- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

hoho
by Igor Chudov ＠ home 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

haha

1 0

A Vote of Silence for Human Gus-Peter
by Larry Johnson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I want to be the new modernator so anyone who wants me to be it can not send any messages, ok? So any people who dont send messages are voting for me, ok? (If I am modernator I will give everyone free pizza and Schotch.) Ok. Now evceryone vote, ok? Human Gus-Peter

2 1

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

17 Dec '03

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> writes: > > 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! > If I get really really drunk, which happens very seldom, then I'm > too drunk to post. I don't mind an occasional beer, though. > Oksas, have you ever tried beer? :-) I had my first beer(s) in three years at one of those industrial parties last night. It made the craps table action seem a bit merrier, and the girls were friendlier too.

1 0

Re: More on Cellular Encryption Docs
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:31 PM 2/1/97 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote: >At 04:10 PM 2/1/97 -0500, John Young wrote: >>Here's more on the controlled documents for cellular encryption >>from TIA/EIA we described in a 26 January post to cpunks: >... >> TR45.0.A >> Common Cryptographic Algorithms, Revision B >> June 21, 1995, 72 pp. (With ITAR notice on every page) > >Of course, ITAR as recently modified says it's ok to send this >stuff overseas to foreigners, as long as it's on paper. >There may be separate restrictions on sending it, or on copying, >but they're based on copyright or contractual non-disclosure. Given that high-density inkjet printers can do 600x600 dpi resolution, it should be possible to achieve the equivalent of 100x100 bpi of easily-recoverable data on ordinary paper. That's about 800 kilobits, or 100 kilobytes. What does ITAR say about this? Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Moderation [Tim,Sandy]
by Peter Hendrickson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 6:22 PM 2/4/1997, Declan McCullagh wrote: > 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. I think this analogy is inappropriate for modern communications forums. Mailing lists have the wonderful property that the drunken boor cannot shout everyone else down. This is what is so great about the Net. It is trivial to filter the drunken boor. This cannot be done in a crowded auditorium. Another neat property is the fact that people can't interrupt each other and everybody can "talk" at once. Peter Hendrickson pdh(a)best.com

1 0

Re: GAK/KR spin
by Bill Campbell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Steve Schear said: >Several months back there were discussions on the list regarding renaming >the government's key escrow/recovery proposals (KRAP comes to mind). I >think we need something that's catchy and simple (perhaps already familiar) >to understand for the semi-litterate citizen units. I propose we encourage >use of the terms "crippleware" or "crypto crippleware" when refering to the >products limited to their weak crypto and/or key escrow/recovery. Another point on all this that was made by Matt Blaze at the RSA conference (and that I have been making to all my friends) is that Crypto is basically a "solved" problem. The government's efforts to impose GAK is in effect transposing a "solved" problem into an "unsolved" problem - due to the inherent problems with any conceivable GAK "solution". I thought this was a very good case against GAK. =Bill=

1 0

RE: Fighting the cybercensor
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:15 PM 1/28/97 -0800, Steve Schear wrote: >>The poor can not hope to match the tyrants bid as they only have 10% of the >>wealth, the household knows that thier participation in an attempt on the >>tyrant will get them killed. Even if the attempt was successful. >>The people from the outside who would benefit from the bounty benefit more >>by taking the tyrants offer and then trying again, i.e. tiger teams. > >I think a hole in your thinking is to assume that the assasins have no >motive other than financial gain. I would submit that there are those that >have the skills, training and a political agenda coherent with the >wagerers, lacking only the financial incentive to make the risks >acceptable. These wetworkers won't consider accepting the bribe of the >rich/powerful In practice, we can't hold out much hope that donations to an AP system from "rich and powerful" people can be identified as such. After all, with the appropriate software I could just as easily make 100, $10 donations as a single $1000 donation. Assuming anonymity held, nobody but the donor knows from where the money came. However, fortunately I don't think it would make any difference in the overall effects. While AP would eliminate the taxation which is commonly thought of as the main way a "rich person" loses assets, in practice it would also shut down the well-hidden systems that allow some people to get rich (or, merely live off somebody else) "unfairly." Government agents come to mind, of course. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

At 4:05 PM -0800 2/4/97, aaron(a)herringn.com wrote: > >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. > I like this idea. However, I would suggest an additional refinement: Implement a cypherpunks-moderated list which is all the 'approved' messages. This way, people who wish to have the benefits of a filtered list are happy, people who wish to have posts rated for them (but be able to check on the "rater") are happy, and people who wish to see every message are happy. (I know that John has concerns about toad's mail capacity, and this may be too big a load) ObCrypto policy: Was anyone else besides me amazed by the guy from Deloitte-Touche at the Internet Privacy Coalition luncheon last week? I mean, he all but advocated violent overthrow of the government. D-T is the most "establishment" of the big-6 accounting firms, last time that I looked. It's a weird world when we have a representative of a company that makes a living advising people on how to obey government regulations advocating civil disobedience. -- Marshall Marshall Clow Aladdin Systems <mailto:mclow@mailhost2.csusm.edu> Warning: Objects in calendar are closer than they appear.

