December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

AOL / CyberPromo email blocking
by Three Blind Mice 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This was in the Daily Brief on 11/05: * A federal Judge ruled yesterday that America Online can block junk e-mail from Cyber Promotions Inc. - said neither the First Amendment nor the constitutions of Pennsylvania or Virginia allow Cyber to send unsolicited computer ads to AOL members. Does anybody know where I can find a full article on this? It sounds like it might set some precedent for other cases dealing with the Internet. Thanks, --3bmice

1 0

Kill Files
by ph＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've been experimenting with a kill file. It is quite effective, takes very little time to set up, and imposes minimal overhead on my machine. In general people who have written worthwhile articles continue to do so. Those who have not in the past, tend not to in the future. So, I sort by poster into three categories: the A-list, the maybe-read list, and the killfile. My A-list has about 35 names and the resulting messages are, in my opinion, almost entirely signal. I use the maybe-read list to find people who should be on the A-list. The kill file I don't read. If people post on things that don't interest me, I killfile them. If they bore me, I killfile them. If they are rude, I killfile them. If they use obscenities I am likely to killfile them. If they make naive statements, I killfile them. If they whine too much, I killfile them. I now have a cypherpunks list which is worth reading. I was surprised that so many core cypherpunks allowed Dmitri Vulis to upset them so much. That was obviously his intention. Is it really so shocking to learn that somewhere out in the world there is one loser? Follow Tim May's fine example - killfile him and forget him. Killfiles are easy to set up. You don't need to write a line of code. I use the filters in Eudora. Eudora is available for Macs and PCs. If you are using a Unix box, procmail will do the trick. If you don't know much about these tools, you probably know somebody who does. If you don't, you can probably find people on the cypherpunks list who will be more than happy to help you. I will be happy to help you. It is wonderful that John Gilmore and Hugh Daniels have done so much to keep this list running. John can do anything he wants with his machines and with this list. But, I was disappointed to see him remove somebody from it. Why? I prefer to choose for myself who to killfile and who not to. Unfortunately, beggars can't be choosers. Peter Hendrickson ph(a)netcom.com

