December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: FDA_dis
by Murray Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Tue, 29 Oct 1996 17:51:56 -0500, Hallam-Baker wrote: >Declan McCullagh wrote: >> >> I'll have to reread John's piece tomorrow (I'm on vacation right now), but >> it doesn't surprise me. He and I have been arguing about this topic via >> email for the last week or so. He takes the traditional liberal view of >> government regulation of drugs is necessary; I take the more libertarian one. >> >> The Cato Institute, BTW, will be putting together a roundtable on this soon. >> >> -Declan > >Characterising this as the "traditional liberal view" is somewhat >misleading, >its not as if Bob Dole or Newt Gingrich would disagree much. The >argument is >more over which special interest group is to be advantaged by changes in >regulation. If I was a citizen of a country where the government was >elected >by a billion dollars of corporate contributions I might be a >libertarian. Are you saying that you are anti-corporation? That would make no sense. Many corporations are very benificial to society. Take Shell for example. It did all that it could to save the life of that guy in Nigeria, but the "libertarians" who instantly boycotted Shell would have you belive that they encouraged the sentence. >Its important to remember that its the World Wide Web and not simply >limited >to the US. As long as US companies set up subsidiaries in Europe they >will be constrained by European law. In the net.age law is becomming a >major >export for many countries. What is becoming a major export? Weak laws? Why would a country encourage criminals to come to it's boarders? >Regulation is not necessarily anti-commerce. UK beef farmers would be >better >off today if there had been more regulation, a weak "free-market" >attitude >to public health has destroyed the entire industry. I don't think you have analysed the situation. It was the regulating that deystroyed the UK cattel industry and put the entire world at risk. The British government protected the beef industry despite a ban on British beef accross Europe. If Eroupe is considered to be the "Free Market" as you suggest, then it would be exactly opposite to what you have suggested. The "Free Market" labled the animals coming from Britian to be of questionable quality. The regualtors in Britian disaggreed because it would cost them a few penny's to slauter the infected heards. Then Britians started getting sick. The rest of the world throws up bans of British beef; Yet the British regulators still do not cleanse the heards. The only way to ensure the desease is gone is to kill every last cow in Britian and bring in fresh stock. THAT MEANS NO GIVING THEM TO INDIA YOU STUPID FUCKS. It is often in a >companies >commercial interest to voluntarily agree to be regulated. Microsoft >recently >signed an agreement to be bound by the European computer privacy >regulations >because by doing so they gained a business advantage - people would >trust >them with their data. This is another interesting point. Why is it better for a company to agree to any regulation? Do you REALLY trust Microsoft? I do not. They write poor code. They probably signed the aggreement because they knew that there product was so bad that it couldn't violate any restrictions or they contracted the work out to the NSA who wrote the code for them and so they know that it can be cracked if they need to track down every last copy of the OS for their marketing group to do a statistical analysis on. > >Much of the advertising regulation being discussed is private, agreement >on >standard formats for image placements for example. There is existing >government >regulation of advertising in many countries however. In particular much >stricter control over advertising of drugs, making misleading statements >in >advertising and so on.In the UK there is regulation of advertising >through >the advertising standards council which is a voluntary body in the sense >that it has no statutory enforcement powers but has practical authority >because the publishers will not publishe ads that fall foul of its >decisions. I belive that this is the GOVERNMENT body called the BBC. We have a similary group up here called the Communist Broadcast Corporation. Actually, I must be fair to them, I do like Air Farce. I don't think your argument holds any water. Different cultures have different social norms. I was quite shocked to see John Clease stark f**king naked on a tea commercial (isn't tea a carrier of caffine? yes. Does caffine change the way in which you body works? yes. Is caffine food? no; therefore caffine is a drug and tea carries that drug.) > >A more serious problem however is likely to be dramatically different >cultural norms. In the US people expect to be lied to in adverts. In >countries >where there is regulation of advertising there is a general expectation >for comparisons to be fair and for ads to be truthful. I'm just waiting >for a major corporation to create an Intel scale PR disaster by applying >sleasly US style marketing techniques in markets where the downside is >very large. One recent example is Hoover which had a $30 odd million >debacle over a "free flights" giveaway that was based on sleasly US >style >marketing techniques. The company ended up having to live up to the >spirit of its offer rather than the letter as it intended simply to >preserve the value of the brand. So? All this proves is that the US is more oreiented toward the free market than other places. In the free market, on's "brand value" is incredibly important. I think you are also missing the distinction between a company and it's marketing. I'm sure Hoover, as in your example, has many marketing camnpaines going on at any time and that every so often an overeager director of the comapany that Hoover hired to do the campain makes a mistake. I'm sure this happens all the time, just take a look at another marketing company: Microsoft. > >If you don't believe in anti trust laws there is no basis on which you >can object to the sort of regulation by cabal that the advertising >standards council represents. Of course such cabals cannot exist in the >libertarian belief system since their existence is denied a-priori >by invoking the spirit of Milton Freedman. Milton Freedmen is of course >a rightwing ecconomist whose theories are widely admired by free >market ecconomists who admire Mitlon Freedman. Does that mean a libertarian is more Free Market oriented or more Command Market oriented? I'm not sure there is any correlation at all. I belive in anti trust laws, does that mean I can object to regualtions? mhayes(a)infomatch.com It's better for us if you don't understand It's better for me if you don't understand -Tragically Hip

