December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by aga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote: > aga wrote: > > On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote: > > > Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > > > Dale Thorn wrote: > > > > But seriously, I was just telling the folks over the weekend, if I > > > had my hand on the button, a lot of people would die very quickly. > > > As in The Day The Earth Stood Still, a single act of aggression would > > > suffice to be immediately terminated. No trial, huh? The best place to begin, in > > > the USA at least, would be the public freeways. There you have the > > > most acts of aggression in a short space, and the best pickings for > > > liquidation. Give me the power, and I'll show you all those nifty > > > techno-ways of eliminating people that have been kept from the public > > > by our benevolent government ("sources and methods"). > > > > > > BTW, I don't give a damn about someone "cutting me off", since I'm > > > not aggressive enough (outside of my liquidation duties) to be bothered > > > by that in most cases. I'm primarily concerned with vehicles who get > > > too close behind, who pass with no safety margin, etc. I call these > > > people anal-compulsive (as opposed to anal-retentive). You've seen > > > the videos on PBS, the various animal species whose male members > > > perform occasional "mounting" of others to intimidate. There are a > > > large percentage of humans who try to do the same thing, demonstrating > > > that they (IMO) have no further need of their lives. > > > Boy, it is a fucking Bitch living in that L.A. traffic, huh? > > I heard years ago that approximately 10% of the people on the street > are certifiably mentally unstable. Multiply that by two at least for > Los Angeles (suburban L.A., actually, Hollywood for example is much > safer than Altadena or Westlake Village). > Just carry a gun all of the time when you go over there. > Quincy M.D. (the old TV show) did an excellent piece once on how a > person can more-or-less legally commit murder with a car, by passing > a deliberate act off as an "accident". It's one area of our law > enforcement where the law (or rules) as stated by the state and as > enforced by the state cops don't even agree. > Maybe it is best to travel only on the net any more. The highways are deathtraps.

1 0

Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

aga wrote: > On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote: > > Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > > Dale Thorn wrote: > > But seriously, I was just telling the folks over the weekend, if I > > had my hand on the button, a lot of people would die very quickly. > > As in The Day The Earth Stood Still, a single act of aggression would > > suffice to be immediately terminated. The best place to begin, in > > the USA at least, would be the public freeways. There you have the > > most acts of aggression in a short space, and the best pickings for > > liquidation. Give me the power, and I'll show you all those nifty > > techno-ways of eliminating people that have been kept from the public > > by our benevolent government ("sources and methods"). > > > > BTW, I don't give a damn about someone "cutting me off", since I'm > > not aggressive enough (outside of my liquidation duties) to be bothered > > by that in most cases. I'm primarily concerned with vehicles who get > > too close behind, who pass with no safety margin, etc. I call these > > people anal-compulsive (as opposed to anal-retentive). You've seen > > the videos on PBS, the various animal species whose male members > > perform occasional "mounting" of others to intimidate. There are a > > large percentage of humans who try to do the same thing, demonstrating > > that they (IMO) have no further need of their lives. > Boy, it is a fucking Bitch living in that L.A. traffic, huh? I heard years ago that approximately 10% of the people on the street are certifiably mentally unstable. Multiply that by two at least for Los Angeles (suburban L.A., actually, Hollywood for example is much safer than Altadena or Westlake Village). Quincy M.D. (the old TV show) did an excellent piece once on how a person can more-or-less legally commit murder with a car, by passing a deliberate act off as an "accident". It's one area of our law enforcement where the law (or rules) as stated by the state and as enforced by the state cops don't even agree.

