December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

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

17 Dec '03

> Umm, even if we accept Dave's claim that Gilmore pinched holes in > his ideology, these holes are no bigger than Dave Hayes's own holes, > since he exercises censorship of Freedom Fighters mailing list. Firstly, there is no "Freedom Fighters" mailing list. I have done nothing Gilmore didn't do. People can still send their missives to freedom-knights without being subscribed. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet A person being delivered from the danger of a fierce lion does not object whether this service is performed by unknown or illustrious individuals. Why, therefore, do people seek knowledge from celebrities?

1 0

Media seekers, reputation and banishment
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> A community offers few punishments for asocial behavior. Killfiles > are partly effective. But the strongest punishment is banishment. The "community" didn't decide anything. John Gilmore did. His machine, his mailing list, his decision, and his responsibility. > The issue is "do we individually banish asocial louts or > collectively?" and of course how do we decide who to banish. Collectively => ban for people who don't want to ban the person. > All of this is certainly easier when done individually yet it is > often prudent and effective to have someone take action when they > are in a position to do be effective. Gilmore acted properly in my > opinion. And DV remains in my killfile. If you still need a killfile, Gilmore wasn't very effective, was he?

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

> So you are explaining your problems in advance. Good, it tells > thoughtful readers to take you with a grain of salt. What a wonderfully self-referential statement. That's exactly what this statement does for you... > > 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. > You forget "shutting down" the source of input. Turning off the > radio, TV etc, or turning off the person speaking. If people have difficulty ignoring those on a mailing list or newsgroup that they do not like, how can you expect them to know about this herculean feat of responsibility? > > > 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?) > It still isn't censorship. Call it what you will. In my eyes, here is someone who is attempting (ineffectually, which is perhaps deliberate) to stop messages from being sent to another human which used to be sent to that other human. Censorship? Ownership? Why does ownership justify dishonor? > Censorship, at least in my dictionary, refers to censor, which uses > the word "Official" several times. Mr. Gilmore is not an "Official" > in a government sense, he maybe in the EFF sense, but this is not an > "Official" EFF organ, so that doesn't count. But he is an official of the list. Censorship is not just practiced by governments... > "Editorial Control" means that someone decides who get's published and > who doesn't. From your opposition to it, I guess you think that a magazine > dedicated to poetry should print all poems submitted, or as many, selected > in some sort of non-judgemental order, as they can fit. Or that a magazine > should print any writings submitted to it. Resistance to lack of editorial control prevents one from seeing the true nature of ideologies and opinions. Maybe you don't want this, but why deny it to others? Still... > I run 4 mailing lists, one is personal, one is in the process of coming > online, and 2 are up and running. One of these has a rule: No Politics allowed. > I guess I am a pathetic little censorous worm huh? If that is what you wish to call yourself. I maintain no such position. > That is what freedom is, the ability to _do it yourself_ not the > requirement that others do it for you, or allow you to use what they > have already built. Freedom is anything but categorizable in the terms you are using. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this.

1 0

Re: Internet banking: more on Mbanx
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Sender: e$(a)thumper.vmeng.com Reply-To: Enzo Michelangeli <enzo(a)ima.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Precedence: Bulk Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 17:28:50 +0800 (hkt) From: Enzo Michelangeli <enzo(a)ima.com> To: Multiple recipients of <e$(a)thumper.vmeng.com> Subject: Re: Internet banking: more on Mbanx On Fri, 15 Nov 1996, networks(a)vir.com wrote: > Unfortunately, their promotional literature does not go > into their Internet services. The information I was given over > the phone was that by signing up they would supply me with > the 128bit version of Netscape for secure transactions. People outside of the US may be interested to know that there is a small, fully legal, free browser with 128-bit SSL security: it's called WorkHorse, and is available with ftp from ftp.mkt.co.uk (that must have got a 110 bps feed, if the connection speed is of any indication). The link inside Banknet's home page, at http://mkn.co.uk/bank/, seems to be wrong and anyway most browsers time out before getting connected. WorkHorse's interface is pretty ugly and the rendition is buggy, but the SSL connection does work: I got through mbanx's "Sign in" link at http://www.mbanx.com/banxing/5welcome.html , whereas MSIE and NS3 were kicked out due to their 40-bit RC4 limit. Enzo --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "The cost of anything is the foregone alternative" -- Walter Johnson The e$ Home Page: http://www.vmeng.com/rah/

1 0

HP announcement re encryption (fwd)
by Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 16:27:22 -0500 (EST) >From: Ross Stapleton-Gray [email was here] Subject: HP announcement re encryption >From Reuters... for those in the DC area, it'll be at the National Press Club at 8am Monday... PALO ALTO, Calif. (Reuter) - Hewlett-Packard Co. said Friday that it will unveil a breakthrough agreement on Monday in the long-deadlocked debate over software encryption, a development that could eliminate a key impediment to the growth of electronic commerce via the Internet. A spokesman said H-P Chairman and Chief Executive Lewis Platt will provide details of a deal involving computer industry leaders, the Clinton administation and other governments at a press conference in Washington. A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | U. Miami School of Law | froomkin(a)law.miami.edu P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm here.

