December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: SAY WHAT? [Hallam-Baker demands more repudiations or he'll write!]
by Rich Burroughs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:23 AM 9/25/96 -0700, Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> wrote: [snip] >I understood the intent of AP was to take powers the government is >already exercising (unconstitutionally), and merely transfer some of >them to the people, as it were. [snip] I always thought that the intent of AP was to bore me to tears and fill up my mailbox with rubbish :) Rich ______________________________________________________________________ Rich Burroughs richieb(a)teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~richieb See my Blue Ribbon Page at http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/blueribbon U.S. State Censorship Page at - http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/state New EF zine "cause for alarm" - http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/cause

1 0

Re: Hallam-Baker demands more repudiations or he'll write!
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:50 PM 9/24/96 -0400, Brian Davis wrote: >On Tue, 24 Sep 1996, Rich Burroughs wrote: > >> <AP stuff> >> Anyone who mistakes the lack of "repudiations" for AP on the list for some >> kind of tacit approval is not getting the whole picture, IMHO. >> >> Is this how journalists do their research nowadays -- "give me some info or >> I'll write something really bad about you that you'll regret?" Cool. I >> guess I thought there might still be some kind of pursuit of the truth >> involved. >> >> I personally don't have the time or energy to contribute to the AP threads. >> That != approval for the idea. >> >> I hope you include your above quote in your piece. >> > >Amen to that. Add that at least one lawyer (and former prosecutor) on >the list is confident that successful prosecutions will ensue is AP ever >gets off the ground. I don't doubt that there will be harassment. (you can't deny that charges would be brought even if it is tacitly agreed that no crime has been committed; "the harassment-value" of such a prosecution would be desired even if there is ultimately an acquittal.) AP will resemble, more than anything, gambling. While gambling is illegal in some areas, it is quite legal in others and there is no reason to believe that locales can't be found in which an AP system could operate legally. Make American laws apply everywhere? That'll be hard to justify, unless you want to unleash a world where an all people can be subject simultaneously to the laws of EVERY country, should they choose to enforce them! Would you like to be arrested in Red China for something you said years earlier in America about their leadership? And are you ignoring the fact that the intentional isolation of one participant from the knowledge of the actions and even the identity of the others makes opportunities for prosecution on "conspiracy" charges mighty slim. And since AP can operate across traditional jurisdictional boundaries, you're going to have to explain how you can prosecute Person A in Country B for giving a donation to an organization in Country C, to be paid to a person D in country E for correctly predicting the death of person F in country G, particularly when none of the identities of these people or countries can be easily known given a well-crafted cryptographic and message-routing system. Further, as you probably know as well as any, in order (at least, supposedly!) to get a conviction you need to prove "mens rea," or "guilty mind," and I suggest that none of the more passive participants in the AP system have that. (The ones who DON'T pick up a gun, knife, bomb, poison, etc.) Sure, they are aware that somewhere, sometime, somebody _may_ commit a crime in order to collect a lottery, but they don't know who, what, when, where, or how this will occur, if at all. (either before or after the fact!) In fact, since it is possible for a target to collect the reward himself (to be directed toward his designee, obviously) by committing suicide and "predicting" it, it isn't certain to the other participants that there has even been any sort of crime committed! Based on the mens rea requirement, I propose that there is plenty of room for most of the participants to reasonably claim that they are guilty of no crime. They have carefully shielded themselves and others from any guilty knowledge, and presumably they are entitled to protect themselves in this way. Morally, you could argue that these people are countenancing something nasty, in the same sense that somebody could equally well argue that if you buy a cheap shirt in Walmart you're partly responsible for sweatshop labor in El Salvador. True, I suppose, but moral guilt does not always translate into legal guilt. > And yes, I've read Jim Bell's manifesto. The fact >that no lawyer has dissected it from a legal standpoint has been used by >Mr. Bell as support for the propostion that it is legal. I suggest that there is a greater likelihood that the "powers that be" will just abandon all pretense of legality, and attempt to strike at the participants if they can find them without benefit of any sort of trial. This is a more plausible conclusion, because it cuts through all of the legal difficulties which would hinder prosecution. In effect, a low-level undeclared war. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

unsubscibe
by cmefford＠avwashington.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

unsubscibe

1 0

Re: Where to write crypto?
by azur＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I believe Taiwan might be an excellent location to have 'clear room' crypto work done. Taiwan has a very large skilled software labor pool and isn't a member of COCOM. PGP Fingerprint: FE 90 1A 95 9D EA 8D 61 81 2E CC A9 A4 4A FB A9 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Snoop Daty Data | Internet: azur(a)netcom.com Grinder | Voice: 1-702-655-2877 Sacred Cow Meat Co. | Fax: 1-702-658-2673 7075 W. Gowan Road, #2148 | Las Vegas, NV 89129 | --------------------------------------------------------------------- Just say NO to prescription DRUGS. "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." -- C.S. Lewis "Surveillence is ultimately just another form of media, and thus, potential entertainment." -- G. Beato

