December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Transitive trust and MLM
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"raph(a)cs.berkeley.edu" "Raph Levien" 8-MAY-1996 23:28:14.30 > Now we can actually evaluate the probability of a given key being >good. Consider a Monte Carlo process in which each edge in the graph is >present with probability 1-p. For each run, we determine whether the >recipient's public key (actually the binding between public key and >recipient's e-mail address) is reachable from our trust root. The >probability over a large number of runs is (given our assumptions) the >probability of the key being good. > One encouraging consequence of this model is that densely connected >subgraphs can result in highly trusted keys even if p itself is quite >small. In a clique of size k, the trust is (very) roughly 1-(1-p)^k. For >example, if p is a mere 50%, then in a clique of size 10, each key in >the clique is trusted with a probability of 99.9%. Hmm.... I've got the problem with this that the measure you're using is really good for creating an _upper bound_ for how trustworthy a given key is - not for how trustworthy it actually is. In other words, a key that has your, Lance Cottrell (sp?), Black Unicorn's, and TCMay's signatures on it is pretty reliably determined (at least to me) as being that of whom they say it is - but that isn't equivalent to how good the person is at determining other key linkages. It's an upper bound on how good the person is - if you don't trust a key as not having been compromised (due to a lack of key signatures), you aren't going to rate it highly as an introducer. The interesting question is what relation to this upper bound (and to other characteristics of the web, such as the degree of mutual signatures in a chain) the actual introducer trustworthiness has. -Allen

1 0

Re: Mandatory Voluntary Self-Ratings
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"reagle(a)MIT.EDU" "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." 9-MAY-1996 15:07:09.24 > I've figured out where my differences between myself and others >lay. The _only_ system and service that I am aware of that is distributing >PICS labels is RSAC. (http://www.rsac.org) They are what one could call an >objective and non-arbitrary content rating system rather than an >"appropriateness" system. "Appropriateness" systems will be valuable 3rd >party systems when the vigilantes and fundamentalists wish to create label >bureaus. For self labeling, if many people (main stream people) are going to >use that system within their browser, it will have to have mind share. If >it's going to have mind share, I think it would be advantegeous to it to be >a descriptive label rather than "appropriate." Hence, much of the concerns >I'm hearing aren't so worrisome to me. While that they aren't going for "this isn't appropriate" is to their credit, they do have a lot of problems with the nonsensical nature of some of their ratings; take a look at the definitions, for instance. (It's also obvious that they simply copied them from their ratings of video games. A lot of their HTML references for the definitions are messed up, incidentally.) A. In regards to aggressive violence, they appear to rate self-defense as aggressive violence. B. They do _not_ rate depictions of violent games such as football and rugby as aggressive violence. C. They define any sex between someone under 18 and someone above 18 as a "sex crime" - despite that the age for statutory rape varies considerably, and is usually _below_ 18. They're thus defining it in the same category as rape. D. They define bestiality, even if consensual, as a "sex crime." Again, they're thus defining it in the same category as rape. E. They define "Any portrayal (words, speech, pictures, etc.) which strongly denigrates, defames, or otherwise devalues on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, gender, sexual oriention, or disability" as "hate speech." This has to be the most PC definition I've seen in a while. If I mention that someone is a Scientologist, and that their opinions are likely to be unjustified because of this, then I've committed "hate speech" under this definition. If I say that someone who is less intelligent - a disability - is of lesser value in the long run, I've committed "hate speech" under this definition. In other words, they're encouraging parents and others to block out speech that isn't PC. I will give them credit for mentioning "honkey" as an epithet; most PC types seem to cheer on non-white racists like the Nation of Islam. (There, I just committed hate speech against the Nation of Islam - I attempted to bring down their reputation.) F. They also define any "hate speech" that "advocates violence or harm" as "Extreme Hate Speech" - which gets the highest rating. Somehow, I doubt that they're going to want to rate pro-Affirmative-Action speech - advocating harm to those not in the protected groups - as "Extreme Hate Speech." In other words, while they've got some good ideas (as you point out, unlike the SafeSurf system they don't attempt to have a category for "overall appropriate range"), they've got a lot more messed-up ones. I don't think I'll be rating any of my content with them anytime soon, thank you very much. They'd misclassify it as "hate speech" or "extreme hate speech" or some such nonsense. -Allen

