December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

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

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

17 Dec '03

Scott V. McGuire wrote: > (Even within the community, some people are more a part of > it than others, and nobody is more a part of it then Tim.) Is this like saying "some of the pigs were more equal than the others"?

1 0

Re: Trigger-Words...Trigger-Fingers
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Larry Johnson wrote: > Cynthia H. Brown wrote: [snippo] > Theres not many girls on this list, is there? [mo' snippo] > Anyway, my uncle prints out the girl-cypherpunks stuff for the girls > on my list and they think its real cool and they all want to marry > technicians so that they can make them work on the computers for them, > kind of like making them do the computer dishes, you know. [yet mo' snippo] I want to get married. Lots of times. Are the girls cute? I don't do hardware, tho, I'm a software guy.

1 0

FW: concerning Ben Franklin
by Butler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Kent Crispin wrote: >Franklin said "A man owns an ass; he can vote. The >ass dies; he cannot vote. Who owns the vote?" Poor Timmy May must not be able to vote then, as surely his ass must have been "bashed" to death by now. Scott. REMEMBER: "Dreams are just Screen Savers for the brain"

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Timothy C. May wrote: > At 10:50 PM -0500 2/3/97, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: > >(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. Once again, the reason John and Sandy weren't interested was because the main proponents of this point of view for a long time were me, Dr. Vulis, and Toto. Tim and others were either supportive of Sandy or were silent.

1 0

Re: New X-Ray Imager
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Steve Schear wrote: > New X-ray gun trades privacy for safety > Reported by Andy C > Seen in The Nando Times on 13 August 1996 > "I'm incredibly concerned," said John Henry Hingson, a past president of the > National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, meeting here this past > week. "The entire nation could become a victim of illegal searches and > seizures and the law is powerless to protect them from these police abuses." > But in these nervous times following the the crash of TWA Fight 800 and > bombings at the Olympics, Oklahoma City and the World Trade Center, many > Americans are now willing to trade some of their privacy and civil liberties > for greater security. > A poll last week by the Los Angeles Times found that a majority of people -- > 58 percent -- said they would curtail some civil liberties if it would help > thwart terrorism. Thirteen percent said it would depend on what rights were > at stake. The poll didn't ask people to single out any rights. The L.A. Times quotes this "poll" all the time, and in fact probably just made it up. Why do I know that? Because they ran a "letter" from a "teacher" in the valley somewhere about a year ago which said exactly this same thing. The "teacher" ran a poll of her students and they agreed to give up the rights without even knowing which rights they were giving up.

1 0

Re: Dissolving Choke Points
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:59 PM 2/3/97 -0800, Greg Broiles wrote: >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?) The big argument against going to a newsgroup in the past was that signal-to-noise would degrade to the point of alt.2600ness due to newbies, flamers, overflow to/from political ranting newsgroups, etc., and there's already a sci.crypt for that. The main argument in favor of moderation has been that the list has become unreadable due to newbies, flamers, political ranting, and directed attacks and maybe moderation would fix it, at the cost of annoying people who don't like moderation (which is realistically most of us; two practical reasons not to have moderation are that the volume is too high for most people to be willing to moderate, and that the delays inherent in the moderation process reduce the interactivity that's been one of the valuable things about this list.) I'd prefer that we all just get along, but things really were getting uncivil. An advantage of Usenet is the ability to deploy whatever NoCeM is called these days as a way to let people avoid spammers. Personally, I'd switched to the fcpunx filtered list a couple months ago, mainly to cut down on volume but also because I was getting fed up with Vulis's attacks through remailers, which were getting to be too much trouble to filter out. I switched back to the main list after the moderation announcement, with Eudora filters to make some discussions and some people go away. Of course, there have been several different demonstrations of ways around the moderation since then. # 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: If guilty of a lesser crime, you can be sentenced for a greater
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > Dale Thorn wrote: > > Igor Chudov @ home wrote: [some arguments deleted for lack of time to reply] > > > Another story: suppose that OKSAS hired me to work for her, but then > > > our relationships go south and she fires me. Again, her fate is very > > > unclear, although I would probably spare her life if it were she. > > If she does it right, with empathy, there is not likely to be a > > problem. On the other hand, if she bad-mouths you to prospective > > employers or customers you want to do business with, you might be > > inclined to hit her. This happens a lot when AP is not available. > ... But would happen more often if it was. Why, if AP was readily available, would she want to risk being hit by bad-mouthing you unnecessarily? > > people who have such money are not going to bump off very many more > > people than they already do, because: > > 1. They need the people to make money off of (Mafia rule #4, never > > kill someone who owes you money [or is a money source]). > This is a wrong Mafia rule, they do kill debtors who are in default. Really? Then how do they collect their money? BTW, I heard the rule from the mouth of a real mob hitman. > > 2. Rich people have a lot of eyes on them, and it would be easy to > > triangulate a series of murders to them, even without hard evidence. > > In an AP world, this triangulation/correlation would be enough to > > convince people to either shun this killer, or kill him outright. > When ten people make deals with each other, it becomes hard to > triangulate. And it is easy, if you know what deals are done, to change > the result of triangulation: suppose that I know that you borrowed 1 > million from Toto, that my _and_ yours business partner had been > murdered (by me, but no one knows), and I am afraid that someone will > triangulate me and implicate me in that murder. I secretly order > the AP bot to kill Toto, and you get implicated. Not good. We all know how people are framed, and we've seen the Hitchcockian murder scenarios on TV, in movies, etc. Certainly the CIA et al can create these scenarios, but what does that have to do with AP as used by ordinary persons?

2 1