December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: pretty good reputation
by Vipul Ved Prakash 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Deranged Mutant wrote: > > first, i would like to make it clear that i have no personal grudges against > > I never thought you did... That was simply to ensure a flame free discussion. Almost anything I talk about on my local bbs echos (back in India) turns out to be a flame war, specially if its related to _touchy_ software like PGP :) > > pgp, i have some interest in reputation systems which i am trying to pursue. > > since pgp tries to model a reputation system and is being used world-wide, > > i am using pgp as a model for discussion. > > That's the point, though. PGP *does not* try to model a reputation > system. When you sign keys, you only attest that you are sure that > that key belongs to the person whose name is on it. A signature says > *nothing* about a person's reputation. > This is meant to be used separately by each user of PGP. If Alice > knows Bob personally, then she knows how trustworthy Bob is when he > signs a key, in relation to her. This is not meant to be shared with > anyone else, and has no meaning to anyone else except Alice. in that case if alice receives a key signed by bob, she would know the key is good. and there is no need for the two other fields. infact the reason why i felt pgp is trying to model a reputation system if because of these two fields that carry trust values. > You can't set up a global web of trust. It's computationally > infeasable, esp. with contradictions, to resolve. It's also > meaningless. Say Alice trusts Bob. Bob trusts Carol. Carol trusts > Don. Should Alice trust Don? No... subjective factors like "trust" > don't commute. this is precisely what i wanted to know. can there be a model wherein one can compute a trust-like parameter? if yes in what ways should this parameter be modified and qualified. or conversely what kind of qualification/modification is required for computing trust? > > copule of things you mentioned are intresting. in a reputation system the > > trust parameters are fuzzy and there are lot of layers (since we > > are talking of a web of users), so we can't mix it with the liar paradox. > > Yes we can. There's been work done with the Liar paradox using fuzzy > logic. Also other work in repuation webs ("Say the president of a > company asks all his vice presidents for their opinions about each > other, so he can appoint a successor. How does he resolve > contradictions, when all he has are their opinions about each > other?"). lets say a reputation system involves alice, bob, carol and don. Computing trust parameter with respect to each other can lead to situtions where alice trusts bob x% and has y% proof that he is a liar, after considering all other relations. If this x% > y% she'll believe him, if not she won't. thats why i feel the liar paradox doesn't really pose much of a threat. > > as far as halting problem goes, again can we reduce a reputation system to > > halting problem? Infact alonzo church and some other scientists made > > symbolic equivalents of turing's machine which could determine the broad > > limits of automatic computation. is there any research being done on reputation > > systems that involves church's thesis? > > I mispoke slightly: I mentioned the halting problem in terms there > being non-computable functions. There are people on the list (and > elsewhere) who don't have an inkling about the halting problem, and > propose security/reputation systems that fly in the face of it. > > I've been working on a proof or discussion of a "Very Generalized > Halting Problem" that basically says that you can check that > something is "not x" from a set of tests to see if that something is > not "x"... if it fails at least one test, you know it's not "x", but > if it doesn't fail any, because such a set must be incomplete > (Goedel's Theorem...), you are never sure that it's "x". > > How this relates to a reputation system? If you set up a global > reputation network where people tag each other in degrees of trust, > you try for completeness and end up with . People will > contradict each other and there will be no way to resolve it. Alice > says Bob is trustworthy to a degree, and Bob says Carol is > trustworthy to a degree, but Carol says Alice is untrustoworthy > (rates Alice lower). There will be inconsistency only if trust/untrust values are absolute. that is you either trust someone or you don't. i am talking of a system wherein trust values lie between 0..1 which are derived from a set of tags. in that case bob alice trusts bob x% bob trusts carol y% and carol trusts alice z%. if z < x, z < y simply implies alice trusts bob, bob trusts carol more than carol trusts alice. so the system will be relative rather than absolute. a person who is trusted by more people will carry greater weight and people trusted by him will carry higher weight too. this way snoopy who is not trusted by many people will automatically have a weak relationship with others. > There's the other point that someone else on the list (Perry?) brought up: > if people publicly rate each other, there may be social/political > pressure to give some people lower or higher ratings. again these ratings will be decided in a web rather that on one-to-one basis. that way the social/political pressure can be reduced though not completely eliminated. > And again, being a private rating system means 1) I don't offend > anyone since no one else knows how I rate them, and 2) there are no > contradictions because I am not relying on other's ratings to > determine how I rate them. > > BTW, some work using fuzzy logic in terms of how people rate each > other is being done at the Group for Logic and Formal Semantics at > the University at Stony Brook (in Stony Brook, NY). I went to school > there and still help out in the Philosophy Department and the > G.L.F.S. with some programming etc. It isn't exactly the same as > ratings systems, but its close enough. if any research work is freely available i'll be really interested. best, vipul.

