December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List"
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > ichudov(a)algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) writes: > > Adam Back wrote: > > > Perhaps it is time to reconsider the benefits of alt.cypherpunks. (As > > > an aside, it is ironic that John Gilmore was the guy who started the > > > alt.* USENET hierarchy, specifically to facilitate freedom of speech). > > An interesting idea. What's also interesting is Tim May posting after a long "absence", and in his post he repeats virtually sentence-for-sentence what a handful of people have been saying here for the past month.

1 0

Re: FCPUNX:ecure Phones
by Dave Emery 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Don't think I will bore the list with it, But a slightly more complex version of this scheme was one of the major tactical medium security voice scrambling systems used by the US in the 70's and 80's and even to a slight extent into the 90's on military radio circuits. The military version is called Parkhill and the crypto gear is the KY-65 and KY-75. At one time (in the 70's) it was used for at least secret traffic. It was downgraded a couple of times since and is now considered obselete and compromised. A Parkhill crypto box can be seen in the NSA museum... The NSA version used time inversion (playing voice samples backwards) and faster shuffling than this one does, and possibly a more secure key generator. But it is rumored to have been broken by more than one opponent, perhaps including drug cartels. Its appeal and why it was so extensively used for a while is that it interfaces to normal voice radio gear at the audio input and output level rather than requiring different modulations and complex digital modems integrated into the radio. It also gives pretty good speech quality and speaker recognition. Its primary replacement is the ANDVT digital voice terminal which takes advantage of modern DSP technology to implement modems usable over radio links and vocoders which can produce acceptable speech at 1200 or 2400 baud. Dave Emery die(a)die.com

1 0

Re: FCPUNX:ecure Phones (fwd)
by Dave Emery 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message:

1 0

Voting on Moderation [was: Dissolving Choke Points]
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Eric Cordian wrote: > 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. [snip] > 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. I wonder how Sandy will take the vote on continuing or abandoning the moderation experiment? In most states, one juror out of 12 can kill a conviction. In a revolution such as U.S. 1776, only a tiny percent of the people supported the revolution. Will Sandy go with a majority decision (pure democratic), or allow the moderation to go away if a significant minority wants to kill it?

1 0

Re: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List"
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

tmcghan(a)gill-simpson.com wrote: > in a message allegedly from: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay(a)got.net> > > the really important issue is this: is the _physical hosting_ of the > > Cypherpunks mailing list coterminous with the "Cypherpunks"? > { much thoughtful and well-phrased commentary elided } > > I would have had no problem had John announced that he was creating > > a new list, the "Good Stuff" list, with Sandy has his Chooser of > > Good Stuff. But by making the _main list_ the censored one, this > > skewed things considerably. > Now that the horse is out of the barn, ( or maybe not? ), I can't help > but ask whether one specific 'change to the change' would have > satisfied most of your objections: retaining 'cypherpunks' as the > name of the unedited, all-the-crud-you-can-read-and-then-some, > version, and adding an 'cp-worthwhile' list for those of us who prefer > not to wade thru mountains of garbage to glean a few precious tidbits. > What's in a name? Is perception more important ( to you ) than > reality? If just swapping names between cp and cp-unedited would make > such a large difference, I humbly suggest to you that you consider how > much labels need to matter. Is the title of the group more important > the the content? From where I sit, this looks a lot like a > style-over-substance complaint. Of course, I don't have my trifocals > on just at the moment. If it did not suit a specific purpose, they wouldn't have done it that way. You can take it to the bank that they did this because it was the only way to keep the 1300-plus sheep subscribed to what they wanted to be their "main" list.

1 0

Re: Dissolving Choke Points
by Peter Hendrickson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 7:59 PM 2/3/1997, Greg Broiles wrote: >At 10:55 AM 2/3/97 -0800, Peter Hendrickson wrote: >> Moderation has been a failure. I'm pretty good at filtering and I >> can sadly report that there is very little signal out there. > I don't think it's reasonable to expect an increase in signal within 2 1/2 > weeks of the start of moderation. What I have seen is a pretty complete elimination of the signal that was there. Some might argue that this is "just" because Tim stopped posting. But so what? The result of moderation was the elimination of signal. (Aside: Can anybody think of five members of the list whose combined contributions clearly exceed Tim's? I can't.) Also, I am curious when you expect the benefits of moderation to arrive. Two and a half weeks should be plenty of time for a reasoned creative and interesting discussion to develop. It hasn't happened. Instead the value of the list has - in my view - steadily tapered off since the announcement of moderation. >> There are lessons to be learned here. One is that censorship does >> not promote a stimulating and creative dialogue. > No, that is a silly lesson to draw from this experiment. There are > lots of useful and interesting "moderated" (on paper, it's called > "editing") publications/lists/digests where the content is > intentionally controlled for content and style. And in practice people get their friends published. Ever wonder why Denning got so much bandwidth on the RISKS list when she had so little to say? I don't like edited journals, either. I prefer to have somebody I respect say "Did you see so-and-so's paper? Here's the URL." Most of what is in, for instance, peer reviewed scientific journals is fluff designed to enhance somebody's resume. Moderation was a good idea when you had a number of people who couldn't all talk at once in the same room and in which a disruptive influence could not be easily ignored. We have better ways to communicate now. Let's use them. Peter Hendrickson pdh(a)best.com