1 0

Re: PGP, Inc.
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"shamrock(a)netcom.com" 8-MAY-1996 11:06:21.74 >Since VeriSign is going to issue certs for nyms for free, the only >requirement being uniqueness, using their certs might not prove much of a >problem. I can see some fascinating legal questions with what, exactly, a VeriSign certificate obligates the company for. Digital signature laws should get interesting - any application of this to the Utah one? -Allen

1 0

Re: time services on the Net
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:11 AM 5/7/96 -0400, you wrote: >I'm in need of a time service available over the Internet. >Time-stamping is a plus, but the actual time (GMT, local, ...) >is more important. Does anyone have, or know of where I >can find, a list of these services? Check out http://www.clock.org/clock.org.html and http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ for more information. There are some standard TCP/IP protocols for time. You can check the RFCs for more information on them, and look in whatever your operating system calls the "services" file. There's a simple "daytime" protocol which gives the time in hours:minutes:seconds at 1-second resolution, in ASCII or binary, over TCP or UDP. It's dumb, but it works fine if that's enough resolution for you, and there are programs to set your system clock based on it, such as rdate for Suns and wsntime for Winsock. There's a far fancier protocol called NTP, the Network Time Protocol, which is a multi-tiered time protocol with servers and clients and mutual agreement and adjustment for round-trip delay and such. Depending on the quality of your network connections, it can be accurate to very fine time resolutions. It's good form for ISPs to support NTP, both to keep their clocks synchronized and to feed time to their clients, but not all of them do that. It's also good form for ISPs to keep _all_ their machines in sync, not just most of them, as occasionally happens at (ahem) some large well-known ISPs, especially if they're going to bill for prime/nonprime time... Another motivation is so that tycho.usno.navy.mil and its friends tick and tock.usno.navy.mil only get hit by a few thousand ISPs instead of potentially millions of individuals. Ask your ISP's administrators what they do about clock sync, unless of course you _are_ the administrator, or your ISP takes three weeks to respond to tech support questions like the (ahem) large well-known ISP not named above. I currently use wsntime to sync off cesium.clock.org because my ISP has reconfigured their time service and takes weeks to respond to tech support quetions, but I was using the ISP directly for a while. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com, +1-415-442-2215 # goodtimes signature virus innoculation

1 0

Re: Remailer in a box
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"loki(a)obscura.com" "Lance Cottrell" 9-MAY-1996 18:58:23.21 On Thu, 9 May 1996, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: >> After taking a look at www.cyberpass.net, I can see why you're >> encoraging people to use it - about like Sameer encouraging people to use >> c2.org. >Guilty No problem. Modesty is an overrated virtue. >I am not pushing the anonymous accounts until my laywer finishes the user >agreement for them. It is a bit of a tricky document (Sameer, want a copy >when it is done?). The whole site is days away from a complete redesign, >so I am not putting much effort into the current interface. Thanks for >the suggestions though. I suspect that the legal types on cypherpunks would be interested in seeing it. Quite welcome on the suggestions. >The >= 18 condition is to cover my butt. Since minors can not be parties >to contracts, I have no protection with them as clients. I am only a >provider for adults, and they take full responsibility for any children >allowed to use the connection. Fuck the CDA, but keep an eye on its claws. I see your difficulty. It is an additional one with respect to anonymous accounts. Hmm... you could put the burden on other ISPs by only having anonymous accounts via telnet access - and not accepting such from k12.edu domains. Bit of a limit, though. -Allen

