December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

RE: self-ratings vs. market ratings
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: Vladimir Z. Nuri > >you are free to assume any connotation you like. but in my view >they are pretty much interchangeable. they are both "meta >information"-- information about other things or information. ............................................................... The fact that I, like others, am "free to assume" any connotation means that there easily can exist confusion surrounding the definitions of these terms, and that this can then create controversy in discussions over what anyone means when they make references to them. Those who intend to apply these concepts must determine what they think they are doing (rating content, or establishing someone's reputation?) and must communicate it to others clearly so as to be definitely understood, else risk further compounding of confusion. The word & the concept of "reputation" has been in use for much longer than "rating". In the most recent applications of the term "rating", the idea has evolved to include such things as electronic web page content. It refers to a deliberate, conscious intent to establish a measure, an estimate, or evaluation, of something that an individual or group presents (information) or provides (service). The rating is intentionally applied and is intended to be used for communicating to those who are seeking this specific kind of information, where a reputation evolves "on its own", so to speak, as a coincidence of being generally known. "Reputation" is more a passive reference to the past, where "rating" is actively in regard of a present condition (with future expectations). [These are just comments I have on this subject; I myself don't pay much attention to ratings, as my own measures of things & people tend to be quite different from most, and therefore not very useful for my purposes. So that's all I have to say about it, "Vlad".] .. Blanc >

1 0

Runtime info flow in Java
by Christian Wettergren 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi! I'm presenting my licentiate research proposal next week, and I thought that some of you might find it interesting. I'd like to find others that are working with similar projects, to have some people to discuss with. The actual proposal is available at http://www.it.kth.se/~cwe/phd/licprop.ps I've included an abstract below. Comments are most welcome. Regards, Christian Wettergren KTH/Teleinformatics. Licentiate Thesis Proposal Seminar ================================== Title: "Runtime Information Flow Analysis and Security" Candidate: Christian Wettergren Time: Wednesday, 15th May, 15:00--16:00 Place: Room Telegrafen, Dept. of Teleinformatics, KTH, Electrum Bldg., lift B, 5th floor, Kistagangen 16, 16440 Kista, Sweden Committee: Gerald Maguire, KTH/Teleinformatics Sead Muftic, SU/DSV Enn Tuygu, KTH/Teleinformatics Abstract: Today's computer security systems are fragile and brittle. I believe this statement to be consistent with practical experiences. One can for example observe the regularity of alerts from CERT. Many of the problems are caused by data-driven bugs in application programs. It is important to find a security paradigm that is more stable for the communicative and networked world of tomorrow. I propose a new way of doing information flow analysis of programs. This information flow analysis is done in runtime, and will provide detailed information about influences of the process to the access control decision process. The information flow is based on sets of subjects instead of preallocated security classes, thus decoupling the flow analysis from the access control. The runtime analysis is performed by special code that is run along with the original program. It shadows the computation and keeps track of the information flows within the program. A special compiler emits this shadow code. I will implement such a compiler for the Java language. Issues about the compiler and the shadow code will be discussed in the thesis. The thesis will also investigate the behaviour of the shadow code for programs with different communication patterns. For more information contact Christian Wettergren, +46 (0)8-751 14 91, cwe(a)it.kth.se. You can also retrieve the licentiate thesis proposal from http://www.it.kth.se/~cwe/phd/licprop.ps.

