December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Twenty Bank Robbers -- Game theory:)
by John Brothers 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:19 AM 7/26/96 -0400, you wrote: >On the other hand, a proposal by the first guy to split the >proceeds equally among the first ten should be satisfactory to the first >ten. On that basis nobody dies and ten receive two million each, if we >assume that each is a simple profit maximizer. > >I think that that result is stable, but am not going to try to prove >that it is. (If the result is not stable, it should be relatively easy >to establish that fact.) Slightly more stable is: punk #1 proposes that punks 2 - 10 get all the money, and he gets none, if he prefers poverty to death. Now, why does this work? Punk #1 has set a precedent that improves the share of each of the following 9 cypherpunks by 11% over the 'first 10 split evenly' proposal, to 2.22 million. In order to justify killing punk #1, according to the rules, punk #2 will have to come up with a proposal that improves his share to more than 2.22 million (because the cypherpunks don't want to kill each other unless there is more money to be made) But he can't - there are still 18 other punks left, and he'll still need 9 additional votes on his side to stay alive - and he'll die if he gives less money to the 'lucky 9' than #1's proposal, since everyone can see that as more people die, the total profit available to the remainder will increase. In other words, if he votes no, he will be forced to offer 2.22 million to punks 3 - 11, to stay alive, and take no money himself. He loses by voting no, so he is a guaranteed yes. Punk #3 will consider voting no. Since there will only be 18 left when he gets the proposal, he can also propose 2.22 million to punks 3 - 11. But a) he can't do better than 2.22 million, and that means that he has to vote yes, since he doesn't want to kill the other punks, everything else being equal. Punk 4 is in the exact same situation - with 17 left, he still needs 9 to win, and voting 2.22 million to punks 4 - 12 won't gain him anything over voting yes. So he will vote yes because he doesn't want to kill. Punk 5 is the first one with a chance at a windfall. If he bumps off 1 - 4 he can propose 2.5 million for himself and 6-12. But he is vulnerable to the same strategy from punk #7. 7 will have no reason to keep #5 alive, since that will reduce his profit margin. #5 will be forced to vote yes to stay alive. #6 is in the same situation as number 5, since he can't increase the profit margin. He has to vote yes #7 is vulnerable to #9. 8 has no advantage, they both vote yes. #9 is vulnerable to 11, and 10 has no advantage. They both vote yes, and that is it. ---- --- John Brothers Do you have a right not to be offended?

1 0

Re: Twenty Bank Robbers -- Game theory:)
by Erle Greer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:55 PM 7/25/96 -0500, you wrote: >At 09:09 AM 7/25/96 -0500, you wrote: >>Here's a puzzle for our game theorists. >> >>Twenty cypherpunks robbed a bank. They took 20 million bucks. Here's >>how they plan to split the money: they stay in line, and the first guy >>suggests how to split the money. Then they vote on his suggestion. If >>50% or more vote for his proposal, his suggestion is adopted. >> >>Otherwise they kill the first robber and now it is the turn of guy #2 >>to make another splitting proposal. Same voting rules apply. >> >>The question is, what will be the outcome? How will they split the >>money, how many robbers will be dead, and so on? >> >>igor >> > >Here's my guess: >Eache robber is going to want the largest share of the money possible. >Therefore The first guy dies automatically because that increases the share >size. This continues on until there are only two robbers left. Robber #19 >suggests that he receives the full 20 million and since his vote is 50%, he >receives it all. 18 robbers dead. I wasn't very clear why #1 died. Any suggestion of his is shot down and then he is killed. And so on... and so on... until the final two are left. vagab0nd(a)sd.cybernex.net http://ww2.sd.cybernex.net/~vagab0nd/index.html Visit web page for public key.

