July 2018 - cypherpunks-legacy

[IP] Re: Urgent Call For a Google At-Large Public Ombudsman
by David Farber 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Begin forwarded message:

1 0

Stanford 10/7/2010 -- Lessons from the Haystack Affair
by Bill Stewart 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Potentially interesting lecture if you're in the Bay Area > From: allison(a)stanford.edu > Reply-To: allison(a)stanford.edu > Subject: Liberation Technology 10/7/2010 -- Lessons from the Haystack Affair > Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 13:40:55 -0700 (PDT) > > STANFORD FREEMAN SPOGLI INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDIES > > The Stanford Program on Liberation Technology Seminar Series is starting > up again. The first of the series will be held on Sept 23, 4:30pm > at Wallenberg Hall. As an EE380 attendee you may find this series of > lectures at the cust of Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, and > Social Science his stimulating and informative series. > > Lessons from the Haystack Affair > > October 7, 2010 > 4:30 PM - 6:00 PM > Wallenberg Theater > Wallenberg Hall > 450 Serra Mall, Building 160 > > > Abstract > > Haystack, a circumvention tool, emerged in the wake of > the repression after the Iranian election of June 2009. > After achieving considerable public prominence, its use and > distribution was recently halted. Important questions have > been raised about Haystack's effectiveness and security, > as well as the roots of its reputation. > > Evgeny Morozov, who emerged as a leading critic of Haystack, > and Daniel Colascione, who wrote the Haystack code, will > discuss the Haystack experience and the lessons it carries for > circumvention technologies and, more broadly, for the evaluation > and political deployment of new information technologies. > > Daniel Colascione co-founded the Censorship Research Center > in June 2009 in the aftermath of the Iranian election and has > had a lifelong interest in internet freedom and technological > measures to mitigate censorship. He created the Haystack > anti-censorship system and holds a BSc in Computer Science > from the SUNY University at Buffalo. > > > Speaker > > Evgeny Morozov is a leading thinker and commentator on the > political impact of the Internet and a well known opponent > of internet utopianism. He is a contributing editor to > Foreign Policy and runs the magazine's Net Effect blog > about the Internet's impact on global politics. Evgeny is > currently a Yahoo! fellow at the Institute for the Study of > Diplomacy at Georgetown University. Prior to his appointment > to Georgetown, he was a fellow at the Open Society Institute, > where he remains on the board of the Information Program. Before > moving to the US, Evgeny was based in Berlin and Prague, where > he was Director of New Media at Transitions Online, a media > development NGO active in 29 countries of the former Soviet > bloc. He is writing a book about the Internet and democracy, > to be published this fall by Public Affairs. > > Open to the public > No RSVP required > > > For more information on the Program on Liberation Technology go to- > http://liberationtechnology.stanford.edu/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo(a)metzdowd.com ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

[FoRK] Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement
by Michael Cummins 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

I read this on Boing Boing today: ------------------------------------------------------------ http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/03/secret-copyright-tre.html Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad. The internet chapter of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a secret copyright treaty whose text Obama's administration refused to disclose due to "national security" concerns, has leaked. It's bad. It says: * That ISPs have to proactively police copyright on user-contributed material. This means that it will be impossible to run a service like Flickr or YouTube or Blogger, since hiring enough lawyers to ensure that the mountain of material uploaded every second isn't infringing will exceed any hope of profitability. * That ISPs have to cut off the Internet access of accused copyright infringers or face liability. This means that your entire family could be denied to the internet -- and hence to civic participation, health information, education, communications, and their means of earning a living -- if one member is accused of copyright infringement, without access to a trial or counsel. * That the whole world must adopt US-style "notice-and-takedown" rules that require ISPs to remove any material that is accused -- again, without evidence or trial -- of infringing copyright. This has proved a disaster in the US and other countries, where it provides an easy means of censoring material, just by accusing it of infringing copyright. * Mandatory prohibitions on breaking DRM, even if doing so for a lawful purpose (e.g., to make a work available to disabled people; for archival preservation; because you own the copyrighted work that is locked up with DRM) ------------------------------------------------------------ According to Wikipedia, the ACTA begins its 6th round of negotiation today in Seoul. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement I imagine we'll be hearing more about this in the days to come. _______________________________________________ FoRK mailing list http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

