- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

RE: Fighting the cybercensor
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Steve Schear I sincerely doubt that many would use AP to right small slights, anymore than many now kill others for the same reasons. The world has always been inhabited by bullies and tyrants who cared little of what harm they caused others. An AP system would quickly eliminate bullies and tyrants. .................................................... Some of them. But like an infection which can be potentialy killed with antibiotics, ignoring the unhealthy conditions which made it possible to establish itself will frustrate the attempts to prevent the phenomena of its recurrence. .. Blanc

1 0

About: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List"
by lwjohnson＠grill.sk.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

For what it's worth, I think that this Tim May, not being a user of the list, has no place to talk. His type, to me, characterate those who quit something and complain later, knowing that some people will listen to them. So what, if he decided to leave? It was his own choice and he can't just come back and say everyone who stayed is now impelled to listen to him, just because he used to do a bunch of posts. I don't think that hardly any of you would listened to me later if I left the list.

1 0

My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List"
by Timothy C. May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A couple of people have sent me pinging messages, asking about my status on the Cypherpunks list....apparently it has taken several weeks for folks to notice my absence! :-} This may speak volumes about why I have left the list, and what the list has become..... I chose not to write a "departing flame" (or message, but some might call it a flame) when I unsubscribed several weeks ago--within an hour of reading that John and Sandy had decided to make "their" list a moderated list, by the way--as I saw little benefit. I was also fed up with things, and saw no point in wasting even more of my time arguing against the New Cypherpunks World Order, as the NCWO was clearly presented as a fait accompli, not something ablut which opinions of list members (or even list _founders_, at least not me) were being sought. It's my nature to just say "Fuck it" and leave when I feel I have overstayed my time, or things are no longer fun, or I am made to feel unwelcome. But since several people have pinged me, asking about my status, I'll take some time to say a few things. I've had access to the hks.net archive site, and/or the Singapore site, to occasionally see what was being said on the list (old habits die slowly, so I sometimes drop in to see what you people are flaming each other about...not surprisingly--in fact utterly predictably--I see vast amounts of bandwidth consumed by arguments about moderation, about the putative biases of the Moderator and Director of the New Cypherpunks World Order, about alternative moderation strategies (which is stupid, as John and Sandy announced what they were going to do, not just some of their preliminary thoughts), and so on. I've also noticed fewer substantive essays. With no false modesty I tried awfully hard to compose substantive essays on crypto-political topics, often more than one per day. (Others did too, but they seem to be tapering off as well, leaving the list to be dominated by something called a "Toto," the "O.J. was framed!" ravings of Dale Thorn, the love letters between Vulis and someone name Nurdane Oksas, and the occasional bit of crypto news. Ho hum. I'm glad I'm not reading the list in e-mail, and thus can easily avoid replying to these inanities...which would probably not be approved for reading by Sandy, so why bother anyway?) Rather than compose a traditional essay, I'll take the easy way out and list some bulleted points. * First, I don't argue that John Gilmore is unfree to do as he wishes with his machine, toad, which has been the major machine host for the Cypherpunks list. John can tell us we have to write in Pig Latin if he wishes. Much of the debate I saw in the archives was debate that missed the point about what John could and couldn't do. No one can seriously question the right of the owner of a machine, or the owner of a restaurant, etc., to set the policies he wishes. The owner of a restaurant is perfectly free--or used to be, and still is to anyone with even slightly libertarian or freedom tendencies--to set the rules of his "house." He may insist that shirts and shoes be worn, or that smoking is not allowed (or even is required, in theory), etc. He may say "All those eating in my restaurant must wear funny hats and have their costumes approved by Sandy Sandfort." This is unexceptionable. * However, anyone who disputes these rules (disputes in the sense of disliking or disagreeing with them, not legally challenging them) is free to leave. Those who don't like crowded, noisy, smoke-filled sports bars are encourgaged to leave. And so on. Again, unexceptionable. (The more complicated case of contracts, verbal or written, and "changing the rules," does not apply here. No one had a contract with John, or Sandy, or Hugh, etc., so this is not germane.) * But the really important issue is this: is the _physical hosting_ of the Cypherpunks mailing list coterminous with the "Cypherpunks"? If the list was hosted by, say, UC Berkeley or PGP Incorporated, would we consider these hosts to be the "owners" of the Cypherpunks group? Would we think that a corporate host, say, would have the authority to direct what we could say on the list? (Again, not disputing their corporate property rights...as a libertarian, I cannot. Other issues are what I'm getting at.) * If a Boy Scout troop meets at a local church, and has for several years, continuously, would we consider the church to be the owner of the troop? Could the church insist on avoidance of certain "cuss words" and demand that prayers be said before each gathering? Certainly the