December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

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

Re: unsubscibe
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 2:00 PM 9/25/96, Chip Mefford wrote: >unsubscibe "unsubscibe" is not a word. Nor is "unsuscrive," or "unscrive." Send the correct word to the correct address, stated often here, and you will be unsubscribed. --Tim May (Hint: majordomo(a)toad.com, with message body of "unsubscribe cypherpunks" (no quotes)) 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

Feds trying to stop judicial review of Commerce Dept export controls
by John Gilmore 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[They appear to be trying to transfer all the export controls from the State Dept to the Commerce Dept -- including all the unconstitutional and heavy-handed parts. -- John] Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 11:34:23 -0400 From: <djw(a)cdt.org> (Daniel J. Weitzner) Memorandum To: Interested Parties Re: Proposed Amendments to Preclude Judicial Review in the Export Administration Act of 1996 (H.R. 361) Date: September 25, 1996 Failed U.S. encryption export controls continue to threaten Internet security, individual privacy, and the competitiveness of U.S. industry. Proposed amendments to H.R. 361, The Omnibus Export Administration Act of 1996 (see attached), would make this problem worse by preventing judicial review of Commerce Department export control decisions, and should be defeated. These Amendments: * Would further entrench a failed U.S. encryption policy * Would provide extraordinary relief that is unjustified, and would shift the balance of power in the ongoing public debate over Internet security. * Will prevent judicial review of a broad area of public policy affecting the First and Fourth Amendment rights of Americans. * Are inappropriate legislative meddling in ongoing controversies * Are unnecessary as the EAA already contains strict judicial review provisions. On balance, the Amendments would shelter the highly sensitive area of Internet security from much-needed judicial scrutiny . The Amendments are inappropriate, unjustified, and should not be approved. The Amendments entrench a failed U.S. encryption policy -- Administration export regulation of encryption keep U.S. computer users from protecting their privacy online and damage the competitiveness of U.S. industry. Three active cases in Federal Court are challenging these export controls. Three bills have been proposed in this session of Congress with bipartisan support to address what many believe to be the inappropriate application of export controls to encryption exports. The Amendments would further entrench these controversial regulations by sheltering them from much-needed judicial scrutiny. The Amendments provide extraordinary, unjustified relief -- The Amendments would preclude all judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act, including challenges to arbitrary and capricious rule-making or improper statutory interpretation. They would extend the already limited judicial review provisions in the original EAA and H.R.361 to preclude nearly all substantive review. Congress has made no findings that would suggest that such unusual relief is warranted. Typically, relief from judicial review might be granted in areas where excessive or inappropriate litigation is feared in areas that Congress feels are well-settled. Such is not the case here. The problem with encryption export controls has not been too much litigation. The Amendments prevent judicial review of decisions that implicate First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights -- Export controls have been the Administration's exclusive vehicle for the its key escrow encryption proposals -- which have a grave impact on American's First, Fourth, and Fifth amendment right. The Amendments would thus preclude judicial review in an area broadly affecting the rights of individuals and the growth of a new medium. The Amendments will likely interfere with important cases and controversies -- These Amendments would raise a serious impediment to those seeking judicial relief from what many believe to be unfair encryption export control policies. Judicial review provisions in the EAA and the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) were the basis for a federal judge's recent dismissal of a challenge to the encryption export controls. The EAA provisions will soon take on added significance as it is widely believed that the Administration will shift jurisdiction over encryption export controls from the State Department to the Commerce Department in the near future. The Amendments are unnecessary -- H.R. 361 as passed by the House already contains significant judicial review limitations. The bill already provides unusual constraints -- on both subject matter and venue -- for challenges to Commerce decision-making under the Act. There is little to indicate that the further extraordinary relief of these Amendments is required. * * * * * Encryption export controls represent an area where it is widely believed that the Administration is abusing its discretion in order to use powerful export regulations to influence the domestic market for and use of important technologies. Without recourse in the Executive Branch -- or in Congress this session -- concerned parties have been forced to turn to the courts. It is in just such a critical area where parties are most in need of judicial review. The Amendments suggested would serve to deny individuals and companies their much-needed day in court, have not been justified, and should not be approved. For more information, please contact: Daniel Weitzner, Deputy Director <djw(a)cdt.org> Alan Davidson, Staff Counsel <abd(a)cdt.org> Center for Democracy and Technology (202) 637-9800 Amendments to The Omnibus Export Administration Act of 1996 (H.R. 361) 1. Amendment to Section 112 (Administrative and Judicial Review) Text: On page 125, at line 17 in Section 112, insert: "The provisions of this section shall constitute the exclusive basis for judicial review of any agency action taken pursuant to this title and the regulations promulgated thereunder." On page 126, at line 1 in Section 112(a)(2), insert "only" between "reviewed" and "by appeal". On page 126, at line 3 in Section 112(a)(2), insert "and only" between "Circuit," and "to the extent". On page 126, at line 6 in Section 112(a)(2)(A), strike (A) and replace as follows: "(A) regulations fail to provide for procedures required by this title;". On page 126, at line 12 in Section 112(a)(2)(B), insert "procedural requirements of" between "violates" and "this title;". On page 127, at line 5 in Section 112(a)(2)(H), insert "procedural" between "with the" and "requirements". On page 127, at line 7, add a new paragraph (3) to Section 112(a) as follows: "Preclusion of Review. -- Substantive decisions of the Secretary and other officials on (i) whether to impose, expand, or extend export controls on any commodity or technology, (ii) whether and how to revise the Commodity Control Index, (iii) whether and under what conditions to grant, deny, or modify any export license, and (iv) any other questions of law or fact under this title (except as otherwise provided in subsections (b)-(d) of this section), shall be final and conclusive and no court shall have power or jurisdiction to review any such decision by an action in the nature of mandamus or otherwise." ============================================================================ Daniel J. Weitzner, Deputy Director <djw(a)cdt.org> Center for Democracy and Technology 202.637.9800 (v) 1634 Eye St., NW Suite 1100 202-637.0968 (f) Washington, DC 20006 http://www.cdt.org/ * PROTECT THE INTERNET AND THE FUTURE OF FREE SPEECH IN THE INFORMATION AGE * Join the legal challenge against the Communications Decency Act! For More Information, Visit the CIEC Web Page http://www.cdt.org/ciec/ or email <ciec-info(a)cdt.org>