3 2

List of reliable remailers
by Raph Levien 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I operate a remailer pinging service which collects detailed information about remailer features and reliability. To use it, just finger remailer-list(a)kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu There is also a Web version of the same information, plus lots of interesting links to remailer-related resources, at: http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~raph/remailer-list.html This information is used by premail, a remailer chaining and PGP encrypting client for outgoing mail. For more information, see: http://www.c2.org/~raph/premail.html For the PGP public keys of the remailers, finger pgpkeys(a)kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu This is the current info: REMAILER LIST This is an automatically generated listing of remailers. The first part of the listing shows the remailers along with configuration options and special features for each of the remailers. The second part shows the 12-day history, and average latency and uptime for each remailer. You can also get this list by fingering remailer-list(a)kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu. $remailer{"extropia"} = "<remail(a)miron.vip.best.com> cpunk pgp special"; $remailer{"mix"} = "<mixmaster(a)remail.obscura.com> cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek ksub reord ?"; $remailer{"replay"} = "<remailer(a)replay.com> cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut post ek"; $remailer{'alpha'} = '<alias(a)alpha.c2.org> alpha pgp'; $remailer{'nymrod'} = '<nymrod(a)nym.jpunix.com> alpha pgp'; $remailer{"lead"} = "<mix(a)zifi.genetics.utah.edu> cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"exon"} = "<remailer(a)remailer.nl.com> cpunk pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"haystack"} = "<haystack(a)holy.cow.net> cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"lucifer"} = "<lucifer(a)dhp.com> cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"jam"} = "<remailer(a)cypherpunks.ca> cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"winsock"} = "<winsock(a)c2.org> cpunk pgp pgponly hash cut ksub reord"; $remailer{'nym'} = '<config(a)nym.alias.net> newnym pgp'; $remailer{"balls"} = "<remailer(a)huge.cajones.com> cpunk pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"squirrel"} = "<mix(a)squirrel.owl.de> cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"middle"} = "<middleman(a)jpunix.com> cpunk mix pgp hash middle latent cut ek reord ?"; $remailer{'cyber'} = '<alias(a)alias.cyberpass.net> alpha pgp'; $remailer{"dustbin"} = "<dustman(a)athensnet.com> cpunk pgp hash latent cut ek mix reord middle ?"; $remailer{'weasel'} = '<config(a)weasel.owl.de> newnym pgp'; $remailer{"death"} = "<x(a)deathsdoor.com> cpunk pgp hash latent post"; catalyst(a)netcom.com is _not_ a remailer. lmccarth(a)ducie.cs.umass.edu is _not_ a remailer. usura(a)replay.com is _not_ a remailer. remailer(a)crynwr.com is _not_ a remailer. Groups of remailers sharing a machine or operator: (cyber mix) (weasel squirrel) The winsock remailer does not accept plaintext messages. The alpha and nymrod nymservers are down due to abuse. However, you can use the cyber nymserver. The nym.alias.net server will be listed soon. See http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~raph/n.a.n.html for details. 403 Permission denied errors have been caused by a flaky disk on the Berkeley WWW server. Hopefully, this is fixed by now. The penet remailer is closed. Last update: Mon 4 Nov 96 6:49:04 PST remailer email address history latency uptime ----------------------------------------------------------------------- jam remailer(a)cypherpunks.ca ************ 14:34 99.99% winsock winsock(a)c2.org --.--+----- 5:02:13 99.84% squirrel mix(a)squirrel.owl.de +++---++--- 2:35:51 99.76% lead mix(a)zifi.genetics.utah.edu +++++++- ++* 37:17 99.62% extropia remail(a)miron.vip.best.com -.------.-- 10:08:19 99.60% lucifer lucifer(a)dhp.com +++++++++ + 41:39 99.31% replay remailer(a)replay.com +******+++** 7:48 99.16% balls remailer(a)huge.cajones.com ******** *** 5:25 98.82% exon remailer(a)remailer.nl.com *##* **++# # 1:51 98.59% middle middleman(a)jpunix.com + +++ - +- 1:34:45 98.17% cyber alias(a)alias.cyberpass.net +***** + * 34:08 98.12% dustbin dustman(a)athensnet.com +-++-+-- -- 1:22:20 97.96% haystack haystack(a)holy.cow.net #+****-++# 3:00 86.77% mix mixmaster(a)remail.obscura.com ++ 1:30:30 47.85% History key * # response in less than 5 minutes. * * response in less than 1 hour. * + response in less than 4 hours. * - response in less than 24 hours. * . response in more than 1 day. * _ response came back too late (more than 2 days). cpunk A major class of remailers. Supports Request-Remailing-To: field. eric A variant of the cpunk style. Uses Anon-Send-To: instead. penet The third class of remailers (at least for right now). Uses X-Anon-To: in the header. pgp Remailer supports encryption with PGP. A period after the keyword means that the short name, rather than the full email address, should be used as the encryption key ID. hash Supports ## pasting, so anything can be put into the headers of outgoing messages. ksub Remailer always kills subject header, even in non-pgp mode. nsub Remailer always preserves subject header, even in pgp mode. latent Supports Matt Ghio's Latent-Time: option. cut Supports Matt Ghio's Cutmarks: option. post Post to Usenet using Post-To: or Anon-Post-To: header. ek Encrypt responses in reply blocks using Encrypt-Key: header. special Accepts only pgp encrypted messages. mix Can accept messages in Mixmaster format. reord Attempts to foil traffic analysis by reordering messages. Note: I'm relying on the word of the remailer operator here, and haven't verified the reord info myself. mon Remailer has been known to monitor contents of private email. filter Remailer has been known to filter messages based on content. If not listed in conjunction with mon, then only messages destined for public forums are subject to filtering. Raph Levien

