December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

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

remailer network/winsock remailers
by Sam Quigley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, I've been unsubscribed from the list for a while, and only recently rejopined, so this issue may well have been addressed in my absence. If not, though, here: It occurs to me that, with the invention of the winsock remailers, we have the potential to establish a very widespread and distributed network of part-time remailers. Specifically, it seems like there are a lot of users who are only connected to the internet for short periods (PPP/SLIP) or who only have full control over their machines for short periods. These computers could not normally be used to run remailers as mail would bounce when the computer/remailer software is down. If there were some sort of central registry where winsock (or other non-permanent) remailers could announce their ability/inability to bounce mail, email could be forwarded through these temporary remailers on a dynamic basis. I imagine the system would be something like this. User X, a part-time cypherpunk, turns on his PPP connection to get his internet fix. When he does, his remailer software connects to a central site and registers itself, the software (and capabilities of the software) it's using, and how many email messages (CPU time) X is willing to give up. The registry sends back a confirmation message, and adds X's computer to its list. Now, when user Y wants to use the remailer network, she sends a message through a series of remailers, one of which is the remailer network host computer. When the message gets to the host computer, the host looks at its list and bounces the message randomly to one of the winsock remailers. In this way, people who can't ordinarily run a remailer can still help out with the network, and the message becomes, ultimately, much more untraceable because (ideally) there are tons of temporary remailers that the message could have been sent to. This could expand the network by a lot... I imagine precautions would have to be taken to ensure that temp. remailers really are up and running (the host would have to ping remailer computers regularly to ensure that none went down without informing the host). It would also be good if incoming messages to the host remailer could specify how many hops it should take, whether or not it should be subject to random delays / burst sends, and other options which haven't occurred to me yet. This can't be a new idea, though. If something like this already exists, please send me a pointer. If not, I'd be willing to help develop a protocol for client / server interaction. -sq

2 1

Re: Twenty Bank Robbers -- Game theory:)
by Chris Adams 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 25 Jul 96 11:12:20 -0800, ichudov(a)algebra.com 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? First, the other nineteen shoot David Sternlight. Then Perry and tcmay get shot. With the (now) absence of strong personalities to guide the conversation among the remaining 8 robbers (should have shot tcmay *before* he got his guard up) spend enough time arguing over trivialities that the police show up and catch them all. Moral: It is easier to herd cats than lead cypherpunks. // Chris Adams <adamsc(a)io-online.com> - Webpages for sale! Se habla JavaScript! // Automatically receive my resume or PGPKEY by sending email with a subject // of 'send PGPKEY' or 'send resume'. Capitalization counts so be careful!

1 0

RE: Distributed DES crack
by pjn＠nworks.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> half that time...and a slim chance that we will get it with the first >> try... > My figures were based on 2^55 tries, which is exactly half of 2^56. Ahhh... OK. P.J. pjn(a)nworks.com ... Open mouth, insert foot, echo internationally. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 [NR]

1 0

[Rant] Re: One of the biggest problems with freedom
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:23 AM 7/25/96 -0700, anonymous-remailer(a)shell.portal.com wrote: >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." <rant> I usually ask people like this why they would wind up in Levenworth for the rest of their life? Or spend any time in jail at all? Government agents are frequently found going through the records of friends and enemies. haven ANY of them gone to jail? Sometimes one or two will get a repremand of caught doing something real dirty. There seem to be few, if any, penalties for Government Agents caught with their hands in the cookie jar. (Unless it involves cash.) Like the police, Government officials tend to protect their own. If they start to open your encrypted mail, how do you know? It is not like the postal service doing it where you can see the ripped up envolopes. Ask them if they would mind postal inspectors going through all of their private letters and postal mail. (Just to make sure you are not talking about anything you shouldn't...) Or maybe watching you when you shower to make sure that you do not have any underage children in their with you. There are lots of excuses to be made for intruding into people's lives. Does not mean it is right. suggestion for the truely insane/bored: If you really want to start driving the point home, start intercepting their mail. Steam the envalopes open, read it, seal it back up and put in back. Mention small details of their private correspondence in passing. Mention that they have still not paid that bill for Soap Opera Digest. Talk about all the money they own Uncle Bob. They will soon get the point. <<DISCLAIMER: Do not try this at home! Private citizens cannot get away with this, only "Governments".>> People do not seem to think about these restrictions until they REALLY start to affect them. By then it is too late. It will "never happen to them"! (You also might want to point out that not all people accused are actually guilty. Some of the worst cases are shown to be fedrales operating off of old or bad data. The innocent citizen just happens to get caught in the path of the Fedreral Juggernaught. Most of the "average citizens" who I have met who are willing to give up their freedom are far too clueless and trusting to get the point. The Government is there to help them. (Help themselves to their money, their property, their personal information, their piece of mind, etc. etc. etc.) </rant> --- Alan Olsen -- alano(a)teleport.com -- Contract Web Design & Instruction `finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ "We had to destroy the Internet in order to save it." - Sen. Exon "Microsoft -- Nothing but NT promises."

