December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Schelling Points, Rights, and Game Theory--Part II
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

tcmay(a)got.net wrote: >I believe the game-theoretic and evolutionary approaches, mixed in with >economics, offer the most solid grounding for the discussion of rights. I'll try keep my response brief, because I seem to swerve between didactic and sarcastic without being able to stop in between. As others have said, look where I'm pointing, not at what I'm pointing with. So here goes... Basically, in this view of rights and raising of children it would seem that a relativistic pragmatism prevails. Personally, I think that the two choices are either this relative pragmatism or an absolute morality. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Some implications of Tim's view is that all our rights are basically a transitory agreement between individuals. If at any time the "cost" of a right becomes too high for too many (e.g. free speech leading to X for some X), then it is quite possible that this "right" will be removed. The "losers" have no higher appeal process in this matter than that of trying to gain a different consensus. This may work while there is not a large power gap between any two individuals or groups, but as power shifts to fewer people and groups (economic, social, political, etc...) the "losers" may find that the lowest cost path is into some form of economic serfdom or slavery (e.g. McJobs). Ask Phil for other examples ;-). Unlike Rawls, we are not in a position of developing our laws in advance of determining our social standing. I personally believe that our ability to develop reasonable laws and social structures will persist only as long as the majority of us have the ability to "put ourselves in someone else's shoes" and do in practical terms what Rawls suggests in theoretical ones. As soon as those with power are not able to see a situation where they could become like those without power, there will cease to be motivation to maintain a "safety net" of rights or economic means to protect the "losers" of our society. James

1 0

Re: Digital Watermarks (long, getting off-topic)
by Alex F 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> >>Isn't it odd that when music is sold, CD's are MORE expensive than cassette > >>tapes, even though you _know_ that the manufacturing cost of CD's is less? > > > >CDs sell for more because buyers decided that they wanted a wider range of > >titles with shallower sales (hence higher unit costs) rather than a narrower > I'm afraid that quantitatively, this is utter nonsense. > > A relevant data point is the fact that for about $1000, anybody can have > 1000 copies of a custom CDROM manufactured. That, by music industry The real; answer to all of these points is too simple. "Because they can" A lot has to do with percieved value. If consumers would have thought that the prices were way too high, then the market would have dictated a lower cost eventually. I think that the price of CDs vs tapes is more a marketing issue than a technical one.... Alex F =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Alex F alexf(a)iss.net Marketing Specialist Internet Security Systems =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

1 0

Re: Digital Watermarks for copy protection in recent Billbo
by Alex F 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> >> To go to trial, an indictment would be needed. How likely is this? > > > >The likelyness is irrelevant to the point. Possibility is relevant. > >Probability is not. > > "Likeliness" is _always_ relevent when discussing law. I disagree. The CDA is not likely to ever get enforced. Does this mean that we should just ignore it because likeliness is zero to none? > Thus, the guy who buys a bicycle that later turns out to have been stolen, > will usually lose the bicycle, but is not knowingly receiving stolen > property and hence is guilty of no crime. And no DA will charge him; the > courts and jails are already clogged up enough. Uhh, if the DA has a personal vendetta against the guy w/ the bike he *COULD* charge him, if he wanted to, and it would be 100% legal. What we are talking about here are laws that allow for harrassment under the guise of the legal system. Granted, laws are not necedssarily bad, people are, but still.... This stuff CAN and DOES (there goes the "likeliness" theory) happen all the time. Your point of view strikes as one from a text book where people are not crooked (nothing wrong w/ that), but the sad fact is that there are people out there who can and will take advantage of any legal loophole in order to get done what they want done. Alex F > I maintain that this "wiggle factor" in the law is not something to get > worried about ("But they _could_ arrest me for buying a book stolen 10 > years ago! We've got to do something!) and is, in fact, essential in any > justice system. There just is no "automated" or "formal" system, and > probably/hopefully never will be. > > --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." > > > > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Alex F alexf(a)iss.net Marketing Specialist Internet Security Systems =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

1 0

One of the biggest problems with freedom
by anonymous-remailer＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

