December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Speedbumps
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Zona Research Inc. Sun Wins China Internet Backbone Deal Sun Microsystems announced it has been chosen by China Internet Corporation (CIC) to provide equipment and technology for CIC's Internet/Intranet network for China -- the China Wide Web (CWW). Pursuant to a nonbinding memorandum of understanding, CIC intends to purchase $15 million of Sun servers and network security and management products, as well as Java computing technology. Expected to service 50 major Chinese cities, the CWW will enable companies within and outside of China to search, exchange, and promote business information and services. The significance of this deal goes beyond its face value in dollars. * We believe the CWW will assume the characteristics of a national Intranet*, becoming an important vehicle for Chinese communications and commerce. As a key supplier of technology to CIC, Sun gains a high profile status within China, which we believe gives Sun significant leverage on future Chinese Internet/Intranet deals. Overall, this deal provides Sun with a major inroad to the Chinese Internet market.

1 0

testing
by Phiberelic Phreaker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

PhReAkInG iS a ViOlEnT pOiSoN. iT cAnNoT Be ApPlIeD eXtErNaLlY tO aNiMaL oR hUmAn TiSsUe WiThOuT sErIoUs InJuRiOuS rEsUlTs. It CaNnOt Be TaKeN iNtErNaLlY wItHoUt InDuCiNg VoMiTtInG, bLiNdNeSs, AnD GeNeRaL pHySiCaLlY uLtImAtElLy ReSuLtInG iN dEaTh. PhReAk ThE pLaNeT--http://www.angelfire.com/ne/PhreakThePlanet/index.html PhIbErDeLiC PhReAkEr

1 0

Re: The Good dr. Dobbs
by eva bozoki 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

John Fricker <jfricker(a)vertexgroup.com wrote: > It would appear that Ms. Bozoki would not purchase the product sheis creating! > In order to establish trust in an encryption product more is required than > simply agreeing that the company is competent. Competence does not imply > trustworthiness. Trust can be established through review and examination of > the innards, algo's and source code. A quick read of www.dsnt.com does not > reveal any additional information on the crypto used (other than it being > 512 byte public key algo using Diffie-Hellman key exchange) I would like to point out that our white paper with technical details can be found on our Web-site: www.dsnt.com/whitepaper.htm -- Dr. Eva Bozoki Chief Scientist DSN Technology, Inc. (516)467-0400

1 0

Re: Most "digital cash" does not deserve the name
by Matthew J. Miszewski 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

(snip) >(Just for the record, what the hypothetical insurance companies and >employers are doing by using data they have obtained should not, in a free >society, be illegal in any way. All information contributes to >decision-making, about loans, credit, insurance, employment, etc. In a free >society, it is up to people to not disclose that which they do not wish >remembered.) While the libertarians on the list have affected my way of looking at regulation I, and others, do not subscribe (suscribe ;)) to Tim's absolute theory. Unless, of course, by free society Tim is refering to one where corporations hold themselves to a level of "personal" responsibility, which in many realms is part of any definition of "free". Take, for example, the practice of redlining. How are people who live in "bad" neighborhoods supposed to not reveal that information. Has anyone tried to get a loan or a reasonable insurance rate without disclosing your address? Like I said, if insurance companies exercised some "responsibility" as opposed to inaccurate assesments based on residence, then this problem would not exist. In the real world one can not avoid all collection of data to be used in Bad(TM) ways. Media attention doesn't work. Bad Business practices dont matter to most. But those in need here should not have the luxury of appealing to their elected officials? Matthew J. Miszewski > >--Tim May > > >Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" >We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. >---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- >Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, >tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero >W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, >Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. >"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." > > > > >

1 0

Re: Counterproductive Dorothy Denning Flames
by nobody＠zifi.genetics.utah.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:10 AM 11/27/1996, Mike Duvos wrote: >William H. Geiger III writes: > > > Dorthy Denning is a boot-licking fasicist!!! > > > William Reinsch is a lying bastard. Fucking politions!! > > Fucking goverment!! They all deserve a long rope!! > >It is perhaps a point in Dr. Denning's favor that her most >vitriolic detractors can spell neither "Dorothy" nor "fascist". > >I must admit that I am at a loss to understand the heat which >Dorothy Denning generates on the Cypherpunks list, which seems to >be second only to the heat generated by posting recipes for roast >feline in rec.pets.cats. I find it interesting that you see Willam H. Geiger as a spokesman for the cypherpunks list. Remember, the list is open to anyone who can operate majordomo except one. The level of vitriol expressed by random e-mail users in the whole world can hardly be said to be a "point" in anyone's favor. >All of the people I know who have met her find her to be a >pleasant person, and the occasional Email messages we have >exchanged have certainly been positive and friendly. Irrelevant, of course. Some of the most terrible people in the world have been pleasant. D. Denning may or may not be the most terrible person in the world, but her pleasantness is unrelated. >While she tends to view the Four Horsemen of the Infocolypse as a bit >more threatening than the typical Cypherpunk, I don't think her views >are so extreme as to justify the continuous screams of "crypto >toady", "government suckup", and "wicked witch" which seem to pop up >in response to her every utterance. Personally, what I have found irritating about Denning is the fact that she is widely considered to be a credible spokesperson. Statements along the lines of "I can't tell you the scenarios we are worried about because they are classified" are a little hard to take seriously in a democracy. Imagine if you or I tried to claim that we had to deploy strong crypto but that for "reasons of cypherpunk security" the scenarios with which we were concerned could not be revealed. We would be laughed out of the forum and properly so. Denning is considered credible solely because her statements are consistent with the interests and views of those in authority. >I would even go so far as to say that this list would be a lot >more entertaining if she were contributing to it, and sci.crypt >is certainly a less interesting place now than it was in bygone >days when she was posting there. Denning has little to add to the cypherpunks list. The core belief of the cypherpunks is that their mail is their business. People who do not believe this are not cypherpunks and should not subscribe to the list nor should they post to it. Sir Galahad

