December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

BA Crypto Machine Photos
by jproc＠bellglobal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear BA'ers, Recently, I acquired some BA crypto machine photos courtesy of the Canadian Security Establishment. If anyone wants full size, selected, JPEG copies of these photos, please let me know and I can send them as attached files to E-mail. As a reminder, there are two stories beginning with the same file name in the BA archives which accompany the photos. KL7.JPG Colour 108 kbytes KWR37.JPG B & W 51 kbytes BTW, does anyone know the meaning of 'order wire mode' in the context of a crypto broadcast? This mode is found in the KWR-37 online crypto receiver. Please send all photo requests or responses via private E-mail. Regards, ------------------------------------- Jerry Proc VE3FAB E-mail: jproc(a)bellglobal.com HMCS Haida Naval Museum Toronto, Ontario 'Looking for a 'AN/SRC-501' -------------------------------------

1 0

Re: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List"
by Dave Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Steve Boursey writes: > Well EFF itself is a lie--the were very well exposed by Wired Mag. a > while back as being nothing more than a corporate whore. They represent > the interests of owners not consumers--the ACLU has been very open > in their critisism of the EFF in this regard. A large corporation > waves some money in front of their noses and tells them to bend > over you can be sure they'll bend over. It's not clear from where I sit that the EFF is intrinsically evil. A case can be argued for their initial good intentions followed by the subsequent poisoning of this intent by people with lots of money. Of course, -any- organization is as susceptable to infiltration as their weakest member. > Respectable free speech advocates do not associate with EFF. If one is going to advocate free speech, I strongly suggest one learns to deal with one's own greed and one's own need for power first. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet You possess only what will not be lost in a shipwreck.

1 0

Re: Dissolving Choke Points
by E. Allen Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"gbroiles(a)netbox.com" "Greg Broiles" 4-FEB-1997 14:55:18.91 >But my impression is that many moderation opponents would also be opponents >of a move to Usenet. Perhaps I'm wrong. But Usenet offers precisely what many >people claim we must have for the list to be viable, e.g., >uncontrolled/uncontrollable distribution and messaging. So I'm curious about >whether or not the proponents of an open, uncontrolled list really want it to >be *that* open and uncontrolled. In the past, there's been strong opposition >to that. But it's possible that most of the people who had strong feelings >about not wanting to be subjected to the downside of Usenet have already left >the list. >(And if the current opponents of moderation don't want to see the list be >quite that open, I think what we're arguing about here is not "censorship v. >no censorship" but "what degree of censorship do we want? one lump, or two?", >which pretty much eliminates anyone's claim to have a moral high ground from >which to argue.) Umm... there's a difference. Moderation is control by a _person_; not moving to Usenet is control by nobody except how things happen to be set up. >The good side I see to a move to Usenet is that it lets people use the >comparatively better tools for managing messages - e.g., NoCeM, threading, nn >(whose killfiles will kill by thread, author, regexp, and can be time limited >so you can easily give annoying people a 30-day 'timeout' and see if they're >still a kook later on), AltaVista and DejaNews archiving/searching, and >server architecture that's designed to cope with storing/indexing many >messages. Hmm... since both you and Bill Stewart are pointing out various advantageous things about Usenet, I may need to retract my previous statement that mail fitering is better. On the other hand, other people have mentioned the susceptibility of email to write-your-own filtering and other processing. (For instance, I've got a project that needs cypherpunks (and other controversial groups) to be on mailing lists instead of (or at least as well as) news servers to work right.) Is there a full-scale equivalent of procmail for Usenet, including functions like shunting messages to programs et al? >The down side is that Usenet is more or less a sewer these days, and some of >it's bound to spill over. Quite. -Allen

1 0

Re: New X-Ray Imager
by William H. Geiger III 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <199702041941.LAA04346(a)toad.com>, on 02/04/97 at 01:19 PM, ichudov(a)algebra.com said: >Lucky Green wrote: >> At 10:38 AM 2/4/97 -0500, Adam Shostack wrote: >> >| A poll last week by the Los Angeles Times found that a majority of >> people -- >> >| 58 percent -- said they would curtail some civil liberties if it would help >> >| thwart terrorism. Thirteen percent said it would depend on what rights were >> >| at stake. The poll didn't ask people to single out any rights. >> > >> > Its worth noting the 'if it would help thwart terrorism.' >> >> It is irrelevant if terrorism is indeed be thwarted. The public does not >> require this to happen. All that matters is to generate the *perception* of >> increased security, not to increase security itself. >Let's remember though that perception of security applies not only to >passengers, but also to potential terrorists. If they *think* that they >would not be able to bring a bomb easily, they would be less inclined to >do so. Not really, The thin vail of "security" that the goverment provides may be good enough to give warm-fuzzies to the avarage sheep, ...er citizen, but the potential terrorists will see it for what it is. - -- - ----------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. Finger whgiii(a)amaranth.com for PGP Key and other info - ----------------------------------------------------------- Tag-O-Matic: OS/2...Opens up Windows, shuts up Gates. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Registered User E-Secure v1.1 0000000 iQCVAwUBMve/So9Co1n+aLhhAQFZqQQAkIt/8pUqBWagohj2GkbpnFBKOqAkziqk Y/KINK0yk2ylBVUM7OtL+nfSis6dQ09t+Y5WhgQcaYE8rUaYYS+qxmaJdsqg2X92 L/ISf363fPzD8KvvP+3+xQBv5r5VBnSFahAhhT4NmArOdeLEc5tGl4GCt09gDjdI y9iVNcrNxFk= =nu7P -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