1 0

Re: Snake Oil on the Water...
by Lou Zirko 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- To: dsmith(a)prairienet.org, richieb(a)teleport.com, cypherpunks(a)toad.com, secure(a)commtouch.com Date: Mon Jun 17 16:44:10 1996 Pronto Secure, currently in beta 6.16, is shaping up as a fine all-inclusive mail package that supports PGP. You might want to take a look at it at: Beta Testers residing in the USA are invited to download the beta from: http://www.commtouch.com/secus/secus1.htm Non US residents should download from: http://www.commtouch.com/secnon/secintl1.htm I have been with it since beta 1 and it definately has come a long way. Platforms supported are the MS GUI. It is a 16-bit app. I currently run it under NT 3.51 w/ 32-bit PGP executables. Take a look. Lou Z. Lou Zirko (502)383-2175 Zystems lzirko(a)c2.org "We're all bozos on this bus" - Nick Danger, Third Eye -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 iQEVAwUBMcXR4ctPRTNbb5z9AQH8Tgf/aCWChVMTKFyv+NpADQqosnMO2C7EAj/Z o+O2KwQ91YVaRpkmJjrHzQuP+ou6YKHi5hH9SLRbN5Ox4/8YMmaOIRjqOrTmgta8 +fMBAtJ01AyWW9ZZh0sfEqM32RQ8Pt+x2Q8+MuyuEU/9vaeGhbb7DksGA8y2ht/5 uDKBUtrGgxAS7Yr2VRJVJXNd1b7eFdKGFUhBJJo9ig11/ICHcXVbUqpQ9Iqi2aRT hoRRVtiMawCJznXaYid+2fami/pgtq/i00kV9y4ge3TOooxM4KZB3LZziCbS8R4d AfaG9dj0wP50/zDhFxdExVc6NbQzTyr3kY+4z/47qkIZZ3wn5paezw== =FO3b -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

RE: Non-Lethal Terrorism
by .. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

if you get the opportunity, check out the beyond 2000, nextstep and invention shows on the discovery channel. albeit, they may be a bit dated, the stuff is often enlightening. tuit, r&d of stunguns, dazzlers, flypaper, tanglers and lo-grade chemical agents has been underway for some time in labs arouns the world. lethality is not as popular as it once was. some of these devices do, however, work through excruciating, if nondamaging, pain. tony ---------- From: John Young[SMTP:jya@pipeline.com] Sent: Saturday, June 15, 1996 10:33 PM To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Subject: Non-Lethal Terrorism NON-LETHAL TECHNOLOGIES Military Options and Implications Report of an Independent Task Force http://pwp.usa.pipeline.com/~jya/nltech.htm (47 kb) Beware snooping, consider using the anonymizer at: http://www.anonymizer.com ----- Or, if http fails, NLT_ech to <jya(a)pipeline.com>

1 0

Re: alpha.c2.org in deep shit?
by Hal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I peeked at a few messages passing through my remailer from alpha.c2.org (mea culpa) to see whether the problem might be at my end. As far as I could tell, the messages were correctly formatted and all, but simply lacked message bodies. So it looked like the data being sent from alpha.c2.org was already messed up and had stripped the bodies. I set up an alpha.c2.org alias a few days ago and when I sent mail to myself I got mail without a body, so I think it is a definate screwup. I sent a report of this to remailer-operators list but have not seen a response yet from Sameer. Hal

