December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Securing CDROM from piracy
by sawyer＠nextek.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> >> >Is there any way of making >> >sure that the guy doesnt pull a fast on on us? Can we ensure that he cannot >> >duplicate the thing and start selling it without sharing the profit. >> >> Well, I suppose you could get it copyrighted before you hand it over for >> distribution. I'd also put my logo and other info somewhere in the code, >> such as an "About" box. They would have a hard time saying it wasn't >> yours. >> >You are missing the point. Lets say a firm X is marketing my product. Now if >they sell 500,000 copies and tell me that they have sold only 100,000, I have >no way of figuring out. > > '88888888:::888888%' Vipul Ved Prakash Fax : +91-11-3328849 > '8888888::88888%' Positive Ideas. Internet : vipul(a)pobox.com Ok, I see what your looking for now. How about tracking the number of product registrations, either via a mail-in card or fax? I'm assuming that since this is a product to be sold, not given away, that persons purchasing the program would most likely take the time to fill out a product registration card and send it in. Since not everyone fills these cards out, it is not a 100% accurate method, but if there were any major discrepancies, then you would be aware of it. Thomas J. Sawyer sawyer(a)nextek.com

1 0

FW: anonymous companies
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Wei Dai A company implies a particular kind of persistent structure, with a hiearchy of owners, managers, and employees. It is far from clear to me that this is the most likely organizational form in an anonymous digital economy. One possible alternative is to have no persistent organizations. Teams form spontaneously to work on individual projects. Each individual member jointly negotiates a contract with every other member, and these contracts are enforced through some arbitration system. ......................................................................................... This "virtual corporation" is something that I've read about (about 2 years ago) which is an idea already in use - someone has an idea for a kayak design, then he contracts out to other individuals all the different kinds of work he needs done to get it built. As soon as the project is complete, the company dissolves. But here is where I think the problems with an attempt at total anonymity will occur, as has been mentioned: where the virtual meets the actual, where the anonymous electronic interaction must meet the solid real to complete the transaction. The work of constructing physical things must be accomplished in an actual location. If the place is rented, rather than owned, the renter will be able to identify the rentee. Solid objects like kayaks need materials for construction. Someone must 1) get the particular kind of material which the kayak design requires, and 2) make it available for distribution to those who will want to use it. Material or parts buyers must be able to examine the stuff to make a purchasing decision. These must be delivered to an actual physical location. If large trucks are rented to deliver these things, then the drivers must know where that location actually is to deliver them. Once the kayaks are constructed, they also must be delivered to the owner or to a store or storage building. They must be inspected for quality and meeting design specifications. They must be sold where individuals can look at the kayak, perhaps sit inside, and compare it with other models elsewhere (I don't think just looking at a photo on a web page will do for every purchasing decision). Back stock requires storage and probably someone to guard the building. Perhaps the kayak purchaser will want lessons on using the thing, in an actual river. In all these situations, decisions must be made which require a physical presence and interaction with the material of construction, with the object of attention. This is a point where anonymity would be very difficult and loss of confidence possible (if someone reneged on their agreements). I can imagine total anonymity used most successfully when it is limited to activities which are totally electronic in nature, like programming, web design or ecash transfers. The more that a virtual company requires physical contact with the construction, storage, and movement of physical goods, and the more time that it engages the individuals involved, the more difficult it will be to keep away from everyone the knowledge of who is who in relation to those things and where everything is located in physical space. I was thinking that I couldn't see purchasing groceries anonymously (if I made the purchases myself). Perhaps with a certain kind of store design.....still, it would be difficult. *Someone* would see me walking out with the groceries (why does this sound so funny). .. Blanc

1 0

Re: anonymous companies
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:42 PM 5/16/96 -0700, Wei Dai wrote: > > I'll just give one problem: the principal-agent problem. How do owners of > the company make sure the managers operate the company in their best > interest? Actually looting of companies happens a lot right now today, and very seldom leads to criminal charges. Twice I have lost a job because the company I worked for went under, apparently due to looting. > Solution: reputation. If the managers don't do the right things, the > owners arrange so that the managers lose reputation and won't get hired in > the future. Unfortunately the science of reputation is not so advanced > that we know this will actually work. At present venture capitalists seem to rely on the sniff-their-arses method. They talk to people and try and get a feel as to whether they are planning a robbery. This method is obviously likely to be less effectual as businesses move to the net. This problem is probably the major reason why Net startups are physically located in Silicon valley, rather than world wide or nation wide. Of course the problem is that if the venture capitalists can find them to sniff their arses, the bad boys can also find them to shake them down. In some businesses we can solve this problem by cryptographic control mechanisms, such as open books banking. In others, such as net startups, I see no solution other than increased reliance on personal individual capital. Athenian capitalism worked largely on personal capital. Because of their terrible arithmetic system, bookkeeping was really bad, and in consequence stock investments tended to go sour. Socrates lost a bundle in this fashion, which may explain his lack of enthusiasm for capitalists. > Solution: smart contracts. This is Nick Szabo's idea of building > contractual obligations into cryptographic protocols so that the parties > have no choice but to fullfil them. But again we don't know whether this > will actually work for this problem. It will work for many particular cases of this problem. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

