December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

[REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
by Dave Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[This is a rebuttal to a misguided news article.] > Cypher-Censored > By Declan McCullagh (declan(a)well.com) Thank you for leaving your email address. It makes this easier. You people (read: the unaware and hypnotized masses, which includes reporters who's desire for attention and political safety holds them in line with the consensual illusion) keep missing the real issue, and substituting issues which only hold themselves in place. [Those of you who know, please excuse the mediaistic terms used in this rebuttal. One must use the symbols one is given to communicate at the level of understanding of those who use them.] > Thus began a debate over what the concept of censorship means in a > forum devoted to opposing it. Did Gilmore have the right to show Vulis > the virtual door? Or should he have let the ad hominem attacks > continue, encouraging people to set their filters accordingly? The > incident raises deeper questions about how a virtual community can > prevent one person from ruining the forum for all and whether only > government controls on expression can be called "censorship." "Cyberspace" is interacted with using tools under the control of the interactor. In person-to-person interaction, one's only real defense against what one decides to call "unwanted" is to remove oneself from the arena of interaction. It may not be possible to ignore or run away from certain sources of input. In cyberspace, however, it is not only possible but necessary and even desirable. Cyberspace allows one to interact with many more people then can fit in any given physical space. One simply -cannot- receive input from 2000 people and not employ some sort of filtering mechanism. Indeed, cyberspace has many buttons and switches (and even programmatic filters) which allow one to -completely- control whom one interacts with. Logically, we must conclude that those who frequently and repeatedly cry for the censorship or removal of any source of input from cyberspace are either: -quite clueless about the tools at their disposal -ideologically or personally opposed to the source of input or -in need of large amounts of attention from others Cluelessness can be overcome by appropriate teaching and interest in learning (the latter issue we can safely assume users of popular but ineffectual windowing OSes are not able to overcome). Such cluelessness, however, is not and should never be a reason for censorship. A need for attention can be overcome by refraining from the denial that the need exists, followed by careful observation of that need. More can be said on this, but this is not the forum. Such a need is not and should never be a reason for censorship. Idelological opposition is another matter entirely. To understand this better, we'll need to observe this in action. Here is an example: > Vulis portrays himself as a victim, but as I posted to the list > last week, I disagree. Anyone who's spent any time on the > 100-plus-messages-a-day list can read for themselves the kind of nasty > daily messages that came from Vulis's keyboard. "Nasty" is, of course, by this reporter's standard of "nasty". Granted this standard may in fact be shared by Mr. Gilmore, however a shared standard is not necessarily an appropriate or correct standard. > The list is on Gilmore's machine and he can do what he wants with > it; he can moderate the postings, he can censor material, he can > shut the whole thing down. By kicking off an offending user, a > list owner merely exercises his property right. There's no > government involvement, so the First Amendment doesn't apply. And > the deleted, disgruntled user is free to start his own mailing > list with different rules. Notice how, once the opposition is admitted to, the rationalization begins. Suddenly this is not a matter of censorship, but of ownership. Just as suddenly, the classic anti-free-speech arguments of "if you don't like it, start yer own" begin to surface. (Anyone ever notice how this resembles the "love it or leave it" mentality of certain American patriotic organizations?) What would ideological opposition be without the attempt at analogy? Here we witness another example: > But then the question is whether Gilmore should have exercised > that right, especially in such an open forum. Again, I think Gilmore's > actions were justified. Consider inviting someone into your home or > private club. If your guest is a boor, you might ask him to leave. If > your guest is an slobbish drunk of a boor, you have a responsibility > to require him to leave before he ruins the evening of others. Notice that the net is compared to a home or private club. Actually the net is neither, however that would not serve the purposes of this analogy, so this fact is convienently forgotton. The net is a wonderful place. Any ideology, no matter who disagrees or agrees with it, can be expressed and discussed here...assuming those who oppose this ideology do not have their way with the source of expression. There is a more refined and deeper truth to be found in the very existence of the set of all human ideologies, which is just beginning to show itself to some netizens. Unfortunately, this truth can be ruined when people equate some notion of value to sources which ignore all but a tiny subset of the set of all ideologies: > Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA, runs a number of mailing > lists and has kicked people off to maintain better editorial control. > Volokh says that the most valuable publications are those that > exercise the highest degree of editorial control. Value to whom and for what? If the editorial control produces one small element of the set of all ideologies, then this is only of value to the people who support this ideology. Given that the set of people who support an issue is smaller than the set of people who support and oppose an issue, would the value not increase by allowing both sides of an issue equal speaking time? > For his part, Gilmore calls removing the Russian mathematician "an > act of leadership." He says: "It said we've all been putting up with > this guy and it's time to stop. You're not welcome here... It seemed > to me that a lot of the posts on cypherpunks were missing the mark. > They seemed to have an idea that their ability to speak through my > machine was guaranteed by the Constitution." It is sad to note that this is the leader of one of America's forerunning organizations of freedom who says these words. For all *his* ideology of free speech, this statement reveals the hypocrasy he lives with for all to see. The true litmus test of free speech is to encounter speech that you *want* to censor. Mr. Gilmore, and other like minded parties, might want to consider what would happen if one parent company owned *all* communications media. Would they they be so supportive of the ideology of ownership and communciation they espouse? ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet Truth (n.) - the most deadly weapon ever discovered by humanity. Capable of destroying entire perceptual sets, cultures, and realities. Outlawed by all governments everywhere. Possession is normally punishable by death.

