- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Redlining
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

E. Allen Smith wrote: > From: IN%"dthorn(a)gte.net" "Dale Thorn" 13-DEC-1996 01:53:17.65[snip] > >the rest is a cakewalk. But what I really wanted to say was that my > >experience with these children now (whom I didn't know until mid-1996) > >has convinced me more than ever that intelligence is not only not > >primarily genetic, but may also be recoverable to a large extent up to > >the beginning of the teen years, if not beyond that. > Actually, IQ tests in childhood up until about age 12 aren't > particularly well correlated with adult IQ; they would thus agree with > you on that environment can heavily influence IQ until that point. Again, as a statistical exercise, this might be OK, but, quite a bit of what you would see in the exceptional areas of the curve in childhood would be rather obvious in adulthood as well. The fact that this doesn't seem so obvious across the statistical curve is only evidence of poor granularity in the data. > It is possible to raise IQs somewhat with various environmental > interventions; the question is how much. Research such as that > discussed in Herman Spitz's "Raising Intelligence" (_not_ a conservative > or racist by any means) appears to show that such does, unfortunately, > have some points at which one gets to diminishing returns; see below > for more discussion. A typical researcher or team of same would not be proper candidates to lead an interventionist study such as this. You'd need people with proven track records. As I keep telling my wife again and again, when we go into a book store and she picks up some book on a "health" topic: What's the author's track record, not only for him/herself, but in leading others? > Regarding the "physical brain damage," I have earlier mentioned > prenatal traumas such as lead; other instances would be inadequate > maternal nutrition and the intake of alcohol (signifigantly more harmful > to a child than crack). These are among the factors, other than racism, > making studies showing differences in IQ between black adoptees and > white adoptees difficult to interpret; cultural influences (racism, > white adoptive parents trying to hard to raise black children in their > "own" culture, etcetera) are another major group of factors. > In other words, we don't know yet. > >The main and overwhelming factor in developing children who can accomplish > >at a superior level is the personal attention of a caregiver, and what > >that attention consists of. There are some things you can read about > >in a book and guess what they mean, and there are some things you can > >know when you're staring them in the face... > > Certainly, extremely intensive care can help children who do not > have physical brain problems. This does not mean that genetics does not > play a considerable role; neither I nor (so far as I know) Mr. Chudov > are claiming that genetics sets an unoverridable barrier. It is more a > matter of that it will take a lot more to get a genetically unintelligent > child to a given level than it will a genetically intelligent child. It's just that in my personal experience, I've found that the vast majority of children fall into the category of "exceptional potential". I guess what I'm saying is that the accomplishment/test norms for most children are far enough below where I could get them to with personal attention, that 1) The norms are useful (to me) only as a stasticical exercise, and 2) The differences between typical children and typical children performing at or near their potential obscures the differences found amongst the norms. > In the larger, societal context, it is not possible to have > intelligent parents with ample resources taking care of every child > unless the number of children is considerably reduced. Quite simply, > resources are limited (otherwise we would have no need for an > economic system); money, time, etcetera spent on less intelligent > children is not being spent on other pursuits (such as raising > more intelligent children, who will be able to accomplish more in > later life with the same investment of resources). This is, I believe, what I and others feared from studies which provide material for books such as the Bell Curve. Knowing that the potential of an allegedly unintelligent (or less-than-average) child might be so great that that child (if lucky enough to get the opportunity) could actually develop to be a significantly better performer than another child with 40 more IQ points, even if the child with the higher IQ has a reasonably good environment to develop in. Those kinds of possibilities are (I think) near and dear to what some of our more enlightened founding fathers in the USA had in mind when they wrote what they did, way back when. I value the writings of all philosophers, BTW, but I reject the notions of any that I or any other autonomous individual (a human is more-or-less autonomous by definition, yes?) could be defined, limited, or otherwise constrained by studies such as we've discussed. I say constrained since these studies do not happen in a vaccuum, and there is always going to be some kind of fallout.

