December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

RE: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:04 PM 1/27/97 -0800, Sandy Sandfort wrote: ... >Eric, would like to require a deposit ($20 was the example he >gave) from subscriber/posters. Non-subscribers would not be >allowed to post. Subscribers who voluntarily left the list, >would get their deposit back. Subscribers who flamed twice >(every dog gets one bite) would be kicked off the list and their >deposit would be forfeited (or perhaps turned over to the flame >victim). I know that this wasn't your idea, and am not critisizing you. This idea would be great if everyone had an equal access to funds. Persons willing to part with funds could flame people indiscriminately. Persons with more money, meaning no bills or very few in relation to capitol, would be more willing to part with funds. Suddendly, the rich control the press again, at least to the extent that they would be able to say anything. The rich would be more equal. The plan could be hacked. With several accounts, perhaps stolen, forged, etc. a person submits the $20, flames h[is/er] victim, unsubscribes, collects h[is/er] deposit, resubscribes under a new name, and repeats the cycle. Plus, as has been said before, the definition of a flame is subjective. It has been shown that children with more symettrical faces get along better with teachers. It has been shown that even uncorrupted babies know what physical beauty is. If there is any ability to pre-judge a persons character before reading the post, than the post is more likely to be judged accordingly. I hope that you will be fair in your determinations, and I assume that you will do your best. But I still worry, only because that you are human. And humans make mistakes. At least the current moderation doesn't cost any one twenty bucks.

1 0

Infinite Improbability Drive?
by Robert Rothenburg 'Walking-Owl' 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Am I reading this correctly, or will the 'infinite improbability drive' be invented real soon now? (An odd coincidence after the Tesla thread too...) --Rob > Edupage, 26 January 1997. Edupage, a summary of news about information > technology, is provided three times a week as a service by Educom, > a Washington, D.C.-based consortium of leading colleges and universities > seeking to transform education through the use of information technology. [..] > COMPUTER IN A COFFEE CUP > While a conventional computer stores its bits of information by assuming one > of two possible states (a 1 or a 0), a quantum computer theoretically could > store much more information by using all the potential states of anatom. > Scientists are now proposing a new way to harness the power of quantum > computing, using nuclear magnetic resonance devices to control the movement > of millions of atoms within an evenly heated volume of material. By > coordinating the nuclear spin of the particles, physicists could make them > act collectively as qubits (quantum bits). A liquid with the rightthermal > properties (such as coffee, which is known for its unusually evenheating > characteristics) could hold up to 10 qubits, but scientists are still > looking for ways to create a liquid computer that could hold up to 40 qubits > -- perhaps out of "a really expensive cup of structured coffee," says a > University of California, Santa Barbara researcher. (Science News 18 Jan 97 > p37)

1 0

Panamsat Offers Internet By Satellite
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Sender: investor(a)LunaCity.com To: "Space Investors Mailing List" <space-investors(a)LunaCity.com> From: Michael_Wallis(a)sec.sel.sony.com Reply-To: "Space Investors Mailing List" <space-investors(a)LunaCity.com> Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 20:00:33 -0800 Organization: LunaCity BBS - (Clan Zen Relay Network) Mountain View, CA Subject: Panamsat Offers Internet By Satellite X-Mailserver: Waffle File Server (WFS), Release 3.2.ag X-Article: 267 >From Space News Daily News Note -- 1/27/97 Panamsat Corp. of Greenwich, Conn. is now offering high-speed Internet access by satellite. The new service, called Spotbytes, is available worldwide to Internet service providers. It provides a quick connection to the Internet by avoiding terrestrial lines and linking companies directly to backbone providers -- companies with a main line to the Internet. Michael ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Wallis, Computer Consultant Work: mwallis(a)sec.sel.sony.com http: //www.wallis.com/ Home: mwallis(a)wallis.com --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "The cost of anything is the foregone alternative" -- Walter Johnson The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ "If *you* don't go to FC97, *I* don't go to FC97"

1 0

Panamsat Offers Internet By Satellite
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Sender: investor(a)LunaCity.com To: "Space Investors Mailing List" <space-investors(a)LunaCity.com> From: Michael_Wallis(a)sec.sel.sony.com Reply-To: "Space Investors Mailing List" <space-investors(a)LunaCity.com> Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 20:00:33 -0800 Organization: LunaCity BBS - (Clan Zen Relay Network) Mountain View, CA Subject: Panamsat Offers Internet By Satellite X-Mailserver: Waffle File Server (WFS), Release 3.2.ag X-Article: 267 >From Space News Daily News Note -- 1/27/97 Panamsat Corp. of Greenwich, Conn. is now offering high-speed Internet access by satellite. The new service, called Spotbytes, is available worldwide to Internet service providers. It provides a quick connection to the Internet by avoiding terrestrial lines and linking companies directly to backbone providers -- companies with a main line to the Internet. Michael ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Wallis, Computer Consultant Work: mwallis(a)sec.sel.sony.com http: //www.wallis.com/ Home: mwallis(a)wallis.com --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "The cost of anything is the foregone alternative" -- Walter Johnson The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ "If *you* don't go to FC97, *I* don't go to FC97"

1 0

Re: PGPmail for Windows, Version 4.5
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 07:39 PM 1/27/97 GMT, Rob wrote: >I'm surprised the didn't mention Pegasus Mail, which is an amazing "hot" >mailer, with a sort-of built-in crypto plug-in capability... it's also free. I would like to see PGPMail support Pegusus Mail for the reason that I have used the crypto plug-in for Pegusus and found it inadiquate for general usage. Pegusus's current crypto hooks do not deal well with remailers and multiple keys. PGPMail does not deal with remailers as well as I would like, but it is far easier to use than the Pegusus solution. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAwUBMu2e++QCP3v30CeZAQG33wf9GL2yZodjFYsSPTsfO+zgmi+UtzGWKCJe OBcdIRxw+eRIS+wzVE39QYiWNsNHx9hijRtyXnVkdPNUWOoAZMTtJ5ndbFl+TtCQ PNicvtitryrPc4VrD+VOr/uZ98Yyf1YEQXxs8+CAocJ4uujerC2bsSaG2xtqtBKZ 8fS64D0P9MklNuGWS4/RYsJsnNtdJP7I7L7G+WFd8L1PAzvlrgq3ClJ+zuBBGrQf A/tz9YTIck0anRBifOKCUlRAtpTe0tElCvJKv7QPxLgHAJxM+rg1GHj35SY6QlKs b3cUpjxWolL5c4WvZcyOYRf9CPp2Gr5D2XMgIrydmgQYQStP/8Orhw== =79pa -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --- | If you're not part of the solution, You're part of the precipitate. | |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | |`finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.ctrl-alt-del.com/~alan/ |alan(a)ctrl-alt-del.com|

