December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

The Anonymous service needs your help.
by Johan Helsingius 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sorry to interrupt the Detweiler thread, but... As of last week, my server has been sending the following message to active users of my anonymous service. I am turning to you, fellow cypherpunks, not for monetary support (albeit that is of course welcome, too) but to ask for ideas on how to arrange the payment mechanism - and to avoid taxes, currency export problems etc. Maybe I should seek the help of a non-profit organisation such as EFF to handle the transfers? Julf - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Subject: The Anonymous service needs your help. Hi! You have just used the anonymous server at anon.penet.fi. When I set it up, almost a year ago, I definitely could not foresee how popular it would become. It now has something like 45.000 registered users, wuth maybe 10.000 active users. Thousands of mesages are handled each day. Unfortunately, the popularity of the server might also be it's downfall. At the start, it was easy to handle all the problems and the queries, and to pay for the network connection. But now I spend 4-5 hours every day trying to answer questions, fix problems and deal with abusers - but I keep getting further and further behind on my mailbox. And the traffic is overloading the 64K international connection - I already had to cut out the binary postings. It now costs me something close to USD 1500/month just to keep the machine connected. I'm afraid I can't afford the time and the money much longer. And unless there suddenly turns up some benevolent big sponsor, the only hope for survival for the service is contributions from individual users. If all the 10.000 active users would each contribute $5, it would pay for the costs of running the service for a full year, as well as allowing me to employ one or two part-time students to reply to mail queries, improve the service, and report abuse - allowing me to concentrate on improving the software and dealing with the abuse cases. So I'm asking you - how much would you be willing to contribute? Use of the server will always be free, but continuing the service needs soem funds. At this stage, I only need to know how much you are willing to contribute - $1, $5, $25, $100? The replies will determine the need to set up some kind of money transfer system. Please send your replies to donations(a)penet.fi. Julf

1 0

how to sign on to the cypherpunks listserver
by John M. Keaty 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Can you give me instructions on how to sign on to the cypherpunks listserver? Thanks John Keaty keaty(a)vnet.ibm.com

1 0

updated text of the MTTF paper
by cme＠ellisun.sw.stratus.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

What I sent out was dashed together last June and never polished. Here's text after one re-write... - Carl (Equations haven't changed...) -------------------------------------------------------------------- \documentstyle[12pt]{article} \begin{document} \title{MTTF of Various Systems} \author{Carl M. Ellison \thanks{Stratus Computer Inc., 55 Fairbanks Blvd., Marlborough MA 01752. Email address: {\tt cme(a)sw.stratus.com}.}} \date{October 25, 1993} \maketitle \begin{abstract} Expressions are presented for the Mean Time To Failure (MTTF) of various redundant systems, as a function of the number of nodes in the system, N, and the minimum number of nodes in a working system, K. Failure of a system is defined as having fewer than K working nodes. \end{abstract} \section{Expressions} Redundant systems are employed both to increase availability and to achieve preservation of data. Expressions for the availability of a redundant system are to be found in normal probability and statistics texts. [See for example, Kishor S. Trivedi, "Probability and Statistics with Reliability, Queuing, and Computer Science Applications" from Prentice-Hall, 1982.] These assume that once a system has recovered from total failure, it is as usable as it was before the system failure. Mean Time To Failure (MTTF) is concerned with the case that once a system has achieved total failure, something is lost. This might apply to redundant disks, for example. The expressions presented below are for the MTTF of various redundant systems, as a function of the number of nodes in the system, N, and the minimum number of nodes in a working system, K. Failure of a system is defined as having fewer than K working nodes. Often, K=1 and each node has a complete copy of each database. However, sometimes the data can be kept on multple nodes (as in a RAID-5 disk array) which will tolerate some failures, down to a given threshold, K > 1. It is assumed that as soon as a failure occurs, a repair cycle will be started. There is then a race to see if the repair can be completed before enough additional nodes fail to drop the working number below K. The expressions below were derived from custom Markov chains, each built to model a given choice of N and K. It is assumed that both failures and repairs are exponentially distributed random events (so that the Markov chains remain memoryless). This is a reasonable model for failures but not for repairs. Therefore, these expressions are approximations. The expressions also assume that all failure events are independent. For example, a multi-node system in which all nodes are on the same power grid would not have completely independent failure events. N: number of nodes in a full system K: number of nodes in a minimally functional system $\lambda$: rate of failures (e.g., number of node failures per year) $\mu$: rate of node repair (in the same units as $\lambda$) Each fraction below is the MTTF of the whole system: the mean time until a system drops to (K-1) working nodes. N = 2 ; K = 1 \begin{equation} \frac { 3\lambda + 1\mu }{ 2\lambda^2 } \end{equation} N = 3 ; K = 1 \begin{equation} \frac { 11\lambda^2 + 4\lambda\mu + 1\mu^2 }{ 6\lambda^3 } \end{equation} N = 3 ; K = 2 \begin{equation} \frac{ 5\lambda + \mu }{ 6\lambda^2 } \end{equation} N = 4 ; K = 1 \begin{equation} \frac { 50\lambda^3 + 18\lambda^2\mu + 5\lambda\mu^2 + 1\mu^3 }{ 24\lambda^4 } \end{equation} [etc.] \end{document}

