December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: "...markets are fundamentally chaotic, not efficient"? Really?
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:36 pm -0400 on 4/7/97, Kent Crispin wrote: > Nope. Not any of those things (Gee, there's that "statist" word > again. There must be a playbook somewhere). Yes. It's from the same playbook which says I now get to call you a "twit". > More a "security > analyst" notion. See the cute little book "Chaos and the Capital > Markets" (I don't have it handy so I can't give you the author.) > Anyway, he makes an empirical of security prices, and demonstrates > that they are chaotic. It was more oriented to practitioners, not > theorists... Bark. Chaos theory has nothing to say about the capital markets practically by definition, but that's a "security analyst" notion, so you probably wouldn't understand it. > Chaotic is not the same as stochastic. Actually, chaotic behavior is a subset of stochastic behavior. I stand by what I said. Just because a random variable is predictable within certain parameters doesn't mean that you can call say, every flip of a coin 100 times. When you get to the limit of predictability, you are as "efficient" as you can get. > There are obviously stochastic > factors in markets. Equally obviously, they are not the only factors. Sure. What? The devine right of kings? The inherent good of the surveillance state? I say that stochasticity, including chaos, is the only factor that matters. > The fact that markets demonstrate a chaotic element is potentially > exploitable as a trading strategy. That statement, is, of course, an another oxymoron, just like "market control". > I heard that's why trading houses > were hiring physicists, incidentally -- most of the expertise in > Chaos Theory was developed in the context of physics. Rediculous. Most of the "expertise" in chaos "theory" is in the hands of dillitantes who like to draw pretty pictures. Most of the physicists hired by Wall Street were people who discovered market analogs to physical processes. A friend of mine, for example, who used Monte Carlo simulations to analyze sonar returns, and now uses Green's functions to get faster results on interest rates and total return scenarios on bonds. Or another, who did 2D magnetohydrodynamic code once, and now does fun stuff in the currency markets. The problem with simulating a market with emergent systems is that you can't say anything about a given market when the simulation is over. Just about the simulation. Otherwise (duh?) it's not chaotic enough. Which, by the way, was my point. When you get to "chaos", you're as "efficient" as you can go. That's not to say that using emergent systems technology to create markets *themselves* isn't useful. Far from it. That's the kind of stuff several people around here hope to see arise from autonomous entities operating in cash-settled internet markets, for example. Cash settlement technologies, by the way, which need strong unescrowed cryptography even to function. > That's "Crispin", Mr. Applethwaite. I hate being mislabeled. Ah. Another ad hominem. See "twit", above. You're ugly, and your mother dresses *you* funny, too. By the way, I'm sorry I misspelled your name. For some reason, it seems I didn't respect you enough to get it right... > I never said anything about planned economies being efficient. In > fact, I never mentioned planned economies at all. You said that "chaotic" markets aren't efficient. I said exactly the opposite. That they are the ultimate in efficiency, and that if you believe that chaotic markets are not efficient, you must favor planned economies, because they're the only alternative. I figure this tendency towards stringent control must be from where you work or something. Oops. Another ad hominem. So sorry. They must be in the air this evening. > Obviously I can't "prove" markets are not efficient -- that's an > empirical matter, not a mathematical matter. However, no one can > prove they are efficient, either (that's why it's the "Efficient > Market *Hypothesis*"). There are many other examples of persistent > inefficiencies in markets, the presidential election year cycle > being the first to come to mind. Right. And the increasing American importation of bananas throughout the 20th century caused an increase in suicide. Another informal fallacy. You're nine for nine tonight, Mr. Ch^hispin. Of course there are actual exceptions to the efficient market hypothesis, fools' markets being the most famous example. However, the crash of any given fool's market is completely unpredictable, and, as such, is as efficient a price as you're going to get, paradoxically. Which was my point. > [interesting but besides the point argument deleted] Actually, it was the *whole* point, but you didn't get it. Another one of those "security analyst" notions, which kind of blew by you, in what seems to be a rather breezy evening in your neck of the woods... > > This inability of a hierarchy to handle as much information or resources as > > a geodesic is, of course, a major problem with key escrow, > > No, it's a theoretical problem that has no impact on practical key recovery > systems. Okay. I'll tell you this one, for fun, too, since you don't get *it* either. In a geodesic network, a single node can not possibly process all the information in the network. It chokes, and the network routes around it. You can bet that any key escrow agent would be innundated with surviellance requests and would eventually become either useless under the load no matter how big a processor it had. (Hint: it's the same kind of problem with certificate revocation.) Or, it will be forced to cache its keys in other locations, making them more insecure. Soon, either everyone can't get access to the keys because they can't handle the load, or everyone can because the keys aren't secret anymore. An interesting corrolary is that even if the keys were available, the surveilling entity would choke on *its* information load. This is FinCEN's eventual problem. Maybe we could call it the Freeh paradox, or something. Anyway, the best you can hope for is some kind of distributed caching model, based on the distributed trust models we talk about here. But, if some kind of centralized entity tries to access *those* keys for surviellance, it chokes even worse than if it had all the keys in the same place. > "Whip me! Beat me! Savage me in Cypherpunks!" Just lay there and take it, slave. You know you love it, or you wouldn't be here. Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA Lesley Stahl: "You mean *anyone* can set up a web site and compete with the New York Times?" Andrew Kantor: "Yes." Stahl: "Isn't that dangerous?" The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/