1 0

RE: Fighting the cybercensor
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:21 PM 1/26/97 -0800, blanc wrote: >From: jim bell (in response to Dimitri Vulis') >Look, I've proposed what I consider to be a remarkably consistent method to >prevent the kind of political tyranny that you criticize, and I don't see >any recognition of this fact. >........................................................ > >1) Jim, why do you insist on discussing this on an forum for encryption? Because it's on-topic, that's why. Because it's not merely a list concerning METHODS of encryption, it's also about the _reasons_ for using encryption, as well as the _effects_ (both small-scale and large-scale) of using encryption. If we were satisfied to protect ourselves from, say, 99.999% of the ordinary population of this country who might want to read our messages, we'd all be satisfied with DES and we'd be happy with GAK. But the fact is, most of us recognize that the REAL reason for good encryption is to keep our messages away from a tyrannical government with far more assets than individuals or small organizations. >2) Why do you suppose the Iraqis haven't already thought of doing this >themselves? You need to be a little more specific about who you are referring to when you say "the Iraquis." Presumably, you aren't referring to the "Iraqui on the street"? Perhaps you're talking about the politicians and government officials there, right? Well, if that's the case then the answer should be obvious. AP is, fundamentally, a system that will take down all governments everywhere after it starts up anywhere. The leadership of Iraq may be the leaders of a third-rate, third-world country, but as comedian Mel Brooks said in the movie, "History of the World, Part I," "It's good to be the king!" And it is. These official-types have far more in common with the leadership of the other countries than they do with their own citizens. If anything, they're probably actually even MORE rewarded by their position than the leadership of westernized countries. After all, Clinton makes about $250K per year and it's pretty risky for him to receive direct bribes. Kick him out and he only loses a cushy job with lots of prestige. Saddam Hussein and his family, on the other hand, probably was able to rake in hundreds of millions of dollars a year in baksheesh. What makes you think that the leadership of Iraq would want to craft a weapon (AP) which is guaranteed to drop them to the level of their citizenry, or maybe even get themselves killed? As for why the ordinary Iraquis didn't think of it... Or the ordinary people of any or every country, as well. Why didn't THEY think of it? Maybe this is just another case of "not invented here" syndrome: You're pissed off that you didn't think of it, and I did. Sorry, can't help that. >3) The Mafia uses this method all the time - why then haven't they achieved >a more rational society among themselves? That's just it! The Mafia DOESN'T use AP or anything like it. (Admittedly I can't really claim personal knowledge of the operation of the Mafia, you understand...!) In fact, apparently, they function diametrically opposed to the AP system. A complete AP-like system is structured (via encryption, etc) to totally avoid anybody having to trust anyone else. Each participant is kept honest mathematically. Nobody can inform on anyone else, because nobody knows anyone else's identity. In fact, a fully-implemented AP-type system not merely hides the identities of the participants from each other, but it also hides the existence of crimes committed by any of the other participants (if any) from each other. A donor to the AP system, for instance, can't know for sure that his donation money was paid to a person who killed a target. At most, he knows that the money was paid to somebody who, he's satisfied, had enough confidence that the death would occur on a particular date in the future to, in effect, bet money on the outcome. And AP allows anyone to participate in the system, regardless of whether he's trusted by the others. On the contrary, the Mafia, or at least what I've managed to pick up from decades of melodramatic movies and newspaper and magazine articles, depends intimately on people trusting each other. That's why it's so devastating to them when one of their own (Joseph Valachi, for instance) turns on them and rats. To be sure, that trust is backed up by threat of death for turncoats, which is why such defections are rare, but they do indeed occur. Also, AP (quite unlike the Mafia) encourages literally anyone to do jobs for it. The Mafia, quite the contrary, must trust people, so I assume they won't farm out their work to just anyone. (I should point out that your clear misinterpretation of AP, claiming that it is the way the Mafia does things, is just another example of such confusion among critics of AP. I attribute this to such a burning desire to discredit AP that you'll use practically any argument, however specious, to "prove" it to be incorrect or unworkable. You're not alone.) >4) Weren't governments (like the U.S.) instituted to prevent this sort of >thing (even if they don't work out as expected)? i.e., there were systems >of courts and lawyers and such instituted to openly deal with "criminal" >activity so that a) people could receive assistance against low-life >degenerate killers, and b) it could be proven that the accused were indeed >deserving of punishment. Remember "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely"? The problem with all existing political systems (and particularly those fallen ones from the past) is that they put power in the hands of people who subsequently abuse it, destroying the checks and balances that were put in place. >Humans being what they are, this hasn't worked like it's supposed to, but >the point is that there is a reason why such ideas for systems of justice >were introduced in the first place. That reason, as I eloquently read in >a book, was "So That Reason May Live". That is, so that people who choose >to live in a "society" may do so by the method of solving problems through >the application of intelligence, rather than merely knocking each other off >because a voting majority decides they don't like someone. You misunderstand AP, yet again. AP doesn't really take votes, it merely totals donations. It is an essential