December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Getting a copy of the Jim Clark speech
by loki＠obscura.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

If he has not clarified his position by tomorrow evening, I will set up some web pages explaining the situation and decrying Netscape's apparent position on key escrow (GAK). I have the quotes that L. McCarthy posted, and Jeff Weinstein's response. I have not been able to get the article off the server yet (possible all the cypherpunks downloading it?). Any other documents I should include? -Lance At 1:24 PM 11/30/95, Jim Gillogly wrote: >> Raph Levien <raph(a)c2.org> writes: >> I called Netscape public relations. Here's what I found out: > >> 1. Netscape PR does not keep transcripts, etc., of Jim Clark's speeches. >> 2. You can order a tape of the speech from Conference Copy for... > >Good initiative, but we needn't wait for 6 weeks to get a copy of it. >All that needs to happen is for Jim Clark to explain what he meant, if >it's different from what was reported. No need for all the to-ing and >fro-ing. > >Perhaps what he meant was simply reiterating the announcement of October >when they said they'd support the TESSERA crypto API. If it's worse than >this, he should explain what's going on. If not, October was the time to >get excited rather than now. > >Waiting with bated breath... > > Jim Gillogly > Highday, 10 Foreyule S.R. 1995, 21:24 ---------------------------------------------------------- Lance Cottrell loki(a)obscura.com PGP 2.6 key available by finger or server. Mixmaster, the next generation remailer, is now available! http://obscura.com/~loki/Welcome.html or FTP to obscura.com "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra. Suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night the ice weasels come." --Nietzsche ----------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Netscape gives in to key escrow
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 11/30/95 3:07 AM, Futplex quoted: >> http://www.cnet.com/Central/News/govt.html ... >--------------------------------------------- ... > said Clark. He added that an invincible security system for the Net is > possible, but such a system won't be built unless the government has a stake > in it. "That's where key escrow comes in," said Clark. >--------------------------------------------- "A stake in its heart," more like. Futplex then wrote: ... >Netscape's web pages. I hope they will at least have the courage to put out a >"We Support Clipper II" press release. Now the question is, how much of a >role does Netscape Communications intend to play in implementing GAK, and >what can we do to counter it ? Well, spamming the sign won't do. Aleph One's suggestion -- an NS-hack or "virus" -- doesn't make any sense: if Perry or someone would vet a hacked copy, I'd use it in a second. But hacking it would involve a violation of the license, so hacked versions couldn't be offered in any above-ground way: there'd be no way to certify a hacked copy with a trusted nym's key. Netscape is between a rock and a hard place: I think it's safe to say that, were all things equal, NS would support strong crypto. The fact that NS has decided otherwise suggests that some pressure was applied: Clark says as much. This leads me to believe that one possibly effective (and possibly dangerous) tactic might lie in a seriously sustained attack on NS's reputation -- keeping up a meme-drumbeat of "you can't trust Netscape, that's all, you'll get ripped off." I think we should try it -- TODAY, now, persistently and loudly, until NS comes around. I'm not saying that this'll be enough, but it's a start. TODAY. And I really don't care what it takes: calling cronies in the press, spreading innuendo, redoing NS icon sets so there's a spy from "Spy Versus Spy" loitering behind the N... I've seen some nice "NO Netscape" tags on GNU-related pages. Let's do it. Hieronymous FB DD B5 C8 FB F4 52 41 F0 0F A0 6E 99 43 75 06 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQBVAwUBML1vc73g0mNE55u1AQGfdgIAsldR3e9UQZG9//38B9LrU/HnCSzaY1kB RMOcBdab5EZ2X9BXkA7lIdDJUUqHOykuv1oyFDtitWRsXxmaTb0cuw== =0FmD -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: ecash lottery (Was: ecash casino)
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"s1113645(a)tesla.cc.uottawa.ca" 30-NOV-1995 00:22:29.15 Isn't there also some Scandinavian bank that's handling ecash? It might be hard to explain to US tax authorities how large amounts of anon currency are ending up in one's marktwain account. In that case it might be ------------------- There are essentially two things that one can do with tax-suspicious ecash (or cash, for that matter). The first is to expend it in non-traceable, non-predictable ways. The second is to disguise it so it looks non-tax-suspicious. The first includes spending, of course. In regards to the non-predictible, I am meaning avoiding spending it for things such as groceries that someone can easily estimate a minimum bound for how much can be spent. Spending it to add quality (such as low-fat foods) to those groceries would be harder to prove. The first also includes charity and investment. Investment does have the problem that the income one gets out will have to then be treated by the same sort of process. The second will vary in method depending on one's individual skills and situation. However, I will note that it will be easier for those with independent earning skills- a self-owned business, for instance. I will note in regards to the above that while I have been doing some reading on the underground/black economy, I have not actually attempted any of the maneuvers discussed. Thus, what I say should be taken with at least a grain of salt. -Allen

