December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

RE: Fighting the cybercensor
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:15 PM 1/28/97 -0800, Steve Schear wrote: >>The poor can not hope to match the tyrants bid as they only have 10% of the >>wealth, the household knows that thier participation in an attempt on the >>tyrant will get them killed. Even if the attempt was successful. >>The people from the outside who would benefit from the bounty benefit more >>by taking the tyrants offer and then trying again, i.e. tiger teams. > >I think a hole in your thinking is to assume that the assasins have no >motive other than financial gain. I would submit that there are those that >have the skills, training and a political agenda coherent with the >wagerers, lacking only the financial incentive to make the risks >acceptable. These wetworkers won't consider accepting the bribe of the >rich/powerful In practice, we can't hold out much hope that donations to an AP system from "rich and powerful" people can be identified as such. After all, with the appropriate software I could just as easily make 100, $10 donations as a single $1000 donation. Assuming anonymity held, nobody but the donor knows from where the money came. However, fortunately I don't think it would make any difference in the overall effects. While AP would eliminate the taxation which is commonly thought of as the main way a "rich person" loses assets, in practice it would also shut down the well-hidden systems that allow some people to get rich (or, merely live off somebody else) "unfairly." Government agents come to mind, of course. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

IN%"pdh@best.com",IN%"ichudov@algebra.com",IN%"gnu@toad.com",IN%"ay@got.net
by E. Allen Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded with permission: From: IN%"loki(a)infonex.com" "Lance Cottrell" 4-FEB-1997 15:34:25.09 >I would be happy to donate the resources to run Cypherpunks off our system. >We could set up the list provided we were given a list of subscribers. I >assume it would be unmoderated. > -Lance >> Hi. I don't know how much you've been keeping up with >>the discussion on cypherpunks, but there is a current proposal >>to distribute the list onto several different servers. I would >>be willing to pay for 100 subscribers to run on the cyberpass.net >>server, provided that somebody else (e.g., Igor Chudov) set up >>the system initially and was available for assistance later. Any >>problems on your end? >> [...] >> Thanks, >> -Allen

1 0

hoho
by Igor Chudov ＠ home 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

haha

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

At 6:22 PM 2/4/1997, Declan McCullagh wrote: > What Vulis and the rest (whom I killfiled long ago) have done is polluted a > common resource, making it unusable for the rest. It's the tragedy of the > commons. When all can speak without limit in a public forum, the drunken > boor can shout everyone else down. I think this analogy is inappropriate for modern communications forums. Mailing lists have the wonderful property that the drunken boor cannot shout everyone else down. This is what is so great about the Net. It is trivial to filter the drunken boor. This cannot be done in a crowded auditorium. Another neat property is the fact that people can't interrupt each other and everybody can "talk" at once. Peter Hendrickson pdh(a)best.com

1 0

A Vote of Silence for Human Gus-Peter
by lwjohnson＠grill.sk.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I want to be the new modernator so anyone who wants me to be it can not send any messages, ok? So any people who dont send messages are voting for me, ok? (If I am modernator I will give everyone free pizza and Schotch.) Ok. Now evceryone vote, ok? Human Gus-Peter

1 0

Re: GAK/KR spin
by Bill Campbell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Steve Schear said: >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. Another point on all this that was made by Matt Blaze at the RSA conference (and that I have been making to all my friends) is that Crypto is basically a "solved" problem. The government's efforts to impose GAK is in effect transposing a "solved" problem into an "unsolved" problem - due to the inherent problems with any conceivable GAK "solution". I thought this was a very good case against GAK. =Bill=

1 0

Re: "alt.cypherpunks" people?
by Anil Das 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Adam Back wrote: > > What do people think of starting an alt.cypherpunks USENET newsgroup? > I have only one objection. I will never post to an Usenet group under my real email address for fear of ending up in spammer databases. -- Anil Das

2 1

[ANNOUNCEMENT] Zero-knowledge interactive proofs
by Huge Cajones Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The main difference between Tim C. Maypole and shit is that shit smells better. o o /< >\ Tim C. Maypole \\\_______/// // \\

1 0

Re: BA Crypto Machine Photos
by Steve Schear 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>BTW, does anyone know the meaning of 'order wire mode' in the context of a >crypto broadcast? This mode is found in the KWR-37 online crypto >receiver. Please send all photo requests or responses via private E-mail. If it means the same thing as in the telecom industry, its an out-of-band (often analof) channel between two locations connected by wide-band (e.g., T1) facilities. Its primary purpose is to provide service personnel, at each end point, the ability to converse with one another while performing work on that link. --Steve

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: > I'm afraid you have been a charter member of my killfile. Any comments > you may have made, I missed. Since they weren't about crypto anyway, but > about list moderation (a dull topic, IMHO), I can accept that. I never commented about crypto? Why, I even wrote a crypto program, which few on this list have done, BTW. I hope Sandy allows this on the big list, since Michael has penned a message about me, but said that he won't allow my reply to him. Nobody has to tell me (or probably anyone else either) that they have killfiled me (or anyone else). All they have to do is ignore me (or anyone else), and there's no further problem, plus, as a bonus, it makes for less noise on the list. What say, Michael?

1 0