concerning Ben Franklin
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I was reading one of the posts in the thread reguarding sone stolen object in Miami, the one reffering to the locks of the boxes, and it got me thinking. Ben Franklin was a revolutionary, scientist, inventor, publisher, statesman, and bookburner (according to F451). Perhaps he should be considered to be a cypherpunk, not that he necessarily knew anything about crypto, but because he was interested in many of the same ideals. It is my belief that were he alive today, he would be on this list. If the work of fiction referred to above, and in another recent post, is accurate in its reference to Franklin, then he would seem to have had the same solution to net pollution, burn it. Rather than considering Ben Franklin the first fireman, I would like to think of him as an early breed of cypherpunk. By this I consider cypherpunk to be interested in the subject, and its outcome, and a cryptographer to be just one faction of cypherpunk. Merely my opinion. Does anyone know whether or not Mr. Franklin may have played with code as well? All of my sources were assimilated into my understanding of the man several years ago, and at the time crypto was less in the public eye than it is now.

2 1

"alt.cypherpunks" people?
by Adam Back 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

John Gilmore urges action, or piping down... well lets start with discussion of whether one possible action is appropriate, and useful (piping down is not an option:-): What do people think of starting an alt.cypherpunks USENET newsgroup? It has some advantages: 1. It distributes the cost of information dispersal, rather than largely placeing the load on a single machine. 2. Newsreading software typically includes threading, which is useful 3. It avoids the issue of ownership, it is more anarchic. There is no list or host owner to get prosecuted for copyright violations, export law violations, libel etc. 4. Automatically gets archived several places, and is searchable 5. It will be unmoderated And some disadvantages... 1. Cross-posting in USENET is a problem, especially in alt newsgroups 2. Commercial spam is a problem with newsgroups 3. USENET distribution is likely less efficient of overall bandwidth 4. News propogation times are often poor (Exeter univ. receives news about a week late) This is a real killer in my view. I have another news server I can access at the moment, but not everyone may have access to a reasonable news server. 5. News access is more complex for some people. Some alt newsgroups are not carried by some servers. Perhaps news-to-mail and mail-to-news gateway would solve these problems. 6. Some have argued in the past on this topic that the mailing list medium is better because it is more exclusive, as it requires more technical competence, and an active enough interest to subscribe. This is an elitist argument. Perhaps it is relevant though, if we are trying to maintain a mailing list where technical discussions on how to improve privacy are to take place. I wouldn't call this attitude censorship though. My overall feeling is that I prefer the faster turn around time of a mailing list. When interesting things were/are happening on the list (netscape break, late breaking crypto news, and cypherpunks spin on it), the fast turn around time was essential. Being able to react quickly to news items, and to organise technical projects rapidly is one of the cypherpunks main advantages and attractions from my point of view. My view of moderation is that it is a huge amount of work for the moderator, that it is hypocritical philosophically (we promote anarchy, but in order to effectively promote anarchy, we reject anarchy), that it breeds artificial social hierarchys, rather than allowing posts and posters reputations to stand on their own merit. I was happier with the strength of the philsophical standing of the list prior to moderation. Moderation hasn't improved the noise much anyway. Readers who have been reading for several years may understandably wish to recapture the stimulating discourses, and lively community feel to the list from the past. Lists change, cypherpunks is a victim of it's own success, media attention increased public awareness, increased number of subscribers, and at the same time increased the proportion of noisy off-topic posts. Unfortunately the success of the list, and the noise has resulted in some of those people who kept it interesting leaving the list. Coderpunks is a reasonable list, I'm not sure that it is moderated as such, but if you breach etiquette (discussion of politics, even when perpetrated by respected cryptographers, or by people discussing the implications of breaking DES, rather than the strict coding questions) they get Futplex-grams, which I find slightly annoying. Cryptography(a)c2.net is again reasonable, and gained back some of the original people who quit cypherpunks over the years due to noise. Cryptography is moderated. (Or is moderated when Perry thinks it would benefit from moderation, so that may change). Perhaps some of the lack of stimulating discussion is simply that the ideas are no longer hot new ideas. Most of the interesting technology and it's implications have been discussed. What's left is attempting to stop government restrictions and backdoors, and deploying the many complex peices of software for which there exists uses and demands. Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`

1 0

Re: Govt & cyberspace
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Steve writes: >Democracy is not without its significant shortcomings. If you doubt this >read Tocquevelle. Or Hayek. Democracy, after all, is majoritarian rule. Living under a homogenous majority, with its whims and desires as law, would be more oppressive than living under a benign dictatorship. -Declan ------------------------- The Netly News Network Washington Correspondent http://netlynews.com/

1 0

Re: Moderation [Tim,Sandy]
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Adam writes: >The problem with censorship or moderation is that it waters down the >absolutism of free speech. Free speech in electronic media, with >cypherpunks type I, and type II remailers, is the closest thing to >truly free speech yet. I agree and disagree. Moderation often *increases* the value of speech. The Wall Street Journal, or Time Magazine, or the JAMA have strict policies regarding what information they print; these policies increase the publication's value. Moderation is not necessarily censorship. Would you criticize the National Coalition Against Censorship for not including in their newsletter (to which I subscribe) off-topic rants by Jesse Helms? What Vulis and the rest (whom I killfiled long ago) have done is polluted a common resource, making it unusable for the rest. It's the tragedy of the commons. When all can speak without limit in a public forum, the drunken boor can shout everyone else down. -Declan ------------------------- The Netly News Network Washington Correspondent http://netlynews.com/