1 0

RE: Fighting the cybercensor
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:47 PM 1/27/97 -0800, jim bell wrote: ... >You misunderstand AP, yet again. AP doesn't really take votes, it merely >totals donations. It is an essential element of the AP system that even a >tiny minority should be able to kill individuals who are seen as threats, as >long as this capability is universal. True, the smaller the minority the >more uneconomical such an action would be for them, but it would be well >within the ability of 1% of the population to avoid a another Holocaust by >getting rid of those pushing for it. > >In the current political system, in the US for instance, 51% of the >population is able to screw the remaining 49%, just as long as they can >maintain the majority. Or, perhaps even more accurately and ominously, a >tiny fraction of the population (the current leadership class) is able to >screw the 49%, as long as they have the un-thinking backing of the remaining >and relatively uninvolved 51%. > >AP disables this system. AP turns government into the moral equivalent of a >pick-up football game: Nobody is being forced to play, and everybody and >anybody can simply "get up and leave" whenever he wants to. The moment the >"rules of the game" to make an individual's continued participation >unsatisfying, he can leave. > ... In our society, which, if I remember correctly, 10% of the population control 90% of the wealth, AP would only lead to 10% of the population being able to screw the remaining 90%. At least as it is, it takes a simple majority. As for the murder of the rich, here is a scenerio. A collection of poor pool their capitol to have a tyrant killed. The tyrant assembles a counter-wager saying that anyone able to prove thier ability to kill him without harming him, and who can show they got through will get 110% of the poor's bid. The household is told that a standing bounty has been placed with a collection of individuals, on the head of the trigger man involved in the tyrants murder. The poor can not hope to match the tyrants bid as they only have 10% of the wealth, the household knows that thier participation in an attempt on the tyrant will get them killed. Even if the attempt was successful. The people from the outside who would benefit from the bounty benefit more by taking the tyrants offer and then trying again, i.e. tiger teams.

1 0

RE: Fighting the cybercensor
by Phillip M. Hallam-Baker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>That's it? The system collapsed because the guards left their posts? >And no mutiny charges? Incredible. I was there. The collapse of East Germany was quite spectacular. There was at most three months of warning. First there was a series of sit ins at foreign embassies, then a migration of large numbers of people in their twenties within the eastern block. I missed the actual collapse of the wall itself having to go to England. I was told of the sequence of events by friends in Berlin. By this time the protestors were confident enough to stage open demonstrations. The authorities had tolerated small scale demonstrations for some time provided they did not appear to be part of a larger movement. The sudden increase in numbers from tens to tens of thousands left the authorities unsure of what to do. They could not be sure of the reliability of the police should they attempt to violently suppress the demonstrations. To imprison the ringleaders was equally dangerous. The communists were aware that the South Africans had continued to be troubled by Mandela and Biko long after they were imprisoned or murdered. At some point a group of protesters approached the wall, probably hoping to goad the police into making an arrest. The guards made no response and the numbers increased to the point where firing of warning shots was impossible without causing a massacre. West German protesters joined from the other side of the wall. The border guards did try to use a water cannon but to little effect since the range was insufficient. At some point someone appeared with a sledge hammer and a pickaxe. Some people say that this was at the start of the protest, others that someone fetched them. I have heard people who believe that they were brought from either side of the wall. They started attacking the wall and soon had removed one of the panels. Next day the border guards quite literally abandoned their posts. The Brandenburg gate was opened for the first time in fifty years and the party apparatus all but collapsed. The only military activity during this period was GDR forces preparing against possible invasion by Soviet forces. Not that this was a logistical possibility since it was unlikely they would get across Poland unopposed. Read Norman Davies book "Europe a history" if you want to find out the background for the velvet revolution. It is one of the most amazing events in political history. It is a pity that people have forgotten so quickly about the real causes. It was not military power that prevailed but the protest movement. Unfortunately US commentators tend to see everything in terms of US cultural norms, many of which were explicitly rejected by the protestors. The East Germans wanted West German affluence, they wanted to be part of Western Europe. They were certainly not responding to US military spending as right wing theorists claim, nor was the economy collapsing because of the arms race, it was collapsing because of the costs of a totalitarian state and the incompatibility of that state with modern industrial organization. Phill