Stanford 10/7/2010 -- Lessons from the Haystack Affair
by Bill Stewart 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Potentially interesting lecture if you're in the Bay Area > From: allison(a)stanford.edu > Reply-To: allison(a)stanford.edu > Subject: Liberation Technology 10/7/2010 -- Lessons from the Haystack Affair > Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 13:40:55 -0700 (PDT) > > STANFORD FREEMAN SPOGLI INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDIES > > The Stanford Program on Liberation Technology Seminar Series is starting > up again. The first of the series will be held on Sept 23, 4:30pm > at Wallenberg Hall. As an EE380 attendee you may find this series of > lectures at the cust of Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, and > Social Science his stimulating and informative series. > > Lessons from the Haystack Affair > > October 7, 2010 > 4:30 PM - 6:00 PM > Wallenberg Theater > Wallenberg Hall > 450 Serra Mall, Building 160 > > > Abstract > > Haystack, a circumvention tool, emerged in the wake of > the repression after the Iranian election of June 2009. > After achieving considerable public prominence, its use and > distribution was recently halted. Important questions have > been raised about Haystack's effectiveness and security, > as well as the roots of its reputation. > > Evgeny Morozov, who emerged as a leading critic of Haystack, > and Daniel Colascione, who wrote the Haystack code, will > discuss the Haystack experience and the lessons it carries for > circumvention technologies and, more broadly, for the evaluation > and political deployment of new information technologies. > > Daniel Colascione co-founded the Censorship Research Center > in June 2009 in the aftermath of the Iranian election and has > had a lifelong interest in internet freedom and technological > measures to mitigate censorship. He created the Haystack > anti-censorship system and holds a BSc in Computer Science > from the SUNY University at Buffalo. > > > Speaker > > Evgeny Morozov is a leading thinker and commentator on the > political impact of the Internet and a well known opponent > of internet utopianism. He is a contributing editor to > Foreign Policy and runs the magazine's Net Effect blog > about the Internet's impact on global politics. Evgeny is > currently a Yahoo! fellow at the Institute for the Study of > Diplomacy at Georgetown University. Prior to his appointment > to Georgetown, he was a fellow at the Open Society Institute, > where he remains on the board of the Information Program. Before > moving to the US, Evgeny was based in Berlin and Prague, where > he was Director of New Media at Transitions Online, a media > development NGO active in 29 countries of the former Soviet > bloc. He is writing a book about the Internet and democracy, > to be published this fall by Public Affairs. > > Open to the public > No RSVP required > > > For more information on the Program on Liberation Technology go to- > http://liberationtechnology.stanford.edu/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo(a)metzdowd.com ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

