- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: We are ALL guests (except Eric)
by dmandl＠bear.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: <jamesd(a)netcom.com> > > If you claim that Eric does not own the list then you claim that it > is unjust for him to change the rules without consent. > > If I claim he owns the list then I claim that it perfectly proper > for him to change the rules without consent, regardless of whether > or not he has a good, or even sane, reason. [...] So what's the point? Fortunately, Eric and not you is running the list, and he's a reasonable man. Yeah, sure, according to the rules of PPL or Roman Law or mathematics or whatever, he has every right to take unilateral action and do whatever he wants to with the list. OK, he's the "owner," so? This is the real world, not an algebra lesson: the whole reason this discussion is happening is that Eric realizes there are a few hundred friends (damn, I should have said "comrades") involved here and he would like to discuss the issue. This "ownership" thread seems like a gratuitous exercise in abstract propertarian philosophy. Man, some people actually seem EAGER to have Eric make some drastic unilateral move just so they can bleat "Yes sir, he's the owner, that's his right! Yes sir, he's the owner, that's his right!" and have their worldview sanctioned. Yes, that IS his right, but he's obviously too nice a guy to just do it tomorrow morning without discussing it first and then inform us all of the new status of his "property." So why don't we just discuss his proposal? I agree with Tim that effortless encryption/signing of email is still a dream for most of us. I don't think there should be any "punishment" for not signing (not even having the non-signer's mail delayed). I do think signing should be encouraged. I think that at some time in the future (a year?) Eric's proposal may be reasonable, but I don't think it's time yet. --Dave.

2 1

Re: Mandatory sig workaround
by turcotte＠io.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > From: Bob Snyder <snyderra(a)dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu> > > I don't sign/encrypt to > mailing list as many people get disgruntled by it and can cause > problems of it's own. > >Now encryption I can see disgruntlement at but a cleartext signature? Haven't been living in the BBS world much lately have you? There was a monster debate recently on Fidonet's Encryption Forum and some folks from Net 106 (Houston, TX, if I recall correctly) with some sysops in that region claiming that the signature was encryption and who were therefore bouncing things because they didn't want encrypted things on their boards. Sigh....out in the world some *serious* education is needed. Brett Turcotte. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBLt0tCOZ0KZVyrk5FAQFoHAQAp/tXplm+LimcoToFUD6HOSGCpd322Tw5 VxKr141BvzmTKfvFBoElnHckN8IXPkvapMsvyJel49V+q7caf687TfgUKq4uA3+K LzPQ0nAij5rd9NBR2yu3755jLYYpU/I27g8w122Ob7uxqP/ygPwHyIKMe/rl89Wc ZzselV0J1rE= =JwEI -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

We are ALL guests (except Eric)
by skaplin＠skypoint.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- With the recent furor over the possibility of mandatory key signing on this list, I think we all are forgetting something. We are all guests here. Eric is our host. I've seen proposals for voting on the issue, I've seen posts saying "I'm not going to do it, wah wah wah." This list is analogous to Eric's home. We are his guests. If a host asks his guests to do something he or she has two choices, do it or leave. If someone walked into my house and I asked them to do something and they said: "Lets vote on it," they would be out the door quicker than a 'toon on a banana peel. Eric has been a gentleman about this. He is not asking those who do not wish to comply to leave. This is Eric's house and I think we need to play by his rules while we are here. One caveat for Eric though, hosts with stringent rules are usually very lonely. ============================================================================== A government is the only know vessel that leaks from the top. --James Reston-- ============================================================================== skaplin(a)skypoint.com | "...vidi vici veni" - Overheard | outside a Roman brothel. PGP encrypted mail is accepted and | preferred. | Change is the only constant in the | Universe..."Four quarters, please." E-mail key(a)four11.com for PGP Key or | Finger skaplin(a)mirage.skypoint.com | Smile!! Big brother is watching. ============================================================================== -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBLtwymApnimeWAf3FAQGOkQQAgK6OrqyifMk3aICiLdtjHWILxUyAyTWx HyEXgfNdo3VXKALOCpON3sbtgiYlopFU9PyqQY4JGhievAfElEFOgUzfcOcNutKR vLeT73zsvYl0zJPk6TkKhBwLymykHcBq5VtM8qLFustkEOynlVNHanBZlCQEj1sC HKYfjJbX65E= =5hb+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

9 31

WHAT THE.. (was: Manditory key sig..
by Syed Yusuf 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

in all this discussion about how well it would work and ways around it, I think I've missed the problem that people are trying to solve. isn't it ironic that privacy advocates are suggesting manditory loss of anonimity (which is what forced signing is).