3 2

Crypto Law Survey - updated
by Bert-Jaap Koops 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have just updated my survey of cryptography regulations worldwide. I have included the developments of the past few months and added a number of links to more detailed resources and full texts. http://cwis.kub.nl/~frw/people/koops/lawsurvy.htm Please reset old pointers to this URL. Comments, as always, will be appreciated. Bert-Jaap Koops --------------------------------------------------------------------- Bert-Jaap Koops tel +31 13 466 8101 Center for Law and Informatization facs +31 13 466 8102 Tilburg University e-mail E.J.Koops(a)kub.nl -------------------------------------------------- Postbus 90153 | This world's just mad enough to have been made | 5000 LE Tilburg | by the Being his beings into being prayed. | The Netherlands | (Howard Nemerov) | --------------------------------------------------------------------- http://cwis.kub.nl/~frw/people/koops/bertjaap.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Publicity on PICS
by Joseph M. Reagle Jr. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:25 PM 5/9/96 EDT, you wrote: > The following may give an example of how companies and governments want >PICS to be used, instead of how it should be used (market-based ratings not >for censorship). It is _very_ confusing to follow though. >>CompuServe, Microsoft, Prodigy and Netscape Communications will soon give >>their customers software enabling them to block access to material they >>judge objectionable on the Internet's Worldwide Web. Consider that Compuserve had a deal with SurfWatch, which was incorporated in it "Internet" in a box, with a lot of Spry goodies. Now Surfwatch has been purchased by Spyglass (a competitor or Spry). Also, Compuserve offers RSACi services through CyberPatrols RSACi compliance (got some weird derivitive and cross-liscencing works going on here!) and urges its users and 3rd party people to use RSACi... _______________________ Regards, Men govern nothing with more difficulty than their tongues, and can moderate their desires more than their words. -Spinoza Joseph Reagle http://farnsworth.mit.edu/~reagle/home.html reagle(a)mit.edu E0 D5 B2 05 B6 12 DA 65 BE 4D E3 C1 6A 66 25 4E

1 0

Re: PGP, Inc.
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 19:37 5/9/96, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: >From: IN%"shamrock(a)netcom.com" 8-MAY-1996 11:06:21.74 > >>Since VeriSign is going to issue certs for nyms for free, the only >>requirement being uniqueness, using their certs might not prove much of a >>problem. > > I can see some fascinating legal questions with what, exactly, a >VeriSign certificate obligates the company for. Digital signature laws should >get interesting - any application of this to the Utah one? VeriSign is going to offer four levels of certs. The first requires only uniqueness. For the other three levels, VeriSign will require more and better assurances of the correctness of True Name stated on the cert. I don't know what form these assurances are supposed to take. Disclaimer: My opinions are my own, not those of my employer. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred.

1 0

Re: PGP, Inc.
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"shamrock(a)netcom.com" 9-MAY-1996 23:02:01.67 >At 19:37 5/9/96, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: >> I can see some fascinating legal questions with what, exactly, a >>VeriSign certificate obligates the company for. Digital signature laws should >>get interesting - any application of this to the Utah one? >VeriSign is going to offer four levels of certs. The first requires only >uniqueness. For the other three levels, VeriSign will require more and >better assurances of the correctness of True Name stated on the cert. I >don't know what form these assurances are supposed to take. The first level, in other words, is less of a certification than a PGP key with self-signature and signature from one other person. It doesn't have _any_ effort to verify that the email address stated on it is the actual email address of that nym. Or am I misinterpreting you? -Allen

3 2

Re: PGP, Inc.
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 23:10 5/9/96, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: > The first level, in other words, is less of a certification than a PGP >key with self-signature and signature from one other person. It doesn't have >_any_ effort to verify that the email address stated on it is the actual email >address of that nym. Or am I misinterpreting you? I was on a panel with a representative from VeriSign at Interop in Las Vegas. He said that uniqueness was the only requirement for the first level of cert. I don't have any information beyond that. Disclaimer: My opinions are my own, not those of my employer. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred.

2 1