1 0

Re: ADMIN: proposed new policy
by koontzd＠lrcs.loral.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>I like the idea of encouraging people to digitally sign messages. I >also decided to try out ripem to see what its signed documents look >like. It seems if transmissions to a list must pass through a server, then the server should be used for authentication. Otherwise, the entire thing is nothing but wasted bandwidth and `visual noise`. (Unless it is meant as make work for a three letter agency).

1 0

Stupid childish crap cluttering the list
by nate＠VIS.ColoState.EDU 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hello, out there? The list is getting really badly cluttered with all this "lets rag on LD since he doesn't agree with us" shit. "Operation Medusa" -- come on, it was a little bit funny for a while, but I think that you can find better things to do with your time than dedicate yourself to the annoyance of someone, based on the fact that they hold different views about certain topics near and dear to the hearts of some subscribers. Some of us are here to try and change things - remember that clipper thing that so many (I think it damn near all of us) of us were up in arms about? It's still out there. LD is not the enemy, he's just one of us who holds a different view... So what if he thinks there should be no pseudospoofing.... let's kill him? I think not. I think that most of the list is in agreement with the idea of _not_ requiring signatures on messages. Fine. There, that's it. Done. Some of us, me included, try to sign mail whenever possible. Maybe it's to set an example, maybe it's just to verify that we are who we say we are. I even sign some of the mail that doesn't go to the list, just to get people to ask what the hell it is -- it's raising the public awareness. But, I digress. LD has told me that he is leaving the list. Some of you may cheer, some (the more intelligent of you, IMHO), will mourn the loss. LD could, at times, rant a bit, but he was a contributing member of the list. He had _many_ good things to say, and he is a very dedicated to privacy (read the "Privacy and Anonymity on the Net" FAQ?) and changing things. It _really_ pisses me off to see the little armchair Cypherpunks all gang up when they see someone down. "Oooo, oooo, LD's not in good favor with the rest of the guys, let's lick 'em" Sounds like a bunch of fucking Beevis and Butthead fans (pardon my french). Maybe if you guys were spending more time writing code or making the public more aware of what the problem is and who's here to fix it, you wouldn't have the time to organize campaigns for annoyance. For a while, everyone thought that LD was objecting to people being able to post anonymously (wheather it be through anon.penet.fi or bounced off of a remailer)... that was not (I believe) his point. He objected to people posing as other people (who had established reputations, etc). He wanted to outlaw (in a sense) this act. I disagree with him here, since I cannot think of how to absolutely outlaw it (since saying "don't do that, it's against the law" seldom works), but I can think of how to prevent it. Sign messages. Don't do it if you don't want to, and don't complain when people spoof as you because you don't ever sign the messages. I agree with LD on the idea that posing as someone else with intent to confuse (LD's "evil black posts" as he calls them) is wrong. If you are trying to pursuade someone (or confuse them), you should be smart enough to do it by being anonymous (again, through anon.penet.fi or through a remailer) or by being yourself. You should not need to hide behind someone else's identity. Well, there's my opinion, please get off the subject of ragging on LD, and get back on the track of changing the world. - -nate - -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Nate Sammons email: nate(a)VIS.ColoState.Edu | Colorado State University Computer Visualization Laboratory | Finger nate(a)monet.VIS.ColoState.Edu for my PGP key | Key fingerprint = 2D CD 07 CA 7B EC A8 4A 86 7F F3 A8 1D 15 65 46 | Title 18 USC 2511 and 18 USC 2703 Protected --> Monitoring Forbidden +--------+ Guerrilla Cryptographer Always remember "Brazil"