1 0

Re: Elliptic curves
by Jill014＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 96-12-12 23:47:15 EST, nobody(a)zifi.genetics.utah.edu (Anonymous) writes: > Subj: Re: Elliptic curves > Date: 96-12-12 23:47:15 EST > From: nobody(a)zifi.genetics.utah.edu (Anonymous) > Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com > To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > > Admin(a)bexcol.demon.co.uk writes: > > > You are all a bunch of faggots. Faggot cannot be allowed on usenet as > > dictated by the great dr. Grubor. > > Does dr. Grubor read this list? I never see any postings from him here. Just who is this anonymous poster; does anyone know or have any idea? > > Fuck you all. > > 1. Cypherpunks is not on usenet. > > 2. Faggots created and run Usenet, and there's nothing a pathetic, > powerless little boy like you can do about it. > This is strange. I mean, how do you know who is a faggot? And is this why you all are so sexist? Are all of the faggots so sexist? Just what is it about these queers that makes them hate women so much anyway? Are they jealous of us sexy women because their boyfriends may want us? I have been watching this for a long time here, and this is a very perplexing situation. Just who are these faggots who "created and run Usenet?" Can you give me a list of names? > 3. I enjoy your pathetic little displays of despair about not having > any control over usenet. Please keep whining to the mailing lists > to remind us all of what a pitiful little loser you are. > Yes, but just who is he? Do you know who he really is? With all of you guys always posting through these "nobody" addresses, you can not tell who is who? I mean, how do you know that the anonymous poster is in "despair about not having any control over usenet?" Maybe he does have control. Just who has all of the Usenet control now anyway? Please tell the faggots to stop being so sexist. Jill

2 1

[ADMINISTRATIVIUM] Zero-knowledge interactive proofs
by mixmaster＠remail.obscura.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a jerk-off competition Tim Mayhem finishes second, third and fifth. \\\|||/// ======= | O O | Tim Mayhem \`___'/ _| |_

1 0

Re: Credentials without Identity--Race Bits
by Jill014＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 96-12-13 02:03:26 EST, cmcurtin(a)research.megasoft.com (C Matthew Curtin) writes: > Subj: Re: Credentials without Identity--Race Bits > Date: 96-12-13 02:03:26 EST > From: cmcurtin(a)research.megasoft.com (C Matthew Curtin) > Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Reply-to: cmcurtin(a)research.megasoft.com > To: tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May) > CC: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > > >>>>> "Tim" == Timothy C May <tcmay(a)got.net> writes: > > Tim> While it has been claimed by some that "crypto anarchy" means > Tim> that race won't matter, that cyberspace interactions will be > Tim> color-blind, this is misleading. > > Race bits, gender bits, etc., are all interesting possibilities. I > never thought about anyone wanting to do such a thing, but I suppose > that's likely. > > I've tended to think that as we become increasingly digital, issues > like race become less significant (perhaps because it generally isn't > immediately obvious in this medium). This doesn't mean that prejudices > go away, it means that they shift to stay with what is obvious. For > example, people who are unable to spell well (and don't spellcheck > email and usenet posts), or use excessively poor grammar are often > ridiculed for their lack of mastery of the language in which they're > writing. Basically, the prejudices and such continue with us, but > change, so as to remain based on things that are easily discernible. > > Tim> While many--probably most--users will care only for cyberspace > Tim> personna issues, and not meatspace personna issues of race, > Tim> color, height, weight, etc., this is not something built in to > Tim> anonymous transactions. > > As I'm replying, it's occurred to me that we've already got some sort > of persona "certificates" floating around now. (Such as the Geek > Code.) Imagine a field there to include race. Wouldn't take a lot to > do that, after all. > What is the "Geek Code?" > Of course, the implementation of a race bit system that can be trusted > is another issue altogether. Would the White Boyz Club then need to > have its own trusted arbitrator to introduce people of the same race > to each other? (AryanSign?) Is a more elaborate PGP-style web > of trust used? Hmm. So white Boyz Club excludes women to, is that correct?

2 1

Re: Redlining
by Jill014＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 96-12-13 02:36:46 EST, dthorn(a)gte.net (Dale Thorn) writes: > Subj: Re: Redlining > Date: 96-12-13 02:36:46 EST > From: dthorn(a)gte.net (Dale Thorn) > Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com > To: EALLENSMITH(a)ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) > CC: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > > E. Allen Smith wrote: > > From: IN%"dthorn(a)gte.net" "Dale Thorn" 12-DEC-1996 14:56:52.69 > > >Actually, there is not only good evidence for the environmental argument, > > >but you can reason it out yourself if you give attention to some things > > >that don't make it into most discussions on this topic. > > > Yes, there are strong arguments for the environment being the determining > > factor. there are also strong arguments (such as interracial adoption > still > > leaving blacks below the average IQ of adopted siblings) for it being > genetics. > > It is possible to understand intelligence as "pattern matching" skills, > without having to have attendant math and statistics to define it more > precisely or clinically. This understanding (if you have it) is the key > to knowing that Black persons do *not* have less IQ than White persons, > regardless of the standardized tests. Something I know about, as I've > scored in the top 1/1000 of one percent, etc. > Are you black?