1 0

John Gilmore / What a _Lamer_!
by Larry Johnson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

John Gilmore wrote: > Tim, the Cypherpunks have chosen to follow Sandy's lead for this > month. I havent chosen nothing like that. I read all the stuff from all the messages from before modernation and since then and nobody got to choose nothing. You told them what they were going to gwet and thats what they got. Anybody that made it plain that they werent happy got thrown in the trashcan and labled as being a flamer. > 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. 1311 addresses that you stole for your censored list. Nobvody subscribved to cypherpunks-censored. You put them there cause its you decided it was your list an dyou could put people where you wanted even if they didnt like it. My uncle calls it the cyperpunks-Auschwitz list. Thats what subdir he keeps it in in his Dorks dir. > The cypherpunks list was unusable > for this kind of discussion, only a month ago. It's usable now. I could use it before and Im just a kid but Im not a lamer. Maybe you should call the list you stole cypherpunks-lamers. > I'm definitely bugged by the community's attitude toward my > "censorship". I know you are or else you wouldna thrown cypherpunks honest and truthful feelings in the flames-crapper. > 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 read a lot of flamessages which people put a lot of their thouhgts into bu t they were emotional cause people get like that when someone doo-doos on them. > *I* didn't > make the signal/noise get worse at that point -- *you-all* did. You dont make any signal/noise at all since you dont even send messages to the list. (except when you want tell bs about how people "chose" Sandy to be their dictator when they didnt) > "Asking the list what to do" was clearly not a useful > option. Not necessary either if your a dictator. > As Dale suggests, I > wasn't about to waste my time reading the whole list in real time and > passing judgement on the postings. Sandy was, for a month. Howcum reading the list is a wast eof your time but making decisions for ecveryone on the cypherpunks isnt? > To some it seemed that, now that they were in actual possession of > it, freedom was a more serious thing than they had expected to > find it. > > Most of the people on the list haven't bothered to face that freedom. 1311 ofg them? Howcum you just stole all of the list people for your censored list? I think that was real stupid unless you just didnt care if people would know that your were stealing the list for yourself. It was really rotten to call pewople flamers just cause they complained. > Be responsible for setting your society's privacy policy -- without > knowing whether you are right. Thats what those GAK guys are for and all those secret govbernment guys that want there not to be a cypherpunks anymore. > Shall I post you an Emancipation Proclamation -- as if you needed one? No you already done too much. > The experiment will be over in a few weeks. Who's going to take over > deciding how to run the list, and running it? I will. Im just a kid but I cant do any worse than already. > the immortal words of Lazarus Long, "PIPE DOWN!". Im a kid so I get told to shut up all the time but I dont. > PS: Can we talk about crypto too? What do you mean _we_ white man? (thats a joke) You havent talked about nothing on the list except how your not a bad guy for pushing people areound into the lists where you want them whether they like it or not. You stole my uncles subsribing to the cypherpunks list and made him a censored person. He had to break out to go to the uncensored list. I think your a lamer. Human Gus-Peter

1 0

Re: "alt.cypherpunks" people?
by Jeremey Barrett 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > John Gilmore urges action, or piping down... well lets start with > discussion of whether one possible action is appropriate, and useful > (piping down is not an option:-): > > What do people think of starting an alt.cypherpunks USENET newsgroup? As an additional forum, it's not a bad idea, with the exception that it may draw some people away from the mailing list, and reduce the already- slim signal on the list. USENET is less accessible than email, and given the goals of cypherpunks, the more accessible the medium the better. I have crap news access 99% of the time, and I imagine a significant portion of the list is in a similar situation. Also, the tools for news reading are not well-suited for filtering, either manual or automatic. > 3. USENET distribution is likely less efficient of overall bandwidth > > 4. News propogation times are often poor (Exeter univ. receives news > about a week late) This is a real killer in my view. I have > another news server I can access at the moment, but not everyone > may have access to a reasonable news server. > > 5. News access is more complex for some people. Some alt newsgroups > are not carried by some servers. Perhaps news-to-mail and > mail-to-news gateway would solve these problems. These 3 are fatal IMO. The distribution of cypherpunks would become much more haphazard and might fail altogether in places. Some people will be reading long threads days after they are dead. > Coderpunks is a reasonable list, I'm not sure that it is moderated as > such, but if you breach etiquette (discussion of politics, even when > perpetrated by respected cryptographers, or by people discussing the > implications of breaking DES, rather than the strict coding questions) > they get Futplex-grams, which I find slightly annoying. > > Cryptography(a)c2.net is again reasonable, and gained back some of the > original people who quit cypherpunks over the years due to noise. > Cryptography is moderated. (Or is moderated when Perry thinks it > would benefit from moderation, so that may change). Agreed. These lists _are_ the alternative to the "open" cypherpunks list. If a moderated cypherpunks is to be started, great, but it should be another list, not _the_ cypherpunks list. Moderation, even with the best intentions, is subjective, and therefore has no place on a list such as cypherpunks. If this is really an experiment, at the end of the month the list should become unmoderated, and a moderated list created. Then we can see how many people switch in that direction. I imagine it would be a similar number to those that switched to the unedited list. > What's left is attempting to stop government restrictions and backdoors, > and deploying the many complex peices of software for which there exists > uses and demands. There is still much to be done. The cypherpunks list has plenty of reason for being. As is, it 1) is still used as a forum for good discussion, despite the noise, and 2) is an invaluable resource for information retrieval and dispersal. The list should not be killed or moved IMO, and moderation should occur on other lists, not the main one. - -- =-----------------------------------------------------------------------= Jeremey Barrett VeriWeb Internet Corp. Senior Software Engineer http://www.veriweb.com/ PGP Key fingerprint = 3B 42 1E D4 4B 17 0D 80 DC 59 6F 59 04 C3 83 64 =-----------------------------------------------------------------------= -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface iQCVAwUBMvgVuy/fy+vkqMxNAQGFcgQAiZ0mKRTRkOYCYKlyAQrbUA0iHo1j1IiI DqJzLEXWX1AwYbRg4S4CRowey9+uMMbSo6nfONc5y7Wz7O3MvmLbGdmOCKaLNR56 7/TXY4Rj7yk8odKN3s4aYZ61vTMqMFdqzo42q5dNTQyL5haM1ugwgjg1bS5u3ski venMQtFa8t4= =aIej -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0