to thrive in it <g> IMHO anyone who argues that cyberspace does not require a bill of rights similar to the one we have in the `real world' is essentially mistaken. t.c. may argues that these kinds of `accesses' such as cheap connections etc. will arise naturually via private enterprise and competition. but! this just doesn't hold out in what might be termed the `pathological' situations. consider that all the internet providers decide they can make a lot of money from collusion. what is to prevent them from price fixing? also, i have seen t.c. may essentially condone the practice of private companies censoring their users from internet access. but, correct me if i'm wrong, there is *only* access through the internet through private companies! what if they all decided to censor a particular user? suppose you want to create your own company-- they could just as easily decide to deny service to your company!! this is why we have a government, `punks'-- it is a sort of `codified community'. we are guaranteed freedom of speech and assembly etc. in any forums associated with the *government* the bill of rights ensures you certain minimum expectations. one solution to this on the internet would be to create a subnetwork in which rights of users, as well as laws governing their freedoms, are codified. people who subscribe to the network are committing to upholding the charter of the overall organization in return for their `minimal expectations'. some of these expectations might be: 1. right not to be censored for most forms of speech or net use. 2. if someone tries to censor them, that a `due process' ensue 3. this might be something like a `trial by one's peers' 4. the accused would have the right to confront accusors etc. note that these have been recognized as basic human rights for centuries, and they are very sensibly applied to cyberspace. now, the organization of other users also has a certain set of laws they adhere to: 1. allowed to censor sites/users that `misbehave' by initiating the `due process' 2. expectation of identity-- in joining the system a site makes guarantees that they will not forge mail by users or other sites, etc. 3. a police force representing the authority of the organization over members would be required for enforcement. we could call this the `cyberspatial citizenship' subset of the internet or something like that. the whole point is to be *explicit* about what sites and users can expect. you see, it is impossible to be connected to cyberspace without being subject to the potential whims of some other human being between you and your digital data!! hopefully, gradually this `cybernation' would grow to the point that it encompasses the entire internet -- sort of like usenet does today, and everyone has a clear expectation of their roles. notice that in our government as well as the system above, `corruption' is recognized as possible. we have a system that transcends individual companies, government agencies, policemen, etc.-- they are all `purged from the system' (theoretically) if they engage in behavior that is illegal in the community. to subscribe to a system like this is *not* to subjugate yourself to a higher authority. it is the way you `mesh' or `interface' with the mechanisms that embody the community you live in. now, a lot of you are going to get upset because all of the above sounds a lot like a `government'. but if you can get away from the mindset that `government==evil' you can see that this system has benefits to everyone involved, and moreover it would be possible to erect outside the scope of the u.s. government. that is, in one sense you could call it a `private' organization. `punks', until a system like the above is implemented, no one is free. we have no rights. we have nothing but the feudal system, and one is either a slavish serf or oppressive king, and this could change at a moment's notice. suppose that someone bought a few dozen accounts around the world, and made you their enemy (or vice versa) and simultaneously sent complaints from every one to your site administrator saying that you had caused irreparable harm to various cyberspatial forums? would your administrator listen for very long before they decided to yank your account because, after all, `we've had dozens of complaints'? what if you had never even posted to the forums? would your administrator know? would he give a damn? if he did, why should he? what if netcom yanked all the accounts of cypherpunks *today*? are you saying they should be allowed to do that merely because they are a private company? what if *all* internet providers decided to do this? are you going to argue that this is impossible? what *prevents* it? do you think a company is going to care how loud you screech on the phone if they have some other plan? the bottom line: if you think you have any rights today in cyberspace, or guaranteed access to the internet, you are *wrong*. so, codifying a cyberspatial magna carta ranks as a very noble and ideal pursuit. i urge the ambitious and fairminded among us to strive to realize this vision. `you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences'.... --tmp

3 2

Re: Electronic Purse Press Release (Originally Re: VISA's digital cash)
by gtoal＠an-teallach.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Unlike the Natwest scheme, I don't see anything in here about anonymity. Want to bet that VISA's system allows tracking of purchases? G

1 0

How Many Games of Chess: Exact answer given!
by collins＠newton.apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Based on new information I have at last answered the question of `How many games of Chess' with finality. Here is the quote that woke me up to the reality of this problem in combinatorics. Jim choate writes: >The fact is that the end game is what defines a game of chess and >not the infinitude of possible paths between the first and last move. The natural conclusion is that the complexity of the problem depends on how much of the game you consider to be the `endgame'. Thus, the actual number of different chess games: 5 2) White mates 1) Black resigns 0) Stalemate -1) White resigns -2) Black mates Happily, this agrees with observed behavior. In fact, this is the way posterity remembers them, e.g., "Oh, yes, Spasky won." ;-) Scott Collins | "That's not fair!" -- Sarah | "You say that so often. I wonder what your basis 408.862.0540 | for comparison is." -- Goblin King ................|.................................................... BUSINESS. fax:974.6094 R254(IL5-2N) collins(a)newton.apple.com Apple Computer, Inc. 5 Infinite Loop, MS 305-2D Cupertino, CA 95014 ..................................................................... PERSONAL. 408.257.1746 1024:669687 catalyst(a)netcom.com