1 0

RE: Counterproductive Dorothy Denning Flames
by nobody＠cypherpunks.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:58 AM 12/3/1996, Blanc Weber wrote: > Denning is considered credible solely because her statements are > consistent with the interests and views of those in authority. > >Yet even if one's statements are not consistent with the established >authorities, they could be credible and noteworthy to a wide audience, >were the statements in consonance with reality, expressing truths >observable to any (once they were isolated and identified) and >understable to those who hear or read them. I agree. I hope that my own statements have influence in spite of my mouldy reputation. (BTW, when I was young, hacking your opponents to death with a broadsword was noble and now it is politically incorrect. Privacy skeptics nota bene! Times do not change for the better.) >So is Denning offensive because she is unpleasant per se, or do negative >opinions of her exist because of who/what she is supporting? i.e., >because she is on "their" side, rather than "ours", because she employes >her reasoning to their benefit, rather than to ours whose singular >authority in this matter is under contention? There are a number of reasons why Denning gets so much attention. She is the most prominent spokesperson for the pro-GAK view and is, therefore, a lightning rod. There was a German newscaster during the Nazi era who has been described as the "the German Walter Cronkite". He was seen as a top war criminal and was tried at Nuremburg. More recently, after the wall fell many people in Germany were eager to prosecute the East German newscaster who played a similar role in promoting the Honecker regime. It may be unjust, but people feel like they actually know the spokesperson, for better or for worse. She is seen as "one of us" because she wrote a book on cryptography. As a consequence, she is seen as a traitor. I am not endorsing this view. Many people believe that she could not honestly believe everything she says. Instead, they believe that she is sticking to a difficult party line in anticipation of rewards down the road in terms of greater prestige, career advancement, access to grant money, and maybe in other ways. This is called "toadying". It is not going to be popular amongst people who value intellectual integrity. The alternative explanation to many is that she is clueless. There is some evidence that this is the correct explanation. Denning, however, doesn't get off the hook. In the technical community, cluelessness is seen as being just short of a crime against humanity. Persistent cluelessness *is* a crime against humanity. Toadying and cluelessness are both irritating to the author. Denning may also be seen as a "suit" dictating to the programmers what kinds of programs they may write. This is not a formula for social success in the technical community. The academic community has been relatively quiet during the Clipper debate. There are very few members of academia who have gone on the record repeatedly and publicly to say that GAK is the most ridiculous thing we have ever heard and that the people proposing it must be out of their minds, or Nazis, or both. We all know that many academics believe this to be true. However, they are keeping quiet until it is clear which way the wind sets. This is irritating to many and it spills over on Denning. That is probably unfair. Unless you think she is a toady, in which case she is the canonical example of academic indifference and cynicism. In my last message, I said that it was irritating that Denning is seen as a credible spokesperson. Can we fairly hold Denning responsible for the poor judgement of the media which is employed through the poor judgement of the masses? Not really, but she's handy. Many people find the government's underhanded tactics irritating. Rather than honestly raise the issue for public discussion, and maturely, responsibly, and honestly discuss their views, the government has resorted to subterfuge in an attempt to achieve its goals. Clipper was supposed to fool everybody into accepting GAK. The export laws have been, to put it charitably, abused. These tactics are irritating because their intention is to deceive the American people. Denning appears to many to be party to these tactics. We have seen a number of people attempt to win the loyalty of the Net constituency. Gore attempted it with promises of massive funding. Gingrich has attempted it through various pronouncements. The usual pattern is to offer a reward, but in return the constituency has to compromise on something. This pattern is seen over and over again. Denning may be seen by some as yet another politician attempting to get in a position to "deliver" the Net "precinct". Some believe that she positioned herself first as "one of us" and then attempted to sell us out. In the past, it was easier to sell out a constituency due to widespread ignorance and misguided trust. This didn't work for the Net due to the high intellectual integrity of long time Net denizens, the fact that the Net abhors ignorance, and our strong belief that we do not need help reading our mail or paying for it. Still, every politician that attempts this sort of thing is irritating and Denning, if guilty, is no exception. Sir Galahad