church could tell the troop what policies were to be followed if the the facilities were to be used, etc., and the troop could leave if it didn't like the terms (or, in parallel with my situation, any troop member could choose to leave....). This is what we mean by "property rights": the legal right of a property owner to do with his property as he wishes, modulo prior contractual relationships, criminal laws, etc. * How did the mailing list for the group, now called Cypherpunks, get started, and how did it end up being run off of John's hardare? Hugh Daniel got the actual mailing list rolling, based on a discussion Eric Hughes, Hugh, and I had the day after the first physical meeting, in September 1992. We thought the group we had just spent the day with ought to be able to stay in touch, and that a mailing list was the right way to go. There was talk of siting it on the UC Berkeley computers (actually, the Undergraduate Association computers, a la the Cypherpunks archive site at "csua"), but Hugh thought he might be able to use "toad," and this is what happened. (I have not heard from Hugh on his views of this New and Moderated Non-Anarchic List.) * I think we should all be very grateful to John for agreeing to let it run on his hardware, but not let our gratitude turn into some sort of subservience and blather about how John "owns" the Cypherpunks group. * Again, is the "Cyherpunks community" the same as the mailing list? And is the mailing list, hosted at toad, the "property" of John Gilmore? * In my view, neither John nor Sandy in any sense "own" our group. It is a virtual community which sometimes has physical meetings at various places (including corporations, restaurants, and bookstores, none of which are even partial "owners" of the group) and which has had several instantiations on the Net, including sub-lists not connected to toad.com in any way. While John is of course free at any time to suspend his hosting of the list, I think it a serious misapprehension of the basic nature of virtual communities to accept the claim that John should decide on what is appropriate to bear the "Cypherpunks" list imprimatur and what is to be consigned to the flame list. * The mechanics of the announcement troubled me greatly. To be blunt, I was seething with anger. I was mightily annoyed to read that John had made a decision to appoint Sandy as his Moderator, with no discussion on the list. I don't know if Eric Hughes and Hugh Daniel were asked their opinions, but I certainly know I was not. I feel that as one of the two or three founders, depending on how one is counting, and as a frequent contributor to the list since its inception, and so on, I (and others) should at least have been told of this plan. Better yet, have the plans discussed on the list, as some good ideas may have been generated. I'll have more to say about my problems with how things were handled. Frankly, it smacked of the same kind of fait accompli decision John made with the unsubscribing of Vulis. While John had (and has) every legal right to do with his property as he wished, the effect was very negative. First, Vulis found other ways to post (duh). Second, the list was consumed with flames about this, many from Vulis, and many from others. Third, journalists (who love sizzle over substance any day of the week) lept into the fray with articles which gave Vulis the publicity he craved. Fourth, it sent a message to enemies of liberty that "Even the Cypherpunks have found it necessary to abandon their anarchic ways." (I'm well aware of the issues with pests like Vulis, who seek to destroy virtual communities like ours. But the solution John used did not work, and generated more crap. As you all should know, it was John himself who coined the wonderful saying, "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." A delicious irony.) * In the archives, I did see a bunch of "I support Sandy" and "John is our leader" comments from reasonable people. The obvious noise of Vulis and his cohorts like Aga made a "Do something!" attitude somewhat understandable. I don't think the decision made was a wise one, and I strongly doubt it will work to make the list a better one. * The proper solution to bad speech is more speech, not censorship. Censorship just makes opponents of "speech anarchy" happy--it affirms their basic belief that censors are needed. * "Censorship" is another overloaded term. I don't think the "Definition 1" of dictionary definitions, about _governmental_ restrictions, is the only meaningful definition. Everybody knows what it meant when we say that "Lockheed is censoring the views of employees," even though we know Lockheed is not using government power. A censor is one who censors. And even my "American Heritage Dictionary" gives this as its "definition 1": "censor n. 1. A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable." (Other dictionaries of course give similar definitions. The notion that censors are confined to being government employees is a misconception.) * OK, even given that John had decided to censor "his" list, what about his choice of Sandy Sandfort as the censor? I've known Sandy for several years (I was the one who invited him to the second Cypherpunks meeting), but he's a poor choice as a censor, moderator, whatever. First, because he has so often gotten involved in protracted flame wars, such as with Vulis (remember the dozens of messages about the "bet" to bring Vulis out? I stayed out of the charade completely.), with Hallam-Baker, and with others. Second, because he has not been actively composing essays for a while, perhaps because of his job with Community Connexion. Other reasons, too. (I count Sandy as a friend, but I'm just being honest here. Sandy is just not a "Peter Neumann" (moderator of the "RISKS" list). * Nor do the announced criteria make any sense. While the inane one-line scatological insults have been filtered out, many "flames" make it through, based on what I've seen in perusing the hks archive site. And some reasonable comments get dumped