December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: [No Subject:]
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:13 AM 1/25/97 EST, Lou Zer wrote: >You missed the hole point. You read that BECAUSE their was no header, if >it was ANARCHY you would have just deleted it. Not necessarily; I _am_ an anarchist, after all. The rest of the header is enough of a potential deterrent, anyway. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

2 1

PGPmail for Windows, Version 4.5
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Anyone running Windows 95 who hasn't grabbed the beta of PGPmail 4.5 from http://www.pgp.com/ is crazy. It works seamlessly with Netscape 3.0 and Eudora Pro 3.0. The 30-day demo of Eudora Pro is at: http://www.eudora.com/prodemo/. It is easy to use. I just installed it and pointed it at my old pubring.pgp and secring.pgp files and went to work. All my messages have been signed since then and some have been encrypted. The installation program found my existing copies of Eudora and Netscape and installed the PGP add in without any fuss. My only problem was finding the controls for the add in which (in the case of Eudora) consist of buttons to encrypt, sign, bring up the program, insert a copy of your key, and actually modify the message. The controls only appear on the message create, and message read windows. Easy to use. DCF -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQCVAgUBMuuKMYVO4r4sgSPhAQFfzAP+LkDjOecHxz0iEVVggLLABxAOE9tVyOLl AIkKlagFqK+lBboo7fETCZtSpmDHcNsJG6Et6BWO5aYf7Artw+jXj+734c+w4RWj zcj6+351LUqT60TmcukH02p2MT0sd8w1dAnhD8+o1E13G5h5N1CF/p6KQjmHOiQ6 9T1ehMax0jE= =E8Pu -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 03:28:53 -0800 > From: Bill Stewart <stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com> > Subject: Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd) > > At 12:11 AM 1/22/97 -0600, Jim Choate wrote: > >> Singapore and China are blocking certain net groups. I think > >> this is a bad thing, question is how can we stop it? > > > >'We' shouldn't, it is their own country and it is up to their populace to > >stop it. Do you really want Singapore or China having a say in how we run > >our web? I certainly don't, and won't support any move to force any > > Nonsense - the net doesn't "belong" to "Singapore or China" - The part of it that comes out of their pocketbook does. Just like the part of 'the net' that I pay for belongs to me. The net is a bunch of computers, running software, hooked together over cables and other links. Each and EVERY ONE of these require installation, upkeep, repair, and utility support. This costs money. He who pays the money owns the net, everybody else is along for the ride. If we take your argument to its logical conclusion then once a box goes on the net it belongs to nobody/everybody. Clearly utter nonsense. If you really and truly believe that the net belongs to everyone and nobody has a right to limit or otherwise control the hardware and software along with the associated comm links they own and pay for then you obviously don't understand what is going on. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com ps I also support France's current attempt at forcing the Georgia university web site on French soil to use French.

2 1

RE: US Info Supremacy
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: John Young Hello, Tim May and our other solons and Solomons. ........................................ He must be on vacation; he hasn't posted in quite a while. .. Blanc

2 1

RE: overview.htm (fwd)
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Igor Chudov @ home wrote: >>>Jim Choate wrote: >>>>>Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: >>>>>>>irrelevant(a)nowhere.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>Dale Thorn wrote: It can be said 100,000 times, but it still comes out the same: Just as in "The only cure for bad speech is more speech", "the only cure for 'list-focus-drift' is more on-focus postings".

2 1

RE: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Toto Obese-rvation? I hope you are not assuming that I am obese, just because I am responding to a post originating from 'fatmans.demon.co.uk.' I would hate to become relegated to the upcoming cypherpunks-fatpeople list because of assumptions of this nature. ................................................. Well, Toto, if you don't like this obeservation, you can always unsudribe from "unmoderated" and subcrive to "expurgated". There's also a rumor about a new "exfoliated" list for Snakes of Medusa starting up.... (I swear, I Toto is a tentacle of TCM) .. Blanc