1 0

Re: Mandatory Voluntary Self-Ratings
by Joseph M. Reagle Jr. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Couple quick things: At 11:46 AM 5/9/96 -0700, you wrote: >I don't like the use of the term "objective" here. (I object!!) No, it isn't the best term, there is some bias which can be an issue with dealing with this at the international level, but I think there are solutions to that... >a judgement like "child approved" is more subjective than "sex: moderate", >but they are both value judgements. It doesn't even say "sex: moderate", but "(s 3)", and then the parent can consult a chart that is a summary of the questions that directly ask about the content: VIOLENCE ALL (0) HARMLESS CONFLICT; SOME DAMAGE TO OBJECTS 1 CREATURES INJURED OR KILLED; DAMAGE TO OBJECTS; FIGHTING 2 HUMANS INJURED OR KILLED WITH SMALL AMOUNT OF BLOOD 3 HUMANS INJURED OR KILLED, BLOOD AND GORE 4 HUMANS INJURED OR KILLED, BLOOD AND GORE WANTON AND GRATUITOUS VIOLENCE TORTURE; RAPE So we can argue about "objective," but this is _atleast_ very "non-arbitrary" and the process (if people are non-malicious) is deterministic. >now, it seems that the author might as well put the tags in his material >himself instead of going through this submission process. This is a significant issue. >also, above we have the claim it is "fully automated". what??? it >sounded to me like the page designer has to submit a special form >to this service and then go and grab the tags to manually put in his own >page? this is "fully automated"??? Try it for your own page and see! >also, JR, you say the system does not determine "appropriateness". >but in my view it does indirectly. an author can "falsify" his submission >to say that his page has no sex or violence. (who is to say he is >wrong? the internet ratings police?) this will implicitly determine >the "appropriateness" of his page for people who screen their >browswers based on the keywords that were affected. People who misuse the system can be fined. (By using the system one also has to "AGREE"). However, the status of this contract is up at grabs IMHO since they relied on trade mark to enforce their system (the pic on a box). Now, gifs and the like (banners) may still be of issue, but the real meat here is a system (s 3 l 2 v 0), there is no IP protection for this, and if there aren't signatures, this can be a serious problem. >creator, as it should be. (in my view ratings and the content should >be made as independent from each other as possible in the sense >that ratings are not tied up in the content itself) I see it as an author provided a value added service to his content same as anyone else. _______________________ 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: Remailer in a box
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"loki(a)infonex.com" 9-MAY-1996 00:59:47.21 >Cyberpass (www.cyberpass.net) offers UNIX accounts without dialin access >for $7 per month. These are available anonymously, and can be paid for with >ecash. 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. Your work on remailers does give you some reputation capital, however. The signup form isn't very clear about anonymnity, BTW - I suggest dividing it into optional and mandatory sections, and stating what will be the policy for a lack of the optional ones. What's the 17- vs 18 differentiation for? Thanks, -Allen

2 1

Re: Applicable Models for Trust Calculations (Re: Dempster-ShaferTheory and Belief Networks (Re: Transitive trust))
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"reagle(a)MIT.EDU" "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." 9-MAY-1996 18:30:11.78 >The very term "Web of Trust" makes one pause with respect to independent >events. Quite. Keys signed by an individual who turns out to be untrustworthy may very well be keys of nyms of that individual; under many circumstances, all are trustworthy or none are trustworthy. -Allen

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"loki(a)infonex.com" 9-MAY-1996 00:59:47.21 >This could be done with a trivial modification to the source and >destination blocking lists (just change the sense of the checking). In other words, just change them from blocking to allowance? How much technical knowledge does this take? I can see doing the incoming with procmail. >Cyberpass (www.cyberpass.net) offers UNIX accounts without dialin access >for $7 per month. These are available anonymously, and can be paid for with >ecash. Interesting. Having ones at other than c2.org is useful for backup purposes. >Yes, but I only give it to remailer operators. The "bramble" might get >flooded otherwise. Operators see the repercussions of their actions. Does it use how busy the remailer is to determine the approximate frequency of the messages, or does it just keep on going with whatever you tell it? Thanks, -Allen

3 2

Re: Cyberspace--Silencing the Net
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Interesting that they're a very liberal organization with the guts - unlike, say, CPSR - to condem German censorship of Neo-Nazis. Their information on that is incomplete, however; Declan and Rich may wish to contact them and give them the whole story. -Allen

2 1

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

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"tcmay(a)got.net" 8-MAY-1996 16:30:16.71 >Then we'll see what happens. (This is an old debate, here and on the >Cyberia-l list, to wit, what happens when people/perverts/libertarians >choose to subvert the voluntary ratings by deliberately mis-rating their >stuff? Or what if they genuinely believe, a la NAMBLA, that youngsters >should be exposed to certain things?) I don't agree with NAMBLA, BTW, in case anyone is wondering... >I say it's a waste of our time to even be thinking or worrying about how to >implement an infrastructure for ratings. In fact, building such an >infrastructure could make later imposition of "mandatory voluntary ratings" >(Orwell would be unsurprised) a greater likelihood. Quite. There's also the misuse of it by other countries to do filtration (Chinese firewall et al). While this isn't an argument that having it is something that shouldn't be permitted, it's a consideration that those constructing some such system should keep in mind. I haven't seen any evidence that either RCIS (sp?) or SafeSurf have done so. -Allen

