December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Why does the state still stand:
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"hfinney(a)shell.portal.com" "Hal" 16-MAY-1996 10:21:05.33 >From: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH(a)ocelot.Rutgers.EDU> >> I did not >> include offshore.com.ai in Anguilla due to its high cost; I consider anything >> over 25$ a month to be impractical. >Thanks very much for making this list. However I would not be so quick >to reject http://offshore.com.ai. It is run by long-time Cypherpunk >Vince Cate, apparently specifically for the kinds of purposes we are >discussing. His project was discussed in a recent issue of Wired, I >think the May issue. (I have no contact with Cate, and have never met >him as far as I can recall.) I was originally creating this as a list of places for me to look at for sponsoring a remailer, and then decided that the list might find it useful. I would find over 25$ a month impractical. However, in the 2nd edition I'll include http://offshore.com.ai, with a note on the cost (and on Vince Cate's political orientation.) >For doing something like running a remailer which will post material >which is illegal and/or copyrighted in the U.S., you are going to need a >service which can stand up to pressure. Presumably some monetary >incentive is going to be a necessity. Of course by this standard $25 a >month is pretty inconsequential. Yes. As I recall, there's supposed to be an ecash library coming out soon. I trust that someone involved in remailers is planning on making up one that charges ecash once those facilities are available? There's also the deposit idea for ones that serve an end-posting function; I didn't have this in mind when I created the list initially, again. >One issue is whether these banking-secrecy countries like Anguilla are >followers of the Berne convention or other international copyright >regulations. Banking secrecy and software piracy don't necessarily go >hand in hand. I hear a lot about copyright violations in China but not >in the Caribbean. So actually it isn't clear that this country is the >right location for a remailer that can post arbitrary material. Good point. I'll try to look up on the Berne convention. >As for the costs to the remailer operator, he simply passes those on to >his customers. I think in the long run onshore remailers will be forced >to take measures to restrict copyright-violating posts. So if your >choice is between paying nothing and not getting your whistle-blowing >message posted, or paying $10 and getting it out on the nets, then >hopefully it is worth that much to you. >We have discussed for-pay remailers and the consensus has been that no >one would use them when others run for free. However now I think the >false premise is being exposed, that free remailers simply will not be >able to run in the current mode for much longer. Once a single remailer >operator has been fined thousands of dollars because somebody posted some >copyrighted message, I don't think you will find many people eager to >sign up as operators. So this dream of a volatile collection of >remailers popping up and going away just doesn't work in my view. Why >would anyone offer a service knowing that he was exposing himself to >liability like this? It would be just a game of Russian roulette, >waiting to see whether it is your remailer which gets the bullet in the >form of a post which violates the copyright of someone with deep >pockets. I've discussed this somewhat above, but whether one needs to charge may depend on how one runs the remailer. If it only sends to other known remailers (ideally only to other mixmaster remailers), and the traffic analysis defeating features work properly, then it's going to be hard to charge you for some mail going through the net that may not have even gone through you. In other words, we may get a division into two types of remailers: A. those that charge, and do send messages other than to other remailers; these may also be nym servers demanding a deposit, with a confirmation as to who's who via signatures B. those that don't charge, and don't send messages other than to other anonymous remailers. A combination of the above could certainly work, also; just charge for messages going to other than other remailers. -Allen

1 0

AST II Conference
by Dave Banisar 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Panel suggestions are always welcome -d ------- Preliminary Conference Announcement ADVANCED SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGIES II Sponsored by Privacy International Electronic Privacy Information Center September 16, 1996 Citadel Ottawa Hotel and Convention Centre Ottawa, Canada ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The rapid evolution of technology is leading to the creation of a seamless web of surveillance across much of the world. Powerful technologies originally developed for the military are being adopted by law enforcement and civilian agencies, and private companies to monitor entire populations. This has been further fueled by the end of the Cold War and increasing demands for greater bureaucratic efficiency. Existing laws and regulations have failed to keep up with these developments. This one day conference will examine a range of advanced surveillance technologies and their impact on privacy and other civil liberties. It will explore the process of planning and implementation of the technologies, their operating conditions, and the people and organizations responsible for them. The conference will also examine possible technical, regulatory and legal responses. The conference will also address in detail the findings of Privacy International's "Big Brother Incorporated" report which examined the international trade in surveillance technology and the involvement of the arms industry. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- PARTIAL LIST OF SPEAKERS Phil Agre, University of California, San Diego Dave Banisar, Electronic Privacy Information Center Colin Bennett, University of Victoria Simon Davies, London School of Economics & Director, Privacy International Wayne Madsen, Author, Handbook of Personal Data Protection Bruce Schneier, Counterpane Systems & Author, Applied Cryptography CONFERENCE SUBJECTS * Artificial Intelligence Systems * Biometric Identification * Digital Cash * Information Superhighways * Information Warfare * Infrared and Passive Millimeter Wave Detectors * Intelligent Transportation Systems * Other New Technologies ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MORE INFORMATION More information on the conference will be available at the Privacy International mailing list at pi-news(a)privacy.org (subject: subscribe) or at the PI Home Page at http://www.privacy.org/pi/conference/ottawa/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- HOTEL The Conference will take place at Ottawa Citadel Hotel in Ottawa, Canada. A block of rooms has been reserved at the hotel at a discounted rate of CAN $81.00/night for a single $91/night for a double. The hotel should be contacted directly for reservations, mentioning the AST II Conference to get the special rates and early reservation is recommended. The address is Ottawa Citadel Hotel, 101 Lyon St., Ottawa, Canada K1R 5T9, attention reservations, fax 613-237-2351, phone 613-237-3600. In North America you can call toll free at 1-800-567-3600. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OTHER EVENTS THAT WEEK There are several other conferences in Ottawa that week. On Tuesday, September 17, Industry Canada will be sponsoring a one day Symposium and Demonstration of privacy enhancing technologies. On September 18 - 20, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada will be hosting the 18th International Privacy and Data Protection Conference. Contact: 613-995-2410 or email jroy(a)nstn.ca. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- REGISTRATION Registration Fees [] Standard - $250 CAN ($175 US) [] Non-profit organizations/Educational - $125 CAN ($75 US) Information Name: ___________________________________________________________ Organization: ______________________________________________________ Address: _________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ Phone/Fax: _________________________________________________________ Electronic Mail:_____________________________________________________ Credit card Number/Expiration Date: _________________________________ (Do Not Email!) Fax Registration form and credit card number to +1 202.547.5482 Send Check or Money Order in $US made out to Privacy International to: Privacy International Washington Office 666 Pennsylvania Ave, SE, Suite 301 Washington, DC 20003 USA 1-202-544-9240 (phone) 1-202-547-5482 (fax) pi(a)privacy.org(email) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- _________________________________________________________________________ Subject: AST II Conference _________________________________________________________________________ David Banisar (Banisar(a)epic.org) * 202-544-9240 (tel) Electronic Privacy Information Center * 202-547-5482 (fax) 666 Pennsylvania Ave, SE, Suite 301 * HTTP://www.epic.org Washington, DC 20003 * ftp/gopher/wais cpsr.org