1 0

Re: Am I protected by ignorance?
by James C. Sewell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:29 AM 7/26/96 +0200, Remo Pini wrote: > >Since there is no way for me to know where the server stands, do I violate >the ITAR, and if so, am I realistically prosecutable? The Feds consider crypto as munitions so I guess you could ask that same question as: I sold a bunch of Stinger missiles to a man with an American sounding name, "Smith." How was I to know he was __________[bad guys]? I bet they would prosecute you for the missiles so I'd suspect they would on the crypto too. Me? A lawyer? HAHAHAHAHAHhahahahhaaa Yeah, right! Jim Sewell - jims(a)tansoft.com Tantalus Incorporated - Key West, FL

1 0

Usenet Conference on Security
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Just a few of the highlights: (1) Ron Rivest speaking on SDSI (2) Ian Goldberg et.al's secure environment for running untrusted programs in Solaris. Since it runs Netscape, it may let Perry provide a second layer of containment for Java. (3) Carl Ellison's "Establishing Identity Without Certification Authorities (4) Peter Gutmann's "Secure Deletion of Data from Magnetic and Solid-State Memory". (Bottom line, use thermite for magnetic media.) (5) Don Davis's "Compliance Defects in Public Key Cryptography" (6) Sameer Parekh's description (advertisement for) Community Connexion (7) Derek Atkins' description of the PGP Library API. Other amusements: While the Department of Justice guy (whose name slips my mind) was saying 4 horsemen over and over (really an oversimplification of his position), Data Fellows Ltd., Paivantaite 8, FIN-02210 ESPOO, Finland (http://www.datafellows.com) was in the vendor area offering strong crypto products with the line in one of their handouts, "This is orders of magnitude more security than DES-based or US products that are under the US ITAR export restrictions." In talking with them I didn't smell any snake oil. A BOF on PKI with Ron Rivest (who had already described SDSI) where Matt Blase describing PoliceMaker, and Carl Ellison described SPKI. All three approaches get away from the central certificate hierarchy God. Each one has something to offer that the other do not. (In a spirit of advertising/disclosure, I have been working with Carl on SPKI.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | Cave ab homine unius lebri | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | [Beware the man of one | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | book] - Anonymous Latin | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

2 1

Securing 5% of the Internet against Wiretapping by Christmas
by John Gilmore 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've been working on a project in secret for a few months, and now am talking about it with everyone so that we can all help it along. Want all the Internet traffic between you and every other privacy-conscious site on the net to automatically be encrypted using Triple-DES, RSA, and Diffie-Hellman? Without changing your hardware or software, except to stick a Linux PC on your network, or install a new version of Linux on your laptop? Want it all by Christmas? Then check out http://www.cygnus.com/~gnu/swan.html

1 0

Hackers on tv alert (for SF area only)
by Martin Minow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

San Francisco TV channel 4 (the NBC affiliate) will broadcast a "news" segment on hackers "they can access your computer and ruin your life" at/around 9:00 PM this evening (Friday, July 26). I'm sure it will be as informative, educational and unbiased, just like the rest of the Olympic coverage. Martin Minow minow(a)apple.com

1 0

Re: Bernstein files for partial summary judgement in crypto case
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:28 PM 7/25/96 -0700, John Gilmore wrote: >Here's the press release on the latest development in the Bernstein >case. >July 26, 1996 Electronic Frontier Foundation >In his 45-page memorandum in support of his motion, Bernstein sets forth >several First Amendment arguments: >* Any legal framework that requires a license for First Amendment >protected speech, which may be granted or withheld at the discretion of a >government official, is a prior restraint on speech. In order for this >framework to be acceptable, the government has the burden of showing that >publication will "surely result in direct, immediate, and irreparable >damage to our Nation or its people" and that the regulation at issue is >necessary to prevent this damage. The government has not met this burden >regarding the ITAR legal framework. Maybe it's just me, but why would even the _certainty_ that a publication will "surely result in direct, immediate, and irreparable damage to our Nation or its people" justify violation of 1st amendment rights? There are, certainly, kinds of "damage" which should not warrant prohibition: If, for instance, a business regularly cheats its customers, my investigation of that behavior and revealing it publicly would certain "damage" that business, but we conclude that's justified if for no other reason than it's the truth. Would digging up an embarrassing revelation about "our Nation or its people" constitute "irreparable damage" sufficient to justify concluding that the 1st amendment didn't apply? Had the fact that we'd slaughtered Indians in the late 1800's been kept secret until today, would its discovery and publication be that "irreparable damage" that regulation could legitimately seek to prohibit? Would the news that the events leading up to the "Gulf of Tonkin resolution" were a fraud cause "irreparable damage"? Would finding out the truth about the Watergate incident cause "irreparable damage"? In a sense, speaking of any of these incidents might cause "irreparable damage" to government and people, but it's "damage" that a person should simply be entitled to do, given the concepts of free speech and the 1st amendment. In short, I don't think Bernstein should give an inch. There may, in fact, be limits on the 1st amendment, but I don't see this as being one of them. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