3 2

Rating Problems
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The recent CDA decision pointed out some of the problems involved in rating Net content. For example, the court spent a lot of time talking about Cyber Patrol software and the CyberNOT list "containing approximately 7000 sites in twelve categories. The software is designed to enable parents to selectively block access to any or all of the twelve CyberNOT categories simply by checking boxes in the Cyber Patrol Headquarters (the Cyber Patrol program manager). These categories are:" Violence/Profanity: Extreme cruelty, physical or emotional acts against any animal or person which are primarily intended to hurt or inflict pain. Obscene words, phrases, and profanity defined as text that uses George Carlin's seven censored words more often than once every fifty messages or pages. Violence against plants is OK, however. Likewise Cypherpunks which probably meets the 1 bad word per 50 messages standard. I wonder if they use Carlin's original or updated 7 Words. Partial Nudity: Full or partial exposure of the human anatomy except when exposing genitalia. Nudity: Any exposure of the human genitalia. Only in pictures. Text-only full-frontal nudity is OK. Looks like baby pictures are out though. Sexual Acts (graphic or text): Pictures or text exposing anyone or anything involved in explicit sexual acts and lewd and lascivious behavior, including masturbation, copulation, pedophilia, intimacy and involving nude or partially nude people in heterosexual, bisexual, lesbian or homosexual encounters. Also includes phone sex ads, dating services, adult personals, CD-ROM and videos. Bestiality is not covered though. Gross Depictions (graphic or text): Pictures or descriptive text of anyone or anything which are crudely vulgar, deficient in civility or behavior, or showing scatological impropriety. Includes such depictions as maiming, bloody figures, indecent depiction of bodily functions. There goes all of Pop Culture. Certainly deficient in behavior. Racism/Ethnic Impropriety: Prejudice or discrimination against any race or ethnic culture. Ethnic or racist jokes and slurs. Any text that elevates one race over another. Luckily, all other forms of discrimination are OK. Women, crips, queers, Jews, and old folk watch out. How politically incorrect of Cyber Patrol. Satanic/Cult: Worship of the devil; affinity for evil, wickedness. Sects or groups that potentially coerce individuals to grow, and keep, membership. Does that include evangelicals? They're not Satanic but they certainly encourage membership growth. Some evangelicals can be quite coercive. And why Satanists? Don't we have freedom of religion in this country? Remember, the Supremes *did* throw out the Hialeah Sanitaria Animal Sacrifice Ordinance. Drugs/Drug Culture: Topics dealing with the use of illegal drugs for entertainment. This would exclude current illegal drugs used for medicinal purposes (e.g., drugs used to treat victims of AIDS). Includes substances used for other than their primary purpose to alter the individual's state of mind such as glue sniffing. I'm glad my drug pages are limited to the non-entertaining uses of illegal drugs. Purely analgesic purposes only. Militant/Extremist: Extremely aggressive and combative behaviors, radicalism, advocacy of extreme political measures. Topics include extreme political groups that advocate violence as a means to achieve their goal. There goes www.whitehouse.gov. They certainly "advocate violence as a means to achieve their goal." Pretty aggressive and combative as well. Radical. Advocate extreme political measures. Gambling: Of or relating to lotteries, casinos, betting, numbers games, on-line sports or financial betting including non-monetary dares. There goes www.wsj.com. *All* financial betting. Questionable/Illegal: Material or activities of a dubious nature which may be illegal in any or all jurisdictions, such as illegal business schemes, chain letters, software piracy, and copyright infringement. Which jurisdictions -- Singapore? Do they mean just US jurisdictions or all jurisdictions. Is offshore banking dubious? It's not illegal. Alcohol, Beer & Wine: Material pertaining to the sale or consumption of alcoholic beverages. Also includes sites and information relating to tobacco products. Poor Joe Camel. If Health Nazis are bad for adults, why are they good for children? Note guns aren't on the banned list so www.nra.org is safe for the kiddies. DCF

2 1

Re: Are Intrested in a new approach to Cryptography???????
by Raph Levien 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

M.Wagoner (1) wrote: > > We have superior Russian Encryption that cannot be broken. We would love to > send you a copy of this software as a challenge to do so. Do you do such things? > Our encryption far exceeds the military standard of 1024 bit encryption, > hundreds of times over. I was told that if anyone could break this, it would > be your organization or anyone else associated with the 'Cypher Punks'. Basically, we are not interested. We are not a free cryptanalysis service. Besides, we already have effectively unbreakable encryption - our main interest is integrating ciphers that have already stood the test of time into useful applications. Best of luck, though. Raph

1 0

San Diego Cypherpunks Physical Meeting
by Chris Claborne 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

