December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

RE: Fighting the cybercensor
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: jim bell [ on discussing AP on the cpunk list]: Because it's on-topic, that's why. Because it's not merely a list concerning METHODS of encryption, it's also about the _reasons_ for using encryption, as well as the _effects_ (both small-scale and large-scale) of using encryption. -- Well, you're right, this is probably a good place to discuss it, so all the NSA spooks will know what some of youall are up to. [ why the Iraquis haven't thought of applying it themselves - to Saddam]: As for why the ordinary Iraquis didn't think of it... Or the ordinary people of any or every country, as well. Why didn't THEY think of it? -- I was thinking the reason that most people don't think of applying AP is because they're normal. It is not the first thought of a normal person to kill another human, just because they've been offended - even severely. It takes an extraordinary circumstance to motivate one to such destruction, especially if there are a thousand armed troops supporting the object of the attempt. But in fact I do think that many in Iraq (whoever they were) did consider it seriously and have attempted to get rid of Saddam. I heard on a TV special that he has survived about 5 or so attempts on his life. This means that not only was he not killed, but he didn't learn anything from it and it created no fear in him about continuing to rule as a dictator. It probably was more discouraging to his enemies than himself. [ on why the Mafia hasn't achieved a rational society by the use of AP]: In fact, apparently, they function diametrically opposed to the AP system. A complete AP-like system is structured (via encryption, etc) to totally avoid anybody having to trust anyone else. Each participant is kept honest mathematically. Nobody can inform on anyone else, because nobody knows anyone else's identity. -- There are extraordinary times when people, even though they be of sound mind and body, are moved to band together and kill another person. There are a few occurances in history that anyone can immediately think of as examples. But this is in an *extra-ordinary* situation. A society of people - where "society" indicates their desire to live in each other's company, associating openly and developing working relations - would not really be a "society", would not last as an association of people, if they were expecting extreme, destructive reactions from others in response to any degree of perceived insult from themselves. Therefore, although I can appreciate the need to be able to deal with political tyrants by just killing them, and currently encryption and anonymity makes it possible to do this "blindly" without anyone knowing each other, I can't see where implementing this method of relating to others, in a system of daily operating procedures, would do better than to create an atmosphere of total paranoia and psychological breakdowns. I think it is very important that individuals be able to defend themselves - from anyone. It is unfortunate that citizen-units are not typically instructed in the methods of self-defense, nor especially allowed to practice it without "official authorization". If we were better able to do this, the fact that anyone anywhere could immediately deal with threats to their existence would in itself be an impressive "deterrent", contributing to the general welfare and peace. Be that as it may, although the capacities of encryption and the internet make anonymous AP possible, the drive of human intelligence is toward knowledge, towards knowing the reasons for things. It would wish to know what is right or wrong, it would wish to know how to be the most accurate, it would wish to know about cause and effect, it would wish to know how to be in command of itself, normally. If someone does something "wrong" which makes another unhappy, normally they will wish to know what it was and how to correct it. If every time someone made a mistake they got punished, without the opportunity to understand the error and without the opportunity to make corrections, they would be a psychological wreck. If every time someone made mistake they got assassinated, not only would no one wish to do anything for fear of losing their lives, creating a "society" of timid sheep, there probably wouldn't be many people remaining to savor the triumph of being superior. AP is just another form of war. You can bet that if assassinations increased a hundred fold as a result of your method, not only "governments" but some very bright people would get together to figure out a defense against it, for they also would be "at risk". .. Blanc

1 0

Re: Best Computer School?
by drose＠AZStarNet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Rick Osborne wrote: >Lucky you. It had been a dream of mine since I was an annoying >overachiever of 6. Sux to be white trash, I guess. Wrong! White-americans play a very important and useful role in the new multi-cultural society. Sheesh! _Someone's_ got to work, support their families, pay taxes, and obey the law. Hee hee! Him so stoopit!

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Phill said: > That was not all. We had a political Web site established > during the '92 election. I was in contact with Clinton's people > when we had fewer than 100 Web sites. > > I am a cyber-revolutionary and the world has bought into > the chaos of our revolution. I never intended the Web to be a tool > for confirming the present social order which is manifestly > corrupt. Which of course is why you were in contact with Billy's boys right?

