December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Why I dislike Java. (was Re: "Scruffies" vs. "Neats")
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:18 PM 4/30/96, Perry E. Metzger wrote: >Timothy C. May writes: >> Perry, that essay was, as I said, sent out before it was finished. >[...] >> Now, while you may have _anticipated_ the point I was going to make in the >> completed essay, you cannot say I have "mischaracterized" anyone's attitude >> at this point! > >I could only respond to the statments you made, not the ones you could >have made. OK, Perry, I just have to give up on you. It's hopeless. You claim I mischaracterized your position on Java and scruffies/neats when in fact I never mentioned either your name nor the connection of my points to Java. I point this out and you reply with some smartass comment which is completely disingenuos. Just as when you claimed Java applications can't do file i/o, and several people point out that you are wrong and that it is _applets_ that you must have been thinking of (and not even always for applets, by the way). Instead of admitting you were wrong, or misread the post, you just say "Same difference." It's pointless to try to have a discussion with you. Which is too bad. >In any case, I'm not sure that there is such a thing either as a >"Security Scruffy" or a "Security Neat" in the argument about Java; >the breakdown in opinions occurs along very different lines. I suggest you wait until you see what I have to say on this before jumping the gun by assuming you know what it is I'm going to say (or that someone saying "application" must have really meant to say "applet"). --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1

Re: Freedom and security
by angels＠wavenet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mike McNally wrote >What exactly do you consider "security" and "freedom" to mean here? Whose >security? Whose freedom? Every society has a social contract whereby the freedom of the individual is defined within the context of the society. Freedom means your freedom to be who you want to be, think how you want to think, say what you want to say, hold whatever beliefs you wish, balanced against the Community's need for stability. You may demand the freedom to kill those who disagree with you but no community will grant you that freedom. But no one living in a community where murder is outlawed can serious claim that their freedom has been taken away by that particular law. You cannot be free to speak your mind unless there are laws preventing others who disagree with you from killing you. If it were permitted to kill those who disagreed with you, then no one would be free to speak their mind at all, for fear of the consequences. Hence my point about freedom and security - by which I mean personal security. Freedom of speech cannot function without law. >I can take responsibility for ensuring that any Internet communications I >make are protected from inspection or interception by using technological >solutions. I call that "security". If you're interested in "security", >what are you doing to protect my freedom to use encryption and anonymous >remailer technologies? I am not currently aware that either your right to encrypt nor your right to use anon remailers is under threat, so why should I do anything? But while encryption and anon remailing protect *you* from certain threats to your freedom, they are also being used for example to make the international trade in child pornography more effective and less easy to prosecute. The technology itself is neutral and can be used or abused. That is why the focus should be on individual actions rather on the technology. My concern is not so much with network sabotage or infiltration (there are plenty enough organizations addressing that problem) but with personal safety within the Internet community - that means you, not your hard drive. ********************************************************* Colin Gabriel Hatcher - CyberAngels Director angels(a)wavenet.com "Two people may disagree, but that does not mean that one of them is evil" *********************************************************

3 2

Re: "Scruffies" vs. "Neats"
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"tcmay(a)got.net" 30-APR-1996 19:30:55.47 >More recently, the scruffies have embraced neural nets, emergent >computation, stochastic computing, genetic algorithms, and similar >buzzwords. The recent work on "subsumption architectures" (a la Brooks) and >agent architectures is consistent with viewpoint (though elements of logic >are of course involved). One interesting phenomenon is the in-migration of neats into formerly scruffy-only domains. For instance, take a look at the third, fourth, and fifth international conference proceedings on genetic algorithms. You've got scruffies who are just doing what feels right and seeing if it works (my viewpoint) and mathematicians/neats who are trying to derive what _should_ work the best. (Of course, there is the problem with the neat approach that it tends to oversimplify. For instance, many neat-variety equations for genetic algorithms, such as the original version of the Schema Theorem, don't take into account differing types of mutations - from a "don't care" symbol to a 0 or 1 is less of a change from a 0 to a 1.) I will be interested in seeing the more final version of this essay. -Allen

2 1

Re: WhoWhere.com v. that stanford.edu loon
by Rich Graves 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Monday night, I wrote: >I am confident that the Parsec folks are now acting in good faith, and >that they are now sensitive to the relevant privacy and ethical issues. [parsec.com = whowhere.com] I may have spoken too soon. I might be interested in talking, privately, with their venture capitalists and allies, which include Netscape and InfoSeek. I think if you want a service of this kind, those four11.com guys, who started out with the SLED PGP key certification service, are absolutely terrific. - -rich [not on cypherpunks -- no, not just because I'm throwing a tantrum; I'm honestly embarrassed at my own behavior, and need a break.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMYbSd43DXUbM57SdAQGLGQP/WL/IWBM2rjpChUtn20T+iylKgtvqE3GT nqs45S1M4YAV/0sQcbhjCr9ZDkyH60ei4VpORLaXy+J3EHkEFMO9j0KKGEU9nWAQ T2R7YIIziWkQXDO92M08ezfXlT6hwRKCqf9VhfLl+PGEdBgVfAE2oS8exmQtEkF1 Td89ZQD+VT0= =ddQ0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

[Fwd: Cylink can export 128-bit DH?]
by peng-chiew low 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

3 2

Re: Calling other code in Java applications and applets
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"shamrock(a)netcom.com" 30-APR-1996 08:43:38.24 >Presumably, such packages would have to be signed by Sun. Needless to say, >these certificates would cost money. A potentially lucrative source of >revenue for Sun. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with that, no... as long as Sun isn't (as TCMay speculated indirectly) pressured into not signing such packages if they were crypto-usable. Does Sun currently do much business with the US Government, particularly sections (e.g., the military, law enforcement and intelligence ones) susceptible to being influenced by the NSA? -Allen