1 0

test
by an616864＠anon.penet.fi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

test --****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--***ATTENTION*** Your e-mail reply to this message WILL be *automatically* ANONYMIZED. Please, report inappropriate use to abuse(a)anon.penet.fi For information (incl. non-anon reply) write to help(a)anon.penet.fi If you have any problems, address them to admin(a)anon.penet.fi

1 0

Reputations
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:09 PM 5/15/96, Steve Reid wrote: >Another problem with reputations is that people are stuck until they get a >good one. A bad rep can always start over. In fact, a person/company can >look perfectly nice, but use a different identity for dirty work. Sure. And they do this today (use cut-outs or subcontractors to limit reputational damage or liability). >Naturally, you'd only trust dealings that involve a "nice" identity. Not necessarily. Many people play the numbers, implicitly trusting the Mafia to pay off on bets they win. (Many don't think the Mafia has a very "nice" identity, but your mileage may vary.) In fact, nearly all of the alleged problems with anonymous systems, especially the issues of defections, trust, expectation of payoff, etc., have parallels in other "extra-legal" situations. For example, the Mafia and other extra-legal or criminal operations. Do they sometimes defect (welsh)? Sure. Do they sometimes screw over the little guy? Sure. Do people trust them just enough to keep dealing with them voluntarily? Sure. (Before anyone mentions it, there are of course cases where people are forced to deal with criminal gangs nonvoluntarily, such as with shakedowns, hijackings of trucks, etc. But a large fraction of the dealings with the Mafia, Jamaican gangs, Russian mob, etc., are for market reasons, where a market need for drugs, girls, cheap cigarettes, gambling, loans, etc., is being filled by players who are outside the normal legal marketplace.) >Problem is, young people who are just starting out have a no-reputation >identity, and would be treated the same as the no-reputation identities >that are used for screwing people over. Sure, newcomers always have it rough. Whether the newcomer is Nancy the Nym, or Eustace T. Collins, III, Esq., just starting out in a law firm, the newcomer has little positive reputation. (It varies, and the degree may mean something, just as Nancy the Nym may have some reputation capital to show.) I mentioned "postive reputation." There is a real cost in throwing out, say, 30 years of accumulated reputation capital, and this will not be done lightly by many. Thus, in a given transaction, a lot may be at stake. (I don't mean for this brief article to be an essay on the many fascinating issues surrounding reputation and reputation capital. Cf. my Cyphernomicon for much more on this topic.) >Reputations could be very hard to create, and very easy to destroy. As in real life. People can destroy their reputations by being careless. (I disagree with your implied point that the opinions of others can easily destroy a reputation. In real life, it usually takes a lot more than just bad-mouthing. Even in nym-space, the same is apparently true.) >Well-known good reputations would be powerful and fairly hard to destroy, >so it's possible that the big reputations might try to crush little >reputations in an effort to gain some sort of reputation monopoly. Maybe. Implausible as a central problem, but all things will likely happen. This happens occasionally in the real world, as when a Big Reputation (e.g., Bill Clinton) belittles and marginalizes a Small Reputation (e.g., Paula Jones). There's a vast amount of stuff to think about with reputations. I applaud Steve for doing some thinking, but I don't think he's yet uncovered anything especially unique or worrisome. As a last point, see especially the role of anonymous escrow agents. A number of years ago the example I usually used was "Ace Escrow--You Slay, We Pay," to illustrate that an anonymous escrow holder (holding untraceable e-cash deposited by the purchaser of a murder contract) could pay off a murderer who presented certain evidence, all without any of the parties having any idea whatsover whom the other parties were. The problem is then one of whether the escrow company will simply pocket the money and not pay off. First, it can be set up (I think) that the e-cash is uncashable by the escrow company...but I'm not sure this is needed. A better solution is to rely on the basic nature of escrow or bonding services: their reputation capital is much more valuable to them than anything to be gained by defecting and burning their clients. Except if they are about to retire anyway...as with the bonded courier who defects to Rio de Janeiro with a bag of diamonds....the trick is to spread the escrow money around to multiple escrow agents, and to rely on "escrow testing services" which periodically ping or test the services.... There are many issues here. I'm not advocating murder markets, just noting that they provide an easy to understand and fairly "pure" example. If it can be done with murders for hire, it can be done with nearly anything. A few years ago, many valuable ideas were contributed in this area by Dave Ross, Phil Salin, Dean Tribble, Hal Finney, and Robin Hanson. You might search for their articles. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

3 2

RUL_net
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

May-June, 1996, Harvard Business Review. Two related articles which examine c'punks interests -- proposed business regulation of the Net; on-line security; copyright; encryption; authentication; E-cash; electronic commerce; protected communities to escape "frontier anarchy." Executive summaries by HBR: "Ruling the Net." Debora Spar and Jeffrey J. Bussgang The Internet promises a radical new world of business. But for many companies, it has yet to deliver. Although doing business in cyberspace may be novel and exhilarating, it can also be frustrating, confusing, and even unprofitable. Debora Spar and Jeffrey Bussgang argue that the problems companies face have little to do with a lack of technology or imagination. Their problems stem instead from a lack of rules. Without the order that rules create, business cannot be conducted. The authors explain why the informal rules that have developed on the Internet since the 1960s are no longer sufficient. Businesses thinking of allowing millions of dollars of transactions to occur on the wide-open Net need specific assurances. They require clear definitions of property rights, a safe and useful means of exchange, and a way to locate and punish violators of on-line rules. The authors believe that the key to commerce on the Internet lies in the creation of managed on-line communities. Such communities can be formed by service providers -- entities that will restrict on-line options, fine-tune offerings to match a select group of users, and provide some means of recourse in cases of fraud or abuse. Under those conditions, they will draw new companies on-line and increase the productivity of those already there. And, say the authors, the rewards for service providers will be substantial: Companies that make the rules on the Internet's emerging frontier have the opportunity to reap the greatest profits. [40 kb] "The Real Value of On-Line Communities." Arthur Armstrong and John Hagel III The notion of community has been at the heart of the Internet since its early days, when scientists used it to share data, collaborate on research, and exchange messages. But how can businesses best use its community-building capabilities? Not merely by putting their products or services on-line, the authors contend. Real value will come from providing people with the ability to interact with one another -- from satisfying their multiple social needs as well as their commercial needs. Companies that create strong on-line communities will command customer loyalty to a degree hitherto undreamed of and, consequently, will generate strong economic returns. The authors present four different types of community: communities of transaction, interest, fantasy, and relationship. Examples of each type already can be found on the Internet or through on-line services, but the successful community of the future will incorporate all four -- or as many as possible. As for economic value, the authors see four ways for a company to generate returns: through usage fees, content fees, transactions and advertising, and synergies with other parts of its business. In the near future, new business definitions may emerge around the notion of owning a specific customer segment across the full range of its interests and needs; owning specific products and services may no longer be so important. The authors urge businesses marketing to consumers to make the small investment required to "buy an option" on electronic communities in order to understand both their potential value and the radical changes they may cause. [33 kb] RUL_net (for the 2) ----- Reprints of "Ruling," No. 96309 and "Real Value," No. 96301 may be ordered from HBR for $5.00 each by email to: custserv(a)cchbspub.harvard.edu