1 0

Re: Cellular location...
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:54 PM 1/25/97 -0500, Mark M. wrote: >> Companies working on the technology to track cellular phone calls >> [...] >I wonder how expensive it would be to put a GPS receiver in a cell phone and >have the option to transmit the coordinates on a separate channel. Pretty expensive - GPS receivers currently cost ~$200, which is more than the average cell phone, and needs a whole separate set of radio-receiver hardware, so you'd about double the size of your phone. On the other hand, the cell sites already know which you're close to, and can easily enough track when you've made transitions between cells. So they can get a good start on location by processing information that the phone companies need to have anyway. Would they save any of this for later? Of course not :-) >"location escrow" to make it easier for the feds to track drug dealers. And everybody else.... # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

1 0

Toto's database
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Toto writes: >My database seems to indicate a direct co-relation between the >number of postings criticizing moderation and the number of >UCE/Spam postings showing up on the list. An interesting assertion. Is your database available for others to draw their own conclusions from? I'd appreciate seeing at least a first-level abstraction of the data, e.g., the number of messages posted in opposition to moderation and the number of "spam" messages posted, listed by date. The possibility that other factors caused the correlation you mention suggests that other categorizations (e.g., total # of messages, # of messages which are not spam nor related to moderation, and # of pro-moderation messages) would also be useful, although I notice you do not mention those statistics. Of course, correlation alone doesn't tell us much. If it really exists, it suggests that the two phenomena observed are related in some way, but it doesn't tell us the nature or the cause of the relationship. (All serial killers drink water; but are all water-drinkers serial killers? Does drinking water cause a person to become a serial killer?) One explanation would be the link you suggested, that a moderation proponent is sending (or causing to be sent) the spams as a way to make moderation seem more attractive, or to detract attention from the anti-moderation arguments. (If that really worked - e.g., if spam had the effect of reducing the effectiveness of certain arguments, or of being harmfully "diversionary" - wouldn't that suggest that moderation was, in fact, necessary or at least useful? Hmm.) Another explanation would be that a moderation opponent is sending the spams as a way to punish the proponents of moderation. It's further conceivable that you don't have a big enough data set to draw meaningful conclusions from. The moderation decision, implementation, and associated arguing have taken place within three weeks (John Gilmore's original announcement was sent Sunday 1/5/97); it's hard to see how you're going to be able to distinguish signal from noise in such a small data set. I think this is especially true given the relatively inexact nature of the "spam" weapon; as far as I can tell, apart from Dmitri's ASCII art/cocksucker messages, the spams we've received have been from real live spammers (not pissed-off listmembers) who harvested the "cypherpunks(a)toad.com" address from messages sent to Usenet as spam bait. Inherent in the "spam bait" attack is a lack of precise control over when messages will be sent, or how many will be sent; so I'm curious about the reliability of a correlation you've found between the actions of distributed third parties (who are pursuing their own, cypherpunk-ignorant, goals) and messages sent to the list. Yet another explanation might identify external factors (like the recent storms in the American midwest) which caused people to send more messages independent of their ideology or content. My ISP, io.com, recorded much heavier mail flow recently (to the point that it created problems for delivery) during the storm; speculation is that people were stuck at home for several days and turned to the Net to amuse themselves. Such an event might cause otherwise independent-minded groups (spammers and moderation opponents) to act in similar ways, like sending more messages than usual. Of course, one would expect to see a rise in all message traffic, were this the case. Perhaps you'll be good enough to make your database available so that we may each draw our own conclusions. I'm looking forward to hearing more about how you derived this correlation. (If you have trouble finding a server from which to make the data available, just say so; if nobody else has a handy server, I'll add it to my web page.) >Has anyone actually 'seen' John Gilmore, lately? He was at C2Net's party last Friday night (1/24), being interviewed by some folks from a Japanese TV program. -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles(a)netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. |