1 0

Mailing Lists vs. Usenet
by Peter Hendrickson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 7:59 PM 2/3/1997, Greg Broiles wrote: > Seriously, if you want a distributed no-choke-points "flooding" > message distribution system, you're talking about Usenet. Robust > software exists for clients and servers, and it's already supported > worldwide on many operating systems. No need to write more software > to graft that functionality onto E-mail. If the list is going to > turn into Usenet (we've already got most of Usenet's better kooks), > we might as well just move the damn thing over to alt.cypherpunks > and be done with it. (Anyone care to guess who founded alt.* as a > way to route around censorship?) > (Of course, Usenet is a technical success and a spectacular failure, > content-wise. So opponents of moderation will be forgiven for > failing to mention this sparkling example of an unmoderated, > anything-goes forum for discussion.) Several people have brought up this point and it is worth discussing. There are some differences. I don't like Usenet's architecture. It is silly to duplicate vast amounts of traffic everywhere. It was a fine idea when there were 100 groups with lots of overlap in what people read. The horse and buggy was a good idea once too. Performance is a problem with Usenet. The system I envision (nearly identical to Igor's) would have about ten mail servers, each of which sends articles to all the others. Even in situations where something is wrong, articles will be nearly instantly transmitted along an alternate path. I think this is harder to arrange with Usenet. Competition among Cypherpunks providers works the right way. If you are getting your mail on a system which is slow and isn't up all the time, you have good reasons to switch to another provider. This is easy - just subscribe yourself to one mailing list and unsubscribe from the other. It's harder for most people to do this with Usenet. You may not want to switch your ISP to get a better Cypherpunks feed. In my opinion, Usenet is less conducive to filtering than is mail. It is true that there are lots of Usenet readers which can do things like kill whole threads and the like, but mail just screams "run me through a perl script!" This is mostly subjective, of course. More subjective opinions: I don't like being associated with Usenet. It is seen as an international bulletin board. Many people believe that it is "public" space and should be subject to zoning. I like the idea of keeping the cypherpunks list "private". I like being able to say "if what's on the list upsets you so much, why did you subscribe?" This is more effective than "so tell your child not look at Usenet". I don't like the whole Usenet cabal and all of the voting to decide which lists to canonize. Less of an issue with alt.cypherpunks, but the association is still there. Peter Hendrickson ph(a)netcom.com