1 0

Re: Why does the state still stand:
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Here's a partial copy (edited to stay within fair use) of the U.S. News & World Report article I mentioned, off of their web site. -Allen _UPSET? TRY CYBERTHERAPY_ _AN ONLINE VISIT TO THE PSYCHOLOGIST MAY PROVIDE AN ANSWER, CHEAP_ Got the blues? Can't stop scarfing down bags of potato chips? Your spouse is always hostile, and you and the kids are, too? Therapy might help--at $125 a session. Or you could test a '90s solution: E-mail your way to mental health for a fraction of the cost. In the past year, angst has become a thriving niche on the World Wide Web. Many psychologists who are setting up home pages see electronic consultation as a way to plump up incomes hit by managed care and to attract new patients to the office. For the most part, these cyberpractitioners are careful to warn potential patients that the medium doesn't allow for detailed probing. "I give advice like Ann Landers and Dear Abby do," explains Dorothy Litwin, a New York psychologist who specializes in substance abuse, women's issues and couples therapy. Litwin is one of five women who joined forces about a year ago to form an electronic practice, Shrink-Link (address, box, Page 83). Four are New York State-licensed psychologists; one is a psychiatrist. Each has her own regular practice and specializes in a particular area of psychotherapy. For $20--you pay upfront by typing in your credit card number--you can send off your 200-word (or less) question; it is then routed to the appropriate therapist. Within 72 hours (often within 24 hours), you get back two or three paragraphs of privately E-mailed advice. _ The short answer._ The cybercouch is most effective at giving people who can clearly identify the dilemma (my daughter is anorexic; I'm deep in debt and can't stop spending) a start toward a solution. A typical Shrink-Link question: "My 5-year-old was diagnosed with attention deficit disorder (ADD) in 1993 and has been on Ritalin ever since. She has been having trouble falling asleep for the past several months and has been moodier than usual of late. What do you think?" The gist of the response: "Some trial and error is often required before the correct dosage and timing are found, and symptoms such as sleep disturbance and moodiness often occur in the interim. Moreover, since children's rates of metabolism change, dosages often need to be adjusted. Even if the dosage is correct, the behavior irregularities you describe could be caused by administering the drug too late in the afternoon or by a host of other factors, such as nighttime fears. These possibilities need to be ruled out one by one until the culprit is found." The advice could well be to seek face-to-face counseling. E-mail exchanges are no basis for a diagnosis, for example, warns Marlene Maheu, a San Diego clinical psychologist who headed the American Psychological Association's subcommittee that recently looked into the ethics of cybertherapy. "It's impossible to get an anonymous patient's complete family history in a 200-word question," she says. And without such cues as voice tone, facial expressions and body language, how can a therapist be sure what the problems really are? "Smiley screen faces are a poor substitute for real communication," agrees Leonard Holmes, a therapist based in Newport News, Va., who says his online services are not therapy but "E-mail discussions." ("It's a bit more private than a call-in radio show," he notes.) Holmes charges $1.50 per minute and will spend as much time "with" a patient as the patient desires. Maheu's subcommittee and other psychology professionals worry that a lack of standards makes people seeking online help vulnerable. "When you are answering questions by E-mail, it's tempting to stray beyond your area of expertise," says Maheu. "The APA's ethical principles prohibit that." Critics also worry that confidentiality is at risk. While patients remain anonymous, a hacker could conceivably identify them. And these Internet sessions aren't encrypted. "You have no way of knowing who is printing the E-mail message out or where it is stored," says Thomas Nagy, a psychologist and Stanford University School of Medicine psychiatry professor. Nagy also worries that people with really significant problems will stop with an online Band-Aid. Troubling, too, is the fact that patients may know little about the therapist and his or her qualifications. Many sites don't disclose details about the counselors' experience and where they earned their credentials. Leonard Holmes, by contrast, provides a complete biography on his Web page that includes his educational background, what state he is licensed in, as well as areas of expertise. That way, interested patients can check out his professional background before a session. [...] BY KERRY HANNON _A few routes to mental health_ _Shrink-Link_ (http://www.westnet.com/shrink) These New York women-- four psychologists and one psychiatrist--offer E-mail advice for $20 a pop. _Leonard Holmes_ (http://www.psychology.com/holmes.htm) Holmes is a therapist in Newport News, Va., who answers E-mail questions for $1.50 per minute and provides links to other sites. [...] _________________________________________________________________ CREDITS Send comments to webmaster(a)usnews.com Copyright U.S. News & World Report, Inc. All rights reserved. This site is engineered by AGTinteractive [IMAGE]

1 0

Is Chaum's System Traceable or Untraceable?
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 6:35 PM 5/17/96, jim bell wrote: >At 10:09 AM 5/16/96 +0200, bryce(a)digicash.com wrote: >>Let me get this straight. You are asking for full payee/payor >>anonymity so that you can institute a program of anonymous >>assassination contracts, right? > >It's not just for me. I seem to recall a comment around here (Tim May, >perhaps?) who said that when he first read of digital cash in the late >1980's, the feature of payee anonymity was present, and that he was >surprised later to see early implementations not containing this. Yes, this was I (or "me"). I first read of Chaum's work in late '85, in his CACM article, and then "rediscovered" it when I was doing some review work for Phil Salin's AMIX information market startup in 1987. Certainly the text of Chaum's articles implied both payer and payee anonymity, though certain details may've been unclear to some of us. When Chaum unveiled his "payer is anonymous, but payee is traceable," some of us were surprised. (On the other hand, I have had a longstanding faith that the system can be made to be both payer- and payee-anonymous. Moneychangers, for example.) >Deal with the devil? > >Any "complete" digital cash implementation has to provide for payee anonymity. > I agree with Jim Bell on this completely. I don't know if Chaum has been seduced by the Dark Side, or is looking to get digicash widely deployed by "respectable" institutions, or is telling the truth (that his system _never_ provided for real untraceability), but I know that Cypherpunks should always strive for full untraceability. One-sided traceability is not enough. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

5 4

Re: Past one terabit/second on fiber[PHONE GEEK TALK]
by remailer＠2005.bart.nl 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> No comment :-) And I certainly don't presume to speak for Lucent.... And to think that some of Lucent's next fiber products will include some technology developed by cypherpunks.