3 2

Re: Libel/slander & crypto relevancy (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 01:28:19 -0800 > From: Greg Broiles <gbroiles(a)netbox.com> > Subject: Re: Libel/slander & crypto relevancy > > Civil actions against people doing "graffiti" are only interesting where > the defendant has assets worth suing for. This economic dimension > substantially limits the number of suits which will be brought. Thank you for agreeing with my thesis that the legal industry is one driven by monetary gain and not justice. It is the one major problem with law today, it ignores those who are not 'worth it'. Justice is supposed to be blind and until that happens there can be no true liberty. Law should be involved in rights and wrongs and not 'how much money do I need to buy that villa in Spain'. There is also the aspect of 'reputation' of the organization which was defamed. This will become even more critical to good business over the Internet in the future than it is now. Now the only really important 'reputation' that one has to worry about is their credit report. Since it is very unlikely that such records will be made public in the future they won't be available so some other 'reputation' verification process will be required for parties interested in doing business with other parties they have no information on other than an email address or a webpage. This problem became very clear during the Austin Cypherpunks remailer project last year. The goal was to create a economicaly viable keyserver. The problem rapidly became one of trust and reputation and there was and still is no clear cut methodology for dealing with these concepts, let alone actualy trying to quantify them. Another aspect of this that keeps coming up is one of 'big' corporations with 'lots' of money, this monotonicity in legal thought is the reason I refer to the 'legal industry' and not 'legal profession'. Currently the main force driving law is how much money is available. Expansions of liberty simply can't happen in this environment because there is no mechanism to protect 'little' organizations or persons without 'lots' of cash. This problem is one that is not being addressed by anyone, most especialy lawyers who will loose income which they aren't apt to do voluntarily. > Criminal prosecutions for defamation (in the case of "graffiti") are still > unlikely - a much more straightforward charge would be unauthorized access > to a computer or some flavor of fraud, depending on the facts. This would be hard to do in the situation such as a mailing list because the parties would have 'authorized access' and it does not include the issue of inside parties nor 'web bbs's' where parties can enter comments and other statements in a 'authorized' manner. There are mechanisms to use computers for abuse of other parties besides hacking. > Confusion > aids defendants, so I predict prosecutors will avoid defamation law (and > its tar pits of actual malice and the defense of truth) when they are able > to do so and still have a reasonable chance of conviction. > > >If they don't > >understand the technology (eg forwarding private email to publicly > >accessible lists by accident) how in the world are they going to understand > >what is best, let along convince anyone else? > > There's a world of difference between understanding technology and screwing > up once in awhile. Absolutely. However, if there is not a fundamental understanding of the technology and its ramifications I certainly wouldn't want somebody making a case on my behalf because they would make assumptions which were not based in fact. In Toto's case the point I was refering to was not his sending private practice related material to a publicly accessible list (pretty reprehensible for my attorney accident or not) but rather his unsolicited admission that he didn't have any idea how it works. THAT would worry me if my liberty, possessions, or life were on the line. > I was that "party", and I guess that in trying to be civil I was actually > unclear. If you were a politically important person or organization, and if > Toto's message had caused you real damage, and if Toto were reasonably > available to prosecute, a prosecutor might get interested. But you're not > important, Toto would be difficult to extradite, and you weren't harmed. So > you picked a crappy example to make your point(s) with. Change the facts, > and you'll get a different answer. Duh. Actualy it is the PERFECT example of what is wrong with the law, it is the reason that I went to such extremes to force the situation. If the law can't protect Ma. and Pa. Kettle (their poor, being share croppers) under our 'democracy' it shure can't proctect them under a more 'liberalized' democracy which so many want and the technology will force. If the coming technocracy can't (or for monetary reasons won't) then it won't be any different that what we have now. A tyrant is a tyrant, my goal is to get rid of the cage and not to put a new layer of gilt on it. > You picked a hypothetical which did a poor job of illustrating the points > you're making in this later message. Do you want to talk about whether or > not Toto is criminally liable for making fun of you while making a point > about ownership of networks and its relationship to freedom of speech, or > do you want to talk about the more general case of liability for > misattribution? If it's the latter, yes, there are some issues there, but I > still think that defamation law is a poor way to address them. You seem to > be having an "I've got a hammer, everything looks like a nail" problem. The point is not whether Toto did or did not make fun of me, you seem to have a prediliction for personal attacks. It ain't. The point is that if joe-six-pack isn't secure in knowing that his views and expression are not protected from abuse he won't use it. We all loose in that case. > And all of this seems a bit contrived if the real crypto-relevant point is > "use digital signatures to avoid misattribution". You missed the point, keep pondering. I am shure it will come to you. > Despite your closing, I haven't seen you write anything about "how it > should be", Because I don't know how it should be, and it isn't my place or yours to make that decision. It is our responsibility to discuss this issue and to review the various solutions and what they will mean in the long run (as near as we can make the future out that is). In this example, if party A makes a statement and then B changes it and then re-distributes it as original comments by A then there is a problem irrespective of the monetary worth of A or B. Digital signatures in and of themselves won't help this from happening unless it is required to include the full text and signature of any quote in any subsequent use of that material otherwise the quote and the digital signature are out of sync and therefore worthless. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Re: Best Computer School?
by Phillip M. Hallam-Baker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Erp <erp(a)digiforest.com> wrote in article <5cjlg0$2ij(a)life.ai.mit.edu>... > > > > On Mon, 27 Jan 1997, SpyKing wrote: > > > This is a little off topic but maybe someone can help. I've got a teenage > > son (HS sophomore) who's interested in majoring in computer science in > > college with a particular interest in cryptography. He's leaning toward MIT. > > Any suggestions from list members as to colleges to investigate? > > Well in reference to MIT.. I hope he has a 4.0 in highschool, is an > allsport, has a 1600 on his SAT's, and a prefect on his ACT.. Just to > even think about going there.. Let alone to include how well he'll have > to do on his interviews etc.. Also you may wish to have him look again at > what he wants to be before he goes to some major college such as MIT, > because tuition at MIT costs approx 100,000$/4 years. Actually MIT does not take notice of SATs, GSATs and other IQ nonsense. Basically the tests are meaningless at the upper end of the scale which is where most MIT students would score and a low score does not in itself demonstate stupidity. If he can get in then its difficult to imagine a better school for crypto in the US. There is a finacial support program and admission is "needs blind" so that grants are matched according to need. > I know pretty well positive that > MIT is excellent, but when you get down to the basics MIT is more of an > engineering school than a science/philosophical school which Computer > Sciences falls under.. Another good school from what I've heard is UCLA.. > then again you can discredit anything I've said, because I'm still a > HighSchool senior myself and have been looking into Computer Criminology > for the last three years, and I'm positive it is what i want so *shrug*.. Actually there is a reasonable school for philosophy just up the road but its not so good for computer science (it did produce Bill Gates.) The AI lab does have a number of people who lean quite heavilly to the philosophy side. Phill