1 0

Re: Netscape gives in to key escrow
by anonymous-remailer＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Thu, 30 Nov 1995, Mike McNally wrote: > Jeff Weinstein writes: > > have lots of stuff attributed to Jim, but very little of it is actual > > quotes. > > Well, if there was in fact a speech made from which the pseudo-quotes > in the article were taken, then surely the full text of that speech > will be made available somewhere for clarification. I read this article, and thought it to be quite a twist. It's suicidal from Netscape to say this. It's almost like a couple of stock promotions I was at yesterday at the Calgary Petroleum Club. Horrible nasty stuff. Suicidal speeches. Especially the one guy from Neutrino Resources (an Oil and Gas Company) who decided to explain what a Neutrino was before he started his "spiel" and talking about how great his company was and how cashflow wasn't a good measure of a company's worth. Netscape could well learn from that. (Unfortunately, I doubt that anyone was there.) People in these audiences DO listen. Press, investment analysts, and the like who do pepper the audience didn't all just fall off the turnip truck. Jim Clark, should have seen or heard this. If he did, then he might be a bit more careful with what he says ... but then again, I'm not sure how involved he is in daily operations. But nothing that Netscape does any longer surprises this writer ... look at how they handled the revelation back on Friday, October Thirteenth that the emperor's product had no clothes. Did they respond to the claims?? No. All they did was spam this list with noise "unofficially, not speaking for the company, but I work for Netscape" noise, and then continued distributing their product. Maybe these revelations will help to get the Netscape product pulled from people's machines, but I'm not gonna hold my breath on that one. The momentum which is behind their stock and product promotion now has a life of its own. Stopping Netscape (and the stock from advancing) is like trying to stop a steam-roller. But for now, I'm busy setting up an email account to allow people to send replies to me, and to settle this "reputation" stuff once and for all. I should be back to posting very soon. Alice de 'nonymous ... ...just another one of those... P.S. This post is in the public domain. C. S. U. M. O. C. L. U. N. E. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > | Nobody's going to listen to you if you just | Mike McNally (m5(a)tivoli.com) | > | stand there and flap your arms like a fish. | Tivoli Systems, Austin TX | > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >

1 0

index.html
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

CNN logo Navigation Infoseek/Big Yellow Pathfinder/Warner Bros Main banner SAMSUNG Meet the Challenge rule TED TURNER DONATES $1 BILLION TO 'U.N. CAUSES' Ted Turner making his speech In this story: * 'A billion's a good round number' * 'You have to learn to give' * 'The world is awash in money' September 19, 1997 Web posted at: 12:10 a.m. EST (0510 GMT) NEW YORK (CNN) -- CNN founder and Time Warner vice chairman Ted Turner announced Thursday night that he will donate $1 billion over the next decade to United Nations programs. Turner made the announcement at a dinner held in New York by the United Nations Association-USA to honor Turner for his contribution to the international community. He was presented the Global Leadership award by the group. Speaking of his gift, Turner said, "this is not going to go for administration. This is only going to go for programs, programs like refugees, cleaning up land mines, peacekeeping, UNICEF for the children, for diseases, and we're going to have a committee that will work with a committee of the U.N. The money can only go to U.N. causes." The donation will be made in 10 annual installments of $100 million in Time Warner stock, he said. "Present day value that's about $600,000," he joked. The 56-year-old Turner also joked that he was about to be named to Forbes magazine's list of the top 25 richest Americans, "and I'm going to push myself down the list." 'A billion's a good round number' During his speech at the New York Marriott Marquis Hotel, Turner said that he made the decision to donate the money only two nights ago. He said it was based on the increase in his net worth since the beginning of the year. _______________________________________________________________ the Announcement icon vxtreme The announcement 1.5 MB/16 sec. AIFF or WAV sound _______________________________________________________________ Turner explains the plan for making the donation 416 K MB/5 sec. AIFF or WAV sound _______________________________________________________________ Turner explains the plan for making the donation 416 K MB/5 sec. AIFF or WAV sound _______________________________________________________________ Turner explains where the money came from 621 K MB/28 sec. AIFF or WAV sound _______________________________________________________________ Ted explains how the money will be spent 317 K MB/14 sec. AIFF or WAV sound Ted Turner's speech _______________________________________________________________ CNN's Larry King talks with Ted Turner about his donation. _______________________________________________________________ "When I got my statement in January," he said, "I was worth $2.2 billion. Then I got another statement in August that said I was worth $3.2 billion. So I figure its only nine months' earnings, who cares?" Speaking live later with CNN's Larry King, Turner said, "I'm no poorer than I was nine months ago, and the world is much better off." Asked how he came to pick the figure $1 billion, the irrepressible Turner said, "A billion's a good round number." From one station to a colossus Starting in 1970 with a single UHF television station in Atlanta, Turner grew a global colossus that includes a smorgasbord of cable channels, movie studios and professional sports teams. He started his TBS satellite superstation in 1976 and CNN in 1980. As a yachtsman, Turner was skipper of the boat that won the America's Cup in 1977. In April, Turner chided fellow billionaires Bill Gates and Warren Buffett for not donating more money to charity. "What good is wealth sitting in the bank?" Turner said at the annual meeting of the Boys & Girls Clubs of America. "It's a pretty pathetic thing to do with your money." Turner said the gift was based on the money he'd made from the Time Warner stock he received when Turner Broadcasting merged with Time Warner to form the world's largest communications company (and CNN's parent company as well). He said the decision was to give the money based on the value of the stock, but that it is possible the stock will increase in value and "Who knows, I might get a little money back from this deal." 'You have to learn to give' Turner and Annan In 1996, Turner gave away $28 million, according to a survey by Fortune magazine. The money went to Worldwatch, the Bat Conservation Society, Friends of the Wild Swan and hundreds of other environmental causes. Turner told King that he has discovered "the more good I do, the more money has come in. You have to learn to give. You're not born to give. You're born selfish." Turner said he wanted to donate the money directly to the U.N. but was told by his lawyers that would not be legal. The U.N. cannot legally accept money from individuals, so Turner will create a foundation to spend the money and administer the programs. The programs are expected to focus on jobs, land mines, education and global warning. When King asked about global warming, Turner said, "Haven't you been outside lately? It's hotter than hell out there." Turner also said he intends to become a fund-raiser for United Nations causes "so everybody who is rich can expect a call." Alvaro de Soto, the U.N. assistant secretary general for political affairs from Peru, said Turner's gift "symbolizes the best of what we all admire in America. I can only hope that his gesture will inspire many." 'The world is awash in money' "There are so many rich guys in the world, billionaires," he said. "The world is awash in money and nobody knows what to do with it. We don't want the money they know what to do with, just the money they don't know what to do with." "Did you talk to Jane Fonda about this?" King said. "Yeah, two nights ago when I thought of it in a hotel room here in New York," Turner said. Asked her response, Turner was momentarily quiet. "It brought tears to her eyes," he said. "She said, 'I'm proud to be married to you.'" rule Related sites: Note: Pages will open in a new browser window * Time Man of the Year 1991 - Ted Turner: Prince of the Global Village * Turner Foundation, Inc. * Robert Edward (Ted) Turner - Forbes Four Hundred profile * United Nations Home Page * UNESCO - United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization * United Nations Development Programme * United Nations Environment Programme * United Nations Children's Fund * EPA - Global Warming * Natural Resources Defense Council * Turner Foundation External sites are not endorsed by CNN Interactive. _________________________________________________________________ Infoseek search ____________________ ____ ____ _________________________________________________________________ rule Message Boards Sound off on our message boards You said it... [INLINE] Do a global ad campaign for your cat. Because you can. rule To the top © 1997 Cable News Network, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms under which this service is provided to you.