3 2

Zimmermann v. ViaCrypt??
by Mark Voorhees 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There is a story @ http://infolawalert.com/stories/051796a.html describing how Phil Zimmermann is trying to retrieve all the rights to PGP from ViaCrypt in order to jump start his new venture, PGP, Inc. He's taking a sell out or get sued approach with ViaCrypt, which until recently has not had much success marketing PGP. Mark

1 0

A cryptographic alternative to escrow agents (Matts' half coin)
by Matts Kallioniemi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Black Unicorn wrote (was: Why does the state still stand) >> . What if a company does not pay as expected - other than adopting >> Assassination Politics, what method could an employee use towards >> getting their expected remuneration for work done? > >If payment is made weekly, it should be made in advance to an escrow agent >who would issue a certificate that the payment for employee r2dd54 has >been received. The payment would then not be released to anyone without >the consent of the corporation and the employee. > >Obviously the escrow agent would have to be trusted. It should be possible to avoid that trusted escrow agent using blinded ecash and Matts' half coin algorithm. Bob wants to buy a $100 service from Alice. Alice wants to get paid if she performs the service. Bob and Alice each create half of a $300 ecash coin. They send their half coins to the ecash mint for signing, with instructions to withdraw $200 from Bob's account and $100 from Alice's account for the signing of a $300 coin. When the mint has received both half coins, it signs the complete coin, withdraws the money and returns the signature to both Alice and Bob. Nobody can now use the coin alone because they don't know the other half of the random coin number. Next, Alice delivers the service to Bob. If Bob is satisfied with the service, he and Alice write a message to the mint requesting that the complete coin be credited with $100 to Bob's account and $200 to Alice'. Alice has now been paid. If Bob refuses to pay, Alice will never give him her half coin and he loses $200, but he got a $100 service, resulting in a net loss of $100. If Alice refuses to deliver the service, Bob keeps his half coin and she loses $100. Both participants lose $100 each if they don't complete the deal. That way they have the same incentive to come to an agreement. To simplify the messages to the mint you could use two coins. One for $100 and one for $200. That way there would be a one-to-one relation between deposits, withdrawals and coins. The algorithm described above (Matts' half coin) is copyrighted by yours truly Matts Kallioniemi. Patents pending. Matts Kallioniemi <matts(a)pi.se> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEVAwUBMZzMVBVFhWUyiUQRAQHs8Af/TQf8zLYfwictsXoqvOahCvQ1aJ4F6Dem w6PARUXIhb0XWIFYRZSiXGsRoUVpWiWtupSIf7PHG/dkGfAamvq0wgQpEJm3+7IP 6qSaOYovKnY19GxTo9QHkyHQ8LFu+CSVJMMPoZtX6tCJX62VkFuJapI1CLQOPb78 Ntqf8kNiX1/IpOfrqiF0Fx1YV2nTno417q4vaJYnZWQFJ+sYf5q0NG0xahDPlwUx I11AtFcpIGOCHek3GGAgH9KYSt6UpAOmk57bSne5+zMN5U78cGDsizLYm+MDtzAx Nt4FYoeYxM0gKs529ruUgTdfZNqVtsXjjeNlbVBi4hyfczs3b3I7ug== =oLLR -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: SEVERE undercapacity, we need more remailer servers FAST
by Rich Burroughs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:02 PM 5/15/96 -0800, jim bell <jimbell(a)pacifier.com> wrote: [snip] >The copyright issue is probably irrelevant to the Scientology dispute, >anyway. The material on which the copyright is claimed almost certainly >wasn't marked, appropriately, as it would have had to be for the copyright >to be valid. While current law no longer requires the "circle-C" notation >long used for this purpose, the material involved is far more than old >enough to have been subject to this requirement, and once a copyright is >lost (or not claimed) I believe it couldn't be regained. I think you're wrong about that. You're confusing copyrights and trademarks, I believe. It's a trademark that you lose by not asserting it or defending it. Someone please correct me if I have this wrong :) There have been claims that the copyrights were not transferred properly from Hubbard to RTC, but they have yet to be proven in court. CoS won against Arnie Lerma in a summary judgement. Copyrights were definitely the issue in that decision. >The threat to remailers is one of the many reasons the Leahy bill sucked, >and that would have made it worse by imposing criminal sanctions on this >kind of thing. Ironically, with the way remailers are used, it would >actually have been possible for some copyright holder to fabricate a >violation of copyright law by posting his own material through remailers, >and then sue the final remailer, or have its owner prosecuted. The ugly provision in the Leahy bill had to do with obstruction of criminal investigations, didn't it? The CoS copyright cases have all been civil. I don't see how it applies. >I'm glad the people around here finally saw the light. That part of the bill stunk, I agree... Rich ______________________________________________________________________ Rich Burroughs richieb(a)teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~richieb See my Blue Ribbon Page at http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/blueribbon New EF zine "cause for alarm" - http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/cause