1 0

Re: Moderation, Tim, Sandy, me, etc. * Strong crypto == DES?!
by aaron＠herringn.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>I'm glad we're talking about some of the real issues here. > >Tim May said: >> I don't want Sandy Sandfort sitting in judgment on my >> posts, deciding what the Cypherpunks--a group I co-founded for God's >> sake!!!!--are to be allowed to read and what they may not. > >Tim, the Cypherpunks have chosen to follow Sandy's lead for this >month. I'll admit I made it easy for them, but the results are >conclusive. There are 1311 addresses in the cypherpunks list today; >42 in the unedited list; and 19 in the flames list. Forty people >cared enough to read every posting; the other thousand either wanted >to try the experiment -- or didn't care enough to send an email >message. Which, as we all know, is a very low threshold. [huge snip] If I might make a suggestion: Some people want moderation. That's fine, I've never been very big on letting other people choose what I read, but some people want it. For those who want it, let someone moderate the list for as long as they care to do it. Approved messages get a "X-sandy-approved" header. The responsibility for setting up a filter to toss everything that doesn't have the header is the responsibility of the end user. Toad will need to filter incoming posts to make sure they don't come "pre-approved", but that's the only hole I can think of. Everyone gets all of the Cypherpunks list. Those who want moderation filter the unapproved posts, those who want all of it get all of it. Hopefully, this will make (almost) everyone happy.

2 1

Re: concerning Ben Franklin
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This is one of the point that I address in my article in the February 1997 issue of "Internet Underground" magazine (to which I am a contributing editor). Here's an excerpt, since the magazine is just starting to hit the stands. --- The debate swirling through Capitol Hill conference rooms and the corridors of the White House revolves around one basic question: What role should the government play in regulating encryption? The founding fathers might be startled by the byzantine rules. After all, some revolutionaries were cryptographers themselves. Benjamin Franklin in 1781 crafted a substitution cipher based on a 682-character French phrase. James Madison created a code replacing words with two- and three-digit numbers that he used until 1793. But by far the most remarkable cryptologist of the Revolutionary War was the author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, who between 1790 and 1800 invented a cipher system so far ahead of its time that it remained in use even into the late 20th century. --- The Codebreakers is also a good source. -Declan >I was reading one of the posts in the thread reguarding sone stolen object >in Miami, the one reffering to the locks of the boxes, and it got me thinking. >Ben Franklin was a revolutionary, scientist, inventor, publisher, statesman, >and bookburner (according to F451). Perhaps he should be considered to be a >cypherpunk, not that he necessarily knew anything about crypto, but because >he was interested in many of the same ideals. It is my belief that were he >alive today, he would be on this list. If the work of fiction referred to >above, and in another recent post, is accurate in its reference to Franklin, >then he would seem to have had the same solution to net pollution, burn it. >Rather than considering Ben Franklin the first fireman, I would like to >think of him as an early breed of cypherpunk. By this I consider cypherpunk >to be interested in the subject, and its outcome, and a cryptographer to be >just one faction of cypherpunk. Merely my opinion. >Does anyone know whether or not Mr. Franklin may have played with code as >well? All of my sources were assimilated into my understanding of the man >several years ago, and at the time crypto was less in the public eye than it >is now. ------------------------- The Netly News Network Washington Correspondent http://netlynews.com/