in the flame bucket. * As expected, those who only want to talk about cryptography (but who rarely do, themselves, also as expected) waste bandwidth saying the "anarchist" and "libertarian" stuff ought to go in to the "rejected" list. More bandwidth wasted, as each group lobbies to have its ideological opponents censored by Sandy. * I would have had no problem had John announced that he was creating a new list, the "Good Stuff" list, with Sandy has his Chooser of Good Stuff. After all, both Eric Blossom and Ray Arachelian already offer just such lists, and more would not hurt. But by making the _main list_ the censored one, this skewed things considerably. * (Frankly, one of my considerations in leaving was the feeling that I would never know if an essay I'd spent hours composing would be rejected by Sandy for whatever reasons....maybe he might think my essay was off-topic, or used one of the Seven Deadly Words, or was "too flamish." Whatever. I realized that life is too short to have Sandy Sandfort deciding whether my essays should go out to the main list (which is really just a list like Eric Blossom's best-of list, except it is be edict now the main list) or be dumped into the flames list, to be read by a handful of people.) * Why, many reasonable people may ask, did I not simply unsubscribe from the "Cypherpunks" list and subscribe to the "Cypherpunks-Unedited) (or whatever it is called) list? Because of my overall anger with the issues raised above. The imperiousness of the decision, the notion of favoring Sandy's tastes in a more "first class" way than, say, the tastes of Eric Blossom, Ray Arachelian, or, for that matter, me. "Some censors are more equal than others." * The decision to "moderate" (censor) the Cypherpunks list is powerful ammunition to give to our opponents, and Vulis is certainly gleeful that his fondest wishes have been realized. And it won't work. People are consuming even more bandwidth arguing the merits of John's decision, the traffic is presumably being slowed down by the need for Sandy to wade through the traffic and stamp "Approved" or "Rejected" on what he glances at, and people are "testing the limits" of what they can say and what they can't say. * It also sends a message that people are incapable of filtering out bad speech, that they need a censor to do it for them. (Again, I have no problem with competing "screeners," a la having Ray, Eric, or David Sternlight filtering what they think is OK and what is not. Let a thousand filtering services bloom.) But the clear message by having Sandy censor the main list (the default list, the list name with the main name, the list we all know about, etc.) is that Cypherpunks need Big Brother to shelter them from Bad Thoughts, from Naughty Words, from Evil Flames, and from Impure Desires. Foo on that. * Psychologists might point to random reinforcement, even to the effects of terror. How many of us are likely to write controversial posts knowing that Sandy might wake up having a "bad hair day" and thus reject our posts? How many will begin to skew their opinions to match those of Sandy? (I would venture a guess that a Duncan Frissell would almost certainly get a libertarian rant past Sandy while a Phill Hallam-Baker might easily fail to get a leftist rant past him.) * Those who want "less noise" should subcontract with the filter services of their own choosing. This is the "Cypherpunk Way." Having Sandy as the censor is the easy way out. * By the way, the moderated list "RISKS" works pretty well. But it is not a _discussion_ group. It is, rather, a digest of news items related to computer and technology risks, with some discussion by various contributors, and with a long turnaround time of a few issues per week, tops. Peter Neumann also devotes a lot of time to making it run smoothly and bases part of his professional career on running it. I surmise that Sandy is not prepared to do the same. Nor would this be a good idea, as this would kill the spirit of the debate. * Had there been a debate about the policy, I can think of several approaches I'd like better. But inasmuch as John made it clear that there would be no debate (and, perhaps as part of the "problem," John has not really been a active member of the mailing list, in terms of participating in the debates), this is all moot. In any case, my several years with the list have taken a huge amount of my time. Given the way this whole thing was handled, and the way the list is degenerating even further, it looks like it's good that I'm moving on to other things. * To summarize: - the decision to censor the list was made without any discussion on the list, without any discussion with at least some of the longterm core contributors, and was presented as a "fait accompli." - while John has every right to do with his hardware as he wishes, he does not "own" the Cypherpunks group (though whether he owns the "list" is a semantically debatable point) - whatever our group once was, or still is, is not dependent on having a particular mailing list running on someone's home machine...and it cannot be claimed that any person "owns" the Cypherpunks group. - there is some talk of creating another Cypherpunks list, on other machines; I don't know whether or not this will fly, or if I'll devote any time to such lists. - the effect of censorship, such as I have seen it so far, is not producing a better list. In fact, as I would have expected, it is producing a more boring and sheltered list. And so there you have it. I had no plans to set down my views, feeling it was a waste of my time and your time. Rather than foam and rant the way some did (and Vulis must have posted 100 messages on the subject), I chose to simply make my exit, quickly. But as I have recently seen several mentions of my absence (including a particularly complimentary comment from Asgaard--thanks), I do feel I owe it to you all to explain my views. Which I have done. Have a nice year, and a nice millenium in a couple of years. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