1 0

RE: Fighting the cybercensor
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Toto and Jim Choate were having a little disagreement about the rights of nations to maintain the boundaries of ignorance around their "citizenry", and Jim said that no one outside a nation's boundaries should feel moved to interfere with the program: > 'We' shouldn't, it is their own country and it is up to their populace to > stop it. Do you really want Singapore or China having a say in how we run > our web? I certainly don't, and won't support any move to force any > particular view on them. ............................................................ Normally, I would agree that people who choose to live within a certain locale and choose the kind of government that they will live with and the kind of policies that they will accept as impositions upon their lives, should be allowed to "enjoy the fruits of their labors". But on further examination of the situation in 'foreign' countries, these things must be realized: . Individuals do not agree with each other 100% . Individuals living within the boundaries of a nation will not agree with each other 100% about the kind of government they should have . Many of the individuals living within the boundaries of *any* nation do not have 100% control over which policies, or the quality of them, they will have to live under . It is not uncommon for "leaders" of nations to take advantage of their position to benefit more from the contributions of their citizenry than vice versa (the citizenry benefitting from their leadership) . It is not uncommon for there to be proportionately more people in favor of living in a state of dependence than not; and it is not uncommon for those who favor dependence to favor proposals which seem to put them on the receiving end of "benefits" (versus being contributors); and it is not uncommon for these "benefits" to be derived at the expense of such virtues as freedom and liberty . Many individuals reside within a nation not because they favor its po litics, but because they feel more comfortable among their own kind than with strangers elsewhere - for example, Chinese who have lived in China all their lives (and whose ancestral roots are there) will wish to stay there and do what they can within the boundaries of that nation, rather than for instance moving to Canada, when the going gets rough. Given these things, nevertheless it is true that the internet , among other events in our "modern" world, is opening up avenues towards advantages and benefits hitherto difficult to comeby. As many of you are aware, many people are beginning to identify with a global network of friends and co-workers according to their particular (or peculiar) interests, rather than with the "Old Order". It is becoming moot what nationality or what government or what company one works for - the loyalties of the past are being tested and re-configured in the minds of those who now do business and communicate and share things and develop friendships, acquaintances, and empathies, on the net. So to speak of "having a say" on how Singapore or China or any other nation-state runs "our web" or vice versa "us" having a say on how they run "their web" is becoming irrelevant. Economics will be determining how the web is run, and by whom. The identity of those who use it will be not "those who are citizens of Singapore", but: "my friend who lives in Singapore and is having a hard time accessing a file that I wanted him/her to have". Affiliations will be seen differently by those who connect in cyberspace, and if certain of one's cyberspace friends are having problems - if, say, a Hitler were to suddenly rise up in their midst - then the netizens could send their emergency alert out to anyone and everyone on the net about a problem brewing which perhaps someone could help them deal with, according to their ability to do so. It is true that individuals still live within the physical boundaries of "nations" which have formed in the past, and they still hold the concepts of these boundaries in their minds and they still identify closely with these, and they still vote problems upon themselves. But it is becoming an anachronism, and it is becoming inaccurate to speak of "what Singaporians want for the internet". This phrase would describe many of those who live in Singapore, but not all of them. It is more accurate to speak of what "individuals who use the internet" want, of what "individuals who want to communicate" want, of what "individuals who want to connect with others" want. The identifications of self as a citizen who must be identified with the vote of a majority, and consequently suffer the perception of oneself as someone who "voted to accept restrictions of the net, therefore should not be helped against it", is becoming irrelevant. When a distress call goes out from someone anywhere on the planet, the assistance and relief may come from anyone anywhere who chooses to rally others and provide assistance. It is not the traditional "we" against "them", and it is not the "citizens of the US" helping those who "voted themselves a Hitler into power" or "voted themselves into restrictions against free speech". It is "those of us who appreciate the liberty in communications technology" against "those who would take it away". .. Blanc

1 0

RE: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Toto Obese-rvation? I hope you are not assuming that I am obese, just because I am responding to a post originating from 'fatmans.demon.co.uk.' I would hate to become relegated to the upcoming cypherpunks-fatpeople list because of assumptions of this nature. ................................................. Well, Toto, if you don't like this obeservation, you can always unsudribe from "unmoderated" and subcrive to "expurgated". (There's also a rumor about a new "exfoliated" list for Snakes of Medusa starting up....) .. Blanc

1 0