1 0

Publicity on PICS
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

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). -Allen >Copyright 1996 Nando.net >Copyright 1996 Reuter Information Service >PARIS (May 9, 1996 12:41 p.m. EDT) -- A consortium of leading computer firms >launched a global rating system Thursday enabling parents to shield their >children from sexually explicit and violent material on the Internet. >The firms also hope the system will protect them from angry governments who >blame the largely unpoliced international computer network for bringing >pornographic material across their electronic borders. >"We do believe it will provide legal protection in a situation where adult >material is being distributed to minors," said Andrew Gray, European general >manager of CompuServe. "It will very much strengthen our position in these >kind of situations." >The system, an industry standard known as PICS -- for Platform for Internet >Content Selection -- has been in the works for nearly a year, and will take >several more months to become a useful tool for parents and educators, its >primary targets. >Under the system, 39 internet-related firms including giants America Online, >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. >The software will enable parents and teachers to filter out pages according >to their own choice of level of violence, sex, nudity and language. >At the same time, providers will be urged to rate their pages by filling out >an electronic questionnaire resulting in a "grade" for each site, on a scale >ranging from zero, the most innocuous, to four for each category. What was I saying about pressure to rate? >The system depends for its ratings on voluntary compliance by Internet >providers. However parents will also have the option of simply blocking out >all unrated pages, simply by checking an electronic box on their computer >screens. This is, of course, assuming that "Internet content providers" won't simply rate their pages as suitable for all ages. [...] >But there is no way to use the system to seek out pornography or violence on >the web, officials insisted. Yeah, right. >"To content-providers, I would say, 'Rate your sites' To parents I would >say, 'Set the levels for your children.' And to governments, I would say >humbly, 'Think again before censoring the net,"' Stephen Balkam, executive >director of the Recreational Software Advisory Council, told a news >conference. Note again the pressure for self-rating. >"CompuServe supports selection and not censorship, empowerment and not >restriction," Gray said, announcing that his firm would begin distributing >the necessary software to customers in July. >Netscape, whose Netscape Navigator Internet-browsing software is the most >widely used in the world, will begin offering a new version incorporating >the ratings capability by the end of the year, Technology Director Martin >Haeberli said. >"Parents and educators must have some way, some tool, to enable them to >moderate what is available," Haeberli said. Only if you approve of parental censorship. >Internet firms around the globe have been under the gun from governments to >better police their offerings that offend local sensibilities, which vary >considerably from country to country. >A strength of PICS is that "it allows as many countries as would like to set >up a rating system," said Jim Miller, a research scientist who helped >develop the system. Adhering to the system would still be up to individual >households, however. Whatever became of market-ratings? Admittedly, they may mean that each country will be encouraged to given an example system... but I still don't like the idea of government involvement. [...]

2 1

Re: FW: Science Project Fair
by Clay.Olbon＠dynetics.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Deja vu all over again. This was forwarded to me by someone within my company a while back. I may be cynical, but the chances of this being a hoax are just too high - it is simply too easy to send out a message like this to get an email address mailbombed. I recommend against replying to this. Clay At 7:20 AM 5/9/96, Husa, Carl (MSX) wrote: >>---------- >>From: Beverly. Ferguson[SMTP:103014.3727@CompuServe.COM] >>Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 1996 9:38 PM >>To: KOMBUCHA DIGEST; PARACELSUS DIGEST >>Subject: Science Project Fair >> >> >>Originally Posted To: >> >>>Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 09:58:55 -0400 >>>Sender: Methods of Teaching Mathematics <TEACHMAT(a)UICVM.UIC.EDU> >>>From: Peggy R Shearin <pshearin(a)WARREN.CES.NCSU.EDU> >>>Subject: Science Fair Project >> >>>>Hi, our names are Stevie and Amanda. We are in the 5th grade at >>>>the Phillipston Memorial school, Phillipston, Massachusetts, USA. >>>>We are doing a science project on the Internet. We want to see >>>>how many responses we can get back in two weeks. (We are only >>>>sending out 2 letters). >> >>>>Please respond and then send this letter to anyone you >>>>communicate with on the Internet. >> >>>>Respond to smc(a)tiac.net. >>>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> >>>>1. Where do you live (state and country)? >> >> >>>>2. From whom did you get this letter? >> >> >>>>Thank you, >>>>Stevie and Amanda >> >>------------------------------ >> >>

1 0