1 0

KRA_gak
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

12-12-96 "High-Tech Leaders to Facilitate Recovery of Encrypted Information Globally. Key Recovery Alliance Welcomes 29 New Members" The key recovery alliance has more than tripled its membership and identified its charter objectives. + expediting the widespread, global use of strong encryption + evaluating technologies that are flexible and scaleable to meet various changing commercial needs and policies + promoting interoperability between different key recovery and non-key recovery solutions + defining a commercial infrastructure for worldwide development of strong encryption + maximizing security for business To facilitate meeting these and other objectives, the alliance identified a series of working committees targeted to meet within the next 60 days. Soon after this 60-day period, the now 40-member alliance will re-convene to mark the progress of these committees and to identify future benchmarks and deliverables. The new members of the alliance are: America Online, Inc., Certicom, Compaq Computer Corporation, CygnaCom Solutions, Inc., Cylink Corporation, Data Securities International, Inc., First Data Corporation, Digital Signature Trust Company, Gradient Technologies, Inc., ICL, McAfee, Mitsubishi Corporation of Japan, Motorola, Mytec Technologies, Inc., Network Systems Group of StorageTek, Nortel, Novell, Inc., PSA, Price Waterhouse, Racal Data Group, Rainbow Technologies, SafeNet Trusted Services Corporation, Secure Computing, SourceFile, Sterling Commerce, Telequip, Unisys, Utimaco Mergent, and VPNet Technologies. "IBM SecureWay Framework To Accelerate Growth of Electronic Business" IBM announced a new framework which will advance secure electronic business by making it possible for diverse security offerings to work together. The IBM SecureWay Key Management Framework will let businesses use encryption products interchangeably. The new framework will provide for the easy adoption of new and existing key recovery technologies, while not disturbing existing cryptographic and other security functions and operations. It will effectively isolate the application from the unique properties of a specific key recovery implementation. A white paper describing the SecureWay Key Management Framework is available at http://www.ibm.com/security ----- KRA_gak (19 kb)

2 1

Re: Elliptic curves
by aga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Fri, 13 Dec 1996, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > >From cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com Fri Dec 13 00:43:05 1996 > Received: by bwalk.dm.com (1.65/waf) > via UUCP; Fri, 13 Dec 96 01:34:42 EST > for dlv > Received: from toad.com by uu.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.061193-PSI/PSINet) via SMTP; > id AA22158 for cypherpunks; Fri, 13 Dec 96 00:43:05 -0500 > Received: (from majordom@localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id TAA05349 for cypherpunks-outgoing; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 19:07:54 -0800 (PST) > Received: from zifi.genetics.utah.edu (zifi.genetics.utah.edu [155.100.229.31]) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA05344 for <cypherpunks(a)toad.com>; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 19:07:47 -0800 (PST) > Received: (from bin@localhost) by zifi.genetics.utah.edu (8.8.3/8.6.9) id UAA13495 for cypherpunks(a)toad.com; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 20:07:52 -0700 > Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 20:07:52 -0700 > Message-Id: <199612130307.UAA13495(a)zifi.genetics.utah.edu> > To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > From: nobody(a)zifi.genetics.utah.edu (Anonymous) > Comments: Please report misuse of this automated remailing service to <complaints(a)zifi.genetics.utah.edu> > References: <850408570.510393.0(a)bexcol.demon.co.uk> > Subject: Re: Elliptic curves > Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Precedence: bulk > > Admin(a)bexcol.demon.co.uk writes: > > > You are all a bunch of faggots. Faggot cannot be allowed on usenet as > > dictated by the great dr. Grubor. > > > > Fuck you all. > > 1. Cypherpunks is not on usenet. > The fuck it ain't. They are at least two newsgroups out there that carry every piece of e-mail that goes to the cypherpunks list. > 2. Faggots created and run Usenet, and there's nothing a pathetic, > powerless little boy like you can do about it. > This may be true, up until now, but the faggots are now getting kicked off of the new UseNet. There are just TOO MANY faggots like Peter Berger and Tim May and John Gilmore runnung around to allow this faggot subculture to continue. > 3. I enjoy your pathetic little displays of despair about not having > any control over usenet. Please keep whining to the mailing lists > to remind us all of what a pitiful little loser you are. > These faggot cypherpunks are not worth wasting your time on, unless you are ready to take their fucking ass to court and cross-examine them. ARE YOU A FAGGOT, Peter Berger? -- ANSWER THE QUESTION !!! (The faggots must answer this question when you get them on the stand.) That Tim Skirvin is also a faggot, so I have been told by his schoolmates. Has he been fucked in the ass by anybody on this list?