1 0

Re: Defeating fingerprints [NOISE]
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Topic that won't die, I guess. There's a nail-polish variant called "ridge filler" that may help fill things in, and Plastic Wood comes in pink enough colors it may get you through a trip to the CA Motor Vehicle Department registration, though it won't stop an intelligent person looking at your fingers. [And no, I didn't think of it; I'd been dealing with the question of exactly what citizenship papers were required for the thugs. On the other hand, when my father-in-law moved to Hawaii many years ago, the law required that you provide either a SSN or a thumbprint when you apply, and the clerks were really annoyed that he made them do a thumbprint instead of just writing down an SSN.] # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com, +1-415-442-2215 # goodtimes signature virus innoculation

1 0

Level30 Newsletter
by cardinpa＠cardin.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Please Note: Every effort has been made to post this announcement only in those groups and lists where there should be a natural interest in its subject matter. We apologize in advance if any readers believe it to be off-topic or otherwise inappropriate. It is a single post and it will not be repeated or followed with others. Thank you. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ANNOUNCING LEVEL30 An Important New Internet Newsletter Dealing With Pornography and Censorship Issues * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * No matter what side of these issues you are on... DO NOT IGNORE THIS NEWSLETTER! * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * About the Cost - FREE About the Subscription - To receive this biweekly (or more frequently) newsletter, simply send an e-mail message To: majordomo(a)databack.com Subject: (leave blank) Message: subscribe level30 About the Purpose - To instruct families on how to safely use the Internet, and to inform families, law enforcement, the media and other interested Internet organizations about breaking news in the fight to keep illegal pornography and child pornography OFF the Internet. About the Title - This is the Offense Level mandated by the United States Sentencing Commission for the trafficking of child pornography often found on the Internet in Usenet newsgroups. (Base offense level - 17; if the material involves a prepubescent minor, increase by 2 levels; if the offense involves distribution, increase by at least 5 levels; if the offense involves material that portrays sadistic or masochistic conduct or other depictions of violence, increase by 4 levels; and if a computer was used to transport or ship the visual depiction, increase by 2 levels.) (The Sentencing Table can be found at http://www.ussc.gov.) About the Author - Paul D. Cardin, P.A **Member of the Board of Directors of Oklahomans for Children And Families (OCAF). **Author of The Agincourt Project - the electronic expose that explains how Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are responsible for the distribution of illegal pornography and child pornography throughout America. (You may obtain a copy of The Agincourt Project via autoresponder e-mail by sending a blank e-mail message to noporn(a)mailback.com) ** Architect of the most effective and successful campaign in the United States today to stop the electronic distribution of illegal pornography and child pornography. ** National Directorship soon to be announced. About the Regular Features - **America's Most Wanted - A list of public corporations that are the enemies of America's children and families because of their continued electronic distribution of illegal pornography and child pornography. **(Your State Here)'s Most Wanted - A state by state list of ISPs that are the enemies of children and families because of their continued electronic distribution of illegal pornography and child pornography. **Commentary - Incisive and hard hitting analysis of the legal and constitutional issues facing the Internet today. ** Battle Reports - Updates from the front lines, from "war correspondents" across the country. ***** The court battles over the Communications Decency Amendment. ***** The status of OCAF against the Oklahoma ISPs. ***** The status of Loving v. Boren - is it a ridiculous waste of taxpayers money or will it be the definitive Internet court ruling? *****The status of other important electronic obscenity court cases. *****The status of battles yet to be engaged. About Special Reports - **Testimonies from the victims of pornography. ** Profiles of the men and women who are engaged in the battle to free our society from its plague. **Interviews with law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and ISPs. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The Top Ten Reasons TO SUBSCRIBE To "Level30" - **Reason #10 - You are an INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER who wants to stop violating federal and state obscenity and child pornography laws. **Reason #9 - You are a LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER or PROSECUTOR who wants to learn how to stop ISPs from violating federal and state obscenity and child pornography laws ** Reason #8 - You are a PUBLIC OFFICIAL who wants to learn how to keep illegal pornography and child pornography off of publicly owned and operated computer systems. ** Reason #7 - You are a UNIVERSITY OFFICIAL or LIBRARY OFFICIAL who wants to learn how to keep illegal pornography and child pornography off of your university or library computer system. **Reason #6 - You are a SCHOOL OFFICIAL or TEACHER who wants to learn how to keep illegal pornography and child pornography off of your school's computer system. **Reason #5 - You belong to a CHILD ADVOCACY or WOMEN's RIGHTS group and you want to learn how to fight illegal pornography and child pornography on the Internet. **Reason #4 - You belong to a CHURCH or RELIGIOUS GROUP and you want to learn how to fight illegal pornography and child pornography on the Internet. **Reason #3 - You are a CORPORATE EXECUTIVE or PR OFFICER who wants to learn how to avoid extremely damaging publicity for your company. **Reason #2 - You are a REPORTER who wants to stay one step ahead of numbers 3 through 10 above And, finally....... **Reason #1 - You are a PARENT or GRANDPARENT who wants to learn more about how to keep the Internet safe for your children and/or grandchildren. SUBSCRIBE TODAY

1 0

Re: Why does the state still stand:
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:09 AM 5/16/96 +0200, bryce(a)digicash.com wrote: > > The entity calling itself jim bell <jimbell(a)pacifier.com> > is alleged to have written: >> >> But what I'm looking for is full payee/payor anonymity. (three guesses as >> to why...) Can you do this? If not, why not? > > >Let me get this straight. You are asking for full payee/payor >anonymity so that you can institute a program of anonymous >assassination contracts, right? It's not just for me. I seem to recall a comment around here (Tim May, perhaps?) who said that when he first read of digital cash in the late 1980's, the feature of payee anonymity was present, and that he was surprised later to see early implementations not containing this. Deal with the devil? Any "complete" digital cash implementation has to provide for payee anonymity. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

[NOISE] Hackers soundtrack
by Simon Spero 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Update on an old thread... Apparently it was released last week in England, so it may be available in some import racks. Simon

