December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

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 logos 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

You wrote: >Sounds like a heck of a good idea, if: >1. You can ID the bad logic with a high percent of success >(90+ ?). I shall endevor to do my best. Initially, I shall only comment on the most flagrant violations. 90+% should be easy. >2. You can comment/reply for all members fairly, but if> >limited by the large number of postings (and fallacies ?), >give priority to ??? Worst first. >As far as Congress expelling members, are you saying that >the Senate and/or H.O.R. can permanently eliminate a person >elected by the people? Yes, the congress is the sole determiner of the qualifications of its members. >Has this ever been tested? Adam Clayton Powell. Logos out

1 0

No Subject
by jens.melander＠vpress.se 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

unsuscribe cyberpunks

2 1

No Subject
by logos 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

An anonymous poster wrote: >Timothy C[*] May, a product of a* birth, appeared with >coathanger through his head. >/o)\ Timothy C[*] May >\(o/ I respectfully ask that the author of this post contact me. I am curious about his or her motives and would appreciate it if he or she would address these questions: 1) Why are you attacking Tim May? Has he harmed you in some way? 2) Do you think such posts harm Tim May or help you in some fashion? 3) What do you hope to accomplish by these posts? 4) Do you favor the use of strong cryptography to preserve privacy? 5) If Yes, do you think such posts are constructive to that end? If No, is it your intent that your posts harm the cause of strong cryptography and privacy? 6) Why have you chosen to hide your true identity? Logos out

4 3

No Subject
by logos 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Blanc Weber wrote: >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 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. My warmest thanks to Blanc Weber for 'beating me to the punch' about 'Sir Galahad's' thoughtful analysis. His post is the sort of give and take which focuses debate and raises the level of intellectual discourse. Thank you, 'Sir Galahad' and Blanc Weber. I hope other posters to this list can emulate your examples. Logos out

1 0

Re: "Just call the police"...yeah, right
by logos 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Tue, 3 Dec 1996, Timothy C. May wrote: > Saying "just call the police" strikes me as being one of > the most absurd things I've ever heard on this list. > > (If I receive a "Logos-gram" warning me I am being > unpolite, you know where it'll go.) The name of the informal logical fallacy Tim May has *not* made is 'argumentum ad hominem' (literally, 'an argument to the man'; attacking one's opponent rather than dealing with the subject under discussion; aka name calling). Having said that, while Tim May has not committed a logical fallacy, neither has he advanced a logical argument. He has merely stated his conclusory opinion of the other person's comment. By itself, it adds little or nothing of substance to the argument. Logos out

1 0

Re: AOL
by AwakenToMe＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

yes.... they did knock off that $3.00 an hour thing. now.. $20.00 unlimited.. I'd hate to do an AOL spam to the list.. but someone asked.. and for all you that say 'get a real internet provider'. Well.. I get ALL the same access most of you do. No shell account...But I can telnet from AOL to one. So there. Nah nah nah =}

1 0

Re: Logos here
by logos 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM <dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com> wrote: > LOGOS <logos(a)c2.net> writes: > > > Sovereign collegues, > > You already sound like a jerk. Perhaps you should suspend judgment until you have the opportunity to evaluate the content of my posts. What are you antagonistic to the use of honorifics? > > I am Logos. I have adopted this pseudonym to conceal my > > 'true name'. I want the ideas which I shall be espousing > > to stand or fall on their own merits and not on the basis > > of biases that my name, sex, ethnicity, etc. might otherwise > > sexual preferences... Yes, that and other catagorizations which are irrelevant to the primary focus of this list. > That's right. You lack the decorum to spell either my > first name or my last name correctly. 'Decorum' has to do with polite behaviour. While I was certainly remiss in my hasty spelling of your name, it was not intentional, therefore not a lack of decorum. I do apologize for my negligence. I shall endeavor to spell you name correctly in the future. > "Cypher punks" are a gang of uncouth juveniles I'm not sure I understand the relevance of this comment. Was it made in response to my error in spelling? In any case, it is a good example of the informal logical fallacy of 'over generalization'. As I understand it, there are circa 1000 people subscribed to Cypherpunks. To paint an entire group with such a characterization is both illogical and unfair. I also question your use of the word 'uncouth'. I have seen no posts on Cypherpunks that were any more 'uncultured; crude; or boorish' than those posted by you. I am not saying that uncouth posts have not been made by others, but it is disingenuous for one to judge others by a standard that one does not apply to one's self. > What logic? "Cypher punks" such as Paul Bradley are incapable of > discussing a technical topic (such as Don Wood's IPG proposal) without > putting "(spit)" after Don's name I could be wrong, but I believe this was done as an intentional parody of your own similar posts. If it is illogical for Paul Bradley to do this, does it not follow that is was illogical when you did it as well? It is obvious to me that you are an intelligent person. I am concerned, however, with your apparent intellectual dishonesty. It would appear that you know perfectly well that your posts serve no purpose in the cause of promoting privacy through the use of cryptography. It is hard to draw any other conclusion then that you are intentionally being provocative for the purpose of disrupting the work of this list. If this is not so, I apologize, but how else can we judge your actions? Please step outside of yourself for a moment and give us an honest self-assessment of your behavior and the motives behind it. Respectfully yours, Logos out