1 0

Sweden Netscape Intranet
by harka＠nycmetro.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Now, how do we get all of these people to use PGP for their e-mail? (Also interesting to note is the fact, that they'll use 128 bit crypto, regardless of what the US gov thinks about it...:)) Ciao Harka In> Sweden Gets Wired With Netscape (04/03/97; 8:30 p.m. EST) By In> Douglas Hayward , TechWire In> STOCKHOLM -- Netscape is negotiating an innovative deal with In> the Swedish national postal service aimed at creating a In> national intranet covering the whole of Sweden. In> Sweden Post plans to use Netscape's Communicator browser and In> SuiteSpot server software to offer Swedish households and In> small businesses intranet and Internet access services, In> according to observers familiar with the proposed deal, which In> is worth more than $10 million. In> The postal service would use the Netscape Directory Services In> product to create a single "white pages" facility covering all In> Swedish households wishing to join the scheme, which would In> potentially create a national intranet, observers said. In> All households joining the network would be given by Sweden In> Post electronic mailboxes and a copy of Netscape's In> Communicator browser software. The postal service would manage In> households' electronic mail services in a manner similar to In> the way it manages paper-based mail services. Sweden's total In> population is about 8.8 million people. In> The email addresses issued by Sweden Post would mimick the In> real-life address of each participating household. The goal is In> to issue more than 1 million email addresses by this summer, In> said Sweden Post spokesman Jan Andersson. In> "As far as I know, this is the first time a PTT has offered In> this kind of service," Andersson said. In> For households without networked PCs, Sweden Post would In> translate the incoming email and send it as separate faxes or In> print out the messages and send them through the paper-based In> mail system, he said. In> In addition to email, services offered to users will include In> electronic shopping, Web access, Web publishing facilities, In> and the ability to set up secure electronic trading outlets. In> The service will use 128-bit encryption software and digital In> certificates to ensure security. In> The idea that each assigned email address would be similar to In> the recipient's street address is troubling, said Ian Walden, In> a specialist in IT law for the London-based law firm of Tarlo In> Lyons. The plan may even violate the European data protection In> directive, a 1995 law that is in effect in all 15 nations in In> the European Union, he said. In> "Is it necessary to make a direct link in the email address to In> the physical location? I think it's dangerous," Walden said, In> "and I would warn Sweden Post to reconsider such an approach." In> Netscape will supply Sweden Post with browser and server In> software for an initial fee of roughly $10 million under the In> proposed deal, which was agreed in principle early March but In> has yet to be finalized. Sweden Post already uses Netscape's In> electronic publishing and merchant software in its Web-based In> electronic shopping mall -- known as Torget -- under a deal In> signed last year. In> Sweden Post, which recently lost its monopoly of mail delivery In> services in parts of Sweden, wants to become a major player in In> the Internet services market in order to compensate for any In> decline in its traditional business as a result of the growth In> of electronic communications. In> "Sweden Post realizes that either it gets into the electronic In> services market in a big way, or it loses a lot of business to In> Internet service providers. And for Netscape, deals like this In> with utilities are a perfect way to overcome Microsoft's In> greater marketing power among ISPs," said the observer. In> "Netscape believes that if it can to sign up the utilities, it In> won't have to worry too much about the ISPs in Europe." In> The initial licensing fee would not include the cost of future In> software upgrades nor the cost of royalty fees for copies of In> browser software distributed to households by Sweden Post. In> Lennart Gren, Netscape's director for the Nordic region In> including Sweden, declined to confirm that the deal had been In> agreed. In> Netscape has been targeting utilities and telcos in Europe for In> some time. In February, the German national telco, Deutsche In> Telekom, said it would promote Communicator as its browser of In> choice. The telco added that it would use Netscape's intranet In> suite as its product of choice when building intranets for In> corporate customers. /*************************************************************/ /* This user supports FREE SPEECH ONLINE ...more info at */ /* and PRIVATE ONLINE COMMUNICATIONS! -> http://www.epic.org */ /* E-mail: harka(at)nycmetro.com (PGP-encrypted mail pref'd) */ /* PGP public key available upon request. [KeyID: 04174301] */ /* F-print: FD E4 F8 6D C1 6A 44 F5 28 9C 40 6E B8 94 78 E8 */ /*<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>*/ /* May there be peace in this world, may all anger dissolve */ /* and may all living beings find the way to happiness... */ /*************************************************************/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAgUBM0nnJjltEBIEF0MBAQGACAf7B/fSypYu05W2AXyhDmhDTICbyt1EnsrE 1YdYCY01bTp9C0QjIXVsCLsfgpAzaC5BlGMjGa1IPPFRj/7zm9C26nIezYomggOu 0PLI2rvAPgjN3GxTs8k1/IfsJdi5PoTz6lLILL8NR5cXA+dCUeJbEx5jpS3zq709 SJgBg1L8IDI6Dg9JFhY0ZLrKxKbWq/cMM8swEqYF3HFEbDJXiBd4oSquhBBuYkxV f0Fd8WqFqaEcPp/MZ5oGp0cKsvnrw7QNTy+vLwvJqqM7Oj0P8hKPjG+shWkITKtx jg3Z8Juk4JvnlMhtv4Xe2b8fDO2cMW6qJCO1GGV/PWc1xU18W5pT5A== =txDk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption...