1 0

RUL_net
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

May-June, 1996, Harvard Business Review. Two related articles which examine c'punks interests -- proposed business regulation of the Net; on-line security; copyright; encryption; authentication; E-cash; electronic commerce; protected communities to escape "frontier anarchy," and more. Executive summaries by HBR: "Ruling the Net." Debora Spar and Jeffrey J. Bussgang The Internet promises a radical new world of business. But for many companies, it has yet to deliver. Although doing business in cyberspace may be novel and exhilarating, it can also be frustrating, confusing, and even unprofitable. Debora Spar and Jeffrey Bussgang argue that the problems companies face have little to do with a lack of technology or imagination. Their problems stem instead from a lack of rules. Without the order that rules create, business cannot be conducted. The authors explain why the informal rules that have developed on the Internet since the 1960s are no longer sufficient. Businesses thinking of allowing millions of dollars of transactions to occur on the wide-open Net need specific assurances. They require clear definitions of property rights, a safe and useful means of exchange, and a way to locate and punish violators of on-line rules. The authors believe that the key to commerce on the Internet lies in the creation of managed on-line communities. Such communities can be formed by service providers -- entities that will restrict on-line options, fine-tune offerings to match a select group of users, and provide some means of recourse in cases of fraud or abuse. Under those conditions, they will draw new companies on-line and increase the productivity of those already there. And, say the authors, the rewards for service providers will be substantial: Companies that make the rules on the Internet's emerging frontier have the opportunity to reap the greatest profits. [40 kb] "The Real Value of On-Line Communities." Arthur Armstrong and John Hagel III The notion of community has been at the heart of the Internet since its early days, when scientists used it to share data, collaborate on research, and exchange messages. But how can businesses best use its community-building capabilities? Not merely by putting their products or services on-line, the authors contend. Real value will come from providing people with the ability to interact with one another -- from satisfying their multiple social needs as well as their commercial needs. Companies that create strong on-line communities will command customer loyalty to a degree hitherto undreamed of and, consequently, will generate strong economic returns. The authors present four different types of community: communities of transaction, interest, fantasy, and relationship. Examples of each type already can be found on the Internet or through on-line services, but the successful community of the future will incorporate all four -- or as many as possible. As for economic value, the authors see four ways for a company to generate returns: through usage fees, content fees, transactions and advertising, and synergies with other parts of its business. In the near future, new business definitions may emerge around the notion of owning a specific customer segment across the full range of its interests and needs; owning specific products and services may no longer be so important. The authors urge businesses marketing to consumers to make the small investment required to "buy an option" on electronic communities in order to understand both their potential value and the radical changes they may cause. [33 kb] RUL_net (for the 2, in 4 parts) ----- Reprints of "Ruling," No. 96309 and "Real Value," No. 96301 may be ordered from HBR for $5.00 each by email to: custserv(a)cchbspub.harvard.edu

1 0

Re: Defeating fingerprints
by David K. Merriman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 03:19 PM 05/17/96 -0700, you wrote: >ON >> >> On Tue, 14 May 1996, Be Good wrote: >> > > Burglars and safecrackers sand the ridges off. >> > >> > This sounds like it'd work, but quite tedious. >> >> Belt sander and a light touch. > >I'm going to try this sanding experiment sometime. >When I get around to it, I'll post the results here. >(pressing hard with inkpad and paper) > >Shellac or epoxy glue does NOT work, if the thickness is at all managable. >Tried it, The ridges always find a way to get through. >It also provides a weaker bond to dry skin than you'd expect. >The thicker the more likelihood of peeling off. >Even Krazy Glue. (The UL BS is false.) Krazy glue _will_ glue fingers, if applied properly. I proved this to a fellow sailor in 1976 by gluing his thumb and forefinger around a JP-5 vent pipe aboard the U.S.S. Enterprise. Some folks might want to try liquid latex, contact adhesive, silicon sealers (RTV), or similar products. Soft, flexible, relatively convenient when applied, and can be 'layered' to the desired thickness. Liquid latex can usually be found in hobby/craft stores. Dave Merriman PS - Pls note new email address; old ISP proved to be unreliable. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMZ0MlcVrTvyYOzAZAQEkiAP7BCf2mrem6K6N/5dcbUeGLCUu/un2yEst nks1RZBUUeV8q2fojxm6d9y+WJI6NXDJWARkSCCt0YphA7oGQtJwiNzI08NWD5Ed EHM+yXW7BM+z68eZ+kIL8UNW/64CkGCoMZNkRW2v5ZKMqYOFri6qdgKFm7D40JIN z0BL1+dkLVE= =Z73q -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------------------------------------- "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." P. J. O'Rourke (b. 1947), U.S. journalist. <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> http://www.shellback.com/personal/merriman/index.htm