What our biggest problem is, is that people want the government to protect them from the oh so evil terrorists, and they will willingingly have shackles put on them, and rejoice when it is done. I know people who WANT the government to take away their rights for security, and its a lot of people, and its far too many people. Example: "I don't care if the government has my keys for encryption. I don't do anything wrong, and if it helps FBI enforce our just laws, I am all for it. Since anyone who tries to get keys without legal means will end up in Leavenworth for the rest of their life, there is no problems with people getting access to those things." When I try to refute the logic: "I don't care about the bill of rights... I don't want to have to split my family up on separate flights so there is a chance of some of them arriving without dying. I want the security of knowing I can fly okay without being blown up, thank you very much. Signapore has little or no crime since the people give up their rights for a common good." Problem with freedom is people don't use it... and like a limb, will wither and fall off if not used. Our basic item should be trying to get the masses to figure out that freedom is important and should not be construed as a gift from the government.

1 0

Benchin' Registration
by benchmaster＠benchin.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi Random! Thank you for registering as a Benchin' member! You have the privilege of reviewing software, participating in discussion groups, and winning prizes! Take this opportunity to help your fellow software seekers by reviewing your share of software products. Do 25 and get your beanie! At any Benchin' log-in screen type: User Name: rjnerd Password: 43095 You may want to change your password to one which is easier to remember. Click on the "Members" menu item, then the "Log-In" link, and enter your log-in. Then click the "Change Password" link. And if you ever forget it, we can e-mail it to you! (Just click the "Members" menu item and then "You forgot Your Log-In?") Thank You! - The Benchin' Team (Have you earned your beanie yet?) Benchin' Software Review - http://www.benchin.com/

1 0

Re: Twenty Bank Robbers -- Game theory:)
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:09 AM 7/25/96 -0500, Igor Chudov wrote: >Here's a puzzle for our game theorists. > >Twenty cypherpunks robbed a bank. They took 20 million bucks. Here's >how they plan to split the money: they stay in line, and the first guy >suggests how to split the money. Then they vote on his suggestion. If >50% or more vote for his proposal, his suggestion is adopted. > >Otherwise they kill the first robber and now it is the turn of guy #2 >to make another splitting proposal. Same voting rules apply. > >The question is, what will be the outcome? How will they split the >money, how many robbers will be dead, and so on? My guess? They all agree to kill whoever made that suicidal rule. Otherwise, all but two would end up dead. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: Digital Watermarks (long, getting off-topic)
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:27 AM 7/25/96 -0500, Adam Shostack wrote: >Duncan Frissell wrote: >| At 10:26 AM 7/24/96 -0800, jim bell wrote: >| >| >Isn't it odd that when music is sold, CD's are MORE expensive than cassette >| >tapes, even though you _know_ that the manufacturing cost of CD's is less? >| >| CDs sell for more because buyers decided that they wanted a wider range of >| titles with shallower sales (hence higher unit costs) rather than a narrower >| range of titles with lower sales prices. The number of CD titles available >| is far greater (in general distribution) than the number of vinyl titles >| that were available during vinyl's peak year. This greater availability of >| short run pressings raises average unit sales costs justifying the higher >| prices. Had the market decided (when physical production costs fell) that >| it was satisfied with a Top-40 CD stock, average CD prices would have fallen >| to vinyl levels. > > Thus, my desire to listen to the Drummers of Burundi justifies >a cost of $16.99 for the latest REM album? If I want the wide range >of African music thats now available (and I do), then I should be >willing to pay a premium to get it. No reason for Alanis Morisette >fans to subsidise those of us with musical taste. If what Duncan said were true, then you'd see music stores spring up which sell ONLY the "Top-40 stock", but sell it for pre-CD vinyl prices. They'd get all that business, and OTHER record stores would sell the obscure stuff. That's not happening. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Filtering out Queers is OK
by owner-cypherpunks＠toad.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Several folks said, ad nauseum: >Please don't respond to Steinlight's spam - thank you... (ans serveral variants) For a group who claims to defend the rights to speak and associate, etc, we seem to be wasting a lot of energy lately telling each other who we should talk to and associate with. I figure I can decide for myself. Repeating your advice won't sway me. Probably won't sway most of us.