10 18

Re: Exon Countdown Clock and farewell messages
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:59 AM 11/8/96 -0800, Michael Page wrote and Rich Graves forwarded: >> ... >> >We would attempt to send it via a Email, but the respected Senator does not >> >have Email. (The Irony). >> ... To Which, on Mon, 11 Nov 1996, I wrote: >> There is no irony here, Mr. Exon tried to control the internet for the very >> reason that he didn't understand it and one of his granddaughters did. >> Perhaps if he did understand the internet then he wouldn't be a threat. >> Remember, people fear that which they don't understand. To which, at 07:57 PM 11/12/96 -0800, Declan McCullagh wrote: >I disagree. I think people understand the printing press and still want >to control it. Morality police are morality police, no matter what the >medium or how well they understand it. A valid point, and Exon may have had designs of media control the whole time. The methods he used and the arguments he stated, however, suggested to me, that he was someone who did not comprehend the technology. Those who he was able to sway with the dossier of .GIF's certainly were ignorant, many of them were turned by that one display of images.

1 0

CDT's Jonah Seiger on ISP-TV's "Real Time"
by ISP-TV Main Contact 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

*** ISP-TV Program Announcement: Live interview with Jonah Seiger, Policy Analyst for the Center for Democracy and Technology *** *** Monday, Nov. 18 *** *** 9:00 PM ET *** Jonah Seiger, Policy Analyst and online organizer with the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), will be on ISP-TV's "Real Time" interview series this monday night. Seiger has been very active on both the crypto rights front and opposing the Communications Decency Act. He worked with Senator Burns to put the first Congressional Hearing on the Internet, played a key role in organizing an online petition which generated over 115,000 signatures in opposition to the CDA, and helped to organize the "Black Thursday Protest." We will ask Jonah questions about what the future of crypto regulation will be in the next Congress, and the efforts of the Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition (CIEC) in fighting against the CDA in the Supreme Court. This video interview can be viewed on the ISP-TV main CU-SeeMe reflector at IP 205.197.247.33, or other ISP-TV affiliate reflectors listed at http://www.digex.net/isptv/members.html See URL http://www.digex.net/isptv for more information about the ISP-TV Network To obtain Enhanced CU-SeeMe software, go to: http://goliath.wpine.com/cudownload.htm

1 0

Re: Secrecy: My life as a nym. (Was: nym blown?)
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:31 PM 11/12/96 -0800, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote: ... >actually, there are some amusing things going on here with cpunk >"rules." are cpunks in favor of pseudonyms or not? one famous >cpunk madman wrote under a pseudonym to the list, and many >cypherpunk went to great lengths to try to derive his identity. >is this a case of respecting pseudonyms? or is it more a case of >the double standard at best, hypocrisy at worst, >"respect my pseudonyms, but yours are fair game"? ... Cypherpunks try to break each others crypto as well, in an attempt to evolve crypto to the point that it is not crackable. Perhaps you would like to make pseudonyms easier to protect. If you developed a pseudonym and gave it its own public/private key pair, and if people bothered to check your signatures with the appropiate sources, then you should be able to protect it. Of course, I just assume that those on the list are who they say they are, I have e-mail access on the schools LAN, and PGP on the machine in my room. There is an air gap between the two, so getting a key requires a two way trip. I may start validating in the future, but I don't now. The point I was trying to make is, is "cracking" of pseudonyms any different than cracking of algorythims?