2 1

[long irrelevant post] Edited Edupage, 9 May 1996
by Jean-Francois Avon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Apologies to other CPunks. I hate theses posts, but I just couldn't let it pass by. On 15 May 96 at 9:09, Doug Hughes wrote: > No, because they are too poor to live in your neighborhood. > Sure, they can live in the same geographic region, but it's still > rural and poor. People live where they can afford to live. Just like volition-free cows? > Are you saying those poor people in rural West Virgina only live > there because they are not trying hard enough to get out? Maybe they lack the knowledge. But does that justify turning me into a milk cow for them? Should I break my leg because somebody else did? Should the common euphemism "to provide" justify the common euphemism "to redistribute wealth"? Or in straight talk, should we distribute free-lunches that were took away at the point of a gun from peoples who produced them by their own work? > >> So, because they live in a poor district they are > >> not entitled to the same level of education as a rich city > >> suburb? Not because they don't live in a rich suburb, simply because they cannot pay for it. Breathing air does not entitle you to anything that is produced by another breather of air... > environment, lack of education, lack of money, lots of factors. Who is responsible for it, who should be considered "response-able"? > Nobody is holding a gun to anybody's head saying "Don't Read". Here is an example of "creative mis-reading". What I meant by gun is why hold a gun to *my* head for having them to read? > improving literacy is a goal that needs to be undertaken. You are free to donate as much of your *own personnal* earnings to them. Feel free to do! I, for one, like to help kids to learn to read, to use a microscope, to learn chemistry and physics and maths and sciences in general. I always give my time to any kid that needs help, wether he is 5 years old in first grade or 25 in university. But why stick a gun in my back to get part of my paycheck? > agree that low literacy is a bad thing Yes, absolutely. > and needs to be taken care > of? At whose expense? > But, why, given a good learning environment and an > inspiring teacher would you not want to? You'd be surprized how so many peoples just don't care. We have here a *free* education system up to high school. Then college, which is not very expensive. Then university that cost around 2000$(US) per year. But still, we have one of the highest rate of dropping out in the world. And all collectivists their with grand schemes wonder why... > But the statement that > we shouldn't subsidize >> rural customers because they CHOOSE to > live there (even though some >> are poor and can't afford to live > anywhere else) is just plain >> fallacious. Agreed. But you are building a worst straw man. The only reason is that we should not turn some productive individuals into a milk cow for thoses that are less productive. And the source of the whealth necessary for your grand schemes are those most productive individuals turned into sacrificial animals. Under any governmental red tape pile of paper lies a GUN. > Some people on this list argue that the current representative govt > system is bad, and that true democracy is better. But again, some other peoples think that true democracy, i.e. the dictature of the majority, wouldn't be better, mainly because the issues are too numerous and the individual's knowledge is too limited. Some Cypherpunks want, is "Live and let live", some other "Live and let die" and a few even proposed "Live and let live, of get killed" or "mind your own business or get a prize on your head"... > True democracy relies on people being educated, the more the > better. (Actually, education benefits the entire society.) > >> Just because you choose to live in the city does not > >> mean people always choose to live where they live. > >Who cast their feet in concrete blocks? > Where is somebody making less than $5000/year going to move to? > (Answer: somewhere rural and poor). Or, if you prefer, they can > move into tax-payer subsidized housing? (I'd prefer not, thanks) I lived on that for several years. It was not easy but I could still learn and read. Actually, it is almost the sole thing I did during theses years. And I am not talking about our almost free education system. > >> Education is one > >> thing (perhaps the only thing) that deserves to be subsidized in > >> this country. > >I think that it should not be subsidized. > >If you feel like subsidising education, then by all means, do it. > >But why should you stick a gun in my back to do the same? What if > >I do not want to do the same as you? > Then you will be living in a country with lower education standards, > increasing illiteracy, and a pretty pitiful base with a declining > socio-economic structure. > Are you arguing that people are not equal Absolutely. Why is it that my friends always got straight A's while I got C's or D's... > and those with more money should of necessity get better education? What somersault of rationalization made you conclude that? Thoses with more money can *afford* more. Only that fact. > You can vote that poor people shouldn't be > educated at all What you are telling here is that education is *only* a direct function of wealth and that wealth is strictly a direct function of education. I am sorry to tell you that reality clearly show that this basic premise is not true. > You don't understand at all. It's not about being people down, it's > about bringing them 'UP'. Dear Doug, would you please tell me where you will take the ressources to bring peoples up? I have no objection if you were setting up some sort of charity fund. > I'm not talking about being meek. > I'm talking about learning to read and multiply 4*9. It was done in the days of non-mandatory, non-subsidized education. Actually, the country (USA) had it's biggest growing period in thoses days. The improvement slowed down with the advent of collectivist schemes. > I'm not getting into this anymore. It's totally off topic of the > list, but I felt I had to respond to your > let-the-poor-be-poor-and-uneducated posting. Not at all. The essence of my post is "do not treat productive individual as sacrificial animal for the unearned benefit of the less productives". You see, I do not believe in sacrifice nor in original sin... > We're straying far off even my point. My point was not that I agree > with subsidizing internet connections for every school in america. > I'd have to be convinced that that is a good thing. However, making > sure everybody has a good education is of paramount importance to > any society. I am of the opinion that giving the country a thorough coverage of the net is of paramount importance. But I do not think that the govt is thinking the same, notwithstanding what it says. I suggest you try to set up a foundation to promote the private setup of inter-villages links in rural areas. It would be great. But to tax for that, to confiscate money from producers against their best judgment and will? OTOH, you might be operationnally (while not ethically) right. I'd rather be taxed for the installation of the net than for some museum... JFA DePompadour, Societe d'Importation Ltee Limoges porcelain, Silverware and mouth blown crystal glasses JFA Technologies, R&D consultants. Physists, technologists and engineers. PGP keys at: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon ID# C58ADD0D : 529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891 Unsollicited commercial e-mail will be proofread at US165 $/h Any sender of such material will be considered as to have ac- cepted the above mentionned terms.

1 0

Re: CyberTraveler Auction - Unsubscrive MoleKule's.
by molecul1＠molecule1.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>This is an automated reply to your e-mail request. > >The only way to remove yourself from our CyberTraveler >program is to go to > >http://www.cathay-usa.com/remove.html (make sure you spell this exactly like >this) > > >and follow the easy instructions. > > >Thank you for your participation. > > > >At 06:45 PM 5/16/96 -0700, you wrote: >>>Dear Molecule, >>> >>> >>>Best regards, >>>Cathay Pacific Airways Limited >>>Los Angeles Marketing Department >>> >>>P.S. remove yourself from the CyberTraveler program, (should you wish to). >>>Simply go to http://www.cathay-usa.com/remove.html. Thank you. >>> >>>>>Dear Cathay, >>> >>>>> Unsubscrive Molecule1(a)electriciti.com >>> >>>>> In peace & wish the purest of wishes. >> >>>>> sincerely, >>>>> M1. >> >> >>>>> Peace Cathay, >>>>> Please note molecul1(a)electriciti.com is now molecul1(a)molecule1.com. >>>>> It is also 1996 & the people love to dance the world over. Peace Cathay, M1.