None
by Daniel Nexon 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

irtheory-owner(a)yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list irtheory(a)yahoogroups.com Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 16:43:00 -0400 Subject: Re: [irtheory] War ain't beanbag. Irony is conserved. Reply-To: irtheory(a)yahoogroups.com > > At 3:37 PM +0100 6/13/04, Lee James wrote: >> I'd like to hear how children who werent old enough to pronounce the >> colour were 'reds' who were rightly tortured (apparently) in your >> view, as well as the many women raped and tortured at the hands of >> SOA graduates. > > Funny how "liberals" always do the debits and not the credits in > these grotesque calculations. Shall we count the > several-orders-of-magnitude number of starved (*and* butchered) > children in various Marxist "paradises" around the world, too? I > thought not. It wouldn't be "fair". The quotation marks here, I assume, are a disclaimer. Liberalism is not Marxism. Nor, for that matter, is support for social democracy. I don't see how antipathy towards the right-wing dictatorships that committed gross violations of human rights against opponents seeking peaceful change or political liberalization translates into having to champion Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, or whomever. > >> I'd also be keen to see evidence of this free-market success of >> which you talk, because it isn't in central america for the >> countless millions in poverty. > > Freedom, market or otherwise, isn't about the fool's errand of forced > income redistribution, which is, invariably, what actually causes > famine and tragedy. Why do so many on your side of this argument use definitional fiat to wind up rationalizing Pinochet's reign of terror, Guatemala's genocide against the Mayans, an so on? Indeed, freedom, on face, isn't about arbitrary imprisonment or torture. Is taxation for social goods, which often involves income redistribution, an equivalent violation of freedom? I'm not so sure. Income redistribution in the US did not cause famine and tragedy, nor in the UK, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Denmark, etc. It seems to me famine and/or tragedy were direct results, however, of the policies put into place by many graduates of the SOA. > > I prefer to think about the McDonald's paradox: No country that has a > McDonald's has attacked another. :-). We'll see how long *that* > stands up. Already happened. Kosovo campaign. > As for "democracy" somehow being magical, remember that > Athens brought on the Peloponnesian war, not Sparta. I'm not sure what this has to do with the supposed democratic peace. > >> I'm not sure that it is defensive to defend a country against its >> own people, when europe did so it was called colonisation. > > Yawn. When Europe did it it was called "economics". A word you seem > to be unfamiliar with. When their economic interests were attacked > (First the Portuguese, then the Spanish, then The Dutch, then the > English), surprise, they won. See Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel", A remarkably flawed book, deployed in an even more remarkably strange way here. To wit: > for details. Eventually, having won all these mostly defensive wars, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ These would be? The goal of the Portuguese, the Spanish, and the Dutch, for example, was to secure monopolies through military coercion... often, in the process, breaking apart other European powers' monopolies (e.g., the Dutch struggle against Portugal and Spain). --- Daniel Nexon Assistant Professor of Government / School of Foreign Service Georgetown University Washington, DC 202-687-2273 ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70 http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/yQLSAA/_tgrlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/irtheory/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: irtheory-unsubscribe(a)yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ --- end forwarded text -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

[camram-spam] very close to done
by Eric S. Johansson 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

