December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: pretty good reputation
by Vipul Ved Prakash 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Deranged Mutant wrote: > > first, i would like to make it clear that i have no personal grudges against > > I never thought you did... That was simply to ensure a flame free discussion. Almost anything I talk about on my local bbs echos (back in India) turns out to be a flame war, specially if its related to _touchy_ software like PGP :) > > pgp, i have some interest in reputation systems which i am trying to pursue. > > since pgp tries to model a reputation system and is being used world-wide, > > i am using pgp as a model for discussion. > > That's the point, though. PGP *does not* try to model a reputation > system. When you sign keys, you only attest that you are sure that > that key belongs to the person whose name is on it. A signature says > *nothing* about a person's reputation. > This is meant to be used separately by each user of PGP. If Alice > knows Bob personally, then she knows how trustworthy Bob is when he > signs a key, in relation to her. This is not meant to be shared with > anyone else, and has no meaning to anyone else except Alice. in that case if alice receives a key signed by bob, she would know the key is good. and there is no need for the two other fields. infact the reason why i felt pgp is trying to model a reputation system if because of these two fields that carry trust values. > You can't set up a global web of trust. It's computationally > infeasable, esp. with contradictions, to resolve. It's also > meaningless. Say Alice trusts Bob. Bob trusts Carol. Carol trusts > Don. Should Alice trust Don? No... subjective factors like "trust" > don't commute. this is precisely what i wanted to know. can there be a model wherein one can compute a trust-like parameter? if yes in what ways should this parameter be modified and qualified. or conversely what kind of qualification/modification is required for computing trust? > > copule of things you mentioned are intresting. in a reputation system the > > trust parameters are fuzzy and there are lot of layers (since we > > are talking of a web of users), so we can't mix it with the liar paradox. > > Yes we can. There's been work done with the Liar paradox using fuzzy > logic. Also other work in repuation webs ("Say the president of a > company asks all his vice presidents for their opinions about each > other, so he can appoint a successor. How does he resolve > contradictions, when all he has are their opinions about each > other?"). lets say a reputation system involves alice, bob, carol and don. Computing trust parameter with respect to each other can lead to situtions where alice trusts bob x% and has y% proof that he is a liar, after considering all other relations. If this x% > y% she'll believe him, if not she won't. thats why i feel the liar paradox doesn't really pose much of a threat. > > as far as halting problem goes, again can we reduce a reputation system to > > halting problem? Infact alonzo church and some other scientists made > > symbolic equivalents of turing's machine which could determine the broad > > limits of automatic computation. is there any research being done on reputation > > systems that involves church's thesis? > > I mispoke slightly: I mentioned the halting problem in terms there > being non-computable functions. There are people on the list (and > elsewhere) who don't have an inkling about the halting problem, and > propose security/reputation systems that fly in the face of it. > > I've been working on a proof or discussion of a "Very Generalized > Halting Problem" that basically says that you can check that > something is "not x" from a set of tests to see if that something is > not "x"... if it fails at least one test, you know it's not "x", but > if it doesn't fail any, because such a set must be incomplete > (Goedel's Theorem...), you are never sure that it's "x". > > How this relates to a reputation system? If you set up a global > reputation network where people tag each other in degrees of trust, > you try for completeness and end up with . People will > contradict each other and there will be no way to resolve it. Alice > says Bob is trustworthy to a degree, and Bob says Carol is > trustworthy to a degree, but Carol says Alice is untrustoworthy > (rates Alice lower). There will be inconsistency only if trust/untrust values are absolute. that is you either trust someone or you don't. i am talking of a system wherein trust values lie between 0..1 which are derived from a set of tags. in that case bob alice trusts bob x% bob trusts carol y% and carol trusts alice z%. if z < x, z < y simply implies alice trusts bob, bob trusts carol more than carol trusts alice. so the system will be relative rather than absolute. a person who is trusted by more people will carry greater weight and people trusted by him will carry higher weight too. this way snoopy who is not trusted by many people will automatically have a weak relationship with others. > There's the other point that someone else on the list (Perry?) brought up: > if people publicly rate each other, there may be social/political > pressure to give some people lower or higher ratings. again these ratings will be decided in a web rather that on one-to-one basis. that way the social/political pressure can be reduced though not completely eliminated. > And again, being a private rating system means 1) I don't offend > anyone since no one else knows how I rate them, and 2) there are no > contradictions because I am not relying on other's ratings to > determine how I rate them. > > BTW, some work using fuzzy logic in terms of how people rate each > other is being done at the Group for Logic and Formal Semantics at > the University at Stony Brook (in Stony Brook, NY). I went to school > there and still help out in the Philosophy Department and the > G.L.F.S. with some programming etc. It isn't exactly the same as > ratings systems, but its close enough. if any research work is freely available i'll be really interested. best, vipul.