1 0

Re: Dissolving Choke Points
by E. Allen Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"gbroiles(a)netbox.com" "Greg Broiles" 4-FEB-1997 01:26:13.34 >(I'm working on a message re moderation and the list which will better >explain what I think about that - but I'm not trying to argue, above, that >we *must* have moderation for a long time - simply that it's too early to >call it a failure for failing to significantly increase the number of >useful messages.) I'll be interested in that message. I have problems with the takeover of the original list name, personally. While it is certainly John Gilmore's right to do whatever he wants with the mailing list software/hardware (I believe we've settled that, right?), I'd prefer for the cypherpunks _name_ not be associated with a moderated/censored list. (I mean no insult to either Sandy or John in this, BTW... I simply think that they've gone about this the wrong way. For instance, if John was getting an email overload for toad.com and was trying to indirectly reduce the load via reducing responses to flames, there are other ways to solve the problem - such as the distributed mailing list idea. I do think that Sandy's filtered list could provide a valuable service - most of the other filtered lists seem to filter out a bit too much, judging by the "cc any replies to this message directly to me, I'm on the [insert name of filtered list]" messages I see. If the list switches to cypherpunks and cypherpunks-edited, I might go with cypherpunks-edited (or with some combo of cypherpunks-edited and cypherpunks-flames, the latter more filtered by procmail). My objection is mainly due to the principle of the thing.) Incidentally, I checked the cyberpass.net services, and it does list mailing lists - including a 10$ per month charge per 100 subscribers. At that rate, I can afford about 100 subscribers on a local distributed list, given the 10% discount. (Depending on how it goes, I might be able to afford more... I haven't looked at my personal finances in detail recently.) >I think you misspelled "Usenet". Hope this helps. >Seriously, if you want a distributed no-choke-points "flooding" message >distribution system, you're talking about Usenet. Robust software exists >for clients and servers, and it's already supported worldwide on many >operating systems. No need to write more software to graft that >functionality onto E-mail. If the list is going to turn into Usenet (we've >already got most of Usenet's better kooks), we might as well just move the >damn thing over to alt.cypherpunks and be done with it. (Anyone care to >guess who founded alt.* as a way to route around censorship?) I'd point out that we _know_ every list member can get email, but not that they can get Usenet. I can't conveniently get it, for instance - I'd have to read it via HTTP and respond via email to a news-to-mail server. Sure, I can get an account at infonex or wherever and pick up the news groups there... but I'd prefer not to be forced to, and I suspect the same is true of many people. >(Of course, Usenet is a technical success and a spectacular failure, >content-wise. So opponents of moderation will be forgiven for failing to >mention this sparkling example of an unmoderated, anything-goes forum for >discussion.) Usenet also has easy crossposting, has been discovered by just about every spam artist known to humankind, and doesn't have very good filtering software (IMO, the last time I checked). Limited propagation, especially for a new alt group, especially for a _controversial_ alt group, is also a problem. Sure, Usenet has its advantages. (Under allens(a)earlham.edu and allens(a)yang.earlham.edu, I was the second or third highest poster on it for a few weeks a few years back. I'm familiar with Usenet.) But it also has its problems. -Allen

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

At 10:50 PM -0500 2/3/97, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: >I agree with two of Tim's points. I express no opinion about the others, >except that I think these are the two most important. > >(1) I agree with Tim that as a matter of principle, it would be preferable >to create a new moderated list, with a similar but distinguishable name, >and leave the existing list as it was. I happen to think less turns on This is a point of view many of the most thoughtful commenters seem to agree on, isn't it? One would have thought that had Sandy and John really been interested in hearing the views of list members, this approach would have eventually won out. >(2) Much to my surprise, so far moderation is a failure. I think it is a It doesn't surprise me, but then I've rarely been a fan of moderation. As Michael points out below, it mostly works on "RISKS," but in most other cases I can think of it merely slows discussion down, introduces strange skewings of opinions (to win "approval" of the moderator), and almost never causes better posts to be written. (The case of skilled editors soliciting good articles is of course an entirely different issue.) >failure because it achieves neither of the moderation "sweet spots". No >moderation is one "sweet spot". Strict moderation -- the kind you get on >RISKS, where you know nearly every post is on-topic or at least worth your >time -- is another. This is neither. My clumsy procmail filters are almost >as busy as ever. What slips through is largely duplicative of what I get Several people have also commented on this, that their filters are still working overtime. As it should be, really, as no moderator can make the list match any given person's preferences. (Personally, I'm not even convinced filters are essential. It takes no longer than 5 seconds to glance at a message and know whether to scrap it or not. Granted, it takes a bit of time to download, especially at slower modem speeds. But whether Sandy's censorship is producing any significant "savings" depends on how many messages he's sorting into each pile...clearly if 20% or less of the total posts are being filtered out, then the savings are ignorable. Anybody have the statistics handy? Hint: Sandy should publish a periodic accounting of how many messages went into each pile, and should also publish his criteria on a regular basis, pointing out any modifications he's made to his criteria since the last report.) >As Oscar Wilde either said, or should have said, the worst crime is to be >boring. Maybe the list is like the portrait of Dorian Gray, with an image of the list sitting in a closet at Toad Hall aging not so gracefully. >PS. New members of the list may justly ask, where does he get off calling >the posters he doesn't killfile bores? I stopped posting a lot to the >list some time ago, back when I decided my energies were better spent >writing long stuff (see my web page) and playing with my kids. I kept >reading the list primarily to read the work of about six people -- and Tim >was one of them. Thanks. And I should point out in fairness that Michael recruited me for his panel on "Governmental and Societal Implications of Digital Cash" (or something like this) at the upcoming CFP. --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: GAK/KR spin
by Peter Trei 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 14:34:49 -0800 > From: Steve Schear <azur(a)netcom.com> > To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: GAK/KR spin > 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 For some time, I have been using the term 'espionage-enabled software' to describe GAK'd products. Also, 'compromised software' - I want to make the point that 'key escrow/recovery' == insecure.' Peter Trei trei(a)process.com PS: I have SW for working on the $10,000 DES challenge available.

1 0