element of the AP system that even a tiny minority should be able to kill individuals who are seen as threats, as long as this capability is universal. True, the smaller the minority the more uneconomical such an action would be for them, but it would be well within the ability of 1% of the population to avoid a another Holocaust by getting rid of those pushing for it. In the current political system, in the US for instance, 51% of the population is able to screw the remaining 49%, just as long as they can maintain the majority. Or, perhaps even more accurately and ominously, a tiny fraction of the population (the current leadership class) is able to screw the 49%, as long as they have the un-thinking backing of the remaining and relatively uninvolved 51%. AP disables this system. AP turns government into the moral equivalent of a pick-up football game: Nobody is being forced to play, and everybody and anybody can simply "get up and leave" whenever he wants to. The moment the "rules of the game" to make an individual's continued participation unsatisfying, he can leave. >Destructive people often ascend to positions of power not simply because >they are ruthless, but because they have 1) many sycophantic followers and >2) many ignorant, vulnerable people unable to prevent it. You might be >able to kill off one Saddam, but potentially many others would be waiting >in the wings to take his place. I don't think so. Let's suppose you could purchase the death of Saddam for $5 million. The next guy gets killed for another $5 million, and then the next, etc. Who would want to be the next leader? While $5 million dollars is certainly not pocket change for an individual, it is well within the capacity of the entire world to fund without any difficulty. Anybody considering taking over Saddam's job, aware of such an easy system to kill him, would have no motivation to piss off the world. Sooner or later, Saddam's place would have to be taken by a person who makes it absolutely clear to the rest of the world that he's no Saddam. In fact, he'll point out that he would be foolish to take the job if he had ulterior motives. Unless you believe that it's physically impossible for Iraq to have an honest government (at which point you're displaying what I believe was called jingoism?) you'll acknowledge that their system would be fixed rapidly. That's why AP will be so economical: The absolute certainty that enough money could be raised to get rid of anyone who poses a threat will make it simply unnecessary to do so, the vast majority of the time. It's called "deterrence," and is one of the reasons that 99.99% of the population doesn't rob banks, commit mass murder, or do any other anti-social things. Dictatorships will be impossible under AP because dictators simply won't be able to survive. By being ready at all times to pay to have a dictator killed, society will never have any dictators. Strange but true. >The situation surrounding the existence >of someone like Saddam is part of the contributing factors which keeps him >there, not simply that one man himself. Saddam is still in power because as long as the collective leadership of the countries of the world fear to set an example that will cost them their jobs and possibly their lives, they will gladly choose the $60 BILLION dollar "solution" to the Iraq problem, as opposed to my solution, AP, which would not only fix Iraq but every other country on the face of the globe. That's why the leadership will never choose it. The fact is, George Bush and his cronies kept Saddam in power by intentional acts, although he would never admit it. It was the same with Hitler and >with so many others - they don't just have an excess of "power" >concentrated within themselves which puts them in positions of control over >others - there will have been many people who will have helped put them >there, expecting to derive benefits from it. > >And what will be done about all those people who made this "power" >possible? You don't just kill the one man and be done with it - you have >to also "kill" the conditions which maintained him. >Blanc I assert AP does this quite well. AP makes it quite impossible to maintain a government which pisses off even a small fraction of the population. Anyone who feels abused in the citizen/government relationship will be able to opt out when he wants. "Abused", by my definition, is getting less benefit out of the arrangement than that person wants in relation to the assets he put in. "Governments" may still exist after AP, but in name only. They will not have the ability to force taxation, and they will primarily be a way to coordinate volunteer action, and will be dramatically shrunk from today's behemoths. Such a government can't be corrupted: To whatever extent that corruption makes that government a less-attractive as a project to an honest citizen, he will leave it and it will shrink, making it even less able to support that corruption. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: PGPmail for Windows, Version 4.5
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 07:39 PM 1/27/97 GMT, Rob wrote: >I'm surprised the didn't mention Pegasus Mail, which is an amazing "hot" >mailer, with a sort-of built-in crypto plug-in capability... it's also free. I would like to see PGPMail support Pegusus Mail for the reason that I have used the crypto plug-in for Pegusus and found it inadiquate for general usage. Pegusus's current crypto hooks do not deal well with remailers and multiple keys. PGPMail does not deal with remailers as well as I would like, but it is far easier to use than the Pegusus solution. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAwUBMu2e++QCP3v30CeZAQG33wf9GL2yZodjFYsSPTsfO+zgmi+UtzGWKCJe OBcdIRxw+eRIS+wzVE39QYiWNsNHx9hijRtyXnVkdPNUWOoAZMTtJ5ndbFl+TtCQ PNicvtitryrPc4VrD+VOr/uZ98Yyf1YEQXxs8+CAocJ4uujerC2bsSaG2xtqtBKZ 8fS64D0P9MklNuGWS4/RYsJsnNtdJP7I7L7G+WFd8L1PAzvlrgq3ClJ+zuBBGrQf A/tz9YTIck0anRBifOKCUlRAtpTe0tElCvJKv7QPxLgHAJxM+rg1GHj35SY6QlKs b3cUpjxWolL5c4WvZcyOYRf9CPp2Gr5D2XMgIrydmgQYQStP/8Orhw== =79pa -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --- | If you're not part of the solution, You're part of the precipitate. | |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | |`finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.ctrl-alt-del.com/~alan/ |alan(a)ctrl-alt-del.com|

