December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: This List--Public, Private, or Other?
by Hal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I can find a lot more to agree with in Tim's clarification of his views on ownership of cyberspace: > In different words, the list exists as an "emergent phenomenon," like > a popular trend or a fad. It's "official" existence is not crucial, as > that could evaporate, change, etc. > > [...] > > To wrap it up: Cyberspace ownership has more similarities to the > voluntary asssociations desscribed here--customer bases, clubs, > subscriptions to magazines, etc.--than to conventional ideas of > "public" and "private" property ownership. > > --Tim May Getting back to the original discussion, though, I think the point remains that such a tenuous and abstract form of ownership does not serve as a good foundation for a model of cyberspace as private property. Cyberspace, in my view, is essentially a conversation. Its value comes from the interplay between different people who contribute, each bringing their own expertise and points of view. It seems odd to me for someone to lay claims to the ownership of the conversation, especially someone who is not participating. One problem in thinking about these issues is focussing too closely on cur- rent software in the form of mailing lists and usenet. Already newer forms of communication such as IRC, MUDs, etc. are breaking out of these molds. Other possibilities include more fluid communications models where organization is provided by links between messages. In such a system, there would be no "cypherpunks list" as such; rather, messages on the kinds of topics we find interesting would be linked together in various ways, with side ties to messages on related topics as well. Who would "own" this kind of cyberspace? One possible unambiguous answer is to simply say that people own their own words, and to leave it at that. In that sense nobody owns the cp list; rather, each poster owns his postings. This is pretty uncontroversial, I think. But even then the value of a posting depends heavily on the context in which it appears, and this simple ownership model does not particularly capture that. Because of these considerations, I think cyberspace is not really subject to the kinds of ownership and control that we associate with private property. Look at the Extropians list as an example. They try to say that the list is private property and feel free to kick people off. But sometimes people get disgusted with their autocratic practices and leave. The list ends up losing value. The more they tighten their iron fist of ownership the more individuals slip out of their grasp, to paraphrase noted cyberspace pundit Princess Leia. (I say this not to disparage members of that list, which has a lot of talented people, but because to me it is a good example of the mis- application of the idea of private property.) My model of the ultimate future of cyberspace emphasizes selectivity and filtering of a huge corpus of messages, articles, essays, debates, etc. The hard part is going to be picking out what is interesting to you, and making your contributions in such a way that interested people see them. I really don't think our current infrastructure of mailing lists and usenet does a very good job of this, and I hope that in the future better approaches will be possible. It's not clear what role ownership will play in that system. Hal

2 1

Re: Electronic Purse Press Release (Originally Re: VISA's digital cash)
by gtoal＠an-teallach.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Unlike the Natwest scheme, I don't see anything in here about anonymity. Want to bet that VISA's system allows tracking of purchases? G

1 0

PHILL ZIMMERMAN ARRESTED [NOT]
by a2＠ah.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> >>The Zimmerman prank---I'm sure not funny for him---hardens my line >>further against anonymity online. > You can't get rid of anonymity such as this without also getting rid > of pseudonymity. Eric argues simply that you can't get rid of annonymity, and he is correct in the strict logic of his aguement against the current technological background. What neither of you discuss is your actual concern, which is that of having some way to rapidly access the factual content of a message. Instead of addressing that problem, you rail against anonymity. In current discourse one often sees symbolic or subsitute issues being discussed, so that the underlying discourd is obscured, ignored, and unresolved. Lions that stalk shadows remain hungry. -a2

1 0

666
by tmp＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

well EXCUUUUSE ME for reading /pub/cypherpunks/rants on soda.berkeley.edu, parry metzger!!! i just don't understand how remailers can even exist in cyberspace given that a *lot* of people like to try to yell at system administrators to get mail censored. if people are doing this to remailer operators, and they cave in, we are back to square one. ok, so whoever detweiler is, he's obnoxious, but i thought that cypherpunks were against censorship. is it `censorship is BAD-- UNLESS detweiler is involved'... (hee, hee) why are you guys so !@#$%^&* paranoid, anyway? what the heck did detweiler do, anyway? if that goofy string of DEATH TO CRYPTOANARCHISTs messages was due to him is all, then i think you guys might be overreacting just a *tad*. --`scarlet A' (boy, i am really paying for the particular combination of initials i picked. do you guys really think detweiler would be stupid enough to pick something that you leap on in a microsecond?! to bait you in front of your face?! i can't recall a detweiler post recently in the newsgroups, what is his last address? i think i will write him ... quite a celebrity ... maybe he has managed to get censored)