1 0

Re: Snake Oil on the Water...
by Lou Zirko 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- To: dsmith(a)prairienet.org, richieb(a)teleport.com, cypherpunks(a)toad.com, secure(a)commtouch.com Date: Mon Jun 17 16:44:10 1996 Pronto Secure, currently in beta 6.16, is shaping up as a fine all-inclusive mail package that supports PGP. You might want to take a look at it at: Beta Testers residing in the USA are invited to download the beta from: http://www.commtouch.com/secus/secus1.htm Non US residents should download from: http://www.commtouch.com/secnon/secintl1.htm I have been with it since beta 1 and it definately has come a long way. Platforms supported are the MS GUI. It is a 16-bit app. I currently run it under NT 3.51 w/ 32-bit PGP executables. Take a look. Lou Z. Lou Zirko (502)383-2175 Zystems lzirko(a)c2.org "We're all bozos on this bus" - Nick Danger, Third Eye -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 iQEVAwUBMcXR4ctPRTNbb5z9AQH8Tgf/aCWChVMTKFyv+NpADQqosnMO2C7EAj/Z o+O2KwQ91YVaRpkmJjrHzQuP+ou6YKHi5hH9SLRbN5Ox4/8YMmaOIRjqOrTmgta8 +fMBAtJ01AyWW9ZZh0sfEqM32RQ8Pt+x2Q8+MuyuEU/9vaeGhbb7DksGA8y2ht/5 uDKBUtrGgxAS7Yr2VRJVJXNd1b7eFdKGFUhBJJo9ig11/ICHcXVbUqpQ9Iqi2aRT hoRRVtiMawCJznXaYid+2fami/pgtq/i00kV9y4ge3TOooxM4KZB3LZziCbS8R4d AfaG9dj0wP50/zDhFxdExVc6NbQzTyr3kY+4z/47qkIZZ3wn5paezw== =FO3b -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

RE: Non-Lethal Terrorism
by .. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

if you get the opportunity, check out the beyond 2000, nextstep and invention shows on the discovery channel. albeit, they may be a bit dated, the stuff is often enlightening. tuit, r&d of stunguns, dazzlers, flypaper, tanglers and lo-grade chemical agents has been underway for some time in labs arouns the world. lethality is not as popular as it once was. some of these devices do, however, work through excruciating, if nondamaging, pain. tony ---------- From: John Young[SMTP:jya@pipeline.com] Sent: Saturday, June 15, 1996 10:33 PM To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Subject: Non-Lethal Terrorism NON-LETHAL TECHNOLOGIES Military Options and Implications Report of an Independent Task Force http://pwp.usa.pipeline.com/~jya/nltech.htm (47 kb) Beware snooping, consider using the anonymizer at: http://www.anonymizer.com ----- Or, if http fails, NLT_ech to <jya(a)pipeline.com>

1 0

Re: Are Intrested in a new approach to Cryptography???????
by Raph Levien 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

M.Wagoner (1) wrote: > > We have superior Russian Encryption that cannot be broken. We would love to > send you a copy of this software as a challenge to do so. Do you do such things? > Our encryption far exceeds the military standard of 1024 bit encryption, > hundreds of times over. I was told that if anyone could break this, it would > be your organization or anyone else associated with the 'Cypher Punks'. Basically, we are not interested. We are not a free cryptanalysis service. Besides, we already have effectively unbreakable encryption - our main interest is integrating ciphers that have already stood the test of time into useful applications. Best of luck, though. Raph

1 0

Re: Rating Problems
by David E. Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> The recent CDA decision pointed out some of the problems involved in rating > Net content. For example, the court spent a lot of time talking about > Cyber > Patrol software and the CyberNOT list "containing approximately 7000 sites Do we just ignore the fact that these lists are outdated within seconds of release? Even if they can be automatically distributed via the net (maybe by forcing your Web browser to use their page as your home page and automagically downloading to you a new update), the list will still be outdated by days or weeks. This is one of the big problems with all of these types of filters. > Violence/Profanity: Extreme cruelty, physical or > emotional acts against any animal or person which are > primarily intended to hurt or inflict pain. Obscene > words, phrases, and profanity defined as text that uses > George Carlin's seven censored words more often than > once every fifty messages or pages. Gee, is this real or simulated violence? I don't suppose I can go surfing over to the Mortal Kombat website now... > Satanic/Cult: Worship of the devil; affinity for evil, > wickedness. Sects or groups that potentially coerce > individuals to grow, and keep, membership. > > Does that include evangelicals? They're not Satanic but they certainly > encourage membership growth. Some evangelicals can be quite coercive. And > why Satanists? Don't we have freedom of religion in this country? > Remember, the Supremes *did* throw out the Hialeah Sanitaria Animal > Sacrifice Ordinance. What about Co$? They might be a cult, depending upon who you ask. And, what about us harmless, life-affirming Witches? The name alone will probably trigger a lot of filters. I think the point of all this is that unless/until a "smart" filter can be devised, there can't / won't be a good filtering package that will please everyone, or even a majority of someones. Good luck. dave ----- David E. Smith, dsmith(a)prairienet.org PO Box 324 Cape Girardeau MO USA 63702-0324 http://www.prairienet.org/~dsmith/dave.html "fighting ultimage cosmic evil... ... one bean burrito at a time."

