December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

marketing "privacy": a nonproblem?
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

HF wrote a recent message about the "doubleclick" advertising service. I don't know much about it but some things he mentioned sparked my neurons. regarding privacy, it seems that there are a lot of different views and specious arguments. we don't really have a clear idea in our culture what privacy is or when it is really being invaded. is it being invaded when marketers create databases of users and their preferences? this is a frequent topic of conversation here. if we are on the side that says "yes", it seems there is such an enormous industry pushing very hard from the other side that a so-called "pro-privacy" position is untenable. are marketers creating the equivalent of what TCM calls "dossiers"? I just had a brainstorm that perhaps the problem of marketing clashing with privacy is completely nonexistent. what marketers really want is to TARGET PEOPLE'S ATTENTION. they don't necessarily want to know who those people are!! a rather paradoxical situation, but the two are NOT the same. imagine that a marketer selling Widgets could send a direct mailing to people who have an interest in Widgets. now, currently what has to happen is that marketers have to collect info on various people and their interests, and then sort that for "widget interest" to get their mailing list. but the overall database is in a sense a dossier. but what we should note is that the marketer DOESN'T CARE at all about the real identity of the people he is mailing to. in fact it is totally superfluous. he only wants to send his literature to people who are interested in widgets, and he doesn't care who they are or their other interests. in fact, marketers keep track of "other interests" only insofar as they can be used to correlate with what they are actually trying to screen for. so what I am getting at is that I think "dossiers" tend to associate a lot of information about a real person, in a way that people can get info on that person given their name or whatever. the point is that marketers don't really care who is who, and don't really want to necessarily have a database that gives the real identity of people. they only need a way of delivering their literature to people with particular interests. let me give an example to clarify this. suppose a database existed somewhere that contained a total profile of me and all my interests. but I am not called "V.Z.Nuri" in the database, but #3343. furthermore, there is an "address" in that database, and it can be used to reach me, but it is unique to that database and can't be found in any other, and furthermore, no one can correlate that address with my real identity. voila-- the marketer doesn't really want anything more than this. yet in a sense my privacy is completely protected. suppose that police agent tries to query the database to get info on me. if it really is secure, all he has is info that can never be tied to me. such a system creates a very important use for anonymous remailers. of course digital cash plays a big role in this too. in the same vein, it is possible for me to "buy" something from a company without them knowing that it was in result to them sending information to so-and-so identity #3343. actually, it could be set up that I tell them, "I am responding to your direct mail ad campaign #1634" so they can gauge the efficacy of their advertising, but they don't know who of their database was involved. when I think of "dossiers" I think of info that can be tied to REAL PEOPLE. but it is quite possible to create an "interest distribution system" that would keep marketers happy but still not be able to be tied to people's real identities. when one thinks of the horrors of classic privacy abuse, one thinks of the way the Nazi's grabbed (Dutch?) records to find jews, or the way the NSA kept files on people and responded to Nixon queries for radicals. but it seems to me it would be possible to create a system in which people's interests are tracked, yet their real identities are dissociated from that information. furthermore, you can dissociate the mechanism to do so-- anonymous remailers have no connection to companies that deliver info through them. notice that much of the above can be achieved in cyberspace with the use of a pseudonym. if you are signed up through a provider that protects your identity (most of them do), then you can do whatever you want in cyberspace and theoretically nothing can be tied to your new identity. furthermore, if you think you have accumulated too much "baggage" associated with your current identity, you can always start afresh. === this will sound quite heretic, but I think marketing is actually a very legitimate business and that cpunks might actually achieve some of their goals by considering how to create a better marketing system. in essence, marketing is the attempt to match up people with information and products that interest them. in a way, this is a very similar problem to trying to match up people to mailing lists and newsgroups and articles/files that interest them. spamming is the cyberspatial equivalent of a problem that existed before cyberspace: junk mail, so to speak. is there an efficient system whereby suppliers and consumers can be matched up, but at the same time preserving privacy? it seems to me a key question of information technology, perhaps a "killer app" in this area is just now waiting to be born. that's all that marketers want, and in fact instead of seeing them as agents of satan, we should just see them as trying to fulfill customer desires with their own products-- the essence of capitalism. the fact that marketers in our culture are so aggressive speaks of how effective capitalism is. people see junk mail as "junk", but notice that the junk is in the eye of the beholder. what if you got on a direct mailing list that sent you info on products you were considering buying anyway? in a sense, "junk mail" is mail that we don't care about, not merely mail from marketers. we get mail from marketers all the time that we appreciate!! if someone can create a more foolproof system that preserves privacy at the same time, all worlds are satisfied. you have the marketer happy, the consumer happy, and the privacy protection too. as long as one tries to defy marketers basic drive of trying to target people with particular interests, I think this is fighting the wind or trying to stop the river. but if one could find a way of supporting their basic motivation, the scenario becomes totally transformed. building a marketing mechanism that preserves privacy may do far more for privacy protection in the future than a zillion remailers. I think the key is to analyze why people *want* to do things that seem to violate privacy (such as marketers), and then finding new ways of doing the same thing while preserving privacy, rather than trying to defy their basic drives (such as collecting information on potential customers etc.). === imagine a massive cyberspace system that was actually a database of everyone who wanted to register, containing their interests. it would be an accepted practice that all marketers could use this system. people would register if the system was actually effective in only sending them info that they really wanted to see. it would be like an index into the population the way Yahoo is currently an index into cyberspace. one could create guidelines and measures by which spamming could be minimized. the database might be able to minimize the effect of bad marketers and indiscriminate mailings etc. it seems like a very interesting problem worthy of attention. the returns for someone who could pull off such a thing would be tremendous. I continue to believe that many problems that people are insoluable or in eternal conflict, such as marketers and privacy, could be harmonized with some sharp ingenuity.

