December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Cryptography WWW Siteguide wanted.
by Carol Anne Cypherpunk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- The Mining Co. (http://www.miningco.com) is looking for "siteguides". There will surely be a guide needed for cryptography. Pay is commensurate with hit volume, but it isn't too shabby, at about 3K per month after about a year. There is the original posting from Sideman's Online Insider following this post to acquaint you with the particulars. Good Luck to whomever from this list (for I'm sure someone will) takes the aformentioned position. I would, but I'm applying for a different site in the Culture/Beliefs section. On one other note, the PGP Plugin for Eudora is MARVELOUS! THIS I can even teach a clueless newbie! Carol Anne Cypherpunk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Uncensored from heavily.censored.org iQCVAwUBMwAfd4rpjEWs1wBlAQG3YwP/XXgJfqD06KTLfdDfj2mAweBrFAASsRR8 q37l43InJU/AVhRJ0MKkcmxto7sfO1jHNW6O0+0HjrnMRZAmnw7YH806+mCCerUG CeTT5U97Cp/V5Yud6r6f0vqP/BPk8etGIZnGgWKajJ49rFTGlk01AgQz1xE49mmI i962UdPbyVs= =69D8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ========================================================================== Seidman's Online Insider - Vol. 4, Issue 6 Brought to you by NetGuide Magazine< http://www.netguide.com > ========================================================================== Copyright (C) 1997 Robert Seidman and CMP Media Inc. All rights reserved. May be reproduced in any medium for noncommercial purposes as long as attribution is given. Kurnit is Back and Mining the Internet ====================================== "Like Arnold, he'll be back. I've been listening to what he has to say for a long time. If you listen to him, you'll hear how the Web is the way and that the proprietary services are a dead model. If you listen between-the-lines, you'll hear a modified version of that vision. A best of both worlds vision. You'll hear that he wants to develop easy to use, functional services on the Web. Like easy to use chat. Like easy to use bulletin boards. Like AOL, but on the Web." -Thoughts on Scott Kurnit in a piece regarding the failed MCI/News Corp joint venture from Seidman's Online Insider for the Week Ending February 9, 1996. Kurnit's back, and almost exactly a year to the day since the clip above was written. On Monday February 10, the new company Kurnit founded, The Mining Company, will announce their plans to basically build AOL on the Web. I'm not sure about the choice of February 10 as the day to announce this. It is a day with special significance for me. On February 10, 1972 I had a dilemma. I was hungry for breakfast and wanted some cereal. I had cereal, but no milk. So I called my mom at work and asked her if I could run across the street to the convenience store. My mom said no because "the street" was more like a highway and because I was 9 years old. "You'll get hit by a car," my mom said. As you might imagine, I went anyway. And as you also might have guessed by now my mother was right, except no car was good enough for me. I had to face off with a ten-wheeler (it was an Amoco < http://www.amoco.com > Oil tanker.) Twenty-two stitches in the head, a healed broken wrist and 25 years later, I'm still hanging in there. I don't remember anything about it, including seeing the truck. I've always wondered if I was pushed. What I do remember was waking up in the ambulance with quite a headache. But since then, seeing how I lived and all, I've always viewed February 10 as a GOOD day. The Mining Company may not be a truck setting its sights on running down AOL or even other Web content aggregators (even to some degree NetGuide Live), but it is an interesting model. *What It Is* In effect, The Mining Company wants to be the biggest online service on the Web, ultimately offering 4,000 special-interest areas in an integrated, easy-to-use interface. Whether you call these special areas channels, departments or categories -- it's all the same thing. Kurnit wants to capitalize on the fact that it takes too long to find what you want on the Net. He wants to put it all in one place with one consistent interface so that you can easily find what you're looking for and interact with those who have common interests. Each "channel" will have content, bulletin boards, online chats, links to other good stuff on the Web in the particular area of interest. You'll also be able to search a site via Verity's search engine or search the entire Net via Digital's Alta Vista. While they are currently testing another chat product, they have decided to move to the iChat chat client. In the test system I had access to, the bulletin board system was very easy to use, but painfully slow. I'll cut them some slack since they are still in beta, but users will need to be able to move around the boards quicker than what I experienced or they will likely be put off. *And Now for Something Really Different* When Kurnit first ran