2 1

San Diego Cypherpunks Physical Meeting
by Chris Claborne 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

San Diego Area CPUNKS symposium Thursday, June 20th, 1996 Invitation to all Cypherpunks to join the San Diego crowd at "The Mission Cafe & Coffee Shop" were I hope to get an update of Lance Cottrell's anonymous e-mail server, "mixmaster", exchange keys, and discuss other topical CP stuff. There's always the semi-topical discussions; Internet Service Provider in San Diego (providing, anonymous remailers and other privacy services), stelth communications, latest Cypherpunk goings-on, Internet happenings (like recent Federal court decision). Don't forget to bring your public key fingerprint. If you can figure out how to get it on the back of a business card, that would be cool. Place: The Mission Cafe & Coffee Shop 3795 Mission Bl in Mission Beach. 488-9060 Time:1800 Their Directions: 8 west to Mission Beach Ingram Exit Take west mission bay drive Go right on Mission Blvd. On the corner of San Jose and mission blvd. It is located between roller coaster and garnett. It's kind of 40s looking building... funky looking (their description, not mine) They serve stuff to eat, coffee stuff, and beer. See you there! New guy, bring your key fingerprint. Drop me a note if you plan to attend. 2 -- C -- ... __o .. -\<, Chris.Claborne(a)SanDiegoCA.NCR .Com ...(*)/(*). CI$: 76340.2422 http://bordeaux.sandiegoca.ncr.com/ PGP Pub Key fingerprint = 7E BF 38 3F 24 A7 D1 B0 54 44 96 AA 10 D0 5D 51 Avail on Pub Key server. Dreams. They're just screen savers for the brain.

1 0

RE: Micropayments are Crap
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: Vladimir Z. Nuri > >this really revolutionizes the idea of a magazine or editor. >suddenly anyone on the net can become an editor or writer, >and become as financially successful as the market will support. ................................................................ Really. This will be a tremendous boon for individuals, with great potential for capitalistic profits, what with all those consumers (otherwise known as "people") benefitting from the large variety of services available through the Almighty Free Market (The Now All-Oneness, All HTML One-Stop-Shop). .. Blanc

1 0

Re: Snake Oil on the Water...
by Lou Zirko 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- To: dsmith(a)prairienet.org, cypherpunks(a)toad.com Date: Mon Jun 17 18:59:49 1996 They have started mentioning the product on their web pages and provide a link to the beta site for sign-ups etc. Since 6.x I have not yet experienced a product crash, except with a disk full condition which was reported to them earlier today. BTW, would you be interested in setting up a secure channel for testing? Lou Z. Lou Zirko (502)383-2175 Zystems lzirko(a)c2.org "We're all bozos on this bus" - Nick Danger, Third Eye -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 iQEVAwUBMcXxrctPRTNbb5z9AQGfwAgAn7PYnixstxM13Bm6/VTEJp0J7b7e4kh8 evPhPIrsfgWskZzQY/YJtNtaV8p7hphPMeOewGpZ/lXhuPPZeHwLWmFTx/cmX5po g8imoxfwPheHaVtj2R2mdvEyL7Xfiz/YZDJ2E9pyqN7euIrx+xPwbDVqedv87TC3 sFwJecbSpAmGwR2f5V7SrVx+uQcdQ+NzUyOhcToYRnbl7gydEyuGQpQNpn7uyi8S fpvqyoKMwU/ki6xLKIHBPmp8ZQK0AeWnOQl80oGbG7jUGveW9ESs5BwrtXSQPDlI 4SXv1T1UGlVF+DtLFgGHP5agGhl4KT+c5z4ZUTc+BzqSs5aqYmB8yA== =4txl -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Pickle Angels?!? (Humour)(Noise)
by William Knowles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On today's Sally Jesse Raphel was Curtis Swiva? founder of the Guardian Angels talking about his new record of eating pickles. He plans to break the record for eating 22 hot dogs in 12 minutes. The whole rest of the stage was full of drag queens, and other rejects from the Jerry Springer show. Curtis must be really hard up to get his mug on TV! William Knowles erehwon(a)c2.org -- William Knowles <erehwon(a)c2.org> PGP mail welcome & prefered / KeyID 1024/2C34BCF9 PGP Fingerprint 55 0C 78 3C C9 44 DE 5A 3C B4 60 9C 00 FB BD Finger for public key --

1 0

Re: SafE Mail Corporation
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ C'punks, At 05:21 PM 6/17/96 -0400, M.Wagoner (1) wrote: > >We would like someone to be able or should I say try and >crack our encryption. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. >Our Web site is http://www.sfmc.com Phone number is >1-800-252-9938. So I pulled up the Web site to see what sort of reward they offered to the successful cracker. Under the heading "Attention `Hackers'" they said if you crack their unbreakable SafE Mail code, you get 5 free copies of ... SafE Mail! Oh, that's a really primo prize, broken software. Duh. Since cracking their encryption is IMPOSSIBLE, I suggest they make the stakes interesting--$100,000, or hell, a cool million. After all, it's unbreakable. It's not like they will have to pay up or anything. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2 1