December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Moderation [Tim,Sandy]
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:28 PM 2/3/97 -0800, Peter Hendrickson wrote: >At 11:38 AM 2/3/1997, Lucky Green wrote: >> I am well aware of the name recognition and reputation capital associated >> with CP, still I believe it best to *kill the list*. > >If you don't like the list, why not unsubscribe? That won't solve the problem. The list has become counterproductive. It is impossible for other lists to provide a real forum for the discussion of the topics that this list used to be about while CP still exists. At the same time, CP has long stopped providing such a forum. CP is draining energy from its subscribers and the cause. Kill it! Kill it now! -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." Mahatma Gandhi

1 0

RE: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List"
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Timothy C. May With no false modesty I tried awfully hard to compose substantive essays on crypto-political topics, often more than one per day. (Others did too, but they seem to be tapering off as well, leaving the list to be dominated by something called a "Toto," the "O.J. was framed!" ravings of Dale Thorn, the love letters between Vulis and someone name Nurdane Oksas, and the occasional bit of crypto news. Ho hum. I'm glad I'm not reading the list in e-mail, and thus can easily avoid replying to these inanities... .......................................... Your thoughtful contributions to the list are missed, Tim. As soon as I realized that you had left the list I suspected it had something to do with its moderation. However, I must protest the inclusion of Toto's posts as one of the "inane". His posts were intentionally formulated to cause to stand out what was, indeed, inane - as he said, to "hold up a mirror". And he continually decried the list experiment, pointing out the philosophical contradiction of a moderated "anarchist" forum. If the antidote to bad speech is more speech, then he certainly provided some, although not on the level or style as yourself. And you may say that some of these posts are not worth replying to, but didn't I see you respond to one of Dale's, regarding a photo of Jessica-the-pilot which he keeps above his desk? .. Blanc

2 1

Information Warfare
by pdh＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The cypherpunks list has been under "attack" for some time. How have we managed it? Very poorly in my view. Some people have dismissed the idea that rogue governmental elements are behind some of our problems. Yet, there is no reason to rule out this hypothesis. The government has not always behaved well with regards to its perceived enemies in the last few decades. The FBI seems to infiltrate everything - even churches!. This is well documented. The CIA has worked hard on disrupting various political movements of which it did not approve using provocateurs and other conspiratorial dirty tricks. (I believe the FBI has, too, but I do not recall any documentation offhand.) We know that "Information Warfare" is the big thing in the defense establishment right now. It's all over their web pages. We see articles from the Kennedy School which seem to compare free speech with disease. Etc. Etc. We also believe that the things the Cypherpunks are interested in are on the radar screen. Maybe the Cypherpunks are, too. Is it unreasonable to ask whether some people are getting funding to experiment with disrupting "groups" like the Cypherpunks? I can easily picture people inventing all sorts of important sounding words like "psy-op" for what is little more than rudeness. Whatever the cause of the disruptions, the solutions are the same. Most of the proposals I've been hearing have to do with controlling the behavior of other cypherpunks and creating more structure. This is a mistake. It's clear that even the definitions of "spam" and "flame" are hard to nail down. The next idea will be to moderate on the basis of content. How will we decide what is content? Clearly that's much too important a question to leave to just one person. What we need is a committee to decide! What's next? Robert's Rules of Order? All of this detracts from the work we have before us. If you've ever been involved with a non-profit organization, you will know that enormous energy is spent on internal political scheming. That's a boring waste of time. Let's go down a better path. Let's think about the best way for each cypherpunk to manage disruptions. Please consider these suggestions: 1. Filter noise. I filter based on origin. If a kill file doesn't work, use a positive filter to read messages only from people who are worthwhile. It has been suggested that this doesn't work because some people post garbage, but also occasionally post something good. There's gold in the ocean, too. Why don't we retrieve it? If you don't want to manage a filter yourself, find somebody to do it for you. A number of people offer filtering services. Remember that in an open forum, noise increases with signal. The more worthwhile and interesting threads are on the list, the more worthless postings we are going to see, particlarly when people are consciously disruptive. 2. Post signal. Filters are useless when there is no signal. Signal comes from cypherpunks. You are a cypherpunk. 3. Birds of a feather flock together. When you respond to somebody, you mingle your on-line identity with theirs. Fly with the eagles. Peter Hendrickson ph(a)netcom.com