1 0

Re: In Defense of Anecdotal Evidence
by Rob Carlson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Thu, 12 Dec 1996 14:12:23 -0800, Huge Cajones Remailer wrote: >Statistics are a useful tool, but they have their problems. Their >accuracy is often in doubt. Most scientific data comes with an error >analysis so you can tell what the figure means. For some reason >statisticians never do this so we cannot tell whether their numbers >are accurate to within 0.1%, 1.0%, 10%, or even worse. > >There are many other problems. For instance, users of statistics >assume they have a random sample, even in cases where that is far from >clear [ List of other problems deleted ] Of course, anecdotal evidence also suffers from all of these problems. And in greater magnitude. This is true since it is a special case of statistical evidence. With a non-random sample set of one and no controls for observer bias. >The advantage of first hand experience is that it is primary evidence. >You know it's true because you were there and saw it. I have seen women cut in half and rabbits made to appear in an empty hat with my own eyes. I'm quite sure neither of these is true. Humans are poor observers. The data processing unit is easily fooled. Many people make a living off of this fallability such as magicians and politicians. The observer is also tainted by previous experience(or lack of) and individual needs. This leads to bias unavoidable in even the most honest and reliable observers. Statistical methods are used to control for this. Double-blind techniques are one example. Humans also have a need to make conclusions when insufficient evidence is available. Witness the number of people who have an opinion on the innocence of OJ Simpson based on <2 minutes/day condensation of the evidence. >The advantage of anecdotal evidence (in the sense we have been using >it) is that the person who is telling you the anecdote was there and >saw it. You can cross-examine them and get a full understanding of >the evidence provided. The reporting of evidence involves different issues. If you want to believe that women are actually cut in two or that politicians are telling the truth anytime their lips are moving, thats one thing. If you want to tell me its true because you personally observed it, thats quite another. Given the failures of humans as observational tools, your story is unverifiable by me. Perhaps through effective cross examination I can prove you wrong, but I can never prove you right with such a technique.That will require other evidence outside the control of the observer ( statistical is just one available ). Evidence that can be verified independently by many observers increases the reliability. Experiments and polls can be done by me thus eliminating your bias. Independent verification can also check for errors and check the parameters under which the evidence is true. Studies are done with certain assumptions and controls. The evidence loses its reliability when removed from this context. This doesn't make studies or statistical evidence true. Just more reliable than anecdotal evidence. Humans who will lie about their observations will also produce flawed studies. Again the former (anecdotal) is unverifiable, but I can check the latter (statistical) independently. I also don't believe polls can be used to determine the truth. They can only tell what a mass of people believe. And then only if done correctly. To make this on topic, how does this apply to cryptography and crypto-politics? This issue is a foundation of our discussions here. Shall we accept anecdotal evidence such as the "If you only knew what we knew" arguments? What is more reliable: IPG's claims that their product is an OTP because they say it is or Bruce Schneier's book that can be used to point out the fallacy's in their claims? Relying on anecdotal evidence makes you susceptible to the magicians of the world. The honest ones use mirrors and their need is to entertain you enough to get your money. The rest use anecdotal evidence and emotional arguments (verbal misdirection?). Their needs are left as a test of the reader's naivete. Rob Carlson <robc(a)xmission.com>