1 0

Re: Anonymous Mail at US Post
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:45 AM 9/25/96, Greg Kucharo wrote: >I don't know if anyone else has seen this, but I was mailing letters >in the "out front" boxes the other day when I noticed a sign. The sign >said that all packages 16 ounces or over had to be taken inside for >disposal into the mail slot. The obvious explanation being that even >though you can abstain from marking a return address, the postal >inspectors would like a nice photo of you with your mail. Yes, this was the chief topic of discussion here a few weeks ago. :-} One of the serious downsides of someone filtering out messages is that all 1400 of us then see the same topics presented again. (This is more serious when people are forwarding long articles or press releases, with sometimes half a dozen copies being received on the list.) --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."

1 0

re: Rutgers DIMACS Dist. Trust Workshop
by Mike McNally 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Has anyone who's registered for next week's conference at Rutgers gotten any sort of confirmation? I've been trying for days to do so, and though I've sent mail and called I haven't managed to get hold of anyone who can tell me anything. (And now they seem to not answer the phone at all; I think they got a bigger response than they expected.) -- ______c_________________________________________________________________ Mike M Nally * IBM % Tivoli * Austin TX * How quickly we forget that mailto:m5@tivoli.com mailto:m101@io.com * "deer processing" and "data http://www.io.com/~m101/ * processing" are different!

1 0

Euro-Commission to tackle porn on Internet
by Vipul Ved Prakash 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

*** Euro-Commission to tackle porn on Internet The European Commission, faced with calls to clamp down on Internet pornography following a Belgian pedophilia scandal, will take a first step in October toward seeing how it can be done. On Oct. 9, Culture Commissioner Marcelino Oreja plans to unveil a paper outlining how to identify authors of Internet pornography and how to interrupt that pornography. Oreja said options raised in the paper include encrypting access so that only those who pay could see the material or including a V-chip to screen against pornographic content. For the full text story, see http://www.merc.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=178562-80c - Vipul -- Vipul Ved Prakash | - Electronic Security & Crypto vipul(a)pobox.com | - Internet & Intranets 91 11 2247802 | - Web Development & PERL 198 Madhuban IP Extension | - Linux & Open Systems Delhi, INDIA 110 092 | - (Networked) Multimedia

1 0