3 2

Re: www.anonymizer.com
by attila 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Addressed to: Bill Stewart <stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com> Cypherpunks <cypherpunks(a)toad.com> ** Reply to note from Bill Stewart <stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com> 07/25/96 11:38pm -0700 = <<<<>>>> = * Frames, for instance, do bizzare things when anonymized, at least = with Netscape 3.0b5. Frames are, of course, _evil_, and are banned = by the CDA, and anyone who uses them should be flamed mercilessly = and forced to use Lynx on a 24x80 monochrome display until he or she = repents and sees the error of their ways, and if that doesn't work = they should be exiled to AOL with only Microsoft Word Internet Assistant. = But that's a flame for another day.... = <<<<>>>> = I did not realize you were sadistic --or is this possibly latent masochism? my aggravation is the commercial hosts want to know all --we do not wish to give them our all... maybe an easier solution on anonyminity would be to establish a _plausible_ ID for www.anonymizer.com sites. make sure the target receives as much information as, say Netscape, might give them... So what if time, inc. collects 5000 cases of Bill Stewart at some host which anonymizer creates. your point on matching security levels is valid; anonymizer needs to report the difference in security levels to you --you make the decision. --send a very simple response form at connect time showing the parameters, and you make the decision. this, of course, would be a reasonable idea in all cases so you have a solid idea oj just who are connected to --fun if both ends are anonymized! --- Cyberspace is Our Freedom! Fuck Their CDA! Democracy Requires Free Speach & Strong Cryptography

1 0

Schelling points and enthropy of human mind
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, Tim May presented an interesting concept of two persons who want to meet in Washington DC but forgot to decide where to meet. He says that they will likely to be in only several places and that such places will be "points of low enthropy". The question is, how do you define "enthropy" in this case? Also, for a while I've been thinking about enthropies of cultures and individuals. I wonder if anyone knows any books or theories that define such things. - Igor.