1 0

RE: Fighting the cybercensor
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:21 PM 1/26/97 -0800, blanc wrote: >From: jim bell (in response to Dimitri Vulis') >Look, I've proposed what I consider to be a remarkably consistent method to >prevent the kind of political tyranny that you criticize, and I don't see >any recognition of this fact. >........................................................ > >1) Jim, why do you insist on discussing this on an forum for encryption? Because it's on-topic, that's why. Because it's not merely a list concerning METHODS of encryption, it's also about the _reasons_ for using encryption, as well as the _effects_ (both small-scale and large-scale) of using encryption. If we were satisfied to protect ourselves from, say, 99.999% of the ordinary population of this country who might want to read our messages, we'd all be satisfied with DES and we'd be happy with GAK. But the fact is, most of us recognize that the REAL reason for good encryption is to keep our messages away from a tyrannical government with far more assets than individuals or small organizations. >2) Why do you suppose the Iraqis haven't already thought of doing this >themselves? You need to be a little more specific about who you are referring to when you say "the Iraquis." Presumably, you aren't referring to the "Iraqui on the street"? Perhaps you're talking about the politicians and government officials there, right? Well, if that's the case then the answer should be obvious. AP is, fundamentally, a system that will take down all governments everywhere after it starts up anywhere. The leadership of Iraq may be the leaders of a third-rate, third-world country, but as comedian Mel Brooks said in the movie, "History of the World, Part I," "It's good to be the king!" And it is. These official-types have far more in common with the leadership of the other countries than they do with their own citizens. If anything, they're probably actually even MORE rewarded by their position than the leadership of westernized countries. After all, Clinton makes about $250K per year and it's pretty risky for him to receive direct bribes. Kick him out and he only loses a cushy job with lots of prestige. Saddam Hussein and his family, on the other hand, probably was able to rake in hundreds of millions of dollars a year in baksheesh. What makes you think that the leadership of Iraq would want to craft a weapon (AP) which is guaranteed to drop them to the level of their citizenry, or maybe even get themselves killed? As for why the ordinary Iraquis didn't think of it... Or the ordinary people of any or every country, as well. Why didn't THEY think of it? Maybe this is just another case of "not invented here" syndrome: You're pissed off that you didn't think of it, and I did. Sorry, can't help that. >3) The Mafia uses this method all the time - why then haven't they achieved >a more rational society among themselves? That's just it! The Mafia DOESN'T use AP or anything like it. (Admittedly I can't really claim personal knowledge of the operation of the Mafia, you understand...!) In fact, apparently, they function diametrically opposed to the AP system. A complete AP-like system is structured (via encryption, etc) to totally avoid anybody having to trust anyone else. Each participant is kept honest mathematically. Nobody can inform on anyone else, because nobody knows anyone else's identity. In fact, a fully-implemented AP-type system not merely hides the identities of the participants from each other, but it also hides the existence of crimes committed by any of the other participants (if any) from each other. A donor to the AP system, for instance, can't know for sure that his donation money was paid to a person who killed a target. At most, he knows that the money was paid to somebody who, he's satisfied, had enough confidence that the death would occur on a particular date in the future to, in effect, bet money on the outcome. And AP allows anyone to participate in the system, regardless of whether he's trusted by the others. On the contrary, the Mafia, or at least what I've managed to pick up from decades of melodramatic movies and newspaper and magazine articles, depends intimately on people trusting each other. That's why it's so devastating to them when one of their own (Joseph Valachi, for instance) turns on them and rats. To be sure, that trust is backed up by threat of death for turncoats, which is why such defections are rare, but they do indeed occur. Also, AP (quite unlike the Mafia) encourages literally anyone to do jobs for it. The Mafia, quite the contrary, must trust people, so I assume they won't farm out their work to just anyone. (I should point out that your clear misinterpretation of AP, claiming that it is the way the Mafia does things, is just another example of such confusion among critics of AP. I attribute this to such a burning desire to discredit AP that you'll use practically any argument, however specious, to "prove" it to be incorrect or unworkable. You're not alone.) >4) Weren't governments (like the U.S.) instituted to prevent this sort of >thing (even if they don't work out as expected)? i.e., there were systems >of courts and lawyers and such instituted to openly deal with "criminal" >activity so that a) people could receive assistance against low-life >degenerate killers, and b) it could be proven that the accused were indeed >deserving of punishment. Remember "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely"? The problem with all existing political systems (and particularly those fallen ones from the past) is that they put power in the hands of people who subsequently abuse it, destroying the checks and balances that were put in place. >Humans being what they are, this hasn't worked like it's supposed to, but >the point is that there is a reason why such ideas for systems of justice >were introduced in the first place. That reason, as I eloquently read in >a book, was "So That Reason May Live". That is, so that people who choose >to live in a "society" may do so by the method of solving problems through >the application of intelligence, rather than merely knocking each other off >because a voting majority decides they don't like someone. You misunderstand AP, yet again. AP doesn't really take votes, it merely totals donations. It is an essential element of the AP system that even a tiny minority should be able to kill individuals who are seen as threats, as long as this capability is universal. True, the smaller the minority the more uneconomical such an action would be for them, but it would be well within the ability of 1% of the population to avoid a another Holocaust by getting rid of those pushing for it. In the current political system, in the US for instance, 51% of the population is able to screw the remaining 49%, just as long as they can maintain the majority. Or, perhaps even more accurately and ominously, a tiny fraction of the population (the current leadership class) is able to screw the 49%, as long as they have the un-thinking backing of the remaining and relatively uninvolved 51%. AP disables this system. AP turns government into the moral equivalent of a pick-up football game: Nobody is being forced to play, and everybody and anybody can simply "get up and leave" whenever he wants to. The moment the "rules of the game" to make an individual's continued participation unsatisfying, he can leave. >Destructive people often ascend to positions of power not simply because >they are ruthless, but because they have 1) many sycophantic followers and >2) many ignorant, vulnerable people unable to prevent it. You might be >able to kill off one Saddam, but potentially many others would be waiting >in the wings to take his place. I don't think so. Let's suppose you could purchase the death of Saddam for $5 million. The next guy gets killed for another $5 million, and then the next, etc. Who would want to be the next leader? While $5 million dollars is certainly not pocket change for an individual, it is well within the capacity of the entire world to fund without any difficulty. Anybody considering taking over Saddam's job, aware of such an easy system to kill him, would have no motivation to piss off the world. Sooner or later, Saddam's place would have to be taken by a person who makes it absolutely clear to the rest of the world that he's no Saddam. In fact, he'll point out that he would be foolish to take the job if he had ulterior motives. Unless you believe that it's physically impossible for Iraq to have an honest government (at which point you're displaying what I believe was called jingoism?) you'll acknowledge that their system would be fixed rapidly. That's why AP will be so economical: The absolute certainty that enough money could be raised to get rid of anyone who poses a threat will make it simply unnecessary to do so, the vast majority of the time. It's called "deterrence," and is one of the reasons that 99.99% of the population doesn't rob banks, commit mass murder, or do any other anti-social things. Dictatorships will be impossible under AP because dictators simply won't be able to survive. By being ready at all times to pay to have a dictator killed, society will never have any dictators. Strange but true. >The situation surrounding the existence >of someone like Saddam is part of the contributing factors which keeps him >there, not simply that one man himself. Saddam is still in power because as long as the collective leadership of the countries of the world fear to set an example that will cost them their jobs and possibly their lives, they will gladly choose the $60 BILLION dollar "solution" to the Iraq problem, as opposed to my solution, AP, which would not only fix Iraq but every other country on the face of the globe. That's why the leadership will never choose it. The fact is, George Bush and his cronies kept Saddam in power by intentional acts, although he would never admit it. It was the same with Hitler and >with so many others - they don't just have an excess of "power" >concentrated within themselves which puts them in positions of control over >others - there will have been many people who will have helped put them >there, expecting to derive benefits from it. > >And what will be done about all those people who made this "power" >possible? You don't just kill the one man and be done with it - you have >to also "kill" the conditions which maintained him. >Blanc I assert AP does this quite well. AP makes it quite impossible to maintain a government which pisses off even a small fraction of the population. Anyone who feels abused in the citizen/government relationship will be able to opt out when he wants. "Abused", by my definition, is getting less benefit out of the arrangement than that person wants in relation to the assets he put in. "Governments" may still exist after AP, but in name only. They will not have the ability to force taxation, and they will primarily be a way to coordinate volunteer action, and will be dramatically shrunk from today's behemoths. Such a government can't be corrupted: To whatever extent that corruption makes that government a less-attractive as a project to an honest citizen, he will leave it and it will shrink, making it even less able to support that corruption. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Kevin L Prigge wrote: > paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk said: > > "cypherpunks will make the networks safe for censorship" > "Idiots will make the networks require censorship" The line above this one says it all, doesn't it? If I judge you to be "an idiot", then, if I also have the power to shut you up, I can not only shut off your "noise" from me, but also prevent anyone else from hearing you as well. That's the real beauty of censorship - if I have the power, I can make you a non-person by preventing most people from hearing you at all. Oh, lovely, isn't it?