1 0

Industry and Government "Guidelines" (Is Speech Next?)
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:15 PM 7/25/96, The Deviant wrote: ... >> Then, they added ITAR. And they want us to obey it. >> >> Finally, it seems, they're giving us "guidelines." Not law, Not ITAR. >> >> Next it's gonna be their their fondest desires, their preferences,and >> finally their whims. I was going to reply, but I have decided to follow the "speech guidelines" suggested by my local MiniTru authority figure. While the government does not demand that my words be cleared by them, they have made it clear that if I sign a "Good Citizen Pledge," and agree not to speak of certain things, that my problems with the government will be lessened, my export requests expedited, and my passage through Customs will be eased. --Tim May Seriously, I think there are serious "rule of law" issues arising out of these "consultations" between industry and government. Things are not spelled out, as Mindy Cohn of the Bernstein case so articulately has described, and people seeking clearcut decisions about what can and can't be exported find they get no answers. "We can't define an illegal export, but we know it if we see it." And actually not even this, as the decision often takes months or longer, or no response is ever received. (Was the ITAR violation t-shirt ever given a CJR or turned down for one? Though my personal view is that the t-shirt was a side issue, and a frivolous example, last I heard State was simply not responding one way or another.) Seems to me, and I'm sure to others, that the ITARs are a clear case of what lawyers call "overvagueness." And my joke about a "Good Citizen Pledge" is only partly a joke. The language of companies "coming to agreements" with the State Department, in exchange for expedited handling, is a dangerous trend. Carried further, it could create classes of companies and citizens, not all of whom would be treated equally under the law. --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: [Rant]Re: Shell buys key escrow system from TIS
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:20 AM 7/25/96 -0400, Jim Ray wrote: >Will Rodger,<rodger(a)interramp.com> >Washington Bureau Chief of Inter@ctive Week, wrote: ><snips> >>Administration officials didn't return calls for comment, but it's clear >>that the Clinton-Gore team have their first "testbed" for trying out key >>recovery, or key escrow, proposals. > >Hmmm. A new meme, "key recovery" is lots better than "key escrow," but >I still wonder if I'm ever gonna see a journalist say, "'GAK,' or Govt. >Access to Keys for cryptography." I doubt we'll see many non-cyber-journalists saying "GAK", at least in print :-) But the name "Clipper III" seems to be catching on fairly well, which has the added benefit if connoting "yet another key-grabbing attempt after the previous two failures", which I like a lot. Key recovery is at least quasi-honest, unlike "key escrow"; I'd tend to call the Clintonista's scheme "key registration" though I've generally found that "master key system" gets the point across adequately. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # http://www.idiom.com/~wcs # Confuse Authority!

1 0

CD Prices and Inflation
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 6:18 PM 7/25/96, jim bell wrote: >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. Something not being talked about in any of the messages I've seen is the role of _inflation_. Those claiming CD prices are "too high" should consider inflation. (Caveat: I also consider CD prices "too high," in terms of what I'd _like_ to pay.) When I first started buying LPs, circa 1967, LP prices were usually around $4.88 (that figure rings a bell, no pun intended). Some discount prices were around $3.67, at a local PX (Post Exchange, a military store, usually having subsidized prices). I do recall paying $5.98 for some albums I wanted. And in those days the average working man's salary was under $10,000 a year, gold was $35-40 an ounce, a new 3-bedroom house in many areas cost $20-30K, a pound of hamburger cost less than a dollar, a copy of "Scientific American" cost either 60 or 75 cents (price increased) and a paperback book cost between 75 cents and $1.25. (These numbers are approximate, but mostly about right. Paperback books, for example, were at about 35 cents until the 60s, then moved to 50 cents, then to 60-75 cents, then hit the dollar point around 1970, the $1.95 point a few years later, then jumped to $2.95, $3.95, etc., and are now around $5.95 for most bestseller paperbacks. Again, don't quibble too much. A detailed check of paperback collections showing publishing dates and prices would pin these numbers down.) So, what do we have now? Salaries are 2-4x higher, gold is at $375 an ounce, a new 3-br house averages about $100K (and is 2x that in many places), hamburger is at $2-3/pound, "Scietific American" sells for $3.95 or $4.95, and paperback books go for $4.95. Roughly, then, everything on this list is 3-4 times more expensive than it was in the late 60s. So, those LPs I was buying for $4-5 should now cost $12-20, correcting for inflation/price rises. And yet I am able to find many CDs I want for $8.67 (Tower Records: "3 for $25" sales). And they never wear out. And they usually have 60 minutes or more music on them--at least the CDs I buy do--, compared to the paltry 35-40 minutes on most LPs of the past. I can also make flawless copies of CDs I borrow onto DATs. (A friend of mine has gone a bit far with this, borrowing thousands of CDs from libraries...he now has 3900 CDs recorded digitally.) So, while I "wish" CD prices were even lower, I'm paying a lot less in "real dollars" for more music today than I was paying 15 years ago or 30 years ago. --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