1 0

RE: Censorship on cypherpunks
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Will French .........In any case, it's an admission on John Gilmore's part that libertarianism can't work without some measure of authoritarianism; the only argument is over _just how much_ authoritarianism we need. .............................................. Well, as Ludwig von Mises [an economist] would put it, "The issue is not _some_ authoritarianism vs _no_ authoritariansim, but *whose* authoritarianism." Libertarianism is about individual authority. John Gilmore acted as the individual that he is. If he shouldn't act upon under his own authority, he being in the position that he is relative to the existence of the cpunks, then the list doesn't represent libertarian ideals. The list is not an institution representing a philosophy to which all participants must subordinate themselves. Au contraire, it represents an opportunity for the free exercise of reason and one's personal judgement. I think this has been a good example of that. (obviously the venerable and computer-knowledgeable Dr. Vulius can find ways to sneak back in and continue to play his fun games, thus evidencing _his_ .... judgement.) .. Blanc

1 0

San Diego CPunk Physical meet this Thursday
by Christian Claborne 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- This Thursday!!! San Diego Area CPUNKS symposium Thursday, Nov. 7, 1996. Invitation to all Cypherpunks to join the San Diego crowd at "The Mission Cafe & Coffee Shop". We discuss cryptography and other related subjects, have the special cypherpunk dinner, and unwind after a long day at the grind stone. 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. If you want the suspicious crowd there to sign your key, bring two forms of ID. Michelle is going to bring her PGP fingerprint in for signature. Can you believe it? Hopefully Lance Cottrell will give us an update on Mixmaster and what's going on at San Diego's best ISP. This will probably be the last symposium of the year since December is normally quite crazzzzy. 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 + wine stuff. See you there! New guy, bring your fingerprint. Drop me a note if you plan to attend... NOTE: My primary e-mail address has changed to use my own domain. You can reach me at "claborne(a)cyberthought.com". Permanently replace any other address that you may have for me. I am currently not subscribed to the CP list since my current internet connection is slow (I'm waiting for my ISDN connection. :) 2 -- C -- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.0 Personal Edition iQEVAgUBMnz1eYP1MBWQ+9udAQEWiQf+MaNcptFKcb/VPDabtXn8cnfmGsQn3h0R mzFIiXcHzh+OG2JfaX/oKR7wXFbhTMbKX9EbnFz0/IZeRZx9EO9Q3IrXUXyzZLBg lSYKEs+cyUZc/3IIpRVXgD1PrUEjyjKkss3U9KQgsQpl8+E6vlefQkCdHpR/v7kZ T1GyE3LqP+GAmr0M52kQeLKdyW3Ev6YVr5VTaxFz2uXePdJkUXXNvAE/V+UjdZn8 4dB6Y3P/JTBzxdfF6KCcdGttoq65JEfQYBjuxi9OSSkmS4vAfy36gUjQf6oiNgJX JyvxTxn8MQ46/ggqsL0IprnwFX0S/VV+JjAMmIO4Tw8mOBFSDmGDWA== =D1nQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ... __o .. -\<, Claborne(a)CYBERTHOUGHT.com ...(*)/(*)._ Providing thoughts on your computing needs. http://www.CYBERTHOUGHT.com/cyberthought/ 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. PGP-encrypted e-mail welcome! Dreams. They are just a "screen saver" for the brain.