1 0

Re: John's: In anarchy -everyone responsible
by Attila T. Hun 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- on or about 970204:0312 Greg Broiles <gbroiles(a)netbox.com> said: + Are mailing lists an example of "public goods" where private + ownership is impossible, or should be avoided? ... yes, there is a requirement, even in a libertarian society, let alone an anarchic society, for cooperation in the *commonweal[th]*. in otherwords, is there even such a social state as true anarchy? (given the residents of planet earth, I doubt it.) + Is the desire for an anarchic community at odds with a desire for + good use of resources? the individual desire for anarchy must exclude common human "pride" and greed. true anarchy is poorly defined and understood by most advocates. the absolute need for common resources negates anarchy in the popularly defined "description" of anarchy, solely because the issue of community "responsibility" is in opposition to the perceived: 'I can do anything I want.' In a "popular" anarchy, Jim Bell's assassination politics make perfectly good sense; but, a "popular" anarchy is not an _anarchy_. on or about 970204:0621 John Gilmore <gnu(a)toad.com> said: + In an anarchy, *everyone* is responsible; + nothing is "somebody else's job". Bingo! John's statement is the absolute bottom line! e.g.- if you are walking down the street with thousands of other people and you see a piece of trash (which obviously was tossed by an obviously imperfect anarchist), _you_ pick the trash up and place it in a waste container. _you_ -not someone else who is shirking _their_ common responsibility. anarchy is _not_ living on a desert island surrounded by piles of McDonald's wrappers and empty coke cans. that is an individual who elected to "escape" both society and {him,her}self. anarchy is only possible in an ideal world where _everyone_ assumes not only responsibility for themselves, but for the common good. no malice, no greed, no need for assassination politics.... John's quote from Booker T. is precisely the point: ...now that they were in actual possession of it, freedom was a more serious thing than they had expected to find it. or maybe Bobbie McGee: "freedom is just nothing else to lose..." (BTW, written by a Rhodes Scholar) -- attila out (for the moment) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQCVAwUBMvfD1b04kQrCC2kFAQGCRAP/TFNkLEtSKhEzksBCeT4r1pfZnIgwHkZz QtlfSo8dKcQMBXJcdfJ58dklisFrolyLApcEYFO5E+v6XPH+SFe+DOOoMgGNfj1v 3qnL49ol2s34ioaJG3BFqy6JOJmL7eom0PleQrGWzko8mGM99dRBVgCRCLZMmWk8 4Uaqs5Ztkbw= =112P -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Moderation, Tim, Sandy, me, etc. * Strong crypto == DES?!
by Adam Back 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The gist of your post seems to be saying that: - yes, the result it is not purely anarchic - the moderation experiment intentionally moderated the main list by design - this is perhaps slightly at odds with cypherpunks philosphy on freedom but that this is necessary because: - cypherpunks larger goals are more important - cypherpunks goals are better served by having a lower noise environment to work in - create that environment by any means possible (ends justify the means) - people weren't being responsible with their freedom anyway - it's only an experiment - if you don't like this and complain you're part of the problem Now it may seem nit-picking to a pragmatist, which is the way you presented your arguments, but the idea that cypherpunks should stoop to moderation/censorship calls into question what cypherpunks larger goals are. Why? Because we promote electronic freedom, but in order to effectively organise the promotion of freedom, we reject full freedom of speech as unworkable, and impose restrictions. This lends ammunition to our opponents. "See even they realise there must be limits to free speech". Cypherpunks main goal is: "to promote privacy and freedom through technological means" and arising from this goal, are presumed philosphical stances: - privacy and freedom are a good thing (unconditional free speech is a good thing) - censorship is a bad thing - government retrictions and backdoors in crypto are a bad thing (crypto providing practical privacy, and practical free speech being provided by cryptographically enabled anonymity) - chaumian credentials are preferable to fully traceable credentials - etc. etc. So the question to me boils down to is unconditional free speech a good thing? Dorothy Denning says no. Louis Freeh says no. The Clinton administration says no. I thought you said yes. I thought most of your actions for the last 10 years screamed yes! Why cut corners for little gain? Another moderated list with official sanction (hosted by toad.com, with your commendation that people subscribe to it (to reduce noise and increase productivity), with instructions in the sign on message listing the moderated/filtered lists available, clearly stating the filtering policy, regularly posted instructions on available filtered lists to cypherpunks) would have been beautiful. Fine. Lovely. But you set up moderation of _the_ list, with no interaction required by the subscriber. That caused Tim to unsubscribe. It's causing me, and others to argue for this aspect of the moderation to be reversed ASAP. > PS: Can we talk about crypto too? It's clear from the last few days > of press releases that the pro-GAK forces are again working to confuse > novices into thinking that two very different things are the same > thing. Last time it was "public key infrastructure" and "key > recovery". This time it's "strong crypto" and "56-bit DES". What > should we do about this? Educate the public? Education, and countering government news-speak seems to be the key issues at the moment. Educate the journalist that perpetuated the pro-GAK lie. Write an article to the same publication pointing out the fallacy (unfortunately as these are private presses they are `moderated', so you may not get your say). Buy the advert space if they won't publish. I'll contribute. Distribute strong crypto (you are personally, the ipsec S/WAN initiative is important). I'm working on creating and distributing strong crypto, and influencing sectors of users to use strong crypto, rather than export crippled US stuff. The myth that 56 bits is strong is perpetuated by journalists outside the US too. The export situation is complex, many user groups (even IT managers) don't understand. They don't understand the meaning of key strengths either. Break DES to demonstrate it's weakness. May happen in the next 1/2 year. Gets free publicity. People aren't saying 40 bits are secure anymore. Cypherpunks acheived that. Hope that Matt Blaze goes ahead with his hardware DES breaker. He said some time ago that he had spare funding and was considering using it for this purpose. Anyone know the state of play? This would be more important as it would quantify the costs, and would be much more impressive, and realistic for an estimate of the strength of DES against industrial espionage or well funded criminal attack. Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`

1 0

"alt.cypherpunks" people?
by Adam Back 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