2 2

Re: Remailer Operator Liability?
by hendersn＠zeta.org.au 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Now that the CDA decision has been made, I was wondering how this >would affect the liability status of the various remailer operators? In >the past several remailers have opted to discontinue service due to >legal/political pressure. Will this CDA decision help to decrease remailer >operator liability? Unlikely. The use of anonymous remailers was given as a reason for why it was impossible to effectively determine if indecent material was being distributed to a minor who was using a nym. I think pressure on anonymous remailers is going to increase as various groups complain that the paw innocent widdle kiddies are "vulnerable to corruption"(or some bullshit like that) because their age can be hidden. Read the decision. The CDA _may_ be declared constitutional if there was an effective and reliable way of preventing minors from accessing "indecent" material - which anonymous remailers make harder to do. On another front, anonymous remailers were brought up in the latest hearing of the Church of Scientology's court case against Dennis Erlich. Judge Whyte expressed concern that trade secret status could be destroyed simply by posting information through an anonymous remailer. Of course, the Church dearly wants those concerns to be considered valid in law. I expect Whyte to set a precedent concerning anonymous remailers sometime soon, and it is unlikely to be a good one. Zed(hendersn(a)zeta.org.au) "Don't hate the media, become the media" - Jello Biafra PGP key on request

4 4

Re: Proposal: PGPmail Plugin for Netscape/Mosaic
by Hal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There was a little discussion about this on the coderpunks list, but I didn't get the impression that anyone was ready to run out and do it. I'm not sure whether plugins could also be used for receiving mail in addition to sending, but if so it does seem like a good way to add the functionality. Also, as I understand it, Netscape plugins have to be downloaded and installed ahead of time by the user, so it is not quite true that this gives one-click PGP access to everyone with a browser; it will only be for Netscape users who have downloaded and installed the right plugin. Also, plugins are architecture specific so he would have to be running the kind of computer for which a plugin is available. I have a Java applet which sends PGP mail similarly to the model you describe. This will work in principle for any browser which supports Java, and does not require anything to be downloaded or installed ahead of time (other than the Java-compliant browser). It is still pretty rough and is more of a proof of concept than a production program but I think it is another potential approach. Look at <URL: http://www.portal.com/~hfinney/java/java.html > and follow the links to the PGP compatible mail applet. Hal