1 0

Re: Nerds, Dykes, Niggers, Dweebs, Fags, Bimbos, and Geeks
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:13 AM 7/27/96, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: >Timothy C. May wrote: >> >> I just cringe when I meet young programmers at Cypherpunks who mumble "I'm >> just a computer geek." Fine, I write them off as geeks. >> > >OK, I am a foreigner. Can anyone explain me what the word "geek" means >and what are the origins of this word? I thought it was a cool word, >meaning someone orthogonal to the present world but being able to >change it. No, "geek" is not a "cool" word. "geek n. Slang. 1. An odd or ridiculous person. 2. A carnival performer whose show consists of bizarre acts, such as biting the head off a live chicken. (Perhaps alteration of dialectical "geck," fool, from Low German "gek," from Middle Low German." (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition) And the full Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition, Magnifying Glass Version, gives essentially the same definition, and cites an 1875 appearance in American slang. It mentions a "dumb sideshow stooge." Until recently, this was the only usage I knew of. One heard girls pointing at "geeky guys" and saying "What a geek!" Still think it's a "cool" word? How programmers came to adopt this as a badge of pride is beyond me. (I guess they don't especially care what the girls think, especially of course if they're one of the oh-so-popular "Geek Queers"--I don't even want to _think_ about what they bite the heads off of.) That foreigners are arriving in the U.S. and calling themselves "geeks," "dweebs," and "nerds" reminds me of those old cruel ploys of teaching foreigners a few words of English, e.g., "I am a very shitty person, fuck you very much!" Sad, real sad. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: Why the world needs privay protecting Ecash
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 7:17 PM 7/26/96, Lucky Green wrote: >>>> S.KOREA PROBES 15,000 PEOPLE OVER CREDIT CARD USE - South Korean >> state prosecutors are probing 15,000 people for excessive use of >> their credit cards overseas in a crackdown on lavish spending, a >> prosecution official said on Thursday. [Reuters, 200 words] > Good to know that the U.S. will cooperate in these investigations. I would hate to see these South Korean's spending "the people's" money in improper ways...oops, am I confusing South Korea with the Benevolent People's Republic of North Korea? Or are they just converging, just as the U.S. is converging with the PRC? Which raises a question about the laws in the U.S. on "structuring" of financial transfers. If Alice uses her U.S. VISA card to make many cash withdrawals at ATMs in Zurich, Lichtenstein, Geneva, London, etc., are there any U.S. requirements that she obtain and fill out reports (in triplicate) on these transactions? Suppose the cumulative ATM transactions hit the magic $10,000 level? I've heard folks describe this as a sure-fire way to transfer funds out of the U.S. to offshore banks, without the risks of carrying cash (*), but I wonder if any laws actually make this fall into the "structuring" penumbra. ("Structuring" refers to, for example, making multiple sub-$10,000 transfers so as to (apparently) evade the intent of the U.S. law on reporting all transactions of $10,000 or more.) (* Traveller's checks, cashier's checks, etc., are other options. One Cypherpunk has some interesting ideas about using traveller's checks to evade the U.S. requirements.) P.S. Do you know that if you save $200 a week out of your paycheck and put under your mattress, that after a year you will have saved $10,000? That's the good news. Now, the bad news. Do you know that if you try to deposit this $10,000 in cash in a bank, or spend it on a car, that an investigation may be triggered? That your money may be taken from you in an "asset seizure"? Unless you can prove where you got the money--rather hard in the mattress example--it may be taken from you and never returned, even if there is never a court case charging you with a crime, much less a conviction. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: Freeh Testimony 7/25/96
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:08 PM 7/26/96 -0400, David Lesher wrote: >Further, the more interesting aspects were what Freeh said under >interactive questioning by the Senators. He artfully avoided >many of their direct questions, but found himself on the rocks >on others. > >He seemed rather surprised at the tenor & thrust of the questioning; >He could not have thought this would be a cake-walk but he sure >acted that way. Here's a question I'd like somebody to ask Freeh: "There are some people who believe the development of uncompromised good encryption and easy communication, represented by the Internet, will lead to a world with drastically less _need_ for government, and a world that will be essentially ungovernable by centralized governments. You are a representative of government, first and foremost. Your job and salary and pension may be on the line if these predictions are true. To what extent is your position on key-escrow/GAK designed to resist or prevent such an eventuality?" (He'll probably answer that he doesn't understand the question..." Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Schelling points and enthropy of human mind
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:05 AM 7/27/96, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: >Hi, > >Tim May presented an interesting concept of two persons who >want to meet in Washington DC but forgot to decide where to meet. >He says that they will likely to be in only several places and >that such places will be "points of low enthropy". > >The question is, how do you define "enthropy" in this case? Well, I used "entropy" in the usual sense of the constellation of definitions: - low entropy means increased predictability (in this case, Alice and Bob are more able to "predict" what the other will decide than if the points were more "random") - low entropy is associated with "less randomness" (randomness is a notoriously controversial subject, discussed here often, so please don't clutter the list with quibbles about randomness) - "random" is related to "unpredictable" is related to "not compressible" is related to "disorderly" - "nonrandom" is related to "predictable" is related to "compressible" is related to "orderly" Schelling points are of course related to the notion of "emergent order," in that order emerges without prior communication between Alice and Bob. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: Why the world needs privay protecting Ecash
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:05 PM 7/27/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: >If Alice uses her U.S. VISA card to make many cash withdrawals at ATMs in >Zurich, Lichtenstein, Geneva, London, etc., are there any U.S. requirements >that she obtain and fill out reports (in triplicate) on these transactions? >Suppose the cumulative ATM transactions hit the magic $10,000 level? It might be hard to get an ATM card that lets you take out $10,000/day. I suppose a VISA card or a Debit card might allow that amount. Form 4790 Report of International Transportation of Currency or Monetary Instruments available at: ftp://ftp.fedworld.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f4790.pdf Says: A TRANSFER OF FUNDS THROUGH NORMAL BANKING PROCEDURES WHICH DOES NOT INVOLVE THE PHYSICAL TRANSPORTATION OF CURRENCY OR MONETARY INSTRUMENTS IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED. Form 4789 The Currency Transaction Report available at: ftp://ftp.fedworld.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f4789.pdf Says: "Currency.The physical transfer of currency from one person to another. This does not include a transfer of funds by means of bank check, bank draft, wire transfer or other written order that does not involve the physical transfer of currency." I guess an ATM is a machine and not a person. But these are the instructions not the regs. The form doesn't have to be filed by individuals only by financial institutions. An ATM doesn't involve the bank giving you cash unless you are using the ATM machine at your own bank. I remember seeing some regs that did mention ATM transfers but can't recall specifics. Usually, they figure that they have the "paper trail" anyway through your normal bank records. DCF