2 1

Copyright violations
by alzheimer＠juno.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Agence France Presse: Tuesday, December 10, 1996 Visa to Launch Trial Electronic Money Services in Tokyo Visa International said Tuesday it would experiment with electronic money services in central Tokyo [Shibuya district] for about 18 months from June 1998 with Japanese commercial banks and credit card companies. The US-headquartered international credit card firm said it would be the world's largest experiment in terms of the size of participating companies and cards to be issued. The project will be joined by five Japanese commerical banks -- Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi Ltd., Dai-ichi Kangyo Bank Ltd., Fuji Bank Ltd., Sumitomo Bank Ltd., and Tokai Bank Ltd. Five Japanese credit card companies, including Credit Saison Co. Ltd. DC Card Co., Sumitomo Credit Service Co., Million Card Service Co. and UC Card Co., will also take part in the trial. Visa said it hoped to use the experiment to assess commercial feasibility and customer affordability before introducing full electronic money services. Visa plans to install its electronic money terminals and issue more than 100,000 cards, including those with built-in integrated circuits, for the experiment. Visa said it had already conducted an electronic money experiment in Atlanta during the Summer Olympic Games. The company is also preparing to try similar systems in Hong Kong and Australia. American Banker: Thursday, December 12, 1996 REPORTER'S NOTEBOOK Home Financial Network Offers Web Software By DREW CLARK The house lights dimmed and music started blaring. Smoke billowed out from the stage and red-and-white lights flashed onto an audience of thousands. Despite the rock-concert atmosphere, complete with an emcee peering out from giant video screens like a live-action "Max Headroom," most of the audience in the Dallas Convention Center Arena was in suits. Welcome to Retail Delivery '96, the new-wave Bank Administration Institute conference covering all that is new and exciting in financial services technology. Having grown into banking's biggest convention, with more than 7,000 people and some 350 exhibiting companies, Retail Delivery made bold promises. Promotional brochures said it would go "beyond the buzzwords." Frank Feather, the Canadian banking consultant in the Max Headroom role, said the event would "unlock the secrets of how to make real money off technology." When the "virtual" Mr. Feather introduced Robert W. Gillespie for the keynote speech last Wednesday, the KeyCorp chief executive officer drew a laugh from the audience by declaring: "This may be the way to start shareholder meetings." Mr. Gillespie and the master of ceremonies were the first of a parade of speakers referring to the dramatic change the industry is undergoing. Mr. Gillespie captured the spirit by describing how his company, the "New Key," is evolving in three directions: national consumer finance, corporate banking, and community banking. His multimedia computer presentation took the audience through a virtual branch and displayed video clips of KeyCorp executives including Steve Cone, its renowned marketing strategist. Mr. Gillespie showcased a marketing campaign so unified that the voice of Anthony Edwards, the company's star ad spokesman, is also heard when consumers dial into KeyCorp call centers. Branding is big in retail banking, nowhere more than at Banc One Corp. The point was reinforced by Kenneth T. Stevens, chief executive of Banc One Corp.'s retail group, who previously worked at Pepsico and its Taco Bell subsidiary. "Strong brands get winning price-earning multiples," he said, which translate into easier entry into new markets and the ability to resist competitive attacks. "Historically, banks didn't need branding because of location," Mr. Stevens said. "With the leveling of competition, the control of brand names will be essential." He said banks' problems are typified by the jumble of logos on automated teller machines -- a stark contrast to the clarity of Coke and Pepsi. Despite such doses of high-level retail strategy, technology held center-stage. The enthusiasm about it was palpable, fueled by the appearances of executives from the Silicon Valley companies Intel Corp. and Sun Microsystems Inc. Generally admonishing the audience to get on the highway before it's too late, both spoke to banking issues. Intel executive vice president Frank Gill demonstrated remote banking with interactive video; Sun CEO Scott McNealy was critical of bankers' willingness to turn technology management over to others. "I can see a forestry company outsourcing information systems because their assets are in the ground," Mr. McNealy said. "But a bank's assets are information. Outsourcing (for banks) is a self-imposed lobotomy. It's like Budweiser outsourcing beer manufacturing." At the closing session Friday, Mr. Feather came out from behind the big screens to discuss his own keys to the future. Foremost, he said, is the Internet -- "the biggest thing ever in human history. It is not a technology, but a socio-economic system changing the way we live." Yet some bankers still "don't get it," Mr. Feather said. They prefer to think of the Internet as a passing fad, like the videophone, or an important but slowly evolving technology. Referring -- though not by name -- to Citicorp chairman John Reed and his prediction that full electronic banking would not be mainstream for 50 to 75 years, Mr. Feather dismissed it with a barnyard epithet. He suggested Citicorp is just trying to throw its competition off-balance. Mr. Feather's counterprediction: Within 25 years, there will be no full- service branches or tellers in North America. "Tens of thousands of branches will be closed, the entire distribution system will be rationalized," he said.

1 0

Re: Whom can you trust with your keys -- government version
by Peter Trei 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: Hal Abelson <hal(a)martigny.ai.mit.edu> > Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 15:29:25 -0500 > To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: Whom can you trust with your keys -- government version > Reply-to: hal(a)MIT.EDU > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > > The Commerce Department draft crypto export regulations (see > http://www.steptoe.com/commerce.htm) include the following stipulation > on Key Recovery Agents: > > > Evidence of an individual's suitability and trustworthiness [to > act as a key recovery agent] shall include: > > (i) Information indicating that the individual(s): > > (A) Has no criminal convictions of any kind or > pending criminal charges of any kind; > > (B) Has not breached fiduciary > responsibilities (e.g., has not violated any > surety or performance bonds); and > > (C) Has favorable results of a credit check; > or, > > (ii) Information that the individual(s) has an active > U.S. government security clearance of Secret or higher > issued or updated within the last five years. > > It's nice to know that we can trust ex-cons, frauds, and deadbeats to > hold our keys, provided that they have obtained a Secret clearance. Sorry, but you're mistaken. There is an implied AND between (i) and (ii), not an OR. Curiously, it looks like I may be eligible to run an GAK service. Peter Trei trei(a)process.com

1 0