December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

"alt.cypherpunks" people?
by Adam Back 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

John Gilmore urges action, or piping down... well lets start with discussion of whether one possible action is appropriate, and useful (piping down is not an option:-): What do people think of starting an alt.cypherpunks USENET newsgroup? It has some advantages: 1. It distributes the cost of information dispersal, rather than largely placeing the load on a single machine. 2. Newsreading software typically includes threading, which is useful 3. It avoids the issue of ownership, it is more anarchic. There is no list or host owner to get prosecuted for copyright violations, export law violations, libel etc. 4. Automatically gets archived several places, and is searchable 5. It will be unmoderated And some disadvantages... 1. Cross-posting in USENET is a problem, especially in alt newsgroups 2. Commercial spam is a problem with newsgroups 3. USENET distribution is likely less efficient of overall bandwidth 4. News propogation times are often poor (Exeter univ. receives news about a week late) This is a real killer in my view. I have another news server I can access at the moment, but not everyone may have access to a reasonable news server. 5. News access is more complex for some people. Some alt newsgroups are not carried by some servers. Perhaps news-to-mail and mail-to-news gateway would solve these problems. 6. Some have argued in the past on this topic that the mailing list medium is better because it is more exclusive, as it requires more technical competence, and an active enough interest to subscribe. This is an elitist argument. Perhaps it is relevant though, if we are trying to maintain a mailing list where technical discussions on how to improve privacy are to take place. I wouldn't call this attitude censorship though. My overall feeling is that I prefer the faster turn around time of a mailing list. When interesting things were/are happening on the list (netscape break, late breaking crypto news, and cypherpunks spin on it), the fast turn around time was essential. Being able to react quickly to news items, and to organise technical projects rapidly is one of the cypherpunks main advantages and attractions from my point of view. My view of moderation is that it is a huge amount of work for the moderator, that it is hypocritical philosophically (we promote anarchy, but in order to effectively promote anarchy, we reject anarchy), that it breeds artificial social hierarchys, rather than allowing posts and posters reputations to stand on their own merit. I was happier with the strength of the philsophical standing of the list prior to moderation. Moderation hasn't improved the noise much anyway. Readers who have been reading for several years may understandably wish to recapture the stimulating discourses, and lively community feel to the list from the past. Lists change, cypherpunks is a victim of it's own success, media attention increased public awareness, increased number of subscribers, and at the same time increased the proportion of noisy off-topic posts. Unfortunately the success of the list, and the noise has resulted in some of those people who kept it interesting leaving the list. Coderpunks is a reasonable list, I'm not sure that it is moderated as such, but if you breach etiquette (discussion of politics, even when perpetrated by respected cryptographers, or by people discussing the implications of breaking DES, rather than the strict coding questions) they get Futplex-grams, which I find slightly annoying. Cryptography(a)c2.net is again reasonable, and gained back some of the original people who quit cypherpunks over the years due to noise. Cryptography is moderated. (Or is moderated when Perry thinks it would benefit from moderation, so that may change). Perhaps some of the lack of stimulating discussion is simply that the ideas are no longer hot new ideas. Most of the interesting technology and it's implications have been discussed. What's left is attempting to stop government restrictions and backdoors, and deploying the many complex peices of software for which there exists uses and demands. Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`