1 0

Re: Schelling Points, Rights, and Game Theory--Part II
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Several people have sent me private mail about this interpretation of crypto/privacy rights. (I guess they don't think a message to the list as a whole is warranted, to save room for ninja discussion.) As I said, my essay was an explication of my my thoughts, not a footnoted, rigorous derivation. For those interested in looking into more on this, a seach of the keywords will produce lots of hits. Including one at David Friedman's site: http://www.best.com/~ddfr/Academic/Property/Property.html. I was meeting with him several months back and mentioned my Schelling point interpretation of rights--he immediately lit up and referred me to his forthcoming paper. Now it is possible I was influenced by comments on the Extropians list about this (maybe by Hanson, Price, or Friedman himself). Certainly it was the Extropians list where I first heard of Schelling points. Anyway, check it out. At 3:31 PM 7/25/96, jbugden(a)smtplink.alis.ca wrote: >Basically, in this view of rights and raising of children it would seem that a >relativistic pragmatism prevails. Personally, I think that the two choices are >either this relative pragmatism or an absolute morality. > >"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." > >Some implications of Tim's view is that all our rights are basically a >transitory agreement between individuals. If at any time the "cost" of a right >becomes too high for too many (e.g. free speech leading to X for some X), then >it is quite possible that this "right" will be removed. The "losers" have no >higher appeal process in this matter than that of trying to gain a different >consensus. Partly so, but this view is _not_ the same a standard "majoritarianism," or "rule of the herd." In liberal societies (liberal in the classical sense, for those who only know the recent interpretation) there is a Schelling point that says enforcing what others read is too expensive and intrusive to enforce, and hence we will "let" others read Jackie Collins novels, Salman Rushdie novels, whatever. Even if enough people dislike Collins and Rushdie, the larger principle will typically make censorship impossible (e.g., the enforcement mechanisms will not be in place). And I have never said that people should not _lobby_ for principles of freedom, obviously, as I am effectively lobbying in this and other essays. >This may work while there is not a large power gap between any two individuals >or groups, but as power shifts to fewer people and groups (economic, social, >political, etc...) the "losers" may find that the lowest cost path is into some >form of economic serfdom or slavery (e.g. McJobs). Ask Phil for other examples >;-). Even meant humorously (">;-)"), many of us would dispute the notion that a voluntarily-taken job is a "McJob." Frankly, working at a fast-food place is usually not a lifetime career, but is instead a way for high-school students and others to gain work skills and to establish a "reputation" useful for finding later jobs. (I worked for $1.60 an hour, minimum wage, cleaning animal cages, taking blood samples from mice, and so on. Back in high school. Certainly a "McJob," in terms of pay and my status level, but useful in getting later jobs.) >Unlike Rawls, we are not in a position of developing our laws in advance of >determining our social standing. I personally believe that our ability to >develop reasonable laws and social structures will persist only as long as the >majority of us have the ability to "put ourselves in someone else's shoes" and >do in practical terms what Rawls suggests in theoretical ones. Of course. (And Rawls would not disagree--this was his essential point.) >As soon as those with power are not able to see a situation where they could >become like those without power, there will cease to be motivation to >maintain a >"safety net" of rights or economic means to protect the "losers" of our >society. What are "those without power"? The best way to help the "losers" of our economy is to allow voluntary economic relationships to be formed. (As an aside, the raising of the minimum wage to $5 or so will further reduce employment opportunities for low-skilled, "starter" jobs. Alternatives such as automation, moving offshore, or simply withdrawing certain jobs will be attractive.) Fortunately, strong crypto means ways to route around these so-called "safety nets." --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

Twenty Bank Robbers -- CLARIFICATION
by ichudov＠galaxy.galstar.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Igor Chudov wrote: > > Here's a puzzle for our game theorists. > > Twenty cypherpunks robbed a bank. They took 20 million bucks. Here's > how they plan to split the money: they stay in line, and the first guy > suggests how to split the money. Then they vote on his suggestion. If > 50% or more vote for his proposal, his suggestion is adopted. > > Otherwise they kill the first robber and now it is the turn of guy #2 > to make another splitting proposal. Same voting rules apply. > > The question is, what will be the outcome? How will they split the > money, how many robbers will be dead, and so on? > I forgot to say what the GOALS are. The goals of every individual cypherpunk are (in from highest to lowest priority): 1. Stay alive 2. Get as much money as possible 3. Keep as many cypherpunks alive as possible, all other things being equal. - Igor.

6 8