December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

No Subject
by attila＠primenet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Benjamin Grosman <bgrosman(a)healey.com.au> Subject: Re: Worrying... In-Reply-To: <199611140830.TAA26347(a)sydney.healey.com.au> X-Mailer: MR/2 Internet Cruiser Edition for OS/2 v1.16 In <199611140830.TAA26347(a)sydney.healey.com.au>, on 11/14/96 at 07:30 PM, Benjamin Grosman <bgrosman(a)healey.com.au> said: .Isn't it worrying that so many people can happily devote their time .to trying to annoy others? well, 40 years ago when I was still an innocent farm child... then today people are basically good. ...until money is involved. of course it's legal. ...but is it moral? ...things were only fattening. ...immorality: not getting in on the take no need for film ratings ...is it R, NC, or XXX? OK, until proven otherwise ...God gets credit, the rest pay cash then there are the the flaming liberals, the Better Red than Deads, the Sierra Club, the ADL, 'THE' Weisman, Arafat, whatever the hardline premier 'friend' of Arafat --and certainly we must include the absolute amorality of Bubba and Bitch. actually, I can handle a few of the obnoxious. if they are remote, who cares? if they get too close and persist --well, there are means and there are means. -- Cyberspace and Information are Freedom! FUCK your WIPO, too. -attila

1 0

RE: Remailer Abuse Solutions
by ph＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:10 AM 11/14/1996, Mullen Patrick wrote: > First of all, I would like to apologize if it looked like I accused Peter of > being involved with a conspiracy. I have communicated with him privately > concerning this matter, and am now making my public apology. Thanks! "Business you can do with anyone. Yachting you can only do with gentlemen." (roughly) -- J.P. Morgan A public apology was hardly necessary, but it is certainly accepted! ;-) > Concerning my other statements, I think I was a little confused on the > implementation of this idea, but now that I've re-read the posts, I'm confused > in another way. It seems this feature only applies to mail forwarded through > a remailer. While at first this may seem awkward, it's actually a feature because the remailer operator handles the e-cash and cuts a check once in awhile. This has the effect of converting a "victim" who hates remailers into a person who loves spam and loves remailers. This makes it harder to outlaw anonymity or impose Dyson-style "limited" anonymity. Plus, it's just a good business practice. > As mentioned on several posts, which may be the main idea, this > would reduce the amount of noise submitted to lists. This would be a good > thing, for sure. Knowing that your useless messages are costing even $.25 > would be enough to cut down drastically on spam. And, for people who get their kicks out of spamming people they don't like it must be galling to have to pay their "victim" money for the privilege! > However, I still don't see how this is to be implemented for direct email. Once again, I seem to have combined several ideas in a confusing way. Initially, I was talking about how a remailer operator would solve his problem of people abusing the remailer and creating enemies for him and for remailers in general. I think it is clear that this solves the problem. Once such a feature is in existence, how else could it be used? That's what the rest of my message was really about. > How would this work for an entity sending email directly to your account, > rather than through a remailer? This assumes that spam has gotten so bad that everybody filters their mail and only accepts mail on the "accept" list. People sending mail directly to your account would get a message back saying that they had to get on the "free" list or send their mail through one of the approved remailers. > The solutions that come to mind are 1) get new mail software which performs > this filtering/charging... It is much easier to let the remailer operator hassle with the cash. Mail software which handles e-cash well is going to take awhile and it introduces a lot of very real security issues. Filtering is already widely available in mail programs. And, it can be front ended to anything with procmail. > and 2) have an autoreply that sends mail not sent > through your "post office" back to the sender with a note saying to route > it through the "post office." This "post office" would be much like with > snail mail. All it does is collect and redistribute mail (for a small fee, > of course... :-) This would be a good business proposition, indeed. However, > I don't know how widely accepted it would be. I don't think you'd necessarily want to route all of your mail through the post office, just mail which isn't on your "free" list. Peter Hendrickson ph(a)netcom.com