1 0

Re: Former CIA Director and *Strategic Investment* Editor
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:15 PM 4/30/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote: > > >I typoed. > >Virginia should read "Maryland" in my last post. That's okay; it was only a small slip. Small. Maybe the same magnitude as that secretary who said that Vincent Foster's body was first found in "the parking lot" rather than "the park." Right? (I don't really even care about Vincent Foster, BTW.) Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: Former CIA Director and *Strategic Investment* Editor
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:49 PM 4/30/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: > >Looking for conspiracies in the almost certainly accidental drowning of >Colby is an even bigger waste of time than spending vast efforts trying to >show that Vince Foster was killed by the O.T.O. Why are you the second person to use the term "conspiracy" when I didn't mention such a thing? Got "conspiracies" on your brain, Tim? Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Freedom and security
by angels＠wavenet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>You will pardon my asking this, but, security from what? Who are the >evil Network Terrorists throwing Bit Bombs or whatever? The only >security you need on the internet is keeping your site from being >broken in to, which is mostly a matter of setting it up >properly. What, exactly, is the "Security" that you are offering us? > >Perry I am not offering "you" anything unless you have a problem and are looking for some assistance. Just because you feel safe / immune from becoming a victim of internet crime does not mean that there are no victims at all. Site security is not at all the only problem. Are you not aware of spams and scams going on all the time? Are you not aware that sexual predators operate in IRC? Or that child pornography is a world wide trading game? Have you never heard of email forgeries or impersonation? What about tthe victims of harassment and hatred who don't know how to deal with it? What about all the people who have never heard of killfiles? Who don't know how to report a problem nor who to report it to? Haven't you ever been mail bombed and wished you could find out who did it? Maybe you feel like a veterano and can afford to look condesendingly at all the thousands of fresh-faced netizens just arriving online and say "well if they can't take the heat they should stay out of the fire" - but if we are to call ourselves an emerging "community" then we must take responsibility for our city, and that means caring about other people's problems. The internet is not just a collection of bits and bytes - it's real people doing real things to each other. When your address is forged and you get flamed and bombed, or if you start receiving anonymous death threats, your freedom is under threat. It's not enough to say "Well I just turn off my monitor" The Internet is a city - it needs 911 services and it needs Neighborhood Watches. And neither professional law enforcement nor neighborhood watch are by definition a threat to anyone's freedom. Freedom within the context of Community does not and never has meant the freedom to kill your neighbor, or rob someone, or rape someone, or harm someone. In the context of the internet Community too, freedom is not the individual's right to do whatever he or she likes - because then the Community is no longer free. Freedom is under threat from two directions - from selfish individuals who care little for the Community, and from the over zealousness of governments who seek greater and greater control over individual thought and action. The first step is to acknowledge that we have a problem within the Internet Community - because if we don't address it responsibly then we have only ourselves to blame when the governments try to take it over. We can face our problems or we can deny that they exist. By asking me the question: "What crime?" you are indicating to me that you prefer denial. ********************************************************* Colin Gabriel Hatcher - CyberAngels Director angels(a)wavenet.com "Two people may disagree, but that does not mean that one of them is evil" *********************************************************

5 4

Re: Freedom and security
by angels＠wavenet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Ray wrote > Freedom is already diminishing at an alarming pace. >That is why cypherpunks spread crypto, and why Libertarians like >me rant. Freedom does not increase through more laws. Nor does freedom increase through less laws or no laws. Freedom increases as respect and care for one another increases. Meanwhile, since we do not live in utopia, all societies at a certain level of economic development and of a certain size of population require law and law enforcement to protect citizens from predators. The Internet is beyond the stage of small communities exercising informal social controls (peer pressure). It's now a major industrial city and will develop law, law enforcement and government, whether anyone likes it or not, not least because the Community will always respond to crime by trying to protect itself. And the crime is already here. The idea that the Internet is not controlled is IMHO one of the biggest myths around. It's like a large group of people are still living in some far-off utopian rural paradise. Does anyone really doubt the extent of State control and power across the Net? My point is that this is inevitable. The Internet is a mirror of the rest of the world, not a new form of society, and I fail to understand why anyone should be surprised that that is the case. >.... laws only breed more laws, which always lead to >less freedom. I disagree with this statement. I do not believe that laws breed more laws nor that laws lead to less freedom. I believe bad laws compromise freedom (eg CDA) while good laws protect freedom. >>I don't believe that security is the enemy of >>freedom. I believe that freedom needs security in order to exist at all. > >Good. Join us in spreading cryptography around, and security will >bloom (along with freedom). Cryptography enhances and protects privacy, which does not inevitably lead to greater security. Security for the sender, yes, in that no one else can read the message, but security for the Community? Doesnt that depend what the message said? The technology itself is neutral. Child pornographers encrypt their hard drives so that law enforcement cannot gather crime evidence - that is certainly a state of greater security for the pornographer, but it does not improve our Community, and as child pornography increases, the law is by definition broken more and more, and so the Community becomes less free than before. And that's not the tyranny of government but the tryanny of criminals. I do in fact support cryptography for personal security, not least because I can ensure that my messages are authenticated. CyberAngels PGP public key will be up on our new website opening very soon. I've had enough of people forging my email. ********************************************************* Colin Gabriel Hatcher - CyberAngels Director angels(a)wavenet.com "Two people may disagree, but that does not mean that one of them is evil" *********************************************************

5 5