3 2

re: Moderation, Tim, Sandy, me, etc * Reputation Capital
by nobody＠replay.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I found this post from Mr Gilmore deeply disturbing, and I thought I'd take this chance to, as someone recently said, "Fly with the Eagles." John Gilmore said: >Tim, the Cypherpunks have chosen to follow Sandy's lead for this >month. I'll admit I made it easy for them, but the results are >conclusive. There are 1311 addresses in the cypherpunks list today; >42 in the unedited list; and 19 in the flames list. Forty people >cared enough to read every posting; the other thousand either wanted >to try the experiment -- or didn't care enough to send an email >message. Which, as we all know, is a very low threshold. Careful. The statistics you are throwing around here are misleading. So if 1350, say, subscribers were subscribed to an unmoderated cypherpunks list, what would that tell you? As has been pointed out, beaten to death, and generally repeated: there are already filtered c'punks lists. By filtering the main list, you are just making your own life difficult and corrupting the reputation capital of "cypherpunks", and the results are far from conclusive. >all I want is something that works. The cypherpunks list was unusable >for this kind of discussion, only a month ago. It's usable now. > >I'm definitely bugged by the community's attitude toward my >"censorship". Rather than being glad that someone, anyone, was doing >something about the major problem on the list, 99% of the reaction was >to create even more ill-considered, emotional flamage. *I* didn't >make the signal/noise get worse at that point -- *you-all* did. Again, maybe that 99% is trying to tell you something? Maybe there is some provocation for this outpouring of "emotional flamage." Also, here you claim that the s/n ratio is worse than before, but above you said that the "moderation" has made the list usable. These two statements seem contradictory. >Perhaps at that point I should have shut down the list, as Lucky is >now suggesting. "Asking the list what to do" was clearly not a useful >option. Sandy cared enough about the community to make some concrete Not a useful option? Why not? If there aren't any ideas left in this community, I'm with Lucky. Pull the plug. >gratifying. You-all remind me of a passage from Booker T. >Washington's book _Up From Slavery_, describing what happened on the >night that news of the Emancipation Proclamation reached the South: <quote snipped> >Most of the people on the list haven't bothered to face that freedom. >Your de-facto "leaders" have faced it for you. It is a more serious "You clearly don't take your freedom seriously. Now try a month without it." >Start a mailing list on another site! Move this list to somewhere! >Create and nurture an alt group! Make an independent moderated list My problem with this is that you are currently holding the reputation capital tied up in the name "cypherpunks" hostage. If hosting this discussion forum has grown so tiring, then you are free to pull the plug in a heartbeat. I've heard a few even go so far as to ask "what's in a name" when others get so upset about the list called "cypherpunks" being moderated. Well, I'll tell you. Reputation capital. Thats why so many lurkers have waded through the muck for so long. I've seen the crown jewels that have surfaced here in the past, and spread the word. "Cypherpunks" was where the action was. It was fast and loose and inhabited by a prolific core of sharp minds. Old memes die hard, as is evidenced every time we see a warning about the "Goodtimes Virus." >The experiment will be over in a few weeks. Who's going to take over >deciding how to run the list, and running it? As I said, if you don't want the list anymore, pull the plug. It will pop up again elsewhere and you need never worry about it again. This post from Mr Gilmore certainly is revealing. Perhaps inevitably, he has assumed the traditional paternal role of authority when its motives and/or power to regulate is questioned. Golem

3 2

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

1 0

bye.bye
by Bjorn Asman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have to agree that Mr. Tim C May have a big point. Even if i didn't like all the things Mr. May wrote so could i read it, and that is the point i think Mr. Sandford missed. That is to have a list that is a "living" list. You have to have all the people giving their chanche to say what tehy like even if they dont are "mentaly healthy".I have one more thing to "say". Namely to say bye.bye. to this list. I have never posted to this list, i have only read it, because i like the freedom in it (free speech and so on), but if i have to change my subscription to unedit-cypherpunks just to "hear" the freedom of speech, i rather just say no and unsubscribe. bye.bye bjorn.asman(a)infodesign.se.org Roerstrandsgatan 7a 41703.Goeteborg Phone +46-(0)31-221056 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The subjects are cyborg, nature is coyote, and the geography is Elsewhere -Donna Haraway ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

[ANNOUNCEMENT] Zero-knowledge interactive proofs
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 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

Harvard Symposium
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 15:10:17 -0800 From: jmuller(a)brobeck.com (John D. Muller) Subject: Harvard Symposium To: rah(a)shipwright.com Bob: I don't recall seeing this on e$pam and thought it might be of interest. What with the Boston connection, it's clearly a dcsb-worthy item, and I'll send it to them separately. ______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________ Subject: [NET-LAWYERS] HARVARD JOURNAL OF LAW & TECHNOLOGY Author: "K. Dueker" <kdueker(a)LAW.HARVARD.EDU> at internet Date: 2/4/97 1:00 AM [CROSS-POSTED; PLEASE FORGIVE DUPLICATION] PRESS RELEASE Symposium: Crime & Technology Law Enforcement Technology % Cybercrime % Electronic Commerce (Cambridge, Massachusetts) - The Harvard Journal of Law & Technology is pleased to announce its Spring Symposium: "Crime & Technology." The Symposium will be held Saturday, March 15, 1997, in the Ames Courtroom at the Harvard Law School in Cambridge, MA. The Symposium will consist of two moderated panel discussions, as well as several presentations. The morning session is expected to focus on "Search, Seizure, and Surveillance Technology," while the afternoon session will focus on "The Risks of Electronic Banking & Commerce." Admission to the Symposium is free to all Harvard affiliates (with valid Harvard ID), $15 for all other students, $30 for public sector professionals, and $100 for private sector professionals. The Spring Issue of the Journal will include articles covering the broad topic of "Crime and Technology." For additional information about the Symposium or the Journal, contact Symposium Editor Belinda Juran, by e-mail at juran(a)law.harvard.edu, or by phone at the Harvard Journal of Law & Technology offices at 617-495-3606 or 617-493-7949. ABOUT THE JOURNAL: The Harvard Journal of Law & Technology is a leading scholarly publication for articles addressing the many diverse interstices of science and technology with law and society. We have published articles by law professors, practitioners, business leaders, and politicians on varied topics including biotechnology, computers, international trade, technology transfer, intellectual property, medical technologies, and telecommunications. These and other subjects are some of the most exciting and rapidly developing areas of the law, and we believe that the dialogue provided by the Harvard Journal of Law & Technology will help to shape the future of this important field. We welcome submissions of articles, case comments, or book reviews addressing the relationship of law and technology. SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION: For additional information, please contact the Journal at the address below. The Journal publishes three issues each year. To subscribe to the Journal's upcoming issues in Volume 10, please send the Journal a check for U.S. $45.00 (foreign orders $50.00) to the address below. To obtain the issue discussed above or back issues, please send the Journal a check for $35.00 with a note indicating the desired issue (i.e., "Vol. 9 No. 2"). Media Contact: Kenneth S. Dueker, Communications Editor Release Date: February 04, 1997. ************************************************************************* Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Publications Center Harvard Law School Cambridge, MA 02138 Telephone: (617) 495-3606 E-Mail: jolt(a)law.harvard.edu WWW: http://www.law.harvard.edu/home/jolt/ ************************************************************************* --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/