3 2

Applied Cryptography - used copy?
by David Rosoff 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Does anyone have a used copy of Applied Cryptography they'd like to get rid of? (Reply to drosoff(a)arc.unm.edu) =============================================================================== David Rosoff (nihongo o chiisaku dekimasu) -------------> drosoff(a)arc.unm.edu For PGP key 0xD37692F9, finger drosoff(a)acoma.arc.unm.edu or get from keyservers pub 1024/D37692F9 1995/07/01 David Rosoff <drosoff(a)arc.unm.edu> Key fingerprint = 25 7D AA 01 85 41 43 89 50 5A 33 76 F1 F1 99 67 I accept anonymous mail. If I didn't sign it, you don't know I wrote it. === "Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will / To strive, to seek, to find-- and not to yield." <---- "Ulysses", by Alfred, Lord Tennyson -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMcHXRBguzHDTdpL5AQFiQgP+Mj545SMMlj70nJzZhFnHiCvNZ0bx/qJy MFhKIZKX6fGINewAgHwscgPiXpQ1mRndp0K2PGeZi0IeaX7pxqZN3Mr8LEQ48Ltz CKc8zolmIIq2cRYC2bmeEDbgLNk6arct2XcJ8DMD0hBd9JMtZlX0OUo53li/zz8p dWEwYo655Sc= =xnql -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2