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Mark M. writes: > On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Dave Hayes wrote: > > 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 > You are misinformed. Vulis was _not_ prevented from posting to cpunks, thus > no source of input was removed. He was simply removed from the distribution > list. He can still read and post to the list. Go back and reread at this time. Notice that I didn't mention *who* was censored. The error of interpretation was the initial story's slant on censorship. I merely expounded on the *story's* slant. > The messages were, in addition to being "nasty", extremely off-topic. > "Off-topic" is much less subjective than "nasty". But still subjective, and hence still subject to political availability should the need to criticize Vulis arise. > > 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?) > Governments maintain a monopoly on land, so the "love it or leave it" mentality > is flawed. Virtual space does not have the same limitations as physical > space. Starting your own mailing list is relatively easy. For me, yes. Not for most people. I take it you expect *everyone* to have a UNIX machine connected to the net to ensure free speech? > > 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. > Is the net analogous to a country? If not, then why did you compare starting > a mailing list to moving to a different country? I didn't. (and here we go...) > > 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? > And just how plausible do you think this is? The plausibility is not in question, the example is meant to illustrate the ludicrousness of the "ownership" concept when applied to public mailing lists (and by extension *any* public media). Are you saying "since this is implausible, the point is invalid"? We'll both have fun with that one. > I believe it is next to impossible, unless it is the result of > government regulation. AT&T tried it. They were just unlucky. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet Self justification is worse than the the original transgression.

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Igor "Gadzooks" Chudov writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: > > You won't do this, because I won't let you on the list. I, unlike you > > or Mr. Gilmore, have the judgement on whom to invite to my list. > So what's the difference between yours and gilmore's position? Simple. I choose whom to invite to my parties. Gilmore provides an open door. > Long live USENET Cabal! Neither life nor death, neither good nor bad, neither left nor right, none of these things to the USENET Cabal. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet Real charity doesn't care if it's tax-deductible or not.

3 2

Re: Censor John Gilmore -- EFF is a disgrace!
by George A. Stathis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:30 ðì 14/11/1996 -0500, aga wrote: >> * 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. There are private speech restrictions on the Net. Gated communities >> exist. Try to join the "lawprofs" mailing list. You can't; you're not >> (and quite obviously anything but) a law professor. Censorship? Not quite. >> >None of that analogy is applicable to the cyberpunks list. >When a list gets as big as that, it it no longer to be considered >a "mailing-list" but it is a _public_ forum. The whole problem >here is the abuse of power by both the EFF and John Gilmore. Indeed. But it's not only a question of 'size'. Perhaps less people might take part, but it would still be a _public_ list, just as an "open meeting" announced to take place in a _private_ house, is still an open meeting. Does the fact that the _building_ used by the meeting is private and possibly donated for this purpose make the meeting less public (than explicitly announced)? This analogy (meeting = mailing-list, building-owner=list-owner) is _quite_ exact, as a matter of fact, and it's not at all a 'party'. >> 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. > >Wrong! The cyberpunks mailing list is PUBLIC property and should >NOT be controlled by John Gilmore! This just goes to show the real >facist censorship motives that the EFF has behind it. Yep. Morevover, ANOTHER _sense_ in which the cypherpunks list is PUBLIC is the following: Posters are the _owners_ of their _ideas_. So the messages in the list are the (intellectual) property of the people who wrote them; not the list-owner's. The false analogy here is between a mailing list and a newspaper; But the newspaper (1) is sold in ALL public places (2) is dependent on money and works (in the end) for the financial best interests of its owner, and (3) is not interactive, i.e. the readers are not at all _also_ writers in it. We have to clear these things up, dear aga, and no longer misunderstand each other. Perhaps when I burst out (one of the first) against Dimitri's expulsion I shouldn't have used the adjective 'Yankee', in denouncing the mentality you also denounce. The reason I said 'Yankee' is because it seems to be _very_ common in your part of the world. It's not because I 'hate' or 'envy' Yanks! But I strongly believe that there are quite common _assumptions_ appearing again and again throughout the Net, which _do_ originate in the States, among the people you _also_ oppose. In my part of the world, NOBODY would EVER, seriously claim that an "open meeting" held in his house is subject to his "censorship". Then the meeting would by definition NOT be public... Other than these (serious points) we both seem to love our countries and this has nothing to do with nationalism or petty patriotism (IMO). >Time to kill the EFF, and let it rot in hell. They are disgrace >to the entire InterNet community. I run 6 different mailing lists, >and have NEVER puled the plug on anyone, even when they criticize me. > >The first time is the time when you lose all credibility, and there >is never any forgiveness for a plug-puller. THIS is a very SERIOUS point: Censorship is like... prostitution. The first time a person accepts money to offer a... blow-job, is sufficient for the loss of all sexual credibility. Similarly, people who ban someone from some medium of expression become _PIMPS_, which is far worse than whores (whose therapeutic role has been grossly underestimated by the world's cultures)... ROTFL!!!! Indeed, in my country, we use the word "pimp" for an editor who sacks journalists because of disagreeing with their opinions. (even though as I said the 'journalism' analogy is irrelevant here). Finally, only a fool or a bigot would fail to realize the seriousness and the correctness of what aga has said. So I shake your hand, Yankee rascal! :-) Peace George