John Gilmore urges action, or piping down... well lets start with discussion of whether one possible action is appropriate, and useful (piping down is not an option:-): What do people think of starting an alt.cypherpunks USENET newsgroup? It has some advantages: 1. It distributes the cost of information dispersal, rather than largely placeing the load on a single machine. 2. Newsreading software typically includes threading, which is useful 3. It avoids the issue of ownership, it is more anarchic. There is no list or host owner to get prosecuted for copyright violations, export law violations, libel etc. 4. Automatically gets archived several places, and is searchable 5. It will be unmoderated And some disadvantages... 1. Cross-posting in USENET is a problem, especially in alt newsgroups 2. Commercial spam is a problem with newsgroups 3. USENET distribution is likely less efficient of overall bandwidth 4. News propogation times are often poor (Exeter univ. receives news about a week late) This is a real killer in my view. I have another news server I can access at the moment, but not everyone may have access to a reasonable news server. 5. News access is more complex for some people. Some alt newsgroups are not carried by some servers. Perhaps news-to-mail and mail-to-news gateway would solve these problems. 6. Some have argued in the past on this topic that the mailing list medium is better because it is more exclusive, as it requires more technical competence, and an active enough interest to subscribe. This is an elitist argument. Perhaps it is relevant though, if we are trying to maintain a mailing list where technical discussions on how to improve privacy are to take place. I wouldn't call this attitude censorship though. My overall feeling is that I prefer the faster turn around time of a mailing list. When interesting things were/are happening on the list (netscape break, late breaking crypto news, and cypherpunks spin on it), the fast turn around time was essential. Being able to react quickly to news items, and to organise technical projects rapidly is one of the cypherpunks main advantages and attractions from my point of view. My view of moderation is that it is a huge amount of work for the moderator, that it is hypocritical philosophically (we promote anarchy, but in order to effectively promote anarchy, we reject anarchy), that it breeds artificial social hierarchys, rather than allowing posts and posters reputations to stand on their own merit. I was happier with the strength of the philsophical standing of the list prior to moderation. Moderation hasn't improved the noise much anyway. Readers who have been reading for several years may understandably wish to recapture the stimulating discourses, and lively community feel to the list from the past. Lists change, cypherpunks is a victim of it's own success, media attention increased public awareness, increased number of subscribers, and at the same time increased the proportion of noisy off-topic posts. Unfortunately the success of the list, and the noise has resulted in some of those people who kept it interesting leaving the list. Coderpunks is a reasonable list, I'm not sure that it is moderated as such, but if you breach etiquette (discussion of politics, even when perpetrated by respected cryptographers, or by people discussing the implications of breaking DES, rather than the strict coding questions) they get Futplex-grams, which I find slightly annoying. Cryptography(a)c2.net is again reasonable, and gained back some of the original people who quit cypherpunks over the years due to noise. Cryptography is moderated. (Or is moderated when Perry thinks it would benefit from moderation, so that may change). Perhaps some of the lack of stimulating discussion is simply that the ideas are no longer hot new ideas. Most of the interesting technology and it's implications have been discussed. What's left is attempting to stop government restrictions and backdoors, and deploying the many complex peices of software for which there exists uses and demands. Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`

3 2

re: Moderation, Tim, Sandy, me, etc * Reputation Capital
by nobody＠replay.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I found this post from Mr Gilmore deeply disturbing, and I thought I'd take this chance to, as someone recently said, "Fly with the Eagles." John Gilmore said: >Tim, the Cypherpunks have chosen to follow Sandy's lead for this >month. I'll admit I made it easy for them, but the results are >conclusive. There are 1311 addresses in the cypherpunks list today; >42 in the unedited list; and 19 in the flames list. Forty people >cared enough to read every posting; the other thousand either wanted >to try the experiment -- or didn't care enough to send an email >message. Which, as we all know, is a very low threshold. Careful. The statistics you are throwing around here are misleading. So if 1350, say, subscribers were subscribed to an unmoderated cypherpunks list, what would that tell you? As has been pointed out, beaten to death, and generally repeated: there are already filtered c'punks lists. By filtering the main list, you are just making your own life difficult and corrupting the reputation capital of "cypherpunks", and the results are far from conclusive. >all I want is something that works. The cypherpunks list was unusable >for this kind of discussion, only a month ago. It's usable now. > >I'm definitely bugged by the community's attitude toward my >"censorship". Rather than being glad that someone, anyone, was doing >something about the major problem on the list, 99% of the reaction was >to create even more ill-considered, emotional flamage. *I* didn't >make the signal/noise get worse at that point -- *you-all* did. Again, maybe that 99% is trying to tell you something? Maybe there is some provocation for this outpouring of "emotional flamage." Also, here you claim that the s/n ratio is worse than before, but above you said that the "moderation" has made the list usable. These two statements seem contradictory. >Perhaps at that point I should have shut down the list, as Lucky is >now suggesting. "Asking the list what to do" was clearly not a useful >option. Sandy cared enough about the community to make some concrete Not a useful option? Why not? If there aren't any ideas left in this community, I'm with Lucky. Pull the plug. >gratifying. You-all remind me of a passage from Booker T. >Washington's book _Up From Slavery_, describing what happened on the >night that news of the Emancipation Proclamation reached the South: <quote snipped> >Most of the people on the list haven't bothered to face that freedom. >Your de-facto "leaders" have faced it for you. It is a more serious "You clearly don't take your freedom seriously. Now try a month without it." >Start a mailing list on another site! Move this list to somewhere! >Create and nurture an alt group! Make an independent moderated list My problem with this is that you are currently holding the reputation capital tied up in the name "cypherpunks" hostage. If hosting this discussion forum has grown so tiring, then you are free to pull the plug in a heartbeat. I've heard a few even go so far as to ask "what's in a name" when others get so upset about the list called "cypherpunks" being moderated. Well, I'll tell you. Reputation capital. Thats why so many lurkers have waded through the muck for so long. I've seen the crown jewels that have surfaced here in the past, and spread the word. "Cypherpunks" was where the action was. It was fast and loose and inhabited by a prolific core of sharp minds. Old memes die hard, as is evidenced every time we see a warning about the "Goodtimes Virus." >The experiment will be over in a few weeks. Who's going to take over >deciding how to run the list, and running it? As I said, if you don't want the list anymore, pull the plug. It will pop up again elsewhere and you need never worry about it again. This post from Mr Gilmore certainly is revealing. Perhaps inevitably, he has assumed the traditional paternal role of authority when its motives and/or power to regulate is questioned. Golem