2 1

FWD: Oceania WWW site announcement
by Hal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- We have had some discussion on the topic of new countries here so I thought I would forward this short note. I haven't looked at the web page yet. Apologies if you've seen it already. ========== Forwarded message ========== SENDER: Eric Klien <oceania(a)terminus.intermind.net> Subject: ANNOUNCE: Oceania: The New Country - WWW Site A new web site has opened containing files related to the new country in development, Oceania. You may get the Constitution and Laws, plus information on related books such as The Atlantis Papers and The Millennial Project. You may also view true color pictures of Oceania plus view back issues of the Oceania Oracle. Animations of Oceania are also online as well as information on how to receive an Oceania passport. The web is located at http://unicycle.cs.tulane.edu/oceania -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQBVAwUBLt4BKhnMLJtOy9MBAQHt+AIAiJtsWrq+eQQ57xk9/XXuMtQ5eGUO2laV piQBPtpOQvn/2/tum3YUwG24cAhY3SleFynFXOzxJury7EbvRYStwA== =K3yA -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: We are ALL guests (except Eric)
by jrochkin＠cs.oberlin.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

perry(a)imsi.com wrote: >Were Eric to trademark "Cypherpunks" and use it in trade as the name >of a mailing list, you could NOT create another one for the same >reason you couldn't sell "Coke". The fact that Eric has no interest in >doing this and doesn't claim to own the name does not change the >situation. I think it does change the situation. I'm not even sure if Eric _could_ trademark the name "cypherpunks". Isn't there a requirement that it not be "common usage" or something at the time your copyright it? Assuming Eric could trademark the list, but just chooses not to, then what's to stop _me_ from getting a trademark on the name "cypherpunks" when I start my own competing list? If I started a competing list, named it cypherpunks (or better-cypherpunks, or whatever), and trademarked the name "cypherpunks", would that mean that I owned the cypherpunks list? Or would Eric still own it? Or would nobody own it? Intellectural property is a tricky business, whether you are just looking at it from the legal perspective, or whether you are looking at it from an ethical or pragmatic perspective. And the issue of "ownership" of the cypherpunks list seems a particular tricky instance of intellectual property, from a legal, ethical, or pragmatic point of view. It really doesn't seem to me that Eric "owns" cypherpunks in the same way I own my car, or even in the same way that Coca-cola "owns" the coke trademark, and the formula used to make coke beverage. There are some fundamental differences in what's going on. Cypherpunks isn't so much a service being provided by Eric as it is a group undertaking by all of it's participants. If Eric were to suddenly decide to become a buddhist monk and not have anything to do with cypherpunks anymore, and if John Gilmore were suddenly to decide not to allow the cypherpunks list on his machine, the list wouldn't cease to exist. It wouldn't even be hurt much at all. It would just move to a different machine, and get a new list administrator.

2 1

Re: We are ALL guests (except Eric)
by jrochkin＠cs.oberlin.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:04 PM 12/01/94, James A. Donald wrote: >Jonathan Rochkind writes >> Assuming Eric could trademark the list, but just chooses not to, then >> what's to stop _me_ from getting a trademark on the name "cypherpunks" when >> I start my own competing list? > >Nothing, other than the fact it would not be the cypherpunks list, and >there would not be a mass migration from Eric's list to yours. Well yeah. That was my point. Whatever "ownership" Eric has of the list isn't dependent on trademarks, or on the fact that he was one of the "originators" of the list. It's dependent on the fact that we all use the cypherpunks that Eric administrates. Of course there is nothing to directly stop Eric from doing whatever he wants to configure the particular software currently running cypherpunks to do whatever he wants. But some of us, or most of us, or all of us, could just move to another list. Nearly painlessly, if the new list we moved to were set up to mirror the "real" cypherpunks, but without whatever rules we don't like. "The cypherpunks list" isn't the particular process that happens to be running on toad.com right now. It's not even the address "cypherpunks(a)toad.com." Eric has control over one of those, and John Gilmore has control over the other one, but "the cypherpunks list" isn't either of those, it's the group of subscribers and the articles they write, and no one "owns" that.