1 0

Re: Why the world needs privay protecting Ecash
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 4:18 AM 7/27/96, Duncan Frissell wrote: >At 12:05 PM 7/27/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: > >>If Alice uses her U.S. VISA card to make many cash withdrawals at ATMs in >>Zurich, Lichtenstein, Geneva, London, etc., are there any U.S. requirements >>that she obtain and fill out reports (in triplicate) on these transactions? >>Suppose the cumulative ATM transactions hit the magic $10,000 level? > >It might be hard to get an ATM card that lets you take out $10,000/day. I >suppose a VISA card or a Debit card might allow that amount. Who said it had to be in one day? I didn't. Most vacations to Europe last a couple of weeks, e.g., "If this is Tuesday, I need to make a withdrawal in Milano." I think a lot of ATMs will now dispense big chunks of cash--I've never checked on limits, but I notice that some CRT screens now have chunks up to $600 or so listed. >The form doesn't have to be filed by individuals only by financial >institutions. An ATM doesn't involve the bank giving you cash unless you are >using the ATM machine at your own bank. I remember seeing some regs that >did mention ATM transfers but can't recall specifics. Usually, they figure >that they have the "paper trail" anyway through your normal bank records. Thanks. Still not sure if it applies, but I'd forgotten that it's up to the banks to do the reports; good to know it's not up to me. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Pie cutting algorithm
by rollo＠artvark.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May said: << ObCrypto Sidebar: The "fair" method for dividing a pie between two people is well-known: "You cut, I choose." This *game theory* result is central to many cryptographic protocols (though it may not always be apparent at first). And the protocol can be extended to 3 parties, and proabably to N. Research is ongoing on this, including Cypherpunk Robin Hanson's work at Caltech. >> I (RS) believe Claude Shannon proposed the following N-person pie-cutting algorithm more than 25 years ago: Persons 1...N are seated around a circular table. A Thing To Be Shared (Call it a "pie") sits in front of P1 (Alice, if you prefer). P1 cuts a slice (a portion satisfactory to her) out of the pie -- the "current slice" -- and offers the whole pie with the current slice to the person P2 (Barbara, if you like) to her left for her consideration. It is possible that P1 is so greedy that she makes the whole pie the current slice. P2 does one of 2 things: A. P2 cuts a smaller slice (a portion satisfactory to her, which becomes the new current slice) out of the old current slice and offers the whole pie with the new current slice to P3. B. P2 passes (being unwilling to settle for a smaller slice of the pie than the current slice), offering the person P3 to her left the whole pie with the current slice for her consideration; P3 does one of 2 things: A. P3 cuts a smaller slice (a portion satisfactory to her, which becomes the new current slice) out of the old current slice and offers the whole pie with the new current slice to P4. B. P3 passes (being unwilling to settle for a smaller slice of the pie than the current slice), offering the person P4 to her left the whole pie with the current slice for her consideration; ... Eventually, someone (Pm, or Morticia) has cut a current slice, and everybody else has passed. At that point Pm gets the piece she cut, leaves the table with it, and (if N > 2) the game proceeds ab initio with N-1 people and the remaining pie. If N = 2 (two people were playing), there's now one person left (Winnie), and she gets the remaining pie. The whole procedure terminates, with everyone satisified, after a finite number of steps. Tim May: as a Licensed Ontologist, do you know who made the wiseassed (but deep) remark "Ontology recapitulates Philology"? or for that matter, "Oncology recapitulates Proctology". Rollo Silver / Amygdala | e-mail: rollo(a)artvark.com 216M N. Pueblo Rd, #107 | Website: http://www.artvark.com/artvark/ Taos, NM 87571 USA | Voice: 505-751-9601; FAX: 505-751-7507

