- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

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

17 Dec '03

At 11:14 PM 2/3/97 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >Several people have also commented on this, that their filters are still >working overtime. As it should be, really, as no moderator can make the >list match any given person's preferences. > >(Personally, I'm not even convinced filters are essential. It takes no >longer than 5 seconds to glance at a message and know whether to scrap it >or not. Granted, it takes a bit of time to download, especially at slower >modem speeds. But whether Sandy's censorship is producing any significant >"savings" depends on how many messages he's sorting into each >pile...clearly if 20% or less of the total posts are being filtered out, >then the savings are ignorable. That might not be quite true, or at least not complete. Another effect is that the new structure of the list may deter some of the flamers from posting, when they don't think their notes will be seen on the moderated list. In any case, however, I agree that spam and trash are easy to filter out. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Moderation, Tim, Sandy, me, etc. * Strong crypto == DES?!
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

aaron(a)herringn.com wrote: > John Gilmore wrote: > >I'm glad we're talking about some of the real issues here. > >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. Re: the below. Easily the best and most intelligent suggestion so far. Why couldn't Sandy and John with all their experience think of this? > If I might make a suggestion: > Some people want moderation. That's fine, I've never been very big on > letting other people choose what I read, but some people want it. > For those who want it, let someone moderate the list for as long as > they care to do it. Approved messages get a "X-sandy-approved" > header. The responsibility for setting up a filter to toss everything > that doesn't have the header is the responsibility of the end user. > Toad will need to filter incoming posts to make sure they don't come > "pre-approved", but that's the only hole I can think of. > Everyone gets all of the Cypherpunks list. Those who want moderation > filter the unapproved posts, those who want all of it get all of it. > Hopefully, this will make (almost) everyone happy.

2 1

Re: Moderation [Tim,Sandy]
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Declan McCullagh wrote: > Adam writes: > >The problem with censorship or moderation is that it waters down the > >absolutism of free speech. Free speech in electronic media, with > >cypherpunks type I, and type II remailers, is the closest thing to > >truly free speech yet. > I agree and disagree. Moderation often *increases* the value of speech. The > Wall Street Journal, or Time Magazine, or the JAMA have strict policies > regarding what information they print; these policies increase the > publication's value. Moderation is not necessarily censorship. Would you > criticize the National Coalition Against Censorship for not including in > their newsletter (to which I subscribe) off-topic rants by Jesse Helms? JAMA is an example of moderated (good) speech? Not from where I sit. Look at the "interview" they published in the spring of 1992 with the Kennedy autopsy doctors. Then read about how they twisted the whole thing (and really didn't interview the doctors) a la 60 minutes. > What Vulis and the rest (whom I killfiled long ago) have done is polluted a > common resource, making it unusable for the rest. It's the tragedy of the > commons. When all can speak without limit in a public forum, the drunken > boor can shout everyone else down. The drunk can be excluded, but when someone wants to use the drunk as an example to escalate the exclusion to other persons who are not in fact drunk, watch out!

1 0

Re: Are cypher punks capable?
by Against Moderation 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Secret Squirrel <nobody(a)squirrel.owl.de> writes: > Against Moderation wrote: > > In general, unsubscribing and resubscribing to a mailing list is not > > completely trivial. > > Do you think that a cypher punk is not able to solve these problems? Read the rest of my message. I never said it wasn't pussible, it's just a question of how much effort I want to put in (which at this point, being roughly proportionaly to the quality of articles on cypherpunks, is close to zero). Whatever the difficulty or ease of fixing my mail filter, however, the fact that I haven't done it yet should not be counted as a vote in favor of moderation. This is what I am objecting to in John's article. John, if you are seriously interested in input from list members, then I have a proposal that I think is only fair. Why don't you create a new mailing list called cypherpunks-edited, which receives exactly the same filtered content as the current "cypherpunks(a)toad.com" list. Then encourage people to move from cypherpunks to either the -edited or -unedited lists to express their desires for the future of the list. In a another month, compare the subsription lists of the 3 lists. If there are considerably more subscribers to cypherpunks-edited than cypherpunks-unedited, then you can reasonably claim that a lot of list members want to see the list filtered. However, if, as I suspect, the number of people subscribing to the -edited and -unedited lists is statistically insignificant next to the people on the main cypherpunks list, then subscription counts are not a valid metric for judging the desires of list members. Of course, in the mean time I would like to see cypherpunks revert to an unmoderated list, but I'm not going to push my luck. I'd already be happe just to see the creation of a cypherpunks-edited list.