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

jim bell wrote: > > At 10:21 PM 1/26/97 -0800, blanc wrote: > >From: jim bell (in response to Dimitri Vulis') > >Look, I've proposed what I consider to be a remarkably consistent method to > >prevent the kind of political tyranny that you criticize, and I don't see > >any recognition of this fact. > >........................................................ > > > >1) Jim, why do you insist on discussing this on an forum for encryption? > > Because it's on-topic, that's why. Because it's not merely a list > concerning METHODS of encryption, it's also about the _reasons_ for using > encryption, as well as the _effects_ (both small-scale and large-scale) of > using encryption. Actually AP is one of the more interesting topics here. I think that there is a clear need for an AP bot. Do you feel like writing it? - Igor.

1 0

Re: Moderated list is missing headers
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

SpyKing wrote: > I mean no disrespect by this but this list is funny. The CypherPunks list is, and always has been, a 'hoot'. I have followed it since its inception, in various guises. It is the only list I still keep tabs on when I'm hiding under a rock to escape persecution, prosecution, and/or prostitution. I once read over a year's worth of postings in one stetch, after having surfaced following an unfortunate incident behind the Iron Curtain. That was when I fully realized that the course of the universe could be reliably predicted by following the CypherPunks list. (Picking the winner in the Kentucky Derby being one notable exception.) > I've never seen so much > bickering about moderation. I know you were a subscriber to the surveillance > list that's why I mention this. When I moderate I ONLY cut out the spam... > we haven't even had one flame yet... You have one of the best moderated lists that I have seen. Some of the posts are a definite 'stretch' as far as being on-topic is concerned, but we live in a world where people make different kinds of connections inside their brains, and I have always believed that keeping too tight a rein on the human animal will lead to crushing the spirit within. Several years ago, when the CypherPunks were on the cover of 'Wired', I inserted a short post suggesting that their philosophies regarding anarchism, privacy and free speech would be put to the test when recognition, money and power entered the cypher-picture. I only became active on the list, under my present persona, about a month before 'moderation/censorship', as a result of receiving word that changes were in the wind that would make my prediction prophetic. It has been said that one can reliably predict the future course of civilization by following the progress of men of genius and the insane. To this, I would add the CypherPunks list, which seems to fully encompass both arenas. > I suppose if we had someone like the > guy who flames Tim May all the time it would be necessary... The Tim May flames were a simple matter of office politics. He could not be counted on to 'go quietly into the night' in regard for the plans for the New List Order. Anyone who chooses to spend the least amount of time analyzing the UCE/Spam content of the CypherPunks list can easily ascertain that there was a concerted blitzkrieg of postings aimed at creating an atmosphere wherein the BrownShirts could move in to address the 'problems' being created for the list. It was a classic 'takeover' of the list by those involved. It used the "Tim May" and "Make $$Money$$ Fast" UCE/Spams to implement a moderation/censorship system which could be used to bring the jackboot down on those whose postings do not fit in with the future socio/politico directions envisioned by those directing the takeover of the list. The forced unsubscribing of Dr. Dimitri was merely an opening salvo, to test the waters. He was the Saddam Hussein of Cypher Storm. Tim May presented a different problem. As a veteran, respected member of the CypherPunks list (respected, for the most part, even by those who violently disagreed with him), he needed to be eliminated through a combination of public humiliation and withdrawal of support by the elitist members of the list. The current moderation/censorship, and the process by which it was instituted, is a disgrace to the memory of a list which was, at one time a bastion of free speech. The CypherPunks list of the past is now dead. It has already been decided that, in the future, it will be controlled and directed, through censorship, to further its prostitution to the new financial frontiers of cryptology. > P.S. Those Tim May flames are hilarious although I probably wouldn't think > so if I were him... Hang on to them, they are now 'collectors items', probably worth a lot of money. If Tim May had a better sense of humor, he might have parlayed the posts into a guest spot on 'Letterman'. Toto

1 0

Trigger-Words...
by harka＠nycmetro.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hi there, does anybody know any contact points/Web pages, where I might get some information on e-mail filtering via trigger-words? I am interested in how this technology specifically works and a collection of trigger-words would be nice too :) Thanks in advance... Ciao Harka /*************************************************************/ /* This user supports FREE SPEECH ONLINE ...more info at */ /* and PRIVATE ONLINE COMMUNICATIONS! --> http://www.eff.org */ /* E-mail: harka(a)nycmetro.com (PGP-encrypted mail preferred) */ /* PGP public key available upon request. [KeyID: 04174301] */ /* F-print: FD E4 F8 6D C1 6A 44 F5 28 9C 40 6E B8 94 78 E8 */ /*<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>*/ /* May there be peace in this world, may all anger dissolve */ /* and may all living beings find the way to happiness... */ /*************************************************************/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAgUBMuhpbjltEBIEF0MBAQGiOwf+N61i3Vj1XjmhKLm+qispHDxsu4Wde8nb BtMkVOAt9MGlihKftUAvp7l8aUcr5+D5jFh4/1VllO+QeZ4Yni9kM40xBLry1LYD yiLqpeNMfz2Zf6XMqGaNc8lblx9qyNHyJBHf5p8OfJWN47LcIn8CYkhDSq6b3Sch rHNBg8RjuCKQGD3XlCkwZLrYCUiCPFmSkKeuYpSaPkXgqgf7Zku68RrmqhRzbF1m UneIgxMXqWFetIBHe8PIcQpLrN0X+lRMCnCFVY9x7Rsy4QJc3f8lZ7YKo2xDiGXb Ly+wiA6sexlwwf+BdLDRu3fshI4eCpe7KbfWmzf3z0pdpvdRfUiJuw== =KEb+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption...