the vision by me a couple of weeks ago, I said "To me it seems like this is..." "AOL on the Web," Kurnit interrupted. "Not exactly," I said, "It's like AOL on the Web with a hint of Amway thrown in." One of the problems with providing editorial context for the Net is that it winds up costing a lot of money. Kurnit's previous venture with MCI/Newscorp was iGuide. They built a great guide to the Net, but ultimately they scaled it back to just become a guide to entertainment on the Net. You've read the reports all over the place about scaled back editorial efforts and rightsizing. Good editorial doesn't come cheap, at least not when done traditionally. The Mining Company isn't going after the traditional model of hiring a bunch of full-time editors and bringing them in house. They plan to use folks already out there on the Net. Once upon a time while I was at IBM, I helped recruit Chris Locke, of MecklerWeb notoriety away from the MCI/News Corp effort Kurnit was running. While there are many things Chris and I do not agree on, I was very much in synch with Chris when it came to the idea of communities of interest on the Web. Give remote people the tools to produce the content, Locke would say, and you'd be able to easily build hundreds if not thousands of communities of interest very inexpensively. Locke who is now with a hardware company in Colorado will no doubt take interest in what Kurnit and the gang at The Mining Company are up to, because they are all about providing the tools to produce the communities of interest inexpensively! If your chosen as one of its forum moderators (they call them Guides), you'll be given access to all the tools you need to build a site on the service. Now you may be thinking, "Ah, GeoCities does that already!" GeoCities < http://www.geocities.com > gives free web pages and is organized around certain communities of interest. But their homesteader program is not about setting up an all-encompassing online service. And while it is a great place to create a free web page, there's no real business model for the person creating the page. If you build a great site there, GeoCities gets the revenue on all the traffic that goes there. Because it has a lot of traffic, GeoCities can send some traffic to your Web site. But in the end, the model for GeoCities is one to give you a free page on the Web. This is good for you if you're just in it for the fun of it, and good for GeoCities too. I think GeoCities is great, but if I am looking for something in particular, I wouldn't think to look there first. The Mining Company wants to create a space that no matter what it is you hope to find, you'll look there first. *They Call them Guides* The Mining Company wants to create quality communities of interest. And for every community (channel) created, there will be a unique moderator/editor. The Mining Company calls them Guides. It's looking for more than just a few quality folks to become Guides and form their service. Starting Monday, they will begin accepting applications to become Guides on the service. There could be multiple sites about the same thing during the start-up phase, but ultimately it will be whittled down to one Guide/site per special interest. To ensure quality, they'll be a review committee set-up to make sure quality standards are up to snuff, including some folks from the community of Guides. Kurnit believes between that, the natural inclination for other Guides to point out areas of, um, weakness and user feedback, they'll have a good handle on quality. Additionally, there will be some in-house editorial to oversee major groupings (like Technology, Personal Finance, etc.) "The Mining Company is dedicated to serving the needs of its Guides and users," said Kurnit. "We give the tools and support to the Guides to help users find what they want, trust what they find, and connect them with the most valuable sites on the Net and with other interesting people." "This model is now only possible because of the team effort at The Mining Company to integrate the latest improvements in Internet technology and the newly identified needs of users and independent Web producers," adds Kurnit. *Getting the Guides* Will it be easy to get the ultimately thousands of Guides necessary to run this service? "How much talent is out there," asks Kurnit. "We look at the thousands of pages out there on AOL, GeoCities, etc., and the rest of the Internet," Kurnit said. "All we think we need to get is 2%-3% of the talent pool." In certain areas it will likely be very competitive. Everyone will want to get there first. "First there's the application process," said Scott Kurnit in a phone Interview. "You're going to show us your bio and you're going to write some columns so we can see your writing style. If you make the grade, you make it to our orientation process," Kurnit said. The Mining Company places its focus on training the Guides and giving them the tools they need to make a site. If you "make the grade" you basically have 3 weeks (2 of which are the "orientation") to get a site up-and-running on the service. "The fact is, if you can't get it done in a reasonable time then you probably don't have the dedication or time to get it done," says Kurnit. Just how much time will it take for Guides to put together sites? "We're not looking for anyone to quite their day jobs," said Kurnit. "We're looking at about a 10 hour a week commitment to produce the sites." But Kurnit also says that though there will be only one Guide per site, the Guides will be able to line up assistants. *What's in it for You?