December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Dissolving Choke Points
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:59 PM 2/3/97 -0800, 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. Improvement in the s/n ratio, yes. But >(at least if my speculation is correct), the good posts driven away by bad >posts (because some good authors are too busy to wade through lots of crap, >and some good authors are reluctant to publish their work amidst crap) >would take a much longer time to return. Many good authors have already left the list and *nothing* will get them back. The only solution is to move traffic to a different list. [Ever wondered why it is called a "TAZ" and not a "PAZ"? Though, in all fairness, I there is a "SPAZ". <Hi to Dave Synthesis and all the folks from SPAZ>.] -- 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: Dissolving Choke Points
by E. Allen Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"roach_s(a)alph.swosu.edu" "Sean Roach" 4-FEB-1997 00:47:40.30 >On your idea for fast implementation, this could be hacked by would-be >censors. A message comes into the list, the censor sees that the post is >from a regular enemy. The censor then copies the header information onto a >new message, one containing garbage, or snippets from old posts, reads the >new post to see if it is acceptable, and if it is, adds a new header, >probably only the time would be changed, and transmits it out. If the would >be censor was the sysop of a machine near the origin of the message, and if >the censor operated the censorship either by bots, or monitored the feed 24 >hours a day, (not likely), then the actual message would get to few. I would suggest that the cure for this problem is to have what is examined be a cryptographically secure hash instead of (or as well as) the message ID. The hash should be over the body of the message, and possibly the sender and Subject line. Unless Lance has driven up the prices at Infonex a lot, I'd be willing to support such a server on an Infonex account. I'd _greatly_ appreciate help getting the thing started, preferably as a group endeavour (to spread the load (i.e., keep infonex from being overwhelmed), keep me from temptation, and make it less likely that a legally troublesome message would go through an account that I might be blamed for). -Allen

1 0

The V chip
by nobody＠zifi.genetics.utah.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Demented Vomit was born when his mother was on the toilet. \|/ @ @ -oOO-(_)-OOo- Dr.Demented Vomit

1 0

Re: [DSS] PGP Signatures
by nobody＠zifi.genetics.utah.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Decoy Vilus K)ankersore( Of The Minute's family tree goes straight up. All of his ancestors were siblings, too dumb to recognize each other in the dark. |\_/| (0_0) Decoy Vilus K)ankersore( Of The Minute ==(Y)== ---(u)---(u)---

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

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: >From die Tue Feb 4 00:30:04 1997 Subject: Re: FCPUNX:ecure Phones To: eli(a)gs160.sp.cs.cmu.edu (Eli Brandt) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 00:30:04 -0500 (EST) From: "Dave Emery" <die(a)pig.die.com> Reply-To: die(a)die.com In-Reply-To: <199702040425.UAA08359(a)blacklodge.c2.net> from "Eli Brandt" at Feb 3, 97 11:24:03 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24alpha3] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1404 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: what's in a name?
by Secret Squirrel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Without answering any of the points raised by Wei Dai, let me address the subject line. I have been a long time reader of and occasional contributor to the cypherpunks list. Since it is high volume, I prefer not to have it show up in my mailbox, but read it from either nntp.hks.net or infinity.nus.sg/cypherpunks. With the recent change in status of the list, what I get at those two places is the edited list. The same would apply to other sublists subscribed to cypherpunks(a)toad.com too. If hks and infinity started archiving the unedited list, this wouldn't bother me so much. Other than that, I am saddened, as much as a Tim is enraged, that a supposedly libertarian and anarchistic group of people has decided that censorship is the right solution to their problems. Btw, what is with nntp.hks.net? Seems to have been down for couple of days.

1 0

[STEGO] Degausser
by nobody＠zifi.genetics.utah.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Decoy L[esbian] Vitriol K[ancer]OTM has been fired for masturbating in front of his boss. o/ Decoy L[esbian] Vitriol K[ancer]OTM <| / >

1 0

Mailing Lists vs. Usenet
by pdh＠best.com 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 pdh＠best.com 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