1 0

uae_1.html
by Lynx_User＠linux.nycmetro.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Reuters New Media [ Yahoo | Write Us | Search | Info ] [ Index | News | World | Biz | Tech | Politic | Sport | Scoreboard | Entertain | Health ] _________________________________________________________________ Previous Story: UK Bill To Fight Millennium Computer Bug Moves On Next Story: Intel to Europe: Get Online Or Fall Behind _________________________________________________________________ Monday January 27 9:50 AM EST UAE Launches Service To Censor Internet DUBAI - The United Arab Emirates's monopoly Internet provider launched a service Saturday to censor sites in cyberspace that breached local moral values and traditions. Officials from state telecommunications company Etisalat said the new Proxy Service would be compulsory for the UAE's 9,669 subscribers, who will have to configure their web browsers that navigate the net by February 2. "The service was launched today as part of our efforts to improve the Internet service to our subscribers after lengthy study and research," said one official at Etisalat. "We were working on it before some official statements were made on the need to control access to some sites on the service," he told Reuters. The move follows repeated calls to regulate access to the Internet in the conservative Gulf region, where most women are veiled, magazine pictures revealing cleavage or bare legs are blacked out and questioning the existence of god can be punishable by death. Some are worried about the spread of pornography as well as religious and political material through the worldwide network of interlinked computers. Last year, Dubai Police chief Major General Dhahi Khalfan Tamim created a rare public row in the UAE saying the information ministry and the police, rather that Etisalat, should be authorized to issue Internet licenses as it was their job to monitor data coming into the UAE and maintain security. Telecommunications experts say the Proxy Service will not be "fully water-tight," but would help block access to known and unwanted sites -- a list of which could be constantly updated. The proxy server will be pre-fed with Internet addresses where access is blocked off, industry sources said. But the server will be unable to block access if addresses of prohibited sites are changed, as frequently happens. Etisalat says it will disconnect any customer who abused its Internet services and violated "order and clear laws." "Singapore has succeeded to a great extent in its drive to control harm done by the Internet," said another Etisalat official. "Why cannot we?" Singapore government measures to regulate political and religious content on the Internet and keep it free of pornography became effective in July last year. They require all Internet service operators and local content providers to be registered with the Singapore Broadcasting Authority. Copyright, Reuters Ltd. All rights reserved _________________________________________________________________ ________________________ ___________ Help _________________________________________________________________ Previous Story: UK Bill To Fight Millennium Computer Bug Moves On Next Story: Intel to Europe: Get Online Or Fall Behind _________________________________________________________________ [ Index | News | World | Biz | Tech | Politic | Sport | Scoreboard | Entertain | Health ] _________________________________________________________________ Reuters Limited Questions or Comments

1 0

Re: Libel/slander & crypto relevancy
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:50 PM 2/27/97 -0600, Jim Choate wrote: >I predict that within the next five years these >slander/libel laws will be used by some organization to prosecute defamation >of their Internet presence (eg web page graffitti). Within 10 years this >area will be one of the hotest areas of the new communications law. Civil actions against people doing "graffiti" are only interesting where the defendant has assets worth suing for. This economic dimension substantially limits the number of suits which will be brought. Corporate plaintiffs, if they chose to bring suit, would in many cases prefer to sue in federal court. (Federal juries tend to be more conservative and hence pro-corporate; they're also more likely to be friendly to an out-of-town corporation suing a local individual). To sue in federal court, the plaintiff needs to find a federal question or diversity jurisdiction. Other causes of action (like copyright infringement, trademark dilution, or false designation of origin) would provide a federal question and hence federal jurisdiction. Criminal prosecutions for defamation (in the case of "graffiti") are still unlikely - a much more straightforward charge would be unauthorized access to a computer or some flavor of fraud, depending on the facts. Confusion aids defendants, so I predict prosecutors will avoid defamation law (and its tar pits of actual malice and the defense of truth) when they are able to do so and still have a reasonable chance of conviction. >If they don't >understand the technology (eg forwarding private email to publicly >accessible lists by accident) how in the world are they going to understand >what is best, let along convince anyone else? There's a world of difference between understanding technology and screwing up once in awhile. Perhaps you've never screwed anything up (although your summary of US defamation law ought to count), but the rest of us do, from time to time. Were I involved in computer-related litigation, I'd choose an attorney who could talk to a jury over an attorney who was good with computers, hands down. Not even a question. And I'd pick an attorney who owned up to making mistakes sometimes over someone who imagined him or herself somehow superior to people who fuck up now and then. >It has been proposed by at least one party that a district attorney or other >public prosecutor would not act on such events. This is also naive. I was that "party", and I guess that in trying to be civil I was actually unclear. If you were a politically important person or organization, and if Toto's message had caused you real damage, and if Toto were reasonably available to prosecute, a prosecutor might get interested. But you're not important, Toto would be difficult to extradite, and you weren't harmed. So you picked a crappy example to make your point(s) with. Change the facts, and you'll get a different answer. Duh. >The >ramifications for their political opponents to use this 'insensitive and >clearly self-interested' refusal to act as a perfect example of how that >prosecutor is interested in their own political career and not in the >interest of the people they are charged with protecting as well as a good >demonstration of their technological ignorance. It would be very difficult >to get re-elected in such an environment. Yeah, I'll bet that your local prosecutor's failure to prosecute Toto is going to cost them dearly in the next election. You picked a hypothetical which did a poor job of illustrating the points you're making in this later message. Do you want to talk about whether or not Toto is criminally liable for making fun of you while making a point about ownership of networks and its relationship to freedom of speech, or do you want to talk about the more general case of liability for misattribution? If it's the latter, yes, there are some issues there, but I still think that defamation law is a poor way to address them. You seem to be having an "I've got a hammer, everything looks like a nail" problem. And all of this seems a bit contrived if the real crypto-relevant point is "use digital signatures to avoid misattribution". >All that I ask is that instead of jumping the gun and saying 'it ain't so' >you simply consider the ramifications from 'their' perspective. It truly is >amazing what one can learn by walking a mile in another mans shoes. For if >there is one truth to be learned it is that this discussion is not about how >it is, but rather how it will be and how it should be. Despite your closing, I haven't seen you write anything about "how it should be", beyond the idea that people should learn more about digital signatures. You've forwarded lots of information from other people's web pages about defamation liability in different jurisdictions, but no discussion about why the rules we've got now are good ones (or bad ones). Other commentators have suggested that defamation law is obsolete (Tim May) or should be reconsidered in light of a victim's ability (via the net) to reply to a defamer (Mike Godwin). Do you have a proposal along these lines? Your message suggests to me that you're very pro-plaintiff with respect to defamation (at least when you're the plaintiff), but you haven't explained why other people should adopt your perspective. You did suggest that juries are also likely to think it's in their best interests to find for plaintiffs (because they might find themselves in similar circumstances someday); but it's unclear to me why that reasoning wouldn't make them equally likely to side with defendants (because they might be wrongfully accused of doing something bad), or why your logic wouldn't apply to every case, not just defamation cases. And, for what it's worth, juries aren't supposed to consider "what is in our best interest" either as individuals nor as a community, nor is that a legitimate topic for argument to the jury with respect to questions about liability or guilt. -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles(a)netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. |