* So why The Mining Company then? Why not GeoCities or doing it on your own? Well, there are a couple of reasons. One is the promise of exposure, the other is the promise of MONEY. There is a model here, especially if you're not looking to quit your day job. While I imagine it will have to shift its model somewhat, there are some opportunities to make a buck or two for the Guides. It might not be much money, but if you're already throwing 10 hours or so a week towards maintaining a Web page that lines up around a special interest or two, any money is better than what you're probably getting now. Basically, The Mining Company is looking to allocate 40% of all advertising revenues back to the Guides themselves. The real pool here is 30%, with the additional 10% being used for things like bonuses. So, how does it work? Kurnit is looking to get quickly to a million or so page views a day (each of the pages I saw had 2 advertisements. By the end of the year, Kurnit hopes to be in the 10 million - 15 million page views. It sounds a little ambitious, but if they're successful lining up quality Guides, it could become a reality. So let's say they're getting 5 million page views per day. Based on what I saw, that would net out to be about 300 million ads running per month. Lets say ad sales average out to $30/1000 (a $30 CPM). Based on that, you're looking at a cool $9 million a month in advertising revenue. So $3.6 million is in the Guide pool, but only $2.7 million is for the true revenue split. Now, let's say you're a Guide who got one-tenth of 1 percent of The Mining Company's overall traffic. You'd make a cool $2,700 a month for your efforts. If you happen to be a guide in one of the "killer categories" whether it be a parents site or a kids site or a computing site, it's not unreasonable to think that you might get as much as 1%. That would be $27,000 per month!! Some people will balk at the 40%-60% share, but I think that's pretty fair. Where I'd predict the model will have to change, however, is in the cases where the cost per thousand (CPM) view being charged the advertisers is much higher than the average of the overall site. If the overall site average is $30/1000, but your site is generating a CPM of around $90, you're probably not going to want to be paid based on averages. *Will it Work?* In short, I think this could work quite nicely. The premise of a front door that links to content that is all packaged with a consistent look and feel is a winning premise. With AOL's recent move to flat-fee, one big advantage a Net service has over a proprietary model like AOL is the ability to create content far more easily and inexpensively. Much coverage has been given this week regarding AOL beginning to charge its partners in its Company Connection a $55,000 fee each year to participate. Some in AOL are saying its reasonable since the areas amount to "free" advertising for the companies, but realistically speaking, I think it is a maintenance fee AOL is charging to offset the cost of dealing with these forums. I think it is reasonable to expect to see AOL begin to charge similar fees for any content that isn't "must have" for them, now that the hourly charges that once subsidized these areas are gone. There is a cost of throwing in-house support at these online areas and much of the cost is due to the fact that it's a proprietary system. Setting up new "forms" and new looks just isn't easily accomplished by the content providers themselves. So, the timing may be good for The Mining Company. There are at least two tricks Kurnit and Co. must pull off. First, they have to get the Guides. That starts on Monday, when they begin accepting applications. The next will be to market the site in a way that gets people to the front door. Internet of the people, for the people and by the people, it has a nice ring to it... I'm sure we'll hear more about this when the site officially launches in April. For more info, check out < http://www.miningco.com >, sometime on Monday, they will make a lot more information available there than the "coming soon" that was there as of this writing. Member Internet Society - Certified BETSI Programmer - Webmistress *********************************************************************** Carol Anne Braddock (cab8) carolann(a)censored.org 206.42.112.96 My Homepage The Cyberdoc ***********************************************************************