1 0

Re: Getting a copy of the Jim Clark speech
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"loki(a)obscura.com" 30-NOV-1995 21:12:15.86 If he has not clarified his position by tomorrow evening, I will set up some web pages explaining the situation and decrying Netscape's apparent position on key escrow (GAK). I have the quotes that L. McCarthy posted, and Jeff Weinstein's response. I have not been able to get the article off the server yet (possible all the cypherpunks downloading it?). Any other documents I should include? --------- I would suggest being sure to include some links to the EFF archives in regards to Clipper, etcetera. These should make it clear that it isn't just one group opposing the idea of GAK, but a wide coalition. -Allen

1 0

Re: Netscape gives in to key escrow
by anonymous-remailer＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Thu, 30 Nov 1995, Jay Holovacs wrote: > On Thu, 30 Nov 1995, Timothy C. May wrote: > > > Can Netscape continue to prosper? This latest issue won't kill it, > > I suspect this will unfortunately help. Stockholders are interested in > profits, not principles. Uhhm, I think that that depends on what "class" of stockholder you're speaking of. The short term "trader" whose idea of a long-term investment is the one that gives a decent return by lunchtime, or the one who wants to buy a good company, make a solid investment, and put their stock away for five years, knowing that their capital is being put to good use. They really are different players with different approaches. Netscape stock as an example has lots of momentum ... it's in a feeding frenzy. And I'm pretty sure that someone with "very" deep pockets -- possibly even someone who's got their own printing press -- is busily buying everything in sight, and crossing trades on every up-tick. (Disclaimer: Just my opinion, not speaking officically in any capacity.) I'm not sure who might be behind any of this, though. I haven't the desktop power, nor the data or tool-set to chart and flow-analyze the trading record, and see what the play is.) I wouldn't really be surprised though if it was offshore interests who want to "cash-in" on high-tech. Standard "Von Clausewitz" reader-types. People who subscribe to "Von Clausewitz's" principles on "other means". I base this assessment purely on price-movement, and on the "known" fundamentals. To this writer, it's pretty transparent. In the last six-weeks, Netscape has gone from the 60's to flirting with 150. That's one heck of a trend-line that some pseudo-technical floor-trader types will jump on. Part of that is "market-forces", and part of that is definitely "market-makers". The only way to counteract that is probably some Elliott Wave Theory shakeout, or something similar. It's the only way to stop 'em from blowing up the balloon. Or you need one killer scandal. Cheap advice, btw ... it's free ... and no-one even had to buy me a Gin & Tonic, or some fancy canapes to hear it. Alice de 'nonymous ... ...just another one of those... P.S. This post is in the public domain. C. S. U. M. O. C. L. U. N. E.

1 0

Re: Getting a copy of the Jim Clark speech
by Frank Stuart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>If he has not clarified his position by tomorrow evening, I will set up some >web pages explaining the situation and decrying Netscape's apparent >position on key escrow (GAK). I have the quotes that L. McCarthy posted, >and Jeff Weinstein's response. I have not been able to get the article off >the server yet (possible all the cypherpunks downloading it?). Any other >documents I should include? I'm working on an "obnoxify" program to convert normal html documents into documents that look normal to non-netscape browsers, but are too painful to read with netscape (</BLINK>, <FONT SIZE=1>, etc.). I think tomorrow evening would be a good time to decide whether or not to distribute it. | (Douglas) Hofstadter's Law: Frank Stuart | It always takes longer than you expect, even fstuart(a)vetmed.auburn.edu | when you take into account Hofstadter's Law.