1 0

Re: Past one terabit/second on fiber[PHONE GEEK TALK]
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>>> "Wow", I said. Far faster than the 2.5 Gb/sec transmission that is >>> currently fairly standard for long-haul fiber trunks. >>The ads say they are selling it - that doesn't mean shipping it... yet >>at least. (Note that my employer is a direct competitor of Lucent >>so I have a vested interest in setting the facts straight) No comment :-) And I certainly don't presume to speak for Lucent.... Traditional fiber-optic technology is a hybrid between electrical and optical components - big hulking multiplexers feed a high-speed electrical signal to a laser, which sends optical pulses down the fiber. Every N km, a regenerator reads the photons, decides if it saw a 0 or 1, and feeds that as an electrical signal to an output laser. Repeat as needed. The means that if you want to upgrade the signal speed, you not only need to replace the muxes and lasers, you need to replace all the regens. That's more of a problem for long-distance companies than locals (the common FT Series G 1.7 Gb system uses them every 40 km.) The new optical amplifiers not only go farther (e.g. 120 km), but they do everything optically instead of dropping down to electrical so they support a wide range of data speeds. I don't know that they can support the 1Tb experimental stuff, but they work fine for the 8-color x 2.5Gb Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing stuff AT&T will be using. This means that the first time you do an upgrade, you need to rip out a bunch of regens, splice around 2/3 of them, replace 1/3 with opamps, and optionally replace the equipment at the ends with even bigger hulkinger multiplexers. Depending on capacity needs, you may not fire up all 8 colors at once. The next time you want to upgrade the same route, replace the muxes if you didn't, or fire up more colors, or upgrade to the new Year 2005 model. And since you've got to pick _some_ framing technology, it might as well be SONET, which lets you build self-healing rings if you want (the FDDI-like configuration, which not everyone uses, burns half the capacity on restoration circuits, more than some of the less-healable SONET configurations or mux-based restoration like AT&T's FASTAR.) AT&T has announced that they'll be pouring lots of capital into this over the next few years, partly to keep up with demand, and partly to deploy SONET rings for faster restoration. >I was figuring they'd cut out silences...as well as echo-suppression >cutouts. Do they still do this? Given modern fiber's capacity, I wonder >if they bother. Voice compression and silence suppression aren't done domestically (at least by most carriers.) Undersea cables still use this, though I don't know how much it's done on the newer fiber cables. Of course, people running private networks do whatever they want, and for overseas connections, people are often willing to trade lower-voice-quality compression for the cost savings, especially if the PTT on the far end is expensive. >>I don't know that any number fiber cable is "standard" but >>36-fiber cable is not unusual. To find the capacity of a cable, you >>have to cut the number of fibers in half (as you did) because >>generally each fiber is used only for a single direction of traffic. >>You then have to cut it in half again because phone companies have >>everything redundant. A fairly common configuration for FT Series G is 8 fiber pairs (one fiber for each direction), with 7 in service and 1 protection pair to recover from mux-card and regen failures and other single-fiber hits. To restore whole-bundle hits (e.g. backhoe fade), some of the 7 pairs are typically dedicated to restoration - though seldom half. The restoration pairs are often used for short-time reserved applications such as TV connections for sports events, videoconferencing, or other applications where someone needs a lot of bandwidth for a short time and is willing to be pre-empted or blocked if there's a failure. >There's also a lot of 'dark fiber' out there, right? Fiber laid as >part of a cable but not activated, because it's not yet needed. That's _highly_ location and company dependent. Long-haul connections are likely to be used efficiently, because you can get economies of scale and because growth will fill them up (e.g. across the Rockies). Short-haul connections (e.g. around town) are more likely to have dark fiber because the big costs are digging up streets and paying for government officials\\\\\\\\ licenses and permits rather than the costs of the fiber you're putting in a trench once you dig it. And the short-haul doesn't need regens, and often uses lower bandwidth than the fiber can handle (OC3 muxes are much cheaper than OC48, though per-Mbps they cost more.) And of course, _everybody_ seems to want a T3 to the Bay Area or other Internet-heavy locations. >> I would add that much of a >>phone companies cost is in billing and customer service, etc. >>Not the cost of installing and maintaining the fiber and equipement. > >This suggests that there would be a market for a LD phone company that >charged, say, a yearly payment of $200-300 for essentially unlimited use. (The main >impediment to this would be regulatory; as I understand it LD companies have >to pay local telco's for connections on a per-minute connect basis. Is that >right? This needs to get fixed.) Their billing costs would be very small. There's a lot of cost in switching equipment as well. A feature-rich voice telecom switch costs _far_ more per 64kbps voice circuit than the 1/(24*28*36=24192) fraction of a fiber that carries it. And big muxes, while cheaper than voice switches, are still expensive. >>Internet telephony should make the use of bandwidth even more >>efficient - thereby cutting costs. The big guys who own >>the fibers will still make money - the pipes that carry internet >>traffic are still needed. But the little guys will get squeezed out. >>(until they become ISPs ;-). Internet traffic could theoretically >>be carried over this large amount of protection fiber (mentioned above) >>that is out there for a much lower marginal cost than the current >>T3 or OC3 pipes that are being used. In addition to Internet telephony, ATM switch makers are doing voice compression, and some of the fiber vendors are starting to use their equipment to offer business voice services. And voice-over-frame-relay, which has more delay and therefore doesn't handle voice as well, also is getting some market, especially internationally. Pricing is a really difficult problem - if you price bandwidth proportional to the 64kbps voice circuits, it's either too expensive for most businesses to buy much or priced too low to make money on switched voice. But if you price high-speed circuit bandwidth much cheaper than proportional, it becomes cost-effective to buy customer-premises equipment and bulk bits and run your own phone services. Phone companies have been worrying about this for video services for years, but fortunately Moore's Law and research have let compression improve enough that you can run cheap video on 2*64kbps and good video on 6*64kbps, so they haven't been killed. But Internet and similar data needs are starting to demand high bandwidth at low costs, and the market will have to catch up somehow. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com, +1-415-442-2215 # goodtimes signature virus innoculation

1 0

GEK_cod
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

5-17-96. WaPo: "The Code Of the Geeks." A longish lifestyles profile of Robert Hayden and his Geek Code -- "a series of letters usually found on the bottom of e-mail messages that, when deciphered, offer a snapshot of the user's geekiness." It's a way for geeks to scope out one another. But Hayden says it's a part of his effort to take the eek out of geek -- to turn what's largely thought of as a negative stereotype into something positive. "Gates had an opportunity to be one and he gave it up. That happened when he decided that making money is more important than making good computer code. One geek trait is that you take pride in your work and it's my opinion that Microsoft hasn't produced a lot that's to be proud of." "In a nutshell, a nerd is somebody who lets technology run their life and a geek is a person who runs their life with technology." GEK_cod