1 0

(((( Cool new marketing technique discovered, cheap & very effec
by jlkmiec＠concentric.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The following should be of interest to you, if not please disregard you are NOT on a list and will not receive future mailings. AMAZING DIRECT MARKETING TECHNIQUE DISCOVERED We have after spending years researching developed a way for a company to sell ANY product more effectively. It is not bulk E-mail, it is much more effective. It is ideal for anyone in MLM who needs to contact only interested MLM partys or any other company for that matter. All you need to do is say how many people you want us to contact and we will give you a rate and implement the system. You get qualified leads that are easy to close. You can sample this for as little as $20 which will put your product directly in touch with 5000 people. All you need to do is E-mail us a little about your target audience and we will take care of the rest. From the information we relay to you, you should have a list of very qualified cantidates for your product. Special 50,000 contacts only $100!!!!!! Copyright 1997 Innovative Concepts

1 0

(( New marketing technique discovered, cheap & very effective)))
by jlkmiec＠concentric.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The following should be of general interest to you. If it is not please excuse the intrusion. You are NOT on a list and will NOT be contacted again. AMAZING DIRECT MARKETING TECHNIQUE DISCOVERED We have after spending years researching developed a way for a company to sell ANY product more effectively. It is not bulk E-mail, it is much more effective. It is ideal for anyone in MLM who needs to contact only interested MLM partys or any other company for that matter. All you need to do is say how many people you want us to contact and we will give you a rate and implement the system. You get qualified leads that are easy to close. You can sample this for as little as $20 which will put your product directly in touch with 5000 people. All you need to do is E-mail us a little about your target audience and we will take care of the rest. From the information we relay to you, you should have a list of very qualified cantidates for your product. Special 50,000 contacts only $100 (Save $100)!! Copyright 1997 Innovative Concepts

1 0

How to subscribe
by Theodor.SCHLICKMANN＠BXL.DG13.cec.be 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have learned from the discussions in this list that there are other lists related to this one. Can anybody send me information on what is available and when this confusion created by having different lists will stop. cypherpunks : unmoderated and uncensored cypherpunks : unmoderated and censored cypherpunks : moderated and uncensored cypherpunks : moderated and censored cypherpunks : US eyes only -- export restrictions cypherpunks : Europe cypherpunks : private mail Theodor W. Schlickmann

3 2

Re: A moment with Dale (Rejection policy, etc.)
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 From: Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> CC: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Subject: Re: Rejection policy, etc. Dale Thorn obviously wrote: >I have a great deal of respect for power. When I was 6, I unwound a >coat hanger and put both ends into an electrical outlet. All I >remember from that is something like a sledgehammer hitting me, and >I went backwards rather quickly. And I never did it again. Why do I do this? Typical Dale. A moment with Dale. Stories from the past. However, there may be some grain of truth in this. Such socket poking might well explain Dale's (shall I say) specialness. He went backwards quickly and has, relentlessly, never reversed direction. Too bad he didn't keep on doing it again and again. Ho hum. More Dale. XO

1 0

[noise] RE: Shave the Whales
by Mullen, Patrick 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is there a way we can keep the caricatures w/out getting the rest of the message w/ these postings? I like the ASCII art, but... BTW, I don't know if the joke was in the original posting (I notice the RE: header), but -- Mammals have hair. Whales are mammals. Shave the whales! ~ Patrick >---------- >From: Huge Cajones Remailer[SMTP:nobody@huge.cajones.com] >Sent: Monday, January 27, 1997 4:30 PM >To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com >Subject: Re: Shave the Whales > >Dr.Disruptive Vasectomy died of AIDS last night with his >homosexual lover. > > \|/ > @ @ > -oOO-(_)-OOo- Dr.Disruptive Vasectomy > > > >