3 2

Re: "alt.cypherpunks" people?
by Anil Das 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Adam Back wrote: > > What do people think of starting an alt.cypherpunks USENET newsgroup? > I have only one objection. I will never post to an Usenet group under my real email address for fear of ending up in spammer databases. -- Anil Das

1 0

bye.bye
by Bjorn Asman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have to agree that Mr. Tim C May have a big point. Even if i didn't like all the things Mr. May wrote so could i read it, and that is the point i think Mr. Sandford missed. That is to have a list that is a "living" list. You have to have all the people giving their chanche to say what tehy like even if they dont are "mentaly healthy".I have one more thing to "say". Namely to say bye.bye. to this list. I have never posted to this list, i have only read it, because i like the freedom in it (free speech and so on), but if i have to change my subscription to unedit-cypherpunks just to "hear" the freedom of speech, i rather just say no and unsubscribe. bye.bye bjorn.asman(a)infodesign.se.org Roerstrandsgatan 7a 41703.Goeteborg Phone +46-(0)31-221056 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The subjects are cyborg, nature is coyote, and the geography is Elsewhere -Donna Haraway ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

[ANNOUNCEMENT] Zero-knowledge interactive proofs
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The main difference between Tim C. Maypole and shit is that shit smells better. o o /< >\ Tim C. Maypole \\\_______/// // \\

1 0

Harvard Symposium
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 15:10:17 -0800 From: jmuller(a)brobeck.com (John D. Muller) Subject: Harvard Symposium To: rah(a)shipwright.com Bob: I don't recall seeing this on e$pam and thought it might be of interest. What with the Boston connection, it's clearly a dcsb-worthy item, and I'll send it to them separately. ______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________ Subject: [NET-LAWYERS] HARVARD JOURNAL OF LAW & TECHNOLOGY Author: "K. Dueker" <kdueker(a)LAW.HARVARD.EDU> at internet Date: 2/4/97 1:00 AM [CROSS-POSTED; PLEASE FORGIVE DUPLICATION] PRESS RELEASE Symposium: Crime & Technology Law Enforcement Technology % Cybercrime % Electronic Commerce (Cambridge, Massachusetts) - The Harvard Journal of Law & Technology is pleased to announce its Spring Symposium: "Crime & Technology." The Symposium will be held Saturday, March 15, 1997, in the Ames Courtroom at the Harvard Law School in Cambridge, MA. The Symposium will consist of two moderated panel discussions, as well as several presentations. The morning session is expected to focus on "Search, Seizure, and Surveillance Technology," while the afternoon session will focus on "The Risks of Electronic Banking & Commerce." Admission to the Symposium is free to all Harvard affiliates (with valid Harvard ID), $15 for all other students, $30 for public sector professionals, and $100 for private sector professionals. The Spring Issue of the Journal will include articles covering the broad topic of "Crime and Technology." For additional information about the Symposium or the Journal, contact Symposium Editor Belinda Juran, by e-mail at juran(a)law.harvard.edu, or by phone at the Harvard Journal of Law & Technology offices at 617-495-3606 or 617-493-7949. ABOUT THE JOURNAL: The Harvard Journal of Law & Technology is a leading scholarly publication for articles addressing the many diverse interstices of science and technology with law and society. We have published articles by law professors, practitioners, business leaders, and politicians on varied topics including biotechnology, computers, international trade, technology transfer, intellectual property, medical technologies, and telecommunications. These and other subjects are some of the most exciting and rapidly developing areas of the law, and we believe that the dialogue provided by the Harvard Journal of Law & Technology will help to shape the future of this important field. We welcome submissions of articles, case comments, or book reviews addressing the relationship of law and technology. SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION: For additional information, please contact the Journal at the address below. The Journal publishes three issues each year. To subscribe to the Journal's upcoming issues in Volume 10, please send the Journal a check for U.S. $45.00 (foreign orders $50.00) to the address below. To obtain the issue discussed above or back issues, please send the Journal a check for $35.00 with a note indicating the desired issue (i.e., "Vol. 9 No. 2"). Media Contact: Kenneth S. Dueker, Communications Editor Release Date: February 04, 1997. ************************************************************************* Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Publications Center Harvard Law School Cambridge, MA 02138 Telephone: (617) 495-3606 E-Mail: jolt(a)law.harvard.edu WWW: http://www.law.harvard.edu/home/jolt/ ************************************************************************* --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/