1 0

RE: Remailer Pricing
by Mullen Patrick 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Peter Hendrickson's electrons stated >It looks like I wasn't perfectly clear again. Sorry about that. The user >does not tell anybody whether or not the mail has been read. In fact, >it's nobody's business but their own. This is the advertiser's problem, >and I don't really care whether they solve it. In fact, the user does >not have to put the remailer on the accept list. He or she just has >to tell the remailer operator that they would like to receive a dollar >(or whatever) if the remailer operator sends them any mail. Small point, but noted. I thought the word "read" was mentioned, but obviously it was "received"... Perhaps we've been thinking about anonymous mail the wrong way. Is it like the U.S. Post Office where you have to physically go someplace, buy a stamp, physically write your message, put it in a physical envelope, carry it to a box someplace, and then wait (maybe four days) for it to arrive, all for "only" 32 cents? Or is it more like Federal Express where you pay 20 bucks and it arrives the next day, for sure, every time? Earlier today somebody sent a message about his scary former employers and (apparently) how they just kill people. Would that person pay, say, $5 to have the message delivered reliably and very anonymously? My judgement is that it would be worth every penny, and probably more. >Right now the remailer network is a mess. There just aren't that many >remailers operating in a timely and reliable manner. I am not knocking >the remailer operators for this, it's just clear that "free" doesn't >make it worth their while to keep the remailers operating perfectly >at all times. Very true. This strengthens my point that the remailer operator would want a piece of the pie, as well... >A good pricing strategy for remailers would be to charge, say, $1 for >instant delivery, $.50 for 30 minute delivery, etc. To generate >interest, 4 hour delays could be imposed for free remailing, if the >resources are available. fTotalCostOfDelivery = fCostOfReceipt + nRemailersUsed * fRemailerCost Obviously, nRemailersUsed is only necessary for anonymous chaining... Don't get me wrong, there's nothing meant by this equation, no point trying to be made, nothing. I'm just showing you the pricing strategy. I strongly agree with you that paying for remailer use would greatly improve service, and would probably be a good thing. In the case of chaining, there would have to be a great deal of trust involved so none of the remailers stole all the postage w/out forwarding the message. (Just a thought, anyway) Here's an idea I was tossing around sometime earlier-- One capitalist idea that would invalidate this theory. A remailer would make a lot of money if they made a deal with an advertiser, esp. an advertising agency (containing ads for many companies, if I chose the wrong words) if they eliminated incoming postage, and possibly paid outgoing postage or had the ad agency pay the postage (within limits, of course). The remailer would then tag on advertisements to each mailing. Direct marketing (Note: This is what we're trying to avoid, but I see it happening) The non-charging remailer would become wildly popular, as they don't charge postage, and they would be fast, because they would have corporate sponsorship. This idea is *far* from being farfetched; it exists now. Every mail I receive at my free geocities account has an ad attached. Patrick

2 1

Re: Why is cryptoanarchy irreversible?
by ph＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:02 PM 11/15/1996, Bill Frantz wrote: >At 1:44 PM 11/13/96 +0000, Adam Back wrote: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> A very good idea. There was some discussion of this kind of thing a >> while back about doing this for Singapore. The suggestion at the time >> was not to do it perfectly, but rather to arrange something simple to >> allow people to circumvent the censorship enforced through their >> compulsory use of a government censored web proxy. > I hope it is ready. To quote from William Safire's 11/14/96 NYT column: ^^^^^^^^ > "Let's run a test. "Information Technology and Political Control in > Singapore" is a paper just issued by Prof. Gary Rodan of Murdoch University > in Perth, Australia, distribued by Chalmers Johnson of the Japan Policy > Research Institute in Cardiff, Calif. It's on this web site: > http://www.nmjc.ord/jpri/. > "If Lee blocks access, Singaporeans, try E-mail: cjohnson(a)ucsd.edu. But be > careful, global business executives: the Architect of the New Century [Lee > Kuan Yew - wsf] may be monitoring everything you download." Guess Safire hits the Cypherpunks list when he needs material! Peter

1 0

Clipper 3.11 executive order
by Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://library.whitehouse.gov/PressReleases.cgi?date=0&briefing=4 A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | U. Miami School of Law | froomkin(a)law.miami.edu P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm here.

2 1

RE: Leadership and Inscrutable Deficiencies
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Vladimir Z. Nuri, in his Ancient Warrior mode: I think many people need to learn a lesson that cyberspace doesn't change certain basic realities, such as how important a dynamic leader is in forward motion in any area. but they will have plenty of opportunities to learn over the next few years and decades. and I'll be snickering in the sidelines as long as they wonder aloud why their realities are as they are and they find the deficiencies therein inscrutable. ..................................................... Oh, Nuri, you're so Morally Superior and so far above us, being more "up" than anyone on inscrutable deficiencies. I find it incredible to realize that it will take *years* in cyberspace before I learn about the immutability of basic realities (and maybe about the Incommensurability of the Diagonal, too). Definitely it will be a very, very long time before I feel the need of being led (around, by the nose?), in place of exercising self-control and reasoned judgement. .. Blanc

1 0

Mirror of new export control regulations
by Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Because it appears that the whitehouse URL changes daily for press releases, I've put a link to a copy of the text of the rules at the top of my homepage. You can also skip straight to it at: http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/nov96-regs.htm A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | U. Miami School of Law | froomkin(a)law.miami.edu P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm here.

4 3