1 0

[NOISE] [philosophypunks] Re: Dr. Vulis
by Bryce 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Dr. Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam(a)ai.mit.edu> wrote: > > And of course this is not an action that can be strictly justified in > terms of absolute rights which many are fond of prating on about. > Rights are limited, as Mills observes they are a product of law. Society > finds it necessary to enact laws to protect rights. Dmitri's posts were > affecting other people's right to speak. There is thus the traditional > liberal conflict, that of having to infringe rights to protect them. to which I, Bryce <bryce(a)c2.net> replied: > > Dear Sir: I humbly put it to you that the above reflects a > misunderstanding about the libertarian conception of "absolute > rights". I personally do _not_ subscribe to said theory, but > I try to understand a thing correctly before criticizing it in > public. to which he, <hallam(a)ai.mit.edu> wrote: > > Given that the only recognised philosopher to take the libertarian > position is Nozdic and he has semi-recanted I think it perfectly > reasonable to base the libertarian position on the views of > people calling themselves libertarians. Okay. Normally I would rather argue about viewpoints expressed in written opinions by writers like pre-communitarian Nozick, Ayn Rand, David Friedman and so forth than about difficult-to- pinpoint "views of people calling themselves libertarians", but in this case it will make little difference to my argument, which is that your article quoted at the beginning of this message reflects a misunderstanding of those views. > If you don't ascribe to "absolute rights" based in natural law > then it sounds as if you accept that rights are derived > from prior principles. If you accept that then you are a > simply taking the traditional liberal position. Hm. This is as may be, but it is tangential to my purpose in publically calling you on your (presumably innocent) misrepresentation. <snip on Hallam-Baker on Mills on "'absolute' rights"> Sure, I agree with you that Mills doesn't start with rights as an assumption, but rather argues for them from prior assumptions. When I said that Mills argues for "absolute ('unbalanced')" rights, I meant that he argues for individual rights with (almost) no exceptions, in constrast to your your assertion that "the main theory it advances is of the *balance* between the rights of communities and the rights of individuals.". I doubt very much that Mills _ever_ used the phrase or the concept of "rights of communities" and I know that the main theory that _On_Liberty_ advances is the (almost) total sovereignty of individual rights. (I see now that I shouldn't have called Mills' conception of rights "absolute", because of the existence of that "almost" there...) But this, too, is tangential to my point... > Mill was not an anarchist, he was a classic liberal utilitarian. > Its rather ironic that nobody on the list has recognised that I > advance a classical utilitarian position and that if I quote Mill > I'm quoting a principle authority. Hm. I was taught that Mills recanted Benthamism and became a vigorous philosophical adversary of it before writing _On_ _Liberty_. Are you counting _On_Liberty_-era Mills as some kind of "neo-Benthamite utilitarian" or is one of us mistaken on his self-identification? But this, too, is tangential to my point, which I will get around to now. You wrote, in the article that spawned this thread: > And of course this is not an action that can be strictly justified in > terms of absolute rights which many are fond of prating on about. Now I must strongly assert that this _is_ an action that can be strictly justified in terms of absolute rights as understood by people who call themselves libertarians. I don't believe that Dr. Vulis _should_ have been banned from cypherpunks, and I don't believe in absolute rights as understood by people who call themselves libertarians, but I must state that your assertion quoted above reflects a profound misunderstanding of that viewpoint. The idea of absolute rights as understood by libertarians states that no-one is justified in exercising "the use of force" against another person unless in self-defense against similar "use of force" from that person. [Note: "the use of force" is in quotes because it has a particular meaning in this context which is essential to appreciating the theory. The meaning of "the use of force" in this theory is: "One of: a. performing physical violence upon the subject, b. threatening to perform physical violence upon the subject, c. stealing the subject's property.".] Now if you are able to read and comprehend the above paragraph then you must find it obvious that this theory does not forbid John Gilmore from banning Dr. Vulis from cypherpunks. If you are able to read and comprehend the above paragraph and _also_ understand its deficiencies and begged questions, then more power to you, but you must still admit that the theory, as understood by people who call themselves libertarians, fully permits John Gilmore to ban Dr. V. I look forward to your reply. Regards, Bryce -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2i Comment: Auto-signed under Unix with 'BAP' Easy-PGP v1.1b2 iQB1AwUBMn97m0jbHy8sKZitAQGiPgL9GJqxboWmhOoMheYpPZTgPyRB6eMbf4J6 q2EmtQPoQB8HwhFLR4AV9C9TgZ4wb2lH2gCCDjqaUi0I+0Kc5AMUBfXvmh3tU/Q6 BkztyVtRQsM/IJ0ruLItYqJmrRTAmDou =QQJG -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Announcement-- Reward for Errors...
by pcw＠access.digex.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At this moment, I'm preparing the second edition of my book _Digital Cash_. In order to reduce the errors and improve the book, I'm announcing rewards of $10.00 per technical error to the first person to report each particular error to me. They will also receive a personal mention in the thanks given at the front of the book if they don't want to remain anonymous. Naturally, I need to limit this offer. All awards are subject to my whims. Errors in grammar and spelling are not eligible. I will make the decision of which person is the first to make a bug report. If something seems more like a feature than a bug, I may not pay a reward. Also, I am free to decide upon the basic granularity of the errors. My decision is final, but I hope to be as inclusive as possible to reward people who take the time to write. I want to be as generous as my pocketbook allows. If this works out well, the second edition will sell more books which will allow me to offer even larger rewards when I prepare the third edition. I'm also asking that people forward any suggestions for additional topics to me. A copy of the table of contents can be found on my web page (http://www.access.digex.net/~pcw/pcwpage.html) If you're a company or a researcher with an interesting contribution to the world of digital transactions, please write. I want to be as inclusive as possible. My thanks to everyone who takes the time to consider this offer. The offer is in effect for a limited period of time and may be withdrawn at any time. See my web page for announcements. -Peter Wayner pcw(a)access.digex.com

1 0

RE: Dr. Vulis
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hallam-Baker <hallam(a)ai.mit.edu> wrote: > the main theory [Mill's book _On_Liberty_] advances is of the *balance* > between the rights of communities and the rights of individuals. Two words: Schelling Point. James