3 2

RE: Fighting the cybercensor
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:00 PM 1/27/97 EST, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: >blanc <blancw(a)cnw.com> writes: ... >> 2) Why do you suppose the Iraqis haven't already thought of doing this >> themselves? > >Perhaps because they love Saddam, who really is a great guy. Stop listening >to what U.S.gubmint and media tell you and use your brain. What did >Saddam do to _you? Those of us in the US have the luxery of secret ballots, Iraq is not. What was reported to me (by the media) was that those who decided to vote against Hussein, in a time when food was scarce, decided to vote against eating. It was not made illegal to vote him out, merely a catch 22, unless enough people agreed openly, the vocal minority would suffer. What we should have been doing as the troops pulled out and a no fly zone was being established was dropping bombs full of bread on the populus. Then they could have voted any which way they chose. ... >> Destructive people often ascend to positions of power not simply because >> they are ruthless, but because they have 1) many sycophantic followers and >> 2) many ignorant, vulnerable people unable to prevent it. You might be >> able to kill off one Saddam, but potentially many others would be waiting >> in the wings to take his place. The situation surrounding the existence >> of someone like Saddam is part of the contributing factors which keeps him >> there, not simply that one man himself. It was the same with Hitler and >> with so many others - they don't just have an excess of "power" >> concentrated within themselves which puts them in positions of control over >> others - there will have been many people who will have helped put them >> there, expecting to derive benefits from it. > >I don't like your Saddam example, having much admiration for the man, but >again this goes back to the perceived likelihood of future assassination. >If Saddam is killed in an unlikely event, he will be succeeded by someone >who does not fear assassination. If all potential successors are convinced >that the rubout can be repeated, they won't go for the job. Remember, the >purpose of "terrorism" is not just to kill someone, but to "terrorize". > >> And what will be done about all those people who made this "power" >> possible? You don't just kill the one man and be done with it - you have >> to also "kill" the conditions which maintained him. > >You rub out enough key people and terrorize their potential successors >into not wanting to take over their jobs, and the system collapses. ... I don't remember where I heard this, and in all likelyhood, I heard it here. This is certainly not a direct quote, ant would the origional poster please speak up. There came a time, in some ancient civilization when the king committed suicide by eating poisoned food. In the remaining week, most of the household, apparently in honor of the deceased king, jumped on kitchen knives and butcher knives, killing themselves. The brother of the king would not come out of hiding because some unknown person was terrorizing him with a meat cleaver. After a year, it was apparent that no one in the line of succession still survived, all killing themselves with kitchen utensils. It was rumored that the post was cursed. It was then that the royal galley slave bravely stepped foreward to rule the kingdom until one of the origional line should return. The decendants of the galley slave have ruled to this day. Like I said, I don't know where this came from, but I would like to see it again, if it came from here.

1 0

Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > It is a foregone conclusion that the upper class of list members will > > have no dispute over the censorship and therefore the change will be > > permenant, it is a form of online ethnic cleansing whereby the lists > > clique of illuminati have taken it upon themselves to remove the > > elements of the list they feel endanger their position of superiority > > and respect, the point they have missed is that they have no > > credibility whatsoever after this incident, as well as a number of > > other such occurances and therefore are only isolating themselves > > into their own little world. > > The Big Lie once again. yadda yadda yadda "Censorship!" yadda yadda > yadda "No Credibility" yadda yadda yadda ad nauseum. Blah Blah "Free speech advocates", Blah Blah "Foaming at the mouth anarchists".... > > "cypherpunks will make the networks safe for censorship" > > "Idiots will make the networks require censorship" "Fascists will reply to posts with weak arguments" Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul(a)crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul(a)cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

1 0

Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > ...That was the intended direction of the list, it > > has rapidly disentigrated over recent months into a censored list > > where the elite post to the main list and anyone else is nearly > > always relegated to a seperate list for the crypto-untermenshcen. > > Again, nonsense. The moderation experiment (moderation, not > censorship) has been in effect for all of ONE WEEK. Where does > Paul get this hysterical "recent months" stuff? The list has been disentigrating for some time since the disgusting incident when Dimitri was forcibly unsubscribed from the list. There have also been a number of postings from members of the list claiming to understand anarchism who support censorship to "protect new members of the list". > > If you want to talk about intellectual dishonesty try the following: > > > > Imagine if you will a list, the original purpose of which was > > to act as a free and open forum for discussion of cryptography and > > related issues... > > Paul's argument is the essence of literal conservativism, "but > I don't things to change!" Without change, though, there can be > no progress. Moderation is a one-month experiment. There is no > intellectual dishonesty in saying, "let's try something else for > a while." So, there would be no intellectual dishonesty in a country claiming to be a free and open society "trying out" fascism for a month or two? - After all it`s a private country just as this is a private list.... > > Now imagine that list falling into a state of content based > > censorship and censorship based on an unspoken but ever present > > class structure,... > > "Unspoken but ever present class structure"? I wonder how Paul > was able to divine this? Certainly it is unspoken, but that, of > course, it because it does not exist anywhere but in Paul's > fertile imagination. There is a clear trend easily observable on the list whereby certain members postings are censored when their content is of a standard that, if the moderation were objective and based on content alone, would warrant their being sent to the censored list. If anyone here archives all of the list postings or is willing to retrieve them from the archive we can run some statistical tests and comparisons in a few weeks once the sample is large enough, however, the list oberfuhrer and leutenant von Sandfort will claim the statistical correlation between poster reputation among the upper class of list members and the number of their posts let onto the moderated list is caused by persistent flamers so this will not convince them.. > > It is a foregone conclusion that the upper class of list members will > > have no dispute over the censorship and therefore the change will be > > permenant,... > > Great! I thought that hadn't been determined yet. What a > relief. I think you`ll find your poor attempt at making light of the situation does little to hide the fact that this censorship has finally confirmed that this is a private list and is no longer meant to be a free, anarchic discussion forum. I can tell you one other thing for sure, even if the moderation "experiment" were to end in a month as a last ditch attempt by John Gilmore and Sandy Sandfort to recover some of their lost credibility it would be a vain and entirely unsuccesful attempt. Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul(a)crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul(a)cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

3 2

Sovreign Right of Lawful Access
by Somebody 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This morning at the RSA keynote, David Aaron, the US Crypto ambassador quoted the "Sovreign Right of Lawful Access" as something that goverments were determined to preserve.

1 0

.hlp creation
by Neil Rogers 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Howdi all, how are you, Can someone please help me, Can someone create a Windows 3.1 .hlp file fro me, when opened has a link to FILE MANAGER - U:\W31\winfile.exe Please, I have tried but can't do one, I would be really gratefull if someone could help! Thanks in advance, Neil ..............

1 0

Where's reference? (was:RE: [DES] DES Key Recovery Project, Progress Report #7)
by Mullen, Patrick 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>>---------- >>From: Phil Karn[SMTP:karn@qualcomm.com] >>>If past cryptographic software is any indication, the DES Cracker >>>will be available from an overseas ftp site within hours of release in >>>the US. >> >>And lacking that, the author can always print it out on paper and >>physically mail it out of the country; this is specifically allowed by >>the new Commerce rules as I understand them. And who's to say that the >>overseas FTP copies weren't scanned from such a paper copy? :-) >> >>Phil > Where can I get a reference to this? I thought you weren't supposed to transmit cryptographic code out of the U.S. under any means, including print... >(???) > >~ Patrick >

1 0