December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

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

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

17 Dec '03

"James Sturgeon" said >> 4. the accused would have the right to confront accusors > >With all the anonymous remailers, etc, how do you expect this >to happen? You yourself refuse to be identified (as is your >right) yet you promote the right to confront accusors? the point is, this `citizen' organization is built of people who agree to the rules `upon entry'. i forgot to mention that the charter of the organization would require agreements by individual users. for example: `i am todd marvin peterson, this account is for my use only and i will not permit use of it by any other person'. now, you are probably going to say that this is an invasion of your privacy, but then on the other hand, so would detweiler. who's right? (hee, hee). guys, it seems to me that if you want to censor detweiler, then you would have to construct a system where names map to people as a `given'. otherwise, you are just going to be tortured forever by your own `cryptoanarchy'. (a complex subject, one that i don't fully grasp, perhaps only the author t.c. may does) if you don't want to `liquidate' detweiler, then WHY THE HELL IS EVERYONE SO HOSTILE TO INNOCENT BYSTANDERS WHO HAVE THE SAME INITIALS BY COINCIDENCE?! is this your idea of an ideal meeting place? where there is suspicion and distrust? >> 3. a police force representing the authority of the organization over >> members would be required for enforcement. > >How can you have a police force? Who will be there to see you type >something evil? I can see you shoot someone and the judge can ask >my testimony to help convict you, but what about computers? With the >use of modems an act can be committed anonymously since the real world >has no proof that was you who did something... only that it was your >account that was used. take your pick -- no accountability for actions whatsoever, *ever*, and you have rampant `detweilering'. or, people agree to some accountability. there is no such thing as `an anonymous act'. people who live in communities can ask that each other adhere to the laws of the community and evict them if there is evidence otherwise. the purpose of a trial is to `judge evil deeds'. let me give you an example. suppose that i had technology that would allow me to `morph' to the point of looking exactly like tim may. except, i would go and terrorize everyone in denver and urinate on sidewalks, flash women, etc. you say that `modems allow an anonymous act'. well, for me, that morphing is the same way, it allows me to run rampant without any personal consequence. the way that whoever posted the bogus `death to cryptoanarchist' stuff glommed his signature, this is a similar idea. so, should we allow morphing? or are you going to insist that morphing is an uncontrollable technology and therefore regulation is futile? you see, anything is possible among people who are willing to cooperate. if we decide that maymorphing is illegal in our society, we can work to prevent it. but if we have the ulterior motive that, ultimately, we don't want to be held accountable for `our own evil deeds', then you have anarchy, or rampant detweilering. (hee, hee, love that verb) note: i am not arguing against remailers. they are useful in some forums. but what you seem to have right now is an `anything goes' atmosphere that practically invites abuse. you don't even appear to have simple preventions of things like mailbombing etc. do you condone mailbombing through remailers? >Amazing that a person who has a fairly good grasp of the English language >and a pretty good vocabulary can't seem to find the shift key. WOW!! A SHIFT KEY!! WHAT A CONCEPT!! well, it appears that no one here is interested in developing a sort of `cyberspatial community' that has codified rules of conduct. do you know of anyone who might? seriously, i mean. don't give me snide email like `try the nsa'... pseudonymously, --tmp