3 2

None [STEGO] Elliptic curves
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timmy C[reep] May's 16Kb brain's single convolution is directly wired to his rectum for input and his T1 mouth for output. That's 16K bits, not bytes. Anal intercourse has caused extensive brain damage. \ o/\_ Timmy C[reep] May <\__,\ '\, |

1 0

VOICE STRESS ANALYSIS
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Awhile back we were discussing voice-stress analysis; just got this item on the subject; he said it's okay to post it. >From: Spectre334(a)aol.com >Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 09:31:17 -0500 (EST) >To: jimbell(a)pacifier.com >cc: BLAMES2778(a)aol.com, AFSCA(a)aol.com, JLeek426(a)aol.com >Subject: VOICE STRESS ANALYSIS > >MR. BELL: > >I FOUND YOUR QUERY ABOUT VOICE STRESS ANALYSIS ON THE INTERNET, AND I TOO, >HAVE FOUND A DEARTH OF INFORMATION THERE - UNTIL NOW. > >I'M PLEASED TO REPORT THAT VOICE STRESS ANALYSIS (VSA) IS ALIVE AND WELL. IT >HAS BEEN QUIETLY PERFORMING IN THE SHADOW OF THE POLYGRAPH FOR MANY YEARS. > NOW, HOWEVER, IT IS COMING INTO ITS AND IS USED IN MANY STATES TO AID IN >CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND OTHER APPLICATIONS. > >AMONG ITS OTHER BENEFITS, VSA REQUIRES NO INTIMIDATING HOOKUP TO THE >SUBJECT'S BODY, IN ORDER TO MEASURE THE LEVEL OF STRESS. IT CAN BE CONDUCTED >VIRTUALLY ANYWHERE - EVEN WHERE NO ELECTRICITY IS PRESENT. PERHAPS MOST >PERTINENT TO YOUR QUESTION, VSA CAN BE SOMETIMES PERFORMED ON PEOPLE WHO ARE >NO LONGER AROUND, THROUGH THEIR RECORDED VOICES. THIS IS CALLED "NARRATIVE >ANALYSIS" AND IS SOMEWHAT TOUGHER THAN THE BASIC QUESTION - AND -ANSWER >APPROACH, SINCE THE EXAMINER CANNOT CONTROL THE CONTENT AND SEQUENCE OF >QUESTIONS, IF THE SOURCE IS A PAST RECORDING. > >THE DIOGENES GROUP, INC., OF WHICH I AM PRESIDENT, HAS DEVELOPED A TOTALLY >DIGITAL APPROACH TO VSA, AND BEGAN DELIVERING SYSTEMS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT >AGENCIES IN DECEMBER, 1996. THE PREMIER DIOGENES VSA PRODUCT IS REDUCED TO >THE SIZE OF A NOTEBOOK COMPUTER, BUT PRODUCES REALTIME PROCESSING FOR >SOFTCOPY DISPLAY, AND HARDCOPY PRINTING WITHIN SECONDS. > >YOU MAY BE FAMILIAR WITH THE PREVIOUS STATE-OF-THE-ART, WHICH WAS A >RELATIVELY LARGE ANALOG MACHINE, USING A SINGLE CHANNEL AND PRINTING OUT THAT >DATA ON A ROLL OF THERMAL PAPER. THOSE DAYS ARE GONE FOREVER. > >IF YOU WOULD LIKE MORE INFORMATION ON THE DIOGENES GROUP AND ITS PRODUCTS, >PLEASE USE THIS CHANNEL TO SEND ME YOUR MAILING ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER, AND >FAX NUMBER. > >THANKS FOR YOUR INTEREST IN VOICE STRESS ANALYSIS. > >SINCERELY, > >TOM > >(THOMAS F. MCGRAW) > > Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: [STATS] Dr. Denning
by nobody＠zifi.genetics.utah.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Deceased L"amentation" Vibrator likes to be the man in the middle, getting it both up the ass and in his mouth. O |'| /\ | | Dr.Deceased L"amentation" Vibrator /\ \-------| / / |-------|