6 6

Re: Twenty Bank Robbers -- Game theory:) [Classic Answer]
by Robert A. Rosenberg 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 9:09 -0500 7/25/96, Igor Chudov wrote: >Here's a puzzle for our game theorists. > >Twenty cypherpunks robbed a bank. They took 20 million bucks. Here's >how they plan to split the money: they stay in line, and the first guy >suggests how to split the money. Then they vote on his suggestion. If >50% or more vote for his proposal, his suggestion is adopted. > >Otherwise they kill the first robber and now it is the turn of guy #2 >to make another splitting proposal. Same voting rules apply. > >The question is, what will be the outcome? How will they split the >money, how many robbers will be dead, and so on? > >igor This is a variant on the normal distribution problem/game where you have a number of homogeneous/identical items that are either too numerous to distribute by the "one for you and one for me" method or are not equivalent to each other. The "goal" is to have a method of distributing so that each person feels that they got "their fair share". The classic solution is to have #1 divide the items into 20 piles (any of which he is willing to take as his share). Then number #2 is offered the choice of accepting #1's distribution or rearranging the distribution until he is happy to accept any of them. This accept/rearrange process goes on until #19 has made his decision. Then #20 is allowed to select any one pile as his share. The "choose a pile" option then goes back up the line (to #19, #18, etc) with each taking one of the remaining piles until it gets to whoever was before the person who did the last rearrangement. This person then has the option of doing a new rearrangement or approving the current distribution. After he does a rearrangement or approves the distribution, the option keeps going up the line until it gets to #1 (who selects a pile). You then keep going down [and up] the line until there are only two piles and the last approver/rearranger gets the last pile after the choice of piles is made by the other person. This is "fair" since at all times the person who is making a pile selection has already approved the distribution (or at the end is offered his choice of the two remaining piles).

3 2

ALL OF YOU ARE CRIMINAL HACKERS, I AM GOING TO CALL FBI
by anonymous-remailer＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I AM NOT GOING TO TOLERATE EXISTENCE OF A MEDIUM FOR CRIMINAL HACKERS AND MUNITIONS SMUGGLERS. I WILL COMPLAIN TO THE FBI IMMEDIATELY SO THAT THEY CAN TRACK YOU DOWN AND CLOSE THIS LIST.

4 3

RE: Overwelmed with Stupidity...
by Gregory Ellison 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Shaun Clark <jacquard(a)teleport.com> writes: > > > Ok, ok... Let me say something, but I don't want anyone to > > take this wrong. I'm not trying to be stupid, but I don't > > have half the knowledge you all seem to posses. > and Mike Duvos <mpd(a)netcom.com> replies: >That's ok. Welcome to the list. > then proceeds to pull Mike's leg by telling him TRS-80 is a technical paper by David Sternlight, DES is a synthetic estrogen that shrinks your dick, and GAK is green slime on a kiddie show. In my mind, this is just schoolyard bully-ism at the expense of the "new kid." Really mature, really nurturing of the serious values and issues this list exists to disseminate. Go back to second grade, Mike. I, too, am a relative newcomer to this list, and have not participated very actively because I'm having a hard time gauging the balance between the genuinely useful technical and philosophical issues being discussed (of which there are many) and the childish, irrational ranting and insulting pseudo-intellectual one-upsmanship being bantered about (of which there is far too much). If people like Mike Duvos can't bring themselves to offer any useful information to newcomers who earnestly ask, they could at least refrain from insulting them for the "crime" of not knowing. Shaun, TRS-80 is an early line of microcomputers produced by Radio Shack, DES is a (not very secure) encryption algorithm supported by the Bureau of Standards, and GAK stand for "govenment access to keys," the position that the government should have access to all private keys (in escrow, of course) just in case there is a "legitimate" need to listen in on anybody's private communications. I believe in the values this list was founded to promulgate, and I value it for the open political, technical and philosopical discussions of issues crucial to our time. And, yes, it's great to have fun, too, but does it always have to be mean-spirited fun at someone else's expense? -- Gregory <gregorye(a)microsoft.com> "Opinions expressed herein are entirely my own and not the opinions of my employer." PGP key for <gregorye(a)microsoft.com> is on the keyservers >

3 3

HACKER REPORT
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, Just saw part I of a two-part series on "hackers" being broadcast by a local San Francisco TV station. Nothing horrible, in my opinion. The adroitly sidestepped the hacker/cracker distinction by saying the "hacker" has come to mean..." and then gave the negative, intrusive definition. The interviewed a spokesman for "InsWeb" an on-line insurance company that has been the target of "hackers." During the filmed segment, they did a trace-route on the intrusion which lead back to Germany. The explained "social engineering" and showed how a hacker could get someone to reveal their password. They also interviewed a San Jose computer crime cop named Keith Lowery. He didn't add much to the discussion. At the end, Pete Wilson (the TV guy, not the governor) said something like, "Hackers tells us that the problem may be overblown. Most people--and this includes most hackers--know the difference between right and wrong." Tomorrow's show should be more interesting (and possibly much more sensationalistic). Part II is "The Hacker Underground." Oooh, scary! S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2 2