2 1

rights in cyberspace
by tmp＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

t.c. may argues against codifying a sort of `bill of rights' or `magna carta' for cyberspace, saying that these documents tend to become meaningless from empty promises. but, on the other hand, what is the point of the nation's bill of rights? we could argue that the concept of `free speech' is meaningless in the realm of private industry, yet we still have a bill of rights that guarantees us certain rights. where, precisely, are we guaranteed these rights to e.g. free speech, freedom of assembly, etc? do the cypherpunks believe in the u.s. constitution as sacred or not? i think something that `cypherpunk' ideology often misses is the concept of a community. this mailing list is a community. most of cyberspace is a community. when you yell at a site administrator to censor e.g. detweiler, you are exercising a role in that community (as is he). and the bottom line is that communities *demand* rules. otherwise, one only has anarchy. do you really *like* anarchy? keep in mind that `detweilering' seems to thrive in it <g> IMHO anyone who argues that cyberspace does not require a bill of rights similar to the one we have in the `real world' is essentially mistaken. t.c. may argues that these kinds of `accesses' such as cheap connections etc. will arise naturually via private enterprise and competition. but! this just doesn't hold out in what might be termed the `pathological' situations. consider that all the internet providers decide they can make a lot of money from collusion. what is to prevent them from price fixing? also, i have seen t.c. may essentially condone the practice of private companies censoring their users from internet access. but, correct me if i'm wrong, there is *only* access through the internet through private companies! what if they all decided to censor a particular user? suppose you want to create your own company-- they could just as easily decide to deny service to your company!! this is why we have a government, `punks'-- it is a sort of `codified community'. we are guaranteed freedom of speech and assembly etc. in any forums associated with the *government* the bill of rights ensures you certain minimum expectations. one solution to this on the internet would be to create a subnetwork in which rights of users, as well as laws governing their freedoms, are codified. people who subscribe to the network are committing to upholding the charter of the overall organization in return for their `minimal expectations'. some of these expectations might be: 1. right not to be censored for most forms of speech or net use. 2. if someone tries to censor them, that a `due process' ensue 3. this might be something like a `trial by one's peers' 4. the accused would have the right to confront accusors etc. note that these have been recognized as basic human rights for centuries, and they are very sensibly applied to cyberspace. now, the organization of other users also has a certain set of laws they adhere to: 1. allowed to censor sites/users that `misbehave' by initiating the `due process' 2. expectation of identity-- in joining the system a site makes guarantees that they will not forge mail by users or other sites, etc. 3. a police force representing the authority of the organization over members would be required for enforcement. we could call this the `cyberspatial citizenship' subset of the internet or something like that. the whole point is to be *explicit* about what sites and users can expect. you see, it is impossible to be connected to cyberspace without being subject to the potential whims of some other human being between you and your digital data!! hopefully, gradually this `cybernation' would grow to the point that it encompasses the entire internet -- sort of like usenet does today, and everyone has a clear expectation of their roles. notice that in our government as well as the system above, `corruption' is recognized as possible. we have a system that transcends individual companies, government agencies, policemen, etc.-- they are all `purged from the system' (theoretically) if they engage in behavior that is illegal in the community. to subscribe to a system like this is *not* to subjugate yourself to a higher authority. it is the way you `mesh' or `interface' with the mechanisms that embody the community you live in. now, a lot of you are going to get upset because all of the above sounds a lot like a `government'. but if you can get away from the mindset that `government==evil' you can see that this system has benefits to everyone involved, and moreover it would be possible to erect outside the scope of the u.s. government. that is, in one sense you could call it a `private' organization. `punks', until a system like the above is implemented, no one is free. we have no rights. we have nothing but the feudal system, and one is either a slavish serf or oppressive king, and this could change at a moment's notice. suppose that someone bought a few dozen accounts around the world, and made you their enemy (or vice versa) and simultaneously sent complaints from every one to your site administrator saying that you had caused irreparable harm to various cyberspatial forums? would your administrator listen for very long before they decided to yank your account because, after all, `we've had dozens of complaints'? what if you had never even posted to the forums? would your administrator know? would he give a damn? if he did, why should he? what if netcom yanked all the accounts of cypherpunks *today*? are you saying they should be allowed to do that merely because they are a private company? what if *all* internet providers decided to do this? are you going to argue that this is impossible? what *prevents* it? do you think a company is going to care how loud you screech on the phone if they have some other plan? the bottom line: if you think you have any rights today in cyberspace, or guaranteed access to the internet, you are *wrong*. so, codifying a cyberspatial magna carta ranks as a very noble and ideal pursuit. i urge the ambitious and fairminded among us to strive to realize this vision. `you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences'.... --tmp

3 2

Re: THOUGHT: Internation
by jamiel＠sybase.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:15 PM 04/04/94 -0700, Blanc Weber wrote: >From: Jamie Lawrence > >"....... I just would like to know if >those who object to this object on grounds of practicality or ideology (in >other words, for example do you object because you don't believe everyone >is *entitled* to a job......." > >having a job = making a living using $ >"a living": having an idea of a kind of life to live >pre-requisite: having a purpose in life >requisite: arranging your life to realize (achieve) that purpose > following-through on the work required > adjusting things around you to suit your >interest/sensibilities > >It would be impractical for another person to deliver all of these >things for me at their expense, when they should be spending time on >their own dreams & plans. It does not represent an ideal method to me >to have my lifestyle delivered to me, while aiming to be an >independent, autonomous individual with a mind of my own. Well, I guess we concieve of the meaning of the phrase "'right' to a job" somewhat differently. I see it as meaning everyone has the oppurtunity to earn a living. Whether or not I have the responsibility to follow through or not, I have that chance. (I also don't know that I think my job has anything to do with my purpose in life- If someone can find that to be the case, great, but otherwise it is just a way to stay alive while they are looking for the real thing, so to speak.) >Otherwise I would be obliged to serve the purposes & interests of those >who supply the means, the job, the money, on their schedule; that is, >whenever they could think of something for me to "do" on the entitled job list. I suppose I look at the alternative- that people don't have the right to earn a living, that doing so is a priviledge. How easy is it to get by without a job in this country? It can be done, but it sucks. >Blanc -j