2 1

In case it isn't obvious
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In case it isn't obvious, I respect the right of the freedom-knights folks to do whatever they want on their mailing list. The list is theirs; they can operate it as they please. But perhaps I can show them the folly of their definitions of "censorship." Kicking off someone who engages in personal attacks and off-topic rants will usually improve, not hurt, the tenor of conversation on the list. The tragedy of the commons and all. In my experience, and I've talked about this at some length with Prof. Volokh who runs a number of lists himself, the best and most valuable discussion lists are those that are unmoderated but have a list owner who has the power to kick folks off a list and can try to steer the direction of a conversation if it veers too far from the list's charter. -Declan

1 0

Re: Exon Countdown Clock and farewell messages
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

If Exon had understood the Internet, he would have wanted to control it even more. Worse yet, his staff would have drafted a CDA more likely to pass constitutional muster. -Declan On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Sean Roach wrote: > At 09:59 AM 11/8/96 -0800, Michael Page wrote and Rich Graves forwarded: > > >> ... > >> >We would attempt to send it via a Email, but the respected Senator does not > >> >have Email. (The Irony). > >> ... > > To Which, on Mon, 11 Nov 1996, I wrote: > > >> There is no irony here, Mr. Exon tried to control the internet for the very > >> reason that he didn't understand it and one of his granddaughters did. > >> Perhaps if he did understand the internet then he wouldn't be a threat. > >> Remember, people fear that which they don't understand. > > To which, at 07:57 PM 11/12/96 -0800, Declan McCullagh wrote: > > >I disagree. I think people understand the printing press and still want > >to control it. Morality police are morality police, no matter what the > >medium or how well they understand it. > > A valid point, and Exon may have had designs of media control the whole > time. The methods he used and the arguments he stated, however, suggested > to me, that he was someone who did not comprehend the technology. Those who > he was able to sway with the dossier of .GIF's certainly were ignorant, many > of them were turned by that one display of images. > // declan(a)eff.org // I do not represent the EFF // declan(a)well.com //

1 0

Re: A really short one time pad. (fwd)
by gimonca＠skypoint.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 08:02:16 -0600 (CST) > From: Ron Strasburg <rstrasbu(a)bronco1.hastings.edu> > To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: Re: A really short one time pad. > > On Tue, 12 Nov 1996, Timothy C. May wrote: > > At 5:39 PM -0800 11/12/96, Sean Roach wrote: [deletia] > > >For that patter the nth root of any prime number. > > >Cheap, I know. Wonder if this type of "one time pad" is as foolproof as > > >truly randomly generated ones. > > > > You needn't wonder. These are not one time pads. Read any opening chapter > > of any book on crypto to see why. > > > this was proposed a couple months ago by a Robert Shueey, he first posted > asking if "Irrational=Random". > not sure if he got any responses. "The Broken Dice" by Ivar Ekeland has a chapter that discusses Shannon, Kolmogorov, what is random and what isn't. Interesting, readable, non-technical.

1 0

[NONCRYPTO] Re: cypher-censored the netly news
by Brian D Williams 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Cypher-Censored >By Declan McCullagh (declan(a)well.com) >The cypherpunks mailing list, so legend goes, coalesced around two >principles: the dissemination of strong encryption and an absolute >commitment to free speech. Incorrect, Cryptography and the promotion of privacy by use of same. Not "Free Speech." >Thus began a debate over what the concept of censorship means in >a forum devoted to opposing it. <sigh> see above. >Did Gilmore have the right to show Vulis the virtual door? Yes >But what if your private club's express purpose is to cherish free >speech? Again see above, this is not a stated purpose of this list. >What does Vulis's ouster mean to the community that sprang up >around this mailing list, of which he had been a member for >nearly three years? Dimitri's been here three years? >Will Rodger from Inter@ctive Week and Lewis Koch from Upside >Magazine are writing about this.) I can hardly wait (insert dripping sarcasm). It still seems people are confusing a benevolent dictatorship with some sort of democracy. Cypherpunks is just a list, a tiny, tiny portion of a small corner of the Internet. John started it (with Tim, Eric and others) and John owns it, no big deal. Dimitri was kicked out of John's "Virtual Living Room" after daring him to do so. We can all still hear his screeching from out on the virtual sidewalk. To those who call this censorship I say "To a man who only has a hammer, every problem resembles a nail." I do admire Declan's efforts however, please keep up the good work. Brian "When catapults are outlawed only outlaws will have catapults."