1 0

RE: Libel/slander & crypto relevancy
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate <ravage(a)EINSTEIN.ssz.com> wrote: I have received several private emails inquiring into what possible crypto relevance the recent exchange over libel/slander and the law. It is clear that even in democratic countries like Canada (not know as a freedom of speech protectorate) slander/libel is covered under criminal codes. While it is true that currently these statutes are not heavily used, if at all, this will change as businesses and special interest groups move even further onto electronic networks. Consider the zealous use of the law by the CoS. Ask Julf if the ramifications are not 'real world'. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com Not one to ever let a mention of Canada go unchallenged - even when it is a simple fact or a compliment - I thought I should jump into the discussion. Like the CoS, many companies have threatened libel actions as a means to silence people. The McLibel Two in Britian quickly come to mind. However, also like the Cos, many companies are finding that the net effect of these libel suites are not in their favour even when they win. Some brilliant examples of subversive use of trademarks can be found at the site: http://www.adbusters.org Specific examples: http://www.adbusters.org/Corporate/Greasestick.html http://www.adbusters.org/Gallery/spoofabs.html http://www.adbusters.org/Corporate/Kalvin.html A little clever marketing could go a long way to promoting privacy issues in the public consciousness. Perhaps an NSA Friends and Family calling plan? James

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd)
by Phillip M. Hallam-Baker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate <ravage(a)EINSTEIN.ssz.com> wrote in article <5cg99p$7a(a)life.ai.mit.edu>... > The part of it that comes out of their pocketbook does. Just like the part of > 'the net' that I pay for belongs to me. The net is a bunch of computers, > running software, hooked together over cables and other links. Each and > EVERY ONE of these require installation, upkeep, repair, and utility > support. This costs money. He who pays the money owns the net, everybody > else is along for the ride. The network is largely an intellectual creation. The hardware is relatively unimportant, it can always be replaced. > If we take your argument to its logical conclusion then once a box goes on > the net it belongs to nobody/everybody. Clearly utter nonsense. If you start from such a state and property centered ideology perhaps. I'm a philosophical anarchist and I don't consider the state to have "rights" over its "subjects", nor do I believe in the pure ideology of property you do. Its worth noting that the origin of property is theft. In the case of the controllers of China literally so since they stole most of their "property" from the previous rulers. I believe that the relationship between a state and individual is a much more complex one than the slavish subjection model you propose. In this I am in agreement with practically every philosopher since Locke. It is true that there is the convenience of the state as agency but the question is on whose behalf that agency is exercised. I see no reason why I should not meddle in the affairs of states I'm not a 'subject" of. > If you really and truly believe that the net belongs to everyone and nobody > has a right to limit or otherwise control the hardware and software along > with the associated comm links they own and pay for then you obviously don't > understand what is going on. They are allowed to connect their machinery to the Internet so long as they are prepared to accept the Internet's ethic. They are not allowed to have a free ride, to demand a valuable connection facility on their own terms. > ps I also support France's current attempt at forcing the Georgia university > web site on French soil to use French. As a citizen of Europe I disagree. I believe that the narrow and parochial attitude of the French province breaches undertakings in the Treaty of Rome and under the European declaration of human rights. France is not a sovereign state and does not have the right to pass laws that infringe on the rights granted to European citizens as a whole. Phill