I've checked in all of my recent changes and this is what you have: Camram filter that seems to work. Occasionally it falls over and dies. Do not use if you care about receiving your e-mail. Jail management tool that lets you look at your jail and do a minimal amount of white list additions. It looks ugly because this is a "temporary" feature. I'll probably finish the jail tool and make the system fully operational on the receive side sometime this weekend. Then I will start on the outbound proxy (unless somebody beats me to it). The receive side filter is almost ready to go live except for one thing. I'm still stuck on the old format hashcash definition because I do not have a Java applet to use in conjunction with the autoresponder bounce messages. This is what I want: a really simple applet that will work with Java engines back as far as Netscape 4.6 and works on Windows, Macintosh, Linux. No fancy GUI or messages. Just a simple crank out the stamp type application. If folks think it's a good idea, it should just generate and send the stamp as soon as it is invoked and not wait for a human to do anything. simple, portable, working. I don't need write once-debug everywhere. ---eric if this had been an actual release announcement, the actual release readme would follow: #25-Oct-2002 Camram is an antispam system predicated on making spam more expensive for the spammer that it is for the recipient. This is the first barely functional release of the camram antispam filter. It should provide a reasonable degree of protection for an individual against Spam intrusion as well as give you manual control to handle the cases where generates a false positive. Camram generates false positives when ever there is no one or no thing at the senders address to respond to the challenge message. Only under those circumstances do you need to go to the jail and pullout the innocent message. INSTALLATION: major subsystems: Camram filter challenge response CGI jail management CGI hashcash executable create the owner and group camram. I usually make it 499. yimv build hashcash executable according to instructions and install it in /usr/local/bin. make the following directories /usr/local/camram/bin ~/.camram/jail change the local camram directory group ownership to camram chgrp -R camram ~/.camram copy all of the src/*.py files into /usr/local/camram/bin change "release_URL" in camram_filter.py to reflect your URL. change to sgid directory and build camram and jail.cgi sgid wrappers. change the group ID of both wrappers to camram copy the camram sgid wrapper to /usr/local/camram/bin configure your Web server to have a /camram/ CGI directory place jail.cgi and the contents of webstamp into that directory. copy the sample configuration file from the ancillary directory into your ~/camram/ directory. Change the e-mail address definition to be your e-mail addresses for this account. for the time being, use sample procmail script (adjusted for local parameters) in your personal .procmailrc. send yourself a test message from another account and and you should get a bounce message back. If there is no bounce message, check the procmail log for python exceptions. If you do get a bounce message back, check the .camram directory to see if you have three files containing the string "white_list" and that they are owned by group camram with permissions 660. respond to the bounce message appropriately (i.e. calculate a stamp with the browser) and see if the jailed message is released to your mail box. Again, if it doesn't release check the procmail log. if it doesn't work at this point, then, send me a bug report and remove the .procmailrc from your home directory to disable camram. if everything is working at this point, then turn off autoresponder messages by setting block_autoresponder to true in the local configuration file. periodically examine the jail and approve messages either by user/subject markers or by some other marker (IKWTFID) internal to the message. Once the proportion of Spam starts climbing to the 80 percent mark, turn on the autoresponder by setting block_autoresponder to 0 (i.e. false) in the local configuration file. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: camram-spam-unsubscribe(a)camram.org For additional commands, e-mail: camram-spam-help(a)camram.org --- end forwarded text --- end forwarded text -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