1 0

RE: Dr. Vulis please read this.
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Butler, Scott" <SButler(a)chemson.com> writes: > Dr. Dimitri Vulis (KOTM) > > Do you think that it would be possible for you to leave this mailing > list quietly WITHOUT sending mail to it again unless you have anything > that may be found interesting / useful regarding cryptography. Thank you, Scott, for your advice, which reminds me of the following story: One day the Germans were about to shoot two Jews, named Abram and Moisha. The Germans offered the Jews blindfolds. Abram bravely declined, to which Moisha said: "Take it, Abram, don't make trouble!" --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Re: [NOISE] If the shoe fits, wear it [VULIS]
by Rich Graves 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > I've pointed out already that apparently John is not, so far, > filtering out my submissions to the c-punks list. Correct. It's just a formal way of saying you're unwelcome, really. Shoo. > However I'd like to take exception with the two claims made in > the articles cc'd to me so far: > > A that only governments can censor; > > B that post-factum punishment for "inappropriate" speech is not > censorship. I agree with your objections, probably because you're attacking straw men. > Certainly Disney owned WABC and was within its rights to censor it. > Likewise John Gilmore is within his rights to destroy his own > credibility and to expose his own hypocricy. Yes, this gets to my point. Private censorship tells more about the censor than about the censored. In this case, John acted properly, and his credibility has only been enhanced. You are of course free to rant and rave about his hypocrisy, but expecially since you'll always be able to post to the list, at least under a nym (the only thing he's prevented is your reading the list under your own name), you're only proving yourself to be an idiot. - -rich - --- [This message has been signed by an auto-signing service. A valid signature means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the signature and forwarded.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Gratis auto-signing service iQBFAwUBMn+0UioZzwIn1bdtAQE+DwF/YHGRdPpQ3JqotsUWw303aYCmKn7d9il1 4sCKaEIMy7NHT1uvRR1DL8oBgZGsVUwH =acPs -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Censorship on cypherpunks [RANT]
by camcc＠abraxis.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:20 AM 11/4/96 -0800, you wrote: : :So if c-punks is really "private", how does it decide (arbitrarily?) who to include :and who to reject? Since it IS private, the owner has to justify NOTHING, vis-a-vis the list. We _choose_ to supplicate to join; we are _allowed_ to join (or not allowed) by the owner's grace; we may always _choose_ to unsubscrive [sic]; if we do it correctly, we are off the list. Let me repeat, the onus is NOT on the owner to justify the use of his property. Cordially, Alec PGP Fingerprint: pub 1024/41207EE5 1996/04/08 Alec McCrackin <camcc(a)abraxis.com> Key fingerprint = 09 13 E1 CB B3 0C 88 D9 D7 D4 10 F0 06 7D DF 31

1 0

Re: Dr. Vulis is not on cypherpunks any more [VULIS]
by Rich Graves 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > I guess libertarian philosophy permits operating a private mailing > list and imposing whatever rules the host deems necessary to invent. Clearly. And contractural principles suggest that there should be transparency in those rules. > The question is, can this ist be called a free medium for exchange of > ideas, or not. My answer is no. I say you're wrong. Vulis has been denied nothing but the dignity of reading the list under his own name. He still has freedom to read under a pseudonym, and he still has freedom to post under his own name, or any other. > Moderated forums might create some utility (by saving the time of > their participants, for example), but they should identify themselves > as such. Such as by notifying the list that exactly one particularly obnoxious member has been kicked off, and allowing *unlimited* discussion on the list about the impact of doing so? I think this is working. - -rich - --- [This message has been signed by an auto-signing service. A valid signature means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the signature and forwarded.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Gratis auto-signing service iQBFAwUBMn/BzSoZzwIn1bdtAQGk+wGAgv2SrJzetHEzgs9DxahGvB8ReGWi8mDB aEGj8o8aW2DNGrDSx4f8DBDS4a8605Tc =oQeM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

[rant] Re: Censorship on cypherpunks
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> >Obviously many voluntary religious organizations have quite strict rules >for their members and are compatible with libertarianism. Government >monopoly regulations that cannot be opted out of are not compatible with >libertarianism. May I remind you that if you want to leave this country, all you have to do is board a plane. Many people have suggested similar things about various groups for about two centuries. The major difference between this list and this government is that it is easier to start a new list.

1 0