1 0

RE: Fighting the cybercensor
by OKSAS 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, blanc wrote: > From: jim bell > > [ on discussing AP on the cpunk list]: > > Because it's on-topic, that's why. Because it's not merely a list > concerning METHODS of encryption, it's also about the _reasons_ for using > encryption, as well as the _effects_ (both small-scale and large-scale) of > using encryption. > -- > [...] > I was thinking the reason that most people don't think of applying AP is > because they're normal. It is not the first thought of a normal person to > kill another human, just because they've been offended - even severely. It > takes an extraordinary circumstance to motivate one to such destruction, > especially if there are a thousand armed troops supporting the object of > the attempt. > Any normal person has potential to kill, why they don't...? They have other thoughts and dreams for a better future. oksas

1 0

Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by snow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Paul said: > The list has been disentigrating for some time since the disgusting > incident when Dimitri was forcibly unsubscribed from the list. There Bullshit. This list was disentigrating well before that, and Vulis's actions were a part of that disentigration. > > a while." > > So, there would be no intellectual dishonesty in a country claiming > to be a free and open society "trying out" fascism for a month or > two? - After all it`s a private country just as this is a private > list.... As long as they let people leave at any point in the experiment, comment on the experiment, and start their own country if they don't like it. > There is a clear trend easily observable on the list whereby certain > members postings are censored when their content is of a standard > that, if the moderation were objective and based on content alone, > would warrant their being sent to the censored list. Really? Point to this "trend". I only know of 2 articles, and Sandy explained his (IMNTBHO incorrect) reasoning behind that.

1 0

Re: RC5-12/32/5 contest solved
by stewarts＠ix.netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Any bets on whether the $5000 RC5-12/32/6 contest will be solved before the www.rsa.com contest status web page is updated? :-) Or how long before someone in the government starts talking about how 56 bits takes 65,000 times as long to solve as 40 bits, which is 26 years for a whole building full of computers, and even 48 bits ought to take a month and a half for a whole building full of computers (or supercomputers, if they hype it up....)? At 09:55 PM 1/28/97 +0100, Germano Caronni <caronni(a)tik.ee.ethz.ch> wrote: >challenge: RC5-32/12/5 >time: from start of contest until Tue Jan 28 21:54:58 1997 >method: massive distributed coordinated keysearch, details later which was a bit slower than Ian Goldberg's crack, but pretty close. How many machines were you using, on average? # 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

Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dave Hayes wrote: > Dale Thorn writes: > > I heard years ago that approximately 10% of the people on the street > > are certifiably mentally unstable. > This depends on your standads of "unstable". I'll bet genetic > diversity is now much more of a factor then when those standards were > written. > > Multiply that by two at least for > > Los Angeles (suburban L.A., actually, Hollywood for example is much > > safer than Altadena or Westlake Village). > I beg to differ. Which parts of Altadena and Hollywood are you > referring to? I used Altadena as a generic example of a suburb, although Camarillo would be even better, since it's not so cosmopolitan as most of the 'burbs right next to L.A. Hollywood (to me) is an ideal example of inner city, for a lot of reasons. I love the place, dirt and all. BTW, I was *not* referring to walking around, I was comparing driving, mainly on the freeway. Statistics have come out in major papers that back my experience up 100%. I drive from P.C.H. @ Seal Beach Blvd. to the Ventura County beach area every weekend, and back again. I used to go down the 101 to the 405, then south on the 405 to Seal Beach Blvd. Nowadays I take the 101 all the way into town to the 5, down the 5 to the 605, and down the 605 to 7th Street in Long Beach. It's 3 miles further thru town, and 20 minutes slower on average, but I get only about one psycho per 20 round trips now, as compared to at least one per trip on the 101-405 combo when I went that way. The difference was striking, and I can only surmise that rednecks and their ilk are more fearful of attacking other people in the inner city as opposed to the outlying regions.