1 0

Re: "Freedom Knights" are closet censors
by Dave Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> What is "censoring other people's censorship?" The act of preventing censorship. You are supposed to be capable at language, why can't you figure this out. > Say I argue in favor of the CDA. Would you censor me then? Why not? > Isn't this censoring others censorship? Nope. If you sent cancel messages out on USENET for Anti-CDA people, however, then you would fall under my "censorship". If you somehow caused mail messages to be deleted in people's mailboxes, I would find a way to stop that. But you can argue all you want. Go ahead, I grant you that permission. 8-) > I wonder why the so-called "Freedom Knights" are so insecure in their > beliefs that they will not tolerate a dissenting voice on their mailing > list. (Let's forget for the moment that my point in subscribing was to > disrupt it. That's not the point, is it? "More speech, more > speech!") Sorry, that *is* the point. If you tell me you are going to disrupt the list, I am not going to let you on the list...even though you are easily ignored. Why? Consider who is on this list. Dr. Vulis. John "No One Can Handle Me" Grubor. Steve Boursy. These are people who you can *not* annoy, trust me. No, this is for your benefit much more than ours. The damage you will do to yourself is far greater than the damage you will do to our list. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet Wisdom (n.) - 1. Something you can learn without knowing it.

3 2

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

17 Dec '03

> Dave Hayes wrote: > > Igor "Gadzooks" Chudov writes: > > > Dave Hayes wrote: > > > > You won't do this, because I won't let you on the list. I, unlike you > > > > or Mr. Gilmore, have the judgement on whom to invite to my list. > > > So what's the difference between yours and gilmore's position? > > Simple. I choose whom to invite to my parties. Gilmore provides an > > open door. > Providing an open door does not mean that it is always open to everyone, > Dave. It only means that it is open to all by default, but that policy > can be reversed for certain individuals. That is not to say that I agree > with Gilmore's the decision to kick Vulis out from cypherpunks, but John's > decision was neither dishonorable nor he was acting outside his powers, > in my opinion. Technically, John Gilmore did nothing, since Vulis continues to read and post. Symbolically, he punched holes in his ideology. That's my opinion. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet You need not wonder whether you should have a reliable person as a friend. An unreliable person is nobody's friend.

3 2

Re: "Freedom Knights" are closet censors
by Dave Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> On Thu, 14 Nov 1996, Dave Hayes wrote: > > Sorry, that *is* the point. If you tell me you are going to disrupt > > the list, I am not going to let you on the list...even though you > > are easily ignored. > And if Vulis shows Gilmore, though his actions, that he is going to > disrupt cypherpunks, Vulis can be prevented from being on the list...even > though he is easily ignored. Ah, but that's after the fact of the invite. > That's why neither of your actions is, in truth, "censorship." Now you are starting to make some sense. So why did you write an editor..er...article that focused on his "censorship"? ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet Nasrudin loaded his donkey with wood for the fire and instead of sitting in its saddle, sat astride one of the logs. "Why don't you sit in the saddle?" someone asked. "What? And add my weight to what the poor animal has to carry? My weight is on the _wood_ and it is going to stay there."