1 0

Re: Getting into MIT is impossible
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Erland van Lidth de Jeude is a MIT grad. He played the big badass in "Stir Crazy." Computer science major, BTW. At 07:37 PM 2/3/97 -0800, Clint Barnett wrote: >wasn't Dolph Lundgren an MIT grad? I seem to remember something about him >having a degree in Chemical Engineering or something along those lines. > >clint barnett >lord of the cosmos >emily carr institute > >On Wed, 29 Jan 1997, Anonymous wrote: > >> >> >> According to Rick Osborne: >> >> "I disagree and can speak from experience. I was denied admission to MIT >> even thought I had a 3.82 GPA, 1440 SAT (one try), and had taken 9 AP tests >> with two 5's, four 4's, two 3's, and one 2. As for being well-rounded, I >> was on several academic teams, sang in Chorus, acted and stage managed in >> Drama, and played Tennis." >> >> People get into MIT--or don't get into MIT--for lots of reasons. Most >> intelligent people apply to several schools, knowing that admissions >> practices are subject to the vagaries of reality. >> >> In my case, my SATs were about 1500, with some 800s in achievement tests. >> And the usual bullshit high school clubs, political offices, etc. etc. I >> was accepted by MIT, but not by Caltech. I didn't lose any sleep over the >> way things turned out. >> >> And I decided not to go to MIT, either. >> >> "The only thing I didn't have that the next MIT applicant had was money. I >> made the mistake of letting them know that I was dirt poor and would need >> full aid/grants/etc, and to quote "The Great Escape" it was "Zzzt! To the >> Russian front!"" >> >> My guess is that "other factors" were involved. >> >> I noted with some interest, but little surprise, that the guy claiming MIT >> required a 4.0 GPA and a 1600 combined SAT score could barely spell, and >> had major problems making a coherent point. Methinks this is why MIT >> rejected him, not his lack of a "1600." >> >> ">For what it's worth, I wanted to go to MIT my sophomore year in high >> >school, too >> >> "Lucky you. It had been a dream of mine since I was an annoying >> overachiever of 6. Sux to be white trash, I guess." >> >> MIT offered me a substantial economic aid package, in the form of loans, >> grants, and various campus jobs. What does this tell you? >> >> "MIT may be a great school, but they tend to be snooty assholes for the most >> part. (DISCLAIMER: Not all MIT grads/attendees are necessarily "snooty >> assholes", I'm just saying that I've yet to meet one that wasn't.) >> >> I've known about a dozen or so MIT grads, and only one of them was a snooty >> asshole, and it was a _she_, one of the first MIT women grads (and she was >> _very_ impressed by this). >> >> Most MIT grads are perfectly reasonable. >> >> Xanthar >> >> >> >> >> -- >> > > > Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Silly Americans
by Rick Osborne 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

________________________ R i c k O s b o r n e ________________________ I was reading through the news when I stumbled across a thread that made a very good point. The original poster was talking about the UniSys GIF patent, and this was the reply: >Broaden your view. I can do anything I want with the GIF format without >asking _anyone_, and so can almost everyone in the world - except those >poor americans who chose to live under a "broken" patent law which >allows protecting _algorithms_. Totally silly. It brings up an interesting point, especially when applied to ITAR/EAR. On a philosophical note, why *do* we allow the government to regulate algorithms? (Implementations, I can understand, but *algorithms*?) _________ o s b o r n e @ g a t e w a y . g r u m m a n . c o m _________ "A poem: a story in meter or rhyme." 'Ahh. `There once was a man from Nantucket ... `' "You've been talking to Garibaldi again, haven't you?"

1 0

Re: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List"
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: > I'm afraid you have been a charter member of my killfile. Any comments > you may have made, I missed. Since they weren't about crypto anyway, but > about list moderation (a dull topic, IMHO), I can accept that. I never commented about crypto? Why, I even wrote a crypto program, which few on this list have done, BTW. I hope Sandy allows this on the big list, since Michael has penned a message about me, but said that he won't allow my reply to him. Nobody has to tell me (or probably anyone else either) that they have killfiled me (or anyone else). All they have to do is ignore me (or anyone else), and there's no further problem, plus, as a bonus, it makes for less noise on the list. What say, Michael?