1 0

[ANNOUNCEMENT] PGP Signatures
by nobody＠wazoo.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dick Vitriol K'ock`OfTheMonth grew a beard to look like his mother. _ / ' | /><oo><\ Dick Vitriol K'ock`OfTheMonth //[ `' ]\\

1 0

Military/Intelligence URL
by harka＠nycmetro.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Here an page, that deals with various intelligence and military institutions... In> Subject: GOVT> AJAX, Government and Military Intelligence In> http://204.180.198.56:80/ajax/ajax.htm In> United States and International Government Military and Intelligence In> Agency Access In> Certain Locations Or Sections Thereof May Be Closed To In> Unauthorized Use. In> PLEASE READ ACCESS WARNINGS, IF ANY, AND ABIDE BY THEM. In> (If You Prefer A Frameless Environment, Click HERE.) In> Last update: 7 FEBRUARY 1997. All accesses verified at In> time of inclusion. In> CIA Central Intelligence Agency In> DIA Defense Intelligence Agency In> NRO National Reconnaissance Office In> NSA National Security Agency In> SS Secret Service In> USCSOI U.S. Customs Service Office of Investigation In> ATF Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms In> BOP Federal Bureau of Prisons In> CID U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command In> COURTS U.S. Federal Courts In> FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation In> FINCEN Financial Crimes Enforcement Network In> FLETC Federal Law Enforcement Training Center In> MARSHALS U.S. Marshals Service In> NIJ National Institute of Justice In> ACC Air Combat Command In> AFSPC Air Force Space Command In> BMDO Ballistic Missile Defense Organization In> DEFENSE Defense Department In> DISA Defense Information Systems Agency In> DRMS Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service In> DTIC Defense Technical Information Center In> JCS Joint Chiefs of Staff In> NAVWAN Naval Aviation Systems Team Wide Area Network In> NAWCWPNS Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division In> NSWC Naval Surface Warfare Center In> USAFA United States Air Force Academy In> AHPCRC Army High Performance Computing Research Center In> ARPA Advanced Research Projects Agency In> LABLINK U.S. Department of Defense Laboratory System In> NRL The Naval Research Laboratory RL In> USAF Rome Laboratory for C41 Technology In> USACIL U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Laboratory In> NATGUARD Army and Air National Guards In> USA United States Army In> USAF United States Air Force In> USCG United States Coast Guard In> USMC United States Marine Corps In> USN United States Navy In> EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency In> FAA Federal Aviation Administration Technical Center In> FCC Federal Communications Commission In> FTC Federal Trade Commission In> NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service In> NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission In> SEC Securities and Exchange Commission In> CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention In> CENSUS U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census In> CONGRESS U.S. House of Representatives In> CUSTOMS U.S. Customs Service In> DOE U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratories In> & Programs In> EXECUTIVE The White House In> FDIC Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation In> FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency In> FMS Financial Management Service In> GPO U.S. Government Printing Office In> GSA U.S. General Services Administration In> HHS U.S. Department of Health and Human Services In> HPCC NOAA High Performance Computing and In> Communications IRS Internal Revenue Service In> JUSTICE Justice Department In> NARA National Archives and Records Administration In> NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration In> NCDC National Climatic Data Center In> NIMH National Institute of Mental Health In> NOAA National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration In> NSF National Science Foundation In> NTIS National Technical Information Service In> SBA Small Business Administration In> SEL Space Environment Laboratory In> STATE State Department In> TREASURY Treasury Department In> USCODE U.S. House of Representatives In> Internet Law Library U.S. Code In> CANADA In> CSE Communications Security Establishment In> CISC Criminal Intelligence Service Canada In> CSIS Canadian Security Intelligence Service In> SIRC Security Intelligence Review Committee In> UNITED KINGDOM CIM Central Intelligence Machinery In> CANADA In> DJC Department of Justice of Canada In> FORENSIC The Forensic Web In> RCMP Royal Canadian Mounted Police In> SGC Solicitor General of Canada In> UNITED NATIONS UNCPCJ United Nations Crime Prevention & In> Criminal Justice In> CANADA In> CFC Canadian Forces College In> DREO Defense Research Establishment, Ottawa In> UNITED KINGDOM In> ARMY The British Army In> CDA Centre for Defence Analysis In> DRA Defence Research Agency In> NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization In> SACLANT Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic In> SHAPE Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe In> BECCA Business Espionage Controls & Countermeasures In> Association In> CRYPTOLOG Internet Guide to Cryptography In> DCJFTF Washington, D.C. Joint Fugitive Task Force In> WANTED "The World's Most Wanted" (Fugitives and In> Unsolved Crimes) 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 iQEVAgUBMv7aGjltEBIEF0MBAQF1CAf+MyLUa3sBKCAuxhzCZ0tQqP3jxAjQpIuV WdsTCW9L3jPwLdZ9BmqeqAuaIU4JQzCpEx5bgKdzGThF5mG2U4XaeOcD4gBpWZyz sYOZzcoYNe6CX6m55a9UqiEpZu4mK9TBkO7OXSfV3J3CygVAbo7zjC+lW2r7L9F8 3vTqrxbOCb3SMEl4k3L5QVtKOGVSh7MMIesBtmQ2SNhhvSfrdFYBnCcvtmnvYi8j 6YpI5wrkiNzueuFwoD9YoRR7UugE5kcCyJ3FFHym7RzQUL8XsHRhsk1XoTBHvXni 2Tfno7DH5+T4FuVZTWeaAVhD7OTfK2n0lBCf0x2I5F1iEUurbdddig== =s4om -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption...