2 1

No Subject
by Bovine Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:18 PM 12/3/1996, Matthew J. Miszewski wrote: >At 01:45 PM 12/3/96 EST, Bovine Remailer wrote: >>At 10:50 AM 12/3/1996, Matthew J. Miszewski wrote: >>>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. > >I consider it my business also, when people are denied opportunity because >of where they live. Why not simply disagree with me? You do not believe that people may lend their very own money, earned honestly, to anybody they please. If you are ashamed of that, change your mind. If you are not ashamed, proclaim it the world and justify it. >I may also hire whomever I wish, but I would have to pay the >consequences if I happened to discriminate based on a protected class >while doing so. That is the society in which I live. If I dont like >it, I try to change it. Our society is not libertarian. Current policy doesn't matter if we are discussing the wisdom or justice of possible policies. >If I would prefer that form of society I would have to accept that >result. Therefore I choose a balance between liberty and social >justice. It isn't clear to me whether you are discussing policy options or whether one should violate laws one does not like. When an action is illegal, it is still permissible to discuss its legalization. >There are times when government should intervene. I believe it >should be as infrequent as possible, but would not want to live in a >society where disinfranchised people have no possible recourse. Your >choice would apparently be different. Perhaps. In any event, it is important to understand precisely the mechanisms through which people are disenfranchised, if that is in fact what has happened. It is also important to understand the ramifications of phrases like "no possible recourse". To borrow money? It is safe to say that most poor people should be saving money rather than borrowing it. >>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. > >I have not heard serious doubts for a while that redlining occurs. It seems likely that people draw lines around certain areas and decide not to lend money there. What is less clear is that this is unreasonable. There may be a few good credit risks in poor neighborhoods. But, it may just be too much trouble weeding through the others to make it a paying business. It may also be the case that people lending money are behaving irrationally and drawing lines around neighborhoods for simple racial reasons and for no others. There is a word for this: opportunity. Bank of America was built by a man who perceived and exploited one such opportunity. Italian shop keepers in California could not get good banking services for, it turned out, irrational reasons. >I would love to have the financial wherewithal to startup such an >enterprise. Unfortuantely I reside in one such neighborhood. People start businesses without their own capital all the time. If there really is such a great opportunity, go find some rich people. Rich people, like other people, are always happy to hear about ways to make more money. They don't even have to put the money in for a long time. Once you've set up a package of mortgages, you can sell them off on the CMO market which is liquid and, I believe, quite colorblind. The beauty of this scheme is that you can take your profits right away and let other people take on the long term interest rate risk, default risk, and management hassles. This will make your plan easier to sell to investors. You might also look into the microlending market. The idea is to lend poor people small amounts of money (less than $10,000) to start businesses and the like. The default rates are claimed to be surprisingly low. I have my doubts, but it sounds as if you do not. Good luck. >It is difficult enough to raise money to run a small business (and >turned out to be much easier to do without any bank lending at all). >I have talked with people about starting their own banks. In principle, there is no reason at all why banks are the only institutions that can lend money for mortgages. There may be legal impediments, but then we are back to the actual culprit, the government. You might find that opening a bank was easier if all you had to do was take deposits and lend money rather than wading through the morass of legal requirements and paperwork. >When you are working to make sure all the bills are paid it is a bit >difficult to also build an entirely new socio-economic structure. You don't have to build an entirely new socio-economic structure. You just have to find some good credit risks, some people with money to lend, and put them together taking a cut for yourself, unless the government has thrown up some obstacles to this. >>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. > >Whom would the service be more readily available to? Who uses tax-havens? >Who has access to swiss bank accounts? Are you insinuating that my local >bank actually has anonymous accounts and just won't tell me? I wish that >people DID value anonymous banking in this country. The fact is they just >don't care. No, actually they do care, they just don't think (correctly) that they can get it easily. I have no idea if your local bank has "anonymous accounts". More probably, they have accounts for which they do not report transactions in excess of $10,000, but which are held by people they know fairly well. This is more common than you might think, and not just for laundering drug money. Tax evasion is widely practiced. >As long as they get short lines or myriads of ATM machines they are >happy. I am largely in favor of banking deregulation. There are >places where I simply draw the line. Utter racism is one of them. But wouldn't the racist banks be hurting their business? Doesn't the punishment go quite closely with the "crime"? If you believe that there is a huge opportunity which the racist banks (i.e., all of them) will not take advantage of, you had better explain why there is nobody anywhere with any capital who wouldn't want to make even more money off poor people. Can it really be the case that 99+% of rich people will run fleeing from such a great opportunity? Oh, and speaking of racism, where do wealthy African-Americans invest their money? >Everyone can now clamor that it just isnt true. Banks have never >discriminated. Its all a big lie. Whatever. Banks have practiced discrimination, and not just against black people. They have been able to get away with it. How? Because the government has protected the banking guild from competition. If opening a bank were as easy as forming a corporation, you would not see much discrimination, I assure you. There is no reason why a bank shouldn't be that easy to open. >(snip) >>You are in the unpleasant position of appealing for protection from >>the very people who have robbed you of your privacy. > >You are right. It is far from a perfect system. We make trade-offs every >day. Appeals to the very people who are exploiting you are not likely to meet with success, are they? >The real world I live in is just not as simple as the Libertarian Wet >Dream(TM). Then it should be fairly easy to refute my points instead making fatuous remarks such as the one above. Red Rackham

1 0

OPE_nup
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Two reports on BSA's letter Monday to Gore opposing crypto export regulations as "headed in the wrong direction." And claims the administration has "significantly backtracked" since announcing the new policy October 1. IBM, MS, et al are withdrawing earlier support for it. Without change, BSA said, encryption export policies will fail as did Administration policy of Clipper. ----- OPE_nup

1 0