1 0

Announcing ZDNet Exclusives!
by announce＠lists.zdnet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--------------------------------------------------------- ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 2/3/97 --------------------------------------------------------- Greetings from ZDNet! We're pleased to announce a FREE gift to our loyal community of Web users: the launch of ZDNet Exclusives, the Web's first FREE collection of innovative software utilities, developed for our members by ZDNet and its renowned Software Library team! ZDNet Exclusives require no registration fees; they are absolutely FREE to all the members of the ZDNet community. Over 50 programs are available for download right now at: http://www.hotfiles.com/exclusiv.html The new ZDNet Exclusives collection features many invaluable utilities to make computing easier as well as some entertaining programs to make it more fun; including: *CookieMaster* Enables users to identify, view and opt to delete the Web cookies placed on their hard drives by the Web sites they've visited. *Gates Does Windows 95* An all-time favorite screen saver that depicts Bill Gates washing windows. *Shoebox PIM* An easy way to organize and store all of that personal information you'd be likely to save in a shoebox. * Plus, many more!* Log on to ZDNet and start downloading your FREE ZDNet Exclusives today! Let us know what you think. We have more ZDNet Exclusives under development and would appreciate your feedback. ---Preston Gralla Executive Editor The ZDNet Software Library ________________________________________________ ZDNet Announcements are periodic notices of new features, special events and free offers available to members of ZDNet. --To subscribe to ZDNet Announcements, please send mail to: announce-on(a)lists.zdnet.com You can leave the subject and body blank. --To unsubscribe to ZDNet Announcements, please send mail to: announce-off(a)lists.zdnet.com You can leave the subject and body blank. ________________________________________________ Powered by Mercury Mail: http://www.merc.com

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

2 1

Re: Geiger and long, unreadable lines
by Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Adam Back <aba(a)dcs.ex.ac.uk> writes: > > Dimitri Vulis <dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com> writes on cpunks-flames: > > Adam Back <aba(a)dcs.ex.ac.uk> writes on cpunks-flames: > > > > > > Mr William H. Geiger III "Author of E-Secure" writes on cpunks: > > > > <sigh> for the benifit of those misfortunate enough to be still working > > > > dumb terminals I have disabled my PGP script until I have time to add a > > > > word wrap routine to it. > > > > > > <sigh> it is you who were demonstrating your ineptitude by spewing > > > 120+ line length postings. Why is it so difficult for you to keep > > > under 80 chars? Would you like some technical assistance? Notice how > > > near every one else apart from yourself is managing to keep under 80 > > > chars? > > > > Notice how near every one else apart from yourself bends over for the NSA, > > and is willing to use a 40-bit key "escrowed" with the feds? Why is it so > > difficult for you to keep under 40 bits? Would you like some technical > > assistance? Why are you setting yourself apart from the Internet community > > that so happily embraces GAK? Why do you desire "privacy" for your traffic > > when everyone else does not? What have you got to hide? Are you looking to > > transmit child pornography, bomb-making instructions, and/or cannabis > > legalization propaganda? We better have a look at your hard disk soon. > > btw Dimitri, a crypto question: > > Diffie-Hellman key generation, there are two main ways of generating > the diffie-hellman prime modulus, method 1: > > p = 2q+1 > > where q is a prime also. > > And method 2: > > p = r.2q+1 > > where q is a prime and r is a randomly generated number. > > With method 1, the security parameter is the size of p in bits (or > size of q, as they are related). > > With method 2, there are two security parameters, size of q and size > of p in bits. > > Method 2 has the advantage that key generation is faster as it is > quicker to generate new random numbers r, than to repeatedly generate > trial prime q as you have to do in method 1. However is the security > weaker in method 2? What size of p and q do you have to use to get > the same security as for same size of p in bits as in method 1? What > should be the relationship between the size of p and q? > > (this isn't cpunks, this is cpunks-flames, so your non-crypto pledge > shouldn't hold, besides Sandy has a stated policy of killing the whole > thread, so I thought it amusing to continue your crypto relevance in > moving on to technical topics rather than political) My advice is to stay clear of any cryptosystem that relies on factoring being hard. I'll send you pointers to some very interesting new work based on the zeta function in private e-mail when I dig it up (please remind me if/when I forget this promise). I'm reluctant to say anything crypto-relevant on this defunct mailing list because last time I did, the moderator repeatedly cited it as evidence that his moderation works. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

2 1

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: Moderation, Tim, Sandy, me, etc * Reputation Capital
by Name Withheld by Request 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

1 0

Re: Moderation, Tim, Sandy, me, etc. * Strong crypto == DES?!
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

E. Allen Smith wrote: > From: IN%"gnu(a)toad.com" "John Gilmore" 4-FEB-1997 12:20:22.10 > >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. > You're making an invalid assumption... namely that people who > stayed on the moderated list are neccessarily wanting it to be the > main list. This isn't the case with me, for instance. I'd also point > out that some of us - including me - were taking the time to take a > look at what happened with the moderated list. On the one hand, it > did result in a decrease in the trash messages... on the other hand, > it also drove away 1+ good posters (TCMay for one). What's really ironic here is that given three people who have knowledge of crypto/politics and something to say, the lesser two drove the best one away. Boo, hiss.

1 0