1 0

Re: "...markets are fundamentally chaotic, not efficient"? Really?
by Kent Crispin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Tue, Apr 08, 1997 at 01:51:45AM -0400, Robert Hettinga wrote: > At 12:36 pm -0400 on 4/7/97, Kent Crispin wrote: > > > Nope. Not any of those things (Gee, there's that "statist" word > > again. There must be a playbook somewhere). > > Yes. It's from the same playbook which says I now get to call you a "twit". Uh oh. Must of touched a nerve... > > More a "security > > analyst" notion. See the cute little book "Chaos and the Capital > > Markets" (I don't have it handy so I can't give you the author.) > > Anyway, he makes an empirical of security prices, and demonstrates > > that they are chaotic. It was more oriented to practitioners, not > > theorists... > > Bark. Chaos theory has nothing to say about the capital markets practically > by definition, but that's a "security analyst" notion, so you probably > wouldn't understand it. Sorry. It's Edgar Peters, "Chaos and Order in the Capital Markets", John Wiley, 1991. I'm sure you will rush out and buy a copy :-) > > Chaotic is not the same as stochastic. > > Actually, chaotic behavior is a subset of stochastic behavior. I stand by > what I said. Clearly, you don't know what you are talking about. Strictly speaking, chaotic behavior (as mathematically defined in chaos theory) is completely *deterministic*, not random. The conundrum is that chaotic behavior *looks* random, and indeed, it can be very hard to tell if a set of data is generated by a determinstic chaotic procedure or a stochastic procedure. Pretty pictures of Mandelbrot and Julia sets are generated by selecting points *determinstically*, iterating through a *determinsitic* algorithm, and looking at the result. It's the mathematics that creates the complexity, not randomness. (To be fair, of course, I must also state that some fractals are generated by starting with random numbers and running them through some algorithm.) > Just because a random variable is predictable within certain > parameters doesn't mean that you can call say, every flip of a coin 100 > times. When you get to the limit of predictability, you are as "efficient" > as you can get. > > > There are obviously stochastic > > factors in markets. Equally obviously, they are not the only factors. > > Sure. What? The devine right of kings? The inherent good of the > surveillance state? I say that stochasticity, including chaos, is the only > factor that matters. No, you described it just above when you said "just because a random variable is predictable within certain parameters". So, for example, I know that if a head is worth $1 and a tail is worth -$1, my net worth won't jump by $100 on a single toss. > > The fact that markets demonstrate a chaotic element is potentially > > exploitable as a trading strategy. > > That statement, is, of course, an another oxymoron, just like "market > control". I don't know whether you are expressing your flatulent ignorance of chaos theory, or whether you are referring to the term "trading strategy". I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter, and agree that the term "trading strategy" is at least suspicious. > > I heard that's why trading houses > > were hiring physicists, incidentally -- most of the expertise in > > Chaos Theory was developed in the context of physics. > > Rediculous. Most of the "expertise" in chaos "theory" is in the hands of > dillitantes who like to draw pretty pictures. A lot of those, for sure. But Mandelbrot did some of his first work on chaos studying cotton prices with Hendrik Houthakker, a Harvard economist. But how about Edward Lorenz (of the "Lorenz attractor") studying weather, studies of turbulence, Feigenbaum & Co at Los Alamos, the Dynamical Systems Group at Santa Cruz, etc etc. The pretty pictures are pretty, but even I can do those. > Most of the physicists hired > by Wall Street were people who discovered market analogs to physical > processes. A friend of mine, for example, who used Monte Carlo simulations > to analyze sonar returns, and now uses Green's functions to get faster > results on interest rates and total return scenarios on bonds. Or another, > who did 2D magnetohydrodynamic code once, and