1 0

Re: Securing CDROM from piracy
by sawyer＠nextek.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> >> >Is there any way of making >> >sure that the guy doesnt pull a fast on on us? Can we ensure that he cannot >> >duplicate the thing and start selling it without sharing the profit. >> >> Well, I suppose you could get it copyrighted before you hand it over for >> distribution. I'd also put my logo and other info somewhere in the code, >> such as an "About" box. They would have a hard time saying it wasn't >> yours. >> >You are missing the point. Lets say a firm X is marketing my product. Now if >they sell 500,000 copies and tell me that they have sold only 100,000, I have >no way of figuring out. > > '88888888:::888888%' Vipul Ved Prakash Fax : +91-11-3328849 > '8888888::88888%' Positive Ideas. Internet : vipul(a)pobox.com Ok, I see what your looking for now. How about tracking the number of product registrations, either via a mail-in card or fax? I'm assuming that since this is a product to be sold, not given away, that persons purchasing the program would most likely take the time to fill out a product registration card and send it in. Since not everyone fills these cards out, it is not a 100% accurate method, but if there were any major discrepancies, then you would be aware of it. Thomas J. Sawyer sawyer(a)nextek.com

1 0

Re: found nym-differentiation! Still need perpetual motion, FTL travel, cold fusion
by mccoy＠communities.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bryce wrote: > > "Perry Metzger" <perry(a)piermont.com> is alleged to have written: > (> Bryce wrote:) > > > > Simple as pie, because of some of the properties of DC-Nets. > > > If someone sends out the wrong number of pubkeys, then > > > everyone will know, right? So when that happens everyone > > > just reveals their shared-secret data from the DC-Net > > > session. > > > > And if several people lie about their shared secrets? This is what secure bit-commitment is for. The refinements to the DC-net protocol since Chaum's original paper make this a non-issue if you are willing to spend the CPU cycles to do all of the necessary work. > If some of your N participants are going to collude to share > their nyms then it is manifestly impossible to stop them. > But that doesn't bother me. The purpose of this scheme is > to create N nyms for N people and be sure that each of then > N people who wanted a nym got one. If you are sure that > each of the N people wanted a nym, then you can be sure you > have a one-to-one mapping between people and nyms, but > unconditional untraceability from nyms to people. Or, to rephrase the question in a manner which my lead you to the solutions which already exists for this problem: You have an anonymous access channel in which you need to do frame reservation such that each member can reserve one and only one frame for the transmission phase which follows frame reservation. You are both talking about disrupter detection in an anonymous channel and it has already been solved... > But perhaps what you were talking about was a > denial-of-service attack on the DC-Net's network layer. > That has been addressed extensively in Chaum's original > "Dining Cryptographers" paper. Chaum's method for dealing > with denial-of-service attacks is typically brilliant, but > even so it is an unwieldly and expensive (in terms of > computation and bandwidth) proposition. I recommend "Dining > Cryptographers" to everyone, and I hope that someone who > reads it will come up with a better solution. They already have. Actually, the trap method in Chaum's original paper is both expensive and flawed. Get a copy of EuroCrypt 89 and read the DC nets papers in there by B. den Bos and by Michael Waidner. If you are in the Bay Area I have a copy of Pfitzmann and Waidner's "Dining Cryptographers in the Disco: Unconditional Sender and Recipient Anonymity with Computational Serviceability" which I would be happy to make copies of. This is probably the most comprehensively secure DC-net scheme I am aware of; although, like most Crypto papers, it is way more complicated and computationally expensive than necessary for real life. jim

1 0

Re: SEVERE undercapacity, we need more remailer servers FAST
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:29 PM 5/15/96 -0400, Black Unicorn <unicorn(a)schloss.li> wrote: >I would really like to see a remailer that is somehow blinded. >I don't know enough about how mail paths are generatered, but is it >impossible to conceal the origin of remailer postings? One reason for remailers is that concealing message origin is difficult and unreliable, and making smtp servers that include all the information they can find about the origin of a message into the message is easy, so it's tough to lie about where you are. Remailers solve that by removing the header information from messages they receive and shipping out the message body with new headers, so anyone who traces all the "Received:" headers gets pointed to the remailer. >Postings made to remailernym(a)alpha.c2.org would be spit out somewhere but >without accountability? alpha.c2.org keeps encrypted reply blocks that it can't decrypt; it sends messages to some other remailer that can decrypt them, and only sends messages encrypted. That means that anybody who does succeed in stealing or subpoenaing alpha's user information has to go to each of the other remailers it uses for delivery as well - and alpha doesn't have any keys to steal. >I'd consider running a remailer, but after listening to the response to >the anonymous poster a while back, it sounds like there are few if any >simple options which do not require major time and effort to setup and >run. Setting up a remailer is easy, if you've got a Unix machine, and I'd guess that the Winsock Remailer is probably easy for Windows. If you don't support mail-to-news yourself, and you block mail to other mail-to-news gateways, you cut out lots of flame potential, which keeps the work of running it fairly low. (My remailer is based on ghio2, which has traps to detect high-volume spam, which has shut it down a couple of times. Cleaning them up is annoying.) You do need to stay on remailer-operators(a)c2.org to get notices of individuals who are being spammed or harassed so you can block mail to them, but that's typically 5-10 minutes/week. If you've got a Unix machine, you can also do a web-based remailer easily (users fill out a form with their mail, which goes to a CGI script.) If you're willing to use somebody else's script, e.g. replay.com, you can just put up the web page anywhere and won't need Unix, and they can handle most of the spam-blocking. This isn't very secure unless you're using SSL or other secure HTTP protocol, which I don't think any of the current web-remailers do. Some folks have put advertising on their remailer pages, which starts to be one economic model that can encourage people to run them, if you can find advertisers who _want_ the image this gives them. (This is fine for c2.org and maybe Digicash banks or tax-haven consultants, some political ranters, and maybe phone-sex or other services that don't have to worry about lowered reputations if somebody uses the remailer to spam the alt.sex newsgroups with phone-sex ads :-) # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com, +1-415-442-2215 # goodtimes signature virus innoculation

1 0

Zimmermann v. ViaCrypt???
by Mark Voorhees 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Read http://infolawalert.com/stories/051796a.html for a story on how Phil Zimmermann is trying to retrieve all the rights to PGP from ViaCrypt in order to jump start his new venture, PGP, Inc. He's taking a sell out or get sued approach with ViaCrypt, which until recently has not had much success marketing PGP. Mark PS--Apologies in advance if this has been posted before.