2 1

test, sorry
by nate＠VIS.ColoState.EDU 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- This is a test. - -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Nate Sammons email: nate(a)VIS.ColoState.Edu | Colorado State University Computer Visualization Laboratory | Finger nate(a)monet.VIS.ColoState.Edu for my PGP key | Key fingerprint = 2D CD 07 CA 7B EC A8 4A 86 7F F3 A8 1D 15 65 46 | Title 18 USC 2511 and 18 USC 2703 Protected --> Monitoring Forbidden +--------+ Guerrilla Cryptographer Always remember "Brazil"

1 0

testing, sorry
by nate＠VIS.ColoState.EDU 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This is a test. -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Nate Sammons email: nate(a)VIS.ColoState.Edu | Colorado State University Computer Visualization Laboratory | Finger nate(a)monet.VIS.ColoState.Edu for my PGP key | Key fingerprint = 2D CD 07 CA 7B EC A8 4A 86 7F F3 A8 1D 15 65 46 | Title 18 USC 2511 and 18 USC 2703 Protected --> Monitoring Forbidden +--------+ Guerrilla Cryptographer Always remember "Brazil"

1 0

That's all, folks. <thank God>
by Alexander Reynolds 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This will truly be my final remark, as this subject is hardly pertinent to the forum but has nontheless provoked some interesting discussion. I am repeatedly told that I am a right-wing religious paranoid, have fascist fantasies about government, and that overall I am a moron. While I have difficulty refuting the third claim :), it is unfair to make accusations 1 and 2 about me without any knowledge about who I am and where I stand on societal issues. What has never been mentioned is the fact that none of this subliminal stuff has seriously been studied. People (perry, woodhead, et al.) talk about how unscientific, absurd, etc. this topic is, all the while ignoring their (and my) ignorance about the subject and using studies as scientific proof, which is a contradiction unto itself, as well as unnamed first-hand sources "inside" the industry while not identifying their position. Whereas they would rather let it be buried for ideological reasons, I would prefer the subject to be explored in the open scientific community, opening it the pressure of scientific scrutiny. My reasons as follows: I have read books and seen, first-hand, experiments on the nature of behavior control. Until you have seen people turned into automata you cannot appreciate what the experience gives to you as a human being: perspective. I would not want to be controlled by _any_ power, be it government, sibling, or economy. If there is a chance that there are means by which I can be controlled _without my knowledge_, I want to be aware of the methodry of such attacks. Is that paranoid? Quite possibly. Cautious and intelligent? Perhaps. Perhaps there are those on this forum who would prefer to let sleeping dogs lie and let corporations run free over people instead of the government? But I cannot speak for people, and I would prefer it next time I respond to a message that the response is not a list of those "words put into my mouth," as this discussion turned out to be. You may call me names, you may ignore me, but the fact is the subject remains as it is. The matter has not been closed. -Alex Reynolds ---------------------- Paranoid ranter supreme, eight-ball and nine-ball specialist, and part-time anarchist and computer lab proctor. ---------------------- Chrome(a)jhunix,jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu

1 0

Re: Net Regulation
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

B >Let me illustrate by taking myself as an example. I'm reasonably B >well connected networkwise and knowledgeable. I could decide to B >become one of these Permanent Tourists. But where would I go? B > B >What will be my concerns? Obviously, money will be one of them. B >But so also will be climate, people, activities I might not be B >willing to do without, and on and on. Furthermore, other B >governments are, almost without exception, more repressive than B >the one I have. The rest of the world has as wide (or wider) a range of climates as the US. The people you will be interacting with are the same people as you do now on the nets. I know some people have problems with expatting (to coining a term) themselves because of homesickness. Harry Browne couldn't adjust to Switzerland and so moved to Walnut Creek, CA. Not everyone is like that though. And the nets means that you can take your surroundings with you. Particularly once we get a VR interface. Besides, the nets mean that you will be able to *virtually* expat yourself and remain physically in the US if you like while working "overseas." B >than I am now. So I think that most Permanent Tourists would B >likely stay right where they are, more or less. Certainly they'd B >stay in the developed world, where most governments are willing to B >cooperate to some extent in the attempt to collect revenues. Few governments tax the overseas earnings of their own expats. Any Brit who expats himself physically and works via the nets would have *no* UK tax liability to be busted for. If this Brit was physically remaining temporarily in different countries as a Permanent Tourist (even the US) and working on the nets, he would have *no* income tax liability. Just as if I spend 6 months in France "on vacation" while I write my latest novel and negotiate the screen rights to my previous novels over the phone, I may have "earned" $2 million in France but would have *no* French tax liability as well as no right to work in France. That sort of activity is not considered "work in France." The nets mean that more and more people (musicians, surgeons, lawyers etc.) will be able to work as writers have always done -- from anywhere, to anywhere. No tax consequences. B >It is a sad fact that governments collectively possess the means B >to physically regulate all of the desirable real-estate and most B >are more willing than ours to use physical force to pursue their B >ends. So Permanent Tourist or not, one can't really escape them. Governments are more likely to (as indeed they have already done) offer PTs special treatment to encourage them to hang their hat for a temporary basis. This is sort of a reverse auction in which governments offer lower and lower taxes to snag the PTs who can go anywhere. For example, you can't legally have a secret securities account or buy treasury bonds anonymously in the US but foreigners can. A bank can acquire and hold T-Bonds for anonymous foreigners as long as it swears they are not Americans. The Feds did this because they *need* anonymous foreign buyers for their debt instruments. Why don't the Feds nuke any banks that try this. They have the bomb after all? Why, instead, do they explicitly allow this loophole by regulation? They need the money. B >Sooner or later, of course, this won't matter but, as I've said, B >at least for the short term, it _does_. There are already hundreds of thousands of American PTs living overseas. That was done under *old* technology. 61% of expat Americans don't file federal income tax forms even though they are required to do so whether or not they fall under the $70K exemption for overseas earned income. B >Not this year or even the next. But what happens when the B >printing-press equivalents cease to stave off bankruptcy? The Government of the USSR went out of business. B >Lots. Because people never do seem to learn the lessons of B >history, sigh. Not, mind you, that I think they'd "win" for long. B >They, too, prefer to ignore history. But while they're attempting B >to prevent the working of the laws of nature, a lot of people B >will suffer. *More* will suffer if we don't pay attention to this B >reality. I try and pay attention. I just think that some over-romanticize the state by investing it with magic powers that it doesn't have. Depending on your exact place of residence, you are more likely to be mugged by private parties than by the state. The technology doesn't strengthen the state, it weakens it. Duncan Frissell --- WinQwk 2.0b#1165

2 1

No Subject
by Peter shipley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

------- Forwarded Message Return-Path: tpc-rp-request(a)aarnet.edu.au Return-Path: <tpc-rp-request(a)aarnet.edu.au> Message-Id: <9310251638.AA17387(a)skigo.graphics.cornell.edu> To: tpc-rp(a)aarnet.edu.au Subject: Re: My first hole-punching! In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 24 Oct 93 22:13:01 PDT." <9310250513.AA03502(a)antigone.com> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 93 12:38:23 -0400 From: Mitch Collinsworth <mkc(a)graphics.cornell.edu> X-Mts: smtp X-Ploder: dailim Precedence: bulk >Anonymous sending throws a new twist on the tpc guidelines which >allow me to lock out a sender... Yes, I think so. I've been thinking about setting up a server, but I think it would only make sense to lock out all *(a)anon.penet.fi and similar sources. - -Mitch ------- End of Forwarded Message

1 0