December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Remailer in a box
by E. ALLEN SMITH 18 Dec '03

18 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 18 Dec '03

18 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 18 Dec '03

18 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 18 Dec '03

18 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 18 Dec '03

18 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

Re: Transitive trust and MLM
by E. ALLEN SMITH 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

From: IN%"llurch(a)networking.stanford.edu" "Rich Graves" 8-MAY-1996 04:33:21.44 >The fact that you're sending postcards is only a problem if you don't want >them to be read. It's more the email I receive that I worry about, so all >my friends use the address rich(a)alpha.c2.org now. How would this help? Whoever's wanting to monitor you will just monitor rich(a)alpha.c2.org's incoming mail. -Allen

2 1

Re: Mandatory Voluntary Self-Ratings
by Joseph M. Reagle Jr. 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

At 06:46 PM 5/9/96 EDT, you wrote: > 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.) I would agree the questions seem too video game orientated, and I don't like some of the questions either. However, it is a fair effort, and I don't think if something is questionable (for instance, someone errs by labeling someone that is 18 years old as a teenager) the whole system falls to pieces. Or some crucial piece of information on my home page, that some child might have seen, but won't be seen because I labeled a character in one of my stories as a teenager even if he/she was a teenager. I'm sure this is something that could go on for a very long time in some cypherpunk thread (something I'm not interested in argueing about), but there is no such thing as a perfectly objective or unbiased system. For instance, I don't like the distinctions other systems make for homosexuality, but I also understand some parents may wish to screen on it... _______________________ 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: Transitive trust and MLM
by E. ALLEN SMITH 18 Dec '03

18 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 18 Dec '03

18 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 18 Dec '03

18 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