4 3

going in anarchic circles
by tmp＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Grand Epopt Feotus <68954(a)brahms.udel.edu> > I comprehend my own brand of crypto/cyber-anarchy. I > personally do not go for any of the regulations or > "protections" that have been proposed so far. IMO, if > you want to put your machine on the net, take your > chances. It's getting very cheap to set up a node now, > and if I choose to do so I would not take kindly to any > restrictions upon my activity, be it legal, or illegal > even. ok, suppose that every internet company decided that they would install `fingerprint keyboards' and require use of them by users. these keyboards sense your fingerprints as you type on the keyboard and can be used to reject users not authorized to use a given account. they simply tell people who do not want to use the system, `tough luck'. in a sense, this is something like how our social security system and drivers licensing works today. there are few (legal) alternatives to them. so, how do you get a connection to this net? you are probably going to propose `starting a new net without these draconian restrictions'. but what you have done is propose a new set of rules -- `we don't need no stinkin rules'. how is your system going to deal with sites that corrupt passed mail? that harbor hackers and crackers? it really amazes me guys, but if you think the internet is some kind of anarchy right now,you are completely mistaken. you agree to a set of rules when you join the net. those rules are set by your provider. you agree not to corrupt mail you forward, don't mailbomb usenet, etc. currently there are many `unspoken rules' -- but it makes sense for them to be codified so that everyone understands what they can expect of each other. there is no guarantee of your access to the current net. doesn't that seem kind of fragile? you think you don't have to have any faith? it seems you have a lot of faith you will always be able to get a connection to the internet. why not try to set up a system or organization that is committed to formalizing the rights and expectations of users on the net and specifying what constitutes `basic access'? > Myself, I would much rather take the lumps of some > abuse, rather than have ANY regualtion put on my usage of > my personal node, or interaction between connected nodes. ok, so i set up a node that randomly corrupts all the mail that i pass through my site. i mailbomb the cypherpunks list and all the remailers. how do you deal with it? you send shrieking mail to all my upstream site providers asking them to yank me. what if i have bribed them all very lucratively? what if they decide that you don't pay enough, so they are going to yank you instead? (not worth the hassle of your insults, after all) what if i have dozens of accounts on different public domain sites? i seem to be going in circles here. > This makes room for alot of abuse, I admit that, but I > just don't see how all these Bill-O-CyberRights stuff, > and CyberKommunity will work when your dealing with a > space that has no boundary. This is a metric space, whos > distances are measured in connectivity, there are no real > boundaries as the are easily breached and morphed. excuse me, mr. idealist, but you live in a world that no one would recognize as their own. cyberspace exists only because people have constructed it. you cannot escape that interaction of a community. no man is an island. what guarantees you will have a connection to the network today? absolutely nothing. it is just your faith in the great cybergods. cyberspace is nothing but crystallized human interaction. how do you deal with the `pathological' cases of human behavior such as harassment, terrorism, censorship, etc? > How the hell are you going to evict > me if I break one of the laws? There is no way you can > develop a fool-proof system to control use, I even > seriously doubt you can install a shitty system even. unix passwords represent a reasonable amount of security. they prevent me from hijacking your account. more sophisticated levels exist. look, you are evicted from your apartment if you don't pay your rent. it is just as simple to evict someone from their cyberspatial connection, and throw out all their furniture on the street!! believe me, it has happened to me twice!! > Basically if I want to do something, it will get done. > The whole concept of a police force controlling > cyberspace is a leap back about a billion evolution > cycles. You can't patrol an amorphous blob. don't think of it as `us vs. them'. think of it as `us' erecting our own framework of self-regulation. it would allow `us' to get rid of the detweilers of the world in our community. cyberspace is not an amorphous Gibsonian blob!! it is a physical infrastructure policed by humans as simply as our physical roads are!! the police already exist, they are called `system administrators', except they have no uniform code of conduct today, except `if something pisses me off, disconnect it'. > If they dont like what my node is doing, than cut > connections to my node. what if you wake up one day and find that all the people you want to talk to, and you thought were your friends, all on a separate network, and you are isolated with Detweiler, Depew, Morris, and Mitnick on the AnarchyNet? > I would > actually prefer the possibility to Detwielering so to > speak,than to allow someone to try and control this. If hee, hee, suit yourself.... > You are unable to hold someone > accountable for their own deeds in a space like > kyberspace where psuedonyms are part of the fabric of the > space. cyberspace is what we make it. if no name is ever connected to a human, it can be constructed that way. if identity is important (as most of human history seems to imply) we can translate it into the new realm. but you are continuously mixing up what is possible with what you want. if you don't want something that is possible, then it's possibility is irrelevant. why don't you just preface your remarks by saying `i only want a version of cyberspace where no one is responsible for their actions!!' and i'd just leave it alone. as it stands you argue that cyberspace = anarchy by definition. i cannot agree. this dialogue appears to be at the point of arguing two different religions, so it is not very fruitful for any of us, but if grand epopt feotus represents the basic cypherpunk views, then i find it all very fascinating. you guys realize that you have a very unusual culture that is highly distinct from virtually any other culture ... at least that i am aware of. you do seem to have some parallels to the russian nihilists, some of the libertarians, some of the anarchists, but you have a very distinct blend of it .... anyway, it is all kind of bizarrely alien to me, so maybe i will check out that cyberwonk group or whatever that eli brandt mentioned and see if anyone there is on the same wavelength. pseudonymously yours, --tmp