1 0

Pbbbbbbbbbt!
by merriman＠metronet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

***************** Begin PKP Signed Message ***************** Version 3.14159 A Proposal That It Be Resolved: * That Eric can, and will, do as he sees fit with the Cypherpunks mailing list on toad.com. * That Eric can, and will, do whatever he's going to do, whenever he does it. * That many have made their positions clear - amply, and repeatedly - on what they think of the various proposals put forth in response to Eric's initial posting, the clarifications, the clarified clarifications, the counter-proposals, counter-counter-proposals, ad nauseum. * That if/when Eric does something that those on the Cypherpunks mailing list do/don't agree with (or otherwise find inconvenient, distasteful, awkward, reprehensible, foolish, appropriate, called-for, suitable, necessary, ad nauseum), they will respond as they feel appropriate. * That responses to any actions taken by Eric may include letters of support/condemnation, forged/faked information, leaving in a snit/huff/quietly/loudly, formation of a C1Ph3rD00Dz mailing list, ranting, raving, cheering, applause, or whatever else the individual may feel appropriate. * That Eric has had ample opportunity to see the response to his proposal, and will therefore take it into consideration as he feels appropriate. * That the subject will not be properly addressed and resolved until and unless some _definitive_ action occurs. * That until and unless such action occurs, anything else is so much flailing about madly, with a fair measure of High Blood Pressure and Hurt Feelings tossed in. * That the subject has now been flogged to death, and that further discourse on it only serves to fragment the CP mailing list. Respectfully Submitted Dave Merriman ***************** Begin PKP Signature ***************** 1 ******************************************************* ****************** End PKP Signed Message ****************** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Finger merriman(a)feenix.metronet.com for PGP public key and fingerprint. PGP encrypted Email welcome, encouraged, and preferred. "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." John F. Kennedy

1 0

signing messages
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Seems like one way to encourage the use of digital signatures is to start forging messages from people who don't ordinarily sign their messages. Necessity is the mother of invention, and all of that. I finally started signing my messages on a regular basis as a result of Detweiler forging a message which purported to be from me. On the other hand, I think Tim has been the most frequent target of Detweiler's forgeries, and I don't detect much of a creep towards signing messages on his part. Eric, would you mind clarifying the purpose of the "sign-or-delay" rule? Last time this came up I assumed that it was to encourage folks who had 95% of the tools/initiative to start using crypto techniques on a day-to-day basis to get off their asses and do so; but other people seem to have different ideas about the purpose(s) of such a practice. I think it might be interesting to try the "sign-or-delay" rule on a part-time basis - perhaps weekends only, or never on weekends, or only during December, or whatever. To me, it seems useful as sort of a "Great American Smoke-Out Day" for crypto; to get folks to go just one day where they use crypto in a practical, applied way, to prove that they can do it. What they do after that is their own business. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBLtvFC33YhjZY3fMNAQGc+QP/R2kBRlCNVLDVJNOLOGOWv6URYmnj+qTt poo1LKtz31Mzj+rBAiXPZSYY5xPtTXKD/7X8dU3JYyJbH12kwvH/RS1GS4mEV++V QDJD6L84EekrdFy0piP7jsGDMq2SQsHnI6G3GG0koGoMN/3u/UbDiCG3+yJ1b5u1 iMCS8dZQTfA= =eCnh -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

4 3

Warm, fuzzy, misleading feelings
by Dr. D.C. Williams 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've been following the dig sig fracas with great interest. While I can see merit in both sides, the pro-sig argument is weakened by their endorsement of sig spoofing. If the object is to heighten awareness of crypto and digital signatures, what possible Good can follow from setting the example that "cypherpunks simulate signatures"? The way I see it, either sign or don't sign, but attaching a bogus signature block to a message for the sole purpose of pacifying a mailing list requirement diminishes the significance of crypto and sullies the image of all who participate. If sigs are required, then valid sigs should be required. Make a new key pair that's used solely for the purpose of signing your list mailings. Any resulting damage to reputations or egos signed by a pilfered low security key would be no more significant than a forged message left unsigned. By the same token, I don't see how this proposal does much to spread the Good Word. Maybe the sole intent is for the participants to share in the warm, fuzzy feelings of "doing their part". Like flying a kite for peace or dumping red paint on an already-dead furry animal carcass, the primary goal of promoting the proper use of crypto seems less important here than the _perception_ of promoting it. Not everything that feels good is good for you. =D.C. Williams <dcwill(a)ee.unr.edu>

6 12