2 1

No Subject
by Bovine Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:50 AM 12/3/1996, Matthew J. Miszewski wrote: >(snip) >>(Just for the record, what the hypothetical insurance companies and >>employers are doing by using data they have obtained should not, in a free >>society, be illegal in any way. All information contributes to >>decision-making, about loans, credit, insurance, employment, etc. In a free >>society, it is up to people to not disclose that which they do not wish >>remembered.) > >While the libertarians on the list have affected my way of looking at >regulation I, and others, do not subscribe (suscribe ;)) to Tim's absolute >theory. Unless, of course, by free society Tim is refering to one where >corporations hold themselves to a level of "personal" responsibility, which >in many realms is part of any definition of "free". > >Take, for example, the practice of redlining. How are people who live in >"bad" neighborhoods supposed to not reveal that information. You may lend your own money to whomever you wish. If you do not wish to lend money to somebody, that is your business. It is difficult to understand why redlining should be illegal, to the extent that it even occurs. When it does occur, we expect that eager entrepreneurs such as yourself will rush in to grab new customers. As for the privacy issue, you seem to be proposing that you have some sort of right to borrow money on terms which are not acceptable to the lender. You need not give your address just as you need not borrow the money. Of course, we hardly live in a free banking era. Most people would prefer to bank with a company that respects their privacy. Yet, banks are so tightly controlled in the United States that they most often will not dare to protect the privacy of their customers for fear of regulatory consequences. When the service is provided, it cannot be advertised. And, the banks are required to report all transactions over $10,000 or give up all information if the attorney general tells them it involves national security. You are in the unpleasant position of appealing for protection from the very people who have robbed you of your privacy. Red Rackham

1 0

No Subject
by Bovine Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timothy C[ocksucker] May, a product of anal birth, appeared with a coathanger through his head. /o)\ Timothy C[ocksucker] May \(o/

1 0

RE: Counterproductive Dorothy Denning Flames
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: "Sir Galahad" >All of the people I know who have met her find her to be a >pleasant person, and the occasional Email messages we have >exchanged have certainly been positive and friendly. Irrelevant, of course. Some of the most terrible people in the world have been pleasant. D. Denning may or may not be the most terrible person in the world, but her pleasantness is unrelated. ............................................................ Statements like these, with which cpunks retort to each other all the time, are examples of the ever-continuing exercise of logic which goes on on the list - even if not formally delineated nor announced as being of such intent (LOGOS). I am glad for the points which "Sir Galahad" brought up, because they point out the difference between essential vs non-essential elements in arguments like this one. Objections present the opportunity to more definitely identify what *is* the critical element which makes up the substance of an issue (such as what is really is offensive and objectionable about Denning, aside from her personality characteristics). Denning is considered credible solely because her statements are consistent with the interests and views of those in authority. Yet even if one's statements are not consistent with the established authorities, they could be credible and noteworthy to a wide audience, were the statements in consonance with reality, expressing truths observable to any (once they were isolated and identified) and understable to those who hear or read them. The 'authorities' (appointed, not necessarily actually "authorities" in terms of knowledge) may find Denning's statements agreeable because these support their own views and government positions, but what is crucial in this support is the consequence of her arguments about GAK: if her statements convince the right people into complicity, into giving up the authority over their right to self-determined privacy, then the 'authorities' will be satisified that they will not have to deal with any protesting opposition which would prevent them from implementing their plans - they can proceed with their 'authority' intact, as though it had been validated. But if she (among others, of course) cannot convince the right influential bodies that passive acceptance of the 'authorized' point of view is correct and noble, then this means that the authorities cannot not proceed as they would like, and this would reduce the power of their position in society. If there was not an issue of power involved, it wouldn't matter so much what Denning has to say or whether it is credible or not. But if what she has to say adds support to the positions of those already in 'authority' - that is, if people accept her arguments for GAK in place of their own apprehensions against it, then control in the central corridors of government will have been preserved and it will be 'business as usual'. So is Denning offensive because she is unpleasant per se, or do negative opinions of her exist because of who/what she is supporting? i.e., because she is on "their" side, rather than "ours", because she employes her reasoning to their benefit, rather than to ours whose singular authority in this matter is under contention? .. Blanc > >

1 0

testing
by Phiberelic Phreaker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

PhReAkInG iS a ViOlEnT pOiSoN. iT cAnNoT Be ApPlIeD eXtErNaLlY tO aNiMaL oR hUmAn TiSsUe WiThOuT sErIoUs InJuRiOuS rEsUlTs. It CaNnOt Be TaKeN iNtErNaLlY wItHoUt InDuCiNg VoMiTtInG, bLiNdNeSs, AnD GeNeRaL pHySiCaLlY uLtImAtElLy ReSuLtInG iN dEaTh. PhReAk ThE pLaNeT--http://www.angelfire.com/ne/PhreakThePlanet/index.html PhIbErDeLiC PhReAkEr

1 0