1 0

Re: Moderation [Tim,Sandy]
by pdh＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:12 PM 2/3/1997, Lucky Green wrote: >At 12:28 PM 2/3/97 -0800, Peter Hendrickson wrote: >>At 11:38 AM 2/3/1997, Lucky Green wrote: >>> I am well aware of the name recognition and reputation capital associated >>> with CP, still I believe it best to *kill the list*. >> If you don't like the list, why not unsubscribe? > That won't solve the problem. The list has become counterproductive. It is > impossible for other lists to provide a real forum for the discussion of > the topics that this list used to be about while CP still exists. At the > same time, CP has long stopped providing such a forum. CP is draining > energy from its subscribers and the cause. Kill it! Kill it now! Who should do what to comply with your proposal? Should John shut down the list? Are you asking everybody to unsubscribe? I don't think "killing the list" is an option for you or anybody else. The List transcends all domains. Peter Hendrickson ph(a)netcom.com

1 0

Re: PGP 2.1
by Lynne L. Harrison 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Date: Mon Feb 03 17:19:14 1997 > Mark Henderson wrote: > > > > Larry Johnson writes: > > > Hello, > > > Can any;one tell me how to get a version of PGP 2.1? > > > Thanks > > > > > But, why do you want version 2.1? > > Because the guy who wrote it was let off after that on his jail > charges, so I'm not going to use anything he made after that if > I don't know why. > I'm not saying that he rolled over or nothin buyt I'm gonna be > paranoyd like he said in the book. I dont suposse he'd mind, > since he said it. > I'm not real smart sometimes but I'nm not a real lamer, either. > (I don't think) I bite my tongue.... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMvZkYj5A4+Z4Wnt9AQEtNwP/TXMTZcozL0dNIJjBbdX7mwu0DiEJZV29 nzmIOPZFQyqeVgc1+DrYc0oB6hILAdC5Juf2k7sHr3bzqwNUWERY+PskVRWxRsi6 onN5OqNiAZxVJMcUDZx2r34vZd9Z3TtkGqHDY91xr6Q8UgBYcsmI1SwyjUTwgwST oraGSR/h8eE= =YYIb -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: RC5-12/32/5 contest solved
by Eric Blossom 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security apparently wrote: > Have good reason to believe your estimate for a purpose built machine this > year (expect 600,000,000 to 1,000,000,000 kps per sieve - these will not > be cheap chips but will be commecially available). Expect 400 arrays > would be required to do DES in a day (average) but is a lot more > achievable than the 65k postulated by the gang of nine. I received a nice flyer in the mail the other day from "Chip Express" (www.chipexpress.com, 800-95-CHIPX). They are offering Laser Programmed Gate Arrays. It appears to be a reasonable way to get some Wiener chips built. As I recall, the Wiener design required about 23,000 gates. Their blurb had the following table in in: FPGA Gates ASIC Gates 500 Units 1000 Units 5000 Units 40,000 20,000 $77 $45 $10 Not Avail 200,000 $176 $150 $82 So it appears that you can get 5000 Wiener key search chips build for about $50K. I'm not sure about the speed, but I wouldn't be surprised if you could clock these at 50 MHz. The Wiener design is pipelined and searches one key per clock, so each chip could search 50e6 keys / second. 50e6 * 5000 = 250e9 keys / second for $50K Happy Hunting... Eric

1 0

GAK/KR spin
by azur＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Several months back there were discussions on the list regarding renaming the government's key escrow/recovery proposals (KRAP comes to mind). I think we need something that's catchy and simple (perhaps already familiar) to understand for the semi-litterate citizen units. I propose we encourage use of the terms "crippleware" or "crypto crippleware" when refering to the products limited to their weak crypto and/or key escrow/recovery. --Steve

1 0

Re: Dissolving Choke Points
by Eric Cordian 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Peter Hendrickson writes: > Moderation has been a failure. I'm pretty good at filtering and I > can sadly report that there is very little signal out there. The quality of the Cypherpunks list is determined solely by the amount of signal. The amount of noise is irrelevant. Barring someone continuously mail-bombing the list 24 hours a day from a T3, it is easy to pick and choose the posts one wishes to read, and wipe the rest with a single keystroke afterwards. I read the list selectively depending upon the amount of free time I have. I always try to read serious crypto articles, and all posts by Tim, Hal, Eric, Duncan, and a few other notables. If I have additional time, I will read other threads of interest, a little Vulis, and selected Toto, who happens to be a very funny person at times. Now that we have moderation, I can't do this while subscribed to the main list, and have to live in eternal fear that I am writing for an audience of 20 every time I respond to something on the unedited list. Foo on that. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