1 0

Proposal: alt.cypherpunks (unmoderated)
by gbroiles＠netbox.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[This is a courtesy copy of an article posted to Usenet via Deja News] Some people, including myself, believe that the Cypherpunks mailing list (cypherpunks(a)toad.com) running since sometime in 1992, has outgrown the mailing list format and should move to Usenet. The advantages once gained by running as a mailing list (faster propagation, more personal/intimate atmosphere, freedom from Usenet-style flames & spams) are no longer present. Questions about the appropriateness of moderation, moderator liability for various "bad" kinds of messages, and the potential for content control where there is a single point for distribution have become very prominent concerns among list members. It's time to move to Usenet. Hence, this prelude to a newgroup. Two cypherpunk-related newsgroups now exist; mail.cypherpunks and jyu.ohjelmointi.cypherpunks. mail.cypherpunks is unsatisfactory to become a destination for Usenet-originated cypherpunk traffic because its name implies that it's a gateway from a mailing list. This is presently true, but this proposal is intended to create a newsgroup which supplements or replaces the current mailing list. I've got no clue where "jyu.ohjelmointi.cypherpunks" originates, who's in charge of it, or what "jyu.ohjelmointi" is or stands for. Judging from the limited selection of messages which seem to reach DejaNews and AltaVista from it, it suffers from relatively poor propagation. The cypherpunks mailing list currently has approximately 1300 subscribers, sees traffic between 30 and 70 messages per day (est.), and on its better days discusses technological defenses for privacy in an information age. Popular topics include encryption, legal issues around encryption and export control, and the relationship between technology and social control. A sample line for the newsgroups file: alt.cypherpunks Technological defenses for privacy -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====----------------------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet

2 1

Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> You're giong to have to find a way to get me off of your piss-ant mailing > list. Ecouter et repeter: "going" Now, if you didn`t have shit for brains you would have followed the instructions I sent you last time on how to unsubscribe from the cypherpunks mailing list. However, as you evidently have no wit or intelligence whatsoever, nor do you seem able to comprehend anything phrased in standard English here are the instructions in moron. To unsubscribe from the piss-ant motherfuckers mailing list you are giong to have to dooo teh folwoing: Send a piss-ant message to majordomo(a)toad.com with the *MESSAGE BODY* reading exactly as follows: unsubscribe cypherpunks 2ndsun(a)bigfoot.com Either this or contact postmaster(a)bigfoot.com and ask him to mailkill all mailing list traffic for you. 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

Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up"
by John Gilmore 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sandy hit a pothole in the moderation experiment when Mr. Nemesis submitted a posting containing nothing but libelous statements about Sandy's employer. He never anticipated that he wouldn't be able to follow his announced "post it to one list or the other" policy because to do so would make him legally liable (in his opinion; he's a lawyer, I'm not). His gears jammed, and the whole machine came to a halt for a few days. Sandy has agreed to continue moderation through the end of the original 1-month experiment (through Feb 19). And it's a good thing, too, because the "cypherpunks community" had better get off its whining butt in the next ten days, or it will no longer exist. I've come to the conclusion that I'm not willing to host the cypherpunks list any more. It's not the true assholes that brought me to this decision; it's the reaction from the bulk of people on the list: suspicion, flamage, and criticism with every attempt to improve things. I noticed few people volunteering some of their own time, money, or machines to help out. Almost all the suggestions were advice for *other* people to implement: One would have thought that had Sandy and John really been interested in hearing the views of list members, this approach would have eventually won out. a supposedly libertarian and anarchistic group of people has decided that censorship is the right solution to their problems. I'd prefer for the cypherpunks _name_ not be associated with a moderated/censored list. (I mean no insult to either Sandy or John in this, BTW... I simply think that they've gone about this the wrong way. 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. 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 vast majority are still shipped out as 'Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com' (and the 'Received' chain as I pointed out in my original post). to me that is piss poor list management. however you slice it, censorship on a freedom of speech list just does not make it and we make fools of ourselves if we think otherwise. Now each of these posters will get their chance to do it "right" -- on their own time and with their own resources. A large fraction of the list seems to think that "freedom of speech" means that everyone is required to listen to everyone else at all times. That there can't be focused, topical conversations in a society that has freedom of speech. I would say the opposite; part of freedom of speech is the freedom to choose to whom we speak and to whom we listen. This is part of what cryptography does: lets us control who can receive our speech, and lets recievers determine who the speaker is. There also seems to be a misunderstanding that freedom of speech requires that people who want to speak already have a place, set up and maintained by someone else, for them to speak in. If someone who's set up a speech-place decides it isn't being used for its intended purpose, then they are a censor, stopping all possibility of conversations. Did you forget that there are millions of other places to speak in cyberspace, millions more in realspace, and that you can personally create more if you don't like any of the ones you know about? To paraphrase Zappa, you wouldn't know censorship if it bit you on the ass. You think you're being censored when you're just being excluded from a forum because what you're saying isn't interesting to that forum. So anyway, I'm tired of it all. I'd much rather focus on getting my crypto work done than babysitting majordomo, tracking down attempts to subscribe the entire US Congress to the list, and debating the seventy or eighty "obvious right ways" to handle the list. This is a "put up or shut up" to the cypherpunks community. Either you list denizens will, among yourselves, put in the energy to build a new home for the list (and run it in whatever way your volunteers want) by Feb 20, or the list will cease to exist on Feb 20. The next ten days of moderated discussion, through the end of the original experiment, will give the community a chance to discuss whether and where it plans to host the list after the experiment is over. My feeling is that the stalkers who have been trying to shut it down (Dimitri, etc) will be out in full force, trying to disrupt the process of finding a new home. It would be very hard to make progress along that line in an unmoderated list. Cypherpunks-unedited readers are welcome to try. Sandy reports that he's changing his criteria for moderation for the remainder of the experiment. It was his idea, and I approve. The criteria now are: * The topics of the list are: cryptography setting up replacements for cypherpunks(a)toad.com * On-topic, legal, posts will go to the list. * Postings with any hint of legal liability (in Sandy's opinion) will be silently ignored. * Legal but off-topic posts will go to cypherpunks-flames. Sandy will apply these criteria retroactively to the backlog (of about 140 messages), which means that most recent criticisms of the moderation (which don't invove someone volunteering to do things for the list) will go straight to the flames list. If you don't like it, I recommend that you start your own list. Soon. For me it's a sad thing that the community's willingness to pull together has degenerated to the point where I feel better off separating from the list. I hope that others in the community will create one or several alternatives that work better. John Gilmore