1 0

Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
by Dave Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> I am amused. I gave Dave Hayes about an 8.5 out of 10 on the scale of > meaningless political rants. Is this another way of saying you do not understand, since you can attribute no meaning? > * "Political safety?" I stand by my record as a writer. Check out > http://www.eff.org/pub/Publications/Declan_McCullagh/ for some of my > recent articles. Political safety? Hardly. It never ceases to amaze me how human beings think in terms of indoctrination and repetition. (Isn't that repetitive too?) In this example, previous works are cited as reasons why a current work is or is not something. As most people in probability theory can tell you, the chance of something being true has nothing to do with the results of previous trials. In other words, your record is irrelavent. I calls 'em as I sees 'em. > * Dave says "Notice that the net is compared to a home or private club." > Wrong. I never compared the Net to such. However, a mailing list run on a > computer in someone's home with his own cash is very similar to a private > club. And you say you aren't comparing the net to a home or club? Aren't mailing lists on the net? Aren't you comparing them to a club? Or are you merely being unclear about your comparisons? > * Contrary to what you seem to be asserting, Gilmore hasn't blocked Vulis > from posting. What seems to be often isn't. I am not asserting any such thing. In fact, Mr. Gilmore hasn't done anything of note since Vulis still gets mail off the list...it's more symbolic. Interestingly enough, the only "damage" I see is to Mr. Gilmore's reputation. This is hardly a loss in my opinion, but I assume it means something to a reporter... > * Dave warns us to consider "what would happen if one parent company owned > *all* communications media." Then we have problems. I've written about > this in an Internet Underground magazine column. However, this is not the > case now. It does not have to be the case for you to see the intended point, which you apparently missed. I'll say it again: Ownership should not be a license for censorship. > Or are you arguing the government should get involved and force > Gilmore to allow Vulis on his list? No. That would be the same thing in a different guise. Please read my article again and attempt to comprehend what I am saying. It would truly help your comprehension if you failed to react in a Pavlovian manner to it. > By the way, if you haven't figured it out yet, Mr. "Freedom Knight of > Usenet," a private mailing list is NOT Usenet. Get a clue. The clue to be gotten is yours. I never implied or intended such a misunderstanding. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet A philosopher called on Nasrudin and found him away from home. Infuriated, he wrote 'Stupid Oaf' on his door. As soon as Nasrudin got home and saw this, he rushed to the philosopher's house. "I'd forgotten", he said, "that you were to call. And I apologize for not having been at home. I remembered our appointment as soon as I saw that you'd left your name on my door..."

3 2

Rush on Anonymity
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Rush Limbaugh opined that most of the BS on the Nets would disappear if Net IDs could be easily traced. (He was observing not advocating.) I know this isn't correct. Most of those who post do so under their own or easily traceable identities. Most of what is posted is "as legal as church on a Sunday" in any case. Many posters are judgment proof student types as well. The net is the equivalent of barroom conversation or other casual conversation between individuals. The only difference is more people can overhear. In addition, speakers are likely to get a bit more rambunctious because they are not in the physical presence of others and so are less likely to be intimidated in monkey-troop fashion. No deference need be given to those higher on the pecking order because those primitive responses are keyed to physical presence. The Net is an approximation of a stream of consciousness since many posters don't think before they post. That's not illegal, however. If the Fibbies knew who posted the Friendly Fire message about TWA 800 (how many megabytes of such messages have there actually been?), it would make no difference since such claims are legal. The Net is just what you get when communications barriers and physical intimidation are reduced. It isn't even very "nasty, brutish, and short." I've posted controversial opinions for years and have hardly been flamed once. All those reporters who get on the Nets and immediately get flamed must either be hanging out in the wrong places or be pretty stupid in the way they say things. DCF

1 0