2 1

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

17 Dec '03

In this post you talk about SSN web pages? I was wondering if someone could post a URL to one? thanks MaINLinE ---------- > From: Black Unicorn <unicorn(a)schloss.li> > To: Timothy C. May <tcmay(a)got.net> > Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: Re: Secrecy: My life as a nym. (Was: nym blown?) > Date: Wednesday, November 13, 1996 2:51 PM > > On Tue, 12 Nov 1996, Timothy C. May wrote: > > > At 8:26 AM -0800 11/11/96, Hal Finney wrote: > > > > >I have two kids entering their teens, and I'm sure other list members are > > >parents as well. What can we do for our children to help them enter their > > >adult lives with better chances to retain privacy? Unicorn mentions keeping > > >them absent from school on picture day, although I'm not sure how much this > > >helps. I suppose it makes it harder for an investigator to find out what > > >they look(ed) like. Then when they get old enough to drive you have a new > > >problem avoiding the photo (and thumbprint) on the license. > > > > > >Are there other measures which parents could take while their children are > > >young to get them off to a good start, privacy-wise? > > > > I think there are two important domains of privacy to distinguish: > > > > 1. The mundane. > > > > 2, The political. > > > > The mundane domain is what most people think of initially, Things like "How > > do I keep my name out of the system?" Or the point about kids. > > > > The fact is, hundreds of millions of names are obviously--and almost > > unavoidably--in the mundane public sector. I say "almost unavoidably" > > because driver's licenses and social security numbers are ubiquitous. > > > > (Side note: Jim McCoy's suggestion that kids can be kept off the > > parental-unit's tax returns and thus not get a SS number is fraught with > > problems. Many schools--including public schools--use the SS number for > > various internal and tracking reasons. Even if the kid is free of SS > > numbers until he's a teenager--at a cost of thousands of dollars a year in > > IRS deductions not taken--he'll essentially have to have an SS number in > > his high school years, for a variety of reasons. Maybe this can be avoided, > > but I doubt the reward is worth the hassles.) > > Personally, I suggest that the dependent be identified with an erronious > SSN number. If the dependent exists it is hard to make a fraud case and > the deductions are usually allowed anyhow. > > I'm not sure what "a variety of reasons" in the highschool years is. As > for hastles, I can't think of what they might be, other than going to the > SSN web page to construct a properly formatted number which the SSA will > report as "Issued" (as opposed to "Unissued"). This is one of the few > pieces of information that is given out. > > Again, DMVs cannot check to see that the number matches the name, only if > it was issued and if the first three digits correspond to location where > the number was supposedly "issued" from. (If not one can always claim to > have lived in the state that DID issue that number). > > > The second category is that of the political domain. If a person can > > separate himself from the comments he makes, as Alois^H^H^H^H^H Black > > Unicorn has done, then it hardly matters--in an important sense--that his > > True Name has a SS number on file somewhere. > > I disagree. > The lack of a social security number makes the first part easier. They > are most certainly connected in the research into the few clues that will > have to slip out, will not lead back to any fact which can be later used > to narrow down the field. (The first three numbers of a SSN for example). > > > This is an important distinction in discussing privacy, I think. If I had a > > rug rat, I doubt I'd go to great lengths to avoid getting him or her an SS > > number. If the Feds offered me a yearly savings of $1000 or more on my > > taxes, I'd take it. > > Pity, but still, you can avoid it without sacrificing the dependent > deduction. > > > (Given that it's almost an inevitability that the kid would have to "enter > > the system" at about the age where it really begins to matter, e.g, the age > > at which he or she begins to have political beliefs.) > > I don't understand why this is so. Perhaps I missed a link in the chain > here? > > -- > Forward complaints to : European Association of Envelope Manufactures > Finger for Public Key Gutenbergstrasse 21;Postfach;CH-3001;Bern > Vote Monarchist Switzerland >

1 0

RE: Remailer Abuse Solutions
by Mullen Patrick 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Peter Hendrickson on Thu, Nov 14, 1996 13:22 >This assumes that spam has gotten so bad that everybody filters their >mail and only accepts mail on the "accept" list. People sending mail >directly to your account would get a message back saying that they had >to get on the "free" list or send their mail through one of the approved >remailers. So our ideas on implementation are similar, except you have made the distinction that anyone on the "free" list can have direct access. Unfortunately, your idea pivots on the idea spam has exploded to unbearable proportions. My complaint on this isn't your idea, it's the projection such an event may occur. While I hope this plan won't ever be necessary, at least not on such a global scale, the application of such techniques toward a mailing list sounds decent. I'm still thinking about how I would go about charging WRT mailing lists; anonymous postings are puzzling me at the moment. Which brings up another topic: How would an anonymous remailer operate? It's hard to eliminate an audit trail when there is some monetary tie back to you, whether it be credit card, ecash (assuming they never quite figure out anonymizing it), ... PM

1 0