6 7

In the latest IEEE Spectrum
by Matt Thomlinson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

For personal use only -- posted without permission "Classified algorithm for encryption" IEEE Spectrum, April 1994. Federal policy makers should reconsider the Clipper/Skipjack cryptography scheme, which employs a classified algorithm and Government-held keys as the basis of a new encryption standard, according to a six-page statement by IEEE-United States Activities. "Federal cryptography policy should not fight technological progress by attempting to retain outdated techniques of surveillance at the cost of the reliability and the security of the American information infrastructure," the statement concluded. The reasons given for issuing the statement included IEEE-USA's concerns that classified algorithms "cannot be proven secure," that individuals seeking to avoid detection would simply choose another cryptography method that can be downloaded from the Internet, and that law enforcement agencies can use other new methods--from vibration-sensing lasers on windows to keyboard-trapping programs. For more information, contact IEEE-USA at (202)785-0017. mt Matt Thomlinson University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. phone: (206) 548-9804 Check my home page -- ftp://ftp.u.washington.edu/public/phantom/home.html PGP 2.2 key available via email, or finger phantom(a)hardy.u.washington.edu

1 0

Re: Economic assumptions
by rjc＠gnu.ai.mit.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Eric Hughes: >Let's take remailers as an example. One current suggestion is to add >some sort of money system to the remailers as a condition of use. >This is exactly the wrong priority at the current time. The remailers >are already hard enough to use, and adding a payment system on top of >that will make them used even less. Making a system harder to use >increases the transaction cost. > >The current priorities should be to lower these costs. When the >remailer system begins to be overloaded, then adding some restriction >on use, perhaps by means of payment or a payment analogue, will be >warranted, because it will lower overall transaction costs, trading >off ease of use for throughput and reliability. > >What are some of these costs that should be lowered? > >-- Finding out that remailers exist and what they do. build a remailer "who" server into each remailer >-- Finding a remailer to use. ditto >-- Deciding what remailer to use. ditto (remailer server should list remailer properties like keylength, private?, delay length, chaining?, mixing?, padding?, encryption required? etc) >-- Figuring out how to use a particular remailer. standardize remailer help system, standard remailer command format (but not neccessaily the commands themselves) Sorta like an SGML for remailers >-- Formatting a message for a remailer. see above >-- Receiving mail through a remailer. Get/Creating a nice client. At the moment, 100% of the mail in my mailbox is encrypted. I wrote a script called "deliver" which encrypts incoming mail, then pipes it through procmail/slocal. I modified morepgp and made it a lot more user friendly (and recursive). Reducing complexity cost: All of this could be lowered by creating an easy-to-use remailer client which is compiled (or perl/tcl interpreted) and installed with every unix out there so it becomes ubiquitous. If someone's machine doesn't have a client, they can telnet to a machine where one is set up (just like gopher, archie, www) by some generous cryptoaltruist. The current remailer solution of putting all of the remailer system complexity on the server side can't make remailers too easy to use. My Extropians list software attempted to make it easy to use by allowing commands to be contained in-band with messages to be posted. It's still too complex for the user who wants hot-key style operation. (which is why I will eventually write a client for it) Once you write a generalized client that can communicate with standardized remailers, you can easily include digicash/postage in the system. >There much more need for improving the ease of use of remailers than >for paying for them. Are you objecting to paying for remailers on a philosophical grounds (anti-property/money)? No one has proposed paying real money for remailer use (although that is a future possibility). There needs to be some way to authenticate remailer users and limit use in a "free" sense (instead of top-down rationing) The best way to do this is to use some form of monetary system. >The less expensive privacy is, the more privacy there will be. >Privacy has non-linear benefit; the more that people are private, the >better any individual's privacy actually is. Every standard is enhanced by more people using it. However, this alone can't be a justification for making services into public goods which are free to everyone. If the Detweilers of the world take advantage of totally free remailers, they could end up limiting the privacy for all. The same "free" philosophy has killed many a porno/music/book site (or created absolutely long user queues reminiscent of food lines in the xUSSR) Spamming/Spoofing attacks on remailers must be dealt with. The situation is not helped by either-or logic. We need both ease-of-use and some notion of postage. -Ray -- Ray Cromwell | Engineering is the implementation of science; -- -- rjc(a)gnu.ai.mit.edu | politics is the implementation of faith. --