now does fun stuff in the > currency markets. Sure, that too. > The problem with simulating a market with emergent systems is that you > can't say anything about a given market when the simulation is over. Just > about the simulation. Otherwise (duh?) it's not chaotic enough. Which, by > the way, was my point. When you get to "chaos", you're as "efficient" as > you can go. I wasn't referring to simulating markets; I was referring to studying real markets. [...] > > That's "Crispin", Mr. Applethwaite. I hate being mislabeled. > > Ah. Another ad hominem. No, just a joke. Boy, I must really have hit a nerve. Sensitive big ego, perhaps? > See "twit", above. You're ugly, and your mother > dresses *you* funny, too. By the way, I'm sorry I misspelled your name. For > some reason, it seems I didn't respect you enough to get it right... That's ok. I just attribute it to a fragile ego, anyway. > > I never said anything about planned economies being efficient. In > > fact, I never mentioned planned economies at all. > > You said that "chaotic" markets aren't efficient. I said exactly the > opposite. That they are the ultimate in efficiency, and that if you believe > that chaotic markets are not efficient, you must favor planned economies, > because they're the only alternative. It's understandable that you might make this mistake, given your misunderstanding of dynamic systems. > I figure this tendency towards > stringent control must be from where you work or something. Oops. Another > ad hominem. So sorry. They must be in the air this evening. That nerve must really be throbbing. Sorry. > > Obviously I can't "prove" markets are not efficient -- that's an > > empirical matter, not a mathematical matter. However, no one can > > prove they are efficient, either (that's why it's the "Efficient > > Market *Hypothesis*"). There are many other examples of persistent > > inefficiencies in markets, the presidential election year cycle > > being the first to come to mind. > > Right. And the increasing American importation of bananas throughout the > 20th century caused an increase in suicide. Another informal fallacy. > You're nine for nine tonight, Mr. Ch^hispin. Of course there are actual > exceptions to the efficient market hypothesis, fools' markets being the > most famous example. You don't like my example, but agree to my point. I like that. So now we both agree that "there are actual exceptions to the efficient market hypothesis" (your words). > However, the crash of any given fool's market is > completely unpredictable, and, as such, is as efficient a price as you're > going to get, paradoxically. Which was my point. You, unfortunately, misunderstand your own example. It actually is a paradox. > > [interesting but besides the point argument deleted] > > Actually, it was the *whole* point, but you didn't get it. Another one of > those "security analyst" notions, which kind of blew by you, in what seems > to be a rather breezy evening in your neck of the woods... Plenty of hot air around, as you speak. > > This inability of a hierarchy to handle as much information or resources as > > a geodesic is, of course, a major problem with key escrow, > > No, it's a theoretical problem that has no impact on practical key recovery > systems. > > Okay. I'll tell you this one, for fun, too, since you don't get *it* > either. In a geodesic network, a single node can not possibly process all > the information in the network. It chokes, and the network routes around > it. > > You can bet that any key escrow agent would be innundated with > surviellance requests No, I wouldn't bet that. Even a lame theory a looks good against a braindead strawman. [rest of braindead strawman deleted] > > "Whip me! Beat me! Savage me in Cypherpunks!" > > Just lay there and take it, slave. You know you love it, or you wouldn't be > here. Actually the most entertaining thing is watching blowhards at work. And one thing for sure, Bob -- for all your failings, you *do* know how to blow. -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent(a)songbird.com the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44 61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55 http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html