1 0

Re: anonymous companies
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Tue, 14 May 1996, Hal wrote: > It might be interesting to make a list of all the problems people can > think of why this idea won't work, paired with proposed solutions and > workarounds - sort of a mini FAQ for this important (some might say > ultimate) cypherpunk model. Another interesting question is how you do personnel selection for an anonymous enterprise. One possibility would be anonymous reputation passing, but I don't know any protocols for this. A participant would also want to take any positive reputation accruing away when the enterprise finished. (And the rest of us would want any negative reputation to stick as well.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bill Frantz | The CDA means | Periwinkle -- Computer Consulting (408)356-8506 | lost jobs and | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | dead teenagers | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

Re: SEVERE undercapacity, we need more remailer servers FAST
by Rich Burroughs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:38 PM 5/16/96 -0500, snow <snow(a)smoke.suba.com> wrote: [snip] > No, rich is a good excuse for _not_ doing it, unless it can be >done with total anonymity. If I set up a remailer, on my home computer, as >an individual, then I am a very little target. I have nothing (well, damn >little) for anyone to sue me over. What would be the point? They threaten >to sue me for what? They would spend FAR more than they could ever get out >of me, and as long as I don't violate any laws, I _might_ be able to get >"big guns" like the ACLU, EFF etc. on my side to make it a nasty fight for >no return. [snip] This assumes that they are trying to win. Hubbard said, "The purpose of the suit is to harass..." CoS has a huge legal coffer, and they've used it against people who weren't rich before. They're not after the money from the lawsuits, IMHO -- it's miniscule compared to the amount they make in their bait-and-switch scheme (where they sell people on Dianetics and then lead them down the path to ridiculous OT powers). That's what they're fighting to protect. >From this perspective, the person without money is a much easier target, IMHO -- they don't have the resources to fight back against sustained and intense legal pressure (as well as illegal harassment by PI's and other agents) and will probably cave. That's the return. Judge Brinkema, in an opinion last November in the "Church's" case against the Washington Post, DGS, and Arnie Lerma, wrote: "The Court finds that the motivation of plaintiff in filing this lawsuit against the Post is reprehensible. Although the RTC brought the complaint under traditional secular concepts of copyright and trade secret law, it has become clear that a much broader motivation prevailed--the stifling of criticism and dissent of the religious practices of Scientology and the destruction of its opponents. L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology, has been quoted as looking upon law as a tool to [h]arass and discourage rather than to win. The law can be used very easily to harrass and enough harrassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly." CoS are the biggest threat to the remailers right now, and it's a mistake to view their use of the legal system based on how you or I might use it -- their purpose is to crush their opposition by whatever means necessary. They have to handle things that way, because Hubbard said so. Paulette Cooper, whose "crime" was writing a book critical of CoS, had 19 lawsuits filed against her at the same time by the "Church." Your plan would work if tons of people set up remailers, but barring that, rich people are actually worse targets for CoS, IMHO, as they have the resources to fight back, especially if the suit doesn't have any merits. And the support of the "big guns" is definitely dicey -- they've not provided counsel for any defendant in a CoS case, AFAIK. Groups like ACLU and EFF don't have the resources to deal with every problem they'd like to, and people shouldn't expect to be rescued by them (you said _might_, I know :) I would encourage anyone who is concerned about the remailers, that doesn't have much info on CoS' legal tactics, to spend some time on alt.religion.scientology or on Ron Newman's excellent web site http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/scientology/home.html (he has a ton of info there and you can do Excite searches). I think that if people are not willing to stand up to CoS, the remailers are history. Rich ______________________________________________________________________ Rich Burroughs richieb(a)teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~richieb See my Blue Ribbon Page at http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/blueribbon New EF zine "cause for alarm" - http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/cause

1 0