3 2

Re: Best Computer School?
by Derek Atkins 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Erp <erp(a)digiforest.com> writes: > On Mon, 27 Jan 1997, SpyKing wrote: > > > This is a little off topic but maybe someone can help. I've got a teenage > > son (HS sophomore) who's interested in majoring in computer science in > > college with a particular interest in cryptography. He's leaning toward MIT. > > Any suggestions from list members as to colleges to investigate? > > Well in reference to MIT.. I hope he has a 4.0 in highschool, is an > allsport, has a 1600 on his SAT's, and a prefect on his ACT.. Just to > even think about going there.. Let alone to include how well he'll have > to do on his interviews etc.. Also you may wish to have him look again at This is really exagerating. You do not need a 4.0, 1600, etc. to be admitted to MIT. Sure, you need good grades, but a 3.6 average and 1350-1400 SAT scores is perfectly adequate to be admitted to MIT. You can think of being admitted with even lower scores, if you stand out in some way. MIT admissions looks for well-rounded students. You're much better off being a writer/artist/musician than being on the science or math teams. > what he wants to be before he goes to some major college such as MIT, > because tuition at MIT costs approx 100,000$/4 years. Personally that is > a hell of a lot, but then again *shrug*... I recommend going to a local It may be alot, but then again MIT is one of the best schools in the world (I'm not going to be egotistical enough to say it *is* the best, even tho Consumer Reports rated it such for the last N years). > small college, get his associates, see if that is what he still wants to > do, then go on from there. I know many people that started in Computer > Science and died after the first year. > Now colleges that are good for Computer Sc ience.. I have heard that RIT > is good.. but I'm nto sure on that.. I know pretty well positive that > MIT is excellent, but when you get down to the basics MIT is more of an > engineering school than a science/philosophical school which Computer This is untrue. The computer science department at MIT is really good. As are the sciences, and even business! The MIT Sloan School (Management and Economics) was rated #1 last year. The EECS department (EE and CS are together) is top notch, too. Ciro Maria <cmaria(a)stevens-tech.edu> writes: > Yeah Stevens Institute in Hoboken. Its pretty good I got there. Also > Caltech is good, I don't really know which else. When I looked at Caltech, their Engineering (and computer science) really lacked. They were excellent for the Sciences (Math, Physics, Chemistry, etc.) but their engineering school wasn't as good as others I was looking at (both EE and CS). Things may have changed in the last 8 years, however. Spyking, my advise to you: Look around at many schools. Go visit them. Talk to the students there. Talk to the professors. Talk to graduates. The more information you and your son have, the better decisions you and he can make. Personally, I loved MIT -- it was the right place for me. It isn't the right place for everyone. Make sure it is the right place for your son before he applies. For what it's worth, I wanted to go to MIT my sophomore year in high school, too ;) Good Luck, -derek -- Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board (SIPB) Home page: http://www.mit.edu:8001/people/warlord/home_page.html warlord(a)MIT.EDU PP-ASEL N1NWH PGP key available

1 0

Internet companies demonstrate portable security
by Vipul Ved Prakash 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

(Forward) Internet companies demonstrate portable security Six Internet companies have joined forces to develop a joint demonstration of smartcard technologies at the 1997 RSA Data Security Conference. Consensus Development Corporation, Gemplus, Hewlett-Packard, Litronic Inc., Netscape Communications Corporation and VeriSign, Inc., Monday announced "The Get Smartcard Demo." The interactive demo will allow each conference attendee to load X509v3 certificates on crypto-enabled smartcards. Participants will interact with the demo through mutually authenticated SSL connections and document signing. For the full text story, see http://www.merc.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=1274540-213 -- Vipul Ved Prakash | - Electronic Security & Crypto vipul(a)pobox.com | - Web Objects 91 11 2233328 | - PERL Development 198 Madhuban IP Extension | - Linux & Open Systems Delhi, INDIA 110 092 | - Networked Multimedia

1 0