1 0

Re: This List--Public, Private, or Other?
by jim＠bilbo 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Who owns the games of volleyball played in my backyard? Since it's my backyard, I could tell everybody to go away, but then the games would also go away. The games could start up again in another backyard. Do I own the games? Effectively, no. The problem is with the term "own". I merely control the existence and character of games within the space of my backyard, but I can't control the existence or character of all games everywhere. I also cannot control the migration of a specific game from my backyard to another backyard. Sure, I can make sure the players don't use my volleyball or my net, but they can get other volleyballs and other nets. What is a volleyball game? Is it a volleyball court, a net, and a ball. No. Is it a group of people? No. Is it a group of people standing in a volleyball court with a net and a ball? No. Is it a group of people playing in a volleyball court with a net and a ball? Maybe. It depends on what they exactly they are doing with the net and the ball. A volleyball game only exists when they are playing volleyball. As soon as they stop, or are prevented from continuing, the specific game dissipates. A volleyball game emerges from specific interactions between the people and the items they manipulate (court, net, and ball). Can anyone own a mailing list? What is a mailing list? Is a mailing list a collection of hardware and software? Is it a bunch of people? Is it one message CC'ed to a group of people? A specific mailing list emerges over time from the specific interactions between an dynamic collection of people and the equipment used to support the interactions. Someone can own the equipment used to support a mailing list. They might also be able to "own" the name of the mailing list (copyrighted mailing list names?), but the name is not the most important characteristic of the list. They can also attempt to control the character of the list as long as the list is hosted on their equipment. However, the people who participate on the list can migrate the list to another host. Conclusion: You cannot own a mailing list because you cannot own the collections of people and interactions that define the mailing list. Jim_Miller(a)suite.com

1 0

Re: THOUGHT: Internation
by lefty＠apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jamie Lawrence writes > >Well, I guess we concieve of the meaning of the phrase "'right' to a job" >somewhat differently. I see it as meaning everyone has the oppurtunity to >earn a living. Whether or not I have the responsibility to follow through >or not, I have that chance. What does "have that chance" mean in this context? Will appropriately non-demanding jobs be created (how? by whom? of what sort?) for those too untalented, careless, surly or offensive to get themselves "real" jobs? Do you actually see this as meeting some sort of need? -- Lefty (lefty(a)apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

1 0

In the latest IEEE Spectrum
by Matt Thomlinson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

For personal use only -- posted without permission "Classified algorithm for encryption" IEEE Spectrum, April 1994. Federal policy makers should reconsider the Clipper/Skipjack cryptography scheme, which employs a classified algorithm and Government-held keys as the basis of a new encryption standard, according to a six-page statement by IEEE-United States Activities. "Federal cryptography policy should not fight technological progress by attempting to retain outdated techniques of surveillance at the cost of the reliability and the security of the American information infrastructure," the statement concluded. The reasons given for issuing the statement included IEEE-USA's concerns that classified algorithms "cannot be proven secure," that individuals seeking to avoid detection would simply choose another cryptography method that can be downloaded from the Internet, and that law enforcement agencies can use other new methods--from vibration-sensing lasers on windows to keyboard-trapping programs. For more information, contact IEEE-USA at (202)785-0017. mt Matt Thomlinson University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. phone: (206) 548-9804 Check my home page -- ftp://ftp.u.washington.edu/public/phantom/home.html PGP 2.2 key available via email, or finger phantom(a)hardy.u.washington.edu

1 0

How Many Games of Chess: Exact answer given!
by collins＠newton.apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Based on new information I have at last answered the question of `How many games of Chess' with finality. Here is the quote that woke me up to the reality of this problem in combinatorics. Jim choate writes: >The fact is that the end game is what defines a game of chess and >not the infinitude of possible paths between the first and last move. The natural conclusion is that the complexity of the problem depends on how much of the game you consider to be the `endgame'. Thus, the actual number of different chess games: 5 2) White mates 1) Black resigns 0) Stalemate -1) White resigns -2) Black mates Happily, this agrees with observed behavior. In fact, this is the way posterity remembers them, e.g., "Oh, yes, Spasky won." ;-) Scott Collins | "That's not fair!" -- Sarah | "You say that so often. I wonder what your basis 408.862.0540 | for comparison is." -- Goblin King ................|.................................................... BUSINESS. fax:974.6094 R254(IL5-2N) collins(a)newton.apple.com Apple Computer, Inc. 5 Infinite Loop, MS 305-2D Cupertino, CA 95014 ..................................................................... PERSONAL. 408.257.1746 1024:669687 catalyst(a)netcom.com

4 3