Fwd: [camram-spam] very close to done
by Fearghas McKay 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

--- begin forwarded text

1 0

FW: [IP] Re: Urgent Call For a Google At-Large Public Ombudsman
by Anthony Watson 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Dear Dr. Farber: I ran up against the Google monopoly, when I tried to use their adsense to sell bumper stickers and other schwag at AnyoneButBushIn2004.com I signed up and was getting good traffic, but within a week, my ad was pulled and I was told my money was no longer good at Google, because I was promoting hate, just because I used the phrase "Anti-Bush Bumper Stickers". I altered my ad verbiage and then they reinstated me for about two weeks, then I was thrown out again. This was in late 2003 and I felt censored and could not understand what the problem was. It seemed I was just promoting a point of view. Two weeks before the election I received an email from Danny Sullivan about how egalitarian Google had become and adsense was the way to go. I wrote to the SearchEngine guru and he followed up for me...within three days of his inquiries, they were taking my money again...no apologies nothing. I will never know what a years worth of traffic would have done for my bank account, because I did not get turned back on until a week before election day. Interestingly, all my inquiries with Democratic politicians in that year produced no results, but Danny Sullivan got me turned on in nothing flat. Hmmmmm???? Google was able to control the message and my market penetration for almost a whole year, an election year. Not sure what the answer is...being a libertarian, but there is a whole lot of power concentrated in a few hands there at Google and it concerns me. Thanks for all the good work you do with this list, ~aw Anthony(a)neo-liberalism.org http://www.neo-liberalism.org At 03:07 AM 6/12/2007, David Farber wrote: >Begin forwarded message: > >From: >Date: June 12, 2007 2:26:22 AM EDT >To: dave(a)farber.net >Subject: Re: [IP] Re: Urgent Call For a Google At-Large Public >Ombudsman > >Dave, please remove my email and name from my email reply. > > > > >>How can people who are otherwise liberatarian in viewpoint support >>an idea like this? Google is a company like any other... > >1) Google is not just a company. If any company wants to be found by >customers, wants to make sales on the web, or wants to be part of the >modern world, it has to be findable in Google. People under 35 don't >use telephone books, magazines, or newspapers anymore. They use >Google. It's not a choice "to not be on Google". Google isn't a >company: it has become the infrastructure for the delivery of >information. > >2) Lauren Weinstein writes about the privacy issues at Google. It's >far more serious than privacy. Very few people understand how Google >works. There isn't "one Google" and the results you see in your >search in Miami are not the same as the results someone else sees in >Seattle. Google constantly adjusts the results according to many >parameters, incl. user personalization (Google Toolbar), the length >of the user's search session (you may get different results during >your session), your physical location, and so on. > >There are millions of searches and results, and these constantly >shift. This means it is literally impossible for anyone outside of >Google to track the search results. > >Results don't appear consistently. They can appear intermittantly. >Instead of appearing 100% of the time, a result can appear for 90% of >searches or 80% of searches. There is no way to track this. > >It would be easy for Google to slightly suppress a result. So a >search for a particular company would only appear for 97% of >searches. That's a small amount, but it is significant for ecommerce. >This means Google can manipulate the sales and valuation of companies. > >It works the other way too. Google can "over-produce" results for a >publically-traded company. Their earnings and valuation rise slightly. > >3) Google's ability to suppress (or enhance) results isn't theory. >Google has a secret team that suppresses the ranking of people who >criticize Google. Never complain about Google in Gmail, in a public >forum, or wherever your comments will be found by Google. Your >rankings will slide down just a bit. You will lose web traffic to >your website, your blog, or your company. > >That's why I asked Dave to delete my ID from this reply. > >This means that Google doesn't have to blacklist you. Nothing that >blatant. They just lower your ranking. End of problem. Nobody can >prove anything, because Google is an informational black hole; they >never reply. > >4) The privacy issues are thus both ways: the right to keep one's >information private, and the right to publicize one's information. >It's bad to lose privacy, but what is it when one's public persona is >downranked by Google and one can't be found in searches? Professors, >researchers, journalists, etc. can be removed from public access. And >remember: Google doesn't have to blacklist you. They only have to >lower your ranking. Or show you in the results only intermittantly. > >Microsoft was (and still is) a monopoly. But you can use your copy of >Microsoft Word to write whatever you like. > >Google is a far greater danger than Microsoft. Write your emails in >GMail, use Google word processor, the Google spreadsheet, Google >video, or any of the endless Google tools, and they correlate >everything about you. Google can read all of your emails, docs, and >spreadsheets. By merely suppressing or enhancing results, they can >make vast profits, erase careers, and literally control economies. >This creates spectacular power. No company has ever been able to >resist that kind of temptation. > >Google needs an ombudsman? Definitely. > > > >------------------------------------------- >Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now >RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ >Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/843 - Release Date: 6/10/2007 1:39 PM ------------------------------------------- Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

[IP] Re: Urgent Call For a Google At-Large Public Ombudsman
by David Farber 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Begin forwarded message:

1 0

quantum cryptography broken?
by travis+ml-cryptography＠subspacefield.org 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

http://www.kurzweilai.net/news/frame.html?main=/news/news_single.html? id%3D8471 Quantum cryptography broken KurzweilAI.net, April 20, 2008 Two Swedish scientsts, Jorgen Cederlof, now of Google, and Jan-Ake Larsson of Link In a paper published in IEEE Trans. Inf Theory, 54: 1735-1741 (2008), they point out that an eavesdropper could gain partial knowledge on the key in quantum cryptography that may have an effect on the security of the authentication in the later round. By accessing the quantum channel used in quantum cryptography, the attacker can change the message to be authenticated (since the message is influenced by attacker-initiated events on the quantum channel). This, combined with partial knowledge of the key (transmitted on the quantum channel), creates a potential security gap, they suggest. Their proposed solution: simply transmit an extra exchange of a small amount of random bits on the classical (Internet) channel. FAQ: http://www.mai.liu.se/~jalar/qkg/faq.html -- Crypto ergo sum. https://www.subspacefield.org/~travis/ My password is easy to remember; it's the digits of Pi. All of them. If you are a spammer, please email john(a)subspacefield.org to get blacklisted. --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo(a)metzdowd.com

1 0