1 0

some arguments for privacy
by Wei Dai 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A couple of weeks ago I asked for some arguments in favor of privacy. I pointed out that one person's increased privacy exerts negative externalities on others by reducing their available information. I wanted to know why more privacy might be beneficial to society despite this consideration. I didn't really get the answers I wanted, probably because I wasn't clear about the kind of arguments I had in mind. Anyway, here I give some arguments of my own, which I hope offer new perspectives on this issue. Privacy as Insurance Suppose you are looking for a job. It seems reasonable to argue that if you are a better than average worker, you would be able to get a better offer if you had less privacy because the potential employers would be better able to distinguish your abilities from your past history. On the other hand less privacy would hurt you if you are a worse than average worker. If you don't yet know your own abilities, you would prefer more privacy as an insurance against your own potential deficiencies. If that doesn't seem realistic, consider how the argument might apply to your children. This line of reasoning also explains why people are troubled by genetic screening. Thus privacy might increase social welfare by providing a sort of social insurance. Privacy as Restriction on Signaling "Signaling" is a term used by game theorists to describe the use of publicly observable actions to provide information to others about one's private attributes. The best example comes from biology, where male peacocks grow extravagant tails to signal their genetic fitness to females. Clearly signals must be costly, otherwise they wouldn't be convincing. They are often also wasteful, as in the peacock example. (As a side note, the deposit solution to the junk mail problem I talked about some days ago is an example of non-wasteful signaling.) Privacy reduces the range of actions one can use as signals. This would increase social welfare if the wastefulness of the signals exceed the benefit they provide in the form of useful information. Consider a possible future where every room in every house is wired with a camera that continously broadcasts to the Internet. Life would certainly be very uncomfortable in this future, as every trivial action must be carefully considered in order to preserve one's reputation. Possible Benefit of Non-Privacy Limited This is more of an argument for privacy technology, rather than privacy per se. Suppose that privacy-invading technology becomes much cheaper than privacy-enhancing technology. Given the arguments above it seems inevitible that governments will pass laws to restrict the distribution of certain kinds of information about individuals. But of course this will not keep the information out of the hands of those governments themselves and other resourceful organizations. Thus any possible benefit of decreased privacy in the form of market efficiency would be severely limited since only a few market players would have improved information. This benefit would be easily outweighted by the harm in the form of governments' increased coercive power.