2 1

PEA_nut
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

9-25-96. WaJo reports on yesterday's suit challenging Georgia's crackerdown on the Internet, including its prohibition of anonymity. Ms. Dyson avidly supports anon, it lies. --------- http://jya.com/peanut.txt PEA_nut

1 0

Re: Not reputation again! (Was: The Nature of the Cypherpunks List)
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 6:45 AM 9/25/96, Greg Burk wrote: >I know, I said I was through arguing "reputation theory" and I really >thought I was, but this latest impelled me to say more. > >tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May) writes: >> --Tim May, whose reputation is, like the list, whatever it is, for whatever >> reasons, and who thus needs no defenders > >Indeed, your reputation needs no defenders among those of us who know >you directly (if electronically) > >But here's something for you to think over: If there are such things as >negative reputations, why hasn't your reputation zoomed to godlike >status upon the ... let us say unreserved... condemnations of the >Poster With Nothing Better To Do, if s/he has a negative reputation (I >presume you would say so) First off, I certainly don't know what the precise "calculus of reputations" looks like. That is, how it adds, subtracts, how the reps of others factor in, etc. I think studying how it might work--and how it compares to other fields, such as movie reviews, music reviews, book reviews, etc.--might be an excellent Masters-level thesis for someone in sociology or even CS (if done with the proper slant). However, I would never think the calculus is something so simplistic as: "I rate Alice's reputation as very negative. Alice just said some bad things about Bob. Therefore, Bob's reputation will go up a great deal." More likely, something like: "Alice just said a bunch of things bad about Bob. Cool. Maybe this Bob person deserves a look." In other words, smaller steps, with diminishing returns. And with few sudden movements, except by direct judgment. >Or you could contend that there's no such thing as collective >reputation, but I think there are two major flaws: His/her 1-to-1 >"reputations" clearly add up to a collective consensus among us annoyed >cpunk readers. Even if you contend that reputations in general do not >behave collectively, it is no defense in this case at least. And I think >if "reputation theory" predicts no collective behavior, it must be >pretty weak. I believe that, to first order, reputation is a tensor. Given N people, imagine this matrix: Alice Bob Charles Daphne Earl Fiona Gloria Harold Alice .99 -.21 .75 .94 .94 .83 -.03 .22 Bob .72 .96 -.02 .85 .71 -.60 .10 .32 Charles .82 .02 .97 .90 -.50 .42 -.10 .70 Daphne .45 .87 .23 .92 .74 .87 .11 .23 Earl .89 .54 .34 .90 .95 .23 .23 .46 Fiona .87 .50 .32 .68 -.34 .97 .78 -.15 Gloria .59 .78 -.23 .15 .29 -.30 -.80 .51 Harold .65 .03 .34 .78 .51 -.76 -.51 .97 This can be read thusly: Alice has a .99 rating of her own self, a negative .21 rating of Bob (or Bob's opinions, or his posts, or whatever is being rated), and so on. Bob has a .72 rating of Alice, a .96 rating of himself, etc. "Alice(Bob) = -.21" Now in this example I made up, some various observations can be made. Nearly everyone rates Harold pretty low, except for Harold. Thus, Harold's own opinions of others, if expressed, probably won't change too many other opinions. Nearly everyone rates Daphne very highly, and her opinions are read carefully. However, Gloria does not rate Daphne highly...but then Gloria rates her own stuff a negative .80, so Gloria has some psychological issues to deal with and others typically rate her pretty low. And so on. In the real world, I think we can see how such a matrix could be constructed, based on either direct inputs (votes) from people, or based on their apparently positive or negative comments, etc. (For example, it is fairly obvious that I might give Hal Finney a rating of .90, and Vulis a -.90. And so on, for others.) Now is there a "collective reputation"? There are various additive properties, with easily understandable meanings. (If Harold is in a lot of kill files, this says a lot, for example.) Anyway, as I said before, the "calculus of reputations" is not worked out, so far as I know. Some weeks back I suggested that the mathematics of belief as developed in "Dempster-Shafer belief theory" has some nice properties that make it seem a promising area to look into. .... >Because s/he can *never spend reputation down to zero*. So you say. I see no reason reputations cannot be negative, in the sense that not only do I take the opinions of such a person very seriously, I tend in fact to believe the opposite opinion is more likely. This is a "negative " reputation. Thus, a reputation can be "spent down" to zero, and below. >Frankly, I think you should just admit that your reputation theory is >flawed and rethink it. I would be interested in hearing it, but what you >have now is IMHO badly flawed. --Tim May We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I 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, Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