2 1

Re: This List--Public, Private, or Other? (fwd)
by rjc＠gnu.ai.mit.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hal writes: > 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.) > On the other hand, the list also tries to perform a useful function for many people which is to filter down the enormous amount of chatter conversation out there to make it easier to read. It's interesting to note that the people who left the list were not leaving because of our tight copyright rules but because they disliked the code-of-conduct rules with respect to politeness and the enforcement of them. Code of conduct is a form of property control which won't disappear even in a "free" cyberspace. People will still form electronic country clubs excluding the non-elite or the non-polite from their ranks. The Extropian's list copyright rules are mainly e-cultural politeness. Just as it is considered bad netiquette to forward private e-mail to a public newsgroup, the Extropian's list administration considers it inappropriate to forward private exchanges to public lists without prior permission from the author. Such a rule would likely be in place on "women only space" e-lists or abuse recovery lists. Although the cypherpunks membership list is public, I bet many cypherpunks would consider it inappropriate to sell or give away this list to direct electronic marketing agencies. The extropians list has its copyright rule also to create a safe-zone. One where you can speak your mind without worrying about someone publishing your words in a "usenet cd-rom archive" where your boss could see it. Until pseudonymity is easier to use, restrictions will have to stay in place. I see electronic copyright as mainly just good manners. > 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. I think mailing lists do a much better job of filtering than usenet where membership to a discussion group can not be moderated or limited. (it doesn't work in practice. it usually kills the group or e-sociopaths just bypass the insecurity of the system) I like AOL's "auditorium" model. In the future, people will still want to pay others for locating information, filtering, and formating it in the oceans of information out there. Lexus/Nexus, IQuest, and some of the financial report natural-language filters out there are good examples. Information itself would probably be relatively free, but useless because *finding it* would be the hard part. Electronic Consultants would make their money by hooking you up with the right database or search software, or sell you their personal time over an electronic market. -Ray -- Ray Cromwell | Engineering is the implementation of science; -- -- rjc(a)gnu.ai.mit.edu | politics is the implementation of faith. --

2 1

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

17 Dec '03

From: Jamie Lawrence: "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." Except that you didn't say that, you said 'right to a job'. To me that means that there is a job in existence to which I have a right, or that one should be created for me so that I may be the beneficiary of it. "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." Your basic purpose in life could be simply to maintain it while you or someone else figures out what it's for. Maintaining a life requires work, which is what a job is and does. The reference to a 'right' to a job is usually intended to mean that it should be provided, not just that the opportunity should exist. But in fact, no one is required to maintain another's particular existence; especially if they impress as being a purposeless being with no particular reason for being assisted in the maintenance of their purposeless life (i.e. there being no reason to be even *moved* to provide them with a job). It has been pointed out in my readings, that the Constitution makes a case for the *pursuit* of one's interest, to emphasize that it should not be hampered or prevented, but that it makes no case for the provision of that particular thing which one would pursue (like a house or a job). "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." People don't really have a right to do anything, yet they have the given means and a whole world & beyond, with which to do most of what they can imagine or anything they can manage. It's easy, when you know how. Blanc

1 0

Burn 2.0 file deletion
by dwomack＠runner.utsa.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

My Apologies! Mia Culpa! I've come across a really great freeware program called burn2.o for the Mac. I offered to send it to anyone who was interested... two people responded...and I promptly lost the e-mail addresses. Please e-mail me and I'll do better...this is a great little program! Regards Dave

1 0