4 4

Re: [PGP-USERS] New International Version (fwd)
by 3umoelle＠informatik.uni-hamburg.de 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message from Lutz Donnerhacke <lutz(a)iks-jena.de>: On Tue, Apr 08, 1997 at 02:00:02AM +0200, Ulf Möller wrote: > > The subject is somewhat misleading. PGP 2.6.3in is a derivative of > > PGP 2.6.3i, modified as to comply with the policy of the certification > > authority run by Individual Network e.V. (IN e.V.). Specificially, it > > differentiates between signature and encryption keys, and implements > > key expiry dates. > > PGP4.5 does both of these things. I wonder if their modifications are > compatible with PGP Incs newer version. > > It would be a pity for the versions to get out of sync and cause > compatibility problems. If PGP4.5 follows the PGFormat.Doc specifications, there will be no problem despite ENCR/SIGN, which is not covered by the PGFormat.Doc.

1 0

Denning paper on crypto, EU mandatory GAK
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Apologies if this has been mentioned before, but I ran across a new (new to me; it's dated 2/19/97) paper by Dorothy Denning re crypto and crypto policy/legislation. Historically, her work has proven to precede/predict policy shifts on the part of the US government. The paper has little information which is new to a reader of cpunks; but I did note one ominous paragraph referring to the role of "TTPs" in Europe: >>>> The European Commission has been preparing a proposal to establish a European-wide network of Trusted Third Parties (ETS) that would be accredited to offer services that support digital signatures, notarization, confidentiality, and data integrity. The trust centers, which would operate under the control of member nations, would <<<< ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>> hold keys that would enable them to assist the owners of data with emergency decryption or supply keys to their national authorities on production of a legal <<<< ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>> warrant. The proposal is expected to be adopted by the Commission, with discussions provisionally scheduled in the Council of the European Union for the first half of 1997 [22] <<<< Also see <http://www.seven77.demon.co.uk/krisis/>, which appears to be the home page for a pilot project creating a software and political/corporate infrastructure for Europe-wide GAK. Yow. Also of interest is her cite <http://guru.cosc.georgetown.edu/~denning/crypto/Trends.html#29> to John Young's archived version of the 12/30/96 revision of the EARs instead of the BXA's. The paper itself is at <http://guru.cosc.georgetown.edu/~denning/crypto/Trends.html>; like it or not, it may prove to be a useful insight into what's coming in 1997/1998. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAgUBM0oWVP37pMWUJFlhAQEClgf/WIIWSILMpyM47o1LU83cS78V7OHuSpJM WsSrajoKX4TxbH/+Dwcwjf/s8IFI41+rj9VcL+pucXN+HarztYJpT6MX80ULI6sa EvmpXZ2gfKBisvHs9co2CRvSHwTip03sJvciGxilk0V70jNPaSZfRPb+22wsQerl his86IqSUt1OQFkXLmiOCak0z1jT6D25AoVCc+M0EoKfE7KwmOdoiFxhrAw1/HqZ 09H98nB55fS207zBsKW6b0u2zQfA9pTHeNfRn7V1PHnqaO4iprGy4SDMvbh/4t87 1wznAc25Un1QwTPTAjQypS7vS+qlMGRUPIO2uwzCi6HuK84c2Tf9Cw== =qR1F -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles(a)netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. |

3 2

U.S.S. Liberty
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timothy Maypole digs into his cesspool of a mind for his mailing list fertilizer. _ o |<)_/# Timothy Maypole TT <T