ALL OF YOU ARE CRIMINAL HACKERS, I AM GOING TO CALL FBI
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, anonymous-remailer(a)shell.portal.com wrote: > ALL OF YOU ARE CRIMINAL HACKERS, I AM GOING TO CALL FBI > I AM NOT GOING TO TOLERATE EXISTENCE OF A MEDIUM FOR CRIMINAL > HACKERS AND MUNITIONS SMUGGLERS. I WILL COMPLAIN TO THE FBI > IMMEDIATELY SO THAT THEY CAN TRACK YOU DOWN AND CLOSE THIS LIST. Damn! What were we thinking? We left that "who cypherpunks" back door open on majordomo(a)toad.com. Now "they" are going to come and get us all. Curses! Foiled again! And they say there is no legitimate use for 'ludes. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

The Four Horsemen Go to the Olympics!
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Well, there was an explosion at the Olympics... It may have been a bomb or it may have been a transformer. Expect this to be used as fuel as to why every one in America must be under constant survelance by the Government. The Four Horsemen are now an Olympic Event! --- Alan Olsen -- alano(a)teleport.com -- Contract Web Design & Instruction `finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ "We had to destroy the Internet in order to save it." - Sen. Exon "Microsoft -- Nothing but NT promises."

1 0

Gambling Protocols
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>>If Phil really believes he and I are at any credible legal risk >>for a making such a personal wager, he is a fool. The obvious approach is for some kind person to send encrypted email to both Phill and Sandy and offer to hold their digicash in escrow. What kind of protocol would it take to implement this correctly? The escrow agent needs to verify that the e-money is good (though not necessarily where it came from), and perhaps put some kind of lock on it to prevent double-spending by the bettors. The bettors need to be able to verify that the escrow agent hasn't ripped them off. (The escrow agent may have a certain amount of reputation with the two players, but may not be in a regular escrow business so he may be willing to rip them off, unlike a bank which probably doesn't want to risk its reputation. In a typical betting-escrow situation today, the escrow agent doesn't need much reputation because he's right there while the two bettors are arm-wrestling, shooting pool, trying to out-drink each other, or whatever, so he can't really abscond.) Non-payer-anonymous double-spender-identifying e-money would be one approach - if the escrow agent rips them off, he's traceable, and if one of the bettors double-spends, he gets fingered. Perhaps the escrow agent should deposit the money (and a key) with the bank and get back an encrypted set of money and a certificate saying the encrypted money is worth $X (which lets you use basic Chaumian first-spender-wins e-money.) Any better approaches? # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> # Dispel Authority!

1 0

Re: LIMBAUGH ON TV [Political Rant]
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:27 PM 7/25/96 -0400, hallam(a)Etna.ai.mit.edu wrote: >The moral point is not that there is risk of being caught, it >is that society has made laws and unless there are exceptional >circumstances it is a duty to obey those laws. I haven't seen society making laws recently; I've seen societies tolerating governments and governments making laws, generally to benefit one special interest or another, and I include bureaucratic growth and self-preservation as special interests. I don't see how duty attaches to any of that. Duty attaches to keeping committments you've made to other people and living up to your moral values, and in spite of government telling me I've got a duty to it, I don't. Meanwhile, society is a bunch of individuals and the interactions they have with each other. If you want society to work well, there are lots of things you can and should do to help - but duties are to individuals. Letting other people live their lives in peace may count as a duty - and if it does, then governments have the duty not to make laws unless there are exceptional circumstances. The facts that people can lose money gambling or get stoned by taking drugs or make money by helping other people do these things are certainly not exceptional... >I don't argue against breaking laws which are immoral, indeed >I am still refusing to pay a Poll tax bill from the UK despite >the fact that the amount outstanding is inconsequential. Why? Aside from the fact that Maggie and the Parliament were quite obnoxious in enacting and implementing it, what's wrong? If you're think that some people's Fair Share of the cost of supporting society is higher than others', and object because this tax

1 0

Decrypt info about domain name
by Jerome Tan 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Where can I find the file to decrypt in order to change the domain name of a Unix system?

1 0