3 2

Stop Spammers Today!
by PhneCards＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear cypherpunks; In the last few days I have received numerous email coming from you but with fake return addresses from messages posted on newsgroups. I must have been targeted because I am a bulk emailer. Letting you know now that I am a legitimate bulk emailer compiling my list with the permission of each account holder. If this barrage of email does not cease immediately, I will be forced to take legal and maybe not so legal actions to defend myself. If you would like to discuss this further, please call me at 407-438-8892. Tim =================================================== >Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com >To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > >Timothy C. May wrote: >> >> At 2:10 AM 9/24/96, hallam(a)vesuvius.ai.mit.edu wrote: >> >> >like Markof are somewhat more responsible. This is not going to stop me >> >from producing an op-ed piece linkiing the net libertarians to >assasination >> >politics unless I hear a few more repudiations of Bell's ideas. If you >> >don't very clearly reject his murderous ideas you are going to regret it >> >just as the left regreted having the USSR or the RAF associated with them. >> >> I for one don't respond well to extortion threats, so write your damned >article. > >Seconded. > >You know, the real problem with the average blackmailer is that they >rarely give you the offer as a legal document - if we fulfil our side of >the bargain, how can we be sure he fulfils his, and doesn't change his >mind next time someone half agrees with a pro >AP/Legal-blackmail/Tax-haven/Libertarian-state/freedom-of-speech/whatever >post? We obviously need some sort of legal contract to solve this >problem, but no, that's not possible in most countries, is it?. How >convenient. Till next time Phill ... > >Gary >-- >"Of course the US Constitution isn't perfect; but it's a lot better >than what we have now." -- Unknown. > >pub 1024/C001D00D 1996/01/22 Gary Howland <gary(a)systemics.com> >Key fingerprint = 0C FB 60 61 4D 3B 24 7D 1C 89 1D BE 1F EE 09 06 > > >----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- >From cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com Tue Sep 24 17:53:36 1996 >Return-Path: cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com >Received: from mailhub.MyMail.Com (mailhub.mymail.com [206.247.118.1]) by >emin27.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA29223 for ><phnecards(a)aol.com>; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 17:53:34 -0400 >Received: from toad.com by mailhub.MyMail.Com (5.x/SMI-SVR4) > id AA24368; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 15:53:31 -0600 >Received: (from majordom@localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id GAA13291 for >cypherpunks-outgoing; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 06:57:24 -0700 (PDT) >Received: from smokey.systemics.com (smokey.systemics.com [193.67.124.65]) by >toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id GAA13281 for <cypherpunks(a)toad.com>; Tue, >24 Sep 1996 06:57:12 -0700 (PDT) >Received: from kampai.systemics.com >(fLjlj5tpYpTi4i0Poa58tvhk9K+M7mOF(a)internal-mail.systemics.com >[193.67.124.74]) by smokey.systemics.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id >PAA12601; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 15:57:08 +0200 >Message-Id: <3247E8DF.FF6D5DF(a)systemics.com> >Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 15:57:51 +0200 >From: Gary Howland <gary(a)systemics.com> >Organization: Systemics Ltd. >X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (X11; I; FreeBSD 2.1.0-RELEASE i386) >Mime-Version: 1.0 >To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com >Subject: Re: Hallam-Baker demands more repudiations or he'll write! >References: <ae6ca7190a021004d21c(a)[207.167.93.63]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com >Precedence: bulk

2 1

Re: reputation, e.g. www.ffly.com (was: Not reputation again! (Was: The Nature ofthe Cypherpunks List) )
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

As Bryce addressed this to me as the primary recipient, I have to assume he's ascribing these ideas to me. At 12:19 PM 9/25/96, bryce(a)digicash.com wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >It's silly to conflate ratings of people with ratings of >people's opinions with ratings of people's ratings of etc. > > >Some of the people I work with have awful opinions on politics, >other people, music, movies, books, and food, but great opinions >on computer hardware, algorithms and programming languages. ... I never said there is going to be a simple scalar rating. In my last major post on this, several weeks ago, I even elaborated, saying that even Alice's rating of Bob, for example, would have multiple components, such as her rating of his taste in movies, his taste in restaurants, his political beliefs, his technical expertise, etc. This area is complicated enough to talk about with oversimplifying-and-then-critiqueing. These are usually called "straw man" arguments. --Tim We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I 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, Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: Esther Dyson and anonymity
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

You're right, I was too mindlessly rantish about Esther Dyson's WSJ comments. However, I bought Esther a bottle of champagne in NYC a few days ago, sent it to her table signed "An Admiring Cypherpunk." She came over to say hello, and we chatted a a bit about her recent messages on Cypherpunks, which I complimented her for posting. She still doesn't know my name, I said I was "Anonymous." She grinned and staggered away. The champagne brought her over to the side of Anonymous, that's it. AYA

1 0

Re: We removed radikal 154 from xs4all :(
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:32 PM 9/23/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: > That xs4all eventually capitulated has to be seen as a win for Germany. That the net community did not capitulate has to be seen as a loss for Germany. > They will probably now turn their sights on other sites (no pun intended), > hoping to pick off each one in turn. If they do, it will make The church of scientology look like a minor squabble. Every time one site capitulates, it will inspire two dozen others to join the fray. I joined the fight *because* xs4all had to capitulate. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

2 1