1 0

Re: "Strong" crypto and export rule changes.
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:55 PM 2/1/97 -0500, Adam Shostack wrote: > More seriously, that estimate is the cost of breaking DES on >custom hardware, based on Wiener's figures. Ian got RC4-40 in 3.5 >hours on I don't know how much hardware, not a lot of it custom, AFAIK. http://now.cs.berkeley.edu is the home page for the Network Of Workstations CPU farm. Mostly Suns with some recent generation of Sparc chip. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

1 0

RE: Fighting the cybercensor
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Steve Schear I sincerely doubt that many would use AP to right small slights, anymore than many now kill others for the same reasons. The world has always been inhabited by bullies and tyrants who cared little of what harm they caused others. An AP system would quickly eliminate bullies and tyrants. .................................................... Some of them. But like an infection which can be potentialy killed with antibiotics, ignoring the unhealthy conditions which made it possible to establish itself will frustrate the attempts to prevent the phenomena of its recurrence. .. Blanc

1 0

Re: If guilty of a lesser crime, you can be sentenced for a greater
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

jim bell wrote: > > Better yet, set up a system to encourage the public to USE those guns (and > other weapons) to get rid of the people who pass such laws, and the problem > is solved. > How about this scenario: I borrow 1 million dollars from, let's say, Phill Hallam-Baker. Not wanting to pay it back, I pay to the assassination bot and arrange him to be murdered. Another story: suppose that I negligently caused fire that destroys house of, say, Toto. Toto knows that if he sues me, I can arrange him murdered for the amount less than the amount of damages. As a result, he refrains from suing me, or (if he is a mean person) pays additional money to have me murdered. A suit would probably be a much better outcome. Another story: suppose that OKSAS hired me to work for her, but then our relationships go south and she fires me. Again, her fate is very unclear, although I would probably spare her life if it were she. The bottom line is, it becomes very hard to do ANYTHING that disappoints at least somebody. That can lead to a lot of inefficiencies. - Igor.

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Timothy C. May wrote: > With no false modesty I tried awfully hard to compose > substantive essays on crypto-political topics, often more than one per day. > (Others did too, but they seem to be tapering off as well, leaving the list > to be dominated by something called a "Toto," the "O.J. was framed!" > ravings of Dale Thorn, Dale, that's me! > * To summarize: > - the decision to censor the list was made without any discussion on the > list, without any discussion with at least some of the longterm core > contributors, and was presented as a "fait accompli." > - while John has every right to do with his hardware as he wishes, he does > not "own" the Cypherpunks group (though whether he owns the "list" is a > semantically debatable point) Which is exactly the point I labored so long on while Tim May was sitting on the sidelines. > - whatever our group once was, or still is, is not dependent on having a > particular mailing list running on someone's home machine...and it cannot > be claimed that any person "owns" the Cypherpunks group. Ditto.

1 0