1 0

Govt & cyberspace
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

DF raises the question of whether the IRS will be able to modernize in the lack of "intellectual capital" (i.e. brains). This is actually a very interesting topic which I've not seen a lot of analysis on elsewhere, but which I expect to see a lot more in the future. the basic issue is this: private industry is moving into cyberspace at a lightening pace. yet the government is painfully incapable of doing the same for reasons of bureacracy. numerous articles have been documenting the inability of the government to successfully pull of massive software and hardware upgrade projects. I suspect it will only be a matter of time before this is called a major "crisis" by politicians and milked for all of its conceivable tax value. eeks. I've seen a lot of articles about govt agencies in a computational crisis due to this problem. maybe someone can come up with a cute tag item. "technology envy" maybe? I read about how the FAA was trying to install a new flight control system that's insanely over budget and lightyears from a conceivable completion. another *major* computation problem is the year 2000 crisis. private companies can barely get it together to do the upgrading and investigation required to fix the 2000-flip problem. the government is even farther behind. if there is going to be a year 2000 "crisis" due to the millenium bug, I suspect much of it will be focused in government agencies. "tech envy"-- what impact is this going to have on our government? it's becoming a huge issue. it may be a really great opportunity for a populist movement to truly reform the government in the process of upgrading their computers. I suspect that the "groupware" technology that is just getting started will have major influence in these areas. as private companies find increasingly sophisticated ways of managing themselves, the obvious question will arise, "why can't we have an efficient govt when our private industries are"? the answer is, we can!! I've written about "electronic democracy" repeatedly. many people object to the idea. but when it is phrased in terms of groupware, it becomes more palatable. imagine a small company humming along with its groupware application that allows it to make company-wide decisions using a democratic process. moreover, the software is robust and scales well. why can't the same principles be scaled up, up, up? I predict that they will be in a rather extraordinary revolution. a new "velvet revolution"? comments anyone?

1 0

RE: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List"
by Timothy C. May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:15 PM -0800 2/3/97, Blanc Weber wrote: >Your thoughtful contributions to the list are missed, Tim. As soon as >I realized that you had left the list I suspected it had something to do >with its moderation. > >However, I must protest the inclusion of Toto's posts as one of the >"inane". His posts were intentionally formulated to cause to stand >out what was, indeed, inane - as he said, to "hold up a mirror". And >he continually decried the list experiment, pointing out the >philosophical contradiction of a moderated "anarchist" forum. Well, "Toto" wrote in a style I found hard to grasp, and his/her/its points were often lost to me. But I was only scanning the list via the hks.net archive site, and so may have missed the subtleties. One way thoughtful posts get "absorbed" is when others quote them (or the parts they like best, disagree with, etc.). This gives people a second or third look. (And, of course, when one _replies_ to a post this is how it gets read most carefully.) I saw few people I respect a lot replying substantively to the posts of some of these people who seemed to dominate the list in the last month, and of course I myself did not reply to any of them, so whatever points they were making were lost on me. >If the antidote to bad speech is more speech, then he certainly provided >some, although not on the level or style as yourself. And you may say >that some of these posts are not worth replying to, but didn't I see you >respond to one of Dale's, regarding a photo of Jessica-the-pilot which >he keeps above his desk? Sure, but that was months ago. In any case, I didn't say Dale nor Toto nor anyone else should be shunned; I posted when I felt like it. Nor of course have I ever argued for censoring Toto or Dale or anyone else. My point to Sandy was just that the new censorship policy was still clearly letting a lot of crap^H^H^H^H "piffle" (a Sandy-used and hence Sandy-approved synonym for "cr*p") through, and that certain folks were issuing lots and lots of rants and raves. Personally, I think "flames" are not the problem. Not flames from obviously thoughtful folks who are angered or peeved about something. The "flames" posted by bots--targetted at me, usually--were not especially helpful, but I see nothing wrong with, say, Hallam-Baker flaming Bell. Or vice versa. Flames and intense argument are often useful in explicating hard subjects...and who can deny that Bell's ideas are controversial and may generate intense opinions? To expunge the list of Vulis' ASCII art and "Timmy May was born on a toilet as the spawn of a dandruff-covered Armenian tchurka and his nekulturny peasant mother" bot-generated insults we have apparently now gotten a list where Lord Sandy apprises us that he almost rejected my long, carefully-constructed essay because I committed the NewCyphepunk (TM) sin of referring to Toto, Dale, Dimitri, and Nurgaine in unflattering ways. Like I said, "fuck that." Or, more politely, it's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Not to mention sending the strong message that "Even Cypherpunks gave up their experiment with anarchy and now have a moderator deciding what the main list is permitted to read." Far too high a price to pay for the "comity" Sandy craves. (And if Sandy wants comity and good cheer, let him either form his own list or establish a filtered list just the way Blossom and Arachelian did. Hijacking the list to reform it in his own image is dirty pool.) --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."

2 1