1 0

Re: Getting into MIT is impossible
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Erland van Lidth de Jeude is a MIT grad. He played the big badass in "Stir Crazy." Computer science major, BTW. At 07:37 PM 2/3/97 -0800, Clint Barnett wrote: >wasn't Dolph Lundgren an MIT grad? I seem to remember something about him >having a degree in Chemical Engineering or something along those lines. > >clint barnett >lord of the cosmos >emily carr institute > >On Wed, 29 Jan 1997, Anonymous wrote: > >> >> >> According to Rick Osborne: >> >> "I disagree and can speak from experience. I was denied admission to MIT >> even thought I had a 3.82 GPA, 1440 SAT (one try), and had taken 9 AP tests >> with two 5's, four 4's, two 3's, and one 2. As for being well-rounded, I >> was on several academic teams, sang in Chorus, acted and stage managed in >> Drama, and played Tennis." >> >> People get into MIT--or don't get into MIT--for lots of reasons. Most >> intelligent people apply to several schools, knowing that admissions >> practices are subject to the vagaries of reality. >> >> In my case, my SATs were about 1500, with some 800s in achievement tests. >> And the usual bullshit high school clubs, political offices, etc. etc. I >> was accepted by MIT, but not by Caltech. I didn't lose any sleep over the >> way things turned out. >> >> And I decided not to go to MIT, either. >> >> "The only thing I didn't have that the next MIT applicant had was money. I >> made the mistake of letting them know that I was dirt poor and would need >> full aid/grants/etc, and to quote "The Great Escape" it was "Zzzt! To the >> Russian front!"" >> >> My guess is that "other factors" were involved. >> >> I noted with some interest, but little surprise, that the guy claiming MIT >> required a 4.0 GPA and a 1600 combined SAT score could barely spell, and >> had major problems making a coherent point. Methinks this is why MIT >> rejected him, not his lack of a "1600." >> >> ">For what it's worth, I wanted to go to MIT my sophomore year in high >> >school, too >> >> "Lucky you. It had been a dream of mine since I was an annoying >> overachiever of 6. Sux to be white trash, I guess." >> >> MIT offered me a substantial economic aid package, in the form of loans, >> grants, and various campus jobs. What does this tell you? >> >> "MIT may be a great school, but they tend to be snooty assholes for the most >> part. (DISCLAIMER: Not all MIT grads/attendees are necessarily "snooty >> assholes", I'm just saying that I've yet to meet one that wasn't.) >> >> I've known about a dozen or so MIT grads, and only one of them was a snooty >> asshole, and it was a _she_, one of the first MIT women grads (and she was >> _very_ impressed by this). >> >> Most MIT grads are perfectly reasonable. >> >> Xanthar >> >> >> >> >> -- >> > > > Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Silly Americans
by Rick Osborne 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

________________________ R i c k O s b o r n e ________________________ I was reading through the news when I stumbled across a thread that made a very good point. The original poster was talking about the UniSys GIF patent, and this was the reply: >Broaden your view. I can do anything I want with the GIF format without >asking _anyone_, and so can almost everyone in the world - except those >poor americans who chose to live under a "broken" patent law which >allows protecting _algorithms_. Totally silly. It brings up an interesting point, especially when applied to ITAR/EAR. On a philosophical note, why *do* we allow the government to regulate algorithms? (Implementations, I can understand, but *algorithms*?) _________ o s b o r n e @ g a t e w a y . g r u m m a n . c o m _________ "A poem: a story in meter or rhyme." 'Ahh. `There once was a man from Nantucket ... `' "You've been talking to Garibaldi again, haven't you?"