1 0

Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

aga wrote: > On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote: > > aga wrote: > > > On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote: > > > > Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > > > > Dale Thorn wrote: > > > > > > But seriously, I was just telling the folks over the weekend, if I > > > > had my hand on the button, a lot of people would die very quickly. > > > > As in The Day The Earth Stood Still, a single act of aggression would > > > > suffice to be immediately terminated. > > No trial, huh? Good question. The law we have right now already assumes that there are situations where a criminal will not go peacefully, if at all. In some countries (years ago?) such as England, bobbies were known to not carry firearms for ordinary street duty. Am I right? But here in the USA, that would be unthinkable. So my proposal doesn't eliminate the responsibility portion of law enforcement. I'd say, if a target were eliminated thru negligence, malfeasance, or other wrongdoing under "color of law" or whatever, let the courts handle that as they do now. My suggestion would give the law enforcers the ability to dispense the first level of justice expeditiously, which they cannot accomplish now due to all of the red tape and the corrupt legal system (lawyers specialize in getting chronic offenders off, particularly "traffic" offenses). By transferring a major portion of the bureaucracy to the pencil pushers, we can free up the street cops to do what they do best, namely bust or eliminate criminals. I dare say that the downside of this is much less pleasant than the virtual anarchy (in the bad sense) we suffer now. If the police get out of control, A.P. will arrive just in time to plug a few of those holes, so to speak. Ideally, future robotics should be able to provide something like Gort (sp?) to take the place of human officers, given advances in the kind of pattern matching needed to deter aggression and the like. Those who don't make it past the robots, well, the rest of us can learn to behave, and we'll be much better off when we do.

1 0

Re: Libel & the 1st Amendment
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Cc to Dr. John Martin Grubor, Law Systems Institute] Jim Choate wrote: > > It has been asserted by at least one member that the 1st Amendment protects > libelous or other defamatory speech. [I would appreciate if people with better knowledge of law correct me] I doubt that anyone made this assertion. What Greg Broiles and Dr. Grubor asserted was that because of the first amendment, the government can not initiate an action in a libel case. Which means that libel is not a crime. There may be some old statutes that declare libel a crime, as Greg noted, but they are not enforceable because of the first amendment. Suits can be brought by private individuals though. The government, even if it is defamed, cannot sue a private person for libel. For example, I can say that Congress regularly molests small children, and they will not be able to do anything about me. > This is hokem. The 1st most certainly does not protect lies in any form. It ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > protects opinion, this is distinctly different then stating a untruth about > some party or distribution of material with the attributation to them > without their permission. Not exactly. I can lie as much as I want about the government. No one would be able to prosecute me. These particular lies are protected, contrary to what you state. The law does not protect ALL opinions, as well. > No civilized society can exist that permits lies and other defamations of > character and expect to survive for any length of time. Simply for no other > reason than contracts and other such instruments would not be worth the > paper they were printed on. Let alone any laws or other issuances from the > government itself. You are mixing in totally unrelated things, Jim. Enforcement of contracts has nothing to do with freedom of speech. For example, if you borrow $100 from me and fail to return your debt in time, this is an issue of contract law and not of free speech. Contract law is not about speech, it is about promises. > ARTICLE I. > > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, > or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of > speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, > and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. > > > Where in there do you see a right to lie, cheat, or steal? If it did, it > would be a lie because it would not protect the very freedom it says it is. Do you think that all rights should be found in the first amendment? What does the right to steal have to do with what we are talking about? I suggest reading "The Fourth Estate and the Constitution: Freedom of the Press in America", by Lucas a Powe, Jr. As for stealing and cheating in contracts, read any textbook on business law for business students. It is very useful to read this stuff, by the way. Not that these books give one a complete picture on law, but they are very informative. - Igor.

1 0

M.M. / Re: Sovreign Right of Lawful Access
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mike McNally wrote: > Somebody wrote: > > This morning at the RSA keynote, David Aaron, the US Crypto > > ambassador quoted the "Sovreign Right of Lawful Access" as > > something that goverments were determined to preserve. > > Speaking as a private indiwidual, and not as a drone in the employ > of IBM (don't get me started on the "but wait, key recovery *isn't* > the same as key escrow" hoo-ha), that dude scared the piss out of > me. That plinking sound you hear is the sound of NSA's bloodhounds stamping the phrase, in reverse, on the bottom of their jackboots. "Sovreign Right" has that certain ring to it which suggests the rhetoric of Dictators who imagine themselves to be Kings. "Lawful Access" has that "Of course, we will only use this 'right' against drug dealers.", kind of feel to it. Perhaps the student who popped RSA's test balloon could propose the "Universal Right to Casual Access." Toto

1 0