1 0

Re: Adam Back speaks out on AP / was: Jim Bell? Never heard of him.
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Adam Back wrote: > Anonymous writes: > There is a cost with > anonymity: people take you less seriously, none of your reputation is > on the line. Anonmous persistent personas might be better as they > allow reputation to be tracked. True, if your concern is to be listened to by those concerned about reputation. If your aim is for your post to stand upon its own facts and logic, however, then a 0-reputation persona may be preferable. There were a series of "Jim Bell is a loon." postings which I found to be uninformative in regard to the points they seemed to want to ramrod past the readers by virtue of discounting the message via slamming the messenger. > > So the end result might well be, not the assassination of those > > involved, but the lessening of their power by virtue of depleting > > their funds, which leads to a more equal playing field. > > I'm not sure this follows. > > If a corporate can use it's wealth to influence other groups, for > example by assasinating key employees of opposition company, it may > well get richer as a result. I see the value of AP not in the assassination of others, but in the potential for a wide-ranging group of individuals to drain the assets of their oppressors. Large grocery chains have a history of moving into an area, then undercutting the little guys until they are forced out of business, whereupon they raise their prices outrageously, unfettered by competition. AP might well serve as an avenue for the little guys to band together to target these operations and remove the profitability of this mode of monopolistic attack. The TruthMonger multi-user persona might well serve as a similar example of raising the cost of doing "character assassination" business. I might well be Jim Bell, himself. However, rather than saying, "Jim Bell is a loon, so we can discount all of TruthMonger's arguments.", one is forced to deal with the validity of the arguments, facts, and logic in the posts. Certainly a persona with built-up reputation capital can be an asset in many situations, but there is also a time when anonymous communications can serve as a conduit for weaning out those enamored with personality issues, and who lack the discernment to judge the true content and logic underlying a message. TruthMonger

1 0

Re: your mail
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

mpd(a)netcom.com (Mike Duvos) writes: > Graham-John writes: > > > On Mon, 7 Apr 1997, Mix wrote: > > > I think Vulis needs each of us to send ten copies of this back to him. > > [Silly Timmy May insult deleted] > > You do realize you are doubling the amount of noise by responding to > each and every one of these posts, don't you? Perhaps he doesn't. A prefrontal lobotomy does that to people. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Re: Anti-Spambot: what algorithm should be used?
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ichudov(a)algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) writes: > Hi, > > As we all know, there exist certain programs, called "spambots", whose > task is to post various messages to many newsgroups simultaneously. > > Besides their posting functionality, certain spambot programs take > special care to make their spams undetectable by anti-spambots. In > particular, they can be programmed to modify certain fields or the > message text itself in such a way that these messages would not look > unique, but would still carry the same content. > > We can generalize the things that spambots might do and suggest that > a general spambot would do the following to avoid spam detection: > > 1) modify all header fields, for example From: Subject:, etc, with > each spam posting. > 2) Follow up to other articles posted to newsgroups so that the > spams would look like genuine unique messages to the readers, and > defeat spam detectors Right - if you're following up in a newsgroup, you can just re-use the subject. You can also use the "From:" and other headers from one of the regular posters. > 3) Randomly altering the spam message proper such that blindly comparing If you're following up, then rather than being random, you can tailor you response based on the message you're following up on - kind of like Eliza or better. :-) > them would be futile. Such alterations may include interchanging certain > synonymous words, adding spaces or punctuation, or simply changing line > wrapping length. > 4) Swapping paragraphs and phrases. > 5) Add random headers, footers & fillings (like ASCII art) > > I am sure that the readers can come up with more examples. > > The task (or the problem) is: > > a) come up with a reasonable set of assumptions of what such a > spambot would or could do > b) Create an algorithm which would print Message-IDs of messages that > have identical content, so that most if not all of the judgments of > this algorithm would be correct, assuming that the spambot operates > within the limits of a). > > A message can be thought of as a sequence of words, phrases and > paragraphs, as well as a set of header lines. > > Path: header field may be specially treated. I don't think it's possible. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0