1 0

beth mclean-knight
by mcleane＠stu.beloit.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

2 1

Senator Goodlatte's warning (from IEEE Software article, Nov, 1996)
by Ernest Hua 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From IEEE Software, Nov, 1996, page 103, 2nd column: "Key Decisions Likely On Encryption Exports" by Stephen Barlas In fact, should he win, Clinton may go on the offensive. Goodlatte, whose bill is the House companion (HR 3011) to the Burns bill, said the Clinton administration told him that if the computer industry does not agree to a key management infrastructure, the President will seek legislation forcing Americans to use only encryption to which the government has access. Of course, this intention (to outlaw all non-GAK/KRAP) has been the desires of FBI/CIA/NSA all along, so no big surprise. I just would hate to see Congressional leaders cave in because of the "threat" of the administration's bozos attempting to introduce more restrictive legislation. The old "if we want 5, we demand 10, and we'll get 5 in the compromise" plan is really screwy and dishonest. Ern

1 0

Re: anonymous oddsman
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com wrote: > > At 04:55 PM 11/2/96 -0600, you wrote: > >Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > >> > Prices @ 09:21 GMT Sat 2nd Nov 96 > >> > +---------+----------------+----------------+ > >> > | | Ladbroke's | William Hill | > >> > +---------+----------------+----------------+ > >> > | Clinton | Not currently offered by either | > >> > | Dole | 6:1 | 10:1 | > >> > >> Whew! They are wide open for arbitrage! Suppose that at Ladbroke I sell > >> an obligation to pay $6 if Dole wins (they are apparently valuing it for > >> this much), collecting $1. At the same time, to hedge my exposure, I go > >> to "William Hill", and purchase their obligation to pay _me_ $10 if Bob > >> Dole wins, paying the $1 bill that I just got at Ladbroke's. > >> If bob dole loses, I lose nothing. If he wins, I make $4 out of air. > >> I wonder why the beting markets are so imperfect. > > Unless I've been misinterpreting the charts, you can't do it. > You can go to Ladbroke's and put down a pound on Dole, > and if Dole wins they'll give you 6. But if you want to bet that > Dole will lose and Clinton will win, they'll tell you > "Of course that's going to happen, silly. Keep your money." > Both houses are still willing to take the risk that Dole will win > and give you odds on it; neither house is willing to take any > additional risk involving paying people money if Clinton wins; > they've found all the takers they want for that. If I am not mistaken, your objection has merit. My argument, however, does not require one of the houses (Ladbroke's) accepts the reverse bets (which pay me money of Clinton wins). My argument runs like this. There are persons hanging around Landbroke who apparently think that if they give Landbroke $1 in return for the promise to pay them $6 if Dole wins, they get a good deal. It is these people together with "William Hill" whom we exploit. What I do is the following: I go to the Ladbroke's and offer to pay the gamblers not $6, but $6.01 if Dole wins. Being somewhat rational, these traders gamblers see a better deal than Ladbroke's offers, and give me their $1 bills. This is very simple. I take their $1 bills and run to "William Hill", where I take another side of the bet. If Clinton wins, I get nothing and lose nothing. If Dole wins, I gain $3.99 on every bet that these suckers agreed to make with me. That was the essense of arbitrage that I propose. Again, as I said, there is a way to make sure money on this situation, that is, to make money even if Klinton wins. The arbitrage strategy is the following: as before, I go to the Ladbroke's and offer to pay them not $6, but $6.01 if Dole wins. I take their $1 bills and go to "William Hill". I buy, however, LESS bets than dollar bills that I received. In particular, I buy $6.01 / $10.00 bets for each dollar that I receive. The remaining money $1(1-6.01/10) I simply take to my bank. This money is mine: if Clinton wins, nobody gets anything; if Dole wins, I get exactly enough money from "William Hill" to pay off my debts to the gamblers at Ladbroke's. - Igor.