1 0

Re: S-Tools 4 now available [for MS only?]
by attila 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Addressed to: Matts Kallioniemi <matts(a)pi.se> roy(a)sendai.cybrspc.mn.org (Roy M. Silvernail) cypherpunks(a)toad.com ** Reply to note from Matts Kallioniemi <matts(a)pi.se> 05/16/96 10:21pm +0200 = Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 22:21:20 +0200 = To: roy(a)sendai.cybrspc.mn.org (Roy M. Silvernail), cypherpunks(a)toad.com = From: Matts Kallioniemi <matts(a)pi.se> = = Subject: Re: S-Tools 4 now available roy is a microsofter --of course, is it written for microsquish and their compiler/api fad of the month? is source code available, or is the code non-portable outside the limited interpreters and compilers of MS? 32 bit is obsolete --64 bits is the standard. after all there are other systems except MS. I have a simple policy regarding MS --I just don't! -- "Bill Gates is greedy because he has amassed a fortune of US$ 15,000,000,000 ($15 billion) but the US Government is a helpful Village because it takes US$ 1,400,000,000,000 ($1.4 trillion) from us each year and does good things with it." --Hillary Clinton

1 0

Re: "Too cheap to meter"
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 17 May 96 at 18:54, Timothy C. May wrote: [..] > Alan's irony is well-placed. The most egregious repetition of the "too > cheap to meter" nonsense is George Gilder's "dark fiber" vision...a vision > of "infinite bandwidth" to all users. > > Guess what? If Gilder's "dark fiber" is ever built, there are a lot of > folks who will "fill it" rather quickly. Canter and Siegel were just the > beginning. "Too cheap to meter" goes away pretty quickly. Remember not-so-many-years-ago when 640k PCs were awsome and a 40MB HD was unfillable? A better phrase is "if you build it, they will fill it (eventually)". Rob. --- No-frills sig. Key-ID: 5D3F2E99 1996/04/22 wlkngowl(a)unix.asb.com (root@magneto) AB1F4831 1993/05/10 Deranged Mutant <wlkngowl(a)unix.asb.com> Send a message with the subject "send pgp-key" for a copy of my key.

1 0

Re: SEVERE undercapacity, we need more remailer servers FAST
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:29 PM 5/15/96 -0700, jamesd(a)echeque.com wrote: >At 10:58 AM 5/15/96 -0700, Hal wrote: >> The problem that I think the Scientology postings raise is that the >> remailers cannot really be used to post copyrighted material. > >The major battle the net has faced is with the church of scientology. >In this battle the net is clearly in the right, and the church clearly >in the wrong, regardless of what copyright law says. The copyright issue is probably irrelevant to the Scientology dispute, anyway. The material on which the copyright is claimed almost certainly wasn't marked, appropriately, as it would have had to be for the copyright to be valid. While current law no longer requires the "circle-C" notation long used for this purpose, the material involved is far more than old enough to have been subject to this requirement, and once a copyright is lost (or not claimed) I believe it couldn't be regained. The threat to remailers is one of the many reasons the Leahy bill sucked, and that would have made it worse by imposing criminal sanctions on this kind of thing. Ironically, with the way remailers are used, it would actually have been possible for some copyright holder to fabricate a violation of copyright law by posting his own material through remailers, and then sue the final remailer, or have its owner prosecuted. I'm glad the people around here finally saw the light. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

HUGE denial of service attack against any ecash customer!!!
by Ian Goldberg 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- (Again Cc:'d to ecash-feedback, hoping for a security prize. I wonder who's keeping track... Also Cc:'d to cypherpunks, for fun...) So I had some more free time... (Dave cringes when I say that.) Here's a cute one: Give me an account number, and I can prevent it from being used until an arbitrary time in the future (of my choosing). How? Simple. Send a deposit message with 0 coins (well, any message will work, I think, but this is one of the simplest messages there is) with a timestamp of some future time. Messages stamped prior to that (such as everything coming from the actual user for that account, until the time comes) will be politely discarded. (Actually, I think the last reply to a withdrawal request is continually resent, but I'm not exactly sure of this.) In any case, the actual user will be unable to withdraw money from his mint until the time sent in the denial-of-service message. (Unless he forward-dates his computer's clock, or something...) I've tested this against myself and Sameer (with his cooperation, of course). Anyone else want to be locked out for an hour? (Actually, I could pretty effectively lock out _everyone_ for an arbitrarily long time, it seems...) - Ian "Right. I want the sources to the client and the server released. Now." :-) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMZpj3kZRiTErSPb1AQF0SAQAmOEZJTg0v3utWFodDXZ4iv4xa7I+QbNQ Nlsbkug8dtkdf+Jboe+vBtrs5IWSSff8bWntGwfODckct26NwzpVM9bUIXohVoRQ jOkRT9a8m/X00jUAoFOTq5O5Rz87a3Uw8MGFugP5Y4DCk+UqnTA70cuozyOCgb8m 8oke89V9Q0E= =ARMe -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

RE: Why does the state still stand:
by Jean-Francois Avon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 15 May 96 at 18:42, Black Unicorn wrote: > Potential, but you can manage risk with things like dead drops from > trusted parties to forwarding agents to offshore drops to.... I can just visualize a trusted party dropping discretely a bright yellow Caterpillar D-12 in a dead letter box... ROTFL! Sorry, but I couldn't resist. I just *love* silly humor... > Realization means that their is a changing of hands or of forms of > assets. Income tax and taxes on currency now are dependent on such > transactions. Someone already noted the problems with just taxing > possession on a given date of e.g., inventory. To tax efficiently > you have to tax an event of transfer. Why? is it because of the nature of a transfer, it lend itself more to reporting and detecting? Or is it simply because of the legal system structure? > Give me context. It's possible to kill the president too. That > doesn't mean it will become the basis of government. I think that Mr. Bell defined the context quite well and thoroughly. And, as he said, the president is unlikely to be the target of choice because it is not the most efficient one. Who cares about the president? Who is he without the govt machine? > That's that anonymous transactions are for. If anonymous transactions are feasible, so will be the AP scheme... AP can be, in a way, characterized as a weapon because it behaves like one. And no weapon in the history of humanity remained unused. > I forwarded two large segments of the work to the list, yes. If > you, or anyone else on the list, would like copies, let me know. Theses were the first two that constitued part 1 of 4. I wondered if you posted the other parts. If so, tell me so I can get to the archives. Regards. JFA DePompadour, Societe d'Importation Ltee Limoges porcelain, Silverware and mouth blown crystal glasses JFA Technologies, R&D consultants. Physists, technologists and engineers. PGP keys at: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon ID# C58ADD0D : 529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891 Unsollicited commercial e-mail will be proofread at US165 $/h Any sender of such material will be considered as to have ac- cepted the above mentionned terms.

2 1