9 12

Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up"
by John Gilmore 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sandy hit a pothole in the moderation experiment when Mr. Nemesis submitted a posting containing nothing but libelous statements about Sandy's employer. He never anticipated that he wouldn't be able to follow his announced "post it to one list or the other" policy because to do so would make him legally liable (in his opinion; he's a lawyer, I'm not). His gears jammed, and the whole machine came to a halt for a few days. Sandy has agreed to continue moderation through the end of the original 1-month experiment (through Feb 19). And it's a good thing, too, because the "cypherpunks community" had better get off its whining butt in the next ten days, or it will no longer exist. I've come to the conclusion that I'm not willing to host the cypherpunks list any more. It's not the true assholes that brought me to this decision; it's the reaction from the bulk of people on the list: suspicion, flamage, and criticism with every attempt to improve things. I noticed few people volunteering some of their own time, money, or machines to help out. Almost all the suggestions were advice for *other* people to implement: One would have thought that had Sandy and John really been interested in hearing the views of list members, this approach would have eventually won out. a supposedly libertarian and anarchistic group of people has decided that censorship is the right solution to their problems. I'd prefer for the cypherpunks _name_ not be associated with a moderated/censored list. (I mean no insult to either Sandy or John in this, BTW... I simply think that they've gone about this the wrong way. 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. 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 vast majority are still shipped out as 'Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com' (and the 'Received' chain as I pointed out in my original post). to me that is piss poor list management. however you slice it, censorship on a freedom of speech list just does not make it and we make fools of ourselves if we think otherwise. Now each of these posters will get their chance to do it "right" -- on their own time and with their own resources. A large fraction of the list seems to think that "freedom of speech" means that everyone is required to listen to everyone else at all times. That there can't be focused, topical conversations in a society that has freedom of speech. I would say the opposite; part of freedom of speech is the freedom to choose to whom we speak and to whom we listen. This is part of what cryptography does: lets us control who can receive our speech, and lets recievers determine who the speaker is. There also seems to be a misunderstanding that freedom of speech requires that people who want to speak already have a place, set up and maintained by someone else, for them to speak in. If someone who's set up a speech-place decides it isn't being used for its intended purpose, then they are a censor, stopping all possibility of conversations. Did you forget that there are millions of other places to speak in cyberspace, millions more in realspace, and that you can personally create more if you don't like any of the ones you know about? To paraphrase Zappa, you wouldn't know censorship if it bit you on the ass. You think you're being censored when you're just being excluded from a forum because what you're saying isn't interesting to that forum. So anyway, I'm tired of it all. I'd much rather focus on getting my crypto work done than babysitting majordomo, tracking down attempts to subscribe the entire US Congress to the list, and debating the seventy or eighty "obvious right ways" to handle the list. This is a "put up or shut up" to the cypherpunks community. Either you list denizens will, among yourselves, put in the energy to build a new home for the list (and run it in whatever way your volunteers want) by Feb 20, or the list will cease to exist on Feb 20. The next ten days of moderated discussion, through the end of the original experiment, will give the community a chance to discuss whether and where it plans to host the list after the experiment is over. My feeling is that the stalkers who have been trying to shut it down (Dimitri, etc) will be out in full force, trying to disrupt the process of finding a new home. It would be very hard to make progress along that line in an unmoderated list. Cypherpunks-unedited readers are welcome to try. Sandy reports that he's changing his criteria for moderation for the remainder of the experiment. It was his idea, and I approve. The criteria now are: * The topics of the list are: cryptography setting up replacements for cypherpunks(a)toad.com * On-topic, legal, posts will go to the list. * Postings with any hint of legal liability (in Sandy's opinion) will be silently ignored. * Legal but off-topic posts will go to cypherpunks-flames. Sandy will apply these criteria retroactively to the backlog (of about 140 messages), which means that most recent criticisms of the moderation (which don't invove someone volunteering to do things for the list) will go straight to the flames list. If you don't like it, I recommend that you start your own list. Soon. For me it's a sad thing that the community's willingness to pull together has degenerated to the point where I feel better off separating from the list. I hope that others in the community will create one or several alternatives that work better. John Gilmore