2 1

Re: anonymous oddsman
by stewarts＠ix.netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>What I do is the following: I go to the Ladbroke's and offer to pay the >gamblers not $6, but $6.01 if Dole wins. Being somewhat rational, these >traders gamblers see a better deal than Ladbroke's offers, and >give me their $1 bills. This is very simple. >I take their $1 bills and run to "William Hill", where I take another >side of the bet. > In particular, I buy $6.01 / $10.00 bets for each dollar that I receive. > The remaining money $1(1-6.01/10) I simply take to my bank. Ah. If you can exploit\\\\\\\ provide arbitrage services for these folks, go ahead. You'd probably need to offer them $7-8 to deal with the difference in reputation between you and Ladbroke's, but assuming you can get customers and nobody breaks your legs, you do win. One reason the market isn't more efficient is that it's only being played once, and the odds are pretty lopsided, since Dole really has no chance. What's more interesting is that Ladbroke's aren't doing this themselves - if they're not. In a repeated game, or a closer one, the odds would probably tend to be the same at both houses. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk Imagine if three million people voted for somebody they _knew_, and the politicians had to count them all.

1 0

Re: Censorship on cypherpunks
by Jim Ray 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Date: Mon Nov 04 17:04:13 1996 Mark wrote: > It's only authoritarianism if the government is involved. Clearly, the > government isn't involved in this matter. Indeed. IMNSHO, a self-governing property-owner (John) saw that the value of a piece of his property was being reduced by a person (Vulis, KOTM) camping there. He asked that person (many times, and no-doubt in a far more tolerant way than _any_ government has ever in history behaved with any rulebreaker) to "please use the latrine instead of the stream." The person not only refused, he said "you'll have to make me." The property owner made him. Most of the other campers, even those who (like me) choose to (and are able to) filter stream water before drinking it, breathed a sigh of relief. John's action had about as much to do with "censorship" as AFDC has to do with "charity" or "compassion." The growing misuse of the word "censorship," especially here, is another symptom of the annoying educational work that Libertarians need to do, constantly, to fight the ever-encroaching Newspeak of those who do not believe in individual property rights, like the one (exclusion) that John exercised, only after much provocation. If you don't like it, tough shit. Go "buy your own campground" and start your own list, just like Perry is. But please don't mislabel John's action "Libertarian censorship." JMR One of the "legitimate concerns of law enforcement" seems to be that I was born innocent until proven guilty and not the other way around. -- me Defeat the Duopoly! Vote Harry & Jo http://www.HarryBrowne96.org/ ___________________________________________________________________ PGP id.E9BD6D35 51 5D A2 C3 92 2C 56 BE 53 2D 9C A1 B3 50 C9 C8 I will generate a new (and bigger) PGP key-pair on election night. jmr(a)shopmiami.com ____________________________________ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMn5oYW1lp8bpvW01AQF6ewP/U8DZc3FXuKgRQXF+mwWhVkimauwEXQYm p/Rd2u2sYvPMuQD3QMaN+WQCgkpOu0mLlt6TU0n+VJpVYkg82rSHDFyoez71bwvv jPEXZoJ7dVNnBUpy8b0z+NPSyRzVCPlRaFmaJE1Yba6wV01PMkMHf5ouobUps4L0 7cFlrfBGQaw= =J5FK -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

[NONCRYPTO] censorship on cypherpunks
by Brian D Williams 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I agree with John's decision. As others have already pointed out, this list (T.A.Z.) exists because of the generous nature of our host. It quite literally exists in his home as I recall. (Toad Hall) John made numerous requests for Dimitri to be polite to his other guests and was scorned for his attempt. John then removed him from his residence. Dimitri is now standing on the virtual sidewalk outside where he can continue to shout his insults, since as John knows well, his actions are no more than a "speedbump". Dimitri can get a list feed from a number of other sources, and can in fact continue to post. But John has made his point, and his actions hardly constitute censorship. Brian "A government supported artist is an incompetent fool - Lazarus Long"

1 0