Re: Sen. Specter and Kerry move to delay crypto legislation
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:03 PM 6/21/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote: >On Fri, 21 Jun 1996, jim bell wrote: >> Since "everybody" is supposed to agree that the Leahy encryption bill is >> dead, dead, dead, I don't see this as being any kind of problem. It was >> disliked by Clinton and the Denning-types, and with the exception of a short >> flurry of mistaken optimism around here, it was roundly excoriated here as >> well. > >To which which Leahy Bill are you referring? The one introduced on February 26, 1996. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: NWLibs> Stop Cross-Copying (Re: Take the money, Harry, re.)
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:21 AM 6/21/96, jim bell wrote: >The subject was the use of digital cash for accepting Federal matching >funds. I cross-posted ONE message. It was appropriately on-topic in both >areas. > >Okay? No, not okay. The resulting torrent of messages from and to Tonie Nathan, and about Tonie Nathan, had no connection to anything related to the CP list. I didn't single you out as the instigator of the cross-copying, as I had no idea of who it was.... (but now that I know it was you, I can't really say I'm surprised). When messages are cross-copied, warning should be included saying that the message is going to more than one mailing list, and perhaps why this was deemed necessary. And most importantly, urging follow-up posts to carefull consider which groups are appropriate. (Many people don't even bother to edit the To: and Cc: fields, resulting in a pile-up of copied names. I try to excise out all recipients except "cypherpunks(a)toad.com," figuring anyone not reading the list is not worth sending a separate copy to.) --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: Sen. Specter and Kerry move to delay crypto legislation
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:19 PM 6/21/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote: >On Fri, 21 Jun 1996, jim bell wrote: >> >> Since "everybody" is supposed to agree that the Leahy encryption bill is >> >> dead, dead, dead, I don't see this as being any kind of problem. It was >> >> disliked by Clinton and the Denning-types, and with the exception of a short >> >> flurry of mistaken optimism around here, it was roundly excoriated here as >> >> well. >> > >> >To which which Leahy Bill are you referring? >> >> The one introduced on February 26, 1996. > >I think the above message was refering to "procode" however. Certainly not by name. It merely referred to legislation that Leahy "sponsored." Leahy _did_ seem to act like he was in favor of the Burns bill, as well, after ECPA got the bad press, and maybe he's a co-sponsor of the Procode bill as well. Even so, the letter did not appear to be CC:'d to Burns, so I conclude that it was intended to refer to at least the ECPA, if not both bills. United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence June 7, 1996 SSCI #96-2219B The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy United States Senator Senate Russell Building, Room 433 Washington, D.C. 20510-4502 Dear Pat: We write to express our concerns about legislation you have sponsored which would impact directly upon federal encryption policy, including export control policy. Recognizing that American innovation in encryption technology is unequaled, we appreciate the need to balance US economic competitiveness with the need to safeguard national security interests. As such, it is our belief that this legislation requires careful study and reflection and that the Senate and the Congress as a whole should proceed with caution until all of the implications of such an initiative are fully discerned. Along these lines, it is our understanding that industry representatives are currently meeting with the Administration to discuss new policy initiatives to address this issue. Also, both the Congress and the Administration have undertaken to conduct a thorough analysis of a two-year congressionally-mandated study on federal encryption policy that was facilitated by the National Research Council. We therefore feel that your legislation initiative at this time is premature. We appreciate your efforts to bring some needed clarity to United States policy in this area and wish to keep the lines open for discussion and debate on this important issue. The staff point of contact on this issue is our Committee Counsel, Mark Heilbrun, who can be reached at 224-1700. Sincerely, Arlen Specter J. Robert Kerrey Chairman Vice-Chairman cc: The Honorable Alfonse D'Amato Chairman, Senate Committee on Banking -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Bashing "Wired"
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:08 PM 6/17/96, Mike McNally wrote: >That reminds me. As someone who hasn't yet given up on WiReD in disgust >(instead, I get it and read it faithfully in disgust), I was particularly >pissed-off at the latest "Kids Net Rights" issue. Jonathan Katz >huffs and puffs about how "nobody in the digital world" protests the >idea of rating schemes to keep non-adults away from information, and >indeed claims that "the digerati" (grrr) are pushing rating schemes with >great gusto to save themselves from censorship. > >I guess by "nobody", he probably means "nobody who hangs out in the same >trendy espresso bars as the WiReD trendmeisters". I've seen plenty of >invective directed at the concept of rating systems in general, from >a variety of people including Tim May and li'l ol' me. That's been here >and on some various newsgroups. Indeed, I have not only written _against_ such mandatory rating and age-declaration schemes, I have also written about how such schemes may be used counter to the intended purposes (e.g., the way LolitaWatch helps connoisseurs of young girls locate targets). I happened to pick up that issue of "Wired" today and skimmed it at the bookstore. The same old points of view