11 14

Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up"
by John Gilmore 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sandy hit a pothole in the moderation experiment when Mr. Nemesis submitted a posting containing nothing but libelous statements about Sandy's employer. He never anticipated that he wouldn't be able to follow his announced "post it to one list or the other" policy because to do so would make him legally liable (in his opinion; he's a lawyer, I'm not). His gears jammed, and the whole machine came to a halt for a few days. Sandy has agreed to continue moderation through the end of the original 1-month experiment (through Feb 19). And it's a good thing, too, because the "cypherpunks community" had better get off its whining butt in the next ten days, or it will no longer exist. I've come to the conclusion that I'm not willing to host the cypherpunks list any more. It's not the true assholes that brought me to this decision; it's the reaction from the bulk of people on the list: suspicion, flamage, and criticism with every attempt to improve things. I noticed few people volunteering some of their own time, money, or machines to help out. Almost all the suggestions were advice for *other* people to implement: One would have thought that had Sandy and John really been interested in hearing the views of list members, this approach would have eventually won out. a supposedly libertarian and anarchistic group of people has decided that censorship is the right solution to their problems. I'd prefer for the cypherpunks _name_ not be associated with a moderated/censored list. (I mean no insult to either Sandy or John in this, BTW... I simply think that they've gone about this the wrong way. 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. 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 vast majority are still shipped out as 'Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com' (and the 'Received' chain as I pointed out in my original post). to me that is piss poor list management. however you slice it, censorship on a freedom of speech list just does not make it and we make fools of ourselves if we think otherwise. Now each of these posters will get their chance to do it "right" -- on their own time and with their own resources. A large fraction of the list seems to think that "freedom of speech" means that everyone is required to listen to everyone else at all times. That there can't be focused, topical conversations in a society that has freedom of speech. I would say the opposite; part of freedom of speech is the freedom to choose to whom we speak and to whom we listen. This is part of what cryptography does: lets us control who can receive our speech, and lets recievers determine who the speaker is. There also seems to be a misunderstanding that freedom of speech requires that people who want to speak already have a place, set up and maintained by someone else, for them to speak in. If someone who's set up a speech-place decides it isn't being used for its intended purpose, then they are a censor, stopping all possibility of conversations. Did you forget that there are millions of other places to speak in cyberspace, millions more in realspace, and that you can personally create more if you don't like any of the ones you know about? To paraphrase Zappa, you wouldn't know censorship if it bit you on the ass. You think you're being censored when you're just being excluded from a forum because what you're saying isn't interesting to that forum. So anyway, I'm tired of it all. I'd much rather focus on getting my crypto work done than babysitting majordomo, tracking down attempts to subscribe the entire US Congress to the list, and debating the seventy or eighty "obvious right ways" to handle the list. This is a "put up or shut up" to the cypherpunks community. Either you list denizens will, among yourselves, put in the energy to build a new home for the list (and run it in whatever way your volunteers want) by Feb 20, or the list will cease to exist on Feb 20. The next ten days of moderated discussion, through the end of the original experiment, will give the community a chance to discuss whether and where it plans to host the list after the experiment is over. My feeling is that the stalkers who have been trying to shut it down (Dimitri, etc) will be out in full force, trying to disrupt the process of finding a new home. It would be very hard to make progress along that line in an unmoderated list. Cypherpunks-unedited readers are welcome to try. Sandy reports that he's changing his criteria for moderation for the remainder of the experiment. It was his idea, and I approve. The criteria now are: * The topics of the list are: cryptography setting up replacements for cypherpunks(a)toad.com * On-topic, legal, posts will go to the list. * Postings with any hint of legal liability (in Sandy's opinion) will be silently ignored. * Legal but off-topic posts will go to cypherpunks-flames. Sandy will apply these criteria retroactively to the backlog (of about 140 messages), which means that most recent criticisms of the moderation (which don't invove someone volunteering to do things for the list) will go straight to the flames list. If you don't like it, I recommend that you start your own list. Soon. For me it's a sad thing that the community's willingness to pull together has degenerated to the point where I feel better off separating from the list. I hope that others in the community will create one or several alternatives that work better. John Gilmore

1 0

hello
by James Sears 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

unscribe

1 0

RE: Encrypted filing of patents sans GAK?
by Larry Layten 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In all that I have read or heard, I have only seen Key Recovery techniques in reference to encryption. I don't believe that anyone thinks that Key Recovery is applicable to digital signatures. Any well designed system provides for separate keys for encryption and signature anyway. The application of digital signatures is often considered to be a part of encryption, but encryption should never be considered part of a digital signature process. The two are really completely different processes with different purposes and ramifications. Larry

1 0