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

Panel - Copyright and the Net: Is Legislation the Answer?
by Dave Banisar 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Copyright and the Net: Is Legislation the Answer? ACM97: The Next 50 Years of Computing Sunday March 2 2:00 PM - 5:00 PM Fairmont Hotel San Jose, CA Sponsored by the U.S. Public Policy Committee of ACM (USACM) Panelists: Hank Barry, Pam Samuelson, Mark Stefik, Gio Wiederhold Moderator: Barbara Simons, Chair, USACM o What is the role of copyright in all-electronic publication world? Will it be replaced by contract law? o Can the needs of authors who want to publish for renown (academics) and authors that want to publish for pay (entertainment etc) be handled in one mechanism? o Should browsing on the World Wide Web of full copyrighted texts be made illegal because people make temporary copies in their computer's memory when they look at a web page? o Should online service providers, including libraries and universities, have to monitor user accounts in order to enforce copyright laws? o Should firms that compile data have intellectual property rights so that scientists and news reporters can't use the data without permission or payments? o How should existing differences in national copyright be handled in a networked world where national boundaries and are little more than a speedbump on the information superhighway? o Does technological protection for copyrighted works inherently undermine fair use ? These and related issues will confront the 105th Congress in the coming year. They will also be examined by this panel, which will discuss controversies surrounding the extension of copyright law to deal with cyberspace. Examples include: How does proposed legislation reflect the net? How much influence have lobbyists for the entertainment industry had in writing legislation? What should be the role of professional societies in analyzing policy initiatives? We will discussed legislation and international treaties that have been proposed by the White House. We will also examine both technical and legal approaches to problems created by the net, as well as how various approaches might impact the science, technology, and business communities. A significant amount of time will be allowed for audience interaction in the discussion. Biographical sketches Hank Barry is member of the firm of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati and is Chairman of the firm's Interactive New Media practice group. He represents publicly and privately-held companies in the multimedia, software, computer, on-line and entertainment industries. Hank has authored numerous articles in the fields of venture capital, interactive media and technology transactions. He currently serves on the Editorial Board of the Cyberspace Lawyer. Hank received his law degree in 1983 from Stanford University, where he was managing editor of the Stanford Law Review. Pamela Samuelson is a Professor at the University of California at Berkeley where she holds a joint appointment at the School of Information Management and Systems and in the School of Law. She has written and spoken extensively on the challenges posed by digital technologies for the law, particularly in the field of intellectual property. She is a Contributing Editor of Communications of the ACM and a Fellow of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Mark Stefik is a principal scientist at the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center. At Stanford University he received a Bachelor of Science degree in mathematics in 1970 and a Ph.D. in computer science in 1980. His current research activities are in approaches for creating, protecting, and reusing digital property. Stefik is review editor for the international journal "Artificial Intelligence" and has authored two books on AI-related topics and a third book on the Internet. Gio Wiederhold is a professor of Computer Science at Stanford University, with courtesy appointments in Medicine and Electrical Engineering. His research focuses on large-scale software construction, specifically applied to information systems, the protection of their content, often using knowledge-based techniques. Wiederhold has authored and coauthored more than 250 published papers and reports on computing and medicine. Wiederhold received a degree in Aeronautical Engineering in Holland in 1957 and a Ph. D. in Medical Information Science from the University of California at San Francisco in 1976. He has been elected fellow of the ACMI, the IEEE and the ACM. He currently serves on the ACM Publications Board, focusing on the move to electronic publication. Barbara Simons received her Ph.D. in Computer Science from U.C. Berkeley in 1981. She joined the Research Division of IBM in 1980; she is currently working in IBM Global Services. Simons is a Fellow of both the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and ACM. In 1995 she was selected as one of 26 Internet "Visionaries" by c|net, and in 1994 Open Computing included her in its list of the top 100 women in computing. She was awarded the 1992 CPSR Norbert Wiener Award for Professional and Social Responsibility in Computing. Simons founded and chairs USACM, the ACM U. S. Public Policy Committee.

1 0