4 3

666
by tmp＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

well EXCUUUUSE ME for reading /pub/cypherpunks/rants on soda.berkeley.edu, parry metzger!!! i just don't understand how remailers can even exist in cyberspace given that a *lot* of people like to try to yell at system administrators to get mail censored. if people are doing this to remailer operators, and they cave in, we are back to square one. ok, so whoever detweiler is, he's obnoxious, but i thought that cypherpunks were against censorship. is it `censorship is BAD-- UNLESS detweiler is involved'... (hee, hee) why are you guys so !@#$%^&* paranoid, anyway? what the heck did detweiler do, anyway? if that goofy string of DEATH TO CRYPTOANARCHISTs messages was due to him is all, then i think you guys might be overreacting just a *tad*. --`scarlet A' (boy, i am really paying for the particular combination of initials i picked. do you guys really think detweiler would be stupid enough to pick something that you leap on in a microsecond?! to bait you in front of your face?! i can't recall a detweiler post recently in the newsgroups, what is his last address? i think i will write him ... quite a celebrity ... maybe he has managed to get censored)

2 1

PHILL ZIMMERMAN ARRESTED [NOT]
by a2＠ah.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> >>The Zimmerman prank---I'm sure not funny for him---hardens my line >>further against anonymity online. > You can't get rid of anonymity such as this without also getting rid > of pseudonymity. Eric argues simply that you can't get rid of annonymity, and he is correct in the strict logic of his aguement against the current technological background. What neither of you discuss is your actual concern, which is that of having some way to rapidly access the factual content of a message. Instead of addressing that problem, you rail against anonymity. In current discourse one often sees symbolic or subsitute issues being discussed, so that the underlying discourd is obscured, ignored, and unresolved. Lions that stalk shadows remain hungry. -a2

1 0

Re: THOUGHT: Internation
by jamiel＠sybase.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:15 PM 04/04/94 -0700, Blanc Weber wrote: >From: Jamie Lawrence > >"....... I just would like to know if >those who object to this object on grounds of practicality or ideology (in >other words, for example do you object because you don't believe everyone >is *entitled* to a job......." > >having a job = making a living using $ >"a living": having an idea of a kind of life to live >pre-requisite: having a purpose in life >requisite: arranging your life to realize (achieve) that purpose > following-through on the work required > adjusting things around you to suit your >interest/sensibilities > >It would be impractical for another person to deliver all of these >things for me at their expense, when they should be spending time on >their own dreams & plans. It does not represent an ideal method to me >to have my lifestyle delivered to me, while aiming to be an >independent, autonomous individual with a mind of my own. Well, I guess we concieve of the meaning of the phrase "'right' to a job" somewhat differently. I see it as meaning everyone has the oppurtunity to earn a living. Whether or not I have the responsibility to follow through or not, I have that chance. (I also don't know that I think my job has anything to do with my purpose in life- If someone can find that to be the case, great, but otherwise it is just a way to stay alive while they are looking for the real thing, so to speak.) >Otherwise I would be obliged to serve the purposes & interests of those >who supply the means, the job, the money, on their schedule; that is, >whenever they could think of something for me to "do" on the entitled job list. I suppose I look at the alternative- that people don't have the right to earn a living, that doing so is a priviledge. How easy is it to get by without a job in this country? It can be done, but it sucks. >Blanc -j

1 0

Re: This List--Public, Private, or Other?
by jim＠bilbo 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Who owns the games of volleyball played in my backyard? Since it's my backyard, I could tell everybody to go away, but then the games would also go away. The games could start up again in another backyard. Do I own the games? Effectively, no. The problem is with the term "own". I merely control the existence and character of games within the space of my backyard, but I can't control the existence or character of all games everywhere. I also cannot control the migration of a specific game from my backyard to another backyard. Sure, I can make sure the players don't use my volleyball or my net, but they can get other volleyballs and other nets. What is a volleyball game? Is it a volleyball court, a net, and a ball. No. Is it a group of people? No. Is it a group of people standing in a volleyball court with a net and a ball? No. Is it a group of people playing in a volleyball court with a net and a ball? Maybe. It depends on what they exactly they are doing with the net and the ball. A volleyball game only exists when they are playing volleyball. As soon as they stop, or are prevented from continuing, the specific game dissipates. A volleyball game emerges from specific interactions between the people and the items they manipulate (court, net, and ball). Can anyone own a mailing list? What is a mailing list? Is a mailing list a collection of hardware and software? Is it a bunch of people? Is it one message CC'ed to a group of people? A specific mailing list emerges over time from the specific interactions between an dynamic collection of people and the equipment used to support the interactions. Someone can own the equipment used to support a mailing list. They might also be able to "own" the name of the mailing list (copyrighted mailing list names?), but the name is not the most important characteristic of the list. They can also attempt to control the character of the list as long as the list is hosted on their equipment. However, the people who participate on the list can migrate the list to another host. Conclusion: You cannot own a mailing list because you cannot own the collections of people and interactions that define the mailing list. Jim_Miller(a)suite.com

1 0

Re: THOUGHT: Internation
by lefty＠apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jamie Lawrence writes > >Well, I guess we concieve of the meaning of the phrase "'right' to a job" >somewhat differently. I see it as meaning everyone has the oppurtunity to >earn a living. Whether or not I have the responsibility to follow through >or not, I have that chance. What does "have that chance" mean in this context? Will appropriately non-demanding jobs be created (how? by whom? of what sort?) for those too untalented, careless, surly or offensive to get themselves "real" jobs? Do you actually see this as meeting some sort of need? -- Lefty (lefty(a)apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

1 0