2 1

(fwd) ECheques
by rah＠shipwright.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text From: "John Hemming CEO MarketNet" <JohnHemming(a)mkn.co.uk> Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 17:11:34 PM PST To: www-buyinfo(a)allegra.att.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: ECheques We have just had the final modifications of the documentation from our Lawyers to make the UK Sterling Clearing ECheque system fully live. If you want to peruse the process http://mkn.co.uk/bank - about opening accounts http://mkn.co.uk/help/bank/register - account contract http://mkn.co.uk/help/bank/regkey - registering each key mandate We do intend putting some form of PGP signature checking facility in for clearing ECheques later, but for the moment the standard ECheque form generated by WorkHorse is what we accept. The Standard ECheque is nothing more than a BER encoded sequence similar to a certificate request with a standard PKCS signature at the end of it which is then Base64 encoded (but if you use the decoding facilities in WorkHorse you can see this). Britain .... first again. We did clear an ECheque in September, but this is now the real McCoy. Merchant accounts cost nothing to open and the transactional charge for a Merchant to receive Sterling (not ecash denominated in Sterling) is 1%. The accounts can be reviewed online and they are real bank accounts (in Sterling however). Other Merchant transactions are costed as usual see conditions (eg 40p per cheque - paper cheque). If you want to integrate ECheques and the web simply see our flower ordering form http://mkn.co.uk/load/ordflow John --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA (617) 958-3971 "Reality is not optional." --Thomas Sowell The NEW(!) e$ Home Page: http://thumper.vmeng.com/pub/rah/ >>>>Phree Phil: Email: zldf(a)clark.net http://www.netresponse.com/zldf <<<<<

1 0

Re: ecash lottery (Was: ecash casino)
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ian wrote: >>The idea behind my proposal was that any participant can determine if he has >>won. The winning number (a hash of which was published beforehand, as in >>a "bit commitment" scheme) is announced. Anyone who picked a number >>that, say, matched in the last digit, wins $2. If you matched the >>last two digits, you win $10, etc. The house (without sacrificing >>reputation) can't arrange who the big payoffs will go to, nor can it >>(as I think Tim suggested) give out lots of small prizes and no big ones. >There are two main kinds of lotteries - systems where many people have a >moderate chance of winning a fixed amount of money, and lotto-systems where the winners split a jackpot that's based on current and/or previous players' losses\\\\\\ ticket purchases. The former kind, such as numbers games, works because the expected payoff is less than the ticket price - you can make it honest through techniques like bit committment, but as Tim points out, the kind of people who care about things like bit committment know enough math to know these games are money-losers. Perhaps you can attract some people with a flashy user interface, but it's not like really being in Vegas with booze and babes and blinkenlights and incessant noise and stale smoke and Siegfried and Roy's tiger act. On the other hand, lotto systems are too easy to cheat with anonymous payees. Sure, you can make sure that any genuine winners get paid, but you can also throw in the occasional ringer to share the prize, and nobody can tell unless you do it often enough that people start checking the probabilities. Bit committment doesn't prevent this kind of cheating; it just verifies that you knew the number in advance (oops :-). You need some sort of externally verifiable source of random numbers; an MD5 hash of the Wall Street Journal stock price web page from a few hours after the last bet and digital timestamping or something might be good enough. (Of course, a single unified stock price page becomes even less meaningful with large volumes of on-line anonymous private stock trading.) (The pre-digital version of this scam was to hire some poor old grandma from the South Bronx as the shill, since nobody'd accuse Granny of conspiring with the mob. It wasn't really enough then, and now Granny may be using anonymous digicash for her payoffs...) Another way to cheat progressive lotto systems is to not report all your ticket sales each week, since anonymity makes it excessively hard to verify. Committing to the list of all the numbers bet almost works, but you could still skim a few percent by reporting smaller sales of popularly chosen numbers, with the risk that you've occasionally got to pay all six real winners 1/5 of the jackpot if you're unlucky. You can't get around this by using large enough numbers that there's a small probability of duplication, because that also reduces the probability of a win too far, and because some folks are going to pick 7777777...777 regardless of how many bits long their bet is. Government lotteries are surprisingly free from this sort of problem. Not because governments are excessively honest, of course :-) Employee pay isn't generally dependent on profitability, there's enough public scrutiny that it's harder for employees to cheat for their own gain (rather than their lotto organizations'), and (perhaps most important) they're already taking such an appallingly high cut of the winnings that there's no need for regular cheating - it's one of the efficiencies possible in a highly unnatural monopoly. But if all else fails, you might be able to talk Scott Adams into giving you the World Wide Web franchise for Dogbert's Value-Priced Lottery Tickets.. #-- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, Freelance Information Architect, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # Phone +1-510-247-0663 Pager/Voicemail 1-408-787-1281

1 0