recycled, refried, retreaded, and ready to be retired. I suspect that author didn't know about our criticisms because we're not published in "Wired," nor in "Netly News" and other such travesties. Most importantly, we're not journalists, "online activists," or moonlighting science fiction writers, and so we don't count. Nearly every issue of "Wired" has the usual columnists, the usual feature writers, and the usual focus on _personalities_ over substance. (Who the fuck cares that on a long drive through the desert Jean Louis Gassee opined to a budding Hunter S. Thompson that "that makes my nipples hard"? I stopped reading that issue of "Wired" when this shit bubbled up out of the sewer.) (I'd go back exclusively to "Scientific American," except they now charge $4.95 for a much-thinner magazine than the old thick and meaty issues of the 60s and 70s, where an issue sold for 60 cents, then 75 cents, then $1.00, etc. Also, the old article format has been replaced by shorter, flashier, more personality-oriented pieces. Still, better than the fluff of "Wired," which is "tired.") And notice that increasingly the "journalists" are the quoted thinkers and strategists in important areas? Someone majors in English, starts writing for "Netizen" or "HotWired," and the next thing you know they're debating crypto policy with Conrad Burns and Dorothy Denning. We're in an age where the medium truly is the message. I do think "Wired" has a few good items, buried deeply in the muck. I dislike their typography and color styles (but then, who doesn't?), but mostly I dislike their hipper-than-thou techno-freneticism. The hundreds of little sound bytes about technolog, what's hot and what's not (wired--tired), the focus on ephemeral personalities (a la "People," it's true inspiration), well, it all makes me glad to never spend more than 15 minutes flipping through it at the newstand. Someone told me recently that "Wired" is either already public, or is about to go public (stock-wise), with an estimated market capitalization of $400 million. (I guess some of those journalists are suddenly very rich....) Caveat emptor. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: Noise: Re: Those Evil Republicans
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:49 PM 6/24/96 -0400, Hallam-Baker wrote: >If you had heard the whole speech rather than only the portion reported on CNN I read the reporting and excerpts in the Saturday Times. >you would know that you have entirely distored the meaning. The point being >made was that cyberspace is being promoted as a panacea for all ills, many of >which it is creating rather than curing. I wasn't aware of any ills being created by cyberspace. For one thing, it hasn't been around (as a big thing) long enough. The only impact it has had so far is to reduce TV watching and improve writing ability (from a very low base level) among its heavy users. That's a good thing. Any effects of disintermediation or shrinking of institutions (governments and corporations) as we discuss on this list haven't really happened yet. >Cyberspace is not a replacement for an >ecconomic policy, Newts idea of giving laptops to homeless people is not a >solution for poverty. Actually I think that this is quite obvious from the >quote you give. I assume that Clinton's statement was aimed at the neo-Luddites in the AFSCME. There are probably quite a few. Actually freedom of communications or free exchange of bits (cyberspace) and by analogy the free exchange of goods and services *are* an economic policy though of course a controversial one. >Given the experience of derregulating Savings and Loans institutions I don't >think the country could survive another round of deregulation. As Reagan said >"Gentlemen we've hit the jackpot" - and of course they had, S&L was not a >fiasco for certain people, just for the poor taxpayers. Yes the great inventor of deposit insurance FDR has a lot to answer for. But for his intervention, we taxpayers wouldn't have owed a dime for the S&L collapse. I expect quite a bit more de facto dereg as people become harder to control. A mere desire to regulate others unaccompanied by the ability to do so is so much noise. >> In the same speech in which he talked about people hunting ducks with rifles. >Damned unsporting eh? Isn't the NRA weapon of choice a surface to air missile? The NRA suggests shotguns. A rifle is much more sporting than a shotgun for assassinating quackers. Hard to hit them with rifles (even harder with SAMs). DCF "If the Internet is so easy to control, how come my sysop can't even control his little piece of it?"

2 1

Re: NWLibs> Stop Cross-Copying (Re: Take the money, Harry, re.)
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:14 PM 6/20/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: >At 5:19 PM 6/20/96, RogErick(a)aol.com wrote: > >> I agree with you, Tonie, as usual. >> I struggled with this, for years, until I had a dream. I was on a >>battlefield, pinned down by enemy fire, and I was out of ammunition. >.... > > >Hey, folks, I'm a libertarian, and even voted for John Hospers in 1972. But >the Cypherpunks mailing list has over 1200 subscribers, and cross-copying >to it for these debates is not a good idea. I presume the same is true >about cross-copying Cypherpunks stuff onto "nwlibertarians(a)teleport.co," >but I can't say for sure. > >What I know is that wide cross-posting (or cross-copying) is the bane of >lists these days. There are so many lists, so much overlap, that the >temptation is great to cc: any conceivably-related list. > >Hey, no one speaks for Cypherpunks, least of all me, but I think >cross-copying between libertarian, or digital commerce, or Wobbly, or >International Socialist Women of Color, or Unabomber Brigade mailing lists >to the Cypherpunks list is inappropriate. The subject was the use of digital cash for accepting Federal matching funds. I cross-posted ONE message. It was appropriately on-topic in both areas. Okay? Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0