San Diego Area CPUNKS symposium Thursday, June 20th, 1996 Invitation to all Cypherpunks to join the San Diego crowd at "The Mission Cafe & Coffee Shop" were I hope to get an update of Lance Cottrell's anonymous e-mail server, "mixmaster", exchange keys, and discuss other topical CP stuff. There's always the semi-topical discussions; Internet Service Provider in San Diego (providing, anonymous remailers and other privacy services), stelth communications, latest Cypherpunk goings-on, Internet happenings (like recent Federal court decision). Don't forget to bring your public key fingerprint. If you can figure out how to get it on the back of a business card, that would be cool. Place: The Mission Cafe & Coffee Shop 3795 Mission Bl in Mission Beach. 488-9060 Time:1800 Their Directions: 8 west to Mission Beach Ingram Exit Take west mission bay drive Go right on Mission Blvd. On the corner of San Jose and mission blvd. It is located between roller coaster and garnett. It's kind of 40s looking building... funky looking (their description, not mine) They serve stuff to eat, coffee stuff, and beer. See you there! New guy, bring your key fingerprint. Drop me a note if you plan to attend. 2 -- C -- ... __o .. -\<, Chris.Claborne(a)SanDiegoCA.NCR .Com ...(*)/(*). CI$: 76340.2422 http://bordeaux.sandiegoca.ncr.com/ PGP Pub Key fingerprint = 7E BF 38 3F 24 A7 D1 B0 54 44 96 AA 10 D0 5D 51 Avail on Pub Key server. Dreams. They're just screen savers for the brain.

1 0

RE: Micropayments are Crap
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: Vladimir Z. Nuri > >this really revolutionizes the idea of a magazine or editor. >suddenly anyone on the net can become an editor or writer, >and become as financially successful as the market will support. ................................................................ Really. This will be a tremendous boon for individuals, with great potential for capitalistic profits, what with all those consumers (otherwise known as "people") benefitting from the large variety of services available through the Almighty Free Market (The Now All-Oneness, All HTML One-Stop-Shop). .. Blanc

1 0

Re: Snake Oil on the Water...
by Lou Zirko 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- To: dsmith(a)prairienet.org, cypherpunks(a)toad.com Date: Mon Jun 17 18:59:49 1996 They have started mentioning the product on their web pages and provide a link to the beta site for sign-ups etc. Since 6.x I have not yet experienced a product crash, except with a disk full condition which was reported to them earlier today. BTW, would you be interested in setting up a secure channel for testing? Lou Z. Lou Zirko (502)383-2175 Zystems lzirko(a)c2.org "We're all bozos on this bus" - Nick Danger, Third Eye -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 iQEVAwUBMcXxrctPRTNbb5z9AQGfwAgAn7PYnixstxM13Bm6/VTEJp0J7b7e4kh8 evPhPIrsfgWskZzQY/YJtNtaV8p7hphPMeOewGpZ/lXhuPPZeHwLWmFTx/cmX5po g8imoxfwPheHaVtj2R2mdvEyL7Xfiz/YZDJ2E9pyqN7euIrx+xPwbDVqedv87TC3 sFwJecbSpAmGwR2f5V7SrVx+uQcdQ+NzUyOhcToYRnbl7gydEyuGQpQNpn7uyi8S fpvqyoKMwU/ki6xLKIHBPmp8ZQK0AeWnOQl80oGbG7jUGveW9ESs5BwrtXSQPDlI 4SXv1T1UGlVF+DtLFgGHP5agGhl4KT+c5z4ZUTc+BzqSs5aqYmB8yA== =4txl -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Pickle Angels?!? (Humour)(Noise)
by William Knowles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On today's Sally Jesse Raphel was Curtis Swiva? founder of the Guardian Angels talking about his new record of eating pickles. He plans to break the record for eating 22 hot dogs in 12 minutes. The whole rest of the stage was full of drag queens, and other rejects from the Jerry Springer show. Curtis must be really hard up to get his mug on TV! William Knowles erehwon(a)c2.org -- William Knowles <erehwon(a)c2.org> PGP mail welcome & prefered / KeyID 1024/2C34BCF9 PGP Fingerprint 55 0C 78 3C C9 44 DE 5A 3C B4 60 9C 00 FB BD Finger for public key --

1 0