1 0

Panel - Copyright and the Net: Is Legislation the Answer?
by Dave Banisar 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Copyright and the Net: Is Legislation the Answer? ACM97: The Next 50 Years of Computing Sunday March 2 2:00 PM - 5:00 PM Fairmont Hotel San Jose, CA Sponsored by the U.S. Public Policy Committee of ACM (USACM) Panelists: Hank Barry, Pam Samuelson, Mark Stefik, Gio Wiederhold Moderator: Barbara Simons, Chair, USACM o What is the role of copyright in all-electronic publication world? Will it be replaced by contract law? o Can the needs of authors who want to publish for renown (academics) and authors that want to publish for pay (entertainment etc) be handled in one mechanism? o Should browsing on the World Wide Web of full copyrighted texts be made illegal because people make temporary copies in their computer's memory when they look at a web page? o Should online service providers, including libraries and universities, have to monitor user accounts in order to enforce copyright laws? o Should firms that compile data have intellectual property rights so that scientists and news reporters can't use the data without permission or payments? o How should existing differences in national copyright be handled in a networked world where national boundaries and are little more than a speedbump on the information superhighway? o Does technological protection for copyrighted works inherently undermine fair use ? These and related issues will confront the 105th Congress in the coming year. They will also be examined by this panel, which will discuss controversies surrounding the extension of copyright law to deal with cyberspace. Examples include: How does proposed legislation reflect the net? How much influence have lobbyists for the entertainment industry had in writing legislation? What should be the role of professional societies in analyzing policy initiatives? We will discussed legislation and international treaties that have been proposed by the White House. We will also examine both technical and legal approaches to problems created by the net, as well as how various approaches might impact the science, technology, and business communities. A significant amount of time will be allowed for audience interaction in the discussion. Biographical sketches Hank Barry is member of the firm of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati and is Chairman of the firm's Interactive New Media practice group. He represents publicly and privately-held companies in the multimedia, software, computer, on-line and entertainment industries. Hank has authored numerous articles in the fields of venture capital, interactive media and technology transactions. He currently serves on the Editorial Board of the Cyberspace Lawyer. Hank received his law degree in 1983 from Stanford University, where he was managing editor of the Stanford Law Review. Pamela Samuelson is a Professor at the University of California at Berkeley where she holds a joint appointment at the School of Information Management and Systems and in the School of Law. She has written and spoken extensively on the challenges posed by digital technologies for the law, particularly in the field of intellectual property. She is a Contributing Editor of Communications of the ACM and a Fellow of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Mark Stefik is a principal scientist at the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center. At Stanford University he received a Bachelor of Science degree in mathematics in 1970 and a Ph.D. in computer science in 1980. His current research activities are in approaches for creating, protecting, and reusing digital property. Stefik is review editor for the international journal "Artificial Intelligence" and has authored two books on AI-related topics and a third book on the Internet. Gio Wiederhold is a professor of Computer Science at Stanford University, with courtesy appointments in Medicine and Electrical Engineering. His research focuses on large-scale software construction, specifically applied to information systems, the protection of their content, often using knowledge-based techniques. Wiederhold has authored and coauthored more than 250 published papers and reports on computing and medicine. Wiederhold received a degree in Aeronautical Engineering in Holland in 1957 and a Ph. D. in Medical Information Science from the University of California at San Francisco in 1976. He has been elected fellow of the ACMI, the IEEE and the ACM. He currently serves on the ACM Publications Board, focusing on the move to electronic publication. Barbara Simons received her Ph.D. in Computer Science from U.C. Berkeley in 1981. She joined the Research Division of IBM in 1980; she is currently working in IBM Global Services. Simons is a Fellow of both the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and ACM. In 1995 she was selected as one of 26 Internet "Visionaries" by c|net, and in 1994 Open Computing included her in its list of the top 100 women in computing. She was awarded the 1992 CPSR Norbert Wiener Award for Professional and Social Responsibility in Computing. Simons founded and chairs USACM, the ACM U. S. Public Policy Committee.

1 0

Re: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List"
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:14 PM 2/3/97 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >Several people have also commented on this, that their filters are still >working overtime. As it should be, really, as no moderator can make the >list match any given person's preferences. > >(Personally, I'm not even convinced filters are essential. It takes no >longer than 5 seconds to glance at a message and know whether to scrap it >or not. Granted, it takes a bit of time to download, especially at slower >modem speeds. But whether Sandy's censorship is producing any significant >"savings" depends on how many messages he's sorting into each >pile...clearly if 20% or less of the total posts are being filtered out, >then the savings are ignorable. That might not be quite true, or at least not complete. Another effect is that the new structure of the list may deter some of the flamers from posting, when they don't think their notes will be seen on the moderated list. In any case, however, I agree that spam and trash are easy to filter out. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: BA Crypto Machine Photos
by azur＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>BTW, does anyone know the meaning of 'order wire mode' in the context of a >crypto broadcast? This mode is found in the KWR-37 online crypto >receiver. Please send all photo requests or responses via private E-mail. If it means the same thing as in the telecom industry, its an out-of-band (often analof) channel between two locations connected by wide-band (e.g., T1) facilities. Its primary purpose is to provide service personnel, at each end point, the ability to converse with one another while performing work on that link. --Steve

1 0

Announcing ZDNet Exclusives!
by announce＠lists.zdnet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--------------------------------------------------------- ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 2/3/97 --------------------------------------------------------- Greetings from ZDNet! We're pleased to announce a FREE gift to our loyal community of Web users: the launch of ZDNet Exclusives, the Web's first FREE collection of innovative software utilities, developed for our members by ZDNet and its renowned Software Library team! ZDNet Exclusives require no registration fees; they are absolutely FREE to all the members of the ZDNet community. Over 50 programs are available for download right now at: http://www.hotfiles.com/exclusiv.html The new ZDNet Exclusives collection features many invaluable utilities to make computing easier as well as some entertaining programs to make it more fun; including: *CookieMaster* Enables users to identify, view and opt to delete the Web cookies placed on their hard drives by the Web sites they've visited. *Gates Does Windows 95* An all-time favorite screen saver that depicts Bill Gates washing windows. *Shoebox PIM* An easy way to organize and store all of that personal information you'd be likely to save in a shoebox. * Plus, many more!* Log on to ZDNet and start downloading your FREE ZDNet Exclusives today! Let us know what you think. We have more ZDNet Exclusives under development and would appreciate your feedback. ---Preston Gralla Executive Editor The ZDNet Software Library ________________________________________________ ZDNet Announcements are periodic notices of new features, special events and free offers available to members of ZDNet. --To subscribe to ZDNet Announcements, please send mail to: announce-on(a)lists.zdnet.com You can leave the subject and body blank. --To unsubscribe to ZDNet Announcements, please send mail to: announce-off(a)lists.zdnet.com You can leave the subject and body blank. ________________________________________________ Powered by Mercury Mail: http://www.merc.com

1 0